Thermal

 Desorp-on  
 
Teknik  Remediasi  
Sumber  Utama:  
1.  h%p://www.geoengineer.org/educa4on/web-­‐based-­‐class-­‐projects/geoenvironmental-­‐
remedia4on-­‐technologies/thermal-­‐desorp4on  
Ian  McCreery  and  Lukas  Vander  Linden  
2.  Overview  of  Thermal  Desorp-on  Technology,  an  Inves-ga-on  conducted  by  Naval  
Facili-es  Engineering  Service  Center,  California,  1998  
 
 
 Defini-on  
•  A  remedia-on  method  used  to  clean  contaminated  soils.  This  
method  uses  heat  (200  –  10000F)  to  vaporize  the  contaminants,  
and  as  such  only  works  for  vola-le  contaminants.    
•  Vola-le  contaminants  include  mostly  organic  wastes  composed  
of  hydrocarbons,  such  as  oil  refining  wastes,  coal  tar  wastes,  
wood-­‐trea-ng  wastes,  creosotes,  chlorinated  solvents,  fuels,  
PCBs,  mixed  wastes,  synthe-c  rubber  processing  wastes,  
pes-cides,  and  paint  wastes  (Sharma  et  al.,  2004).    
•  By  applying  heat  to  the  contaminated  soils,  the  wastes  with  low  
boiling  points  are  forced  to  turn  into  a  vapor  which  can  be  
collected  and  treated  in  an  off  gas  treatment  unit  (Differ  with  
Incinera-on  system)  
•  Thermal  desorp-on  is  not  effec-ve  or  intended  for  the  
treatment  of  inorganic  wastes  such  as  metals,  although  those  
with  rela-vely  low  boiling  points,  such  as  mercury  or  lead,  may  
be  vaporized  at  higher  opera-ng  temperatures  
fundamentally of a two-step process, as illustrated in Figure 1. In Step 1, heat is applied to a
contaminated material, such as soil, sediment, sludge, or filter cake, to vaporize the contaminants
into a gas stream that, in Step 2, is treated to meet regulatory requirements prior to discharge. A
variety of gas treatment technologies are used to collect, condense, or destroy these volatized gases.

Therm al O ff-G a s
C ont a min a t e d Rele ase to
D e sorption Tre atm ent
M a t e ri a l F e e d Atmosphere

Tre ated R e sidu als

M a t e ri a l

Step 1 Step 2
H e a t M a t e ri a l t o C o n d e n s e , C o ll e c t, o r
V ola tiz e Org a nic C o m b u s t V a p o r-P h a s e
Compounds Org a nic C o m pounds

Figure 1. Generic Thermal Desorption Process

Thermal desorption is fundamentally a thermally induced physical separation process.

Contaminants are vaporized from a solid matrix and are transferred into a gas stream where they
Midwest  Soil  Remedia-on    
 Soil  Characteris-cs  
•  moisture;  If  the  moisture  content  of  the  soil  is  too  high  (usually  
above  20%),  the  cost  of  treatment  is  significantly  greater  due  to  the  
extra  energy  used  to  dry  the  soil    
•  Plas4city;  the  degree  of  material  deforma-on  without  shearing;  
Plas-c  materials,  such  as  clays,  can  clump  and  form  larger  par-cles  
with  low  surface  area  to  volume  ra-os,  possibly  resul-ng  in  
inadequate  desorp-on  in  the  interior  core    
•  heat  capacity;  Some  thermal  desorp-on  units  are  designed  with  a  
maximum  thermal  release  that  they  can  accommodate,  including  
that  from  the  waste  feed  material    
•  par4cle  size;  This  is  one  of  several  indicators  of  poten-al  carryover  
of  fines  in  rotary  dryer  systems,  which  can  be  problema-c    
•  bulk  density;  This  property  is  of  interest  for  ex  situ  processes,  as  a  
conversion  between  tons  and  CY    
•  Soil  Composi4on;  In  general,  coarse,  unconsolidated  materials,  
such  as  sands  and  fine  gravels,  are  more  readily  treated  by  thermal  
desorp-on,  because  they  tend  not  to  agglomerate  into  larger  
par-cles.    
 Thermal  Desorp-on  Theory  
•  Three  major  principles  control  thermal  desorp-on  
process  (Sharma  et  al.,  2004):  
–   vola-liza-on;  The  heat  applied  by  the  desorber  directly  
affects  the  low  boiling  temperatures  of  organic  
contaminants,  and  readily  turns  them  into  vapor,  or  
vola-lizes  them  
–  adsorp-on-­‐desorp-on;  As  vola-liza-on  and  temperature  
increase,  the  contaminants  start  to  lose  their  ‘hold’  from  
the  soil  par-cle  surface,”  (Sharma  et  al.,  2004).  Less  
energy  is  needed  to  adsorb  organic  contaminants  than  it  is  
to  “desorb”.  So  adding  energy  to  the  system  is  required  to  
remove  contaminants  from  soil  par-cle  surfaces  
–  diffusion;  the  rate  of  desorp-on  is  also  a  func-on  of  
diffusion,  based  off  the  characteris-cs  of  the  contaminant  
 Four  Important  Factors  
•  Temperature;  Higher  temperatures  have  been  shown  
to  greatly  reduce  the  final  concentra-ons  of  
contaminants,  but  require  more  energy  and  result  in  
higher  cost  
•  soil  matrix;  The  soil  matrix  controls  the  complexity  of  
the  desorp-on  process:  sands  and  coarse  grained  
materials  desorb  more  easily  than  fine  grained  soils  
because  there  is  less  surface  area  
•  Contaminant;  Some  contaminants  have  the  capacity  to  
be  adsorbed  by  soils  more  easily  than  others  
•  moisture  content;  The  moisture  content  dictates  the  
ability  of  all  contaminants’  adsorp-on;  moister  
materials  adsorb  contaminants  beeer  
the effectiveness of thermal desorption for various specific contaminants is presented in Table 1.

