Week 2 - HWTS Treatment Options

A Framework for Water Safety
Introduction to Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage, Module 2.1

Dr. Richard Johnston
Safe drinking-water is that which
does not represent any significant
risk to health over a lifetime of
consumption, including different
sensitivities that may occur between
life stages.

WHO Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality
4
th
Ed., 2011

Safe drinking water
Introduction to HWTS| 2
Health outcomes
10
-6
DALYs/year
10
-5
cancer cases per lifetime exposure

Water quality guidelines (chemicals)

Performance
Specified removal of hazards

Specified technologies
E.g. requiring that surface water be filtered

Health-based targets
Pre-
treatment
Post-
treatment
LRV
1 000 000 10 000 000 -1
1 000 000 1 000 000 0
1 000 000 500 000 0.3
1 000 000 300 000 0.5
1 000 000 100 000 1
1 000 000 10 000 2
1 000 000 1 000 3
1 000 000 100 4
1 000 000 10 5
1 000 000 1 6
Performance measures

System Assessment
Operational Monitoring
Management and Communication

Verification

WHO Guidelines for
Drinking Water Quality,
2011 4
th
ed.
Water Safety Framework
Health-based
targets
System
Assessment
Operational
Monitoring
Management
and
Communication
Verification
System Assessment
Comprehensive understanding
Identify all hazards, catchment to consumer
Put in place control measures

Operational Monitoring
Check that control measures are implemented

Management and Communication
What to do when things go wrong
Good record-keeping
Two-way communication with consumers

Health-based
targets
System
Assessment
Operational
Monitoring
Management
and
Communication
Verification
Acceptable level of risk
Water safety plan
Risk identification and management
Verification
Water quality measurement

Health-based
targets
System
Assessment
Operational
Monitoring
Management
and
Communication
Verification
Water quality measurement

Water safety!
Treatment Plant
Distribution
Continuous
pressure
Residual
disinfectant
Primary
disinfection
Chlorine
Chlorine
dioxide
Ozone
Ultraviolet
Filtration
Rapid filtration
Slow sand
filtration
Membrane
filtration
Coagulation,
flocculation,
sedimentation
Conventional
clarification
Dissolved air
flotation
Lime softening
Pretreatment
Reservoirs
Roughing
filters
Bank
infiltration
Resource
protection
Zoning laws
Wellhead
protection
areas
Conventional treatment processes
Household
Safe Storage
Appropriate
container
Hygienic
location
Disinfection
Chlorine
Ultraviolet
Heat
Filtration
Ceramic
filtration
Biosand
filtration
Membrane
filtration
Sedimentation
Simple settling
Coagulation

Source
protection
Improved
Sources
Household-level treatment processes
Water Safety Plans (risk-based management)
Verification monitoring

Log Reduction Values

Processes in household water
treatment are the same as in
conventional treatment

Summary
Sedimentation

Turbidity

Settling
Coagulation

Introduction

Safe Storage Disinfection Filtration Sedimentation
Suspended particles in water
Large particles
Small particles (wont settle)
Organic (algae), inorganic (silt, clay)

Units
Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU)
Formazin Turbidity Units (FTU)
Jackson Turbidity Units (JTU)

No health-based targets
Impacts on subsequent treatment
< 5-10 NTU typically

Turbidity

Depends on size of particle
Simplest HWTS method

Can remove some turbidity
May improve visual appearance

Limited pathogen removal
Opportunities for secondary
contamination
Gravity Settling

Three-pot sedimentation
Credit:
Enhanced settling
Make particles stick to each other
Add more particles, and sticky ones
Charge neutralization (many particles have
negative charge)
Polymeric bridging

Coagulants

Also removes some dissolved
compounds, improves colour

Coagulation
Moringa oleifera
200 mg/L
Africa, Asia
Prickly pear cactus (Opuntia ficus
indica)
Latin America
Nirmali seeds (Strychnos potatorum)
India
Coagulant aid
Others

Plant-based coagulants
Credit: Crops for the Future Credit: Dick Culbert
Credit: Sengai Podhuvan
Water-soluble proteins
Positive charge, polycationic

Most effective at higher turbidity
(>30-50 NTU)

May have some antibacterial
properties as well
Adds dissolved organic carbon, can
foster regrowth and eventual taste
and odour problems

Plant-based coagulants
Aluminium sulphate (alum)
Al
2
(SO
4
)
3
nH
2
O. Al
3+
May be locally used
Alum potash
KAl(SO
4
)
2

Ferric salts
Coarser floc compared to plant-based
coagulants
Faster settling (more sludge)
Chemical coagulants
Temperature
pH and alkalinity
May need to add alkalinity, e.g. with lime
Ca(OH)
2
or sodium carbonate Na
2
CO
3

Mixing
Coagulant dose
Optimal dose too much is less effective
Jar experiments

Factors affecting coagulation
Concerns about links with
neurological problems, including
Alzheimers disease

WHO has not set a health-based
guideline for drinking water
Drinking-water is a small portion of total intake

Aesthetic recommendations
0.1 mg/L for large treatment plants
0.2 mg/L for small ones
Dose optimization, filtration
Residual aluminium in drinking water
On the whole, the positive relationship between aluminium in
drinking-water and AD [Alzheimer disease], which was
demonstrated in several epidemiological studies, cannot be
totally dismissed. However, strong reservations about inferring
a causal relationship are warranted in view of the failure of
these studies to account for demonstrated confounding factors
and for total aluminium intake from all sources.

Taken together, the relative risks for AD from exposure to
aluminium in drinking-water above 0.1 mg/L, as determined in
these studies, are low (less than 2.0). But, because the risk
estimates are imprecise for a variety of methodological
reasons, a population-attributable risk cannot be calculated with
precision.

WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 2011
Concerns about links with
neurological problems, including
Alzheimers Disease (AD)

WHO has not set a health-based
guideline for drinking water
Drinking-water is a small portion of total intake

Aesthetic recommendations
0.1 mg/L for large treatment plants
0.2 mg/L for small ones
Dose optimization, filtration

Residual aluminium in drinking water
Sedimentation removes suspended
solids

Some pathogen removal
Not complete treatment

Allows subsequent treatment steps
to be more effective

Summary

Filtration: Synthetic membranes

Rapidly growing field in water
treatment
Different kinds of membranes
How they change water quality
Applications for household water
treatment
Membrane filtration
Introduction to HWTS | 1
Size exclusion
Membrane pores
Cake filtration

Electrostatic effects
Charge exclusion
Adsorption

Biological activity
Processes in membrane filtration
Algae
0.1
1
10
100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Different types of membrane filtration
Ultra
filtration
Cloth
1 nm
Size, microns
Bars psi
1
10
100
1000
Protozoa Bacteria Viruses
Large ions
Small ions
Sand Silt Clay
Copepods
Nano
filtration
Reverse
Osmosis
1 mm
Macro
molecules
Micro
filtration
Flat sheet
Spiral wound
Hollow fiber, tube

Dead-end
Cross-flow

Configurations
Result of particle retention, bacterial
growth
Increase in operating pressure
Reversible
Irreversible

Solution:
Regular backwashing, cross-flow scouring
Periodic cleaning
Membrane fouling
Lifestraw 1.0
20 nm pore size
Protozoa, bacteria, viruses
Hollow fibre, dead-end
Manual backwash
9 Lph
18 000 L
Halogen compartment

Since 2005
Emergencies
Kenya: 880 000 distributed

HWTS membrane systems (Ultra Filtration)
www.vestergaard.com
Lifestraw 2.0
Similar membrane,
80 micron prefilter
Larger reservoirs
5 L dirty water, 5 L filtered water
30 000 L lifetime

Del Agua Health Programme
Lifestraw 2.0 + Improved cook stove
Rwanda: targeting 600 000 poor households

HWTS membrane systems (Ultra Filtration)
www.vestergaard.com
Micro Filtration
www.katadyn.com
www.nerox.com
www.sawyer.com

Ultra Filtration
www.eawag.ch/membranefilter
www.lifesaversystems.com
www.polymem.fr
www.vestergaard.com
Other membrane systems
Advantages Challenges
Absolute barrier to particles
protozoa, bacteria, (viruses)
Looser membranes have little effect on
chemicals
Simple operation Need for backwashing, cleaning
No change to taste of water No protection against recontamination
Reduces turbidity
Some models require electricity, high
pressure
Supply chains for initial purchase,
replacement parts, and service
Considerations for membrane systems
Cloth filtration
Large particles, including copepods

Synthetic membranes
MF, UF, NF, RO
Pore size and operating pressure
Exclude particles and dissolved compounds

Advantages and challenges

Summary

Filtration: Ceramic filters

Ceramic filtration

Ceramic pot filters
Candle filters

Introduction

Simple operation

Built-in safe storage

No electricity or consumables

Can be produced locally
Ceramic filtration
Clay
Burn-out material
Sawdust, ground rice husks, etc.
Proportion and size
Additives
Silver
Iron oxides

Mixed, Pressed, Dried, Fired
700 980 C
Around 6-20 hours firing, 12-24 hours cooling

Flowerpot

Candle
Types of ceramic filters
Visual inspection, ping test

Pressure testing

Flow rate testing
1.5 3 lph

Microbiological testing

Failure rate 10%-20%
Quality control
Credit: RDI Cambodia

Physical removal
Algae
0.1
1
10
100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Ultra
filtration
Cloth
1 nm
Size, microns
Large ions
Small ions
Sand Silt Clay
Copepods
Nano
filtration
Reverse
Osmosis
1 mm
Macro
molecules
Micro
filtration
Bars
Ceramic
Filters
Viruses have negative charge

Iron oxides (e.g. laterite) have
positive charge

Possibility of saturation

Electrostatic removal
Normally brushed onto filters
Quantity seems more important than location
Sometimes baked in
Low levels leach into water
Arsenic!
Contributes to bacteria reduction
Prevents biofilm growth, clogging

Colloidal silver (nanosilver): 100 nm
Silver nitrate: 5 microns

Silver
Credit: D. Lantagne
Disinfection effectiveness

Protozoa 2-5+ LRV
Mainly physical

Bacteria 1-2+ LRV
Complicated by regrowth/
recontamination

Viruses 0-2 LRV
Mainly electrostatic

Example Ceramic pots in Cambodia
Credit: PATH, 2011
Credit: www.rdic.org
Resource Development International
Cambodia (RDIC)
www.rdic.org
International Enterprise
Development (IDE)
www.ide-cambodia.org
No subsidy
Direct sales, vendors, NGOs
Sale price ~US$8 - US$15
Production ~2,000 filters per month
100s of thousands sold
30% using at time of visit
Time since implementation
2% breakage per month
50% of those who had purchased

Filling 1.8 times per day
Cleaning 2.3 times per week

70% turbidity reduction
E. coli LRV: 1.7
Older filters not less effective

Cambodia assessment
Source: WSP/UNICEF 2007
www.unicef.org/eapro/WSP_UNICEF_FN_CWP_Final.pdf

Tulip water filter

Hose adds hydrostatic pressure
70 cm
4-5 lph

Backwashing with bulb

10s of thousands sold
India, Cambodia, Tanzania, Mozambique,
Madagascar, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Uganda,
Sudan, Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Malawi
Example candle filter application
Credit: basicwaterneeds.com
300in6.org
Social acceptability, high use Moderate effectiveness
Safe storage Low flow rate
One time capital cost Supply chains for replacement
Possibility of local production Variable quality
Visual improvement in water quality Lack of residual protection
Considerations for Ceramic filtration

Additional resources
www.irc.nl/docsearch/title/175012 www.rdic.org/water-ceramic-filtration.php
Fast-growing sector in HWTS
Can be locally produced
Quality control is essential

Removal mechanisms
Physical, Electrostatic, Chemical

Modest removal efficacy
High user satisfaction

Summary

Biological filtration

Slow sand filtration

Recent adaptation to household
level
Size exclusion
Large particles get trapped in sand

Electrostatic effects
Adsorption

Biological activity
Predation
Pathogen die-off
Processes in biological filtration
Water column 60-120 cm
Sand bed 80-120 cm (as low as 50)
D
10
0.15-0.35 mm
Continuous flow
Filtration 10-30 cm/h (as high as 50)

Flow control
Initial ripening period
Schmutzdecke
Biological filtration design

Biosand filtration
Water layer 5 cm
Sand bed 55 cm
< 0.7 mm
Intermittent flow
Design for 40 cm/h
600 cm
2
area
400 mL/min, 24 lph

