CD. LIHRARY if'-l %.i *""''«'>i.v f € <■■' ^ ^'.'•A"*- lA^ JLEAI WATER POLLUTION CONTROL RESEARCH SERIES f'niJi*^'^'- -^^ 13030 ELY 05/71-12 REC-R2-7I-I2 DWR NO. 174- 16 BIO-ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIFORN lA JUN 5 1975' MAY 2 7 REC'D )ESALINATION OF AGRICULTURAL TILE DRAINAGE MAY I9TI mm UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS MAR - 7 1973 GOV'T. DOCS. • LIBRARY ^^IRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY»RESEARCH AND MONITORING BIO- ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY. CALIFORNIA The Bio-Engineering Aspects of Agricultural Drainage reports describe the results of a unique interagency study of the occurrence of nitrogen and nitrogen removal treat- ment of subsurface agricultural wastewaters of the San Joaquin Valley, California. The three principal agencies involved in the study are the Water Quality Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Department of Water Resources. A triplicate abstract card sheet is included in the report to facilitate information retrieval. Space is provided on the card for the user's accession number and for additional uni terms. Inquiries pertaining to the Bio-Engineering Aspects of Agricultural Drainage reports should be directed to the author agency, but may be directed to any one of the three principal agencies. THE REPORTS It is planned that a series of twelve reports will be issued describing the results of the interagency study. There will be a summary report covering all phases of the study. A group of four reports will be prepared on the phase of the study related to predictions of subsurface agricul- tural wastewater quality — one report by each of the three agencies, and a summary of the three reports. Another group of four reports will be prepared on the treatment methods studied on the biostimulatory testing of the treatment plant effluent. There will be three basic reports and a summary of the three reports. The other three planned reports will cover (1) techniques to reduce nitrogen during transport or storage, (2) possi- bilities for reducing nitrogen on the farm, and (3) this report, "DESALINATION OF AGRICULTURAL TILE DRAINAGE". BIO-ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, CALIFORNIA DESALINATION OF AGRICULTURAL TILE DRAINAGE Study Conducted by Robert S. Kerr Water Research Center Treatment and Control Research Program Ada, Oklahoma The agricultural drainage study was coordinated by: Robert J. Pafford, Jr., Regional Director, Region 2 UNITED STATES BUREAU OF RECLAMATION 2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento, California 95825 Paul DeFalco, Jr., Regional Director, Pacific Southwest Regioi WATER QUALITY OFFICE, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 760 Market Street, San Francisco, California 94102 John R. Teerink, Deputy Director CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California 95814 PROGRAM #13030 ELY May 1971 I For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Qovernment Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.00 REVIEW NOTICE This report has been reviewed by the Water Quality Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, U. S, Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Depart- ment of Water Resources and has been approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the reviewing agencies nor does mention of trade names or commercial products con- stitute endorsement or recommendation for use by either of the reviewing agencies. ABSTRACT Investigations were made to determine the technical feasibility of desalination of tile drainage. The source of the tile drainage was a 400-acre field near Firebaugh, California. Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Electrodialy.sis (ED) processes were studied. Two RO membrane stacks were investigated. The first, a high salt rejection, low product yield, was operated on variable quality (3000-7000 mg/1 TDS) irrigation return water. In the 7-month investigation period TDS removal efficiencies decreased from 93 percent to 80 percent salt rejection and the product flux decreased from 12 gal/ft^/day to less than 9 gal/ft^/day. The 20 mg/1 of nitrate-nitrogen and 8 mg/1 of boron contained in the influ- ent were not effectively rejected. The second RO stack and the ED unit were operated on return waters that were controlled to have a 3000 mg/1 TDS. The second RO stack was designed for a high product rate and low salt rejection. The TDS removal remained at 85 percent for a 3-month run. Product flux decreased from over 19 gal/ft^/day to less than 12 gal/f f^/day . Nitrate and boron rejection was low. The ED data are based on a single pass through the membrane stack. The TDS removal varied from 35 percent to 15 percent. The nitrate removal rate was greater than the TDS removal. Boron removal was negligible. It is estimated that the costs for the two processes are approximately equal — $320 per million gallons of product. This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Project No. 13030 ELY under sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency. BACKGROUND This report is one of a series which presents the findings of intensive interagency investigations of practical means to control the nitrate concentration in subsurface agricultural wastewater prior to its discharge into other water. The primary participants in the program are the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Bureau of Reclamation, and the California Department of Water Resources, but several other agencies also are cooperating in the program. These three agencies initiated the program because they are responsible for providing a system for disposing of subsurface agricultural wastewater from the San Joaquin Valley of California and protecting water quality in California's water bodies. Other agencies cooperated in the program by providing particular knowledge pertaining to specific parts of the overall task. The ultimate need to provide subsurface drainage for large areas of agricultural land in the western and southern San Joaquin Valley has been recognized for some time. In 1954, the Bureau of Reclamation included a drain in its feasibility report of the San Luis Unit. In 1957, the California Department of Water Resources initiated an investi- gation to assess the extent of salinity and high ground-water problems and to develop plans for drainage and export facilities. The Burns-Porter Act, in 1960, authorized San Joaquin Valley drainage facilities as a part of the California Water Plan. The authorizing legislation for the San Luis Unit of the Bureau of Recla- mation's Central Valley Project, Public Law 86-488, passed in June 1960, included drainage facilities to serve project lands. This Act required that the Secretary of Interior either provide for constructing the San Luis Drain to the Delta or receive satisfactory assurance that the State of California would provide a master drain for the San Joaquin Valley that would adequately serve the San Luis Unit. Investigations by the Bureau of Reclamation and the Department of Water Resources revealed that serious drainage problems already exist and that areas requiring subsurface drainage would probably exceed 1,000,000 acres by the year 2020. Disposal of the drainage into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta near Antioch, California, was found to be the least costly alternative plan. Preliminary data indicated the drainage water would be relatively high in nitrogen. The Environmental Protection Agency conducted a study to determine the effect of discharging such drainage water on the quality of water in the San Francisco Bay and Delta. Upon completion of this study in 1967, the Agency's report concluded that the nitrogen content of untreated drainage waters could have significant adverse effects upon the fish and recreation values of the receiving waters. The report recommended a three-year research program to establish the economic feasibility of nitrate-nitrogen removal. As a consequence, the three agencies formed the Interagency Agricultural Wastewater Study Group and developed a three-year cooperative research program which assigned specific areas of responsibility to each of the nitrogen conditions in the potential drainage areas, possible control of nitrates at the source, prediction of drainage quality, changes in nitrogen in transit, and methods of nitrogen removal from drain waters including biological-chemical processes and