Issuu

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

Chapter 4. Optimising water quality â€“ Particle removal

Coordinators: Rodney Thompson23, Peter Melis18, Ilse Delcour19

Table of Contents List of Figures ..........................................................................................................................4-2 4.1. Introduction .....................................................................................................................4-3 4.2. Summary of technologies subsequently presented in this chapter in individual technology descriptions ..........................................................................................................4-6 4.3. Band Filtration..................................................................................................................4-8 4.4. Cloth Filtration .............................................................................................................. 4-12 4.5. Disc Filtration ................................................................................................................ 4-16 4.6. Drum filtration .............................................................................................................. 4-19 4.7. Hydrocyclone ................................................................................................................ 4-22 4.8. Microfiltration and ultrafiltration ................................................................................. 4-25 4.9. Rapid sand filtration ...................................................................................................... 4-29 4.10. Automatic self-cleaning filters .................................................................................... 4-32 4.11. Sieve bend screen filtration ........................................................................................ 4-35

This document includes a cover page with the FERTINNOWA disclaimer. Full terms and conditions for using this document can be found at http://www.fertinnowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FERTINNOWA-websiteterms-and-conditions.pdf 4-1

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

List of Figures Figure 4-1. Schematic picture of a band filtration unit (http://www.filtermat.be/EC/BandfilterEnglish.htm) ............................................................4-9 Figure 4-2. Disc-cloth filtration system (http://www.arwadh.com/engineering/wwt/filtration.asp) .............................................. 4-13 Figure 4-3. A disc filtration unit (http://www.czdlwater.com/content/?264.html) ........... 4-17 Figure 4-4. Drum filter without a vacuum pump (http://www.sklmineral.net/drumfilters.html#drum-filters) ..................................................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-5. Drum filter with central vacuum pump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_vacuum-drum_filter#/media/File:Rotary_vacuumdrum_filter.svg) ................................................................................................................... 4-20 Figure 4-6. Illustration of a hydro cyclone (https://www.cccmix.com/urethane-vorspinhydrocyclone/) ..................................................................................................................... 4-23 Figure 4-7. Scheme of a microfiltration unit (http://www.automaticselfcleaningfilters.com/sale-2960898-stainless-steel-water-filtersystems-filter-cartridge-for-ultra-pure-gas-filtration.html) ................................................ 4-26 Figure 4-8. Removal of specific particles and contaminates by sequential filtration methods (http://www.pacificwater.com.au/product/kcw-1000-ultrafiltration/) ............................. 4-26 Figure 4-9. Illustration of a rapid sand filter( https://www.sswm.info/print/2852?tid=1268) 430 Figure 4-10. Illustration of a SAF filter (http://www.filtermat.be/FM/SAF/AutomaticFilters.htm) ................................................. 4-33 Figure 4-11. Scheme of sieve bend screen filtration (https://ariskoiproducts.com/winkel/vijver/aquaforte-ultrasieve-extra-breed-3-ingangen-zwaartekrachtzeefbochtfilter/) ................................................................................................................... 4-36

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.1. Introduction 4.1.1. These techniques concern the issue ď‚ˇ ď‚ˇ

Preparation of irrigation water More efficient use of water

4.1.2. Regions All EU regions.

4.1.3. Crop(s) in which the issue is relevant All fertigated crops.

4.1.4. Cropping type All cropping types.

4.1.5. General description of the issue Removal of particles present in the irrigation water is a fundamental requirement for drip irrigation to avoid clogging problems (taking into account the small size of the dripper outlet), which reduces irrigation uniformity and can provoke a decrease of water and nutrient use efficiency and of crop yield. As a general rule, it is recommended to install a filtration system after the fertigation equipment with a maximum gap size of 1/10 of the dripper outlet. However, special attention must be paid to closed soilless growing systems using organic substrates because drain water tends to contain organic particles and can be discoloured which can interfere with some disinfection techniques such as UV disinfection. The challenges related to the removal of particles are the following: 4.1.5.1. Sub-Issue A: Particles in drain water interfere with recirculation Drain water from horticulture using organic substrate often contain an appreciable amount of organic particles. When drain water is collected for recirculation, commonly disinfection step is used. Disinfection units require that the drainage water entering the disinfection unit does not contain in order particles to guarantee a sufficient light transmission and to prevent continuous backflushing. 4.1.5.2. Sub-Issue B: Flush water with nutrients and/or pesticides cannot be discarded European law and the national laws in the member states pursue the re-use of drain water in horticulture. However, many systems used for the removal of particles generate backflush water containing nutrients and/or pesticides; the grower is required to collect this water and process it according to legislation.

4.1.6. Brief description of the socio-economic impact of the issue In several regions in Europe, water quality and quantity are becoming a major issue in horticulture. Rainwater is by far the optimal source to use, but quantity is often a limiting This document includes a cover page with the FERTINNOWA disclaimer. Full terms and conditions for using this document can be found at http://www.fertinnowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FERTINNOWA-websiteterms-and-conditions.pdf 4-3

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops factor. Drain coming from cultivations on the substrate can be collected, being available for reuse, although its disinfection is recommended in multiple crops before being used due to the presence of possible diseases. The water will contain nutrients which need to be considered. The drain water will also have a significant content of organic particles when organic substrates are used, which will interfere with the disinfection capacity. Therefore, effective previous filtration is required. Some growers with smaller operations prefer to install filtration systems with manual instead of automatic cleaning systems because of their lower cost. However, commonly with manual cleaning systems, the selected gap size (of the filter mesh) tends to be relatively large to avoid frequent blockage of the filter and therefore frequent cleaning; this increases the risk of dripper clogging.

4.1.7. Brief description of the regulations concerning the issue 4.1.7.1. European level Wash water from cleaning filter can contain nutrients and organic materials that can pollute natural water resources. European Union (EU) Directives such as the Water Framework Directive provide guidelines regarding the discharge of contaminating materials to water bodies such as rivers, lakes and aquifers. With time, there is increasingly strict implementation of these Directives at national and regional level. 4.1.7.2. Country level The European Union Directives are translated into national law in the European Union member states. National governments have the obligation to organise control entities for the quality of natural water bodies. There are differences between member states in the details of the legislation, but in the general terms, the legislation should be similar. There are clear differences between member states in the implementation of the legislation. Generally, countries (and regions) in North West Europe have the strictest implementation within the EU. For example, The Netherlands is working towards zero emission of water contaminants from horticulture by 2027. 4.1.7.3. Regional level At the regional level, the regulations are generally very similar to the national regulations.

