### Desalination and Water Purification Research and Development Program Report No. 120 

# Dewvaporation Desalination 5,000-Gallon-Per-Day Pilot Plant

\

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation June 2008

## REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No. 0704-0188

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Rep orts (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any pen alty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.

T 1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)

T June 2008 T 2. REPORT TYPE

T Final T 3. DATES COVERED (From - To)

T October 2007 – January 2008

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER Agreement No. 03-FC-81-0905

5b. GRANT NUMBER T 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE Dewvaporation Desalination 5,000-Gallon-Per-Day Pilot Plant

5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER

5d. PROJECT NUMBER

5e. TASK NUMBER 6. AUTHOR(S) Dr. James R. Beckman

5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) L’Eau LLC 1937 E. Calle de Arcos Tempe, Arizona 85284 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER

10. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S ACRONYM(S) Reclamation 9. SPONSORING / MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Federal Center, PO Box 25007, Denver CO 80225-0007 11. SPONSOR/MONITOR’S REPORT NUMBER(S) DWPR Report No. 120

12. DISTRIBUTION / AVAILABILITY STATEMENT Available from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Operations Division, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield VA 22161

13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

T Report can be downloaded from Reclama tion Web site: http://www.usbr.gov/pm ts/water/publications/reports.html

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words) A 5,000-gallon-per-day dewvaporation pilot plant was designe d, built, and operated at the 23rd Avenue Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) in Phoenix, Arizona. The City of Phoenix Water Services Department, along with the Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office, cooperated to establis h a pilot plant site. The pilot plant feed was the concentrate from a Tactical Water Purifier System rever se osmosis (RO) unit with ultrafiltration pretreatment. A 2,000-milligram-per-liter (mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS) wa ste water RO concentrate stream was treated by the pilot plant to more than 45,000 mg/L of TDS brine and 10 mg/L of TDS distillate. Recovery varied from 70 percent to 100 percent, with no decrease in distillate rate or increase in distillate contamination. Thermal multiple effects varied from 2.0 to 3.5, which was less than the 5.0 effects demonstr ated prior to transport to the WWTP site. Operating cost was highly dependent of the price of fuel. Using the average of the three best thermal multip le effect values of 3.2 and natural gas cost of $0.80 per therm, the operating cost of wa ter would be $20.85 per 1,000 gallons. The use of waste heat or solar thermal would reduce the operating cost to the cost of water pumping and air blowing. Power needs of 0.5 kilowatthour (kWh) per 1,000 gallons at $0.10 per kWh would amount to $0.05 per 1,000 gallons.

15. SUBJECT TERMS Waste water treatment, desalting, thermal desalination, dewvaporation, reverse osmosis (RO) concentrate

16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: UL 19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON

T Michelle Chapman

a. REPORT UL b. ABSTRACT UL c. THIS PAGE UL 17. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT SAR (same as report) 18. NUMBER OF PAGES 60 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (include area code) (303) 445-2264

S Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8/98)

P Prescribed by ANSI Std. 239-18U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Water and Environmental Resources Division Water Treatment Engineering Research Team Denver, Colorado June 2008 

### Desalination and Water Purification Research and Development Program Report No. 120



# Dewvaporation Desalination 5,000-Gallon-Per-Day Pilot Plant

Prepared for Reclamation Under Agreement No. 03-FC-81-0905

by



## James R. Beckman

L’Eau LLC Tempe, Utah

## Acknowledgments

This work was initially supported by the De partment of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation under Agreements No. 98-FC-81-0049 and 99-FC-81-0186. The engineering team wishes to thank Ms. Michelle Chapman (Reclamation - Denver), Mr. Thomas Poulson (Reclamation - Phoeni x), Mr. William Cosgrove (Reclamation - Phoenix) and Mr. Henry Day (City of Phoeni x) for their support, encouragement, and suggestions.

The principal investigator, along with the engineering team of Mr. Victor Banks, Mr. Joshua Brown, Mr. Michael Dorr, Mr. George Finnegan, and Mr. Stephen Poplawski also wish to express their appr eciation for the patience needed throughout this initially anticipated 2-year program.



## Disclaimer

The views, analysis, recommendations, and conc lusions in this report are those of the authors and do not represent o fficial or unofficial policie s or opinions of the United States Government, and the United States takes no position with regard to any findings, conclusions, or recommendations ma de. As such, mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute their endorsement by the United States Government. 

## MISSION STATEMENTS

The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation's natural and cult ural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indi an tribes and our commitments to island communities.

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the in terest of the American public.iii 

# Table of Contents

Page

Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................. ix 1. Executive Summary............................................................................ 1 2. Background and Introduction ............................................................. 3 2.1 Dewvaporation Philosophy......................................................... 3 2.2 Dewvaporation Model ................................................................ 6
2.3 Tower Details.............................................................................. 9
2.4 Pilot Plant Construction .............................................................. 12 2.5 Pilot Plant Objectives.................................................................. 14 2.5.1 Initially Proposed Pilot Plant Approach ............................ 14 2.5.2 Pilot Plant Goals and Objectives........................................ 15 2.6 Pilot Plant Operational Risks...................................................... 16 2.7 Projected Dewvaporation Economics......................................... 17 2.8 Project Management ................................................................... 17 2.9 Facilities and Equipment............................................................. 18 2.10 Environmental Impact............................................................... 18 2.11 Dismantling the Pilot Plant ....................................................... 18 2.12 Dewvaporation Project Relevance to Desalination and Water Purification Research Objectives ................................... 18 3. Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations .................................... 21
3.1 Pilot Plant Results....................................................................... 22 3.2 Improvement Recommendations ................................................ 23 3.2.1 Tandem Arrangement ........................................................ 23 3.2.2 NEWT Tower Manufacturing............................................ 24
3.2.3 Solar Hot Water ................................................................. 25 3.2.4 Desiccant Heat Pumping.................................................... 26
4. Work Performed.................................................................................. 31 4.1 Changing Design Basis from 10,000 gpd to 5,000 gpd .............. 31 4.2 Design Modifications.................................................................. 32 4.2.1 Independent “Unit Cell” Turnarounds............................... 32
4.2.2 Wide 33-Inch Towers ........................................................ 32 4.2.3 Narrow Gauge 3-mm Twin-Wall....................................... 33iv 

### Table of Contents

Page

4.2.4 Parallel Pathways............................................................... 33 4.3 Manufacturing Capacity........................................................ 33 4.3.1 NAS-T Design and Operation............................................ 34 4.3.2 NAST-C Tower Design ..................................................... 35 4.3.3 Transportation of Towers to WWTP ................................. 35
4.3.4 Install Towers at WWTP ................................................... 35 4.4 Year 2 (October 2004 - September 2005)................................... 36 4.4.1 NAS-TC Tower Design and Operation.............................. 36
4.4.2 Pilot Plant Overview.......................................................... 36 4.4.3 Electrosteam Boiler Operational........................................ 37 4.4.4 RO Unit Operational.......................................................... 38
4.4.5 New Towers on Site........................................................... 38 4.5 Year 3 (October 2005 - September 2006)................................... 39 4.6 Year 4 (October 2006 - April 2007) ........................................... 40
4.6.1 Measurements .................................................................... 40 4.6.2 General Waste Water Feed Operation ............................... 41 4.6.3 RO Concentrate Feed Operations ...................................... 41
5. Economics........................................................................................... 45
6. Reference List ..................................................................................... 47



### Appendices

A Pilot Plant Operational B City of Phoenix Water Analysis

C Metric Conversions



### List of Tables

Table Page

1 Plot Plant Design Data....................................................................... 22 2 Desiccant Drying Cities ..................................................................... 28
3 Initial Towers Built............................................................................ 32 4 Towers Built for Transport to Phoenix .............................................. 33v 

### List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Dewvaporation tower design ............................................................. 4 2 Volatile organic carbon removal and evaporation pond reclamation with dewvaporation................................................... 5 3 Edge view of 4-millimeter, twin-wall polypropylene sheet............... 10 4 Tower sections fitted with gauze ....................................................... 10 5 Top view of the tower........................................................................ 11 6 Towers at the manufacturing site....................................................... 11 7 Towers installed at pilot site wi th generator, tank s, and tactical water purification system.............................................................. 12 8 First tower set with steam generator and tanks............................... 13 9 Arrangement of towers for the pilot test......................................... 13 10 Single tower standard an d modified air design............................... 24 11 Proposed tandem air flow arrangement .......................................... 24
12 NEWT air turnarounds.................................................................... 25 13 Solar hot water heating ................................................................... 25 14 Desiccant heat pumping with boiler ............................................... 26 15 Desiccant heat pumping with air drying ......................................... 27 16 Overview picture of th e as-built pilot plant .................................... 37 17 Tactical water purification system (vibration testing) .................... 37
18 Electric steam boiler in its enclosure .............................................. 38
19 Standardized towers from L’eau..................................................... 39 20 Feed tank salinity – semibatch run.................................................. 42 21 Tower basin design ......................................................................... 43 22 Tower salinity – semibatch run....................................................... 43 23 20,000-gpd dewvaporation plant footprint ..................................... 45vii 

# Glossary

A heat transfer area (ft 2 )

c p heat capacity (BTU/lbmole  ̊ F) B 14 (SI) 16.38 (Ameri can Engineering) F feed flow rate (lbmole/sec) G carrier gas flow rate (lbmole/sec)
h molar enthalpy (BTU/lbmole) h heat transfer coefficient (BTU/hr ft 2  ̊ F) k thermal conductivity (BTU/hr ft  ̊ F) L liquid flow rate at any pos ition in the tower (lbmole/sec)
M mass transfer factor N molar flow rate (lbmole/sec)

P w vapor pressure of water (psia) P total pressure (psia) Pf production dens ity (lb/hr ft 2 ) Q energy input at the top of the tower (BTU/sec) q heat flux (BTU/hr ft 2 ) R gas constant (BTU/lbmole  ̊ F) RH relative humidity S salinity at any position in the tower T temperature (  ̊ F) t thickness of heat transfer wall (ft)
U overall heat transfer coefficient (BTU/hr ft 2  ̊ F) V vapor loading (lbmoles of wa ter vapor per lbmole of gas) w width of the flow media (ft)



### Subscripts

B brine stream
D distillate stream
d dewformation side e evaporation sideviii 

### Subscripts (continued)

f liquid film

g gas h top of the tower
0 bottom of the tower ref reference point RH relative humidity LM logarithmic mean



### Greek

λ

heat of vaporization of water (BTU/lbmmole)
δ liquid film thickness (ft)

Γ gamma (lb/hr ft)

ρ Density (lb/ft 3 ) μ viscosity (lb/ft sec)ix 

# Abbreviations and Acronyms

ABS acrylonitrile butadiene styrene ASU Arizona State University gpd gallons per day gpm gallons per minute
HDH humidification/dehumidification
kWh kilowatthours lb/hr pounds per hour
lb/in 2 pounds per square inch mg/L milligrams per liter
mm millimeters NAS-T a unit with air flowing up or N orth on the evaporation side A nd then flowing S outh or down on the dew formation side of the T ower. NEWT a tower where the air flow pattern is first N orth on the evaporation side and then E ast and W est or zigzag on the downward flow path on the dew formation side of the T ower. PXAO Phoenix Area Office
TDS total dissolved solids TWPS tactical water purification system1 

# 1. Executive Summary

Dewvaporation is a specific proce ss of humidification-dehumidification desalination, which uses air as a carrier-g as to evaporate wate r from saline feeds and form pure condensate at constant atmo spheric pressure. The heat needed for evaporation is supplied by the heat released by dew condensation on opposite sides of a heat transfer wall. Since ex ternal heat is needed to establish a temperature difference across the wall, and since the temperature of the external heat is versatile, the external heat so urce can be from waste heat, from solar collectors, or from fuel combustion. Th e unit is constructed out of thin water wettable plastics and operated at atmospheric pressure.

A 5,000 gallon-per-day (gpd) dewvaporati on pilot plant was designed, built, and operated at the 23rd Avenue waste wate r treatment plant (WWTP) in Phoenix, Arizona. The City of Phoenix Water Serv ices Department, along with the Bureau of Reclamation Phoenix Area Office coopera ted to establish a pilot plant site. The pilot plant feed was the concentrate from a Tactical Water Purifier System reverse osmosis (RO) unit with ultrafiltration pretreatment.

A 2000-milligram-per-liter (mg/L) tota l dissolved solids (TDS) wastewater RO concentrate stream was treated by th e pilot plant to more than 45,000 mg/L TDS brine and 10 mg/L TDS distillate. Recovery varied from 70 percent to 100 percent with no decrease in distillate rate or increase in distillate contamination. Thermal multiple effects varied from 2.0 to 3.5, which was less than the 5.0 effects demonstrated prior to transport to the WWTP site. Distillate production rate varied among towers, pr oducing approximately 5 gallons per minute (gpm) per tower, which was less than the target ra te of 8.3 gpm. Operating cost was highly dependent on th e price of fuel. Using the average of the three best thermal multiple effect values of 3.2, and natural gas cost of $0.80 per therm, the operating cost of water would be $20.85 per 1,000 gallons. The use of waste heat or solar thermal w ould reduce the operating cost to the cost of water pumping and air blowing. Powe r needs of 0.5 kilowatthours (kWh) per 1,000 gallons at $0.10 per kWh would amount to $0.05 per 1,000 gallons.3 

# 2. Background and Introduction

Many technologies have been used to pe rform desalination, resulting in preferred technologies based on economics (Fosselg ard and Wangnick [1]). For example, in the desalination of mild brackish (less than 1,000 milligrams per liter (mg/L) TDS) water, reverse osmosis (RO) is supe rior to all desalination technologies. This is mainly a reflection of the fact that other technologies involve phase change (boiling), whereas RO employs lo w-pressure pumps (less than 100 pounds per square inch (lb/in 2 ) (7 bar)) to move water through semipermeable membranes, resulting in less energy consum ption than that involved in a boiling process. One area where RO is ineffective in water purification is in the treatment of waters containing nonfilterable suspended particulates. For example, the Colorado River contains silt in the 1-micron range, which tends to foul RO membranes, increasing the maintena nce and/or pretreatment costs of RO operation.

For the more TDS intense aqueous app lications such as RO concentrates (Mickley [2]), waste streams, and seawater, other mechanical and thermal technologies economically compete with RO, as seen by Larson et al. [3], [4]. In the case of seawater desalin ation, the RO pump pressu re increases to 1,200 lb/in 2 (80 bar) and feed waters require extensiv e pretreatment in order to protect and extend the life of the membranes.