Applicability  
Table 1. Effectiveness of Thermal Desorption on General Contaminant Groups for Soil,
Sludge, Sediments, and Filter Cakes

Effectiveness
Contaminant Groups Soil Sludge Sediments Filter Cakes
Organic Halogenated volatiles 1 2 2 1
Halogenated semivolatiles 1 2 2 1
Nonhalogenated volatiles 1 2 2 1
Nonhalogenated semivolatiles 1 2 2 1
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) 1 2 2 2
Pesticides 1 2 2 2
Dioxins/furans 1 2 2 2
Organic cyanides 2 2 2 2
Organic corrosives 3 3 3 3
Inorganic Volatile metals 1 2 2 2
Nonvolatile metals 3 3 3 3
Asbestos 3 3 3 3
Radioactive materials 3 3 3 3
Inorganic corrosives 3 3 3 3
Inorganic cyanides 3 3 3 3
Reactive Oxidizers 3 3 3 3
Reducers 3 3 3 3
Key: 1 – Demonstrated Effectiveness: Successful treatability at some scale completed.
2 – Potential Effectiveness: Expert opinion that the technology will work.
3 – No Expected Effectiveness: Expert opinion that the technology will not work.
Source: U.S. EPA, 1991, EPA/540/2-91/008.

In addition, according to the EPA, “The (thermal desorption) process is applicable for the
 TEMPERATURE (oC)

1.E+03
400
400 300
300 200
200 T oC 100
100 25
25 00
760 mm
760 mm
Benzene
1.E+02 TCE
PCE
1.E+01 Water

B(a)Pyrene TEL n-C10H22

1.E+00
PRESSURE (mm Hg)