4.1.8. Existing technologies to solve the issue/sub-issues The general approaches of the existing technologies can be organised into the following categories: Specific or crude filtration ď‚ˇ Sieve bend screen filtration Crude filtration ď‚ˇ

Hydrocyclone

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops Fine filtration with backwash  Rapid sand filtration  Cloth filtration  Disc filtration  SAF filtration  Drum filtration (without vacuum pump)  Microfiltration Fine filtration not using backwash  

Paper band filtration Drum filtration (with vacuum pump)

4.1.9. Issues/sub-issues that cannot be solved currently: bottlenecks All the technologies listed above have a waste product. In most cases, this is filthy water originating from back flushes. It can also be a soiled paper band or organic substrate contaminated with fungal spores and nutrients. Thus, it is necessary to find a solution for these residues.

4.1.10. References for more information [1] Wen-Yong W., Yan H., Hong-Lu L. & Yong N. (2015). Reclaimed water filtration efficiency and drip irrigation emitter performance with different combinations of sand and disc filters. Irrigation and Drainage, 64, 362-369 [2] Roncancio M. G., Pinilla P.A.F. & Martinez Q. F. (1989). Evaluación de filtros de arena y de malla para riego por goteo. Ingeniería e Investigacíon, 19, 52-62 [3] Ruadales R. E., Fisher R. P. & Hall C. R. (2017). The cost of irrigation sources and water treatment in greenhouse production. Irrigation Science, 35, 43-54 [4] Adin A. & Alon G. (1986). Mechanisms and process parameters of filter screens. Journal of Irrigation & Drainage Engineering, 112(4), 293-304 [5] Niu W., Liu L. & Chen X. (2013). Influence of fine particle size and concentration on the clogging of labyrinth emitters. Irrigation Science, 31, 545-555

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.2. Summary of technologies subsequently presented in this chapter in individual technology descriptions Technology

Characteristics

Strengths

Weaknesses

Additional comments; residual product

36-1000 m³/h (dependent on the scale and the selectivity of the screen)

Very simple principle Reliable Easy to install Purely physical action based on gravity All filtered water can be used (there is no backflush) Very high capacity

Only filtration of larger particles Additional filtration necessary to get water suited for disinfection The sludge has to be captured in a container Cleaning is mostly done manually with a garden hose (although models with automatic cleaning exist)

Often chosen as first filtering step for drain water loaded with organic material and substrate particles. Residual product: crude substrate

Centripetal force + gravity Particles heavier than water > 50 µm General fine filtration Band filtration Gravity All particles Dependent on mesh width (min. 5-10 µm)

2 m³/h (0,08 m diameter) - 360 m³/h (0,8 m diameter)

Quick and effective removal of heavy particles No production of wastewater There are no moving parts

Only removes sand and heavy particles No removal of organic matter Not sufficient for filtration and preparation for disinfection by ultrafiltration, slow sand filtration or UV disinfection

Residual product: Sand + heavy particles

2-50 m³/h (dependent on contamination of water, selectivity and fleece width)

No backwash All water can be reused after disinfection Makes disinfection of all sorts of drain water possible Self-cleaning function available

Dirty band as rest product If the screen is flat and does not form a large cup, filthy drain water will flow over the borders and can get underneath the screen without filtration

Can remove very fine particles due to the small maze width Residual product: Dirty paper band

Rapid sand filtration

4-12 m³/h.m²

Simple technology Flow rate adjustable to requirements Self-cleaning function available

A lot of space required for the filter Periodic replacement of the sand Production of large amounts of concentrated water Dealing with backwash water

Not favourable technology because there are smaller and more efficient alternatives available Residual product: Backwash waste

Filtering force, Type and size of particles removed Specific filtration Sieve bend Gravity screen filtration Larger particles Dependent on slot size (150 µm - 5 mm)

Flow rate

Crude filtration Hydrocyclone

Pressure All particles

4-6

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops Technology

Characteristics

Disc filtration

Pump pressure All particles Dependent on disc separation 55-400 µm Pump pressure water flow All particles 10-800 µm

Cloth filtration

Water flow / Gravity / Vacuum pump All particles Dependent on mesh width (min. 5-10 µm)

Drum filtration

Water flow / Vacuum pump All particles Dependent on mesh width (min. 5-10 µm)

Smaller versions (up to 6 vertical discs): 10-60 m³/h Large-scale (up to 12 vertical discs): 50-570 m³/h 10-3000 m3/h

Microfiltration

Water flow (not under pressure) All particles 0,1-10 µm

Ultrafiltration

Water flow (under pressure) All particles Up to 0,01 µm

SAF filtration

Strengths

Weaknesses

0,2 - 30 m³/h (each individual disc filter)

Small installation with high throughput Self-cleaning function available

Production of backflush water Cannot deal with a high sand content in water

7-400 m³/h

Reliable filtration of particles Continuous filtration, even during the automatic backflush Automatic cleaning Limited maintenance needed High capacity Successful particle removal Recovery of high quantities of clear drain water Self-cleaning function available

Deal with backwash water

Residual product: Backwash waste

Generation of small amounts of particleenriched drain water

Technology not common in horticulture Residual product: Backwash waste

Waste is limited to only the substrate in a model with a vacuum pump The throughput can be very high, but size will increase Self-cleaning function available

Models without a vacuum pump generate particle concentrated waste water

No back-wash water when model is based on vacuum pump Residual product: Backwash waste/solids

No pressure required Higher flow rate than ultrafiltration Filters out more than only particles Self-cleaning function available

No removal of dissolved contaminants Less selective than ultrafiltration Particles cause multiple backflushes, interrupting the filtering activity Deal with backwash water Pressurized flow required Unsuitable for particles (clogging) Automatic cleaning function frequently interrupts the filtering activity Pre-filtering is required Need to deal with backwash water

Residual product: Backwash waste

3 m³/h per module

More selective than microfiltration Holds back bacteria and fungi Self-cleaning function available

Additional comments; residual product Residual product: Backwash waste

Recommended in combination with band filtration Residual product: Backwash waste

4-7

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.3. Band Filtration (Authors: Peter Melis18, Rodney Thompson23)

4.3.1. Used for  

Preparation of irrigation water More efficient use of water

4.3.2. Region All EU regions.

4.3.3. Crop(s) in which it is used Strawberry, ornamentals, greenhouse crops. All crops on organic substrates.

4.3.4. Cropping type   

Soilless Protected Open air

4.3.5. Description of the technology 4.3.5.1. Purpose/aim of the technology Removing particles from irrigation, drainage or contaminated water. The filtration is dependent on the size of the mesh in the fleece which is the material that performs the filtration. The filtration can be as fine as 5 µm. This technique does remove nutrients or plant protection products. 4.3.5.2. Working Principle of operation The band filter operates on the principle of gravitational filtering (Figure 4-1). The contaminated liquid to be filtered (1) is fed in through the liquid dispenser (2) onto an endless transport band (3) with filter fleece (8). Solid matter (dirt particles, sludge, etc.) is trapped (filtered-out) by the fleece. The more solid matter that is retained by the filter fleece, the less liquid is likely to flow through the filter fleece. As a result, the fleece can become clogged up. The cleaned liquid flows into filtrate holding tank (4) and can be reused. The sludge particles, remaining on the fleece, form a filter cake (5). If the density and thickness of the filter cake prevent an optimal flow the liquid through the filter or as soon as the filter cake (6) reaches a certain height (7, pre-set level-check), the dirty fleece is discharged into the sludge container (9). At the same time, replacement clean fleece is applied from a roll, and act as a new clean filtering material. The whole process occurs continuously and is fully automatic, and does not interrupt the filtering process.

