Filtration Theory

On removing little particles with big

particles

Monroe L. Weber-Shirk

School of Civil and

Environmental Engineering

Filtration Outline
Filters galore
Range of applicability

Particle Capture
theory
Transport
Dimensional Analysis
Model predictions

Filters
Rapid
Slow
BioSand
Pots
Roughing
Multistage Filtration

Filters Galore
Slow Sand
Rapid Sand
Cartridge

Bag

Pot
Bio Sand

Diatomaceous earth filter

Candle

Rough

Categorizing Filters
Straining
Particles to be removed are larger than the pore size
Clog rapidly

Depth Filtration
Particles to be removed may be much smaller than the
pore size
Require attachment
Can handle more solids before developing excessive
head loss
Filtration model coming

All filters remove more particles near the filter inlet

The if it is dirty, filter it Myth

The common misconception is that if the
water is dirty then you should filter it to
clean it
But filters cant handle very dirty water
without clogging quickly

Filter range of applicability

1

10
NTU
100

1000

SSF

10

100
1k
people

RSF+ DE

10k

100k

Cartridge Bag

Pot Candle

Developing a Filtration Model

Iwasaki (1937) developed relationships
describing the performance of deep bed
filters.
C
z

dC
= 0C
dz

dC
= 0 dz
C

dC
C C = 0 0 dz
0

C
ln =0 z
C0

C is the particle concentration [number/L3]

0 is the initial filter coefficient [1/L] log C pC* 1 z

0
C
ln
10

z is the media depth [L]
0
The particles chances of being caught are the same at
all depths in the filter; pC* is proportional to depth

C
C*
C0

Graphing Filter Performance

1

0.6
p ( Remaining)
0.4

0.8

0.2

Removed0.6

0.4
0.2

p ( x) log ( x)

0.8

4
2

This graph gives the

impression that you can
reach 100% removal

p ( Remaining)
1

3
t

Where is 99.9% removal?

Particle Removal Mechanisms in

Filters
collector

Transport to a surface
Molecular diffusion
Inertia
Gravity
Interception

Attachment
Straining
London van der Waals

Filtration Performance: Dimensional

Analysis
What is the parameter we are interested in
Effluent concentration
measuring? _________________
How could we make performance
C/C0 or pC*
dimensionless? ____________
What are the important forces?
Inertia
Viscous

London van der Waals

Gravitational

Electrostatic
Thermal

Need to create dimensionless force ratios!

Dimensionless Force Ratios

Reynolds Number
Froude Number

r Vl
Re =
m
V
Fr =
gl

V2
f i =r
l

V
f u =m 2
l

f g =r g

s
Weber Number
fs = 2
l
r c2
f Ev =
Mach Number
V
l
M
c ( Dp +r g Dz )
Pressure/Drag Coefficients
- 2 ( Dp ) C d 2Drag
Cp =
V 2 A
rV 2
(dependent parameters that we measure experimentally)
V 2 l
W

What is the Reynolds number for

filtration flow?
What are the possible length scales?
Void size (collector size) max of 0.7 mm in RSF
Particle size

Velocities
V0 varies between 0.1 m/hr (SSF) and 10 m/hr (RSF)

Take the largest length scale and highest velocity to find

max Re
m hr

10
0.7 10 m
hr 3600 s

Vl
Re

Re

2
6 m
10 s

For particle transport the length scale is the particle size

and that is much smaller than the collector size

Choose viscosity!
In Fluid Mechanics inertia is a significant
force for most problems
In porous media filtration viscosity is more
Inertia
important that inertia.
We will use viscosity as the repeating
parameter and get a different set of
dimensionless force ratios
Gravitational
Viscous

Thermal
Viscous

Gravity
velocities
vpore

vg =

( p w ) gd p2
18
g =

vg
V0

V
fu 2
l

f g =r g
forces

g =

fg
f

g
g =
V0
2
dp

Gravity only helps when

the streamline has a
( p w ) gd p2
( p w ) gd p2
_________
horizontal component. g =
g =
18V0

Use this definition

V0

Diffusion (Brownian Motion)

vpore

D
vd
dc

Diffusion velocity is
high when the particle
diameter is ________.
small
Br

kT
D B
3 d p

L2
T

kB=1.38 x 10-23 J/K

T = absolute temperature
dc is diameter of the collector
k BT

3 d pV0 d c

London van der Waals

The London Group is a measure of the
attractive force
It is only effective at extremely short range
(less than 1 nm) and thus is NOT
responsible for transport to the collector
H is the Hamakers constant
H = 0.75 1020 J
Lo

4H
=
9 d 2pV0

Van der Waals force

Viscous force

What about Electrostatic

repulsion/attraction?
Modelers have not succeeded in describing
filter performance when electrostatic
repulsion is significant
Models tend to predict no particle removal
if electrostatic repulsion is significant.
Electrostatic repulsion/attraction is only
effective at very short distances and thus is
involved in attachment, not transport

Geometric Parameters
What are the length scales that are related to
particle capture by a filter?
______________
Filter depth (z)
__________________________
Collector diameter (media size) (dc)
______________
Particle diameter (dp)
Porosity (void volume/filter volume) ()

Create dimensionless groups

(dc)
Choose the repeating length ________

dp
dc

z
Number of collectors!
dc

3 1 z

2 ln( 10) d.c

Definition used in model

.z

Write the functional relationship

os
s
i
o
t
i
a
t
r
ra
h
t
e
rc
ng
e
o
F
L

pC* f R , z , , g , Br
doubles
If we double depth of filter what does pC* do? ___________
pC* z f R , , g , Br
How do we get more detail on this functional relationship?
Empirical measurements
Numerical models

Numerical Models
Trajectory analysis
A series of modeling attempts with
refinements over the past decades
Began with a single collector model that
modeled London and electrostatic forces as
an attachment efficiency term ()
n t i on
o
i
t nt a on
p
e
c ime fusi
r
e
Int Sed Dif
pC* z f R , g , Br ,

Filtration Model
1
A.s

1
3

Porosity

2 1

2 3 3 2
5

Geometry

d.p
.R d.p
d.c

.z

3 1 z

2 ln( 10) d.c

k.b T
.Br d.p
3 d.p V.a d.c

.g d.p

d.p .p .w g
18 V.a

Force ratios

Transport Equations

1
3

Br dp As R dp
4

1
6

Br dp

1
1.425
R dp
As R dp
21.5

dp Br dp R dp g dp

Transport is additive

Brownian motion
Interception
Gravity

g dp 0.31 g dp

2
3

Total is sum of parts

pC d.p .z d.p

Filtration Technologies
Slow (FiltersEnglishSlow sandBiosand)
First filters used for municipal water treatment
Were unable to treat the turbid waters of the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers
Can be used after Roughing filters

Rapid (MechanicalAmericanRapid sand)

Used in Conventional Water Treatment Facilities
Used after coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation
High flow ratesclog dailyhydraulic cleaning

Ceramic

Rapid Sand Filter

(Conventional US Treatment)

Size
(mm)

Anthracite
Influent

Drain
Effluent

Sand
Gravel

0.70

Specific Depth
Gravity (cm)
1.6

30

0.45 - 0.55 2.65

45

2.65

45

5 - 60

Wash water

Filter Design
Filter media
silica sand and anthracite coal
non-uniform media will stratify with _______
smaller particles
at the top

Flow rates
60 - 240 m/day

Compare with sedimentation

Backwash rates
set to obtain a bed porosity of 0.65 to 0.70
typically 1200 m/day

Backwash

Anthracite
Influent

Drain
Effluent

Sand

Wash water is
treated water!
WHY?
Only clean water
should ever be on
bottom of filter!

Gravel
Wash water

Rapid Sand predicted performance

kg

Brownian
Interception
Gravity
Total

m
Va 5
hr
T 293K
z 45cm
dc 0.45mm

Particle removal as pC*

p 1040

100

10

1
0.4

0.1
0.1

Not very good at removing particles that

havent been flocculated

10

Particle Diameter (m)

100

Slow Sand Filtration

First filters to be used on a widespread basis
Fine sand with an effective size of 0.2 mm
Low flow rates (2.5-10 m/day) Compare with sedimentation
Schmutzdecke (_____
filter cake
____) forms on top of the
filter
causes high head loss
must be removed periodically

Used without coagulation/flocculation!

Turbidity should always be less than 50 NTU with
a much lower average to prevent rapid clogging

Slow Sand Filtration Mechanisms

Protozoan predators (only
effective for bacteria removal,
not virus or protozoan removal)
Aluminum (natural sticky
coatings)
Attachment to previously
removed particles
No evidence of removal by
biofilms

Fraction of influent E. coli

remaining in the effluent

Typical Performance of SSF Fed

Cayuga Lake Water
1

0.1
0.05

2
3
Time (days)

5
(Daily samples)

Filter performance doesnt improve if the filter

only receives distilled water

Particle Removal by Size

Fraction of influent particles
remaining in the effluent

control
3 mM azide

0.1

0.01

0.001

Effect of
the Chrysophyte
What is the physicalchemical mechanism?

0.8

Particle diameter (m)

10

Techniques to Increase Particle

Attachment Efficiency
Make the particles stickier
The technique used in conventional water
treatment plants
Control coagulant dose and other coagulant aids
(cationic polymers)

Make the filter media stickier

Biofilms in slow sand filters?
Mystery sticky agent present in surface waters
that is imported into slow sand filters?

Cayuga Lake Seston Extract

Concentrate particles from Cayuga Lake
Acidify with 1 N HCl
Centrifuge
Centrate contains polymer
Neutralize to form flocs

Seston Extract Analysis

I discovered
aluminum!

carbon
16%

How much Aluminum should be added to a filter?

E. coli Removal as a Function of

Time and Al Application Rate
20 cm deep filter columns

No E. coli detected
mmol Al
m 2 day

pC* is proportional to accumulated mass of Aluminum in filter

Slow Sand Filtration Predictions

kg

T 293K
z 100cm
dc 0.2mm
1
0.4

Brownian
Interception
Gravity
Total

m
cm
Va 10
hr

Particle removal as pC*

p 1040

1000

100

10
0.1

10

Particle Diameter (m)

100

How deep must a filter (SSF) be to

remove 99.9999% of bacteria?
Assume is 1 and dc is 0.2
mm, V0 = 10 cm/hr
6
pC 1m 25.709 for z of 1 m
pC* is ____
23 cm for pC* of 6
z is ________________
What does this mean?

Suggests that the 20 cm deep experimental filter

was operating at theoretical limit
Typical SSF performance is 95% bacteria removal
Only about 5 cm of the filters are doing anything!

Head Loss Produced by Aluminum

mmol Al
m 2 day

mmol Al
m2

Aluminum feed methods

Alum must be dissolved until it is blended
with the main filter feed above the filter
column
Alum flocs are ineffective at enhancing
filter performance
The diffusion dilemma (alum microflocs
will diffuse efficiently and be removed at
the top of the filter)
Particle removal as pC*

100

pCg dp
pC dp
pCPe dp
pCR dp

10

1
0.1

1
dp
m

particle diameter

10

Performance Deterioration after Al

feed stops?
Hypotheses
Decays with time
Sites are used up
Washes out of filter

Research results
Not yet clear which
mechanism is
responsible further
testing required

Sticky Media vs. Sticky Particles

Sticky Media
Potentially treat filter
media at the beginning
of each filter run
No need to add
coagulants to water for
low turbidity waters
Filter will capture
particles much more
efficiently

Sticky Particles
Easier to add coagulant
to water than to coat
the filter media

The BioSand Filter Craze

Patented new idea of slow sand filtration
without flow control and called it BioSand
Filters are being installed around the world as
Point of Use treatment devices
Cost is somewhere between $25 and $150 per
household ($13/person based on project near
Copan Ruins, Honduras)
The per person cost is comparable to the cost to
build centralized treatment using the AguaClara
model