SbCl3
As2O3
n-C16H34
1.E-01
Naphthalene
1.E-02
n-C29H60

1.E-03 CdCl2
Dieldrin
Mercury
1.E-04 PCP
PCB 1242
1.E-05
TCDD Dioxin

1.E-06
Pb Sb Zn As PCB 1260
1.E-07
1.3 1.5
1.5 1.7 1.9 2.0 2.1 2.3 2.5
2.5 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.5 3.7 3.9
1000/T [ 1000 / deg K ]
1000 / T ( 1000 / oK )
Figure 13 Vapor Pressure of Various Contaminants
 Material  Handling  
•  Stockpiling:  The  material  is  not  always  contaminated  in  a  
homogeneous  manner:  the  soils  with  the  same  level  of  
contamina-on  are  usually  stockpiled  together  
•  Excess  water  content:  increase  costs,  damage  equipment,  or  
decrease  efficiency,  and  as  a  result  there  is  some-mes  a  drying  
treatment  that  takes  place  prior  to  desorp-on  treatment  by  
addi-on  of:  
–  Lime;  does  not  add  to  the  bulk  density  of  the  material  and  is  ogen  a  
favored  addi-on.  Yet,  reac-ons  can  occur  with  sulfur  and  chlorine  in  
contaminants  to  form  salts  at  incinera-on  temperatures,  but  these  are  
minimized  at  desorp-on  temperatures  
–  Sand;  the  most  commonly  used,  it  is  not  always  the  best  op-on  since  
addi-onal  energy  must  be  used  to  account  for  increased  mass  being  
processed  through  the  system    
•  Screening:  is  ogen  important  if  there  are  large  par-cles  present  in  
the  material.  To  adequately  desorb  the  contaminants,  it  is  
important  to  break  down  the  material  and  expose  the  finer  grains.  
When  clay  is  present,  a  crusher  can  be  used  to  break  down  large  
chunks  into  pieces  of  a  more  manageable  size  
 Post  Treatment  
•  bag  houses:  small  par-cles  such  as  PM2.5  &  
PM10  
•  Cyclones:  fine  par-cles  above  25  um    
•  agerburners:  oxidized  undesirable  off  gas    
•  venturi  scrubbers;  remove  par-cles  &  gas  at  
the  same  -me  by  using  water  as  absorbent  
•  wet  scrubbers:  same  as  above;  but  mostly  
using  alkaline  as  absorbent    
•  carbon  adsorp-on;  for  excessive  organic  
maeer  and  odor  control  
 Desorp-on  Process  
•  For  ex-­‐situ  processes:  
–  batch  or  con-nuous  feed  reactors,    
–  co-­‐current  or  countercurrent  systems,    
–  direct  or  indirect  fired  heaters,  and    
–  low  or  high  temperature  reactors.    
•  Thermal  desorp-on  usually  refers  to  ex-­‐situ  
processes  but  several  in-­‐situ  processes  exist    
•  Solid  residence  -me:  t  =  (0.19LT)/(rpmDS),  where  
–  LT=  kiln  length  (m),  D=inside  diameter  of  kiln  (m)  &  
S=Kiln  Slope  (m/m)  
•  Desorp-on:  Csf/Csi=e-­‐kt,  where:  
–  Csf=final  conc  in  soil  (mg/kg),  Csi=  ini-al  conc  (mg/kg),  
k=  desorp-on  rate  (min-­‐1)  &  t  =  residence  -me  
 Batch  Feed  
•  Allows  the  residence  -me  to  be:    
–  exactly  the  amount  of  -me  that  the  material  is  placed  in  the  
reactor  
–  to  be  varied  easily,  as  each  batch  load  can  be  different  
–  Can  u-lize  a  vacuum  system  since  it  is  sealed  in  the  reactor:  
•  significantly  reduces  the  volume  of  gases  
•  reduces  the  temperature  for  desorp-on,  which  reduces  the  energy  to  
heat  the  reactor  as  well  to  cool  the  gases    
•  Batch  feed  systems:    
–  Mixing  system:  increase  the  amount  of  heat  the  soil  is  exposed  
to,  thereby  increasing  the  efficiency  of  the  desorp-on  (USEPA,  
1994  
–  sta-c  system:  ogen  rectangular  structures  that  can  be  sealed  as  
hea-ng  occurs.    
 Con-nuous  Feed  
•  Con-nuous-­‐feed  reactors:    
–  large  processes  of  material,  and    
–  operate  con-nuously.    
•  These  systems  usually  u-lize  either  a  rota-ng  drum  or  conveyor  to  
transport  soil  through  the  desorber  
•  direct  or  indirect  hea-ng  can  be  applied:  the  system  can  be  tuned  
to  remediate  a  specific  case  of  contamina-on  or  soil    
•  The  system  can  be  either:    
–  Mixing:  using  the  rota-ng  drum    
–  sta-c:  using  a  conveyor  
•  The  typical  residence  -mes;  Typical  values  for  the  solids  residence  
-mes  can  vary  from  3  to  70  minutes:  
–  Rotary  dryer  systems  tend  to  have  residence  -mes  closer  to  3  to  7  
minutes    
–  thermal  screws  have  much  higher  residence  -mes  (3-­‐  to  70  min)    
•  Dimensions  of  these  systems  can  range  from  2  to  4  feet  in  
diameter,  and  up  to  20  feet  in  length  
for low-boiling-point (below about 500°F to 600°F), nonchlorinated contaminants. The material is
generally treated to 300°F to 400°F. Figure 3 illustrates a typical system process

FOR LOW-BOILING-POINT, NONCHLORINATED CONTAMINANTS

Feed Rot ary <450o F F a b ri c F il t e r Aft erburn er

Atmosphere
Dry er (B a ghous e) (1,4 0 0 - 1,8 0 0 o F

T r e a t e d M a t e ri a l
(3 0 0 o - 4 0 0 o F )

Figure 3. First Generation—Direct-Contact Thermal Desorption Process

schematic. Due to the location of the baghouse, the system is not capable of handling high-boiling
point organics as the high-molecular-weight compounds will condense and increase the pressure
drop across the bags.