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Inlet liquid Liquid dispenser Filter fleece bed Filtered liquid Filter cake Contaminated liquid Level check Filter fleece (100-250m) Sludge container

Figure 4-1. Schematic picture of a band filtration unit (http://www.filtermat.be/EC/BandfilterEnglish.htm)

4.3.5.3. Operational conditions The capacity of the technique is dependent on the degree of contamination of the incoming water, the mesh width of the filtration fleece, and the width of the fleece. Limitations vary from supplier to supplier. The finest fleeces can filter down to 10 µm. The flow rate through the system determines the size of the installation. The flow rate varies from 2 m³/h in smaller installations up to 50 m³/h. The dimensions of the systems providing these flow rates vary from 1,5 x 0,6 m to 5,5 x 1,0 m. The fleece runs through the system with a cake of accumulated filtered material. When the cake gets too thick, the fleece is replaced and the dirty fleece is discarded. The rate of replacement of the fleece depends on the grade of contamination of the incoming water, the mesh size of the fleece and the width of the fleece. 4.3.5.4. Cost data Band filtration units have a cost starting from 4000 €. Such a model has a “low” capacity of 10 m³/h and a selectivity of 20 µm. A higher selectivity of the fleece towards 5 µm has a higher cost up to 10000 €. The unit can be set to roll the screen down to have a new cleaning surface in the unit, once the previous part is getting too filthy. Also, systems with higher capacities (flow rates) have higher costs. The only maintenance is to remove and replace the filter screen when the screen is completely used. Prices differ strongly according to the mesh width. At the moment there is no automatic cleaning function of the fleece. So waste in the form of a dirty fleece is unavoidable. 4.3.5.5. Technological bottlenecks The filtration technique does not produce backflush water, but it does produce dirty fleece material which needs to be disposed of. There is no machine yet with a self-cleaning function of the fleece used in the filtering activity.

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops 4.3.5.6. Benefit for the grower Advantages 

No discharge of backflush water



All water can be reused after disinfection



Its use a pre-filtration treatment is useful for where disinfection is used

Disadvantages If the screen is flat and doesn’t form a large cup, dirty drain water can flow over the edges of the screen and pass underneath the screen without filtration. This is more likely when the cake is forming on the screen. 4.3.5.7. Supporting systems needed None. 4.3.5.8. Development phase Commercialised 4.3.5.9. Who provides the technology Agrozone, AquaDNS, Royal Brinkman, ECOfilter, etc. 4.3.5.10. Patented or not The paper band filtration technology is patented. 4.3.6. Which technologies are in competition with this one The band filtration uses the same principle as techniques like cloth filtration and drum filtration. Also, disc filtration, microfiltration, SAF filtration, rapid sand filtration and sieve bend screen filtration can filter out particles. The band filtration, however, can remove very fine particles due to the small mesh width.

4.3.7. Is the technology transferable to other crops/climates/cropping systems? Climate does not matter; of course, the unit has to be installed indoors when the top is open. Temperature does not matter. The crop should produce soil/substrate contaminated drain water to have a benefit from the installation.

4.3.8. Description of the regulatory bottlenecks As there is no backflush water to discharge of, the water quality regulations regarding discharge do not apply.

4.3.9. Brief description of the socio-economic bottlenecks None. This document includes a cover page with the FERTINNOWA disclaimer. Full terms and conditions for using this document can be found at http://www.fertinnowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FERTINNOWA-websiteterms-and-conditions.pdf 4-10

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.3.10. Techniques resulting from this technology It is a stand-alone technology; no secondary techniques have been developed.

4.3.11. References for more information [1] http://www.filtermat.be/EC/BandfilterEnglish.htm [2] https://search-proquestcom.kuleuven.ezproxy.kuleuven.be/docview/1956077671?rfr_id=info%3Axri%2Fsid%3Apri mo [3] https://emis.vito.be/en/techniekfiche/fabric-filter

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.4. Cloth Filtration (Authors: Peter Melis18, Rodney Thompson23)

4.4.1. Used for 

Preparation of irrigation water



More efficient use of water

4.4.2. Region All EU regions.

4.4.3. Crop(s) in which it is used All crops on organic substrates.

4.4.4. Cropping type All cropping types.

4.4.5. Description of the technology 4.4.5.1. Purpose/aim of the technology Removing particles from contaminated or drain water. 4.4.5.2. Working Principle of operation Several versions of the technique are available. All have a similar basis for the working principle. A cloth filtration unit has three activities: filtering, backwashing and removing solid waste. 



Filtering: Inlet wastewater enters the tank or basin, completely submerging the cloth media which is located on a number of vertically aligned discs. By gravity, liquid passes through the cloth media. As solids accumulate on and within the cloth media, a mat is formed and the liquid level in the tank or basin increases. The filtered liquid enters the internal portion of the disc where it is directed to the centre shaft for final discharge Backwash: At a predetermined water level in the filtration tank or after a specified period of time, the backwash cycle is initiated. Solids are backwashed from the surface of the cloth on the discs by liquid suction from both sides of each disc. During backwash, discs are cleaned in multiples of two, unless a single disc unit is used. Discs rotate slowly, allowing each segment to be cleaned. Backwash water is directed to the headworks (i.e. the initial stage of the treatment process). Filtration is not interrupted during the backwash cycle Solid waste: The filtration process requires no moving parts. Heavier solids settle in the lower part of the filter tank. These solids are then pumped on an intermittent

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops basis back to the headworks, digester or other solids collection area of the treatment plant

Figure 4-2. Disc-cloth filtration system (http://www.arwadh.com/engineering/wwt/filtration.asp)

