A Membrane Process for Recycling Die Lube from Wastewater Solutions

Abstract

An active-surface membrane technology was used to separate a die lube manufacturing wastewater stream consisting of various oils, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and silicones. The ultrafiltration membranes reduced organics from initial oil and grease contents by 20�25X, carbon oxygen demand (COD) by 1.5 to 2X, and total organic carbon (TOC) by 0.6, while the biological oxygen demand (BOD) remained constant. The active-surface membranes were not fouled as badly as non-active-surface systems and the active-surface membrane flux levels were consistently higher and more stable than those of the non-active-surface membranes tested. Field testing demonstrated that the rotary microfilter can concentrate the die lube, i.e. remove the glycerin component, and produce a die lube suitable for recycling. The recycling system operated for six weeks with only seven cleaning cycles and no mechanical or electrical failures. Test data and quality records indicate that the die casting scrap was reduced from 8.4 to 7.8%. There is no doubt that this test yielded tremendous results. This separation process presents significant opportunities that can be evaluated further.

Full text

INEEL/EXT-03-00307
A Membrane Process for
Recycling Die Lube from
Wastewater Solutions
Eric S. Peterson
Jessica Trudeau
Bill Cleary
Michael Hackett
William A. Greene
April 2003
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC

INEEL/EXT-03-00307
A Membrane Process for Recycling Die Lube from
Wastewater Solutions
Eric S. Peterson
Idaho National
Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory
P.O. Box 1625
Idaho Falls, ID 83415-2208
Jessica Trudeau,
Bill Cleary, and
Michael Hackett
Metaldyne, Inc.
8001 Bavaria Road
Twinsburg, OH 44087
William A. Greene
SpinTek Filtration, LLC
10851 Portal Drive
Los Alamitos, CA 90720
April 2003
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
Chemistry Department
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415
Prepared for the
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Under DOE Idaho Operations Office
Contract DE-AC07-99ID13727

iii
ABSTRACT
An active-surface membrane technology was used to separate a die lube
manufacturing wastewater stream consisting of various oils, hydrocarbons, heavy
metals, and silicones. The ultrafiltration membranes reduced organics from initial
oil and grease contents by 20–25X, carbon oxygen demand (COD) by 1.5 to 2X,
and total organic carbon (TOC) by 0.6, while the biological oxygen demand
(BOD) remained constant. The active-surface membranes were not fouled as
badly as non-active-surface systems and the active-surface membrane flux levels
were consistently higher and more stable than those of the non-active-surface
membranes tested. Field testing demonstrated that the rotary microfilter can
concentrate the die lube, i.e. remove the glycerin component, and produce a die
lube suitable for recycling. The recycling system operated for six weeks with
only seven cleaning cycles and no mechanical or electrical failures. Test data and
quality records indicate that the die casting scrap was reduced from 8.4 to 7.8%.
There is no doubt that this test yielded tremendous results. This separation
process presents significant opportunities that can be evaluated further.

iv
SUMMARY
Metaldyne, Inc. generates a complex die lube wastewater stream in its
manufacturing operation that cannot be directly discharged to the environment.
The wastewater contains oils, hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and silicones. A team
from Metaldyne, SpinTek, LLC, and the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory tested an active-surface membrane technology for
separating this waste stream; the ultimate goal is to recycle the major
components, concentrate the contaminants for disposal, and dispose of the clean
water permeates from the membranes into a municipal sewer.
Our laboratory and field studies show that Metaldyne’s wastewater can be
cleaned up using active-surface membrane technology. Active-surface
ultrafiltration membranes reduced organics from initial oil and grease contents by
20–25X, carbon oxygen demand (COD) by 1.5–2X, and total organic carbon
(TOC) by 0.6, while the biological organic carbon demand (BOD) remained
constant. The metals content of the solutions can be reduced significantly using
tight ultrafiltration active-surface membranes. The active-surface membranes
were not fouled as badly as non-active-surface systems. The active-surface
membrane flux levels are consistently higher and more stable than those of the
non-active-surface membranes tested.
The field tests of the ST-II rotary filter system were very promising. The
die lube concentration tests achieved the goal of 20X and the filtrate was clear
and colorless, indicating nearly complete removal of the die lube. One test further
concentrated the feed to 50X, but the membrane water flux decreased so much as
the concentration went from 20X to 50X that this proved to be too low for
commercial use.
The field results for glycerin removal and die lube recycling were also
very favorable. The rotary microfilter concentrated the die lube components from
the waste stream, and then the contaminating glycerin was washed out with
water, producing a die lube suitable for recycling. The recycling system operated
for six weeks with only seven cleaning cycles and no down time due to
mechanical or electrical failure. There is no doubt that this full-scale production
test yielded tremendous results—it proved that recycling of die lubricant is
possible and reduced die casting scrap from 8.4 to 7.8%. Further evaluation is
needed to determine if it is cost effective.

v
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special thanks go to the people that made this project possible. The
Metaldyne team included Eddie Bingham, Bill Cleary, Robert Stuhldreher,
Jessica Trudeau, and Michael Hackett; the SpinTek team included Bill Greene
and Jason Gilmore; and the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy’s Office of Industrial Technologies team
included Harvey Wong, Ehr-Ping Wang Fu and Denise Swink.

vi
CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.................................................................................................................................................iii
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................. iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................................ v
1. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................. 1
2. TECHNICAL APPROACH ............................................................................................................... 3
3. PHASE 1: LABORATORY MEMBRANE EVALUATION ........................................................... 6
3.1 Experimental Procedure........................................................................................................... 6
3.2 Results...................................................................................................................................... 7
3.2.1 Static Test Cell Tests .....................................................................................................7
3.2.2 ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests..................................................................................... 7
3.2.3 Static Nanofiltration Membrane Tests......................................................................... 10
3.2.4 Conclusions from Bench-Scale Tests .......................................................................... 10
3.3 Summary of Phase 1 Testing.................................................................................................. 16
4. PHASE 2: FIELD DEMONSTRATION OF DIE LUBE CONCENTRATION.............................. 17
4.1 Experimental Procedure......................................................................................................... 17
4.1.1 Concentration Testing Procedure ................................................................................ 18
4.1.2 Chemical Analysis....................................................................................................... 18
4.1.3 Solution Washing of Concentrated Feed Solution to Remove Glycerin .....................18
4.1.4 Membrane Cleaning Process Development................................................................. 18
4.2 Results and Discussion........................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Summary of Phase 2 Concentration Tests ............................................................................. 23
5. PHASE 3: FIELD DEMONSTRATION OF DIE LUBE RECYCLING........................................ 24
5.1 Concentrating Die Lube and Removing Glycerin.................................................................. 24
5.1.1 Experimental Procedure .............................................................................................. 24
5.1.2 Results ......................................................................................................................... 24
5.2 Die Casting with Recycled Die Lube..................................................................................... 39
5.2.1 Plant Operation ............................................................................................................39
5.2.2 Test Procedure .............................................................................................................40
5.2.3 Casting Results ............................................................................................................40
5.2.4 Casting Results ............................................................................................................41

vii
5.3 Summary of Phase 3 Recycling Tests.................................................................................... 41
6. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................... 42
7. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 43
8. REFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 44
Appendix A—Raw and Run Data
FIGURES
1. Typical rotary membrane disc assembly ............................................................................................ 3
2. Exploded view of the rotary membrane system ................................................................................. 4
3. ST-II Speedy™ system....................................................................................................................... 5
4. ST-II filtration system process flow ................................................................................................... 5
5. Static test cell...................................................................................................................................... 6
6. Process flow and instrument diagram for the static test cell .............................................................. 7
7. Flux profile for STC with 0.15 micron ceramic membrane ...............................................................8
8. Flux profile for STC with 0.007 micron ceramic membrane .............................................................8
9. Flux profile for STC with 100,000 molecular weight cut-off polymeric membrane.......................... 8
10. Flux profile for 100,000 NMWC cut-off polymeric membrane......................................................... 9
11. Concentration profile for 100,000 NMWC cut-off polymeric membrane.......................................... 9
12. Flux profile for 10,000 NMWC cut-off polymeric membrane........................................................... 9
13. Concentration profile for 10,000 NMWC cut-off polymeric membrane.......................................... 10
14. Performance of ceramic ST-IIL nanofiltration membrane and improvement after cleaning ........... 12
15. Performance of Desal-5 spiral-wound, static polymeric nanofiltration membrane and
improvement after cleaning.............................................................................................................. 13
16. Process flow and instrument diagram for field demonstration system during stabilization............. 17
17. Performance plot for rotary filter of flux versus time during the dewatering of the die lube
solution ............................................................................................................................................. 25
18. Performance plot for rotary filter during washing............................................................................ 25
19. Die face where lube is applied.......................................................................................................... 39

viii
20. Spray manifold for applying die lube............................................................................................... 39
21. Aluminum valve body cast with recycled die lube........................................................................... 40
TABLES
1. Chemical analyses for laboratory tests with polymeric membranes ................................................ 11
2. Concentration factors for polymeric membranes in laboratory tests................................................ 11
3. Chemical analyses for nanofilter tests .............................................................................................. 14
4. Rotating membrane cost analysis ..................................................................................................... 15
5. Membrane Cleaning Procedure Developed by INEEL for Trumem Membranes ............................ 19
6. Summary of Concentration Test Results .......................................................................................... 20
7. Phase III summary – die lube concentration and recycling runs ...................................................... 26
8. Test Casting Job 1094 ...................................................................................................................... 41

1
A Membrane Process for Recycling Die Lube from
Wastewater Solutions
1. INTRODUCTION
Water treatment is a major separations challenge for all industrial water users. Environmental
concerns and energy conservation have led both the industrial and governmental sectors to make
significant efforts to develop energy-efficient separations processes.1,2 The Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory’s Inorganic Membrane Technology Research Program is an ongoing
Department of Energy effort to develop energy-efficient membrane separation processes in collaboration
with industry. Membranes are energy efficient compared to traditional phase separation processes such as
distillation. However, many membrane materials degrade in the harsh thermal and chemical environments
frequently encountered in industrial settings. The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory (INEEL) membrane program has traditionally focused on polymeric membrane
separations.3-11 Recently, however, the program has begun working in the area of filtration and has
teamed with Metaldyne, Inc. and SpinTek Filtration, LLC to develop a means of separating wastewater
solutions generated by the die casting process. This report presents the results of that collaboration.
Metaldyne generates a complex wastewater stream that contains soaps, detergents, oils,
hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and silicones. In 1999, Metaldyne’s Twinsburg facility, in cooperation with
The North American Die Casting Association, the Department of Energy’s Office of Industrial
Technology, and INEEL, launched an initiative to investigate the potential to separate solids from
wastewater. The goal was to improve discharge quality, reduce loading on the plant’s treatment system,
and, potentially, recover these solids for reuse. Wastewater streams similar to Metaldyne’s are common in
the metal casting industry, and there are many other applications for a reliable, effective process for
treating this type of wastewater.
Treating manufacturing wastewater requires a simple, rugged, and durable process. The system
must be capable of handling a wide compositional range, and varied concentrations, of wastewater
components and consistently providing purified water suitable for reuse. The system needs to remove
large solids as well as very small organic molecules of detergents, other surfactants, and specific organic
chemicals. In addition to purifying the wastewater, the system must be able to concentrate the feed water
contaminants to a thick slurry, both for potential recycling and for minimizing the waste for storage and
subsequent disposal.
To address this challenging problem, a three-phased project was defined. Each phase was
independent and, at its completion, the feasibility of continuing the project was evaluated. The phases
were:
• Phase 1—Problem Identification, Evaluation, and Bench-Scale Process Studies
We identified the real bottlenecks in current separations processes, the specific families of
materials that are causing fouling, and possible methods for eliminating the fouling problems. We
established the scope of the bench-scale experimental studies. These studies examined membrane
fouling by the feed streams, fouling prevention methods, membrane replacement costs, and lifetime
evaluations.

2
• Phase 2—Recommendations for Alternative Processes Studies
The Phase 2 recommendations were based upon the studies performed in Phase 1 and the suggested
field studies for Phase 3. After performing Phase 1, we decided that Phase 2 would focus on
demonstrating the capability to concentrate die lube by separating it from Metaldyne’s wastewater.
• Phase 3—Initiation of Field Studies Based upon the Results of Phases 1 and 2
One technology was to be selected for field studies and the separations of concern were to be fully
evaluated at the mini- or full pilot-scale. Based on the results from Phases 1 and 2, we determined
that Phase 3 would be to concentrate the die lube as in Phase 2, then wash the glycerin component
from the concentrated die lube/glycerin mixture and reuse the die lube in casting operations on a
single full-scale, full-production die casting machine.
The following sections describe our research and results.

3
2. TECHNICAL APPROACH
During Phase 1, we identified three commercial technical approaches to separating complex
wastewater streams such as Metaldyne’s. These separation systems all use an active porous membrane
surface as the primary contactor with the medium to be filtered. The companies selling these systems are
MonTec Associates of Butte, Montana; New Logic, Inc. of Emeryville, California (now owned by Pall
Corporation); and SpinTek Filtration Systems, Inc., from Huntington Beach, California. Other
competitive technologies may exist; however, they were not identified during the careful literature and
Internet research in Phase 1.
SpinTek was selected as the partner for this research for several reasons, including the ruggedness
of their design, the novelty of their technology, their history of installed commercial systems, and the
overall cost. However, during Phase 1 we continued to search for, and evaluate, other potential partners
that might be able to contribute to these studies. No other potential partners were identified, resulting in
selection of SpinTek as the partner for Phases 2 and 3. Thus, the active-surface membranes manufactured
by SpinTek were finally chosen as the systems of choice for this application. As a consequence of
selecting SpinTek as a partner, the goal of this project became demonstrating their microfiltration rotary
membrane technology for die casting wastewater applications.
SpinTek’s ST-II/Speedy™ rotary membrane system has one to twenty-five spinning membrane
disks with 1.0 ft² of membrane per disk (Figures 1 and 2). These units may be placed in series or parallel,
as needed, to obtain the desired membrane surface area. The membrane disk consists of a central Ryton™
core that is overlaid with a permeate carrier mesh. The disc-carrier system is then overlaid with a selective
filtration membrane and the entire assembly glued with appropriate adhesives. The rotation rate on the
discs we used was fixed at 1200 rpm. The ST-II/Speedy™ can be fully automated, including feed flow,
pressure, temperature instrumentation, permeate flow rate, and all the necessary safety instrumentation.
The systems we used have automated data logging of the above instrumentation.
Permeate
Rotating
membranes
Stationary
shear elements
Tie rods
Hollow
shaft
03-GA50036-41b
Figure 1. Typical rotary membrane disc assembly, shown with three discs and stationary “wagon
wheel”elements.

4
Top cover
Shell
Short spacer (4)
Shaft nut
Top hu b
Turbulence promoter
Membrane assembly
Tall spacer (4)
Turbulence promoter
Center hub
Membrane assembly
Turbulence promoter
Tall spacer (4)
Botto m plate
Guide pin (4)
Short spacer (4)
Permeate shaft
Mandrel plug
Bearing housing assembly
Rotating union
Lip se al: CR Seals 985 5
Botto m hub/shaft sleeve
03-GA50036-41t
Figure 2. Exploded view of the rotary membrane system.
We planned to use SpinTek’s ST-II rotary microfiltration system (Figure 3) with 0.1 micron
ceramic-stainless steel or polymeric composite membranes to remove all of the suspended solids and
many of the organic contaminants. If necessary, the filtrate from the ST-II could be polished by a
nanofiltration system to remove smaller organic chemicals from the wastewater. This approach, shown
schematically in Figure 4, was followed. In Phase 1, samples of the wastewater solution were tested in the
laboratory on a small, flat-sheet test system and a single disk rotary filter. In Phase 2, two five-disk ST-
II/Speedy™ rotary microfilters were used to demonstrate that the system could concentrate die lube by
separating it from wastewater. In Phase 3, the two five-disk ST-II rotary microfilters were used to
separate die lube for recycling. First, the die lube, combined with wastewater, was dewatered. Then the
retentate/die lube was flushed of glycerin using the ST-II rotary membrane filter to separate the die lube
from the water/glycerin mixture. Finally, the die lube was reused on a single full-scale die casting
machine at full production.

5
Figure 3. ST-II Speedy™ system.
Recircu lation line (cleaning on ly)
Ozone
Clean water
for reuse
or discharge
Feed
gray water Nanofiltration
Sludge
ST-II
03-GA50036-41a
Figure 4. ST-II filtration system process flow.

6
3. PHASE 1: LABORATORY MEMBRANE EVALUATION
3.1 Experimental Procedure
SpinTek assembled two test platforms consisting of a membrane filtration system and a pumped
skid. The static test cell (STC), shown in Figure 5, contained one flat-sheet membrane test sample, while
the ST-IIL had a single disk rotary with the membrane filter. The major difference between the two
systems is the shear generated at the surface of the membrane. The STC has a static membrane, while the
ST-IIL uses a membrane disk rotating at high velocities to generate shear (the membrane rotates at
1200 rpm, with an average radial Reynolds Number, Rer(avg), of 2.0 × 105 to 1.2 × 106).12 The membranes
used in these bench-scale systems are also used in the full-scale ST-II rotary membrane system.
Membranes were tested in the bench-scale systems with wastewater provided by Metaldyne. The
static system allowed initial membrane screening while the single disc spinning membrane system offered
initial data on specific membranes that passed the initial static testing. This was a rapid method of
membrane selection for this application.
The general layout of the bench-scale STC testing equipment is shown in Figure 6. The process
solutions were pumped from the feed tank to the STC membrane system. A throttling valve on the feed
pump controlled the flow to the system. A back-pressure control valve maintained a constant pressure on
the membrane system. The feed solution, supplied by Metaldyne, was pumped from 55-gallon drums into
a 2-liter feed tank equipped with an agitating stirrer. The stirrer assured good mixing of the feed solution
prior to its circulation in the membrane testing system. The feed tank was held at constant temperature.
During testing, data were recorded every 15 min, or as needed. Membrane fluxes are defined as:
MembraneofArea
RateFlowFiltrate
Flux =, which is measured in units of feetsquare
daypergallons or gfd.
Screen test
sample
Permeate outlet
Feed inlet
Concentrate outlet
03-GA50036-41d
Figure 5. Static test cell.

7
Concentrate
Permeate
outlet
SpinTek
STC
Feed tank
Feed
Permeate
TI
PI
PI
FI
03-GA50036-41c
Figure 6. Process flow and instrument diagram for the static test cell.
A nanofiltration polishing step was also evaluated to remove the remaining metal ions from the
solution. The assumption was that, under the conditions at Metaldyne’s plant (temperature, pH, etc.), the
metal ions would be clustered and contained within the larger organic phase globules, as is typically
observed with solvent extraction systems. Therefore, one could assume that a nanofilter would remove the
metal ions from the stream.
3.2 Results
3.2.1 Static Test Cell Tests
Unexpected fouling and flux decline problems encountered using the ceramic-stainless steel
composite membranes, Figures 7 and 8, suggested that we not pursue these membranes any further. The
results of our experiments with the polymeric membranes, shown in Figure 9, suggested that we pursue
these membranes and their relatives for the Metaldyne water treatment process. Thus, the polymeric
membranes were slated for further evaluation on the ST-IIL rotary membrane. (Later in the study we did
pursue the stainless-steel ceramic composite membranes due to the low durability of the polymeric
membranes in Metaldyne’s particular feed stream, a problem that only became evident in the early stages
of our pilot studies. Data from the STC tests are included in the appendix.)
3.2.2 ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests
Two different polyvinylidene fluoride-based membranes were tested, an ultrafiltration membrane
with a 100,000 molecular weight cut-off (0.05 micron, 400 angstrom mean pore diameter), and a “tighter”
ultra/nanofiltration membrane with a 10,000 molecular weight cut-off (0.005 microns, 40 angstrom mean
pore diameter). These membranes were made by different manufacturers, and the pore sizes probably are
not exactly what they are specified in relationship to one another, which likely explains why they had
similar fluxes even though their pore sizes differed by a factor of ten. Flux and concentration profiles
from these tests are shown in Figures 10 through 13. At the completion of each of these experiments, the
permeate solutions were allowed to stand overnight before being delivered to the analytical labs. During
this time, significant hydro-gel-like precipitates formed in the permeate solutions. The gels, speculatively,
are hydrated aluminum, zinc, and iron oxy-/hydroxy-species.13 The gels are very pH sensitive, and

8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0:00 1:12 2:24 3:36 4:48 6:00 7:12
Flux (gfd)
Elapsed time (hh:mm)
03-GA50036-41f
Figure 7. Flux profile for STC with 0.15 micron ceramic membrane. The test was stopped due to low
flux.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 24:00 28:48 33:36
Flux(gfd)
Elapsed time (hh:mm)
03-GA50036-41g
Figure 8. Flux profile for STC with 0.007 micron ceramic membrane.
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
0:00 4:48 9:36 14:24 19:12 24:00 28:48
1X 2X 4X
Flux(gfd)
Elapsed time (hh:mm)
03-GA50036-41h
Figure 9. Flux profile for STC with 100,000 molecular weight cut-off (0.05 microns) polymeric
membrane.

9
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0:0:00 0:4:48 0:9:36 0:14:24 0:19:12 1:0:00 1:4:48
Flux(gfd)
Elapsed time (dd:hh:mm)
03-GA50036-41k
Figure 10. Flux profile for 100,000 NMWC cut-off polymeric membrane (ST-II-1 Test 2).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0:0:00 0:4:48 0:9:36 0:14:24 0:19:12 1:0:00
Flux(gfd)
Elapsed time (dd:hh:mm)
03-GA50036-41l
10X 15X 20X5X3X2X
Figure 11. Concentration profile for 100,000 NMWC cut-off polymeric membrane (ST-II-1 Test 2).
0
20
40
60
80
100
0:0:00 0:4:48 0:9:36 0:14:24 0:19:12 1:0:00
Flux(gfd)
Elapsed time (dd:hh:mm)
03-GA50036-41l
Figure 12. Flux profile for 10,000 NMWC cut-off polymeric membrane (ST-II-1 Tests).

