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 Reports (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 penalty 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.

T1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)T 

June 2008 

T2. REPORT TYPET 

Final 

T3. DATES COVERED (From - To)T 

October 2007 – January 2008 

5a. CONTRACT NUMBER 

Agreement No. 03-FC-81-0905 

5b. GRANT NUMBER 

T4. 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 NOTEST 

Report can be downloaded from Reclamation Web site: http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/publications/reports.html 

14. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

A 5,000-gallon-per-day dewvaporation pilot plant was designed, 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 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 

2,000-milligram-per-liter (mg/L) total dissolved solids (TDS) waste 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 demonstrated 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 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 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 PERSONT 

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. 239-18
U.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 Department 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 - Phoenix), Mr. William Cosgrove (Reclamation - 

Phoenix) and Mr. Henry Day (City of Phoenix) 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 appreciation for the patience needed throughout 

this initially anticipated 2-year program. 

Disclaimer 

The views, analysis, recommendations, and conclusions in this report are those of the 

authors and do not represent official or unofficial policies or opinions of the United 

States Government, and the United States takes no position with regard to any 

findings, conclusions, or recommendations made. 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 cultural heritage and honor our trust 

responsibilities to Indian 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 interest 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....................................... 33 
iv 

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 .............................................. 33 
v

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 with generator, tanks, 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 and 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 the 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 ..................................... 45 
vii

Glossary 

A heat transfer area (ft2) 

cp heat capacity (BTU/lbmole  ̊F) 

B 14 (SI) 16.38 (American 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 ft2  ̊F) 

k thermal conductivity (BTU/hr ft  ̊F) 

L liquid flow rate at any position in the tower (lbmole/sec) 

M mass transfer factor 

N molar flow rate (lbmole/sec) 

Pw vapor pressure of water (psia) 

P total pressure (psia) 

Pf production density (lb/hr ft2

) 

Q energy input at the top of the tower (BTU/sec) 

q heat flux (BTU/hr ft2) 

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 ft2  ̊F) 

V vapor loading (lbmoles of water vapor per lbmole of gas) 

w width of the flow media (ft) 

 

Subscripts 

B brine stream 

D distillate stream 

d dewformation side 

e evaporation side 
viii 

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/ft3) 

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/in2 pounds per square inch 

mg/L milligrams per liter 

mm millimeters 

NAS-T a unit with air flowing up or North on the 

evaporation side And then flowing South or 

down on the dew formation side of the Tower. 

NEWT a tower where the air flow pattern is first North 

on the evaporation side and then East and West 

or zigzag on the downward flow path on the dew 

formation side of the Tower. 

PXAO Phoenix Area Office 

TDS total dissolved solids 

TWPS tactical water purification system 
1

1. Executive Summary 

Dewvaporation is a specific process of humidification-dehumidification 

desalination, which uses air as a carrier-gas to evaporate water from saline feeds 

and form pure condensate at constant atmospheric pressure. The heat needed for 

evaporation is supplied by the heat released by dew condensation on opposite 

sides of a heat transfer wall. Since external heat is needed to establish a 

temperature difference across the wall, and since the temperature of the external 

heat is versatile, the external heat source can be from waste heat, from solar 

collectors, or from fuel combustion. The unit is constructed out of thin water 

wettable plastics and operated at atmospheric pressure. 

A 5,000 gallon-per-day (gpd) dewvaporation pilot plant was designed, 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 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) total dissolved solids (TDS) wastewater 

RO concentrate stream was treated by the 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, producing approximately 5 gallons per 

minute (gpm) per tower, which was less than the target rate of 8.3 gpm. 

Operating cost was highly dependent on the 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 would reduce the operating cost to the cost 

of water pumping and air blowing. Power 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 perform desalination, resulting in preferred 

technologies based on economics (Fosselgard 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 superior to all desalination technologies. 