The working principle of cloth filtration is demonstrated in two videos of different versions of the technique. The basic principle is the same to filter drain water and remove suspended particles. The backwash function is also shown in the two videos. AquaDisk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyW_ZudaCTY AquaDiamond: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFtuFcG-C9k 4.4.5.3. Operational conditions The surface area and characteristics of the cloth determine the filtering capacity. In a disc cloth filter, the number of discs increases the filtering surface and therefore the throughput of the system. A disc filter unit (large scale as the AquaDisk system) has a capacity of 50 to 570 m³/h and contains up to 12 vertically oriented discs; the discs can be 3 m in diameter. Smaller versions (like the mini-disc) contain up to 6 vertical discs per unit and can handle between 10 and 60 m³/h. In a traveling bridge version (like AquaDiamond) the surface is increased by the number of bridges in the filtration tank. Units can contain up to 8 vertically oriented laterals. 4.4.5.4. Cost data Depending on the capacity and the set-up of the housing, the investment cost varies from 1000-13000 €. The filter material itself costs around 500-700 € for 1000 Nm³/h. The proportion of fabric material costs, as a percentage of total investment costs can vary from 10% to in excess of 50%. This document includes a cover page with the FERTINNOWA disclaimer. Full terms and conditions for using this document can be found at http://www.fertinnowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FERTINNOWA-websiteterms-and-conditions.pdf 4-13

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops The operating costs include: 

The personnel cost to maintain the installation. This would amount ca. 2 man hours per week



Auxiliary and residual materials: 100-140 €/ year for 1000 Nm³/h. Transport costs for the separated dust are determined by the type of residue. o Inert: ca. 75 €/ton o Chemical: 150-250 €/ ton



Operational costs: 0,2-1,5 €/m³/h

4.4.5.5. Technological bottlenecks The unit often takes a lot of space. As an example, the Aqua MegaDisk system of Aqua Aerobics has a surface area of approximately 6 m x 2,4 m. They are not commonly used in horticulture. They are used more for industrial and municipal wastewater applications. 4.4.5.6. Benefit for the grower Advantages 

Successful particle removal



Recovery of high quantities of clear drain water

Disadvantages 

Generation of small amounts of particle enriched drain water by the backflush



This water cannot be discarded either due to the presence of nutrients and/or pesticides



Size, they are relatively large systems

4.4.5.7. Supporting system needed No specific supporting systems required. 4.4.5.8. Development phase Commercialised. 4.4.5.9. Who provides the technology There are a number of suppliers. One of them is Aqua-Aerobics Inc. 4.4.5.10. Patented or not Cloth materials and cloth filters are patented. 4.4.6. Which technologies are in competition with this one The cloth filtration uses the same principle as techniques like band filtration and drum filtration. Also disc filtration, paper band filtration, microfiltration, SAF filtration, rapid sand This document includes a cover page with the FERTINNOWA disclaimer. Full terms and conditions for using this document can be found at http://www.fertinnowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FERTINNOWA-websiteterms-and-conditions.pdf 4-14

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops filtration and sieve bend screen filtration can filter out particles. Cloth filtration is not widely used in horticulture.

4.4.7. Is the technology transferable to other crops/climates/cropping systems? There are no limitations in climate or temperature. The crop should produce soil/substrate contaminated drain water to have a benefit from the installation.

4.4.8. Description of the regulatory bottlenecks See section 4.1.7.

4.4.9. Brief description of the socio-economic bottlenecks Mostly, the size and cost of the systems.

4.4.10. Techniques resulting from this technology It is a stand-alone technology; no secondary techniques have been developed.

4.4.11. References for more information [1] http://www.aqua-aerobic.com/index.cfm/products-systems/filtration/aquadisk/ [2] https://emis.vito.be/en/techniekfiche/fabric-filter [3] Ribiero T., Paterniani J. Airoldi R. & da Silva M (2004). Performance of non woven synthetic fabric and disc filter for fertigation water treatment. Scientia Agricola, 61, 127-133

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.5. Disc Filtration (Authors: Peter Melis18, Rodney Thompson23)

4.5.1. Used for ď‚ˇ

Preparation of irrigation water

ď‚ˇ

More efficient use of water

4.5.2. Region All EU regions.

4.5.3. Crop(s) in which it is used All crops on organic substrates.

4.5.4. Cropping type All cropping types.

4.5.5. Description of the technology 4.5.5.1. Purpose/aim of the technology Removing particles from contaminated or drain water. 4.5.5.2. Working Principle of operation A disc filtration unit consists of the filtration system and an automatic cleaning function using backwash. The filtration is based on the compression of the discs inside the unit caused by a spring at the top. As dirty water is pumped into the filter and pressure increases, the water compresses the disc rings tightly together. The water is then forced to flow through the grooves of the disc rings, where debris is trapped, and releasing only clean water to the central shaft. After a set time or when the pressure difference reaches a set value, the backwash cycle starts. The inlet pipe is closed and the flow in the unit is reversed. Previously filtered water is pumped into the central shaft and the discs are loosened by compressing the spring at the top giving the discs the possibility to rotate and expel the particles. The trapped particles flow with the water towards the drain outlet. After the backwash cycle, the filtering activity re-starts after reopening the inlet pipe. A backwash takes up to 20 seconds and the water consumption should be less than 0,5% of the filtering capacity.

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

Figure 4-3. A disc filtration unit (http://www.czdlwater.com/content/?264.html)

4.5.5.3. Operational conditions The capacity of the technique depends on the number of disc filters. Installations can contain up to 7 units in a row. There are also different sizes of disc filters, each with their own capacity. Individual disc filters can process from 0,2 up to 30 m³/h. Also the characteristics of the disc rings determine how fine the filtration will be. Netafim for example offers different rings that can filter in the range of 55-400 µm; the mesh size is indicated by the colour of the rings. 4.5.5.4. Cost data The prices of installation and maintenance are very dependent on the size of the installation. It is recommended to get estimates from the manufacturing companies or distributors. 4.5.5.5. Technological bottlenecks During backwash, filtering activity is interrupted. Also sand particles can quickly damage the rings, requiring frequent replacement. 4.5.5.6. Benefit for the grower Advantages 

Small installation with high throughput

Disadvantages 

Produces back flush water



Cannot deal with a high sand content in drain water

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops 4.5.5.7. Supporting systems needed Pre-filtration when sand particles are an issue. 4.5.5.8. Development phase Commercialised. 4.5.5.9. Who provides the technology 

Netafim



UVAR Holland b.v.



Amiad

4.5.5.10. Patented or not It is possible in some systems, that some components are patented. 4.5.6. Which technologies are in competition with this one A number of techniques can similarly filter out particles: band filtration, cloth filtration, drum filtration, rapid sand filtration, SAF filtration, sieve bend screen filtration, microfiltration, etc.

4.5.7. Is the technology transferable to other crops/climates/cropping systems? There are no limitations in climate or temperature. The crop should produce soil/substrate contaminated drain water to have a benefit from the installation. It can be installed between a filthy drain silo and a disinfection unit.

4.5.8. Description of the regulatory bottlenecks See section 4.1.7.

4.5.9. Brief description of the socio-economic bottlenecks None.

4.5.10. Techniques resulting from this technology It is a stand-alone technology; no secondary techniques have been developed.