10
0
20
40
60
80
0:22:48 1:2:48 1:6:48 1:10:48 1:14:48 1:18:48 1:22:48 2:2:54 2:6:54 2:10:54
20X
Flux(gfd)
Elapsed time (dd:hh:mm)
03-GA50036-41m
15X10X5X3X2X
Figure 13. Concentration profile for 10,000 NMWC cut-off polymeric membrane (ST-II-1 Test 3).
dissolve immediately with drop-wise additions of acid in 1-L samples. Due to the complex nature of the
solutions that have been evaluated (i.e. high aluminum and zinc contents), the chemical analyses required
greater time to accomplish than originally anticipated. Prior to analysis, all samples were acidified with
drop-wise additions of hydrochloric acid to assure that all metal ions were dissolved in the solutions.
Truesdail Laboratories, Inc., Tustin, CA, a commercial laboratory certified by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), performed the chemical analyses. The data are summarized in
Table 1; the concentration factors for each component are summarized in Table 2. The large number and
volume of samples taken at high concentrations for laboratory analysis after tests with the ultrafiltration
membrane resulted in the remaining raw feed having slightly lowered concentrations for the
ultra/nanofiltration membrane tests. This resulted in reduced metals and organics in the concentrates, but
should have had no effect on the overall permeate analysis because the concentrations were not
significantly different.
3.2.3 Static Nanofiltration Membrane Tests
The results, presented in Figures 14 and 15, show, to our surprise, that a nanofilter is not adequate
to remove the metal ions from the stream. Therefore, a membrane cleaning procedure was developed in
Phase 2. Truesdail Laboratories also performed chemical analyses on the samples resulting from these
tests; the data are summarized in Table 3.
3.2.4 Conclusions from Bench-Scale Tests
Based upon our experimental results, we asserted that the active-surface ultrafiltration membranes
can substantially reduce organics found in the die-casting solutions. The initial oil and grease are reduced
by 20–25X, carbon oxygen demand (COD) by 1.5–2X, total organic carbon (TOC) by 0.6, while
biological oxygen demand (BOD) remained the same. As the organic concentrations of die lube increased
in the retentate, the permeate concentrations of the organics remained remarkably similar to their original
concentrations. This speaks for an equilibrium being reached and the membrane pore size being very
stable.

11
Table 1. Chemical analyses for laboratory tests with polymeric membranes.
Sample ID
TOC
mg/L
BOD
mg/L
COD
mg/L
Oil & Grease
mg/L
Pb
mg/L
Cu
mg/L
Ni
mg/L
Zn
mg/L
100,000 MW cut-off polymeric membrane
1) Initial Perm. 2108 2262 6296 11.2 ND ND 0.08 0.47
2) Raw Feed 3463 2714 12567 225 ND 0.12 0.08 0.55
3) 1X Final 2143 2456 6174 12.7 ND ND ND 0.46
4) 4X Conc. 9287 6030 48230 490 ND 0.70 0.10 0.74
5) 4X Perm. 2272 2445 6456 12.0 ND ND 0.09 0.47
6) 8X Conc. 19637 8072 87928 634 0.36 1.44 0.15 1.00
7) 8x Perm. 2683 2277 6915 10.5 ND ND 0.09 0.52
8) 12 X Conc. 22518 3438 117498 1078 0.51 2.01 0.19 1.22
9) 12 x Perm. 2488 2295 7344 11.6 ND ND 0.11 0.51
10) 16X Conc. 29404 11789 163077 1538 0.70 2.80 0.22 1.38
11) 16X Perm. 2839 1558 8593 6.5 ND ND 0.10 0.54
12) 20X Conc. 43339 12250 206172 1.04 4.00 0.29 1.72
13) 20X Perm. 2680 4014 8725 12.4 ND ND 0.09 0.51
10,000 MW cut-off polymeric membrane
14) Initial Perm. 2406 2219 7393 11.3 ND ND 0.08 0.52
15) Raw Feed 3210 2416 11590 274 ND 0.11 0.10 0.54
16) Final Perm. 2211 1443 6758 13.8 ND ND 0.08 0.51
17) 4X Perm. 2206 2049 7115 5.6 ND ND 0.08 0.51
18) 4X Conc. 6504 3388 26060 294 ND 0.36 0.09 0.63
19) 8X Perm. 2388 2152 7012 18.4 ND ND 0.09 0.55
20) 8x Conc. 10380 3880 47890 634 ND 0.72 0.13 0.83
21) 12 X Perm. 2606 2611 7408 9.4 ND ND 0.09 0.57
22) 12 x Conc. 10572 4699 72370 713 0.33 1.12 0.16 1.04
23) 16X Perm. 2764 2205 8047 7.9 ND ND 0.09 0.56
24) 16X Conc. 14340 5176 79200 944 0.35 1.31 0.15 1.01
25) 20X Perm. 2756 1979 8315 11.7 ND ND 0.09 0.58
26) 20X Conc. 18614 6117 104687 1202 0.40 1.68 0.17 1.11
Table 2. Concentration factors for polymeric membranes in laboratory tests.
Sample ID
TOC
mg/L
BOD
mg/L
COD
mg/L
Oil & Grease
mg/L
Pb
mg/L
Cu
mg/L
Ni
mg/L
Zn
mg/L
100,000 MW
1,3/2 1X 1X 2X 18X ND R 1X 1X
4/5 4X 2X 7X 41X ND R 1X 1X
6/7 7X 3X 13X 60X R R 1X 1X
8/9 9X 1.5X 15X 98X R R 1X 1X
10/11 10X 8X 19X 220X R R 2X 2X
12/13 16X 3X 24X 120X R R 3X 3X
10,000 MW
15/14,16 1X 1X 2X 25X ND R 1X 1X
18/17 3X 1X 3X 50X ND R 1X 1X
20/19 4X 1X 2X 34X R 1X 1X 1X
22/21 4X 2X 9X 75X R R 2X 2X
24/23 5X 2X 10X 120X R R 2X 2X
26/25 6X 3X 13X 100X R R 2X 2X

12
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
3/7/00
12:00 AM
3/8/00 3/9/00 3/10/00 3/11/00 3/12/00 3/13/00
Time (m/d/yy hh:mm)
0.015 Ceramic NF
3-GA50036-41n
Flux(gfd)
12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 5:00
Elapsed time (hh:mm)
Cleaned 0.015 Ceramic
3-GA50036-41o
Flux(gfd)
Figure 14. Performance of ceramic ST-IIL nanofiltration membrane (nominal 0.015 micron mean pore
diameter) shows flux decline (top), probably due to fouling, and improvement after cleaning (bottom).

13
10.0
12.5
15.0
17.5
20.0
22.5
25.0
3/7/00
12:00 AM
3/8/00 3/9/00 3/10/00 3/11/00 3/12/00 3/13/00
Time (m/d/yy hh:mm)
Desal-5 Spiral-Wound NF
3-GA50 036-41p
Flux(gfd)
12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM 12:00 AM
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0:00 0:30 1:00 1:30 2:00 5:00
Elapsed time (hh:mm)
Cleaned 0.015 Desal-5
3-GA50 036-41q
F
lu
x
(
g
fd
)
Figure 15. Performance of Desal-5 spiral-wound, static polymeric nanofiltration membrane shows flux
decline (top), probably due to fouling, and improvement after cleaning (bottom).

14
Table 3. Chemical analyses for nanofilter tests.
Sample ID
TOC
mg/L
BOD
mg/L
COD
mg/L
Oil & Grease
mg/L
Pb
mg/L
Cu
mg/L
Ni
mg/L
Zn
mg/L
Desal-5 spiral wound cartridge
Permeate 1510 1160 3931 ND ND 0.09 0.24 0.63
Raw Feed 3463 2714 12567 225 ND 0.12 0.08 0.55
0.015 micron ceramic membrane
Permeate 1894 2418 4885 ND ND 0.05 0.23 0.42
Raw Feed 3463 2714 12567 225 ND 0.12 0.08 0.55
These studies showed that active-surface ultrafiltration membranes can reduce total metals in the
aqueous phase of a die casting waste solution that is having the water removed from it. The metals
concentrations in the permeate (water) are reduced significantly; however, after a period of time, several
metals (notably lead and copper) are detectable in the retentate as the organic concentration of the feed
solutions increases. This result suggests that the metals probably preferred to stay with the organic
components of the die casting solutions. The active-surface membranes were observed to exhibit less
fouling than the non-active-surface systems. The fluxes of the active-surface membranes were
consistently higher and more stable than those of the non-active-surface membranes tested.
We observed that using polymer materials for the active-surface membranes provided surprisingly
high fluxes and high quality separations. (However durability of the polymers became an issue for these
systems when we entered the pilot phase, which led to substitution of the inorganic membranes.)
Metaldyne’s previous studies with ultrafiltration followed by reverse osmosis had significant
problems with membrane fouling by oils, greases, and a material that adheres to all processing equipment
and membrane surfaces as well as forms a “scum,” with the consistency of lipstick, on the top of the
holding tanks. Metaldyne has installed a gravimetric skimmer and a prefilter for removal of particulates
and oils and greases from the solutions prior to further water treatment; however, they have not
successfully been able to remove all of these components. Some of the “lipstick” components are carried
through the system into the membrane systems. The SpinTek active-surface membrane systems showed
no significant build up of the “lipstick” as had been previously observed by Metaldyne in their reverse
osmosis and ultrafiltration systems (Zenon Environmental). A cleaning procedure for the ultrafiltration
membranes using detergents was developed in these experiments, and implemented. The process worked
well and is described later in this report.
The preliminary studies with static nanofiltration membranes/modules as a polishing step provided
very slight concentration of metal ions. A true reverse osmosis membrane, such as those already installed
at Metaldyne’s plant, would be most appropriate for a polishing step should it be needed. The operational
cost analysis for a rotary membrane system in Metaldyne’s application is summarized in Table 4.

15
Table 4. Rotating membrane cost analysis.
Costs
Capital
Rotating Membrane System $750,000
Commissioning $20,000
Shipping/Handling $4,000
Total capital cost $774,000
Operating
Power cost $0.06/KW-hr
Cost per cleaning $25.00
Membrane replacement $96,000
Cost per Kgal
Membrane replacement $13.00
Membrane cleaning $0.26
Power $9.05
Misc. operating cost $0.56
Total operating cost per Kgal $22.87
Total daily operating cost $457.40
Assumptions
System Operation
Feed water volume 20,000 gpd Operating days/month 30 days
System output 19,000 gpd Operating pressure 40 psig
Percentage recovery 95% Recycle flow/disc pack 1 gal
Membrane Total recycle flow 320 gpm
Type 0.1 micron Recycle pressure drop 30 psig
Performance 60 gfd Pump efficiency 80%
Diameter 11 in./disc pack Motor efficiency 94%
Surface area 1 sq. ft/disc pack Brake HP – Recycle pump 5.0 BHP
Disc
packs/system
320 Brake HP – Rotors 200 BHP
Brake HP – Total required 160.0 BHP
Total system power
consumption
119.4 KW-hr
Membrane
Cleaning interval 5 days
Lifetime (conservatively) 1 yr

16
3.3 Summary of Phase 1 Testing
Laboratory testing, using small, flat, sheet membranes and a bench-scale rotary filter, demonstrated
that active-surface membrane technology was a good candidate for field testing at Metaldyne’s plant. The
metals content of the feed solutions was reduced significantly using tight ultrafiltration active-surface
membranes. However, significant hydro-gel-like precipitates formed in the permeate solutions upon
standing. The gels may be hydrated aluminum and iron oxy-/hydroxy-species.13 These gels are very pH
sensitive and dissolved immediately with drop-wise additions of acid to 1-L samples. Nanofiltration to
polish the effluent concentrated the metal ions slightly. The results of the experiments were encouraging
because permeates from the nanofiltration system are clear, colorless, and show only slight discoloration
and no significant gel precipitation upon standing. These results provided the basis for proceeding to
Phase 2 testing and evaluation.

17
4. PHASE 2: FIELD DEMONSTRATION OF DIE LUBE
CONCENTRATION
4.1 Experimental Procedure
After the successful completion of Phase 1, SpinTek fabricated a system consisting of two five-disk
ST-II rotary microfilter units (Speedy™ systems), a feed pump, storage tank, associated piping and
valves, and a fully automatic control panel. The system was designed to provide continuous operation of
the ST-II filter on wastewater and allow high concentrations of the feed samples. The general layout of
the pilot testing process equipment is shown in Figure 16. The process solutions were pumped from the
feed tank to a bypass line and the ST-II membrane system. Throttling valves on the bypass line and the
membrane feed line were used to control flow through the respective process piping. A valve on the
concentrate line of the ST-II was used to maintain a constant pressure on the membrane system. The
temperature was controlled using heaters located in the feed tank, along with a heat exchanger on the feed
bypass line.
The die lube separated from the feed solution must be concentrated to a 20X level (90+% water
removal) for recycling into the die casting machines. To allow testing up to 50X concentration (i.e.,
100 gallons reduced to 2 gallons, 98+%), a 500-gallon polyethylene feed tank was installed at the
Metaldyne plant. The system’s dead or “hold-up” volume was approximately 5 gallons, so at the end of
the 50X experiment just enough concentrated feed solution remained to operate the ST-II feed pump and
rotors. During normal operations at the 20X level, about 25 gallons typically remained and the membrane
rotors and pumps were not threatened with going dry.
Feed pump
ST-II rotors
# 1 and #2
PI
PI
FI
FI
Feed
tank
Concentrate
Filtrate(permeate)
03-GA50036-41e
Figure 16. Process flow and instrument diagram for field demonstration system during stabilization. After
the membrane fluxes are stable, the filtrate (permeate) line is removed from the feed tank to allow
concentration.

18
The two five-disk rotary filter systems were equipped with ceramic stainless steel composite
microfiltration membranes with a pore size of 0.1 microns, supplied by Trumem (Moscow, Russia;
available through SpinTek, LLC). The ceramic composite membrane structures were assembled by
SpinTek using permeate spacers and Ryton™ disks as previously described.
4.1.1 Concentration Testing Procedure
The feed tank was filled with 500 gallons of fresh die lube wastewater, then the pumps and rotary
membrane system were activated. The permeate and concentrate were recycled back to the feed tank until
system performance, gauged by membrane fluxes, was stabilized. The permeate line was then withdrawn
from the feed tank and placed in the industrial water drain at the plant while the feed solution was
concentrated to the target concentration, typically 20X. The concentration was determined volumetrically
(i.e., 20X is achieved when 100 gallons is reduced to 5 gallons).
Membrane cleaning needs were determined at the end of each experiment. Membrane cleaning
procedures were implemented when the permeation rate fell to approximately 30 gpm.
4.1.2 Chemical Analysis
Chemical analysis for Phase 2 was performed by Nalco Diversified Technologies (NDT, P.O. Box
200 Chagrin Falls, Ohio. NDT has Ohio EPA Certificate #1291 for inorganics and Ohio permit #849 for
total coliform). All analyses were performed according to EPA standard methods, typically within 5 days
of sampling at Metaldyne. The samples were refrigerated during storage prior to analysis at both
Metaldyne and NDT to inhibit biological growth.
4.1.3 Solution Washing of Concentrated Feed Solution to Remove Glycerin
A method of removing glycerin was developed during Phase 2 for possible use in Phase 3. After
the die lube solution was concentrated to 20X, the concentrated solution was removed, the ST-II system
was flushed with fresh water to establish that the membranes were not fouled, the concentrated the feed
solution was returned to the feed tank, and the balance of the volume made up with softened water. The
system was then restarted with the concentrate and permeate lines recycled back into the feed tank until a
stable flux was achieved. Upon achieving a stable flux, the permeate line was moved to the industrial
drain. After 3 h of concentration, the COD level in the permeate stream was 6700 mg/L; after 5.5 h it was
4400 mg/L. This 30% reduction in COD suggests that the glycerin could be washed from the solution
prior to recycling the die lube in the plant, which is desirable from the perspective of closed plant
recycling.
4.1.4 Membrane Cleaning Process Development
During the early stages of Phase 2, INEEL was requested to develop a cleaning process that
removes foulants (the “lipstick” and its associated greases and oils) from the Trumem membranes,
supports, and rotary disc shrouds. Suggested cleaners included 2-butoxy-ethanol at elevated temperatures,
hot water, and detergent (specifically, Proctor and Gamble’s Dawn™, and “MC-4” a specialized alkaline
membrane cleaner supplied by Zenon Environmental, Inc.). We chose to clean the membranes with hot
water and Alkanox™ laboratory cleanser as a model for Zenon’s MC-4 membrane cleanser. The results
of those efforts are summarized in Table 5.

19
Table 5. Membrane Cleaning Procedure Developed by INEEL for Trumem Membranes.
Feed: clean water at
Membrane
Description
Membrane
Condition
Temperature
(°C)
Pressure
(psi)
Flux
(gfd)
Flux
(L/m2-hr)
Baseline: Virgin
Membrane
Virgin 35 45 624 1,062
Used, Supplied by
Metaldyne
Fouled 43 45 10.4 17.5
Fouled 90 45 20 34
Fouled, soaked in
Alcanox
Overnight
90 45 155 264.7
Used, Supplied by
Metaldyne
Fouled, treated
w/ Alcanox
40 40 173.5 294
Fouled, treated
w/ Alcanox
50 40 212.4 360
Fouled, treated
w/ Alcanox
70 40 277.7 459.8
Fouled, treated
w/ Alcanox
85 40 281.1 475.5
Fouled, treated
w/ Alcanox
40 40 210.5 358
Based upon these results, the membranes were cleaned as follows. The commercial caustic MC-4
cleaner (from Zenon Environmental, Inc. Oakville, ON, Canada) was combined with 5 wt% Dawn™
detergent and 5% Cellusolve (ethyleneglycol monobutyl ether, Aldrich Chemicals, Inc.) in clean water in
the feed tank. The system was run with the membranes spinning (1100 rpm) at 155-160°F without
pressure for 30 to 100 min to wash the surfaces of the membranes. Then pressure was applied (25 psig)
and the water flux was observed. If the water flux approached the original water flux (plus or minus
20%), then the membranes were considered clean. The membranes were then rinsed with water. A 5%
citric acid rinse to neutralize the surfaces of the membranes was then applied for 30 min, followed by a
plain softened water (Culligan, Inc.) rinse for 20 to 40 min. When Metaldyne implemented this cleaning
protocol in Phase 3, the oils and greases were removed from the Trumem membranes, and the fluxes
approached the manufacturer’s original clean water specifications.
4.2 Results and Discussion
The membranes that SpinTek first mounted on the Speedy™ systems were commercial polymer
ultrafiltration membranes. These membranes worked well for the initial operational run. However, upon
standing in clean or dirty water—for as little as a few minutes—the membranes tended to pucker on the
discs. Then, when the membranes started to rotate, they rubbed on the spacers, marking or tearing the
surface of the membranes and causing them to become non-selective. Attempts to move the spacers to
eliminate rubbing failed. Therefore, we decided to use the stainless steel/ceramic composite membrane
materials available from Trumem with 0.1 micron pores. The performance of the Trumem membranes in

20
the pilot concentration studies exceeded our expectations. Fouling was a problem, so we developed
cleaning protocols to remove oils, greases, and other foulants from the membranes.
The test data are summarized in Table 6. The following descriptions of each concentration test run
present our work verbally and express both the advantages and challenges that were encountered during
routine operation of the SpinTek pilot system at Metaldyne’s plant.
Concentration Run #1
The initial feed flux with feed solution on the membrane (feed-based flux) for Concentration
Run #1 was 34 gfd with a final flux of 38 gfd at the end of the experiment. The feed volume of 655
gallons was reduced 51% to 334 gallons over 9 h of operation. An addition of 50 gallons of city water
was made to the feed tank. The flux increased to 45 gfd after 6.5 h. After flushing the membrane system
with warm city water, the flux increased to 55 gfd. The system was allowed to stand overnight without
water on the membranes.
Following return to service, the flux increased to 101 gfd after 15 min and was then flushed with
city water, yielding a flux of 118 gfd. The system was washed for 4 h and the flux started at 44 gfd but
was reduced to 41 gfd at the end of the wash. A fresh water flush slightly reduced the flux to 39 gfd. A
subsequent wash with plain water for 9 h did not increase the flux nor did a 5 min rinse with soft water.
The system was then cleaned with Cellusolve for 30 min. The starting flux was 41 gfd and flux at the
completion of the cleaning at 85 gfd. The flux remained at 85 gfd after a 5 min flush with softened water.
System pressure remained constant during the test at 50-56 psig inlet pressure and 47 psig on the
concentrate.
Table 6. Summary of Concentration Test Results
Test No. Cleaninga Flux at Startb Flux at Endb
Final
Concentration
1 Cellusolve 34 38 2X
2 Cellusolve, MC-4 164 Water
3 Cellusolve, MC-4 49 46 1.1X
4 Soaked, MC-4, alcohol
and glycerin mixture
75 63 20X
5 None 73 54 20X
6 None 61 29 50X
7 None 50 48 20X
8 Cellusolve 91 51 20X
9 None 112 58 20X
10 None 65 62 20X
11 None 48 25 20X
a. This was the solution used to clean the membrane prior to starting the concentration run. MC-4 is an alkaline cleaner.
b. Flux = gallons of filtrate per square foot of membrane over 24 h.

21
Several factors were considered when these wild variations in flux were observed. First, membrane
performance seemed to vary with each operation and, secondly, the need to cleanse the membranes was
determined to be rather frequent. Additional research performed at INEEL suggests that a component of
the Russian manufactured membranes could be slowly washing out of the membranes, causing the
observed variation in flux.
Concentration Run #2
The membranes were cleaned at the end of Run #1. The initial feed-based flux was low, at 25 gfd,
and remained there during a short run of 1 h. Pressure during this service run was 54/49 psig
(feed/concentrate). The system was flushed and then cleaned with MC-4 (caustic 5%) and Cellusolve
(3%) to 32/26 psig. The cleaning lasted 2.25 h and flux increased to 132 gfd. Pressure of the cleaning
solution was increased to 52/41 psig and flux increased to 246 gfd. The membranes were then soaked in
softened water and the flux remained at 246 gfd. The system was flushed with water at 52/42 psig and the
flux decreased to 230 gfd. The system and feed tank were flushed and refilled with water. Hydrochloric
acid (5%) was added to the water. At a low pressure of 32/25 psig, the flux started at 164 gfd and ended at
246 gfd after 2 h. Pressure was increased to 42/32 psig and the permeate flow was too high to measure by
the flow meters. After 5 min the pressure was increased to 52/39 psig and the flux dropped to 396 gfd.
The test was ended when a case bolt on one of the ST-II systems began to leak.
Concentration Run #3
The membranes were flushed with water for 25 min at 58/37 psig with a starting flux of 58 gfd.
Fresh feed (500 gallons) was introduced into the feed tank. The feed was introduced at 59/38 psig and the
system ran for 2.5 h with an average flux of 55 gfd. The system was flushed with softened water and
allowed to stand overnight. The initial 500 gallons of feed had been reduced to 450 gallons in the initial
2.5 h of operation. The system was restarted in the morning and operated for 6.25 h at 48/31 psig and flux
was stable at 49 gfd. The system was flushed with water and allowed to stand over night with water on
the membranes. The system was restarted 8 –10 h later (in the morning) and operated for 7 h at
48/31 psig; flux was stable at 46 gfd. Further tests were performed with apparently low fluxes but this
was due to one of the rotors not operating due to a blown fuse, which the operators did not know until
completion of the test. Test #3 ended with an unremarkable die lube solution concentration of 1.4X.
Concentration Run #4
Prior to Concentration Run #4, the membrane disks were removed from the system and hand
washed with a Safety-Kleen solvent, MC-4 (alkaline cleaner), and an alcohol/glycerin solution. The
membranes were reinstalled, followed by system flushing with water for 10 min. The resulting flux was
163 gfd at 76/52 psig.
The feed tank was filled with 500 gallons of fresh feed and concentrated to 25 gallons (20X) over
26 h of continuous operation. The pressure was 50/34 psig with an initial flux of 75 gfd. The final flux
was 63 gfd. The system was flushed with water; the flux returned to 135 gfd after 2 min.
Concentration Run #5
The membranes were only flushed with water, not cleaned, after the previous experiment. A
500 gallon feed solution was reduced to 25 gallons with pressure at 50/35 psig. The initial flux was 73 gfd
and final flux was 54 gfd. The system was flushed with water with the flux returning to 97 gfd at a
pressure of 42/28 psig. When the pressure was increased to 50/35 psig, the flux increased to 135 gfd,
thereby showing that the membranes were clean.

