A major portion of the cost of using granular activated carbon as a water treatment unit process is associated with the replacement or reactivation of spent carbon. Regional reactivation—the sharing of a reactivation furnace among several users—has been proposed as a means of minimizing this cost. To test this concept, a field‐scale regional reactivation project was conducted by the Manchester (N.H.) Water Works in conjunction with three other water utilities. Each of the three participating utilities provided 40 000 lb (18 160 kg) of carbon to be transported to Manchester for fluidized‐bed reactivation. Data were gathered on reactivation operations and costs, transportation costs, and carbon losses. Results of the study demonstrated that regional reactivation can be cost effective compared with carbon replacement and, in certain instances, compared with on‐site reactivation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Adams et al. (1986) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: