September 2003
03/01/WQPC-SWP
EPA/600/R-03/135
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Separation of Manure Solids from
Flushed Swine Waste
Brome Agri Sales Ltd.
Maximizer Separator, Model MAX 1016
Prepared for Prepared by
Biological &
Agricultural
Engineering
NSF International
NC STATE UNIVERSITY
^^ I 5(^V Under a Cooperative Agreement with
f \ mmf\ U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
U.S. Environmental NSF International
Protection Agency
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: SOLIDS SEPARATOR
APPLICATION: SEPARATION OF MANURE SOLIDS FROM FLUSHED
SWINE WASTE
TECHNOLOGY NAME: MAXIMIZER SEPARATOR MAX 1016
COMPANY: BROME AGRI SALES LTD.
ADDRESS: 2389 ROUTE 202 PHONE: (450) 266-5323
DUNHAM, QUEBEC JOE 1MO FAX: (450) 266-5708
CANADA
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), operates
the Water Quality Protection Center under EPA's Environmental Technology Verification (ETV)
Program. As part of the Water Quality Protection Center's activities in verifying the performance of
source water protection technologies, the ETV Program evaluated the performance of an inclined screen
system for separating solids from flushed swine waste. This verification statement summarizes the test
results for the Brome Agri Sales Ltd. Maximizer Separator Model MAX-1016 (Maximizer). The
verification testing was conducted by North Carolina State University's Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department in Raleigh, North Carolina.
EPA created the ETV Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV
Program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and
cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality, peer-reviewed data
on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting, purchase, and use of
environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with testing organizations and stakeholder advisory groups consisting of
buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters, and with the full participation of individual technology
developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans
that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as appropriate),
collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in
accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality
are generated and that the results are defensible.
03/01/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2003
VS-i
-------
Technology Description
The following description of the Maximizer separator was provided by the vendor and does not represent
verified information.
The Maximizer is an inclined screen solids separator that can be used to separate solids from slurry waste
at a flow rate between 20 and 45 gpm or from flushed swine waste at a flow rate up to 90 gpm. The lower
end of the inclined screen rests in a stainless steel tank assembly. Wastewater containing manure solids is
pumped into the primary tank, which is part of the stainless steel tank assembly. The waste solids are
then transported up the inclined screen using a wiping/carrying system consisting of a series of thirty-two
rubber paddles attached to chains driven by an electric motor. The inclined screen is made up of two
eight-foot long sections, a lower section and an upper section, each with a different sized perforated metal
screen. As the waste is transported up the inclined screen, water drains through the perforations to a drip
pan, and from there into a secondary tank. Once the thickened waste reaches the top of the screen, it is
processed through a squeezing mechanism, consisting of a worm screw followed by a perforated cylinder,
for final drying of the removed solids. The system discharges liquid effluent from the top of the
secondary tank while additional solid material settles to the bottom of this tank. Periodically, the
thickened wastewater collected in the bottom of the secondary tank is pumped back to the primary tank
for further solids removal. This was done near the end of every third test day during the verification test.
The following is a summary of the characteristics of the Maximizer Separator:
Type Inclined screen, bottom feed
Screen length 16 ft
Initial (lower) screen openings 0.031 in
Secondary (upper) screen openings 0.062 in
Maximum capacity 90 gpm
The Maximizer was evaluated while sitting in a MAX-1400 stainless steel tank assembly, with a MAX-
1500 stainless steel winching assembly.
Verification Testing Description
Test Site
Verification testing was conducted at the North Carolina State University (NCSU) Lake Wheeler Road
Field Laboratory Swine Educational Unit. This farm is designed and operated as a research and teaching
facility. The farm capacity is 250 sows for farrow to wean (birth to wean). The farm can finish (grow to
a market weight of 250 Ib) approximately half of the pigs weaned each year. Under normal operating
conditions, waste at the site is removed by flushing under-slat pits with treated wastewater from the on-
site anaerobic lagoon. Flushed waste then flows back to the lagoon for treatment. During the verification
test, the flushed waste was diverted to a 2,500 gal glass-lined influent mixing tank of 12-ft diameter and
10-ft depth. To minimize aeration and physical changes to the wastewater, the influent mixing tank was
equipped with a 5-hp mixer with a 2-ft diameter impeller, designed to keep solids suspended with
minimum turbulence.
An all-in/all-out closed loop process was developed to eliminate problems and errors associated with flow
measurement and sampling. All of the waste generated over a two-day period was left in the under-slat
pits until it was flushed and collected in the influent mixing tank. This wastewater was pumped from the
influent mixing tank to the test unit. Liquid discharged from the test unit was collected in the effluent
tank, and the separated solids were collected on an adjacent concrete pad.
03/01/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2003
VS-ii
-------
Methods and Procedures
Verification testing began on Monday, February 12, 2003. Technology evaluation and sampling
procedures were carried out three days per week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) for four weeks, for a
total of twelve testing events.
At the beginning of each test day, the Maximizer was started and the unit was visually inspected to verify
that the conveyor was working correctly. Wastewater from the swine unit was collected and mixed in the
influent mixing tank to equally distribute solids throughout the tank. Wastewater was typically held in
the mixing tank for less than five minutes, but never more than thirty minutes. Wastewater was then
pumped to the Maximizer at a nominal flow rate of 80 gallons per minute. The Maximizer effluent
pumps were situated in the secondary tank so that the effluent pumped from the system generally did not
contain high concentrations of the solids that settled at the bottom of the secondary tank. The thicker
material was pumped back to the primary tank four times during the test period, near the end of every
third test day. At the conclusion of the final test, the contents of the secondary tank were mixed, the
volume was measured, and samples were taken to complete the mass balance.
Measurements made each test day included volume of wastewater entering the unit, volume of the
effluent stream, weight of solids discharged through the auger and rollers, and concentrations of quality
parameters in each of the sampled components (influent, effluent, and solids). The influent and effluent
volumes were determined based on the waste depths and dimensions of each tank. The weight of the
solids was determined as the difference in the weights of large containers with and without the solids.
Weights were measured at the testing location using appropriate scales. Concentrations of the quality
parameters were determined by laboratory analysis of grab samples collected in triplicate. The analyses
performed included solids (total, suspended, and volatile), total organic carbon (TOC), nutrients, metals,
pH, conductivity, and bulk density. The mean daily values were summed over the test period and
converted to mass in order to complete the mass balance. Samples were also collected once per week and
analyzed for E. coli and total coliform.
Performance Verification
System Performance
The mass balance approach allowed for the determination of the proportion and mass of the recovered
solids, and how the nutrients partitioned between the solid and liquid phases. These results are shown in
Table 1. For each parameter, the total mass recovered from the Maximizer (effluent and solids) is shown
in Table 1 as the percent of the mass in the influent.
Table 1. Partitioning and Recovery of Parameters from Influent
Parameter
Dry matter / suspended solids
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Potassium
Copper
Zinc
Chloride
Recovered
Solids
28
7.4
12
2.3
6.6
10
1.4
Percent In:
Liquid
Effluent
81
95
95
92
97
96
94
Total
(Solids, Effluent)
109
102
106
95
104
106
95
Note: The data in Table 1 are based on twelve samples.
03/01/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2003
VS-iii
-------
The recoveries from the mass balance are ideally within ±10 percent of 100 for this type of work,
although recoveries outside of this range are common due to the complex nature of both the wastewater
and separated solids. The data quality indicators for this verification test were all within established
limits. Because of this, nothing can or should be inferred from total recoveries not equal to 100 percent.
