Second Draft Final Manuscript With Statistics

Philippine Science High School
Bicol Region Campus
Ultrasonic Water Disinfection

System Prototype
Aian Anthony D. Baal

Cris Andrew R. Brijuega
MarchMay 2019
Ultrasonic Water Disinfection
System Prototype
by
Aian Anthony D. Baal

Cris Andrew R. Brijuega
Submitted to the Faculty of the

Philippine Science High School – Bicol Region Campus
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
Science and Technology Research 2
April May 2019

ABSTRACT
Access to safe and clean water is an apparent problem in the Philippines resulting
to the consumption of untreated water that may have hazardous effect on the consumers.
On the other hand, ultrasonic technology is an evolving application for water treatment as
it can generate bubbles to emit tremendous heat and pressure that can deagglomerate and
disinfect water. With this in mind, the researchers aimed to design and develop a machine
that can induce ultrasound thereby disinfecting contaminated water. This research also
focused on determining the most effective among the three models with different types of
liquid container namely, stainless steel, aluminum, and acrylic glass developed in terms
of its capability to disinfect Escherichia coli (E. coli) contaminated water and improve the
clarity of turbid water. The number of E.coli colonies present in the water sample in each
model was recorded with a five-minute interval and was graphed against time to assess its
capacity and speed. It was observed that the model with stainless steel and aluminum
container disinfected the water after 15 and 20 minutes, respectively. While the model
with an acrylic container stopped disinfecting after 10 minutes. A pretest-posttest
analysis was also applied to the Spectrophotometry results of the treated water sample to
assess its turbidity. However, due to the ultrasonic exposure of the containers, small
refined particles and rust from the container caused the increase in turbidity of treated
water. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that the models with aluminum and stainless
steel container can disinfect the E.coli contaminated water. Specifically, the model with a
steel container is the best among the three models as it can disinfect the fastest.
iii
APPROVAL SHEET
This research work entitled, “Ultrasonic Water Disinfection System Prototype”
by Aian Anthony D. Baal and Cris Andrew R. Brijuega presented to the Faculty of the
Philippine Science High School – Bicol Region Campus in partial fulfillment of the
requirements in Science and Technology Research 2, is hereby accepted.
Andrew S. Tenorio
Research Teacher
Engr. Juan S. Narvato