This is mainly a reflection of the fact that other technologies involve phase 

change (boiling), whereas RO employs low-pressure pumps (less than 100 pounds 

per square inch (lb/in2) (7 bar)) to move water through semipermeable 

membranes, resulting in less energy consumption 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 maintenance and/or pretreatment costs of 

RO operation. 

For the more TDS intense aqueous applications 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 desalination, the RO pump pressure increases to 1,200 lb/in2

(80 bar) and feed waters require extensive 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 driven 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 many times as is economically possible to 

minimize operating costs. This energy reuse factor economically varies from 6 to 

12. 

2.1 Dewvaporation Philosophy 

Thermal processes that operate below the boiling point of water are called 

humidification/dehumidification (HDH). Younis et al. [5] investigated 

HDH units using solar energy as the external heat source. Just like the 

steam-driven external heat operation of an HDH, two heat transfer towers (or 

zones) are required to transfer heat from a massive flow of water. The water is 
4 

used as both an internal heat source and internal heat sink. The requirement of 

two towers makes the HDH process energy 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 desalination and reclamation of seawater, brackish 

water, evaporation pond water, RO plant concentrates, chemical mechanical 

planarization slurries from the semiconductor industries, volatile organic (methyl 

tertiary butyl ether, trichloroethylene) 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 throughout 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 

119.7oF

Vd0 = 0.125

189.5oF

Veh = 1.71

190.2oF

Vdh = 1.81

Ve0 = 0.025

Q

69.8oF

Brackish 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 top of the tower on the 

dew formation side. The dew formation side 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 dew 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 tower to establish a heat transfer temperature difference 

and the heat needed to establish a temperature offset between the saline feed stock 

and the pure water condensate used to produce 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 saturated with salts (20 percent by weight), as shown in 

figure 2b, is more difficult. The feed waters are processed to extinction by the 

recycle of bottoms brine back to the feed. The two products are distillate and wet 

salt solids. 

Due to the slight desiccant effect of salts, the energy reuse factor decreases with 

increased salt concentrations. This suppressed 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 definition of the energy reuse factor, f, is 

the ratio of the energy transferred through the heat transfer 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/condensate 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. Actually, 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 calculating the vapor pressure, Pw, from 

equation 3 (Smith and Van Ness [11]): 

 (3) 

where B and λ0 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 λ0/R is 5209 °K (Perry, Green, and Maloney [12]). The carrier-gas 

vapor content (moles of water vapor per mole of air) is: 

 (4) 

where the relative humidity (RH) is given as a function of salinity, S grams 

salt/liter, by the following equation (Spiegler and Laird [13]): 

 (5) 

dh eh

dh d0

V V

V V f −

− =

( ) f Vdh Vd0 A

G P = ⋅ −

R T

Pw B ⋅ = − 0 ln λ

w

w

P RH P

RH P

V − ⋅

⋅ =

RH = 1− 0.000538 ⋅S
7

The hottest temperature in the evaporating section is specified, allowing the 

calculation of the largest value of the Veh in the evaporating section of the unit. 

Then the change in vapor content 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 transfer coefficient, U. For simultaneous 

heat and mass transfer operations involving air and water, the Lewis Number is 

essentially unity (McCabe, Smith, and Harriott [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 mixture 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 needed to evaporate water as: 

 

 (11) 

The area needed for the heat transfer wall is obtained by an energy balance (Bird, 

Stewart, and Lightfoot [16]). 

ΔV = Vdh − Veh

( )

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

Δ

+ Δ + ⋅ ⋅ ⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡ ⋅ = Δ V

B R V V V

T

z e z e

LM z

1 1

0

2

λ

( ) z g z z hf = h ⋅ 1+ M

V

c

R

RT

M

p

⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ ⎟ ⋅ ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛ =

2

λ0

k

t

h

1

h

1

U

1

z z fe z fd

= + +

( ) z e z z e z q = G ⋅ λ ⋅ V − V +Δ
8 

 (12) 

Where: 

 (13) 

Upon integrating with respect to the overall area and assuming that t/k is small 

compared to the gas phase resistance, equation 14 then relates the total energy 

reuse factor, f, and the total production flux, Pf , as follows: 

 

(14) 

Where the detrimental effect, FRH, of reduced 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 greater. It is also apparent that the 

energy reuse factor, f, and the molar production flux, Pf, are related 

hyperbolically in an established unit. The detrimental effect of salt concentration 

is also included in this expression from equation 15. 

