SEJ446 Final Report 2014

SEJ446- Engineering Project B
Final Report
Project Title: Modelling the Performance of a Sand Filter That Is Used to Treat a Polluted Pond
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for

SEJ446 Engineering Project B,
School of Engineering and Technology, Deakin University
Student Name: Busiku Silenga

Student ID: 210037589
Supervisor Name: Associate Professor Jega Jegatheesan
Page | I
Plagiarism Declaration
This thesis is an account of research and experimentation work undertaken between March 2014 and October
2014 at the School of Engineering and Technology, Deakin University, Australia. I hereby certify that the
attached work submitted for assessment is entirely my own except for where material is quoted or paraphrased
in the text; the owner of the material is then acknowledged. I also certify that the material presented in this
thesis is, to the best of my knowledge, original and has not been submitted in whole or in part in any other unit
or for a degree in any other university.
Page | II
Abstract
Sand filters have proven effective in achieving high removal efficiencies for sediments, biochemical oxygen
demand and fecal coliform bacteria; however their total metal removal is moderate and nutrient removal is
often low. Very few studies have prospectively examined how the performance of a sand filter can be modelled,
in order for it to be used to clean a polluted pond. The objective of this thesis is to outline, firstly a literature
review of current methods of modelling and enhancing the performance of a sand filter, followed by an outline
of the methodologies and experimental processes that were used in our project to model the performance of a
sand filter, which is to be used to clean a polluted pond. The primary outcome of the project is the design of an
optimum model process that is to be used to treat a polluted pond, based on the initial parameters
(conductivity, pH, temperature and turbidity) of the polluted pond water samples collected around the Deakin
University Waurn Ponds campus. The thesis includes an evaluation of different coagulants (Ferric chloride, poly
aluminium chloride, alum) and different coagulant doses using jar test experiments, and also includes a
selection of the best coagulant and its optimum dose. The performance of two sand filters with different filter
media configuration/sizes (River sand, sizes 6 and 6.5) is compared, and comparisons between conventional
and direct filtration are made in order to determine which process is the most effective. The design of a
backwash system and the point at which it is necessary is also addressed. As an alternative, a 0.2 micron
ceramic membrane is used to process the filter permeate in order to evaluate how much the water quality can
be improved. Evaluation of the water quality before and after treatment using chlorine decay studies is
performed and modelled using AQUASIM software. In summary a recommendation of the most effective
process, which includes the best coagulant (ferric chloride) and selection of its optimum dose (7ml), the best
filter size (River sand size 6.5) and its most effective process (Indirect filtration) and a suitable backwash volume
(4 litres), is made. Started in March the project is expected to be completed in October.
Page | III
Acknowledgement
My sincere gratitude goes to my supervisor; Associate Professor Jega Jegatheesan for offering me the
opportunity to undertake this project. I am grateful for his continued guidance, encouragement and
professional assistance throughout the duration of my project. His input has added immeasurable value to the
completion of my project.
I would also like to express my utmost gratitude for the technical assistance of staff in the Civil Engineering
laboratory, especially Mrs. Leanne Farago, who all contributed immensely to my experimental work in their
various capacities. I would also like to thank all the staff of the Civil Engineering department whose input has
made this project a success.
Also, I owe so much to my family, whose financial support, moral support, encouragement and belief in me, has
helped see me this project through to completion. Last but not least I would like to thank all my friends who
have all, in some shape or form contributed to the success of this project.
Page | IV
Contents
Plagiarism Declaration ................................................................................................................................ II
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................................... III
Acknowledgement ........................................................................................................................................ IV
I-Nomenclature ............................................................................................................................................ VII
II-List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... VIII
III-List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. IX
IV-Project Information .............................................................................................................................. .X
IV.I-Key Objectives X
IV.II-Project Benefits.X
IV.II.I-Economic benefits...X
IV.II.II-Environmental benefits.XI
IV.II.III-Health benefits.XII
IV.II.IV-Technological benefits..XIII
IV.III-Project Deliverable ..XIII
Chapter 1.Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Introduction..1
Chapter 2.Literature Review.. ............................................................................................. ...3
2.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2 Water Quality ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.3 Sand Filtration Technology .................................................................................................................................................. 4
2.3.1 Inflow regulation: ............................................................................................................................................................. 5
2.3.2 Pretreatment: ................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.3 Filter bed and filter media: ............................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.4 Mechanism of filtration: ................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.5 Backwashing: .................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Sand Filtration Processes ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
2.4.1 Direct Filtration................................................................................................................................................................. 8
2.4.1 Conventional Filtration ..................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.5 Limitations of Sand Filtration Technology ........................................................................................................................... 9
2.5.1 Limitations ........................................................................................................................................................................ 9
2.5.2 Maintenance..................................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.6 Enhancement of Sand Filtration Technology..................................................................................................................... 10
2.6.1 Pretreatment .................................................................................................................................................................. 10
2.6.2 Additional methods of enhancing sand filter performance ........................................................................................... 12
2.7 Chlorine Decay and AQUASIM Software ........................................................................................................................... 13
2.7.1 AQUASIM software......................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.7.2 Water Quality Modelling (Chlorine decay) ..................................................................................................................... 14
Chapter 3.Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 18
3.1 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2 Raw Water ......................................................................................................................................................................... 19
3.3 Experiments ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1 Jar Tests (Refer to section 2.6.1- Pretreatment; for technical aspect of Jar testing) ..................................................... 20
3.3.1.1 Apparatus .................................................................................................................................................................... 20
3.3.1.2 Method ........................................................................................................................................................................ 21
3.3.2 Sand filter (Refer to section 2.3- Enhancement of sand filter for more technical aspect) ............................................. 22
3.3.2.1 Apparatus .................................................................................................................................................................... 22
3.3.2.2 Before use:................................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.2.3 Operation: ................................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.2.4 Backwashing: ............................................................................................................................................................... 23
3.3.3 Chlorine decay experiments - (Refer to section 2.7- for more technical aspect of chlorine decay) .............................. 24
3.3.3.1 Apparatus .................................................................................................................................................................... 24
3.3.3.2 Chlorine demand studies:............................................................................................................................................ 25
3.3.3.3 Chlorine decay studies: ............................................................................................................................................... 26
3.4 Modelling........................................................................................................................................................................... 26
3.5 AQUASIM Software (Refer to section 2.6- for more technical aspect of chlorine decay and AQUASIM software) ......... 26
Page | V
Chapter 4.Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................. 27
4.1 Results and Discussion....................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Jar Tests ............................................................................................................................................................................. 27
4.2.1 Jar Test Results ............................................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2.1.1 Raw water initial parameters ...................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2.1.2 Jar Test Results using Poly Aluminium Chloride .......................................................................................................... 28
4.2.1.3 Discussion and Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 30
4.2.1.4 Jar Test Results using Ferric Chloride .......................................................................................................................... 31
4.2.1.6 Jar Test Results using Alum ......................................................................................................................................... 34
4.2.2 Jar Testing Discussion and Analysis ................................................................................................................................ 35
4.3 Sand Filtration and Backwashing ....................................................................................................................................... 35
4.3.1 Sand Filtration Results .................................................................................................................................................... 36
4.3.1.1 Raw water initial parameters ...................................................................................................................................... 36
4.3.1.2 Sand filtration results using River sand 6 sand (Effective size: 1.5-1.7mm, Nominal size: 1.5-3mm) ......................... 36
4.3.1.2.1 Direct Filtration......................................................................................................................................................... 36
4.3.1.2.1 Indirect Filtration ...................................................................................................................................................... 37
4.3.1.3 Sand filtration results using River sand 6.5 sand (Effective size: 0.85-0.95mm, Nominal size: 0.8-1.8mm) ............... 39
4.3.1.3.1 Direct Filtration......................................................................................................................................................... 39
4.3.1.2.1 Indirect Filtration ...................................................................................................................................................... 40
4.3.2 Backwash / Head loss results ......................................................................................................................................... 41
4.3.3 Sand Filtration/Backwash Discussion and Analysis ........................................................................................................ 44
4.4.4 Chlorine Demand and Decay .......................................................................................................................................... 45
4.4.1 Chlorine Demand and Decay Results.............................................................................................................................. 45
4.4.2 Chlorine Decay modelling using AQUASIM software results ......................................................................................... 52
4.4.3 Chlorine Demand and Decay Experiment and Modelling Discussion and Analysis ........................................................ 55
Chapter 5.Recommendations and Future Work ................................................................................... .56
Chapter 6.Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 57
Rfrencs ............................................................................................................................................................................... 58
Appendix A. Water Quality Guidelines .................................................................................................................................... 60
Appendix B. AQUASIM Software Parameter Estimation Files ................................................................................................. 64
Page | VI
I-Nomenclature
NOM.....Natural Organic matter

BOD..Biochemical Oxygen Demand
TN...Total Nitrogen
TSS.. Total Suspended Solids
TOC....Total Organic Carbon
TP.....Total Phosphorus
NTU....Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
TCU....True Colour Unit
WQ..Water Quality
Cl2........................................................................................................................................................................Free chlorine
FRA....... Fast reducing agents
FRN.. Fast reducing Nitrogenous Compounds
SRA... Slow reducing agents
SRN. Slow reducing Nitrogenous Compounds
CCCombined chlorine
DBP.....Disinfection by products
DOC.Dissolved organic carbon
DO....Dissolved oxygen
CVOC....Chlorinated volatile organic compound
PCV.Prescribed concentration or value (water quality standards)
SS...Suspended solids
TDS..Total dissolved solids
Page | VII
II-List of Figures
Figure I.............................................................................................................................................Contrast between polluted and healthy aquatic ecosystems
Figure II............................................................................................................................................................................. Figure II: project outcomes schematic
Figure 1..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Sand filtration system
Figure 3...........................................................................................................................................The four functional units in AQUASIM and their relationship

Figure 4.................................................................................................................................................... AQUASIM software output for 6mg/L chlorine dosage
Figure 5...................................................................................................................................................AQUASIM software output for 10mg/L chlorine dosage
Figure 6..........................................................................................................................................................................................Methodology strategies chart
Figure 7................................................................................................................................. Deakin University Waurn Ponds Campus map with ponds labelled
Figure 8....................................................................................................................................................................................................................Turbidimeter
Figure 9......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... pH meter
Figure 10........................................................................................................................................................................................................Conductivity meter
Figure 11...............................................................................................................................................................................Jar testing (Deakin University 2014)
Figure 12................................................................................................................................................................... Sand filtration system at Deakin University
Figure 13.................................................................................................................................................................................Free and total chlorine dispensers
Figure 14........................................................................................................................................................Chlorine demand studies (Deakin University 2014)
Figure 15....................................................................................Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for PAC (pH and temperature are also shown)
Figure 16....................................................................................Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for PAC (pH and temperature are also shown)
Figure 17................................................................................... Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for PAC (pH and temperature are also shown)
Figure 18................................................................................... Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for PAC (pH and temperature are also shown)
Figure 19.......................................................................................................................................................Flocs floating on surface of water during jar testing
Figure 20................................................................................................................................Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for ferric chloride
Figure 23..................................................................................................................................................................Jar testing using ferric chloride as coagulant
Figure 24.....Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for Alum (pH and temperature are also shown)
Figure 25................................................................................................................................................................................Jar testing using Alum as coagulant
Figure 26......................................................................................................................................... Percent removal (turbidity) to time for direct sand filtration
Figure 27...................................................................................................................................... Percent removal (turbidity) to time for indirect sand filtration
Figure 28..........................................................................................................................................Percent removal (turbidity) to time for direct sand filtration
Figure 29...................................................................................................................................... Percent removal (turbidity) to time for indirect sand filtration
Figure 30... Chlorine breakpoint curve (Direct filtration permeate- River sands 6)
Figure 31................................................................... Riversand size 6 Chlorine decay curve
Figure 32... Chlorine breakpoint curve (Indirect filtration permeate- River sands 6.5)
Figure 33...Indirect filtration-Riversand size 6.5 Chlorine decay curve
Figure 34... Chlorine breakpoint curve (Indirect filtration permeate- River sands 6)
Figure 35......Indirect filtration-Riversand size 6.6 Chlorine decay curve
Figure 36... 1 mg/L dose disinfectant decay AQUASIM software output
Figure 41...2 mg/L dose disinfectant decay AQUASIM software output
Figure 42......Complete model schematic
Page | VIII
III-List of Tables
Table IMean per trip benefits per person
Table II...Common diseases transmitted through drinking contaminated drinking water
Table 2-1.. Considerations concerning the risk levels in surface water sources
Table 2-2.Typical pollutant removal efficiency [Galli 1990]
Table 2-3................Estimated pollutant removal capability of different filtration systems
Table 2-4...Typical removal efficiencies using granular media filtration
Table 2-5..Guidelines regarding acceptable backwashing practices
Table 2.6Common coagulants and doses for best flo9c formation
Table 2-7.. Coagulant chemical considerations
Table 2-8.. Comparative properties of different filtering media (Galli, 1990)
Table 2.9...6mg/L dosage of chlorine (free and total) with time
Table 2-10. 10mg/L dosage of chlorine (free and total) with time
Table 4.1..Raw water parameters
Table 4-2Jar test results performed on pond 3 raw water using 5% Poly aluminium chloride [PAC]
Table 4-3.. Jar test results performed on pond 3 raw water using 5% Poly aluminium chloride [PAC]
Table 4-4.. Jar test results performed on pond 3 raw water using 5% Poly aluminium chloride [PAC]
Table 4-5...Jar test results performed on pond 6 raw water using 5% Poly aluminium chloride [PAC]
Table 4-6.Jar test results performed on pond 3 raw water using 1% Ferric chloride
Table 4-9..Jar test results performed on pond 3 raw water using 1% Alum
Table 4-10.. Direct sand filtration tests performed on pond 3 raw water results
Table 4-11.. Indirect sand filtration tests performed on pond 3 raw water results
Table 4-12.. Direct sand filtration tests performed on pond 3 raw water results
Table 4-13...Indirect sand filtration tests performed on pond 3 raw water results
Table 4-14... Direct filtration- Riversand 6 sand results
Table 4-15. Indirect filtration- Riversand 6 sand results
Table 4-16... Direct filtration- Riversand 6.5 sand results
Table 4-17: Indirect filtration Riversand 6.5 sand results
Table 4-18: . Direct filtration Riversand size 6 chlorine demand results
Table 4-19: .. Direct filtration Riversand size 6 chlorine decay results
Table 4-20: .. Indirect filtration Riversand size 6 results
Table 4-21: .. Indirect filtration Riversand size 6.5 chlorine decay results
Table 4-22: .. Indirect filtration Riversand size 6 results
Table 4-23 Indirect filtration- Riversand size 6 chlorine decay results
Table 4-24. Table showing initial chlorine disinfection by product estimates
Table 4-25.. Table showing initial chlorine disinfection by product estimate
Page | IX
IV-Project Information
The primary outcome of the project is the design of an optimum model process that will enhance the
performance of a sand filter that is to be used to treat a polluted pond, based on the initial parameters
(conductivity, pH, temperature and turbidity) of the polluted pond water samples collected around the Deakin
University Waurn Ponds campus.
IV.I-Key Objectives
The overall aim of this project is to model the performance of a sand filter that is to be used to clean a polluted
pond, using research and experimental techniques. AQUASIM software will be used to evaluate the water
quality before and after treatment using chlorine decay studies. The project will include the following;
Evaluation of different coagulants