The competitive technologies to RO for seawater desalination include mechanical vapor compression (MVC), multi-stage flash distillation, and multi-effect distillation with and without thermal vapor compression. The MVC needs shaft power to drive its compressor. The motor can be either electrically or thermally driven. For electrically dr iven MVC, MVC plants consume more electricity than RO units in the same seawater service. The other processes dominantly use and reuse heat as the main driver to affect temperature-driving force between boiling and condensing at staged pressures. The thermally driven plants attempt to reuse the high temperature applied heat as ma ny times as is economically possible to minimize operating costs. This energy reus e factor economically varies from 6 to 12.



### 2.1 Dewvaporation Philosophy

Thermal processes that operate below th e boiling point of water are called humidification/dehumidification (HDH). Younis et al. [5] investigated HDH units using solar energy as the exte rnal heat source. Just like the steam-driven external heat operation of an HDH, two heat transfer towers (or zones) are required to transf er heat from a massive flow of water. The water is4 used as both an internal heat source and internal heat sink. The requirement of two towers makes the HDH process ener gy inefficient. The dewvaporation technique belongs to the HDH family of technology but requires only one tower making it more energy efficient.

The Arizona State University (ASU) patented technology (Beckman [6]), dewvaporation, is applicable to desalina tion and reclamation of seawater, brackish water, evaporation pond water, RO plan t concentrates, chemical mechanical planarization slurries from the semiconduc tor industries, volatile organic (methyl tertiary butyl ether, trichloroethylen e) contaminant removal from ground, and other impaired sources. Dewvaporation’s most economic niche is in small plant applications. Larger plants will evolve in time.

The standard dewvaporation continuous contacting tower is a relatively new, nontraditional, and innovative heat driven process using air as a carrier-gas and remaining at atmospheric pressure thr oughout the device. The external heat source can be from low temperature solar (131  ̊ F [55  ̊ C]), waste heat, or combustible fuels (210.2  ̊ F [99  ̊ C]). Briefly, the process works for brackish desalination, as viewed in figure 1 (Beckman [7]; Beckman, Hamieh, and Ybarra [8]; and Hamieh, Beckman, and Ybarra [9]).

A carrier-gas, such as air, is brought into the bottom of the tower on the evaporation side of a heat transfer wall at a typical wet bulb temperature of 69.8  ̊ F (21  ̊ C), thereby containing about 0.025 moles of water vapor per mole of air. The wall is wetted by saline feed water, which is fed into the evaporation side at the top of the tower. As the air moves from the bottom to the top of the tower, heat is transferred into the evaporation side through the heat transfer wall, which allows the air to rise in temperature and evaporate water from the wetting saline liquid, which coats the heat transfer wall. Concentrated liquid leaves from the bottoms of the towers, and hot saturated air leaves the tower from the top at 189.5  ̊ F (87.4  ̊ C) with a humidity of 1.71 moles of water vapor per mole of air. Heat is added to this hot air by an

119.7 o F
V

d0 = 0.125 189.5 o F
V

eh = 1.71 190.2 o F
V

dh = 1.81

V e0 = 0.025 Q

69.8 o FBrackish Water

f = 16.8 RH = 100%

RH = 100%

Figure 1. Dewvaporation tower design.5 external heat source (steam was used in this investigation), increasing the air humidity and temperature to a vapor loading of 1.81 and 190.2  ̊ F (87.9  ̊ C), respectively. This hotter saturated air is sent back into the t op of the tower on the dew formation side. The dew formation si de of the tower, being slightly hotter than the evaporation side, allows the air to cool as condensation heat is transferred from the dew formation side to the evaporation side. Finally, pure water condensate and saturated air leave the de w formation side of the tower at the bottom at 119.7  ̊ F (48.7  ̊ C). Total external heat needed is made up of the heat added at the top of the towe r to establish a heat transfer temperature difference and the heat needed to establish a temperat ure offset between th e saline feed stock and the pure water condensate used to pr oduce steam. The detrimental effect of salt concentration on the energy reuse factor (or gain output ratio), f, is explained in the theory section.

Figure 2a illustrates that volatile organic carbon removal behaves ideally as the distillation of almost pure, brackish, or sea water. The reclamation of evaporation pond waters that are saturate d with salts (20 percent by weight), as shown in figure 2b, is more difficult. The feed wa ters are processed to extinction by the recycle of bottoms brine back to the feed. The two pr oducts are distillate and wet salt solids.

Due to the slight desiccant effect of sa lts, the energy reuse f actor decreases with increased salt concentrations. This suppr essed vapor pressure of water reduces the relative humidity of saturated air, causing the addition of more steam to make up the air dryness.

Figure 2. Volatile organic carbon removal and evaporation pond reclamation with dewvaporation.6 

### 2.2 Dewvaporation Model

From figures 1 and 2, the mathematical defi nition of the energy reuse factor, f, is the ratio of the energy tran sferred through the heat tr ansfer wall to the high temperature energy input, as shown in equation 1 (Beckman [7], [10]):

(1)

The definition of the molar production flux, Pf , is the gas traffic (mol of air per second) times the water vapor decrease on the dew formation side of the wall divided by the wall area, as shown in equation 2:

(2)

Typically, the feed/conde nsate temperature offset is kept to 10  ̊ F (5.6  ̊ C). This can be accomplished by either an internal or external feed heat exchanger. In this analysis, the energy reuse factor, f, was 16.8. By including the heat needed for the temperature offset, the factor reduces to about 13. Actuall y, the product of the factor and the molar production flux, Pf , is a constant at parametric Veh. The value of the constant is a function of the operating variables, as shown in the following equations.

The amount of water vapor contained in the air carrier-gas is calculated by specifying the temperature, T, and calc ulating the vapor pr essure, Pw, from equation 3 (Smith and Van Ness [11]):

(3)

where B and λ 0 are constants obtained by fitting a straight line to the ln(Pw) versus 1/T for the steam table. For temperature range of 32 – 212  ̊ F (0 – 100  ̊ C), B is 14 and λ 0/R is 5209 ° K (Perry, Green, and Maloney [12]). The carrier-gas vapor content (moles of wate r vapor per mole of air) is:

(4)

where the relative humidity (RH) is gi ven as a function of salinity, S grams salt/liter, by the following equa tion (Spiegler and Laird [13]):

(5) eh dh 0 d dh V V V V f

− −

=



## ( )
0 d dh f V V A G P

− ⋅ =

T R B P

w

⋅ − = 0 ln λ

w w P RH P P

RH V

⋅ − ⋅

=

S 000538

. 0 1 RH

⋅ − =7 The hottest temperature in the evapora ting section is specified, allowing the calculation of the largest value of the Veh in the evaporating s ection of the unit. Then the change in vapor c ontent of the carrier-gas is specified across the top of the tower by: (6)

From these specifications, the temperature difference across the heat transfer wall at any position can be described as:

(7)

In this process, both the film heat and mass transfer coefficients are important in establishing the overall effective heat tran sfer coefficient, U. For simultaneous heat and mass transfer operations involvi ng air and water, the Lewis Number is essentially unity (McCabe, Smith, and Harriot t [14]), allowing the coefficients to be related by similitude as ky = hg/cp. The effect of the latent energy associated with the mass transfer of water vapor can be related to the sensible heat transfer associated with the air/vapor mixt ure by equation 9 after Werling [15].

(8)

where M is expressed as:

(9)

Taking into account both gas film heat transfer coefficients and the thermal resistance of the heat transfer wall, then the overall effective heat transfer coefficient, U, can be expressed as:

(10)

The heat transferred through the heat transfer wall is essentially the latent heat, at the system temperature need ed to evaporate water as:

(11)

The area needed for the heat transfer wall is obtained by an energy balance (Bird, Stewart, and Lightfoot [16]). eh dh V V V

− = Δ



# ( )
⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

Δ ⋅ + Δ +

⋅ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

⋅

= Δ V V V V R B
T z e z e

z LM 1 1

0 2
λ



# ( )

z z g z f M 1 h h + ⋅ =

V
c R
RT M

p ⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

⋅ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

= 2
0 λ

k t h 1
h 1
U

1

z fd z fe z + + =



# ( )

z e z z e z V V G q

− ⋅ λ

⋅ = Δ +8 (12)

Where:

(13)

Upon integrating with respect to the overall area and a ssuming that t/k is small compared to the gas phase resistance, e quation 14 then relates the total energy reuse factor, f, and the total production flux, Pf , as follows:

(14)

Where the detrimental effect, FRH, of re duced relative humidity at the tower top exiting evaporation air stream, RH, is:

(15)

Equation 14 shows that as the temperature increases, the product of energy reuse factor and molar production flux become gr eater. It is also apparent that the energy reuse factor, f, and the mo lar production flux, Pf, are related hyperbolically in an established unit. Th e detrimental effect of salt concentration is also included in this expression from equation 15.

Additionally, highe r values of V eh ; i.e., higher temperatur es, improve both f and Pf values, which is economically beneficial to the tower. However, higher temperatures are limited to the heat source temperature and the normal boiling point of water.

On the other hand, by taking into account the heat conduction resistance in the plastic heat transfer wall and the resistances due to the two liquid films on the wall, then:

(16)

With:

(17) z LM z z z T 1
U

1

q A

Δ × =

ye yd LM T T T

− = Δ



## ( )
RH eh eh

p g f F V V
C h

T R B P f

⋅ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

+ ⋅ ⎪ ⎭ ⎪ ⎬ ⎫ ⎪ ⎩ ⎪ ⎨ ⎧ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

⋅ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡

⋅ ⋅ = ⋅ 18

. 2 0 2
0 λ λ λ



## ( ) ( ) ( ) eh RH V 1 f 1 RH 1 1 F + ⋅ + ⋅ − − =

18 2 0 2
0 F V V

c h

T R B f P

eh eh

p g f ⋅ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

+ ⋅ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

⋅ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

⋅ ⋅ = ⋅ λ λ λ

2 3 3 6 1 1

⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

⋅ + ⋅ +

⋅ ⋅ + + + =

eh eh RH RH V V F F F F F

ε ε9 The resulting equation is 18. This expression resemble s equation 14, but with an additional term F containing all of the plas tic and liquid films resistances to heat transfer. Rearranging these equations into a form that would be linear in a data plot gives:

(18)

Air Boundary Layer Wall and Liquids

Essentially, the manner in which equa tion 18 (Hamieh [17]) is used to determine the effective heat transfer area fr om the data obtained per run. All of the parameters on the right hand side of equation 18 are known. Data from each run contain the temperature at the top of the tower, production rate, and energy consumed. From the tower top temperat ure, the water vapor to air ratio and energy reuse ratio can be calculated. Th erefore, the production density can be assessed on the left hand side of equation 18. Since the produc tion rate is data, then the effective heat transf er area in the tower can be identified. The effective area is a property of the tower mechanic al design, as summarized by Hamieh and Beckman [18], [19].



### 2.3 Tower Details

The plastic heat transfer wall that best offered low-cost economics, dimensional stability, free flow zone s, manufacturability, and av ailability was twin-wall extrusions found in Spring 2001. The twin -wall extruded plastics are available in many sizes (thickness) ranging from 2 millim eters (mm) to 10 mm. Coroplast, Incorporated’s (1-800-666-2241) twin-w all, 4-mm, polypropylene extruded sheet was purchased at $5.25 per 4-foot by 8-foot sheet from local suppliers. This price is for small quantity from a distributor. Projected price for bulk quantity direct from manufacturer is less than $2.50 per sheet. Since both sides of the sheet can be used for heat transfer, the price for the heat transfer wall is $0.039 per square foot. Figure 3 shows an edge-on view of the twin-wall extruded plastic sheet.

The outer surfaces were covered with we tting gauze so that the surfaces would wet with saline feed water. The i nner cavity allowed condensation to occur isolated from the saline water. These extruded sheets were cut to size (19 inches wide, 6 feet high) and mounted vert ically, as shown in figure 4.

The inner top of the tower is pictured in figure 5. There is a certain level of complexity as shown. Air blows up the sa line wet faces of the heat transfer walls and enters the top zone through the sponge s, which have holes. The sponges are wetted with saline feed from the feed spouts along the center of the picture. 

## ( ) 

## ∑

⋅ ⋅ + ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

⋅ + ⋅ +

⋅ ⎥ ⎥ ⎦ ⎤ ⎢ ⎢ ⎣ ⎡ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

=

⋅ ⋅ + ⎟ ⎠ ⎞ ⎜ ⎝ ⎛

⋅ k t R B
V V V
h c f P V eh eh eh

g p

f eh 6 2 3 2
2 3 2

2 0 λ λ10 Figure 4. Tower sections fitted with gauze. Figure 3. Edge view of 4-millimeter, twin-wall polypropylene sheet.11 Steam is shot into the air along the cent er by a steam pipe (not shown). Air with the added steam moves to the far right and left of the picture, where the air re-enters the heat exchange sectio n and flows back down the tower as it cools and condenses dew. Figure 6 shows completed towers at the manufacturing facility.

Figure 5. Top view of the tower.

Figure 6. Towers at the manufacturing site.12 

### 2.4 Pilot Plant Construction

The pilot plant was located at the waste water treatment plant (WWTP). Figure 7 shows a picture of the site, selected out of the various site locations available. This site was chosen for its morning shade, sealed ground, proximity to an office area with machine shop capab ility, and ease of access. There was space for a maximum of 32 towers.

An electrical steam generator was located onsite, along with the tactical water purification system (TWPS) used to con centrate the tertiary wastewater for the DewVaporation system feed. The first set of towers, along with the steam generator, is shown in figure 8. The st eam generator is in the lower left with some of the first towers. Figure 9 shows some of the tanks, the steam generator enclosure, and first tower set.

In the summer of 2005, a storm swept th rough the Phoenix area, uprooting trees and collapsing the first set of towers. Th e towers were not salvageable. A second set of 25 towers was purchased by th e Phoenix Area Office (PXAO) from the manufacturer. Figure 7. Towers installed at pilot site with generator, tanks, and tactical water purification system.13 The towers were connected for liqui d flow in many arrangements. The arrangement finally selected for data gathering in the fourth year is depicted in figure 9. Figure 9 show s that the pilot plant was subdivided into three units of eight towers. The final brine streams from all 3 subunits flowed to tower 25. The fl ow connections were designed to allow gradual increase in brine salinity in the sequential chain setup. Figure 8. First tower set with steam generator and tanks.

