The Impact of Design and Operating Parameters On Small-Scale Slow Sand Filtration Performance For Household Water Treatment in Developing Countries

The Impact of Design and Operating Parameters on SmallScale Slow Sand Filtration Performance for Household Water Treatment
in Developing Countries.
by Sarah Clayton
Final Year Project Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Imperial College London
Supervisor: Dr. Michael Templeton
Final Report Submitted: 17th June 2010
A PRODECI & Engineers Without Borders Research Project
PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration
Sarah Clayton
ABSTRACT A Slow Sand Filter test-rig was designed and constructed to investigate the design and operating parameters of small-scale (household scale) Slow Sand Filtration (SSF). Tap water was mixed with light Kaolin clay to create turbid influent which was run through the apparatus at three different filtration rates; 0.2, 0.3 and 0.4m/hr. The filter produced greater than 80% turbidity reduction in all experiments, the resulting effluent meeting water quality guidelines. Although both filtration rate and filter depth are shown in the literature to be important parameters in turbidity reduction, the limitations of this research project mean that the conclusions drawn from the experiments undertaken are incomplete. The process of researching and designing the experimental set-up highlighted the need for further research of the schmutzdecke and its properties.
29/09/2010
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering
ii
Sarah Clayton
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am grateful to all those who have helped me during this research project and in particular would like to thank the following people for their assistance and contributions: Dr. Michael Templeton for his supervision, support in allowing me to choose an external EWB-UK project and on his feedback on the report and poster. Engineers Without Borders UK for the opportunity to take up the project and in particular EWB Cambridge and Mott MacDonald for the Water Quality and Health Training day. Ian Baggs for writing the research proposal that lead to this project. Also for his time and guidance towards the aims and benefits of his project. Carol Edwards, Dr. Geoff Fowler and Dr. Thomas Bond for all their help in the laboratory. Kim and Beth Waterhouse for generously welcoming me to Clare Farm and providing their time to show the author their working Slow Sand Filters and discuss this project. My family for all their support and proof-reading over the last four years.
Sarah x
29/09/2010
iii
Sarah Clayton
TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ...................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements .................................................................................... iii List of figures .............................................................................................. v List of tables .............................................................................................. vi Acronyms ................................................................................................... vi 1. Introduction ............................................................................................ 1 2. Aims and objectives ................................................................................ 2 2.1. Objectives ........................................................................................... 2 2.2. Scope .................................................................................................. 2 3. Literature review ..................................................................................... 3 3.1. Types of slow sand filter ........................................................................ 3 3.2. What happens inside the filter?............................................................... 5 3.3. Small-Scale Slow Sand Filtration ............................................................. 8 3.3.1. Continuous vs. Intermittent.............................................................. 8 3.3.2. Filter Depth .................................................................................... 8 3.3.3. Basic designs.................................................................................. 9 3.4. Discussion & Further Work ................................................................... 12 4. Materials & Methods .............................................................................. 12 4.1 Apparatus and Selection of Parameters .................................................. 12 4.2 Water Testing Method .......................................................................... 17 4.2.1 Turbidity Testing ............................................................................ 17 4.2.2 Microbiological Testing .................................................................... 18 4.3 Analysis .............................................................................................. 18 5. Results & Discussion ............................................................................. 19 5.1 Preliminary Results .............................................................................. 19 5.2 Comparison of Filtration Rates ............................................................... 19 5.3 Comparison of Filter Depths .................................................................. 22 5.4 Experimental Limitations ...................................................................... 24 6. Overall Project Conclusions ................................................................... 27 6.1 Conclusions ......................................................................................... 27 6.2 Future work ........................................................................................ 28
29/09/2010
iv
Sarah Clayton
7. References ............................................................................................ 29 8. Appendices ............................................................................................ 35 8.1 Appendix 1: Detail of Experimental Procedures ........................................ 35 8.2 Appendix 2: Results & Analysis .............................................................. 40
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Dominant particle transport mechanisms (Graham 2010) ...................... 5 Figure 2: Structure of a biofilm (Bruce and Hawkes 1983 p37) ............................. 7 Figure 3: Clay Pot Filter (CMS n.d.) .................................................................. 9 Figure 4: Galvanised Tin Filter (TILZ 2005) ...................................................... 10 Figure 5: Biosand Filter Components (CAWST 2009 p.2) ................................... 11 Figure 6: Experimental Set-Up ....................................................................... 12 Figure 7: the 100l water butt used (Homebase 2010) ....................................... 13 Figure 8: Filter Structure ............................................................................... 16 Figure 9: Turbidity standards of 10, 100, and 1000 NTU (Science Fair Project 2010) .................................................................................................................. 17 Figure 10: Comparison of Initial Turbidities ..................................................... 21 Figure 11: Comparison of experiments ............................................................ 22 Figure 12: Filter Ripening Period (CAWST 2009 p.7) ......................................... 24
29/09/2010
Sarah Clayton
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Comparison of Traditional and Demand Operated Slow Sand Filtration (Manz 2005 p.10)........................................................................................... 4 Table 2: Advantages and Disadvantages of the CMS design ................................. 9 Table 3: Advantages and Disadvantages of the TILZ design ............................... 10 Table 4: Advantages and Disadvantages of the CAWST design ........................... 11 Table 5: Turbidity Standards (at tap) .............................................................. 18 Table 6: Results from varying Filtration Rates .................................................. 20 Table 7: Re-run experiments with filter depth 0.17m ........................................ 22
ACRONYMS PRODECI EWB-UK UN SSF CMS SERVE TILZ CAWST NTU an Ecuadorean Non-Governmental Organisation Engineers Without Borders UK United Nations Slow Sand Filtration Church Mission Society an Afghani charity Tearfund International Learning Zone Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology Nephelometric Turbidity Units
29/09/2010
vi
Sarah Clayton
1. INTRODUCTION The author has been involved with EWB-UK throughout the last four years and so this research project was found via their website (EWB-UK 2010). Ian Baggs experiences in Intag, Ecuador lead him to draw up a proposal for investigation into SSF as an option for providing the local population with potable water. He describes the problem: Due to farm-land distribution, many inhabitants of the Intag area live in isolated areas, miles from communities with centralised water systems. Most of these inhabitants drink untreated water from nearby springs and streams, which are often contaminated due to nearby agricultural activity. As a result, there is an extremely high rate of parasitic infection (80-90% from medical studies conducted in 2007), leading to prolonged illness, low school attendance in children and reduced productivity in agriculture. (Baggs 2008 p.1) Geographical barriers, such as those described above, mean that centralised community scale treatment of water is not feasible therefore a household scale method of water purification needs to be implemented. Within developing countries the need for potable water can be extremely hard target to achieve. SSF is generally recognised to be a cheap, low maintenance and easy to install system which is able to produce high quality results in terms of the physical, chemical and biological quality of water treated. Hence it is seen as a very useful tool in disaster relief and development work. The history of SFF has been well documented. As Barrett et al. (1991) recount in detail the first slow sand filters were used in industry within Scotland and their first use for piped public water supply was in London in 1829. Even though SSF has been used at a large scale since the 19th century but there has been significantly less research into smaller scale use. So the purpose of this research project is to rectify that by designing and operating a bench-scale filter in a laboratory at Imperial College, London. This will enable investigations into the design and operating parameters for small-scale (household scale) SSF.
29/09/2010
Sarah Clayton
2. AIMS AND OBJECTIVES 2.1. Objectives Research and present a thorough study of all SSF information available to be used as a resource for future work Quantitatively investigate the impact of filtration rate on turbidity removal for a standard small-scale slow sand filter design Investigate the maximum filtration rate for the test-rig filter designed and built 2.2. Scope As discussed SSF has been used for the last few centuries to treat large volumes of water in developed countries and more recently it has been used for disaster relief by charities such as Oxfam. Even here the focus has been on community scale SSF. This focus has come under fresh scrutiny as there is significant contamination of water occurring between the source, i.e. the community treatment works, and households. The problem is often due to a lack of education, for example the vessel used for collecting water is dirty. To help combat the problem of source-to-mouth contamination this project will concentrate on small-scale, specifically household scale, SSF. This in turn leads to a new set of problems. The majority of the current guidance is based on the larger scale models and is not always appropriate. The aim of this research project is to draw upon others work and supplement it in order to create practical guidelines on SSF. In particular the aim is to create some recommendations of parameters which are able to help those in the field make informed choices about how to implement SSF with the resources they have available. This will mainly be achieved through a literature review which will try to combine all current research on intermittent small-scale SSF in one document and so be used as a source document for future reference.
29/09/2010
Sarah Clayton
3. LITERATURE REVIEW This literature review was compiled between October 2009 and January 2010. It includes 44 sources which include theses, papers, books and electronic sources. A thorough study of all SSF information available is presented. 3.1. Types of slow sand filter There are two types of slow sand filter: 1) Traditional or Continuously Operated and 2) Intermittent or Demand Operated. The differences between traditional and demand operated slow sand filters are driven by the number of people the Slow Sand Filter is serving. Traditional filters have generally been part of large, community based projects which require very significant quantities of water to flow through them. The necessity to cater for such quantities has generated the need for a large surface area, to create a high flow rate. It has also been a requirement that the flow is continuous. This often requires a large storage tank to allow for water provision whenever it is needed. Contrary to this small scale SSF does not require the large volumes of water to be treated and is also constrained by the amount of space available for the filter and storage tank. It is due to these constraints that small scale SSF is known as Demand Operated or Intermittent. With Demand Operated SSF the user can turn the filter on and off at will. Due to the smaller demand for water the filter can be scaled down to a size which is more appropriate for a household. Table 1 overleaf compares these two types of slow sand filter directly. In particular it highlights that Demand Operator filters can achieve the same high performance whilst operating under more severe Raw Water Quality and with higher Filter Loading Rates.
29/09/2010
Sarah Clayton
Table 1: Comparison of Traditional and Demand Operated Slow Sand Filtration (Manz 2005 p.10)
29/09/2010
Sarah Clayton
3.2. What happens inside the filter? Contrary to early understanding and the terminology used, SSF does not solely surface SSF filter operates the via material all the out of the water. In reality although with mechanisms normally associated
filtration, in addition there are biological removal mechanisms. The mechanical removal mechanisms may be classified into two general categories: 1) Transport mechanisms which bring particles into contact with the sand grains and 2) Catchment mechanisms which hold particles to the sand grain surfaces. 1) Transport Mechanisms In all cases of filtration the flow through a filter is laminar even with a considerably clogged filter media. Therefore in each of these mechanisms the particles have to cross flow streamlines to come into contact with the sand grains. The different mechanisms are: a) Inertial Impaction: The particles own inertia enables it to cross flow streamlines and collide with sand grains. This is of little importance in SSF due to the low velocities. b) Diffusion: Transport due to Brownian motion is important for very small particles, <1m, but of negligible significance compared to other mechanism for larger particles. c) Hydrodynamic: Different velocities on either side of a particle within the flow cause it to rotate and so the particle moves across streamlines. d) Sedimentation: Transport due to the force of gravity and associated settling velocities, due to density differences, enabling particles to cross streamlines.
Figure 1: Dominant particle transport mechanisms (Graham 2010)

