PREPARED BY:

NATIONAL WATER SUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD

Galle Road, Ratmalana
Table of Contents

List of Figures ix

List of Tables xiii

Preface xvi

List of NWSDB Manuals xvii

Planing and Design Manual Review Committee (PDMRC) xviii

Abbreviations xx

1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1. Objective and Scope ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2. Water Safety Plan (WSP) .................................................................................................... 1-1

2. WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND STANDARDS 2-1

2.1. Drinking Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2. Water Quality Characteristics ............................................................................................. 2-1
2.2.1. Water Source and Quality ...................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.2. Physical Characteristics .......................................................................................... 2-1
2.2.3. Chemical Characteristics ........................................................................................ 2-4
2.2.4. Organic Constituents .............................................................................................. 2-6
2.2.5. Biological Characteristics....................................................................................... 2-8
2.2.6. Algae and Eutrophication ..................................................................................... 2-12
2.2.7. Radioactive materials ........................................................................................... 2-13
2.3. Water Quality Guidelines and Standards .......................................................................... 2-14
2.3.1. Drinking Water Quality Standard ......................................................................... 2-14
2.3.2. Standard for the inland surface waters used as raw water .................................... 2-16
2.4. Health and Aesthetic Aspects of Water Quality ................................................................ 2-17
2.4.1. Pathogenic Organisms .......................................................................................... 2-17
2.4.2. Aesthetic Quality .................................................................................................. 2-18
2.4.3. The Health Effects of Chemicals .......................................................................... 2-19
2.4.4. Inorganic Constituents .......................................................................................... 2-20
2.4.5. Organic Constituents ............................................................................................ 2-21
2.4.6. Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products......................................................... 2-22
2.4.7. Radionuclides ....................................................................................................... 2-22
2.4.8. Comparison of Guidelines and Standards ............................................................ 2-23

3. SAMPLING AND TESTING 3-1

3.1. Preliminary Water Quality Survey ...................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1. Basic Physical And Chemical Analysis ................................................................. 3-3
3.1.2. Minor And Trace Inorganic Analysis (Metals And Heavy Metals) ....................... 3-3
3.1.3. Organic Analysis .................................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.4. Biological Analysis ................................................................................................ 3-3
3.1.5. Bacteriological Analysis......................................................................................... 3-3
3.1.6. Reservoirs and source water monitoring ................................................................ 3-4
3.1.7. Filter Media Performance Determination ............................................................... 3-4
3.1.8. Water Treatment Chemicals ................................................................................... 3-4
3.2. Sampling Procedures for Chemical And Physical Analysis ............................................... 3-4
3.2.1. Grab Sampling........................................................................................................ 3-5
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) i
 3.2.2. Composite Sampling...............................................................................................3-5
3.2.3. Stream, River or Lake Water Sampling ..................................................................3-5
3.2.4. Dug Well, Tube Well and Well With Hand Pump and Other Devices ...................3-6
3.2.5. Type of Container, Method of Preservation and Maximum Holding Time ............3-6
3.2.6. Sampling Procedure for Bacteriological Analysis ..................................................3-8
3.3. Testing Methods of Water Quality Parameters ...................................................................3-8
3.3.1. Testing of Petroleum Product / Petrochemical .....................................................3-11
3.3.2. Testing of Pesticide Water ....................................................................................3-11
3.4. Interpretation of Test Results ............................................................................................3-11
3.4.1. Interpretation of Physical results ..........................................................................3-11
3.4.2. Chemical Analysis ................................................................................................3-12
3.5. Interpretation of Microbial Water Quality.........................................................................3-17
3.5.1. New Techniques for Bacteriological Test ............................................................3-17
3.5.2. Membrane Filtration Test .....................................................................................3-17
3.5.3. Presence- absence coliform test ............................................................................3-18
3.5.4. Most Probable Number (MPN) ............................................................................3-18
3.5.5. Automated microbiology Detection system .........................................................3-19
3.5.6. Examination of Correctness of Analyses ..............................................................3-19

4. SELECTION OF TREATMENT PROCESS 4-1

4.1. Introduction to Water Treatment .........................................................................................4-1
4.2. Water Source and Contaminants .........................................................................................4-2
4.2.1. Stream/ River Water ...............................................................................................4-2
4.2.2. Lake and Reservoir Water ......................................................................................4-2
4.2.3. Groundwater ...........................................................................................................4-3
4.2.4. Brackish Water or Seawater ...................................................................................4-3
4.2.5. Advantages and Disadvantage of Groundwater ......................................................4-4
4.3. Process Selection .................................................................................................................4-5
4.3.1. Treatment Needs and General Principles................................................................4-5
4.3.2. Guideline on Selection of Treatment Process .........................................................4-6
4.3.3. Conventional Water Treatment Methods ................................................................4-7
4.3.4. Advanced Water Treatment Methods .....................................................................4-7
4.3.5. Treatment Process Applications .............................................................................4-8
4.3.6. Selection of Unit Processes ....................................................................................4-9
4.3.7. Selection of Special Water Treatment Process .....................................................4-10
4.3.8. Arrangement of Treatment Process ......................................................................4-17
4.4. Pilot Plant ..........................................................................................................................4-17
4.4.1. Purposes of a Pilot Plant Study .............................................................................4-18
4.4.2. Pilot Plant Study Checklist ...................................................................................4-19
4.4.3. Pilot Plant Design .................................................................................................4-19
4.4.4. General Design Considerations ............................................................................4-20
4.4.5. Design for Study of Unit Processes ......................................................................4-21
4.4.6. Pilot Plant Construction ........................................................................................4-22
4.4.7. Installation and Start-up ........................................................................................4-22
4.5. Water Safety Plan (WSP) in Water Treatment Process .....................................................4-23
4.5.1. Source Sanitary Survey.........................................................................................4-24
4.5.2. Source Management .............................................................................................4-24
4.5.3. Source Protection ..................................................................................................4-25
4.5.4. Intake Protection for Direct River Abstraction Works .........................................4-25
4.5.5. Reservoir Management .........................................................................................4-26
4.5.6.1. Effect of reservoir storage ....................................................................................4-26

5. CONVENTIONAL UNIT PROCESSES 5-1

5.1. Intake ...................................................................................................................................5-1

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) ii
 5.1.1. Floating Boom ........................................................................................................ 5-1
5.1.2. Salinity Barrier ....................................................................................................... 5-3
5.1.3. Sonicators for the Control of Algae........................................................................ 5-5
5.1.4. Sediment Deposit and De-silting Mechanism ........................................................ 5-8
5.1.5. Rakes and Screens ................................................................................................ 5-10
5.1.6. Disposal of Screenings ......................................................................................... 5-14
5.2. Pre-Treatment .................................................................................................................... 5-14
5.2.1. Pre-oxidation ........................................................................................................ 5-14
5.2.2. Pre-sedimentation ................................................................................................. 5-15
5.2.3. PAC Dosing.......................................................................................................... 5-15
5.2.4. Control of pH........................................................................................................ 5-16
5.3. Aeration and Gas Stripping ............................................................................................... 5-17
5.3.1. Application of Aeration ........................................................................................ 5-19
5.3.2. Principles and General Design Consideration ...................................................... 5-20
5.3.3. Types of Aerators ................................................................................................. 5-21
5.3.4. Air-Into-Water Aerators ....................................................................................... 5-26
5.3.5. Design of Aeration / Air Stripping Processes....................................................... 5-30
5.3.6. Common Operating Problems .............................................................................. 5-33
5.4. Chemical Coagulation Mechanism ................................................................................... 5-33
5.4.1. Characteristics of Small and Colloidal Particles .................................................. 5-34
5.4.2. Destabilisation of Colloids ................................................................................... 5-37
5.4.3. Factors Affecting Coagulation ............................................................................. 5-38
5.4.4. Coagulants and Coagulant Aids ........................................................................... 5-39
5.4.5. Coagulant Aids (Flocculants) ............................................................................... 5-42
5.4.6. Selection of Coagulants ........................................................................................ 5-42
5.4.7. Steps of Clarification ............................................................................................ 5-43
5.4.8. Coagulant Dose .................................................................................................... 5-44
5.4.9. Impurities in Coagulant Solutions ........................................................................ 5-44
5.5. Rapid Mix / Flash Mix ...................................................................................................... 5-45
5.5.1. Type of Mixers ..................................................................................................... 5-46
5.5.2. Weir or Flume ...................................................................................................... 5-47
5.5.3. Hydraulic Jump Mixers ........................................................................................ 5-47
5.5.4. Baffle System ....................................................................................................... 5-48
5.5.5. Mechanical Flash Mixing ..................................................................................... 5-49
5.5.6. Inline Static Mixers .............................................................................................. 5-51
5.5.7. Inline Mechanical Mixer ...................................................................................... 5-51
5.5.8. Diffusion Mixing by Pressurised Nozzles ............................................................ 5-52
5.6. Flocculators ....................................................................................................................... 5-52
5.6.1. Hydraulic Flocculators ......................................................................................... 5-53
5.6.2. Mechanical Flocculators....................................................................................... 5-55
5.7. Clarification....................................................................................................................... 5-58
5.7.1. Horizontal Flow Sedimentation Basin.................................................................. 5-62
5.7.2. Radial flow or Circular Basin ............................................................................... 5-65
5.7.3. Flocculation Clarifiers .......................................................................................... 5-66
5.7.4. Pyramid-Type Sludge Blanket Clarifiers ............................................................. 5-67
5.7.5. Sludge Recirculation Units ................................................................................... 5-69
5.7.6. Pulsator Clarification System ............................................................................... 5-70
5.7.7. Tube / Plate Settlers .............................................................................................. 5-72
5.7.8. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Clarifiers............................................................. 5-80
5.7.9. Quantity of Sludge Produced................................................................................ 5-85
5.8. Filtration ............................................................................................................................ 5-86
5.8.1. Introduction to Filtration ...................................................................................... 5-86
5.8.2. Types of Filters..................................................................................................... 5-86
5.8.3. Removal of Microorganisms by Granular Bed Filtration ..................................... 5-87
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) iii
 5.8.4. Filtration mechanisms ...........................................................................................5-88
5.8.5. Filterability Test....................................................................................................5-90
5.9. Rapid Sand Filters .............................................................................................................5-91
5.9.1. Conventional Design ............................................................................................5-92
5.9.2. Filter Arrangements ..............................................................................................5-94
5.9.3. Underdrain and Support Gravel ............................................................................5-96
5.9.4. Backwash Water Trough ....................................................................................5-102
5.9.5. Multiple and Coarse Media Filters .....................................................................5-103
5.9.6. Rate Control Systems for Gravity Filters ...........................................................5-105
5.9.7. Constant Rate Filtration ......................................................................................5-105
5.9.8. Declining Rates Filters .......................................................................................5-107
5.9.9. Common Elements of Filter Control Systems ....................................................5-109
5.9.10. Up Flow Filtration ..............................................................................................5-110
5.9.11. Direct Filtration ..................................................................................................5-111
5.9.12. Filter Cleaning or Backwashing of Rapid Filters ...............................................5-112
5.9.13. Filter Operation and Maintenance ......................................................................5-124
5.9.14. Backwash Water Recovery .................................................................................5-127
5.9.15. Upgrading Existing Filters ..................................................................................5-128
5.9.16. Dolomite Filter Systems .....................................................................................5-130
5.10. Pressure Filters ................................................................................................................5-130
5.10.1. Description of Pressure Filters............................................................................5-130
5.10.2. Comparison of Pressure and Gravity Filtration ..................................................5-131
5.10.3. Operation of Pressure Filters ..............................................................................5-132
5.10.4. Rate Control for Pressure Filters ........................................................................5-133
5.10.5. Applications of Pressure Filters ..........................................................................5-133
5.11. Precoat / Diatomaceous Earth Filtration ..........................................................................5-133
5.11.1. Applications and Performance ............................................................................5-135
5.11.2. Diatomaceous Earth Filter Operation .................................................................5-136
5.11.3. Diatomaceous Earth Filter Design ......................................................................5-136
5.11.4. Filter Media ........................................................................................................5-137
5.11.5. Filter Operation...................................................................................................5-137
5.12. Slow Sand Filtration ........................................................................................................5-138
5.12.1. Introduction to Slow Sand Filter.........................................................................5-138
5.12.2. Filtration Mechanism ..........................................................................................5-139
5.12.3. Source Water Quality Consideration ..................................................................5-140
5.12.4. Features of Slow Sand Filter...............................................................................5-141
5.12.5. Design of Slow Sand Filter .................................................................................5-142
5.12.6. Pre-treatment Methods........................................................................................5-146
5.12.7. Construction of the Clear-Water Tank................................................................5-147
5.12.8. Operation & Maintenance of Slow Sand Filter ..................................................5-147
5.12.9. Control of Slow Sand Filter ................................................................................5-152
5.12.10. Monitoring & Evaluation of Slow Sand Filter ...............................................5-153
5.13. Roughing Filtration .........................................................................................................5-154
5.13.1. Introduction to Roughing Filter ..........................................................................5-154
5.13.2. Mechanism of Roughing Filters .........................................................................5-155
5.13.3. Features of Roughing Filter ................................................................................5-156
5.13.4. Vertical-flow Roughing Filters ...........................................................................5-156
5.13.5. Horizontal-flow Roughing Filters.......................................................................5-158
5.13.6. Design of Roughing Filter ..................................................................................5-160
5.13.7. Operation & Maintenance of Roughing Filter ....................................................5-163
5.13.8. Factors Affecting Roughing Filter Performance ................................................5-166
5.13.9. Monitoring / Evaluation of Roughing Filter .......................................................5-166
5.14. Sludge Treatment.............................................................................................................5-167
5.14.1. Introduction.........................................................................................................5-167
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) iv
 5.14.2. Unit operations and Processes ............................................................................ 5-169
5.14.3. Sources and Characteristics of Residuals ........................................................... 5-171
5.14.4. Design Considerations and Criteria .................................................................... 5-180
5.14.5. Sludge Thickening .............................................................................................. 5-181
5.14.6. Sludge Dewatering ............................................................................................. 5-185
5.14.7. Sludge Lagoons .................................................................................................. 5-185
5.14.8. Sludge Drying Beds............................................................................................ 5-188
5.14.9. Belt Filter Press (BFP) ....................................................................................... 5-190
5.14.10. Plate and Frame Filter Press ........................................................................... 5-191
5.14.11. Mechanical Sludge Dewatering...................................................................... 5-192
5.14.12. Recirculation of Backwash Water .................................................................. 5-194
5.14.13. Ultimate Disposal and Utilization of Solids ................................................... 5-195

6. CHEMICAL FEEDING AND DISINFECTION 6-1

6.1. Chemical Feeding................................................................................................................ 6-1
6.1.1. Type of Chemicals and Usage ................................................................................ 6-1
6.1.2. Chemical Preparation for coagulation .................................................................... 6-3
6.1.3. Chemical Dosing .................................................................................................... 6-4
6.1.4. Batching Tank ........................................................................................................ 6-4
6.1.5. Preparation and Dosing of Alum Solutions ............................................................ 6-5
6.1.6. Preparation and Dosing of Lime Suspensions ........................................................ 6-6
6.1.7. Choice of Alum vs. PACl ..................................................................................... 6-10
6.1.8. Dosing Arrangements ........................................................................................... 6-12
6.1.9. Dry Chemical Feed Systems ................................................................................ 6-12
6.1.10. Powdered Activated Carbon Dosing .................................................................... 6-14
6.2. Disinfection ....................................................................................................................... 6-18
6.2.1. Disinfection Technologies .................................................................................... 6-19
6.2.2. Risk Based Approach ........................................................................................... 6-20
6.2.3. The Use and Efficacy of Different Disinfection Technologies ............................ 6-21
6.2.4. Disinfection Practice in Water Treatment ............................................................ 6-22
6.2.5. Disinfection Requirement ..................................................................................... 6-22
6.2.6. Primary Disinfection ............................................................................................ 6-27
6.2.7. Secondary Disinfection ........................................................................................ 6-27
6.2.8. Monitoring of Disinfection ................................................................................... 6-28
6.3. Chlorination....................................................................................................................... 6-28
6.3.1. Principle of Chlorination ...................................................................................... 6-29
6.3.2. Method of Application of Chlorine ...................................................................... 6-30
6.3.3. Chlorine Addition and Measuring Points ............................................................. 6-30
6.3.4. Residual Chlorine Measuring Point...................................................................... 6-30
6.3.5. Recommended Residual Chlorine Levels............................................................. 6-31
6.3.6. Chlorine Capacity, Dosage and Contact Time ..................................................... 6-32
6.4. Disinfection by Bleaching Powder .................................................................................... 6-33
6.4.1. Preparation of Solution ......................................................................................... 6-34
6.4.2. Hypochlorite Feeders ........................................................................................... 6-34
6.4.3. Dosing of Solution................................................................................................ 6-35
6.4.4. Safety Precaution .................................................................................................. 6-36
6.4.5. Pre-chlorination .................................................................................................... 6-36
6.4.6. Disinfection of Drinking Water Systems after Construction or Repairs .............. 6-37
6.4.7. Disinfection of Pipelines and Structures .............................................................. 6-37
6.5. Gas Chlorination ............................................................................................................... 6-38
6.5.1. Chlorine Gas Supply ............................................................................................ 6-39
6.5.2. Chlorine Storage and Handling ............................................................................ 6-39
6.5.3. Safety Consideration ............................................................................................ 6-39
6.5.4. Absorption of Chlorine Gas Streams .................................................................... 6-40

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) v
 6.5.5. Gas Feed and Applications ...................................................................................6-40
6.5.6. Diffusion, Mixing and Contact .............................................................................6-43
6.5.7. Control system ......................................................................................................6-45
6.5.8. Design Consideration............................................................................................6-46
6.6. Chloramines .......................................................................................................................6-48
6.6.1. Monochloramine ...................................................................................................6-48
6.6.2. Chloramination Equipment ...................................................................................6-49
6.7. Chlorine Dioxide ...............................................................................................................6-49
6.7.1. Mode of Action .....................................................................................................6-49
6.7.2. Disinfection Performance of Chlorine Dioxide ....................................................6-49
6.8. Ozone Disinfection ............................................................................................................6-50
6.8.1. Primary Uses and Points of Application of Ozone ...............................................6-50
6.8.2. Ozone Disinfection Equipment .............................................................................6-51
6.9. Ultra-Violet Disinfection (UV) .........................................................................................6-52
6.9.1. UV Disinfection Requirements.............................................................................6-53
6.9.2. Ultraviolet Disinfection Equipment ......................................................................6-53
6.10. Disinfectants and Disinfectant By-Products ......................................................................6-54
6.10.1. Chlorine and its by-products .................................................................................6-54
6.10.2. Chloramine and its by-products ............................................................................6-57
6.10.3. Chlorine Dioxide and Its By-Products ..................................................................6-57
6.10.4. Ozone and Its By-Products ...................................................................................6-57
6.10.5. Measures to Reduce Disinfection By-products in Drinking Water ......................6-58
6.10.6. Balancing Chemical and Microbial Risks ............................................................6-58

7. SPECIALIZED TREATMENT PROCESSES 7-1

7.1. Iron and Manganese Removal .............................................................................................7-1
7.1.1. Overview.................................................................................................................7-1
7.1.2. Problems Caused by Iron And Manganese .............................................................7-1
7.1.3. Chemistry of Iron and Manganese in Water Systems .............................................7-2
7.1.4. Drinking Water Standards for Iron and Manganese ...............................................7-3
7.1.5. Most Common Treatment Processes ......................................................................7-3
7.1.6. Iron and Manganese Problems to be Minimized in Distribution Mains .................7-8
7.2. Fluoride Removal and Fluoridation .....................................................................................7-9
7.3. Removal of Colours, Tastes and Odours ...........................................................................7-11
7.3.1. Aeration ................................................................................................................7-12
7.3.2. Activated Carbon ..................................................................................................7-12
7.3.3. Oxidising Agents ..................................................................................................7-13
7.4. Hardness Removal .............................................................................................................7-13
7.5. Removal of Algae ..............................................................................................................7-14
7.5.1. Treatment Methods for Removing Algae and Cyanotoxins .................................7-14
7.6. Membrane Filtration and Reverse Osmosis Technology...................................................7-15
7.6.1. Introduction...........................................................................................................7-15
7.6.2. Design of Low Pressure Membrane Treatment Systems (Microfiltration and
Ultrafiltration) .......................................................................................................7-16
7.6.3. Membrane Fouling of MF and UF Systems .........................................................7-19
7.6.4. Remedial Actions for Fouling ..............................................................................7-20
7.6.5. Types of MF and UF Membranes Used in Treatment of Drinking Water ............7-20
7.6.6. Cross Flow and Dead End Filtration.....................................................................7-21
7.6.7. Membrane Module Configurations .......................................................................7-22
7.6.8. Membrane Properties ............................................................................................7-23
7.6.9. Particle Capture in Membrane Filtration ..............................................................7-23
7.6.10. Membrane Integrity Testing .................................................................................7-24
7.6.11. Pretreatment Facilities in MF and UF Systems ....................................................7-25
7.6.12. Comparison Between Membrane Filtration and Rapid Sand Filters ....................7-25

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) vi
 7.6.13. Process Design Considerations............................................................................. 7-26
7.6.14. Sample Calculations ............................................................................................. 7-26
7.7. High Pressure Membrane Technology .............................................................................. 7-27
7.7.1. Introduction to Reverse Osmosis Technology...................................................... 7-27
7.7.2. Osmotic Pressure .................................................................................................. 7-27
7.7.3. Applications of RO ............................................................................................... 7-28
7.7.4. Mechanisms of Solute Rejections ........................................................................ 7-28
7.7.5. Governing Equations in RO ................................................................................. 7-29
7.7.6. Membrane Materials, Structure and Elements ..................................................... 7-31
7.7.7. Concentration Polarization ................................................................................... 7-32
7.7.8. RO Process Description........................................................................................ 7-34
7.7.9. Membrane Fouling ............................................................................................... 7-35
7.7.10. Tests for Particulate Fouling ................................................................................ 7-35
7.7.11. Pretreatment and Post Treatment.......................................................................... 7-39
7.7.12. Energy Recovery of RO Plants............................................................................. 7-39
7.7.13. Site Selection of Seawater Open Intake ............................................................... 7-40
7.7.14. Computer Aided RO System Design .................................................................... 7-40
7.7.15. Disposal of Brine or Concentrate ......................................................................... 7-40

8. WATER STABILITY AND CORROSION CONTROL 8-1

8.1. Water Stability .................................................................................................................... 8-1
8.2. Effect of Corrosion .............................................................................................................. 8-1
8.3. Process of Corrosion ........................................................................................................... 8-2
8.4. Assessing Corrosivity of Water........................................................................................... 8-3
8.5. Assessing Corrosivity of Soil .............................................................................................. 8-5
8.6. Prevention of Corrosion ...................................................................................................... 8-6
8.7. Prevention of Corrosion within Treatment Plant ................................................................ 8-7
8.7.1. Special Construction and Design Considerations................................................... 8-8
8.7.2. General Corrosion of Metals .................................................................................. 8-8

9. PLANT DESIGN AND LAYOUT 9-1

9.1. General Considerations ....................................................................................................... 9-1
9.2. Basic Factors Influencing the Site Selection Process .......................................................... 9-4
9.2.1. Minimum Site Area ................................................................................................ 9-5
9.2.2. Provision for Future Expansion .............................................................................. 9-6
9.2.3. Noise Level............................................................................................................. 9-6
9.2.4. Hazardous Chemical Concerns............................................................................... 9-6
9.2.5. Energy Gradient and Pumping Consideration ........................................................ 9-6
9.2.6. Transportation and Site Access .............................................................................. 9-7
9.2.7. Existing Utility Services ......................................................................................... 9-7
9.2.8. Site Topography ..................................................................................................... 9-7
9.2.9. Subsurface Conditions ............................................................................................ 9-7
9.2.10. Site Drainage and Flooding .................................................................................... 9-7
9.2.11. Seismic Activity and Land Slides........................................................................... 9-8
9.2.12. Permit and Approvals ............................................................................................. 9-8
9.2.13. Security and Vulnerability...................................................................................... 9-8
9.3. Arrangement of Water Treatment Plant Facilities .............................................................. 9-8
9.3.1. Basic Layout Types ................................................................................................ 9-9
9.3.2. Linear Layout ......................................................................................................... 9-9
9.3.3. Campus Layout....................................................................................................... 9-9
9.3.4. Compact Layout ..................................................................................................... 9-9
9.4. Factors Affecting Plant Layout ......................................................................................... 9-12
9.4.1. Redundancy .......................................................................................................... 9-12
9.4.2. Flexibility of Operations....................................................................................... 9-13

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) vii
 9.4.3. Convenience of Routine Operations .....................................................................9-13
9.4.4. Access for Equipment Maintenance .....................................................................9-13
9.4.5. Noise Control ........................................................................................................9-13
9.4.6. Internal Roads and Parking ...................................................................................9-14
9.4.7. Chemical Delivery ................................................................................................9-14
9.4.8. Plant Visitors ........................................................................................................9-14
9.4.9. Site Security ..........................................................................................................9-14
9.5. Technical Issues to Consider in Plant Arrangement ..........................................................9-14
9.5.1. Hydraulic Profile ..................................................................................................9-15
9.5.2. Conveyance of Water between Process Units ......................................................9-15
9.5.3. Application Points for Chemicals .........................................................................9-16
9.5.4. Separation of Filtered Water and Unfiltered Water ..............................................9-16
9.5.5. Finished Water Storage.........................................................................................9-16
9.5.6. Source Water Storage ...........................................................................................9-16
9.5.7. Lagoons ................................................................................................................9-17
9.5.8. Locating Hazardous Chemicals ............................................................................9-17
9.6. Provision for Future Changes in Plant Design ..................................................................9-17
9.6.1. Capacity Expansion ..............................................................................................9-17
9.6.2. Future Process Additions ......................................................................................9-18
9.7. Support Facilities to be Considered in Plant Design .........................................................9-18
9.7.1. Maintenance Facilities ..........................................................................................9-18
9.7.2. Laboratory Facilities .............................................................................................9-18
9.8. Instrumentation and Control ..............................................................................................9-21
9.8.1. Measuring Instruments .........................................................................................9-21
9.8.2. Control Arrangement ............................................................................................9-22

10. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DOCUMENTATION 10-1

10.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................10-1
10.2 O&M Manual Preparation Schedule ..............................................................................10-1
10.3 O&M Manual Contents .....................................................................................................10-1
10.4 Important Contents of O & M Manual ..............................................................................10-3
10.4.1 Maintenance Management Plan ............................................................................10-3
10.4.2 Asset Management & Maintenance System .........................................................10-4
10.4.3 Water Safety Plan .................................................................................................10-5
10.4.4 Standard Operations Procedures (SOPS) ..............................................................10-5
10.4.5 Emergency Response Plan (ERP) .........................................................................10-6
10.5 Important Forms under O & M Manual ............................................................................10-8

Annex-A: Design Example – Fine and Coarse Screens

Annex-B.1: Design Example – Cascade Platform Aerator

Annex-B.2: Design Example – Cascade Step Aerator

Annex-C.1: Design Example – Hydraulic Rapid Mixing

Annex-C.2: Design Example – Mechanical Flash Mixing

Annex-D.1: Design Example – Hydraulic Flocculator

Annex-D.2: Design Example – Mechanical Flocculator

Annex-E.1: Design Example – Horizontal Flow Sedimentation Basin

Annex-E.2: Design Calculation for Lamellar Clarifier

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) viii
Annex-E.3: Design Example – Hopper Bottom Clarifier

Annex-E.4: Design Example – Design of DAF

Annex-F.1: Design Example – Rapid Sand Filter

Annex-F.2: Preparation of Sand for Filter

Annex-F.3: Filter Paper Test

Annex-G: Practical Guide for Dosage of Bleaching Powder in Disinfection of Public Drinking
Water Supplies

Annex-H: Design Calculation – Sludge Thickener

Annex-I: Mass Density, Kinematic Viscosity And Absolute Viscosity Of Water

Annex J: Periodic Table

Glossary 97

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) ix
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Transparency measurement using Secchi Disk ........................................................... 2-3
Figure 2-2: Mortality Ratios for variety of pathogens .................................................................... 2-9
Figure 2-3: Median dose of organisms required in drinking wter to cause infection................. 2-10
Figure 2-4: The Coliform Members ................................................................................................ 2-11
Figure 2-5: Invertabrate animal life ............................................................................................... 2-12
Figure 3-1: Sample Collection ........................................................................................................... 3-6
Figure 3-2: Balis graph .................................................................................................................... 3-12
Figure 3-3: Coliform & E-coil ......................................................................................................... 3-18
Figure 3-4: Presence – absence coliform test ................................................................................. 3-18
Figure 3-5: Most Probable Number ................................................................................................ 3-19
Figure 4-1: Flow Diagram Showing Possible Treatment Stages .................................................. 4-11
Figure 4-2: Approximate Operational Ranges for Treatment Processes .................................... 4-13
Figure 4-3: Treatment of Groundwater Sources for Various Water Qualities .......................... 4-14
Figure 4-4: Treatment of Surface Water Sources for Various Water Qualities ......................... 4-15
Figure 4-5: Treatment train of brackish or sea water for various water qualities ..................... 4-16
Figure 4-6: Velocity cap and T Screen............................................................................................ 4-26
Figure 5-1: Some designs for floating booms ................................................................................... 5-3
Figure 5-2: Floating booms at Ambathale intake for debris and oil control................................. 5-3
Figure 5-3: Low and High tide level in Colombo during a week.................................................... 5-4
Figure 5-4: Different scenarios of tide formation ............................................................................ 5-4
Figure 5-5: Salinity barrier using Sand bag at Ambathale............................................................. 5-5
Figure 5-6: Control of algae by ultra sound waves .......................................................................... 5-7
Figure 5-7: The “LG Sonic e-line” for control algae up to 200 meter ........................................... 5-7
Figure 5-8: “MPC Buoy” Solar powered algae control with online water quality monitoring
(Range 500m) ................................................................................................................ 5-7
Figure 5-9: Intake structure with screens and weir ........................................................................ 5-8
Figure 5-10: Scour protection in the intake structure ..................................................................... 5-9
Figure 5-11: Front view of Coarse and Fine Screens .................................................................... 5-11
Figure 5-12: Schematic of a Travelling Band Screen and Drum screen...................................... 5-12
Figure 5-13: Cross sectional view of Microstrainer....................................................................... 5-12
Figure 5-14: Multiple Cascade weir/step aerator .......................................................................... 5-22
Figure 5-15: Multiple Cascade Platform Aerator.......................................................................... 5-22
Figure 5-16: Multiple Trays Aerator .............................................................................................. 5-23
Figure 5-17: Typical cone tray aerator ........................................................................................... 5-24
Figure 5-18: Packed Tower Aerator - Source: Letterman (1999) ................................................ 5-25
Figure 5-19: Spray aerator .............................................................................................................. 5-26
Figure 5-20: Plate Aerator (Inka System) ...................................................................................... 5-26
Figure 5-21: Flow-through low profile aeration system ................................................................ 5-27
Figure 5-22: Venturi Aerator .......................................................................................................... 5-27
Figure 5-23: Pressure Aerator ......................................................................................................... 5-28
Figure 5-24: Design alternatives for a deep-well aerator .............................................................. 5-29
Figure 5-25: Mechanical Aerators .................................................................................................. 5-30
Figure 5-26: Efficiency of Aeration ................................................................................................. 5-31
Figure 5-27: Efficiency Coefficient Vs. Height of Weir................................................................. 5-31
Figure 5-28: Iso‐Electric Point (IEP) of colloidal particle ............................................................ 5-35
Figure 5-29: Formation of Double Layer ....................................................................................... 5-35
Figure 5-30: Stability of colloidal particles .................................................................................... 5-36
Figure 5-31: Effect of Ionic Strength on the Interaction Energy ................................................. 5-36
Figure 5-32: Weir for Rapid mix..................................................................................................... 5-47
Figure 5-33: Parshall flume rapid mixer ........................................................................................ 5-48
Figure 5-34: Baffle System ............................................................................................................... 5-48

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) x
Figure 5-35: Turbine Mixer ............................................................................................................ 5-49
Figure 5-36: Types of Impellers ...................................................................................................... 5-50
Figure 5-37: Section of Static Mixer ............................................................................................... 5-51
Figure 5-38: Inline Mechanical Mixer ............................................................................................ 5-51
Figure 5-39: Nozzle inside the Pipe (Section through Pump Mixer) ........................................... 5-52
Figure 5-40: Section through over-and-under baffled flocculation chamber ............................. 5-54
Figure 5-41: Plan of round - the end baffled flocculation basin .................................................. 5-54
Figure 5-42: Vertical Shaft Impeller Flocculator .......................................................................... 5-56
Figure 5-43: Section of Flocculator with Horizontal Shaft Paddles ............................................ 5-57
Figure 5-44: Vertical Shaft Paddle Flocculator ............................................................................. 5-58
Figure 5-45: Paths traced by discrete particles in a horizontal flow settling basin .................... 5-60
Figure 5-46: Settling column and ISO-percentage settling curves for flocculent particles ....... 5-61
Figure 5-47: Horizontal Flow Rectangular Sedimentation Basin ................................................ 5-62
Figure 5-48: Mechanical sludge removal systems used in rectangular basins............................ 5-65
Figure 5-49: Radial-flow basin with rotating half-bridge scraper............................................... 5-66
Figure 5-50: Circular Mechanically Scraped Sedimentation Basin ............................................ 5-66
Figure 5-51: Flocculation-Clarifiers (Degrement)......................................................................... 5-67
Figure 5-52: Pyramid-type Sludge Blanket Clarifier .................................................................... 5-68
Figure 5-53: Sludge Recirculation Type (solid contact clarifier system) .................................... 5-70
Figure 5-54: Pulsator Clarifier (Degrement) ................................................................................. 5-71
Figure 5-55: Typical Forms of Plate Settlers ................................................................................. 5-74
Figure 5-56: Various forms of tube modules ................................................................................. 5-74
Figure 5-57: Typical Forms of Plate Settlers Arrangements........................................................ 5-74
Figure 5-58: Tube settlers in horizontal flow sedimentation basin.............................................. 5-76
Figure 5-59: Tube Settlers in Vertical Flow Clarifier ................................................................... 5-77
Figure 5-60: Conventional Water Treatment Plant at Thanthirimaley (R&D, RSC-NW) ....... 5-78
Figure 5-61: The SETA plant at Ambathale .................................................................................. 5-79
Figure 5-62: The lamella settler consists of specially fabricated lamella modules inside the
settling area (Super Pulsator) .................................................................................... 5-79
Figure 5-63: Sludge collectors inside the Lamella settler tank (Super Pulsator) ....................... 5-79
Figure 5-64: Process Schematic Diagram for a DAF .................................................................... 5-81
Figure 5-65: Generic DAF Process Flow Diagram ........................................................................ 5-81
Figure 5-66: Schematic diagram illustrating straining, flocculation, and sedimentation
actions in granular media filters ............................................................................... 5-86
Figure 5-67: Typical Filter Pore and Giardia cysts....................................................................... 5-89
Figure 5-68: Transport of impurities towards the grain .............................................................. 5-89
Figure 5-69: Particle Removal Efficiency in a granular filter...................................................... 5-90
Figure 5-70: Filterability Test ......................................................................................................... 5-91
Figure 5-71: Typical filter configurations ...................................................................................... 5-95
Figure 5-72: Details of Manifold and Laterals .............................................................................. 5-97
Figure 5-73: Pipe lateral underdrain with nozzles ........................................................................ 5-98
Figure 5-74: Fabricated Block Underdrains with IMS cap .......................................................... 5-99
Figure 5-75: Forms of False-Bottom Underdrains ........................................................................ 5-99
Figure 5-76: Type of Filter Nozzles and their Installations ........................................................ 5-100
Figure 5-77: A central backwash water trough ........................................................................... 5-102
Figure 5-78: Schematic plant diagrams for the most common control systems for gravity . 5-106
Figure 5-79: Declining Rates Filters ............................................................................................. 5-108
Figure 5-80: Details of up-flow filter ............................................................................................ 5-110
Figure 5-81: Low Pressure / Self-Backwashing filter.................................................................. 5-116
Figure 5-82: Typical surface agitator and arrangements ........................................................... 5-119
Figure 5-83: Head loss versus superficial velocity ....................................................................... 5-122
Figure 5-84: Characteristics of initial effluent quality ................................................................ 5-125
Figure 5-85: Sample Head loss Gauge .......................................................................................... 5-130
Figure 5-86: Vertical-type pressure sand filters .......................................................................... 5-131

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xi
Figure 5-87: Horizontal-type pressure sand filter ....................................................................... 5-132
Figure 5-88: Precoat filtration ....................................................................................................... 5-134
Figure 5-89: Construction details of a flat-leaf element .............................................................. 5-137
Figure 5-90: Typical slow sand filter biota at different depths .................................................. 5-140
Figure 5-91: Features of a Slow Sand Filter................................................................................. 5-142
Figure 5-92: Inlet and Outlet structures of Slow Sand Filter ..................................................... 5-145
Figure 5-93: Alternative underdrain and filter support arrangements..................................... 5-146
Figure 5-94: Continuous Sand Washing ....................................................................................... 5-149
Figure 5-95: Washing Platfom for Manual Cleaning of Sand .................................................... 5-149
Figure 5-96: Mechanized In-Situ Sand Washing ......................................................................... 5-150
Figure 5-97: Recommended Resanding Procedure (AWWA, 1991) .......................................... 5-151
Figure 5-98: Types flow control of slow sand filter ..................................................................... 5-153
Figure 5-99: Mechanism of roughening filter .............................................................................. 5-156
Figure 5-100: Diagram of up flow and down flow roughing filters............................................ 5-157
Figure 5-101: Diagram of Horizontal Flow Roughing Filter ...................................................... 5-159
Figure 5-102: Arrangement of Horizontal Flow Roughening Filter .......................................... 5-161
Figure 5-103: Components of Roughing Filters........................................................................... 5-162
Figure 5-104: Effect of Operation on Size of Filters .................................................................... 5-164
Figure 5-105: Typical Gravel and Sieving Installation ............................................................... 5-165
Figure 5-106: Water Sampling Point in Roughing Filtration ..................................................... 5-167
Figure 5-107: Backwash Water Recovery Tank .......................................................................... 5-179
Figure 5-108: View of Back wash recovery Tanks and Backwash recirculation Tank and
Inside view (Biyagama WTP) .................................................................................. 5-179
Figure 5-109: Interface heights ..................................................................................................... 5-182
Figure 5-110: Illustration of interfaces during settling test ........................................................ 5-182
Figure 5-111: Graph to select the required area according to Talmage and Fitch procedure 5-183
Figure 5-112: Sludge Thickener .................................................................................................... 5-184
Figure 5-113: Sludge drying processes ......................................................................................... 5-187
Figure 5-114: Sand Drying Bed ..................................................................................................... 5-188
Figure 5-115: Belt Filter Press (BFP) ........................................................................................... 5-191
Figure 5-116: Plate and Frame Filter Press ................................................................................. 5-192
Figure 5-117: Centrifuging ............................................................................................................ 5-193
Figure 5-118: Process flow diagram for sludge management in water treatment plant .......... 5-198
Figure 6-1: Alum dosing Arrangements ........................................................................................... 6-5
Figure 6-2: Schematic diagram of a system for preparing lime slurry from quick lime ............. 6-7
Figure 6-3: Schematic diagram of Lime turbine saturator ............................................................ 6-9
Figure 6-4: Image of Lime turbine saturator in Ambathale WTP............................................... 6-10
Figure 6-5: Dry feed system with dissolving tank .......................................................................... 6-13
Figure 6-6: Dry feed system for PAC (Source: Konduwatuwana) ............................................... 6-15
Figure 6-7: Poor baffling arrangements in contact tank .............................................................. 6-23
Figure 6-8: Average baffling arrangements in contact tank ........................................................ 6-24
Figure 6-9: Superior baffling arrangements in contact tank........................................................ 6-24
Figure 6-10: pH and temperature dependency of HOCl ↔ OCl– equilibrium ........................... 6-30
Figure 6-11: Reactions of Chlorine in Water ................................................................................. 6-33
Figure 6-12: Typical Hypochlorite Feed Systems .......................................................................... 6-35
Figure 6-13: Typical Bleaching Powder Solution Dosing System ................................................ 6-36
Figure 6-14: Typical Installation of Gas Chlorination (Gravity & Pumping) ............................ 6-41
Figure 6-15: Typical Chlorine Diffusors ........................................................................................ 6-44
Figure 6-16: Different Types of Mixing Arrangements for Chlorine dispersion ........................ 6-45
Figure 6-17: Sophisticated Gas Chlorine Feed Systems ................................................................ 6-47
Figure 6-18: Simplified Ozone Feed System Schematic ................................................................ 6-52
Figure 6-19: Stainless Steel UV Disinfection Chambers ............................................................... 6-53
Figure 6-20: Risks and benefits of water chlorination (Morris, 1978) ......................................... 6-59
Figure 7-1: Filtration Media .............................................................................................................. 7-5
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xii
Figure 7-2: Field of activity of Fe and Mn oxidizing bacteria in a pH-Eh diagram
(Mouchet,1992) ............................................................................................................. 7-7
Figure 7-3: Schematic diagram of separation process through a semipermeable membrane .. 7-15
Figure 7-4: Particle rejection (approximate) in different membrane process (Crittenden J.C.
et. al., 2012) ................................................................................................................. 7-15
Figure 7-5: Transmembrane pressure development during membrane filtration (Crittenden
J.C. et. al., 2012).......................................................................................................... 7-20
Figure 7-6: Schematic diagram of cross flow filtration ................................................................ 7-21
Figure 7-7: Schematic diagram of dead end filtration .................................................................. 7-22
Figure 7-8: Pressure vessel configuration (Crittenden J.C. et. al., 2012) .................................... 7-22
Figure 7-9: Submerged configuration (Crittenden J.C. et. al., 2012) .......................................... 7-23
Figure 7-10: Osmosis verses reverse osmosis ................................................................................. 7-28
Figure 7-11: Sketch of a Composite Membrane ............................................................................ 7-31
Figure 7-12: Typical hollow fiber membrane module (US AID, 1980) ....................................... 7-32
Figure 7-13: Sketch of a spiral wound RO membrane element (Source: U.S. AID, 1980) ........ 7-32
Figure 7-14: Schematic of concentration polarization .................................................................. 7-33
Figure 7-15: Schematic diagram of vessel and stage arrangement .............................................. 7-35
Figure 7-16: Calculation of tgα from the t/V versus V curve (Alhadidi et al., 2011) .................. 7-36
Figure 7-17: Fouling Index Curve (Alhadidi et al., 2011) ............................................................. 7-37
Figure 7-18: Scheme of filtration setup for MFI measurements at constant flux (Salinas
Rodriguez, 2011) ......................................................................................................... 7-37
Figure 8-1: Caldwell-Lawrence Diagram: 25°C, 40 mg/L TDS ..................................................... 8-5
Figure 8-2: Corrosion of pipe wall .................................................................................................... 8-7
Figure 9-1: Types of typical Basic Plant Layout ........................................................................... 9-11

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xiii
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Type of Taste and Odour and the Material Cause ........................................................ 2-2
Table 2-2: Types of microorganisms and their sizes ....................................................................... 2-8
Table 2-3: Classification of Trophic state....................................................................................... 2-13
Table 2-4: Specification for Potable water SLS: 614:2013 ........................................................... 2-14
Table 2-5: Proposed guideline values of cyanotoxins in drinking water in Sri Lanka ............... 2-16
Table 2-6: Tolerance limits for inland surface waters used as raw water for public water
supply: SLS 722: 1985 ................................................................................................ 2-16
Table 2-7: Definitions related to water quality and pollution control ......................................... 2-17
Table 2-8: Potential Waterborne Disease-Causing Organisms .................................................... 2-17
Table 2-9: Aesthetic Quality related diseases and WHO guideline values .................................. 2-18
Table 2-10: Chemical related diseases and WHO guideline values ............................................. 2-19
Table 2-11: Metals related diseases and WHO guideline values .................................................. 2-20
Table 2-12: Diseases caused by Pesticides and WHO guideline values ....................................... 2-22
Table 2-13: Comparison of SLS, EU and, USEPA,WHO guidelines ........................................... 2-23
Table 3-1: Sample Label .................................................................................................................... 3-6
Table 3-2: Handling of Samples ........................................................................................................ 3-7
Table 3-3: The equipment and the method of testing of Water Quality Parameters ................... 3-9
Table 3-4: Health hazards and Treatment options for metals ..................................................... 3-14
Table 3-5: Conductivity Factors of Ions Commonly Found In Water......................................... 3-19
Table 4-1: Water Quality Concerns .................................................................................................. 4-5
Table 4-2: Applications of desalination/ membrane technologies .................................................. 4-8
Table 4-3: Summary of Treatment Process Applications ............................................................... 4-8
Table 4-4: Effectiveness of Water Treatment Process in removing various impurities ............. 4-10
Table 4-5: Recommended Water Treatment Processes ................................................................ 4-12
Table 4-6: Advanced Treatment Processes and its removal ......................................................... 4-16
Table 5-1: Classification of Screens ................................................................................................ 5-10
Table 5-2: Standard Treated Water Quantity and Microstrainer Size ....................................... 5-13
Table 5-3: Microstrainer Filter Mesh Specifications .................................................................... 5-14
Table 5-4: Advantages and Disadvantages of Different PAC Application Points ...................... 5-16
Table 5-5: Magnitude of partial pressure of water vapour and saturation value of oxygen in
water............................................................................................................................. 5-30
Table 5-6: 10 Minutes Mean Speed ................................................................................................. 5-32
Table 5-7: Type of Mixing and Efficiency Equation ..................................................................... 5-32
Table 5-8: Type of mixing and efficiency ....................................................................................... 5-33
Table 5-9: Particle sizes found in Water Treatment ..................................................................... 5-34
Table 5-10: Common inorganic coagulants.................................................................................... 5-40
Table 5-11: Dosing Concentration of Chemicals ........................................................................... 5-44
Table 5-12: Comparison of Mechanical and Hydraulic Mixers ................................................... 5-46
Table 5-13: Power number of various Rapid mix impellers ......................................................... 5-50
Table 5-14: Components in Design of Jet mixing System ............................................................. 5-52
Table 5-15: Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Baffled Channel Flocculators ....... 5-55
Table 5-16: Typical criterias for mechanical flocculators ............................................................ 5-56
Table 5-17: Classification of Clarification System ........................................................................ 5-58
Table 5-18: Basic Types of Settling ................................................................................................. 5-59
Table 5-19: Typical Settling Velocities of Particles ....................................................................... 5-61
Table 5-20: Recommended surface overflow rates ........................................................................ 5-63
Table 5-21: Advantages and Disadvantages of Flocculation-Clarifiers....................................... 5-67
Table 5-22: Advantages and Disadvantages of Sludge Recirculation Type ................................ 5-70
Table 5-23: Advantages and disadvantages of pulsation sludge blanket contact clarifier......... 5-72
Table 5-24: Type of Pulsators .......................................................................................................... 5-72
Table 5-25: Classification of Filtration Systems ............................................................................ 5-87

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xiv
Table 5-26: Characteristics of sand filters ..................................................................................... 5-87
Table 5-27: Typical water and air scoure flow rates for backwash systems employing Air
scoure ........................................................................................................................... 5-94
Table 5-28: Media Used in Multilayer Filtration ........................................................................ 5-104
Table 5-29: Backwash Water Source Data .................................................................................. 5-114
Table 5-30: Comparison of Two Backwash Alternatives for Granular Bed Filters ................ 5-117
Table 5-31: Contrasts between Backwash Alternatives .............................................................. 5-118
Table 5-32: Typical Water and Air-Scour Flow Rates for Backwash Systems ........................ 5-123
Table 5-33: Calculation of production per m2 ............................................................................. 5-129
Table 5-34: Backwash Velocity of pressure filters (Temperature 15-25 C) ............................ 5-132
Table 5-35: Suggested source water quality limitation of conventional slow sand filter ......... 5-141
Table 5-36: Recommended Number of Filter Basins .................................................................. 5-143
Table 5-37: Comparisons of the Operation of Slow Sand and GAC Sandwich Filters............ 5-151
Table 5-38: Schedule of Activities for Slow Sand Filter Operation ........................................... 5-152
Table 5-39: Performance of roughing filters ............................................................................... 5-155
Table 5-40: Different Sizes of Roughing Filter Media ................................................................ 5-160
Table 5-41: Tentative Design Guidelines for HRF ...................................................................... 5-160
Table 5-42: Tolerance limits for the Discharges of Industrial waste in to Inland surface
waters......................................................................................................................... 5-168
Table 5-43: Unit operations and processes used for residual management .............................. 5-169
Table 5-44: Typical Constants for Estimating Sludge Production ............................................ 5-172
Table 5-45: physical and chemical characteristics of Alum and Iron Coagulated Sludge ...... 5-173
Table 5-46: Chemical symbol, Atomic Number, Atomic weight, and valance ............................... 5-176
Table 5-47: Physical and Chemical Quality of Filter backwash ................................................ 5-178
Table 5-48: Normal ranges of solid content by various residual treatment processes ............. 5-180
Table 5-49: Sludge Dewatering Systems Treatment ................................................................... 5-185
Table 5-50: EU Council Directive 86/278/EEC for land application of Sludge ........................ 5-197
Table 6-1: Lime – Jumbo bags + Dry lime feeder versus Manual addition to batching tanks +
Dosing pumps .............................................................................................................. 6-16
Table 6-2: Suggested values for t10/ in respect of different baffling arrangements .................. 6-23
Table 6-3: Recommended CTTab values for 99% (2-log) inactivation ......................................... 6-25
Table 6-4: CTTab Values for achieving inactivation Giardia lamblia cysts by free chlorine
residual ........................................................................................................................ 6-26
Table 6-5: CTTab Values for achieving inactivation viruses by free chlorine residual ............... 6-26
Table 6-6: CTTab Values for achieving inactivation Giardia lamblia cysts and viruses by
chlorine dioxide, Ozone, chloramines, and UV ........................................................ 6-26
Table 6-7: Recommended disinfection credits for entire treatment process to meet SWTR
requirements ............................................................................................................... 6-27
Table 6-8: Chlorine used for various treatment processes other than Disinfection ................... 6-31
Table 6-9: Physiological Effects of Chlorine .................................................................................. 6-36
Table 6-10: Bleaching powder requirements for disinfection of mains and storage basins ...... 6-38
Table 6-11: Comparison of Chlorinators ....................................................................................... 6-42
Table 6-12: Chlorine Cylinder Inventory ...................................................................................... 6-48
Table 6-13: Chemical and Water requirements for Chlorine Absorption in Alkaline Solution6-48
Table 6-14: Ct in mg min/l for 2 log inactivation of Cryptosporidium, Giardia and viruses
using chlorine dioxide................................................................................................. 6-49
Table 6-15: Required Ct values (in mg min/l) for inactivation of microorganisms by ClO2
compared with Cl2 and O3 at 10°C and pH 6-9........................................................ 6-50
Table 6-16: UV Dose Requirements – millijoules percentimeter squared (mJ/cm2) .................. 6-53
Table 6-17: Recommended Number of TTHM Monitoring Locations V Population ................ 6-57
Table 7-1: Oxidation of Iron and Manganese with Oxygen, Chlorine, Chlorine Dioxide and
Potassium Permanganate ............................................................................................. 7-2
Table 7-2: Optimum Parameters for Biological Removal .............................................................. 7-8

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xv
Table 7-3: Mean maximum temperature and corresponding recommended fluoride
concentration for drinking purposes........................................................................... 7-9
Table 7-4: Fluoride removal methods (based on Heidweiller, 1990; Pickard and Bari, 2004
and BGS, 2003; cited in Feenstra, et al., 2007) ......................................................... 7-10
Table 7-5: Water clarification based total hardness ..................................................................... 7-13
Table 7-6: Comparison of membrane filtration and reverse osmosis (Water Treatment
Principles and Design) ................................................................................................ 7-16
Table 7-7: Comparison between outside in and inside out modes of hollow fibre membrane
configurations .............................................................................................................. 7-21
Table 7-8: Operating characteristics of MF and UF membrane and rapid sand filters ............ 7-25
Table 8-1: Electrochemical series for Common Metals and Alloys in Sea Water ........................ 8-3
Table 8-2: Corrosivity State of Water for Different CCPP Values ................................................ 8-4
Table 8-3: Stability Indices with Typical Values for Stable Water ................................................ 8-5
Table 8-4: Determination of Langelier Saturation Index ............................................................... 8-6
Table 9-1: Typical Design Criteria for a full treatment works ...................................................... 9-2
Table 9-2: Factors that Influence Required Site Area .................................................................... 9-5
Table 9-3: List Laboratory Equipment .......................................................................................... 9-19

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xvi
Preface

Procedure Manuals and Design Manuals for NWSDB have been prepared in year 1989 under
the USAID SRI LANKA PROJECT 383-0088. Due to the rapid changes in Procedures and
Technology during the past 30 years, these manuals need to be updated to suit the present-day
situation incorporating the present technology and changes in environmental and social
aspects.

In 2014 NWS&DB had taken steps for updating the D3 Manual, the third in the series of
Design Manuals for “Water Quality and Treatment” by appointing a steering committee in
year 2014. The steering committee appointed a sub committee to review the present manual
and to prepare necessary updating by incorporating new chapters in consultation with the
steering committee.

This Manual is specifically targeted for water quality and treatment processes and it covers
water quality and treatment processes, planning of plant design and layout, basic design
aspects, water safety aspect and Algae (Cyanobacteria) treatment.

Users are advised to thoroughly use this manual together with D2 Manual in Planning and
Designs of Water Supply Schemes. The users are also advised to refer text books which are
listed under References for further details.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xvii
List of NWSDB Manuals

Procedure Manuals
P1 - Project Planning Feasibility
P2 - Procedures for Procurement Management and Bid evaluation
P3 - Guidelines for Commissioning and Handing Over/taking Over of a Water Supply
Project
P4 - Guidelines for Technical Co-ordination
P5 - Project Design Procedures for HO/RSCC
P6 - Guidelines on Project Appraisal Committee Submissions and Approvals
P7 - Project Management and Contract Administration
P 8 - Health and Safety Manual (New)
P 9 - Laboratory Procedure Manual (New)
P10 - Pipeline Repairs (New)
P11 - NRW Leak Detection (New)

Design Manuals
D1 - Rural water Supply
D2 - Urban Water Supply
D3 - Water Quality & Treatment
D4 - Ground Water
D5 - Mechanical Electrical & Instrumentation Aspect of Water Supply Design
D6 - Guidelines for Latrine Selection & Constructions.
D7 - Waste water Treatment
D8 - Water service Connections
D9 - Plumbing Code
D10 - Pre Stressed Concrete Manual for Circular Tanks (New)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xviii
Planing and Design Manual Review Committee (PDMRC)

This manual was reviewed and approved by PDMRC. Members of that committee at the time
of commencement were as follows (Appointed on 16.01.2014).

Eng. D.S.D. Jayasiriwardena - Addl.GM (S/E) - Chairman

Eng. K. R. Dewasurendra - Addl.GM (WSP) - Member
Eng. D. U. Sumanasekera - Addl.GM (CS) - Member
Eng. R.S.C. George - Addl.GM (P&P) - Member
Eng. R.H. Ruvinis - DGM (P&D) - Member
Eng. S. G. Jayawardene - DGM (Sewerage) - Member
Ms. Srima De Silva - DGM (F) - Member
Eng. B. L. Gunerathne - AGM (M&E-P&D) - Member
Eng. U.C. Pathiranage - AGM (Doc-P&D) - Member
Eng. Ms. S. Jayasinghe - CE (P&D/ Design Manual) - Secretary

Members of the PDMRC appointed on 22.05.2017 are as follows.

Eng. J. R. Nadurana - Addl. GM (Sewerage) - Chairman
Eng. R. H. Ruvinis - Addl.GM (WSP) - Member
Eng. S. G. R. Rajkumar - Addl.GM (N/C) - Member
Eng. T. S. Wijethunga - Addl.GM (P&P) - Member
Eng. S. G. Jayawardene - DGM (Sewerage) - Member
Eng. K. J. V. A. Perera - PD (GAMIWSP) - Member
Eng. K. W. Premasiri - DGM (P&D) - Member
Ms. A. P. Srima. De Silva - DGM (Costing) - Member
Eng. B. L. Gunerathne - DGM (M&E-Services) - Member
Eng. S. Sumanaweera - DGM (Production) - Member
Eng. U. C. Pathiranage - AGM (Doc-P&D) - Member
Eng. Ms. S. Jayasinghe - CE (P&D/ Design Manual) - Secretary

Members of the PDMRC appointed on 30.11.2018 are as follows.

Eng. J.K.S.Pathirana - Addl. GM (S/E) - Chairman
Eng. R. H. Ruvinis - Addl.GM (WSP) - Member
Eng. T. S. Wijethunga - Addl.GM (P&P) - Member
Eng. K. J. V. A. Perera - Addl.GM (C/S) - Member
Eng. U.Rathnapala - DGM (P&D) - Member
Mr. A. G. S. Kumara - DGM (Costing) - Member
Eng. D.N.De.S. Gunathilaka - DGM (Sewerage) - Member
Eng. T.M.W.Sunil Bandara - DGM (M&E) - Member
Eng. T.W.M.L.P.Wijesundara - AGM (Doc-P&D) - Member
Eng.R.R.N.P.Rathnayake - Specialist (Water Treatment) - Member
Eng. Ms. S. Jayasinghe - AGM (JPU) - Member
Eng. Ms. S. Kalubowila - CE (P&D/ Design Manual) - Secretary

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xix
Members of the PDMRC appointed on 03.09.2020 are as follows.
Eng. Dr.(Ms).I.M.W.K.Illangasinghe - Addl. GM (CS) - Chairman
Eng. T. S. Wijethunga - Addl.GM (P&P) - Member
Eng. T.W.S. Perera - Addl.GM (CS) - Member
Eng. C.C.H.S.Perera - Addl.GM (W) - Member
Eng. A.Munasinghe - DGM (P&D) - Member
Mr. A. G. S. Kumara - DGM (Costing) - Member
Eng. D.N.De.S. Gunathilaka - DGM (Sewerage) - Member
Eng. T.M.W.Sunil Bandara - DGM (M&E) - Member
Eng.R.R.N.P.Rathnayake - Specialist (Water Treatment) - Member
Eng. Ms. S. Jayasinghe - AGM (JPU) - Member
Eng. T.W.M.L.P.Wijesundara - AGM (Doc-P&D) - Member
Eng. L.D.W.Vithanage - CE (P&D/ Design Manual) - Secretary

D3 Manual Updating Team (Appointed Date – 21.03.2014)

Eng. S. Sumanaweera - (DGM-CP) - Chairman
Eng. M.T. A. Bawa - CEng.(RSC - East - P&D) - Member
Eng. P.A.G. Gunethilake - CEng. (RSC – WN - Designs) - Member
Eng. S. T. Fouzedeen - Process Engineer (RSC – East) - Member
(Ms). S.N. Kalaimathy - Senior Chemist (Central Laboratory) - Member
Eng. (Ms).H.M. C. P. Herath - Engineer (P&D) - Secretary

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xx
Abbreviations
AAS Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry
AOC Assimilable Organic Carbon
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AWWA American Water Works Association
BAC Biological Activate Carbon
BBB Build Black Better
BFP Belt Filter Press
CCPP Calcium Carbonate Precipitation Potential
CCTV Closed-Circuit Television
CEA Central Environmental Authority
CEB Ceylone Electricity Board
CFD Computational Flourd Dynamics
CFU Colony Forming Unit
CKDu Chronic Kidney Disease of unknown etiology
CM Corrective Maintenance
COC Conformity of Construction
CT Contact Time
DAF Dissolved Air Floatation
DADMAC Di- Allyl Di- Methyl Ammonium Chlorite
DBP Disinfection By-Product
DI Ductile Iron
DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid
DO Dissolved Oxygen
DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon
DOM Dissolved Organic Material
DWQG Drinking Water Quality Guideline
EDCs Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
ELISA Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
EPA Environmental Procurement Agent
EPL Environmental Protection License
EPS Extracellular Polymeric Substance
ERP Emergency Response Plan
ES Effective Size
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FC Flow Controller
FEEM Fluorescence Excitation-Emission Matrix
FTT Flavour Threshold Test
GIS Geographical Information System
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
GACF Granular Activated Carbon Filtration
GC / MS Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry
GoSL Government of Sri Lanka
GV Guideline Value
HAAs Haloacetic Acids
HACCP Hazard Assesment Critical Controle Point
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
HPLC High Performing Liquid Chromatography
HRF Horizontal-Flow Roughing Filters
HRT Hydraulic Retention Time
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xxi
HVODR Hipolimnetic Volumetric Oxygen Depletion Rate
ICP Inductively Coupled Plasma
IEE Initial Environmental Examination
IEP Iso Electric Point
IMS Integrated Media Support
IOB Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
IRW Internal Renewable Water
kDa Kilo-Dalton
LC-OCD Liquid Chromatography Organic Carbon Detection
LOAEL Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level
Lpcd Littre per Capita per Day
LRV Log Removal Value
LSI Langlier Saturation Index
MEC Mediated Electro-Catalytic
MF Micro-Filtration
MFI-UF Modified Fouling Index –Ultrafiltration
MnOB Manganese Oxidizing Bacteria
MnZ Manganese Zeolite
MPN Most Probable Number
MSDS Material Safety Data Sheet
MTBE Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether
MWCO Molecular Weight Cut Off
NaZ Greensand Zeolite
NDP Net Driving Pressure
NF Nano-Filtration
NGO Non Governmantal Organization
NOAEL No-Observed-Adverse-Effect Level
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratio
NOM Natural Organic Matter
NRW Non-Revenue Water
NTU Nephelometre Turbidity Unit
NWSDB National Water Supply & Drainage Board
ORP Oxidation Reduction Potential
O&M Operation & Maintenance
PAC Powder Activated Carbon
PACl Poly Aluminum Chloride
PAH Poly Aromatic Hydrocarbon
PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl
PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment
P&D Planning and Designs
P&ID Process and Instrumentation Diagram
P&ID Process & Instrumentation Diagram
PE Poly Ethylene
PES Polyether Sulfone
PFR Plug Flow Reactor
PMP Preventive Maintenance Program
POC Particulate Organic Carbon
POM Particulate Organic Material
PPE Persional Protective Equipments
PVC Poly Vinile Cloride
R Recovery
RCl Residual Chlorine

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xxii
RSF Rapid Sand Filtration
RTD Residence Time Distribution
RO Reverse Osmosis
RWS Rural Water Supply
SDI Silt Density Index
SDB Sustainable Development Banks
SGD Sustainable Development Goal
SIA Social Impact Assessment
SLLR&DC Sri Lanka Land Reclamation & Development Corporation
SLR Surface Loading Rates
SLS Sri Lankan Standards
SOC Synthetic Organic Chemicals
SOPS Standard Operations Procedures
SSF Slow-Sand Filters
SUVA Specific Ultra Violet Absorbance
SWRO Seawater Reverse Osmosis
SWTR Surface Water Treatment Rule
TCU True Colour Unit
TDH Total Dynamic Head
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
TEP Transparent Exopolymer Particles
THM Trihalomethane
TMP Trans Membrane Pressure
TOC Total Organic Carbon
TON Threshold Odour Number
TOT Threshold Odour Test
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
TSS Total Suspended Solids
TTHM Total Trihalomethane
UC Uniformity Coefficient
UF Ultra Filtration
UFW Unaccounted for Water
uPVC UV Stabilized Polyvinylchloride
USA United States of America
USEPA United State Environmental Plant Agency
UV Ultra Violet
UV254 Amount of UV light absorbed by sample
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
WHO World Health Organization
WSP Water Safety Plan
WSS Water Supply Scheme
WTP Water Treatment Plant
ZSF Zone Setling Velocity
 Deposition factor

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) xxiii
CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

This Design manual is intended to be used by the NWSDB Engineers in assessing water
quality, and identifying the need for water treatment in planning and design of water treatment
plants. This objective is based on the health risk management strategy under the principles of
“Water Safety Planning”.
The designer should have the basic background information on the need for design. The water
treatment design is needed to achieve provision of safe water for drinking and other domestic
and industrial uses. The designer should comply with global needs such as
adaptation/resilience to climate change, green concepts and achieving Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs). Also he/she should comply with local needs such as energy
saving, zero discharge principles with 3R practice; Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.
It is important to achieve durability aspects along with paying attention to operational and
maintenance aspects of the designs.

1.1. Objective and Scope

The objective of this manual is providing the basic understanding on design of water supply
infrastructure with special emphasis on water quality targeting water safety, unit operation
modules of the treatment process and detailed design of effective water treatment plants using
the data provided.
One of the duties of the Design Engineer is understanding water quality variations and
designing water treatment units to achieve the expected output water quality throughout the
system design period.

Water Treatment step is a part of the “Water Safety Plan” (WSP) described in section 1.2
below. Simply water treatment step is a barrier or “A Control Measure” to avoid
contamination of water, which is the basis of water safety plan. The designers should be
aware that catchment protection, effectiveness of a treatment plant and adequate disinfection
play important role in achieving the safety of drinking water. Although Water Safety Plan is
intended to be an operational tool with an inherent terminology, knowledge on the water
safety concept during the design stage with possible inputs would be an advantage for better
management of water supply systems upon commissioning.

1.2. Water Safety Plan (WSP)

The most effective means of consistently ensuring the safety of a drinking water supply is
through the use of a comprehensive risk assessment and risk management approach that
encompasses all steps in water supply from catchment to consumer. Such approach is termed
a “Water Safety Plan” (WSP).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 1-1
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 1-2
CHAPTER 2

WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND STANDARDS

2.1. Drinking Water Quality

The quality of drinking-water is a powerful environmental determinant of health. Access to
potable drinking water is a prerequisite to reduction of poverty and prevention of the spread of
water-borne and sanitation related diseases. It is the prime responsibility of NWS&DB to
provide “safe and palatable drinking water” free from,

 Visible suspended matters including Algae

 Colour, taste and Odour
 Objectionable dissolved chemical matters
 Microorganisms

Water quality assessment is a key process, which determines the unit treatment process before
establishing any water supply scheme. The treatment method must be carefully designed to
achieve the acceptable standard limits.

2.2. Water Quality Characteristics

2.2.1. Water Source and Quality
There are two main sources of water: surface water and groundwater. Surface Water is found
in streams, lakes, rivers, and reservoirs. Groundwater lies under the surface of the land, where
it travels through and fills openings in the rocks. The rocks that store and transmit
groundwater are called aquifers.

Pollutant inputs have been increased in recent decades, and the result has been the degradation
of water quality in many rivers and lakes. Chemical discharges to rivers or lakes originated
either from point sources or nonpoint sources. Point sources include effluent pipes from
municipal sewerage treatment plants and factories, relatively simple to monitor and regulate.
Non point inputs are the major source of water pollution in today includes runoff from
agriculture, unprotected sewage, urban runoff, abandoned mines and atmospheric
precipitations. And acid rain also causes damage to the aquatic environment. Furthermore, sea
water intrusion also affects the water sources which are close to the marine environment.

2.2.2. Physical Characteristics

Physical characteristics of water (temperature, colour, taste, odour etc.) are determined by
senses of touch, sight, smell and taste.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-1
2.2.2.1. Temperature
Temperature is an important factor to be considered when assessing water quality. In addition
to its own effects, temperature influences several other parameters and can alter the physical
and chemical properties of water. In this regard, water temperature should be accounted for
when determining:

 Dissolved oxygen and other dissolved gas concentrations

 Conductivity and salinity
 Oxidation reduction potential (ORP)
 pH
 Water Density
 Toxicity level ( E.g. Metals)
 Microbiology
2.2.2.2. Taste and Odour
Most Organic and some inorganic chemicals contribute to taste and odour. The primary
sources of taste and odour problems in drinking water are algae and bacteria. Odour and taste
are quantitatively measured using Threshold Odour Test (TOT) and Flavour Threshold Test
(FTT). (Refer P9 - Laboratory Procedure Manual for water quality analysis).
Table 2-1: Type of Taste and Odour and the Material Cause
Type Cause of Problem
Salty – brackish High sodium
Alkali taste High hardness, total dissolved solids, high alkalinity
Taste
Low pH, high metal, corrosive water.
problem
Metallic taste Metallic taste can be caused by inorganic chemicals such as
iron, manganese, zinc and bacteria (Iron Bacteria).
Rotten egg, musty, earthy, grassy
Hydrogen sulfide, sulphate bacteria,
Odour / odour smell
smell Oily smell Gasoline or oil contamination or nuisance bacteria.
problem Methane gas Organic decomposition (decomposed sewerage)
Phenolic smell Industrial or gasoline contamination

2.2.2.3. Colour
Colour in drinking water may be due to the presence of organic matter such as humic
substances, metals such as iron and manganese, or highly coloured industrial wastes.
The colour measured in water that contains suspended matter is defined as "apparent colour";
the "True colour” is measured in water samples from which particulate matter (colour caused
by colloidal, such as vegetable or organic extracts) has been removed by centrifugation. In
general, the true colour of a given water sample is substantially less than its apparent colour
and measured in Hazen units, or Pt. Co. Units (Platinum Cobalt unit). True colour is
measured for the conformation of drinking water quality according to SLS limits.
2.2.2.4. Turbidity
Turbidity is a measure of the relative clarity or cloudiness of water. Turbidity in water may be
caused by a wide variety of suspended matter, such as clay, silt, finely divided organic and
inorganic matter, soluble colored organic compounds, and other micro-organisms.Turbidity in
some groundwater sources is a consequence of inert clay or chalk particles or the precipitation
of non-soluble reduced iron (Fe2+) and other oxide. Natural phenomenon such as landslides
can produce extreme turbidity which is difficult to accommodate treatment facility. Turbidity
levels are an important consideration for the effective design and operation of treatment
processes and an indicator of water quality changes in drinking water systems. Turbidity
measurements are reported in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU). Turbidity in excess of
4NTU may be noticeable and consequently objectionable to consumers.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-2
2.2.2.5. Secchi Disk Transparency
Transparency referred as water clarity is a qualitative indicator. It is a measure of how far
light can travel in water. Transparency is directly affected by the level of suspended particles
and dissolved materials in the water. The main types of suspended particles that affect
transparency are algae and sediment. Transparency is a useful routine indicator of water
quality changes and patterns, especially in lakes and reservoirs measured routinely.
Transparency is measured in meters as shown in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1: Transparency measurement using Secchi Disk

2.2.2.6. Solids
Total solids in water are the weight of all mineral and organic matter in the water in either
solution or suspension. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS): Comprise inorganic salts mainly
calcium, magnesium, potassium, sodium, bicarbonates, chlorides and sulphates and small
amounts of organic matter that are dissolved in water. Concentrations of TDS in water vary
considerably in different geological regions owing to differences in the solubility of minerals.
High solids content indicates that water is highly contaminated or contains excessing amounts
of mineral matter.

Total solids = Suspended solids + Total Dissolved solids

Filtering a sample will remove all the suspended solids. TDS meter does not measure
dissolved solids. It measures conductivity and TDS is calculated by multiplying the
conductivity by a conversion factor. Two assumptions are all dissolved solids produce
conductivity and solutions having the same TDS have equal conductivity.

Total Suspended Solids (TSS) refers to any particles that are suspended in the water column.
These particles can include silt, algae, sediment, and other solids floating in the water (both
organic and inorganic).

Turbidity and TSS are similar in the sense; they both measure the clarity of liquid. But they
aren’t actually measuring the same property. Turbidity looks at how well a light passes
through liquid and TSS is a quantitative expression of suspended particles. Even though
turbidity and TSS complement each other, their effects are different. For example, TSS can
calculate sediment quality, while turbidity can’t. And there is no linear relationship between
NTU and TSS in mg/L which makes it very difficult to convert.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-3
2.2.3. Chemical Characteristics
The chemical characteristics of natural water are a reflection of the minerals contained in the
soils and rocks with which the water has been in contact. In addition, agricultural and urban
runoff and municipal and industrial treated wastewater influence the water quality. Microbial
and chemical transformations also affect the chemical characteristics of water.

2.2.3.1. Electrical Conductivity

Conductivity is a measure of the ability of water to pass an electrical current. Conductivity in
water is caused by the presence of inorganic dissolved solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate,
and phosphate anions (ions that carry a negative charge) or sodium, magnesium, calcium,
iron, or aluminum cations (ions that carry a positive charge). Organic compounds like oil,
phenol, alcohol, and sugar do not conduct electrical current very well and therefore have a
low effect on conductivity in water. Conductivity is affected by temperature: the warmer the
water, the higher the conductivity. For this reason, conductivity is reported as conductivity at
25 ºC. Conductivity is measured in micro Siemens per centimeter (µS/cm). Conductivity is
approximately proportional to TDS content.
Salinity is the total concentration of all dissolved salts in water. These electrolytes form ionic
particles as they dissolve, each with a positive and negative charge. As such, salinity is a
strong contributor to conductivity more often and salinity derived from the conductivity
measurement especially for low saline water. Conductivity is easier to measure, it is used in
algorithms estimating salinity and TDS, both of which affect water quality and aquatic life.
The oceans have a high conductivity and salinity due to the high number of the dissolved salts
present. Salinity is important as it affects dissolved oxygen solubility. The higher the salinity
level, the lower the dissolved oxygen concentration.

2.2.3.2. Chlorides
Chloride, in the form of the Cl-, is one of the major inorganic anions, in saltwater and
freshwater. Chlorides widely distributed in nature include sodium (NaCl), potassium (KCl)
and calcium (CaCl2) salts. The source of chlorides may be due to sewage, manufacturing
wastes, mineral deposits’, oil fuel wastes or salt water. Chlorides in excess of the normal
content may be considered an indication of contamination by sewage, since chloride is the
constituent of urine or intrusion of salt water if the supply is located near the coast.

2.2.3.3. pH
The pH of a solution is the negative common logarithm of the hydrogen ion activity:
pH = -log [H+]

In dilute solutions, the hydrogen ion activity is approximately equal to the hydrogen ion
concentration. The pH is one of the most important operational water quality parameter.
Careful attention to pH control is necessary at all stages of water treatment to ensure
satisfactory water clarification and disinfection. The pH of the water entering the distribution
system must be controlled to minimize the corrosion of water mains and pipes (Refer Chapter
8).

2.2.3.4. Alkalinity
The alkalinity of water is defined as its capacity to neutralize acid. Alkali substances in water
include hydroxides, carbonates and bicarbonates.

Bicarbonate alkalinity : is derived from bicarbonates of calcium and

magnesium
Carbonate alkalinity : is derived from carbonate of sodium, potassium,
calcium, and magnesium
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-4
Hydroxide or caustic alkalinity : is derived from hydroxides of sodium, potassium,
calcium and magnesium.
The amount of hardness and alkalinity are same when calcium and magnesium carbonates are
present alone.

2.2.3.5. Hardness
Hardness in water is caused by a variety of dissolved polyvalent metallic ions, predominantly
calcium and magnesium cations, although other cations (e.g. aluminium, barium, iron,
manganese, strontium and zinc) also contribute. Calcium-based hardness usually
predominates in natural Ground water. The degree of hardness of drinking-water is important
for palatability and for economic and operational considerations.

Depending on the interaction of other factors, such as pH and alkalinity, water with hardness
above approximately 200 mg/L may cause scale deposition in the treatment works,
distribution system, pipe work and tanks. It will also result in high soap consumption and
subsequent “scum” formation. On heating, hard waters form deposits of calcium carbonate
scale. Soft water, (with a hardness of less than 100 mg/L) may, in contrast, have a low
buffering capacity and so be more aggressive for water pipe lines.

2.2.3.6. Dissolved oxygen

The dissolved oxygen (DO) is oxygen that is dissolved in water. The dissolved oxygen
content of water is influenced by the source water temperature, inorganic and organic content
in the distribution system. Depletion of dissolved oxygen in water supplies can encourage the
microbial reduction of nitrate to nitrite and sulfate to sulfide. It can also cause an increase in
the concentration of ferrous/ manganese iron in solution, with subsequent discoloration at the
tap when the water is aerated.

2.2.3.7. Nitrogen
Nitrogen is essential for all living things as it is a component of protein. Nitrogen exists in the
environment in many forms and changes as it moves through the nitrogen cycle. Nitrite
(NO2−) is usually present in reducing environment and the nitrate is the more stable oxidation
state. The presence of nitrates in water is usually the result of farming activities like
fertilizing, or seepage from septic systems. Nitrite can also be formed chemically in
distribution pipes by Nitrosomonas bacteria during stagnation of nitrate-containing and
oxygen-poor drinking-water or if Chloramination is used to provide a residual disinfectant.

Nitrogen is a part of many fertilizers and is important for plant nutrition. Nevertheless, if
fertilizers are overused, irrigation water or rain can carry excess nitrogen away from the
landscape, and potentially into nearby water bodies. Too much nitrogen in lakes and streams
can cause an overgrowth of algae (algal bloom) and other plants. Over time, the plants will
deplete the oxygen levels in the water, which can trigger fish kills commonly known as
eutrophication. Excess nitrates can also leach through the soil, and may ultimately end up in
our ground water. Nitrogen in water exists in 4 main forms:
1) Organic nitrogen (in the form of proteins, amino acids and urea also called albuminoid
ammonia)
2) Ammonia nitrogen (as ammonium salts or free ammonia)
3) Nitrite nitrogen and intermediate oxidation stage
4) Nitrate nitrogen final oxidation product
Organic matter (albuminoid nitrogen, albuminoid ammonia) decomposes to ammonia
nitrogen (free ammonia) then decomposes to unstable nitrites (characteristics of fresh sewage)
then oxidizes to nitrates – a relatively stable form.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-5
 –
𝑶𝒓𝒈𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒄 𝑵 → (𝑨𝒎𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒊𝒂)𝑵𝑯𝟑 → (𝑵𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒊𝒕𝒆)𝑵𝑶𝟐 → ( 𝑵𝒊𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒕𝒆)𝑵𝑶𝟑
2.2.3.8. Phosphorous
Phosphorous is essential to the growth of organisms. Phosphates occur as ortho-phosphates,
condensed phosphates (pyro-, meta- and other polyphosphates) and organically bound
phosphates. The major source of orthophosphates arise from laundering or cleaning as major
constituent of many commercial cleaning preparations, sewage discharges and fertilizers
mixing through runoff. Discharge of raw or treated wastewater, agricultural drainage, or
certain industrial wastes to the reservoirs increase the nutrient level such as nitrogen and
phosphorous, which enhance the growth of algae and lead to eutrophication. Organic
phosphates are formed primarily by biological processes.

2.2.3.9. Residual Chlorine

Chlorine is a chemical that is used to disinfect water prior to it being discharged into the
distribution system. It is used as an indicator to ensure water quality and is maintained from
the storage to the point of consumption. When chlorine is fed into the water, it reacts with any
iron, manganese, or hydrogen sulphide and organic materials including bacteria. In order to
ensure that water is sufficiently treated through the whole distribution system, an excess of
chlorine is usually added. This excess chlorine in the water is measured as Residual chlorine
(RC).

2.2.3.10. Residual Aluminium

The use of aluminium (Al) salt as coagulants in potable water treatment tends to increase the
concentration of aluminium in treated water. This aluminium is called residual aluminium,
and undesirable for human consumption. For example, high concentrations of residual
aluminium may increase the turbidity of the water in the distribution system by the
precipitation of aluminium hydroxide. Further, aluminium hydroxide floc may interfere with
the disinfection process by enmeshing and protecting microorganisms. Residual aluminium
may also form a deposit on pipe walls, decreasing their carrying capacity. In addition,
elevated concentrations of aluminium in drinking water may have health implications.

2.2.4. Organic Constituents

Organic compounds in water are derived from the three major sources: (1) the breakdown of
naturally occurring organic material,(2) domestic and commercial activities, and (3) reactions
that occur during water treatment and transmission. Treatment additives may add small
amounts of organic contaminants, such as monomers of polymer products. The predominated
naturally occurring organic materials are composed of humic materials from plants and algae,
microorganisms and their metabolites and high molecular-weight aliphatic and aromatic
hydrocarbons. Some of these organics are nuisance constituents such as odoriferous
metabolites. A few of the high molecular weight aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons may
have adverse effect. In addition, humics serve as precursors (rectants)in the formation of
trihalomethanes (THMs) and other organohalogen oxidation products during disinfection.

Domestic and commercial activities contribute synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs) to

wastewater discharges, agricultural runoff, urban runoff, and leachate from contaminated
soils. Most of the organic contaminants identified in water supplies as having adverse health
concerns are part of this group. They include pesticides (such as atrazine and aldicarb),
solvents and metal degreasers (such as trichlorobenzene, tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethylene, and trichloroethane), and a family of compounds formerly in wide use, the
polychlorinated biphenyls.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-6
Organic contaminants formed during water disinfection include by-products such as
trihalomethanes (e.g., chloroform) and haloacetic acids (e.g., di- and trichloroacetic acids).
Other compounds such as acrylamide or epichlorohydrin are components of coagulants (e.g.,
polyacrylamide) that can leach out during treatment. During finished water transmission,
undesirable components of pipes, coating, linings, and joint adhesives, such as polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), epichlorohydrin, and solvents, have been shown to leach into
water.

The term “synthetic organic chemicals” has become a regulatory rather than a chemical
description. It has evolved to distinguish a group of mostly Volatile Organic Chemicals
(VOCs), regulated first under the 1986 amendments of the federal Safe Drinking Water Act,
from “SOCs” regulated under Phase 2 and later regulations. However, some of the SOCs are
also VOCs (e.g., ethylbenzene, styrene, toluene, and xylenes, and the fumigant pesticides).
The bulk of SOCs are pesticides, but also include the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, the
polychlorinated biphenyls, and two water treatment polymers.

2.2.4.1. Agro chemicals and Pesticides

Sri Lanka uses highest quantity of agro-chemicals of 287 units of agro-chemicals per hectare.
The high yields are only possible with considerable inputs of fertilizers, insecticides and
pesticides. Insecticides are the chemicals used to kill or control pests. This includes herbicides
(weeds), insecticides (insects), fungicides (fungi), nematocides (nematodes), and rodenticides
(vertebrate poisons). The runoff from agricultural land can mix with water sources or leach to
ground water.

2.2.4.2. Petroleum products

Petroleum products are used in large quantities, primarily as fuels. They are complex mixtures
of chemicals derived from crude oil by distillation and fractionation. They consist primarily of
a wide range of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, many of which are of extremely low
solubility in water. The primary concern for drinking water is the potential for spills into
source water, penetration of distribution systems and contamination of drinking water
treatment works. Taste and odour in most cases be detectable at concentrations below those of
health concern, particularly with short-term exposure.

2.2.4.3. Detergents Surfactants

The concentration of detergents in drinking water not increases due to showing by either
foaming or taste problems. Many laundry detergents contain approximately 35 percent to 75
percent phosphate salts. Phosphates can cause a variety of water pollution problems. For
example, phosphate tends to inhibit the biodegradation of organic substances. In addition,
some phosphate-based detergents can cause eutrophication. Over enrichment of phosphate can
cause the water body to become choked with algae and other plants. Eutrophication deprives
the water of available oxygen, causing the death of other organisms.

2.2.4.4. Dyes
Water pollution due to effluents from textile dyeing industry is a cause of serious concern.
The techniques for detection of dyes are cost intensive and pointless because the dyes undergo
chemical changes under environmental conditions and the transformation products may be
more toxic and carcinogenic than the parent molecule.

2.2.4.5. Synthetic Hormones

Endocrine Disruptor Chemicals (EDCs) are a type of chemical that directly influences sex
hormones. By inhibiting the function of these hormones, fertility decreases, and an imbalance
of such hormones has been shown to cause feminizing effects in males. This is a human issue
and becomes increasingly noticeable in fish populations worldwide. It is believe that these
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-7
chemicals present in the water supply leads to increasing feminizing effects in male fish.
Estrogens accumulate in body fat and tissue, and because of the cycle of the food chain, the
artificial estrogens /EDC’s bio-accumulate as they rise up the different levels of the food
chain.

2.2.5. Biological Characteristics

Biological organisms in water are most important as they affect the acceptability of water by
transmitting diseases; they indicate that water treatment and/or the state of maintenance and
repair of the distribution system are insufficient. Major groups are Bacteria, viruses, Planktons
- Phytoplankton (Algae), and Zooplankton (Nematodes, Water Flea, Cyclops, and Rotifers),
Protozoa (Ciliata, Mastigophora, Sarcodina, Sporozoa) and Fungi.

Many bacteria, viruses and parasites (Protozoa and helminthes) are causative organisms for
some of the more virulent diseases transmitted to humans directly through water and
indirectly through contaminated food. The presence of other disease causing microbes in
water is unhealthy and even life threatening. The type of microorganisms and their size are
listed in the Table 2-2.

Table 2-2: Types of microorganisms and their sizes

Viruses Size (µm) Bacteria Size (µm) Protozoa Size (µm)

Hepatitis A-E 0.027 E.coli 0.50 Cryptosporidium 5
Poliomyelitis 0.028 Salmonella 1.00 Gardia Lamblia 7
Entero virus 0.032 Vibrio cholera 0.45 Entamoeba 10
Norwalk virus 0.032 Shigella 0.50
Adeno virus 0.072 Pseudomonas 0.50
Rota virus 0.072 Campylobacter 0.50
Legionella 0.45

2.2.5.1. Mortality Ratio

Pathogens with a high probability of a fatal outcome are particularly important.A pathogen’s
effectiveness in causing damage to its host is referred to as virulence. The most common
measure of virulence is the mortality ratio, which is the fraction of the persons who get ill to
those who do not survive the disease. The mortality ratio for several pathogens is displayed on
Figure 2-2. Among the classic waterborne pathogens, the V, cholerea biotype 01 (Asiatic
cholera) had one of the highest mortality ratios.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-8
 Figure 2-2: Mortality Ratios for variety of pathogens
The number of organisms that a human must be exposed to before infection varies a great deal
from one pathogen to the next and also from one human to the next. The public health
community uses the median infectious dose, N50, as a measure of the ‘‘typical’’ dose
required for infection in human beings. The methods for conducting such dose–response
assessments are beyond the scope of this discussion but may be found in Haas et al. (1999).
The wide variation in median dose from one pathogen to the next to bring about a response is
illustrated on Figure 2-3.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-9
 Figure 2-3: Median dose of organisms required in drinking wter to cause infection
Source: MWH’s Water Treatment: Principles and Design, Third Edition
2.2.5.2. Viruses
Viruses are a major class of microorganisms but lack many of the attributes of cells. Some
viruses, which cause infectious hepatitis, poliomyelitis, meningitis, and gastroenteritis, can be
waterborne. Viruses range in size from 0.01 to 0.1 μm. Waterborne viruses can be found in
the faeces of infected people and animals. Ground water and surface water supplies that are
exposed to wastewater seepages or discharges can become contaminated by viruses. They
need a host to live. Eg: hepatitis A (destroys liver).

2.2.5.3. Bacteria
Bacteria such as Escherichia coli, Salmonella, Shigella, and Vibrio lives in the intestinal
tracts of humans and other warm blooded animals, can contaminate water if feces enter the

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-10
water. Gastrointestinal disorders are common symptoms of diseases transmitted by
waterborne pathogenic bacteria

The coliform members as shown in Figure 2-4 include Citrobacter, Enterobacter, Escherichia,
and Klebsiella. Many of these bacteria are found naturally in the intestines of humans and
animals, and some are even found naturally in soil and water. E. coli represents the majority
and is found exclusively in the intestines of humans and animals. The family
Enterobacteriaceae encompasses E. coli and all members of the coliform group and includes
foodborne pathogens Salmonella, Shigella, and Yersinia. The Enterobacteriaceae may be
superior to coliforms as have collectively greater resistance to the environment.

Shigella
Enterobactericeae
Yersinia Salmonella

Total Coliform

Fecal Coliform

E. Coli

Pathogenic
E.Coli

Figure 2-4: The Coliform Members

Fecal Coliform: These organisms are a subset of the total coliform group. They are
considered a better indicator of fecal contamination than the coliform group.
Escherichia coli: E. coli is present in all mammalian feces at high concentrations; it does not
multiply appreciably, but can survive in water for weeks, and so it is useful as an indicator of
fecal pollution of drinking water systems.

Vibro cholera: cause Cholera,

Salmonella typhosa: Typhoid fever, gastrointestinal disorders, high fever, ulceration of the
intestines, and possible nerve damage

Shigella; Shigellosis (dysentery), severe diarrhoea

Iron bacteria: In water containing Ferrous and Manganous salts, oxidation by iron bacteria
may cause rust-coloured deposits on the walls of tanks, pipes and channels and carry-over of
deposits into the water.

Cyanobacteria and algae: Blooms of cyanobacteria and other algae in reservoirs and in river
waters may impede coagulation and filtration, causing coloration and turbidity of water after
filtration. Some cyanobacterial products such as cyanotoxins cause health problems. However
the production by cyanobactera chemical effects on taste does not seem to be linked to the
production of cyanotoxins.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-11
2.2.5.4. Protozoa
The two protozoa of the most concern are Giardia and Cryptosporidium. Giardia and
Cryptosporidium form dormant and hardy forms called cysts during their life cycles. The cyst
forms are resistant to chlorine, and can pass through the filters used in many water treatment
plants. If ingested in drinking water they can cause weakening and prolonged diarrhoea in
humans, and can be life threatening to those people with impaired immune systems.

2.2.5.5. Actinomycetes and fungi

Abundant in surface water sources, including reservoirs, and they can grow on unsuitable
materials in the water supply distribution systems. They produce substances, resulting in
objectionable tastes and odours in the drinking water.

2.2.5.6. Invertebrate animal life (Chironomidae Insect)

Naturally present in many water resources used as sources for the supply of drinking-water.
Small numbers of invertebrates may also pass through water treatment works where the
barriers to particulate matter are not completely effective and colonize filters or the
distribution system. Such as the crustaceans Freshwater shrimp), Cyclops spp, snails, zebra
mussel, other bivalve molluscs and nematodes and the larvae of chironomids.

Figure 2-5: Invertabrate animal life

Filter sand bed is dominated by the chironomid larvae due to a continuous supply of
particulate food passing through, and becoming trapped at, the filter surface and are nuisance
and difficult to avoid.

2.2.6. Algae and Eutrophication

Algae are simple forms of plant life that exist in relatively clean water, are widely distributed
in nature, and usually present in lakes, ponds, and streams. Most of the algae are microscopic
in size and vary from single cells to filaments, chains or groups of cells. Their presence
normally does not constitute a health risk.

Eutrophication is the enrichment of a water body with nutrients, usually with an excess
amount of nutrients. This process induces growth of plants and algae and due to the biomass
load, which creates "bloom" or great increase of phytoplankton in a water body as a response
to increased levels of nutrients. Since algae are aquatic plants, they require the same
conditions (sunlight and nutrients) as land plants. Algae analysis has shown that as much as
ten percent of the weight of algae is nitrogen and that they contain significant amounts of
phosphorus. Nitrogen and phosphorus are important components of fertilizers.

Eutrophication (growths of Algae) is usually induced by three factors that are light,
temperature, the nutrients (phosphorous and nitrogen). Other factors, such as area, shape, and
depth of water surface also influence the growth of different types of algae. Acidity or
alkalinity, and retention time of the water also affect algal growth. A number of properties and
reactions in the environment also influence growth of algae. Nutrients are the discharge of
phosphate-containing detergents, run-off from fertilizer, and animal, domestic, and industrial
waste.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-12
When algae die, they decompose and the nutrients contained in that organic matter are
converted into inorganic form by microorganisms. This decomposition process consumes
oxygen, which reduces the concentration of dissolved oxygen. The depleted oxygen levels in
turn may lead to fish kills.

There are six commonly measured variables, which are widely acceptable as good indicators
of the tropic state or level of the lake or tank: chlorophyll a (Chl-a), Secchi depth (SD), total
phosphorus (T-P), Total nitrogen (T-N), Hypolimnetic Volumetric Oxygen Depletion Rate
(HVODR), and phytoplankton species and biomass. In order to evaluate the tropic state of the
tank, following classification is used as given in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Classification of Trophic state

Trophic state Chl-a (µg/L) T-P(mg/L) T-N(mg/L) SD(m) I-TSI*
Oligotrophic <8 0.01 0.2-0.4 >3 <30
Mesotrophic 8-25 0.01-0.035 0.4-0.6 3-1.5 30-60
Eutrophic 25-75 0.035-0.1 0.6-1.5 1.5-0.7 >60
Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the Team I-TSI: Integrated Tropic
State Index.

2.2.6.1. Cyanobacteria
Cyanobacteria, also called blue-green algae, is a common and naturally occurring component
of most aquatic ecosystem and contaminate natural and man-made bodies of water. They also
occur on rocks and soil, and in symbiosis with plant and fungi.

2.2.7. Radioactive materials

Radionuclides are unstable atoms that spontaneously disintegrate, according to the type of
energy released from a portion of their nucleus as radioactivity in three forms:
1. Alpha radiation, consisting of large, positively charged particles made up of two
protons and two neutrons (the same as a helium nucleus)
2. Beta radiation, consisting of electrons or positrons
3. Gamma radiation, consisting of electromagnetic, wave-type energy, such as X rays

Elements heavier than lead, such as radon, radium, thorium, and uranium isotopes, decay by
the release of alpha, alpha and gamma, or beta and gamma emissions. Radionuclides lighter
than lead generally decay by beta and gamma emissions.

Natural radiation is found in elements in the Earth's crust [potassium- 40 (40K)]. Another
source of natural radiation results from cosmic ray bombardment in the atmosphere [tritium
(3H) and carbon-14 (14C)]. Other high-atomic-weight, naturally occurring isotopes found in
natural water include uranium-238, thorium-232, uranium-235 and breakdown products as
radium-226 and radium-228. The units of radiation measurements are curies (CI) or rems [CI
= 3.7 X 1010 nuclear transformations per second; picocurie (pCI) = 10-12 CI]. A rem is the
radiation dose producing the same biological effect (rem = absorbed dose X quality factors).

Each type of radiation has different health effects. For example, alpha particles travel at
velocities up 107 m/sec. When ingested the relatively massive alpha particles can very
damaging to body tissue. Beta particles travel at about the speed of light, penetrate to greater
depth because of their smaller mass and create less damage. Gamma radiation penetrates
deeply, but has limited effects at low levels. The damage to the body from drinking water
compared to natural background radiation is low; however, the potential harm exists from any
level of radiation.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-13
2.3. Water Quality Guidelines and Standards
The primary aim of the WHO Guidelines is the protection of public health. These Guidelines
are published primarily as a basis for the development of national drinking water standards,
which, if properly implemented, will ensure the safety of drinking water supplies by
eliminating known hazards. The WHO Guidelines provide the recommendations for
managing the risk from hazards that may compromise the safety of drinking water. These
Guidelines values are not mandatory limits.

The Guidelines are utilized primarily by water and health regulators, policymakers and their
advisors, to assist in the development of national standards, in the context of local or national
environmental, social, economic, and cultural conditions.

2.3.1. Drinking Water Quality Standard

The first drinking water standard for Sri Lanka has been established by Sri Lanka Standard
institution under SLS: 614 in 1983 for Physical, Chemical and Bacteriological aspects. This
standard has been revised in 2013 according to the current needs based on the latest WHO
edition under SLS: 614: 2013. This standard provides the information on microbial, chemical,
radiological and acceptability (Physical) features of safe drinking water.

Sri Lankan Standard Institution updates the SLS standards and if the water quality parameter
is not specified in SLS standard the guideline value of WHO or international standards is
applicable with justification. Table 2-4 provides the specification for potable water in Sri
Lanka.

Table 2-4: Specification for Potable water SLS: 614:2013

Physical and organoleptic requirement
SI .No. Characteristic Unit Requirement Method of test
I Colour CTU 15 APHA 2120 B
Ii Odour Unobjectionable Sensory evaluation
Iii Taste Unobjectionable Sensory evaluation
Iv Turbidity NTU 2# APHA 2130 B
V pH at 25ºC 6.5 to 8.5 APHA 4500 H+B
Note: # = for detail explanation refer section 6.4.2
Chemical Requirement
I Aluminium (as Al) mg/L 0.2 APHA 3113 - B
II Free Ammonia (as NH3) mg/L 0.06 Appendix A
Albiminoid ammonia mg/L 0.15 Appendix A
III Anionic detergents ( as MBAS) mg/L 0.2 APHA5540 - C
IV Calcium (as Ca) mg/L 100 APHA 3500-Ca B
V Chloride (as Cl) mg/L 250 APHA 4500-CI B
VI Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) mg/L 10 APHA 5220 B
VII Copper (as Cu) mg/L 1.0 APHA 3111 B
VIII Fluoride (as F-) mg/L 1.0 APHA 4500-F- B
IX Residual free chloride mg/L 0.5 APHA 4500-CI G
X Iron (as Fe) mg/L 0.3 APHA 3500-Fe B
XI Magnesium ( as Mg) mg/L 30 APHA 4500-Mg B
XII Manganese (as Mn) mg/L 0.1 APHA 3111 B
XIII Nitrate (as NO3 -) mg/L 50 APHA 4500-NO3-E
XIV Nitrite (as NO2-) mg/L 3 APHA 4500-NO2- B
XV Nickel (as Ni) mg/L 0.02 APHA 3111 B
XVI Oil and grease mg/L 0.2 APHA 5220 B
XVII Phenolic compounds (as C6H5OH) mg/L 0.001 APHA 5530 B & D
XVIII Sodium (as Na) mg/L 200 APHA 3111 B
XIX Sulphate (as SO42-) mg/L 250 APHA 4500-SO42-E

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-14
XX Total alkalinity (as CaCO3) mg/L 200 APHA 2320 B
Limit Method of test
SI
Characteristic (mg/L)
No. Referee Method Alternative method
Maximum
XXI Total dissolved solids mg/L 500 APHA 2540 - C
XXII Total hardness (as CaCO3 ) mg/L 250 APHA 2340 - C
XXIII Total phosphates (as PO43-) mg/L 2.0 APHA 4500-PC
XIV Zinc (as Zn) mg/L 3.0 APHA 3111 B
Limits for toxic substances
I Arsenic (a As) 0.01 APHA 3111 C
Ii Cadmium (as Cd) 0.03 APHA 3111 B ICP-MS(APHA3125,
EPA 200.8
Iii Chromium (as Cr-) 0.05 APHA 3111 C
Iv Cyanide (as CN) 0.05 APHA (4500 –CN APHA 4500 CN G
C; EPA 335.4 APHA 4500 CN H
V Lead (as Pb) 0.01 APHA 3111 B
ICP-MS(APHA3125,
VI Mercury (as Hg) 0.001 APHA 3111 B
EPA 200.8
VII Selenium (as Se) 0.01 APHA 3114 C

The faecally derived pathogens are the principal concerns in setting health-based targets for
microbial safety. The two indicator organisms proposed in the standard are coliform bacteria
and E.coli bacteria (provides the evidence of recent faecal contamination of water). Total
coliforms and E.coli should be absent immediately after disinfection until it reach to
consumer point. However SLS: 614 allowed three coliform bacteria at the user point but no
E.coli shall be present. In addition, it mentions that no microscopic organisms such as algae,
zooplankton, flagellate and parasites should be present in water.

The physical parameters such as, colour, taste, odour and turbidity provides aesthetically
acceptance by consumers. Taste and odour in drinking water indicate some form of pollution
or of a malfunction during water treatment or distribution due to the presence of potentially
harmful substances. Although WHO guideline has not set any targets for these category
parameters, SLS has defined the value for Colour as 5 Pt Co unit and Turbidity as 2 NTU,
which guide to maintain the treatment plant operation. In the meantime, WHO has defined the
turbidity level should be less than 0.5 NTU for effective disinfection. Although SLS:
614:2013 specify Turbidity as 2 NTU, NWSDB should achieve 0.2 NTU in designing of
water treatment plants for filtered water and for further explanation refer section 6.2.4.

The pH is an important operational water quality parameter and no health concern levels
found in drinking water but SLS set value is 6.5 – 8.5 for pipe born water supply for the
protection due to corrosion. No health-based WHO guideline value is proposed for chloride
and Hardness in drinking water. However, chloride concentrations give a detectable taste in
excess about 250 mg/L, and this has been proposed in the SLS. Similarly no health
concerning values are proposed for Iron, Manganese, Potassium, Sodium, sulphate and total
dissolved solids in WHO guideline values but excess concentrations will affect acceptability
of drinking water. These values have been set as the SLS standard values.

The nutrients levels, Nitrate 50 mg/l as Nitrate ions and Nitrite 3 mg/l (as nitrite ion) is
established in both standards to protect against methaemoglobinaemia (Blue baby syndrome)
in bottle-fed infants.

Further, the SLS has reduced in the amendment for the parameters concerning toxic
substances (Arsenic, Lead, Selenium, Mercury, Cadmium and Cyanide) due to the growing
health issues in the island like CKDu. In addition, new parameters have been introduced in the
new edition for algal toxins for Cylindrospermopsin and Microcystins for the protection of
public health as given in Table 2-5.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-15
Table 2-5: Proposed guideline values of cyanotoxins in drinking water in Sri Lanka
Parameter Desirable Level Permissible Level
Microcystin-LR (MC-LR), μg/l 1 3
Cylindrospermopsin, μg/l 2 5

2.3.2. Standard for the inland surface waters used as raw water
The Table 2-6 provides the tolerance limits for inland surface waters used as raw water for
public water supply in Sri Lanka.
Table 2-6: Tolerance limits for inland surface waters used as raw water for public water supply:
SLS 722: 1985
No Determinant Unit Tolerance limit
1 Coliform organisms – MPN /100 Not more than 5000 with less than 5% of the samples
(Monthly average) mL with value 20,000 and less than 20% of the samples
with the value 5000
2 pH 6.0 – 9.0
3 Chloride mg/L 1,200 max
4 Nitrate (as N) mg/L 10 max
5 Fluoride (as F) mg/L 1.5 max
6 Phenolic compounds (as mg/L 0.005 max
phenolic OH)
7 Oils and grease mg/L 0.1 max
8 Pesticide residue mg/L WHO Requirement
9 Arsenic (as As) mg/L 0.05 max
10 Cyanide (as CN) mg/L 0.05 max
11 Lead (as Pb) mg/L 0.1 max
12 Mercury (as Hg) mg/L 0.001 max
13 Selenium (as Se) mg/L 0.05 max
14 Chromium (as Cr) mg/L 0.05 max
15 Dissolved oxygen (as DO) mg/L 4 min
16 Biochemical Oxygen Demand mg/L 5 max
17 Radioactive material
Alpha emitters µc/mL 10-9
Beta emitters µc/mL 10-8

Central Environmental Authority has the following tolerance limit for effluents discharge for
different purposes as listed below.

1. Tolerance Limits for the Discharge of Industrial Waste in to Inland Surface Waters
2. Tolerance Limits for Industrial Waste Discharged on Land for Irrigation Purpose
3. Tolerance Limits for Industrial and Domestic Waste Discharged in to Marine Coastal
Areas
4. Tolerance Limits for Waste from Rubber Factories being Discharged into Inland Surface
Waters
5. Tolerance Limits for Waste from Textile Industry being Discharged into Inland Surface
Waters
6. Tolerance Limits for Waste from Being Discharged from Tanning Industries
7. Tolerance Limits for Discharge of Effluents into Public Sewers with Central Treatment
Plants

Table 2-7 summarizes the definitions related to water quality and pollution control in order to
understand various terms.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-16
Table 2-7: Definitions related to water quality and pollution control
Term Definition
Water quality criterion Numerical concentration or narrative statement recommended to
(synonym: water quality guideline) support and maintain a designated water use
Water quality objective A numerical concentration or narrative statement which has been
(synonyms: water quality goal or established to support and to protect the designated uses of water at
target) a specific site, river basin or part(s) thereof
Water quality standard An objective that is recognized in enforceable environmental control
laws or regulations of a level of Government
Precautionary principle The principle, by virtue of which action to avoid the potential
adverse impact of the release of hazardous substances shall not be
postponed on the ground that scientific research has not fully proved
a causal link between those substances, on the one hand, and the
potential adverse impact, on the other

2.4. Health and Aesthetic Aspects of Water Quality

Health and aesthetics are the principal motivations for water treatment. With the identification
in water of low levels of potentially harmful organic compounds, a coliform-free and low-
turbidity water is no longer sufficient. New information regarding inorganic contaminants,
such as lead, is forcing suppliers to tighten control of water quality within distribution
systems. Increasing pressures on watersheds have resulted in a heavier incoming load of
microorganisms to many treatment plants. Although a similarly intense re-evaluation of the
aesthetic aspects of water quality has not occurred, aesthetic quality is important. Problems,
such as excessive minerals, fixture staining, and colour, do affect consumer acceptance of the
water supply. However, significant advances in the identification of taste- and odour causing
organisms and their metabolites have occurred recently.

2.4.1. Pathogenic Organisms

Disease-causing organisms are called pathogens. Pathogens that have been implicated in
waterborne disease include bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and algae. Table 2-8 lists known or
suspected waterborne pathogens, the diseases they cause and where the organism is
commonly found.

Table 2-8: Potential Waterborne Disease-Causing Organisms

Organism Major disease Primary source
Bacteria
Salmonella typhi Typhoid fever Human feces
Salmonella paratyphi Paratyphoid fever Human feces
Other Salmonella sp. Gastroenteritis (salmonellosis) Human/animal feces
Shigella Bacillary dysentery Human feces
Vibrio cholera Cholera Human feces, coastal water
Pathogenic Escherichia coli Gastroenteritis Human/animal feces
Yersinia enterocolitica Gastroenteritis Human/animal feces
Campylobacter jejuni Gastroenteritis Human/animal feces
Legionella pneumophila Legionnaires’ disease, Pontiac fever Warm water
Mycobacterium avium Pulmonary disease Human/animal feces, soil, water
intracellulare
Pseudomonas aeruginosa Dermatitis Natural waters
Aeromonas hydrophila Gastroenteritis Natural waters
Helicobacter pylori Peptic ulcers Saliva, human feces?
Enteric viruses
Poliovirus Poliomyelitis Human feces

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-17
Coxsackievirus Upper respiratory disease Human feces
Organism Organism Organism
Echovirus Upper respiratory disease Human feces
Rotavirus Gastroenteritis Human feces
Norwalk virus and other Gastroenteritis Human feces
caliciviruses
Hepatitis A virus Infectious hepatitis Human feces
Hepatitis E virus Hepatitis Human feces
Astrovirus Gastroenteritis Human feces
Enteric adenoviruses Gastroenteritis Human feces
Protozoa and other organisms
Giardia lamblia Giardiasis (gastroenteritis) Human and animal feces
Cryptosporidium parvum Cryptosporidiosis (gastroenteritis) Human and animal feces
Entamoeba histolytica Amoebic dysentery Human feces
Cyclospora cayatanensis Gastroenteritis Human feces
Microspora Gastroenteritis Human feces
Acanthamoeba Eye infection Soil and water
Toxoplasma gondii Flu-like symptoms Cats
Naegleria fowleri Primary amoebic meningoencephalitis Soil and water
Blue-green algae Gastroenteritis, liver damage, nervous Natural water and air
system damage
Fungi Respiratory allergies Air, water, food and soil

2.4.2. Aesthetic Quality

In addition to health issues, consumer satisfaction and confidence are also important.
Aesthetic components of drinking water quality include taste and odour, turbidity, colour,
mineralization, hardness, and staining. These problems can originate in source water, within
the treatment plant, in distribution systems, and in consumer plumbing. Many are addressed
Drinking Water Regulations. Aesthetic problems can be caused by some natural or
commercial inorganic and organic chemicals, as well as by organisms. Table 2-9 provides
the aesthetic quality related diseases and WHO guideline values.

Table 2-9: Aesthetic Quality related diseases and WHO guideline values
WHO guideline
Parameters Diseases
values
01 pH Extreme pH greater than 11 causes irritation to the eyes, skin, hair No health-based
fibres to swell and mucous membranes. guideline value is
Lower pH below pH 4, causes redness and irritation of the eyes. Also, proposed.
can affect the degree of corrosion of metals as well as disinfection
efficiency, leads to an indirect effect on health.
Below pH 2.5, damage to the epithelium is irreversible and extensive
02 Colour Colour is not injurious to health but is objectionable. No health –based
Typical finished waters have colour values ranging from 3 to 15. guideline value is
proposed.
03 Turbidity Health effect may cause due to suspended particles or colloidal caused Below 0.2 NTU
by inorganic, organic or microorganisms (bacteria, viruses and is recommended
protozoa) are typically attached. for effective
disinfection
04 TDS water becomes significantly unpalatable at levels greater than about 1500 mg/L
1000 mg/l
05 Alkalinity Acceptable limit is 500 mg/L. Acceptable limit
Excessive alkalinity may cause stomach trouble and encrustation of is 500 mg/L.
utensils, pipes and heaters. If the alkalinity is too low, pH changes
from acidic to basic rapidly. Water with low alkalinity can also be
corrosive and can irritate the eyes. Water with high alkalinity has a
soda-like taste and can dry out the skin.
06 Hardness High hardness may affect acceptability of drinking water and form No health based
deposits of calcium carbonate scale on pipes and plumbing, guideline value is
precipitation in boilers and heat exchangers adversely affects heat proposed.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-18
 transfer
2.4.2.1. Mineralization
Waters with high levels of salts, measured as TDS, may be less palatable to consumers and
depending upon the specific salts present, may have a laxative effect on the transient
consumer. High levels of sulphates are implicated in this latter aspect. Sulphate may also
impart taste, at levels above 300 to 400 mg/L. Concentrations of chloride above 250 mg/L
may give water a salty taste.

High salts can also adversely affect industrial cooling operations, boiler feed, and specific
processes requiring softened or demineralized waters, such as food and beverage industries
and electronics firms. Typically, high salts will force these industries to pretreat their water.
High levels of chloride and sulphate can accelerate corrosion of metals in both industrial and
consumer systems. Removal of salts requires expensive treatment, such as demineralization
by ion exchange, electrodialysis, or reverse osmosis, and is not usually done for drinking
water. For excessively high-salt water, blending with lower-salt supplies may reduce the
problem.

2.4.2.2. Staining
Staining of laundry and household fixtures can occur in waters with iron, manganese, or
copper in solution. In oxygenated surface waters of neutral or near neutral pH (5 to 8), typical
concentrations of total iron (mostly the ferric form) are around 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L. In
groundwater, the occurrence of iron at concentrations of 1.0 to 10 mg/L is common. Higher
concentrations (up to 50 mg/L of mostly the ferrous form) are possible in low-bicarbonated,
low-oxygen waters.

If water has iron, red-brown ferric hydroxide precipitates on fixtures and laundry as soon as
oxygen begins to dissolve in the water. The ferrous ion is oxidized to the ferric form by the
oxygen. Manganese is often present with iron and may cause similar staining problems,
yielding a red precipitate or, with the use of bleach, a dark brown to black staining precipitate.
Excess copper in water may create blue stains.

2.4.3. The Health Effects of Chemicals

Every chemical has an effect, some of them adverse, on living organisms exposed to it.
Toxicology, the study of the adverse effects of chemicals on living organisms, provides a
means of evaluating and understanding these effects. Epidemiology, the study of the
distribution and determinants of diseases and injuries, can also provide evidence of chemical
toxicity. Exposure to carcinogenic chemicals or materials like arsenic, benzene, vinyl
chloride, asbestos, cigarette smoke, and radiation was first linked to the induction of cancer by
epidemiologic studies. The heath effect of chemicals and WHO guideline values (GV) are as
given in Table 2-10.

Table 2-10: Chemical related diseases and WHO guideline values

WHO guideline
Parameters Diseases
values
01 Chloride High concentrations give a salty taste. No health –based
At 500 – 1000 mg/L content water will be unpalatable. guideline value is
Water containing more than 4,000mg/L is unsafe. proposed.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-19
02 Chlorine Chlorination can kill many pathogenic (disease causing) 5 mg/L
microorganisms.
Cryptosporidium and Giardia, are very resistant to chlorine.
Chlorine can react with other organic material in drinking
water and form carcinogenic chemicals called
Trihalomethanes (THMs), this have been shown to be
potentially carcinogenic (cancer causing).

WHO guideline
Parameters Diseases
values
03 Calcium & Affect the acceptability of drinking water, Not available
Magnesium
04 Sulphate High concentration cause noticeable taste. 400 mg/L
High sulphate intake cause gastrointestinal effects resulting
from ingestion.
05 Fluoride High fluoride intake can give rise to dental fluorosis, an 1.5 mg/L
unsightly brown mottling of teeth and skeletal fluorosis, a
condition arising from increasing bone density and which can
eventually lead to fractures and crippling skeletal deformity.
06 Nitrate & Nitrite In bottle-fed infants methaemoglobinaemia (Blue-baby 50 mg/L
syndrome). Lack of oxygen transportation to the blood 3 mg/L
vessels.
06 Phosphate Important substances in human body.
07 Free Ammonia Cause taste and odor problem in drinking water. Not available
08 Dissolved Depletion of dissolved oxygen can encourage the microbial No health-based
Oxygen reduction of nitrate to nitrite and sulphate to sulphide. Also, guideline value is
cause an increase in the concentration of ferrous iron in recommended.
solution, with subsequent discoloration at the tap when the
water is aerated.
Very high levels of dissolved oxygen may exacerbate
corrosion of metal pipes.

2.4.4. Inorganic Constituents

Inorganics found in drinking water represent a variety of health concerns. Some are known or
suspected carcinogens, such as arsenic, lead, and cadmium. A number of inorganics are
essential to human nutrition at low doses, yet demonstrate adverse health effects at higher
doses. These include chromium, copper, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, selenium, zinc, and
sodium. Two inorganics, sodium and barium, have been associated with high blood pressure.
Numerous reports have also shown an inverse relationship between water hardness and
hypertensive heart disease, but this is under continuing investigation. Table 2-11 provides the
related diseases and WHO guideline values of metals.

Table 2-11: Metals related diseases and WHO guideline values

Nos Parameters Disease Guideline values
01 Aluminum Excess exposure is related to nerve damage, allergies, 0.2 mg/L
and carcinogenic
02 Arsenic Arsine is considered to be the most toxic form, 0.05 mg/L
followed by the arsenites, the arsenates and organic
arsenic compounds.
They cause liver and nervous system damage,
vascular disease and also skin cancer.
03 Cadmium Kidney disease, hypertension, and possibly genetic 0.003 mg/L
mutation
04 Chromium May cause lung tumors when inhaled and has adverse 0.05 mg/L
effects on aquatic life
05 Cyanide Highly acute toxic Occurs well below
concentrations in
drinking water.
06 Copper Levels above 5mg/L, copper give rise to a colour and 1 mg/L

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-20
 taste.
A large dose is dangerous to infants and people with
certain metabolic disorders. lack of copper intake
causes anaemia, growth inhibition, and blood
circulation problems
07 Iron Cause significant discoloration and turbidity. 0.3 mg/L
08 Manganese Cause significant discoloration and turbidity 0.4 mg/L

Nos Parameters Disease Guideline values

09 Lead Is a cumulative poison, that it remains in the body 0.01 mg/L
following exposure.
Lead is hazardous to health and affects the central
nervous system. Children and pregnant women are
most at risk.
Minor symptoms include abdominal pains, decreased
appetite, constipation, fatigue, and decreased physical
fitness.
Long-term exposure may cause kidney damage,
anemia, nerve and brain damage, and death.
10 Magnesium Quickly expelled from the bodies of healthy humans. 150 mg/L
People with kidney disease, however, may suffer from
hypertension, confusion, muscle weakness, and coma
11 Manganese Large doses causes headaches, laziness, irritability, 0.1 mg/L
restlessness, and weakness of the legs.
Long-term heavy exposure may result in a nervous
system disorder.
12 Mercury Large dose of mercury intake results in weakness, loss 0.006 mg/L
of appetite, insomnia, indigestion, diarrhea, gum
inflammation, loosening of the teeth, irritability,
memory loss, muscle tremors, and brain damage.
Methyl mercury causes Minamata disease.
13 Nickel Carcinogenic 0.07 mg/L

14 Potassium Affect only people have Kidney dysfunction, Hearth Below the health
diseases, coronary arteru diseases, coronary artery concern value
diseases, hypertension, diabetes etc.
15 Radon Carcinogen cause lung cancer
16 Selenium Large dose intake causes, growth inhibition, skin 0.01 mg/L
discoloration, bad teeth, and some psychological and
gastrointestinal problems.
A small amount of selenium has been shown to
protect against poisoning by such metals as mercury,
cadmium, and silver.
17 Silver Poisoning causes a blue-gray discoloration of the skin,
mucous membranes, and eyes,
High doses is fatal to humans.
18 Sodium Normal intake levels is beneficial to adults. However, 200 mg/L
people with heart disease or hypertension should
reduce sodium intake to lower the blood pressure.
19 Uranium It is a kidney toxin and associated with an increase in 0.30 mg/L
fractional calcium excretion and increased
microglobulinurea.
20 Zinc Essential trace element. High concentration may 3.0 mg/L
appear pale colour and develop a greasy film on
boiling.

2.4.5. Organic Constituents

Health aspects of organic constituents of interest in drinking water treatment are summarized
in water quality standard and shown in Table 2-12. One new area of health concern that has
developed during the 1990s is endocrine disruption caused by a wide variety of organic
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-21
compounds. In particular, disruption of the development and reproductive function by
chemicals that interfere with the function of thyroid and steroid hormones has affected
animals and humans. Certain pesticides, certain dioxin and PCB congeners, and nonylphenol
compounds (used in plastics and detergents) are among the chemicals of concern.
Table 2-12: Diseases caused by Pesticides and WHO guideline values
Nos Parameters Disease Guideline values
01 Aldrin and dieldrin Persistent Organic Pollutants. Highly toxic to human. 0.00003 mg/L
Effect central nervous system and the liver.
02 Carbofuran Highly toxic after acute oral administration. The main 0.007 mg/L
systemic effect of carbofuran poisoning in short-term
and long-term toxicity studies appears to be
cholinesterase (enzyme in the brain) inhibition. No
evidence of teratogenicity (disturb the development
of embryo) has been found in reproductive toxicity
studies. On the basis of available studies, carbofuran
does not appear to be carcinogenic or genotoxic
03 Chlorpyrifos Long term exposure inhibit the cholinesterase 0.03 mg/L
(enzyme hydrolyses esters).
04 Endosulfan Effect the kidney. 0.02 mg/L
05 Endrin Effect the central nervous system and carcinogenic 0.0006 mg/L
06 Glyphosate Low toxic. 0.9 mg/L
07 Petrochemicals Benzene and other petrochemicals can cause cancer
even at low exposure levels.
08 Algal toxins Microcystin-LR hepatotoxic, genotoxic, and 0.001 mg/L
carcinogenic

2.4.6. Disinfectants and Disinfection By-Products

Chlorine has been the primary drinking water disinfectant for more than 90 years. The other
major disinfectants used include chlorine dioxide, chloramines, and ozone. Other materials
that can act as disinfectants include potassium permanganate, iodine, bromine, ferrate, silver,
hydrogen peroxide, and ultraviolet (UV) light. Of these, potassium permanganate and UV
light are used to a limited extent, whereas iodine and bromine are rarely used, and the others
are even less established.

Chlorination can kill many pathogenic (disease causing) microorganisms such as E.coli, but
others, like Cryptosporidium and Giardia, are very resistant to chlorine and require other
measures to properly remove them. Although chlorination has been the most common method
of disinfection, chlorine in water can react with other innocent organic materials in drinking
water and form chemicals called Trihalomethanes (THMs), such as chloroform. THMs have
been shown to be potentially carcinogenic (cancer causing). There is a need to maintain
enough residual chlorine in the storage and distribution system to ensure proper disinfection.

Hence, water quality standards introduces new limits for total trihalomethanes (chloroform,
bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform), the sum concentration for
five haloacetic acids (mono-, di-, and trichloroacetic acids and mono- and dibromoacetic
acids), bromate, chlorite, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, chloral hydrate, and chloramines.
Systems using settling and filtration will also be required to achieve percent reductions of
total organic carbon, depending upon source water quality, and prior to disinfection.

2.4.7. Radionuclides
Radioactivity can cause developmental and teratogenic effect (disturb the development of
embryo), heritable genetic effects, and somatic effects including carcinogenesis. The
carcinogenic effects of nuclear radiations (alpha, beta, and gamma) on the cell are thought to
be ionization of cellular constituents leading to changes in the cellular DNA and followed by
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-22
DNA-mediated cellular abnormalities. All radionuclides are considered human carcinogens,
though their primary target organs and relative efficiencies differ.
Exposure to large amounts of radioactivity can cause nausea, vomiting, hair loss, diarrhea and
hemorrhage, destruction of the intestinal lining, central nervous system damage, and death. It
also causes DNA damage and raises the risk of cancer, particularly in young children.

2.4.8. Comparison of Guidelines and Standards

The comparison of drinking water quality standard of SLS: 614:2013 with European Union
and WHO (fourth edition -2011), USEPA guideline valuesare provided in Table 2-13.

Table 2-13: Comparison of SLS, EU and, USEPA,WHO guidelines

Chemical
No's Parameter Unit WHO USEPA EU SLS
Group
1 Acrylamide µg/L 0.5 - 0.1 Organic
2 Alachlor µg/L 2 2.0 - Organic
3 Aldicarb µg/L 10 - - Organic
4 Aldrin and Dieldrin µg/L 0.0 - - Organic
5 Antimony µg/L 20 6.0 5.0 Inorganic
6 Arsenic µg/L 10 10 10 10 Inorganic
Asbestos (million fibres>10µm per
7 µg/L - 7.0 - Inorganic
litre
Atrazine and its chloro-s-triazine
8 µg/L 100 3.0 - Organic
metabolites
9 Barium µg/L 700 2,000 - Inorganic
10 Benzene µg/L 10 5.0 1.0 Organic
11 Benzo[a]pyrene µg/L 0.7 0.2 0.0 Organic
12 Berylium µg/L - 4.0 - Inorganic
13 Boron µg/L 2,400 - 1,000 Inorganic
14 Bromate µg/L 10 10 10 DBP
15 Bromodichloromethane µg/L 60 - - DBP
16 Bromoform µg/L 100 - - DBP
17 Cadmium µg/L 3.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 Inorganic
18 Carbofuran µg/L 7.0 40 - Organic
19 Carbon tetrachloride µg/L 4.0 5.0 - Organic
20 Chloramines (as Cl) µg/L - 4,000 - Disinfectant
21 Chlorate µg/L 700 - - DBP
22 Chlordane µg/L 0.2 2.0 - Organic
23 Chlorine µg/L 5,000 4,000 - 1,000 Inorganic
24 Chlorine dioxide µg/L - 800 - Inorganic
25 Chlorite µg/L 700 1,000 - DBP
26 Chlorobenzene µg/L - 100 - Organic
27 Chloroform µg/L 300 - - DBP
28 Chlorotoluron µg/L 30 - - Organic
29 Chlorpyrifos µg/L 30 - - Organic
30 Chromium (total) µg/L 50 100 50 50 Inorganic
31 Copper µg/L 2,000 13,000 2,000 1,000 Inorganic
32 Cyanazine µg/L 0.6 - - Organic
33 Cyanide µg/L - 200 50 Inorganic
2,4-D (2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic
34 µg/L 30 70 - 50 Organic
acid)
35 Dalapon µg/L - 200 - Organic
2,4-DB (2,4-
36 µg/L 90 - - Organic
dichlorophenoxybutyric acid)
DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichlor
37 µg/L 1.0 - - Organic
ethane) and metabolites
38 Dibromochloromethane µg/L 100 - - DBP
39 1,2-Dibromo-3-chloropropane µg/L 1.0 0.2 - Organic
40 1,2-Dibromoethane µg/L 0.4 - - Organic

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-23
 41 Dichloroacetate µg/L 50 - - DBP
42 Dichloroacetonitrile µg/L 20 - - DBP
Chemical
No's Parameter Unit WHO USEPA EU SLS
Group
1,2-Dichlorobenzene (0-
43 µg/L 1,000 600 - Organic
dichlorobenzene)
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (p-
44 µg/L 300 75 - Organic
dichlorobenzene)
45 1,2-Dichloroethane µg/L 30 5.0 3.0 Organic
46 1,2-Dichloroethene µg/L 50 - - Organic
47 1,1-Dichloroethylene µg/L - 7.0 - Organic
48 cis-1,2-Dichloroethylene µg/L - 70 - Organic
49 trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene µg/L - 100 - Organic
50 Dichloromethane µg/L 20 5.0 - Organic
51 1,2-Dichloropropane µg/L 40 5.0 - Organic
52 1,3-Dichloropropene µg/L 20 - - Organic
53 Dichlorprop µg/L 100 - - Organic
54 Di(2-ethythexyl) adipate µg/L - 400 - Organic
55 Di(2-ethythexyl) phthalate µg/L 8.0 6.0 - Organic
56 Dimethoate µg/L 6.0 - - Organic
57 Dinoseb µg/L - 7.0 - Organic
58 1,4-Dioxane µg/L 50 - - Organic
59 Dioxin (2,3,7,8-TCDD) µg/L - 0.0 - Organic
60 Diquat µg/L - 20 - Organic
61 Edetic acid µg/L 600 - - Organic
62 Endothall µg/L - 100 - Organic
63 Endrin µg/L 0.6 2.0 - Organic
64 Epichlorohydrin µg/L 0.4 - 0.1 Organic
65 Ethylbenzene µg/L 300 700 - Organic
66 Ethylene dibromide µg/L - 0.1 - Organic
67 Fenoprop/Silvex/2,4'5-TP µg/L 9.0 50 - Organic
68 Fluoride µg/L 1,500 4,000 1,500 1,000 Organic
69 Glyphosate µg/L - 700 - Organic
70 Haloacetic acids (HAAs) µg/L - 60 - DBP
71 Heptachlor µg/L - 0.4 - Organic
72 Heptachlor epoxide µg/L - 0.2 - Organic
73 Heptachlorobenzene µg/L - 1.0 - Organic
74 Hexachlorobutadiene µg/L 0.6 - - Organic
75 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene µg/L - 50 - Organic
76 Hydroxyatrazine µg/L 200 - - Organic
77 Isoproturon µg/L 9.0 - - Organic
78 Lead µg/L 10 15 10 10 Inorganic
79 Lindane µg/L 2.0 0.2 - Organic
80 Mecoprop µg/L 10 - - Organic
81 Mercury µg/L 6.0 2.0 1.0 1.0 Inorganic
4-(2-Methyl-4-
82 µg/L 2.0 - - Organic
chlorophenoxy)acetic acid (MCPA)
83 Methoxychlor µg/L 20 40 - Organic
84 Metolachlor µg/L 10 - - Organic
85 Microcystin-LR µg/L 1.0 - - Algal toxic
86 Molinate µg/L 6.0 - - Organic
87 Monochloramine µg/L 3,000 - - Disinfectant
88 Monochloroacetate µg/L 20 - - DBP
89 Nickel µg/L 70 - 20 20 Organic
90 Nitrate (as NO3 ) µg/L 50,000 45,000 50,000 50,000 Organic
91 Nitrilotriacetic acid µg/L 200 - - Organic
92 Nitrite (as NO2 ) µg/L 3,000 4,500 500 3,000 Inorganic
93 N-Nitrosodimethylamine µg/L 0.1 - - DBP
94 Oxamyl (Vydate) µg/L - 200 - Organic
95 Pendimethalin µg/L 20 - - Organic

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-24
 96 Pentachlorophenol µg/L 9.0 1.0 - Organic
Chemical
No's Parameter Unit WHO USEPA EU SLS
Group
97 Pesticides µg/L - - 0.1 Organic
98 Pesticides (total) µg/L - - 0.5 Organic
99 Picloram µg/L 500 - Organic
100 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) µg/L 0.5 - Organic
101 Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons µg/L - 0.1 Organic
102 Selenium µg/L 40 50 10 10 Inorganic
103 Simazine µg/L 2.0 4.0 - Organic
104 Styrene µg/L 20 100 - Organic
105 Terbuthylazine µg/L 7.0 - - Organic
Tetrachloroethene
106 µg/L 40 5.0 - Organic
(Tetrachloroethylene)
107 Tetrachloroethene + trichloroethene µg/L - - 10 Organic
108 Thallium µg/L - 2.0 - Inorganic
109 Toluene µg/L 700 1,000 - Organic
110 Toxaphene µg/L - 3.0 - Organic
111 Trichloroacetate µg/L 200 - - DBP
112 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene µg/L - 70 - Organic
113 1,1,1-Trichloroethane µg/L - 200 - Organic
114 1,1,2-Trichloroethane µg/L - 5.0 - Organic
115 Trichloroethene µg/L 20 5.0 - Organic
116 2,4,6-Trichlorophenol µg/L 200 - - Organic
2,4,5-T (2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy
117 µg/L 9.0 - - Organic
acetic acid)
118 Trifluralin µg/L 20 - - Organic
119 Trihalomethanes(total) µg/L - 80 100 DBP
120 Vinyl chloride µg/L 0.3 2.0 0.5 Organic
121 Xylenes µg/L 500 10,000 - Organic

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-25
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2-26
CHAPTER 3

SAMPLING AND TESTING

3.1. Preliminary Water Quality Survey

Preliminary Water Quality Survey is an intensive programme to measure and observe the
quality of the aquatic environment of water for for drinking purposes in a finite duration.
Preliminary survey is likely to comprise frequent sampling, over a short period of time, of a
large number of points at the source for required parameters. The exact combination will
depend on the circumstances due to environmental, seasonal and human activities.
In assessment programs, this initial sampling shall be done to cover at least a year to complete
the full seasonal cycle. Overall process shall included the collection of data to
determinephysical, chemical and biological nature of the water. The process of survey should
start with an in-depth investigation of all factors and activities which exert an influence,
directly or indirectly, on water quality. Inventories have to be prepared on:
 The geographical features of the area, including: topography, lithology, climate, land-
use, hydrogeology, hydrologyetc. within the catchment area
 Water uses, including: dams, canals, water withdrawal for cities and industries,
agricultural activities, navigation, recreation, fisheries, etc.
 Pollution sources (present and expected), including: domestic, industrial and
agricultural, as well as their pollution control measures and waste treatment facilities
within the catchment
 study catchment characteristics immediate upstream

The key elements of Pre Water quality survey programme includes,

 Activities to determine the water quality parameters
 The type of monitoring media (Water,Sediments, aquatic species etc.)
 Pollutants
 Technical capabilityincluding human resources
 Logistic arrangements

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-1
  Financial availability for a complete monitoring programme

The above elements shall be implemented in the following steps:

1. Design of Monitoring programme:This includes the identification of the possible
pollutants, the selection of suitable water quality parameters, sampling location,
frequency and suitable season, selection of sampling apparatus, etc.
2. Field monitoring operations: These include in situ measurements, sampling of
appropriate media (Water,Sediments, and aquatic species), sample pretreatment and
preservation, identification and transportation.Three principal media can be used for
aquatic monitoring: water, particulate matter and living organisms (biota). The quality
of water and particulate matter is estimated through physical and chemical analysis.
Biological quality can be determined through specific ecological surveys (e.g.
invertebrate species or bacterial counts or Algae count).
3. Hydrological monitoring: This includes water discharge measurements, water levels,
seasonal variations (rainy and drought),thermal profiles (temperature variation along
the depth), etc., and should always be related to the water quality assessment activities.
4. Laboratory facilities: Identification of the laboratory facilities required for water
quality parameters.
5. Test Methods: All laboratory testing shall be Carried out in accordance with the SLS
614.
6. Data storage, analysis and reporting:This is computerized and involves the use of
databases, statistical analysis including trend analysis, multi-factorial correlation
(regression analysis), etc., and presentation and dissemination of results in appropriate
forms (graphs, tabulated data, data diskettes, etc.).
7. Interpretation of results:This involves comparison of water quality data between
stations, analysis of water quality trends, development of cause-effect relationships
between water quality data and environmental data (geology, hydrology, land use,
pollutant sources), and judgment of the adequacy of water quality for various uses
etc.And the accuracy of the test results. For more details of preliminary water quality
suvery, refer section 4.4.
Table 3.1: Types of Analysis
No. Types Parameters
1 Physical and organoleptic Colour, Taste & odour, Turbidity, pH
(Taste, Odour and colur)
requirements
2 Chemical requirement Aluminium, Ammonia, Anionic detergents, Calcium, Chloride, TDS, Free
Residual chlorine,Total hardness, Total Alkalinity, Iron, Sulphate,
T.Phosphate, Fluoride, Nitrite and Nitrate, Phenolic compounds,
Manganese, Magnesium & Calcium, Copper, Nickel, , Sodium, Zinc
3 Toxic substances Arsenic, Cadmium, Chromium, Cyanide, Lead, Mercury, Selenium
4 Organic analysis COD, BOD, Oil and grease, TOC, Poly aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
Phenolic compounds,
5 Disinfection by Products THM, Chloramine, Chlorate, Dibromochloromethane, Chloroform, Boron,
(DBPs) Bromodichloromethane, Bromoform
5 Bacteriological E.coli, coliform, Streptococcus faecalis and Clostridium perfringens
requirements
6 Algae Cylindrospermopsin, Microcystins
7 Pesticide residues Aldrin and dieldrin, Carbofuran, Chlordane, Chlorpyrifos, Endrin, etc.,
8 Filter media evaluation Particle size distribution, Uniformity coefficient, Effective size, Acid
solubility, Accumulated solid contents (g/L), Specific gravity, Ignition loss,
silica content, wearing loss.
9 Water Treatment Aluminium sulphate, Hydrated Lime, Polyaluminium chloride, Polymers,
chemicals Bleaching powder, Chlorine gas, Powdered activated carbon,
Polyacrylamide, Potassium permanganate

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-2
3.1.1. Basic Physical And Chemical Analysis
Source water shall be assessed for basic physical and chemical analysis for a year on a
monthly routine basis: Colour, Turbidity, Taste & odour, Temperature, Electrical
Conductivity, TDS, Chloride, Total hardness, Total Alkalinity, pH, Iron, Sulphate, Phosphate,
Fluoride, Free Ammonia, Nitrite, Nitrate, Manganese (Mn), Magnesium (Mg) and Calcium
(Ca). Data on water quality parameters in existing water supply schemes should be obtained
from NWS&DB laboratories where relevant.

3.1.2. Minor And Trace Inorganic Analysis (Metals And Heavy Metals)
Thesource water analysis for this category to be conductedon a monthly routine basis. Metals,
minor and trace inorganic constituents include : Aluminium (Al), Arsenic (As), Barium (Ba),
Beryllium (Be), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Cobalt (Co), Copper (Cu), Iron (Fe),
Lithium (Li), Lead (Pb), Manganese (Mn), Mercury (Hg), Molybdenum (Mo), Nickel (Ni),
Selenium (Se), Silver (Ag), Strontium (Sr) and Zinc (Zn).

3.1.3. Organic Analysis

Source water analysis for this category to be conducted on a monthly routine basis include
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), Extractable oil and
grease, Petroleum products, Total Organic Carbon (TOC), Poly aromatic hydrocarbons
(PAH), surfactants, Agrochemicals, and Phenolic compounds are included in this group.

UV254 is a measurement of the amount of light absorbed by organic compounds, specifically

those that contain aromatic rings or unsaturated bonds (double and triple) in their molecular
structures in a water sample eg: Humic substances. These compounds are known to be a
major precursor of DBP formation. Therefore, UV254 provides one of the best indications of
a water’s potential to form DBPs upon chlorine addition and should be monitored throughout
the treatment process to ensure organics are removed.

3.1.4. Biological Analysis

There are a number of diverse organisms that often have public health significance:
IncludesActinomycetes and fungi, Cyanobacteria and algae& Invertebrate animal life.
Monitoring of these organisms shall be conducted on monthly basis and seasonal.

3.1.5. Bacteriological Analysis

Assay and confirmation of the presence of the causative agent of waterborne diseases are
lengthy and time consuming. Instead of specific analyses, coliform and E.coli organisms have
been used to determine the micro biological characteristics of natural waters as an indicator
organisms. That is, if present, they indicate that there is a possibility, but not a certainty, that
disease organisms may also be present in the water.

Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a subgroup of the coliform family. Most E. coli bacteria are
harmless and live in the intestines of human and warm-blooded animals. The presence of E.
coli in a drinking water sample usually indicates recent fecal contamination. That indicates
there is a greater risk that pathogens are present.

However, water quality can vary rapidly, and all systems are at risk of occasional failure. For
example, rainfall can greatly increase the levels of microbial contamination in source waters,
and waterborne outbreaks often occur following rainfall. Results of analytical testing must be
interpreted taking this into account. The presence of indicator organism does require an
analysis of all water system facilities and their operation to determine how these organisms
entere into the water system. In such situation it is necessary to collect water samples

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-3
immediately and analyse the entire system. Collecting additional samples helps to determine
whether an actual problem exists or not.

The concentration of indicator organisms is reported in MPN/100 mL (MPN = Most Probable

Number) or in CFU/100 mL (CFU = Colony Forming Units).Other enteric organisms that are
also considered indicator organisms are fecal streptococci (Streptococcus faecalis) and
clostridia (Clostridium perfringens).

Note: For operational purposes above parameters shall be monitored on routine basis (daily,
monthly or quarterly) depend on the requirement.

3.1.6. Reservoirs and source water monitoring

Dissolved Oxygen (DO) greatly fluctuates seasonally and over a 24-hour period in streams
and reservoirs. The stream system gains oxygen from the atmosphere and from plants as a
result ofphotosynthesis. Running water gets mixed up and dissolves more oxygen than still
water, such as that in reservoir. Respiration by aquatic animals, decomposition, and various
chemical reactions consume oxygen. DO levels fluctuate with water temperature and altitude.
Cold water holds more oxygen than warm water and water holds less oxygen at higher
altitudes.

3.1.7. Filter Media Performance Determination

Filter media performance determination is to provide a quantitative evaluation of filter media
condition (cleanliness) and /or backwash efficiency. Media samples are taken in different
depths for the determination of accumulated solids at any particular layer, or a standard
300mm core sample can be taken for the determination of the total accumulated solids
remaining per volume of filter media.

The results in g/L are compared to those of a new media placed or specially washed used
media. A filter bed should be investigated at least twice per year to determine the condition of
the media in order to advise on maintenance or to evaluate filtration effectiveness. Need for
this type of determination shall be identified by the monitoring of filter effluent turbidities.

3.1.8. Water Treatment Chemicals

In addition, the Laboratory conducts analyses to measure the characteristics of treatment
chemicals. Aluminium sulphate, Hydrated Lime, Polyaluminium chloride, Bleaching powder,
powdered activated carbon, Polyacrylamide, and Potassium permanganate are commonly used
chemicals in water treatment. The application of chemicals and the dosing setup is described
in section 6.1.

3.2. Sampling Procedures for Chemical And Physical Analysis

The main consideration in sampling is to collect representative samples. A representative
sample is one that characterizes (“represents”) in time and space that the part of the aqueous
system to be studied, and is delineated by the objectives and scope of the study. The results of
water quality test mainly depend on sample collection procedure. Method of sample collection
varies according to the parameters.

There are two main techniques used to collect samples namely ; grab sampling and composite
sampling.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-4
3.2.1. Grab Sampling
A grab sample, also known as a catch sample, is the most common type of sampling method.
It consists of a single sample taken at a specific time, which is a snapshot of the
characteristics of the water at a specific point, and time. Therefore, it may not be completely
representative of the entire water body. On the other hand, grab samples do provide an
immediate sample thus preferred for some tests. Specifically, pH, dissolved oxygen, and total
residual chlorine that change very rapidly in the water.

Field or in-situ measurements are required for water quality parameters such as pH,
temperature, turbidity, dissolved oxygen and conductivity. For these parameters Grab sample
provide accurate results. Testing of Some ions, such as fluoride and sulphide can also be
determined using ion selective electrodes in the field, although their determination can be
subject to matrix interferences.

3.2.2. Composite Sampling

A composite sample consists of a mixture of several individual grab samples collected at
regular and specified periods at specific location and mixed together. Composite samples give
a more representative sample of the characteristics of water over a long period. Composite
samples are generally used to detect the source water pollution.