Figure 9. Arrangement of towers for the pilot test.14 

### 2.5 Pilot Plant Objectives

2.5.1 Initially Proposed Pilot Plant Approach The pilot plant was to be composed of ten 1,000-gallon-per-day (gpd) modules. Each module is designed to measure 4 feet by 4 feet by 7 feet and was optimized for manufacturing ease. This modulati on is required so as to improve transportability of the skid-mounted m odules to the WWTP. Some modules will be connected in a parallel arrangement, and others will be conn ected in series, to best minimize concentrate recycle tower bottoms to the tower top section. Recycling in this manner increases the salinity of the tower feed, which is detrimental to the energy efficiency but necessary in maintaining a wet heat transfer wall for distilla te formation. The modules will be separated and dispersed to other demonstration sites when the pilot study is complete.

The pilot plant towers were designed, bu ilt, transported to WWTP, installed, and brought online during the first year. In the second year, there were four major test cases operated for approximately 3 months each:

1. 5,000 mg/L of feed to make 200, 000 mg/L of 200-gpd concentrated brine

2. 5,000 mg/L of feed to make 420 lb/day of wet salt solids.

3. 1,500 mg/L of feed to make 200,000 mg/L of 60-gpd concentrated brine.

4. 1,500 mg/L of saline feed to make 125 lb/day wet salt solids.

The runs were made in this order to ta ke advantage of the TWPS RO concentrator being used to produce 5,000 mg/L of sa line water from the 1,500 mg/L of WWTP effluent. The TWPS will be leased for 2 to 3 years starting May 2003.

A liquid feed to the pilot plant will be pumped through a rotometer at 7 gallons per minute (gpm) controlled by a globe valve. This feed will be split into two 3.5-gpm streams and balanced by valves. The tower pumps are surge pumps that are activated by a liquid level control switc h. The level of each tower basin brine pool is controlled by overflow to the succeeding tower’s surge pump. The surge pump dedicated to the tower is respons ible for sending feed water through the tower internal feed heat exchangers to th e tower top; therefore, there is one pump per tower. Since flow rates surge, th e bucket and stopwatch approach will be used to monitor liquid rates.

Air will be sent to each tower from one blower. Individual air rates will be set by ball valve adjustment and measured by a velo city gas meter at each tower exhaust.15 Steam will be delivered to each tower by 10 dedicated water boilers. The steam rate will be set to maximum, and each towe r air flow rate will be adjusted to give the desired top temperature.

Temperatures of all liquid and air str eams (both wet and dry bulb) will be monitored by thermocouples, displaye d, and recorded by real time data acquisition.

2.5.2 Pilot Plant Goals and Objectives The overall plan for this 10,000-gpd pilo t study is to move a new and exciting technology out of the ASU laboratories once again and in to the field of the real world. A sizable 10,000-gpd unit is presented that will be professionally designed and fabricated, versatile in its feed water salinity demonstrations, and versatile in its product delivery (10,000 mg/L, 300,000 mg/L, and salt solids). The demonstration will be at the WWTP of th e City of Phoenix for about 1-year’s duration after 1 year needed for fabrica tion. A trailer-mounted RO unit will be made available from Reclamation for us e in this test. The dewvaporation equipment will be versatile in that WWTP ef fluent and RO effluent will be treated as feed to the dewvaporati on process. The dewvaporation unit needs a fuel such as natural gas ($0.40 per therm), which could be valued as locally available digester gas at no cost. In order to get th e site ready, it will be necessary, in time, to assess the electrical power needs/ availability, space allocation, exact site location, and contro l room needs.

When finished, the portable unit can be transported to other sites for follow-on demonstrations. It would be also possibl e, due to its modular construction, to send up to ten 1,000-gpd units, or some comb ination of numbers of modules, to various smaller industrial sites for demons tration. Examples include Cave Creek Desalination Facility and Scottsdale Water Campus.

The objectives that need to be addressed for the successful completion of the first year project include:

1. Design 10,000-gpd pilot plant main unit (ten 1,000-gpd towers).

2. Professionally manufacture main unit.

3. Transport towers sequentially when produced to WWTP.

4. Install/test towers at WWTP.

5. Write quarterly and fi nal reports for year 1.16 In the second year, the pilot plant will:

1. Operate unit with RO effluent to produce concentrated brine.

2. Operate unit with RO effluent to produce crystals.

3. Operate unit with WWTP effluent to produce concentrated brine.

4. Operate unit with WWTP effluent to produce crystals.

5. Design, build, and demonstrate a dvanced tower designs based on initial operational results.

6. Write quarterly and final reports for the total project.

The minimum of 2 years of study at the 10,000-gpd capacity should prove the reliability of the operation, as there are few moving parts, operating costs are low compared to all equivalent technologies that concentrate brine, and brackish discharges are minimized to the extent th at waste disposal co sts and/or needed land for evaporation ponds can be reduced by an order of magnitude. Successful accomplishment of Objectives 1 through 5 of year 1, and Objectives 1 through 6 of year 2, will act as a foundation to the practical details needed for the commercial design of that and larger systems. The accomplishment of second year Objective 2 will expand the role of the dewvaporation plants to being crystallizers by the reduced feed flow rate, so that the last tower in series produces crystals instead of brine. All togeth er, the new system will act to replace the standard evaporator (concentrators) a nd crystallizer proc ess pairing used by electric power generating stations th roughout the American West. The newly formed company, L’Eau LLC, has plan s and potential funding groups that are focused on rapidly accelerating toward co mmercialization. These achievements will hasten the commercialization process.



### 2.6 Pilot Plant Operational Risks

Based on all of the redundant research and development and all of the paths taken, the remaining risks to a successful op eration have been minimized. The dewvaporation system has minimal moving parts such as a boiler, pump, and fan. These items are very identifia ble and separate, so any ma lfunctions can be readily detected and corrected. The one unproven step is the operatio nal problems that might be associated with the professionally designed and fabricated towers. This new era in tower construction away from the ASU laboratories is not foolproof. Problems such as liquid leaks both inte rior and exterior, gas flow bypass, and liquid feed seal breakage have all been pr evious problems that were corrected in17 the smaller units. It is assumed that ear ly detection of these and other problems can be corrected in towers constructed in the future.



### 2.7 Projected Dewvaporation Economics

The basic economics have not changed much since the first projections in 1999 [6]. Then, the capital cost was a bout $ 8,000 per 1,000 gpd for small plants, reducing to $1,000 per 1,000 gpd for large fa cilities. Operatin g costs of water reclamation from seawater and saline solutions varied from $3.50 per 1,000 gallons to $0.50 per 1,000 gallons, ba sed on natural gas as a fuel or free waste heat, respectively.

The WWTP will also investigate taking the fed brine to total extinction (crystallization). That is, there will only be wet solids left for disposal and no brine discharge. The capital and operat ing cost for dewvaporation acting as a crystallizer should not change. The operat ing cost of an industrial crystallizer (IC) would be an additional $2 per 1,000 gallons of initial feed stock. The total water cost would then be $14 per 1,0 00 gallons. Capital cost for large crystallizers is an additional $5,600 per 1,000gpd of initial feed stock [18]. The total capital cost for a conventional eva porator with crystallizer would be $31,600 per 1,000 gpd. Dewvaporation capital co st would remain at $8,000 per 1,000 gpd.



### 2.8 Project Management

The project is based on the cooperation of three different entities: The City of Phoenix Water Services Department, PXAO, and L’Eau LLC. These three entities will be managed by their own personnel.

The City of Phoenix hosted the site and provided concrete slabs, utilities, and personnel to operate a 1,500-gallon-per-hour TWPS needed for enhanced salinity levels as feed to a 10,000-gpd dewvaporation pilot plant.

The Bureau of Reclamation - Denve r Office borrowed the TWPS from the U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center in Pt. Hueneme, California. The system was operated by the PXAO. Th e PXAO Program Management Division Chief is Robert Michaels. Tom Pouls on acted as the main contact and field director for the project.

L’Eau LLC was managed full time by Dr. Sc ott Stornetta as Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Dr. B eckman, part time, was Chief Technical Officer to L’Eau LLC and manager of th e pilot plant project. The L’Eau LLC18 constructed, transported, installed, and operated the 10,000-gpd dewvaporation pilot plant. The engineering staff of L’Eau LLC was present daily to ensure progress in L’Eau’s obligations.



### 2.9 Facilities and Equipment

The WWTP in Phoenix is a 63-million-gall on-per-day facility. The water campus is equipped with chemical testing labora tories capable of total water analysis. Digester gas and natural gas for steam ge neration needs are avai lable to the pilot plant operation. There is office space adj acent to the concrete pad area. Base level electricity of 1 kilo watt is in place for the pumps, blowers, and display requirements. Natural gas required is 100 therms per day.



### 2.10 Environmental Impact

The environmental impact for this dewvapor ation pilot plant is positive. The pilot plant will treat 1,500 mg/L and 5,000 mg/L of TDS discharge waters to less than 10 mg/L TDS distillate and concentrat ed brine at 200,000 mg/L TDS of wet crystal solids. The distil late produced can be used to dilute the normal WWTP 1,500-mg/L TDS discharge. A zero envir onmental impact would be a blending of the distillate and brine to form a 1,50 0-mg/L TDS WWTP discharge; however, all of the involved entities feel that a more positive application can be found for the distillate of the dewvaporation a nd the permeate from the RO unit.



### 2.11 Dismantling the Pilot Plant

Due to the modular construction of the 10,000-gpd pilot plant, the pilot plant could be broken into ten 1,000-gpd units for distribution to 10 sites. The towers are set up in this initial pilot plant to be independent, with dedicated boilers and blowers for individual analys is. This allows the singul ar distribution possibility. However, combinations of units compos ed of clusters of the 1,000-gpd units could also be considered. There is need for RO concentrate treatment systems in the Phoenix area (Cave Creek and Scottsda le water campus and other municipal waste water treatment plan ts or industrial sites).



### 2.12 Dewvaporation Project Relevance to Desalination and Water Purification Research Objectives

The Desalination Act of 1996 has as its principal focus the development of economical methods to reclaim impaired a nd saline inland waters. This research19 proposal is based on two Reclamation awar ds under this act, which established the dewvaporation process as a highly efficient economical means for water reclamation. Results from those two awards have led to the final lab design of the dewvaporation process. The technique has the potential to reclaim saline and impaired waters with minimal volume concentrate or even solids.

The Reclamation Program Objectives are well satisfied in this proposal:

Reclamation Objective 1: “Increase the ability of communities of varying sizes and financial resources to economically treat saline water to potable standards.” The dewvaporation units have successfully operated at the 50-gpd size and will operate at 10,000-gpd size w ith this proposal. The units operate economically: their manufacturing costs are about $1,000 gpd, and fuel costs range from $2.94 to $0.42 per 1,000 gallons.

Reclamation Objective 2: “Increase the ability of the United States desalting industry to compete throughout the world by fostering partnerships with them for the development of new and innovative technologies.”

Reclamation Objective 3: “Develop methods to make desalting more efficient through promotion of dual-use f acilities in which waste energy could be applied to desalting water.” The dewvaporation process uses low-grade heat and waste heat.

Reclamation Objective 4: “Develop methods to ensure desalting technologies are environmentally friendl y.” The dewvaporation process is a very low energy user in its standa rd operation. Also, no new electric generating stations need to be built becau se the electrical usage is low, at lessthan 1.6 kilowatthours (kWh) per 1,000 gallons (67 kilowatts for a $1-milliongpd plant).

All of these objectives, al ong with third world benefit, were summarized by ASU Research Magazine [20].21 

# 3. Results, Conclusions, and Recommendations

From this investigation into the dewvapor ation process, it can be concluded that:

• High recovery values of 100 percent were achieved.

• High distillate purity of 10 mg/L of TDS was achieved with 10,000 mg/L of TDS concentrated waste water feed and 45,000 mg/L TDS brines.

• Distillate quality and pr oduction rate did not redu ce with increased feed salinity.

• Thermal multiple effects ranging from 2.0 to 3.5 were demonstrated, which were less than the value of 5.0 prior to transportation. The product of distillate rate and multiple effect was 1/13 of the theoretical value, revealing high potential for impr oved performance with continued research and development.

• Demonstrated amortized capital co st was $3.50 per 1,000 gallons of distillate based on tower purchase from L’Eau and borrowed funds at 8 percent with equipment life of 20 years.

• Demonstrated operating cost ranged from $0.10 per 1,000 gallons to $24 per 1,000 gallons, depending on the pr ice of fuel for steam generation. Currently, natural gas value is $0.80 per therm.

• The target of 5,000 gpd was not achieved due to limitations of the steam boiler capacity and tower efficiency.

It is recommended that:

• Tower air connections be modified to accommodate the “tandem” arrangement to increase multiple effects from 2.0 to 3.5 to 7.0.

• Tower construction design should be changed from the NAS-T to the NEWT. 1 Demonstrated philosophy to im prove tower multiple effect to 5.0.

1 The acronym NAS-T describes a unit with air flowing up or N orth on the evaporation side A nd then flowing S outh or down on the dew formation side of the T ower. The acronym NEWT stands for a tower where the air flow pattern is first N orth on the evaporation side and then E ast and W est or zigzag on the downward flow path on the dew formation side of the T ower.22 • Solar hot water thermal source should be developed for reduced water

costs.

• The liquid desiccant heat pumping feat ure be developed for reduced water

costs.



### 3.1 Pilot Plant Results

Table 1 is a summary of the pilot plant da ta generated in year 4 of the project. The data sheets that support ta ble 1 are presented in appendix A.

Table 1. Pilot Plant Design Data

Run Date Subunit Operated Subunit Distillate Rate (gpd) Equivalent Pilot Plant Distillate Rate (gpd) Multiple Effect Factor f Percent Recovery August 30, 2006 A B C 1,470 1,470 — — September 22, 2006 A 1,440 4,000 2.1 62 October 5, 2006 A B 1,394 3,873 1.9 58 October 17, 2006 B 1,080 3,000 1.5 65 October 24, 2006 A 900 2,500 1.1 34 November 7, 2006 A 1,360 3,778 1.9 77 November 21, 2006 A 1,600 4,447 3.3 92 November 30, 2006 B 1,522 4,227 3.2 36 December 6, 2006 A B 1,937 2,848 3.1 62 December 8, 2006 A B 2,664 3,918 2.7 67 December 20, 2006 A 1,056 2,933 2.2 50 January 18, 2007 B 1,058 2,940 1.6 45 February 9, 2007 A 1,618 4,495 2.5 66 March 7, 2007 A B 2,347 3,451 2.6 78 April 2, 2007 A 1,608 4,467 1.7 100

More detail of operations is presented in Section 4.6. In summary, table 1 shows that all of the towers could not be operated at the same time due to limitations of the steam generator. Most of the runs ope rated either subunit A or B, but most of the data was obtained from subunit A. The “Equivalent Pilot Plant Distillate Rate” was projected by ratioing the number of towers in the total plant to the towers in the subunit. Table 1 shows that the highest distilla te rate was about 4,500 gpd. The highest thermal multiple eff ect was 3.3. The recovery (distillate to feed ratio) varied from 34 percent to 100 percent.23 The April 2, 2007 operation recycled the pilo t plant brine stream back to the feed tank, thereby increasing the salinity from 200 mg/L of TDS to 8,000 mg/L of TDS as the tank emptied. Maximum tower basi n saline concentration was found to be 45,000 mg/L of TDS.



