Case History 29 — MLM® Multi-Layer Media

RTO Capacity Increased 50% with Improved Thermal Efficiency

Label printing plant replaces 8′6″ saddle bed with 3′8″ of MLM-200; thermal efficiency improves to 94.6% at full expanded capacity.

The problem

An East Coast label printing plant needed to upgrade its regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO). The three-canister RTO, packed with ceramic saddles, was achieving approximately 93% thermal efficiency at 17,000 scfm — but the plant now needed to treat 24,000 scfm of VOC-laden exhaust air. Purchasing a new RTO would require significant capital expenditure.

MLM-200 replaced an 8′6″ saddle bed with 3′8″ of structured media — and delivered higher thermal efficiency at 41% greater throughput than the original RTO was designed for.

Why MLM-200 was selected

The alternatives were a new RTO or a retrofit of the existing equipment with multi-layer media (MLM) from Lantec Products. To avoid a major capital outlay, the decision was made to retrofit the system with MLM-200.

MLM-200's structured geometry delivers dramatically lower pressure drop than random saddles while maintaining superior heat transfer per unit of bed depth — which is why the same canister volume can be served by a significantly shorter bed.

Meeting the requirements

In early June 1998, the 8′6″ bed of 1″ saddles in each heat-recovery canister was replaced with 3′8″ of MLM-200. The results met all expectations.

During continuous operation at superficial gas velocities exceeding 375 scfm/ft², thermal efficiency improved to 94.6% — higher than the pre-retrofit figure of 93% with saddles — while overall pressure drop was reduced. All applicable emission standards were met throughout.

The RTO now operates at 24,000 scfm. The MLM-200 bed is designed to accommodate future expansion up to 28,000 scfm without further media changes.

figure 1- depth of MLM vs. 1″ saddle
figure 1- depth of MLM vs. 1″ saddle
figure 2- thermal efficiency of MLM vs. 1″ saddle
figure 2- thermal efficiency of MLM vs. 1″ saddle
figure 3 – air flow with MLM vs. 1″ saddle
figure 3 – air flow with MLM vs. 1″ saddle