The characteristics of the liquid effluent and the recovered solids are shown in Tables 2 and 3,
respectively. All values presented in the table reflect means calculated over the test period.
Over the entire test period, 833 Ib of dry solids were recovered by the Maximizer, representing 28 percent
on a mass basis of the 2,990 Ib of suspended solids in the influent. The recovered solids contained 18
percent dry matter (82 percent moisture). The remaining solids were released with the effluent stream (81
percent), which had a suspended solids concentration of 9,490 mg/L.
Table 2. Influent / Effluent Characteristics
Parameter
Units
Influent
Effluent
Total solids
Volatile solids
Suspended solids
Total organic carbon
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Ortho phosphorus
Potassium
Chloride
Copper
Zinc
N:P:K ratio
pH
Conductivity
Total coliform
E. coli
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
(imhos/cm
MPN/lOOmL
MPN/lOOmL
13,200
8,950
11,000
2,720
1,030
519
378
208
472
250
6.1
10.7
2.72: 1.00:1.25
7.52
4,640
3.7 xlO8
2.3 xlO8
11,200
7,850
9,490
2,750
1,040
515
382
214
464
250
6.3
10.9
2.72:1.00:1.22
7.47
4,710
3.9 xlO8
2.6 xlO8
Note: The data in Table 2 are based on twelve samples.
Operation and Maintenance Results
Operational Observations
One operational problem was encountered during the verification test of the Maximizer. On the last test
day, March 14th, solids bridged across the flights of the auger that transfers recovered solids from the top
of the screen to the squeezing gates. This blocked the entrance to the auger and prevented solids from
transferring to the discharge point. The flow of solids out of the unit ceased. Flow into the unit was then
stopped and the unit was shut down for approximately five minutes while the auger was cleaned out by
hand. The unit was placed back into operation and the test was completed.
Maintenance Observations
No maintenance was performed on the Maximizer during the verification test period. The screen was not
washed during the 30-day test period. A permanent installation would be expected to require some
maintenance over time, such as lubricating bearings and washing the screen. The manufacturer's
operations manual did not include a routine maintenance schedule.
03/01/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-iv
September 2003
-------
Table 3. Recovered Solids Characteristics
Parameter
Dry matter
Volatile solids
Total carbon
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Potassium
Chloride
Copper
Zinc
Bulk density
Total coliform
E. coll
N:P:K ratio
Units
percent by weight
percent by weight
percent by weight
percent by weight
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
Mg/g
g/mL
MPN/g
MPN/g
Concentration
17.6
15.9
7.61
0.44
2,530
628
207
22.9
63.1
0.984
4.7 xlO8
3.4 xlO8
1.74:1.00:0.25
Note: The data in Table 3 are based on twelve samples.
Electrical Requirements
The Maximizer required 240 V, single-phase electrical power to operate the two electric motors (totaling
five hp). Units for installation with three-phase power and voltages up to 575 V are available. The
Maximizer's two motors were wired to the main connection box. Electrical installation consisted of
supplying power to the unit and making the appropriate connections at the unit's control panel.
A data logger measured current and voltage and calculated values of kilowatts, which were recorded
every ten seconds. The peak power consumption usually occurred when influent was first sent to the unit,
and the mean peak power consumption was 2.32 kW. The overall mean power consumption during
operation was less than 1.5 kW. During the entire verification test, the Maximizer used approximately
0.37 kW-h of energy per 1,000 gallons of wastewater treated.
Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC)
During testing, NSF International completed QA audits of the NCSU Biological and Agricultural
Engineering Department's Environmental Analysis Laboratory and Swine Educational Unit, Lake
Wheeler Road Field Laboratory. NSF personnel completed (1) a technical systems audit to assure the
testing was in compliance with the test plan, (2) a performance evaluation audit to assure that the
measurement systems employed by the laboratory and the field technicians were adequate to produce
reliable data, and (3) a data quality audit of at least ten percent of the test data to assure that the reported
data represented the data generated during the testing. In addition to the quality assurance audits
performed by NSF International, EPA QA personnel conducted a quality systems audit of NSF
International's QA Management Program.
03/01/WQPC-SWP The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2003
VS-v
-------
Original signed by
Lee A. Mulkey
02/26/04
Lee A. Mulkey Date
Acting Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Original signed by
Gordon E. Bellen
Gordon E. Bellen
Vice President
Research
NSF International
04/01/04
Date
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no
expressed or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a
technology will always operate as verified. The end user is solely responsible for complying with
any and all applicable federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade
names, or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of
specific products. This report in no way constitutes an NSF Certification of the specific product
mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the ETV Test Plan for the Verification of Technologies for Separation of
Manure Solids from Flushed Swine Waste, dated April 2002, the Verification Statement,
and the Verification Report are available from the following sources:
ETV Water Quality Protection Center Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
(734)769-8010
NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/etv (electronic copy)
EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
NOTE: Appendices are not included in the Verification Report. Appendices are available
from NSF upon request.
03/01/WQPC-SWP
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement.
VS-vi
September 2003
-------
September 2003
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Separation of Manure Solids from Flushed Swine Waste
Brome Agri Sales Ltd.
Maximizer Separator, Model MAX 1016
Prepared for:
NSF International
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Prepared by:
John Classen, Ph.D.
Mark Rice
Frank Humenik, Ph.D.
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, NC 27695
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Raymond Frederick, Project Officer
ETV Water Quality Protection Center
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Water Supply and Water Resources Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey 08837
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through its Office of Research and
Development has financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under a
Cooperative Agreement. This verification effort was supported by the source water protection
area of the Water Quality Protection Center, operating under the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program. This document has been peer reviewed and reviewed by NSF and
EPA and recommended for public release.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by EPA's Office of Research and Development to assist the
user community and to link researchers with their clients.
