Monroe L.

Weber-Shirk
School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering
Filtration Theory
On removing little particles with big
particles
Filtration Outline
Filters galore
Range of applicability
Particle Capture
theory
Transport
Dimensional Analysis
Model predictions
Filters
Rapid
Slow
BioSand
Pots
Roughing
Multistage Filtration

Filters Galore
Bio Sand
Rapid Sand
Cartridge
Bag
Pot
Candle
Diatomaceous earth filter
Slow Sand
Rough
Categorizing Filters
Straining
Particles to be removed are larger than the pore size
Clog rapidly
Depth Filtration
Particles to be removed may be much smaller than the
pore size
Require attachment
Can handle more solids before developing excessive
head loss
Filtration model coming
All filters remove more particles near the filter inlet
The if it is dirty, filter it Myth
The common misconception is that if the
water is dirty then you should filter it to
clean it
But filters cant handle very dirty water
without clogging quickly

Filter range of applicability
1000
NTU
1
10
100
SSF
1 10 100 1k 10k
people
100k 1 10 100 1k 10k
people
100k
Cartridge Bag RSF+ Pot Candle
DE
Developing a Filtration Model
Iwasaki (1937) developed relationships
describing the performance of deep bed
filters.
0
=
dC
C
dz

C is the particle concentration [number/L
3
]

0
is the initial filter coefficient [1/L]
z is the media depth [L]
The particles chances of being caught are the same at
all depths in the filter; pC* is proportional to depth
0
=
dC
dz
C

0
0
0
=
C z
C
dC
dz
C

} }
0
0
ln =
C
z
C

| |

|
\ .
( )
0
0
1
log *
ln 10
C
pC z
C

| |
= =
|
\ .
0
*
C
C
C
=
Graphing Filter Performance
1 2 3 4
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Removed
t
1 2 3 4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
p Remaining ( )
t
p x ( ) log x ( ) :=
This graph gives the
impression that you can
reach 100% removal
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
p Remaining ( )
t
Where is 99.9% removal?
Particle Removal Mechanisms in
Filters
Transport to a surface
Attachment
Molecular diffusion
Inertia
Gravity
Interception
Straining
London van der Waals
collector
Filtration Performance: Dimensional
Analysis
What is the parameter we are interested in
measuring? _________________
How could we make performance
dimensionless? ____________
What are the important forces?

Effluent concentration
C/C
0
or pC*

Inertia
London van der Waals
Electrostatic
Viscous
Need to create dimensionless force ratios!
Gravitational
Thermal
Dimensionless Force Ratios
Reynolds Number
Froude Number
Weber Number
Mach Number
Pressure/Drag Coefficients
(dependent parameters that we measure experimentally)
Re
Vl r
m
=
Fr
V
gl
=
( )
2
2
C
p
p
V r
- D
=
o
l V
W
2
=
c
V
M =
A V
d
2
Drag 2
C

=
2
f
u
V
l
m =
f
g
g r =
2
f
l
s
s
=
2
f
v
E
c
l
r
=
2
f
i
V
l
r =
( )
p g z r D + D
What is the Reynolds number for
filtration flow?
What are the possible length scales?
Void size (collector size) max of 0.7 mm in RSF
Particle size
Velocities
V
0
varies between 0.1 m/hr (SSF) and 10 m/hr (RSF)
Take the largest length scale and highest velocity to
find max Re



For particle transport the length scale is the particle
size and that is much smaller than the collector size
( )
3
2
6
10 0.7 10
3600
Re 2
10
m hr
m
hr s
m
s

| |

|
\ .
= =
| |
|
\ .
Re
Vl
v
=
Choose viscosity!
In Fluid Mechanics inertia is a significant
force for most problems
In porous media filtration viscosity is more
important that inertia.
We will use viscosity as the repeating
parameter and get a different set of
dimensionless force ratios
Inertia
Gravitational
Viscous
Thermal
Viscous
Gravity
2
g
0
( )
=
18
p w p
gd
V

H
2
g
( )
=
18
p w p
gd
v

v
pore
g
0
=
g
v
V
H
Gravity only helps when
the streamline has a
_________ component.
horizontal
2
f
u
V
l
=
f
g
g r =
g
=
g
f
f

H
g
0
2
=
p
g
V
d

A
H
2
g
0
( )
=
p w p
gd
V

H
velocities forces
Use this definition
Diffusion (Brownian Motion)
k
B
=1.38 x 10
-23
J/K
T = absolute temperature
v
pore
Br
0

3
B
p c
k T
d V d t
H =
3
B
p
k T
D
d t
=
2
L
T
(
(

d
c
D
v
d

d
c
is diameter of the collector
Diffusion velocity is
high when the particle
diameter is ________. small
London van der Waals
The London Group is a measure of the
attractive force
It is only effective at extremely short range
(less than 1 nm) and thus is NOT
responsible for transport to the collector
H is the Hamakers constant


Lo
2
p 0
4H
=
9 d V t
H
20
= 0.75 10 H J

Van der Waals force

Viscous force
What about Electrostatic
repulsion/attraction?
Modelers have not succeeded in describing
filter performance when electrostatic
repulsion is significant
Models tend to predict no particle removal
if electrostatic repulsion is significant.
Electrostatic repulsion/attraction is only
effective at very short distances and thus is
involved in attachment, not transport
Geometric Parameters
What are the length scales that are related to
particle capture by a filter?
______________
__________________________
______________
Porosity (void volume/filter volume) (c)
Create dimensionless groups
Choose the repeating length ________

Filter depth (z)
Collector diameter (media size) (d
c
)
Particle diameter (d
p
)
p
R
c
d
d
H =
z
c
z
d
H =
(d
c
)
Number of collectors!
H
.z
3 1 c
( )

2 ln 10 ( )
z
d
.c
|

\
|
|
.
:=
Definition used in model
Write the functional relationship
( )
,
g Br
* , , ,
R z
pC f c = H H H H
( )
,
g Br
* , ,
z R
pC f c = H H H H
If we double depth of filter what does pC* do? ___________
doubles
How do we get more detail on this functional relationship?
Empirical measurements
Numerical models
Numerical Models
Trajectory analysis
A series of modeling attempts with
refinements over the past decades
Began with a single collector model that
modeled London and electrostatic forces as
an attachment efficiency term (o)
( )
, ,
g Br
* ,
z R
pC f c = H H H H
o
Filtration Model
c
( )
1 c
( )
1
3
:=
A
.s
c
( )
2 1 c
( )
5

( )

2 3 c
( )
3 c
( )
5
+ 2 c
( )
6

:=
H
.g
d
.p
( )
d
.p
2

.p

.w

( )
g
18 V
.a

:=
H
.R
d
.p
( )
d
.p
d
.c
:=
H
.z
3 1 c
( )

2 ln 10 ( )
z
d
.c
|

\
|
|
.
:=
H
.Br
d
.p
( )
k
.b
T
3 t d
.p
V
.a
d
.c

:=
Porosity
Geometry
Force ratios
Transport Equations
q
Br
d
p
( )
3
4
A
s
c
( )
1
3
H
R
d
p
( )
1
6

H
Br
d
p
( )
2
3
:=
q
R
d
p
( )
1
21.5
A
s
c
( )
H
R
d
p
( )
1.425
:=
q
g
d
p
( )
0.31 H
g
d
p
( )
:=
q d
p
( )
q
Br
d
p
( )
q
R
d
p
( )
+ q
g
d
p
( )
+ :=
pC d
.p
( )
H
.z
o q d
.p
( )
:=
Brownian motion
Interception
Gravity
Total is sum of parts
Transport is additive
Filtration Technologies
Slow (FiltersEnglishSlow sandBiosand)
First filters used for municipal water treatment
Were unable to treat the turbid waters of the Ohio and
Mississippi Rivers
Can be used after Roughing filters
Rapid (MechanicalAmericanRapid sand)
Used in Conventional Water Treatment Facilities
Used after coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation
High flow ratesclog dailyhydraulic cleaning
Ceramic
Rapid Sand Filter
(Conventional US Treatment)
Sand
Gravel
Influent
Drain
Effluent
Wash water
Anthracite
Size
(mm)
0.70

0.45 - 0.55

5 - 60
Specific
Gravity
1.6

2.65

2.65
Depth
(cm)
30

45

45
Filter Design
Filter media
silica sand and anthracite coal
non-uniform media will stratify with _______ particles
at the top
Flow rates
60 - 240 m/day
Backwash rates
set to obtain a bed porosity of 0.65 to 0.70
typically 1200 m/day


smaller
Compare with sedimentation
Sand
Gravel
Influent
Drain
Effluent
Wash water
Anthracite
Backwash
Wash water is
treated water!
WHY?
Only clean water
should ever be on
bottom of filter!
0.1 1 10 100
0.1
1
10
100
Brownian
Interception
Gravity
Total
Particle Diameter ( m)
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

r
e
m
o
v
a
l

a
s

p
C
*
Rapid Sand predicted performance

p
1040
kg
m
3
:=
V
a
5
m
hr
:=
T 293K :=
z 45cm :=
d
c
0.45mm :=
o 1 :=
c 0.4 :=
Not very good at removing particles that
havent been flocculated
Slow Sand Filtration
First filters to be used on a widespread basis
Fine sand with an effective size of 0.2 mm
Low flow rates (2.5-10 m/day)
Schmutzdecke (_____ ____) forms on top of the
filter
causes high head loss
must be removed periodically
Used without coagulation/flocculation!
Turbidity should always be less than 50 NTU with
a much lower average to prevent rapid clogging
filter cake
Compare with sedimentation
Slow Sand Filtration Mechanisms
Protozoan predators (only
effective for bacteria removal,
not virus or protozoan removal)
Aluminum (natural sticky
coatings)
Attachment to previously
removed particles
No evidence of removal by
biofilms
Typical Performance of SSF Fed
Cayuga Lake Water
0.05
0.1
1
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (days)
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
t

E
.

c
o
l
i

r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

e
f
f
l
u
e
n
t

Filter performance doesnt improve if the filter
only receives distilled water
(Daily samples)
Particle Removal by Size
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
0.8 1 10
Particle diameter (m)
control
3 mM azide
F
r
a
c
t
i
o
n

o
f

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
t

p
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
s

r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

i
n

t
h
e

e
f
f
l
u
e
n
t

Effect of
the Chrysophyte
What is the physical-
chemical mechanism?
Techniques to Increase Particle
Attachment Efficiency
Make the particles stickier
The technique used in conventional water
treatment plants
Control coagulant dose and other coagulant aids
(cationic polymers)
Make the filter media stickier
Biofilms in slow sand filters?
Mystery sticky agent present in surface waters
that is imported into slow sand filters?

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

Seston Extract Analysis
11%
13%
17%
56%
volatile solids
Al
Na
Fe
P
S
Si
Ca
other metals
other nonvolatile solids
How much Aluminum should be added to a filter?
carbon
16%
I discovered
aluminum!
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 2 4 6 8 10
time (days)
E
.

c
o
l
i

r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

(
p
C
*
)
control
4
20
100
end azide
Horizontal bars
indicate when
polymer feed was
operational for each
filter.
E. coli Removal as a Function of
Time and Al Application Rate
pC* is proportional to accumulated mass of Aluminum in filter
2
mmol Al
m day
No E. coli detected
20 cm deep filter columns
Slow Sand Filtration Predictions

p
1040
kg
m
3
:=
V
a
10
cm
hr
:=
T 293K :=
z 100cm :=
d
c
0.2mm :=
o 1 :=
c 0.4 :=
0.1 1 10 100
10
100
1000
Brownian
Interception
Gravity
Total
Particle Diameter ( m)
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

r
e
m
o
v
a
l

a
s

p
C
*
How deep must a filter (SSF) be to
remove 99.9999% of bacteria?
Assume o is 1 and d
c
is
0.2 mm, V
0
= 10 cm/hr
pC
*
is ____
z is ________________
What does this mean?
23 cm for pC* of 6
6
Suggests that the 20 cm deep experimental filter
was operating at theoretical limit
pC 1m
( )
25.709 =
for z of 1 m
Typical SSF performance is 95% bacteria removal
Only about 5 cm of the filters are doing anything!
Head Loss Produced by Aluminum
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 50 100 150
Total Al applied
h
e
a
d

