Water Environment Federation (WEF) Discussion Forums / Biological Nutrient Removal / WEF Discussion Forums / Bioxide / Latest Posts

RE: Bioxide

Green Chem Guy — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:35:41 GMT

I agree that supplying oxygen is a better alternative by a long shot. Growing an anaerobic bio-mass in the infrastructure to tie up sulfides produces issues which can become difficult to deal with - one of which would would be an impressive amount of increase to coliform counts which will require more disinfection to achieve effluent release efficacy. Another anaerobic bio-mass downside is dealing with the sluffing off effect. The bio-film, once it grows to a certain level, will sluff off, creating off-gassing spikes in H2S and reap havoc in the primaries.

My statement above that supplying oxygen is better only holds true if you can keep oxygen in the water efficiently. It is my experience that Hydrogen Peroxide for example will only stay in the water for a minute or two. I'm familiar with supplying liquid oxygen to a generator to supply oxygen gas to the septic water environment, but at what cost per thousand gallons of influent? How can you keep that oxygen in the water long enough to be efficient? It is my understanding that this process is very spendy.

Click on the link below to view a highly stabilized release of oxygen vs. hydrogen peroxide;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50GxIHUHPRI

I don't really know how 02 gas compares with 01 gas in it's ability to remain in wastewater can anyone tell me?

RE: Bioxide

01804597 — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 15:12:10 GMT

Pure Oxygen is a great alternative to Bioxide addition. Air Products & chemicals Sells On-Site Oxygen Generators for odor control in lift stations. It increases the ORP and Dissolved Oxygen levels in the water and prevents the H2S from forming. It addition, it prevents corrosion...

their website is www.airproducts.com/bug

check it out!

RE: Bioxide

Rob Baur — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 14:02:44 GMT

Bioxide is a simple soluble fertilizer. The lawn care companies spray nitrate on laws to provide a quick nitrogen fertilizer. The nitrate simply provides a chemical source of oxygen and turns into nitrogen gas. Air is mostly nitrogen. Sewage stinks because it is deficient in oxygen. Adding nitrate is probably the safest, simplest way to provide oxygen to sewage on its way to the treatment plant. Peroxide and iron are more difficult to handle.

The calcium part of Bioxide is similar to lime that you would put in the garden or lawn.

The controversy here is over patent rights. Typically publicly owned plants share information and solutions freely. When a private company spend R&D money developing a process they expect to recover that money and make a profit. Their technical expertise is used to design a solution to a problem. Everyone wants to benefit from the R&D and get it for free. Working for a public organization and having 2 patents, I see it from both sides. After I explain a patent, they will say,"Gee, that is obvious". Well it wasn't obvious before I explained it to you!

RE: Bioxide

HForbes — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 09:25:48 GMT

http://www.water.siemens.com/en/Product_Lines/Davis_Products/Davis_Products/Pages/davisprocess_bioxide_odor_control_product_page.aspx

RE: Bioxide

musicmanvp — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 02:00:28 GMT

I am not in your field, but rather a citizen having sewer odors in my yard for 7 years, and extensive discussions with the sewer company. Their use of bioxide is a band aid patch. I'm convinced our problem requires a change in the line system (which they don't want to do). My concern now is the potential hazard to my family with the use of bioxide. Where can I get more info. on this chemical?

RE: Bioxide

Rob Baur — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 12:09:56 GMT

We tested peroxide pre-9/11. It is pretty scary stuff. Will permanently blind instantly on eye contact. Will set up to 1 year old blacktop on fire. It can react violently to any metal contamination. A screwdriver dropped in the tank will result in a uncontrolled decomposition. The truck driver did every known safety procedure. After parking, he coned and taped off the area. Full hazmat suit, gloves and boots taped, goggles, face shield etc all before doing anything! It can be used to make a nondetectable high explosive too! As it raises DO, it is pretty easy to measure excess. We are moving to Bio-P so it would destroy VFAs needed for Bio-P. Needed to be applied close to the plant on an 11 mile force main.

The sodium nitrate we got from a fertilizer company was very safe and easy to apply. It too consumes VFA inhibiting Bio-P. If you overdose you can denitrify in the primary clarifier and float the sludge. It reacts slower than peroxide so was applied further away.

Ferric is corrosive and stains everything. pH is minus 0.6! We apply it at the beginning of the 11 mile force main as there are not competing reactions as with peroxide or nitrate on VFA. Helps reduce odor on the entire line at air reliefs. Every ton of iron you add has to go out in the sludge so there are additional costs there. If you are cogenerating, it will help reduce H2S in the digester too.

RE: Bioxide

Jordan — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:21:28 GMT

Also, what are the issues with effluent for a plant, in terms of water reclamation?

Jordan

RE: Bioxide

Jordan — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 18:45:04 GMT

Can anyone tell me what concentrations are reccomended to reduce odor through addition of calcium nitrate?

Residence time?, Typical Costs? and if you would reccomend any alternatives such as hydrogen peroxide or ferric chloride?

Thanks,

Jordan

RE: Bioxide

Rob Baur — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:52:33 GMT

I believe their original patent expired and they got a new on based on some modification. We did a pilot with sodium nitrate and the vendor indemnified us from any adverse claim from the Bioxide guys. They said their lawyers were bigger than Bioxide's lawyers or some such thing. Actually they believed their process did not infringe. If you got a pump and control package from Bioxide there may or may not be a specific prohibition in the contract to prevent you from using something else. I would contact another vendor that could advise you. Contact me off list and I may be able to find who did our nitrate pilot. We ended up using ferrous after trying nitrate and peroxide.

You can search the patent office database for Bioxide and find the current patents at:

http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=0&f=S&l=50&TERM1=Bioxide&FIELD1=&co1=AND&TERM2=&FIELD2=&d=PTXT

RE: Bioxide

01683907 — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 18:39:27 GMT

We currently use Bioxide in a few of our pump stations that convey sewage to our two treatment plants. We spend roughly $500,000 on the product and it does remove sulfide and has provided odor control. Since the process of adding nitrate is patented, has anyone out there tried to use another nitrate product or vendor other than Siemens? They claim that they will sue us for infringement on their patent so I just wondered if anyone has even attempted to try some other form of nitrate.

Mr. Stink

RE: Bioxide

Craig — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:00:58 GMT

There is some good information here, thanks guys/gals. I am also looking into using Bioxide. By what I've seen here, my system is just like any other collection system...only much smaller. I send about 80-100,000 gals to a nearby city and pay them to treat it. This is accomplished via a 4 mile-long force main. As you can imagine H2s levels are more than acceptable, and since none of my predecessors mangaed to cure the problem, it is up to me. The rep from Siemens will be here in a couple of weeks to do the evaluation, so we'll see. Unless someone has a better idea, Bioxide will probably do the trick....if we can afford it!

Thanks again for all the good info, I will stop in from time to time.

(now back to writing a new song for the band. We will be playing at the IRWA conference next year in Idaho. Name of the song? "Hyrdogen Sulfide Blues") Suggestions welcome!

RE: Bioxide

Victor — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 22:53:51 GMT

[quote]Green Chem Guy (12/3/2007)

Gentlemen,

To be much clearer, and in defense of the operator(s) and in reference to the comment about "knowingly or unknowingly", I'd say that it's probably at least about 98% unknowingly. It's not even their job to know that. The internal or external (independent) labs tend to scurry through these tests without much of a look at running spikes which are very cumbersome and time consuming. (Running sample spikes are how you indentify test interferences.)

Independent labs would go bankrupt if they checked for interferences on every test sample they recieved in the door. What I'm saying is that the assumption that all the nitrates are gone before they reach the plant may be hugely erroneous because of the massively low test interferences created by tiny amounts of sodium Thio in the lab test. Yes Woodie, I know that sodium thio isn't what is used in the plant for de-chlorination. But it most certainly is used as the first step in the lab. Let me re-iterate that tiny excess amounts of thio skew the test results on a cadmium test to the low side dramatically.

quote]

GreenChem Guy:

I need to ask whether you've ever worked in a certified lab under NPDES permit? From your comments, it appears that you haven't. Labs are required to run QA/QC on a minimum frequency of 10%. Id est, for every ten samples you MUST have a duplicate and a spike This said, with this frequency of assurance if your QA/QC goals are not met, you need to:

1. Rerun sample to corroborate results.

2. If Results continue to be the same, ask operations to bring in another sample.

3. If results from second sampling are the same, then advice operations that results are consistent and "they" must check operational parameters. At this point in time, another lab method is utilize to corroborate results from initial analysis.

