Sludge Pressure Filtration with Fly Ash Addition

Author(s): R. F. Nelson and B. D. Brattlof

Source: Journal (Water Pollution Control Federation), Vol. 51, No. 5 (May, 1979), pp. 1024-
1031
Published by: Wiley
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25039939
Accessed: 04-05-2020 15:06 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Wiley is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal (Water
Pollution Control Federation)

This content downloaded from 45.5.164.17 on Mon, 04 May 2020 15:06:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Sludge pressure filtration
with fly ash addition
R. F. Nelson, B. D. Brattlof
Union Carbide Corporation, South Charleston, W. Va.

Wastewater sludge disposal is a significant better than fly ash. Conditioning properties
part of the total cost for industrial wastewater of the ash did not change with repeated passes
treatment. Slurry side streams require dis through the system. The ash-conditioned
posal and are generated in both the primary sludge produced a filtrate of much higher
clarification step and secondary treatment. The quality than that produced by chemically con
biological sludges generated by secondary ditioned sludge. Because the moisture con
treatment, such as activated sludge, are low in tent of the ash-conditioned sludge cake gener
solids and quite difficult to dewater. Pressure ally was higher than that of chemically
filtration is one promising dewatering method conditioned sludge, incineration costs in
where low-solids (1 to 2%) sludge is concen creased. Chemical conditioning savings were
trated considerably (20 to 40%). found to be substantially more than the in
Ferric chloride and lime have been used creased incineration costs. A pilot-scale pres
most often to condition sludges before pres sure filtration study using both fly ash and
sure filtration. These conditioners can add sludge ash has been conducted at Cedar
significant weight and increase operating cost.Rapids.2 Again, ash increased de watering
One promising method for reducing dewater production and decreased chemical costs.
ing cost is the use of power plant fly ash or Neither sludge ash nor fly ash was always
better; the properties of each ash varied sig
other solid additives to substitute partially for
pressure filter chemicals. nificantly from source to source. One process
On-site laboratory and pilot pressure filtra uses recycled incinerated sludge ash as a con
tion tests?using fly ash with ferric chloride ditioning agent in the filter pressing of
and lime?have been conducted at a major sludges.3 Cost savings were reported for a
chemical plant with a mixture of primary typical ash recycling plant to handle municipal
(33 wt %) and secondary waste activated digested sludge. Fly ash has been used in
(67%) sludges. A useful procedure for study vacuum filtration dewatering of industrial pri
mary sludge4 as a filtering aid to use one
ing the effects of different levels of chemical
conditioning and fly ash body feed is pre waste product to dispose of another economic
sented. The impact of fly ash addition on a ally. Two patents 5' 6 utilizing ash relate to
sludge landfill is discussed and the economic particular equipment configurations and not
trade-offs identified. to the concept in general.

BACKGROUND RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Several authors17 have studied captured Ash characterization. Electrostatic precipi
power plant fly ash and incinerated sludge ash tator ash was obtained from the coal-burning
for sludge conditioning. Fly ash can be ob powerhouse at the chemical plant. With a
tained from on-site coal-burning power plants 0.2% concentration of the ash in deionized
at many industrial sites because it is an water, a 70 ^mho/cm conductivity and a pH
of 5.4 were measured. The conductivity in
abundant waste product. Sludge ash recycle
may be advantageous where sludge will be dicates a small solubilization of metal ions;
incinerated. Smith 1 investigated the effect of filtrate heavy metal concentrations were de
sludge ash from various sources and compared termined during pilot tests and are reported
sludge ash with fly ash for laboratory vacuum later. Micale 8 proposed a mechanism for ash
filter dewatering of biological sludges. Sludge assisted sludge dewatering where coulombic
solids filter yield was found to increase pro interaction between sludge particles and solid
portionally to the ash dosage; sludge ash was additives was important. While those ashes

1024 Journal WPCF, Vol. 51, No. 5

This content downloaded from 45.5.164.17 on Mon, 04 May 2020 15:06:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fly Ash

40 micron 10 micron
i-1
FIGURE 1. Fly ash scanning election micro

ll = filtrate viscosity,
contained a high concentration of water-soluble
salts in comparison toL =the thickness, and
sludge, the salts
solubilized from the ash R = resistance.
used here would con
tribute a very small proportion of the water
In a filter, resistance
soluble solids in the filter
sludge. is contributed by the
medium and Overcake 95% of the
fly ash particles were smaller than 44 pm.
dV APA
Scanning electron microscope photographs
(Figure 1) show that the particles have addi

