3: Review of Current Ammonia Removal Technologies

A wide range of technologies is used to treat ammonia-impaired wastewater, each with

their own significant advantages and disadvantages. Some technologies been used for over 200
years while other methods have only been invented only recently. This chapter reviews the most
common methods and technologies employed and assess their relative advantages and
disadvantages.

3.1 Ammonia Removal Technologies and Processes

3.1.1 Biological Nitrification

Biological nitrification is by far the most common method of removing ammonia, used to
treat wastewater in municipal treatment plants, impoundments (mine tailings, fracking fluid,
sewage septic systems), landfill leachate (Dedhar and Saleem, 1985), pre-treated drinking water
and as a way of cleaning zeolites (Lahav, Green, 1998). The process involves the nitrification of
ammonia into nitrate, a less toxic form of fixed nitrogen than ammonia (Romano and Zeng,
2007). It is a two-step process. First, Nitrosomonas bacteria, a family of nutrient eating bacteria,
convert ammonia (NH4) into nitrite (NO2). Next, Nitrobactor bacteria consume nitrite (NO2) to
produce nitrate (NO3).34 Nitrate is a form of fixed nitrogen that plants and microorganisms can
absorb. It also readily decomposes into nitrogen gas, making it the desired final product of most
biological nitrification processes. Biological nitrification is a simple and cost effective ammonia
treatment process that is used to treat the bulk of ammonia pollution today.

The process of biological nitrification requires a significant amount of oxygen to fuel the
conversion, requiring extensive aeration systems. Biological nitrification requires approximately
4.6 mg of oxygen per mg of ammonia nitrified. Put another way, removing 1 lb of ammonia
requires 4.6 lbs of oxygen. Aeration is often the single largest operating expense of biological
nitrification systems, representing an ongoing variable cost that increases linearly with ammonia
removal rates. Aeration is one of the major disadvantages of biological nitrification.

34
The Water Planet Company. http://www.cleanwaterops.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Clean-Water-
Ops-_-White-Paper_Nitrogen-Chemistry.pdf

26
 Nitrification also requires time to allow bacteria to consume the ammonia. Nitrobactor
and Nitrosomonas bacteria have slow reproduction cycles and are sensitive to temperature and pH
values. This ultimately results in wastewater held for extended periods while bacteria reduces the
ammonia to sufficiently low levels. For municipal wastewater plants treating large volumes of
wastewater, this requires huge concrete tanks, holding millions of litters of wastewater.35 Typical
secondary stage water treatment requires resident times of between 4 - 8 hours. Extended aeration
requires between 20 - 30 hours, a longer residency time than many companies or municipalities
are willing to commit. The result is that ammonia is removed to levels that are not sufficiently
low to meet current regulations. This problem is driving a demand for better ammonia removal
technologies.

Biological nitrification yields nitrates, water, energy (heat), and acid. The acid by-product
of the nitrification process reduces the alkalinity (pH) of the wastewater. In wastewater with a pH
that lower than 7.6, nitrification may be sluggish due to a decrease in bacterial activity.36
Wastewater with a pH of 9 or greater consists mostly of NH3, the gaseous form of ammonia
which cannot be converted by the Nitrosomonas bacteria. As is mentioned previous,
Nitrosomonas bacteria can only absorb NH4. It is essential therefore, that operators of wastewater
plants must maintain the pH of wastewater at the optimal levels. Constant monitoring and
adjustment of wastewater pH requires vigilant staff as well as consumable chemicals, adding to
operating costs.

Biological nitrification is widely utilized within different systems to treat wastewaters.

The most common approaches include activated sludge, extended aeration, sequencing batch
reactors (SBR), trickling filters, membrane bioreactors (MBR), and lagoons. 37 Each system
embodies the same features: the promotion of bacterial growth that will convert ammonia into
nitrates, while also providing sufficient oxygen to drive the process. However, each system
utilizes a different approach to minimize some of the disadvantages of biological nitrification.
Membrane bioreactors treat wastewater in an enclosed reactor in batches, ideal for customers with
low wastewater flow rates. Customers with larger wastewater flow rates use activated sludge and
extended aeration in large concrete tanks to treat wastewater. MBR and SBR systems contain the
wastewater within a reactor to control the temperature, acidity, and oxygen content of the

35
Hach. http://www.hach.com/asset-get.download.jsa?id=7639984562
36
T.L. Joubert and Associates,
https://d10k7k7mywg42z.cloudfront.net/assets/50c39265dabe9d025600360f/NitrificationBasics.pdf
37
Water World Magazine. http://www.waterworld.com/articles/print/volume-26/issue-3/editorial-
features/addressing-the-challenge.html

27
wastewater to improve nitrification rates. MBR and SBR systems typically require a smaller
footprint than conventional open-air concrete tanks.

The advantages of biological nitrification process are numerous. It is simple, robust and
effective at removing ammonia from very large quantities of wastewater. Moreover, it is a mostly
passive and simple system that requires few moving parts. Operations can easily scale up and
there are significant economies of scale when treating larger inflows of wastewater. Another
advantage is its adaptability. Many customers can implement biological nitrification in existing
wastewater treatment systems by the addition of aeration, the correct nutrients and seed bacteria.
Operators may have to adjust process flow rate, oxygen demand and retention time to maintain
the optimal conditions for nitrification. A final advantage is perhaps the long and successful track
record of using biological nitrification for ammonia removal. Since its discovery by Sergei
Winogradsky in 1888, industry has used biological nitrification as its primary method of
ammonia removal.38 It is well understood and accepted and, as a result, parts and expertise are
widely available.

Biological nitrification, however, does have some disadvantages, including some that
have been touched on already. As is discussed above, residence time for nitrification can be very
long. It often necessitates very large tanks, requiring large amounts of land and big infrastructure.
These represent the most significant capital costs of biological nitrification systems. Another
disadvantage is that the rate of biological nitrification declines sharply with temperature. This is
particularly significant as most nitrification systems are located outdoors. Therefore, ambient
outside temperature has a significant influence on nitrification rates. As a biological process,
biological nitrification is inherently uncontrollable. Oxygen levels, pH, and temperature can be
somewhat controlled, however, nitrification systems are prone to upsets and must be closely
monitored.39 Another disadvantage is the expense of consumable chemicals such as oxygen and
methane (added to assist in the last step of nitrification40). Aeration is the single largest
operational expense of biological nitrification. The last and most important disadvantage of
nitrification is that it ultimately cannot remove all the ammonia from wastewater. Ammonia
removal rates are inversely proportional to ammonia concentration. To remove sufficient
ammonia to meet new EPA regulations, impractically long residency times would be required.

38
Russia-IC. http://www.russia-ic.com/people/general/w/311/
39
Waterfacts. http://waterfacts.net/Treatment/Activated_Sludge/Nitrification/nitrification.html
40
Delft University of Technology. http://tudelft.nl/fileadmin/UD/MenC/Support/Internet/
TU%20Website/TU%20Delft/Images/Actueel/Nieuws/2012/jan-feb mrt/LKY_WP_2012_
Anammox_Fact_Sheet_Final_070312.pdf

28
3.1.2 Anaerobic Ammonium Oxidation (Anammox)

Anammox biological treatment is a relatively new yet effective method of biologically

processing ammonia and nitrites directly into N2. Contrasted with biological nitrification, which
is a two-step process, anammox bacteria convert ammonia and nitrites directly into N2 and H2O,
bypassing the traditional denitrification process.41 Figure 4 illustrates the short cut that anammox
presents in the denitrification of ammonia. Researchers discovered anammox bacteria in 1995
when they discovered that a previously unknown bacterium was converting ammonia directly into
N2 in a fluidized bed reactor (Mulder, van de Graaf, Robertson, Kuenen, 1995). Anammox shares
many commonalities with traditional biological nitrification and is compatible with much existing
infrastructure, allowing existing facilities to retrofit to anammox.