desalination. CONTENTS SECTION PAGE Abstract iii Background v Contents vii Figures viii Tables ix I Summary and Conclusions 1 II Introduction 3 Theory of Process Operations 3 III Experimental Equipment and Procedures 7 Reverse Osmosis Unit 7 Electrodialysis Unit 10 Feed Water Blending System 10 Influent Water Quality 12 Sampling and Analytical Analyses 14 IV Results and Discussion 15 Reverse Osmosis 15 Electrodialysis 22 Cost Comparison for Reverse Osmosis 23 and Electrodialysis V Acknowledgements 27 VI References 29 VII Publications 31 FIGURES PAGE 1 The Principle of Reverse Osmosis 4 2 The Principle of Electrodialysis 6 3 Aerojet General Reverse Osmosis Water Purifier 8 Model 1-560B-1 4 Aerojet General Reverse Osmosis Unit Model 1-560-B-l 8 Flow Schematic 5 Water Flow Through Circular Desalination Plate 9 6 Ionics, Inc. Electrodialysis Unit Model 300-B-3 Membrane Stack 11 7 Ionics Electrodialysis Flow Schematic 12 8 Schematic of Blending System 13 9 Reverse Osmosis Data - Stack I 16 Total Dissolved Solids and Per Cent Removal of TDS Versus Time 10 Reverse Osmosis Data Stack I Product Flux Versus Time 16 11 Reverse Osmosis Data Stack II Total Dissolved 19 Solids vs Time 12 Reverse Osmosis Data Stack II Product Flux 21 Versus Time 13 Electrodialysis Data Product Total Dissolved Solids 23 and Per Cent Removal of TDS Versus Time TABLES NO. PAGE 1 Characteristics of Tile Drainage Used at the lAWTC 13 and Average Mineral Concentrations of Irrigation Waters 2 Reverse Osmosis Stack I Mineral Analysis 17 3 Reverse Osmosis Data - Stack I Product/Brine Production 18 A Reverse Osmosis Stack II - Mineral Analysis 20 5 Electrodialysis Data Mineral Analysis 24 6 Cost Analysis Summary for Reverse Osmosis and 25 Electrodialysis Units SECTION I SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Two reverse osmosis (RO) membrane stacks and an electrodialysis (ED) unit were operated on agricultural tile drainage waters. The initial RO stack, received an influent with varying total dissolved solids (TDS) content which ranged from approximately 3000 mg/1 to 7000 mg/1. When operated at peak performance, this set of membranes was able to remove over 90 percent of the influent TDS; however, nitrate and boron removal averaged less than 27 percent. The product recovery for this stack averaged approximately 37 percent. The second RO stack used was able to achieve 85 percent removal of a constant 3000 mg/1 TDS influent, but nitrate and boron removal was negligible. Although low nitrate rejection was characteristic of the reverse osmosis membranes used for these experiments, it is believed that reverse osmosis units using current technology, especially new membranes, could be expected to achieve a higher nitrate rejection than reported herein. The pro- duct recovery for this stack averaged approximately 40 percent; however, this lower-than-expected recovery was caused by internal damage to the reverse osmosis stack. The electrodialysis unit had an average TDS removal of 23 percent, with a maximum removal of 36 percent, when supplied with a 3000 mg/1 TDS influent, based on a single pass through the membrane stack. Although the ED unit did not remove boron at any time, nitrate was removed at a rate averaging 1.98 times that calculated for TDS removal. Product recovery based on a single pass remained constant at 75 percent. Economic data taken from literature indicate that water produced by both RO and ED costs approximately $0.32 per thousand gallons. It was concluded from the experimental data that desalination of San Joaquin Valley subsurface agricultural return flow is technically feasible. However, it does not appear at the present time that direct reuse of the water as an irrigation source is economically possible. -1- SECTION II INTRODUCTION In October 1966, the Office of Saline Water and the Federal Water Quality Administration (now the Environmental Protection Agency) began cooperative research into the use of desalination processes to remove salt from subsurface agricultural wastewaters (tile drainage) . This program was conducted from June 1967 to September 1968 in conjunction with the cooperative nitrogen removal studies being performed at the Interagency Agricultural Wastewater Treatment Center (lAWTC) near Firebaugh, California. The primary objective was to determine the technical feasibility of desalinating the drainage waters. Secondary objectives were to produce desalting cost estimates and to provide performance data on the removal of nitrate and boron from the wastewaters. The information provided by these experiments can be used to consider reuse of the water for agriculture and to compare reclamation costs and costs of future imports of water into the San Joaquin Valley. Of par- ticular interest when considering reuse is the removal of boron. Tile drainage in the western portion of the San Joaquin Valley typically has relatively high concentrations of this element. The removal of nitrogen from the wastewater was also studied. Theory of Process Operations Reverse osmosis and electrodialysis were the two desalination processes applied in this study. Both processes accomplished essentially the same result; however, theories of their operation differ. A discussion of their characteristics follows. Reverse Osmosis When two solutions of differing concentrations (but with a common solvent) are separated by a semipermeable membraneA' , solvent will flow from the weaker solution to the more concentrated solution. The process is known as osmosis and is illustrated in Figure 1. Osmotic pressure (p) is a measure of the difference between the diffusion pressure of solvent (water) molecules in the two solu- tions. Solvent tends to flow from an area of high diffusion pressure to an area of low diffusion pressure until equilibrium is established. If a pressure (P) greater than osmotic pressure (p) is applied to the more concentrated solution side of the membrane, solvent (water) is forced through the membrane in a direction opposite to normal osmotic flow. This is the reverse osmosis 1/ A membrane more permeable to solvent than to solute molecules is said to be differentially permeable or semipermeable. -3- NORMAL OSMOSIS en rp "f "^ p pi OSMOTIC PRESSURE OSMOTIC EQUILIBRIUM tn rp cr ^APP r-S} fE_ ff 'WmP* "UUiiit **!«!« W4iT«« APPLIED PRESSURE (P) REVERSE OSMOSIS FIGURE I -THE PRINCIPLE OF REVERSE OSMOSIS -4- phenomenon used in desalination. In theory, the flow of water through the membrane is approximately proportional to the net pressure (applied pressure minus osmotic pressure) , and the amount of salt passing through a less than ideal semipermeable membrane depends primarily on the gradient in salt concentration between the two solutions. In practice, however, flow limitations have been shown to result from osmotic pressure increases due to concentration build-up in the liquid boundary layer on the brine side of the membrane, thereby decreasing the net pressure, and from salt precipitation or other deposits onto the membrane surface (1) . The salt precipitation is an operational problem. Depending on the composition of the brine water, precautions such as pH control and chemical additions, may be necessary to prevent the accumulation of 'precipitate onto the membranes . Electrodialysis The removal of ions from a saline solution by electrodialysis depends on the basic principle that positively and negatively charged poles attract. Therefore, if a direct current potential is applied across a solution of salt in water by means of two electrodes inserted in the solution, the cations will be attracted toward the cathode and the anions will be attracted toward the anode. This movement of ions shown in Figure 2 can be used to advantage if ion selective membranes were so placed that they isolate a purified zone from which the ions had been removed. For this purpose, cation and anion permselective membranes were developed, each membrane allowing only cations or anions to pass through respectively. Use of these membranes to form watertight compartments in a salt solution and the electrical potential will result in a demineralized central com- partment. As in reverse osmosis, an over-concentration of salts in the compartments receiving the ions will lead to precipitation of salts onto and possibly in the membrane. Precautions were taken during operation to minimize such occurrences. -5- o UJ > 2000- _i o U) V) a lOOO v> INFLUENT I PRODUCT JULY AUG 1968 SEPT FIGURE II- REVERSE OSMOSIS DATA -STACK U TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS vs TIME -19- unit's salt rejection remained constant at 85 percent which produced a product containing a TDS of between 400 and 600 mg/1. The only variation in product TDS occurred as the influent TDS concentration varied; thus, the minor increase in product TDS could be increased salt transport through the membrane. A typical influent product and brine stream analysis for this stack, is presented in Table 4. Due to the lower salt rejection capability of the membranes in this stack, its nitrate and boron removals were essentially zero. TABLE 4 REVERSE OSMOSIS STACK II MINERAL ANALYSIS Operating Conditions Date of Sample _______ __ _ August 9, 1968 Operating Pressure, psig ------------- 375 pH of feed water ----------------- 5.3 „, -, ^ Influent ------------13 Flow Rates t> j ^ c q Product 5.8 GPM ^ . -, „ Brine ------------ 7.2 CONCENTRATION - mg/1 CONSTITUENT FEED PRODUCT BRINE PERCENT REJECTION Calcium 157 3.3 331 98 Magnesium 85 1.2 161 98 Sodium 665 140 1270 82 Potassium 4.3 1.0 7. 77 Boron 7.0 7.0 7. 3 Sulfate 1650 6.9 3480 99 Bicarbonate 55 21 79 62 Chloride 320 196 400 39 Nitrate 22 24 20 Iron (total) 0.05 0.02 0. 04 60 Silicon 30 17 48 77 Total Alkalinity 46 17 65 63 TDS 2930 381 5900 87 pH* 6.8 6.8 7. — *pH of samples at time of analysis -20- Variations in Product Flux . Product flux varied widely (Figure 12) . The variations occurred under constant operating conditions, apparently independently of any exterior operational changes. As mentioned previously, disassembly of this reverse osmosis stack disclosed that the brine flow paths on the desalination plates were blocked, causing the differential pressure to increase from 35 psig to more than 95 psig through the stack. This blockage reduced the effective pressure by 20 percent which directly influenced the flux. 5^ (/) UJ (TO. UJ 0. FIGURE 12- REVERSE OSMOSIS DATA STACK H PRODUCT FLUX VERSUS TIME -21- It was also postulated that the closed brine stream reduced the effective membrane area of the unit by bridging the spiral flow path with precipitated salt. This reduced exposure of the water to the membranes and again caused a decrease in product flux. Product Recovery . This reverse osmosis stack was designed to have a high product recovery ratio, and initially it did. On the first day of operation it recovered approximately 50 percent of the influent; however, within 14 days, this percentage decreased to approximately 36 percent. By the end of the experiment, product recovery was less than 31 percent. Such drastic changes in such a short period were assumed to be the result of the internal damage and not typical of expected results. Nevertheless, even at the highest recoveries, the amount of brine produced would equal the product and would involve brine disposal problems . Electrodialysis Although the electrodialysis unit (ED) was operated in the summers of 1967 and 1968, a more consistent operation was possible in 1968; this report is concerned primarily with that period. During 1968, the unit was operated on essentially the same blended water as was the reverse osmosis unit (Figure 11) . TDS Removal The percent TDS removal and effluent TDS concentrations for the electrodialysis unit are shown in Figure 13. The variations in TDS removal from 36 percent to less than 20 percent were highly dependent on the physical condition of the membranes. In general, any sudden increase in TDS removal was due to a cleansing of the membranes. The general decline in efficiency from early August through September was attributed partially to a 10°C decline in influent water temperature and partially to a general chemical and/or biological fouling of the membranes. Substances that frequently accumulated within the stack were precipitated salts, biological slimes, and suspended solids. Any fouling of the membranes increased the electrical resistance in the stack, which lowered the TDS removal capacity of the unit. A typical mineral analysis of the three flow streams in the unit is shown in Table 5. Nitrate was removed at an average rate 1.98 times that calculated for total dissolved solids. This factor compares favorably with the removal range of values reported by Ionics, Incorporated, which was 1.47 to 2.47 