### 3.2 Improvement Recommendations

3.2.1 Tandem Arrangement In the tandem arrangement shown in figur e 10a, a carrier-gas, such as air, is brought into the bottom of the tower on the evaporati on side of a heat transfer wall at a typical wet bulb temperature of 70  ̊ F (21  ̊ C), thereby containing about 0.025 moles of water vapor per mole of air. The wall is wetted by saline feed water, which is fed into the evaporation side. As the air moves from the bottom to the top of the tower, heat is transferred into the evaporation side through the heat transfer wall, allowing the air to rise in temperature and evaporate water from the wetting saline liquid, which coats the heat transfer wall. Concentrated brine leaves from the bottom of the tower, and hot saturated air leaves the tower from the top at 190  ̊ F (87.8  ̊ C) with a humidity of 1.71 mo les of water vapor per mole of air. Heat is added to this hot air by an external heat source, such as atmosphere steam, increasing the air humidity and temp erature to a vapor loading of 1.93 and 192  ̊ F (88.9  ̊ C), respectively. This hotter saturated air is sent back into the top of the tower on the dew formation side. The dew formation side of the tower, being hotter than the evaporation si de, allows the air to cool and transfer condensation heat from the dew formation side to th e evaporation side. Finally, pure water condensate and saturated air leave the de w formation side of the tower at the bottom at 120  ̊ F (48.7  ̊ C). Total external heat required is made up of the heat needed at the top to establish a heat tr ansfer temperature difference and the heat needed to establish a temperature offset between the saline feed stock and the pure water condensate.

In the tandem flow pattern, air flow in th e tower would be modified as shown in figures 10b and 11. The evaporative air would be routed to the condensing chamber of the subsequent tower. In th is manner, each tower could act as a single effect evaporator. Energy into a tower would be used to ev aporate and condense water only if the liquids to and from the tower enter and leave at about the same temperature. Since the air is totally recycled between towers, no energy leaves the system by that route.24 3.2.2 NEWT Tower Manufacturing The acronym NEWT stands for a tower where the air flow pattern is first N orth on the evaporation side and then E ast and W est or zigzag on the downward flow path on the dew formation side of the T ower. The acronym NAS-T describes a unit with air flowing

up or N orth on the evaporation side A nd then flowing S outh or down on the dew formation side of the T ower.

The easiest and least expensive towers th at can be built are NAS-T towers. NAST were built in Mexico and supplied as the second set of towers to the WWTP in year 3 (section 4.5). The main feature that distinguishes these tower designs is the dew formation return air turnarounds. Without turnarounds, 20 or 30 labor hours are saved. There is also a higher possibi lity of distillate contamination with turnarounds. Theoretically, the NEWTs should be more energy efficient but somewhat more expensive. Figur e 12 shows the NEWT turnarounds.

Figure 11. Proposed tandem air flow arrangement. Figure 10. Single tower standard and modified air design.25 3.2.3 Solar Hot Water
Solar collectors can be used in place of steam to generate water at about 170oF. The hot water can contact the tower top air, thereby evaporating water into the top so as to eliminate the need for additional steam. The cost of a single glaze solar collector is about $10 per square foot. Assuming an 8-hour solar day and 150 British thermal units (BTU) of collection, then 2,100 square feet of collector would be required to produce 1,000-gpd distillate at a thermal multiple effect factor of 3.3. The amortized water cost would be $6.36 per 1,000 gallons. This cost is less than the cost of steam from natural gas, which is $20.85 per 1,000 gallons. A combination of solar heat utilization, along with NEWT tower development, could redu ce the water cost to about $6 per 1,000 gallons, which includes the amortized tower cost. Figure 13 suggests such a solar arrangement.

Figure 12. NEWT air turnarounds.

Figure 13. Solar hot water heating.26 3.2.4 Desiccant Heat Pumping The philosophy for using a liquid desiccant to enhance the energy reuse factor is based on the ability of strong salt solutions to absorb moisture from air, thus drying the air and releasing the heat of vaporization. This heat can be released at higher temperatures than the original temp erature of the air that was contacted by the desiccant, and that heat can be reused to do an equal amount of water evaporation into anot her air stream.

Figure 15 shows that a slip stream of hot, humid air at the top of the tower is contacted by a strong liquid desiccant stream (stream 2) in the desiccant contact heat exchanger (5). The remaining hot, hum id air is further humidified in (5) by evaporation of feed water to vapor by th e energy furnished by the desiccant air drying. The now hotter, humid air stream returns to the dewformation chamber, while the dried air goes to the bottom of the evaporation chamber. The desiccant stream, now diluted by the water vapor picked up in (5), returns to the boiler for regeneration. The steam released in the boiler from boiling desiccant liquid is sent to the top of the dew formation cham ber to further increase the temperature and humidity of the returning hot, humid air. In this manner, the boiling energy is essentially halved.

The energy needs should be reduced to ha lf by this technique, compared to the standard operation of th e dewvaporation towers. Figure 14. Desiccant heat pumping with boiler.27 If dry air were available, then the desi ccant could be regenerated by contacting the wet desiccant with the dry air for water evaporation, as depicted in figure 15.

In this technique of drying liquid desiccants to the original salt concentrations, dry air becomes more humid as th e solution looses water. No energy is required other than a fan motor aided by natural wind. The energy needs are reduced to 2.5 kWh of electricity per 1,000 gallons and heat to 80,000 BTU per 1,000 gallons. Less electricity and heat may result due to the action of wind and release of the desiccant dilution heat of solution.

Areas of the world where seawater exis ts with nearby dese rt dry conditions are noted but not limited to the cities listed in table 2 (www.bestplaces.net/html/climateus2).

The dry cities were cited as the most a dvantageous natural areas for drying of desiccant liquids. In these areas, wher e water is needed most when the air is driest, the air regeneration technique works the best.

The desiccant regeneration technique also works in environments more humid than desert regions. The tower top treated humid air is not dr ied out as thoroughly in areas of high humidity, resulting in more water being evaporated to the Figure 15. Desiccant heat pumping with air drying.28 environment by the desiccant regeneration. Therefore, humid areas can still utilize this ambient air desiccant drying technique, but not as effectively as a desert region.

If the environment air is very humid, th e ambient air regeneration technique can work if a solar collector is used to heat water, that can be stored, to heat humid air to a temperature of about 20-percent re lative humidity. For example, Houston, New Orleans, or Miami, with air at 80  ̊ F and 80-percent relative humidity, could be heated to 140  ̊ F with 150  ̊ F water to a condition of 20-percent relative humidity. Even cooler but humid regions , such as San Francisco, California, could use the desiccant am bient air regeneration by solar heating air to 125  ̊ F with 135  ̊ F hot water. These low water temperatures could be achieved in inexpensive single glazed flat plate solar collectors.

Table 2 shows cities with y ear-round relative humidity .

Table 2. Desiccant Drying Cities

Relative Humidity City January June USA - Yuma, Arizona 26 15 USA - Phoenix, Arizona 34 12 USA - Tucson, Arizona 31 13 USA - Las Vegas, Nevada 32 10 USA - Barstow, California 34 14 USA - Palm Springs, California 20 15 USA - Ridgecrest, California 34 14 USA - San Bernardino, California 36 15 Egypt - Aswan 29 11 Egypt - Dakhla 36 18 Egypt - Kharga 39 18 Egypt - Luxor 45 17
Israel - Odva 43 19
Israel - Elat 36 15
Saudi Arabia - Bishah 29 9
Saudi Arabia - Medina 28 7 Saudi Arabia - Riyadh 32 8
Saudi Arabia - Tabuk 32 12 March September
Australia - Mount Isa 32 19
Australia - Tennant Creek 34 1629 Rural areas closer to seawater are also candidates for dry air generation, but weather data was not available. Possibl e areas that could benefit from this desiccant technique in bringing pure wate r to the American West and Southwest

are:

• Desalination of the Sea of Cortez at Yuma, servicing water to Arizona, southern California, and northern Mexico.

• Desalination of Pacific Ocean at Sa n Bernardino, servicing water to Los Angeles basin.

• Desalination of the Salton Sea at Palm Springs.31 

# 4. Work Performed

The 2-year pilot plant program extended into a 4-year investigation, with year 1 beginning October 2003 and ending in Septembe r 2004. The first year of the pilot plant project focused on site development and tower construction.

The first tower was built by Plastifab, Inc ., in Phoenix. The tests confirmed the production rate of one tower could reach 80 pounds per hour (lb/hr) of distillate with a thermal multiple effect of 5, thereby requiring 20 more towers for the 5,000-gpd pilot plant. The L’Eau assembly facility was setting up to produce at least four towers per week beginning in February 2004.

A plastics fabrication company, Plastifab , Inc., was selected as the introductory manufacturer responsible fo r modifying the ASU tower design for fabrication. Meetings were held with the ASU design team and Larry Wilson of Plastifab, Inc. Plastifab, Inc., was chosen as the initial manufacturer based on its experience with large-sized fabrications similar to our 2-foot by 2-foot by 8-foot quad towers. During the manufacturing meetings, the a dvanced techniques were discussed and agreed upon by all present. The most si gnificant advance was in the elimination of side wall paring with a tongue-and-g roove turnaround side wall. Also, the bottom pan and exterior side walls would be vacuum formed.

Design was achieved by graduate students who met together at ASU research labs, including Dr. Beckman, Victor Banks , Joshua Brown, Andrew Davis, and Robin Roth. These students repres ented the combined knowledge of a dewvaporation tower design, constructi on, operation, and analysis team.

The first tower was fabricated and tested at Plastifab, Inc. L’Eau personnel tested the tower for operational performance, a nd internal and external liquid and gas leaks. Modifications were made to the bottom feed assembly of the professional design to prevent excessive feed leaks into the brine basin. Due to high manufacturing costs, the professional design equipment, along with learned techniques, was moved to L’Eau’s new a ssembly office at 910 S. Hohokam Way, suite 101, Tempe, Arizona. There, the two engineers, Mr. Joshua Brown and Mr. Victor Banks, directed assembly personnel to manufacture towers of lower

cost.



### 4.1 Changing Design Basis from 10,000 gpd to 5,000 gpd

Cost over-runs have also been identified in the tower construction. As L’Eau LLC is a newly formed company, there has been very limited opportunity32 to purchase assembly equipment to redu ce personnel needs. Because of these increased costs (manufacturing and oper ations), L’Eau LLC and Reclamation mutually agreed that the pilot plant st udy would proceed at the 5,000-gpd capacity to allow a balanced budget.

The Reclamation/City of Phoenix project has been an invaluable project for the evolution and commercialization of dewva poration towers. As the towers have been produced, improvements have been devised and engineered that are significantly improving the de livered product. The knowledge gleaned was used to modify the original tower design and enable L’eau to modify the towers built to approach the performance of the current ge neration towers. The first towers built by L’Eau LLC are presented in table 3.

Table 3. Initial Towers Built

Tower Identification Number Twin Wall Size Width No. of Face Sheets Gauze Type Expected Output (lb/hr)
2-1 4 mm 22 60 Cotton 60
2-2 4 mm 22 60 Cotton 60
2-3 4 mm 22 60 Cotton 60
2-4 4 mm 22 60 Cotton 60
3-5 4 mm 33 30 Cotton 100
3-6 4 mm 33 30 Undecided 100 3-7 3 mm 20 60 Cotton 70



### 4.2 Design Modifications

4.2.1 Independent “U nit Cell” Turnarounds The first commercial units, built in December, incorporated a common “turnaround panel” that was vacuum formed by Plasti-Fab, Inc. The design has merit, but at the current manual labor-i ntensive phase of manufacturing, the precision necessary could not be achieved. Thus, the first four towers for Reclamation were built with independe nt “unit cell” turn arounds. Initial performance of these towers (2-1 through 2-4) was 50 lb/hr, prompting further investigation and design adjustments.

4.2.2 Wide 33-Inch Towers In an effort to build a single unit capable of producing 1,000 gpd, towers 3-5 and 3-6 were built 33 inches wide. Significan t labor savings was anticipated using a wider tower, but the increased width ga ve more room for lateral temperature gradients. Such gradients could reduce tower performance.33 4.2.3 Narrow Gauge 3-MM Twin-Wall Tower 3-7 was built using a thinner twin wall. The tower was about 23 percent smaller and produced 50 lb/hr, just like its 4-mm counterpart. The main concern for this smaller plastic was an increased pressure drop and blower power requirement. The tower pressure was 10 mm of water, well within reasonable blower capacities.

4.2.4 Parallel Pathways One tower, built in March, was divided in to two smaller towers. Each of these towers produced 45 lb/hr, suggesting th at a tower is capable of 90 lb/hr. Currently, efforts are being focused on dup licating this higher performance in existing towers.



### 4.3 Manufacturing Capacity

Table 4 lists the towers delivered to the Phoenix WWTP and thei r characteristics. The manufacturing capacity of the Hohoka m site nearly doubled during the first quarter. During the month of February, four towers were built, with a total of 1,000-gpd projected capacity. During the m onth of March, five towers and one 33-inch-wide tower were completed, with another 3- inch-w ide tower 50 percent complete. Those towers represent 2,000- gpd capacity. During both months, four laborers were employed and directed by th e two L’eau engineers, Joshua Brown, and Victor Banks.