22
Concentration Run #6 (50X Concentration Experiment)
Concentration Run #6 began without cleaning the membranes as they were demonstrated to be
clean at the end of Test Run #5. The run started with 500 gallons of fresh feed, which was reduced to
10 gallons (50X) during the run. Pressure was 50/35 psig though most of the test. The flux started at
61 gfd and continually rose to 81 gfd until 6X concentration of the feed was accomplished. The flux then
continuously decreased to 52 gfd at 20X and finally to 29 gfd at 50X. The entire concentration run lasted
32 h. The system was flushed with water for 5 min and the flux was 31 gfd, indicating significant fouling
of the membranes. The membranes were flushed with Safety-Kleen solvent followed by water, with the
flux returning to 128 gfd at 50/35 psig. The membranes were allowed to stand in softened water awaiting
the next experiment.
Concentration Run #7
For Concentration Run #7, 500 gallon of fresh feed solution was added to the feed tank and
concentrated to 25 gallons (20X). The flux started at 50 gfd and ended the run at 48 gfd. Pressure started
at 50/33 psig and decreased to 42/29 psig at 1.2X for unknown reasons. The entire concentration test
lasted 36 h. The membranes were flushed with water and flux increased to 105 at 50/35 psig. The
membranes were then soaked in butyl cellosolve for 10 min, followed by water rinsing with the flux
increasing to 237 at 50/33 psig, indicating very clean membranes. The membranes were allowed to stand
in softened water awaiting the next experiment.
Concentration Run #8
For Concentration Run #8, a fresh 500 gallon feed sample was concentrated to 25 gallons (20X).
The flux was initially 91 gfd and ended the run at 51 gfd at a pressure of 50/21 psig. It was later
determined that the low concentrate pressure of 21 was an incorrect reading by a faulty pressure gauge.
The entire concentration run lasted 35 h. The membranes were flushed with water and flux increased to
109 gfd at 50/21 psig, indicating reasonably clean membranes. The membranes were allowed to stand in
softened water awaiting the next experiment.
Concentration Run #9
Concentration Run #9 was initiated with a fresh 500 gallon sample of feed that was reduced to
25 gallons (20X). The initial flux was 112 gfd and final flux was 58 gfd at a pressure of 50/35 psig. The
entire concentration run lasted 22 h. The membranes were flushed with water and flux increased to 83 gfd
at 50/35 psig. The membranes were allowed to stand in softened water awaiting the next experiment.
Concentration Run # 10
Concentration Run #10 started with 500 gallons of fresh feed, which was reduced to 25 gallons
(20X). Pressure was 50/35 psig throughout the test run. The entire concentration run lasted 29 h. Initial
flux was 65 gfd and final flux was 62 gfd at a concentration of 20X. After completion of Test Run #10,
the system was flushed with water for 5 min and the flux was 31 gfd, indicating membrane fouling. The
membranes were allowed to stand in softened water awaiting the next experiment.
Concentration Run #11
Concentration Run #11 was started without cleaning the membranes from Test Run #10. As
previously, the run started with 500 gallons of fresh feed and was reduced to 25 gallons (20X). The entire
concentration run lasted 47 h. Pressure was 50/35 psig though the Test Run #11. Initial flux was 48 gfd

23
and final flux was 25 gfd at a concentration of 20X. The system was flushed with water for 5 min and the
flux was 39 gfd, indicating membrane fouling.
At this point a vigorous cleaning regimen was implemented on the membranes. The system was
first flushed with water at 50/35 psig, the flux was 32 gfd. The membranes were then cleaned with MC-4,
and the flux dropped to 6 gfd at 50/35 psig. The system was flushed with water at 50/35 psig and the flux
increased to 25 gfd. The system was then cleaned with Ultrasil™ solvent (4 butoxy ethanol, Ultrasil,
Corp.) for 16 min and the flux increased to 151 gfd. After the Ultrasil™ cleaning, the system was flushed
with water to remove the Ultrasil, and the clean water flux was 177 gfd at 50/36 psig, indicating clean
membranes. The balance of Test #11 was then completed. At the completion of Test #11 the membranes
were rinsed with clean water and the clean water flux decreased very slightly to 174 gfd.
4.3 Summary of Phase 2 Concentration Tests
In tests at Metaldyne’s plant, we successfully concentrated the die lube solution to the expected 20X
concentration and even as high as 50X. However, at 50X process reliability was difficult to maintain,
membrane life was limited, and permeate quality was poor. We concluded that 50X is impractical for
commercial implementation. At 20X, the equipment was reliable, the quality of permeate was acceptable,
and solids removal was accomplished to support reuse.

24
5. PHASE 3: FIELD DEMONSTRATION OF DIE LUBE RECYCLING
During the casting operation, the die lube becomes contaminated with glycerin from the hydraulic
systems of the casting machinery. When the machines are washed, die lube enters the wastewater stream.
The die lube must be removed from the wastewater and, if the lube is to be recycled, the glycerin must be
removed from the die lube. Because glycerin is water soluble, we expected it to pass through the
membrane of the rotary microfilter and be flushed away from the water-insoluble (oily) components of
die lube. The purpose of Phase 3 was to determine if the die lube could be recycled from the wastewater
and be directly reinjected into the die casting machinery.
5.1 Concentrating Die Lube and Removing Glycerin
5.1.1 Experimental Procedure
The first step in recycling die lube is to collect the mixture of die lube applied to the die as well as
the wash-down waters used to clean the die and other plant equipment. Experimentally, we determined
that concentrating this feed solution by 70% (100 gallons become 30 gallons, or 3.3X) is optimal for
subsequent washing of the glycerin from the die lube solution. After the 70% concentration was achieved,
the rotary filter continued to operate and fresh soft water was added to the feed tank to selectively wash
out (diafiltration) the glycerin. When the glycerin was washed out, the concentrated die lube was
transferred to another tank for remixing and reintroduction into the die casting machine.
To begin each batch, 500 gallons of fresh die lube wastewater was added to the feed tank of the
Speedy™ rotary microfilter system used in Phase 2. Concentration began, with the filtrate being sent to
the drain and the concentrate back to the feed tank. More fresh wastewater was added to the feed tank to
replace the filtrate sent to the drain until the feed tank concentration reached 70%. At that point, softened
water was added to the feed tank. The amount of water required to “wash” out the glycerin varied
depending on the amount of glycerin in the concentrated feed solution. Once the concentrated die lube
was free of glycerin, it was directly transferred to another tank for remixing and reuse in the die casting
machine. For Phase 3, the rotary microfilter operated continuously for six weeks, producing recycled,
washed die lube for reuse in the die casting operations.
5.1.2 Results
Biosolutions, LLC (10180 Queensway #6, Chagrin Falls, OH 44023) performed the chemical
analyses for Phase 3. The COD of the wastewater solution, after concentration by 70%, varied between
12,000 and 15,000 mg/L. After washing with soft water, the COD was reduced to 1,500 to 2,000 mg/L.
This reduction was attributed to removal of small, soluble, organic chemicals, primarily glycerin.
The results of Phase 3 recycling runs are summarized in Figures 17 and 18 and Table 7, presented
in more detail in the appendix, and discussed below.
Recycling Run #1
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 124 gfd and declined to 94 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 69% or about
3.3X. The die lube feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 70% of the total
concentrated feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 94 to 98 gfd. The COD of
the die lube wastewater feed, initially 12,300 mg/L, was reduced to 7,240 mg/L. Upon completion of
solution washing, the membranes were flushed with water; the flux returned to 147 gfd.

25
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820222426283032
Batch #
Final Flux at 3X concentration
Cleaning performed prior to start of batch
3-GA50036-41r
Flux(gfd)
Figure 17. Performance plot for rotary filter of flux versus time during the dewatering of the die lube
solution.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0 2 4 6 8 101214161820222426283032
Batch #
Clean Water Flux
Cleaning performed prior to start of batch
3-GA50036-41s
Flux(gfd)
Figure 18. Performance plot for rotary filter during washing (diafiltration).

26
Table 7. Phase III summary – die lube concentration and recycling runs.
Pressure
(psi)
Flow
(gpm)
Trial
Number
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temperature
(°F) Feed Concentrate Feed Permeate
Fluxa
(gfd)
Permeate
COD
Con.
Total
Solids
Sample
source Reduction
Wash
Out
(%)
1 0:00 76 57 49 6.9 0.860 124 0.80 In flow
1 16:30 99 48 44 7.6 0.650 94 12300 2.67 In flow 69%
1 18:25 100 50 45 7.6 0.660 95 12300 2.67 Wash
In flow
1 24:00 100 49 44 7.8 0.680 98 7240 2.13 Wash
In flow
65%
1 24:10 74 50 44 8.2 1.020 147 Flush
2 0:00 78 50 45 7.7 0.700 101 0.72 In flow
2 18:00 103 49 44 7.5 0.643 93 10600 ND In flow 69%
2 18:05 103 49 44 7.5 0.645 93 Wash
In flow
2 28:30 105 49 44 7.2 0.710 102 1520 1.95 Wash
In flow
289%
2 28:45 72 45 39 8.3 0.850 122 Flush
3 0:00 78 51 46 7.3 0.700 101 0.84 In flow
3 8:00 110 50 44 7.4 0.656 94 12100 2.35 In flow 67%
3 20:00 105 50 44 7.4 0.680 98 1500 1.82 Wash
In flow
320%
3 20:25 80 49 41 8.3 0.850 122 Flush
4 0:00 80 50 46 6.7 0.640 92 1.07 In flow
4 12:10 110 49 45 7.1 0.600 86 12240 2.57 In flow 75%
4 12:10 110 49 45 7.1 0.600 86 Wash
In flow
4 22:25 103 48 45 7.2 0.620 89 2180 ND Wash
In flow
253%
4 22:45 76 49 42 8.4 0.820 118 Flush

Table 7. (continued).
27
Pressure
(psi)
Flow
(gpm)
Trial
Number
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temperature
(°F) Feed Concentrate Feed Permeate
Fluxa
(gfd)
Permeate
COD
Con.
Total
Solids
Sample
source Reduction
Wash
Out
(%)
5 0:00 80 50 46 7.0 0.484 70 0.76 In flow
5 13:00 111 48 44 7.0 0.592 85 11780 2.50 In flow 74%
5 13:00 111 48 44 7.0 0.593 85 Wash
In flow
5 22:15 109 48 44 7.0 0.592 85 2450 1.93 Wash
In flow
216%
5 23:00 72 49 43 8.0 0.698 101 Flush
5 24:00 84 48 43 8.0 0.745 107 Clean
5 25:45 82 49 44 9.0 1.800 259 Flush
6 0:00 80 51 48 8.0 0.943 136 0.64 In flow
6 11:00 90 50 45 7.0 0.680 98 12600 2.48 In flow 75%
6 11:00 90 49 45 7.0 0.680 98 Wash
In flow
6 21:45 105 50 45 7.0 0.713 103 2100 2.10 Wash
In flow
298%
6 22:30 75 50 45 8.0 0.812 117 Flush
7 0:00 80 52 48 8.0 0.548 79 0.61 In flow
7 11:00 112 50 46 7.0 0.635 91 12450 2.16 In flow 72%
7 11:00 112 50 46 7.0 0.635 91 Wash
In flow
7 26:00 108 50 46 7.0 0.664 96 1240 1.88 Wash
In flow
388%
7 26:35 76 48 42 7.0 0.742 107 Flush
8 0:00 80 52 47 7.0 0.477 69 0.67 In flow
8 9:00 110 50 46 7.0 0.602 87 10350 1.84 In flow 76%
8 9:00 110 50 46 7.0 0.602 87 Wash
In flow
8 19:00 108 50 46 7.0 0.622 90 1720 1.55 Wash
In flow
250%
8 19:25 72 49 42 8.0 0.703 101 Flush

Table 7. (continued).
28
Pressure
(psi)
Flow
(gpm)
Trial
Number
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temperature
(°F) Feed Concentrate Feed Permeate
Fluxa
(gfd)
Permeate
COD
Con.
Total
Solids
Sample
source Reduction
Wash
Out
(%)
9 0:00 80 51 48 7.3 0.448 65 0.67 In flow
9 13:30 112 53 48 7.3 0.621 89 15920 2.55 In flow 72%
9 13:30 112 53 49 7.3 0.621 89 Wash
In flow
9 24:35 108 53 48 7.3 0.598 86 2590 1.96 Wash
In flow
270%
9 24:45 100 50 42 0.5 1.205 174 Clean
9 28:45 67 52 43 9.0 1.048 151 Flush
10 0:00 80 53 47 7.0 0.621 89 0.71 In flow
10 10:30 108 53 49 7.0 0.623 90 13560 2.35 In flow 72%
10 10:30 108 53 49 7.0 0.623 90 Wash
In flow
10 22:30 106 53 48 7.0 0.636 92 1510 1.72 Wash
In flow
300%
10 22:55 70 53 44 8.0 0.782 113 Flush
11 0:00 80 56 49 7.0 0.559 80 0.60 In flow
11 11:00 108 53 48 7.0 0.598 86 13800 1.78 In flow 64%
11 11:00 108 53 48 7.0 0.598 86 Wash
In flow
11 22:45 100 53 48 7.0 0.574 83 2010 1.35 Wash
In flow
335%
11 23:30 110 53 46 8.0 0.286 41 Clean
11 24:15 70 51 44 9.0 1.011 146 Flush
12 0:00 70 54 50 7.0 0.722 104 0.73 In flow
12 12:00 108 53 49 7.0 0.609 88 11800 2.91 In flow 39%
12 12:00 108 53 49 7.0 0.609 88 Wash
In flow

Table 7. (continued).
29
Pressure
(psi)
Flow
(gpm)
Trial
Number
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temperature
(°F) Feed Concentrate Feed Permeate
Fluxa
(gfd)
Permeate
COD
Con.
Total
Solids
Sample
source Reduction
Wash
Out
(%)
12 24:00 106 53 48 7.0 0.599 86 1770 2.27 Wash
In flow
400%
12 24:30 70 52 44 8.0 0.706 102 Flush
13 0:00 78 55 50 7.0 0.544 78 0.59 In flow
13 12:00 110 53 49 7.0 0.522 75 11970 2.09 In flow 67%
13 12:00 110 53 49 7.0 0.522 75 Wash
In flow
13 24:00 108 53 49 7.0 0.527 76 2080 1.60 Wash
In flow
338%
13 24:20 72 52 44 8.3 0.612 88 Flush
13 24:45 72 53 44 8.0 0.386 56 Clean
13 27:30 72 51 44 9.3 1.309 188 Flush
14 0:00 74 53 49 8.0 0.865 125 0.61 In flow 77%
14 11:45 104 53 48 7.2 0.638 92 12310 2.57 In flow
14 11:45 100 53 48 7.0 0.638 92 Wash
In flow
14 23:30 100 52 48 7.0 0.647 93 1730 2.22 Wash
In flow
300%
14 23:50 72 50 43 8.9 0.802 115 Flush
15 0:00 72 52 49 8.0 0.593 85 0.60 In flow
15 12:00 108 52 48 7.0 0.589 85 12320 2.19 In flow 74%
15 12:00 108 52 48 7.0 0.589 85 Wash
In flow
15 24:00 102 52 48 7.0 0.573 83 1700 1.98 Wash
In flow
277%
15 24:20 70 50 43 8.0 0.710 102 Flush
16 0:00 68 53 49 7.2 0.530 76 0.60 In flow
16 12:00 106 52 49 7.3 0.561 81 13360 2.12 In flow 73%

Table 7. (continued).
30
Pressure
(psi)
Flow
(gpm)
Trial
Number
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temperature
(°F) Feed Concentrate Feed Permeate
Fluxa
(gfd)
Permeate
COD
Con.
Total
Solids
Sample
source Reduction
Wash
Out
(%)
16 12:00 106 52 49 7.0 0.561 81 Wash
In flow
16 24:00 100 52 48 7.0 0.534 77 1975 1.86 Wash
In flow
260%
16 24:25 70 50 44 8.3 0.673 97 Flush
16 25:10 68 56 43 8.4 0.479 69 Clean
16 27:50 71 51 43 9.0 1.168 168 Flush
17 0:00 78 53 49 7.8 0.855 123 0.85 In flow
17 12:45 104 52 48 7.5 0.692 100 8320 3.25 In flow 79%
17 12:45 104 52 48 7.5 0.692 100 Wash
In flow
17 21:30 99 52 48 7.2 0.680 98 1512 2.72 Wash
In flow
250%
17 21:45 84 51 45 8.4 0.760 109 Flush
18 0:00 76 52 44 7.3 0.619 89 1.23 In flow
18 13:00 105 52 48 7.3 0.621 89 18840 4.18 In flow 77%
18 13:00 105 52 48 7.3 0.611 88 Wash
In flow
18 23:00 100 50 48 7.3 0.640 92 3100 3.30 Wash
In flow
247%
18 23:15 76 50 43 8.5 0.752 108 Flush
19 0:00 74 52 49 7.3 0.550 79 0.84 In flow
19 11:45 104 52 48 7.3 0.638 92 15750 2.92 In flow 75%
19 11:45 104 52 48 7.3 0.638 92 Wash
In flow
19 22:30 98 50 48 7.5 0.616 89 2100 2.40 Wash
In flow
270%
19 22:55 70 50 43 8.7 0.730 105 Flush

Table 7. (continued).
31
Pressure
(psi)
Flow
(gpm)
Trial
Number
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temperature
(°F) Feed Concentrate Feed Permeate
Fluxa
(gfd)
Permeate
COD
Con.
Total
Solids
Sample
source Reduction
Wash
Out
(%)
20 0:00 70 52 48 7.1 0.525 76 0.88 In flow
20 12:45 105 52 48 7.3 0.630 91 15500 3.32 In flow 76%
20 12:45 105 52 48 7.4 0.630 91 Wash
In flow
20 24:15 100 51 48 7.3 0.606 87 2600 2.90 Wash
In flow
280%
20 24:35 78 51 43 8.6 0.695 100 Flush
20 25:20 137 51 43 9.8 1.650 238 Clean
20 25:25 78 50 43 9.3 1.050 151 Flush
21 0:00 75 52 44 9.0 0.820 118 0.84 In flow
21 10:00 108 52 49 7.8 0.767 110 13500 2.97 In flow 77%
21 10:00 108 52 49 7.8 0.767 110 Wash
In flow
21 22:00 100 52 49 7.8 0.741 107 1230 2.56 Wash
In flow
350%
21 22:30 70 50 4 8.8 0.755 109 Flush
22 0:00 77 51 47 7.2 0.723 104 0.81 In flow
22 11:30 109 50 45 7.4 0.725 104 15200 3.63 In flow 78%
22 11:30 109 50 45 7.4 0.725 104 Wash
In flow
22 23:00 100 50 45 7.7 0.697 100 1640 3.18 Wash
In flow
315%
22 23:15 80 49 42 8.7 0.820 118 Flush
23 0:00 70 51 46 7.4 0.682 98 0.57 In flow
23 10:45 100 50 46 7.4 0.676 97 12700 2.18 In flow 74%
23 10:45 100 50 46 7.4 0.676 97 Wash
In flow

Table 7. (continued).
32
Pressure
(psi)
Flow
(gpm)
Trial
Number
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temperature
(°F) Feed Concentrate Feed Permeate
Fluxa
(gfd)
Permeate
COD
Con.
Total
Solids
Sample
source Reduction
Wash
Out
(%)
23 20:45 92 50 46 7.7 0.684 98 1750 1.77 Wash
In flow
295%
23 23:15 75 50 42 8.7 0.780 112 Flush
24 0:00 70 50 47 7.3 0.686 99 ND In flow
24 19:00 100 49 46 7.3 0.619 89 13400 3.55 In flow 84%
24 19:00 100 49 46 7.3 0.619 89 Wash
In flow
24 24:45 104 49 46 7.4 0.661 95 1700 3.67 Wash
In flow
300%
24 25:00 70 49 42 8.4 0.790 114 Flush
24 36:45 100 50 43 8.3 0.752 108 Clean
24 39:40 74 49 40 9.9 1.196 172 Flush
25 0:00 65 50 48 7.2 0.722 104 0.77 In flow
25 12:00 99 49 46 7.2 0.696 100 14600 2.43 In flow 78%
25 12:00 96 49 46 7.2 0.696 100 Wash
In flow
25 23:30 96 49 46 7.4 0.715 103 1530 2.87 Wash
In flow
328%
25 24:00 70 49 42 8.6 0.874 126 Flush
26 0:00 70 50 46 7.2 0.630 91 0.98 In flow
26 11:30 102 49 45 7.4 0.686 99 13800 2.91 In flow 76%
26 11:30 102 49 46 7.6 0.686 99 Wash
In flow
26 23:30 98 49 45 7.5 0.691 100 1400 2.38 Wash
In flow
330%
26 24:00 70 49 42 8.6 0.820 118 Flush
27 0:00 76 50 46 736.0 0.689 99 0.83 In flow
27 12:15 108 49 45 7.3 0.700 101 21700 3.19 In flow 78%

Table 7. (continued).
33
Pressure
(psi)
Flow
(gpm)
Trial
Number
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temperature
(°F) Feed Concentrate Feed Permeate
Fluxa
(gfd)
Permeate
COD
Con.
Total
Solids
Sample
source Reduction
Wash
Out
(%)
27 12:15 108 49 46 7.3 0.700 101 Wash
In flow
27 24:00 100 49 46 7.3 0.665 96 2150 2.75 Wash
In flow
250%
27 24:15 70 49 42 8.5 0.782 113 Flush
27 24:25 70 50 44 8.3 0.652 94 Clean
27 26:45 70 48 42 8.9 1.110 160 Flush
28 0:00 70 50 46 7.4 0.750 108 0.94 In flow
28 11:00 100 49 45 6.9 0.594 86 14700 3.07 In flow 76%
28 12:00 100 49 45 7.0 0.580 84 Wash
In flow
28 23:00 100 49 45 6.8 0.631 91 2000 2.61 Wash
In flow
285%
28 24:05 70 49 42 8.8 0.804 116 Flush
29 0:00 68 50 46 7.3 0.606 87 0.81 In flow
29 10:45 92 50 46 7.8 0.619 89 14800 2.89 In flow 73%
29 10:45 90 49 46 7.8 0.619 89 Wash
In flow
29 22:00 90 49 45 7.7 0.651 94 1970 2.13 Wash
In flow
277%
29 22:20 70 48 42 9.2 0.691 100 Flush
29 22:25 68 49 44 8.8 0.615 89 Clean
29 24:55 70 49 42 8.5 1.010 145 Flush
a. Flux = gallons of filtrate per square foot of membrane over 24 h.

