THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM ^
f f
EIV
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: ADSORBTIVE MEDIA
APPLICATION: REMOVAL OF URANIUM IN DRINKING WATER
PRODUCT NAME: BRIMAC HA 216 ADSORPTIVE MEDIA
VENDOR: BRIMAC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC.
ADDRESS: 318 GRALAKE AVE.
ANN ARBOR, MI 48103
PHONE: 734-998-0763
WEBSITE: HTTP://WWW.BRIMACSERVICES.COM
EMAIL: INFO@BRIMACSERVICES.COM
NSF International (NSF) manages the Drinking Water systems (DWS) Center under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. The
DWS Center recently evaluated the performance of the Brimac Environmental Services, Inc. (Brimac)
HA 216 Adsorptive Media. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES)
monitored the operation of the pilot unit containing the media, collected water samples, and provided
some laboratory services. NSF also analyzed samples and authored the verification report and this
verification statement. The verification report contains a comprehensive description of the test.
EPA created the ETV Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The ETV Program's
goal is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more
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 recognized standards and testing organizations, stakeholder 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.
NSF 10/33/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2010
VS-i
-------
ABSTRACT
The Brimac HA 216 Adsorptive Media was tested for uranium (U) removal from a drinking water source
(well water) at Grappone Toyota located in Bow, New Hampshire. The HA 216 media is a
hydroxyapatite-based material. A pilot unit, consisting of a TIGG Corporation Cansorb® C-5 steel drum
with 50 pounds (Ib) (23 kilograms, 1.3 ft3) of media, was used for this verification test. The pilot unit was
operated at a flow rate of approximately two gallons per minute (gpm), resulting in a hydraulic loading
rate of 1.04 gpm/ft2, and an empty bed contact time (EBCT) of 4 minutes and 54 seconds. The integrity
test phase included observation of the operation of the pilot unit. The pilot test unit was simple and easy
to operate, particularly since there were no pumps required for this installation and no need for automated
controls or backwash systems.
The source water contained a mean uranium concentration of 190 |o,g/L. The pilot unit produced treated
water with uranium concentrations of <1 ng/L at the start of the test. The uranium concentration in the
treated water began to increase after two days of operation and exceeded the EPA National Primary
Drinking Water Regulation (NPDWR) maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 30 |og/L after
approximately 21,400 gallons (gal) of water had been treated, representing 2,200 bed volumes (BV). The
uranium concentration in the treated water exceeded the stop-test concentration of 60 (ig/L at 33,700 gal
(3,500 BV). The test was stopped two days later at 40,500 gal after the uranium results had been received
showing that 60 (ig/L had been passed. While the treated water uranium concentration increased more
quickly than anticipated, the mean concentration for the 15-day monitoring period was 29.7 |o,g/L, which
is below the MCL. Based on the mean source and treated water uranium concentrations (171 |og/L and
12.6 |o,g/L respectively) for the first ten days of operation before the treated water exceeded 30 (ig/L of
uranium, the 23 kilograms (kg) of media absorbed 13.1 g of uranium (5.7xlO~4 g U/g media). For the
entire test period, the media adsorbed approximately 24.8 g of uranium (0.001 g U/g media).
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description was provided by the manufacturer and has not been verified.
Brimac HA 216 Adsorptive Media is a hydroxyapatite-based media. The molecular formula for
hydroxyapatite is Ca5(PO4)3(OH). Hydroxyapatite sequesters uranium by three processes: 1)
incorporation within the hydroxyapatite lattice through ion-exchange with calcium, 2) physisorption and
chemisorption with reactive phosphate and calcium oxide groups at the mineral surface, and 3) reaction
with free phosphate to form solids that precipitate out of solution. The particles are highly porous and
capable of adsorbing heavy metals, color forming compounds, trihalomethane (THM) precursor
compounds, taste and odor producing compounds as well as other organic and inorganic compounds. The
media performs over a wide range of pH and temperature. HA 216 has a Langmuir isotherm capacity of
just over 1 g of uranium per g of media.
Uranium adsorption by hydroxyapatite occurs more slowly than contaminant adsorption by activated
carbon. The rate-determining step is adsorption, not the rate of diffusion, as with activated carbon. For
this reason, Brimac considers uranium adsorption by hydroxyapatite to be more like an ion exchange
process. The bed of hydroxyapatite media has a mass transfer zone that moves through the bed in a plug
flow manner until the media is exhausted.
HA 216 is certified by NSF to NSF/ANSI Standard 61 for water treatment plant applications and received
European Pharmacopeoia and UK Drinking Water Inspectorate approvals. Hydroxyapatite is also listed
'Generally Recognized as Safe' by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
NSF 10/33/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2010
VS-ii
-------
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site and Equipment
The verification test was conducted using a pilot unit installed at Grappone Toyota at 514 Route 3A in
Bow, New Hampshire. Groundwater was drawn from an 11 gpm capacity well, serving 82 employees.
