Removal of Volatile Organic Contaminants Via Low Profile Aeration Technology

Removal of Volatile Organic
Contaminants via Low Profile

Aeration Technology
Web Report #4439
Subject Area: Water Quality

Aeration Technology
©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

About the Water Research Foundation
The Water Research Foundation (WRF) is a member-supported, international, 501(c)3

nonprofit organization that sponsors research that enables water utilities, public health
agencies, and other professionals to provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers.
WRF’s mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve
this mission, WRF sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including resources,
treatment, and distribution. Nearly 1,000 water utilities, consulting firms, and manufacturers
in North America and abroad contribute subscription payments to support WRF’s work.
Additional funding comes from collaborative partnerships with other national and
international organizations and the U.S. federal government, allowing for resources to be
leveraged, expertise to be shared, and broad-based knowledge to be developed and
disseminated.
From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, WRF’s staff directs and supports the efforts of
more than 800 volunteers who serve on the board of trustees and various committees. These
volunteers represent many facets of the water industry, and contribute their expertise to
select and monitor research studies that benefit the entire drinking water community.
Research results are disseminated through a number of channels, including reports, the
Website, Webcasts, workshops, and periodicals.
WRF serves as a cooperative program providing subscribers the opportunity to pool their
resources and build upon each other’s expertise. By applying WRF research findings,
subscribers can save substantial costs and stay on the leading edge of drinking water science
and technology. Since its inception, WRF has supplied the water community with more than
$460 million in applied research value.
More information about WRF and how to become a subscriber is available at

www.WaterRF.org.

Aeration Technology
Prepared by:
Zeyad T. Ahmed, David W. Hand, David L. Perram
Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan Technological University
Jointly Sponsored by:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
26 West Martin Luther King Drive, Cincinnati, OH 45268
Water Environment Research Foundation

635 Slater’s Lane, G-110, Alexandria, VA 22314
and
Water Research Foundation

6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235
Published by:

DISCLAIMER
This study was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Water
Environment Research Foundation (WERF), and the Water Research Foundation (WRF) under
Cooperative Agreement No. CR-83419201. EPA, WERF, and WRF assume no responsibility for
the content of the research study reported in this publication or for the opinions or
statements of fact expressed in the report. The mention of trade names for commercial
products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of EPA, WERF, or WRF.
This report is presented solely for informational purposes.
Copyright © 2014
by Water Research Foundation
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced
or otherwise utilized without permission.
Printed in the U.S.A.

CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………………………….vii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………...…………..…...ix
FOREWORD………………………………………..………………………………………..…..xi
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………………………….……...…………………xiii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... xv
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

Air Stripping ....................................................................................................................... 1
Common Types of Air Strippers ......................................................................................... 1
Advantages and Disadvantages of Low Profile Air Strippers ............................................ 1
Design of Low Profile Air Stripping .................................................................................. 2
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 3

VOCs and Operation Conditions ........................................................................................ 3
VOCs Concentrations Measurements ................................................................................ 4
Tray Aeration Pilot Plant .................................................................................................... 4
Initial Testing With Chloroform ......................................................................................... 5
Hydraulic Testing................................................................................................................ 6
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 7

Operation Conditions .......................................................................................................... 7
Operations at 4°C ................................................................................................................ 7
Operations at 12°C .............................................................................................................. 9
Operations at 20°C ............................................................................................................ 11
Vinyl Chloride Removal ................................................................................................... 13
1,3-Butadiene Removal..................................................................................................... 14
Dichloromethane Removal ............................................................................................... 15
1,1-Dichloroethane Removal ............................................................................................ 16
Carbon Tetrachloride Removal ......................................................................................... 17
Benzene Removal ............................................................................................................. 18
1,2-Dichloroethane Removal ............................................................................................ 19
Trichloroethylene Removal .............................................................................................. 20
1,2-Dichloropropane Removal .......................................................................................... 21
Tetrachloroethylene Removal ........................................................................................... 22
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane Removal .................................................................................. 23

1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane Removal .................................................................................. 24
1,2,3-Trichloropropane Removal ...................................................................................... 25
CHAPTER 4: LOW PROFILE AIR STRIPPING PERFORMANCE MODELING ................... 27

Manufacturer’s Model Predictions ................................................................................... 27
Diffused Air Model ........................................................................................................... 32
Trays Configuratoin ......................................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 35
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................. 39
ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 41
vi

TABLES
2.1 Focus carcinogenic VOCs, Henry’s constant, analytical method detection limits
(MDLs) and lowest concentration minimum reporting levels (LCMRLs) ..............3
2.2 Low profile air stripper initial testing result with chloroform at air/water ratio of 34 in
comparison to the manufacturer’s prediction ..........................................................5
3.1 Pilot plant testing conditions for the 13 focus VOCs ..........................................................7
3.2 Aeration pilot plant operation results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at four
different air to water ratios, and water temperature of 4°C .....................................8
3.3 Aeration pilot plant operation results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at four
different air to water ratios, and water temperature of 12°C .................................10
3.4 Aeration pilot plant operation results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at three
different air to water ratios, and water temperature of 20°C .................................12
4.1 Comparison between pilot plant operation removal efficiencies and Carbonair STAT
modeler predictions for the 13 VOCs at 12°C and 167 air to water ratio..............28
4.2 The difference in observed VOCs removal efficiencies and Carbonair STAT modeler
predicted removal efficiencies at 4°C ....................................................................29
predicted removal efficiencies at 12°C ..................................................................30
predicted removal efficiencies at 20°C ..................................................................31
4.5 Results of low profile air stripper and ASAP diffused air model for 10 VOCs under
identical conditions ................................................................................................32
A.1 Carbonair STAT modeler results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at four different
air to water ratios, and water temperature of 4°C ..................................................35
A.2 Carbonair STAT modeler results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at four different
air to water ratios, and water temperature of 12°C ................................................36
A.3 Carbonair STAT modeler results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at three different
air to water ratios, and water temperature of 20°C ................................................37
vii

FIGURES
2.1 STAT15 low profile aeration unit ........................................................................................5
3.1 The removal efficiency of vinyl chloride using STAT15 low profile air stripper .............13
3.2 The removal efficiency of 1,3-butadiene using STAT15 low profile air stripper .............14
3.3 The removal efficiency of dichloromethane using STAT15 low profile air stripper ........15
3.4 The removal efficiency of 1,1-dichloroethane using STAT15 low profile air stripper .....16
3.5 The removal efficiency of carbon tetrachloride using STAT15 low profile air stripper ...17
3.6 The removal efficiency of benzene using STAT15 low profile air stripper ......................18
3.7 The removal efficiency of 1,2-dichloroethane using STAT15 low profile air stripper .....19
3.8 The removal efficiency of trichloroethylene using STAT15 low profile air stripper ........20
3.9 The removal efficiency of 1,2-dichloropropane using STAT15 low profile air stripper...21
3.10 The removal efficiency of tetrachloroethylene using STAT15 low profile air stripper ....22
3.11 The removal efficiency of 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane using STAT15 low profile air
stripper ...................................................................................................................23
3.12 The removal efficiency of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane using STAT15 low profile air
stripper ...................................................................................................................24
3.13 The removal efficiency of 1,2,3-trichloropropane using STAT15 low profile air
stripper ...................................................................................................................25
4.1 The correlation between the removal efficiency and the cumulative surface area of trays
1-6 in the STAT15 low profile air stripper for benzene at 12°C and four air to
water ratios .............................................................................................................33
ix

FOREWORD
The Water Research Foundation (WRF) is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to the

development and implementation of scientifically sound research designed to help drinking water
utilities respond to regulatory requirements and address high-priority concerns. WRF’s research
agenda is developed through a process of consultation with WRF subscribers and other drinking
water professionals. WRF’s Board of Trustees and other professional volunteers help prioritize
and select research projects for funding based upon current and future industry needs, applicability,
and past work. WRF sponsors research projects through the Focus Area, Emerging Opportunities,
and Tailored Collaboration programs, as well as various joint research efforts with organizations
such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
This publication is a result of a research project fully funded or funded in part by WRF
subscribers. WRF’s subscription program provides a cost-effective and collaborative method for
funding research in the public interest. The research investment that underpins this report will
intrinsically increase in value as the findings are applied in communities throughout the world.
WRF research projects are managed closely from their inception to the final report by the staff and
a large cadre of volunteers who willingly contribute their time and expertise. WRF provides
planning, management, and technical oversight and awards contracts to other institutions such as
water utilities, universities, and engineering firms to conduct the research.
A broad spectrum of water supply issues is addressed by WRF's research agenda, including
resources, treatment and operations, distribution and storage, water quality and analysis,
toxicology, economics, and management. The ultimate purpose of the coordinated effort is to assist
water suppliers to provide a reliable supply of safe and affordable drinking water to consumers.
The true benefits of WRF’s research are realized when the results are implemented at the utility
level. WRF's staff and Board of Trustees are pleased to offer this publication as a contribution
toward that end.
Denise L. Kruger Robert C. Renner, P.E.

Chair, Board of Trustees Executive Director
Water Research Foundation Water Research Foundation
xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors of this report are thankful to the Water Research Foundation and EPA through WERF-
EPA cooperative agreement “Innovation and Research for Water Infrastructure for the 21st Century”
for funding this research. The authors would also like to thank the EPA in Cincinnati, Ohio for
their help and continuous support in providing the VOCs analysis, especially Dr. Jonathan
Pressman. The authors would also like to thank the members of the Project Advisory Committee
(PAC) Dr. Joseph A. Drago (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants), Jacqueline Rhoades (Hazen and
Sawyer) and Dr. Thomas Speth (EPA). The authors would like to thank Dr. Grace Jang, Research
Manager in the WRF and Megan Karklins (WRF) for their help and technical support. The authors
would also like to thank Carbonair Environmental Systems and their professionals for their
cooperation and timely technical support.
xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this project is to determine the effectiveness of tray aeration technology
for removing 13 focus carcinogenic volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to the sub µg/L
concentration range.
BACKGROUND
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering a change in the way
contaminants are regulated as a part of their new drinking water strategy (DWS). The strategy will
regulate contaminants as groups rather than individually. The first group consists of 16 VOCs, and
little information is available about the effectiveness of aeration technologies, such as low profile
aeration, in the removal of most of the VOCs in this group to sub ug/L concentrations.
Multistage low profile air stripping is an alternative technology to the conventional packed
tower aeration systems for the removal of VOCs, mainly because it requires less height and is less
susceptible to inorganic fouling. This technology, however, has limitations as to flow rates that
can be accommodated.
APPROACH
The VOCs’ removal efficiencies were studied by collecting operational data from pilot
plant operations, under various air-to-water ratios (53 – 652), three different temperatures (4, 12,
and 20°C), and 1 to 6 trays in series.
WRF specified 13 VOCs of interest for this study: benzene, carbon tetrachloride, 1,2-
dichloroethane, dichloromethane, 1,2-dichloropropane, tetrachloroethylene (PCE),
trichloroethylene (TCE), vinyl chloride, 1,3-butadiene, 1,1-dichloroethane, 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane, and 1,2,3-trichloropropane.
RESULTS/CONCLUSIONS
Low profile air stripping is a very effective technology for the removal of the 13 focus
VOCs examined by this study. At high air-to-water ratio (652) and 20°C, even 1,2,3-
trichloropropane, which has the lowest Henry’s Law constant, was completely removed.
High removal efficiencies for many VOCs were achieved at air-to-water ratios as low as
53, which challenges the common assumption that low profile air stripping requires much higher
air-to-water ratios, and suggests that this technology could be effective compared to conventional
packed towers when high removal rates are required.
The performance graphs presented for each VOC (Figures 3.1-3.13) indicate that it is
possible to achieve high removal rates at high air-to-water ratios (521-652) for all VOCs at a wide
range of temperatures (4-20°C). The temperature effect becomes more significant at low air-to-
water ratios (53 and 54), especially for VOCs such as 1,2,3-trichloropropane, which have low
Henry’s Law constants.
xv