Figure 4: Anammox Nitrogen Cycle

Source: Author, based on diagram from Paques Inc.42

Anammox bacteria have several advantages over traditional biological nitrification. First,
they produce far less sludge than conventional biological nitrification (Kartal, Kuenen, van
Loosdrecht, 2015). Fewer bacteria are required for the anammox process, which translates into
less biological material to remove as sludge. Anammox represent significant operational savings:
there is less bio waste removal; there are capital cost savings because the process can be carried
out in 50% smaller tanks; less mechanical equipment is needed to handle the sludge; and
significantly fewer consumable chemicals are required to maintain the process. Oxygen
consumption is up to 60% less and no organic carbon is required to fuel the anammox process.
Organic carbon (usually methane) is required to complete the final step in conventional biological

41
Paques. http://en.paques.nl/products/featured/anammox
42
Paques. http://en.paques.nl/products/featured/anammox

29
nitrification process, converting nitrates into nitrogen gas using microbes already present in the
wastewater. Removing the final step of nitrification also reduces carbon dioxide emissions by up
to 90%.

The combined advantages of lower oxygen demand, no organic carbon, less sludge and
lower CO2 emissions makes for a very effective ammonia removal process, reducing the
environmental impacts and operating costs of ammonia removal.43 These advantages illustrate
why anammox has enjoyed increased adoption in recent years.

The anammox process does come with some disadvantages however. Anammox bacteria
multiply more slowly than Nitrosomonas bacteria. Moreover, they are more slow to rebound from
a shock or system upset. Low growth rates of the bacteria can reduce the rate anammox can
process ammonia. Therefore, anammox becomes very inefficient in unfavourable environments.
Like biological nitrification processes, anammox is most effective in warm applications and with
very high ammonia concentrations.

Another disadvantage is that anammox is a biological process and similar to all biological
denitrification processes it requires oxygen to aerate the process, incurring similar operating costs
to the biological nitrification described above. Aeration equipment is still required, meaning that
operating costs may be lower than traditional nitrification but capital costs would be similar due
to the initial costs to install the aeration systems. These disadvantages have limited the
application of anammox to select situations; however, research continues to improve the
anammox process.

3.1.3 Air Stripping

Air stripping ammonia from wastewater can be an effective ammonia removal

technology for low ammonia concentration wastewaters. Air stripping involves dispersing
wastewater over evaporation material, in a cooling-tower type structure, to promote the
evaporation of ammonia from the wastewater into the air stream. The air stream is then
exhausted, sent to an ammonia absorber, or thermally destroyed.44 Exhausting air to the
atmosphere is only permissible in locations where local ammonia emissions regulations permit.
However, where it is permitted by regulations, it is the most economical disposal option.

43
Delft University of Technology.
http://tudelft.nl/fileadmin/UD/MenC/Support/Internet/TU%20Website/TU%20Delft/Images/Actueel/Nie
uws/2012/jan-feb-mrt/LKY_WP_2012_Anammox_Fact_Sheet_Final_070312.pdf
44
EPA. http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_ammonia_stripping.pdf

30
Ammonia absorbers are another cooling-tower type device that chemically converts the ammonia
vapours into ammonia salts, such as the fertilizer ammonium sulphate. Thermal destruction of
ammonia requires heating an oxidizing catalyst to break the ammonia into water and carbon
dioxide.

Ammonia air stripping has several advantages. It requires significantly less space than
biological nitrification ponds, reducing initial capital costs and allowing for addition to existing
facilities. Second, ammonia air stripping can disperse ammonia into the atmosphere, removing
the costs of disposal. However, air stripping removes ammonia from the gas stream at a fixed
percentage, based on the temperature and pH of the wastewater. Therefore, greater reduction of
ammonia simply requires multiple passes through the air stripper. Another advantage of air
stripping is due to its simple construction. Air stripping is a simple, easily controlled, easily
scaled, and universally accessible method of ammonia removal. The last advantage of air
stripping is that it can process water that is impaired or otherwise toxic to biological nitrification.
These advantages prove air stripping is an economical method of treating ammonia from small to
medium concentration sources, especially those that contain other chemicals toxic to biological
nitrification.

