Optimisation of Household Slow Sand Filters

Optimisation of household Slow sand filters
3rd Year Research Project

Supervisor: Dr. Luiza C. Campos
Joana Valls and Philomene Rabu
0|Page
J.Valls, P.Rabu
Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters
24/03/2011
Declaration and Personal Statement
The project has been carried out by Joana Valls and Philomene Rabu.
The authors have read and understood the Colleges policy regarding plagiarism and the submission of coursework. The authors confirm that, except for commonly understood ideas and concepts, or where specific reference is made to the work of other authors, the contents of this report are their own work. This dissertation is presented in 82 (60 without appendix) pages including bibliography and appendices. It contains approximately 18,200 words, 36 figures and 22 tables. Statement by: ..:
I estimate that my contributions to the parts of the project are as follows:
Delete any of these that do not apply to your project literature review theoretical development computational work experimental work data analysis report writing and production average
Signature: .
Date: .
1|Page University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Abstract
Waterborne diseases and lack of access to safe drinking water are still a major issue now a days. Millions of people die each year, mostly children under 5 years old due to dehydration caused by diarrhoea. Slow sand filtrations are easy, effective and low cost methods to provide clean drinking water which can be implemented anywhere, mostly at a household level. Analysing the performance of these systems and changing different variables, would help to understand their different physical and biological processes undertook in these systems and how pollution and changes in design parameters can affect the effluent fluid. This assignment was chosen in order to carry out a research project joint with Engineers Without Borders UK and to expand the knowledge on methods of treating water, one of the main topics in the degree the authors are effectuating.
Acknowledgements
This report was written with the assistance and support of numerous individuals. First and foremost, Dr Luiza C. Campos, supervisor and Director of the Environmental Engineering program, for her support, help, review and assistance. Secondly, the authors would like to thank Engineers Without Borders for their financial support and Dr Judith Zhou, Mr Ilan Adler and Mr Ian Sturtevant, from the Environmental Engineering Laboratory of UCL, for the technical assistance.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Table of Contents
Declaration and Personal Statement .............................................................................. 1 Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 2 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 2 List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ 5 List of Units ...................................................................................................................... 6 List of Figures .................................................................................................................. 7 List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 8 List of Equations .............................................................................................................. 8 1. Slow sand filtration research project ....................................................................... 9
1.1 1.2 1.3 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 9 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 10 Simulation of the household SSF use ....................................................................... 10
2.
Literature Review ................................................................................................... 11

2.1 2.2 2.3
2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 2.3.4
Water Treatment ....................................................................................................... 11 History of slow sand filtration .................................................................................. 12 Features of biosand filtration tanks ......................................................................... 13
Advantages ........................................................................................................................... 13 Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 13 Accepted Drinking water guidelines by WHO & Environmental Agency ........................... 14 Biosand filter treatment according to CAWST ..................................................................... 14
2.4
2.4.1 2.4.2
How a slow sand filter works ................................................................................... 14

Mechanisms of filtration ....................................................................................................... 15 Factors affecting the tank effectiveness ................................................................................ 16
2.5
Operations, monitoring and maintenance............................................................... 16
3.
Methodology ........................................................................................................... 17
3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7
3.7.1 3.7.2 3.7.3 3.7.4
Water Model .............................................................................................................. 17 Filter description ....................................................................................................... 18 Analysis and frequency of testing ............................................................................ 19 Preliminary tests........................................................................................................ 20 Filer cleaning ............................................................................................................. 20 Maturation ................................................................................................................. 20 Testing process........................................................................................................... 21
pH ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Dissolved Oxygen................................................................................................................. 21 Head Loss ............................................................................................................................. 22 Temperature .......................................................................................................................... 22
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
3.7.5 3.7.6 3.7.7 3.7.8
Turbidity ............................................................................................................................... 22 UV 254 testing ...................................................................................................................... 24 Bacterial Testing ................................................................................................................... 25 Pesticide................................................................................................................................ 28
4.
Results & Discussion .............................................................................................. 31

4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 pH ............................................................................................................................... 32 Temperature .............................................................................................................. 33 DO ............................................................................................................................... 34 Head loss .................................................................................................................... 37 Turbidity .................................................................................................................... 39 UV light ...................................................................................................................... 41 Bacteria ...................................................................................................................... 44 Pesticides .................................................................................................................... 48 Hydraulics of filtration ............................................................................................. 51 General Problems occurred...................................................................................... 52
Parameters ............................................................................................................................ 53 Bacteria ................................................................................................................................. 55 Pesticides .............................................................................................................................. 55
5.
Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 53
5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3
5.2.1.
5.2.1.1. 5.2.1.2. 5.2.1.3. 5.2.1.4. 5.2.1.5.
Where the objectives met? .................................................................................... 56

Raw water in maturation .................................................................................................. 56 Frequency of filtration ...................................................................................................... 56 The effect of detention time ............................................................................................. 57 Stagnant water variation ................................................................................................... 57 Removal of pesticides with biological mechanism .......................................................... 57
6.
Future work & Recommendations ........................................................................ 58

6.1 6.2 Future work ............................................................................................................... 58 Recommendations for future.................................................................................... 58
7. 8. 9.
References ............................................................................................................... 60 Glossary .................................................................................................................. 62 Appendix ................................................................................................................. 64

5.2.1.6. Tables of experimentation ................................................................................................ 67
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
List of Abbreviations
ADI Acceptable Daily Intake CAWST Centre for Affordable Water and Sanitation Technology CFU - Colony Forming Units CO2 Carbon dioxide DO Dissolved Oxygen DCM - Dichloromethane E.COLI - Escherichia coli EWB Engineers without Borders GDP Gross Domestic Product GC - gas chromatography GLAAS Global Annual Assessment of Sanitation and drinking water LEDCs Less economically developed countries MEDCs More economically developed countries MS - Mass spectrometry NOx Nitrogen oxide NTU - Nephelometric Turbidity Units pH potential/power hydrogen PPE Personal Protective Equipment gloves, glasses, white coat SIR - Selected ion R SSF Slow sand filtration TC Total coliform TNTC Too Many To Count UCL University College of London UN United Nations UV Ultraviolet (light) WHO World Health Organisation 5|Page
University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
List of Units
Dissolved oxygen mg/L Turbidity NTU Bacteria colonies (CFU) Temperature - C Head loss cm UV 254 % Light absorbed Weight g Concentration kg/m3
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
List of Figures
Figure 1 UNICEF report .............................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2 Drawing from what 19th century people believed was in the "soup" (Nakamoto, 2009) ............ 12 Figure 3 Google maps satellite picture of the location of the collection point........................................... 17 Figure 4 Photograph of the two tanks used during the experimentation.................................................... 17 Figure 5 Description of Tank ..................................................................................................................... 18 Figure 6 Picture of pH sensing electrode ................................................................................................... 21 Figure 7 Turbidimeter ................................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 8 Computer used for measuring UV 254 ........................................................................................ 24 Figure 9 Autoclaving .................................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 10 Pesticide testing process ............................................................................................................ 30 Figure 11 Changes in pH in Seeded tank ................................................................................................... 32 Figure 12 Changes in pH in Unseeded tank............................................................................................... 32 Figure 13 Changes in Temperature in Seeded tank ................................................................................... 33 Figure 14 Changes in Temperature in Unseeded Tank .............................................................................. 33 Figure 15 Dissolved oxygen dependence on Temperature ......................................................................... 34 Figure 16 Change in DO between Regents Park water and filtered .......................................................... 35 Figure 17 Change in DO in seeded tank .................................................................................................... 36 Figure 18 Change in DO over Seeded Tank............................................................................................... 36 Figure 19 Head Loss change over seeded tank .......................................................................................... 37 Figure 20 Head loss change over Unseeded Tank ..................................................................................... 38 Figure 21 Development of second biofilm in unseeded tank ...................................................................... 39 Figure 22 Change in turbidity over time .................................................................................................... 39 Figure 23 Change of turbidity over time in the Unseeded tank .................................................................. 40 Figure 24 Change in turbidity over time in seeded tank ............................................................................ 40 Figure 25 Change in Light Absorbed by UV 254 Method over time .......................................................... 42 Figure 26 Change in Light Absorbed by UV 254 Method over time in unseeded tank .............................. 42 Figure 27 Change in Light Absorbed by UV 254 Method over time in seeded tank .................................. 43 Figure 28 Percentage of total coliform removed from water over time in unseeded tank ......................... 44 Figure 29 Percentage of total coliform removed from water over time in seeded tank ............................. 44 Figure 30 Percentage E.coli removal over time ......................................................................................... 45 Figure 31 E.coli removal over 2 weeks after 24h .................................................................................... 46 Figure 32 % E.coli removal over time in seeded tank ................................................................................ 47 Figure 33 Percentage E.coli removal over time in unseeded tank ............................................................. 47 Figure 34 Average Pesticide concentrations during GCMS run ................................................................ 49 Figure 35 % removal of Metaldehyde in second run GCMS ...................................................................... 49
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
List of Tables
Table 1 Total volume and source of water used during the experiments so far ......................................... 18 Table 2 Change in variables....................................................................................................................... 19 Table 3 Water residence time in the filter and time of sampling ................................................................ 19 Table 4 Water residence time in the filter and time of sampling ................................................................ 19 Table 5 Identification of each sample in graphs ........................................................................................ 31 Table 6 Average values of UV 254 ............................................................................................................. 43 Table 7 Mean values for E.coli removal *Excluding all possible errors, i.e. % rates under 50. ............... 45 Table 8 Percentage removal of Metaldehyde in first run GCMS ............................................................... 49 Table 9 Percentage removal of Metaldehyde in second run GCMS ........................................................... 50 Table 10 Health Effects of Methaldehyde (INCHEM, 1996) ...................................................................... 50 Table 11 Dimension parameters of tanks ................................................................................................... 51 Table 12 Parameters used to calculate resistance ..................................................................................... 51 Table 13 Resistance, H ............................................................................................................................... 51 Table 14 Average values for all the parameters measured everyday ......................................................... 54 Table 15 E.coli & Total coliform removal ................................................................................................. 67 Table 16 Dissolved oxygen ......................................................................................................................... 71 Table 17 UV 254......................................................................................................................................... 72 Table 18 pH ................................................................................................................................................ 73 Table 19 Head loss ..................................................................................................................................... 74 Table 20 Temperature change .................................................................................................................... 75 Table 21 Pesticides first run ................................................................................................................... 64-0 Table 22 Pesticides second run .............................................................................................................. 64-0 Table 23 Pesticides ................................................................................................................................. 65-0
List of Equations
Equation 1 pH ............................................................................................................................................ 21 Equation 2 Photosynthesis ......................................................................................................................... 21 Equation 3 Calculate % removal................................................................................................................ 25 Equation 4 Used to calculate Resistance.................................................................................................... 51
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
1. Slow sand filtration research project

1.1 Introduction
Diarrhoea is the second leading contributor to global burden disease, mostly children under 5 years (Figure 1). Unclean unsafe water is the main cause of this disease in regions lacking of access to treated water supply. In order to solve this situation in developing countries, measures such as a household biosand filters or Slow sand filtration (SSF) can be used to improve the quality of water. Using appropriate technology is essential to achieve sustainable development in Less economically developed countries (LEDCs) and factors such as culture, economic situation and religion are of major importance in this areas.
Figure 1 UNICEF report
The quality of drinking-water is a powerful environmental determinant of health. Water is essential to life, everyone should have access to safe and clean water. Preventing the spread of diseases and reducing the risks of getting waterborne diseases in less economically developed countries is the reason why this project was chosen. UCL engineering students are required to work on a research project in pairs in third year. Thus to make the best use of this opportunity, doing a project in collaboration with Engineers Without Borders (EWB) was more appealing than any of the proposed options by the University, as it potentially could benefit a community overseas.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
The initial idea was to conduct a project where SSF to provide clean safe water to the inhabitants of a village in Ecuador, but due to several circumstances, this project had to be changed. The second option was proposed by our supervisor was to continue the work done by Outhwaite (2010), also a project supported by EWB UK. By using two household SSF tanks (one seeded and another one un-seeded), he analyzed the effects of filtering raw water from Regents Park in order to implement these tanks in the future in a South American country. Following his recommendations on how to make the tank more efficient and testing more in depth the different parameters, it was decided to carry on with his investigation with the financial support of EWB UK.
1.2 Objectives
The objective of this work was to evaluate the performance of the household slow sand filters to remove pesticides. The specific objectives were: To evaluate the effect of the raw water on the maturation period of the filter To determine the effect of filtration frequency on efficiency removal To evaluate the effect of the detention time of water on removal To assess the effect of the depth of the minimum level of water above the filter To correlate the removal of pesticides with biological mechanisms
1.3 Simulation of the household SSF use

The project aimed to simulate a real case scenario where a family in a Less Economically developed country (LEDC) uses a household SSF (same as the ones from our research) to acquire safe water for drinking and household purposes. Due to time limitation, the water treatment was assumed to take place only few times a week, simulating the case of when family leave the house for a day or few days.
10 | P a g e University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
2. Literature Review
2.1 Water Treatment
The advances of now a days technology provide good quality water from most sources, although the economic factor limits a large amount of people to access clean and safe drinking water. In 2008, over 2.6 billion people were living without access to improved sanitation facilities and nearly 900 million werent receiving safe drinking water (GLAAS, 2010). Everyday their life and health is affected by contaminated water; they are missing on a basic human right. Diarrhoea is the second leading contributor to global burden of disease, 2.5 billion cases occur in children under 5 and every year about 1.5 million die from it (WHO & UNICEF, 2000). Poor sanitation and water leads to different illnesses, which keeps children from school and parents from work. Improving drinking water and sanitation could reduce nearly 90% of the diarrhoeal cases and death of children to 2.2 million (WHO, 2010). This would lead to a reduction of costs in health care and gain in GDP by bringing very large economic returns. Another result from drinking this water is vulnerability of children, which may be already sick from other diseases or unnourished. This at the same time leads to low life expectancy, low level of working population, high dependency rates and a bad economic situation. In order to solve this situation in LEDCs, using appropriate technology is essential. Household SSF are simple economically feasible systems to improve sanitation and drinking water in these areas. Improving the quality of the water would decrease death level rates as well as to improve the quality of life of people and progress. Providing clean and safe water is one of the Millennium Goals set in 2000 by the United Nation (UN) together with providing primary education, sustainable scalable & repeatable incentives and providing knowledge and skills. It is also the first step towards sustainable communication and end of poverty. In order to obtain cheap efficient treatment for safe water, different factors had to be considered as well as the usage of appropriate technology, depending on where the plant could be implemented. Other factors to take into consideration; Future demand Social, economic & political situation. Potential hazards Type of soil Source of water The effects of improving the water i.e. population growth and thus greater requirements from the members of the population 11 | P a g e University College of London11
2.2 History of slow sand filtration