4.5.11. References for more information [1] Wen-Yong W., Yan H., Hong-Lu L. & Yong N. (2015). Reclaimed water filtration efficiency and drip irrigation emitter performance with different combinations of sand and disc filters. Irrigation and Drainage, 64, 362-369 [2] Ribiero T., Paterniani J., Airoldi R. & da Silva M (2004). Performance of non woven synthetic fabric and disc filter for fertigation water treatment. Scientia Agricola, 61, 127-133

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.6. Drum filtration (Authors: Peter Melis18, Rodney Thompson23)

4.6.1. Used for ď‚ˇ

Preparation of irrigation water

ď‚ˇ

More efficient use of water

4.6.2. Region All EU regions.

4.6.3. Crop(s) in which it is used All crops on organic substrates.

4.6.4. Cropping type All cropping types.

4.6.5. Description of the technology 4.6.5.1. Purpose/aim of the technology Removing particles from contaminated or drain water. 4.6.5.2. Working Principle of operation Dirty drainage water flows into a drum that has a fine mesh. The drum is partly filled with water to be able to collect the particles that are being filtered out. The drum rotates and filters out the particles that remain on the inside of the drum. The rotating drum moves the particles upwards and nozzles at the top of the drum wash out the particles as a sludge. The sludge water is collected through an outlet. Drum filters can also work with a vacuum pump in the centre. Dirty drain water is collected in a tank and a drum rotates in the tank. Due to the vacuum, the water is sucked through the drum and the particles adhere to the outside of the drum. The filtered water flows out through a central duct in the drum. The particles form a cake on the drum surface and are scraped off to collect the solid waste.

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

Figure 4-4. Drum filter without a vacuum pump (http://www.sklmineral.net/drum-filters.html#drum-filters)

Figure 4-5. Drum filter with central vacuum pump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotary_vacuumdrum_filter#/media/File:Rotary_vacuum-drum_filter.svg)

4.6.5.3. Operational conditions The larger the unit gets, the higher is the capacity. Also, the size of the mesh of the drum is a determining factor. The filtering surface can be as small as 0,5 mÂ˛ and as large as 125 mÂ˛. Typical flow rates are between 3-850 L/s, with mesh sizes varying between 0,25 and 2,5 mm.

4.6.5.4. Cost data Prices in installation and maintenance vary depending on the size. It is recommended to obtain estimates from manufacturing companies or distributors. 4.6.5.5. Technological bottlenecks For horticultural purposes, the relatively large size of the filter is a major bottleneck. This system is used in the paper industry and in laundries. This document includes a cover page with the FERTINNOWA disclaimer. Full terms and conditions for using this document can be found at http://www.fertinnowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FERTINNOWA-websiteterms-and-conditions.pdf 4-20

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops 4.6.5.6. Benefit for the grower Advantages 

Waste is limited to only the substrate in a model with a vacuum pump



The throughput can be very high, but this requires larger systems

Disadvantages 

Models without a vacuum pump will generate higher particle concentrated waste water



The wastewater cannot be discarded without treatment due to nutrients and/or pesticides

4.6.5.7. Supporting systems needed No specific supporting systems are required. 4.6.5.8. Development phase Commercialised. 4.6.5.9. Who provides the technology A number of players are on the market. For example, Bokela. An overview can be found on www.environmental-expert.com/companies. 4.6.5.10. Patented or not. Some of the technologies may be patented. 4.6.6. Which technologies are in competition with this one A number of techniques can filter out particles: band filtration, cloth filtration, disc filtration, rapid sand filtration, SAF filtration, sieve bend screen filtration, microfiltration, etc.

4.6.7. Is the technology transferable to other crops/climates/cropping systems? There are no limitations regarding climate or temperature. The crop should produce soil/substrate contaminated drain water to have a benefit from the installation.

4.6.8. Description of the regulatory bottlenecks See section 4.1.7.

4.6.9. Brief description of the socio-economic bottlenecks Size and cost.

4.6.10. Techniques resulting from this technology It is a stand-alone technology; no secondary techniques have been developed. This document includes a cover page with the FERTINNOWA disclaimer. Full terms and conditions for using this document can be found at http://www.fertinnowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FERTINNOWA-websiteterms-and-conditions.pdf 4-21

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.7. Hydrocyclone (Authors: Peter Melis18, Wilfred Appelman22)

4.7.1. Used for 

Preparation of irrigation water



More efficient use of water

4.7.2. Region All EU regions.

4.7.3. Crop(s) in which it is used 

All crops on organic substrates



The technique is also used when water is drawn out of rivers with a sandy bottom

4.7.4. Cropping type All cropping types.

4.7.5. Description of the technology 4.7.5.1. Purpose/aim of the technology Removing sand and heavy particles from irrigation, drainage or contaminated water.

4.7.5.2. Working Principle of operation A hydro cyclone filter uses centripetal force to separate particles from a liquid such as drainage or irrigation water. The water enters the hydro cyclone near the top of the unit in the cylindrical top. The water is pushed downwards in the conically shaped part and forms a circulating vortex. The heavier particles are pushed outwards and circulate near the outside; they move downwards and exit through the bottom outlet. The clean water moves to the middle of the vortex and rises towards the outlet at the top of the hydro cyclone. There are no moving parts, only a pump is necessary to create the necessary flow of the water. 4.7.5.3. Operational conditions The capacity of the cyclone depends on the size. A small one (diameter 0,08 m) can handle 2-3,5 m³/h. With increasing size, a hydro cyclone can treat deal with up to 230-360 m³/h, in for this capacity; the hydro cyclone has a diameter of 0,8 m. The hydro cyclone can only remove larger and heavier particles. Particles smaller than 50 µm are generally not removed. Also, organic matter is not removed because it is lighter than water.

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

Figure 4-6. Illustration of a hydro cyclone (https://www.cccmix.com/urethane-vorspin-hydrocyclone/)

4.7.5.4. Cost data Prices for the installation and maintenance vary depending on the size. It is recommended to obtain estimates from the manufacturing companies or distributors. An example of the installation cost is approximately 25000 € for a unit capable of filtering 1000 m³/day or 50 m³/h (https://emis.vito.be/en/techniekfiche/hydrocyclone). 4.7.5.5. Technological bottlenecks None. The installation is small and quickly removes heavy particles. 4.7.5.6. Benefit for the grower Advantages 

Quick and effective removal of heavy particles



No production of wastewater



There are no moving parts

Disadvantages 

The technique will only remove sand and heavy particles



Generally, requires a subsequent finer filtration



Not sufficient degree of filtration to prepare water for disinfection by ultrafiltration, slow sand filtration or UV disinfection



No removal of organic matter

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops 4.7.5.7. Supporting systems needed The water entering must be under a suitable pressure provided by a pump. An additional finer filtration such as disc filtration is required after filtration with the hydro cyclone for horticultural applications because the hydro cyclone only removes heavier particles. 4.7.5.8. Development phase Commercialised. 4.7.5.9. Who provides the technology There are a number of producers that produce hydro cyclone filters such as Netafim, UVAR Holland b.v., Equova. 4.7.5.10. Patented or not Some of these systems may be patented. 4.7.6. Which technologies are in competition with this one A number of techniques can filter out particles: band filtration, cloth filtration, drum filtration, rapid sand filtration, SAF filtration, Sieve bend screen filtration, microfiltration, etc. Most of them will be able to filter out finer particles than the hydro cyclone.