in
-------
Contents
Verification Statement VS-i
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Contents iv
Figures vi
Tables vi
Acronyms and Abbreviations vii
Acknowledgments viii
Chapter 1 Project Description and Organization 1
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation 1
1.2 Participant Roles and Responsibilities 1
1.2.1 NSF International - Verification Organization 1
1.2.2 Environmental Protection Agency - Program Sponsor and Authority 2
1.2.3 North Carolina State University - Testing Organization 3
1.2.4 Brome Agri Sales Ltd. - Vendor 3
1.2.5 Technology Panel 4
1.3 Description of Environmental Problem 4
1.3.1 Swine Waste Collection and Treatment 4
1.3.2 Current Solids Removal Systems 5
1.4 Test Site Description 5
Chapter 2 Technology Capabilities and Description 7
2.1 Equipment Description and Vendor Claims 7
2.2 Basic Operation of the Equipment 7
Chapters Verification Procedures and Methods 9
3.1 Verification Objectives 9
3.2 Installation Procedures 9
3.3 Verification Testing Procedures 10
3.3.1 Daily Operation 10
3.3.2 Sampling Methods 13
3.3.3 Analytical Protocols 15
Chapter 4 Verification Test Results 16
4.1 Mass Balance Results and Characterization 17
4.1.1 Characterization of Liquids and Solids 18
4.2 Results of Pathogen Indicator Tests 19
4.3 Operation and Maintenance 19
4.3.1 Field Notes on Operation and Maintenance Requirements 19
4.3.2 Operation and Maintenance Manual Evaluation 20
4.4 Power Requirements 20
Chapter 5 Data Quality and System Performance 22
5.1 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control 22
5.2 Verification System Performance 22
References 24
Appendices 25
A Verification Test Plan for the Maximizer 25
iv
-------
B Standard Operating Procedures for NCSU's Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Environmental Analysis Laboratory 25
C Test Data 25
D Field Log Book Entries 25
Glossary 26
-------
Figures
Figure 1-1. Test site schematic for NCSU's Lake Wheeler Road Field Laboratory 6
Figure 2-1. Brome Agri Sales Ltd Maximizer Separator, MAX 1016 8
Figure 3-1. Maximizer MAX 1016 in operation attest site 10
Figure 3-2. Mixing tank receiving wastewater influent 13
Figure 3-3. Recovered Solids from Maximizer are mixed prior to sampling 14
Tables
Table 3-1. Quality Parameters and Analytical Methods 12
Table 4-1. Recovery and Partitioning of Influent Parameters by the Maximizer 17
Table 4-2. Influent / Liquid Effluent Characteristics 18
Table 4-3. Recovered Solids Characteristics 19
Table 4-4. Pathogen Indicator Test Results 19
Table 4-5. Power Consumption 21
Table 5-1. Laboratory Quality Control Performance 22
VI
-------
cfm
Cl"
Cu
DQI
EPA
ETV
gal
gpm
h
K
Ib
mg/L
mL
mo
MPN
N
NSF
NRMRL
OP
QA
QC
rpm
SAG
sec
SOP
SWP
TC
TKN
TN
TO
TOC
TS
TSS
VO
VS
VTP
WQPC
Zn
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Cubic feet per minute
Chloride
Copper
Data quality indicators
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Technology Verification
Grams
Acceleration due to gravity (32.2 ft/sec2)
Gallons
Gallons per minute
Hour
Potassium
Pound
Milligrams per liter
Milliliters
Month
Most probable number
Normal
Ammonia nitrogen
NSF International
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Ortho phosphorus
Quality Assurance
Quality Control
Revolutions per minute
Stakeholder Advisory Group
Seconds
Standard operating procedure
Source Water Protection Area
Total carbon
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Total nitrogen
Testing organization
Total organic carbon
Total solids
Total suspended solids
Verification organization
Volatile solids
Verification test plan
Water Quality Protection Center
Zinc
vn
-------
Acknowledgments
The Testing Organization (TO) for this technology verification was North Carolina State
University. The verification test was performed by a team of principal investigators led by John
J. Classen and consisting of Frank J. Humenik, Jean Spooner, J. Mark Rice, Craig Baird, and
Pedro Luna-Orea, of the Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, and C.M.
Williams and Leonard S. Bull of the Animal and Poultry Waste Management Center. This team
was responsible for all elements in the testing sequence, including collection of samples,
calibration and verification of instruments, sample analysis, data management, data interpretation
and the preparation of this report. All correspondence should be directed to:
Dr. John J. Classen
179 Weaver Labs
North Carolina State University
Campus Box 7625
Raleigh, NC 27695-7625
919-515-6800
Email: john_cl as sen@ncsu.edu
The laboratory that conducted the analytical work for this study was:
Environmental Analysis Laboratory
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department
North Carolina State University
Campus Box 7625
Raleigh, NC 27695-7625
919-515-6766
Contact: Ms. Rachel Huie
Email: huie@eos.ncsu.edu
The principal investigators acknowledge Ms. Rachel Huie, Mr. Jerome Brewster, and Ms. Tracey
Daly Whiteneck for their technical expertise and professionalism in performing the analytical
work for this verification test. Mr. Mark Watkins and Mr. Carl Wissnet provided substantial
support during set up and testing.
The manufacturer of the solids separation technology was:
Brome Agri Sales Ltd.
23 89 Route 202
Dunham, Quebec JOE 1MO Canada
450-266-5323
Contact: John Brown, President
The principal investigators thank NSF International, especially Mr. Thomas Stevens, Project
Manager, and Ms. Maren Roush, Project Coordinator, for providing guidance and program
management.
Vlll
-------
Chapter 1
Project Description and Organization
1.1 ETV Purpose and Program Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has created the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program to further environmental protection by accelerating the
commercialization of innovative environmental technologies through performance verification
and dissemination of information. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high quality,
peer-reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution,
permitting, purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; with stakeholder
groups that consist of buyers, vendor organizations, consulting engineers, and regulators; and
with the full participation of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the
performance of innovative technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs
of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory test (as appropriate), collecting and analyzing
data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with
rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are
generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF International (NSF), in cooperation with EPA, operates the ETV Water Quality Protection
Center. This Center oversaw the verification testing of the Brome Agri Sales Ltd. Maximizer
Model MAX-1016 (Maximizer), which is an inclined screen separator designed to separate
solids from liquid swine waste. The potential market for this equipment includes swine
producers who could benefit from having solids removed from the liquid manure stream. The
separated solids represent a reduced organic and nutrient load to any subsequent liquid treatment
system as well as a potential feedstock for value added products such as compost or soil
amendments. The verification test did not address the performance of any procedure for
processing the recovered solids.
1.2 Participant Roles and Responsibilities
Verification testing of the Maximizer was a cooperative effort among the following parties:
Organization Role in Verification Testing
NSF International Verification organization
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Program sponsor and authority
North Carolina State University Testing organization
Brome Agri Sales Ltd. Vendor
Technology Panel Technical assistance and oversight
1.2.1 NSF International - Verification Organization
The ETV Water Quality Protection Center is administered through a cooperative agreement
between EPA and NSF. NSF is the verification organization for the ETV Water Quality
Protection Center.
-------
For all technology verifications performed through the ETV Water Quality Protection Center,
NSF's responsibilities as the verification organization include:
• Reviewing and commenting on the site-specific verification test plan (VTP).
• Coordinating with peer-reviewers to review and comment on the VTP.
• Coordinating with the EPA Project Officer and the technology vendor to approve the
VTP prior to the initiation of verification testing.
• Reviewing and approving the quality systems of the testing organization (TO) prior to
conducting any verification testing activities.
• Overseeing the technology evaluation and associated laboratory testing.
• Carrying out an on-site audit of test procedures.
• Overseeing the development of a verification report and verification statement.
• Coordinating with peer-reviewers to review and comment on the verification report and
verification statement.
• Coordinating with EPA to approve the verification report and verification statement.
• Providing quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) review and support for the TO.
Key contacts at NSF for the Verification Organization are:
Mr. Tom Stevens, Project Manager Ms. Maren Roush, Project Coordinator
NSF International NSF International
P.O. Box 130140 P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140 Ann Arbor, MI 48113-0140
v. 734-769-5347 f 734-769-5195 v. 734-827-6821 f 734-769-0109
email: stevenst@nsf.org email: mroush@nsf.org
1.2.2 Environmental Protection Agency — Program Sponsor and A uthority
The EPA Office of Research and Development, through the Urban Watershed Management
Branch, Water Supply and Water Resources Division, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory (NRMRL), provides administrative, technical, and quality assurance guidance and
oversight on all ETV Water Quality Protection Center activities. EPA reviews and approves
each phase of the verification project. The EPA's responsibilities with respect to verification
testing include but are not limited to:
• VTP review and approval;
• Verification report review and approval; and
• Verification statement review and approval.
The key EPA contact for the ETV Water Quality Protection Center is:
Mr. Ray Frederick, Project Officer, ETV Water Quality Protection Center
U.S. EPA, NRMRL, Water Supply and Water Resources Division
2890 Woodbridge Ave. (MS-104)
Edison, NJ 08837-3679
v. 732-321-6627 f. 732-321-6640
email: frederick.ray@epa.gov
-------
1.2.3 North Carolina State University - Testing Organization
The Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department of North Carolina State University
(NCSU) has been a leader in various aspects of animal waste management for many years. The
department's Environmental Analysis Laboratory operates under Good Laboratory Practices in
addition to an established QA/QC program. NCSU provided the location and infrastructure for
the verification test. The principal investigators developed the VTP and put together a team to
conduct the verification test according to the approved plan. The testing organization's
responsibilities included:
• Coordinating with the verification organization and vendor relative to preparing and
finalizing the VTP.