4. As with any analysis, trending must be incorporated with analysis of any laboratory and operational results.

It is pompous to assume that all labs run cadmium reduction for NO3 analysis. This is old technology and the majority of large labs do not perform this analysis due to not only its time consuming method but you also have to deal with the column itself. Newer technologies such as the use of Dionex equipment automatically take care of QA/QC issues but also "flag" any flagrant issues. I also have to state that all labs need to be "independent" of operations due to "conflict of interest" issues as well as ethics issues. So, in a way, all labs are independent.

Lastly, in defense of operators nationswide, it is purile to assume that operators are not smart enough to "know" what their job entails. "It is not even in their job to know that". Wow, if only their certification would reflect that.

RE: Bioxide

Green Chem Guy — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:00:38 GMT

Gentlemen,

Let me quickly clarify my earlier post and the whole point of it.

I find it highly unlikely I'm the only "chem guy" who knows this. By the way Jerry, yes I've gotten dirty quite a few times for several weeks at a time in WWTP's. I have seen the "guaranteed 30% reductions to H2S with Bioxide. It actually works well at doing that. But when my Odalogs are pegging 1000 ppm in the untreated flows, and they are averaging 700 ppm in the bioxide treated flows, I'm not impressed.

Then to find out that the sodium thio-sulfate used to scavenge the chlorine residual in the Standard Methods 4500 throws a huge low interference in the result on NO3, I have to say something to someone. Where better than on this forum? But I'm not going to be the bad guy whistle blower. I will just inform the highly responsible operators to are committed to environmental responsibility and let them deal with it. For me to rectify the error would be corporate suicide. I'm the Green Chem Guy. Not the Bad Chem Guy.

Additionally, I don't think I'm off subject here. The subject title on this forum thread is "bio-nutrient removal -- Bioxide". So the point here is to shed light on the bio-nutrient testing method used in this country for identification of........bio-nutrients in the effluent. HOUSTON...WE HAVE A PROBLEM!!!

Europe (I'm embarrassed and ashamed to say it) doesn't have this problem.

I can fix this, but I'm darn sure not going to be the RAT who blows the whistle. I love my job more that that! Furthermore, I don't think that the folks who read this forum and participate in this forum would be irresponsible in any way. We would be the ones who really care about what we do. Right? or we wouldn't bother. I'm not pointing an accusing finger at anyone. I'm only saying that I think there is a huge potential for an oversight here. Pass the effluent over activated carbon and re-test without using the thio. You might get an unpleasant surprise.

We'll talk more later, but I have a funeral to attend. Woodie, I will call you later. I'm burying my Father tomorrow.

RE: Bioxide

Jerry — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:39:42 GMT

I am in the Gret State of Missouri, goofing off, and looking for a job.

RE: Bioxide

D Shulmister — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 13:11:33 GMT

I would be surprised to find out that Green Chem Guy has ever even seen the inside of a treatment plant. He obviously does not know much of testing procedudres therein. Most of the larger treatment plants have their own (unattached) laboratories. Smaller ones usually send out (regulatory required) samples to outside labs. It is not the operator who tests the effluent for nitrate but rather the internal or contract labs. If the operator alters the test results on the Discharge Monitoring Report, that in and of itself is a crime which subjects the operator to the possibility of civil and criminal penalties as well as the potential loss of his license. I don't know many operators who would risk that.

RE: Bioxide

Woodie — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 12:08:04 GMT

This is my first post to this thread. I agree with Jerry’s last post that this has been a good discussion. The last post by GREEN CHEM GUY deserves a response because I believe it makes a huge leap of faith from technical discussion to suggestions of impropriety on the part of WWTP operators. Operators face enough regulatory and public relations issues today without having someone post misleading comments in a national discussion forum such as this.