Additionally, higher values of Veh; i.e., higher temperatures, 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 z LM z

z

T

1

U

1

q

A

Δ = ×

ΔTLM = Tyd − Tye

( ) RH

eh

eh

p

g

f F

V

V

C

h

B R T f P ⎟ ⋅ ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+ ⋅

⎪⎭

⎪

⎬

⎫

⎪⎩

⎪

⎨

⎧

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⋅ ⎥

⎦

⎤ ⎢

⎣

⎡

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ = . 182

0

2

0

λ

λ λ

( ) ( ) ( ) RH 1 Veh F = 1− 1− RH ⋅ 1+ f ⋅ +

18 2

0

2

0 F

V

V

c

h

B R T

P f

eh

eh

p

g

f ⎟ ⋅ ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+ ⋅ ⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ ⎟ ⋅ ⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

⋅ ⋅ ⋅ = λ

λ λ

3 2

6 3 1

1

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

+ ⋅

+ ⋅ + + + ⋅ ⋅

=

eh

eh

RH RH V

V

F F F F

F

ε ε
9

The resulting equation is 18. This expression resembles equation 14, but with an 

additional term F containing all of the plastic 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 equation 18 (Hamieh [17]) is used to 

determine the effective heat transfer area from 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 temperature, the water vapor to air ratio and 

energy reuse ratio can be calculated. Therefore, the production density can be 

assessed on the left hand side of equation 18. Since the production rate is data, 

then the effective heat transfer area in the tower can be identified. The effective 

area is a property of the tower mechanical 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 zones, manufacturability, and availability was twin-wall 

extrusions found in Spring 2001. The twin-wall extruded plastics are available in 

many sizes (thickness) ranging from 2 millimeters (mm) to 10 mm. Coroplast, 

Incorporated’s (1-800-666-2241) twin-wall, 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 wetting gauze so that the surfaces would 

wet with saline feed water. The inner 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 vertically, 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 saline wet faces of the heat transfer walls 

and enters the top zone through the sponges, which have holes. The sponges are 

wetted with saline feed from the feed spouts along the center of the picture. 

( ) ⋅∑ ⋅ +⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛

⋅ + ⋅

+ ⋅

⎥

⎥

⎦

⎤

⎢

⎢

⎣

⎡

⎟

⎟

⎠

⎞

⎜

⎜

⎝

⎛ = + ⋅ ⋅

⎟

⎠

⎞ ⎜

⎝

⎛

⋅ k

B R t

V V

V

h

c

V P f eh eh

eh

g

p

eh f 3 2 6

2

3 2

2

2

0

λ

λ
10 

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 center 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 section 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 capability, 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 concentrate the tertiary wastewater for the 

DewVaporation system feed. The first set of towers, along with the steam 

generator, is shown in figure 8. The steam 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 through the Phoenix area, uprooting trees 

and collapsing the first set of towers. The towers were not salvageable. A second 

set of 25 towers was purchased by the 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 liquid flow in many arrangements. The 

arrangement finally selected for data gathering in the fourth year is 

depicted in figure 9. Figure 9 shows 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 flow 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 modulation is required so as to improve 

transportability of the skid-mounted modules to the WWTP. Some modules will 

be connected in a parallel arrangement, and others will be connected 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 distillate formation. The modules will be separated and 

dispersed to other demonstration sites when the pilot study is complete. 

The pilot plant towers were designed, built, 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 take advantage of the TWPS RO concentrator 

being used to produce 5,000 mg/L of saline 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 switch. 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 responsible for sending feed water through the 

tower internal feed heat exchangers to the tower top; therefore, there is one pump 

per tower. Since flow rates surge, the 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 velocity 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 tower air flow rate will be adjusted to give 

the desired top temperature. 

Temperatures of all liquid and air streams (both wet and dry bulb) will be 

monitored by thermocouples, displayed, and recorded by real time data 

acquisition. 

2.5.2 Pilot Plant Goals and Objectives 

The overall plan for this 10,000-gpd pilot study is to move a new and exciting 

technology out of the ASU laboratories once again and into 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 the City of Phoenix for about 1-year’s 

duration after 1 year needed for fabrication. A trailer-mounted RO unit will be 

made available from Reclamation for use in this test. The dewvaporation 

equipment will be versatile in that WWTP effluent and RO effluent will be treated 

as feed to the dewvaporation 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 the site ready, it will be necessary, in time, 

to assess the electrical power needs/ availability, space allocation, exact site 

location, and control room needs. 

When finished, the portable unit can be transported to other sites for follow-on 

demonstrations. It would be also possible, due to its modular construction, to 

send up to ten 1,000-gpd units, or some combination of numbers of modules, to 

various smaller industrial sites for demonstration. 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 final 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 advanced 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 that waste disposal costs 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 together, the new system will act to replace the 

standard evaporator (concentrators) and crystallizer process pairing used by 

electric power generating stations throughout the American West. The newly 

formed company, L’Eau LLC, has plans and potential funding groups that are 

focused on rapidly accelerating toward commercialization. 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 operation have been minimized. The 

dewvaporation system has minimal moving parts such as a boiler, pump, and fan. 

These items are very identifiable and separate, so any malfunctions can be readily 

detected and corrected. The one unproven step is the operational 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 interior and exterior, gas flow bypass, and 

liquid feed seal breakage have all been previous problems that were corrected in 
17

the smaller units. It is assumed that early 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 about $ 8,000 per 1,000 gpd for small plants, 

reducing to $1,000 per 1,000 gpd for large facilities. Operating costs of water 

reclamation from seawater and saline solutions varied from $3.50 per 

1,000 gallons to $0.50 per 1,000 gallons, based 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 operating cost for dewvaporation acting as a 

crystallizer should not change. The operating 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 1,000 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 evaporator with crystallizer would be $31,600 

per 1,000 gpd. Dewvaporation capital cost 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 - Denver Office borrowed the TWPS from the 

U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center in Pt. Hueneme, California. The 

system was operated by the PXAO. The PXAO Program Management Division 

Chief is Robert Michaels. Tom Poulson acted as the main contact and field 

director for the project. 

L’Eau LLC was managed full time by Dr. Scott Stornetta as Chairman of the 

Board and Chief Executive Officer. Dr. Beckman, part time, was Chief Technical 

Officer to L’Eau LLC and manager of the pilot plant project. The L’Eau LLC 
18 

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-gallon-per-day facility. The water campus 

is equipped with chemical testing laboratories capable of total water analysis. 

Digester gas and natural gas for steam generation needs are available to the pilot 

plant operation. There is office space adjacent to the concrete pad area. Base 

level electricity of 1 kilowatt 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 dewvaporation 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 concentrated brine at 200,000 mg/L TDS of wet 

crystal solids. The distillate produced can be used to dilute the normal WWTP 

1,500-mg/L TDS discharge. A zero environmental impact would be a blending of 

the distillate and brine to form a 1,500-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 and 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 analysis. This allows the singular distribution possibility. 

However, combinations of units composed 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 Scottsdale water campus and other municipal 

waste water treatment plants 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 and saline inland waters. This research 
19

proposal is based on two Reclamation awards 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 with 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 facilities 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 friendly.” The dewvaporation process is a 

very low energy user in its standard operation. Also, no new electric 

generating stations need to be built because the electrical usage is low, at less 

than 1.6 kilowatthours (kWh) per 1,000 gallons (67 kilowatts for a $1-milliongpd plant). 