29/09/2010 Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering 5
Sarah Clayton
2) Capture Mechanisms These mechanisms depend on the physical and chemical properties of the contaminated water as well as the filter media and the rate of filtration. Straining: The mechanical process by which the particles are simply too large to fit through the voids left by the sand grains. Interception: Particles approach sand grains within one particle radius, without crossing the laminar flow streamlines. So the particles come into contact with and attach to the sand grain. Adhesion: The process by which a particle is attracted to another and so when they come into contact they stick to each other. Flocculation: Using the processes described above particles adhere together and so become too large to fit through the voids left by the sand grains. In addition, as already mentioned, the filtration process is partly biological; it harnesses the natural behaviour of microorganisms, namely converting any material into biomass which can be straightforwardly separated from the water. The biofilm, or schmutzdecke, which is inherent to this process, is a very complex environment containing a multitude of different organisms including microorganisms. The biological filter is essentially a food pyramid or web. These organisms do not need to be added to wastewater as they occur naturally in the sewage. The rate of film development depends primarily on the season i.e. due to the temperature. Hence the biofilm will form faster in summer than in winter because microorganisms have an optimum temperature for growth which summer temperatures are closer to. The primary purification mechanism is biological oxidation. This is the process by which the heterotrophic microorganisms, which require external organic compounds as their source of carbon, oxidise the pollutants to be used for microbial growth. This process is facilitated by the flow of wastewater over or through the biofilm. Suspended solids and colloidal matter will be flocculated by extracellular polymers and then adsorbed onto the surface of the film where some of this matter will be directly ingested by metazoa and protozoa. Degradation will also occur by extracellular enzymes, which create soluble organics and O2 that are able to diffuse into the biofilm. Fungi hyphae play an important role in this process as they are able to transport O2 to deeper layers of the biofilm more efficiently than diffusion.
Sarah Clayton
A mature biofilm has three main layers. The base layer contains bacteria, fungi and algae. The middle layer, which is the largest, contains fungi and algae whereas the outer layer contains only fungi. As Casey (1997) suggested, the biofilm will alter depending on the nature and strength of the waste and also the rate and method at which it is applied. The biofilm has a porous structure which enables effluent to flow through the biofilm as well as over it, Figure 2 below, which enables mechanical filtration producing very clear effluents. The biofilm increases in thickness during the filters operation, which is due to two activities. Obviously as more wastewater flows then the microorganism will thrive creating more biomass. Also more material will flocculate and therefore become attached to the biofilm surface. This in turn will increase the likelihood of physical entrapment of particles.
Figure 2: Structure of a biofilm (Bruce and Hawkes 1983 p37)
29/09/2010
Sarah Clayton
3.3. Small-Scale Slow Sand Filtration 3.3.1. Continuous vs. Intermittent As stated previously the main development in SSF has been the evolution of intermittent small-scale slow sand filters. As Buzunis (1995) noted, this research was initiated Dr. David Manz of the University of Calgary, Canada in the 1990s. It was the realisation, followed by experimental verification, that the schmutzdecke could be kept alive providing it was kept wet and aerated. Buzunis goes on to explain that at the time there had been very little research undertaken focusing on small-scale SFF. He is thorough in his explanation of the possible sources or error in the research completed. In Section 5 of his thesis Buzunis describes how the depth of standing water above the filter is dependent on a number of parameters. For example oxygen is highlighted as a limiting factor as the schmutzdecke is aerobic. Though how much oxygen is required is directly related to temperature. Once this need is fulfilled the next requirement of the schmutzdecke is the amount of substrate and this quickly becomes a limiting factor. Clearly the depth of standing water is a delicate balance. Most importantly, it must not change significantly during the pause time as this will affect the schmutzdecke greatly. 3.3.2. Filter Depth There has only been one report detailing research into the depth of the sand filter required. This was carried out by Way (2004) in an investigation into whether SSF could be used in conjunction with rain water harvesting as an in-tank treatment. Way acknowledges that traditional filters frequently have a sand layer of over 0.5m which would be impractical for in-tank treatment. This allows the filter to be cleaned, removal of ~5cm of top surface, when there is significant head loss, several times before more filter media would need to be added. Through her research Way proved that a much smaller layer of sand was equally effective. When taken in conjunction with Manzs clean-in-place technology (2004 p.1), SSF may be scaled down significantly and, combined with intermittent flow, to provide a very realistic water treatment for household scale use.
29/09/2010
Sarah Clayton
3.3.3. Basic designs There is great variation in the design of small-scale slow sand filters. The author has chosen the following three to demonstrate the range of modifications possible depending on the local materials and circumstance. (i) CMS
Figure 3: Clay Pot Filter (CMS n.d.) Table 2: Advantages and Disadvantages of the CMS design Advantages Locally sourced materials Simple constituent parts therefore easy to construct Cheap Disadvantages Difficult to transport due to weight and fragility Less quality control possibly leading to variable results Low Filtration Rate
This slow sand filter has been designed with the specific aim for individuals or families to make their own. Hence the benefits become the designs weaknesses when the design is considered for distribution and enterprise.
29/09/2010
Sarah Clayton
(ii) SERVE/Tearfund house hold slow sand filter
Figure 4: Galvanised Tin Filter (TILZ 2005) Table 3: Advantages and Disadvantages of the TILZ design Advantages Made from existing materials/equipment therefore easy to construct Cheap Pre-filter This filter design was thoroughly researched in order to make it feasible in terms of cost and build-ability. The design is unusual for two reasons: 1) the pre-filter which protects the main sand filter meaning that less maintenance is needed and 2) the direction of flow which interestingly has not been adopted in any other designs. Disadvantages Unusual upward flow Small surface area for the schmutzdecke to form
29/09/2010
10
Sarah Clayton
(iii) CAWST BioSand Filter
Figure 5: Biosand Filter Components (CAWST 2009 p.2)
Table 4: Advantages and Disadvantages of the CAWST design Advantages Cheap Thoroughly researched and well proven Availability of training materials Disadvantages Made from concrete which involves training and time to produce Difficult to transport due to weight Complicated instructions
This design is the most widely used small-scale sand filter which has been adopted by a large assortment of charities. Nonetheless it is not necessarily the best design for all situations since it requires specific materials and a trained labour force.
29/09/2010
11
Sarah Clayton
3.4. Discussion & Further Work Research into small-scale SFF has flourished over the last 20 years though there remain areas which are underdeveloped in the literature. In particular, there is a need for a rigorous assessment of the schmutzdecke and its properties. It would be predominantly useful to investigate the relationship between ripening time and parameters such as temperature or intermittency. Unfortunately this area of research is beyond the scope of this project. This work will focus on how a range of filtration rates affect the effectiveness of the filter. The investigation will detail the range of filtration rates within which the filter can work therefore maximising the potential of this technology. 4. MATERIALS & METHODS 4.1 Apparatus and Selection of Parameters
Figure 6: Experimental Set-Up The limiting factor in terms of apparatus set-up is laboratory space. The slow sand filter was made from rudimentary equipment based on the Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technologys Biosand Filter design (CAWST 2009) which is used worldwide by many Non-Governmental Organisations and charities.
Sarah Clayton
(i) Representation of domestic household use and Slow Sand Filter: A hypothetical familys situation may be represented by a theoretical demand of 150 litres a day through a Version 10 CAWST Biosand Filter with a 0.05m2 crosssectional surface area. (ii) Equipment constraints:
Figure 7: the 100l water butt used (Homebase 2010) The test-rig filter was constructed from a plastic water butt with a cross sectional area of 0.1089m2. This larger cross-sectional surface area was chosen to minimise edge effects. Although due to lack of storage space it was not be possible for 150 litres of water to be run through the test-rig every day. The fundamental differences between the experiment set-up and the CAWST filter are the surface area of the filter and depth of sand. These differences were not expected to affect the results obtained, due to the fact that the surface area is larger and so the flow rate can be easily matched. Secondly, Ways work (2004), aforementioned in the literature review, has shown that a shallower filter depth is still successful at producing high water quality.
