essay summary

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Data in Brief

Data in Brief 15 (2017) 1043–1047

https://d 2352-34 (http://c

⁎ Corr E-m

mpirsah

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/dib

Data Article

Dataset on the cost estimation for spent filter backwash water (SFBW) treatment

Afshin Ebrahimi a, Mokhtar Mahdavi b, Meghdad Pirsaheb c, Fariborz Alimohammadi d, Amir Hossein Mahvi e,⁎

a Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Environment Research Center, Research Institute for Primordial Prevention of Non Communicable Disease, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran b Environmental Health Engineering Department, Saveh University of Medical Sciences, Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Saveh, Iran c Department of Environmental Health Engineering, Kermanshah Health Research Center (KHRC), Kerman- shah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran d Experienced expert of Isfahan Water and Wastewater Company, Master of Sciences in Environmental Health Engineering, Iran e Center for Solid Waste Research, Institute for Environmental Research, Tehran University of Medical , Tehran, Iran

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history: Received 21 August 2017 Received in revised form 14 October 2017 Accepted 19 October 2017 Available online 24 October 2017

Keywords: Spent filter backwash water Water treatment Coat estimation Water reuse

oi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.10.040 09/& 2017 The Authors. Published by Else reativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

esponding author. ail addresses: [email protected] (A [email protected] (M. Pirsaheb), ahmahvi@ya

a b s t r a c t

The dataset presented in this article are related to the research article entitled “Hybrid coagulation-UF processes for spent filter backwash water treatment: a comparison studies for PAFCl and FeCl3 as a pre-treatment” (Ebrahimi et al., 2017) [1]. This article reports the cost estimation for treating produced spent filter backwash water (SFBW) during water treatment in Isfahan- Iran by various methods including primary sedimentation, coagulation & flocculation, second clarification, ultra filtration (UF) and recircu- lation of settled SFBW to water treatment plant (WTP) entrance. Coagulation conducted by PAFCl and FeCl3 as pre polymerized and traditional coagulants. Cost estimation showed that contrary to expectations, the recirculation of settled SFBW to WTP entrance is more expensive than other method and it costs about $ 37,814,817.6. Versus the cheapest option related to separate pri- mary sedimentation, coagulation & flocculation in WTP. This

vier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license

. Ebrahimi), [email protected] (M. Mahdavi), hoo.com (A.H. Mahvi).

M

T H

D E

E

D

D

A. Ebrahimi et al. / Data in Brief 15 (2017) 1043–10471044

option cost about $ 4,757,200 and $ 950,213 when FeCl3 and PAFCl used as coagulant, respectively.

& 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license

(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Specifications Table

Subject area

Environmental engineering

ore specific sub- ject area

Water reuse

ype of data

Table

ow data was acquired

– Experimental results attained from pilot plant that include primary sedi- mentation, coagulation & flocculation, ultra filter and recirculation of settled SFBW to WTP entrance.

– Cost estimation for full scale treatment for SFBW. – Cost estimation for different method that proposed for SFBW treatment including: mixing of settled SFBW with raw water entered to WTP, Separate primary sedimentation, coagulation & flocculation in WTP, Separate primary sedimentation, coagulation & flocculation and secondary sedimentation in WTP and Separate primary sedimentation, coagulation & flocculation, sec- ondary sedimentation and UF process in WTP

ata format

Raw and analysed

xperimental factors

Application of sedimentation, coagulation & flocculation, UF process and return of SFBW to WTP for SFBW treatment Cost estimation for each process according to dimension, chemical con- sumption and necessary equipment.

xperimental features

Determination of cost and feasibility of selected method for SFBW treatment

ata source location

Isfahan's WTP in Iran

ata accessibility

Some data are within this article and some presented in published article. Of course published data was presented in this article but with reference number and citation.

Value of the data

� The data presents the suitable method among recirculation of settled SFBW to WTP entrance, coagulation & flocculation, and ultra filtration process for SPBW treatment

� Cost estimation for SFBW reuse by mentioned methods at full scale. � Effect of cost estimation on process selection and Vice versa.

1. Data

The dataset of this article provides information on the cost estimation of SFBW treatment by various methods, including recirculation of settled SFBW to WTP entrance, coagulation & flocculation, and ultra filtration process. Coagulation conducted with two different coagulant including PAFCl and FeCl3. Tables 1, 2 and 3 show the amount of coagulants consumption (according to optimum dose of coagulants) and cost estimation for all process that used for SFBW treatment at full scale

Table 1 The amount and cost of coagulant that is need for treating SFBW at full scale.