Whatever the method of sampling used, following points have to be considered before
collecting the sample:
 Sample drawn from a stream or river should not be collected too close to the bank or
too deep under the surface
 Sample should not be drawn from stagnated area
 In piped water systems, samples should be collected at all points representing the
distribution network
 Sample should be drawn from tap connected directly to the water main and not from
storage tanks
 Field measurements such as, temperature, pH, Dissolved Oxygen (DO), Conductivity
and Turbidity are conducted at the site of sample
 Avoid touching the inside or lip of the sample bottles or caps, wear gloves if necessary
(during collection of samples for trace metals)

3.2.3.
Stream, River or Lake Water Sampling
Collect the sample from the midstream 100 mm below the surface
Rinse container in stream water 3 times
Take samples by holding the bottle near its base in the hand and plunging it, neck
downward, below the surface. Turn bottle until neck points slightly upward and mouth
is directed toward the current. If there is no current, as in the case of a reservoir, create
a current artificially by pushing bottle forward horizontally in the direction away from
the hand
 When sampling from a boat, obtain samples from upstream side of boat or attach a
weight to base of bottle and lower it into the water
 Use large, clean container to collect water from soft-sediment streams to avoid
withdrawal of sediment from bottom

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-5
 Sample collection from surface Collection of sample from Well
water
Figure 3-1: Sample Collection
3.2.4. Dug Well, Tube Well and Well With Hand Pump and Other Devices
If the sample is to be taken from a well fitted with a hand pump, pump water to waste for
about 5 minutes before collecting sample. If the well is equipped with a mechanical pump,
collect sample from a tap on the discharge, after allowing to waste. If there is no pumping,
collect a sample directly from the well by means of a bottle fitted with a weight at the base
and that will take care to avoid contamination of samples by any surface scum.

Sample Containers and Labels: Sample must be collected in the correct volume sufficient
for the specific tests, with the right device and in the right container. Containers are usually
glass, polyethylene or polypropylene, and are selected based on their lack of interaction with
analytical parameters. Each water sample bottle must be labelled with a site code, a site
location description, sample collection time and date, analysis required, the initials of the
person collecting the water sample and accompanied by analysis request form showing the
required parameters. In addition, samples should be adequately preserved if required and
transported to the laboratory as quickly as possible. Label the bottle with the appropriate acid
sticker if preservative is added. Use clear tape to affix the label.

Table 3-1: Sample Label

Sample Label
SampleID: ………...…………………..
Date and Time of Sampling: ……………………………..
Sample Location: ……………………………..
Source of Sample: …………………………….
Sample collected By ……………………………..
Temperature: ……………………………..
Sample Preparation: …………………………….
Requested Parameters: …………………………….

3.2.5. Type of Container, Method of Preservation and Maximum Holding Time

Samples for physical and chemical analysis must be collected in cleaned plastic or glass
bottles. At least 2 litres of water sample need to be collected for the complete test. The type of
container, method of preservation and maximum holding time is given in the Table 3-2.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-6
Table 3-2: Handling of Samples
Maximum
Determination Container Preservation
holding time
1. BACTERIAL TESTS
Coliform, Colilert P, G & sterile Cool, 4°C, 0.008% Na2S2O3 6-24 hours
Coliform, Fecal and Total P,G& sterile Cool, 4°C, 0.008% Na2S2O3 6-24 hours
Fecal Streptococci P,G& sterile Cool, 4°C, 0.008% Na2S2O3 6-24 hours
2. INORGANIC TESTS
Acidity P,G Cool, 4°C 24 hours
Alkalinity P,G Cool, 4°C 24 hours
Ammonia P,G Filter and store 4°C 24 hours
Calcium P,G HNO3 to pH<2 6 months
Chloride P,G None Required 28 days
Chlorine, Total Residual P,G None Required 5 minutes
Chlorophyll G Amber Filter and freeze filter pater in dark 28 days
Color P,G Cool, 4°C 48 hours
Conductivity P,G Cool, 4°C 28 days
Ferrous Iron Acid washed P or Acidify with HCl acid to pH <2 24 hours
Iron total G 28 days
Fluoride P,G None Required 28 days
Hardness P,G HNO3 to pH<2 6 months
pH P,G None Required Immediately
Kjeldahl and Organic N2 P,G Freeze sample 28 days
Magnesium P Acidify with Nitric to pH<2 and cool to 28 days
4°C
Nitrate P,G Filter and freeze the sample 28 days
Nitrite P,G Freeze immediately 48 hours
Odour P,G Cool, 4°C, 6 hours
Oxygen, Dissolved (Winkler) GBOD bottle Fix on Site & Store in Dark 8 hours
Phenolic compounds G amber with Cool, 4°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 21 days
PTFE cap
Phosphorus, Total P,G Cool, 4°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days
Residue, Total P,G Cool, 4°C 24 hours
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) P,G Cool, 4°C 24 hours
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) P,G Cool, 4°C 24 hours
Silica P Only Filter and Cool, 4°C 28 days
Specific Conductance P,G Cool, 4°C 28 days
Sulfate P,G Cool, 4°C 7 days
Sulphide total P None Required immediately
Surfactants G rinsed with Cool, 4°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 48 hours
methanol
Temperature P,G None Required Immediately
Turbidity P,G Cool, 4°C 24 hours
3. METALS
Metals Acid washed P,G HNO3 to pH<2 cool to4°C 6 months
Chromium VI P,G Cool, 4°C 24 hours
Mercury Acid washed G HNO3 to pH<2 and potassium 28 days
dichromate.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-7
 Maximum
Determination Container Preservation
holding time
4. ORGANIC TESTS
Organic Carbon, Total (TOC) Amber glass with Cool, 4°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 07 days
OR PTFE cap liner
UV 254
Biochemical Oxygen Demand P,G Cool, 4°C 24 hours
(BOD)
Chemical Oxygen Demand P,G Cool, 4°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 07 days
(COD)
Oil and Grease Cool, 4°C, H2SO4 to pH<2 28 days
Phenols G, Teflon-Lined Cool, 4°C 7 days until
Pesticides Cap Cool, 4°C extraction; 40
days after
Chlorinated Herbicides Cool, 4°C extraction
Trihalomethanes G Airtight 14 days

Algae
Algal toxins Amber glass or Cool, stored in thedark Month (frozen)
Teflon
P= Polyethylene, G – Borosilicate Glass, PTFE : Polytetrafluoroethylene

3.2.6. Sampling Procedure for Bacteriological Analysis

Rainfall can greatly increase the levels of microbial contamination in sourcewaters, and
waterborne outbreaks often occur following rainfall. Results of analyticaltesting must be
interpreted taking these into account.Samples for Bacteriological analysis must be collected in
sterile glass bottles with sterile stoppers. Great care must be taken to avoid contamination of
the sample by touching the inside of the stopper or bottle neck or contamination from other
sources apart from the water being tested. In an emergency, thoroughly washed bottles can be
sterilized in the field by boiling them for five minutes. If the sample bottles are not properly
sterile, any bacteria present on them will make the analysis useless. Add a de-chlorinating
(Sodium thiosulfate (Na2S2O3))agent to containers before collecting water sample to
neutralizes any residual chlorine and prevents continuation ofbactericidal action during
sample transit. The total volume needed for bacteriological analysis is at least 200ml for
membrane filtration technique. Bottles should be labeled immediately after sampling and
stored in Cool, 4°C to avoid further bacterial growth.

1. When the sample is collected, leave ample air space in the bottle (at least 2.5cm) to
facilitate mixing by shaking, before examination.
2. Collect samples that are representative of the water being tested, flush or disinfect
sample ports and use disinfectant technique (UV or autoclave) to avoid sample
contamination.
3. Keep sampling bottle closed until it is to be filled.
4. Remove stopper or cap as a unit (a paper or foil hood over the stopper). Do not
contaminate inner surface of stopper or cap and neck of bottle.
5. Fill container without rinsing.
6. Place the removed stopper or cap immediately, secure hood around neck of bottle. A
paper or foil hood over the stopper and bottleneck is necessary.

3.3. Testing Methods of Water Quality Parameters

The method of testing of Water Quality Parameters and the required equipment are as shown
in Table 3-3.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-8
Table 3-3: The equipment and the method of testing of Water Quality Parameters
Nos Parameters Methods Required Equipment
Physical
01 Odour / Taste Organoleptic Sensory evaluation
Standard Colour Disks
03 Colour Visual comparison / Colorimetric
Spectrophotometer 400 – 700nm
04 Turbidity Light scattering pattern Turbidity meter
pH meter with glass electrode
1.Electrometric/ Potentiometric
05 pH Bromothymol Blue (BTB / Thymol
2.pH indicators
Blue (TB), Litmus papers
Oxidation-reduction indicator
06 ORP pH / ORP meter
Electrode
Conductivity meter with Platinum
07 Conductivity Specific conductance
electrodes
Total Dissolved Conductivity / TDS meter, Analytical
08 1.Conductivity 2.Gravimetry
Solids Balance
Chemical
01 Hardness EDTA titration method Titration
02 Calcium AAS, ICP, AAS , ICP
EDTA titration method Titration
03 Magnesium AAS, ICP, AAS, ICP,
Gravimetric method Electronic Balance
04 Chloride Argentometric (Silver Nitrate titration) Titration
05 Chlorine Iodometric method Titration
DPT colorimetry Spectrophotometer
06 Salinity Electrical conductivity method Conductivity meter
07 Sulphate Turbidimetric Colorimeter 420nm/
Spectrophotometer
08 Fluoride SPADNS method Colorimeter, Spectrophotometer
Iron selective Electrode Ion meter & Fluoride selective
Electrode
09 Alkalinity Titrimetric Titration
10 Nitrate UV spectrophotometric absorption UV Spectrophotometer
220nm
Electrode Method Nitrate Ion electrode
Cadmium Reduction
Phenoldisulphonic acid, Hydrazine Spectrophotometer / colorimeter
reduction method
11 Nitrite Colorimetric method Spectrophotometer / colorimeter
12 Phosphate Vanodomolybdo phosphoric Acid Colorimeter
method Spectrophotometer
Stannous chloride method
13 Free Ammonia Nesslerization Method Spectrophotometer
Ammonia selective electrode Selective Electrode
Titrimetric method Acid titration
14 Dissolved Oxygen Winkler Method with axide Iodometric Titration
modification Oxygen sensitive membrane
Membrane electrode method electrode
Metals
01 Aluminum AAS (Flame), ICP, AAS , ICP
Eriochrome cyanine method Spectrophotometer
02 Arsenic AAS (Vapour), ICP, AAS , ICP
Silver diethyldithiocarbamate Spectrophotometer
03 Cadmium AAS (Flame), ICP, AAS , ICP
Dithizone Spectrophotometer
04 Calcium AAS, ICP, AAS , ICP
EDTA titration method Titration
05 Chromium AAS (Flame), ICP, AAS , ICP
colorimetry Spectrophotometer
Nos Parameters Methods Required Equipment

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-9
 06 Chromium hexavalent Colorimetric, ICP/MS AAS , ICP
07 Copper AAS (Flame), ICP, AAS , ICP
Neocuproine method Spectrophotometer
08 Cyanide AAS, ICP AAS , ICP
Colorimetric (Spectrophotometer) Spectrophotometer
09 Iron AAS (Flame), ICP, AAS , ICP
Phenanthroline method Spectrophotometer
10 Lead AAS (Flame), ICP, Dithizone method AAS , ICP
(Spectrophotometry) Spectrophotometer
11 Magnesium AAS (Flame), ICP AAS , ICP
Gravimetric method Analytical balance
12 Manganese AAS (Flame), ICP, Persulphate AAS , ICP
method (Spectrophotometry) Spectrophotometer
13 Mercury AAS (Vapour)) AAS , ICP
14 Nickel AAS (Flame), ICP, AAS , ICP
15 Potassium Flame Photometric, AAS (Flame AAS , ICP
emission), ICP, Ion selective Electrode, Spectrophotometer
Spectrophotometry
16 Selenium AAS (Flame), ICP, Spectrophotometry AAS , ICPSpectrophotometer
17 Sodium Flame photometer, AAS (Flame AAS , ICP
emission), ICP,
18 Zinc AAS (Flame), ICP, Zincon method AAS , ICP
(Spectrophotometry) Spectrophotometer
Organic
01 BOD Titrimetric (Winkler method) Incubators
Respirometric method Respirometers
02 COD Open/ Close Reflux titrimetric method COD digesters 105°C, 2Hrs
03 TOC / DOC Combustion-infrared method TOC analyzer
Persulphate oxidation method
04 THM Liquid-Liquid Extraction Gas GC/MS
Chromatography (Purge and Trap )
05 Oil & Grease Solvent extraction gravimetry Electronic balance,
Soxhlet extration Soxhlet extraction apparatus
Partition- Infrared method
06 Phenols Chloroform extraction method Spectrophotometer
Direct photometric method
07 Polychlorinated Liquid-Liquid Extraction GC
Biphenyls (PCBs) GC or GC/MS GC/MS
08 Surfactants Colorimetry Sublation apparatus and
Spectrophotometer
09 Pesticides GC/MS, HPLC GC/MS, HPLC
Bacteriological Analysis
01 Total Coliform Membrane Filtration, Incubators
02 Faecal Coliform Most Probable Number (MPN),
03 Salmonella sp Hydrogen sulphide strip method
04 Total bacteria Pourplate
Cyanotoxins
01 Microcystin-LR ELISA or HPLC, Limit of Detection ELISA or HPLC,
(LOD) <0.1μg/l
02 Cylindrospermopsin ELISA or HPLC, Limit of Detection ELISA or HPLC,
(LOD) <0.1μg/l

Note: GC / MS = Gas Chromatography / Mass Spectrometry, ICP = Inductively Coupled Plasma, AAS =
Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry, HPLC = High Performing Liquid Chromatography Note that for testing
of Testing of Algae refer Annex reference on algal treatment.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-10
3.3.1. Testing of Petroleum Product / Petrochemical
Detailed physical and chemical properties are available for only about 250 petroleum
hydrocarbons. It is not practical to analyse for all possible petroleum hydrocarbons in water,
since it would be prohibitively costly to quantify each individual compound using current
analytical technology. The suitable approach to make the problem more manageable was to
divide Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) into a series of fractions based on the number of
carbon atoms in conjunction with general structure in Aromatic and Aliphatic fractions. The
approach taken within the petroleum industry is to refer to aliphatic and aromatic fractions on
the basis of their boiling point normalized to the boiling point of the n-alkanes or retention
time on a boiling point gas chromatographic column. This is characterized by the equivalent
carbon (EC) number. For example, the boiling point of hexane, which consists of six carbon
atoms, is 69 °C, and its EC number is 6. Benzene also consists of six carbon atoms, but its
boiling point is 80 °C, and its EC number is 6.5.

The methods for petroleum hydrocarbons are largely based on gas chromatography and liquid
chromatography. The use of infrared spectrometry for total hydrocarbons may be of value in
conjunction with analytical data on specific substances such as benzene and the low-
molecular-weight aromatic hydrocarbons. Taste and odour testing would also be a valuable
supplement parameter to chemical analysis.

3.3.2. Testing of Pesticide Water

Monitoring data for pesticides are generally poor in much of the world and especially in
developing countries. Many developing countries have difficulty in carrying out organic
chemical analysis due to problems of inadequate facilities, impure reagents, and financial
constraints. New techniques using immunoassay procedures for presence/absence of specific
pesticides may reduce costs and increase reliability. Another problem is that analytical
detection levels in routine monitoring for certain pesticides may be too high to determine
presence/absence for protection of human health. ND (not detectible) values, therefore, are
not an evidence that the chemical is not present in concentrations that may be injurious to
aquatic life and to human health. For pesticides that are highly soluble in water, testing must
be closely linked to periods of pesticide use.

3.4. Interpretation of Test Results

3.4.1. Interpretation of Physical results
3.4.1.1. Colour
Colour is generally not injurious to health but is objectionable. The substances in suspension
must be removed for obtaining true colour. Colour of less than 3 TCU (True Colour Unit) will
not be noticed. Consumers may notice when water colour aesthetically exceeding 15 TCU.
Drinking-water should ideally be colourless. Color can usually be removed from drinking
water by Granulated Activated Carbon (GAC) filters.

3.4.1.2. Turbidity
Turbidity in excess of 4 NTU may be noticeable and consequently objectionable to
consumers. Water is practically muddy at turbidity 500 NTU. Turbidity can seriously interfere
with the efficiency of disinfection by providing protection for organisms, and therefore the
water treatment is designed to remove particulate matter before disinfection. For effective
disinfection, turbidity should be less than 0.5 NTU.

3.4.1.3. pH
The pH is mostly a result of natural geological conditions at the site, the type of minerals
found in the local rock and can be affected by acid rain. No health-based guideline value is
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-11
proposed for pH. Although pH usually has no direct impact on consumers, it is one of the
most important operational water quality parameters. Exposure to pH greater than 11 or low
pH less than 4 results in similar effects in irritation to the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes.
In addition, pH can affect the degree of disinfection efficiency. For effective disinfection with
chlorine, the pH should preferably be in the range of 6.5 – 8.0. The water with a pH < 6.5
could be acidic, soft, and corrosive. Acidic water could contain metal ions such as iron,
manganese, copper, lead, and zinc metals some of which are toxic. While pH levels above 8.5
may create scaling problems and a bitter taste. Low pH water entering the distribution system
must be controlled to minimize the corrosion of water mains and pipes in household water
systems.

3.4.2. Chemical Analysis

Assessment of the chemical quality relies on comparison of the results of the water quality
analysis with Sri Lanka Standard values (given in chapter 2). Drinking-water standards are
setbased on the SLS &WHO Guidelines. A guideline value represents the concentration of a
constituent that does not exceedtolerable risk to the health of the consumer over a lifetime of
consumption. Re write this The test result exceeding of a guideline value does not necessarily
result in a significant risk but,showing an indication:
 at least to investigate the cause with a view to taking remedial action as necessary
 to consult with, and seek advice from, the authority responsible for public health

3.4.2.1. Alkalinity

The level of alkalinity is important in coagulation and flocculation process. Water with low
alkalinity is more difficult to form flocs and the alkalinity has to be increased by adding lime.
Removal of hardness by precipitation is aided by lime (Ca(OH)2) and soda ash
(Na2CO3).Alkalinity is important to control corrosion in piping systems.

Figure 3-2: Balis graph

Alkalinity, hardness, and pH interact to determine whether the water will produce scale or
corrosion or will be stable.The graph above is known as the Baylis Curve. It shows the
relationship between pH, alkalinity, and water stability. Water above the lines is scale-
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-12
forming while water below the lines is corrosive. Stable water is found in the white area
between the lines. The lower the alkalinity, the more likely water is to be corrosive. Water
with high alkalinity (greater than 150 mg/L) may contribute to scale buildup in plumbing
work. During the treatment process if the water in the scale forming range is fed to the filter,
the continuous scale deposits cause the filter sand to hardened. Hence required adjustment in
pH and Alkalinity shall be done in scale water prior to feed them in to the filters. Generally,
alkalinity should not be less than 30 mg/L nor higher than 400 mg/L.Also alkalinity is useful
to provide buffering reaction to adjust the pH changes. Moderate concentrations of alkalinity
are desirable in most water supplies to balance the corrosive effects of acidity. Strong alkaline
water has an objectionable "soda" taste.

3.4.2.2. Hardness, Calcium and Magnesium

Hardness in water is the traditional measure of the capacity of water to react with soap. Hard
water requiring considerably more soap to produce a lather. Hard water often produces a
noticeable deposit of precipitate (e.g. insoluble metals, soaps or salts) in containers, including
“bathtub ring”. Water containing concentrations below 60 mg/L is generally considered as
soft; 60–120 mg/l, moderately hard; 120–180 mg/l, hard; and more than 180 mg/l, very hard.
Although hardness is caused by cations, it may also be discussed in terms of carbonate
(temporary) and non-carbonate (permanent) hardness.Both calcium and magnesium are
essential minerals and beneficial to human health.

The taste threshold for the calcium ion is in the range 100–300 mg/L. Hardness levels above
500 mg/L are generally considered to be aesthetically unacceptable, although this level is
tolerated in some communities.

Depending on the interaction of other factors, such as pH and alkalinity, water with hardness
above approximately 200 mg/L may cause scale deposition in the distribution system as well
as sanitary installation and increased soap consumption. In contrast, soft water, with hardness
less than about 100 mg/L, has a greater tendency to cause corrosion of pipes, resulting in the
presence of certain heavy metals, such as cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc, in drinking-water.
The degree to which this corrosion and solubilization of metals occurs also depends on the
pH, alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen concentration.

3.4.2.3. Dissolved oxygen

No health based guideline value is recommended for dissolved oxygen. However, very high
levels of dissolved oxygen may aggravate corrosion of metal pipes.

3.4.2.4. Nitrates and Nitrite

Excessive concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen or nitrite-nitrogen in drinking water can be
hazardous to health, especially for infants and pregnant women. If nitrates are at levels above
10 mg/L as nitrate-nitrogen or 3 mg/l as nitrite-nitrogen, an infant may suffer from a condition
known as “blue baby syndrome” or methaemoglobinaemia. Blue baby syndrome is caused by
the nitrates interfering with the blood and decreasing the ability to carry oxygen throughout
the body.

The taste threshold for the calcium ion is in the range 100–300 mg/L. Hardness levels above
500 mg/L are generally considered aesthetically unacceptable, although this level is tolerated
in some communities.

Depending on the interaction of other factors, such as pH and alkalinity, water with hardness
above approximately 200 mg/L may cause scale deposition in the distribution system, water
meter as well as sanitary installation and increased soap consumption. In contrast, soft water,

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-13
with hardness less than about 100 mg/L, has a greater tendency to cause corrosion of pipes,
resulting in the presence of certain heavy metals, such as cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc, in
drinking water. The degree to which this corrosion and solubilisation of metals occurs also
depends on the pH, alkalinity, and dissolved oxygen concentration.

3.4.2.5. Chloride
Chloride will impart a salty or brackish taste to water, which will be noticeable around 250
mg/L. At 500 – 1000 mg/L content water will be unpalatable. Water containing more than
4,000 mg/L is unsafe. Salinity is a measure of the total salt concentration, comprised mostly
of Na+ and Cl- ions. This is most importantly measured when seawater mixes with
freshwater. Excessive chloride concentration increases the rate of corrosion of metals,
depending on the alkalinity of the water. This can lead to increased concentrations of metals
in the water supply.

3.4.2.6. Fluoride
Fluoride an essential element for human beings with regard to the prevention of dental caries
(tooth decay). Higher concentrations are often associated with groundwater. However
consumption of fluoride rich drinkingwater 3- 6 mg/L results in dental fluorosis and over 10
mg/L develops to crippling skeletal fluorosis, both effects being irreversible. WHO has
recommended a fluoride concentration of between 1.0 to 1.5mg/L in drinking water as the
optimum level that promotes dental as well as skeletal.

Another serious health problem with growing concern in the recent past is the Chronic Kidney
Disease of unknown aetiology (CKDu) among many people in the dry zone in some districts
of Sri Lanka. Statistically, it has been highlighted that this problem too, is common in the
areas of groundwater bearing high fluoride.

3.4.2.7. Sulphate
Levels of sulphate in rainwater and surface water correlate with emissions of sulfur dioxide
from anthropogenic sources. Seawater contains about 2700 mg/L. Recommended maximum
concentration is 250 mg/L for driking water. Excess sulphate in drinking-water cause
noticeable taste. High sulphate may contribute to the corrosion of distribution systems. No
health concern at levels found in drinking-water.

3.4.2.8. Metals and Heavy metals

The term heavy metal refers to any metallic chemical element that has a relatively high
density and is toxic or poisonous at low concentrations. Examples: Mercury (Hg ), cadmium
(Cd ), arsenic (As), chromium (Cr ), thallium (Tl ), and lead (Pb). Heavy metals can present in
water due to industrial and consumer waste, or even from acid rains which break down rocks
releasing them into streams, lakes, rivers, and groundwater and also due to soil erosion.

Table 3-4: Health hazards and Treatment options for metals

Occurrence in the drinking Treatment WHO GV
Metal Health hazards
water option mg/L
Activated alumina
Essential trace element Cause health effects when adsorption, ion
Selenium associated with sulphur consumed in either exchange, reverse 0.04
containing minerals. insufficient or excessive. osmosis and Nano
filtration

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-14
 Dissolution from household
Lead poisoning usually
plumbing system pipes and Treatment not
Lead results due to prolonged 0.01
fitting also added with water applicable
consumption.
treatment chemicals.
Occurrence in the drinking Treatment WHO GV
Metal Health hazards
water option mg/L
Released to the environment
in wastewater, fertilizers and Carcinogenic by the Coagulation or
Cadmium impurities in galvanized pipes inhalation route, Kidney is precipitation 0.03
and solders and some metal the target organ. softening
fittings
Exist in valences of +2 to +6 Chromium (VI) human
0.015 mg/l should
widely distributed in Earth’s carcinogen and chromium
Chromium be achievable 0.05
crust. Chromium (III) is an (III) not carcinogenic to
using coagulation
essential nutrient. humans.
Enters by dissolution from
Zinc galvanized pipes. But essential Cause metallic taste. 3
element.

Essential nutrient. Copper

sulphate pentahydrate is added
to surface water for the control
of algae.
Primary source to drinking
not removed by
water is corrosion of interior Produce taste at 3 – 5
Copper conventional 2
copper plumbing valves and mg/L.
treatment
fittings. Cu concentrations in
treated water often increase
during distribution, due to acid
pH or high-carbonate waters
with an alkaline pH.
Leaching from metal pipes
and fittings.
Ground water may contain Ni, Allergic contact dermatitis
Coagulation or by
Nickel as a consequence of is the most prevalent effect 0.07
Ion exchange
dissolution from nickel ore- of nickel.
bearing rocks depend on the
soil use, pH.
Coagulation/sedi
Mercury is present in the Minamata disease due to mentation/filtratio
Mercury 0.006
inorganic form as Hg2+. methylmercury poisoning n, PAC and ion
exchange.
Cause severe and
Highly acutely toxic is irreversible health effects.
occasionally found in drinking Long-term exposure can
water, but exists very low cause cancer and skin
Cyanide Not given
levels except in emergency lesions. Also develops
situations following a spill to a mental effects,
water source. cardiovascular disease,
neurotoxicity and diabetes.
Present in hot springs or in the
wastes. Present as arsenate 10 µg/l should be
(+5), but in anaerobic achievable by
Arsine is considered to be
Arsenic conditions, it is likely to be conventional 0.01
the most toxic form.
present as arsenide (+3) and treatment (e.g.
highly toxic in its inorganic coagulation
form.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-15
3.4.2.9. Sodium
No health-based guideline value is proposed for sodium as the contribution from drinking-
water to daily intake is small. However, sodium may affect the taste of drinking-water at
levels above about 200 mg/L. And water softening devices usually increase sodium
concentration, while reverse osmosis and distillation units will reduce it.
3.4.2.10. Potassium
Potassium occurs in drinking-water well below concentrations than of health concern.
However the recommended daily requirement is greater than 3000 mg. Potassium affect only
individuals in high-risk groups i.e. individuals with kidney dysfunction or other diseases, such
as heart disease, coronary artery disease, hypertension, diabetes, adrenal insufficiency, pre-
existing hyperkalaemia; people taking medications that interfere with normal potassium-
dependent functions in the body; and older individuals or infants.

3.4.2.11. Iron
The iron exists in the form of Fe2+ and Fe3+ readily combine with oxygen- and sulfur-
containing compounds to form oxides, hydroxides, carbonates, and sulfides. Iron
concentrations below 0.3 mg/L areunnoticeable.

In drinking-water supplies, iron(II) salts are unstable and are precipitated as insoluble iron(III)
hydroxide, which settles out as a rust-coloured silt. Groundwater may contain iron(II) without
discoloration or turbidity but may develop turbidity and colour in piped systems at iron levels
above 0.05–0.1 mg/L.Iron in drinking water is not a health hazard unless at extreme levels.
But, Iron result in staining (reddish brown) of laundry, plumbing fixtures, at concentrations
above 0.3 mg/L. Iron also promotes undesirable bacterial growth ("iron bacteria") within a
waterworks and distribution system, resulting in the deposition of a slimy coating on the
piping. It may impart an inky or metallic taste to water and exceeding 0.05mg/L may develop
some odour, stain fixtures or form precipitates.

3.4.2.12. Manganese
Manganese may become noticeable in tap water at concentrations greater than 0.05 mg/L by
showing a color(dark brownish-red), odor, or taste to the water. However, health effects from
manganese are not a concern until concentrations are approximately 10 times higher.

3.4.2.13. Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

TOC is more convenient and direct expression of total organic content in water than BOD or
COD. Unlike BOD or COD, TOC is independent of the oxidation state of the organic matter
and other organically bound elements such as nitrogen and hydrogen. TOC is vital important
in operation of water treatment that, organic carbon reacts with disinfection chemicals such as
chlorine and forms disinfection byproducts (DBP), which is carcinogenic. Reducing organic
carbon prior to disinfection can significantly decreases the harmful DBP exposure for the
public.

3.4.2.14. UV 254 Absorbance

The UV Absorbance Method (A254) is commonly used to characterize the organic
constituents in a water sample. Research has shown that organic compounds absorbing at 254
nm have a greater tendency to form chlorinated disinfection by‐products (DBPs) when
contacted with chlorine in the disinfection of drinking water. Source waters can be monitored
with this method to predict the DBP formation potential or to signal major changes in source
water quality. With this method the turbidity and particles in the water that absorb or scatter
the 254 nm light are removed by first filtering the water through a 0.45‐micron filter before
making the absorbance measurement. The DOC is determined by running a Total Organic
Carbon (TOC) test on the filtered sample.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-16
3.4.2.15. Trihalomethane
THMs are formed in drinking water primarily as a result of chlorination of organic matters
present in raw water supplies is carcinogenic. The rate and degree of THM formation increase
as a function of the chlorine and humic and fulvic acid concentration, temperature, pH and
bromide ion concentration. Chloroform is the most common THM and the principal
disinfection by-product in chlorinated drinking water. In the presence of bromides,
brominated THMs are formed preferentially, and chloroform concentrations decrease
proportionally. The WHO guideline values Chloroform: 0.3 mg/L, Bromoform: 0.1 mg/L,
Dibromochloromethane 0.1 mg/L, and Bromodichloromethane 0.06 mg/L.

3.5. Interpretation of Microbial Water Quality

For microbial water quality, verification is microbiological testing. Inmost cases, it will
involve the analysis of faecal indicator microorganisms. When a water test shows the
presence of indicator bacteria, it is considered unsafe to drink until the problem is fixed. The
absence of bacteria in any one test does not ensure safety at other times. Regular testing
throughout the year will establish to increase theconfidence in its safety.

Escherichia coli (E. coli) is a subgroup of the coliform family. Most E. coli bacteria are
harmless and exist in the intestines of human and warm-blooded animals. The presence of E.
coli in a drinking water sample usually indicates recent fecal contamination. That indicates
there is a greater risk that pathogens are present.

However, water quality can vary rapidly, and all systems are at risk of occasional failure. For
example, rainfall can greatly increase the levels of microbial contamination in source waters,
and waterborne outbreaks often occur following rainfall. Results of analytical testing must be
interpreted taking this into account. The presence of indicator organism does require an
analysis of all water system facilities and their operation to determine how these organisms
entered into the water system. It is required to collect additional water samples immediately
and inspect the entire system. Collecting additional samples helps to determine whether an
actual problem exists or not.

The concentration of indicator organisms is reported in MPN/100 mL (MPN = Most Probable

Number) or in CFU/100 mL (CFU = Colony Forming Units).Other organisms that are also
considered and indicator organisms are fecal streptococci (Streptococcus faecalis) and
clostridia (Clostridium perfringens). New technique for bacteriological test. Microbial test can
be done one of the following methods.

3.5.1. New Techniques for Bacteriological Test

Total Coliforms - Total coliform bacteria, if present, indicate that disease-causing organisms
(bacteria, viruses, parasites) could potentially be present in the water supply.

E. coli - Provides conclusive evidence of recent faecal pollution and should not be present in
drinking water, it is an indication that human sewage or animal faeces has contaminated the
water supply. E.coli is a useful indicator, but it has limitations. Enteric viruses and protozoa
are more resistant to disinfection; consequently, the absence of E.coli will not necessarily
indicate freedom from these organisms. Under certain circumstances, it may be desirable to
include more resistant microorganisms, such as bacteriophages and or bacterial spores.

Microbial test can be done one of the following methods

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-17
3.5.2. Membrane Filtration Test
This method is used to determine the presence of a member of acoliform group in water. The
coliform group analyzed in this procedure includes all of the organisms that produce a colony
with a golden-green metallic sheen within24 hrs of inoculation.

Coliform E.coil
Figure 3-3: Coliform & E-coil
Interferences:
 The presence of residual chlorine or other halogen can prevent the continuation of
bacterial action. To prevent this occurrence, sodium thiosulfate should be added.
 Water samples high in copper, zinc, or other heavy metals can be toxic to bacteria.
Chelating agents such as ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) should only be
added when heavy metals are suspected of being present.
 Samples containing large amounts of suspended solids/ high turbidity will interfere
with colony growth and with the subsequent counting of colonies on the filter
membrane.

3.5.3. Presence- absence coliform test

This is a simple but reliable technique which uses a dry medium to enable the rapid confirmed
enumeration of both total coliforms and E.coli. This is simple and easy method and results
achieved after 24 or 48 hour incubation period. Detection limit of 10 CFU/ml.

Figure 3-4: Presence – absence coliform test

3.5.4. Most Probable Number (MPN)
This procedure used for the samples are very turbid or if semi-solids such as sediments or
sludge are to be analyzed but take long time to get the results. This is an index of the number
of coliform bacteria that, more probably than any other number.

Water to be tested is diluted serially and inoculated in lactose broth. Coliforms if present in
water, utilize the lactose present in the medium to produce acid and gas.The presence of acid
is indicated by color change of the medium and the presence of gas is detected as gas bubbles
collected in the inverted durham tube.The number of total coliforms is determined by
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-18
counting the number of tubes giving positive reaction (i.e both color change and gas
production) and comparing the pattern of positive results (the number of tubes showing
growth at each dilution) with standard statistical tables. Which give the result as MPN.

Figure 3-5: Most Probable Number

3.5.5. Automated microbiology Detection system
Complete automated microbiology testing sysemt capable of providing results on-site
unprecedented time-to-result performance. This give rapid alet with no fixed incubation delay.
No sample preparation or visual interpretation of results required. Dirext testing of turbid
samples are possible.

3.5.6. Examination of Correctness of Analyses

The following procedures for checking correctness of analyses are applicable specifically to
water samples for which relatively complete analyses are made. These include pH,
conductivity, total dissolved solids (TDS), and major anionic and cationic constituents that are
indications of general water quality.
The checks described do not require additional laboratory analyses. Three of the checks
require calculation of the total dissolved solids and conductivity from measured constituents.
Sum concentrations (in milligrams per litre) of constituents to calculate the total dissolved
solids are as follows:
Total dissolved solids
= 0.6 [alkalinity*#(2)] + Na+ + K+ + Ca2+ + Mg2+ + Cl−+ SO42− + SiO32− + NO3− + F−
Calculate electrical conductivity from the equation:
𝐺 = λC − (k1 λ + k 2 ) × C3/2
where:
G - conductivity of salt solution,
C - concentration of salt solution,
λ - equivalent conductance of salt solution at infinite dilution,
k1, K2 - constants for relaxation of ion cloud effect and electrophoretic effect relative to ion
mobility
Some electrical conductivity values for ions commonly found in water are given in Table 3-5.
Table 3-5: Conductivity Factors of Ions Commonly Found In Water
Conductivity (25°C)μmhos/cm
Ion in Water
Per me/L Per mg/L
Bicarbonate 43.6 0.715
Calcium 52.0 2.60

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-19
Carbonate 84.6 2.82
Chloride 75.9 2.14
Magnesium 46.6 3.82
Nitrate 71.0 1.15
Potassium 72.0 1.84
Sodium 48.9 2.13
Sulfate 73.9 1.54
3.5.6.1. Anion-Cation Balance
The anion and cation sums, when expressed as milliequivalents per liter, must balancebecause
all potable waters are electrically neutral. The test is based on the percentage
differencedefined as follows:
∑ 𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 − ∑ 𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠
Percent difference =
∑ 𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 + ∑ 𝑎𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠

and the typical criteria for acceptance are as follows:

∑ 𝒂𝒏𝒊𝒐𝒏𝒔meq/L Acceptable difference

0 - 3.0 ± 0.2 %
3.0 - 10.0 ± 2%
10 – 800 ± 5%

3.5.6.2. Measured TDS = Calculated TDS

The measured total dissolved solids concentration should be higher than the calculated
onebecause a significant contributor may not be included in the calculation. If the measured
value isless than the calculated one, the higher ion sum and measured value are suspect; the
sampleshould be reanalyzed. If the measured solids concentration is more than 20% higher
than thecalculated one, the low ion sum is suspect and selected constituents should be
reanalyzed. Theacceptable ratio is as follows:
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝑇𝐷𝑆
1.0 < < 1.2
𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑇𝐷𝑆

3.5.6.3. Measured EC Vs Calculated EC

If the calculated electrical conductivity (EC) is higher than the measured value, reanalyzethe
higher ion sum. If the calculated EC is less than the measured one, reanalyze the lower
ionsum. The acceptable ratio is as follows:
𝑀𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑑 𝐸𝐶
0.9 < < 1.1
𝐶𝑎𝑙𝑐𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝐸𝐶

3.5.6.4. Measured EC and Ion Sums

Both the anion and cation sums should be 1/100 of the measured EC value. If either of thetwo
sums does not meet this criterion, that sum is suspect; reanalyze the sample. The
acceptablecriteria are as follows:
100 × anion (or cation) sum, meq/L = (0.9– 1.1) EC

3.5.6.5. Calculated TDS to EC Ratio

If the ratio of calculated TDS to conductivity falls below 0.55, the lower ion sum is
suspect;reanalyze it. If the ratio is above 0.7, the higher ion sum is suspect; reanalyze it. If
reanalysiscauses no change in the lower ion sum, an unmeasured constituent, such as
ammonia or nitrite,may be present at a significant concentration. If poorly dissociated calcium
and sulfate ions arepresent, the TDS may be as high as 0.8 times the EC. The acceptable
criterion is as follows:
Calculated TDS
= 0.55– 0.7
Conductivity

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-20
3.5.6.6. Measured TDS to EC Ratio
The acceptable criteria for this ratio are from 0.55 to 0.7. If the ratio of TDS to EC is
outsidethese limits, measured TDS or measured conductivity is suspect; reanalyze.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 3-21
CHAPTER 4

SELECTION OF TREATMENT PROCESS

4.1. Introduction to Water Treatment

The primary goal of water treatment is to produce an adequate quantity of safe water to the
public. A secondary but essential goal is to make the water palatable. Water is treated by
assembling a “train” of processes to achieve the desired water quality standards. No single
process is 100 percent efficient. Since processes may fail sometimes, the treatment train
concept is now recognized as the best means to provide multiple barriers to protect the water
supply from intrusion of contaminants.

The treatment train/multiple barrier concept

• Although disinfection is quite effective in destroying vegetative pathogens, it is not
very effective in destroying spore-forming organisms. Furthermore, the presence of
turbidity interferes with disinfection of vegetative organisms by shielding them from
the disinfectant as well as consuming excessive amounts of disinfectant to achieve a
prescribed level of disinfection.
• By preceding the disinfection process with a filtration process, both the excess
turbidity and the organisms resistant to disinfection can be removed. Filter can become
overloaded with a resultant filter media breakthrough of both turbidity and pathogens.
• By preceding the filtration process with settling/ floatation, much of the turbidity can
be removed. This allows for a reduction in the filter size as well as improving its
overall performance. Due to very low settling velocity of the fine particles and the
turbulence in the settling tanks, settling efficiency will be low.
• The introduction of the coagulation/flocculation process ahead of the settling tank
results in the production of large flocs that settle better than individual fine particles
causing turbidity. This improves the settling efficiency.
• Dissolved air floatation is introduced when light weight particles such as colour algae
present in the raw water, which can be floated, with the aid of air rather than settling.
• Aeration can be applied at the beginning of the Treatment Train for removal of
dissolved gases volatile compounds etc. and for oxidation of dissolved metals such as
iron and manganese.

Thus, the overall objective of the treatment train is to make the disinfection process more
efficient. In addition, multiple barriers to the pathogens are put in place because pathogens are
removed in each of the processes that precede disinfection.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-1
The objectives of this chapter are to provide an approach to process selection to form
treatment trains and to summarize the essential factors to be considered in selecting water
treatment processes.

It is necessary to select a water source with acceptable water quality to allow satisfactory
treatment by conventional treatment, however depending on the trend of raw water quality, an
advanced treatment may be introduced. When serious situation occurs or expected to occur
which can hardly coped by conventional treatment, it is necessary to newly install or
strengthen to existing treatment process a new an advanced treatment facility, or to secure the
land for future construction and an allowance in hydraulic head.

4.2. Water Source and Contaminants

The water source can be classified as follows:
1. Surface water such as stream/ river (naturally running water), lake/ reservoir water
2. Groundwater (stream/ river bed water, shallow groundwater, deep groundwater, spring
water)
3. Sea water (salty water, brine)

SLS 722: 1985 prescribe the tolerance limits for inland surface waters used as raw water for
public water supply as given in section 2.3.2.

4.2.1. Stream/ River Water

Stream/ river water may be contaminated with pathogenic (disease causing) microorganisms,
excreted by human beings and warm blooded animals. Moreover a large variety of Inorganic
chemicals (metals/ Heavy metals), Synthetic organic chemicals (e.g. pesticides, Petroleum
products, Textile dyes), Biological matter and Pharmaceuticals etc., might be present.

Commonly present inorganic ions are Na+, Cl-, SO4-, Ca2+, Mg2+ etc. In addition compounds
originating from groundwater might be present e.g. Iron, manganese, arsenic, fluoride. Clay
particles originating from soil erosion. Algae use to grow in stagnated water with sufficient
nutrients such as Nitrogen and phosphate especially during drought.

4.2.2. Lake and Reservoir Water

Sri Lanka has no natural lakes and all inland water bodies are essentially man-made,
constructed primarily for irrigation in few centuries back and hydropower generation at
present. In tropical climates, most of the reservoir water is subjected to eutrophication, which
is commonly associated with an anthropogenic pollution of water from excessive nutrients
such as total nitrogen and phosphorus. This causes negative impact including increased
turbidity, dominance of particular species of planktonic algae, offensive odour, taste and
colour and release of toxins.

In addition, iron and manganese are dissolved from bottom sediments due to decrease in
dissolved oxygen in the bottom part of the reservoir and lake.

In Sri Lanka the lake / reservoir water are constructed by damming a river or with a system of
cascading reservoirs. Hence, in many cases the water quality can be expected with mixed
contaminants in river and lake / reservoir. For example, turbidity can be expected in rivers
while algae may be expected in lake/reservoir. In the cascade system of reservoirs, water flow
through paddy fields several times thus collecting residuals of fertilizers and pesticides and
also solid and liquid water from domestic settlements including pharmaceuticals.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-2
4.2.3. Groundwater
Groundwater is classified into shallow Groundwater and deep Groundwater. Generally,
shallow Groundwater tends to be affected by surface water and deep Groundwater has
features derived from the geology around the aquifer.
Contamination of groundwater by human activity is a major issue. Principal sources of
groundwater contaminations are:

 Industrial wastes including leakage from power generation plants

 Municipal landfills
 Agrochemicals e.g. pesticides
 Septic systems and cesspool effluents
 Leaks from petroleum pipelines and storage tanks
 Animal wastes
 Acid drainage
 Saltwater intrusion
 Irrigation return flow/agriculture run off
Commonly present constituents are inorganic ions such as. Na+, Cl-, SO42-, Ca2+ etc. In some
areas toxic compounds like arsenic and fluoride may also be present. Iron and Manganese are
commonly in most ground waters. In addition, organic nitrogen is decomposed into ammonia
nitrogen and further oxidised into nitrite and nitrate. The carbon in the organic substances is
decomposed into carbon dioxide, and it is partially dissolved to form hydrogen carbonate or
free carbon dioxide. Methane and hydrogen sulphide might also be present in certain areas.

When surface water can infiltrate into groundwater supply there is a high possibility for the
groundwater to be contaminated with microorganism (especially protozoa such as
Guardia,bacteria viruses), turbidity and organic materials in surface water. it is no more
groundwater and is referred to as groundwater under the direct influence of surface water
requiring surface water treatment processes. Hence, water quality tests of ground water must
carefully be conducted.

It is also necessary to investigate the geological condition of a ground water source for
assessing the pollution possibilities.

4.2.4. Brackish Water or Seawater

Surface water and ground water are the main Internal Renewable Water (IRW) resources in
Sri Lanka. According to the FAO report No 23, IRW is 50 km3/year. This gives both IRW per
capita in year 2000 is 2,690 m3 and the projected value for year 2050 is 1,983 m3. The
definition for water scarcity <1,000m3 per capita and for water stressed is in the range of
1,000 – 1,700 m3 per capita. Hence, conceptually, there is no water scarcity and stress up to
year 2050.

However, the rainfall population and water usage and are not evenly divided. In addtion, the
climate change scenario is creating prolonged period of droughts and flash floods increasing
the threats to water security. Therfore, there can be areas where use of brackish water or
seawater might be an economical solution in few areas in Sri Lanka especially in the Northern
Province due to increased cost of water transportation over longer distances and sectoral
demands for water. The total disolved solids in brackish water and seawater is 1,000 mg/L
and 35,000 mg/L respectively in addition to the colur, tubidity and presence of algae in
tropical climates.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-3
4.2.5. Advantages and Disadvantage of Groundwater
The topic of groundwater source quality is complex with numerous influences, both natural
and human in origin. Apart from being frequently more accessible (drilling a well near a
facility is often more convenient than piping in surface water from a remote location),
groundwater is typically chosen because its natural level of quality requires less treatment to
ensure safe, potable consumption for humans. Although many groundwater benefit from
aesthetic treatment, and sometimes from treatment to remove constituents such as metals and
arsenic that pose long-term health risks, in general groundwater sources compare favourably
against surface water due to the reduced treatment needed. In the threatening areas of the
modern world, groundwater sources are far less vulnerable to terrorist attack than surface
water reservoirs, just as they were recognized as being less vulnerable to nuclear fallout
during the political atmosphere of the 1950s and 1960s.

Arguably, surface water and groundwater form a water resource field in any hydrologic
setting, and from a groundwater-biased view, surface water bodies are often simply points
where the water table rises above the surface. Thus impacts on one part of this continuum can
affect the other over time. However, the hydraulic connections between these two resources
can be obscure (at least superficially).

There are both Advantages and Disadvantage of Groundwater in comparision with surface
water source. They include the followings:
Advantages:
1. Groundwater is not easily contaminated as surface water
2. The quality of Groundwater, while not always as good as would be prefered, is stable
throughout the year.
3. Groundwater sources are generally lower in bateriological count than surface water.
4. Groundwater is available in most locations

Disadvantages:
1. Once Groundwater is contaminated, it is difficult to recover and there is not simple to
remove the contaminants.
2. Groundwater usually have more minerals than surface water including the increased
level of hardness.
3. Extraction of Groundwater normally requires a pump, thus increasing operational cost.
4. Groundwater is more suceptible to long term contamination from fuel spills.
5. Groundwater supplies often have iron and mangaese thus increasing treatment cost and/
or causing stains on plumings and clothings.
6. Wells in the coastal area are subjected to salt water intrusion . This phenomenon is
difficult to predict and costly to treat.
7. Source of contaminents can be hidden from sight.

Water suppliers need to recognize that a significant change in any of these parameters from
watershed activities can result in a range of problems, from aesthetic to human health
concerns. A summary of the water quality parameters, their possible source, and the potential
effect on water supply can be found in Table 4-1.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-4
Table 4-1: Water Quality Concerns
Parameter Sources Effects on water supplier
Solids, Domestic sewage, urban and agricultural Hinder water treatment process. Reduce
Turbidity runoff, construction activity, mining, soil treatment effectiveness. Shield microorganism
erosion against disinfectants. Reduce reservoir
capacity
Nutrients Septic system leachate, wastewater plant Nitrates that may be toxic to infants and
discharge, lawn and road runoff, animal unborn fetuses. Accelerates eutrophication:
feedlots, agricultural lands, eroded High levels of algae Dissolved oxygen
landscapes, landfill leachate, rainfall deficiencies Increase algae activity High
(especially nitrogen) colour and turbidity Disinfection by-product
formation Taste and odour problems

Natural organic Naturally occurring; wetlands in the Influence nutrient availability Mobilize
matter (NOM) watershed tend to increase concentrations hydrophobic organics Disinfection by-product
formation
Synthetic Domestic and industrial activities, spills and Adverse impacts on human health and aquatic
organic carbon leaks, wastewater discharges, agricultural life
and urban runoff, leachate, wastewater
treatment and transmission
Coliform Domestic sewage from wastewater Fecal coliform are indicators of warm-blooded
bacteria discharges, sewers, septic systems, urban animal fecal contamination that pose a threat
runoff, animal farms and grazing, waterfowl to human health with microbial pathogens like
droppings, land application of animal giardia, cryptosporidium, and viruses
wastes
Metals Industrial activities and wastewater, runoff Adverse effect to aquatic life and public
health
Oil and grease Runoff containing kerosene, lubricating and Interfere with biological waste treatment
road oils from gas stations, industries, causing maintenance problems Interfere with
domestic, commercial and institutional aquatic life Aesthetic impacts Human health
sewage, food waste and cooking oil associated with selected hydrocarbons
Sodium Road de-icing and salt storage High blood pressure and heart disease
Toxic Agriculture, lawn care, industrial sites, Toxic to humans and aquatic life
compounds roads and parking lots, wastewater
Aesthetic Taste and Odour: industrial chemicals, Aesthetic problems
elements algae metabolites, NOM, urea Colour: Reduce public confidence in water supply
metals, NOM, algae, AOC, Turbidity: safety
solids and algae, Staining: Metals
Algae Wastewater plant discharges, septic Taste and odour Filter clogging Some algae
systems, landfill leachate, urban and species toxic to aquatic life
agricultural runoff, precipitation
Dissolved Organic matter, wastewater discharges, Water treatment problems Release of iron and
oxygen runoff, consumption by aerobic aquatic life manganese Taste and odour problems
and chemical substances Ammonia

4.3. Process Selection

4.3.1. Treatment Needs and General Principles
Water cannot be consumed in its natural state due to possible presence of: floating objects,
algae, suspended solids, excessive iron, manganese, hardness, dissolved gases, taste, and
odour, colour, organic or bacteriological pollution.

The principal requirements of drinking water are to protect the consumer health (free of
pathogens and toxic chemicals) and to make it acceptable to the consumer (aesthetic: sight,
taste, odour, and colour). In addition, water is treated for economic reasons such as preventing
scaling and corrosion in pipelines and staining clothes during laundering. In some cases it is
needed to make up deficiency in some quality in water such as adding oxygen by aeration.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-5
The choice of water treatment process depends on quality of the raw water in the source, its
variation, design period, required quality of treated water (end use) and economic resources
available for O&M. This is achieved by arranging a train of unit processes. The ultimate unit
process is disinfection and one of the purposes of prior stages of treatment is to “prepare”
water for disinfection.

Chlorine is the most commonly used disinfectant and unless turbidity and colour are removed
from the water, the efficiency of the disinfection may be impaired. High levels of turbidity
can also protect microorganism from the effect of chlorination and can simulate the re-growth
of bacteria in treatment works and the distribution systems.

Treatment must be both economical and reliable, requiring the optimum capital investment
and operation and maintenance. The relative merits of sources requiring much treatment
against the cost of long pipelines from a distant source demanding less treatment should be
weighed carefully in view of the constant attention required for the operation and maintenance
of a treatment plant.

4.3.2. Guideline on Selection of Treatment Process

Treatment may comprise only disinfection where raw water quality is within the
recommended limits or it may involve certain specific or all treatment processes including
aeration, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation or floatation, rapid sand filtration followed
by disinfection. Groundwater generally requires relatively less treatment, disinfection usually
being sufficient. In the case of surface water and iron-bearing Groundwater, part or all of the
treatment processes may be required. In order to minimise the taste and odour and to adsorb
pollutants escaping conventional treatment processes, activated carbon filtration shall be used.

It is important, therefore to select the source which requires the least treatment and the most
economical treatment processes. For small community water supplies, managed by
community, complicated treatment schemes are not suited. In such cases an alternative less
polluted source of water, even at a greater distance may be preferred. Design details of
various unit processes are explained in Chapter 5.

The following fundamental concepts shall be used in process selection

1. The raw water quality of every source is different
2. Raw water quality is seasonally variable
3. There is no standard water treatment plant design that is applicable to all sources
4. For every source, a number of treatment process alternatives are available
5. Prevailing site conditions (land availability, accessibility, geographical conditions) often
limit the types of treatment process that can be used
6. Retrofitting and upgrading of existing plants requires creative solutions
7. Pilot plant studies are highly recommended for the selection of process, which does not
have proven effective unit process or uncertainty in performance
8. Pilot plant testing requires careful planning and execution to obtain useful design and
operating criteria
9. It is essential that the multi-barrier concept (of water safety plan) to be incorporated in
process selection
10. Operation and maintenance experience is invaluable in developing a design

Factors that should be considered in decision making on water treatment processes include
 Level of contaminant removal/ specifications for treated water quality
 Raw water quality and its variations
 Relative costs of different treatment processes
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-6
  Process applicability, flexibility and reliability
 Prevailing site conditions (land availability, accessibility, geographical conditions)
 Utility capabilities such as, degree of automation, extension of M&E Equipment
utilization and instrumentation, preference of mechanical solutions to hydraulic ones
 Appropriateness of the process for location based on availability of technical
resources, support services, and qualified personnel
 Affordability of capital investment costs and operation and maintenance expenses
 Possibility of future contamination and salinity intrusion
 Environmental compatibility and social acceptance
 Influence of national sanitation and pollution policies

The selection of water treatment methods that conform to the above-mentioned criteria does
not require the creation of new technologies, but rather the innovative application of proven
technologies.

4.3.3. Conventional Water Treatment Methods

Conventional treatment consists of the following unit processes: Screening, aeration,
coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation or floatation, and filtration, and is typically followed
by disinfection at full-scale. Microstraining may sometimes be used to reduce solids loadings,
particularly algal solids prior to coagulation or slow sand filtration. Chemical coagulation can
be used to cause the fine particles to agglomerate and be incorporated into chemical
precipitate, forming large particles or flocs, which can be removed by sedimentation or
flotation and remaining fine particles or flocs by rapid sand filtration. Although alum is
commonly used coagulant in Sri Lanka, use of PACL is gaining popularity depending on the
raw water quality.

Conventional treatment may be accompanied by powdered activated carbon (PAC),

application of granular activated carbon filter (GAC) as an adsorption media to remove taste
and odour, pesticides etc. Conventional treatment is often preceded by pre-oxidation. chlorine,
chloramine, chlorine dioxide or potassium permanganate are the common oxidants in
conventional treatment processes. Poly electrolytes or Poly Aluminium Chlorides (PACl) are
used as a coagulant when it is advantages.

4.3.4. Advanced Water Treatment Methods

The impurities present in the water are removed to a higher degree to meet the ultimate
treated water quality, which necessitates the advanced treatments, and this solely depends on
the requirement of the user.

Some of the advanced treatment processes are as follows

 Ultraviolet radiation for Disinfection
 Ultra- and microfiltration for removal of suspended matter and colloidal matter and
microorganisms
 Nano-filtration for removal of hardness, humic substances and partly salinity
 Iron Exchange and softening for removal of hardness e.g. fluidized bed crystallizers
 Reverse osmosis, electrodialysis and distillation for Desalination

Refer Figure 4-2 for filtration spectrum and approximate operational range of treatment
process. The applications of desalination technologies are given in Table 4-2 and refer section
7.6 for further details on membrane filtrations such as Reverse osmosis; Nanofiltration;
Ultrafiltration; and Microfiltration.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-7
Table 4-2: Applications of desalination/ membrane technologies
Source Technology
Seawater Distillation / Sea Water Reverse Osmosis
Brackish/Fresh Reverse Osmosis / Electrodialysis
Low salinity water (polishing) Ion exchange
Hard water Nanofiltration / ion exchange

Colored Water Nanofiltration

4.3.5. Treatment Process Applications

Based on the raw water quality the treatment process has to be determined. This chapter
dedicates the description of combination of treatment trains depending on the raw water
quality.

Turbidity is caused by the presence of suspended matter such as clay, decaying vegetation,
algae etc in surface water. Removal of turbidity may be achieved by coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation and rapid filtration or by biologically mediated slow sand filtration process.

Colour in raw waters is due mainly to organic matter originating from the decay of vegetation
into surface water. True colour and apparent colour are significant parameters in selecting the
treatment process. True colour is measured after filtration of water through a fine filter paper
and is, therefore, soluble or of a fine colloidal nature. Chemical coagulation is used to remove
the colour but the mechanisms and conditions are different from those for turbidity removal
relying more on precipitation and/or adsorption of colour compounds onto the surface of
flocs. Because colour is relatively non-biodegradable and of a soluble or fine-colloidal nature,
very little true colour is removed by slow sand filtration. Therefore, in the case of higher true
colour in the raw water, coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation and filtration is required.

Table 4-3: Summary of Treatment Process Applications

Example of alternative
Application Most common type of treatment
treatment
Disinfection (inactivation of
Chlorine Ozone, chlorine dioxide, UV
microorganism)
Colour removal Chemical coagulation, clarification and Ozone, Activated carbon treatment
filtration
Iron, manganese and Chemical coagulation, Oxidation (Fe, Mn)
Biological filtration
aluminium removal sedimentation and filtration
Turbidity and algal removal Chemical coagulation, floatation and
Slow sand filtration
filtration, microstrainer (for algal removal)
Organic matter removal Activated carbon adsorption Air striping of volatile organics.
Trihalomethanes control Modification of Chlorine practices and/or Activated carbon to remove THMs
alternative oxidants and THM precursors
Nitrate removal Iron exchange or biological denitrification Membrane processes
Ammonia removal Breakpoint chlorination Biological nitrification
Softening (Removal of Chemical precipitation
Iron exchange
hardness)
Taste and odour Removal Activated carbon adsorption Ozone
Note: Biological activated carbon for biodegradable (assimilable) organics

Iron and manganese are leached out from soils, particularly by acidic waters, and are present
in solution or as complexes with organic material in the water. Iron can be precipitated and
removed under the same conditions required for colour removed by chemical coagulations.
Manganese remains soluble under these conditions. Effective precipitation can be brought
about by a combination of increased pH and addition of oxidising agent (usually chlorine).
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-8
The precipitate is then removed in filters. Therefore, at least two stage of treatment, and in
many cases three stages, each at different pH, may be required: the first stage with chemical
coagulation (and sedimentation or floatation) for removal of colour, turbidity, and iron; the
second stage for removal of residual coagulant by rapid filtration; and the third stage, at a high
pH and with an oxidant, for manganese removal by high rate filtration.

Groundwater is commonly treated by Aeration followed by rapid sand filtration. Depending

on the presence of other contaminants additional techniques are applied. The treatment
process applications are summarized in Table 4-3 and are described in chapter 5 and 6.

Aeration may be used on surface waters to help remove tastes and odours due to dissolved
gases, or on groundwater supplies to reduce or remove objectionable amount of carbon
dioxide, hydrogen sulphide or methane and to introduce oxygen to assist in iron and
manganese removal. In surface waters with a high organic content aeration may also assist in
colour removal.

Microstrainer and Dissolved Air Floatation (DAF) are preferred in places where algae are
present in raw water. Powder Activated Carbon (PAC) is preferred for short occurrence of
taste and odour in water over Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) which requires pressurized
system (additional heads) at higher cost. Further, a provision of installing microstrainer and
GAC filtration for future implementation at least shall be economical in places where it is
susceptible for the occurrence of taste and odour.

When coagulant, pre-chlorine and PAC are planned to be used as chemicals, separate
requirements for contact time and adding sequence must be strictly defined and adhered to.

Recycling of waste water during water treatment may be preferred by depending on the
requirements and the situation. This can save water, pumping energy and chemicals especially
for low turbidity water. However, care must be taken to ensure that there are no harmful
materials such as mono-polymers in the recycled water especially when polymers are used as
coagulant aid and in the presence of algae in raw water.

4.3.6. Selection of Unit Processes

The broad choices available in water treatment make it possible to produce virtually any
desired quality of finished water from any but the most polluted resources; therefore,
economic and operational considerations become the limiting constraints in selection of
treatment units. A treatment plant may consist of many processes, including pre-treatment,
chemical coagulation, rapid mixing, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection;
which are arranged, in general, as shown in Figure 4-1 for river water. Note that all these
processes are not required and selection will be based on raw water quality. Optional
treatment such as addition of PAC/GAC, KMnO4, and Polymers can be adapted. The water
quality varies from place to place and, in any one place, from season to season, and the
resources for construction and operation vary from place to place, so the treatment selected
must be based on the particular situation.

The possible treatment stages including unit processes, chemical dosing points, wash water
recovery and sludge disposal are summarised in flow diagram showing possible treatment
stages in a conventional rapid filtration plant as shown in. The effectiveness of treatment
processes in removal of various impurities is shown in Table 4-4.

Table 4-5 presents treatment options in a slightly different format with recommended process
for various levels of undesirable characteristics. Both Table 4-4 and Table 4-5 should be used

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-9
with caution since treatment effectiveness usually depends on a combination of unit process.
Figure 4-2 shows the approximate operational ranges of treatment processes with respect to
removal of particles of different sizes, and Figure 4-3, Figure 4-4 and Figure 4-5 shows
various unit processes required for groundwater, surface water and brackish or sea water
qualities.

Table 4-4: Effectiveness of Water Treatment Process in removing various impurities

coagulation and

Sedimentation

Chlorination
Flocculation

Rapid Sand
Water Quality Characteristics

Slow Sand
Aeration

Filtration

Filtration
Chemical
Dissolved Oxygen Addition +   - -- +
Carbon Dioxide removal ++   + + +
Turbidity reduction  +++ + +++ +++ 
Colour reduction  ++ + + ++ ++
Taste and odour removal ++ + + ++ ++ +
Bacteria removal  + ++ ++ ++++ ++++
Iron and Manganese removal ++ + + ++++ ++++ 
Organic matter removal + + ++ +++ ++++ +++
Hardness + -- -- --  
Corrosiveness +++ -- -- --  -
Legend: + = Positive effect,  = no effect, - = Negative effect

Engineers and water utilities today have many process options when water treatment plant
expansions or new water treatment plants are being planned. Although the increased number
of choices for water treatment processes will be beneficial for water utilities and for their
customers, the availability of more options complicates the decision making process and
forces everyone involved to think more carefully before selecting a water treatment process.
This situation will benefit water utilities and their customers in the long run, if choices are
made wisely.

4.3.7. Selection of Special Water Treatment Process

Many of the constituents (organic and inorganic) present in water cannot be removed by
conventional water treatment plants and therefore require special water treatment processes.
Membrane process is used to permeate high quality water while rejecting the passage of
dissolved and suspended solids. These processes can be classified in to two group based on
the process of driving-forces:

(1) processes driven by pressure- reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, ultrafiltration and

microfiltration
(2) processes driven by electric current- electrodialysis, electrodialysis reversal.

Reverse osmosis has highest material rejection capacity (0.0001-0.001 m range) and mostly
used for desalination of seawater in drinking water supply. Nanofiltration (NF), ultrafiltration
(UF) and microfiltration (MF) are used for removal of particles, colour, NOMs and inorganic
and organic contaminants.

NF process (0.001-0.01 m range) is used for softening, and for removal of TDS and TOC.
UF is designated to remove colloidal sized particle (0.005-0.1 m range). Most turbidity
causing particle, viruses, and most organic substances (such as large molecular NOMs and
protein) are within the removal range of UF, MF (0.05-1 m range) is mostly used in pre-
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-10
treatment prior to reverse osmosis process for rejecting suspended solids, large molecules, or
irons (refer Table 4-6).
To Supply

High lift Pumps

Pure Water Tank

pH correction
Disinfection

GAC Filtration
Settling
Wash water
Filters
Backwashing
Sludge
Settling / DAF

Supernatant water
Water Treatment Plant

Flocculation
PAC/ Polymer

Sludge
Mixing chamber
Coagulant dosing
Pre- settling tanks/ Sludge
Roughening Filters
Pre- chlorination
Aeration
Wash water
Micro strainers

Raw water storage/

Equalization

Raw water pumps

Sludge Treatments

Raw water storage/ Wash water To drying

beds/
Intake

Desilting
Decanter
Wash water Sludge
Fine screens Thickener

Coarse screens Supernatant

water

Source

Figure 4-1: Flow Diagram Showing Possible Treatment Stages

Adapted from G. Smethurst, 1979 “Basic Water Treatment For Application Worldwide”.
Thomas Telford Limited, Mar 31, 1990.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-11
 Table 4-5: Recommended Water Treatment Processes

Micros trainers

Flotation(DAF)
(Coarse/ Fine)

Ion Exchange
Chlorination/

Micro, Nano,
Chlorination

Chlorination
Chlorination

Desalination
Flocculation

Lime (Soda)

(PAC/GAC)
Roughening
Preliminary

Green Sand
coagulation
Water Quality

Settlement/
Storage/ De-

Membrane
Slow Sand
Raw Water

Oxidation
Screening

Filtration

Filtration

Filtration

Filtration

Activated

Filtration
Softening
Aeration
Characteristics to be

Carbon
Settling

and de-
Rapid
reduced

Super

Ultra
Post-

(RO)
silting

Pre-

and
Floating Debris E O
Algae # O O O O O E E
Turbidity
0 – 2 NTU O E O O E
2 – 30 NTU O O E E O E
30 – 100 NTU O O E E E O E
100 – 750 NTU E E E E E E
750 – 1000 NTU* E O E E E E E
> 1000 NTU* E O E E E E E
Colour
< 30 Hazen O O O O E
> 30 Hazen O E E E E
Taste and odour O O O O O
Hardness > 200 mg/L E O O
Iron and Manganese
Fe < 0.30 mg/L E O O E O E
Fe - 0.30 – 1.0 mg/L E O E E O O O E O O
Fe > 1.0 mg/L O E E E O E E O O
Chlorides
0 - 250 mg/L
> 250 mg/L E
Coliform bacteria
0 – 20 O O E
20 – 100 E O O E O E
100 – 5000 O E O O E O E
> 5000 E O E O O E E
Toxic Chemicals O E E E
TOC/ UV254 E O O O O O E

Legend: E = Essential, and O = Optional, Note: # = sonicator at intake is optional and * = Coagulant aids or polymers is optional

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-12
 Figure 4-2: Approximate Operational Ranges for Treatment Processes
Source: OSMONIC Inc., USA

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-13
 Shallow Groundwater (Aerobic Condition)
Aerobic, not Post-
corrosive water Chlorination

Aerobic, corrosive Aeration for Post-

water Decresing CO2+NH3 Chlorination

 Deep Groundwater (Anaerobic Condition)

Anaerobic, not corrosive Aeration for Increasing O2 Post-
water; no Fe and Mn and removal of NH3 & H2S Chlorination

Bypass Options

Anaerobic, not corrosive Aeration for Preliminary Slow Sand Post-

water; with Fe Increasing O2 Settlement Filtration Chlorination

Anaerobic, corrosive Aeration for Increasing Post-

water, no Fe and Mn O2 or Decreasing CO2 Chlorination

Bypass Options

Anaerobic, corrosive Aeration for Increasing Preliminary Slow Sand Post-

water; with Fe and Mn O2 or Decreasing CO2 Settlement Filtration Chlorination

Or Chlorination, KMnO4 addition

Anaerobic, corrosive Aeration for Increasing Coagulation and Rapid Post-

Sedimentation
water; with Fe and Mn O2 or Decreasing CO2 Flocculation Filtration Chlorination

Figure 4-3: Treatment of Groundwater Sources for Various Water Qualities

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-14
 Surface Water – Streams/River
Protected hill country Post-
streams turbidity < 2 NTU Chlorination

Bypass Options
Streams slightly turbid Roughening Slow Sand Post-
occasionally >2 NTU Filter (>10 NTU) Filtration Chlorination
or
Streams slightly polluted Infiltration Post-
turbidity occasionally > 2 NTU Gallery Chlorination

Bypass Options
Streams slightly polluted, Coagulation and Rapid
Sedimentation Post-
frequent high turbidity Flocculation Filtration Chlorination
and colour

 Surface Water – Tanks or Lakes and Canals

Bypass Options

Tanks or Lakes, canals slightly Preliminary Slow Sand Post-

polluted, low turbidity and algae Settlement Filtration Chlorination
Or

Tanks or Lakes, canals slightly Micro- Oxidation Coagulation and Dissolved Rapid Post-
polluted, low turbidity and algae Filtration Flocculation Air Filtration Chlorination
Flotation

Bypass Options Bypass Options

Tanks or Lakes, canals low land Pre- Sedimenta Rapid Post-
Aeration for Coagulation and
rivers polluted high turbidity, Chlorination tion Filtration Chlorination
Increasing O2 Flocculation
algae taste and odours.

Figure 4-4: Treatment of Surface Water Sources for Various Water Qualities

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-15
Table 4-6: Advanced Treatment Processes and its removal
Process Size/m What is removed
Reverse Osmosis (RO) 0.0001-0.001 Desalination of sea water
Nano filtration (NF) 0.001-0.01 Softening, removal of TDS and TOC
Ultra filtration (UF) 0.005-0.1 Colloidal sized particles, Most turbidity causing particle, viruses,
and most organic substances (such as large molecular NOMs and
protein)
Micro filtration (MF) 0.05-1 Mostly used in pre-treatment prior to reverse osmosis process for
rejecting suspended solids, molecules, or irons.

Although Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) technology has gained higher ground on water
desalination in recent years, operational cost is still high and not affordable for many
countries due to several factors. One important factor is membrane fouling which results in
both an increase in operational pressure and a short lifetime of the membrane elements and in
an increased number of chemical cleanings to restore membranes permeability. Membrane
fouling in SWRO can be caused by organic matter (lipids, proteins, and polysaccharides),
microorganisms (algae, plankton, and unicellular organisms), colloids and suspended solids,
salts and metal cations.

Gravity DMF

Flocculation Gravity
DMF

Gravity DMF Gravity

Flocculation
DMF
Conventional
Flocculation
Pressure filter

Coagulant
pH adjustment Post
Flocculation treatment
Pressure filter Pressure filter

Screening Flocculation Settler

Gravity DMF Cartridge MF/UF
Filter Pressurised

Flocculation DAF MF/UF

Gravity DMF

MF/UF submerged

MF/UF Pressurised

Flocculation MF/UF Pressurised

Pre-coating
MF/UF Pressurised
Inline coagulation

MF/UF Pressurised

Figure 4-5: Treatment train of brackish or sea water for various water qualities
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-16
Seawater pretreatment is a key component to protect the membranes from fouling. The main
purpose of the pretreatment system is to remove particulate, colloidal, organic, mineral and
microbiological contaminants contained in the source seawater and to prevent their
accumulation on the downstream SWRO membranes. Mainly two types of pretreatment
systems are typically used to protect seawater reverse osmosis membranes from fouling as
shown in Figure 4-4 conventional granular media filtration and membrane filtration. While
granular media filtration is still a dominating seawater pretreatment technology, the use of
Ultra-Filtration (UF) pretreatment has undergone rapid growth during the past decade and will
continue to grow and may offer cost and performance benefits for the site specific conditions
and challenges of a given seawater desalination project. The choice of the approach is mainly
based on the parameters to be removed from seawater.

4.3.8. Arrangement of Treatment Process

The Arrangement of treatment process shall be subjected to the following
1. Each unit process shall be arranged so that they can fully display their functions, while
taking into account harmony and efficiency of the water treatment plant and easy
maintenance
2. The treatment process shall be divided into two or more independent trains in order to
allow for initial low demand, day/ night variation and to accomodate for cleaning, repair,
and parts replacement or renewal. Variable speed drive is recommended for this purpose
3. Water level between unit processes shall be set by determining the head loss by hydraulic
calculations and experiments
4. Sanitary facilities and sludge treatment systems shall be constructed

4.4. Pilot Plant

A pilot plant consists of equipment and materials used to simulate a full-scale process or
processes. It is built to collect process design and operational data, but it is constructed on a
smaller scale for ease of installation, operation, and manipulation. A pilot plant size can vary
from bench-scale equipment to systems that can treat millions of gallons per day.

Each unit treatment process has a limited scale-down factor. If this limit is exceeded, the pilot
unit process will no longer simulate the full-scale process. Most scale-down limits have been
established empirically from previous pilot studies. For example, gravity filter operations can
be simulated using filter columns as small as 10 cm in diameter. However, backwashing
studies using the same size filter do not provide quality data. This is so primarily because the
excessive ratio of sidewall area to surface area creates friction between the media and
sidewall, short-circuiting wash-water.

Pilot plant design and operations should be kept as simple as possible. Pilot plants should be
operated manually to maintain control of the processes, to determine idiosyncrasies associated
with unit processes and individual equipment pieces, and to rectify small problems as they
occur. Problems not manually corrected could jeopardize the relevance of significant amounts
of data. For example, flow can be controlled using rate controllers and variable-speed drives
on pumps. With small flows, in-line flow meter accuracy can be off by as much as 25% or
more. Without a manual check of flow rate, all data collected would have a significant factor
of error that, if left unchecked, could result in a critical final design flow. Automatic data
collection is effective for establishing trends and monitoring operational and water quality
data during the absence of operators.

Pilot plant design and operations must also be flexible because these plants are used to
investigate the unknown and to stress the limits of a treatment process. During a study it is
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-17
common to change process variables and even to change processes themselves. Flexibility in
design allows the operator to quickly connect and disconnect unit processes or by-pass
processes. Modular design allows for complete processes to be quickly removed or inserted
into the treatment train, reducing downtime. For example, if the pilot plant is not operational
for significant periods of time, specific water quality events important to the study might be
missed.

Although the pilot plant comprises the tools used in performing a study, it is the design of the
study that dictates many of the design characteristics of the pilot plant.

4.4.1. Purposes of a Pilot Plant Study

Pilot plant studies are common, and their use has become almost necessary to meet
requirements of some funding agencies at minimum construction costs. Pilot plants are
generally used to,

 Compare alternative treatment processes

 Solve treatment process problems by investigating alternative process modifications
 Investigate new treatment processes
 Demonstrate confidence in recommended treatment processes
 Meet regulatory requirements
 Establish design criteria
Engineers generally turn to pilot plant studies to compare alternative treatment processes
before design, construction, or plant modification. One significant advantage of using pilot
plant studies in new facility design is that pilot plants allow the engineers to use site-specific
design criteria rather than generic or rule-of-thumb conservative design criteria. This
advantage can result in significant cost savings without sacrificing treatment quality.
New treatment processes are usually investigated at the pilot scale to establish a success rate
before their recommendation. For example, the concern for controlling the formation of
disinfection by-products has led to using ozone as a pre-oxidant and disinfectant in place of
chlorine and chlorine dioxide. Pilot plants and pilot studies have allowed ozone to be
compared as an alternative oxidant and disinfectant. Ozone concentrations, contact times, and
dissolution techniques are investigated at the pilot scale and proved practical before full-scale
plant design is started. In many instances, pilot plant studies produce results that provide for
funding agencies the confidence to approve the use of new technologies and for client
confidence to accept them.
Pilot studies are often used to demonstrate treatment processes over extended periods and
under varying water quality conditions. Seasonal fluctuations due to lake turnover and algae
blooms in reservoirs, daily water quality changes in rivers due to biological respiration, runoff
events, and industrial discharges are some of the occurrences that can disrupt treatment
processes. If water sources are likely to experience any of these events, it may be necessary to
study their effects on various treatment processes for extended periods. Funding agencies may
require operating a pilot plant for a year or more before granting permission to use new
treatment technologies.
It is important to have a complete understanding of source water quality before establishing a
pilot plant study. Historical data can be used to some extent to determine the stability of
supply and the need for extended operations. Exceptionally stable supplies may require pilot
testing for a short time during each season. All water quality episodes that happen in the
supply should be determined and investigated as part of the study. For example, if a study is
conducted for only two to three weeks per season on a large reservoir, there is a chance that

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-18
an algae bloom occurrence may be missed. Also, depending on the depth of the intake, an
isotherm may pass through the water at the intake level for short periods, causing wide swings
in pH, which may severely affect the coagulation process.
Another common use of pilot plant studies is to determine how best to correct full-scale unit
process problems without shutting down the full-scale process. Once the comparability
between the pilot plant process and the full-scale process has been established, individual
process parameters can be isolated and tested for comparison with the full-scale process. For
example, if floc carryover through a clarification tank is a problem, a pilot plant can be used
to test how the problem can best be alleviated by testing various combinations of coagulant
type and dosage, mixing times and energies, and flocculation time. Testing these variables on
a full plant basis can be dangerous in that some changes could result in complete failure of the
process or production of water of unsatisfactory quality.
4.4.2. Pilot Plant Study Checklist
In developing a pilot plant study, the following checklist of items must be considered before
the design, construction, or acquisition of a pilot plant. Each item in the checklist will help
focus on the type and size of pilot plant required.
 Define the purpose of the study
 Identify the end product of the study
 Collect all available background and historical data concerning water source and water
quality
 Compile a list of water treatment processes that should be considered
 Establish the minimum and maximum design constraints of pilot plant processes
 Define the length of operation of the study
 Determine who will operate the pilot plant
 Decide where the pilot plant will be located
 Determine the flexibility required for process changes during the study
 Decide the locations and frequency of sampling and analyses

4.4.3. Pilot Plant Design

Pilot plant design generally consists of two steps: running bench-scale tests to obtain
preliminary data and then final design based on the unit processes to be studied.

4.4.3.1. Bench-Scale Testing

Bench-scale tests are often conducted before the designing of a pilot plant to establish the
feasibility of various treatment processes.

Purpose of Bench-Scale Tests: In the absence of existing treatability data or treatment plant
operational data, bench-scale tests can be run to help the selection of the pilot-scale treatment
processes. Bench-scale tests are typically batch tests; the results are not capable of showing
dynamics found in the continuous flow process stream. Bench-scale tests can, however,
provide immediate and short-term results of significant value. Results from bench-scale tests
can also be incorporated into design criteria for the processes.

Bench-scale equipment can be arranged to simulate an existing treatment plant operation,

proposed modifications or entirely new processes. Once the correlation between the bench-
scale test and the full-scale process has been established, bench-scale apparatus can be used in
assessing various treatment options. For example, rapid mixing, flocculation, and clarification
can be accomplished in one vessel by simulating various mixing times and energy inputs.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-19
Clarified or flocculated water can then be passed through filter paper, membranes or a carbon
column to simulate further treatment.
Bench-scale tests are generally conducted concurrently with the pilot plant study to help
determine proper pilot plant protocols. Preliminary selection of treatment chemicals, mixing
times and energies, settling rates, flotation rates, and media selection can be estimated using
bench-scale tests.

4.4.3.2. Bench-Scale Equipment

The most common types of equipment used for bench-scale tests for potable water include

 Six-paddle stirrer with variable-speed mixers

 Set of 2-L plastic jars with sample taps and pinch valves
 Supply of 15-cm Whatman filter paper with approximately 0.5- to 10-µm porosity
 A 10-cm filter funnel and a 500-mL graduated flask
 Vacuum filter apparatus with 0.5-µm glass fibre filters
 Analytical equipment, including a turbidimeter, pH meter, spectrophotometer, and
colorimeter

Other types of bench-scale equipment are available to test for settling, carbon adsorption,
dissolved air flotation, and solids dewatering characteristics.

Bench-scale tests are generally conducted by adding various treatment chemicals directly to
the jars while mixing. Treatment chemicals can be prepared in advance and added by syringe
or pipette to the jar at the appropriate time. Rapid mixing is usually simulated for 0.5 to 1.0
min at full rpm. Flocculation can be simulated by varying the rpm from 80 to 20 over an
extended period typically from 5 to 20 min. The floc is then allowed to settle for 30 to 60 min
without mixing.

Samples are periodically collected from the sample tap on the jar to determine the settleability
of the floc. Floc suitable for conventional settling will readily settle in less than 5 min, or
sometimes even during the slow flocculation step. Floc suitable for flotation will remain
suspended for over 30 min. Pin-size floc suitable for direct filtration will be barely visible and
will remain suspended.

Samples collected from the jar after settling can be filtered through filter paper and analysed
for particulate removal and colour reduction. True colour can be used as a surrogate
measurement for natural organic matter reduction. If samples are to be analysed for total or
dissolved organic carbon reduction, glass fibre filters should be used so as not to contaminate
the samples with organic paper fibres.

4.4.4. General Design Considerations

Principal issues that must be addressed early in pilot plant design are the various hydraulic
issues and provision of adequate electric power to operate the equipment that will simulate
processes provided in the full-scale plant.

Hydraulic Requirements: Several hydraulic concerns should be addressed before pilot plant
construction or installation. The first is where the source water should come from and how it
is to be supplied to the pilot plant. It is important that the source water supplied to the pilot
plant be representative of the water that will be used in the treatment plant being designed. In
many cases, providing a continuous supply of source water requires modifications to existing
structures or running a long length of pipe from the source to the pilot plant.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-20
The method of disposal of both treated and untreated water from the pilot plant must also be
determined. It is often difficult to locate gravity drain lines from the pilot plant, and it may be
necessary to arrange for a sump or collection tank with pumps to remove the wastewater to a
sewer or drain.

If possible, the pilot plant should be designed so that pumping will not be required between
the unit processes. In most cases, water being processed contains solids, and running the water
through a pump could change the characteristics of the solids. This could have a significant
adverse impact on pilot plant results. In addition, every pump introduces another potential
source of failure. Staged platforms are usually used to support tanks and other hydraulic
structures so that flow is by gravity and the number of pumps is kept to a minimum.

Space Requirements: The pilot plant study often is required to be done adjacent to the water
supply source. Operating full-scale water treatment plants are often the location for pilot plant
studies. These facilities may or may not have the space to accommodate a pilot plant. If the
pilot plant size excludes its location from within the existing buildings, temporary housing
may be required. Tractor-trailer-mounted units may become attractive in the absence of
existing housing.

Water tanks associated with larger flows and storage requirements may present a structural
issue associated with floor loading capacities. Clearance associated with taller components
such as filters, contactors, and sedimentation processes may restrict their location or use.
Underestimating the space requirements for a pilot study can cause delay and extra costs.
Careful planning and coordination with the end user are required for a successful study.

Electric Power Requirements: The electrical loads required by the pilot plant must be
determined in advance to avoid on-site problems and delays. The total electrical draw
(amperes) and voltage requirements must be compared with available on-site electrical
facilities. If special electrical work is required to supply power to the pilot plant, it may be
necessary to obtain a local permit and hire a licensed electrician. One way of minimizing
outside labour charges for electrical work is to provide a power panel with the pilot plant
prewired to all electrical equipment. In this way, it is necessary to provide only a single
source of power to the panel at the site.

Pilot plants designed for overseas installation will probably require special consideration of
the electrical design. The voltage and hertz of power available differ from country to country,
and it may be necessary to provide a transformer as part of the pilot plant equipment package.

4.4.5. Design for Study of Unit Processes

Unit processes most often studied by using a pilot plant to obtain improved design
information are

 Preoxidation
 Coagulation
 Flocculation
 Clarification
 Filtration and granular activated carbon (GAC) contactors
 Ozonation contactors
 UV disinfection
 Solids collection and treatment
 Membranes

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-21
4.4.6. Pilot Plant Construction
Pilot plants generally fall under two distinct categories of permanent and temporary units.
Permanent pilot plants require the owner to purchase the pilot plant equipment and are more
common with the construction of new water treatment plants. A permanent pilot plant offers
the treatment plant operator the opportunity to fine-tune treatment techniques without
adversely impacting the full-scale plant. Successful modifications identified through pilot
tests provide the confidence to make the modification to the full-scale process. Without the
pilot plant, operators commonly hesitate to recommend changes for fear of worsening the
treatment.

The approach to permanent pilot plant construction differs significantly from temporary plant
construction. Permanent pilot plants have to meet local building, plumbing, electrical, and fire
codes. In addition, bidding laws may require extensive engineering services to provide design
drawings and specifications before bids can be taken and the plant constructed.

In locating a permanent pilot plant, it is extremely important to identify the area and height
requirements, source water and drainage availability, and electrical requirements. For
instance, laying pipes along the floor surface is not usually acceptable for permanent
applications. Any changes to the main treatment plant facility to accommodate the pilot plant
should be determined to be part of the pilot plant cost.

Temporary pilot plants offer the owner the same opportunities to test treatment options, but
usually at a fraction of the cost of building a permanent installation. Temporary pilot plants
can be constructed in many ways. Modular pilot plants are gaining in popularity and make it
easy for vendors to move their equipment from one site to another. Start-up time is reduced
because the intricate connections move with the plant. The only on-site work is limited to
source water piping, electrical supply modifications, drainage piping, and process-to-process
piping.

The customer or user can lease or rent the equipment for the time necessary to perform the
evaluations, and when the tests are completed, the equipment can be removed and the area
where it was located can be returned to its previous condition. Also, the use of modular plants
more readily allows for process changes during the study compared with permanent
installations.

4.4.7. Installation and Start-up

When planning the installation of a pilot plant, the time required for installation and start-up is
often either forgotten or underestimated. Careful and proper installation and start-up of the
pilot plant will inevitably produce benefits during the pilot plant study. On the other hand,
improper installation or start-up can cause many problems, including the collection of useless
data.

The use of modular equipment reduces the installation and start-up effort but does not
eliminate it entirely. Site-specific constraints and minor process modifications can have major
impacts. The use of equipment from different vendors, equipment built in different countries,
and different construction materials, flow requirements, system pressures, and electrical
demands are some of the problems that can cause installation nightmares.

Start-up time should include time for troubleshooting and repairs. The shipping of equipment
often produces some form of damage as well. Long periods of non-use can have an adverse
impact on equipment. Whenever possible, the people who are designated to operate the pilot
plant should help with the installation and start-up. The manufacturer or the contractors who

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-22
install the plant often know the strengths and weaknesses of the equipment and materials that
are provided, and this information can be valuable to the operator.

Operations and maintenance manuals for each piece of equipment and unit process should be
available to the user for proper start-up, and these should be studied by the operators during
the installation and start-up. Once the study has begun, time is usually limited and operators
may not take the time to learn how to properly maintain the equipment.

Each unit process should be independently tested for proper hydraulic, electrical, and
mechanical function before testing the entire process train. Once all connections have been
made, the entire system can be hydraulically tested by passing source water through it. Each
chemical feed system should be calibrated under the flow and pressure conditions likely to be
experienced before start-up, and preliminary jar tests can be conducted before start-up to
identify likely chemical selections and dosages.

Consideration must also be given to the experience level of the installers and operator because
this will affect the time of installation and start-up. When one is hiring engineers or
contractors for the design, construction, and installation of a pilot plant, their experience with
similar projects should be investigated before awarding the contract. Selection of the lowest
bid with least experience can spell disaster in the long run.

4.5. Water Safety Plan (WSP) in Water Treatment Process

A Water Safety Plan (WSP) represents a system wise risk management approach to ensure
that the quality of water is of good and consistent quality. Implementing WSP is a way to
ensure safe drinking water by: knowing the system thoroughly by managers and operators;
identifying where and how risk could arise; putting barriers and management systems in place
to control the hazardous events before they happen; making sure all parts of the system work
properly; and a comprehensive risk assessment and risk management approach that
encompasses all steps in water supply; and fits within a health driven framework for safe
drinking water.

Hazards and hazardous events from the catchment to consumer needs to be defined ; identify
all hazardous events that could contaminate, compromise or interrupt supply; identify all
potential hazards in supply chain; Evaluate the risks associated with each hazard/ hazardous
event. These are based on site visits or inspection, and desk studies using historical data (e.g.
flood events), and predictive information. The risks are assessed both by qualitative approach
and Semi-quantitative approach (likelihood and consequence in risk).

WSP describes the existing and potential control measures, assess the effectiveness of control
measures (validation); recalculate the risks accounting for existing control measures and
prioritize risks in the catchment. An improvement/upgrade plan is given in WSP by
prioritized action for each uncontrolled or ineffectively controlled risk. It includes
implementation of short-, medium- and long-term activities. It maximizes effectiveness of
resources.

Water suppliers may benefit from reduced costs through reducing or eliminating any
unnecessary monitoring and testing, reducing the need for treatment or improving
maintenance. Other benefits include improved communication/ stakeholder relationships,
improved management and operation of the water supply system and more effective
coordination of the procedures. Therefore, pollution prevention is emphasised before the
treatment.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-23
Although water safety plan is an operational process, a WTP designer can proactively develop
a WSP with the potential operational staff to improve the functioning and operational
monitoring of the WTP. Basically the WTP designer shall realise that a WTP itself is a control
measure considering multiple barriers to pollution risk control in WSP terminology. Further,
the designer shall concentrate on disaster risks and climate change related risks in order to
comply climate resilience under WSP.
4.5.1. Source Sanitary Survey
A sanitary survey is a review of a public water system to assess its capability to supply safe
drinking water. Sanitary surveys provide opportunities to visit the water system and know it
better and the operator to identify the gaps on proper monitoring and sampling procedures and
fulfil the need of technical assistance. Sanitary surveys are a proactive public health measure.

It reviews a raw water source’s features for the purposes of preventing potential
contamination or water quality degradation. Sanitary surveys will identify deficiencies in
water systems and it will require treatment technology based on evaluation of sanitary survey.
Depending on susceptibility of individual sources, up to 4-log treatment inactivation of
viruses may be required. The designer may use a sanitary survey to understand the existing
source wataer conditions.

4.5.2. Source Management

The performance of water treatment is strongly dependent on the quality of the feed water.
Any measures that can be taken to ensure continuous abstraction of the best quality water
available will allow treatment processes to be used to their maximum potential.

Direct river abstraction does not allow much scope independently for the WTP designer for
source management, although there are measures that can be taken to protect intakes from the
effects of short term pollution.

The majority of surface water supplies are derived from reservoirs, and efficient management
of the catchment and the reservoir itself can ensure maintenance of the quality.

The most significant risk to reservoirs comes from farming activities and, particularly in
upland areas, from forestry. Close liaison between authorities concerned with water supply,
pollution control, agriculture and forestry is vital for protection of water sources. Forestry can
lead to increased acidity, aluminium and solids concentrations in upland rivers and reservoirs.
Use of pesticides and fertilizers can have detrimental effects on water quality, particularly in
low land areas where use of fertilisers can cause problem of excessive algal growth in
reservoirs, resulting in treatment problems.

The water and forestry industries have to prepare guideline for forestry working practice to
minimise impact on water supplies. These include the following:

 Avoid deforestation of areas adjacent to streams and rivers for a suitable distance on
either side. This area should be left to natural vegetation and wildlife
 Designing drainage channels and access roads to avoid excessive erosion and high
runoff rates, thus minimising discharge of sediments and other postulants
 Consultation with water undertakings over forest planning, and the use of fertilizers
and pesticides
 Provision of emergency telephone numbers to allow forestry managers to contact
water undertakings

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-24
River sources are particularly susceptible to risk of pollution by spillage from industries.
Liaison with police and fire services can minimise the risk.

Catchment control measures in relation to agricultural practices can play a major role in
management of cryptosporidium risk the storage, disposal and use of animal manures to
prevent contamination of intakes and boreholes are of particular importance.

The WSP will provide a catchment improvements and management plans as output control
measures and this has to be implemented with the active participation of all relevant
stakeholders. The district Water Quality Surveillance Committee is a proven mechanism in
implementing WSP.

4.5.3. Source Protection

Management and protection of the water source could prevent some particulate and dissolved
matter from entering the source. Source protection is particularly important for surface water
sources as they are easily contaminated through direct or indirect contact with humans and
livestock. According to the WHO Dirking Water Quality Guidelines (DWQG), a great
impetus for preventing contamination is that less treatment will be required and so operational
costs of any pre-treatment system will be lower (WHO, 2004).

Improvements to the catchment area could apply the multi-stage barriers approach that
usually includes:
 Selection of the best available source
 Protection of that source with management control barrier
 Flocculation and sedimentation barrier
 Filtration barrier and disinfection barrier
The multi-stage barrier options following source selection and protection can vary with the
availability of financial and technical resources. Inexpensive mitigation measures might
incorporate physical barriers, such as fences, that limit the people and livestock that have
direct access to the surface water, and reeds or foliage that act as a natural barrier and filter to
particulate matter that is carried into the surface source through runoff. Natural plant barriers
such as thorn bushes can be formed around basins to conceal and break wind effect and limit
uncontrolled access to the surface water. In addition, the intake location and design can help
to reduce the turbidity.

4.5.4. Intake Protection for Direct River Abstraction Works

Designing a direct intake system requires consideration of a variety of potential problems that
can be encountered. Measures to be considered include:

a) Provision of backside storage; even one or two day’s storage can be adequate to allow
short-term pollution to pass the intake. Dividing walls of baffles should be installed to
minimise short-circuiting, a common problems in small storage reservoirs
b) Floating booms to prevent ingress of oil and floating debris
c) A monitoring and sampling programme at a sufficient distance upstream of the intake to
give ample time for action. It is ideal of an upstream intake in the same stream / river that
could be used as sampling and warning. A wide range of automatic continuous monitors
are now available, including fish monitors for detection of general pollution. Good
communication with the emergency services is also important
d) Relocation of the existing intake upstream of high-risk areas (e.g. location prone to
landslides, settlements etc.)
e) Diverting any pollution canal, stream etc., to downstream of the water intake.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-25
f) Provision for accessibility for cleaning purpose and protections against crocodile, elephant
etc
g) Verbaties, Zebra mussel impacts may need to be addressed in some regions
h) Fish protection is an especially important design consideration
i) Design challenges applicable to most regions include flotation, geotechnical, mechanical
and chemical treatment considerations

Design of intake systems may affect aquatic organisms present in the river, lake, or reservoir.
Fish protection is a significant design element in some areas. Three basic types of devices
used to prevent juvenile fish from entering flow diversions are (1) physical barrier screens, (2)
behavioural guidance systems, and (3) capture and release systems. The most widely accepted
and successful method of protecting juvenile salmonid passage is to use physical barriers.
When one is designing a juvenile fish screen, the swimming ability of the species and the life
stage targeted for protection should be considered.

An effective approach for fish protection, which also minimizes the introduction of other
contaminants, is to use low entrance velocities. The flow should approach the screen in a
laminar mode. A screen can be placed on the end of the pump intake in a pressurized system.
Cleaning of pump intake screens can be accomplished using fixed spray bar with rotating
screen, fixed screen with rotating bar, or internal airburst systems.

A positive method to reduce fish entry into submerged intake facilities is the velocity cap.
Figure 4-6 illustrates a horizontal cap on the top of the intake structure, which forces all water
to enter horizontally. Fish tend to swim against horizontal currents and avoid the intake which
is not possible in a vertical entry.

Velocity cap T Screen

Figure 4-6: Velocity cap and T Screen

The installation of stainless steel T screens on each of the intake caissons (Figure 4-6) can
protect fish in direct intake. The intake T screens are over 3.0 m long and sized to meet 12.2
cm/s approach velocity requirements for salmonid fish protection, each Screen openings are
0.069 in. (1.75 mm). 10.2-atm airburst cleaning system can be actuated by head loss across
the screens, timed cycle, or manual operation.

4.5.5. Reservoir Management

4.5.6.1. Effect of reservoir storage
Long-term storage can have a number of beneficial effects on water quality, including:

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-26
  Sedimentation of solids, reducing turbidity
 Reduction of extremes of colour
 Dilution of occasional pollutants
 Reduction in concentrations of pathogenic organism

These benefits rely on good reservoir construction and operation. For example, short-
circuiting can be overcome by careful sitting of inlet and outlet, by the installation of walls or
baffles, or by mixing using aerators.

4.5.6.2. Control of algal growth and thermal stratification

As source water control techniques, there are several measures to control or minimize the
growth and impact of algae/ cyanobacteria in reservoirs, lakes and tanks. Basic mechanisms
are:
1) Controlling internal nutrients (better to keep T-N<0.2 mg/l and T-P<0.02 mg/l)
2) Controlling sunlight
3) Controlling retention time (better to keep the retention time being less than 10-20
days)
4) Controlling or reducing seed of cyanobacteria (such as drying up of lakes or tanks)
5) Introducing natural enemy to cyanobacteria (e.g. fish species)
6) Installation of Sonicator to push away algae entering in to intake
7) Changing the raw water extraction depth, point during day / nights
8) Introducing biological algal control
9) Placing of floating plant beds

4.5.5.3.Algae Control Techniques in Water Source Management

In general, there are three ways to remove/control algae/cyanobacteria:
1) Pollution sources control
2) Countermeasures for source water
3) Countermeasures within WTP
Control and reduction of nutrients’ inflow into tanks (such as construction of advanced
wastewater treatment plants and reduction of fertilizer usage etc.) are preventative measures,
but they need longer time and costly. In addition, as fundamental control measures the
pollution sources control should be implemented in collaboration with other stakeholders such
as sewerage, agriculture, environment, irrigation, local governments and NGOs (Non-
Governmental Organizations) etc.

However, it must be noted that before deciding the control technique applied, the designers
have to collect related information of the water source and to understand hydrology, water
quality and pollution reasons before developing control measures.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 4-27
CHAPTER 5

CONVENTIONAL UNIT PROCESSES

This chapter covers only the conventional unit processes from aeration to filtration including
screening. For chemical feeding and disinfection, refer CHAPTER 6 and for other unit
processes including advanced treatment processes refer CHAPTER 7.

Traditional treatment engineering has focused on the treatment plant as the sole vehicle for
controlling drinking water quality. The engineer's role was to characterize the quality of the
source water entering the plant and devise treatment facilities to produce water meeting
drinking water standards. The point of measurement for drinking water standards was the
finished treated water exiting the plant. Today's engineer must view the water treatment plant
as only a major component in a multistep treatment process. This process includes
consideration of the path that the water travels upstream of the plant in the watershed and the
elements of the water transmission and distribution system downstream of the plant. Changing
water quality must be managed in each of these steps, and new regulations require that
drinking water standards be met at the customer's tap.

5.1. Intake
Raw water intake structures are used to control extraction of raw water from surface water
sources. Their main objective is to extract the best quality water so that fish, floating debris,
coarse sediment and other harmful suspended matter can not enter in to the plant. These
structures may be simple submerged intake pipes or elaborate tower like structures that house
intake gates, screens, control valves, pumps, chemical feeders, flow meters, etc. These may be
an integral part of a dam or a separate structure located elsewhere. There are several types of
intakes such as floating intakes, submerged intakes, tower intakes, shore intakes, pier intake,
etc. Engineers must carefully study various factors in selection of a location for a raw water
intake. These factors includes water quality, water depth, stream or current velocities,
foundation stability, easy access, availability of power, distance to the water treatment plant,
obstruction to navigation and environmental impacts, etc.

The design of a water intake is generally a site specific and a standard design cannot be
adopted for a given site without further modifications. (Refer D2 Manual for more details).

The following are to be considered in order to improve the quality of water entering in to the
water treatment plant.

5.1.1. Floating Boom

The need for floating booms could be to control the floating debris and floating oil entering
the intakes. It is preferable to install oil sensor for detecting the oil in raw water.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-1
5.1.1.1. Floating Oil Boom
The following main methods of combating an oil spill can adapted:

 Mechanical recovery
 Dispersant use
 In-situ burning
Mechanical containment and recovery of oil is the most desirable option (eg.using absorbing
pads). Booms are used for containment, and skimmers are used to recover oil from the water
surface. Natural or induced agitation of water causes dispersion of oil into the water column.
Dispersants are mixtures of surfactants in one or more solvents, specifically formulated to
enhance the rate of this natural process. In-situ burning has the advantage that it rapidly
removes large volumes. However, it poses fire hazards, and has limitations when the
thickness of the oil slick is less than 2 mm. Emulsions burn poorly, if at all. Floating oil boom
is a successful method of preventing floating oil entering in to water intake in river or lake.

5.1.1.2. Floating Debris Boom

The boom is designed for standard containment of debris, trash, floating timbers, and more in
your water location. Debris boom specifications include the following components:

 Top Flotation Device

 PVC Materials
 Freeboard
 Skirt (usually either 150 or 300 mm in depth)
 Tension Cable
 Ballast Chain
 Section Lengths: 15 or 30 meters
 Aluminium Universal Slide or ASTM Connectors
Boom barriers are used to contain and control floating debris such as floating timber, logs,
rubbish, garbage, hyacinth, duckweed, and sargassum. Floating debris barriers can be used for
demarcation, floating trash containment, seaweed control, or for aquatic plant control such as
for a deep debris boom that could be placed in front of a river intake structure.

Floating booms could be made out of bamboo or polyethylene material. The design of a
floating could be solid of inflatable. The NWSDB practice so far is solid type floating booms.
The Figure 5-1 shows some designs for floating booms. However, in practice NWSDB has
been using very simple means of floating booms in the form of floating pipes. NWSDB is
getting assistance from SLRDC and Sri Lanka Navy for the construction of floating booms at
major river intakes.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-2
a) A solid flotation curtain bloom with external ballast b) An external flotation fence bloom with external
flotation and ballast. Anchoring points are located at
intervals along its lower length.

c) An inflammable curtain bloom with a combined d) Intertidal shore bloom. Upper air inflation pocket
ballast and tension chain fitted in an integral pocket to allow flotation, lower water filled pocket to provide
attached to the bottom of the skirt. ballast when floating and to ensure a good seal with
substrate at low tide.
Figure 5-1: Some designs for floating booms

Figure 5-2: Floating booms at Ambathale intake for debris and oil control

5.1.2. Salinity Barrier

Sri Lanka has 103 river basins flowing into the sea with only about 17 rivers being perennial.
The sea is around the island with river mouths subjected to tidal variations. The sea level rise
due to climate change is a main threat to the freshwater extraction in the future.

The sea level fluctuation with the tidal effect is a well-known phenomenon. Salinity intrusion
due to tidal effects at the intake of the water treatment plant in Ambathale is being handled by

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-3
means of a practical approach. The river flow conditions are predicted using international
tidal charts and managed by release of water from upstream Castlereigh and Maussakele
reservoirs built for power generation. A temporary sand bag barrier is also built across the
river in management of this event during February to March each year. The Low and High
tide level in Colombo during a week is shown in Figure 5-3.

Figure 5-3: Low and High tide level in Colombo during a week

Reference: https://www.tide-forecast.com/locations/Colombo-Sri-Lanka/tides/latest

Tides are formed due to gravitational forces between the earth and the moon while moon
moving around the earth. Different scenarios of tide formation are detailed in Figure 5-4.

Figure 5-4: Different scenarios of tide formation

Source: http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/ocean/Tides.shtml

Spring tides are especially strong tides (nothing to do with the season “Spring”). They occur
when the Earth, the Sun and the Moon are in line. The gravitational forces of the Moon and
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-4
the Sun both contribute to the tides. Spring tides occur during the full moon and the new
moon. The Proxigean Spring Tide is a rare, unusually high tide. This very high tide occurs
when the moon is both unusually close to the Earth (at its closest perigee, called the proxigee)
and in the New Moon phase (when the Moon is between the Sun and the Earth). The
proxigean spring tide occurs at most once every 1.5 years.

The Neap tides are especially weak tides. They occur when the gravitational forces of the
Moon and the Sun are perpendicular to one another (with respect to the Earth). Neap tides
occur during quarter moons. The tidal variations control the sea water level on a monthly
cyclic manner. The climate change effects add on to the long-term sea level rise. The
prediction of sea level rise for Sri Lanka is 0.5m for 2100. Annual tidal predictions are
published by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Figure 5-5: Salinity barrier using Sand bag at Ambathale

The tidal effect on raw water quality is very high during drought time. For example, the tidal
effect is critical for Kelani River from February to March during past few years. The tidal
effect is predicted from the chart published for each year. The temporary salinity barrier at the
Ambathale intake is built and maintained based on this tidal level observation during the
period from February to March each year in the recent past. Although the width of the river at
Kelani River is suitable for building a temporary sand bag barrier, the Kethhena intake at
Kaluganga is suffering from the salinity intrusion due to incapability of having such salinity
barrier across the river due to practical difficulties. Accordingly, the consumers of Kaluthara
water supply scheme receive salty water during February to April each year. Each year the
salinity barrier using sand bag at Ambathale is built under a contract (refer Figure 5-5). It is
topped up after each flood event and removed with the help of Sri Lanka Navy during major
floods.

The Wee oya storage tank in the Kelani Catchment is proposed to store fresh water for use
during the drought period. However, proposal to use Wee Oya water for flushing the salinity
wedge during February to April period by the Department of Irrigation remains questionable
due to water balance problems and climate predictions on sea level rise for the next 100 years.
A gate structure is available to maintain the river flow towards the downstream along with
flushing of the salinity through the gate.

5.1.3. Sonicators for the Control of Algae

Cyanobacteria growing in drinking water reservoirs can produce geosmins, giving the water
an “earthy “taste and smell. Also there could be algal toxins released from the cells. The
presence of organic material in the water results in THM formation, when the water is treated
with chlorine. “LG Sonic” products can control the growth of algae without breaking the cell

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-5
walls and prevents the algae from floating up to the surface, reducing biomass along with the
presence of toxins and geosmins in water.

The ultrasonic algae control devices emit specific ultrasonic waves in order to control algae
and biofouling in lakes, reservoirs, and industrial applications.

 Eliminate up to 90% of existing algae and prevent new algae

 Chemical-free solution that is safe for fish and other aquatic life
 Treat large water surfaces, such as lakes and reservoirs
 Requires little maintenance to prevent frequent site visits

It uses scientifically proven ultrasonic frequencies to control many types of algae. A very
common differentiation is between green algae and toxic cyanobacteria, which are also known
as blue-green algae. Blue-green algae and some green algae are capable of travelling through
the water vertically due to their possession of gas vesicles. The ultrasonic sound waves create
an ultrasonic pressure in the top layer of the water. This ultrasonic sound barrier prevents the
algae from rising to the surface and absorbing light for photosynthesis. Therefore, algae are
no longer capable of growing further. The algae will die while the cell wall remains intact,
preventing the release of toxins from the algae into the water. The algae will sink to the
bottom of the water reservoir and are degraded by the bacteria present.

Continuous water quality monitoring combined with environmentally friendly ultrasonic

sound waves provides a long-term solution for algae problems. After one year with this type
of treatment, the algae level will reduce even more as increased clarity of the water will result
in plant growth, increased oxygen and fish growth. This way, the ultrasound treatment
contributes to a healthy ecosystem.

The control of algae by ultra sound waves reduces the undesirable taste and odour causing
compounds in the treated water delivered to the customers as shown in Figure 5-6.

The effects of these ultrasonic algae control products have been tested by various universities
and are proven to be safe for fish, plants, zooplankton, and insects. The University of
Portsmouth, UK; UNICET Catania, Italy; and BOKU, Austria found that LG Sonic units are
safe for fish. The devices have been tested on their effect on zooplankton, and no negative
effect was found. The products are not based on cavitation, which is a phenomenon where
high-power ultrasound causes the formation of micro-bubbles that implode, causing intense
heat pressure. These processes can destroy cells and might harm fish and plants.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-6
 Figure 5-6: Control of algae by ultra sound waves
“E-line” for range up to 200 m
The “LG Sonic e-line” has 12 ultrasonic programs to effectively control different types of
algae. Each program contains different types of ultrasonic parameters, such as frequency,
amplitude, waveform and signal duration. The “LG Sonic e-line” can efficiently control algae
up to 200 meter per device with a power consumption of just 5-40 Watt.

Figure 5-7: The “LG Sonic e-line” for control algae up to 200 meter

Figure 5-8: “MPC Buoy” Solar powered algae control with online water quality
monitoring (Range 500m)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-7
This solution is to anchor one or multiple MPC-Buoy systems that transmit specific ultrasonic
parameters depending on the type of algae. Each device can control algae in areas up to 500m
in diameter.

The real-time water quality monitoring is automatically integrated in the “MPC-

Buoy” system. The “MPC-Buoy” contains detailed monitoring equipment, providing a
complete overview of the water quality and controls the algae accordingly by using
ultrasound. Web-based software (MPC-View) allows users to visually follow the water
quality and the progress of the ultrasonic treatment.

The “MPC-Buoy” provides a complete overview of the water quality by collecting the
following parameters every 10 minutes: Chlorophyll α (green algae), Phycocyanin (blue-
green algae), pH, Turbidity, Dissolved Oxygen, and Temperature. The collected data is
delivered in real time via radio, GPRS, or 3G to a web-based software. Based on the
developed algorithm the manufacturer can modify the ultrasonic program to the specific water
conditions and predict an algal blooms a few days ahead. Based on the received information,
the ultrasonic program can be activated according to the water conditions and type of algae
present. This way, it is possible to eliminate existing algae and prevent the growth of new
algae. The system is capable to change for 12 ultrasonic programs to suit for algae type and
water quality available in the field.

“LG Sonic” has integrated the satellite remote sensing technology to accurately map the
spatial and temporal distribution of the water quality parameters to generate a complete
overview of the algae distribution in large water bodies.

5.1.4. Sediment Deposit and De-silting Mechanism

settling of sediments at intakes are relatively common. As water is abstracted through the
intake, sediment is typically drawn towards the intake structure or point of diversion.
Sediment may either be drawn into the intake structure or may be trapped behind it.

Figure 5-9: Intake structure with screens and weir

If sediment is drawn into the intake, there is the risk of siltation at the intake facility and
damages to the machinery in operation. Exposure of such machinery like pumps to small
abrasive particles moving through the impeller at high velocity causes damage over short
periods. Seals and bearings may suffer severe wear, so that efficiency is reduced and complete
failure may eventually follow – in either case maintenance is necessary, requiring high
expenditure in terms of replacing spare parts, man-hours and lost water or power supply.
Screens, penstocks and moving parts, such as gates and valves, are also susceptible to
extensive damage from sediment in motion or from sediment deposits.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-8
 Figure 5-10: Scour protection in the intake structure

A main cause of the problem due to accumulation of sediments is the highly variable flow
pattern of the rivers varying between very low (low flow) and very high (flash floods) during
a season. Figure 5-10 shows patterns of sediment deposition and scouring at intake
structures.
The problem of sedimentation at water intakes on rivers can largely be eliminated or
minimized by appropriate design of the civil structures around the intakes. This needs to be
done with due consideration of the local morphological and hydraulic conditions. Even the
application of sound engineering design practice cannot always overcome all sedimentation
problems of such smaller intakes for all flow patterns.

In spite of available sound engineering practices and because of the fact that each intake
normally has unique, complex flow characteristics, it is generally advisable to verify each
design of an intake in a laboratory by means of a hydraulic model, provided the size of the
intake warrant the cost of a model study.

In case of removal of sediments from intake locations mechanical removal as well as

hydraulic removal and transport of sediment can be done. However, it is common knowledge
that hydraulic removal and transport of sediment is generally less costly than removing
sediment by mechanical means. Process of clearing and removing sediment is very expensive,
especially if a proportion of fine cohesive material results in very solid deposits.

There are two locations of sediment deposition at an intake. One is at the main intake point at
river and the other is at the wet well. De-silting at the main river can be done by dredging or
pumping. Most significant location is the bottom of the wet well. Sediment at the wet well can
be removed by using silt pumps. However, while controlling the sediment at the main intake
point at the river, it will control the sedimentation at the wet well.
The principle of sediment rejection which is the upper layers of the flow are allowed to enter
the intake, the lower layers are kept from entering the intake and conveyed towards
downstream with the remaining river flow can be used to control the sedimentation at the
river intake point. For this method, various kinds of submerged sills and bars are used to keep
the sediment away from entering the intake.

In all cases of sediment removal including discharging back into rivers, all relevant legislation
must be taken into consideration. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) procedure would
be to approach for a permit to allow the planned operations. Based on the degree of
environmental sensitivity of each case, would be able to indicate if an environmental impact
assessment is required before a permit can be issued.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-9
5.1.5. Rakes and Screens
Screening is the first step for separating particles according to size alone and carried out at the
inlet of water intake to prevent large debris such as wood chips, leaves, aquatic plants, fish
and floating impurities entering into the treatment plant or intake. It restricts the entry of
suspended solids such as garbage and prevents pumps, impellers, pipes, valves and other
equipment from clogging or damage. There are different type of screens and strainers. The
choice is mainly governed by the size of the debris to be removed, the nature of the
subsequent treatment, fixed or moving screen surface, and the method of cleaning the screen.
For large debris such as branches, a set of relatively widely spaced bars, which can be cleaned
manually, may be used. Mechanically or hydraulically actuated rake mechanism can be
attached to remove the junk within the bars periodically. They play an important role in
determining the overall plant performance.

There are many types of screens that can be used in water treatment processes and this can be
classified as shown in Table 5-1. Furthermore, the following configurations are also
available:

1. Bar or rack screens: Bar screens comprised of parallel bars, usually vertical or inclined;
2. Mesh screens: Mesh screens comprised of a fabric with mesh size depending on floating
and suspended matter.
3. Band screens: Consists of a perforated belt passing over an upper and lower rollers;
4. Perforated plate screen: Consists of a fixed band of perforated screens;
5. Grating screens: Consists of two sets of parallel bars;

Table 5-1: Classification of Screens

Opening size Configuration Cleaning Method Movement
 Coarse  Bar/ Grating Screens  Manual  Moving
 Medium and Fine  Mesh Screens  Mechanical  Fixed
 Band screens  raked or water-jet
 Perforated plate screen

Bar screens are very simple arrangements and used in many water supply schemes in Sri
Lanka. There are mainly two types depending upon its movement. One is removable type and
other is fixed type. The removable type bar screens are operated by means of guides installed
on the sidewalls of the concrete structure. A lifting beam is used to raise or lower the bar
screen. The segments are manually cleaned after raising it to the operating floor. The fixed
type bar screens are installed on the concrete structure by bolting or grouting. They are
cleaned by bar screen cleaning equipment.

5.1.5.1.Coarse Screen or Trash Rack

In surface water treatment the coarse bar screens are set at the water intake (preferably outside
of sluice gate or stop log slot) to prevent large floating objects passing into the treatment
works. The selection of bar size depends on the width and the depth of the channel. Access
should be provided for easy raking and removal of debris.

The following factors should be considered when designing of coarse screens:

• Clear openings between bars: opening needed typically 50-100mm, at 22 - 45 incline
• Location: installed ahead of intake structure or desilting chambers
• Approach velocity: at least 0.4 m/s to prevent deposition of solids, and should not exceed
0.9 m/s at peak flow rate to avoid dislodging of solids

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-10
• Head loss through screens: limited to 150 mm
• Screens handling and disposal of debris: quantity of screenings depends on the type of
raw water, geographic location, screen size and weather
• Controls : operation cycle of about 24 hours for mechanically raked screens
5.1.5.2.Fine Screen
Fine bar screens are similar to coarse screen with closer bar spacing (5 to 20mm) and often
placed just after a coarse screen (see Figure 5-11). The approach flow rate to the screen
should not exceed 1.4 m/s to avoid drawing in fish and small objects. Duplicate screens are
provided to allow the removal of one screen for cleaning manually.
Design Criteria of a fine Bar Screen:
Average Approach Velocity 0.6 - 1.0 m/s
Maximum Velocity at peak 1.2 - 1.4 m/s (to prevent entrapped materials being forced
through the bars).
Optimum Velocity 0.6 m/s (through the screen opening)
Minimum Velocity 0.4 m/s to prevent deposition of solids.
Head loss hL = 0.05 - 0.15 m
Cleaning Mechanism manually-raked or mechanically-raked, or water-jet cleaned
Angle of Inclination 10-30° to the vertical
Head loss through a screen may be estimated by the following formula:

ℎ = 0.0729 (𝑉 2 − 𝑈 2 )

Where h - head loss (m)

V - velocity through the screen (m/s)
U - velocity before the screen (m/s)
Under the normal circumstances, the crossing velocity through the screen should be sufficient
for matter to attach itself to the screen without producing a loss of head or a complete
clogging of the screen or allowing matter not to be carried by the flow.
Coarse bar screen Lifting hook Fine mesh/grading screen
Perforated plate

Side wall

Figure 5-11: Front view of Coarse and Fine Screens

Mechanically cleaned screens may be necessary in larger water supply schemes, operated
continuously or intermittently as controlled by the head loss across the unit. Manually cleaned
screens are selected for economic factors, in some situations for small plants, in remote
locations where purchasing of spare parts could be difficult or skilled mechanics are not
available. The design calculations for fine and coarse screens are provided in Annex A.
A typical belt speed of a band or belt type screen for continuous operation would be about 15
mm/s as shown in Figure 5-12. Flexible wire woven mesh made of poly-propylene screens
connected to a band/ belt rotated by electric motor are normally installed in river intakes. The
solid matter is washed off by high pressure water jet directed from the inside of the screen.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-11
Drum screens are similar in principle to band screen, except the difference in the movement
of the screen. Drum units may rotate continuously at 0.2 - 2 rev/min.

Figure 5-12: Schematic of a Travelling Band Screen and Drum screen

5.1.5.3.Micro-strainer
Microstrainer is a special category of fine screen used for removal of finer solids from raw
water by passage through a fabric of either fine steel mesh or plastic cloth fixed over a
cylindrical support frame as shown in Figure 5-13. The removal mechanism is based upon the
size of the opening in the fabric. Depending on the size of the aperture in the fabric, it behaves
either as a filter to remove the coarse turbidity, zooplankton, algae, etc. or as a fine screen to
remove larger particles.

Water jet
Overflow weirs (Continuous)

Head Loss Waste Hoppers

(150 mm)

Combined main
(shaft & wash pipe

Rotation (linear velocity

0.25 m/s

Figure 5-13: Cross sectional view of Microstrainer

Generally a microstrainer is fixed horizontally on a concrete or steel water tank so that about
60% of slowly rotating drum is submerged. One end is sealed and the other allows the water
to flow in and screening out through the fine mesh. The top of the drums remains above the
water level and is continuously cleaned by water jets on the outsides as shown in Figure 5-13.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-12
The screenings are collected in to a trough suspended above the inside water level of the
drum. The solids washed off are disposed through the wash pipe towards the direction of the
water inlet. The entire drum is rotated by a variable speed motor.

The head loss, which is proportionate to the quantity of suspended substance in raw water,
indicate the removal effect and the appropriateness of operational factors of the system
(filtration speed, drum’s peripheral speed, filter net characters and washing effect) and used as
a general index for running the system. Where substances caught by the filter net form film,
substances that are smaller than the filter net are also caught and thereby the removal ratio is
increased. The removal ratio is generally increased as the head loss reaches a certain point and
is reduced afterwards.

The drop in removal ratio occurs because part of deposited substances that stand, increase in
water pressure through the mesh. Therefore when selecting and designing microstrainers, the
mesh size is selected and the effective filtration bed area is estimated by measuring the size,
condition and quality of organisms in raw water, and decision is made by pilot plant study
(See Table 5-2).

Since the material and mesh size govern the removal effect, the filter nets are selected
according to raw water and target substances are to be removed. The synthetic fibres nets (e.g.
nylon) and have high chemical resistance, relatively low price. On the other hand, they require
reinforcement by pilot nets due to relatively lower mechanical strength.

Table 5-2: Standard Treated Water Quantity and Microstrainer Size

Rotary drum
35x 500x 700x 900x 1,200x 1,500x 2,000x 2,000x 2,800x 2,800x
(diameter x
300 700 900 1,200 1,500 2,000 2,400 3,000 3,600 4,000
length)
Filtration rate Treated amount (m3/d)
0.5 m/min 150 500 850 1,460 2,440 4,060 6,520 8,120 13,690 12,200
1.0 m/min 300 1,000 1,750 2,290 4,880 8,130 13,040 16,240 27,380 30,410
1.5 m/min 450 1,500 2,561 4,390 7,320 12,200 19,560 24,360 41,080 45,610
3.0 m/min 900 3,000 5,130 8,780 14,640 24,410 39,130 48,720 82,160 91,230
Rotary drum
35x 500x 700x 900x 1,200x 1,500x 2,000x 2,000x 2,800x 2,800x
(diameter x
300 700 900 1,200 1,500 2,000 2,400 3,000 3,600 4,000
length)
Filtration Bed
0.21 0.70 1.98 3.39 5.65 9.42 15.1 18.8 31.7 35.2
area (m2)
Circuit Speed
3.5- 5.5- 5.2- 5.3- 5.3- 5.3- 8.2- 8.2- 7.6- 7.6-
(m/min) -50
14.2 22.0 20.9 21.0 21.0 21.2 32.0 32.6 30.5 30.5
HZ
Washing water
volume 0.036 0.06 0.07 0.11 0.12 0.18 0.26 0.33 0.39 0.43
(m3/min)
Washing
Pressure 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196 0.196
(MPa)
Motor Output
0.4 0.4 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.5 2.2 2.2 3.7 3.7
(kW)

The effectiveness of a microstrainer in removal of solids depends upon the mesh size and on
the material that forms the filter mesh. In addition, the performance is also based on the
operating factors such as hydraulic loading rate, requirement for cleaning, and maintenance
factors. For the determination of the appropriate material, size of the strainer, and hydraulic
loading rate, pilot testing is recommended. Cleaning and maintenance requirement must be
evaluated after careful review of the operation and performance of full scale installations.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-13
The washing water pressure for filter is around 0.20 MPa in standard, but the washing effect
differs by the type of suspended substances. However, a minimum washing water pressure is
maintained unless the head loss is increased due to imperfect washing. Since the washing
water volume differs by microstrainer size, filtration speed and revolution, the necessary
water volume is secured by referring to Table 5-2. The specification for the micro-strainer
filter mesh is given in Table 5-3.
Table 5-3: Microstrainer Filter Mesh Specifications
Mesh Wire diameter* Mesh Nominal filter Net thickness Maximum
specification (mm) grading () (mm) net width
80 0.457 (0.345) 14 (80) 250 1.03 1,500
110 0.376 (0.254) 24 (110) 140 0.751 3,800
150 0.254 (0.193) 30 (150) 110 0.552 1,500
200 0.185 (0.142) 40 (200) 85 0.414 1,220
250 0.142 (0.112) 50 (250) 60 0.309 1,220
510 0.091 (0.056) 80 (510) 40 0.184 1,220
Note: * String direction: are presented as Longitudinal (Lateral)
In many cases, microstrainers are intermittently employed according to the seasonal growth of
organism and ventilation for drying of filter mesh to be allowed in indoor installations. Scour
line to empty the basin for maintenance and repairs and provision of cranes is desirable to
facilitate maintenance.
5.1.6. Disposal of Screenings
Screenings is the waste materials collected from screens. Screenings should be properly
disposed. Various methods of screening disposals are used such as:
 Burning
 Burying
 Digestion
 Dumping into large bodies of water
 Shredding and returning it to wastewater collection or treatment system
Screenings inside the plants are handled by either manually in small facilities, or
mechanically through conveyer belt. Because of transportation and environmental constrains,
drying or compacting treatment have been given increased consideration. Inland burying is
efficient in small treatment plants, while burning is best for medium and large treatment
plants. Other methods cause problems and may need subsequent treatment. Digestion is used
for large systems and in combination with the treatment of the organic portion of municipal
solid waste.

5.2. Pre-Treatment
5.2.1. Pre-oxidation
Preoxidation is commonly used for biological growth control through treatment plant source
water piping and structures, Oxidation-reduction (redox) reactions form the basis for many
water treatment processes addressing a wide range of water quality objectives. These may
include removal of iron, manganese, sulphur, colour, tastes, odour, and synthetic organics
(herbicides and pesticides). A redox reaction consists of two half-reactions: the oxidation
reaction, in which a substance loses, or donates, electrons; and the reduction reaction, in
which a substance gains, or accepts, electrons. An oxidation reaction and a reduction reaction
must always be coupled because free electrons cannot exist in solution and electrons must be

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-14
conserved. Iron and Manganese removal and taste and odour control are discussed in chapter
7.
5.2.2. Pre-sedimentation
Presedimentation is used primarily by those plants treating high-turbidity surface waters,
especially rivers. Some of these plants use metal salt or polymer coagulants to enhance
suspended-solids removal. Presedimentation provides a more uniform water quality at the
treatment plant, removes a major portion of the suspended solids with little chemical cost, and
offers potential cost savings in residuals treatment and disposal. Presedimentation also
provides an opportunity for pretreatment and removal of tastes and odours and other organic
compounds with powdered activated carbon and oxidizing agents before the elevated pH
associated with the softening process. In some cases, this provides more efficient and
effective treatment.

5.2.3. PAC Dosing

PAC is used by surface water treatment plants either full-time or as needed for taste and odour
control or removal of organic chemicals. The apparent density of PAC ranges from 0.36 to
0.74 g/cm3 depending on the type of material and the manufacturing process. Iodine number
(550-1200 mg/g) and Molasses decolorizing index (9-18) are often used to characterize PAC.
Also Manufacturers' Specifications specify the Moisture as packed (3 -10 %), Apparent
density (36 to 0.74 g/cm3), Ash content (3-6%), Passing 100 mesh, (95 to 100%).
 The AWWA standard for PAC specifies a minimum iodine number of 500. Higher iodine
numbers indicate greater absorbency
 Higher molasses numbers indicate greater absorbency
 Moisture content should be minimized and should not exceed 8%
 AWWA standard specifies a minimum apparent density of 0.25 g/cm3
 Ash content, which is an impurity that reduces adsorptive capacity, should be minimized
 Smaller PAC particles adsorb organic compounds more rapidly than larger particles, so
PAC is manufactured as a very fine powder. Typically, 65% to 95% of commercially
available PAC passes through a 325-mesh (44-m) sieve

5.2.3.1. Selecting a PAC Application Point

PAC is primarily used to control tastes and odours. Important factors that should be
considered in selecting a PAC application point include the following:
 The contact time between PAC and organics in the source water is important and depends
on the ability of the carbon to remain in suspension. Providing a minimum of 15 min of
contact time is generally sufficient for most taste and odour compounds. Considerably
longer contact times may be needed for 2-methylisoborneol (MIB) geosmin removal.
 The surface of PAC particles should not be coated with coagulants or other water
treatment chemicals before the PAC has had adequate contact time with the source water.
 PAC should not be added concurrently with chlorine or potassium permanganate because
PAC will adsorb these chemicals. The best location for PAC addition is usually at the
head of the plant, either in the source water pipeline or in a basin dedicated to rapid or
flash mixing chemicals. Applying PAC at the earliest point in the treatment process allows
the longest contact time possible before the application of other chemicals. If PAC must
be added later in the treatment process, dosages may be higher to account for shorter
contact times and interference by other chemicals, such as coagulants and chlorine.
If PAC is added to the sedimentation basin effluent or filter influent, particular care must be
taken in filter operation. Because of its small carbon particle size, PAC can pass through a
filter and cause black water complaints from consumers. An approach used by some systems
is to add carbon at two or more application points, with part of the carbon added to the source
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-15
water and smaller doses added before filtration to remove remaining taste- and odour-causing
compounds. Table 5-4 summarizes some of the important advantages and disadvantages of
PAC addition at each of these points.
Table 5-4: Advantages and Disadvantages of Different PAC Application Points
Point of addition Advantages Disadvantages
Intake Long contact time, good mixing Some substances may adsorb that otherwise would be
removed by coagulation, thus increasing the activated
carbon usage rate
Slurry contactor Excellent mixing for the design A new basin and mixer may have to be installed;
preceding rapid contact time; no interference by some competition may occur from molecules that
mix coagulants; additional contact time otherwise would be removed by coagulants
possible during flocculation and
sedimentation
Rapid mix Good mixing during rapid mix and Possible reduction in rate of adsorption because of
flocculation; reasonable contact interference by coagulants; contact time may be too
time short for equilibrium to be reached for some
contaminants; some competition may occur from
molecules that otherwise would be removed by
coagulation
Filter inlet Efficient use of PAC Possible loss of PAC through the filters and into the
distribution system

PAC is increasingly being used in conjunction with microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane

systems. Not all membrane filtration products are compatible with PAC so the types of PAC
that can be used may be limited. Therefore, it is vital that the use of PAC be discussed with
the membrane filtration supplier when considering this application. PAC dosage depends on
the type and concentration of organic compounds present. Common dosages range from 2 to
20 mg/L for nominal taste and odour control, but doses can exceed 100 mg/L to handle severe
taste and odour episodes or spills of organic chemicals.

5.2.4. Control of pH
Control of pH and alkalinity is an essential aspect of coagulation. The optimum pH for
coagulation varies but is generally within the following ranges for turbidity removal:
• Alum : pH 5.5 to 7.5; typical pH 7.0
• Ferric salts : pH 5.0 to 8.5; typical pH 7.5
It can be necessary to adjust the pH of some source waters to achieve optimum coagulation.
The pH is often lowered by adding carbon dioxide or an acid. Alum and ferric chloride
consume alkalinity and can lower pH; however, reducing pH by adding more chemical than is
required for coagulation should be avoided as it increases overall chemical costs and sludge
production/costs. In some source waters with low pH or low alkalinity, it may be necessary to
add caustic soda or lime to raise pH and to offset the acidity of metal-ion coagulants, even in
an enhanced coagulation mode of operation.
For waters that require enhanced coagulation to remove organic matter, the pH of coagulation
should be lowered as compared to coagulation for turbidity removal only. Typically, the
optimum pH for organics removal with alum is between 6.0 and 6.5, and between 5.5 and 6.0
for ferric coagulants. Often, polyaluminum chloride can provide organics removal without as
significant a decrease in pH.
There are a number of secondary impacts of utilizing the higher coagulant dosages and lower
pH values for enhanced coagulation. A few of these impacts include the following:
Increased solids. The higher coagulant dosages directly result in increased sludge volumes.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-16
Poorer dewatering characteristics. The increased metal (Al3+ or Fe 2+ or 3+) concentrations
typically result in poorer dewatering characteristics. As a result, a change to enhanced
coagulation may result in lower ultimate, dewatered solids concentrations.

Increased concrete-metal corrosion. The lower pH of the coagulated water for TOC removal
will be significantly more aggressive on concrete and metals as compared to the more neutral
pH of water that has been coagulated for turbidity removal.

If pH is lowered to improve coagulation, it is typically necessary to raise the pH in the final

effluent from the plant to provide less corrosive finished water. The pH may be adjusted at
one or more points in the treatment, including rapid mixing, prefiltration, and postfiltration. If
the pH is lowered to improve coagulation and organics removal, it is often recommended to
readjust the pH after the filtration process as compared to prefiltration. This is due to the fact
that some organic matter may be adsorbed onto the floc that may carry over from the
clarification process, and any prefiltration pH adjustment may then result in the "release" of
this organic matter, which could pass through the filters and contribute to subsequent DBP
formation.

For plants where only a small increase in pH is required, liquid caustic soda is most
commonly used because of its ease of handling. When a large increase in pH is required, lime
is normally the most economical choice. Lime, however, may add turbidity to finished water;
therefore, if lime is used for post-filtration pH adjustment, it is generally best to use a lime
saturator to minimize the potential of turbidity addition. Also, in some waters, the utilization
of soda ash for pre-coagulation alkalinity adjustment often helps the overall coagulation
process.
5.3. Aeration and Gas Stripping
Aeration and gas stripping are unit processes to improve water quality. In aeration, air and
water are brought into intimate contact to transfer gas, whereas gas transfer is the exchange of
gas molecules between water and gas phase, at gas‐ liquid interface. Gas transfer can either
increase gas concentration in liquid until saturation point ("absorption") or decrease gas
concentration in liquid when gas is over-saturated ("desorption"). It is to note that oxidation
under aeration and gas stripping are pH dependant process. For example manganese
deposition will take place at pH in the range of 8-8.5.
Aeration as a water treatment practice is used for the following applications:
 Addition of oxygen to surface / groundwater to oxidize dissolved iron and/or manganese
to facilitate their removal or to oxidise biodegradable organic matter or other aerobically
metabolised substances (oxidation tower)
 Addition of ozone (O3) or chlorine (Cl2) for disinfection and/or oxidation purpose (this
application is not referred to as aeration and discussed in section 6.2)
 Addition of carbon dioxide (CO2): to stabilize supersaturated CaCO3 and Mg(OH)2 after
lime softening (Carbonization or pH control)
 Addition of sulphur dioxide (SO2) to water for dechlorination

Gas stripping as a water treatment practice is used for the following applications:
 Removal of taste and odour causing volatile substances
 Removal of CO2 to reach carbonate (CO32‐ ) equilibrium (de-carbonation) to reduce the
lime dosage needed for corrosion control or lime softening or before metal oxidation
 Removal of volatile and semivolatile organic chemicals such as trichloroethylene (TCE)
tetrachloroethylene (PCE), considered to be a risk to public health

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-17
 Removal of naturally occurring dissolved gases such as radon, hydrogen sulphide (H2S)
for taste and odour control and preservation of distribution systems from sulphate attack
and methane (CH4) to prevent fire / explosions
 Removal of volatile disinfection by-products from water
 Removal of ammonia (NH3) from water to reduce eutrophic conditions in water reuse
applications
 Removal of entrained air or to relieve gas super saturation, e.g. to prevent “air binding” of
filters, removal of taste and odour producing substances such as H2S, NH3, detergents and
geosmin

Aeration may be used on surface waters to help remove tastes and odours due to dissolved
gases, or on groundwater supplies to reduce or remove objectionable amount of carbon
dioxide, hydrogen sulphide or methane and to introduce oxygen to assist in iron and
manganese removal. In surface waters with a high organic content (such as in Kalatuwawa)
aeration may also assist in colour removal.

Some water supply schemes have been constructed in Sri Lanka without aerators where
dissolved oxygen in the raw water level is sufficient. However aeration could be justified on
long term pollution condition in future. Implementation of water safety plan is important to
control such pollution on long-term along with climate resilience. Therefore, careful
consideration has to be given based on the raw water DO level before deciding the treatment
process. When aeration is not required for the above purposes, it increases the cost of
pumping (usually 1 to 3 m head) hence the cost of treatment and increases the oxygen content
making the water more corrosive. Therefore, aerators should not be operated unless it is
required for addition or removal of gases or volatile components.

Natural surface waters often contain dissolved organic and inorganic substances, which may
volatilize on aeration while some dissolved organic matter are oxidised. This exchange has an
effect on reducing obnoxious tastes and odours and hence reductions of ultimate chlorine
demand. However, aeration may not remove all tastes and odours caused by less volatile
substances.

Dissolved ferrous and manganous compounds are oxidized by aeration, and precipitated as
insoluble ferric and manganic oxide, which may then be removed, by sedimentation and or
filtration. This process is likely to be less effective in the presence of organic matter, which
may combine with the iron and manganese to form complex compounds, which do not
precipitate well. In such cases, moderate rather than vigorous aeration may work better.

Groundwater will release a part of any dissolved gases and aerate with atmospheric oxygen
thus acquiring a more desirable taste. The release of carbon dioxide increases the pH and
reduces the corrosivity of the water. Reducing the carbon dioxide content, however, may shift
the carbonate bicarbonate equilibrium in the water so that deposits of calcium carbonates are
formed which may cause problems. Refer CHAPTER 8 for details on corrosivity of the water.

The rate of aeration is governed by the area of interface between the air and liquid, the
thickness of the inter layers and the time of contact. Therefore, careful consideration is to be
given to these factors in deciding aeration process.
Aerators are often used for both aeration and gas stripping purposes simultaneously. They can
be classified into five general types as follows;

1. Water fall / Gravity aerators (cascade, tray aerators, spray aerators, packing tower)
2. Diffusion / bubble aerators

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-18
3. Mechanical aerators
4. Pressure aerators
5. Membrane aerators (A fine bubble aeration system)
Providing a maximum interface between air and water at a minimum expenditure of energy
for all types of aerators is a major design consideration.

Two general methods may be used for the aeration of water. The most common in industrial
use is the water-fall aerator. Using spray nozzles, the water is broken up into small droplets or
a thin film to enhance counter-current air contact. Turbulence increases the aeration of
flowing streams. The contact time and the ratio of air to water must be sufficient for effective
removal of the unwanted gas.

In the air diffusion method of aeration, air is diffused into a receiving vessel containing
counter-current flowing water, creating very small air bubbles. This ensures good air-water
contact for "scrubbing" of undesirable gases from the water.

Many variations of the waterfall principle are used for aeration. The simplest configuration
employs a vertical riser that discharges water by free fall into a basin. The riser usually
operates on the available head of water. The efficiency of aeration is improved as the fall
distance is increased. In addition, steps or shelves may be added to break up the fall and
spread the water into thin sheets or films, which increases contact time and aeration
efficiency. The types of fall aerators commonly used are multiple trays aerator, and Cascade
aerator.
5.3.1. Application of Aeration
Addition of Oxygen: - Aeration adds oxygen (O2) to water to oxidize dissolved iron and/or
manganese (to facilitate their removal).
Taste and odour control: - Aeration has limited value in taste and odour removal. Most
Taste- and odour- causing compounds have a high solubility in water. Therefore, aeration is
generally less efficient in removal of taste and odour than other methods, such as chemical
oxidation and adsorption.
Iron and Manganese Removal: - Iron and Manganese are typically accomplished by
oxidising the iron and manganese ions into soluble oxides. The application of aeration is to
provide a sufficient amount of oxygen for this reaction to occur. This process is used in
ground water applications, where dissolved oxygen of the water is low. Therefore, aeration in
this application will result in oxidation of Iron and Manganese, causing their precipitation and
an increase in the dissolved oxygen concentration. Manganese often cannot be readily
oxidised at normal pH levels. Increasing the pH to 8.5 will enhance manganese oxidation,
particularly if a pack tower aerator with coke bed packing is used.
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Removal: - Most of the VOC can readily be removed
by aeration. Consideration must be given in the design of aeration units to remove VOCs in
the exhausted air; some of these compounds are also subjected to maximum ambient air-
concentration limitations.
Carbon Dioxide Removal: - Carbon dioxide can readily be removed by aeration. Carbon
dioxide has low solubility in water; aeration is very efficient in its removal. This process is
usually applied prior to softening of ground water, because high concentrations of carbon
dioxide are generally encountered in ground water. Since higher concentration of carbon
dioxide increases the chemical requirements for softening, there are benefits to carbon dioxide
removal prior to softening.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-19
Hydrogen Sulphide Removal: - Hydrogen sulphide is a major taste- and odour- causing
compound that can be treated effectively by aeration. The mechanism of treatment in this case
is primarily oxidation of Hydrogen sulphide, resulting in water and free sulphur. In some
cases, free sulphur can interfere with other treatment processes. Hydrogen Sulphide can be
more effectively removed by initially aerating the water in an environment with high
concentration of carbon dioxide in the environment.

5.3.2. Principles and General Design Consideration

Transfer of a volatile compound to or from water by aeration depends on a number of factors,
including

 Physical and chemical characteristics of the contaminant(s) to be removed

 Temperature of the water and the surrounding air
 Gas-transfer resistance
 Partial pressure of the gases in the aerator atmosphere
 Turbulence in gaseous and liquid phases
 Area-to- water volume ratio
 The interfacial area available for mass transfer
 Contact time between air and water
The first two factors are fixed by source water quality and location of the installation.
5.3.2.1. Equilibrium Conditions
The term equilibrium applied to gases dissolved in water signifies a steady-state concentration
of dissolved substances. Aeration promotes the establishment of equilibrium between
dissolved, volatile constituents in the water and the constituents in the air to which the water
is exposed. For example, when water is exposed to air, oxygen and nitrogen dissolve in the
water until a state of equilibrium is reached. The function of aeration is to speed up this
natural process. True equilibrium may not be attained by aeration unless the air-water
exposure period is relatively long. From a practical standpoint, however, it is generally not
necessary to achieve absolute equilibrium.
5.3.2.2. Saturation Value
The concentration of a gas dissolved in a liquid at equilibrium is known as its saturation
value. This value is an important characteristic of a dissolved gas. Saturation value is
principally dependent on water temperature, partial pressure of the gas in the atmosphere in
contact with the water, and presence of dissolved solids. The higher the partial pressure, the
greater the dissolved gas concentration. This relationship is known as Henry's law. At a fixed
partial pressure, the higher the temperature, the lower the solubility or saturation value of a
gas. Gas solubility is also reduced by dissolved solids.
Saturation value has considerable practical and theoretical significance. It is the difference
between the saturation value of a gas and its actual concentration in the water that provides
the driving force for the interchange of gas between air and water. Water deficient in oxygen
will absorb it when brought into contact with air, and the air-water equilibrium will be
reached from the direction of oxygen deficiency. Prolonged aeration produces oxygen
saturation. On the other hand, if water contains more oxygen or, as is more commonly
encountered, more carbon dioxide than the saturation amount, air stripping brings about
release of the gas. In this instance, equilibrium is approached from the direction of
supersaturation. The final result of prolonged air stripping, however, is the same--saturation.
5.3.2.3. Rate of Achievement of Equilibrium
Equilibrium conditions are important in the aeration process, but of even greater significance
to the design engineer is the rate of achievement of equilibrium. Equilibrium and rate of
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-20
approach to it are not independent of each other. Under similar conditions, the further the air-
water system is from equilibrium, the more rapid the interchange of gas in the direction of
attaining equilibrium.