The Carbonair STAT modeler provided an accurate performance prediction in most cases,
although a slight adjustment may be required for trichloroethylene.
APPLICATIONS/RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings of this project, it is recommended that drinking water treatment
utilities consider low profile aeration systems to remove VOCs to sub µg/L ranges.
Low profile air strippers are recommended not only because of their convenience, ease of
use, and assembly, but also because of their high efficiency under wide range of conditions.
Performance graphs (Figures 3.1-3.13) give insight on the high removal efficiencies under various
air-to-water ratios (53-652) and various temperatures (4-20°C). Designers, engineers, and utilities
should consult these graphs if the removal of these VOCs is considered.
The results of this study showed that sub ug/L concentrations were achieved even at air-
to-water ratios as low as 53. This suggests that low profile air stripping could be a cost effective
technology. Further research is needed in the form of a detailed performance and cost effectiveness
study, which would compare low profile air stripping to other conventional treatment technologies.
RESEARCH PARTNERS
 Water Environment Research Foundation

 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
xvi

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
AIR STRIPPING
Air stripping involves the transfer of volatile compounds from water to air. The higher the
vapor pressure of the compound the more it is amenable to air stripping. Consequently, air
stripping is the technology of choice for compounds with high Henry’s law constant (high vapor
pressure and low solubility in water). There are several types of air stripping devices which provide
high exchange surface area (interface) between water and air, with low energy consumption, to
facilitate the mass transfer of the VOCs from water to air.
COMMON TYPES OF AIR STRIPPERS
Packed tower air stripping is the most commonly used technology for removing VOCs
from drinking and ground water. The conventional packed tower air strippers utilize engineered or
random media to provide the interface required for mass transfer from water to air. The main
design parameters for packed towers are the specific surface area provided by the media, column
diameter, column height, and water and air flow rates. The specific surface area for any packing
material is usually provided by the manufacturer. Because it is commonly used in water industry,
many mathematical models and commercial software for the design and analysis are available for
this type of air strippers. A wealth of VOCs removal data with various types of media are readily
available as well.
Another common type of air stripping technology, low profile air stripping, has gained
more popularity in the last two decades because of the many advantages it offers (Treybal 1980;
LaBranche and Collins 1996; Mead and Leibbert 1998; Notthakun et al. 1994; USACE 2001).
Low profile air strippers utilize a multistage treatment scheme where the water is
introduced in a step-wise manner to a series of perforated trays. The water flows by gravity from
the top tray downward while the air in introduced countercurrently from the bottom of the unit
upward through the holes in each tray. The high air flow rate causes the formation of very small
bubbles or frothing to form upon contact with the water. The high turbulent mixing and frothing
provides a high air–water surface area for mass transfer to occur.
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF LOW PROFILE AIR STRIPPERS
The advantages of using a low profile air strippers over using a packed tower air stripper
are:
1. The low profile air strippers are much smaller and more compact than the conventional air
strippers. The height of the low profile air strippers is less because the water flows
horizontally in the trays.
2. Because it doesn’t utilize packing media, low profile air strippers are less susceptible to
inorganics fouling.
3. Low profile air strippers require less maintenance and the maintenance is much easier to
perform, since low profile air strippers have no packing media and they are easy to
disassemble.

On the other hand, there are some disadvantages for low profile air strippers that favor
packed tower air strippers in many cases, these disadvantages include:
1. Conventional packed tower air strippers require significantly less air flow rate for the same
treatment objective, therefore their operational power requirements are lower.
2. The applicability of low profile air strippers is limited to lower water flow rates, usually
less than 1000 gallon per minute (gpm) (Crittenden et al. 2012).
3. Conventional packed tower air strippers are more appropriate if the water has tendency to
foam.
DESIGN OF LOW PROFILE AIR STRIPPING
Many design and analysis methods for low profile air stripping are available, some of these
methods include:
1. Analytical equations: (Treybal 1980)

2. McCabe–Thiele graphical method: See Sec. 14-4 in Crittenden et al. 2012
3. Manufacturer-supplied software: Such as Carbonair Environmental Systems Inc. 2003;
North East Environmental Products Inc., 2003
4. USACE (2001) design manual
Another common design approach was presented by Li and Hsiao (1990) and Treybal
(1980). This approach is based on determining the number of theoretical trays. The number of
theoretical trays can be determined using the initial and the target VOC concentrations and the
stripping factor (S). The following equation can be used to determine the number of theoretical
trays (Crittenden et al. 2012):
ln 1 1
1
ln
Where: Nth = number of theoretical trays
S = stripping factor, dimensionless
Co = influent liquid-phase concentration
CTO = treatment objective concentration
The stripping factor is the air to water ratio multiplied by Henry’s law constant as shown
in the following equation:

Where: Hc= the dimensionless Henry’s law constant
Qa = air flow rate
Qw= water flow rate
After determining the number of theoretical trays, the actual number of trays can be
determined by dividing the number of theoretical trays by the tray efficiency, which ranges from
0.4 to 0.6 and can be obtained from manufacturers’ unit specifications.

CHAPER TWO
METHODOLOGY
VOCS AND OPERATION CONDITIONS
The research outlined the design and operational parameters that control the removal
efficiency for the VOCs listed in Table 2.1. The study assessed the performance of the low profile
aeration system under three temperatures, 4, 12 and 20°C. Various air to water (A/W) ratios were
selected to cover a wide range of operational flow rates and air to water ratios. The combination
of various air to water ratios at various temperatures provide insight to the tray aeration systems
removal efficiency for considerably wide range of practical environmental and operational
conditions.
Table 2.1 Focus carcinogenic VOCs, Henry’s constant (20°C), analytical method detection
limits (MDLs) and lowest concentration minimum reporting levels (LCMRLs)
No. VOC Henry’s Constant MDL LCMRL
(dimensionless)* (ng/L) (ng/L)
1 Vinyl chloride 0.869 3.2 11
2 1,3-butadiene 2.235 16 43
3 Dichloromethane 0.081 11 116
4 1,1-dichloroethane 0.19 16 23
5 Carbon tetrachloride 0.969 21 21
6 Benzene 0.171 23 24
7 1,2-dichloroethane 0.0397 7.9 20
8 Trichloroethylene 0.289 10 17
9 1,2-dichloropropane 0.088 16 25
10 Tetrachloroethylene 0.530 30 30
11 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane 0.077 16 16
12 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane 0.014 7.1 30
13 1,2,3-trichloropropane 0.0096 20 37
Source: NIST 2011
The current maximum contaminant level (MCL) for all regulated carcinogenic VOCs is 5
ug/L except vinyl chloride which has an MCL of 2 ug/L. This study targeted treatment objectives
in the sub-micron range, and utilized an initial concentration of about 5 ug/L and a treatment
objective below 0.05 ug/L for all VOCs.
Ground water from Portage Lake in Houghton, Michigan was used for the 12°C and 20°C
experiments, the 4°C experiment was performed on Portage Lake water. The purpose of the two
water sources was to obtain the required temperatures. Polypropylene tanks (850 gallon capacity)
were used and spiked with the VOC concentrations prior to each performance testing operation.
The water was left in tank until it reached the desired test temperature then the test was conducted.

The water flow rate was controlled via a DeltaV process controlled pump, and the water flow rate
was measured using a water flow gauge provided by the tray aeration manufacturer, and also by a
Mag-Meter (Honeywell) connected to the process controlled pump.
VOCS CONCENTRATIONS MEASUREMENTS
The VOCs analysis was conducted by the EPA in Cincinnati, OH using EPA Method 524.3
(EPA 2009). The method was modified to use heated headspace analysis instead of purge and trap
for VOCs that are liquid or solid at room temperature. For VOCs that are gaseous at room
temperature (vinyl chloride and 1,3-butadiene), the method used solid phase microextraction
(SPME) analysis. In addition, the method used an MS detector in the single ion mode (SIM)
instead of full scan mode to obtain lower detection limits. Samples were collected in 40 ml vials,
packed with ice, and shipped overnight to the EPA in Cincinnati. The lowest concentration minimum
reporting levels (LCMRLs) for the VOCs of interest were determined in distilled deionized water.
The LCMRLs were determined to be between 10 – 50 ng/L, with the exception of dichloromethane
(116 ng/L). The method detection limits (MDLs) and the LCMRLs are shown in Table 2.1.
A stock solution of the 13 VOCs was prepared at the EPA laboratory in Cincinnati. Target
concentrations were tested and verified before the stock solution was used in the field testing phase.
TRAY AERATION PILOT PLANT
A six tray STAT15 low profile aeration unit, manufactured by Carbonair Environmental
Systems, was used in this study. This unit is capable of treating 0.5-15 gpm with a maximum air
flow rate of 80 CFM (cubic feet per minute). Figure 2.1 displays a STAT15 low profile aeration
unit. The pilot plant, STAT15, was equipped with six trays, and sampling ports were added
between trays to determine the removal efficiency after every tray. The surface area of each tray
is 1.66 ft2, the total surface area of the six trays used is 9.96 ft2. Unlike the conventional packed
tower air strippers that use media of known specific surface areas, the air-water interface in low
profile air strippers is created via high turbulent mixing and frothing. Therefore, it is very hard to
measure the specific surface area of the interface, instead the removal efficiency is related to the
number of trays, or the area of trays.

Source: Courtesy of Carbonair
Figure 2.1 STAT15 low profile aeration unit
INITIAL TESTING WITH CHLOROFORM
The performance of the low profile air stripping unit was evaluated by performing initial
testing with chloroform. The goal of this test was to determine the actual removal rates and
efficiencies at various air to water ratios and compare the results to the model predictions provided
by the low profile air stripping unit manufacturer.
The results showed that under the examined operating conditions (air to water ratio=34 and
21°C) the unit successfully achieved the removal efficiencies and dropped the concentration of
chloroform from 7537 ug/L to below 50 ug/L. Table 2.2 illustrates the results of the unit initial
testing with chloroform in comparison to the predicted performance of the manufacturer. Both
Carbonair model prediction and the measured effluent chloroform concentration were below 50
ug/L, which corresponds to a removal efficiency greater that 99.3%.
Table 2.2 Low profile air stripper initial testing result with chloroform at air/water ratio of
34 in comparison to the manufacturer’s prediction*.
Tray Measured Effluent Measured Predicted Effluent Predicted
no. Conc. (ug/L) Removal (%) Conc. (ug/L) Removal (%)
1.0 3063 59.4 3133 58.4
2.0 2088 72.3 1367 81.8
3.0 1367 81.9 611 91.9
4.0 737 90.2 275 96.4
5.0 193 97.4 124 98.4
6.0 <50 >99.3 56 99.3
* Chloroform influent concentration is 7537 ug/L

The research team also conducted experiments to optimize the sampling procedure and
determined that adding 4” Teflon tubes, to the sampling ports to minimize VOCs volatilization
during sampling, enhanced the reproducibility of the results significantly.
HYDRAULIC TESTING
During the initial operation, the research team experienced some flooding problems at high
water flow rates (low air/water ratio). When flooding occurred, water started to splash out of the
unit through the air exit port. The research team contacted the manufacturer and discussed this
issue with their engineers who recommended starting the unit at low water flow rate then gradually
increase the water flow rate to the desired rate.
Following the manufacturer’s advice, the unit operation was started at 1 gpm and increased
gradually over time to the higher desired flow rates and no operational problems were observed.

CHAPTER THREE
RESULTS
OPERATION CONDITIONS
The removal of the 13 focus VOCs was studied under three different temperatures and
various air to water ratios. Table 3.1 summarizes the testing conditions for the 13 VOCs conducted
in this study.
Table 3.1 Pilot plant testing conditions for the 13 focus VOCs
Test ID Temperature A/W 1 A/W 2 A/W 3 A/W 4
°C (°F) Qw (gpm) A/W Qw (gpm) A/W Qw (gpm) A/W Qw (gpm) A/W
T1 4 ( 39.2) 1 598 3.7 162 8.5 70 11.35 53
T2 20 (68) 0.92 652 3.98 150 11.28 53
T3 12 (53.6) 1.15 521 3.59 167 8.26 72 11.09 54
OPERATIONS AT 4°C
The first set of pilot plant experiments was conducted at a water temperature of 4°C. The
results of the pilot plant operation on the 13 VOCs, at four different air to water ratios are displayed
in Table 3.2. Table 3.2 presents the concentration of the VOCs after every tray in ng/L, and the
overall removal efficiency after the sixth tray.
As described in a previous section, the design of the tray aeration system depends mainly
on the stripping factor, which in return depends on two major components, Henry’s law constant
and the air to water ratio. The variability in the removal efficiencies among VOCs is attributed to
the variation in the VOCs Henry’s constant. Higher Henry’s law constants (lower solubility and
higher vapor pressure) result in higher removal efficiency.
It is clear from the results in Table 3.2 that the removal efficiency increases with the air to
water ratio. At the high air to water ratio (598), all VOCs were completely removed except
trichloroethylene, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, and 1,2,3-trichloropropane which also exhibited very
high removal efficiencies of 99.9%, 99.2%, and 98.9% respectively. Many of the VOC were
completely removed after the third of fourth tray.
The removal efficiencies consistently decreased with decreasing the air to water ratio. The
lowest removal efficiencies were obtained at the lowest air to water ratio of 53. However, very
high removal efficiencies (over 99%) were still achieved for highly volatile VOCs such as vinyl
chloride, 1,3-butadiene, and carbon tetrachloride, which have Henry’s law constants of 0.869 or
higher. Seven out of 13 VOCs showed removal efficiencies were higher than 90%, three VOCs
showed about 60-85% removal efficiencies. Two VOCs, 1,2,3-Trichloropropane and 1,1,2,2-
Tetrachloroethane, showed low removal efficiency of 20.9% and 19.7% respectively.
Obtaining high removal efficiencies for many VOCs at low air to water ratios challenges
the common assumption that low profile air strippers require high air to water ratios. The results
suggests that low profile air stripping require low air to water ratios for the effective removal of

highly volatile VOCs, which could favor the low profile air strippers over conventional packed
tower air strippers in many cases.
Table 3.2 Aeration pilot plant operation results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at four
different air to water ratios, and water temperature of 4°C, concentrations in ng/L, ND =
non detect.
Carbon Tetrachloride
1,2‐Dichloropropane
Tetrachloroethylene
1,1‐Dichloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Trichloropropane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3‐Butadiene
Benzene
Tray no.
1,1,1,2‐
1,1,2,2‐
1,2,3‐

A/W ratio = 598
Influent 7487 6559 7491 7057 6993 7666 7173 7963 7710 6288 6985 5796 6588
1 38 21 341 183 54 183 654 499 392 93 471 2289 3117
2 5 ND 30 12 4 10 70 173 26 3 31 1071 1663
3 ND ND ND 1** ND ND 7 68 7 ND ND 456 777
4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 31 ND ND ND 211 372
5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 12.3 ND ND ND 76 160
Efficiency 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99.9 100% 100% 100% 99.2% 98.9%
A/W ratio = 162
Influent 7902 7179 7547 7132 7329 7815 7217 8039 7724 6650 7033 6070 6793
1 354 145 2102 1217 464 1304 3433 1786 2286 714 2575 5483 6518
2 25 13 518 209 35 213 1515 888 649 87 883 4817 5973
3 ND ND 151 31 2 30 666 568 175 8 263 4421 5465
4 ND ND ND 2 ND 2 315 516 55 ND 100 3761 4834
5 ND ND ND ND ND ND 145 417 21 ND 41 3125 4107
6 ND ND 7 ND ND ND 69 276 15 ND 27 2124 2867
Efficiency 100% 100% 99.9% 100% 100% 100% 99.0% 96.6 99.8% 100% 99.6% 65.0% 57.8%
A/W ratio = 70
Influent 7653 6910 7269 6909 6946 7480 7071 7608 7453 6581 6948 6083 6582
1 1007 519 3997 2548 1224 2778 5425 2891 4349 1711 4691 5735 6506
2 116 38 2101 894 181 951 4326 1207 2358 386 2840 5313 6086
3 17 ND 1209 373 39 389 3669 912 1453 135 2000 5474 6411
4 ND ND 682 145 7 136 2788 703 817 46 1251 5360 6292
5 ND ND 353 59 4 53 1894 556 439 26 725 4940 5835
6 ND ND 157 27 1 30 1121 279 209 13 381 4221 4779
Efficiency 100 100% 97.8% 99.6 100% 99.6 84.1% 96.3 97.2% 99.8% 94.5% 30.6% 27.4%
A/W ratio = 53
Influent 7908 7381 7306 6878 7083 7477 6975 8471 7432 6757 6921 6083 6788
1 1577 563 Failed 4839 759 4198 Failed 3421 Failed Failed Failed Failed Failed
2 565 268 3567 1926 676 2085 5193 1952 3822 1116 4170 5643 6200
3 239 94 2831 1252 312 1339 4706 1336 2996 621 3450 5479 6082
4 114 40 2454 894 155 953 4695 1014 2590 354 3038 5842 6400
5 51 19 1584 500 69 538 3678 632 1722 177 2177 5390 5955
6 33 16 1093 320 43 341 2796 494 1194 116 1569 4886 5371
Efficiency 99.6 99.8 85.0% 95.3 99.4 95.4 59.9% 94.2 83.9% 98.3% 77.3% 19.7% 20.9%
* Failed samples showed effluent concentrations higher than influent concentrations.

** Values lower than the LCMRL resulted from subtracting background concentrations from test
results.

OPERATIONS AT 12°C
The change in temperature changes Henry’s constants, which consequently affects the
VOCs removal efficiencies. The second set of pilot plant operations was conducted at a water
temperature of 12°C to obtain operation data at various temperatures, the results of the pilot plant
operation on the 13 VOCs, at four different air to water ratios are illustrated in Table 3.3. Table
3.3 presents the concentration of the VOCs after every tray in ng/L and the overall removal
efficiency after the sixth tray.
water ratios. At the high air to water ratio (521), all VOCs were completely removed except
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and 1,2,3-trichloropropane, which also exhibited a very high removal
efficiencies of 99.7% and 99.5% respectively. Many of the VOC were completely removed after
the third or fourth tray. The removal efficiencies of the first air to water ratio was higher than the
removal efficiencies of the first air to water ratio at 4°C even though the air to water ratio is lower
(598 @ 4°C vs 521@ 12°C). This demonstrates the relative increase in Henry’s law constant due
to the temperature increase was higher than the relative decrease in the air to water ratio, which
accentuates the significance of the temperature change effect.
Similarly to the results of Table 3.2, the removal efficiencies illustrated in Table 3.3
consistently decreased with decreasing air to water ratios. The lowest removal efficiencies were
obtained at the lowest air to water ratio of 54. However, very high removal efficiencies (above
99%) were still achieved for highly volatile VOCs such as vinyl chloride, 1,3-butadiene, 1,1-
Dichloroethane, carbon tetrachloride, benzene, and Tetrachloroethylene. Nine out of 13 VOCs
showed removal efficiencies higher than 94%.
A clear improvement in the removal efficiency can be observed in all air to water ratios
due to the increase of the water temperature, which consequently increased Henry’s law constants.

Table 3.3 Aeration pilot plant operation results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at four
non detect.
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloropropane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3‐Butadiene
Benzene
Tray no.
1,1,2,2‐
1,1,1,2‐
1,2,3‐
A/W ratio = 521
Influent 7830 4169 6666 6267 6492 7121 6604 7155 6549 5554 5469 4620 5721
1 22 ND 225 95 27 105 402 422 214 39 234 1119 1874
2 4 ND ND 5 3 5 26 74 10 5 14 280 526
3 ND ND ND ND ND ND 2 31 2 ND ND 86 192
5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 29 55
6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 14 29
Efficiency 100% 100 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99.7% 99.5%
A/W ratio = 167
Influent 8291 4423 6490 6076 6486 6973 6437 7016 6355 6023 5571 4554 5386
1 236 67 1076 657 245 739 1949 1359 1217 376 1323 3390 4793
2 9 ND 82 66 9 71 598 771 212 20 250 2599 4150
3 ND ND ND 4 ND 7 187 605 30 1** 56 1893 3336
4 ND ND ND ND ND ND 76 369 ND ND 17 1337 2465
Efficiency 100% 100 100% 100% 100% 100% 99.5 98.1% 100% 100% 99.9 87.3% 80.1%
A/W ratio = 72
Influent 9217 4867 6957 6649 7474 7635 6883 7736 6822 6869 5898 4856 5740
1 701 266 2493 1539 689 1762 3909 2040 2590 987 2663 4360 5566
2 49 13 987 398 60 451 2592 1181 1113 135 1237 4287 5803
3 4 ND 285 103 5 118 1443 987 418 31 520 3642 5161
4 ND ND 38 36 ND 40 828 713 178 14 242 3254 4538
5 ND ND Failed* 20 ND 24 722 Failed* 108 7 149 Failed* Failed*
6 ND ND ND 14 ND 16 282 Failed* 53 ND 63 1649 3111
Efficiency 100% 100 100% 99.8 100% 99.8 95.9 87.4%**** 99.2 100% 98.9 66.0% 45.8%
A/W ratio = 54
Influent 8035 4092 6383 6109 6494 7026 6441 6952 6400 5864 5634 4688 5724
1 1338 566 3622 2355 1289 2673 4934 3074 3639 1598 3712 4263 5700
2 211 60 1886 861 241 975 3678 1693 1964 377 2049 4077 5670
3 39 11 952 307 50 349 2533 1268 997 105 1173 3629 5238
4 22 ND 653 199 27 224 2255 Failed* 747 58 867 3644 5460
5 12 ND 466 115 15 133 1786 Failed* 511 32 592 3306 5106
6 7 ND 206 56 9 64 1090 964 273 19 339 2689 4142
Efficiency 99.9 100 96.8% 99.1 99.9 99.1 83.1 86.1% 95.7 99.7 94.0 42.6% 27.6%
* Failed samples showed effluent concentrations higher than influent concentrations.
** Values lower than the LCMRL resulted from subtracting background concentrations from test
results.
*** Efficiency after tray no. 4
10

OPERATIONS AT 20°C
The third and last set of pilot plant operations was conducted at a water temperature of
20°C, the results of the pilot plant operation on the 13 VOCs, at three different air to water ratios
are illustrated in Table 3.4. Table 3.4 presents the concentration of the VOCs after every tray in
ng/L, and the overall removal efficiency after the sixth tray.
water ratios. At the high air to water ratio (652), all VOCs were completely removed including
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane and 1,2,3-trichloropropane. Many of the VOCs were completely
removed after the first or the second tray. This demonstrates the effect of the temperature change
on Henry’s constant.
Similarly to the results of Tables 3.2 and 3.3, the removal efficiencies illustrated in Table
3.4 consistently decreased with decreasing air to water ratios. The lowest removal efficiencies
were obtained at the lowest air to water ratio of 53. However, very high removal efficiencies were
still achieved for highly volatile VOCs, many VOCs were completely removed and only two VOCs
exhibited removal efficiencies less than 91%.
A clear improvement in the removal efficiency can be observed in all air to water ratios
due to the increase of the water temperature which consequently increased Henry’s constants. The
results in Table 3.4 shows that the low profile air stripping is very effective in removing 11 out of
the 13 focus VOCs using air to water ratio of 53 at water temperature of 20°C.
11

Table 3.4 Aeration pilot plant operation results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at three
non detect.
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Trichloropropane
Dichloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3‐Butadiene
Benzene
Tray no.
1,1,1,2‐
1,1,2,2‐
1,2,3‐
A/W ratio = 652
Influent 6962 5317 6771 6105 5822 6984 6723 6715 6604 5169 5523 4714 5630
1 14 ND 7 59 14 61 241 185 133 27 137 678 1094
2 2.9 ND ND 5 1* 3 10 26 11 2 8 80 170
3 ND ND ND ND ND ND 1 2 ND ND ND 13 36
4 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND 10
5 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
6 ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND ND
Efficiency 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
A/W ratio = 150
Influent 8231 6739 7070 6470 6813 7346 6926 7231 6797 6348 5910 4937 5617
1 121 42 662 403 118 451 1309 665 786 179 775 2598 3642
2 3 ND ND 30 3 29 281 291 101 8 109 1463 2461
3 ND ND ND 4 ND 4 67 171 17 1 18 887 1698
4 ND ND ND ND ND ND 14 94 6 1 3 423 934
Efficiency 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 99.5% 100% 100% 100% 97.6% 94.2%
A/W ratio = 53
Influent 8253 6987 6961 6572 7079 7362 6833 7184 6778 5644 5632 5129 6069
1 944 557 2790 1654 890 1869 3895 1993 2649 1012 2623 4496 5685
2 261 121 1471 715 265 806 2836 1324 1493 336 1496 3997 5397
3 65 25 770 287 66 322 1843 578 766 109 778 3407 4344
4 20 ND 401 148 22 160 1482 529 487 40 479 3197 4215
5 6 ND 107 55 5 56 908 427 240 12 258 2664 3665
6 3 ND ND 27 2 25 588 378 133 4 145 2140 3095
Efficiency 100% 100% 100% 99.6% 100% 99.7% 91.4% 94.7% 98.0% 99.9% 97.4% 58.3% 49.0%
* Values lower than the LCMRL resulted from subtracting background concentrations from
test results.
12

Vinyl Chloride
100.0%
99.5%
Removal Efficiency
99.0% 4°C
12°C
20°C
98.5%
98.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.1 The removal efficiency of vinyl chloride using STAT15 low profile air stripper.
VINYL CHLORIDE REMOVAL
The effect of temperature and air to water ratio change on the removal efficiency of vinyl
chloride is illustrated in Figure 3.1. Vinyl chloride is characterized with high Henry’s law constant
(0.869 dimensionless air/water at 20°C). Low profile air stripping is very effective for vinyl
chloride removal even at low temperatures and low air to water ratios (below 100).
Vinyl chloride was completely removed in most of the tested scenarios, and showed a very
high removal efficiency (99.6%) at the lowest temperature (4°C) and lowest air to water ratio (53)
which is the worst case examined.
13

1,3‐Butadiene
100.0%
Removal Efficiency 99.5%
4°C
99.0%
12°C
20°C
98.5%
98.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.2 The removal efficiency of 1,3-butadiene using STAT15 low profile air stripper
1,3-BUTADIENE REMOVAL
The effect of temperature and air to water ratio change on the removal efficiency of 1,3-
butadiene is illustrated in Figure 3.2. 1,3-Butadiene is characterized with high Henry’s law
constant (2.23 dimensionless air/water at 20°C) which is the highest among the 13 VOCs. Low
profile air stripping is very effective for 1,3-butadiene removal even at low temperatures and low
air to water ratios (below 100).
1,3-Butadiene was completely removed in most of the tested scenarios, and showed a very
high removal efficiency (99.8%) at the lowest temperature (4°C) and lowest air to water ratio (53)
which is the worst case examined.
14

Dichloromethane
100.0%
98.0%
94.0%
4°C
92.0%
12°C
90.0%
20°C
88.0%
86.0%
84.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.3 The removal efficiency of dichloromethane using STAT15 low profile air
stripper
DICHLOROMETHANE REMOVAL
The effect of temperature and air to water ratio change on the removal efficiency of
dichloromethane is illustrated in Figure 3.3. Dichloromethane is characterized with low Henry’s
law constant (0.081 dimensionless air/water at 20°C). Low profile air stripping is very effective
for dichloromethane removal even at low temperatures and low air to water ratios (below 100).
This VOC exhibited almost 100% removal rates at the three temperatures and air to water ratios
of about 150. The 100% removal rate was achieved even at air to water ratio as low as 70, except
for the 4°C run which resulted in the high removal efficiency of 98%.
At the low air to water ratio of 53, the temperature effect became clear with 100% removal
at 20°C, 96.8% removal at 12°C, and a lowest removal efficiency of 85%, which remains relatively
high, at the worst case scenario of 4°C.
15

100.0%
99.5%
99.0%
Removal Efficiency
98.5%
98.0% 4°C
97.5%
12°C
97.0%
96.5% 20C
96.0%
95.5%
95.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.4 The removal efficiency of 1,1-dichloroethane using STAT15 low profile air
stripper
1,1-DICHLOROETHANE REMOVAL
dichloroethane is illustrated in Figure 3.4. 1,1-Dichloroethane is characterized with a moderate
Henry’s law constant (0.194 dimensionless air/water at 20°C). Low profile air stripping is very
effective for 1,1-dichloroethane removal even at low temperatures and low air to water ratios
(below 100). This VOC exhibited 100% removal rates at the three temperatures and air to water
ratio of about 150. The very high removal efficiency of 99.6 and 99.8 was achieved at the relatively
low air to water ratio of about 70 and temperatures of 4°C and 12 C.
At the low air to water ratio of 53, the temperature effect became clear with 99.6% removal
at 20°C, 99.18% removal at 12°C, and the lowest removal efficiency of 95.3%, was achieved at
the worst case scenario of 4°C.
16

100.0%
99.5%
99.0%
Removal Efficiency
98.5%
98.0% 4°C
97.5%
12°C
97.0%
96.5% 20°C
96.0%
95.5%
95.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.5 The removal efficiency of carbon tetrachloride using STAT15 low profile air
stripper
CARBON TETRACHLORIDE REMOVAL
The effect of temperature and air to water ratio change on the removal efficiency of carbon
tetrachloride is illustrated in Figure 3.5. Carbon tetrachloride is characterized with a very high
Henry’s law constant (0.969 dimensionless air/water at 20°C) which is the second highest among
the 13 VOCs. Low profile air stripping is very effective for carbon tetrachloride removal even at
low temperatures and low air to water ratios (below 100).
Carbon tetrachloride was completely removed in most of the tested scenarios, and showed
a very high removal efficiency (99.4%) at the lowest temperature (4°C) and lowest air to water
ratio (53) which is the worst case examined.
17

Benzene
100.0%
99.5%
99.0%
Removal Efficiency
98.5%
98.0% 4°C
97.5%
12°C
97.0%
96.5% 20°C
96.0%
95.5%
95.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.6 The removal efficiency of benzene using STAT15 low profile air stripper
BENZENE REMOVAL
benzene is illustrated in Figure 3.6. Benzene is characterized with a moderate Henry’s law constant
(0.171 dimensionless air/water at 20°C). Low profile air stripping is very effective for benzene
removal even at low temperatures and low air to water ratios (below 100). This VOC exhibited
100% removal rates at the three temperatures and air to water ratio of about 150. The very high
removal efficiency of 99.6 and 99.8 was achieved at the relatively low air to water ratio of about
70 and temperatures of 4°C and 12°C.
At the low air to water ratio of 53, the temperature effect on benzene removal became clear
with 99.6% removal at 20°C, 99.18% removal at 12°C, and a lowest removal efficiency of 95.3%,
achieved at the worst case scenario of 4°C.
18