Table 4. Towers Built for Transport to Phoenix

Tower

No. Tower ID Twinwall Size Width No. of Face Sheets Gauze Type Pedestal Number Delivered

1 2-1 NEWT 4 mm 23 60 Cotton 1 Yes

2 2-2 NEWT 4 mm 23 60 Cotton 1 Yes

3 2-3 NEWT 4 mm 23 60 Cotton 1 Yes

4 2-4 NEWT 4 mm 23 60 Cotton 1 Yes

5 3-1 NEWT (orica) 4 mm 22 60 Cotton 2 Yes

6 3-2 NEWT (orica) 4 mm 22 60 Plastic 2 Yes

7 3-3 NEWT (orica) 4 mm 22 60 Cotton 2 Yes34 Table 4. Towers Built for Transport to Phoenix (continued)

Tower

No. Tower ID Twinwall Size Width No. of Face Sheets Gauze Type Pedestal Number Delivered

8 3-4 NEWT (orica) 4 mm 22 60 Plastic 2 Yes

9 12-1 NEWT (plastifab) 4 mm 22 60 Cotton 6 Yes

10 5-1 NEWT 4 mm 33 60 Cotton 5 Yes

11 6-1 NAS-T 4 mm 22 55 Cotton 5 Yes
12 6-2 NAS-T, W 4 mm 33 30 Plastic 5 Yes
13 6-3 NAS-T, W 4 mm 33 30 Plastic 5 Yes
14 8-1 NAS-T, C 3 mm 22 60 Cotton 3 Yes
15 8-2 NAS-T, C 3 mm 22 60 Cotton 3 Yes
16 8-3 NAS-T, C 3/4 mm hybrid 22 30 Cotton 3 Yes

17 8-4 NAS-T, C 3/4 mm hybrid 22 30 Cotton 3 Yes

18 8-5 NAS-T, C 3/4 mm hybrid 22 30 Cotton 3 Yes

19 8-6 NAS-T, C 3/4 mm hybrid 22 30 Cotton 3 Yes

20 9-1 NAS-T, C 4 mm 22 60 Cotton 4 No
21 9-2 NAS-T, C 4 mm 22 60 Cotton 4 No
22 9-3 NAS-T, C 4 mm 22 60 Cotton 4 No
23 9-4 NAS-T, C 4 mm 22 60 Cotton 4 No

4.3.1 NAS-T Design and Operation The acronym NEWT stands for a tower where the air flow pattern is first N orth on the evaporation side and then E ast and W est or zigzag on the downward flow path on the dew formation side of the T ower. The acronym NAS-T describes a unit with air flowing up or N orth on the evaporation side A nd then flowing S outh or down on the dew formation side of the T ower.

The cheapest towers that can be built ar e NAS-T towers. Without turnarounds, 20 to 30 labor hours are saved. There is al so 100-percent distilla te containment. Without the turnarounds, there is not a ny dew surface area that is blocked. Theoretically, the NEWTs should be more robust.35 Effect of face sheet width. Without crossflow, wider towers have greater potential for evaporation and dew form ation streams to miss each other, but wide towers have more surface area.

Effect of tower height . The only problem with hei ght is handling the towers and approaching the 8-foot liquid feed heat exchanger limit.

Effect of number of heat transfer walls (sheets) per unit. Increasing the number of sheets may create a parallel flow problem.

Towers to be built. To observe these effects, several towers should be built. A 20-inch-wide tower was suggested as the desired width. Therefore, new 80-inch-tall towers (22 inches taller than current towers) should be built with varying sheet count.

Modification of tower design to bett er meet Reclamation Objective No. 2. The recently designed NAS-T towers were added to by moving the side liquid feed heat exchangers to the center of the tower. This design change should help eliminate any contamination of the distillate. The new design is referred to as the NAST-CF towers.

The L’Eau construction site was moved to Nogales, Mexico, to better take advantage of reduced labor costs of constr uction. The construction and testing of the towers were completed prior to shipment.

4.3.2 NAS-T-C Tower Design The notion of moving the liquid feed heat exchangers into the center of the tower sheets came from the observation that sm all amounts of feed contamination, on the order of 5 mg/L to 10 mg/L TD S, occurred due to manufacturing misalignments. Moving the liquid feed h eat exchangers to the center allows any leaks to contaminate the brin e instead of the distillate.

4.3.3 Transportation of Towers to WWTP As the site preparation at the WWTP is almost finalized, it was decided to transport towers to the WWTP site. Currently, the towers onsite comprise 4,000 gpd of the 5,000-gpd capacity. As the onsite towers are positioned onto the pilot plant pedestals, the remaining towers will be transported to the WWTP site and positioned as well.

4.3.4 Install Towers at WWTP On February 12, 2004, there was a kick-off meeting at the WWTP for the RO-DEWVAP Pilot Plant Project. Th is meeting brought together project36 personnel from L’Eau LLC, City of P hoenix, Reclamation, and Valentine Engineering. The purpose of these meetings was to establish a common understanding of the needs of all constituen ts and a working together pathway for the development of the entire project. The electrical plug boxes for each pedestal represent the terminus of the electrical li nes. Project site e ngineering establishes the foundations for tower installation.



### 4.4 Year 2 (October 2004 - September 2005)

4.4.1 NAS-TC Tower Design and Operation The notion of moving the liquid feed heat exchangers into the center of the tower sheets came from the observation that sm all amounts of feed contamination, on the order of 5 mg/L to 10 mg/L of TDS, occurred due to manufacturing misalignments. Moving the liquid feed h eat exchangers to the center allows any leaks to contaminate the brine instead of the distillate. Current operations show a 10,000 times reduction of TDS fr om feed to distillate.

4.4.2 Pilot Plant Overview The 21 main towers (white towers with one blue insulated tower and one acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) bl ack covered tower) ar e spread out on six pedestals. The storage tanks in the middl e of figure 16 are blac k to prevent algae growth. The tank on the far right is the di stillate hold tank fo r boiler feed. The two center tanks hold RO concentrate for f eed to the pilot plant towers. The tank on the far left contains brine from the p ilot plant. The canva s covered object in the bottom of the picture is the RO un it that supplies the pilot plant with RO concentrate.

The RO unit was a 1,500-gallon-per- hour TWPS, which received secondary waste water effluent and produced permeat e and concentrate. The concentrate was tested by the dewvaporation pilot plan t in subsequent runs. The RO unit is covered in brown tarp in figure 16. In figure 17, a TWPS is shown in transport mode during vibration testing.37 4.4.3 Electrosteam Boiler Operational
The electrosteam boiler safe ty certification caused a 9-month delay in the pilot plant startup. Electrical power requirements necessitated 480 volts to minimize amperage ratings. Since no electrical boi lers could be found for outdoor service,

Figure 16. Overview picture of the as-built pilot plant.

Figure 17. Tactical water purification system (vibration testing).38 an enclosure was designed, fabricated, and installed as shown in figure 18. After the boiler was safety certified, the engineers explored the operational methods to vary the steam generation rate from a maximum of 850 lb/hr to a minimum of 130 lb/hr. The steam boiler was custom de signed so that its six boiler elements could be separately activated. During normal operation, 5,000-gpd distillate production should require about 350 lb/hr of steam. The boiler steam production range will allow investigation into the sh ifting of the multiple effect value and the production density. The multiple effect value impacts operating cost, while the production density establishes capital cost.

4.4.4 RO Unit Operational In June, Mr. Mark Silbernagel trained the L’Eau engineers how to start, operate, and shut down the RO unit. The unit must operate at least 2 days per week for membrane protection. During operation times, RO concentrate will fill the pilot plant feed tanks so that RO concentrate will always be available as feed. The 2,000 gallons of feed storage allows al most 10 hours for the RO unit to come onstream after a pilot plant startup.

4.4.5 New Towe rs on Site In June 2005, seven new towers were delivered to the WWTP from L’Eau’s manufacturing plant. More towers were planned for transport to the WWTP in July and August for increased pilot plant capacity. The new NAST-S towers represent the standard tower product curren tly being fabricated for sales. The older towers will be enhanced and somewhat replaced by the newer units.

Figure 19 shows some of the newer to wers onsite at the WWTP. These commercial towers are manufactured as identical. This is the first standard product of L‘Eau. The assembly is co mpactly held by an external aluminum Figure 18. Electric steam boiler in its enclosure.39 brace and covered with a layer of black AB S plastic for protection. The ABS was removed from all but one tower to in spect for any possible damage due to transport.



### 4.5 Year 3 (October 2005 - September 2006)

The dewvaporation pilot plant was hit by a microburst storm in July that knocked down all but two of the towers. The downe d towers were tested, and three were operational. The PXAO placed an order fo r 25 new towers as replacements. The new towers represented the most current professional designs and were delivered to the waste water treatment plant in Phoenix.

The dewvaporation pilot plant construction continued. The tower tiedown system was designed and installed. Valentine Engineering installe d the horizontal rail system that allowed all of the towers to be strapped in place to prevent any possible future tower destruction due to high-velocity winds. The new tower layout incorporated surface mounting of th e towers, thus eliminating the raised platforms upon which the towers were previously placed. This gave more stability.

In February 2006, the contracted compa ny, L’Eau LLC, ran out of financing and ceased to exist as a workable entity. The ASU license was transferred to ALTELA, Inc., so that production and availa bility of dewvaporation towers could be continued. ALTELA is located in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Press releases disclosed details of the transfer [21], [22]. Figure 19. Standardized towers from L’eau.40 As the pilot plant construction cont inued, the PXAO hired Mr. Stephen Poplawski, who was a past employee of L’Eau LLC, to continue the construction of the pilot plant. Twenty-five towers were erected and connected by piping for operations. The steam generator was m odified and adjusted for operations. Modifications were made to the wate r feed pump and solenoid for improved operations. A steam test was set up to dete rmine the steam flow rate to the entire pilot plant. This test will be used periodically throughout the testing period so that the multi-effect factor can be accurately assessed.

Liquid flow accumulators for the feed rate , distillate rate, and brine rate were installed in order to determine the multi-e ffect factor and to verify a mass balance of liquid flows.

The dewvaporation pilot plant construction concluded. The pilot plant was started up. Initial steam rate was 423 lb/hr. Di stillate rate was 760 lb/hr, yielding an energy reuse factor of 1.8. An energy factor this low required an internal inspection of all of the towers to determine if there was damage in transportation or a shifting of the internal structures associated with feed water distribution.



### 4.6 Year 4 (October 2006 - April 2007)

Significant operation, data collection, and analysis were the major events of the fourth year.

4.6.1 Measurements
There were four measured entities used th roughout the investigat ion: liquid flow rate, tower top temperatures, water TDS, and steam rate.

The liquid flow rates were first measured by a flow totalizer that indicated total water gallons processed. The combined f eed rate, distillate rate, and brine rate were traced. The totalizers were becoming fouled with dirt particles, and the technique was abandoned in favor of th e “bucket and stopwatch” approach. A 2-quart container was used, requiring fr om 20-second to 40-second timing. These quantities were accurate enough to mon itor the somewhat oscillatory flow behavior inherent in the pilot plant.

The tower top temperatures were monito red with a hand-held thermocouple read out instrument. The thermocouples themse lves were tower dedicated and located permanently in top of each tower.41 The stream quality, in mg/L of TDS, was probed by a hand-held multiprobe TDS meter. The feed, distillate (indivi dual and composite), and brine outflows were measured.

The steam rate from the electrical steam pressure boiler was adjustable incrementally by setting heater rod toggl e switches. The steamer was rated at 850-lb/hr steam production but a maximum steam rate of 420 lb/hr was determined by a commercial-sized bucket and stopwatch technique. A 55-gallon drum was filled with 40 gallons of water at 85  ̊ F. Steam flow was timed from 2 minutes to 4 minutes, allowing the water to heat to no more than 135  ̊ F. The test procedure was repeated throughout the data gathering period to ensure knowledge of the steam rate that was necessa ry for thermal multiple effect factor. Quite frequently, the heater elements would burn out, thereby producing less steam than the boiler was set to produce.

4.6.2 General Waste Water Feed Operation Following the completion of construction, r uns were initiated mainly by using waste water secondary effluent as a feed source. During the fall period (August 30, 2006, to February 9, 2007), the thermal efficiency of the towers was improved by various physical changes in the equipment design. Changes such as:

• Air input nozzle location

• Tower top air seals

• Feed pump rate increases and decreases

• Air tower flow rate increase and decreases

• Top sponge compaction

• Tower leveling

• Steam boiler pressure

From table 1, the thermal efficiency cha nged from an average of 1.7 (August to November 2006) to an average of 2.9 (November to December 2006), with a maximum of 3.3. During the fall 2006 period, all of the runs were constant feed composition (1,000 mg/L TDS) and flow rate until steady state was achieved in 6 to 8 hours.

4.6.3 RO Concentrate Feed Operations During March and April 2007, the TWPS supp lied RO concentrate at 1,900 mg/L of TDS to the pilot plant. In March and April, runs of high recovery were made to demonstrate the dewvaporation to wer’s ability to process high TDS concentrates with high recoveries. The March 7 run was a steady state operation that produced 4,300-mg/L TDS brine from a 1,500-mg/L TDS RO concentrate feed. The recovery was 78 percent.42 From April 2 to April 4, a planned run to achieve 100-percent recovery was made. In order to achieve 100-percent recovery, the brine discharge from the pilot plant was routed back to the feed tank, while the pilot plant distillate was discharged. The feed tank was initially filled with 785 gallons of 1,900-mg/L TDS RO concentrate. With time, the saline concentration in the feed tank increased from 1,900-mg/L TDS to 10,000-mg/L TDS, as the fed tank totally emptied at 100-percent recovery. The feed tank was simulated and matched plant data (figure 20).

Analysis of the tower basins showed brine salinity levels as high as 45,000-mg/L TDS, thereby accounting for all of the salt initially in the feed tank that was fed to the pilot plant. Figure 21 shows the process flow connections to and from each tower. It was assumed that the effluent salinity from each tower was the same as the salinity in that tower’s basin. However, the tower connections were made in such a way that feed to a tower continued to the next tower in line, and the tower that received the feed used what was necessary for distillate make only. Figure 21 is a schematic of a tower basin, showing two basin compartments. The tower sat in th e larger tower basin, while the smaller pump basin hosted a tower feed pump a nd a brine discharge pump. The brine stream from a previous tower shot direct ly at the brine discharge pump, thereby allowing most of the brine from a previ ous tower to bypass the tower. In this manner, the tower simply continued to use some of the liquid for distillate make, allowing the basin brine to continue to in crease in salinity th roughout the run.

Figure 22 shows the simulated basin salin ity concentration buildup for each tower which agreed with the salinity data from each tower basin. Figure 20. Feed tank salinity – semi batch run.43 Figure 21. Tower basin design.