5.3.2.4. Significance of Films

Films at the air-water interface appear to have an important bearing on the rate of gas transfer.
Both liquid and gas films can retard the rate of exchange of volatile material, but the liquid
film is a more important factor in the transfer of gases of low solubility, such as oxygen and
carbon dioxide. Film resistance is influenced by many factors, but the most important are
turbulence and temperature. High temperature and turbulence promote gas transfer by
reducing film thickness. Increased temperature also increases the rate of molecular diffusion.

5.3.2.5. Rate of Transfer

The rate of transfer of a volatile substance from water to air is generally proportional to the
difference between the existing concentration and the equilibrium concentration of the
substance in solution. The relationship is expressed as follows:

M - KLa (Ci* - Di)

where
M - mass of substance transferred per unit of time per unit of volume [(kg/h)/m3]
KL - overall liquid mass-transfer coefficient, (m/h)
a - effective area for mass transfer, (m2/m3)
Ci* - liquid-phase concentration in equilibrium with gas-phase concentration, (kg/m3)
Di - bulkhead liquid-phase concentration, (kg/m3)

The driving force for mass transfer is the difference between actual conditions in the air
stripping unit and conditions associated with equilibrium between the gas and liquid phases.
Equilibrium concentration of a solute in air is directly proportional to the concentration of the
solute in water at a given temperature.

5.3.3. Types of Aerators

Aerators fall into two general categories. They either introduce air into the water or water into
the air. The water-to-air method is designed to produce small drops of water that fall through
the air. The air-to-water method creates small bubbles of air that are injected into the water
stream and less common types used in water treatment. All aerators are designed to create a
greater amount of contact between the air and water to enhance the transfer of the gases. The
categories has to be chosen based on following types of aerators and their operational issues.

 Cascade weir aerator (Platform, Step)

 Multiple-tray aerator (Slate and Coke)
 Cone tray aerators
 Packed Column or Towers aerator
 Spray aerators
 Plate aerators
 Mechanical aerators
 Diffusion or bubble aerators
5.3.3.1. Water-Into-Air Aerators
The water into Air Aerators are more common types in water treatment which includes
Cascade aerator (Platform, Step) Multiple-tray aerator, Cone aerators and Packed Column or
Towers aerator, spray aerator and draft aerators.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-21
5.3.3.2. Cascade Weir Aerator
The principle is to spread the water as much as possible and let it flow over obstructions to
produce turbulence. These are similar to tray aerators, but with a series of steps or platforms
over which the water cascades (see Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-15). Obstacles may be placed
on the edge of each step. Cascades aerators generally takes no more space than tray aerators,
but the overall head loss is lower and maintenance is minimal. Where space permits,
Therefore, they are the preferred type of aerators. This can be used for large water treatment
plants.
Typical design criteria are:
Number of drops : 4 –6
Height of drops : 30 – 60 cm
Overflow rate : 0.01 m3 /s over m width step
Height of aerator :2–3m
Cascade area : 120 m2 / m3 / s
Flow velocity : 0.3 m / s
Height of a weir : 0.2 m
Recommended flow velocity at inlet & outlet : 0.6 – 1.0 m/s
Free board : 100 mm

a. Step Aerator
The step aerator can be designed to any shape such as symmetrical arrangement of above
cross section or place over the peripheral of a rectangle to have aesthetical appearance base on
the site suitability. Examples of cascade tray and step aerator designs are given in Annex B.1
and B.2 respectively.

IN

H
T

OUT W = width

SECTION PLAN
Figure 5-14: Multiple Cascade weir/step aerator

b. Multiple Platform Aerator

In designing cascade platform aerator the wind effect shall be considered according to the
Design Buildings for High Winds –Sri Lanka which is primarily based on the CP3: Chapter
V-Part 2: 1972. British National Annex to Eurocode 1 on wind actions (NA to BSEN 1991-1-
4: 2005) could be implemented for Sri Lankan wind climatic conditions to calculate the wind
velocity and peak velocity pressure.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-22
 Figure 5-15: Multiple Cascade Platform Aerator
Typical design criteria are:
Number of drops : 4 –6 Nr
Height of drops : 0.3 – 0.8 m
Overflow rate : 0.01 m3 /s over m width step
Height of aerator :2–3m
Cascade area : 85 – 105 m2 / m3 / s

5.3.3.3. Multiple Tray (Slat and Coke) Aerator

These are simple, inexpensive and occupy little space (refer Figure 5-16). Water is dispersed
evenly through slated, perforated pipes or wire mesh over the upper tray from where it trickles
down to cascade from each tray to the next and is collected in a basin at the base. It is
important to have even distribution of water from the trays to obtain optimum unit efficiency.
Trays can be of any suitable non – corrosive material, and for better dispersion may be filled
with course gravel. Coke may also be used, which acts as a catalyst, to promote the
precipitation of iron and manganese from the water. Slat and coke trays are similar to the
cascade and cone aerators. They usually consist of three-to-five stacked trays, which have
spaced wooden slats in them. The trays are then filled with fist sized pieces of coke, rock,
ceramic balls, limestone, or other materials. The primary purpose of the materials is providing
additional surface contact area between the air and water.

Raw Water

Figure 5-16: Multiple Trays Aerator

Typical design criteria are:
Number of perforated trays :3–5
Tray perforations : 10 mm at 50 mm c/c
Spacing between trays : 300 – 750 mm
Height of aerator :2–3m
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-23
 Size of media is trays : 4 – 7 cm
Depth of media : 10 – 25 cm
Flow rate : 0.01 – 0.02 m3 / s per m2 of tray surface
Tray area : 50 – 160 m2 /m3 /s
Air requirement (if used) : 7.5 m3 /m3 of water
5.3.3.4. Cone tray aerator
Both cone tray aerators and cascade aerators work by forming little waterfalls. The cone tray
aerator, shown below, consists of several cones in which water flows through the cone and
over the rim of the cone. Cone aerators are primarily used to oxidize iron.

Figure 5-17: Typical cone tray aerator

5.3.3.5. Packed Tower Aerator
Packed Tower aerators (refer Figure 5-18) are used for many industrial water conditioning
purposes. Horizontal wood or plastic slated trays, or towers filled with packing of various
shapes and materials, are designed to maximize disruption of the falling water into small
streams for greater air-water contact. Air is forced through the unit by a blower, which
produces uniform air distribution across the entire cross section, cross current or counter-
current to the fall of the water. Owing to these features, forced draft aerators are more
efficient for gas removal and require less space for a given capacity. This is mostly used in
small or industrial water treatment plants. The disadvantage of tower aerator is that the system
is sensitive to clogging.

Typical design criteria are:

Surface loading rate : 40 – 100 m3 / m2 / hr
Removal Efficiency : 95 %
Packing materials : staked slates or tubes of metals, synthetic/ ceramic /carbon
Size of packing materials: 25 - 50 mm
Pack tower Diameter :3-6m
Packing Height :3-5m
Total Tower Height :5-7m
Air to water ratio : 30:1 – 100:1 (volumetric ratio)
Sensitivity to fouling : Backwashing

The airflow required for a packed tower depends on the Hendry’s law coefficient for the
compound to be removed from the water or when multiple VOCs has to be removed, the
VOCs is the most difficult to remove. For a given airflow and tower diameter, an increase in
packing height result in greater VOC removal but increased capital and operating cost.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-24
The volumetric air to water ratio used in a tower is a function of water temperature and
desired level of contaminant removal. The contaminant removal increase in water
temperature, but heating the influent water to reduce airflow requirements or increase removal
is generally not cost effective.

Figure 5-18: Packed Tower Aerator - Source: Letterman (1999)

5.3.3.6. Draft- Aerators
Draft aerators are similar to other water-into-air aerators, except that the air is induced by a
blower. There are two basic type of draft aerators. One has external blowers mounted at the
bottom of the tower to induce air from the bottom of the tower. Water is pumped to the top
and allowed to cascade down through the rising air. The other, an induced-draft aerator, has a
top-mounted blower forcing air from bottom vents up through the unit to the top. Both types
are effective in oxidizing iron and manganese before filtration.

5.3.3.7. Spray Aerators

Spray aerators direct water upward, vertically or at an inclined angle in a manner that causes
water to be broken into small drops. Installations commonly consist of fixed nozzles
connected to a pipe manifold or a pipe grid located over an open-top tank. Water moves
through the pipe under pressure, and leaves each nozzle in a fine spray and falls through the
surrounding air, creating a fountain affect. Spray aeration is successful in oxidizing iron and
manganese and increases the dissolved oxygen in the water.

Spray aerators are usually efficient with respect to gas transfer such as carbon dioxide
removal or oxygen addition. However, they require a large installation area, are difficult to
house, and pose operating problems during freezing weather and blocking of nozzles. To be
most effective, spray aerators need a supplemental air exchange to minimize the build-up of
contaminants in the air phase. The water is sprayed into the air, at about 5 - 7m/sec (Figure
5-19). The nozzles design is important in achieving optimum dispersion.
Typical design criteria are:
Nozzle diameter : 25 – 40mm
Nozzle spacing : 0.6 – 1.0 m
Output per nozzle : 5 – 10L / s
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-25
 Head required at nozzle : 2 – 9 m of water
Energy Consumption : 10 – 50 Wh/m3
Velocity of water in the aerator pipe : 1. 0 - 1. 5 m / sec.
Aerator area : 105 – 320 m2 / m3 / s of flow.
Nozzles are to be tilted 3o – 5o to the vertical to avoid interference due to falling water. They
should be enclosed by suitable windshields to prevent loss of water. Because of interior and
exterior corrosion can be serious problem in aerator piping, corrosion-resistant material
should be used wherever possible.

Figure 5-19: Spray aerator

5.3.4. Air-Into-Water Aerators

Air-Into-Water Aerators accomplish gas transfer by discharging bubbles of air into water by
means of air injection devices. it provides less interfacial area for mass transfer but greater
liquid contact time.

5.3.4.1. Plate Aerator (Inka System)

A plate aerator consists of a horizontal perforated plate as shown in Figure 5-20. Water flows
over the plate and air is blown through its orifices, creating a bubble bed of air and water
above the plate. This results in intense contact between air and the water.
The combination of horizontal water flow and vertical airflow (i.e. the flows are
perpendicular), is cross flow aeration. The height of the bubble bed is determined by adjusting
the height of the weir at the end of the plate.

Water

Air

Figure 5-20: Plate Aerator (Inka System)

Typical design criteria are:

Surface loading rate : 30 – 40 m3 / m2 / hr
The diameter of the holes : 1.0 – 1.5 mm
The open surface area : 1.5 – 3.0 % of the plate surface area
Energy consumption : 30 – 40 Wh/m3

Due to the reduced construction height and head loss, this technique offer good possibilities
for incorporating it in existing treatment plants. Sometime it is possible to place the plate
aerators in the filter building directly above the filters.

5.3.4.2. Diffuser / Bubble Aerator

Air diffusion systems aerate by pumping air into water through perforated pipes, strainers,
porous plates, or tubes. A relatively new type of diffused aeration is the low profile system,
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-26
which is multistage, diffused bubble air; stripping devices (refer Figure 5-21). Aeration by
diffusion is theoretically superior to waterfall aeration because a fine bubble of air rising
through water is continually exposed to fresh liquid surfaces, providing maximum water
surface per unit volume of air. Also, the velocity of bubbles ascending through the water is
much lower than the velocity of free-falling drops of water, providing a longer contact time.
Highest efficiency is achieved when water flow is counter-current to the rising air bubbles.
This type of aeration technique is often retrofitted into existing storage tanks.
Typical design criteria are:
Depth of tank : 3 – 4.5 m
Width of tank :3–9m
Detention period : 10 – 30 min
Width/ depth :<2
Maximum volume : 150 m3
Diffuser orifice diameter : 2-5 mm
Air required : 0.7 – 1.1 m3/ m3 of water
Power requirement of blower : 11 – 45 kW/ m3 / s.
In diffused aeration, submerged pipes or nozzles release air or oxygen into the water. As
bubbles rise through the water, oxygen is transferred from a gaseous state to a liquid state thus
adding Dissolved Oxygen (DO) to the water.

Figure 5-21: Flow-through low profile aeration system

This system also removes carbon dioxide, VOCs, gasoline compounds, hydrogen sulphide,
methane and radon from ground water and is particularly applicable to small water supplies.
5.3.4.3. Venturi Aerator
The amount of air required for bubble aeration of water is small, no more than 0.3-0.5 m3 of
air per m3 of water, and these volumes can easily be obtained by a sucking in of air. This is
best demonstrated with the venturi aerator shown in Figure 5-22 which consists of a tube with
a reduced cross sectional area.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-27
 Figure 5-22: Venturi Aerator
The aerator is set higher than the pipe carrying the raw water. In the venturi throat the velocity
of flow is so high that the corresponding water pressure falls below the atmospheric pressure.
Hence, air is sucked into the water. After passing the venturi throat, the water flows through a
widening pipe section and the velocity of flow decreases with a corresponding rise of the
water pressure. The fine air bubbles are mixed intimately with the water. From the air
bubbles, oxygen is absorbed into the water. The release of carbon dioxide in this type of
aerator is negligible, because the air volume of the bubbles is quite small.

The advantage of Venturi Aerator is that it requires little space and the system is not
expensive. The disadvantage is that only limited flow variation can be allowed for an
optimum effect. The Energy consumption is approximately 20 - 30 Wh/m3.

5.3.4.4. Pressure Aerator

The water to be treated is sprayed into the high-pressure air, allowing the water to quickly
pick up dissolved oxygen (refer Figure 5-23). A pressure aerator commonly used in pressure
filtration is a porous stone installed in a pipeline before filtration. The air is injected into the
stone and allowed to stream into the water as a fine bubble, causing the iron to be readily
oxidized. The higher the pressure, the more readily the transfer of the oxygen to the water.
The more oxygen that is available, the more readily the oxidation of the iron or manganese.

Figure 5-23: Pressure Aerator

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-28
5.3.4.5. Membrane Stripping
The use of hollow fibre membrane that are permissible to gasses and impermeable to water is
applied to drinking water recently due to its cost effectiveness in removing entrained air,
THMs, VOCs, and radon. This process utilizes a hydrophobic polypropylene membrane to
remove dissolved gases including dissolved oxygen from water. Water flows on one side of
the membrane and a vacuum or strip gas (typically air) is passed on the other side of the
membrane.

Consistent removal of 99 % of VOCs (PCE) through two units in series and radon >92 % is
achieved in a pilot test studies with an optimum air/water ratio of 10:1 for ground water. This
technology has advantage over a conventional technology (e.g., packed towers), used for gas
stripping because, the water remains under pressure and there is no need to break head and re-
pump.

5.3.4.6. Deep-Well Aeration

Water flows through the deep well, entraining air by a venturi (Figure 5-24 right), or air is
supplied at the bottom of the well (Figure 5-24 left). Due to the high water pressure at the
bottom of the well, an increase in air pressure is established, which results in a higher oxygen
concentration. With a higher saturation concentration, more oxygen can be dissolved into the
water than at atmospheric conditions.

A variation of diffused aeration to remove VOCs from groundwater supplies is in-well

aeration. Aside from obvious advantages of this type of treatment system, several
disadvantages exist. One disadvantage is the dissolution of large quantities of air into water,
causing water to appear milky. For practical use of this type of aeration system, water needs
some atmospheric contact time to allow the milky appearance to disappear before it is
pumped into the distribution system. This treatment method has relatively low efficiency.

Figure 5-24: Design alternatives for a deep-well aerator

5.3.4.7. Mechanical Aerator

Mechanical aerators employ motor-driven impellers alone or in combination with air injection
devices. Mechanical Aerators creates turbulence so that water and air will mix up and are less
common in water treatment. Mixing paddles as in flocculation are used. Paddles may be either
submerged or at the surface (refer Figure 5-25).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-29
Mechanical surface aerators are used extensively in wastewater applications for supplying
oxygen to water. To a lesser extent, they are used to control taste and odour problems in water
treatment and are commonly installed at a reservoir rather than at the treatment plant. They
generally consist of an electric motor suspended on a float, with a driveshaft operating a
propeller located a short distance below the water surface. The water is drawn up by the blade
and thrown into the air in tiny droplets so that the water can pick up oxygen. A variation in
design is the surface aerator equipped with a draft tube extending below the propeller. With
this design, water is drawn up from near the bottom of deeper basins.

Figure 5-25: Mechanical Aerators

Submerged aerators operate in the reverse of surface aerators. The submerged blade draws
water downward and, in the process, draws in air, which is diffused into the water. This type
of aerator results in relatively calm water at the surface compared with surface aerators.
Submerged aerators are best used for increasing dissolved oxygen levels.

5.3.5. Design of Aeration / Air Stripping Processes

5.3.5.1. Design of Waterfall Aerators
The first two factors are fixed by source water quality and location of the installation. The
other factors can be varied with the type of aeration equipment used. For all aeration and air
stripping equipment, the water exiting the treatment equipment must be disinfected before the
water is pumped to the distribution system.

Flow over weir calculate using,

𝑄 = 1.833𝐵𝐻 3/2
Where, H - Depth of the channel
B - Width of the channel
Main mechanism of weir aeration is air entrapment in receiving water. The amount of air
entrapped depends on:
 Velocity of falling water
 Weir height (h)
 Depth of tail water (d) [Note: Design estimate for d = 2/3 h]
 Temperature
 Impurities (dissolved substances) present in water

Magnitude of partial pressure of water vapour and saturation value of oxygen in water
depends on temperature and are as follows:

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-30
Table 5-5: Magnitude of partial pressure of water vapour and saturation value of
oxygen in water
Temperature, T [C] 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Water Vapor pressure, pw [kPa] 0.611 0.872 1.23 1.71 2.33 3.17 4.24
Oxygen saturation [mg/L] 14.6 12.75 11.27 10.07 9.07 8.24 7.54

Assuming constant time for each aeration step, under steady state conditions (constant flow),
The Oxygenation efficiency is defined as follows:

Actual increase 𝐶𝑒 − 𝐶0
𝐾= =
Potential increase 𝐶𝑠 − 𝐶0
=
hence
𝐶𝑒 = 𝐶0 + 𝐾(𝐶𝑠 − 𝐶0 )
Where
Cs - Saturation concentration
Co - Initial concentration
Ce - Concentration at exit
Ct - Concentration at time t
K - Overall gas transfer
Incoefficient
case of Co=0 rise in concentration
is Ce-Co = K Cs.
(K is a fraction of saturation gained
when aerating gas free water.)
Figure 5-26: Efficiency of Aeration

For flows between 20 and 100 m3/h of m straight weir length, efficiency coefficient K can be
calculated as:
K= 0.452 (1+0.46 T) h for unpolluted water
Where,
h - Height of weir step [m]
T - Temperature (C)
At least 4 jets per meter weir length, the relationship between K and h is shown in Figure
5-27. Note that more efficiency is obtained when h  0.7 m where K×Cs = 7h. and h= height
of weir step [m].

Figure 5-27: Efficiency Coefficient Vs. Height of Weir

However, wind loading is also to be considered while design an any type of aerator. Two
types of wind speeds are defined which can be named as wind speeds for normal structures
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-31
and wind speeds for post disaster structures in Sri Lanka. All these wind speeds are 3 second
gust wind speeds with 50 years return period.

Basic Wind Speed, Vb0 = Vb,Zone x Calt

Where,
Vb, zone - Fundamental value for basic wind speed
Calt - Altitude correction factor

Table 5-6: 10 Minutes Mean Speed

Zone Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Normal Structure 32 28 22
Post Disa 36 31 25
Source: Sri Lanka National Annex to Euro Code 1: Actions on Structures – part 1-4: General Actions – Wind
Actions

5.3.5.2. Design of Spray Aerators

The time of exposure of the droplets on its initial velocity and trajectory. Drop size and the
resulting area to volume ratio is function of the dispersing action of the nozzle. The initial
velocity of the drop emerging from the nozzle, and the flow from each nozzle can be
calculated from the following formulae:
𝑉 = 𝐶𝑣 √2𝑔ℎ
𝑄 = 𝐶𝑑 𝑎 √2𝑔ℎ
2ℎ
𝑡 = 2𝐶𝑣 𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝛼
𝑔
h - total head of water at nozzle
g - acceleration due to gravity
V - initial velocity of drop emerging from nozzle
Cv - coefficient of velocity (0.9)
Cd - coefficient of discharge (0.9)
Q - discharge per nozzle
a - cross section area of nozzle opening
t - time of travel or exposure
 - angle of inclination of spray to horizontal

Coefficient of velocity, contraction and discharge vary with the shape and other
characteristics of the nozzle or orifice and can be obtained from the manufacturer or
determined experimentally.

An advantage of spray aerators is the ease of incorporation into existing installations. The
spray aerators can be placed directly above the filters. Disadvantage of spray aerators are the
high sensitivity to clogging, high maintenance and drift. Also it require large footprint,
freezing problem in colder climate, short explosive time between water and air, and high
energy requirements.

5.3.5.3. The Efficiency of the Aeration

The efficiency of the aeration depends on the flow conditions and is briefed in Table 5-7. The
Oxygenation efficiency is applied where k or t are difficult to determine (e.g. cascade or spray
aeration.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-32
Table 5-7: Type of Mixing and Efficiency Equation
Type of aerator Examples Reaction equation
Batch reactor Aeration experiment 𝐶𝑠 − 𝐶𝑡
= 𝑒 −𝑘𝑡
𝐶𝑠 − 𝐶0
Completely mixed flow Short reactors where all water is mixed 𝐶𝑒 − 𝐶0
reactor by aerators = 𝑘𝑡
𝐶𝑠 − 𝐶𝑒
Plug flow reactor long narrow reactors, cascade aerators, 𝐶𝑠 − 𝐶𝑒
spray aerators = 𝑒 −𝑘𝑡
𝐶𝑠 − 𝐶0

The type of aeration system is also selected based on the efficiencies for gas transfer. The
efficiencies for various gas transfers are compared in Table 5-7 for the type of aeration
systems in practice and can be used as a guideline for design purpose.

Table 5-8: Type of mixing and efficiency

Efficiency (%)
Type aeration system
CO2 VOC H2S O2
Cascade aerators 20-45 - - -
Tower (co-current/no vent) >90 >95 - 85
Tray aerators >90
Mechanical/Plate aerator (inka) 75 95 - 90
Pressure / Venturi aerator - - - 85
Spray aerator 70-90 78 25-40 78
Diffused aerator 80 - - -
Membrane aerator 90 - - -

5.3.6. Common Operating Problems

Aeration raises the dissolved oxygen content of the water. If too much oxygen is injected into
the water, the water becomes supersaturated, which may cause corrosion or air binding in
filters. Other problems with aeration are slow removal of the hydrogen sulphide from the
towers, algae production, clogged filters, and overuse of energy.

A certain amount of dissolved oxygen is present in raw and treated waters. However,
dissolved oxygen may cause corrosion. Corrosion can occur whenever water and oxygen
come into contact with metallic surfaces. Generally the higher the dissolved oxygen
concentration, the more rapid the corrosion. The solution to this problem is to not over-aerate.
This may be difficult because no definite rule exists as to what constitutes over-aeration. The
amount of aeration needed will vary from plant to plant and will also vary with the season.

Filters in water containing a high amount of dissolved oxygen will have a tendency to release
the oxygen in the filter as it passes through. The process can continue until the spaces between
the filter media particles begin to fill with bubbles. Called air binding, this causes the filter to
behave as though it is plugged and in need of backwashing.

5.4. Chemical Coagulation Mechanism

River and reservoir-stored waters usually contain dissolved (true) colour and finely divided
material, often colloidal, which will not readily settle out and cannot be filtered out (except
possibly by slow sand filtration). Because the size of the colloidal particle is small, they have
significantly different characteristics to larger particles. These colloidal particles can be
removed only after physical and chemical conditioning which is known as coagulation. This
involves the addition of chemicals that modify the physical properties of the colloids to
enhance their removal.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-33
Solids suspended in water include sand, soil, organic material, bacteria, virus and other
particulate material. Some of these materials pose a nuisance in water treatment. Typical size
variations of particulates found in surface water are listed in Table 5-9. Particles greater than
1 m (micron) will usually settle in quiescent water but smaller particle will not settle readily.
A suspension of particles that will not settle is known as stable suspension. The particles that
will make up these suspensions are known as colloids.

Table 5-9: Particle sizes found in Water Treatment

Types of suspended Solids Particle Diameter (m)
Viruses 0.005-0.01
Bacteria 0.3-3.0
Small colloids 0.001-0.1
Large colloids 0.1-1
Soil 1-100
Sand 500
Floc 100-2000

5.4.1. Characteristics of Small and Colloidal Particles

If 1 m cube of solids is divided into cubes with the side of 1nm, the surface area of the solid
will increase from 6m2 to 6,000 km2. Because of large surface area associated with small
particles surface phenomenon predominates and gravitational effect becomes unimportant.

Insoluble matter may form (stable) colloidal solutions or dispersions. According to their
structure and properties, we distinguish two types: Hydrophobic (“water hating”) colloids and
Hydrophilic (“water loving”) colloids.

A hydrophobic colloidal particle is a solid particle and is mostly of inorganic origin, e.g. clay
particles and non-hydrated metal oxides. The material of the colloidal particle is often
insoluble in water. They are unstable; once the particles aggregate by destabilizing with an
electrolyte, they do not easily re-form as colloids whereas hydrophilic colloid (which means
that water is strongly absorbed) forms colloids easily. The water content of such a colloidal
particle is up to 90 – 99 %. Consequently, their density will only be a little higher than water,
which results in a low settling rate. Organic compounds (e.g. starch and proteins) will form
hydrophilic colloids. When these materials are mixed with water, they form colloidal solution,
which cannot be easily destabilised.

The reason for colloids to stay as such small particles is that the particles have predominantly
similar negative electrical charge, meaning the repulsive forces keep the individual particles
separate. This charge is found at the surface of the particles, which may occur because of an
imperfection of the crystal lattice (e.g. clay), ionization of a surface group, or the adsorption
of a specific iron on the particle surface. The significance of the surface charge is associated
with the very large specific surface area of the particle.

Colloidal particles show a random movement (Brownian movement) in water. This is because
they are very small and collide with water molecules. At higher temperatures, the number of
collisions will increase much. This phenomenon of "Tyndall Effect" is the similar
phenomenon as flickering dust particles in air lighting up in a sunbeam.

Electrostatic force is the principal force contributing to the stability of the colloidal
suspensions. All colloids are electrically charged. The nature of the charge varies somewhat,
depending on the nature of the colloid. Metallic oxides are generally positively charged; non-
metallic oxides and metallic sulphides are generally negatively charged. As a result of this

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-34
electrical charge, the colloids of similar charge will repel each other. Surface charges may
occur because of an imperfection of the crystal lattice at the edge of the colloidal particle in
ground‐ and surface waters. Typically, negatively charged colloids predominate in natural
water.
For some colloids, the sign (+ or -) and magnitude of the surface charge depends on:
 Nature of the colloid,
 Ionic strength (salt concentration) and other compounds in water.
 pH,
At higher pH, more attached H+ ions leave the surface and the particle becomes more
negatively charged. At Iso‐ Electric Point (IEP), the colloidal particle has no charge anymore
(Figure 5-28).
H+
H+
In solution
H+
Charge

IEP
Electric
(+)

pH

Figure 5-28: Iso‐ Electric Point (IEP) of colloidal particle

The surface charge on the colloids attracts ions of opposite charges (counter ions) which
include hydrogen and other cations, form a dense layer adjacent to the particle known as stern
layer. Water molecules are also attracted to the colloidal particles. The attraction of water is
due to the asymmetric electrical charge of water molecules. A second layer of ions, known as
diffused layer is also attracted to the colloids. In this layer, ions of both electrical charges are
attached, but counter ions predominate. The two layers together are often referred to as a
double layer. A model of a colloidal particle and its double layer is shown in Figure 5-29. In
this diffused layer, the molecules of water are sufficiently bound to create a shear surface.
The water molecules inside the shear surface will behave as if attached to the colloid; water
molecules outside the shear surface will behave as if independent of the colloid;

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-35
 Figure 5-29: Formation of Double Layer

As shown in the model, the electrical potential at the shear surface is known as zeta potential.
The zeta potential is often measured in water treatment to give operators and indication of the
stability of the colloidal system or of the effectiveness of the coagulation process.

The stability of hydrophobic colloids depends on two opposite forces as shown in Figure
5-30. When two equally charged colloidal particles approach each other, the repulsive
electrical force will increase. On the other hand, an attractive force (the mysterious “Van de
Waals‐ force” (which is independent of the charges) will increase when the distance between
the particles decreases.

Figure 5-30: Stability of colloidal particles

The action of both forces will keep the particles separated from each other and prevent
sedimentation or agglomeration of the colloidal particles. The suspension is now called
“stable”. (Only after a very long time sedimentation may take place). The required interaction
energy needed to approach two particles to each other, based upon the two opposite forces in
charge, can also be qualitatively depicted in the next plot.

Van de Waals‐ force decrease the distance between the colloidal particles. The electrostatic
force “descends” slower, which means that the resulting net force causes such an energy
barrier [see Figure 5-31(a)] in such a way, that collision of the particles is impossible. To
cope the barrier and to achieve proceeded agglomeration (sticking together), energy should be
added to the system.

Figure 5-31: Effect of Ionic Strength on the Interaction Energy

In order to remove colloids, it is necessary to form larger particles that can then be removed
by physical treatment. For hydrophobic colloids it is necessary to overcome the forces
keeping the particle apart; once this has been done the particle coalesce (unit) into larger

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-36
particles that do not re-form into colloids. This process of particle destabilization and
formation of larger particles is called coagulation.
Hydrophilic colloids cannot be destabilized in the same way as they would simply re-form as
colloids. They normally have to be removed by chemical precipitation, filtration or
adsorption. However, some hydrophilic colloids can be removed from water by flocculation,
especially those composed of long organic molecules with multiple charges.
Colloidal and suspended particles have light-scattering properties that cause turbid water.
This is measured with a Turbidity Meter (measuring of scattering light under 90 after
radiation of water). Some problems with turbidity in water are as follows:

 Aesthetic objections
 De‐ sorption of toxic materials (e.g. heavy metals)
 Less effective disinfection (shielding effect)
 Release of hidden pathogenic organisms
The particles can possible exert important health effects by adsorption, transport and release
of organic and inorganic toxic substances, viruses and bacteria.
5.4.2. Destabilisation of Colloids
In coagulation process the particle in the water is treated chemically to make them “stick” or
unstable. Coagulants (refer the following section for commonly used coagulants) can be
added to form solid precipitates termed floc, containing these impurities. The floc can then be
separated out using a conventional solid-liquid separation process. The process of
flocculation, in which floc growth is encouraged by gentle mixing, is sometimes carried out
depending on the requirements of the solid-liquid separation process.

To remove colloidal particles from water by sedimentation and/ or filtration, agglomerate

them (gather into a mass) and increasing of their density is necessary. Therefore the overall
coagulation process should consist of the following steps:
i) Removing the repulsive surface charge (Destabilisation) by adding coagulants
ii) Moving the almost neutral colloidal particles to each other for colliding to facilitate
agglomeration.

There are generally accepted to be four main methods of destabilization of colloids systems.

5.4.2.1. Double layer Compression

Due to the surface charge, ions of opposite charge present in the aqueous solution strongly be
attracted towards the colloidal particle. A thin layer of positive ions (called “secondary
adsorbed ions”) will surround the colloidal particle, compensating the original negative
charge for a larger part. These two form a “double layer” as shown in Figure 5-29.

To destabilise a colloidal suspension and achieving agglomeration and sedimentation,

changing of the electrical double layer is needed, in such a way that the charge (or zeta‐
potential) at the plane of shear is reduced. This has the effect of decreasing the thickness of
electrical double layer. This allows particle to move closer to each other, meaning attractive
forces has more chance of overcoming the electrical forces that keep them apart (refer Figure
5-29).

Compression of the double layer can be achieved by adding non‐ hydrolysing counter‐ ions,
such as Na+, Mg2+, Ca2+ , Al3+ etc., which penetrate the double layer and neutralise (partly) the
surface charge. Destabilisation with ordinary salts is not applied in practice, as significant
amounts of salt have to be added in order to be effective, leading to an unacceptable salt level,

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-37
which makes this water unsuitable for drinking. Ions with a higher charge, like Fe3+ and Al3+
ions, of which remarkably lower doses are required and are adsorbed onto the surface of the
colloidal particle more effectively. Ions with a charge of +3 are approximately 1000 times
more effective than ions with a charge of +1.

5.4.2.2. Charge Neutralisation and Mutual Adsorption

This requires a coagulant that produces ions of opposite charge to those of the colloidal
particles to neutralise the respective charges. The colloids will then adhere to one another by
adsorption by reducing the surface charge. This reduces the repulsive electrical forces which
keep the particles apart and allows easier agglomeration. The dose needed is proportional to
the quantity of the colloidal material present in raw water. Overdosing may lead to charge
reversal on some colloidal matter and the colloids may not be destabilised. This type of
coagulation mechanism can be only used for high turbidity waters.

5.4.2.3. Precipitation and Entrapment

If a coagulant is added in large quantities, particulate hydroxide precipitates will form. These
precipitates will trap colloidal particles within their structure particularly during subsequent
flocculation. This is known as sweep coagulation. The coagulant dose required is often
inversely proportional to the concentration of the colloidal matter. In high colloid
concentration, the colloidal particles act as nuclei on to which the coagulant precipitates. On
the other hand, at low colloid concentrations an excess of precipitated coagulant is required to
entrap the colloidal particle. Sludge forms in sweep coagulation are typically gelatinous and
difficult to dewater.

5.4.2.4. Particle Bridging

Large organic molecules with multiple electrical charges (known as anionic or cationic
polymers) are often effective as coagulants. These are believed to work by bridging between
particles. Polymers are often used during flocculation aid in particle formation while they are
referred to as coagulant aids. Excessive agitation of flocs formed using a polymer coagulant,
can lead to the flocs breaking up.

The extent to which any one of the above mechanism occur depends on the pH, the raw water
quality and the type of coagulant used. True colour is thought to be removed largely by
adsorption on to the floc surface and by co-precipitation. Under suitable conditions, residual
concentration of coagulant in the treated water will be low and most of any natural iron or
aluminium in the raw water will be removed with the colour and turbidity.

5.4.3. Factors Affecting Coagulation

Destabilization of suspended solids by charge neutralization can be accomplished through the
addition of inorganic salts of aluminium or iron. These inorganic salts neutralize the charge on
the particles causing raw water turbidity and hydrolyse to form insoluble precipitates, which
entrap particles. Once neutralized, particles no longer repel each other and can be brought
together. Coagulation can also be effected by the addition of water-soluble organic polymers
with numerous ionized sites for particle charge neutralization.

The following factors have to be considered for coagulation process.

 Coagulant dose
 pH
 Alkalinity
 Temperature
 Ions in solution

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-38
5.4.3.1. Coagulation of Colour
Frequently, the objective of clarification is the reduction of colour, turbidity and suspended
solids. Swamps and wetlands introduce colour into surface waters, particularly after heavy
rainfalls. Colour-causing materials can cause various problems, such as objectionable taste,
increased microbiological content, fouling of anion exchange resins, and interference with
coagulation and stabilization of silt, soluble iron, and manganese.

Most organic colour in surface waters is colloidal and negatively charged. Chemically,
colour-producing compounds are classified as humic and fulvic acids. Humic acids are
stronger acids, soluble in stronger base but insoluble in strong acid. Humic acids have
molecular weight from several hundreds to few thousands. They can aggregate naturally into
particle with much apparent molecular weights. They are composed partially of aromatic
compounds with carboxyl, phenolic and quinoid groups. Humic substances have high cation
exchange capacities, can concentrate or bind metal ions, and accumulate hydrophobic organic
compounds, including several pesticides. Fulvic acids are similar in structure to humic acid
but have lower molecular weights and soluble in both acid and base.

Colour can be removed well by coagulation with aluminium or iron salts or synthetic cationic
polymers. A fraction of the humic substances is not readily removed and fulvic acids can be
difficult to coagulate. Alum is most effective at pH value about 5; ferric sulphate is most
effective at pH value about 4. However, jar test is an essential tool for selecting the types,
dose of chemicals to be added and the optimum pH value.

Chlorine oxidizes colour compounds, while the inorganic coagulants can physically remove
many types of organic colour by neutralization of surface charges and subsequent flocculation
and clarification. The use of chlorine to oxidize organic colour bodies may be limited due to
the production of chlorinated organic by-products, such as trihalomethanes. Additional colour
removal is achieved by chemical interaction with aluminium or iron hydrolysed products.
Highly charged cationic organic polyelectrolytes can also be used to coagulate some types of
colour causing particles.

Coagulation for colour reduction is normally carried out at pH 4.5 to 5.5. Optimum pH for
turbidity removal is usually much higher than that for colour reduction. The presence of
sulphate ions can interfere with coagulation in colour reduction, whereas calcium and
magnesium ions can improve the process and broaden the pH range in which colour may be
reduced effectively.

5.4.3.2. Coagulation of Colour and Turbidity

Colour and turbidity react differently in coagulation and their removal can be difficult. A
study on cationic polymer illustrate that when turbidity is dominant, the polymer dose
increase with turbidity (clay) and all the organic are absorbed by the clay. When extra humic
substances exist, the turbidity coated with organics and free humic and fulvic acids are in
solution. The polymer reacts first with the soluble organic to form colloidal precipitate. After
this is completed, additional polymers react with the turbidity and the colloidal organics. In
this case, the polymer dose required is higher than for turbidity removal alone. The behaviour
with inorganic coagulant and the effect of pH has to be investigated using jar test.

5.4.4. Coagulants and Coagulant Aids

Chemicals are added to bring about or to assist in destabilizing suspended particle include
salts of hydrolysing metal ions such as aluminium sulphate and ferric chlorite, synthetic
organic poly electrolytes, activated silica and various clays.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-39
5.4.4.1. Inorganic Coagulants
In practice, aluminium and iron compounds are the most widely used coagulants. Table 5-10
lists a number of common inorganic coagulants. Typical iron and aluminium coagulants are
acid salts that lower the pH of the treated water by hydrolysis. Depending on initial raw water
alkalinity and pH, an alkali such as lime or caustic must be added to counteract the pH
depression of the primary coagulant.

Table 5-10: Common inorganic coagulants

Typical Forms Used in Specific
Name Typical Formula Typical Strength
Water Treatment Gravity*
Aluminum sulphate Al2(SO4)3 · 14 to lump, granular, or
16% Al2O3 1.3
(Alum) 18 H2O powder (white)
Aluminum chloride AlCl3 · 6H2O 35% AlCl3 Liquid  1.3
Poly Aluminum
Alx(OX)yClZ · 10% Al2O3 Liquid  1.2
Chloride (PACl)
Ferric sulphate Fe2(SO4)3 · 9H2O 68% Fe2(SO4)3 Granular (green)  1.5
Ferric-floc Fe2(SO4)3 · 9H2O 41% Fe2(SO4)3 Solution (brown)  1.45
60% FeCl3,
Ferric chloride FeCl3 crystal, solution (brown) 1.5
35-45% FeCl3
Sodium aluminates Na2Al2O4 38-46% Na2Al2O4 Liquid (white)  1.3
Note: All chemicals are typically used as primary coagulant while Sodium aluminates is also used for cold/hot
precipitation softening

Variation in pH affects particle surface charge and floc precipitation during coagulation. Iron
and aluminium hydroxide flocs are best precipitated at pH levels that minimize the coagulant
solubility. However, the best clarification performance may not always coincide with the
optimum pH for hydroxide floc formation. In addition, the iron and aluminium hydroxide
flocs increase volume requirements for the disposal of settled sludge.

With aluminium sulphate, optimum coagulation efficiency and minimum floc solubility
normally occur at pH 6.0 to 7.0. Iron coagulants can be used successfully over the much
broader pH range of 5.0 to 11.0. If ferrous compounds are used, oxidation to ferric iron is
needed for complete precipitation. This may require either chlorine addition or pH
adjustment.
The chemical reactions between the water and aluminium or iron result in the formation of the
hydroxide coagulant as in the following:
Al2(SO4)3.14.3H2O→ 2Al(H2O) 63- + 3SO42-+H2O (Fast 10-4-1s)
→ Al(OH)2+ → Al(OH)2+ → Al7(OH)174+ → Al(OH)3 (S) flocs (slow 1-7s)
Al(OH)3 (S) → Al(OH)4-
Fe2+ can be oxidised to form Fe3+ and the reaction is as follows:
4 Fe2+ + O2 + 10 H2O → 4 Fe(OH)3 + 8 H+
Oxidation in situ after addition of Fe2+ to the water to be treated, the water should contain
oxygen and the pH should be > 8.5. Oxidation of an Fe2+ solution with oxygen (from air), at
low pH (<3) and with powdered activated carbon (PAC) as catalyst:
4 Fe2+ + O2 + 4 H+ + PAC → 4 Fe3+ + 2 H2O
Oxidation of the Fe2+ solution with chlorine:
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-40
 2 Fe2+ + Cl2 → 2 Fe3+ + 2 Cl-
5.4.4.2. Polyelectrolytes (Polymers)
The term polyelectrolytes refer to all water-soluble organic polymers used for clarification,
whether they function as coagulants or flocculants.
Water-soluble polymers may be classified as follows:
 Anionic-ionize in water solution to form negatively charged sites along the polymer
chain
 Cationic-ionize in water solution to form positively charged sites along the polymer
chain
 Nonionic-ionize in water solution to form very slight negatively charged sites along the
polymer chain

Polymeric primary coagulants are cationic materials with relatively low molecular weights
(under 500,000). The cationic charge density (available positively charged sites) is very high.
Polymeric flocculants or coagulant aids may be anionic, cationic, or nonionic. Their
molecular weights may be as high as 50,000,000.

For any given particle, there is an ideal molecular weight and an ideal charge density for
optimum coagulation. There is also an optimum charge density and molecular weight for the
most efficient flocculent.

As suspensions are normally non-uniform, specific testing is necessary to find the coagulants
and flocculants with the broadest range of performance.

5.4.4.3. Primary Coagulant Polyelectrolytes

The cationic polyelectrolytes commonly used as primary coagulants are polyamines and poly-
DADMACS (Di- allyl Di- methyl Ammonium Chlorite). They exhibit strong cationic
ionization and typically have molecular weights of less than 500,000. When used as primary
coagulants, they adsorb on particle surfaces, reducing the repelling negative charges. These
polymers may also bridge, to some extent, from one particle to another but are not particularly
effective flocculants. The use of polyelectrolytes permits water clarification without the
precipitation of additional hydroxide solids formed by inorganic coagulants. The pH of the
treated water is unaffected.

The efficiency of primary coagulant polyelectrolytes depends greatly on the nature of the
turbidity particles to be coagulated, the amount of turbidity present, and the mixing or
reaction energies available during coagulation. With lower influent turbidity, more turbulence
or mixing is required to achieve maximum charge neutralization.

The use of organic polymers offers several advantages over the use of inorganic coagulants:
 The amount of sludge produced during clarification can be reduced by 50-90%. The
approximate dry weight of solids removed per pound of dry alum and ferric sulphate
are approximately 0.12 and 0.25 kg, respectively.
 The resulting sludge contains less chemically bound water and can be more easily
dewatered.
 Polymeric coagulants do not affect pH. Therefore, the need for supplemental alkalinity,
such as lime, caustic, or soda ash is reduced or eliminated.
 Polymeric coagulants do not add to the total dissolved solids concentration. For
example, 1 ppm of alum adds 0.45 ppm of sulphate ion (expressed as CaCO3). The
reduction in sulphate can significantly extend the capacity of anion exchange systems.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-41
  Soluble iron or aluminium carryover in the clarifier effluent may result from inorganic
coagulant use. Therefore, elimination of the inorganic coagulant can minimize the
deposition of these metals in filters, ion exchange units, and cooling systems.

5.4.4.4. Natural coagulants

In nature materials can be found to be used as coagulant directly, or after some treatment such
as extraction. Examples of natural materials are seeds from plants, such as Moringa, Nirmali,
Tannin, Beans, Maize, Okra, etc. and animal origin (Chitosan). They are high molecular
weight polyelectrolyte and derived from chitin present in the shell of sea animals. Soils and
clay materials (Cat clay contains iron and aluminium, which are both leached out when
suspended in water).
Advantages and drawbacks of natural coagulants (against conventional coagulants)

Advantages:
a) Local availability (in some countries)
b) Lower cost, (savings in chemicals; e.g. reduction in 50‐ 90% of alum needed)
c) Reduced sludge handling (reduced volume and convenient disposal)
d) No effect on the pH of water

Drawbacks:
a) Release of undesired materials (organics and nutrients) into the water
b) Many of the natural coagulants are not thoroughly investigated

5.4.5. Coagulant Aids (Flocculants)

In certain instances, an excess of primary coagulant (whether inorganic, polymeric, or a
combination of both) may be fed to promote large floc size and to increase settling rate.
However, in some waters, even high doses of primary coagulant will not produce the desired
effluent clarity. A polymeric coagulant aid added after the primary coagulant, by developing a
larger floc at low treatment levels, may reduce the amount of primary coagulant required.
The objectives of coagulant aids include:

 Accelerating the formation of flocs

 To increase floc strength, size and density for better separation
 To improve coagulation/flocculation at low temperature (<12-15°C)

Coagulant aids have proven quite successful in precipitation softening and clarification to
achieve improved settling rates of precipitates and finished water clarity. In many cases,
coagulant aids are not required during the normal operation of the treatment plant, but are
used during emergency/ shock loading treatment of water, which has not been adequately
treated in the flocculation and sedimentation basin. At low temperature the viscosity of water
is higher and the shear forces. To avoid floc fraction, a coagulant aid is added in countries
with moderate /cold climate.

Most of the coagulation aids are polyelectrolytes, from natural or synthetic origin. Generally,
very high molecular weight, anionic polyacrylamides are the most effective coagulant aids.
Nonionic or cationic types have proven successful in some clarifier systems. Essentially, the
polymer bridges the small floc particles and causes them to agglomerate rapidly into larger,
more cohesive flocs that settle quickly. The higher-molecular-weight polymers bridge
suspended solids most effectively.

Several products are applied e.g.: Modified starch products (Trade name: “Wisprofloc”);
Natural product which gets moulded quickly; Alginates (products as proteins, obtained from

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-42
algae); Synthetic compounds (e.g. poly acryl amide). The monomer acrylamide is toxic and
any traces of the monomer should not be present in the coagulant aid solution when using this
polymer.

5.4.6. Selection of Coagulants

Raw waters of less than 10 NTU (Nephelometric Turbidity Units) usually cannot be clarified
with a cationic polymer alone. Best results are obtained by a combination of an inorganic salt
(alum) and cationic polymer. In-line clarification( removing raw water turbidity through the
addition of coagulant just prior to filtration) should be considered for raw waters with low
turbidity.

Generally, waters containing 10 to 60 NTU are most effectively treated with an inorganic
coagulant and cationic polymer. In most cases, a significant portion of the inorganic coagulant
demand can be met with the cationic polyelectrolyte. With turbidity greater than 60 NTU, a
polymeric primary coagulant alone is normally sufficient.

In low-turbid waters where it is desirable to avoid using an inorganic coagulant, artificial

turbidity can be added to build floc. Bentonite clay is used to increase surface area for
adsorption and entrapment of finely divided turbidity. A polymeric coagulant is then added to
complete the coagulation process.

Iron (II) sulphate is a waste product of steel industry. It is formed by pickling steel with
sulphuric acid. That is why in some countries this product is relatively cheap. As this has free
HCl, the solution is highly corrosive. Ferric chloride can quickly form flocs and require about
half the dose of alum as per a study carried by NWSDB (Reference no. 22). Moreover, Alum
is imported to Sri Lanka. Further, it was reported that higher turbidity was observed in
coagulated and settled water using Ferric chloride compared to alum.

5.4.7. Steps of Clarification

Finely divided particles suspended in surface water repel each other because most of the
surfaces are negatively charged prior to clarification. Following steps are necessary for
particle agglomeration:

 Coagulation: - Coagulation is the process of destabilization of suspended solids by

charge neutralization. This can be accomplished through the addition of inorganic salts
such as aluminium suphate or Ferric Chloride, etc. These inorganic salts neutralize the
charge on the particles causing raw water turbidity, and hydrolyse to form insoluble
precipitates, which entrap particles. Once neutralized, particles no longer repel each
other and can be brought together. Coagulation can also be achieved by the addition of
water-soluble organic polymers with numerous ionized sites for particle charge
neutralization.

 Flocculation: - Flocculation is the process of bringing together the destabilized, or

"coagulated," particles to form a larger agglomeration, or "floc". This can be enhanced
by the addition of high molecular weight, water-soluble organic polymers. These
polymers increase floc size by charged site binding and by molecular bridging.
Flocculation starts when neutralized or entrapped particles begin to collide and fuse to form
larger particles. This process can occur naturally or can be enhanced by the addition of
polymeric flocculent aids.
After destabilisation of the colloidal particles and the formation of micro‐ flocs,
agglomeration of micro‐ flocs to larger macro‐ flocs may start. Therefore, the micro‐ flocs
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-43
should collide to each other in order to form conglomerates. To improve the number of
collisions in this so-called “Flocculation process”, the micro‐ flocs should move quickly: The
natural Brownian movement takes care of the “perikinetic flocculation”, but this movement is
not sufficient for a reasonable flocculation rate. An artificial increase of the velocity of the
micro‐ flocs is needed. In the “orthokinetic flocculation”, flocculation is accomplished by
agitation or creating turbulence in the suspension, which increases the chance of collision, and
the velocity (the kinetic energy of the micro flocs), managing the “energy barrier” for an
effective collision.

Sedimentation refers to the physical removal of solids from suspension, by settling under
gravity that occurs once the particles have been coagulated and flocculated. Sedimentation or
subsidence alone, without prior coagulation, results in the removal of only relatively coarser
suspended solids.
The coagulation/flocculation and sedimentation process requires three distinct unit processes
as follows:
 high shear, rapid mix for coagulation
 low shear, high retention time, moderate mixing for flocculation
 liquid and solids separation

5.4.8. Coagulant Dose

Chemicals are normally added to water as a solution or suspension so that rapid dispersion
through the main body of water becomes possible. The continuous chemical dosage must
carefully be measured either by dry or solution feeders.

Dry feeder draw finely ground chemical from agitated storage hoppers and usually delivered
to a solution pot for injection into main supply as a solution or slurry. Whereas in solution
feeders the chemical is dissolved in large storage tanks (Holding solution to feed for 12-24
hours) with stirrers to a standard concentration (Refer Table 5-11) which is then added via
constant head orifice or similar measuring device.

Duplicate feeding arrangements must be provided in case of break down and storage capacity
adjacent to the feeder should be provided for at least one-month’s requirements. Since most of
the chemicals solutions are highly corrosive, the tank should be plastic material or lined with
plastic coating and the feeding lines should be of non-corrosive (e.g. Plastic, Alkethene, PE or
rubber). For detail on dosing arrangements, refer CHAPTER 6.

Table 5-11: Dosing Concentration of Chemicals

Typical Concentration
Chemicals
Manual feed Mechanical Feed
Aluminum sulphate (Alum) 3-7% 3-7%
Lime 3 - 10 % 2 - 10 %
Poly Aluminum chloride (PACL) 2 - 10 % 2 - 10 %
Potassium Permanganate (KMn4) 2% 2%

The pH corrections shall be done prior to addition of coagulant. As an example, lime can be
added at the entrance of aerator and in contrast, acid can be added after the aeration. Higher
pH facilitates oxidation of iron and manganese causing them to deposit.

5.4.9. Impurities in Coagulant Solutions

Most of the impurities in coagulants are derived from the raw materials used to produce them.
For example, alum is usually made by digesting an aluminium source in sulphuric acid.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-44
Typical aluminium sources are bauxite (a type of rock from which aluminium is produced) or
high-aluminium clays, aluminium trihydrate, and high-purity bauxite. Impurities in the
aluminium source tend to appear in the alum product. The most significant contaminant in
aluminium salt coagulants is iron. Standard alum solution (4.2 % Al) may contain 1000 ppm
of Fe. Small amounts of heavy metals such as chromium and lead can be found in standard-
grade alum solution.

Iron salt coagulants are manufactured by dissolving various iron sources (iron ores and scrap
iron) in sulphuric or hydrochloric acid or by reprocessing materials such as acidic iron salt
solutions from iron mills and foundries. Ferric chloride is made from reprocessed titanium
dioxide liquors. Like alum, the iron salt coagulants typically contain metal contaminants,
usually Mn, Cu, V, Zn, Pb, and Cd. The amount varies with the source of the product thus
testing metal concentration is a prudent procedure.
In most cases, the low amounts of heavy metal contaminants in coagulants will not have a
significant effect on metal concentrations in the treated water. The metals may already be in
an insoluble form or they are likely to precipitate or adsorb on the floc when the coagulant is
added to the water. The metals may, increase the heavy metal content of treatment residue.

The AWWA standards for coagulants shall include only a general statement about limits on
impurity levels in the products. The statement says that the contaminants should not be
present in quantities that will cause “deleterious or injurious effects” on human health when
the product is used properly.

Aluminium in drinking water has been implicated as a contributing factor in Alzheimer’s

disease. However, to date, researchers have been unable to verify or refute these claims. The
amount of residual Al in treated water can be minimized by optimizing filtration to maximize
the removal of particulate matter and by keeping the pH during coagulation and flocculation
between 6 and 6.5 [i.e., near the pH of the minimum solubility of aluminium hydroxide].

5.5. Rapid Mix / Flash Mix

Immediately after coagulant addition, coagulants must be dispersed rapidly to ensure instant
contact between the coagulant and suspended particles, resulting in quick adsorption and
avoiding of formation of useless polymers (Al4+ compound). The hydrolysis complex ions are
formed in 0.01‐ 1 sec. The success of coagulation process depends on rapid and thorough
dispersion of coagulant and is known as rapid or flash mix.
Micro-flocs form because of collisions between the primary particles. The reaction rate of
destabilization is controlled by the flow condition in addition to the characteristics of
chemical parameters. Normally, a moderate and uniform distribution of turbulent flow is
crucial and achieved by rapid mixing. The geometry of rapid mixers is the most important
aspect of the design and the primary concern is to provide uniform mixing, to minimise dead
areas and short-circuiting.
Some design requirements to have effective use of coagulant are:

 Detention time in mixer should be less than 1 min

 Mixing intensity should be high
 G‐ value should be in the range of 500‐ 1,000 s‐ 1. In certain conditions raw
water, G value of 3500 s-1 may be the optimum G value for proper coagulation

In case the residence time increases, the G‐ value should decrease, to avoid disintegration of
the formed micro‐ flocs. The term Gt is often used to match the proper velocity gradient with
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-45
detention time. In certain conditions of raw water, the G‐ value may be as high as 3,500 s‐ 1
for proper coagulation. Typical Gt values range between 30,000 and 60,000. The optimum Gt
values vary a great deal with the chemicals and dosage rates. Optimum design values are best
determined experimentally. These are incorporated in the design of rapid mixers.

The mixing theory involves fluid transport, which has three forms: (1) advection, (2) turbulent
diffusion, and (3) molecular diffusion. The first two may be modelled by the classical Navier-
Stokes equation expressed in finite difference form and molecular diffusion is modelled by
Fick's law. Mathematical models and physical models help to understating the mixing but
neither is sufficient for design. The substitute is empirical guideline and experiences.

5.5.1. Type of Mixers

There are many forms of rapid mixers. Most commonly, they are categorized as two types as
Mechanical mixers (impellers basin, inline static mixers, and jet mixers) and Hydraulic
mixers (weirs, Hydraulic jump, flume, baffle, venture sections). Coagulant should be added at
the point of greatest turbulence. The following order of preference is based on effectiveness,
reliability, minimal maintenance, and cost.
1. Diffusion mixing by pressurised water jets
2. Inline static mixing
3. Inline mechanical mixing
4. Hydraulic mixing
5. Mechanical flash mixing
6. Diffusion by pipe grid
Rapid mixers utilising mechanical mixers are usually square and have a depth to width ratio
of approximately 2. The size and the shape of the mixer impeller should be matched to the
flow chosen through the mixer. Mixing units with vertical flow pattern utilising radial flow
mixers tend to minimise short circuiting effects. Round or cylindrical mixing chambers should
be avoided for mechanical mixers. A round cross section tends to provide little resistance to
rotational flow resulting in reduced mixing efficiencies. Baffles can be employed to reduce
rotational motion and increase efficiencies. Table 5-12 compares the advantages and
disadvantages of mechanical and hydraulic mixers.

Table 5-12: Comparison of Mechanical and Hydraulic Mixers

Advantages Disadvantages
Mechanical Mixers
Agitation independent of flow rate Additional equipment required for maintenance
Agitation is adjustable Reliability subjected to equipment failure
High flexibility in operation
Hydraulic Mixers
Little or no maintenance Agitation dependent on flow rate
Very reliable High head loss
low flexibility in operation

The intensity of mechanical agitation in rapid mixing and flocculation is expressed in terms of
the measured mean velocity gradient (G) defined as follows:
𝑃
𝐺=√
𝜇𝑉
Where P - Power input (kW)
 - Dynamic viscosity of water [1.0 x 10-3 N s/m2 at 20° C)
V - volume of the water (m3)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-46
This applies either to a mechanical mixer (rapid or slow) or a hydraulic flocculator. However,
it is also common to dose chemicals into the flow over weirs and to flocculate in baffled or
sinuous channels. In this case, the power input to the water is determined by the head loss (h)
over the weirs, in the channels. The power needed to transfer a flow of Q (m3/s) is given by
P=ghQ where  is the density of water (kg/m3), g is acceleration due to gravity (ms-2) and h
is the head loss (m). Thus for baffled or sinuous channels:
gh
𝐺=√
𝜇𝑇
Where T is the detention time in the chamber or channel where mixing take place.
For turbulent condition, the power requirements can be estimated as expressed by Rushton:
𝑃 = 𝑘𝑛3 𝑑 5
When the flow is in laminar regime (the laminar regime corresponds to (Re < 10 for many
impellers, laminar flow persists until Re = 100 or greater):

Power Requirement for Laminar flow 𝑃 = 𝑘𝑛2 𝑑 3

In which,
k - constant (Refer Table 5-13 for k values)
n - revolution per second
d - diameter of impeller in m

5.5.2. Weir or Flume

It is common to find coagulation dosed above a weir (Figure 5-32). The mixing takes place in
the violent agitated water below the weir. An advantage of this arrangement is that the unit
energy input will be largely independent of the flow. The main problem is that the coagulant
should be distributed as uniformly as possible along the weir. This is actually quite difficult to
achieve for a relatively low coagulant flow rate.

Lime Alum Half open pipe to Slotted pipe to dose

dose Lime Alum
IN

W
H

OUT
D
L

L PLAN
SECTION
Figure 5-32: Weir for Rapid mix

Volume of the mixing chamber = L x W x D

or calculated as necessary depending on the shape of the structure

5.5.3. Hydraulic Jump Mixers

The Parshall flume, employed conventionally as a flow measurement device, is also effective
as a rapid mixer when a hydraulic jump is incorporated immediately downstream of the
flume.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-47
The floor of the converging section is horizontal, the floor of the throat inclines downward,
and the floor of the diverging section slopes upward as show in Figure 5-33. The Parshall
flume can be constructed in a wide range of sizes to handle virtually any flow range. The
design calculation for hydraulic rapid mixing is provided in Annex C.1.
STILLING WELL
THROAT
Ha Hb
S=2/3A H

A 1
6
D W C
5
1

Coagulant diffuser

PLAN
B F G STILLING WELL DETAIL
Coagulant diffuser

FLOW K=75mm
T Ha E
Hb
Hd
1 N M
1
4
2.67

SECTIONAL ELEVATION
Figure 5-33: Parshall flume rapid mixer
5.5.4. Baffle System
Another passive kind of rapid mixing device is a system of baffles placed in the way of
gravity flow in an open channel; two kinds are (1) over-and-under, and (2) end-around. Their
use was common until supplemented by a trend towards impeller-basin systems.
Over-And-Under Baffle System
An over-and-under baffle system is shown in Figure 5-34. The water entering the first
compartment rises to a level sufficient to overflow the first weir plate. The coagulant is added
to the overflow, and distributed over the width by means of several orifices from a manifold
parallel to the weir crest. The water falls in to the pool below.
End- Around Baffle System
In end-around basin system, the water enters the first chamber and flows around the
successive bends, giving a cascade to the exit. Coagulant may be added by an orifice manifold
oriented parallel to the baffles positioned just downstream from the first baffle slot and just
above the flow.

Floor

a) Elevation: Over-And-
Under Baffle a) Plan: End- Around Baffle System
Floor

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-48
 b) Plan: Over-And-Under Baffle
System Figure 5-34: Baffle System
5.5.5. Mechanical Flash Mixing
This comprises a chamber containing a high-speed paddle or submerged propeller. Where,
high G is appropriate it is often found that the retention time is extremely short, of the order of
few seconds and this can be a practical a design difficulty. In practice, it may be necessary to
use a lower G and a more realistic retention time. It is important to inject coagulant into a
region where it will be rapidly dispersed into the flow.
Turbine Mixer is an improvement of a paddle mixer creating the maximum G for a particular
power input. Coagulants are injected at the turbine installed in a chamber as shown in Figure
5-35.
Coagulant dose

Plate
Impeller

Baffle

Basin

Top view Side view

Figure 5-35: Turbine Mixer
For mechanical type, use the following typical criteria:
Detention time, t = 30- 60 seconds
Velocity Gradient, G = 500-1,000 sec-1
Velocity Gradient x time Gt = 30,000 – 60,000
Minimum no. of tanks, =2
Water depth (d)/ tank width (L), =2
Impeller diameter = 50 – 80 % of tank width (L)
Width of baffles = 8 – 10 % of tank width (L)
No. of baffles = 4 for square and 6 for circular tanks
The mixing devices shall be able to adjust the intensity of mixing with changes in water
quality or flow rate. This can be achieved by providing a variable speed drive. The shape and
the geometry of the tank and impeller system must be specified as the flow pattern is unique
to that particular system.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-49
If the baffles do not reach the bottom of the tank, then solid accumulation in the tank bottom
may be reduced. Another approach is to set the shaft of the impeller away from the centre or
by tilting the axix of the pump at some angle to the vertical.
Types and characteristics of Impellers
The impellers and propellers are classified in accordance with the type of flow produced.
Figure 5-36 shows examples of impellers and propellers used in water treatment. These can
be axial flow, radial flow or mixed flow. For an axial-flow impeller, the velocity of the fluid
is parallel to the axis of impeller. The "classic" one is the marine impeller which has an
increasing blade angle from blade tip to hub and a constant pitch and a constant shear rate
across its diameter.

Straight Blade or Flat Blade Flat Blade Disk Impeller Pitched Blade Axial-Flow
Radial-Flow Turbine Impeller Impeller

Marine Type Pitched Blade Non-clog Pitched Blade Propeller type

Axial-Flow Impeller Axial-Flow Impeller
Figure 5-36: Types of Impellers
Table 5-13: Power number of various Rapid mix impellers
Type of flow Type of Rapid mix impeller Power Number (k)
Radial flow Straight blade turbine
4 blade (w/d = 0.15) 2.6
4 blade (w/d = 0.20) 3.3
Disc turbine
4 blade (w/d = 0.25) 5.1
6 blade (w/d = 0.25) 6.2
Axial flow Propeller 1: 1 pitch 0.3
Propeller 1.5: 1 pitch 0.7
45 pitch blade
4 blade (w/d = 0.15) 1.36
4 blade (w/d = 0.20) 1.94
w/d = blade width to diameter ratio
Source: Water Works Engineering (page 251)
The impellers that force water outward at right angle to the axis of rotation in a manner
similar to that of a radial flow pump are called radial-flow impellers or turbine impellers. The
motion induced by radial-flow impeller is characterised by "higher shear" and "low flow".
The radial-flow impeller has three main components:

1. A radial flow of high velocity, which creates high shear zone just at the tip of the
impeller
2. The flat blade of the impeller causes a separation effect, i.e. stir turbulence on the
trailing side
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-50
 3. The radial flow rails set up advection currents that move up and down the wall of the
tank, re-circulating the centre. These currents also experience shear and that eddies
peel off. Eventually, all of the energy is dissipated as turbulence

The design calculation for mechanical flash mixer is provided in Annex C.2

5.5.6. Inline Static Mixers

The term "static mixers" usually means a proprietary pipe insert consisting of a number of
twisted blades that cause a sequence of branches. The static mixer is a "passive" technology,
i.e. there is no operator involvement. The installation of static mixers in pipes is a common
practice in chemical engineering and becoming popular in water industry.

Static mixers are placed directly in the treatment line upstream of the flocculation phase. This
is the short length (typically 2-4 times diameter) of pipe containing fixed blades that create
vigilant agitation of flow passing over the blades. They were developed initially by the
chemical process industry for intimate mixing of different chemicals. Static mixers used in
water treatment typically have a head drop of about 0.5 meter (Figure 5-37). They have to be
installed in a pressure pipeline.

Figure 5-37: Section of Static Mixer

The greater advantage is that they are compact and highly effective in rapidly dispersing the
coagulant, reduced resident time requirements and improved performance of the injected
chemicals. They are less suited to large flow variations as they are optimized to treat a
particular flow.

5.5.7. Inline Mechanical Mixer

An inline mechanical mixer consists of an impeller located in a pipe. As shown in Figure
5-38 the impeller is open to the water flow of the pipe and water passes across the impeller.
The flow pattern is that of a pipe flow i.e., straight lines parallel to the pipe, distorted by the
superimposed circulation pattern of the impeller.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-51
 Figure 5-38: Inline Mechanical Mixer
Numerous configurations exist for inline-mechanical mixing. Coagulant is added through the
auxiliary chemical feed lines and is mixed with the water. Further mixing occurs due to the
hydraulic dispersion within the pipe.

5.5.8. Diffusion Mixing by Pressurised Nozzles

A submerged "Jet" discharge chemicals at high velocity into water as illustrated in Figure
5-39. Application of jet mixing includes coagulation, disinfection, air dispersion etc., in water
treatment. The advantage of jet mixing includes simplicity such as no moving parts (except
for pumps), low capital cost, reliability and effectiveness. Also either source water without
added chemicals or partially destabilized source water can be used in the chemical injection
system. A valve installed in the pump discharge line can control pumping rate and vary
energy input for various plant flows and types of coagulating chemicals. A disadvantage is the
possible clogging of nozzles.

Figure 5-39: Nozzle inside the Pipe (Section through Pump Mixer)

There are many kinds of configurations, e.g., radial flow of several jets towards the centre of a
pipe, radial flow from a centre ring, a single jet pointed upstream in the pipe. As a rule of
thumb in coagulation mixing, the total jet flow is about 10% of the water flow. The
components of Jet mixing System are given in Table 5-14.
Table 5-14: Components in Design of Jet mixing System
Design Component

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-52
 Water Inlet pipeline Jet pipeline Nozzle Coagulant Feed
Diameter Metering pump Number Point of feed
Flow Flow and head Flow and head Orientation of flow
Flow variation Total flow Velocity of each core Feed velocity
Velocity of water Diameter Orientation Flow
Pressure at jet Appurtenances Upstream/ downstream Pump selection
Valves-actuated Radial from peripheral
Valves-control Radial from center
Flow meter Spray angle
Pressure gauge Diffusion plate or not

5.6. Flocculators
Flocculation is carried out in tanks known as flocculators. A flocculator is characterized by its
velocity gradient, its contact time, and the extreme local velocities of the moving element and
liquid, which shear the floc (limited to 0.4 m/sec).
The size of floc particles and their speed of formation can be improved by creating velocity
gradient in the water. Such conditions can be provided by rectangular horizontal flow tanks
with slowly rotating paddles or with baffles or by vertical flow tanks with mechanical stirring
or baffles. Mechanical type is common in large plants and hydraulic or gravity type is used in
smaller plants.

The Flocculators are categorised as follows:

A. Mechanical Mixing Flocculators
 Vertical shaft with impeller (turbine or propeller type blades)
 Paddle type with either horizontal or vertical shafts
B. Hydraulic Mixing Baffled Channels Flocculators
 Horizontal baffled channels (round the end)
 Vertically baffled channel (over and under)

The speed of the mechanically-operated paddles can be adjusted to suit variations in flow,
temperature or raw water quality. Furthermore, mechanical flocculators are readily available
from proprietors in a variety of designs to suit any mode of operation. The principal elements
of mechanical flocculator systems are agitator impellers, drive motors, speed controllers and
reducers, transmission systems, shafts and bearings. The cost and added complexity of
mechanical flocculator systems introduce additional complications, particularly in regards to
operation and maintenance.

Hydraulic flocculators do not require mechanical equipment or a continuous power supply

and can be built primarily from concrete, brick, wood or masonry with local labour at
relatively low cost. For more robust and long term effectiveness stainless steel can be used as
baffles and support structure. The baffles shall be fixed as removable for cleaning purposes.
Moreover, several hydraulic flocculation systems operate under plug-flow conditions (water
flows at a uniform rate without intermixing) which minimize short-circuiting of the flow (i.e.
when a portion of the incoming flow of water traverses through the flocculation chamber in a
much shorter time than the nominal detention period). Short-circuiting, an inherent problem
of mechanical flocculators, is alleviated somewhat in practice by installing a series of
successive compartments in the flocculation chamber.
The major shortcomings of hydraulic flocculators reported widely in the technical literature
are:

 No flexibility to respond to changes in raw water quantity

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-53
 The hydraulic and consequent flocculation parameters, are a function of flow and cannot
be adjusted independently
 The head loss is comparably high
 Cleaning may be difficult
 Durability of baffles used may be lesser
These shortcomings are the reasons for hydraulic flocculators not to be continued extensively.
However, it is possible to mitigate these shortcomings with properly designed systems that
will function under a reasonably wide range of operating conditions.
5.6.1. Hydraulic Flocculators
Baffled or hydraulic flocculation basins are simple, economical alternatives to mechanical
Flocculators. They have distinct advantage of being free from mechanical equipment,
complex operation and maintenance problems as well as short circuiting. Their disadvantages
are that mixing intensity is dependent on flow rate and that they require more area.

The velocity gradient G for Hydraulic Flocculators can be controlled by changing the spacing
of the baffles. G should be greater than 10 in order to promote flocculation but less than 75 if
disintegration of the floc by shear forces is to be avoided. The value of G can be adjusted
according to required floc size with the initial value as high as 100 and the final values
dropped to as low as 10 (typical value would be in the range of 15-90).

The minimum detention time in the basin should be at least 20 minutes. Care must be taken in
introducing flocculated water into the sedimentation tank to minimise disintegration of flocs.
The recommended velocity in the canal or pipe to the sedimentation basin should be between
0.1-0.3 m/s and emphasis must be placed on laminar flow.

Two methods of providing tapered G values are by either varying the baffle spacing in a basin
having a fixed cross section or by evenly spacing the baffle along varying channel depth.

Typical sketch of horizontal and vertical flow baffled channel flocculators are shown in
Figure 5-40 and Figure 5-41 respectively.

INLET OUTLET

Figure 5-40: Section through over-and-under baffled flocculation chamber

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-54
 INLET

OUTLET

Figure 5-41: Plan of round - the end baffled flocculation basin

Typical design criteria are as follows:

Velocity gradient, G = 10 – 100 sec-1
Detention time, t = 1,200 – 1,800 sec
Channel velocity up to sedimentation tank,
v = 0.1 - 0.3 m/sec
Typical Head loss, H = 0.5 m
No. of baffles, n = 12 – 20 with 180° direction change and
well- rounded corners
𝑠𝑔𝐻
Velocity gradient, 𝐺 = √𝑇

Where s - Specific Gravity

H - head loss per baffles (m)
 - viscosity of water (m2/sec) [0.898 x 10-6 m2/s at 25° C)
T - detention time per baffle (sec)
g - gravity (9.81 m/sec2)
The water velocity in horizontal-flow and vertical-flow units generally varies from 0.1 to 0.3
m/sec. Detention time is 20 to 30 minutes. In general, velocity gradients for both types of
baffled channel flocculators should vary between 100 - 10 per sec. In addition to the
foregoing design criteria, the practical guidelines enumerated in Table 5-15 should be
considered in the design and construction of baffled channel flocculators, although they are
somewhat general and should not be interpreted as necessarily binding in all cases.

Tapered energy flocculation in baffled channels generally is achieved by varying the spacing
of the baffles, i.e. close spacing of baffles for high velocity gradients, and wider spacing for
low velocity gradients. The configuration of baffles that will induce a specific tapered
velocity gradient is best determined under actual plant operating conditions, by either re-
spacing or changing the number of baffles in the flocculation basin to attain the desired head
loss. it is recommends a tapered velocity gradient from about 75 sec-1 at the inlet to 10 to 15
sec-1 at the outlet of the flocculators.

Table 5-15: Guidelines for the Design and Construction of Baffled Channel Flocculators
Around the-End (Horizontal flow)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-55
  Distance between baffles should not be less than 45 cm to permit cleaning.
 Clear distance between the end of each baffle and the wall is about 1-1.5 times the
distance between baffles, should not be less than 60 cm.
 Depth of water should not be less than 1.0 m.
 Decay-resistant timber should be used for baffles; stainless steel, PVC, PPE baffles
can also be used.
 Avoid using asbestos-cement baffles as they corrode at the pH of alum coagulation.
Over and Under (Vertical flow)
 Distance between baffles should not be less than 45 cm.
 Depth should be 2 to 3 times the distance between baffles.
 Clear space between the upper edge of a baffle and the water surface, or the lower
edge of a baffle and the basin bottom, should be about 1-1.5 times the distance
between baffles.
 Material for baffles is the same as in around-the-end units.
 Weep holes should be provided for drainage to avoid accumulation of sludge.

Typical hydraulic calculations for the design of an around-the-end (horizontal-flow)

flocculator for fixed cross section channel are presented in Annex D.1.

5.6.2. Mechanical Flocculators

Mechanical flocculators are made by fixing paddles (as many as possible) to a shaft and motor
for mixing. They are very simple, can be either vertical or horizontal and can be effective if
the tank is divided into sections or cells requiring a series of flow pattern. Partitioning can be
accomplished later in existing tanks. Flocculation promotes growth of flocs to a size that can
be removed by sedimentation and filtration without creating turbulence that would break up
the floc particles.

For mechanical flocculators, the following typical criteria can be used:

Table 5-16: Typical criterias for mechanical flocculators

Parameters Horizontal shaft with paddle Vertical shaft with turbine

Velocity gradient, G (s-1) 50-10 70-10

Detention time, t (min) 30-40 20- 40
Flocculation stage 3-6 2-4
Maximum flow velocity (m/s) 1.0 2-3
Paddle area (%) 5 – 20 0.1-0.2
Blade diameter/ Tank with, D/L 0.5-0.75 0.2-0.4
Speed of shaft, (rpm) 1-5 8-25

In general mechanical flocculators have the following components,

• Drive motor
• Variable speed drive having a range of up to 1: 4 to meet variation in quality of feed
water
• Gear reducer
• Stuffing box
• Flocculator line shafting
• Shaft connections
• Bearings

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-56
 • Paddle reel assemblies

 Vertical shaft with impeller (turbine or propeller type blades)

Plate
Impeller

Baffle

Basin

Top view Side view

Figure 5-42: Vertical Shaft Impeller Flocculator
The rotating unit consist of vertical shaft propeller with three or four blades and is driven by a
reduction gear system and most often with a variable speed drive ((Figure 5-42).

 Paddle type with either horizontal or vertical shafts

Paddle flocculators consist of series of paddles which revolve on horizontal or vertical axes.
The system is driven by a reduction gear mechanism. The rotating unit may be driven either
by a chain or directly. Direct drive eliminates the risk of corrosion and the constraints of chain
maintenance.

The efficiency of vertical shaft mixers can be improved by installation of starter baffles. The
purpose of the starter baffle is to increase the effective turbulence as well as to prevent
rotational fluid motion within the tank. A proper starter baffle design specifies the installation
of 2 or four pairs of baffles on opposite side of the compartments. The width of each
individual starter baffle should be 1/8 to 1/12 of the distance across the individual mixer
compartments.
Design Criteria
Parameter Value
Diameter of wheel 3-4m
Paddle board section 100 - 150 mm
Paddle board length 2 - 3.5 m
paddle board area / tank section area < 20%
Paddle tip speed Strong floc, 4 m/sec and
Weak floc, 2 m/sec
Spacing between paddle wheels on same shaft 1m
Clearance from basin walls 0.7 m
Minimum basin depth 1 m or diameter of paddle wheel
Minimum clearance between stages 1m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-57
 Figure 5-43: Section of Flocculator with Horizontal Shaft Paddles
Diffuser Walls are used to divide flocculation basins into separate compartments and
hydraulic division between flocculation basin and sedimentation basin. Separate
compartments are provided when on even velocity profile is required and back-mixing is
undesirable.
Figure 5-43 and Figure 5-44 show typical arrangements of horizontal- and vertical-axis
paddle flocculators. The axes should rotate in alternative directions along the tank; e.g. the
first and third paddle rotate clockwise, but the second rotates counter clockwise.
Drive Unit
Drive platform

Water Surface

Side view
Figure 5-44: Vertical Shaft Paddle Flocculator
This alteration rolls the water containing the flocs from paddle to paddle without excessive
shear as the paddle blades passes each other. If taper flocculation is desired, each sequential
axis will rotate more slowly. The choice between horizontal and vertical axes depends
primarily on mechanical considerations such as the power drive system and maintenance of
bearings and support frames.
To produce better-quality floc, two flocculators can be used in series for a given flocculation
time. This configuration allows:
 Adjustment of the velocity gradient as a function of time
 Delay of partial reagent feed
 Depth limitation in tanks handling large flows

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-58
Some existing plants in Sri Lanka use a combination of flocculation and settling within a
single structure in up flow sludge blanket clarifiers (see Figure 5-51and Figure 5-52). These
units operate best under high turbidity conditions as a dense sludge blanket can be formed.
However, maintaining sludge blanket is a challenge during overloading and high temperature
areas. The sludge rises and overflows at the slightest provocation. An example hydraulic
design calculation for mechanical flocculator is given in Annex D.2.

5.7. Clarification
Clarification is the removal of suspended matter from water by a process of settling or
floating. In the process, particle heavier than water will settle to the bottom of an especially
designed tank. To constantly secure the settling function, sedimentation basin must be
equipped with suitable de-sludging equipment to match the structure. This mechanism must
be free of failures and capable of thoroughly discharging of the deposited sludge to avoid
suspension of operation. Clarification system is classified as given in Table 5-17.
Table 5-17: Classification of Clarification System
Single stage type
Multi stage type (2 or 3 story but not common in Sri Lanka)
Horizontal flow basin
Horizontal flow
Plate/ tube settle type
Upward flow
Center- feed type
Radial flow or Circular basin
Peripheral-feed type
Flocculation Clarifiers Clari-Flocculator
Sludge Circulation type
Suspended solids contact clarifier Sludge blanket type
Pulsation (Combined) type
Floating basin Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) basin

Note: Plate/ tube settlers are attached to suspended solid contact clarifiers
Rectangular sedimentation basins are commonly found in water treatment plants. Rectangular
basins are popular as they tend to have:

 Predictable performance
 Lower maintenance
 Minimal short circuiting

The applications of sedimentation in water treatment are removal of particulate material,

flocculated impurities and precipitates. For examples: - plain settling of particulates from
surface waters, settling of coagulated precipitates in softening, settling of flocculated waters
prior to filtration.

Solids contact clarifiers are generally circular in shape and built to provide the most
economical solution to precipitation and clarification requirements. The basic design provides
for flash mix, coagulation, flocculation, solids recirculation, clarification, and positive sludge
removal in a single basin - eliminating the need for multiple basins and associated piping and
pumping. Suspended solid contact clarifiers are classified into sludge circulation type, sludge
clarification type and combined type. By principal or mechanism and each type have many
models and different ranges of applicable raw water and working conditions. Hence, it is
necessary to select a proper model by carefully studying the situations.

When DAF is compared with sedimentation basin, DAF basins are smaller due to relatively
high surface loading and lower detention time, so a considerable saving in capital cost can be
realised. DAF is much more efficient for separating low density particle such as algae,
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-59
Giardia cysts, and aluminium humate precipitates produced from coagulation. In fact, these
type of particles cause notorious problems in conventional plants that have floc carry over to
the filters especially in cold water conditions causing short filter runs. Water from reservoirs
have problem with certain algae that cause taste and odours and clog filters. DAF perform
better in treating low density particle to produce longer filter runs.

Fundamentals of Settling
Several cases of settling behaviour may be distinguished on the basis of the nature of the
particles to be removed and their concentration. Thus, individual particles may be discrete
(sand grains) or flocculent (most organic materials and biological solids). Particle
concentrations may vary from very low through too high in which case adjacent particles are
actually in contact. Common classifications of settling behaviour are described in Table 5-18.

Table 5-18: Basic Types of Settling

Types of settling Process Example
Particles are non-flocculent and concentration is primary settling tank in WTP
Discrete settling
low. Follows stoke law
Particles are agglomerating and settle faster and sedimentation of coagulated
Flocculent settling
concentration is low water
Particles are settled due to high concentration and secondary settling tank of
Hindered/zone settling
affected by adjacent particle or flocs. WWTP
Compression of sludge due to the weight of at the bottom of the sludge
Compression settling
particle above. thickeners

Sedimentation refers to the settlement of particles from water by force of gravity. Stroke’s law
describes the terminal settling velocity of discrete spherical particle in a laminar flow regime
as follows:
𝑔
𝑉𝑠 = (𝜌 − 𝜌)𝑑𝑝 2
18𝜇 𝑝
Where:
𝑉𝑠 - settling velocity
𝑔 - gravitational force constant
𝜇 - dynamic viscosity
𝜌 - water density
𝜌𝑝 - Particle density
𝑑𝑝 - Particle diameter

The general conclusion that Vs depends on a particular diameter, particle density and, under
some conditions, also on fluid viscosity and hence on temperature, is important in
understanding sedimentation behaviour. Furthermore, in practical sedimentation tanks, the
terminal settling velocity is quickly reached, so, for non-flocculent particles and uniform fluid
flow the settling velocity is constant throughout the settling time. This fact can be usefully
applied to a study of settling in an ideal sedimentation tank to provide an important design
principle for sedimentation processes.

Although Stroke’s law helps to understand how particle settle, empirical observations are
needed to deal with the behaviour of real suspension. In ideal upflow settling tank, all particle
that have a settling velocity greater than water upflow velocity will be captured: This is
explained as follows:

Consider a particle with settling velocity (Vo) which is just removed. I.e. traverses the full
depth (H) of the basin in the detention time (T). Refer Figure 5-45 for details.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-60
 𝐻 𝐴.𝐻
𝑉𝑜 = (m/hr) where 𝑇 = (h)
𝑇 𝑄
A - surface area of the basin (m2)
Q - flow rate through the basin (m3/h)
𝐻𝑄 𝑄
Then 𝑉𝑜 = 𝐴 𝐻 = 𝐴 m/h which is the surface-loading or overflow rate of the ideal tank.

Supernatant

Supernatant
u V0 Supernatant u
V0 V0
H0
Carryover

L L
1) Vs=V0, r = 100% 2) Vs<V0, r = Vs/V0 %
3) Vs>V0, r = 100%
r = the removal rate
Figure 5-45: Paths traced by discrete particles in a horizontal flow settling basin

Note that the basin depth, H is immaterial. Particle with the settling velocity (Vs) of Vo equal
or greater should be removed, but when Vs is lower than Vo.
Provided, H < Vs T, they are removed but if
H > Vs T, they are partially removed
𝑉𝑠
Therefore, proportion of removed particles is 𝑉𝑜 . The same result applies to circular tanks.
Thus to increase the removal ratio, the following three ways can be considered:
1. To increase the sedimentation area of the basin (insert a partition plate between the
surface and the bottom of the basin, the structure & maintenance are complicated the
same technique is used in plate or tube settlers)
2. To increase the settling velocity of flocs (larger & heavier flocs by suitable coagulant /
coagulant aids or use of suspended solid clarifier)
3. To decrease the flow rate Q (use of uni-flow sedimentation basin by branching
supernatant in the middle. The inclined bottom type will reduce construction cost too)

Some typical settling velocities of particles are given in Table 5-19. To predict the fraction of
suspension that may be removed by an ideal basin is in terms of its fall velocity can be
obtained from the settling column test. The typical arrangements of settling analysis of
suspension of discrete particles is given in Figure 5-46. Designers are encouraged to use the
settling column test when the quality of raw water is not stable.

Table 5-19: Typical Settling Velocities of Particles

Material Coarse Sand Fine sand Silt Fine Clay
Particle diameter
1 0.5 0.25 0.1 0.05 0.005 0.001 0.0001
(mm)
Settling Velocity
365 194 97.5 29 10.6 0.14 0.005 0.00005
(m/hr)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-61
 190 Sludge
cm

Portion for
concentration
Test

50 cm

60 cm

50 cm
Cock

40 cm

50 cm

Sample of
Suspension

Figure 5-46: Settling column and ISO-percentage settling curves for flocculent particles

In practice, to design a full-scale settling tank to achieve comparable removal, the settling rate
from the column test should be multiplied by a factor of 0.65 to 0.85, and the detention time
should be multiplied by a factor of 1.25 to 1.5.

Coagulation and flocculation can be optimised through jar testing to create particles that more
readily settle. Polymers are especially effective for increasing the density of floc particle’s
density and cohesiveness, which improve settling characteristics. However, polymers are
recommended to reduce the peak loads rather than applying for the whole periods.

5.7.1. Horizontal Flow Sedimentation Basin

Sedimentation or settling basin is a solid-liquid separation process utilizing gravitational
settling to remove suspended solids from the water. This is one of the cheapest and easiest
ways of removing suspended solids. Sedimentation basins are also known as settling basins,
or clarifiers. The horizontal flow basin can be either rectangular or circular.
In plain sedimentation, impurities are separated from water by the action of gravity alone. In
contrast, in coagulant aided sedimentation the particles are too small to be removed by gravity
and aided with coagulants to increase size and agglomeration.
Sedimentation basins are designed to reduce the velocity of water entering the basin so that it
is retained long enough to permit particle to settle. A sedimentation basin has four sections:
the inlet zone, the settling zone, the outlet zone and the sludge deposit zone (see Figure 5-47).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-62
 L1 L2 L3 L4

Baffle
Outlet zone
Inlet Zone
wall h4 Settling Zone h5
h1 h2 h3

Sludge Zone

Sectional Elevation

Settling zone
Sludge zone

Outlet zone
Inlet zone

Plan
Figure 5-47: Horizontal Flow Rectangular Sedimentation Basin

 The Inlet Zone: The inlet flow arrangement must provide a flow distribution that
maximizes the opportunity for particles to settle. The inlet should evenly distribute the
flow across the sedimentation basin and dissipate incoming velocity. If these two
functions are achieved, the hydraulic flow characteristics of the basin will more
closely simulate those of an ideal basin and make possible more efficient performance.
Inlet zones are designed differently for rectangular and circular basins.

 The settling Zone: is where the water is held long enough to permit suspended
particles to settle. The efficiency of the settling process will be improved if there is no
turbulence or cross circulation in the basin.

 The Outlet Zone: is where the clarified water is collected from the top layer of the
basin. This area is separated from the settling zone by a weir which controls water
flow out of the basin and into the outlet zone. Like the inlet zone, outlet zone has a
great deal of influence on the flow pattern and settling behaviour of floc in a
sedimentation basin. Either V-notch or submerged orifice weir plates are commonly
used. Of these two submerged orifice plates are preferred, because their use tends to
result in less floc break-up between sedimentation and filtration units and also because
they reduce floating materials like ice in colder climate.

 The Sludge Zone: collects the material settled from the water. The floor in the sludge
zone should have a minimum of 5% slope towards the drain.

Sedimentation basin design is based on the assumption of ideal conditions in the settling zone,
such as:
 A uniform flow distribution vertically and horizontally at the inlet and outlet to the
settling zone
 A uniform solid concentration at the inlet to the settling zone vertically and
horizontally

For pre-sedimentation (without chemical pre-treatment) lower surface loading rates should be
used compared with chemical coagulation as given in Table 5-20.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-63
Typical design criteria are as follows:
Basin depth, D = 2.5- 4.0 m
Length / width ratio, L/w =3-6
Detention time, t = 4 - 6 hours for pre settling
t = 2 - 4 hours for coagulant settling
Length / depth ratio, L/D = 20 (for basins over 60 m long)
Weir over flow rate, < 18 m3/m. hr
Sludge storage (additional depth), = 0.15 – 0.3 m
Free board = 0.3 m
Diameter (circular basins), < 60 m
Average velocity in basin, < 0.02 m/s
Velocity in sludge drains, > 1.4 m/s
Velocity in inlet pipe / channel & outlet, = 0.15 – 0.4 m/s
Sedimentation after efficient chemical coagulation should remove almost all of the colloidal
and suspension impurities in water. Large flocs have setting velocities in the range 0.5 – 3.5
m/hr and for alum floc 1.0 m/hr is commonly used for design purpose.

Table 5-20: Recommended surface overflow rates

Q/A, m3/hrs per m2
Type Very bad
Normal conditions Easy conditions
conditions
No- pre-treatment 0.50 1.00 0.10
With chemical coagulation 0.75 1.00 0.40
With coagulant aids 1.13 1.50 0.75

These typical surface loading rates result in relatively large basin area requirements that
increase the cost, the land area requirement. Consequently, there is a growing trend to use
high-rate clarification devises such as plate or tube settlers in an effort to reduce space and
cost requirements.

For efficient design, most (if not all) of the following factors should be considered.
 Number of basins (at least two)
 Dimensions
 Velocity of the flow (surface loading rate)
 Detention time
 Sludge storage and removal
 Inlet and outlet arrangements
 Particle size and solid to be removed
 Water temperature

It is very difficult to consider all the above factors due to the influences by external factors
such as wind and require experience and judgements. The inlet-outlet condition, baffling, can
be optimized to reduce hydraulic short-circuiting and to improve sedimentation performance.

In order to reach closed to the ideal conditions, the inlet is provided with baffles or submerged
ports for equal distribution of water and at uniform velocities. The outlet should be designed
to maintain suitable settling velocities and to minimize short-circuiting. Adjustable plates with
“V” notches (50 mm deep at 75-150 mm spacing) are preferred to avoid issues arising from
constructional inaccuracies over plates or submerged orifices.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-64
5.7.1.1. Multi-Tray Sedimentation System
Multi-tray sedimentation basin offers a large sedimentation area in a relatively compact space
by effectively stacking one basin on top of another. Multi-story tanks are attractive where land
value is high. These basins can be fed parallel or in series. Difficulties with these tanks
include a limited width of construction for unsupported floors, flow distribution, sludge
removal, and maintenance of submerged machinery. Successful installations in the United
States show that these difficulties can be overcome in a satisfactory manner. However, tanks
with reverse flow (180° turn) tend to be the least efficient (Kawamura, 1991).

5.7.1.2. Sludge Collection in Rectangular Horizontal Basin

Sludge removal controls the depth of the hindered and compression settling zones so that
these zones do not interfere with the net particle removal efficiency of the overall process. As
a result, efficient sludge removal from sedimentation process reduces re-suspension and
carryover of previously settled sludge into the process outflow.

5.7.1.3. Manual Sludge Removal

Although no longer used in many modern water treatment plants, basins can be designed for
manual cleaning. In such cases basins must be designed to store sludge for a reasonable
period of time. An extra depth of 1.2 to 1.5 m should be provided, basin floors must slope to a
drain, and adequate pressurized water must be available for flushing.

Basins can be designed with hoppers in the first half of the tank, where most of the sludge is
likely to settle, and equipped with mud valves that can be frequently opened to waste the bulk
of the sludge. This design reduces the frequency of removing the basin from service for
complete cleaning. However, withdrawal of sludge from these hoppers should be frequent and
controlled. Otherwise, if the solids become too thick, flow may "pipe" through to the drain,
leaving the bulk of solids on the sides of the hoppers. Frequent removal of solids through
these hoppers may also disrupt density currents and improve performance.

5.7.1.4. Mechanical Sludge Removal

Most modern sedimentation basins are designed to be mechanically cleaned using a variety of
mechanisms, most of which are proprietary. These include systems that drag or plow sludge
along the basin floor to hoppers and systems that rely on hydraulic or siphon action to
withdraw solids. Because each system has different design requirements for basin dimensions
and solids draw-off, it is important that the designer research the available equipment or
systems around which to design the tanks.

A mechanical device for sludge scraping is used whenever; the area of setting zone exceeds
30 to 40 m2. This permit a reduction in steep slopes required for natural sludge drainage
(down 2% for light sludge), thereby making construction of large units with limited depth
economically feasible. The sludge hoppers are located directly below the raw water inlet. The
scraper is either mounted on a cross bridge (Figure 5-48) that travels back and forth along the
basin or consist of a flight and chain system (Figure 5-48) that scrape the bottom from
downstream to upstream of the basin and the surface is scraped in the opposite direction.

The advantage of flight and chain system is to allow slow displacement (not exceeding 1
cm/s) of many individual scrapers. On the other hand, the entire scraper system is submerged,
and the maximum 6m width of the scrapers increases the number of system required.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-65
 Traveling Bridge Bridge Travel Scum Trough

Water Level
Outlet zone
Inlet Zone

Sludge hoppers

Figure Sludge collector 5-48: Mechanical sludge removal systems

used in rectangular basins
In Bridge system, the scraper device controls the scraper movements and bridge direction
changes are fully automatic. The speed of the bridge movement varies from 3 to 4.5 cm/s
depending on the length of the basin. Bridge system can be designed to straddle and scrape
several settling basins at the same time or bridge that span several basins with one scraping
device shifting periodically from one basin to the next. The end carriage has either elastomer-
tyred wheel for rolling directly on concrete with lateral guide rollers, or steel rollers for rail-
mounted units.
Sludge draw off line must be designed to eliminate clogging. Sufficient line velocity should
be provided to prevent deposits. Pipe diameter should be sufficient and pipe runs should be as
straight as possible. Minimum size of pipes to be used for de-sludging is 300 mm diameter for
non-mechanised units and 200-300 mm diameter for mechanical units. Multi suction points
with radial tees are to be provided for effective removal of sludge and separate lines for each
basin. An example hydraulic design calculation for horizontal flow sedimentation basin is
given in Annex E.1.
5.7.2. Radial flow or Circular Basin
There is no fundamental difference in hydraulic design between the rectangular cross-flow
basins and circular shaped radial- flow basins. The same values of surface overflow rates are
applied and the basins perform similarly to rectangular basins of the same loading. Short
circuiting, and non-uniform velocities (decrease in velocity with the radius) are common
weaknesses in this arrangements.

Circular basin may be either the centre- feed or the peripheral-feed type. In centre- feed, the
water enters through a central inlet and flows radially outwards a continuous peripheral outlet
weir as shown in Figure 5-49. The tracer studies have demonstrated that peripheral-feed
sedimentation basin experience less short-circuiting than centre-feed basins, yet centre- feed
basins are much more common.

Figure 5-49: Radial-flow basin with rotating half-bridge scraper

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-66
5.7.2.1. Sludge Collection in Circular Basin
Circular basins are cheaper to build in concrete than square basin of the same capacity, but
they cover more ground. The outlet weir is easier to place right round the outer edge of the
basin. Circular basins employ mechanically simple circular sludge collection equipment as
shown in Figure 5-50.

Figure 5-50: Circular Mechanically Scraped Sedimentation Basin

The sludge scraper system may be radial or diametral. In radial scraper system, the bottom
scraper is mounted on rods and suspended from supporting bridge that rotates about the axis
of the basin. An on-board drive at one end of the bridge powers a wheel that moves along the
periphery of the unit thereby rotating the bridge. In diametral scraper system, the length of
the scraper unit is doubled. It may be suspended from a diametral bridge with a dual reduction
gear drive at both ends or with the central drive. The central drive is often preferred to
peripheral one. It is nowadays common to incorporate flocculation and clarification enhanced
by up flow solids contact basin.

5.7.3. Flocculation Clarifiers

Flocculation-Clarifiers also known as Clari-Flocculator (refer Figure 5-51) were developed to
perform flocculation and clarification in a single basin. This reduces the size and number of
moving parts required for conventional flocculation and sedimentation in effort to reduce
construction and operational cost.

Effluent

Sludge
Influent

Figure 5-51: Flocculation-Clarifiers (Degrement)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-67
Coagulated water enters a flocculation chamber located in the centre of the basin.
Flocculation can be provided by variable speed mechanical mixers inside the flocculation
chamber. Flocculated water then enters into annular clarification zone and flocs are settled
and are raked to a centre sludge collection sump for removal. Clarified water is collected from
radial or peripheral weirs.

The lessons learned, advantages and disadvantages of this water treatment applications are
given in Table 5-21. The many disadvantages have limited the application of this design and
have led the way for improved designs.
Table 5-21: Advantages and Disadvantages of Flocculation-Clarifiers
Advantages Disadvantages
 Allow for space reduction and  High flocculator energy input can produce currents in
decreased structural-mechanical cost. clarification zone that can influence sludge settling
 Produce reduced flow shear because of performance.
the direct passing of floc to clarification  Floc formation in the single-stage flocculation chamber is
zone more difficult to control
 Radial or peripheral weirs allow  Single-stage flocculation chamber is susceptible to short-
effective effluent draw from the circuiting.
clarifier surface area and develop  Close hydraulic connection between flocculation and
predictable vertical flow pattern sedimentation make the system more sensitive to water
quality variation, chemical treatment and sludge
withdrawal.
 Extracting sludge blanket control must be maintained to
ensure that flocculated water exiting at the bottom of the
flocculation chamber does not re-suspend flocs from the
sludge.

5.7.4. Pyramid-Type Sludge Blanket Clarifiers

Compact and relatively economical, up flow clarifiers provide coagulation, flocculation and
sedimentation in a single (usually circular) steel or concrete basin. These clarifiers are termed
"up flow" because the water flows up toward the effluent launders as the suspended solids
settle. They are characterized by increased solids contact through internal sludge recirculation.
This is a key feature in maintaining a high-clarity effluent and a major difference from
horizontal flow clarifiers.
Commonly used design criteria are:
Surface loading rate = 1.25-2.5 m3/hr/m2
Detention period = 2 hours (not usually used as a criterion)
Weir loading = < 9 m3/hr/m of weir length
The flashed mixed coagulated water enters the basin in the hopper-bottomed via pipeline,
flow upwards and passes through a zone of fluidised settled floc (Sludge Blanket). The
passage through blanket act to flocculate and entrap the small particle as shown in Figure
5-52. Above the sludge blanket, there is a layer of clear water in the upper square portion of
the basin. Supernatant runs off from a trough arranged on the surface, and excess sludge is
discharged from the sludge outlet which is provided at the bottom of the sludge hopper.

In theory, any particle with a settling velocity greater than the upward velocity will settle in
the middle of the hopper bottom tank and be removed. But in practice, such basins are more
efficient than expected due to inter-particle collision. Thus, it became usual to operate such
basin to maintain a blanket of fluidised solids in the basin to improve efficiency. The principal
of inter-particle collision in sludge blanket led to more sophisticated up flow basins referred
to as Solid contact clarifier (as their key feature of flocculation).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-68
 Settled water channel Decanting trough Inlet

Sludge
blanket

Sludge
concentrator

Bottom sludge
extractor pipe

Figure 5-52: Pyramid-type Sludge Blanket Clarifier

These clarifiers require competent operation to maintain an optimum sludge blanket layer
with suitable controls for sludge withdrawal. The blanket is sensitive to the coagulant dosage
and to a number of other factors including the prevailing difference between ambient
temperature and the influent temperature. In hot environment in certain circumstances, they
have a tendency to 'roll over' in the afternoon. Shading the basins will assist in some
instances.

The other drawback of this basin is that the size has to be limited due to typically 60 hoppers
and the hopper bottom penetrates deep into the ground and imposes the economic dimension
of the square top (a limit that arrives more quickly in rocky or waterlogged ground. Further, it
is observed that the provision for dewatering the clarifier is to be done by separate pumping
arrangements for cleaning purpose, hence suitable arrangements has to be selected based on
the topography. The basins are normally considered unsuitable for treating waters with the
high silt loads so often in tropical rivers; because tanks are, small and removal of large
quantities of heavy sludge have practical difficulties. Experience with this type of clarifier in
Sri Lanka has been mixed due to high turbidity variations and not recommended for small
water treatment plants with river water source. Note that the provision has to be given to
extract water / sludge by careful hydraulic provision or by proper pumping arrangement.
An example for hydraulic design calculation of Pyramid-type Sludge Blanket Clarifier is
given in Annex E.2.

5.7.5. Sludge Recirculation Units

The Sludge recirculation units or re-circulated solid contact clarifier closely resembles the
flocculation clarifier. The primary differences of the re-circulated solid contact clarifier are as
follows:

 Coagulation is conducted in the presence of previously formed floc re-circulated

through a rapid mix chamber at rates ranging from 1 to 4 times the overall basin
throughput. Re-circulated sludge act as nucleation sites to increase the rate of settling
in the single stage flocculation chamber.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-69
  Improved baffling design reduces flocculation chamber short-circuiting and direct
flocculated water to a level in the clarifier above sludge blanket to reduce the
likelihood of sludge re-suspension.

Figure 5-53 illustrates a typical commercial re-circulated solid contact clarifier system. This
combine a large diameter, slow speed concentric turbine, generating high volume internal
recirculation to promote mixing, flocculation and solids-contact. The recirculation system is
designed to promote particle growth and improve the removal of suspended solids. Influent
water immediately contacts a large volume of dense floc from previously precipitated sludge
in the recirculation drum and is pumped upward by the turbine. Depending on the application,
a volume of 8 to 20 times the maximum influent rate is re-circulated by the turbine to mix
with new incoming feed, while the final effluent passes under the reaction cone to the
clarification zone. Heaviest particles settle to the floor where they are raked to the centre for
recirculation or discharge.

The circular settling basins with peripheral drive may be designed to include a central area for
flocculation, with associated slow mixers also being mounted on the supporting bridge. The
construction and size of the mixing area differ by model. With regard to the mixing and
circulation there are systems using rotary vanes, water flow and air. Also, there are models
equipped with rotary sludge scrapers to cope with large sludge volume. Table 5-22 presents
some advantage and disadvantage of re-circulated solid contact clarifier system.

When adapting suspended solid contact clarifier, the following considerations shall be taken
into account:

1. The turbidity of water shall be 10 – 1,000 and the fluctuation in turbidity, temperature
and flow rate shall be small
2. The surface loading rate shall be 24-36 m3 /m2 /hr
3. The weir loading rate shall be 8-15 m3 /m2 /hr
4. Detention time shall be 1.5 – 2.5 hours
5. No of tanks shall be more than one

Figure 5-53: Sludge Recirculation Type (solid contact clarifier system)

Table 5-22: Advantages and Disadvantages of Sludge Recirculation Type

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-70
 Advantages Disadvantages
 Allow for space reduction and decreased  High solid re-circulation rate can produce currents in
structural-mechanical cost. clarification zone that can influence sludge settling
 Re-circulated solid catalyze precipitation performance.
reactions and improve single flocculation  Extracting sludge inventory control must be
performance. maintained to ensure that enough sludge are available
 Solid re-circulation rate of up to 4 times to seed inflow and yet prevent sludge from
basin inflow dampen the effects of water overflowing effluent weir.
quality variation on treatment performance.  Floc formation in the single-stage flocculation
 Improved baffling reduces short-circuiting chamber is more difficult to control
between flocculation and clarification zones  Single-stage flocculation chamber are susceptible to
and improves particle separation process. short-circuiting.
 Radial or peripheral weirs allow effective  Close hydraulic connection between flocculation and
effluent draw from the clarifier surface area clarification as well as reduced detention time causes
and develop predictable vertical flow process to respond more quickly, which can increase
patterns. the need for operator attention.

5.7.6. Pulsator Clarification System

The pulsator or super-pulsator clarifier is a solids contact, sludge blanket contact clarifier
capable of removing colour, turbidity, and organic substance. It precisely integrates the
functions of chemical addition, coagulation, flocculation, and solids separation that are
required for reliable, consistent clarification.

Vacuum generated flow pulsations create a homogeneous sludge blanket that results in
excellent effluent quality at minimal operating costs. The typical components of a Pulsator
Clarifier developed by Degrement are shown in Figure 5-54. It is integrated with
flocculation/clarification in one unit, completely automated and requires minimal operator
attention. There are no submerged moving parts, and all underwater components are
fabricated with corrosion-resistant materials.

1. Raw water
2. Clarified water
outlet
3. Sludge removal
pipe
4. Stilling buffles
5. Upper level
sludge blanket
6. Vaccum
chamber
7. Vaccum pump
8. Air release valve
9. Raw water
distribution
system
10. Sludge
concentrators
11. Reagent feed
Figure 5-54: Pulsator Clarifier (Degrement)

The coagulated water enters vacuum chamber. The air is sucked by means of vacuum pump at
a rate of a half of water flow rate and the water rises in the chamber. When it rises 0.6 m to
1.0 m above the clarifier water level, an electric relay actuates a valve to connect the chamber
to atmospheric pressure. The available hydraulic head creates a surge of water flow through

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-71
perforated pipe over the entire floor of clarifier. The units are usually calibrated so that the
vacuum chamber drains into the clarifier in 5 to 20 seconds whereas it takes 20 to 40 seconds
to fill.

The hydraulic surge created in the vacuum chamber is harnessed into gentle turbulence by
baffles to promote flocculation of de-stabilized water. This passes through a sludge blanket,
where previously formed floc particle accelerate flocculation kinetics and filter flocs from
water. Clarified water exist at the top of the sludge blanket and is collected near the water
surface of the basin by a submerged orifice launder system.

The blanket pulses up and down and tends to expand due to the added coagulant and the
impurities in the water, and its level rises regularly. The excess sludge flows into hoppers and
become concentrated there. Sludge is drawn off periodically through the pipes. Overstressing
of the sludge blanket must be avoided to prevent solid carryover. Polymer as flocculation aids
are added to develop a heavier floc less susceptible to carryover. The upwards rise velocity is
also limited to 2.4 m/hr to prevent over expansion of sludge blanket. Detention times in the
units are generally 2 hrs.

The unit has no mechanical sludge mixing system that would break up the floc particles
already formed. Due to the high concentration of the sludge blanket and its role as a buffer, a
poor adjustment of the treatment rate or a variation in the pH have no immediate negative
effect; a slower variation in the turbidity of the settled water is observed, however this does
not produce any massive loss of the sludge in the clarifier.

The pulsation sludge blanket contact clarifier is particularly suited for treating surface water
with low turbidity and high colour content. This is attractive by giving its ability to retain
Powdered Activated Carbon (PAC) and provide large surface area for organic adsorption
from water contacting the blanket. This organic removal feature may make sludge blanket
contact clarifier more attractive in removal for eliminating pesticides and dissolved organic
carbon more effectively for compliance with increasingly stringent disinfection by product
regulations. Table 5-23 presents some advantage and disadvantage of pulsation sludge
blanket contact clarifier.

Table 5-23: Advantages and disadvantages of pulsation sludge blanket contact clarifier
Advantages Disadvantages
 Allow for space reduction and decreased structural-  Heavier suspended solids such as silt and
mechanical cost. sand accumulate in the system and require
 There is a constant sludge blanket depth regardless of periodic removal.
flow and solid content.  Rapid change in raw water quality and
 There are no submerged mechanical components temperature more quickly influence this low-
 Mechanical systems are limited to vacuum apparatus detention time process.
and sludge blow down equipment.  Performance is sensitive to sludge blanket
 Sludge blanket can retain PAC for enhanced organic homogeneity and density
removal
 Sludge blanket flocculation efficiency.

This can be optimised with laminar modules on the upper part and/or plates in the sludge bed
in the Pulsatube and Ultra-pulsator versions Table 5-24 and clarifier can double its operating
speeds and adapt itself to water at extremely cold temperatures. This is termed as "Super
Pulsator" which utilizes the lamella settling effect to combine the respective advantage of
sludge contact settling, sludge blanket pulsing, and sludge densification. The improved
system is designed for 1 hour detention time with 6 to 7.3 m/hr overflow rates.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-72
Table 5-24: Type of Pulsators
Settling Velocity (with Maximum inlet Maximum concentration
Type of Pulsators
respect to the sludge bed) turbidity of algae at the inlet
Pulsator* 2-3 m/h
1,000 NTU 100,000 cells/ml
3-4.5 m/h
Pulsator T 4-6 m/h
1,000 NTU 100,000 cells /ml
(Pulsatube)# 6-9 m/h
Pulsator U (Ultra-
pulsator) 9 m/h 1,000 NTU 100,000 cells /ml

*- Each range is made up of 28 elements with sludge bed surfaces varying from 50 m2 to 1193 m2
#- A range consists of: 25 elements for speeds of 4 to 6 m/h, 19 elements for speeds of 6 to 9 m/h.

5.7.7. Tube / Plate Settlers

The efficiency of particle settling in horizontal flow depends on the area available for settling.
Hence, efficiency can be improved by increasing the area. Some tanks have multiple floors to
achieve this. A successful alternative is to use lightweight structures with closely spaced
inclined surfaces.

A recent development in high rate sedimentation is the plate settler. Plate settlers may be
made of metal, plastic, or waterproof plywood. Flow through the plate settlers may be
classified with respect to the direction of water flow relative to the direction of particle
settlement as.
1) Counter-current; flow upwards
2) Co-current; flow and sediment both downwards
3) Cross-flow; flow horizontal with vertical settlement
Settling efficiency is dependent upon the perpendicular spacing between the plates, lengths of
plates and angle of inclination. The basin overflow rates for plate settlers are 5-8 times those
of conventional rectangular basins.

Tubes may be circular or square in section, of about 5 cm size and inclined at 60° to the
horizontal. Water is passed up through the tubes, and sediment settles out and trickles down,
keeping the tubes clean. Tubes are usually prefabricated in packs and made of PVC; they are
light and cheap; pipes may also be used. Loading is normally 9 m3/hr per m2 (m/hr). The
range of parameters is given below:

Banks of plates or small tubes, inclined at 45 to 60 angles from the horizontal, are provided
for modification of conventional sedimentation basin.

 With the use of tilted plates or inclined tubes, the removal efficiency can be
considerably improved and the required surface area can be considerably lower.
 Tilted plates and tubes enhance solid removal because:
• Settling distance that a particle falls to enter the sludge zone is reduced
(surface loading rate is reduced)
• Laminar flow is achieved through the plates or tubes (thus conditions are more
close to ideal settling)
• Density currents, temperature currents and wave actions do not hinder
sedimentation process as in the case of conventional sedimentation basins
Tilted plates or inclined tubes can be used for both rectangular as well as circular tanks.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-73
  Sometimes these devices are placed only near the outlet of the basin and positioned so
that water must pass through the plates or tubes
 In order to avoid clogging of the tilted plate or tube settlers, the surface along which
the settling material moves down should be made as smooth as possible.
 The spacing of the plates or opening (w) should not be less than 4 cm and for up-flow,
the slope should be larger than 50

Tube settlers
 Basins to operate at two to four times standard application rates
 Cut coagulant dosages by up to half
 Minimize turbidity load on filters
 Increase settling area without increasing basin footprint—new basins can be smaller
and existing basins can handle more flow
 Integrated structural ribs and wave sheet provide substantial loading strength
 Unidirectional tube design prevents floc re-suspension and reduces plugging potential
 Nesting design prevents flow bypass by eliminating gaps between modules
 Available in food grade PVC or PPE

Figure 5-55: Typical Forms of Plate Settlers

Figure 5-56: Various forms of tube modules

Tube settlers Vs Plate Settlers

 Tube settlers are self-supporting blocks; plates need specific grooves with fixing
mechanism
 Tube settler can be easily fitted into a circular/square/rectangular tank; plates are
suitable for rectangular/square tank only
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-74
  Tube settler made of UV stabilised PVC are more economical than plates
 Mechanical strength of tube settlers block is more than plates
 Tube settler block allows foot traffic
 Choking (Clogging) chances are less as compared to plates
 Efficiency is more than plates
 Provides higher settling area compared to plates

Figure 5-57: Typical Forms of Plate Settlers Arrangements

Counter Current Settlers:
 Suspension is fed below the settling modules
 Suspension flow is up the channels
 Solids settle onto the lower surface in each channel
 If the angle is sufficient, solids move down the surface counter to the flow of liquid
 Tube settlers are mostly counter current

Co-current Settlers:
 Suspension is fed above the settling modules
 Settled solids move down the surface in the same direction as the liquid

Cross Flow Settlers:

 Suspension flows horizontally between the inclined surfaces
 Settled solids move downwards
 Re-suspension of settled solids is a less concern compared to that of Countercurrent or
Co-current settlers

The over flow rate in tilted plate separator with different flow directions (refer Figure 5-58) is
as follows:
𝑤+𝑡
𝑠′ = 𝑠 For up-flow (counter current)
𝐻0 cos 𝜃 + 𝑤 0
𝑤+𝑡
𝑠′ = 𝑠 For down-flow (co-current)
𝐻0 cos 𝜃 − 𝑤 0
𝑤+𝑡
𝑠′ = 𝑠 For cross-flow (horizontal)
𝐻0 cos 𝜃 − 0.5𝑤 0

Where
S' - overflow rate in tilted plate separator (m/s)
w - distance between the plates (m)
 - inclination of the plate with horizontal ()
Q - flow (m3/s)
So - overflow rate for the tank of given size without plates

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-75
𝑆0 = 𝑄/𝐵0 𝐿0

Lo, Bo, Ho - length, width and height of the tank (m)

t - thickness of the plate (m)

Theoretically shallow basin should be effective in terms of settling efficiency (short settling
distance)
 Shallow, parallel tubes increase surface area and reduce settling distance
 Tubes are placed at 50 - 60 efficient settling, self-cleaning of surfaces occur
 Typical separation distance between inclined surfaces = 50 mm, with an inclined
length of 1-2m

When used for upgrading existing sedimentation basins, improved surface loading rates of 4-5
times may be obtained and it is also important to upgrade the sludge removal facilities to deal
with the extra volume of sludge. A typical layout of a plate/tube settlers installed in
sedimentation basins is shown in Figure 5-58.

From flocculator Outlet zone

Support Structure for cleaning purpose
Tube / Plates

Support Structure

Sludge
Zone

Figure 5-58: Tube settlers in horizontal flow sedimentation basin

In Horizontal flow basin, the space between the system and tank base and inlet wall shall be
1.5 m or more. The average velocity of the flow at the inlet shall be 0.7 mm/min or less.

Commonly used criteria are :

Inlet Zone
Distance to baffle with holes 2m
Holes diameter = 0.1 - 0.2 m
Settling Zone
Overflow rate = 2.5-7.5 m3/m2/hr
Side wall depth = 3 - 5 m (for chain and flight)
Length = 60 m
Width = 6 m maximum for train
Settler
Fraction of basin covered < 0.75 (0.95 for plates)
Height = 0.5 - 2 m (1.0 m for plates)
Angle with horizontal  55 for plates ( 60 for tubes)
Tube hydraulic diameter = 0.05-0.08 m
Tube velocity = 0.0025-0.0033 m/s
Spacing between plate = 5 cm
Approach velocity = 1.3 mm/s (horizontal, mean)
Reynolds number < 50
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-76
 Froude number > 10-5
Outlet zone
Launder length = length of settler
Launder spacing = 1.5 m on centres
Launder elevation = 0.6-1.0 m above the top of settler
Launder weir loading = 12.5 m3/hr/m

Sludge zone
Depth = 0.6-1.0 m (equipment dependant)
Slope = 1: 600 (for mechanical cleaning)
Sludge collector speed = 0.3-0.9 m/min

The installation area of upward flow through plate/tube settling system shall be 90% of the
sedimentation basin and may be 80% due to structural limitations but care should be taken to
avoid short-circuit flows like baffle walls. The space between the system and tank walls and
baffle walls shall be 100 mm or less.

Tube Settlers are designed based on the total projected surface area of tubes. Surface loading
rate of 1.2 m/h for aluminum, iron based coagulants (range from 1-2 m/h). Turbulence causes
uneven flow distribution to the tubes and sludge falling from the tubes must be able to settle
to the tank bottom (high velocities cause high shear). To avoid turbulence stilling zone of
25% of the total basin area should be left (stilling zone: distance between the inlet and the
settlers. A minimum depth of 3 m should be left below the tubes and a clear space of 2-3 m
above the tubes must be provided. Solids can be removed with same type of equipment as
used in the conventional sedimentation unit.

Typical Loading rates for Plate (Lamella) Settlers range from 0.7-1.7 m/h, which corresponds
to 5-15 m/h for overall basin loading when co-current flow is applied. Launders should be
placed on the order of 1.8 m and submerged orifices should be designed to create head loss–
to enable good flow distribution. Orifice velocity of 46-76 cm/s is adequate. Chain and flight
or bottom tract units are generally used for sludge collection.

A typical layout of an inclined plate or tube settlers installed when a vertical flow clarifier of a
compact design of flocculator is shown in Figure 5-59.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-77
 Figure 5-59: Tube Settlers in Vertical Flow Clarifier
An example for design calculation of a Lamellar Clarifier is given in Annex E-2.

5.7.7.1. The Advantages of Tube Settling

Package Water Treatment Plants, SETA plant and Super Pulsator
This is a concept initiated by the R&D Section of the NWSDB considering urgent need of
treatment for small water supply schemes in 2006. However, this concept was there in the
world for many years especially under industrial water and waste water treatment systems.
The package style water treatment concentrates on smaller foot print of the treatment facility
and greater flexibility of design and construction. The basic structures are manufactured at the
NWSDB central workshop and later moved to the site for installation. The material of the
structures could be 4 mm thick steel plates, polyethylene moulded tanks or polymeric plates
up to 12 mm thickness available in the market. Package water treatment plants could be
developed using available material in the market based on a design following the principles of
water and wastewater unit operations. These water treatment plants have the option of
improvement incorporating automation and SCADA technologies.
The advantage of these treatment plants is that the products are of lightweight and could be
modified at any time in contrast to concrete structures. However, these plants have limitations
on the capacity say up to 10,000 cum/day under the scale of economy and in movability.
NWSDB has developed its own plants with type drawings available in the Planning and
Design office for 500, 1000 and 1500 cum per day capacity plants. NWSDB has gone up to
2000 cum/day capacity under this design concept. Higher capacities such as “SETA plant at
Ambathale” are available up to 50,000 cum/day capacity. The “SETA” plant is non-movable
in contrast to the smaller capacity plants.
The main unit operation modules are aerator, flash mixer, flocculator, tube settler and sand
filters. Chemical dosing arrangement need to be incorporated. The function of aerator is
dissolved gas exchange and oxidation. There is a tendency of pH increase in the aeration unit
due to oxidation taking place. This helps to reduce taste and odour, ammonia if any and to
oxidize Fe2+ and Manganese up to certain extent. In designing a tray aerator one concern shall
be the wind effect which will throw the water often out of the trays. The flash mixer shall be
designed to cater for G value, which should be in the range of 1000. In 500 cum/day plant the

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-78
flocculator for slow mixing shall be mechanical type as calculations do not allow for a
hydraulic flocculator under practical considerations. The attractive feature of a package plant
is the tube settler, which was developed using the skills of the central workshop of the
NWSDB.
In theory the plate settlers and tube settlers behave in a same manner. In plate settler’s the
distance between parallel plates shall be 50 mm for optimum removal efficiency under
practical considerations. The best angle of inclination to the horizontal shall be 60 deg. under
the same criteria. In practice, it is difficult to mount the plates. Therefore, PVC tubes of 50
mm were considered for the construction. The recommended length of tubes is 1m. The
central workshop developed the technique of making 1m x 1m x 1m PVC tube modules for
package treatment plants. The hydraulics of the tube settler tank plays an important role on its
performance. Therefore, the tube settler is given a special shape to allow for inlet and up flow
hydraulics, avoiding short-circuiting and sludge collection and management. The advantage
of a tube settler is the area requirement is only about 1/5th of the same for a plain
sedimentation tank. The criteria for settling in a tube settler is the overflow rate in the range of
6 m/h and not the retention time. The rapid sand filters and Chlorine contact tanks could also
be developed under package plant module concepts. It is adequate to provide 100 to 150 mm
hydraulic profile vertical drop between the unit operation modules. All these modules add on
to a complete package water treatment system as shown in Figure 5-60.

Figure 5-60: Conventional Water Treatment Plant at Thanthirimaley (R&D, RSC-NW)

5.7.7.2. “SETA” Water Treatment Plant
This is a package style large treatment plant of capacity 50,000 cum/day tube settling is the
main reason for the compact nature of this plant (refer Figure 5-61).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-79
 Figure 5-61: The SETA plant at Ambathale
5.7.7.3. Super Pulsator
This is a development of the “PULSATOR” plant under Dregemont patent. Lammella tubes
above the sludge blanket area of the pulsator is the special feature of the Super Pulsator. Some
details of the system are shown in Figure 5-62 and Figure 5-63.

Figure 5-62: The lamella settler consists of specially fabricated lamella modules inside
the settling area (Super Pulsator)

Figure 5-63: Sludge collectors inside the Lamella settler tank (Super Pulsator)
The “SETA” plant uses tube settler for settling. The super pulsator is based on incorporation
of tube settlers at the upper zone of the Pulsator. The tube settler technology is based on the
principle “Particle interception by plate or tube cutting short the particle settling trajectory” in
the sedimentation tank. This technology has made it feasible to cut down the settling time to
around 45 minutes. In addition, it is noted that the tube settlers are capable of managing shock
loading of turbidity due to its low retention time requirement. For example, sudden turbidity
variation from 150 NTU to 300 NTU in a short period during rainy season is well managed by
SETA plant and Super Pulsator at Ambathale.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-80
5.7.8. Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Clarifiers
Flotation can be described as a gravity separation process in which gas bubbles attach to solid
particles to cause the apparent density of the bubble-solid agglomerates to be less than that of
the water, thereby allowing the agglomerate to float to the surface. Different methods of
producing gas bubbles give a rise to different types of flotation processes. These are
electrolytic flotation, dispersed-air flotation, and dissolved-air flotation. In dissolved-air
flotation, bubbles are produced by the reduction in pressure of a water stream saturated with
air and preferred for the production of potable water.
Dissolved-air flotation as a primary clarification is particularly effective for the treatment of
algae-laden waters and low-turbidity, highly coloured waters or lightly loaded water giving
light and fragile flocs. Flotation has several process advantages over sedimentation, it can
produce better water quality; it can be operated at high surface loadings, resulting in relatively
small and shallow plants; and it can be started up quickly, with a steady water quality being
achieved within 45 min. In addition, the solids concentration of the sludge produced is
significantly higher (about 3 %) than that of the sludge produced by sedimentation.
Dissolved air flotation is an alternative clarification process ideal for treating raw water with
light particles, such as algae or colour-causing organics, and at low temperatures when
sedimentation is not as effective. Widely used for drinking water clarification in Europe since
the late 1960s . It was not until the early 2000s that DAF became more widely used in the U.S
and other regions. Since that time, DAF has become a mainstream clarification process for
drinking water treatment plants, especially where algae is prevalent, as well as a popular pre-
treatment process for seawater desalination systems to combat red tide or algae bloom
occurrences throughout the world.
DAF is particularly effective in removing low density particles either initially in the water
supply or those produced through precipitation and removal process for protozoa pathogens. It
is demonstrated that DAF achieves 2-3 log removals of Cryptosporidium compared to 2 log
removal by sedimentation.

Figure 5-64 is a process schematic diagram for a DAF drinking water plant. Coagulation and
flocculation are required pretreatment processes. The chemistry of coagulation for
sedimentation and DAF plants is similar, so that coagulant dosages and pH conditions are
identical to forming flocs. An exception is that for some water types, especially those of low
to moderate turbidities, sedimentation plants may require higher coagulant dosages so as to
increase flocculation kinetics and produce flocs large enough to settle rapidly.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-81
 Figure 5-64: Process Schematic Diagram for a DAF
The sizes of flocs in the influent to the DAF tank affects greatly the collisions among flocs
and bubbles in the DAF tank contact zone and subsequently, the rise velocities of flocs with
attached bubbles in the DAF tank separation zone. The flocs with attached bubbles are called
floc-bubble aggregates. Flocculation is used in both sedimentation and DAF plants, but their
objectives differ. When settling follows flocculation, the goal is to produce large flocs capable
of settling at a fairly rapid rate. Flocs with sizes of 100 μm and greater are required to produce
reasonable settling rates. Proper floc sizes for DAF differs, especially in treating reservoir
supplies with low density particles and little mineral turbidity. For treating these type
supplies, the optimum floc size for the DAF contact zone is 10s of µm determined from
modelling, laboratory, and pilot plant data.
Air drum
Air
Coagulant mixing
compressor
Recycle pump

Feed
Water

Floatation
Basin

Clear water
Filtration

Air dispersion Line

Figure 5-65: Generic DAF Process Flow Diagram

The DAF tank is divided into two sections with different functions as illustrated at the bottom
of Figure 5-64. There is a section at the front end that is baffled, called the contact zone,
where floc particles are introduced and contacted with air bubbles. Here, collisions occur
among bubbles and floc particles. If the floc particles are prepared properly via coagulation
with respect to their surface chemistry, then bubbles colliding with the flocs may attach
yielding floc-bubble aggregates. The water carrying the suspension of bubbles, flocs, and
aggregates flows to the second section of the tank, called the separation zone. Here, bubbles
not attached to flocs and floc-bubble-aggregates may rise to the surface of the tank. The float
layer at the surface of the tank consists of a mixture of bubbles and floc particles attached to
bubbles. In drinking water applications, this froth is called the float. Over time, this float layer
is concentrated producing a sludge that is collected and removed from the tank. Clarified
water, often referred to as the subnatant, is withdrawn from the bottom of the tank. In a
standard type DAF water plant, granular media filtration follows DAF. In some applications,
DAF is placed above the filters as shown in Figure 5-65. A DAF clarification system is
comprised of three basic components: 1) process equipment, 2) chemical conditioning, and 3)
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-82
the dissolved air or micro bubble process. Rectangular units can be used as part of single
structure combining the flocculator, floatation unit and filtering with minimum space
requirements.

Sri Lankan experience demonstrate that the DAF followed by granular media filtration is far
better for the treatment of algae compared to the DAF is placed above the filters where algal
cells may escape during filtration process.

5.7.8.1. Theory and Operation

Before the flocculated water enters the clarification chamber, millions of tiny air bubbles are
released from the diffuser nozzles to the water, which attach and float the floc particles to the
water surface. Bubbles are released in the flotation basin to float the floc particles by
dissolving air under pressure (typically 450 to 600 kP) into the recycle flow (5 to 10 % of
coagulated water flow) and then lowering the pressure to atmospheric by releasing through
needle valves or specially designed nozzles placed in the floatation basin. Because of the high
pressure used, small bubbles 10 to 100 m in diameter are produced.

Effective gravity settling of particles requires that they be destabilized, coagulated, and
flocculated by using metal salts, polymers, or both. The same is true for DAF. In gravity
settling, the flocculation process must be designed to create large, heavy floc that settles to the
bottom of the basin. In DAF, flocculation is designed to create a large number of smaller floc
particles that can be floated to the surface.

For efficient flotation, flocculated particles must be in contact with a large number of air
bubbles. Three mechanisms are at work in this air/floc attachment process:
 Adhesion of air bubbles on the floc surface
 Entrapment of bubbles under the floc
 Absorption of bubbles into the floc structure

The size of air bubbles is important. If bubbles are too large, the resulting rapid rise rate will
exceed the laminar flow requirements, causing poor performance. If bubbles are too small, a
low-rise rate will result and tank size may need to be increased. In a typical DAF tank,
flocculated water is introduced uniformly across the end of the tank, near the bottom, into the
recycle dispersion zone. Recycle is continuously introduced through a distribution system of
proprietary nozzles, valves, or orifices. When the recycle flow pressure is suddenly decreased
from its operating pressure to atmospheric pressure, saturated air within the recycle stream is
released in the form of micro-bubbles with a size range of 10 to 100 µm, and averaging
around 40 to 50 µm. These micro-bubbles attach to flocculated material by the mechanisms
described previously, causing flocculated material to float to the surface.

At the surface, the bubble-floc forms a stable and continuously thickening layer of float, or
sludge. If left at the surface, the float can thicken to as much as 3% to 6% dry solids. This can
be an advantage if solids are to be mechanically dewatered, because solids may be suitable for
dewatering without further thickening, or the thickening process can be reduced. Sludge
thickness depends on the time it is allowed to remain on the surface and the type of removal
system employed.

The floated sludge is removed periodically by a mechanical surface skimmer or by hydraulic

flooding to a de-sludging trough at the surface, and the clarified water flows to the bottom of
the clarifying chamber and then to an effluent control weir for collection. Either clarified or
filtered water is used for the recycle water. In some DAF installations, floatation and

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-83
filtrations are combined into one basin, whereas separate processes are recommended for
better treatment.

5.7.8.2. Recycle System

About 5% to 10% of clarified water is recycled into the air saturation system by recycle
pumps. Recycle water is pumped through an eductor that introduces high-pressure air in the
line from the air cushion of the saturation tanks. The air-water mixture is then discharged into
the bottom of the saturation tank. The eductor increases the efficiency of air to-water transfer
by increasing contact time between the two media.

Air is supplied from an air compressor controlled by the saturation tank water level. Operating
efficiency of this type system is in the 80% to 85% range and may be improved by using
packed bed saturation tanks to increase the air-water interface. Packed bed saturators are more
expensive, but their greater efficiency may make them more economical in large plants.
Saturated water flows from the saturation tank through a system of headers to the proprietary
recycle dispersion system, where the pressure is dropped to atmospheric and micro-bubbles
are created.

5.7.8.3. Design Criteria

Commonly used criteria are :
Flocculation time = 15 - 30 minutes
Flotation tank design
Detention time = 10-20 minutes
Overflow rate/ Rising Velocity = 5 - 15 m3/m2/hr
Air saturation system
Saturator pressure = 450 - 620 kPa
Recycle rate = 5 - 15 %
Sludge removal
Percent solids = 0.2 6 %
Layer thickness = 5 - 15 mm
The lower values are used when flotation and filtrations are carried out in the same units.

Some of the main advantages of DAF include better performance for removing light particles
such as algae, which are difficult to settle. DAF can also usually achieve lower effluent
turbidity than settling, typically less than 0.5 NTU. It is not as sensitive to temperature,
especially cold temperatures as is common in settling, and the start-up time is very short,
approximately 30 minutes. Further, DAF does not need to generate heavy floc for settling, so
lower coagulant dosage and shorter flocculation time can be used. The process can also
operate at much higher Surface Loading Rates (SLR) than sedimentation, especially in the
high-rate DAF processes, which can be up to 50 m3/m2/hr.

With mechanical sludge removal, the DAF sludge can be quite thick (2 to 5 percent solids),
which eliminates the need for thickening before dewatering. Because of air attachment,
polymer is not required for stable performance, as opposed to high rate settling processes that
must use polymer to attach particles to ballast. Using polymer is a major concern if the
clarification process is used for membrane filtration pre-treatment. However, DAF is not
suited for raw water with high-density solids or turbidity higher than 100 NTU, as the pumped
recycle percentage required is higher, making the process more energy intensive and less
economical than competing technologies. In general, DAF uses more energy than
sedimentation because of the recycle water pumping and air compressing requirements, and it
usually needs protection from freezing and raining to prevent the floated solids from settling.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-84
Traditionally, the surface loading rates of DAF had been in the 10-15 m3/m2/hr range. With
the advent of high-rate DAF technologies, which can operate at surface loading rates of 30-50
m3/m2/hr, DAF becomes highly competitive in capital cost and reduces site space
requirements, especially at larger treatment plants.

In practice, DAF tanks are often designed to be preceded by flocculation with detention time
of 20 to 30 minutes. Smaller flocculation times are feasible. From theoretical basis, large flocs
are not needed because they would tend to settle rather than float. A floc size of 10 to 30 m
with flocculation time less than 10 minutes provide for effective floatation. (Sample Design
Calculation is shown in Annex – E4)

5.7.8.4. Floated Solids Removal

Floating solids (called float) are removed from the surface by mechanical skimming or by
hydraulic flooding. Mechanical skimming equipment must be maintained, but it allows the
float to be removed at a dry solids content of 3% to 6%. At this concentration, it may be
possible to eliminate or at least reduce thickening equipment required for mechanical
dewatering. Flooding eliminates mechanical equipment in the flotation tank but results in a
dilute solids stream of around 0.5% or less. This float removal method could create a need for
larger thickening equipment.

Three common types of mechanical skimming equipment are the chain-and-flight skimmer,
oscillating skimmer, and rotating skimmer. A typical mechanical skimming device is the
chain-and flight type, similar to those used to scrape settled solids in gravity sedimentation
basins. In this case, however, flights are equipped with rubber squeegees or nylon brushes that
drag the float along the water surface and up onto a dewatering beach. As solids are dragged
up the beach, water is squeezed out and drains away, further thickening the float. The float
then drops off the beach into a hopper from which it flows by gravity or is pumped to waste or
thickening.

Solids content of the float is controlled by how often it is removed and by how much excess
water is dragged along with the solids. Adjusting the flight depth into the water is critical to
the amount of excess water and to treatment efficiency. If the moving flights are set too deep,
they can create flow patterns in the basin that will cause poor particle removal and floc carry-
through to the effluent. If the flight is set too shallow, it can disrupt the adhesive forces in the
float blanket. This disruption causes solids to settle back into the tank, resulting in floc carry-
through. The skimmer is usually operated on a timer, with the frequency of operation based
on solids production and the desired level of thickening. All mechanical components are
above water, making maintenance easier than that for gravity sedimentation basins.

Oscillating Skimmer consists of a carriage-and-blade assembly that is pushed and pulled

across the surface by a gear motor. Blade spacing is typically 1.5 to 2.1 m, and the mechanism
covers two-thirds of the flotation area. The lead carriage, closest to the sludge beach, is
equipped with a profile-duplicating arm that allows the skimmer blade to exactly duplicate the
shape of the beach. The beach can be either flat or curved. All moving components are
located above water, which allows easy inspection and maintenance. The gear motor
oscillates a drive rod back and forth 38-cm increments while engaging the skimmer carriages.
When the carriage reaches the effluent end and the profile blade deposits the float into the
hopper, the blades retract above the water surface. The carriage is then mechanically reversed
to return to the influent end in an indexing manner.

The skimmer unit is constructed of stainless steel and plastic. High-hardness plastics provide
low operating friction, allowing the mechanism to operate efficiently. The profile-duplicating

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-85
blade is typically a nylon brush that aids in sludge dewatering. The brush allows the sludge to
thicken to a slightly higher solids percentage while the blade pauses inherently during
operation on the sludge beach. Maintenance is minimal, consisting of checking the plastic
wear blocks and regular servicing of the gear motor.

Rotating Skimmer consists of a rotating shaft with curved or straight blades attached. The
shaft is mounted at the effluent end of the basin above a sludge beach. As the blades rotate,
they pull a portion of the float blanket onto the beach and into a hopper. The general flow of
water toward the effluent causes the blanket to flow up to the beach, where the rotating blades
continually remove a portion.

Hydraulic Removal of float is where float can be hydraulically removed from the surface of a
DAF unit by flooding. This is accomplished by partially closing the basin effluent gate or in
some cases raising a mechanical effluent weir, which causes increased head loss and a small
rise in the water surface level. This increase in level brings the surface up above a weir that
discharges to a sludge drain. Part of the flow through the basin is now diverted over this weir,
dragging the float blanket along with it.

Adhesion of the sludge particles helps keep the blanket intact as it moves across the surface to
the weir. Water is trickled down the basin walls to break adhesion to the wall so that the
blanket can move freely. Float removal is relatively frequent to prevent the blanket from
becoming too thick because a heavy blanket does not flow well. A solids content of about
0.5% is best.
When most of the blanket is removed, usually in about 10 min or less, the effluent gate
reopens and operations return to normal. This mode of float removal eliminates all
mechanical equipment in the basins. The disadvantage is that the removed solids are diluted
and may require more extensive thickening for subsequent mechanical dewatering.

5.7.9. Quantity of Sludge Produced

The purpose of sludge collection is to withdraw residual sludge from the clarifier basin for
processing and disposal. The quantity of solids produced in is independent upon the total
suspended solids in the water, the type and the dosage of coagulant, and the efficiency of the
clarification basin. Typically, turbidity vales are used as an indicator of suspended solid
loading; however, there is no absolute correlation between turbidity values (NTU) and total
suspended solids (TSS).

The sludge from coagulation process also contains the metal hydroxide produced. Aluminium
sulphate produces a hydroxide that has bound water. Iron coagulants are ferric sulphate,
ferrous sulphate, and ferric chloride. In all three cases, the iron precipitate formed is ferric
hydroxide. The insoluble ferric hydroxide is a bulky and gelatinous floc. Theoretical
quantities of sludge produced by various coagulant chemicals are listed Table 5-44.
Because of bound water, the actual reported quantities of sludge from alum, ferric sulphate,
and ferric chloride are 0.33, 0.59 and 0.48 respectively. Therefore, it is advisable to increase
the theoretical quantities of sludge when designing sludge handling equipment and processes.
In general, the solid content of coagulation sludge is 0.5 to 2%.
Generally, 80 to 90 percent of the total solids are removed in the sedimentation process. The
mass of the solids must be removed from the sedimentation basin before accumulation
becomes excessive. Although some plants drain basin and remove sludge manually, others
use mechanical sludge collection equipment to move the sludge to a hopper for removal.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-86
5.8. Filtration
5.8.1. Introduction to Filtration
Filtration is used to separate non-settable solids from water by passing it through a porous
medium. The most common system is filtration through a layered bed of granular media,
typically sand (although many other materials are used). Filtration is used in addition to
regular coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation for removal of colloidal particles from
surface water in order to meet the drinking water standards.

Filtration is one of the oldest forms of water treatment and in fact is nature’s own water
treatment mechanism in ground water. Filtration, usually considered a simple mechanical
process, actually involves the mechanisms of adsorption (physical and chemical), straining,
sedimentation, interception, diffusion, and inertial impaction as shown in Figure 5-66.

In most of water clarification processes where coagulation and precipitation occur, at least a
portion of the clarified water is filtered. Clarifier effluents of 2-5 NTU may be improved to
0.1-1.0 NTU by conventional sand filtration. Filtration ensures acceptable suspended solids
concentrations in the finished water even when shortcomings occur in the clarification
processes.

Figure 5-66: Schematic diagram illustrating straining, flocculation, and sedimentation

actions in granular media filters

Many particles in water are too small to be removed by sedimentation alone. Filtration
removes microorganism and suspended solids passes from sedimentation basins or it
eliminates precipitated particles and flocs remaining after sedimentation.

5.8.2. Types of Filters

A number of different types of filters are used in potable water filtration, and they may be
described by various classification schemes. They are based on mode of action, the rate of
filtration, type of operation, type of filter material used, hydraulic condition employed,
direction of flow during filtration, cleaning process as given in Table 5-25.

Table 5-25: Classification of Filtration Systems

Mode of action Deep-bed / surface filtration
Filtration rate Rapid / slow
Type of operation Semi-continuous / continuous
Type of filtering medium used single- / dual- / multi-media

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-87
 Hydraulic condition Gravity / Pressure
Direction of flow during filtration Down-flow / up-flow
Cleaning process Backwash (water or air + water) / manual
Method of flow rate control Constant-rate / variable declining-rate

Rapid filtration is recommended for medium or large schemes where skilled operators will be
available. A comparison of characteristics of the main types of filters is shown in Table 5-24.
Rapid sand filters must be provided with efficient pre-treatment for water with turbidity in
excess of 5 NTU.