100.0%
95.0%
90.0%
Removal Efficiency
85.0%
80.0% 4°C
75.0%
12°C
70.0%
65.0% 20°C
60.0%
55.0%
50.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.7 The removal efficiency of 1,2-dichloroethane using STAT15 low profile air
stripper
1,2-DICHLOROETHANE REMOVAL
dichloroethane is illustrated in Figure 3.7. 1,2-Dichloroethane is characterized with a low Henry’s
law constant (0.0397 dimensionless air/water at 20°C). Low profile air stripping is very effective
for 1,2-dichloroethane removal at high air to water ratios (about 600) at all examined temperatures.
The removal efficiency was still high at air to water ratios of about 150-167. 100% removal
was achieved at 20°C (150 air to water ratio), 99.5% removal efficiency at 12°C (167 air to water
ratio), and 99% at 4°C (162 air to water ratio).
Because of the low Henry’s law constant, the effect of temperature became more
significant at lower air to water ratios. At air to water ratio of about 70, the removal efficiency
dropped to 95.9% and 84.1% for the 12°C and the 4°C. The efficiency dropped further at the lowest
air to water ratio of about 53 to 91.4%, 83.1%, and 59.9% at 25°C, 12°C, and 4°C respectively.
19

Trichloroethylene
100.0%
98.0%
94.0%
4°C
92.0%
12°C
90.0%
20°C
88.0%
86.0%
84.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.8 The removal efficiency of trichloroethylene using STAT15 low profile air
stripper. Empty circles represent unreliable efficiency results.
TRICHLOROETHYLENE REMOVAL
trichloroethylene is illustrated in Figure 3.8. Trichloroethylene is characterized with a relatively
high Henry’s law constant (0.289 dimensionless air/water at 20°C). Low profile air stripping is
very effective for trichloroethylene removal at high air to water ratios at all examined temperatures.
The removal efficiency in the case of trichloroethylene seems to be more sensitive to the
temperature change. The drop in removal efficiencies was noticeable even at the 150-167 range
air to water ratios. 99.5% removal was achieved at 20°C (150 air to water ratio), 98.1% removal
efficiency at 12°C (167 air to water ratio), and 96.6% at 4°C (162 air to water ratio).
The removal efficiency at 20°C dropped to 94.7% at the lowest air to water ratio of 53.
Both removal efficiencies at 12°C and 4°C at the two air to water ratios of about 53 and 70 were
considered unreliable due to the inconsistent individual trays removal results obtained at these
conditions.
20

100.0%
98.0%
96.0%
Removal Efficiency
94.0%
92.0% 4°C
90.0% 12°C
88.0% 20°C
86.0%
84.0%
82.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.9 The removal efficiency of 1,2-dichloropropane using STAT15 low profile air
stripper
1,2-DICHLOROPROPANE REMOVAL
dichloropropane is illustrated in Figure 3.9. 1,2-dichloropropane is characterized with a low
Henry’s law constant (0.088 dimensionless air/water). However, the results showed that low
profile air stripping is effective for 1,2-dichloropropane removal.
1,2-dichloropropane was almost completely removed at the three temperatures and air to
water ratio of about 150. A slightly lower removal efficiencies (99.2% and 97.2%) were observed
at lower air to water ratios (72 and 70) and lower temperatures (12°C and 4°C).
It is noticeable that the removal efficiency is not very sensitive to the temperature variation
at high air to water ratios (> 150). The effect of lower temperatures started to become significant
at low air to water ratios (around 53) and the removal efficacy varied significantly among the three
temperature (98%, 95.7% and 83.0 % for 20°C, 12°C and 4°C).
21

Tetrachloroethylene
100.0%
99.5%
99.0%
Removal Efficiency
98.5%
98.0% 4°C
97.5%
12°C
97.0%
96.5% 20°C
96.0%
95.5%
95.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.10 The removal efficiency of tetrachloroethylene using STAT15 low profile air
stripper
TETRACHLOROETHYLENE REMOVAL
tetrachloroethylene is illustrated in Figure 3.10. Tetrachloroethylene is characterized with a high
Henry’s law constant (0.53 dimensionless air/water). However, the results showed that low profile
air stripping is effective for tetrachloroethylene removal.
Tetrachloroethylene was almost completely removed at the three temperatures and air to
water ratio of about 150. A complete removal was observed at 12°C and air to water ratio of about
70 slightly lower removal efficiency (99.8%) was observed at 4°C.
The removal efficiency remained high at the lowest air to water ratio, 99.9%, 99.7%, and
98.3% removal efficiencies were achieved at temperatures of 20°C, 12°C and 4°C respectively.
The temperature effect also became noticeable at the lowest air to water ratio.
22

1,1,1,2‐Tetrachloroethane
100.0%
95.0%
90.0%
Removal Efficiency
85.0%
80.0% 4°C
75.0%
12°C
70.0%
65.0% 20°C
60.0%
55.0%
50.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.11 The removal efficiency of 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane using STAT15 low profile
air stripper
1,1,1,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE REMOVAL
The effect of temperature and air to water ratio change on the removal efficiency of 1,1,1,2-
tetrachloroethane is illustrated in Figure 3.11. 1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane is characterized with a
low Henry’s law constant (0.077 dimensionless air/water). However, the results showed that low
profile air stripping is effective for 1,1,1,2-tetrachloroethane removal.
1,1,1,2-Tetrachloroethane was almost completely removed at the three temperatures and
air to water ratio of about 150-167. A 98.9% removal was observed at 12°C and air to water ratio
of about 70 and lower removal efficiency (94.5%) was observed at 4°C.
The removal efficiency remained high at the lowest air to water ratio, 97.4%, 94%, and
77.3% removal efficiencies were achieved at temperatures of 20°C, 12°C and 4°C respectively.
The temperature effect also became noticeable at the lowest air to water ratio. All experiments
succeeded to produce sub ug/L effluents except the experiment of 53 air to water ratio at 4°C.
23

1,1,2,2‐Tetrachloroethane
100.0%
90.0%
80.0%
Removal Efficiency
70.0%
60.0% 4°C
50.0%
12°C
40.0%
30.0% 20°C
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.12 The removal efficiency of 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane using STAT15 low profile
air stripper
1,1,2,2-TETRACHLOROETHANE REMOVAL
The effect of temperature and air to water ratio change on the removal efficiency of 1,1,2,2-
tetrachloroethane is illustrated in Figure 3.12. 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane is characterized with a low
Henry’s law constant (0.0139 dimensionless air/water), which is the second lowest among the 13
focus VOCs. Low profile air stripping is effective for 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane removal at high
air to water ratios, and at high temperatures at moderate air to water ratios.
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane was almost completely removed at the three temperatures and air
to water ratio of above 500. Lower removal efficiencies (97.6%, 87.3% and 65%) were observed
at lower air to water ratios (150, 167 and 162), sub ug/L effluent was not achieved at 4°C, and the
temperature change effect was significant at this range of air to water ratios. At air to water ratio
of 72 the removal efficiency at 12oC dropped to 66% and at the air to water ratio of 70 the removal
efficiency at 4oC dropped to 30.6%, both did not achieve sub ug/L effluent.
At the low air to water ratio of about 53, the removal efficiency dropped to between 58.3%
and 19.7%, at temperatures between 20°C and 4°C, and no sub ug/L effluent was achieved.
24

1,2,3‐Trichloropropane
100.0%
90.0%
70.0%
60.0%
4 C
50.0%
12 C
40.0%
30.0% 20C
20.0%
10.0%
0.0%
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Air to Water Ratio
Figure 3.13 The removal efficiency of 1,2,3-trichloropropane using STAT15 low profile air
stripper
1,2,3-TRICHLOROPROPANE REMOVAL
The effect of temperature and air to water ratio change on the removal efficiency of 1,2,3-
trichloropropane is illustrated in Figure 3.13. 1,2,3-trichloropropane is characterized with a low
Henry’s law constant (0.0096 dimensionless air/water), which is the lowest among the 13 focus
VOCs. Low profile air stripping is effective for 1,2,3-trichloropropane removal at high air to water
ratios, and at high temperatures at moderate air to water ratios.
1,2,3-trichloropropane was almost completely removed at the three temperatures and air to
water ratio of above 500. Lower removal efficiencies (94.2%, 80.1% and 57.8%) were observed
at lower air to water ratios (150, 167 and 162), sub ug/L effluent was not achieved at 12°C and
4°C, and the temperature change effect was significant at this range of air to water ratios.
At the low air to water ratio of about 53, the removal efficiency dropped to between 50%
and 20%, at temperatures between 20°C and 4°C, and no sub ug/L effluent was achieved.
25

CHAPTER FOUR
LOW PROFILE AIR STRIPPING PERFORMANCE MODELING
LaBranche and Collins (1996) applied an empirical Fickian approach of mass transfer to
low profile air stripping and showed that the mass transfer rate of trichloroethylene and
tetrachloroethylene was comparable to mass transfer constants of VOCs in packed tower air
stripping (Crittenden et al. 2012). However, since low profile air strippers do not contain a standard
media and they vary in design from one manufacturer to another it is impossible to identify a
common mass transfer constant. Therefore, the product specific mass transfer constants are often
determined experimentally by manufacturers, and many manufacturers, such as Carbonair
Environmental Systems and North East Environmental Products, provide computer models that
can be used for the design and analysis of their various low profile air strippers.
MANUFACTURER’S MODEL PREDICTIONS
Carbonair STAT modeler was used to model the performance of the STAT15 low profile
air stripper and the model results were compared to pilot plant operation for the same unit. All
temperatures and air to water ratios scenarios were modeled and the results of the Carbonair STAT
modeler were compared to the pilot plant operations results. Table 4.1 illustrates the removal
efficiencies obtained from pilot plant operation, Carbonair STAT modeler predictions, and the
difference between both for the 13 VOCs at 12°C and 167 air to water ratio.
27