Determination of required water treatment process based on the initial parameters of the polluted
water samples
Comparison of different filter media sizes and selection of the most effective
Design of a backwash system
Comparison of different treatment processes (pretreatment, direct and indirect filtration) in order to
evaluate which is the most effective and establish a relationship between experimental and predicted
data.
Use AQUASIM software to evaluate the water quality before and after treatment using chlorine decay
studies. Reduction in chlorine demand will help to evaluate the performance of treatment in removing
organic compounds and others that consume chlorine. Chlorine decay results to be modelled using
AQUASIM software.
IV.II-Project Benefits
The use of any resource usually generates a waste. The immense impact of water pollution on peoples daily life
has increased the importance of conducting research that will enable assessment of environmental damage in
economic terms. Water (Pond) pollution control and treatment is an important topic in Environmental
Engineering. Gaining an understanding of water (pond) pollution control and how the performance of a sand
filter can be modelled in order to clean polluted ponds would have huge financial, environmental and health
benefits. Principles addressed in this project, although done on a relatively small scale can be applied to
pollution control/treatment in larger water bodies.
IV.II.I-Economic benefits
Water pollution relates to industrialization, civilization and living standards which are all directly related to the
economic level of people. Water pollution usually causes loss in society, economy, natural environment and
many other areas. The more serious the harm by polluted water is, the more the economic loss is. For example
in Florida, $10.5 billion is spent annually on water pollution control and treatment, however clean freshwater
Page | X
and marine ecosystems attract $67 billion in tourism and recreational spending [USEPA, 2002]. Many industries
require the use of fresh water, some are entirely based on it and as more water becomes polluted the price of
purify this water begins to grow as do the costs involved in those industries. Treatment methods such as sand
filters and chemical additives help to prevent pollution of nearby water bodies. These are very simple
techniques that are easy to implement, although they cost money to maintain, it is much cheaper preventing
pollution than cleaning up water that has already significantly occurred. This project will help us explore ways in
which we can make treatment methods like sand filters more cost performance and environmentally effective.
Table .1 shows how sites with higher water quality are more economically viable.
Table I: Mean per trip benefits per person
IV.II.II-Environmental benefits
The effects of water pollution on the environment are far reaching. Water pollution has been extensively
documented as a contributor to health problems in marine ecosystems, wildlife health and well-being. For
example it is possible for the pollutants to raise the temperature of the water enough to force fish out in search
of cooler water, this in itself can create an ecological dead zone. Pollutants can also significantly increase the
rate of algal blooms. These blooms create massive fish dye-offs as the oxygen levels in the water gets depleted
[Jared Skye, 2014]. If the right treatment methods are implemented such cases can be avoided, this project will
help explore more environmental, performance and cost effective ways of doing that by modelling the
performance of sand filter.
The following formula and figure demonstrate how pollution affects aquatic ecosystems.
Increase in pollutants => Increase in temperature (68-89oF) => Increase in algae blooms = Decrease in
oxygen levels (>5mg/L, aquatic life under stress) => Death of marine life.
Page | XI
Figure I: Contrast between polluted and healthy aquatic ecosystems.
IV.II.III-Health benefits
One of the greatest dangers to human health is water pollution. Water pollution can pose health dangers to
humans who come into contact with it, either directly or indirectly. Risks include contaminated drinking water,
high mercury level risks and other health effects of toxic runoff. Developing cost effective ways to treat water
would result in huge health benefits especially in developing countries, where people spend more money on
treatment of sicknesses resulting from polluted waters instead of treating the polluted water which would
result in solid financial and health benefits. This project will help us gain an elementary theoretical and practical
understanding of how water treatment methods, specifically sand filters can be designed and enhanced in
order to achieve high water quality in areas affected by pollution.
The table below shows some diseases that are directly related to water pollution;
Table II: Common diseases transmitted through drinking contaminated drinking water.
Page | XII
IV.II.IV-Technological benefits
This project will help us to expand and improve on the already existing water treatment methods specifically,
sand filter technology. Our design will explore ways in which to make treatment of polluted water using sand
filters more effective, in terms of maintenance cost, purchase cost, accessibility, ease of use and performance.
IV.III-Project Deliverable
The findings of this project will be presented in a formal verbal presentation and a formal written report. It is
expected that the project will provide valuable information and a clear understanding of pollution in ponds
(types of pollutants and their effects and how they behave in water bodies) and how sand filters can be
enhanced in order to make the treatment more effective. It is also expected that a clearer understanding on
backwash systems and how they can be designed will be gained. Also the project will provide an understanding
of different coagulants and their effectiveness in treating polluted water. Overall the project will produce the
optimum polluted pond treatment process design that will be used to treat the provided, polluted water
samples and is both cost and environmentally effective. This design will then be evaluated by AQUASIM
software in order to observe the water quality before and after treatment using chlorine decay studies.
Project Outcomes
Polluted Pond optimum

treatment process
-Recommend coagulant and its

optimum dose Formal poster
Experimental/AQUASIM Software presentation/Formal written
evaluation of water quality -Recommend filter size and
treatment process(Direct or indirect report(Thesis)
filtration)
-Backwash system design
Figure II: project outcomes schematic
Page | XIII
Chapter 1.Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Slow sand filtration is the earliest technology to water treatment. It was initially developed by John Gibb in
Scotland in 1804 to obtain pure water. After linking outbreak of diseases such as cholera and typhoid to
waterborne contamination, slow sand filters became a legal requirement for all potable water extracted from
the River Thames in 1852 [Huisman and Wood, 1974]. The introduction of chlorination and chemical
coagulation techniques in water treatment followed by the development of rapid sand filters led to a decline in
the use of slow sand filters [Bowles et al., 1983]. The city of Austin, Texas first pioneered the use of sand filters
in the early 1980s [Richard A Claytor, 1996] Filtration has since become one of the most important elements in
traditional water treatment systems.
A large number of ponds are unfenced and multipurpose; consequently making most pond water moderately or
seriously polluted and thus cannot be considered for use without treatment. Ponds are preferred because of
their proximity to the point of use, lower turbidity and reliability. These sources may be developed using a sand
filter. Sand filters because of their simplicity, efficiency and economy are appropriate means of water treatment
[Nigel Graham and Robin Collins, 1996]. The sand filter technology relies on a straining, settling and adsorption
to purify water [Huisman and Wood, 1974].Since filters are not generally designed to remove dissolved
compounds, which can constitute roughly half of certain pollutants, and enhancement of the sand filter can
greatly enhance the removal of these compounds. When source water quality is beyond the range
recommended for Sand filters used alone, pretreatment can extend the capability of this process. Higher
turbidity, color, natural organic matter (NOM) and synthetic organic chemicals can be removed when
pretreatment or post treatment processes are added [Gary S Logsdon, 2008].
Water is the most essential material for human survival, after air [Ahuja, 1986]. The uses we make of water in
lakes, rivers, ponds and streams is greatly influenced by the water quality found in them. Water quality is the
summation of all physical, chemical, biological and aesthetic characteristics of water that influence its beneficial
use [Claude E. Boyd, 1998].The introduction of pollutants from human activities, is the primary cause of water
pollution. Water pollutants are categorized as, point source and nonpoint sources. Point sources discharge
pollutants at single specific locations through pipelines or sewers into the surface water (factories, sewage
treatment plants). Nonpoint sources are sources that cannot be traced to a single site of discharge (agricultural
runoff), [Shubinski and Tierney, 1973]. The total waste load in a water body is represented by the sum of all
point and nonpoint sources. The large number of water pollutants is broadly classified under the categories of:
Organic pollutants, Inorganic pollutants, sediments, radioactive materials and thermal pollutants [Ruth F
Weiner, 2003].
Page | 1
Water pollution is any chemical, physical or biological change in the dynamic equilibrium in an aquatic
ecosystem that disturbs the normal functioning and properties of pure water. Water pollution is caused by
domestic sewage (84%) and industrial sewage (16%), though the latter has less load on water bodies, it contains
matter which is more hazardous [Anil K., 2009]. The symptoms of water pollution of any water body include
bad taste of drinking water, offensive smells from water bodies, unchecked growth of aquatic weeds
(Eutrophication). Water pollution has been extensively documented as a contributor to health problems in
marine ecosystems, as well as human health and well-being.
Page | 2
Chapter 2.Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
Pond treatment technology is used in tens of thousands of applications serving many millions of people across
the globe because it is efficient and effective. While pond treatment technology offers relative simplicity in its
application, it incorporates a host of complex and diverse mechanisms that work to treat and cleanse polluted
waters before their return to our environment .While performance and cost are obviously key bottom line
requirements, the importance of selecting a technology that is appropriate to the needs and constraints of the
local situation where it is installed is essential to achieving long term reliability and success [Andy Shilton,
2005]. The following literature review will take a look at how the performance of a sand filter can be modeled
in order for it to be used to clean a polluted pond. Part one of the literature review will give an overview of
water quality. The second section will give an overview of sand filters. The section that follows will look at the
limitations of sand filters. The fourth section will look at different ways in which the performance of a sand filter
can be enhanced using different methods including pre and post treatment techniques. Chlorine decay and how
it relates to water quality and the AQUASIM software will be addressed in the fifth section. The final section will
conclude the literature review.
2.2 Water Quality

Water quality refers to the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of water [Diersing Nancy, 2009].It
is a measure of the condition of water relative to the requirements of one or more biotic species and/or to any
human need or purpose [A.E. Winter-Nelson, 1997].The common standards (guidelines) used to assess water
quality relate to health of ecosystems, safety of human contact and drinking water. A water quality guideline is
a numerical concentration limit or narrative statements recommended to support and maintain a designated
water use [Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality, 2000].Water quality
parameters can be divided into those that have direct toxic effects on organisms and animals (insecticides,
herbicides, heavy metals ad temperature) and those that indirectly affect ecosystems causing a problem for a
specified environmental value( nutrients, turbidity and enrichment with organic matter).Appendix A shows
water quality guidelines for different water uses. Table 3 below, shows considerations concerning risk levels in
surface water sources;
Page | 3
Table 2-1: Considerations concerning the risk levels in surface water sources (Joseph Cotruvo, 1998)
2.3 Sand Filtration Technology

Filtration is one of the most important elements in traditional water treatment systems. Sand filters are
intended primarily for water quality enhancement. The effectiveness of filtration systems is determined by their
ability to remove microorganisms, turbidity and color (Color is imparted to water supplies by organic material
and can be removed by coagulation) [US EPA, 1999]. Sand filters have proven effective in removing several
common pollutants from polluted water. Sand filters generally control storm water quality (storm water runoff
is a major contributor of pollutants in water bodies), providing very limited flow rate control. Sand filters take
up very little space and can be used on highly developed sites and sites with steep slopes. Sand filters are able
to achieve high removal efficiencies for sediment, biochemical oxygen demand, and fecal coliform bacteria.
Total metal removal however, is moderate and nutrient removal is often low [EPA, 1999].
The separation of solids from a suspension in a liquid of a porous medium or which retains the solids and
allows the liquid to pass through is termed filtration. Sand filters operate in a similar manner to bioretention
systems, with the exception that water passes through a filter media (typically sand) that has no vegetation
growing on the surface. Sand filters do not incorporate vegetation because the filter media does not retain
sufficient moisture to support plant growth [WSUD, 2003].Prior to entering a sand filter, flows must be
subjected to pre-treatment to remove litter, debris and coarse sediments. Following pre-treatment flows are
spread over the sand filtration media and water percolates downwards and is intercepted by perforated pipe
located at the base of the sand media. A sand filter system typically consists of three chambers: and inlet
chamber that allows sedimentation and removal of gross pollutants, a sand filter chamber and a high flow
bypass chamber. The shape of a sand filter can be varied to suit constraints and maintenance access, provided
each of the chambers is adequately sized [Richard A Claytor, 1996].In all filters the primary design/operating
parameters are quality and head loss through the filter and appurtenances [EPA, 1999].
Page | 4
2.3.1 Inflow regulation:
The inflow regulator is used to divert runoff from a pipe, open channels or impervious surface into the filtering
system. The inflow regulator is designed to divert the desired water quality volume into the filter. [Richard A
Claytor, 1996]
2.3.2 Pretreatment:
The second key component of any filtration system is pretreatment. It is needed in every design to trap coarse
sediments before they reach the filter bed. Without pretreatment, the filter will quickly clog, and lose its
pollutant removal capability. Sediments deposited in the pretreatment chamber must be periodically removed
to maintain the system. [Richard A Claytor, 1996]
2.3.3 Filter bed and filter media:

Each filtering system utilizes some kind of media such as sand, gravel, peat, grass, soil or compost to filter out
pollutants entrained in water. The selection of the right media is important, as each has different hydraulic,
pollutant removal and clogging characteristics. The filter medium should be mechanically strong, resistant to
the corrosive action of the fluid and offer as little resistance as possible. The filter media is incorporated into
the filter bed. The three key properties of the bed are its surface area, depth and profile. The required surface
area for a filter is usually based as a percentage of impervious area treated and the media itself. The depth of
most filtering systems ranges from 18 inches to four feet. [Richard A Claytor, 1996]