Air stripping also has several disadvantages compared to other methods of ammonia
removal. It removes a fixed percentage of ammonia from a wastewater stream in a single pass, for
a given temperature. Air stripping cannot economically attain very low ammonia concentrations.
Multiples passes through the stripper are required for lower concentrations. However, the efficacy
of each pass diminishes with the concentration (Huang and Chii Shang, 2006). Another
disadvantage is that air stripping exhausts the ammonia into the atmosphere as a final means of
disposing of it. Many regions in the world regulate ammonia exhausting, sometimes more so than
aquatic ammonia pollution. If regulations prohibit the free exhaust of the ammonia, plant
operators must dispose the ammonia vapour another way or convert it to fertilizer for sale45.
Converting the vapour into ammonia fertilizer requires a consumable anion particle, usually
sulphur, or nitrate, to create ammonia salts. The costs of converting vapour into fertilizer,
bagging, and distribution often outweigh the profits from fertilizer sales. Another disadvantage of
air stripping is that it is an active, mechanical process. Pump, fans, and heating catalysts consume
energy, increasing operating costs. At large volumes or concentrations, other means of ammonia
removal are more economical, with lower operating costs. The last disadvantage of air stripping is
that its efficiency is highly dependent on the process temperature. Removal rates of 90 – 95% are

45
Branch Environmental corp. http://www.branchenv.com/air_strippers/Ammonia%20Stripping.pdf

31
possible with 20°C air; however, recovery drops to 75% at 10°C air stream (Cheremisinoff,
1994). Temperature is a significant variable affecting productivity and limiting air stripping
effectiveness to warmer climates. The disadvantages we have reviewed explain why air stripping
has had limited market acceptance.

3.1.4 Breakpoint Chlorination

Breakpoint chlorination is the process of destroying ammonia by adding chlorine to

water. Breakpoint chlorination occurs when enough chlorine is present in the water to react with
all of the free organics and ammonia. Free available chlorine residual is the chlorine added to
water, beyond the breakpoint of chlorination, which is stays in the water and is available to
disinfect the water in the future. Health Canada requires some level of free residuals in drinking
water, to keep the water disinfected until it is used.46 Figure 5 illustrates the relationship between
chlorine dosage and free residual chlorine.

Figure 5: Breakpoint Chlorination, Chlorine Residual vs. Chlorine Dosage

Source: author, based on diagram from Water Treatment Operator Handbook, (Pizzi 2011)

Breakpoint chlorination can remove ammonia by converting it into various chloramines,

depending on the pH of the water. Chloramines are mild, non-toxic disinfectants that contribute to
the overall free residual chlorine level in water. However, it requires, on average, a ratio of 8:1 of
chlorine to ammonia to convert all the ammonia into chloramines (Pressley, Dolloff, and Roan,
1972).

Breakpoint chlorination has several advantages compared to other ammonia removal

methods. First, in addition to removing the ammonia from water, chlorine sanitizes the water by

46
Health Canada. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/water-eau/chlorine-chlore/index-eng.php#a3

32
destroying other pollutants. This could be an advantage for industries, such as cattle and swine
rearing, that are already chlorinate their wastewaters to remove biological contaminants. Another
advantage is the ability of this process to remove virtually all the ammonia from water, something
that is difficult for other ammonia removal systems to accomplish. Another advantage is the very
small installation size and simplicity of the operation required for breakpoint chlorination. A
typical installation consists of a small tank to hold chlorine, a small dosing pump, some pipe-
work, and a control unit. A compact chlorination system can treat a large volume of water. The
final advantage of breakpoint chlorination is its ability to completely destroy the ammonia in
wastewater, removing any costs and environmental hazards associated with disposing a waste
product. These advantages ensure that some industries will utilize breakpoint chlorination as an
ammonia removal system.