Table 5-26: Characteristics of sand filters

Rapid Filters
Characteristics Slow filters
Gravity Pressure
Filtration Rate 0.1 - 0.4 m3/m2/hr 5 - 15 m3/m2/hr
Size of bed Large (2000 m2) Small (100 m2)
Depth of bed 0.3 m gravel, 1 m sand 0.5 m gravel, 0.7-1.0 m sand stratified
unstratified
Effective size of Sand (E.S) d 0.1 - 0.3 mm 0.4-1.2 mm
10
Uniformity Coefficient (UC) 1.5 - 2.5 1.2 - 1.7
Head loss Up to 1 m Up to 3 m
Length of Run 20-90 days 1-7 days
Method of Cleaning Skimming (scraping off top Back wash with air or mechanical scour
layer and washing)
Wash -water consumption 0.2 - 0.6% of filtered water 1 - 6% of filtered water
Penetration of suspended solids Superficial (on the surface) Deep
Removal Mechanism Physical + biological + Physical + chemical
biochemical
Removes Fine particles, bacteria Fine particles, flocs
Oxidizes Organics (THM), NH  NO Fe, Mn , NH  NO
3 3 3 3
Pre-treatment by coagulation No Yes Yes
Direct on main use* No No Yes
Easily extended No No Yes
Covered construction No Optional Yes
Visible operations Yes Yes No
Capital cost Higher High Medium
Operational cost Low High Higher
Flow control Constant rate Constant rate, Declining rate
Note: *= can be directly connected to raw water mains

The size and shape of the filter media affect the efficiency of the solids removal. Sharp,
angular media form large voids and remove less fine material than rounded media of
equivalent size. The media must be coarse enough to allow solids to penetrate the bed for 50 -
100 mm. Although most suspended solids are trapped at the surface or in the first 25 to 50
mm depth of bed, some penetration is essential to prevent a rapid increase in pressure drop.

5.8.3. Removal of Microorganisms by Granular Bed Filtration

Filters must reduce turbidity to less than 0.3 NTU in 95% of monthly measurements and the
finished water turbidity must never exceed 1 NTU in any sample. Although turbidity is not
harmful on its own, turbid water is difficult to disinfect for a variety of reasons.
Microorganisms growing on or shielding in the suspended particles which may be hard to kill
using disinfection while the particles themselves may chemically react with chlorine, making
it difficult to maintain chlorine residue in the distribution system. Turbidity can also cause
deposits in the distribution system that creates tastes, odours, and bacterial growths. These
deposits also can get re-suspended in the distribution system when velocity changes or
interruption occurs.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-88
However, turbidity of drinking water has other troublesome implications as well. Sand
filtration removes some cyst-forming microorganisms, such as Giardia, which cannot be
killed by traditional chlorination. Cysts have resistant covers, which protect the
microorganism while it goes into an inactive state. The outbreaks of waterborne
cryptosporidiosis over the last decades are well documented and main concern in water supply
in UK and USA.

Regulations require that at least 99.9% of Giardia cysts and 99.99% of viruses be removed
from drinking water. Since it is difficult to test directly for these microorganisms, turbidity in
water can be used as an indicator for their presence. By requiring a low turbidity in the
finished water, treatment plants are ensuring that few or no Giardia is present in finished
drinking water.

Considerable evidence exist to demonstrate that conventional water treatment process can
give good removal of oocysts (99% or more), but there are number of operational factors
which influence this removal and need to be addressed to minimize the risk of oocysts
breakthrough into the treated water. Of particular importance is the maintenance of good
chemical conditions for coagulation and minimization of particle break through the filters.

5.8.4. Filtration mechanisms

The flow through filter pores is laminar (controlled by viscous force and follow streamlines),
however, the flow may not be uniform and vary with time, particularly as the pores become
clogged with deposits. The pores of a typical rapid sand filter are much larger than particle to
be removed. The typical pore dimension is about 50 m, whereas the particle to be removed
are in the range of 1 to 30 m. Figure 5-67 shows that straining is not a significant
mechanism.

When water flows through the filter bed, suspended and colloidal particles are retained by the
filter media. Particles that are larger than the pores in the filter bed will remain on the bed
(Figure 5-67). With rapid filtration, this does not occur often, because the larger particles
(iron or aluminium flocs) are already removed in the preceding floc removal process
(sedimentation or flotation).

The filtration comprised of three principal mechanisms: (a) Transport, (b) attachment, and (c)
detachment. Transport mechanism move a particle into and through a filter pore so that it
comes very close to the surface of the filter media or existing deposit where attachment
mechanism serve to retain the suspended particle in contact with the media surface or
previously deposited solids. Detachment mechanisms result from the hydrodynamic forces of
the flow acting in such a way that certain part of the previously adhered particle, less strongly
linked to the others, is detached from the filter media or previous deposits and carried further
into or through the filter.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-89
 Al or Fe Floc,
10m
Bacillus, 1-2m
Grain Diameter=
400m Diatoms, 10m
Pore Diameter, 52m

Silica Particle,
Clay20m
Particle,
30m

Figure 5-67: Typical Filter Pore and Giardia cysts

5.8.4.1. Transport Mechanism

During rapid filtration, the removal of suspended and colloidal particles usually occurs inside
the filter bed. The clogging will thus be spread over the entire height of the filter bed. The
suspended and colloidal particles are transported to the filter material in different ways
(Figure 5-68). Generally, the particle follows the trajectory of the water that flows through
the filter bed. This trajectory follows the complicated pore structure of the bed.

Figure 5-68: Transport of impurities towards the grain

When the trajectory curves, a heavy particle can be transported to the filter medium due to
inertia. If the trajectory approaches the filter grains, then particles can also be intercepted.
Heavy particles are especially subject to sedimentation and lighter particles to diffusion. Due
to these mechanisms, the particle can switch to other trajectories that flow nearer to a grain or
can collide directly with a grain, and it remains at the surface or on the grain.

The suspended solid removal efficiency and the type of dominating transport mechanism
depend on the size of the particle and their size distribution in the filtering water. From
researches it was found that there exists a size of suspended solids for which the removal
efficiency is minimum as shown in Figure 5-69. This critical suspended solid size is about 1
m. For suspended solid larger than 1 m, removal is enhanced by sedimentation and/or
interception, i.e. gravity forces. For suspended solid smaller than 1 m, removal increase with
decreasing particle size.

This is happening due to shift in the removal process combined effects. It concludes that:
 Efficiency dependent on particle size
 Greater grain surface area increases efficiency (smaller grains) – angular grains better than
spherical
 Larger grains hold more deposits
 higher flow - lower efficiency
 Better at higher temperatures – viscosity higher at low temperatures
 Down flow more efficient – if gravity particle transport is important

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-90
 100

80

60

Removal (%) 40
Diffusion effect Gravity effect

20

0
0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00
Particle size (m)
Figure 5-69: Particle Removal Efficiency in a granular filter

5.8.4.2. Attachment Mechanism

When the suspended and colloidal particles collide with the filter grains, attachment could
take place. There are two types of forces that result in attraction and repulsion of the particles.
The Vander Waals forces ensure that two bodies are attracted. Electrostatic forces can have an
attracting or repulsing effect, depending on the charge of the particles. In general, the filter
material (sand) and the suspended and colloidal particles have a negative charge and repulsion
takes place. Attachment of the particles depends on the magnitude of both opposing forces. If
the particles are destabilized by the addition of trivalent iron or aluminium salts, attachment
will be easier than without destabilization.

It is observed that attachment can be improved by using optimum polymer dose determined in
the coagulation jar test. The polymers probably enhance attachment in filtration by
adsorption, producing charge neutralization and/or bridging.

5.8.4.3. Detachment Mechanism

Detachment can occur by shearing away attached particles from the grain due to increased
flow (increased friction loss) in weak grain structure. This can be reduction in the probability
of adhering of the suspended and colloidal particles with the filter grains, due to increase in
the velocity by reduction of pores by accumulation of particles.

5.8.5. Filterability Test

The filterability test was designed by Ives and the equipment and methods are described fully
in (Reference 33). The equipment consists of small filter vessel mounted on a frame as shown
in Figure 5-70. Filter sand is placed in and the vessel to a standard depth and influent water is
filtered through it at a standard rate. The head loss developed across the filter is monitored
using a water manometer. The qualities of the filtered water are measured and a dimensionless
filterability number is calculated from:

Filterability Number F = H C/Co v t

Where,
H/t - the rate of rise of head loss
C - the mean filtrate quality during time t
Co - the inlet quality
v - the (approach) velocity of filtration

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-91
 Figure 5-70: Filterability Test
The filter number includes the major parameters of deep bed filtration; inlet and filtrate
concentrations, i.e. clarification capacity; head loss per unit time, i.e. clogging characteristics;
flow rate, which greatly affect the filter economy. Which may depend on its pre-treatment, it
is related to the filter material, because filterability is an interactive property. Any relevant
measure of water quality can be used e.g. turbidity, colour, or coagulant concentration.

No significant numerical value is defined for filterability number, but relative values indicate
relative filterabilities. A minimum value from a number of tests would indicate an optimum
filterability. The apparatus is not a design tool but will enable for preliminary screening of
variable (pre-treatment, media and flow rates) before establishing proper, more complex, and
pilot testing (e.g. 1 m deep column) for design purpose. So there could be considerable
reduction in time and efforts by preliminary use of filterability test.

5.9. Rapid Sand Filters

Rapid granular bed filtration usually consists of passage of pre-treated water through a
granular bed at rates of between 5 to 15 m/h. Flow is typically downward through the bed,
although some use of up-flow filters is reported. Both gravity and pressure filters are used,
although some restrictions are imposed against the use of pressure filters on surface waters or
other polluted source waters or following lime soda softening.

During operation, solids are removed from the water and accumulate within the voids and on
the top surface of the filter medium. This clogging results in a gradual increase in head loss, if
the flow rate is to be sustained. The total head loss may approach the maximum head loss
provided in the plant, sometimes called the available head loss. After a period of operation,
the rapid filter is cleaned by backwashing with an upward flow of water, usually assisted by
some auxiliary scouring system. The operating time between backwashes is referred to as a
filter cycle or a filter run. The head loss at the end of the filter run is called the terminal head
loss.

One of the following three criteria indicates the need for backwash, whichever occurs first:
 The head loss across the filter increases to the available limit or to a lower established
limit (usually 2.4 to 3.0 m) of water
 The filtrate begins to deteriorate in quality or reaches some pre-set upper limit
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-92
  Some maximum time limit (usually 3 or 4 days) has been reached
Typical filter cycles range from about 12 hours to 96 hours, although some plants operate
with longer cycles. Setting an upper time limit for the cycle is desirable because of concern on
bacterial growth in the filter, and because of concern that compaction of the solids
accumulated in the filter will make backwashing difficult.

Pre-treatment of surface waters by chemical coagulation is essential to achieve efficient

removal of particulates in rapid filters. In addition, filter-aiding polymers may be added to the
water just ahead of filtration to strengthen the attachment of the particles to the filter media.
Ground waters treated for iron and manganese removal by oxidation, precipitation, and
filtration generally do not need other chemical pre-treatment.

5.9.1. Conventional Design

Conventional gravity and pressure rapid filters operate down flow. The filter medium is
usually a 600-750 mm. deep bed of sand or anthracite. Single or multiple grades of sand or
anthracite may be used. The depth of the filter bed should be large enough to prevent a
significant amount of impurities from reaching the filtered water outlet, and is best
determined by pilot filter tests, especially if unconventional filter media with largely unknown
physical properties are being considered.

Common criteria for rapid gravity filters are as follows

Minimum no of beds, = 02
Influent turbidity, = 5 NTU (<1NTU is preferred) after pre-treatment
Unit area, = up to 140 m2
Filtration rate, = 40 - 60 m3/m2/hr
Head loss, = up to 2.5 m
Filter run, = 1- 3 days
Wash water consumption, = 1 – 6 % of filtered water
Depth of filter, = 0.3 – 0.6 m gravel (2-50mm graded),
= 0.6 – 1.0 m stratified sand
Sand Specification Effective Size (ES) =0.4-1.2mm
Uniformity Coefficient (UC) =1.2-2.0
Effective size of Gravel = 2 – 50 mm
Minimum depth of water when
operating, = 1.0 m
Minimum inlet velocity, = 0.6 m/s
Minimum ratio (under drain area/
filter area), = 0.003
Back wash velocity, = 10 – 15 mm/s
Minimum Back wash time, = 5 minutes
Wash water basin 2 or minimum of 1 filter washes of 10 minutes and
refilled in 60 minutes each.
Air scour (Mechanical rake in sand 1-10 rev/min instead of
air). Air scour 0.015-0.025 m3/m2/s for several
minutes before backwashing, pressure 20-35
kN/m2.
Surface wash By additional 1-20 mm/s jetted onto surface of sand
at 150-450 kN/m2.
Head loss in wash water system = 8-15 m

Wash water troughs Should be clear of expanded sand with maximum

horizontal spacing of 2m. Top of troughs should be

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-93
 level and dimensions such that maximum flow can
be carried with 50 mm free board.
Velocity in Wash water Outlet =2.4-3.6 m/s
Length/ width ratio of filter bed = 1.25-1.33
Minimum depth of filter bed = 2.5 m
Filter Controls Sampling taps
Loss of head gauge
Rate of flow control
Rate indication for wash water line
Sand expansion gauge
Flow meter for backwash water
Underdrains Should consists of a central manifold with laterals
only in very small WTP/ RWS schemes or False
bottom with Nozzles
For Manifold and Laterals System
Minimum diameter of under = 20 cm
drains
Diameter of perforation = 6 to 12 mm (staggered at a slight angle to vertical
axis of pipe)
Spacing of perforation along = 7.5 cm for perforation of 6 mm;
laterals 20 cm for perforation of 12 mm
Ratio of total area of perforation = 0.25 for 6 mm size;
to total cross sectional area of = 0.50 for 12 mm size.
laterals:
Ratio of total area of perforation = 0.003
to the entire filter area
Length /diameter ratio of lateral = 60
Maximum spacing of laterals = 30 cm
Cross sectional area of manifold =1.5 to 2.0 times the total area of laterals

False bottom with Nozzles

No. of nozzles 55 Nrs/m2

Velocity of filtered water outlet = 1.0 to 1.8 m/s

Air inject = 2 – 3 min
Total wash water requirement = 1.5 – 2.5 % of production
Backwash power requirement = 1.5 kW/m2
(blower & Pump)
Bed expansion (fluidization) 15-20% of depth for water only
Typically Less than 5% for 5 minutes

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-94
Table 5-27: Typical water and air scoure flow rates for backwash systems employing Air
scoure
Air Rate scfm/sf Water Rate gpm/sf
Filter Medium Backwash Sequence
(m/h) (m/h)
Air first 2-3 (37-55)
Fine sand 0.5 mm ES
Water Second 15 (37)
Fine dual and multimedia 1.0 Air first 3-4 (55-73)
mm Es anthracite Water Second 15-20 (37-49)
Air first 4-5 (73-91)
Coarse dual media 1.5 mm ES
Air + Water on rising level 4-5 (73-91) 10 (24)
anthracite
Water third 25 (61)
Air + Water first 3-4 (55-73) 6-7 (15-17)
Coarse sand 1.0 mm ES
Simultaneously
Water second Same or double rate
Air + Water first 6-8 (110-146) 10-12 (24-29)
Coarse sand 2.0 mm ES
Simultaneously
Water second Same or double rate
Air + Water first 3-5 (55-91) 8-10 (20-24)
Coarse anthracite 1.5 mm ES
Simultaneously
Water second Same or double rate

An example hydraulic design calculation for rapid sand filter and preparation of sand for filter
is given in Annex F.1 and F.2 respectively.
5.9.2. Filter Arrangements
Filters can be configured in a number of ways in the overall plant layout. It is important to
develop a layout that is the least costly and is operationally optimized. A minimum-cost filter
design is obtained by differentiating the cost function in terms of length-to-width ratio as a
variable.
5.9.2.1. Configuration of Filters
Filters are normally placed next to one another along one or both sides of a pipe gallery. This
approach provides the most compact arrangement and also simplifies filter operation and
maintenance. If possible, areas for future expansion should be provided at one end of the row
(or rows) of filters, and piping in the gallery should be installed with blind flanges at the ends
to make future filter additions easier.
In larger plants, placing filters in rows on opposite sides of a pipe gallery is common practice.
In smaller plants, a single row of filters results in simpler construction. Typical filter
configurations are shown in Figure 5-71.

Location of the filtered water clearwell under the pipe gallery, and common walls between
filtered and unfiltered water, should be avoided to prevent the possibility that leakage through
the walls may contaminate filtered water. A false floor should be provided in the washwater
gullet to prevent a common wall from existing between unfiltered water in the gullet and
filtered water in the underdrain system. Drainage should be provided for spaces beneath false
floors of this type.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-95
 Figure 5-71: Typical filter configurations
In warm climates, filters may be placed outdoors with precautions for controlling algae
formation in the filter box. One method is provision of shock chlorination of filter influent or
washwater. In colder climates, filters are normally housed to prevent ice formation.
5.9.2.2. Number of Filters
From a capital cost point of view, least number of filters are ideal. Whenever a filter is
removed form service, for backwashing or maintenance, the overall hydraulic load has to be
redistributed amongst the remaining filters. The removal must be done in such a way that it
does not result in a shock-load on the other filters that remain in production. Significant
changes in the filtration rate can have adverse effect on filter performance due to particle
detachment resulting in increase of effluent turbidity.
It should be noted that in the case of a plant with four filters, if one is removed for back
washing, the filtration rate in the three remaining filters is increased by 33%. In Contrast,
capital cost of filters can generally be minimized by designing for the minimum number of
filters consistent with size limitations. Plant expansions are usually accomplished by adding
filters of the same size as existing units, because installing larger filters may require extensive
changes in the filter wash system.
Kawamura (1999) recommends the following formula as a guide to determining the required
number of filters:
N = 1.2 √𝑄
Where N is the number of filters and Q is the plant design flow rate in million gallons (US
gallons) per day (1 Million gallons per day = 3,785 m3/day). It is recommended to provide at
least two units for small plants processing with 2 Mgd and minimum number of four filters
for medium and large plants those processing over 15 Mgd. However, in the design stage due
consideration should be given to cater the maximum designed flow when one filter is out of
service for maintenance and another filter is closed down for back washing.
Furthermore, following factors must be taken in to consideration in determining the number
of filter beds,

 Land area availabe

 Land value
 Capacity of back wash pumps
 Cost of fittings for each bed

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-96
  Cost of structure (concrete, steel, etc..)
 Variation of filtered water quality when filters are out of service for backwashing and
maintenance
Where declining rate filtration is selected, the variable nature of filtration rates, and the
number of filters must be considered in determining the design capacity of the filters. If a
filter of self-backwash type is selected, the minimum number of four filters must be provided
regardless of plant size, and preferably six in order to produce sufficient water to wash a filter
effectively.
5.9.2.3. Size of Filters
The size of individual gravity filters is determined by plant capacity, filtration rate, and the
number of filters desired. Hydraulic considerations and the effect of removing a filter from
service limit maximum filter size. Additional considerations include the maximum area to
which wash water or air scour can be evenly distributed, the maximum span of wash water
collection troughs, and available sizes of surface wash equipment, if used.
The maximum dimensions of single filter are generally determined by the economic sizing of
filter backwash facility and possible difficulties in providing uniform distribution of backwash
water over the entire filter bed. The practical maximum size of typical gravity filter is about
100 m2. This size has been provided for plants of capacity over 10 mgd and about 50 m2 for
plants of capacity less than 10 mgd.

Pressure filters are usually limited by shipping constraints. The largest standard units typically
available are 3.7-m tanks. This limits vertical filters to about 10 m2 of filter medium.
Horizontal filters are normally not longer than 12 m. Larger units of both types can specially
be fabricated on site.
5.9.2.4. Depth of Filter Box
A number of factors should be considered in designing a filter box, including:

 Available head
 Depth of water over the filter media surface
 Fixed head losses
 Head losses through the filter media
 Shape of head loss curves
 Rate of filtration
 Elevation of the filtered water effluent control weir (if used)

Available head may be restricted by site conditions and plant layout, by the designed
maximum length of filter run, by optimizing head loss, or by terminating turbidity
breakthrough. Ideally, allowable head loss is determined from pilot plant studies. Fixed head
losses through piping, venturi meters, and throttling valves can be calculated from
manufacturers' literature and by hydraulic analyses. Head losses through filter media are
determined by pilot plant studies or are calculated from Kozeny equation.
Once these factors are known, water depth and weir elevation can be established to achieve a
cost-effective design. Objectives in designing a filter box should be to minimize the cost of
construction and to avoid the possibility that the filter will develop negative pressures.

5.9.3. Underdrain and Support Gravel

Beneath the filter media or support gravel, there is a underdrains system that support the filter
media, collect filtered water (in down-flow filters), and used to introduce air and water for
cleaning the filter. The basic requirement is that it should consist of large number of orifices,

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-97
uniformly arranged to collect the filtered water and to distribute backwash water and air, if air
scour is used. At the same time, they should not permit any filter media to pass. It is essential
that the filter floor and the underdrain be level.

Wide varieties of underdrain systems are in use, however, they can be grouped into four basic
types. There are as follows:
 Manifold-lateral system
 Block underdrain system
 False-floor underdrain
 Porous bottom underdrain

5.9.3.1. Manifold and Laterals

Pipe lateral underdrains were once popular because of their relatively low cost and
adaptability for use in pressure filters. Problems with relatively high head loss and poor
washwater distribution resulted in a general decline in their use. They are still encountered,
however, when older filters are upgraded.

A pipe lateral system uses a control manifold with several perforated laterals on each side.
This type is the oldest type of filtered water collecting system. Piping materials include
ductile iron, and PVC. The perforations are usually placed on the underside of the laterals to
prevent them from plugging with sand. This also allows backwash to be directed against the
floor, which helps to keep gravel and sand beds from being directly disturbed by the high
velocity water jets.

The perforated pipe laterals are located at frequent intervals along a manifold (Figure 5-72).
Perforations in the laterals are 6 to 13 mm in diameter, located on 8- to 30-cm spacing.

Figure 5-72: Details of Manifold and Laterals

The lateral pipes may be fitted with nozzles as illustrated in Figure 5-73. Guidelines for
lateral design include the following ratios:

 Total area of orifices (surface area of bed): 0.0015 to 0.005:1

 Cross-sectional area of lateral (total area of orifices served): 2 to 4:1
 Cross-sectional area of manifold (total area of laterals served): 1.5 to 3:1

Orifices are normally spaced at 8 to 30 cm and laterals at roughly the same spacing as the
orifices. Approximately 45 cm of support gravel is required to cover a lateral network. Three
to five graded layers are usually involved, with sizes varying from 38 to 3 mm.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-98
 Figure 5-73: Pipe lateral underdrain with nozzles

5.9.3.2. Block Underdrain System

The fabricated self-supporting (Block) underdrain system is grouted to the filter floor as in
Figure 5-74. Block underdrain is designed for concurrent air/water wash. Blocks are
constructed of polyethylene and consist of a primary feeder lateral (lower) and a secondary
compensating lateral (upper), shown in Figure 5-74. Small control orifices open from the
feeder lateral directly into the compensating lateral. Washwater and air are admitted to and
flow through the feeder lateral and rise to discharge from the control orifices into the
compensating lateral. The triangular shape of the primary lateral distributes incoming
washwater and air uniformly along its length. Support gravel is typically used with this type
of underdrain, graded in an hourglass configuration. As a replacement for support gravel, an
integral media support (IMS) cap made of plastic beads sintered together may be installed on
top of the plastic block underdrain, as shown in Figure 5-74. Top openings on these types of
underdrains are about 6 mm in diameter. Water quality should be reviewed closely prior to
use of an IMS cap.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-99
 Figure 5-74: Fabricated Block Underdrains with IMS cap

5.9.3.3. False-Bottom Underdrain with Nozzles

One of the most widely used false-bottom underdrains is constructed of precast or cast-in-
place reinforced concrete supported on concrete sills. This underdrain system contains
uniformly spaced inverted pyramidal depressions. Unglazed porcelain spheres are placed in
the depressions to distribute flow. Each depression is filled and levelled with 25- to 38-mm
gravel before placement of overlying gravel support layers. A typical arrangement including
the gravel layers is shown in Figure 5-75. The last silica gravel layer should be replaced by
coarse garnet in a mixed-media filter bed.

Figure 5-75: Forms of False-Bottom Underdrains

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-100
Other false-bottom underdrains have impervious bottoms penetrated by nozzles as shown in
Figure 5-76. Nozzle-type underdrains are used primarily in filters employing air/water wash
systems. Fine openings in the nozzles eliminate the need for support gravel, which,
accordingly, reduces filter box depth.

A false-floor slab (or a steel plate in pressure filters) is located 0.3 to 0.6 m above the bottom
of the filter, thus providing an underdrain plenum below the false floor. Nozzles to collect the
filtrate and distribute the backwash water are located about 9 to 150 cm centres. Nozzles may
have coarse openings of about 6 mm, or they may have very fine openings that are sufficiently
small to retain the filter medium. The nozzles may be equipped with a stem protruding about
15 to 23 cm into the underdrain plenum. One or two small holes or slots in the stem serve to
distribute air, either alone or in combination with water.

Water that passes the filter bed is drained through nozzles to the filtrate reservoir. Nozzles are
synthetic tubes that are incorporated into the construction of the filter bottom. To avoid loss of
filter sand, perforated heads are placed onto the tubes (Figure 5-76). Frequently, a number of
support layers of coarse filter material are placed between the filter bottom and the filter bed
to enable larger slot sizes in the nozzle, to avoid clogging the nozzles. In addition to draining
the filtered water, nozzles also have a function in the supply of backwash water and air. The
most important aspect is a uniform distribution of water and air over the filter bed, which can
be achieved by introducing a considerable filter bottom resistance (0.5-2 m).

Installing nozzles with the correct size air holes (and/or slots) in the stem for air scouring is
critical for achieving the right amount of airflow and backpressure. The location, dimensions
and number of air holes and slots are other important factors in the design of the filter nozzle.
For the nozzle to work effectively it is essential that the air holes and slots are specifically
designed to suit the capacity of the backwash air supply.

Figure 5-76: Type of Filter Nozzles and their Installations

Nozzles that have a short stem without backwash holes/slots are not suitable for air scouring
as they will use too much air and so they are not able to guarantee the equal air distribution in
the total number of nozzles installed in the filter drain floor. They are only for use with water
backwashing. Designing, constructing and installing the correct nozzles to suit system
demands is fundamental to the effectiveness of filtration process.

Characteristics of a filter bottom with backwash nozzles:

 False bottom construction
 Lower compartment not accessible to check for leakage of filter material (broken
nozzle)
 Backwash water and air can be distributed through the filter bottom simultaneously
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-101
  The number of nozzles varies from 50 to 90 per m2 and depends on the desired
maximum backwash velocity
 The width of the slots in the nozzle must be smaller than the smallest diameter of the
filter material, standard width varies from 0,5 to 1,0 mm
 Filter support layer generally not necessary

Nozzles differ in type and size. The main parts are the nozzle and the stem. The width of the
slots in the nozzle is chosen based on the filter media and must be smaller than the smallest
particle of the filter material. In order to create an even distribution of air over the entire filter
bottom during backwashing, resistance is necessary over the filter bottom. This resistance is
created by the pipe that is attached to the nozzle. This pipe causes an air cushion, which in
turn causes resistance, underneath the filter bed. This cushion can be varied in thickness by
changing the position of the slot in the stem. The diameter of the hole can be accurately
calculated to fit the volume of necessary backwash air. As this is a difficult calculation and
sometimes different volume of air is used during backwashes, a second hole can be made in
the stem. When a larger volume of air is used, it can also escape through this second hole. The
distribution of air over the filter will remain even.

A stem with a groove can be used as an alternative. For this, however, it is necessary that the
filter bottom is horizontal, in order to get an even distribution of air over the filter. This
alternative is therefore not preferred.

Other varieties of false-bottom underdrains are constructed of concrete, polyethylene, or tile

blocks; monolithic concrete; or steel plates. Nozzles are equipped with plunge pipes for air
wash and are usually constructed of stainless steel, plastic, or brass. Plunge pipes usually
adjust to allow for levelling after installation. Nozzle orifices are sometimes smaller on the
filter side to prevent clogging during filtration, even though such a configuration can
contribute to clogging during filter washing. Some failures resulting from plugging and
breakage have been experienced with this type of underdrain.

5.9.3.4. Porous-Bottom Underdrains

Porous-bottom underdrains constructed of porous aluminium oxide plates have been used in
both block and false bottom configurations. They are constructed of plates mounted on
concrete or steel piers or on clay tile saddles to form blocks. Very small pore sizes make
porous-bottom underdrains susceptible to plugging and therefore unsuitable for use in
softening or iron and manganese removal plants or other plants where plugging by chemical
deposition may occur. They may also clog with rust or debris during backwashing.

Additional problems that may occur include breakage because of the brittle nature of the
porous material and failure of sealed joints between plates. Porous bottoms have been used
successfully in a few locations, but they are less widely accepted than the block or false-
bottom underdrain systems discussed previously.

5.9.3.5. Design Consideration of Underdrain Systems

Most filters use underdrain systems with openings larger than the filter medium to be
supported. As a result, several layers of graded gravel between the underdrain openings and
the filter medium are necessary to prevent the medium from leaking downward into the
underdrain system. The conventional gravel system begins with coarse-sized gravel at the
bottom, with progressively finer-sized gravel layers up to the filter medium. Typical rules of
thumb for the gradations of adjacent layers, reported by Huisman (1974), are as follows:

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-102
  Each gravel layer should be as uniform as possible, preferably with the 10 and 90
percent passing diameters not more than a factor of 1.414 apart. In the United States, a
sieve size ratio of 2 for the passing and retaining sieves is commonly accepted
 Bottom layer lower grain size limit should be 2 to 3 times the orifice diameter of the
underdrain system
 Top layer lower grain size limit should be 4 to 4.5 times the ES of the media to be
retained
 From layer to layer, the upper grain size limit of the coarser layer should be 4 times
the lower grain size limit of the adjacent finer layer
 Each layer should be at least 7 cm thick, or 3 times the upper grain size limit of the
layer, whichever is greater

Note that the under drain system must be checked by back washing the system after installing
the filter nozzle supports with caps before placing the support layer or filter media in order to
correct any fault at earlier stage. Then at least be re-checked after installing the nozzle to
measure the even distribution of air or water. Further, the bottom slab of false bottom has to
be designed for both side loading (both filter media and back wash thrust) and resistant
against shear.

5.9.4. Backwash Water Trough

After passing the filter bed, the wash water is drained through a system of troughs (refer
Figure 5-77). The troughs are designed to limit the (horizontal) distance the water must travel
after leaving the filter bed. The moment the water leaves the filter bed, the wash water
velocity decreases by a factor of 2.5 and settling in the supernatant water can occur. The right
configuration of backwash water troughs is found by optimization. The more troughs, the
higher the investment costs, but the lower the wash water loss is. In practice, it turns out that
troughs on the sides and troughs at the front side are satisfactory and cheap. In large filters, a
“water sweep” is applied to reduce the volume of backwash water. Raw water is supplied
from the sides onto the filter bed. Thus, the water flows from the sides to a central trough,
resulting in a stable flow without short-circuits and eddies.

Figure 5-77: A central backwash water trough

The volume of wash water required to wash a filter will depend on the depth of the filter
medium and the vertical distance from the fixed-bed surface to the overflow level. The greater
the depth of medium, the greater the water volume needed to flush the dirt out of the medium
and into space above the medium. The greater the vertical distance from the surface of the
medium to the wash-water overflow level, the greater the volume needed to wash the dirt out
of the filter box. Typically, it will take about four displacement volumes for the void volume
in the bed plus the water volume above the bed to reach the overflow level.

If backwash troughs are used, they must be of adequate size and of appropriate spacing to take
away the dirty backwash water without surcharging. Spacing is dictated by maximum
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-103
horizontal travel of the water. At maximum backwash rate, there should be a free fall of the
water into the troughs, even at the upstream end. The top edges of the troughs should all be at
the same elevation, and all should be level so that the flow is withdrawn evenly over the
whole bed.

In filters with backwash troughs and washed with full-bed fluidization, the expanded media
surface should be lower than the bottom of the troughs. If the expanded media rises up
between the troughs, the effective vertical flow velocity is increased and the danger of
carrying the filter medium into the troughs is increased.

The wash-water volume required per wash to clean the filter could be reduced by decreasing
the vertical distance from the fixed bed surface up to the top edge of the troughs. The
temptation to do this must be resisted, however, because the danger of loss of filter medium
would be increased. Loss of filter medium is greater when anthracite is used. In this case, to
minimize the loss of anthracite, the vertical distance to the edge of the troughs should be
increased above the traditional 0.75 to 0.9 m, to 1.1 to 1.2 m. This, in turn, will require a
greater volume of wash water to complete the backwash.

In the past, wash water was drained to wastewater ponds, so that the solids would settle and
the supernatant water was drained to the surface water. Because of stricter regulations,
concerning discharge to surface waters, soil protection and groundwater protection measures,
backwash water has to be treated before discharging. After UV-disinfection, the treated water
can be recycled into the main treatment process only if no polymers are used. An alternative
backwash water treatment plant consists of micro-/ultra-filtration.

5.9.5. Multiple and Coarse Media Filters

The terms "multilayer", "in-depth," and "mixed media" apply to a type of filter bed, which is
graded by size and density. Coarse, less dense particles are at the top of the filter bed, and
fine, denser particles are at the bottom. Down-flow filtration allows deep, uniform penetration
by particulate matter and permits high filtration rates and long service runs. Because small
particles at the bottom are also more dense (less space between particles), they remain at the
bottom. Even after high-rate backwashing, the layers remain in their proper location in the
mixed media filter bed.

From researches, it is found that the particle removal efficiency decreases with diameter up to
2 mm (from 70% to 40%) and rapidly increases with diameter up to 1 mm. This is happening
due to shift in the removal process combined effects. It concludes that:

 Efficiency dependent on particle size;

 Greater grain surface area increases efficiency (smaller grains) – angular grains better than
spherical;
 Larger grains hold more deposits
 higher flow - lower efficiency
 Better at higher temperatures – viscosity higher at low temperatures
 Down flow more efficient – if gravity particle transport is important

Table 5-28 lists four media that are used in multilayer filtration. Several other mixed media
combinations have also been tested and used effectively. The use of too many different media
layers can cause severe backwashing difficulties. High wash water requirements would also
result.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-104
Table 5-28: Media Used in Multilayer Filtration
Effective size, Specific Loose-bed Sphericity
Media
mm gravity porosity () ()
Anthracite 0.7-1.7 1.45-1.73 0.56-0.60 0.46-0.60
Silica Sand 0.3-0.7 2.65 0.42-0.47 0.70-0.80
Garnet 0.4-0.6 3.6-4.20 0.45-0.55 0.60
Granular Activated carbon 0.38-0.76 1.30-1.50 0.50 0.75

Anthracite/sand dual media filter beds normally provide all the advantages of single-media
filtration but require less backwash water than sand or anthracite alone. Similar claims have
been made for anthracite/sand/garnet mixed units. The major advantages of dual-media
filtration are higher rates and longer runs.

The conventional rapid filter generally uses sand with an effective size of 0.6 mm and a
uniformity coefficient of 1.5-2.0. This results in stratification of the media after backwashing,
in which the fine medium remains at the top and the coarse medium at the bottom of the filter
bed. This sand arrangement will restrict the effective use of the entire filter bed. To overcome
this problem of gradation, two alternative media have been proposed, notably (i) dual-media
and multi-media filters, and (ii) coarse size, narrowly grade media filters.

In multi-media filtration the arrangement of different sizes of grains is reversed, by use of

media of different sizes and different specific gravity: the lighter and coarser material at the
top and the heavier and finer material at the bottom. Generally a coarse medium of low
density such as anthracite (specific gravity = 1.35 to 1.70) over a fine but heavier medium,
like sand (specific gravity = 2.65 to 2.70) is used. On backwashing in an upward direction, the
coarse and lighter grains remain over the fine and heavier medium. This makes the
penetration and removal of impurities to be take place throughout the entire bed.

The size of the media must be carefully selected so that the water used for fluidizing and re-
stratifying the bed does not cause severe intermixing. Optimum conditions for minimizing the
intermixing exist, depending on the media type, specific gravity and size involved. As an
alternative to anthracite, polystyrene beads, coconuts shell charcoal, or natural coke may be
used. Heavier materials such as garnet sand, limonite or magnetite may be used as the lower
medium.

For small-size rapid filters, it is common to use only two materials in combination; 0.3 – 0.5
m of sand with an effective size of 0.4-0.7mm as the under-layer, topped by 0.5 – 0.7 m of
anthracite with an effective size of 1.0 – 1.6 mm. Pilot testing in Sri Lanka using a layer of
50-60cm coconut charcoal (specific gravity of 1.42) of 0.83 – 1.4 mm size over a 25 cm layer
of sand (0.5-1.44mm size) has shown good results.

In coarse media filtration, narrowly graded coarse sand with an effective size of 2mm, placed
to a greater depth can be used instead of sand with smaller effective size (0.45 – 0.55) and a
large uniformity coefficient (about 1.5). The filter can be operated at a higher rate, and the
deeper penetration and higher storage capacities in the narrowly graded coarse medium leads
to longer filter runs. However, due to greater particle deposition throughout the filter,
backwashing requirements are higher. Generally, air-water backwashing is necessary in
coarse medium filters and these requirements are higher than for conventional filters, and the
under drain system may also require modification.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-105
When dual media filters are installed in plants it will be important to provide a high pressure
hose line to jet in to the expanded charcoal during backwash. Mud balls form quickly in the
light charcoal media. They must be broken up and washed out otherwise problems will
quickly develop. A high-pressure jet stream directed into the expanded bed throughout the
wash will do the job.

5.9.6. Rate Control Systems for Gravity Filters

The need for some method of filter flow control has been recognized since the early days of
potable water filtration. If no attempt is made to control flow, the filters may not share the
total plant flow in a reasonably equal manner, or sudden changes in flow rate may occur, both
of which could cause filtrate quality to suffer.

Filter control systems currently in use can be divided into two categories: mechanical control
systems, and non-mechanical control systems (that achieve control by the inherent hydraulics
of the operating filters). Control systems can also be classified as equal rate systems or
declining rate systems, as was done by Browning (1987). Five control systems are shown in
Figure 5-78, using Browning’s classification system and nomenclature:
Constant Rate (Equal-Rate) Systems
 Variable-level influent flow splitting
 Proportional-level influent flow splitting
 Proportional-level equal rate
Declining-Rate Systems
 Variable-level declining rate
 Proportional-level declining rate
5.9.7. Constant Rate Filtration
True constant-rate filtration can only occur if the total plant flow rate is constant and the
number of filters in service is constant. This is seldom the case. Plant flow rates are varied to
meet variations in demand. Removing one filter from service for backwashing forces the other
filters to pick up the load, thereby increasing the rate of filtration on the filters remaining in
service. Thus, in most water plants, constant-rate filtration is not possible.
5.9.7.1. Variable-Level Influent Flow Splitting
This is an equal-rate, non-mechanical system in which each filter receives an equal (or near-
equal) portion of the total plant flow. This is achieved by splitting the flow by means of an
inlet weir box or orifice on each filter inlet above the maximum water level of the filter. The
filter effluent discharges to the clear well at a level above the surface of the filter medium. As
solids accumulate in the filter medium, the water level rises in the filter box to provide the
head required to drive the flow through the filter medium. The water level in each filter box is
different and depends on the extent to which the filter medium is clogged. When the water
level in a filter box rises to some selected maximum level, that filter must be backwashed.

No instrumentation is required for flow rate or head loss measurement on the individual
filters. This is the simplest system for operators because the head loss is clearly evident
merely from observing the water level in the filter box, and there is no control equipment or
instrumentation to maintain.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-106
 Variable-Level Influent Flow Splitting Proportional-level influent flow splitting
LEGEND
FC Flow Controller
FE Flow Element
FT Flow Transmitter
LC Level Controller
LS Level Switch
LT Level Transmitter
M Modulating Actuator
PT Pressure Transmitter
VPT Valve Position Transmitter
Proportional-level equal rate

Variable-level declining rate Proportional-level declining rate

Figure 5-78: Schematic plant diagrams for the most common control systems for
gravity
filters, showing typical control elements

5.9.7.2. Proportional-Level Influent Flow Splitting

This is an equal-rate mechanical system in which flow control occurs by inlet flow splitting
as in the prior system (Variable-Level Influent Flow Splitting). A flow splitting weir or orifice
at the inlet of each filter is located above the operating water level of the filter. However, each
filter requires a level transmitter, a level controller, a modulating valve, and a head-loss
instrument. The modulating valve acts to control the water level in the associated filter, not as
a flow-rate controller. The degree of opening of the effluent modulating valves is proportional
to the water level in the associated filter, being closed when the level is at the bottom of a
preselected water level band, and open when the water level is at the top of the band. Head
loss is monitored for backwash initiation. No flow-measurement instrumentation is required
for the individual filters.

5.9.7.3. Proportional-Level Equal Rate

This has been the most common equal-rate mechanical control system. It splits the total plant
flow equally among the operating filters, and maintains the water level in the influent channel
within a preselected band. Each filter requires a flow meter, a flow controller, a modulating
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-107
control valve, and a head-loss instrument. A single level transmitter in the inlet channel,
serving a bank of several filters, sends an equal signal to the flow controller in each filter that
is proportional to the water level within the band, and represents the required flow. The flow
controllers adjust the modulating valves to make measured flow match required flow.

When everything is working properly, flow rate through each filter will be equal. However,
equipment malfunction often results in unequal flow that often goes undetected. Head loss is
monitored for backwash initiation.

5.9.8. Declining Rates Filters

In water treatment plants of a generation ago, high technology was usually represented by
automatic rate controllers, which were designed to maintain a constant filtration rate,
throughout the run. They were costly, not very reliable, and difficult to maintain properly.
This has been another element of great change, since most filter designs now do not use rate
controllers.

5.9.8.1. Variable-Level Declining Rate

This is a declining-rate non-mechanical system. Flow enters the filter below the normal water
level in each filter and discharges to the clear well above the level of the filter medium.
Because the inlet to the filters is below the normal water level in each filter, all filters
connected by a common inlet channel or pipe operate at approximately the same water level
and thus have the same total head loss available to the effluent weir level at any instant.
Therefore, the cleanest filter operates at the highest filtration rate, and the dirtiest filter
operates at the lowest filtration rate.

As solids accumulate in the filter media, the water level rises in all connected filters to
provide the head required to drive the flow through the filter media. Water level is monitored
at a single location for backwash initiation. In some plants, backwash is initiated when the
filtration rate of the dirtiest filter drops to a preselected level, or on a time-interval basis. The
filtration rate of each filter declines in a stepwise fashion after each backwash. As a clean
(backwashed) filter is returned to service, it assumes the highest rate of filtration.

A fixed-flow restrictor (orifice plate or fixed-position valve) is provided for each filter to limit
the starting rate on a clean filter. No instrumentation for flow rate or head loss measurement is
required on individual filters. However, operating personnel prefer to have some flow-rate
indication to help them understand the system and for diagnostic purposes. Less total filter
system head loss must be provided because head consumed in turbulent head losses early in
the filter run is reallocated to clogging head loss as the filtration rate declines.

In this method, incoming flow is supplied to all operating filters on a free-flow basis to meet
their individual operating rates. There are no effluent controllers. The only control is the
effluent overflow arrangement for declining rate operation. Figure 5-79 shows the general
arrangement for declining rate operation.

The method of operation is as follows:

The filter influent enters below the low water level of the filters. The water level is essentially
the same in all operating filters at all times. This is achieved by providing a relatively large
influent header to serve all the filters and a relatively large influent valve or gate to each
individual filter. Thus, head losses along the header or through the influent valve are small
and do not restrict the flow to each filter. The header and influent valve will be able to deliver
whatever flow each individual filter is taking now.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-108
All of the filters in the bank of filters served by the common influent header get dirty; thus,
the flow through the dirtiest bed tends to decrease the most rapidly. This causes the flow to
redistribute itself automatically so the cleaner filters pick up the capacity lost by the dirtier
filters. The water level rises slightly in the redistribution of flow to provide the additional
head needed by the cleaner filters to pick up the decreased flow of the dirtier filters. The
cleanest filter accepts the greatest flow increase in this offset and the decreased flow through
dirtier filters; as a result, the flow rate does not decrease as much or as rapidly as expected.

Figure 5-79: Declining Rates Filters

This method of operation causes a gradually declining rate towards the end of a filter run. The
rate increases, which do occur always, in the the cleaner filters of the filter bank, where they
will have the least effect on filter effluent quality. These rate changes, both upward and
downward occur gradually and smoothly without any automatic control equipment.

There are many advantages to this scheme in terms of better filtration and simpler operation
and maintenance. However, another very important advantage is that many existing plants can
easily be adapted to these processes. The needed modification can often be done with local
resources (see also section 5.9.15, upgrading Existing Filters).

5.9.8.2. Proportional-Level Declining Rate

Browning (1987) suggested one additional flow-control system combining the features of
declining rate with proportional level control from the level in the filter inlet channel. As in
the preceding system, submerged filter inlets result in a common water level in all filters.
However, in this system a modulating valve in the effluent of each filter is controlled by the
water level in the inlet channel. All valves receive the same set point, and are fully closed
when water level in the channel is at the bottom of the band and are at their maximum utilized
opening when the water level is at the top of the band. This system functions like a variable
declining rate system, but with filter water level controlled in a preselected band width.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-109
Browning claimed that the depth of the filter box could be reduced with this system, as
compared with the previous declining-rate system.
All of the filters in the bank of filters served by the common influent header get dirty; thus,
the flow through the dirtiest bed tends to decrease the most rapidly. This causes the flow to
redistribute itself automatically so the cleaner filters pick up the capacity lost by the dirtier
filters. The water level rises slightly in the redistribution of flow to provide the additional
head needed by the cleaner filters to pick up the decreased flow of the dirtier filters. The
cleanest filter accepts the greatest flow increase in this offsets and the decreased flow through
dirtier filters; as a result, the flow rate does not decrease as much or as rapidly as expected.

5.9.9. Common Elements of Filter Control Systems

Some common elements of the various rate-control systems should be recognized. The total
filter system head provided to operate the gravity filter is the vertical distance from the water
level (hydraulic grade line) in the filter inlet conduit to the water level at the downstream
control point. The downstream control point can be an overflow weir to the clearwell or an
upturned elbow in the clearwell, or the level in the clearwell if it is higher.

If the downstream control point is located above the top surface of the medium, no possibility
of having pressures below atmospheric pressure (i.e., negative head) exists anywhere within
the filter medium or underdrain system because the static water level is above the surface of
the medium. Also, no possibility of accidentally allowing the filter water level to drop below
the top surface of the medium (i.e., partially dewatering the filter medium) exists. These
advantages are not obtained without cost, however, because all of the needed head to operate
the filter must be placed above the downstream control level, and this means a deeper filter
box.

The three constant rate systems have the common characteristic that the entire filter system
operating head provided, which is essentially constant, is consumed throughout the filter run.
The head that is not utilized by the dirty filter medium is wasted either in the modulating
control valve of the mechanical systems, or in free fall into the filter box for the influent flow-
splitting system. The declining-rate systems have a lower total filter system head requirement
in the plant hydraulic profile because the total head is reallocated as the filter cycle proceeds
as described earlier.

The two non-mechanical systems (i.e., without proportional level control) have the inherent
advantage that sudden changes in filtration rate cannot be imposed on the filter. If the total
plant flow is increased or a filter is removed from service, the filters can only pick up the load
by changing water level to generate the head needed to accommodate the increased flow. This
changing of water level takes time, so that the change in filtration occurs slowly and smoothly
without mechanical devices.

Slow, smooth changes in filtration rate are also possible in properly designed proportional-
level mechanical control systems. The rate-of-change of the modulating control valve position
should be proportional to the divergence of the measured variable (flow rate or level) from the
desired value. The proportional level control band should be substantial. The drive for the
control valve should be an electric motor rather than a pneumatic or hydraulic valve drive,
because the latter two drive types are prone to sticking, overshooting, and hunting problems
as they age. No industry standards for filter control systems are available, so that some
systems do not have all of the attributes listed above.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-110
5.9.9.1. Choice of the Appropriate Control System
If full automation of the plant is desired, proportional-level systems will be favoured,
although the two non-mechanical systems can be partially automated. If, on the other hand,
minimizing mechanical equipment and instrumentation is desired, non-mechanical systems
will be favoured. (This will be especially important when equipment and repair parts must be
imported) In small non-automated plants with four or less filters and with unskilled operators,
the variable-level influent flow-splitting system is ideal, because of its simplicity of operation.
In larger, non-automated plants, the variable-level declining-rate method may be favoured,
because it requires less total filter system head to generate equal filter cycle lengths, and
because it produces better filtrate quality in some cases. But this is not assured in all cases. In
these plants, butterfly valves are suitable for water sealing compared with gate valves.

In all of the control systems, there is legitimate concern about the passage of protozoan cysts
during the ripening phase at the beginning of the filter cycle. As discussed elsewhere,
provision for a filter-to-waste mode is the best available solution.

5.9.10. Up Flow Filtration

In this process, raw water is fed at the bottom in an upward flow direction and coarse-to-fine
media filtration is achieved with a single medium in the direction of filtration, which makes
better use of the entire filter bed. The problem with up flow filtration arises when the head
loss exceeds the weight of the bed after a certain period of filter run, at which time partial
fluidization of the medium occurs. This can be overcome by placing a grid, with a spacing of
100 times the sand grain diameter, just below the top of the sand bed.

Up flow filters have been used successfully in Singapore and Western Europe for some years.
They may in some cases be useful as a pre-treatment for rapid or slow sand filtration but are
suitable only for water with low or medium turbidity (< 80 units) or they will be subjected to
short filter runs and restricted flow rates, due to high head losses.

Up-flow units contain single filter medium–usually graded sand. The finest sand is at the top
of the bed with the coarsest sand below. Gravel is retained by grids in a fixed position at the
bottom of the unit. The function of the gravel is to ensure proper water distribution during the
service cycle. Another grid above the graded sand prevents fluidization of the media. Air
injection during cleaning (not considered as backwash because the direction of flow is the
same as when in-service) assists in the removal of solids and the reclassification of the filter
media. During operation, the larger, coarse solids are removed at the bottom of the bed, while
smaller solids particles are allowed to penetrate further into the media. Typical service flow
rates are 290-590 m3/m²/day.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-111
 Figure 5-80: Details of up-flow filter
The filtration is the final step of the treatment process. Hence, up flow filters shall be covered
to avoid recontamination of filtered water.

5.9.11. Direct Filtration

Direct filtration is a surface water treatment process that includes addition of coagulant, rapid
mixing, flocculation, and filtration. In some cases, the flocculation tank is omitted and the
process is referred to as in-line filtration, with flocculation occurring in the filter itself.
The use of direct filtration for good quality, low-colour, surface waters for most of the year is
preferred because it has several advantages over conventional treatment for such waters. This
has been recommended for low turbidity quite cleaner water for most of the year.
Capital costs are lower because no sedimentation tank is required. Lower coagulant dosages
are generally used in direct filtration with the goal of forming a pinpoint-sized floc that is
filterable, rather than a large settleable floc. Therefore, direct filtration results in lower
chemical costs compared to conventional treatment, and lower sludge production, resulting in
lower costs for sludge treatment and disposal. Direct filtration also results in lower operation
and maintenance costs because the sedimentation tank (and sometimes the flocculation tank)
need not be powered or maintained.
Chemical destabilization appears to be essential, with 30-60 min contact basin between
flocculation and filtration. In the right conditions, a properly designed filter can handle
relatively turbid water by direct filtration. The advantages over conventional filtration are:

 Saving in chemical costs

 Reduced sludge handling
 Less land area required
 Reduced construction cost
 Simpler O&M
 Less liable to upsets in coagulation process
Disadvantages are:
 More frequent backwashing with more water
 Less reliability in effluent quality (bacteria, colour and turbidity)
 More operator vigilance required “to maintain” quality
5.9.11.1. Appropriate Source Waters for Direct Filtration
Direct Filtration has been recommended for raw water turbidity up to 20 NTU and colour up
to 30. However, coagulant dosing is required when turbidity exceed 5 NTU. A very light dose
of either alum or ferric chloride coagulant is required to destabilize the low turbidity content
so that it can be readily trapped on or in the filter media. This would require less use of
coagulant, and increased filter loading rates, with an increase in filter washing during times of
high turbidity.
The suitability of raw water for direct filtration may be investigated using jar tests and
filtration through standard laboratory filter paper as a screening technique to select
appropriate waters for direct filtration, refer Annex F.3 for the filter paper test. An AWWA
report on direct filtration defined a water meeting the following criteria as a “perfect
candidate” for direct filtration:
Colour < 40 colour units
Turbidity < 5 NTU
Algae < 2000 asu/mL

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-112
 Iron < 0.3 mg/L
Manganese < 0.05 mg/L
*asu/ml = areal standard units/ml; 1asu is 20 × 20 𝝁m and for a medium-sized algae 1 asu/ml
can approximated to 0.1 𝝁g/l of chlorophyll ‘a’.

The selection of the coagulant dosage for direct filtration is best determined by full-length
filter cycles using pilot or full-scale filters. Jar tests are often misleading because the goal in
direct filtration is to form small pinpoint floc that are barely visible but that will filter
effectively. Thus, the usual criteria used to judge jar test observations, such as formation of a
large floc or clear supernatant liquor, after settling, are not appropriate for direct filtration.
The jar test and filter paper filtration technique is somewhat better, but it provides no
information on terminal breakthrough behaviour or rate of generation of head loss.

5.9.12. Filter Cleaning or Backwashing of Rapid Filters

5.9.12.1. General Description of Back washing
Proper backwashing is a very important step in the operation of a filter. If the filter is not
backwashed completely, it will eventually develop operational problems. If a filter is to
operate efficiently, it must be cleaned before the next filter run. Effective backwashing of
rapid filters is essential to long-term successful service of the system. The goal of the
backwashing operation is to keep the filter acceptably clean while avoiding problems such as
mudballs and filter cracks in the filter medium.

Failure to clean filter media adequately can lead to a multitude of problems. Initially,
mudballs form and accumulate in the bed, causing clogging. Then the clogged areas contract
as head loss increases. This shrinkage opens cracks in the filter media surface and sometimes
at the filter walls. Cracks can cause short-circuiting of the bed during filtration, with
subsequent decline in filtered water quality. Clogged areas also contribute to channelling of
washwater, which can lead to be offended.

During filtration, the filter media becomes coated with floc, which plugs the voids between
the filter grains, making the filter difficult to clean. The media must be expanded to clean the
filter during the backwash. This expansion causes the filter grains to violently rub against
each other, dislodging the floc from the media. The filter backwash rate has to be adequate to
expand and agitate the filter media and suspend the flocs in the water for removal. However,
if the filter backwash rate is too high, media will be washed from the filter into the troughs
and out of the filter.

The vertical velocity of the water during the backwash must be greater than the settling
velocity of the floc, but less than the settling velocity of the media in order to remove
deposited floc without removing the media. The velocity of the floc has been found to range
between 2.5 and 25 cm/min. and a minimum peak wash rinse rate should be 30 cm/min. The
settling velocity of the media can be calculated by Newton’s equation. For water at 20C, for
sand with the specific gravity of 2.61 and anthracite with the specific gravity of 1.5 are Vs
= 10𝑑60 (sand) and Vs = 4.7𝑑60 (anthracite).

In most cases, the filter backwash rate will not break up the mass on the top of the filter. The
design engineer will recommend the installation of a surface wash of some type, the most
common being a set of rotary arms that are suspended above the media during filtration.
During filter backwash, the media expands upwards and around the washing arms. A newer
method of surface wash involves using air scour before the water wash. This is a very
efficient method but requires the installation of a large air blower to produce the air. The

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-113
normal design for the air wash will be 0.6-1.5 cubic meter of air per square meter of filter
area.

The filter should be backwashed when the following conditions have been met:

 The head loss is so high that the filter no longer produces water at the desired rate; and/or
 Floc starts to break through the filter and turbidity in the filter effluent increases; and/or
 A filter run reaches a given hour of operation.
 If a filter is taken out of service for some reason, it must always be backwashed prior to
being put back on-line.

The decision to backwash the filter should not be based on only one of the above conditions.
If a filter is not backwashed until the head loss exceeds a certain meters, the turbidity may
break through and cause the filter to exceed the standard of 0.2 NTU of turbidity to satisfy
WHO guideline. Similarly, depending on filter effluent- turbidity alone can cause high head
loss and decreased filter flow rate, which can cause the pressure in the filter to drop below
atmospheric pressure and cause the filter to air bind and stop filtering.

If the water applied to a filter is of very good quality, the filter runs can be very long. Some
filters can operate longer than one week before needing to be backwashed. However, this is
not recommended as long filter runs can cause the filter media to pack down so that it is
difficult to expand the bed during the backwash.

The normal method for backwashing a filter involves draining the water above the filter to a
level of 150 mm above the filter media. The surface wash is then turned on and allowed to
operate for several minutes to break up the crust on the filter. After that, the backwash valve is
opened, allowing backwash water to start flowing into the filter and start carrying suspended
material away from the filter.

The time elapsed from when the filter wash is started until full flow is applied to the filter
should be greater than one minute. After a few minutes, the filter backwash valve should be
fully opened to allow full expansion of the filter media. Generally, this expansion will be 20-
40 percent over the normal filter bed volume. The expansion needed will depend on how
much agitation is needed to suspend the filter media to remove the suspended material trapped
in the filter.

With a multi-media filter, the rate must be high enough to scrub the interface between the coal
and the sand, where the highest amount of suspended solids will be removed from the media.
The filter will be washed 10-15 minutes, depending on the amount of solids that must be
removed. The best way to determine how long the filter should be washed is to measure the
turbidity of the backwash water leaving the filter. In some cases, a filter is washed too long.
This could be costly. Too much backwash water is used, and it must be treated after use.
Backwash valves must be opened slowly, and butterfly valve is preferred over gate valves and
to seal water. Opening the valves too rapidly can cause serious damage to the filter
underdrain, filter gravel, and filter media.

The selection of a washing technique is closely tied to filter media and underdrain selection.
In current practice, washing normally includes up-flow water flushing. The rate and duration
of water flushing are variable, however, and may be supplemented with air scour or surface
water wash. Operational sequencing of combined washing systems and the source of the
washwater introduce additional variations.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-114
5.9.12.2. Washwater Source
Washwater source options include the following:
 Flow drained from high-service discharge and used directly for washing or to fill an
above ground washwater tank that is subsequently used for gravity washing
 Gravity flow from a separate elevated finished-water storage tank
 Direct pumping from a sump or belowground clearwell

Bleeding flow from a high-service discharge main result in energy loss because of pressure
reduction required before washing to avoid media loss. For direct washing, a pressure-
reducing valve or orifice is placed in the washwater supply line. For bleeding flow to fill a
washwater tank, an altitude valve or other level control device is used to control the water
level in the tank. In either case, the washwater supply line is often sized to restrict the
maximum amount of water that can be delivered. Both options avoid provision of separate
washwater pumps. Direct washing also avoids construction of a washwater tank but presents
greater difficulty in controlling washwater flow. Because of the large pressure drop often
involved in supplying washwater by high-service bleeding, the potential for cavitation in or
following head-dissipating devices in the supply line is significant.

If elevated finished-water storage is not available to provide head for filter washing,
washwater may be pumped to a separate washwater storage tank or directly to the filters. Use
of a washwater tank permits pumping at a lower rate. Tank storage volume must be sufficient
to permit filter washing at the maximum wash rate while the pump operates at the minimum
run times. A number of proprietary filters are available that obtain washwater by means other
than those previously listed.

Table 5-29: Backwash Water Source Data

Parameters Backwash water source
Filtered water (unchlorinated) Chlorinated filtered water
Concept Filtered water from each filter is collected Filtered water is chlorinated in filtered water
in filtered water tank. This water is used for tank
backwashing filters media without This water is used for backwashing media
chlorination. filters with the presence of a chlorine
residual concentration.

Arrangement Unchlorinated backwash typically requires Filtered water tank acts as both storage for
a separate filtered water tank and chlorine backwash water and chlorine contact tank
contact tank (or baffled zone in same tank), (prior to pH correction / lime dosing). No
and affects the upstream hydraulic profile requirement for separate filtered water tank
and potentially capital costs. or zone for chlorinated and unchlorinated
Chlorine contact before lime addition volumes.
should be considered.

Cleaning effect Only effect of air scour and backwash water Usual physical removal mechanisms +
upflow to physically remove contaminants. chemical cleaning / disinfection as a result of
Some particulates or microorganisms may chlorine residual.
remain adhered to filter media, underdrains Reduced microorganism growth / retention
and walls. in filters including pathogens and filter
clogging algae. More complete cleaning
including reduced formation of mudballs.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-115
Biological Microorganisms contributing to dissolved Chlorination of filtered water for backwash
filtration organic removal may attach and grow on is an effective disinfectant approach. This
filter media, and may find conditions means that not only pathogens and algae are
favourable in the absence of chlorine. Note cleaned from filters, but also potentially
that the beneficial microorganisms must beneficial microorganisms. Biofiltration is
already be present in raw water or no generally not possible when regular
growth and biofiltration will occur chlorinated backwash is used.
(certainly not in all raw waters). Note also
that it can take many months for successful
biocolonisation of media to occur,
depending also on media characteristics.

Parameters Backwash water source

Filtered water (unchlorinated) Chlorinated filtered water
Algae Filter clogging algae and toxin or taste and Chlorinated backwash water is effective in
odour containing algae may not be fully removing algae from filter media and
removed by backwashing with surrounds. Algae may be lysed as a result of
unchlorinated backwash water. Algae chlorination, potentially releasing contents
remaining in filters will die at some stage including toxins or tastes and odours into the
(time and conditions dependent) and release waste backwash water. The filtered water is
contents including toxins or tastes and not affected.
odours into the filtered water.
Backwash Waste backwash recycling is not recommended when potentially toxin or taste and odour-
recycling containing algae is present. Only in the case of destruction unit processes included via
oxidation/biological treatment or a combination is included waste backwash recycling
advisable in the presence of such algae.
Oxidation It is possible to achieve iron and manganese Chlorinated backwash water oxidises iron
adsorption on conventional filter media by and manganese adhered to the surface of
building up an oxide layer on the surface. filter media. Over time an oxide coating may
This takes time. However, adsorption only develop (depending on iron and manganese
occurs when the iron/manganese oxide levels in raw water and media
layer is formed on the filter media surface. characteristics). Dissolved iron and
Without chlorine this either does not manganese will then adsorb to filter media
happen or is a very slow process. sites. To regenerate sites for adsorption, an
Significant dissolved iron and manganese oxidant is required, which may be provided
removal will generally not take place. by residual chlorine in backwash water.
Significant dissolved iron and manganese
removal may take place.

5.9.12.3. Low pressure Backwashing

Some filter control systems permit gravity flow washing of a filter using effluent from the
filters remaining in service. Such filters are called self-backwashing filters. They do not use
pumps or piping for backwashing; instead, all the filters discharge into a common channel. A
filtered water weir controls the water level in the channel so that the water level is always
higher than that of the filter washwater troughs or side weir. This difference in level must be
sufficient to provide the head needed to deliver adequate water for backwashing.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-116
 Figure 5-81: Low Pressure / Self-Backwashing filter

In addition, there must be a sufficient number of filters in operation to meet the demand for
backwash water. Figure 5-81 shows the configuration of a typical self-backwashing filter. To
provide the required backwash driving head, the filter box must be substantially deeper than
those required for more conventional types of filter backwash systems. But, because no
equipment is involved, the capital cost is lower. One disadvantage of this design is that there
is no way to control the backwash rate.

To obtain a high enough backwash rate, the number of filter should be 4 to 6, while to
overcome the resistance against back washing, the depth of supernatant water must be large, 3
to 4m, increasing the cost of construction.

5.9.12.4. Washing Methods

Four basic backwash methods for backwashing of Granular Filters have been acknowledged:
 Fluidized Bed Backwash without Auxiliary Scour
 Surface Wash Plus Fluidized Bed Backwash
 Air-Scour-Assisted Backwash
 Continuous backwash

The practical application normally dictates the method selected. Filter bed expansion during
up-flow water washing results in media stratification. Air washing results in filter media
mixing. If stratification is desired, air scour must be avoided or must precede fluidization and
expansion with water. There are a number of conflicting opinions on the best method of
backwash.

The backwashing system is the most frequent source of filter failure. Therefore, selecting the
type of backwashing system and ensuring the proper design, construction, and operation of
that system are key elements in the success of a water treatment plant. Two prominent
systems of backwashing currently in use are compared in Table 5-30.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-117
Table 5-30: Comparison of Two Backwash Alternatives for Granular Bed Filters
Backwash method
With fluidization Without fluidization
Applications 1. Fine sand Coarse mono-medium
2. Dual media Sand or
3. Triple media Anthracite
Routines used 1.Water wash + surface wash Air scour + water wash
2.Water wash + air scour simultaneously during overflow
Air first Finish with water wash only
Water second
No air during overflow
Fluidization Yes, during water wash No
Bed expansion 15 to 30 percent Nil
Wash troughs Usually used Usually not used
Horizontal water travel to Up to 0.9 m Up to 4 m
overflow
Vertical height to 0.75 to 0.90 m 0.5m
overflow

5.9.12.5. Fluidized Bed Backwash without Auxiliary Scour

Upflow water wash alone may be sufficient in some filters receiving low solids loadings. In
the absence of auxiliary scour, washing in an expanded bed occurs because of the drag forces
on the suspended grains. Grain collisions do not contribute significantly to washing.

Maximum shear on the grains theoretically occurs (for typical filter sand) at a bed expansion
of 80% to 100%. The increase in shear with increasing bed porosity is relatively slight beyond
the point at which expansion begins. Optimal expansion may be less than 20%. Normally,
when water wash is applied exclusively, an expansion of 20% to 50% is used. Water wash at a
sufficient rate to substantially expand (10% or greater) a granular bed is generally referred to
as high-rate water wash. Water wash incapable of fully fluidizing a bed (i.e., less than 10%
expansion) is generally referred to as a low-rate water wash.

High-rate water wash tends to stratify granular media. In multimedia beds, this action is
essential and beneficial, but it is not required for uniformly graded single-medium beds. In
single-medium beds, high-rate water wash results in movement of the fine grains to the top of
the bed, which has a negative effect on head loss and filter-run length.

The traditional backwash system uses an upflow water wash with full bed fluidization.
Backwash water is introduced into the bottom of the bed through the underdrain system. It
should be turned on gradually over at least a 30-s time interval to avoid disturbing the gravel
layers or subjecting the underdrain to sudden momentary pressure increases. The filter
medium gradually assumes a fluidized state as the backwash flow rate is increased and the
bed expands. The backwash flow is continued with full fluidization until the waste wash water
is reasonably clear: a turbidity level of about 10 NTU is sufficiently clear. Then the supply
valve is shut off. Shutoff is not as crucial as the opening phase because no danger to the
underdrain or gravel exists. However, a slow shutoff will result in a greater degree of
restratification.

According to Baylis, backwash by water fluidization alone is a weak washing method. The
reason for that weakness is attributed to a lack of any abrasion between the grains in a
fluidized bed. For that reason, backwashing is usually assisted by an auxiliary scouring
system, such as surface wash or air scour. The contrasts between the auxiliary scouring
systems are presented in Table 5-31.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-118
Table 5-31: Contrasts between Backwash Alternatives
Backwash method
With fluidization Without fluidization
Without With Surface With air scour Simultaneous air
Auxiliary wash auxiliary auxiliary + water
scour backwash
Wash effectiveness Weak Fair Fair Good
Solids transport to overflow Fair Fair Fair Good
Compatible with fine media Yes Yes Yes No
Compatible with dual and triple Yes Yes Yes No
media
Compatible with graded support Yes Yes Yes No
gravel
Potential for media loss to overflow Nil Yes, mainly Yes, unless Major, unless
for coal used properly used properly

Experience in the United States with high-rate water wash used alone is extensive. It is
generally successful for applications that filter iron precipitates from groundwater or remove
colour from otherwise high-quality surface water. The relatively weak cleaning action of
water wash without auxiliary scour of some type, however, generally renders it unsuitable for
filters removing large quantities of suspended solids or for applications where polymers are
used. Optimum expansion rate is influenced by the media size and porosity.

5.9.12.6. Surface Wash And Fluidized Bed Backwash

Surface wash systems have been widely used for many years. Fixed systems distribute
auxiliary high-pressure washwater from equally spaced nozzles in a pipe grid. Rotary systems
have pipe arms that swivel on central bearings. Nozzles are placed on opposite sides of the
pipes on either side of the bearing, and the force of the water jets provides the thrust required
to rotate the pipe arms.

Rotary systems are more often utilized, and they generally provide better cleaning action,
lower water requirements, and less obstruction for filter access. Possible problems with
rotating surface wash units include failure to rotate, nozzle clogging, failure to clean in
corners, abrasion of concrete walls near the point of closest passage of the arm, and locally
high velocities caused when passing under washwater collection troughs. Either type of
system may fail to provide auxiliary scour where it is most needed. This can be especially true
in multimedia beds if substantial removals are occurring at media interfaces.

Surface wash systems are typically suspended about 5 cm above the surface of the
unexpanded filter bed and employed prior to introducing washwater during low-rate
backwash. Use of surface wash during high-rate backwash may cause media loss over the
waste troughs. Systems have also been placed in the unexpanded bed of dual- and mixed-
media filters where there is an accumulation of filtered materials deep within the filter bed.
Dual-arm rotary systems that have one arm above and one arm below the unexpanded surface
are also available. Nozzle plugging with media has been a problem with the submerged units.

Orifice sizes are typically 2 to 3 mm in diameter and are directed downward 15° to 45° below
the horizontal. Operating pressures are typically 350 to 520 kPa. Fixed-nozzle systems deliver
4.9 to 9.8 m/h and rotary systems deliver 1.2 to 2.4 m/h. Standard units are available up to
approximately 4 m in diameter for rotary systems. Some models induct air into the washwater
jets. A typical surface agitator and arrangements is shown in Figure 5-82.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-119
 Figure 5-82: Typical surface agitator and arrangements

Surface wash jets are operated for 1 to 2 min before the upflow wash and usually are
continued during most of the upflow wash, during which time they become immersed in the
fluidized filter medium. Surface wash is terminated 2 or 3 min before the end of the upflow
wash.
Surface wash has a number of advantages and disadvantages. The advantages include the
following:

 It is relatively simple, requiring only a source of high-pressure water in conjunction

with a system of distribution nozzles
 It is accessible for maintenance and repair, because it is located above the surface of
the fixed bed

Some disadvantages of surface wash systems are:

 Rotary-type washers sometimes stick temporarily and fail to rotate as intended
 If mudballs do form in the bed and reach sufficient size and density, they can sink into
the fluidized bed and no longer come under the action of the surface wash jets
 Fixed-nozzle surface-wash systems obstruct convenient access to the filter surface for
maintenance and repair
 Because surface wash systems constitute a possible connection between filtered and
unfiltered water, backflow prevention devices must be provided in supply lines

5.9.12.7. Air-Scour-Assisted Backwash

There are numerous approaches for using auxiliary air scour in backwashing filters. Air scour
has been used alone and with low-rate water backwash in an unexpanded bed or slightly
expanded bed. Each procedure takes place before either low- or high-rate water wash.

Air scour provides effective cleaning action, especially if used simultaneously with water
wash. Cleaning is attributable to high interstitial water velocities and abrasion between grains.
On the other hand, air wash has substantial potential for media loss and gravel disruption if
not properly controlled. Use of air scour can significantly reduce the quantity of water
required for backwashing filters.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-120
If more than one filtering medium is used and stratification of the bed is desired, high-rate
water wash must follow air scour. In a single-medium bed, if a low-rate wash can adequately
remove scoured solids, high-rate wash can be avoided.

If air scour occurs simultaneously with water wash, airflow must usually be stopped before
washwater overflow into the washwater collection troughs to prevent media loss. For this
reason, the permissible duration of air washing is short unless the concurrent water wash rate
is low or the filter box is very deep.

Experience indicates that air scour essentially eliminates mudball formation. Difficulties have
arisen, however, from failure to remove scoured solids from filter surfaces. Contributing
factors probably include low water-washing rates, long horizontal-travel distances to
backwash troughs, and a necessary lag between termination of air scour and initiation of
higher-rate water wash.

Air scour complicates and increases the cost of wash systems as air blowers, air piping, and
air and water backwash controls are required. Air backwash can also cause disturbances to
underdrain systems because of the potential to compress air in the underdrains. Pressure relief
systems should be considered with air scour.

5.9.12.8. Air-Scour Delivery Systems

Air scour may be introduced to the filter through a pipe system that is completely separate
from the backwash water system, or it may be through the use of a common system of nozzles
(strainers) that distribute both the air and water, either sequentially or simultaneously. In
either method of distribution, if the air is introduced below graded support gravel, concern
exists over the movement of the finer gravel by the air—especially by air and water used
concurrently by intention or accident. This concern has led to the use of media-retaining
strainers in some filters that eliminate the need for graded support gravel in the filter.

Air scour is used to improve the effectiveness of the backwashing operation. If air scour is
used during overflow, there is substantial danger of losing some of the medium. Therefore,
the system must be properly designed and operated to avoid such loss. The air scour operating
routines are different for finer filter media and for coarse sand media as shown in Table 5-32.
Operating sequences are listed below.

Air scour alone before water backwash

This system can be used for fine sand, dual media, and triple media
 Lower the water level about 15 cm below the edge of the backwash overflow
 Turn on air scour alone for 1 to 2 min
 Turn off air scour
 Turn on water wash at a low rate to expel most of the air from the bed before overflow
occurs
 Increase the water wash rate to fluidize and re-stratify the bed and wash until clean.
Some additional air will be expelled

Simultaneous air scour and water backwash during rising level but before overflow.
This system can be used for fine sand, dual media, triple media, and coarse mono-medium
anthracite:

 Lower the water level to just above the surface of the filter medium
 Turn on air scour for 1 to 2 minutes

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-121
  Add low-rate water wash at below half the minimum fluidization velocity as water
level rises
 Shut off air scour about 15 cm below overflow level while water wash continues. Most
air will be expelled before overflow
 After overflow occurs, increase the water wash rate to fluidize and re-stratify the bed,
and wash until clean. Some additional air will be expelled

Simultaneous air scour and water backwash during overflow.

This system can be used for coarse (1.0 mm ES or larger) mono-medium sand or anthracite.
However, for anthracite, special baffled overflow troughs are essential to prevent loss of
anthracite.

 Turn on air scour.

 Add water wash at below half the minimum fluidization velocity and wash with
simultaneous air and water for about 10 minutes during overflow
 Turn off air scour and continue water wash until overflow is clean. The water wash
rate is sometimes increased to hasten the clean-up but is usually kept below
fluidization velocity

For the simultaneous wash routine just outlined, the wash is very effective even though the
bed is never fluidized. A slow transport of the grains occur, caused by the simultaneous air
and water flow that causes abrasion between the grains. This abrasion, plus high interstitial
water velocities, results in an effective backwash.

Several precautions must be taken to prevent the loss of sand or anthracite when using
simultaneous air and water wash during overflow. The water and airflow rates are varied
appropriately for the size of the filter medium. For coarse sand, backwash troughs are not
generally used, and the dirty washwater exits over a horizontal concrete wall or central gullet,
with the vertical distance from the surface of the sand to the washwater overflow being at
least 0.5 m. The top edge of the overflow wall(s) is sloped downward 45° toward the filter
bed, so that any sand grains that fall on the sloping wall during backwashing will reenter the
filter bed. Alternatively, if backwash troughs are used, specially shaped baffles can be located
around each trough to prevent the loss of filter medium. Such baffled troughs are especially
important when using anthracite medium.

5.9.12.9. Expansion of Filter Medium during Backwashing

When using upflow wash with full fluidization, the filter bed expands about 15 to 30 percent
above its fixed-bed depth. The degree of expansion is affected by many variables associated
with the filter medium and the water. Filter medium variables include the size and size
gradation, and grain shape and density. Water variables include viscosity and density. The
ability to predict expansion is important, for example, in determining whether the expanded
medium will rise too high, possibly above the bottom of the troughs.

5.9.12.10. Fluidisation and Sub-Fluidisation

Fluidization can best be described as the upward flow of a fluid (gas or liquid) through a
granular bed at sufficient velocity to suspend the grains in the fluid. During upward flow, the
energy loss (pressure drop) across the fixed bed will be a linear function of flow rate at low
superficial velocities when flow is laminar. For coarser or heavier grains, it may become an
exponential function at higher flow rates if the Reynolds number (Re) enters the transitional
regime, Re > 6. As the flow rate is increased further, the resistance equals the gravitational
force, and the particles become suspended in the fluid. Any further increase in flow rate
causes the bed to expand and accommodate to the increased flow while effectively

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-122
maintaining a constant pressure drop (equal to the buoyant weight of the media). Two typical
curves for real filter media fluidized by water are shown in Figure 5-83.
5.9.12.11. Point of Incipient Fluidization
The point of incipient fluidization, or minimum fluidizing velocity, Vmf, is the superficial
fluid velocity required for the onset of fluidization. It can be defined by the intersection of the
fixed-bed and fluidized-bed head loss curves, the points labelled Vmf on Figure 5-83.

The calculation of minimum fluidization velocity is important in determining minimum

backwash flow rate requirements. The rational approach to the calculation is based upon the
fixed-bed head loss being equal to the constant head loss of the fluidized bed at the point of
incipient fluidization.

Figure 5-83: Head loss versus superficial velocity

For a bed containing a gradation in particle sizes, the minimum fluidization velocity is not the
same for all particles. Smaller grains become fluidized at a lower superficial velocity than do
larger grains. Therefore, a gradual change from the fixed-bed to the totally fluidized state
occurs. The minimum backwash rate selected must be higher than Vmf for the d90 sieve size
(Vmf90) to allow free movement of these coarse grains during backwashing. A backwash rate
equal to 1.3 Vmf90 has been suggested to ensure adequate free movement of the grains.
However, a rate closer to Vmf may be better to avoid movement of graded gravel support
layers.

For a filter medium that has a very wide range of grain sizes, the use of Vmf for the d 90 size
during backwashing could possibly expand the finest grains so much that they could be lost to
overflow. This is never a problem with the uniformity coefficients commonly specified for
filter media (UC less than 1.7, often less than 1.5).

5.9.12.12. Continuous Backwash

A less common backwashing alternative is continuously backwashing filter beds, which
eliminate the need to remove the beds from service for washing. Beds are divided into a series
of narrow, contiguous cells, each containing its own underdrain system that allows it to be
washed independently from remaining cells. Washing is accomplished by means of a
traveling hood suspended above the bed. As the hood travels across the bed, each cell is
isolated, and a small backwash pump draws clean water from the filter effluent and reverses
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-123
the flow through that particular cell. Water is removed by a second washwater pump located
in the traveling hood and discharged to waste.
The wash cycle time is controlled by pre-set adjustable timers to permit optimization of the
automatic operation feature. Media depth varies with each application but is typically 0.8 to
0.9 m. In addition to automatic washing features, these filters have the capability of producing
relatively constant washwater flow. In a properly sized system, this constant flow can
eliminate the need to provide washwater equalization facilities and can permit direct recycle
to the plant head works.
5.9.12.1. Backwash Water and Air-Scour Flow Rates
Typical flow rates used in backwash practice are summarized in
Table 5-32. Hewitt and Amirtharajah (1984) did an experimental study of the particular
combinations of air and sub-fluidization water flow that caused the formation and collapse of
air pockets within the bed, a condition they called “collapse-pulsing.” This condition was
presumed to create the best abrasion between the grains and the optimum condition for air
plus sub-fluidization water backwashing. An empirical equation relating airflow rate,
fluidization velocity, and backwash water flow rate was presented. In a companion paper,
Amirtharajah (1984) developed a theoretical equation for collapse-pulsing using concepts
from soil mechanics and porous media hydraulics. The resulting equation was:
𝑉
0.45Q2a + 100 ( ) = 41.9
𝑉𝑚𝑓

In which Qa is the airflow rate in standard cubic feet per minute per square foot and V/Vmf is
the ratio of superficial water velocity divided by the minimum fluidization velocity based on
the d60 grain size of the medium.
Table 5-32: Typical Water and Air-Scour Flow Rates for Backwash Systems
Filter Medium Backwash Sequence Air Rate Water Rate* (m/h)
(m/h)
Fine sand 0.5mm ES Air first 37–55
Water second 37
Fine dual and triple anthracite Air first 55–73
media 1.0 mm ES Water second 37–49
Coarse dual media1.5 mm ES Air first 73–91
anthracite Air + water on rising level 73–91 24
Water third 61
Coarse sand 1.0 mm ES Air + water 1st simultaneously 55–73 15–17
Water second Same or double rate
Coarse sand 2 mm ES Air + water 1st simultaneously 110–146 24–29
Water second Same or double rate
Coarse anthracite 1.5 mm ES Air + water 1st simultaneously 55–91 20–24
Water second Same or double rate

* Water rates for dual and triple media vary with water temperature and should fluidize the
bed to achieve re-stratification of the media.

The empirical and the theoretical equations give almost the same results over the range of
airflow rates from 37 through 110 m/h. For a given airflow rate, both of the equations predict
somewhat higher water flow rates than the typical values presented in Table 5-32. The
tabulated values should be used until future research reconciles these differences. Some of the
advantages of auxiliary air-scour in contrast with surface-wash systems, are the following:

 It covers the full area of rectangular filters and is adaptable to any filter dimensions.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-124
  It agitates the entire filter depth. Therefore, it can agitate the interfaces in dual and
multimedia beds, and can reach mudballs that have sunk deep into the filter.

Some disadvantages of the air-scour auxiliary are:

 The need for a separate air blower and piping system.

 The potential for loss of media, especially if air and water are used simultaneously
during overflow.
 A greater possibility of moving the supporting gravel exists if air is delivered through
the gravel concurrently with water. Special gravel designs are required as described
earlier.

Typical wash water volumes used per unit area per wash range from 4 to 8 m3 /m2 /wash.
5.9.13. Filter Operation and Maintenance
When designing filtration equipment, the engineer must keep in mind how the facilities will
be operated and maintained, including common filter behaviour and filter operating problems.

5.9.13.1. Common Filter Behaviour

In between filter backwashes, filters "ripen," improving their ability to remove flocculated
particulate matter from the water, until turbidity breakthrough, terminal head loss, or the next
scheduled filter wash occurs. Filters remove floc and larger particles by straining at the top
surface of the filter media and smaller particles by the mechanisms of transport (i.e.,
interception, sedimentation, and diffusion) and attachment to the deeper filter media. In
general, increasing the filtration rate tends to decrease the time to reach terminal head loss or
turbidity breakthrough. Increasing the ES of the filter media tends to decrease the time to
reach breakthrough but increases the time to reach terminal head loss.

5.9.13.2. Filter Ripening

Clean filter media require a period of conditioning before particle attachment mechanisms
take effect. The mechanisms of particle transport apply during after filter ripening, but the
mechanisms of particle attachment require attraction to the filter media of opposite charges or
coagulation with charge-neutralized particles previously attached to the filter media.
Consequently, inadequate particle and turbidity removal may occur for a period after a filter is
put into service following backwash. This period typically lasts from 5 to 30 min.
Amirtharajah (1980) thoroughly explores and describes the filter ripening process (Figure
5-84). Moran et al. (1993) found that for smaller particles, ripening continues well into the
filter run, whereas for larger particles, ripening occurs early in the filter run, but removal
efficiency decreases afterward.

Methods successfully used to minimize the problem of filter ripening include a short period of
wasting the first portion of filtered water (i.e., filter-to-waste), a slow increasing of the filtered
water flow rate after a backwash, resting a filter, and adding a polymer filter aid to the
washwater supply.

5.9.13.3. Filter Efficiency

The computation of filter efficiency relates the effective filtration rate to the operating
filtration rate as in
Re UFRV − UBWV
=
Ro UFRV
Where,
Re - Effective filtration rate
Ro - Operating filtration rate
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-125
UFRV - Unit filter run volume
UBWV - Unit backwash volume

Figure 5-84: Characteristics of initial effluent quality

As an example, a filter operating at 10 m/h for 48 h and requiring 12,200 L/m2 for an
adequate backwash would have an effective filtration rate of 9.5 m/h and an efficiency of
97%.

5.9.13.4. Net Filter Production

A filter operating at 10 m/h for 48 h and requiring 105 L/m2 for an adequate backwash would
have a net filter production of 10 m/h 1000L/m3 × 48 h - 105 L/m2 = 3,946 L/m2). Properly
designed and operated filters should exhibit net filter production volumes ranging from
306,000 to 509,000 L/m2. A net filter production volume of 204,000 L/m2 or less could
indicate inadequate pretreatment, filter-clogging algae in the influent water, excessive fines or
mudballs in the filter media, mineral precipitates in the underdrains, air binding, or hydraulic
restrictions causing inadequate head between filters and clearwell.

5.9.13.5. Common Filter Problems

Common filter problems include inadequate pretreatment or filter washing, gravel bed upset,
air binding, restart after shutdown, and filter media replacement.

5.9.13.6. Inadequate Pretreatment

The pretreatment process (i.e., coagulation, flocculation, and clarification) in a conventional
plant generally should produce pretreated waters with turbidity no greater than about 4 NTU
with levels less than 2 NTU preferred. Pretreated waters with turbidity much greater than 4
NTU are indicative of floc carryover that tends to cause short filter run lengths. Conversely,
pretreated waters with turbidity of 1 NTU or less in a conventional plant may result in
inefficient filter operation or inadequate particulate removal.

In a direct filtration plant, pretreated water turbidity typically exceeds source water turbidity.
The flocculation process should be operated to minimize floc size and allow penetration of the
floc deep within the filter media, effectively using its entire depth. Jar tests or on-line pilot
filters, zeta potential, or streaming current instrumentation can greatly assist the operator in
optimizing the coagulation process and ensuring adequate pretreatment for effective filtration.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-126
5.9.13.7. Inadequate Filter Washing
Inadequate filter washing can result in poor filtered water quality and mudball formation.
Cracks can occur in filter media when compressible solids remaining from previous filter runs
pull filter media together and away from the filter box wall. Pretreated water can then travels
through the cracks and bypass much of the filter media. Mudballs result from residuals
remaining from previous filter runs sticking to filter media and forming agglomerations that
grow too large to reach the washwater collection troughs during washing. As they grow
heavier, mudballs can sink to create impassable regions within the filter media, typically at
the anthracite-sand or sand-gravel interface. The impassable regions result in higher effective
filtration rates, poorer filtered water quality, and shorter filter runs.

Air scour and surface wash systems can prevent the formation of cracks and mudballs, but
previously formed mudballs may have to be removed manually or by soaking filter media
with acidified water. Some plants include waste washwater turbidity meters as an operational
tool to monitor the waste washwater quality and to minimize the volume of washwater usage.

5.9.13.8. Support Gravel Disturbed

Filter media support gravel upset may occur from operational errors such as washing a dry or
drained filter. The initial rate for filling the filter should not exceed 12.2 m/h. Otherwise,
rising water can compress air within the filter media pores to short-circuit the washwater,
channel through the filter media, and disturb the support gravel, Opening the washwater rate
control valve too fast can cause gravel upset. Also, trapped air in the washwater header piping
or in the underdrain system may be released in an uncontrolled manner, creating a visible
boiling action at the top of the fluidized media. If the support gravel is disturbed, it requires
manual regradation after the overlying filter media are removed.

Improper specifications for the gradation and thickness of gravel layers can also create
support gravel disturbed. Consult with filter media and filter underdrain suppliers for
guidance on support gravel for various filter media and underdrain combinations. Design
errors relating to the washwater supply or rate controller, improper programming of an
automatic filter wash sequence and improper installation of the gravel layers can also lead to
support gravel upset.

5.9.13.9. Air Binding

Filter influent waters, particularly from surface water sources, typically contain significant
concentrations of dissolved gases. Depending on water temperature, the dissolved gas
concentration may reach saturation point. Surface water supplies typically reach saturation
point during algal blooms, during seasonal changes when temperatures increase, or where
there is significant cascading and aeration of source water.

When head loss exceeds the available head at some elevation within the filter media, pressure
falls below atmospheric and air escapes from solution. Air binding occurs when the
accumulation of air bubbles blocks the water's path. An excessive effective filtration rate and
significantly increased head loss result. Air binding most often occurs a few inches into a
single-medium filter or just below the anthracite-sand or GAC-sand interface in a dual-media
filter. Air escapes from the media upon closure of the filtered water rate control valve, and the
resulting agitation can cause loss of media. By design, air binding does not occur in pressure,
declining-rate, or self-backwashing filters.

A minimum water depth of 1 m above filter media in gravity plants is recommended. Modem
plants that operate at relatively high filtration rates typically require a water depth of 1.5 m or
more to prevent air binding within the media. The designer should consider the rate of head

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-127
loss development along with the desired filter run length to develop design criteria for the
filter media, filter box depth, and freeboard.

5.9.13.10. Restart after Shutdown

Water treatment plants sometimes operate with individual filters removed from service during
low-demand periods. Additionally, some plants shut down at night or cycle the filters on and
off based on distribution storage tank levels. Some plants place individual filters or entire
plants on standby for periods of time and even drain the filters when they have sufficient
redundancy or more than one plant. Preferably, all filters should be operated continuously at a
reduced filtration rate. Continuous operation prevents formation of undesirable biological
activity caused by water standing in the filter box and avoids loss of ripened filter media in a
drained filter. In any case, inactive filters require special measures for restart.

Filters that are shut down with standing water require a brief washing or filter-to-waste period
to ensure adequate filter performance before filtered water flows to the clearwell. The restart
wash or filter-to-waste period should be programmed into the centralized control system for
the plant.

Drained filters require manual restart with close supervision, including gradual refilling with
washwater to prevent gravel upset or media separation, a complete backwash, and a longer
than normal period of filter-to-waste to ensure adequate performance before opening the
filtered water control valve. Filters should always be filled from the bottom to prevent air
entrainment.

5.9.13.11. Filter Media Replacement

Rapid sand filters with dual and mixed media can lose 5% to 7% of the media per year from
air binding, excessive washing, air scour, or surface wash. The loss can be particularly serious
when there is cold water, mismatched dual or mixed media, low washwater collection
troughs, and leakage through the support gravel or underdrains. Filter performance and the
effectiveness of surface wash decline when media loss exceeds about 20% of the original
depth (Kawamura, 1991).

Lost media should be replaced with appropriately specified material following the guidelines
presented earlier to ensure that the entire bed of media approximates original specifications.
Replacement media for dual- and mixed-media filters require special attention. If a layer of
fines has accumulated on the surface of the filter, it may be wise to scrape off a thin layer of
top media before adding new media. After replacing the new media on top of the filter, the
operator should initiate two complete filter wash cycles to fluidize the media, wash off fines,
and ensure re-stratification.

5.9.14. Backwash Water Recovery

Recovery of dirty backwash water has been very common for a number of reasons. It
represents a rather large volume of water with low solids content. Typically, the volume is 1
to 5 percent of total plant production. Therefore, its recovery represents a savings in water
resources and in the chemicals that were expended to treat it initially. Discharge of water
plant wastes is usually the environmental discharge regulations.

The concern about possible recycling of Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts led to a
plant-scale study of the impact of waste stream recycling on filtered water quality. The proper
management of the waste streams can render them acceptable for recycling in many
situations. Backwash water and sedimentation basin sludge should be subjected to further
sedimentation at a low overflow rate or by adding a polymer to remove cysts before recycling

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-128
the supernatant. Recycled streams should be equalized and blended over the full 24-hour
operating period, or the plants operating period if it is less than 24 hours. Recycle streams
should be regularly monitored for cysts or by particle counting to judge the effectiveness of
removing cysts from the waste stream prior to recycle.
Water from the filter backwash is discharged into a backwash tank and allowed to settle. The
supernatant, or cleared liquid, is then pumped back to the head of the treatment plant at a rate
not exceeding ten percent of the raw water flow entering the plant. The settled material is
pumped to the solids-handling process of the plant. This conserves most of the backwash
water and reduces the waste discharge.

Since backwash is a very high flow operation, the surges that are created from the backwash
coming from the filter must not be allowed to enter the head of the plant. Therefore, the spent
backwash water must be stored in storage tanks and returned slowly to the treatment process.

5.9.15. Upgrading Existing Filters

When convert existing filters to dual media, the filter box and wash water trough must be
carefully examined to assure that there is adequate depth to accommodate the filter media.
The bottom gravel support requires roughly 35 to 40 cm, the sand 25 cm and the anthracite 50
to 60 cm. This makes a layer of 1.10 to 1.20 m in depth. Another 50 cm is required for bed
expansion and a margin of safety to the backwash overflow level, so that at least 1.75 m of
filter box is required below the wash water overflow weir level.

The increase in filter loading will be limited by the hydraulic constrains more than the
capacity of the filter and filter media. In all existing plants, however, the inlet channels appear
to have ample capacity. The filtered water outlet is probably more critical but it is short in
length so that twice the present filter rate may be possible.

The actual filter rates should be determined for all the filters in the plant. This work can be
done at the same time the raw water pumping tests are made. The procedure is quite simple:

1. Fill the filter box to the normal water level with the filter outlet valve closed
2. Close filter inlet valve
3. Open filtered water outlet valve
4. Measure the drop in water level in the filter box by timing a drop of 15 to 20 cm. The
timing should be started only when the outlet valve is completely open
5. Knowing the area of the filter box the volume is easily calculated and the filter rate
can be determined

This information is important as an indicator of the maximum filter rate possible with the
existing bed and existing losses in the outlet valves and piping. If the rate is higher than
design rate an orifice plate can be installed in the outlet system to introduce a head loss which
will reduce the filter rate to anything the designer desires.

Filter backwash rates should also be determined. This will be just the opposite procedure to
the above.
1. Close inlet valve
2. Filter the water down to a point about 10 cm above the bed
3. Close filter outlet valve
4. Start backwashing
5. When wash is on full force measure the rise in the water level before it reaches the
bottom of the overflow drains. This distance is sometimes very short making the
measurement difficult

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-129
An effective backwash rate is 30 to 36 m3/hr per m2. The backwash rates in all existing plants
are probably less than 30 m3/hr per m2.

Most operators are reluctant to wash filters often. This is understandable because (a) it
requires work to open and close several valves; (b) it uses a large amount of water, and (c) it
takes a part of the filter capacity out of service. It is necessary to understand the importance of
operating filters at a high loading; it is far more economical to increase the filter rate even
though the washing frequency goes up. Below is a calculation of production per m2 of filter
bed at 100 m3/m2/day and 234 m3/m2/day.

Table 5-33: Calculation of production per m2

down time of 30 min/wash

Net water Produced per

Total water lost (m3/m2)
Filtered water lost from
Filter Rate (m3/m2/day)

Wash water consumed

Total water lost (%)

per day (m3/day)
Filter wash Rate
Filter Run (Hrs)

day (m3/day/m2)
(m3/m2/min)

(m3/m2)

100 72 0.5 1.67 0.7 2.37 2.37 97.63

234 8 0.5 15.00 14.6 29.60 12.65 204.40

Even though one filter is washed 9 times as often, the higher rate pays big dividends in
product per m2. However, filtered water quality for higher rate and water availability or
recycling of filtered water has to be considered.

For conversion of filters to direct filtration, testing is required with a low coagulant does
determined in the laboratory with filter paper (see Annex F.3). The filter performance should
be monitored for turbidity and head loss. If performance is good at the plant rate, cut out one
unit and increase the load on the others, continuing until the runs are deduced to less than 12
hours, or the effluent turbidity rises above 4.5 NTU. This will indicate the increase in filter
loading possible without any modifications. A simple filter head loss gauge is shown in
Figure 5-85.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-130
 Figure 5-85: Sample Head loss Gauge

5.9.16. Dolomite Filter Systems

Dolomite is a natural mineral, which is formed by presence of both calcium and magnesium
in limestone. Its chemical formula is CaMg(CO3)2 and it is also used in water treatment
industry for post filtration (re-mineralization) process.

It is used to increase the pH value of the purified water after reverse osmosis system and to
provide minerals that are good for human health. Dolomite filters are manually controlled.
While the water is strained from top to bottom in the filter, dolomite mineral dissolves and
provides natural minerals to water such as calcium, magnesium and carbonate. By
replenishing the mineral which is reduced in time mineralization process is continued.

5.10. Pressure Filters

Pressure filters are sometimes used for rapid filtration. The filter medium is contained in a
steel pressure vessel. The water to be filtered enters the filter under pressure and leaves at
slightly reduced pressure because of the head loss encountered in the filter medium,
underdrain, and piping connections.

5.10.1. Description of Pressure Filters

The pressure vessel may be a cylindrical tank with a vertical axis such as shown in Figure
5-86 or it may be a horizontal-axis cylindrical tank (refer Figure 5-87). The horizontal
cylindrical configuration has the disadvantage that the width of the filter medium is not

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-131
constant from top to bottom, usually being wider at the top. This leaves dead areas along the
walls that do not receive adequate fluidization during backwashing and therefore, may not be
washed effectively.

In some horizontal-axis cylindrical tanks, the filter is divided into multiple (four or five) cells
by vertical bulkheads. Cost advantages are gained by this configuration because only a single
pressure vessel is needed. One filter cell can be backwashed by the production of the other
cells that remain in service. This requires a filtration rate sufficiently high so that the total
production of the operating cells is sufficient to fluidize the medium of the single cell being
backwashed.

Figure 5-86: Vertical-type pressure sand filters

5.10.2. Comparison of Pressure and Gravity Filtration

While the outward appearance of pressure and gravity filters is quite different, the filtration
process is the same. The same mechanisms for capturing particles are functioning in both
filters. The same filter medium, the same filtration rates, and the same terminal head loss
should be utilized if comparable filtrate quality is desired.

The use of higher filtration rates and high terminal head loss in a pressure filter is tempting
because the influent is under pressure and more potential head loss is available. This
temptation should be resisted, however, unless no detriment to the quality of the filtrate can be
demonstrated on a case-by-case basis.

One advantage gained by pressure filtration is that water leaves the filter under a positive
gauge pressure, and therefore no negative pressure can ever exist in the filter medium. The
potential problems associated with negative pressure discussed earlier are therefore avoided.

Vertical pressure filters range in diameter from 0.3 -3 m with capacities as great as 19 l/s at
filtration rates of 175 m3/m²/day. Horizontal pressure filters, usually 2.4 m in diameter, are
10-7.5 m long with capacities from 12.5 to 38 l/s. These filters are separated into
compartments to allow individual backwashing. Backwash water may be returned to the
clarifier for recovery.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-132
 Figure 5-87: Horizontal-type pressure sand filter

5.10.3. Operation of Pressure Filters

Because of the similarities between pressure and gravity filters, the operating principles are
identical. For example, appropriate pre-treatment is equally important to pressure and gravity
filters; patterns of filtrate quality will be the same; the impact of sudden rate increases will be
just as detrimental; and the importance of proper backwashing is equally important.

The operation of a pressure filter is similar in most respects to the operation of a gravity filter.
Proper backwashing of a pressure filter is more difficult, however, because the filter medium
is not conveniently visible to the operator during the backwash operation. The various
analyses that can be conveniently made by visual observation for gravity filters are difficult or
impossible to perform with pressure filters. These include:
1) Presence of filter cracks before the backwash, or mudballs after the backwash
2) Uniformity of backwash water distribution
3) Uniformity of rate of clean-up of the wash water over the full filter areas
4) Proper functioning of the auxiliary scour device such as surface wash or air scour
5) Elevation and appearance of the top surface of the filter medium after the backwash
6) Whether the medium is fully fluidized during the backwash (if that is the intended
washing method),and the extent of expansion of the filter medium
7) Extent of loss of the filter medium
Because of these difficulties, pressure filters have been implicated in waterborne disease
outbreaks that can be partially attributed to poor condition of the filter medium. Prior
concerns about the reliability of pressure filters and other concerns have caused some state
regulatory agencies to exclude the use of pressure filters in the treatment of surface waters or
other polluted source waters and lime softened waters.

Washing is achieved by exclusively by water backflow, the velocity of which must be

adjusted to the grain size of the media (refer Table 5-34).

Table 5-34: Backwash Velocity of pressure filters (Temperature 15-25 C)

Effective size of sand (mm) 0.35 0.55 0.75 0.95
Rate (m/h) 25-35 40-50 55-70 70-90

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-133
The control of washing velocity is essential and can easily be provided by equipping waste
wash water sump with the calibration threshold. At the same time, the change in quality of the
discharged water can be monitored as a way of regulating washing time. This time varies
between 5 and 8 minutes, depending on sand depth and kinds of matter retained.
5.10.4. Rate Control for Pressure Filters
Rate control for pressure filters is equally as important as it is for gravity filters because the
same filtration mechanisms are functioning in both cases. Fewer options are available for
pressure filters, however, because the pressure filter operates full of water under pressure. As
a result, options involving changing water levels are not available, and influent gravity flow
splitting is not available. Therefore, the benefits of slow rate changes by allowing water levels
to change are not available to pressure filters.
The usual arrangement for a bank of pressure filters is based on the assumption that flow
through the system will self-equalize. The total filter area of the filter bank is sized
appropriately to meet local regulatory requirements based on feed pump capacity. Individual
filter flow controllers and flow meters are not provided. The system is designed
symmetrically so that flow is distributed equally to each filter in the bank. Thus, after
backwashing all of the filters in short succession, if one filter is passing more flow than it
should, it is assumed that that filter will clog more quickly than the other filters, and that the
flow will be reduced because of the clogging resistance. Thus, the system is considered self-
equalizing during operation. However, if the multiple filters are backwashed at random
intervals during a filter cycle, the cleanest filter will provide the highest flow and the dirtiest
filter the lowest flow. The extent of these differences will not be known if individual flow
meters are not provided.
In spite of the common practice just described, it is desirable to have a flow meter on each
pressure filter in a bank of several filters. Flow metering is useful to the plant operators for
diagnostic purposes to observe if something is wrong with one filter, causing the flows not to
be equally split. This could happen if one filter is not cleaning up properly during
backwashing, perhaps due to a clogged underdrain. Or, one filter may flow at an excessive
rate due to the loss of some or its entire filtering medium.
5.10.5. Applications of Pressure Filters
Pressure filters tend to be used in small water systems. Many pressure filters are used in
industrial water and wastewater filtration applications. They also are used widely in
swimming pool filtration.
Advantages of pressure filters over gravity filters include the following:
 The filtrate, which is under pressure, can be delivered to the point of use without re-
pumping. In some treatment plants, source water can be pumped from the source
through the treatment plant and directly to the point of use by the source water pumps.
 A treatment plant equipped with pressure filters is somewhat easier to automate.
 Some ground waters containing iron can be treated by pressure aeration and/or
chemical oxidation and then filtered directly on pressure filters. This approach has
received considerable application for small communities. For high iron and manganese
applications, pressure filters can be provided with manganese green sand and
potassium permanganate feed systems.

5.11. Precoat / Diatomaceous Earth Filtration

Precoat filtration is a USEPA accepted filtration technique for potable water treatment. When
the Surface Water Treatment Rule went into effect in 1989, it provoked a renewed interest in

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-134
this filtration process. Precoat filters use a thin layer of very fine material such as
diatomaceous earth as a filter medium. In precoat filtration, the water to be filtered is passed
through a uniform layer of the filter medium that has been deposited (precoated) on a septum,
a permeable material that supports the filter medium. The septum is supported by a rigid
structure termed a filter element. The pre-coat layer is powder-like Diatomaceous Earth (DE)
with particle mean size of 23.5 m with 80% of the particle ranging from 5 to 64 m. DE is
mined from fossilized remaining of microscopic algae called “Diatoms” deposited in the bed
of ancient oceans. A powdered medium is manufactured from the diatomaceous deposits,
which are almost pure silica. The medium when deposited on the filter spectrum has an
average pore size of about 7 m.

As the water passes through the filter medium and septum, suspended particles about 2 µm
and larger are captured and removed. The majority of particles removed by the filter are
strained (trapped) at the surface of the layer of filter medium, with some being trapped within
the layer. As the filter cycle proceeds additional filter medium, called body feed, is regularly
metered into the influent water flow in proportion to the solids being removed. Without the
regular addition of body feed, the head loss across the precoat layer would increase rapidly.
Instead, the dirt particles intermingle with the body feed particles so that permeability of the
cake is maintained as the thickness of the cake gradually increases. By maintaining
permeability of the cake in this way, the length of the filter cycle is extended.

Figure 5-88: Precoat filtration

Ultimately, a gradually increasing pressure drop through the filter system reaches a point
where continued filtration is impractical. The forward filtration process is stopped; the filter
medium and collected dirt are washed off the septum; a new precoat of filter medium is
applied; and filtration continues. A typical schematic diagram is shown in Figure 5-88.

Precoat filters accomplish particle removal by physically straining or entrapping the solids out
of the water. The thickness of the initial layer of precoat filter medium is normally about 3
mm, and the water passageways through this layer are so small and numerous that even very
fine particles are retained.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-135
Precoat filters are widely used in industrial filtration applications and in swimming pool
filtration. They have also been used in municipal potable water treatment, primarily in the
direct, in-line filtration of high-quality surface waters (turbidity 10 NTU with inorganic or
non-compressible particle, turbidity 5 NTU with organic or algal matter and acceptable
colour), and in the filtration of iron and manganese from ground waters after appropriate pre-
treatment to precipitate these contaminants.

Because of small pore size of the precoat filters, high degree of Giardia cysts and
Cryptosporidium Oocysts has been observed whereas virus removal is rarely exceeding 1 log
reduction. It has been shown to be very effective in the removal of Giardia cysts (up to 6 log
removal) over a broad range of operating conditions typical of potable water filtration. The
need for proper operation and maintenance is emphasized, however, and a precoat rate of 1
kg/m2 is recommended. The removal of small particulates such as bacteria and viruses
depends on the grade of filter aid used and other operating conditions. Capture of smaller
particles such as bacteria, viruses, and asbestos fibres can be enhanced by using aluminium or
iron coagulants or cationic polymers to coat the filter medium. The use of strong oxidant such
as ozone has been demonstrated to be effective in conditioning particulate colour for removal
(and in oxidizing colour associated with DOC or reduced forms of iron and manganese).

5.11.1. Applications and Performance

Precoat filters are widely used in industrial filtration applications and in swimming pool
filtration. They also have also been used in potable water treatment, primarily in the direct, in-
line filtration of high-quality surface waters (turbidity 10 NTU or less and acceptable colour),
and in the filtration of iron and manganese from groundwater after appropriate pretreatment to
precipitate these contaminants.

Where the source water and other conditions are suitable, precoat filtration can offer a number
of benefits to the user, including the following:

1. Capital cost savings may be possible because of smaller land and plant building
requirements.
2. Treatment costs may be slightly less than conventional coagulation/sedimentation/
granular media filtration when filterable solids are low, although sedimentation would
not usually be needed for such high-quality source waters.
3. The process is entirely a physical/mechanical operation and can attain high log
removals of Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts without operator expertise in
water chemistry relating to coagulation.
4. The waste residuals are easily dewatered and in some cases may be reclaimed for
other uses, including soil conditioning and land reclamation. Research is under way to
determine the feasibility of reusing filter medium as body feed.
5. Acceptable finished water clarity is achieved as soon as precoating is complete and
filtration starts. A filter-to-waste period is generally not necessary to bring turbidity of
the finished water within acceptable limits.
6. Terminal turbidity breakthrough is not generally observed because precoat filtration is
dominantly a surface filtration process.

The disadvantages of precoat filtration are:

1. A continued cost is associated with purchase and disposal of the filter medium, which
is usually discarded at the end of each filter cycle.
2. Precoat filtration is less cost-effective for waters that require pretreatment for algae,
colour, and taste and odour problems or DBP precursor removal. Waters containing

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-136
 only larger plankton such as diatoms can sometimes be treated economically by
microstraining prior to the precoat filtration.
3. Proper design, construction and operation are absolutely essential to prevent the filter
cake from dropping off of the septa or cracking during operation, which could result in
the system failing to remove the target particulates.

Precoat filtration has been shown to be very effective in the removal of Giardia cysts over a
broad range of operating conditions typical of potable water filtration. The need for proper
operation and maintenance is emphasized, however, and a precoat rate of (1 kg/m 2) is
recommended. The capability of precoat filtration to remove cysts and the fact that chemical
coagulation is not required makes this option attractive to very small communities facing
filtration because of concern about cysts in source waters. Operators skilled in coagulation are
less likely to be available in small installations, but operators possessing mechanical skills are
required.

The removal of small particulates such as bacteria and viruses depends on the grade of filter
aid used and other operating conditions. Capture of smaller particles such as bacteria, viruses,
and asbestos fibres can be enhanced by using aluminium or iron coagulants or cationic
polymers to coat the filter medium.

5.11.2. Diatomaceous Earth Filter Operation

DE filter operation occurs in three steps or cycle:
1. A pre-coat of 3 mm is deposited on the filter
2. After pre-coat is deposited, filtering begins, and at the same time a small amount of
DE material (called body feed) is added to the source water to maintain the porosity of
the media.
3. Particle in the source water are trapped in the pre-coat and accumulated body feet
layers until the maximum head loss is reached at which time the filter run is
terminated and all of the deposited media, together with any entrapped containment
material is cleaned from the septa.

5.11.3. Diatomaceous Earth Filter Design

Types of filters: The basic types of filters are available in pressure or vacuum
Filter construction: pressure filters are constructed as cylindrical pressure vessel made of
stainless steel, mounted either horizontally or vertically and vacuum filters are built as
rectangular tank with plastic, coated steel of concrete.

Filter element: The inlet water is distributed through the containment wall, fitted with an
internal baffling device to prevent the disturbance of the filter cake. Many arrangements of
filter elements are available depending on the types of filters.

Pilot testing of DE filtration is always recommended where there is no practical experience

with the process or if source water has not been previously evaluated for the treatment
process. Pilot testing duration may extend up to 4 months but should especially include time
when source water quality is most problematic. Typical objective of the pilot testing program
include assessing:
 Pre-treatment requirement (if any)
 Pre-coat depth / material
 Body feed grade and application rate
 Spectrum material
 Filter run length
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-137
  Finished water quality (i.e. turbidity, DOC, inorganic, etc.)
 Operator familiarity with the process

5.11.4. Filter Media

Diatomaceous earth and perlite are used as filter media for precoat filtration of water. Both
materials are available in various grades to allow creation of a filter cake with the desired pore
size. AWWA B101-94, Standard for Precoat Filter Materials, covers quality control, density,
permeability, and particle size distribution of precoat filter media (American Water Works
Association, 1995b). Pilot testing can determine the two or three most suitable grades of filter
medium that will produce the desired clarity, simplifying the task of optimizing a final
selection when working with a full-scale plant.

Figure 5-89: Construction details of a flat-leaf element

5.11.5. Filter Operation

Precoating: Successful precoating requires the uniform application of precoat filter aid to the
entire surface of the clean septa. This is accomplished by recirculating a concentrated slurry
of clean water and filter medium (generally 12 percent or greater) through the filter at 2.4 to
3.7 m/h until most of the medium has been deposited on the septa and the recirculating water
turbidity is lowered to the desired treated water quality.

Because particles of the medium are much smaller than the clear openings in the septum, their
retention and the formation of a stable precoat take place as a result of bridging. As the
particles crowd together when passing through the openings, they jam and interlock, forming
bridges over the openings. As bridges form, additional particles are caught and the filter
septum is coated.

Body-feeding: The amount of body feed to be added to the source water is determined by the
nature and amount of the solids to be removed. Pilot testing during representative source
water quality periods will generally indicate the type and range of solids that will be
encountered and the amount and type of body feed needed to provide an incompressible and
permeable cake.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-138
Typical body feed ratios of 1 to 10 mg/L of diatomite for each 1 mg/L of suspended solids are
required, depending on the type of solids being filtered. Details of selecting the appropriate
ratio will be presented later. Compressible solids such as alum or iron coagulation solids
require the highest ratios. Proper control of the body feed dosage is the most important factor
contributing to economical operation of a precoat filtration plant. Body feed equipment can be
classified as dry or wet systems. The wet, or slurry, feeders are the most common type.

Spent Cake Removal: At the end of each filter cycle, the spent filter cake is removed from
the filter in preparation for the precoat that will begin the next cycle. If spent solids are not
fully removed from the filter vessel, the material could be re-suspended and deposited on the
filter septa. The re-suspended dirty material could foul the septa, although the effect would
usually develop gradually so that the operator would become aware of it only after a number
of cycles.

The most reliable means of determining the cleanliness of the septa involves visual
observation of the bare septa, followed by observation of the uniformity and completeness of
precoat. When the septa cannot be fully inspected, a higher than normal differential pressure
immediately after precoating (at the start of the filtration cycle) would suggest that the septa
are becoming fouled.

Techniques for removing the spent cake vary with the different kinds of filter vessels and
filter elements. Spent cake removed from a precoat filter is a mixture of filter medium and the
materials removed from the source water. This waste matter is usually removed from the filter
in slurry form. Although some systems may be able to dispose of the slurry into a sanitary
sewer system, most plants must dewater the waste material and make separate provisions for
the solids and liquid wastes.

5.12. Slow Sand Filtration

5.12.1. Introduction to Slow Sand Filter
The slow sand filter is a sand filter operated at very low filtration rates without the use of
coagulation in pre-treatment. The grain size of the sand is somewhat smaller than that used in
a rapid filter, and this, plus the low filtration rate, results in the solids being removed almost
entirely in a thin layer on the top of the sand bed. This layer, composed of dirt and living and
dead micro- and macro-organisms from the water (i.e., the schmutzdecke or dirty skin),
becomes the dominant filter medium as the filter cycle progresses. When the head loss
becomes excessive, the filter is cleaned by draining it below the sand surface and then
physically removing the dirty layer along with 130 to 500 mm of sand. Filtration rate
normally lies between 0.1 and 0.4 m3/hr/m2. Typical cycle lengths may vary from 1 to 6
months (or longer) depending on source water quality and the filtration rate.

The slow sand filter was developed in England in the early nineteenth century and continues
to be used successfully, notably on River Thames water, which serves London. In the United
States, this treatment process has been used to treat high quality upland surface waters in New
York and New England since the early 1900s. Renewed interest in the slow sand filter
occurred because numerous outbreaks of giardiasis occurred in the latter 1970s and early
1980s in communities using unfiltered or poorly filtered water. The slow sand filter is a
simple technology requiring no knowledge of coagulation chemistry and is quite attractive for
small installations treating high-quality surface waters.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-139
Pre-treatment is necessary with raw water having a maximum turbidity of 20 NTU or more.
But should be considered for less turbidity (10-20 NTU) to improve final water and reduce
frequent cleaning.

The advantage of slow sand filter may be summarized as follows:

 High quality of treated water – Physical, chemical & biological improved by Physical
and biological treatment;
 Ease of construction – local material and skills: little special pipe work, or equipment
required
 Low cost and ease of operation – no chemical or energy: only manual cleaning of filter
beds;
 Conservation of water – no wastage, water passes through filter during “ripening”
process can be returned to source or directed to another filter;
 Easy of sludge disposal – being handle in a dry state (surface straining in the
“schmutzdecke” layer), there is no pollution to water path;
 Use of Local operators – Require minimum technical knowledge for operation
 High treatment efficiency – 2 log removal for bacteria, 3 log removal for E-coli and
virus

The limitation/ disadvantage are:

 Land requirements – SSF require more lands than RSF due to low rate filtration 0.1 to
0.4 m/h (For 1000m3/day capacity plant, about an half acre is required for SSF only)
 Changing of water quality, concentration of colloids and toxic substances effects
biological filtration adversely
 Algae– certain type of algae interfere with the working of SSF causing premature
clogging. Pre-treatment or covering of filter beds means additional capital cost
 Limited to maximum turbidity of 50 NTU with pre-treatment

5.12.2. Filtration Mechanism

In a slow sand filter impurities in the water are removed by a combination of processes:
sedimentation, straining, adsorption, and chemical and bacteriological action. Purification
begins in the supernatant water layer where large particles settle on the filter bed, and smaller
particles agglomerate to settleable flocs as a result of physical, chemical, or biochemical
interactions. Under the influence of sunlight, algae, which have entered the filter with the raw
water, grow and influence the purification process.

During the first few days, water is purified mainly by mechanical and physical processes. The
resulting accumulation of sediment and organic growth forms a thin layer on the sand surface,
which remains permeable and retains particles even smaller than the spaces between the sand
grains. As this layer (often referred to as the biological skin or "Schmutzdecke") develops, it
becomes the "living quarters" of vast numbers of microorganisms which break down organic
material retained from the water, converting it into water, carbon dioxide and other oxides
(PO4, NO3). Nitrogenous organic material will initially be converted into ammonia, which is
then oxidized by specific autotrophic bacteria to nitrite and ultimately to nitrate.

Most impurities, including bacteria and viruses, are removed from the raw water as it passes
through the filter skin and the layer of filter bed sand just below. The removal of bacteria
from the water is probably due primarily to the action of predators, such as protozoa. Those
impurities carried deeper into the filter bed will come into contact with, and become attached
to, sand grains so that the sand particles gradually become covered with a thin layer composed
mainly of organic material and microorganisms. These in turn adsorb the impurities by
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-140
various attachment mechanisms. The purification mechanisms extend from the filter skin to
approximately 0.3-0.4 m below the surface of the filter bed, gradually decreasing in activity at
lower levels as the water becomes purified and contains less organic material and nutrients.
More products of the biological processes are removed at even greater depths by physical
processes (adsorption) and biochemical action (oxidation).

When the microorganisms become well established, the filter will work efficiently and
produce high quality effluent which is virtually free of disease carrying organisms and
biodegradable organic matter. The time taken for the filter to ripen depends on the quality of
the raw water, but water temperature and oxygen levels are also important factors. Ripening
of a new filter may generally take about three weeks, whereas a filter which has been cleaned
in a single-day operation may take only one to two days. The absence of ammonia in the
filtrate is an indication that the ripening process is completed.

The ecosystem in a slow sand filter typically includes bacteria; protozoa such as rhizopods
and ciliates; rotifers; copepods; and aquatic worms. In general, smaller organisms are found at
or near the top of the filter and are preyed upon by larger organisms that range deeper into the
filter bed, algae also may be found at or near the surface of the filter in open filters as shown
in the Figure 5-90.

Schmutzdecke Another distinguishing feature of slow-sand

Bacteria filters is the presence of a thin layer, called
Protozoa
the "schmutzdecke," which forms on the
surface of the sand bed and includes a large
Rotifers variety of biologically-active microorganisms.
These break down organic matter, and also fill
Depth of sand, inches

the interstices of the sand so that solid matter

Copepods
is retained quite effectively. The impurities
present in the raw water are removed almost
entirely in the upper 0.5 to 2 cm of the filter
Round warms bed.
Flatworms
Oligochetes

Figure 5-90: Typical slow sand filter biota at different depths

The principal use of slow sand filtration is in the removal of organic matter and pathogenic
organisms from raw waters of relatively low turbidity. The biological treatment that takes
place in the "schmutzdecke" of the filter is capable of reducing the total bacteria count by a
factor of 103 to 104 and the e-coli count by a factor of 102 to 103. Accordingly, considerable
savings can be realized in the quantities of chlorine required for disinfection. Such an
advantage is particularly important in rural areas of developing countries where chlorination
practices have proven to be very unreliable, and where slow sand filtration can provide a more
reliable safety barrier than, for example, rapid filters that require uninterrupted chlorination to
assure safety. Slow-sand filters are most practical in the treatment of water with turbidity
below 50 NTU, although much higher turbidity can be tolerated for a few days.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-141
5.12.3. Source Water Quality Consideration
The best purification occurs when the turbidity is below 10 NTU (Huisman and Wood, 1974).
When higher turbidity is expected, slow-sand filters should be preceded by some type of pre-
treatment. Source water quality must be carefully evaluated for the consideration of slow sand
filtration as appropriate treatment method. Table 5-35 list source water quality parameters
with recommended limits.

In most cases, long-term pilot testing of the source water is essential to determine the
applicability of slow sand treatment options especially where there are seasonal variations in
temperature, DOC, or dissolved oxygen. Pilot testing up to 1 year is not unusual if there are
significant seasonal water quality and/ or operating variations. Multiple column are often used
in pilot testing so that various parameters and filter sand can be evaluated without changing
the treatment process in the middle of the filter run. The pilot testing results should be
carefully evaluated in light of available source water quality data before being incorporated
into the basis of design.

Table 5-35: Suggested source water quality limitation of conventional slow sand filter
Parameter Recommended limit
Turbidly 5 to 10 NTU *
Algae 200,000 /L
True colour 15 to 25 platinum colour unit
Dissolved organic carbon 2.5 – 3.0 mg/L
UV254 absorbance 0.080 /cm
Dissolved Oxygen 6 mg/L
Phosphorous as (PO4) 30 g/L
Ammonia as (NH3) 3 mg/L
Iron < 1 mg/L
Manganese < 1 mg/L
*- presence of clay particle must be determined

5.12.4. Features of Slow Sand Filter

The essential parts of a slow-sand filter are shown in Figure 5-91. Slow-sand filters, because
they are not backwashed, are much simpler in design than rapid filters. Essentially these
consist of following components that make up a slow sand filter.

1. A supernatant reservoir, to provide the necessary head to produce the design flow
through the bed under the worst head loss conditions.
2. A bed of filter medium (sand) which achieves the filtration and other effects, including
biological purification, which a slow sand filter is known to provide in upgrading the
quality of an influent water
3. An under drainage system, to allow unobstructed passage of treated water and to
support the filter medium so that a uniform rate of filtration is maintained over the
whole area of the filter and to support the filter medium
4. Filter regulation and control devices to maintain the water level over the bed during
operation at the design filter rate and allow adjustment of water level during filter
cleaning and re-introduction to operation after cleaning.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-142
 Figure 5-91: Features of a Slow Sand Filter
Source: Huisman and Wood, 1974, p. 18

5.12.5. Design of Slow Sand Filter

Pertinent design criteria for the design of slow-sand filters are summarized (Huisman and
Wood, 1974) as follows:

1) Rate of filtration - The traditional rate of filtration used for normal operation is 0.1 m/hour,
although it is possible to produce safe water at rates as high as 0.4 m/hour (Huisman and
Wood, 1974). At higher filtration rates, the intervals between filter cleanings are shortened,
but the quality of the treated water does not deteriorate. Higher rates of filtration are used
during those periods when some filters are out of service for cleaning, rather than providing
extra filter units at increased costs to maintain a higher rate.

2) Supernatant water - The depth of water should provide a head sufficient to overcome the
resistance of the filter bed and prevent air binding. In practice a head of between 1.0 to 1.5
meters is usually selected.

3) Filter bed: The sand bed thickness varies between 1.0 to 1.4 meters. This thickness should
be reduced to not less than 0.5 to 0.8 meters after removing the upper sand layers during filter
cleaning. Filter sand should have an effective size between 0.15 to 0.35 mm and a uniformity
coefficient between 1.5 and 3, although a coefficient of less than 2 is desirable. The careful
selection and grading of sand is not as critical as in rapid filters. Use of builder grade or
locally available sand can reduce costs.

4) Filter gravel: The filter gravel should be so graded that the sand does not penetrate the
underdrain system, yet provides free flow of water when a limited number of underdrains are
provided. For example, when using a filter bottom composed of stacked bricks with open
joints (10 mm wide), four layers of metal are normally used with the following size ranges:
0.4 to 0.6 mm 1.5 to 2 mm; 5 to 8 mm; and 15 to 25 mm; each layer about 10 cm thick.

5) Underdrain system: -The system of underdrains has a two-fold function:

 to support the filter medium and prevent it being carried into the drainage system
 to ensure uniform withdrawal of water over the entire filter area

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-143
The drainage system should be carefully designed and constructed because it cannot be
inspected, cleaned, or repaired without the complete removal of the filter bed material.
Several types of underdrains can be used in slow sand filters and Figure 5-92 shows the more
commonly used underdrains systems. The simplest method of underdrain consists of a system
of main and lateral drains made from perforated uPVC pipes.

6) Depth of Filter Box: - The minimum depth of the filter box is determined from the
following elements:
Freeboard above supernatant level 0.20 m
Supernatant water 1.00 m
Filter medium (initially) 1.00 m
Four-layer gravel support 0.30 m
Brick filter bottom 0.20 m
Total 2.70 m

It is general practice to use a filter box 3 to 4 meters deep, but a depth of 2.70 meters will
reduce construction cost without sacrificing filter efficiency.

7) No. of Filter Beds: - At least two filter units always should be built and reserve units
should be provided for large treatment plants since slow sand filtration requires that a filter be
off line for up to two weeks for scraping. A first estimate of a number of units may be from
the formula n = 15Q in which Q is expressed in m3/s. Table 5-36 summarizes the
recommendations of the World Health Organization for determining the number of filter
basins based upon given design demand.

Table 5-36: Recommended Number of Filter Basins

Design Flow (m3/day) < 3,000 3,000-6,000 6,000-9,000 9,000-13,500
Recommended Number of Basins 2 3 4 5

8) Inlet Structure: - The inlet structure is intended to allow water to flow into the filter
without damaging the filter skin on top of the sand bed. Usually, the inlet structure is a box
which can also be used to drain the supernatant water quickly. The main functions of the inlet
structure are as follows:

 It should reduce the energy of the incoming water to prevent the filter skin being
damaged. This means that the inlet must be located immediately above the sand bed
and the entrance velocity should be low, for example, about 0.1 m/s. As a rule of
thumb, the length of the planks in the inlet structure should be as wide in metres with a
minimum of 0.4 m and a maximum of 1 m (Figure 5-92). In this way, the height of
the overflowing water will only be a few centimetres when the filter has just been
started up, and thus a gentle flow is obtained.
 It should provide a means of adjusting the supernatant water level. This can be done
by a float-controlled butterfly valve, a manually operated gate valve, or an adjustable
overflow weir in the inlet channel or pipe. The diameter of the inlet pipe should be
such, that the velocity of the water in the pipe is 0.3-0.5 m/s when the filters are
operated at the designed rate of filtration.
 It should provide a means of shutting down the flow of raw water, generally by means
of a hand-operated gate valve.
 In an inlet controlled filter, it should also provide the means to measure and control
the flow through the filter bed.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-144
9) Outlet Structure: - The main functions of the outlet structure are as follows:

 It should prevent the development of below-atmospheric pressure in the filter bed.

Therefore, a simple overflow weir is often provided, with its crest slightly above the
top of the sand bed.
 It should provide a means of draining the filter. A separate drain pipe is often included
in the outlet structure to pass the water to waste.
 It should provide a means of refilling the filter with clean water after it has been
scrapped. This may be done through the system of underdrains.
 In an outlet controlled filter, it should be possible to measure the flow through the
filter bed. The overflow weir, mentioned above, may also be used for this purpose by
means of a calibrated flow indicator, combined with a V-notch weir.
 In outlet controlled filters, it should provide a means of adjusting the filtration rate by
shutting down the filter. The simplest method is manual adjustment of a valve or tap.

10) Filter Control: - Slow-sand filters are operated conventionally at a constant rate. The rate
is controlled by maintaining a constant head loss across the filter. A hand operated valve
preceded by a venturi meter can be used to regulate the filtration rate and depth of water over
the filter. The normal range of head loss from clean to clogged conditions in the sand bed and
filter appurtenances is 0.6 to 1.2 meters. An effluent weir is a valuable device to prevent
negative head loss and air binding. On the other hand, the weir and control valve can be
replaced by a simple unit consisting of a pair of telescopic tubes, the inner of which can be
raised and lowered to adjust the rate of filtration.

Consideration should be given to the possibility of operating the filter at a continuously

declining rate. This is the case when the operator closes the raw water inlet, but keeps the
filter outlet valve open. Then, the supernatant will drain through the filter at a continuously
declining rate. The effluent weir should be set at least 0.2 meters above the top of the filter
bed, to prevent damage to the 'Schmutzdecke' at the end of a declining-rate filtration period.
Also, a sufficient quantity of water is required above the filter bed for storage. This type of
operation may be applied during the night and allow for savings on manpower and capital
investment costs.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-145
 Figure 5-92: Inlet and Outlet structures of Slow Sand Filter

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-146
 Figure 5-93: Alternative underdrain and filter support arrangements

5.12.6. Pre-treatment Methods

In some cases, the performance of slow sand filters can be significantly improved with pre-
treatment of the raw water prior to slow sand filtration. Pre-treatment of raw water is often
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-147
required to prevent clogging and of frequent clearing (more often than once every 2-3
months). The following methods are suggested:

 Infiltration System (infiltration galleries or trench, river bed filtration and wells)
 Sedimentation basin / storage reservoir
 Horizontal/ vertical -flow roughening filtration
 Aeration (for standing water)

The objective of the pre-treatment is to reduce the turbidity of the raw water to an average
value of 5 NTU or less and/ or to remove high algae population. This will reduce the solids
loading to slow sand filters, improving turbidity removal and extending filter run times.

5.12.7. Construction of the Clear-Water Tank

The clear-water storage tank with two compartments can be built, with a total net volume that
is equal to the calculated required storage volume. This may increase the reliability of the
water supply system because when one tank is out of order, the others can still supply water.
The foundation for the clear-water tanks will generally be deep, because the loss of head
through the filter is 1 m, and some variation in the water level in the tank must be permitted to
balance production and demand.

When the clear-water tank is covered with a reinforced concrete slab, the structural design
differs from that of slow sand filters because side pressures are also transmitted to the cover.
If the joints between cover and walls are strengthened with extended reinforcement bars, the
strength of the structure increases, and it may therefore be possible to reduce the thickness of
the walls. When calculating the dimensions of the floor and wall of the tank, the combination
of an empty tank and a high groundwater-table are critical. Careful consideration should be
given to whether the total weight of the construction should be increased, to prevent it being
forced up and float by the water pressure.

The clear-water tank must be provided with ventilation pipes, a drain-pipe, an overflow, and a
manhole for inspection. If the tank also serves as a chlorine contact chamber, then the clear-
water outlet pipe should be located at such a height above floor level, that the minimum
detention time is 30 minutes.

5.12.8. Operation & Maintenance of Slow Sand Filter

A Slow Sand Filter may be operated continuously for 24 hours/day or in declining rate mode
for a period of say 8-16 hours/day. Intermittent operation is not recommended and the water
level should never be drawn down below the media surface, except for cleaning.

Initial charging of the filter bed (and also subsequent refilling) must be done from the bottom
to top preferably with the clean water to drive out air bubbles. When the water level is far
enough above the sand bed, the raw water may be allowed to enter through the inlet to avoid
scouring. When the design water level is reached the drain valve is opened and water is run to
waste, regulated to about 25% of normal filtration rate for a period of a week to two to allow
formation of the “Schmutzdecke”. During this period water quality testing is to be done
periodically. And the flow rate gradually increased to design rate until such time as the testing
confirm that the filter is operating satisfactorily. The drain valve is then closed, and water
passed to the clear water basin.

After a period of operation, as the filter resistance increases it is necessary to gradually open
the regulating valve to maintain the flow rate, as measured by the discharge V-notch weir or
flow meter. When the valve is fully opened and the required flow rate cannot be maintained
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-148
cleaning of the bed is necessary and the filter must be taken out of service, temporarily. The
raw water valve is closed, and the water level drained down to about 20 cm below the sand
surface, to permit raking in the sand.

The flow rates for slow-sand filters are about 20 to 50 times slower than for rapid filters.
Because the filter is cleaned manually, removing the dirty top sand rather than backwashing,
the sand is not stratified and its hydraulic characteristics are governed by the finer portions of
the sand.
The dirty sand can be cleaned by washing soon after removal or discarded. The SSF can be
cleaned in the following manner;
• Manual sand removal - bucket and shovel
• mechanized removal - wide tractor buckets
• mechanized in-situ sand washing
• removable top layer glass fiber mat, suitable for small installations
5.12.8.1. Manual sand removal - bucket and shovel
The cleaning of the filter bed is carried out by scraping off the top layer when it becomes too
clogged with impurities. Unless the water being treated is excessively turbid or has high algal
concentrations, slow sand filters may run continuously for a period of several months before
cleaning is necessary. The filter- cleaning operation may be carried out by unskilled labourers
using hand tools, and completed in 1 or 2 days. Cleaning consist of scraping off, with flat
shovels, the top level of the filter surface about 1.0 – 2.5 cm thick of dirty sand.
5.12.8.2. Filter Harrowing
To reduce the time and expense for cleaning, the utility developed the process of harrowing
filters in the 1950s. In the process, a tractor with a mounted spring-tooth harrow operates
within the bed while water about 15 cm deep is flowing across the sand surface. The harrow
breaks up the top of the filter surface, and water carries away the debris. The process removes
the accumulated source water particulates while maintaining an active biological material in
the top several inches of the sand.
The process creates wastewater as the bed is being cleaned. The volume generated depends on
source water quality, filter area, and cross-flow velocity and depth and is generally in the
range of 163 to 244 L/m2 of filter area. The experience shows that using the harrowing
process reduces cleaning time to one-quarter of the time required for conventional cleaning.
The harrowing process requires the following facilities that may not be provided for a
conventionally cleaned slow sand filter
• Access ramp for harrowing equipment to enter the filter
• Harrowed water influent distribution system
• Harrowed wastewater collection system
• Holding lagoon for the harrowed wastewater
The filter box must be designed with enough headroom to permit tractor operation, and
support columns should be minimized to improve manoeuvrability. Influent and waste
headers can consist of either perforated piping or channels with adjustable weirs.

Wastewater lagoons should be designed to carry one to two harrowing with the ability to
allow time for settling and to discharge the decanted water in stages. Because wastewater has
generally not received previous chemical pretreatment, discharge requirements are usually
less rigorous. The process is now currently used at several operating plants in the United
States to improve plant performance and reduce cleaning times. Designers of larger-capacity
plants should consider using this cleaning process.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-149
The scraped-off material is filed in ridges or heaps and carted away. In areas where sand is
expensive or difficult to obtain, the surface scrapings from a slow sand filter may be washed,
stored, and reused at a later date. However, the scrapings must be washed immediately;
otherwise the material may go anaerobic, yielding taste and odor-producing substances that
are nearly impossible to remove during any later washing processes.

Figure 5-94: Continuous Sand Washing

Figure 5-95: Washing Platfom for Manual Cleaning of Sand

The hydraulically-operated device, shown in Figure 5-93, can be used to wash sand removed
from a filter. It functions essentially as an upward-flow clarifier; hence from a theoretical
standpoint, the rate of overflow of the wash water should not exceed the settling velocity of
the smallest particle to be retained. However, in practice, turbulence and sand concentration
reduce the desired rate of overflow appreciably so that the rate of flow of the incoming sand-
water solution is generally sufficient to effect separation without supplementary water. The
sand or grit that settles to the bottom is ejected hydraulically or can be removed by means of a
shear gate. Pipes carrying sand-water solutions should be sized for velocities of 1.5 m/sec or
higher. About 8 m3 of sand per hour can be washed per square meter of washer surface area.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-150
5.12.8.3. Mechanized In-Situ Sand Washing
In smaller plants, where hydraulically-operated sand washers are not practicable, sand may be
washed entirely by hand as illustrated in Figure 5-96. The sand is agitated in a box with water
running through it at a low velocity so as not to wash out the fine particles. This process
continues until the washing water clears, indicating that the sand is clean. The sand can then
be stored and is ready for replacement on the filter.
Clean water in Dirty water out

Water
Movable Hood

Water Lance

Flexible Rubber
Seal

Sand

Figure 5-96: Mechanized In-Situ Sand Washing

When the bed reaches a minimum thickness of 0.5 to 0.8 m, the bed should be re-sanded. The
clean sand should be placed on top of the gravel, and the older sand should be placed on top
to provide seeding with microorganisms to form the 'Schmutzdecke' more rapidly and to
assure that all the sand will be cleaned from time to time.

5.12.8.4. Use of Removable Top Layer of Filter Fabric

In research conducted in the US and UK, a synthetic, nonwoven fabric installed on the sand
surface was shown to increase filter run lengths while maintaining effective treatment. The
benefit is that removal of suspended particles occurs on the fabric with the intent of
simplifying the cleaning process.
When one is specifying a fabric, parameters to be considered include porosity, specific
surface area, and fabric thickness. Graham et al. (1991) showed that a fabric thickness
between 20 and 30 mm was necessary to allow adequate fabric removal and cleaning and that
fabrics with a specific surface area between 13,000 and 15,000 m2/m3 provided optimal
results. They also demonstrated that use of fabric meeting this criterion increased filter run
times by 400% over those of a conventional filter.
Issues to resolve before filter fabric is used involve the mechanism for removal and cleaning
of the fabric, especially for large installations. Further pilot studies may be warranted to
determine the applicability of this modification with source waters of varying quality.
5.12.8.5. Granular Activated Carbon
The addition of granular activated carbon (GAC) to slow sand filter media was initially tested
in England at the Thames Water Utilities. Thames Water currently operates seven slow sand
treatment facilities with a combined capacity of about 700 mgd. Because of pesticide levels in
the source waters and strict regulations for pesticide removals, the utility determined that
adding a GAC treatment step could allow water quality goals to be met.

To avoid the relatively high cost of constructing GAC adsorbers, installing GAC within the
filter bed is recommended. The "sandwich" bed used a 75- to 200-mm layer of GAC installed

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-151
100 to 150 mm below the sand surface. The performance of the system was compared with
that of conventional slow sand filtration with respect to head loss, color removal, TOC
removal, and THMFP. The results are presented in Table 5-37. Chlorine demand was also
reduced with the use of GAC, and pesticide levels were reduced to below standards.

Table 5-37: Comparisons of the Operation of Slow Sand and GAC Sandwich Filters
Parameter Conventional slow sand GAC sandwich filter
Cleaning frequency 30 days No change
Color removal 20% 50%
Total organic carbon reduction 20% 35% to 40%
Total trihalomethane formation potential
130 µg/L 60 g/L
reduction (24-h contact time)

Based on test results, Thames Water installed the GAC sandwich in several of its treatment
facilities. Biologically Activated Carbon (BAC) with use of both preoxidation with ozone or
other oxidants and biological activation of the sandwich layer will enhance reduction of both
TOC and disinfection by-products even further. When used primarily for the purpose of
organic reduction, the life of the GAC sandwich layer may be extended to 5 years or more.

5.12.8.6. Re-Sanding
Re-sanding becomes necessary when successive scrapings have reduced the thickness of the
sand bed to 50-60 cm. Fortunately; this rather lengthy operation only has to be done every two
or three years. For example, if the initial thickness of the filter medium is 80 cm and six
scrapings are done per year on average (6x 2 = 12 cm scrapings a year), then re-sanding
would be necessary after 2.5 years of operation. The decision to re-sand should be made well
in advance and the work is planned, if possible, in a period of low water demand. Re-sanding
may therefore need to be done before the minimum thickness of the sand bed has been
reached.

Figure 5-97: Recommended Resanding Procedure (AWWA, 1991)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-152
Although the tasks involved in operation and maintenance of slow sand filters will generally
not differ greatly, their frequency strongly depends on the local situation. The work schedule
has to be prepared for each plant and an example is given in Table 5-38

Table 5-38: Schedule of Activities for Slow Sand Filter Operation

Frequency Activity
Daily  Check the raw-water intake (some intakes may be visited less
frequently)
 Visit the slow sand filter
 check and adjust the rate of filtration
 check water level in the filter
 check water level in the clear well
 sample and check water quality
 Check all pumps
 Keep the logbook of the plant
Weekly  Check and grease all pumps and moving parts
 Check the stock of fuel and order, if needed
 Check the distribution network, and taps, repair if necessary
 Communicate with users
 Clean the site of the plant
Monthly or less frequently  Scrape the filter bed(s)
 Wash the scrapings and store the retained sand
Yearly or less frequently  Clean the clear-water well
 Check the filter and the clear-water well for water tightness
Every two years or less  Re-sand filter unit(s)
frequently

5.12.9. Control of Slow Sand Filter

The following control systems are adapted in SSF as given in Figure 5-98 A,B,C and D.
1. Upstream water level control, downstream rate control
A. Constant inlet water level, variable filtered water level
B. Variable inlet water level, constant filtered water level
2. Upstream rate control, downstream water level control
C. Constant inlet water level, variable filtered water level
D. Variable inlet water level, constant filtered water level

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-153
 Figure 5-98: Types flow control of slow sand filter
5.12.10. Monitoring & Evaluation of Slow Sand Filter
Provision should be made for flow measurements at each filter. Regular water quality testing,
physical, chemical and bacteriological quality of raw water and filtered water must be carried
out in each filter separately to ensure that the filter is operating satisfactorily. Complete
records of flow rates and cleaning / re-sanding operations should be kept on each filter unit, so
the long term evaluation can be carried out.