- darcys equation

Where;
Q; Flow through pipe; k=permeability rate of filter media; i= hydraulic gradient; A=Area of flow; V=face velocity
2.3.4 Mechanism of filtration:

Filtration systems are affected by physical characteristics such as size of the filter medium, filtration rate, fluid
temperature, size and density of suspended solids. As the particles reach the surface of the filter media, an
attachment mechanism is required to retain it. This occurs due to electrostatic interactions and chemical
bridging or adsorption. Four processes have been found to be part of the filtration process- straining,
adsorption, biological action and absorption.
Page | 5
Table 2-2: Typical pollutant removal efficiency [Galli 1990]
Figure 1: Sand filtration system
Table 2-3: Estimated pollutant removal capability of different filtration systems
Page | 6
Table 2-4: Typical removal efficiencies using granular media filtration
Percent removal Turbidity coliform bacteria Giardia cysts
Coagulation/flocculation/ settling 84% - 96% 97% -99.95% 100%
Without coagulation/settling 35%-57% 60% 81%-91%
2.3.5 Backwashing:
Head loss is usually what determines time to backwashing. As filtration proceeds, an increasing amount of
pressure, called head loss across the filter, is required to force the water through the filter. The loss of pressure
(head loss) through a clean stratified-sand filter with uniform porosity and laminar flow is given by.
Backwashing is used to remove solids that accumulate in the filter media and is generally performed by
backwashing clean water in the opposite direction of flow. Proper backwashing is a very important step in the
operation of a filter. If the filter is not backwashed completely, it will eventually develop operational problems.
If the filter is to operate efficiently, it must be cleaned before the next filter run. The filter should be
backwashed when the following conditions have been met:
The head loss is so high that the filter no longer produces water at the desired rate
Floc starts to break through the filter and the turbidity in the filter effluent increases.
Backwashing of filters is the single most important operation in the maintenance of the sand filter. If the filter is
not backwashed effectively, problems may occur that may be impossible to correct without totally replacing the
filter media. The following problems could be caused by improper backwashing procedures:
Mudballs: These are formed by the filter media cementing together with the floc that the filter is
supposed to remove. Problems such as filter cracking and separation of the media from the filter walls
may result because of mud-ball formation.
Page | 7
Filter bed shrinkage: filter bed shrinkage or compaction can result from ineffective backwashing. Filter
media in a dirty filter are surrounded by a soft layer which causes it to compact. This causes filter bed
cracking and separation of the filter media from the walls of the filter, resulting in excessive turbidity in
the effluent
Media Loss: Media loss is normal in any filter, but if a large amount of media is being lost, the method of
the washing should be inspected and corrected.
Table 2-5. Guidelines Regarding Acceptable Backwashing Practices
Area of Emphasis Guideline
Basis for initiating backwash focus on filter performance (turbidity, particle

counts) degradation versus headloss or time
Backwash flow slowly ramped to peak rate
Backwash flow rate 15 - 20 gpm/ft2
Bed expansion during backwash 20 - 25 percent
2.4 Sand Filtration Processes
2.4.1 Direct Filtration

Direct filtration involves the addition of coagulant, rapid mix, flocculation and filtration. The major difference
relative to conventional treatment is the absence of a separation process, such as sedimentation or flotation,
between coagulant addition and filtration [EPA, 2014].Direct filtration is designed to filter water with an
average turbidity of less than 25 NTU. Direct filtration has the advantage of having lower chemical costs due to
the lower coagulant dosages used, lower capital costs as the sedimentation (and sometimes flocculation) tank
is not needed and lower operation and maintenance costs as sedimentation(and sometimes flocculation) tank
need not to be powered or maintained. Direct filtration also has disadvantages which include; not being able to
handle water supplies that are high in turbidity and/or colour and less detention time for controlling seasonal
taste and odour problems.
Page | 8
2.4.1 Conventional Filtration
Conventional filtration provides effective treatment for just about any range of raw-water turbidity. Its success
is due partially to the clarification that precedes filtration and follows coagulation and flocculation. Clarification
(or flocculation/sedimentation) includes any solid/liquid separation process following coagulation, where
accumulated solids are removed. Clarification, if operated properly, should remove most of the suspended
material. Conventional filtration has the advantage of greatly reducing the load on the filters [Duncan Mara,
2003]. It also has the advantage of being able to handle water supplies that are high in turbidity and/or colour.
2.5 Limitations of Sand Filtration Technology
2.5.1 Limitations
Sand filters usually require adequate pre-treatment (coagulation, flocculation) and post
treatment(chlorine)
Both construction and operation are cost-intensive
Not effective in removing bacteria, viruses, fluoride, arsenic, salts and organic matter.
Usually requires power-operated pumps, regular backwashing /cleaning and flow control of the filter
outlet.
Sand filters have no vegetation to break up the filter surface; therefore maintenance is critical to
ensuring continued performance, particularly in preserving the hydraulic conductivity of the filtration
media (McGarry and Eddie 2011).
2.5.2 Maintenance
Regular maintenance involves removing the surface layer of fine sediments that can tend to clog the filtration
media. In order to significantly increase ease of maintenance for a sand filter, direct physical access to the
whole surface of the sand filter chamber will be required to remove fine sediments from the surface layer of
the filter media as they accumulate forming a crust. Also the sedimentation chamber needs to be drained for
maintenance purposes. Having freely drained material significantly reduces the removal and disposal
maintenance costs. Also provision should be made for flushing of any sediment build up that occurs in the pipes.
[McGarry and Eddie 2011].
Page | 9
2.6 Enhancement of Sand Filtration Technology
2.6.1 Pretreatment
The performance of sand filtration technology is greatly impacted by the processes that precede it. Chemical
feed, rapid mix, flocculation and sedimentation may need upgrading to improve overall system performance or
accommodate system expansions. The three basic aspects of chemical feed systems are chemical type, dosage
management and the method of chemical application [US EPA, 1999].
Coagulation: Coagulation is used to remove turbidity, organic and inorganic matter, colour, taste and
odour producing substances. Chemicals that assist in the removal of suspended solids are added to the
untreated water. Coagulants, rapidly add electrochemical charges that attract the small particles in
water to clump together as a floc. The initial charge neutralization process allows the formed floc to
agglomerate but remain suspended. Coagulation is usually a high energy, rapid mix unit process.
Detention time of the coagulation is about 2-3 seconds. The factors that affect the effectiveness of the
coagulation process include; pH (best pH range: Al,5-7; Fe,5-8), Alkalinity of water (>30PPM residual),
turbidity (constituents and concentration), type of coagulant used (Al and Fe salts), temperature (colder
water requires more mixing), adequacy of mixing (dispersion of chemical) [WTRG16, 2013].
Coagulants: Coagulants are chemicals that are used to assist with the removal of colour and turbidity
present in untreated, raw water [Peter Gebbie, 2006]. They do this by forming settleable particles in
the form of flocs, which are then removed. Coagulants may be classified as being organic or inorganic.
Organic coagulants include those commonly used chemicals that rely on aluminium or iron. Organic
coagulants include polydiallyldimethyl ammonium chloride range of cationic polymers [Peter Gebbie,
2006].
When looking at coagulants and their potential applications, the following rules apply;
Inorganic coagulants will decrease the alkalinity of a water sample
As a consequence of the decrease in alkalinity, the pH of the chemically dosed raw water will
decrease. This often means supplemental alkalinity in the form of lime; soda ash will have to be
added to maintain an acceptable dosed-water pH.
Some inorganic coagulants have a greater impact on raw water than others. Organic coagulants
do not affect the raw water alkalinity and pH.
All coagulants produce sludge in the form of the metal hydroxide together with the colored and
colloidal matter that is removed from the raw water. Organic coagulants produce little sludge;
another advantage.
Inorganic coagulants will increase the total dissolved solids concentration of the treated water,
this may be undesirable.
Page | 10
Table 2.6: Common coagulants and dosage for the best floc formation [WTRG16, 2013]
Flocculation: In this process the precipitates combine into larger particles Flocs. The large amorphous
aluminium and iron (III) hydroxides adsorb and enmesh particles in suspension. By slower mixing,
turbulence causes the flocculated water to from larger floc particles and increase in mass. These flocs
are then easier to remove via the subsequent processes of sedimentation and filtration. Large paddles
as mixing devices enhance the formation of the floc. Detention time of flocculation ranges from 10-30
minutes [McGarry and Eddie 2011]. In the treatment of water and wastewater the degree of mixing is
measured by the velocity gradient, G. The velocity gradient is best thought of as the amount of shear
taking place.
Page | 11
Where;
G= Velocity gradient, p=power input, =Volume of water in mixing tank, =Dynamic viscosity.
Note: Enough mixing must be provided to bring the floc into contact and to keep the floc from settling
in the flocculation basin. Too much mixing will shear the floc particles so that the floc is small and finely
dispersed. Therefore, the velocity gradient must be controlled within a relatively narrow range.
Sedimentation: flocculated water is applied to large volume tanks where the flow speed slows down
(the flow is almost devoid of turbulence) and the dense floc settles to the bottom. The settled floc is
then removed after it resides at this point to remove all settleable particles from coagulation and is
then treated as waste product., i.e detention time is inversely proportional to the incoming flow rate-
as the flow rate increases, the detention time decreases [McGarry and Eddie 2011]

Some of the chemical considerations as they relate to the raw water parameters are shown in the table
below:
Table 2-7: Coagulant chemical considerations
Raw water Parameter Chemical consideration

Alkalinity: a measure of Alkalinity influences how chemicals react with raw water. Too little
the ability of water to alkalinity will result in poor floc formation, so the system may want to
neutralise acid. consider adding a supplemental source of alkalinity (such as lime, soda
ash).One rule of thumb is that alum consumes half as much alkalinity as
ferric chloride.
Alkalinity < 50mg/L This concentration of alkalinity is considered low, and acidic metallic salts,
such as ferric chloride or alum, may not provide the proper floc formation.
Note: Once a water sample reaches a pH of 4.5, the three main forms of
alkalinity have been neutralised.
Increase in total organic More coagulant is typically needed. Remember, organics influence the
carbon formation of disinfection by-products.
pH between 5.5 and 7.5 Optimum pH range for alum
pH between 5.0 and 8.5 Optimum pH range for ferric salts
pH> 8.5 Ferric chloride may not work or other high acidic coagulants
Temperature< 5oc Alum and ferric salts may not provide proper floc formation, may want to
consider using PACl or non-sulphated polyhydroxy aluminium chloride.
2.6.2 Additional methods of enhancing sand filter performance

In addition to pretreatment, other methods of enhancing sand filter performance can be utilized. Research on
enhancing sand filters and designing them to remove dissolved phosphorus as well is currently being
researched [Erickson et al.2012]. Research on other enhancements to remove dissolved metals is also under
way [Andrew J Erickson, 2013]. Improving filtration systems can increase plant capacity and improve effluent
quality. This is usually achieved by;
Page | 12
Changing the configuration of the filter media, for example changing the filter media to dual or mixed
media or replacing the top layer of sand with anthracite coal.
Filtration aid application is also another way in which filtration systems can be improved. These aids
prevent premature turbidity breakthroughs by controlling floc penetration into the filter.
Addition of polymers to the backwash water can reduce the initial turbidity peaks during filter ripening
following backwash and extend filter operation before breakthrough occurs [US EPA, 1999].
Although filters are not generally designed to remove dissolved compounds, dissolved phosphorus
removal can be significantly enhanced if the sand is amended with iron, calcium, aluminum or
magnesium [Arias te al.2001].
Another modification that may improve sand filter design and performance that is being tested is the
addition of a peat layer in the filtration chamber. The addition of peat to the sand filter may increase
microbial growth within the sand filter and improve metals and nutrient removal rates [Arias te
al.2001].
Table 2-8: Comparative properties of different filtering media (Galli, 1990)
2.7 Chlorine Decay and AQUASIM Software

2.7.1 AQUASIM software
The program AQUASIM was developed for the identification and simulation of AQUATIC systems in nature, in
technical plants and in the laboratory. AQUASIM contains a dynamic equation solver, which can perform
parameter estimation to find the best fit of the model output to the experimental data [Reichert,1998].It lets
the user define a model using a set of predefined compartments and links and arbitrary transformation
processes and perform simulations, sensitivity analyses and parameter estimations with this model [Sven E.
Jorgensen, 1996].
Page | 13
Figure 2: The four functional units in AQUASIM and their relationships
AQUASIM software will be used to evaluate the water quality of our project before and after treatment using
chlorine decay studies. Reduction in chlorine demand will help to evaluate the performance of treatment in
removing organic compounds and others that consume chlorine [Jega Jegatheesan, 2014]. When chlorine is
added to water, a mixture of hypochorous acid (HOCl) and hydrochloric acid (HCl) is formed [Gary S Logsdon,
2008];
2.7.2 Water Quality Modelling (Chlorine decay)

Water quality models can be applied to many different types of water systems, including streams, rivers, lakes,
reservoirs and estuaries. The models describe the main water quality processes, and typically require the
hydrological and constituent inputs [UNESCO, 2005].Lake/pond water quality prediction is complicated by the
influence of random wind directions and velocities that often affect surface mixing, for this reason, it is often
difficult to obtain reliable quality predictions for lake/pond water[UNESCO, 2005].The fact that most, if not all,
water quality models cannot accurately predict what actually happens does not detract from their value.
The basic principle of water quality models is that of mass balance. A water system can be divided into different
segments or volume elements (computational cells) [UNESCO, 2005]. For each segment or cell, there must be a
mass balance for each quality constituent over time. Most water simulation models simulate quality over a
consecutive series of discrete time intervals. For each segment and time period, the mass balance of a
substance in a segment can be defined. Components of a mass balance for a segment include: first, changes by
transport (Tr) [advection and dispersion] into and out of the segment; second, changes by physical or chemical
processes (P) occurring within the segment; and third, changes by sources/discharges to or from the segment
(S) [UNESCO, 2005].
Page | 14
Mtt+t = Mtt + t (Mt /t)Tr + t (Mt /t)p + t (Mt/t)
The mass balance has the following components:
Mtt = Mass in computational cell i at the beginning of a time step t
Mtt+t = Mass in computational cell i at the end of a time step t
t (Mt /t)Tr = Changes in computational call i by transport
t (Mt /t)p = Changes in computational call i by physical, (bio)chemical or biological processes.
t (Mt /t)s = Changes in computational call i by sources (e.g wasteloads, river discharges)
Water supplies are disinfected primarily to inactivate micro-organisms that are harmful to human health.
Chlorine is possibly the most popular disinfectant because of its low cost and efficacy [D.Boccelli, 2003].
Chlorine as a non-selective oxidant reacts with both organic and inorganic chemical species in water. Chlorine
decays after it reacts with compounds in water. Due to a complex set of reactions and an initial fast reaction,
followed by a slower reaction; it is often difficult to describe chlorine decay. Chlorine decay behaviour also
varies significantly depending on the quality of water, types of treatment processes etc. Temperature has also
been shown to have a significant effect on chlorine decay characteristics, and any change in this parameter
should be considered [J.C. Powell, 2000].Chlorine decay in bulk water is traditionally described by a first order
reaction [G.Kastl, 1999]:
dccl /dt = -k * Ccl
The general chlorine decay model includes the following reactions between chlorine and other constituents in
water (Bell-Ajy et al., 2000)
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]
[ ]