4.7.7. Is the technology transferable to other crops/climates/cropping systems? There are no limitations in climate or temperature.

4.7.8. Description of the regulatory bottlenecks See section 4.1.7.

4.7.9. Brief description of the socio-economic bottlenecks There are no such bottlenecks.

4.7.10. Techniques resulting from this technology It is a stand-alone technology; no secondary techniques have been developed from this technology.

4.7.11. References for more information [1] https://emis.vito.be/en/techniekfiche/hydrocyclone [2] Yurdem H., Demir V. & Degirmencioglu A. (2010). Development of a mathematical model to predict clean water head losses in hydrocyclone filters in drip irrigation systems using dimensional analysis. Biosystems Engeneering, 105, 495-506 [3] Soccol, O.J., & Botrel, T.A. (2004). Hydrocyclone for pre-filtering of irrigation water. Scientia Agricola, 61(2), 134-140

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.8. Microfiltration and ultrafiltration (Authors: Peter Melis18, Wilfred Appelman22)

4.8.1. Used for 

Preparation of irrigation water



More efficient use of water

4.8.2. Region All EU regions.

4.8.3. Crop(s) in which it is used All crops grown on organic substrates.

4.8.4. Cropping type 

Soilless



Protected



Open air

4.8.5. Description of the technology 4.8.5.1. Purpose/aim of the technology Removing particles and contaminants from contaminated or drain water. 4.8.5.2. Working Principle of operation Microfiltration is a membrane filtration process which removes particle and contaminants from a fluid by a microporous membrane. The membrane pore size ranges from 0,1-10 µm. Microfiltration is different from reverse osmosis and nanofiltration because it does not require pressure and does not remove dissolved contaminants. Most systems are equipped with a cleaning function, based on a reverse flow to remove the filtered particles and organisms that collect on the membrane. Microfiltration removes bacteria. Ultrafiltration is similar but is more selective and requires pressurised flow to operate. Membrane pore sizes can be as small as 0,01 µm and are sufficiently small to retain viruses and fungal spores. Modules can have a flow of 6 m³/h. Ultrafiltration is not recommended to deal with particles because the filter will soon get clogged and the automatic cleaning function would interrupt the filtering activity too often. A pre-filtration is therefore recommended with a selectivity down to 5 µm (e.g. a paper band filter).

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

Figure 4-7. Scheme of a microfiltration unit (http://www.automaticselfcleaningfilters.com/sale-2960898stainless-steel-water-filter-systems-filter-cartridge-for-ultra-pure-gas-filtration.html)

Figure 4-8. Removal of specific particles and contaminates by sequential filtration methods (http://www.pacificwater.com.au/product/kcw-1000-ultrafiltration/)

4.8.5.3. Operational conditions Microfiltration has a higher flow rate than ultrafiltration due to the lower selectivity. The capacity of the installation is determined by the number of modules that are installed. Often, a single module will have a capacity of 3 mÂł/h. 4.8.5.4. Cost data Prices in installation and maintenance depend on the size. It is recommended to obtain estimates from manufacturing companies or distributors. In strawberry in Belgium, This document includes a cover page with the FERTINNOWA disclaimer. Full terms and conditions for using this document can be found at http://www.fertinnowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FERTINNOWA-websiteterms-and-conditions.pdf 4-26

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops ultrafiltration is used at a capacity of 3 m³/h in combination with a paper band filtration unit, the cost for this combination is 30000 €. Typical installation costs for micro-filtration (tubular and poly(vinylidene fluoride) membranes) with a volume of 25 m³/day, amount to between 25000 and 50000 € depending on the quality of the water supply. “Difficult to treat” supply water is more expensive to process due to the choice of membrane material, total membrane surface area and the special cleaning techniques needed for the membrane. For micro-filtration, average operating costs of 0,1-0,15 €/m³ of produced permeate, should be assumed. 4.8.5.5. Technological bottlenecks Microfiltration can operate without a pressure pump. Once a more selective membrane is chosen, such as in ultrafiltration, a pump is necessary to deliver the operating pressure. The backflush interrupts the filtration/disinfection capacity and water rich in particles can result in frequent backflushing. 4.8.5.6. Benefit for the grower Advantages 

Microfiltration: o No pressure required o Higher flow rate than ultrafiltration o Filters out particles and additional material



Ultrafiltration: o More selective o Filters out bacteria and fungi

Disadvantages 

Microfiltration: o No removal of dissolved contaminants o Less selective o Excessive amounts of particles in incoming water can cause frequent backflushes, that interrupt the filtering activity



Ultrafiltration: o Needs a pressurised flow o Pre-filtering is required o Unsuitable for particles (clogging) o Automatic cleaning function frequently interrupts the filtering activity

4.8.5.7. Supporting systems needed A pre-filtration is needed to remove larger particles. Support aids like bleach, peroxide, acid, alkali or detergent can be used to chemically clean the microfiltration installation. This document includes a cover page with the FERTINNOWA disclaimer. Full terms and conditions for using this document can be found at http://www.fertinnowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FERTINNOWA-websiteterms-and-conditions.pdf 4-27

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops 4.8.5.8. Development phase Commercialised. 4.8.5.9. Who provides the technology There are a number of producers, e.g. Lenntech and AquaDNS are among them.

4.8.6. Which technologies are in competition with this one None, most other filtration systems filter out larger particles.

4.8.7. Is the technology transferable to other crops/climates/cropping systems? For removal of particles, microfiltration is not a good choice in horticulture. Other techniques are cheaper and more effective. More suitable technologies for particle removal are band filtration, cloth filtration, drum filtration, rapid sand filtration, SAF filtration, sieve bend screen filtration etc.

4.8.8. Description of the regulatory bottlenecks See section 4.1.7. The concentrate from micro and ultra-filtration has a high concentration of suspended matter and micro-organisms. This can be discharged together with wastewater if discharge norms are not breached. Rinse waters after chemical cleaning contain substances like bleach and peroxide, acid and alkali. These rinse waters can only be discharged to specific waste purification systems.