'(f+^)
d?
tional internal surface area. Both size and
surface area are important factors in the ability
where
of ash to improve filterability.1' 2
Laboratory tests. The rate of filtrate flow
c = mass
for cake filtration can be of cake solids per as
expressed unit filtrate
the sum
of the total driving force volume,divided by the re
sistance. With Darcy'sr = specific
law resistance, and
Rm = resistance of filter medium.
dV = APA This equation can be integrated at constant
dd ~ pLR pressure to give
where
0 _ urcV uRm
V = filtrate volume, V 2APA2 APA
6 = filtration time,
AP = pressure drop across the cake and After an initial filtering period, the cake
cloth, resistance begins to control filtration rate and
A = filtration area, the second term is considered negligible. Data

May 1979 1025

This content downloaded from 45.5.164.17 on Mon, 04 May 2020 15:06:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nelson and Brattlof

Pressure
Regulator
-Pressure
Filter
Cylinder
Press
"Pressure
Relief
Effluent
Valve
Port

FIGURE 2. Filter press used in experiments. (Baroid Petroleum Services Division,

NL Industries Inc).

on filtrate volume with time were used to plot sis tance with fly ash addition was lowe
6/V (ordinate) versus V (abscissa). By using the measured specific resistance than wit
the slope of this line and other measured modified resistance. Improvements
parameters, the specific resistance, r, can be greater with the 60% chemical dose sl
calculated Improvements caused by both feed soli
centration and better conditioning are
2APA2b cant and show that some amount of
r =
uc An increase in feed solids concentr
without changing slope, b, or an improv
where
in conditioning (reduction in slope, b)
reduce specific resistance. The modifi
r = specific resistance, m/kg, cific resistance includes the effect of inc
AP = pressure, N/m2,
A = filter area, m2, feed solids only, whereas the measured sp
u = filtrate viscosity, N-s/nr, resistance includes both effects. Speci
c = mass of cake solids per unit filtrate
volume, kg/m3, and 20r
b = slope, s/m6. CVJ unconditioned r = 200 x id m/kg
O
In most low feed solids cases, c can be ap
15
proximated by the feed solids concentration
odified
in kilograms per cubic metre. The specific
resistance determined under pressure condi
tions can be used to provide a fairOindication
.^
10
c
of filterability in a pilot or full-scale pressure *"o^.
o
filter. It cannot provide information on measured
the "--a
filter medium required.
On-site laboratory tests withrrsludge ob
tained fresh daily were conducted using a
filter press (Figure 2). Operatingo
pressure
Q.
was 690 kN/m2. Two levels of conditioning
00
with ferric chloride and lime were used. A
0.5 15
previously established 2 kg/m3 FeCl3 and 10
kg/m3 lime as Ca(OH)2 conditioning dose was
selected as the base or 100% chemical dose; a parts/part sludge solids
Fly Ash,
60% dose also was tested. Four ratios of fly
ash:sludge solids were tested at each chemical
FIGURE 3. Specific resistance with ash at
dose (Figures 3 and 4). 100% chemical dose.

1026 Journal WPCF, Vol. 51, No. 5

This content downloaded from 45.5.164.17 on Mon, 04 May 2020 15:06:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Fly Ash
chloride and lime conditioning can be replaced FILTER CLOTHS
by fly ash. The fly ash acts as a body filter FIXED END /n r\
aid. When the aid is of the correct size and
shape, as is the fly ash in this case, the feed
mixture forms a cake pore structure that pre
vents migration of finely divided particles to or
through the filter medium.9 It is this action
that improves cake porosity and prevents filter
medium blinding. The mechanism of Micale 8
may also be a factor. Pilot-plant tests were
necessary to evaluate fully the filtration prop
erties of ferric chloride and lime-conditioned
sludge with and without fly ash addition.
Pilot tests. A recessed-plate filter press
(Figure 5) consists of movable plates with
filter cloth mounted over the two surfaces of
each plate. Sludge is pumped between the
plates, fills the vacant chambers, and builds
into a filter cake with time. Filtrate passes
through the filter cloth and is collected. After FILTRATE DRAIN HOLES
a period of time?the "press time"?the press
is opened and concentrated solids are dis FIGURE 5. Cutaway view of
charged. [After "Process Design Man
A recessed plate (30.5 cm by 30.5 cm Treatment and Disposal."
plate) pilot press with a total filter area of Transfer Publ. 625/1-74-006
0.355 m2 was used for the tests; feed was sup
plied by a pump. Three filter cakes, each sludge at approximately 2% con
approximately 1.9 cm thick, were obtained per brought to the maximum operat
690 kN/m2 after about 10 mi
test. A diatomaceous earth precoat was ap
tion. Filtrate was collected fo
plied at 0.73 kg/m2 filter area. Conditioned
analysis. Feed rate and filtra
50 measured at frequent interval
unconditionedtime"
r = was
200 the
x time when the
I0,2m/kg
0.83 ml/s. Suspended solid
were run on the filtrate compos
oj 40 composite was saved for m
O modified
Sections of the third (rear) fi
x
saved for solids analyses and f
O*
ity. These sections were obt
S 30 ming the cake edge and cente
E
effects.
cu
? The changes in weight of the feed drum
5
CO
20 and in the filtrate rate were quite rapid at first
1/5 while the volume between the plates filled.
? As the cake gradually built up and compressed,
the filtrate rate decreased (Figure 6). By
t "o
0)
Q.
the time the filtrate rate decreased to 0.83
ml/s, a hard sludge cake had formed and the
CO press was ready for cleaning.
Eleven tests were run to obtain pressure
filter sizing data, especially sludge solids yield.
0 05 1.0 1.5 Tests 1 and 2 were with a 100 and an 80%
chemical conditioning dose, respectively. Tests
Fly Ash, 3 through
parts /part 11 were sludge
with 60, 80, and 100%,
solids
chemical doses and with fly ash at approxi
FIGURE 4. Specific resistance
mately 0.8, 1.5, and 2.2 parts ash per part wit
60% chemical dose.
sludge solids for each level of chemical dose.