In this study, the experimental chlorine decay data are used to estimate values of chlorine demand. The total
amount of total chlorine demand which is the sum of chlorine demand for fast and slow reacting agents can be
used as an indication of the disinfection by product [DBP] precursors concentration in the water.
Page | 15

Combined chlorine= Combined chlorine is total chloramines. They are generated when free chlorine reacts with
contaminants in water.
Free chlorine= Amount of chlorine available to kill microorganisms in water.
The graphs below show the AQUASIM software output of 6mg/L and 10mg/L inputs as shown in the tables
below.
Table 2.9: 6mg/L dosage of chlorine (free and total) with time
Time(min) 0 0.01 0.083 0.166 0.25 0.33 0.416 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 17
6 mg/L 6 1.23 1.29 1.29 094 0.9 0.89 0.8 0.67 0.56 0.55 0.39 0.34 0.34 0.07
(Free
chlorine)
6 mg/L 6 1.3 1.25 1.17 1.11 1.07 1.02 0.97 0.87 0.79 0.72 0.64 0.55 0.46 0.22
(Total
chlorine)
Figure 3: AQUASIM software output for 6mg/L chlorine dosage.
Page | 16
Table 2-10: 10mg/L dosage of chlorine (free and total) with time
Time 0 0.01 0.083 0.166 0.25 0.33 0.416 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 17
10 mg/L 10 6.4 6 6 6 6 5.8 5.7 5.2 5 4.8 4.2 4 3.6 0.63

(Free
chlorine)
10 mg/L 10 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.4 6.3 6.3 6.3 5.8 5. 5.4 4.9 4.6 4.6 4.4
(Total
chlorine)
Figure 4: AQUASIM software output for 10mg/L chlorine dosage
Page | 17
Chapter 3.Methodology
This chapter describes the materials and methods used in this project. A strategies chart has been constructed
and is shown below.
Figure 5: Methodology strategies chart.

Page | 18
3.1 Methodology
This project includes both theoretical study and practical experiments. The theoretical study mainly discusses
the theories behind water pollution, its effects and information on different types of pollutants and how they
affect water quality. An extensive literature review of methods that can used to model the performance of a
sand filtration system that is to be used to clean a polluted pond are addressed. This part of the project is
covered by using academic and scientific resources such as, academic journals and papers from academic
databases, as well as scientific data sheets.
The practical part of the assignment will be done in the Civil Engineering laboratory at Deakin University Waurn
Ponds Campus. It will basically be implementing the theories and designs discussed in the theoretical part.
Several experiments were carried out in order to establish the optimum method that can be used to model the
performance of a polluted pond, this included determining the best coagulant and establishing its optimum
dose, recommending sand filter size and a recommendation of backwash volume. Chlorine decay studies were
also performed and water quality was modelled using AQUASIM software.
3.2 Raw Water
All experiments were carried out with raw water collected from ponds 3 and 6, located at the Deakin university
Waurn ponds Campus. Their initial parameters were measured (pH, Turbidity, conductivity, etc).The lakes are
selected because of their proximity and ease of access and their ideal initial parameters.
Figure 6: Deakin University Waurn Ponds Campus map with ponds labelled.
Page | 19
3.3 Experiments
3.3.1 Jar Tests (Refer to section 2.6.1- Pretreatment; for technical aspect of Jar testing)
Jar testing is a bench scale experiment used by drinking water treatment plants. The test simulates a water
treatment plants coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation units using a range of chemical doses. It is
performed to determine the optimum dose of coagulant to be added during the water treatment process to
obtain flocs with good settling characteristics [Leanne Farago, 2014]
Jar testing was used to perform the coagulation experiments and evaluate the different coagulants (Alum,
Ferric chloride and poly aluminium chloride) and coagulant doses, to see which is more effective in terms of
cost and performance. The Jar Testing method and apparatus is outlined below [Adapted from Water Training
Centre notes].
3.3.1.1 Apparatus
Jar tester-stirrer with 4 to 6 paddles and variable speed

2 liter square beakers
2 liter measuring cylinder
Water samples
Syringes
Bottles containing 5% W/V ploy aluminium chloride, 1% W/V alum and 1% ferric chloride.
Turbidimeter
Figure 7: Turbidimeter
pH meter
Figure 8: pH meter
Page | 20
Conductivity meter
Figure 9: Conductivity meter

Filtration apparatus
3.3.1.2 Method
Ensure raw water sample is well mixed and then measure turbidity, pH and conductivity of raw water.
Transfer 2 liters of raw water sample to each beaker using a graduated cylinder (Filling)
Lower the stirrers into the beakers, start stirring at 200 rpm
With a syringe, add the relevant dose of coagulant to each beaker. The coagulant should be added as
close as possible to the hub of the stirrer and added with a 2-3 second dosing time (Dosing)
Continue stirring at max rpm for 1 minute
Reduce the speed to 30rpm and continue stirring for 20 minutes, then turn off the paddles and lift out
of water (Flocculating)
Allow 20 minutes settling time, during this time observe the rate of settling in each container(Settling)
After settling for 20 minutes measure the turbidity, pH and conductivity of each sample.
Figure 10: Jar testing (Deakin University 2014)
Page | 21
3.3.2 Sand filter (Refer to section 2.3- Enhancement of sand filter for more technical aspect)
Sand filtration experiments were performed on two sand filters with different sand filter media sizes (river sand
sizes 6 and 6.5). Two filtration processes were performed, which included conventional and direct filtration
(refer to section 2.4 for sand filtration processes) in order to establish which one was the most effective. Initial
parameters of raw water (turbidity, pH, conductivity) were measured. Turbidity was also then consecutively
measured at 5 minute intervals, pH and conductivity was measured at 30 minute intervals and head loss was
measured at 5 minute intervals. Flow rate was also measured at 30 minute intervals. The filtration method and
apparatus is outlined below.
3.3.2.1 Apparatus
2 Sand filters with different sand filter media sizes
Figure 11: Sand filtration system at Deakin University.

measuring cylinder
Water samples
Bottles containing 1% ferric chloride.
Turbidimeter
pH meter
Conductivity meter
Stopwatch
Page | 22
3.3.2.2 Before use:
Measure raw water initial parameters (turbidity, pH, conductivity)

Coagulate raw water (direct filtration) and allow to settle (conventional filtration)
Check all manometers are at the same height
Check all manometers have been connected to column via click on connections
Make sure valve at base of column is turned off
Check that feed pump outlets are inserted into tops of columns and overflow outlets are running back
into the feed tank
3.3.2.3 Operation:
Fill feed tank with desired sample

Start pump and allow columns to fill
Make sure there are no air bubbles within manometers, if there are push water back through
manometers using squeeze water bottle to add water to manometers
Make sure columns are not overflowing at the top
Open valve at base of column and adjust to desired flow rate. Use a measuring cylinder and stopwatch
to calculate flow rate
Mark starting height of water in manometers and mark at set intervals throughout the experiment.
These markings will be used to calculate the head loss of the filter columns. Record height changes
throughout the experiment.
Finally measure parameters of filter permeate.
3.3.2.4 Backwashing:
Backwash columns to remove contaminants

Disconnect all manometers before backwashing
Connect garden hose to outlet at base of columns
Ensure overflow pipe is running to drain
Slowly run water through hose and allow to flow until sand is swirling within column. Do not apply too
much water pressure as this will cause sand to overflow from column. Continue washing until water in
the top of the column is clear.
Take note of backwash volume.
Page | 23
3.3.3 Chlorine decay experiments - (Refer to section 2.7- for more technical aspect of chlorine decay)
AQUASIM software will be the primary means we will use to evaluate water quality before and after treatment
using chlorine decay studies. Before being able to measure the chlorine decay of a sample you first need to
know the demand. The chlorine demand and decay experimental method and apparatus is outlined below.
3.3.3.1 Apparatus
10 x 100ml glass bottles

Aluminium foil
100mg/l Cl2 stock
Stop watch
Chlorine meter
Figure 12: Chlorine meter
Free and total chlorine pillows
Figure 13: Free and total chlorine pillow dispensers
2 litre brown bottles
Page | 24
3.3.3.2 Chlorine demand studies:
Take 10 x 100 ml glass bottles, rinse well with demineralized water and wrap in aluminium foil so that
no light can enter the bottle (light will cause the chlorine demand to change faster)
Fill each bottle with 100ml of sample
Add from the 100mg/l Cl2 stock the following volumes of solution;
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 (ml)
Wait 5 minutes between each addition (this time will become important when
measuring total chlorine)
Note time chlorine is added.
Shake all bottles well and leave to sit for 60 minutes
After 60 minutes measure all samples for total and free chlorine using the free and total chlorine
meters.
Plot results in excel spreadsheet. The lowest point is the breakpoint, this is the required chlorine dose
for this sample. Repeat again after 120 minutes.
Figure 14: Chlorine demand studies, Deakin University 2014.
Page | 25
3.3.3.3 Chlorine decay studies:
Calculate the amount of chlorine stock solution to be added to the two litre sample volumes to give the
desired chlorine dose rate (mg/L).
You will need to use a 2lt water sample as we will be taking out a lot of samples over the course of the test
and we want to keep a representative sample volume, 1 litre is too small, 2 lt is manageable.
For example:
(Final concentration / initial concentration) * final volume
Stock solution: 100mg/L
= (2/100)*2000
Final volume: 2000ml (2L) = 40ml stock solution to be added to 2L sample
Final concentration: 2mg/L
So in this case we would add 40 ml to a two litre sample (giving us a dose of 2mg/l Cl) and 80 ml to a 2lt
sample giving us a 4mg/l dose.
The 4mg/l needs to use the HR mode on the chlorine meter. Make sure you follow the method for HR
chlorine. (1 pillow, 1cm cell)
The 2mg/l needs to use the LR mode on the chlorine meter. Make sure you follow the method for LR
chlorine. (1 pillow, round cell)
Use brown glass bottles to prevent growth of algae and rapid breakdown of chlorine due to interaction
with light
Add 2L of sample to be chlorinated to bottle.
Add required chlorine dose and shake well.
Start stop watch (this gives a total experiment time) and note time of day.
Samples need to be taken immediately after chlorine is added for a time =0 result
You will need 3 x 10ml samples - zero, free and total chlorine.
Dont mix up the cells you use for these as it can result in false high results due to
contamination.
Sample every 5 mins for the first half hour.
This can get a bit tricky given the 3 minute wait for the total chlorine.
Make sure you note the time the pillow is added. This will give you an accurate
representation of time.
After 30 minutes sample at 15 minute intervals until 2 hours since chlorine addition has taken place.
After 2 hours has elapsed, sample at hourly intervals.
Sample only until chlorine results reach 0.2mg/l
3.4 Modelling
3.5 AQUASIM Software (Refer to section 2.6- for more technical aspect of chlorine decay and AQUASIM
software)
AQUASIM software will be used to evaluate the water quality before and after treatment using chlorine decay
studies. Reduction in chlorine demand will help to evaluate the performance of treatment in removing organic
compounds and others that consume chlorine.
Page | 26
Chapter 4.Results and Discussion
4.1 Results and Discussion

The following section of the project report presents the results of the experimental testing as outlined in
section 3.3-Experiments. Accompanying each test or experiment is an analysis of the results.
4.2 Jar Tests
Jar testing is a bench scale experiment used by drinking water treatment plants. The test was used to simulate a
water treatment plants coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation units using a range of coagulants and
coagulant doses. Coagulants included 1% Alum, 1% ferric chloride and 5% poly aluminium chloride. It is
performed to determine the optimum dose of coagulant to be added during the water treatment process to
obtain flocs with good settling characteristics [Leanne Farago, 2014]. Given the initial parameters (alkalinity, pH
and turbidity) of our raw water samples from pond 3 and 6 (refer to figure 7), our literature review pointed
towards either poly aluminium chloride, alum or ferric chloride. The following results show the evidence used
to support the selection of ferric chloride and its optimum dose, over poly aluminium chloride and alum.
Turbidity is used as a benchmark for the water quality.
4.2.1 Jar Test Results
The results obtained from the Jar tests, have been tabulated and graphed. Pictures that show the outcomes of
the experiments have also been included.
4.2.1.1 Raw water initial parameters
Table 4.1-Raw water parameters

Pond Number
3(Raw Water)
Suspended
Conductivity Temperature Alkalinity solids T.N Turbidity
(.S/cm) pH (C) mg/L (100ml water) (ml/m) (NTU)
Sample
1(24/07/2014) 81.3 6.83 20 19 102mg/L 0.54mg/L 149
Pond Number
6(Raw Water)
Suspended
Alkalinity Conductivity Temperature solids(300ml
Turbidity(NTU) Mg/L (.S/cm) pH (C) Turbidity(NTU) water) T.N
Sample 1-
24/07/2014 102 253 7.7 19.5 14.4 13mg/L 0.45mg/L
Page | 27
4.2.1.2 Jar Test Results using Poly Aluminium Chloride
Water Quality Parameters after coagulation:
Table 4-2: Jar test results performed on pond 3 raw water using 5% Poly aluminium chloride [PAC]
Percent removal
Conductivity(.S/cm) pH Temperature(C) Turbidity(NTU) of turbidity (%)
Dosage
1ml 72.9 6.67 19.2 94.1 36.8
3ml 113.2 5.67 19.2 110 26.2
5ml 162.1 5.16 19.2 116 22.1
10ml 285 4.94 19.2 103 30.9
15ml 388 4.88 19.2 135 9.4
20ml 481 4.87 19.2 142 4.7
Percent removal of turbidity vs dosage