All of these objectives, along with third world benefit, were summarized by 

ASU Research Magazine [20]. 
21

3. Results, Conclusions, and 

Recommendations 

From this investigation into the dewvaporation 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 production rate did not reduce 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 improved performance with continued 

research and development. 

• Demonstrated amortized capital cost 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 price 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 improve tower multiple effect to 

5.0. 

 1

 The acronym NAS-T describes a unit with air flowing up or North on the evaporation side 

And then flowing South or down on the dew formation side of the Tower. The acronym NEWT 

stands for a tower where the air flow pattern is first North on the evaporation side and then East 

and West or zigzag on the downward flow path on the dew formation side of the Tower. 
22 

• Solar hot water thermal source should be developed for reduced water 

costs. 

• The liquid desiccant heat pumping feature be developed for reduced water 

costs. 

3.1 Pilot Plant Results 

Table 1 is a summary of the pilot plant data generated in year 4 of the project. 

The data sheets that support table 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 operated 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 distillate rate was about 

4,500 gpd. The highest thermal multiple effect was 3.3. The recovery (distillate 

to feed ratio) varied from 34 percent to 100 percent. 
23

The April 2, 2007 operation recycled the pilot 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 basin 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 figure 10a, 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 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 moles 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 temperature 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 side, allows the air to cool and transfer condensation 

heat from the dew formation side to the evaporation side. Finally, pure water 

condensate and saturated air leave the dew 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 transfer 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 the 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 this manner, each tower could act as a single 

effect evaporator. Energy into a tower would be used to evaporate 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 North 

on the evaporation 

side and then East 

and West or zigzag 

on the downward 

flow path on the dew 

formation side of the

Tower. The acronym 

NAS-T describes a 

unit with air flowing 

up or North on the evaporation side And then flowing South or down on the dew 

formation side of the Tower. 

The easiest and least expensive towers that 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 possibility of distillate contamination with 

turnarounds. Theoretically, the NEWTs should be more energy efficient but 

somewhat more expensive. Figure 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 reduce 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 temperature of the air that was contacted by 

the desiccant, and that heat can be reused to do an equal amount of water 

evaporation into another 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, humid air is further humidified in (5) by 

evaporation of feed water to vapor by the 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 chamber 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 half by this technique, compared to the 

standard operation of the dewvaporation towers. 

Figure 14. Desiccant heat pumping with boiler. 
27

If dry air were available, then the desiccant 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 the 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 exists with nearby desert 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 advantageous natural areas for drying of 

desiccant liquids. In these areas, where 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 dried 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, the 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 relative 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 ambient 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 year-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 16 
29

Rural areas closer to seawater are also candidates for dry air generation, but 

weather data was not available. Possible areas that could benefit from this 

desiccant technique in bringing pure water 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 San 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 September 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 for 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 advanced techniques were discussed and 

agreed upon by all present. The most significant advance was in the elimination 

of side wall paring with a tongue-and-groove 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 represented the combined knowledge of a 

dewvaporation tower design, construction, operation, and analysis team. 

The first tower was fabricated and tested at Plastifab, Inc. L’Eau personnel tested 

the tower for operational performance, and 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 assembly 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 opportunity 
32 

to purchase assembly equipment to reduce personnel needs. Because of these 

increased costs (manufacturing and operations), L’Eau LLC and Reclamation 

mutually agreed that the pilot plant study 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 dewvaporation towers. As the towers have 

been produced, improvements have been devised and engineered that are 

significantly improving the delivered 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 generation 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 “Unit 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-intensive phase of manufacturing, the 

precision necessary could not be achieved. Thus, the first four towers for 

Reclamation were built with independent “unit cell” turnarounds. 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. Significant labor savings was anticipated using a 

wider tower, but the increased width gave 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 into two smaller towers. Each of these 

towers produced 45 lb/hr, suggesting that a tower is capable of 90 lb/hr. 

Currently, efforts are being focused on duplicating this higher performance in 

existing towers. 