4.8.9. Brief description of the socio-economic bottlenecks None apart from cost and requirement for pre-filtration.

4.8.10. Techniques resulting from this technology It is a stand-alone technology; no secondary techniques have been developed.

4.8.11. References for more information [1] https://emis.vito.be/en/techniekfiche/microfiltration [2] https://emis.vito.be/en/techniekfiche/ultrafiltration [3] Dogan, E. C., Yasar, A., Sen, U., & Aydiner, C. (2016). Water recovery from treated urban wastewater by ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis for landscape irrigation. Urban Water Journal, 13(6), 553-568 [4] Zheng X., Mehrez R., Jekel M. & Ernst M (2009). Effect of slow sand filtration of treated wastewater as pre-treatment of UF. Desalination, 249, 591-595 [5] http://watertool.inagro.be/interface/Technieken.aspx?techniekID=28

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.9. Rapid sand filtration (Authors: Peter Melis18, Rodney Thompson23)

4.9.1. Used for 

Preparation of irrigation water



More efficient use of water

4.9.2. Region All EU regions.

4.9.3. Crop(s) in which it is used All crops on organic substrates.

4.9.4. Cropping type 

Soilless



Protected



Open air

4.9.5. Description of the technology 4.9.5.1. Purpose/aim of the technology Removing particles and contaminants from contaminated or drain water. 4.9.5.2. Working Principle of operation Rapid sand filters use relatively coarse sand and other granular media to remove particles. The incoming water flows through the filter medium under gravity or under pumped pressure and the particles that were suspended in the water get trapped in the sand matrix. The sand filter can cope with flows ranging between 4 and 12 m³/h/m2 of surface of the sand bed. Regular backwashing is needed to clear the sand bed from accumulated particulate matter, and to reduce the risk of clogging. Every backwash interrupts the filtering activity and takes several minutes. The drain water resulting from the backwash needs to be discarded or used for other purposes. In some EU countries, it cannot be directly discharged into natural water bodies.

4.9.5.3. Operational conditions The capacity is determined by the diameter of the surface area of the sand filter. Per square meter of surface, between 4 and 12 m³/h can be filtered. A filter has a height of 1,5-2,0 m. With dirty drain water, several backwashes per day are needed, producing a larger volume of sludge water compared to alternative techniques. Usually, pre-treatment with chemicals is applied to coagulate or flocculate the suspended particles.

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

Figure 4-9. Illustration of a rapid sand filter( https://www.sswm.info/print/2852?tid=1268)

4.9.5.4. Cost data Prices in installation and maintenance depend on the size. It is recommended to obtain estimates from the manufacturing companies or distributors. The technique is regarded as a relatively cheap form of filtration because of its simple design. The investment cost for a small polyester sand filter of 12 m³/h for a swimming pool (48- 60 m³) costs 550-600 €. An industrial continuous sand filter of 5 m² for approximately 50 m³/h costs around 50000 €. Running costs are very low due to its simplicity and limited maintenance. 4.9.5.5. Technological bottlenecks The major bottleneck is the backflush which interrupts the filtering activity and produces a large amount of concentrated sludge water. 4.9.5.6. Benefit for the grower Advantages 

Simple technology



Flow rate adjustable to the needs of horticulture

Disadvantages 

Backflush is the needed



Maintenance costs: sand replacement after 3-5 years



A lot of space is needed for the filter



Production of large amounts of concentrated sludge water



Issue of disposing of or treating backflush water in countries/regions where there are strict relevant regulations

4.9.5.7. Supporting systems needed No particular supporting systems are required. This document includes a cover page with the FERTINNOWA disclaimer. Full terms and conditions for using this document can be found at http://www.fertinnowa.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/FERTINNOWA-websiteterms-and-conditions.pdf 4-30

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops 4.9.5.8. Development phase Commercialised. 4.9.5.9. Who provides the technology There are a number of producers among them is UVAR Holland b.v. 4.9.5.10. Patented or not Probably not, this a long-established and widely used technology.

4.9.6. Which technologies are in competition with this one A number of techniques can also filter out particles: band filtration, cloth filtration, drum filtration, disc filtration, SAF filtration, sieve bend screen filtration, microfiltration, etc.

4.9.7. Is the technology transferable to other crops/climates/cropping systems? There are no limitations in climate or temperature. The crop should produce soil/substrate contaminated drain water to have a benefit from the installation. It can be installed on the bridge between a filthy drain silo and a disinfection unit.

4.9.8. Description of the regulatory bottlenecks See section 4.1.7. There are regulations controlling the release of backflush water into water bodies that are implemented in countries/regions such as The Netherlands and Belgium.

4.9.9. Brief description of the socio-economic bottlenecks None.

4.9.10. Techniques resulting from this technology It is a stand-alone technology; no secondary techniques have been developed.

4.9.11. References for more information [1] https://emis.vito.be/en/techniekfiche/sand-filtration [2] Wen-Yong W., Yan H., Hong-Lu L. & Yong N. (2015). Reclaimed water filtration efficiency and drip irrigation emitter performance with different combinations of sand and disc filters. Irrigation and Drainage, 64, 362-369 [3] http://watertool.inagro.be/interface/Technieken.aspx?techniekID=6 [4] Berckmoes E., Dierickx M. (2012). Wat met het spoelwater van filters? Sierteelt & Groenvoorziening, 17, 35-37 [5] Berckmoes E., Van Mechelen M., Mechant E., Dierickx M., Vandewoestijne E. & Decombel A. (2013). Quantification of nutrient wastewater flows in soilless greenhouse cultivations, Proceedings of NUTRIHORT conference, September 16-18 2013, Ghent, Belgium

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.10. Automatic self-cleaning filters (Authors: Peter Melis18, Rodney Thompson23)

4.10.1. Used for 

Preparation of irrigation water



More efficient use of water

4.10.2. Region All EU regions.

4.10.3. Crop(s) in which it is used All crops on organic substrates.

4.10.4. Cropping type 

Soilless



Protected



Open air

4.10.5. Description of the technology 4.10.5.1. Purpose/aim of the technology Removing particles from irrigation, drainage or contaminated water. 4.10.5.2. Working Principle of operation Dirty water enters the automatic self-cleaning filter (SAF) at the bottom. Particles accumulate on the filter screen and form a cake. The filtered water passes out through the exit. The SAF filter is equipped with an automatic cleaning function that works without interrupting the filtering process. When the cake forms, pressure inside the filter screen builds up. At a certain moment (usually 0,5 bar) the cleaning function starts. The cleaning valve at the top opens and the pressure inside drops instantly. This pressure drop causes the particles to be sucked into a cylindrical tube in the centre of the SAF filter. A rotor moved by a hydraulic pump rotates the cylinder and moves it upwards. Two tubes attached to the cylinder will clean the entire filter screen and dirty water is pressed out the draining valve. A cleaning round lasts a number of seconds (5-60 seconds depending on the model) and because the removal of the cake doesn’t use the entire filter screen surface at once, the filtering action is not interrupted. 4.10.5.3. Operational conditions The size of the machine determines the capacity. SAF filters can manage flows from 7-400 m³/h. A minimal working pressure of 2 bar (30 psi) is needed. The mesh width of the screen can be chosen and ranges from 10-800 µm.

