PERFORMANCE COMPARISON OF FILTER PRESS, BELT PRESS

AND CENTRIFUGE UNITS FOR DEWATERING OF

CITRUS PROCESSING/ACTIVATED SLUDGE

Donal J. Bassett, Senior Engineer

Murli Tolaney, Vice President
James M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Pasadena, California 91101
Keith Conarroe, Supervisor
Sunkist Growers, Inc., Lemon Products Division
Corona, California 91720

INTRODUCTION
More stringent discharge standards reflecting the nation's growing environmental con-
cern have resulted in many industries being required to incorporate waste treatment
systems into their existing processing facilities. As is the case with municipal treat-
ment works, higher levels of pollution removal have resulted in a generation of propor-
tionately larger quantities of sludge as a treatment byproduct. If the municipal area
is any indication of trends in industrial waste systems, sludge processing can be ex-
pected to become a significant factor in the cost of waste handling. Domestic sludge
quantities are expected to double within the next five years. The total cost for the
treatment and disposal of sludges is estimated to represent from 25% to 40% of the
total cost of wastewater management in the United States. It is essential that all alter-
native systems for the processing, transportation and disposal of sludge be carefully
examined prior to adoption of any process.
Since most industrial sludges are somewhat "unique" in terms of their chemical and
physical characteristics, it is important to carefully select unit processes for the sludge's
handling from the large number of equipment units available. An integral part of any
sludge processing and disposal scheme is the dewatering portion. Removal of moisture
from the sludge can drastically reduce the quantities which must be disposed of and
yield a product which is less likely to be offensive than its original state. This paper
summarizes the results of a testing program comparing the performance capabilities of
a filter press, belt press and centrifuge unit for the dewatering of citrus processing/
activated sludge at the Sunkist Growers, Inc., Lemon Products Division facility at
Corona, California.

BACKGROUND
The Lemon Products Division Plant of Sunkist Growers, Inc. is located 47 miles
southeast of Los Angeles in the City of Corona, California. The plant processes
approximately 600 to 1,200 tons of lemons per day to produce over 300 different
lemon products, including: juice concentrates, pectin, several forms of peel, lemon oil,
dried peel product, and beverage bases. The Lemon Products Division facility is the
world's largest lemon processing plant. Originally, the processing plant disposed of its

113
 Table I. Sunkist LPD Waste Characteristics, Discharge Requirements and Plant Effluent Quality
Average Waste Discharge Plant
Constituent Quality Requirement Performance
COD 7,000 to 10,000 mg/1 2,100 mg/1 250-500 mg/1
Total Dissolved Solids 1,150 mg/1 750 mg/1 a
Total Hardness (CaC0 3 ) 600 mg/1 300 mg/1 a
Sulfate 216 mg/1 200 mg/1 a
Chloride 320 mg/1 200 mg/1 a
PH 4.3 - 6-8
These requirements currently not met by plant, Effluent ultimately to be discharged into regional
interceptor for treatment and ocean disposal.

-=^=T*D

Figure 1. Flow diagram of Sunkist LPD unit Figure 2. Schematic of Sunkist LPD solids
process. handling.