Figure 22. Tower salinity – semi batch run.45 

# 5. Economics

Based on the pilot pl ant data, as presented in ap pendix B, a nominal 20,000-gpd desalination facility was designed and pr iced for RO waste water concentrate desalination. Fifty- six towers would be required. The towers can be compacted and positioned as shown in figure 23. The tower air exhaust ears could be mounted on a single side, while the air in lets would be mounted on the same face liquid feed ports. In this manner, four towers would be positioned touching their neighbors as shown. The dimension of the block of four towers would be 4 feet by 4 feet. The tower blocks would be pos itioned 1/2 foot apart and would require an 8-foot-wide walkway as shown. The footprint would be 77 square feet per 1,000 gpd, which is sizeable. The 20, 000-gpd plant would cost $112,000, based on the cost of the 25 towers purchased a nd located at the WWTP. If money were borrowed at 8 percent with a life of 20 year s, then the amortized capital charge for water would be $3.40 per 1,000 gallons.

The cost of additional energy would increase the total water cost. Using the average multiple effect value of the best three runs of 3.2, then the heat needed for 1,000 gallons of distillate production would be 2.6 million BTUs (764 kWh heat). At a natural gas cost of $0.80 per therm, then the operating cost would be $20.85 per 1,000 gallons. If waste heat or solar heat were available, then the operating cost would reduce to the electrical cost of pumps and fans, which was $0.05 per 1,000 gallons for 0.5 kWh per 1,000 gallons.

Therefore, the total water cost would be $24.30 per 1,000 gallons, assuming natural gas as the fuel source. The total minimal water cost would be $3. 45 per 1,000 gallons for waste heat utilization. Figure 23. 20,000-gpd dewvaporation plant footprint.46 Other advantages of a sizeable plant include : single feed pump for feed to each tower, single steam source with steam pl enum to each tower, gravity flow of brines, low maintenance, and modular construction allows incremental plant expansion.47 

# 6. Reference List

[1] Fosselgard, G., and K. Wangnick. “Comprehensive Study on Capital and Operational Expenditures for Differe nt Types of Seawater Plants.” Desalination , 76, 1989.

[2] Mickley, M. “Membrane Concentrate Disposal: Practices and Regulations,” Final Report No. 69, Depa rtment of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, September 2001.

[3] Larson, R. et al. “The Carrier-Gas Process: A New Desalination and Concentration Technology,” Desalination , 73, p. 119, 1989a.

[4] Larson, R. et al. The Carrier-Gas Process: A New Desalination and Concentration Technology. Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress of Desalination and Water Reuse, Kuwait, November 1989b.

[5] Younis, M.A., M.A. Darwish, and F. Juwayhel. “Experimental and Theoretical Study of a Humidification- Dehumidification Desalting System,” Desalination , 84, 1993.

[6] Beckman, J.R. “Method and Appa ratus for Simultaneous Heat and Mass Transfer Utilizing a Carrier-Gas,” Pa tent Pending, Assigned to Arizona State University, No. 60/145,692, July 1999.

[7] Beckman, J.R. Innovative Atmospheric Pressure Desalination , Final Report, Department of the Interior, Bu reau of Reclamation, Report No. 52, September 1999.

[8] Beckman, J.R., B.M. Hamieh, and M. D. Ybarra. “Brackish and Seawater Desalination Using a 20 Square Feet Dewvaporation Tower,” Desalination

, 140 (2001), 217-226.

[9] Hamieh, B., J.R. Beckman, and M.D. Ybarra. “The Dewvaporation Tower: An Experimental and Theoretical Study with Economic Analysis,” The International Desalination and Water Reuse Quarterly , 10 (2), 2000.

[10] Beckman, J.R. Carrier-Gas Enhanced Atmospheric Pressure Desalination

, Final Report, Department of the Inte rior, Bureau of Reclamation, Report No. 92, 2002.

[11] Smith, J.M., and H.C. Van Ness. Introduction to Chemical Engineering Thermodynamics , 4th edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc.: San Francisco, 1987.48 [12] Perry, R.H., D.W. Green, and J.O. Maloney. Perry’s Chemical Engineers’ Handbook , McGraw-Hill, Inc.: San Francisco, 1984.

[13] Spiegler, K.S., and A.D.K. Laird. Principles of Desalination: Part B

, 2nd edition, Academic Press: New York, 1980.

[14] McCabe, W.L., J.C. Smith, and P. Harriott. Unit Operations of Chemical Engineering , 5th edition, McGraw-Hill, Inc.: San Francisco, 1993.

[15] Werling, P.H. “Design and Experi mental Operation of a Times-Two Liquid Desiccant Regeneration System,” MS Thesis, Arizona State University, 1990.

[16] Bird, R.B., W.E. Stewart, and E.N. Lightfoot. Transport Phenomena , John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York, 1960.

[17] Hamieh, B.M. “A Theoretical and Experimental Study of Seawater Desalination Using Dewvaporation,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Arizona State University, 2001.

[18] Hamieh, B.M., and J.R. Beckma n. “Seawater Desalination Using Dewvaporation Technique: Theo retical Development and Design Evolution,” Desalination , 195, 2006.

[19] Hamieh, B.M., and J.R. Beckma n. “Seawater Desalination Using Dewvaporation Technique: Experimental and Enhancement Work with Economic Analysis,” Desalination , 195, 2006.

[20] Hall, L.E.. “Simple Solution for Clear Water,” Arizona State University Research Magazine, winter 2004, pp. 39-41, Web site <http://researchmag.asu.edu>

[21] Webb, A. (journal staff writer). “Local Tech Gets Exclusive License,” Business Section, Albuquerque Journal , Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 29, 2006.

[22] Hairston, D. (contribut ing editor). “The Desalination Challenge: Making Water Abundantly Available,” Chemical Engineering Progress , CEP, September 2006, vol. 102, No. 9, pp. 6-8.