May 1979 1027

This content downloaded from 45.5.164.17 on Mon, 04 May 2020 15:06:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nelson and Brattlof
o>
V)
0)
O
O
S
CO
FIGURE 6. Example test run.
Experiment conditions of Tests 3 through 11
are for a 32 factorial design experiment. Fac
torial experiments are used to identify effects
of individual variables and of interactions be
tween variables. Interactions occur whenever
the effect of one variable depends on the level
of another variable. The results of all tests
are shown in Table I. With the sludge solids
yield data, a least-squares multiple-regression
mathematical model of pilot system perform
ance at the different levels of chemicals and
fly ash was obtained.
Yield, kg/m2-h = -1.46 + 0.034Z)
+0.0096DA known. Metals could be a problem because
where
D ? FeCl3,/lime, % of full dose, and
A ? fly ash, parts/part sludge solids.
This is shown graphically in Figure 7. Fol
lowing a constant sludge solids yield line,
identical yields can be obtained at reduced
chemical amounts with increased fly ash
amounts.
1028 Journal WPCF, Vol. 51, No. 5
This content downloaded from 45.5.164.17 on Mon, 04 May 2020 15:06:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
900
Metal solubilization from the fly ash to the
filtrate was considered to be one possible prob
lem area. Selected filtrates were analyzed by
atomic adsorption and emission spectropho
tometry. Results from Test 1 (no ash) and
Test 11 (high ash) are shown in Table II.
The fly ash would not contribute enough in
organics to cause toxic limits for biological
systems receiving filtrate to be exceeded.10
Landfill effects. Fly-ash conditioning will
affect landfill disposal of sludge in several ways.
Table II shows that leaching metals from fly
ash during filtration are not detrimental. How
ever, leachate from landfill conditions is un
of anaerobic and low-pH conditions common
in landfills. Eye et al1 investigated leachate
problems and found that organic problems
could be less because of the chemical oxygen
demand (cod) adsorptive capacity of fly ash.
Leachate control probably will still be re
quired.
The cake solids content reported in Table I
shows some scatter at the condition used to
terminate a filter run (0.83 ml/s filtrate rate).
 Fly
TABLE I. Pilot pressure filter tests with fly ash addition.
Chemicals* Solids Yield
(kg/m3) Fly Ash Feed Cycle (kg/m'.h) Cakec Filtrate
(parts/part Solids Time Solids SSd
Test FeCl3 Lime sludge) (%) (minutes) Sludge Totalb (%) (mg/1)

1 2 10 nil 1.94 85 1.7 2.8 37 <10

2 1.6 8 nil 2.23 150 1.2 1.7 37 60
3 2 10 0.73 2.31 45 3.3 7.2 47 60
4 2 10 1.46 2.28 40 3.3 9.7 43 30
5 2 10 1.94 2.26 30 3.7 13 41 85
6 1.6 0.84 2.05 75 1.8 4.0 41 500e
7 1.6 1.68 2.03 50 2.2 6.9 42 10
8 1.6 2.23 2.02 30 3.2 12 45 25
9 1.2 0.84 1.84 105 1.2 2.7 38 285e
10 1.2 1.68 1.82 65 1.7 5.1 48 65
11 1.2 2.23 1.81 55 1.8 6.5 48 60

* Plus 260 g Hy-Flow (0.73 kg/m2) precoat.

b Includes contribution from chemicals and fly ash; does not include precoat.
c Entire cake including precoat.
d Filtrate suspended solids.
e Precipitate formed on standing.