Table 4.1 Comparison between pilot plant operation removal efficiencies and Carbonair
STAT modeler predictions for the 13 VOCs at 12°C and 167 air to water ratio
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1,3‐Butadiene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Tray no.
1,1,1,2‐
1,1,2,2‐
Pilot plant data removal efficiency (%) after each tray
1 97.2 98.5 83.4 89.2 96.2 89.4 69.7 80.6 80.9 93.8 76.3 25.6 11.0
2 99.9 100 98.7 98.9 99.9 99.0 90.7 89.0 96.7 99.7 95.5 42.9 23.0
3 100 100 100 99.9 100 99.9 97.1 91.4 99.5 100 99.0 58.4 38.0
4 100 100 100 100 100 100 98.8 94.7 100 100 99.7 70.6 54.2
5 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.2 95.5 100 100 99.8 79.5 64.6
6 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.5 98.1 100 100 99.9 87.3 80.1
Carbonair STAT modeler predicted efficiency (%) after each tray
1 93.8 93.9 75.8 86.1 91.6 86.5 66.9 88.8 74.4 89.6 69.1 31.6 22.2
2 99.6 99.6 93.7 98.0 99.3 98.1 88.2 98.7 93.1 98.9 89.9 50.4 36.7
3 100 100 98.4 99.7 99.9 99.7 95.7 99.9 98.1 99.9 96.6 62.8 46.9
4 100 100 99.6 100 100 100 98.4 100 99.5 100 98.9 71.4 54.5
5 100 100 99.9 100 100 100 99.4 100 99.9 100 99.6 77.6 60.4
6 100 100 100 100 100 100 99.8 100 100 100 99.9 82.3 65.0
The difference (%) between data and model predicted efficiency after each tray
1 3.3 4.6 7.7 3.1 4.6 2.9 2.9 ‐8.1 6.5 4.2 7.2 ‐6.0 ‐11.2
2 0.3 0.4 5.0 0.9 0.6 0.9 2.5 ‐9.7 3.6 0.8 5.6 ‐7.5 ‐13.8
3 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.4 ‐8.5 1.4 0.1 2.4 ‐4.4 ‐8.9
4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 ‐5.2 0.5 0.0 0.8 ‐0.8 ‐0.3
5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐0.2 ‐4.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.9 4.2
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐0.3 ‐1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 15.1
The results presented in Table 4.1 clearly indicate that Carbonair STAT modeler was
successful in predicting the removal of the VOCs, and it is accurate even at the single tray level.
The third part of Table presents the difference between the observed removal efficacy and the
Carbonair STAT modeler predicted efficiency. The difference is less than one percent for most of
the VOCs, the model slightly over predicted the removal of Trichloroethylene and under predicted
the removal of 1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane and 1,2,3-Trichloropropane by 5% and 15%.
Table 4.2 illustrates the difference between the pilot plant observed removal efficiencies
and the Carbonair STAT modeler predicted removal efficiencies, for the four air to water ratios at
4°C. The results in Table 4.2 shows that the difference is mostly small (except for 1,2,3-
trichloropropane) at the high air to water ratio (598). The difference increased as the air to water
ratio decreased, and the highest difference (at 4°C) was observed at the lowest air to water ratio
(53). However, at the lowest air to water ratio, the difference was about 5% and less for all VOCs
except 1,2-dichloroethane and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.
Another observation from Table 4.2 is that the model tends to under predict the removal
efficiency at the high air to water ratio (598) and over predict the removal efficiency at the low air
28

to water ratio (53), except for trichloroethylene for which the removal efficiency was over
predicted by the model in all cases.
Table 4.2 The difference in observed VOCs removal efficiencies and Carbonair STAT
modeler predicted removal efficiencies at 4°C
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3‐Butadiene
Benzene
Tray no.
1,1,1,2‐
1,1,2,2‐
The difference between data and model predicted efficiency (%) at A/W ratio of 598
1 0.7 0.8 4.2 1.2 1.0 1.2 4.5 ‐3.5 4.2 0.9 5.6 6.6 11.5
2 ‐0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 ‐2.1 0.6 0.0 1.1 4.4 11.7
3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 ‐0.9 0.0 0.0 0.2 3.8 12.3
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 10.4
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 8.4
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 6.3
1 4.8 6.8 7.3 3.8 5.6 3.4 ‐2.9 ‐5.6 6.6 4.1 5.7 ‐12.7 ‐11.1
2 0.6 0.6 6.4 1.6 1.0 1.5 0.5 ‐8.2 5.5 0.9 6.5 ‐16.3 ‐13.6
3 0.1 0.1 3.1 0.6 0.1 0.5 1.4 ‐6.6 3.2 0.2 5.1 ‐20.1 ‐13.8
4 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 1.0 ‐6.3 1.5 0.1 2.7 ‐16.9 ‐10.4
5 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 ‐5.2 0.6 0.0 1.3 ‐12.3 ‐4.3
6 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 ‐3.4 0.1 0.0 0.5 ‐0.5 10.3
1 11.5 16.0 3.6 5.7 11.4 4.5 ‐9.8 ‐1.4 1.1 7.7 ‐2.6 ‐5.4 ‐6.2
2 4.7 5.0 7.8 6.1 6.0 5.5 ‐13.7 ‐2.0 5.7 5.8 3.4 ‐6.4 ‐5.1
3 1.4 1.3 7.3 3.3 2.0 2.9 ‐16.9 ‐6.7 4.8 2.0 2.5 ‐14.9 ‐14.0
4 0.4 0.3 6.5 1.9 0.6 1.8 ‐13.1 ‐7.2 5.1 0.7 4.5 ‐17.5 ‐15.2
5 0.1 0.1 5.9 1.0 0.2 0.9 ‐6.6 ‐6.5 4.9 0.1 6.0 ‐14.1 ‐10.6
6 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.5 0.0 0.3 ‐0.2 ‐3.4 4.5 0.0 6.6 ‐5.1 3.6
1 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
2 2.9 5.4 ‐3.1 ‐1.5 3.5 ‐2.5 ‐18.4 ‐3.0 ‐5.2 0.6 ‐7.3 ‐18.3 ‐1.2
3 0.2 1.4 ‐5.7 ‐3.9 0.4 ‐4.5 ‐22.9 ‐6.5 ‐7.1 ‐1.9 ‐9.2 ‐19.7 ‐2.5
4 ‐0.4 0.3 ‐9.0 ‐5.2 ‐0.4 ‐5.6 ‐31.0 ‐7.6 ‐10.4 ‐2.2 ‐12.0 ‐28.7 ‐9.5
5 ‐0.3 0.0 ‐3.1 ‐3.0 ‐0.3 ‐3.3 ‐22.7 ‐5.4 ‐4.9 ‐1.3 ‐6.1 ‐23.7 ‐4.7
6 ‐0.3 ‐0.1 ‐0.8 ‐2.3 ‐0.4 ‐2.5 ‐14.8 ‐4.9 ‐2.3 ‐1.2 ‐2.2 ‐17.3 2.5
and the Carbonair STAT modeler predicted removal efficiencies, for the four air to water ratios at
12°C. The results in Table 4.3 show that the difference is mostly small (except for 1,2,3-
trichloropropane) at the high air to water ratio (521). The difference increased as the air to water
29

ratio decreased, and the highest difference (at 12°C) was observed at the lowest air to water ratio
(54). However, at the lowest air to water ratio, the difference was about 5% and less for all VOCs
except 1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethylene, 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, and 1,2,3-
trichloropropane.
Another observation from Table 4.3 is that the model tends to under predict the removal
efficiency at high air to water ratios and over predict the removal efficiency at low air to water
ratios, except for Trichloroethylene for which the removal efficiency was over predicted by the
model in all cases, similar trend was observed in Table 4.2 for the 4°C.
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Vinyl Chloride
1,3‐Butadiene
Benzene
Tray no.
1,1,1,2‐
1,1,2,2‐
1 0.7 0.9 2.6 1.2 1.0 1.1 3.7 ‐3.9 3.3 1.1 4.5 13.7 18.2
2 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 ‐1.0 0.3 ‐0.1 0.5 9.4 18.7
3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 ‐0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 4.6 12.4
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 7.8
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 4.3
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 2.6
The difference between data and model predicted efficiency at A/W ratio of 167
1 3.3 4.6 7.7 3.1 4.6 2.9 2.9 ‐8.1 6.5 4.2 7.2 ‐6.0 ‐11.2
2 0.3 0.4 5.0 0.9 0.6 0.9 2.5 ‐9.7 3.6 0.8 5.6 ‐7.5 ‐13.8
3 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.2 0.1 0.2 1.4 ‐8.5 1.4 0.1 2.4 ‐4.4 ‐8.9
4 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 ‐5.2 0.5 0.0 0.8 ‐0.8 ‐0.3
5 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐0.2 ‐4.5 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.9 4.2
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐0.3 ‐1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.1 15.1
1 11.2 12.9 11.6 10.0 13.9 9.4 0.1 2.1 10.8 12.4 9.3 ‐6.2 ‐8.0
2 3.0 3.1 10.0 5.4 4.6 5.1 ‐3.2 ‐6.9 8.9 5.3 10.4 ‐16.0 NA
3 0.6 0.6 8.6 2.5 1.2 2.2 0.7 ‐10.3 7.3 1.5 9.8 ‐10.8 ‐14.5
4 0.1 0.1 6.2 0.9 0.3 0.8 1.9 ‐8.5 4.6 0.3 7.1 ‐9.0 ‐8.1
5 0.0 0.0 ‐11.7 0.2 0.1 0.1 ‐1.4 ‐16.8 2.3 0.0 4.3 NA NA
6 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 ‐0.1 1.9 ‐12.5 1.4 0.0 3.1 15.3 10.7
1 8.2 10.4 ‐1.4 2.2 9.7 2.0 ‐12.5 ‐8.5 ‐0.3 6.4 ‐4.0 ‐3.9 ‐8.2
2 3.7 4.5 3.2 3.3 5.1 2.9 ‐13.4 ‐11.2 3.1 5.1 3.9 ‐8.9 ‐13.8
3 1.1 1.2 5.2 2.5 1.9 2.2 ‐8.5 ‐13.3 5.2 2.2 6.3 ‐6.0 ‐10.8
4 0.1 0.4 2.4 0.0 0.4 ‐0.1 ‐12.7 ‐17.3 1.4 0.4 3.2 ‐11.3 ‐18.1
5 0.0 0.1 0.7 ‐0.4 0.0 ‐0.6 ‐11.3 ‐18.3 0.3 ‐0.1 2.4 ‐8.0 ‐14.5
6 ‐0.1 0.0 1.9 ‐0.3 ‐0.1 ‐0.3 ‐4.8 ‐13.6 1.0 ‐0.2 3.0 2.0 0.2
30