Constraints such as lack of adequate laboratory facilities and trained staff, long distances
involving unacceptable delays between sample collection and testing, and the high cost of
testing, make daily testing of most water quality parameters impossible in rural water supply
schemes. However, with training, caretakers can carry out simple tests for turbidity and

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-154
residual chlorine content. Whenever possible, the caretaker should perform at least the
following tests, although regular supervision is necessary to ensure reliability of the results:

 Turbidity of raw water at the intake to check whether the intake of water should be
stopped or passes through pre-treatment process
 Turbidity of the inflow and outflow of the filter to determine whether the filter plant is
functioning properly

Where chlorination is applied, the caretaker should also measure residual chlorine in the
clear-water tank to check whether the water is being disinfected sufficiently. Complete
physico-chemical and bacteriological tests on raw and treated water should be periodically
carried out by regional chemist. When a turbidity meter cannot be provided, visual
comparison of the turbidity of the raw water, water inflow, and the water outflow will provide
useful information. This can be done by comparing water samples in uniform glasses, placed
side by side.

5.12.10.1. Record Keeping

Day-to-day records provide valuable information on the performance of the filters, the work
of the operating staff, and data for planning improvements. These records should be kept to a
minimum, but to be of use, should include information on the following:
 Quality parameters which have been checked
 Interruptions to the intake of raw water
 Cleaning of the inlet and sump
 Changes in top water level or filtration rate
 Interruptions to filter operation
 Cleaning record (date and time, height of the sand, date and time of return to
operations)
 Distribution record (daily production where a water meter is provided, breakdowns
and repairs)
 Flushing of the distribution network

Note: Covering SSF will give potential benefits such as increased run length, less problems
with airborne contamination, birds, etc., prevention of regrowth of algae, less temperature
variation, avoid freezing of water and security.

5.13. Roughing Filtration

5.13.1. Introduction to Roughing Filter
Roughing filters are mainly used for the separation of solid matter from the water and
developed as a pre-treatment to Slow Sand Filtration (SSF), an alternative to conventional
flocculation/ sedimentation. One of the problems encountered with SSF is that rapid clogging
can occur when raw water turbidity increases substantially for short periods during heavy
rains. In other cases, a SSF may clog frequently when the turbidity and suspended solids
concentration in the raw water is too high for SSF application. For SSF operation, influent
turbidity should be preferably lower than 10 NTU (2-5 mg/L), and in most cases some form of
pre-treatment will be required to achieve this. Experience to date indicates that the roughing
filter is effective with raw water turbidities normally between 10 and 150 turbidity units.

According to practical experience, intake filters are capable of reducing the solid matter
content by 50-70 %, and roughing filters are able to separate particulate matter by 90 % or
more. Roughing filters also improve the bacteriological water quality to a 1-2 log reduction of
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-155
faecal Coliform is often recorded. The filters also contribute to reducing the colour of
dissolved organics and other substances in surface water. However, since stable suspensions
rich in colloidal matter are difficult to treat by roughing filters, the addition of coagulants is
usually required. Experiences of performance of roughing filters from researchers are shown
in Table 5-39.

Table 5-39: Performance of roughing filters

Filtration Mean percent
Reference Parameters
Rates (m/h) removed (%)
Jayalath (1994) 1.5 Colour and turbidity 50 and 60
Dome (2000) 0.3 Algae and turbidity 95 and 90
Mahvi (2004) 1.5 Turbidity 90
Ochieng and Otieno (2004) 0.75 Turbidity and algae 90 and 95
Pacini(2005) 1.20 Iron and manganese 85 and 95
Dastanaie (2007) 1.8 Turbidity, TSS and Coliforms 63.4, 89 and 94
Rabindra (2008) 1.0 TSS and turbidity 95 and 95
Mukhopadhay (2008) 0.75 Turbidity 75

If the bacteriological quality of the raw water is satisfactory, it is feasible for RF to be used on
its own, without SSF. Among pre-treatment methods used before SSF, RF has been found to
be the most effective and appropriate for application in developing countries.

5.13.2. Mechanism of Roughing Filters

As illustrated in Figure 5-98, water has to undergo a step to step treatment especially if it
contains differently sized impurities. The first and easiest step in sound water treatment
schemes is coarse solids separation. Finer particles are separated in a second pre-treatment
step and finally, water treatment will end with the removal or destruction of small solids and
microorganisms. These different pre-treatment steps will contribute to reduce the pathogenic
microorganisms. The pathogens attached to the surface of suspended solids will get stranded
when the solids are separated. Some of the microorganisms floating in the water might also
get pushed to the surface of the treatment installations and adhere to biological films. Solid
matter and microorganisms, therefore, face a multitude of treatment barriers. Since treatment
efficiency of each barrier increases in the direction of flow, it becomes increasingly difficult
for the impurities to pass through each subsequent treatment barrier.

Removal of suspended solids in RF requires laminar flow. Hydrodynamic forces that move
the water through the pore system create patterns of flow retardation and acceleration that
have pockets of stagnant water near the media surface allowing particles to settle. A sticky
organic film on the surface of the media in the pores retains the suspended solids by mass-
particle attractions through the Vander Waals’ forces and electrostatic forces between charged
particles (Wegelin, 1996).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-156
 Figure 5-99: Mechanism of roughening filter

The main process is sedimentation, with horizontal flow and gravitational downward drift,
causing particles of silt to collect on the upper surface of the media. As the heaps of particles
accumulate, they slip down and drift towards the filter bottom, and over a period of times
filter fills from the bottom to top with separated solids.

The fine solid particles flowing through the filter are touching the gravel surface after a few
millimeters of settling distance, compared to fine solids with low settling velocities in
sedimentation basin. Thus, roughing filtration is a more effective process for solids removal
than plain sedimentation since the settling distance is drastically reduced by the filter material.

5.13.3. Features of Roughing Filter

The filter box comprises 2 to 4 compartments filled with gravel media of different sizes,
coarsest in the first compartment where the bulk of solids will be retained, to finest in the last
compartment which acts as polisher, removing the last traces of solids. Roughing filters are
operated at small hydraulic loads - filtration velocity is usually in the order of 0.3-1.5 m/h.

The raw water enters via an inlet channel across the filter width and falls over a weir into an
inlet chamber, which allows for settlement of coarse solids and separation of floating material.
Water passes into the first and subsequent filter compartments through openings in the
separation walls. Treated water is collected in an outlet chamber and discharged over a weir
(for flow measurement) to an outlet channel and then to the SSF.

The length of the filter box depends on raw water quality, hydraulic loading and size of
media. Height should be limited to about 1.5 m to allow for easy removal of media for manual
cleaning. The width depends on the required filter capacity. A minimum number of units
depend on the required filter capacity. A minimum of 2 HRF units should be provided, to
allow for one being out of service for cleaning, and an adjacent area for gravel cleaning
should be provided. A layout of typical horizontal, up flow and down flow roughing filters is
shown in Figure 5-99.

5.13.4. Vertical-flow Roughing Filters

Vertical flow roughing filters operate either as down flow or up flow filters. They are hence
either supplied by inflowing water at the filter top or at the filter bottom. The vertical flow

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-157
roughing filters incorporates a simple self-cleaning mechanism and occupies minimal floor
space when compared to horizontal flow roughing filters.
The filter material of vertical-flow roughing filters is completely submerged. A water volume
of about 10 cm depth usually covers the gravel and other local available materials like
coconut fibre and broken burnt bricks. The top should be covered by a layer of coarse stones
to shade the water and thus prevent algal growth often experienced in pretreated water
exposed to the sun. Drainage facilities, consisting in perforated pipes or a false filter bottom
system, are installed on the floor of the filter boxes. Finally, pipes or special inlet and outlet
compartments are required to convey the water through the subsequent 3 filter units and they
are shown in Figure 5-100.

Vertical-flow roughing filters are usually operated at 0.3 to 1.0 m/h filtration rates. Vertical-
flow roughing filters may be sensitive to hydraulic fluctuations, especially if loaded with large
amounts of solids. Settled matter might be resuspended at increased filtration rates, causing
solids to break through the filter. Filter operation at constant flow rates is, therefore,
recommended. Raw water containing colloidal matter and a high suspension stability should
be treated at low filtration rates and preferably with fine filter material. Filter resistance is
usually less than 20 cm per filter unit and, hence, not a decisive operational criteria for
properly designed and operated roughing filters.

Due to structural constraints, vertical-flow roughing filters have a relatively small filter depth
of about 1 m. Total filter depth of the three filter units used in series is thus 3 m. This total
available filter depth limits vertical-flow roughing filter application. It can generally and
efficiently handle moderate raw water turbidity of 50 to 150 NTU. Raw water pre-treatment
by intake filters, reduction of filtration rate or provision of additional filter boxes would be
required to treat raw water of higher turbidity.

Figure 5-100: Diagram of up flow and down flow roughing filters.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-158
In vertical roughing filters in layers, where all three gravel fractions are installed in one filter
box with a total filter distance of about 1 m, low turbidity raw water can be pretreated.
However, due to cleaning aspects this filter design can only be used for upflow operated
roughing filters. In such filters, the coarse filter material is placed at the bottom and the finest
material at the top of the filter. The separated solids, which accumulate mainly in the coarse
filter fraction next to the filter bottom, can be easily flushed out with the water stored in the
filter. Therefore, the use of upflow roughing filters in layers is recommended. Down flow
roughing filters in layers face considerable problems with hydraulic filter cleaning. The bulk
of solids accumulated in the coarse filter material on top of such filters would have to be
flushed through the finer rather clean filter material and would thus soil the entire filter bed.

Adequate and efficient washwater collection is important for reliable roughing filter
operation. Perforated pipes or a false filter bottom can be installed in vertical-flow roughing
filters. Perforated pipes, which should be laid in a coarse gravel pack to support an even
washwater abstraction, would require the installation of additional filter material in vertical-
flow roughing filters. Preference is given to false filter bottoms as they allow an even
washwater abstraction and do not require additional gravel layers. Although special perforated
concrete slabs will be necessary, they may be readily produced locally.

5.13.4.1. A comparison of downflow with upflow roughing filters

Direction of flow and sedimentation are obviously the first differences which might interfere
or support solids settling on the filter material. Solid removal efficiency should consequently
vary in the two filter types. Theoretically, downflow filters should have a better performance
than upflow filters as the solid particles are more likely to settle on top of the gravel surface in
the direction of flow than under countercurrent conditions. However, practical field
experience has shown a similar efficiency for both filters. In dead filter zones, where the
water flow is reduced to a minimum, solids settle regardless whether the roughing filter is
operated in upflow or downflow direction. Hence, filter efficiency is similar in both filter
types.

The accumulation pattern of retained solids is another difference between downflow and
upflow filters. The bulk of the solids is deposited at the inlet of the filter; i.e., for downflow
filters in the upper part of the filter, and for upflow filters in the filter medium located next to
the filter bottom. This, however, has a tremendous impact on hydraulic filter cleaning. In
downflow roughing filters, the bulk of accumulated solids have to be flushed with a relatively
small washwater volume from the soiled filter top through the lower and cleaner filter part to
the filter bottom. The opposite is true for upflow roughing filters. The bulk of retained solids
is accumulated next to the drainage system and a relatively large washwater volume,
accommodated in the upper filter part, is available to flush the solids out of the filter. Owing
to the important filter cleaning aspect, use of upflow roughing filters rather than downflow
filters is recommended.

5.13.5. Horizontal-flow Roughing Filters

Unlimited filter length and simple layout are the main advantages of horizontal-flow roughing
filters. Generally, the shallow structure does not create structural problems, and the filter
length is not limited to a few metres. Furthermore, its simple layout does not require
additional hydraulic structures and installations as in vertical-flow roughing filters. The raw
water runs in horizontal direction from the inlet compartment, through a series of differently
graded filter material separated by perforated walls, to the filter outlet as illustrated in Figure
5-100. Filter material also ranges between 20 and 4 mm in size, and is usually distributed as
coarse, medium and fine fraction in three subsequent filter compartments. The water level is

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-159
kept below the surface of the filter material by a weir or an effluent pipe placed at the filter
outlet to prevent algal growth in the filter.

Filtration rate in horizontal-flow roughing filters ranges between 0.3 and 1.5 m/h. It has been
defined here as hydraulic load (m³/h) per unit of vertical cross section area (m²) of the filter.
Filter length is dependent on raw water turbidity and usually lies within 5 to 7 m. Due to the
comparatively long filter length, horizontal-flow roughing filters can handle short turbidity
peaks of 500 to 1,000 NTU.

Figure 5-101: Diagram of Horizontal Flow Roughing Filter

Drainage facilities, such as perforated pipes, troughs or culverts, allow hydraulic filter bed
cleaning. These drainage systems are placed at the filter bottom perpendicular to the direction
of flow. Drainage facilities in flow direction must be avoided as they could create short-
circuits during normal filter operation. Hence, false filter bottom systems cannot be installed
in horizontal-flow roughing filters. Since most of the solids accumulate at the inlet of each
filter medium, drainage facilities should be placed at the inlet of each filter compartment to
enhance hydraulic cleaning efficiency. Installation of troughs complicates construction of the
filter box floor. Furthermore, since the horizontal distance Ld between the troughs is usually
large, an even abstraction of the sludge is correspondingly difficult. Therefore, use of
perforated pipes is the best drainage system for horizontal-flow roughing filters, as it allows
easy installation of a dispersed system. Although prefabricated culverts may allow a more
even solids removal, connection to the washwater effluent pipes is more complicated.

Horizontal-flow roughing filters have a large silt storage capacity. Solids settle on top of the
filter medium surface and grow to small heaps of loose aggregates with progressive filtration
time. Part of the small heaps will drift towards the filter bottom as soon as they become
unstable. This drift regenerates filter efficiency at the top, and slowly silts the filter from
bottom to top. Horizontal-flow roughing filters also react less sensitively to filtration rate
changes, as clusters of re-suspended solids will drift towards the filter bottom or be retained
by the subsequent filter layers. Horizontal-flow roughing filters are thus less susceptible than
vertical-flow filters to solid breakthroughs caused by flow rate changes. However, they may
react more sensitively to short circuits induced by a variable raw wafer temperature.

Periodic cleaning is also essential for horizontal-flow roughing filters. Hydraulic cleaning is
carried out by fast drainage of the water stored in the filter. During filter drainage, the small
unstable heaps of accumulated solids collapse and are flushed towards the filter bottom. The
solid matter stored in the filter material is washed out of the filter box through the drainage
system. Drainage velocities of 60 to 90 m/h are necessary to achieve a good hydraulic
cleaning efficiency. Drainage pipes of adequate size are required to achieve the recommended
velocity, which drains the filter within 1 to 2 minutes. Depending on the solids concentration
in the raw water, regular hydraulic filter cleaning, at intervals of every few weeks, is required

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-160
 to avoid deterioration of filter efficiency and development of excessive filter resistance.
However, filter resistance will not exceed 20 cm if normal filter operation and regular
cleaning are observed. Frequent and efficient filter drainages will also defer the need for
manual filter cleaning, which nonetheless becomes unavoidable after some years of filter
operation.
5.13.6. Design of Roughing Filter
Input requirements
 characteristics of the raw water quality in the dry and rainy seasons
 Turbidity
 Suspended solids or filterability
 E – Coli
 Daily water demand (present & future)
 Raw water intake site location, elevation, high /low flows and water levels
 Treatment plant site, elevation, foundation conditions
 Hours of operation of intake, HRF, SSF and distribution
 Availability of raw materials – gravel, sand, rock
 Requirements for pre-sedimentation with or without combined raw balancing basin
Design criteria:
Filtration rate (m/h) based on cross sectional area of filter);
Filter box: - length 9-12 m
- height 1-1.5 m
- width 2-5 m per unit
Length of compartments (see Table 5-41)
Media size: - Coarsest 35-40 mm
- finest 4 mm
Required effluent quality for SSF: -Turbidity 10 NTU
-Suspended Solids 2-5 mg/L
Openings in compartment walls: : 10-20% of cross sectional area, evenly distributed.
A layout of typical HRF is shown in Figure 5-102.
Table 5-40: Different Sizes of Roughing Filter Media
Roughing filter First compartment Third compartment
Second compartment (mm)
Description (mm) (mm)
Coarse 24-16 18-12 12-8
Normal 18-12 12-8 8-4
Fine 12-8 8-4 4-2

Other criteria, such as expected efficiency of SS removal, length of filter runs, required
maximum head loss, etc. may be estimated by means of a monogram (Reference 33) if
necessary.
Table 5-41: Tentative Design Guidelines for HRF
Maximum suspended solids concentration in pre-settled 300 300- 100 100
water (mg/L) High medium Low
Filtration rate m/h 0.5 0.75 – 1 1-1.5
Filter length (m) for medium size (mm)
20mm 3-5 3* 3*
15mm 2-5 2-4 2-3
10mm 2-4 2-3 2
5mm 1-2 1-2 1
Maximum suspended solids concentration in HRF effluent 5 2-3 2

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-161
(mg/L)
*This gravel size can possibly be omitted.

To allow for head loss across the filter, which builds up as the length of filter run increases
and the filter loads up with silt ; the outlet weir level should be 30-40 cm below the top level
of filter material (see Figure 5-102).
Filter media may be an inert material such as:
 Gravel
 Broken stones / rocks, metal (coarse aggregate)
 Broken burnt bricks
 Burnt charcoal ; (prior testing at pilot plant level is necessary)
 Processed coconut fibre

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-162
 Figure 5-102: Arrangement of Horizontal Flow Roughening Filter

(a) Inlet & Outlet Structures of HRF

(b) Drainage System of HRF

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-163
(c) Mechanical Flow Rate Devices of HRF
Figure 5-103: Components of Roughing Filters
Typical inlet / outlet and drainage arrangements are shown in Figure 5-102 (a) and (b)
respectively. Adequate provision of drainage is necessary for filter regeneration (by rapid
drawdown at 60-90m/h) and for emptying for cleaning purposes. Discharge should be to an
open drain and arrangements for safe disposal should be provided to avoid erosion and scour.
Typical mechanical devices to ensure a constant overflow rate are shown in Figure 5-103 (c).
Floating effluent weir or orifice is fixed to ensure a constant outflow rate.

Owning to the fact that a HRF requires continuous operation, the HRF should also be
operated in continuous mode, although the physical nature of the process does not require it.
When a SSF is operated, say, for 8 hours overnight in declining rate mode (due, for example,
to raw water pumping for 16 h/day in 2 shifts) then the HRF is required to work
intermittently. Consideration should be given to providing raw water balancing storage to
allow 24-hour plant operation, and therefore smaller HRF and SSF units (Figure 5-103).

5.13.7. Operation & Maintenance of Roughing Filter

Each gravel compartment gradually becomes loaded with deposits, until filter efficiency is
exhausted, which, under ideal RF design should occur in each compartment at the same time.

Occasional lowering of the water table by drainage will increase efficiency and prolong filter
runs. During drainage, particle accumulations on the top of the filter media grains tend to
collapse and get flushed to the filter bottom. Rapid drainage, if possible, should also flush
some accumulated matter from the filter.

Drainage should start at the drain nearest the inlet side, to prevent the bulk of deposited
material being drawn into the finer media, thereby clogging it. When the wash water is still
turbid after drainage, the same drain should be operated again, after slow filling, until the
wash water is relatively clear. Then the next drain from the inlet should be operated, and so
on. It is important that refilling, after drainage, is slow so as to avoid stirring up settled
material.

An HRF should not be kept dry, unless the media is thoroughly cleaned. Filter runs may last 6
months or more, depending on the operating conditions and design, and when the efficiency
can no longer be restored by drainage, cleaning must be done. The media must be excavated,
washed, and returned to the filter box. This may be done by hand, using locally hired labour,
and a media cleaning area should be provided adjacent to the filter. A typical gravel cleaning

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-164
unit is shown in Figure 5-104. Equipment used in the construction stage, such as wheel-
barrows, shovels, etc., should be retained at the plant for media washing purposes during
operation.

Figure 5-104: Effect of Operation on Size of Filters

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-165
(a) Washing of Media

(b) Seiving of Media

Figure 5-105: Typical Gravel and Sieving Installation

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-166
5.13.8. Factors Affecting Roughing Filter Performance
The disadvantage of RF is low hydraulic load. The only way to provide sufficient treated
water to meet a high drinking water demand would be to build a larger RF unit (Boller, 1993).
The filtration rate (m/h) depends largely on the type of filter, the water characteristics, desired
turbidity reduction, variations in the filter media (porosity), each filter medium’s proportion.
The number of filter fractions and height and width of filter bed area (m 2) dictate filtration
and optimize the removal of suspended matter. The filter media size (mm) and type (gravel
and broken clay) is also an important consideration. The most influential factor for turbidity
removal efficiency in the raw water is particle sizes and distribution.
Filter efficiency depends on the concentration of suspended solids. The 1/3 and 2/3 Filter
theory explains how each layer removes about 1/3 of the particles letting the other 2/3 flow to
the next layer. This continues at each layer, because there is a greater concentration of
particles at the first layer, more particles are removed than in latter layers. Intermittent flow
operation can greatly decrease the particle removal efficiency because it is possible that the
biofilm around the coarse media might have dried and lost its sticky properties.
High sludge storage space can be advantageous in lengthening filter runs but becomes
problematic when the filter finally needs to be cleaned. Its buffering capacity to manage
fluctuating solid concentrations exists because the large pore spaces allow considerable
amounts of solids to be stored at very low head loss. Periodic drainage through perforated or
corrugated pipe may be able to improve the filter run time between cleanings and needs to be
further developed. Scraping of the top layer of biofilm on a weekly basis could also improve
the filter run time. Fully unpacking the media and cleaning is one of the biggest drawbacks of
the RF even when the media is readily accessible as in HRF.
5.13.8.1. Advantages of roughing filters over conventional methods
Conventional system is quite demanding in chemical use, energy input and mechanical parts
as well as skilled manpower that are often unavailable, especially in rural areas of developing
countries like Tanzania, Kenya and Sri Lanka. But roughing filters does not require chemical
use, energy input and mechanical parts. Conventional methods demand high operating costs.
5.13.8.2. Disadvantages of roughing filters over conventional methods
Colour removal is fair to poor and in some cases it requires a large area of land for effective
treatment. It can handle only relatively low strength sludge and organic loads compared to
conventional treatment methods such as coagulation and clarification processes.
5.13.9. Monitoring / Evaluation of Roughing Filter
Any new HRFs designed should be equipped with adequate flow measuring devices for each
filter and a comprehensive program to monitor / evaluated performance over the first year of
operation should be carried out. This should involve the following measurements:

Parameters Frequency
Ideal Minimum
Turbidity : Twice / day Once / day
Suspended solids : Twice/ month Once / month
Faecal Coliform : Twice / month Once / month

At the following sample collection points.

1. Inlet : Turbidity ; SS, FC, TC
2. Outlet (each filter) : Turbidity, FC, TC
3. Combined outlet : Turbidity, SS
4. SSF outlet : Turbidity, SS, FC, TC

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-167
Arrangements should be made to enable this sampling/ monitoring to be done by the plant
operator, OIC with assistance of Chemist. The installation of sampling point is shown in
Figure 5-106.

Permanent Installation Provisional Installation

Figure 5-106: Water Sampling Point in Roughing Filtration

5.14. Sludge Treatment

5.14.1. Introduction
Water treatment plants typically produce some type of waste stream. The quality and
characteristics of these waste streams are related to the main treatment process. Furthermore,
waste streams can impact the finished water quality of the treatment process itself. This is
especially true when the waste is stored internal to the process or recycled.

Instead of disposal, the first approach to end use is now beneficial utilization and solids
treatment. Systems are often geared to preparing a material that can be used. Minimization of
the liquid volumes of waste produced is also increasingly important. Water quality issues
associated with storing residuals in the process train or associated with recycling the water
back to the treatment plant have become important in planning a waste management system.
Process flow diagram for sludge management in water treatment plant is shown in Figure
5-118.

The National Environmental Act Number 47 of 1980 and amended Act Number 56 of 1988
and the latest amendment on 1st February 2008 specifies the requirements in compliance with
“Tolerance Limits for the Discharge of Industrial Waste Into Inland Surface Waters” for 31
parameters given in Table 5-42. The compliance for effluent from water treatment plant is of
no exception. The new standards dictate discharge criteria need to be achieved in order to
obtain or renewal of the Environmental Protection License for Emission or Disposal of
Wastewater, which will become mandatory for all water treatment plants in the near future.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-168
Table 5-42: Tolerance limits for the Discharges of Industrial waste in to Inland surface
waters
No Parameter Unit type of limits Tolerance limit values
01 Total suspended solids mg/L,max 50
02 Particle size of the total suspended µm, less than 850
solids
03 pH at ambient temperature - 6.0-8.5
04 Biochemical oxygen demand mg/L, max 30
(BOD in five days at 200c or BOD in
three days at 270c)
0
05 Temperature of discharge c, max Shall no exceed 400cin any
section of the stream within
15m downstream from the
effluent outlet
06 Oils and greases mg/L 10
07 Phenolic compounds (as C6H5OH) mg/L 1
08 Chemical oxygen demand (COD) mg/L 250
09 Colour Wave length range Maximum spectral
absorption coefficient
436nm(Yellow range) 7m -1
525nm(Red range) 5m -1
620nm(Blue range) 3m -1
10 Dissolved phosphate (as P) mg/L 5
11 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (as N) mg/L 150
12 Ammoniac Cal nitrogen (as N) mg/L 50
13 Cyanide (as CN) mg/L 0.2
14 Total residual chlorine mg/L 1.0
15 Flourides (as F) mg/L 2.0
16 Sulphide (as S) mg/L 2.0
17 Arsenic (as As) mg/L 0.2
18 Cadmium (as Cd) mg/L 0.1
19 Chromium , total (as Cr) mg/L 0.5
20 Chromium, hexavalent (as Cr 6+) mg/L 0.1
21 Copper (as Cu) mg/L 3.0
22 Iron (as Fe) mg/L 3.0
23 Lead (as Pb) mg/L 0.1
24 Mercury (as Hg) mg/L 0.0005
25 Nickle (as Ni) mg/L 3.0
26 Selenium (as Se) mg/L 0.05
27 Zinc (as Zn) mg/L 2.0
28 Pesticides mg/L 0.005
29 Detergents/surfactants mg/L 5
30 Fecal Coliform MPN/100 ml, max 40
31 Radio Active Material:
Alpha emitters Micro curie/ml, max 10-8
Beta emitters Micro curie/ml, max 10-7
Note1: All efforts should be made to remove unpleasant odour as far as possible
Note 2: These values are based on dilution of effluents by at least 8 volumes of clean receiving water. If the
dilution is below 8 times, the permissible limits are multiplied by the 1/8 of the actual dilution
Note 3: The above mentioned general standards shall cease to apply with regard to a particular industry when
industry specifies standards are notified for the industry
Note 4: Pesticide as per world health organization (WHO) and food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)
requirements.

Accordingly, NWSDB Project Appraisal Committee (PAC) approved the sludge treatment Policy and
has granted a board approval on 21st June 2012 for “Sludge management policy for water treatment
plants and Circular was issued by General Manager, NWSDB on 19th December 2012 for
implementation.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-169
5.14.2. Unit operations and Processes
In general the residuals management processes includes sedimentation, thickening,
conditioning dewatering, drying and disposal. Often residuals from water treatment plants are
allowed to discharge into the sanitary sewers. Selection of any of these processes depends
greatly on such factors as space available at the site, type and quantity of sludge, local
weather condition, cost of raw chemicals and type of ultimate disposal available. A summary
of different residual management components commonly used in residual treatment train is
provided in Table 5-43.

Table 5-43: Unit operations and processes used for residual management
Unit Unit operation (UO)
Description and principal application
No and Unit Process(UP)
A Sedimentation and The objective is to remove excess water and to concentrate solids. the
Thickening (UO) liquid is usually recovered unless it contains taste and odours , algae and
other microorganisms
A1 Sludge lagoon (UO) Large open earthen or concrete basins 3 to 4 m depth of Thickening up
to solids 5 to 10 % solids can be achieved in one to three months with
continuous decanting
A2 Gravity (UO) Circular tanks designed and operated similar to solids – contact clarifier
or sedimentation basin. Chemical conditioning may increase the % of
solid content.
B Conditioning Sludge conditioning is done to aid in thickening and mechanical
dewatering. The objectives are to improve the physical properties of the
sludge, so that water will be released easily from solids. Conditioning is
generally used from alum- coagulated sludge
B1 Chemical (UP) Polymers are the most commonly used chemical for sludge conditioning.
Lime and inert granular materials like fly ash have also been used.
B2 Freezing (UO) Freezing destroys the gelatinous structures and thus improve thickening
and dewatering. This process is usually applied only where natural
freezing is possible.
B3 Heat Treatment (UO) Heating improves settling and dewatering. Because of energy cost, it is
an undesirable method of sludge conditioning.
C Dewatering(UO) The process produces relatively dry sludge for future treatment of
residuals.
C1 Drying bed(UO) This is a gravity dewatering system where conditioned sludge may be
applied without thickening. Sludge is applied on a filling and drying
cycle over filter beds or lagoons that have an under drain system. Water
is removed by filtration and decanting.
C2 Centrifuge(UO) Conditioned sludge is dewatered in a solid – bowl or basket centrifuge.
Both capital and operating costs are high
C3 Vacuum Filter (UO) Rotary drum vacuum filter with travelling media or precoat media filter
are used for dewatering. Sludge conditioning is generally needed.
C4 Filter Press(UO) Also known as plate and frame or leaf filter. It is an effective method of
sludge dewatering. It is a batch process and uses chemically conditioned
sludge.
C5 Belt Filter press(UO) Operates continuous. The sludge is squeezed between two belts as it
passes between various rollers. Sludge conditioning is necessary.
D Recovery Recovery of water, coagulants and magnesium bicarbonate is possible
from the sludge.
D1 Coagulants(UP) Recovery Aluminum and Iron can be accomplished by adding acid
(Sulfuric acid) to solubilize the metal ions from the sludge.
Accumulation of heavy metals, manganese, and other organic
compounds is possible.
D2 Lime(recalcination) (UP) Recovery of lime from calcium carbonate sludge is achieved by
recalcination. The dewatered sludge is dried and heated to about 1000
degrees C. CO2 is driven off, which may be used for recarbonation.
D3 Magnesium Magnesium recovery is possible from a sludge containing calcium
carbonate and magnesium hydroxide. Bubbling CO2 produces soluble

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-170
 magnesium bicarbonate, while calcium carbonate remain insoluble.
Unit Unit operation(UO)
Description and principal application
No and Unit Process(UP)
E Disposal Disposal of residuals may be disposed on land, in sanitary sewer, in
surface waters and by deep-well injection.
E1 Land Disposal Dewatered , semi liquid, and liquid residuals are disposed of by land
filling or land spreading governed by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976 [18] . Cost of transportation may be significant.
E2 Sanitary Sewer Directing discharge into sewer system is an attractive option if residuals
do not adversely affect the operation of the wastewater treatment plant.
E3 Surface water Central Environmental Authority (CEA) permit is required for disposal
of residuals into surface water in the form of Environmental Protection
Licence (EPL ). The permit requirement varies with the types of
residuals and with the type of surface water.
E4 Deep-well injection Brines from iron exchange and membrane processes may be injected into
deep wells. Such injection disposals are controlled by local
environmental regulations subject to geology and ground hydrology.

Considerable amount of wastewater is produced in water treatment plants due to backwashing

of rapid sand filters and release of accumulated sludge in clarifiers and DAF units. In water
treatment plants, the amount and the concentration of wastewater produced will depend on the
raw water quality, which may differ seasonally.

When the treatment capacity exceeded >4,500 m3/day (even for capacities less than 4,500
m3/day where there is scarcity of source water or extensive use of high energy for raw water
pumping), it is advantageous to reuse the backwash water in order to conserve energy and
source water. However, recycling of backwash water is not allowed in places where polymer
is used. Polymer addition is not encouraged to minimise the health effects to presence of
possible toxic monomers. In addition, backwash recycling will not be applied where raw
water contains blue green algae, protozoa such as cryptosporidium and Giardia Lamblia. The
additional energy consumed for pumping in backwash water recovery would be
comparatively less than the equivalent for that pumping of raw water. Therefore, backwash
water recovery may be economical in large water treatment plants.

5.14.2.1. Information Checklist for Design of Residual Management Facilities

The design engineers must develop the necessary data and make many important decisions
before starting the design of residual management system. The following checklist can be
helpful in developing the design.

 Identify the residual generating processes, normally these include sludge from
coagulation- flocculation and precipitation/ sedimentation processes and filter
backwashing in conventional water treatment plant
 Conduct material mass balance analysis to establish quality and concentrations of
solids reaching the residuals stream such information is necessary under critical flow
and water quality condition
 Evaluate various applicable methods for filter backwash recovery and sludge
thickening, dewatering and disposal. Select systems that provide the most cost
effective result and are satisfactory to the concerned utility and regulatory agencies

Selection of a process train for sludge thickening, conditioning, dewatering, disposal or

recovery is based on the size of the plant, construction cost ,equipment, available land and
plant location, and operational factors such as chemicals, power, labour and reliability. The
final selection of the most suitable treatment process train should be based on the merits and
liabilities of each process and on the cost –effectiveness of the process train as a whole. Many

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-171
factors must be considered in the final selection of the appropriate process train. These factors
are:
1. Land requirement
2. Operation under adverse climatic condition
3. Ability to handle flow variations
4. Process reliability
5. Ease of operation and maintenance
6. Prior requirements
7. Quality of supernatant and sludge

5.14.2.2. Treatability Studies

Because every water source is unique in terms of chemical makeup, it is often essential to
conduct treatability studies to develop design and operational parameters of the processes and
the overall process train. Such studies are especially important where new plants are
proposed. Therefore, the design engineers must fully understand the general approach and
methodology of:
 Laboratory tests for assessing the treatability of the water to the desired level
 The procedure of laboratory and pilot- plant studies
 The translation of experimental data into design and operational parameters
The laboratory studies include batch and/ or continuous – flow reactor studies. The classic jar
test is almost essential to determine proper chemical dosage and physical conditions for
coagulation.

Pilot plant is becoming a valuable tool for treatable studies to develop design parameters, to
test new chemicals, to optimize dosage and to evaluate processes to improve plant
performance and reduce costs. There are a number of other cases where pilot studies may be
needed. For example, a state- approved agency might, as a matter of policy requires a pilot
study for innovative treatment processes. Another example would be a situation wherein a
process cannot be modelled sufficient to lead to design criteria, such as taste and odour
episode. In general, pilot plant studies in water works engineering are carried out for the
following purposes.

 Test new processes

 Simulate a process
 Predict process performance
 Document process performance
 Optimize system design
 Optimize system operation (Chemical dosages, reaction periods, etc.)
 Satisfy regulatory requirements
 Satisfy legal requirements

It is believed that pilot studies at municipal water treatment plants are valuable in developing
designs and process train that can improve performance of new and existing plants and reduce
operating costs.

5.14.3. Sources and Characteristics of Residuals

The quantity and type of chemical depends on the quantity and quality of raw water. The
major sources of residuals from conventional water treatment plants are Alum or iron
coagulant sludge, softening process sludge and filter back wash sludge. To a lesser extent, the
residuals generating processes are precipitation of iron and manganese, use of coagulant aids
and powdered activated carbon, disposal of diatomaceous earth filter wash water, and disposal

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-172
of spent brines. On the whole these wastes are stable or non-putrescible, and are, therefore,
collected or discharged intermittently rather than continuously.
The characteristic of the residual streams generated in various treatment processes are
primarily a function of treatment process, added chemicals and quality of raw water. An
understanding of the quantity of sludge, solid content and the nature of solids is essential to
select and design the processing equipment properly. Typical constant for estimating sludge
production is shown in Table 5-44.
Table 5-44: Typical Constants for Estimating Sludge Production
Source Sludge Quantity Constant
Turbidity Removal 0.5 to 2 mg TSS/L , per NTU removed
Coagulation
Aluminum Sulphate (Alum) Al2(SO4)3.14 H2O 0.26 kg per kg of Coagulant b
Ferric Sulphate Fe2(SO4)3 0.54 kg per kg of Coagulant c
Ferrous Sulphate FeSO4.7 H2O 0.39 kg per kg of Coagulant d
Ferric Chloride, FeCl3 0.66 kg per kg of Coagulant e
Polymer 1 kg per kg of Coagulant
Powder activated carbon 1 kg per kg of Coagulant
Softening
Calcium 2.5 kg per kg of Calcium (as Ca) removed
Magnesium 2.4 kg per kg of Magnesium (as Mg) removed

This value is very site specific. But 1 is a common occurrence

a- Al2(SO4)3.14H2O+ 3Ca(HCO3)2 ←→ 2Al(OH)3↓+ 3Ca(SO4) ↓ + 6CO2+ 14H2O
b- Fe2(SO4)3+ 3Ca(HCO3)2 ←→ 2Fe(OH)3 ↓ + 3Ca(SO4) + 6CO2
c- 2FeSO4. 7 H2O + 2Ca(HCO3)2 + O2 ←→ 2Fe(OH) + 2CaSO4 ↓+ 4CO2 +6H2O
d- 2FeCl3+ 3Ca(HCO3)2 ←→ 2Fe(OH)3 ↓+ 3CaCl2 + 6CO2
5.14.3.1. Alum or Iron Coagulation Sludge
Aluminium and iron salts are the principal chemicals used for removal of colloidal particles.
Many plants utilize lime in conjunction with alum or iron to achieve partial softening and to
improve coagulation. Polymers are also used as coagulant and/or filter aids to improve
removal of colloidal particles in coagulation and filtration processes. Often, powder activated
carbon is also used for control of taste and odour. In each case, the characteristics of the
sludge will differ, and such conditions should be considered in estimation of quantity and
quality.
5.14.3.2. Physical and Chemical Quality
Coagulation sludge is produced by flocculating and settling of turbidity. Aluminium and iron
salts react with alkalinity and form precipitates of Aluminium and ferric hydroxides. The
sludge contains these hydroxide precipitates and turbidity causing organic and inorganic
compounds. Although the BOD and COD values may be high the sludge is stable, because
there is no organic matter to undergo active decomposition or promote an anaerobic
condition.(BOD should be below 5mg/l to satisfy the requirement of SLS 722 in raw water
extracted for drinking purpose.) As a result, the sludge is often allowed to accumulate in
sedimentation basin for days and months and then removed intermittently. Basic physical and
chemical properties of coagulation sludge are listed below. Numerical values are summarized
in Table 5-45.

 The solids concentration, thickening, density and dewaterability of the sludge

produced are highly dependent upon the raw water quality and seasonal variations

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-173
  High turbid waters usually results in sludge that are more concentrated and less
difficult to dewater; low – turbidity water present a more difficult sludge for
processing.
 Coagulation sludge from water containing high algae concentration will result in
sludge of light weight and low solids concentration.
 Sludge with high proportions of metal hydroxides is not easily dewatered as sludge
that has high proportions of other materials. This is because metal hydroxide has water
molecules in their structures that separate the floc and other particles. Thus, direct
contact of particles is more difficult, unless large amount of lime and optimum
polymer dosage are used to improve the bond between the particles.
 In general, settled iron sludge has a higher solids concentration than alum sludge.
 The addition of polymer, lime, or PAC increases the solids concentration of both alum
and iron sludge.
 Alum sludge is a voluminous gelatinous sludge with poor compressibility. It will
generally concentrate 0.5 to 2 % solids in the sedimentation basin. It can achieve 10 %
concentration in 2 days in sand beds.
 Solid concentration in a sedimentation basin depends on the design and operation of
the facility. Typical underflow concentration may vary from 0.1 to 1 % solids. If
however, the sludge is allowed to accumulate for a month or longer, the sludge may
thicken up to 4 to 6% solids.
 The Density of sludge depends upon moisture content. Sludge with 1 % solids has
almost the same density as water. The density of dry sludge is 1200 to 1520 kg/m 3.
The specific gravity of sludge solid is 1.5 to 2.5
 Sludge viscosity and shear strength increases as solids concentration increases. Below
solids concentration of about 2 %, the specific resistance of sludge increases as solids
concentration decreases. Above 2 % solids concentration, the specific resistance
remains almost constant.
 The volatile fraction of the suspended solids does not reflect the organic fraction,
because much of the loss on ignition is probably due to bound water in hydrated
oxides.
 Ferric oxides are insoluble over a wider PH range than are aluminium oxides, so the
PH of the water in contact with hydrated iron oxide may be found to vary over a wide
range.

Table 5-45: physical and chemical characteristics of Alum and Iron Coagulated Sludge
Characteristics Alum Sludge Iron Sludge
Physical
Quantity, kg/1000m3 8-210 , Typical 48 80
lb/million gal 67-1750, Typical 400 668
Specific resistance s2/g 1.05-5.4 x 1010 1X 108
Viscosity g/cm/sec 0.03 (non – Newtonian) 0.03
Initial Settling velocity cm/sec 0.06-0.15 -
Dry Density kg/m3 1200-1520 1200-1800
Dewater ability 10% concentration in 2days on sand beds) -
Chemical
BOD mg/L 30-300 30-300
COD mg/L 30-5000 30-5000
pH 6.0-8.0 7.4-8.5
Total Solids. % 0.1-4 0.25-3.5
Solids Characteristics
Al2O3.5H2O% 15-40 -
Fe % - 4.6-20.6
Silicate and inert material, % 35-70 -
Organics % 15-25 -

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-174
Volatiles % - 5.1-14.1

5.14.3.3. Quantity
The quantity of solids produced in coagulation is dependent upon total suspended solids in the
water on type and dose of coagulant, and on the settling efficiency of the sedimentation basin.
Generally 60-90 % of total solids are removed in the sedimentation basin. The remaining
solids are removed in the filters. There is no absolute correlation between the turbidity units
(TU) and total suspended solids (TSS). A ratio of TSS to TU normally varies from 05 to 2.0.
It has been reported that total solids from an alum coagulation facility may vary from 8 to
210kg/per 1000m3 of raw water treated.
5.14.3.4. Chemical Reaction
Aluminium Sulphate [Al2(SO4)3] is the most commonly used coagulant in Sri Lanka for water
treatment. The commercial product strength ranges from 15 % to 22% as Al2O3. The material
shipped and fed in dry granular form, although it is available as powder or liquid form.

Aluminium sulphate reacts with natural alkalinity in water to form Aluminium Hydroxide
floc.
Al2(SO4)3.14H2O+ 3Ca(HCO3)2 ←→ 2Al(OH)3+ 3Ca(SO4) ↓ + 6CO2+ 14H2O

594+ 3 x 100 2 x 78 3 x 136 6 x 44 14 x 18

As per the typical value in practice for sludge production, 1 Kg of Aluminium sulphate
produces 0.26 kg sludge. (Refer Table 5-45)

Ferric Sulphate is also a principal coagulant used in water treatment. However, It is not
commonly used in Sri Lanka. Ferric sulphate reacts with natural alkalinity, but the response is
much slower than that between alum and natural alkalinity. Ferrous ions are precipitated as
ferric hydroxide.

Fe2(SO4)3+ 3Ca(HCO3)2 ←→ 3Fe(OH)3 ↓ + 3Ca(SO4) + 6CO2

The dosing operations with two chemicals (ferrous sulphate and lime) are more difficult. If
excess lime is used the water may require further treatment for stabilization.

As per the typical value in practice for sludge production, 1 Kg of Ferric sulphate produces
0.54 kg sludge (Refer Table 5-45). Ferric is highly corrosive and strains the flow during
spillages. Therefore, special floor protections should be provided.

5.14.3.5. Sludge volume calculation- Method 01

On a theoretical basis, the dry mass of sludge produced from the addition of alum may be
estimated from the reaction chemistry described by the following Equation, which is
reproduced here:

Al2(SO4)3.14H2O + 6 HCO3- 2 Al(OH)3.3H2O(s) + 6 CO2 + 18 H2O + 3 SO42-

With a gram molecular weight of 594 for Al2 (SO4)3 · 14H2 O, the addition of 1 mg/L of alum
is equivalent to
1 mg/L
=
(594 g/mole) (1 000 mg/g)
=1.684 X10-6 moles/L
Noting that 1 mole/L of alum yields 2 moles/L of the aluminium precipitate and that the gram
molecular weight of the precipitate is 132.05 g/mole, then the mass of dry solids is
2(1.684X10-6 moles/L)(132.05 g/mole)=4.446X10-4 g/L or 0.44 mg/L
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-175
Thus, on a theoretical basis, each mg/L of alum yields 0.44 mg/L of sludge on a dry weight
basis. Suspended solids present in the water will produce an amount of sludge equal to the
weight mg/L of suspended solids. The amount of sludge produced per turbidity unit is not as
obvious; however, in many waters a correlation does exist. Carbon, polymers, and clay will
produce about 1 kg of sludge per kg of chemical addition. The sludge production for alum
coagulation may then be approximated by (Davis and Cornwell, 2008):

Ms =86.4 Q(0.44A+SS+M)

Where
M s - Mass of dry sludge produced, kg/d
Q - Plant flow, m3/s
A - Alum dose, mg/L
SS - Suspended solids in raw water, mg/L
M - Miscellaneous chemical additions such as clay, polymer, and carbon, mg/L

The effect of polyaluminum chloride (PACl) doses on solids production is not as straight
forward as alum and iron calculations because there is no uniform strength measurement. A
typical liquid PACl contains about 30 to 35% PACl and about 10 percent Al2O3 .A very rough
estimate of the dry solids production is about 0.8 mg for each mg of PACl added expressed as
PACl.

Solids concentrations from horizontal flow settling basins using continuous collection
equipment for alum and iron sludge resulting from coagulation of low- to moderate-turbidity
raw water will be in the range of 0.5 to 2 percent . It is often less than 1 percent . Coagulant
sludge from highly turbid water may be in the 2 to 4 percent range (Cornwell, 1999). Twenty
to 40 percent of the solids are organic constituents; the remainders are inorganic constituents
or silts. The specific gravity of alum-coagulated solids is typically in the range of 1.2 to 1.5.
The range of specific gravity for iron coagulated sludge solids is 1.2 to 1.8 (MWH, 2005).
The sludge flow rate is often in the range of 0.3 to 1 percent of the treatment plant flow.

5.14.3.6. Sludge volume calculation- Method 02

The residual from the sedimentation basin consists of the solids carried by the raw water and
the precipitates formed by addition of chemicals. The quantity of sludge is therefore estimated
by considering

1. The suspended solids and other constitutes such as Fe, Mn in raw water
2. The amount of metal hydroxide
3. The calcium carbonate produced
4. The amount of polymer added
5. The powder activated carbon added

The sludge quantity is calculated from the optimum chemical dosage and constituents
removed under both the maximum day and average day design flow condition.
a) Summary of chemical dosages and raw water constituents producing sludge solids.
The following design parameters are adapted to calculate the residuals quantity from
sedimentation process.

Maximum daily flow 5000 m3/day

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-176
 Maximum turbidity 17 NTU
Maximum seasonal iron concentration 0.7 mg/L
Maximum seasonal Mn concentration 0.4 mg/L
Optimum Coagulant (Alum) 25 mg/L
Optimum Coagulant aid (Cationic polymer) 0.05 mg/L
Hydrated lime for pH adjustment 15 mg/L
Seasonal Potassium permanganate (KMnO4) dosage 4 mg/L
Seasonal Powder Activated Carbon (PAC) dosage 5 mg/L

Table 5-46: Chemical symbol, Atomic Number, Atomic weight, and valance
Element Symbol Atomic number Atomic weight Valance
Aluminum Al 13 26.9815 3
Calcium Ca 20 40.08 2
Carbon C 6 12.01115 4
Chlorine Cl 17 35.453 1,3,5,7
Hydrogen H 1 1.00797 1
Iron Fe 26 55.847 2,3
Magnesium Mg 12 24.312 2
Manganese Mn 25 54.938 2,3,4,6,7
Nitrogen N 7 14.0067 3,5
Oxygen O 8 15.9994 2
Phosphorous P 15 30.9738 3,5
Potassium K 19 39.102 1
Sulphur S 16 32.064 2,4,6

b) Production of solids under maximum daily flow conditions

i. Calculate the solids from raw water (assuming a ratio of 1.0 mg-TSS/L/NTU)
Q raw solids ,max = 17NTU x 1.0 mg-TSS/L/NTU x10-6kg/mg x 103L/m3 x 5000
m3/day
= 85 kg/day

ii Calculate the solid precipitation due to iron content

Q iron,Max
106.9 g/mole Fe(OH)3 X 0.7 mg − Fe X 10−6 kg/mg X103 L/𝑚3 X5000𝑚3 /d
=
55.9 g/mole Fe
𝑄 𝑖𝑟𝑜𝑛,𝑀𝑎𝑥 = 6.69 kg/d

iii Calculate the solid precipitation due to Mn content

Q manganese,Max
87.9 g/mole MnOOH X 0.4 mg − Mn X 10−6 kg/mg X103 L/𝑚3 X5000𝑚3 /d
=
54.9 g/mole Mn
Q manganese,Max = 3.2 kg/d

iv Calculate the solid due to precipitation of Aluminium sulphate

Al2(SO4)3.14H2O +3Ca(HCO3) 2 Al(OH)3 +3CaSO4+ 6 CO2 + 14 H2O
Accordingly Aluminium sulphate - 0.26 kg/kg alum added – table 5.41
Q coagulant, Max = 0.26 kg Al(OH)3/kg Alum x25 g/m3 Alum x 10-3 kg/g x 5000 m3/d
= 32.5 kg/d

v Calculate the solid due to polymer

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-177
 Q Polymer, Max = 0.05 mg-polymer/L x 10-6 kg/mg x 103 L/m3 x 5000 m3/d
= 0.25 kg/d

vi Calculate the lime solid during pH Adjustment

(Assume 20% of Ca(OH)2 precipitates as CaCO3)
Q lime ,Max
g
0.2 X100 CaCO3 × 15 mgCa(OH)2 X 10−6 kg/mg X103 L/𝑚3 X5000𝑚3 /d
= mole
74 g/mole Ca(OH)2
Q lime ,Max= 20 kg/d

vii Calculate the solid due to permanganate

Q manganese,Max
g
87.9 MnOOH X 0.4 mg KMnO4 x 10−6 kg/mg X103 L/𝑚3 X5000𝑚3 /d
= mole
158 g/mole KMnO4
Q manganese,Max = 11.2 kg/d

viii Calculate the solid due to PAC

Q PAC, Max = 5 mg-PAC/L X 10-6 kg/mg X 103 L/m3 X 5000 m3/d
= 25 kg/d
Ix Total solid produced
= (85 + 6.69 + 3.2 + 32.5 + 0.25 + 20 + 11.2 + 25) kg/d
= 183.84 kg/d
Because of many uncertainties associated with raw water quality, chemical dosage,
and the amount of bound water, it is common practice to increase this value by 20-60
percent. By increasing this quantity by 40%, the total sludge solids and production is
adjusted to 257.0kg/d

c) Quantity of residuals removed under maximum day flow condition

It is assumed that 90% of the solid produced are removed from the sedimentation tank
Q Removed, max = 257 kg/d X 0.9 = 231.3 kg/d
d) Specific gravity of wet sludge
The specific gravity of wet sludge is calculated as follows
Mws / Sg,ws = Ms / Sg,s + Mw / Sg,w
Where
Mws - Mass of wet sludge, kg
Sg,ws - Specific gravity of wet sludge
Ms - Mass of dry sludge solid kg
Sg,s - Specific gravity of dry sludge solid , kg
Mw - Mass of water kg
Sg,w - Specific gravity of water
The solid content of coagulant residual is within the ranges of 0.1 - 4.0 percent by
weight (w/w). An average under flow solid concentration of 2 percent in sludge
withdrawal is expected from the sedimentation basin. Assume the specific gravity of
dry solids and water is 2.4 and 1.0 respectively. For one kg of wet sludge mass with 2
percent solid, the following results is expected for the above equation.
1 kg/ Sg,ws = 0.02 kg/2.4 + 0.98 kg/1.0
Solving the above Sg,ws = 1.012

e) Volume of sludge withdrawn under maximum day flow condition.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-178
 For the sludge with 2% solid and a specific gravity of 10.012 at the production rate of
231.3 kg/d, calculating the volume of wet residual per day-to-day
231.3 kg/d
V ws, max =
0.02 g/g X 1012 kg/m3
= 11.43 m3/d
The quantity of sludge produced
per 1000m3 of raw water treated =
231.3 kg⁄𝑑 × 1000 m3
5000 𝑚3
= 46.26 kg/1000 m3
It has been reported in the literature that total solid from an alum coagulation facility
may be 8-200 kg per 1000 m3 of raw water treated
5.14.3.7. Spent Filter Backwash Water
All water treatment plants that practice filtration produce a large volume of wash water
containing a low suspended solid concentration. The volume of backwash water is usually 2
to 3 percent of the treatment plant capacity. Spent filter backwash water (SFBW) will
typically contain 10 to 20 percent of the total solids production. It will have a suspended
solids concentration in the range of 30 to 400 mg/L depending on the applied turbidity and the
ratio of backwash water to production water volume (Cornwell, 1999; Peck and Russell,
2005). From limited data, solids production can range from less than 3 kg/1,000 m3 to more
than 16kg/1000 m3 of production water (Cornwell, 2006). The solids in backwash water
resemble those found in sedimentation units. Because filters can support biological growth,
the spent filter backwash water may contain a larger fraction of organic solids than the solids
from the sedimentation basins. SFBW will contain substantial concentrations of
microorganisms. SFBW has been identified as a source of microorganisms that increases the
concentration of Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia in the recycle water. This may result in
an undesirable breakthrough of these organisms into the water supply.

Table 5-47: Physical and Chemical Quality of Filter backwash

Characteristics Value
Physical
Volume, % of treated water 1-5, average 2
Solids, % 0.01-0.1
Colour Varies widely; grey-brown-black
Odour None
Settlebility % of initial volume 80 in 2 to 24 hr. with polymer
Specific resistance s2/g 1.5 x 10 10
Viscosity g/cm-s 0.01
Dewaterability Must be coagulated and settled
Chemical
BOD mg/L 2-10
COD mg/L 28--160
pH 7.2-7.8
Solids %
Al2O3 25-50
SiO2 34-35
Carbon and Organics 15-22

5.14.3.8. Back Wash Recovery Tank

The tank, which collects backwashed water, is known as backwash recovery tank. This should
be capable to store back wash water from two filters simultaneously. General assumption is
that half of the filters in the plant will be washed in one day. Backwash recovery unit is
comprised with two compartments each having capacity at least capable to hold one filter
backwash simultaneously.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-179
Recovered washed water is contaminated with the sludge. Water collected from each filter
backwash cycle water is stored in one of the two compartments allowed to be settled for about
for 1 to 2 hr. After settled, clear water is directed to Backwash recirculation tank through a
suitable arrangement such as pontoon as shown here.

Sludge pumps have to be operated to transfer remaining sludge to sludge regulation tank once
clear water is transferred to sludge recirculation tank.

Floating Boom

Floating Boom

Backwash
water Inlet

Figure 5-107: Backwash Water Recovery Tank

5.14.3.9. Backwash Recirculation Tank

Supernatant of the Filter Backwash water is collected in to this recirculation tank. It is
assumed that the residual chemical compounds are very low in this water and most unlikely to
contain pathogenic organisms such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia Lamblia, which is
resistance to chlorine. This water is re-cycled along with raw water. Water in recirculation
tank is pumped to raw water inlet chamber. Backwash recirculation tank is designed to hold
and transfer half of the backwash water of total filter backwash cycles of the Day. Quantity of
water pumped to inlet chamber is to be designed with minimum variation to avoid sudden
increase in plant flow.

Figure 5-108: View of Back wash recovery Tanks and Backwash recirculation Tank and
Inside view (Biyagama WTP)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-180
5.14.3.10. Iron and Manganese Precipitates

The oxidation products that are formed in the removal of iron and manganese are principally
ferric hydroxide, ferric carbonate, and/or manganese dioxide. For each mg/L of iron or
manganese in solution, 1.5 to 2 mg/L of sludge is produced (Peck and Russel, 2005). Because
the iron and manganese concentrations found in natural water is typically low, the sludge
volumes are much less than coagulant and softening sludge volumes. The iron and manganese
oxides are captured on the filters, and the solids are found in the spent backwash water.

5.14.4. Design Considerations and Criteria

Methods for processing and disposing of residuals from a water treatment plant should be
investigated early in the planning phase. Sludge disposal may represent a substantial portion
of the investment and operating costs of providing treated water and may influence the source
water selection and the method of treatment. Following factors should be considered while
evaluating design of alternative processes:
 Sludge handling and transport
 Sludge dewatering techniques
 Sludge disposal
 Recovery and reuse of coagulants or lime
The primary three categories of residual treatment processes are thickening, dewatering, and
drying. These processes are typically delineated according to the ranges of solids
concentration of the cakes (dry sludge) produced as the end product of each process. The
minimum acceptable cake dryness for residuals will depend on the ultimate disposal site
requirements. Municipal landfills generally require that cake pass the paint filter test. At cake
solids less than 15% to 20%, the cake may not pass the paint filter test

Normal ranges of solid concentration of by various processes are shown in Table 5-48. The
processes generally achieve a higher percentage of solids content for lime sludge than for
metal hydroxide sludge. For example, a centrifuge may dewater metal hydroxide sludge to
15% while lime sludge is dewatered to 50%.

Table 5-48: Normal ranges of solid content by various residual treatment processes
Solids concentration
Process
alum or metal hydroxide sludge Lime sludge process
Thickening <- 8% < 25%
Dewatering 8% to 35% 25% to 60%
Drying > 35% > 60%

5.14.4.1. Thickening Processes

Thickening is typically the first step toward reducing the quantity of water treatment
residuals. The products of the process are a low solids return flow and a thickened solids by-
product flow. Return flow is generally returned to the water treatment processes, termed used
water recovery. The thickened solids flow is either further thickened or transported off-site for
disposal. Thickening has traditionally been used in water treatment plants in tandem with a
dewatering or drying step. The function of thickening is to reduce land area requirements or
mechanical needs of dewatering. There are three types of thickening:
 Gravity
 Flotation
 Mechanical

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-181
5.14.4.2. Dewatering Processes
Dewatering processes are typically separated into two groups, natural and mechanical. The
difference between thickening, dewatering, and drying processes at times can blur. Natural
dewatering processes, in particular, can receive concentrated waste flows directly from the
main treatment stream and process these flows to a solid concentration that corresponds to the
drying process.

Natural dewatering refers to those methods of sludge dewatering that remove moisture by
natural evaporation, gravity or induced drainage. These processes are less complex, are easier
to operate, and require less energy to operate than mechanical systems. However, they require
a large land area, the operation depends on climatic conditions and they are labour-intensive.
Natural dewatering typically uses the following mechanisms for the concentration of the
solids stream:
• Sedimentation
• Drainage, or percolation
• Evaporation
• Decanting
5.14.4.3. Drying
Drying of water treatment plant residuals has historically revolved on the issue of economics,
how to reduce disposal transportation costs through reducing solid volume. Drying to solids
concentrations greater than 35% is becoming a regulatory issue in many countries. Similar to
the dewatering process, the drying process may be carried out either through open-air means
or through mechanical devices. Solar drying or lagoon processes may be used for sludge
drying. Drying depends only on evaporation, so it may require years to achieve the desired
solid concentrations. Mechanical or thermal drying provides an alternative to open air-drying
in locations where space is limited or environmental concerns are prohibitive.

5.14.5. Sludge Thickening

Sludge thickening is defined as the removal of water from the sludge aimed at substantial
reduction of sludge volume. For example if sludge with 0.8% Dry Solids (DS) can be
thickened to 4% DS, a fivefold decrease in sludge volume is achieved. The objective of
thickening is to produce a sludge that is as thick as possible which can be pumped without
difficulty and a relatively solid free liquid supernatant.

5.14.5.1. Operation of a Gravity Thickener

A thickener operates pretty much like a settling tank. The feed enters from the middle, are
distributed radially, the settled sludge is collected from the underflow, the effluent exits over
the weirs. In a continuously operated thickener, there are different zones of concentration. The
topmost clear zone is free of solids and comprises the liquid that eventually escapes over the
weirs. One problem with this approach is the gas formation due to the anaerobic activity. The
gas formed will cause the flotation of the solids in the thickener. Chemicals like chlorine (Cl2)
need to be added to inhibit the biological activity. A well-operated thickener will have a solids
recovery of about 95%.

5.14.5.2. Design criteria

Thickener design should be based on data developed from bench scale or pilot testing. The
typical design parameters reported for gravity thickeners are summarized here
 Polymer or conditioning chemicals increase the solid settling rate significantly.
 Consideration should be given to annual and seasonal variations in sludge quality and
quantity.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-182
  Typical hydraulic loading for conditional sludge is 4 to 10 m3/m2 .d
 Solid loading for conditioned sludge 20 - 80 kg/m2.d
 A typical depth for a gravity thickener is 4.5 – 6.5 m and detention time might be from
8 – 24 hours
 Solids in lime softening sludge concentrate considerably better than solids in alum or
iron coagulated sludge. Alum or iron sludge can concentrate up to from 3-6 percent.
Lime softening sludge can concentrate up to 9 – 20 percent. Higher concentration
creates sludge removal problems in thickener.
5.14.5.3. Design based on Laboratory Data
First Approach: It is the best technique if the Laboratory data is available. Typical test is done
by using a 1000mL-graduated cylinder. Sludge is mixed homogenously and let to settle in the
cylinder. In seconds, an interface separating the solids and the clear water on top is formed
with a certain settling velocity. This velocity of the interface is measured with respect to time.
Interface height is plotted against time and the Zone Settling Velocity (ZSV) is calculated
from the initial slope of the graph.

The velocity with which solids settle out will depend on the concentration of solids (refer
Figure 5-109). Right after time zero, there are two interfaces moving towards each other. One
from the bottom up due to the building up layers of sludge from the bottom, the other
interface is moving down- from top to bottom; this is the blanket of settling sludge, settling
velocity v, at time t2, these will meet and settling will slow down. Then the settling will cease
over time and compaction begins. Figure 5-110 shows the illustration of interfaces during
settling test.

Heigh of interface

Batch settling flux: AUs (m2 m s-1 kg m-3 giving kgs-1)

A = Vessel area and s= Solid density, U=interface velocity
Time
Figure 5-109: Interface heights

Heigh of interface

Zone settling

Transition settling

Compression settling

t1 t2 Time

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-183
 Figure 5-110: Illustration of interfaces during settling test

5.14.5.4. Talmage and Fitch Procedure to find the Required Area

The Figure 5-111 and the procedure are given below to select the required area of the
thickener.
Height

Point 1

Hu
Time

Tu
Figure 5-111: Graph to select the required area according to Talmage and Fitch
procedure

Symbols
Co - Original sludge concentration
Cu - Thickener underflow sludge concentration
Ho - Original sludge height
H1 - Intercept on ordinate by tangent to the critical point
Hu - Height of thickened sludge at underflow concentration
Tu - Time of thickening

Procedure
1. Determine the slope of the Zone Settling Velocity (ZSV) (this is the settling velocity
for clarification)
2. Extend the tangents from the ZSV region and compression region and bisect the angle
formed to locate point 1
3. Draw a tangent to the curve at point 1
4. Known: Co, Ho, and select Cu, then make a mass balance Cu.Hu = Co.Ho, calculate Hu
from Co, Ho
5. Draw a horizontal line from Hu until it intersects with the tangent line and determine
tu. This is the time required to reach an underflow concentration
6. Determine the area required for thickening (At) = 1.5 Q /tu where Q = flow rate to the
tank 1.5 = scale-up factor
7. Determine the area required for clarification (Ac) = 2.0 Q / ZSV

Q - The effluent flow over the weir (same as above)

2.0 - Scale-up factor "whichever area is larger will govern the design and will be the
design
area."

Thickener Design
1. Characteristic of the solid reaching the gravity thickener
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-184
 The gravity thickener solid include sludge form the sedimentation basin and if any
from backwash recovery basin.
It is calculated that the 5000 m3/d plant produces
Total solid – 231.3 kg/d
Total volume – 11.43 m3/d
2. Gravity thickener design
a. Calculate the dimensions of the thickener
Based on the solid loading of 80 kg/m2. /d, the required area is as follows;
Total required area is
231.3 kg/d
80 kg/m2. d
= 3 m2 - This is too small
Diameter of the thickener
(4 X 3.0)0.5
=
3.14
= 1.1 m
b. Check the hydraulic loading
Hydraulic loading
=
11.43 m3 /d
3.3m22
= 3.81 m /m d
This nearly satisfies the minimum hydraulic loading of 4 m3/m2d. (Hydraulic
loading is 4 ~ 10 m3/m2/day, Qasim, 2007).

c. Calculate the depth of the thickener

The total side water depth of the gravity thickener is composed of three separate
items: the clear water zone, the settling zone, and thickening zone. Generally, in a
gravity thickener, a clear water zone of 1.0 m, and settling zone of 1.5 m and
thickening zone of 3.0 m are considered sufficient.
Total side water depth = 1.0+1.5+3.0 = 5.5 m
A free board of 0.6 m is also provided.

d. Compute the depth of central hopper

The bottom of the thicker is sloped at 20 cm/m
The depth of the hopper = 20 cm/100 cm X 1.1/2 = 0.11 m
Total water depth = 5.5+0.11 = 5.6 m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-185
 Figure 5-112: Sludge Thickener

The major advantage of sludge thickening is the cost saving in sludge handling processes. The
design and operation as well as the performance of several subsequent processes are
positively affected by a higher solid content of the input sludge. Stabilization as well as
dewatering processes is improved at higher sludge concentrations.

Gravity sludge thickening is the method commonly adopted. Slope of the bottom of the
gravity thickeners should be carefully selected in order to facilitate flow of thickened sludge
towards the centre/collection pit. Gravity thickeners are usually circular in shape and provided
with pickets or rakes to improve dewatering of sludge. A dry solids content of 2-2.5% can be
expected from gravity thickening.

Polymer dosing to enhance performance of thickening process can increase the dry solids
content at least to 4% and it will improve the efficiency of dewatering processes such as
sludge drying beds, or centrifuge which would follow thereafter. The centrate resulting from
dewatering should not be recycled back into the water treatment plant. Instead, it can be sent
back to the sludge regulation tank under gravity to undergo thickening process.

The thickener supernatant can be discharged to the environment if it complies with the CEA
regulations or else suitable pre-treatment should be provided. Progressive cavity pumps can
be used to transfer the thick slurry to an appropriate sludge dewatering process depending on
the hydraulic profile of the treatment plant.

5.14.6. Sludge Dewatering

The alternatives for sludge dewatering systems are described below. Guidance for selection of
an appropriate system is given in Table 5-49.

Table 5-49: Sludge Dewatering Systems Treatment

Sludge Cost Per
Dewatering Land Unit of
Advantages Disadvantages
Systems Requirement Treated
Treatment Water
Sludge Drying Low cost Lateral Clogging High Low
Beds Rain can impede the drying
process
Solar Sludge DS content of Capital Cost is slightly Considerably High
Drying Beds 80-85% possible increased due to UV Protected lower than
Polythene conventional
drying beds
Sludge Lagoons Low cost Rain can impede the drying Moderate Low
process
Filter Press DS content of High capital & O&M cost Low High
20-30% possible Polymer dosing is required
Sand and grit can damage the
belt
Centrifuge DS content of High capital & O&M cost Low High
15-20% possible Polymer dosing is required

5.14.7. Sludge Lagoons

Sludge lagoons are used for sludge storage, thickening and drying. Sludge dries with time by
decanting, evaporation and percolation. These lagoons operate on an “apply and dry” rotation
principal. Storage time is site specific and depends primarily upon prevailing climatic
condition (Temperature, Precipitation, Humidity and Wind) and soil condition. In dry areas,
sludge dries in a relatively short time, in temperate areas, sludge requires relatively longer
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-186
time and does not dewater well. In cold climate with longer periods of freezing, the drying
process is aided by natural freezing and thawing taking up to six months to one year for
evaporation and seepage. Sludge applied to 1m will shrink to about 15 cm depth when dried
to 50% moisture. The dried sludge can be then picked up by front-end loader for disposal or
can be caped for onsite disposal.

As a rule, where sludge can be lagooned to a depth of 3 m a land area of 1.2 -2.0 ha for 4000
m3/day capacity plant will be adequate. If the sludge is applied to a depth of 1 m, the berms
shall be built 1-1.5 m above the maximum sludge level when filled. The berms should be 3.0-
3.5 m wide to
1. Permit operation of drag line
2. Permit raising their top elevation
3. Facilitate driving of service vehicles
Sludge dried to 50% moisture is easy to handle and makes excellent material to burn.

Where sufficient land is available, lagooning may be a satisfactory and an economical sludge
drying and disposal method. In view of the cost of the land and the equipment and of the
operation and maintenance cost of a lagoon, a careful evaluation must be made for process
selection and design.

Lagoons may be the cheapest method of sludge dewatering but large land area is required
compared to mechanical dewatering techniques. However, compared to conventional sludge
drying beds, lagoons require considerably lesser land extent. Lagoons can be lined or unlined
or can be provided with under drain arrangement for better dewatering requirements.

Lagoons can be constructed as either permanent storage lagoons or dewatering lagoons.

Permanent storage lagoons are designed to act as a final disposal site. Some authors (for
example, Cornwell, 1999) consider a lagoon to be a dewatering lagoon only if it has a sand
undertrain bottom. Others (for example, Kawamura, 2000, and MWH, 2005) consider the
undertrain an optional feature. The difference in concept is critical in selection of the method
for determining the design dimensions. If an undertrain system is provided, then the design
methodology is the same as that used for a sand drying bed. This method is discussed in the
next section. In this discussion the term dewatering lagoon is used with the understanding that
an undertrain will not be provided.

5.14.7.1. Operation
Lagoons are generally operated in a cyclic fashion fill, settle, decant. This cycle is repeated
until the lagoon is full or the decant can no longer meet discharge limitations. The solids are
then removed for final disposal. The standing water is removed by decanting or pumping to
facilitate drying. To recover the water, the decant is often returned to the head end of the
plant. As noted for thickening, this may be a problem because it increases the concentration of
Cryptosporidium and Giardia.

Coagulant sludge can only be expected to reach 7 to 10 percent solids concentration in

dewatering lagoons. The remaining solids must be cleaned out wet. Evaporation to dryness is
generally not practical. Depending upon the depth of the wet solids, evaporation can take
years. The top layers will often form a crust, preventing evaporation of the bottom layers of
sludge.

Dewatering lagoons, which are generally earthen basins, have no size limitations but have
been designed with surface areas from 2,000 to 60,000 m2, and depths ranging from 2 to 10
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-187
m. typically; several lagoon cells are provided to allow for a drying period after the lagoon is
full. Dewatering lagoons should be equipped with inlet structures designed to dissipate the
velocity of the incoming sludge. This minimizes turbulence in the lagoons and helps prevent
carryover of solids in the decant. The lagoon outlet structure is designed to skim the settled
supernatant.

When land is readily available, lagoons may serve as both thickeners with continuous
decanting and drying beds. A common approach for coagulant sludge is to provide sufficient
volume for three months of filling and three months of dewatering. Provide stop log
arrangements at the outlet to decant the standing water permanently by the remaining logs.

Raw Sludge

Sludge settles
Water is Removed
(Decanting)

Dried Sludge

Figure 5-113: Sludge drying processes

5.14.7.2. Design criteria
Provide four sludge- drying lagoons for disposal. Each lagoon shall operate on an “apply and
dry” rotation principal. Storage time of lagoons shall be developed because of the specific site
conditions as dictated by the prevailing climatic condition.
Unlined earthen sludge lagoons are more effective in dealing with large volumes of sludge
from water treatment plants of higher capacity. However due consideration should be given to
the following during planning of the water treatment plant layout to locate sludge lagoons,

 Fluctuation of groundwater table and flood level (seasonal high groundwater table
should be sufficiently below the bottom of the lagoon preferable below 2.5 m)
 Underlying soil characteristics should be investigated to see its suitability, soil
percolation rate between 25 to 150 mm/hr being preferred
 Annual precipitation preferably to be below 3000 mm
 Access ramps to be provided for dumper/tractor/mini loader to collect dried sludge
from the lagoon and final disposal

5.14.7.3. Lagoon Design

The required area and depth of the lagoon are a function of the maximum daily flow of sludge
(m3/d) and the mass of solid to be dewatered. For conceptual design, the lagoon may be
considered as a series of layers:
 A solid holding layer
 A dewatering layer
 A liquid layer that is removed by decanting
The area of the lagoon is based on the area required for the dewatering layer. It is calculated
as

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-188
 𝑉
𝐴𝑠 =
𝑁 × 𝐷𝑖
Where As surface area of lagoon, m 2
V - Volume of sludge, m3 /y
N - Number of uses of the lagoon per year
Di - Initial depth of the dewatering layer, m
The preferred depth for filling is 1.2 m with a recommended maximum of 1.8 m (Kawamura,
2000). In locations with a wet climate, these depths should probably be lower.
Typical solid loading rates range from 40 to 80 kg dry solids/m 2 of surface area, with the
lower value being applied in wet regions and the higher value in dry regions. In the absence of
specific geometric design, a multiplier of 1.5 times the area (As) is used to account for berms
and access roads in estimates of the required land.
5.14.7.4. Design details of lagoons
a. Select dimensions of lagoon
The selected dimensions of the lagoon are as follows
Bottom Dimension 60m x 60m
Side slope (horizontal: vertical) 3: 1
Total water depth 2.55 m
Free board 0.6 m
Total Lagoon depth 3.05 m
b. Design the base construction
The base of the lagoon is constructed by filling a 0.3 m deep sand layer over the
bottom. Pervious tile drains are provided in the sand to convey percolated water with
in the plant property/ premises.
c. Design the decant system
Provide standpipes with multiple –
level ports to decant the
supernatant.
5.14.8. Sludge Drying Beds
Sludge drying beds are most
favoured when lands are available
in close proximity to the water
treatment works. Areas where
strong sunlight is available with
average annual rainfall lower than 2200mm are appropriate. Filtrate of the sludge drying beds
can be directed under gravity to sludge regulation tank for subsequent thickening and should
not be discharged to the environment. However, in areas having higher rainfall (average
annual rainfall between 3000 to 6000 mm) in order to achieve higher dry solid contents solar
sludge drying beds having a roof cover of UV protected polythene can be utilized. A typical
drying bed arrangement is shown below.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-189
 Figure 5-114: Sand Drying Bed

5.14.8.1 Sand Drying Bed Design Considerations

Current practice is to make drying bed cells rectangular with dimensions of 4 to 20 m by 15 to
60 m, with vertical sidewalls 1 to 1.5 m above the sand surface.

For mechanical sludge removal, the dimensions should be selected to accommodate the
removal equipment, that is, multiples of the loader bucket width. In a typical design, 0.3 to
0.46 m of sand is placed over 0.3 to 0.46 m of graded gravel or stone.

The sand is specified with an effective diameter that ranges from 2.0 to 3.0 mm and a
uniformity coefficient from 3.5to 5.0. Gravel is normally graded from 3 to 25 mm in effective
diameter.

Drying beds consists of perforated under drainpipes, gravel, and sand. The sludge is applied in
a depth ranging from 0.3 to 1.0 m. Greater sludge depth require longer drying times. Solid
concentrations of from 15 – 30 percent can be attained with alum sludge. The drying time
may vary from five to seven days depending on the climate. Field tests must be conducted to
develop design information. Solid loading rate can range from 100 to 300 kg of dry solids per
m2 per year. The estimated number of beds uses depends upon climate, solid concentration in
the sludge and sludge conditions applied. Multiple beds must be provided to allow
application, drainage and drying and sludge removal cycle. The bed is usually considered
dewatered when sludge can be removed by earth removing equipment.

Experience in water treatment plants in Sri Lanka reveals that sludge emanating from
dissolved air floatation technique, which contain considerable amount of algae retard the
drying process of the sludge drying beds. In such situations, it may be more appropriate to
adopt mechanical dewatering techniques such as centrifuge with polymer dosing. Such
process selection may have to be verified through research. User-friendly arrangement is to be
provided to collect dried sludge from sludge drying beds.

5.14.8.2 Operation
Sludge is dewatered on a sand drying bed by three mechanisms, drainage, decanting, and
evaporation. First, the water is drained from the sludge, into the sand, and out the underdrains.
This process may last a few days until the sand is clogged with fine particles or until all the
free water has drained away. Decanting can occur once a supernatant layer has formed.
Decanting for removal of rainwater can also be particularly important with sludge that does
not crack.

The water that does not drain or decant, must evaporate. Climate plays a significant role in the
feasibility of using this drying technique.

The time required for evaporating the water remaining after percolation and decanting is the
controlling factor in determining the bed size required. Therefore maximizing the removal of
water prior to evaporation will maximize the bed yield. The solid that remained after drainage

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-190
and decanting are referred to as drained solid. The value of drained solid concentration is
dependent on upon the initial solid concentration, the use of conditioning agent such as
polymer, the applied depth and the efficiency of the water removal system. A series of pilot
tests can be conducted to determine the combination of loading depth, initial concentration
and polymer use that maximize the drained solid concentration.

Drying bed options may be roughly described as follows:

 Conventional rectangular beds have sidewalls and a layer of sand on gravel with under
drain piping to carry away the liquid. They have been built either with or without
provisions for mechanical removal of the dried sludge, and with or without a roof or a
greenhouse-type covering.
 The capital cost of roofing over a sand drying bed of any appreciable size probably
precludes it from being built. The cost of labour is such that mechanical sludge removal
will, be more economical than manual removal.

Operational procedures common to all types of drying beds involve the following steps:
1. Pump sludge onto the drying bed surface.
2. Add chemical conditioners continuously by injection into the sludge as it is pumped
onto the bed. Anionic, cationic, and non-ionic polymer have all been used successfully
in individual application. However, a combination of polymers may give the best
dewatering characteristics.
3. Polymer doses fall in the range of 1 to 10 g/kg of sludge solids (MWH, 2005).
4. When the bed is filled to the desired level, allow the sludge to drain and dry to the
desired final solids concentration. This concentration can vary from 15 to 30 percent
for coagulant sludge and 50 to 70 percent for lime sludge.
5. Remove the dewatered sludge either mechanically or manually.
6. Repeat the cycle.

Periodically, sand that is inadvertently picked up when the dewatered sludge is removed must
be replaced. The filtrate from the sand drying beds can be recycled, treated, or discharged to a
watercourse depending on its quality.

Ideally, pilot testing is conducted prior to design of the sand drying bed. The pilot tests
provide data on the loading depth, initial solids concentration, and polymer use that
maximizes the drained solids concentration. Some example data are available in textbooks.
Although similar data for lime sludge are not available, typical loading depths of 0.3 to 1.2 m
have been reported (ASCE, 1990). From the data trends, it is apparent that there is a general
trend of diminishing return in drained solids concentration with increased loading. Laboratory
testing of the filtrate from the pilot tests provides data for the decision on the final disposition
of the filtrate and decant.

5.14.9. Belt Filter Press (BFP)

The belt filter press operates on the principle that bending a sludge cake contained between
two filter belts around a roll introduces shear and compressive forces in the cake, allowing
water to work its way to the surface and out of the cake, thereby reducing the cake moisture
content. The device employs double moving belts to continuously dewater sludge through one
or more stages of dewatering. Typically, the BFP includes the following stages of treatment:
1. A reactor/conditioner to remove free-draining water.
2. A low-pressure zone of belts with the top belt being solid and the bottom belt being a
sieve; here further water removal occurs, and a sludge mat having significant dimensional
stability is formed.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-191
3. A high-pressure zone of belts with a serpentine or sinusoidal configuration to add shear to
the pressure dewatering mechanisms.

Figure 5-115: Belt Filter Press (BFP)

Design Considerations
The design and selection of a belt filter press is often based on the “throughput” of the press.
Throughput is the rate at which residuals can be dewatered. The throughput can be either
hydraulically or solids limited. A belt press having a particular type and width of belt has a
maximum loading capacity for a given type of residual. The solid loading is considered the
most critical factor, and throughput is expressed in terms of solids loading, kg/meter of belt
width per hour. For coagulant sludge, the typical loading rate is about 150 kg/m・h, but
sludge thickened to 4 percent may be loaded at a rate of 400 to 570 kg/m・h (Cornwell,
2006).

Lime sludge up to 30 percent solids has been dewatered to 60 percent solids (MWH, 2005).
Typical belt widths are 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, and 3.0 m. Discharge from the press may be directly to a
truck. Other options include conveyors and hoppers or roll-off boxes.

The belt press has a relatively low energy requirement compared to other mechanical
dewatering devices. To achieve acceptable solids concentrations, the sludge fed to the BFP
must be conditioned. Polymers are often used for conditioning. In addition, belt wash water
must be provided. This wash water represents another disposal issue as it will be high in
suspended solids.

Operation
The process of a belt filter press involves three basic operational stages.
1. Chemical conditioning
2. Gravity draining of excess water
3. Compaction of pre-dewatered sludge

A continuous belt filter press applied to coagulation sludge result in cake solids from 15 – 20
percent. Typically 1-2 min is required for drainage of excess water. Polymer dosage ranges
from 0.5 to 1 percent of the solids. Filter yield is 0.8 – 4.0 kg/m2.h and filter belt speed is 0.2-
0.5 rpm. The solid capture efficiency is 90-99 percent.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-192
5.14.10. Plate and Frame Filter Press
The basic component of a filter press is a series of recessed vertical plates. Each plate is
covered with cloth to support and contain the sludge cake. The plates are mounted in a frame
consisting of two head supports connected by two horizontal parallel bars. Conditioned sludge
is pumped into the pressure filter and passes through feedholes in the filter plates along the
length of the filter and into the recessed chambers. As the sludge cake forms and builds up in
the chamber, the pressure gradually increases to a point where further sludge injection would
be counterproductive. At this time, the injection ceases. A variation of the standard plate and
frame filter press is the diaphragm filter press. The construction is similar to the standard
recessed chamber, but the drainage surfaces on the face of the plates are flexible membranes
or diaphragms. After the filtration, cycle is completed and the recessed chambers are filled
with solids, and before the press is opened, air or water pressure is applied behind the
diaphragms causing them to flex outward to exert additional pressure on the filter cake. This
squeezes the cake and further reduces any remaining moisture.

Figure 5-116: Plate and Frame Filter Press

The diaphragm filter press yields higher cake solids and has a shorter cycle time than the
standard plate and frame press. Although the filter press may be highly automated, the
operation will require significant operator attention. Current models are provided with “cake
breakers” to dislodge the cake from the press. These may need operator attention to ensure
that the cake is completely dislodged.

5.14.10.1. Operation
In a fixed volume filter press, the sludge is pumped under high pressure (350- 1575 kN/m2) in
to the chamber. The water passes through the cloth, while solids are retained and form the
cake on the surface of the cloth. The sludge filling continues until the press is effectively full
of cake. The entire filling operation takes up to 0-30 mins. The pressure at this point is
generally at the design maximum and is maintained at for several hours. During this time,
more filtrate is removed and desired solid level in the cake is reached. Filter press can achieve
40% solid. The filter is then mechanically opened and the dewatered cake drops from the
chamber on to the conveyor. Typical cycle time is 8 hours. Sludge conditioned with polymers
increases the yield.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-193
5.14.11. Mechanical Sludge Dewatering
5.14.11.1. Centrifuging
A centrifuge uses centrifugal force to speed up the separation of sludge particles from the
liquid. In a typical unit (Figure 5-117) sludge is pumped into a horizontal, cylindrical bowl,
rotating at 800 to 2,000 rpm. This results in an applied force of 1,500 to 4,000 times the force
of the acceleration due to gravity. Polymers used for sludge conditioning also are injected
directly into the centrifuge. The solids are spun to the outside of the bowl where they are
scraped out by a screw conveyor. The liquid, or centrate, is returned to the treatment plant.
Two types of centrifuges are currently used for sludge dewatering: the solid bowl and the
basket bowl. For dewatering sludge from water treatment plant, the solid-bowl scroll
centrifuge has proven to be more successful than the basket bowl.
Centrifuges are very sensitive to changes in the concentration or composition of the sludge, as
well as to the amount of polymer applied. Thus, the best way to evaluate centrifugation is by
using pilot tests. Cornwell (2006) provides a detailed procedure for scaling up pilot results to
full scale. The best indicators of performance are the cake solids concentration and the
centrate suspended solids concentration.
Important operational parameters to be considered in evaluation of these systems are energy
consumption, required polymer dosage and separation efficiency. Further, mechanical
dewatering systems such as Belt Filter Presses, Filter Presses and Centrifuges should operate
continuously as far as possible in order to reduce usage of treated water for the cleaning
operation required at the end of each operation cycle and to optimize utilization of equipment.

5.14.11.2. Centrifuge Selection Considerations

Centrifuges can handle sludge solids concentrations up to about 4 percent. Centrifuges are
often located on upper floors of the sludge building so that the cake may be discharged into
trucks or hoppers below. Because of the mass and vibration of the centrifuge, special attention
should be given to the structural requirements to handle the load and vibration in evaluating
the cost of this option. The best performance data for centrifuges have been obtained at 75 to
80 percent of the manufacturer’s hydraulic or solids capacity.
These equipment require
 High skilled maintenance staff
 Suitable polyelectrolyte with dosing arrangement
 Electrical power for operation of the equipment

Figure 5-117: Centrifuging

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-194
Therefore the process is usually attractive only in large sludge dewatering facilities with
incoming flow > 0.3m3/s (25,920m3/day). As such correct assessment of sludge generation
and selection of the capacity of each unit is very important.

After mechanical dewatering, the sludge is generally directed through a conveyer into a skip
or a hopper. The filtrate from mechanical dewatering facility can be directed back to the
sludge regulation tank. Most mechanical dewatering equipment can achieve 15-20% DS
content but the actual performance needs to be verified from manufacturers.
Mechanical sludge dewatering is only recommended for

 Major water treatment plants that generate large quantity of sludge

 Treatments plants that do not have adequate land or
 Areas that experience average annual rainfall in excess of 3000mm

5.14.12. Recirculation of Backwash Water

Backwash recovery is aimed to utilize water resources to its maximum potential, minimize
energy consumption and thereby optimize production costs. The backwash recovery process
should not cause any adverse impacts on the treated water quality. The possible health
implications could be trace amounts of heavy metals that may be present in raw water or in
water treatment chemicals as impurities, pathogenic microorganisms, algal toxins/THM which
may be produced during physical/chemical processes of the treatment works or present in raw
water. Backwash water recovery is not recommended where polymer is used as coagulant
aids.

In this context, reuse of thickener supernatant is not recommended as about 95% of the
contaminants in raw water are removed from the sedimentation process and hence may
contain pathogenic organisms such as Cryptosporidium and Giardia Lamblia, which is
resistant to chlorination. The presence of these organisms in major rivers in Sri Lanka has
not been investigated yet.

It is advantageous to reuse the backwash water in order to conserve energy by minimizing the
utilization of low lift pumps and to recover 2-5% of water. Backwash water recovery has
many advantages. However, the introduction of backwash water recovery needs careful
evaluation of the raw water quality, the proposed treatment process and the cost-benefits.
Therefore the recommended unit processes for backwash water recovery to be incorporated in
the sludge treatment stream are as follows;

Backwashed water is first directed to backwash recovery tank (minimum two tanks each
having capacity at least to hold two backwashes) where it is allowed to settle for a selected
time. After allowing for sedimentation, supernatant is gravity fed to backwash recirculation
tank which is constructed with common wall to the backwash recovery tank to minimize
construction cost. The gravity feeding system should comprise of pontoon attachment at the
surface of the inlet pipe (which needs to be covered with suitable mesh to prevent escaping of
floating debris) and the bottom end supported by a hinged bend in order to facilitate rotation
of the pontoon attached inlet pipe as water level drops up to the sludge thickening zone of the
backwash recovery tank. Moving inlet pipe with pontoon with hinged bend (Kalatuwawa
WTP: 1954)

Backwash recirculation tank should be equipped with two wet well submersible pumps, one
duty one standby, to pump the supernatant from backwash recovery tank to the raw water
regulation tank. The submersible pumps should be equipped with float switches suitable for
automatic operation and will be provided with guide rails and lifting chains to facilitate

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-195
maintenance. The pumping rate should be decided by giving due consideration to the
hydraulic capacity of the treatment units.

 After supernatant (clear water) in the backwash water recovery tank is completely
transferred to backwash recirculation tank, the sludge from the backwash recovery tank is
then pumped to sludge regulation tank using submersible wet well pumps similar to the
operation of backwash recirculation pumps.
 Sludge emanating from the sedimentation tank can be directly sent to sludge regulation
tank. The mixer equipped inside the sludge regulation tank will agitate and mix the sludge
from sedimentation and backwash recovery tanks to achieve homogeneous concentration
and to keep the sludge under suspension.
Two wet well submersible pumps, one duty one standby, to be provided to lift sludge from
the sludge regulation tank to the gravity thickener.
 From the gravity thickener, the sludge is directed to ultimate disposal, which could be
either sludge drying beds, sludge lagoons or mechanical dewatering facility preferably by
utilizing progressive cavity pumps, one duty one standby operation.

5.14.12.1. Wastewater from Slow Sand Filters

During scraping operation of the biological layer called “schmutzdecke” of the slow sand
filters, the removed sand can be washed using “hydro cyclone” and reused when “re-sanding”
of the slow sand filters is required. The dirty water resulting from the hydro cyclone needs to
be treated appropriately in line with the disposal standards. A sludge thickener can be used if
the number of filters is higher and continuous type of treatment is needed as in larger scale
water treatment plants. If the treatment plant is of small scale, it may be sufficient to have a
roughing filter together with natural or constructed wetland to polish further to meet the
discharge standards as this type of system may be suitable for intermittent operation as
generally slow sand filters need to be cleaned once in two to three months depending on the
raw water quality.

5.14.13. Ultimate Disposal and Utilization of Solids

Four methods of disposal are typically considered for process wastes:

 Burial in a landfill
 Reuse of all or a portion of the wastes
 Discharge to a sanitary sewer system
 Discharge to a natural waterway or lagoons
Each of these disposal methods involves different regulatory requirements and may require
varying levels of pretreatment before disposal.

5.14.13.1. Reuse of Sludge as a Resource

The treatment and disposal of water treatment plant residuals is rapidly becoming an integral
part of operating water treatment plant facilities. The discharge of untreated residuals to most
surface waters is severely restricted by law. Sanitary landfill disposal of dewatered
liquid/solid residuals has become very costly, and the residuals consume valuable space in a
disposal system that is already subject to shortages in the future. As a result, beneficial use
programs for residuals are increasingly being considered by utilities, not only as a cost-
effective alternative but also as a publicly acceptable management practice. The desired
residuals management goal for any water utility is to operate an economically efficient and
environmentally attractive residuals management plan by developing one or more long-term
agreements, which will allow for the proper utilization of residuals in a beneficial application.
The beneficial use markets that have exhibited the greatest potential for success with
coagulant sludge:
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-196
Commercial products: The use of sludge in making commercial products has been
successful in such areas as turf farming and topsoil blending. In both cases, the sludge is a
substitute for natural soil material and offers economical benefits to the commercial user.
Brick manufacturing is a potential market for coagulant sludge and experiences indicate that
this can be a workable program.
Co-use with biosolids: Incorporating sludge in biosolids management programs, such as land
application and composting, can be beneficial. Blended products tend to have lower metal
concentrations making the product more marketable. Also, for utilities that operate both a
water and wastewater facility, permitting, record keeping, and monitoring requirements are
reduced when the sludge and biosolids are managed under one program.

5.14.13.2. Disposal of Sludge for Land Application

Land application of sludge to agricultural or forested land is a feasible beneficial use
alternative. It is not widely practiced because the need has only been here quite recently and
residuals must frequently compete with biosolids for appropriate sites. Alum sludge, when
added to soil, has the capability to absorb inorganic phosphorus, which prohibits plants from
extracting P from the soil for plant growth. However, with good soil management and crop
selection, P depletion can be prevented with proper loading rates and P fertilization.

The addition of alum sludge to soils could also change the soils, physical structure, or bulk
density. A soil with a high-bulk density is more compact, which is unfavourable to plant
growth because root penetration is restricted. A low-bulk density (less compacted soil) has
more pore space for air and water, which is beneficial for plant growth. It is found that soil
mixed with alum residuals increased soil aggregation and moisture retention and, as a result,
increased the dry yield of maize. It is demonstrated that improvements in aeration and
moisture retention, promoted by the addition of alum residuals, were made to offset the
phosphorus deficiency in lettuce.

Because water plant solids are usually not hazardous, the last category is not used. Codisposal
into a municipal or industrial waste landfill is a matter of contacting the available landfills in
the area and determining these requirements and their tipping fee. Generally landfills will
require that the sludge be tested to prove it is nonhazardous and it must be of a high enough
solids concentration that there is no free water. Due to the costs of codisposal landfills, some
utilities are building monofills. Monofills are disposal sites specifically constructed to hold
water plant residuals. The two major types of sludge monofills are trench filling and area
filling.

In trench landfills, sludge is placed entirely below the original ground surface.The trench
depth is dependent typically on the depth to groundwater and bedrock to maintain sufficient
soil buffers between the sludge and substrata. Trench depth is a function of sidewall stability
and equipment limitations as well.

Unlike the trench landfilling technique, in which sludge is placed below ground, in the area
filling technique sludge is generally placed above the original surface. Area filling may be
accomplished in one of three ways,
1. Area mound, where sludge is mixed with soil such that it becomes stable enough to be
stacked in mounds
2. Area layer, in which sludge is spread evenly in layers over a large tract of land
3. Diked containment, where earthen dikes are constructed above ground to form a
containment structure into which the sludge can be disposed

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-197
The requirement that sludge must be capable of supporting equipment due to the lack of
sidewall containment necessitates reasonably good sludge stability and bearing capacity.
These characteristics are typically achieved through good dewatering, dewatering followed by
air drying, freeze-thaw dewatering, or mixing sludge with bulking agents. A combination of
these methods can also be employed. Areas with high water tables and those with bedrock
close to the surface are particularly amenable to area fill methods of sludge monofilling.

The options available for disposal of sludge can be Land Disposal for Forest or Land
Reclamation, Incineration or Melting, Brick and roof tile construction (after mixing with other
constituents to obtain the desired consistency.
Table 5-50: EU Council Directive 86/278/EEC for land application of Sludge
Limiting Value
Metal Limiting Value (g/ha/year)
(mg/kg DS)
Cadmium, Cd 30 10
Copper, Cu 3000 1000
Nickel, Ni 900 300
Lead, Pb 2250 750
Zink, Zn 7500 2500
Mercury, Hg 30 10
Chromium, Cr 3000 1000

5.14.13.3. Disposal of Supernatant water to Sanitary Sewer

Disposal of sludge from water treatment plant into sanitary sewer is becoming more common
these days. Discharge of water treatment sludge into sanitary sewer has a low cost, because
the thickening and dewatering steps may be eliminated. There may, however be a controlled
discharge requirement (to avoid slug) and continuous monitoring of flow, organic strength,
solid content of discharge stream. Sewer –Users’ charges are also involved. Therefore cost
must also be considered during the preliminary evaluation of this option .Coagulant of water
treatment sludge will enhance phosphorus and solids removal in the primary treatment facility
of the wastewater treatment plant. Discharge of lime-softening sludge to sanitary sewer
should also be carefully examined, softening sludge may cause scaling and encrustations on
weirs, channels and piping.

5.14.13.4. Disposal of Supernatant or Concentrate water In to Surface Water

Disposal of water treatment sludge in surface water has the advantage of relatively low capital
and operational cost, however, it can be discharged to water bodies only if the water
complying to the effluent standards. The outfall must be properly located and designed to
minimize potential water pollution problem.

Conventional methods of concentrate disposal involve discharge to surface bodies of water,

spray irrigation combined with a dilution stream, deep well injection, drain fields, boreholes,
or into the sewer. Concentrate disposal methods must be evaluated in light of geographic,
environmental, and regulatory impacts.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-198
 Figure 5-118: Process flow diagram for sludge management in water treatment plant

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 5-199
CHAPTER 6

CHEMICAL FEEDING AND DISINFECTION

Most of the water treatment plants use a variety of chemical engineering processes to produce
large quantities of safe drinking water within a short period. Therefore, the design of the
chemical feed system, including handling, storing, feeding, and mixing, requires special
attention. A properly designed chemical feed system can improve treatment efficiency and
thereby reduce operation and maintenance costs. Three basic forms of chemicals are used in
water treatment: dry, liquid, and gas. It therefore follows that the basic types of chemical
feeders are dry, liquid, and gas feeders. Liquid volumetric feeders are preferred because of
their compact size, accuracy, and convenience in handling. Generally, chemical feeders must
have a feeding capacity that is broad enough to accommodate the variations in plant flow rate
and chemical dosages.

6.1. Chemical Feeding

6.1.1. Type of Chemicals and Usage
For the chemical treatment of water a great variety of chemicals can be applied. The different
types of water treatment chemicals are summed up below.
Algaecides
Biocides/ Disinfectants
Coagulants
Neutralizing agents
Flocculants/ coagulant aids
pH conditioners
Oxidants

Algaecides
Algaecides are chemicals that kill algae (blue or green algae), when they are added to water.
Examples are copper sulphate, iron salts, rosin amine salts and benzalkonium chloride.
Algaecides are effective against algae, but are not usable for algal blooms for environmental
reasons. The problem with most algaecides is that they kill all algae present, but they do not
remove the toxins released by the algae.

Coagulants
The following chemicals are used as primary coagulants, or in some cases, coagulant aids.
These coagulants cause the suspended matter in water to clump together due to either a
physical texture of the chemical, or through the electrical charges of the coagulant and the
colloidal particles. There are many factors in choosing a coagulant, such as its effectiveness
on pH and alkalinity of raw water, the cost of the coagulant and any supporting chemicals it
may require, and the method of delivery.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-1
Dry Aluminium sulphate (alum) is commonly used as a coagulant and it should be stored in a
dry location, and should be handled with care (i.e. rubber gloves and protective clothing) due
to corrosive properties.

Polyaluminum chloride (PACL), is a blend of chemicals that can achieve the same (or better)
coagulant results as alum. It is manufactured to eliminate some of the pH and alkalinity
adjustments that are necessary when using traditional coagulants. The cost of the PACL blend
is lower than the combined cost of alum, soda ash (Na2CO3), and lime. Similar to alum, PACl
should be stored in dry place and handle with care.

Flocculants/ coagulant aids

To promote the formation of flocs in water that contains suspended solids polymer flocculants
(polyelectrolytes) are applied to promote bond formation between particles. These polymers
have a very specific effect, dependent upon their charges, their molar weight and their
molecular degree of ramification. The polymers are water-soluble and their molar weight
varies between 105 and 106 g/ mol.

There can be several charges on one flocculent. There are cationic polymers, based on
nitrogen, anionic polymers, based on carboxylate ions and polyampholytes, which carry both
positive and negative charges.

Another option in effective removal of contaminants is the use of polymers as coagulant/filter

aids. These polymers, used in conjunction with coagulants and improve the process in two
ways. The coagulant aids strengthen the bonds between the particles so that they do not break
apart during settling, and the filter aids coat the filter media to improve flocs adhering to it.
Filter aids should allow run times to be longer with less head loss and turbidity breakthrough.

Oxidants
Chemical oxidation processes use (chemical) oxidants to reduce COD/BOD levels, and to
remove both organic and oxidisable inorganic components such as iron, manganese or
arsenic. The processes can completely oxidise organic materials to carbon dioxide and water,
although it is often not necessary to operate the processes to this level of treatment. Oxidized
contaminants form precipitates, which can be removed by sedimentation or filtration.

A wide variety of oxidation chemicals is available. Examples are Hydrogen peroxide; Ozone;
Combined ozone & peroxide, Oxygen, Potassium permanganate, bleaching powder and
Chlorine.

Potassium permanganate (KMnO4): Potassium Permanganate is primarily used to as an

oxidant to precipitate out iron and manganese and effectively control taste and odour
problems. It also works to inactivate harmful pathogens and viruses, although it is not
technically considered a disinfectant in the water treatment system. An advantage of using
potassium permanganate is that it oxidizes organic substances without producing the regulated
disinfection by-products. It may be considered as a replacement for prechlorination if
disinfection by-products are an issue for a water system. Potassium permanganate is available
in powdered form and turns pink or purple when mixed with water. The chemical should be
stored in closed containers on a concrete floor away from heat sources and other chemicals.

Chlorine (as an oxidant), most commonly known for its disinfecting abilities, is also used as
an oxidizing agent. Chlorine can oxidize and precipitate out iron, manganese and hydrogen
sulphide. Using chlorine as an oxidizer helps avoid “dirty water” complaints and problems

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-2
with taste and odour. The forms of chlorine most commonly used by small water treatment
plants are chlorine gas, sodium hypochlorite or calcium hypochlorite.
Neutralizing agents (alkalinity control)
In order to neutralize acids and bases we use either sodium hydroxide solution (NaOH),
calcium carbonate, or lime suspension [Ca(OH)2] to increase pH levels. We use diluted
sulphuric acid (H2SO4) or diluted hydrochloric acid (HCl) to decline pH levels. The dose of
neutralizing agents depends upon the pH of the water in a reaction basin. Neutralization
reactions cause a rise in temperature.
pH conditioners
Drinking water is often pH-adjusted, in order to prevent corrosion from pipes and to prevent
dissolution of lead into water supplies. During water treatment, pH adjustments may also be
required. The pH is brought up or down through addition of bases or acids. An example of
lowering the pH is the addition of hydrogen chloride, in case of basic water. An example of
bringing up the pH is the addition of Lime [Ca(OH)2 or CaO], in case of an acidic water.
Lime, or calcium hydroxide, is used as both pre-dose and post-dose depending on water
quality available.
The pH will be converted to approximately 7 to7.5, after addition of certain concentrations of
acids or basics. The concentration of the substance and the kind of substance that is added,
depend upon the necessary decrease or increase of the pH.
6.1.2. Chemical Preparation for coagulation
Alum, usually in lump form, is the most common coagulant. The dosage is in the range of 20-
100mg/L. Lime is added when pH and alkalinity are low. The required dosages are
determined through jar tests. The density of alum and lime are 980 kg/m 3 and 670 kg/m3
respectively.
It is essential to know the strength of the chemical solution in order to set the dosage to be
applied. All chemical preparation tanks therefore should be carefully measured and volumes
calculated. A water flow meter reading in the water feeding line can be used to prepare the
required strength of solution. In addition, a measuring stick or level sensor can be used to
measure the volume at any depth.
For the preparation of coagulant solution, for example, the exact amount of dry alum cake or
ferric chloride and the exact amount of water should be known. In most plants a 10% solution
in the day tanks will be satisfactory. Day tanks are those, which supply the originally mixed
chemical and water. A 10% solution requires 100g of chemical and 900 g of water (10% of
the total is chemical). The strength then is 100,000 mg of chemical in each litre of solution,
which is a relatively strong solution and very stable. The material is weighed at the desired
rate into a solution basin where it is dissolved by the stirring action of propeller type mixer.
The alum solution is slightly acidic.

It is important that the dilution water used for chemical preparation have the lowest possible
pH. If lime is being added, this water should be taken from the filter outlet before the addition
of lime. Water from the clear water tank after addition of lime has a higher pH.

Ferric chloride is a highly acidic compound and must be shipped, stored and dosed using
corrosion resistant equipment. It is convenient to have each tank supply enough chemical for
24 hours. This makes the operation simpler and a basin of chemical is prepared each day.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-3
6.1.3. Chemical Dosing
Once the chemical solution has been prepared, it is necessary to pipe it to the point of
application, such as a weir or a Parshall flume as described in chapter 5.5.

The stock solution from the day tank should be as nearer as possible to the diffuser. The
strength of the solution being applied to the raw water should be about 1% or as low as 0.5%.
To reduce the 10% solution to 1% requires 100mL of the stock solution and 900mL of water
to make up one litre.

The dosage may be based on the amount of the 10% strength stock solution. If the raw water
flow is 10m3/min and the required dose is 10mg/L (or 10ppm) it is necessary to apply 10g of
chemical to the water each minute. In a 10% strength solution, this means one litre of stock
solution per minute. The total solution dosed, however, is much more. If for example, 100mL
of stock coagulant is diluted with 900mL of water just before application then the amount
applied is 10 L/min at a strength of 1%, which is satisfactory for good coagulation.

The system at each plant should be to mix stock solution of 2 to 10% strength and dilute to
1% or less at the diffuser. This will give good coagulation and economize on coagulant. A
frequent problem is that of getting a known amount of stock solution into the raw water. Most
existing plants have some kind of dosing pumps, which are not usually working properly. It is
strongly recommended that if possible the chemicals be applied by gravity through a constant
head basin, controlled by a float valve. The system should be reasonably accurate and it
should be easy to set constant dosing rate only in small WYP <10,000 m3/day.

Such dosing systems exist on the market, but it would be preferable for NWSDB to fabricate
its own with valves and small basins purchased specifically for the purpose. The chemical
transport from the day basins to the point of application should provide a constant dosing
flow, preferably by gravity feed system. The strength of solution used for manual feed and
mechanical feed is given in Table 5-11 in CHAPTER 5.

6.1.4. Batching Tank

Chemical preparations are mostly done in batches. Usually two batching tanks are used in
order to maintain continuous chemical feeding. Where a batching tank is required, the
following shall be met:

• The inside walls of the batch tank shall be smooth, so that no accumulation of chemical
precipitate occurs on the internal tank walls, ribs or bends;
• The tank shall include an overflow pipe fitted at the high-high (HH) alarm level and
installed such that excess liquids drain away from traffic areas and to the bund sump;
• A water fill lines into the batching tank shall be provided with a flow meter. They shall
enter directly into the top of the batch tank.
• The dilution water solenoid shall be made of materials compatible with magnesium
hydroxide dosing, and set to open on low-level alarm from the level sensor. It shall be set
to close on level sensor high alarm;
• A transfer pump shall be provided to transfer concentrated chemical from the preparation
tank to the batching tank if such arrangement is preferred (especially for lime batching). It
will be PLC controlled, started on low alarm from the level sensor and stop on a timer.
The pump shall be identical to the dosing pumps used in the unit, and set at a constant
speed.
• A level sensor shall be provided to control the batching process. A high-level alarm (H)
shall stop the dilution water by closing the dilution water solenoid. A low-level alarm (L)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-4
 shall be used to alarm the batching process. A low-low level alarm (LL) shall inhibit
dosing pump.
• A batching tank mixer shall be provided. The batching tank mixer shall comply with the
requirements of the chemical.

6.1.5. Preparation and Dosing of Alum Solutions

Aluminium sulphate must be dissolved and in order to know the strength of the solution
prepared, the weight of aluminium sulphate, excluding water of hydration must be known.
The usual chemical formula for aluminium sulphate is Al2(SO4)3.18H2O and, referring to the
table of Atomic Mass, the weight of a molecule of the chemical is : - 2(27)+3(32+4x16)+18
(2x1+16)= 666. The water of hydration accounts for 324 of this total so that the material is
51.4% Al2(SO4)3. Preparation of a 5% solution of aluminium sulphate involves adding 5 kg of
Al2(SO4)3 to 95 kg of water (or 95 litres of water). If Al2(SO4)3.18H2O is the material being
used, it is necessary to add 9.73 kg to make the 5% solution, because of the water of
crystallization in the material. A solution preparation curve for other percentages or grades of
aluminium sulphate can be made by similar calculations.

A typical liquid feed system consists of a storage tank and/or a day tank, pump, meter, and
distribution system as shown in Figure 6-1.

FM Perforated basket

Water

Alum

Calibrating cylinder

Agitator

Drain Metering pump

Alum batching tank
Alum solution
Figure 6-1: Alum dosing Arrangements

Piston and Diaphragm Pumps are used for alum dosing. The capacity of these pumps depends
on the stroking speed and the length of the stroke. In the piston pump, the piston is in direct
contact with the chemical, in contrast diaphragm pumps, as the name implies, use the
movement of a diaphragm to move the fluid.

6.1.5.1. Stting and Checking the Dose

1. Close the batching tank-isolating valve so that alum solution is drawn from calibrating
cylinder.
2. Start timer at litre marking and stop after 1 litre of solution has been pumped.
3. Record the no. of seconds (T).
4. Calculate the dose by using following formula,
concentration of alum solution (%) x 10000
Dose (mg/L) =
T(sec. )x Raw water flow (l/s)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-5
6.1.6. Preparation and Dosing of Lime Suspensions
Lime used in water treatment, is normally in the form of Slaked or Hydrated Lime [Ca(OH) 2],
and quicklime (CaO), which must be slaked before application. Calcium hydroxide is only
slightly soluble in water, to the extent of 1.85 g/L at 0C, decreasing to 1.65 g/L at 20C.
Lime solutions are referred to as “Milk of Lime”, but lime is normally dosed as a suspension
in supersaturated lime water. The suspension of lime tends to clog pumps and pipelines and
constant attention is necessary to maintain correct dosage.
Quick lime is used in water treatment and mainly as a powder. It has the following advantages
over slaked lime:

 Less expensive
 Greater CaO content than slaked lime, higher apparent density, resulting in lower
transport and storage costs (quick lime: apparent density: 0.7 to 1.2, slaked lime:
apparent density: 0.3 to 0.6)
However, quick lime does have two drawbacks:

 Additional investment in order to guarantee a proper level of slaking

 Quick lime quality is often far more variable than that of slaked lime
The following reaction applies to the slaking of quick lime:
Cao + H2O  Ca(OH)2 
This is an exothermic reaction and the heat released at 25°C will be 275 kcal per kg CaO. The
chemical reactivity of lime slurry along with the fineness of the suspension will depend on the
slaking temperature. This temperature must be as high as possible and, therefore, involve a
minimum amount of added water.

6.1.6.1. Quick lime in powder form

Quick lime used in water and sludge treatment usually satisfies the following specifications:
 Content: (CaO > 90 %, MgO < 1.5 %, SiO2 < 1.5 %
 Reactivity with water: less than 25 minutes to reach 60°C for a mixture comprising
150 g lime/600 g water and a starting temperature of 20°C
 Fine or sieved lime (0-90 mm particle size)

In practice, two types of preparation are used:

Paste slaking (with high mixing energy): three to four parts water are mixed with one part
lime producing maximum temperature increase and short slaking time. The amount of water
used will depend on the paste’s viscosity (mixer torque) and/or temperature;

Suspension slaking: the target lime slurry Ca(OH)2 concentration ranges from 50 to 200 g /L
; the temperature probe is used as a safety measure on the lime inlet. This type of installation
(Figure 6-2), although less efficient, can be automated more easily and more simply, thus
reducing operating, safety and maintenance requirements.

6.1.6.2. Producing Lime Slurry from Quick Lime

Slaked lime is usually used as a lime slurry, an aqueous suspension of calcium hydroxide
particles. Its concentration is usually between 50 and 100 g./L for ease of use; in effect:
for C > 100 g /L : danger of deposits and blockages;
for C < 50 g /L : danger of carbonation.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-6
6.1.6.3. Storing Lime Powder
Powdered lime is stored in 25 kg bags or in a silo, depending on the size of the installation.
The preferred minimum silo capacity is 50 m³, this being the maximum lorry payload. The
base of the silos is equipped with a flow assister. Mechanical flow assisters are usually
preferred over fluidisation air injection systems.
6.1.6.4. Dispensing
Lime powder: The quantity of powdered lime delivered to dilution tanks is metered out either
using volumetric feeders (rotary vane or screw feeders) or gravimetric feeders (weighing
hoppers).
Lime slurry : Lime slurry is prepared at a virtually constant concentration in dilution tanks
with mechanical agitation from water of moderate calcium carbonate alkalinity (scale
forming).
The slurry is delivered by pumps:
 Positive displacement pumps (dispensing or eccentric rotor pumps)
 Centrifuges, preferably dispensing a distribution loop equipped with automatic
injection valves operated in "on/off" mode. In this case, feed is often regulated by the
opening frequency of these valves, e.g. based on the information supplied by a pH
meter

Screw Type
feeder
water vapour
extractor-fan
Flow
Assister

Screw Type Temperature

feeder

Injector

To feeder and
Injection point
Process Water

Tank 1 : Slaking Tank 2 : Lime

Quick Lime Slurry Storage
Figure 6-2: Schematic diagram of a system for preparing lime slurry from quick lime

6.1.6.5. special operating instructions (clogging)

As lime slurry is a suspension of particles and these particles are likely to settle as soon as
agitation or circulation systems are switched off: the ensuing deposits can jam mechanical
units, e.g. pressure relief valves, valves, feeding pumps etc. Therefore, lime slurry calls for
compliance with special precautions in connection with the construction and operation of
preparation and dispensing units. E.g.:

 Using pipes made of flexible materials (rubber) or that can easily be dismantled
 Pipe diameters providing a compromise between
 An adequate passage section (blockages)
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-7
  An appropriate circulation velocity (deposits)
 Using clean water to flush through after each shutdown
6.1.6.6. Stabiltiy at Saturation pH
To a given amount of calcium and magnesium bicarbonate corresponds a concentration of
free carbon dioxide which is the amount of carbon dioxide required to prevent break down of
the bicarbonates and precipitation of the corresponding carbonates. This amount is known as
“Saturation carbon dioxide”

If the water contains an amount of carbon dioxide higher than Saturation value, the excess
amount is known as the “agressive carbon dioxide”. The amount of half bound CO2 (HCO3 of
the bicarbonates) is equal to the amount of bound CO2. The water containing agressive CO2
solution the carbonate in the form of bicarbonates; therefore, a fortion, they are incabable of
causing the formartion of a precipitation of protective cabonate film on the surface in contact
with them.

In contrast, the water which contain less free CO2, then the theoritical amount of saturation
CO2
Precipatate CaCO3 which are scale forming. The pH depend on the ratio:

Free CO2
CO2 𝑜𝑓 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑏𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑟𝑏𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠

Consequently, a so called “Saturation pH” corospondant to each vslue of the alkanity. When
the pH of water is below the saturation pH, this water is considered as aggressive.
Aggressiveness is assed by measuring the pH and alkanity after a cetain contact time with
marble (kown as “Marble test”). Neutralisation can be performed by several methods and in
particular for the plant injection of saturated lime water to obtain the saturtion pH as given by
the marbl test.

6.1.6.7. Lime Water

Lime water (lime saturated solution) is often used in drinking water plants. Its titer, depending
on dissolution temperature, will be approximately 220°F of TAC at 20°C, This is equivalent
to a 220 × 7.4 mg / L concentration of Ca(OH)2, i.e. 1.6 g / L.

6.1.6.7.1. Lime Slakers

Slaking means combining water with quicklime (CaO) in various proportions to produce milk
of lime or lime slurry. Lime feed systems combine the addition of the chemical and mixing it
with water into one system. They include a quicklime feeder, water control valve, grit
removal device, and a reaction vessel.

6.1.6.7.2. Static Saturator

This appliance is used to produce a saturated lime solution by percolating water through a bed
of lime, allowing sufficient contact time for this water to become saturated. The lime slurry is
prepared in intermittent mode. It is gravity injected or pumped into the lower part of the
saturator after the level has first been lowered in the saturator and carbonate sludge and
impurities drained out. Lime slurry is generally reloaded every 24 hours. After a
sedimentation period, the water to be saturated penetrates slowly into the bottom of the
saturator and the saturated water is drawn off from the surface. The saturator can deliver, as
saturated lime water, 1.3 to 1.6 kg of Ca(OH)2 per hour and per square metre of area.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-8
6.1.6.8. Turbine Saturator
For the same surface area, this appliance can be used to produce a higher output of lime water
than the static saturator, i.e. 3.2 to 4 kg of Ca(OH)2 per hour and per square metre of area. The
lime slurry is prepared continuously or intermittently but distribution must be continuous. It is
gravity injected or pumped into the sludge recycling nozzle or into the dissolution water
delivery pipe. The Schematic diagram and photo of Lime turbine saturator in Ambathale WTP
is shown in Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4 respectively.

This comprises:
 a cylidroconical saruration tank
 a draft tube for recirculation of the lime and sludge
 an adjustable speed tubine located at the upper end of the draft tube
 A baffle placed around the draft tube in which the lime water saturation process is
completed
 A lime slurry inlet in the upper third of the draft tube
 Inlet of water to be saturated half way down the draft tube, with a setting flowmeter
 A concentrator for the sludge from the slurry
 Automatic sludge drawoff
 A main drain valve
 Saturated limewater surface collection channel
 A contiounos or dicontionous lime slurry preperation unit

Continuous Lime Dispensing

Water
Lime slurry
Propeller
inlet
Overflow Operated mixer

Saturated
water
outlet

Sludge Extraction
Drainage
Pressurised Water
inlet
Figure 6-3: Schematic diagram of Lime turbine saturator

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-9
6.1.6.9. Operation
Lime slurry is injected into the recirculation draft tube and the warer to be saturated in the
upper third of the draft tube. The water, lime slurry and carbonate sludge drawn up the draft
tube are thoroughly mixed by the propeller-operated mixer placed in the top section of the
nozzle. The saturated lime water and carbonate sludge are seperated by settling at the base of
the circular baffle around the draft tube.

The saturator operates with a lime sludge blanket, level of which is adjusted by the weirs of
the concentrator into which this sludge is discharged. This sludge is normally extracted
through the concentrator which receive the sludge formed. The sludge is discharged by
automatic draw off controlled by an adjustable timer. The flow rate of the lime water is
adjusted according to the readout from the water to be saturated flow meter.

It should be noted that adding very small amounts of ferric chloride increases the CaO content
of lime water even more.

Figure 6-4: Image of Lime turbine saturator in Ambathale WTP

6.1.6.1. Design Considerations

A mixing tank with cover is used to prevent spread of lime dust and equipped with an
agitator/stirrer to prevent settlement. A dust extractor is to be installed to prevent damage to
other equipment. Due to possibility of presence of silt/ sand in lime, it may be advisable to
provide a sand cyclone separator or similar equipment before the dosing pumps. The 10%
suspension of lime is formed by adding 10 kg of hydrated lime to 90 kg (litres) of water.
About 150g of the hydrated lime will dissolve in one litre depending on the temperature.

The general layout of a complete lime water and slurry preparation unit (mixing tank and
saturator) often found in small to medium size drinking water installations (lime in sacks and
debagger or big-bag). Piston and Diaphragm Pumps can be used for lime dosing in case where
boosting arrangements are required. The injection can also be through venturi eductor where
a stream of water passing through a venturi in the eductor creates a vacuum that draws the
liquid chemical into the eductor. Because the eductor is incapable of flow rate control, the
chemical must be metered in some fashion. This system has found success in moving lime
slurry from a slacker to a mixing system.

6.1.7. Choice of Alum vs. PACl

For given water treatment plant, raw water turbidity and the concentration and nature of raw
water NOM affect the required coagulant dose, but generally do not influence the type of
coagulant that will be most effective. Raw water alkalinity and water temperature are the most
important raw water quality variables in terms of selecting a particular coagulant.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-10
Based on a research study it conclude that PACls is found to be the most effective coagulants
for both high turbidity waters (high turbidity, low TOC river) and low turbidity waters (low
turbidity, high TOC, colour reservoir and low turbidity, low TOC, high alkalinity reservoir).
Even for the high turbidity, low TOC River, which had widely ranging raw water turbidity,
PACls were the most effective.

For proper sedimentation, precipitation of a dense, rapidly settling floc is required. PACls
with added sulphate were found to form the best settling floc for all waters treated by
sedimentation. This effect was seen with both medium- and high-basicity PACls. The settling
performance of alum was poor for cold-water temperatures. For some waters, however, high-
basicity PACls were found to be effective at lower doses and/or over a broader dosage range
than alum or the other PACls. Clarification performance in DAF was relatively insensitive to
coagulant selection.

The operating costs associated with coagulation include chemical costs, sludge disposal costs
and the cost savings associated with improved plant performance. Chemical costs include the
cost of the coagulant itself, any flocculent-aid or filter-aid polymers, and acid or base used for
pH adjustment. In practice, PACl dosing is usually expressed on a product basis. Because they
are available at various strengths, often stronger than alum, their cost must be assessed and
compared to alum and to other PACls on an Al basis. Generally, polyaluminium coagulants
are more costly than alum on an equivalent Al basis. On the other hand, PACls are pre-
neutralized and are less acidic than alum. For low alkalinity waters, lower amounts of base
would be used to control coagulation pH, thus reducing costs. This may also be true for
moderate alkalinity waters requiring moderate to high coagulant doses.

6.1.7.1. Advantages of Polyaluminium Coagulants over Alum

1. The Polyaluminium coagulants in general consume considerably less alkalinity than
alum.
2. Compared to alum it works effective over a broader pH range, PACl works
satisfactorily over a pH range of 5.0 to 8.0.
3. In water treatment processes the reduced concentration of sulphate is added to the
treated water. This directly affects SO4 levels in domestic wastewater. Low levels of
residual aluminium in the treated water can be achieved, typically 0.01-0.05 mg/L
4. Less sludge is produced compared to alum at an equivalent dose,
5. Compared to Alum, PACl and ACH (aluminium chlorohydrate) work extremely well
at low raw water temperatures. Flocs formed from alum at low temperatures settle
very slowly, whereas flocs formed from polyaluminium coagulants tend to settle
equally well at low and at normal water temperatures,
6. Lower doses are required to give equivalent results to alum.
7. The increase in chloride in the treated water is much lower than the sulphate increase
from alum, resulting in lower overall increases in the TDS of the treated water.

6.1.7.2. Disadvantages
1. The cost of Poly Aluminium Chloride is twice/thrice of Alum.
2. One possible disadvantage in using Poly Aluminium Chloride (PAC) relates to the
removal of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) from water. It is well documented that
effective DOC removal is possible with alum, particularly when coagulating at lower
pH values using so-called “enhanced coagulation”
3. Highly corrosive as a powder and need dust extractor to prevent damage to other
equipment.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-11
The selection of coagulant chemicals and flocculation aids for use in a particular plant is
generally based on economic considerations along with reliability, safety, and chemical
storage considerations. The best method of determining treatability, the most effective
coagulants, and the required dosages is to conduct bench-scale tests and, in some cases, pilot
tests. Jar tests can be used to determine treatability and estimate chemical dosages. If possible,
testing should cover all critical seasonal conditions.
6.1.7.3. Key points to be considered in chemical feeding
• Once it is determined what chemical is needed for treatment, it must be determined how
much chemical must be applied.
• A calibration cylinder is used to determine the pumps feed rate.
• The amount of chemical applied to a treatment system over a given period is called the
feed rate.
• The most common types of positive displacement pumps are peristaltic and diaphragm.
• In order to calculate feed rate, unit conversions may be necessary. Unit conversion is the
process of standardizing values in a calculation.
• Whether the chemical is a solid, liquid, or gas a feed rate can be determined.
• The output of a chemical feed pump is controlled by the length of the plunger stroke and
the number of repetitions of the stroke (speed and stroke).
• An ejector system uses the Venturi effect to create a vacuum and move solution into the
main water flow.
• A volumetric dry feeder uses a rotating feed screw to deliver a consistent volume of dry
chemical into a dissolving tank; varying the speed of the rotating feed screw changes the
feed rate.
• A gravimetric dry feeder uses a belt to deliver a certain weight of material with each
revolution of a conveyor belt.
• A pump calibration curve shows chemical Feed Rates vs. Pump Settings.
• It is important to consult with your engineer, manager, or chemical vendor to determine
the active strength of the chemical. This information may also be on the MSDS.
• Suction assembly consist of a suction strainer (used to protect the internal parts of a pump)
and a foot valve (used to prevent the pump from losing prime).

6.1.8. Dosing Arrangements

There are two recommended methods for dosing small flows: either an accurate dosing pump
or a constant head gravity system. The dosing pump is usually preferred because its accuracy
and simple operation, but availability and cost may be significant problems in developing
countries. A peristaltic head with variable speed motor, pump head are required for pumping
arrangements. A gravity system can be made to work well, provided the hydraulic head at the
point of application remains constant.

Regular cleaning with high pressure, adequate pipeline size to avoid blocking and minimum
number of bends, provision of cleaning points and “y” strainers for cleaning purposes are to
be in place for smooth operations.

6.1.9. Dry Chemical Feed Systems

The dry feed system is usually not preferred for most plant operations. However, certain
chemicals such as lime, Powder activated carbon, ionic and non-ionic polymers are available
in dry form. It is important that the dilution water have the lowest possible pH if lime is being
added. This water should be pumped from the filter outlet before the addition of lime. Water
from the clear water tank after addition of lime has a higher pH.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-12
It is convenient to have each tank supply enough chemical for 24 hours. This makes the
operation simpler and a tank of chemical is prepared each day. A typical dry feed system with
dissolving tank is shown in Figure 6-5

6.1.9.1.Dosing through dry feeders

Dry feeders draw powder chemical from agitated storage hoppers measurement being
gravimetric or volumetric. The bottom of hopper should have an angle of no greater than 30o
from the vertical and should be fitted with ordinary vibrators. The measured chemical is
usually delivered to a solution tank for injection into the main supply as a solution or slurry by
using ejectors.

Figure 6-5: Dry feed system with dissolving tank

Gravimetric Feeders are of two types: loss-in-weight and belt-type. The loss-in-weight type
uses a feed hopper suspended from scale levers; a material feed control mechanism, and a
scale beam with a motorized counterpoise. The rate of weight loss of the hopper equals the
weight loss equivalent of a travelling counterpoise when the feeder is in balance. If it does
not, the scale beam deflects and the feed mechanism adjusts the feed rate.

A feed hopper and control gate regulate the flow and depth of material on the belt-type feeder.
A scale counterpoise is adjusted to establish the desired belt loading. The gate releasing
material and the speed of the belt are adjusted to produce the desired flow of material. The

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-13
loss-in-weight type feeder capacity is limited to about 400–500 kg/h. The belt-type feeders
have capacities of 225 Mg/h and up.

The volumetric feeders provide good overall performance at low feed rates and acceptable
accuracy for materials with stable density and uniformity. They do not perform well when the
density of the material is not stable or is hygroscopic. They must be calibrated frequently.

In either case, standby feed capacity must be provided in case of breakdown and there should
be at least one-month chemical storage capacity adjacent to the feeders. Problems have been
reported with lime and alum dosing equipment in treatment plants in Sri Lanka from which
the following conclusions may be drawn.
• Proportional feed dosing pumps have been commonly used, but are unreliable and gravity
feed system via pipes of steady gradient should be utilized whenever possible. Actually
metering dosing pumps are more reliable for alum and ejector system is best for lime
dosing.
• Solution tanks are sometimes some distance from the point of chemical dosing, requiring
long feeding pipes, as well as blocking of lines more frequently (specially for lime).So
solution preparation, dosing and flocculation should be as close as possible.
• The amount and concentration of the solution must be known for optimum coagulation
and economy of coagulant use.

6.1.10. Powdered Activated Carbon Dosing

Powdered activated carbon (PAC) is a well-documented treatment method for taste and odour
reduction in drinking water. Activated carbon is similar to a sponge that can adsorb organics,
including the taste and odour compounds (methylene iso beomeyol -MIB, geosmin etc.).
Taste and odour compounds are typically found in raw water sources because of algae
blooms. They result in customer complaints of “musty” or “earthy” tasting water at levels of
10ng/L and above. As algae blooms can also be toxic, taste and odour is usually an immediate
indicator of the PAC’s effectiveness of adsorbing algal metabolites.

Many characteristics influence the adsorptive trends of activated carbon and not all carbons
have the same affinity to taste and odour compounds. Activated carbon is derived from a
variety of sources such as coal, wood and coconut. The base raw material and the method of
activation are two of the influencing factors on the surface chemistry and consequently the
character of the PAC. To evaluate the adsorption capacity of PAC a number of parameters
should be examined such as pore structure – macropores, micropores and mesopores, surface
area, bulk density, particle size, raw material, and activation process.

The detail description of taste and odour removal by activated carbon is given in chapter 7.3
and the dosing arrangement is depicted in Figure 6-6.

PAC is normally added early in the treatment process and is subsequently removed either by
sedimentation or by the filter beds during backwashing. The PAC application point should
allow for (1) an adequate contact time between the PAC and organics, and (2) avoid coating
PAC particles with other water treatment plant chemicals. A minimum contact time of about
15 minutes is required for most taste and odour compounds; however, significantly longer
contact times may be required for MIB and geosmin removal. The PAC should not be coated
with coagulants or other water treatment chemicals before the PAC has had sufficient contact
time with the source water. In addition, PAC should not be added concurrently with chlorine
or potassium permanganate as these chemicals will adsorb to the PAC. PAC is usually added
at the head of the plant to provide the longest contact time possible before applying other

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-14
treatment chemicals. Higher PAC dosages may be necessary if PAC is added later in the
treatment process to account for reduced contact times and interference with other treatment
chemicals.

Figure 6-6: Dry feed system for PAC (Source: Konduwatuwana)

Dosages of 1 to 20 mg/L are typical for nominal taste and odour control. Application of PAC
generates additional sludge which cannot be regenerated as is spent GAC. PAC sludge will
contain elevated concentrations of the contaminants removed and must be disposed in
accordance with state laws; however, it is not likely to be classified as a hazardous waste.
6.1.10.1. Powdered Activated Carbon Application Equipment
A key advantage of PAC is that it can easily be added to an existing treatment facility. New
PAC storage, dosing, and mixing facilities are needed, but existing sedimentation basins and
filters can remove PAC from water. PAC is available in 20 -25 kg bags and 400-500 kg
jumbo bags.
PAC can be fed as a powder using dry feed equipment or as a slurry by mixing with water. A
dry feed system should be considered if the PAC is fed infrequently and the maximum feed
rate is less than a few hundred kilogram per hour. Dry feed systems typically include a bag-
loading hopper, an extension hopper, a dust collector, a dissolving tank, and an eductor.
Slurry systems usually include a storage tank, day tank, and a chemical feeder (either a
diaphragm pumps or rotary feeders).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-15
6.1.10.2. Dry PAC System
A typical dry feed system consists of storage silo with dust extractor/ collector, feeder hopper,
gravimetric feeder/volumetric feeder, mixing vessel/tank, an educator and compressed air
system.

6.1.10.3. Slurry PAC system

A slurry PAC system usually includes a PAC slurry storage tank and either a hydraulic
diaphragm pump or a hose pump, rotary volumetric feeder. The carbon and water mixture in
the slurry tank must be kept continuously stirred to keep the carbon in suspension.

6.1.10.4. PAC Application

An eductor or hose pump usually moves the carbon slurry from the feeder to the application
point. The piping should slope downgrade to the application point, with provision for flushing
any carbon that may settle out and clog the pipe. Avoid any vertical drops of pipe down off a
header unless the drops are used continuously. Because of the abrasive nature of carbon
slurry, piping should be corrosion and erosion resistant, such as rubber, plastic or stainless
steel. To avoid feed pipe clogging, a minimum flow velocity of 1.5 m/s should be maintained
in the pipeline. Care must be taken to provide long radius elbows.

Activated carbon whether wet or dry, removes oxygen from the air. As a result, slurry tanks or
enclosed spaces containing carbon may have seriously reduced oxygen levels. Personnel
entering the space must follow oxygen deficiency regulation.

Table 6-1: Lime – Jumbo bags + Dry lime feeder versus Manual addition to batching
tanks + Dosing pumps
Jumbo bag unloader + Dry lime screw Manual addition of lime bags to batching
Parameters
feeder tanks + Dosing pumps
Concept Lime from a jumbo bag is fed from a hopper Bags of lime are manually added to a known
through a dry screw feeder continuously into volume of water in slurry tanks, which
a mixed slurry tank. Slurry is sucked through operate in duty/standby batch mode. Slurry is
an ejector from the slurry tank by dedicated pumped to dosing point. Pump rate, by stroke
motive service water and dosed to filtered setting or VSD, is used to adjust lime dose.
water. Water level in the slurry tank is
maintained at a constant level. Screw feeder
speed is used to adjust lime dose.
Dosing High. Screw feeder provides constant and Moderate. Depends on batching accuracy
accuracy accurate flow of lime. and pump and line scaling/blockage.
Manual Low. Some required at the time of bag High. Time consuming. Individual bags must
labour changing. Bag changing is assisted by be transferred and cut. Time allowed for
electric hoist adequate mixing. High labour input and
potential effects of lime dust must be
managed.
Footprint Small. Continuous feed system with small Large. Batch system. Large slurry tank x 2
slurry tank. No standby system required (just with full standby required.
critical parts)
Lime transfer Ejector. Low concentration lime <2.5%. Pump. Lime concentration dependent on
Venturi effect of water flow with no moving batch concentration. Low concentration
parts exposed to lime. No lime pump increases batch tank size (or frequency of
required, only motive water (no pump batching). Pump and line blockage common.
breakage or wear).
Flushing Required. Automatic valves assisted Required. After each time switching batch
flushing when plant is stopped. Flushing tanks and at plant stop. Flushing water comes
water comes from dedicated service water from plant service water. System requires
system. frequent flushing, occasional chemical (acid)
flushing, and replacement of (often long)
lime lines.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-16
Transport Jumbo bags ~650 kg Lime bags 25 kg or 50 kg
Gantry crane transport Manual / trolley transport
Transport between treatment plant buildings Can use gantry crane with attachment to hold
requires equipment multiple bags (although dust is promoted by
this method, and further measures for
mitigation are required)
Jumbo bag unloader + Dry lime screw Manual addition of lime bags to batching
Parameters
feeder tanks + Dosing pumps
Location Can be located close to lime dosing location, Usually located in a separate chemical
eg. within filter building due to small building. Pumping with long lime lines is a
footprint. Short lime dosing lines is an common result. Pump and line blockages and
advantage by minimising operational issues. scaling are common operational problems
with long lime lines/high
concentrations/pumping. Line flushing and
replacement requirements are higher.
Mixing 1 x smaller mixer in smaller slurry tank. 2 x larger mixers in 2 x larger slurry tanks to
Continuous. keep lime particles suspended and dissolve
lime. Continuous mixing for active batch.
Offline tank may suffer from lime
compaction and build-up of lime in tank if
offline mixer is switched off.
Height Floor to ceiling height of ~6m to 8m Level difference required for lime batching
requirements required for jumbo bag unloader and in large slurry tanks. Usually achieved with 2
monorail. storey or split level building. Floor to ceiling
height typically 4 to 8m.
Feed system Jumbo bag is suspended above jumbo bag Individual bags 25 kg or 50 kg loaded.
unloader, sitting on top of lime hopper. Bag splitter is common. Operator adds
known quantity (number of bags) of lime to
pre-measured/known volume of water. Open
to operator error and inconsistent lime
concentration.
Dose Screw feeder mechanical speed variation. Pump setting (Stroke setting, VSD, other)
adjustment
Dust Well controlled with covered screw and Slurry tanks should be covered to prevent
slurry tank, and dust extractor. Lime dust is dust. Closed bag splitters assist in keeping
generally only an issue when loading or dust low. Dust extractor attached to lime
(more commonly) removing empty jumbo slurry tanks is required. Lime loading by
bag. manually dropping/pouring lime into tanks
should be discouraged.
Effect of poor If lime quality is poor, quality changes If lime quality is poor, quality changes
lime quality significantly between batches, or lime in significantly between batches, or lime in
jumbo bags is affected by moisture, lime jumbo bags is affected by moisture, lime
dose rate by screw is affected. dose rate by pump is affected. Batch
Screw feeder may be damaged by solid concentration accuracy is affected.
foreign objects introduced by poor quality Similarly affected by changing lime quality
lime. and impurities.
Pumps may be damaged by solid foreign
objects introduced by poor quality lime.

Maintenance Screw – May be blocked or damaged by Pumps – May be blocked or damaged by

solid foreign objects introduced by poor solid foreign objects introduced by poor
quality lime. quality lime. Frequent cleaning of pumps,
Mixer especially in the case of poor quality lime
Dust extractor supply.
Lime dosing lines – generally flushing Lime tanks – Build-up of lime on mixers and
Electric hoist floor of tank when offline.
Mixers, Dust extractor
Lime dosing lines – flushing, chemical
cleaning, mechanical, replacement
Selection Ideal range 1 to 2 bag changes per day, i.e. Ideal range 1 slurry tank batch per day.
criteria 650 to 1300 kg/day lime. Suited to small to Manual batching of more lime is very labour
medium sized plants or for moderate lime intensive. Suited to smallest plant sizes or for

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-17
 consumption. For high lime consumption very low lime consumption.
and large plants, a lime silo and screw feeder
system is recommended.

6.2. Disinfection
Pathogens (disease causing organisms) are present in both groundwater and surface water
supplies. This organism under certain conditions, are capable of surviving in water supply for
weeks near 21C and for months in colder temperature. Destruction of these organisms is
essential in providing safe and palatable water supply. Some Bacteria, viruses, Protozoa, and
large organisms in water cause disease from mild to life threatening illness.

The goal of disinfection is to destroy or inhibit the activity of microbes (Bacteria, viruses
Protozoa, and Fungus) in water, using two primary treatments, including (1) physical methods
- boiling of water, ultraviolet light and filtration, and (2) chemical methods – by adding
chlorine, chlorine solution, ozone, potassium permanganate, iodine, some metals (copper,
silver), alkalinity and acidity.

The eradication of water borne pathogens to protect the public health is the most important
step in treatment of water. Hence, the disinfection is required for all public water supplies
with a chlorine residual within the distribution system. The efficiency of disinfection depends
on several factors, as follows:
 Type and concentration of the microorganism to be destroyed
 Type and strength of the disinfectant
 Mode of operation of the disinfectant
 Contact time period
 Temperature and pH
 Nature of the hydraulic system, including the disinfecting basin and method of mixing
of the disinfectant and water

Temperature, affects the rate of disinfection reactions and the pH of the disinfectant solution
affects the reaction kinetics. Other factors that influence microbial sensitivity to disinfection
include attachment to surfaces, encapsulation, aggregation and low-nutrient growth. Increased
resistance to disinfection may result from attachment or association of microorganisms to
various particulate surfaces, including:

 Macro-invertebrates (Crustacea, Nematoda, Platyhelminthes and Insect)

 Particles that cause turbidity
 Algae
 Carbon fines
 Glass

Pathogen kill efficiency is not the only consideration in selecting a disinfectant. The
characteristics of a good disinfectant are:
1. Effective kill of pathogenic microorganism
2. Non-toxic to humans or domestic animals
3. Non-toxic to fish or aquatic species
4. Easy and safe to store, transport, and dispense
5. Low cost
6. Easy and reliable analysis of disinfectant in water
7. Provides residual protection in drinking water

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-18
Boiling is one of the oldest and most simple methods of disinfecting water. Boiling water for
15 to 20 minute eradicates pathogenic microorganism but it is too energy intensive to be used
for disinfection. However, when water treatment works fail to produce water of suitable
microbiological quality, orders are immediately to be issued to the public to use boil water,
“boil water Notices’.

The water temperature is increased to the boiling point by directly heating it, using either
conventional (gas, fuel) or unconventional (solar energy) energy sources. With the use of
solar energy, the water is kept in transparent glass or food-grade plastic containers so that
sunlight will pass through it and eventually heat the water to a level that will destroy microbes
contained in it.

The various microorganisms in the raw water are affected to differing degrees, dependent on
the specific disinfection process. Chlorine is one of the most commonly used disinfecting
materials, due primarily to its low cost and the simplicity of its use. The next most commonly
used disinfectants are ozone and ultraviolet light.

