Abstract:
An apparatus for irradiating fluids with LV including a reactor vessel ( 10 ) having a fluid inleT ( 12 ), a fluid outlet ( 14 ) and a reaction chamber ( 16 ); a plurality of UV lamps ( 18   a - d ) extending across the reaction chamber ( 16 ) and substantially perpendicularly to an axis (A) extending between the fluid inlet ( 12 ) and the fluid outlet ( 14 ); an upper fluid diverter ( 22 ) and a lower fluid diverter ( 24 ) extending across the reaction chamber ( 16 ) substantially parallel to the lamps ( 19   a - d ) and positioned downstream of at least one upstream UV lamp ( 18   a, b ), wherein the upper and lower fluid diverters ( 22, 24 ) are positioned to direct fluids toward at least one UV lamp ( 18   c, d ) downstream of the upstream UV lamp ( 18   a, b ).

Description:
FIELD OF THE INVENTION  
       [0001]     This invention relates to disinfection of fluids with ultraviolet radiation, particularly to a disinfection reactor capable of efficiently irradiating such fluids.  
       BACKGROUND  
       [0002]     Disinfection, as applied in water and wastewater treatment, is a process by which pathogenic microorganisms are inactivated to provide public health protection. Chlorination has been the dominant method employed for disinfection for almost 100 years. However, it is no longer the disinfection method automatically chosen for either water or wastewater treatment because of the potential problems associated with disinfection by-products and associated toxicity in treated water. Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation is a frequent alternative chosen to conventional chlorination. Since UV radiation is a nonchemical agent, it does not yield disinfectant residual. Therefore, concerns associated with toxic disinfectant residuals do not apply. In addition, UV disinfection is a rapid process. Little contact time (on the order of seconds rather than minutes) is required. The result is that UV equipment occupies little space when compared to chlorination and ozonation.  
         [0003]     The responses of microorganisms to UV irradiation are attributable to the dose of radiation to which they are exposed. The UV dose is defined as the product of radiation intensity and exposure time. As a result of turbulent flow conditions and three-dimensional spatial variations in UV intensity, continuous-flow UV systems deliver a broad distribution of UV does. Principles of reactor theory can be used to demonstrate that this distribution of doses leads to inefficient use of the UV energy emitted within these systems. Furthermore, the theoretical upper limit on UV reactor performance coincides with a system which accomplishes the delivery of a single UV dose (i.e., a dose distribution which can be represented by a delta function). Optimal dose distribution is difficult to achieve in currently used UV disinfection systems.  
         [0004]     An average dose does not accurately describe the disinfection efficiency of a full-scale UV system. UV intensity is a function of position. The intensity of UV radiation decreases rapidly with distance from the source of radiation. Exposure time is not a constant either. The complex geometry of UV systems dictates complex hydrodynamic behavior as well, with strong velocity gradients being observed. Coincidentally, fluid velocity is generally highest in areas of lowest intensity. This creates a situation in which some microorganisms are exposed to a low UV intensity over a comparatively short period of time, thereby allowing them to “escape” the system with a relatively low UV dose. This represents a potentially serious process limitation in UV systems. For example, if 1% of the microorganisms received doses lower than the lethal level, then the maximum inactivation achievable by the system is 99%, no matter what actual average dose was delivered.  
         [0005]     Non-uniform distribution of UV doses in systems indicates that UV radiation is applied inefficiently. While UV overdose apparently presents no danger in terms of finished water composition, it does increase operating and capital costs. Therefore, it is desirable to have a system which incorporates the effects of hydrodynamic behavior and the UV intensity field to provide for complete disinfection.  
         [0006]     Mathematical modeling of UV reactors has been used to improve reactor design and predict microbial inactivation. Do-Quang et al (1997) discussed the use of CFD modeling of a vertical lamp open channel UV reactor to improve microbial inactivation. Blatchley et al (1997) proposed a method of particle tracking for calculating the dose distribution in an open channel horizontal lamp UV reactor. That model took into consideration both the hydrodynamics of the system and the intensity field.  
         [0007]     The above models were based on low-pressure lamp systems installed in wastewater that have a single germicidal wavelength output at 254 nm. CFD modeling is helpful in assessing reactor design with in-line drinking water reactors since the hydraulic residence time in these systems is less than about 1 second and the spacing between lamps is larger and non-uniform in comparison to most low-pressure lamp wastewater systems.  
       SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION  
       [0008]     This invention relates to an apparatus for irradiating fluids with UV including a reactor vessel having a fluid inlet, a fluid outlet and a reaction chamber, a plurality of UV lamps extending across the reaction chamber and substantially perpendicularly to an axis extending between the fluid inlet and the fluid outlet, an upper and a lower fluid diverter extending across the reaction chamber substantially parallel to the lamps and positioned downstream of at least one upstream UV lamp, wherein the upper and lower fluid diverters are positioned to direct fluids toward at least one UV lamp downstream of the upstream UV lamp. 
     
    
     BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS  
       [0009]      FIG. 1  is a schematic view of fluence rate distribution (in mW/cm′) of a 20-inch reactor at 90% UVT.  
         [0010]      FIG. 2  is a schematic view of a model at 1.4 m/s entry velocity at the cross-section 5 cm from the reactor centerline of a closed reactor.  
         [0011]      FIG. 3  is a graph showing head loss through one reactor versus flow rate.  
         [0012]      FIG. 4  is a schematic showing the UV dose received by the 39 particles at the outlets of a closed reactor.  
         [0013]      FIG. 5  is a graph showing the UV dose distribution at 6.27 MGD and 0.046/cm water absorbance.  
         [0014]      FIG. 6  is a side elevational view of a closed UV reactor in accordance with aspects of the invention, partly taken in section.  
         [0015]      FIG. 7  shows further detail of the UV reactor of  FIG. 6  with respect to UV lamps contained therein.  
         [0016]      FIG. 8  is a front elevational view, taken partially in section of the UV reactor of  FIG. 6 .  
         [0017]      FIG. 9  is a side elevational view of another UV reactor, also partially taken in section, in accordance with aspects of the invention.  
     
    
     DETAILED DESCRIPTION  
       [0018]     It will be appreciated that the following description is intended to refer to specific embodiments of the invention selected for illustration in the drawings and is not intended to define or limit the invention, other than in the appended claims.  
         [0019]     CFD can be used as a design tool to improve microbial inactivation while minimizing head loss in the reactor. Head loss is important in UV drinking water reactors since most UV systems in a water plant are located downstream of filtration and before clearwell where there is little head to spare. Low head loss allows a UV reactor to be installed in more water plants without the need for modifications such as adding pumps or lowering the level of the clearwell leading to other issues such as the reduction of CT.  
         [0020]     A closed UV reactor  10  is shown in  FIGS. 6-8 . The reactor includes a fluid inlet  12 , a fluid outlet  14  and a reaction chamber  16 . The fluid inlet  12 , fluid outlet  14  and reaction chamber are substantially round in shape, although other shapes such as oval, for example, can be used. Four UV lamps  18  extend substantially parallel to one another and, as especially shown in  FIGS. 6 and 7 , are arranged to form the four corners of a square. The lamps  18  also are positioned substantially perpendicularly to axis A extending between inlet  12  and outlet  14 . Each UV lamp  18  is surrounded by and sealed within a quartz jacket (not shown), the structure and arrangement of which is well known to those of ordinary skill in the art.  
         [0021]     A UV sensor  20  is positioned adjacent each UV lamp to accurately assist in the detection and determination of UV emissions from the respective UV lamps.  
         [0022]     An upper fluid diverter  22  is located in the reaction chamber and oriented at about a 45° angle out of horizontal. A lower fluid diverter  24  is similarly positioned at the bottom of the reaction chamber  16 . Lower diverter  24 , in this case, is located substantially vertically below upper diverter  22 . An L-shaped center diverter  26  is positioned halfway between upper and lower diverters  22  and  24  and, in this case, is positioned vertically below upper diverter  22  and above lower diverter  24 . The L-shape of diverter is formed by a pair of legs angled at about 90° with respect to one another. Each leg is angled about 45° out of horizontal. The diverters  22 ,  24  and  26  are positioned downstream of at least one of the upstream UV lamps and are further positioned to direct fluids towards at least one UV lamp downstream of the upstream UV lamp. There is no particular need or benefit to placing diverters (or other obstructions) upstream of or at the location of the upstream UV lamp(s). Thus, in this case, lamps  18 A and B are upstream lamps and lamps  18 C and D are downstream lamps.  
         [0023]     Referring specifically to  FIG. 7 , a reactor end plate  28  is sealed to UV reactor  10  and is utilized to position the lamps  18  and diverters  22 ,  24  and  26  in the desired location. Sensors  20  are positioned substantially vertically oriented with respect to each other and are also aligned in the upstream to the downstream direction to provide consistency in UV data collected by the respective censors.  
         [0024]      FIG. 9  shows another embodiment that employs six lamps  18 , lettered “A-F”, as preceding from upstream to downstream. UV reactor  10  of  FIG. 9  also includes a fluid inlet  12  and fluid outlet  14  and a reaction zone  16 . Reactor  10  also includes diverters  22  and  24 , but not  26  in this case. As in the other embodiment, diverters  22  and  24  are preferably angled at about 45° out of horizontal to effectively divert fluids toward a UV lamp located nearest the uppermost and lowermost portions of reaction chamber  16 , respectively. Sensors  20  are positioned to detect UV from each of the lamps  18 .  
         [0025]     The fluence rate distribution in a 6-lamp reactor layout ( FIG. 9 ) is shown in  FIG. 1 . As described earlier, the intensity in the reactor decreases rapidly with distance from the source of radiation and is non-uniform. In order to eliminate high fluid velocities in low areas of UV intensity, CFD experiments were conducted as shown in  FIG. 2 . As can be seen in  FIG. 2 , the deflectors in the reactor direct the flow from the low intensity areas along the reactor wall into the high intensity areas near the UV lamps. These deflectors in the reactor result in a narrow calculated dose distribution with no low UV dose areas evident as shown in  FIG. 5 . Also, there are no significant overdose areas evident in the reactor resulting in energy inefficiency. One of the drawbacks of baffles or deflectors is that they increase the head loss in the system. The deflectors herein provide the benefit of eliminating the low dose areas in the reactor while minimizing the cross-sectional area they take up in the reactor. This deflector design led to the minimal head loss in the 6-lamp reactor as shown in  FIG. 3 .  
         [0026]     Although this invention has been described in connection with specific forms thereof, it will be appreciated that a wide variety of equivalents may be substituted for the specified elements described herein without departing from the spirit and scope of this invention as described in the appended claims.  
         [0027]     For example, reactor  10  can be made from a wide variety of materials, both ferrous and non-ferrous, so long as they provide the appropriate strength, corrosion and UV resistance characteristics. Stainless steel is especially preferred. A wide variety of UV lamps, quartz jackets and devices to seal the lamps with respect to the jackets may also be employed. Sensors of varying types can be used as conditions merit. Also, the materials used for the diverters can vary as appropriate, so long as they are sufficiently strong, have appropriate corrosion and UV resistance. Although angles out of horizontal of about 45° are especially preferred, other angles may be employed to suit specific positioning of UV lamps  18 . Angles less than 90° are preferred.  
         [0028]     Although we have selected two embodiments for illustration that contain four and six lamps, other numbers of lamps can be utilized, either more or less. Especially preferred alternatives include two-lamp reactors and eight-lamp reactors, although more could be employed as warranted. As noted above, variations on the number of lamps, angles of placement of the diverters and the like should be carefully selected to ensure that head loss characteristics are maintained as desired.