• Conducting the technology verification in accordance with the VTP, with oversight by
the verification organization.
• Analyzing all influent, effluent, and solids samples collected during the technology
verification process in accordance with the procedures outlined in the VTP and attached
standard operating procedures (SOPs).
• Coordinating with and reporting to the verification organization during the technology
verification process.
• Providing analytical results of the technology verification to the verification organization.
• Documenting changes in plans for testing and analysis, and notifying the verification
organization of any and all such changes before they were executed.
The main NCSU contacts for the technology verification were:
Dr. John J. Classen, Associate Professor Dr. Frank J. Humenik, Coordinator
Biological and Agricultural Engineering Animal Waste Management Programs
Campus Box 7625 Campus Box 7927
Raleigh, NC 27695 Raleigh, NC 27695
v: 919-515-6800 f: 919-515-7760 v: 919-515-6767 f: 919-513-1023
email: john_classen@ncsu.edu email: frank_humenik@ncsu.edu
Dr. C. M. (Mike) Williams, Director Mr. J. Mark Rice
Animal and Poultry Waste Management Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Center
Campus Box 7608 Campus Box 7927
Raleigh, NC 27695 Raleigh, NC 27695
v: 919-515-5386 f: 919-513-1762 v: 919-515-6794 f: 919-513-1023
email: mike_williams@ncsu.edu email: mark_rice@ncsu.edu
1.2.4 Brome Agri Sales Ltd. — Vendor
Brome Agri Sales Ltd. (Brome Agri) was responsible for providing the equipment to be verified
under the test program and for supporting the testing organization by ensuring the equipment was
properly installed and operated during the verification test. Brome Agri was assisted by its
technical representative in North Carolina, Mr. Lee Brock, of Brock Equipment and Parts.
Brome Agri's specific responsibilities included:
-------
• Assisting in the preparation of the VTP for technology verification and approving the
final version of the VTP.
• Providing a complete field-ready version of the technology of the selected capacity for
verification and assisting the testing organization with installation at the test site.
• Providing start-up services and technical support as required during the period prior to
the evaluation.
• Providing technical assistance to the testing organization during operation and monitoring
of the equipment undergoing verification testing, as requested.
• Removing equipment associated with the technology following the technology
verification.
• Providing funding for verification testing.
Brome Agri's contacts for this project were:
Mr. John Brown, President Mr. Lee Brock
Brome Agri Sales Ltd. Brock Equipment and Parts
2389 Route 202 Hwy 264A West, PO Box 100
Dunham, Quebec JOE 1MO Bailey, NC 27807
v: 450-266-5323 f: 450-266-5708 v: 800-849-7569 f: 252-235-4111
jbrown@bas.ca lbrock@bbnp.com
1.2.5 Technology Panel
The ETV Animal Waste Treatment Technology Panel assisted with the development of the
generic Test Plan for the Verification of Technologies for Separation of Manure Solids from
Flushed Swine Waste. In developing the generic test plan, the Technology Panel ensured that
data to be generated during verification testing would be relevant and that the method of
evaluation for different technologies would be fair and consistent. A list of the Technology
Panel participants is available from the ETV Water Quality Protection Center.
1.3 Description of Environmental Problem
Animal production is an important component of U.S. agriculture. Wherever there are animals,
there is manure and the possibility of ground or surface water contamination. Because different
animal species are raised in vastly different ways, there are different approaches to preventing
water contamination for each species.
1.3.1 Swine Waste Collection and Treatment
Swine production has recently received heightened attention in North Carolina and nationally
because of the industry's growth and the associated problems with the waste. Swine waste is
handled differently in different parts of the country, depending on the goals and needs of the
individual producer.
In the midwest, swine waste is valued for its nitrogen and phosphorus. The goal of producers in
this region is to store the manure in concentrated form and preserve nutrients until it can be
-------
applied to cropland, usually to corn. Waste collection systems at these facilities typically employ
slurry systems that use no added water.
In the southeast, swine farms are often on smaller tracts of land that cannot utilize the available
nutrients for corn production. These areas typically utilize water wash systems and anaerobic
lagoon treatment to improve the air quality in the production houses and reduce odor generated
during storage. These systems produce a dilute wastewater compared to the slurry systems.
Wastewater for these systems may range between 0.5 percent and 2 percent solids. Compared to
domestic wastewater, however, this is a high solids waste. While some of the solid material is
inert, a large portion contains significant organic carbon that exerts an additional load on the
waste treatment system over and above the dissolved organic matter.
Several problems are associated with treating solids in the wastewater. The organic load from
the solids requires a larger treatment system (lagoon), first to break down the solids to soluble
components, and then to treat the added organic matter. Another problem is that the solids that
settle in the bottom of the system remain there for long periods of time and require additional
capacity in the treatment system. Finally, the solids that are treated also represent lost resources
that could have been put to beneficial use. The particular use depends on the amount of solids
that can be recovered and the characteristics of those solids.
1.3.2 Current Solids Removal Systems
When solids separation has been desired as part of a swine waste treatment system, settling
basins have typically been employed. Although these systems can reduce the amount of solids
entering the treatment system, they require time and attention to keep them operating free of
odors and fly problems. Vendors selling solids separation technologies have approached swine
producers, but the producers are often unwilling to purchase a system without knowing how well
the equipment operates.
1.4 Test Site Description
Verification testing was conducted at NCSU's Lake Wheeler Road Field Laboratory Swine
Educational Unit. This farm is designed and operated as a research and teaching facility. The
farm capacity is 250 sows for farrow to wean (birth to wean). The farm can finish (grow to
market weight of 250 Ib) approximately half of the pigs weaned each year. Under normal
operating conditions, waste at the site is removed by flushing under-slat pits with treated
wastewater from the on-site lagoon. Flushed waste then flows to the anaerobic lagoon for
treatment. This is a common method of waste management in the southeast.
During the verification test, the flushed waste was diverted to a 2,500 gal glass-lined influent
mixing tank of 12-ft diameter and 10-ft depth. To minimize aeration and physical changes to the
wastewater, the influent mixing tank was equipped with a 5-hp mixer with a 2-ft diameter
impeller, designed to keep solids suspended with minimum turbulence. According to the design
of the testing facility, wastewater from the influent mixing tank could be sent to the lagoon or to
the pumping system. During the verification test, wastewater was pumped from the influent
mixing tank to the Maximizer using a variable frequency pump. Once treated, effluent from the
unit was collected in an effluent tank for sampling and quantification. Valves in the influent
-------
mixing and effluent tanks provided additional means for circulating the wastewater to ensure that
it was well mixed. All final effluent from the effluent tank was disposed in the lagoon. Figure
1-1 is a schematic diagram of the testing facility.
from Swine
Houses
to Lagoon •
Figure 1-1. Test site schematic for NCSU's Lake Wheeler Road Field Laboratory.
An all-in/all-out closed loop process was developed to minimize problems and errors associated
with flow measurement and sampling. All of the waste generated over a two-day period was left
in the under-slat pits until it was flushed and collected in the influent mixing tank. This
wastewater was pumped from the influent mixing tank to the test unit. Effluent from the test unit
was collected in the effluent tank, and the separated solids were collected on the adjacent
concrete pad.