Breakpoint chlorination also has several disadvantages. First, the amount of chlorine
required to remove ammonia depends on water temperature, pH, and the presence of other
contaminants. If other contaminants are present in wastewaters, they may consume free chlorine,
reducing chlorine’s ammonia removal capabilities. Therefore, the volume of every chlorine
injection requires careful calculation based on actual water chemistry, to ensure sufficient
chlorine is added to destroy the ammonia. Another disadvantage is that breakpoint chlorination
cannot remove nitrate and nitrites from wastewater. Nitrate and nitrites are regulated pollutants
that are similar to ammonia and are often present with ammonia in wastewaters. Biological
nitrification processes naturally remove nitrate and nitrites from wastewater, as they are already
intermediate steps of those processes. The last disadvantage is that breakpoint chlorination
requires the handling and use of concentrated chlorine, either in gaseous or liquid form. Large
volumes of chlorine represent health and environmental risks and invariably increase operating
costs due to the safety equipment, training, and infrastructure required. The disadvantages
examined above limit the industrial acceptance of breakpoint chlorination as a method of
ammonia removal.

3.1.5 Zeolite Ion Exchange

Zeolites are minerals with many microscopic pores that can absorb ammonia from waste
streams. They have many commercial and industrial uses as they have a very large surface area
due to their micro-porous structure. Zeolites occur naturally as mineral deposits in many parts of
the world; there are over 40 different kinds of naturally occurring zeolites. Different deposits

33
produce different kinds of zeolites, with different chemical and mechanical properties.47 Ion
exchange firms also engineer and manufacture synthetic zeolites that have specific features and
properties. Ion exchange filtration processes use synthetic zeolites to remove a range of
substances. Among their many uses, zeolites can absorb ammonia from wastewater and gas
streams. Natural zeolites, particularly clinoptilolite zeolites, are most commonly used to removal
ammonia. However, synthetically derived zeolites have been engineered to have the correct pore
size to accommodate ammonia particles, making synthetic zeolites potentially more effective than
natural zeolites at removing ammonia (Jorgensen, Weatherley, 2013). Zeolites are more effective
at removing low concentration ammonia than most other methods, recovering almost 98% of
ammonia from a wastewater stream (Chuan, 2000).

Zeolites work by lightly holding harmless cations (positively charged partials) in their
pores which then switch places with other cations present in a water passed over the zeolite . This
allows zeolites to remove ammonia from a wastewater streams by swapping the ammonia ions in
the wastewater with other cations (usually sodium) held in the zeolite. Fresh zeolite systems are
full of sodium ions and as the zeolite is used, the sodium swaps with ammonia from the
wastewater. Zeolite resin is often packaged into cartridges for easy sizing and replacement.
Eventually the zeolite cartridge is full of ammonia and must be replaced or regenerated.

Replacing zeolite is a simple operation as most disposable zeolite cartridges are small and
designed for easy replacement. However, larger systems can regenerate zeolite saturated with
ammonia. There are multiple methods of regenerating zeolite, depending on the system and type
of zeolite used. In the first method, a caustic brine solution washes the zeolite. The caustic
removes the ammonia ions and the sodium ions in the brine take their place. The wash fluid
produced by regenerating zeolite saturated with ammonia is disposed of or is regenerated by
biological nitrification (Cooney and Booker, 1999). Some systems regenerate by promoting the
growth of bacteria on the zeolites to consume the ammonia, eventually cleaning the zeolite
rendering it useable again (Lahav, Green, 1998).

Zeolites have several advantages over other ammonia removal systems. First, similar to
breakpoint chlorination, zeolites are able to remove virtually all the ammonia present in
wastewaters. For this reason, final polishing steps in ammonia removal systems often use zeolites
(Wang, Kmiya, Okuhara, 2007). Another advantage is that its operation is insensitive to
wastewater temperatures. This means that zeolites are ideal for colder climates, where outdoor
biological nitrification is impossible. Another advantage is that zeolites do not require any

47
USGC. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/zeolites/zeolimyb04.pdf

34
consumable chemicals for normal operation. They absorb ammonia with no chemical pre-
treatment, reducing system complexity and risks of chemical handling. Avoiding chemical
injections into the wastewater permits zeolites to be used in situations where changing the
wastewater chemistry is undesirable, such as in aquaculture and chemical production
applications. The last advantage of zeolites is that systems are small in size, very simple to
operate, but can be easily scaled up by adding more modules to increase capacity. Zeolites are an
effective means of removing, making it popular ammonia treatment option for consumers,
laboratories, and industrial users as a final polishing step.