34
Recycling Run #2
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 101 gfd and declined to 93 gfd at
the completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 69%. The die
lube feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 107% of the total concentrated feed
volume. During washing, the membrane flux was stable at 93 gfd. The COD of the die lube wastewater
feed, initially 10,600 mg/L, was reduced to 3,900 mg/L. The die lube wastewater feed was washed with
water by an additional 189% and the flux increased from 93 to 102 gfd. The COD of the rewashed die
lube wastewater feed was further reduced from 3,900 mg/L to 1,520 mg/L. Upon completion of the
experiment, the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 122 gfd.
Recycling Run #3
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 101 gfd and declined to 94 gfd at
the completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 67%. The die
lube wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 320% of the total
concentrated feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 94 to 98 gfd. The COD of
the die lube wastewater feed, initially 12,100 mg/L, was reduced to 1,500 mg/L. Upon completion of the
experiment, the membranes were flushed with water; the flux returned to 122 gfd.
Recycling Run #4
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 92 gfd and declined to 86 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 75%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 253% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 86 to 89 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 12,240 mg/L, was reduced to 2,180 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 118 gfd.
Recycling Run #5
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 70 gfd and increased to 85 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 74%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 216% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 85 to 88 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 11,780 mg/L, was reduced to 2,450 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 101 gfd. The system was then cleaned with MC-4 at
a pH of 11, 150°F, dissolved in water. After cleaning, the flux of clean water increased to 259 gfd.
Recycling Run #6
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 136 gfd and decreased to 98 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 75%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 298% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 98 to 103 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 12,600 mg/L, was reduced to 2,100 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 117 gfd.

35
Recycling Run #7
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 79 gfd and increased to 91 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 73%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 388% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 91 to 96 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 12,450 mg/L, was reduced to 1,240 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 107 gfd.
Recycling Run #8
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 69 gfd and increased to 87 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 76%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 250% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 87 to 90 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 10,350 mg/L, was reduced to 1,720 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 101 gfd.
Recycling Run #9
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 65 gfd and increased to 89 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 72%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 270% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux decreased from 89 to 86 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 15,920 mg/L, was reduced to 2,590 mg/L. The membranes were cleaned with
MC-4 at a pH of 11, 150°F, dissolved in water. After cleaning, the flux of clean water increased to
151 gfd.
Recycling Run #10
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 89 gfd and increased to 90 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 72%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 300% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 90 to 92 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 13,560 mg/L, was reduced to 1,510 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 113 gfd.
Recycling Run #11
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 80 gfd and increased to 86 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 64%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 335% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux decreased from 86 to 83 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 13,800 mg/L, was reduced to 2,010 mg/L. The membranes were cleaned with
MC-4 at a pH of 11, 150°F, dissolved in water. After cleaning, the flux of clean water increased to
146 gfd.
Recycling Run #12
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 104 gfd and decreased to 88 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 67%. The die lube

36
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 400% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux decreased from 88 to 86 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 11,800 mg/L, was reduced to 1,770 mg/L. After washing was complete, the
membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 102 gfd.
Recycling Run #13
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 78 gfd and decreased to 75 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 67%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 338% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 75 to 76 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 11,970 mg/L, was reduced to 2,080 mg/L. The system was then cleaned with
MC-4 at a pH of 11, 150°F, dissolved in water. After cleaning, the flux of clean water increased to
188 gfd.
Recycling Run #14
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 125 gfd and decreased to 92 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 77%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 300% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 92 to 93 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 12,310 mg/L, was reduced to 1,730 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 115 gfd.
Recycling Run #15
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was 85 gfd at the start and completion of the
concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 74%. The die lube wastewater feed
was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 277% of the total concentrated feed volume.
During washing, the membrane flux decreased from 85 to 83 gfd. The COD of the die lube wastewater
feed, initially 12,320 mg/L, was reduced to 1,700 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment, the
membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 102 gfd.
Recycling Run #16
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 76 gfd and increased to 81 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 73%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 260% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux decreased from 81 to 77 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 13,360 mg/L, was reduced to 1,975 mg/L. The system was then cleaned with
MC-4 at a pH of 11, 150°F, dissolved in water. After cleaning, the flux of clean water increased to
168 gfd.
Recycling Run #17
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 123 gfd and decreased to 100 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 79%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 250% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 82 to 83 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 8320 mg/L, was reduced to 1,512 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 109 gfd.

37
Recycling Run #18
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was 89 gfd at the start and completion of the
concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 77%. The die lube wastewater feed
was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 274% of the total concentrated feed volume.
During washing, the membrane flux increased from 88 to 92 gfd. The COD of the die lube wastewater
feed, initially 18,840 mg/L, was reduced to 3,100 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment, the
membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 108 gfd.
Recycling Run #19
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 79 gfd and increased to 92 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 75%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 270% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux decreased from 92 to 89 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 15,750 mg/L, was reduced to 2,100 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 105 gfd.
Recycling Run #20
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 76 gfd and increased to 91 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 76%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 280% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux decreased from 91 to 87 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 15,500 mg/L, was reduced to 2,600 mg/L. The system was then cleaned with
MC-4 at a pH of 11, 150°F, dissolved in water. After cleaning, the flux of clean water increased to
238 gfd, with the final flush clean water flux of 151 gfd.
Recycling Run #21
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 118 gfd and decreased to 110 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 77%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 350% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux decreased from 110 to 107 gfd. The COD of the die
lube wastewater feed, initially 13,500 mg/L, was reduced to 1,230 mg/L. Upon completion of the
experiment, the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 109 gfd.
Recycling Run #22
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was 104 gfd at the start and completion of the
concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 78%. The die lube wastewater feed
was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 315% of the total concentrated feed volume.
During washing, the membrane flux decreased from 104 to 100 gfd. The COD of the die lube wastewater
feed, initially 15,200 mg/L, was reduced to 1,640 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment, the
membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 118 gfd.
Recycling Run #23
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 98 gfd and increased to 97 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 74%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 295% of the total concentrated

38
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 97 to 98 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 12,700 mg/L, was reduced to 1,750 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 112 gfd.
Recycling Run #24
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 99 gfd and decreased to 89 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 83%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 300% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 89 to 95 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 13,400 mg/L, was reduced to 1,700 mg/L. The system was then cleaned with
MC-4 at a pH of 11, 150°F dissolved in water. After cleaning, the flux of clean water increased to
172 gfd.
Recycling Run #25
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 104 gfd and decreased to 100 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 77%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 328% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux decreased from 100 to 103 gfd. The COD of the die
lube wastewater feed, initially 14,600 mg/L, was reduced to 1,530 mg/L. Upon completion of the
experiment, the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 126 gfd.
Recycling Run #26
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 91 gfd and increased to 99 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 76%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 330% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 99 to 100 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 13,800 mg/L, was reduced to 1,400 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 118 gfd.
Recycling Run #27
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 99 gfd and increased to 101 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 77%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 250% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux decreased from 101 to 96 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 21,700 mg/L, was reduced to 2,150 mg/L. The membranes were cleaned after
this recycling run because extra time was available, not because of low fluxes. The system was cleaned
with MC-4 at a pH of 11, 150°F, dissolved in water. After cleaning, the flux of clean water increased to
160 gfd.
Recycling Run #28
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 108 gfd and decreased to 86 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 76%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 285% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 84 to 91 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 14,700 mg/L, was reduced to 2,000 mg/L. Upon completion of the experiment,
the membranes were flushed with water; the flux was 116 gfd.

39
Recycling Run #29
The flux for the die lube wastewater feed solution was initially 87 gfd and increased to 89 gfd at
completion of the concentration operation, when the die lube feed was concentrated by 73%. The die lube
wastewater feed was then washed with a volume of soft water equal to 277% of the total concentrated
feed volume. During washing, the membrane flux increased from 89 to 94 gfd. The COD of the die lube
wastewater feed, initially 14,800 mg/L, was reduced to 1,970 mg/L. The system was then cleaned with
MC-4 at a pH of 11, 150°F, dissolved in water. After cleaning, the flux of clean water increased to
145 gfd.
5.2 Die Casting with Recycled Die Lube
A test methodology for reuse of the solids in the casting process was established. A short-term test
was performed with good results, so a long-term test was developed. General comments, descriptions, and
results of these tests are presented below.
5.2.1 Plant Operation
Metaldyne’s Twinsburg plant produces aluminum castings for automotive transmissions. It’s
process is considered best-in-class for cast / trim / ship facilities. Molten ASTM A-380 aluminum is auto-
ladled into the chamber/sleeve at 1,190oF. Die lubricant, an oil and water emulsion, provides cooling and
release. After trim and inspection, automated handling conveyors process parts into a steel grit shot blast
machine for final finishing. Final inspection, basket loading, and loading into delivery trucks is
sometimes accomplished in one hour.
The die lube is purchased in a concentrate and diluted to suit the process needs. Sixty to seventy
ounces of lubricant are sprayed onto the dies per casting cycle (Figure 19). This lubricant is mixed /
atomized with 100 psi air and delivered to specified die locations through nozzles located on the manifold
(see Figure 20).
The plant’s drainage system is designed to accept all liquids from the foundry operations. While
the primary waste generated from the casting process is die lubricant, other ingredients enter into the plant
piping. Items such as detergents from washing operations, various way oils, greases, and glycol used to
maintain the casting machinery are drained into the plant’s water treatment system. Also some “process
cooling” water and cooling tower bleed are piped into the treatment system.
Die Face Job-1094 Spray
manifold
Figure 19. Die face where lube is applied. Figure 20. Spray manifold for applying die lube.

40
5.2.2 Test Procedure
For this test, the water from the casting operation was isolated using several tanks, mechanical
interconnections, and control valves. The first treatment step was to remove free oils and greases using
rope skimmers and dissolved air floatation. Next, the water was run through the Speedy™ active-
membrane rotary microfilter system, which separated the unwanted pollutants and dilution water from the
die lubricant. The concentrated die lubricant was re-diluted using total solids as a test measure. This re-
established the concentration of solids to that of the original die lubricant. Where needed, bacteria control
was implemented to maintain product integrity. Batches mixed from 50% recycled lubricant and 50%
new lubricant were delivered to the casting machine each day. Mixing new and recycled lubricant was a
conservative approach designed to provide the casting operation’s management with some confidence
during testing.
The die casting machine used in this test makes aluminum valve-control body castings known as
“Job-1094.” This casting process for this product exemplifies the most extreme demands on the die
lubricant. In this process, die cooling, mold release characteristics, and resistance to metal adhesion (or
soldering) are most critical, in comparison to various other aluminum castings.
The Job-1094 casting, shown in Figure 21 and further described in Table 8, is roughly 10.5 in.
square. It is predominantly 1.25 in. thick, with one large feature shown in the lower left of Figure 21a that
has a thickness of 2.25 in. Because of the features and details of this part, the projected surface area of
the casting and related tool steel is great in comparison to the simple square area of this part. The picture
on the right is the most extreme example of this. As a result, tool release, metal adhesion, and high
temperature soldering are critical challenges.
5.2.3 Casting Results
Test data and quality records indicate that the scrap was reduced from 8.4% to 7.8%. No statistical
analysis has been conducted to evaluate the significance of this change.
A slight increase in tooling (measured in cost per unit of production) was observed. This was
influenced significantly by tool breakage that occurred during this test. This has been evaluated and
cannot be related to the die lubricant. On September 13, two months into the test, a casting was not lifted
cleanly by the extractor robot, it was left on/in the die and the die halves re-closed crushing this piece and
related die details. The immediate repairs to the die were completed. Some additional die damage around
the “bridge area” was not considered detrimental. Several days later, further deterioration to the bridge
area required additional die repairs.
Cover Side of Aluminum Valve Body Ejector Side of Aluminum Valve Body
a. b.
Figure 21. Aluminum valve body cast with recycled die lube.

41
Table 8. Test Casting Job 1094.
Test part: Aluminum Valve-Control body
Material: ASTM, A380
Customer: General Motors Power Train
General Motors Power
Train Assembly:
Part No. 4L60E
Poured Weight: 9.8Lbs
Part Weight: 6.5Lbs
Injection Temp: 1180-1205oF
Testing Period: July 12, 2002 to Sept. 23, 2002.
Die Cast Machine No. 11
Job number 1094
Cavity #17 (i.e., Die #17, consisting of two halves, “Cover” and “Ejector”)
5.2.4 Casting Results
Test data and quality records indicate that the scrap was reduced from 8.4% to 7.8%. No statistical
analysis has been conducted to evaluate the significance of this change.
A slight increase in tooling (measured in cost per unit of production) was observed. This was
influenced significantly by tool breakage that occurred during this test. This has been evaluated and
cannot be related to the die lubricant. On September 13, two months into the test, a casting was not lifted
cleanly by the extractor robot, it was left on/in the die and the die halves re-closed crushing this piece and
related die details. The immediate repairs to the die were completed. Some additional die damage around
the “bridge area” was not considered detrimental. Several days later, further deterioration to the bridge
area required additional die repairs.
5.3 Summary of Phase 3 Recycling Tests
Phase 3 was a continuous six-week test that demonstrated the SpinTek system’s ability to
concentrate, wash, and recycle the die lube solution at the Metaldyne plant. Die lube was continually
concentrated and the COD reduced by a factor of 8 to 10, which is attributed to successfully washing
glycerin from the die lube. The die lube was then recycled in a production die-casting machine. Test data
and quality records indicate that scrap from the die casting operation was reduced from 8.4% to 7.8%.
The two Speedy™ rotary filters operated continuously for six weeks without any down time due to
mechanical or electrical failure. The membranes showed no apparent damage due to abrasion or the
effects of the die lube solution. Only seven cleaning cycles were required to maintain filtrate throughput.
Several experimental runs were conducted without prior cleaning, which demonstrated that it would not
be necessary to clean the membranes between campaigns in full-scale implementation of the system. This
is desirable because cleaning generates waste.
There is no doubt that this full-scale production test yielded tremendous results. We established
that Metaldyne’s die lubricant can be concentrated, washed, and recycled. Further evaluation is needed to
determine if this process is cost effective.

42
6. DISCUSSION
Laboratory testing, using small, flat, sheet membranes and a bench-scale rotary filter, demonstrated
that active-surface membrane technology was a good candidate for field testing at Metaldyne’s plant. The
metals content of the feed solutions was reduced significantly using tight ultrafiltration active-surface
membranes. However, significant hydro-gel-like precipitates formed in the permeate solutions upon
standing. The gels may be hydrated aluminum and iron oxy-/hydroxy-species. These gels are very pH
sensitive and dissolved immediately with drop-wise additions of acid to 1-L samples. Nanofiltration to
polish the effluent concentrated the metal ions slightly. The results of the experiments were encouraging
because permeates from the nanofiltration system are clear, colorless, and show only slight discoloration
and no significant gel precipitation upon standing
At Metaldyne’s plant, we successfully concentrated the die lube solution to the expected 20X
concentration, and even as high as 50X, using two rotary membrane systems built by SpinTek, LLC.
Although the solution could be concentrated to 50X, the low flux of the membrane between 20X and 50X
is impractical for commercial applications. Initially, SpinTek mounted commercial polymer ultrafiltration
membranes in the Speedy™ units. However, the membranes tended to pucker, leading to wear and loss of
selectivity. So we changed to stainless steel/ceramic composite membrane materials manufactured by
Trumem Membranes. All of the filtrates were very clear, indicating satisfactory die lube removal by the
ceramic membranes. Fouling of the membranes was a problem, and cleaning protocols were developed to
remove oils, greases, and other foulants from the membranes.
Phase 3 was a continuous six-week test that demonstrated the SpinTek, LLC system’s ability to
concentrate, wash, and recycle the die lube solution at the Metaldyne plant. Die lube was continually
concentrated and the COD reduced by a factor of 8 to 10, which is attributed to successfully washing
glycerin from the die lube. The die lube was then recycled in a production die-casting machine. The two
Speedy™ rotary filters operated continuously for six weeks without any down time due to mechanical or
electrical failure. The Trumem composite membranes showed no apparent damage due to abrasion or the
effects of the die lube solution. Only seven cleaning cycles were required to maintain filtrate throughput.
Several experimental runs were conducted without prior cleaning, which demonstrated that it would not
be necessary to clean the membranes between every campaign in full-scale implementation of the system.
This is desirable because cleaning generates waste. Test data and quality records from the die casting
machine, running at full production scale, indicate that production scrap was reduced from 8.4% to 7.8%.
There is no doubt that this project yielded tremendous results. The full-scale production test proved
that it is possible to recycle Metaldyne’s die lubricant. Further evaluation is needed to determine if it is
cost effective to do so.

43
7. CONCLUSION
The oil and water mixtures produced by Metaldyne’s die casting plant can be cleaned up using
active-surface membrane technology. Field testing using the ST-II rotary filter/Speedy™ system, for
concentration of the die lube from waste water generated during die casting operations and for
recycling/recovery of die lube, showed very promising results. The feed solution was concentrated to the
target of 20X in seven tests, and one test further concentrated the feed to 50X (throughput from 20X to
50X is too low for commercial use). During all of these tests the filtrate was very clear, indicating nearly
complete removal of the die cast material. At the completion of these tests the membranes were cleaned
and flux recovered.
When the rotary filter system was used for glycerin removal and die lube solution
recycling/reconstitution, the results were also very favorable. This project successfully demonstrated that
the rotary microfilter is capable of concentrating the die lube components from the waste stream of a die
casting operation, washing out the contaminating glycerin, and producing a die lube suitable for
recycling. Manufacturing records indicate that the scrap was reduced from 8.4% to 7.8%. The recycling
system operated continuously for six weeks; only seven membrane cleaning cycles were required and the
system experienced no down time due to mechanical or electrical failure.
There is no doubt that the field tests yielded tremendous results. They proved that Metaldyne’s die
lubricant can be recycled. Although further evaluation is needed to determine if it is cost effective for this
die lube to be recycled, this project has shown significant opportunities for further evaluation by
Metaldyne, the die casting industry, and other industries with similar waste streams.

44
8. REFERENCES
1. R. W. Baker et al., Membrane Separations Systems - A Research and Development Needs
Assessment, U.S. DOE Contract No. DE-AC01-88ER30133, March 1990.
2. J. L. Humphrey, A. F. Seibert, R. A. Koort, Separation Technologies - Advances and Priorities,
U.S. DOE Contract No. AC07-90D12920, February 1991.
3. R. R. McCaffrey, D. G. Cummings, Sep. Sci. And Tech., 23, (12,13), 1627 (1988).
4. C. W. Allen et al., J. Memb. Sci., 33, 181 (1987).
5. R. R. McCaffrey et al., J. Memb. Sci., 28, 47, (1986).
6. D. A. Femec and R. R. McCaffrey, J. Appl. Poly. Sci., 52, 501 (1994).
7. E. S. Peterson, M. L. Stone, W. F. Bauer, and C. J. Orme, Rec. Prog. En Geni des Proc.,
Membrane Processes, 6, (22), 381 (1992).
8. E. S. Peterson, M. L. Stone, R. R. McCaffrey, and D. G. Cummings, Sep. Sci. and Tech., 28, (1-3)
(1993).
9. E. S. Peterson and M. L. Stone, J. Memb. Sci., 86, 57 (1994).
10. E. S. Peterson, M. L. Stone, C. J. Orme, and D. A. Reavill III, Sep. Sci. and Tech., 30, (7-9), 1573
(1995).
11. E. S. Peterson, M. L. Stone, and C. J. Orme, U.S. Patent # 5,385,672, January 1995.
12. R. C. Viadero, R. L. Baughn, and B. E. Reed, J. Memb Sci., 162, 199 (1999).
13. F. A. Cotton and G. Wilkinson, “Advanced Inorganic Chemistry” 5th Edition, 1988, pg. 711.