The second generation of direct-contact thermal desorption systems was developed for
TD  Unit  (from  Midwest  Soil  Remedia-on)  
 Co-­‐current  &  Counter  Current  
•  Refers  to  the  flow  direc-on  of  the  combus-on  gases:  
–  Co-­‐Current:    the  flow  of  gases  follows  the  direc-on  of  the  material  
going  through  the  desorber  
–  Counter  Current:  the  gases  and  soil  flow  in  opposite  direc-ons  
•  Co-­‐current  desorp-on  systems  produce  combus-on  gases  that  are  
at  much  higher  temperatures  than  countercurrent  desorp-on  
systems,  usually  about  10⁰  C  to  38⁰  C  higher:  exit  gases  typically  
enter  an  agerburner  before  being  cooled  for  a  filtering  through  a  
bag  house  
 Direct  &  Indirect  
•  Direct-­‐contact  desorbers  are  designed  to  allow  
direct  contact  between  an  open  flame  and  the  
soil:  
–  usually  used  for  con-nuous-­‐feed  systems  that  use  an  
inclined  rota-ng  drum.    
–  Soil  is  fed  into  one  end  of  the  drum,  comes  into  
contact  with  an  open  flame,  and  exits  the  drum  on  the  
downstream  end.  
•  indirect-­‐contact  systems  do  not  allow  contact  
between  the  flame  and  the  soil:  
–  Indirect-­‐contact  systems  can  be  implemented  for  
either  batch-­‐feed  or  con-nuous-­‐feed  systems  
–  ogen  use  heated  steam  to  enhance  heat  transfer    
 Low  &  High  Temperature  
•  The  temperature  plays  one  of  the  most  crucial  
roles  in  the  thermal  desorp-on  process  
•  Low  temperature  thermal  desorp-on  uses  
temperatures  ranging  from  93⁰  C  to  316⁰  C:  
–  Low  temperature  desorp-on  preserves  organic  
components  of  the  soil  and  its  physical  characteris-cs  
–  the  soil  can  be  reused  for  biological  purposes  
•  High  temperature  thermal  desorp-on  ranges  
from  316⁰  C  to  538⁰  C:  
–  High  temperature  desorp-on  can  reduce  potent  
contaminants  to  less  than  5  ppm  
–  Many  of  the  natural  soil  proper-es  may  be  altered  
(Sharma  et  al.,  2004).    
Cos-ng  
bioremediation technologies available and their effectiveness, refer to the course materials from
the Bioremediation Innovative Technology Seminar sponsored by NFESC in 1996. Table 4
presents a brief summary of some of the important factors to consider when comparing thermal
desorption to other bioremediation alternatives.