There are several disadvantages of Zeolites compared to other ammonia removal

solutions. First, full zeolite cartridges require regular regeneration or disposal. Replacing
disposable cartridges is a simple exercise but would be a significant operating expense over time.
Regenerating zeolites may produce an ammonia wastewater stream. This waste stream needs
disposal or treatment, which increases operating costs. Next, the capacity of any zeolite system is
dependent upon its volume of ion exchange material. Large-scale users would need to install a
very large system or regenerate the zeolite material frequently, increasing process downtime.
Another disadvantage of zeolites is that other alkali metals reduce the ammonia absorption rate.
Zeolites have a slight negative charge, creating a natural affinity for most alkali metals such as
calcium and magnesium. As a result, zeolite systems will not remove ammonia as effectively with
harder or saline wastewaters. The other, less harmful, ions occupy space within the zeolites,
reducing the system’s capacity to remove ammonia. These disadvantages limit zeolites to small-
scale consumers, aquaculture, swimming pools, and industrial polishing.48

3.1.6 Liqui-Cel® Membrane Contactors

Liqui-Cel membrane contactors are a new proprietary technology that can efficiently
remove ammonia from wastewater streams and convert into ammonium sulphate ((NH4)2SO4), a
fertilizer that can be resold. Liqui-Cel membrane contactor devices utilize membranes, formed
into tubes, to promote ammonia diffusion into a sulphuric acid stream flowing inside the tubes.
The device is similar in construction to shell and tube heat exchangers; wastewater passes through
the outer shell of the device and sulphuric acid flows inside the tubes.49 The tubes are
hydrophobic (water repellent) but are punctured with microscopic pores. Water cannot enter the
pores because of hydrophobicity and surface tension. However, ammonia is able to enter the

48
Lenntech. http://www.lenntech.com/zeolites-removal.htm
49
Liqui-Cel. http://www.liquicel.com/applications/ammonia-removal.cfm

35
pores and reacts with the sulphuric acid inside the tubes to produce ammonium sulphate as the
waste product of the process (Chou, Rostam-Abadi, and Lytle, 1996). Osmatic pressure of the
ammonia passing into the tubes, to react with the sulphuric acid, drives the process. Because the
Liqui-Cel device removes ammonia and converts it into an ammonia salt in a single step, it is
attractive to some market segments that prefer to convert their waste ammonia into fertilizer for
re-sale.

Liqui-Cel has several advantages over conventional ammonia removal technologies.

First, Liqui-Cel systems have smaller capital and operating costs. A compact footprint requires a
smaller building and process infrastructure. Simple installations are easy to operate, reducing
operator training and maintenance. Next, Liqui-Cel systems are insensitive to process
temperature, making them especially attractive to northern applications where an outdoor process
is impractical. Another advantage is the ability to remove ammonia regardless of the ammonia
concentration in the wastewater. The ammonia removal rate of conventional systems decreases
proportionally with ammonia concentration. These advantages position Liqui-Cel devices as a
viable alternative to traditional ammonia removal and ammonia salt production systems.

The Liqui-Cel ammonia removal devices also have inherent disadvantages. Liqui-Cel
systems require several consumable chemicals to operate. The pH of the wastewater requires
adjustment to a pH value of 10 with a caustic chemical pre-treatment.50 The sulphuric acid stream
requires continual replenishment as the acid reacts with the ammonia to form ammonium
sulphate. The consumable chemicals required for normal operation of the Liqui-Cel system
increase the systems’ operational costs. The resulting ammonium sulphate can be profitably sold
in some markets, however the high capital costs of processes equipment, safety equipment,
sulphuric acid storage and handling, and the fluctuating price of bulk ammonium sulphate mean
that the costs of producing ammonium sulphate often outweighs the potential profits from selling
it.51 However, it is often required as the only practical way to dispose of ammonia produced by
some industrial processes (Chou, Rostam-Abadi, and Lytle, 1996), (Nemerow, 2010).