29/09/2010
13
Sarah Clayton
It was not possible to include a diffuser plate into the design, as shown in Figure 5. Diffuser plates prevent disturbance of the sand surface and therefore the biofilm when water is added to the top of the filter. Instead the water was added through a funnel into some tubing which directed the influent away from the sand surface, see Appendix 1. (iii) Experimental calculations: As the depth and composition of the test-rig was similar to the CAWST Biosand Filter it was assumed that the optimum Filter Loading Rate or Filtration Rate would also be comparable. Hence the range of Filtration Rates chosen to investigate the maximum suggested by CAWST is:
Filtration Rate (m/hr) Flow Rate (m3/hr)
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.0218 0.0327 0.0436
There are two parameters that could be changed in order to vary the flow rates through the filter in the desired manner outlined above. This is shown by Darcys Law: Q = K*(A*h/L) (Bioandfilter.org 2004) Q = Flow Rate (m3/hr) K = Hydraulic Conductivity (m/hr) A = Surface Area (m2) h = Head Loss (m) L = Depth of media (m) Accordingly the head loss and depth of media were the two parameters which could be changed. In order to determine which parameter was easier to change the Hydraulic Conductivity needed to be ascertained.
29/09/2010
14
Sarah Clayton
This was achieved using: K 100(D10)2 D10 = effective diameter (cm) (Hazen 1930, as cited in Smith et al. 1992 p.1) By assuming D10 = D = 0.07cm for standard builders sand it was found that with a filter depth of 0.35m the levels of head loss needed to drive the above flow rates were: Filtration Rate (m/hr) Head Loss (m) (estimated) 0.2 0.3 0.4
0.14 0.21 0.29
As these could be accommodated within the experimental set up it was decided that it would be significantly easier to vary the head of water than the depth of sand. As the maximum head space levels were within the water butt the volume of contaminated water were:
Maximum Head (m) 0.14 0.21 0.29 Volume of water (l) 15.6 23.3 31.1
As Jenkins et al. (2009 p.1) reported changing the maximum head space levels may achieve this as the flow rate will decrease as the water drains through the filter. (iv) Time Constraints: Due to necessity and storage capacity it is highly unlikely that the filter would be in use continuously. It is more likely that the filter would be used multiple times throughout the day to provide small quantities of water when needed. Unfortunately due to time constraints it was not possible to model this use of the filter accurately i.e. multiple runs per day. Instead the filter was run through at the chosen filtration rate before each and every test.
29/09/2010
15
Sarah Clayton
(v) Filter construction: The filter was assembled using four layers of material as shown below in Figure 8. The first layer of Drainage Gravel, 20mm diameter, was deep enough to ensure the outflow pipe drained water from this layer. This meant that this layer was actually 100mm deep to cover the tap at the bottom of the water butt. The drainage gravel supported two layers of Separating Gravel which were of a smaller diameter size. Each layer was 50mm deep and the first contained 10mm diameter gravel whilst the second was Pea Gravel of 6mm diameter. The change in particle size should be sufficient to stop any gravel or sand entering the outflow pipe. The material used for the filter layer was coarse builders sand with a particle size of < 0.7mm and was 350mm deep. These sizings quoted are all approximate to the CAWST manual. (CAWST 2009)
Turbid Influent
Builders Sand ~0.7mm diameter
Pea Gravel ~6mm diameter
Separating Gravel ~10mm diameter
Drainage Gravel ~20mm diameter Clean Effluent
Figure 8: Filter Structure
29/09/2010
16
Sarah Clayton
Significant challenges were encountered upon the initiation of experimentation. No data was collected before the Easter break, due to the use of unwashed gravel and in the filter. The panning process was omitted due to time and space constraints. It was deemed impractical for one person to wash the mass sand and gravel. The experiment was carried out within the Roger Perry laboratory where space was limited. It has been presumed that there would be adequate time to allow the filter to wash through. 4.2 Water Testing Method In order to test the effectiveness of the filter two tests were planned on the treated water. The first of the two tests was a Turbidity Test and then, if time permitted, a set of experiments measuring the Thermotolerant (faecal) Coliform Count were to be completed. 4.2.1 Turbidity Testing Turbidity is the measurement of transparency of a liquid, see Figure 9 below. It is caused by suspended solids so small that they do not settle out and is measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU).
Figure 9: Turbidity standards of 10, 100, and 1000 NTU (Science Fair Project 2010) Turbidity reduction has been used as a measure of filtration efficiency for the last one hundred years (OConnor 2009). The assumption behind using turbidity removal as a surrogate indicator for microbiology is that the majority of the microorganisms within the water are actually attached to the surfaces of larger particles and therefore removal of these equals the removal of microorganisms (OConnor 2001). Also turbidity is easily, quickly, and cheaply detected and quantified (Heller 2007 p.337) which is why it has been adopted worldwide as a surrogate indicator. The limitations of this assumption are discussed in Section It is hypothesised that the reason for this result is related to the removal of the top half of the previous filter
Sarah Clayton
media. This meant that any fine particulate matter that was within this media was removed and as the experiment was carried out within the filter ripening period subsequent to the other two the average effluent turbidity was reduced. Therefore the limitations of the experiment discussed below, see Section Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference., again become relevant.
29/09/2010
18
Sarah Clayton
5.4 Experimental Limitations. The test-rig is designed to compare different flow rates through a single intermittently used Slow Sand Filter. The outflow pipe is controlled by a tap so the flow can be stopped leaving a standing water zone. Fresh contaminated water is added to the system before each cycle by mixing tap water with light kaolin clay. Although there is no health-based guideline it is seen as an important parameter especially for the effectiveness of disinfection. Hence it is included in all water quality guidelines and regulations such as those shown below in Table 5. Table 5: Turbidity Standards (at tap) World Health Organization (WHO 2008) <5 NTU UK (The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000) <4 NTU
The turbidity of the contaminated water was set at two different levels; firstly 20NTU representing poor quality water and then 40NTU representing exceptionally poor water quality. This was achieved by adding 1mg/l of Light Kaolin Clay as an equivalent of 1 NTU. The turbidity was measured directly using a HACH Model 2100A Turbidimeter, detailed procedure can be found in Appendix 1. 4.2.2 Microbiological Testing Planned microbiological testing, see Appendix 5, with water from the Serpentine and using EWB-UKs Del Agua kit could unfortunately not be completed due to time restrictions. 4.3 Analysis It was decided that each experimental condition (e.g. filtration rate and turbidity level) would be repeated at least three times in order to be valid from a statistical standpoint. The percentage reduction was calculated for each run so as to enable a comparison between the filtration rates. The mean for each set of average percentage reductions, as shown in Table 6, was analysed for statistical significance
29/09/2010
19
Sarah Clayton
using a t-Test. The 95% Confidence Interval was calculated so that error bars could be shown. All analysis was carried out in Microsoft Excel. 5. RESULTS & DISCUSSION 5.1 Preliminary Results The filter was not run for a period of 8 weeks, between the end of March until the end of May 2010, consequently for the first couple of days the effluent being produced was more turbulent than the influent tap water. The filter had to be run continuously over 2.5 working days before clean water was produced. From preliminary tests it was found that the baseline turbidity in the tap water was 2NTU. 5.2 Comparison of Filtration Rates The results below, Table 6, show that the filter built for this project was successful in consistently reducing the turbidity levels to below the guidelines figures for turbidity at tap. The percentage reduction was not as high as expected but this is probably due to the short length of time the filter was run for discussed below in Section It is hypothesised that the reason for this result is related to the removal of the top half of the previous filter media. This meant that any fine particulate matter that was within this media was removed and as the experiment was carried out within the filter ripening period subsequent to the other two the average effluent turbidity was reduced. Therefore the limitations of the experiment discussed below, see Section Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference., again become relevant.
29/09/2010
20
Sarah Clayton
5.4 Experimental Limitations.
29/09/2010
21
Sarah Clayton
Table 6: Results from varying Filtration Rates