Parameters Full scalec

FeCl3 PAFCl

Optimum dosea (mg/L) 40 and 30 15 and 10 Annual consumption (kg) 302,400 108,000 Consumption during design period (kg) 7,560,000 2,700,000 The annual cost (USD)b 181,440 29,160 Total cost during design period (USD) 4,536,000 729,000

a In this study the optimum doses of FeCl3 and PAFCl for autumn and winter was 40 and 15 mg/L, respectively and for spring and summer were 30 and 10 mg/L, respectively. So in this section cost data related to summation of two different amounts of doses during seasons.

b The average value cost of buying in global market for FeCl3 in 2016 was about 600 USD per ton and for PAFCl was 270 USD per ton.

c Design period for full scale was 25 years that operated daily with 24,000 m3/d entrance, but for pilot scale design period was 4 years and operated 12 h in day with 10 l/h inflow.

A. Ebrahimi et al. / Data in Brief 15 (2017) 1043–1047 1045

(Q¼24,000 m3/d). Also all dimension, instrument, chemical matter and required parameters for water treatment plant were estimated and used for estimation.

2. Experimental design, materials and methods

2.1. Quantity of raw SFBW

Coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation and rapid sand filtration processes are main section of Isfahan water treatment plant that treats 12 m3/s of water. There are 48 filter units in this plant and PACl used as coagulant. During backwashing of each filter, some 500 m3 of wastewater was generated. Considering 48 filter with 24 h cleaning interval it accounts for about 2.25% of the raw water entering to the plant. So, during water treatment process approximately 24,000 m3/d of SFBW is generated.

2.2. Experimental procedure

In our previous study, continues processes including primary sedimentation, coagulation, floccu- lation, secondary sedimentation and UF were used for the SFBW treatment. Inflow of all sections of the pilot except UF membrane was 10 l/h. Hydraulic retention time (HRT) for mentioning sections, except UF membrane was 60, 6, 48 and 192 min. Optimum pH for coagulation with PAFCl and FeCl3 was 8.3. Also, optimum doses of PAFCl and FeCl3 were 10 mg/L and 30 mg/L for spring and summer and 15 mg/L and 40 mg/L for autumn and winter seasons. Mixing speed at rapid mixer basin was 80 rpm. Mixing speed at flocculation tanks was 48 rpm. The UF module was operated in a dead-end mode with constant filtration about 8 L m−2 h–1 at a trans-membrane pressure of 300 Pa. It was operated in a cycle of 60 min filtration and 1 min backwashing with permeate in the reverse direc- tion. At the end the recirculation of settled SFBW to WTP entrance and mixing with raw water was investigated according to its effects on coagulation usage at WTP in full scale situation [1–4]. All dimensions for full scale treatment were designed and by considering civil construction materials, chemical consumption, equipments and other important parameters cost estimation was done.

The importance of proper treatment processes for SFBW is that in case there are some con- centrations of pollutants being accumulated in the SFBW they will be removed to much lower con- centrations with lower costs than advanced water treatment processes [5–7].

Table 2 Cost estimation for treating SFBW with primary sedimentation, coagulation & flocculation, secondary sedimentation and UF process i n a full scale (design period was 25 years and Q¼24,000 m3/d) [4].

Units and processes Section Dimension or equipment Cost per USD (US$)

Primary sedimentation Civil construction Reinforced concrete, 2 rectangular basin, L¼45 m, W¼9 m, H¼3.8 m, t¼2.5 h

70,714.3

Electromechanical instrument 2 mobile bridge for sludge collection, 3 pumps and supplementary instrument

29,714.2

Repair and reconstructiona All mechanical instrument during design period 27,428 Energy consumptionb All mechanical instrument used in primary sedimentation 11,142.8

Coagulation and flocculation Civil construction Reinforced concrete, for square coagulation basin L¼1.9 m, W¼1.9 m, H¼2.75 m, t¼30 S.

24,857.1

for flocculation basin L¼13 m, W¼9 m, H¼5.3 m, t¼30 min. Electromechanical instrument Coagulation: 2 mixer with15 kw/h, gear box, shaft and supplementary

instrument. 3485.7

Flocculation: 3 mixers with 1 kw/h, gear box, bridge, shaft and sup- plementary instrument.

Repair and reconstruction All mechanical instrument during design period 24,000 Energy consumption All mechanical instrument used in coagulation and flocculation 29,781.4

Secondary sedimentation Civil construction Reinforced concrete, 2 rectangular basin, L¼50 m, W¼10 m, H¼4.5 m, t¼4 h

86,571.42

Electromechanical instrument 4 mobile bridge for sludge collection, 3 pumps and supplementary instrument

29,714.2

Repair and reconstructiona All mechanical instrument during design period 27,428 Energy consumptionb All mechanical instrument used in secondary sedimentation 11,142.8

FeCl3 requirement during 25 year operation During coagulation Optimum dose of FeCl3 in this study for autumn and winter was 40 mg/L and for spring and summer was 30 mg/L.

