Performance Expectation of Ion

Exchange Resins Under Variable

Operating Conditions in a
Makeup Demineralizer
The objective of optimizing demineralizer systems is
ultimately to reduce operating cost by minimizing
regenerant and maximizing throughput while meeting
your plant's water quality requirements.
Jul 1st, 2003
By Terrence Heller
The objective of optimizing demineralizer systems is ultimately to
reduce operating cost by minimizing regenerant and maximizing
throughput while meeting your plant's water quality requirements.
Achieving this balance is desirable but choosing the appropriate resin
and system configuration can be complicated. Modifying existing
systems to observe change is difficult and can result in unexpected
drawbacks.

Click here to enlarge image

One alternative is to use a computer simulation program to predict the

performance of system changes. The Purolite Company offers a
computer design program, PureDesign, which models existing systems
for the purpose of observing the benefit of change. System
performance will vary from theoretical calculations but is effectively
related.

The PureDesign program was used recently to study the impact of

changes to a treatment system at a southern manufacturing plant with
three demineralizer trains. Each train has a strong acid cation vessel
that holds 466 cubic feet of resin and an anion vessel that holds 255
cubic feet of resin.

There is no degasifier. Each train is designed to flow at 622 gpm. The

water source is a medium sized river with an ionic loading averaging
83 ppm TDS, a Total Na/Total Cation of 18%, Total SiO2/Total Anion
of 4%, and a TOC of .20 ppm.

Since individual demineralizers will perform differently from location

to location, the comparison of both the system and resin performance
is based on the water quality in Table 1 unless otherwise specified.

Process Options

Cation Resin - Strong acid cations most commonly used for

demineralization are 8% and 10% cross-linked styrenic gels. Both
these resins have similar performance even though the 10% cation has
higher total capacity.

This similar performance is due to slower kinetics of the 10% gel,

which reduces operating capacity and regeneration efficiency to that
of the 8% gel. Advantage of the 10% is its longer life especially if
cations are subject to oxidizing chemicals.

A relatively new surface-functionalized SAC styrenic gel product (SST

or Shallow Shell Technology) has been receiving attention for use in
demineralization because of low sodium leakage.
 Click here to enlarge image

Aspects evaluated for these three cation resins included operating

capacity and sodium leakage when regenerated with hydrochloric acid
(HCl) and sulfuric acid (H2SO4). Performance of the 8% cation
operated in a co-flow and counter-flow regenerated systems was
included because of features this technology offers.

Anion Resin - Commonly used SBA's include styrenic Type I gel, Type
II gel, and Acrylic Type I gels resins.

Macroporous resins have advantages where there are chemical,

mechanical and osmotic stresses so a Type I macroporous anion was
included. These anions were evaluated for operating capacity and
silica leakage.

Performance of each was compared in co-flow and counter-flow

regenerated systems. Regeneration temperature was set according to
the anion's tolerance to temperature. Type I gel and macroporous
resins are regenerated at 120°F. Type II and Acrylic anions are
regenerated at 95°F.
Systems - Co-flow and counter-flow regenerated systems were
compared to demonstrate performance differences in throughput,
leakage and regenerant usage. The most difficult aspect in discussing
counter-flow technology is the variations available between co-flow
and true counter- flow regenerated systems.

This discussion compares only co-flow regenerated systems that have

service flows from the top of the vessel down and regenerant flow also
from the top down. Counter-flow systems have service from the
bottom of the vessel upward discharging from the top creating a
packed resin polishing zone and a fluidized resin zone. Regenerant,
though, enters from the top flowing down through the bed exiting the
bottoms.

Optimization

In this specific southern manufacturing plant, the PureDesign

modeling program determined that maximizing throughput and
minimizing regenerant use while maintaining appropriate effluent
quality was best achieved in a counter-flow regeneration system. The
preferred resins would be SAC gel (SST if ultra low leakage is
required) regenerated with 4 lbs HCl and Type II gel anion
regenerated with 4 lbs NaOH. The software predicted this program
would achieved all objectives with a 25% throughput increase; a
reduced acid consumption by 55% and caustic by 50%, while
maintaining silica leakage at 10 ppb and Na at 11 ppb.