6
-------
Chapter 2
Technology Capabilities and Description
2.1 Equipment Description and Vendor Claims
The Maximizer is designed to remove solids from flushed swine waste and other animal waste
slurries (Figure 2-1). The Maximizer can process between 20 and 90 gpm. The Maximizer
returns an effluent with less organic content, reduces subsequent wastewater treatment capacity
requirements, and provides a solid material that can be used as fertilizer/soil amendment. The
verification test was conducted at a nominal flow rate of 80 gpm.
The following is a summary of the characteristics of the Maximizer:
Type Inclined screen, bottom feed
Screen length 16ft
Initial (lower) screen openings 0.031 in
Secondary (upper) screen openings 0.062 in
Maximum capacity 90 gpm
The Maximizer is designed to remove the suspended solids fraction from the waste stream. As
such, it cannot reduce soluble constituents in the wastewater. The actual removal efficiency for
specific constituents during the test period was dependent on the ratio of soluble to non-soluble
forms of those constituents in the influent.
The unit tested was evaluated while sitting in a MAX-1400 stainless steel tank assembly, with a
MAX-1500 stainless steel winching assembly.
2.2 Basic Operation of the Equipment
The Maximizer is an inclined screen device. The lower end of the inclined screen rests in a
stainless steel tank assembly. Wastewater is pumped into the primary tank, which is part of the
stainless steel tank assembly. The waste is then transported up the inclined screen using a
wiping/carrying system consisting of a series of thirty-two rubber paddles attached to chains that
are driven by an electric motor. The inclined screen is made up of two eight-foot long sections, a
lower section and an upper section, each with a different-sized, perforated metal screen, as
indicated in 2.1. As the waste is transported up the inclined screen, water drains through the
perforations to a drip pan and from there, into a secondary tank. Once the solid waste reaches
the top of the screen, it is processed through a squeezing mechanism consisting of a worm screw
followed by a perforated cylinder, for final drying of the removed solids. Separated solids are
pushed out of the cylinder through spring-loaded doors and fall to the solids collection area. A
float switch controls a pump that removes effluent from near the top of the secondary tank. The
volume below the effluent pump in the secondary tank serves as a solids thickener. A second
pump in this section moves the thickened wastewater back to the primary tank on a periodic
basis, typically once per week.
-------
Figure 2-1. Brome Agri Sales Ltd Maximizer Separator, MAX 1016.
-------
Chapter 3
Verification Procedures and Methods
3.1 Verification Objectives
Although the primary purpose of this equipment is to recover and remove solid material, use of
this equipment has an impact on the entire waste management system of a farm. Therefore, it is
necessary to quantify the effect this equipment has on the partitioning of other waste constituents
of interest such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, copper, zinc, and pathogen indicators.
Technical professionals need this information to determine the value of the separated material
and to design subsequent waste treatment and land application operations. Qualitative operation
and maintenance requirements of the Maximizer are also important to individuals responsible for
putting equipment like this into service. Operation and maintenance parameters measured during
the testing included ease of cleaning, frequency of operational problems during testing, and
extent of required operator oversight. Because the test period lasted only four weeks, the
verification process did not indicate what long term operational problems would be likely to
occur for the technology. Power consumption was verified as an important component of
equipment performance.
In summary, the key objectives of the verification test were to:
1. Determine the separation efficiency of the Maximizer with regard to the mass of solids.
2. Characterize the separated solids and resulting liquid stream with respect to nutrients,
metals, and pathogen indicators.
3. Gather qualitative information about the operation and maintenance requirements of the
system.
To meet these objectives, a VTP was prepared and approved for verification of the Maximizer,
and is attached to this report as Appendix A. This VTP detailed the procedures and analytical
methods to be used to perform the verification test. It included tasks designed to verify the
performance of the solids separation system with respect to the partitioning of solids and other
waste constituents. In addition, the VTP was designed to obtain information on the installation,
operation, and maintenance requirements of the system. Verification consisted of two distinct
phases: (1) installation and start up of the system and (2) verification testing of the operational
system.
Each of the testing elements performed during the technology verification is described in the
following sections. In addition to a description of equipment installation, equipment operation,
and sample collection methods, this chapter describes the analytical protocols used. Quality
assurance and quality control procedures along with details related to data management and
calculations are discussed in detail in the VTP.
3.2 Installation Procedures
The Maximizer arrived at the Lake Wheeler Road Field Laboratory Swine Educational Unit on
January 28, 2003. Plumbing and electricity were connected and on January 30th, the unit was
-------
started for shakedown testing. Shakedown testing continued through February 4, 2003, while the
vendor adjusted the operating conditions and final adjustments were made to control the flow
rate at 80 gallons per minute. Although the unit was ready for testing on February 5th, cold
weather, rain, ice and weather-related equipment problems delayed the first test day until
February 12, 2003. Figure 3-1 shows the Maximizer installed at the test site.
Influent lo Primary Tank
Squeezed Liquid Return Line
Figure 3-1. Maximizer MAX 1016 in operation at test site.
3.3 Verification Testing Procedures
The test period for verification of the Maximizer was 30 days. Sampling and evaluation
procedures were carried out three days per week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) for four
weeks of valid operation. "Valid operation" means that procedures and equipment were
operating correctly (pumps working, hoses intact, waste flowing) but is not an indication of
technology performance. A total of twelve samples of influent, effluent, and solids were
collected, one set on each of the twelve sampling days during the verification period. There were
no delays due to invalid operation. For safety considerations, at least two NCSU personnel were
present during each testing operation.
3.3.1 Daily Operation
Daily operation of the verification test was consistent to the greatest extent possible. Testing
took place in the morning hours to ensure that samples were transferred to the lab for timely
processing.
10
-------
Wastewater from the swine unit was collected in the influent mixing tank. Floating solids were
excluded because they are characteristic of sow farms rather than finishing farms, which are the
source of most of the flushed swine waste in production systems. After the influent-mixing tank
was filled, the depth of wastewater was measured. A quiescent surface is necessary for accurate
measurement of depth, so the mixing impeller was not started until after the tank was full and the
depth was measured. The impeller is able to keep solid material suspended in the liquid but is
not able to re-suspend particles that settled during the filling and depth measurement. To re-
suspend solids, the wastewater was circulated from the influent mixing tank through the pipes
and back to the influent mixing tank for at least five minutes. Wastewater was typically held in
the mixing tank for less than five minutes while mixed with the impeller, but never more than
thirty minutes. Wastewater was then pumped to the Maximizer at a nominal flow rate of 80
gallons per minute.
The wastewater level in the secondary tank of the Maximizer increased as wastewater from the
primary tank was processed through the screen. A float switch controlled the operation of the
secondary tank effluent pump that transferred liquid to the effluent collection tank. Solids in the
wastewater remaining below the level of the effluent pump were allowed to thicken until pumped
back to the primary tank once per week. Normal daily operation ended when the effluent pump
shut down because of low liquid level. The liquid remaining in the primary and secondary tanks
of the Maximizer was left until the next test day.
Measurements made each test day included volume of wastewater entering the unit, volume of
the effluent stream, weight of solids recovered from the unit, and concentrations of quality
parameters in each of the sampled components. The influent and effluent volumes were
determined based on the waste depths and dimensions of each tank. The weight of the solids was
determined as the difference in the weight of large containers with and without the solids.
Weights were measured at the testing location using appropriate scales. Concentrations of the
quality parameters were determined by laboratory analysis of grab samples collected in triplicate.