(Nakamoto, 2009 & CAWST, 2010) Water began to be treated on 1804, when John Gibb designed and built an experimental slow sand filter in Scotland. On 1829, James Simpson improved the method of Gibb and installed it to treat the water supplied by the Chelsea Water Company in London. In 1852, all the water from the River Thames was delivered to the inhabitants of the capital after being treated with slow sand. As a result of the industrial Revolution and the invention of the steam engine, the population of most major cities increased. This led to the degradation of the quality of the water of the River Thames that provided water to everyone in the city. This water started being called monsters soup(Figure 2.1) due to the high amount of different bacteria and other living organisms moving in the water seen using a microscope. At the same time, cholera spread out. By the end of the 19th century, John Snow found out that this disease was transmitted and caused by the low quality of water that the citizen of London were drinking. By filtrating this water, the materies morbi (material transmitting infections) and other solids were removed.
Figure 2 Drawing from what 19th century people believed was in the "soup" (Nakamoto, 2009)
Throughout the years, scientists discovered and examined more in depth bacteria, developing new methods to get rid of them and to control the amounts of these within water. During the last 19th Century slow sand filters were widespread and introduced in Europe leading to a significant change in drinking water quality and reduction of waterborne diseases and transmission. No coagulants or disinfectants were used at the time to achieve better results, although the physical processes were observed, but not completely understood, even now a days the biological interactions within this filters still lack of comprehension (Graham & Collins,1996).
12 | P a g e
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
2.3 Features of biosand filtration tanks

Slow sand filters are gravity tanks; open box tanks drained at the bottom and partly filled every time they are used to filter water. Raw water or mixed is allowed through spaces between each sand grain and flows downwards. The treated water is discharged through the outlet piping system controlled by a valve. Suspended solids and colloidal matter are deposited at the top of the bed where a bio layer is formed which does not require frequent cleaning. A depth of 1/2 cm of sand needs to be removed after several months or weeks to achieve good results in effluent water once again. 2.3.1 Advantages
The advantages of using a slow sand filter to purify water are mainly the improvement in quality of the effluent water discharged; decreased in turbidity, particles and removal of odours and smells within raw water. It is a simple and easy to build system, which does not require any specific skills. Monitoring and operations are not complicated either. Daily tasks include reading and recording head loss, turbidity, pH and temperatures. Another advantage from SSF, is that this method does not necessitate constant supervisor and materials (sand, gravel and concrete) for its fabrication can be found locally. If the user is scared about the tank contamination, a lid can be place which wont affect the efficacy of the treatment system, but will prevent external contamination if the tanks are placed outside. A SSF combines chemical, biological and physical processes to improve the quality of water. 2.3.2 Limitations
1. Continuous filtration; tank needs water to go through to keep biological activity active pauses of more than 48h will reduce the effectiveness of the system. 2. Initial costs 3. Water with fine clays not easily treated 4. Less effective on removing particles within cold temperatures (lower bed activity) 5. Algae may interfere with results 6. Severe and sudden changes in quality due to temperature changes, toxic industrial waste, etc
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
2.3.3 2.3.4
Accepted Drinking water guidelines by WHO & Environmental Agency Turbidity <1 NTU Coliforms 1-3 log units Biodegradable Dissolved organic carbon 50% Dissolved organic carbon 15-25% Heavy metals; Zu, Cu, Cd, Pb (95-99%) Fe, Mn (>67%) As (<47%) Bacteria 90-99% pH: 6.5-9.5 Biosand filter treatment according to CAWST Bacteria up to 96.5% Viruses 70-99% Protozoa 99% Helminths up to 100% Turbidity 95% or <1NTU
2.4 How a slow sand filter works

A slow sand filtration is a biological treatment process which uses fine grain and a flow rate of between 0.1-0.4m/L to filtrate water (MWH, 2005). The fine media and low filtration rates encourage the capture of large particulate matter (e.g. algae) and the development of a straining layer called schmutzdecke. Head loss, the biofilm growth and filtering of particles takes place within the first 20-30mm of the sand media (Graham and Collins,1996). This is a filter skin that traps some organisms before the water continues its way through the sand. It is intensely active and threats different sorts of life such as plankton, protozoa, diatoms or bacteria. Dead algae and bacteria are consumed and processed into simple salts. At the same time, nitrogen and other chemical nutrients are broken down and oxidized, colour and odour are removed and suspended particles are strained out (WHO, 2008) A sample of water enters the tank passing through a diffuser of approximately 5 mm allowing the water to go to the inlet reservoir zone. If the valves are open, filtering takes place allowing water to go through the granular media where the biolayer has developed. After passing through the schmutzdecke, the water enters the filtering sand layer. Here, absorption takes place from electrical forces, chemical bonding and mass attraction. Flow rate decreases in this medium due to the small pores and sedimentation takes place on the nearest grain. This layer holds most of the food necessary for bacteria and biolayer to stay alive (WHO, 2008). 14 | P a g e University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
The flow throughout the layer is laminar and constantly changing direction due to the interaction between sand grains. Each time the water enters a new pore in between the sand grains, it slows down resulting in sedimentation basins near the sand grains and bacteria and viruses are brought into contact with surface of sand to which they attach resulting in coated and sticky surfaces similar to the schmutzdecke but without algae and same particles. After going through the granular media, water goes through a fine and coarse layer of gravel, where sand is filtered and settlement of the left over bacteria takes place. 2.4.1 Mechanisms of filtration
Biological filtration is accomplished by passing raw water through a bed of sand where particulate impurities are brought into contact with the surface of the grains and held in position there. Inert material is retained until eventually removed when the filter is cleaned (ripening). The processes that take place within the SSF can be separated into transport mechanisms, attachment and purification (Huismans and Wood, 1974). During the transport mechanism, the particles are brought into contact with the sand grains by screening, sedimentation, mass attraction, several forces and diffusion. Sedimentation is the process where large particles are retained by the diffuser and the granular media. The formation of the schmuztdecke increases the efficiency of screening of the bed enhancing the deposition in the grains that gradually affects the resistance within the pores indicating that the cleaning of the bed has to take place. Sedimentation refers to the action within the pores where suspended matter is deposited in the bottom of the layer. Inertia and centrifugal forces act on the particles at a specific gravity which results in these leaving the water. The second mechanism is attachment, where electrostatic forces and mass attraction takes place attaching the particles to the grains. The most important process of these mechanism is the adhesion that is originated within the upper surface of the granular media where a bed of bacteria and other organisms is formed, the so called schmuztdecke; gelatinous sticky film which acts as a filter. Purification takes place in a series of biological process. Dissimilation is the process where bacteria oxidize part of the food (dead matter) to provide energy for the metabolism of bacteria which assimilates these for growth purposes and converting dead substance into living ones. Another process is mineralization, where raw water degrades organic matter to produce sulphates, nitrates and phosphates which could later on be discharged in the effluent water. 20-30mm under the surface (Graham & Collins, 1996), food becomes scarcer and hardly any organisms are found, microbial degradation occurs and amino acids are turned into ammonia, nitrites and nitrates and finally oxidation occurs decreasing the numbers of coliforms found in the water. 15 | P a g e University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
2.4.2
Factors affecting the tank effectiveness Temperature; Low temperatures decrease the level of effectiveness of the tank as well as decreasing the level of activity within it thus increasing the rate of survival of bacteria entering the surface.
Retention time Sand size and head better with fine and low head Volume of water inserted Turbidity and quality of raw water Flow rate of water filtered Water level above tank Outlet pipe system performance Frequency of filtration Algae o o o o o o Photosynthesis reduces growth and increases oxygen contend Change in DO entering and exiting Affect supernatant water and require supervision Reduces chances of survival of bacteria Contributes to schmuzdecke formation Requires more cleaning
2.5 Operations, monitoring and maintenance

SSFs do not require continuous cleaning. Measuring head loss, bacteria and other parameters proving that the quality of water is not improving after being filtered would permit to know when the tanks need to be cleaned .
Cleaning takes place depending on the raw waters quality that can be every two weeks or even yearly. This can be done by scrapping the upper layer of filter bed, about 1/2cm of it. There are four ways in which cleaning of a SSF can be done; 1. Using a geo-textile material on the top layer 2. Chlorinating 3. Wet harrowing lowering water to just above the schmutzdecke, stiming the sand and suspending any solids held in that layer and throwing the water to waste. This is the faster way. 4. Dry harrowing scrapping the top layer, water is inserted back and new schmutzdecke is formed. 16 | P a g e University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
3. Methodology
3.1 Water Model
Initially 50L of Regents Park lake (Figure 3) water was collected and filtered in the filters (Figure 4) once a week during 2 weeks. After this period, 24 L of Regents Park water was collected and mixed with either rainwater or filtered water (water recycled from the filters) once a week for a period of 3 weeks. Table 1 shows the total amount and source of water used as influent to the household filters during maturation and normal operation. Table 1 describes the variables that are being investigated.
Collection point
Figure 3 Google maps satellite picture of the location of the collection point
Unseeded Filter
Seeded Filter
Figure 4 Photograph of the two tanks used during the experimentation
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Table 1 Total volume and source of water used during the experiments so far
Date Maturation test Filtration tests 15/11/10 30/11/10 15/11/10 30/11/10 1/12/10 - 17/12/10 10/01/11 01/03/2011
Regents Park 24L 24L 24L 24L
Rainwater 24L 24L
Recycled water
24L 24L
3.2 Filter description

Following the recommendations of the CAWST 2009 Biosand Filter Manual, the two biosand filters used were constructed to the dimensions of approximately 900mm tall and 300mm wide, in order for it to be used in a normal household. The manual recommended the filter should be constructed with either with concrete or plastic. In this particular case, to allow easier inspection of the sand layers and the biolayer, the filters were constructed from Perspex plastic. The layers of sand used were made up of 50mm of deep coarse gravel, 50 mm deep fine gravel, and 400mm deep fine sand (Figure 5). The deep fine sand layer was installed already wet into a bit of water to prevent any air bubbles forming. The type of sand used is RH45 sand from WBB Minerals quarry in Redhill, Surrey.
Diffuser - prevents disturbing and protects biolayer
Inlet reservoir zone where water was poured 50mm stagnant water - keeps sand wet while letting oxygen pass to biolayer
Valve controlling flow
400mm Sand bed biological activity on the top and non-bio activity on the rest where theres 50mm of fine g 50mm of coarse g Figure 5 Description of Tank Membrane to stop gravel
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
3.3 Analysis and frequency of testing

24L were filtered every day to simulate the usage of the tanks by a family; this would provide enough water for the family to drink and cook every day. Water was collected after pouring after 10 minutes and 1h30min for analysis of several parameters (see sections 3.7 onwards for more details on these). The water collected after 10 minutes represented the water poured in the filter on the day before, in the case of Mondays after 96h and Thursdays after 48h. This allowed to investigate the effects of water residence time on the quality of water (Table 2).
Table 2 Change in variables Weeks Variables Stagnant water on top of sand Week 20 to 21 Week 22 to 24 Week 25 to 29 10 cm 5cm 5 cm Pesticide removal None None 10mg
Table 3 Water residence time in the filter and time of sampling
Sampling time after adding the water to the filters at each filtration Water residence time Sample representation
10 min
45 min
1 week Previous filtration
45min Current filtration
A flow rate of 0.267 L/min based on the dye tests previously carried out by Outhwaite (2010). Flow rate was monitored by the use of stopwatch and measuring cylinder. Water samples (Table 3) were taken based on the residence times determined by Outhwaite (2010).
Table 4 Water residence time in the filter and time of sampling
Day of filtration in the week Sampling time after adding the water to the filters at each filtration Water residence time Sample representation
Monday 10 min 45 min
Tuesday 10 min 45 min
Thursday 10 min 45 min
72 hours Previous filtration
45 min Current filtration
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
3.4 Preliminary tests

A series of tests were initially conducted to determine the amount of bacteria in the raw water in order to find out if bacteria inoculation would be necessary, and to implement the methodology for bacteria determination.. Two litres of raw water of Regents Park were collected three times a week to count the amount of bacteria to determine the appropriate dissolution to be carried out later on. A mix of 100mL of raw and de-ionized water was used following the E.coli testing method (HACH, 2010). For good results, the range had to be between 20 to 80 colonies (HACH, 2010). After mixing 5mL, 7.5mL, 10mL and 20mL of raw water with distilled water, it was concluded that the best mixing was using 10 mL of raw water model with 90mL of distilled water. For the filtered water, it was used 20mL filtered seeded and unseeded effluent water and 80mL of distilled
3.5 Filer cleaning

Cleaning of the tank was done by removing one or two cm of the surface layer of the sand bed after drying out as much as possible the system and getting rid of the stagnant water above the sand.
3.6 Maturation
Recently cleaned biosand filters do not effectively remove bacteria, in order for these to do so, a period of ripening is needed. This term refers to the necessary time for the biological community or biofilm to mature i.e. reach the optimum particle and bacteria removal (90-99%) and the development of the . This can take up to 30 days (CAWST, 2010) depending on the amount of contaminants, bacteria and particles in the water. It is important to allow this process to take place in order to obtain the optimum results during our experimentation. As shown in Table 1 in section 3.1, it took 15 days for the two tanks to obtain good results and develop a dirty layer, i.e. a schmutzdecke.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
3.7 Testing process