4,536,000

PAFCl requirement during 25 year operation During coagulation Optimum dose of PAFCl in this study for autumn and winter was 15 mg/L and for spring and summer was 10 mg/L.

729,000

UF UF process 500 module of PES UF, size of each modules was 8 in. ×40 in. 571,428 Electromechanical instrument and Energy consumptionb

2 feed pump, 2 backwash pump 266,857

Repair and reconstruction a All UF module and mechanical instrument during design period 2,293,428 Chemical cleaning Annual UF cleaning by NaOH and Citric acid during design period 950

staffs and employee laborer, electromechanical expert, water operator and guard

Total staffs were 6 people, 15% increase for salary wage per year during 25 years.

428,571

Total cost for treatment by FeCl3 and UF with 30% increment as a safety factor

– – 11,015,178

Total cost for treatment by PAFCl and UF with 30% increment as a safety factor

– – 6,066,078

a Consumable instrument was replaced in 5 years interval over 25 years with an annual profit increase of 15%. b Energy consumption for water and wastewater treatment plant in Isfahan is under agriculture industry. Power consumption Prices during 19 p.m. to 23 p.m. was 0.01257 USD, during

23 p.m. to 7 a.m. was 0.002 USD and during 7 a.m. to 19 p.m. was 0.00628 USD.

A . E b ra h im

i et

a l. / D a ta

in B rief

15 (2 017

) 10

4 3 – 10

4 7

10 4 6

Table 3 Cost for SFBW treatment with different methods and process.

Method of treatment* Coagulant Cost per USD (US$)

Mixing of settled SFBW with raw water entered to WTP PACl 37,814,817.6

Separate primary sedimentation, coagulation & flocculation in WTP FeCl3 4,757,200 PAFCl 950,213

Separate primary sedimentation, coagulation & flocculation and secondary sedimentation in WTP

FeCl3 4,912,000 PAFCl 1,105,000

Separate primary sedimentation, coagulation & flocculation, secondary sedimentation and UF process in WTP

FeCl3 11,015,000 PAFCl 6,066,000

A. Ebrahimi et al. / Data in Brief 15 (2017) 1043–1047 1047

Acknowledgements

Authors are grateful to the Environmental Health Engineering Department of Saveh University of Medical Sciences, Saveh-Iran for their help to conduct this work. Also, thank for National Water & Wastewater Engineering Company of Iran for all cooperation. This article dedicated to my father and mother and all father and mother in world, for their good duty and help.

Transparency document. Supporting information

Transparency data associated with this article can be found in the online version at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2017.10.040.

References

[1] A. Ebrahimi, M.M. Amin, H. Pourzamani, Y. Hajizadeh, A.H. Mahvi, M. Mahdavi, M.H.R. Rad, Hybrid coagulation-UF pro- cesses for spent filter backwash water treatment: a comparison studies for PAFCl and FeCl3 as a pre-treatment, Environ. Monit. Assess. 189 (2017) 387.

[2] M. Mahdavi, M.M. Amin, A.H. Mahvi, H. Pourzamani, A. Ebrahimi, Metals, heavy metals and microorganism removal from spent filter backwash water by hybrid coagulation-UF processes, J. Water Reuse Desalination (2017) (jwrd2017148).

[3] M. Mahdavi, M.M. Amin, Y. Hajizadeh, H. Farrokhzadeh, A. Ebrahimi, Removal of different NOM fractions from spent filter backwash water by polyaluminium ferric chloride and ferric chloride, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 42 (2017) 1497–1504.

[4] A. Ebrahimi, M.M. Amin, Y. Hajizadeh, H. Pourzamani, M. Memarzadeh, A.H. Mahvi, M. Mahdavi, Filter backwash water treatment by coagulation: a comparison study by polyaluminium ferric chloride and ferric chloride, Desalination Water Treat. 66 (2017) 320–329.

[5] A.H. Mahvi, E. Bazrafshan, H. Biglari, Humic acid removal from aqueous environments by electrocoagulation process using iron electrodes, E-Journal of Chemistry, 9 (2012) 2453–2461.

[6] E. Bazrafshan, A.H. Mahvi, S. Nasseri, M. Shaieghi, Performance evaluation of electrocoagulation process for diazinon removal from aqueous environments by using iron electrodes, Iranian Journal of Environmental Health Science and Engineering, 4 (2007) 127–132.

[7] E. Bazrafshan, H. Biglari, A.H. Mahvi, Phenol removal by electrocoagulation process from aqueous solutions, Fresenius Environmental Bulletin, 21 (2012) 364–371.