waste, which totaled approximately 1.5 mgd, on a 290 acre farm. The California
Regional Water Quality Control Board established effluent discharge requirements which
precluded the use of land as a means of final disposal of the wastewater, and neces-
sitated the construction of facilities capable of removing 90% of the total COD and
suspended solids present in the waste treatment. Chemical composition of the waste
and discharge requirements are summarized in Table I. In order to meet the stringent
discharge requirements, a pure oxygen activated sludge plant was designed and construct-
ed, following detailed pilot treatability studies on the waste. A schematic of the
plant's operation is depicted in Figure 1. In 1973 when the pilot treatability studies
were conducted, preliminary sludge dewatering studies were undertaken. Due to
potential reuse markets, the use of polymer as a conditioning agent vs chemicals such
as lime or ferric chloride was established as one of the constraints to be met by any
candidate process. Pilot tests in 1973 indicated the feasibility of centrifuges as a means
of sludge dewatering. Subsequently, six basket centrifuges were installed for sludge
dewatering.
The facility is basically an activated sludge treatment plant. Sludge originates in the
primary and secondary clarifiers; quantities shown in Figure 2. Solids settled in the
primary clarifiers amount to approximately 20,000 gpd at 1% solids (approximately 1
ton/day). Float from the dissolved air flotation unit in these clarifiers adds another
50,000 gpd at 2.5% solids (approximately 5 tons/day). The major source of sludge is
that wasted from the secondary clarifiers at a rate of 220,000 gpd at 1.5% solids (7.5
tons/day). Sludge is combined in the holding tanks prior to dewatering and produces
a 220,000 gpd of sludge at 1.5% solids (13.5 tons/day).
Although the basket centrifuges currently produce a satisfactorily dewatered sludge,
pilot tests on two additional systems were conducted in an effort to further optimize
the system. Equipment tested included two belt press units and a filter press unit.
Belt press units have only recently been introduced in the United States and have
proven to be effective in a number of applications for the dewatering of sludge utilizing
polymer as a sole conditioning agent. In addition, filter presses are finding limited

114
applications in sludge dewatering utilizing polymers. This can be attributed to improve-
ments in the construction of filter cloths, and development of polymers more suitable
for applications of this type. In light of these latest developments and improvements
in the area of sludge dewatering, Sunkist is currently reevaluating their solids handling
facilities. The following presents a comparison summary of the pilot testing program
undertaken at the facility.

CENTRIFUGES
Various types of centrifuges have been employed for solid-liquid separation in the
agricultural and industrial fields for over 50 years. Although an early evaluation of
the centrifuge for municipal sludge dewatering in the 1920s proved unsatisfactory, im-
provements in the equipment have resulted in the use of centrifuges for dewatering of
municipal sludges for the last 25 years. Recently, centrifuges have become a widely
utilized unit process for sludge dewatering.

Process Description
Centrifuges separate the solid and liquid portion of the sludge by means of sedimen-
tation and centrifugal force. In these units, sludge is fed into a rotating mechanism
which separates it into a dense cake containing the majority of solids and a dilute
centrate stream containing the remaining fine low density solids. The Sunkist facility
currently utilizes six basket centrifuges for sludge dewatering prior to disposal. A
schematic of the type of unit utilized at Sunkist is shown in Figure 3. The unit
operates in an automated batch mode. Material is fed into the bottom of the unit as
it is in motion and is accelerated radially outward into the basket wall by centrifugal
force. This is continued until the centrate in the unit quality deteriorates. At this
time, feed to the unit is stopped and a skimmer enters the bowl to remove the inner-
most and wettest portion of the retained solids. The inner solids are generally too wet
for conveyor belt transport through the system and are recycled to the holding tanks.
Upon completion of the skimming sequence, which takes a short time, deceleration of
the bowl takes place followed by knife or plow insertion. As the knife moves toward
the bowl walls, retained solids are scraped out and fall through the bottom of the unit
for transport by means of conveyor belts to a truck for disposal.

Performance
Of the three types of equipment compared in this analysis, information pertaining
to the performance of the centrifuges is the most accurate. Table II summarizes
centrifuge performance. These units have satisfactorily operated for over one year, and
during that period, have been operationally varied in order to attain optimal perform-
ance. Currently, the unit is producing approximately 9 to 10% solids from a feed
containing 1V4% solids.
The centrate, which is returned to the aeration tanks, contains approximately 300
mg/1 suspended solids. Tests have shown cationic polymer to be most effective and
have been fairly successful in both the liquid and dry form. Average polymer dosages
are 10 to 20 pounds dry polymer per ton (dry solids). Chemical costs amount to
approximately $20 per ton.

Costs

Total costs for the units are summarized in Table III. Initial capital costs are based
on bid information which has been updated to the current ENR value. Energy costs
are based on an electricity rate of $0,025 per kWh. Current hauling charges are
approximately $3.5 per wet ton.