Filtration Rate (m/hr) Test 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Test 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Initial Turbidity (NTU) 14 17 23 17 15 13 18 20 16 13 15 15 19 14 13 Initial Turbidity (NTU) 41 31 37 38 32 38 33 38 34 30 33 28 30 32 27 Final Turbidity (NTU) 1.7 2.8 3 2.4 2.2 2.2 2 3 2.6 2.7 2.1 2 1.9 2.5 2.1 Final Turbidity (NTU) 3.2 2.3 2.8 3.4 3.1 2.5 3.4 2 2 3.2 2.2 3.5 1.1 2.7 1.4 20NTU Percentage Reduction 87.9% 83.5% 87.0% 85.9% 85.3% 83.1% 88.9% 85.0% 83.8% 79.2% 86.0% 86.7% 90.0% 82.1% 83.8% 40NTU Percentage Reduction 92.2% 92.6% 92.4% 91.1% 90.3% 93.4% 89.7% 94.7% 94.1% 89.3% 93.3% 87.5% 96.3% 91.6% 94.8% Average Initial Turbidity (NTU) Average Final Turbidity (NTU) Average Percentage Reduction
0.4
17
2.4
85.9%
0.3
16
2.5
84.4%
0.2
15
2.1
86.1%
Filtration Rate (m/hr)
Average Initial Turbidity (NTU)
Average Final Turbidity (NTU)
Average Percentage Reduction
0.4
36
3.0
91.7%
0.3
35
2.6
92.4%
0.2
30
2.2
92.7%
29/09/2010
22
Sarah Clayton
Figure 10: Comparison of Initial Turbidities The means from the two initial turbidity conditions produced statistically significant results with greater than 95% confidence interval based on a t-Test comparison. So therefore it can be said that there is a low probability that the difference in results between the two experimental conditions happened by chance. (StatPac Inc. 2009) It was expected that with a higher initial turbidity the filter would become less efficient. The graph above, Figure 10, seems to suggest that the higher the initial turbidity the more effective the filter is at removal which is counterintuitive. Again this is probably due to the limitations of the experiment discussed below in Section It is hypothesised that the reason for this result is related to the removal of the top half of the previous filter media. This meant that any fine particulate matter that was within this media was removed and as the experiment was carried out within the filter ripening period subsequent to the other two the average effluent turbidity was reduced. Therefore the limitations of the experiment discussed below, see Section Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference., again become relevant.
29/09/2010
23
Sarah Clayton
5.4 Experimental Limitations.
It was also expected that the percentage reduction would increase with decreasing filtration rate. This was not seen in the results above. This suggests that the range of filtration rates chosen were not at the limit of the capability of the filter. This confirms that it is very inefficient to translate and recommend large-scale SSF parameters on to small-scale projects. Also it implies that the maximum filtration rate is very specific to the design of the filter. Even though the filter built for this project is similar to the CAWST design it seems to have a higher maximum filtration rate than suggested by CAWST (p.7). This means that it could be dangerous to build filters in the field from modified designs without the necessary equipment to test the effluent water quality.
29/09/2010
24
Sarah Clayton
5.3 Comparison of Filter Depths Table 7: Re-run experiments with filter depth 0.17m
Filtration Rate (m/hr) Test 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Initial Turbidity (NTU) 78 240 195 180 175 80 145 120 120 150 79 120 95 93 110 Final Turbidity (NTU) 3 1.6 2.4 1.9 3.8 2.4 1.7 1.5 2.5 1.7 1.5 2.4 2 1.5 1.9 Percentage Reduction 96.2% 99.3% 98.8% 98.9% 97.8% 97.0% 98.8% 98.8% 97.9% 98.9% 98.1% 98.0% 97.9% 98.4% 98.3% Average Initial Turbidity (NTU) Average Final Turbidity (NTU) Average Percentage Reduction
0.4
174
2.5
98.5%
0.3
123
2.0
98.4%
0.2
99
1.9
98.1%
Figure 11: Comparison of experiments