times the TDS removal (4) . No significant boron removal was observed at any time. ■22- 4.5 JUNE JULY AUG SEPT 1968 FIGURE 13 - ELECTRODIALYSIS DATA PRODUCT TOTAL DISSOLVED SOLIDS AND PER CENT REMOVAL OF TDS VERSUS TIME Product Recovery Rates The design of this unit permitted product recovery to vary only through increases or decreases in the amount of water needed to prevent satu- ration of salts in the recirculating brine stream. For the experiment, this requirement was kept constant at 8 gpm; thus, with a constant product flow of 25 gpm, the product recovery was approximately 75 percent. On the surface, this appears to be a better ratio than that achieved by the reverse osmosis unit; however, it should be remembered that to achieve a product of similar quality, the product stream must be passed through a series of stacks, thus ultimately yielding a larger quantity of brine. Cost Comparison for Reverse Osmosis and Electrodialysis The costs of power, chemicals, and supplies for both the RO and ED units for operation on the 3000 mg/1 TDS blended feed water are summarized in Table 6. The costs presented for the ED are based on a single pass through demineralizing stack and, therefore, can not be readily compared to the costs of the RO unit. -23- TABLE 5 ELECTRODIALYSIS DATA MINERAL ANALYSIS OPERATING CONDITIONS Date of Sample July 15, 1968 pH of brine stream --------------- 5.9 Temperature .of influent- ------------24 Applied E, M. F. - volts 276 Stack current - amperes- ------------13 Influent 33 Flow Rates t> j ^ oc Product- ---------25 GPM „ . Q Brine- ---------- 8 CONCENTRATION - mg/1 CONSTITUENT FEED PRODUCT BRINE PERCENT REJECTION Calcium 167 105 321 37 Magnesium 68 51 138 10 Sodium 625 515 1060 18 Potassium 4.0 2.5 7. 6 38 Boron 6.7 6.5 6. 7 3 Sulfate 1430 1140 2580 20 Bicarbonate 336 230 147 32 Chloride 167 157 593 6 Nitrate 26 14 54 46 Iron (Total) 0.02 0.02 0. 02 Silicon 29 30 29 IDS 3010 2240 5240 26 pH* 8.1 7.9 7. 6 - pH* of samples at time of analysis. -24- TABLE 6 COST ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR REVERSE OSMOSIS AND ELECTRODIALYSIS UNITS QUANTITY USED PER MILLION COST PER MILLION GALLONS GALLONS OF PRODUCT OF PRODUCT ITEM COST PER UNIT RO ED RO ED Sulfuric Acid $31.60*/Ton Filter Cartridges $0.75/Each Electrical Power $0.01/KWH Cyanamer $l,00/lb P-35 2.74 Tons 1.04 Tons 2.50 100 6700 KWH 4250 KWH 59 lbs $86.50 $197.50 $67.00 $59.00 $32.86 $79.00 $42.50 TOTALS $410.00 $154.36 *Based on tankcar lots. The amount of materials used in these calculations was based on actual quantities used to achieve the product water produced at the Interagency Agricultural Wastewater Treatment Center. No consideration was given to capital cost, cost of operation and maintenance, or cost of brine disposal. Because of the small scale of the units and because the primary objective was determination of technical feasibility of the units, the costs for supplies and chemicals alone are high. Other published estimates have shown the cost of large-scale reverse osmosis plants to be considerably less than the prorated costs found in these experiments. An economic evaluation study performed by Kaiser Engineers (5) has published costs for a 50 mgd plate and frame module type of reverse osmosis plant based on the following factors: -25- Plant 30 years Membrane Life 1 year Stream Factor 90 percent Fixed Charge Rate @ 3 1/4% Interest 5.27 percent Insurance 0.25 percent Taxes 1.50 percent Brine Disposal $0.02/KGAL Product Recovery 50 percent Power Cost $0.010/KWH Influent TDS 3000 mg/1 The product water cost for such a plant was approximately 32 cents per 1000 gallons. These figures were based on present membrane technology. Costs may be reduced by 30 to 40 percent with projected improvements in membrane technology. Cost data have been published for a 50 mgd electrodialysis plant with a demineralizing stack flow path similar to that of the smaller scale plant at the Interagency Agricultural Wastewater Treatment Center and designed under the following criteria: (6) Plant Life 30 years Membrane Life 3-5 years Stream Factor 90 percent Fixed Charge Rate (3 3 1/4% 5.27 percent Insurance 0.25 percent Brine Disposal $0.020/KGAL Power Cost $0,007 - $0.01/KWH Influent TDS 3638 mg/1 The product