BioSand Performance

BioSand Performance
Pore volume is 18 Liters
Volume of a bucket is ____________
Highly variable field performance even
after initial ripening period
Field tests on 8 NTU water
in the DR

http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/05403/0001/054030001.pdf

Field Performance of BioSand

Table 2 pH, turbidity and E. coli levels in raw and BSF filter waters
in the field
Parameter
raw
filtered
Mean pH (n =47)
7.4
8.0
Mean turbidity (NTU) (n=47)
8.1
1.3
Mean log10 E. coli MPN/100mL (n=55) 1.7
0.6

http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/05403/0001/054030001.pdf

Potters for Peace Pots

Colloidal silver-enhanced ceramic water purifier
(CWP)
After firing the filter is coated with colloidal
silver.
This combination of fine pore size, and the
bactericidal properties of colloidal silver produce
an effective filter
Filter units are sold for about $10-15 with the
basic plastic receptacle
Replacement filter elements cost about $4.00
What is the turbidity range that these filters can handle?
How do you wash the filter? What water do you use?

Horizontal Roughing Filters

1m/hr filtration rate (through 5+ m of
media) Equivalent surface loading = 10 m/day
Usage of HRFs for large schemes has been
limited due to high capital cost and
operational problems in cleaning the filters.

Roughing Filters
Filtration through roughing gravity filters at low filtration
rates (12-48 m/day) produces water with low particulate
concentrations, which allow for further treatment in slow
sand filters without the danger of solids overload.
In large-scale horizontal-flow filter plants, the large pores
enable particles to be most efficiently transported
downward, although particle transport causes part of the
agglomerated solids to move down towards the filter
bottom. Thus, the pore space at the bottom starts to act as a
sludge storage basin, and the roughing filters need to be
drained periodically. Further development of drainage
methods is needed to improve efficiency in this area.

Roughing Filters
Roughing filters remove particulate of colloidal size
without addition of flocculants, large solids storage
capacity at low head loss, and a simple technology.
But there are only 11 articles on the topic listed in
(see articles per year)

They have not devised a cleaning method that works

Size comparison to floc/sed systems?

Multistage Filtration
The Other low tech option for
communities using surface waters
Uses no coagulants
Gravel roughing filters
Polished with slow sand filters
Large capital costs for construction
No chemical costs
Labor intensive operation
What is the tank area of a multistage filtration
plant in comparison with an AguaClara plant?

Conclusions
Many different filtration technologies are
available, especially for POU
Filters are well suited for taking clean water
and making it cleaner. They are not able to
treat very turbid surface waters
Pretreat using flocculation/sedimentation
(AguaClara) or roughing filters (high
capital cost and maintenance problems)

Conclusions
Filters could remove particles more
efficiently if the attachment
_________ efficiency were
increased
SSF remove particles by two mechanisms
Predation
____________
Sticky aluminum polymer that coats the sand
______________________________________
Completely at the mercy of the raw water!

We need to learn what is required to make

ALL of the filter media sticky in SSF and
in RSF

References
Tufenkji, N. and M. Elimelech (2004). "Correlation equation for predicting
single-collector efficiency in physicochemical filtration in saturated porous
media." Environmental-Science-and-Technology 38(2): 529-536.
Cushing, R. S. and D. F. Lawler (1998). "Depth Filtration: Fundamental
Investigation through Three-Dimensional Trajectory Analysis." Environmental
Science and Technology 32(23): 3793 -3801.
Tobiason, J. E. and C. R. O'Melia (1988). "Physicochemical Aspects of
Particle Removal in Depth Filtration." Journal American Water Works
Association 80(12): 54-64.
Yao, K.-M., M. T. Habibian, et al. (1971). "Water and Waste Water Filtration:
Concepts and Applications." Environmental Science and Technology 5(11):
1105.
M.A. Elliott*, C.E. Stauber, F. Koksal, K.R. Liang, D.K. Huslage, F.A.
DiGiano, M.D. Sobsey. (2006) The operation, flow conditions and microbial
reductions of an intermittently operated, household-scale slow sand filter

Contact Points

Polymer Accumulation in a Pore