4.3 Manufacturing Capacity 

Table 4 lists the towers delivered to the Phoenix WWTP and their characteristics. 

The manufacturing capacity of the Hohokam 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 month of March, five towers and one 

33-inch-wide tower were completed, with another 3- inch-wide tower 50 percent 

complete. Those towers represent 2,000-gpd capacity. During both months, four 

laborers were employed and directed by the 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 Yes 
34 

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 North 

on the evaporation side and then East and West or zigzag on the downward flow 

path on the dew formation side of the Tower. The acronym NAS-T describes a 

unit with air flowing up or North on the evaporation side And then flowing South 

or down on the dew formation side of the Tower. 

The cheapest towers that can be built are NAS-T towers. Without turnarounds, 20 

to 30 labor hours are saved. There is also 100-percent distillate containment. 

Without the turnarounds, there is not any 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 formation streams to miss each other, but 

wide towers have more surface area. 

Effect of tower height. The only problem with height 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 better 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 construction. 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 small amounts of feed contamination, on 

the order of 5 mg/L to 10 mg/L TDS, occurred due to manufacturing 

misalignments. Moving the liquid feed heat exchangers to the center allows any 

leaks to contaminate the brine 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. This meeting brought together project 
36 

personnel from L’Eau LLC, City of Phoenix, Reclamation, and Valentine 

Engineering. The purpose of these meetings was to establish a common 

understanding of the needs of all constituents 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 lines. Project site engineering 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 small 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 heat 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 from 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) black covered tower) are spread out on six 

pedestals. The storage tanks in the middle of figure 16 are black to prevent algae 

growth. The tank on the far right is the distillate hold tank for boiler feed. The 

two center tanks hold RO concentrate for feed to the pilot plant towers. The tank 

on the far left contains brine from the pilot plant. The canvas covered object in 

the bottom of the picture is the RO unit 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 permeate and concentrate. The concentrate 

was tested by the dewvaporation pilot plant 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 safety certification caused a 9-month delay in the pilot 

plant startup. Electrical power requirements necessitated 480 volts to minimize 

amperage ratings. Since no electrical boilers 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 designed 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 shifting 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 almost 10 hours for the RO unit to come 

onstream after a pilot plant startup. 

4.4.5 New Towers 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 currently being fabricated for sales. The 

older towers will be enhanced and somewhat replaced by the newer units. 

Figure 19 shows some of the newer towers onsite at the WWTP. These 

commercial towers are manufactured as identical. This is the first standard 

product of L‘Eau. The assembly is compactly held by an external aluminum 

Figure 18. Electric steam boiler in its enclosure. 
39

brace and covered with a layer of black ABS plastic for protection. The ABS was 

removed from all but one tower to inspect 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 downed towers were tested, and three were 

operational. The PXAO placed an order for 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 installed 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 the towers, thus eliminating the raised 

platforms upon which the towers were previously placed. This gave more 

stability. 

In February 2006, the contracted company, 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 availability 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 continued, 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 modified and adjusted for operations. 

Modifications were made to the water feed pump and solenoid for improved 

operations. A steam test was set up to determine 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-effect 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. Distillate 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 throughout the investigation: 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 feed rate, distillate rate, and brine rate 

were traced. The totalizers were becoming fouled with dirt particles, and the 

technique was abandoned in favor of the “bucket and stopwatch” approach. A 

2-quart container was used, requiring from 20-second to 40-second timing. These 

quantities were accurate enough to monitor the somewhat oscillatory flow 

behavior inherent in the pilot plant. 

The tower top temperatures were monitored with a hand-held thermocouple read 

out instrument. The thermocouples themselves 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 (individual and composite), and brine outflows 

were measured. 

The steam rate from the electrical steam pressure boiler was adjustable 

incrementally by setting heater rod toggle 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 necessary 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, runs 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 changed 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 supplied 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 tower’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 the larger tower basin, while the smaller 

pump basin hosted a tower feed pump and a brine discharge pump. The brine 

stream from a previous tower shot directly at the brine discharge pump, thereby 

allowing most of the brine from a previous 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 increase in salinity throughout the run. 