40.0
35.0
30.0
Percent removal
25.0
20.0 Percent removal of turbidity
15.0 pH
10.0 Temperature
5.0
0.0
1ml 3ml 5ml 10ml 15ml 20ml
Dosage
Figure 15: percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for PAC (pH and temperature are also shown)
Percent removal
Dosage Conductivity(.S/cm) pH Temperature(C) Turbidity(NTU) of turbidity (%)
0.2ml N/A 6.77 18 41.6 72.1
0.4ml N/A 6.73 18 65.4 56.1
0.6ml N/A 6.9 18 118 20.8
0.8ml N/A 6.9 18 126 15.4
1ml N/A 6.44 18 129 13.4
Note: Conductivity readings were not taken for this experiment as or primary concern was to determine
whether or not the coagulant affects the alkalinity of the water.
Page | 28
80.0
70.0
60.0
Percent removal
50.0
30.0 pH
20.0 Temperature
10.0
0.0
0.2ml 0.4ml 0.6ml 0.8ml 1ml
Dosage
Percent removal
Dosage Conductivity(.S/cm) pH Temperature(C) Turbidity(NTU) of turbidity (%)
0.05ml 68.5 6.54 20 45.1 68.2
0.1ml 76.1 6.7 20 31 78.2
0.15ml 70.1 6.71 20 7.71 94.6
0.2ml 70.3 6.77 20 19.1 86.5
0.25ml 71.1 6.74 20 31.6 77.7
0.3ml 71.3 6.81 20 41.3 70.9

100.0
90.0
80.0
Percent removal
70.0
60.0
40.0 pH
30.0
20.0 Temperature
10.0
0.0
0.05ml 0.1ml 0.15ml 0.2ml 0.25ml 0.3ml
Dosage
Page | 29
Dosage Conductivity pH Temperature Turbidity Percent Removal (%)
0.05ml 278 7.7 18.8 12.3 14.6
0.1ml 278 7.69 18.8 7.54 47.6
0.15ml 279 7.67 18.8 3.21 77.7
0.2ml 278 7.64 19 5.38 62.6

90.0
80.0
70.0
Percent removal
60.0
Percent removal of
50.0 turbidity
40.0 pH
30.0
20.0 Temperature
10.0
0.0
0.05ml 0.1ml 0.15ml 0.2ml
Dosage
4.2.1.3 Discussion and Analysis
Prior to performing the jar test experiments, the hypothesis from the literature review, Poly aluminium chloride
often gives significant advantages over coagulants like alum including; reduced chemical cost, lower residual
aluminium levels in treated water, lower sludge production and improved treated water quality. However as
displayed in the results, this was not always the case.
Initially we observed that large doses (larger than 5ml) of the poly aluminium chloride coagulant affect (lower)
the pH of the water sample, but we notice that in samples where lower doses are applied (less than 1ml) the pH
is pretty consistent and is not affected much, by the coagulant. Also large doses (in our case, doses larger than
1ml) give high turbidity results. We see from results that large dosages of coagulant are not as effective as the
lower doses, i.e, the higher the dose, the higher the turbidity. We also notice that large doses (greater than
3ml), produce flocs that float on the surface of the water, probably because large doses produce very small and
light flocs. We also observed that the low doses of coagulant do not affect the alkalinity of the water samples.
Alkalinity of raw water was measured. Alkalinity of water sample was also measured after rapid mixing, after 15
minutes and after 30 minutes and the alkalinity results were the same throughout the process, indicating that
the poly aluminium chloride has very little effect on the alkalinity of the water samples. The turbidity of sample
Page | 30
1 after 48 hours was 5.32 NTU, this indicates that low doses of poly aluminium chloride are effective but need
longer settling times. For our case, it is observed that the optimum dose of poly aluminium chloride dose is
about 0.15ml.
Figure 19: Flocs floating on surface of water during jar testing
4.2.1.4 Jar Test Results using Ferric Chloride
Table 4-6: Jar test results performed on pond 3 raw water using 1% Ferric chloride
Percent Removal
Conductivity(.S/cm) pH Temperature(C) Turbidity(NTU) (%)
Dose
1ml 82.8 6.52 19.4 127 10.6
3ml 85.7 6.22 19.4 108 23.9
5ml 91.2 5.87 19.4 3.7 97.4
10ml 90.9 3.69 19.4 11 92.3
15ml 245 3.19 19.6 14.4 89.9
20ml 331 2.98 19.6 13.5 90.5
Percent removal of turbidity vs dose

120.0
100.0
Percent removal
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
1ml 3ml 5ml 10ml 15ml 20ml
Dose
Perecent removal of turbidity Temperature pH
Figure 20: Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for ferric chloride (pH and temperature are also shown).
Page | 31
Conductivity(.S/cm) pH Temperature(C) Turbidity(NTU) Percent Removal (%)
Dose
4ml 76.1 6.36 19.2 80.1 43.6
6ml 83 5.77 19.1 16.1 88.7
7ml 114.7 6.32 18.9 5.1 96.4
8ml 116.9 6.27 18.9 1.56 98.9
10ml 90.9 3.69 19.4 11 92.3

120.0
100.0
Percent removal
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
4ml 6ml 7ml 8ml 10ml
Dose
Percent removal of turbidity Temperature pH
Figure 21: Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for ferric chloride (pH and temperature are also shown)
Percent Removal
Conductivity(.S/cm) pH Temperature(C) Turbidity(NTU) (%)
Dose
4ml 284 7.44 18.9 1.15 92.0
6ml 287 7.16 19.2 1 93.1
7ml 289 7.07 19.1 1.01 93.0
8ml 291 6.99 19.3 1.38 90.4
Page | 32
100.0
90.0
80.0
70.0
Percent removal
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
4ml 6ml 7ml 8ml
Dose
Figure 22: Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for ferric chloride (pH and temperature are also shown)
Prior to performing the jar test experiments, the hypothesis from the literature review was that ferric chloride
tends to be more expensive than alum on an equivalent dose basis. It also tends to consume more alkalinity
than alum and hence tend to depress pH of the dosed water much more. However as displayed in the results,
this was not always the case.
Initially we observed that doses under 5ml do not form flocs and are not effective and do not form proper flocs
and resulting in high turbidity results. We also observed that large doses (larger than 10ml) of the ferric chloride
coagulant affect (lower) the pH of the water sample ,indicating it consumes alkalinity of the water sample, but
we notice that in samples where lower doses are applied (less than 10ml) the pH is pretty consistent and is not
affected much, by the coagulant. For our case, based on aesthetics and turbidity results it is observed that ferric
chloride is the most effective coagulant and the optimum dose of ferric chloride dose is about 7ml.
Figure 23: Jar testing using ferric chloride as coagulant.

Page | 33
4.2.1.6 Jar Test Results using Alum
Table 4-9: Jar test results performed on pond 3 raw water using 1% Alum
Conductivity(.S/cm) pH Temperature(C) Turbidity(NTU) Percent removal (%)
Dose
5ml 90.8 6.19 19 7.18 94.9
10ml 104.2 4.89 19.2 11.1 92.2
15ml 126 4.56 19.1 11.9 91.6
20ml 151 4.35 19.4 4.34 96.9

120.0
100.0
Percent removal
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
5ml 10ml 15ml 20ml
Dose
Figure 24: Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for Alum (pH and temperature are also shown)
Generally, alum is the first coagulant of choice because of its lower cost and its widespread availability. For
coloured, low turbidity, low pH/ alkalinity surface waters, pre-treatment with lime or soda ash will normally be
required to enquire to ensure that the optimum coagulation pH is achieved. [Peter Gebbie, 2006].
Initially we observed that large doses (larger than 10ml) of the alum coagulant affect (lower) the pH of the
water sample ,indicating it consumes alkalinity of the water sample, but we notice that in samples where lower
doses are applied (less than 10ml) the pH is pretty consistent. Because previous projects focused on alum as a
coagulant we try our best to select an alternative coagulant and test alum merely to see how other coagulants
fair against it. Based on aesthetics and turbidity results, we observe that 20 ml is the optimum dose for alum as
a coagulant.
Page | 34
Figure 25: Jar testing using Alum as coagulant.
4.2.2 Jar Testing Discussion and Analysis
The primary purpose of the jar testing experiments was to select the best coagulant and its optimum dose.
Based on aesthetics and performance [Turbidity removal], ferric chloride is selected as the best coagulant as it
produced the best flocs and settled the best. Its optimum dose is found to be 7ml. In the optimum dose range it
is observed that ferric chloride does not use up much alkalinity, therefore the pH stays in the optimum range
and this allows for good floc formation.
The experiment had several causes for potential error in results. These include, inaccuracy of measuring
equipment, human error, incorrect application of doses, etc. Although these challenges were attempted to be
overcome, they would not have been eliminated entirely.
4.3 Sand Filtration and Backwashing
The separation of solids from a suspension in a liquid of a porous medium or which retains the solids and allows
the liquid to pass through is termed filtration. The effectiveness of filtration systems is determined by their
ability to remove microorganisms, turbidity and color. This experiment was performed in order to determine
which sand filter and which sand filtration process (conventional or direct) was the most effective. Sand
filtration experiments were performed on two sand filters with different sand filter media sizes (river sand sizes
6 and 6.5). Initial parameters of raw water (turbidity, pH, conductivity) were measured. Turbidity was also then
consecutively measured at 5 minute intervals, pH and conductivity was measured at 30 minute intervals and
head loss was measured at 5 minute intervals. Flow rate was also measured at 30 minute intervals. Experiments
are only performed on pond 3 water samples. Volumes of backwash for each experiment were recorded.
Turbidity is used as a benchmark for the water quality.
Page | 35
4.3.1 Sand Filtration Results
The results obtained from the sand filtration experiments, have been tabulated and graphed. Pictures that
show the outcomes of the experiments have also been included.
4.3.1.1 Raw water initial parameters
Table 4-10: Raw water initial parameters

Pond Number
3(Raw Water)
Suspended
Conductivity Temperature Alkalinity solids T.N Turbidity
(.S/cm) pH (C) mg/L (100ml water) (ml/m) (NTU)
Sample
1(24/07/2014) 81.3 6.83 20 19 102mg/L 0.54mg/L 149
4.3.1.2 Sand filtration results using River sand 6 sand (Effective size: 1.5-1.7mm, Nominal size: 1.5-3mm)
4.3.1.2.1 Direct Filtration
Coagulant dose: 140 ml (1% ferric chloride), Water volume: 40 litres
Table 4-11: Direct sand filtration tests performed on pond 3 raw water results
Percent
Turbidity removal flow rate
(NTU) Of Temp. (ml/min) Conductivity Total Total Organic
Time turbidity(%) (C) pH (.s/cm) Nitrogen(mg/L) Carbon(mg/L)
Col. Col. Col. Col. Col. Col.
1 2 Col.1 Col.2 1 2 1 2 Col.1 Col.2
0
mins 114 114 0 0 17.2 7.12 7.12 250 250 65.3 65.3 0.74 20.49
5
mins 9.67 10.1 91.5 91.14 100.2 100.2
10
mins 11.6 11.1 89.8 90.26
15
mins 12 12.4 89.5 89.12
20
mins 13.2 13.4 88.4 88.25 99.5 99.5
25
mins 14.3 14.7 87.5 87.11
30
mins 15.7 15.4 86.2 86.49 19.6 5.83 5.77 250 250 99.7 100.2
35
mins 17.8 18.4 84.4 83.86
40
mins 20.1 19.9 82.4 82.54
45
mins 23.1 24.1 79.7 78.86 19.7 5.66 5.67 250 250 102.1 100.7 0.06 2.24
Page | 36
Percent removal vs time
100
90
80
Percent removal
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 mins 5 mins 10 mins 15 mins 20 mins 25 mins 30 mins 35 mins 40 mins 45 mins
(Raw
water)
Time
Percent removal of tubidity(column 1) Percent removal of turbidity (column 2)

pH(Column 1) pH(Column 2)
Total nitrogen Total organic carbon
Figure 26: Percent removal (turbidity) to time for direct sand filtration (pH, Total nitrogen and total organic carbon are also
shown)
4.3.1.2.1 Indirect Filtration
Coagulant dose: 140 ml (1% ferric chloride), Water volume: 40 litres, Settling period- 5 days
Table 4-11: Indirect sand filtration tests performed on pond 3 raw water results.
Percent Flow
Turbidity removal of rate(ml/min) Conductivity TOC TN
o
Time (NTU) turbidity(%) pH Temp( C) (.s/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Col. Col. Col. Col.
1 Col.2 Col.1 2 Col.1 2 Col. 1 2 Col.1 Col.2
0 mins (Raw
water
before
settling) 143 143 0.0 0.0 6.74 6.74 19.9 250 250 67.2 67.2 20.49 0.74
0 mins (Raw
water after
settling) 25.1 25.1 82.4 82.4 4.19 4.19 19.9 250 250 109.3 109.3 3.37 0.15
5 mins 24.3 24.5 83.0 82.9
10 mins 25.1 24.9 82.4 82.6 5.51 5.54 19.9 93.6 93.7
15 mins 25 24.9 82.5 82.6
20 mins 24.7 24.1 82.7 83.1 4.91 4.91 110 110
25 mins 24.6 24.5 82.8 82.4
30 mins 24.6 24.6 82.8 82.8 4.81 4.81 20.1 250 250 108 107.9
35 mins 24.6 24.4 82.8 82.4
40 mins 24.7 24.3 82.7 83.0 4.8 4.8 107 107
45 mins 25.3 25.5 82.3 82.2
50 mins 25.9 25.7 81.9 82.0 5 5 19.5 150 150 109.4 109.4 3.2 0.16
Page | 37
90.0
80.0
Percent removal
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 mins 0 mins 5 mins 10 mins 15 mins 20 mins 25 mins 30 mins 35 mins 40 mins 45 mins 50 mins
(Raw (Raw
water water
before after
settling) settling)
Time

Figure 27: Percent removal (turbidity) to time for Indirect sand filtration (pH, Total nitrogen and total organic carbon are also
shown)
Page | 38
4.3.1.3 Sand filtration results using River sand 6.5 sand (Effective size: 0.85-0.95mm, Nominal size: 0.8-1.8mm)
4.3.1.3.1 Direct Filtration
Coagulant dose: 210 ml (1% ferric chloride), Water volume: 60 litres
Table 4-12: Direct sand filtration tests performed on pond 3 raw water results.
Total
Total Organi
Turbidity Percent Flow rate Nitroge c
(NTU) removal of Tem (ml/min) Conductivity n Carbon
Time turbidity (%) p (C) pH (.s/cm) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Col. Col. Col.
1 2 1 Col. 2 Col. 1 Col. 2 Col.1 Col.2 Col. 1 Col.2
0
mins 184 184 0.0 0.0 16.9 8.43 8.43 250 250 67.8 67.8 0.74 20.49
5
mins 52.2 49.7 71.6 73.0
10
mins 53 53.7 71.2 70.8 18 5.75 5.75 250 250 127.4 127.4
15
mins 53.5 57.4 70.9 68.8
20
mins 55.7 58.4 69.7 68.3 17.7 5.52 5.52 250 250 127.1
25
mins 55.9 59.7 69.6 67.6
30
mins 59 60.6 67.9 67.1 17.7 5.54 250 250 127 127.1
35
mins 61.1 63.2 66.8 65.7
40
mins 61.4 63.3 66.6 65.6 18 5.49 5.49 250 250 126.4 126.9
45
mins 62.5 63.8 66.0 65.3
50
mins 66 67.7 64.1 63.2 18.7 5.52 5.52 127 127
55
mins 66.9 68.2 63.6 62.9
60
mins 67.3 69.6 63.4 62.2 18.1 216.6 126.6
65
mins 70.1 73.5 61.9 60.1
70
mins 83.7 94.5 54.5 48.6 18.7 5.56 5.56 128 128
75
mins 90 97.5 51.1 47.0
80
mins 90.4 100 50.9 45.7 19.1 5.69 5.69 225 220 128.4 129 0.16 3.14
Page | 39
80.0
70.0
60.0
Percent removal
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0 mins 5 mins 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
(Raw mins mins mins mins mins mins mins mins mins mins mins mins mins mins mins
water)
Time

Figure 28: Percent removal (turbidity) to time for direct sand filtration (pH, Total nitrogen and total organic carbon are also
shown
4.3.1.2.1 Indirect Filtration
Coagulant dose: 160 ml (1% ferric chloride), Water volume: 45 litres, Settling period- 1.5 Hours
Table 4-13: Indirect sand filtration tests performed on pond 3 raw water results
Flow
Percent rate Conductivity
Turbidity removal of pH Temp (ml/min) (.s/cm) TOC TN
o
Time turbidity(%) ( C) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Col. 1 Col.2 Col.1 Col.2 Col.1 Col.2 Col.1 Col. 2 Col.1 Col.2
0 mins
( before
settling) 143 143 0.0 0.0 6.74 6.74 19.9 250 250 67.2 67.2 20.49 0.74
0 mins
(after
settling) 2.84 2.84 98.0 98.0 3.94 3.94 18.2 250 250 138 138 1.34 0
5 mins 2.29 2.22 98.4 98.4
10 mins 2.1 2.13 98.5 98.0 4.55 4.55 18 115 115.2
15 mins 2.03 2.06 98.6 98.6
20 mins 1.97 2.05 98.6 98.6 4.36 4.35 18 116.9 116.7
25 mins 1.98 2.02 98.6 98.6
30 mins 1.93 1.99 98.7 98.6 4.2 4.2 18 250 250 120.3 120.3
35 mins 1.94 1.95 98.6 98.6
40 mins 1.87 1.96 98.7 98.6 4.15 4.12 18.4 122.1 122.1
45 mins 1.84 2.01 98.7 98.6
50 mins 1.9 1.98 98.7 98.6 4.14 4.14 18.1 122.4 122.4
55 mins 2.06 2.04 98.6 98.6 4.19 4.19 250 250 121.7 121.7 1.47 0
Page | 40
120.0
100.0
Percent removal
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
0 mins 0 mins 5 mins 10 mins 15 mins 20 mins 25 mins 30 mins 35 mins 40 mins 45 mins 50 mins 55 mins
(Raw (Raw
water water
before after
settling) settling)
Time

Figure 29: Percent removal (turbidity) to time for Indirect sand filtration (pH, Total nitrogen and total organic carbon are also
shown)
4.3.2 Backwash / Head loss results
Direct Filtration Riversands 6 sand (Effective size: 1.5-1.7mm, Nominal size: 1.5-3mm)
Table 4-14: direct filtration- Riversand 6 sand results.

Backwash Volume: (12 litres)
Time Headloss(cm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 mins
(Raw
water) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 mins 0 0 2.2 1.9 1.6 2 1.9 2.1 0 0 0 0
10 mins 0 0 4.9 3.7 3.1 2.3 3.6 3.7 0 0 0 0
15 mins 0 0 6.7 5.7 5 4.4 6.9 7 2.4 4.5 0 0
20 mins 0 0 8.5 6.3 5.6 4.8 7.5 7.6 4.1 7.2 0 0
25 mins 0 0 9.6 7.3 6.6 5.6 8.7 9 7.5 8 0 0
30 mins 0 0 11 8.9 8.1 7.3 12.7 9.3 7.8 9.5 0 0
35 mins 0 0 11.6 10 9.4 8.4 13 12.7 9.3 9.9 0 0
40 mins 0 0 19.9 10.7 9.9 9 21.3 13 9.5 12.6 0 0
45 mins 7 7 20.5 18.8 17.9 16.9 21.8 21.9 12.9 22.7 7 7
Page | 41
Indirect Filtration Riversands 6 sand (Effective size: 1.5-1.7mm, Nominal size: 1.5-3mm)
Table 4-15: Indirect filtration- Riversand 6 sand results.

Backwash volume: 5 litres
Time Headloss(cm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 mins (Raw water
before settling) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 mins (Raw water
after settling) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 mins 8 8.3 8 8.5 8.3 8.5 8 8.7 8.8 9.2 9.3 9.7
Page | 42
Direct Filtration - Filter media: Riversands 6.5 sand (Effective size: 0.85-0.95mm, Nominal size: 0.8-1.8mm)
Table 4-16: Direct filtration- Riversand 6.5 sand results.

Backwash Volume: 9 litres
Time Headloss(cm)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 mins
(Raw
water) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 mins 0 0 10 20 30.1 39.9 36.5 29.1 21.8 12.3 0 0
10
mins 0 0 13.2 24.5 35.4 46.1 37.8 30.8 24.2 14.9 0 0
15
mins 0 0 15 26.5 37.3 47.2 41.1 34 27.1 17.7 0 0
20
mins 0 0 16.8 28 38.2 48.1 43.4 37 29.6 20.7 0 0
25
mins 0 0 19 30.7 40.9 50.5 43.9 38 31.7 22.4 0 0
30
mins 0 0 21 33.4 43.6 52.3 46.8 40.3 34 24.6 0 0
35
mins 0 0 24.5 38.4 49.6 60.1 47.3 40.7 34.7 26.7 0 0
40
mins 0 0 25.2 38.8 50.4 60.3 47.9 41.5 35.6 28 0 0
45
mins 0 0 25.6 39.7 53.1 62.5 48.3 42.7 36.9 29 0 0
50
mins 0 0 27.2 42.5 54.1 64.6 51.3 43.4 37.9 29.4 0 0
55
mins 0 0 27.9 42.3 54.8 65.3 52.5 43.6 38.4 32.8 0 0
60
mins 0 0 28.9 44 55.7 65.6 52.5 47.4 42.7 33.5 0 0
65
mins 0 0 28.9 45.1 56 67 52.5 48.2 43.8 33.5 0 0
70
mins 0 0 28.9 46.2 58.7 68 52.5 48.2 43.8 33.5 0 0
75
mins 0 0 28.9 46.2 59.9 68 52.5 48.2 43.8 33.5 0 0
80
mins 0 0 29.6 50.1 63.3 71.8 58.2 53.9 49.2 37.5 0 0
Page | 43
Indirect Filtration - Filter media: Riversands 6.5 sand (Effective size: 0.85-0.95mm, Nominal size:0.8-1.8mm)
Table 4-17: Indirect filtration- Riversand 6.5 sand results

Backwash Volume: 4 Litres
Time Headloss
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
0 mins (Raw water before
settling) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 mins (Raw water after
settling) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
10 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
15 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
25 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
30 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
35 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
40 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
45 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
50 mins 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55 mins 8 8.3 8 8.5 8.3 8.5 8 8.7 8.8 9.2 9.3 9.7
4.3.3 Sand Filtration/Backwash Discussion and Analysis

The primary objective of the sand filtration/backwash experiments was to select the most effective filter size
and the most effective filtration process, which would produce effluent with the highest quality possible. Also
to maximize the production of filtered water by encouraging long filter run times and create an efficient
backwash process with low backwash water requirements.
Filtration: Based on the observed results we select the sand filter/sand filtration process that produces the
highest turbidity percent removal results. We observe that when using direct filtration as the selected process
on both filter media sizes, we get high turbidity removal(about 79-91 %)when we use the coarser filter media
(river sand size 6), but we get low turbidity removal results( about 45 -73%) when we use the finer filter media
(size 6.5). The size and shape of the filter media affect the efficiency of the solids removal. Sharp, angular media
from large voids and remove less material than rounded media of equivalent size, this might explain why the
coarser filter was more efficient than the finer filter. Also finer sands result in shallower zones for the retention
of suspended matter. Also we observe that direct filtration produces high headlosses which result in shorter
filter runs and higher backwashing water volumes. Also we observe high total nitrogen and total organic carbon
removal rates from our direct filtration results, but not as high as the results we get from our indirect filtration
results. We observe that indirect filtration gives higher turbidity percent removal results than direct filtration.
Page | 44
We also observe that indirect filtration gives very low head loss results in both sand filters, therefore allowing
for longer filter run times and less backwash volumes. We also observe that the indirect filtration process has
better total nitrogen and total organic carbon removal rates. It is therefore clear from the results that the best
filtration process is the indirect filtration process and the finer sand filter size (river sand size 6.5) produces the
best results. We therefore select indirect filtration as our optimum process and filter size river sand 6.5 as the
recommended filter size.
Backwashing: We observe from our results that the filtration process that produces the most efficient backwash
process with low backwash water requirements is the indirect filtration process as it produces very low
headloss results and longer run times, therefore reducing the need for large backwashing water volumes. Based
on our results we see that the indirect filtration process performed on the finer sand filter (river sands size 6.5)
produces the lowest backwash volume (4 liters). This is therefore the recommended filtration process, filter size
and backwash volume that will produce the most efficient backwash system.
The experiment had several causes for potential error in results. These include, inaccuracy of measuring
equipment, human error, incorrect application of coagulant doses, etc. Although these challenges were
attempted to be overcome, they would not have been eliminated entirely.
44.4 Chlorine Demand and Decay

Chlorine as a non-selective oxidant reacts with both organic and inorganic chemical species in water. Chlorine
decays after it reacts with compounds in water. Chlorine decay behaviour varies significantly depending on the
quality of water, types of treatment processes etc. Temperature has also been shown to have a significant
effect on chlorine decay characteristics, and any change in this parameter should be considered.
4.4.1 Chlorine Demand and Decay Results
The results obtained from the chlorine demand and decay experiments, have been tabulated and graphed.
Pictures that show the outcomes of the experiments have also been included.
Page | 45
Chlorine demand Direct filtration (River sands size 6 permeate)
Table 4-18: Direct filtration- Riversand size 6 chlorine demand results

Volume stock
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
chlorine added (ml) corrected volume
Corrected Chlorine
1.0 2.0 2.9 3.8 4.8 5.7 6.5 7.4 8.3 9.1
dose (mg/L Cl2) =(100*8)/108
Time Chlorine added: 12.35 12.4 12.45 12.5 12.6 1 1.05 1.1 1.15 1.2
reaction time: 60min 1:35 1:40 1:45 1:50 1:55 2:00 2:05 2:10 2:15 2:20
reaction time: 90min
Free Chlorine Result
60 0.51 1.97 3.3 4.1 2.7 6.3 7.5 8.4
90
120 0.37 1.96 2.9 3.4 2.6 5.9 6.7 7.9 8.8
Total Chlorine Result
60 0.58 2.2 3.7 4 2.2 6.5 7.5 8.8
90
120 0.42 2.07 3.4 4 2.2 6.8 6.9 8 8.8
Combined Chlorine Result (Total - Free Chlorine)
60 0.07 0.23 0.4 -0.1 -0.5 0.2 0 0.4
90
120 0.05 0.11 0.5 0.6 -0.4 0.9 0.2 0.1 0
Chlorine breakpoint curve Chlorine breakpoint curve

60 min contact time 120 min contact time
10 10
9 9
8 8
Chlorine concentration (mg/L)
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
Chlorine dose (mg/L) Chlorine dose (mg/L)
Free Chlorine Total Chlorine Free Chlorine Total Chlorine
Note: The lowest point is the breakpoint, this is the required chlorine dose for this sample.
Figure 30: Chlorine breakpoint curve (Direct filtration permeate- River sands 6)
Page | 46
Chlorine decay Direct filtration (River sands size 6 permeate)
Table 4-19: Direct filtration- Riversand size 6 chlorine decay results

Required chlorine dosage-5mg/L (From chlorine
demand studies) Required chlorine dosage-1mg/L
Dosage added= (Final conc./Initial conc)*final volume Dosage added= (Final conc./Initial conc)*final volume
=(5/100) * 2000 = 100ml =(1/100) * 2000 = 20ml
Total Free Combined Total Free Combined
Time chlorine chlorine chlorine(Total- chlorine chlorine chlorine(Total-
(Hrs) Time Result result Free) Time(Hrs) Time Result result Free)
0 12:40 4.6 4.6 0 0 12:55 0.92 0.79 0.13
0.08 12:45 4.8 4.6 0.2 0.08 13:00 0.76 0.45 0.31
0.17 12:50 4.8 4.6 0.2 0.17 13:05 0.66 0.41 0.25
0.25 12:55 4.6 4.5 0.1 0.25 13:10 0.56 0.34 0.22
0.33 13:00 4.6 4.5 0.1 0.33 13:15 0.53 0.34 0.19
0.42 13:05 4.5 4.4 0.1 0.42 13:20 0.47 0.34 0.13
0.50 13:10 4.3 4.3 0 0.50 13:25 0.44 0.27 0.17
0.75 13:25 4.5 4.4 0.1 0.75 13:40 0.42 0.26 0.16
1.00 13:40 4.4 4.4 0 1.00 13:55 0.4 0.26 0.14
1.25 13:55 4.4 4.3 0.1 48 13:45 0.07 0.04 0.03
1.50 14:10 4.3 4.1 0.2
1.75 14:25 4.3 4.1 0.2
2.00 14:40 4.1 4 0.1
4.00 16:20 4.1 3.9 0.2
24.00 15:30 3.7 3.5 0.2
48.00 15:30 3 2.7 0.3
96.00 13:45 1.5 1.2 0.3
212 10:30 0.18 0.18 0
Chlorine dosage vs time

6
5
Chlorine dosage(mg/L)
4 Total chlorine(5mg/L)
Free chlorine(5mg/L)
3
Combined chlorine(5mg/L)
2 Total chlorine(1mg/L)
1 Free chlorine(1mg/L)
Combined chlorine(1 mg/L)
0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Time(hours)
Figure 31: Direct filtration-Riversand size 6 Chlorine decay curve

Page | 47
Chlorine demand Indirect filtration (River sands size 6.5 permeate)
Table 4-20: Indirect filtration- Riversand size 6 results
Volume stock chlorine corrected

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
added (ml) volume
Corrected Chlorine
1.0 2.0 2.9 3.8 4.8 5.7 6.5 7.4 8.3 9.1
dose (mg/L Cl2) =(100*8)/108
Time Chlorine added: 2.15 2.2 2.25 2.3 2.35 2.4 2.45 2.5 3 2.05
60 0.62 2 1.6 2.3 4.2 5.4 5.7 6.3 8
120 0.54 1.94 1.51 2.2 4 4.8 4.5 6.2 7.8
60 0.67 2.11 1.62 2.7 4.6 5.7 5.9 7.4 8.1
120 0.62 1.97 1.54 2.6 4.3 5 5.8 6.9 7.8
Combined Chlorine Result (Total - Free Chlorine)
60 0.05 0.11 0.02 0.4 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.1 0.1
120 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.4 0.3 0.2 1.3 0.7 0

9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10
Free Chlorine Total chlorine Free Chlorine Total Chlorine
Figure 32: Chlorine breakpoint curve (Indirect filtration permeate- River sands 6)
Page | 48
Chlorine decay Indirect filtration (River sands size 6.5)
Table 4-21: Indirect filtration- Riversand size 6.5 chlorine decay results
Required chlorine dosage-3mg/L (From chlorine
demand studies) Required chlorine dosage-1mg/L
=(3/100) * 2000 = 60ml =(1/100) * 2000 = 20ml
Time chlorine chlorine chlorine(Total- chlorine chlorine chlorine(Total-
(Hrs) Time Result result Free) Time(Hrs) Time Result result Free)
0 15:35 2.3 2 0.3 0 13:00 0.76 0.72 0.04
0.08 15:40 2.4 1.9 0.5 0.08 13:05 0.75 0.7 0.05
0.17 15:45 2.2 1.9 0.3 0.17 13:10 0.66 0.63 0.03
0.25 15:50 2.1 1.8 0.3 0.25 13:15 0.62 0.54 0.08
0.33 15:55 2.1 1.6 0.5 0.33 13:20 0.6 0.54 0.06
0.42 16:00 2 1.6 0.4 0.42 13:25 0.58 0.5 0.08
0.50 16:05 2.1 1.7 0.4 0.50 13:30 0.56 0.49 0.07
0.75 16:20 2.1 1.7 0.4 0.75 13:45 0.55 0.48 0.07
1.00 16:35 2 1.7 0.3 1.00 14:00 0.53 0.46 0.07
1.25 16:50 2 1.6 0.4 48 14:15 0.11 0.03 0.08
1.50 17:05 2 1.6 0.4
24 15:30 1.7 1.6 0.1
52 14:15 0.1 0.1 0

4
3.5
3
2.5 Total chlorine(3mg/L)

2
1.5
Total chlorine(1mg/L)
1 Free chlorine(1mg/L)
0.5 Combined chlorine(1 mg/L)
0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time(hours)
Figure 33: Indirect filtration-Riversand size 6.5 Chlorine decay curve
Page | 49
Chlorine demand Indirect filtration (River sands size 6 permeate)
Table 4-22: Indirect filtration- Riversand size 6 results

Volume stock
chlorine 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
added (ml)
Corrected
Chlorine dose 1.0 2.0 2.9 3.8 4.8 5.7 6.5 7.4 8.3 9.1
(mg/L Cl2)
Time Chlorine 11.0 11.2 11.3 11.4
added: 11 5 11.1 11.15 11.2 5 11.3 5 11.4 5
reaction time: 12:0 12:1 12:2 12:2 12:3 12:3 12:4 12:4
60min 12:00 5 0 12:15 0 5 0 5 0 5
reaction time:
90min
reaction time: 13:0 13:1 13:2 13:2 13:3 13:3 13:4 13:4
120min 13:00 5 0 13:15 0 5 0 5 0 5
60 0.65 0.51 2.8 3.8 4.4 5.5 7 7.3 8.2 8.8
120 0.44 0.36 2.4 3.5 4.8 5.6 5.2 6.9 7.3 8.4
60 0.94 0.86 3.2 4.4 5.2 6 7.3 8.2 8.8 8.8
120 0.77 0.73 2.9 4.2 5.1 5.9 6.7 8.1 8.5 8.8
Combined Chlorine Result (Total -
Free Chlorine)
60 0.29 0.35 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.9 0.6 0
120 0.33 0.37 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.3 1.5 1.2 1.2 0.4

10 10
9 9
8 8
7 7
6 6
5 5
4 4
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Free Chlorine Total Chlorine Free Chlorine Total Chlorine
Figure 34: Chlorine breakpoint curve (Indirect filtration permeate- River sands 6)
Page | 50
Chlorine decay Indirect filtration (River sands size 6)
Table 4-23: Indirect filtration- Riversand size 6 chlorine decay results

Required chlorine dosage-2mg/L (From chlorine demand
studies) Required chlorine dosage-1mg/L
=(2/100) * 2000 = 40ml =(1/100) * 2000 = 20ml
chlorine chlorine chlorine(Total- chlorine chlorine chlorine(Total-
Time(Hrs) Time Result result Free) Time(Hrs) Time Result result Free)
0 14:00 1.92 1.78 0.14 0 12:50 0.9 0.75 0.15
0.08 14:05 1.9 1.66 0.24 0.08 12:55 0.76 0.51 0.25
0.17 14:10 1.89 1.59 0.3 0.17 13:00 0.72 0.46 0.26
0.25 14:15 1.88 1.57 0.31 0.25 13:05 0.65 0.38 0.27
0.33 14:20 1.81 1.49 0.32 0.33 13:10 0.62 0.36 0.26
0.42 14:25 1.8 1.53 0.27 0.42 13:15 0.6 0.33 0.27
0.50 14:30 1.73 1.42 0.31 0.50 13:20 0.58 0.32 0.26
0.75 14:45 1.56 1.4 0.16 0.75 13:35 0.55 0.3 0.25
1.00 15:00 1.53 1.32 0.21 1.00 13:50 0.52 0.26 0.26
24 14:00 0.4 0.3 0.1 48 14:00 0.09 0.04 0.05
144.00 11:00 0.3 0.2 0.1
2.5
2
1.5 Total chlorine(2mg/L)

1
Total chlorine(1mg/L)
0.5 Combined chlorine(1 mg/L)
0
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Time(hours)
Figure 35: Indirect filtration-Riversand size 6 Chlorine decay curve
Page | 51
4.4.2 Chlorine Decay modelling using AQUASIM software results
Chlorine decay Direct filtration (River sands size 6 permeate)
Figure 36: 1 mg/L dose disinfectant decay AQUASIM software output
Page | 52
Chlorine demand Indirect filtration (River sands size 6.5 permeate)
Page | 53
Chlorine demand Indirect filtration (River sands size 6 permeate)
Page | 54
Table 4-24: Table showing initial chlorine disinfection by product estimates
Direct filtration
Indirect filtration (River Indirect filtration (River
(River Sand size
Sand size 6.5) Sand size 6)
6)
FRA_0 [mg/L chlorine equivalent] 0.090159811 0.36971796 0.1881
SRA_0 [mg/L chlorine equivalent] 0.18 0.13195 0.1881
FRN_0 [mg/L chlorine equivalent] 0.42502034 0.08645 0.68897697
SRN_0 [mg/L chlorine equivalent] 0.27185204 0.08645 0.1881
Total 0.967032191 0.67456796 1.25327697
Table 4-25: Table showing chlorine disinfection by product estimates

Direct filtration
Indirect filtration (River Indirect filtration
(River Sand size
Sand size 6.5) (River Sand size 6)
6)
K1 (FRA) [L/mg.h] 0.09 0.08645 0.1881
K2(FRN) [L/mg.h] 0.29 0.08645 0.1881
K3(SRA) [L/mg.h] 0.33598917 0.08645 1.0791
K4(SRN) [L/mg.h] 0.09 0.08645 0.1881
-1
K5(CC) [h ] 0.09 0.49595 1.1781
4.4.3 Chlorine Demand and Decay Experiment and Modelling Discussion and Analysis
The primary objective of the chlorine decay studies is to evaluate the quality of the water effluent. Chlorine
decays after it reacts with compounds in water. The experimental chlorine decay data is used to estimate
values of chlorine demand. The total amount of total chlorine demand which is the sum of chlorine demand for
fast and slow reacting agents can be used as an indication of the disinfection by product [DBP] precursors
concentration in the water. Chlorine decay behaviour also varies significantly depending on the quality of
water, types of treatment processes etc.
From our results we observe that the effluent from indirect filtration using filter with media size river sand 6.5
had the lowest disinfection by product [DBP] in comparison to the other filter sizes/processes meaning it was
the most effective in removing organic compounds and others that consume chlorine and from the chlorine
demand results we observe that it has a relatively low chlorine demand of 3mg/L. We also observe from the
results that indirect filtration with filter media size 6.5 had the fastest decay rate (shortest waiting period until
chlorine decays to 0.2mg/L) with chlorine dosage getting to the recommended 0.2mg/L after only 52 hours,
whereas the other filtration effluents had waiting periods of 144 hours [Indirect filtration, filter size: river sand
6] and 212 hours [direct filtration, filter size: river sand 6]. For the above reasons, indirect filtration using filter
with media size river size sand 6.5 is selected as the most effective filter size/ filtration process.
Page | 55
Chapter 5.Recommendations and Future Work
Pond pollution and filter enhancement is not a topic that has been intensely researched in the past as
evidenced by the limited access to vital information which may not have been researched yet. This project does
have the advantage of being one more resource to be used for future reference, but based on the analysis of
the results we obtained; there are several improvements that can be made by anyone wishing to undertake this
project in the future.
Due to the fact that were given specific coagulants to test in the scope of our project, improvements that can
be made in terms of jar testing would be to increase the number of coagulants tested and also to test wider
ranges of coagulant doses. Also monitoring the alkalinity of the water throughout the jar testing process to
ensure it is in the optimum range for each coagulant would be a necessary improvement as well as observe
how individual coagulants react to alkalinity. Also performing pH correction before coagulation tests is another
improvement to be considered. Application of coagulant aids in order to optimise coagulant effectiveness is
another improvement that can be considered.
Due to time limitations, this project only compares two filter media sizes, improvements that can be made to
the sand filter include; changing the configuration of the filter media, for example changing the filter media to
dual or mixed media or replacing the top layer of sand with anthracite coal. Filtration aid application is also
another way in which the performance of the filtration system can be improved. These aids prevent premature
turbidity breakthroughs by controlling floc penetration into the filter. Addition of polymers to the backwash
water can reduce the initial turbidity peaks during filter ripening following backwash and extend filter operation
before breakthrough occurs. Although filters are not generally designed to remove dissolved compounds,
dissolved phosphorus removal can be significantly enhanced if the sand is amended with iron, calcium,
aluminium or magnesium. Another modification that may improve sand filter design and performance is the
addition of a peat layer in the filtration chamber. The addition of peat to the sand filter may increase microbial
growth within the sand filter and improve metals and nutrient removal rates. All these amendments would
result in a more efficient filtration process.
In terms of chlorine decay, conducting chlorine decay experiments for various initial chlorine doses and at least
two temperatures, monitoring free and total chlorine at more frequent intervals is an improvement that can be
made. Also using chlorine decay model of the system to evaluate possible disinfection scenarios and select one
which matches closest to the defined criteria.
There are many aspects of this project which could be further developed to enhance the capabilities and
potential applications for the platform, including further treatment of filter permeate using a ceramic
membrane (refer to Appendix C for ceramic membrane experiment results). These are only a small selection of
the future research opportunities associated with research into modelling the performance of a sand filter that
is to be used to clean a polluted pond.
Page | 56
Chapter 6.Conclusion
In conclusion, many different challenges were addressed whilst undertaking the project of modelling the
performance of a sand filter that is to be used to treat a polluted pond. The initial research into established
methods used to address these challenges resulted in a wide range of potential solutions. An evaluation and
analysis of the potential solutions had to be undertaken in order to develop and single model process.
Extensive experimental studies conducted were used in the development of this model and also addressed
challenges, which included; the selection of the most efficient coagulant as well as it optimum dose,
recommendation of the most efficient filter media size as well as a design of its backwash system and
evaluation of the water quality using chlorine decay studies.
The completed model process is capable of performing its required function in terms of being able to clean a
polluted pond. As discussed in the recommendations and future work, the model process still needs
improvement in order to achieve a more efficient model process.
Figure 42: Complete model schematic
Page | 57
Rfrencs
1. Weiner, Ruth F, 2003. Environmental engineering. 4th ed. Amsterdam; Boston: Butterworth-Heinemann.
2. Kumar, Arnab, 2009. Environmental engineering. 1st Ed. New Delhi: New Age International (P) Ltd., Publishers.
3. Ravenscoft, Peter, 2009. Arsenic Pollution: A Global Synthesis. 1st ed. United Kingdom: John Wiley & Sons Ltd
4. Liu, David H.F, 2000. Groundwater and Surface Water Pollution. 1st ed. USA: Lewis Publishers.
5. Shilton, Andy, 2005. Pond Treatment technology. 1st ed. United Kingdom: IWA Publishing.
6. Logsdon, Gary S, 2008. Pond Treatment technology. 1st ed. United States of America: American water works
association.p.220
7. Erickson, Andrew J, 2013. Optimizing Storm water Treatment Practices: A Handbook of Assessment and maintenance.
1st ed. United States of America: Springer science and business media.
8. Graham, Nigel, 1996. Advances in Slow Sand and Alternative Biological Filtration. 1st ed. United states of America: Wiley
Publishers.
9. Graham, Nigel, 1996. Advances in Slow Sand and Alternative Biological Filtration. 1st ed. United states of America: Wiley
Publishers.
10. Cotruvo, Joseph A, 1999. Providing Safe Drinking Water in Small Systems: Technology, Operations, and economies. 1st
ed. Washington D.C: Lewis Publishers.
11. Gimbel, Rolf, 2006. Recent Progress in Slow Sand and Alternative Biofiltration Processes. 1st ed. United Kingdom: IWA
Publishing.
12. AECOM + McGarry and Eadie. April 2011. Water Sensitive Urban Design for the Coastal Dry Tropics (Townsville): Design
Objectives for Stormwater Management. Prepared for Twonsville City Council.
13. Erickson, Andrew J, 2013. Optimizing Stormwater Treatment Practices: A Handbook of Assessment and Maintenance. 1st
ed. New York: Springer Publishers.
14. US EPA.2002. Technologies for upgrading existing or designing new water drinking water. United States Environmental
Protection Agency.
15. Effects of Water Pollution. 2014. Effects of Water Pollution. [ONLINE] Available
at: http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/Effects_of_Water_Pollution. [Accessed 13 April 2014]
16. EPA. 2014. Stormwater technology fact sheet.