Water column 60-120 cm
Sand bed 80-120 cm (as low as 50)
D
10
0.15-0.35 mm
Continuous flow
Filtration 10-30 cm/h (as high as 50)

Flow control
Initial ripening period
Schmutzdecke
Biological filtration design
Source: CAWST - The Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology (www.cawst.org)

Concrete housing
Plastic housing

Biological layer takes time to
develop
One month recommended

No backwashing!
Clean when flow is low

Filter cleaning and ripening
SSF BSF
Remove 1-3 cm Swirl and Dump
Ripening 7-10 d Ripening a few d
Filter run 20-60 d Filter run ??
Consistent water source
Turbidity < 50 NTU

Important to use the filter each day
Rest period of at least 1 hour

Keep biological layer wet
Watch for leaks
Check flow rate, water depth

Collect water safely
Operation of Biosand filters
Removal efficiency
Helminths
> 2 LRV
Protozoa
> 2 LRV
Bacteria
1-2 LRV
Viruses
< 1 LRV
Removal efficiency
Helminths
> 2 LRV
Protozoa
> 2 LRV
Bacteria
1-2 LRV
Viruses
< 1 LRV
Turbidity
85% - 95%
Iron
90% - 95%
Arsenic
Adapted version
Nitrate, nitrite
May increase
Fe
As
N
Samaritans Purse Canada
Hagar Cambodia, CGA

Over 100 000 BSF since 1999
25 000 per year

Evaluation in 2010
World Bank/WSP
105 intervention households
102 matched controls

Field application in Cambodia
High use
88% in use at time of visit
Most common reason for disuse: taste/odour
Median 2 years, one case up to 8 years

Two thirds reported training
Twice as likely to use filters

Treated water universally stored
Half in open containers
80% with dipper or instrument

E. coli reduction
73% raw water High risk (>100 cfu/100 mL)
13% treated High risk (4% <1 cfu/100 mL)
31% stored High risk

1-2 LRV (95%)
Highly variable
Stored water increase by about 0.8 LRV

Simple operation Need for cleaning, ripening period
No change to taste of water High risk of recontamination
Reduces turbidity Little effect on chemicals, may nitrify
Can be manufactured on site Heavy
Possible long-term use Limited removal of pathogens
Considerations for biological filtration
Manz Water Filters
www.manzwaterinfo.ca

CAWST
www.cawst.org/en/resources/biosand-filter

Samaritans Purse
www.samaritanspurse.ca/water-projects

www.biosandfilter.org

SSWM
www.sswm.info/category/implementation-
tools/water-purification/hardware/point-use-
water-treatment/bio-sand-filtrat

AKVO
akvopedia.org/wiki/Concrete_Biosand_Filter

Additional resources
Adaptation of slow sand filtration
Similarities
Differences
Operation and maintenance
Cleaning, ripening
Advantages and challenges
Moderate pathogen removal
Recommend to follow with
disinfection

Summary: Biological filtration

Key Messages, Week 2

Sedimentation
Membrane filtration
Ceramic filtration

Introduction


=
10

Health-based
targets
System
Assessment
Operational
Monitoring
Management
and
Communication
Verification
Turbidity

Gravity settling
Coagulation
Natural coagulants
Metal salts

Sedimentation


Membrane filtration
Algae
0.1
1
10
100
0.0001 0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000
Ultra
filtration
Cloth
1 nm
Size, microns
Large ions
Small ions
Sand Silt Clay
Copepods
Nano
filtration
Reverse
Osmosis
1 mm
Macro
molecules
Micro
filtration
Bars
Physical removal
Chemical effects

Modest bacteria removal
Variable to low virus removal

User-friendly
Ceramic filtration
Physical removal
Biological removal

Modest bacteria removal
Variable to low virus removal

User-friendly

Biosand filtration
HWTS is analogous to conventional
water treatment
Multiple processes and mechanisms

Sedimentation
Reduce particles, turbidity
Filtration mechanisms
Physical and electrostatic
Biological and chemical

Summary


Week 2 - HWTS Treatment Options

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Descrição 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

Week 2 - HWTS Treatment Options

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

A Framework for Water Safety

Introduction to Household Water Treatment and Safe Storage, Module 2.1

Você também pode gostar