Selection of an Ozone Dissolution System for the Tampa Bay

Regional Water Treatment Plant

Chandra Mysore1, Jérôme Leparc1, Michele Prevost1, Joe Zuback1

and Christine Owen2
1
US Filter, Two Sun Court,
Suite 220, Atlanta, GA-30092, USA
2
Water Quality Assurance Officer, Tampa Bay Water
2535 Landmark Drive, Suite 211
Clearwater, FL 33761, USA

Abstract

The newly built Tampa Bay Regional Water Treatment Plant consists of
USFilter's patented process called ACTIFLO (ballasted flocculation), ozonation
followed by biologically active filtration and chloramination for secondary
disinfection. Several alternatives were considered for ozone dissolution: fine
bubble diffusion contactors, in-line injectors and static mixers. After a thorough
qualitative and quantitative evaluation of the various alternatives, static mixers
were selected for ozone dissolution. This paper will discuss the “science” that
influenced the selection of the ozonation process along with the pilot study results
that led to the construction of the largest, state-of-the-art plant in the US
incorporating static mixers for ozone dissolution.

Introduction

In October of 2002, one of the nation's largest design-build-operate (DBO) projects for water
services, the Tampa Bay Regional Water Treatment Plant (TBRWTP), officially came on line
serving the Tampa Bay region in west-central Florida. TBRWTP is owned by regional utility
Tampa Bay Water and has a capacity of 66-million-gallons-per-day. It was completed in only 28
months by a team consisting of CDM, US Filter and Clark construction in one of the nation’s
largest DBO contracts. It will be operated for the next 15 years by USFilter Operating Services
(USFilter). Tampa Bay Water, a consortium of six municipalities, is the largest wholesale
supplier of water in Florida, providing water to its members who in turn supply it to nearly two
million residents of the area. The plant is the cornerstone in the first phase of its regional Master
Water Plan. The public-private partnership is USFilter's largest in Florida, and the plant is among
the most technologically sophisticated in the world employing state-of-the-art technologies for
water treatment.

1
In March 2000, Tampa Bay Water awarded USFilter the contract to design, build and operate the
facility. The agreement represented an essential component of Tampa Bay Water's plan to meet
the region's need for new drinking water supplies. Water from four supply sources; Hillsborough
and Alafia rivers, Tampa Bypass Canal, and a new offline raw water reservoir (storing water
from the preceding sources) will be treated at this plant. The raw water quality entering the plant
is shown in Table 1.

Table 1. General Raw Water Quality Characteristics

Parameter Range Average
Water Temperature (°C) 10-30 23
pH 7.5-7.8 7.6
Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/L) 40 – 200 110
Color (PCU) 23-300 100
Bromide (µg/L) 110-120 100
TOC (mg C/L) 3.9-32 12
Turbidity (NTU) 0.6-10 1.9
Iron (mg/L) 0.01-1.2 0.35
Total Nitrogen 0.2-1.6 0.8
TON 8-40 12

The new water plant was designed and built using an extremely cost-effective and efficient
process that incorporated some of the water industry's most advanced technologies. Selection of
the water treatment process for the plant was based on providing multiple barriers for all major
water quality concerns and to minimize the overall plant footprint. The new water treatment
plant process consists of the USFilter's patented process called ACTIFLO (ballasted
flocculation), ozonation followed by biologically active filtration, chloramination for secondary
disinfection, waste washwater recovery and sludge dewatering facilities (Figure 1). ACTIFLO is
widely used throughout the world and is particularly advantageous when treating large flow rates
with variable raw water quality - the conditions confronting the regional water treatment plant.
The contract specified water quality criteria that were stricter than those required by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency's Safe Drinking Water Act and the even tougher
parameters set forth in Tampa Bay Water's governance agreements with its member
governments. Ozonation was employed for primary disinfection (1 log inactivation of
Cryptosporidium), taste and odor control, and partial conversion of dissolved organic carbon to
an assimilable or biodegradable form. A significant amount of process studies and pre-
engineering was performed to support the selected treatment process. This paper will
specifically discuss the “science” that influenced the selection of the ozone dissolution process
along with the pilot study results that led to the construction of the largest, state-of-the-art plant
in the US incorporating static mixers for ozone dissolution.

2
Figure 1. Schematic of the various unit processes at the TBRWTP

Alternatives considered for Ozone Dissolution

Several alternatives were considered for ozone dissolution: fine bubble diffusion contactors, in-
line ozone injectors and static mixers. A brief description of the each dissolution method
follows:

1. Fine Bubble Diffusion (FBD) Contactors: The contactors of this type have been widely
employed in the design of several ozonation systems for many years and are comprised of co-
current or counter-current ozone dissolution chambers followed by reaction chambers. Ozone is
diffused through bubble diffusers (e.g. dome-type ceramic diffusers) which are evenly spaced in
the dissolution chambers.