A disinfection barrier is a common component of treatment of water. Primary disinfection is

typically a chemical oxidation process, although ultraviolet (UV) irradiation and membrane
treatment are gaining increased attention. This section looks at different types of disinfectant
— chlorine, monochlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, UV light and mixed oxidants — in terms
of their effectiveness against various pathogenic microorganisms.

6.2.1. Disinfection Technologies

The use of water supply disinfection as a public health measure has been responsible for a
major reduction in people contracting illness from drinking water. However many of these
disinfectant chemicals if overdosed or used inappropriately, as part of a water treatment
process, can result in the formation of disinfection by-products (DBP). DBPs are formed
when disinfection chemicals react with organic or inorganic compounds. Research shows that
human exposure to these by-products may have adverse health effects.

The most common chemical disinfectant for water treatment, and the one that has historically
made the greatest contribution to the prevention of waterborne disease worldwide, is chlorine.
However, the protozoan such as Giardia lamblia cysts and Oocsysts are more resistant to
chlorine. Regulatory implications for the use of chlorine relate primarily to by-products. The
most well-known of these are the trihalomethane (THM) compounds, although another group
of by-products of increasing concern in water supply are the Haloacetic Acids (HAAs).

Chlorine is used not only as a primary disinfectant in water treatment, but is also added to
provide a disinfectant residual to preserve the water in distribution, where the chlorine is in
contact with the water for much longer than during treatment. In the presence of organics in
water, this is a more significant factor in terms of organochlorine by-product formation, and is
a driver in the implementation of chloramination. In chloramination, chlorine is normally
added first as the primary disinfectant for treatment, followed by ammonia after the chlorine
contact tank to form monochloramine prior to distribution. Monochloramine is less effective
as a disinfectant than chlorine, but provides a much more stable residual in distribution, and
has the added benefit that it does not produce THMs or HAAs.

Chlorine dioxide is used as a primary disinfectant and in distribution worldwide, but there are
limitations to its use because of the inorganic by-products chlorite and to a lesser extent
chlorate. Where these chlorite by-products are elevated consequent to high ClO2 doses, an

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-19
additional chemical dosing process is required involving the addition of ferrous salts to reduce
levels to below the WHO guideline limit of 0.7mg/l. Excess chlorine in ClO2 will produce
THMs. If excess chlorine is controlled, the formation of chlorinated organic compounds is
reduced significantly.
Ozone is a very effective disinfectant, and where it is used for other purposes, usually for
removal of organic micropollutants such as pesticides, it provides benefits in terms of
reducing the microbiological challenge to downstream disinfection. However, ozone also
forms by-products, particularly bromate. Ozone does not allow a residual and need low dose
of chlorine to maintain a residual.

In addition to chemical disinfectants, UV irradiation has been used for many years for
disinfection in water treatment. Its usage is increasing worldwide, partly to reduce the amount
of chlorine used and minimise the potential for by-product formation, but also because of
recent recognition that it provides effective inactivation of Cryptosporidium and other
pathogenic protozoa. Cryptosporidium is a protozoan organism, which causes the parasitic
infection, Cryptosporiosis. Symptom includes diarrhoea, abdominal cramps, fever, nausea,
and vomiting. The principal source of Cryptosporidium is believed to be livestock (cattle,
sheep, or pig) some wild animals, and waste water treatment plants.

Similar to ozonation, UV does not provide a residual for distribution and it will principally be
used in conjunction with a residual generating chemical disinfectant.

Many of these disinfectants are also employed as oxidation agents to improve the efficiency
of coagulation/filtration, reduce iron and manganese, remove taste and odour and control algal
growth. The possible cumulative effect of these oxidants on by-product formation in
combination with their use for disinfection purposes also needs to be understood and risk
assessed.

6.2.2. Risk Based Approach

The provision of drinking water free from harmful microorganisms has traditionally been
assured by monitoring the numbers of bacteria which are indicators of faecal contamination.
This monitoring is done on drinking water entering storage or distribution system and at
certain fixed and random locations within the distribution system.

There is now international recognition within the water industry that this approach to
safeguarding the quality of water may not always be sufficient and that development and
adoption of risk management plans offer improved protection. In 2008, the EPA adopted the
WHO Drinking Water Safety Plan (DWSP) approach for ensuring drinking water is “safe”
and “secure”. A drinking water supply is deemed safe if it meets quality standards each time
the supply is tested. A drinking water supply is deemed secure if there is in place a
management system that has identified all potential risks and reduction measures to manage
these risks.
The benefits of the risk-based approach are as follows:
 It puts greater emphasis on prevention through good management practice and so less
reliance is placed on end product testing of treated water where the opportunity for
corrective action is limited
 It offers a systematic approach to managing the quality of drinking water at all stages
from source to tap
 It provides transparency to increase trust and confidence in water supplies

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-20
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has promoted this risk-based approach through
guidance for Water Safety Plans accepted worldwide as providing an integrated framework
for operation and management of water supply systems. This involves an assessment of how
particular risks can be managed by addressing the whole process of water supply from source
to tap. Water treatment is a key barrier within the WSP approach to prevent the transmission
of waterborne pathogens. The WSP approach requires that the range of pathogens likely to be
present is identified and that treatment processes known to be capable of eliminating these
organisms are applied. The assessment must take into account extreme events (e.g. heavy
rainfall causing run-off from grazing land) which can increase the microbial burden in the
source water.

6.2.3. The Use and Efficacy of Different Disinfection Technologies

Different disinfectant technologies can be used to manage the source risks consequent to the
presence of organic and inorganic impurities in source waters and to meet the pathogen
inactivation demands of a water supply system. These technologies can be used as part of a
treatment process and/or subsequent disinfection processes for;

 The physical removal and chemical oxidation of organic and inorganic impurities in
water and the consequent reduction in pathogens
 The control of residual organic or inorganic compounds in treated water as a means of
limiting regulated disinfection by-products in final drinking water to consumers
 The chemical disinfection of drinking water following its physical and chemical
treatment as a means of primary disinfection to effect inactivation of residual
pathogens in the final drinking water e.g. the use of Contact Time (Ct) appropriate to
the verification of disinfection efficacy using chlorination, ozonation, chlorine dioxide
and other chemical disinfectants
 The non-chemical disinfection of drinking water following treatment as a means of
primary disinfection in the final drinking water e.g. UV treatment for full spectrum
inactivation of pathogens, verifiable by water quality tests
 The maintenance of a disinfectant residual within the distribution system for quality
assurance with the wholesomeness and cleanliness of drinking water to the consumer
tap e.g. using chlorination, chloramination and chlorine dioxide
Following physical treatment of water, primary disinfection describes the main disinfection
method employed to inactivate waterborne pathogenic microorganisms. Primary disinfection
is often supplemented by downstream secondary disinfection to maintain a residual level of
disinfectant within the distribution system in order to assure the drinking water quality at the
last consumer’s tap. Assuming that the efficacy of primary disinfection has been verified,
secondary disinfectants are added as the final element of a treatment process or at a re-
chlorination booster station to protect against re-contamination and control the growth of
microorganisms in the storage reservoirs and distribution network. As the purpose of primary
and secondary disinfection differs, a particular disinfection technology may or may not be
appropriate to fulfil both disinfection roles.

The following key factors influence the selection of a disinfection system:

 The effectiveness of the disinfectant in destroying pathogens of concern
 The quality of the water to be disinfected
 The formation of undesirable by-products as a result of disinfection
 The ability to easily verify the operation of the chosen disinfection system by
reference to system validation, collation of monitoring data and alarm generation
 The extent of the site or building in which the proposed disinfection process is located
and the availability therein of necessary ancillary equipment e.g. chemical contact

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-21
 volumes, instrumentation etc necessary for the proper operation and verification of the
disinfection process
 The ease of handling, and health and safety implications of a disinfectant to WTP
workers as well as surrounding community
 The preceding treatment processes
 The overall cost of disinfection
6.2.4. Disinfection Practice in Water Treatment
The type of treatment prior to primary disinfection, and the way that treatment is managed
and operated, can have a very significant influence on the performance of disinfection. The
turbidity of treated water is a key measure of its suitability for disinfection. In the case of
surface water treatment, a parametric value not exceeding 1.0 NTU in the treated water must
be strived for. The WHO guidelines recommend a median turbidity should be below 0.1 NTU
for effective disinfection, which is not possible in slow sand filtration. The EPA
recommendation to be “optimised to obtain turbidity levels < 0.2 NTU in the final water” is
the current guidance for high Cryptosporidium risk catchments. NWSDB is also targeting to
achieve turbidity <0.1 NTU in WTP with full treatment options. This recommendation of 0.2
NTU is prior to lime addition as addition of lime (for pH correction) can raise the turbidity.
This elevation in turbidity caused by lime does not indicate a risk of oocyst
(Cryptosporidium) breakthrough.

Disinfection performance is usually defined as log inactivation:

Log inactivation = log10 (N0/Nr).
N0 - initial concentration of microorganism in water, Cells/100mL (before treatment),
Nr - Remaining concentration of microorganism in water, Cells/100mL at (after
treatment).
Hence,
90% removal/inactivation is defined as 1 log, 99% as 2 log, 99.9% as 3 log etc. This provides
a more straightforward way of comparing high levels of removal.

The specific objectives of disinfection for all public water supply system are as follows:
 Assure 99.9% (3 log) and 99.99% (4 log) inactivation of Giardia lamblia cyst and
enteric viruses respectively as specified in the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)
in USA. The SWTR is based on Chick-Watson disinfection model i.e. the Ct concept
 Do not impart toxicity, taste and odour to the disinfected water
 Minimise the formation of disinfection by products
 Meet the maximum guideline value for the disinfection and the by-product that can
form

6.2.5. Disinfection Requirement

One of the keys in predicting the effectiveness of a chemical disinfectant on microorganisms
is “CT value”. The disinfectant residual concentration is the “C”, and the contact time is the
“T” CT value is calculated based on a specified disinfectant residual being maintained prior to
the first customer: concentration (mg/l) x contract time (minutes).

The disinfection contact time is based on the time that water with 10% of approximate tracer
concentration takes to appear at the sampling point at the peak hourly flow. The determination
of T10 is based on two methods: (1) dye-tracer to simulate actual flow conditions, (2)
theoretical method which involves the use of rule-of-thumb.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-22
6.2.5.1. Contact Time Under Ideal Conditions
In an ideal contact tank, of volume V, through which water passes at a volumetric flow rate
Q, the residence time equals the theoretical hydraulic residence time (HRT),  =V/Q. The
term ‘plug flow’ is commonly used to describe the flow in such an ideal system and the
contact time for disinfection would simply be .

6.2.5.2. Contact time in real systems

Such ideal flow is never observed in real systems. The residence time of individual sub-
volumes of water passing through a system is not equal. In the case of a disinfection contact
tank, a proportion of the water may short-circuit in the tank and thus have a residence time
less than ; another proportion of the water may re-circulate, or get caught in quiescent zones,
and have a residence time greater than .
The true situation with regard to flow in a system is characterised by the distribution of
residence times: generally known as the residence time distribution (RTD). A common
approach to dealing with the non-ideality of flow in disinfection systems is to consider tx,
defined as the time in which the fastest flowing x % of water passes through the tank.
Conversely, tx is the minimum residence time of the remaining (100-x) % of the water.

The relationship between tx and the HRT, is: tx = (tx/) x  where (tx/) = correction factor.
In a perfect Plug Flow Reactor (PFR), residence time is uniform, and hence (tx/) = 1.0. The
further away from plug flow, the smaller the correction factor for a given value of x, and
hence the smaller tx will be relative to the HRT. The CT (i.e. Ctx) value will therefore be
lower for a given concentration of chlorine.
USEPA guidance for disinfection is based on x = 10 i.e. t10 value, which is associated with
90% of the water passing the contact volume having a greater residence time than this value.
The RTD, and therefore tx can be readily determined by means of tracer tests.
In the absence of tracer test data, an initial estimate of non-ideality can be made by
consideration of the clear water tank design, in particular provision of baffling. Values of t 10/
suggested by USEPA are shown in Table 6-2 below. The baffle is generally utilised to reduce
short circuiting reducing dead space areas, the effect of wind, temperature, density currents
and influent and effluent turbulence.

Table 6-2: Suggested values for t10/ in respect of different baffling arrangements
Condition t10/ Description Graphic
Unbaffled 0.1 None agitated basin, very low length to width ratio, high inlet
and outlet flow velocities.
Poor 0.3 Single or multiple unbaffled inlets and outlets, no intra-basin Figure 6-7
baffles.
Average 0.5 Baffled inlet or outlet with some intra-basin baffles. Figure 6-8
Superior 0.7 Perforated inlet baffle, serpentine or perforated intra-basin Figure 6-9
baffles, outlet weir or perforated launders.
Perfect 1.0 Very high length to width ratio (pipeline flow).
Source: USEPA, LT1ESWTR Disinfection Profiling and Benchmarking Technical Guidance Manual 2003

For a poorly baffled tank, the contact time used for calculation of CT using the t10 value
would be less than one-third of that derived from dividing the tank volume by flow rate.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-23
 Figure 6-7: Poor baffling arrangements in contact tank
A good contact tank will have structures in place that:
 Prevent jetting at the inlet
 Distribute the flow across the full width and depth in the direction of flow
 Prevent streaming at the outlet

Figure 6-8: Average baffling arrangements in contact tank

Compartmentalisation of the tank will, in principle, have a beneficial effect on hydraulics.

Features to be avoided include:
 Submerged pipe inlet with no break plate or other means of preventing jetting
 Outlet weirs or launders that are not full width
 Bell-mouth outlets in the main body of the contact tank

For newly build contact tanks, it is now common practice to test the proposed design with
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis, from which the RTD and tx can be predicted.
The incorporation of structures within a tank to promote even flow distribution carries a
capital cost.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-24
 Figure 6-9: Superior baffling arrangements in contact tank

6.2.5.3. The Use Of Service Reservoirs For Chlorine Contact

The principal functions of service reservoirs include the provision of a buffer volume to
equalise water production facilities with peak system demands and a storage volume for fire-
fighting and emergency use. However, the design of the service reservoirs often gives little
consideration to the flow patterns formed within the tank, other than using top water inlets to
limit loss from the reservoirs in the event of pumping main leakage and placing inlet and
outlet at opposite sides of the reservoir.

Consequently, these storage reservoirs can be hydraulically very inefficient, with large areas
of tanks containing very slow moving or stagnant water making them unsuitable for use as
contact tanks. However, if there is a dedicated main to the service reservoir without any
consumer connections, this would provide effective contact time to be taken into account in
the CT calculations.

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis of such reservoirs particularly those with low
length to width ratios show that short-circuiting of the flow occurs with subsequent formation
of dead zones in the flow field, which can have a detrimental effect on the quality of the water
discharged to the distribution network. Increased length to width ratios and the inclusion of
baffle walls in the design of such reservoirs can increase their efficacy for chlorination
contact.

In addition, changes in operation, which affect the ratio of inflows, outflows and operating
levels, can significantly change the flow profile through the tank. The shape of the diurnal
curve of water demand can vary significantly between different supply areas because of
differences in water use. These differences should be taken into account in determining the
impact of such daily usage patterns on the effectiveness of service reservoirs for chlorine
contact.

6.2.5.4. Inactivation Ratio

In order to determine the total inactivation, the CT value may be calculated at each point
where “C” is measured. Each calculated value is divided by the tabular value of CT for
desired inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts and viruses found in the SWTR Tables. These
tabular values are for different disinfectants at specific condition of pH, temperature and

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-25
disinfection concentrations. The sum of disinfectants for all treatment units up to the first
customer should be equal to or greater than 1.0.
𝐶𝑇𝐶𝑎𝑙
∑ ≥ 1.0
𝐶𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑏
Where
𝐶𝑇𝐶𝑎𝑙 - CT calculated (C in mg/L, and T= T10 in min)
𝐶𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑏 - CT obtained from SWTR tables

WHO guidelines (2004) include recommendations for chlorine Ct values for different types of
microorganisms. Table 6-3 sets out Ct values for 99% inactivation of common waterborne
pathogens. The virus data are for Coxsackie A2 which have a high resistance to chlorine
compared with other viruses, and therefore would provide a conservative indicator for design
of chlorination systems.

Table 6-3: Recommended CTTab values for 99% (2-log) inactivation

Temperature (C) pH CTTab (mg. min /L)
<2 7 0.08
Bacteria
<2 8.5 3.3
<5 7 – 7.5 12
Viruses
10 7 – 7.5 8
0.5 7 – 7.5 230
Giardia 10 7 – 7.5 100
25 7 – 7.5 41

𝐶𝑇𝑇𝑎𝑏 Values for the inactivation of Giardia lamblia cysts and viruses for disinfection by free
chlorine, chlorine dioxide, Ozone, chloramines, and UV are provided in Table 6-4 to Table
6-6.

Table 6-4: CTTab Values for achieving inactivation Giardia lamblia cysts by free chlorine
residual
pH Temperature Free chlorine, 1 mg/L Free chlorine, 2 mg/L Free chlorine, 3 mg/L
C 0.5 log 1 log 2 log 0.5 log 1 log 2 log 0.5 log 1 log 2 log
5 18 35 70 19 39 77 21 42 84
pH 10 13 26 53 15 29 58 16 32 63
6 20 7 13 26 7 15 29 8 16 31
25 4 9 17 5 10 19 5 11 21
5 25 50 99 28 55 110 30 61 121
pH 7 10 19 37 75 21 41 83 23 46 91
20 9 19 27 10 21 41 11 23 45
25 6 12 25 7 14 27 8 15 31
5 36 72 144 41 81 162 45 89 179
pH 8 10 27 54 108 30 61 121 34 67 134
20 14 27 54 15 30 61 17 34 67
25 9 18 36 10 20 41 11 22 45
5 52 104 208 59 118 235 65 130 259
pH 9 10 39 78 156 44 88 177 49 97 195
20 20 39 78 22 44 88 24 49 97
25 13 26 52 15 29 59 16 32 65

Table 6-5: CTTab Values for achieving inactivation viruses by free chlorine residual
Temperature pH =6-9 pH =10
C 2-log 4-log 4-log 2-log 4-log 4-log
5 6 9 12 45 66 90

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-26
 10 4 6 8 30 44 60
20 3 4 6 22 33 45
25 1 1 2 7 11 15
For the designing of a disinfection facility, SWTR require that disinfection credit for the
treatment process used in the process train should also be given. For example, a 2.5 log
removal of Giardia lamblia cysts can be achieved in well-operated conventional treatment
plant. Table 6-7 provide the required primary disinfection needed for the entire treatment
process to meet overall treatment requirement.
Table 6-6: CTTab Values for achieving inactivation Giardia lamblia cysts and viruses by
chlorine dioxide, Ozone, chloramines, and UV
Disinfectants Temperature Giardia lamblia cysts Viruses
C 0.5 log 1 log 2 log 0.5 log 1 log 2 log
5 4.3 8.7 17 5.6 17.1 33.4
chlorine 10 4.0 7.7 15 4.2 12.8 25.1
dioxide 20 2.5 5 10 2.3 6.4 8.4
25 2 3.7 7.3 1.4 4.3 8.4
5 0.32 0.63 1.3 0.6 0.9 1.2
10 0.23 0.48 0.95 0.5 0.8 1.0
Ozone
20 0.12 0.24 0.48 0.25 0.4 0.5
25 0.00 0.16 0.32 0.15 0.25 0.3
5 365 735 1470 857 1423 1988
10 310 615 1230 643 1067 1491
Chloramines
20 185 370 735 321 534 746
25 125 250 500 214 356 497
UV 21 36
Table 6-7: Recommended disinfection credits for entire treatment process to meet
SWTR requirements
Expected log removal Recommended log removal by
Process Train Primary Disinfection
Giardia lamblia Viruses Giardia lamblia Viruses
Conventional filtration 2.5 2 0.5 2
Direct filtration 2 1 1 3
Slow sand filtration 2 2 1 2
Diatomaceous earth filtration 2 1 1 3
Treatment without filtration - - 3 4

6.2.6. Primary Disinfection

Primary disinfection is the key step in water treatment. Typically, in conventional water
treatment plants, this step occurs just after filtration. Pre-disinfection by using chlorine
dioxide and ozone can also be used by careful review of chlorine, chlorate, and bromate
formation potential.

The original WHO recommendations for the use of chlorine as a disinfectant stipulated a
minimum free chlorine concentration of 0.5 mg/l (C) after 30 minutes contact time (t) at a pH
of less than 8, provided that the turbidity is less than 1 NTU.

The product of these two values C x T is the commonly used term to describe the efficacy of
chemical disinfection systems that form residual concentrations in the water following
chemical dosing.

The recommended WHO value for chlorination corresponds to a CT of 0.5 x 30 = 15 mg.

min/l. This is very much a generic recommendation, and a more considered site-specific
approach to setting Ct values is recommended.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-27
A site specific approach may need to take into account:

 The levels of contamination with pathogens expected, and any specific pathogens of
concern for the site (catchment risk)
 The extent and performance of treatment prior to final disinfection
 The design of the contact tank, in relation to short-circuiting
 Expected variations in temperature and pH

These generic recommendations are based on inactivation data that show that microorganisms
vary markedly in their susceptibility to disinfection. The ascending order of resistance is from
bacteria, viruses, bacterial spores to protozoa (e.g. Giardia, Cryptosporidium). Protozoa are
not readily inactivated by chlorination conditions generally used in water treatment,
particularly Cryptosporidium, and their removal must be achieved primarily by optimisation
of other treatment processes.

According to NWSDB experience, Giardia lamblia cysts, and

Cryptosporidium are not detected in Sri Lanka yet.

6.2.7. Secondary Disinfection

The requirement to achieve adequate CT for inactivation of waterborne microorganisms in
drinking water is only important at the location of primary disinfection installations i.e.
locations following treatment where the necessary microbial inactivation of microorganisms
in water is affected.
At secondary disinfection stations and chlorine booster stations located on distribution
networks, the achievement of CT based on downstream contact volume and chlorine
concentration is not required. Chlorine is dosed to provide or boost the measurable free
chlorine residual in the water for continued verification of microbiological water quality and
to prevent contamination in the network. The aim of boosting chlorine in the network should
be to ensure that at least 0.1 mg/l free residual chlorine is present at the extremities of the
distribution network.
High residual of primary disinfection residuals >1.0 mg/L at WTP will create a corrosive
environment and could be avoided. In general, a very high rate at WTP to ensure 0.2 mg/L in
extreme point of distribution system is not practical and should not be promoted.
6.2.8. Monitoring of Disinfection
6.2.8.1. Primary Disinfection
All systems providing primary disinfection must ensure that routine monitoring of the
relevant parameters associated with the performance of the disinfection process is being
carried out to ensure that water that is directed to consumers is being properly disinfected.
Primary disinfection facilities for all public drinking water systems must be equipped with
continuous disinfection process monitoring and real-time recording devices with alarms. In
systems that do not have continuous monitoring equipment installed must analyse manual
grab samples on a daily basis for the parameters specified in the standard.

6.2.8.2. Free Chlorine Residual Disinfection

Sampling locations must be ahead of the point of addition of any post-disinfection chemicals,
including those intended for the purpose of ensuring maintenance of disinfectant residual in
the distribution system or preventing corrosion in the distribution system. For public water
supply systems where continuous monitoring devices are not installed, daily monitoring using
manual grab samples at the same locations must be performed.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-28
Every free chlorine residual analyser must be installed for the purpose of monitoring a
primary disinfection process utilizing free chlorine residual, must be calibrated at a frequency
necessary to ensure appropriate operation of the analyser within a quality control band of
plus/minus 0.05 mg/L at a chlorine concentration up to and including 1.0 mg/L or plus/minus
5.0% at a chlorine concentration greater than 1.0 mg/L.
6.2.8.3. Maintenance of Disinfectant Residual in a Distribution System
Information obtained through the monitoring of disinfectant residual in the distribution
system should be used to assess the effectiveness of secondary disinfection throughout the
distribution system, as well as to control the level of disinfectant in the water leaving the
water treatment plant and any re-chlorination facilities located within the distribution system.

6.3. Chlorination
The primary objectives of the chlorination process are:
 Disinfection, taste and odour control in the system
 Preventing the growth of algae and other microorganisms that might interfere with
coagulation and flocculation
 Keeping filter media free of slime growths and mud balls and preventing possible built
up of anaerobic bacteria in the filter media
 Destroying hydrogen sulphide and controlling sulphurous taste and odour in the
finished water
 Removing iron and manganese
 Bleaching of organic colour
It can also be used for flushing pipelines before it is brought into operation and after carrying
out repairs etc. All the water-retaining structures shall be disinfected before they are brought
into operation. Disinfection of structures and pipelines are described in construction
specification or in D2 Manual.

Chlorine is usually the most satisfactory disinfectant for water supplies, although in situations
where cheap electricity is available, ozone treatment may be competitive particularly if colour
removal is also required.

6.3.1. Principle of Chlorination

 Chlorine reacts with water to form hypochlorous acid (HOCl) and Hydrochloric acid
(HCl). This hydrolysis reaction is reversible. The hypochlorous acid is a weak acid and
may dissociate into hydrogen ions (H+) and hypochlorite ions (OCl-). Free available
chlorine includes both hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite ions.
Cl2 + H2O ↔ HOCl + HCl
HOCl → H+ + OCl-

 This free available chlorine can react with compounds such as ammonia, proteins, amino
acids and phenol, which may be present in the water, forming chloramines and chloro-
derivatives, which constitute the combined chlorine.
 Chlorination in presence of humic acid and fulvic acid forms Trihalomethane (THM)
which is a health hazard.
 The combined available chlorine has less disinfecting properties as compared to available
free chlorine.

Disinfection operation consists in selective destruction of all pathogenic microorganisms.

Disinfection depends on the following parameters:

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-29
  Retention period
 Disinfection agent type and concentration
 Existing microorganisms

To understand this fact, it is convenient to mention that chlorine aqueous solutions contain
two species in equilibrium, as it is represented in the above equations: hypochlorous acid
(HClO) and hypochlorite ion (ClO-).

Hypochlorous acid and hypochlorite ion are both strong oxidizing agents, but HOCl should be
the strongest from these two. The relative amount of the two species strongly depends on pH,
as it is shown in Figure 6-10. Hypochlorous acid is the predominant species between pH 1
and pH 7, the species are at equal concentrations at a pH of 7.5 and hypochlorite ion is
predominant at high pH values. Considering pH 8.5 as a reasonable approach to pH of a
concrete wall, the chlorine solution will have a mere superficial action, because the abundant
species is hypochlorite ion.

Figure 6-10: pH and temperature dependency of HOCl ↔ OCl– equilibrium

The rate of reaction depends on temperature and pH as given in Figure 6-10. One practical
consequence of the reactions is that the chlorine vapour pressure over a solution depends on
solution pH, decreasing as pH increases (because of the increased formation of nonvolatile
hypochlorite acid). Therefore, the addition of an alkaline material such as lime or sodium
bicarbonate will reduce the volatility of chlorine from accidental spills or leaks and thus
minimize danger to exposed personnel.

6.3.2. Method of Application of Chlorine

Disinfection is carried out by applying chlorine or chlorine compounds. The methods of
application are as follows:
1. Preparing a weak solution using bleaching powder
2. By adding chlorine, either in the form of gas or solution prepared from dissolving
chlorine gas in a small feed of water

6.3.3. Chlorine Addition and Measuring Points

pH correction for stabilization should preferably follow disinfection so that the pH at the
disinfection stage is as low as possible.

1. The best disinfection occurs at lower pH

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-30
2. If you have high alkalinity and high pH (> 8) consider longer chlorine contact time due to
reduced efficiency of the hypochlorite form
3. Chlorine (hypochlorite) is a strong base. Therefore, in a low alkalinity system, be wary of
pH changes with chlorination
Regardless of whether you use chlorine or chloramination, control of pH is absolutely critical.

6.3.4. Residual Chlorine Measuring Point

Continuous chlorination is most commonly used in piped water supplies. Regular chlorination
of other water supplies is difficult and usually reserved for disinfection after repair and
maintenance. It is common to test for chlorine residual at the following points:

 Just after the chlorine has been added to the water to check that the chlorination
process is working
 At the outlet of the consumer nearest to the chlorination point to check that,
residual chlorine levels are within acceptable levels.
 At the furthest points in the network where residual chlorine levels are likely to be
at their lowest.
If chlorine levels are found to be below minimum levels, it might be necessary to add more
chlorine at an intermediate points in the network.
6.3.5. Recommended Residual Chlorine Levels
The main purpose of disinfection by chlorine is to protect public health by destroying
pathogens in the water and to maintain minimum chlorine residual in the distribution system
to provide some additional protection against subsequent contamination.
The higher the residual chlorine levels in the supply, the better and longer the chemical will
be able to protect the system from contamination. However, high levels of chlorine make the
water smell and give it a bad taste, which will discourage people from drinking it. For normal
domestic use, residual chlorine levels at the point where the consumer collects water should
be between 0.2 and 0.5 mg/l. The higher level will be close to the disinfection point and the
lower level at the far extremities of the supply network.
The following minimum free chlorine residuals are recommended at different locations in the
water system.
Clear Water / Chlorine contact basin - 0.5 to 0.8 mg/L
Stand posts/ consumer taps - 0.2 mg/L
Distribution dead – ends - 0.1 mg/L

Other uses of chlorine are shown in Table 6-8 and it includes oxidation of iron, manganese
and hydrogen sulphide, destruction of taste and odour causing compounds, and control of
algae and slime growth at treatment plants.
Table 6-8: Chlorine used for various treatment processes other than Disinfection
Chlorine Residual Amount of
Chlorine Contact pH Recommended Alkalinity
Treatment
Dosage Time Range Consumed as
Type (mg/L)
Ca2+
AMMONIA
REMOVAL 5 times NH3 1.22 per mg/L
> 20 min 8.5 Free 0.1
 Monochloramine (as mg/L) Cl2
formation
 Dichloramine 10 times NH3 1.22 per mg/L
formation (as mg/L) > 20 min 4.4-5.0 Free 0.1 Cl2

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-31
TASTE & ODOUR
10 times NH3
CONTROL > 20 min 1.22 per mg/L
(as mg/L) plus Free 1.0
Cl2
1 to 5mg/L
 Phenol destruction 6 to 20 times 1.5 to 5 hours
7.0 Free Variable
phenol content (step wise)
HYDROGEN
SULPHIDE
REMOVAL 2.2 times H2S Instant Free or 0.1 2.6 per mg/L
5 – 9 (9
 Oxidation to sulphur content combined H2S
optimum)
 Oxidation to sulphate 8.3 times H2S Instant 6.5 - 9 (9 Free or 10 per mg/L
optimum) combined H2S
MANGANESE 1.3 times Mn Up to 3 hr 7-10 (10 Free 0.5 3.4 per mg/m
REMOVAL content (variable) optimum) Mn oxidized
ALGAE CONTROL 1-10 mg/L Variable Free > 0.5

Chlorine Residual Amount of

Chlorine Contact pH Recommended Alkalinity
Treatment
Dosage Time Range Consumed
Type (mg/L)
as Ca2+
LIME CONTROL 1-10 mg/L Maintain Free > 0.5
residual
throughout
distribution
system

IRON & SULPHUR 1-10 mg/L - do - Free > 1.0

CRITERIA
CONTROL
COAGULANT AID 1 : 7.8 of do-
 Chlorinated ferrous
Copperas sulphate
Source: “Water Treatment plant Design”, AWWA page 158-159

6.3.6. Chlorine Capacity, Dosage and Contact Time

The required capacity of the chlorinator will vary with the chlorine dosage needed for
disinfection and the amount of residual to be maintained in the distribution system. Dosage
will vary with the chemical and physical characteristics of the water (i.e. temperature, pH,
turbidity, and mineral constituents such as iron and manganese). It also varies with the nature
and concentration of pathogens in the water and the length of contact time.

For design purposes, a chlorine dosage of 2 mg/L may be used for clear water (i.e. turbidity <
2 NTU) containing little organic and suspended matter, and with iron and manganese
concentrations of less than 0.3 mg/L. The total chlorine requirements, recognizing all the
above variables, should be determined by performing a chlorine demand test as a part of the
pre-design investigations. A minimum contact time of 20 minutes should be provided either in
the pump sump, reservoir and /or in the pipeline before reaching the nearest consumer.

The concept of break point chlorination is important for the operator to understand and
described in Figure 6-11. The breakpoint chlorination is disinfection when near-complete
oxidation of nitrogen compound is reached. Any residual beyond breakpoint is mostly free
chlorine. When chlorine is added the chlorine starts acting on organisms in water thus
reducing its volume in water. Once all the organisms are killed there will be residual amount
of chlorine left in the water even though there are no organisms in water. This residual
chlorine available in water after killing all bacteria in the well is called “Free Residual
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-32
Chlorine”. Break-point is the point where all bacteria are killed and sufficient chlorine is
utilized for this activity.

 When chlorine is added it reacts first with the reducing compounds such as Fe2+, Mn2+,
NO2‐ and the chlorine will be reduced to the none effective Fe, Mn, NO, and chloride ion
Cl‐ (from zero to point A on figure)
 When adding more chlorine it will react with NH3 to produce combined chlorine residual
(chloramines) and this increase to maximum level (from point A to B).
 When adding more chlorine some chloramines are oxidized to nitrogen gas and the
chlorine is reduced to non-effective Cl- ion (from point B to C).
 Continued addition of chlorine will produce free available chlorine (at point C which is
called the “Break point”).

Initial Combine residual Chlorine Formation of Free residual

0.5 demand for
reducing
Applied Chlorine Destruction of
0.4 compounds
Chlorine Residual (mg/L)

chloromine
Chlorine and chloro-
Demand organic Break Point
0.3
Formation of chloro-organic compound
compound and chloromine B
0.2 Free residual

0.1 Combined Residual Irreducible Combined residual

C
A
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Chlorine Added (mg/L)
Figure 6-11: Reactions of Chlorine in Water

Reactions with Ammonia: In the presence of certain dissolved constituents in water, each of
the disinfectants may react and transform to less biocidal chemical forms. In the case of
chlorine, these principally involve reactions with ammonia and amino nitrogen compounds. In
the presence of ammonium ion, free chlorine reacts in a stepwise manner to form
chloramines.

NH4 + + HOCl = NH2Cl + H2O + H+

NH2Cl + HOCl = NHCl2 + H2O
NHCl2 + HOCl = NCl3 + H2O

These compounds, monochloramine (NH2Cl), dichloramine (NHCl2), and trichloramine

(NCl3), each contribute to the total (or combined) chlorine residual in a water. The terms total
available chlorine and total oxidants refer, respectively, to the sum of free chlorine
compounds and reactive chloramines, or total oxidating agents. Under normal conditions of
water treatment, if any excess ammonia is present, at equilibrium the amount of free chlorine
will be much less than 1 percent of total residual chlorine.

One possible reaction during breakpoint is: 2 NH3 + 3 HOCl = N2 + 3H+ + 3 Cl− + 3 H2O.
This reaction also may be used as a means to remove ammonia nitrogen from water. Finally,
after the ammonia nitrogen has been completely oxidized, the residual remaining consists
almost exclusively of free chlorine. The minimum in the chlorine residual–versus–dose curve

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-33
(in this case Cl2:NH4+ − N weight ratio of 7.6:1) is called the breakpoint and denotes the
amount of chlorine that must be added to a water before a stable free residual can be obtained.

6.4. Disinfection by Bleaching Powder

Bleaching powder or calcium hypochlorite [Ca(ClO)2] is a chlorinated lime, which contains
about 35 to 60 % of available chlorine by weight. Also sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) in the
liquid form of chlorine is used in a small to medium size water system in some countries.
Sodium hypochlorite is often the disinfectant of choice because of its ease of use and lower
health hazard. It is easier to use than solid (calcium hypochlorite) chlorine but it is more
expensive than chlorine gas and prone to degradation so it cannot endure long-term storage.

The benefits of calcium hypochlorite are that it is more stable than the liquid form and it has a
longer shelf life. The primary drawback in using solid chlorine is that it must be mixed with
water before it can be added to the water system. This mixing process can be hazardous
because of the heat generated from the chemical reaction. Keep in mind that all forms of
chlorine must be stored in a cool, dry location, away from sunlight, and away from
combustible materials such as motor oil or gasoline.

Chlorine being a gas is unstable and as such it is mixed with lime to retain its strength for a
longer period, as far as possible. The bleaching powder is hygroscopic in nature. It loses its
chlorine strength rapidly due to storage and hence should not be stored for more than three
months. The method of chlorination by bleaching powder is known as hypo-chlorination.

The general reaction of ionisation of bleaching powder when mixed with water is as follows:

Ca(OCl)2  Ca2+ + 2OCl –

2H2O  2H+ + 2(OH)–
H+ + OCl –  HOCl
Ca2+
+ 2(OH)- = Ca(OH)2 

The calcium hydroxide settles as precipitate. The combined action of hypochlorous acid and
hypochlorite ion brings about the disinfection of water. Hypochlorite solution may be useful
for small installations since it avoids the use of toxic gas. It is available as:

 High test hypochlorite - Ca(OCl)2

 Bleaching powder - CaOCl2
However, High-test hypochlorite is not available in Sri Lanka and not widely used.
Hypochlorite tablets may be used for emergency disinfection in times of disaster when normal
water treatment is not operating and used specially to disinfect polluted water from point
sources.

6.4.1. Preparation of Solution

• The concentrated solution of bleaching powder is prepared in one or two basins of
capacity suitable for 24 hours requirement.
• The basin inside should be of glazed tiles or stoneware or polyethylene and should be
covered.
• The powder is first put on a perforated slab placed longitudinally inside the basin at a
higher level, with respect to bed level of basin.
• Water is sprinkled on the powder through a perforated pipe above this perforated
slab. The solution of bleaching powder and water now enters the basin.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-34
 • The solution is rotated for thorough mixing of powder with water by a hand driven/
motor-reduction gear operated slow speed stirrer.
• The precipitates of calcium hydroxide settle at the bottom of the basin. The
supernatant water, which contains OCl-, HOCl, is now ready for use as disinfectant.
(See Figure 6-12)

6.4.2. Hypochlorite Feeders

For small installations, a drip feed from a constant head bottle may be satisfactory. But for
larger supplies, a more accurate metering must be provided either by an orifice with a gravity
feed basin or by a positive displacement pro-portioning pump (stroke adjustment to vary the
flow).

Although bleaching powder (chloride of lime) normally contains 35-60 available chlorine, for
design purposes the lower figure is recommended. It is always recommended to verify the
strength before using a particular batch of bleaching powder. Solutions up to 5% may be
prepared but a 1% solution is recommended to minimize problems caused by sediment and
clogging of the delivery system. A separate mixing basin should be provided with only the
supernatant transferred to the feed basin. Feeding equipment, generally of the constant head
gravity drip feed type, should be readily dismantleable for cleaning purposes. In general, it
can be considered that the practical limit for hypochlorisation is up to about 42 L/hr (1%
solution) of gravity or pumped supply. For greater flows, gas chlorination is appropriate.
Sufficient shelf space should be provided to store bleaching powder containers.

Figure 6-12: Typical Hypochlorite Feed Systems

A practical guide for disinfection by bleaching powder produced by Central Environmental

Authority (CEA) is useful for reference for solution preparation and construction of feed
system in public water supplies. Table 6.9 gives bleaching powder requirements for
disinfection of mains and storage basins.

6.4.2.1. Contact Basin

To provide sufficient time for disinfection, a chlorine contact basin must be provided to give
at least 20 min detention. The basin should be baffled to prevent short circuiting. Chlorine
solution should be added through a diffuser at the inlet preferably in turbulent conditions.

In Fe, Mn removal filters, the backwashing water shall be free from chlorine, in
such situation a separate storage shall be kept for backwashing for all new plants.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-35
6.4.3. Dosing of Solution
The solution is discharged to a small measuring basin at a lower level through PVC pipe or
any other material resistant to chlorine. The level of water in this basin is maintained constant
through a float valve. A micrometer orifice valve discharges the solution at any pre-set rate,
by adjustment on the scale fitted on it. The solution is dosed to the clear water channel by
gravity at the time of entry to clear water reservoir. The waste precipitates at the bottom of
basins are taken out occasionally by scour valve. The system is shown in Figure 6-13.
The dose has to be monitored properly, depending on the desired residual chlorine required in
clear water reservoir.
Mixer

Solution tank

Washout
Ball Valve
Constant level
Diaphragm
Head
valve
Micro meter
To Chlorine dosing
point
Orifice
Figure 6-13: Typical Bleaching Powder Solution Dosing System
This arrangement shall be installed at nearest location of the feeding point to avoid clogging
of pipelines.
6.4.4. Safety Precaution
Chlorine is a hazardous substance. In solution, it is highly corrosive and splashes can cause
burns and damage the eyes.

• The operating personnel should use hand gloves, aprons and other protective apparel,
while handling and mixing.
• In the event of splashes and especially to the eyes it is important immediately to rinse
thoroughly with water. Therefore, safety eyewash, emergency shower should be provided.
• All containers in which chlorine is stored should be labelled, identifying the contents and
with a hazard warning in a form that is readily understood locally.
• Storage site for chlorine in any form should be secured against unauthorized access and
especially against access for children
• The valves, stirrer, basins, plumbing arrangements require renovation at every 6 months or
so.
The physiological effects of chlorine are summarized below:
Table 6-9: Physiological Effects of Chlorine
Concentration by Volume in Air mg /L Physiological Effect
3.5 Just detectable by odour
30 Produces coughing
40-60 Dangerous for 30 min exposure
1,000 Rapidly fatal

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-36
6.4.5. Pre-chlorination
The purposes are as follows:
 To reduce taste and odour producing substances
 To prevent algal growth in raw water
 For oxidation of iron, manganese and hydrogen sulphide
 To aid coagulation when high algal counts exists

To minimise post chlorination dosage, the total dosage (usually 2 to 5 mg/l depending on the
degree of pollution) is applied to leave 0.2 to 0.5 mg/l free residual chlorine in the final
delivered water. For further information, see Reference 5.

6.4.6. Disinfection of Drinking Water Systems after Construction or Repairs

All parts of drinking water systems in contact with drinking water which are taken out of
service for inspection, repair or other activities that may lead to contamination before they are
put back in service, must be disinfected in accordance with the provisions of the AWWA
Standard for Disinfecting Water Mains (C651), AWWA Standard for Disinfection of Water
Storage Facilities (C652), AWWA Standard for Disinfection of Water Treatment Plants
(C653), and AWWA Standard for Disinfection of Wells (C654) or an equivalent procedure
that ensures the safety of drinking water that is delivered to consumers.

6.4.7. Disinfection of Pipelines and Structures

The objective of water mains disinfection is to eliminate all kind of contamination that can
occur during construction or even during storage of pipes, accessories and joints. These
contaminations have greater impact whenever pipes extremities are not well plugged. Special
care to be taken to temporarily close the end of installation during end of day works. Similarly
great care should be taken to avoid entry of contaminants during false repair by using proper
dewatering techniques. Reducing the sources of contamination in the new or repaired pipe
will enhance the effectiveness of the disinfection process. The first step of the installation
procedure to reduce contamination sources is to keep the pipe as clean as possible before it is
installed and placed into service. No disinfectant agent can be efficient when pipes possess
sediments that serve as microorganisms’ habitat, favouring its growth, so they need to be
properly cleaned before disinfection.

Details of disinfection of structures and pipelines are described in construction

specification or in D2 Manual of NWSDB and AWWA C652.

The standard ANSI/AWWA C651 describes the methods of disinfecting newly constructed
potable-water mains; mains that have been removed from service for planned repairs or for
maintenance that exposes them to contamination; mains that have undergone emergency
repairs because of physical failure; and mains that, under normal operation, continue to show
the presence of coliform organisms. The disinfecting agents discussed in this standard are
chlorine solutions that may be derived from liquid chlorine (Cl2), calcium hypochlorite
[Ca(OCl], or sodium hypochlorite (NaOCI).

Three methods of disinfecting newly constructed water mains are described in this standard:
the tablet method, the continuous-feed method, and the slug method. The engineer should
decide which of these methods is most suitable for a given situation. Factors to consider when
choosing a method should include the length and diameter of the main, type of joints present,
availability of materials, equipment required for disinfection, training of the personnel who
will perform the disinfection, and safety concerns.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-37
The purpose of all three chlorination methods is to disinfect water lines, resulting in an
absence of coliforms as confirmed by laboratory analysis. As noted above, the three methods
attempt to provide flexibility in responding to specific situations. The tablet and continuous-
feed methods both have initial chlorine concentrations of 25 mg/L and a minimum contact
time of 24 hr. Because the tablet method cannot be flushed and cleaned prior to disinfection,
the required free chlorine residual must be detectable after 24 hr. Because the continuous-feed
method can be used to flush particles and prechlorinate with calcium hypochlorite granules, a
higher free chlorine residual of 10 mg/L is required after 24 hr. To meet the needs of
situations requiring reduced contact times, the slug feed method allows only a 3-hr contact
time, but requires a 100 mg/L initial chlorine dosage. While the contact time of each method
may not be identical, the end result, absence of coliforms, is the same for all three methods.
Disinfection of water storage facilities is done in accordance with AWWA – C652 that refers
the use of these traditional solutions as a cleaning measure of water storage-facilities. First,
they flush the surfaces with abundant water (maximum pressure: 10 bars). Following this
preliminary cleaning, they pulverize all surfaces with scale removing agents in a generalized
way. These products remove iron and manganese incrustations which are present in water
distribution systems, removing seaweed and calcareous as well. After the cleaning operation
has been completed, disinfection proceeds.
Three methods of chlorinating storage facilities are described in standard ANSI/AWWA
C652:
1. chlorination of the full storage facility so that, at the end of the appropriate retention
period, the water will have a free residual chlorine of not less than 10 mg/L
2. spraying or painting of all storage facility water-contact surfaces with a solution of
200 mg/L available chlorine
3. chlorination of full storage facility having free chlorine residual of 2 mg/L after 24
hours. Cleanness and disinfection advised regularity is once a year and whenever there
are bacteriological quality problems
Despite chlorine is a good disinfecting agent for water, the same is not true for reservoir
surfaces, once biofilm growth occurs, even when residual chlorine is present. This is because
of the surface wall pH. The amount of bleaching powder required for disinfection of mains
and storage basins based on a dose of 50 mg/L available is given in Table 6-10.

Table 6-10: Bleaching powder requirements for disinfection of mains and storage basins
Storage
Pipes Diameter (mm) in kg/1000m
Components Basins in
50 65 80 100 150 200 kg/10m3
Amount of Bleaching Powder
0.5 0.8 1.2 1.9 4.3 7.4 2.4
Required
Note: Amount of Bleaching Powder is based on a Dose of 50 mg/L available

6.5. Gas Chlorination

Chlorine gas (Cl2) is a greenish-yellow gas with a distinctive odour. The gas is heavier than
air so the expansion properties warrant careful handling and storage. When managed properly,
it is a safe and convenient method of disinfection. It is typically stored in cylinders (68 kg),
although some systems store one ton in tonners. Chlorine gas is the cheapest method of
chemical disinfection, but it does come with a risk. In its gaseous state, chlorine is hazardous
to the respiratory system, and the compressed gas has a risk of explosion. Specifically,
chlorine gas must be stored in a separate room with outside access, appropriate ventilation,
heat and light.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-38
The conventional chlorination facility i.e. adding chlorine for disinfection of water treatment
consists of six essential parts:
1. Chlorine supply
2. Storage and handling
3. Safety provision
4. Chlorine feed and application
 Chlorine withdrawal (as gas or liquid chlorine)
 Evaporator for liquid chlorine withdrawal only
 Automatic changeover
 Vacuum regulator
 Chlorinator
 Injector system
5. Diffusion, mixing and contact
6. The control systems
The design consideration for each system is described below.

6.5.1. Chlorine Gas Supply

Chlorine is a gas at normal temperatures and pressures but is normally supplied as a liquid
under pressure of 330-1000 kN/m2 in cylinders (68 kg) or drums (900 kg). The rate of
withdrawal of chlorine gas is limited by the heat available for evaporation of the liquid. The
maximum withdrawal limit of chlorine gas is 10 kg/hr for ton container.

Selection of size of containers depends on the quantity of chlorine used, the vehicle access to
the water treatment plant, the turn over time of the cylinders with maximum of 3 months as
recommended by the gas supplier. The cylinders are most likely applied to small water supply
schemes. Care should be taken when transporting chlorine gas in vehicle and special
precautions and arrangements has to be provided in the transporting vehicle. Further, the
driver has to be trained on safety arrangements.

6.5.2. Chlorine Storage and Handling

The chlorine storage and handling system must be designed with full safety considerations;
chlorine gas is very poisonous and corrosive. The cylinder and tonner are usually housed in a
building.
The storage should include the following items;

1. Unloading platform for tank deliveries

2. Continuous chlorine leak detector with sensors and alarm
3. Emergency repair kit for tonne containers
4. Weighing device
5. Chlorine Neutralisation system
6. Safety equipment for operators

6.5.3. Safety Consideration

The important safety consideration in chlorine system design include personnel exposure
limit, ventilation, fire protection, delivery and unloading, storage, transfer, surrounding
development, feed system, and monitoring. Chlorine suppliers provide standard for chlorine
handling equipment and safety procedures. All chlorine system should confirm to these
standards for safe O&M activities.

Installation of an emergency chlorine vapour scrubber system is another effective measure to

reduce the risk of damage and injury of plant personnel and the potential impact to the off-site

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-39
receptors. The scrubber system is designed to neutralise the chlorine contaminated air from
the building where chlorine leak occur. A 20 % Caustic (NaOH) solution is typically used to
clean up the contaminated air.

Special care should be taken to protect outsiders especially if the WTP is closer to the
residential area and when located in a higher elevation of the residential area. In such
situation, the scrubber system is essential.

The following safety arrangements shall be provided at Chlorination Plant

1. Breathing apparatus
2. Emergency repair kit
3. Leak detectors combined to siren system and where preferable to an automatic
scrubber system
4. Neutralisation basin
5. Display of boards in local language for the operator cautioning, first aid and list of
different authorities with phone numbers
6. Communication system
7. Tagging system for equipment
8. First aid including tablets and cough mixtures
9. Testing of pressure vessels, chlorine lines etc. every year as per factory ordinance
10. Frequent Training and mock drill
11. Safety showers and Eye fountain
12. Personal protective equipment with easy and safe access
13. Protecting hoods for ton-containers
14. Fire extinguishers
15. Wind cock
16. Two entrance door with both side swing

6.5.4. Absorption of Chlorine Gas Streams

Liquid chemicals that have been used to scrub chlorine include:

 Sodium hydroxide
 Potassium hydroxide
 Sodium carbonate
 Calcium hydroxide
 Sodium sulphide
 Sodium thiosulphide
 Ferrous chloride
 Hydrogen peroxide

Sodium Hydroxide solutions are the most commonly used chemical for typical scrubbing
applications. However, the other chemicals listed above have been successfully used in many
applications where they may be readily available, less expensive or satisfy the specific
application.

The information in this document is primarily for sodium hydroxide solutions and their
reactions with chlorine. All chlorine-scrubbing applications are chemical processes requiring
detailed knowledge of the reactions, including heat generated, end-products, disposal of the
finished products, and safe handling of all the chemicals involved in the reaction. Chemicals
other than sodium hydroxide for chlorine scrubbing are outside the scope of this document
and have not been addressed.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-40
 6.5.4.1. Sodium Hydroxide Utilization
Main Reaction
The addition of chlorine to a solution of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) produces sodium
hypochlorite (NaOCl) and salt (NaCl):

Cl2 + 2 NaOH  NaOCl + NaCl + H2O

On a weight basis, one kg of chlorine plus 1.13 kg of sodium hydroxide will produce 1.05 kg
of sodium hypochlorite.

6.5.5. Gas Feed and Applications

Solubility of chlorine gas in water varies with temperature and given below:

Temperature 0C 0 20 33
Chlorine solubility (mg/L) 14,600 7,000 5,000

The simple arrangement of chlorine gas feeding system using 68 kg cylinder is shown in
Figure 6-14.

Figure 6-14: Typical Installation of Gas Chlorination (Gravity & Pumping)

6.5.5.1. Chlorine Withdrawal
Chlorine can be fed as either gas or liquid. Each container is equipped with two identical
outlet valves near the centre of one end inside a removable steel valve protective housing. The
top and bottom valves on a ton container are used for gas and liquid withdrawal respectively.
If the gas withdrawal from top valve is used, the maximum withdrawal rate for a ton container
is 180 kg/day. if the withdrawal is 180 to 680 kg/day, two more ton containers must be
manifolded together and the room temperature must be maintained above 18C to provide the
heat required to replace the heat of evaporation. Withdrawal rate higher than 680 kg/day
should use liquid withdrawal and employ evaporators.

Liquid withdrawal from a ton container has certain advantages:

1. It is not affected by ambient temperature and possible in open structure with only a
sun shield in remote area
2. There is no danger of re-liqufication between the container and chlorinator
3. Fewer containers are needed to be connected at one time due to much higher
withdrawal rate

The significant disadvantages of liquid withdrawal from ton container include the following:

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-41
 1. Evaporators are required
2. The risk of injury or off-site impact can be significantly higher by accidental release
between the container and evaporators
3. Highly corrosive possibility to consider the liquid chlorine

6.5.5.2. Evaporators
Evaporators are generally used when the chlorine withdrawal exceed 680 kg/day. Evaporators
capacity ranges from 180 to 4500 kg/day. the Evaporator receives the chlorine from container
and vaporises it to chlorine gas in a sealed pressurised chamber. The chamber is heated to
provide heat for vaporization. All evaporators should be equipped with a pressure reducing
automatic shut-off valve on the discharge line from the evaporators to prevent liquid chlorine
entering the gas chlorine piping.

6.5.5.3. Automatic Switchover

Provision for automatic switchover from one container to another should be included, to
increase the system reliability. There are two types of automatic switchover systems: vacuum
and pressure. Both type switch the withdrawal of from one container other as one container
becomes empty.

6.5.5.4. Chlorinator
The chlorinator receives chlorine from the container or evaporator and regulates the flow to
the injector. Different types of chlorinators are given in Table 6-11. A conventional
chlorinator consist of the following units: an inlet pressure reducing valve, a rotameter, a
metering control orifice and a vacuum –differential regulating valve. The driving force comes
from the vacuum created by the chlorine injector.

Table 6-11: Comparison of Chlorinators

No. Description Pressure Type Chlorinator Vacuum type Chlorinator
Dry Feed Gravity Feed Injector With Sonic flow
solution differential type
Vacuum
regulator
1 Rate of Feed (max) 230 kg/day 230 kg/day 230 kg/day 4800 kg/day 240 kg/day
2 Water Requirement per Nil 1500 L 300 - 1500 L 300 L 300 L
kg of chlorine (min)
3 Accuracy Low Low Low High High
4 Flow meter Manometer Manometer Manometer Rotameter Rotameter
5 Pressure at point of 0.7 kg/cm2 0.7 kg/cm2 > 0.7 kg/cm2 > 0.7 kg/cm2 > 0.7 kg/cm2
application (max) (max) (max) (max) (max)
6 Emergency requirement Low Low Moderate Moderate High
7 Maintenance Extensive Extensive Extensive Moderate Less
8 Remarks Not suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable Suitable
below 10C below 10C* below 10C* below 10C below 10C*
* Water provided for making solution is beyond 10C

A chlorinator is a device for feeding chlorine to a water supply. It also serves as gas metering
device. Chlorinators are classified into two categories such as Pressure type and Vacuum type.
In Vacuum type of chlorinator, chlorine is handled below the atmospheric pressure. This will
minimize the risk and consequences of chlorine leaks. The vacuum system has several
advantages:

• It is the easiest method of dissolving chlorine in water

• Chlorine is easily handled when in solution

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-42
It consists of a gas filter, pressure regulating valve, variable area flow meter (Rotameter),
vacuum regulating valve, and pressure vacuum relief valve, drain valve and injector.

6.5.5.5. Chlorine Gas Filter

Small chlorinators usually have some sort of built-in chlorine filter. However, any installation
using ton containers (tonners) should have a chlorine gas filter as close as possible to the last
cylinder, and always upstream of any external pressure reducing valve. Commonly used
material for this purpose is glass wool.

6.5.5.6. Rotameter
The gas feeders may be by direct feed pressure injection of gas metered under a constant
positive pressure or by solution feed in which the gas is metered through an orifice or
rotameter under vacuum by an ejector drawing gas through the feeder into the solution line.
This is the most accurate way of metering chlorine gas since a constant density is maintained
under vacuum and it is not affected by ambient temperature changes.

• Operation under vacuum is safer than operating under pressure.

• A metering system can be easily designed to stop automatically if the vacuum should
fail.

6.5.5.7. External Chlorine Pressure Reducing Valve

Any installation using the variable vacuum system for automatic control requires such a valve
to reduce the chlorine supply pressure to 2 to 2.75 kg/cm2 ahead of the chlorinator to ensure
the maximum possible accuracy of the control system. Secondly, this valve also reduces the
pressure in the chlorine supply header to prevent re-liquefaction of the gas in the header
between the last cylinder connected and the chlorinator.

In gas supply system if the header run passes through an area where ambient temperature may
fall below the temperature of the gas leaving the supply containers, it is necessary to install a
pressure reducing valve in the gas supply system. This valve prevents re-liquefaction of the
gas downstream of it. It is also a good practice to install liquid chemical trap upstream of the
valve. The trap will serve to prevent liquid chemical from entering and flashing across the
valve seat resulting in poor pressure regulation.

6.5.5.8. Injector System

The chlorine feed, ejector, or injector system is very essential because it provides the required
dosage at the point of application. There are two types injection system (1) pressure gas
injection and (2) vacuum gas feed. The pressure injection of gas may pose risks of gas release
into the atmosphere. It is normally used in small plants or in large facilities where safety
precautions are rigidly followed.

In vacuum feed system, a specified vacuum is created at the injector gas inlet. This voccum is
applied to suck chlorine gas from storage to the chlorinator and then through vacuum piping
system to the injector. A vacuum regulator, which is typically an integral part of the
chlorinator is utilised to control the chlorine gas withdrawal rate under the condition.

The amount of water supply must be enough to (1) to maintain chlorine concentration in the
solution below 3500 mg/L and (2) to create the required amount of vacuum in the line to the
chlorinator and in all the components of the chlorinator system. Manufacturers of chlorination
system provide injector-operating curves that specify the amount of water and pressure
required for a given amount of chlorine to be applied against a given backpressure.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-43
Gas chlorinators have practical limitations as to minimum feed rates. Consistent with good
accuracy of metering and minimum maintenance, the minimum feed rate is about 0.25 kg/day.
However, chlorinator with rotameters can be obtained with as low capacity as 0.05 kg/day.
Normally for chlorinator up to 4.5 kg/day capacity, injectors require water at a minimum
pressure of 0.8-1.33 kg/cm2 above the pressure at the point of application with a minimum
flow rate of 9-22.5 L/m. Water from the pumping main or from a storage basin can usually be
used to operate injectors. Booster pumps for injector supply are required when chlorine
solution has to be injected into a pressure main.

6.5.6. Diffusion, Mixing and Contact

Rapid mixing of chlorine into water, followed by a contact period, is essential for effective
disinfection. The chlorine solution is provided through a diffusor system as shown in Figure
6-15. It is then mixed rapidly either (1) mechanical means, (2) a baffle arrangements, or (3) a
hydraulic jump created downstream of a weir, Venturi flume, or Pharshall flume as shown in
Figure 6-15.

Single injector for small pipes Double injector for small pipes Multi injector for medium pipes

Injectors for larger pipes Single horizontal diffusor in open channel

Single vertical diffusor for open channel Multiple hanging diffusor along the length of an
open channel
Figure 6-15: Typical Chlorine Diffusors

A velocity gradient of about 400 per second is sufficient to provide the desired mixing. Rapid
mixing of chlorine at the point of application is important. Chlorine should be added with a
large amount of dilution water through a full channel or pipe diameter diffuser submerged to
the maximum depth available.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-44
 Jet nozzle in a closed conduit Downstream of a weir

Pharshall flume Over and under baffles in a basin

Hydraulic Jump in channel Baffle arrangement

Mechanical mixers Mechanical mixers with baffles

Figure 6-16: Different Types of Mixing Arrangements for Chlorine dispersion

Chlorine applied prior to a weir will only be driven off by the aeration effect of the hydraulic
jump. Chlorine added to the suction side of a pump or the upstream side of a value can cause
severe corrosion problems to brass unless applied a sufficient distance upstream to obtain full
dissolution.

6.5.7. Control system

The chlorination system must maintain given chlorine residual at the end of the specified
contact time. Chlorine dosage must be adjusted frequently to maintain the required residual.
At small installations, manual control is enough to provide the required chlorine dosage. The
operator determines the chlorine residual and then adjusts the feed rate of chlorine solution. A
simple orifice controlled constant head arrangement or low capacity proportioning pumps are
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-45
used to feed the chlorine solution. Often constant feed pumps are programmed by time-clock
arrangement to operate the pump at the desired level.

At large facilities, complex automatic proportioning systems with recorders are used. Signals
from flow meter transmitter and chlorine residual analyser are transmitted to the chlorinator to
adjust the chlorine feed (Figure 6-17) and to maintain constant chlorine residual.

Several alarms are also considered an essential part of the control system. These include high
and low pressure in storage vessels, liquid or gas chlorine lines, high and low injector vacuum
lines, high and low temperatures for evaporator water bath, high and low chlorine residuals.

6.5.8. Design Consideration

The following points should be considered when designing gas chlorination systems:
 In order to save space and for ease of maintenance, wall mounted chlorinators are
recommended. Two units should be installed to provide standby capacity, and to
maintain flow during changeover of cylinders or drums.
 A weighing balance should be provided in the chlorinator room for checking the
quantity of gas used.
 The chlorinator room should be separate with no interconnecting doors to any
adjacent room. The floor level should be at or below the other floors of the plant to
minimize the effects of gas leaks.
 Air outlets from the room shall be near the floor and air inlets near the ceiling. Where
this is not possible, mechanical ventilation with a capacity of one complete air
change per minute should be installed. Fan and light switches should be located
outside the room. Doors should open to the exterior of the building. Careful attention
should be paid to location of windows and doors to keep cylinders out of the sun.
 Chlorination room should contain only the connected cylinders. Separate cylinder
storage facilities should be provided. All cylinders, connected or stored, should be
protected from direct sunlight, rain or collected water and be properly restrained to
prevent tipping, falling, or any excessive movement, especially the connected
cylinders. A guide to cylinder requirements and storage is given in Table 6-12.
 Chlorine gas and chlorine solutions are highly corrosive and should be conveyed in
plastic pipelines.
 Gas masks must be provided adjacent to the chlorinator room door.

A neutralizing chemical for chlorine absorption should be stored at the plant.

Table 6-12 shows possible chemicals, which could be used with the amount of water,
required to make neutralizing solution. A pool for the disposal of leaking cylinders should be
located adjacent to the chlorination room.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-46
 Figure 6-17: Sophisticated Gas Chlorine Feed Systems

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-47
Table 6-12: Chlorine Cylinder Inventory
Anticipated Volume of water No. of chlorine cylinders
Chlorine Use treated Daily (m3) 98 kg size 900 kg size
(kg/day) In Use Reserve In use Reserve
0.50 250 1 1 1 1
1.00 500 1 1 1 1
2.00 1000 1 1 1 1
4.00 2000 1(2*) 3(2*) 1 1
6.00 3000 1 (2*) 5(4*) 1 2
8.00 4000 1(3*) 7(5*) 1(2*) 3(2*)
10.00 5000 1(3*) 9(7*) 1(2*) 4(3*)
Note: Minimum Supply for 30 days for 2 mg/L and Dosage for 8 to 20 hours daily operation
(*) for 8 hrs /day operation

Table 6-13: Chemical and Water requirements for Chlorine Absorption in Alkaline
Solution
Cylinder Option-1 Option-2 Option-3
Capacity 100% Caustic Water (L) Soda Ash Water (L) Hydrated Water (L)
Soda (kg) (kg) Lime (kg)
67 kg 85 225 205 565 85 720
98 kg 125 375 300 930 125 1060

6.6. Chloramines
Chloramines have been used as a disinfectant in drinking water treatment since the beginning
of the 20th century. Chloramines are produced when chlorine is added to water containing
nitrogen compounds such as ammonia nitrogen. This reaction is detailed above in the
breakpoint chlorination example. There are three types of chloramines that are produced.
Desired form of chloramine is monochloramine because of its biocidal properties and minimal
taste and odour production. Dichloramine and trichloramines are less desirable because of the
chlorinous tastes and odours that they produce and Chloramines is not used in Sri Lanka yet.

The major benefits of monochloramines include their tendency to produce fewer disinfection
by – products such as THMs and HAAs, minimal chlorinous tastes and odours, persistence to
reach distant areas of the distribution system, and effectiveness as a secondary disinfectant in
penetrating biofilms in distribution system.

Chloramines are less effective as a biocide than free chlorine for inactivating pathogenic
microorganisms. For this reason, chloramines are generally not used as a primary disinfectant.
Chloramines are, however, an excellent secondary or final disinfectant because they form a
very stable and persistent residual.

6.6.1. Monochloramine
6.6.1.1. Mode of action
In dilute aqueous solutions (1–50 mg/l), chlorine reacts with ammonia in a series of
bimolecular reactions:
HOCl + NH3 → NH2Cl (monochloramine) + H20

These competing reactions are dependent upon pH and the relative chlorine to nitrogen
concentration (expressed as Cl2: N) to a lesser degree they are also dependent upon
temperature and contact time. The reaction of HOCl and ammonia will convert all the free

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-48
chlorine to monochloramine at pH 7–8 when the Cl2: N ratio is equimolar (5: 1 by weight) or
less.
6.6.2. Chloramination Equipment
The equipment required to produce chlorimines is essentially the same equipment required for
chlorination systems. Chlorine can be injected as a gas or a liquid. In addition, both chlorine
and ammonia are also available in liquid form or in granular form that can be dissolved in
water. Great care must also be taken to ensure that concentrated chlorine and ammonia are
never mixed together because they will form nitrogen trichloride, a potentially explosive
compound.

6.7. Chlorine Dioxide

Chlorine dioxide is a strong oxidant that can be used to control iron, manganese and taste and
odour causing compounds. It has also been used as a secondary disinfectant in many
European countries.

6.7.1. Mode of Action

Chlorine dioxide is highly soluble in water (particularly at low temperatures), and is effective
over a range of pH values (pH 5–10). Theoretically, chlorine dioxide undergoes five valence
changes in oxidation to chloride ion:
ClO2 + 5e– → Cl– + 2O2–

However, in practice, chlorine dioxide is rarely reduced completely to chloride ion. Chlorine
dioxide is thought to inactivate microorganisms through direct oxidation which interferes with
important structural regions of metabolic enzymes or membrane proteins. In water treatment,
chlorine dioxide has the advantage of being a strong disinfectant, but not forming THMs or
oxidizing bromide to bromate.

6.7.2. Disinfection Performance of Chlorine Dioxide

Chlorine dioxide is a strong oxidant and it is effective in the inactivation of pathogens. Its
oxidizing ability is lower than ozone but much stronger than chlorine and chloramines. The
pathogen inactivation efficiency of chlorine dioxide is as great as or greater than that of
chlorine but is less than ozone. However different microorganisms have different sensitivity
to ClO2, e.g. Cryptosporidium require an order of magnitude higher Ct values compared to
Giardia and viruses.

Table 6-14 below provides a summary of USEPA Ct credits for Cryptosporidium, Giardia
and viruses using ClO2-. These Ct values are also quoted in the latest WHO Guidelines.
Different viruses also have different sensitivity to ClO2 and the Ct values proposed by the US
EPA probably provide a margin of safety.

Table 6-14: Ct in mg min/l for 2 log inactivation of Cryptosporidium, Giardia and

viruses using chlorine dioxide

Temperature (C) 1 5 10 15 20
Cryptosporidium 1220 858 553 357 232
Giardia + 17 15 13 +
Viruses + 5.6 4.2 2.8 +
+ Data not available
Source: USEPA LT2ESWTR Toolbox Guidance Manual 2010 and WHO Risk Assessment of Cryptosporidium
in Drinking Water. 2009, Table 6

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-49
Generally, chlorine dioxide is more effective as a disinfectant than chlorine at higher pH but
similar or poorer at lower pH; chlorine dioxide performance is generally quoted as not being
pH sensitive in the range experienced in water treatment, whereas chlorine is much more
effective at lower pH. There could be some pH sensitivity for chlorine dioxide, but this varied
between the viruses examined.
Table 6-15 provides a summary of USEPA Ct values for Cryptosporidium, Giardia and
viruses using ClO2, Cl2 and O3 at 10°C and pH 6-9.

Table 6-15: Required Ct values (in mg min/l) for inactivation of microorganisms by

ClO2 compared with Cl2 and O3 at 10°C and pH 6-9

Inactivation Level ClO2 Cl2 O3

Cryptosporidium 0.5-log 138 N/A 4.9
Cryptosporidium 3-log 830 N/A 30
Giardia 0.5-log 4 17 0.23
Giardia 3-log 23 104 1.43
Viruses 2-log 4.2 3 0.5
Viruses 4-log 25.1 6 1.0
Source: USEPA, 2003 and WHO Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality - Cryptosporidium. N/A - not
applicable. Chlorine is ineffective against Cryptosporidium. Cl2 Ct values for pH 7

Chlorine dioxide is generally at least as effective as chlorine for inactivation of bacteria of

sanitary significance, and Ct values less than those for viruses shown in Table 6-15 would be
suitable. For example effective inactivation of waterborne bacterial pathogens (e.g.
Salmonella, Shigella) has been demonstrated in the laboratory with chlorine dioxide
concentrations of 0.1 mg/l and contact times of 5 minutes.

6.8. Ozone Disinfection

Ozone is a form of oxygen, comprised of three oxygen atoms. It is an unstable gas, obtained
by passing an air current through an electric field with a high potential voltage difference
(10,000-20,000 volts). This process oxidizes normal oxygen (O2) into ozone (O3).
Ozone (O3) is a colourless gas with a characteristic odour reminiscent of a lightning storm.
Ozone is established and proven disinfectant as well as a pre-oxidant for the control of THM
and HAAs precursor. It has the ability to oxidize proteins and enzymes, thereby being
effective against microbes, viruses, odours and some micro-pollutants. Although not as
efficient as chlorine for residual effect, it is nevertheless used to disinfect potable or treated
water. Because of the reactivity of ozone, residuals cannot be maintained for more than a few
minutes. As a result, ozone is considered to be primary disinfectant and requires the use of
chlorine or chloramines as a secondary disinfectant.

Ozone is used in water treatment for disinfection and oxidation. Early application of ozone in
the United States was primarily for non-disinfection purposes such as colour removal or taste
and odour control. However, since the implementation of the SWTR and proposal of the DBP
rule, ozone usage for primary disinfection has increased in the United States.
6.8.1. Primary Uses and Points of Application of Ozone
Ozone is used in drinking water treatment for a variety of purposes including
 Disinfection
 Inorganic pollutant oxidation, including iron, manganese, and sulphide
 Organic micropollutant oxidation, including taste and odour compounds, phenolic
pollutants, and some pesticides

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-50
  Organic macropollutant oxidation, including colour removal, increasing the
biodegradability of organic compounds, DBP precursor control, and reduction of
chlorine demand
Disinfection: Ozone is a powerful oxidant able to achieve disinfection with less contact time
and concentration than all weaker disinfectants, such as chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and
monochloramine. However, ozone can only be used as a primary disinfectant since it cannot
maintain a residual in the distribution system. Thus, ozone disinfection should be coupled
with a secondary disinfectant, such as chlorine, chloramine, or chlorine dioxide for a complete
disinfection system.
Ozonation also has the added benefits of
1. Oxidation and volatilization of organics
2. Control of algae and associated taste and odour producing compounds
3. Destabilization (micro flocculation) of certain type of turbidity
4. Removal of colour causing compounds
5. Oxidation of Iron and manganese
Ozone reacts with inorganic compounds such as nitrates, ferrous, manganese, sulphide, and
ammonium ions. The oxidation of these inorganic substances by ozonation process is very
fast and complete. Ozone being a powerful and effective oxidant destroys many organic
compounds that produce colour, taste or odour in portable water. Therefore, it is widely used
in taste and odour control, colour removal, Iron and manganese removal.

Ozonation provides a significant contribution to breaking down organic compounds. Ozone

segments these organic compounds to lower molecular species, such as aldehydes and
ketones. Some reactions of ozone with NOMS and bromide occurs and not produce
halogenated organic matter directly; however, in presence of bromide ion, hydro-bromic acid
is formed, which may encourage formation of brominated organics.

The concentration and reaction times are substantially lower than those required for free
chlorine. Required CT values for inactivation of Giardia by ozone are on the order of 1/10 th of
those required for free chlorine.

A special apparatus (ozonizer) is used to generate the ozone. Because ozone production
decreases as the gas temperature increases, a cooling system is also usually provided to ensure
a low temperature.
Because of its extreme reactivity, ozone gas must be produced onsite. It is a product of the
action of electrical fields on oxygen. The oxygen can be derived from air or pure oxygen in
compressed gas cylinders. After the ozone is generated, it is piped to a contactor. Ozone is
then injected at the bottom of the contactor basin into a diffuser, and the fine bubbles rise
through the water as the water flows downward in to the basin. Ozone is transferred from the
gas phase in to the water though this process where it is free to react with the contaminants.
6.8.2. Ozone Disinfection Equipment
Ozonizers can work on air or pure oxygen. The efficiency is greater, and energy costs less,
with the latter. Because any dust particles in the air can cause the generation of a secondary
electric arc, thereby decreasing ozone production, the feed air must be clean and dry. The
humidity of the air also should be minimized, because it also can cause the generation of a
secondary electric arc.
The air is fed to the ozonizer through an air compressor, in which the air is passed through a
dryer. The feed air pressure is related to the pressure at the point of contact with the water to
be disinfected, allowing pressure losses to be taken into account. The typical pressure is about
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-51
0.7 Bars, thereby requiring an air blower since the feed air range is between 5 and 10 Bar
(refer Figure 6-18).
Atmosphere
Off-Gas Ozone Generator

Influent
Effluent

Ozone
Quench
(Option)

Gas Feed Ozone Ozone Gas

System Generator

Figure 6-18: Simplified Ozone Feed System Schematic

The disinfection process depends on the quality of the feed water. For potable water, if the
source water is not highly polluted, the disinfection can be done in one stage. In this case the
contact period is between 4-6 minutes. If it also is necessary to remove pathogenic organisms
(virucidal-action), the disinfection is done on two stages, with a contact time of about 4
minutes and a residual ozone concentration of about 0.4 g/m3. The role of the second stage is
to kill the undesirable organisms, with the ozone concentration being about 0.4 g/m3.
Sufficient quantities of ozone also must be introduced at the bottom of the contact tower in
order to maintain this ozone concentration for at least 4 minutes. To achieve this
concentration for this period requires introduction of ozone at a concentration between 0.4-0.6
g/m3.

6.9. Ultra-Violet Disinfection (UV)

An Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system transfers electromagnetic energy from a mercury arc
lamp to an organism's genetic material (DNA and RNA). When UV radiation penetrates the
cell wall of an organism, it destroys the cell's ability to reproduce. UV radiation, generated by
an electrical discharge through mercury vapour, penetrates the genetic material of
microorganisms and retards their ability to reproduce.

Disinfection by UV light is very deference from the mechanisms of chemical disinfection

using chlorine, Chloramines, or ozone. Chemical disinfectants inactivate microorganisms by
damaging cellular structures, interfering with metabolism, and hindering growth. UV light
inactivates microorganisms by damaging their nucleic and preventing them from replicating,
thus making it impossible for the organisms to infect the host.

The UV dosages required to inactive viruses are substantially higher that those required to
inactive protozoa (Cryptosporidium and Giardia). UV leaves no residual and thus requires the
addition of chlorine or some other secondary disinfectant to maintain a residual in the system.

The effectiveness of a UV disinfection system depends on the characteristics of the water, the
intensity of UV radiation, the amount of time the microorganisms are exposed to the
radiation, and the reactor configuration. For any singletreatment plant, disinfection success is
directly related to the concentration of colloidal and particulate constituents in the water.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-52
UV is a proven and safe alternative for primary disinfection as it is free of the harmful by-
products associated with chemical disinfection. UV also has the added benefit of not
compromising the taste, colour or odour of water.
6.9.1. UV Disinfection Requirements
EPA developed UV dose requirements to receive credit for inactivation of Cryptosporidium,
Giardia, and viruses (Table 6-16). The UV dose values in Table 6-16 are applicable only to
post-filter applications of UV disinfection in filtered systems and to unfiltered systems.
Unlike chemical disinfectants, UV leaves no residual that can be monitored to determine

The UV dose depends on the UV intensity (measured by UV sensors), the flow rate, and the
UV transmittance (UVT). A relationship between the required UV dose and these parameters
must be established and then monitored at the water treatment plant to ensure sufficient
disinfection of microbial pathogens.

Table 6-16: UV Dose Requirements – millijoules percentimeter squared (mJ/cm2)

Target Log Inactivation
Pathogens 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Cryptosporidium 1.6 2.5 3.9 5.8 8.5 12 15 22
Giardia 1.5 2.1 3.0 5.2 7.7 11 15 22
Virus 39 58 79 100 121 143 163 186

The UV dose requirements in Table 6-16 account for uncertainty in the UV dose-response
relationships of the target pathogens but do not address other significant sources of
uncertainty in full-scale UV disinfection applications. These other sources of uncertainty are
due to the hydraulic effects of the UV installation, the UV reactor equipment as shown in
Figure 6-19 (E.g. UV sensors), and the monitoring approach.

6.9.2. Ultraviolet Disinfection Equipment

The main components of a UV disinfection system are mercury arc lamps, a reactor, and
ballasts. The source of UV radiation is either the low-pressure or medium-pressure mercury
arc lamp with low or high intensities.

UV reactors must consistently deliver the dosage of UV radiation necessary to inactivate the
target pathogens. Factors that interfere in the delivery of the proper dosage include poor water
quality such as high turbidity, absorbance of the light by organics, low bulb light output
(Caused by slim build-up or bulb degradation), or an increase in the water flow rate past the
light source. To ensure proper treatment, commercial UV reactors are equipped with UV
sensors, temperature sensors, flow meters, and cleaning mechanisms for the bulbs.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-53
 Chamber UV Rays

Inlet Germicidal Lamp in Outlet

Dual action wiper
segment quart sleeve

Figure 6-19: Stainless Steel UV Disinfection Chambers

Water flows through the stainless steel chambers in which nine lamps are installed. Each lamp
is housed in a transparent, waterproof quartz sleeve. The sleeves are submerged in the
chambers. As the water flows through the chambers, the microorganisms are exposed to the
UV light rays. There is one sensor outside each sleeve to ensure that an adequate UV light
intensity is applied. The water needs only a few seconds of exposure to the light to inactivate
microorganisms.

6.10. Disinfectants and Disinfectant By-Products

Disinfection of drinking water is essential if we are to protect the public from outbreaks of
waterborne infectious and parasitic diseases. The main disinfectants evaluated in the
Guidelines are free chlorine, chloramines, chlorine dioxide and ozone.

As much as the perfect indicator organism does not exist, each of the commonly used
disinfectants has its advantages and disadvantages in terms of cost, efficacy, stability, ease of
application and formation of by-products. Disinfection by-products forms when the
Disinfectants are added to drinking water react with naturally occurring organic and inorganic
matter in water.

6.10.1. Chlorine and its by-products

Chlorine is the most widely used disinfectant because it is an effective disinfectant, which
provides a stable residual throughout the network. There is a potential to form THMs when
sufficient levels of chlorine are in contact with organic matter if this organic matter is not
removed during the treatment process.

The concentration of chlorine dose can affect THM formation. Changes in the chlorine dose
are typically more significant at primary disinfection stage than at secondary stage, due to the
higher chlorine doses required at primary stage to achieve appropriate disinfection. THM
formation can be minimised by avoiding the use of pre-chlorination.

The use of booster chlorination, to maintain an adequate residual in the distribution system,
can also increase the formation process, as THMs can continue to form within the network
where organic matter has not been removed or organic sediments exist within the reservoirs
and pipelines. THM formation becomes disinfectant limited, within the network, when the
free chlorine residual typically drops to 0.3mg/l (Ryan Hanley, 2012).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-54
Precursors of these halogenated compounds include humic substances, of soluble compounds
secreted from algae and of naturally occurring nitrogenous compounds. The most commonly
found chlorine disinfection by-products are the trihalomethanes (THM), halogenated acetic
acids. The halogenated disinfection by-products identified account for only about half of the
total formed.

THMs consist primarily of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane and

bromoform. Because trihalomethanes usually occur together, it has been the practice to
consider total trihalomethanes as a group, and a number of countries have set guidelines or
standards on this basis, ranging from 0.025 to 0.25 mg/litre. Acute effects of THMs in
drinking water are rare. Both Chloroform and Bromodichloromethane, two individual THMs,
are possibly carcinogenic to humans. This category is used where there is inadequate evidence
of carcinogenicity in humans and sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental
animals. Bromoform or Chlorodibromomethane were not classified as to their
carcinogenicity. Waters with bromide typically form more THM and HAAs than waters
without bromide.
6.10.1.1. Reactivity of NOM
The organic matter in surface and ground waters is predominantly natural organic matter
(NOM). NOM is derived from living or decayed vegetation. It is present in particulate,
dissolved and colloidal forms. NOM fractions can also be described in terms of those, which
are water repelling (hydrophobic) or water absorbing (hydrophilic).

The water repelling or hydrophobic fractions are aromatic compounds and are composed of
primarily humic material. Humic material is formed by decaying vegetative matter, such as
lignin. Lignin is found in plants and is quite resistant to biodegradation yet it is reactive to
oxidants, such as chlorine. These characteristics of the aromatic hydrophobic humic material
tend to form higher THM levels.

The water absorbing or hydrophilic fraction of organic matter is composed of primarily fulvic
material, carbohydrates and sugars, and is a relatively poor THM precursor.

6.10.1.2. The Effectiveness of the Treatment Process

The effectiveness and efficiency of the treatment plant is directly related to the concentration
of disinfection by-products formed, such as THMs. The efficiency of different treatment
systems, when operated optimally, in removing levels of TOC the formation of THMs can be
minimised by effective coagulation, sedimentation and filtration by removing organic
precursors prior to final disinfection or by including additional treatment to slow sand filters
(e.g. installation of a GAC layer).

Rapid gravity filtration or slow sand filtration on their own is unable to fully remove the THM
precursor. Oxidation processes, such as ozonation, used upstream of disinfection, do not
remove organic matter but instead break it down to smaller, more bio-degradable compounds
which can lead to an increase in disinfection by-products, such as THMs if there is no
subsequent removal stage. These more reactive forms of organic carbon can be effectively
removed / reduced using granular activated carbon (GAC) or biological filtration. However,
early exhaustion of the GAC layer, in its adsorption phase, may occur where high TOC levels
exist in the water prior to the GAC layer. This may make the GAC layer uneconomical as
frequent replacement may be required.

6.10.1.3. Contact Times

THMs continue to form in drinking water as long as sufficient disinfectant residuals and
reactive precursorsare present in the water. THMs have high chemical stability and persist in

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-55
the water following formation. Generally, the longer the contact times between chlorine and
NOM, the greater the amount of THMs that can be formed. High THM values usually occur
at points in the distribution system with the longest residence time or water age, such as
reservoirs, oversized pipes and network dead ends.

6.10.1.4. THM Indicator

The concentration and type of NOM and it's propensity to form THMs are often assessed
using surrogate parameters. The most frequently used surrogate parameters are total and
dissolved organic carbon (TOC and DOC) and UV absorbance at 254nm wavelength
(UVA254).

Reactions between chlorine and DOC with a high hydrophobic (aromatic) content generally
result in higher levels of THMs. UV254 is generally linked to the hydrophobic (aromatic) and
reactive DOC components of NOM, and is considered a good indicator of the potential of
water to form THMs.

While UV absorbance reflects the bulk concentration of precursors in water, the nature and
reactivity of the precursor is best assessed using a parameter called specific UV absorbance
(SUVA). SUVA correlates well with the aromaticity and the hydrophobicity of the organic
carbon and hence its potential to form THMs
(UVA254 in cm−1 ) x 100
SUVA as L/mg − m =
DOC in mg/(L)
SUVA values less that 2 generally indicate a high fraction of hydrophilic non-humic matter
with low UV absorbance, a low chlorine demand and low THM formation potential. SUVA
values between 2 and 4 are indicative of a mixture of hydrophobic humic and hydrophilic
non-humic matter, with medium UV absorbance a higher chlorine demand and higher THM
formation potential. SUVA values in excess of 4 are indicative of the presence of humic
highly aromatic hydrophobic matter associated with high UV absorbance, high chlorine
demand and a high THM formation potential.
6.10.1.5. Investigations into the cause of Disinfection By-product exceedance
The main causes of failures are most likely to be one of the following, (this list is not
exhaustive);

 No treatment stage capable of removing organic matter (e.g. no filters, rapid gravity
filters with no coagulation or slow sand filters on a highly coloured water)
 Coagulation or filtration stage bypassed
 Filtration rate too high (i.e. overloaded filters)
 Breakthrough of filters (due to poor media quality)
 Poor filter management (e.g. filters not being run to waste)
 An extreme weather event (such as flooding or an exceptional storm)
 Accumulation of sediments in the network or reservoirs
 Ingress into reservoirs or distribution network (more likely to be the former)
 Long residence time in the distribution network
The cause should be investigated and identified by the operator and this information should be
used to determine appropriate measures to reduce the concentrations of disinfection by-
product. It is proposed that investigations should involve the following;
1. Develop a monitoring program for each stage of the process to evaluate critical
parameters in THM formation. A monitoring program will help identify areas of THM
formation and help in the implementation of effective corrective actions.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-56
 2. Evaluate operational practices of the treatment process and the distribution system.
3. Investigations should be conducted at each stage of the process and should be
examined as follows;
4. Stage 1 – Efficacy of treatment plant: Determine the TOC removal efficiency
upstream of disinfection process by analysing raw and treated water sampling results.
Determine the nature and reactivity of the THM precursor in the treated water by
determining the SUVA.
5. Stage 2 – Storage: Evaluate the potential for THM formation in the storage facilities
following disinfection. The Water Service Authority (WSA) should establish
operational limits for at TTHM and HAAs after storage, such as < 80 μg/L and <60
μg/L respectively. This should ensure that the parametric value for THM will not be
exceeded prior to distribution.
6. Stage 3 – Distribution System: Identify specific areas where THMs are formed by
carrying out monitoring at various locations within the distribution system. TTHM for
drinking water in the distribution system should not exceed 100 μg/and 80 μg/L for
HAA5.
For THM investigative purposes only, the number of monitoring sites on a distribution
network should be based on the population size served by the water supply systems, (see
Table 6-17). This monitoring procedure does not apply to compliance monitoring.

Table 6-17: Recommended Number of TTHM Monitoring Locations V Population

Population Size No. of Monitoring Locations within network
< 3,000 2
> 3,000 to < 10,000 4
> 10,000 to < 50,000 8
> 50,000 to < 100,000 10
> 100,000 to < 200,000 14

The selection of these monitoring sites should take account of historical THM exceedance
data, high water age, and the disinfectant residual gradient and geographic coverage of
distribution system.

6.10.2. Chloramine and its by-products

Chloramine generally produces by-products similar to those observed with chlorine but at
much lower concentrations. An exception to this is the formation of cyanogen chloride, CNCl
(Bull and Kopfler, 1991). The use of chloramine as a disinfectant has increased in recent years
because of limited formation of THMs, however, little is known about the nature of other by-
products.

Monochloramine is about 2000 and 100,000 times less effective than free chlorine for the
inactivation of E. coli and rotaviruses, respectively. Monochloramine cannot therefore be
relied upon as primary disinfectant. It is useful for maintaining a residual disinfectant in
distribution systems. The shift to monochloramine to control THM formation may thus
compromise disinfection and the Guidelines caution against such procedure. Organic
chloramines are even less effective disinfectants than monochloramine.

6.10.3. Chlorine Dioxide and Its By-Products

Because of its explosive hazard, chlorine dioxide is manufactured at the point of use. CLO 2 is
generated through the reaction of sodium chlorite and chlorine. Chlorine dioxide reactions
with humic substances do not form significant levels of THMs. In addition, it does not react
with ammonia to form chloramines. The main disinfection by-products of chlorine dioxide are
chloride, chlorate and chlorite.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-57
Chlorine dioxide is more effective towards inactivation of Giardia cysts than free chlorine, but
less effective towards rotavirus and E. coli. Unlike chlorine, the disinfection efficiency of
chlorine dioxide is independent of pH and the presence of ammonia.

A provisional Guideline Value (GV) was recommended for chlorite while no adequate data
were available to recommend a GV for chlorate. No GV has been recommended for chlorine
dioxide per se because of its rapid breakdown in aqueous solutions and the chlorite GV is
adequately protective for potential toxicity from chlorine dioxide. Furthermore, the taste and
odour threshold for chlorine dioxide in water is 0.4 mg/litre which constitute a limiting factor
and a signal for its presence at higher concentrations in drinking water.

6.10.4. Ozone and Its By-Products

Ozone decomposes rapidly following application, and for this reason no GV has been
proposed for ozone. By products of ozonation that have been identified include formaldehyde
and other aldehydes, carboxylic acids, hydrogen peroxide, bromate, bromomethanes,
brominated acetic acids, brominated acetonitriles and ketones. Guideline values have been
recommended for bromate and formaldehyde.

Ozone is the most efficient disinfectant for all types of microorganisms. Disadvantages
include lack of disinfectant residual, biological regrowth problems in distribution systems,
high cost, and limited information on the nature and toxicity of its by-products.

6.10.5. Measures to Reduce Disinfection By-products in Drinking Water

Consequent to investigating THM formation factors one or more of the following measures
will be required to mitigate THM formation:

 Improvements to raw water management;

 Modification of treatment process up stream of disinfection to improve the efficiency
of THM precursor removal;
 Optimisation of the disinfection process;
 The use of alternative disinfectants for primary and secondary disinfection; and/or
 Regular flushing and cleaning of storage reservoirs and distribution pipelines.

As water travels through the distribution system, chlorine continues to react with NOM to
form DBPs. The longer the travel time or water age, the more likely it is that water quality
will degrade, chlorine residual effectiveness will be reduced and TTHM and HAA
concentrations will be increased. Because of this, the supplier should endeavour to manage
water age within the distribution system.

Some methods to reduce water age within the distribution system include (USEPA, 2008);
Eliminating dead ends: Excessive hydraulic residence time at dead ends can provide for long
contact times for DPB formation.
Managing valves: Intentionally or unintentionally closed valves in a distribution system may
create areas of stagnant water. A comprehensive valve inventory and maintenance program
can help to determine the status of valves and find improperly positioned and broken valves.
Bypassing or replacing oversized pipes: In oversized pipes water velocity is lower and water
residence times are longer than is necessary. The supplier should evaluate if oversized pipes
exists within the distribution system and whether these can be replaced without influencing
downstream areas.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-58
Improving tank mixture and turnover: Improving mixing within tanks can reduce the
average water age and minimise stagnant zones within a tank.
Eliminating excess storage: Oversized tanks may have inadequate turnover or poor mixing.
Supplier should examine the option of increasing hydraulic turnover, mixing or where
possible decommission oversized tanks.

6.10.6. Balancing Chemical and Microbial Risks

Quantitative assessments of risks associated with the microbial contamination of drinking
water are scarce. Although there are gaps in our knowledge, we cannot afford to postpone
action until rigorous quantitative assessments of chemical versus microbial risks are available
and every answer is known.

Figure 6-20: Risks and benefits of water chlorination (Morris, 1978)

A semi-quantitative presentation of risks associated with disinfection was first attempted by

Morris (1978) and is given in Figure 6-20. The following is more or less a quote of his work:
The risk of waterborne infectious disease is very high when no chlorination is used, and drops
sharply to a low value when even minimal levels of chlorination are maintained. We know
this on the basis of a century's experience, Morris stated. As the level of chlorination is
increased the risk continues to drop slightly, but never quite reaches zero, for no system is
perfect. At very high levels of chlorine the microbial risk increases as taste and odour may
cause the use of unsafe supplies.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-59
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 6-60
CHAPTER 7

SPECIALIZED TREATMENT PROCESSES

7.1. Iron and Manganese Removal

7.1.1. Overview

Iron and Manganese are natural constituents of soil and rocks. Usually natural waters have an
iron content which is greater than manganese content. Waters which have iron levels greater
than 10 mg/l or manganese levels greater than 2 mg/l are seldom found. Iron exists in the +2
or +3 oxidation states, whereas manganese exists in either the +2, +3, +4, +6, or +7 oxidation
states. However, iron (III) and manganese (IV) are the only stable oxidation states found in
waters containing oxygen.

In ground waters, iron and manganese are found particularly in wells that draw their waters
from underground formations comprised of shale, sandstone, and alluvial deposits. In the
reducing environment often found in a deep well supply, that is, one which is devoid of
oxygen and which possesses a low pH, the iron and manganese will exist in their divalent
soluble forms. The concentration of iron may range from less than 1 mg/L to over 40 mg/L,
although the majority of well waters will contain less than 5 mg/L of iron. Manganese
generally occurs at concentrations of less than 1 mg/L but has also been found in
concentrations as high as 5 mg/L. Occasionally one may encounter even higher concentrations
of manganese.

In a surface water supply iron and manganese may be present due to their dissolution from the
associated geologic formations and/or from the decomposition of organic materials. For
example, anaerobic conditions on a reservoir bottom may cause the dissolution of iron and
manganese from the bottom sediments. When seasonal overturns occur due to temperature
gradients, this dissolved iron and manganese will be distributed throughout the water supply.
Although increased levels of iron and manganese may occur during periods associated with
overturns, it is also very likely that these elements will be found at objectionable
concentrations throughout the year.

7.1.2. Problems Caused by Iron And Manganese

The presence of significant amounts of either or both of these metals in a water supply can
create several problems for the consumers.
The problems caused by the presence of iron include:
• Large concentration of iron imparts a metallic taste to the water
• Industrial products such as paper, textiles, or leather may be discoloured

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-1
 • Household fixtures such as porcelain basins, bathtubs, glassware, and dishes are
stained
• Clothes may stain a yellow or brown-yellow colour
• Iron precipitates, clog pipes and promote the growth of gelatinous masses of iron
bacteria. These bacteria slough off and create “red water” (Regrowth inside the
distribution pipelines system)
• Iron bacteria may cause odour and taste problems, particularly, when the flow in
pipes is low
The problems caused by the presence of manganese are similar to those of iron:
• High concentrations of manganese may produce taste problems
• Manganese may cause a discoloration of industrial products similar to that caused by
iron
• Household fixtures may be stained a brown or black colour (Regrowth inside the
distribution pipelines system)
• Clothes may be stained and become dingy or greyish
7.1.3. Chemistry of Iron and Manganese in Water Systems
Ferrous iron Fe2+ and manganous manganese Mn2+ are
• Soluble
• Invisible
When exposed to air, they are oxidized to ferric iron Fe3+ and manganic manganese Mn4+,
which are:
• Insoluble
• Visible
Iron (Fe) and manganese (Mn) can be present in water in one of three basic forms:
1. Dissolved: ferrous (Fe2+) and manganous (Mn2+) states
2. Particulate: ferric (Fe3+) and manganic (Mn4+) states
3. Colloidal: very small particles (difficult to settle and filter)
Knowledge of the forms or states of iron and manganese can help to fine-tune a given
treatment practice for these metals. The predominance of one form over another is dependent
on:
• pH
• Eh (redox potential),
• Alkalinity
• Organic content
• Presence of oxidizing agents and
• Temperature of the water
The Oxidation of Iron and Manganese with Oxygen, Chlorine, Chlorine Dioxide, and
Potassium permanganate are shown in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1: Oxidation of Iron and Manganese with Oxygen, Chlorine, Chlorine Dioxide
and Potassium Permanganate
Reaction Oxidant, mg/mg Fe2+ Solids,* (kg/kg) Fe2+
4Fe +O2 + 10H2O  4Fe(OH)3 + 8H+
2+
0.14 1.9
4Fe2+ +Cl2 + 6H2O  2Fe(OH)3 + 2Cl- + 6H+ 0.64 1.9
4Fe2+ +ClO2 + 13H2O  5Fe(OH)3 + Cl- + 11H+ 0.24 1.9
4Fe2+ + KMnO4 + 7H2O  3Fe(OH)3 + MnO2 + 5H+ + 0.94 2.4
K+
4Fe2+ + O3 + 5H2O  2Fe(OH)3 + O2 + 4H+ 0.43 1.9

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-2
 Mn2+ + O2 + 2H2O  2MnO2(s) + 4H+ 0.29 1.58
Mn2+ + Cl2 + 2H2O  MnO2(s) + 2Cl- + 2H+ 1.29 1.58
Mn2+ + 2ClO2 + 2H2O  MnO2(s) + 2ClO2- + 4H+ 2.46 1.58
Mn2+ + 2KMnO4 + 2H2O  5MnO2(s) + 4H+ +2K+ 1.92 2.64
Mn2+ + O3 + H2O  MnO2(s) + O2 + 2H+ 0.87 1.58
If iron and manganese oxides are not removed from water
• Create problem of brown colour formation
• Reduced iron in water promotes the growth of autotrophic bacteria in distribution
mains
• Elimination of iron bacteria is difficult and expensive
• When decays, iron bacteria release foul taste and odour
Heavy chlorination followed by flushing proved to be successful in some cases. Removal of
iron and manganese from water is the best solution to this problem.
7.1.4. Drinking Water Standards for Iron and Manganese
Iron and manganese are common in groundwater supplies and their presence in drinking water
do not pose health hazard. There are secondary standards set for iron and manganese, but
these are not health related and are not enforceable. The secondary (aesthetic) Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for iron and manganese are 0.3 mg/l and 0.05 mg/l, respectively
and these limits are considered to be safe limits. Exceeding the suggested maximum
contaminant levels (MCL) usually results in health hazard, discoloured water, laundry, and
plumbing fixtures. This, in turn, results in consumer complaints and a general dissatisfaction
with the water utility. Any water containing iron and manganese above the recommended
levels should be treated to reduce the levels below the standards.
7.1.4.1. Health Effects
Manganese effects occur mainly in the respiratory tract and in the brains. Symptoms of
manganese poisoning are hallucinations, forgetfulness and nerve damage. Manganese can also
cause Parkinson, lung embolism and bronchitis. When men are exposed to manganese for a
longer period they may become impotent. A syndrome that is caused by manganese has
symptoms such as schizophrenia, dullness, weak muscles, headaches and insomnia.
According to results from a 2010 study, higher levels of exposure to manganese in drinking
water are associated with increased intellectual impairment and reduced intelligence quotients
in school-age children.
7.1.5. Most Common Treatment Processes
The majority of iron and manganese treatment systems employ the processes of oxidation,
sedimentation and filtration. The oxidant such as ozone, permanganate, hydrogen peroxide,
chlorine or chlorine dioxide chemically oxidizes the iron or manganese (forming a particle).
The filter then removes the iron or manganese particles. Oxidation followed by filtration is a
relatively simple process.
7.1.5.1. Aeration, Sedimentation and Filtration
A low-cost method of providing oxidation is to use the oxygen in air as the oxidizing agent in
an aerator. There are many ways to provide the aeration. Either the water being treated is
dispersed into the air or else air is bubbled into the water. Other aeration methods include
cascade trays, cone aerators, and porous air stones. A reaction basin can be provided after the
aeration to allow the oxidation to proceed up to completion. The detention time is commonly
provided by a head on the filters rather than by providing a separate tank. The detention time
before filtration should be at least 20 minutes, more if possible. The pH of the water
influences how much time is needed for the reaction to be completed. For the complete
oxidation of soluble manganese (without the addition of a strong oxidant) the pH would have

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-3
to be increased to 9.5 or above. Iron, if not present as a complex, can usually be oxidized
completely by aeration in the 7.0-8.0 pH range. Oxygen is not a strong enough oxidizing
agent to break the strong complexes formed between iron and manganese with large organic
molecules.
However, the aeration process is most successful in removing iron and manganese when the
pH of the solution is above 8.5 and stacked-tray aerators as shown in Figure 5-18 with coke
beds are employed.
Aeration (air oxidation) is the simplest treatment in removing iron. The reaction that takes
place is in the form of:
Fe2+ (ferrous) + oxygen  FeOx (ferric oxide)
Soluble iron Insoluble iron
The oxidation of manganese by oxygen is very slow and the aeration process is not practical
at the normal pH conditions in natural waters. Therefore, strong oxidants are needed for
manganese removal. If manganese is not effectively removed from the water, it can cause
problems with post-chlorination. When oxidized:
• it can clog the solution-feed chlorinator
• it cause a staining water
• there is a possibility of regrowth in the distribution system
7.1.5.2. Aeration, Chemical Oxidation, Sedimentation, and Filtration
• This is a common method for removing iron and manganese from well water without
softening treatment.
• Preliminary aeration strips out dissolved gases and adds oxygen.
• Iron and manganese are oxidized by free chlorine residual:
Fe++ + Mn++ + Oxygen  FeOx + MnO2
Soluble ions Insoluble metal oxides
• or by potassium permanganate
Fe(HCO3)2 + KMnO4  Fe(OH)3 + MnO2
Ferrous bic. Potas. Perm. Ferric Hydrx. Mang. Diox.

Mn(HCO3)2 + KMnO4  MnO2

Manganous bic Potas Perm Mang. Diox.
• Potassium permanganate oxidizes iron and manganese at rates faster than dissolved
oxygen and its reaction is relatively pH independent.
• Since iron and manganese cannot be completely removed by sedimentation, effective
filtration is required.
7.1.5.3. Water Softening
Lime softening is also an effective way of removing iron and manganese. Again the reduced
forms are oxidized to insoluble precipitates, which are removed along with the lime softening
solids. The chemical reaction that describes this oxidation process is as follows.

4 Fe2+ + 4Ca (OH)2 +2H2O+O2  4Ca+2 + 4Fe(OH)3

7.1.5.4. Manganese Zeolite Process
In the Manganese zeolite process, iron and manganese are oxidized to the insoluble form and
filtered out, all in one unit by a combination of adsorption and oxidation. The filter medium
can be manganese greensand, which is a purple-black granular material processed form
glauconitic greens, and/or a synthetic formulated product. Both of these compositions are

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-4
sodium compounds treated with a manganous solution on exchange manganese for sodium
and then oxidized by KMnO4 to produce an active manganese dioxide. The greensand grains
in the filter become coated with the oxidation products. The oxidized from of greensand then
adsorbs soluble iron and manganese, which are subsequently oxidized with KMnO4. One
advantage is that the greensand will adsorb the excess KMnO4 and result any discoloration of
the water.
Regenerative – Batch process: The regenerative – batch process uses manganese treated
greensand as both the oxidant source and the filter medium. The manganese zeolite is made
from KMnO4 treated greensand zeolite. The chemical reaction can be expressed as follows
(Humphrey and Eikleberry, 1962; wilmarth, 1968):

Exchange: NaZ + Mn2+  MnZ + 2Na+

Generation: MnZ + KMno4  Z.Mno2 + K+
Degeneration: Fe2+ Fe3+
Z.MnO2 + Mn2+  Z.MnO3 + Mn3+
Mn 4+
Regeneration: Z.MnO3 + KMnO4  Z.KnO2
Where NaZ is greensand zeolite and Z.MnO2 is manganese zeolite. As the water passes
through the mineral bed, the soluble iron and manganese are oxidized (degeneration).
Regeneration is required after the manganese zeolite is exhausted.
One of the serious problems with the regenerative – batch process is the possibility of soluble
manganese leakage. In addition, excess amounts of KMnO4 are wasted, and the process is not
economical for water high in metal content. Manganese zeolite has an exchange capacity of
0.18 kg of iron or manganese per cubic foot of material, and the flow rate to the exchanger is
usually 0.4 m3/min/m3 (3.0 gpm/ft3). Regeneration needs approximately 0.36 kg KMnO4 per
cubic foot of zeolite.
Continuous Process: For the continuous process, 1-4% KMnO4 solution is continuously fed
ahead of a filter containing anthracite bed (150-225 mm thick), manganese - treated greensand
(300-450mm), and gravel. The system takes full advantage of the higher oxidation potential of
the KMnO4 as compared to manganese dioxide. In addition, the greensand can act as a buffer.
The KMnO4 oxidize iron, manganese, and hydrogen sulphide to the insoluble state before the
water reaches the manganese zeolite bed.
Greensand grain has a smaller effective size than silica sand used in filters and can result in
comparatively higher head loss. Therefore, a layer of anthracite is placed above the greensand
to prolong filter runs by filtering out the precipitate. The upper layer of anthracite operates
basically as a filter medium. When iron and manganese deposits build up, the system is
backwashed like an ordinary sand filter. Then manganese zeolite not only serves as a filter
medium but also as a buffer to oxidize any residual soluble iron and manganese and to
remove any excess unreacted KMnO4. Thus a KMnO4 demand test should be performed. The
continuous system is recommended for groundwater where manganese predominates
(inversand Co., 1987).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-5
 Manganese green sand Antracite
Figure 7-1: Filtration Media

7.1.5.5. Roughing Filters

Roughing filters mainly acts as physical filters and reduce the solid mass. However, the large
filter surface area available for sedimentation and relatively small filtration rates also supports
absorption as well as chemical and biological processes. Therefore besides solid matter
separation, Roughing Filtration rate also has a significant influence on the treatment removal.
Good removal in roughing filters are best achieved with low filtration rate (Boller, 1993),
because low filtration rates are critical to retain particles that are gravitationally deposited to
the surface of the media. While as pre-treatments used for removal of iron and manganese,
Roughing Filter were able to operate at filtration rates of 1.5 - 3 m/h (Hatva, 1988).
Researchers like (Dastanaie, 2007) reported that horizontal flow roughing filter is capable of
removing metals like iron, manganese, turbidity and colour at a filtration rate of 1.8 m/h.
7.1.5.6. Biological Treatment
• New process
• In the form of filters that support:
• Iron-oxidizing bacteria
• Manganese-oxidizing bacteria
• Two separate filters are used
• pH and dissolved oxygen of the feed are critical
• Filtration rates are:
• 25 to 40 m/day for iron
• 10 to 40 m/day for manganese
• Coarse sand is used
For the biological process, bacteria living in environments where there is no light, require an
alternative energy source to achieve growth, are used. Iron and manganese bacteria have
specifically evolved to make use of the small amounts of energy released when oxygen reacts
with soluble un-oxidised manganese or iron (Mn2+ or Fe2+). The energy is used by the bacteria
to assimilate carbon dioxide and hence achieve biological growth (chemoautotroph).

The use of biological treatment, either in situ or ex situ, has gained popularity over the last
twenty years due to the presence of certain advantages over the conventional physicochemical
treatment methods (Bouwer and Crowe 1988). Biological treatment uses microorganisms to
reduce, oxidize or eliminate groundwater contaminants, either as the sole treatment technique,
or combined with other conventional physicochemical processes, such as sorption, filtration,
etc.

The advantages of biological treatments compared with conventional physico-chemical

treatments can be summarized as follows: no use of chemicals, higher filtration rates, the
possibility of using direct filtration and lower operation and maintenance costs (Mouchet,
1992).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-6
Fe and Mn removal by biological processes are based on different stages of biofiltration
where beds are colonized by Fe–Mn oxidizing bacteria. In nature, Iron Oxidizing Bacteria
(IOB) and Manganese Oxidizing Bacteria (MnOB) are widespread. They are prevalent in
groundwater, swamps, and ponds in the hypolimnion of lakes, in sediments, soils, wells and
water-distribution systems. In the latter they can cause significant clogging problems
(Ghiorse, 1984). These bacteria which are present in raw water can multiply in sand filters
under appropriate conditions and are able to oxidize divalent ions Fe(II), Mn(II) and
precipitate them under their oxided forms Fe(III) and Mn(IV).

The main groups of IOB are (Czekalla et al., 1985; Mouchet, 1992):

 Stalked bacteria, e.g. Gallionella sp., which are chemolithotrophic and

microaerophilic,
 Sheathed bacteria, e.g. Leptothrix sp., Sphaerotilus, etc., which are facultative
autotrophic-heterotrophic,
 Unicelular bacteria, e.g. Siderocapsa, Siderocystis, etc., which are heterotrophic and
more difficult to recognize by microscopic observation than the previous ones.

With the exception of the stalked bacteria (Gallionella), which oxidizes only Fe, MnOB
include the major groups reported for the IOB. Some of the species of the genera Leptothrix,
Crenothrix, Hyphomicrobium, Siderocapsa, Siderocystis, and Metallogenium can even
oxidize Fe or Mn indifferently. Other bacteria oxidize only Mn, e.g. Pseudomonas
manganoxidans (Mouchet, 1992). The bacteria involved in biological Fe and Mn removal
need different pH and redox potential (Eh) conditions for each metal, as is shown in Figure
7-2, a Pourbaix diagram.

Figure 7-2: Field of activity of Fe and Mn oxidizing bacteria in a pH-Eh diagram

(Mouchet,1992)
Source: Removal of iron and manganese using Biological Roughing up Flow Filtration Technology (Pacini Et.al
2005)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-7
Thus these microorganisms, formerly considered only as a source of problem (clogging wells,
causing corrosion, deteriorating water supply quality) have now been “domesticated”. Their
use in biological iron and manganese removal plants has revealed the many advantages of
biological processes over conventional processes for the upgrade of existing units or the
design of new projects.

In existing plants, physical – chemical units can be converted to biological treatment through
the implementation of one or more of the following measures: modification of pH; change in
aeration conditions; elimination of a powerful oxidant or more generally, any regents added at
the head of the treatment line; postponement of chlorination until the end of the treatment
line; change in the filter media and/or the nozzles. These simple modifications, when
performed under appropriate conditions, have always produced spectacular improvement in
treatment efficiency in terms of product water quality, operating costs (longer filter runs,
decreased labour requirement, savings on backwash water, partial or total reduction in the use
of costly reagents), or both. Operating costs can be cut by as much as 50 to 80 percent.

Once a biological iron or manganese removal plant is constructed, the system must be given
time to ‘seed’ with bacteria naturally present in the water source. This seeded biomass is
naturally and continuously regenerated during the life of the plant and is periodically partially
removed through backwashing. For iron removal plants, the seeding period is quite short
requiring anywhere from a day to about one week. For manganese removal, plants the seeding
time can be considerably longer, anywhere from 3 weeks to 3 months. At the end of the
seeding period, the metal concentration in the effluent falls to near detection levels. The
seeding period is affected by the temperature of the water source, and is generally longer for
cold water sources.

Iron bacteria are generally robust, and because of the variety of species involved, one type or
another is able to thrive under most environmental conditions. Given the correct pH, between
6 – 8, and Eh, the bacteria are normally able to oxidize iron at temperatures ranging from 5 oC
to 50oC. Inhibition of the biological process can however be caused by the presence of H 2S,
Chlorine, NH4+, and some heavy metals normally not present in water sources. Under certain
conditions of alkalinity and hardness, it can also be impossible to raise the Oxidation
Reduction Potential (ORP) sufficiently for biological manganese removal even with a
theoretically sufficient quantity of dissolved oxygen. It is therefore critical to have a complete
and accurate analysis of the influent water because a biological removal system will only be
effective if the proper water conditions are present (Gage B. et.al, 2001).Example is given
below.

Table 7-2: Optimum Parameters for Biological Removal

Optimum Parameters for Biological Removal
Parameter
Manganese Iron
Dissolved oxygen > 5 mg/L 0.2 – 0.5 mg/L
pH >7.0 >6
Redox potential 400 – 600mV 0 – 200 mV
Hydrogen sulphide < 0.01 < 0.01
Heavy metals, Ammonia, Chlorine Nil Nil
Iron
Manganese
Source: Sheppard M. et al: Biological Removal of manganese in Community water Supply

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-8
According to the attached paper on ‘Removal of Iron and Manganese Using Biological
Roughing up flow filtration Technology (Pacini et.al:2005)” the concept of biological
filtration has been improved more user friendly. As the paper describes the process is carried
out at natural pH and Eh without using special devices to control Dissolve Oxygen (DO).
Hence the biological filtration method described using vertical flow roughing filter will be
applicable in Sri Lanka successfully.

7.1.6. Iron and Manganese Problems to be Minimized in Distribution Mains

Problems due to iron and manganese in distribution mains may be minimized by:
• Prior removal by appropriate treatment
• Protecting iron/steel mains with proper linings, or using noncorrosive materials
• Avoiding dead-end mains
• Avoiding disturbances in the water flow
• Flushing periodically

7.2. Fluoride Removal and Fluoridation

Fluoride in water has been found to be beneficial in the prevention of tooth decay in children,
and is commonly added to water supplies in Europe, North America and many other
countries. About 1-1.5 mg/L is the optimum dose. The USEPA National Primary and
Secondary Drinking Water Standards for fluoride are 4.0 and 2.0 mg/L, respectively whereas
WHO has recommended a fluoride concentration of between 1.0 to 1.5mg/L in drinking water
as the optimum level that promotes dental as well as skeletal health and SLS: 614:2013
defines as 1.0 mg/L. Fluoridation is not commonly practised in developing countries. Sodium
fluoride, sodium silico-fluoride, and hydro-flosusilitic acid may be added in finished water to
produce water that has optimum fluoride level for control of tooth decay. Many water utilities
use fluoridation to maintain fluoride concentration around optimum levels. On the
assumption, the people drink more water in a warmer climate, fluoride levels in water
supplies are often adjusted in accordance with ambient temperatures. Mean maximum
temperature and corresponding recommended fluoride concentration that have been used as a
guide are given in Table 7-3.

Table 7-3: Mean maximum temperature and corresponding recommended fluoride

concentration for drinking purposes

Recommended Optimum Fluoride Concentration,

Mean Maximum Temperature, 0C
mg/L
10.0-12.1 1.2
12.2-14.6 1.1
14.7-17.7 1.0
17.8-21.4 0.9
21.5-26.2 0.8
26.3-32.5 0.7

In concentrations above 3-5 mg/L, however, mottling of teeth occurs, and a reduction in the
level of fluorides is desirable.
High concentrations of fluoride are toxic and can cause fluorosis, mottled tooth and enamel,
kidney and thyroid injury, and death. So fluorides can be removed by various granular
insoluble media which remove fluoride as the water percolates through them and which are
periodically regenerated by chemical treatment. Suitable treatment processes are:

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-9
 • Coagulation and flocculation
• Using tricalcium phosphates
• Filtration through bone char
• Filtration through activated alumina

Filtration through activated alumina: Adsorption onto activated alumina can reduce fluoride
levels to below drinking water standards. Probably best for large scale removal, water
percolates through a bed of granular media of grain size 0.3-0.5 mm. Bed regeneration is
necessary with weak caustic soda, followed by neutralization. Further details of fluoride
removal methods are in Table 7-4.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-10
 u

d
o

o
e
s

l
Table 7-4: Fluoride removal methods (based on Heidweiller, 1990; Pickard and Bari, 2004 and BGS, 2003; cited in Feenstra, et al., 2007)

sm
Rm
C

eu
mn
o

ay

ef v
leWe

fe e
hH

l%

W
Wvt
oi

-l

eir l

gn

n
O
cC

H
H
O

pe
r

e
r
e

c
e
iL

neI

s
ip

rd

p
T

f
sya

ko

o
(c
feo

e
r

r
en
h
n

q
u

Community level n

q
Removal efficiency u

is
v

e)t
s
s

t
lc
e
c

e
c

o/
t
s

l
i

Capacity/ dose

Operator skill

Relative costs
Interferences
Working pH
Water Loss
Techniques

WHO-level
Household

feasible
(%)
Precipitation
Alum (aluminium x x >90% Yes 1-2% 150mg/mgF non-specific - low medium-high
sulphate)
Lime x x >90% Yes 1-2% 30mg/mgF non-specific - low medium-high
Alum + Lime (Nalgonda) x x 70-90% possible 1-2% 150mgalum+7mglime/mg non-specific - low medium-high
F optimum pH6.5
Gypsum +fluorite x x no 1-2% 5mggypsum + < non-specific - medium low-medium
2mgfluorite/mgF

/%
eW

W
tW

pn

an
O
m

H
Calcium chloride x x >90% possible 1-2% 3mgCaCl2/mg F 6.5-8

yH
O

e
r

pe
er
re
R
tc
oe
R

peL

rs

k
T

f
k

n
eo

v
an
h
n

q
u

fa
m
m

s
o
v
a

C
ev

e
ie
lcr
H

r
e

ccs
iys
ve

le

e
e
c

i
l
l
t
s
ft
s

y(

d)

i
l-

i
l

o
ai
el

l
o
u

o
h
o
lu
d
n
i

e
e

s
s

t
i
Adsorption/ion exchange
Activated carbon x x >90% yes 1-2% variable <3 many medium high
Plant carbon (carbon in x x >90% 1-2% 300mgF/kg 7- medium low-medium
plants)
zeolites x x >90% yes 1-2% 100mgF/kg non-specific - medium high
defluoron 2 x x >90% 1-2% 360gF/m3 non-specific alkalinity medium medium
Clay pots x 60-70% possible 1-2% 80 mgF/kg non-specific - low low
Activated alumina x x 85-95% yes 1-2% 100mg alumina/mg F 5.5 alkalinity low medium
(1200gF/m 3)
bone x x Low? possible 1-2% 900gF/m3 >7 arsenic low low
Bone char x x possible 1-2% 1000gF/m3 >7 arsenic low low
Other
Electro dialysis x 85-95% yes 20-30% high non-specific turbidity medium very high
Reverse osmosis x 85-95 yes 40-60% high non-specific turbidity medium very high

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-11
7.3. Removal of Colours, Tastes and Odours
These characteristics are often the cause of a majority of consumer complaints about water
quality.
Colour in water is usually due to:

 Organic matter
 Biological growths and algae
 Colloidal iron / manganese

True colour is that imparted to water by soluble matter. It is measured against standard
solutions of a platinum salt in distilled water. Apparent colour is due to suspended matter such
as ferric hydroxide (red or yellow) or algae (green).
Conventional water treatment processes such as oxidation, coagulation, and filtration are
effective in removing colour. Adsorption and ion exchange can also be employed. In practice,
colour is usually removed to acceptable levels by normal water treatment operations. Each of
these colour removal processes is briefly discussed below.

Oxidation: Colour can be removed by such oxidizing chemicals as potassium permanganate,

chlorine and chlorine compounds, and ozone. Colour removal is most effective when
followed by coagulation and other conventional treatment processes.
Coagulation: Conventional coagulation, as part of the overall water treatment process,
effectively removes some colour in addition to turbidity; however, the mechanism of colour
removal appears to be different from that for turbidity removal. With enhanced coagulation,
many dissolved solids also precipitate out of solution, like the coagulant, and may adsorb
colour causing compounds on the growing floc. The quality of raw water, charge difference,
and degree of ionization of the suspended and dissolved solids appear to account for the direct
responses during coagulation. Because of the varied nature and origins of colour, jar tests and
pilot testing can help to identify the best colour removal strategy.
Filtration: Filters remove suspended solids that cause turbidity and colour. In a conventional
treatment process of coagulation and flocculation followed by sedimentation, the solids
removed in the filter consist of the lightest portion of floc, which did not settle in the
sedimentation basin. Thus, the filters remove most of the apparent colour due to turbidity and
some of the true colour captured during the prior treatment processes. Filtered water is low in
turbidity and most of the colours remaining in the water is attributed to the dissolved solids
and is measured as true colour.
Adsorption: Some adsorption of colour-causing compounds occurs during coagulation and
flocculation. However, adsorption itself can also be an effective treatment process. The use of
powdered activated carbon (PAC) or of filters composed of granular activated carbon (GAC)
may effectively remove colour.
Ion Exchange: Iron exchange process removes ionic species by employing resins and
electrical charge methods. The expense of iron exchange, however, inhibits its widespread
application to remove colour or even taste and odour.
Tastes and odours may be caused by:

 Hydrogen sulphide in the water (mostly odour)

 Contact with bituminous surfaces of mains or tanks
 Contamination by organic matter
 Contamination by chemicals
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-12
  Growths of algae etc.
 Treatment processes, e.g. chlorination, which may accentuate some tastes and odours,
particularly in the presence of phenols

Odour is measured by Threshold Odour Number (TON), which indicates the intensity of the
odour in water. It is the dilution, with odour-free water, required to dilute the odorous water to
the point where the odour is just detectable. Prevention of tastes and odours occurring is the
best solution and some strategies are given below:
 Prevent pollution of source by sewage, industrial wastes, etc.
 Control biological growths in reservoirs, tanks and filters e.g. algae, fungi
 Careful chlorination, and use of ammonia or dechlorination agents if necessary
 Cover distribution reservoirs
 Avoid dead-ends in distribution, flush mains regularly; use material linings and
protective paints of good quality

Methods of removal of Tastes and Odours are as follows.

7.3.1. Aeration
Not particularly effective in removing tastes and odours due to organic matter, biological
growths or chlorination since substances causing such problems usually have low volatility.
Aeration is effective in reducing free carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulphide.

7.3.2. Activated Carbon

This is a specially processed form of charcoal which may be either in powder or granular
form, and is relatively pure carbon, which has highly porous structure with an extensive
surface area in relation to its volume - it therefore is effective in removing taste and odour
producing substances by absorption; ordinary charcoal may be used but is not as efficient as
activated carbon.

Powdered activated carbon is more effective and efficient for removing tastes and odours than
the granule form. It is mixed into slurry and fed at a constant rate to the water. Contact time
should be a minimum of 15 minutes to 1 hour. Removal is usually on the bed of rapid or slow
sand filters. In rapid filters, the carbon is washed to waste in the backwashing process; in slow
sand filters, the material accumulates on the bed, and should not affect the length of filter run.
Maximum efficiency is obtained when the carbon is applied to clarified water, normal doses
being in the range of 5-20 mg/L. Efficiency of removal of tastes and odours is much better at
lower pH values.

For slow sand filters, a larger initial dose of 40-50 mg/L could be applied to build up an
effective concentration throughout the water on the filter, and then reduced to a nominal
amount of say 2 mg/L.Tastes and odours are normally a seasonal phenomenon, and therefore
the required dose is likely to be intermittent and variable.

The application point may be at the plant inlet, or after clarification, or both. Sufficient
contact time must be allowed prior to coagulation, when the efficiency of absorption will be
reduced due to sealing of the carbon surface, as it binds with the coagulant.

Granular activated carbon is usually used for removal of free chlorine, by passing water
through a bed of the substance, at a similar flow rate to that of rapid sand filtration - the
units are therefore of similar size. In this case the carbon requires periodic regeneration.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-13
Powered activated carbon requires special care in handling, storage and feeding due to its
highly corrosive nature in the presence of water; it is also combustible and should be stored
separately from other chemicals, and equipment for handling the dry material should be
sealed to confine the dust. See reference 6 for additional information on this subject.

7.3.3. Oxidising Agents

These are often effective against tastes and odours. Chlorine is the most common, but has the
disadvantage along with potassium permanganate, that excess oxidant must be removed.
Chlorine dioxide is also very effective, being a more powerful oxidant than chlorine and
should only be considered in severe cases of taste and odours, or when phenolic compounds
are a problem.

It should be noted that when using chlorine for this purpose, there is a danger of forming new
taste and odour causing compounds, which may aggravate the problem. Sufficient oxidant
must be used, therefore, to eliminate the original taste and odour causing compounds. Ozone
is probably the most effective taste and odour oxidant available but suffers from high cost and
is therefore seldom used.

7.4. Hardness Removal

Hardness in natural water is due primarily to calcium and magnesium ions. Other ions such as
strontium, iron, manganese, aluminium, copper, barium, zinc, lead and other bivalent trace
metals also cause harness; however, these substances are found in very low concentrations in
natural waters, so their effects generally are ignored. Based on the hardness, the water is
classified in Table 7-5.
Table 7-5: Water clarification based total hardness
Total Hardness, mg/L as CaCO3 Classification
0-40 soft
40-100 moderately hard
100-300 hard
300-500 very hard
Greater than 500 extremely hard

In certain cases treatment may be required for the removal of hardness. Since hardness is not a
health hazard, this form of treatment may only be necessary to reduce the operational issues
like scaling in the conveyance systems and for specialised industrial uses where scaling may
be a problem either by chemical precipitation or by ion exchange. Generally, ion exchange is
the more suitable method, being simpler in operation and maintenance.
Certain natural materials, such as zeolites (complex sodium alumina-slicates) and greensand
have the property of exchanging one ion in their structure for another ion in solution. Thus
natural zeolites will exchange their sodium ions with calcium and magnesium ions in water,
thus softening the water completely. The finished water is high in sodium but unless it was
originally very hard water, the sodium level is not harmful.
Softening
Na2R Ca (HCO3)2 CaR 2 NaHCO3
+ Mg SO4 MgR + Na2SO4
Fe (Cl)2  FeR 2 NaCl
Sodium cation Hardness Hardness with Treated water
exchanger (soluble) resin (soluble)
(insoluble) (insoluble)
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-14
The ion exchange material can be regenerated with a strong solution of sodium ions such, as
common salt solution.

CaR + 2 NaCl  Na2R CaCl2

MgR + MgCl2
FeR FeCl2
Hardness with Regenerate Regenerated Waste or
resin (insoluble) (soluble) bed brine
(insoluble) (soluble)
Since ion exchange treatment produces effluent with zero hardness it is usually sufficient for
domestic supply purposes to treat a portion of the water only which can then be blend with
unsoften water to produce a final hardness of 20-50 mg/L.
To allow production of satisfactory softened water by sodium cycle treatment the water
should have a composition such that after treatment the water does not contain more than 900
mg/l sodium. To prevent damage to the ion exchange material the raw water should not
contain more than 1.5 mg/L iron and manganese or more than 5 units of turbidity unless
suitable pre-treatment can be provided.
Ion exchange beds may be gravity or pressure type and are operated in much the same way as
a rapid filter.
Common design criteria are:
Rate of flow 120-480 m3/m2d
Depth of bed of resin At least 0.75 m
Depth of supporting gravel At least 0.3 m (graded)
Backwash rate 350-600 m3/m2d
Under drain area 0.18% of bed area
Freeboard above bed 50% of bed depth
Length of run Depends on hardness of raw water
Further details of design and operation of ion exchange plants are given in relevant references.

7.5. Removal of Algae

7.5.1. Treatment Methods for Removing Algae and Cyanotoxins
It has long been recognized that effective removal of algae/cyanobacteria is required prior to
filtration to reduce filter-clogging problems with the treatment of algae laden waters. In
addition, cyanotoxins generally exist in two forms: dissolved form (extracellular) and cell-
bound form (intracellular or particulate). Therefore, removing intact algae/cyanobacteria cells
without any damage before further treatment is more economical, reliable and safe.
There are several factors need to be evaluated before determining the best method. These
factors include raw water characteristics such as source type, source conditions, rainfall in
each month, water quality goals, and existing infrastructure. As first step, a complete water
quality survey at water source(s) must be conducted before deciding on a treatment approach
to address algae/cyanobacteria removal. The next step is to decide the treatment goal by
considering source water fluctuations, seasonal changes in algae population and type, and
other possible water quality problems (such as lower DO, high colour, taste and odour, Fe and
Mn etc.). The last step is to select available technology, which is the best fit for the water
quality goals. If possible, bench-scale and pilot testing should be performed before full-scale
implementation to determine the efficacy of the chosen process.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-15
Micro strainer, Sonicator, prechlorination with limited dose to avoid THM formation, and
DAF with PAC dosing or GAC filters are the selected treatment options used to remove
algae/cyanobacteria in Sri Lankan water treatment plants in Pollnnaruwa, Thuruvila and
Konduwatuwana. For more detail on algae and its removal refer the annexure on algal
treatment.

7.6. Membrane Filtration and Reverse Osmosis Technology

7.6.1. Introduction
Membrane processes use the differences in permeability in constituents of water as a
separation mechanism. In membrane filtration, water is pumped against the surface of a
membrane, which results product stream containing permeable components which is called
the “permeate” or the filtrate and the waste stream which is called the concentrate or the
retentate and it is shown in Figure 7-3. Therefore, permeate is relatively free from
impermeable constitutes while the concentrate contains impermeable constituents.

Permeate
Feed (Qf, Cf) (Qp, Cp) Cc - Concentration of concentrate
Cf - Concentration of feed
Cp - Concentration of permeate
Qc - Water flow of concentrate
Concentrate Qf - Water flow of feed
(Qc, Cc) Qp - Water flow of permeate
Figure 7-3: Schematic diagram of separation process through a semipermeable membrane
There are four types of pressure driven membranes used in the current water treatment market
namely, microfiltration (MF), ultrafiltration (UF), nano-filtration (NF) and reverse osmosis
(RO) filtration. The distinction among the four membrane types is not very clear and depends
on different interpretations. However, they are roughly identified according to the types of
materials rejected, operating pressures and nominal pore sizes. Membranes used for drinking
water treatment are mainly categorized as low pressure membranes and high pressure
membranes. Microfiltration and ultrafiltration membranes are the low pressure membranes
while nano-filtration and reverse osmosis membranes are categorized as high pressure
membranes. Figure 7-4 shows the hierarchy of pressure driven membranes.

Figure 7-4: Particle rejection (approximate) in different membrane process (Crittenden

J.C. et. al., 2012)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-16
Table 7-6 illustrates the differences of membrane filtration with reverse osmosis process
characteristics.

Table 7-6: Comparison of membrane filtration and reverse osmosis (Water Treatment
Principles and Design)
Process Characteristic Membrane filtration Reverse Osmosis
Objectives Particle removal, microorganism NOM removal to control DBP,
removal softening, seawater and brackish
water desalination, specific
contaminant removal
Target contaminants Particles Dissolved solutes
Membrane types Ultra filtration, Micro filtration Nanofiltration, Reverse osmosis
Typical source water Fresh surface water (TDS < 1000 Ocean or seawater, brackish
mg/L) groundwater (TDS = 1000 - 20,000
mg/L), colored groundwater (TOC >
10 mg/L)
Membrane structure Homogeneous or asymmetric Asymmetric or thin film composite
Most common membrane Hollow fibre Spiral wound
configuration
Dominant exclusion Straining Differences in solubility or diffusivity
mechanism
Removal efficiency of targeted Frequently 99.9999% or greater Typically 50 - 90%, depending on the
impurities objective
Most common flow pattern Dead end Tangential / cross flow
Operation includes backwash Yes No
cycle
Influenced by osmotic pressure No Yes
Influenced by concentration No Yes
polarization
Noteworthy regulatory issues Challenge testing and integrity Concentrate disposal
monitoring
Typical transmembrane 0.2 - 1 bar (keeping pressure below 5 - 85 bar
pressure 1bar helps less membrane fouling)
Typical permeate flux 30 - 170 L/m2h 1 - 50 L/m2h
Typical recovery >95% Approximately 50% (for seawater) to
90% (for colored groundwater)
Competing process Granular filtration Carbon adsorption, ion exchange,
precipitative softening, distillation

7.6.2. Design of Low Pressure Membrane Treatment Systems (Microfiltration and

Ultrafiltration)
MF and UF membranes are used in drinking water production plants as well as wastewater
treatment plants. They are used in drinking water production to remove suspended and
colloidal matters, algae and microbes such as Cryptosporidium, bacteria and viruses. Also
they are used as pre-treatment techniques in reverse osmosis and nano-filtration drinking
water plants.

The dominant mechanism of MF and UF is sieving i.e. size exclusion. However, In addition
to the particle size and pore size of the membrane which affects straining effect, pore size
distribution, flexibility of particles, electrical charge of the membrane pores, nature of
membrane material, electrical charge of particles, diffusion coefficient of particles and
process conditions such as temperature, salinity and filtration rate (flux) affect the filtration
process of the membranes.

Molecular weight cut-off (MWCO – 95% target compound removal) is a measure of the
removal characteristic of membranes in terms of molecular mass rather than its size. This is
due to the difficulty in measuring and defining smaller size particles morphologically. For
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-17
example, MWCO of 100 000 Dalton means that the membrane rejects 95% of 100 000 Dalton
molecular weight particles.

Terminology Related to Pore Size of Membranes

Nominal pore size – Average pore size
Absolute pore size – Maximum pore size
Surface porosity – The part of surface which is covered by pores

7.6.2.1. Water Flow, Water Flux and Resistance of Membranes

Quantity of water flowing through a membrane (Q) is called water flow and it is given by,
𝑄 = ∆𝑃. 𝐴𝐾 (7.1)
Where
Q - Water flow (m3/h or L/h)
ΔP -Trans Membrane Pressure (Difference in feed pressure and permeate pressure) (bar)
A - Membrane surface area (m2)
K - Permeability of the membrane (m3/m2.h.bar or L/m2.h.bar)

Water flux (L/m2h or m3/m2h or m/h) is the per area water flow or the filtration rate and is
given by,
𝑄 ∆𝑃 𝐴 𝐾
𝐽 = 𝐴 = 𝐴 = ∆𝑃 𝐾 (7.2)
Permeability of membranes depends on the viscosity of water and as a result depends on the
temperature.
𝐾20𝐶
𝐾𝑡 =
(1.03)(20−𝑡)
Permeability of the membrane at temperature t Kt
o
Permeability of the membrane at 20 C K20c
Temperature t (oC)
Normalized permeability and normalized clean water flux which are measured at 20oC and 1
bar are commonly used in characterizing MF and UF membranes.

It should be noted that:

1 – 28oC – approximately 5% accuracy
>28oC – Increasingly inaccurate
Membrane Resistance
Total membrane resistance (Rtotal) includes the resistance of the membrane (Rm), resistance
due to particles deposited inside the pores or blocking the pore entry (Rb) and the resistance
due to cake formed on the membrane surface (Rc).
𝑅𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 = 𝑅𝑚 + 𝑅𝑏 + 𝑅𝑐 (7.3)
Hence, flux
∆P ∆P
J = μR = μ(R +R +R ) (7.4)
total m b c

7.6.2.2. Pore Blocking, Cake filtration and Adsorption

When water is flowing through the membrane, membrane resistance will increase due to
depositing of suspended and colloidal particles on the membrane or inside the pores. Hence
water flux is declined if the pressure is kept constant or the required pressure is increased if
the water flux is to be kept constant. In practice water flux is kept constant.
Pore blocking
When the entrance to a pore is blocked by particles pore blocking occurs. Still flow can occur
due to open pores and they are interconnected at the pore depth. This occurs initially with a
rapid drop of flux.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-18
Mathematical formulae describing pore blocking is complicated. The following is a simple
formula describing pore blocking.
∆P nV
J = μR (1 − AN) (7.5)
Where
n - Number of particles per litre
V - Feed volume
N - Number of pores per m2 membrane surface
μ - Viscosity
A - Membrane surface area
This equation assumes that each particle can block one pore completely.
Adsorption also takes place initially but the adsorption capacity exhausts very quickly.

Cake Filtration
Cake filtration will follow pore blocking and results a slower rate of flux decline. This
formation of cake layer is caused by deposition of particles and / or organic polymers on the
membrane surface. The formed cake will retain smaller particles that can be passed through
the pores of the membrane, and hence acts as a ‘dynamic filtration medium’.

The cake can be classified as compressible or incompressible. This depends on the nature of
the particles such as shape, particle size and rigidity. Incompressible cake can withstand
cumulative drag stresses or any other external stresses without any significant structural
changes. Therefore, specific cake resistance remains constant over time and the porosity is
time and pressure independent. In compressible cakes the drag forces will lead to
rearrangement of particles within the cake as internal stresses increase and hence the porosity
will be at its minimum value.

If we assume that pore blocking does not play a major role in membrane fouling (in a certain
stage), then fouling is mainly due to cake filtration. Then,
1 ∆𝑃
𝐽 = 𝜇 (𝑅 +𝑅 ) (7.6)
𝑚 𝑐
𝐼𝑉
𝑅𝑐 = 𝐴 (7.7)
Where I is a measure of fouling characteristics of the particles in the water and I is given by,
I = c. rk (7.8)
rk - Resistance of cake per mg cake per m2 membrane (m/kg)
V/A - Total filtered volume per m2
c - Concentration of suspended /colloidal matter in feed water (kg/m3)
The effect of particle size on cake resistance of a spherical particle is given by the Carman -
Kozeny equation.
180(1−𝜀)
𝑟𝑘 = 𝜌.𝑑2 𝜖3 (7.9)
Where
ε - Cake porosity
ρ - Particle density
d - Particle diameter
𝑉
= 𝐽𝑡 (7.10)
𝐴
Hence 𝑅𝑐 = 𝐼𝐽𝑡 this results,
1 ∆𝑃
𝐽 = 𝜇 (𝑅 +𝐼𝐽𝑡) (7.11)
𝑚
Or
∆P = μR m J + μIJ 2 t (7.12)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-19
Adsorption
During early stage of filtration, that is with a clean membrane, adsorption (soluble material
like natural organic matter) plays a role in rejection mechanism. However, it is not effective in
long term filtration because the adsorption capacity is quickly exhausted.
7.6.3. Membrane Fouling of MF and UF Systems
One major problem with membrane filtration is membrane fouling. Membrane fouling is the
decline of flux in a membrane filter due to accumulation of particles in the feed water on the
surface of the membrane or in the membrane matrix.
Classes of membrane fouling
 Particulate fouling / colloidal fouling
 Inorganic fouling / scaling
 Microbial fouling
 Organic fouling

Particulate fouling / colloidal fouling

Particulate fouling is the most critical fouling mechanism associated with MF and UF. It is the
flux decline due to the colloids and biologically inert particles. Hydraulic cleaning is used to
clean the membrane surface. Irreversible fouling can be caused by smaller particles compared
to the pore size of the membrane.

Inorganic fouling / scaling

Inorganic fouling or scaling is due to accumulation of inorganic precipitates on membrane
surface or within pores. Precipitates are formed when the concentration level of the chemical
exceeds the saturation concentration of it. In MF and UF, occurrence of inorganic fouling is
very less since ions are not rejected by these membranes. However, fouling may occur due to
interactions between ions and other fouling materials such as organic polymers via chemical
bonding.

Microbial fouling
Microbial fouling greatly depends on the following characteristics of feed water.

 Parameters indicating the abundance of microbes

 Parameters indicating nutrient availability
 Parameters indicating environmental conditions for microbial growth
In the microbial fouling, a formation of biofilms on the membrane surface occurs. This is due
to formation of biofilms on the membrane surface. When microbes attach to the membrane
they start growing and produce extracellular polymeric substances (EPS). EPS is viscous and
slimy hydrated gel. This gel prevents bacterial cells from hydraulic shearing and chemical
attacks such as by chlorine.

Organic Fouling
Highly problematic and least controllable membrane fouling mechanism is organic fouling
due to the adsorption of NOM or DOM to the membrane surface. Fouling mainly depends on
characteristics of DOM, the material of the membrane, properties of the solute, size and
stability of DOM. Pretreatment methods such as coagulation is used to reduce fouling by
NOM. However, NOM or DOC is an indicator only for organic fouling. It is neither proper
nor adequate for considering as organic fouling.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-20
7.6.4. Remedial Actions for Fouling
Backwashing
The purpose of backwashing is to remove the cake which was formed during filtration cycle.
Backwashing takes place for about 1 to 3 minutes. All modules in a rack are backwashed
simultaneously.
Backwashing is done using
Air
Water
Water supported with air
Hydraulic backwashing is done approximately in every 15 - 60 minutes.

Chemical Enhanced Backwashing

Chemicals are added periodically for the backwashing cycle to minimize fouling and this is
called chemical enhanced backwashing. It increases the time required to do clean-in-place
cycles.
For chemical enhanced backwashing sodium hydroxide, sodium hypochlorite, hydrochloric
acid, ascorbic oxalic acid and detergents are used in a higher pH value. Thereafter it is soaked
in a lower pH solution.

Cleaning in Place (CIP) With Chemicals, Including Circulation

Membranes lose filtration capacity with time due to clogging or adsorption that cannot be
removed during backwashing. CIP is done when transmembrane pressure increases to a preset
maximum value or when a preset duration elapsed.

CIP includes membranes soaking in one or more solutions containing surfactants, acids or
bases for several hours as provided by the manufacturers. High pH is normally effective in
removing organic foulants and low pH is effective in removing inorganic fouling. Cleaning
frequency varies from few days to several months and it depends on the membrane material,
raw water quality and operating conditions. Membrane replacement may be needed in 5 to 10
years.