Research Adviser
Fely B. Buera
CID Chief
Engr. Lorvie Pagorongon

Campus Director
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The researchers would like to express their utmost gratitude to the following
people in the completion of this study:
To Director Elsie G. Ferrer, for encouraging us to finish and not give up on this
study;
To Sir Jeavons Mesia, Sir Eric Marmol, Sir Ricky Oropesa, and Ma’am Aileen
Pesino, for sharing their insights and knowledge in relation to the study, and for helping
in the development of the device;
To Sir Andrew Tenorio, research teacher, for the unparalleled patience, guidance,
and support, allowing this study to come through and its proponents to move forward in
their endeavors;
To Engr. Juan Narvato, research adviser, for his continuous assistance and
supervision in the course of this research;
To the Science Research Specialists and Assistants, Sir Joseph De Chavez, Sir
Junlee Vargas, Sir Jeonald Trilles, and Ma’am Syra Credo, for allowing the researchers
be successful in the usage of the laboratory and it’s equipment.
To Ms. Jessie Wang and Beijing Yongda Ultrasonic Co. Ltd, for supplying the
researchers with quality transducers and generators, and for the transparent and reliable
communication;
To Mr. Fernando Festin, Mr. Romeo Robert Indico, and Mr. Paolo Carmelo
Notorio for their assistance during the methodology of the study.
To Mr. Justin Ashley Naval, Mr. Edrian Divinaflor, Mr. Edrian Octavo, Ms. Paula
Tesorero, and Mr. Czarowitz Joss Bercasio, for their assistance made available in writing
this study;
ii
To our family, friends, and the PSHS-BRC community, for their undying and
overwhelming support;
To God, for the strength, knowledge, and patience bestowed upon us in times of
difficulty;
And to those who were not mentioned above but undoubtedly impacted this study.
- Aian and Andrew
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Approval Sheet ................................................................................................................................................. i
Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................................................... ii
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... iv
List Of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. vi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... vii
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1
Background of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 1
Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 3
Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 3
Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 4
Review of Related Literature and Studies ....................................................................................................... 5
Bacteriological Contamination in Water ................................................................................................ 5
Primary Methods for Water Disinfection ............................................................................................... 5
Ultrasound Disinfection Theory ............................................................................................................. 6
Materials and Methods .................................................................................................................................... 8
Process Flowchart ................................................................................................................................... 8
Device Design and Fabrication ............................................................................................................... 9
Development of Circuitry ..................................................................................................................... 10
Device Performance Test ...................................................................................................................... 11
Water Turbidity Test ............................................................................................................................ 12
Device Disinfection Capability Test ..................................................................................................... 13
Data Analysis........................................................................................................................................ 14
Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 15
iv
Device ................................................................................................................................................... 15
Foil Test Results ................................................................................................................................... 15
Container Condition Assessment .......................................................................................................... 16
Water Turbidity Test ............................................................................................................................ 17
Water Disinfection Capability Test ...................................................................................................... 18
Summary and Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 21
Summary............................................................................................................................................... 21
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................ 21
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................................... 23
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................................. 24
Appendix A ................................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix B.................................................................................................................................................... 28
v
List of Tables
Table Title Page
1 Spectrophotometry Results 14
2 Bacterial Growth Count UWDS (Aluminum Container) 26
3 Bacterial Growth Count UWDS (Stainless Steel Container) 26
4 26
Bacterial Growth Count UWDS (Acrylic Glass Container)
5 Natural Bacterial Growth Count 27
vi
List of Figures
Figure Title Page
1 Flowchart of Methodology 8
2 Ultrasonic Water Disinfection System Diagram 9
3 Circuitry Casing Diagram 10
4 Foil Testing Setup 11
5 13 – UV VIS Spectrophotometer 12
6 Disinfection Capability Test Setup 13
7 Actual Devices 15
8 Foil Test Results 16
9 The Containers after Ultrasonification 16
10 UWDSs’ Bacterial Growth results 18
vii
viii
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
Safe water accessibilityThe inaccessibility of safe dinking wate is a problem in the
Philippines. In fact, approximately 17 million Filipinos have no access to potablesafe
water and over 15% percent of rural communities inof the country are scarce fordo not
have sufficient access to potable water (UNICEF, 2009, as cited in Abulencia et al.,
2010). As a result, Filipinos, mainly those in low-income groups, tend to utilize untreated
sources of water (WHO, 2014). In addition, the number of clean water sources in the
Philippines isare significantly low, with only a third of the river systems and 42% of the
groundwater sources are safe for use (Abulencia et al., 2010). These sources contain
pollutants, such as chemical emissions from industries and different kinds of organic
waste (Andrews, 2018). ThusMoreover, ingesting liquids present with the
aforementionedsaid impurities invite malicious threats to one’s health. In effect, a third of
the Philippines’s illnesses are water related (WHO, 2014).
One of the most common reasons for water contamination is caused by pathogenic
microorganisms. Water systems provide high chances of survival, reproduction, and
dispersal for these creaturesorganisms, which can result toare major health risks to
humans (Nurliyana et al., 2018). In majority, contamination of water with human and
animal fecal matter causes the outbreak of disease- causing bacteria. Diarrhea is a
common illnesses acquired from consuming infected liquids. Subsequently, the World
Health Organization (2017) reports that diarrhea kills approximately 525,000 children
under the age five every year.
Aside from human health, clean and safe water is also used for agricultural aspects
of a community. Irrigation, pesticide and fertilizer applications, crop cooling, frost
control, and livestock usage are namely one of many uses of water for agriculture
1
(“Agriculture Water”, 2016). Accordingly, water treatment is critical to prevent
pathogenic outbreaks and chemical contamination of vegetation and agricultural stocks,
which, in result, can threaten the health of the consumers and the livelihood of the
producers (Abulencia et. al., 2010).
Nowadays, different methods to treat water are actively applied, from chemical
agents to physical processes. However, each treatment has their own disadvantages in
relation to cost, effectiveness, efficiency, and overall sanitation (Crini et. al., 2018).
Depending on the treatment, factors, such as turbidity, sludge generation, and formation
of by-products, pose risks to ensure production of safe water. In contrast, Mahvi (2009)
claims that ultrasonic technology is a more advantageous method for water treatment.
Such process is said to have no need for additives to work, moreover, no known
formation of toxic by-products are produced.
Ultrasound technology is an evolving application for water treatment (Naddeo et
al, 2014). Once directed with liquids, it induces cavitation phenomena in the liquid,
generating bubbles to emit tremendous heat and pressure (Wu et al, 2013). Such extreme