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/upload/2002_06_28_mtb_sandfltr.pdf. [Accessed 13 April 2014]
17. U.S. Geological Survey, 2007, USGS NAWQA glossary: U.S. Geological Survey, access date May 14, 2014.
<http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/glos.html>
18. Diersing, Nancy (2009). "Water Quality: Frequently Asked Questions." Florida Brooks National Marine Sanctuary, Key
West, FL. Access date May 28 2014 < http://floridakeys.noaa.gov/scisummaries/wqfaq.pdf>
Page | 58
19. Johnson, D.L., S.H. Ambrose, T.J. Bassett, M.L. Bowen, D.E. Crummey, J.S. Isaacson, D.N. Johnson, P. Lamb, M. Saul, and
A.E. Winter-Nelson (1997). "Meanings of environmental terms." Journal of Environmental Quality. 26: 581-589. Access
date May 28 2014 <http://dx.doi:10.2134/jeq1997.00472425002600030002x>
20. Logsdon, Gary S., 2008. Water Filtration Practices:Including Slow Sand Filters and Precoat Filtration. 1st ed. United States
of America: American water works association.
21. HDR, Engineering INC, 2001. Handbook of Public Water systems. 2nd ed. United States of America: John Wiley & Sons.
22. D. Boccelli, M. Tryby, J. Uber, R. Summers, A reactive species model for chlorine decay and THM formation under
rechlorination conditions, Water Research 37(2003) 26542666.
23. J.C. Powell, N.B. Hallam, J.R. West, C.F. Forster, J. Simms, Factors which control
bulk chlorine decay rates, Water Research 34 (2000) 117126.
24. National Water Quality Management Strategy., 2000. Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine
Water Quality. Volume 1. Australia. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council.
25. Ates, N., Kitis, M. and Yetis, U. (2007). Formation of chlorination by-products in waters with low SUVA-correlations
with SUVA and differential UV spectroscopy. Water Research,41(18), 4139-4148.
26. The CRC for Water Quality and Treatment , 2003. Optimisation of chlorine residual in a distribution system. Research
report No 30. Australia. The CRC for Water Quality and Treatment.
27. Clayto Richard A. and Schueler Thomas R. , 1996. Design of Stormwater filtering systems. Volume 1. Unites States of
America. Chesapeake Research Consortium.
28. City of Austin, TX. 1988. Water Quality Management. In Environmental Criteria Manual.
Environmental and Conservation Services. Austin, TX.
29. National Water Quality Management Strategy. 2011. Australian Drinking Water guidelines. Volume 6. Australia. Natural
Resource Management Ministerial Council.
30. Kohpaei Jabari Ahmad and Sathasivan Arumugan, 2011. Chlorine decay prediction in bulk water using the parallel second
order model: an analytical solution development. Australia. Elsevier B.V.
31. Jegatheesan Jega, 2014. AQUASIM Software and chlorine decay. Australia. Deakin University.
32. E. Chang, P.C. Chiang, S.H. Chao, Y.L. Lin, Relationship between chlorine consumption and chlorination by-products
formation for model compounds, Chemosphere 64 (2006) 11961203.
33. Kastl, G, 1999. Modelling water quality from source water to tap by intergration process models. Modelling water quality
from source water to tap by intergration process models, 1, 4
34. Jegatheesan, V, 2003. Water Quality modelling for Drinking Water distribution Systems. Water Quality modelling for
Drinking Water distribution Systems, 1, 5
35. Gebbie, Peter, 2005. A dummys guide to coagulants. 68th Annual Water Industry Engineers and operators' Conference, 1,
5.
36. Malhotra, S, 1994. Poly aluminium chloride as an alternative coagulant. Affordable Water Supply And Sanitation, 20, 289.
Page | 59
Appendix A. Water Quality Guidelines
A.1 Guidelines for different uses
Page | 60
A.2 Guidelines for recreational water quality and aesthetics
A.3 Guidelines for drinking water
Page | 61
Page | 62
A.4 Guidelines for Aquatic ecosystems
Page | 63
Appendix B. AQUASIM Software Parameter Estimation Files
Direct filtration- 1mg/L and 5mg/L dose
Page | 64
Indirect filtration- 1mg/L and 3mg/L dose
Page | 65
Indirect filtration- 1mg/L and 2mg/L dose
Page | 66
Appendix C. Ceramic Membrane Results
CERAMIC MEMBRANE RESULTS(3/09/2014)

0.2 micron membrane
Pre pressure=3bar
Post pressure=3bar
Permeate flow=0.8 L.P.M
Concentrate flow=58 L.P.M
Pond 3 (Direct Filtration) Filter media:Riversands 6 sand permeate
Time Turbidity(NTU) Temperature(C) pH Conductivity(.s/cm) Total Nitrogen Total Organic Carbon(mg/L
Permeate Feedtank Permeate Feedtank Permeate Feedtank
Raw water N/A 24.1 20 0.74 20.49
0 mins 0.33 9.83 20 6 6.1 102.7 117.5
15 mins 0.19 9 20 6.18 6.2 104.2 119.6
30 mins 0.16 8.96 20 6.25 6.3 102.1 117.4
45 mins 0.15 8.99 20 6.28 6.28 102.2 118
60 mins 0.12 8.99 20 6.28 6.32 101.7 117.1
75 mins 0.1 9.11 20 6.35 6.35 101.4 117.3
90 mins 0.14 9.1 20 6.4 6.39 101.9 117.1
105 mins 0.13 9.27 20 6.45 6.43 100.5 116.3
120 mins 0.14 9.2 20 6.39 6.43 100.7 115.6 0.13 2.62

0.2 micron membrane
Pre pressure=3bar
Post pressure=3bar
Pond 3 (Direct Filtration) Filter media:Riversands 6.5 sand permeate
Time Turbidity(NTU) Temperature(C) pH Conductivity(.s/cm) Total Nitrogen Total Organic Carbon
Raw water N/A 54.5 18 N/A 5.99 N/A 111.8 0.74 20.49
0 mins 0.17 53 18 6.25 5.98 103.2 101.2
15 mins 0.21 53.9 18 6 5.99 92 103.8
30 mins 0.28 54.1 18 6.07 6.05 93.3 104.7
45 mins 0.17 54.4 18 6.08 6.09 93.5 105.3
60 mins 0.34 54.7 18 6.14 6.13 93.5 105.8
75 mins 0.33 54.8 18 6.13 6.15 93.2 105.7
90 mins 0.29 54.3 18 6.2 6.21 92.5 105.6
105 mins 0.36 54.5 18 6.23 6.23 92.1 106.1
120 mins 0.23 54.6 18 6.24 6.26 91.9 104.5 0.13 2.62
Page | 67
0.2 micron membrane
Pre pressure=3bar
Post pressure=3bar
Pond 3 (Indirect Filtration) Filter media:Riversands 6 sand permeate
Time Turbidity(NTU) Temperature(C) pH Conductivity(.s/cm) Total Nitrogen Total Organic Carbon(mg/L
Raw water N/A 18 20 0.74 20.49
0 mins 0.4 18.1 20 6.49 6.53 129.5 175.6
15 mins 0.28 18.1 20 6.4 6.53 118.1 136.2
30 mins 0.29 18.2 20 6.56 6.6 121.1 138.5
45 mins 0.27 18.2 20 6.59 6.66 120.3 138.2
60 mins 0.29 18.2 20 6.66 6.78 120.6 137.4
75 mins 0.3 18.2 20 6.76 6.82 120.2 138.5

0.2 micron membrane
Pre pressure=3bar
Post pressure=3bar
Pond 3 (Indirect Filtration) Filter media:Riversands 6.5 sand permeate
Time Turbidity(NTU) Temperature(C) pH Conductivity(.s/cm)
0 mins 0.37 2.99 20 6.34 6.07 111.5 117.7
15 mins 0.4 2.96 20 6.03 6.1 116.2 122
30 mins 0.28 3.07 20 6.12 6.14 117.9 123.6
45 mins 0.38 3.13 20 6.2 6.21 119.4 125.2
60 mins 0.35 3.21 20 6.24 6.26 119.4 125.4
75 mins 0.3 3.17 20 6.34 6.33 118.2 125.8
90 mins 0.35 3.77 20 6.05 5.96 117.7 127.5
Page | 68

SEJ446 Final Report 2014

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

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

SEJ446 Final Report 2014

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

SEJ446- Engineering Project B

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for

Student Name: Busiku Silenga

Supervisor Name: Associate Professor Jega Jegatheesan

NOM.....Natural Organic matter

Figure I.............................................................................................................................................Contrast between polluted and healthy aquatic ecosystems

Figure II............................................................................................................................................................................. Figure II: project outcomes schematic

Figure 1..................................................................................................................................................................................................... Sand filtration system

Figure 3...........................................................................................................................................The four functional units in AQUASIM and their relationship

Figure 10........................................................................................................................................................................................................Conductivity meter

Figure 11...............................................................................................................................................................................Jar testing (Deakin University 2014)

Figure 12................................................................................................................................................................... Sand filtration system at Deakin University

Figure 13.................................................................................................................................................................................Free and total chlorine dispensers

Figure 14........................................................................................................................................................Chlorine demand studies (Deakin University 2014)

Figure 19.......................................................................................................................................................Flocs floating on surface of water during jar testing

Figure 20................................................................................................................................Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for ferric chloride

Figure 21................................................................................................................................Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for ferric chloride

Figure 22................................................................................................................................Percent removal (turbidity) to coagulant dosage for ferric chloride

Figure 23..................................................................................................................................................................Jar testing using ferric chloride as coagulant

Figure 25................................................................................................................................................................................Jar testing using Alum as coagulant

Table 4-14... Direct filtration- Riversand 6 sand results

Table 4-15. Indirect filtration- Riversand 6 sand results

Table 4-16... Direct filtration- Riversand 6.5 sand results

Table 4-17: Indirect filtration Riversand 6.5 sand results

Table 4-18: . Direct filtration Riversand size 6 chlorine demand results

Table 4-19: .. Direct filtration Riversand size 6 chlorine decay results

Table 4-20: .. Indirect filtration Riversand size 6 results

Table 4-22: .. Indirect filtration Riversand size 6 results

Table 4-23 Indirect filtration- Riversand size 6 chlorine decay results

Table 4-24. Table showing initial chlorine disinfection by product estimates

Table 4-25.. Table showing initial chlorine disinfection by product estimate

Evaluation of different coagulants

Table I: Mean per trip benefits per person

Polluted Pond optimum

-Recommend coagulant and its

Figure II: project outcomes schematic

2.2 Water Quality

2.3 Sand Filtration Technology

2.3.3 Filter bed and filter media:

2.3.4 Mechanism of filtration:

Figure 1: Sand filtration system

Table 2-3: Estimated pollutant removal capability of different filtration systems

Coagulation/flocculation/ settling 84% - 96% 97% -99.95% 100%

Without coagulation/settling 35%-57% 60% 81%-91%

Table 2-5. Guidelines Regarding Acceptable Backwashing Practices

Area of Emphasis Guideline

Basis for initiating backwash focus on filter performance (turbidity, particle

Backwash flow slowly ramped to peak rate

Backwash flow rate 15 - 20 gpm/ft2

Bed expansion during backwash 20 - 25 percent

2.4 Sand Filtration Processes

2.4.1 Direct Filtration

2.5 Limitations of Sand Filtration Technology

Raw water Parameter Chemical consideration

2.6.2 Additional methods of enhancing sand filter performance

2.7 Chlorine Decay and AQUASIM Software

2.7.2 Water Quality Modelling (Chlorine decay)

The mass balance has the following components:

Mtt = Mass in computational cell i at the beginning of a time step t

Mtt+t = Mass in computational cell i at the end of a time step t

t (Mt /t)Tr = Changes in computational call i by transport

t (Mt /t)p = Changes in computational call i by physical, (bio)chemical or biological processes.

dccl /dt = -k * Ccl

Time(min) 0 0.01 0.083 0.166 0.25 0.33 0.416 0.5 1 1.5 2 3 4 5 17