Table 4. Thermal Desorption Compared to Alternative Technologies

Intrinsic
Bioremediation In Situ Ex Situ
(Natural Bioremediation Bioremediation
Item Thermal Desorption Attenuation) (Bioventing) (Biopiles)
Contaminants VOCs, SVOCs, chlori- Select VOCs, Select VOCs, SVOCs, Select VOCs, SVOCs,
Treated nated hydrocarbons, fuel SVOCs, fuel fuel hydrocarbons fuel hydrocarbons
hydrocarbons hydrocarbons
Limitations Permitting may be Unsuitable Unsuitable materials, Unsuitable materials,
significant materials, nearby cannot treat some cannot treat some
receptors, long time chlorinated compounds chlorinated compounds
frames
Residual Contam- Low to nondetect Medium Low Low
inant Levels
Achieved
Treatment Time Usually 1 year or less 5 to 10+ years 2 to 5 years 6 months to 1 year
depending on site size
Residuals Produced Vapors, liquids Potentially none Potentially none Vapors, possibly liquids
Average Treatment $35 to $200 per tonCost of long-term $20 to $80 per ton $25–$75 per ton
Cost monitoring
Source: __________________________________.
 Advantages  &  Disadvantages  
•  Par4cle  Size  Distribu4on:  
–  carry  over  effect:  can  cause  clogging  in  the  treatment  system  and  ogen  
impedes  the  capability  of  the  fines  removal  system  present  at  the  end  of  the  
treatment  line    
–  large  par-cles  are  not  desirable  for  thermal  desorp-on:  par-cles  above  2  
inches  in  diameter  are  they  can  lead  to  in  insufficient  hea-ng  due  to  self-­‐
insula-on  
•  Composi4on  &  Plas4city:  
–  The  ideal  composi-on  for  treatment  via  thermal  desorp-on  is  an  
unconsolidated  sandy  soil  that  may  have  some  gravel    
–  Clays  and  silts  are  less  ideal  because  they  tend  to  agglomerate    
–  Agglomera-on  also  occurs  in  soils  with  high  humic  content  
•  Moisture  Content:  
–  range  is  between  10%  and  20%  water:  Soils  that  contain  less  than  10%  water  
may  not  be  heated  as  efficiently  due  to  the  increased  heat  transfer  of  the  
steam.  A  water  content  above  20%  is  detrimental  to  thermal  desorp-on  for  
two  reasons;  increased  hea-ng  requirements  for  a  given  soil,  and  increased  
material  needing  treatment  by  the  vapor  treatment  stream  
•  Time  Effec4ve:  thermal  desorp-on  is  that  it  can  be  extremely  
fast.  Depending  on  soil  and  contaminant  condi-ons,  throughputs  between  
20  and  160  tons/hour  have  been  achievable  (NFESC,  1998b)  
 Advantages  &  Disadvantages  
•  Use  in  Remedia4ng  “Hot  Spot”  Sources:  Thermal  desorp-on  
requires  excava-on  to  treat  the  soil,  so  treatment  of  small  
extensively  contaminated  areas  is  possible    
•  Versa4lity:  it  can  be  implemented  either  on  site  or  off  site.  
•  Soil  Recyclability;  Thermal  desorp-on  is  an  ideal  system  for  such  
projects  because  the  treatment  occurs  onsite,  and  does  not  change  
the  physical  characteris-cs  of  the  soil    
•  Requires  Excava4on:  One  major  disadvantage  of  thermal  
desorp-on  is  that  it  requires  the  soil  to  be  excavated    
•  Footprint  or  Transporta4on:    
–  a  large  land  area  or  “footprint”  is  ogen  required.    
–  Instead  of  requiring  a  large  footprint,  transporta-on  costs  are  needed  
to  transport  the  contaminated  soil  to  the  treatment  site,  and  to  
transport  processed  soil  back  to  the  site  
•  Preprocessing  
–  requires  specific  soil  condi-ons  
–  Example:  soil  shearing  if  the  soil  is  agglomerated,  screening  or  
crushing  if  the  soil  has  large  par-cles,  and  dewatering  if  the  soil  has  
above  20%  moisture  content.  
 In-­‐situ  Thermal  Desorp-on    
•  Thermal  Blankets:  uses  thermal  blanket  placed  
on  the  soil  surface  to  treat  shallow  
contamina-on  
•  Thermal  Wells:  handle  deeper  contamina-on.  
Each  well  contains  a  heater  as  well  as  a  
vacuum  to  collect  vapor  produced  and  then  is  
sent  to  off-­‐gas  treatment  center.  Some-mes  
by  placing  hea-ng  electrodes    
 Thermal  
Conduc-on   POWER
TRAILER
CONTROL
TRAILER

Hea-ng  
CARBON
HEAT BED
THERMAL EXCH.
OXIDIZER EXHAUST
STACK

VAPOR
TREATMENT BLOWERS
SYSTEM

CYCLONE
SEPERATOR

Sumber:  
THERMAL CONDUCTION HEATING FOR
THERMAL
IN-SITU THERMAL DESORPTION OF SOILS BLANKETS

by

George L. Stegemeier
and
THERMAL
Harold J. Vinegar WELLS
 Soil  Hea-ng  Theory  
1000
AVERAGE TEMPERATURE ( oF )

800

600
Superheat

400

Heat-up Boiling
200

0
0 10 20 30 40
1500
HEATING TIME ( days )

Figure 6 Theoretical Temperature Rise in Soil 1200 Temperature ( F)

o

900

600 1 year

1 month
300 1 week

0
Thermocouple at 0 2 4 6 8 10
50% Soil Volume
Distance (ft)
 Figure 16 Portland, Indiana - Thermal Wells

Figure 16 Portland, Indiana - Thermal Wells

Figure 17 Portland, Indiana - Remediation Site