conditions promote to the deagglomeration and disinfection of untreated water (Dorgeloh
et. al., 2008; Kumar et. al., 2014). Furthermore, previous studies indicate that ultrasound
has the ability to decrease the heat resistance of bacterial spores, which proves it to be an
effective disinfection agent (Burgos et al., 1972; Burleson et al., 1975; Dahl, 1976, as
cited in Naddeo et al., 2014).
With the existence of multiple water treatment processes and alternatives, the
Philippines is still in the loop of safe water scarcity. Due to this, the study endeavors to
maximize the potential of ultrasonic technology in relation to water disinfection.
Specifically, the researchers shall create a system utilizing ultrasonic technology that can
disinfect contaminated water. The system shall be fabricated with commercialized
2
materials present locally in the Philippines to incite low cost manufacturing and be built
with ergonomic utility.
Objectives of the Study
The main objective of the study is to develop an Ultrasonic Water Disinfection
System. Specifically, the study has the following objectives:
1) To design and develop a system that can induce ultrasound.
2) To determine the most resistant liquid container to damage caused by
ultrasound; and,
3) To develop a system that can disinfect contaminated water.
Significance of the Study
This study is deemed to benefit the following:
Community Health. The study will help Filipinos utilizing different water sources,
particularly in areas not connected to centralized water treatment systems, to achieve
clean and safe water resource to consume. Thus the number of water-related illnesses will
decrease.
Agricultural and Environmental Health. Clean and safe water accessibility will be
attained to provide better irrigation for various agricultural practices such as crop planting
and livestock raising. Moreover, a healthier environment will be realized.
Industry. The prototype can be a feasible basis for future designs to improve water
utility in the Philippines. Also, techniques applied in the machine can be adapted for new
water treatment systems that are both effective and healthy.
Government. This study will extend the reach of clean and safe water accessibility
in the Philippines. Furthermore, the government’s water systems will improve to safer
and healthier resources.
3
4
Scope and Limitations
This study aims to develop a water disinfection system. It aims to use ultrasound
technology for the disinfection process with the aid of 40 kHz 60w ultrasonic transducers.
Utilized transducers shall not be directly exposed to liquids, rather, be externally applied
to the system. Three systems of different types of liquid containers, namely, stainless
steel, aluminum, and acrylic glass, are to be executed for testing. Commercial availability
was the reason for selecting the aforementioned containers.
The prototype shall only focus on to disinfection of filtered liquids. This aspect
shall be measured by observing bacterial growth of Escherichia coli (E. coli) ATCC
25922 in 100 ml distilled water over time as exposed to ultrasonification. Time exposure
for testing shall be 30 minutes at most. Aside from this, water turbidity testing, along with
visual observations, shall be performed to assess the performance of the containers
against ultrasound waves. The test shall determine the amount of broken fragments
produced from the container while exposed to ultrasound, wherein those pieces shall
contribute to the turbidity of the tested water. Consequently, aftermath status of the
containers shall be observed to evaluate applicability and practicality of each.
5
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
Bacteriological Contamination in Water
Preferably, pathogenic microorganisms or any fecal bacteria should not be found
in drinking water. However, risks of water contamination are apparent when having a
look at huge endemic outbreaks from pathogenic microbes in the last centuries which
could be linked to contaminated groundwater and drinking water consumption (Krauss et
al., 2011). Hence, the development of more effective and efficient way of water
disinfection should be more focused.
With the increase in population, the demand for clean and safe water supply also
increases. However, in the Philippines, supply of safe water is scarce. Studies of the
World Health Organization (2014) shows that 58% of groundwater in our country is
contaminated with coliforms. This bacteriological contamination leads to a great majority
of health-related problems, as a result, a third of the Philippines’ illnesses are water
related.
Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria is one of the most common coliform found in
contaminated waters. It is mainly found on human and animal fecal matters and
measuring E. coli in water is considered to be the best method to indicate fecal
contamination (Nurliyana et al., 2018). It continues to be dangerous to public health
because it can lead to numerous diseases such as bloody diarrhea, kidney failure, and
even death. In line with this, the researchers will treat distilled water contaminated by E.
coli to indicate the effectivity of the ultrasonic disinfection device.
Primary Methods for Water Disinfection
Chlorination, membrane filtration, and UV radiation are the three methods
primarily used for commercial disinfection in water treatment plants, with chlorination
being by far the most widely used disinfectant (Winward et al., 2008). However, Naddeo
6
et al (2014) specified that undesirable by-products like Trihalomethanes and Haloacetic
Acids were produced when chlorine reacts with the natural organic matter present in
water and wastewater. These by-products are found to be potentially carcinogenic and/or
mutagenic and, therefore, the use of chlorine compounds in the process of disinfection
requires the dechlorination of the effluent to minimize the potential toxic effects of
chlorine residuals. In addition, the other aforementioned methods are unfavorable due to
high energy requirements and are ineffective depending on the severity of water quality,
respectively (Dorgeloh et. al., 2008).
Limitations were imposed by several countries to selected treatment methods due
to undesirable effects. Consequently, possible alternatives to these methods are assessed.
Ultrasound technology was proven to be an effective method of degrading organic
effluent into less toxic compounds (Wu et al., 2013). Thus, this technology is said to
disinfect liquids without external aids. In line with this, the study will only use the
ultrasound to disinfect water without adding any external additives.
Ultrasound Disinfection Theory
Historically, the effects of ultrasound technology on living cells have inspired the
science community (Kumar et al., 2014). According to Naddeo et al. (2014), ultrasound is
the utility of sonorous waves of frequencies higher than 20 khz. Only frequencies ranging
from 20khz to 100khz are the best performing for cleaning methods, as for higher
frequencies are categorized for other processes (Wu et al, 2013). Furthermore, said
frequencies create cyclic successions of expansion and compression phases that produces
positive and negative pressure on liquid molecules, thus promote cavitation phenomenon
on liquids, a formation of collapsing bubbles, generating high temperatures and pressures,
and reactive radical species (Mahvi, 2009; Naddeo et al, 2014). Undergone extreme
conditions of atleast 5000K and 500 atm with a 1 x 10^9 K/s cooling rate and exposure to
7
OH radicals, microorganisms are destroyed, eventually leads to disinfection (Dorgeloh et
al, 2008; Wu et al, 2013; Naddeo et al, 2014).
An ultrasonic transducer is a device used to convert some other type of energy
into an ultrasonic vibration. There are several basic types, classified by the energy source
and by the medium into which the waves are being generated. One type of ultrasonic
transducer are the electromechanical transducers, which are more versatile than other
types and include piezoelectric and magnetostrictive devices. A magnetostrictive
transducer makes use of a type of material in which an applied oscillating magnetic field
squeezes the atoms of the materials together, creating a periodic change in the length of
the material and thus producing a high-frequency mechanical vibration. Magnetostrictive
transducers are used primarily in the lower frequency ranges and are common in
ultrasonic cleaners and ultrasonic machining applications (Britannica, 2019).
In line with these findings, the researchers will use magnetostrictive transducers
in the process of disinfection in our entire methodology. Furthermore, the researchers will
use a frequency within a low frequency range for the ultrasonic disinfection system.
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The Ultrasonic Water Disinfection System Prototype was constructed to disinfect
water from microbial life, to become an alternative method for water disinfection, and, as
a whole, contribute in limiting risks of water-borne diseases. In this chapter, the methods
and processes used in the development of the device is discussed.
Process Flowchart
Figure 1. Flowchart of Methodology
Three different Ultrasonic Water Disinfection Systems (UWDS) were developed
in the process, a system utilizing an aluminum container, a system utilizing an acrylic
container, and a system using a stainless steel container. Steps involved in the completion
and testing of the three systems were performed.
9
Device Design and Fabrication
Using SketchUp software, a general design for three different ultrasound
disinfection devices was devised.
Figure 2. Ultrasonic Water Disinfection System Diagram

For the most part, the lid (which isolates the sample from other entities outside the
container), container (which confines the sample), ultrasound transducer (which induces
ultrasonification), and power circuit board generator (which causes electrical power to
flow on to the transducer) are the main components for the disinfection system. Whereas,
the stand is mainly responsible for elevating the components aforementioned. The
containers for each ultrasonic system were different with each other. Aluminum, acrylic
glass, and stainless steel containers were utilized in the study. On the bottom of each
container was a 40 khz 60 w transducer, glued using steel epoxy to guarantee effective
stimulation throughout the system. Moreover, the transducers are connected to a 220V
generator.
10
Development of Circuitry
Two circuits were developed in the system: one is responsible for inducing
ultrasound into the system, and the other is meant for the cooling system of the circuits. A
switch was implemented for both circuits, however, the cooling system was made with its
own AC to DC electrical converter, since the fan used requires 12 volts DC power source.
In addition, the circuits were enclosed by a case, and organized in a way to ensure little
spacing, but maximized circuitry cooling. The case was made by wood with
measurements as follows:
Figure 3. Circuitry Casing Diagram

Based from Figure 3, the hole on the front of the casing is an outlet for wire connections;
the hole on the top of the casing is for the fan; and the holes on the bottom are for
ventilation. In general, the casing was designed to properly organize the circuits and
maximize the cooling system.
11
Device Performance Test
Figure 4. Foil Testing Setup

Product trials were conducted. Several adjustments on the design of the device
and circuitry were taken in consideration. The modifications proved the total performance
and functionality of the device in terms of ultrasonic manifestation, wire management,
and machine endurance.
Included in this step, was the conduction of a Foil Test, a procedure done to
identify the presence of ultrasonic waves and cavitation in an ultrasonic system using
water. The setup is shown in Figure 4. In executing the test, the containers were first
filled with water up to at least half of its height. Then, an aluminum foil, cut to cover
almost of the container and protrude over it, was placed diagonally. Immediately after, the
device was activated to produce ultrasound for 5 minutes. After that, the device was
turned off and the aluminum foil was subject for analysis. All container undergone the
same test to ensure the presence of ultrasound in each.
12
Water Turbidity Test
The water turbidity test was conducted in the Research Laboratory of the
Philippine Science High School – Bicol Region Campus. The turbidity of the sample
water, primarily distilled, is tested with the use of a spectrophotometer, a device that
measures the absorbed light intensity after it passes through sample solution.
Figure 5: 13 – UV VIS Spectrophotometer
The spectrophotometer was plugged in and warmed up for 20 minutes. An optical
density of 600nm was set to the spectrophotometer. A distilled water is put into a cuvette
and set as “blank” sample. Afterwards, a sample was placed in a cuvette and is subjected
to the spectrophotometer every five minutes for 30 minutes. The results were displayed in
a UV Basic software installed in a computer. Similar processes were done on other
prototypes.
13
Device Disinfection Capability Test
Figure 6: Disinfection Capability Test Setup
The device disinfection capability test were conducted in the Research Laboratory
of the Philippine Science High School – Bicol Region Campus. The test was done using
the cotton swabbing method. 28 grams of nutrient agar was stirred and heated in a liter of
distilled water until it was fully dissolved. The dissolved mixture was autoclaved for 20
minutes. Afterwards, it was allowed to cool for a few minutes. The nutrient agar was then
poured into sterile plates and allowed it to solidify. Escherichia coli ATCC Strain 25922
samples were collected in a plate culture and placed into the device’s container containing
100 ml of distilled water. A sample contaminated water was collected before starting the
device. Then, a sample was taken from the device every five minutes for 25 minutes. .
Afterwards, a cotton swab was dipped into each sample and proceeded with the cotton
swabbing method. The same processes were done on the other prototypes. Plates should
be stored upside down. Visible bacterial growth was observed in about 48 hours.
14
Subsequently, colony counting was conducted with the help of a colony counter. Results
were compared from each prototype.
Data Analysis Formatted: Font: Bold
The data gathered from the disinfection test were analayzed using two-way
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) without Repetition at 5% alpha level of significance.
This is to identify if time and the types of liquid container have significant effects on the
number of bacterial colonies. Also, this statistical tool was employed to check if the
interaction between the number of days and type of liquid container as a significant effect
to the bacterial count. To check for the normality of the data, a Shapiro-Wilk’s Test was
performed before the two-way ANOVA. This is to ensure that the data gathered met the
assumption for performing ANOVA. Then, the results of the ANOVA were further
analyzed using a post-hoc test: Tukey Honest Significant Differences. This was utilized to
identify which specific day, type/s of liquid container and interaction/s of the
aforementioned variables have significant effects on the bacterial count.
Formatted: Font: Bold
15
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This study aimed to develop an Ultrasonic Water Disinfection System (UWDS).
Specifically, the objectives of this study are: (1) to design and develop a machine that can
induce ultrasound; (2) to determine the most appropriate liquid container for an ultrasonic
system; and (3) to develop system that can disinfect contaminated water.
Device
Figure 7. Actual Devices
Shown in the figure above are the actual models of the three different ultrasonic
systems developed and tested. Inside each container is space for an ultrasonically exposed
environment, wherein sample is to be placed. Whereas, underneath each are transducers
meant to induce ultrasound. A stand was incorporated in the setup to elevate and manage
the transducer and container. Wood was utilized to fabricate the casing of the electrical
circuitries and stand.
Foil Test Results
Shown in figure 8 are the results of the foil tests of each system. All aluminum
foils used displayed perforations after been exposed to each ultrasonic water disinfection
system. The sizes and frequency of the holes differ depending on how the aluminum foils
were positioned during the process. It was noticed that the closer the foil was to the
source, the larger the perforations and the faster they occur.
16
Figure 8. Foil Test Results
Container Condition Assessment
Figure 9. The Containers after Ultrasonification
17
Shown in figure 9 are the containers utilized during testing. All of them were
damaged as exposed to a 30-minute ultrasonification. It was observed that among the
three, the acrylic glass container had the most damage, and the stainless steel had the least
damage. The damages done, especially in the acrylic glass container, were shaped into a
circular pattern in which the inner part showed branching and crisscrossing of linear
cracks The aluminum and acrylic glass container showed changes in texture and color, as
cracks manifested among its surfaces. Whereas, the stainless steel container almost
displayed a complete resistance to ultrasonic bombardment, as a faint scratch only was
observed.
Water Turbidity Test
A pretest-posttest procedure was conducted to distilled water sample to determine
the number of derivatives produced as exposed to ultrasonification. The degree of
turbidity of the sample, collected in each 5 minute interval of a 30 minute exposure time,
was determined and compare using a Spectrophotometer. Using a wavelength of 600 nm
and a blank distilled water for calibration, the results for each system are as follows:
Light Absorbance (Abs) Light Transmittance (%T)

Time Stainless Acrylic Stainless Acrylic
Aluminum Aluminum
(Min) Steel Glass Steel Glass
UWDS UWDS
UWDS UWDS UWDS UWDS
0 0.001 0.012 0.005 99.7 97.3 98.9
5 0.009 0.126 0.007 97.9 74.8 98.3
10 0.019 0.177 0.007 95.7 66.6 98.4
15 0.024 0.205 0.142 94.6 62.3 72.2
20 0.037 0.226 - 91.9 59.4 -
25 0.037 0.234 - 91.8 58.4 -
30 0.049 0.251 - 89.4 56.1 -
Table 1. Spectrophotometry results
18
The table above shows two types of data: light absorbance, a quantitative
measurement of light absorbed by a sample, and light transmittance, a quantitative
measurement of light passed through a sample.
Findings show that all containers had an increase in absorbance of light and a
decrease in transmittance of light, thus sampled water became more turbid. Aluminum
and stainless steel ultrasonic systems increased an amount of 0.048 and 0.239 abs in a
span of 30 minutes of ultrasonification, respectively. Whereas, the acrylic glass UWDS
lasted only with 15 minutes of exposure, since it failed to withstand the energy caused by
ultrasound, nonetheless, it recorded an increase of 0.137 absorbance of light.
Particularly, the stainless steel ultrasonic system had a rapid increase of 0.114 abs
as observed from 5 minutes of exposure. This was due to the unanticipated presence of
rust surfacing from the bottom of the container.
Water Disinfection Capability
Average Bacterial Growth Count for UWDS using Aluminum Container

Average Bacterial Growth Count for UWDS using Stainless Steel Container
Average Bacterial Growth Count for UWDS using Acrylic Glass Container
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 10. UWDSs’ Bacterial Growth results
19
Cotton swabbing procedure was conducted to determine the number of disinfected
bacteria collected from the contaminated sample over treatment time every 5 minutes.
The number of colonies from each exposure time was determined and compared from
other results using a colony counter.
As shown in figure 10, a rapid decrease of bacterial colonies occurred soon after
crossing the 5 minute mark of Ultrasonic treatment. However, the system utilizing an
acrylic glass container stopped at approximately between the 5 and 10 minute mark. This
is primarily due to the damage accumulated by the container as exposed to
ultrasonification. Moreover, as the damage progressed during the aforesaid time span, it
was observed that the ultrasonic waves weakened, thus caused the disappearance of
ripples, assumed as cavitation, in the water sample.
Oppositely, the other containers held well against ultrasonification in a 25 minute
exposure. As seen above, it was observed that in 10 minutes of ultrasound exposure, there
was a 71.445% and 99.149% bacterial reduction from the aluminum and stainless steel
ultrasonic systems respectively. Correspondingly, after 25 minutes, both containers
achieved a comprehensive disinfection, hence, had a reduction of 99.985% and 99.980%
respectively.
In addition, an increase in temperature of each container while the treatment
progressed was observed.
The Shapiro-Wilk’s test indicated that the data is normal. Using Two-way
ANOVA without repetition at 5% level of significance, the p-value of the treatments, <2
e-16 suggests that the different treatment have significant effects on the bacterial count.
Also, the p-value of the time, <2 e-16 has a significant effect on the bacterial count.
Additionally, the interaction of the treatment and time, with p-value of <2 e-16, indicates
that the relationships between treatment and bacterial count depends on the time. Using
20
the Tukey HSD test it was identified that the difference of effects of stainless steel to the
bacterial count and the aluminum on the bacterial is not statistically significant. However,
the these two, when compared to the control group, show significant difference in the
bacterial count.
21
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
SUMMARY
The research study was designed to create a device that can effectively disinfect
water. Essential components such as the ultrasonic transducer, the power generator, and
the container was prepared for the fabrication of the device. Two circuits were developed
in the system: one for the ultrasonic transducer and the other is for the cooling system.
Subsequently, tests were carried out in the Research Laboratory of the Philippine
Science High School – Bicol Region Campus. First, the researchers were able to design
and develop a device that can successfully induce ultrasound. Second, the water turbidity
test shows that the water becomes more turbid on all containers as the length of exposure
to the device is increased. Third, the disinfection capability test shows that there is a
significant decrease in bacteria present in water as it was subjected to ultrasound.
CONCLUSION
In the foil test, all Ultrasonic Water Disinfection Systems proved to have
perforated the foils used on them. Consequently, the perforations can be concluded to the
presence of ultrasound waves produced by the systems.
In the water turbidity test, all of the containers utilized were damaged by the
ultrasonic transducer. Therefore, the turbidity of all the containers increased. However,
the water in the Ultrasonic Water Disinfection System using stainless steel container has
the least damage and but was, technically, the most turbid among the other prototypes due
to unforeseen rust coming from the bottom of the container. Nevertheless, the prototypes
cannot work its function without damaging its container, making it not suitable for
drinking waters.
In the disinfection capability test, the ultrasonic water disinfection system that
utilized the aluminum and stainless steel containers successfully disinfected the
22
contaminated water. Additionally, the ultrasonic disinfection system using the stainless
steel container disinfected the contaminated the water in a faster rate compared to the
ultrasonic disinfection system using the aluminum container. However, the ultrasonic
water disinfection system that utilizes acrylic glass container failed to last for more than
10 minutes and is unable to disinfect the water properly. The acrylic glass container
cannot withstand the power of the ultrasonic transducer, thus not suitable for ultrasonic
disinfection.
The following conclusions were drawn: (1) that the researchers successfully
designed and developed a system that can induce ultrasound, (2) the stainless steel
container is most resistant liquid container to damage caused by ultrasound for an
ultrasonic system, but is still not suitable for drinking water, and (3) the developed system
can successfully disinfect contaminated water.
23
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that future studies may improve the device by adding an
efficient filter to the device to help lessen the water’s turbidity after it was subjected to
the ultrasound. Future studies may also utilize magnet that attracts small metal pieces as a
substitute to filter for safer and more efficient treatment of a contaminated water.
Additionally, testing the device into different bacteria other than Escherichia coli
will greatly measure its capacity to clean contaminated water.
Further, utilizing an ultrasonic transducer that can be submerged underwater in
treating contaminated water may show a different result compared of using an external
transducer. The disinfection process may be more efficient since the ultrasonic transducer
is in direct contact with the water.
An alternative power source like a solar panel may be added to the system. This
will make the device more flexible as it can be carried anywhere and can be used without
plugging it to an outlet every time a disinfection process will be done.
Lastly, more replicates during the final testing of the disinfection capability of the
device should be made for a more accurate results. The researchers recommend at least
five (5) replicates per unit time of exposure to the device.
24
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abulencia, J., Gallardo, S., Abraham, N., Caraccio, A., Ruffini, N., McDonnell, K., et al.
(2010). Sustainability of Water Resources for the Poor. Consilience: The journal
of Sustainable Development, 155-166.
Andrews, G. (2018, February 3). Resolving the Water Pollution Crisis in the Philippines:
Implications of Water Pollution on Public Health and Economy. Pepperdine
Policy Review, 10.
Berg, R. (2017, October 6). Ultrasonics. Retrieved from Encyclopedia Britannica:
https://www.britannica.com/science/ultrasonics#ref527462
Crini, G., & Lichtfouse, E. (2018, July 31). Advantages and Disadvantages of techniques
used for water treatment. Environmental Chemistry Letters, 17(1), 145-155.
Dorgeloh, E., Kaiser, A., Dutu, I., & Khan, P. (2008). Disinfection of Wastewater with
Ultrasound. Lucrari Stiintifice, 52, 27-32.
Krauss, S., & Griebler, C. (2011, September 5). Pathogenic Microogarnisms and Viruses
in Groundwater. Retrieved from acatech - German Academy of Engineering
Sciences: https://www.acatech.de/Publikation/pathogenic-microorganisms-and-
viruses-in-groundwater/
Kumar, R., Yadav, N., Rawat, L., & Goyal, M. (2014). Effect of Two Waves of
Ultrasonic on Waste Water Treatment. Journal of Chemical Engineering &
Process Technology, 5(3).
Mahvi, A. (2009). Application of Ultrasonic Technology for Water and Wastewater
Treatment. Iranian Journal Public Health, 38, 1-17.
Naddeo, V., Belgiorno, V., Cesaro, A., Mantzavinos, D., & Fatta-Kassinos, D. (2014,
September). Water and wastewater disinfection by ultrasound irradiation - a
critical review. Global Nest Journal, 16, 561-577.
25
Nurliyana, M. R., Sahdan, M. Z., Wibowo, K. M., Muslihati, A., Saim, H., Ahmad, S. A.,
et al. (2018). The Detection Method of Escherichia coli in Water Resources: A
Review. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 995.
World Health Organization. (2011). The Philippines. Retrieved from World Health
Organization:
http://www.wpro.who.int/topics/water_sanitation/wsp_case_study_phl.pdf
World Health Organization. (2017, May 2). Diarrhoeal Disease. Retrieved January 1,
2019, from World Health Organization: https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-
sheets/detail/diarrhoeal-disease
Wu, T. Y., Guo, N., Teh, C. Y., & Hay, J. C. (2013). Advances in Ultrasound Technology
for Environmental Remediation (1 ed.). Springer Netherlands.
26
APPENDIX A
Bacterial Colony Count Raw Data
UWDS (Aluminum Container)

Time (Min)
1 2 3 Average
0 6885 6884 6887 6885.333
5 2275 2274 2277 2275.333
10 1967 1966 1964 1965.667
15 12 12 12 12
20 2 2 2 2
25 1 1 1 1
Table 2. Bacterial Growth Count UWDS (Aluminum
Container)
UWDS (Stainless Steel Container)