First, a summary of relevant Bioxide issues from those posting with experience:

§ It works to control H₂S production; the science is sound

§ It is “expensive” to use (I use quotes because cost is relevant to efficiency and effectiveness)

§ It is patented; a proprietary chemical

§ It could cause some operational issues with floating sludge in primary clarifiers if overdosed

Any chemical we use in the wastewater treatment process (e.g., alum, sodium hydroxide, chlorine, etc.) could cause operational or compliance problems if overdosed. Given that Bioxide is “expensive”, it is unclear to me why the dose would not be carefully controlled to prevent excessive concentrations of NO₃ from entering the treatment process.

Second, a response to the statements in the post:

§ So the assumption that high levels of NO3 aren't being released as a result of injecting all that bio-nutrient is generally not accurate. – This statement and succeeding ones suggest the nitrate is being released into the environment (through WWTP discharge). Though nitrate is a nutrient, Bioxide is introducing nitrate as a terminal electron acceptor for facultative respiration. To dose it in such quantities that would pass through the treatment process is a waste of chemical (money). As several posts indicate, the likelihood of NO₃ not being denitrified to nitrogen gas in the collection system or primary treatment process is low.

§ Of course, most operators probably would turn a blind eye to this so long as the false low NO3 test result wasn't found out. – Not the operators with whom I have worked nationally over the past 31 years.

§ This is a HUGE test interference which I'm sure is allowing most WWTP's to be environmentally irresponsible (knowingly or unknowingly). – To suggest that most WWTPs are knowingly or unknowingly environmentally irresponsible, has absolutely no basis, and is a statement that is knowingly or unknowingly irresponsible to make.

By permit, WWTPs are required to use approved analytical procedures. I don’t know which cadmium reduction method the post was referring, but SM4500-NO₃^-E. requires that chlorine residual be removed with sodium thiosulfate. However, this same method is a low level detection method and is not applicable for the 15 mg/L NO₃^- value mentioned in the post. In any case, the purpose of adding sodium thiosulfate is to dechlorinate, not add excess.

Sodium thiosulfate is not used commonly for dechlorination on a plant-scale. The most common dechlorinating chemicals are bisulfite and sulfur dioxide. Consequently the experiment has no relation to plant-scale operations.

§ Did I really say that? I KNOW NUUUUTHIIINNNG! My whistle remains silent! – If you do know something you should do something such as let the Standard Methods Committee know of your findings. Operators not only have a professional responsibility, they are also committed to environmental protection. They would not remain silent. Please don’t attribute the action you would take to us individually or as a group.

Please call me if you would like to discuss (808-523-8499).

Woodie Muirhead

RE: Bioxide

Jeff Naumann — Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:22:18 GMT

Jerry:
Where are you located now? I recall that you were a short-timer in Guam. Have you left the flip-flop world?

RE: Bioxide

Jerry — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 15:35:32 GMT

I have come to the conclussion that Bioxide is like a pill from your Doctor. I may help some but harm others. So you might try it, and if it doesn't work you will probably suffer from Anaerobicitis or something.

RE: Bioxide

Green Chem Guy — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 14:22:55 GMT

One more issue which wasn't disscussed is that when you go to check the NO3 levels, if you are checking the effluent (post de-chlorination), a small amount of excess sodium sulfate scavenger will show a false low NO3 result on a cadmium reduction method 8039 with a spectrophotometer @ 520 nm. This can be confirmed with HPLC (ion chromatography).

So the assumption that high levels of NO3 aren't being released as a result of injecting all that bio-nutrient is generally not accurate. Of course, most operators probably would turn a blind eye to this so long as the false low NO3 test result wasn't found out.

I discovered this phenomenon in the lab last week and it kinda wigged me out.

Just one drop of .1N sodium thio-sulfate in 100mL of effluent more than it takes to de-chlorinate will change a 15 mg/L NO3-N result to around 1.-something.

This is a HUGE test interference which I'm sure is allowing most WWTP's to be environmentally irresponsible (knowingly or unknowingly).

Did I really say that? I KNOW NUUUUTHIIINNNG! My whistle remains silent!

RE: Bioxide

Jerry — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 12:30:37 GMT

Good discussion people. The pros and cons were discussed.