Comment
Operation of the centrifuges is satisfactory. However, there are several areas which
may make other types of equipment advantageous. As can be seen by the energy
costs, these units utilize a fair amount of electricity in their processing of sludge. It
should also be noted that any unit which can significantly increase the solids content
of the sludge will substantially reduce a large part of the handling costs-the hauling

115
Figure 3. Schematic diagram of basket centrifuge. Figure 4. Schematic diagram of belt press.

Table II. Centrifuge Performance

Description Unit Value
Loading gpm/unit 25 to 40
Dewatered Sludge % solids 9 to 10
Centrate Solids mg/1 300
Polymer Dosage lb polymer 10 to 20
ton sludge (ds)

Table III. Centrifuge Cost Sunkist LPD

Item Cost
Initial Capital Cost $900,000
Operating Costs-$/yr
Chemical Cost 98,000
Electrical Cost (@ $0.025/kWh) 47,000
Labor Cost 60,000
Hauling Cost (@ $3.5/wet ton) 183,000
Operating Total $388,000
Operating Unit Cost-$/ton (ds) 80
a
Total Unit Cost -$/ton (ds) 98
Capital cost amortized at 7%, 20 yrs.

charges, which amount to approximately 50% of the operating costs. It is also

anticipated that a sludge in a drier state would not only be more haulable, but would
lend itself more readily to applications for reuse.

BELT PRESS
One of the newest pieces of equipment in the field of sludge dewatering is t h e belt
press. Developed in Europe in the 1960s, it has recenlty received considerable atten-
tion in the U.S. There are 12 U.S. companies marketing belt presses. The lack of
long-term experience with this unit necessitates pilot testing for its evaluaton in parti-
cular applications.

Process Description
To separate the moisture and solids in the sludge, belt presses utilize mechanical and
shear forces exerted on the sludge as it is transported between t w o continuous belts
through a number of large diameter rollers. Each manufacturer's equipment design is
protected by a number of patents and appears to vary considerably from unit t o unit.
However, the basic mechanisms involved in each are similar. Figure 4 presents a
schematic of a typical unit. Prior t o reaching the press, polymer is introduced into the
sludge and allowed a certain period for conditioning. An initial dewatering zone is
located at the feed section and allows gravity drainage of the sludge with n o pressure

116
applied to it. In the second zone, the sludge is completely encased between the belts
and passes around a large perforated drum applying pressure to the sludge and collect-
ing the filtrate which is pressed out of it. In the third and final zone, the belts pass
through a number of drums to exert both a high pressure and shear force to remove
the remaining moisture before being discharged. As the belts separate at the terminus
of the unit, a scraper removes the sludge and allows it to fall on a conveyor, trans-
porting it away from the unit. The belts are then subjected to a high pressure wash
water which removes remaining solids and restores the belts' original porosity.

Pilot Tests
Two belt press units were tested on separate occasions at the Sunkist facility. These
were the "Belmer-Winklepress" supplied by Ashbrook-Simon-Hartley and the "Magnum
Press" supplied by the Parkson Corporation. Each of the units was mounted in a
mobile trailer containing all the necessary sludge, polymer and metering pumps. The
initial testing period consisted of using various polymers to determine their effective-
ness for the belt press process. These polymers had previously been tested with the
sludge to determine their ability to form a suitable floe. Once satisfactory polymers
were determined, tests were run in an attempt to maximize the sludge feed rate and
minimize the polymer dosage. Parameters varied during the testing program included:
• Sludge type
• Sludge feed rate
• Polymer feed rate
• Polymer addition location
• Belt speed
• Belt tension or pressure
Analyses were performed on the influent solids for the belt press and resultant cake
and the filtrate/washwater.

Performance
The feed solids that the sludge obtained at the LPD facility ranged from 1.3 to
1.7% solids. On this material, the belt press units consistently obtained a cake solids
of 18%. The optimal feed rate was determined to be 40 gpm/meter of belt width.
To obtain 18% solids, a polymer dose of 10 to 20 lb polymer/dry ton solids is re-
quired, which amounts to approximately $20/ton dry solids in chemical costs. Tests
results are summarized in Table IV.

Costs

Since this unit is relatively new in the United States, it is very difficult to determine
the actual installed cost of such a unit. Cost estimates for the study are summarized in
Table V and were based on the equipment manufacturers quotes for their units with
an additional allowance for both installation and all additional appurtenances required
for use of the unit. Total capital cost was estimated at $550,000. Chemical costs are
identical to the centrifuges; however, there are considerable operational cost savings in
power and hauling, in comparison to the centrifuges.

