zacariah l. hildenbrand, ph.d. inform environmental, llc

Zacariah L. Hildenbrand, Ph.D.Inform Environmental, LLC

The Collaborative Laboratories for Environmental Analysis and Remediation at

UT‐Arlington

Killing Two Birds with One Stone• Reduce the reliance on fresh water

– Highly localized withdrawals of groundwater in arid regions • Reduce the occurrence of induced seismicity

– Underground injections wells– Such a prevalent issue that it has triggered the state government to finance the TEXNET program

• Unfortunately produced water recycling has been hindered by two key factors:– Economics– Effectiveness under field conditions

Produced water treatment for reuse

Raw Waste

Ozonation Particulate Filtration

Primary Carbon

Secondary Carbon

UV

Biogeochemistry

Hildenbrand et al., 2018 (in review)

Bulk Measurements

Raw O 3 PF1o

Carbon

2o Carb

on UV

0

100

200

300Tu

rbid

ity (N

TU)

p=0.0001***

p=0.0001***-76.1%-80.9%

Raw O 3 PF1o

Carbon

2o Carb

on UV

0

500

1000

1500

TOC

(mg/

L)

p=0.002**-81.5%

Raw O 3 PF1o

Carbon

2o Carb

on UV

0200400600800

1000

50000

100000

150000

TSS

(mg/

L)

p=0.012*

p=0.089-99.6%-99.2%

Raw O 3 PF1o

Carbon

2o Carb

on UV

0

100

200

300

400

TN (m

g/L)

p=0.008**-76.0%


Bulk Measurements

Raw O 3 PF1o

Carbon

2o Carb

on UV

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Bica

rbon

ate

(mg/

L)

p=0.029*-65.4%

Raw O 3 PF1o

Carbon

2o Carb

on UV

4

6

8

10

pH

p=0.034*-12.8%


Bulk Measurements

Raw O 3 PF1o

Carbon

2o Carb

on UV

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

TDS

(mg/

L) p=0.959

Raw O 3 PF1o

Carbon

2o Carb

on UV

0

100

200

300

400

500

Sulfa

te (m

g/L)

p=0.406

Raw O 3 PF1o

Carbon

2o Carb

on UV

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

Chlo

ride

(mg/

L)

p=0.976

Raw O 3 PF1o

Carbon

2o Carb

on UV

0

10

20

30

40

Fluo

ride

(mg/

L) p=0.703

p=0.385-55.6%


Organic Contaminants

0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 min0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5 mV (x1,000)

(250x zoom scale)

1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 min0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

mV (x10)

10

9 8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2 3

4

7

8

9

10

23

22

21

20

11 19

18 17

15

13

12

12 14

16

20

21 22

23

27 28 29

25

26 24

24

30

31 32 33 34

25

26

27 28 29

30

18 17 13 14

31

PW 3

PW 7




# Compound # Compound # Compound # Compound # Compound # Compound

1 Hydrogen sulfide

7 Methylene chloride

13 Ethylene chloride

19 Methyl-cyclohexane

25 m- + p-Xylene

2 Methanol 8 Methyl acetate 14 3-Hexanol 20 Toluene 26 Nonane + o-Xylene

3 Methanethiol 9 n-Propanol 15 Cyclo-hexane 21 C8 aliphatic + C8 cyclic HC

27 Alkyl aromatics

31 Tridecane

4 Ethanol 10 Hexane 16 Benzene 22 Octane 28 Decane 32 Tetradecane

5 iso-Pentane 11 2-butanol 17 3-methyl hexane

23 C9 aliphatic HC

29 Undecane 33 Pentadecane

6 Pentane 12 Ethyl acetate 18 Heptane 24 Cyclohexanoe + Ethyl Benzene

30 Dodecane 34 Hexadecane



0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 min

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

1.1

1.2

1.3

1.4

1.5

1.6

1.7

uV (x10,000)

PW 11-UV

PW 11-2o Carbon

PW 11-1o Carbon

PW 11-PF

PW 11-O3

PW 11-Raw

TEX

Aliphatic Hydrocarbons

Ethyl Acetate

H2S, MeOH MeSH, EtOH

Sub‐ppm concentrations

Inorganic Constituents


RawTre

ated

0

20

40

60

80

100Iro

n (m

g/L) p=0.908

RawTre

ated

0

5

10

15

20

Bariu

m (m

g/L)

p=0.710

RawTre

ated

0

1000

2000

3000

Calc

ium

(mg/

L)

p=0.497

RawTre

ated

0

500

1000

1500

2000

Mag

nesi

um (m

g/L)

p=0.123

RawTre

ated

0

100

200

300

Stro

ntiu

m (m

g/L)

p=0.923

RawTre

ated

0

20

40

60

80

100

Boro

n (m

g/L)

p=0.872

RawTre

ated

0

20

40

60

80

100

Tita

nium

(mg/

L)

Not Detected

RawTre

ated

0

20

40

60

80

100

Zirc

oniu

m (m

g/L)

Not Detected

Scale

Crosslinkereffeciency

Crosslinkerefficiency

Biological Contaminants

PW8 Raw

E. aurantiacum (98.1%) 100 25 mLA. Baumannii (77.4%) 25,000 25 mLA. punctata (82.6%) 100 25 mL

S. epidermidis (96.6%) 100 25 mLPlanomicrobium sp. (99.9%) 100 25 mLPseudomonas sp. (99.9%) 1 25 mL

Paracoccus sp. (99.9%) 100 25 mL

PW8 03

Pseudomonas sp. (99.9%) 100 25 mLParacoccus sp. (99.9%) 100 25 mLRhizobium sp. (76.8%) 100 25 mL

PW8 PF Paracoccus sp. (93.6%) 100 25 mL

PW8 PCC. perfringens (93.6%) 100 25 mL

R. ornithinolytica (82.9%) 100 25 mLParacoccus sp. (89.7%) 100 25 mL

PW8 SC S. putrefaciens (75%) 12,500 25 mL

PW8 UVParacoccus sp. (81.9%) 1,000 25 mL

S. epidermidis (99%) 1,000 25 mL

PW 9 RawS. putrefaciens (99.9%) 4 25 mLB. cereus group (96.9%) 100 25 mLParacoccus sp. (85.8%) 4 25 mL

PW9 03S. hominis (88.1%) 50 25 mLS. maltophilia (96%) 1,750 25 mL

PW9 PF B. cereus group (87.4%) 100 25 mL

PW9 PC

S. putrefaciens (84.4%) - 25 mLS. algae (96.8%) - 25 mL

K. pneumoniae (81.2%) 7 25 mLP. chlororaphis (76.1%) 25,000 25 mL

PW9 SCParacoccus sp. (75%) 100 25 mLK. pneumoniae (87%) 7 25 mL

PW9 UV B. stabilis (87%) 5 25 mL


Sample Microorganism ID CFUs Sample volume Sample Microorganism ID CFUs Sample volume

Future Directions‐Targeted Treatment

Raw

Treated

Santos et al., 2018 (in preparation)

Future Directions‐ Potable Water

Special Thanks to:

• Challenger Water Solutions– Clint Layman– Joel Warner

• CLEAR @ UT‐Arlington– Dr. Kevin Schug– Dr. Ines Santos– Dr. Doug Carlton– Manny Varona‐Torres– Tiffany Liden

Questions?

Zacariah [email protected]‐694‐7132

zacariah l. hildenbrand, ph.d. inform environmental, llc

Documents