Sarah Clayton
In the previous experiments the maximum filtration rate was not found. This can be seen as the breakthrough point was not reached. The breakthrough point is the point at which the filter fails and turbid effluent is produced. In order to expand the research further it was decided that the results would be repeated but with only half the filter media depth. This experiment was set-up and run over a period of two days. Due to time constraints it was only possible to run once. Instead of removing all of the filter media and adding new sand the top half of the previous bed was removed. This had the advantage of need a shorter start up time before the effluent was running clear.
Filtration Rate (m/hr) New Head Loss (m) (estimated) New Volume of water (l)
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.07 0.01 0.14 7.6 11.3 15.1
Again the filter was very effective at removing high turbidities, see Table 7 above. Interestingly this set of results has a higher average percentage reduction, Figure 11, than the previous experiments even though the initial turbidities are extremely high. It is hypothesised that the reason for this result is related to the removal of the top half of the previous filter media. This meant that any fine particulate matter that was within this media was removed and as the experiment was carried out within the filter ripening period subsequent to the other two the average effluent turbidity was reduced. Therefore the limitations of the experiment discussed below, see Section Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference., again become relevant.
29/09/2010
26
Sarah Clayton
5.4 Experimental Limitations (i) Timescale:
Figure 12: Filter Ripening Period (CAWST 2009 p.7) Filter ripening is the time period over which the biofilm develops on the filter media. Even though it is unlikely that a significant biofilm developed on the filter used, given that the influent water passing through the filter contained very little microbiological contamination, the filter would still need adequate time for the filter media to settle and optimum performance to be reached. Then with time, length of which is dependent on the influent water contamination, the treatment efficiency would start to decline or the filtration rate becomes impractically slow because of the large head loss due to the filter media clogging. This indicates that the filter has broken through which means that maintenance is needed after which there is, again, another filter ripening period. The main limitation to this project was the condensed timescale. The results indicate that the filter ripening period was not completed over the short, 3 weeks, timescale that the experiments were conducted over. This is the reason that the experiments completed later yet with a higher initial turbidity show better percentage removal simply because they were completed after the filter had been running for a longer period of time.
29/09/2010
27
Sarah Clayton
(ii) Intermittency: During the preliminary testing it was noted that the filter was particularly sensitive to stoppages even to the extent that after the tap had been turned off to empty the effluent container the effluent turbidity spiked. This may be as a result of the tap at the base of the water butt not being located at the very bottom, but instead approximately 5cm up from the base. Therefore sediment could build up instead of being washed through resulting in a turbidity spike when flow resumed. To counteract this after every pause period the filter needed to be filled to beyond the 0.4m/hr head level and the excess, ~20l for the 35cm filter depth experiments and ~7l for the 17cm filter depth experiment, run through the filter before the effluent became clear. The amount of water that needed to run through the filter reduced as the experiments continued indicating that the filter was improving in effectiveness. Therefore if the experiments had continued on this filter it is likely that true intermittency would have been achieved. (iii) Influent Turbidity It was decided to carry out the lower turbidity experiments first so as to minimize the risk of filter clogging due to the high turbidity levels. A difficulty was encountered in trying to control the influent turbidity. This arose because the filter had to be left wet, i.e. with approximately 5cm of standing water above the sand surface, and that flow had to be stopped during lunch and then overnight which meant that the clay had time to settle. As the turbid water could only be added in 3l quantities, see Appendix 1, it was assumed that within the filter there was sufficient mixing and the turbidity of the influent water was therefore constant. Both of these factors contributed to the measured turbidity of influent water being variable, both between and within runs, and lower than expected. In the third experiment due to the decreased depth of filter media the head loss for the same filtration rate decreased. This meant that when the influent was added via the funnel the filter media surface was disturbed much more than in previous experiments. This is what contributed to the very high influent turbidities and also added colour to the influent water.
29/09/2010
28
Sarah Clayton
(iv) Turbidity as a Microbiological Surrogate Although turbidity has been used as a surrogate indicator for microbiology, and therefore as a parameter for filter treatment efficiency, for a long time, and still is in use, there has been recent research to suggest that the relationship between turbidity and microbiological removal is not as strong as previously thought. This is due to the limitations of the underlying assumption that the majority of the microorganisms are attached to or embedded the larger particles within the suspension (OConnor 2001). OConnor continues to explain that the problem lies in the diversity of microorganisms found within the raw water and that the assumption that they are have the same removal efficiencies is weak. This is particularly significant in terms of viruses and protozoa. It is also interesting to note that the water temperatures had a negative effect on the microbiology removal although this was for Rapid Sand Filtration. Heller et al. (2007) discuss that there is significant disagreement in the literature as to whether or not there is an association between turbidity and microbiology. In their results no such correlation could be found and so they advise against solely using turbidity as a surrogate for SSF. With increasingly stringent water quality guidelines the discrepancies between turbidity removal and microorganism removal become more significant. This is the reason why turbidity levels are much more severe, <1NTU, at the treatment plant than at the tap (The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000). Although it is also beneficial to have a low turbidity level as this aids the disinfection process.
29/09/2010
29
Sarah Clayton
6. OVERALL PROJECT CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Conclusions The filter built for this project was extremely successful at removing turbidity from the influent water at a variety of filtration rates. It did this with relatively little variation in terms of percentage removal, even when the filter media was reduced to half the original depth. This would suggest that although both filtration rate and filter depth are shown in the literature to be important parameters in turbidity reduction, the limitations of this research project, discussed above, mean that the conclusions drawn from the experiments undertaken are incomplete. In particular this research project has highlighted the following key issues when investigating small-scale SSF design: Individuality of filter: The maximum filtration rate is very specific to the design of the filter and therefore care must be taken when modifying existing designs to allow for specific materials available in the field. Filter Ripening Period: This research corroborates that completed by Heller et al. (2007) which found filter maturity as one of the most important factors for microbiological removal efficiency. The filter must be given time to mature and then reliable and consistent results and conclusions can be drawn. Turbidity: Although turbidity is used worldwide as a surrogate indicator for microbiology care should be taken as there are serious limitations to this approach. If possible a second parameter should be measured, for example coliform count, to verify filter efficiency. The turbidity limits imposed in design recommendations are purely to limit the likelihood of clogging and therefore the amount of maintenance the filter requires. This research project has shown that SSF can produce high drinking quality water even with high initial turbidities.