A-1
Appendix A
Raw and Run Data

A-2

A-3
Appendix A
Raw and Run Data
This appendix contains the following raw data tables:
A-1. STC Tests – 0.15 micron ceramic membrane..................................................................................... 4
A-2. STC Tests – 0.07 micron ceramic membrane..................................................................................... 5
A-3. STC Tests – 100,000 MW cutoff polymeric membrane..................................................................... 6
A-4. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—100,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane
(ST-II-L Test 1) Raw Data Run Log .................................................................................................. 7
A-5. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—100,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane
(ST-II-L Test 1) Concentration Data Run Log................................................................................. 10
A-6. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—100,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane
(ST-II-L Test 2) Raw Data Run Log ................................................................................................ 11
A-7. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—100,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane
(ST-II-L Test 2) Concentration Data Run Log................................................................................. 14
A-8. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—10,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane
(ST-II-l 10K Tests 3) Raw Data Run Log. ....................................................................................... 17
A-9. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—10,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane
(ST-II-l 10K Tests 3) Concentration Data Run Log......................................................................... 20
A-10. STC Five-Day Cleaning Test—Static Nano Raw Data Run Log ..................................................... 25
A-11. Desal 5-Spiral Wound Module 5-Day Cleaning Test, Raw Data Run Log ...................................... 26
A-12. Performance Data For Six Week Recycling Of Die Lube................................................................ 27

A-4
Table A-1. STC Tests – 0.15 micron ceramic membrane.
Membrane: 0.15 nominal µ
Surface Area: 0.05
Feed Sample: Sample B
Initial Feed Volume: 3500 mL
Final Feed Volume: 3500 mL
Final Concentrate: 1x
Final Flux: N/A
Operator: Jason Gilmour
Date: 12/20/99
Time of
Day
(hh:mm)
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Feed Flow
(gal/min)
Feed
Press.
(psi)
Conc.
Press.
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Permeate
Flow
(mL/min) Comments
Flux
(gpd/sq ft)
10:30 0:00 1.00 40 34 60 9.90 Initial Perm. Hazy 75.2
10:45 0:15 1.00 40 34 60 9.50 72.2
11:00 0:30 1.00 40 35 62 8.60 65.4
11:15 0:45 1.00 40 34 63 7.80 59.3
11:30 1:00 1.00 40 34 64 7.30 55.5
11:45 1:15 1.00 40 34 66 6.50 49.4
12:00 1:30 1.00 40 33 68 6.00 Clearer Permeate 45.6
12:30 2:00 1.00 40 33 69 5.00 38.0
1:00 2:30 1.00 40 33 69 4.00 30.4
2:00 3:30 1.00 40 33 70 3.10 23.5
2:30 4:00 1.00 40 33 70 2.60 19.8
3:30 5:00 1.00 40 33 70 2.30 17.5
4:30 6:00 1.00 40 33 70 2.10 16.0
Test Stopped Due to low flux

A-5
Table A-2. STC Tests – 0.07 micron ceramic membrane.
Membrane: 0.07 nominal µ
Surface Area: 0.05
Feed Sample: Sample B
Initial Feed Volume: 3500 mL
Final Feed Volume: 3500 mL
Final Concentrate: 1x
Final Flux: N/A
Operator: Jason Gilmour
Date: 12/27/99
Time of
Day
(hh:mm)
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Feed Flow
(gal/min)
Feed
Press.
(psi)
Conc.
Press.
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Permeate
Flow
(mL/min) Comments
Flux
(gpd/sqft)
9:00 0:00 1.00 40 36 61 6.00 45.6
9:15 0:15 1.00 40 36 61 5.80 Clear Permeate
Throughout Test
44.1
9:30 0:30 1.00 40 35 61 5.00 38.0
9:45 0:45 1.00 40 35 61 4.70 35.7
10:00 1:00 1.00 40 35 62 4.50 34.2
10:15 1:15 1.00 40 34 62 4.30 32.7
10:30 1:30 1.00 40 34 62 4.20 31.9
10:45 1:45 1.00 40 34 63 4.10 31.2
11:15 2:15 1.00 40 34 63 4.00 30.4
11:45 2:45 1.00 40 34 63 3.80 28.9
12:15 3:15 1.00 40 34 64 3.70 28.1
12:45 3:45 1.00 40 34 64 3.60 27.4
1:15 4:15 1.00 40 34 65 3.50 26.6
2:15 5:15 1.00 40 34 66 3.40 25.8
3:15 6:15 1.00 40 34 67 3.30 25.0
4:15 7:15 1.00 40 34 67 3.20 24.3
8:00 22:45 1.00 40 34 62 1.80 13.7
9:00 23:45 1.00 40 34 62 1.70 12.9
2:00 4:00 1.00 40 34 66 1.40 10.6
Test Stopped Due to Low Flux

A-6
Table A-3. STC Tests – 100,000 MW cutoff polymeric membrane.
Membrane: Polymeric PVFD
Surface Area: 0.05
Feed Sample: Sample B
Initial Feed Volume: 3500 mL
Final Feed Volume: 850 mL
Final Concentrate: 4x
Final Flux: 41 gpd/sqft
Operator: Jason Gilmour
Date: 12/29/99
Time of
Day
(hh:mm)
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Feed Flow
(gal/min)
Feed
Press.
(psi)
Conc.
Press.
(psi)
Feed Temp
(°F)
Permeate
Flow
(mL/min) Comments
Flux
(gpd/sq ft)
2:15 0:00 1.00 25 18 66 7.90 60.0
2:30 0:15 1.00 25 18 66 7.20 Clean Clear
Permeate
Throughout test
54.7
2:45 0:30 1.00 25 18 67 7.00 53.2
3:00 0:45 1.00 25 18 68 7.00 53.2
3:15 1:00 1.00 25 18 68 7.00 53.2
3:30 1:15 1.00 25 18 68 6.90 52.4
3:45 1:30 1.00 25 18 68 7.00 53.2
4:00 1:45 1.00 25 18 68 7.00 53.2
4:15 2:00 1.00 25 18 68 7.00 53.2
4:30 2:15 1.00 25 18 68 6.90 52.4
4:45 2:30 1.00 25 18 69 6.90 52.4
8:15 18:00 1.00 25 18 69 6.70 50.9
8:45 18:30 1.00 25 18 69 6.70 Started
Concentrating
50.9
9:15 19:00 1.00 25 18 69 6.60 50.2
9:45 19:30 1.00 25 18 69 6.50 49.4
10:15 20:00 1.00 25 18 70 6.40 48.6
10:45 20:30 1.00 25 18 69 6.20 47.0
11:15 21:00 1.00 25 18 68 5.90 44.8
11:45 21:30 1.00 25 18 68 5.70 43.3
12:15 22:00 1.00 25 18 67 5.70 43.3
12:45 22:30 1.00 25 18 67 5.60 42.6
1:15 23:00 1.00 25 18 67 5.40 41.0
1:45 23:30 1.00 25 18 67 5.50 41.8
2:15 0:00 1.00 25 18 68 5.40 41.0
2:45 0:30 1.00 25 18 68 5.40 41.0

A-7
Table A-4. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—100,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane (ST-II-L
Test 1) Raw Data Run Log
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
15:00 0:00 40 62 1.00 967 967 4.88 117.17
15:10 0:10 39 65 1.00 1195 1195 4.26 102.33
15:15 0:15 39 65 1.01 1190 1190 4.36 104.61
15:20 0:20 40 66 1.01 1183 1183 4.55 109.18
15:25 0:25 40 67 1.01 1191 1191 4.66 111.84
15:30 0:30 40 67 1.01 1184 1184 4.58 109.94
15:35 0:35 40 68 1.01 1187 1187 4.69 112.60
15:40 0:40 40 69 1.01 1188 1188 4.55 109.18
15:45 0:45 40 69 1.02 1181 1181 4.69 112.60
15:50 0:50 40 70 1.02 1188 1188 4.66 111.84
15:55 0:55 40 71 1.01 1180 1180 4.66 111.84
16:00 1:00 39 71 1.02 1188 1188 4.64 111.46
16:05 1:05 40 72 1.02 1182 1182 4.82 115.64
16:10 1:10 40 73 1.02 1185 1185 4.72 113.36
16:15 1:15 39 73 1.03 1190 1190 4.85 116.40
16:20 1:20 39 73 1.03 1186 1186 4.79 114.88
16:25 1:25 40 74 1.03 1170 1170 4.61 110.70
16:35 1:35 40 74 1.03 1188 1188 4.64 111.46
16:50 1:50 40 75 1.02 1189 1189 4.69 112.60
17:05 2:05 40 75 1.03 1187 1187 4.64 111.46
17:20 2:20 39 75 1.02 1186 1186 4.49 107.66
17:35 2:35 40 75 1.03 1186 1186 4.58 109.94
17:50 2:50 40 75 1.02 1184 1184 4.64 111.46
18:05 3:05 40 74 1.02 1183 1183 4.55 109.18
18:20 3:20 39 74 1.03 1184 1184 4.61 110.70
18:35 3:35 40 74 1.02 1185 1185 4.39 105.37
18:50 3:50 39 74 1.01 1183 1183 4.49 107.66
19:05 4:05 39 75 1.02 1178 1178 4.49 107.66
19:20 4:20 40 75 1.02 1186 1186 4.39 105.37
19:35 4:35 39 75 1.02 1186 1186 4.36 104.61
19:50 4:50 40 75 1.03 1186 1186 4.45 106.89
20:05 5:05 40 75 1.01 1188 1188 4.42 106.13
20:20 5:20 40 75 1.02 1175 1175 4.23 101.57
20:35 5:35 40 75 1.03 1177 1177 4.39 105.37
20:50 5:50 40 74 1.02 1182 1182 4.23 101.57

Table A-4. (continued).
A-8
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
21:05 6:05 39 74 1.02 1181 1181 4.23 101.57
21:20 6:20 40 75 1.02 1179 1179 4.33 103.85
21:35 6:35 39 74 1.03 1195 1195 4.30 103.09
21:50 6:50 39 74 1.03 1181 1181 4.26 102.33
22:05 7:05 40 75 1.02 1179 1179 4.20 100.81
22:20 7:20 40 74 1.03 1186 1186 4.26 102.33
22:35 7:35 39 74 1.03 1185 1185 4.20 100.81
22:50 7:50 40 74 1.02 1180 1180 4.17 100.05
23:05 8:05 40 74 1.02 1180 1180 4.07 97.76
23:20 8:20 40 74 1.02 1179 1179 4.11 98.53
23:35 8:35 39 74 1.03 1181 1181 4.07 97.76
23:50 8:50 40 74 1.02 1185 1185 4.11 98.53
0:00 8:59 39 74 1.03 1194 1194 4.11 98.53
0:15 9:14 40 74 1.03 1178 1178 4.07 97.76
0:30 9:29 40 74 1.02 1188 1188 4.01 96.24
0:45 9:44 39 74 1.02 1188 1188 4.04 97.00
1:00 9:59 39 74 1.02 1186 1186 3.96 95.10
1:15 10:14 39 74 1.03 1181 1181 4.01 96.24
1:30 10:29 40 74 1.02 1191 1191 3.96 95.10
1:45 10:44 39 74 1.02 1173 1173 4.01 96.24
2:00 10:59 39 74 1.03 1181 1181 3.93 94.34
2:15 11:14 39 74 1.03 1185 1185 3.96 95.10
2:30 11:29 40 74 1.03 1181 1181 3.96 95.10
2:45 11:44 40 74 1.03 1186 1186 3.93 94.34
3:00 11:59 39 74 1.03 1181 1181 3.87 92.82
3:15 12:14 39 74 1.02 1174 1174 3.90 93.58
3:30 12:29 40 74 1.03 1180 1180 3.93 94.34
3:45 12:44 39 74 1.03 1184 1184 3.96 95.10
4:00 12:59 40 74 1.03 1185 1185 3.84 92.06
4:15 13:14 40 74 1.03 1182 1182 3.90 93.58
4:30 13:29 39 74 1.03 1182 1182 3.77 90.54
4:45 13:44 40 73 1.03 1181 1181 3.80 91.30
5:00 13:59 39 74 1.03 1187 1187 3.87 92.82
5:15 14:14 40 74 1.03 1176 1176 3.77 90.54
5:30 14:29 39 74 1.03 1181 1181 3.80 91.30
5:45 14:44 40 73 1.03 1181 1181 3.80 91.30

Table A-4. (continued).
A-9
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
6:00 14:59 39 74 1.03 1184 1184 3.74 89.78
6:15 15:14 40 73 1.03 1190 1190 3.77 90.54
6:30 15:29 40 73 1.03 1184 1184 3.71 89.02
6:45 15:44 40 74 1.03 1182 1182 3.77 90.54
7:00 15:59 39 74 1.03 1177 1177 3.74 89.78
7:15 16:14 40 74 1.03 1177 1177 3.74 89.78
7:30 16:29 40 73 1.04 1188 1188 3.77 90.54
7:45 16:44 39 73 1.03 1188 1188 3.77 90.54
8:00 16:59 40 73 1.03 1187 1187 3.77 90.54
8:15 17:14 40 73 1.03 1189 1189 3.74 89.78
8:30 17:29 39 73 1.03 1184 1184 3.74 89.78
8:45 17:44 40 73 1.03 1181 1181 3.71 89.02
9:00 17:59 39 73 1.03 1182 1182 3.74 89.78
9:15 18:14 40 73 1.02 1183 1183 3.71 89.02

A-10
Table A-5. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—100,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane (ST-II-L
Test 1) Concentration Data Run Log
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Feed Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
9:30 18:29 40 73 1.02 1182 1182 3.71 89.02
9:45 18:44 39 73 1.03 1188 1188 3.71 89.02
10:00 18:59 40 73 1.03 1179 1179 3.68 88.25
10:15 19:14 39 73 1.03 1187 1187 3.61 86.73
10:30 19:29 39 73 1.03 1192 1192 3.65 87.49
10:45 19:44 39 73 1.03 1172 1172 3.61 86.73
11:00 19:59 39 73 1.02 1180 1180 3.55 85.21
11:15 20:14 39 73 1.03 1183 1183 3.55 85.21
11:30 20:29 39 73 1.03 1185 1185 3.61 86.73
11:45 20:44 39 72 1.03 1180 1180 3.52 84.45
12:00 20:59 40 73 1.02 1181 1181 3.58 85.97
12:15 21:14 40 72 1.03 1174 1174 3.58 85.97
12:30 21:29 39 72 1.02 1181 1181 3.58 85.97
12:45 21:44 39 73 1.03 1177 1177 3.55 85.21
13:00 21:59 39 72 1.03 1181 1181 3.55 85.21
13:15 22:14 40 72 1.03 1168 1168 3.49 83.69
13:30 22:29 40 72 1.03 1190 1190 3.49 83.69
13:45 22:44 40 73 1.03 1189 1189 3.49 83.69
14:00 22:59 40 73 1.03 1183 1183 3.46 82.93
14:15 23:14 40 74 1.03 1181 1181 3.36 80.65
14:30 23:29 39 73 1.03 1186 1186 3.31 79.51
14:45 23:44 40 73 1.03 1182 1182 3.22 77.22
15:00 23:59 40 73 1.03 1187 1187 3.09 74.18
15:15 0:14 40 73 1.03 1177 1177 3.09 74.18
15:30 0:29 39 73 1.02 1182 1182 3.06 73.42

Table A-6. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—100,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane (ST-II-L
Test 2) Raw Data Run Log
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:hm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
15:09 0:00 41 69 1.03 1185 1185 3.09 74.18
15:24 0:15 40 71 1.01 1201 1201 3.15 75.70
15:39 0:30 39 73 1.01 1200 1200 3.36 80.65
15:54 0:45 39 74 1.01 1197 1197 3.42 82.17
16:09 1:00 40 75 1.01 1206 1206 3.39 81.41
16:24 1:15 40 76 1.00 1198 1198 3.49 83.69
16:39 1:30 39 76 1.01 1196 1196 3.52 84.45
16:54 1:45 40 77 1.00 1199 1199 3.68 88.25
17:09 2:00 40 77 1.00 1198 1198 3.61 86.73
17:24 2:15 40 77 1.00 1198 1198 3.68 88.25
17:39 2:30 39 77 1.00 1195 1195 3.65 87.49
17:54 2:45 39 78 1.01 1200 1200 3.68 88.25
18:09 3:00 40 78 1.00 1200 1200 3.74 89.78
18:24 3:15 39 78 1.00 1207 1207 3.71 89.02
18:39 3:30 40 78 1.00 1200 1200 3.68 88.25
18:54 3:45 39 78 1.01 1201 1201 3.71 89.02
19:09 4:00 40 78 1.01 1205 1205 3.84 92.06
19:24 4:15 39 78 1.00 1198 1198 3.77 90.54
19:39 4:30 40 78 1.00 1195 1195 3.80 91.30
19:54 4:45 40 78 1.00 1195 1195 3.84 92.06
20:09 5:00 40 78 1.00 1200 1200 3.84 92.06
20:24 5:15 39 78 0.98 1203 1203 3.77 90.54
20:39 5:30 40 78 0.99 1198 1198 3.80 91.30
20:54 5:45 40 78 1.00 1195 1195 3.87 92.82
21:09 6:00 39 78 1.00 1195 1195 3.87 92.82
21:24 6:15 39 78 1.00 1204 1204 3.84 92.06
21:39 6:30 40 78 1.00 1195 1195 3.84 92.06
21:54 6:45 39 78 1.00 1197 1197 3.93 94.34
22:09 7:00 39 78 0.99 1198 1198 3.84 92.06
22:24 7:15 39 78 1.00 1208 1208 3.87 92.82
22:39 7:30 40 78 1.00 1199 1199 3.87 92.82
22:54 7:45 40 78 1.00 1198 1198 3.87 92.82
23:09 8:00 39 78 1.01 1197 1197 3.87 92.82
23:24 8:15 40 78 1.00 1199 1199 3.90 93.58
23:39 8:30 39 78 0.99 1198 1198 3.90 93.58

Table A-6. (continued).
A-12
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:hm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
23:54 8:45 40 78 1.00 1202 1202 3.80 91.30
0:00 8:50 39 78 1.00 1201 1201 3.84 92.06
0:15 9:05 40 78 1.01 1201 1201 3.87 92.82
0:30 9:20 40 78 1.00 1195 1195 3.87 92.82
0:45 9:35 40 78 1.00 1199 1199 3.84 92.06
1:00 9:50 40 78 1.00 1199 1199 3.90 93.58
1:15 10:05 39 78 1.00 1202 1202 3.90 93.58
1:30 10:20 40 78 1.00 1198 1198 3.96 95.10
1:45 10:35 40 79 1.00 1209 1209 3.87 92.82
2:00 10:50 39 79 1.00 1197 1197 3.87 92.82
2:15 11:05 40 78 1.00 1197 1197 3.93 94.34
2:30 11:20 40 78 1.00 1202 1202 3.87 92.82
2:45 11:35 39 78 1.00 1195 1195 3.90 93.58
3:00 11:50 40 79 1.00 1202 1202 3.90 93.58
3:15 12:05 39 78 0.99 1195 1195 3.90 93.58
3:30 12:20 40 78 1.00 1196 1196 3.87 92.82
3:45 12:35 40 79 1.00 1205 1205 3.90 93.58
4:00 12:50 40 79 1.00 1195 1195 3.90 93.58
4:15 13:05 40 79 1.00 1202 1202 3.87 92.82
4:30 13:20 40 79 1.01 1199 1199 3.87 92.82
4:45 13:35 40 79 1.00 1195 1195 3.93 94.34
5:00 13:50 40 78 1.00 1197 1197 3.87 92.82
5:15 14:05 39 79 1.00 1201 1201 3.93 94.34
5:30 14:20 39 78 1.00 1200 1200 3.90 93.58
5:45 14:35 39 78 1.00 1204 1204 3.90 93.58
6:00 14:50 40 79 1.00 1200 1200 3.99 95.86
6:15 15:05 39 79 1.00 1206 1206 3.77 90.54
6:30 15:20 39 79 1.00 1201 1201 3.80 91.30
6:45 15:35 39 79 1.00 1206 1206 3.87 92.82
7:00 15:50 40 79 1.00 1197 1197 3.87 92.82
7:15 16:05 39 79 1.01 1207 1207 3.90 93.58
7:30 16:20 40 79 1.00 1200 1200 3.87 92.82
7:45 16:35 40 79 1.00 1198 1198 3.93 94.34
8:00 16:50 39 79 1.00 1197 1197 3.84 92.06
8:15 17:05 39 79 1.00 1202 1202 3.99 95.86
8:30 17:20 39 79 1.00 1198 1198 3.80 91.30

Table A-6. (continued).
A-13
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:hm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
8:45 17:35 39 79 1.00 1198 1198 3.84 92.06
9:00 17:50 39 79 1.00 1199 1199 3.93 94.34
9:15 18:05 39 78 1.00 1200 1200 3.87 92.82
9:30 18:20 40 78 1.00 1198 1198 3.87 92.82
9:45 18:35 40 77 1.00 1199 1199 3.84 92.06
10:00 18:50 39 77 1.00 1197 1197 3.87 92.82
10:15 19:05 40 77 1.00 1196 1196 3.84 92.06
10:30 19:20 39 77 1.01 1199 1199 3.84 92.06
10:45 19:35 39 77 1.00 1203 1203 3.87 92.82
11:00 19:50 40 77 1.00 1198 1198 3.90 93.58
11:15 20:05 39 77 1.00 1197 1197 3.84 92.06
11:30 20:20 39 77 1.00 1206 1206 3.80 91.30
11:45 20:35 40 77 1.01 1198 1198 3.87 92.82
12:00 20:50 39 77 1.00 1196 1196 3.84 92.06
12:15 21:05 39 77 1.00 1198 1198 3.90 93.58
12:30 21:20 39 77 1.00 1197 1197 3.84 92.06
12:45 21:35 40 77 1.00 1199 1199 3.87 92.82
13:00 21:50 39 77 0.99 1198 1198 3.87 92.82
13:15 22:05 40 78 1.00 1199 1199 3.90 93.58
13:30 22:20 39 78 1.00 1197 1197 3.84 92.06
13:45 22:35 39 78 1.00 1196 1196 3.87 92.82
14:00 22:50 40 78 1.00 1196 1196 3.84 92.06
14:15 23:05 39 79 1.00 1202 1202 3.90 93.58
14:30 23:20 40 78 1.00 1194 1194 3.87 92.82
14:45 23:35 39 78 1.00 1197 1197 3.87 92.82
15:00 23:50 39 79 1.00 1196 1196 3.77 90.54
15:15 0:05 39 78 1.00 1194 1194 3.77 90.54
15:30 0:20 40 78 1.00 1195 1195 3.80 91.30
15:45 0:35 39 78 1.01 1195 1195 3.77 90.54
16:00 0:50 40 77 1.00 1195 1195 3.77 90.54
16:15 1:05 39 77 1.00 1196 1196 3.77 90.54
16:30 1:20 40 77 1.03 1199 1199 3.55 85.21
16:45 1:35 40 78 1.03 1201 1201 3.52 84.45
17:00 1:50 40 78 1.02 1192 1192 3.49 83.69
17:15 2:05 40 77 1.03 1197 1197 3.52 84.45
17:30 2:20 40 78 1.02 1198 1198 3.49 83.69
17:45 2:35 40 77 1.03 1195 1195 3.52 84.45

Table A-7. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—100,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane (ST-II-L
Test 2) Concentration Data Run Log.
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
16:45 1:35 40 78 1.03 1201 1201 3.52 84.45
17:00 1:50 40 78 1.02 1192 1192 3.49 83.69
17:15 2:05 40 77 1.03 1197 1197 3.52 84.45
17:30 2:20 40 78 1.02 1198 1198 3.49 83.69
17:45 2:35 40 77 1.03 1195 1195 3.52 84.45
18:00 2:50 40 77 1.02 1193 1193 3.52 84.45
18:15 3:05 38 77 1.03 1208 1208 3.49 83.69
18:30 3:20 39 78 1.02 1198 1198 3.55 85.21
18:45 3:35 40 77 1.03 1199 1199 3.52 84.45
19:00 3:50 40 77 1.01 1202 1202 3.46 82.93
19:15 4:05 40 77 1.01 1197 1197 3.55 85.21
19:30 4:20 39 77 1.02 1196 1196 3.49 83.69
19:45 4:35 40 77 1.02 1198 1198 3.52 84.45
20:00 4:50 40 77 1.02 1195 1195 3.52 84.45
20:15 5:05 40 77 1.02 1197 1197 3.49 83.69
20:30 5:20 39 77 1.02 1195 1195 3.49 83.69
20:45 5:35 39 77 1.03 1205 1205 3.46 82.93
21:00 5:50 40 77 1.03 1195 1195 3.49 83.69
21:15 6:05 39 77 1.02 1197 1197 3.49 83.69
21:30 6:20 39 77 1.03 1197 1197 3.52 84.45
21:45 6:35 40 77 1.02 1204 1204 3.55 85.21
22:00 6:50 39 77 1.02 1198 1198 3.49 83.69
22:15 7:05 40 77 1.02 1195 1195 3.49 83.69
22:30 7:20 40 77 1.02 1201 1201 3.49 83.69
22:45 7:35 39 77 1.03 1196 1196 3.49 83.69
23:00 7:50 40 77 1.02 1199 1199 3.49 83.69
23:15 8:05 40 77 1.02 1205 1205 3.52 84.45
23:30 8:20 39 77 1.02 1194 1194 3.52 84.45
23:45 8:35 39 77 1.02 1201 1201 3.49 83.69
0:00 8:50 40 77 1.03 1198 1198 3.52 84.45
0:15 9:05 40 77 1.03 1196 1196 3.52 84.45
0:30 9:20 39 77 1.03 1196 1196 3.52 84.45
0:45 9:35 39 77 1.03 1199 1199 3.49 83.69
1:00 9:50 40 77 1.02 1199 1199 3.46 82.93
1:15 10:05 39 77 1.02 1203 1203 3.46 82.93

Table 7. (continued).
A-15
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
1:30 10:20 40 78 1.03 1198 1198 3.42 82.17
1:45 10:35 39 77 1.03 1200 1200 3.46 82.93
2:00 10:50 39 77 1.03 1196 1196 3.46 82.93
2:15 11:05 39 77 1.03 1202 1202 3.46 82.93
2:30 11:20 40 77 1.03 1195 1195 3.46 82.93
2:45 11:35 40 77 1.03 1199 1199 3.46 82.93
3:00 11:50 39 77 1.02 1199 1199 3.46 82.93
3:15 12:05 39 77 1.03 1198 1198 3.39 81.41
3:30 12:20 39 77 1.03 1197 1197 3.39 81.41
3:45 12:35 39 77 1.03 1201 1201 3.39 81.41
4:00 12:50 40 77 1.03 1200 1200 3.42 82.17
4:15 13:05 40 77 1.03 1199 1199 3.39 81.41
4:30 13:20 39 76 1.03 1206 1206 3.39 81.41
4:45 13:35 39 76 1.03 1199 1199 3.36 80.65
5:00 13:50 40 77 1.03 1205 1205 3.36 80.65
5:15 14:05 39 77 1.03 1198 1198 3.39 81.41
5:30 14:20 40 77 1.03 1201 1201 3.39 81.41
5:45 14:35 40 77 1.03 1198 1198 3.36 80.65
6:00 14:50 39 76 1.03 1201 1201 3.33 79.89
6:15 15:05 39 76 1.03 1197 1197 3.31 79.51
6:30 15:20 40 76 1.03 1202 1202 3.33 79.89
6:45 15:35 39 76 1.02 1200 1200 3.33 79.89
7:00 15:50 40 76 1.03 1197 1197 3.36 80.65
7:15 16:05 40 76 1.03 1200 1200 3.39 81.41
7:30 16:20 40 76 1.03 1199 1199 3.31 79.51
7:45 16:35 39 76 1.03 1197 1197 3.36 80.65
8:00 16:50 39 76 1.03 1199 1199 3.33 79.89
8:15 17:05 40 77 1.03 1201 1201 3.39 81.41
8:30 17:20 40 78 1.03 1203 1203 3.46 82.93
8:45 17:35 40 79 1.02 1207 1207 3.39 81.41
9:00 17:50 39 79 1.03 1197 1197 3.39 81.41
9:15 18:05 40 79 1.03 1203 1203 3.33 79.89
9:30 18:20 39 79 1.03 1199 1199 3.31 79.51
9:45 18:35 40 79 1.03 1199 1199 3.36 80.65
10:00 18:50 40 80 1.03 1199 1199 3.19 76.46
10:15 19:05 40 80 1.03 1203 1203 3.25 77.98

Table 7. (continued).
A-16
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
10:30 19:20 39 80 1.02 1204 1204 3.25 77.98
10:45 19:35 39 79 1.03 1200 1200 3.25 77.98
11:00 19:50 40 80 1.04 1200 1200 3.15 75.70
11:15 20:05 39 80 1.03 1198 1198 3.15 75.70
11:30 20:20 40 79 1.03 1196 1196 3.09 74.18
11:45 20:35 40 79 1.03 1197 1197 3.06 73.42
12:00 20:50 40 80 1.02 1206 1206 3.06 73.42
12:15 21:05 40 79 1.03 1201 1201 2.93 70.38
12:30 21:20 40 79 1.02 1196 1196 2.90 69.61
12:45 21:35 40 80 1.03 1203 1203 2.84 68.09
13:00 21:50 40 80 1.03 1205 1205 2.77 66.57
13:15 22:05 40 79 1.03 1194 1194 2.66 63.91
13:30 22:20 40 80 1.03 1195 1195 2.60 62.39
13:45 22:35 40 80 1.03 1200 1200 2.50 60.10
14:00 22:50 40 80 1.02 1199 1199 2.38 57.06
14:15 23:05 40 80 1.03 1195 1195 2.22 53.26
14:30 23:20 39 80 1.03 1196 1196 2.09 50.21
14:45 23:35 40 80 1.03 1197 1197 1.98 47.55
15:00 23:50 40 79 1.03 1196 1196 1.76 42.23

A-17
Table A-8. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—10,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane (ST-II-l 10K
Tests 3) Raw Data Run Log.
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
9:41 0:00 41 71 1.03 648 648 3.22 77.22
9:56 0:15 39 72 1.03 640 640 2.57 61.63
10:11 0:30 40 72 1.03 639 639 2.60 62.39
10:26 0:45 40 73 1.03 1203 1203 2.66 63.91
10:41 1:00 39 76 1.03 1203 1203 2.81 67.33
10:56 1:15 40 77 1.03 1201 1201 2.96 71.14
11:11 1:30 40 78 1.03 1209 1209 3.06 73.42
11:26 1:45 40 79 1.03 1201 1201 3.06 73.42
11:41 2:00 40 80 1.03 1202 1202 3.09 74.18
11:56 2:15 39 81 1.03 1196 1196 3.25 77.98
12:11 2:30 39 82 1.03 1201 1201 3.19 76.46
12:26 2:45 39 82 1.03 1194 1194 3.15 75.70
12:41 3:00 40 83 1.03 1192 1192 3.15 75.70
12:56 3:15 39 83 1.02 1194 1194 3.15 75.70
13:11 3:30 40 84 1.02 1197 1197 3.19 76.46
13:26 3:45 40 84 1.03 1195 1195 3.33 79.89
13:41 4:00 39 84 1.03 1179 1179 3.22 77.22
13:56 4:15 39 84 1.02 1197 1197 3.19 76.46
14:11 4:30 39 85 1.03 1197 1197 3.28 78.74
14:26 4:45 40 85 1.03 1204 1204 3.28 78.74
14:41 5:00 39 85 1.03 1190 1190 3.22 77.22
14:56 5:15 40 86 1.02 1185 1185 3.31 79.51
15:11 5:30 40 86 1.03 1197 1197 3.31 79.51
15:26 5:45 40 86 1.02 1191 1191 3.42 82.17
15:41 6:00 39 86 1.02 1193 1193 3.49 83.69
15:56 6:15 39 86 1.03 1196 1196 3.22 77.22
16:11 6:30 39 87 1.02 1198 1198 3.36 80.65
16:26 6:45 40 87 1.03 1198 1198 3.42 82.17
16:41 7:00 40 86 1.03 1196 1196 3.22 77.22
16:56 7:15 40 86 1.02 1195 1195 3.31 79.51
17:11 7:30 39 86 1.02 1192 1192 3.36 80.65
17:26 7:45 39 87 1.02 1195 1195 3.46 82.93
17:41 8:00 40 86 1.02 1197 1197 3.39 81.41
17:56 8:15 40 87 1.02 1188 1188 3.36 80.65
18:11 8:30 40 87 1.03 1190 1190 3.31 79.51

Table A-8. (continued).
A-18
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
18:26 8:45 39 87 1.03 1197 1197 3.31 79.51
18:41 9:00 40 87 1.03 1194 1194 3.39 81.41
18:56 9:15 40 88 1.02 1201 1201 3.22 77.22
19:11 9:30 40 87 1.03 1197 1197 3.31 79.51
19:26 9:45 40 87 1.03 1202 1202 3.31 79.51
19:41 10:00 40 86 1.03 1199 1199 3.28 78.74
19:56 10:15 40 86 1.02 1194 1194 3.33 79.89
20:11 10:30 39 87 1.02 1206 1206 3.36 80.65
20:26 10:45 40 86 1.02 1197 1197 3.46 82.93
20:41 11:00 40 87 1.03 1195 1195 3.36 80.65
20:56 11:15 39 87 1.02 1202 1202 3.25 77.98
21:11 11:30 39 87 1.02 1191 1191 3.39 81.41
21:26 11:45 39 87 1.02 1198 1198 3.39 81.41
21:41 12:00 39 87 1.02 1189 1189 3.33 79.89
21:56 12:15 40 87 1.02 1188 1188 3.46 82.93
22:11 12:30 39 87 1.02 1192 1192 3.15 75.70
22:26 12:45 40 87 1.02 1199 1199 3.33 79.89
22:41 13:00 40 87 1.03 1196 1196 3.25 77.98
22:56 13:15 39 86 1.02 1194 1194 3.19 76.46
23:11 13:30 39 87 1.03 1195 1195 3.15 75.70
23:26 13:45 40 86 1.02 1196 1196 3.33 79.89
23:41 14:00 39 86 1.02 1195 1195 3.25 77.98
23:56 14:15 40 86 1.03 1198 1198 3.19 76.46
0:00 14:18 39 87 1.03 1196 1196 3.39 81.41
0:15 14:33 39 86 1.02 1195 1195 3.31 79.51
0:30 14:48 39 87 1.02 1198 1198 3.12 74.94
0:45 15:03 40 87 1.02 1190 1190 3.46 82.93
1:00 15:18 40 87 1.02 1203 1203 3.22 77.22
1:15 15:33 40 87 1.03 1191 1191 3.19 76.46
1:30 15:48 40 86 1.03 1196 1196 3.09 74.18
1:45 16:03 40 86 1.03 1193 1193 3.33 79.89
2:00 16:18 40 87 1.03 1196 1196 3.33 79.89
2:15 16:33 40 86 1.02 1192 1192 3.22 77.22
2:30 16:48 40 87 1.03 1189 1189 3.09 74.18
2:45 17:03 40 86 1.02 1194 1194 3.25 77.98
3:00 17:18 40 86 1.03 1195 1195 3.19 76.46

Table A-8. (continued).
A-19
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
3:15 17:33 40 86 1.02 1195 1195 3.31 79.51
3:30 17:48 39 87 1.02 1192 1192 3.19 76.46
3:45 18:03 39 87 1.02 1195 1195 3.15 75.70
4:00 18:18 39 86 1.02 1198 1198 3.15 75.70
4:15 18:33 39 86 1.02 1198 1198 3.31 79.51
4:30 18:48 39 86 1.03 1188 1188 3.31 79.51
4:45 19:03 40 86 1.02 1193 1193 3.06 73.42
5:00 19:18 40 86 1.02 1199 1199 3.19 76.46
5:15 19:33 40 86 1.02 1187 1187 3.42 82.17
5:30 19:48 39 86 1.02 1198 1198 3.22 77.22
5:45 20:03 40 86 1.02 1195 1195 3.28 78.74
6:00 20:18 40 85 1.03 1196 1196 3.19 76.46
6:15 20:33 39 86 1.01 1197 1197 3.22 77.22
6:30 20:48 40 86 1.01 1194 1194 3.55 85.21
6:45 21:03 40 86 1.01 1196 1196 3.28 78.74
7:00 21:18 39 86 1.00 1195 1195 3.61 86.73
7:15 21:33 40 85 1.00 1195 1195 3.55 85.21
7:30 21:48 40 85 1.00 1200 1200 3.36 80.65
7:45 22:03 40 85 1.00 1200 1200 3.52 84.45
8:00 22:18 40 84 1.00 1202 1202 3.25 77.98
8:15 22:33 40 80 1.01 1195 1195 3.15 75.70

A-20
Table A-9. ST-IIL Rotary Membrane Tests—10,000 Molecular Weight Cut-Off Membrane (ST-II-l 10K
Tests 3) Concentration Data Run Log.
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
8:30 22:48 39 81 1.01 1202 1202 2.71 65.05
8:45 23:03 39 82 1.02 1196 1196 2.68 64.29
9:00 23:18 40 82 1.02 1197 1197 2.68 64.29
9:15 23:33 39 82 1.02 1200 1200 2.63 63.15
9:30 23:48 40 83 1.02 1198 1198 2.71 65.05
9:45 0:03 39 84 1.02 1198 1198 2.74 65.81
10:00 0:18 40 84 1.02 1195 1195 2.68 64.29
10:15 0:33 39 85 1.02 1200 1200 2.68 64.29
10:30 0:48 40 86 1.02 1194 1194 2.71 65.05
10:45 1:03 40 86 1.01 1197 1197 2.90 69.61
11:00 1:18 40 87 1.02 1199 1199 2.74 65.81
11:15 1:33 39 86 1.03 1190 1190 2.77 66.57
11:30 1:48 39 86 1.02 1194 1194 2.71 65.05
11:45 2:03 39 86 1.03 1197 1197 2.90 69.61
12:00 2:18 40 86 1.02 1198 1198 2.77 66.57
12:15 2:33 39 87 1.02 1197 1197 2.71 65.05
12:30 2:48 40 86 1.02 1195 1195 2.87 68.85
12:45 3:03 39 87 1.03 1190 1190 3.00 71.90
13:00 3:18 39 87 1.02 1201 1201 2.54 60.87
13:15 3:33 40 87 1.02 1198 1198 2.71 65.05
13:30 3:48 39 86 1.01 1203 1203 2.68 64.29
13:45 4:03 40 86 1.02 1196 1196 2.71 65.05
14:00 4:18 40 86 1.01 1198 1198 2.71 65.05
14:15 4:33 39 86 1.02 1193 1193 2.74 65.81
14:30 4:48 40 87 1.02 1195 1195 2.50 60.10
14:45 5:03 40 86 1.03 1192 1192 2.57 61.63
15:00 5:18 40 86 1.02 1200 1200 2.54 60.87
15:15 5:33 39 87 1.02 1195 1195 2.47 59.34
15:30 5:48 40 86 1.03 1196 1196 2.57 61.63
15:45 6:03 39 86 1.03 1194 1194 2.60 62.39
16:00 6:18 39 86 1.03 1198 1198 2.63 63.15
16:15 6:33 39 86 1.01 1193 1193 2.57 61.63
16:30 6:48 39 86 1.02 1193 1193 2.57 61.63
16:45 7:03 40 87 1.03 1192 1192 2.35 56.30
17:00 7:18 39 86 1.02 1196 1196 2.41 57.82

Table A-9. (continued).
A-21
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
17:15 7:33 40 86 1.01 1195 1195 2.44 58.58
17:30 7:48 39 85 1.03 1189 1189 2.44 58.58
17:45 8:03 39 85 1.02 1196 1196 2.41 57.82
18:00 8:18 40 85 1.03 1196 1196 2.47 59.34
18:15 8:33 39 85 1.02 1194 1194 2.41 57.82
18:30 8:48 39 85 1.02 1197 1197 2.44 58.58
18:45 9:03 40 85 1.03 1192 1192 2.41 57.82
19:00 9:18 40 85 1.03 1195 1195 2.41 57.82
19:15 9:33 40 85 1.02 1188 1188 2.41 57.82
19:30 9:48 40 85 1.02 1188 1188 2.38 57.06
19:45 10:03 40 84 1.02 1199 1199 2.38 57.06
20:00 10:18 39 85 1.02 1192 1192 2.41 57.82
20:15 10:33 40 84 1.03 1195 1195 2.47 59.34
20:30 10:48 39 85 1.02 1202 1202 2.38 57.06
20:45 11:03 40 85 1.03 1198 1198 2.41 57.82
21:00 11:18 40 84 1.02 1203 1203 2.41 57.82
21:15 11:33 40 85 1.03 1202 1202 2.47 59.34
21:30 11:48 39 84 1.02 1197 1197 2.50 60.10
21:45 12:03 39 84 1.02 1197 1197 2.47 59.34
22:00 12:18 39 84 1.02 1195 1195 2.63 63.15
22:15 12:33 40 84 1.02 1192 1192 2.66 63.91
22:30 12:48 40 84 1.03 1196 1196 2.22 53.26
22:45 13:03 39 85 1.02 1197 1197 2.38 57.06
23:00 13:18 39 85 1.03 1194 1194 2.35 56.30
23:15 13:33 39 85 1.02 1202 1202 2.31 55.54
23:30 13:48 40 85 1.03 1201 1201 2.41 57.82
23:45 14:03 40 84 1.02 1198 1198 2.38 57.06
0:00 14:18 39 84 1.03 1198 1198 2.28 54.78
0:15 14:33 39 85 1.02 1197 1197 2.38 57.06
0:30 14:48 39 85 1.03 1189 1189 2.38 57.06
0:45 15:03 39 85 1.02 1198 1198 2.35 56.30
1:00 15:18 39 84 1.02 1195 1195 2.38 57.06
1:15 15:33 39 84 1.03 1195 1195 2.35 56.30
1:30 15:48 40 84 1.03 1188 1188 2.28 54.78
1:45 16:03 39 84 1.03 1204 1204 2.44 58.58
2:00 16:18 41 84 1.02 1195 1195 2.41 57.82

Table A-9. (continued).
A-22
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
2:15 16:33 40 85 1.02 1196 1196 2.31 55.54
2:30 16:48 40 84 1.02 1199 1199 2.25 54.02
2:45 17:03 40 84 1.03 1195 1195 2.71 65.05
3:00 17:18 40 84 1.02 1193 1193 2.74 65.81
3:15 17:33 40 84 1.03 1193 1193 2.35 56.30
3:30 17:48 39 84 1.02 1204 1204 2.54 60.87
3:45 18:03 40 85 1.02 1196 1196 2.28 54.78
4:00 18:18 40 84 1.02 1196 1196 2.31 55.54
4:15 18:33 40 85 1.02 1196 1196 2.25 54.02
4:30 18:48 39 85 1.03 1194 1194 2.28 54.78
4:45 19:03 40 84 1.02 1196 1196 2.16 51.74
5:00 19:18 40 84 1.03 1199 1199 2.50 60.10
5:15 19:33 40 84 1.03 1202 1202 2.09 50.21
5:30 19:48 40 84 1.02 1192 1192 2.35 56.30
5:45 20:03 39 85 1.02 1195 1195 2.63 63.15
6:00 20:18 40 84 1.02 1195 1195 2.41 57.82
6:15 20:33 39 85 1.03 1197 1197 2.03 48.69
6:30 20:48 40 84 1.03 1187 1187 2.35 56.30
6:45 21:03 39 84 1.03 1198 1198 2.35 56.30
7:00 21:18 39 84 1.03 1196 1196 2.57 61.63
7:15 21:33 40 84 1.02 1199 1199 2.54 60.87
7:30 21:48 39 85 1.02 1198 1198 2.31 55.54
7:45 22:03 40 84 1.02 1197 1197 2.03 48.69
8:00 22:18 39 84 1.03 1197 1197 2.41 57.82
8:15 22:33 39 85 1.02 1199 1199 2.25 54.02
8:30 22:48 39 84 1.02 1199 1199 2.41 57.82
8:45 23:03 39 85 1.02 1196 1196 2.28 54.78
9:00 23:18 39 84 1.02 1197 1197 2.31 55.54
9:15 23:33 39 85 1.02 1193 1193 2.35 56.30
9:30 23:48 39 85 1.02 1197 1197 2.41 57.82
9:45 0:03 39 85 1.02 1197 1197 2.38 57.06
10:00 0:18 39 84 1.03 1191 1191 2.25 54.02
10:15 0:33 40 85 1.02 1196 1196 2.31 55.54
10:30 0:48 39 86 1.02 1196 1196 2.35 56.30
10:45 1:03 39 86 1.02 1196 1196 2.44 58.58
11:00 1:18 40 81 0.00 1196 1196 2.35 56.30

Table A-9. (continued).
A-23
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
11:15 1:33 40 80 0.00 1196 1196 2.31 55.54
11:30 1:48 39 86 1.03 1202 1202 2.03 48.69
11:45 2:03 39 86 1.03 1195 1195 2.22 53.26
12:00 2:18 40 86 1.03 1198 1198 2.28 54.78
12:15 2:33 40 86 1.02 1200 1200 2.31 55.54
12:36 2:54 40 86 1.01 1202 1202 2.22 53.26
12:51 3:09 39 87 1.02 1196 1196 2.22 53.26
13:06 3:24 40 86 1.02 1194 1194 2.28 54.78
13:21 3:39 39 86 1.03 1195 1195 2.28 54.78
13:36 3:54 39 87 1.03 1197 1197 2.16 51.74
13:51 4:09 40 85 1.02 1190 1190 2.31 55.54
14:06 4:24 39 86 1.01 1191 1191 2.28 54.78
14:21 4:39 39 86 1.03 1188 1188 2.35 56.30
14:36 4:54 40 86 1.04 1189 1189 2.28 54.78
14:51 5:09 40 87 1.03 1196 1196 2.22 53.26
15:06 5:24 40 87 1.03 1194 1194 2.19 52.50
15:21 5:39 39 86 1.03 1188 1188 2.25 54.02
15:36 5:54 40 86 1.03 1195 1195 2.31 55.54
15:51 6:09 39 86 1.02 1187 1187 2.16 51.74
16:06 6:24 40 87 1.02 1198 1198 2.28 54.78
16:21 6:39 39 87 1.02 1197 1197 2.19 52.50
16:36 6:54 39 86 1.02 1184 1184 2.19 52.50
16:51 7:09 40 87 1.02 1195 1195 2.22 53.26
17:06 7:24 39 87 1.02 1195 1195 2.16 51.74
17:21 7:39 39 86 1.02 1198 1198 2.31 55.54
17:36 7:54 40 86 1.02 1194 1194 2.12 50.97
17:51 8:09 39 87 1.02 1202 1202 2.19 52.50
18:06 8:24 39 86 1.03 1195 1195 2.35 56.30
18:21 8:39 39 88 1.03 1195 1195 2.09 50.21
18:36 8:54 40 87 1.03 1192 1192 2.06 49.45
18:51 9:09 40 86 1.03 1194 1194 2.19 52.50
19:06 9:24 40 86 1.02 1194 1194 2.12 50.97
19:21 9:39 39 86 1.03 1189 1189 2.09 50.21
19:36 9:54 40 86 1.02 1196 1196 2.16 51.74
19:51 10:09 40 86 1.02 1195 1195 2.06 49.45
20:06 10:24 39 86 1.03 1186 1186 2.06 49.45
20:21 10:39 39 86 1.02 1195 1195 1.95 46.79

Table A-9. (continued).
A-24
Time of
Day
Elapsed
Time
(dd:hh:mm)
Feed
Pressure
(psi)
Feed
Temp
(°F)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Rotor
Speed
(rpm)
Rotor
Power
(kW)
Permeate
Flow
(gph)
Permeate Flux
(gal/ft²-day)
20:36 10:54 39 87 1.02 1199 1199 2.00 47.93
20:51 11:09 40 87 1.02 1195 1195 2.03 48.69
21:06 11:24 40 87 1.02 1195 1195 2.03 48.69
21:21 11:39 39 85 1.02 1196 1196 2.00 47.93
21:36 11:54 40 86 1.03 1201 1201 1.98 47.55
21:51 12:09 39 86 1.01 1196 1196 1.89 45.27
22:06 12:24 39 86 1.01 1199 1199 1.82 43.75
22:21 12:39 39 86 1.02 1200 1200 1.89 45.27
22:36 12:54 39 86 1.02 1196 1196 1.73 41.46
22:51 13:09 39 86 1.02 1197 1197 1.73 41.46
23:06 13:24 40 86 1.02 1196 1196 1.73 41.46