Time (Min)
1 2 3 Average
0 15593 15598 15584 15591.67
5 8475 8477 8472 8474.667
10 131 134 133 132.6667
15 96 97 96 96.33333
20 51 51 50 50.66667
25 3 3 3 3
Table 3. Bacterial Growth Count UWDS (Stainless Steel

Container)
UWDS (Acrylic Glass Container)

Time (Min)
1 2 3 Average
0 20,456 20455 20440 20,450
5 20,362 20360 20371 20,364
10 19,837 19830 19845 19,837
15 - - - -
20 - - - -
25 - - - -
Table 4. Bacterial Growth Count UWDS (Acrylic Glass

Container)
27
Natural Bacterial Growth
Time (Min)
1 2 3 Average
0 5831 5827 5832 5830
5 6688 6690 6686 6688
10 7381 7381 7379 7380.333
15 9155 9156 9154 9155
20 9988 9984 9990 9987.333
25 10511 10515 10518 10514.67
Table 5. Natural Bacterial Growth Count
28
APPENDIX B
Computation of Disinfection Capability Test

> shapiro.test(bc[Treatment=="Aluminum"&Time=="Day0"])
Shapiro-Wilk normality test
data: bc[Treatment == "Aluminum" & Time == "Day0"]

W = 0.96429, p-value = 0.6369
> shapiro.test(bc[Treatment=="Aluminum"&Time=="Day5"])
data: bc[Treatment == "Aluminum" & Time == "Day5"]

W = 0.96429, p-value = 0.6369
> shapiro.test(bc[Treatment=="Natural Growth"&Time=="Day0"])
data: bc[Treatment == "Natural Growth" & Time == "Day0"]

W = 0.89286, p-value = 0.3631

W = 1, p-value = 1

W = 0.75, p-value < 2.2e-16

W = 1, p-value = 1

W = 0.96429, p-value = 0.6369

W = 0.99324, p-value = 0.8428
> shapiro.test(bc[Treatment=="Stainless Steel"&Time=="Day0"])
data: bc[Treatment == "Stainless Steel" & Time == "Day0"]

W = 0.97351, p-value = 0.6878
29

W = 0.98684, p-value = 0.7804

W = 0.96429, p-value = 0.6369

W = 0.75, p-value < 2.2e-16

W = 0.75, p-value < 2.2e-16
summary(result)
Df Sum Sq Mean Sq F value Pr(>F)
tr 2 380906182 190453091 33719564 <2e-16 ***
tm 5 287007605 57401521 10162892 <2e-16 ***
tr:tm 10 522740562 52274056 9255079 <2e-16 ***
Residuals 36 203 6
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
> result<-aov(bc~tr*tm)
> post.hoc<-TukeyHSD(result,conf.level=0.95)
> post.hoc
Tukey multiple comparisons of means
95% family-wise confidence level
Fit: aov(formula = bc ~ tr * tm)
$tr
diff lwr upr p ad
j
Natural Growth-Auminum 6402.333 6400.397 6404.270
0
Stainless Steel-Auminum 2201.278 2199.341 2203.214
0
Stainless Steel-Natural Growth -4201.056 -4202.992 -4199.119
0
$tm
diff lwr upr p adj
Day10-Day0 -6276.11111 -6279.48171 -6272.74051 0
Day15-Day0 -6347.88889 -6351.25949 -6344.51829 0
Day20-Day0 -6089.00000 -6092.37060 -6085.62940 0
Day25-Day0 -5929.44444 -5932.81505 -5926.07384 0
Day5-Day0 -3623.00000 -3626.37060 -3619.62940 0
Day15-Day10 -71.77778 -75.14838 -68.40717 0
Day20-Day10 187.11111 183.74051 190.48171 0
Day25-Day10 346.66667 343.29606 350.03727 0
30
Day5-Day10 2653.11111 2649.74051 2656.48171 0
Day20-Day15 258.88889 255.51829 262.25949 0
Day25-Day15 418.44444 415.07384 421.81505 0
Day5-Day15 2724.88889 2721.51829 2728.25949 0
Day25-Day20 159.55556 156.18495 162.92616 0
Day5-Day20 2466.00000 2462.62940 2469.37060 0
Day5-Day25 2306.44444 2303.07384 2309.81505 0
$`tr:tm`
diff
lwr
Natural Growth:Day0-Auminum:Day0 -1055.33333 -1062.6
10786
Stainless Steel:Day0-Auminum:Day0 8706.33333 8699.0
55881
Auminum:Day10-Auminum:Day0 -4919.66667 -4926.9
44119
Natural Growth:Day10-Auminum:Day0 495.00000 487.7
22547
Stainless Steel:Day10-Auminum:Day0 -6752.66667 -6759.9
44119
10786
89214
77453
10786
22547
44119
10786
55881
10786
77453
Natural Growth:Day5-Auminum:Day0 -197.33333 -204.6
10786
55881
Stainless Steel:Day0-Natural Growth:Day0 9761.66667 9754.3
89214
Auminum:Day10-Natural Growth:Day0 -3864.33333 -3871.6
10786
Natural Growth:Day10-Natural Growth:Day0 1550.33333 1543.0
55881
Stainless Steel:Day10-Natural Growth:Day0 -5697.33333 -5704.6
10786
77453
22547
44119
77453
55881
10786
77453
31
89214
77453
44119
22547
89214
Auminum:Day10-Stainless Steel:Day0 -13626.00000 -13633.2
77453
Natural Growth:Day10-Stainless Steel:Day0 -8211.33333 -8218.6
10786
Stainless Steel:Day10-Stainless Steel:Day0 -15459.00000 -15466.2
77453
44119
44119
10786
44119
10786
77453
44119
77453
44119
10786
44119
77453
89214
77453
44119
55881
10786
44119
89214
77453
44119
22547
44119
Auminum:Day5-Auminum:Day10 309.66667 302.3
89214
55881
32
22547
44119
10786
89214
77453
10786
22547
44119
10786
55881
10786
77453
Natural Growth:Day5-Natural Growth:Day10 -692.33333 -699.6
10786
55881
44119
Natural Growth:Day15-Stainless Steel:Day10 9022.33333 9015.0
55881
10786
44119
89214
77453
44119
22547
44119
Auminum:Day5-Stainless Steel:Day10 2142.66667 2135.3
89214
55881
Stainless Steel:Day5-Stainless Steel:Day10 8342.00000 8334.7
22547
22547
55881
77453
55881
89214
77453
89214
33
77453
55881
22547
89214
44119
77453
55881
10786
77453
89214
77453
44119
77453
10786
10786
22547
44119
10786
55881
10786
22547
89214
55881
55881
89214
77453
89214
Stainless Steel:Day25-Auminum:Day20 1.00000 -6.2
77453
55881
22547
89214
44119
10786
34
55881
10786
77453
10786
44119
44119
22547
44119
89214
55881
22547
89214
Stainless Steel:Day25-Auminum:Day25 2.00000 -5.2
77453
55881
22547
89214
44119
10786
44119
77453
55881
22547
89214
89214
55881
89214
upr p a
dj
Natural Growth:Day0-Auminum:Day0 -1048.055881 0.00000
00
00
Auminum:Day10-Auminum:Day0 -4912.389214 0.00000
00
00
Stainless Steel:Day10-Auminum:Day0 -6745.389214 0.00000
00
00
35
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Natural Growth:Day5-Auminum:Day0 -190.055881 0.00000
00
00
00
Auminum:Day10-Natural Growth:Day0 -3857.055881 0.00000
00
00
Stainless Steel:Day10-Natural Growth:Day0 -5690.055881 0.00000
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
Auminum:Day10-Stainless Steel:Day0 -13618.722547 0.00000
00
Natural Growth:Day10-Stainless Steel:Day0 -8204.055881 0.00000
00
Stainless Steel:Day10-Stainless Steel:Day0 -15451.722547 0.00000
00
00
00
00
36
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
37
00
Natural Growth:Day5-Natural Growth:Day10 -685.055881 0.00000
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
84
00
00
77
00
70
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
38
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
39
00
94
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
40