29/09/2010
30
Sarah Clayton
6.2 Future work This research would benefit from supplementary study into the several areas, presented briefly below. Extended testing This experimental set-up would benefit from a longer period of testing for three reasons: 1) To enable the maturation of the filter leading to more reliable results. 2) The order of filtration rates could be randomised to counter any timedependency. 3) To establish intermittency. Apparatus Modifications This experimental set-up would benefit from two changes: 1) An adaptation to allow higher filtration rates. 2) A diffuser plate. Microbiological testing It would be interesting to see if these results reflect how the filter behaves when tested with microbiologically contaminated water. It could also be incorporated to test different influent water temperatures to see if that affects microbiological removal in small-scale SSF.
Schmutzdecke
The process of researching and designing the experimental set-up highlighted the need for further research of the schmutzdecke and its properties. It would be especially useful to investigate the relationship of ripening time with parameters such as temperature and intermittency.
29/09/2010
31
Sarah Clayton
7. REFERENCES Baggs, I (2008) PRODECI & EWB-UK Research Project Proposal: Slow Sand Filtration [Online] Available from: http://www.ewbuk.org/system/files/Microsoft+Word+-+Slow+Sand+Filter-+PRODECI.pdf [Accessed December 2009] Barrett, J. M., Bryck, J., Collins, M. R., Janonis, B. A. & Logsdon, G. S. (1991) Manual of Design for Slow Sand Filtration, Denver, CO, USA, AWWA Research Foundation, American Water Works Association. Bioandfilter.org (2004) The Biosand Filter [Online] Available from: http://www.biosandfilter.org/biosandfilter/index.php/item/317 [Accessed December 2009] Bruce, A.M. and Hawkes, H.A. (1983) Biological Filters. In Ecological Aspects of Used-Water Treatment, Volumes 3 (C.R. Curds and H.A. Hawkes, ed). Academic Press, London Buzunis, B.J. (1995) Intermittently Operated Slow Sand Filtration: A New Water Treatment Process, MEng Thesis, University of Calgary Campos, L.C., Smith, S.R. & Graham, N.J.D., Deterministic-based model of slow sand filtration. 1: Model development, J ENVIRON ENG-ASCE, 2006, Vol:132, Pages:872-886, ISSN:0733-9372(doi) Campos, L.C., Smith, S.R. & Graham, N.J.D., Deterministic-based model of slow sand filtration. II: Model application, J ENVIRON ENG-ASCE, 2006, Vol:132, Pages:887-894, ISSN:0733-9372(doi) Casey, T. J. (1997) Unit treatment processes in water and wastewater engineering, Wiley NY, U.S
29/09/2010
32
Sarah Clayton
Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology (2009) Biosand Filter Manual, [Online] Available from: http://www.cawst.org/assets/File/Biosand_Filter_Manual_Version_10_Sep09.pdf [Accessed December 2009] Church Mission Society (n.d.) Home-made biological water filter Construction [Online] Available from: www.cmsuk.org/GetInvolved/TheConcept/Construction/tabid/311/language/enGB/Default.aspx [Accessed December 2009] Clearhouse (n.d) Filtration Technology [Online] Available from: http://www.jalmandir.com/filtration/filtration-list.html [Accessed June 2010] Davis, J. & Lambert, R. (2002) Engineering in Emergencies. 2nd Edition, London, ITDG Publishing Del Agua (2008) Del Agua Users Manuals[Online] Available from: http://www.delagua.org/manuals.html [Accessed December 2009] Eaton, A.D. et all (ed.) (2005) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 21st edition, American Public Health Association, Part 2130, pp.2-8 to 210 EWB-UK (2010) Research [Online] Available from: http://www.ewbuk.org/programmes/research [Accessed June 2010] Gray, N. F. (2005) Water technology: an introduction for environmental scientists and engineer, 2nd Edition, Elsevier Gimbel, G., Graham, N.J.D. & Collins, R. (1996) Recent Progress in Slow Sand and Alternative Biofiltration Processes, London, IWA Publishing Graham, N.J.D. & Collins, R. (1996) Advances in slow sand and alternative biological filtration. Wiley, Chichester
29/09/2010
33
Sarah Clayton
Graham, N.J.D. (1988) Package water treatment facilities for refugee communities. Institute of Civil Engineers Proceedings, 84 (3), pp.605-610 Graham, N.J.D. (2010) Filtration [Lecture] Introduction to Water Treatment, Imperial College London, March. Heber, G. (1985) Simple methods for the treatment of drinking water. Viewig, Braunschweig Heller, L. et al. (2007) ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE CONCENTRATION OF PROTOZOA AND SURROGATES IN EFFLUENTS OF THE SLOW SAND FILTRATION FOR WATER TREATMENT Brazilian Journal of Microbiology (2007) 38:337-345 ISSN 1517-8382 [Online] Available from: http://www.scielo.br/pdf/bjm/v38n2/v38n2a29.pdf [Accessed June 2010] Homebase (2010) 100 Litre Slim Water Butt Kit. [Online] Available from: http://www.homebase.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?langId=1&storeId=20001&partNumber=7202272&Trail=searchtext%3EWATER+BUTT [Accessed January 2010] Huisman. L & Wood. (1974) Slow Sand Filtration. Geneva, World Health Organization JAL Water Filter (n.d) Build [Online] Available from: http://www.jalfilter.org/page5/page5.html [Accessed June 2010] Jenkins, M.W et al. (2009). The BioSand Filter for Improved Drinking Water Quality in High Risk Communities in the Njoro Watershed, Kenya. Research Brief 09-06SUMAWA, Global Livestock Collaborative Research Support Program. University of California, Davis, USA. [Online] Available from: http://www.biosandfilter.org/biosandfilter/files/webfiles/Jenkins_et_al_2009.pdf [Accessed January 2010]
29/09/2010
34
Sarah Clayton
Lambert, S.D. (1992) Evaluation of effectiveness of filtration: a literature review. London, Environmental and Water Resource Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, Imperial College of Science, Technology & Medicine Lea, M (2008) Biological Sand Filters: Low-Cost Bioremediation Technique for Production of Clean Drinking Water [Online] Available from: http://mrw.interscience.wiley.com/emrw/9780471729259/cp/cpmc/article/mc01g01 /current/pdf [Accessed June 2010] Lee, T. (2001) BioSand Household Water Filter Project in Nepal, MEng Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Logsdon, G. S., Kohne, R., Abel, S. & LaBonde, S. (2002) Slow sand filtration for small water systems Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science [Online] 1 (5), 339-348, Available from: DOI: 10.1139/S02-025 [Accessed December 2009] Lukacs, H. (2002) From Design to Implementation: Innovative Slow Sand Filtration for Use in Developing Countries MEng Thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Manz, D.H. (2004) New Horizons for Slow Sand Filtration. In: Proceedings of the Eleventh Canadian National Conference and Second Policy Forum on Drinking Water and the Biennial Conference of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water, Promoting Public Health Through Safe Drinking Water, April 3 6, 2004, Calgary, Alberta, pp 682 692. [Online] Available from: http://www.manzwaterinfo.ca/documents/New%20Horizons%20for%20Slow%20Sa nd%20Filtration%20Full%20Paper.pdf [Accessed December 2009] Manz, D.H. (2009) Biosand Water Filter [Online] Available from: http://www.manzwaterinfo.ca/index.htm [Accessed December 2009] O'Connor, J.T., O'Connor, T. and Twait, R. (2009) Chapter 4 Acidification Protocol In: WATER TREATMENT: PLANT PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS AND OPERATIONS, USA, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp.41-42, ISBN: 978-0-470-28861-0
29/09/2010
35
Sarah Clayton
O'Connor, J.T., O'Connor, T. (2001) Removal of Microorganisms by Rapid Sand Filtration, H2O'C Engineering [Online] Available from: http://h2oc.com/pdfs/Rapid_Sand_Filtration.pdf [Accessed June 2010] Oxfam (2006) Water Filtration Manual: Water Treatment Guidelines [Online] London, Oxfam GB, Available from: http://publications.oxfam.org.uk/oxfam/display.asp?K=002H0009&sf1=series&st1= Oxfam+Humanitarian+Guidelines+and+Manuals&sort=sort_date/d&m=4&dc=13 [Accessed December 2009] Red Cross (2000) DelAgua Users Manual [Online] Available from: http://www.cruzroja.org/salud/redcamp/docs/aguasan-e/delagu.pdf [Accessed January 2010] Science Fair Project (2010) Turbidity [Online] Available from: http://www.allscience-fair-projects.com/science_fair_projects_encyclopedia/Turbidity [Accessed June 2010] Smith, R.M et al. (1992) Hydraulic Conductivity of Loose Coarse Sand, International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering Vol. 2. No.4. [Online] Available from: http://www.isope.org/publications/journals/ijope-02-4/abst-2-4-p318-KK-7Smith.pdf [Accessed January 2010] StatPac Inc. (2009) Statistical Significance [Online] Available from: http://www.statpac.com/surveys/statistical-significance.htm [Accessed June 2010] Tarsi, D. (2009) Slow Sand Filter [Online] Available from: http://www.slowsandfilter.org/index.html [Accessed December 2009] Tearfund International Learning Zone. (2005) The Household Slow Sand Filter. [Online] Available from: http://tilz.tearfund.org/Publications/Footsteps+3140/Footsteps+35/The+household+slow+sand+filter.htm [Accessed December 2009]
29/09/2010
36
Sarah Clayton
The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2000 (2000) SCHEDULE 1 PRESCRIBED CONCENTRATIONS AND VALUES Part II: National Requirements [Online] Available from: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20003184.htm#sch2 [Accessed May 2010] Way, C. (2004) In-Tank Slow Sand Filtration, BEng Final Project Report, University of Warwick
29/09/2010
37
Sarah Clayton
8. APPENDICES 8.1 Appendix 1: Detail of Experimental Procedures Filter Depth: 35cm 1. Ensure the water butt tap is turned off 2. Mix the influent turbid water i. ii. Calculate the amount of Light Kaolin Clay needed to add to 3 litres of water. Measure the correct amount of clay into a 50ml beaker.
iii.
Mix well in beaker then add to 3l of tap water
3. Add 3l at a time through the funnel until 12l has been added to the water butt
29/09/2010
38
Sarah Clayton
4. Then turn the water butt tap on
5.
Add the final 6l of turbid water to the water butt
6. Take a test turbidity reading of the influent and effluent water not recorded 7. Allow to drain until the 0.4m/hr head level 8. Collect first sample i. Standardise the turbidimeter to 100NTU
ii. iii. iv. v.
Start timer Collect the sample from water on top of filter using a syringe Fill up a test tube and place in turbidimeter Record reading
29/09/2010
39
Sarah Clayton
9. Allow continuous flow for 5 minutes 10. Collect second sample i. ii. iii. iv. Standardise the turbidimeter to 1NTU Collect the sample from water on top of filter using a syringe Fill up a test tube and place in turbidimeter Record reading
11. Ensure that the test tubes are clean, rinse with Reverse Osmosis water, and dry before taking readings 12. Allow drain until the 0.3m/hr head level 13. Repeat from Step 8. 14. Allow drain until the 0.2/hr head level 15. Empty the effluent water bucket when necessary 16. Once final reading has been taken turn water butt tap off and repeat from Step 2.
29/09/2010
40
Sarah Clayton
Filter Depth: 17cm 1. Drain water butt 2. Remove filter media until at the appropriate depth 3. Ensure the water butt tap is turned off 4. Mix the influent turbid water i. ii. iii. Calculate the amount of Light Kaolin Clay needed to add to 3 litres of water. Measure the correct amount of clay into a 50ml beaker. Mix well in beaker then add to 3l of tap water
5. Add 3l at a time through the funnel until 6l has been added to the water butt 6. Then turn the water butt tap on 7. Add the final 6l of turbid water to the water butt
8. Take a test turbidity reading of the influent and effluent water not recorded 9. Allow to drain until the 0.4m/hr head level
10. Collect first sample vi. vii. viii. ix. x. Standardise the turbidimeter to 100NTU Start timer Collect the sample from water on top of filter using a syringe Fill up a test tube and place in turbidimeter Record reading
29/09/2010
41
Sarah Clayton
11. Allow continuous flow for 5 minutes 12. Collect second sample v. vi. vii. viii. Standardise the turbidimeter to 1NTU Collect the sample from water on top of filter using a syringe Fill up a test tube and place in turbidimeter Record reading
13. Ensure that the test tubes are clean, rinse with Reverse Osmosis water, and dry before taking readings 14. Allow drain until the 0.3m/hr head level 15. Repeat from Step 8. 16. Allow drain until the 0.2/hr head level
17. Empty the effluent water bucket when necessary 18. Once final reading has been taken turn water butt tap off and repeat from Step 2.
29/09/2010
42
Sarah Clayton
8.2 Appendix 2: Results & Analysis Preliminary Results Date 25-May 15:47 16:04 16:20 16:32 16:50 17:05 26-Jun 11:30 11:47 12:12 >0.4 >0.4 >0.4 >0.4 >0.4 >0.4 >0.4 >0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 5 20 25 7.2 5.5 5.8 2.8 2 17 4 2.7 4.5 3 4.5 1.7 3 2.7 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 4 2.75 5.5 3.3 3.7 4.5 25 18 13 13 15 18 Time Filtration Rate (m/hr) Initial Turbidity (NTU) Final Turbidity (NTU)
12:20 12:38 12:41 12:50 13:07 13:23 15:29 15:46 16:04 16:14 16:29 16:50
1.8 1.4 1.4 3.3 1.5 1.4 1.7 1.5 3.5
29/09/2010
43
Sarah Clayton
First Experiment Set ~ 20NTU Initial Turbidity Date 27-May 12:08 12:24 12:46 15:10 15:35 15:50 16:30 16:50 17:05 28-May 11:12 11:32 11:46 13:44 14:05 12:27 4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 17 16 14 15 13 13 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.2 2.7 2.1 1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 14 13 15 17 18 15 23 20 19 1.7 2.2 2.1 2.8 2 2 3 3 1.9 Time Test Filtration Rate (m/hr) Initial Turbidity (NTU) Final Turbidity (NTU)
29/09/2010
44
Sarah Clayton
Second Experiment Set ~ 40NTU Initial Turbidity Date 01-Jun 10:06 10:22 10:41 15:10 15:32 15:50 16:28 16:51 17:10 02-Jun 10:25 10:46 11:03 14:23 14:42 15:01 4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 38 34 32 32 30 27 3.4 2 2.7 3.1 3.2 1.4 1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 41 38 33 31 33 28 37 38 30 3.2 2.5 2.2 2.3 3.4 3.5 2.8 2 1.1 Time Test Filtration Rate (m/hr) Initial Turbidity (NTU) Final Turbidity (NTU)
29/09/2010
45
Sarah Clayton
29/09/2010
46
Sarah Clayton
t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances Variable 1 Mean Variance Observations Pooled Variance Hypothesized Mean Difference df t Stat P(T<=t) one-tail t Critical one-tail P(T<=t) two-tail t Critical two-tail 0.85211 0.00076 15 0.00066 0 28 -7.47311 1.932E-08 1.70113 3.865E-08 2.04841 Variable 2 0.92228 0.00056 15
29/09/2010
47
Sarah Clayton
Third Experiment Set 17cm Filter Depth Date 09-Jun 15:15 15:34 15:53 16:40 17:00 17:15 10:12 10:33 10:51 09-Jun 11:38 11:59 12:15 14:36 14:57 15:16 4 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 180 120 93 175 150 110 1.9 2.5 1.5 3.8 1.7 1.9 1 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.2 78 80 79 240 145 120 195 120 95 3 2.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.4 2.4 1.5 2 Time Test Filtration Rate (m/hr) Initial Turbidity (NTU) Final Turbidity (NTU)
29/09/2010
48
Sarah Clayton
29/09/2010
49