### Appendix A 

# Pilot Plant Operational

### Appendix B 

# City of Phoenix Water Analysis23rd Ave Salinity SamplesD. Allen 05/01/07LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007013180 3/7/2007 14:31:00 DISTILLATE SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness <2.5 mg/L 2.52007013180 3/7/2007 14:31:00 DISTILLATE SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 18 mg/L 1 102007013180 3/7/2007 14:31:00 DISTILLATE EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007013180 3/7/2007 14:31:00 DISTILLATE SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007013180 3/7/2007 14:31:00 DISTILLATE EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007013180 3/7/2007 14:31:00 DISTILLATE EPA 200.7 Calcium Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007013180 3/7/2007 14:31:00 DISTILLATE EPA 300.0 Chloride 5.0 mg/L 1 1.02007013180 3/7/2007 14:31:00 DISTILLATE EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.85 NTU 12007013181 3/7/2007 14:21:00 FEED SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1270 mg/L 1 102007013181 3/7/2007 14:21:00 FEED SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 240 mg/L 2.52007013181 3/7/2007 14:21:00 FEED EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 96 mg/L 2 2.0 D22007013181 3/7/2007 14:21:00 FEED SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 392 mg/L 6.62007013181 3/7/2007 14:21:00 FEED EPA 300.0 Chloride 374 mg/L 2 2.0 D22007013181 3/7/2007 14:21:00 FEED EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 37 mg/L 2 2.0 D12007013181 3/7/2007 14:21:00 FEED EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 277 mg/L 4 40.0 D22007013182 3/7/2007 14:27:00 BRINE SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 250 mg/L 2.52007013182 3/7/2007 14:27:00 BRINE EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 108 mg/L 2 2.0 D22007013182 3/7/2007 14:27:00 BRINE SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 4030 mg/L 1 20 N1Filtered 25ml of sample.2007013182 3/7/2007 14:27:00 BRINE SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 694 mg/L 6.62007013182 3/7/2007 14:27:00 BRINE EPA 300.0 Chloride 1360 mg/L 10 10 D22007013182 3/7/2007 14:27:00 BRINE EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 1050 mg/L 15 150 D22007013182 3/7/2007 14:27:00 BRINE EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 100 mg/L 2 2.0 D22007013183 3/7/2007 15:35:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007013183 3/7/2007 15:35:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 5.9 mg/L 1 1.02007013183 3/7/2007 15:35:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007013183 3/7/2007 15:35:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007013183 3/7/2007 15:35:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007013183 3/7/2007 15:35:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 10 mg/L 1 102007013183 3/7/2007 15:35:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.95 NTU 12007013183 3/7/2007 15:35:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007013184 3/7/2007 15:25:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1260 mg/L 1 102007013184 3/7/2007 15:25:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 401 mg/L 6.62007013184 3/7/2007 15:25:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 245 mg/L 2.52007013184 3/7/2007 15:25:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 38 mg/L 2 2.0 D12007013184 3/7/2007 15:25:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 273 mg/L 4 40.0 D22007013184 3/7/2007 15:25:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 98 mg/L 2 2.0 D22007013184 3/7/2007 15:25:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 389 mg/L 5 5.0 D2LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007013185 3/7/2007 15:20:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1440 mg/L 10 10 D22007013185 3/7/2007 15:20:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 4370 mg/L 1 20 N1Filtered 25ml of sample.2007013185 3/7/2007 15:20:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 728 mg/L 6.62007013185 3/7/2007 15:20:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 113 mg/L 2 2.0 D22007013185 3/7/2007 15:20:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 262 mg/L 2.52007013185 3/7/2007 15:20:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 105 mg/L 2 2.0 D22007013185 3/7/2007 15:20:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 1110 mg/L 15 150 D22007013521 3/9/2007 11:05:00 DISTILLATE SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007013521 3/9/2007 11:05:00 DISTILLATE SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 32 mg/L 1 102007013521 3/9/2007 11:05:00 DISTILLATE EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007013521 3/9/2007 11:05:00 DISTILLATE EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.75 NTU 12007013521 3/9/2007 11:05:00 DISTILLATE SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007013521 3/9/2007 11:05:00 DISTILLATE EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007013521 3/9/2007 11:05:00 DISTILLATE EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007013521 3/9/2007 11:05:00 DISTILLATE EPA 300.0 Chloride 7.7 mg/L 1 1.02007013522 3/9/2007 10:55:00 FEED SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1260 mg/L 1 102007013522 3/9/2007 10:55:00 FEED SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 225 mg/L 2.52007013522 3/9/2007 10:55:00 FEED EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 251 mg/L 4 40.0 D22007013522 3/9/2007 10:55:00 FEED SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 369 mg/L 6.62007013522 3/9/2007 10:55:00 FEED EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 35 mg/L 4 4.0 D12007013522 3/9/2007 10:55:00 FEED EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 90 mg/L 4 4.0 D22007013522 3/9/2007 10:55:00 FEED EPA 300.0 Chloride 367 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007013523 3/9/2007 11:00:00 BRINE SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 3300 mg/L 2 20 N1Filtered 25 mL of sample.2007013523 3/9/2007 11:00:00 BRINE EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 73 mg/L 15 15 D12007013523 3/9/2007 11:00:00 BRINE EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 94 mg/L 15 15 D22007013523 3/9/2007 11:00:00 BRINE EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 769 mg/L 15 150 D22007013523 3/9/2007 11:00:00 BRINE SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 535 mg/L 6.62007013523 3/9/2007 11:00:00 BRINE EPA 300.0 Chloride 1160 mg/L 10 10 D22007013523 3/9/2007 11:00:00 BRINE SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 235 mg/L 2.52007013620 3/9/2007 12:50:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 42 mg/L 1 102007013620 3/9/2007 12:50:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007013620 3/9/2007 12:50:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.70 NTU 12007013620 3/9/2007 12:50:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007013620 3/9/2007 12:50:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 6.1 mg/L 1 1.02007013620 3/9/2007 12:50:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007013620 3/9/2007 12:50:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007013620 3/9/2007 12:50:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007013621 3/9/2007 13:00:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1710 mg/L 1 102007013621 3/9/2007 13:00:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 503 mg/L 6.62007013621 3/9/2007 13:00:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 384 mg/L 5 50.0 D2LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007013621 3/9/2007 13:00:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 497 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007013621 3/9/2007 13:00:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 47 mg/L 4 4.0 D12007013621 3/9/2007 13:00:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 310 mg/L 2.52007013621 3/9/2007 13:00:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 124 mg/L 4 4.0 D22007013622 3/9/2007 12:55:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2810 mg/L 2 20 N1Filtered 25 mL of sample.2007013622 3/9/2007 12:55:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1980 mg/L 10 10 D22007013622 3/9/2007 12:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 49 mg/L 15 15 D12007013622 3/9/2007 12:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 699 mg/L 15 150 D22007013622 3/9/2007 12:55:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 227 mg/L 2.52007013622 3/9/2007 12:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 91 mg/L 15 15 D22007013622 3/9/2007 12:55:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 429 mg/L 6.62007013652 3/9/2007 13:40:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007013652 3/9/2007 13:40:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 7.3 mg/L 1 1.02007013652 3/9/2007 13:40:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007013652 3/9/2007 13:40:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 38 mg/L 1 102007013652 3/9/2007 13:40:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007013652 3/9/2007 13:40:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007013652 3/9/2007 13:40:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.70 NTU 12007013652 3/9/2007 13:40:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007013653 3/9/2007 13:45:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 127 mg/L 4 4.0 D22007013653 3/9/2007 13:45:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 398 mg/L 5 50.0 D22007013653 3/9/2007 13:45:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 317 mg/L 2.52007013653 3/9/2007 13:45:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1800 mg/L 1 102007013653 3/9/2007 13:45:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 515 mg/L 6.62007013653 3/9/2007 13:45:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 522 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007013653 3/9/2007 13:45:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 48 mg/L 4 4.0 D12007013654 3/9/2007 13:55:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 2060 mg/L 10 10 D22007013654 3/9/2007 13:55:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2910 mg/L 2 20 N1Filtered 25 mL of sample.2007013654 3/9/2007 13:55:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 240 mg/L 2.52007013654 3/9/2007 13:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 755 mg/L 10 100 D22007013654 3/9/2007 13:55:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 458 mg/L 6.62007013654 3/9/2007 13:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 53 mg/L 10 10 D12007013654 3/9/2007 13:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 96 mg/L 10 10 D22007013655 3/9/2007 14:45:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007013655 3/9/2007 14:45:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007013655 3/9/2007 14:45:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 34 mg/L 1 102007013655 3/9/2007 14:45:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 7.2 mg/L 1 1.02007013655 3/9/2007 14:45:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007013655 3/9/2007 14:45:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.70 NTU 12007013655 3/9/2007 14:45:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.0LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007013655 3/9/2007 14:45:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007013656 3/9/2007 14:50:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1840 mg/L 1 102007013656 3/9/2007 14:50:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 560 mg/L 6.62007013656 3/9/2007 14:50:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 342 mg/L 2.52007013656 3/9/2007 14:50:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 537 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007013656 3/9/2007 14:50:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 53 mg/L 4 4.0 D12007013656 3/9/2007 14:50:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 137 mg/L 4 4.0 D22007013656 3/9/2007 14:50:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 394 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007013657 3/9/2007 14:55:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 3490 mg/L 2 20Filtered 25 mls of sample.2007013657 3/9/2007 14:55:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 537 mg/L 6.62007013657 3/9/2007 14:55:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 277 mg/L 2.52007013657 3/9/2007 14:55:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1270 mg/L 10 10 D22007013657 3/9/2007 14:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 942 mg/L 12 120 D22007013657 3/9/2007 14:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 111 mg/L 12 12 D22007013657 3/9/2007 14:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 63 mg/L 12 12 D12007013876 3/12/2007 08:55:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007013876 3/12/2007 08:55:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness <2.5 mg/L 2.52007013876 3/12/2007 08:55:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total <2.0 mg/L 2 2.0 D12007013876 3/12/2007 08:55:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <20.0 mg/L 2 20.0 D12007013876 3/12/2007 08:55:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.90 NTU 12007013876 3/12/2007 08:55:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <2.0 mg/L 2 2.0 D12007013877 3/12/2007 08:55:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 40 mg/L 1 102007013878 3/12/2007 08:55:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 7.5 mg/L 1 1.02007013879 3/12/2007 08:50:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 320 mg/L 2.52007013879 3/12/2007 08:50:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 357 mg/L 5 50.0 D22007013879 3/12/2007 08:50:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 128 mg/L 4 4.0 D22007013879 3/12/2007 08:50:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 521 mg/L 6.62007013879 3/12/2007 08:50:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 49 mg/L 4 4.0 D12007013880 3/12/2007 08:50:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1680 mg/L 1 102007013881 3/12/2007 08:50:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 494 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007013978 3/12/2007 11:25:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007013978 3/12/2007 11:25:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 5.0 mg/L 2.52007013978 3/12/2007 11:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007013978 3/12/2007 11:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007013978 3/12/2007 11:25:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.70 NTU 12007013978 3/12/2007 11:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 2 mg/L 1 1.02007013979 3/12/2007 11:25:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 42 mg/L 1 102007013980 3/12/2007 11:25:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 9.8 mg/L 1 1.02007013981 3/12/2007 11:20:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 491 mg/L 6.62007013981 3/12/2007 11:20:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 297 mg/L 2.5LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007013981 3/12/2007 11:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 47 mg/L 4 4.0 D12007013981 3/12/2007 11:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 334 mg/L 5 50.0 D22007013981 3/12/2007 11:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 119 mg/L 4 4.0 D22007013982 3/12/2007 11:20:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1570 mg/L 1 102007013983 3/12/2007 11:20:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 514 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007013984 3/12/2007 11:15:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 532 mg/L 6.62007013984 3/12/2007 11:15:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 252 mg/L 2.52007013984 3/12/2007 11:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 745 mg/L 12 120 D22007013984 3/12/2007 11:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 68 mg/L 12 12 D12007013984 3/12/2007 11:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 101 mg/L 12 12 D22007013985 3/12/2007 11:15:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2940 mg/L 2 20 N1Filtered 25 mls.2007013986 3/12/2007 11:15:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1020 mg/L 10 10 D22007014071 3/12/2007 12:10:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014071 3/12/2007 12:10:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 5.0 mg/L 2.52007014071 3/12/2007 12:10:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014071 3/12/2007 12:10:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 2 mg/L 1 1.02007014071 3/12/2007 12:10:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.70 NTU 12007014071 3/12/2007 12:10:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014072 3/12/2007 12:10:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 44 mg/L 1 102007014073 3/12/2007 12:10:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 9.5 mg/L 1 1.02007014074 3/12/2007 12:20:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 544 mg/L 6.62007014074 3/12/2007 12:20:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 330 mg/L 2.52007014074 3/12/2007 12:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 52 mg/L 4 4.0 D12007014074 3/12/2007 12:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 386 mg/L 5 50.0 D22007014074 3/12/2007 12:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 132 mg/L 4 4.0 D22007014075 3/12/2007 12:20:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 3520 mg/L 2 20 N1Filtered 25 mls.2007014076 3/12/2007 12:20:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 488 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014077 3/12/2007 12:15:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 250 mg/L 2.52007014077 3/12/2007 12:15:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 509 mg/L 6.62007014077 3/12/2007 12:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 100 mg/L 14 14 D22007014077 3/12/2007 12:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 63 mg/L 14 14 D12007014077 3/12/2007 12:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 671 mg/L 14 140 D22007014078 3/12/2007 12:15:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1340 mg/L 1 102007014079 3/12/2007 12:15:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 934 mg/L 10 10 D22007014127 3/12/2007 13:50:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 9.1 mg/L 6.62007014127 3/12/2007 13:50:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 5.0 mg/L 2.52007014127 3/12/2007 13:50:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.55 NTU 12007014127 3/12/2007 13:50:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014127 3/12/2007 13:50:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014127 3/12/2007 13:50:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 2 mg/L 1 1.0LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007014128 3/12/2007 13:50:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 48 mg/L 1 102007014129 3/12/2007 13:50:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 11.4 mg/L 1 1.02007014130 3/12/2007 13:45:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 350 mg/L 2.52007014130 3/12/2007 13:45:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 389 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014130 3/12/2007 13:45:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 54 mg/L 6 6.0 D12007014130 3/12/2007 13:45:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 140 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014130 3/12/2007 13:45:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 572 mg/L 6.62007014131 3/12/2007 13:45:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1840 mg/L 1 102007014132 3/12/2007 13:45:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 528 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014133 3/12/2007 13:40:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 504 mg/L 6.62007014133 3/12/2007 13:40:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 245 mg/L 2.52007014133 3/12/2007 13:40:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 650 mg/L 14 140 D22007014133 3/12/2007 13:40:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 98 mg/L 14 14 D22007014133 3/12/2007 13:40:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 63 mg/L 14 14 D12007014134 3/12/2007 13:40:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2680 mg/L 2 20 N1Filtered 25 mls.2007014135 3/12/2007 13:40:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 900 mg/L 10 10 D22007014150 3/12/2007 15:20:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014150 3/12/2007 15:20:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 5.0 mg/L 2.52007014150 3/12/2007 15:20:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 2 mg/L 1 1.02007014150 3/12/2007 15:20:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014150 3/12/2007 15:20:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.50 NTU 12007014150 3/12/2007 15:20:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014151 3/12/2007 15:20:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 40 mg/L 1 102007014152 3/12/2007 15:20:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 9.8 mg/L 1 1.02007014153 3/12/2007 15:25:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 352 mg/L 2.52007014153 3/12/2007 15:25:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 570 mg/L 6.62007014153 3/12/2007 15:25:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 53 mg/L 6 6.0 D12007014153 3/12/2007 15:25:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 415 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014153 3/12/2007 15:25:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 141 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014154 3/12/2007 15:25:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1890 mg/L 1 102007014155 3/12/2007 15:25:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 547 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014156 3/12/2007 15:30:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 250 mg/L 2.52007014156 3/12/2007 15:30:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 676 mg/L 14 140 D22007014156 3/12/2007 15:30:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 513 mg/L 6.62007014156 3/12/2007 15:30:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 100 mg/L 14 14 D22007014156 3/12/2007 15:30:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 64 mg/L 14 14 D12007014157 3/12/2007 15:30:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2740 mg/L 2 20 N1filtered 25mls.2007014158 3/12/2007 15:30:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 920 mg/L 10 10 D22007014213 3/13/2007 07:25:00 Distallate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 9.1 mg/L 6.62007014213 3/13/2007 07:25:00 Distallate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 5.0 mg/L 2.5LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007014213 3/13/2007 07:25:00 Distallate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014213 3/13/2007 07:25:00 Distallate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014213 3/13/2007 07:25:00 Distallate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.50 NTU 12007014213 3/13/2007 07:25:00 Distallate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 2 mg/L 1 1.02007014214 3/13/2007 07:25:00 Distallate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 44 mg/L 1 102007014215 3/13/2007 07:25:00 Distallate EPA 300.0 Chloride 10.7 mg/L 1 1.02007014216 3/13/2007 07:30:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 560 mg/L 6.62007014216 3/13/2007 07:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 397 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014216 3/13/2007 07:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 53 mg/L 6 6.0 D12007014216 3/13/2007 07:30:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 342 mg/L 2.52007014216 3/13/2007 07:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 137 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014217 3/13/2007 07:30:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1850 mg/L 1 102007014218 3/13/2007 07:30:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 539 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014219 3/13/2007 07:35:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 515 mg/L 6.62007014219 3/13/2007 07:35:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 247 mg/L 2.52007014219 3/13/2007 07:35:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 646 mg/L 14 140 D22007014219 3/13/2007 07:35:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 65 mg/L 14 14 D12007014219 3/13/2007 07:35:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 99 mg/L 14 14 D22007014220 3/13/2007 07:35:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2640 mg/L 2 20 N1filtered 25mls.2007014221 3/13/2007 07:35:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1820 mg/L 10 10 D22007014253 3/13/2007 08:50:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014253 3/13/2007 08:50:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014253 3/13/2007 08:50:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 2 mg/L 1 1.02007014253 3/13/2007 08:50:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 5.0 mg/L 2.52007014253 3/13/2007 08:50:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.55 NTU 12007014253 3/13/2007 08:50:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014254 3/13/2007 08:50:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 38 mg/L 1 102007014255 3/13/2007 08:50:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 9.7 mg/L 1 1.02007014256 3/13/2007 09:00:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 551 mg/L 6.62007014256 3/13/2007 09:00:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 337 mg/L 2.52007014256 3/13/2007 09:00:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 52 mg/L 6 6.0 D12007014256 3/13/2007 09:00:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 414 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014256 3/13/2007 09:00:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 135 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014257 3/13/2007 09:00:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1850 mg/L 1 102007014258 3/13/2007 09:00:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 537 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014259 3/13/2007 08:55:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 545 mg/L 6.62007014259 3/13/2007 08:55:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 257 mg/L 2.52007014259 3/13/2007 08:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 730 mg/L 14 140 D22007014259 3/13/2007 08:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 103 mg/L 14 14 D22007014259 3/13/2007 08:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 70 mg/L 14 14 D1LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007014260 3/13/2007 08:55:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2950 mg/L 2 20 N1filtered 25mls.2007014261 3/13/2007 08:55:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1010 mg/L 10 10 D22007014378 3/13/2007 10:15:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014378 3/13/2007 10:15:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014378 3/13/2007 10:15:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007014378 3/13/2007 10:15:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014378 3/13/2007 10:15:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014378 3/13/2007 10:15:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.50 NTU 12007014379 3/13/2007 10:15:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 34 mg/L 1 102007014380 3/13/2007 10:15:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 9.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014381 3/13/2007 10:20:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 551 mg/L 6.62007014381 3/13/2007 10:20:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 337 mg/L 2.52007014381 3/13/2007 10:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 52 mg/L 6 6.0 D12007014381 3/13/2007 10:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 135 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014381 3/13/2007 10:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 404 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014382 3/13/2007 10:20:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1850 mg/L 1 102007014383 3/13/2007 10:20:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 519 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014384 3/13/2007 10:25:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 260 mg/L 2.52007014384 3/13/2007 10:25:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 817 mg/L 14 140 D22007014384 3/13/2007 10:25:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 71 mg/L 14 14 D12007014384 3/13/2007 10:25:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 552 mg/L 6.62007014384 3/13/2007 10:25:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 104 mg/L 14 14 D22007014385 3/13/2007 10:25:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 3260 mg/L 2 20 N1filtered 25mls.2007014386 3/13/2007 10:25:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1120 mg/L 10 10 D22007014465 3/13/2007 13:45:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 32 mg/L 1 102007014465 3/13/2007 13:45:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014465 3/13/2007 13:45:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007014465 3/13/2007 13:45:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 9.2 mg/L 1 1.02007014465 3/13/2007 13:45:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014465 3/13/2007 13:45:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014465 3/13/2007 13:45:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014465 3/13/2007 13:45:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.55 NTU 12007014466 3/13/2007 13:55:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1870 mg/L 1 102007014466 3/13/2007 13:55:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 444 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014466 3/13/2007 13:55:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 395 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014466 3/13/2007 13:55:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 56 mg/L 1 1.02007014466 3/13/2007 13:55:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 143 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014466 3/13/2007 13:55:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 357 mg/L 2.52007014466 3/13/2007 13:55:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 588 mg/L 6.62007014467 3/13/2007 14:00:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 3120 mg/L 2 20 N1filtered 25mls.LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007014467 3/13/2007 14:00:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 564 mg/L 6.62007014467 3/13/2007 14:00:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 260 mg/L 2.52007014467 3/13/2007 14:00:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1090 mg/L 10 10 D22007014467 3/13/2007 14:00:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 790 mg/L 14 140 D22007014467 3/13/2007 14:00:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 74 mg/L 14 14 D12007014467 3/13/2007 14:00:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 104 mg/L 14 14 D22007014475 3/13/2007 15:05:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 32 mg/L 1 102007014475 3/13/2007 15:05:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014475 3/13/2007 15:05:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007014475 3/13/2007 15:05:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 8.4 mg/L 1 1.02007014475 3/13/2007 15:05:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014475 3/13/2007 15:05:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014475 3/13/2007 15:05:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014475 3/13/2007 15:05:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.55 NTU 12007014476 3/13/2007 15:10:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1880 mg/L 1 102007014476 3/13/2007 15:10:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 576 mg/L 6.62007014476 3/13/2007 15:10:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 350 mg/L 2.52007014476 3/13/2007 15:10:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 554 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014476 3/13/2007 15:10:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 389 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014476 3/13/2007 15:10:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 55 mg/L 1 1.02007014476 3/13/2007 15:10:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 140 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014477 3/13/2007 15:15:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 3020 mg/L 2 20 N1filtered 25mls.2007014477 3/13/2007 15:15:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 546 mg/L 6.62007014477 3/13/2007 15:15:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 250 mg/L 2.52007014477 3/13/2007 15:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 752 mg/L 14 140 D22007014477 3/13/2007 15:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 72 mg/L 14 14 D12007014477 3/13/2007 15:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 100 mg/L 14 14 D22007014477 3/13/2007 15:15:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1060 mg/L 10 10 D22007014505 3/14/2007 07:00:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 38 mg/L 1 102007014505 3/14/2007 07:00:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014505 3/14/2007 07:00:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007014505 3/14/2007 07:00:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 8.7 mg/L 1 1.02007014505 3/14/2007 07:00:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014505 3/14/2007 07:00:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014505 3/14/2007 07:00:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014505 3/14/2007 07:00:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.50 NTU 12007014506 3/14/2007 07:05:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1870 mg/L 1 102007014506 3/14/2007 07:05:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 572 mg/L 6.62007014506 3/14/2007 07:05:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 350 mg/L 2.52007014506 3/14/2007 07:05:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 539 mg/L 5 5.0 D2LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007014506 3/14/2007 07:05:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 387 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014506 3/14/2007 07:05:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 54 mg/L 1 1.02007014506 3/14/2007 07:05:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 140 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014507 3/14/2007 07:10:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2860 mg/L 1 102007014507 3/14/2007 07:10:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 530 mg/L 6.62007014507 3/14/2007 07:10:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 250 mg/L 2.52007014507 3/14/2007 07:10:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1010 mg/L 10 10 D22007014507 3/14/2007 07:10:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 704 mg/L 14 140 D22007014507 3/14/2007 07:10:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 68 mg/L 14 14 D12007014507 3/14/2007 07:10:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 100 mg/L 14 14 D22007014610 3/14/2007 09:00:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 38 mg/L 1 102007014610 3/14/2007 09:00:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014610 3/14/2007 09:00:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007014610 3/14/2007 09:00:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 8.7 mg/L 1 1.02007014610 3/14/2007 09:00:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014610 3/14/2007 09:00:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014610 3/14/2007 09:00:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014610 3/14/2007 09:00:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.50 NTU 12007014611 3/14/2007 09:05:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1830 mg/L 1 102007014611 3/14/2007 09:05:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 576 mg/L 6.62007014611 3/14/2007 09:05:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 350 mg/L 2.52007014611 3/14/2007 09:05:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 534 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014611 3/14/2007 09:05:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 384 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014611 3/14/2007 09:05:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 55 mg/L 1 1.02007014611 3/14/2007 09:05:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 140 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014612 3/14/2007 09:10:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2830 mg/L 1 102007014612 3/14/2007 09:10:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 525 mg/L 6.62007014612 3/14/2007 09:10:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 245 mg/L 2.52007014612 3/14/2007 09:10:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 995 mg/L 10 10 D22007014612 3/14/2007 09:10:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 690 mg/L 14 140 D22007014612 3/14/2007 09:10:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 68 mg/L 14 14 D12007014612 3/14/2007 09:10:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 98 mg/L 14 14 D22007014640 3/14/2007 10:25:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 40 mg/L 1 102007014640 3/14/2007 10:25:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014640 3/14/2007 10:25:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007014640 3/14/2007 10:25:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 8.7 mg/L 1 1.02007014640 3/14/2007 10:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014640 3/14/2007 10:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014640 3/14/2007 10:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014640 3/14/2007 10:25:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.50 NTU 1LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007014641 3/14/2007 10:30:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1860 mg/L 1 102007014641 3/14/2007 10:30:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 556 mg/L 6.62007014641 3/14/2007 10:30:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 342 mg/L 2.52007014641 3/14/2007 10:30:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 532 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014641 3/14/2007 10:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 381 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014641 3/14/2007 10:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 52 mg/L 6 6.0 D12007014641 3/14/2007 10:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 137 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014642 3/14/2007 10:35:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2850 mg/L 1 102007014642 3/14/2007 10:35:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 518 mg/L 6.62007014642 3/14/2007 10:35:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 242 mg/L 2.52007014642 3/14/2007 10:35:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 993 mg/L 10 10 D22007014642 3/14/2007 10:35:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 687 mg/L 14 140 D22007014642 3/14/2007 10:35:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 67 mg/L 14 14 D12007014642 3/14/2007 10:35:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 97 mg/L 14 14 D22007014704 3/14/2007 11:35:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 34 mg/L 1 102007014704 3/14/2007 11:35:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014704 3/14/2007 11:35:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007014704 3/14/2007 11:35:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 8.8 mg/L 1 1.02007014704 3/14/2007 11:35:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014704 3/14/2007 11:35:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014704 3/14/2007 11:35:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014704 3/14/2007 11:35:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.45 NTU 12007014705 3/14/2007 11:40:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1870 mg/L 1 102007014705 3/14/2007 11:40:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 552 mg/L 6.62007014705 3/14/2007 11:40:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 51 mg/L 6 6.0 D12007014705 3/14/2007 11:40:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 137 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014705 3/14/2007 11:40:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 536 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014705 3/14/2007 11:40:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 382 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014705 3/14/2007 11:40:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 342 mg/L 2.52007014706 3/14/2007 11:45:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2910 mg/L 1 102007014706 3/14/2007 11:45:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 518 mg/L 6.62007014706 3/14/2007 11:45:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 242 mg/L 2.52007014706 3/14/2007 11:45:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1030 mg/L 10 10 D22007014706 3/14/2007 11:45:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 715 mg/L 14 140 D22007014706 3/14/2007 11:45:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 67 mg/L 14 14 D12007014706 3/14/2007 11:45:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 97 mg/L 14 14 D22007014782 3/15/2007 09:00:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 42 mg/L 1 102007014782 3/15/2007 09:00:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014782 3/15/2007 09:00:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007014782 3/15/2007 09:00:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 5.8 mg/L 1 1.0LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007014782 3/15/2007 09:00:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014782 3/15/2007 09:00:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014782 3/15/2007 09:00:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014782 3/15/2007 09:00:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.40 NTU 12007014783 3/15/2007 08:55:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1880 mg/L 1 102007014783 3/15/2007 08:55:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 586 mg/L 6.62007014783 3/15/2007 08:55:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 360 mg/L 2.52007014783 3/15/2007 08:55:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 533 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014783 3/15/2007 08:55:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 396 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014783 3/15/2007 08:55:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 55 mg/L 6 6.0 D12007014783 3/15/2007 08:55:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 144 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014784 3/15/2007 08:50:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2210 mg/L 1 102007014784 3/15/2007 08:50:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 479 mg/L 6.62007014784 3/15/2007 08:50:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 240 mg/L 2.52007014784 3/15/2007 08:50:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 736 mg/L 10 10 D22007014784 3/15/2007 08:50:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 525 mg/L 14 140 D22007014784 3/15/2007 08:50:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 58 mg/L 14 14 D12007014784 3/15/2007 08:50:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 96 mg/L 14 14 D22007014829 3/15/2007 11:25:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 38 mg/L 1 102007014829 3/15/2007 11:25:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014829 3/15/2007 11:25:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007014829 3/15/2007 11:25:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 6.3 mg/L 1 1.02007014829 3/15/2007 11:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014829 3/15/2007 11:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014829 3/15/2007 11:25:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.60 NTU 12007014829 3/15/2007 11:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014830 3/15/2007 11:20:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1850 mg/L 1 102007014830 3/15/2007 11:20:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 582 mg/L 6.62007014830 3/15/2007 11:20:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 360 mg/L 2.52007014830 3/15/2007 11:20:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 534 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014830 3/15/2007 11:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 382 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007014830 3/15/2007 11:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 54 mg/L 6 6.0 D12007014830 3/15/2007 11:20:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 144 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014831 3/15/2007 11:15:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2820 mg/L 1 102007014831 3/15/2007 11:15:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 540 mg/L 6.62007014831 3/15/2007 11:15:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 272 mg/L 2.52007014831 3/15/2007 11:15:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 948 mg/L 10 10 D22007014831 3/15/2007 11:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 682 mg/L 14 140 D22007014831 3/15/2007 11:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 65 mg/L 14 14 D12007014831 3/15/2007 11:15:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 109 mg/L 14 14 D2LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007014991 3/16/2007 08:25:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 50 mg/L 1 102007014991 3/16/2007 08:25:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007014991 3/16/2007 08:25:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007014991 3/16/2007 08:25:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 6.8 mg/L 1 1.02007014991 3/16/2007 08:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007014991 3/16/2007 08:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007014991 3/16/2007 08:25:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007014991 3/16/2007 08:25:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.50 NTU 12007014992 3/16/2007 08:30:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1810 mg/L 1 102007014992 3/16/2007 08:30:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 585 mg/L 6.62007014992 3/16/2007 08:30:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 367 mg/L 2.52007014992 3/16/2007 08:30:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 529 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007014992 3/16/2007 08:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 147 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007014992 3/16/2007 08:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 53 mg/L 6 6.0 D12007014992 3/16/2007 08:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 360 mg/L 1 10.0 D22007014993 3/16/2007 08:35:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2700 mg/L 1 102007014993 3/16/2007 08:35:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 576 mg/L 6.62007014993 3/16/2007 08:35:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 292 mg/L 2.52007014993 3/16/2007 08:35:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 908 mg/L 10 10 D22007014993 3/16/2007 08:35:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 704 mg/L 14 140 D22007014993 3/16/2007 08:35:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 69 mg/L 14 14 D12007014993 3/16/2007 08:35:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 117 mg/L 14 14 D22007015008 3/16/2007 10:35:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 38 mg/L 1 102007015008 3/16/2007 10:35:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007015008 3/16/2007 10:35:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 2.5 mg/L 2.52007015008 3/16/2007 10:35:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 5.9 mg/L 1 1.02007015008 3/16/2007 10:35:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007015008 3/16/2007 10:35:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007015008 3/16/2007 10:35:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 1 mg/L 1 1.02007015008 3/16/2007 10:35:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.45 NTU 12007015009 3/16/2007 10:30:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 1880 mg/L 1 102007015009 3/16/2007 10:30:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 573 mg/L 6.62007015009 3/16/2007 10:30:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 355 mg/L 2.52007015009 3/16/2007 10:30:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 529 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007015009 3/16/2007 10:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 379 mg/L 6 60.0 D22007015009 3/16/2007 10:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 53 mg/L 6 6.0 D12007015009 3/16/2007 10:30:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 142 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007015010 3/16/2007 10:25:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2920 mg/L 1 102007015010 3/16/2007 10:25:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 532 mg/L 6.62007015010 3/16/2007 10:25:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 272 mg/L 2.5LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes2007015010 3/16/2007 10:25:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1000 mg/L 10 10 D22007015010 3/16/2007 10:25:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 701 mg/L 14 140 D22007015010 3/16/2007 10:25:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 63 mg/L 14 14 D12007015010 3/16/2007 10:25:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 109 mg/L 14 14 D22007015094 3/16/2007 11:55:00 Distillate Production Total Organic Carbon 4.49 mg/L 12007015095 3/16/2007 11:50:00 Feed Production Total Organic Carbon 15.2 mg/L 2DF = 2 due to highconcentration, matrix2007015096 3/16/2007 11:45:00 Brine Production Total Organic Carbon 30.6 mg/L 4DF = 4 due to highconcentration, matrix2007015097 3/16/2007 12:25:00 Distillate Production Total Organic Carbon 4.68 mg/L 12007015098 3/16/2007 12:35:00 Feed Production Total Organic Carbon 15.3 mg/L 2DF = 2 due to highconcentration, matrix2007015099 3/16/2007 12:30:00 Brine Production Total Organic Carbon 33.2 mg/L 4DF = 4 due to highconcentration, matrix2007018695 4/4/2007 14:45:00 Distillate Production Total Organic Carbon 8.52 mg/L 12007018696 4/4/2007 14:50:00 Feed Production Total Organic Carbon 46.1 mg/L 1 N1Diluted 1:10 due to high analyteconcentration.2007018697 4/4/2007 14:55:00 Brine Production Total Organic Carbon 66.2 mg/L 1 N1Diluted 1:10 due to high analyteconcentration.2007018698 4/4/2007 14:45:00 Distillate SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 24 mg/L 1 102007018698 4/4/2007 14:45:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Hardness - Total <6.6 mg/L 6.62007018698 4/4/2007 14:45:00 Distillate SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness <2.5 mg/L 2.52007018698 4/4/2007 14:45:00 Distillate EPA 300.0 Chloride 3.6 mg/L 1 1.02007018698 4/4/2007 14:45:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total <10.0 mg/L 1 10.02007018698 4/4/2007 14:45:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007018698 4/4/2007 14:45:00 Distillate EPA 200.7 Calcium Total <1.0 mg/L 1 1.02007018698 4/4/2007 14:45:00 Distillate EPA 180.1 Turbidity 0.50 NTU 12007018699 4/4/2007 14:50:00 Feed SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 4870 mg/L 2 20 N1filtered 25mls.2007018699 4/4/2007 14:50:00 Feed SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 817 mg/L 6.62007018699 4/4/2007 14:50:00 Feed SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 429 mg/L 2.52007018699 4/4/2007 14:50:00 Feed EPA 300.0 Chloride 1390 mg/L 5 5.0 D22007018699 4/4/2007 14:50:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 1240 mg/L 20 200 D22007018699 4/4/2007 14:50:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 94 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007018699 4/4/2007 14:50:00 Feed EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 172 mg/L 6 6.0 D22007018700 4/4/2007 14:55:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 6710 mg/L 2 20 N1Filtered 25mls2007018700 4/4/2007 14:55:00 Brine SM20 2340 Hardness - Total 1050 mg/L 6.62007018700 4/4/2007 14:55:00 Brine SM20 2340 Calcium Hardness 557 mg/L 2.52007018700 4/4/2007 14:55:00 Brine EPA 300.0 Chloride 1980 mg/L 10 10 D22007018700 4/4/2007 14:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Sodium - Total 1710 mg/L 25 250 D22007018700 4/4/2007 14:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Magnesium - Total 120 mg/L 14 14 D2LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RLDataQualifier Notes20070187004/4/2007 14:55:00Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 223 mg/L 14 14 D2

### Appendix C


# Metric Conversions

## Metric Conversions

From To Multiply
inch cm 2.54
inch mm 25.4
ft m 0.3048
ft 2 m 2 0.0929

o F o C o C = ( o F-32)/1.8

psia bar 0.06895

lbmole/sec gmole/sec 453.59

BTU/lbmole o F J/gmole K 4.184 BTU/lbmole J/gmole 2.326
BTU/hr ft 2 o F W/m 2 K 5.6783
BTU/hr ft o F W/m K 1.73073
BTU/hr W 0.29307
BTU/hr ft 2 W/m 2 3.1546

lb kg 0.45359 lb g 453.59 lb/hr g/hr 453.59 lb/hr ft kg/hr m 1.488
lb/hr ft 2 kg/hr m 2 4.8826
lb/ft 3 g/mL 0.016

gal m 3 0.003785