Liqui-Cel provides a superior process to remove ammonia and convert it into an

ammonium salt in a single step. In a case study, Liqui-Cel ammonia removal devices was able to
successfully remove 95% of the ammonia present in a 132 GPM wastewater stream with an inlet
ammonia concentration of 500 mg/L. Based on the recovery rate, the discharge emissions were 25
mg/L. Liqui-Cel also provides examples of an implementation of its device in manufacturing

50
Liqui-Cel. http://www.liquicel.com/uploads/documents/TB74-Ammonia-Removal-10-09.pdf
51
SunSirs. http://www.sunsirs.com/uk/prodetail-236.html

36
plants. The Liqui-Cel device processed a 44 GPM wastewater stream with an inlet ammonia
concentration of 1100 mg/L, discharging an effluent stream with 55 mg/L of ammonia.52
Although Liqui-Cel is limited to situations where the production of ammonium salts is desirable,
additional analysis can determine if the Liqui-Cel process is superior to Saltwork’s ammonium
salts process.

3.1.7 Summary of Current Ammonia Removal Technologies

This chapter reviews the most widely utilized methods of ammonia removal and disposal.
Appendix A provides a summary of ammonia removal technologies and their relative advantages
and disadvantages. A wide range of technologies and processes serve the market for removing
ammonia from wastewater. However, each removal technology comes with advantages and
disadvantages that make them particularly suited to some applications but not to others. As a
result, there is no single dominant technology and overall customer needs in this market are not
being satisfied. An example of a technology dominating an entire market would be the way
reverse osmosis has dominated the seawater desalination market for decades.

Most established ammonia removal technologies primarily rely on some form of

biological nitrification. This group of technologies include conventional biological nitrification,
anammox, MBR, SBR, and the regeneration step for some zeolite processes. These systems are
cost efficient as they are simple, easily scalable and do not require significant amounts of energy
to maintain. However, biological nitrification has several limitations. As a biological process, it is
inherently non-controllable, which leads to system upsets, process crashes, and headaches for
plant operators. Because of the nature of biological nitrification, ammonia removal rates decrease
at lower temperatures and with too high or too low pH. Another major limitation is that the
bacterium that consumes ammonia requires long exposure times for it to consume all the
ammonia. This usually results in large tanks for long residency times. This means installations are
large and costly. Retrofitting existing facilities with more biological nitrification is often
impossible due to space restrictions. These limitations increase the overall cost of biological
nitrification, especially retrofit systems, and reduce the attractiveness to customers building new
plants.

Several alternative technologies have been developed to overcome the shortcomings of

biological nitrification. Established alternative technologies include air stripping and breakpoint

52
Liqui-Cel. http://www.liquicel.com/uploads/documents/TB53%20Rev1%20Referral%20Sheet%2010-
05.pdf

37
chlorination. Zeolite ion exchange materials and Liqui-Cel membrane contactors are prime
examples of new technologies that have been recently developed to remove ammonia. These
alternative technologies have varying advantages and disadvantages however most are compact
and easier to control than biological nitrification. However, most alternative technologies convert
the ammonia to another product that must be collected and sold or disposed of. Many of these
technologies also require extensive pre-treatment systems. Together these limitations increase the
relative cost of alternative ammonia removal technologies and have prevented them from
dominating biological nitrification.

The most commonly utilized ammonia removal technologies force important tradeoffs for
plant owners. No single technology has dominated the entire market; each market segment
utilizes different technologies. Saltworks has an opportunity to provide a product that has fewer
tradeoffs, better technical performance, and can equally serve multiple market segments. As
world regulations tighten on ammonia discharge levels, industry will require better solutions.
Saltworks has an opportunity to revolutionize the market and grow its reputation as a world
leader in water treatment technology.

38