Table 3-1 lists the constituents that were measured in the influent, effluent, and solids samples.
It also lists the analytical methods and preservation/holding times for each parameter.
At the end of the test period, following the last day of testing, the contents of the secondary tank
were pumped to the effluent tank for inclusion in the mass balance calculations. A small amount
of material could not be pumped from the very bottom of the secondary tank. The volume of this
material was determined by measurements of the waste depth and tank dimensions. The material
was then mixed by hand, sampled in triplicate, and removed through the drain valve in the
bottom of the tank. The samples were analyzed for the same quality parameters as the rest of the
liquid samples for inclusion in the mass balance calculations.
11
-------
Table 3-1. Quality Parameters and Analytical Methods
Parameter
Total solids/
-LWLC41 OW11UO/
moisture content
Suspended solids
Volatile solids
E. coli 2
Conductivity
Total organic
carbon
Total carbon
Total nitrogen
PH
Ammonia
nitrogen
Chloride
Total Kjeldahl
nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Ortho
phosphorus
Copper
Zinc
Potassium
Bulk density
Liquid Method
Reference1
EPA 160.3
EPA 160.2
EPA 160.4
SM 9223 B
SM2510
SM 5310 B
EPA 150.1
SM 4500-NH3 G
SM 4500-Cr E
EPA 35 1.2
SM 4500-P BC
SM 4500-P F
SM3111B
SM3111B
SM3111B
Solid Method
Reference1
EPA 160.3
EPA 160.4
SM 9223 B
AOAC 990.03
AO AC 973. 47
EPA 150.1
Methods of Soil Analysis
(1982) 84-2 as modified3
Methods of Soil Analysis
(1982) 84-2 as modified3
Digestion per Soil Sci.
Soc. Amer. Proc., V37,
1973. Analysis as liquid
Methods of Soil Analysis
(1982)78-4.2.14
Methods of Soil Analysis
(1982)78-4.2.14
Methods of Soil Analysis
(1982)78-4.2.14
Methods of Soil Analysis
(1982)78-4.2.14
Methods of Soil Analysis
(1982)30-2.1
Preservative
Refrigerate
Refrigerate
Refrigerate
None
None
H2SO4 to
pH<2
Refrigerate
Refrigerate
None
Refrigerate
None
Refrigerate
Refrigerate
Refrigerate
HNO3to
pH<2
HNO3to
pH<2
HNO3to
pH<2
None
Holding
Time
7d
7d
7d
30 h
None
7 d
/ VJ
7d
7d
2h
7d
28 d
7d
48 h
48 h
6 mo
6 mo
6 mo
None
1 EPA: EPA Methods and Guidance for the Analysis of Water procedures; SM: Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater (19th edition) procedures; AOAC: Association of Official
Analytical Chemists procedures
2 Although not required according to the ETV Test Plan for the Verification of Technologies for
Separation of Manure Solids from Flushed Swine Waste, MPN values for total coliforms were
also calculated when analyzing samples for E. coli using SM 9223B.
3 The extraction for ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate with 1.0 N KC1 was modified to use 1.25 N K2SO4.
This allowed for the analysis of chloride in the same extract according to the liquid method.
4 This method was modified according to North Carolina Department of Agriculture Methods. The
extract was then analyzed according to the liquid method.
12
-------
3.3.2 Sampling Methods
Triplicate samples from the influent mixing tank were taken just prior to pumping the influent to
the Maximizer. Figure 3-2 shows the influent mixing tank and wastewater just before the filling
operation was complete. After processing the wastewater through the Maximizer, the liquid
effluent was mixed for ten minutes by pumping it through an internal recycle loop and triplicate
samples were taken for analysis. Representative samples from the recovered solids were
produced by dividing the material into quarter sections and mixing alternate sections. This
process was repeated at least three times during at least five minutes of mixing. The mixed
solids are shown in Figure 3-3. Triplicate samples of at least 50 g each were taken with a shovel,
one from each of three different locations within the stacked solids. Each replicate was analyzed
as an independent sample and the results were averaged.
Figure 3-2. Mixing tank receiving wastewater influent.
13
-------
Figure 3-3. Recovered Solids from Maximizer are mixed prior to sampling.
Influent and effluent samples were taken using separate sampling containers of at least 500 mL
capacity suspended on a pole approximately two feet below the wastewater surface. The
samples were transferred immediately to labeled plastic sample bottles provided by the
Environmental Analysis Laboratory. Duplicate analyses for QA/QC purposes were taken from
the same sample bottle at the laboratory, by laboratory staff.
All samples were iced and transported to the Environmental Analysis Laboratory by NCSU staff
within one hour after the last sample of a day's test had been collected. For the standard
parameters listed in Table 3-1, no preservation methods except refrigeration are necessary if
sample analyses commence within twenty-four hours of sample collection (with the exception of
analyses performed on-site). All samples were processed within their holding times. Unused
samples were held in refrigerated storage in the Environmental Analysis Laboratory until the
laboratory manager completed the QA/QC checks. All analyses met QA/QC standards so none
of the samples had to be reanalyzed.
Each sample container was labeled with the vendor name, sample location, date, time, replicate
number, and name/initials of the person who collected the sample. Daily sampling records were
also maintained, recording sample location, date and time of sampling, replicate number, type of
sample (influent, effluent, or solids), and name/initials of the person collecting the sample.
Sampling records were forwarded to the verification organization at the completion of testing.
Filed logbook entries are included as Appendix D.
14
-------
3.3.3 Analytical Protocols
The Environmental Analysis Laboratory of the Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Department at NCSU performed all analyses except pH and measurement of the solids mass,
which were performed at the test site. Analytical methods used were those methods routinely
used by the laboratory. These procedures are based on EPA-approved methods and methods
detailed in Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 19th edition
(Standard Methods), as modified by the laboratory to accommodate differences in solids content
and flow characteristics between water and animal wastewater. The methods are referenced in
Table 3-1. Detailed operating procedures are maintained by the testing organization and are
included as Appendix B.
The analytical methods employed by the Environmental Analysis Laboratory differ from EPA-
approved methods and Standard Methods only in the sizes of some pump tubes and dialyzer,
and, in the case of TKN, a reduction in the amount of HgO (from 8g to Ig) used to prevent
coating of the autoanalyzer flow cells. Determination of bulk density of separated manure solids
differed from that of soil in that the manure solids were not dried at 105 C; the bulk density was
determined as is. A plastic 50 mL beaker with the top cut down to the 50 mL marker was filled
to the top with the separated solids without packing and then leveled. The total weight was
recorded. The tare weight of the beaker was subtracted from the total weight and divided by 50
mL. The determination was made three times per sample and the average recorded. Results are
expressed as g/mL.
15
-------
Chapter 4
Verification Test Results
The laboratory analyses provided concentrations of each parameter of interest, and the field
measurements allowed for the calculation of total flow and total mass for the different
components in the influent and effluent. The design and operation of the Maximizer did not
allow for measurement and sampling of the thickened waste on a daily basis, as explained in
Chapter 3. Subsequently, an overall mass balance for the entire test period was performed. The
mean concentration of each parameter in each component of the waste stream was determined by
considering the results of the entire four-week test. Equation (4-1) shows the calculation for the
mean concentration of parameters in the daily-recovered solids, while equation (4-2) shows the
calculation for the two liquid phases (influent and effluent).