water cost for the above plant was also approximately 32 cents per 1000 gallons. Technical improvements in critical components, materials, and process design could result in a 33 percent cost reduction as compared to the present state-of-the-art. -26- SECTION V ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The desalination investigations were performed under the direction of Percy P. St. Amant, Sanitary Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency. The field work was the responsibility of Bryan R. Sword, Sanitary Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency. The Office of Saline Water provided the desalination equipment and technical advice for the Federal Water Quality Administration's use. The assistance given by Mr. Warren H. Bossert, formerly of the Aerojet-General Corporation, proved invaluable in maintaining and operating the reverse osmosis unit. The assistance given by the Field Operations Office of Ionics, Inc. in providing guidelines for operation of the electrodialysis unit is gratefully acknowledged. A major contribution to the studies was given by the efforts of the United States Bureau of Reclamation technicians, Messrs. Norman W. Cederquist, Gary E. Keller, Gary L. Rogers, and Mathew C. Rumboltz. This report was prepared by Bryan R. Sword, Sanitary Engineer, Environmental Protection Agency. -27- SECTION VI REFERENCES Merten, U. , Lonsdale, H. K. , Riley, R. L., Vos , K. D. , Reverse Osmosis for Water Desalination . Office of Saline Water, Research and Development, Progress Report No. 208, September 1966. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater , American Public Health Association, Inc., New York, 12th Edition (1965). Correspondence with Aerojet-General Corporation, February 5, 1968. Katz, William E. , Nitrate Removal by Electrodialysis - A Brief Review, Ionics, Incorporated, October 25, 1966. Harris, F. L. , Engineering and Economic Evaluation Study of Reverse Osmosis , Office of Saline Water, Second Symposium on Reverse Osmosis, April 1969. Christodoulou, G. R. , Olsson, G. R. , Monnik, H. J., Parametric Economic and Engineering Evaluation Study of the Electrodialysis Process for Water Desalination , Office of Saline Water, Research and Development Progress Report No. 488. -29- SECTION VII PUBLICATIONS SAN JOAQUIN PROJECT. FIREBAUGH CALIFORNIA 1968 "Is Treatment of Agricultural Waste Water Possible?" Louis A. Beck and Percy P. St. Amant, Jr. Presented at Fourth International Water Quality Symposium, San Francisco, California, August 14, 1968; published in the proceedings of the meeting. 1969 "Biological Denitrif ication of Wastewaters by Addition of Organic Materials" Perry L. McCarty, Louis A. Beck, and Percy P. St. Amant, Jr. Presented at the 24th Annual Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana. May 6, 1969. "Comparison of Nitrate Removal Methods" Louis A. Beck, Percy P. St. Amant, Jr., and Thomas A. Tamblyn. Presented at Water Pollution Control Federation Meeting, Dallas, Texas. October 9, 1969.. "Effect of Surface/Volume Relationship, C0„ Addition, Aeration, and Mixing on Nitrate Utilization by Scenedesmus Cultures in Subsurface Agricultural Waste Waters". Randall L. Brown and James F. Arthur. Proceedings of the Eutrophication-Biostimulation Assessment Workshop, Berkeley, California. June 19-21, 1969. "Nitrate Removal Studies at the Interagency Agricultural Waste Water Treatment Center, Firebaugh, California" Percy P. St. Amant, Jr., and Louis A. Beck. Presented at 1969 Conference, California Water Pollution Control Association, Anaheim, California, and published in the proceedings of the meeting. May 9, 1969. "Research on Methods of Removing Excess Plant Nutrients from Water" Percy P. St. Amant, Jr., and Louis A. Beck. Presented at 158th National Meeting and Chemical Exposition, American Chemical Society, New York, New York. September 8, 1969. "The Anaerobic Filter for the Denitrif ication of Agricultural Subsurface Drainage" T. A. Tamblyn and B. R. Sword. Presented at the 24th Purdue Industrial Waste Conference, Lafayette, Indiana. May 5-8, 1969. -31- SAN JOAQUIN PROJECT, FIREBAUGH, CALIFORNIA (Continued) 1969 "Nutrients in Agricultural Tile Drainage" W. H. Pierce, L. A. Beck and L. R. Glandon. Presented at