Second Draft Final Manuscript With Statistics

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Second Draft Final Manuscript With Statistics

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Philippine Science High School

Bicol Region Campus

Ultrasonic Water Disinfection

Aian Anthony D. Baal

Aian Anthony D. Baal

Submitted to the Faculty of the

April May 2019

with an acrylic container stopped disinfecting after 10 minutes. A pretest-posttest

This research work entitled, “Ultrasonic Water Disinfection System Prototype”

requirements in Science and Technology Research 2, is hereby accepted.

Engr. Juan S. Narvato

Engr. Lorvie Pagorongon

people in the completion of this study:

in the development of the device;

supervision in the course of this research;

be successful in the usage of the laboratory and it’s equipment.

Notorio for their assistance during the methodology of the study.

- Aian and Andrew

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... iv

List Of Tables ................................................................................................................................................. vi

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... vii

Background of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 1

Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................................................... 3

Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................................ 3

Scope and Limitations ............................................................................................................................ 4

Review of Related Literature and Studies ....................................................................................................... 5

Bacteriological Contamination in Water ................................................................................................ 5

Primary Methods for Water Disinfection ............................................................................................... 5

Ultrasound Disinfection Theory ............................................................................................................. 6

Materials and Methods .................................................................................................................................... 8

Process Flowchart ................................................................................................................................... 8

Device Design and Fabrication ............................................................................................................... 9

Development of Circuitry ..................................................................................................................... 10

Device Performance Test ...................................................................................................................... 11

Water Turbidity Test ............................................................................................................................ 12

Device Disinfection Capability Test ..................................................................................................... 13

Results and Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 15

Foil Test Results ................................................................................................................................... 15

Container Condition Assessment .......................................................................................................... 16

Water Turbidity Test ............................................................................................................................ 17

Water Disinfection Capability Test ...................................................................................................... 18

Summary and Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 21

Table Title Page

2 Bacterial Growth Count UWDS (Aluminum Container) 26

3 Bacterial Growth Count UWDS (Stainless Steel Container) 26

Figure Title Page

2 Ultrasonic Water Disinfection System Diagram 9

3 Circuitry Casing Diagram 10

4 Foil Testing Setup 11

6 Disinfection Capability Test Setup 13

8 Foil Test Results 16

9 The Containers after Ultrasonification 16

10 UWDSs’ Bacterial Growth results 18

Background of the Study

Safe water accessibilityThe inaccessibility of safe dinking wate is a problem in the

Philippines. In fact, approximately 17 million Filipinos have no access to potablesafe

waste (Andrews, 2018). ThusMoreover, ingesting liquids present with the

aforementionedsaid impurities invite malicious threats to one’s health. In effect, a third of

the Philippines’s illnesses are water related (WHO, 2014).

microorganisms. Water systems provide high chances of survival, reproduction, and

under the age five every year.

of a community. Irrigation, pesticide and fertilizer applications, crop cooling, frost

pathogenic outbreaks and chemical contamination of vegetation and agricultural stocks,