1 / 6

Dow Water & Process Solutions Hydranautics ESPA2 vs. FilmTec LC HR-4040 Performance Comparisons

Dow Water & Process Solutions Hydranautics ESPA2 vs. FilmTec LC HR-4040 Performance Comparisons. Flow Comparison GPD.

curran-bradshaw
Télécharger la présentation

Dow Water & Process Solutions Hydranautics ESPA2 vs. FilmTec LC HR-4040 Performance Comparisons

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dow Water & Process Solutions Hydranautics ESPA2 vs.FilmTec LC HR-4040Performance Comparisons

  2. Flow Comparison GPD Notes: LC HR-4040 produces more water than the ESPA2 under identical test conditions. Flow rate for the LC HR-4040 taken from ROSA projection done at ESPA2 test conditions of 1500 ppm NaCl, pH7, 15% recovery and 150 psig.

  3. TDS Rejection Comparison Notes: Higher flow does not come at the expense of rejection. Rejection performance for the LC HR-4040 taken at the same flux rate as the ESPA2 so as to eliminate operational performance differences.  Rejection rate for the ESPA2 taken after 3rd year to take into account an annual 10% increase in salt passage.

  4. Active Area Comparison Ft2 Notes:  LC HR-4040 has over 10% more active area than the ESPA2. More active increases element manufacturing costs but creates additional value to the customer.

  5. Flux Rate Comparison GFD Notes:  Higher active area means the LC HR-4040 can produce the same amount of water as the ESPA2 but at a lower average flux.  This can translate into less fouling potential, longer element life and lower total cost. Flux rate comparisons done at a flow rate of 1900 gpd.

  6. Feed Pressure Comparison PSIG Notes: The ESPA2 requires ~6% more pressure to make the same amount of water as the LC HR-4040.  This can translate into lower energy costs and additional savings.

More Related