A-25
Table A-10. STC Five-Day Cleaning Test—Static Nano Raw Data Run Log
Membrane: 0.015 nominal µ
Surface Area: 0.05
Feed Sample: Metaldyne Wastewater
Initial Feed Volume: 5 L
Final Feed Volume: 5 L
Final Concentrate: 1x
Final Flux: ~25 gfd
Operator: Jason Gilmour
Date: 3/9/00
Time of
Day
(hh:mm)
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Feed Flow
(gal/min)
Feed
Press.
(psi)
Conc.
Press.
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Permeate
Flow
(mL/min) Comments
Flux
(gpd/sq ft)
0:00 1.00 60 47 68 25.00 190.0
0:15 1.00 60 50 69 20.00 152.0
0:30 1.00 60 50 69 17.00 129.2
0:45 1.00 60 50 70 16.00 121.6
1:00 1.00 60 50 71 14.00 106.4
2:00 1.00 60 50 71 13.00 98.8
25:00 1.00 60 50 66 3.90 29.6
49:00 1.00 60 49 69 4.00 30.4
74:00 1.00 60 50 68 3.80 Testing
Procedure
28.9
98:00 1.00 60 49 70 3.60 Test Stopped,
Started Cleaning
Procedure
27.4
121:00 1.00 60 50 70 3.30 25.1
9:00 0:00 1.00 60 50 66 6.50 Resumed Testing 49.4
9:30 0:30 1.00 60 50 66 5.50 41.8
10:00 1:00 1.00 60 50 67 4.70 35.7
10:30 1:30 1.00 60 50 68 4.20 31.9
11:00 2:00 1.00 60 50 68 3.80 28.9
2:00 5:00 1.00 60 50 72 3.60 27.4

A-26
Table A-11. Desal 5-Spiral Wound Module 5-Day Cleaning Test, Raw Data Run Log
Membrane: Desal-5 Spiral Wound NF
Surface Area: 26.9 sq ft
Feed Sample: Metaldyne Wastewater
Initial Feed Volume: 10 gal
Final Feed Volume: 10 gal
Final Concentrate: 1x
Final Flux: 15.5 gpd/sq ft
Operator: Jason Gilmour
Date: 3/9/00
Time of
Day
(hh:mm)
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Feed Flow
(gal/min)
Feed
Press.
(psi)
Conc.
Press.
(psi)
Feed
Temp.
(°F)
Permeate
Flow
(mL/min) Comments
Flux
(gpd/sq ft)
0:00 4.50 180 175 93 1560.00 22.1
0:15 4.50 180 175 92 1430.00 20.2
0:30 4.50 180 175 94 1300.00 18.4
0:45 4.50 180 175 92 1250.00 17.7
1:00 4.50 180 175 90 1210.00 17.1
2:00 4.50 180 175 89 1200.00 17.0
25:00 4.50 180 175 96 1180.00 16.7
49:00 4.50 180 175 94 1130.00 16.0
74:00 4.50 180 175 92 1150.00 16.3
98:00 4.50 180 175 93 1100.00 Test Stopped,
Began Cleaning
Procedure
15.6
121:00 4.50 180 175 92 1090.00 15.4
1:00 0:00 4.50 180 175 90 1190.00 Resumed Testing 16.8
1:30 0:30 4.50 180 175 90 1150.00 16.3
2:00 1:00 4.50 180 175 91 1130.00 16.0
2:30 1:30 4.50 180 175 92 1110.00 15.7
3:00 2:00 4.50 180 175 94 1100.00 15.6
6:00 5:00 4.50 180 175 93 1080.00 15.3

A-27
Table A-12. Performance Data For Six Week Recycling Of Die Lube.
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB1 8/8/2002 1&2 2:45 PM 0:00 76 57 49 6.9 0.860 124 8691 0.80 INF
MB1 8/8/2002 1&2 2:50 PM 0:05 76 50 44 7.4 0.775 112 INF
Clean, clear,
slightly pink
permeate.
MB1 8/8/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 0:15 76 50 44 7.4 0.740 107 INF
MB1 8/8/2002 1&2 8:45 PM 6:00 96 49 44 7.5 0.675 97 INF
MB1 8/8/2002 1&2 7:15 AM 16:30 99 48 44 7.6 0.650 94 9371 680 12300 2.67 INF
69% Volume
Reduction
MB1 8/9/2002 1&2 9:10 AM 18:25 100 50 45 7.6 0.660 95 9433 0 12300 2.67 WASH INF
Started
washdown
with soft
water
MB1 8/9/2002 1&2 9:50 AM 19:05 100 49 44 7.6 0.660 95 9466 WASH INF
washdown
until end of
day
MB1 8/9/2002 1&2 11:10 AM 20:25 100 49 44 7.7 0.660 95 9510 77 WASH INF
MB1 8/9/2002 1&2 12:15 PM 21:40 100 49 44 7.7 0.670 96 9565 WASH INF
MB1 8/9/2002 1&2 2:45 PM 24:00 100 49 44 7.8 0.680 98 9630 197 7240 2.13 WASH INF
0.656
washdown to
tank ratio
MB1 8/9/2002 1&2 2:45 PM 24:00 72 49 41 8.2 0.650 94 FLUSH
MB1 8/9/2002 1&2 2:55 PM 24:05 72 49 42 8.3 0.880 127 FLUSH
MB1 8/9/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 24:10 74 50 44 8.2 1.020 147 FLUSH
MB2 8/9/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 0:00 78 50 45 7.7 0.700 101 9663 0.72 INF
MB2 8/9/2002 1&2 3:15 PM 0:15 79 49 44 7.7 0.670 96 INF
MB2 8/9/2002 1&2 8:15 PM 5:15 96 49 44 7.5 0.642 92 9867 INF
MB2 8/10/2002 1&2 8:00 AM 17:00 103 49 44 7.4 0.646 93 10318 655 INF
MB2 8/10/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 18:00 103 49 44 7.5 0.643 93 10348 10600 ND INF
69% Volume
Reduction
MB2 8/10/2002 1&2 9:05 AM 18:05 103 49 44 7.5 0.645 93 10355 0 WASH INF
MB2 8/10/2002 1&2 11:30 AM 19:00 103 49 44 7.5 0.670 96 10460 52.5 WASH INF
MB2 8/10/2002 1&2 2:30 PM 22:00 104 49 44 7.2 0.670 96 160 3900 WASH INF
1.07
washdown

Table A-12. (continued).
A-28
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
ratio
MB2 8/10/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 28:30 105 49 44 7.2 0.710 102 10841 433 1520 1.95 WASH INF
2.89
washdown
ratio
MB2 8/10/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 28:30 80 45 39 8.3 0.600 86 FLUSH
MB2 8/10/2002 1&2 9:15 PM 28:45 72 45 39 8.3 0.850 122 FLUSH
MB3 8/11/2002 1&2 11:15 AM 0:00 78 51 46 7.3 0.700 101 10857 0.84 INF
This is the
first
production
batch
MB3 8/11/2002 1&2 11:40 AM 0:25 85 50 45 7.3 0.610 88 10880 INF
MB3 8/11/2002 1&2 12:30 PM 1:15 92 50 45 7.3 0.610 88 10909 INF
MB3 8/11/2002 1&2 7:15 PM 8:00 110 50 44 7.4 0.656 94 11171 314 12100 2.35 INF
67.7%
Volume
Reduction
MB3 8/11/2002 1&2 7:15 PM 8:00 110 50 44 7.4 0.656 94 11171 WASH INF
MB3 8/12/2002 1&2 7:15 AM 20:00 105 50 44 7.4 0.680 98 11651 480 1500 1.82 WASH INF
3.2 washdown
ratio
MB3 8/12/2002 1&2 7:30 AM 20:15 80 49 40 8.4 0.650 94 FLUSH
MB3 8/12/2002 1&2 8:40 AM 20:25 80 49 41 8.3 0.850 122 FLUSH
MB4 8/12/2002 1&2 9:50 AM 0:00 80 50 46 6.7 0.640 92 11681 1.07 INF
MB4 8/12/2002 1&2 10:10 AM 20:00 81 50 46 6.8 0.570 82 INF
MB4 8/12/2002 1&2 11:10 AM 1:10 93 50 45 6.7 0.575 83 INF
MB4 8/12/2002 1&2 12:10 PM 2:10 98 49 45 7.2 0.585 84 INF
MB4 8/12/2002 1&2 2:00 PM 4:10 103 49 45 7.3 0.585 84 INF
MB4 8/12/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 12:10 110 49 45 7.1 0.600 86 446 12240 2.57 INF
75% volume
Reduction
MB4 8/12/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 12:10 110 49 45 7.1 0.600 86 12127 WASH INF
MB4 8/13/2002 1&2 7:45 AM 21:55 103 48 45 7.2 0.620 89 12486 WASH INF
MB4 8/13/2002 1&2 8:15 AM 22:25 103 48 45 7.2 0.620 89 12506 379 2180 ND WASH INF
2.53
washdown
volume to
tank ratio

Table A-12. (continued).
A-29
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB4 8/13/2002 1&2 8:25 AM 22:35 80 49 42 8.3 0.630 91 FLUSH
MB4 8/13/2002 1&2 8:40 AM 22:45 76 49 42 8.4 0.820 118 FLUSH
MB5 8/13/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 0:00 80 50 46 7.0 0.484 70 12526 0.76 INF
MB5 8/13/2002 1&2 10:30 AM 1:30 91 48 44 6.9 0.484 70 INF
MB5 8/13/2002 1&2 12:15 PM 1:15 110 48 44 7.0 0.546 79 INF
MB5 8/13/2002 1&2 3:30 PM 3:14 111 48 44 7.0 0.572 82 INF
MB5 8/13/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 13:00 111 48 44 7.0 0.592 85 12951 425 11780 2.50 INF
74% Volume
reduction
MB5 8/13/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 13:00 111 48 44 7.0 0.593 85 WASH INF
MB5 8/14/2002 1&2 7:15 AM 22:15 109 48 44 7.0 0.592 85 13281 330 2450 1.93 WASH INF
2.16
washdown
ratio
MB5 8/14/2002 1&2 7:20 AM 22:20 73 48 42 7.0 0.614 88 FLUSH
MB5 8/14/2002 1&2 8:00 AM 23:00 72 49 43 8.0 0.698 101 FLUSH
MB5 8/14/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 24:00 84 48 43 8.0 0.745 107 CLEAN
CIP, MC4 @
pH 11, 150
deg. F
MB5 8/14/2002 1&2 9:10 AM 24:10 100 48 43 8.9 1.007 145 CLEAN
MB5 8/14/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 24:30 122 48 42 9.0 1.345 194 CLEAN
MB5 8/14/2002 1&2 10:15 AM 25:15 140 47 38 9.0 1.800 259 CLEAN
MB5 8/14/2002 1&2 10:40 AM 25:40 150 47 37 10.0 2.000 288 CLEAN
MB5 8/14/2002 1&2 10:45 AM 25:45 82 49 44 9.0 1.800 259 FLUSH
Excellent Flux
revovery
MB5 8/14/2002 1&2 11:00 AM 26:00 87 49 44 9.0 1.643 237 FLUSH
MB6 8/14/2002 1&2 11:20 AM 0:00 80 51 48 8.0 0.943 136 13473 0.64 INF
MB6 8/14/2002 1&2 11:35 AM 0:15 87 50 45 7.0 0.821 118 INF
MB6 8/14/2002 1&2 12:05 PM 0:45 90 50 45 7.0 0.777 112 INF
MB6 8/14/2002 1&2 8:00 PM 8:40 90 50 45 7.0 0.697 100 INF
MB6 8/14/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 11:00 90 50 45 7.0 0.680 98 13928 455 12600 2.48 INF 75.2% VR
MB6 8/14/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 11:00 90 49 45 7.0 0.680 98 WASH INF
MB6 8/15/2002 1&2 7:30 AM 20:30 105 50 45 7.0 0.707 102 WASH INF

Table A-12. (continued).
A-30
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB6 8/15/2002 1&2 8:45 AM 21:45 105 50 45 7.0 0.713 103 14375 447 2100 2.10 WASH INF 2.98 ratio
MB6 8/15/2002 1&2 9:15 AM 22:15 65 49 45 8.0 0.758 109 FLUSH
MB6 8/15/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 22:30 75 50 45 8.0 0.812 117 FLUSH
MB7 8/15/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 0:00 80 52 48 8.0 0.548 79 14390 0.61 INF
MB7 8/15/2002 1&2 10:30 AM 0:30 89 50 46 8.0 0.549 79 INF
MB7 8/15/2002 1&2 11:30 AM 1:30 95 50 46 7.0 0.563 81 INF
MB7 8/15/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 5:00 109 50 46 7.0 0.621 89 INF
MB7 8/15/2002 1&2 5:30 PM 7:30 111 50 46 7.0 0.628 90 INF
MB7 8/15/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 11:00 112 50 46 7.0 0.635 91 14781 391 12450 2.16 INF 72.3 % vr
MB7 8/15/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 11:00 112 50 46 7.0 0.635 91 WASH INF
MB7 8/16/2002 1&2 7:00 AM 21:00 108 50 46 7.0 0.645 93 WASH INF
MB7 8/16/2002 1&2 11:30 AM 25:30 108 50 46 7.0 0.663 95 WASH INF
MB7 8/16/2002 1&2 12:00 PM 26:00 108 50 46 7.0 0.664 96 15363 582 1240 1.88 WASH INF 3.88 ratio
MB7 8/16/2002 1&2 12:15 PM 26:15 70 50 47 7.0 0.662 95 FLUSH
MB7 8/16/2002 1&2 12:35 PM 26:35 76 48 42 7.0 0.742 107 FLUSH
MB8 8/16/2002 1&2 1:30 PM 0:00 80 52 47 7.0 0.477 69 15380 0.67 INF
MB8 8/16/2002 1&2 2:00 PM 0:30 85 52 46 7.0 0.478 69 INF
MB8 8/16/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 1:30 98 52 46 7.0 0.504 73 INF
MB8 8/16/2002 1&2 7:00 PM 5:30 110 52 46 7.0 0.594 86 INF
MB8 8/16/2002 1&2 11:00 PM 9:00 110 50 46 7.0 0.602 87 15698 318 10350 1.84 INF 76.5% vr
MB8 8/16/2002 1&2 11:00 PM 9:00 110 50 46 7.0 0.602 87 WASH INF
MB8 8/17/2002 1&2 7:00 AM 17:00 108 50 46 7.0 0.620 89 WASH INF
MB8 8/17/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 19:00 108 50 46 7.0 0.622 90 16072 374 1720 1.55 WASH INF 2.5 ratio
MB8 8/17/2002 1&2 9:05 AM 19:05 78 49 42 8.0 0.633 91 FLUSH
MB8 8/17/2002 1&2 9:25 AM 19:25 72 49 42 8.0 0.703 101 FLUSH
MB9 8/17/2002 1&2 7:30 AM 0:00 80 51 48 7.3 0.448 65 16089 0.67 INF
MB9 8/17/2002 1&2 10:30 AM 3:00 94 51 48 7.3 0.474 68 INF
MB9 8/17/2002 1&2 12:00 PM 4:30 100 53 49 7.3 0.526 76 INF
MB9 8/17/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 7:30 110 53 49 7.3 0.590 85 INF

Table A-12. (continued).
A-31
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB9 8/17/2002 1&2 6:00 PM 10:30 110 53 49 7.3 0.620 89 INF
MB9 8/17/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 13:30 112 53 48 7.3 0.621 89 16480 391 15920 2.55 INF 72.3% vr
MB9 8/17/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 13:30 112 53 49 7.3 0.621 89 WASH INF
MB9 8/18/2002 1&2 7:00 AM 23:30 108 53 49 7.3 0.605 87 WASH INF
MB9 8/18/2002 1&2 8:05 AM 24:35 108 53 48 7.3 0.598 86 16887 407 2590 1.96 WASH INF 2.7 ratio
MB9 8/18/2002 1&2 8:15 AM 24:45 100 50 42 0.5 1.205 174 CLEAN
MB9 8/18/2002 1&2 8:40 AM 25:10 142 51 42 9.0 1.495 215 CLEAN
MB9 8/18/2002 1&2 8:50 AM 25:20 148 51 42 9.0 1.647 237 CLEAN
MB9 8/18/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 26:30 150 51 42 9.0 1.693 244 CLEAN
MB9 8/18/2002 1&2 11:00 AM 28:30 80 53 46 9.0 1.058 152 FLUSH
MB9 8/18/2002 1&2 11:15 AM 28:45 67 52 43 9.0 1.048 151 FLUSH
MB10 8/18/2002 1&2 11:30 AM 0:00 80 53 47 7.0 0.621 89 16983 0.71 INF
MB10 8/18/2002 1&2 12:00 PM 0:30 96 53 48 7.0 0.608 88 INF
MB10 8/18/2002 1&2 1:00 PM 1:30 99 53 49 7.0 0.600 86 INF
MB10 8/18/2002 1&2 4:00 PM 3:30 106 53 49 7.0 0.641 92 INF
MB10 8/18/2002 1&2 7:00 PM 7:30 108 53 49 7.0 0.644 93 INF
MB10 8/18/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 10:30 108 53 49 7.0 0.623 90 13560 2.35 INF
MB10 8/19/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 10:30 108 53 49 7.0 0.623 90 17377 394 WASH INF 72.4% vr
MB10 8/19/2002 1&2 7:05 AM 18:35 106 53 49 7.0 0.626 90 WASH INF
MB10 8/19/2002 1&2 9:05 AM 20:35 106 53 49 7.0 0.635 91 WASH INF
MB10 8/19/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 22:30 106 53 48 7.0 0.636 92 17826 449 1510 1.72 WASH INF 3.0 ratio
MB10 8/19/2002 1&2 10:05 AM 22:35 80 53 44 8.0 0.659 95 FLUSH
MB10 8/19/2002 1&2 10:25 AM 22:55 70 53 44 8.0 0.782 113 FLUSH
MB11 8/19/2002 1&2 11:00 AM 0:00 80 56 49 7.0 0.559 80 17844 0.60 INF
MB11 8/19/2002 1&2 11:30 AM 0:30 90 53 49 7.0 0.561 81 INF
MB11 8/19/2002 1&2 12:00 AM 1:00 98 53 49 7.0 0.582 84 INF
MB11 8/19/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 4:00 108 53 48 7.0 0.583 84 INF
MB11 8/19/2002 1&2 6:30 PM 7:30 108 53 48 7.0 0.593 85 INF
MB11 8/19/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 11:00 108 53 48 7.0 0.598 86 18108 264 13800 1.78 INF 63.8% vr

Table A-12. (continued).
A-32
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB11 8/19/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 11:00 108 53 48 7.0 0.598 86 WASH INF
MB11 8/20/2002 1&2 7:15 AM 20:15 100 53 48 7.0 0.573 83 WASH INF
MB11 8/20/2002 1&2 9:45 AM 22:45 100 53 48 7.0 0.574 83 18611 503 2010 1.35 WASH INF 3.35 ratio
MB11 8/20/2002 1&2 10:15 AM 23:15 70 53 46 8.0 0.590 85 CLEAN
MB11 8/20/2002 1&2 10:30 AM 23:30 110 53 46 8.0 0.286 41 CLEAN
cleaning
foamed,
causing low
flux
MB11 8/20/2002 1&2 10:55 AM 23:55 70 52 46 8.0 0.634 91 FLUSH
MB11 8/20/2002 1&2 11:05 AM 24:05 70 51 43 8.9 1.009 145 FLUSH
MB11 8/20/2002 1&2 11:15 AM 24:15 70 51 44 9.0 1.011 146 FLUSH
MB12 8/21/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 0:00 70 54 50 7.0 0.722 104 18669 0.73 INF
MB12 8/21/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 0:30 80 53 49 7.0 0.667 96 INF
MB12 8/21/2002 1&2 11:00 AM 1:30 89 53 49 7.0 0.665 96 INF
MB12 8/21/2002 1&2 2:30 PM 5:00 104 53 49 7.0 0.657 95 INF
MB12 8/21/2002 1&2 6:00 PM 8:30 108 53 49 7.0 0.645 93 INF
MB12 8/21/2002 1&2 9:30 PM 12:00 108 53 49 7.0 0.609 88 19000 331 11800 2.91 INF 68.8% vr
MB12 8/21/2002 1&2 9:30 PM 12:00 108 53 49 7.0 0.609 88 WASH INF
MB12 8/22/2002 1&2 7:00 AM 21:30 106 53 49 7.0 0.602 87 WASH INF
MB12 8/22/2002 1&2 8:00 AM 22:30 106 53 48 7.0 0.602 87 WASH INF
MB12 8/22/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 23:30 106 53 48 7.0 0.603 87 WASH INF
MB12 8/22/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 24:00 106 53 48 7.0 0.599 86 19599 599 1770 2.27 WASH INF 4.0 ratio
MB12 8/22/2002 1&2 9:35 AM 24:05 80 52 44 8.0 0.599 86 FLUSH
MB12 8/22/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 24:30 70 52 44 8.0 0.706 102 FLUSH
MB13 8/22/2002 1&2 11:00 AM 0:00 78 55 50 7.0 0.544 78 19541 0.59 INF
MB13 8/22/2002 1&2 11:30 AM 0:30 88 53 49 7.0 0.501 72 INF
MB13 8/22/2002 1&2 12:30 PM 1:30 88 53 49 7.0 0.519 75 INF
MB13 8/22/2002 1&2 4:00 PM 5:00 108 53 49 7.0 0.543 78 INF
MB13 8/22/2002 1&2 7:00 PM 8:00 110 53 49 7.0 0.542 78 INF
MB13 8/22/2002 1&2 11:00 PM 12:00 110 53 49 7.0 0.522 75 19843 302 11970 2.09 INF 66.8% vr

Table A-12. (continued).
A-33
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB13 8/22/2002 1&2 11:00 PM 12:00 110 53 49 7.0 0.522 75 WASH INF
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 7:00 AM 20:00 108 53 49 7.0 0.523 75 WASH INF
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 8:30 AM 21:30 108 53 49 7.0 0.524 75 WASH INF
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 22:30 108 53 48 7.0 0.526 76 WASH INF
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 11:00 AM 24:00 108 53 49 7.0 0.527 76 20350 507 2080 1.60 WASH INF 3.38 ratio
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 11:05 AM 24:05 90 52 49 8.0 0.513 74 FLUSH
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 11:20 AM 24:20 72 52 44 8.3 0.612 88 FLUSH
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 11:45 AM 24:45 72 53 44 8.0 0.386 56 CLEAN
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 12:15 PM 25:15 90 53 46 8.9 0.556 80 CLEAN
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 1:15 PM 26:15 124 51 45 9.0 0.873 126 CLEAN
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 2:00 PM 27:00 142 51 44 9.4 1.164 168 CLEAN
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 2:15 PM 27:15 72 51 43 9.3 1.196 172 FLUSH
MB13 8/23/2002 1&2 2:30 PM 27:30 72 51 44 9.3 1.309 188 FLUSH
MB14 8/24/2002 1&2 10:15 AM 0:00 74 53 49 8.0 0.865 125 20482 0.61 INF
MB14 8/24/2002 1&2 10:45 AM 0:30 84 53 49 7.6 0.812 117 INF
MB14 8/24/2002 1&2 11:45 AM 1:30 90 53 49 7.0 0.785 113 INF
MB14 8/24/2002 1&2 4:00 PM 5:45 102 53 49 7.5 0.700 101 INF
MB14 8/24/2002 1&2 7:00 PM 8:45 104 53 48 7.2 0.662 95 INF 76.7% vr
MB14 8/24/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 11:45 104 53 48 7.2 0.638 92 20975 493 12310 2.57 INF
MB14 8/25/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 11:45 100 53 48 7.0 0.638 92 WASH INF
MB14 8/25/2002 1&2 7:00 AM 20:45 100 52 48 7.0 0.637 92 WASH INF
MB14 8/25/2002 1&2 8:00 AM 21:45 100 52 48 7.0 0.640 92 WASH INF
MB14 8/25/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 22:45 100 52 48 7.0 0.644 93 WASH INF
MB14 8/25/2002 1&2 9:45 AM 23:30 100 52 48 7.0 0.647 93 21424 449 1730 2.22 WASH INF 3.0 ratio
MB14 8/25/2002 1&2 9:47 AM 23:32 80 50 44 8.0 0.579 83 FLUSH
MB14 8/25/2002 1&2 10:05 AM 23:50 72 50 43 8.9 0.802 115 FLUSH
MB15 8/25/2002 1&2 10:05 AM 0:00 72 52 49 8.0 0.593 85 21438 0.60 INF
MB15 8/25/2002 1&2 10:35 AM 0:30 72 52 49 7.3 0.560 81 INF
MB15 8/25/2002 1&2 11:30 AM 0:55 84 52 49 7.0 0.581 84 INF

Table A-12. (continued).
A-34
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB15 8/25/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 5:00 90 52 48 7.0 0.605 87 INF
MB15 8/25/2002 1&2 6:00 PM 8:00 104 52 48 7.0 0.602 87 INF
MB15 8/25/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 12:00 108 52 48 7.0 0.589 85 21860 422 12320 2.19 INF 73.8 %vr
MB15 8/25/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 12:00 108 52 48 7.0 0.589 85 WASH INF
MB15 8/26/2002 1&2 7:00 AM 21:00 102 52 48 7.0 0.568 82 WASH INF
MB15 8/26/2002 1&2 8:00 AM 22:00 102 52 48 7.0 0.569 82 WASH INF
MB15 8/25/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 23:00 102 52 48 7.0 0.572 82 WASH INF
MB15 8/26/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 24:00 102 52 48 7.0 0.573 83 22275 415 1700 1.98 WASH INF 2.77 ratio
MB15 8/26/2002 1&2 10:05 AM 24:00 82 50 44 8.0 0.511 74 FLUSH
MB15 8/26/2002 1&2 10:25 AM 24:20 70 50 43 8.0 0.710 102 FLUSH
MB16 8/27/2002 1&2 8:50 AM 0:00 68 53 49 7.2 0.530 76 22291 0.60 INF
MB16 8/27/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 0:40 80 52 48 7.0 0.510 73 INF
MB16 8/27/2002 1&2 10:30 AM 1:40 90 52 49 7.0 0.533 77 INF
MB16 8/27/2002 1&2 2:00 PM 5:10 104 52 48 7.0 0.584 84 INF
MB16 8/27/2002 1&2 5:00 PM 8:10 108 52 48 7.0 0.590 85 INF
MB16 8/27/2002 1&2 8:50 PM 12:00 106 52 49 7.3 0.561 81 22698 407 13360 2.12 INF 73.0 % vr
MB16 8/27/2002 1&2 8:50 PM 12:00 106 52 49 7.0 0.561 81 WASH INF
MB16 8/28/2002 1&2 7:00 AM 22:10 100 52 48 7.0 0.536 77 WASH INF
MB16 8/28/2002 1&2 8:00 AM 23:10 100 52 48 7.0 0.550 79 WASH INF
MB16 8/28/2002 1&2 8:50 AM 24:00 100 52 48 7.0 0.534 77 23087 389 1975 1.86 WASH INF 2.6 ratio
MB16 8/28/2002 1&2 8:55 AM 24:05 82 51 44 8.0 0.518 75 FLUSH
MB16 8/28/2002 1&2 9:15 AM 24:25 70 50 44 8.3 0.673 97 FLUSH
MB16 8/28/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 25:10 68 56 43 8.4 0.479 69 CLEAN
MB16 8/28/2002 1&2 11:00 AM 26:10 118 54 45 9.0 0.922 133 CLEAN
MB16 8/28/2002 1&2 11:55 AM 27:05 150 51 43 7.8 1.369 197 CLEAN
MB16 8/28/2002 1&2 12:20 PM 27:30 82 52 44 9.0 1.082 156 FLUSH
MB16 8/28/2002 1&2 12:40 PM 27:50 71 51 43 9.0 1.168 168 FLUSH
MB17 9/3/2002 1&2 11:45 AM 0:00 78 53 49 7.8 0.855 123 0.85 INF
MB17 9/3/2002 1&2 1:00 PM 1:15 90 53 48 7.7 0.818 118 INF

Table A-12. (continued).
A-35
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB17 9/3/2002 1&2 4:30 PM 4:45 102 52 47 7.5 0.786 113 INF
MB17 9/3/2002 1&2 12:30 AM 12:45 104 52 48 7.5 0.692 100 8320 3.25 INF
MB17 9/3/2002 1&2 12:30 AM 12:45 104 52 48 7.5 0.692 100 WASH INF
MB17 9/4/2002 1&2 8:30 AM 20:45 98 52 48 7.2 0.682 98 WASH INF
MB17 9/4/2002 1&2 9:45 AM 21:30 99 52 48 7.2 0.680 98 1512 2.72 WASH INF
MB17 9/4/2002 1&2 9:45 AM 21:30 84 51 44 8.4 0.559 80 FLUSH
MB17 9/4/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 21:45 84 51 45 8.4 0.760 109 FLUSH
MB18 9/4/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 0:00 76 52 44 7.3 0.619 89 24195 1.23 INF
MB18 9/4/2002 1&2 10:45 AM 0:45 86 52 48 7.4 0.600 86 INF
MB18 9/4/2002 1&2 1:00 PM 3:00 97 52 48 7.5 0.664 96 INF
MB18 9/4/2002 1&2 11:00 PM 13:00 105 52 48 7.3 0.621 89 24700 505 18840 4.18 INF 77% vr
MB18 9/4/2002 1&2 11:00 PM 13:00 105 52 48 7.3 0.611 88 WASH INF
MB18 9/5/2002 1&2 7:45 AM 21:45 100 52 48 7.3 0.611 88 WASH INF
MB18 9/5/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 23:00 100 50 48 7.3 0.640 92 25070 370 3100 3.30 WASH INF 2.47 ratio
MB18 9/5/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 23:00 74 50 43 8.5 0.620 89 FLUSH
MB18 9/5/2002 1&2 9:15 AM 23:15 76 50 43 8.5 0.752 108 FLUSH
MB19 9/5/2002 1&2 9:15 AM 0:00 74 52 49 7.3 0.550 79 25084 0.84 INF
MB19 9/5/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 0:15 78 52 49 7.3 0.549 79 INF
MB19 9/5/2002 1&2 12:15 PM 3:00 95 52 48 7.3 0.638 92 INF
MB19 9/5/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 11:45 104 52 48 7.3 0.638 92 25531 447 15750 2.92 INF 74.9% vr
MB19 9/5/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 11:45 104 52 48 7.3 0.638 92 WASH INF
MB19 9/6/2002 1&2 7:45 AM 22:30 98 50 48 7.5 0.616 89 25936 405 2100 2.40 WASH INF 2.7 ratio
MB19 9/6/2002 1&2 7:50 AM 22:35 72 50 43 8.5 0.490 71 FLUSH
MB19 9/6/2002 1&2 8:10 AM 22:55 70 50 43 8.7 0.730 105 FLUSH
MB20 9/7/2002 1&2 8:15 AM 0:00 70 52 48 7.1 0.525 76 25955 0.88 INF
MB20 9/7/2002 1&2 9:15 AM 1:00 82 52 48 7.2 0.544 78 INF
MB20 9/7/2002 1&2 2:45 PM 6:30 102 52 48 7.7 0.638 92 INF
MB20 9/7/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 12:45 105 52 48 7.3 0.630 91 26434 479 15500 3.32 INF 76.2% vr
MB20 9/7/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 12:45 105 52 48 7.4 0.630 91 WASH INF

Table A-12. (continued).
A-36
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB20 9/8/2002 1&2 8:00 AM 23:45 100 52 48 7.3 0.600 86 WASH INF
MB20 9/8/2002 1&2 8:30 AM 24:15 100 51 48 7.3 0.606 87 26853 419 2600 2.90 WASH INF 2.80 ratio
MB20 9/8/2002 1&2 8:30 AM 24:15 76 51 43 8.5 0.565 81 FLUSH
MB20 9/8/2002 1&2 8:50 AM 24:35 78 51 43 8.6 0.695 100 FLUSH
MB20 9/8/2002 1&2 8:55 AM 24:40 70 51 43 8.8 0.550 79 CLEAN
MB20 9/8/2002 1&2 9:20 AM 25:05 93 51 44 9.1 0.950 137 CLEAN
MB20 9/8/2002 1&2 9:45 AM 25:20 137 51 43 9.8 1.650 238 CLEAN
MB20 9/8/2002 1&2 9:50 AM 25:25 78 50 43 9.3 1.050 151 FLUSH
MB21 9/9/2002 1&2 11:30 AM 0:00 75 52 44 9.0 0.820 118 26993 0.84 INF
MB21 9/9/2002 1&2 11:35 AM 0:05 80 52 49 8.0 0.843 121 INF
MB21 9/9/2002 1&2 9:30 PM 10:00 108 52 49 7.8 0.767 110 27505 512 13500 2.97 INF 77.3% vr
MB21 9/9/2002 1&2 9:30 PM 10:00 108 52 49 7.8 0.767 110 WASH INF
MB21 9/10/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 22:00 100 52 49 7.8 0.741 107 28037 532 1230 2.56 WASH INF 3.5 ratio
MB21 9/10/2002 1&2 9:45 AM 22:15 80 50 44 8.6 0.650 94 FLUSH
MB21 9/10/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 22:30 70 50 4 8.8 0.755 109 FLUSH
MB22 9/10/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 0:00 77 51 47 7.2 0.723 104 28060 0.81 INF
MB22 9/10/2002 1&2 9:45 AM 0:15 80 50 46 7.2 0.734 106 INF
MB22 9/10/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 7:30 110 50 45 7.2 0.810 117 INF
MB22 9/10/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 11:30 109 50 45 7.4 0.725 104 28604 544 15200 3.63 INF 78.4%vr
MB22 9/10/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 11:30 109 50 45 7.4 0.725 104 WASH INF
MB22 9/11/2002 1&2 8:00 AM 22:30 100 50 45 7.6 0.694 100 WASH INF
LOST 40
GALLONS
MB22 9/11/2002 1&2 8:30 AM 23:00 100 50 45 7.7 0.697 100 29077 473 1640 3.18 WASH INF 3.15 ratio
MB22 9/11/2002 1&2 8:30 AM 23:00 80 49 42 8.5 0.650 94 FLUSH
MB22 9/11/2002 1&2 8:45 AM 23:15 80 49 42 8.7 0.820 118 FLUSH
MB23 9/11/2002 1&2 10:15 AM 0:00 70 51 46 7.4 0.682 98 29086 0.57 INF
MB23 9/11/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 10:45 100 50 46 7.4 0.676 97 29517 431 12700 2.18 INF 74.2% vr
MB23 9/11/2002 1&2 9:00 PM 10:45 100 50 46 7.4 0.676 97 WASH INF
MB23 9/12/2002 1&2 7:00 AM 20:45 92 50 46 7.7 0.684 98 29960 443 1750 1.77 WASH INF 2.95 ratio

Table A-12. (continued).
A-37
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB23 9/12/2002 1&2 7:15 AM 23:00 75 50 42 8.8 0.560 81 FLUSH
MB23 9/12/2002 1&2 7:30 AM 23:15 75 50 42 8.7 0.780 112 FLUSH
MB24 9/13/2002 1&2 1:30 PM 0:00 70 50 47 7.3 0.686 99 29966 ND INF
MB24 9/13/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 1:30 84 50 46 7.6 0.671 97 INF
MB24 9/13/2002 1&2 7:15 PM 5:45 100 49 45 7.6 0.707 102 INF
MB24 9/13/2002 1&2 7:45 PM 6:15 100 49 45 7.2 0.709 102 INF
MB24 9/14/2002 1&2 7:35 AM 18:05 100 49 46 7.3 0.617 89 INF
MB24 9/14/2002 1&2 8:30 AM 19:00 100 49 46 7.3 0.619 89 30726 760 13400 3.55 INF 83.5% vr
MB24 9/14/2002 1&2 8:30 AM 19:00 100 49 46 7.3 0.619 89 WASH INF
MB24 9/14/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 20:30 100 49 45 7.3 0.610 88 WASH INF
MB24 9/14/2002 1&2 4:00 PM 26:30 106 50 46 7.4 0.654 94 WASH INF
MB24 9/14/2002 1&2 8:30 PM 24:45 104 49 46 7.4 0.661 95 31176 450 1700 3.67 WASH INF 3.00 ratio
MB24 9/14/2002 1&2 8:30 PM 24:45 80 49 42 8.9 0.647 93 FLUSH
MB24 9/14/2002 1&2 8:45 PM 25:00 70 49 42 8.4 0.790 114 FLUSH
MB24 9/15/2002 1&2 8:00 AM 36:45 100 50 43 8.3 0.752 108 CLEAN
MB24 9/15/2002 1&2 8:30 AM 37:15 100 49 42 8.8 1.039 150 CLEAN
MB24 9/15/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 37:45 120 49 42 9.0 1.161 167 CLEAN
MB24 9/15/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 38:15 134 49 40 9.2 1.260 181 CLEAN
MB24 9/15/2002 1&2 10:15 AM 39:00 150 48 40 9.5 1.417 204 CLEAN
MB24 9/15/2002 1&2 10:40 AM 39:20 74 50 42 8.9 0.961 138 FLUSH
MB24 9/15/2002 1&2 11:00 AM 39:40 74 49 40 9.9 1.196 172 FLUSH
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 0:00 65 50 48 7.2 0.722 104 31379 0.77 INF
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 10:35 AM 0:30 84 48 45 7.2 0.735 106 INF
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 11:35 AM 1:30 88 50 46 7.2 0.727 105 INF
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 5:00 98 49 46 7.2 0.763 110 INF
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 7:00 PM 9:00 100 49 45 7.1 0.730 105 INF
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 12:00 99 49 46 7.2 0.696 100 31899 520 14600 2.43 INF 77.6% vr
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 10:00 PM 12:00 96 49 46 7.2 0.696 100 WASH INF
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 7:00 AM 21:00 96 49 46 7.3 0.705 102 WASH INF

Table A-12. (continued).
A-38
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 8:00 AM 22:00 96 50 46 7.2 0.708 102 WASH INF
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 23:00 96 50 46 7.2 0.710 102 WASH INF
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 23:30 96 49 46 7.4 0.715 103 32391 492 1530 2.87 WASH INF 3.28 ratio
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 9:45 AM 23:45 74 49 44 8.2 0.644 93 FLUSH
MB25 9/16/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 24:00 70 49 42 8.6 0.874 126 FLUSH
MB26 9/17/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 0:00 70 50 46 7.2 0.630 91 32409 0.98 INF
MB26 9/17/2002 1&2 10:30 AM 0:30 78 50 46 7.3 0.628 90 INF
MB26 9/17/2002 1&2 11:30 AM 1:30 88 50 46 7.4 0.678 98 INF
MB26 9/17/2002 1&2 4:45 PM 6:45 102 49 46 7.6 0.725 104 INF
MB26 9/17/2002 1&2 7:00 PM 9:00 102 49 45 7.3 0.713 103 INF
MB26 9/17/2002 1&2 9:30 PM 11:30 102 49 45 7.4 0.686 99 32893 484 13800 2.91 INF 76.3% vr
MB26 9/18/2002 1&2 9:30 PM 11:30 102 49 46 7.6 0.686 99 WASH INF
MB26 9/18/2002 1&2 7:30 AM 21:30 98 49 46 7.5 0.688 99 WASH INF
MB26 9/18/2002 1&2 8:30 AM 22:30 98 49 46 7.6 0.689 99 WASH INF
MB26 9/18/2002 1&2 9:30 AM 23:30 98 49 45 7.5 0.691 100 33389 496 1400 2.38 WASH INF 3.3 ratio
MB26 9/18/2002 1&2 9:35 AM 23:35 78 49 42 8.5 0.629 91 FLUSH
MB26 9/18/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 24:00 70 49 42 8.6 0.820 118 FLUSH
MB27 9/20/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 0:00 76 50 46 736.0 0.689 99 33411 0.83 INF
MB27 9/20/2002 1&2 10:45 AM 0:45 88 50 46 7.5 0.650 94 INF
MB27 9/20/2002 1&2 11:45 AM 1:45 92 50 46 7.6 0.679 98 INF
MB27 9/20/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 5:00 106 50 45 7.2 0.743 107 INF
MB27 9/20/2002 1&2 7:00 PM 9:00 108 49 45 7.4 0.740 107 INF
MB27 9/20/2002 1&2 10:15 PM 12:15 108 49 45 7.3 0.700 101 33930 519 21700 3.19 INF 77.6% vr
MB27 9/20/2002 1&2 10:15 PM 12:15 108 49 46 7.3 0.700 101 WASH INF
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 7:15 AM 21:15 100 50 466 7.3 0.668 96 WASH INF
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 8:15 AM 22:15 100 50 46 7.3 0.644 93 WASH INF 2.5 ratio
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 9:00 AM 23:00 100 49 46 7.3 0.665 96 WASH INF

Table A-12. (continued).
A-39
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 24:00 100 49 46 7.3 0.665 96 34305 375 2150 2.75 WASH INF
Cleaning was
done because
of extra time
before starting
the next batch,
not because of
low flux
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 10:00 AM 24:00 88 49 42 8.2 0.662 95 FLUSH
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 10:15 AM 24:15 70 49 42 8.5 0.782 113 FLUSH
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 10:25 AM 24:25 70 50 44 8.3 0.652 94 CLEAN MC4, PH12
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 11:15 AM 25:15 120 48 42 8.8 0.919 132 CLEAN
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 11:55 AM 25:55 144 47 41 9.0 1.052 151 CLEAN
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 12:10 PM 26:10 150 47 40 9.3 1.104 159 CLEAN
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 12:25 PM 26:25 72 45 44 8.5 0.752 108 FLUSH
MB27 9/21/2002 1&2 12:45 PM 26:45 70 48 42 8.9 1.110 160 FLUSH
MB28 9/22/2002 1&2 9:15 AM 0:00 70 50 46 7.4 0.750 108 34531 0.94 INF
MB28 9/22/2002 1&2 9:45 AM 0:30 80 50 46 7.3 0.693 100 INF
MB28 9/22/2002 1&2 11:30 AM 2:15 94 49 45 7.2 0.702 101 INF
MB28 9/22/2002 1&2 5:00 PM 7:45 100 49 45 6.9 0.634 91 INF
MB28 9/22/2002 1&2 8:15 PM 11:00 100 49 45 6.9 0.594 86 35001 470 14700 3.07 INF 75.8% vr
MB28 9/22/2002 1&2 9:15 PM 12:00 100 49 45 7.0 0.580 84 WASH INF
MB28 9/23/2002 1&2 9:15 PM 12:00 100 49 45 6.8 0.613 88 WASH INF
MB28 9/23/2002 1&2 7:15 AM 22:00 100 49 45 7.1 0.619 89 WASH INF 2.85 ratio
MB28 9/23/2002 1&2 8:15 AM 23:00 100 49 45 6.8 0.631 91 35428 427 2000 2.61 WASH INF
MB28 9/23/2002 1&2 9:15 AM 24:00 70 49 42 8.7 0.630 91 FLUSH
MB28 9/23/2002 1&2 9:20 AM 24:05 70 49 42 8.8 0.804 116 FLUSH
MB29 9/23/2002 1&2 12:30 PM 0:00 68 50 46 7.3 0.606 87 35450 0.81 INF
MB29 9/23/2002 1&2 1:15 PM 0:45 80 50 46 7.3 0.607 87 INF
MB29 9/23/2002 1&2 2:15 PM 1:45 84 50 46 7.3 0.608 88 INF
MB29 9/23/2002 1&2 3:00 PM 2:30 90 50 46 7.5 0.633 91 INF
MB29 9/23/2002 1&2 7:00 PM 6:30 98 50 46 7.8 0.661 95 INF

Table A-12. (continued).
A-40
Trial
No.aDate Speedy Time
Elapsed
Time
(hh:mm)
Temp
(°F)
Feed
(psi)
Con
(psi)
Feed
Flow
(gpm)
Perm.
Flow
(gpm)
Flux
(gfd)
Perm.
Total
(gal)
Daily
Vol.
(gal)
Per.
COD
Con.
TS Source Notes
MB29 9/23/2002 1&2 11:15 PM 10:45 92 50 46 7.8 0.619 89 35849 399 14800 2.89 INF 72.7% vr
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 11:15 PM 10:45 90 49 46 7.8 0.619 89 WASH INF
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 7:45 AM 19:15 90 49 45 7.9 0.638 92 WASH INF
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 8:45 AM 20:15 90 49 46 7.8 0.647 93 WASH INF
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 10:30 AM 22:00 90 49 45 7.7 0.651 94 36265 416 1970 2.13 WASH INF 2.77 ratio
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 10:35 AM 22:05 80 49 42 8.8 0.556 80 FLUSH
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 10:50 AM 22:20 70 48 42 9.2 0.691 100 FLUSH
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 10:55 AM 22:25 68 49 44 8.8 0.615 89 CLEAN
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 11:30 AM 23:00 98 49 42 9.1 0.854 123 CLEAN
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 12:30 PM 24:00 132 49 42 8.8 1.020 147 CLEAN
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 12:45 PM 24:15 140 49 41 8.9 1.068 154 CLEAN
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 1:05 PM 24:35 70 49 43 8.5 0.787 113 FLUSH
MB29 9/24/2002 1&2 1:25 PM 24:55 70 49 42 8.5 1.010 145 FLUSH Test Complete
Trial
a. “MB” designates tests performed in this project. The MB was omitted in the body of the report. So “Trial x” in Table 7 is “Trial MBx” in this table.