Figure 7-5: Transmembrane pressure development during membrane filtration

(Crittenden J.C. et. al., 2012)
7.6.5. Types of MF and UF Membranes Used in Treatment of Drinking Water
 Hollow fiber membranes
 Tubular membranes
 Capillary membranes
 Flat sheet membranes

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-21
 Spiral wound membranes
Flow Direction through Hollow Fibres
Flow direction through hollow fibres depends on the manufacturers. In some designs water
filters from outside to inside the fibre and some manufacturers design the opposite direction.
Pressure vessels use both systems while submerged systems use only outside in system. The
comparison between outside in and inside out modes of hollow fibre membrane
configurations is given in Table 7-7.
Table 7-7: Comparison between outside in and inside out modes of hollow fibre
membrane configurations
Configuration Advantages Disadvantages
Outside in Since outside membrane has Cannot be used in cross-flow mode
more membrane area treated
water capacity is higher
Less sensitive to large particles in
the feed water

Inside out (dead – end mode) Less costly than inside out in Large solids in feed water can clog
cross flow mode the lumen
Less amount of water can be treated
because inside of fibre has less
surface area

Inside out (cross - flow mode) Since the cross flow velocity Large solids in feed water can clog
flushes solids on membrane, this the lumen
can be operated at higher flux Can treat less amount of water at
with high turbid feed water same flux due to less inside surface
area
Pumping cost for recirculating feed
water can be expensive

7.6.6. Cross Flow and Dead End Filtration

7.6.6.1. Cross flow filtration
Cross flow filtration is historically used to reduce the membrane fouling in tubular
membranes. When the cross flow is high, membrane fouling rate will become less due to the
high shear force applied in the particles. Higher cross flow velocities results higher
consumption of energy because of the high head loss.

Feed water Membranes

Concentrate
Product
Figure 7-6: Schematic diagram of cross flow filtration

7.6.6.2. Dead end filtration

Dead end filtration is common in water treatment industry because water treatment industry
includes low solids concentration in feed water flow than in industrial waters (turbidity
generally < 100 NTU).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-22
 Feed water Membranes

Product
Figure 7-7: Schematic diagram of dead end filtration

During dead end filtration, feed water flow is perpendicular to the membrane surface. In dead
end filtration all rejected suspended / colloidal matter is deposit on the membrane surface.
Fouling is mainly controlled by frequent backwashing. Energy consumption is less in dead
end filtration compared to cross flow filtration.

7.6.7. Membrane Module Configurations

There are two types of membrane module configurations.

7.6.7.1. Pressure Vessel Configuration

Pressure vessel systems generally operate at transmembrane pressures between
(approximately) 0.4 bars to 1.0 bar. Diameters range from 100 to 300 mm and the lengths
range between 0.9 to 5.0 m in pressure vessel modules. One module has thousands of fibres
and generally contains around 40 to 80m2 membrane area. Modules are arranged in racks or
skids and it is the basic production unit. Racks generally contain 2 to 100 modules.

Figure 7-8: Pressure vessel configuration (Crittenden J.C. et. al., 2012)

7.6.7.2. Submerged Configuration

In submerged configuration, membrane modules are submerged in basins which contain feed
water. Since basins are opened to atmosphere the feed water side head is gained by the static
head of the feed water. Hence transmembrane pressure is developed in the permeate side
using suction pumps. Therefore submerged systems are sometimes called suction or vacuum
based systems. Submerged systems are configured with multiple basins so that each basin can
be cleaned separately without shutting down the entire treatment plant.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-23
 Figure 7-9: Submerged configuration (Crittenden J.C. et. al., 2012)

7.6.8. Membrane Properties

Physical and chemical properties of the membranes affect the performance of membranes.
Hydrophilic membranes have less fouling tendency compared to hydrophobic membranes.
However, chemical properties which enhance hydrophilicity reduce the mechanical, chemical
and thermal stability.

7.6.8.1. Material Chemistry

Cellulose acetate (CA) and polypropylene (PP) are currently not used much. Recently,
polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF), polysulfone (PS), and polyethersulfone (PES) are used
commonly. Ceramic membranes too are becoming popular.

7.6.8.2. Membrane Structure

Porosity, structure and transport properties of the MF membranes are almost constant
throughout the depth of the membrane. However, UF membranes are asymmetric throughout
the depth. In asymmetric membranes the top layer is the active layer and the bottom layer is a
support layer.

7.6.8.3. Parameters to be Considered When Selecting Membrane Material

 Hydrophobicity / hydrophilicity
Hydrophilic membrane materials (and membrane coatings) with a highly negative
surface charge are important in preventing adsorption of (natural) organic matter and
colloids
 Membrane porosity, pore size distribution, surface roughness and surface charge
 pH value of the feed
 Ionic strength of solution

7.6.9. Particle Capture in Membrane Filtration

7.6.9.1. Retention Rating
UF and MF membranes are rated with different systems. Retention rate of MF membranes are
based on the diameter of the material that is retained by the membrane. For example, 0.2μm
MF can retain 100% of 0.2μm diameter particles. Retention rating of MF membranes is
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-24
generally in the range of 0.1 to 1 μm. Membranes of this range completely retain bacteria and
protozoa such as Giardia lamblia cysts and Cryptosporidium parvum oocysts. Viruses may not
be retained completely with MF membranes.

For UF membranes manufacturers use two systems to define membranes.

1. Pore size rating similar to MF (commonly 0.01 – 0.04 μm)
2. Molecular Weight Cut Off (MWCO) / NMWL (Nominal Molecular Weight Limit)

A challenge test is to be done in order to determine the removal efficiency. It cannot be

estimated by only considering whether it is MF or UF membrane.

7.6.9.2. Rejection
It is the fraction of material that does not pass through the membrane in the filtering process.

Rejection is given by the following formula.

𝐶𝑝
𝑅𝑒𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 1 − 𝐶 (7.13)
𝑓

7.6.9.3. Log Removal Value (LRV)

Formula for log removal value is shown below.
C
LRV = log(Cf ) − log(Cp ) = log C f (7.14)
p

In MF and UF main target is to remove protozoa, helminthes, bacteria and viruses.

7.6.9.4. Removal of protozoa and helminthes

Giardia lamblia and Criptosporidium parvum which are very resistant to disinfectants, are at
least 10 times larger than the retention ratings of MF and UF membranes. LRV greater than 7
is observed.

7.6.9.5. Removal of bacteria

Since bacteria size range is 0.1 to 100μm, complete retention of bacteria is expected with UF
membranes. Also most of the bacteria species are removed by MF too.

7.6.9.6. Removal of viruses

Smallest viruses have a diameter of around 25nm. This is in the range of UF membranes.
However, with MF due to adsorption, straining and cake filtration, virus removal in the range
of < LRV 1 to >LRV4 can be achieved.

7.6.10. Membrane Integrity Testing

To check whether the membrane systems meet the targeted treatment objective, membrane
integrity tests are introduced.

7.6.10.1. Challenge Test

Challenge test is used to check the ability to remove a target pollutant of a manufactured
membrane. It establishes the maximum removal credit allowed for a specific membrane.

7.6.10.2. Direct Integrity Test

This is a physical test and it is sensitive to detect 3μm (smallest Cryptosporidium Oocyst has
a size of 3μm) breach in the membrane system. It is carried out at least once a day and should

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-25
validate with the expected LRV. Direct Integrity test is based on air pressure and bubble point
theory.

7.6.10.3. Continuous Indirect Integrity Monitoring

This continuously monitors (at least every 15 minutes) a suitable effluent water quality
parameter such as particle count or turbidity. This test is not as sensitive as direct integrity test
but it uses commercially available instruments (not manufacturer dependent) and hence can
be used with any membrane system. With this each membrane unit should be monitored
independently. Particle counting is generally more sensitive than turbidity monitoring.

7.6.10.4. Sonic Testing

This method identifies leaks in individual pressure vessels. In this test, an acoustic sensor is
placed manually against a module and the changes in the sound coming out of the module are
used to identify leaks. Sonic testing is highly sensitive and a leak in single fiber can be
identified in a module consisting of 20,000 fibers.

7.6.11. Pretreatment Facilities in MF and UF Systems

Based on the raw water quality and the finished water quality it is necessary to introduce
pretreatment facilities to the MF and UF systems depending on the capabilities of the
membrane used. Processes that use before membrane filtration (MF and UF) consist of
coagulation and flocculation, sedimentation, granular filtration, adsorption, oxidation and
softening. Apart from that MF and UF membrane filtration is also used as pretreatment
methods for some treatment processes such as granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption
and reverse osmosis.

Pretreatment is used for two major reasons.

1. Additional processes can remove contaminants which cannot be used with membrane
filtration. Some contaminants are dissolved contaminants such as arsenic which can be
partly removed by coagulation and GAC which is used to remove taste and odour.
2. Reduce the influent water particle amounts and hence decrease the membrane fouling rate.
High turbid waters can be treated prior to membranes with coagulation, flocculation and
sedimentation to reduce the load.

It is recommended to assess and evaluate the impact of chemicals on membranes with pilot
tests. Sometimes chemicals used in pilot plants can damage the membranes or can foul
membranes.

7.6.12. Comparison Between Membrane Filtration and Rapid Sand Filters

The Table 7-8 compares the operating characteristics of MF and UF membrane and rapid
sand filters.

Table 7-8: Operating characteristics of MF and UF membrane and rapid sand filters

Criteria Membrane filtration Rapid sand filtration

Filtration rate (permeate flux) 0.03 - 0.17 m/h 5 - 15 m/h
Operating pressure 0.2 - 1 bar 0.18 - 0.3 bar
Filtration cycle duration 30 - 90 min 1 - 4 day
Backwash cycle duration 1 - 3 min 10 - 15 min
Ripening period none 15 - 120 min
Recovery >95% >95%
Filtration mechanism Straining Depth filtration (Straining,
Sedimentation, Impaction,
Interception and Diffusion)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-26
7.6.13. Process Design Considerations
Membrane filtration technology is developing rapidly. Therefore, previous experience or rules
of thumbs may not adequate to membrane systems with recent advancements. Also the design
engineer should be careful of manufacturers’ claims on unproven technologies. To do a
successful design, the engineer should be aware of the fundamentals of membrane materials,
modules, fouling and performance in order to do a proper design by incorporating new
technologies and avoiding unproven technologies.
Primary task of a membrane system design engineer is:

 Estimating performance criteria such as plant capacity, retention criteria and recovery
considering the raw water source, treated water quality and projected water demand.
 Based on raw water and treated water quality and the treatment capabilities it is
necessary to evaluate required pretreatment and disinfection criteria
 Evaluating process alternatives considering technologies and advancements.
Generally, this includes pilot studies. Also consider construction cost and operation
and maintenance cost of possible alternatives
 Establishing process design criteria. Also make specifications for the main system
components. Results from pilot studies should be incorporated for designs.
 Designing of ancillary and support facilities (piping, pumping facilities, chemical
storage, laboratory facilities, electrical system, building etc.
 Evaluating how to dispose concentrate

7.6.14. Sample Calculations

(Crittenden, J.C., Trussel, R.R., Hand, D.W., Howe, K.J., & Tchobanoglous G. (2012). Water
Treatment Principles and Design. (3rd edition). John Wiley & Sons.
1. A Dow filmtec SFX - 2860 membrane module contains 5760 fibres. The fibres are
1.87m long with an outside diameter of 1.3 mm and inside diameter of 0.7 mm.
Calculate the water production from one module if the flux is 75L/m2h and the flow
direction is (1) outside in and (2) inside out. Compare the two answers.

(1) Compute the product water flow for outside - in flow.

Determine the outside surface area per fibre:
Outside area per fibre = πdl
= π (1.3 mm) x (1.87) x10-3 m2/fibre
= 7.64 x 10-3 m2 /fibre
Compute the product water flow:
Q = JA = (75 Lm2h) x (7.64 x 10-3m2/ fibre) x 5760
= 3300 L/h
(2) Compute the product water flow for inside - out flow.
Inside area per fibre = πdl
= π (0.7mm) x (1.87m) x10-3 m2/fibre
= 4.11 x 10-3 m2 /fibre
Compute the product water flow:
Q = JA = (75 Lm2h) x (4.11 x 10-3m2/ fibre) x 5760
= 1780 L/h
(3) Compare the outside - in and inside - out flow configurations
Ratio = (3300/1780) x 100%
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-27
 = 186%
2. Calculation of rejection and log removal value
During testing of a prototype membrane filter, bacteriophage concentrations of 107mL-
1
and 13mL-1 were measured in the influent and effluent, respectively. Calculate the
rejection and log removal value.
Solution:
(1) Calculating rejection value
𝐶𝑝
R = 1 − (𝐶 )
f
= 1-(13mL-1/107mL-1)
= 0.9999987

(2) Calculation log removal value

𝐶
LRV = log(𝐶 f )
𝑝
= log (107mL-1/13mL-1)
= 5.89
3. Calculation of membrane resistance coefficient
An MF membrane is tested in a laboratory by filtering clean, deionized water and the
flux is found to be 850L/m2.h at 20oC and 0.9 bar. Calculate the membrane resistance
coefficient.

Solution:
Dynamic viscosity of water at 20oC is 1x10-3kg/ms

∆𝑃 (0.9 x 105 𝑘𝑔/𝑠2. 𝑚)(3600𝑠/ℎ)(103 𝐿/𝑚3 )

𝑅𝑚 = =
𝜂𝐽 𝑘𝑔 𝐿
(1x 10−3 𝑚𝑠) x 850 2
𝑚 ℎ

7.7. High Pressure Membrane Technology

7.7.1. Introduction to Reverse Osmosis Technology
Increasing water scarcity shows a strong future application of high pressure membrane
techniques. High pressure membranes consist of nano-filtration and reverse osmosis (RO)
membranes. Both are pressure driven membrane techniques.

Reverse osmosis membrane treatment process is used to separate dissolved solutes from
water. It uses preferential diffusion for separation. Generally RO membranes are
semipermeable membranes. These are permeable to some components in the feed water but
impermeable to other components and the overall thickness is less than 1mm. Reverse
osmosis is a continuous separation process in which the plant does not interrupt for periodic
backwashing.

Nano-filtration membranes remove divalent anions (hardness) and natural organic matter and
it has a separation cut off of about 1nm.

7.7.2. Osmotic Pressure

It is the minimum pressure that would have to be applied to a solution to prevent the inward
flow of water across a semipermeable membrane. It is also defined as a measure of the
tendency of a solution to take in water by osmosis.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-28
 Figure 7-10: Osmosis verses reverse osmosis
7.7.3. Applications of RO
 Desalination of ocean water or seawater
Salinity of seawater ranges from 34,000 to 38,000mg/L as total dissolved solids (TDS)
and Na+ and Cl- are the main constituents. However, World Health Organization
(WHO) has a limitation of 1000mg/L for drinking water.
 Desalination of brackish groundwater
Brackish groundwater with TDS 1000 to 5000 mg/L range is common. Brackish water
desalination is not as costly as seawater desalination. However, disposal of the
concentrate is challenging.
 Wastewater reuse
People live in water scarce areas try to use recycled treated wastewater. For
nonpotable water usages such as irrigation of municipal green areas and some
industrial uses wastewater reusing has become popular.
 Softening and natural organic matter (NOM) removal
Nanofiltration can remove 80 to 95% of divalent ions such as calcium and magnesium
with low removal range in monovalent ions such as sodium and chloride.
 Specific contaminant removal
RO can be used for removal of number of inorganic contaminants such as antimony,
fluoride, barium, nitrate, nitrite and selenium and also organic contaminants such as
pesticides.
7.7.4. Mechanisms of Solute Rejections
1. Electrostatic repulsion at the membrane surface
RO membranes and nanofiltration membranes are generally negatively charged in the
operational time due to the presence of ionized functional groups (eg.: carboxylates in the
membrane material) This can be explained as follows. Negatively charged ions will be
rejected at the membrane surface due to repulsive forces and positively charged ions may
be rejected in order to keep the electroneutrality in the feed and permeate. Presence of
polar and hydrogen-bondable functional groups of membrane increases the solubility of
polar compounds like water over non polar compounds, which enables higher flux of
water passing through the membrane.
2. Solubility and diffusivity through the membrane due to chemical effects
Large molecules are expected to have lower diffusivity through the membrane and hence
rejected at the membrane surface.
3. Straining due to the size
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-29
4. Chemical properties of molecules
7.7.5. Governing Equations in RO
7.7.5.1. Water Flow through RO Membrane
Chemical nature of the RO membranes is such that it would absorb water and pass water
preferentially to dissolved salts at the solid - liquid interface (preferential diffusion). This is
due to the weak chemical bonding of water with the surface of the membrane or dissolution of
water within the membrane structure. Physical as well as chemical nature such as surface
charge and pore size of the membrane determines its ability to allow the preferential passing
of water over salt ions.
Qw = (∆P − ∆π)K w A (7.15)
Where
Qw - Rate of flow through membrane (m3/s)
ΔP - Hydraulic pressure differential (bar) = Pf - Pp
Pf - Feed side pressure
Pp - Permeate side pressure
Δπ - Osmotic pressure differential (bar)
= Osmotic pressure in feed water - osmotic pressure in product water
Kw - Membrane permeability coefficient for water [m3/(m2sbar)]
A - Membrane area (m2)
𝐾𝑤 = 𝐾𝑤∗ x 1.03(𝑡−25) (7.16)
t - temperature
where temperature is in oC and 𝐾𝑤∗ = 𝐾𝑤 at 25oC.

7.7.5.2. Water Flux (Qw)

Per area of water flow or flow rate in the membrane is given by:
𝑄𝑤
= 𝐽𝑤 = (∆𝑃 − ∆𝜋)𝐾𝑤 (7.17)
𝐴
Where
Jw - Water flux [m3/m2s) = Qw/A
ΔP - Hydraulic pressure differential (bar)
Δπ - Osmotic pressure differential (bar)
Kw - Membrane permeability coefficient for water [m3/(m2 s bar)]

7.7.5.3. Salt Flow (Qs)

Permeate salinity (Cp) depends on the relative rates of water and salt transport through the
membrane and is given by the following formula.
𝑄𝑠 = ∆𝐶𝐾𝑠 𝐴 (7.18)
Qs - Flow rate of salt through membrane (kg/s)
ΔC - Salt concentration differential across membrane (kg/m3) = Cf - Cp
Ks - Membrane permeability coefficient for salt ([m3/(m2s)]
A - Membrane area (m2)

7.7.5.4. Salt Passage (SP)

Salt passage through membrane is given by,
𝑄𝑠 ∆𝐶. 𝐾𝑠 . 𝐴 (𝐶f − 𝐶𝑝 )𝐾𝑠
𝐶𝑝 = = =
𝑄𝑤 (∆𝑃 − ∆𝜋)𝐾𝑤 . 𝐴 (𝑃f − 𝑃𝑝 − ∆𝜋)𝐾𝑤
𝐶𝑝
𝐶𝑝 (1 − 𝐶 ) 𝐾𝑠
f
=
𝐶f (𝑃f − 𝑃𝑝 − ∆𝜋)𝐾𝑤

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-30
 𝐶𝑝
x 100% = Salt passage (SP) (7.19)
𝐶f

Since Cp is small compared to Cf, Cp/Cf << 1, the salt transport (Qs) is constant at a certain Cp
and is independent of the pressure. Due to that, the salt passage (SP) is lower at a higher
pressure and vice versa. The reason is that the same quantity of salt (Qs) will be diluted in a
larger amount of product water and vice versa.

7.7.5.5. Salt Rejection (r)

Salt rejection (r) is given by,
𝐶 −𝐶𝑝 𝐶𝑝
𝑟 = f𝐶 x 100% = (1 − 𝐶 ) x 100 = 100% − 𝑆𝑎𝑙𝑡 𝑝𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑔𝑒 (𝑆𝑃) (7.20)
f f

7.7.5.6. Recovery (R)

Recovery (R) is given by,
𝑄𝑝
𝑅 = 𝑄 x 100% (7.21)
f
3
Qp - Product water flow rate (m /s)
Qf - Feed water flow rate (m3/s)

Recovery affects salt passage and product flow. As recovery increases, the salt concentration
in the feed side is increased and hence the salt transport and the permeate salinity is also
increased. High salt concentration in the feed solution increases the osmotic pressure, which
consequently reduces the Net Driving Pressure (NDP). Therefore the product water flow rate
is reduced and the permeate salinity (Cp) is increased.

7.7.5.7. Water Balance Equations in a Reverse Osmosis System

Considering the flow rate,
𝑄f = 𝑄𝑝 + 𝑄𝑐 (7.22)
Considering the mass balance in the system,
𝑄f 𝐶f = 𝑄𝑝 𝐶𝑝 + 𝑄𝑐 𝐶𝑐
Qp Q
Cf = Cp + Qc Cc = RCp + (1 − R)Cc (7.23)
Qf f
where
Q - Flow (m3/s)
C - Concentration (kg/m3)
f,p,c - Feed, permeate, concentrate

7.7.5.8. Concentration Factor (CF)

Concentration factor (CF) = Cc/Cf
Substituting 𝐶𝑝 = 𝐶𝑓 (1 − 𝑟) and 𝐶𝑓 = 𝑅𝐶𝑝 + (1 − 𝑅)𝐶𝑐
If salt rejection r = 1,
1
𝐶𝐹 = 1−𝑅 (7.24)
Example
If recovery (R) = 75%, then the concentration factor (CF) is 4.
Note: Concentration factor (CF) is calculated assuming that the salt rejection (r) is 1.

7.7.5.9. Salinity of the Permeate (Cp)

C K
Cp = fcJ s (7.25)
Where, Cc - Concentration concentrate
Cf - Concentration feed
Cp - Concentration permeate

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-31
 Cfc - (Concentration of feed + concentration of concentrate) /2

7.7.5.10. Net Driving Pressure

Net driving pressure (NDP) of an element can be calculated using the following formula.
∆𝑃
𝑁𝐷𝑃 = 𝑃𝑓 − 2 − ∆𝜋𝑎𝑣𝑔 − 𝑃𝑝 (7.26)

Where
NDP - Net driving pressure
Pf - Feed pressure
ΔP - Head loss across one element
Δπavg - Average differential osmotic pressure: feed - permeate
Pp - Product pressure
NDP is calculated using
Jw = NDP x K w (7.27)
Flux has to be determined considering the expected fouling potential of the feed water. Kw has
to be from test results under standard conditions, which are usually made available by
membrane manufacturers.
7.7.5.11. Calculation of Number of Elements
Total number of elements is given by,
A
ne = A (7.28)
e
And
Qp
A= (7.29)
Jw
where
ne - Number of elements
A - Total required membrane area
Ae - Membrane area per element (according to manufacturer’s product data)
Qp - Permeate flow
Jw - Flux
7.7.6. Membrane Materials, Structure and Elements
Both chemical and physical properties affect the performance of the membranes. Most widely
used materials are cellulose derivatives or polyamide derivatives. Some of the materials used
in the industry are cellulose acetate, aromatic polyamide, aromatic polyamide urea and
polyvinyl alcohol.
Two types of membranes are manufactured that is, one polymer or two or more polymers.
Both have an asymmetric structure with an ultra-thin active layer and one or more support
layers. In order to withstand high pressures four configurations are used in practice namely,
tubular, hollow fibre, spiral wound and plate and frame. For desalination hollow fibre and
spiral wound are mainly used.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-32
 Figure 7-11: Sketch of a Composite Membrane

Figure 7-12: Typical hollow fiber membrane module (US AID, 1980)

Figure 7-13: Sketch of a spiral wound RO membrane element (Source: U.S. AID, 1980)

7.7.7. Concentration Polarization

While water is flowing through a membrane solutes are rejected by the membrane. These
retained solutes accumulate on the membrane surface and it will gradually increase the
concentration of solutes. This is called concentration polarization. This has many adverse
effects such as,

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-33
 1. Due to the higher concentration of the solutes at the membrane surface, higher osmotic
pressure gradient is developed. Hence the water flux is decreased.
2. Lower rejection due to low flux and increased solute transport across the membrane
(increased concentration gradient).
3. Scaling and precipitation may occur due to exceeding of solubility limits of solutes.

Equations describing concentration polarization can be derived using film theory and mass
balance. According to film theory, a boundary layer is formed at the membrane surface. As
water is passing water and solutes move towards the membrane surface through the boundary
layer which leads to higher concentration of solutes at the membrane surface. This
concentration gradient in the boundary layer leads to diffusion of solutes back to the bulk feed
water. In the continuous operation a steady state is reached where the solute concentration at
the membrane surface is constant over time.

Applying mass balance at the membrane surface,

Figure 7-14: Schematic of concentration polarization

Mass accumulation on the membrane = mass in - mass out

𝑑𝑀 𝑑𝐶
= 0 = 𝐽𝑤 𝐶𝐴 − 𝐷 𝐴 − 𝐽𝑤 𝐶𝑝 𝐴 (7.30)
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑥
where
M - Mass of solute (g)
t - Time (s)
D - Diffusion coefficient for solute in water (m2/s)
x - Distance perpendicular to membrane surface (m)
A - Surface area of membrane (m2)
C - Concentration at the boundary layer

This equation is applicable not only at the surface of the membrane but at any plane in the
boundary layer.
Rearranging and integrating across the thickness of the boundary layer with the limits of

At x = 0, C = Cm (concentration at membrane surface)

At x = δ, C = Cb (concentration of the bulk)

After integration and applying boundary conditions,

𝐶𝑚 − 𝐶𝑝 𝐽𝑤 𝛿
ln =
𝐶𝑏 − 𝐶𝑝 𝐷

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-34
Or
𝐶𝑚 −𝐶𝑝 𝐽𝑤 𝛿
= 𝑒( )
𝐷 (7.31)
𝐶𝑏 −𝐶𝑝

The ratio of the diffusion coefficient (D) and the thickness of the boundary layer (δ) is called
the mass transfer coefficient, k.
𝐷
𝑘 =𝛿 (7.32)
Cp
R int = 1 − C (7.33)
m
Where Rint is the intrinsic retention on the membrane
Then,
𝐽𝑤
𝐶𝑚 𝑒( 𝑘 )
= 𝐽𝑤
𝐶𝑏
𝑅𝑖𝑛𝑡 + (1 − 𝑅𝑖𝑛𝑡 )𝑒 ( 𝑘 )

The ratio Cm/Cb is called the concentration polarization factor.

Concentration polarization factor increases with increasing flux, with increasing retention and
with decreasing mass transfer coefficient.
When the solute is completely retained by the membrane
𝐶𝑚 𝐽𝑤
= 𝑒( 𝑘 )
𝐶𝑏
The mass transfer coefficient k, is related to the Sherwood number (Sh)
𝑘𝑑
𝑆ℎ = ℎ = 𝑎𝑅𝑒 𝑏 𝑆𝑐 𝑐 (7.34)
𝐷
Where a, b and c are constants.
With
d v ρvd
Re = ϑh = η h (7.35)
And
𝑣
𝑆𝑐 = 𝐷 (7.36)
Where Re is the Reynolds number and Sc is the Schmidt number.
dh - Hydraulic diameter (m)
v - Flow velocity (m/s)
η - Dynamic viscosity (kg/(ms))
Concentration polarization can be reduced by
 Decreasing the flux
 Increasing the mass transfer coefficient, k (since the diffusivity of solutes cannot be
controlled) by increasing the feed velocity along the membrane or by changing the
module shape and dimensions.

Effects of concentration polarization

 Reduced net driving pressure
 Reduced water transport through the membrane (Qw)
 Increased salt transportation through the membrane (Qs)
 Increased probability of exceeding solubility of sparingly soluble salts at the
membrane surface, and the possibility of scaling

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-35
7.7.7.1. Beta Factor (Concentration Polarization Factor)
Beta factor is the ratio between the concentrations on the membrane surface to the
concentration of feed / concentrate channel. Therefore a higher beta factor resembles more
fouling.
7.7.8. RO Process Description
The smallest production unit in a membrane plant is the membrane element. These membrane
elements are enclosed in pressure vessels mounted on skids which contains piping system for
feed, permeate and concentrate. A group of pressure vessels operate in parallel is called stage.
The concentrate of one stage is fed to another stage (multistage system) for obtaining a higher
recovery or permeate of one stage is fed to another stage (two stage system) for increasing a
higher solute removal. In multistage systems, number of pressure vessels is reduced to in
succeeding stages in order to maintain sufficient velocity in the feed channel. A unit of
production capacity, which may consist of one or more stages, is called an array.
Following figure shows the arrangement of vessels in two stages.

Figure 7-15: Schematic diagram of vessel and stage arrangement

7.7.9. Membrane Fouling

When sparingly soluble salts (inorganic compounds) are present in the feed water, one
consideration of pretreatment is preventing scaling to avoid scaling on the membrane surface.
Scaling is used to be dominant at the last stage elements. Controlling scaling can be done
using pH adjustment (change the solubility of precipitates), antiscalant addition (interfere with
crystal formation or retarding the rate of precipitate formation). Calculations for checking the
possibility of precipitation are available but they are rather complicated. However, several
computer programs are available.
Presence of bacteria leads to biofouling. These bacteria produce extra cellular polymeric
substances (EPS) and this is sticky. However, in general almost all membrane systems carry
biofilms. When nutrients are available bacteria number multiplies. Bacteria and EPS form thin
layers on spacers, woven fabric and membrane surface and this process is called biofilm
formation. When biofilm or biomass is accumulated to such a level that it gives operational
problems is called biofouling.
Since backwashing is not performed in RO process, particulate fouling is of concern.
Pretreatment is essential to reduce particulate fouling. Residual particles have an impact to the
membrane cleaning frequency. Organic and inorganic matter including microbial constituents
will cause particulate fouling.

7.7.10. Tests for Particulate Fouling

Following are the particulate fouling indicators practicing in the RO industry.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-36
7.7.9.1. Silt Density Index
The silt density index (SDI) is one of the main fouling indices used in practice worldwide to
measure the decline in filtration rate of particulate matter greater than 0.45 μm and waters
with low turbidity levels (<1 NTU) (ASTM, 2007). SDI uses membrane pore size of 0.45 μm
at 210 kPa pressure. It is simple and less costly. (Alhadidi et al., 2011). The ASTM D 4189
describes the standard test method. The formula used to calculate the silt density is given
below.
𝑡
(1− 1 ) %𝑃
𝑡𝑇
𝑆𝐷𝐼𝑇 = ∗ 100% = (7.37)
𝑇 𝑇

where t1 is the time taken to filter the initial 500 mL of filtrate volume, tT is the time taken to
collect 500 mL of filtrate after 15min of starting the initial measurement and T is 15 min. It is
recommended that the SDI value should be less than 3 for reverse osmosis and nanofiltration
pretreatment systems.

%P30 is called the plugging ratio. If the plugging ratio exceeds 75% for the type of water that
is being experimented, then T can be taken a smaller time such as 10, 5 or 2 minutes (Alhadidi
et al., 2011).

However, there are some obvious deficiencies in this index: it has no relationship with the
concentration of colloidal matter. There is no correction for temperature. This index is not
based on any filtration mechanism. Also it does not give an accurate value when particle sizes
are smaller than membrane pore size that is 0.45 μm (Hong et al., 2009). Moreover,
biofouling, scaling and organic fouling are not considered in the silt density index.
7.7.9.2. Modified Fouling Index (MFI0.45) at Constant Pressure
The modified fouling index is a development of the silt density index introduced by Schippers
and Verdouw in 1980 and it overcomes the main deficiencies of SDI. It uses the identical
apparatus used to measure SDI.

 MFI0.45 is based on cake filtration

 MFI0.45 has a linear correlation with colloidal matter concentration
 MFI0.45 has a temperature correction

It takes into account the observation that pore blocking is followed by cake filtration. By
rearranging the general equation describing the cake filtration mechanism the following
equation can be obtained.
t ηRm ηI
= + 2PA2 V (7.38)
V PA

Where t is the time (s), V is the accumulated filtrate volume (m3), η is the water viscosity
(Pa.s), Rm is the clean membrane resistance (m-1), P is the applied pressure (Pa), A is the
membrane area (m2) and I is the fouling potential (m-2).
MFI0.45 is derived from the gradient of the t/V versus V of the above equation in the cake
filtration stage. It is the lowest gradient obtained from this curve when it is corrected to a
temperature of 20oC, pressure of 207 kPa and membrane surface area of 13.8 * 10-4 m2 (47
mm diameter membrane filter). The above Equation shows the temperature and pressure
correction for the MFI0.45. Therefore MFI0.45 is independent of both temperature and pressure.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-37
 Figure 7-16: Calculation of tgα from the t/V versus V curve (Alhadidi et al., 2011)

Figure 7-17: Fouling Index Curve (Alhadidi et al., 2011)

The equation for MFI is shown below.

ηI
MFI = 2PA2 (7.39)

Where P is the pressure (Pa), η is the viscosity (Ns/m2) and A is the area of the membrane
(m2). I can be obtained using the expression,
𝐼 = 𝛼𝐶 (7.40)
3
In which C is the concentration of colloids (kg/m ) and α is the cake resistance per mg cake
per m2 membrane (m3/kgm2). The temperature effect for MFI is incurred in the viscosity term
and the concentration of colloids is in the fouling index.

The modified fouling index (MFI) still uses the microfiltration membrane with 0.45 μm pore
size.
η20 dP Am 2
MFI = tgα. . ( ) (7.41)
η dP0 AMo

Where η20 is the water viscosity at 20oC (Pa.s), AMO is the reference membrane area i.e. 13.8 *
10-4 m2 and dPo is the reference applied pressure which is 2.04 * 105 (Pa).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-38
Figure 7-18: Scheme of filtration setup for MFI measurements at constant flux (Salinas
Rodriguez, 2011)

The MFI assumes that the particle retention on the membrane is constant and the permeability
of the cake resistance is time independent and also that the cake porosity is uniform
throughout the full depth of the cake that is incompressible cake. The specific cake resistance
is calculated using the Carmen - Kozeny equation for spherical particles and is as follows.
180(1−𝜀)
𝛼= 2 𝜀3 (7.42)
𝜌𝑝 𝑑𝑝

Where ρp is the particle density of the forming cake (kg/m3), ε is the porosity of the cake and
the dp is the diameter of the particle (m).

7.7.9.3. Modified Fouling Index - Ultrafiltration

MFI0.45 is unable to account fouling due to particle size less than 0.45 µm (Schippers et al.,
1981). Hence, modified fouling index - ultrafiltration has been introduced in which
ultrafiltration membranes are used instead of 0.45 µm size membrane filters (Sim et al.,
2011). Also it is mostly believed that these smaller colloidal particles are responsible for
reverse osmosis membrane fouling. Therefore Boerlage et al. (2002) proposed MFI-UF,
which can incorporate the contribution from smaller colloidal particles to membrane fouling.
This replaces the use of 0.45 μm membrane with smaller membrane pore sizes such as 13 kDa
(Boerlage et al., 2002).

MFI-UF was also measured under constant pressure conditions, but due to longer test run
time, MFI-UF constant flux has been introduced by Boerlage et al. in 2004. With this finding
the duration of MFI-UF test time has been shortened (Sim et al., 2011).

7.7.9.4. Modified Fouling Index Using Ultra Filtration (MFI-UF) Membranes at Constant
Pressure

MFI-UF is a further development of MFI. Fouling due to the colloidal particles of less than
0.45 μm cannot be captured with MFI and hence not measured in the test of MFI.
Cake filtration is based on Darcy's equation,
dV ∆P
Jw = =K (7.43)
Adt ηL

Where J is the flux (m3/m2s), dV/dt is the filtration rate (m3/s), A is the area of the membrane
(m2), t is the time (s), K is the permeability of the membrane, ΔP is the transmembrane
pressure (Pa), η is the dynamic viscosity of fluid (Ns/m2) and L is the thickness of the

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-39
membrane (m). The reciprocal of K/L gives the membrane resistance. The above equation can
also be written as,
𝑑𝑉 ∆𝑃
= (7.44)
𝐴𝑑𝑡 𝜂(𝑅𝑚 +𝑅𝑐 )

Where Rm is the membrane resistance (m-1) and Rc (m-1) is the resistance due to cake
formation. It is assumed that the resistance due to pore blocking is not dominant and fouling is
mainly due to cake formation.

MFI is given by the equation,

𝜂20𝑜𝐶 𝐼
𝑀𝐹𝐼 = (7.45)
2∆𝑃𝐴2𝑜

7.7.9.5. Modified Fouling Index Using Ultra Filtration (MFI-UF) Membranes at

Constant Flux
RO systems usually operate with constant flux as it will produce a constant flow rate in the
treatment plant. Therefore MFI-UF calculated at constant flux will reflect a better value (Sim
et al., 2011). In order to have a constant flux pressure should be increased with fouling. MFI-
UF constant flux is expected to have a more accurate prediction of fouling and a better
membrane surface fouling simulation (Boerlage et al., 2004). Governing equations for MFI-
UF at constant flux are given below.
V
R c = I A = IJw t (7.46)
2
∆P = ηJw R m + ηJw It (7.47)

Where ΔP is the pressure gradient (Pa), η is the viscosity of water (Ns/m2), J is the flux
(m3/m2s), Rm is the membrane resistance (m-1), t is the time (s). The pressure increase is
linearly proportional with the time and square of flux when no cake compression occurs. The
fouling index (I) can be calculated from the slope of the linear section of the plot of ΔP with
time. MFI can be calculated using I from the slope of the equation above for standard
reference conditions.

7.7.11. Pretreatment and Post Treatment

Pretreatment of feed water virtually in all RO plants is essential to prevent scaling and
fouling. Scaling will occur if sparingly soluble salts are present and this need pretreatment.
Scaling can be prevented with pH adjustment and / or using antiscalants. Following guideline
gives a simple criterion to select pretreatment methods to reduce particulate fouling provided
by Permasep Engineering Manual (Dupont).

SDI < 6
Media filtration such as rapid sand filtration or dual media filtration such as anthracite and
sand.

6 < SDI < 50

In line coagulation (adding and mixing in water) and direct filtration (single media or dual
media).

SDI > 50
Coagulation, sedimentation (or flotation) and rapid sand filtration. In any case cartridge filters
(5 -20 μm) should just precede the high pressure pump. Microfiltration or ultrafiltration can

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-40
be used as a polishing treatment step after conventional treatment or appropriately considering
raw water quality.

Intermittent chlorination combined with sodium meta bisulfite neutralization is gaining

ground to mitigate biofouling in RO plants. However, the membrane properties should be
checked prior to apply these chemicals. Also conventional treatment (flocculation,
sedimentation and rapid sand filtration) combined with ultrafiltration too uses to reduce the
biofouling potential. Beach wells are also reducing the biofouling potential to a lower level
when oxygen is present since it acts as a filter. However, Pilot plant experiments are highly
recommended in order to select the most suitable pretreatment method.

Post Treatment
Removal of dissolved gasses, alkalinity and pH correction are to be carried out in RO plants.

7.7.12. Energy Recovery of RO Plants

RO is an energy intensive treatment process. Theoretical minimum thermodynamic energy
requirement to desalinate seawater depends solely on the pressure required to overcome the
osmotic pressure and it is 0.78kWh/m3. This is a very high value compared to a normal
treatment plant treating freshwater. Although the pressure drop when passing the feed through
the membrane is very high, the head loss in the feed channels is very small. At the final
membrane even the concentrate pressure is around 80% to 90% of the feed pressure with
backpressure maintained using a concentrate control valve.

Energy recovery devices such as running wheels, pressure exchangers, electric motor drives
and Pelton wheels are used in the industry to recover the energy in the concentrate. The
residual pressure reused is generally used to pressurize the feed. More than 90% of the energy
expended to pressurize the concentrate can be recovered. In addition to use the recovered
energy to pressurize the feed, another application is to use the recovered energy to add
pressure between stages. By this, booster pumps installed between the stages can be
eliminated.

7.7.13. Site Selection of Seawater Open Intake

Key Factors to be Considered When Selecting a Seawater Open Intake Location
Besides the location of the desalination plant site, the other key factors to be considered
during selection of open seawater intake are listed below.
1. Beach erosion potential
2. Location and direction of underwater currents
3. Topography and geology of the water body
4. Environmentally sensitive habitats along the intake pipe route and near the intake
inlet
5. Presence of municipal and wastewater discharge points within 1km radius from the
intake point should be avoided
6. Size of waves and depth of wave impacts
7. Shipping routes and boat traffic should be avoided
8. Tide and wind characteristics in the intake area

7.7.14. Computer Aided RO System Design

In RO system designing iterative solutions is necessary with varying membrane elements and
array configurations. Typically, it is done incorporating membrane manufacturers. Membrane
manufacturers provide design software to perform these calculations based on the principles

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-41
presented above. Therefore, manufacturers’ software is reliable for predicting effluent water
quality from a specific membrane system design and for a given set of operating conditions.

7.7.15. Disposal of Brine or Concentrate

The concentration of minerals and contaminants of the concentrate is normally in the range of
1.5 to 2.5 times that of the feed which depends on the recovery of the plant. The quantity of
concentrate disposed from the plant is a function of the recovery and it depends on the TDS
concentration of the source water. In brackish water plants the TDS levels of concentrate is
generally in the range of 1,500 mg/L and 25,000 mg/L, while in seawater desalination plants
may vary in the range of 65,000 mg/L and 85.000 mg/L.

Since the concentrate is 1.5 to 2.5 concentrated than the ambient seawater, aquatic
environment near the discharge point may be negatively affected. This effect is site specific
and depends on the marine organisms inhabiting. Usually the concentrate is discharged to the
same source so that the environmental effect is somewhat similar to natural evaporation.

The maximum TDS concentration that can be tolerated by the marine organisms living in the
discharge point area is known as salinity tolerance threshold. This depends on the type of
marine organisms living in the area and the time period that they are exposed to the elevated
salinity.

Concentrate discharge methods used in USA as per a survey done during year 2000 – 2003 is
as follows.

1. Direct discharge through new ocean outfall

This is widely used for all sizes of treatment plants. Two major options available to mixing
the discharge are to either rely on natural mixing in the tidal zone or to discharge the
concentrate beyond tidal zone and install diffusers.

However, tidal zone has a limited capacity to transport and dissipate the saline effluent into
the open ocean. Therefore, it is necessary to check whether the concentrate can be treated by
natural tides using hydrodynamic modelling. The concentration disposal to this zone is
preferable only if the TDS of the concentrate is lower than the tidal zone threshold mixing
capacity. For small plants having capacities up to 400 m3/day this method can be used. An
open ended pipe of 300 feet is used as the ocean outfall.

For large desalination plants diffusers are used after extending the outfall beyond tidal zone.
Length, size and configuration of the outfall and diffuser structures are designed after
hydrodynamic or physical modeling is completed for site specific conditions.

An example for an ocean outfall situated in Perth, Australia (38 MGD plant) is shown below.

Diameter of the plant outlet – 1.2m

Length of the plant output – 160m
40 port diffuser (ports are spaced at 5m intervals with 0.22m nominal port diameter
Location – 470m offshore at a depth of 10m
Discharge angle of diffuser – 60o
The design was adopted expecting that the plume would rise to a height of 8.5m before
starting to sink due to its elevated density.
Plume thickness at the edge of mixing zone – 2.5m
From the diffuser to the edge of the mixing zone – 40m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-42
(Ref: Desalination of water, AWWA manual M61, first edition, 2011)

The discharge permit for the Perth desalination plant requires that certain dissolved oxygen
levels are met in order for the plant to operate. Furthermore, a minimum of 45 to 0ne dilution
must be achieved at the edge of the mixing zone, defined in terms of a 50m distance from the
diffuser.

7.7.15.1. Discharge through existing wastewater treatment plant outfall

In this method, concentrate of the desalination plant will be directly disposed through the
wastewater plant outfall. The major impacts in this method are:
1. Affects the operations of the wastewater facility
2. Possible corrosion in the collecting system
This method has limited applications in the world and one such example is the Santa Barbara
seawater desalination plant in California.

Key considerations in the application:

1. The capacity of the available outfall
2. Availability of a wastewater plant near the desalination plant
3. The cost of using the wastewater plant (if WWTP ownership is different)
4. Possibility of blending concentrate and wastewater effluent could create toxicity
on fertilized sea urchin eggs (according to the source of wastewater the ionic ratio
of wastewater and ambient seawater may be different which causes the toxicity
effect)
5. Due to the buoyancy effect reduction after mixing the concentrate with wastewater
effluent, it is necessary to reconfigure the diffusers
7.7.15.2. Discharge through an Existing Power Plant Outfall (Colocation)
The key feature of the colocation concept is the direct connection of the membrane
desalination plant intake and discharge facilitation to the discharge outfall of an adjusently
located coastal power generation plant.

In this method power plant cooling water can be used to dilute the concentrate and also as the
source water to the desalination plant. One example of using the power plant discharge to
dilute the concentrate to environmentally safe levels is (121 MLD) Carboneras desalination
plant in Spain. Carboneras plant uses separate open intake on its own, independent of the
power plant.
Using of a power plant in combination with desalination plant has following benefits.
 Reduction of cost due to the use of the existing outfall
 Reduction of the salinity in the desalination plant discharge at the outfall
 Thermal discharge load of the power plant is reduced due to blending

7.7.15.3. Deep Well Injection and Coastal Well Disposal

Deep well injection involves discharging the concentrate of the desalination plant into an
acceptable confined deep underground aquifer below the freshwater aquifer(s) using a system
of disposal wells. This method includes a system of monitoring wells to confirm the
concentrate is not migrating to the adjacent aquifers. Deep well injection is frequently used
for disposal of concentrate from brackish water desalination plants and has very limited
applications in seawater desalination plants.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-43
Beach well disposal is an alternative concentrate disposal method. In beach well injection,
concentrate is discharged into a relatively shallow unconfined coastal aquifer and it finally
conveys the discharge into the open ocean through the ocean bottom. These are used only for
small and medium seawater desalination plants.
Major concerns in disposing concentrate into deep wells are:

 Site specific confined aquifers of large storage capacity that have good soil
transmissivity
 Elevated seismic activity areas or near geologic faults are not feasible (to avoid direct
connection of discharge aquifer and a water supply aquifer)
 Discharge aquifer should be adequately separated from water supply aquifers to avoid
contamination of groundwater with concentrated pollutants
 Potential leakage from the wells
 Potential scaling and decrease of well discharge capacity over time
 A backup concentrate disposal method is needed for the time period when the
injection wells are tested and maintained
 High costs for construction of wells and maintenance
Two cities Marina and Sand City in California have used shallow well discharge technique.
Marina well is a conventional well and Sand City well is a horizontal well. The salinity range
of them is between 30,000 and 43,000 mg/L of TDS and fed into shallow dune sand aquifers.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 7-44
CHAPTER 8

WATER STABILITY AND CORROSION CONTROL

8.1. Water Stability

Many surface waters require a coagulant such as alum for effective treatment. After treatment
and disinfection with chlorine, the water can become aggressive. At present there is no
regulatory water quality requirement to produce water that is stable (neither scale forming or
corrosive) other than having a pH in the range 6.5 to 8.5.

Stabilization problems involve calculating the chemical dosages to adjust the chemical state
of a water (condition the water) to meet the guidelines. That is

 Alkalinity and calcium concentrations each to exceed about 50mg/L as CaCO3, and a
pH in the range 6.5< pH < 8.5
 The water to be supersaturated with respect to CaCO3, with the precipitation potential
of about 4mg/L CaCO3
 The ratio (Cl- + So42-)/ Alkalinity ≤ 0.2 (where species concentrations are expressed on
the equivalent scale); and/or the concentrations of each Cl- + So42- must not exceed
50mg/L (Corrosion protection guideline)
 The sulphate species concentration to be less than about 350 mg/L So42- /L
(Aggression protection guideline)
 The dissolved oxygen concentration should be greater than about 4 mg/L

All the guidelines usually can be satisfied by appropriate chemical addition and aeration.
However, satisfaction of corrosion protection guideline may not be practical if either, or both
of So42- and Cl- concentrations are high, because either, the commercial dosing costs are too
high, or the water will be too hard after stabilization. In this event, lined metal pipes and
plastic pipes can be used.

The pH of the water can be calculated using Equation (1) which applies for waters with a pH
of between 4.5 and 8.5, at 25°C.

pH = log{2.2X106 x [ALK]/[CO2]} (8.1)

8.2. Effect of Corrosion

Corrosion of metal due to the presence of aggressive water and soils is a continuing cause of
breakdowns, problems and expense in water schemes affecting pipelines, plant and
equipment. It can be responsible for the following effects.
 Widespread deterioration of mains due to aggressive water and /or soils, causing
weakening and subsequent pipe bursts
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 8-1
  Localized deterioration of pipes resulting in leakage ; complete or partial blockage
of pipes by corrosion
 Dissolution of metal causing possible toxicity or other water quality problems
 Discolouration of water due to corrosion products ; failure of equipment due to
weakening or corrosive products
 Escape of chlorine gas to the air in WTP premises causes corrosion to the metal
and equipment, more importantly when steel package WTP and steel storage tanks
are used
 Effect of leaching cement lining causing high Aluminium

To understand these effects and to design suitable protective measures, some understanding of
the process of corrosion is necessary.

8.3. Process of Corrosion

Corrosion of iron is an oxidation process requiring the presence of water and oxygen. Two
reactions take place as corrosion proceeds, the first being reduction of dissolved oxygen (the
cathodic reaction). The second involved electrons being removed from the metal surface and
replace metallic iron to ferrous ions. The two reactions proceed together and are often termed
a corrosion cell. The overall rate of reaction is sensitive to the rate of transfer of oxygen to the
Mediated Electrocatalytic Currents (MEC).

Galvanic or bimetallic corrosion arises from the contact of metals with very different
electrochemical potentials. The electropositive metal is cathodic to the electronegative metal
and promotes its corrosion. For example, graphite is cathodic to cast iron and is present as
inclusions in cast iron pipe. Galvanic corrosion promotes the dissolution of the iron leaving
the graphite as the only structural material. Table 8-1 shows the electrochemical series for
metals in seawater. The motion of oxygen, fortunately the corrosion products inhibit the
transfer of oxygen to the pipe surface and so tend to reduce the rate of dilapidation.

The more noble metals and alloys more resistant to corrosion are at the top of the list.
Generally, if two metals widely separated on this list are used in contact with one another the
less noble may suffer accelerated corrosion, and reduce the rate of corrosion of the more
noble.

Other factors could also help to inhibit corrosion. For example, during the corrosion process
local increases in pH can cause precipitation of calcium carbonate from water saturated with
calcium carbonate. Under suitable conditions, this will form a scale on the pipe surface and
inhibit oxygen transfer. However, serious problems usually occur when localized corrosion
proceeds under special conditions. More often than not such problems are usually associated
with damage to the oxide film which is naturally produced on the pipe wall at the
manufacturing stage. Damage at a particular points leads to the establishment of a localized
corrosion cell and is accompanied by a concentrated attack on the small anodic site, which
leads to a localized corrosion pit.

Corrosion cells can also be established under a variety of special conditions involving
galvanic action, differential cells, stress corrosion, microbial corrosion and stray electric
currents.

Different permeability of soils in trenches or where debris present inside pipelines can cause
differences in oxygen concentration. Localized differences in dissolved oxygen meet the
metal surface can then establish corrosion cells and lead to localized corrosion.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 8-2
Anodic reaction can arise in the presence of sulphate reducing bacteria. This type of corrosion
is common in water-logged soils where oxygen diffusion is poor. Black ferrous sulphide is
precipitated and is an indication of microbial corrosion. Similar reactions can occur on the
internal surfaces of pipes but require anaerobic conditions for sulphate reducing bacteria to
survive. This is unlikely under reasonable water quality and flow conditions but can arise in
certain circumstances. Bacterial slimes or other growths on the interior surface can also create
these conditions.

Induced direct currents can cause external pipe corrosion at the point where the current leaves
the pipes. These should be aggravated when metal service pipes are used to earth domestic
electrical appliances.

Table 8-1: Electrochemical series for Common Metals and Alloys in Sea Water
Austenitic stainless steel (passive)

Austenitic stainless steel (active)

Ferritic stainless steel (passive)

Ferritic stainless steel (active)

Copper-nickel alloys

Magnesium alloys
Lead-tin solders
Nicle (passive)

Nickel (active)
Silver solder

Magnesium
Aluminium
Cadmium
Cast iron
Platinum

Graphite

Bronzes

Brasses
Copper
Monel
Silver
Gold

Lead

Steel

Zinc
Tin

More Resistant to Corrosion Less Resistant to Corrosion

8.4. Assessing Corrosivity of Water

The main characteristics which affect the corrosive tendency of water are pH, hardness and
alkalinity. Chlorides, by increasing conductivity, facilitate the corrosion process; dissolved
oxygen is necessary for the cathodic process. Chlorination, practiced normally, should not
contribute to corrosion. Manganese, in excess of 0.03 mg/l can stimulate corrosion of copper
pipes in hot water systems.

Although a number of indices have been developed, none has demonstrated the ability to
accurately quantify and predict the corrosivity or aggressiveness of water. They can only give
a probable indication of the potential corrosivity of water. Experience has shown that if
conditions encourage the formation of a protective calcium carbonate film, then corrosion will
generally be minimized. Several models and indices are available that use calcium carbonate
chemistry to evaluate water stability (Rossum and Merrill, 1983).

A commonly used index is the Langelier Saturation Index (LSI). This index provides a
measure of the stability of water with respect to its degree of CaCO3 saturation. If water has a
negative LSI value, it is under-saturated with respect to calcium carbonate and is potentially
corrosive. Conversely, for waters with a positive LSI, a protective layer of calcium carbonate
can form as the water is oversaturated with CaCO3 and the water is scaling. Saturated water
has a LSI of zero (refer Table 8-3).

The pH at which water is saturated with CaCO3 is known as the pH of saturation or pHs. At
25°C and TDS less than 500 mg/L (the case for most Victorian surface waters), the LSI can
be calculated from Equations (8.2) and (8.3):

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 8-3
 LSI = pH – pHs (8.2)
pHs = 11.5 -log[Cai] –log[ALK] (8.3)
In practice, water is considered to be potentially aggressive if it has a LSI of less than –1.5.
The Rochester water has a pH of 7.6, Ca of 7.9 mg/L “as is” and an alkalinity of 15 mg/L as
CaCO3. By substitution, we can calculate the LSI to be –1.8. We can therefore say that this
water is potentially mildly corrosive.
Another related parameter is the Ryznar Stability Index, which is given by:
RSI = 2pHs - pH (8.4)
The RSI value of water should be less than 10 for it to be considered to be stable and non-
corrosive. For the Rochester water, the RSI value is 11.2; again suggesting this water is
mildly corrosive.
The Calcium Carbonate Precipitation Potential (CCPP) is a more reliable water stability index
to use since this index provides a quantitative measure of the calcium carbonate deficit or
excess of the water, giving a more accurate guide as to the likely extent of CaCO3
precipitation. Previously, CCPP has been less frequently applied because the longhand
calculation procedure is time-consuming and quite tedious. The AWWA (1996) released a
PC-based spreadsheet program based on the Rothberg, Tamburini and Winsor Model, which
allows speedy calculation of a number of corrosivity indices, including CCPP. The program
also allows calculation of the effects of various chemical additions to water. A measure of the
corrosivity of water for different values of CCPP is presented in Table 8-2.
Table 8-2: Corrosivity State of Water for Different CCPP Values
Corrosivity State Of Water CCPP Value, mg/L CaCO3
Scaling (protective) >0
Passive 0 to –5
Mildly Corrosive -5 to –10
Corrosive (aggressive) < -10

Another method of determining the CCPP value is a graphical procedure involving the use of
water conditioning diagrams originally developed by Caldwell and Lawrence (1953). These
diagrams can also be used to solve a wide range of water treatment and conditioning problems
(including lime and lime-soda softening).

Figure 8-1 is part of a C-L Diagram drawn for water at 25°C with a TDS of 40 mg/L.
Although a unique C-L Diagram should be used for the temperature and TDS of the water in
question, in practice Figure 8-1 can be used over a range of conditions without serious error.
To determine the CCPP of water, two parameters are calculated:

 C2=(ALK-Ca)
 ACIDITY. The approximate acidity of a water may be found using Equation (8.5).

ACIDITY= [ALK](1+ 4.245x106 x 10-pH) (8.5)

Equation (8.5) is valid for water at 25°C, with a TDS of up to 200 mg/L. C2 and ACIDITY
are expressed as calcium carbonate.
(ALK-Ca) and ACIDITY are plotted on the C-L Diagram and at the point of intersection, it
can then be read off the Ca concentration at saturation. The CCPP value is then found from
Equation 8.6:

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 8-4
 CCPP = ([Ca] – [Casat]) (8.6)

Figure 8-1: Caldwell-Lawrence Diagram: 25°C, 40 mg/L TDS

Table 8-3 summarizes the various water corrosivity indices with accepted values for stable,
non-corrosive water.
Table 8-3: Stability Indices with Typical Values for Stable Water
Stability Index Acceptable Value
Langelier Saturation Index -1.8 > -1.5
Ryznar Stability Index 11.2 < 10
Calcium Carbonate Precipitation Potential - 4.7 > -5
Aggressiveness Index 10.3 > 10

8.5. Assessing Corrosivity of Soil

The resistivity of a soil is dependent on the dissolved chemicals, type of soil, moisture
content, etc. and therefore is an excellent indicator of the amount of corrosion to be expected
in any given situation. Thus metals buried in high resistivity soils will suffer relatively little
corrosion as compared to metals in low resistivity soils where the electrochemical action may
progress at fast rates.
In addition to the corrosivity at any one location as indicated by the soil resistivity, much
corrosion is due to change in soil resistivity along the pipe line. The greater and more abrupt
the change, the greater the corrosivity in the low resistance soil immediately adjacent to the
high resistivity soil.
A relatively simple soil resistivity survey over the route of any pipeline will indicate all areas
likely to be corrosive in accordance with the following guide.

 Values below 2000 ohm-cm are usually corrosive except when they lie between areas of
lower value, or when they comprise the highest value in a long section of line. Values
below 1000 are sure to be corrosive; below 500 severe and rapid corrosion is almost
inevitable.
 Values above 12,000 ohm-cm are almost never corrosive, except occasionally when a
short section lies between much higher resistivity soil, but even then the corrosion is
usually mild.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 8-5
 Values between 2000 and 12,000 ohm-cm must be assessed for corrosivity by comparison
with adjacent sections ; relatively low areas will tend to be corrosive as well areas of rapid
and large change in soil resistivity ; again the areas of low resistivity will be the corrosive
areas.
Table 8-4: Determination of Langelier Saturation Index
Total Solids A Calcium Hardness C Methly Orange Alkalinity D
(mg/L) (mg/L CaCO3) (mg/L Ca CO3)
50-300 0.1 10-11 0.6 10-11 1.0
400-1000 0.2 12-13 0.7 12-13 1.1
14-17 0.8 14-17 1.2
18-22 0.9 18-22 1.3
0 23-27 1.0 23-27 1.4
Temperature C B
0-1 2.6 28-34 1.1 28-35 1.5
2-6 2.5 35-43 1.2 36-44 1.6
7-9 2.4 44-55 1.3 45-55 1.7
10-13 2.3 56-69 1.4 56-69 1.8
14-17 2.2 70-87 1.5 70-88 1.9
18-21 2.1 88-110 1.6 89-110 2.0
22-27 2.0 111-138 1.7 111-139 2.1
28-31 1.9 139-174 1.8 140-176 2.2
32-37 1.8 175-220 1.9 177-220 2.3
38-43 1.7 230-270 2.0 230-270 2.4
44-50 1.6 280-340 2.1 280-350 2.5
51-56 1.5 350-430 2.2 360-440 2.6
57-63 1.4 440-550 2.3 450-550 2.7
64-71 1.3 560-690 2.4 560-690 2.8
72-81 1.2 700-870 2.5 700-880 2.9
880-1000 2.6 890-1000 3.0
(1) Obtain values of A,B,C, and D from above table
(2) pHs = (9.0 +A+B) – (C+D)
(3) Langelier Saturation index = pH - pHs

8.6. Prevention of Corrosion

Where tests and observations indicate that corrosion is or may be a problem, steps must be
taken to reduce or eliminate its effects. Corrosion control systems commonly used for
pipelines and steel structures are coatings, cathodic protection, polyethylene sleeving, and use
of corrosion resistant materials. At the treatment stage a corrosion inhibitor, such as sodium
silicate, could be applied.
Coating must be properly applied to dry, corrosion free metal, and must be free from pinholes
or damage to be effective. They should bond with the metal and give insulation against
electrical current. Common materials available are.
 Cement mortar – suitable for internal lining of ductile, cast iron and galvanized
steel pipe
 Epoxy – highly resistant, durable and suitable for internal and external use
 Polyethylene sleeving – required external protection for ductile pipe in the US
 Zinc coating (galvanizing) – commonly applied as protection for steel and ductile
pipe at manufacturing stage
 Bitumen and coal tar – commonly used for internal and external coatings
protective paints and sheathing : care must be taken to ensure that internal use will
not result in objectionable tastes

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 8-6
  Wrapping tapes – these are available in a variety of materials and forms for factory
or site application

Care must be taken to ensure that any damage to protective coatings or linings during
transport or installation are thoroughly repaired to the specified standard. Particularly
attention should be paid to pipe joints.
Steel pipes tend to be of large diameter and are usually of strategic importance and bitumen
sheathed. It is essential for the sheathing to be thick and continuous in order to afford
adequate protection but where soils are corrosive an added safeguard is introduced in the form
of cathodic protection which would continue to give shielding in the event of the sheathing
becoming damaged. This will inevitably set up a galvanic cell with the bare metal forming an
anode at which localized pitting would develop.
“Long-line” corrosion cells can also occur where sections of the pipeline run through
aggressive low- resistivity soil which form anodic areas relative to parts of the pipeline
passing through soils of higher resistivity.
There are two methods of applying cathodic protection, namely by installing sacrificial
anodes or by introducing impressed current to the pipeline. The sacrificial anode is made of a
metal with greater negative potential than that of the pipeline. It is submerged in electrolyte
and connected externally to the pipelines to from a galvanic cell under, which the protective
or “sacrificial” anode corrodes in preference to the cathodic pipeline. Specially formulated
alloys of magnesium, zinc and aluminium are used for making sacrificial anodes.
In the case of the impressed current system, the protective current is not derived from the
potential difference between dissimilar metals. Instead, Protective anodes are energies, current
flows from these anodes through an external connection to the negative terminal of the DC
power sources.
Deciding which type of protective system to adopt depends on many factors. Size and
complexity of structure, nature of the electrolyte and the environment, availability of power
supply, proximity of “foreign” structures which may affect or be affected by the flow of
current etc. all figure in the decision . A detailed technical evaluation should be carried out.
Further detailed information on cathodic protection is given in reference 6.
Corrosivity as measured by negative values of Langerlier Index is common in Ground waters
in Sri Lanka and it may be necessary in some cases to stabilize this water by the adjustment of
pH and alkalinity to achieve calcium carbonate equilibrium. Treatment could comprise
aeration to remove excess CO2 and exposure to a bed of calcium carbonate. Normally, for
minor schemes, such treatment would not be cost-effective, but pilot studies could be initiated
in special cases.

8.7. Prevention of Corrosion within Treatment Plant

Corrosion in a pipe, acts in the same manner as a battery. A negative area of metal (the anode)
is connected to a positive area (the cathode) by the pipe wall itself as shown in Figure 8-2. As
a result, electrons can flow from the anode to the cathode.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 8-7
 Figure 8-2: Corrosion of pipe wall
The conducting solution electrolyte in the case of a pipe is the water within the pipe with its
dissolved salts. The electrolyte accepts the electrons from the cathode, making the cathode
maintain a positive charge which draws more electrons to it. In the case of corrosion of a pipe,
the anode, cathode, and conductive material are all found in the pipe wall while the electrolyte
is the water within the pipe. If any of these four elements, which make up the corrosion cell,
are absent or are not touching each other, then corrosion cannot occur.
8.7.1. Special Construction and Design Considerations
Special consideration should be given to the contact between steel reinforcing bars and iron
pipes passing through concrete walls. Absolutely no direct contacts should exist between
these elements since contact will produce galvanic cell corrosion in the iron pipe. The same
type of problem will occur whenever steel members are embedded in the reinforced concrete
structure. If the end of a steel member which is either expose to water or buried in the ground
, must be welded to reinforcing steel bars in concrete. It must be well coated or catholically
protected from galvanic cell corrosion.
Additional design consideration includes the use of insulation flanges in case where dissimilar
metal pipes must be connected and in situations where the pipeline exits a concrete wall to
enter the ground or a water tank. Further stray current electrolysis type of corrosion may
occur in areas near Direct Current (DC) transit systems.
8.7.2. General Corrosion of Metals
Just as in the case where dissimilar metals are exposed to water of a uniform concentration, a
galvanic current is also produced when a single metal is exposed to water of varying
concentration (ionic strengths). The portion of the metal located in the more concentrated
solution becomes the anode and therefore corrodes. This is known as concentration cell
corrosion.
As long as a treatment plant is characterized by poor design and/or has deposits of debris on
the metal surfaces, concentration cell corrosion may occur at any plant site. These factors
create a localized concentration of a specific element such as oxygen, sulphate, or chloride,
which is significantly different from other portions of the water. For instance, the oxygen
concentration beneath the deposits of the debris is less than the surrounding water; thus this
portion of the metal becomes anodic and acts as the starting point for corrosion. This type of
concentration is called as Oxygen differential cell. Coexisting with most oxygen cells are the
corresponding sulphate and chloride concentration cells.
When metal surface has deposits of debris or when alum floc or lime particles create non-
aerated zones( after precipitated) beneath the deposits, corrosion begins in this anodic region.
Other chemicals that could contribute to corrosion of metals within the treatment plant include
chlorine and coagulants received in powder form.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 8-8
Chlorine leaks or chlorinated motive water leaks during handling and dosing causes
significant corrosion to metal structures and coagulants in powder form the fly during the
chemical batching and settle on iron truss, pump and motor bodies causing damages to them.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 8-9
CHAPTER 9

PLANT DESIGN AND LAYOUT

9.1. General Considerations

Water treatment plants should in general be low in capital cost while easy and economical to
operate. Maximum use of gravity and hydraulic energy in the treatment process and
automation in plant operation result in the most effective and economical treatment plant.

Fundamental design principles to be adopted are:

 Maximise use of gravity (e.g. for chemical feeding) :
 Conserve head loss throughout the plant and system ;
 Utilise staged construction in5-10 year stages to minimise capital costs ;
 Allow for losses through plant. Eg. raw water pump capacity should be 5-10% greater
than treated water output of plant.
 Adopt design innovations such as declining-rate filtration control, higher filter rates,
direct filtration, inter filter backwashing, high-rate settling in plates and tubes ;
 Define required treated water quality, and design for specific characteristics of
available raw water through sampling and testing programme.
 Where the design is for an existing works the need to maintain the operational status
of the works during construction should be addressed.
 Maximise use of hydraulic means for mixing, flocculation and filter rate controls ;
 Minimise use of equipment such as pumps, motors, and chemical feed equipment.
 Provide adequate facilities for parallel operation (i.e. duplication of tanks) and standby
(including emergency generators).
 Provide adequate facilities for chemical handling, storage, mixing, including day
tanks, flushing/ dilution water connections and dosing. Provide at least one month
storage for requirement of chemicals
 Provide at least 2 hours storage in clear water sump.

An example of typical design criteria for a full treatment works is given in Table 9.1.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-1
Table 9-1: Typical Design Criteria for a full treatment works

Item Criteria
Intake Capacity
Design flow for treatment 555 L/s (48000m3/d)

Grit removal
Number of channels 2
Width (each) 3.5 m
Length 22.0 m
River level 3.0 m above MSL
Velocity (horizontal @555 L/s) 0.16 m/s
Velocity (setting @555 L/s) 7.2 mm/s
Detention time (@555 L/s) 2.3 min

Travelling Screens*
Number 2
Width 2.0 m
River Level 3.0 m
Velocity 0.45 m/s

Plant Capacity
Design flow, raw water in 555 L/s (4.7% allowance for loss through works)
Design flow, treated water out 530 L/s (46000 m3/d)

Wet Well
Number 1
Volume 69.5 m3
River level 3.0 m above MSL
Detention time 2.09 min

Raw Water Pumps

Number 3 (standby)
Type Split case centrifugal
Capacity (each) 278 L/s at 20m TDH
Speed 1460 rpm
Power 93 KW

Raw Water Metering

Number 1
Size 500 mm
Type Venturi tube *
Capacity 220 to 800 L/s

Chemical Mixing Basin

Number 1
Detention time 20s
Volume 11.2 m3
Mixer 15KW
G 1000s-1

Flocculation Basins
Number 2
Width (each) 3.962 m
Length (each) 81.65 m
Volume (each) 333.6 m3
Detention time 23 min

Setting Basins
2

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-2
 Item Criteria
Number 13.9 m
Width (each) 45.0 m
Length (each) 2.438 m
Side water depth (each ) 1.6 m/h
Up flow rate 1.5 h
Detention time 2.89 L /s/m
Weir overflow rate 96 m
Weir length (each basin)

Filters 8
Number Gravity sand downflow
Type 69.3 L/s
Flow (each) 7.3 m/h
Filtration rate 34.4 m2
Surface area (each) 4.3m
Width (each) 8.0 m
Length (each) 1.8 to 2.5m
Headloss 35 to 50 m/h
Backwash rate 5 to 10 m/h
Surface wash rate

Treated Water Reservoir 1

Number 4600 m3
Capacity 25m
Width 40 m
Length 4.6 m
Side water depth 2.41 hr
Detention time

Treatment water Pumps 3 (1 standby)

Number Vertical turbine
Type 265 L/s at 146 m TDH
Capacity (each) 1460 rpm
Speed 634 KW
Power

Chemical Systems:

Chlorine 900 kg cylinders

Type 1-5 mg/L prechlorination
Dosage range 1-2 mg/L postchlorination
Maximum feed rate 225 kg/d prechlorination
Chlorinators (1 duty. 90 kg/d postchlorination
1.standby) 1-225 kg/d prechlorination
Chlorine storage (average use) 1-90 kg/d prechlorination
90 d
Alum Granular in bags
Type 10-60 mg/L
Dosage range 2
Day tanks 12.96 m3
Volume (each) 4.32 m2
Area 3m
Side water depth 1 vertical paddle
Mixers per tank 2(1standby) prelime
Feed pumps (positive displacement duplex)*
Feed pumps (positive displacement simplex)* 2(1standby) postlime
Capacity (5% solution)
1135 L//h prelime

Lime storage (average use) 1135 L/h postlime

90 d

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-3
Design and Construction of a water treatment plant involves the following four steps.
1. Site selection
2. Development of a cost effective treatment process
3. Sizing the individual treatment units and placing them in the available area to achieve
proper sequence and hydraulics, to provide access for operation and maintenance of
equipment and to minimize the total space requirement
4. Connecting pipes are tied down with topography of process units, buildings, chemical
feeding lines, roads and pumping needs
9.2. Basic Factors Influencing the Site Selection Process
 Project size and complexity
If facility is large, there will be complex technical issues
 Level of impact
Environmental impacts and human health concerns (EIA, IEE) shall be taken in to
consideration
 Role of Public
The public sensitivity, public consultations shall be considered carefully. Reference
shall be made to the feasibility study report
 Topography
Under topography, high variation in topography, multiple raw water source
availability, multiple sites availability, space restrictions in existing sites for expansion
shall be considered
 Effect to the Project Cost
Effect to the project cost shall be considered with all considerations including possible
staging in future
 Regulatory Requirements
Non-availability of specific regulatory siting and layout requirements and consent and
major permit requirements shall be considered under the regulatory requirement.
 Political agenda
Involvement by different political bodies and communities shall be considered.
 Designers Experience
Previous experience in siting and WTP layouts shall be taken into consideration. If adequate
experience is not available, guidance shall be obtained from a senior design engineer.
Based on the above following criteria shall be elaborated.
 Minimum Site area
 Provisions for future expansion
 Noise level limitations (Requirement of CEA surrounding communities etc)
 Hazardous chemical concerns
 TP hydraulics , Energy gradients and pumping considerations,;
 Transportations and site access
 Existing utility services possible damages and avoiding them during construction
 Site topography – minimizing cut and fill
 Subsurface conditions, rock and need for blasting to avoid damages to existing
structures and phased structures in future
 Site drainage and flooding
 Seismic activity and land slides
 Political motivations
 Permit and approvals
 Security and vulnerability
 Environmental issues
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-4
  Archealogical and Historical issues
 Proximity to source water
 Ecological issues
9.2.1. Minimum Site Area
The area of the site required for construction of a new water treatment plant generally depends
on the treatment processes, size of the structures, ancillary treatment process (Pre-treatment,
residual processing, etc.) type of buildings (administration, stores, pump house, storage,
chemical, laboratories, worker’s rest rooms, generator room, guard room), site topography,
the need for a buffer zone around the structures and other such factors.
According to Kawamura (2000) the minimum required area for the basic process facilities of
a conventional water treatment plant is,
A ≥ Q 0.7 A - area (acres)
Q - ultimate plant capacity (mgd)
However, this formula should only be used as a rough approximation for campus type layout
and cannot be applied for non-conventional water treatment plants such as packaged WTP and
membrane treatment plants, which may require smaller areas. However, some of these
advanced processes require conventional treatment to precondition the water for the advanced
treatment and may require more extensive ancillary support systems in which case the site
requirements may be more than those for a conventional plant. In this area computation,
facilities such as source water reservoirs, clear water storage, space for pipe lines, site
topography, storm water and residential lagoons or drying beds are not included. In addition
to the above, sufficient area to be allocated in between the proposed structures to
accommodate future likely improvements of the treatment processes. For example, inclusion
of micro strainer for algae treatment.
Table 9-2: Factors that Influence Required Site Area
Characteristics that tend to require less Characteristics that tend to
Factor
land require more land
Plant capacity Small capacity Large capacity
Plant facilities
Membrane treatment
Type of plant Conventional treatment
(If the pre-treatment is not required)
Type of construction Prefabricated package plants Custom-designed, in-ground plants
Sedimentation tanks, Settling basing with
Sedimentation process
plate settlers
High-rate gravity filters
Filtration Process Slow sand filters
Pressure filtration
Recycle equalization basin
Filter backwash water Waste to sewer
Conventional settling basin
handling
Lagoons
Gravity thickening
Sludge dewatering Mechanical dewatering Sludge drying beds
Vacuum drying beds
Low-service pump station
Source water storage
Other on-site facilities Presedimentation basins
Finished water storage
High-service pump station
Plant layout
Plant arrangement Compact Campus or linear
Structural configuration Common-wall construction Separate structures
Site topography Flat site Steep or irregular site
Buffering No buffer Buffer required
Screening No screening Screening required

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-5
9.2.2. Provision for Future Expansion
Although new water treatment plant facilities are typically designed for a 50-year period, the
plant site is likely to be used for water treatment purposes for a much greater period.

Water treatment plants are rarely relocated because of the huge investments in land, treatment
basins, reservoirs, source water mains and finished water transmission mains when water
treatment plant equipment and structures reach the end of their useful life, they are typically
rehabilitated upgraded or rebuilt at the same location. It is important then to provide ample
room at the plant site for future expansion, not only according to the projected increase in
treatment capacity but also if possible for expansion beyond the immediate planning period
and for unanticipated plant improvements such as additional treatment processes required to
meet future regulators.

In uncertain situations of likely future water quality deteriorations, the water treatment
hydraulics should allow for advanced / additional treatment units and necessary land
requirements should be accommodated for structures and connecting pipelines.

9.2.3. Noise Level

The main source of noise at a WTP are construction activities and routine operations with
equipments such as generators. Noise due to construction activities are temporary but it shall
be treated cautiously since it affects neighbouring population.

The main sources of noise from routine operations at WTPs are pumps, generators,
compressors and blowers. Following controlling techniques can be used to reduce the
operational noise.
 Using low noise emission equipment
 Enclosing the equipment in a sound attenuating enclosure
 Erecting a sound wall, berm or heavy landscaping between the source of noise and the
neighbours.
Noise level shall be below the CEA specified noise level.

9.2.4. Hazardous Chemical Concerns

WTPs use a number of hazardous chemicals such as chlorine, polymers (polyelectrolites),
Alum, etc. The transportation of these chemicals to the plant and the bulk storage of
chemicals at the plant present a risk to the neighbourhood, as well as to the plant staff.
Accidental release of gaseous chemicals such as chlorine presents a significant health risk to
adjacent communities. Safety concerns should influence both site selection and mitigation
measures. Sufficient room for chlorine storage and chemical storage shall be provided based
on the capacity of the treatment plant.

9.2.5. Energy Gradient and Pumping Consideration

The elevation of a plant site directly affects pumping requirements and energy costs. As a
sustainable solution, energy conservation is an especially important design consideration
because WTPS consume a substantial amount of energy. Pumping usually accounts for a
major fraction of a plant’s energy and are a substantial portion of the plant operating costs. If
the gravity flow can be accommodated both for raw water line to the WTP and distribution
system from the WTP it is more economical.

It is most appropriate to locate the WTP near the raw water source, using low-head pumps to
lift the source water to the plant and high-head pumps to deliver the treated water to the
service area.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-6
9.2.6. Transportation and Site Access
Generally WTPs shall receive bulk chemical deliveries in heavy vehicles. Therefore, the WTP
access road widths, grades and curves shall be properly designed to accommodate such heavy
vehicles.

A plant must be accessible throughout the year under all weather conditions. Therefore the
plant access road should not have low-level river crossing or stretches subjected to flooding.
Sites with available rail road facilities is an important consideration to lower the unit cost of
bulk deliveries in WTPS with high chemical usage.

9.2.7. Existing Utility Services

WTPS must have a source of power and telecommunication facilities. Three phase power
sources are normally required for reliability and backup generators will be required as
supplementary power source, in case of power interruption / shut-off by CEB. Sites with
nearby high-tension lines and towers shall be avoided. If selected site is a part of existing
WTP, precaution must be taken to avoid damages to existing utilities and to minimize
disruptions.

9.2.8. Site Topography

Ideally, the site selected for a conventional water treatment plant should have a uniform
moderate slope of 2% to 8%. This provides enough grades for surface drainage and to
accommodate the hydraulic profile through the plant and minimize cut and fill. A site steeper
than 10% will probably require extensive cut and fill. Sites with long slopes, steep grades and
highly erodible soils present special problems with erosion. The design of site drainage,
landscaping and other aspects of the civil design will have to be tailored to minimize erosion.

Sites with steep-slops also have the problem of potential landslides, particularly in view of the
fact that cleaning process basins or yard piping can saturate surrounding soils and increase the
tendency for slope failures. Where soil conditions and topography are conducive to landslides,
mitigation measures such as horizontal drainage, retaining wall, buttress fills and tiebacks can
be used. The cost of these migratory measures should be factored into the site selection.

9.2.9. Subsurface Conditions

Subsurface conditions have a significant impact on construction cost. Bedrock has an
excellent bearing capacity. However, if the bedrock is at shallow depth, rock excavation will
greatly inflate construction costs. Expansive soils and low bearing capacity soils often
necessitate the use of expensive foundation types such as piles or piers. The high ground
water conditions also increases construction costs because of the need to dewater during
construction, water proofing to keep basement areas dry and additional design provisions to
resist floatation of empty basins during construction and maintenance.

It is essential to carryout soil investigations to gain a better understanding of subsurface

conditions prior to commencement of detail design. If selected site is part of the existing
treatment plant, it is necessary to identify the need whether selected site can be utilized
without damaging existing structures.

9.2.10. Site Drainage and Flooding

Sites that receive storm water run off from a large upstream catchment require a more
extensive site drainage system and structures to ensure the slope stability of the area than
those where only a small amount of storm water drains onto the site. Wherever possible and

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-7
where slope stability is not critical the storm water drainage can be designed to provide
infiltration into the ground.

Many water treatment plants are located adjacent to a lake or river because this provides close
proximity to the source water. The disadvantage of siting a plant near a river is the risk of
flooding. Sites well above the 100-year flood level offer increased reliability. It is important
to select the intake site where pumps and motors to be installed above the high flood level.

9.2.11. Seismic Activity and Land Slides

Damage from seismic activity results from ground shaking, ground displacement, slope
failure, liquefaction of soil, lateral soil spreading and forces due to liquid movement in soil.
For all sites under consideration, Sri Lanka falls within the same seismic region. Difference in
topography and soil conditions may make some sites more vulnerable to the inputs of
earthquake activity than others. For sites that are prone to seismically induced slope
movement or liquefaction of subsurface soil materials, the site evaluation should account for
the mitigation cost of slope reconstruction, buttresses, columns etc. Sites on or near an active
fault should also be avoided because the large movements that can occur at faults cannot
accommodate the designs of structures or pipe. It is advisable to obtain the guidance of
Soil/Geology experts in such situation.

Even though Sri Lanka is located outside the severe seismic activity region, it is prudent to
consider at least minimum precautionary measures in structural designs against seismic
activity.

9.2.12. Permit and Approvals

IEE and EIA approvals should be obtained from CEA for larger plants. Water rights shall be
obtained from relevant authorities, such as Water Resources Board, Irrigation Department,
Mahaweli Authority, etc.. If WTP waste is discharged in to inland surface water body
Environmental Protection License (EPL) should be obtained from CEA.

If the treatment plant is located with the city limit, conformity of construction (COC) shall be
obtained from local authorities for all structures, office buildings and quarters.

9.2.13. Security and Vulnerability

Drinking water supply facilities have been identified as potential targets for criminal or
terrorist groups as these facilities are critical for both public health and economic standpoint.
Therefore, adequate security should be provided by boundary walls, fences, gates with guard
room and guard towers as necessary. Several exterior intrusion detection systems can be
attached to the fence. When someone comes close to the fence, cuts the fence wire, or climbs
over the fence, these systems will make an alarm.

It is better to avoid areas vulnerable for bird, wild animals, especially monkeys and elephants.
If site is selected in areas prone to them, site should be provided with, elephant fence and nets,
screens etc. to be provided to the pigeons and other birds. Buffer zone may be provided
depending on the available extent of the site. CCTV cameras shall be provided at treatment
plants and other places as appropriate.

9.3. Arrangement of Water Treatment Plant Facilities

While site arrangement must be considered and evaluated during the site selection process,
once the plant site has been selected the next step is to optimize the arrangement of the

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-8
treatment process units on the site. Design Engineer has to visit the WTP site essentially many
times and be very familiar with the site.

By this stage unit treatment process should have been identified, hydraulic grade line has been
finalized, and specific unit sizing of them shall be computed. Full consideration must be given
to proper layout and arrangement of the process units, buildings and roads as well as other
supporting facilities. The plant layout must be planned to set out according to the hydraulic
profile to match with the topography. A poor plant layout can have a negative impact on the
effectiveness of treatment plant, maintenance operations, construction and operating costs,
ease of future plant expansion and plant appearance.

9.3.1. Basic Layout Types

There are three basic patterns for plant layouts.
1. Linear layout
2. Campus layout
3. Compact layout

9.3.2. Linear Layout

This is the favoured layout type for a long time. In this layout plan, process units are arranged
linearly.

Advantages
If the plant must be enlarged in future, this is favourable
It is conceptually simple
Disadvantages
Location of chemical feed points and mechanical equipment are unfavourable.

9.3.3. Campus Layout

In the campus layout, the plant facilities are spread-out over the site and it resembles a
university campus. The campus arrangement is appropriate where physical separation of
structures is desirable, for example in areas with uneven subsidence or in areas subjected to
earthquakes.
Advantages
 Reduce structural complexity
 Better resistance to earthquake movements
 Better accommodation of differential settlement
 Vehicular access to all sides of process basins (e.g. trucks, cranes)
 Ease of modifications to connecting piping
 Ease of incorporating future treatment process modifications.
Disadvantages
 Access is less convenient (longer travel distance)
 Buried utilities and chemical feed pipes between basins
 The entire plant takes up more room
 Long piping between process units (higher head loss)
 Higher construction cost (does not allow common wall construction)

9.3.4. Compact Layout

The primary goal of the compact layout, also called the cluster layout (Kawamura, 2000) or
integrated layout (Corbin et al., 1992), is to consolidate areas requiring frequent operator
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-9
attention. The compact plant layout, shown schematically in fig. 9.1 accomplishes the
clustering of chemical feed points and mechanical equipment by locating filters and clear
wells near the head of the plant.

By moving filters from the outlet end of the sedimentation basins to a location near the rapid
mix basins and routing the settled water to the filters using a channel or pipe facilities needing
frequent operator attention are clustered together. Filters are positioned adjacent to the rapid
mix basins, sedimentation basins, and filters in close proximity to the operations building.

Another characteristic of the compact layout is that the major process units and plant facilities
are normally integrated in to a single, compact structure with common wall construction
rather than having separate structures as in the campus layout. In this compact arrangement,
rapid mix basins, flocculation basins, sedimentation basins, filters, clear well, chemical
facilities, operations building, and administration building may all be grouped in to a single
complex.

Convenient location for routing piping and electric cables incorporating administration offices
and operations facilities into a single building immediately adjacent to the filters means that
maintenance facilities are central to major equipment items.

The advantage and disadvantages of the compact layout are summarized in Table 9.2. One of
the disadvantages of the compact layout is that the settled water must be transferred from the
outlet end of the sedimentation basin back to the filters located near the inlet end of the
sedimentation basin. One option to do this is to construct a settled water return channel from
the outlet end of the sedimentation basins back down to the filters. This channel can be made
with an intermediate floor to provide an access tunnel running the full length of the
sedimentation basin underneath the settled water channel.

Another frequent criticism of compact plant layouts is the difficulty of making plant
expansions. The integrated nature of the compact layout means that modifications are more
difficult and disruptive than for a linear or campus layout. However, if the initial design
includes adequate provisions for future modifications and expansion, this is not a major
limitation.

Table 9.2: Advantages and Disadvantages of a Compact Plant layout

Advantages Disadvantages
Major items of equipment are consolidated into Removal of equipment for off-site maintenance may
one central area. be more difficult because of restricted access.
Chemical feed lines are short.
Operations
Short walking distance to all equipment. Careful equipment layout is required to ensure
Mechanical equipment is close to maintenance adequate space for maintenance activities.
facilities. Consideration required for potential noise and
Access via covered galleries and tunnels. vibration impact on admin/lab and operations areas.

Structural
Reduced excavation volumes Larger slab penetrations because electrical conduits
Reduced concrete quantities because of common- are concentrated in a smaller area.
wall construction. Extra provisions may be required for concrete
shrinkage and expansion and for soil movement.
Consideration required for cross-connection of
treated vs. non-treated water in common wall
construction areas.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-10
 Advantages Disadvantages
Electrical
Reduced lengths of electrical and instrumentation Careful planning is critical because of the
conduits. concentration of cables into a smaller area
Smaller cable size because of shorter cables Greater potential for conflicts between disciplines
because other service (e.g. plumbing, HVAC) are
also crowded into a smaller area.
Cables can be installed in cost-efficient cable
trays instead of in buried conduits.
Cables routed indoors are more accessible.
Hydraulic
Reduced hydraulic losses caused by less Long channel or pipe may be required to convey
connecting piping between basins. settled water to filters.
Architectural
May be easier to develop an attractive Mixed use of building (operations and
architectural theme for a single mass than for administration) complicates building design.
several separate structures.
General
Less land area required More difficult to comply with fire code requirements
Fewer internal access roads and less paving. for access/egress because of the increased number of
hallways, stairways, etc.
Less underground piping.
Increased need for safety precautions arising from
Smaller area for security measures.
close proximity of bulk chemical storage to
administration building.
Environmental
Generally more opportunities for buffering Impacts affect large area
Source: Adapted from D.J.Corbin et al: Journal – AWWA 84(8):36. 1992

Linear Plant Lay out

Compact Plant Lay out

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-11
 Compact Plant Lay
out

Figure 9-1: Types of typical Basic Plant Layout

9.4. Factors Affecting Plant Layout
Each site has a unique characteristic that influence the plant arrangement. Following factors
affect plant layout.

Operational Factors
 Redundancy
 Flexibility of operations
 Convenience of routine operations
 Access for equipment maintenance
 Control of noise
 Internal roads and parking
 Chemical delivery
 Plant visitors
 Site security
Technical Factors
 Hydraulic profile
 Conveyance of water between process units
 application points for chemicals
 Separation of filtered water and unfiltered water
 Finished water storage
 Source water storage
 Lagoons
 Locating hazardous chemicals
 Flooding
 Climate conditions
Architectural Factors
 Building orientation
 Security
 Landscaping
Provisions For Future Plant Design
 Capacity Expansion
 Future process additions
Support Facilities
 Maintenance facilities
 Laboratory facilities
Construction Factors
 Construction staging
 Start-up testing

9.4.1. Redundancy
Redundancy can be provided by adding standby units or by adding more treatment capacity.
Typically, redundancy for equipment items such as pumps is obtained by installing standby
units. Treatment redundancy is usually achieved by providing multiple treatment units sized
so that, when one unit is out of service, the remaining units can handle the total flow. When
incorporating the required redundancy during plant arrangement, it is important to include

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-12
sufficient space for the piping or channels connecting process units with associated valves and
gates to isolate individual units to be removed from service while the other units are kept in
operation.

9.4.2. Flexibility of Operations

Operational flexibility is needed to handle a variety of operating conditions, such as flow rate,
source water quality, and temperature conditions, while consistently meeting treatment goals.
Flexibility is not the same as reliability, although flexibility can improve overall plant
reliability. For example, having cross-linked inter-connections between successive process
basins improves both flexibility and reliability. Consider a water treatment plant with two
process trains comprising rapid mix, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration. If the trains
have linked with interconnections after each process, this offers the flexibility of taking one
flocculation basin out of service at low flows to avoid having an excessively long period of
flocculation, while not affecting rapid mixing or sedimentation. In addition, the
interconnections enhance reliability, because if one flocculator fails, the inoperative basin can
be bypassed, rather than taking the complete train out of service.

9.4.3. Convenience of Routine Operations

Plant layout can have an impact on the convenience of routine operations. The daily duties of
plant operators include:
 Monitoring equipment (looking for signs of developing problems such as leaks,
vibration, unusual noises, overheating)
 Monitoring treatment process (observing floc formation, water levels)
 Controlling treatment processes (filter backwashing, residuals draw-off)
 Routing sampling and testing
To perform these routine tasks, the operator has to walk around the plant to the various
locations of mechanical equipment; process basins, sample points, and so on. If the plant is
arranged for convenient access, operators are more likely to regularly perform these routine
tasks. If the equipment and plant processes are spread over a wide area, it is more difficult to
perform the required monitoring and control tasks, particularly during inclement weather.

9.4.4. Access for Equipment Maintenance

Convenient access to all equipment is necessary for proper maintenance. The layout of basins
and buildings should be designed with careful consideration of all necessary maintenance
activities.

A special concern in compact plant layouts is how to handle media replacement in sand filters
and GAC filters. Where the campus layout typically has room for vacuum trucks to drive up
to one side of the filters or GAC contactors, the process units in compact layouts of larger
treatment plants are often difficult to access.

9.4.5. Noise Control

Aside from reducing the impact of noise on adjacent properties as discussed earlier, measures
to control noise within the plant must be undertaken to avoid occupational health problems for
plant employees. The best way to deal with noise is to isolate noisy equipment from routine
work areas. Available plant layout and measures to reduce the sound level for plant personnel.
Include:
 Locate noise-generating equipment as far away as possible from routine work areas.
 Erect sound walls, berms, and heavy landscaping in the area surrounding outside noise
areas.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-13
  Install sound-attenuating enclosures around pumps, blowers, compressors, generators,
ejectors, and other types of equipment that operate at high speeds
 Locate blowers, compressors, and generators in separate rooms where sound
attenuation measures can be implemented and special protective gear to be provided
for staff.
9.4.6. Internal Roads and Parking
Site layout should include permanent roadway access to all points in the plant where
deliveries are made or where materials or equipment are loaded on to or unloaded from
trucks. Adequate parking space should also be provided for employees and visitors.

Internal roads to be used by chemical delivery trucks must provide an adequate turning radius
and permanent width.

9.4.7. Chemical Delivery

The internal road layout must provide adequate space for chemical delivery and handling.
Unloading bulk chemicals can take an hour or more, and the delivery trucks should not block
access to other parts of the plant. Spill containment must also be provided at locations where
liquid chemicals are unloaded, because the unloading operation presents a significant risk of
spillage. Suitable material handling facilities should be included at the chemical delivery area.
A monorail or hoist is highly desirable for unloading and transporting drums, and other large
containers. A truck dock and forklift can also be used to load and unload pallets and drums. If
chlorine is delivered in ton cylinders, a monorail is essential to lift and move containers to and
from the storage area. A cover over the chemical delivery area may be desirable for the
operators during inclement weather. It also would reduce the amount of rainwater that enters a
spill containment sump.

9.4.8. Plant Visitors

Most water treatment plants are publicly owned and generally allow or encourage visits by
school children and public groups. Conference rooms may also be used by outside groups for
meetings. The layout of the internal road ways and parking areas, location of the
administration building, security measures, and sign boards should all be designed to ensure
that visitors do not inadvertently end up at hazardous locations in the plant.

The designer should keep in mind that visitors who are not familiar with plant layout can
easily become confused about where to go if roads and parking areas are not clearly
designated. The best approach is for the administration building to have an obvious main
entrance and for it to be located close to the front gate. Sign boards are important.

9.4.9. Site Security

Site security is important for two reasons: 1) for the safety of visitors and 2) to protect against
vandalism and sabotage. Because children are particularly attracted to tanks and unfamiliar
processes, keeping neighbourhood children off the property is necessary to safeguard against
injuries to visitors.

Protection against vandalism, terrorism and sabotage is required primarily to avoid loss of the
drinking water supply resulting from equipment damage and secondarily to prevent deliberate
contamination of the drinking water supply. Security measures that should be considered
includes perimeter fencing, motorized gates, security lighting, closed-circuit video cameras,
motion detection systems, and telephone communications with the front gate.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-14
9.5. Technical Issues to Consider in Plant Arrangement
Technical issues are among the most important considerations in plant arrangement.

9.5.1. Hydraulic Profile

One of the early steps in developing a site layout is to calculate the preliminary hydraulic
profile through the proposed process basins. Once the hydraulic profile has been established,
the top and bottom elevations and how they relate to site topography are important
considerations in locating the process units on the site.

The more treatment processes required, the greater the total head loss across the plant. If
intermediate pumping is to be avoided, a site is needed with adequate slope to allow flow to
occur by gravity. If necessary upstream processes can be raised out of the ground to generate
the necessary hydraulic head, but this makes maintenance operations less convenient, and can
have a negative impact on the external aesthetics of the plant.

Optimum elevation of structures relative to ground level depends on the site topography soil
conditions, and hydraulic profile. Placing treatment units approximately one-half underground
and one-half above ground tends to balance cut and fill, reducing overall construction costs.
When process basins are located largely underground, operators can see what is going on in
the basins without having to climb stairs. However, the excavation costs, buoyancy problems,
and depth of yard piping all increase. Where basins are mostly above ground, access onto the
basins becomes inconvenient, connecting piping becomes shallow, and basins become much
more aesthetically obtrusive.

It should be emphasized that at plant sites with a steep grade, it is wasteful to provide large
elevation drops between process units. The usual rationalization is that, because the site has
plenty of grade, the large drop between basins does not matter. However, every meter that
waterfall through the plant represents another meter of pumping head, either at the low service
pump station or at the high-service pump station. Even for a plant that receives raw water by
gravity, each additional meter of drop between process basins means another meter of head at
the high-service pump station. Therefore, the hydraulic profile through the plant should be
kept as flat as possible, even if the site has a steep grade, to keep the total pumping energy
costs as low as possible.

In addition to providing an emergency overflow onto the ground, it is desirable to provide

overflows between adjacent treatment units. For example, the dividing walls between adjacent
sedimentation basins or filters can be designed with the top elevation lower than surrounding
walkways. Thus if there is a valve operator malfunction or similar local failure that results in a
rising water level in one unit, it can overflow into an adjacent basin rather than cause a spill
on to the plant grounds.

The hydraulic profile should also consider the potential addition of future process units that
may be necessary due to changing source water quality or more stringent water quality
regulations. The initial planning stage for a water treatment plant is the time to consider and
accommodate these issues, as it is much more difficult and costly to accommodate future
changes if not planned in advance.

9.5.2. Conveyance of Water between Process Units

A common problem in water treatment design is improper hydraulic balance between parallel
treatment units. It has been reported that over 70 percent of all existing plants have a problem
with unequal flow split between basins (Kawamura, 2000). Ideally, basin layout should

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-15
provide balancing of flows between parallel treatment basins without the need for automatic
control devices such as throttling valves or adjustable weirs. In addition, connecting piping or
channels should include bypass facilities for operational flexibility.

Many old plants use pipes or channels to convey water form flocculation basins to
sedimentation basins. When water velocity in these pipes and channels is relatively high
[greater than 90 cm/s). The turbulence created at entrances, exits, and bends tends to break up
the floc. When water velocity is maintained too low (less than 15 cm/s), large floc may have a
tendency to settle out. Wherever possible, connecting pipes and channels should be
eliminated, and flocculated water transferred directly through a common wall baffle. If
integrated basins are not feasible, open channels should be used to allow easy access for
cleaning settled floc.

9.5.3. Application Points for Chemicals

It is desirable to provide a single chemical application point both before the pretreatment
process units and before the filters. The application point should be a single pipe or channel
through which all flow passes, as opposed to parallel conveyance systems. A single chemical
feed equipment reduces energy cost considerably, because it is not necessary to use multiple
metering pumps or flow splitting devices in the chemical feed lines. Also, it eliminates
problems of uneven chemical dosing due to uneven flow split of the chemical streams or of
the plant flow.

9.5.4. Separation of Filtered Water and Unfiltered Water

In design of water supply systems generally the separation of filtered and unfiltered water by
a single wall is not appropriate. because a crack or leak in the wall could result in
contamination of filtered water. Unfiltered water includes settled water in channels feeding to
the filters, all water in the filter box above the bottom of the media, and backwash water in
channels and conduits.

Complying with this requirement sometimes becomes a challenge in compact plant layout
design. It is not as severe constraint in linear and campus layouts where common wall
construction is not used to the same degree.

9.5.5. Finished Water Storage

Water treatment plants should generally be designed to provide a minimum quantity of
finished water storage at the plant, typically between 5 and 10% of plant capacity or 2hr
storage. A clear well is normally all that is needed at the plant to serve as a wet well for the
high lift pump.

Smaller treatment plants located within the service area and with sufficiently high elevation
are sometimes designed with finished water storage reservoirs at the plant site. In that case,
additional land area is necessary to accommodate the reservoirs.

Plants designed to use an elevated tank for supplying filter backwash water should have the
tank located as close as possible to the filters because large-diameter piping is typically
required to accommodate the required backwash flow and large diameter piping is expensive.

9.5.6. Source Water Storage

For raw water sources that have substantial fluctuations in water quality and temperature,
source water storage can provide equalization benefits. Mixing within the storage will

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-16
attenuate the water quality variations. This storage reservoir can also provide pre
sedimentation of highly turbid raw water.
Source water storage may be significantly cheaper than finished water storage and therefore it
may not need to be covered. When two raw water sources are used (Ex; Reservoir/River,
Surface/Ground) to minimize such loadings of raw water parameters, both the water should be
pumped to a raw water equalization tank.

9.5.7. Lagoons
If the residual handling system includes sludge lagoons or drying beds, they should be located
where they cause the least aesthetic concern. Where possible, they should also be located at
the lowest part of the site to minimize pumping. Lagoons and drying beds are generally
feasible only when the site has a large expanse of flat land and the climate is appropriate. As
they are loaded in the lowest elevation, possibilities for loading during flood or high water
level situations should be verified.

9.5.8. Locating Hazardous Chemicals

Careful consideration should be given to the storage location of hazardous chemicals. As a
rule, chemical storage should be close to the chemical feeding equipment to reduce the length
of suction piping. However, hazardous chemicals should not be close to administrative
offices. The resourceful use of screen walls and careful location of windows and air intakes
can enable the designer to keep hazardous chemicals close to the operations area and yet
isolate the danger from administrative personnel. The requirement to provide containment in
the event of a massive chemical spill also influences the choice of where to locate hazardous
chemicals. Chemicals which need differed storage requirement should be stored separately.

If chemicals storage tanks are visible from the street, serious consideration should be given to
constructing a wall or berm to screen the tanks from view, particularly for the case of pressure
vessels. Screens improve aesthetics, protect the tanks from drive-by vandalism, and increase
security.

9.6. Provision for Future Changes in Plant Design

Provisions should be made in a plant design for both expansion and process changes.

9.6.1. Capacity Expansion

It is important that the initial plant layout allow for future capacity expansion. Many old water
treatment plants have been expanded three, four or more times. In some instances, plants have
been enlarged far beyond the expectations of the original designer, and the resulting
hodgepodge of process unit results in poor hydraulic conditions, scattered chemical
application points and considerable operation inconvenience.

The long-range master plan for the plant site should allow space for future expansion up to
and beyond the projected long-term treatment needs. Leaving space for expansion beyond the
projected needs is prudent because long-term demand projections typically look ahead 20 to
50 years, but most water treatment plants will be in use more than 100 years after original
construction.

The space allowance for future structures should account for not just the structure footprints
but also the construction activities. There should be adequate space to excavate down to
foundation level of the new structures without affecting the existing foundations and piping.
In addition to space allowances, the initial plant structures should be designed with provisions

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-17
to aid in the construction of future expansions, for example, blind flanges on the end of piping
runs, knockout walls, reinforcing bar extensions, and similar provisions can be easily
provided during original construction and will be of great assistance during future expansion.
Channels to be extended should be constructed with stop plank grooves in the channel walls,
so that the plant can be operated during construction of the expansion. Rock that may need to
be removed to permit future expansion should be removed during initial construction to avoid
blasting near existing facilities, or more costly excavation, in the future.

9.6.2. Future Process Additions

Aside from future process basins required to expand plant capacity. Plant layout (including
hydraulic design) should allow for future additional treatment process required by new
regulations. As water quality regulations become more stringent and as raw water source
become more polluted, many plants are finding it necessary to add treatment processes such
as ozonation, GAC contactors, biological filtration, disinfectant contact basins, treatment for
algae removal etc.

In addition to regulatory changes, the emergence of new or improved treatment process

sometimes causes plants to install new processes to support or replace existing ones. It is
much easier and less costly to add new processes when the original designer makes
allowances for such a possibility. This is especially true for compact plant layouts.

Another key consideration in providing for future plant expansions and process additions is
consideration of piping, chemical systems, electrical, and other support facility corridors.
Since the basic plant layout is established at the outset of the plant construction, future plant
expansions will likely not replicate facilities such as chemical buildings and electrical
substations. Therefore, it is essential that adequate utility corridors be reserved in the original
plant layout to facilitate future expansions to avoid costly construction and operationally
difficult plant shutdowns. The ease and cost of future plant expansions will depend upon the
visionary thinking of the original treatment plant design team.

9.7. Support Facilities to be Considered in Plant Design

Support facilities are those facilities that are necessary to keep the water treatment processes
in operation or to accommodate the staff who operate and maintain the plant, but that are not
directly involved in the treatment of water. Some of the principal facilities of this type are the
maintenance workshop, spare parts storage, administrative offices and meeting rooms, lunch
and locker rooms, and laboratory. Sometimes the owner will request additional facilities such
as a centralized maintenance shop, which would support more than just the treatment plant
operations. Issues concerning the location of such support facilities within the plant site are
reviewed next. Architectural Design are required for plant support facilities. The measurement
of maintenance tools and equipment in the workshop should be designed in detail with the
O&M service before finalizing the designs.

9.7.1. Maintenance Facilities

Maintenance facilities such as workshops should be laid out with a monorail or bridge crane
that travels out to a loading dock to facilitate pickup of parts and equipment for plants with a
compact layout where the maintenance area is integrated into the maintaining large pumps,
pipes, or other heavy equipment. This simplifies the movement of equipment to the
maintenance area.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-18
9.7.2. Laboratory Facilities
The water treatment plant laboratory is used for process control, testing for regulatory
agencies, collection of historical data, and cost control. In many instances, the laboratory is
also used to test distribution system samples and to perform other chemical, bacteriological,
and physical testing for the utility.

The laboratory should be at a convenient, central location because operating personnel will be
using the laboratory many times each day. To save time and for convenience, sample piping
from various plant locations may be extended into the laboratory providing a continuous
source of water for testing. However, this arrangement should not prevent the designer from
providing the essential sample points with suitable access and openings.

Laboratory equipment such as analytical balances is sensitive to vibration, and the laboratory
should not be located near large pumps or other heavy operating equipment. In addition,
heating and air conditioning systems for the laboratory should be independent of the main
plant systems to prevent process area gases and fumes from being circulated into the
laboratory and vice versa. Particular attention needs to be paid to fume hood discharge points.

The size and layout of plant laboratories vary considerably. Depending on the type of analyses
to be performed on site, the laboratory could be quite small to relatively large. An alternative
approach used in some large plants is to have two laboratories on the site: a small one located
central to plant operations for conducting routine plant process control tests, and a full-service
laboratory for complex analytical work and outside testing services located elsewhere on the
site. The recommended minimum laboratory equipment required to WTP operations are given
in Table 9-3.

Table 9-3: List Laboratory Equipment

S/ No Discription Unit Qty
1 UV/VIS Spectrophotometer(DR 5000 Model) Nos 1
2 PH Meter Nos 1
3 Conductivty meter Nos 1
4 Balance -Analytical (4decimal) Nos 1
5 HACH- Culture Incubator Nos 2
6 Lamp Ultra Violet - Blak Ray Nos 1
7 Refrigerator with Deep freezer Nos 2
8 Sterlizer Steemer (Autoclave)SA-300H Nos 1
9 Drying Oven Nos 1
10 Bath Steam Set with 4 Holes Nos 1
11 Jar Tester With Base Model-JLT-06 Nos 1
12 RCl Test Kit Nos 2
13 Digtal Titrator HACH Nos 1
14 Referance Weigh Set Nos 1
15 Bunsen burner with Air Regulator Nos 1
16 LP Gas Cylinder Nos 1
17 Ultra Clean Sounder Nos 1
18 BOD Incubater Nos 1
19 LED Digitel Sounder Nos 1
20 COD Measurment Station(COD Apperatus) Nos 1
21 Portable Digital Rsidual Chlorine meter Nos 1
22 Trinocular Microscope - with image Analyzer Nos 1
23 UPS (Power Controler) Nos 2
24 Computer Sets Nos 1
25 Printer Nos 1
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-19
 26 Air Conditioner Nos 1
27 Centrifuge Nos 1
28 Distilation Plant (WSQSXL) Nos 1
29 Depth Sampler Nos 1
30 Sedgewick Rafter Counting Cell Nos 1
31 LDO Meter Nos 1
32 Secchi Disc Nos 1
33 GPS Nos 1
34 Micro Plate Reader with Note Book (MULTISKAN EX.) Nos 1
S/ No Discription Unit Qty
35 Plankton Net Nos 1
36 Laminar Flow Fume Hood Nos 1
37 Ice Box-50 l Nos 2
38 Chlorophyill Meter Nos 1
39 Single Channel Pippete Nos 1
40 Multy Channel Pipette Nos 1
41 Digitel Stop Watch Nos 2
42 Single Channell Counter Nos 1
43 5-Channel Counter Nos 1
44 Filtration Unit Set Nos 1
45 Thermometer (0-1100C) Nos 3
46 Thermomete(0-4000C) Nos 3
47 Turbidity meter 1
48 Motor & Pastle Porcelain -(125mm) Nos 2
49 Hot Plate /Magnetic Stirrer Nos 1
50 Evoporating Dish Porclain -(150ml) Nos 2
51 Test Tube Medium wall Rim Size 16x150mm Nos 50
52 Test Tube Medium wall Rim Size 24x200mm Nos 50
53 Watch Glass dia 80mm Nos 10
54 Watch Glass dia 100mm Nos 10
55 Test Tube Holder- (Nickel Plated) Nos 5
Pipettes
56 01-mL(Glass) Nos 10
57 05- mL (Glass) Nos 10
58 10- mL (Glass) Nos 10
59 25- mL (Glass) Nos 10
60 02- mL (Glass) Nos 10
61 20- mL (Glass) Nos 10
Measuring Cylinder (Glass)
62 10 mL Nos 10
63 25 mL Nos 10
64 50 mL Nos 10
65 100 mL Nos 10
66 250 mL Nos 10
67 500 mL Nos 10
68 1000 mL Nos 10
Volumetric Flask (Glass)
69 50- mL Nos 10
70 100- mL Nos 10
71 250- mL Nos 10
72 500- mL Nos 10
73 1000- mL Nos 10
74 Funnel Nos 10
Conical Flask(Glass)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-20
 75 250- mL Nos 10
76 500- mL Nos 10
77 300- mL Nos 10
Filter Flask (Glass)
78 100- mL Nos 5
79 250- mL Nos 5
80 500- mL Nos 5
81 Beaker (Glass)
82 100- mL Nos 20
S/ No Discription Unit Qty
83 250- mL Nos 20
84 500- mL Nos 20
85 800- mL Nos 20
86 1000- mL Nos 20
87 Burett (glass) - 50-ml Nos 3
88 Petri Dish Nos 50
Wash Bottle
89 250 mL Nos 5
90 500- mL Nos 5
Reagent Bottle (clear glass)
91 250- mL Nos 25
92 500- mL Nos 25
Screw Cup Glass Bottle
93 100- mL Nos 10
94 250- mL Nos 10
95 500- mL Nos 10
96 1000 mL Nos 10
97 2000 mL Nos 10
98 500- mL Amber Colour Nos 10
99 Reagent Bottle Conical Amber Colour 250 ml Nos 25
100 Desicator Nos 1
101 Burett Stand Nos 3
102 Separation Funnel Nos 2
103 Pippette Container Nos 5
Buchner Funnel
104 90 mm Nos 3
105 110 mm Nos 3
10 mL squir sample cell for DR/5000 20
Standard Method Book for water & wast water analysis Nos 1

9.8. Instrumentation and Control

Complete Process and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) of treatment plant describe the
complete process, instrumentation and control arrangement. It shall include a complete set of
legends describing the identification number, tag number and all the symbols used in P&ID.
For further details of the control arrangement; the control philosophy has to be described in
detail and control philosophy (P&ID) are a joint output of WTP team of civil and M&E
Engineers.
Instrumentation required for control of the process is as follows:
9.8.1. Measuring Instruments
 Measurement of rate of flow and total flow of water.
 Measurement of filter head loss.
 Measurement of chemical and chlorine dosage.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-21
  Measuring of Water Levels. (Towers, Sumps)
 Measuring of hydraulic pressure.
 Measuring of electrical parameters.
 Measurement of Safety arrangements.
 Measurement of water quality parameters of raw water; each intermediate unit
treatment and post treatment.
 Measure as filter air backwash and DAF system. Flow / pressure

9.8.2. Control Arrangement

For basic pump control and interlocks, it can be arranged as follows;

 Measurement of discharge and suction side level sensors.

 Measurement of pressure of suction side and discharge side.
 Measurement of flow meter readings.

According to the above measurements, instruments can be controlled automatically as

follows;
 VFD control pumps can change the flow rate and capacity
 Motor operated valve controlling for change the flow rates.
 Automatic filter backwash arrangement.
 Managing interlocks and safety measures.
 Change the chemical dosing rates.
 De-Chlorination arrangement
 Semi Auto as Control loop for water gauging parameters.

All the automatic control would at least consist of Auto/ Manual/ Stop. For further details,
refer the D5 manual.

Proper chlorine leak detection system for chlorine room and chlorine storage area shall be
installed at the strategic locations.

Neutralization pit and scrubber systems can be used as chlorine neutralization facility. In
addition to the neutralization system, personal protection arrangement can be facilitated
outside the building at quickly accessible points. Eyewash, shower arrangement and
respiratory protective devices can be recommended. For further details, refer the P9 & D5
manual.

The P&ID and control philosophy should be an output of the detail design and the basis for
the construction and development, install the instrumentation, and control system for the
WTP.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 9-22
CHAPTER 10

OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE DOCUMENTATION

10.1 Introduction
The O&M Manual, typically prepared by the project team consisting design team, O & M
staff and contractor which provides complete guidance to the NWSDB’s operation and
maintenance staff on the design intent of the facility operation, with content to meet the needs
of technical staff and managers. This dual audience, with its diversity of technical background
and needs, imposes a challenge for the project team to prepare the O&M manual which is
both technically complete and comprehensive. It shall be clear to understand the operation
and maintenance staff with simple language without harming the content.

10.2 O&M Manual Preparation Schedule

Since water treatment plants generally require a period of 2 years to be constructed, adequate
time is available for the preparation of the operation and maintenance manual. This manual
must be provided to the plant personnel at least 1 to 2 months before plant start-up. The O&M
manual shall be prepared after detailed designs and may be completed, before construction is
completed in order to support preparation of training materials for O&M staff. The draft
O&M manual should be available for start-up and shall be a joint effort among the design
team, O & M staff and the contractor. Regional O&M Staff shall be involved at an early stage
of developing the O&M manual to assist in developing formats and content. Later, during
start-up and commissioning, information will be gathered and procedures are developed that
reflect actual operating requirement which will need to be incorporated to the O&M Manual.
A final Manual that accurately reflects both the design intent and the actual operating
characteristics of the facility can then be issued.

Use of high quality equipment and computer based instrumentation and control does not
guarantee the continuous production of safe water; the plant must be operated by qualified
and well trained personnel. Manual also shall describe the operation and maintenance staff
and their duties.

10.3 O&M Manual Contents

Recommended facility operation and maintenance manual content
1. Introduction and process overview
• Overall project purpose
• Plant capacity, source water supply, and distribution system overview
• Treatment process overview

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 10-1
 • Plant hydraulics
• Source water quality
2. Water quality criteria and regulations
• Regulatory water quality criteria
• Microbiological, organic, and inorganic contaminants
• Aesthetic qualities
• SLS Standards, WHO guideline and any other NWSDB specific guidelines
• Non-regulatory quality issues
• Sampling and testing
• Water safety plan

3. Operations (each process) and each treatment components

• Design intent and criteria, process purpose
• Process and equipment description, and control (standard operating
procedures)
• Start-up, shutdown, monitoring, and troubleshooting procedures
• System-specific safety considerations
• Plant Instrumentation as control system description – Operational Philosophy
• Process and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID)
• Emergency responsive plan (ERP)

4. Maintenance
• Equipment manufacturers’ literature and Manufacture’s recommendations and
their contact details
• Asset Management and Maintenance system
• Operations Procedures
• Maintenance of each treatment component and maintenance frequencies
• Lubrication and other maintenance requirements of M&E equipment, Pumps
etc. and their frequencies
• Maintenance management system (work orders, maintenance history records,
schedule, inventories, purchase orders)
• Warranties
• Maintenance Management Plan

5. Operation and Maintenance Staff

 Staff requirements
 Staff responsibilities
 Training requirements

6. Laboratory
• Monitoring program
• Quality assurance / quality control and chain of custody procedures
• List of analytical procedures and references
• Safety and Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) for laboratory chemicals
• Inventories
• Ordering information and procedures, based on the storage capacities

7. Environmental & aesthetic considerations

 Waste disposal
 Noise
 Landscaping & House keeping
 Control of animal, birds & rats which are hindering the operation of WTP
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 10-2
 8. Safety
• Supervisory and staff responsibilities
• Safety equipment (PPE and other) safety equipment for chlorinators etc.
• Plant-wide safety procedures
• Confined –space entry procedures
• MSDS for process chemicals and chemicals used for maintenance
• Security arrangement with fencing, boundary walls & gates

9. Utilities
• Electrical, gas and water service maintenance
• Heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems maintenance
• Computer network and other communication system operation and
maintenance

10. Records and reports

• Record-keeping needs
• Reporting to regulatory bodies
• Reporting to internal management system
• Maintenance of back-ups
• Electronic Documentation

11. Reference information

• Manufacturer’s literature
• As built drawings
• Other

10.4 Important Contents of O & M Manual

Some of the important topics in the content are elaborated below.

10.4.1 Maintenance Management Plan

A Maintenance Management Plan is a compilation of records in the form of binders or
computer files that formalizes the planning, scheduling, documentation and reporting of
preventative maintenance activities, and provides a method of recording unscheduled or
corrective maintenance activities.

10.4.1.1. Preventive Maintenance Program

Preventive maintenance is a predetermined work, performed to a schedule with the aim of
reducing the wear and tear or sudden failure of equipment components. Preventive
maintenance helps to protect assets, improve efficiency, and prolong the useful life of plant
and equipment. Preventative maintenance can generally be performed by system operators
while the system is in operation in order to.

 Improve system reliability

 Decrease cost of replacement
 Decreases system downtime
 Reduce injury

The preventive maintenance programme for M&E equipment and pumps should be prepared
in consultation with the manufacturer’s recommendations and the industry best practices. For
other structures, treatment process etc. shall be based on the designer’s design concepts and
criterion adopted in the design and the industry best practices adopted by the reliable similar
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 10-3
industries and the NWSDB best practices. This is to be written with careful consideration of
all factors mentioned above. This may be refurbished or reviewed after a trial operation and
maintenance during the initial stages of operation of the treatment plant.

An effective job plan shall be prepared by the O&M section to cover all steps of the job plan
together with the material, staff and tools etc. it is important to assign a team to carryout
preventive maintenance programme and should be maintained by superiors.

10.4.1.2. Corrective Maintenance Programme (CM)

Corrective maintenance is unplanned work required for repairs and replacements as system
component failures occur and emergency conditions arise. Corrective maintenance can be
performed by system operators, but sometimes it has to be contracted out to a third party.

10.4.2 Asset Management & Maintenance System

Asset management is a systematic process of developing, operating, maintaining, upgrading,
and disposing of assets cost-effectively. Asset management in the engineering environment
includes the practice of managing assets to achieve the greatest return (particularly useful for
productive assets such as plant and equipment), and the process of monitoring and
maintaining facilities and / or systems, with the objective of providing the best possible
service to users in all dimensions.
Asset management is a process of water utilities that can be used to make sure that planned
repairs, replacement or upgrading can be done on time. Enough money for these repairs,
replacement or upgrading shall be included in the annual budget.

Examples of outcome that can be realized by utilities through asset management.

 Prolonging asset life and improving decisions about asset rehabilitation, repair, and
replacement
 Meeting consumer demands with a focus on system sustainability
 Setting rates based on sound operational and financial planning
 Budgeting focused on critical activities for sustained performance
 Meeting service expectations and regulatory requirements
 Improving responses to emergencies
 Improving the security and safety of assets
 Reducing overall costs for both operations and capital expenditures

Basic steps to assets management are as follows.

1. Preparation of introduction
• Clarification of objectives
• Establishment of implementation structure
• Development of guidelines and action plan
• Development of training system

2. Provision of necessary information

• Identification of necessary data and collection method
• Establishment of database system
• Data collection
• Maintenance and update of database system

3. Implementation of Micro Management

• Inspection (leakage survey), check-ups and soundness evaluation
• Repair the facilities remarkably deteriorated
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 10-4
 4. Implementation of Macro Management
• Renewal demand examination
• Examination of the anticipated financial balance

5. Utilization of anticipated renewal demand and financial balance

• Reflection in waterworks business plan
• Utilization in communication with customers
Maintenance work data and troubles are to be registered on GIS.

10.4.3 Water Safety Plan

The WSPs have been developed for existing water supply facilities in Sri Lanka. These were
developed through a training process facilitated by NWSDB utilising the knowledge and
experience of water supply experts from public sector, NGOs, Donors and Academia. Based
on the experience in implementation of WSPs, following measures are recommended to be
included in documents.

1. INTRODUCTION (Background, The Need of Water Safety Plan, Main risks in the
System)
2. WATER SAFETY PLAN TEAMS (Members of WSP team and their roles,
Assembling the WSP team, (Core Team, Supportive team, Specialists, Reviewers,
Stakeholder).
3. DATA COLLECTION (Collection of Water Quality Test Reports and other relevant
data)
4. DESCRIPTION OF WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM (System components such as Water
Source, Intake, Water Treatment Processes, Profile, Raw water & Treated Water
Quality, Water Storage, Transmission & Distribution pipes fittings, specials and
valves, coverage areas, Water quality standards, Users and uses, Delivery point,
Connection Details, Existing Monitoring Parameters, Resource constraints, Condition
of infrastructure, Operation & Maintenance Frame work).
5. IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARDS AND RISK ASSESSMENT (Identification of
Catchment Boundary, Catchment survey, Hazards in Source, Critical Activities in the
Catchments, Hazards in Water Treatment, Hazards in Water Transmission,
distribution & Storage, Hazards in premises of Consumers, Initial Risk Assessment,
Determination and validation of the effectiveness of control measures and Risk Re-
assessment, Prioritizing the identified risks).
6. IMPROVEMENT PLANS (Improvements in Water Catchments & Source, Water
Treatment plants, storage & distribution network, Consumer premises, short term,
medium term, long term measures).
7. OPERATIONAL MONITORING AND VERIFICATION (Operational Monitoring,
monitoring of the control measures, Verification of the effectiveness of the WSP,
Compliance monitoring, Internal and external auditing of WSP, Customer satisfaction)
8. Management Procedures & Supporting Programs (Creating a Management Plan,
Standared Operating Procedures (SOPs), Delivering the Actions, Management
Procedures, Supporting Programs, Emergency management procedures).
9. Review and Incidents (Review of WSP Procedure, Checklist for WSP review, Regular
WSP Review Meeting, Quality Assurance & tools, Incident Response Plans).

10.4.4 Standard Operations Procedures (SOPS)

A Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is a set of written instructions that document a routine
or repetitive activity followed by the O&M section of the NWSDB. It is a written document
that includes the instructions, step-by-step, on how to complete or handle a job task or how to
handle a specific situation when it arises. The development and use of SOPs are an integral
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 10-5
part of a successful quality system and shall provide the information to perform a job
properly, and facilitates consistency in the quality and integrity of the product or end-result.
The term “SOP” may not always be appropriate and terms such as protocols, instructions,
worksheets, and laboratory operating procedures may also be used. Eight steps for a SOP are
listed below. Design Engineer / Process Engineer shall prepare the standard operation
procedure based on the design / process.

1. Create an outline of all of the standard operating procedures (SOPs) that are required to be
included in operations.
2. Write an introduction which includes a brief description of what the manual includes,
what readers can expect to gain by using the manual and the best way to use.
3. List the tasks. To complete an entire manual, it is need to start with one task at a time.
Outline the steps involved in completing the task, then go back and write out the details
for each step. Make sure each step is clear and concise, but provide enough details that
can be followed by anyone.
4. Give the SOP to someone else to read. Have an employee or someone else to read through
and follows the instructions. They can provide valuable feedback if there are steps they
could not complete or do not understand.
5. Refine the SOP based on the feedback.
6. Write the next SOP, repeating Steps 3 to 5 for each.
7. Compile all of the SOPs into a binder or bound manual. Include a cover sheet with the
name of the manual, a table of contents, the introduction and the SOPs in the order of the
table of contents.
8. Make copies and distribute to employees. Encourage regular feedback, and update when
necessary.

10.4.5 Emergency Response Plan (ERP)

The goals of the ERP are for the utility to be able to quickly identify an emergency and
initiate timely and effective response, and to be able to quickly respond and repair damages to
minimize system downtime. Because ERPs contain sensitive information, access to the ERP
should be limited to key personnel.

ERPs may consist of multiple documents, including an overview document, individual

Emergency Action Procedures, List of Contact Numbers, Checklists, additions to existing
operations manuals and whatever other documents are required to make the ERP complete.
ERPs should be updated at least annually. The following elements of an ERP have been
typically used by utilities.

 Introduction
• Concepts of operations
• Emergency equipment and facilities
• Plan activation
• Termination & recovery
• Administration & logistics
• Training & Documentation
• Plan Maintenance
 General Procedures
• General response to an emergency (levels of response)
• Activating the command centre
• Deactivating the command centre
• Building evacuation and personnel accountability
• Shelter-in-place

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 10-6
 • Facility loss of power
• Widespread power outage
• Public safety emergency contact procedures
• Low water pressures
• Medical illness/ injury (emergency)
• Fire/ explosion
 Weather Related Events
• Flood / Drought
• Surface water impoundment failure
• Following an earthquake
• Severe weather
 Hazardous Material Events
• Spill response / chemical release
• Chlorine leak/ release
• Ammonia leak/ release
• Contamination threat to the water system and confirmed contamination
• Contamination of water system at a major event
 Notification from Health Officials of Potential Water Contamination
 Criminal Activities
• Bomb threat
• Kidnap/ hostage situation
• Unauthorized entry
• Workplace violence
• Terrorist / hostile attack / civil disturbance
• Cyber-attack – electronic based
• Cyber-attack- physical or hardware / instrumentation controls
• Emergency response or crime scene procedures
• Destruction / failure of any part of the water system
 Annexes
• Facility evacuation plans
• Extreme weather plans (flood, tornado, etc.)
• Power outage plan
• Contamination plan
• Business continuity plan

Emergency response plan shall be prepared under water safety plan. The ERP frame work
shall consist of levels of responsibility, reporting format and calculation of damages and
losses under Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA). Refer NWSDB website under WSP
for details. Emergency recovery shall be based on climate resilience and Build Back Better
(BBB) principles as per the proposed emergency recovery policy of the Disaster Management
Center.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 10-7
10.5 Important Forms under O & M Manual

Table 10-1 Equipment Data Form

Equipment Data Form

Item No Equipment Description

Equipment No Component of

Supplier Address
Manufacture
Model No
Serial No
Installation Code
Component Code

Recommended Spare Parts

Capacity
Speed
TDH
Frame
Type
Comments

Drive Motor
Supplier Address
Manufacture
Model No
Serial No
Installation Code
Component Code

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 10-8
Table 10-2 Operations Checklist
Operations Checklist

Date
Operation

Item Description Equipment No. Status

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 10-9
Table 10-3 Problem Identification form
Problem Identification Form

Problem Statement
Observer Date
Subject
Description of Problem (Attach sketches or additional sheets if needed)

Supported solution

Submit one copy each to

Plant Superintendent Project Coordinator Sup.Sen. Engineer

Resolution of Problem (Decision / Connective Actions)

Distribution
Sup. Sen. Engineer Plant Superintendent (JMM/OCI)
Project Coordinator
Plant Superintendent

References
Annexes (List of Standard Operating Procedures, Catchment Survey, Standard Forms used for
Monitoring, Audited Reports etc.)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 10-10
 Annex - A

REFERENCES
1. Alhadidi, A., Kemperman, A.J.B., Blankert, B., Schippers, J.C., Wessling, M., & vender
Meer, W.G.J. (2011). Silt Density Index and Modified Fouling Index relation, and effect
of pressure, temperature and membrane resistance. Desalination, 273, 48 - 56.
2. ASTM D 4189-07. (2007). Standard Test Method for Silt Density Index (SDI) of water,
1-3.
3. AWWA, Water Treatment Plant Design, 5th Edition, 2012.
4. AWWA, Water Quality and Treatment, 6th Edition, 2011.
5. AWWA, M20 Water Chlorination and Chloramination Practices and Principles, Second
Edition, 2006.
6. AWWA, External Corrosion: Introduction to Chemistry and Control, Manual M27, 2004.
7. Boerlage, S.F.E., Kennedy, M., Tarawnch, Z, Faber, R.D., & Schippers, J.C. (2004).
Desalination, 161, 103 -113.
8. Brock McEwen J. - 1998 , Treatment Process Selection for Particle Removal, Cooperate
Research Report, American Water Works Association Research Foundation, International
Water Supply Association, USA
9. Crittenden, J.C., Trussell, R.R., Hand, D.W., Howe, K.J., & Tchobanoglous, G. (2012).
3rd Edition. Water Treatment Principles & Design. John Wiley & Sons Inc.
10. Design Manual (D3), Water Quality and Treatment, Water Supply and Sanitation Sector
Project (USAID-Sri Lanka Project 383-0088), NWSDB, Ratmalana, March 1989.
11. Dijk, J.C and J Oomen, Slow Sand Filtration for Community Water Supply in
Developing Countries – A Design and Construction Manual, IRC Technical Paper No.11
December 1978.
12. ENSIC, Water Treatment Plant Design, 1969.
13. Holden, W.S., Water Treatment and Examination, London 1970.
14. Hong, K., Lee, S., Choi, S., Yu, Y., Hong, S., Moon, J., Sohn, J., & Yang, J. (2009).
Assessment of various membranes fouling indexes under seawater conditions.
Desalination, 247, 247 – 259.
15. Huiseman, L and Wood W.E. Slow Sand Filtration, WHO, Geneva, 1974.
16. Kennedy, M.D., Rodriguez, S.G.S., & Schippers, J.C. (2013). Desalination & membrane
related technology. UNESC-IHE Institute for water education.
17. Lecture Notes, Water Supply Engineering, UNESCO-IHE, Delft, the Netherlands,
October 2011.
18. Lewangamagea C. S. and Jayasinghe M. T. R., Report on recent development of wind
code in Sri Lanka.
19. NWSDB/USAID Project, Analytical Quality Assurance Manual, Water Quality Section,
1988.
20. Okun.A.Daniel, Christopher R. Schulz.,1984, Surface Water Treatment for Comunities in
Developing Countries.
21. Pescod, M.B., Slow Sand Filtration – A Low-Cost Treatment for Water Supplies in
Developing Countries, WRC/IRC, 1985.
22. Perara SKH, et.al. A study on addition of Ferric Chloride as a Coagulant instead of alum
in Major Water Supply Schemes, Research Unit, NWSDB, 1984.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 1
 Annex - A
23. Rodriguez, S.G.S. (2011). PhD thesis on particulate and organic matter fouling of
seawater reverse osmosis systems: characterization, modelling and applications. Delft
University of Technology and UNESCO-IHE Institute for water education.
24. Seidel, H.F, Construction and Rehabilitation Assessment, USAID project OTD 138,
March 1984.
25. Schippers, J.C., & Verdouw, J. (1980). The modified fouling index, a method of
determining the fouling characteristics of water. Desalination, 32, 137-148.
26. Schippers, J.C., Hanemaayer, J.H., Smolders, C.A., & Kostense, A. (1981). Predicting
flux decline of reverse osmosis membranes. Desalination, 38, 339-348.
27. Sim, L.N., Ye, Y., Chen, V., Fane, A.G. (2011). Comparison of MFI-UF constant
pressure, MFI-UF constant flux and cross flow sampler- modified fouling index
ultrafiltration (CFS-MFIUF). Water Research, 45,1639-1650.
28. Visscher, J.T and Veenstra, A., Slow Sand Filtration: Manual for Caretakers, IRC
Training Series No.1 1985.
29. Water Research Centre, Performance Specification for Water and Sewage Treatment
Processes: Guidelines, October 1985.
30. Wagner, E.G (1983) Upgrading of water treatment plants in Sri Lanka Assignment
Report, UNDP/WHO Project.
31. Wagner E.G (1983) Simplifying Design of Water Treatment Plants for Developing
Countries, AWWA Journal, WEDC, Developing World Water, Grosvenor Press
International, 1986.
32. Wegelin, M. (1996). Surface Water Treatment by Roughing Filters - A Design,
Construction and Operation Manual. SANDEC Report No. 02/96.
33. Wegelin, M. (1986). Horizontal-Flow Roughing Filtration - A Design, Construction and
Operation Manual. IRCWD Report No. 06/86, October 1986.
34. Wegelin, Martin (1984), Horizontal-flow Roughing Filtration: An Appropriate Pre-
Treatment for slow Sand Filters in Developing Countries, IRCWD News.
35. Wegelin, M., Schertenleib, R., Boller, M. (1991). The decade of roughing filters -
Development of a rural water treatment process for developing countries. J. Water Supply
Research and Technology - Aqua, 40, 304-316.
36. Kawamura. S., – Integrated Design of Water Treatment Facilities.
37. R. Qasim, Edward M. Motley, Guang Zhu – Water Work Engineering Planning Design &
Operation.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) 2
Annex-A: Design Example – Fine and Coarse Screens
It is required to design the unit processes of water treatment plant for capacity of 15,000
m3/day. The following design calculations are based on the above capacity.
The water treatment plant is to be designed for 24 hours continuous operations. The back
washing can be carried out during off peak for electricity and water where high lift pump is
shut down or lesser amount of water pumping.
Assumed % losses in treatment plant (5% in practice) = 7.5 %
Required capacity of the aerator = 16,125 m3/day
Periods of Operation (22 hours in practice) T = 24 hr
Hourly Design demand Q = 672 m3/hr
Design Flow Rate = 0.187 m3/s

Data- Coarse Screen (Page 5-10)

Approach velocity of Coarse Screen = 0.4 m/s
Maximum velocity of Coarse Screen = 0.9 m/s
Range of Spacing of Coarse screen bars = 50 - 100 mm
Angle of Inclination of Coarse screen = 22° - 45°
Head loss through screens: limited to = 150 mm

Design of Inlet and outlet channel

Recommended flow velocity (Page 5-10) = 0.15 - 0.4 m/s
The bottom of the channel may be either horizontal or sloping
Let the flow velocity in the channel V = 0.4 m/s
Assume the width of channel B = 1,000 mm
For economical section, take D = 0.5B
Depth of channel = 500 mm
Allow free board = 300 mm

Design flow Q = 0.187 m3/s

For a rectangular channel D = Q/ (V × B)

B
B = 1.000 m
D = 0.467 m
V = 0.4000 m/s
Free board = 0.300 m
H = 0.800 m
From manning equation v = R2/3 S1/2 /n
Hence, S = (V × n / R2/3 )2
R = 0.2415
n = 0.013
S = 0.00018
Provide, slope as 1 : 5560
Velocity v = 0.400 m/s
Design of Coarse Screen
Spacing of Coarse screen bars S = 60 mm
Diameter of bars (rectangular Sections of

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-1
about 10x40 mm have higher strength)  = 10 mm
Width of the opening of inlet W = 1.0 m
Height of the opening of inlet H = 0.80 m
Depth of water d = 0.47 m
Number of parallel lines = 1 No.
Let angle of Inclination of Coarse screen ϴ = 30 to the vertical
Length of the Coarse Screen = H/ Cos 
= 0.8 / Cos 30
= 0.924 mm
Hence, clear spacing of coarse screen bars S’ = 60 - 10 mm
= 50
Number of spacing of coarse screen bars = 1 x1000/ 60
= 16.70 ≈ 17
Number of bars n = 17 - 1
= 16
Hence, acual clear spacing = (1000 – 16 × 10) / 17
= 49.41 mm
Area of bar rake A1 = W×d
= 1.0 × 0.47
= 0.47 m2
Area of bars A2 = n××d
= 16 ×10 /1000 x 0.47
= 0.0752 m2
Open Area A= A1-A2 = 0.467 - 0.0752 m2
= 0.3918 m2
Design Flow rate through one rake Q = Flow/no of channel
= 0.187 / 1 m3/s
0.187 m3/s
The flow velocity through the bars V = (Q/A)
= 0.187 / 0.3918
V = 0.477 m/s
Recommended maximum velocity = 0.40 - 0.90 m/s
This is within the acceptable velocity

Head loss in coarse screen

Velocity of upstream Vv = 0.400 m/s
Velocity of through screen opening V = 0.477 m/s
Head loss through coarse screen = 0.0729 × (V2-Vv2)
(Page 5-10) = 0.0729 × (0.4772 -0.402)
= 4.92 mm
Data- Fine Screen (Page 5-10)
Average velocity of Fine Screen = 0.60 - 1.0 m/s
Maximum velocity of Fine Screen (at Peak) = 1.2 - 1.4 m/s
Minimum velocity of Fine Screen (to avoid sediment) = 0.4 m/s
Angle of Inclination of Fine screen = 10° - 30°
Range of Spacing of Fine screen bars = 5 - 25 mm
Head loss = 0.05 - 0.15 m

Design of Fine Screen

Velocity through Fine screen = 0.6 m/s
Spacing of Fine screen bars S = 5 mm
Width of the opening of inlet W = 1.0 m
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-2
Height of the opening of inlet H = 0.8 m
Depth of water d = 0.47 m
Number of parallel lines n = 1 No.
Let angle of Inclination of fine screen ϴ = 20° to the vertical
The screen efficiency factor h = 0.56

Note: The screen efficiency factor and the Effective areas of the opening in the fine screen
can be obtained by referring the manufacturers’ data. Otherwise, the Effective areas of the
opening in the fine screen can be estimated.

Length of the fine Screen = H/ Cos ϴ

= 0.8 / Cos 20
= 0.851 mm
Velocity through fine screen = 0.6 m/s
Let the Effective areas of opening in the fine screen = 60 %
For stainless steel fine screen
Design Flow rate through one screen Q = 0.187 / 1 m3/s
= 0.187 m3/s

Area of fine screen As = wxd

= 1 × 0.47
= 0.47 m2
Effective areas of the opening in the fine screen = 0.6 × 0.47 m2
= 0.2802 m2
The flow velocity through the fine screen Vs = (Q/As)
= 0.187 / 0.2802
= 0.667 m/s
Recommended maximum velocity = 0.60 - 1.0 m/s
The velocity is within the acceptable limit
In case of Blocked, fine screen
The flow velocity through the fine screen Vs = (Q/As x h)
= 0.187 / (0.47 × 0.56)
= 0.715 m/s
The velocity is within the acceptable limit
Head loss in Fine screen
Velocity of upstream Vv = 0.400 m/s
Velocity of through screen opening V = 0.667 m/s
Head loss through coarse screen = 0.0729 × (V2-Vv2)
(Page 5-10) = 0.0729 × (0.6672 -0.42)
= 20.77 mm

Coarse screen Fine screen

30 20

Longitudinal Section Cross Section

Figure A 1: Coarse and Fine screen

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-3
 Annex – B1
Annex-B.1: Design Example – Cascade Platform Aerator
Design of aerator for removal of iron and manganese from unsaturated groundwater.