2. In-Line Injectors: Ozonized gas can be injected into the liquid stream under positive or
negative pressure. Negative pressure injection of ozone usually involves water flowing rapidly
through a pipe past a small orifice, creating a venturi effect (partial vaccum) that pulls the gas
through the orifice into the water stream. Often, a sidestream of the total plant flow is pumped at
elevated pressure into a separate line where the orifice is located in order to produce a better
partial vacuum. The entire gas stream is injected into the sidestream, and then the sidestream is
quickly combined with the rest of the plant flow in a large pipe that serves as the
contactor/reactor. In-line injectors are becoming popular as they are simple systems with very
low maintenance requirements due to lack of moving parts and ozone dissolution can be
accomplished in a smaller footprint as compared to FBD contactors. Two common types of
venturi injectors are the side stream venturi injection down flow tube (SVI-DT) and the side
stream venturi injection J tube (SVI-JT). In the SVI-DT, sidestream venturi injectors are used to
introduce ozone gas into downflow tubes under highly turbulent conditions conducive to
vigorous mixing and high mass transfer efficiencies. Gas bubble coring can occur in the DT,

3
especially at high flows (1). The SVI-JT is an improvement over the SVI-DT system. It differs
from the SVI-DT in that the injection equipment (four 4 inch Mazzei high-efficiency venturi
injectors) is located outside the contactor in the pipe gallery rather than submerged within the
contactor which provides much improved access for maintenance, injectors are located radially
and as high on the J-shaped downflow tube as possible and positioned at a 90-degree angle to the
vertical pipe and staggered to minimize back pressure on the injectors, and the J-tube goes below
grade to increase the partial pressure of the ozone gas to achieve good mixing thus maximizing
operating capacity and mass transfer efficiency. A deflector plate is built at the outlet of the J-
tube to achieve a stable ozone residual profile. One J-tube per train was proposed for the
TBRWTP (Figure 2).

3. Static Mixers: Since 1990, static mixers have been increasingly used to enhance ozone
transfer in water treatment in Europe (2). A static mixer consists of a series of stationary mixing
elements inserted end to end along the direction of flow in a pipe. Each of the mixing elements
is a rigid structure which divides and recombines the flow stream. The fluid is directed through
the flow channels provided by the mixing elements. The fluid becomes more homogeneous
along the length of the elements. The introduction of static mixing elements not only accelerates
radial mixing but also produces a higher and more uniform rate of turbulent energy dissipation,
thereby promoting micromixing. Various shapes of static mixer elements exist depending on the
manufacturer (Table 2). The static mixer offers another alternative method for improving the
efficiency of the dissolution of ozone gas and for optimizing the use of ozone in the disinfection
process. Compared to more traditional contacting devices, such as mechanically stirred tanks,
turbine agitators, and bubble column contactors, static mixers offer the following advantages: 1)
the same amount of ozone transfer can be achieved in a vessel of much smaller size, shorter
hydraulic retention time, and with good transfer efficiency, 2) near plug flow with a high degree
of radial mixing and very little backmixing produces very uniform dissolved ozone residual and
prevents hydraulic short circuiting (this ensures that all microorganisms in the water are exposed
to the same homogeneous ozone concentration), and 3) low maintenance, reliability and
retrofitability.

Veolia Environment (parent company of US Filter) operates numerous full-scale plants in

France, Australia and the UK equipped with static mixers for pre-ozonation and intermediate
ozonation and has extensive experience in their operation. Table 3 shows several full-scale
plants employing static mixers for pre- and intermediate ozonation. These mixers have exhibited
very high transfer efficiencies; up to 99% were recorded in the UK (3), very effective in
destroying pesticides such as atrazine, inactivating microbes, removal of color, lowering bromate
formation, and eliminating taste and odor problems, all within a few seconds.

4
Figure 2. Configuration of the SVI-JT system considered for the TBRWTP

5
 Table 3. Full-scale plants employing Static Mixers for Ozonation
Site Country Location of Water Number of Side- Configuration Mixer
Ozone Flow parallel stream diameter/
Treatment (MGD) streams with static number
mixer of mixing
elements
1
Walton UK Pre- and 15 2,2 No Horizontal 1.7'/4
Intermediate Horizontal
Ozonation
1
Chertsey UK Same as 15 3,2 No Horizontal 2'/4,
above Vertical 1.64'/
1
Egham UK Same as 41 3,2 No Horizontal 3.3'/4,
above Horizonal 2.3'/
1
Tophill Low UK Pre-Ozonation 19 1 Yes Horizontal 2.2’/3
1
Clay Lane UK Pre-Ozonation 41 2 Yes Horizontal 3.0'/4
Melunada France Intermediate 22 1 Yes Vertical 2.6'/4
1
Arvigny
Agen France Pre-ozonation 3 1 No Horizontal 1.6’/3
1
Bouillon-la- France Post- 3 1 No Horizontal 1.64’
Graviere Ozonation
1
Ardleigh UK Intermediate 26 2 No Horizontal 2.7’/3
1
CSK Mol Belgium Pre-ozonation 0.13 1 No Horizontal 0.33’
1
Mery-sur- France Intermediate 45 4 Yes Vertical 3.3’
Oise
1
St-Chamond France Pre-Ozonation 4 1 No Horizontal 1.7’/3
1
Leon Italy Pre-Ozonation 0.7 1 Horizontal 1.0’/3
1
Queensland Australia Intermediate 37 2 Yes Horizontal 3.6’/3
1
KynetonAustralia Intermediate 2.2 1 Yes Horizontal 1.5’/3
1
CastelmaineAustralia Intermediate 5 1 Yes Horizontal 1.75’/3
1
BendigoAustralia Intermediate 35 2 Yes Horizontal 3.3’/3
1
Landers ShuteAustralia Pre- and 40 1 Yes Horizontal 3.6’/3
Intermediate
Wiggins WTP South Pre-Ozonation 94 4 No Horizontal 3.3/5
Africa
1
Operated by Veolia Environment

The alternative ozone dissolution system considered for TBRWTP was the gas dispersion
systems (GDS) from Statiflo, a company based in England. The suggested design incorporated
two GDS’s, one to operate in conjunction with each ozone contactor at a flowrate of 33 MGD.
Each GDS consisted of a large static mixer (diameter =3.3 feet, 3 helical elements) along with a
small motive water pump, vacuum eductor ejector, pre-disperser (a small static mixer of
diameter=2.6”, 4 elements), the associated ancillary interconnecting pipe work, and valves and
gauges as shown in Figure 3. The mixing elements form right and left hand helices. These
elements are alternated and oriented so that each leading edge is at 900 to the trailing edge of one

7
ahead. In service, a small quantity of incoming water (about 0.6% of the mainflow) is taken by
the motive water pump. The high velocity of flow through the eductor/ejector generates a
vacuum for the ozone eduction. The gas/liquid stream then passes through the pre-disperser
static mixer which operates at very high velocities and shear rate to form tiny gas bubbles (≅ 570
microns). These are then re-introduced into the main mixer contactor which is designed to
operate at an extremely low headloss (less than a foot) and ensure intimate contacting between
the gas and liquid phases. For the process train and plant hydraulic design recommended for
TBRWTP, the head available was 3.4 feet which was much more than the head required to
operate the static mixer without any pumping.

A qualitative evaluation of the various alternatives proposed for ozone dissolution at the
TBRWTP is shown in Table 4. A cost comparison of the various alternatives proposed for ozone
dissolution at the TBRWTP is shown in Table 5. The cost comparison is only between the
dissolution system used for the systems, i.e. the GDS, SVI-JT and the injection chambers of the
FBD system. The cost of the reaction chambers and ancillary equipment is not shown here as the
cost is similar for all systems.

OZONE IN

>> PUMP
EDUCTOR

PRE DISPERSER (small static mixer

SIDESTREAM
(0.2 MGD)

with 4 elements)
4 in.
<<
2 ft.

42 in.
MAIN FLOW
33 MGD MAIN STATIC MIXER (3 helical elements)
12 ft.

Figure 3. Configuration of the ozone dissolution system considered for the TBRWTP

8
 Table 4. A comparison of Performance and Operability of the SVI-JT, FBD, and GDS
ozonation systems proposed for TBRWTP

No. Features SVI-JT System FBD System GDS System

1. Mass Transfer TE>95% at normal flow TE>95% at normal or TE>95% at all flow
Efficiency (TE) rates. J-shaped peak flow rates. TE will rates. Exhibits very
downflow tube with be less at low flow rates stable TE’s during
deflectors are necessary due to channeling critical low flows, low
to affect mixing. TE effects. No mixing doses and low ozone
affected by low flow mechanism is available concentrations
rates. To maintain high like blades in the static conducive to more
TE some SVI-JT need to mixer. Incomplete reliable performance.
be taken out of service. mixing and low TE
Jet mixing is a relatively during low flows, e.g. Clay Lane WTP,
inefficient means of low/high ozone doses UK: TE= 98-99% were
obtaining mixing. No means wastage and recorded in the UK (3)
mixing mechanism is destruction of unused resulting in 20%
available like blades in ozone which can have a reduction in applied
the static mixer. System significant impact on the ozone dose (significant
relies on natural overall cost in the long cost savings over 30
turbulence to achieve run. years)
good mixing.

1a. Velocity Gradient G=600-900 G=50-150 G=1000-4000 in main

(G in sec-1) SM (Higher G indicates
more turbulent, uniform,
complete mixing). High
mass transfer coefficient
(kLa)=0.1 to 10 s-1
(100 to 1000 times
greater than FBD)
1b. Gas Bubble Size No mechanism to No mechanism to The pre-disperser static
produce tiny bubbles produce tiny bubbles mixer operates at very
essential for good mass essential for good mass high velocities and shear
transfer. Gas bubble transfer. Bubble size rate to form tiny gas
coring can occur in the varies between 2-3 mm. bubbles with a tight size
JT. Using an injector as distribution (≈ 570
a bubble generator is a microns). The smaller
compromise in the bubbles increase the
design. gas/liquid interfacial
surface area for
enhancing mass transfer
of ozone into the water.
Gas bubble size is
generated independently
of the main liquid
velocity.

9
 Table 4. A comparison of Performance and Operability of the SVI-JT, FBD, and GDS
ozonation systems proposed for TBRWTP (Contd)

No. Features SVI-JT System FBD System GDS System

2. Turn-down ratio Water = 2.2:1 Water = 2.5:1 Water = 6:1, variable
Gas = Unlimited Gas = 6:1 flowrate capability
Gas = Unlimited
Impact of higher gas
flow and water flow
turndown is that the
number of trains
required is less than
other systems.
3. Hydraulic efficiency Moderate. Short Low. Short circuiting High. Plug flow with
circuiting and and backmixing with radial mixing. No short
backmixing can occur as little plug flow. circuiting and
ozone and water flow Homogenous mixing is backmixing. A
are co-current with little not possible in the homogeneous,
plug flow. Homogenous injection chamber monophasic solution of
mixing is not possible in (vertical channeling ozone in the water is
the JTs (gas bubble effects). Exhibits highly produced (very stable,
coring can occur long variable ozone uniform ozone
the centerline and residuals at the outlet of residuals) at the outlet of
streamlining of water the injection chamber the main static mixer in
flows along the which complicates a short time resulting in
periphery of the tube) monitoring and control reduction of
especially at low flows. of the ozone process, downstream contactors.
There is no radial flow leading to higher Hydraulic distribution is
and rich and poor layers operating costs and more uniform and full
of ozone can form. J- incomplete treatment of contactor volume is
tube has to be built the water. available for
below grade with a disinfection contact
deflector plate for time. CT is optimized.
increased dissolution of GDS system can be
ozone and production of operated either in
stable residuals. vertical/horizontal
configuration and can be
directly connected to
contactors above
ground.
4. Footprint Moderate. As J-tube has Large. No credit for CT Small. As the GDS
to be built below grade is given for the system can be fitted in a
it increases construction injection/transfer vertical configuration
costs and poses chamber, resulting in and since no
maintenance issues. wastage of space (higher design/construction of
HDT) and increase in injection/transfer
construction costs. chambers are necessary,
the small footprint
(lower HDT) results in
savings in construction
costs. CT is optimized

10
 Table 4. A comparison of Performance and Operability of the SVI-JT, FBD, and GDS
ozonation systems proposed for TBRWTP (Contd)

No. Features SVI-JT System FBD System GDS System

5. Disinfection Efficiency No studies are available. Production of a non- Excellent due to
homogenous ozone superior mixing, plug
solution and variability flow conditions and
in ozone residual affects highly stable and
disinfection efficiency. uniform ozone residuals
(4-16). Inactivation
credit calculations are
more accurate.
6. Oxidation Oxidation reactions Oxidation reactions Micropollutants, taste
affected by inadequate affected by inadequate and odor compounds
mixing. Efficient mixing. Efficient are oxidized within
oxidation of oxidation of seconds in the static
micropollutants, taste micropollutants, taste mixer. (17)
and odor compounds and odor compounds
is not possible. is not possible.

7. Operation No moving parts. Simple to operate and Completely sealed

Simple to operate and automate. system, has no open
automate. tanks. No moving parts.
Simple to operate and
automate. Mixing
elements can be
removed for periodic
cleaning.
8. Maintenance Venturi injection system The porous plates of Static mixers have no
(eductors) has to be FBD systems have small moving parts and as
cleaned periodically as holes which get plugged such require minimal
there is a potential for (iron or/and manganese) maintenance and have
iron/microbial fouling. requiring frequent no small holes which
J-tube below grade maintenance, are prone could be gradually
poses maintenance to corrosion, the porous plugged. Pumps need to
problems. Pumps need plates themselves have be replaced every 5-10
to be replaced every 5- to be replaced every 5 years.
10 years. years and the rubber
gaskets are subject to
fouling/wear and tear
and have to be replaced
bi-yearly.
9. Energy consumption High. Requires pump Low. Pumping may be Low. Requires pump
(sidestream is 3.3% of necessary in some (sidestream is 0.6-1.0%
mainflow, water has to instances. of the mainflow,
be lifted by 20-25 feet, energy=5.82 KW/pump)
energy= 14.1 Hence, lower pumping
KW/pump). Hence, costs. Each component
higher pumping costs. is optimized which
results in energy
savings.
10. Capital and O&M Costs Moderate-High High Low
(see Table 5)

11
 Table 4. A comparison of Performance and Operability of the SVI-JT, FBD, and GDS
ozonation systems proposed for TBRWTP (Contd)

No. Features SVI-JT System FBD System GDS System

11. Bromate Formation No studies available. Moderate-high. Low Bromate Formation
potential in certain
waters (4, 11).

12. Headloss Low to moderate Low As the sidestream static

headloss. (18 inches) mixer makes the tiny
bubbles and the main
static mixer provides
residence time for
efficient transfer, the
main static mixer is
designed to operate
under a headloss of <1
foot.
13. Retrofitability and Moderate Poor Excellent.
Upgrading Capabilities

12
 Table 5. A cost comparison of the SVI-JT, FBD and the GDS system proposed for
TBRWTP (66 MGD Total Flow, 33 MGD/train)

Description GDS System FBD System SVI-JT Comments

Total Number of Static 2 4 2 4 injection chambers
Mixers/Injection (2 per train)
Chambers/SVI-JTs
Capital Cost ($) 96,600 (48,300/GDS) 420,000 201,250 Injection chamber
cost includes cost of
land ($100/sq. ft),
concrete, steel
piping, diffusers and
diffuser manifold)

Capital Cost of Standby 9000 --- Standby pump 1 standby pump

Pump ($) (4,500/GDS) included in Capital 2 pumps in duty
Cost
Energy Consumption 11.64 --- 28.2
(KW) (2 pumps at 5.82 KW (2 pumps at 14.1 KW
each) each)
Present Worth 84,428 --- 204,543 I=6%, N=30 years,
Energy Cost ($) $0.06/KW-hr
Spare Parts 20,000 110,000 20,000 · pumps every 10
(approximate) years and
maintenance
· diffusers every 5
years, diffuser
manifold every
15 years for the
FBD system
Total Present Worth 205,528 530,000 425,793
Costs for an Ozone Dose
of 4 mg/L ($)
NOTES: (i) Costs does not include the savings realized by building a smaller contactor (no need to build an
injection/transfer chamber or a J-tube below grade with a vault) while using a static mixer (small footprint). (ii) By
adopting the GDS system a savings in applied ozone can be realized. For Tampa Bay this cost savings could
amount to $616,528 over 30 years. (iii) Add to these costs the costs of contactors, piping, ozone generation
equipment, chemicals, compressors and ancillary equipment which should be similar for all systems.

Based on the technical information and the costs presented above, it was decided to employ the
GDS system with static mixers for the TBRWTP. In addition, other compelling reasons to select
the static mixer system over other systems are given below:

1. The results from a recently completed AwwaRF project showed that intense mixing and ozone
transfer through the static mixer elements leads to a much faster ozone dissolution and
systematically higher Ct values along the static mixer unit than those provided through the FBD
unit (18). This study also showed that Ct requirements could be lowered by 42% to 52% to
achieve the same level of Cryptosporidium inactivation. The utilization of static mixers as an
ozone dissolution technology can lead to reduction in the contactor size downstream of the ozone
dissolution system as targeted inactivation efficiencies are reached more quickly with an
optimized Ct as compared to FBD systems. Inactivation data obtained with Bacillus subtilis
showed that the static mixer unit provided enhanced inactivation (0.4 to 2.9 Log more than FBD
unit) under similar applied ozone doses, water quality conditions, and equivalent contact times.

13
As the hydraulic residence time (HRT) of the static mixer is very small (few seconds), the
overall footprint of the ozonation process is also significantly reduced when compared to a FBD
system which needs a large injection chamber for ozone dissolution. This overall reduction in
HRT (25 to 45% reductions) for the ozone contactors results in significant savings in capital,
operation and maintenance (O & M) costs.

2. Bench-scale studies have demonstrated that a static mixer, when integrated into a well-
designed, continuous-plug flow ozone contacting system, can achieve excellent and predictable
Cryptosporidium parvum inactivation (7, 8). In such a system, Cryptosporidium parvum
inactivation can be predicted using relatively straightforward modeling techniques. Measured
Cryptosporidium parvum inactivation was equivalent to (or slightly better) than that predicted
using the published kinetic model of inactivation by ozone assuming plug flow hydrodynamics.

3. For a given ozone concentration, the most efficient operation is at a low G/L and high feed gas
ozone concentration. Improved transfer efficiency at low gas flows is an advantage of static
mixers because it means that these devices can be effectively integrated with modern, high-
concentration, medium frequency ozone generators. High concentration ozone systems reduce
specific energy consumption. In comparison, conventional fine bubble diffusion systems are
limited by a requirement of sufficient gas flow rate to ensure adequate gas-liquid mixing and
ozone dissolution (19).

4. Proven full-scale reliability and track record within Veolia Environment. Veolia Environment
operates about 17 plants equipped with static mixers for ozone dissolution.

The next step in the project was to conduct pilot studies to develop design parameters, address
scale-up issues and study bromate formation.

Pilot Studies

Given the variable nature of the water sources, large-scale pilot testing was conducted at the
Lake Manatee Water Treatment Plant, Florida to demonstrate that the Actiflo technology
combined with static mixers for ozonation offered better finished water quality, improved
process reliability, reduced treatment costs and space requirements over the conventional design
originally planned by the water board. Pilot-scale testing was conducted using an Actiflo unit
coupled with an ozone-static mixer pilot unit (SMU). The objectives of this study were to:
evaluate the TOC and turbidity removal capability of the Actiflo process, ozone demand
characteristics of the water exiting the Actiflo process, determine the CT that could be obtained
with a static mixer unit and assist us in predicting the CT that could be obtained in the full-scale
plant, quantify the potential bromate formation testing during ozonation treatment, and define the
most efficient strategy to control bromate formation (pH reduction or/and ammonia injection).

The pilot ozone contacting system (flowrate = 3 gpm) consisted of a ½” ID static mixer for rapid
ozone dissolution, a vertical bubble column (ID = 4”) for additional ozone dissolution and gas-
liquid separation, and four contact columns (ID = 10”) to provide extended contact time (24
minutes) for disinfection purposes (Figure 4). Ozonated gas, produced by an oxygen-fed ozone

14
generator (Pacific Ozone Company), was introduced into the center of the ½” ID pipe directly
upstream of the static mixer.

Transfer Efficiency

Ozone concentration in feed-gas (CO3,f) and off-gas (CO3,o) was measured in accordance with the
potassium iodide absorption method (20). Liquid samples were collected along the pilot unit for
ozone residual measurement using the indigo trisulphonate colorimetric method (21). Transfer
efficiency (TE) was calculated as follows:

TE(%)=100× CO3, f −CO3,o Equation [1]

CO3, f

CT Concept

CT product was calculated as recommended by the EPA guidelines (22) by integrating the T10
concept, which adds a safety factor due to the hydrodynamic behavior (eventual dispersion or
backmixing) through the ozone contactor.

∑C
T10,i
CT = out,i ×HRTi × Equation [2]
i =1
HRTi

HRTi : hydraulic residence time of the contact column “i”

T10,i : time required for 10% of the injected tracer to exit the contact column “i”
Cout,i : ozone residual at the outlet of the contact column “i”
T
As the four contact columns are identical, the 10,i ratio can be considered similar for each
HRTi
column. Through experimental tracer testing that ratio was found equal to 0.87 (18).

Bromate Minimization Strategies

Two strategies to control bromate formation were investigated over the different ozonation
conditions: 1) pH at 5.5, 6.0, 6.5, and 2) ammonia injection at two dosages (0.35 mg/L as N and
1.15 mg/L as N). Three ozone doses (low=1.5 mg/L, medium=2.0 mg/L and high=3.5 mg/L)
were tested. Samples were analyzed for bromate by Montgomery Watson Laboratories (20).

Results

Using ferric sulfate as a coagulant (dose = 70 mg/L) and operating under optimized coagulation
conditions (pH=4.2-4.5), the Actiflo process removed 70-75% of the incoming TOC in the raw
water. Ranges for each water quality parameter collected at the inlet of the ozone-static mixer
pilot unit for each trial during the period of testing are shown in Table 3. Transfer efficiencies
obtained during the studies ranged between 90-95%. The ozone demand ranged from 0.8 mg/L
to 1.3 mg/L (ozone decay constant = 0.053-0.25 min-1). According to those results, neither the

15
ozone treatment condition nor the pH level remarkably affects the ozone demand. Figure 5
shows the ozone residuals and CT’s profiles for the most significant trials.

off-gas sampling

destructor
sampling sampling sampling
pressure gauge

separator water
column outlet
gas
gas ozone flowmeter Backflow
preventer
monitor

sampling sampling

ozonator
sampling static
sampling
mixer
contact
O2
flowmeter reactor
air
concentrator
drain

Water from
Actiflo

Holding Tank
pH Adjustement
NH4OH injection

Figure 4. Experimental set-up of the ozone static mixer unit

Table 6. Water Quality during the Pilot Study

Water-Quality Parameter Actiflo Effluent
DOC (mg/L) 3.1 – 4.1
TOC (mg/L) 3.2 – 4.0
Alkalinity (mg CaCO3/L) 1 – 11.6
Turbidity (NTU) 0.80 – 1.25
Temperature (°C) 20 – 21
[Br-] (µg/L) 110 - 120

16
 [O3], Ozone Dose = 3.5 mg/L, Low Ozone Decay [O3], Ozone Dose = 3.5 mg/L, High Ozone Decay
[O3], Ozone Dose = 2.0 mg/L, Low Ozone Decay [O3], Ozone Dose = 2.0 mg/L , High Ozone Decay
CT, Ozone Dose = 3.5 mg/L, Low Ozone Decay CT, Ozone Dose = 3.5 mg/L, High Ozone Decay
CT, Ozone Dose = 2.0 mg/L, Low Ozone Decay CT, Ozone Dose = 2.0 mg/L, High Ozone Decay

2.5 25

2.0 20
Ozone Residual, [O3] (mg/L)

CT(mg.min/L)
1.5 15

1.0 10

0.5 5

0.0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Hydraulic Residence Time (min)
Figure 5. Ozone residuals and CT profiles

CT’s after an overall contact time of 15 minutes range between:

• 1 and 4 mg.min/L for an ozone dose of 2.0 mg/L (0.5-0.6 mg O3/mg C)
• 10 and 14 mg.min/L for an ozone dose of 3.5 mg/L (0.9-1.1 mg O3/mg C)

An earlier pilot study with the FBD contactors yielded only a maximum CT value of 2 mg.min/L
with an ozone dose of 3.5 mg/L under similar water quality conditions. SMU unit clearly
yielded higher CT values than the FBD contactors and these results were consistent with results
observed in a previous study (18).

For each trial, three samples were taken for along the contact columns for bromate analysis.
Each sample was collected in duplicate. For all the samples analyzed, the bromate concentration
was found under the detection limit (5 µg/L). Whatever the operating conditions: i) ozone dose
from 1.5 mg/L up to 3.5 mg/L, ii) pH between 5.5 and 6.5, iii) with or without ammonia
addition, bromate formed through the ozone treatment of the Actiflo outflow was below 5 µg/L.

The results from the pilot study showed that the ozone demand of the outflow from the
ACTIFLO varied between 0.8 and 1.3 mg/L. An ozone dose of 3.5 mg/L enabled to reach a CT
of 10-14 mg.min/L on the pilot scale unit. Assuming an applied ozone dose of 3.5 mg/L and a

17
T10/T of 0.8 is achieved in the full-scale ozone system and, we could expect CT to be 9.2
mg.min/L (temperature=20.5°C) after a contact time of 15 minutes. Low bromate formation (< 5
µg/L) was recorded for the ozone doses as high as 3.5 mg/L and a pH of 6.5.

Process Description

TBRWTP utilizes two process trains, each train sized for 33 MGD. Pre-treated raw water enters
the Actiflo process (coagulation-flocculation-sedimentation) which employs ferric sulfate as the
coagulant. The Actiflo process is operated under optimized coagulation conditions (ferric sulfate
= 70 mg/L, pH=4.2-4.5) to maximize TOC and turbidity removal. The settled water from the
Actiflo process flows downward by gravity (velocity 5 feet/sec for optimum mass transfer),
through the pipes which incorporate the two GDSs. The description of the GDS system was
provided earlier. There are two parallel ozone contact basins. Eight ozone residual sample
points are provided for each contactor basin. The ozone contactor cells were designed in a
serpentine pattern providing a 30:1 length to width ratio with a nominal contact time of 16
minutes. Previous studies have shown that an arrangement can provide a T10/T ratio of 0.8. The
overall dimensions of the ozone contactor structures were 70 feet by 125 feet, with a sidewater
depth of 20 feet. Figure 6 shows the details of the ozonation system. The design incorporated
ancillary units for ozone generation, hydrogen peroxide for advanced oxidation and quenching,
off-gas destruct units and the LOX system for ozone generation. High concentration ozone
generators (Fuji Electric) producing 12% ozone concentration were installed in a separate room
adjacent to the ozone contactors. Two ozone generators were installed, each with a nominal
capacity of 1100 lb/day at 10%, but capable of producing 2200 lbs/day each at a 6%
concentration. Table 7 summarizes the main operating parameters of the ozone system used at
the intermediate ozonation stage of the TBRWTP.

Figure 6. Ozone Contact chamber with the GDS system in vertical configuration

18
 Table 7. Details of the Intermediate Ozonation Process at the TBRWTP

Parameter Value
Liquid Flowrate (MGD/Train) 33
Nominal Contact Time (min) 16
Gas/Liquid Ratio (scfm/cfm) 0.03
Applied Ozone Dose (mg/L) 4.0
Applied Ozone Dose (mg O3/mg C) 0.75-1.0
Ozone Production Capacity (#/day) 2200
LOX System, 2 tanks (gallons) 26,000

Process Performance

Figures 7, 8, and 9 show the tracer study results, transfer efficiency performance and stability of
the ozone residuals respectively, since startup. The results show that the ozone dissolution
system is performing to full expectations producing stable ozone residuals under plug flow
conditions and achieving high transfer efficiencies.

Ozone Contactor Step-dose Tracer Step

Sample point 8 at 30 MGD
1

0.9

0.8

0.7
C/Co (dimentionless)

0.6

0.5

0.4
from the graph, t10 = 16.60 minutes
0.3 Theoritical Contact Time, T = 18.63 minutes
therefore, K= t10/T = 0.88
0.2

0.1

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Time (minutes)

Figure 7. Tracer study results at the TBRWTP

19
 99 1600
1400

O3 Production Rate
98
Efficiency (%)
1200
O3 Transfer
97 1000

(PPD)
96 800

95 600
400
94 200
93 0
10 14.414.717.9 18 18 19.9 28 31.132.5 33 33 33.833.834.837.137.1
Water flow per GDS - mgd (US)

O3 Transfer efficiency 95% Guarantee figure O3 production rate (PPD)

Figure 8. Transfer Efficiency Performance since Start-up

0.7

0.6

0.5 Average = 0.632 mg/L

Ozone Residual (mg/L)

Standard Deviation = 0.0145

Coeff. Variation = 2.29%
0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30

Time (min)
Figure 9. Ozone residual trends in the ozone contactors (samples collected at the first
residual sampling point)

Conclusions
The new TBRWTP was designed and built using an extremely cost-effective and efficient
process that incorporated some of the water industry's most advanced technologies such as the
ACTIFLO process and static mixers. Among the various technologies considered, static mixers
proved to be a very reliable, cost-effective technology for ozone dissolution. Large-scale pilot
testing conducted at the Lake Manatee Water Treatment Plant demonstrated that the ACTIFLO

20
technology combined with static mixers for ozonation offered better finished water quality,
improved process reliability, reduced treatment costs and space requirements over the originally
planned conventional design. The operational experience has demonstrated the ability of static
mixers to efficiently transfer ozone into the water, produce stable ozone residuals and achieve
plug flow conditions while being coupled to a well-designed contactor.

References

1. Schulz, C.R. and Bellamy, W. "The Role of Mixing in Ozone Dissolution Systems", in
Proceedings of the 14th Ozone World Congress, Dearborn, MI, International Ozone
Association, p. 575-596, (1999).
2. Martin, N., Benezet-Toulze, M., Laplace, C., Faivre, M., Langlais, B. "Design and Efficiency
of Ozone Contactors for Disinfection", Ozone Science and Engineering 14(5):391-405
(1992).
3. Davidson, C., Park, D., Southern, K., “New Concepts in Ozone Systems at North Surrey
Water - Design, Construction and Early Operating Experience”, presented to CIWEM
(1997).
4. Bonnard, R., Adrien, C., de Traversay, C., Luck, F. "Static Mixer as a Disinfectant Process?",
in Proceedings of the 14th Ozone World Congress, Dearborn, MI, International Ozone
Association, p. 251-261, (1999).
5. Chandrakanth M.S., Leparc, J., Prevost, M., Craik, S., Finch, G., Luck, F., and Traversay, C.
“Optimizing the Ozonation Process through the Use of Static Mixers”, IWA Conference,
Paris, (2000).
6. Chandrakanth, M., Prévost, M., Finch, G, Craik, S, Leparc, J. "Evaluation of Static Mixers at
Bench- and Pilot-Scale for Enhanced Ozone Dissolution and Inactivation of Bacillus subtilis
in Water Treatment", Proceedings of the AWWA Annual Conference, Denver (2000).
7. Craik, S., Finch, G, Leparc, J., Chandrakanth, M., "Considerations in the Process Design of
Static Mixer Ozone Contacting Systems for Microbial Reduction" I.O.A. Conference,
Orlando, (2000).
8. Craik, S., Finch G., Chandrakanth M.S., Belosovic, M., “Reaction Engineering Analysis of
Cryptosporidium parvum Inactivation in a Laboratory-Scale Static Mixer”, WQTC
Conference, (2000).
9. Chandrakanth M.S., Prevost M., Leparc, J., and Lake, R., “Evaluation of Static Mixers at
Pilot- and Full-Scale for Ozonation and Inactivation of Bacillus subtilis in Water Treatment”,
IOA Conference, Orlando, (2000).
10. Chandrakanth M.S., Leparc, J., Agutter, P. and Lake, R., “Evaluation of Static Mixers at
Pilot- and Full-Scale for Ozonation and Inactivation of Bacillus subtilis in Water Treatment”,
Ozone: Science and Engineering, in press.

21
11. Chandrakanth, M.S., Leparc, J., Christie, D., and Stolarik, G. “Bromate Formation and
Control During Ozonation through a Static Mixer under varying Water Quality Conditions”,
Pan American IOA Conference, Newport Beach (2001).
12. Craik, S. Smith, D., Belosevic, M., and Chandrakanth, M. “Predicting Cryptosporidium
parvum Inactivation in a Static Mixer Ozone Contactor” Ozone: Science and Engineering,
submitted.
13. Craik S., Smith, D., Belosevic, M., and Chandrakanth, M. “Use of Bacillus subtilis Spores as
Model Microorganisms for Ozonation of Cryptosporidium parvum in Drinking Water
Treatment”, Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science, submitted.
14. Craik, S., Finch, G., Leparc, J., Chandrakanth, M.S. “The Effect of Ozone Gas-Liquid
Contacting Conditions in a Static Mixer on Microorganism Reduction” Ozone Science &
Engineering, 24, (2), (2002).
15. Craik, S., Finch, G., Leparc, J., Chandrakanth, M.S. “Effect of Turbulent Gas-Liquid Contact
in a Static Mixer Cryptosporidium Parvum Oocyst Inactivation by Ozone” Water Research,
in press.
16. Leparc, J., Wolbert, D., Bais, N., and Chandrakanth, M. “Modeling Ozone Transfer Through
a Static Mixer Under Natural Water Quality Conditions” In Proceedings of the International
Ozone Association Pan American Group Conference, Raleigh, NC, (2002).
17. Luck F., Chandrakanth M. S., Traversay C., “Static Mixers-Reactors and Industrial
Applications” in “Fundamental and Engineering Concepts for Ozone Reactor Design”,
Kluwer (Publishers), in print.
18. Mysore, C.S., Leparc, J. , Smith, D.W., Craik, S., Finch, G., Lake, R., Agutter, P., Traversay,
C., Wolbert, D., Amy, G.L., “Improvement of the Ozonation Process Through the Use of
Static Mixers”, American Waterworks Association Research Foundation Project No. 2537,
AwwaRF, Denver, CO, (2003).
19. Schulz, C.R., Shafran, G.C., Garrett, L.B., and Hawkins, R. “Evaluating a High-Efficiency
Ozone Injection Contactor”, Journal of the American Water Works Association, 87(8):85-99,
(1995).
20. APHA AWWA WEF. “Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater”,
18th edition. Washington, DC, USA: American Public Health Association (1992).
21. Bader, H., and Hoigné. J. “Determination of Ozone in Water by the Indigo Method”, Water
Research, 15:449-456 (1981).
22. Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Guidance Manual. EPA 819-R-99-013 (1999).

22