The Impact of Design and Operating Parameters On Small-Scale Slow Sand Filtration Performance For Household Water Treatment in Developing Countries

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Impact of Design and Operating Parameters On Small-Scale Slow Sand Filtration Performance For Household Water Treatment in Developing Countries

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Impact of Design and Operating Parameters on SmallScale Slow Sand Filtration Performance for Household Water Treatment

Supervisor: Dr. Michael Templeton

Final Report Submitted: 17th June 2010

A PRODECI & Engineers Without Borders Research Project

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Figure 1: Dominant particle transport mechanisms (Graham 2010)

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Figure 2: Structure of a biofilm (Bruce and Hawkes 1983 p37)

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

(ii) SERVE/Tearfund house hold slow sand filter

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

(iii) CAWST BioSand Filter

Figure 5: Biosand Filter Components (CAWST 2009 p.2)

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Filtration Rate (m/hr) Flow Rate (m3/hr)

0.0218 0.0327 0.0436

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

0.14 0.21 0.29

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Builders Sand ~0.7mm diameter

Pea Gravel ~6mm diameter

Separating Gravel ~10mm diameter

Drainage Gravel ~20mm diameter Clean Effluent

Figure 8: Filter Structure

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering

PRODECI & EWB-UK Research: Slow Sand Filtration

Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering