Waz. Res. Vol. 26. No. 12. pp. 1571-1.575, 1992 0043-1354/92 $5.00+ 0.

00
Printed in Great Britain.All rightsreserved Copyright '~ 1992Pcrgarnon Press Lid

SUSPENDED PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND THE

PERFORMANCE OF DEEP BED FILTERS
R. I. MACKIE~) and P~NBI BAI
Department of Civil Engineering, The University, Dundee DDI 4HN, Scotland

(First received November 1991; accepted in ret'ised form May 1992)

AbstractaThe paper examines the importance of suspended particle size distribution in deep bed filtration.
Expariments were conducted with suspensions of different size distributions. The changes in total
concentration, concentrations of particles of different sizes and the headloss were observed. The
suspension with the largest mean particle size gave the greatest removal. It was also observed that the
size distribution changed with depth and time. and this was shown to be crucial in understanding filter
behaviour. It was concluded that in modelling filter performance it is not sufficient to use the mean
characteristics of the influent suspension. Some evidence was found for the interaction between particles
of different sizes, and the particle size distribution also affects the distribution of deposit throughout the
bed.

Key words---deep hod filtration, water clarification, particle size

INTRODUCTION
In deep bed filtration suspended particles are removed
by passing the fluid through a granular bed. The most
common use of the process is in final removal of
particles in water treatment. The process has received
much attention over recent years (e.g. Ives, 1970;
Tien and Payatakes, 1979) but is still far from being
fully understood. In particular, while it has long been
recognized that particle size is important (Ison and
Ives, 1969) little attention has been paid to particle
size distribution. Most research has either dealt with
monodisperse suspensions, or has characterized the
suspension by the mean particle size of the influent.
For instance, Yao et al. (1971) showed that there is
a critical particle size of about i F m for which the
removal efficiency is a minimum. For smaller panicles
diffusion plays an increasing role, and for larger par-
ticles gravity and interception become more important.
O'Melia and All (1978), using monodispcrse suspen-
sions, showed that the influence of size continued
throughout the filtration process, and that headloss
was higher for suspensions of smaller particles.
Recently, some attention has been paid to bimodal
suspensions. Vigneswaran et al. 0985, 1990) found
that the presence of larger particles tended to increase
the removal efficiency of smaller particles. However,
Darby and Lawler 0990) stated that particles of one
size apparently preferred to be captured by particles
of a similar size. Tobiason et al. (1990) found that
the removal efficiency of the smallest particles was
reduced by the presence of larger particles, and the
presence of smaller particles improved the removal of
larger ones. Mackie et al. (1987, 1989) used poly-
disperse suspensions and showed that the qualitative
as well as quantitative behaviour was dependent upon
particle size. For instance, they found that the removal
of large particles stopped while the removal of small
ones was still increasing. They also carried out some
theoretical work that indicated that there is interaction
between particles of different sizes in the removal
process.
There is, therefore, substantial evidence that par-
ticle size distribution may be important in deep bed
filtration, but there is a scarcity of experimental data,
and the evidence so far is to some extent contradictory.
This paper describes some recent experimental results
on the effect of particle size distribution. The work
used polydisperse suspensions and suspensions with
different size distributions were prepared using various
pretreatment methods.
EXPERIMENTAL METHOD
Filter, media and packing
The filter consisted of a 138 mm internal diameter perspex
column with brass inlet and outlet units. The whole filter
was fitted on a vibrating table, this table being used for
compaction. Ballotini glass beads were used as the filter
media, these are spherical and the size can be closely
controlled. The media used in the experiments reported here
was 0.600-0.710 mm diameter. The bed was prepared by
filling the filter with water. The media was immersed in
water and fed via a hydraulic raiser in the filter. When every
third of the media had been added the filter was vibrated
for one minute. This method was found to give the most
uniform filter bed. The porosity of the clean bed was 0.371.
Suspension preparation
The suspension used in this was a PVC powder (Corvic
P72/757, supplied free ofcharge by ICI, U.K.). The particles
were spherical and their size ranged from less than 0.5
to about 15/~m. Three types of suspension were prepared,
the object being to vary the size distribution.
Type A. This was the standard suspension. 22.5 g of PVC
powder was mixed with 300 ml water and then sheared using

157l
1572 R. I. MACKIEand l ~ s s t BAI
a heavy duty emulsifier. After being immersed in an ultra-
sonic bath for I min the suspension was added to the main
storage tanks. The process was repeated as often as necessary
to prepare sufficient suspension of the required concentration.
Type B. The suspension was prepared as for Type A
and was then allowed to settle for 12 h in 2251. tanks. The
supernatant was then used as the influent for the filtration
experiment. The size range varied from less than 0.5 to
about l0/am.
Type C. Again the suspension was prepared as for
Type A. Then the suspension was filtered through a filter
bed consisting of 0.420-0.500mm glass beads, and bed
depth 400 ram, i.e. the suspension was prefiltered, the object
being to remove as many of the larger particles as possible.
Prefiltering took place at 4.8 m/h. The first 10 rain effluent
was discharged, and the next 50 rain was collected for use.
This process was repeated several times until sufficient
suspension was prepared. The size ranged from less than 0.5
to about 6/am.
Particle size analysis was carried out using a Coulter
Counter. Although the instrument was capable of giving 14
size channels of data, for the purpose of analysis the par-
ticles were lumped into four size groups in order to reduce
statistical errors. The size groups were:
Group Sizerange (~m)
I 0.63-1.26
2 1.26-2.52
3 2.52-5.04
4 5.04 - I 0 . 0 8
Figure I shows typical size distributions of the three types
of influent.
Filtration run
During the course of the experiment the suspension was
stored in 225 I. tanks, the suspension was stirred in order to
prevent settling. The filter was fed via a constant head tank,
and the flow rate was maintained constant during the course
of an experiment by means of flow controllers.
Sampling
This is perhaps the most difficult aspect of filtration
experiments. Sampling points were placed at 25 mm above
the filter bed (for influent sampling), and at 25, 75, 125, 175,
225, 275 and 375 mm below the top of the bed. The sampling
points were placed in a helical pattern around the filter so
that every sampling point was 90" further round than the
previous one. Each sampling point had an internal diameter
of 3 ram, protruded 25 mm into the bed and the ends were
covered with a 300 x 300/am gauze. 3 mm internal diameter
plastic tubing fed the suspension to test tubes via a peristaltic
pump, the latter being used to maintain a constant flow rate.
Sample analysis
The samples were immediately analysed on a Coulter
Counter (model TAII) to obtain particle size distribution
50
45
15
1~
O 1
~ 2 3 4
Fig. I. Influent size distribution. I]. A: II. B; I~. C.
0.9-
0.?"
i 0.8-
O.e"
0.5"
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1"
Time (h)
Fig. 2. Total concentration, 25 mm. i . A; +, B; ,, C.
and total concentration data. A 30/am tube was used with
the Coulter Counter, thus enabling particles in the range 0.6
to about 12/am to be analysed.
Headloss
All the manometer points were set at the same depth as the
sampling points with a 27.5 mm centre to centre separation.
The manometer points were connected to glass manometer
tubes.
RESULTS
The three types of suspension were filtered under
identical conditions. Figures 2 and 3 show the change
in concentration with time at depths of 25 and 75 min.
The inlet concentrations varied between 90 and
I l0 mg/I. in order to remove the effects of differences
in inlet concentration the times have been been
normalized to an influent concentration of 100 rag/l,
e.g. 1 h at I I 0 m g / I is equivalent to I.I h at 100 rag/I,
I h at 90 mg/I is equivalent to 0.9 h at 100 mg/I. It is
clear from the figures that the total removal is for
the most part greatest for suspension A, though in the
later stages the removal for suspension A starts to
decrease sooner, and at a depth o f 75 mm suspension
B and C are still increasing. This general behaviour
can be explained by the difference in the particle size
distribution (and hence the mean size) of suspension A
and the other two suspensions. It is interesting to note
that although the minimum concentration reached at
25 mm bed depth is dependent upon the suspension
type, at 75 mm there appears to be no significant
difference between the minima for suspensions A
and B. Due to the practical difficulties involved in
preparing and using suspension C (namely the time
involved) the experiments were not continued to the
j0
point where a minimum was reached at 75 mm.
O.q
0.'
0.:
0I
Time(h)
Fig. 3. Total concentration, 75 ram. I1, A: +, B; ,, C.
 Suspended particle size in filtration 1573

1
0.9-
0.8
0.7
I 0.6
0.5.
0eJ
i 0.4 I .4"1
0.3.
0.2" 0.21
0.1.
00 ot
3500
Time(h) Removal g/m s
Fig. 4. Total concentration. 375 ram. II. A; +, B; *, C. Fig. 7. Size Group 2, 375 mm. i , A; +, B; *, C.

in it, this happens because by this time the top

I 2 3 4
SizeOroup
Fig. 5. Size distribution, 75 mm, time 3 b. ~ , A, i , B; ea C.
As mentioned above the generally greater removal
in the top bed layer for suspension A can be explained
by the greater mean particle size of the influent.
However, one feature of filter bchaviour that does not
appear to have reccivecl much attention is the change
in suspended particle size distribution with depth and
time. Figures 2 and 3 showed the change in concen-
tration relative to the inlet. Figure 4 shows the change
at 375 mm relative to the concentration at 75 mm. Up
until about 5 h there is no great difference between
the different suspensions, and indeed for a period
suspension C is experiencing greater removal in this
layer. The reason becomes apparent by looking at the
size distribution at, for instance, time 3 h (Fig. 5). At
time 3 h and depth 75 mm suspension A is actually a
finer suspension than the others, and suspension C
contains more particles of size 3 than the others,
hence the observed behaviour. After about 5.5 h the
removal for suspension A is much greater than for
the others. This again can be explained by the
change in size distribution. At time 5.5 h suspension
A again has a significant number of size 4 particles
part of the filter has stopped removing the larger
particles.
From the above it is apparent that the change in
size distribution with time and depth is an important
factor. However, it has been suggested by various
workers that there is also interaction between particles
of different sizes. The above results neither prove nor
disprove this. In order to decide whether this is
happening or not one needs to look at the behaviour
of particles within each size group. Figures 6-8 show
the change in relative concentration (in volume terms)
against total amount of suspension removed for size
groups I, 2 and 3 at a depth of 375 ram. The total
removal is the total amount of deposit per unit area
of the filter, this means that performance of the filter
for equal degrees of overall clogging can be compared.
The filter appears to be more effective at removing
particles for suspension A than it is for the other two
suspensions. Eventually the effectiveness converges,
though the difference persists longer for the smaller
particles (group I). The difference is less pronounced
for sampling points nearer the top of the filter, but is
still there. All the experiments were repeated and the
same trends were observed, but further investigations
are being carried out. The results for size group 4 are
not shown as the numbers present in suspension C are
so small as to be meaningless.
Suspension size distribution also appears to affect
headloss. Figure 9 shows headloss vs removal at
25 mm. The graph exhibits a clear dependency upon
suspension type, with the finer suspension giving the
greater headloss. However, if the same graph at
375 mm (Fig. 10) is observed there is no clear differ-
ence between the curves.

I
0.9
I 0.8 I 0.8
0.7
O.e. 0.6
0.5
0.4 0.4
~ 0.3"
0.2- 0.2
0.|"
oi ,~0 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 5O0 1000 1500 2000 ~ o ~o 35OO
RemovalWma Removeig/m a
Fig. 6. Size Group !, 375 ram. i , A; + , B; ,, C. Fig. 8. Size Group 3, 375 mm. II, A; +, B; *, C.

WR 26~12--B
1574 R. I. MAcKx[ and l~Nst BAt

1200 for suspension A, and 0.929 and 0.937 for B and C.

1000 These results cannot be directly transferred to con-
ditions within a filter, but they do indicate that size
i 8OO
distribution is likely to affect the self porosity of the

l
(CO
deposit, and hence filter performance. This may
4OO explain the headloss results at 25 mm (Fig. 9). Again
200 it must be remembered that the size distribution
changvs with depth and time, so the sedimentation
0
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 tests do not indicate that the deposit below the top
Remo~d g/m 2
layer of the filter will have a lower porosity for
Fig. 9. Headloss at 25 ram. I , A; +, B; *, C. suspension A. For the first 25 mm the effect of deposit
distribution will probably be much less pronounced