Comment
Several advantages to the belt press are its low energy consumption, its relative sim-
plicity of operation and the fact that it operates in a continuous vs batch mode. It
was felt that the tests run were very representative of what could be expected if the
units were put in on a full scale basis. Both the manufacturers supplied units of a
size large enough so as to avoid any errors which may occur in lab scale units.

FILTER PRESS
Filter presses have been used for many years in a number of industrial applications
for the separation solids and liquid. It is, however, only during the last five years that
there has been substantial increase in the use of filter press systems in U.S. wastewater
facilities. The use of the filter press in dewatering of wastewater sludges can be

117
 Table IV. Belt Press Performance
Description Unit Value
Loading gpm/meter
lbs fds) 300 to 320
hr-m
Cake Solids % 18
Filtrate/Washwater Solids mg/1 200 to 400
Polymer Dosage lbs polymer 10 to 20
ton sludge (ds)

Table V. Belt Press Cost Sunkist LPD

Item Cost
Initial Capital Cost $550,000
Operating Cost-$/yr
Chemical Cost 98,000
Electrical Cost (@ $0.025/kWh) 10,000
Labor Cost 50,000
Hauling Cost (@ $3.5/wet ton) 96,000
Operating Total $254,000
Operating Unit Cost-$/ton (ds) 53
a
Total Unit Cost -$/ton (ds) 63
Capital cost amortized at 7%, 20 yrs.

FILTER CLOTHS

Figure 5. Schematic diagram of filter press.

attributed t o the improvements which have taken place in the equipment, increase in the
quantities of sludge not readily dewatered, and increasing difficulties in the disposal
of large volumes of sludge.

Process Description
Filter presses operate in a batch mode. The unit tested at Sunkist was the plate
and frame t y p e . This type consists of vertical plates which are rigidly held in a frame
and pressed together. A filter cloth is mounted on the face of each plate. Sludge is
fed into the press under high pressure and passes through feed holes in the center of
each plate, as shown in Figure 5. Filtration is caused by the pressure maintained on
the feed, which causes water t o pass through the fibers of the cloth while solids are
retained in the void (chamber) between the plates. Sludge feeding is stopped when
the chambers are filled. The filtrate from each plate is collected and discharged t o a
common drain. When the run is completed, the plates are separated and the filter cake
discharged into a hopper or conveyor below each unit. The normal chemical condition-
ing agents used for this type of dewatering are lime and ferric chloride. Only recently
has the use of polymer found application in this area. This can be attributed to both
the development of suitable polymers, coupled with improvements in the quality of
filter cloths utilized.

118
 Table VI. Filter Press Performance
Value
Description Unit
Press Time hr 2
27
Cake Solids %
Filtrate Solids mg/1 100-200
Polymer Dosage lb polymer
ton sludge (ds)

Table VII. Filter Press Cost Sunkist LPD

Item Cost

Initial Capital Cost $1,300,000

Operating Cost-$/yr
Chemical Cost 145,000
Electrical Cost (@ $0.025/kWh) 10,000
Labor Cost 70,000
Hauling Cost (@ $3.5/wet ton) 64,000
Operating Total $289,000
Operating Unit Cost, $/ton (ds) 60
Total Unit Cost,3 $/ton (ds) 85
a
Capital cost amortized at 7%, 20 yrs.
Pilot Tests
The filter press unit tested was a recessed chamber unit with a mechanical screw-
type closing device, supplied by Netzsch Dewatering Systems-PK Associates, Inc. The
filter plates were 10" x 10", polypropylene, center feed, open filtrate type. For the
majority of tests, five to six plates were used. Sludge was fed by means of progressive
cavity pump with the pressure being maintained at a constant level by a combination
of the pump and an air surge tank pressurized by a compressor.
The testing program was conducted varying a number of operational parameters in
order to determine the feasibility of dewatering sludge produced at the Sunkist waste
treatment plant. Parameters varied during the testing program included:
• Sludge type ' Polymer type
• Polymer dose • Cycle time
Analyses were performed on the influent solids to the press, resultant cake solids
and suspended solids in the filtrate.