(4-1)
IX
C'w £„ (4-2)
d=\
Where:
C.= average concentration of parameter /' in solids
C. ; = average concentration of parameter /' in component y
Cjjjd = concentration of/ iny on day d
Md = mass of solids recovered on day d
Vj d = volume ofy on day d
parameter / = N, P, K, ....
component y' = influent, effluent
The total mass was also used in calculations of mass removal and parameter concentration in the
recovered solids and liquid effluent. Again, the mass removal values for the recovered solids
and liquid effluent were calculated using the combined data from all tests rather than using the
data from each day of testing separately, as shown in equations (4-3) and (4-4) for the solids and
liquids, respectively.
16
-------
total mass of parameter /' recovered in solids
Of parameter i m influent
total mass of parameter/ recovered in liquid effluent
effluent. = - TT "T - f - + • • • fl . -
total mass or parameter / in influent
Where:
R = Percent recovery of parameter / in solids or liquid effluent, mass basis
These mass balance calculations were carried out for the following parameters: suspended
solids/dry matter, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, potassium, copper, zinc, and chloride. Other
quality parameters were measured that are not appropriate for mass balance analysis but are
important for the characterization of the recovered solids and liquid effluent.
The following sections discuss the performance of the Maximizer in terms of mass removal and
final concentrations of the various quality parameters, as well as the results of the pathogen
indicator tests. Operational notes taken during the verification test are also presented. The
overall performance of the laboratory and experimental site are discussed in Chapter 5.
4.1 Mass Balance Results and Characterization
The mass balance approach allowed for the determination of the proportion and mass of the
recovered solids and how the nutrients partitioned between the solid and liquid phases. These
results are shown in Table 4-1. For each parameter of interest, the total mass recovered from the
separator (in the effluent and solids) is shown in Table 4-1 as a percent of the mass in the
influent. As shown in Table 4-1, 28 percent of the mass of solids in the influent was recovered
by the Maximizer and did not enter the effluent stream. Overall, the suspended solids
concentration in the Maximizer effluent was reduced by 14 percent compared to that of the
influent.
Table 4-1. Partitioning and Recover of Parameters in Influent
Parameter
Dry matter / suspended solids
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Potassium
Copper
Zinc
Chloride
Recovered
Solids
28
7.4
12
2.3
6.6
10
1.4
Percent
Liquid
Effluent
81
95
95
92
97
96
94
In:
Total
(Solids and Effluent)
109
102
106
95
104
106
95
17
-------
Nutrients and metals were recovered in different proportions in the solids and liquid effluent
from the Maximizer, as shown in Table 4-1. The largest proportion of most nutrients and metals
remained in the liquid phase, between 92 percent (potassium) and 97 percent (copper). The
recoveries from the mass balance are ideally within ±10 percent of 100 for this type of work,
although recoveries outside of this range are common due to the complex nature of both the
wastewater and separated solids. The data quality indicators for this verification test were all
within established limits. Because of this, nothing can or should be inferred from total
recoveries not equal to 100 percent.
4.1.1 Characterization of Liquids and Solids
The characteristics of both the liquid effluent and the recovered solids are important for the
planning, design, and operation of further treatment or disposal operations. The characteristics
of the liquid effluent and the recovered solids are shown in Tables 4-2 and 4-3, respectively. The
average influent suspended solids concentration was 1.1 percent (11,000 mg/L). Over the entire
test period, 833 Ib of solids weighed on a dry basis were recovered by the Maximizer,
representing 28 percent of the 2,990 Ib of suspended solids in the influent. The recovered solids
contained 18 percent dry matter (the solids contained 82 percent moisture). The solids remaining
after treatment by the Maximizer (81 percent) were released with the effluent stream, which had
a suspended solids concentration of 9,490 mg/L.
An important measurement is the ratio of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (N:P:K ratio).
The N:P:K ratios of the influent and effluent were essentially the same. The N:P:K ratio of the
solids (Table 4-3) showed that nitrogen and phosphorus were more nearly balanced than in the
influent wastewater.
Table 4-2. Influent / Liquid Effluent Characteristics
Parameter Units Influent Effluent
Total solids
Volatile solids
Suspended solids
Total organic carbon
Total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Ammonia nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Ortho phosphorus
Potassium
Chloride
Copper
Zinc
N:P:K ratio
PH
Conductivity
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
mg/L
|imhos/cm
13,200
8,950
11,000
2,720
1,030
519
378
207
472
250
6.1
10.7
2.72:1.00:1.25
7.52
4,640
11,200
7,850
9,490
2,750
1,040
515
382
213
464
250
6.3
10.9
2.72:1.00:1.22
7.47
4,710
18
-------
Table 4-3. Recovered Solids Characteristics
Parameter
Dry matter
Volatile solids
Total carbon
Total nitrogen
Total phosphorus
Potassium
Chloride
Copper
Zinc
Bulk density
N:P:K ratio
Units
percent by weight
percent by weight
percent by weight
percent by weight
Lm/2
Lm/s
UR/R
UR/R
iig/g
g/mL
Concentration
17.6
15.9
7.61
0.44
2,530
628
207
22.9
63.1
0.984
1.74:1.00:0.25
4.2 Results of Pathogen Indicator Tests
Samples were tested for total coliform bacteria and E. coli once per week during the test using
the most probable number (MPN) technique. This technique gives a statistical representation of
the organisms that are present in a sample, not an analytical result that could be used as an exact
count or mass. As such, the mass balance approach of this verification test does not extend to the
results of the pathogen indicator tests. The results shown in Table 4-4 are, therefore, simple
means of the MPN results from analyses of influent, effluent, and solids samples.
Table 4-4. Pathogen Indicator Test Results
Influent Effluent Solids
(MPN/100 mL) (MPN/100 mL) (MPN/g)
Total coliform bacteria 3.7 x 108 3.9 x 108 4.7 x 108
E. coli 2.3 x 108 2.6 x 108 3.4 x 108
It is important to note the different units used for the liquid and solid samples. The results are
consistent in that the total coliform values are greater than the E. coli values. The results indicate
that all of the material has significant numbers of pathogen indicators.
4.3 Operation and Maintenance
4.3.1 Field Notes on Operation and Maintenance Requirements
One operational problem was encountered during the verification test of the Maximizer. On the
last test day, March 14th, solids bridged across the flights of the auger that transfers recovered
solids from the top of the screen to the squeezing gates. This blocked the entrance to the auger
and prevented solids from transferring to the discharge point. The flow of solids out of the unit
ceased. Flow into the unit was then stopped and the unit was shut down for approximately five
19
-------
minutes while the auger was cleaned out by hand. The unit was placed back into operation and
the test was completed.
4.3.2 Operation and Maintenance Manual Evaluation
The Operation and Maintenance Manual submitted by Brome Agri Sales Ltd. in conjunction with
their equipment provides a good overview of the system function, controls and operation. Also
addressed in the manual are some of the requirements for routine maintenance. More
information with respect to recommended maintenance would be helpful to users of the
technology. No routine maintenance was required during the course of the testing.
4.4 Power Requirements
The standard electrical installation of the Maximizer is 240 V, single-phase power, capable of
operating the two electric motors (totaling five hp). Units for installation with three-phase power
and voltages up to 575 V are available. All motors associated with the Maximizer are wired to
the main connection box. Electrical installation consisted of supplying power to the unit and
making the appropriate connections at the unit's control panel.
An Extech, Model 380940 clamp-on power data logger measured current and voltage and
calculated values of kilowatts, which were recorded every ten seconds. These power data are
summarized in Table 4-5. The peak power consumption usually occurred when influent was first
sent to the unit, and the mean peak power consumption was 2.32 kW. The overall mean power
consumption during operation was less than 1.5 kW. The value of specific energy use, energy
per unit volume treated, was calculated for each day. The mean value of specific energy use was
calculated from the total energy used and the total volume sent to the unit over the 12 test days.