Nevertheless a trend can be noted toward in tation tires be used to place

creased cake dryness with increased fly ash landfill or that structurally s
dose. Use of fly ash, however, will result in asuch as soil, be blended w
larger volume of cake for disposal in spite ofBlending can require signif
this trend. A corresponding decrease in land soil, up to or even greater th
fill life will occur. volume of sludge. The prese
The structural characteristics of fly ash may
offset the decreased landfill life problem. Stud TABLE II. Filtrate metals a
ies have indicated that even the high levels
Concentrations
of dewatering offered by filter presses do not
(mg/1)
produce cakes suitable for landfilling by con
ventional techniques, that is, using tracked or Test 11
tired vehicles to place the material. Others Test 1 (2.23 parts ash/
have also found this to be true.11 It has been Metal (no ash) part sludge)
proposed that either equipment with high flo
Aluminum 0.6 37
Barium
Sludge Solids Yield, 5.5 2.4
kg/m2-hr Calcium 920 680
Copper <0.1 0.2
Iron 0.1 <0.1
8 Nickel 0.3 0.4
S Potassium 44 62
Sodium 1 740 2 460
Strontium 1.44 2.26
Zinc 0.06 0.03

a Metals showing no change and their concentra

tions in mg/1 are :

Antimony, <0.2 Manganese, <0.1

Beryllium, <0.2 Molybdenum, <0.2
0.5 1.0 15 20 2.5 Cadmium, <1 Silver, <0.1
Cobalt, <0.1 Silicon, <0.1
<0.1 Tin,Chromium,
Fly Ash, parts/port sludge solids <0.1
Lead, <0.1 Titanium, <0.1
FIGURE 7. Model of pilot
Magnesium, results.
<0.1 Vanadium, <0.2

May 1979 1029

This content downloaded from 45.5.164.17 on Mon, 04 May 2020 15:06:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Nelson and Brattlof

220t -"""?y TABLE III. Economie dif

the selected chemical and
g 2.00- / conditioning cases.
en . /
0 I // Item Fly Ash
Change When

1 ? 80 - /
O / Investment Increase by $11 000/ya
O 1.60- / O & M cost at 5% of
uj / z investment Increase by $15 000/y
/
z /
? / Chemical cost at $110/
ton ferric chloride and
t 1.40- /
^? /
/ $36/ton lime Decrease by $350 000/y
5 /
Fly ash cost Free
?? 120 -
Trucking cost Increases, but depends
on distance to land
1.001 i_I_I i_I_I_I_
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
fill
Landfill cost at $3.30/
TRUCK DISTANCE, Km ONE-WAY
wet ton Increase by $200 000/yb
FIGURE 8. Transportation
Total costs (paid to
private haul contractors ) for Decrease by $124 000/y
dewatered
less trucking costs
sludges hauled in dump truck (26 (See
to 33 m3
Figure 9)
capacity) for 30 to 70% solids at Chicago
Metropolitan Sanitary District. After Wyatt
a Debt repayment of $300 000 with 10% interest
and White.13
for 13 years including straight-line depreciation for
13 years and 48% federal tax rate.
the sludge cake is expected
b Assuming 40%to reduce
solids filter cake. these
requirements and, therefore, extend landfill life.
Economics. The manipulation
been identified. The site of one
specificity oper
of landfill
ation in a system often
economics affects
precludes a generalized other
economic unit
operations and the system
presentation. Rather, as a whole.
a hypothetical situation Al
though others 1_3 havewillconsidered
be used to present generalsystems
concepts. in
cluding incineration, this study
A plant producing has
45 000 kg/d of dryaddressed
sludge
solids was assumed. Its sludge will be con
itself only to a conditioning/dewatering/trans
portation/landfilling ditioned,
system. A tradeoff
filter-press dewatered, transported, be
and placed in the landfill. Landfill costs
tween fly ash use and transportation costs were has

125 ir

- Landfill at Dewatering
Si 100 Site with no Trucking

<
u_ 75 16 400 tonne sludge/yr
o?
c

1 50
'>
O
O)

o 25 33 km

10 20 30 40

-25 Distance to Landfill, km

FIGURE 9. Tradeoff beween use of fly ash conditioning and haul distance to landf

1030 Journal WPCF, Vol. 51, No. 5

This content downloaded from 45.5.164.17 on Mon, 04 May 2020 15:06:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

assumed to be $3.30/wet ton of landfilled ma
terial.12 As noted earlier, inclusion of a fly
ash conditioner may produce a cake more suit
able for landfilling. This potential improve
ment was not included in the evaluation.
Two conditioning cases were selected that
produced the same filter yield (and, therefore,
required identical filter capacity). One case
was the 100% dose of ferric chloride and lime,
the other was a dose of 1.8 parts fly ash/part
dry sludge solids with a 66% dose of chem
icals. The second case would require an addi
tional capital expense of $300 000 over the
chemical conditioning case. The investment
increase would be for fly ash storage, handling,
and feeding equipment, part of which is offset
slightly by chemical storage facility savings.
Wyatt, et al.ls presented truck transport costs
for the Chicago Metropolitan Sanitary District
(Figure 8) that compare favorably with
Godfrey.12
Table III summarizes the economic consid
erations of this example. It notes the differ
ences between the two conditioning cases be
ing considered.
Figure 9 presents the cost differences be
tween chemical and fly ash/chemical condi
tioning with trucking distance to the landfill.
For landfill locations closer than 33 km, it is
more economical to use the fly ash/chemical
conditioning case. For locations farther than
this, chemical conditioning alone is more
economical.
The above economics are not generalized
but only an example of the possible savings
associated with fly ash conditioning for land
filling. Each plant location must be evaluated
on the basis of its own situation.
CONCLUSIONS
Fly ash acts as a body filter aid. Filtration
is improved because of filter aid cake porosity
effects and increased feed solids.
A factorial design experiment can be used
to obtain a model of process performance.
Predictions obtained from this model can be
used to predict the amount of chemical savings
that can be obtained with fly ash addition. Fly
ash addition at about 1.8 parts ash/part sludge
solids replaced about 35% of the chemical
conditioning requirements with no increase in
filter size.
No significant amounts of heavy metals were
solubilized from the ash.
At a given design level of chemicals and
fly ash, rated equipment capacity could be in
This content downloaded from 45.5.164.17 on Mon, 04 May 2020 15:06:21 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Fly Ash
creased to handle surge loads by increasing the
amount of chemicals. This flexibility could be
useful.
A tradeoff was identified between chemical
savings and increased trucking costs: it is more
economical to use fly ash if the landfill is closer
than 33 km. If the landfill is at the dewater
ing site so that trucking is not involved, an
annual savings of $7.50/ton of sludge solids
was realized.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Authors. R. F. Nelson and B. D. Brattlof
are associated with Chemicals and Plastics,
Union Carbide Corp., South Charleston, W.
Va.
REFERENCES
1. Smith, J. E., et al, "Sludge Conditioning with
Incinerator Ash." Proc. 27th Ind. Waste
Conf., Purdue Univ., Ext. Series No. 141
(1974).
2. Gerlich, J. W., "Pressure Filtration of Waste
water Sludge with Ash Filter Aid." EPA
Ser., EPA-R2-231 (1973).
3. F?rster, H. W., "Sludge Dewatering by Pres
sure Filtration." Amer. Inst. Chem. Eng.
Symp. Ser. Water-1972 (1973).
4. Moehle, F. W., "Fly Ash Aids in Sludge Dis
posal." Environ. Sei. ir TechnoL, 1, 5
(1967).
5. Busse, O., "Sewage Disposal Involving Filtra
tion of the Sewage." U. S. Pat. 3,279,603
(1966).
6. Baumann, G. P., and Thomas, G. D. J., "Ad
dition of Ash and Lime to Sludge." U. S.
Pat. 3,342,731 (1967).
7. Eye, J. D., and Basu, T. K., "The Use of Fly
Ash in Wastewater Treatment and Sludge
Conditioning." Jour. Water Poll. Control
Fed., 42, R125 (1970).
8. Micale, F. J., "A Mechanism for Ash Assisted
Sludge Dewatering." EPA-600/2-76-297
(1976).
9. Thomas, C. M., "Facts about Filtration-Pre
treatment." Filtration ?r Separation (G. B.),
(t 13, 275 (1976).
10. "Federal Guidelines: Pretreatment of Pol
lutants Introduced Into Publicly Owned
Treatment Works." U. S. EPA (October
1973).
11. Peruzzi, R. V., Rohm and Haas Company,
personal communication ( 1976 ).
12. Godfrey, R. S. [Ed.], "Building Construction
Cost Data 1976." Robert Snow Means Com
pany, Inc., p. 34 (1976).
13. Wyatt, J. M., and White, F. E., Jr., "Sludge
Processing Transportation and Disposal/
Resource Recovery: A Planning Perspec
tive." Water Quality Management Guid
ance, WPD 12-75-01, EPA (1975).
May 1979 1031