Figure 22 shows the simulated basin salinity 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 plant data, as presented in appendix B, a nominal 20,000-gpd 

desalination facility was designed and priced 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 inlets 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 positioned 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 and located at the WWTP. If money were 

borrowed at 8 percent with a life of 20 years, 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 plenum 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 Different Types of Seawater Plants.” 

Desalination, 76, 1989. 

[2] Mickley, M. “Membrane Concentrate Disposal: Practices and 

Regulations,” Final Report No. 69, Department 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 Apparatus for Simultaneous Heat and Mass 

Transfer Utilizing a Carrier-Gas,” Patent 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, Bureau 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 Interior, 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 Experimental 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. Beckman. “Seawater Desalination Using 

Dewvaporation Technique: Theoretical Development and Design 

Evolution,” Desalination, 195, 2006. 

[19] Hamieh, B.M., and J.R. Beckman. “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. (contributing 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 
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
A-11
A-12
A-13
A-14
Appendix B

City of Phoenix Water Analysis 
23rd Ave Salinity Samples 

D. Allen 05/01/07

LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007013180 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 N1 Filtered 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 D2

B-1
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007013185 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 N1 Filtered 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 N1 Filtered 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 D2

B-2
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007013621 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 N1 Filtered 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 N1 Filtered 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 1.0

B-3
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007013655 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 20 Filtered 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 2.5

B-4
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007013981 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 N1 Filtered 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 N1 Filtered 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 1.0

B-5
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007014128 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 N1 Filtered 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 N1 filtered 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 2.5

B-6
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007014213 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 N1 filtered 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 D1

B-7
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007014260 3/13/2007 08:55:00 Brine SM20 2540 C Total Dissolved Solids 2950 mg/L 2 20 N1 filtered 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 N1 filtered 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 N1 filtered 25mls.

B-8
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007014467 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 N1 filtered 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 D2

B-9
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007014506 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 1

B-10
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007014641 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 1.0

B-11
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007014782 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 D2

B-12
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007014991 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 2.5

B-13
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007015010 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 2

DF = 2 due to high concentration, matrix

2007015096 3/16/2007 11:45:00 Brine Production Total Organic Carbon 30.6 mg/L 4

DF = 4 due to high concentration, matrix

2007015097 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 2

DF = 2 due to high concentration, matrix

2007015099 3/16/2007 12:30:00 Brine Production Total Organic Carbon 33.2 mg/L 4

DF = 4 due to high concentration, matrix

2007018695 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 N1

Diluted 1:10 due to high analyteconcentration.

2007018697 4/4/2007 14:55:00 Brine Production Total Organic Carbon 66.2 mg/L 1 N1

Diluted 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 N1 filtered 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 N1 Filtered 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 D2

B-14
LIMS Number Sample Date/Time Sample ID Method Parameter Result Units Dilution RL

Data 

Qualifier Notes 

2007018700 4/4/2007 14:55:00 Brine EPA 200.7 Calcium Total 223 mg/L 14 14 D2

B-15
Appendix C

Metric Conversions 
Metric Conversions 

From To Multiply 

inch cm 2.54 

inch mm 25.4 

ft m 0.3048 

ft2 m2 0.0929 

o

F oC oC = (oF-32)/1.8 

psia bar 0.06895 

lbmole/sec gmole/sec 453.59 

BTU/lbmole oF J/gmole K 4.184 

BTU/lbmole J/gmole 2.326 

BTU/hr ft2 oF W/m2 K 5.6783 

BTU/hr ft oF W/m K 1.73073 

BTU/hr W 0.29307 

BTU/hr ft2 W/m2 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 ft2 kg/hr m2 4.8826 

lb/ft3 g/mL 0.016 

gal m3 0.003785 

C-1