RE: Bioxide

Wiff P — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:01:32 GMT

The Bioxide is expensive but it does work. Key is not to overdose. Nitrate is reduced by facultative organisms preferentially to sulfides and that is the key to it's odor reduction. In the process of being reduced it bubbles off as odorless nitrogen gas, so if only enough is added to do the job then you won't have any excess at the influent. A great excess might cause the rising sludge in primary treatment described by one person who posted a response, but if fully denitrified in the primary tanks, once again, the escape of nitrogen gas to the atmosphere would likely prevent any excess reaching the effluent. Key would be to avoid any more than slight excess reaching the primary so as to avoid the rising blanket problem described also.

RE: Bioxide

bugwisperer — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 11:06:48 GMT

Robert hit the nail on the head and is absolutely technically correct in regard to the bugs preference for oxygen, free dissolved and bound forms. I also have quite a bit of experience with bioxide and to be clear have no financial interest in it - yes, it costs me money. It works though - we use it on a long complex force main collection system with multiple PS inputs. Bear in mind it doesnt help you if sulfate has already reduced to sulfide but if present it will provide the bugs with a prefferred form of bound oxygen, nitrate. Interestingly enough looking at influent CBOD data at our plant which has this long force main system, the CBOD had a slow trend downward as bioxide was added on to the various stations. It did stabilize at a lower concentration - was interesting but just common sense.

if sulfide formation cant be avoided entirely (individual grinder pump systems for homes - people away on vacation - away for the weekend - you know the drill) then you need to add something which will oxidize the H2S such as peroxide as was mentioned but it aint cheap either as some may be aware. Bear in mind too that depending on the FM velocity you have you can and will start to form a biofilm on the inside of your pipe - the folks at Siemens know bioxide does this to one degree or another. wastewater organisms + very soluble carbon + a source of dissolved or bound oxygen = more bugs. The important point is that the bug yield under anoxic growth conditions via nitrate is what - 0.15 to 0.4 lbs/lb. The yield under oxic free dissolved oxygen is what - 0.8 lbs/lb under these conditions. So the point is that the biofilm growth, sloughing and impact to friction within the FM is likely more significant in an environement wherein free dissolved oxygen is present, ie, air is pumped in or H2O2 or KMNO4 is used to provide a source of oygen in comparison to NO3. It would follow that as one begins to add chemical the demand for it will increase as organisms increase as a biofilm within the collection and conveyance system until a steady state condition is reached. Siemens knows this happens as I have had a rep admit this to me when I said "come on now, this isnt brain surgery...." The NO3 will normally be used up in the collection system unless one is feeding way too much bioxide. You have to get to a happy medium - just a trace of NO3 at the end of the line or alternately feedm siemens odophos 5 minutes upstream of the headworks or point of discharge,. Its ferrous sulfate I believe and chemically precipitates ferrous sulfide solid - works very fast but exerts a minor oxygen demand in aeration basin but also helps in PO4 reduction as it precipitates ferric phosphate in the aeration basin. I have heard that just pumping air ito the FM downstream of the check valve works but havent tried it. With this as you would want to be sure you have ARV's (that work) at highpoints and also with bioxide - denitrfication occurs with bioxide in the same way NO3 is denitrfied in the treatment process so N2 gas is released in substantial quantities. We just wont tell the bugs they are in a pipe and not in a treatment tank - they might act differently if they knew...

....and the bug knows best

RE: Bioxide

D Shulmister — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 13:07:55 GMT

And furthermore, the nitrate from the Bioxide will be reduced and release nitrogen gas. There will be no significant levels of residual nitrate if the feed rate is correct. The microbes will preferentially reduce the nitrate and leave the oxygen attached to the sulfate, reducing the generation of H2S.

RE: Bioxide

Dedalus — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 20:57:58 GMT

Green Chem Guy (10/1/2007)

As you continue to use the bioxide, the bio-mass grows. When the bio-mass reduces the flow capacity to about half, it begins to sluff off in chunks. When this happens, all of that sulfide which has been collecting in the infrastructure breaks loose and flows to the primaries along with high levels of nitrates. (This is what happens when you put fertilizer in truckloads in the sewer.)

Are you saying that sulfide colllects in some form in the bio-mass? I don't see how that could be. Sulfur could be sequestered in certain proteins as S containing amino acids, but I do no see how you get to H2S from those, under oxic conditions.

RE: Bioxide

Green Chem Guy — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 16:33:54 GMT

Well Dave, I have been doing R&D in the lab and live testing and wading through mountains of govt. red tape and expenses and time and have indentified many markets - only one of which is WWTP's. The patents recently issued and are continuing to issue worldwide. So the market rollout happens shortly. The first quarter of "08. Mexico and the EU will happen faster than the US because the Govt. red tape is not nearly as bad.

I'm a big fan of moving water. There is a company that makes a solar powered prop which floats on the surface for about $8 -9K which will churn the hell out of 5 acre feet which works nicely for the job. Or you just trim the mechanical aerators back to about 15 % power for a 90 + % savings in power. Mechanical Engineers tell me that trimming mechanical aeration to 50% from 100% saves about 3/4 on the electric bill. (slower is more efficient by a long way).

Incidentally, a variation of the technology is NSF 60 registered for nitrate removal in drinking water. That just happened this last quarter.

I agree with Mr. Holmes. The way water is treated will change dramatically over the next decade worldwide. I disagree that operators won't be needed. They will however have a much better work environment.

RE: Bioxide

MR_HOLMES — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:44:46 GMT

I have seen these types of products! They were developed in conjunction with NASA, the military and are powered by Tesla Reactor technology stolen from Area 51. They are revolutionary in design and have won many government contracts and awards. In ten years these products will virtually eliminate the need for treatment plants and the personnel that operate them.

RE: Bioxide

D Shulmister — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 13:02:58 GMT

Well, Green Chem Guy, I'm just a basic operator with a little experience. I'd be interested to hear about your invention which allows you to shut off the aerators (meanwhile I'll be a tad skeptical about being able to do that.) Just wondering -- since the aerators also serve to mix the mixed liquor with the influent -- in your proposed system, does everything settle to the bottom of the "aeration" basin? And why is it that none of us has ever heard of such an invention? Like Jerry, you ain't sold me yet.

RE: Bioxide

Green Chem Guy — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:04:11 GMT

I'm a Chemical Engineer with international patents issued and pending on a novel process for maintaining oxic conditions in wastewater infrastructure. When the influent remains oxic, it's difficult to generate much odor - if any. There is enough oxygen generated that the mechanical aerators can be turned off in the aeration basin for a significant savings in electricity. Thats who I am Dave.

Who are you?

RE: Bioxide

Jerry — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:23:44 GMT

I was reading through this string again and it dawned on me that a Mr. HForbes says to contact him, on two occasions, and he will connect us to the correct people.

"Correct People" ? Are you trying to say, Mr HForbes, that we are not the correct people? Are you one of the snooty Forbes' of the Forbes magazine?

RE: Bioxide

MR_HOLMES — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:46:27 GMT

I may have stated this before. Our team uses the product. We have an odalog logger that we installed to monitoring the effectiveness of the product on H2S. When we allow the product adequate detention time and inject at appropriate rate our logger doesn't detect H2S. Unfortunately, I have been told that H2S is not the only odor causing parameter but is the only one easily recorded with remote logging equipment.

On two separate occasions our chemical feed lines were shut off by vandals. Within a week we were receiving calls from residents about odor. Coincidence?

If you dilute it with water 54:1 it makes a fertilizer. In massive doses it works as a bulking agent and can float sludge, so I have been told.

RE: Bioxide

mjwboofer — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:40:39 GMT

If Robert sold the stuff, his response would have either downplayed the costs or said something like "reasonable cost for the great performance". No sane salesperson uses "great cost".

In any case, Robert's explanation strikes a chord that seems to makes sense or at least remind me of something I may have learned once. Microbes (like salesmen and others) are opportunistic. What part of the chemistry does not make sense?

RE: Bioxide

Jerry — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:18:45 GMT

Is that Victor, or am I suffering from a Spanish Inquisition. When an article is written that extensive, I get a little paranoid. I start thinking: what is their purpose? who do they work for? where do they get their science?