l
o
s
s

(
m
)
3.9
20
2
mmol Al
m day
2
mmol Al
m
Aluminum feed methods
Alum must be dissolved until it is blended
with the main filter feed above the filter
column
Alum flocs are ineffective at enhancing
filter performance
The diffusion dilemma (alum microflocs
will diffuse efficiently and be removed at
the top of the filter)
0.1 1 10
1
10
100
particle diameter
P
a
r
t
i
c
l
e

r
e
m
o
v
a
l

a
s

p
C
*
pC
Pe
d
p ( )
pC
R
d
p ( )
pC
g
d
p ( )
pC d
p ( )
d
p
m
Performance Deterioration after Al
feed stops?
Hypotheses
Decays with time
Sites are used up
Washes out of filter
Research results
Not yet clear which
mechanism is
responsible further
testing required
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0 2 4 6 8 10
time (days)
E
.

c
o
l
i

r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
g

(
p
C
*
)
control
4
20
100
end azide
Horizontal bars
indicate when
polymer feed was
operational for each
filter.
Sticky Media vs. Sticky Particles
Sticky Media
Potentially treat filter
media at the beginning
of each filter run
No need to add
coagulants to water for
low turbidity waters
Filter will capture
particles much more
efficiently

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



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

BioSand Performance
BioSand Performance
Pore volume is 18 Liters
Volume of a bucket is ____________
Highly variable field performance even
after initial ripening period
http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/05403/0001/054030001.pdf
Field tests on 8 NTU water
in the DR
Field Performance of BioSand
Table 2 pH, turbidity and E. coli levels in raw and BSF filter waters
in the field
Parameter raw filtered
Mean pH (n =47) 7.4 8.0
Mean turbidity (NTU) (n=47) 8.1 1.3
Mean log
10
E. coli MPN/100mL (n=55) 1.7 0.6
http://www.iwaponline.com/wst/05403/0001/054030001.pdf
Potters for Peace Pots
Colloidal silver-enhanced ceramic water purifier
(CWP)
After firing the filter is coated with colloidal
silver.
This combination of fine pore size, and the
bactericidal properties of colloidal silver produce
an effective filter
Filter units are sold for about $10-15 with the
basic plastic receptacle
Replacement filter elements cost about $4.00
What is the turbidity range that these filters can handle?
How do you wash the filter? What water do you use?
Horizontal Roughing Filters
1m/hr filtration rate (through 5+ m of
media)
Usage of HRFs for large schemes has been
limited due to high capital cost and
operational problems in cleaning the filters.
Equivalent surface loading = 10 m/day
Roughing Filters
Filtration through roughing gravity filters at low filtration
rates (12-48 m/day) produces water with low particulate
concentrations, which allow for further treatment in slow
sand filters without the danger of solids overload.
In large-scale horizontal-flow filter plants, the large pores
enable particles to be most efficiently transported
downward, although particle transport causes part of the
agglomerated solids to move down towards the filter
bottom. Thus, the pore space at the bottom starts to act as a
sludge storage basin, and the roughing filters need to be
drained periodically. Further development of drainage
methods is needed to improve efficiency in this area.
Roughing Filters
Roughing filters remove particulate of colloidal size
without addition of flocculants, large solids storage
capacity at low head loss, and a simple technology.
But there are only 11 articles on the topic listed in

(see articles per year)



They have not devised a cleaning method that works


Size comparison to floc/sed systems?
Multistage Filtration
The Other low tech option for
communities using surface waters
Uses no coagulants
Gravel roughing filters
Polished with slow sand filters
Large capital costs for construction
No chemical costs
Labor intensive operation
What is the tank area of a multistage filtration
plant in comparison with an AguaClara plant?
Conclusions
Many different filtration technologies are
available, especially for POU
Filters are well suited for taking clean water
and making it cleaner. They are not able to
treat very turbid surface waters
Pretreat using flocculation/sedimentation
(AguaClara) or roughing filters (high capital
cost and maintenance problems)
Conclusions
Filters could remove particles more
efficiently if the _________ efficiency were
increased
SSF remove particles by two mechanisms
____________
______________________________________
Completely at the mercy of the raw water!
We need to learn what is required to make
ALL of the filter media sticky in SSF and
in RSF

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