and the Carbonair STAT modeler predicted removal efficiencies for the four air to water ratios at
20°C. The results in Table 4.4 show that the difference is very small at the high air to water ratio
(652). The difference increased as the air to water ratio decreased, and the highest difference (at
20°C) was observed at the lowest air to water ratio (53). However, at the lowest air to water ratio,
the difference was about 5% and less for all VOCs except 1,2-dichloroethane, trichloroethylene,
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, and 1,2,3-trichloropropane.
Another observation from Table 4.4 is that the model, similarly to the 4°C and 12°C, tends
to under predict the removal efficiency at high air to water ratios and over predict the removal
efficiency at low air to water ratios, except for Trichloroethylene, for which the removal efficiency
was over predicted by the model in all cases, similar trend was observed in Table 4.2 and 4.3 for
the 4°C and 12°C.
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1,3‐Butadiene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Tray no.
1,1,1,2‐
1,1,2,2‐
1.0 0.2 0.4 2.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.8 ‐1.8 0.8 0.4 1.4 8.0 14.3
2.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 ‐0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐0.4 ‐0.1 0.0 0.0 3.6 9.1
3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.9
4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.5
5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6
6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2
1.0 3.7 4.7 9.4 4.8 5.6 4.7 7.8 0.0 8.8 6.1 11.7 8.7 7.1
2.0 0.2 0.3 3.7 0.8 0.5 0.8 3.6 ‐3.2 2.9 0.7 4.7 10.4 10.9
3.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.2 ‐2.3 0.7 0.1 1.4 9.2 12.8
4.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 ‐1.3 0.1 0.0 0.4 10.3 18.0
5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 ‐0.7 0.0 0.0 0.1 8.8 18.5
6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ‐0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.1 17.7
1.0 9.0 12.5 6.2 8.4 12.6 7.8 ‐1.3 1.9 8.9 10.6 6.7 ‐5.5 ‐5.8
2.0 1.1 2.5 1.8 0.8 2.7 0.5 ‐8.4 ‐9.4 2.3 2.3 3.5 ‐7.8 ‐9.5
3.0 0.1 0.5 0.6 ‐0.2 0.7 ‐0.4 ‐6.6 ‐5.3 1.3 0.5 3.6 ‐4.9 1.7
4.0 ‐0.1 0.2 0.3 ‐0.8 0.1 ‐0.8 ‐8.9 ‐6.5 ‐0.5 0.0 1.7 ‐7.3 ‐0.9
5.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 ‐0.3 0.0 ‐0.3 ‐5.2 ‐5.7 0.0 0.0 1.5 ‐2.0 4.6
6.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 ‐0.2 0.0 ‐0.2 ‐3.4 ‐5.2 ‐0.1 0.0 1.0 4.1 11.1
31

As is shown in Tables 4.2-4.4, the Carbonair STAT modeler successfully predicted the
removal efficiencies of all VOCs with a consistent tendency to over predict the removal of
Trichloroethylene. Another observation is the model generally tends to under predict the removal
efficiencies at high air to water ratios and over predict at low air to water ratios.
The detailed concentration results obtained from Carbonair STAT modeler are presented
in Appendix A.
DIFFUSED AIR MODEL
In low profile air stripping, mass transfer takes place in a much higher rate than diffused
air technologies. In order to compare the two approaches, diffused aeration versus low profile air
stripping, the plot plant operation data was compared to a diffused air model predictions. Aeration
Systems Analysis Program (ASAP) version 1.0.18 was used for this purpose. ASAP was
developed by the National Center for Clean Industrial and Treatment Technologies at Michigan
Technological University.
ASAP model can simulate the diffused aeration removal for up to 10 VOCs
simultaneously, ASAP was used to predict the performance of 10 VOCs and the result of ASAP
model prediction were compared to the data obtained from the pilot plant operation, under identical
conditions. The number of tanks modeled was six as six trays were used, the active volume of each
tank (tray) was 7.84 gal, the water depth was eight inches, and the retention time for each tank was
0.707 minute.
Table 4.5 illustrates the significant difference between the diffused air model and the data
collected from the pilot plant operation. The pilot plant effluent data are much lower than the
model prediction, and the diffused air model underestimated the removal efficiency. The mass
transfer mechanism is fundamentally different from bubble aeration because the high air flow rate
causes the formation of very small bubbles or frothing to form upon contact with the water
(Crittenden et al. 2012). Therefore, the diffused air model failed to model the performance of the
low profile air stripper.
Table 4.5 Results of low profile air stripper and ASAP diffused air model for 10 VOCs
under identical conditions (same initial concentrations at 12°C and air to water of 54).

Tetrachloroethylene
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
1,3‐Butadiene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Influent, ng/L 8035 4092 6383 6109 6494 7026 6441 6952 6400 5864
Effluent Data , ng/L 7 ND 206 56 9 64 1090 964 273 19
Dif. Air model, ng/L 4470 2370 3730 3650 3920 4270 4090 4210 4070 3620
Efficiency, data 99.9% 100.0% 96.8% 99.1% 99.9% 99.1% 83.1% 86.1% 95.7% 99.7%
Efficiency, Dif. Air Model 44.4% 42.1% 41.6% 40.3% 39.6% 39.2% 36.5% 39.4% 36.4% 38.3%
32

TRAY CONFIGURATION
Trays in any low profile air stripper are most likely identical and operate under similar
conditions of air and water flow rates. Therefore, they have similar removal efficiencies and the
overall removal efficiency for trays can then be calculated from the tanks in series formula:
1 100
100
Where : REn = The removal efficiency after the nth tray (%)
REt = The removal efficiency of a single tray
n = Number of trays
STAT15 utilizes 1.66 ft2 trays, and since the trays are identical, the removal efficiency
could be represented in terms of number of trays or the cumulative surface area of the trays. The
removal efficiency per tray is dependent upon many factors such as the VOC, air and water flow
rates, and temperature. Various manufactures also produce various models that vary in terms of
design, configuration, and efficiency. Consequently, it is important to refer to the manufacturers’
specifications to determine the removal efficiency expected for the specific model and the specific
VOC, then the equation above can be used to determine the number of trays required to achieve
the specific treatment objective.
Figure 4.1 illustrates the correlation between the removal efficiency and the cumulative
surface area of trays 1-6 in the STAT15 low profile air stripper for benzene at 12°C and four air
to water ratios. As expected, all trays exhibited similar removal efficiencies.
100%
90%
Benzene removal efficiency
80%
70%
60%
521 A/W
50%
167 A/W
40%
73 A/W
30%
54 A/W
20%
10%
0%
0 2 4 6 8 10
Cumulative Trays Area (ft2)
Figure 4.1 The correlation between the removal efficiency and the cumulative surface area
of trays 1-6 in the STAT15 low profile air stripper for benzene at 12°C and four air to
water ratios
33

APPENDIX A
Table A.1 Carbonair STAT modeler results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at four
different air to water ratios, and water temperature of 4°C, concentrations in ng/L.
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Trichloropropane
1,3‐Butadiene
Vinyl Chloride
Benzene
Tray no.
1,1,1,2‐
1,1,2,2‐
1,2,3‐
A/W =598
Influent 7486.5 6559.1 7491.1 7057.0 6993.4 7665.5 7172.6 7962.7 7709.5 6287.9 6984.5 5795.7 6587.8
1 90.5 75.4 653.8 267.4 122.2 275.7 974.4 218.1 717.2 148.4 862.7 2673.9 3877.2
2 1.1 0.9 59.3 10.3 2.1 10.1 138.7 6.0 68.9 3.5 110.6 1323.4 2436.2
3 0.0 0.0 5.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 19.9 0.2 6.6 0.1 14.3 676.3 1587.8
4 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.8 351.0 1058.2
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 183.7 715.2
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.5 487.9
A/W = 162
Influent 7902.1 7178.6 7546.6 7132.3 7328.6 7815.2 7217.0 8038.7 7724.1 6649.7 7033.0 6069.8 6792.9
1 731.3 631.9 2649.2 1485.0 875.7 1570.6 3225.0 1335.5 2798.4 987.4 2979.4 4714.3 5760.6
2 68.5 56.0 999.3 321.9 105.7 328.0 1548.4 227.7 1077.1 149.1 1341.2 3826.6 5046.5
3 6.4 5.0 386.7 70.4 12.8 69.0 767.4 39.0 423.8 22.6 619.5 3200.6 4524.3
4 0.6 0.4 151.1 15.4 1.5 14.6 386.1 6.7 168.2 3.4 289.4 2735.7 4126.7
5 0.1 0.0 59.2 3.4 0.2 3.1 195.7 1.1 66.9 0.5 135.9 2377.1 3814.6
6 0.0 0.0 23.3 0.7 0.0 0.7 99.6 0.2 26.7 0.1 64.0 2092.2 3563.6
A/W = 70
Influent 7653.4 6910.1 7269.2 6909.3 6945.8 7480.0 7070.8 7608.1 7452.8 6581.2 6947.8 6082.7 6581.9
1 1890.4 1626.9 4260.5 2944.1 2017.3 3114.6 4733.1 2786.7 4431.1 2219.8 4507.2 5404.2 6098.2
2 476.5 386.6 2670.3 1317.3 594.7 1359.5 3359.1 1056.4 2786.2 766.1 3078.8 4923.0 5748.8
3 120.7 92.1 1737.4 601.7 176.1 605.1 2471.5 405.6 1808.6 266.5 2170.3 4566.9 5488.7
4 30.6 22.0 1156.2 277.4 52.2 271.7 1862.6 156.5 1197.1 92.9 1561.8 4294.7 5290.7
5 7.8 5.2 780.5 128.5 15.5 122.4 1427.6 60.5 802.2 32.4 1139.7 4081.7 5137.5
6 2.0 1.3 531.9 59.6 4.6 55.3 1107.5 23.4 541.9 11.3 839.9 3911.7 5017.3
A/W = 53
Influent 7907.6 7381.0 7306.2 6877.5 7082.6 7476.8 6975.4 8471.3 7432.3 6756.9 6921.4 6082.0 6788.1
1 2476.1 2203.2 4788.8 3452.4 2538.6 3679.3 5088.3 3728.8 4921.4 2761.1 4918.8 4861.5 6400.2
2 792.9 664.6 3339.3 1820.1 924.9 1899.0 3910.6 1701.2 3432.2 1156.1 3662.7 4528.5 6119.3
3 255.7 201.1 2417.5 983.1 339.0 1003.1 3109.3 788.5 2471.6 488.9 2811.6 4281.7 5911.0
4 82.7 60.9 1793.6 537.8 124.5 536.2 2531.7 368.1 1818.0 207.6 2204.4 4093.9 5753.7
5 26.7 18.5 1353.6 296.2 45.8 288.4 2097.9 172.4 1357.1 88.3 1755.1 3948.2 5633.2
6 8.7 5.6 1034.0 163.7 16.8 155.6 1761.7 80.9 1023.7 37.6 1413.6 3833.3 5540.1
35