__//
1800-
1600-
1400-
i 1200-
I000-
800.
800-
400-
200-
Romowd g/m z
Fig. 10. Headloss at 375 ram. II, A; +, B; *, C.
Why might size distribution affect the results? The
size distribution of a suspension may have two effects:
(i) it might affect the overall distribution of deposit;
and (ii) it might affect the morphology of the deposit.
Deposit distribution
Figure I! shows the deposit distribution when
about 1650g/m 2 had been removed by the filter.
(The actual amounts for suspensions A, B and C were
1546, 1645 and 1780g/m 2, respectively.) The more
large the particles in the suspension the more the
deposit was concentrated near the top of the filter.
Since the relationship between headloss and deposit
is non-linear (e.g. see Fig. 9) this factor would cause
coarser suspensions to give a greater increase in
headloss for the whole filter than fine suspensions,
counteracting the effect shown in Fig. 9.
Deposit morphology
Sedimentation tests were carried out on the back-
washed deposits for the clogged filters for the three
suspension types in order to estimate the porosity of
the deposits. The results gave a porosity of 0.898
1
0.8
and deposit morphology will be more important,
hence the higher headloss for suspension C.
As well as affecting the porosity of the deposit the
size distribution may affect the microscopic nature of
the deposit. This possibility was discussed by Mackie
(1989). Briefly the presence of larger particles in the
suspension may produce a "rougher" appearance to
the deposit, leading to a greater removal efficiency for
all particles.
CONCLUSIONS
These results indicate that size distribution plays an
important and complex role in deep bed filtration.
Much more work needs to be done, but some
conclusions can be drawn.
(I) The size distribution of a suspension changes
with depth and time. This means that at any
one time different parts of the filter are treating
different suspensions, and that the suspension
treated at any one depth will change with
time. Most mathematical modelling work in
filtration has treated the suspension as having
a constant composition. These models have
had only limited success and the work de-
scribed herein shows that an accurate model
must take account of changes in suspension
characteristics.
(2) The size distribution of a suspension may
affect the deposit morphology and the deposit
distribution. This can affect the performance
of a filter, both in terms of removal efficiency
and headloss. The work described indicates
that the removal of smaller particles is
enhanced by the presence of larger particles
in the suspension. For the top layer of the
filter (the first 25 mm) the finer suspension
led to the greatest increase in headloss, but

S
I 0Jl the headloss over the whole bed was much
0+7 less dependent upon size distribution.
O.O
O.S (3) This work was concerned with a polydisperse
I OA suspension and demonstrates the complex
0.3 nature of filtration. For flocculent suspensions
02
0.1 the situation will be even more complicated.
O'
50 100 150 20O 250 300 35O 4O0 Acknowledgements--Part of this work is funded by the
(ram)
Science and Engineering Research Council, U.K. The
Fig. 11. Distribution of deposit at 1650g/m:. 1 , A; +, B; authors would also like to thank ICI for kindly supplying
'lb.C. the PVC powder.
 Suspended particle size in filtration
REFERENCES
Darby J. L. and Lawler D. F. (1990) Ripening in depth
filtration: effect of particle size on removal and headloss.
Enrir. Sci. Technol. 24, 1069-1079.
lson C. R. and Ires K. J. (1969) Removal mechanisms in
deep-bed filtration. Chem. Engng Sci. 24, 717.
Ires K. J. (1970) Rapid filtration. War. Res. 4° 201-223.
Mackie R. I. (1989) Rapid gravity filtration--towads a
deeper understanding. Filth Sepn 26, 32-36.
Mackie R. I., Homer R. M. W. and Jarvis R. J. (1987)
Dynamic modelling of deep bed filtration. A.I.Ch.E.J133,
1761-1775.
O'Melia C. R. and Ali W. (1978) The role of retained
particles in deep bed filtration. Prog. War. Technol. 10,
167-182.
1575
Tien C. and Payatakes A. C. (1979) Advances in deep-bed
filtration. A.I.Ch.E.JI 25, 737-759.
Tobiason J. E., Johnson G. S. and Westerhoff P. K. (1990)
Particle size and filter performance: model studies. In
Natn. Conf. Erie,it. Engng, Proceedings of the 1990 Special
Conference, Arlington Va, U.S.A., pp. 733-739.
Vigneswaran S. and Ben Aim R. (1985) The influence of
suspended particle size distribution in deep bed filtration.
A.LCh.E.JI 31, 321-324.
Vigneswaran S., Chang J. S. and Janssens J. G. (1990)
Experimental investigation of size distribution of sus-
pended particles in granular bed filtration. War. Res. 24,
927-930.
Yao K. M., Habibian M. T. and O'Melia C. R. (1971)
Water and wastewater filtration: concepts and application.
Envir. Sci. Technol. 5, 1105-1 ! 12.