Changing regeneration mode of an existing plant is expensive, as is

switching from H2SO4 to HCl. Therefore another option considered
was operating the system as designed, assuming co-flow regeneration
with H2S04. In that case, computer modeling indicated the best cation
choice would be SST regenerated at 6 lbs H2S04 in a 2%- 4% or 6%
stepwise regeneration. This is advantageous if influent calcium is
present. The economically preferred anion was Type II gel regenerated
with 6 lbs NaOH/cu ft.

According to the simulation, throughput would increase by 36%

compared to Type I anion. Regenerant consumption would remain
constant per regeneration but savings would be due to 36% fewer
regenerations. Conductivity of the effluent water would decrease by
50%, but silica would increase from 10 ppb to 33 ppb. Regeneration
temperature would need to be reduced to 95 degrees F, saving some in
terms of energy. Polishers following the single bed vessels would
remove excess SiO2 and may have a greater throughput especially if
conductivity is the limiting factor.

The option to use standard 8% or 10% SAC regenerated with sulfuric

acid at 6 lb/cu ft and Type I anion resin regenerated with 6 lbs/cu ft
caustic would produce an effluent conductivity of 2 uS/cm and sodium
leakage of 203 ppb, according to the modeling program. Throughput
would be 709 million gallons and silica leakage will be 12 ppb.

Click here to enlarge image

This combination of resin is the most commonly chosen because of

lower initial cost for both resin products and low silica leakage from
the anion. Also, Type I anion resin would have a longer life than Type
II anion. What is not considered here is the higher operating cost,
which quickly surpasses initial costs and operational benefits of the
SST and Type II.

In situations where TOC is a limiting factor for anion throughput and

life, an acrylic anion may be used in place of Type I or Type II anions.

In this particular case, modeling indicated acrylic resins would

tolerate three times the organic load of styrenic resins before
regeneration. Additionally, throughput would be increased 14%,
regenerant requirement would again remain constant per
regeneration but there would be less regeneration, and silica leakage
would increase to 19 ppb.

If organic levels are excessive, use of weakly basic resins or an organic

trap may also be considered. Otherwise ionic loading should be
secondary to organic loading and shorter runs programmed to reduce
TOC buildup. Acrylic anions will generally be more expensive than
styrenic anions. Notable difficulty with acrylics is their long rinse
requirement with age.

About the author: Terrence Heller is South East Regional Sales

Manager for the Purolite Company. He has an MS degree from
Central Michigan University in Environmental Science and has
worked for 12 years in the field of ion exchange. Earlier experience
was with water treatment and wastewater treatment with Grace
Dearborn. This article was adapted from a paper presented at the
63rd Annual International Water Conference.

About the International Water Conference: The International Water

Conference is the world's premier Conference on Industrial Water
Treatment. IWC has been conducted by the Engineers' Society of
Western Pennsylvania (ESWP) since 1940. IWC is attended by the
leading experts, engineers and academics in the USA, Canada and
Europe who are actively pursuing advancements in industrial water
treatment and processing technology . The Conference and
Exhibition is held annually in October, in Pittsburgh PA. For
continually upgraded agenda, and registration information, visit
eswp.com/water.html.
 RELATED CONTENT

Home
Transforming Monitoring Methods: A Shift to Total Organic Carbon

SUEZ Water Technologies & Solutions

Aug 19th, 2019

Infrastructure Funding
Oklahoma to prevent water pollution with funding from EPA

Aug 19th, 2019

Home
The Drop: Demystifying Intelligent Water

Aug 19th, 2019

Environmental
EPA awards $3,5280,000 to Indiana for water quality protection

Aug 19th, 2019


Sponsored
Intelligence for machine and process control