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

Figure 4-10. Illustration of a SAF filter (http://www.filtermat.be/FM/SAF/AutomaticFilters.htm)

4.10.5.4. Cost data On average the cost of an installation is 4000-5000 € per unit. These units will be able to work with flows of around 10 m³/h. The installation is self-cleaning and maintenance is therefore limited. Where maintenance is required, it would require a technician. 4.10.5.5. Technological bottlenecks It is a technically advanced filter system that will require specialist technical staff for maintenance operations. 4.10.5.6. Benefit for the grower Advantages 

Reliable filtration of particles



Continuous filtrations, even during the automatic backflush



Automatic cleaning



Limited maintenance needed



High capacity

Disadvantages Backflushes create drain water that has to be discarded or treated. See section 4.1.7. on regulatory bottlenecks. 4.10.5.7. Development phase Commercialised. 4.10.5.8. Supporting systems needed The water entering the system must be under pressure.

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops 4.10.5.9. Who provides the technology As an example some of the providers are listed below: 

UVAR Holland b.v.



Amiad



Aytok

4.10.5.10. Patented or not Some of the technology is likely to be patented 4.10.6. Which technologies are in competition with this one A number of techniques can filter out particles: band filtration, cloth filtration, drum filtration, rapid sand filtration, disc filtration, sieve bend screen filtration, microfiltration, etc.

4.10.7. Is the technology transferable to other crops/climates/cropping systems? There are no limitations regarding climate or temperature.

4.10.8. Description of the regulatory bottlenecks Compared to fast sand filters, the SAF filters produce only very limited amounts of wash water.

4.10.9. Brief description of the socio-economic bottlenecks None.

4.10.10. Techniques resulting from this technology It is a stand-alone technology; no secondary techniques have been developed.

4.10.11. References for more information [1] Berckmoes E., Van Mechelen M., Mechant E., Dierickx M., Vandewoestijne E. & Decombel A. (2013). Quantification of nutrient wastewater flows in soilless greenhouse cultivations, Proceedings of NUTRIHORT conference, September 16-18 2013, Ghent, Belgium [2] https://www.lenntech.com/filtratie/english/filtrationtechnologies/hydraulicselfcleaning-screenfilter.htm [3] http://www.revaho.nl/products-and-services/filtration/saf-filters/?lang=en [4] Berckmoes E., Dierickx M. (2012). Wat met het spoelwater van filters? Sierteelt & Groenvoorziening, 17, 35-37 [5] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2EhhKoPopA

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

4.11. Sieve bend screen filtration (Authors: Peter Melis18, Wilfred Appelman22)

4.11.1. Used for 

Preparation of irrigation water



More efficient use of water

4.11.2. Region All EU regions.

4.11.3. Crop(s) in which it is used All crops on organic substrates.

4.11.4. Cropping type 

Soilless



Protected



Open air

4.11.5. Description of the technology 4.11.5.1. Purpose/aim of the technology Removing particles from drainage or contaminated water. 4.11.5.2. Working Principle of operation Drain water is pumped into the inlet of the filter. The water flows over the top onto the sieve. Water pours through, while the solids are held back. The filtered water leaves at the bottom. The particles and substrate are caught from the bottom of the sieve. The sieve has slots ranging between 150 µm and 5 mm. The selectivity is much finer because of the vertical position of the screen filter. The capacity can go up to 1000 m³/h and is dependent on the scale and the selectivity of the screen. Models with automatic cleaning exist, but mostly cleaning is done manually with a garden hose. 4.11.5.3. Operational conditions The sieve bend screen filter is often chosen as the first filtering step for drain water loaded with organic material and substrate particles. The crude particles are filtered out. The flow rate of smaller models can cope already with 36 m³/h with a filtering mesh of 0,5 mm. The wastewater must only contain 10-50% rough particles. If loads are too high, it becomes impossible to clean the sieves. In this case, sieves can also be set up in a series – from rough to fine.

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops

Figure 4-11. Scheme of sieve bend screen filtration (https://ariskoi-products.com/winkel/vijver/aquaforteultrasieve-extra-breed-3-ingangen-zwaartekracht-zeefbochtfilter/)

4.11.5.4. Cost data The smallest unit will cost around 5000 € with complete installation for example on top of a filthy drain silo. The investment costs for a manually cleaned grid with a capacity of 10-100 m3/d are estimated at 1700-3000 €. For volumes 500-5000 m³/d, this will be 5000-10000 €. Operational costs are estimated between 0,005 (for non-automated systems) to 0,15 €/m³ (for automated systems). Investments costs for a curved sieve are estimated at between 8500 and 25000 € for a volume of 50 to 500 m³/d. Operational costs amount to between 0,01-0,35 €/m³. 4.11.5.5. Technological bottlenecks None. 4.11.5.6. Benefit for the grower Advantages 

Very simple principle



Reliable



Easy to install



Purely physical action based on gravity



All filtered water can be used, there is no backflush



Very high capacity

Transfer of INNOvative techniques for sustainable WAter use in FERtigated crops Disadvantages 

Only filtration of larger particles



Additional filtration necessary to get water suited for disinfection



The sludge has to be captured in a container



No automated cleaning possible

4.11.5.7. Supporting systems needed No specific supporting systems are needed. 4.11.5.8. Development phase Commercialised. 4.11.5.9. Who provides the technology In North-West Europe, the major manufacturer is REKO. 4.11.5.10. Patented or not Some of the technology is likely to be patented.

4.11.6. Which technologies are in competition with this one A number of techniques can filter out particles: band filtration, cloth filtration, drum filtration, disc filtration, SAF filtration, rapid sand filtration, microfiltration, etc.

4.11.7. Is the technology transferable to other crops/climates/cropping systems? There are no limitations regarding climate or temperature. The crop should produce soil/substrate contaminated drain water to have a benefit from the installation. It can be installed on a filthy drain silo.

4.11.8. Description of the regulatory bottlenecks See section 4.1.7

4.11.9. Brief description of the socio-economic bottlenecks None.

4.11.10. Techniques resulting from this technology It is a stand-alone technology; no secondary techniques have been developed.

4.11.11. References for more information [1] [2]

https://emis.vito.be/en/techniekfiche/grids-and-sieves https://www.lenntech.com/curved-screen.htm