Table A.2 Carbonair STAT modeler results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at four
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Trichloropropane
Dichloropropane
1,3‐Butadiene
Vinyl Chloride
Tetrachloride
Benzene
Tray no.
Carbon
1,1,1,2‐
1,1,2,2‐
1,2,3‐
1,2‐
A/W =521
Influent 7830.3 4168.9 6665.5 6267.0 6491.9 7120.5 6604.2 7155.0 6548.5 5554.4 5468.5 4620.4 5721.0
1 72.8 38.8 395.5 168.4 91.8 184.4 643.8 145.5 427.5 103.0 480.4 1753.3 2913.8
2 0.7 0.4 24.2 4.6 1.3 4.8 65.3 3.0 28.7 1.9 43.5 714.2 1593.0
3 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.1 0.0 0.1 6.7 0.1 1.9 0.0 4.0 298.9 902.1
4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 126.5 520.6
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53.8 303.6
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 22.9 178.2
A/W = 167
Influent 8291.2 4423.4 6490.4 6075.9 6486.0 6973.2 6436.7 7015.6 6354.9 6023.4 5570.6 4553.5 5385.7
1 511.3 270.0 1573.9 843.7 546.7 942.0 2132.4 787.6 1629.8 625.5 1723.8 3116.3 4189.8
2 31.8 16.5 406.3 120.8 46.4 131.0 756.4 90.1 440.5 65.7 564.1 2257.2 3408.4
3 2.0 1.0 106.5 17.4 3.9 18.3 274.5 10.3 120.7 6.9 187.8 1694.2 2858.2
4 0.1 0.1 28.0 2.5 0.3 2.6 100.4 1.2 33.2 0.7 62.9 1302.6 2450.1
5 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 36.9 0.1 9.1 0.1 21.1 1018.7 2135.3
6 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 13.5 0.0 2.5 0.0 7.1 806.7 1885.3
A/W = 72
Influent 9216.5 4867.2 6956.5 6648.7 7474.1 7634.6 6883.1 7735.5 6821.9 6868.5 5898.2 4855.5 5740.1
1 1729.9 894.9 3302.3 2200.9 1724.3 2479.2 3913.1 2202.2 3329.2 1836.7 3213.5 4057.3 5105.8
2 329.6 165.7 1680.2 760.1 402.5 838.6 2375.0 644.7 1720.6 500.3 1851.2 3511.6 4657.8
3 63.0 30.7 883.1 266.2 94.2 287.5 1493.8 190.3 914.1 136.9 1098.4 3115.4 4327.2
4 12.0 5.7 471.8 93.7 22.1 99.0 959.5 56.3 492.6 37.5 662.7 2815.0 4075.4
5 2.3 1.1 254.2 33.0 5.2 34.2 624.3 16.7 267.4 10.3 403.8 2579.8 3878.9
6 0.4 0.2 137.6 11.7 1.2 11.8 409.6 4.9 145.7 2.8 247.5 2390.8 3722.7
A/W = 54
Influent 8034.9 4091.7 6383.3 6108.9 6494.3 7025.8 6441.3 6951.6 6400.3 5864.4 5634.2 4687.8 5724.4
1 1996.6 992.6 3533.8 2490.4 1920.3 2816.5 4129.4 2481.4 3616.8 1974.7 3484.4 4082.1 5231.7
2 504.8 242.7 2092.4 1061.6 575.5 1178.9 2812.7 913.0 2160.6 678.5 2271.1 3659.1 4880.7
3 128.2 59.5 1284.1 460.9 173.1 502.1 1986.5 339.6 1330.4 234.8 1526.7 3348.9 4621.4
4 32.6 14.6 804.5 201.6 52.1 215.4 1436.3 126.8 833.9 81.4 1046.5 3112.9 4424.8
5 8.3 3.6 510.4 88.5 15.7 92.7 1055.1 47.4 528.3 28.3 726.5 2928.4 4272.8
6 2.1 0.9 326.3 38.9 4.7 39.9 783.8 17.8 336.9 9.8 508.7 2781.0 4153.6
36

Table A.3 Carbonair STAT modeler results for the removal of 13 focus VOCs, at three
Tetrachloroethylene
Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Dichloromethane
Trichloropropane
Dichloropropane
1,3‐Butadiene
Vinyl Chloride
Tetrachloride
Benzene
Tray no.
Carbon
1,1,1,2‐
1,1,2,2‐
1,2,3‐
1,2‐
A/W =652
Influent 6962.0 5316.9 6771.0 6104.8 5821.8 6983.8 6723.2 6714.6 6603.8 5168.7 5523.0 4714.3 5630.2
1 28.9 23.2 165.4 70.0 39.2 78.2 292.6 60.8 186.2 44.9 215.2 1054.3 1896.6
2 0.1 0.1 4.1 0.8 0.3 0.9 13.0 0.6 5.3 0.4 8.5 250.3 685.2
3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.3 60.2 253.5
4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.5 94.6
5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 35.4
6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 13.3
A/W = 150
Influent 8231.3 6738.9 7070.3 6469.6 6813.3 7345.7 6925.9 7230.9 6796.5 6347.6 5909.5 4937.2 5616.8
1 427.2 358.6 1327.4 716.0 500.0 798.8 1852.4 668.5 1383.9 563.6 1469.1 3026.1 4043.3
2 22.3 19.1 262.9 81.2 36.9 88.9 527.3 62.7 294.8 50.5 383.7 1978.0 3070.7
3 1.2 1.0 52.6 9.2 2.7 9.9 152.7 5.9 63.4 4.5 101.5 1341.7 2414.2
4 0.1 0.1 10.6 1.1 0.2 1.1 44.4 0.6 13.7 0.4 26.9 931.5 1944.4
5 0.0 0.0 2.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 12.9 0.1 2.9 0.0 7.2 656.7 1593.7
6 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.0 0.6 0.0 1.9 467.7 1323.8
A/W = 53
Influent 8252.5 6987.4 6960.6 6571.7 7079.4 7361.7 6833.4 7183.5 6777.8 5643.6 5632.0 5129.0 6068.8
1 1690.3 1430.7 3223.8 2205.1 1783.0 2440.3 3807.5 2129.7 3249.9 1610.8 3002.6 4215.7 5334.9
2 350.8 294.7 1596.2 769.0 453.9 839.7 2263.4 647.2 1645.8 467.4 1690.0 3599.5 4822.6
3 73.0 60.8 814.9 271.7 115.9 292.5 1393.0 198.2 855.3 136.2 978.4 3155.9 4447.6
4 15.2 12.5 422.3 96.4 29.6 102.4 874.7 60.8 450.3 39.8 575.3 2821.7 4163.2
5 3.2 2.6 220.5 34.3 7.6 35.9 556.0 18.7 238.7 11.6 341.3 2560.9 3941.8
6 0.7 0.5 115.6 12.2 1.9 12.6 356.1 5.7 127.0 3.4 203.6 2351.9 3766.0
37

REFERENCES
Carbonair Environmental Systems. 2003. Carbonair STAT Modeler. Accessed June 15, 2014.
http://statmodeler.carbonair.com.
Crittenden, J.C., R.R. Trussell, D.W. Hand, K. Howe and G. Tchobanoglous. 2012. Water
Treatment Principles and Design. 3rd ed. New York: MWH.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Method 524.3 Measurement of Purgeable
Organic Compounds in Water by Capillary Column Gas Chromatography/Mass
Spectrometry. EPA# EPA 815-B-09-009.
LaBranche, D. F., and M.R. Collins. 1996. Stripping Volatile Organic Compounds and Petroleum
Hydrocarbons from Water. Water Environ. Res 68 (3): 348–358.
Li, K.Y., and K.J. Hsiao. 1990. VOC Strippers: How Many Trays? Hydrocarbon Processing 69
(2): 79–81.
Mead, E., and J. Leibbert. 1998. A comparison of packed-column and low-profile sieve tray air
strippers. In Proceedings of the 1998 Conference on Hazardous Waste Research, 328–334.
Snowbird, Utah: Great Plains/Rocky Mountain Hazardous Substance Research Center.
Michigan Technological University. 1999. ASAP (Aeration Systems Analysis Program) version
1.0.18. Houghton, Mich.: National Center for Clean Industrial and Treatment
Technologies. http://cpas.mtu.edu/etdot.
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). 2011. Chemistry WebBook. Accessed
October 21, 2013. http://webbook.nist.gov/chemistry/name-ser.html.
North East Environmental Products. 2003. Untitled Software. West Lebanon, N.H.
Notthakun, S., D.E. Bros, and C.S. Riddle. 1994. Sieve Tray Air Strippers. Carbonair
Environmental Systems, Minneapolis, MN.
Treybal, R.E. 1980. Mass-Transfer Operations. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). 2001. U.S. ACE (2001) Engineering and Design: Air
Stripping, No. 1110–1-3. Washington, D.C.: Department of the Army.
39

ABBREVIATIONS
°C Degree Celsius
°F Degree Fahrenheit
A/W Air to water ratio
ASAP Aeration Systems Analysis Program
CFM Cubic feet per minute
Co Influent liquid-phase concentration
CTO Treatment objective concentration
DWS Drinking Water Strategy
ft2 Feet square
gpm Gallon per minute
Hc The dimensionless Henry’s law constant
LCMRL Lowest Concentration Minimum Reporting Levels
MCL Maximum Contaminant Level
MDL Analytical Method Detection Limits
MS Mass Spectrometry
n Number of trays
ND Non detect
ng/L Nano gram per liter
Nth Number of theoretical trays
PCE Tetrachloroethylene
Qa Air flow rate
Qw Water flow rate
REn The removal efficiency after the nth tray
REt The removal efficiency of a single tray
S Stripping factor
SIM Single Ion Mode
SPME Solid Phase Microextraction
TCE Trichloroethylene
ug/L Micro gram per liter
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WRF Water Research Foundation
41

Removal of Volatile Organic Contaminants Via Low Profile Aeration Technology

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Removal of Volatile Organic Contaminants Via Low Profile Aeration Technology

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Removal of Volatile Organic

Contaminants via Low Profile

Web Report #4439

Subject Area: Water Quality

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

The Water Research Foundation (WRF) is a member-supported, international, 501(c)3

More information about WRF and how to become a subscriber is available at

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Jointly Sponsored by:

Water Environment Research Foundation

Water Research Foundation

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Printed in the U.S.A.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... xv

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1

CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER 3: RESULTS ................................................................................................................ 7

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CHAPTER 4: LOW PROFILE AIR STRIPPING PERFORMANCE MODELING ................... 27

APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................... 35

ABBREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................................... 41

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

2.1 STAT15 low profile aeration unit ........................................................................................5

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

The Water Research Foundation (WRF) is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to the

Denise L. Kruger Robert C. Renner, P.E.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 Water Environment Research Foundation

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

COMMON TYPES OF AIR STRIPPERS

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF LOW PROFILE AIR STRIPPERS

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

DESIGN OF LOW PROFILE AIR STRIPPING

1. Analytical equations: (Treybal 1980)

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

VOCS AND OPERATION CONDITIONS

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

VOCS CONCENTRATIONS MEASUREMENTS

TRAY AERATION PILOT PLANT

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Figure 2.1 STAT15 low profile aeration unit

INITIAL TESTING WITH CHLOROFORM

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

* Failed samples showed effluent concentrations higher than influent concentrations.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

VINYL CHLORIDE REMOVAL

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

CARBON TETRACHLORIDE REMOVAL

©2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.