3.7.1 pH
Water in the environment contains a series of inorganic and organic ionic dissolved constituents and comopounds, colloidal and suspended particles and gases. Several chemically related measures can be undertaken to indicate the properties of water supply such as measuring the hydrogen ion concentration, i.e. pH. This measures acid base properties of a solution (Eq. 1).
Equation 1 pH
pH=-log10[H+] (MWH, 2005)
In the beginning of the experimentation, this parameter was measured with pH papers and indicator solutions which change colour varying from red to purple. These need to be compared to compared to the colour of a blank paper or using a solution established by the standards. During the second semester, pH was measured using a
Figure 6 Picture of pH sensing electrode
HANNA pH sensing electrode (Figure 6), HI 9812, calibrated with distilled water which provided more accurate results.
3.7.2
Dissolved Oxygen
Dissolved oxygen refers to the amount of oxygen dissolved by aeration and photosynthesis (Equation 2) of plants in water, essential for aquatic organisms and affects the odour, taste and clarity of the fluid.
Equation 2 Photosynthesis
CO2+H2OO2+C6H12O6 Carbon dioxide+WaterOxygen+Glucose
This can be measured as a percentage of mass over volume (mg/L). DO content of water depends on the source, raw water temperature, treatment and chemical or biological processes through which water have to go through. By measuring DO, the aggregate amount of organic material in the fluid can be quantified (Nazaroff, 2004). This was measured using a Jenway DO meter calibrated with de-ionized water.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
3.7.3
Head Loss
Slow sand filters can operate during a long time but it is required to carry on continuous checks of to monitor the performance and quality of effluent water to be aware of when the filter needs to be cleaned. Head loss aids to determine when the tank is clogged, i.e. cleaning of system is required, when the levels are too high. Head loss is the difference in height between the water level inside the tank above the sand bed and the water in the see-through tube to the right hand side of both tanks. This parameter was measured every time water was poured in the tank and after 45 minutes of the first filtration took place.
3.7.4
Temperature
Temperature was measured using a mercury thermometer during the first half of the experimentation and then with a Jenway DO meter, providing more precise values and easing the recordings in the park.
3.7.5
Turbidity
Turbidity refers to the level of cloudiness of the fluid which is caused by the presence of suspended particles that reduce the clarity of the water, some invisible to human eyesight. Government has set standards no more than 1 NTU is allowed on any drinking water to impede any gastrointestinal diseases. Turbidity is caused by phytoplankton, disturbed land by construction, industries or runoffs, rainwater or other contamination produced by humans or animals. An expression of the optical property that causes light to be scattered and absorbed rather than transmitted with no change in direction or flux level through the sample (Standard Methods, 2005) Measurements require a light source and a sensor, located at 90C to the light source, to measure the scattered light (MWH, 2005). Turbidity is expressed in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU) and increases with scattered light and decreases as numbers of particles increases above a certain amount of scattered light taking place which increases incident light.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Method of testing turbidity:
Figure 7 Turbidimeter
Equipment for testing: Sample Standard solution glass bottle for calibration (18, 180 or 1800NTU) Pipette Empty small glass to put raw water. Beaker Turbidimeter (Figure 7)
Process of testing: 1. Pour sample into an empty glass to test. 2. Turn the turbidimeter on (see Figure 7) 3. Shake standard solution before inserting it into the apparatus 4. Calibrate for a few seconds with either 18 or 180NTU standards if the level of NTU is below 18NTU carry experiment with this standard, if its above switch to 180. 5. Shake sample and place it inside the apparatus for testing. 6. Rapid readings to impede the sedimentation of particles and improve accuracy
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
3.7.6
UV 254 testing
The UV light was carried out to measure the amount of light that can go through the sample of water thus quantifying the amount of contaminants, organic compounds and water UV light absorbed by the water. The absorbance of a solution is a measure of the amount of light absorbed by the constituents of the sample solution at a specific wavelength, set at 254 typically for water testing procedures. According to Beer Lambert Law, the amount of light absorbed by water is proportional to the concentration of molecules and the path length the light takes in passing through water (width of cuvette, 1cm). De-ionized water is used as a reference in the method before measuring the samples. In order to test the absorbance of UV 254 light through the sample a spectrophotometer is used calibrated, as mentioned before, with de-ionised water. Equipment needed for testing: Spectrophotometer controlled by computer (Figure 8) Cuvette Small measuring cylinder Paper to dry cuvette sides Computer Beaker of de-ionised water Pipette
Figure 8 Computer used for measuring UV 254
Process of testing: 1. Pre warm the machine for 30 minutes before using. 2. Fix the wavelength on the computer at 254 on the computer (Figure 8). 3. Set the machine to zero by inserting a cuvette with de-ionised water inside the machine. 4. The cuvette should be filled carefully to the top with a sterilized pipette and the transparent sides should be dried to let the light through when in the machine. Only the translucent sides are to be held with hands. The side with a narrow should face the door of the laboratory. 5. After 30 seconds, record readings and place inside the machine another cuvette with the sample to record the amount of UV 254. 6. Switch off machine when all testing is done.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
3.7.7
Bacterial Testing
Water can easily spread diseases as it is exposed to most of the Worlds population. Depending on the pathogen, this can be more or less virulent. Eliminating the transport of pathogens will decrease the amount of waterborne diseases, although not completely as some of those pathogens can also be transmitted through other routes such as food (Salmonella). Pathogenic Escherichia coli (E.coli) belongs to the Entero-bacteria family and is normally found in the colon of warm blooded animals around 4 days after birth (MWH, 2005). E.coli, are bacteria that are naturally found. A large amount of these in drinking water can cause food poisoning or diarrhoea in humans. E.coli provides guaranteed evidence of recent faecal pollution and should not be present in drinking water. In order to cause infection a median dose of 100,000 E.coli has to be ingested. These should not be found in drinking water and in order to make sure no diseases are spread, this bacteria is tested before and after filtration takes place within treatment system. In general, SSFs remove around 95% of these pathogens from water - 16000000 bacteria/ml (Unknown, 2011). Bacteria removal had to be tested within 6h after the samples were collected to avoid growth to take place. A broth solution was used to count the amount of colonies lying in the water before and after being treated. Dots, i.e. colonies, of blue (E.coli) or red colours (Other coliforms) were counted to calculate the amount of removal of total coliforms and E.coli:
Equation 3 Calculate % removal
%Removal =100*(Change in concentration before and after filtration/ concentration before filtration)
Equipment necessary for testing: mColiBlue 24broth (Hach) bottle Plastic mColiBlue ampules (2ml) (Hach) Petri dishes Filter paper Absorbent pads Phosphate Buffered saline solution pH 7.2 GIBCO Vacuum Millipore EZ-PAKSterile Membrane Filters Forceps Measuring cylinder 25 | P a g e University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Incubator/oven at 35-37C Conical flask of distilled water Beaker for waste Pipettes Glass sample bottle
The procedure for testing bacteria colonies follows the methodology set by USEPA Membrane Filtration Method; 1. Put on appropriate PPE to impede any interference in the results. 2. Wrap with aluminium all the equipment; measuring cylinders, conical flask with deionised water, forceps and glass pipettes; to impede external contamination after autoclaving (Figure 9) 3. Sterilize equipment to be used in chamber at 121C for 50-1h30 in autoclaving machine. Note: Only glass and metallic equipment can be autoclaved as the heat can
deteriorate or melt the equipment. The plastic petri dishes and pipettes should already be sterile. If the de-ionised water is autoclaved, it has to be left for about 30 -60 minutes in the refrigerator to cool down before using hot water kills bacteria and thus changes the results. 4. Take the broth bottle or 2 ml ampules from the fridge and place it on the sterile chamber. 5. Turn on fan and lights inside the sterilized room.
Figure 9 Autoclaving
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
6. After autoclaving, retire from the autoclaving machine all the equipment and place them inside the sterile cabinet. 7. Dilute 20 ml of sample with 80 ml of de-ionised water in a measuring cylinder. The dilution was carried out to enable the counting of colonies, if no dilution was done, too many colonies would be shown in the petri dishes making it impossible to count. 8. Insert a single white pad with the aid of a forceps into each petri dish. 9. Impregnate pad with +/- 2ml of broth. 10. Close petri dish to impede any further contamination. 11. Join the filtering equipment together; the hard membrane filters between the waste water storage glass and the U shaped container. 12. Switch on the vacuum and connect a see-through pipe to the vacuum valve. This pipe will allow the absorption of water through the membrane and store any excess water in a glass. 13. Put a membrane filter into the filter and close the container. 14. Rinse with de-ionised water or buffer solution 15. Turn vacuum on to allow rinsing solution to go through 16. Close valve (vacuum off) 17. Place white filter membrane in filtering media and close 18. Open vacuum until all dilution is filtered 19. With sterilized forceps and the petri dish lid of, gently lift the filter paper of from the membrane container and place in with a rolling motion on the absorbent pad in the petri dish. Make sure no air bubbles have been trapped in before putting the lid back on. 20. Invert the petri dish and put to incubate at 35C for 24 hours in the oven. 21. After 24 hours, count the E.coli and total coliform colonies with a marker and under a magnifier. The blue dots show the E.coli colonies and the red other coliform colonies so total coliform is the red plus the blue dots. The maximum number of colonies to enable counting is 100, if there are more, TNTC should be noted as a result.
This method permits to find 4 different types of bacteria (Millipore, 2011):

E. cloacae (ATCC 23355) red colour E. coli (ATCC 25922) blue colour K. pneumoniae (ATCC 13883) red colour P. aeruginosa (ATCC 27853) red colour
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
3.7.8
Pesticide
Metaldehyde is a pesticide that is mostly used to control slug and molluscs populations in different crops. Therefore, it is considered a selective pesticide or a molluscicide. It is not only used by farmers but also by the general public in their gardens. WHO classifies it as a class II moderately hazardous pesticide (Pesticide Action UK, 2001) which has recently raised the Europeans attention as it is commonly found in water sources close to farming/agricultural areas. In the UK (in the midlands, eastern and southern England) it has proven to be a seasonal problem, as the levels increase in autumn when the pesticide is added to crops. The level that should not be taken higher than is the acceptable daily intake (ADI) and usually an average sized person would need to drink 1000 litres of water to get to that level. Therefore this is impossible to attain with people usually drinking 2 litres a day (Water UK, 2011). Our aim is to determine whether slow sand filtration can be effective in treating this pesticide to reduce any risk for health to households that might be in a rural area where this is used for example. Equipment needed: Filter membranes Millipore filter Methanol Dichloromethane (DCM) Concentration vessel Glass pipettes De-ionised water Vacuum 10ml and 100ml measuring cylinder Pump Stock internal standard solution Bottle for concentrated solution GCMS machine
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Concentration of sample (Environment Agency, 2009): 1. Filter 200 ml of sample (100 for testing, 100 for storage in case results are not the expected) through filter membranes (same as bacteria ones) 2. Open vacuum to enable filtration 3. Filtrate 10ml of methanol in cartridge always leave about 5ml height of liquid on top of the filter after filtering 4. Filtrate 2ml of distilled water 5. Filter 100ml of sample pumped at a constant rate by pumping apparatus (900 rpm) 6. Filter 2ml of distilled water 7. Let dry for 45 minutes leaving the vacuum open 8. Place beakers under plate of cartridges 9. Add 2-3ml of DCM 10. Collect 2ml into small bottles 11. Measure weight of bottle for GCMS usage 12. Add the stock internal standard solution with the special measuring pipette
Note: A simplified description of the process is found in Figure 10
GCMS procedure: 1. The first process in GCMS is gas chromatography (GC) is used to vaporise the sample and separate it into its different compounds. 2. With the samples placed in the machine in the form of the mini bottles, the autosampler will use its syringe to measure out exactly 1 microlitre. 3. The autosampler will then inject the sample into the capillary column in the machine through the septa to seal it. The temperature for injection should be controlled at 300C. 4. The 30 m capillary column allows for a stationary phase to react with the different compounds in the sample to separate them due to the different levels of absorbance. The carrier gas that allows for this reaction to happen is helium and it is added at 1ml per minute. The temperature also has to increase 50C per minute going up to 260, to allow better separation. 5. The next section is mass spectrometry and this is primarily for detection and quantification of the fragments of the different compounds present in the sample. 6. The mass spectrometry section contains an iron source which is ignited and for the electrode to pass an electric current through the different fragment s of our sample. 29 | P a g e University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
7. The different fragments will be charged and therefore a magnetic field will be turned on and the iron source will bend at different angles according to the charge and molecular weight. This allows for detection and to get the retention time. 8. The first mode used is the scan when the voltage is gradually increased from low to high within a range. This will allow us to get the peaks of all the fragments in the different compounds in order to know which peaks needs to be further analysed to quantify the fragments that we need. 9. The next mode is the SIR (selected ion r) where only certain masses are scanned, which allows for quantitative analysis of particular fragments. 10. To avoid a big peak at the start of SIR, caused but the volatility of the solvent used compared to the fragment of compound we are interested in, the solvent delay needs to be applied
1st filtering equipment
2nd filtration Pumping apparatus
Vacuum on, filtering process
Vacuum
Scale
Mini bottle
Membranes after filtering
Cartridge
GMS machine
Figure 10 Pesticide testing process
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
4. Results & Discussion
In the following analysis, a series of graphs would be added to compare the results between Raw water and effluent filtered water. Table 5 shows the abbreviations used for the graphs/figures added in the discussion and in the graphs/figures.
Table 5 Identification of each sample in graphs
Identification of each sample in graphs

Name of in graph RW RWS RWU SF/UF SF2/UF2 Actual sample Raw water from Regents Park Seeded Unseeded Seeded Filtered/Unseeded Filtered after 24h Seeded Filtered/Unseeded Filtered after 1h30
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
4.1 pH
The pH was measured using strips, tablets and a digital meter, thus it was hard to compare the results. Strips and tablet methods were very subjective methods, where each person can interpret the results in a different way. In December, a digital apparatus to measure pH was found and used to obtain better results and ease the interpretation of the different waters. All the values obtained of pH lied between the accepted values set by the Drinking Water Inspectorate of 6.59.5, which means that in terms of pH, the water could be drank. The change of method to measure pH led to a significant change seen in Figures 11 & 12.
8.8 8.6 8.4 pH 8.2 8 7.8 7.6 7.4 20/11/10 20/12/10 19/1/11 Date
Figure 11 Changes in pH in Seeded tank
Christmas
RWS SF SF2 18/2/11
8.8 8.6 8.4 pH 8.2 8 7.8 7.6 7.4 20/11/10 20/12/10 19/1/11 Date
Figure 12 Changes in pH in Unseeded tank
Christmas
RWU UF UF2
18/2/11
Values of pH of Regents Park Water were reduced by 3.5% after filtration took place with a variation in values between 7.6 - 8.3. The strips used in the beginning of the testing provided lower values than digitally, although they are all within the range of allowable drinking water (Table 18). 32 | P a g e University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
4.2 Temperature
Temperature was recorded to have an idea of how this parameter could have an impact on the bacterial activity; increase or decrease the level of growth of the coliforms later on counted. As the weather gets colder, the bacterial activity decreases (Figure 13 & 14). The changes in temperature between the source (lake) and the laboratory (16-20C) will also affect the growth of these. The recently autoclaved equipment at more than 100C, will also affect the bacteria, which is why the distilled water was left outside to cool if it had been autoclaves (which was not always the case as it took too long to reach ambient temperature). The samples collected from the filtered water will be collected in autoclaved equipment, although these have to cool down before being used.
25 20 Temperature (C) 15 10 5 0 20/11/10 Christmas RWS SF SF2
20/12/10
19/1/11 Dates
18/2/11
Figure 13 Changes in Temperature in Seeded tank
25 20
Temperature (C)
15 10 5 Christmas RWU UF UF2
0 30/11/2010
30/12/2010
29/01/2011 Dates
28/02/2011
Figure 14 Changes in Temperature in Unseeded Tank
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
4.3 DO
The decreased in DO levels are a good thing as this means that there has been a reduction in the amount of live within the water which causes the dissolved oxygen to take place within water, improvement in clarity of water and odour. As Figure 15 shows, DO is temperature depended. The change of DO with temperature taking the values of both parameters from Regents Park (Raw) and the water collected from the seeded tank after 24h had passed since the last filtration. As we increase temperature, we decrease the amount of DO found in water (MWH, 2005) i.e. DO content in water is influenced by water temperature amongst other factors such as raw water or treatment process (WHO - Guidelines, 2010). DO depends on temperature, as it is stated on several biology books such as CliffsAP Biology (Phillip E. Pack, 2005) or Corrosion tests and standards: application and interpretation (Robert Baboian, 2005). DO also depends on the photosynthesis, respiration and salinity, which is lower inside of the system than in the lake of Regents Park, where different types of fauna are found under and over the water. Temperature will affect the amount of bacteria living and other organisms found in the water (Lenntech, 2011)
12 10 DO (mg/L) 8 6 4 2 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 Temperature (C) Raw Seeded after 24h Linear (Raw)
Figure 15 Dissolved oxygen dependence on Temperature
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
The next three graphs (Figures 16-18) show the changes within DO over time. The first one shows the reduced level of DO comparing raw water with effluent treated water. Lower levels are found within water collected after 1h30 in both tanks, although even less within the unseeded tank. Figure 16 shows how until February, water collected after 24h had higher values than after 1h30, although this changed in the last month of experimentation. On the other hand, DO levels in the unseeded (Figure 18) tank were more constant and led to the conclusion that the longest time the water remained within the sand bed, the clearer and odourless the water is, having less bubbles and oxygen levels on the effluent liquid.
12 10 8 DO (mg/L) 6 4 2 0 20/11/2010
RW SF UF SF2 UF2 Christmas 20/12/2010 19/01/2011 Date 18/02/2011
Figure 16 Change in DO between Regents Park water and filtered
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
10 9 8 7 DO (mg/L) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 20/11/2010 20/12/2010 19/01/2011 Date

Figure 17 Change in DO in seeded tank
RWS SF SF2 Christmas
18/02/2011
Change DO Seeded Tank

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 20/11/2010
28/02/2011, 7.22 RWU 28/02/2011, 4.47 28/02/2011, 4.02 UF UF2 Christmas
DO (mg/L)
20/12/2010
19/01/2011 Date
18/02/2011
Figure 18 Change in DO over Seeded Tank
Water with high levels of DO has a better taste, although corrodes faster the pipes to distribute water, which is why it is interesting to decrease the levels of DO during the treatment of water (Freedrinkingwater, 2011).
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
4.4 Head loss

Figures 20 & 21 show how head loss linearly increases as the biofilm grows in the tank over time. The seeded tank, having higher levels of head loss, led to a faster filtration to take place in comparison to the unseeded tank, which in general provided lower differences. The equations of the tread lines show that the difference in heights within the seeded tank was bigger and took place faster than in the unseeded.
30 25 Head Loss (cm) 20 15 10 5 0 20/11/2010 Christmas Seeded (24h) Seeded(45') Seeded(1h30)
20/12/2010
19/01/2011 Date
18/02/2011
Figure 19 Head Loss change over seeded tank
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
30 25 Head Loss (cm) 20 15 10 5 0 20/11/2010 Christmas Seeded (24h) Seeded(45') Seeded(1h30)
20/12/2010
19/01/2011 Date
18/02/2011
30 25 Head Loss (cm) 20 15 10 5 0 20/11/2010 Unseeded (24h) Unseeded (45') Unseeded (1h30)
20/12/2010
19/01/2011 Date
18/02/2011
Figure 20 Head loss change over Unseeded Tank
Figure 21 shows the change in head losses within the unseeded tank which vary more greatly than the seeded as the diffuser was not used when pouring the mix into the tank. This increased the pressure over the sand creating a new biolayer which can be seen in Figure 22 and decreased the levels of head loss, back to the same levels as the start of the experimentation. This fault demonstrated the importance of the diffuser usage and demonstrated Darcys equation, which states that head loss is determined by velocity, coefficient of hydraulic permeability and the depth of the granular media.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Figure 21 Development of second biofilm in unseeded tank
4.5 Turbidity
Turbidity is one of the most important and simple indicators of suspended solids and amounts of particle present in water. As expected, Regents park raw water provided the highest NTU measurements due to the quantity of debris and particles lying within the raw water. The values of raw water varied during the experimentation, the more wild life found in the park, the highest values were obtained. Weather also seemed to play a role in the measurements obtained; these varied from 8 to 23NTU, thus the usage of 2 different standard solutions were needed to calibrate the equipment. In order to provide accepted drinking water as set by WHO and CAWST, the level of turbidity had to be less than 1 NTU, which were obtained by the end of the testing period (Figure 23).
18 16 14 Turbidity (NTU) 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 20/11/2010 20/12/2010 19/01/2011 Date 18/02/2011 Christmas RWS RWU SF UF SF2 UF2
Figure 22 Change in turbidity over time
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Better results were provided by the second collection, after 1h30 (See figures 24 & 25), leading to the conclusions that the faster the filtered water is collected, the less turbidity takes place and the longer the water remains in the sand bed, the more haziness the effluent water is going to be.
2.5
2 tURBIDITY (NTU)
1.5 UF UF2
0.5
Christmas
0 20/11/2010
20/12/2010
19/01/2011 Date
18/02/2011
Figure 23 Change of turbidity over time in the Unseeded tank
2.5 2 Turbidity (NTU) 1.5 1 0.5 0 20/11/2010 SF SF2
20/12/2010
19/01/2011 Date
18/02/2011
Figure 24 Change in turbidity over time in seeded tank
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
The results obtained prove that both tanks perform well and achieve the goals set by the WHO providing water with NTU lower than 1. The linear tread line and the equations were added to show the different performances of tanks and turbidity reduction levels after the two filtration times. The best tank in this tank proved to be the seeded one after 1h30.
4.6 UV light
The first UV light spectrophotometer used during the experimentation did not provide accurate results as the values kept on increasing, which is why the all the values were recorded after 30 seconds, to allow comparison. The second, newer spectrophotometer used at the end of the experimentation on the other hand, proved to be a better apparatus to use by more presenting precise measurements. In general, the amount of UV light going through the tank decreased in comparison between the influent and effluent water (Figure 26); as the quality of water is improved which means that the filtered water has, as expected, lower values of UV light going through. A decrease in UV light passing through the sample meant that a reduction in particular matter took place within the filtration and clearer water flowed out from the filtering systems.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
0.35 0.3 Light Absorbance(%) 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 20/11/2010 Christmas 20/12/2010 19/01/2011 Date
Figure 25 Change in Light Absorbed by UV 254 Method over time
RWS RWU SF UF SF2 UF2 18/02/2011
0.35 0.3 Light Absorbance (%) 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 20/11/2010 Christmas RWU UF UF2
20/12/2010
19/01/2011 Date
18/02/2011
Figure 26 Change in Light Absorbed by UV 254 Method over time in unseeded tank
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
0.35 0.3 Light absorbance (%) 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 20/11/2010 Christmas 20/12/2010 19/01/2011 Date
Figure 27 Change in Light Absorbed by UV 254 Method over time in seeded tank
RWS SF SF2
18/02/2011
The performance of both tanks and filtration times had similar values, except during the Christmas break, where values decrease, thus in order to enable better comparison, the average of all values was taken. The lowest UV light results were provided by the unseeded tank after 24h and 1h30, which leads to the conclusion that clean sand decreases better the levels of particulate matter allowing better UV light to go through. Table 6 shows an average of the values obtained for Raw water of Regents park and the filtered. This shows a great decrease of 40% in the values, thus less particulate matter is found in the water which allows more light to be absorbed. This table was drawn to support figures 27 & 28, which show the decrease between the inserted water (mix between recycles water and Regents Park) and the leaving one.
Table 6 Average values of UV 254 Regents Park Av (%) 0.2589 Seeded(24h) 0.1645 Unseeded(24h) 0.1566 Seeded(1h30) 0.1647 Unseeded(1h30) 0.1619
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
4.7 Bacteria
It is important to measure the amount of bacteria found in water and to calculate the percentage of removal of these organisms within water to quantify the performance of the treatment system. Figures 29 and 30 show, there is no clear trend for total coliform removal, which indicates that several errors have been done within the experimentation. The testing of these is a very delicate process and it is probable that the some samples were contaminated during the process. Another problem encountered that could have affected the results, was the usage of several occasions of an oven instead of an incubator and damage of several apparatus used such as the vacuum and the small autoclaving machine (took 45 minutes to autoclave, instead of 1h30 of the big one that had to be used afterwards retarding the research). Another approach can also be taken, where it can be concluded that theres a growth of some kind of coliforms in the tank, which does not necessarily have to be negative
120 100 TC % removal 80 60 40 20 0 29/11/06 Christmas Total coliform % removal Unseeded 24h Total coliform % removal Unseeded 1h30 28/1/07 Date 27/2/07
29/12/06
Figure 28 Percentage of total coliform removed from water over time in unseeded tank
120 100 TC % removal 80 60 40 20 0 30/11/10 Christmas 30/12/10 29/1/11 Date 28/2/11 Total coliform % removal Seeded 24h Total coliform % removal Seeded 1h30
Figure 29 Percentage of total coliform removed from water over time in seeded tank
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
From the graph above, we can conclude that in general the seeded tank worked better in removing total coliforms than the unseeded which results in a decreasing treadline with a negative slope. Knowing the amount of coliforms removed by the system is important, but measuring the amount of E.coli indicates more clearly if theres any pollution within the effluent liquid, as not all coliforms are harmful. The table below shows the average removal rates of E.coli by the seeded and unseeded tanks. Two averages where calculated, one with the actual averages of the resulting removals and another one excluding the values under 50% assuming those were wrong (figure B1 shows the variance ignoring the values below 50%). In any case, both averages show that 24h pause time worked better for decreasing the amount of pathogenic bacteria.
Table 7 Mean values for E.coli removal *Excluding all possible errors, i.e. % rates under 50. Seeded 24h Mean Mean* 81.16 97.4 Unseeded 24h 80.75 97.57 Seeded 1h30 66.87 93.2 Unseeded 1h30 59.04 83.38
120 100 E coli % removal 80 60 40 20 0 30/11/2010 Seeded 1h30 Seeded 24h Unseeded 1h30 Unseeded 24h
30/12/2010
29/01/2011 Date
28/02/2011
Figure 30 Percentage E.coli removal over time
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Another factor which could have affected the results is that the pause time was not always 24h, but 48h and 72h (weekend), as the filtering could not be realized every day. As set by CAWST, the filtering of water on SSFs has to be realized with a pause time between 1h and 48h, if the pause is too long the biolayer will consume all pathogens and nutrients and eventually die, reducing the efficiency of the method. This is reflected on the graph below (Figure 32), where the wrost removal rates of E.coli on the supposed 24h pauses, where obtained after the weekend, i.e. after 96h, which is more than the required in the usage of the treatment method.
120 Tuesday 100 80 60 Thursday 40 20 0 Monday Monday Monday Tuesday Thursday
E.coli % removal Seeded E.coli % removal Unseeded
Figure 31 E.coli removal over 2 weeks after 24h
The following figures describe the performance in E.coli percentage removal on the two tanks ignoring values under 50 (assumed to be wrong Table 7). The slopes are all positive indicating that the performance increases over time and the separate dots show how well a SSF performs, most of the values range 90-100% and the performance appears to be more effective when the water is collected after 24h (Figures 33 & 34).
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
120 100 E.coli % removal 80 60 40 20 0 10/11/2010 10/12/2010 09/01/2011 Date 08/02/2011 10/03/2011 Seeded 1h30 Seeded 24h
Figure 32 % E.coli removal over time in seeded tank
120 100 Ecoli % removal 80 60 40 20 0 20/11/2010 20/12/2010 19/01/2011 Date 18/02/2011 Unseeded 1h30 Unseeded 24h
Figure 33 Percentage E.coli removal over time in unseeded tank
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
4.8 Pesticides
Tables 21 found in the appendix and the graphs below (Figures 35-38) show the results for the two runs of GCMS carried out to analyze the content of pesticide in the contaminated samples in February. Errors in manipulation of the equipment and missing samples led to a lack of data, which is the reason why some of the values missing in the tables in the appendix. An average of all the results obtained was taken for the comparison to take place (Figures 35-38), which led to the conclusion that although not all the samples were present, the investigation could still be realized. RWS and RWU were samples collected as the mixed water was poured into the tanks, i.e. those samples were water from the day before (or in the case of Mondays or Thursdays a few days earlier), whilst SF2 and UF2 were samples taken 1h30min after the first filtration had taken place. It was expected to obtain better results with longer pause time, i.e. after 24h. However, this was not the case (Table 21). After 1h30, the systems prove to reduce the levels of Metaldehyde better than with longer pauses, which may be the result of an increase of the pesticide levels over time, i.e. samples seizing Metaldehyde from previous filtrations. The high resistance of this contaminant could have caused this, as it is hard to disintegrate and capture. The following graphs demonstrate how the level of contaminant decrease as polluted water is filtered. First run of GCMS: The first run of GCMS test shows how the seeded filter decreases the levels of pesticide better than the unseeded (Figure 35). As described on Tables 8 & 9, the percentage of removal of Metaldehyde is around 75% within the Seeded, whilst on the Unseeded tank its 36-55%. The following figures show that the best results are obtained on the second filtration (1h30), leading to the conclusion that the shorter the retention time (water in the tanks without being extracted), the better removal is achieved.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Concentration (g/ml)
0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 RWS SF2 SF
Concentration (g/ml)
0.250
0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 RWU UF2 UF Lower concentration of Pesticide at first
Figure 34 Average Pesticide concentrations during GCMS run
Table 8 Percentage removal of Metaldehyde in first run GCMS
Type Raw RWS SF2 SF Type Raw RWU UF2 UF
Average Seeded (g/ml) 0.487 0.230 0.053 0.058 Average Unseeded (g/ml) 0.487 0.217 0.098 0.137
%Removal
76.9520687 74.68522931 %Removal
55.08073361 36.92364048
The second GCMS run shows the same trend:

0.250 Concentration (g/ml) 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 RWS SF2 SF Concentration (g/ml) 0.250 0.200 0.150 0.100 0.050 0.000 RWU UF2 Less removal
Higher amount of metaldehyde than seeded
UF
Figure 35 % removal of Metaldehyde in second run GCMS
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Table 9 Percentage removal of Metaldehyde in second run GCMS
Type Raw RWS SF2 SF Type Raw RWU UF2 UF
Average Seeded (g/ml) 0.461 0.227 0.063 0.126 Average Unseeded (g/ml) 0.461 0.248 0.078 0.166
%Removal
72.29206421 44.48187211 %Removal
68.35282789 32.92244446
Biosand filters prove to be efficient in removing pesticides from water, although the results were not the expected (greater reductions or complete removal of pesticides were expected). Higher decreases were obtained after 1h30 (tables 8 & 9), which leads to the conclusion that the longer the water remains in the system; the lower removals rates are going to be present in the effluent liquid. In order to improve the analysis, further analysis should be carried out, possibly varying the levels of methaldehyde inserted in the raw water. On the other hand, the levels are not meeting the drinking standards which require the water to be free of any pesticides. SSF are able to reduce greatly the levels of pesticides, although not completely (CAWST Pesticides, 2010). On the other hand, the resulting water is very unlikely going to create any harm (Table 10), as greater doses are needed. The European and UK standards set a maximum of 0.1g/L (WATER UK, 2011) acceptable daily intake (ADI) which are not met by our tanks..
Table 10 Health Effects of Methaldehyde (INCHEM, 1996)
Dose Up to 5mg/kg Health impact Up to 50mg/kg Up to 100-200mg/kg Up to 400mg/kg Salivation Facial Flushing Fever Abdominal Pain Nauseas and Vomiting Drowsiness Tachycardia Spasms Irritability Convulsions Tremor Hyperreflexia Coma Death Very High High Medium Toxicity Low
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
4.9 Hydraulics of filtration

In SSF the rate downwards of water wanted has to be slow in order to have a laminar flow within the system. The resistance, H, of the tank is in accordance with Darcys Law;
Equation 4 Used to calculate Resistance (CAWST, 2010)
H=velocity*width/coefficient=(v/k)*h
In order to calculate the resistance of the SSF and the sphericity, the data was extracted from the previous work realized by R. Outhwaite.
Table 11 Dimension parameters of tanks
Volume sand (m3) Total volume (m3) Area (m2) Seeded diameter (mm) Unseeded diameter (mm) Coefficient of uniformity seeded Coefficient of uniformity unseeded 0.0203 0.036 0.4*0.3 0.202 0.182 1.8 1.65 radius 0.101 0.091
Table 12 Parameters used to calculate resistance

Velocity (m/h) 138.70 Flow rate (L/minute) 0.267 Flow rate (L/h) 16.02 width (m) 0.3 coefficient k (seeded) 1.0265 coefficient k (unseeded) 0.83333198 porosity 0.415 T (C) 18 sphericity 0.81
Table 13 Resistance, H
Resistance, H (seeded) Resistance, H (unseeded) 40.53440204 49.93254863
From the calculations carried out in excel (Tables 11-13 using equation 1), it was obtained that the grains had a worn size and that the resistance of the seeded sand bed was lower than the unseeded, which has lower diameter grains.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
4.10 General Problems occurred

Throughout the experimentation a series of problems occurred affecting the results and the analysis. The first issue we had to deal with took place in the laboratory, where it was necessary to schedule the equipment to use in order to be able to manipulate it whenever it was needed. Another problem that occurred was the appropriate usage of pH meters. Three different methods were used to measure this parameter; the first two during the first semester was too subjective, i.e. the usage of strips and phenol red tables was not accurate enough, thus a pH electrical meter started to be used. Problems with the laboratory machinery took place several times. The autoclaving machine broke with the bacteria testing material on one occasion; hence the usage of another, bigger and slower, took place. The spectrophotometer was another machine, recently changed, which caused trouble as the values provided by it were constantly increasing. The solution implemented was to record the values after 30 seconds to be able to compare the results. The last appliance which failed in several occasions were the vacuums. In order to test bacteria and pesticides, both vacuums were needed. The one used for pesticides, released smoked which caused head aches and in some occasions the avoidance of usage of such seemed like the best idea. The other one, used for the bacteria testing, did not absorb the liquids sometimes, which unable to filter the water used for bacteria counting. Human error was also common, like in any experimental procedure. The major error, took place in the beginning of the second trimester where the diffuser was not placed on top of the tank before pouring the water, thus the granular bed surface and the schmutzdecke were disturbed, leading to a decrease in head loss, change in effluent water quality and the creation of a second biofilm.
The last issue faced, was the obstruction of the piping system at the end of the project, which did not allowed the testing of rapid flow rate quality of effluent water. Coarse gravel exited the layer and blocked the water to flow out as expected. This influenced the results and led to the conclusion that the filters had to be changed for the next generation to use them.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
5. Conclusion
The various parameters that were changed in order to understand to full functioning of the filter was the different time of collection after filtration, the difference in the mix of the water to be filtered and amount of water that was left on top of the filter to be stagnant. For the different times of collection, these included after 1h30 and 24h, or 48h or 72h depending on which day of the week the filtration was carried out in. The mix of water was changed from 12.5L of rain water and 12.5L of raw Regents Park water, to 12.5L of already filtered water from before and 12.5L of raw Regents Park water. The stagnant water that is left after the water is filtered through was also changed, testing at 5cm and 10cm above the biolayer. One conclusion that could be made through one of the human errors encountered was the importance of the diffuser that is placed above the filter as the water is poured into it for filtration. Due to role in diffusing the water to allow for a lesser and more equal pressure distribution on the biolayer, it means the biolayer is less disturbed along with the crucial organisms it encompasses that filter the water. This error resulted in a decrease in filtered water quality for a period of time, and an increase in head loss. A second biolayer was also formed due to this as the first was disturbed and probably buried under some of the granular material of the filter. Overall, the SSF met the requirements of potable drinking set by the different institutions. The variables that were changed in order to comprehend the limitations and advantages of the slow sand filters better do not seem to have changed the results very much except for the different times after which the filtered water was collected. However, as stated above, the guidelines that have been set by the WHO for drinking water were attained. 5.1.1 Parameters
The WHO and CAWST set a series of allowable levels of the different parameters tested during the research, which most were met. At the end of the experiment, levels lower than 1 NTU of Turbidity (Table 14) were achieved, although better results were obtained within the seeded tank. Although in the beginning better results were achieved by the unseeded tank, the seeded did in general produce better results of decreasing NTUs. Levels of pH, light absorbance and DO were also reduced after the water was filtered (Table 14), as mentioned on the documents of the WHO, GLAAS, Outhwaite and CAWST, although not being specified. 53 | P a g e University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
pH reduction shows that the filter is degrading the dissolved organic carbon found in Regents Park water as stated by Zeng in 2007. This is organic material found in water from plants and animals which is dissolved in the water and acts as aliment for aquatic organisms. Reducing the levels of DOC means there is a reduction in organic acids in water (Zeng, 2007). DO prove to be temperature depended and was confirmed with Figure 15, that different Biology books used and other sources proved that this was right. The reductions were due to photosynthesis of plants in the Raw water not taking place in the granular media and temperatures increases due to ambient temperature of the laboratory.
Table 14 Average values for all the parameters measured everyday
RWS DO (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU) UV 254 (% Abs) Temperature pH 0'S Head Loss 7.723 6.377 7.283 0.213 15.586 8.303
RWU 6.138 6.96 0.209 15.893 8.307 0'U 6.129
SF 4.791 0.984 0.165 19.48 8.071 45'S 9.419
UF 3.749 0.883 0.159 19.677 8.039 45'U 7.845
SF2 4.857 0.846 0.166 19.75 8.061 1h30'S 7.016
UF2 5.307 0.897 0.165 19.527 8.052 1h30'U 5.955
On average, the unseeded tank achieved lower head losses than the seeded which is due to the formation of a second biofilm on the surface of the granular bed. Before that, the seeded system gave better results which may be due to diameter of grains greater than the unseeded ones, thus providing a lower resistance (Section 4.9) in sand bed. Richard Outhwaite suggested that these could also be due to microbial activity in the systems, greater in the seeded which becomes faster matured than the unseeded. The size of particles also affected the turbidity levels, which were reduced greater by the unseeded tank which had particles of 0.182 diameter after the first filtration, although at the second filtration (1h30) the reduction was lower within the seeded tank. This can leads to the conclusion that fast filtrations provides better results in seeded tank and the other way around for the unseeded. To conclude, the dimensions of the system and the materials used on it have a great effect on the resulting water, more analysis should be done to acquire a particle size that would achieve greater results in every parameter. 54 | P a g e University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
5.1.2
Bacteria
From bacterial measured throughout the change of the different variables, we can conclude that the time of collection after filtration after which the total coliform was most effective was after 1h30 but more importantly that it was after 24h that the E.coli removal was the best. The indication given that possibly pathogenic E.coli was better removed after a filtration of 24h is significant as it confirms previous hypothesis that the water would be better treated after a longer time in the filter although not after more than 24h as the micro-organisms would consume and die off again, comparatively increasing coliform and E.coli counts at times like 48h and 72h. The two other variables that were changed do not seem to have affected this section of results particularly. Most importantly though, the biofilters on average can be concluded to remove more than 90% of the bacteria present initially which is a standard that need to be reached according to the WHO for drinking water and is a level which is also said to be attained by slow sand filters by CAWST. 5.1.3 Pesticides
Regarding pesticide removal, it was found that a minimum of 36% of Metaldehyde was removed. Taking averages from the values obtained in the first and second runs of the GCMS (Table 9) , allowed to conclude that the best removals are achieved with low retention times. Initially, filtered metaldehyde would seep back into the water if the water was left in the filter for 24h (The initial amount of metaldehyde that was added to the raw water was 2 g/ml). The data obtained from the second run of GCMS machine were different probably due to a reduction in concentrations of the samples, impeding a second run to take place for certain samples. The values that were produced for the filtered water along with the raw water show a level that is much higher to the 0.1 g/l value set by the European Water Directive (Drinking Water Inspectorate, 2010). Although this standard is not set according to health basis, studies have shown that the acceptable daily update of 0.02 milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day will only be attained if someone drinks 1000 litres a day which is improbable (Water UK, 2011). Even if these targets are not met, SSF do eliminate part of the pesticides found in water. Perhaps other pesticides could have been removed, but it was not the case for Metaldehyde. According to the Environmental Agency, Metaldehyde cannot be completely removed from water by any treatment methods, even the ones used in More Economically Developed Countries using ozone and granular activated carbon to treat water do not remove this pesticide. On the 3rd Conference on British Water it was said that the best means to remove this was using SSF, although its removal its limited (Anglian UK, 2011)
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
5.2.1. Were the objectives met?

5.2.1.1. Raw water in maturation The first objective was to evaluate the effect of raw water on the maturation period of the filters and this was effectively done as the maturation period took place for both filters until the bacterial removal reached 90% removal. It took 15 days for both filters to maturate and start providing good results in the different parameter. Through the experiment however, a mix was usually used with rainwater or recycled filtered water from the day before. Through these 15 days, an improvement of bacteria removal was clearly observed. Despite being matured, the systems do not break down the pesticide inserted It is also clear that the type of raw water affected the maturation, if only Regents Park water would have been used, a faster maturation would have taken place. Adding nutrients would have been another way to reach this stage faster, although these were not added. During maturation, the levels of DO consumption, turbidity reduction and UV light absorbance were not as good as the ones afterwards. Maturation took place in the seeded tank before the unseeded although the Christmas break had a major impact on the removal of bacteria, giving low results. The disturbance of the unseeded tank, by not using the diffuser on one occasion created a second schmutzdecke and gave similar results to the ones obtained in the maturation period in terms of head loss and bacteria removal. 5.2.1.2. Frequency of filtration As can be seen in Figure 32, filtration time and date makes a great difference on the bacteria removal. CAWST set in the design of the filters that the filtration pauses had to be between 148h. The Figure shows that leaving it for longer, leads to lower removal rates. Depending on the parameter, already discussed in Section 4, some are removed better after 1h30 and others after 24h, like pesticides so depending on the priorities of the researcher or the client, one or the other should be used. It is recommended anyways to filter as often as possible to keep biological activity alive and get better results.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
5.2.1.3. The effect of detention time In terms of Turbidity and DO, better results were obtained after 1h30 detention. On the other hand, better results in removing bacteria and pesticides were obtained after 24h, which leads to the conclusion that the longer these remain on the system, the higher reductions are going to be obtained on the effluent water. 5.2.1.4. Stagnant water variation
Varying the level of water above the tank did not give any different results in the reduction of turbidity, bacteria or pH. Using 5cm or 10 cm provide the same results. This layer is necessary to keep sand wet and allow oxygen to go through the system to always allow a minimum level of DO to remain in the system (Lenntech, 2011). A minimum level of DO is necessary for drinking water, respiration and keeping the system working. 5.2.1.5. Removal of pesticides with biological mechanism
Although the study of pesticides still needs to be carried out, a complete elimination of Metaldehyde does not take place, same thing happens with E.coli, which kill millions of people every year. Bacteria was greater reduced by using a pause of 24h, whilst pesticide after 1h30. As the biofilter develops, a greater reduction of bacteria is obtained and same thing happens with the pesticides, over time the reductions are better. Testing of bacteria and pesticides were carried out during the same days, and although the water was infected, bacteria removal did not showed any changes. This leads to the conclusion that the presence of pesticides in water does not affect the activity of bacteria.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
6. Future work & Recommendation

6.1 Future work
Future research should be carried out on testing different amounts of pesticides and the performance of the treatment system in reducing the levels of other parameters such as iron or copper to meet the drinking water standards. More tests over a longer period of time should be done on bacteria removal to enable better conclusions and results. Also, making sure there is always enough equipment and broth to carry out the experiments would minimise any error in results and changes in trends observed. The effect of putting smaller volumes of seeded tank should also be analysed, as these would allow in the hypothesis to have more tanks to provide safe water. This would be interesting to analyse the impacts on the effluent liquid.
6.2 Recommendations for future

After finishing the research project, the authors would like to recommend a few elements to improve the quality of work and research for future researchers. The first thing, if anyone is to carry out this experiment in the laboratory of the University College of London, would be to empty the tanks to clean the walls and insert new layers of gravel and sand to improve the quality of future results. Another recommendation would be to make a Gantt chart which is going to be followed properly taking into account the lectures, professional visits and work dead-lines, to impede the interference of these with the investigation. Organising your timetable with other people working in the laboratory is also important to allow the impossibility of usage of certain equipment. Regarding bacteria removal, it will be recommended to filter more often (between 1-48h as set by CAWST) to improve the results.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
More care and variations of parameters should be carried out to allow more comparison between data, mostly for pesticide removal. Decreasing the amount of pesticide in the water inserted should be compared with the values obtained in this experimentation to improve the comparisons. Comparing different types of pesticides commonly found would be another good idea, to ameliorate the analysis of removal of pesticides using a SSF. The last item that should be addressed is the problem of gravel stones blocking the membrane and impeding an easy flow out. This can be addressed by adding an extra membrane filter on the tank, where the gravel layer finishes and gets into contact with the pipe.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
7. References
Anglian UK (2011) Final Business Plan Part B, Key Components www.anglianwater.co.uk/_assets/media/Part_B4.pdf Accessed March 2011 APHA (American Public Health Association) (2005) Standard Methods for the examination of Water & Wastewater: Contennial Edition - 21st Edition American Technical Publishers Biology dictionary, Dissolved oxygen http://www.biologyonline.org/dictionary/Dissolved_oxygen Accessed January 2011 CAWST (2010) Biosand filter Manual http://www.cawst.org/en/resources/pubs/file/43-pi-forbsf-manual-complete-english Accessed February 2011 CAWST (2010) http://www.cawst.org/en/themes/biosand-filter CAWST (2011) Answering Questions on Pesticides, Accessed March 2011http://www.cawst.org/en/resources/faqs/biosand-filter/111-does-the-biosand-filter-removesalt-from-sea-water-what-about-pesticides-industrial-contaminants-or-other-chemicals Drinking Water Inspectorate (2010) Pesticides http://www.dwi.gov.uk/consumers/adviceleaflets/pesticides.pdf, Accessed March 2011. Different aspects on SSF; http://www.biosandfilter.org/biosandfilter/ Accessed January 2011 Environmental Agency (2009) The determination of metaldehyde in waters using chromatography with mass spectrometric detection www.grdp.org/static/documents/Research/Metaldehyde-226b.pdf Accessed March 2011 Environmental Agency (2011) http://www.environmentagency.gov.uk/research/library/position/115361.aspx Accessed March 2011 EWWMC (2011) 3rd Edition British Water conference http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=british+water+3rd+edition+EWWMC&meta=#hl=e n&pq=ewwm%20conference&xhr=t&q=ewwm+conference+metaldehyde&cp=26&pf=p&sclie nt=psy&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=ewwm+conference+metaldehyde&pbx=1&fp=7675aab604669f 98 Accessed March 2011 Free dictionary, Colloidal http://www.thefreedictionary.com/colloidal Free drinking water (2011) http://www.freedrinkingwater.com/water_quality/quality1/1-howdissolved-oxygen-affects-water-quality.htm Accessed March 2011 GLAAS (2010) UN WATER GLOBAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF SANITATION AND DRINKING WATER - http://www.unwater.org/downloads/UNWater_GLAAS_2010_Report.pdf Accessed December 2010 HACH USEPA Coliform method 10029 Membrane filtration method, Accessed March 2011 http://www.hach.com/fmmimghach?/CODE%3ABACTERIA_MF_COLIFORM1563%7C1 60 | P a g e University College of London11
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
INCHEM (International Program on Chemical Safety) (1990) Methaldehyde. Accesseed at http://www.inchem.org/documents/pims/chemical/pim332.htm#SectionTitle:3.3%20%20Physic al%20properties Accessed March 2010 Lenntech http://www.lenntech.com/why_the_oxygen_dissolved_is_important.htm March 2011 L. Huismans and W.E. Wood (1974) WHO, Slow sand filtration ISBN 92 4 154 037 0 Melanie I Pincus (2003) Safe household Drinking water via SSF, University of Massachusetts, MWH (2005) Water treatment Principles and design 2nd Edition WILEY Millipore http://www.millipore.com/catalogue/item/m00pmcb24 Accessed March 2011 Nigel Graham & Robin Collins (1996) Advances in Slow Sand and Biological Filtration, WILEY-Blackwell Nobutada Nakamoto (2009) Produza vce mesmo uma gua saborosa - Ferrari ISBN 978 85 61306 21 2 Phillip E. Pack (2007) CliffsAP Biology WILEY and Sons http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=CKl5ehk3xDoC&dq=dissolved+oxygen+decreases+with+t emperature+increase&source=gbs_navlinks_s Accessed March 2011 Pesticide Action UK (2011) Metaldehyde http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/Metaldeh.htm,Accessed March 2011. Realtech, Methods 8074, 8367, and 10029 Bacteria detection www.realtech.ca/RT_Port_SS_FA.pdf Accessed February 2011 Richard Outhwaite (2010) Optimisation of household scale Biosand Filters Robert Baboian (2005) Corrosion tests and standards: application and interpretation, ASTM International http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=8C7pXhnqje4C&dq=dissolved+oxygen+decreases+with+te mperature+increase&source=gbs_navlinks_s Accessed March 2011 Water UK (2011) Metaldehyde http://www.water.org.uk/home/policy/positions/metaldehydebriefing/metaldehyde-briefing-jan-2011.pdf Accessed March 2011. WHO (2008) Guidelines for drinking water Third Edition, WHO, Geneva http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/ssf3.pdf Accessed November 2010 WHO (2010) http://www.who.int/household_water/en/index.html Accessed November 2010 WHO & UNICEF (2000) Diarrhoea: why children are still dying and what can be done William W Nazaroff & Lisa Alvarez Cohen (2004) Environmental Engineering Science WILEY, student edition 61 | P a g e University College of London11 Accessed
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
8. Glossary
Adsorption Bacteria Biolayer
(CAWST, 2010 Biology dictionary Free dictionary) When a contaminant attaches itself to the surface. Single celled microorganisms. Biological layer formed at the sand water interface of SSF. It is colonized by microorganisms including bacteria, protozoa, algae and diatoms. Also called schmutzdecke. Contamination Colloidal Pollution of water due to X causes. Having the character of a colloid, i.e. a system in which finely divided particles, which are approximately 10 to 10,000 angstroms in size, are dispersed within a continuous medium in a manner that prevents them from being filtered easily or settled rapidly. Disinfection
Dissolved oxygen
Any process that removes, deactivates or kills pathogens. The concentration of oxygen dissolved in water, expressed in mg/l or as percent saturation, where saturation is the maximum amount of oxygen that can theoretically be dissolved in water at a given altitude and temperature.
Dissolved solids
Small particles which are dissolved in water which cant be removed by sedimentation
Filtration
Process of allowing water to pass through layer of a porous material to remove suspended solids and pathogens.
Flow rate Gross Domestic Pr.
(m3/s) Time it takes to fill a container Value of a countrys overall output of goods and services at market prices, excluding income from abroad.
Head Loss Median Dose
(cm) The decrease in total head caused by friction Dose of pathogens required to infect 50% of the population
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Nutrient Pathogen pH
Any substance used by microorganisms to live and grow. Any living organism that causes disease. The potential of hydrogen ions - a measure of acidity or alkalinity. It is the log of the reciprocal of the hydrogen ion concentration. The pH scale runs from 0 to 14, 0 being very acidic and 14 very alkaline.
Pore Sanitation
Small spaces between sand grains allowing water to go through. Maintain clean, hygienic conditions that help prevent disease through services.
Sedimentation Supernatant water Suspended solids Turbidity
Process used to settle suspended solids under influence of gravity. Water above sand layer Small solid particles floating in water, causing turbidity. Caused by suspended solids, such as sand, silt and clay, floating in water. Its the amount of light that is reflected off these suspended solids which make the water look cloudy or dirty. Measured in NTU.
UV 254
Indication of the amount of natural organic matter (NOM) in water and wastewater
Virulence
Severity of damage to host
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
9. Appendix
PROJECT RISK ASSESSMENT FORM
DEPARTMENT / UNIT / GROUP: Civil, Environmental and Geomatic Engineering
WORK / PROJECT TITLE: Removal of organics by household slow sand filters
LOCATION(S): Environmental Laboratory at UCL
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Laboratory work based on testing on a house hold scale slow sand filter tank different parameters to find out the optimum parameters and dimensions resulting in the cleaner and safer drinking water. Different tests will be undertaken twice a week analyzing raw water of the Regents Park Lake. The main aim is pesticides removal as well as to find the optimum levels of water used in the tank. PERSONS INVOLVED: Philomene Rabu, Joana Valls, Luiza campos, Ian Sturtevant and Dr Judith Zhou
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION (state the hazards involved in the work) a. Check workplace b. Ask staff and supervisors c. Check manufacturers instructions and laboratory staff for equipment and chemicals d. Review accidents and health records Retrieving water from Regents Park lake o Exposure to contaminated water
o Possibility of Weils disease or other water borne diseases Bringing water from Regents Park to UCLs laboratory for testing Introducing water into tanks in laboratory o Driving trolley with water o Working with glassware o Typing document o Doing presentation Test water o Glassware usage o Equipment usage o Removing schmutzdecke (biofilm) from the top of the sand during clearing Clean tanks
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
o Usage of cleaning products o Removing schmutzdecke (biofilm) from the top of the sand during clearing o Cleaning glassware
RISK ASSESSMENT ( high, medium or low risk) i. Tripping - high
ii. Water borne Diseases or Illness - low iii. Back pain from wrong position - high iv. Falling objects - medium v. Inadequate use of equipment leading to injuries, breaking material or affecting results - medium vi. Drowning - low vii. Cold, flu from bad weather - high viii. Contaminate by throwing trash - high
ix. Disturb the inhabitants of water by pumping out water - medium x. Accidently harm organisms - medium xi. Disturb the environment - low xii. Handling solvents medium xiii. xiv. Computer work low Handling sand medium
xv. Breakage of glassware medium xvi. xvii. xviii. Direct exposure to contaminated water high Water samples to be analyzed medium Harrowing - medium
CONTROL MEASURES (state the control measures that are in place to protect staff and others from the above risks. Put in place adequate control measures for any risks that have been identified as uncontrolled.) Wear Appropriate equipment and tools adequate PPE (gloves, mask, glasses,) Follow instructions of equipment and apparatus Follow experimental methods carefully Ask for advice or if any doubts arise Record carefully Clean and organize working space No rushing or stressing Getting briefed before starting any experiment that requires it Control site and review risk assessment No waste disposal Control and check with supervisor and staff
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
DECLARATION I the undersigned have assessed the work, titled above, and declare that there is no significant risk / the risks will be controlled by the methods stated on this form (delete as applicable) and that the work will be carried out in accordance with Departmental codes of practice. NameJoana Valls and Philomene Rabu.. Signedx Date26/11/2010.
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
5.2.1.6. Tables of experimentation
Table 15 E.coli & Total coliform removal

E.coli A (rain) B (mix) C (raw) 30/11/2010 D (right) E (left) F (right) G (left) 31 16 NA 48 49 Other Coliform NA 6 24 1 2 54 73 1 2 31 16 98.14815 96.2963 42.59259 70.37037 Total coliform % removal NA
A (rain) B (right) 01/12/2010 C (left) D (right) E (left) Too many to count
1 21 7 TMTC 17
2 42 14 22.22222 74.07407 0 17 0
A (mix) B (rain) C (raw) 07/12/2010 D (right) E (left) F (right) G (left)
40 5 37 Too many too count
20
60 5
48 TMTC 13
96 0 13 TMTC 0 0 52 13.33333
13 25
TMTC 27
A (regents) B (right) 08/12/2010 C (left) D (right) E (left)
17
19 119 8 11
38 119 8 11 19 0 0 71.05263 84.03361
18
48
28 33 2
76 33 2 16 52 13.15789 94.73684 78.94737 31.57895
27 30
8 26
135 4
33 1 15
168 5 15 92 6 68.75 71.15385 45.2381 96.42857
3 3
89 3
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
A (top R) B (top L) C (filtered R) 11/01/2011 D (filtered L) E (filtered R2) F (filtered L2) G (filtered R3) H (filtered L3)
0 0 2 1 1 0 2 2
20 6 1 4 20 57 57 8
20 6 3 5 21 57 59 10 0 0 0 0
A(raw) B(right mixed) C(left mixed) 12/01/2011 D(right filterd) E(left filterd) F(R 1h30) G(L 1h30)
43 33 20 3 5 5 6
13 22 24 3 13 22 55
56 55 44 6 18 27 61 70 0 50.91 0
39 12 37 4 12 9 50
30 25 20
69 37 57 4 12 92.72727 72.72727 70.27027 12.2807
11 50
105 113 116 12 15 19 49
71 38 27 3 2 40 1
176 151 143 15 17 59 50 59.45946 70.17544 60.92715 65.03497
43 18 20
108 41 71 3 16 8
151 59 91 3 16 8 61 98.01325 88.81119 86.44068 32.96703
60
A(raw) B(right mixed) 20/01/2011 C(left mixed) D(right filterd) E(left filterd)
52 22 17
53 56 83 3 19
105 78 100 3 19 94.91525 79.12088
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
F(R 1h30) G(L 1h30)
1 10
29 42
30 52
61.53846 48
111 80 67 7 16 8 64
65 21 25 1
176 101 92 8 16 8 64 89.74359 84 92.07921 30.43478
28 14 24 1
53 85 65 21 22
81 99 89 22 22 21 52 78.21782 76.08696 78.78788 41.57303
20 52
14 49
19 49 177 89 31 61 25 10.10101 65.16854 0 85.87571
34
143 89
1 3
30 58 25
19 18 81 18 21 29 44 2 5 3 19
19 21 100 18 21 31 49 63.26531 88.13559 0 51
87 55 46
6 48 50 51 22
93 103 96 51 22 99 129 0 78 3.883495 0
4 2
95 127
08/02/2011
A(raw)
69
73
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
B(right mixed) C(left mixed) D(right filterd) E(left filterd) F(R 1h30) G(L 1h30)
23 47
12 17 5 6
35 64 5 6 26 72 95.14563 93.75 25.71429 0
3 11
23 61
15 5 27
22 5 32 1 17 20
37 10 59 1 17 20 57 97.14286 73.4375 0 3.389831
55
A(raw) B(right mixed) C(left mixed) 10/02/2011
49 21 23
11 4 16 113
60 25 39 113 0
D(right filterd) E(left filterd) F(R 1h30) G(L 1h30) 7 55 35 44 55 35 51 6.779661 0 0
51 17 24 0 0 0 3
95 2 29 4 13 7 30
146 19 53 4 13 7 33 84 66.66667 63.15789 37.73585
A(raw) B(right mixed) C(left mixed) 17/02/2011 D(right filterd) E(left filterd) F(R 1h30) G(L 1h30) 20 2 18 6 24 0 2 0 20 0 89.47368 100 16.66667 100
80 21 37 33 14 19 14
6 6
86 27 37
1 1 5
34 15 24 14
0 0 11.11111 62.16216
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
01/03/2011
A(raw) B(right mixed) C(left mixed) D(right filterd) E(left filterd) F(R 1h30) G(L 1h30)
50 52 40
1 1 10 13 7 100
51 53 50 13 7 100 41 51.85185 81.08108 0 18
33
Table 16 Dissolved oxygen

mg/L Raw Rain R (mix) L (mix) R (24h) L (24h) R (1h30) L (1h30) R (2h30) L (2h30) 23/11/2010 25/11/2010 29/11/2010 01/12/2010 06/12/2010 07/12/2010 09/12/2010 14/12/2011 16/12/2011 17/12/2011 10/01/2011 11/01/2011 13/01/2011 17/01/2011 18/01/2011 20/01/2011 24/01/2011 25/01/2011 27/01/2011 31/01/2011 02/02/2011 03/02/2011 07/02/2011 08/02/2011 10/02/2011 15/02/2011 17/02/2011 21/02/2011 22/02/2011 24/02/2011 28/02/2011 8.56 9.35 9.14 10.5 9.15 11 11 9.89 8.83 8.5 7.96 7.96 7.33 6.91 8.38 10.3 8.73 8.82 7.2 7.6 6.69 10.1 8.9 9.36 9.54 8.79 10.8 7.7 5.27 8.84 5.36 5.36 6.45 8.94 8.05 6.14 6.14 7.07 5.72 5.72 5.72 5.72 5.72 5.72 5.72 5.23 6.51 7.66 7.18 6.72 6.2 5.35 6.25 5.57 6.73 6.54 7.74 5.71 5.74 5.56 6.73 7.25 7.84 7.22 6.83 7.75 6.14 6.14 7.07 5.72 5.72 5.72 5.72 5.72 5.72 5.72 5.26 6.93 6.31 5.52 6.09 6.21 5.29 5.78 5.26 6.42 6.3 6.36 5.8 5.8 5.75 6.89 6.25 7.22 6.96 7.28 7.22 4.65 4.65 4.67 5.8 5.7 5.85 4.45 4.26 5.4 5.4 2.61 5.13 4.87 4.48 4.79 4.18 3.86 4.42 3.74 4.15 5.6 4.17 4.49 5.12 5.29 4.22 5.25 5.2 5.6 5.4 5.12 4.65 4.65 1.55 5.44 1.68 4.83 2.9 3.98 2.8 2.8 2.45 4.38 4.23 2.93 4.41 3.88 3 4.75 2.91 2.91 4.5 4.34 3.07 4.11 3.98 2.95 3.97 4.08 5.35 4.71 4.02 6.55 6.52 4.57 6.44 6.23 5.9 6.72 3.5 5.4 5.4 2.86 5.67 5.79 5.74 5.74 4.53 4.62 4.72 4.08 4.52 4.52 4.58 4.16 4.25 3.39 3.22 3.56 4.7 4.34 3.99 4.37 6.46 5.77 6.34 7.08 6.24 5.83 6.27 5.57 4.29 4.29 3.36 5.24 5.79 4.9 4.9 4.67 4.95 5.01 5.06 5.72 5.72 5.06 5.05 5.57 4.31 5.36 5.42 5.23 6.07 4.51 4.47 5.1 5.59
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Table 17 UV 254
UV 22/11/2010 23/11/2010 24/11/2010 25/11/2010 29/11/2010 01/12/2010 06/12/2010 07/12/2010 09/12/2010 14/12/2011 16/12/2011 17/12/2011 10/01/2011 11/01/2011 13/01/2011 17/01/2011 18/01/2011 20/01/2011 24/01/2011 25/01/2011 27/01/2011 31/01/2011 02/02/2011 03/02/2011 07/02/2011 08/02/2011 02/10/2011 15/02/2011 17/02/2011 21/02/2011 22/02/2011 24/02/2011 28/02/2011 0.24 0.24 0.27 0.35 0.31 0.263 0.248 0.217 0.237 0.275 0.274 0.289 0.267 0.269 0.259 0.289 0.278 0.313 0.308 0.3866 0.235 0.219 0.214 0.236 0.255 0.219 0.16 0.219 0.223 0.223 0.268 0.246 0.215 0.236 0.214 0.219 0.22 0.233 0.245 0.218 0.223 0.223 0.245 0.258 0.272 0.245 0.3175 0.08 0.205 0.219 0.221 0.255 0.236 0.238 0.23 0.209 0.217 0.228 0.227 0.238 0.221 0.226 0.235 0.228 0.255 0.287 0.246 0.3063 0.14 0.174 0.186 0.167 0.171 0.188 0.194 0.2 0.183 0.19 0.198 0.207 0.195 0.193 0.181 0.173 0.193 0.23 0.221 0.196 0.2394 0.073 0.177 0.16 0.159 0.17 0.191 0.18 0.172 0.188 0.185 0.197 0.188 0.19 0.194 0.184 0.158 0.192 0.21 0.207 0.172 0.2239 0.121 0.182 0.184 0.188 0.188 0.195 0.197 0.197 0.196 0.206 0.208 0.2 0.205 0.198 0.094 0.17 0.205 0.216 0.222 0.143 0.2459 0.075 0.162 0.167 0.172 0.172 0.199 0.19 0.195 0.194 0.21 0.205 0.195 0.203 0.201 0.092 0.175 0.212 0.233 0.218 0.166 0.2433 0.195 0.199 0.2 0.195 0.199 0.041 0.042 0.052 0.1 0.1 0.12 0.132 0.126 0.12 0.132 0.126 Raw 0.252 Rain R (mix) 0.144 L (mix) 0.144 0.094 0.106 0.107 0.113 0.102 0.051 0.081 0.116 0.173 0.163 0.105 0.103 0.12 0.103 0.053 0.08 0.119 0.163 0.164 0.101 0.112 0.113 0.119 0.071 0.073 0.103 0.165 0.16 0.171 0.097 0.107 0.134 0.114 0.058 0.07 0.1 0.18 0.174 0.191 R (24h) L (24h) R (1h30) L (1h30)
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Table 18 pH
pH Raw 23/11/2010 25/11/2010 29/11/2010 01/12/2010 06/12/2010 07/12/2010 09/12/2010 14/12/2011 16/12/2011 17/12/2011 10/01/2011 11/01/2011 13/01/2011 17/01/2011 18/01/2011 20/01/2011 24/01/2011 25/01/2011 27/01/2011 31/01/2011 02/02/2011 03/02/2011 07/02/2011 08/02/2011 10/02/2011 15/02/2011 17/02/2011 21/02/2011 22/02/2011 24/02/2011 28/02/2011 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.6 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.6 8.6 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 7.9 8.6 8.6 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.5 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.4 8.1 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.6 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.5 8.5 7.8 8.2 8.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 7.9 7.9 8.1 8.3 8.1 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 8 8 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 7.9 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.1 8 8 8.1 8.4 8.2 8.2 8 8.1 8.2 8 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.1 8 8.1 8 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.1 8.2 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 Rain 8.2 R (mix) L (mix) R (24h) 8.2 8 8 7.8 7.6 7.6 7.8 7.9 7.7 L (24h) 8.2 8 8 7.8 7.8 7.8 7.6 8 7.6 R (1h30) 8.2 8.1 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.8 8 7.9 7.9 L (1h30) 8 8 7.8 7.8 7.6 7.6 8.1 7.9 7.9
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Table 19 Head loss

Right (24h) 22/11/10 23/11/10 24/11/10 25/11/10 29/11/10 01/12/10 06/12/10 07/12/10 09/12/10 14/12/11 16/12/11 17/12/11 10/01/11 11/01/11 13/01/11 17/01/11 18/01/11 20/01/11 24/01/2011 25/01/2011 27/01/2011 31/01/2011 02/02/2011 03/02/2011 07/02/2011 08/02/2011 10/02/2011 15/02/2011 17-Feb 21-Feb 22-Feb 24/02/2011 28/02/2011 15 7.5 6.5 14.5 6 9.5 8.5 15 27 6 16 10 11 9 10 9 18.5 14 5 7 3.1 3.5 5 4.5 5.5 5.5 6.6 7.6 7.5 7.4 9.5 9.6 11 14.5 14 9.6 4 3.5 5.3 4.5 7.8 7 6.4 9.1 4.5 4.3 2.3 4.7 5.5 7 6 11.5 11 12.5 16 11.5 14 7.7 6 6.5 7 6 6 13 2.5 5.1 3.9 4.4 8.6 8 6.3 9 10.5 3 8.4 5.6 6.5 10.1 11 7.1 12 6.5 5.5 6.3 5.8 7 5 8.5 8 8.5 10.5 6.5 8.5 7.3 9 2 3 3 5.5 5 2.9 3.3 3.6 3.9 9.4 4.9 17.6 3.9 3 4.2 3.9 3.8 3.6 5.2 3.1 9.1 2 9 4.5 4.3 5.1 3.6 3.4 6.5 4.5 4 7.5 3.5 10 8.5 0.1 3.9 3.7 3.5 4.3 6 2.2 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.9 2.5 4.9 7 19.2 8.5 5.4 5.8 4.3 3.8 Left (24h) Right (45') Left (45') Right (1h30) Left (1h30)
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Table 20 Temperature change

Raw 22/11/2011 23/11/2010 25/11/2010 29/11/2010 01/12/2010 06/12/2010 07/12/2010 09/12/2010 14/12/2011 16/12/2011 17/12/2011 10/01/2011 11/01/2011 13/01/2011 17/01/2011 18/01/2011 20/01/2011 24/01/2011 25/01/2011 27/01/2011 31/01/2011 02/02/2011 03/02/2011 07/02/2011 08/02/2011 10/02/2011 15/02/2011 17/02/2011 21/02/2011 22/02/2011 24/02/2011 28/02/2011 5.5 7 10.7 6.8 14.1 14.6 16.2 14.6 13.6 15 17.6 14.9 16.7 17.3 19.6 18.1 17.6 17.7 19.5 18.7 19.7 18.1 19.5 17.9 17.5 17.8 19.3 18 4.7 6 9 7.8 6 6 6 4.7 2.5 3.2 8.7 8 11.5 8 6.9 1.9 2 2 3.5 6.6 1 19.7 16.2 16 16.7 21.6 16.2 17.4 19.6 16.2 15.3 15.9 17 15.6 17.8 16.7 14.3 19.5 16.3 16.4 19.7 21.2 18.8 17.8 18.9 18.2 15.6 16.2 18.4 16 16 15.6 14.3 19.1 19.8 21 20.7 21.5 21.2 20.8 22.4 20.9 20.2 20.1 21.3 18.5 19.6 17.6 18.4 19.8 20.5 21 20.4 21.2 21.2 21 22 21.1 20.2 20.5 21 19.1 20.8 18.3 18.5 20.4 19.2 19.8 19.4 18.1 21.1 18.5 19.2 18.8 18.4 19.8 21.1 20.8 20 20 20.3 20.5 20.4 20.2 21.4 19.6 21.1 21.2 20.2 20.2 20.5 20.1 20 19.7 21 8.5 12 12 20.5 20.7 23.5 22 22 20.5 20.5 23.6 22.6 22 19.9 20 22 19 20.9 19.7 19.8 21.5 18 21 6 6 5 3 19 11 11 18 13 12 18 13 12 18.8 17 18 18.8 17 18 Rain R (mix) L (mix) R (24h) L (24h) R (1h30) L (1h30)
Table 21 Pesticides first run