During the verification test, the Maximizer used approximately 0.37 kW-h of energy per 1,000
gallons of wastewater treated.
During test number 12, spikes in power consumption occurred three times in addition to the
initial spike that occurred when influent was first sent to the unit. The additional spikes occurred
following significant reductions in power consumption. The reductions in power consumption
would be consistent with the solids bridging across the flights of the auger, thereby removing the
load from the squeezing gates. The subsequent spikes in power consumption would be
consistent with the chain conveyor forcing solids into the auger, thus resolving the bridging
problem before the operators noticed the situation and stopped the system. Although two of
these spikes only reached power levels slightly higher than the average, one of the spikes reached
5.52 kW for a brief time (<10 s). The unit was shut down following the third spike in power
consumption in order to clean the built-up solids from the auger.
20
-------
Table 4-5. Power Consumption
Test#
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Average
Peak Power
(kW)
1.93
2.18
1.83
2.07
2.27
2.12
1.93
2.21
1.97
1.62
2.23
5.52
2.32
Average Power
(kW)
1.41
1.69
1.62
1.46
1.71
1.52
1.40
1.63
1.41
1.30
1.24
1.19
1.47
Total Test
Duration (h)
0.48
0.45
0.57
0.62
0.71
0.61
0.69
0.70
0.81
0.83
0.83
1.20
0.71
Specific Energy Use
(kW-h/1,000 gallon)
0.287
0.274
0.375
0.323
0.434
0.339
0.350
0.402
0.408
0.372
0.380
0.517
0.373
21
-------
Chapter 5
Data Quality and System Performance
5.1 Laboratory Quality Assurance/Quality Control
The Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) plan for this project was described in detail in
the VTP. The QA/QC plan ensured accurate and consistent operation of the analytical
equipment and procedures. The basic operation of the equipment was checked with standards
and laboratory blanks. Laboratory blanks (distilled deionized water used to prepare standards
and dilutions) were run after every six samples. A trip blank (laboratory water subjected to the
same conditions and procedures as samples) was included on every day of the verification test.
Duplicate samples were analyzed to verify the precision of the analyses. Spiked samples were
analyzed to verify the accuracy of the analyses and to determine the presence of effects due to
the matrix sample. Duplicate and spiked samples were run every ten samples. The results of the
QA/QC tests are discussed below.
Table 5-1 shows the average laboratory quality indicators during the verification test. The
complete set of quality indicators is included in the analytical data in Appendix C. Analyses
were within control limits at all times during the test. All laboratory blanks and trip blanks met
the acceptance criteria (response below the method detection limit or less than ten percent of the
median of all sample values). The data set was 100 percent complete for this verification test;
there were no missing field measurements or analytical results. Data completeness refers to the
proportion of valid, acceptable data generated using each method.
Table 5-1. Laboratory Quality Control Performance
Liquid Samples Solid Samples
Parameter Spikes Percent Duplicates Percent Spikes Percent Duplicates Percent
Recovery Difference Recovery Difference
Target
Total nitrogen
Ammonia
Total phosphorus
Ortho phosphorus
Potassium
Chloride
Copper
Zinc
85-115
103
102
100
104
96
99
101
100
±25
0.56
0.41
0.89
0.75
1.4
0.42
4.7
6.6
85-115
101
105
100
102
95
101
99
99
±25
11
1.0
0.55
1.4
2.6
0.37
1.8
4.4
5.2 Verification System Performance
The verification test is based on accounting for all of the mass of each quality parameter of
interest, which is the mass recovered in the solids and in the liquid effluent. The system
22
-------
performance is measured by the completeness of the mass balance - whether all of the mass of
each parameter going into the Maximizer is what comes out of the Maximizer. The recovery is
different for each quality parameter as previously shown in Table 4-1. Total recoveries were
between 90 to 110 percent of the influent mass, which is considered acceptable for this type of
fieldwork; the analytical results were all within established limits, and all blanks and checks
were acceptable.
23
-------
References
1) AOAC, International. Method 990.03, Protein (crude) in Animal Feed, Combustion Method.
Journal of AOAC International, Vol. 72, p. 770, Gaithersburg, MD, 1989.
2) APHA, AWWA, and WEF: Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 19thed. Washington, DC, 1995.
3) United States Environmental Protection Agency: Methods and Guidance for Analysis of
Water, EPA 821-C-99-008, Office of Water, Washington, DC, 1999.
4) ETV Water Quality Protection Center, Test Plan for the Verification of Technologies for
Separation of Manure Solids from Flushed Swine Waste, Ann Arbor, MI, 2000.
5) ETV Water Quality Protection Center, Test Plan for the Verification of Technologies for
Separation of Manure Solids from Flushed Swine Waste: Triton Systems, LLC, Ann Arbor, MI,
2002.
6) Page, A. L., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy,
Inc., Soil Science Society of America, Inc., 1982.
24
-------
Appendices
A Verification Test Plan for the Maximizer
B Standard Operating Procedures for NCSU's Biological and Agricultural Engineering
Environmental Analysis Laboratory
C Test Data
D Field Log Book Entries
Appendices are not included in the verification report. Appendices are available from NSF
International upon request.
25
-------
Glossary
Accuracy - a measure of the closeness of an individual measurement or the average of a number
of measurements to the true value and includes random error and systematic error.
Completeness - a quantitative term that expresses confidence that all necessary data have been
included.
Precision - a measure of the agreement between replicate measurements of the same property
made under similar conditions.
Protocol/generic test plan - a written document that clearly states the objectives, goals, scope
and procedures for the study. A protocol or generic test plan shall be used for reference when
developing a technology- and site-specific test plan detailing how an individual technology will
be evaluated under the ETV Program. A generic test plan differs from a protocol in that it may
contain information specific to an approved test site while remaining generic with respect to the
technology to be evaluated.
Quality Assurance Project Plan - a written document that describes the implementation of
quality assurance and quality control activities during the life cycle of the project.
Representativeness - a measure of the degree to which data accurately and precisely represent a
characteristic of a population parameter at a sampling point, a process condition, or
environmental condition.
Standard operating procedure (SOP) - a written document containing specific procedures and
protocols to ensure that quality assurance requirements are maintained.
Technology Panel - a group of individuals established by the VO with expertise and knowledge
in solids separation technologies.
Testing Organization (TO) - an independent organization qualified by the Verification
Organization to conduct studies and testing of solids separation technologies in accordance with
approved protocols and test plans.
Vendor - a business that assembles or sells solids separation technologies.
Verification - to establish evidence on the performance of solid separation technologies under
specific conditions, following a predetermined study protocol(s) and test plan(s).
26
-------
Verification organization (VO) - an organization qualified by EPA to oversee the verification
of environmental technologies and issue Verification Statements and Verification Reports.
Verification report - a written document detailing the procedures and methods used during a
verification test and the results of the test, including appendices with all raw and analyzed data,
all QA/QC data sheets, descriptions of all collected data, and all QA/QC results. The VTP shall
be included as part of this document.
Verification statement - a document that summarizes the Verification Report and is reviewed
and approved by EPA.
Verification Test Plan (VTP) - A written document prepared to describe the procedures for
conducting a test or study according to the verification protocol/generic test plan requirements
for a given solids separator at a particular test site. At a minimum, the Verification Test Plan
includes detailed instructions for sample and data collection, sample handling and preservation,
and quality assurance and quality control requirements relevant to the specific technology as
installed at the test site.
27
------- |