Performance
The feed solids ranged from 1.5% to 2.5% solids. Testing results are summarized in
Table VI. Cake solids obtained indicated that the average operating solids would be
approximately 27% (dry weight basis). This will require approximately 30^10 lb of
Polymer per ton-d.s. This translates to a chemical cost of approximately $30/ton-d.s.
It appeared that the influent solids feed rate had little effect on either the cake solid
or the press time required. A difficulty consistently experienced throughout the testing
Program was obtaining satisfactory cake release from the cloth. Press time was es-
timated to be 2 hours.

Costs
The costs for installation and operation of the filter press are summarized in Table
VII. Costs are based on a cycle time of 120 minutes, a feed of 1.5% solids, and ob-
taining a cake of 27%. Installation costs are based on information supplied by various
manufacturers, a number of sources which have developed cost curves for these units,
and recent bid information. At an initial capital cost of $1,300,000, this was the
highest of all alternatives examined. Power costs were relatively low at $10,000 per
year. Savings in lower hauling charges were somewhat offset by high chemical costs.
119
 Table VIII. Performance Summary
Value
Parameter Centrifuge Belt Press Filter Press
Loading 25 gpm/unit 40 gpm/meter 2 hr (press time)
Cake Solids, % 9-10 18 27
Sidestream Solids, mg/1 300 200400 100-200
Polymer Dosage lbs polymer/ton sludge 10-20 10-20 3040

Table IX. Cost Summary

Cost
Item Centrifuge Belt Press Filter Press
Initial $900,000 $550,000 $1,300,000
Operating Cost-$/yr
Chemical Cost 98,000 98,000 145,000
Electrical Cost 47,000 10,000 10,000
Labor Cost 60,000 50,000 70,000
Hauling Cost 183,000 96,000 64,000
Operating Total $388,000 $254,000 $289,000
Operating Unit Cost-$/ton (ds) 80 53 60
Total Unit Cost a -$/ton (ds) 98 63 85
Capital cost amortized at 1%, 20 yrs.

Comment
The filter press produced the driest and, consequently, the most satisfactory sludge
product. Filtrate from the system was also quite good quality in terms of suspended
solids. A major disadvantage to the system appeared to be the fact that it was a batch
vs continuous system, and that good release frorti the cloth was' not always obtained.
Operation of the batch mode would have little effect on the Sunkist facility since, at
the present time, it currently operates the centrifuges in such a manner. The adherence
to the cloth of solids could create considerable difficulty in the long term. If this
difficulty were not overcome, it would necessitate the application of a precoat (e.g.,
diatomaceous earth) which will add to the cost and complexity of the operation.

CONCLUSIONS
Summaries of the performance and cost of the systems compared are presented in
Tables VIII and IX, respectively. Each process produces a substantially different pro-
duct based on the solids content achieved in dewatering. The filter press produces a
cake which appears very dry; belt press solids are fairly dry with only slight dampness
to touch; the centrifuge solids are quite wet, close to semi-liquid form. The polymer
requirements for the centrifuge and belt press are identical, with the filter press requir-
ing an overall higher dose. Sidestreams from each of the processes are similar.
Centrifuges have the highest operational cost. Coupled with a fairly high initial
capital cost, it proves to be the most expensive dewatering system examined. The belt
press has both the lowest capital and operational costs. Low operational costs are a
direct result of energy savings and reduction in the hauling volume. The lack of long-
term U.S. experience with this unit could, however, be considered a disadvantage to it.
The filter press has the highest initial capital cost of all the systems. It has the best
cake solids and, consequently, the lowest hauling charges. This savings is somewhat off-
set by its higher polymer requirements.
Each of the systems involved represents a viable means of sludge dewatering. As is
the case with most industrial waste, their chemical and physical characteristics are
somewhat unique and will usually require an extensive pilot testing program prior to the
installation of the single dewatering system. In light of the costs involved in this area
of industrial waste treatment, system specification merits detailed comparative testing.
120