Seeded Tank (g/ml) Type Raw RM RF2 RF 0.171 0.028 0.072 05/02/2011 07/02/2011 0.436 0.497 08/02/2011 0.845 0.485 0.317 0.014 15/02/2011 0.231 0.153 0.015 0.076 Unseeded Tank (g/ml) Type Raw LM LF2 LF 0.171 0.019 0.072 05/02/2011 07/02/2011 0.436 08/02/2011 0.845 0.474 0.351 0.366 15/02/2011 0.231 0.288 0.015 0.008 17/02/2011 1.147 0.172 0.068 0.244 0.064 0.069 22/02/2011 0.111 0.071 0.115 0.184 24/02/2011 28/02/2011 0.152 0.126 0.051 0.015 Average 0.487 0.217 0.098 0.137 0.002 17/02/2011 1.147 22/02/2011 0.111 0.044 0.002 0.002 0.150 0.005 24/02/2011 28/02/2011 0.152 0.113 0.002 0.003 Average 0.487 0.230 0.053 0.033
Table 22 Pesticides second run

Seeded Tank (g/ml) Type Raw RM RF2 RF 0.103 0.028 05/02/2011 07/02/2011 0.437 0.482 08/02/2011 0.598 0.556 0.362 0.420 15/02/2011 0.189 0.161 0.034 0.078 Unseeded Tank (g/ml) Type Raw LM LF2 LF 0.200 0.019 0.330 0.075 05/02/2011 07/02/2011 0.437 08/02/2011 0.598 0.602 0.348 0.356 15/02/2011 0.189 0.346 0.008 0.145 17/02/2011 1.314 0.159 0.069 0.179 0.051 0.100 22/02/2011 0.120 0.094 0.027 0.129 24/02/2011 28/02/2011 0.108 0.087 0.027 0.017 Average 0.461 0.248 0.078 0.166 0.003 17/02/2011 1.314 22/02/2011 0.120 0.035 0.003 0.003 0.153 0.007 24/02/2011 28/02/2011 0.108 0.101 0.003 0.003 Average 0.461 0.227 0.063 0.126
0|Page
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Table 23 Pesticides
W S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 15/2/07 8/2/07 7/2/07 5/2/07 Date Type Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw 3.777 3.128 3.180 3.451 3.372 3.480 3.492 3.773 1.393 0.744 0.796 1.067 0.988 1.096 1.108 1.389 1.048 0.559 0.598 0.802 0.742 0.824 0.833 1.044 8.36 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.47 8.49 8.50 8.49 8.49 8.50 8.49 8.49 15684 9656 11753 16627 10315 9036 9485 7213 556384 169595 177314 5764 170147 163429 182807 150511 2.665 1.708 2.041 2.815 1.812 1.609 1.680 1.319 88.564 27.117 28.343 1.089 27.204 26.137 29.215 24.085 0.025 0.031 0.034 0.035 0.024 0.020 0.020 0.013 0.845 0.485 0.474 0.014 0.366 0.317 0.351 0.231 3.528 1.144 0.860 8.37 8.50 8442 37692 1.515 6.162 0.018 0.072 3.448 3.168 2.830 3.744 3.617 1.064 0.784 0.446 1.360 1.233 0.800 0.589 0.336 1.023 0.927 8.38 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.50 8.49 8.49 8.49 8.50 46357 65300 212221 7155 19851 6481 9354 2979 279734 288692 7.538 10.548 33.888 1.310 3.327 1.203 1.660 0.647 44.614 46.037 0.094 0.179 1.010 0.013 0.036 0.015 0.028 0.019 0.436 0.497 3.500 3.461 1.116 1.077 (g) W (g) Volume 0.000 0.839 0.810 8.37 8.37 8.49 8.50 14983 9064 89428 86283 2.554 1.614 14.381 13.881 0.030 0.020 0.171 0.171 Retension Time (min) Internal Metaldehyde Internal Area Metaldehyde Concentration Internal Metaldehyde Conversion (g/ml) Internal Metaldehyde
65
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 24/2/07 22/2/07 17/2/07
RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2
3.774 3.521 3.911 3.964 3.429 3.459 3.241
1.390 1.137 1.527 1.580 1.045 1.075 0.857
1.045 0.855 1.148 1.188 0.786 0.808 0.644
8.37 8.37 8.39 8.37 8.38 8.37 8.37
8.50 8.50 8.50 8.49 8.50 8.49 8.50
7305 7484 5543 10791 46357 212221 10807
99631 153966 53759 111865 6481 2979 464223
1.334 1.363 1.054 1.888 7.538 33.888 1.890
16.002 24.634 8.714 17.945 1.203 0.647 73.923
0.013 0.016 0.009 0.016 0.096 0.419 0.029
0.153 0.288 0.076 0.151 0.015 0.008 1.147
4.065
1.681
1.264
8.39
8.50
6223
135620
1.162
21.719
0.009
0.172
3.672 4.336 4.762 4.001 4.132
1.288 1.952 2.378 1.617 1.748
0.968 1.467 1.788 1.216 1.314
8.39 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37
8.50 8.49 8.49 8.50 8.49
9667 4022 5172 5937 6314
147608 1021 74928 83743 35246
1.709 0.813 0.995 1.117 1.177
23.624 0.336 12.077 13.478 5.773
0.018 0.006 0.006 0.009 0.009
0.244 0.002 0.068 0.111 0.044
4.293 4.390 4.457 4.387
1.909 2.006 2.073 2.003
1.435 1.508 1.559 1.506
8.37 8.37 8.37 8.39
8.50 8.49 8.49 8.50
4579 4160 5176 5618
691 64702 474 59670
0.901 0.834 0.996 1.066
0.283 10.453 0.249 9.653
0.006 0.006 0.006 0.007
0.002 0.069 0.002 0.064
4.571 4.393
2.187 2.009
1.645 1.511
8.37 8.37
8.49 8.49
4267 4341
153949 66794
0.851 0.863
24.631 10.785
0.005 0.006
0.150 0.071
4.347 4.181 4.323
1.963 1.797 1.939
1.476 1.351 1.458
8.37 8.37 8.39
8.49 8.49 8.50
10315 5395 4168
170147 3253 104114
1.812 1.031 0.836
27.204 0.690 16.714
0.012 0.008 0.006
0.184 0.005 0.115
65
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
50 51 52 53 54 55 56 28/2/07
Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2
4.573 4.513 4.302 4.317 4.296 4.137 4.321
2.189 2.129 1.918 1.933 1.912 1.753 1.937
1.646 1.601 1.442 1.453 1.438 1.318 1.456
8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37
8.49 8.50 8.50 8.49 8.50 8.49 8.49
3458 7661 7661 4981 4202 3804 5171
156041 112893 112893 1250 12282 598 45578
0.723 1.391 1.391 0.965 0.841 0.778 0.995
24.963 18.108 18.108 0.372 2.125 0.269 7.414
0.004 0.009 0.010 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.007
0.152 0.113 0.126 0.003 0.015 0.002 0.051
65
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
Retension Time (min) Sample 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 15/2/07 8/2/07 7/2/07 5/2/07 Date Type Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 3.777 3.128 3.180 3.451 3.372 3.480 3.492 3.773 3.774 3.521 3.911 3.964 3.429 1.393 0.744 0.796 1.067 0.988 1.096 1.108 1.389 1.390 1.137 1.527 1.580 1.045 1.048 0.559 0.598 0.802 0.742 0.824 0.833 1.044 1.045 0.855 1.148 1.188 0.786 8.360 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.470 8.490 8.500 8.500 8.500 8.490 8.490 8.500 8.500 8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490 15684 13051 17593 14969 11587 10705 10841 7015 9241 10923 6790 11395 13752 3.528 1.144 0.860 8.370 8.500 9815 3.448 3.168 2.830 3.744 3.617 1.064 0.784 0.446 1.360 1.233 0.800 0.589 0.336 1.023 0.927 8.370 8.370 4.990 8.370 8.370 8.500 8.490 8.500 8.500 8.500 11587 17152 2213 8219 22436 3.500 3.461 1.116 1.077 W (g) W (g) Volume 0.000 0.839 0.810 8.370 8.370 8.500 8.490 10307 12471 Internal Metaldehyde Internal
Area Metaldehyde
Concentration Internal Metaldehyde
Conversion (g/ml) Internal Metaldehyde
74595 141937
1.477 1.719
8.676 16.218
0.018 0.021
0.103 0.200
233027 12066 2877 396319 396059
1.620 2.243 0.570 1.243 2.835
26.419 1.674 0.645 44.706 44.677
0.020 0.038 0.017 0.012 0.031
0.330 0.028 0.019 0.437 0.482
54643
1.422
6.442
0.017
0.075
556384 274995 318594 298389 233027 263612 255989 173172 147008 261443 77007 150940 20691
2.079 1.784 2.293 1.999 1.620 1.521 1.537 1.108 1.357 1.546 1.083 1.599 1.863
62.632 31.119 36.002 33.739 26.419 29.844 28.991 19.716 16.786 29.601 8.947 17.226 2.640
0.020 0.032 0.038 0.025 0.022 0.018 0.018 0.011 0.013 0.018 0.009 0.013 0.024
0.598 0.556 0.602 0.420 0.356 0.362 0.348 0.189 0.161 0.346 0.078 0.145 0.034
65
J.Valls, P.Rabu
24/03/2011
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 28/2/07 24/2/07 22/2/07 17/2/07
LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2 Raw RM LM RF LF RF2 LF2
3.459 3.241
1.075 0.857
0.808 0.644
8.370 8.370
8.490 8.500
212221 15849
2979 753194
24.089 2.098
0.656 84.672
0.298 0.033
0.008 1.314
4.065
1.681
1.264
8.370
8.490
6613
176297
1.063
20.066
0.008
0.159
3.672 4.336 4.762 4.001 4.132
1.288 1.952 2.378 1.617 1.748
0.968 1.467 1.788 1.216 1.314
8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370
8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490 8.500
7714 5374 6755 7576 5521
151866 1704 106759 127279 37697
1.186 0.924 1.079 1.171 0.941
17.330 0.513 12.278 14.577 4.544
0.012 0.006 0.006 0.010 0.007
0.179 0.003 0.069 0.120 0.035
4.293 4.390 4.457 4.387
1.909 2.006 2.073 2.003
1.435 1.508 1.559 1.506
8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370
8.490 8.490 8.500 8.490
5797 7780 5797 5061
1123 131873 752 65259
0.972 1.194 0.972 0.889
0.448 15.091 0.407 7.631
0.007 0.008 0.006 0.006
0.003 0.100 0.003 0.051
4.571 4.393
2.187 2.009
1.645 1.511
8.370 8.370
8.500 8.490
5281 6553
221533 123656
0.914 1.056
25.132 14.171
0.006 0.007
0.153 0.094
4.347 4.181 4.323 4.573 4.513 4.302 4.317 4.296 4.137 4.321
1.963 1.797 1.939 2.189 2.129 1.918 1.933 1.912 1.753 1.937
1.476 1.351 1.458 1.646 1.601 1.442 1.453 1.438 1.318 1.456
8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370 8.370
8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490 8.490
6188 7677 4467 3458 5612 6098 4981 5463 5319 4467
167060 5611 32741 156041 141486 109093 1250 18918 1148 32741
1.016 1.182 0.823 0.710 0.951 1.005 0.880 0.934 0.918 0.823
19.032 0.951 3.989 17.798 16.168 12.540 0.463 2.441 0.451 3.989
0.007 0.009 0.006 0.004 0.006 0.007 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.006
0.129 0.007 0.027 0.108 0.101 0.087 0.003 0.017 0.003 0.027
65

Optimisation of Household Slow Sand Filters

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Optimisation of Household Slow Sand Filters

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Optimisation of household Slow sand filters

3rd Year Research Project

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

Declaration and Personal Statement

I estimate that my contributions to the parts of the project are as follows:

1|Page University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

2|Page University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

Literature Review ................................................................................................... 11

How a slow sand filter works ................................................................................... 14

Operations, monitoring and maintenance............................................................... 16

3|Page University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

3.7.5 3.7.6 3.7.7 3.7.8

Results & Discussion .............................................................................................. 31

Where the objectives met? .................................................................................... 56

Future work & Recommendations ........................................................................ 58

4|Page University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

6|Page University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

7|Page University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

8|Page University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

1. Slow sand filtration research project

Figure 1 UNICEF report

9|Page University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

1.3 Simulation of the household SSF use

10 | P a g e University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

2.2 History of slow sand filtration

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

2.3 Features of biosand filtration tanks

13 | P a g e University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

2.4 How a slow sand filter works

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

2.5 Operations, monitoring and maintenance

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

Figure 4 Photograph of the two tanks used during the experimentation

17 | P a g e University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

Regents Park 24L 24L 24L 24L

Rainwater 24L 24L

3.2 Filter description

Diffuser - prevents disturbing and protects biolayer

Valve controlling flow

18 | P a g e University College of London11

Optimisation of household SlowSand Filters

3.3 Analysis and frequency of testing

Table 3 Water residence time in the filter and time of sampling

1 week Previous filtration

45min Current filtration

Monday 10 min 45 min

Tuesday 10 min 45 min

Thursday 10 min 45 min

72 hours Previous filtration