the 1969 Winter Meeting of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Chicago, Illinois. December 9-12, 1969. "Treatment of High Nitrate Waters" Percy P. St. Amant, Jr., and Perry L. McCarty. Presented at Annual Conference, American Water Works Association, San Diego California. May 21, 1969. American Water Works Association Journal . Vol. 61. No. 12. December 1969. pp. 659-662. The following papers were presented at the national Fall Meeting of the American Geophysical Union, Hydrology Section, San Francisco, California. December 15-18, 1969. They are published in Collected Papers Regarding Nitrates in Agricultural Waste Water . USDI , FWQA, #13030 ELY December 1969. "The Effects of Nitrogen Removal on the Algal Growth Potential of San Joaquin Valley Agricultural Tile Drainage Effluents" Randall L. Brown, Richard C. Bain, Jr. and Milton G. Tunzi. "Harvesting of Algae Grown in Agricultural Wastewaters" Bruce A. Butterfield and James R. Jones. "Monitoring Nutrients and Pesticides in Subsurface Agricultural Drainage" Lawrence R. Glandon, Jr. , and Louis A. Beck "Combined Nutrient Removal and Transport System for Tile Drainage from the San Joaquin Valley" Joel Goldman, James F. Arthur, William J. Oswald, and Louis A. Beck. "Desalination of Irrigation Return Waters" Bryan R. Sword. "Bacterial Denitrif ication of Agricultural Tile Drainage" Thomas A. Tamblyn, Perry L. McCarty and Percy P. St. Amant. "Algal Nutrient Responses in Agricultural Wastewater" James F. Arthur, Randall L. Brown, Bruce A. Butterfield, Joel C. Goldman -32- 1 r— w Siib;et f Field &. Group Q5D SELECTED WATER RESOURCES ABSTRACTS INPUT TRANSACTION FORM I Organizali Water Quality Office Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D.C. 6 ^"'"■ DESALINATION OF AGRICULTURAL TILE DRAINAGE ^Q Aulhor(s) Sword, Bryan R. ]^ Project Designation Project #13030 ELY 21 '^°" 22 Agricultural Wastewater Studies Report 13030 ELY 05/71-12 Pages 32 Figures 13 Tables 6 References 6 22 Descriptors (Starred First) *Desalination , *Irrigation Waters, *Retum Flow Reverse Osmosis, Electrodialysis , Salinity, Nitrate, Boron, Tile Drains 25 Identifiers (Starred First) *San Joaquin Valley, California 27 Abstract Investigations were made to determine the technical feasibility of desalination of tile drainage. The source of the tile drainage was a 400-acre field near Firebaugh, California. Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Electrodialysis (ED) processes were studied. Two RO membrane stacks were investigated. The first, a high salt rejection, low product yield, was operated on variable quality (3000-7000 mg/1 TDS) irrigation return water. In the 7-month investigation period TDS removal efficiencies decreased from 93 percent to 80 percent salt rejection and the product flux decreased from 12 gal/ft^/day to less than 9 gal/ft^/day. The 20 mg/1 of nitrate-nitrogen and 8 mg/1 of boron contained in the influent were not effectively rejected. The second RO stack and also the ED unit were operated on return waters that were controlled to have a 3000 mg/1 TDS. The second RO stack was designed for a high product rate and low salt rejection. The TDS removal remained at 85 percent for a 3-month run. Product flux decreased from over 19 gal/ft /day to less than 12 gal/ft^/day. Nitrate and boron rejection was low. The ED data are based on a single pass through the membrane stack. The TDS removal varied from 35 percent to 15 percent. The nitrate removal rate was greater than the TDS removal. Boron removal was negligible. It is estimated that the costs for the two processes are approximately equal — $320 per million gallons of product. This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Project No. 13030 ELY under sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency. Sword I Inst, tut Environmental Protection Agency ^ESOURC ES MGTON, D. C . 20240 S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1972-514-148/67 THIS BOOK IS DUE ON THE LAST DATE STAMPED BELOW BOOKS REQUESTED BY ANOTHER BORROWER ARE SUBJECT TO RECALL AFTER ONE WEEK. RENEWED BOOKS ARE SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL RECBVEO PK ,S.CAtSCS.UBRARV LIBRARY, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS D4613 (12/76) 3 1175 00565 585