Comparison of cooling tower blowdown and enhanced make up water treatment to minimize cooling water footprint

When water supply restrictions increasingly escalate to water supply risks, developing strategies to minimize the water footprint of wet cooling systems becomes crucial. This study compares two water engineering approaches to minimize the water footprint of a recirculating evaporative cooling tower...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Journal of environmental management Vol. 367; p. 121949
Main Authors:	Müller, Sarah I., Chapanova, Gergana, Diekow, Thomas, Kaiser, Christian, Hamelink, Lies, Hitsov, Ivaylo P., Wyseure, Lisa, Moed, David H., Palmowski, Laurence, Wintgens, Thomas
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	England Elsevier Ltd 01-09-2024
Subjects:	Cooling tower Cooling tower blowdown treatment Cooling tower make up treatment Cooling tower water footprint Industrial water Water Water Purification - methods Water reuse Water Supply Industrial water Cooling tower water footprint Cooling tower blowdown treatment Cooling tower make up treatment Water reuse Cooling tower
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	When water supply restrictions increasingly escalate to water supply risks, developing strategies to minimize the water footprint of wet cooling systems becomes crucial. This study compares two water engineering approaches to minimize the water footprint of a recirculating evaporative cooling tower (CT): (1) reusing cooling tower blowdown and (2) producing demineralized water to increase the cycles of concentration (CoC) of the CT. Our techno-economic analysis across various scenarios and CT settings reveals that reusing blowdown (option 1) is the most feasible approach for an industrial cooling system currently operating at CoCs of > 3, discharging blowdown with a conductivity of 2 mS/cm and a total organic carbon (TOC) concentration of approximately 20 mg/L. Compared to enhanced make up treatment, blowdown reuse allows higher water savings (13 %) and involves lower implementation and operation costs. Pilot scale trials validated the feasibility of both approaches. Blowdown and enhanced make up treatment included biologically activated carbon filtration, ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis, producing high-quality permeate, suitable for (re)use as CT make up or within other processes. The blowdown treatment reached a product quality of 80 μS/cm conductivity and 70 μg/L TOC, make up treatment 20 μS/cm in conductivity and 60 μg/L TOC, respectively. The study's findings underscore the viability of blowdown reuse as a cost-effective and efficient strategy to minimize the water footprint of cooling systems under increasing water scarcity conditions. [Display omitted] •Cooling tower feed water quality determines optimal water minimization strategy.•High-quality cooling tower feed water favors cooling tower blowdown treatment.•Cooling tower blowdown treatment and reuse proves feasible in pilot tests.•Reuse of cooling tower blowdown reduces water footprint by 13 %.
Bibliography:	ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23
ISSN:	0301-4797 1095-8630 1095-8630
DOI:	10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.121949