The Slow Sand Filter Mystery

Major Events in Slow Sand Filtration History

Research at Cornell

Particle Removal Mechanisms

Search for the Mystery Compound

SSF research by CEE 453

An old technology that is poorly understood

Particle removal improves with time!
Until recently no one knew how particles
were removed by slow sand filters
The mystery is not yet solved
Potential for new useful knowledge

A
Filter Cake

Sand

Gravel
Underdrains

F
D
C

A.Valve for raw water

inlet and regulation of
filtration rate
B.
Valve for draining
unfiltered water
C.
Valve for backfilling the filter bed
with clean water
D.
Valve for draining
filter bed and outlet
chamber
E.Valve for delivering
treated water to waste
F. Valve for delivering
treated water to the
clear-water reservoir

1790 - SSF used in Lancashire, England to provide

clean water for textile industry
1829 - SSF used to filter municipal water (London)
1850: John Snow established the link between
drinking water (from a contaminated well) and
Cholera
1885- SSF shown to remove bacteria
1892 - Cholera outbreak in Hamburg, Altoona
saved by slow sand filters
1980s - Giardia shown to be removed by SSF
1990s - Cryptosporidium not always removed by
SSF

In 1885 Percy F. Frankland used the

recently devised 'gelatin process' of
Robert Koch to enumerate bacteria in raw
and filtered water
Frankland showed that filtration reduced
the average bacteria concentration from
Thames water 97.9%

It is most remarkable, perhaps, that these hygienically

satisfactory results have been obtained without any
knowledge on the part of those who construct these
filters, as to the conditions necessary for the attainment
of such results. (Percy F. Frankland)

Altoona's
water intake
and filter beds

Altoona

Hamburg
Hamburg's sewer
outfalls
Elbe River
Hamburg's
water intake

Large outbreak of Cholera in Hamburg

17,000 cases; 8,600 deaths
Very few cases in neighborhoods served
by Altoona's filtered water supply
Hamburg's sewers were upstream from
Altoona's intake!

Milwaukee (March 1 to April 10 1993): an

estimated 370,000 city residents suffered
from diarrhea, nausea, and stomach
cramps caused by Cryptosporidiosis
Evidence suggests that a substantial
proportion of non-outbreak-related
diarrheal illness may be associated with
consumption of water that meets all
current water quality standards
Slow sand filters shown to remove less
than 50% of Cryptosporidium oocysts at
an operating plant in British Columbia

How do slow sand filters remove particles

including bacteria, Giardia cysts, and
Cryptosporidium oocysts from water?
Why dont SSF always remove
Cryptosporidium oocysts?
Is it a biological or a physical/chemical
mechanism?
Would it be possible to improve the
performance of slow sand filters if we
understood the mechanism?

Straining
(fluid and
gravitational
forces)
Physical-Chemical
Attachment
(electrochemical
forces)

Particle
Removal
Mechanisms

by medium

by
previously
removed
particles

to medium

to previously
removed
particles

Attachment to
biofilms
Biological
Capture by
predators

Suspension
feeders

Grazers

Manometer/surge tube
Cayuga Lake water
(99% or 99.5% of the flow)
Peristaltic
pumps
Auxiliary feeds
(each 0.5% of the
flow)

Manifold/valve block

Sampling Chamber

Sampling tube
Lower to collect sample

To waste
1 liter
E. coli
feed

1 liter
sodium
azide

Filter cell with

18 cm of medium

Fraction of influent E. coli

remaining in the effluent

Continuously mixed
Cayuga Lake water

Quiescent Cayuga Lake

water

1
Sodium azide
(3 mM)
Control

0.1

0.1

0.05

0.05

2
3
Time (days)

4
6
Time (days)

10

Fraction of influent E. coli

remaining in the effluent

Control
Sodium azide pulse
Sodium chloride pulse

0.1
0.08
0

3
Timeh

Effluent particle count

(number/l/particle diameter)

9
8
7
6

1.962
3.007
3.986

4.965

5.958

3
2
1
0
1.5 1.55 1.6 1.65 1.7 1.75 1.8 1.85 1.9 1.95 2
Particle diameter (m)

long flagellum used for

locomotion and to provide
feeding current
short flagellum
1 m
stalk used to attach to
substrate (not actually
seen in present study)

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1

1.5

2
2.5
Particle diameter (m)

3.5

Control
Chrysophyte
inoculum

0.1

0.01

0.001
0

2
Time (days)

Mechanisms

control
3 mM azide

0.1

0.01

0.001
0.8 1

10
Particle diameter (m)

The biological activity of microorganisms being

removed in the filter column was not significant
The biological activity of the filter biopopulation
was only significant for removal of particles
smaller than 2 m.
Biofilms were expected to increase removal of
particles larger than 2 m as well by increasing
the attachment efficiency. The lack of biologically
enhanced removal of particles larger than 2 m
suggested that sticky biofilms did not
contribute significantly to particle removal.

The immediate and reversible response of

slow sand filters to sodium azide was
consistent with bacterivory and inconsistent
with particle removal by biofilms.
Biologically mediated mechanisms together
with physical-chemical mechanisms
accounted for removal of particles smaller
than about 2 m in diameter. In this
research bacterivory was the only significant
biologically mediated particle removal
mechanism.

Mechanisms

10

0.1
Low particle control
0.01
0.8 1

Low particle with azide

Day 5
10

Particle diameter (m)

1
High particle control
High particle with azide
0.1

Day 5

0.01

0.001
0.8

10
Particle diameter (m)

Physical-chemical particle removal mechanisms

are significant in slow sand filters.
Physical-chemical particle removal efficiency
was greatest when particles previously had
been retained by the filter (within the bed or in
the filter cake) and was considered to be caused
by attachment of particles to retained particles.
Further work is necessary to determine what
types of particles are most effective for filter
ripening.

Mechanisms

fraction remaining

1.000

Completely Mixed
2 cm layer
Top Layer
Control

0.100
0.010
0.001
0

20

40
Time (min)

60

1
0.9

C/Co

slurry
Alum
distilled control
tap water control

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0

10

20

30

40

Time (minutes)

50

60

70

Successfully extracted a coagulant from

Cayuga Lake Seston using 1.0 N HCl
The CLSE fed filters removed up to
99.9999% of the influent coliforms.
Analysis of the CLSE

Nonvolatile solids was 44% of the TSS

Volatile solids was 56% of the TSS
Aluminum was dominant metal

Groups of 4
Assemble filter apparatus

Measure head loss, flow rate, turbidity

Coat filter with CLSE

Observe _______________

Challenge increased
filter with
kaolin
head loss
Observe ________and _______

Control?
turbidity

head loss

Raw Water