Brimac provided a pilot unit containing HA 216 media installed in a TIGG Corporation Cansorb® C-5
steel drum. The drum contains internal schedule 40 PVC plumbing to ensure proper distribution of the
feed water onto the media bed. The C-5 is 30 inches (in) high, with a diameter of 19 in. For the
verification test, the pilot unit contained 50 Ib (23 kg) of media, which equals approximately 1.3 ft3 of
media at a depth of 8.2 in. in the C-5 drum. The unit was set up to operate at approximately 2.0 gpm.
The inlet water line was connected to the pressure (bladder) tank that was used to maintain water pressure
in the building water supply system. This provided sufficient water pressure to operate the pilot unit, and
no additional pumping was required to maintain flow to the test system. Treated water was discharged to
the sanitary sewer.
The verification test included two main tasks: system integrity verification and adsorptive capacity
verification. System integrity verification was a two-week test of the pilot unit with daily monitoring to
ensure the media and pilot unit were functioning properly and to identify any major systemic problems
such as channeling, insufficient media, excessive headless buildup, etc. Adsorption capacity verification
evaluated the capability of the media at a set contact time to remove uranium to below the EPA NPDWR
MCL of 30 |og/L. As requested by Brimac, the test was continued until at least 60 |o,g/L of uranium was
detected in the treated water.
Methods and Procedures
The testing methods and procedures are detailed in the Product-Specific Test Plan Removal of Uranium in
Drinking Water Brimac HA 216 Adsorptive Media. The EPA/NSF ETV Protocol for Equipment
Verification Testing for Removal of Radioactive Chemical Contaminants (April 2002, Chapter 1) and the
EPA/NSF ETV Equipment Verification Testing Plan for Adsorptive Media Processes for the Removal of
Arsenic (September 2003, Chapter 6) provided the basis for the procedures used to develop the test plan
and to ensure the accurate documentation of pilot unit performance and treated water quality. NSF and
NHDES co-managed verification responsibilities and analytical laboratory efforts. The pilot unit was
operated 24 hours a day, seven days a week during the testing period.
For the first 14 days of the integrity test, operational data were collected once per day, Monday through
Saturday. These data included cumulative feed water volume, feed water flow rate, treated water pressure,
and time on site. Grab samples for on-site and laboratory water quality analyses were collected daily for
temperature, pH, turbidity, and uranium. Grab samples were collected weekly for TSS, TOC, TDS,
calcium magnesium, sodium, iron, hardness, chloride, sulfate, fluoride alkalinity, phosphorus, nitrate,
arsenic aluminum silica, radon 222, alpha radioactivity, and UV254. Prior to collecting samples, the
sample tap was flushed for at least five seconds. All samples were collected into clean containers.
The analytical laboratories performed the water quality analyses using EPA or Standard Methods
procedures. Samples for off-site laboratory analysis were collected and preserved according to Standard
MethodslQIQB.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
System Operation
Brimac coordinated with NHDES and NSF to install the equipment and ready the system for operation.
Once ready for operation, Brimac ran initial startup and shakedown tests to determine operating
conditions for water treatment. The system started up quickly and without any difficulties. Verification
NSF 10/33/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2010
VS-iii
-------
testing was started on July 10. The two-week integrity test was completed on July 24 and the capacity test
phase ended on July 25 after 15 days of operation. The capacity test was stopped because the uranium
data showed that the concentration in the treated water had exceeded the stop-test level of 60 |o,g/L on the
13th day. The pilot unit continued in operation until July 30, while the analyses were being completed.
The average daily flow rate reported for the 19 total days of operation (Days 0-20) was 1.97 gpm and the
average flow rate calculated using the total volume treated was 2.03 gpm (54,728 gal over 19 days, as
recorded from the flow meter totalizer). The flow rate to the unit cycled between a high to low flow rate,
as the pressure in the well system cycled from high to low. The field technician observed several flow
rates over several minutes and recorded a range of flow rates on the bench sheet. These flow rate ranges
were then used to report an average flow rate for the unit. While the flow rate did change over a range of
readings, the average flow rate was close to the target of 2.0 gpm and was consistent during the test.
Overall, the frequent change in flow rate did not impact the volume of water treated each day, as shown
by comparing the data for the average flow rate and daily volume treated.
The hydraulic loading rate during the test, based on a mean flow rate of 1.97 gpm and a pilot unit surface
area of 1.90 ft2, averaged 1.04 gpm/ft2. The EBCT during the verification test was approximately 4.9
minutes (4 minutes, 54 seconds).
Test Results
The source water had a mean uranium concentration of 190 |og/L. All turbidity measurements were <1
NTU and all TSS concentrations were <2 mg/L. A sediment/particulate pre-filter was not used ahead of
the test unit. There was no indication during the test of any problems with particulate accumulation in the
media bed. The pH of the source water and treated water was steady throughout the test, with a range of
6.52-6.93 SU and 6.63-7.29 SU, respectively.