Guess who was on Island? Woodie. He will be trying to sell me on Anaerobic Digesters. YeeeHaaa

RE: Bioxide

D Shulmister — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 15:09:23 GMT

Green Chem Guy (10/2/2007)

There is a better way to get the job done that will fix the h2s issue and develop DO at a level which allows you to shut down mechanical aerators and reduce chlorination significantly. ( But I can't say what that is, because that would be advertising ).

Advertising?? Sounds like an excuse to not name anything because there's nothing to name. By the way -- what is your expertise? Are you an operator? An engineer? A salesman? A junior college drop-out?

RE: Bioxide

Green Chem Guy — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:37:22 GMT

The absolute truth is that the only thing they guarantee is a 30% reduction to H2S. Period. I'm not impressed with that figure. With several hundred ppm of H2S still in the system, I don't think we have the kind of corrosion prevention some may think we have. We still have enough gas to knock a buzzard off of the $#!? wagon and for OHSA to be really concerned about safety of workers.

Some citizen odor complaints are still coming in, but less of them. The issue which I'm not sure of, but curious about is....

Your fertilizer salesman is also selling you chlorine. Your coliform counts gotta be up. What happens to the chlorine sales figures? Are we running our aeration basin aerator motors a bit harder? There goes the electric bill budget! Anaerobic digestion stinks. It's also 10X less efficient than aerobic.

RE: Bioxide

D Shulmister — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 12:58:57 GMT

Green Chem Guy (10/1/2007)

The agent who sells this chemistry represents the absolute truth.

I'm always suspicious of statements like this. It's like the emails I get from people who state "This is true. I checked it out on the Internet." Just what is the "absolute truth"??

RE: Bioxide

Jerry — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:03:36 GMT

Hey Murali

I've never seen such gobbdygook chemistry. Where is a chemist when you need one.

RE: Bioxide

Green Chem Guy — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 18:39:47 GMT

I have a lot of experience with the use of Bioxide. I have gone behind it with a new chemistry (which I cannot mention because it would aganst the forum guidelines and would be considered advertising) on several pilot studies. The agent who sells this chemistry represents the absolute truth. It reduces H2S gas in the infrastructure 33%. That has been my obsevation in every pilot study where I went behind it's use. If the baseline testing prior to the use of bioxide is.... say 900 ppm average, you will get an average 1/3 reduction to around 600. That level is still very unacceptable to me. It takes about 2-3 weeks for bioxide to begin working because it must begin growing a bio-mass first. The bio-mass will now begin to collect dissolved sulfides from the flow passing across it. As you continue to use the bioxide, the bio-mass grows. When the bio-mass reduces the flow capacity to about half, it begins to sluff off in chunks. When this happens, all of that sulfide which has been collecting in the infrastructure breaks loose and flows to the primaries along with high levels of nitrates. (This is what happens when you put fertilizer in truckloads in the sewer.)

RE: Bioxide

Rotifer — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 11:29:02 GMT

E.T. I suggest you contact your supplier of the Bioxide and have them do an evaluation of your present use. We have been using Bioxide for years in a 2 mile 18inch gravity line and have great success. It has worked great at controlling sulfide odors and limiting deterioration of our lines and manholes. You can over feed and have a carry over into your treatment systems. In most cases this isn't a problem on less you have a Total Nitrogen effluent limit.

RE: Bioxide

E.T. — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:40:20 GMT

I'm also interested in the use of bioxide in the collection system. Where I live there is a 15" gravity line that is fed by 2 forced mains from a lift station, located approximately 2 miles away. The pumps at the lift station cycles at approximately 20 min. intervals. The H2S problem is significant enough that it caused the manhole where the forced mains enter to deteriorate concrete and require a complete rebuild.
For years we used ferrous chloride injection at the lift station for odor control.
Currently, bioxide is being used. With very limited success for odor.
In a collections system what would be a reasonable detention time for bioxide to be effective?
And what are some complications that can result from too much bioxide in the wastewater conveyance system?
Does bioxide in wastewater contribute to the nitrate concentration if the biological process is not allowed time to work?

RE: Bioxide

Murali — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 17:33:01 GMT

Who is trying to convince you here? Not me. I know better. I was only sharing the facts that were relevant to the topic under discussion.