Figure VS-1 presents the uranium removal results plotted as a function of the bed volumes treated during
the integrity and capacity tests. At the beginning of the verification, the uranium concentration observed
in the treated water was near or below 1 ng/L. The uranium concentration observed in the treated water
began to increase as the cumulative bed volumes of treated water increased. The concentration exceeded
the water quality standard of 30 |o,g/L after approximately 21,400 gal of water were treated, or 2,200 BV.
The capacity test was stopped two days later at 40,500 gal after the uranium results had been received
showing that the treated water concentration had exceeded 60 (ig/L. While the treated water uranium
concentration increased more quickly than anticipated, the mean concentration for the 15-day monitoring
period was 29.7 |og/L, which is below the MCL. However, the treated water was below the water quality
standard for only the first 10 days of the test.
Considering the mean source and treated water uranium concentrations (171 |o,g/L and 12.6 |o,g/L) for the
first ten days of data (until breakthrough had occurred at 30 |og/L), the 50 Ibs (23 kg) of media adsorbed
13.1 g of uranium (5.7xlO~4 g U/g media). Over the entire test period, the 23 kg of media adsorbed
approximately 24.8 g of uranium (0.001 g U/g media). These data indicate that while the HA 216 media
had capacity to adsorb uranium beyond the first 10 days, movement of the mass transfer zone thru the
media and the adsorption kinetics were not well predicted for the contactor configuration used in the test,
and the media would need to be changed frequently using the current contactor configuration.
Uranium adsorption kinetics of HA 216 media are slow compared to activated carbon, and design EBCT
has a significant impact on the final treated water concentration, as the media is loaded with uranium. The
size of the mass transfer zone moving through the bed and the equilibrium between the media and the
treated water concentrations will vary as a function of EBCT. Particle size can also affect the kinetics of
NSF 10/33/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2010
VS-iv
-------
the adsorption process with smaller particle sizes providing more surface area for adsorption in a given
media volume.
250 -
200 -
3 150 -
U 100 -
E
1
50 -
Bed Volumes Treated
Figure VS-1. Uranium Concentration versus Bed Volumes Treated
Supplemental data provided by Brimac is presented in the report concerning adsorption rates and capacity
of the HA 216 media. Their documentation indicates that reducing the particle size of the media increases
the adsorption rate. Brimac is currently developing an approach to manufacture a smaller particle size
media. Brimac has indicated the need for additional verification testing in the future with a redesigned
treatment contactor and media.
Feed and treated water concentrations of cations and anions (calcium, magnesium, sodium, iron, silica,
chloride, sulfate, alkalinity, fluoride, nitrate, phosphorus) were about the same, with the exception of
phosphorus. The phosphorus levels increased from <0.05 mg/L in the source water to a concentration
range of 0.08 to 0.19 mg/L in the treated water. The F£A 216 adsorptive media contains calcium,
phosphorus, and hydroxide. The slight increase in phosphorus could be due to a small amount of
dissolution of the phosphorus from the media. The contribution appears small. There was minimal or no
increase in calcium or hydroxide (alkalinity) concentrations in the treated water.
System Operation
The test unit was simple and easy to operate, particularly since there were no pumps required for this
installation and no need for automated controls or backwash systems. Flow control was maintained by
one manual control valve and the source water was fed to the unit using well system pressure. In this
application with the treated water discharging by gravity to the sewer system, there was no concern with
operating the unit in-line with the water supply system. Time to operate and monitor the system was
NSF 10/33/EPADWCTR
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2010
VS-v
-------
minimal with most time being spent for sample collection. Over the testing period, the average time on
site was about 40 minutes each day (90 minutes, the first two days).
The feed water contained low turbidity and low TSS concentrations, and pressure buildup due to solids
entering the media bed was not observed. Other source waters may require pre-filtration and continuous
monitoring of inlet and outlet pressures to address possible media fouling conditions.
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL
NSF provided technical and QA oversight of the verification testing, including an on-site audit of
operating and sampling procedures. The NSF QA Department performed a QA review of the analytical
data. A complete description of the QA/QC procedures is provided in the verification report.
Original signed by Sally Gutierrez 10/06/10 Original signed by Robert Ferguson 09/17/10
Sally Gutierrez Date Robert Ferguson Date
Director Vice President
National Risk Management Research Water Systems
Laboratory NSF International
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
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 is not an NSF Certification of the specific product mentioned
herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the test protocol, the verification statement, and the verification report (NSF
report # NSF 10/33/EPADWCTR) are available from the following sources:
1. ETV Drinking Water Systems Center Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2. Electronic PDF copy
NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/info/etv
EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv
NSF 10/33/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2010
VS-vi
------- |