Design daily demand = 16,125 m3/day

Design Demand Q = 672 m3/hr
Q = 0.187 m3/s

Data (Page No 5-21)

Recommended Number of Drops = 4-6 Nr
Recommended Height of Drops = 0.3 - 0.8 m
Recommended Height of the Aerator = 2–3 m
Recommended Flow Rate = 0.01 m3/s over m of step
Cascade area = 85 – 105 m2 / m3 / hr of flow
= 1.42 –1.75 m2 m3/Min of flow

According to the Water Quality Analysis

Concentration of Iron = 0.13 mg/l
Concentration of Manganese = 0.05 mg/l
Dissolved oxygen concentration in inflow Co = 0.00 mg/l

Efficiency of Aerator
For single free fall in weir aeration (Page No. 5-30)
Efficiency coefficient K = 0.45(1+0.046T)
Temperature in C T = 28.0 0
C
Water fall height h = 0.75 m
K = 0.45(1+0.046×28)×0.75
= 0.77

Figure A 2: Section- Aerator

Estimation of O2 Requirements
O2 requirement for removal of Fe2+ and Mn3+ are
1 mg of Fe2+ = 0.14 mg/l
3+
1 mg of Mn = 0.27 mg/l

O2 concentration in water at 28 deg C = 7.81 mg/l (Table 5-5)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-4
 Annex – B1
Percentage of absorption of O2 during Aeration at 28 0C = 77 %
O2 concentration in water after aeration = 7.81 × 0.77
= 6.01 mg/l

O2 requirement for oxidation of Fe2+ = Concentration x Requirement

= 0.13 × 0.14
= 0.0182 mg/l

O2 requirement for oxidation of Mn3+ = 0.05 × 0.27

= 0.0135 mg/l

O2 requirement for oxidation of both elements = 0.0182 +0.0135

= 0.0317 mg/l

Dissolved oxygen concentration in outflow Ce = Co + K(Cs-Co) (Page No.5-30)

Saturation concentration at 28 deg C Cs = 7.81 mg/l
Dissolved oxygen concentration in inflow Co = 0.00 mg/l
Dissolved oxygen concentration in outflow Ce = 0+0.77(7.81-0)
= 6.01 mg/l

Dissolved oxygen concentration in outflow (2nd Step)Ce = Co + K(Cs-Co) (Page No.5-30)

Saturation concentration at 28 deg C Cs = 7.81 mg/l
Dissolved oxygen concentration in inflow Co = 6.01 mg/l
Dissolved oxygen concentration in outflow Ce = 6.01+0.77(7.81-6.01)
= 7.40 mg/l

Platform 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th

Inflow 0.00 6.01 7.40 7.72 7.79
Outflow 6.01 7.40 7.72 7.79 7.81
Table A 1 Dissolved oxygen concentration

Hence, selected no of steps = 3 Nrs

(Page 5-23)
For maximum oxygen efficiency weir height h1 ≤ 0.80 m
x1 ≥ 2/3 h1
Hence, Assume Water fall height h1 = 0.75 m
x1 = 0.50 m
Calculation of wind Speed
Refer: Sri Lanka National Annex to Euro Code 1: Actions on Structures — Part 1-4: General
Actions —Wind Actions

Basic wind speed Vb0 = Vb, zone x Calt

Where,
Fundamental value for basic wind speed = Vb, zone
Altitude correction factor = Calt
For 50 years return period for Zone 1 Vb, zone = 28.0 m/s

Table A 2 Minutes mean speed

Zone Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-5
 Annex – B1
Normal structure 32 28 22
Post Disaster structure 36 31 25
Altitude correction factor Calt = 1 + 0.001A < 1.5 (max)
Altitude from MSL A = 1-1500 m
Applicable to only Zone 3 and Calt is limited to 1.5
Basic wind velocity Vb = Cdir × Cseason × Vb,0
Cdir = 1.0
Cseason = 1.0
Vb = 1.0 ×1.0 × 28
= 28.0 m/s
Determination of inlet shaft Diameter
Flow rate Q = 0.187 m3/s
Recommended maximum velocity in m/s = 0.60-1.6 m/s
Assume the flow velocity V = 1.0 m/s
Diameter of inlet channel d = (4Q/vπ)0.5
= [4 × 0.187/{1.0 × π)]0.5
= 0.412 m
Let the Diameter of the pipe = 600 mm
Velocity of the flow = Q/A
= 0.187/π×0.62
= 0.66 m/s
Hence, ok.
Diameter of bell mouth Db = 0.90 m
Height of Bell mouth = 0.30 m

Flow rate over a weir is given by Q = 2/3CdBH3/2√2g

Try with depth of flow h = 0.110 m
(Try to get Closer Value for Qact Vs Qcal)
Flow coefficient of weir Cd = 0.602+0.083(h/p)
Height of weir tray p = 0.3 m
Flow coefficient of weir Cd = 0.632
Length of Over flowing = πd
= π × 0.9 m
= 2.83 m
Flow rate over the weir = 0.193 m3/s
Qcal >> Q act
Hence, try with diference values of h and p values,
Flow rate over a weir is given by Q = 2/3CdBH3/2√2g
Try with depth of flow h = 0.034 m
Height of weir tray p = 0.150 m
Flow coefficient of weir Cd = 0.602+0.083h/p
Flow coefficient of weir = 0.621
Length of Over flowing = 16.34 m
Q = 0.188 m3/s
Hence, depth of flow = 0.034 m and height of weir tray = 0.10 m is ok.

Height of water above bell mouth h = V2/2g

Rise of step h = 0.662/(2×9.81)
= 0.02 m
Design of Aerator

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-6
 Annex – B1
Flow rate over a weir Q = 671.88 /60
= 11.20 m3/min
Assume Cascade area = 1.75 m2 /m3/min

Note: higher area is considered for maximum addition of oxidation

Area required = 1.75 x 11.20

= 19.6 m2

𝑑 = √19.6 x 4⁄𝜋 = 4.995 m

Take inlet tray diameter as d = 5.0 m

Weir loading rate q = 0.187/(π×5.0)
Q = 0.012 m3/s
0.006 < 0.01 m3/s over m of step
Hence O.K.

Determination of Diameter of trays

From Bell mouth to tray 1
Horizontal velocity U1 = Q/A
= 0.187/(3.14×0.90×0.034)
= 1.94 m/s
Contribution by wind velocity 5% = 28.0 × 0.05
= 1.40 m/s
Total Horizontal velocity = 1.94 + 1.40
= 3.34 m/s
1/2
Time taken for free fall to tray 1 t1 = (2S/g)
= (2 × 0.75/9.81) 1/2
= 0.39 s
Horizontal distance travelled S = ut
Sf1 = 3.34× 0.39
= 1.31 m
Vertical velocity when free fall to tray 1 v = u+ft
= 0 + 9.81 × 0.39 m/s
= 3.84 m/s
Assume coefficient of collision e = 0.50
Splash velocity ev = 0.5 × 3.84
= 1.92 m/s
Traveling time when vertical velocity v = 0 T1 = v/g
= 1.92/9.81
= 0.20 s
Horizontal distance travelled after collision S = ut
Sr1 = (0.5 ×1.94) × 0.20
= 0.190 m
This length can be avoided once the water is submerged
Hence, minimum diameter required D1 = Db+2(Sf1+Sr1))
= 0.9+2(1.31+0.19)
= 3.89 m
Hence, Assume diameter of tray 1 D1 = 3.9 m

From tray 1 to tray 2

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-7
 Annex – B1
Flow rate Q = 1.833 B H3/2
Sheet depth H = 0.187/(1.833 × 3.9) 2/3
h = 0.041 m
Horizontal velocity U2 = Q/A
= 0.187/(π× 3.9 × 0.041)
= 0.371 m/s
Contribution by wind velocity (5%) = 1.40 m/s
Total Horizontal velocity = 0.371 +1.40
= 1.77 m/s
Water fall height h2 = 0.75 m
x2 ≥ 2/3 h2
Weir height (Tail Water Depth) = 0.50 m
Time taken for free fall to tray 2 t2 = (2S/g)1/2
= (2 × 0.75/9.81) 1/2
= 0.39 s
Horizontal distance travelled S = ut
Sf2 = 1.83 × 0.39
= 0.69 m
Hence provide either side = 0.70 m
Diameter of tray 2 D2 = 3.9 + 2 × 0.7
= 5.30 m
From tray 1 to tray 2
Flow rate Q = 1.833 B H3/2
Sheet depth h = 0.041 m
Horizontal velocity U2 = Q/A
= 0.187/(π×2.6×0.054)
= 0.371 m/s
Contribution by wind velocity = 1.40 m/s
Total Horizontal velocity = 0.371+1.4 m/s
= 1.77 m/s
Water fall height h2 = 0.75 m
x2 >= 2/3 h2
Weir height = 0.50 m
1/2
Time taken for free fall to tray 2 T2 = (2S/g)
= (2×0.75/9.81)1/2
= 0.39 s
Horizontal distance travelled S = ut
Sf2 = 1.83×0.39
Sf2 = 0.69 m
Hence provide either side = 0.70 m
Diameter of tray 2 = 3.9 + 2× 0.7 m
D2 = 5.30 m
From tray 2 to tray 3
Flow rate Q = 1.833 B H3/2
Sheet depth h = 0.033 m
Horizontal velocity U3 = Q/A
= 0.187/(π×4.2×0.039)
= 0.335 m/s
Contribution by wind velocity = 1.40 m/s
Total Horizontal velocity = 0.362+1.4 m/s
= 1.74
Water fall height h3 = 0.75 m
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-8
 Annex – B1
x3 >= 2/3 h3
Weir height (Tail Water Depth) = 0.50 m
Time taken for free fall to tray 3 T3 = (2S/g)1/2
= 0.39 s
Horizontal distance travelled S = ut
Sf3 = 0.68 m
Hence provide either side = 0.70 m
Diameter of tray 3 D3 = 6.70 m

From tray 3 to tray 4 (Collecting Pan)

Flow rate Q = 1.833 B H3/2
Sheet depth h = 0.029 m
Horizontal velocity U4 = Q/A
= 0.310 m/s
Contribution by wind velocity = 1.40 m/s
Total Horizontal velocity = 1.71 m/s
Water fall height h4 = 0.75 m
x4 >= 2/3 h4
Weir height = 0.50 m
Time taken for free fall to tray 4 T4 = (2S/g)1/2
= 0.39 s
Horizontal distance travelled S = ut
Sf4 = 0.67 m
Hence provide either side = 0.70 m
Diameter of tray 4 D4 = 8.10 m

Inlet Pipe Design

Length of pipe = 5 m
H/L = 10.65/D4.87x(Q/C)1.85
Hazen William Coefficient C = 120
Q = 0.187 m/s
H/L = 10.65/0.6 *(0.187/120)1.85
4.87

H/L = 0.818 mm/m

Hf = 4.1 mm

Outlet channel
Recommended flow velocity = 0.15-0.4 m/s
Assume the flow velocity V = 0.524 m/s
Assume the width of channel W = 1000 mm
For economical section take D = 0.5B
Depth of channel d = 500 mm
Free Board = 100 mm
Maximum water depth d = Q/(V×W)
= 0.187/(0.524*1.0)
= 356 mm
From manning equation v = R2/3 S1/2 /n
Hence, S = (V× n / R2/3)2
R = wd/(w+2d)
= (0.5×0.237)/1000/(2×0.237+0.5)
= 0.2080
n = 0.013
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-9
 Annex – B1
S = (0.524 × 0.013 / R2/3)2
= 0.000377

Provide, slope as 1 : 2600

Velocity v = 0.530 m/s

SUMMARY
Number of Drops N = 3 Nr
Height of Drops H = 0.75 m

Dimensions of outlet Channel

Diameter of the inlet Channel D = 600 mm

Internal Dimensions
Diameter of Aerator tray No 1 D1 = 3.9 m
Diameter of Aerator tray No 2 D2 = 5.3 m
Diameter of Aerator tray No 3 D3 = 6.7 m
Diameter of Aerator tray No 4 D4 = 8.1 m
Height of the Aerator H = 2.75 m

Dimensions of outlet Channel

Width of the Channel B = 1,000 mm
Depth of the Channel d = 500 mm
Bed slope of the Channel S = 1 in 2600

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-10
 Annex – B2

Annex-B.2: Design Example – Cascade Step Aerator

Design for of aeration for removal of iron and manganese from unsaturated groundwater

Calculated design daily demand = 15,000 m3/day

Assumed % losses in treatment plant = 7.5 %
Required capacity of the aerator = 16,125 m3/day
T = 24 hr
Q = 671.875 m3/hr
= 0.187 m3/s

Recommended Number of Drops = 4-6 Nr

Recommended Height of Drops = 300 - 600 mm
Recommended Height of the Aerator = 2-3 m
Recommended Weir loading q = 0.010 – 0.028 m3/s over m of step
Assume Number of Drops N = 3 Nr
Assume Height of Drops = 40 cm
Assume Weir loading q = 0.021 m3/s over m of step
Length of Aerator L = Q/q m
= 0.187 / 0.021 m
L = 8.90 m
L = 9.00 m
L = 9.00 m

Flow velocity
Flow = 0.187 m3/s
Flow rate over weir Q = 1.833 B H3/2
So, flow over weir H0 = (Q/1.833 B)2/3
= (0.187/(1.833×9))2/3
= 0.050461221
= 0.05 m

The velocity of the flow V = Q/(LH0)

= 0.187/(9×0.05)
= 0.4156
= 0.416 m/s

Figure A 3: Water falling detail at platforms

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-11
 Annex – B2
Assume height of step = 0.400 m
Then, H = 2/3h m
H = 2/3×0.4 m
H = 0.267 m
Total contact Time with air T = √2h/g s
= √(2×0.4/9.81)
= 0.286 s
x = vt
x = 0.412 × 0.286
x = 0.118 m
Minimum required width, B = 2×x
= 2 × 0.118
= 0.236 m
Width of the step, B = 0.24 m
Take as B = 300.00 mm

Inlet and outlet channel

Recommended flow velocity = 0.6 -1.0 m/s
Assume the flow velocity v = 0.7 m/s
Assume the width of channel W = 1000 mm
W = 1000 mm
= 1 m
For economical section take D = 0.5B
D = 500 mm
Free Board = 200 mm
Depth of channel = 700 mm
Max. water depth d = Q/(v×W)
= 0.187/(0.7×1)
= 0.267 m O.K.
= 267 mm
From manning equation v = R2/3 S1/2 /n
Hence, S = (v×n / R2/3 )2
R = A/P
= 1×0.267/(2×0.267+1)
R = 0.174
n = 0.013
S = 0.000851726
Provide, slope as 1 : 1100
Velocity v = 0.723 m/s

Summary
Average flow Q = 16,125 m3/day
Detention Time Provided T = 0.286 s
Number of Drops N = 3 Nr
Height of Drops H/N = 40 cm
Flow Rate over m of step q = 75 m3/h over m of step
Weir loading q = 0.01 m3/s over m of step

Internal Dimensions
Length of Aerator L = 9.00 m
Width of Aerator B = 0.24 m
Height of the Aerator H = 1.20 m
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-12
 Annex – B2
Internal Wall Thickness = 0.200 m
External Wall Thickness = 0.200 m
Dimensions of efflent Channel
Width of the Channel B = 1000 mm
Depth of the Channel d = 700 mm
Bed slope of the Channel S = 1 in 1100

0.3 m

0.4 m
1.2 m 0.267m

0.9 m

Figure A 4: Section - Step Aerator

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-13
 Annex – C1

Annex-C.1: Design Example – Hydraulic Rapid Mixing

Design Demand Q = 16,125 m3/day
Q = 0.187 m3/s

STILLING WELL
THROAT
Ha Hb
S=2/3A H

A 1
6
D W C
5
1

Coagulant diffuser
STILLING WELL DETAIL
PLAN
B F G

Coagulant diffuser

FLOW K=75mm
T Ha E
Hb
Hd
1 N M
1
4
2.67

SECTIONAL ELEVATION

Figure A 5: Parshall flume rapid mixer

Table A 3: Dimensions and Capacities of the Parshall Flume for Various Throat Widths
(D.A. Okun, pp 91-104)

Q /(m3/day)
W (mm) A (mm) B (mm) C (mm) D (mm) E (mm) F (mm) G (mm)
Min. Max.
150 620 600 390 400 600 300 600 122 9,550
300 1,370 1,340 600 850 900 600 900 274 39,500
460 1,450 1,420 750 1,030 900 600 900 367 60,200
610 1,530 1,500 900 1,210 900 600 900 1,030 81,100
910 1,680 1,650 1,200 1,570 900 600 900 1,500 123,000
1,220 1,830 1,790 1,520 1,940 900 600 910 3,190 166,000
1,520 1,860 1,940 1,830 2,150 900 600 910 3,920 210,000

Dimensions of Parshall flume rapid mixer

Assume the Throat width W = 610 mm
As per Error! Reference source not found., the following parameters are selected
A = 1,530 mm
B = 1,500 mm
C = 900 mm
Recommended range of tank depth D = 1,210 mm
Assume the depth (d) E = 900 mm
F = 600 mm
G = 900 mm
H = 920 mm
K = 75 mm
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-14
 Annex – C1
M = 375 mm
N = 225 mm
S = 1,020 mm
T = 100 mm

The flow capacity of the Parshall flume rapid mixer as per Table A 3.
Minimum flow rate Qmin = 1,030 m3/day
Maximum flow rate Qmax = 81,100 m3/day

Table A 4 : Maximum Submergence ratio

Width of Throat (W) Maximum Submergence Hb/Ha or Hd/Ha ratio
< 0.3 m < 0.60
0.3 m < W < 2.5 m < 0.70
2.5 m < W < 15.2 m < 0.80

A Parshall flume is used as accurate flow measurement and control device if discharge from
unrestricted or under free-fall conditions.
The depth in the converging section = Ha
The depth near the end of the throat = Hb
The unrestricted flow condition is commonly determined by Hb/Ha.

Under unrestricted flow condition

Flow rate 𝑄 = 2.273 𝑊Ha1.4757C
0.026
Where 𝐶= W = 0.6100.026 = 0.987
𝑄 1/1.4757C
Ha = (2.273 𝑊 )
1
0.187 1.4757x0.987
= (2.273𝑥0.610 )
= 252 mm

If the ratio Hb/Ha exceeds the limit given above, the Parshall flume is operating under the
submerged condition. The discharge will be retarded under this flow condition. The flow can
be obtained only from both Ha and Hb readings by using calibration curve that must be
developed.

0.90 Ha Hb Qd Qmin Qmax

0.80
Water Depth ( Ha Hb ), m

0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Flow (Q), m3/s
Figure A 6: Calibration curve of the 0.3m throat Parshall flume rapid mixer
Velocity at throat
0.187 𝑚
𝑣𝑎 = 1.210∗0.252 = 0.61 𝑠
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-15
 Annex – C1

𝑉 0.61
Froude No. 𝐹 = = = 0.388
√𝑔ℎ √9.81∗0.252

Hb = 0.70 x Ha
0.7*252 = 176.4 mm
0.187
Velocity at Critical point 𝑣𝑏 = = 1.74 𝑚/𝑠
0.610∗0.1764

𝑉 1.74
Froude No. 𝐹 = = = 1.32
√𝑔ℎ √9.81∗0.1764

Note that the limiting factor is 0.70

Head loss calculation

Depth at inlet channel du = T+Ha

= 352 mm
At maximum flow rate a minimum to be provided = 140 mm
I.e. The max allowed downstream water surface level = Ha - 140
Above the bottom of the throat section = 112
Depth at outlet channel Dd = 0.5 C = 0.5×900
= 450 mm

Similarly head loss in the connecting lines has to be evaluated

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-16
 Annex – C2

Annex-C.2: Design Example – Mechanical Flash Mixing

Design Demand Q = 16,125 m3/day
Q = 0.187 m3/s

DESIGN DATA (Page 5-47) Table 5 - 9

Recommended range detention time = 30 - 60 s
Velocity Gradient, G = 500-1000 s-1
Velocity Gradient x time Gt = 30,000-60,000
Water depth (D)/ tank width (L), = 2
Minimum no. of tanks, = 2
Impeller diameter = 50 – 80 % of tank width (B)
Width of baffles = 8 – 10 % of tank width (B)
No. of baffles = 4 for squire and 6 for circular

Assumed detention time = 40 s

Volume required for Flash mixing unit V= Q t = 0.187 × 40
= 7.48 m3
Volume per tank = 3.74 m3

For Square Section, depth / width ratio D/B = 2.0

Volume 2.0 B×B×B = 3.74
B = (3.74/2.0)1/3
= 1.23 m
Select width B = 1.30 m
Length L = 1.30 m
Depth D = 2.60 m

Provided Volume of basin V = BLD = 1.3×1.3×2.6

V = 4.39 m3
Higher than 3.74 m3, hence O.K.

Coagulant dose

Plate
Impeller

Baffle

Basin

Top view Side view

Figure A 7: Turbine Mixer

Free Board = 0.3 m

Total depth H = 2.6 + 0.3 m
= 2.90 m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-17
 Annex – C2
Detention time in tank V/Q = 4.39/0.0935
T = 47 s
Recommended impeller diameter / basin dimension = 50 - 80 %
Select minimum diameter to minimize power consumption
Assume impeller diameter / basin dimension = 50%
Paddle diameter d = 1.3× (50/100)=0.65m
Say d = 0.70 m
Power Requirement
Velocity Gradient, G = 950 s-1
0
Viscosity at 20 c  = 0.0010 Ns/m2
Power Requirement P = G2 V 
9502×4.39×0.0010 = 3,962 Nm/s
Assume motor efficiency  = 90%
Power Requirement of motor 3,962 /0.90 = 4.40 kW

Check on GT
Velocity Gradient, G = 950 s-1
Detention time T = 47 s
Detention time GT = 950 × 47= 44,733
Recommended range GT = 30,000-60,000
Hence, ok.
Impeller Size and Rotation Speed
The rapid mix will be an "upflow" type. Based on experience, radial flow mixers perform
better than axial mixers in vertical flow basin.
Use 4 bladed turbine mixer
Blade width to diameter ratio, w/d = 0.16
By interpolating from Table 5. 12
Power Number K = 2.74
 = 1,000 kg/m3
Power Requirement for Laminar flow P = K n2 d3
Power Requirement for turbulent flow P = K  n3 d5
1 1
𝑃 3 𝑃693 3
Assuming turbulent flow and by rearranging 𝑛 = (𝜌𝐾𝐷5 ) = (1000𝑥2.74𝑥0.4𝐷5)
= 2.05 rps
= 2.05 × 60 rpm
= 123 rpm
Check the Reynolds number for turbulent flow
For better mixing Reynolds No. Re > 10,000
𝑑2 𝑛𝜌 0.72 𝑥2.05𝑥1000
𝑅𝑒 = =
𝜇 1𝑥10−3
= 1,004,500 >10,000
Therefore the above equation is valid

Width of the baffle board Wb = 0.1 Db

= 0.1×1.30
= 0.13 m
No. of Baffle board Nb = 4 for square tank
Height of impeller above the bottom of the basin, Hi = Di
= 0.70 m
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-18
 Annex – D1

Annex-D.1: Design Example – Hydraulic Flocculator

DESIGN EXAMPLE – HYDRAULIC FLOCCULATOR
Design Flow = 16,125 m3/day
Flow = 0.187 m3/s
Water temperature = 20 C
Dynamic Viscosity of water 𝝁 = 1.009 x 10-3 Ns/m2
Kinetic Viscosity of water 𝝊 = 0.898 x 10-6 m2 /s
(Annex - H)

DESIGN DATA (Page 5-52)

Recommended range Velocity gradient G = 10 - 100 S-1
Required detention time T = 20 - 30 min
4 5
Recommended range GT = 10 - 10
No. of Baffles = 12-20 with 180°
The slot width ratio (with respect to B) p = 0.9 – 1.1
The overlap ratio (with respect to B) q = 4–5
Depth ratio r = 1–3

Geometrical variables are required to define the plan layout of the flocculator:
N = number of channels, thereby fixing the number of baffles at (N − 1)

Let the channel width between baffles B = 0.15 m

(Table 5-14)
The baffle thickness w = 0.04 m

Typical head Loss = 0.5 m

Head loss / Baffle = 3.2 V2/(2g) m
Detention time / Baffle (t) = W/Vs
Velocity gradient (G) = (gH/𝝊t)1/2 s-1

Size of Flocculator
Provide no. of tanks in parallel (process trains) = 3 Nos
Flow rate per process train Qd = 0.187/3
= 0.062 m3/s

Let detention time T = 28 mins

Assume Velocity gradient Min G = 20 s-1
Max G = 80 s-1
Average G = 50 s-1
Assume Velocity gradient x Time GT = 50× (28×60)
= 84,000
Recommended range GT = 104 - 105

Volume required for flocculator unit V = Q×T

= 0.062× (28×60)
V = 104.51 m3

Also not that the width of the flocculation basin should be equal to the width of the
sedimentation basin
The width of the sedimentation basin B = 6.0 m
Length of flocculator L = 6.0 m
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-19
 Annex – D1
Assume the depth D = 3.00 m

Volume of a flocculator unit V = 104.51 m3

Provide no. of channel in series = 3 Nos
Volume B×L×D = 104.51
Width of flocculator B = 104.51/6.0/3.0
= 5.81 m

Width of flocculator channel b = 5.81/3

= 1.94 m
Select width flocculator channel = 2.0 m
Internal wall thickness (Channel Wall) = 0.150 m
Width of flocculator B = 6.30 m
Free Board = 300 mm
Total depth H = 3.0+0.3
= 3.30 m
Provided Tank Volume V = 3×2.0×6.0×3.0
= 108.00 m3

Hence retention time provided T=V/Q = 108.00/0.187

OK = 1,736 s (28.9 min)

Baffle Spacing
Let minimum baffle spacing at basin entrance. Smin = 0.120 m

Q 0.062
Velocity between baffles, u = A = 0.12x2.0

= 0.258 m/s

V2 0.2582
Head loss around baffle H = 3.2 2g = 3.2 x 2x9.81

= 0.0108m
Length of travel L* = 3.00 m

L∗
Detention time around baffle t = u
3.0
= 0.258

= 11.6 s

gH 9.81∗ 0.0108
Velocity gradient, 𝐺 = √𝜈𝑇 = √0.898 x 10−6 x 11.6

G = 100.85 s -1 (OK)

Similar calculation for maximum baffle spacing

Let maximum baffle spacing at basin exit S1 = 0.54 m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-20
 Annex – D1
Q 0.062
Velocity between baffles, u = A = 0.54x2 = 0.057 m/s

V2 0.0572
Head loss around baffle H = 3.2 2g = 3.2 × 2x9.81
= 0.00053 m

L∗ 3.0
Detention time around baffle t = = 0.057 = 52.6 s
u

gH 9.81× 0.00053
Velocity gradient, 𝐺 = √𝜈𝑇 = √0.898 x 10−6 x 52.6

G= 10.49 s -1 (OK)

Arrangement of Baffles and Total Head loss Calculation

Similar calculation can be done for baffle spacing in between the above spacing and can be
tabulated as follows.

Table A 5 : Summary of Head loss G Values

Number of Spacing Velocity Head loss Total Head Width Length
G*(s-1)
Baffles (m) (m) (m/sec) (m) loss (m) (m) (m)
8 0.120 0.259 0.0110 0.088 96 1.820 1.40
10 0.200 0.156 0.0039 0.039 45 1.700 2.64
6 0.250 0.124 0.0025 0.015 32 1.625 2.03
8 0.310 0.100 0.0016 0.013 23 1.535 3.11
6 0.430 0.072 0.0009 0.005 14 1.355 2.82
5 0.450 0.069 0.0008 0.004 13 1.325 2.45
6 0.540 0.058 0.0005 0.003 10 1.190 3.85
Total 0.167 18.3
*Velocity gradient, G at the start of each section.

Leave the last 1.2m as a transition section into the sedimentation basin (see Figure B.1).
Baffles should be adjustable in order to be able to adjust the spacing for best flocculation.
Wooden (12 mm thick or above) or plastic (10 mm) baffle boards could be installed in to
grooves made in the concrete wall. After final adjustment, the edge of the baffles could be
filleted with grout to prevent solid deposits (a gap should be left in the grouting for drainage
purposes). Basins should be designed to drain easily.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-21
 Annex – D1
INLET D=3.0, d=1.820, w=0.04 D=3.0 d=1.700, w=0.04 D=3.0 d=1.625, w=0.040
08 baffles 10 baffles 06 baffles 0.20 m

A A

2.0 m
B D=3.0 d=1.355, w=0.040
B
D=3.0 d=1.535, w=0.040
06 baffles 08 baffles

D=3.0, d=1.325 w=0.04 D=3.0, d=1.190 w=0.04

05 baffles 06 baffles

OUTLET to
sedimentation tank

0.37 3.00 0.30

5

D
D d

W W

W W
Removable wooden Baffles

SECTION - A- A
Slots for Baffles to Extend to
Channel Floor

W - Baffle Openings
0.30
D - Baffle Depth (From Surface) W
d - Baffle Depth (From Bottom) D

NOTE: d
1. Dimensions are in meter W
2. Tank corners rounded for smooth flow
W

SECTION - B- B

Figure A 8: Hydraulic Flocculator (Conceptual Design)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-22
 Annex – D1
G Din
120 3.1

3.0
100
Hydraulic Gradient (1/s)

3.0
80

Water Depth (m)

2.9
60
2.9

40
2.8

20
2.8

0 2.7
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12
Baffle No.
Figure A 9: The variation of Hydraulic Gradient and water depth

Note:
 Arrangement of baffles with equal space is easier for the construction and design even though
G value is increased as shown in the figure.

 As design to satisfy the depth ratio, overlap ratio and slot width ratio are not economical
design was carried out without consideration of those parameters.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-23
 Annex – D2

Annex-D.2: Design Example – Mechanical Flocculator

Design daily demand Q = 15,000 m3/day
Q = 0.189 m3/s

Horizontal shaft Vertical shaft

Parameters
with paddle with turbine
Velocity gradient, G (s-1) 50 - 5 80 - 10
Detention time, t (min) 30 - 40 20 - 40
Flocculation stage 2-6 2-4
Maximum flow velocity (m/s) 1 2-3
Paddle area (%) 5-20 0.1 - 0.2
Blade diameter/ Tank with, D/L 0.5 - 0.75 0.2 - 0.4
Speed of shaft, (rpm) 1-5 8-25

DESIGN DATA (Page 5-52)

Velocity gradient, G (s-1) G = 60 - 10 S-1
Detention time, t (min) = 30 - 40 min
Flocculation stage = 3 to 6
Maximum flow velocity (m/s) = 1 m/s
Paddle area (%) = 5 to 20 %
Blade diameter/ Tank with, D/L = 0.5 - 0.75
Speed of shaft, (rpm) = 1 to 5 rpm
Provide no. of tanks in parallel (process trains) = 2 Nos
Flow rate per process train Qd = 340.9 m3/hr
= 0.0947 m3/s
Assume Velocity gradient G = (60+30+15)/3
= 35 S-1
Detention time T = 30 min
GT = 35× (30×60)
= 63,000
Recommended range GT = 104 to 105
Volume required for flocculator unit V = QT T
V = 170.5 m3
Provide no. of tanks in series (Flocculation stage)
Volume of a unit = 3 Nos
= 170.5 /3
= 56.8 m3
Also note that the width of the flocculation basin should be equal to the width of the
sedimentation basin
Select depth / Length ratio
D/L = 1
The width of the sedimentation basin B = 6 m
Select width
L = 3 m
Volume B×L×D = 56.8 m3
B x L2 = 56.8 m3
2
L = 9.47 m3
L = 3.1 m
Select Length L = 3.1 m
Depth D = 3.1 m
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-24
 Annex – D2
Provided Tank Volume V = 6.0×3.1×3.1
= 56.8 m3
Hence retention time provided per unit T = V/Q
= 600 s
Total retention time T = 1800 S
= 30 min
With of baffle wall between stages of flocculation = 100 mm
= 0.1 m
The Length of the flocculation basin L = 3×3.1 + 0.1× (3-1)
L = 9.43 m
L = 9.5 m
Free Board Df z = 300 mm
= 0.3 m
= 3.1+0.3 m
Total depth H = 3.4 m

L1

Figure A 10: Plan view of Flocculator unit with paddles

Power Requirement for flocculator
In the first stage of flocculator
Velocity gradient G = 60 S-1
Viscosity at 250 c  = 0.001 Ns/m2
The basin volume V = 56.8 m3
Power Requirement for paddle P = G2V Nm/s
2
P = 60 ×56.8×0.001
P = 204.55 W
Let bearing efficiency ηb = 70%
Let motor efficiency ηm = 90%
Power Requirement of motor Pm = P
   bm

P = 324.68 W
In the second stage of flocculator
Velocity gradient G = 30 S-1
2
Power Requirement for paddle P = 30 ×56.8×0.001
P = 51.14 W
= 0.05 Kw
Power Requirement of motor Pm = 81.169 W
= 0.08 Kw

In the third stage of flocculator

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-25
 Annex – D2
Velocity gradient G = 15 S-1
Power Requirement for paddle P 152 ×56.8×0.001
P = 12.78 W
0.013 Kw
Power Requirement of motor Pm = 20.29 W
0.020 Kw
Paddle diameter and no.
Recommended paddle wheel diameter / tank dimension = 0.5 - 0.75 %
Select minimum diameter to minimize power consumption
Select maximum diameter to ensure complete mixing within the flocculation chamber
Assume paddle diameter / tank dimension = 75 %
Paddle diameter Dp = 0.75 x 3.1
= 2.3 m
Say Dp = 2.3 m
Paddle wheel shall be constructed in segments to facilitate fabrication, transport and
installation
Provide no. of flocculator segment Nfs = 2 Nos
Provide no. of paddle blades Nfb = 12 Nos
Width of each paddle blades W = 100 mm
0.1 m
Space between two adjacent blades S = 100 mm 0.1m
Length of a segment L = 6.0/2
L = 3 m

Figure A. Error! No text ofAspecified

Figure style in document..1:
11: Flocculator Flocculator Paddle Details
Paddle Details
Distance between first blade d1 = 1.4 m
Distance between second blade d2 = 1.8 m
Distance between third blade d3 = 2.20 m
Area of a paddle blade a = 0.10×3.0 m2
= 0.3 m2
Total area of a paddle at eact location per segment A1 = 1.2 m2
Total area of a paddle at each location per flocculator Ap = 2.4 m2
Rotational Speed of paddle
Power Requirement P = 0.5Cd× Ap×Vp3
L/W = 3000/100
= 30
The Coefficient of Drag (Cd) for paddle wheel flocculator is based on length to width
ratio(L/W) of the paddle can be taken below table (Referance , Water works Engineering,
R.Qasim , Page 257

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-26
 Annex – D2

L/W 5 20

Cd 1.2 1.5 1.9

By interpolation Cd = 1.5
𝝆 = 1000 N/m4
Assume paddle blade velocity relative to the water = 75%
of absolute peripheral velocity of the blade
Relative velocity of paddle to water Vp = 0.75 V
V = π n d1
P = 0.5 Cd x 𝝆 x Ap ԐVp3
P= 0.5× Cd×𝝆× Ap ( 0.75π n)3 × (d13+d23+d33 )
Power Requirement of first stage paddle
P = 204.55 Nm/s
Rotational speed of first stage paddle
n13 = P/{0.5× Cd×𝝆× Ap ( 0.75π )3 × (d13+d23+d33 )}
n13 = 0.0005
n1 = 0.0767 Rev/sec
n1 = 4.6 rpm
From similar calculation
Rotational speed of second stage paddle n32 = 0.0001
n2 = 0.0483Rev/sec
Rotational speed of third stage paddle n3 = 0.0304Rev/sec
Peripheral blade Velocity
Where V1, V2 & V3 = the average velocity of each paddle relative
to the water. Assume that the paddle-blade velocity relative to the water is 75% of the
absolute peripheral velocity of the blade
nrel = 0.75 x nabs
Peripheral blade Velocity V1 = π nrel d1
= 0.75 π nabs d1
Where:
d1,d2 and d3, = Diameter measured from center
to center of each paddle blade,
nabs = absolute rotational speed of the
blades, rev/sec
nrel = relative velocity of the blades,
rev/sec

Table A 6 : Summery of blade tip velocity

Stages Blade tip velocity (m/s) 0.75×π×nobs×d
V1 0.253
First stage V2 0.325
V3 0.398
V1 0.159
Second stage V2 0.205
V3 0.251
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-27
 Annex – D2
V1 0.100
Third stage V2 0.129
V3 0.158

Note : The peripheral speed of a paddle wheel mixer should be limited to 0.40 m/s for alum
coagulation and 0.50 m/s for lime softening flocculation

Note: that slow mixing can be provided at low intensity in order to form smaller flocs for
flotation techniques used in DAF system.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-28
 Annex – E1

Annex-E.1: Design Example – Horizontal Flow Sedimentation

Basin
Design daily demand = 16,125 m3/day
Q = 672 m3/hr

DESIGN DATA (Page 5-52)

Recommended range of detention time = 2-4 hrs
Recommended range of basin depth D = 2.5 – 4.0 m
Recommended range of L: W = 3-6
Max. Length / Depth ratio L/D = 20
Additional depth for sludge storage = 0.15 - 0.3 m
Recommended average velocity in basin < 0.02 m/s

1. Design of Tank
Assume the detention time T = 3 hrs
So, volume of the basin V = Q×T
= 672×3
V = 2,016 m3

Assume the depth D = 3 m

So, Horizontal Area of the basin AT = V/D
= 2,016/3
AT = 672 m2
Provide no. of basins N = 4
Area of one basin A = 672/4
= 168 m2
Select width of the Sedimentation basin B = 3 m
Length of the Sedimentation basin L = 168/3 m
= 56.0 m
Allowance for inlet baffles arrangement = 1.0 m

Flow rate per basin Q = 16,125/4 m3/d

= 4,031 m3/d
= 0.047 m3/s

Length / Depth ratio L/D = 56 /3

= 18.67 (<20)
Max. Length / Depth ratio L/D = 20 (<60)
Hence, ok
Average velocity in basin = Q/flow area
= 0.047/(3.0×3)
= 0.005 m/s
Recommended average velocity in basin < 0.02 m/s
Note: The range given by R.L. Sanks is 0.005 - 0.03 m/s

2. Sludge Storage
For manual cleaning bottom slope = 10 %
Additional depth for sludge storage = 0.15 - 0.3 m
So, minimum required volume = 0.3×L W
0.3×56×3 = 50.4 m3
Assume the free board of the basin = 0.3 m
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-29
 Annex – E1
So, allowing free board,
h1 = 4.05 m
h2 = 4.20 m
h3 = 5.10 m
h4 = 3.30 m
LF L1 L2
L2/L1 = 2.0
h3' = 4.80 m
h4
h1 h2 h2' = 3.90m
h3 h1' = 3.75 m
Baffle wall
h4' = 3.00 m
L1' = 9.0 m
L2' = 18.0 m

Figure A 12: Sizing of Sedimentation basin

3. Surface loading rate (Q/A)
If one basin is not functioning Q/A = 672/ 5/ (5.5×27)
= 0. 90 m3/h/m2
If all basins are functioning Q/A = 672/ 6/(5.5×27)
= 0.75 m3/h/m2

Table A 7 : Recommended surface loading rates

Q/A, m3/hrs per m2 (m/hr)
Type
Normal conditions Easy conditions Very bad conditions
No- pre-treatment 0.50 1.00 0.10
With chemical coagulation 0.75 1.00 0.40
With coagulant aids 1.13 1.50 0.75

This is o.k. with chemical coagulation in normal condition.

4. Inlet Baffle
Consider a perforated baffle wall at 1.0 m
away from inlet point, LF =1m
Velocity through perforated baffle = 0.2 - 0.3 m/s
Assume port velocity (Vp) = 0.3 m/s
Required port area = Q/Vp
AT = 0.031/0.3= 0.10 m2
Assume diameter of ports Dp = 0.05 m
Area of a port Ap= πr2 = 3.14 x 0.052/4=0.00196 m2
No. of ports Np = AT/Np
= 0.1/0.00196= 53 Nos

1 / 4 of the water depth

No. of ports
Horizontally = x Half of the water depth
Vertically = y

Figure A 13: Inlet port of Sedimentation basin

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-30
 Annex – E1
The height between first row and last raw of opening is restricted to half of the water depth.
Water depth h2’ = 3.9 m
So, Let Spacing between ports
No. of column of ports @ 450 = 12
No. of rows of ports @ 400 = 5
No. of ports provided 12 x 5 = 60 ≥ 53 Nos.

Head loss through a baffle = 1.7V2/2g

= 1.7×0.32/ (2×9.81)
= 8 mm
5. Outlet Arrangement
Flow per basin (Q) = 168 m3/h
Length of weir (w) = 3 m
Weir loading rate = q/w
= 168/3
= 56 m3/m/h
Recommended weir loading rate < 18 m3/m/h
Not Satisfied, Additional length has to be provided.

Weir Length L = 0.2 x Q / (D×Vs)

Where,
Q = Flow rate per basin (m3/day)
Vs = Settling velocity (m/day)
H = Depth of basin (m)
Weir Length L = 0.2 x 112 / (3.0×0.75)
= 9.9 m
No. of troughs nT = 2 Nos.
Total length of weirs L = 2nT.LT+ w
Length of trough LT = 1.725 m
Say, = 4.0 m
So, total overflow length 2×2×4 + 0 = 21.5 m
Actual weir overflow rate = 112/21.5
= 5.21 m3/m/h
Recommended rate < 18 m3/m/h

Flow over weir

Flow rate Q = 1.833 B H3/2
(Derived from Bernooly Equation)
So, flow over weir H0 = (Q/1.833 B)2/3
H0 = (0.031/1.833×21.5)2/3
= 0.009 m
Determination of the depth of trough
Assume the width of the trough = 300 mm
For a free outlet Q = 1.833×B×h3/2
Q = flow rate B = Breadth of the trough
0.031 2/3
ℎ1 = (1.833×0.3)
= 147 mm
The maximum water depth in the trough is at the entrance and it is given by
𝑞2 0.0312
ℎ2 = ℎ1 + 2𝑔ℎ12 𝐵2 = 0.147 + 9.81×2×0.1472×0.32 = 150.78 mm

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-31
 Annex – E1

TWL Free board (Basin)

H0 Trough

DT
h2 h1

LT Collecting
D D Channel D
W
Figure A 14: Detail of Collecting Channel

So assume the depth of trough DT = 200 mm

Head loss at trough = H0 + (DT - h1)

= 9 + 200 - 147
= 62 mm

6. Inlet and outlet channel

Flow Q = 0.031 m3/s
Recommended flow velocity ≤ 0.15 - 0.4 m/s
Assume the flow velocity V = 0.4 m/s
Assume the width of channel B = 400 mm
Maximum water depth D = Q/(V×W)
= 0.031/ (0.4×0.4)
D = 194 mm
say = 200 mm
Allow Free Board = 100 mm

So, select depth of channel DD = 300 mm

From manning equation V = R2/3 S1/2 /n

Hence, Slope of the channel S = (V×n / R2/3)2
n = 0.013
𝐵𝐷
Hydraulic Radius 𝑅 = 2(𝐵+𝐷)
0.40x0.191
= 2(0.40+0.191)
= 0.0986 𝑚

0.40x0.013 2
Slope of the channel 𝑆 = [9.81x(0.0983)2/3 ]
= 0.00059
i.e. Slope 1 : 1684
Provide, slope as 1 : 1600
Head loss at outlet = h1+ DD-D
147 + 300 - 194 = 253 mm

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-32
 Annex – E1
7. Sludge Drain Diameter (Check for Scour Criteria)
For auto collection slope to be maintained = 10%
For mechanical collection velocity travel of the devices = 0.30 m/min

Calculation of pipe diameter for the scour line,

𝑞 = 𝐶 × 𝑎√𝑔ℎ
C = 0.6
a = sectional area
h = 3.9 m
(ℎ1+ℎ3) (ℎ4+ℎ3)
Volume of a basin, V = [ 2 𝑥 (𝐿𝐹 + 𝐿1) + 2 𝑥𝐿2] 𝑥5.5

V = 621 m3

Assume the time for emptying = 30 min

q = 621/ (30×60)
= 0.345 m3/s
𝑞
𝑎=
𝐶√𝑔ℎ
0.345
= 0.6√9.81×4.6
0.09 m2
1/2
d = (4q/ π)
= 339 mm
Select 400 mm Diameter pipe

Total head loss

Head loss through a baffle = 9 mm
Head loss at trough = 62 mm
Head loss at outlet = 253 mm
Total head loss within sedimentation basin = 9 + 62 + 253
= 324 mm

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-33
 Annex – F1

Annex-E.2: Design Calculation for Lamellar Clarifier

Design Flow = 15000 m3/d
Assumed % losses in treatment plant (5% in practice) = 7.5 %
Required capacity of the aerator = 16,125 m3/day
Periods of Operation (22 hours in practice) T = 24 hr
Hourly Design demand Q = 671.875 m3/hr
Design Flow Rate = 0.187 m3/s

Assume,
A Particle Settling Velocity = 0.6 m/h
Effective Area of Plates = (671.875 /0.6) m2
= 1,042 m2
Assume that the plates are inclined at 600 and are 2 m Long and 1 m Wide.
Then the projected area of one plate “a” would be;
a = 2 x 1 x Cos 600
= 1
Thus,
Required numbers of plates = (1,042/1) nos
= 1,042 nos
The clarifiers require quiescent settling and this requires a Reynolds Number of less than 800.
Consider a plate spacing of 50 mm.
Then;
Velocity of Water = [(625 / 3600)/1042 ] / ( 0.05 × 2 ) m/s
= 0.0017 m/s
Check for the Reynolds number;
Re = (D v d)/neu

Where,
Re = Reynolds Number
D = Density of water
v = velocity
neu = dynamic viscosity of water
d = Spacing between the Plates
Reynolds Number (Re) = 1000 × 0.0017 × 0.05 / 0.001791 = 48 < 800
Which is satisfactory.
In practice, the plate area would be increased to allow for entry and exit effects, typically by
25% to of the actual requirement of plates.
Accordingly,
Total nos of plates = (1042 × 1.25) Plates
= 1302.5 Plates
No. of Plates per Tank = 1302.5 / 3
= 434.17 Plates
Say = 435
Length of the tank = [No. of Plates per Tank x (Spacing between the Plates + Plate
Thickness) /Cos 300 + z
Length of the tank = 435 × ( 50 + 10) × 103 / Cos(900 - 600) + 1 × Cos( 600)
Length of the tank = 30.141 + 0.5
= 30.641
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-34
 Annex – F1

Assume, that 3 tanks are provided and plate thickness is 10 mm.

The surface area of a tank = 2 × [435 × ( 0.05 + 0.01 )/Cos 300 + 1 × Cos 600]
= 61 m2

Thus, Total area of all tanks = 61.3 × 3

= 183.9 m2

Accordingly,
The apparent surface loading = (15000/ 183.9) /24 m3/m2/h
= 3.4 m/h
0
Height of a Tank = 1 × Sin 60
= 1 × 0.866 m
= 0.866 m

Voulme of a Tank = 183.9 × 0.866 m3

= 159.26 m3
Detention time of the Clarifier = (159.26/625) × 60 min
= 15.3 min
Note : It would be better to provide detention time of more than 45 minutes considering
whole volume of the tank including sludge cones etc. for easy operation.

Results of the Design Calculation

Length of Plate = 2 m
Width of Plate = 1 m
Inclination of Plates = 600
Spacing between plates = 50 mm
Plate Thickness = 10 mm
No of Plates per Tank = 435 Nos
No of Tanks = 3 Nos

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-35
 Annex – F1

Annex-E.3: Design Example – Hopper Bottom Clarifier

Design Capacity of Treatment Plant Qdesign = 16,125 m3/day
Qdesign = 0.187 m3/sec

Design Data
Recommended surface loading (m3/hr /m2) = 1.25 - 2.50
Recommended weir loading per weir length ≤ 215 m3/day/m
Required detention time = 2 hrs
Not usually used as a criteria

1. Hydraulic Sizing
Provided No. of clarifier units N = 6 Nr
Flow through single unit q = 16,125 / 6
(112.0 m3/hr) = 0.031 m3/sec

Assumed surface loading rate Q/A = 2 m3/hr/m2

Area required A = 112/ 2
56.0 m2
Shape of the tank in plan = Rectangular
Side length (Diameter for circular tank) √56 = 7.48 m
Select Side length (Diameter for circular tank) B = 8.00 m

Side length / Diameter at the bottom b = 1.10 m

Angle of the sides with horizontal plane ϴ = 60 deg
Height of the conical part = (B-b)/2×tan(ϴ)

Height of the conical part = 6.0 m

Total height of the pyramid = B/2×tan(ϴ) m
= 6.9 m
Hieght of the small pyramid = b/2×tan(ϴ) m
= 0.95 m
Volume of the conical part = 1/3× (6.9×B2- 0.95×b2)
1 2 2
× (6.9 × 8 − 0.95 × 1.1 ) = 147 m3
3

Provision volume for sludge storage Δ = 25 %

𝑉 147
Hence the effective volume 𝑉𝑒 = (1+∆) = (1+0.25) = 118 m3

Height of clear water zone Hc = 2.00 m

Volume of clear water zone = Hc × B2
= 2.0 × 8.02
= 128 m3

Total Volume a the tank V = 118 + 128

= 246 m3

But V = Q×T
Hence detention time provided T = V/Q
= 218 / 112
T = 1.95 hrs
Flow velocity at the hopper bottom v = Q /A
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-36
 Annex – F1
= 112 / 1.12
= 92.5 m/hr
Flow velocity at the top v = Q /A
= 112 / 82
= 1.75 m/hr

Inlet
Settled water channel Decanting trough

Sludge
concentrator

Sludge
concentrator

Bottom sludge
extractor pipe

Figure A 15: Sizing of Hopper Bottom Sludge Blanket Clarifier

2. Inlet Arrangements

Inlet Channel
This channel will carry the total flow
Qdesign = 0.187 m3/sec
Assume breadth of channel B = 0.60 m
Recommended maximum velocity in m/s = 0.20 - 0.40
Assume flow velocity v = 0.40 m/s
This is to avoid disturbance of flocs

Normal depth in the channel h = Qdesign /Bv

= 0.187 / (0.6 × 0.4)
= 0.778 m
Assume channel depth as D = 1.10 m
Available free board = 1.10 - 0.778
= 0.322 m

Weir Equation Q = 1.84 Bhw3/2

2
𝑄 3
Minimum depth of water in inlet channel ℎ𝑤 =( )
1.84𝐵
0.187 2/3
= (1.84x0.60)
hw = 0.306 m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-37
 Annex – F1
Inlet Pipe
Single pipe is provided per a tank
Diameter of the pipe = 250 mm
Velocity of the flow = Q/A
= 0.031 / 0.049
= 0.634 m/s
Recommended maximum velocity in m/s = 0.60 - 1.80

Length of pipe = 10 m
𝐻 6.81 𝑉 1.85
= 𝐷1.167 × (𝐶 )
𝐿
Hazen William Coefficient C = 130
𝐻 6.81 0.44 1.85
= 0.251.167 × ( 130 )
𝐿
= 1.81 mm/m
Hf = 1.81×10
= 18.1 mm

3. Outlet Arrangement

Design of Collecting Channel

Weir Length L = 8.0 m
No. of collecting channel per tank N = 4 Nr
Flow through a collecting channel Qc = 0.031 / 4
= 0.008 m3/s

Assume breadth of channel Bc = 0.25 m

Recommended maximum velocity in m/s = 0.20 - 0.40
Assume flow velocity Vc = 0.40 m/s

Normal depth in the channel hc = Qc /BcVc

= 0.008 / (0.25×0.40)
= 0.078 m

Weir Equation Q = 1.84 Bhw3/2

2
𝑄 3
Depth of water in collecting channels ℎ𝑤 = (1.84𝐵)
2
0.008 3
= (1.84×0.25)
hw = 0.066 m
hw < hc
The depth of channel depend on the depth of slots

Design of Slot
No. of slots per side of a collecting channel = 12 Nr
Since slots are provided both sides N = 24 Nr
Flow through a collecting channel Q = 0.008 / 24
= 0.0003 m3/sec

Weir Equation Q = 1.84 Bhw3/2

Width of a slot Bs = 0.05 m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-38
 Annex – F1
2
𝑄 3
Depth of water in slots ℎ𝑤 =( )
1.84𝐵
2
0.0003 3
= (1.84×0.05)
hw = 0.023 m
Assume depth of a slot as Ds = 0.06 m
Available free board 0.06 – 0.023 = 0.037 m
𝑄
Flow velocity through a slot 𝑉𝑆 = 𝐵𝑠×𝐻𝑤
0.0003
= 0.05×0.023
Vs = 0.26 m/s
Recommended maximum velocity in m/s = 0.20 - 0.40
Since the depth of collecting channel should accommodate slots,
Provide channel depth as D = 0.066 + 0.06
= 0.126 m
Minimum depth to satisfy maximum velocity hc = 0.078 m
Dc = 0.35 m
Available free board 0.350- 0.126 = 0.224 m
Qc
Flow velocity through a collecting channel VC =
Bc×Hw
0.008
= 0.25×0.126

Vc = 0.25 m/s
Recommended maximum velocity in m/s = 0.20 - 0.40
Outlet Channel
This channel will carry the total flow
Qdesign = 0.187 m3/sec
Assume breadth of channel Bo = 0.6 m
Recommended maximum velocity in m/s = 0.20 - 0.40
Assume flow velocity Vo = 0.4 m/s
Qc 0.187
Normal depth in the channel D= =
Bo×Vo 0.60×0.40

= 0.778 m
Assume channel depth as Do = 1.10 m
Available free board 1.10 – 0.778 = 0.322 m

Weir Equation Q = 1.84 Bhw3/2

2
𝑄 3
ℎ𝑤 =( )
1.84𝐵
2
0.187 3
=(1.84×0.60)

Depth of water in inlet channel hw = 0.306 < 1.0 m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-39
 Annex – F1
4. Check against Backflow
To avoid back flow in the clarifier in operation when bypassing a clarifier for maintenance
work
Ds
Dc

ho
S

Figure A 16: Check against backflow

Height of collecting channel above outlet channel = 0.2 m
ho-S = 0.78 - 0.2
= 0.58 m
Dc-Ds = 0.35 - 0.06
= 0.29 m
Dc-Ds > ho-S
5. Design of Scour pipe
Diameter of the pipe = 250 mm
Assume the % of waste water (Peak) Δ = 20 %
Sludge flow rate QS = ΔQ
= 3,225 m3/day
= 3,225 / 24 × 3600
= 0.037 m3/sec
Velocity of the flow = Q/A
= 0.04 / 0.049
= 0.76 m/s
Recommended maximum velocity in m/s = 0.60 - 1.80

Length of pipe = 6 m
𝐻 6.81 𝑉 1.85
= 𝐷1.167 × (𝐶 )
𝐿

Hazen William Coefficient C = 130

𝐻 6.81 0.76 1.85

= 0.251.167 × ( 130 )
𝐿
= 2.54 mm/m

H = 2.54×6
= 15.24 mm

6. Hydraulic Sizing of Sludge Cones

Provided No. of cones N = 2 Nr
Assume the % of Sludge (Peak) Δ = 1.5 %
Sludge flow rate QS = ΔQ
= 242 m3/day
Flow through single unit q = 242 / 2 m3/day
= 121 m3/day
= 5.04 m3/hr
= 0.0014 m3/sec

Provide Volume for 2 hour requirement Vs = 10.08 m3

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-40
 Annex – F1

Shape of the tank in plan = Rectangular

Height of sludge cone = 2.0 m
Side length / Diameter at bottom b = 1.10 m
Angle of the sides with horizontal plane  = 60 deg

Hence, Side length / Diameter = b+2H/tan(ϴ)

= 3.41 m
Volume of sludge zone = 1/3× (2×B2-0.95×b2)
= 11.06 m3
Required Volume for 2 hour Vs = 10.08 m3

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-41
 Annex – F1

Annex-E.4: Design Example – Design of DAF

Plant input = 15000 m3/day

Plant input (with 7.5% losses) = (15000 × 1.075/24)

= 672 m3/hr
Section 10-9 Dissolved Air Flotation
Assume Recycling rate = 12 %
*Recycle ratio between 6-12 % of influent flow (MWH s Water Treatment Principles and
Design, Third Edition)
Plant flow (with 12% recycle) = (672 × 1.12)
= 753 m3/hr
Number of DAFs = 3 units
*Minimum number shall be 2 nos.
Minimum in operation = 2 units
Nominal flow per DAF (3 operating) = (752.64/3)
= 251 m3/hr
Maximum flow per DAF (2 operating) = (752.64/2)
= 376 m3/hr
[Nominal rise rate (excluding recycle)
when 3 in operation = 9 m/hr When 2 in operation < 9m/h
Maximum rise rate (excluding recycle)
when 3 in operation = 12 m/hr When 2 in operation
<12m/h]

Approximate Area required for DAFs (per DAF)

to achieve above nominal rise rate = (408/9)
= 28 m2
Approximate Area required for DAFs (per DAF)
to achieve above maximum rise rate = (376.32/12)
= 31 m2
Dimensions of DAF
Let assume length (L)
from headwall to float beach (separation zone) = 6.50 m
*Shall be < 11m
Let assume width (W) = 5.3 m
In order to compatible with mechanical equipment
L: W ratio = (6.5/5.25)
= 1.24
*L:W shall be between 1-1.25
Actual Area of single DAF basin = (6.5×5.25)
= 34.125 m2
Hence OK
Total Surface Area of 6 basins = (34.125×3)
= 102.38 m2
*Shall be between 90-110 m2
Surface Hydraulic Loading Rate(conventional)
when 5 in operation = (376.32/34.125)
= 11.03 m/hr
* Shall be between 10-20 m/hr
Maximum hydraulic capacity for single basin = (376.32/3600)
= 0.10 m3/s
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-42
 Annex – F1
*Shall be between 0.25-0.5 m3/s
Assume Depth of the Basin = 3.0 m
* Shall be between 2.5-3 m
Basin cross flow velocity = (376.32/(5.25×3)
= 23.9 m/hr
* Shall be between 18-100 m/hr

Residence time
Volume per DAF (settling zone) = (6.5×5.25×3)
= 102.4 m3
Residence in DAF when 6 in operation = (102.375/408) ×60
= 24.5 mins
Residence in DAF when 5 in operation = 102.375/376.32) ×60
= 16.3 mins
Hydraulic rise rates
Actual nominal rise rate when 6 DAFs in operation
(excluding recycle) = (408/34.125)
= 7.4 m/hr
Shall be < 9m/h, when 6 in operation
Actual max rise rate when 5 DAFs in operation
(excluding recycle) = (376.32/34.125)
= 11.0 m/hr
Shall be < 12 m/h, when 5 in operation

Void under Head Wall (entry to contact zone)

Maximum Velocity under Head Wall = 0.04 m/s
Shall be < 0.04 m/s: Industry norm
Height of void = (376.32)/3600/(5.25×0.04)
= 0.498 m

Set height of void at entry to contact zone (flocculate to contact zone)

Roundup Height of Void = 0.500 m
set as = 500 mm

Check for Maximum Velocity under Head Wall = (376.32/(500/1000) ×5.25)/3600)

= 0.040 m/s
Hence OK
Void at end of Separation Zone (exit from separation zone)
Maximum velocity = 0.05 m/s
Industry norm
Height of void = (376.32/3600)/(5.25×0.05)
= 0.398 m

Set height of void at end of Separation Zone (DAF outlet)

Roundup Height of Void = 0.400 m
set = 400 mm
dia. perforated SS pipe

Check for Maximum Velocity at

exist from separation zone = (376.32/3600)/(5.25×400/1000)
= 0.05 m/s
Hence OK
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-43
 Annex – F1
Void over Angled Baffle Wall from Contact Zone to Settling Zone
Maximum Baffle Clearance Velocity = 0.015 m/s
* Maximum Baffle Clearance Velocity shall be 55 m/h(0.015m/s)
Hence Height of Void = (376.32/3600)/(5.25×0.015)
= 1.303 m
Set height of void as
Roundup Height of Void = 1.310 m
Set as = 1310 mm
Check for Maximum Baffle Clearance Velocity = ((376.32/((1310/1000)×5.25))/3600)
= 0.015 m/s
Hence OK
Contact Zone Details
Vertical Height of angled baffle wall = (3-(1310/1000))
= 1.69 m
Assume Contact zone baffle angle = 60.0 degree
* Shall be between 60-90 degree to horizontal
Assume top width of Contact Zone as = 1.25 m
According to the past Experience
Lower width of contact Zone at void =((1.25-1.69/TAN(60×(22/7)×(1/180))))
= 0.275 m
Set Lower width of section of contact Zone below head wall
Roundup Height of Void = 0.280 m
set as = 280 mm
Contact zone Volume
= (1.69×5.25×(1.25+(280/1000))/2)
Contact zone detention time = (8.4/376.32) ×3600)
= 65 s
Shall be between 60-240 s
Contact zone hydraulic loading rate = (376.32/(5.25×1.25)
= 57.3 m/hr
Shall be between 35-100 m/hr
L: W ratio excluding contact zone = (6.5-1.25)/5.25
= 1.00
L:W shall be between 1-1.25
Sludge production
WTP input flow = (672×1.12)
= 753 m3/hr
(see average sludge production spread sheet) = (752.64/3600)
= 0.209 m3/s
Sludge produced per day (average)
Plant input (with 7.5% losses) = 15 000×1.075/24
= 672 m3/hr
Dry Solids (mg/l) = X + S + H + C + Fe + Mn + P + L + Y
Alum dose = 20 mg/l
Maximum = 50 mg/l
Alum sludge conversion factor = 0.26
PACL Dry solids due to Alum (X)
Average = 20×0.26 mg/l
= 5.2 mg/l
Maximum = 50×0.26 mg/l
= 13.0 mg/l
Average turbidity = 50 NTU
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-44
 Annex – F1
Maximum = 200 NTU SS conv

SS Dry solids due to SS (S)

Average = 50×1.5 mg/l
= 75 mg/l
Maximum = 200×1.5 mg/l
= 300 mg/l
Average colour = 300 Hazen
Maximum = 1300 Hazen Colour
Colour Dry solids due to Colour(H)
Average = 300×0.2 mg/l
= 60 mg/l
Maximum = 1300×0.2 mg/l
= 260 mg/l
Average chlorophyll = 1.00 mg/l
Maximum = 600.00 mg/l
Conversion factor = 0.200

Algae Dry solids due to Algae ( C )

Average = 1×0.2
= 0.200 mg/l
Maximum = 600×0.2
= 120.000 mg/l
Average iron in water = 0.30 mg/l
Maximum = 1.00 mg/l Conver
Iron Dry solids due to iron (Fe)
Average = 0.3×1.9
= 0.6 mg/l
Maximum = 1×1.9
= 1.9 mg/l
Average Mn in water = 0.10 mg/l
Maximum = 0.30 mg/l
Conversion factor = 1.6
Manganese Dry solids due to Mn (Mn)
Average = 0.05 mg/l
Maximum = 0.11 mg/l
PAC added = 0 mg/l
Conversion factor = 1

PAC Dry solids due to PAC(P) = 0×1

= 0.00 mg/l
Lime dose rate
Average = 3 mg/l
Maximum = 0 mg/l
Conversion factor = 1

Lime Dry solids due to lime (L) = 0.00 mg/l

Polymer dose = 0 mg/l
Conversion factor = 1

Polymer Solids due to polymer (Y) = 0×1 mg/l

= 0.00 mg/l
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-45
 Annex – F1
Total dry solids
Average = 5.2+75+60+0.2+0.6+0.05
= 141.05 mg/l / Kg/MLD
Maximum = 13+300+260+120+1.9+0.11
= 695.01 mg/l / Kg/MLD
Average Dry solids /day = (141.05×672×1000/106) ×24
= 2274.85 kg/day
max to be used for thickener

Plant flow (SS component + Alum component + Algae component)

Solids loading rates

Hence nominal solids loading rate (6 DAFs on line) = ((2274.85/24)/(3))/(5.25×6.5)
= 0.93 kg/m2/hr
Maximum solids loading rate ( 5 DAFs) = ((2274.8575/24)/2)/(5.25×6.5)
= 1.39 kg/m2/hr
Assume % solids in DAF float = 1 %
= 10 g/l
Hence volume of sludge per day
(average)(2273.9475/10) = 227.39 m3/day
Assume Emptied in = 3 hrs
Volume required = (227.39475×3)/24)
= 28.4 m3

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-46
 Annex – F1

Annex-F.1: Design Example – Rapid Sand Filter

a) Filter with Nozzels
Design Data

Daily Demand = 15000 m3/dayWash

water consumption = 1-6%
Recommended range of Filtration = 120 -360 m3/m2 day
Required Length : Width ratio = 1.25 -1.33
Uniformity Coefficient of Sand = 1.5 - 2.0
Effective Size of Sand = 0.4 - 1.2 mm
Thickness of Sand Layer = 0.6 - 1.0 m
Effective Size of Gravel = 2 - 50 mm
Thickness of Gravel Layer = 0.3 - 0.6 m

Hydraulic Calculation for the Filter

Design Capacity of Treatment Plant = 15000 m3/day

Assume, Treatment plant loss = 7.5%
Design flow through filters = 16,125 m3/day
Q = 4.26 mgd
3
(US Gallon - 1 mgd = 3785 m /day)

Dimension of Filter
Recommended range of Filtration (m3/m2 day) = 120 - 360
Assumed Filtration Rate = 200 m3/m2 day
No. of Filters (Rule of thumps) N = 1.2 Q0.5
Where - Q in m3/hr N = 2.5

Note: The minimum number of filters for very small plants processing less than 2 mgd (90
l/s) is two. If the capacity of the plant exceeds 2 mgd, the minimum number of filters becomes
four. (Susumu Kawamura) However provision of minimum 3 filters is advisable

Provided No. of Filter units N = 5

Area of Filter beds = Design Flow / Filtration Rate
= 16125 / 200
= 80.6 m2 Required
Area per filter bed = 80.6 / 5
Area per filter bed = 16.13 m2
Length to Width ratio is within 1.25-1.33
Assume, L: W = 1.3
LxW = 16.13 m2
L = 4.58 m
W = 3.52
L = 4.6 m
Selected Dimensions L&W = 4.60 x 3.60
= 16.56 m2
L/W = 1.28
Hence, Dimensions are Satisfactory.
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-47
 Annex – F1

Flow through a single filter = 16125 / 5

= 3225 m3/day
Actual filtration rate = 3225 / 16.56
= 194.7 m3/m2/day
Filtration rate is between 120 to 360 m3/m2/day
Hence, Satisfied

When one filter is out of order, Overloading Factor=Total filter beds/(Total filter bed-1)
= 5/(5-1)
= 1.25
Overloading Filtration rate = 194.7 × 1.25
= 243.4 m3/m2/day

Filtration rate is between 120 to 360 m3/m2/day

Hence, Satisfied 5
When one filter is out of order and one is back washed, Overloading Factor 5/(5-3)=1.67
Filtration rate = 194.7464 × 1.67
= 325.23 m3/m2/day
Filtration rate is between 120 to 360 m3/m2/day
Assume peak factor = 1.5
Filtration rate = 194.7 × 1.5
= 292 m3/m2/day

Filtration rate is between 120 to 360 m3/m2/day

Hence, Satisfied
average filtration rate = 194.7 m3/m2 day
Average filtration rate = 2.254 mm/sec
= 8.11 m3/m2/ hr
Maximum filtration rate = 3.381 mm/sec
= 12.17 m3/m2/ hr
Minimum filtration rate = 1.127 mm/sec
= 4.06 m3/m2/ hr
Filter Media Design
(a) Sand media

Specific Gravity = 2.65

Uniformity Coefficient = 1.5 - 2.0
Effective size /(mm) = 0.4 - 1.2 mm
Recommended Thickness of sand layer/ (m) = 0.6 - 1.0 m

Let's assume
Uniformity Coefficient = 1.5
Effective size = 0.55 mm
Thickness of sand layer = d10 ×1200
= 0.55 × 1200
= 660 mm
Depth of sand layer = 900 mm

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-48
 Annex – F1
Note: sand depth of 900 mm is use for calculation of headloss for modifing the filter bed with
deep monomedium sand bed of higher effective size inorder to increase the filtration rate in
the future
(b) Gravel media

Effective size /(mm) = 2 - 50 mm

Thickness of gravel layer/ (m) = 0.3 - 0.6 m

Select,

Total Media depth = 200 mm

No of layers = 1 Nos.
Size /(mm) = 5 - 10

Ds = 900 mm
Gravel Dg = 200 mm
Ds

Dg

Head Loss during Filtration

(A) Head Loss through Filter Media during Filtration

The theoretical head loss for a laminar flow through a porous media is given by

Kozenique Equation;
h/l = ku/g x V(1-v)2/v3 (6/y)2 sum(xi/di2)
Where, the Kozeny coefficient k = 5

Kinetic Viscosity at 250 C u = 1.009 mm2/s

Shape factor for angular material y = 0.75
Depth of Media (L), for Sand = 0.900 m
Gravel = 0.200 m
Porosity of media (v), for Sand = 0.4
Gravel = 0.4
Filtration Rate = V mm/sec
Head loss through Media = h m

Table A 8 : Sand Sieve Analysis (From D3 Manual)

Geometric Mean Size Fraction Between

d (Passing) (mm) d (Retained) (mm) xi/di2
di = √d1d2 Sieves

0.42 0.292 0.35 0.01 0.082

0.595 0.42 0.5 0.16 0.65
0.707 0.595 0.65 0.2 0.473
0.841 0.707 0.77 0.25 0.422
1 0.841 0.92 0.21 0.248
1.41 1 1.19 0.16 0.103
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-49
 Annex – F1
1.68 1.41 1.54 0.01 0.004
1.000 1.982
From Sieve analysis selected Sand Media has Property of
sum(xi/di2) = 1.982
h/l = 0.185 × V × sum(xi/di2)

(a) Head Loss through Sand Media during Filtration

(i) When filters are operating at average filtration rate = 2.254 mm/sec

h/l = 1.982 × 0.185 x 2.254

h/l = 0.827 m/m
hs,avg. = 0.9 × 0.827 m
hs,avg. = 0.744 m

(ii) At maximum filtration rate h/l = 3.381 × 0.827/2.254

h/l = 1.241 m/m
hs,max. = 3.381 × 0.744/2.254
hs,max. = 1.116 m

(iii) At minimum filtration rate h/l = 0.827 × 1.127/2.254

h/l = 0.414 m/m
hs,min. = 0.744 × 1.127/2.254
hs,min. = 0.372 m

(b) Head Loss through Gravel Media during Filtration

h/l = 0.185× V× sum(xi/di2)

(i) When filters are operating at average filtration rate = 2.254 mm/sec

(h/l )/Sum(xi/di2) = 0.417 m/m

For various sizes of Gravel media, Sum(xi/di2) varies as shown table.

Layer Sum(xi/di2) h/l l(mm)) h(mm)

Layer 1 (5 to 10 mm) 0.050 0.021 200 4.2
4.2

Total head loss through gravel media at

average filtration rate = 4.2 mm
(ii) When filters are operating at maximum filtration rate = 3.381 mm/sec
(h/l )/Sum(xi/di2) = 0.626 m/m

Layer Sum(xi/di2) h/l l(mm) h(mm)

Layer 1 (5 to 10 mm) 0.050 0.031 200 6.3

Total head loss through gravel media at maximum

filtration rate = 6.3 mm
(iii) When filters are operating at minimum filtration rate = 1.127 mm/sec
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-50
 Annex – F1
(h/l )/Sum(xi/di2) = 0.2087 m/m

Layer Sum (xi/di2) h/l l (mm) h (mm)

Layer 1 (5 to 10 mm) 0.050 0.010 200 2.1
2.1

Total head loss through gravel media at minimum filtration rate = 2.1 mm

Head Loss in Filter Media for Various Filtration Rates during Filtration

Head loss in filter media is proportional to the rate of flow

Head loss(m)
Filtration rate (m/hr) Total
Sand Gravel
12.00 1.100 0.006 1.106
12.17 1.116 0.006 1.122 Maximum Flow
10.00 0.917 0.005 0.922
8.00 0.734 0.004 0.738
8.11 0.744 0.004 0.748 Average Flow
6.00 0.550 0.003 0.553
4.00 0.367 0.002 0.369
4.06 0.372 0.002 0.374 Minimum Flow
2.00 0.183 0.001 0.184

(B) Head Loss through under drain System (Through Nozzles) during Filtration

Head Loss in Nozzles

Nozzle spacing should be limited to 125 - 150 mm for minimizing dead areas during back
washing

Assume Diameter of the Nozzles = 22 mm

Dimensions of a filter bed
Length = 4.6 m
Width = 3.6 m
Assume
No of slabs in long span of the bed = 6 nos
No of slabs in short span of the bed = 5 nos
Spacing between nozzle in long span of slab = 0.125
Spacing between nozzle in short span of slab = 0.125
Edge spacing of nozzle in long span of slab = 0.125/2
= 0.063 m
Edge spacing of nozzle in short span of slab = 0.125/2
= 0.063 m
Dimension of a slab
Proposed Length of a slab = 0.767 m
Proposed Width of a slab = 0.720 m
No of nozzles in long span of slab = (0.767 - 2 x 0.063)/0.125+1
= 6 nos
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-51
 Annex – F1
No of nozzles in short span of slab = (0.720-2 x 0.063)/0.125+1
= 6 nos
No. of Nozzles per Pre cast Slab = 36 nos
No. of Nozzles per m2 = 65 nos
No. of Nozzles per bed = 1,080 nos

Hence,
Required Length of a slab = 4.6/6 m
= 0.767 m
Required Width of a slab = 3.6/6 m
= 0.600 m
Manufacture's Head loss curve for selected nozzle

Ds
Figure A 17: Manufacture Surve
(i) When filters are operating at average filtration rate,

Average filtration rate = 2.254 mm/sec

= 8.114 m/hr
No. of Nozzles per m2 = 65.2
Flow rate per nozzle = 0.124 m/hr
Head loss of a nozzel
(as per the manufacture's Headloss curve) = 0.010 m

(ii) When filters are operating at maximum filtration rate,

Maximum filtration rate = 3.381 mm/sec
= 12.172 m/hr
No. of Nozzles per m2 = 65.2
Flow rate per nozzle = 0.187 m/hr
Head loss of a nozzle
(as per the manufacture’s Headloss curve) = 0.016 m
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-52
 Annex – F1

(iii) When filters are operating at minimum filtration rate,

Minimum filtration rate = 1.127 mm/sec

= 4.057 m/hr
No. of Nozzles per m2 = 65.2
Flow rate per nozzle = 0.0622 m/hr
Head loss of a nozzel
(as per the manufacture,s Headloss curve) = 0 m

Summary of Losses per Nozzle

At Average Filtration rate = 0.010 m

At Maximum Filtration rate = 0.016 m
At Minimum Filtration rate = 0.000 m

Table A 9 : Head Loss through under drain System (Through Nozzles) for Various
Filtration Rates during Filtration
Filtration rate Head loss
(m/hr) ( m)
12.00 0.010
12.17 0.016
10.00 0.010
8.00 0.005
8.11 0.010
6.00 0.004
4.00 0.000
4.06 0.000
2.00 0.000

(C) Head Loss in Filtered Water Exit Pipe from Filter Beds to Filtered Water Collecting
Channel, during Filtration

Frictional head loss in pipes can be expressed as following form

H =kv2/2g + f(L, Q, c,d) + Sum(ki v2/2g)

As these values are in low order, hence f(L) is negligible

k- Headloss factor Corresponds to entrance pipe flushes with tank = 0.5
ki - Headloss factor of each Special

Therefore,
H = {(k+ Sum(ki)} v2/2g
Filtration through one filter unit (Q) = 0.037 m3/sec
Assume dia. of filtered water exit pipe as = 250 mm
Velocity of flow (V) = 0.760 m/s
Velocity head loss = V2/2g = 0.029 m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-53
 Annex – F1

Table A 10 : Headloss Factors in filtered water exit pipe

Pipe special or fittings Head loss factor Ki
Entrance pipe flush with tank 0.5
Run of two tees 1.2
Orifice meter 2.5
Butter Fly valve 0.48
Exit pipe flush with tank 1.0
Two Bends 0.6
Sum Ki 6.28

Total Headloss in the Filtered Water Exit Pipe during Filtration = 0.020 x 6.28 m
= 0.200 m
Head Loss in Filtered Water Exit Pipe from Filter Beds to Filtered Water Collecting
Channel for Various Filtration Rates during Filtration
Head loss is a function of V2
Table A 11 : Head loss in filtered water exit pipe
Filtration rate (m/hr) Head loss(m)
12.00 0.437
12.17 0.449 Maximum flow
10.00 0.303
8.00 0.194
8.11 0.200 Average flow
6.00 0.109
4.00 0.049
4.06 0.050 Minimum flow
2.00 0.012

Table A 12 : Summary of Head Losses during Filtration

Head loss (m)
Filtration rate
Filter Nozzel Pipe Total
(m/hr) Media Work
12.00 1.106 0.010 0.437 1.553
12.17 1.122 0.016 0.449 1.587 Maximum flow
10.00 0.922 0.010 0.303 1.235
8.11 0.738 0.005 0.194 0.937
8.00 0.748 0.010 0.200 0.958 Average flow
6.00 0.553 0.004 0.109 0.666
4.00 0.369 0.000 0.049 0.417
4.06 0.374 0.000 0.050 0.424 Minimum flow
2.00 0.184 0.000 0.012 0.197

Max. clogging head /m = 1.22 - 2.44

Assume max. clogging head = 2.2 m
so, total head needed for the min. filtration rate = 2.2 m
Assume Low water level of the filter above the Effluent Weir = 2.00 m
Total Head Loss in the Filter at the max. Filtration Rate = 1.587 m
Required Orifice Meter Loss (LWL-HL at max.) = 0.413 m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-54
 Annex – F1
Detail of Filter

Figure A 18: Detail of filter

DA = 400 mm
DT = 475 mm
DL = 650 mm
D1 = 2400 mm
DS = 900 mm
DG = 500 mm
DF = 4925 mm

Design of Orifice Plate Meter

Low Water Level of the filter above the Effluent Weir = 2.0 m
Required Orifice Meter Loss (LWL-HL at max.) = 2.0 - Filter H.L.
HF1 = 2.0 - 1.587
HF1 = 0.413 m
Overall Orifice Plate Loss = 60% of meter H.L.
So, Total Meter Loss = 0.413 / 0.6
Hw = 0.69 m

Figure A 19: Detail of orifice plate meter

Area of orifice meter A = Q/c.(2gh)1/2
Flow through the filter at max. Filtration rate (l/s) - Q = 0.056 m3/s
Coefficient of discharge - C = 0.6
Total head loss - h = 0.688 m
A = 0.0254 m2
dorifice = 180 mm
dorifice/dpipe = 180 / 250
= 0.72
dorifice/dpipe < 0.8

Hence, Satisfied
Orifice plate thickness = dpipe/50
= 5.0 mm
Say = 5.0 mm
Provide an Orifice Plate of 180 mm diameter and 5.0 mm thick
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-55
 Annex – F1

Figure A 20: Details of Orifice Meter

dO = 180 mm
dPipe = 250 mm

Design of Backwash System

The rapid sand filter reaches it's limiting headloss within 8-24 hrs because of high filtration
rate. When the headloss reaches the limiting headloss, the cleaning of filter has to be done.
This is done by fluidizing the filter media.

The minimum fluidization velocity, Vmf is given by,

Vmf = (0.00381(d60%)1.82 x ((g(gm-g))0.94)/µ0.88

d60% = Diameter of particals
g = Specific weight of fluid
gm = Specific weight of media
µ = Viscocity

For the media selected,

Where g = 62.4 lbf/ft3
gm = 2.65 x γ
.·. gm = 2.65 x 62.4
gm = 165.36 lbf/ft3
d60% = Effective size x Uniformity coefficient
= 0.55 x 1.5
= 0.825 mm

Estimate Media settling velocity

1/3
g (sg-1) /  d
2 2
Settling velocity of sand during back washing=
= 167.70 d m/s
Diameter of particle (60% passing) in mm = d60%
= U.C x D10
Effective size x Uniformity coefficient d60% = 0.55 x 1.50
= 0.83 mm
Settling velocity Vs = 167.7 x1/1000 x 0.825
= 0.138 m/s
Reynolds number using the media settl ing velocity
Reynolds number Remf = Vmf x d60%/
Remf = (0.138 x 0.825 x 10^-3)/(1.009 x 10^-6)
Reynolds number Remf = 112.834
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-56
 Annex – F1
From Graph in AWWA Vol 67, no10, October, 1975
Assume Backwash rate V = 0.013 m/s
le(1-v) = lmf(1-vmf)
or effective backwash is achieved at 10 % of the settling velocity of the media
Backwash flow rate Vb x Af = 0.0132 x 16.56
= 0.219 m3/s
= 13.120 m3/min

Estimate bed expansion

The backwash flow rate should achieve 20 to 50 % expansion of media

Porosity of expanded bed eeb = (Vb / Vs)0.22
= 0.597
le(1-e) = lmf (1-emf)

le = Expanded height of graded sand.

lmf= Initial height of graded sand
lmf = 900 mm
le = 900 x (1-0.4)/(1-0.461)
le = 1339 mm
% of expansion = ( (le-lmf) / lmf )%
= 49%
> 20% - 50%

Selected backwash rate is satisfied.

The drag coefficient CD
For laminar region ( Re<1) = 24 /Re
Shape factor for sand  = 2
Shape factor for coal = 2.25
For transitional region (1< Re<10000) for spherical particle = 24 /Re +3/ Re + 0.34
By trial and error the settling velocity = 0.148 m/s
Normally cleaning of filter is done by fluidization of filter media.
The expanded height of graded media is given by,
Vmf={3.2193 10-11 (d60)1.82 x ([(m-)]0.94}/µ0.88
Where
Density of filter media m = 2650 kg/m3
Diameter of particle (60% passing) in mm d60% = 0.825 mm
Dynamic Viscosity of the fluid µ = 0.001 Ns/m2
so, the minimum fluidization rate Vmf = 0.0069 m/s
Reynolds number Remf = xVmfxd60%/µ
Remf = 3.2
Correction is not required < 10

For 10 < R < 300

Multiplying correction factor KR = 1.775Remf-0.272
KR = 1.292263
Reo = 8.45 xKR Remf
= 35.07515
n = 4.45 Reo- 0.1
= 3.118
Vmf = K.Emfn
Porosity of fixed bed Emf = 0.4
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-57
 Annex – F1
Constant K = VmfKR /Emfn
= 0.1557
Assume Backwash rate V = 0.016 m/s
From graphV = K.n
Porosity of expanded bed  = (V/K)1/n

= 0.4820
le(1-E) = lmf (1-Emf)

Initial height of graded sand lmf = 0.9m

Expanded height of graded sand le = lmf (1-Emf) /(1-E)
= 1.0426 m
% of expansion = (le-lmf/lmf) x 100
= 16%
> 15%-30%
Selected backwash rate is satisfied.

Head Loss during Backwashing

(A) Head Loss through Filter Media during Backwashing

(a) Head Loss through Sand Media during Backwashing

Backwash rate = 0.0132 m/s
Head loss for fluidized sand during backwash = l (Sg-1)(1-v)
= 600 x (2.65-1) x (1-0.597)
= 599 mm
(b) Head Loss through Gravel Media during Backwashing

h/l =150 υ/g(1-v)2/v3xV(1/y)2sum(xi/di2)+1.75 (1-v)/v3xV2/gx (1/y )sum(xi/di)

h/l = 0.002 sum(xi/di2) + 0.000 sum(xi/di)

Layer Xi/di2 l(mm) Xi/di h/l h(mm)

Layer 1 (3 to 6 mm) 0.050 200 0.223 0.000 0.0
Head loss in Gravel Media 0.0

Head loss in Gravel Media = 0.0

Head loss through gravel media = 0.0 mm
Total head loss in sand and gravel media = 800+20.3 mm
Total head loss in sand and gravel media = 598.9 mm

(B) Head Loss through Under drain System (Through Nozzles) during Backwashing
Back wash rate = 0.01 m/s
= 0.01×86400
= 1140 m3/m2 day
Ave. Filtration rate = 195 m3/m2 day
H.L. in under drain system at ave.filtration rate
H2 = 5.00 mm
HL in Under drain during Backwashing = 0.12 m
= 120.00 mm

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-58
 Annex – F1
(C) Head Loss in Filtered Water Exit Pipe from Filter Beds to Filtered Water Collecting
Channel, during Backwashing
Similarly as in Under drains system, H is
proportional to Q2 H1 = H2× Q12/Q22
H2 = 200 mm
H1 = 139×1197 /1712
2

HL in Exit Pipe during Backwashing,

H1 = 6847 mm
Total Head loss during Backwashing
Total Head loss during Backwashing = HL in Sand + HL in Gravel +
HL in Under drain +HL in Exit Pipe = (800+20.3+120 + 6826) / 1000
Total Head loss during Backwashing = 7.57 m

Selection of Backwash Pumps

Back wash flow rate Q = 1140 m3/m2.day
= 0.219 m3/s
Total Head required to Backwash Pumps = Static Head + Head loss
Total HL during Backwasing (allow 10 % for losses) = 7.57× 1.1Total HL during
Backwasing = 8.32 m
Static Head = 3.2 m
Therefore, Total Pump Head H = 11.49 m
Select Efficiency, h = 65 %
Power Requirement P = HQg/
P = (16.3 x 0.277 x 1000 x 9.81)/(0.65 x 1000)
P = 37.89 kW
Details of Backwash Pump

Backwash Rate Q = 0.219 m3/s

Total Pump Head H = 11.49 m
Selected Pump Efficiency h = 65 %
Power Requirement P = 37.89 kW
Check the Water Consumption during Backwashing

Wash water Consumption per Filter run = 1-6%

Assume 7 minutes backwashing and 24 hrs. filter run
Backwash Rate = 1140.48 m3/m2.day
Backwash Time = 7 min.
Backwash Interval = 24 hrs.

For 7 minutes back washing,

required water quantity = 5.54 m3/m2
Average Filtration rate = 195 m3/m2.day
% of Water Consumption = 5.82 / 171
= 2.85%
% of Water Consumption < 6.00%

Hence, Satisfied

Design of Wash Water Trough

For rectangular open channel;
The maximum depth of flow at upstream end D = 1.73 (Q2/gw2)1/3
Where
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-59
 Annex – F1
W = Width of the Channel in ft
Q = Flow in the Channel in cfs
g = Accelaration of Gravity , 32.3 ft/sec2
Backwash rate, Q = 1140 m3/m2.day
= 7.52 cfs
Assume; W = 1.5 ft
g = 32.3 ft/sec2
Assume No. of troughs per Filter Bed = 2 Nos.
Flow in one trough = 9.86/ 2
Flow in one trough = 3.76 cfs
D = 1.73 x ((4.932)/(32.3 x 1.252))1/3
D = 1.00 ft
Area of Flow Required = 216.44 Sq. inch
D = 525 mm
Assume; Width, X = 18 inch (With Free Board)
Y = 12 inch
Allow a trough
W = 750 mm
X"
X"
Y"
Y"
X/2"

X/2"

For Easy Construction Preferred Shape

Area of Flow Provided = X x Y+X x X/4

= 15 x 12+15x15/4
Area of Flow Provided = 297 inch2
> 216.440 inch2
Hence the Area provided by the Selected Section is satisfied
Therefore,
Width of Trough = 450 mm
Depth of Trough = 525 mm
Design of Backwash Water Collecting Drains

The lower part of the channel that enters the water in to the filter, is the backwash water
discharge channel
For Cost Effective, Rectangular Channel Section is assumed;
W = 2D
Backwash Flow Rate, Q = 7.52 cfs
From Manning's Eqn.
Q = (1.873/n) x D 8/3×S1/2

For concrete n = 0.013

Therefore, D 8/3×S1/2 = 0.052166
16/3
D = 0.0027

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-60
 Annex – F1
S 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005
D 1.21 1.06 0.98 0.93 0.89

Since the Slope Required is minimal select D = 1.21 ft

and Slop S = 0.001
W = 2.41

Flow of Channel, Q = 7.52 cfs

> 3.76 cfs
Flow in One Tough

W
Hence the flow rate is satisfied
Dimensions of Drain
D = 368 mm
W = 736 mm
Assume Free Board = 150 mm
Therefore take
D = 518.00
= 525
W = 750 mm
Design of Air Blowers

Air requirement per bed = 1.25 m3/m2/min

Bed area = 16.56 m2

Total Air requirement = 20.70 m3/minPressure required
= Height of water + Friction loss
Assume friction loss = 0 m
Height of water = 3.2 m
Pressure required = 3.2 m
Say = 0.33 bar
Air requirement = 20.70 m3/min
Say as = 0.5 bar

Design Summary

Decline rate Rapid Sand Filter

a) Design flow = 16125 m3/day
b) Filtration Rates
Average filtration rate = 194.7 m3/m2 day
Maximum filtration rate = 292.1 m3/m2 day
Minimum filtration rate = 97.4 m3/m2 day

c) Filter dimensions

No. of filters = 5 Nos.

Dimensions of Single filter
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-61
 Annex – F1
Length = 4.600 m
Width = 3.600 m
Depth = 4.925 m
d) Filter Media
Sand Media
Thickness of Sand layer = 900 mm
Effective Size = 0.55 mm
Uniformity Coefficient = 1.5
Specific Gravity = 2.65
Gravel Media
Thickness of Gravel layer = 200 mm
Layer 1 (5 to 10 mm) 200 mm
e) Under drain System

No. of Slabs per Filter = 30 nos.

No. of Nozzles per Filter = 36 nos.
Diameter of Filtered Water Exit Pipe= 250 mm
Diameter of Orifice Plate Meter = 180 mm
Thickness of Orifice Plate = 5 mm
f) Filter Operation Data

High water level = 2.65 m above effluent weir

Low water level = 2 m above effluent weir
Effluent weir = 0.400 m above filter media in the
C.W. Tank
g) Back wash System

Back wash Flow Rate = 0.013 mm/s

Details of Back wash Pumps = 0.219 m3/s
Flow rate = 0.219 m3/s
Pump Head = 11.49 m
Required Power = 37.89 kW
Backwash Duration = 7 min
Backwash Interval = 24 hr.

h) Wash Water Trough and Backwash Water Collecting Drain

No. of trough per Filter Bed = 2 Nos.

Width of trough = 450 mm
Depth of troughs = 525 mm
Width of Backwash Water Collecting Drain = 750 mm
Depth of Backwash Water Collecting Drain = 525 mm
(with free board)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-62
 Annex – F1
b) Filter with Latteral Pipes
1. Data
Design Capacity of Treatment Plant Q = 15,000 m3/day
Design flow through filters = 16,125 m3/day
Design Data
Design Capacity of Treatment Plant (Daily Demand) Q = 15000 m³/day
Recommended range of filtration (m3/m2 day) = 120 – 360 m³/m²/day
Maximum Area for a filter unit = 140 m²
Required Length : Width Ratio = 1.25 - 1.33
Uniformity Coefficient of Sand = 1.5 - 2.0
Effective Size of Sand = 0.4 - 1.2 mm
Thickness of Sand Layer = 0.6 - 1.0 m
Effective Size of Gravel = 2 – 50 mm
Thickness of Gravel Layer = 0.3 - 0.6 m
1. Hydraulic Calculation
Design Capacity of Treatment Plant Q = 15,000 m²/day
Losses ΔQ = 7.5 %
= 15,000 x 7.5/100
= 1,125
Design flow through filters = Q + Q
= 15,000+1,125
2. Dimension Of Filters
As the filter is for declining rate, lower Filtration rate is assumed.
Assumed Average Filtration Rate = 140 m³/m²/day
Required Number of Filters – N = 1.2 (Qmgd)1/2
Where - mgd - Million Gallions per Day
01 mgd = 3785 m³/day
Qmgd = 4.26
N = 2.48
Therefore Number of Beds required to provided = 4 Nos.
Area of a Filter Bed = (16,125/4)/140
= 4,031/140
< 140 m²
Hence, The Maximum Unit Area is Satisfactory.
Area per unit L x W = 28.8 m²
Assume Length : Width Ration L:W = 1.30
L2 = 28.79 x 1.30
Hence L = 6.12 m
W = 4.71 m
Selected Dimensions L x W = 6.25 x 4.75
= 29.69
> 28.79 ok
Value of L/W is between 1.25 to 1.33 ok
Flow through a single filter = 16,125/4
= 4,031 m³/day
= 0.047 m³/s
Actual average filtration rate = 4,031/29.69
= 135.8 m³/m²/day
Filtration rate is between 120 to 360 Heance ok
When one filter is out of order, overloading 4/(4-1)
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-63
 Annex – F1
Filtration rate = 135.8 x 1.33
= 181 m³/m²/day
Filtration rate is between 120 to 360
ok
When the system is working at peak demand
Assume peak factor = 2.0
Filtration rate at peak = 2.0 x 135.8
= 271.6 m³/m²/day
Filtration rate is between 120 to 360
Hence ok

Filtration rate of declining rate filters varies from 50 % to 150 % of the

average filtration rate Average filtration rate qAVE = 135.8 m³/m²/day
= 1.57 mm/s qAve
Maximum filtration rate = 1.57 x 1.5
= 2.36 mm/s qMax
Minimum filtration rate = 1.57 x 0.5
= 0.79 mm/s qMin

3. Filter Media Design

(a) Sand media
Specific Gravity (sg) = 2.65
Uniformity Coefficient = 1.5 – 2
Effective size /(mm) = 0.4 - 1.2
Depth of sand layer (Ds) = 600 mm
Ds = Effective size = 0.50 mm
Uniformity Coefficient = 1.5
Porosity (e) Sand = 0.4

(b) Gravel media

Media depth (Dg) = 500 mm
No of layers = 4 Nos.
Size /(mm) = 2 – 50
Porosity (e)
Gravel = 0.4
Ds = 600 mm
Dg = 500 mm
4. Head Loss During Filtration
Head loss through media is given by Kozeny Equation as follows
h/l = (ku/g) x V(1-e)²/e³ x (6/y)² x S(xi/di²)
Where, The Kozeny coefficient k =5
Kinematic Viscosity at 200 Cu = 1.0 mm²/s
(Kinematic Viscosity depends on Temparature and varies from place to place)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-64
 Annex – F1
Density of water r = 1000 kg/m³
Shape factor for angular material y = 0.75
Depth of layer (L) Sand = 0.6 m
Gravel = 0.5 m
Filtration rate = V mm/s
Head loss through media = h m
Table A 13 : Sieve analysis Calculation
d(Passing) d(Retained) Geometric Xi /di²
(mm) (mm) Mean Size Fraction Between Sieves Xi
di=(d1d2)0.5
0.420 0.292 0.35 0.01 0.082
0.595 0.420 0.50 0.16 0.640
0.707 0.595 0.65 0.20 0.475
0.841 0.707 0.77 0.25 0.420
1.000 0.841 0.92 0.21 0.250
1.410 1.000 1.19 0.16 0.113
1.680 1.410 1.54 0.01 0.004
S 1.00 1.985
From Sieve analysis calculation S (xi/di2) = 1.985
4.1. Head loss through sand media
(a) When filters are operating at
average filtration rate = 1.572 mm/s
From Kozeny Equation h/l = 0.572 m/m
h = 0.572 x 600
= 343 mm
(b) At maximum filtration rate = 2.357 mm/s
h/l = 0.859 m/m
h = 0.859 x 600
= 515 mm
(c) At minimum filtration rate = 0.786 mm/s
h/l = 0.286 m/m
h = 0.286 x 600
= 172 mm
4.2. Head loss through gravel media

Table A 14 : Sieve analysis Calculation

d(Retained) Geometric Mean Fraction between

d(Passing) (mm) Xi /di²
(mm) Size di=(d1d2)0.5 Sieves Xi

3.18 2.00 2.52 1.0 0.157

6.35 3.18 4.49 1.0 0.050
12.70 6.35 8.98 1.0 0.012
25.40 12.70 17.96 1.0 0.003
50.80 25.40 35.92 1.0 0.001

(a) When filters are operating at average filtration rate

Average filtration rate = 1.572 mm/s
(h/l )/S(xi/di²) = (ku/g) x V(1-e)²/e³ (6/y)²
= 0.288 m/m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-65
 Annex – F1
Layer (xi/di²) h/l l(mm) h(mm)
3-6 mm 0.050 0.014 150 2.14
6-12 mm 0.012 0.004 150 0.54
12-15mm 0.003 0.001 100 0.09
25-50mm 0.001 0.000 100 0.02

Total head loss through gravel media = 2.30 mm

(b) At maximum filtration rate
Maximum filtration rate = 2.36 mm/s
(h/l )/S(xi/di²) = 0.433 m/m

Layer (xi/di²) h/l l(mm) h(mm)

3-6 mm 0.050 0.021 150 3.2
6-12 mm 0.012 0.005 150 0.8
12-15mm 0.003 0.001 100 0.1
25-50mm 0.001 0.000 100 0.0

Total head loss through gravel media = 4.2 mm

(b) At minimum filtration rate

Minimum filtration rate = 0.786 mm/s
(h/l )/S(xi/di²) = 0.1442 m/m

Layer (xi/di²) h/l l(mm) h(mm)

3-6 mm 0.050 0.007 150 1.1
6-12 mm 0.012 0.002 150 0.3
12-15mm 0.003 0.000 100 0.0
25-50mm 0.001 0.000 100 0.0
Total head loss through gravel media = 1.4 mm

Total H.L through filter media = HL through sand + HL through gravel

(a) Head loss at average filtration rate = 343 + 2.3
= 346 mm
(b) Head loss at maximum filtration rate = 515 + 4.2
= 519 mm
(c) Head loss at minimum filtration rate = 172 + 1.4
= 173 mm

5. Head Loss In Under Drain System

5.1. Design criteria (Basic Assumptions)
Ratio of total area of perforation to the entire filter area = 0.003
Minimum diameter of under drain = 20 cm
Diameter of perforations = 6 to 12 mm
Spacing of perforations along laterals for 6 mm = 7.5 cm
for 12 mm = 20 cm
Ratio of total area of perforations to total cross sectional area of laterals
for 6 mm = 0.25
for 12 mm = 0.5

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-66
 Annex – F1
Cross Section of manifold = 1.5 to 2.0 the total area of
laterals
Length -Diameter ratio of laterals = 60 : 1
Maximum spacing of laterals = 30 cm
C.S area of manifold / total area of laterals = 1.5 – 2
Velocity of filtered water outlets m/s = 1 - 1.8 m/s

5.2. Design of laterals

Select features of perforators
Diameter of Perforator Dp = 12 mm
Select Spacing of perforations along laterals Sp = 150 mm
Select spacing of laterals SL = 250 mm
Total area of perforators/Area of filter unit = 0.003
Total area of perforators = 0.003 × LW
0.003 × 29.69
= 89063 mm²
Area of perforators/Total Cross Sectional Area of Laterals = 0.5
Total cross sectional area of laterals = 89063 / 0.5
NL x AL = 178,125 mm²
Number of laterals for one unit of filter NL = 2((L /SL)+1)
= 52.0 Nos.
say NL = 52 Nos.
Cross sectional area of a lateral AL = 178125 / 52
Area of one lateral = 3425 mm²
Diameter of a laterals DL = (4 × 3425/ p)0.5
= 66 mm
Select diameter of laterals as = 90 mm
Hence, Internal diameter = 79 mm
Length to diameter ratio of laterals W/DL = 30.1
< 60

5.3. Head loss in perforations

No of perforations per lateral (np) np = (W/2)/Sp
= 16 Nos.
Total no of perforators (np) np x NL = 16 × 52
Tnp = 832 Nos.
No of perforators per m2 Tnp/LW = 832/(6.25 × 4.75)
= 28.03 Nos./m²
Total Area of Perforators Anp = p/4 x 12² × Tnp
= 94097
Anp > 89063
Flow passes through a perforator = Filtration rate/(n/LW)
= 1.572 / 28.03
QP = 0.056 l/s
Velocity of flow through a perforator VP 4(QP/1000)/[p(DP/1000)2]
= 0.495 m/s
Discharge through an orifice, Q = C0A (2gh)0.5
Coefficient of discharge C0 = 0.6
Hence h = [Q/C0A]²/2g
Head loss in perforations (hFP) = 34.7 mm

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-67
 Annex – F1
5.4. Head loss in laterals
Flow through a lateral QL = np x QP
16 × 0.056
= 0.896 l/s
Velocity of flow in a lateral VL 4QL/pDL2
= 0.183 m/s
Manning's Coefficient for PVC pipe n = 0.01
Flow rate QL = 0.896 l/s
Diameter of Laterals DL = 79 mm
Using Manning Equation,
Slope of the hydraulic gradient S = 10.2 Q² n² / DL5.33
= 0.00061 m/m
Head Loss through a lateral = S × (L/2) /3
Where L= Width of the Channel
= 0.00061 × (4.75/2)/3
= 0.487 mm
Velocity head loss through a lateral = VL²/2g
= 1.70 mm
Total head loss through a lateral (hL) = 2.19 mm

5.5. Head loss in manifold

Figure A 21:- Manifold

Select centre manifold length = 6.25 m

Select manifold Dimensions W x D (mm) = 550 × 500
Area of manifold = 0.275 m²
1.5 × Area of laterals = (1.5×178125)/1000000
= 0.267 m²
Area of Manifold > 1.5 × Area of Laterals
Flow through manifold Q = 1.833 B H3/2
Ho = (Q/1.833 B)2/3
= 0.129 m
Hence, velocity of flow in manifold ( Vm) Q/(WH) = 0.047/( 0.55 × 0.129 )
Vm = 0.658 m/s
2
Entrance loss to manifold Le = 0.8 V /2g
= 17.6 mm
2
Exit loss of manifold Lexit = 1.0× V /2g
= 22.0 mm
Head loss in the manifold = 1/3 × SL
where S = Vm²[n/R2/3]2
n = Roughness coefficient & Vm = Velocity of the flow in manifold
For Channel size of = 550 × 500
2/3 2
[n/R ] = 0.006
S = 0.003
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-68
 Annex – F1
Head loss in the manifold 1/3 × SL = 5.4 mm
Total manifold loss = 17.6 + 22 + 5.4
= 45.0mm
5.6. Summary of losses in under drainage system
Head Losses at average filtration rate
H.L. in perforators = 34.7 mm
H.L. in laterals = 2.2 mm
H.L. in manifold = 45.0 mm
Total H.L. at average filtration rate = 82 mm

Since H.L. through laterals proportional to V2

Head Losses at max. filtration rate
H.L. in perforators = 78.1 mm
H.L. in laterals = 4.9 mm
H.L. in manifold = 94.5 mm
Total H.L. at maximum filtration rate = 178 mm

Head Losses at min. filtration rate

H.L. in perforators = 8.7 mm
H.L. in laterals = 0.5 mm
H.L. in manifold = 15.3 mm
Total H.L. at minimum filtration rate = 25 mm

6. HEAD LOSS IN EFFLUENT PIPE

Head loss in pipes can be expressed as follows
H =kv2/2g + f(L) + ∑(ki v2/2g)
where k = 0.5
Assume Length of pipe
(from filter to clear water tank) L = 10 m

Figure A 22:- Schematic Diagram of Effluent Pipe

Average filtration rate = 1.57 mm/s
Filtration through one filter unit = 4031/(24×3600)
= 0.047 m3/s
Assume dia of effluent pipe as = 350 mm
Velocity of flow (v) = 0.047×4/((22/7) × (350/1000)^2)
= 0.488 m/s

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-69
 Annex – F1
Pipe special or fittings Head loss factor Ki
Entrance pipe flush with tank 0.5
Run of two tees 1.2
Orifice meter 2.5
Butter Fly valve 0.48
Exit pipe flush with tank 1.0
One Bend 0.3
∑ Ki 5.98

Velocity head loss = V2/2g = 0.488^2/(2×9.81)

= 0.012 m
Value for C for pipes = 120
Frictional head loss in the effluent pipes h/l = 10.7/D4.67 × (Q/C)1.85
= 0.000717m/m
h = 0.717 × 10
= 7.2 mm
Minor loss in the effluent pipes = 0.012×(5.98+0.5)×1000
= 77.8 mm
Head loss in the effluent pipes = 7.2 + 77.8
= 84.9 mm

7. Head Loss In Filter For Various Filtration Rate

7.1. Head loss in filter media
Head loss in filter media are proportional to the rate of flow

Head loss (m)

Filtration rate
Total
(m/hr)
Sand Gravel
2.83 172 1 173
4.24 258 2 260
5.66 343 3 346
7.07 429 3 433
8.49 515 4 519

7.2. Head loss through under drain system

Since the flow is turbulent head loss is proportional to the square of the flow

Filtration rate Head loss

(m/hr) in mm
2.83 25
4.24 55
5.66 98
7.07 153
8.49 221

7.3. Head loss through outlet pipe

Head loss trough out let pipe is expressed as following,
h =Ki V2/2g + f (L,Q, C, d) + ∑ (Ki V2/2g)
Frictional head loss in pipes, Function f (L,Q, C, d), is function of V1.85.
Therefore Head loss is a function of V2

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-70
 Annex – F1
Filtration rate Head loss
(m/hr) in mm
2.83 21
4.24 48
5.66 85
7.07 133
8.49 191

Summary of Head Losses

Filtration Head loss (mm)

rate Filter Under Pipe Total
(m/hr) Media Drain Work
2.83 173 25 21 219
4.243 260 55 48 363
5.658 346 98 85 529
7.072 433 153 133 719
8.49 519 221 191 931

8. Design Of Orifice Plate

Max. clogging head /m = 1.22 - 2.44
Assume max. clogging head = 1.8 m
so, total head needed for the max. filtration rate = 1.8 m
Lower water level of the filter above the effluent weir = 1.3 m
Total head loss in the filter at the max. filtration rate = 0.9 m

Figure A 23: Orifice plate design

DA = 75 mm
DT = 350 mm
DL = 500 mm
D1 = 1300 mm
DS = 600 mm
DG = 500 mm
DF = 3250 mm

Required orifice meter loss (LWL-HL at max.) = 1.3 - Filter H.L.

HF1 = 1.3 - 0.931
= 0.369 m

overall orifice plate loss = 60% of meter H.L.

So, Total meter loss = 0.369 / 0.6
= 0.615 m
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-71
 Annex – F1

Figure A 24:Schematic Diagram of Head Loss Meter

Area of orifice meter A = Q/{C × (2gh)1/2}

Flow through the filter at max. filtration rate - Q = 0.070 m3/s
Coefficient of discharge C = 0.6
Total head loss h = 0.615 m
A = 0.0193 m2
0.5
Diameter of the Orifice plate D = (4A/π)
D = 157 mm

dorific/dpipe = 157 / 350

= 0.45
dorific/dpipe < 0.8
Orifice plate thickness = dpipe/50
= 350/50
= 3.1 mm
Say = 5.0 mm

Figure A 25:Detail of Orifice Plate

9. Design Of Backwash System

Air scour time = 2-3 min
Air scour rate = 50 - 60 m3/m2/h
Air scour pressure = 20 - 35 kN/m²
Water wash time = 10 - 15 min
Backwash water head loss = 8 - 15 m
Water wash volume = 1.5 -2.5 % of Production - m3

9.1 Estimate Media settling velocity

Settling velocity of sand during back washing Vs = [0.018 g2 (sg-1)2 / n]1/3 d
Where sg = Specific Gravity of Sand
Vs = {0.018 9.81²×(2.65-1)²/1×10-
6 1/3
} d
= 167.7 d m/s
Diameter of particle (60% passing) in mm = d60%
= U.C × D10
Effective size x Uniformity coefficient d60% = 0.50 × 1.5

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-72
 Annex – F1
D60 = 0.75 mm
Settling velocity Vs = 167.7 × (0.75/1000 )
= 0.126 m/s
Reynolds number using the media settling velocity
can't be equal to Vs
Reynolds number Remf = (Vmf × d60%) /n)
Remf = (0.126×0.75 /1000)/(1×10^-6)
Reynolds number Remf = 94.5
> 10
Flow is in transitional range

9.2 Estimate backwash flow rate

From Graph in AWWA Vol 67, no10, October, 1975
The average backwash rate Vb = 0.012 m³/m²/s Vb
= 43.2
or effective backwash is achieved at 10 % of the settling velocity of the media

Total Backwash flow Vb x Afilter = 0.012 x 29.69

= 0.356 m3/s
= 21.38 m3/min

9.3 Estimate bed expansion

The backwash flow rate should achieve 40 to 50 % expansion of media
Porosity of expanded bed eeb = (Vb / Vs)0.22
= 0.60
le(1-eeb) = lmf (1-emf)
Initial height of graded sand lmf = 600 mm
Expanded height of graded sand le = lmf (1-emf) /(1-eeb)
where, = 891 mm
lmf = Initial height of graded sand
le = Expanded height of graded sand
emf = Initial sand Porocity
eeb = Expanded sand porosity
% of expansion = (le-lmf/lmf) x 100
= 49%
> 40% - 50%
Selected backwash rate is satisfied.
The settling velocity at colder temperature will decrease hence backwash rate should be
reduced.

The drag coefficient CD

For laminar region ( Re<1) = 24 f /Re
Shape factor for sand f = 2.0
Shape factor for coal = 2.3
For transitional region (1< Re<10000)
for spherical particle = 24 /Re +3/ ÖRe + 0.34
By trial and error the settling velocity = 0.136 m/s
Normally cleaning of filter is done by fluidization of filter media.
The expanded height of graded media is given by,
Vmf = {3.2193 x 10-11 (d60)1.82 x ([r(rm-r)]0.94}/µ0.88

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-73
 Annex – F1
Where,
Density of filter media rm = Specific Gravity x Density of
water
= 2650 kg/m3
Diameter of particle (60% passing) in mm d60% = 0.75 mm
Dynamic Viscosity of the fluid µ = 0.001 Ns/m2
the minimum fluidization rate Vmf = 0.0058 m/s

Reynolds number Remf = ρw ×Vmf × d60%/µ

Remf = 4.4
Correction is not required < 10
For 10 < R < 300
Multiplying correction factor KR = 1.775Remf-0.272
KR = 1.189

Reo = 8.45 × Remf × KR

= 43.84
n = 4.45 Reo- 0.1
= 3.049
KR × Vmf = K.Emfn
Porosity of fixed bed Emf = 0.40
Constant K = KR x Vmf / Emfn

= 0.11
Assume Backwash rate V = 0.012 m/s
V = K.en
Porosity of expanded bed e = (V/K)1/n
= 0.479
le(1-E) = lmf (1-Emf)
Initial height of graded sand lmf = 0.60 m
Expanded height of graded sand le = lmf (1-Emf) /(1-E)
= 0.69 m
% of expansion = (le-lmf/lmf) × 100

= 15%
> 15% - 30%
Selected backwash rate is satisfied

9.4 Head loss during backwash

Backwash rate = 0.012 m³/m²/s
= 0.012 × 1000 mm/s
= 12 mm/s
Head loss through sand media = lmf(Sg-1)(1-e)
= 400 mm

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-74
 Annex – F1
a) Head loss through gravel
h/l =150 n /g(1-e)2/e3×V/y2 ×  (xi/di2)+1.75 (1-e)/e3×V2/g×(1/y ) (xi/di)
h/l = 0.251 (xi/di2)+0.026(xi/di)

Layer Xi/di2 l(mm) Xi/di h/l h(mm)

3-6 mm 0.157 150 0.397 0.050 7.5
6-12 mm 0.050 150 0.223 0.018 2.7
12-15mm 0.012 100 0.111 0.006 0.6
25-50mm 0.003 100 0.056 0.002 0.2
Head loss in gravel media 11.1

Head loss through gravel media = 11 mm

Total head loss in sand and gravel media = 400+11
= 411 mm
b) Head loss in under drain system
H is proportional to Q2
H1 = H2× Q12/Q22
Back wash rate Q1 = 1037 m3/m2.day
Ave. Filtration rate, Q2 = 136 m3/m2.day
H2 = 82 mm
head loss at Back wash rate
H1 = 4775 mm

c) Head loss in effluent pipe

H is proportional to Q2 H1 = H2× Q12/Q22
H2 = 78 mm
H1 = 4534 mm
Total static head loss during back wash = (4534+4775+411)/1000
= 9.72 m

Design of air Blowers

Air requirement per bed = 50 - 60 m3/m2/hr
= 50 m3/m2/hr
= 0.83 m3/m2/min
Bed area = 29.69 m2
Total Air requirement = 24.74 m3/min
Pressure required = Height of water + Friction loss
Assume friction loss = 0 m
Height of water = 3.25 m
Pressure required = 3.25 m
Say = 0.33 bar
Air requirement = 24.74 m3/min
Say At = 0.5 bar
9.5 Determination of Backwash Cycle
Air scour rate = 24.74 m3/min
Air scour duration = 5.0 min
Backwash rate = 21.38 m3/min
Water Backwash starting after air scour = 4.00 min
Increase from 0 to designed backwash rate = 1.3 min
Maintain at designed backwash rate = 6.0 min
Decrease from Qb to 0 = 1.3 min

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-75
 Annex – F1
Hence, Backwash Cycle operation time = 4+1.3+6+1.3
= 12.60 min

a) Check the water consumption during backwash

Assume each filter has a minimum run of = 24 hours
Water backwashing duration = 1.3+6+1.3
= 8.60 min

Quantity of water required for backwash = 21.38 × 8.6

= 183.9 m3/day

Average Filtration rate = 136 m3/m2.day

= 4031 m3/day
% of water consumption = 4.56%
Hence, Satisfied < 6.00% .

9.6 Design of wash water trough

The trough should be large enough to carry the maximum expected wash rate with 5-10 cm
free-fall into the trough at the upper end. The bottom of the trough may be either horizontal or
sloping

For rectangular channel D = (Q/1.38 B)2/3

Where B - Width of the Channel in m

Q - Flow in the Channel in m³/s

Q = 0.012 m3/s
X= B = 0.4 m
Assume No. Of troughs = 2 Nos.
Flow in one tough = 0.01 m3/s
D = 0.049 m
Allow free board = 50 - 100 mm
= 0.1 mm
P = 0.170 m

The following two basic type "V" or "U" shaped (shallow but wide cross section) are used
Flat bottom are not preferred as solid matters, foams are trapped and may never be washed
out.
Selected Cross section Type (1/2) = 1

Area of flow required = 0.020 m2

Area of flow = 0.100 m2
Hence the Area provided is not satisfied

Location of filter launder troughs

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-76
 Annex – F1
Height of troughs above media bed at rest = 0.75 - 0.9 m
Ho = 0.90 m
Depth of expanded sand = 0.89
Depth of sand = 0.60
Depth of Gravel = 0.50
Depth of under drains = 0.55
Height of troughs (0.75L+P) < Ho < (L + P) 0.62 < Ho < 0.77

Spacing of troughs 1.5 Ho < S < 2 Ho

1.35 < S < 1.80
Spacing of troughs (C/C) S = W/2
= 4.75 / 2
= 2.375 m
> 1.80
Therefore spacing of troughs set as = 1.80 m
Allow free board to the filter = 0.40 m
= Under drain + Media +
Trough Height + free board
= 0.55 + (0.5 + 0.6) + 0.9 + 0.4
= 2.95 m
b) Back wash Arrangements
Backwash can be done either by direct pumping or washing from elevated tank

(i) Backwash from Elevated tank

Let no of backwash cycle provided in the tank volume = 2
Volume of tank required = 183.9 × 2 cycle / tank
= 367.8 m3
Allow for minimum operational flexibility = 10%
Volume of tank required = 367.8 × 0.1
Say = 410 m3

Size of Backwash pump to boost within = 120 min to Elevated tank

No. of pumps in operation (n+1)
to ensure system reliability = 1+1
Pump Design flow rate Q = 410 / 1 m3/pump
= 410 m3/pump
= 410 / 120 m3/min
= 3.4 m3/min
= 0.057 m3/s
(10 % allowance for losses) H = 9.72 + 0.97
= 11.0 m
Height to the sump inlet = 2.0 m
Total head for pump H = 13.0 m
Power required P = HQ  g/
Assume Efficieny of the pump () = 0.65
P = 11.17 kW

(ii) Direct Back wash pumps

Q = 1037 m3/m2.day
Back wash flow rate = 0.356 m3/s
(10 % allowance for losses) H = 9.72 + 0.97
= 11.0 m
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-77
 Annex – F1
Height to the sump inlet = 2.0 m
Total H = 13.00 m

Let overall efficiency of backwash pump  = 0.65

Power required P = HQg/
P = 69.90 kW
9.7 Design of wash water drains
Design flow Q (backwash rate) = 0.356 m3/s
For rectangular channel D = (Q/1.38 B)2/3

D = (Q/1.38 B)2/3

B = 0.40 m
D = 0.75 m
= 0.20 m
H = 0.95 m
Head losses
At maximum filtration rate
Total H.L through filter media = 519 mm
Total H.L. in under drainage system = 178 mm
Total loss in the effluent pipes = 78 mm
Total Head Loss = 775 mm

Design of influent header channel

Design flow = 0.187 m3/s
Assume the flow velocity = 0.578 m/s
Assume the width of channel = 0.5 m
max. water depth = Q/(V×W)
D = 0.65 m
Free Board = 0.1 m
For economical section take D = 0.5B
Depth of channel = 0.75 m

From manning equation v = R2/3 S1/2 /n

Hydraulic Radius R = 0.1802
Hence, S = (V×n / R2/3 )2
Manning coefficient n = 0.013
S = 0.000555
Provide, slope as 1 : 1/S
1 : 1800
Velocity v = 0.578 m/s

Design Summary
a) Decline rate rapid sand fitter
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-78
 Annex – F1
b) Design flow = 16125 m3/day
c) Average filtration rate = 136 m3/m2 day
Maximum filtration rate = 204 m3/m2 day
Minimum filtration rate = 68 m3/m2 day
d) Filter dimensions
No. Of filters = 4 Nos.
Dimensions of Single filter
Length = 6.25 m
Width = 4.75 m
Depth = 3.5 m
e) Filter media
Sand layer = 600 mm
Gravel layer = 500 mm
f) Under drain system
Lateral diameter = 90 mm
Lateral spacing = 250 mm
Slot diameter = 12 mm
Manifold width = 0.55 mm
Control orifice diameter = 0.5 mm
Thickness of orifice plate = 5 mm
g) Filter operation data
High water level = 1.8 m above effluent weir
Low water level = 1.3 m above effluent weir
Effluent weir = 0.075 m above filter media
in the C.W. Tank
h) Backwash system
Air scour rate = 24.74 m3/min
Air scour duration = 5.0 min
Air scour pressure = 0.5 bar
Backwash flow rate = 0.356 m3/s
Backwash pumps Q = 0.356 m3/s
Backwash duration = 8.6 min
Pump Head H = 13 m
Pump Power P = 70 kW
I) Wash water troughs and drain
No. of troughs = 2 Nos.
Width of troughs = 0.400 m
Depth of troughs = 0.17 m
Height of troughs above media at rest = 0.90 m
Spacing of troughs c/c = 2.38 m
Width of wash water drain = 0.40 m
Depth of wash water drain = 0.95 m
J) Inlet channel
Width of inlet channel = 0.5 m
Depth of wash water drain = 0.75 m
Slope of Channel = 1 : 1800

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-79
 Annex – F2

Annex-F.2: Preparation of Sand for Filter

1. Basic Principles :
Natural sands and crushed materials normally used as filter media differ in size and size
distribution, in shape, shape variation and in density and chemical composition. Properties of
flow through filtering materials and resulting purification are related to the parameters of
grain size and size distribution.

2. Grain Size and Size Distribution :

Grain size is commonly determined by sieve separation of a representative sample through
calibrated sieves. The sample is shaken through a vertical stack of successively finer sieves,
the weights of sand held between sieves are added in sequence and cumulative weights are
obtained. After conversion into percentage by weight, a summation curve can be plotted.
Plotting of the values on logarithmic probability paper traces an almost straight line as shown
in Table A 26 By interpolation, the geometric mean size and variance may then be
determined to define the sample. Commonly used parameters are the effective size (ES = d 10)
and Uniformity Coefficient (UC = d60/d10).

3. Preparation of Sand :
Natural sand may be too coarse or too fine for filtration. If filter sand is specified in ES and
UC a sieve analysis of the stock sand has been made. The “too coarse” and “too fine” portions
to be wasted from the stock can be determined.

The percentage of usable sand, pu = 2 (P60 – P10) where P60 and P10 are the percentages
corresponding to d60 and d10.

The percentage of sand below which the stock sand is too fine to use is:
pf = P10 – 0.1Pu
= P10 – 0.2 (P60 – P10)
= 1.2 P10 – 0.2 P60
The percentage of sand above which the stock sand is too coarse to use is:
Pc = P60 + 0.4Pu
= P60 + 0.4 x 2(P60 – P10)
= 1.8 p60 – 0.8 P10
From the cumulative size frequency curve, the sizes of stock sand corresponding to P f and
above Pc will have to be separated out from the stock sand to bring it to the desired
specification.

The percentage of sand which is too coarse is screened out and wasted. In practice, it seldom
pays to remove or waste more than 10% of fine sand or more than 50% of coarse sand (nor to
use sand coarser than 2mm). The percentage of sand which is too fine can be washed out
through a grit or sand washer (similar to an up flow setting basin).

An example is given below;

Filter Sand Desired (mm) Stock Sand Available (mm)

ES (d10) = 0.30 0.28
d60 = 0.75 0.95
UC (d60/d10) = 2.50 3.40

% of usable sand pu = 2 (P60-P10)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-80
 Annex – F2
= 2(48 – 12)
= 72%
% of too fine sand Pf = 1.2 P10 - 0.2 P60
(Below which should be wasted, df) = 1.2 x 12 – 0.2 x 48
= 48% (df = 0.20 mm)
% of too coarse sand Pc = 1.8 P60 – 0.8 p10
(Size above which should be wasted dc = 1.8 × 48 – 0.8 × 12
= 76.8% (dc = 1.40 mm)

Figure A 26: Stocked Sand Analysis

The following formula (by Hazen) for 75% removal of particles by washing related the
washing rate to particle size removed:
𝑆
𝐷 (𝑚𝑚) = 0.318 × 𝑓 ×
𝐴
Where, F is 3.0 for ordinary boxes.
S - Overflow rate (spill) in L/min.
A-box area in m2 or
𝑆
𝐷 (𝑚𝑚) = 0.0065 × 𝑓 × 𝐴
Where S in gal/min and A in ft2.
4. Specification for Filter Sand Characteristics
 Avoid too great a uniformity of small size.
 Sand to be hardened resistant quartz or quartzite, free of clay, fine or soft particle.
 Ignition loss not greater than 0.7% by weight.
 Soluble portion in HCL not greater than 5% by weight.
 Silica content not less than 99.8%
 Specific gravity – 2.55 to 2.65
As a thumb rule, the limits of size of filter sand may be assumed as:
Rapid Sand Filter : ES = 0.35 - 0.5mm
UC = 1.3 - 1.7
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-81
 Annex – F2

Standard British Sieve numbers and sizes between

16 (1.003 mm) and 52 (0.295 mm)
Slow sand Filter : Preferred Possible
ES = 0.25 - 0.35 mm (0.15 – 0.35 mm)
UC = 2 - 3 (2 – 5)
Standard British numbers and sizes between
14 (1.204 mm) and 100 (0.152 mm)
Table A 15 : Standared Sieve Sizes
Mesh Size
TYLER ASTM-E11 BS-410 DIN-4188
(microns)
Mesh No. Mesh mm
µm
5 2500 2500 0.005
10 1250 1250 0.01
15 800 800 0.015
20 625 625 0.02
22 0.022
25 500 500 0.025
28 0.028
32 0.032
36 0.036
38 400 400 400
40 0.04
45 325 325 350 0.045
50 0.05
53 270 270 300
56 0.056
63 250 230 240 0.063
71 0.071
75 200 200 200
80 0.08
90 170 170 170 0.09
100 0.1
106 150 140 150
112 0.112
125 115 120 120 0.125
140 0.14
150 100 100 100
160 0.16
180 80 80 85 0.18
200 0.2
212 65 70 72
250 60 60 60 0.25
280 0.28
300 48 50 52
315 0.315
355 42 45 44 0.355
400 0.4
425 35 40 36
450 0.45
500 32 35 30 0.5
560 0.56
600 28 30 25

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-82
 Annex – F3

Annex-F.3: Filter Paper Test

The filter paper test is to determine the filterability of raw water treated with various doses of
metallic coagulant or cationic polymer. This is quite difference from the standard jar test to
determine clarification.

The filterability depends on the characteristics of the turbidity in the raw water and the
coagulant added. In Sri Lanka, the coagulants, which may be used, are locally produced ferric
chloride and imported aluminium sulphate. Polymers, while very effective, are also imported
and are not very practical for this country because of their high cost.

The first step in this test is to filter the raw water with no coagulant added. This gives a good
indication of the size of the turbidity particles. If the turbidity is substantially reduced with
filter paper only, then the water is a good candidate for direct filtration. The paper used is
whatman No.40. The results obtained from this paper are comparable to that of a plant filter.

The second step is to dose a series of one-litre jars with various dosages of coagulant
beginning with very low dosages and working up to higher ones. Mix these with the jar test
mixing machine. Add the close with the machine at maximum rotation. Good, quick
coagulant dispersion is essential. Apply the coagulant at a dilution of 1mg/L. For example in a
four-jar series, the first trial might be 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0mg/L respectively in the jars. After
20 or 30 seconds of maximum rotation, it is reduced to about 40 rpm for 2 or 3 more minutes.
A sample at each jar then is filtered through the No.40 paper and turbidity read.

An example of a test on Ambalanthota water is shown in Figure A 27 The raw water had a
turbidity of 25 NTU but when filtered without coagulant the turbidity was reduced to 5. This
indicated that the water was an excellent for direct filtration. Testing was continued with
polymer, FeCl3 and Al2(So4)3. The results are clear: the polymer is most effective but FeCl3 is
also very good. Alum was the least effective.

Figure A 28 shows the results of a test at Matara. The results are quite different than those at
Ambalanthota. In this case FeCl3 was not very effective while 5 to 6 mg/L of alum gave a
satisfactory result. Again the polymer was most effective. Here alum is the preferred
coagulant.

It is important that the coagulant dose be relatively low for direct filtration, high dosages of
alum or iron coagulant produce large amounts of floc which quickly clog the filter. If more
than 10 to 12mg/L is required to obtain destabilisation, then it is doubtful that direct filtration
is possible.

Once the filter paper test is completed and the results analysed, the next step is to further test
with a pilot filter. This would be those cases where there is a good possibility of success with
direct filtration, in Galle, Matara, Ambalanthota, Kandy, Kegalle and Kurunagala.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-83
 Annex – F3

Figure A 27: Filter Paper Test- Ambalanthota Water Supply

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-84
 Annex – F3

Figure A 28: Filter Paper Test- Matara Water Supply

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-85
 Annex – G

Annex-G: Practical Guide for Dosage of Bleaching Powder in

Disinfection of Public Drinking Water Supplies
1. Quantity of Bleaching Powder Necessary
The Table below gives the Unit Dosage Rate and Unit Quantities of Water, so that the
user can work out multiples of these quantities to meet individual needs.

A minimum of 0.3 to 1.0 ppm×Residual Chlorine after a contract period of 30 minutes or

more, should be the basic criterion an individual water supply scheme should aim at. If a
contact period of 30 minutes is not physically feasible under existing situations, a higher
rate of dosage may be desirable to safeguard those concerned. Consumers should also be
educated to be able to accept higher chlorine content in their water and to use it for
consumption only after a sufficient contact period.

Unit Quantity (Flow Rate) Bleaching powder** required to To make a 1% standard

make a dosage of 2 ppm Strength Solution, dissolve in
0.08 1b or 36 to 40 gsm. (about 2 0.2 gallon or 0.9 litre of water
heaped tablespoons full)
* 1 ppm = one part per million or 1 1b Cl2 per million 1b of water
** Quantities calculated based on 25% available chlorine.

Note:
(i) Always use fresh bleaching powder. Preferably, within a week from the date the sealed
drum is opened. The chlorine content in bleaching powder (strength) drops very rapidly
with time. fresh bleaching powder contains 25 to 37% chlorine content.
(ii) Quantity of bleaching powder and/or dosage rate of solution will need to be increased
according to its life and strength, controlled by the test results or residual chlorine after
30 minutes contact period.
(iii) If there is no equipment to measure the residual chlorine readily available, the dosage
rate should be such that there is a slight but distinctly detectable smell of chlorine in the
water after the 30-minute contact period.

Equipment & Conversions

1 heaped tablespoonful of bleaching powder weights about 25 gms.
1 heaped cupful (standard Sri Lankan teacup) weights about 160 gms. If a coconut shell scoop
is used, standardize its capacity.
1 pound weight = 453.6 grams
1 gallon (1mp) = 4.546 litres and weights 10 1bs or 4.546 kg.
1 cubic metre = 1000 litres
1000 gallons (Imp.) = 4.546 cubic meters

2. How Bleaching Powder is Added to Water Supplies

a) Drip feeders are usually used to ensure a regulated dose of chlorine (bleaching powder
solution) into water supplies.

b) Usually 1-2% solution of available chlorine is used for drip-feeding purposes. Some of
the NWSDB scheme use up to 5% strength, depending on the size of the scheme.

c) Estimate the daily requirement of bleaching powder at about 2-ppm dosage rate or
more to begin with and dissolve this quantity in water to get a concentrated solution of about
1% in a convenient container. (For every 0.08 1b. or 40 gm. or 2 heaped tablespoons full of
bleaching powder, use one fifth of a gallon of water. See Table) make sure that the bleaching
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-86
 Annex – G
powder is properly dissolved in water without leaving any lumps of the powder. The initial
requirement of chlorine for a system that has not been using chlorine may reach up to 10
times the normal dose but the daily dosage requirement will fall to normal levels gradually.

d) Allow this solution to stand for about one hour to let the white lime particles settle down.
Decant the slightly milky solution gently into another container or it may be used directly in
the drip feeder. If the solution is used after, less than an hour of settling, further settlement of
fine powders can accumulate in the feeder in the form of sludge. To prevent clogging of the
feeder in the form of sludge. To prevent clogging of the feeder, frequent cleaning is advisable.

e) The choice of the type of feeder will depend on the availability, suitability and convenience of
operation for each system (see the example attached)

f) The point applicant of the chlorine solution should be such that it will have a chance of being
thoroughly mixed into the water supply and have a contact time of 30 minutes before it
reaches the first consumer. If such a situation is not possible, the consumers concerned should
be warned to consume water only after a strong of 30 minutes or more and should be ready to
accept the use of water with higher dosed of chlorine.

g) The amount of the 1% chlorine solution used should be adjusted to such a rate that there is at
least 0.3-ppm residual chlorine at the end of the distribution system. Make sure that there is a
slight but distinctly noticeable smell of chlorine at that point if there is no means of measuring
the chlorine content.

h) At the initial stage, it may not be possible to achieve this situation even with 10 times
increased dosage rates, but this situation will improve if the maximum tolerable rate of dosage
is kept up.

i) Constant monitoring of effecting chlorination by checking the presence of chlorine at the end
as well as in all parts of the distribution system is important, because the quality of the water
received at the source changes with weather and season, regular monitoring will also provide
information on possible sources of contamination. Adjust the dosage to meet the chlorine
demand.

Warning
Handle bleaching powder and the 1% chlorine solution with great care.
It irritates sensitive areas of skin. Use rubber gloves where necessary. It is highly corrosive to
metals. It will bleach coloured clothing white. Rinse thoroughly with water if affected.

Store bleaching powder in a cool and dry place.

Table A 16 shows bleaching powder and water requirements to make 1% chlorine solutions
at a dosage rate of 2 ppm for different rates of water supply in gallons per unit time (per hour
or per day)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-87
 Annex – G

Table A 16 : Bleaching Powder and Water Requirements to Make 1% Chlorine

Solutions
Rate of supply Amount of bleaching powder Amt. of water in gallons to make
Gallons required 1% chlorine solution
1b gms
1000 0.08 40 0.2
1500 0.12 60 0.3
2000 0.16 80 0.4
2500 0.20 100 0.5
3000 0.24 120 0.6
3500 0.28 140 0.7
4000 0.32 160 0.8
5000 0.40 200 1.0
6000 0.48 240 1.2
7000 0.56 280 1.4
8000 0.64 320 1.6
9000 0.72 360 1.8
10000 0.80 400 2.0

Issued by: permanent Inter-Agency Committee for the Continuous Monitoring and Review of
water Quality in public water supply schemes.

Central Environmental Authority, Ministry of Local Government, Housing and Construction

Types of equipment used for water chlorination

A. Floating bowl chlorinator to feed chlorine solution at a constant rate
The construction of this simple type of chlorinator is shown above the “floating bowl” can be
turned out of any suitable non-corrodible material. Satisfactory results can be obtained with;

1) a large wide-mouthed plastic bottle with the bottom removed,

2) a six inch-diameter PVC pipe with one end cemented or welded, or
3) any available bowl with a hole cut for a rubber bung.

The central 3mm-O.D tube with a nylon string passing through it serves to position the bowl
in the centre of the basin and to avoid the risk of its tipping over. Placing stones in the bowl
helps to keep it upright.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-88
 Annex – G

Figure A 29: Detail of Floating bowl chlorinator

While glass tubing, 3mm and 6mm outer diameter (0.D), can be obtained from dealers in
medical and laboratory supplies, ballpoint pen casing could also serve the purpose.

The two tubes on either side of the central guide-tube can be moved by sliding to a desired
height above the rubber bung. The rate of drip feed is controlled by the difference in height
“H” between the outlets of the 3mm – outer diameter tube and the level of the liquid in the
basin. The outlet of this tube may be narrowed down, if necessary, to reduce the rate of flow
of the solution of the solution to convenient levels.

B. Simple Arrangement for feeding chlorine solution

The above arrangement is a simple and useful method for dispensing chlorine solution for
water supplies. However, the addition of a pinchcock arrangement or a drip-control device of
a type similar to those used in medical transfusions is necessary to control the rate of flow of
the solution.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-89
 Annex – G

Figure A 30: Chlorine Solution Feeding Arrangement

Construction
Any suitable, can or bucket made of plastic or non-corrodible material is satisfactory. Other
components should also be of non-corrodible material while the tube inside the container
needs to be very flexible, the outlet tube may be of a sturdier material. Styrofoam, certain
packing materials or even certain types of soft wood can be used for the float (certain
materials may, however decompose in a short time).

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-90
 Annex – H

Annex-H: Design Calculation – Sludge Thickener

f) Summary of chemical dosages and raw water constituents producing sludge solids.

The following design parameters are adapted to calculate the residuals quantity from
sedimentation process.

Maximum daily demand 15,000 m3/day

Maximum daily flow required with 7.5% plant losses 16,125 m3/day
Maximum turbidity 17 NTU
Maximum seasonal iron concentration 0.7 mg/L
Maximum seasonal Mn concentration 0.4 mg/L
Optimum Coagulant (Alum) 25 mg/L
Optimum Coagulant aid (Cationic polymer) 0.05 mg/L
Hydrated lime for pH adjustment 15 mg/L
Seasonal Potassium permanganate (KMnO4)dosage 4 mg/L
Seasonal Powder Activated Carbon (PAC) dosage 5 mg/L

g) Production of solids under maximum daily flow conditions

i. Calculate the solids from raw water (assuming a ratio of 1.0 mg-TSS/L/NTU)
Q raw solids ,max = 17NTU ×1.0 mg-TSS/L/NTU X10-6kg/mg × 103L/m3 ×16,125 m3/day
= 274.12 kg/day

ii Calculate the solid precipitation due to iron content

kg
−Fe X 10−6 × 103 L
g mg
106.9 Fe(OH)3 × 0.7 mg 3 × 16,125𝑚3 /d
mole 𝑚
Q iron,Max =
55.9 g/mole Fe

= 21.58 kg/d

iii Calculate the solid precipitation due to Mn content

g kg
MnOOH × 0.4 mg − Mn × 10−6 mg X103 L
mole
87.9 3 × 16,125𝑚3 /d
Q manganese,Max = 𝑚
54.9 g/mole Mn

= 10.33 kg/d

iv Calculate the solid due to precipitation of Aluminum sulphate

Al2(SO4)3.14H2O +3Ca(HCO3) 2 Al(OH)3 +3CaSO4+ 6 CO2 + 14 H2O

Accordingly Aluminum sulphate - 0.26 kg/kg alum added
Q coagulant , Max = 0.26 kg Al(OH)3/kg Alum ×25 g/m3 Alum ×10-3 kg/g × 16,125 m3/d
= 104.81 kg/d

v Calculate the solid due to polymer

Q Polymer, Max = 0.05 mg-polymer/L × 10-6 kg/mg × 103 L/m3 × 16,125 m3/d
= 0.81 kg/d
vi Calculate the lime solid during pH Adjustment
( assume 20% of Ca(OH)2 precipitate as CaCO3)

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-91
 Annex – H
kg
∗ 15 mgCa(OH)2 × 10−6 mg × 103 L
g
0.2 X100 CaCO3 3 × 16,125𝑚3 /d
mole 𝑚
Q lime ,Max =
74 g/mole Ca(OH)2

= 65.37 kg/d

vii Calculate the solid due to permanganate

kg
× 10−6 mg × 103 L
g
87.9 MnOOH × 0.4 mg KMnO4 × 16,125𝑚3 /d
Q manganese,Max =
mole 𝑚3
158 g/mole KMnO4

= 3.59 kg/d

viii Calculate the solid due to PAC

Q PAC, Max = 5 mg-PAC/L × 10-6 kg/mg × 103 L/m3 × 16,125 m3/d

= 80.62 kg/d

ix Total solid produced =

(274.12 + 21.58 + 10.33 + 104.81 + 0.81 + 65.37 + 3.59 + 80.62) kg/d
= 561.23 kg/d

Because of many uncertainties associated with raw water quality, chemical dosage, and
the amount of bound water, it is common practice to increase this value by 20-60 percent. By
increasing this quantity by 40%, the total sludge solids production is adjusted to 786.0 kg/d

c) Quantity of residuals removed under maximum day flow condition

It is assumed that 90% of the solid produced are removed from the sedimentation tank
Q Removed ,max = 786kg/d × 0.9 = 707.4 kg/d

d) Specific gravity of wet sludge

The specific gravity of wet sludge is calculated as follows
Mws / Sg,ws = Ms / Sg,s + Mw / Sg,w
Where
Mws - Mass of wet sludge, kg
Sg,ws - Specific gravity of wet sludge
Ms - Mass of dry sludge solid kg
Sg,s - Specific gravity of dry sludge solid , kg
Mw - Mass of water kg
Sg,w - Specific gravity of water

The solid content of coagulant residual range from 0.1 - 4.0 percent by weight (w/w). An
average under flow solid concentration of 2 percent in sludge withdrawal is expected from the
sedimentation basin. Assume the specific gravity of dry solids and water is 2.4 and 1.0
respectively. For one kg of wet sludge mass with 2 percent solid, the following results is
expected for the above equation.
1 kg/ Sg,ws = 0.02 kg/2.4 + 0.98 kg/1.0
Solving the above Sg,ws = 1.012

e) Volume of sludge withdrawn under maximum day flow condition.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-92
 Annex – H
For the sludge with 2% solid and a specific gravity of 1.012 at the production rate of 707.4
kg/d , calculating the volume of wet residual per day-to-day
707.4 kg/d
V ws, max =
0.02 g/g × 1012 kg/m3

= 34.95 m3/d

The quantity of sludge produced per

1000m3 of raw water treated =

= 43.87 kg/1000 m3
It has been reported in the literature that total solid from an alum coagulation facility may be
8-200 kg per 1000 m3 of raw water treated
Thickener Design
Characteristic of the solid reaching the gravity thickener
The gravity thickener solid include sludge form the sedimentation basin and if any form
backwash recovery basin.
It is calculated that the 15000 m3/d plant produces
Total solid – 707.4. kg/d
Total volume – 34.95m3/d
3. Gravity thickener design
e. Calculate the dimensions of the thickener
Based on the solid loading of 80 kg/m2.d, the required are a is as follows;
Total required area is
=

= 8.84 m2

Diameter of the thickener =

= 3.35 m
f. Check the hydraulic loadings
Hydraulic loading =

= 3.95 m3/m2d
This satisfies the minimum hydraulic loading of 4 m3/m2d
g. Calculate the depth of the thickener
The total side water depth of the gravity thickener is composed of three separate items;
the clear water zone, the settling zone, and thickening zone. Generally, in a gravity thickener,
a clear water zone of 1.0 m, and settling zone of 1.5 m and thickening zone of 3.0 m are
considered sufficient.
Total side water depth = 1.0+1.5+3.0
= 5.5 m
A free board of 0.6 m is also provided.
h. Compute the depth of central hopper
The bottom of the thicker is sloped at 20 cm/m
The depth of the hopper = 20 cm/100 cm × 3.35 /2
= 0.33 m

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-93
 Annex – H
Total water depth = 5.5+0.33
= 5.83 m
(This satisfy the typical value between 4.5 -6.5 m)

i. Design of influent and effluent structure.

The influent and effluent structure of the thickener consists of a central well and 90°- V
notch weirs around the peripheral.

4. Thickening Period
The volume of the thickener is as follows

Volume = (Π/4 × 3.352 × 5.5)+ (Π/12×3.352 ×0.33)

≈ 49.5 m3

Thickening period = 49.5 m3/34.95 m3/d

= 1.41 d

(Thickening time might be 8-24 hrs)

Reference – Water Works Engineering – Syed R Qasim

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-94
 Annex – I

Annex-I: Mass Density, Kinematic Viscosity And Absolute

Viscosity Of Water

Specific Dynamic Kinematic Surface Modulus of Vapor

Temperature Density
weight viscosity viscosity tensionb elasticitya Pressor

T γ ρ μ ν σ E Pv
(×10−3 (×10−6 (×109
(◦C) (kN/m3) (kg/m3) (N/m) (kN/m2)
kg/m·s) m2/s) N/m2)
0 9.805 999.8 1.781 1.785 0.0765 1.98 0.61
5 9.807 1000 1.518 1.519 0.0749 2.05 0.87
10 9.804 999.7 1.307 1.306 0.0742 2.1 1.23
15 9.798 999.1 1.139 1.139 0.0735 2.15 1.7
20 9.789 998.2 1.002 1.003 0.0728 2.17 2.34
25 9.777 997 0.89 0.893 0.072 2.22 3.17
30 9.764 995.7 0.798 0.8 0.0712 2.25 4.24
40 9.73 992.2 0.653 0.658 0.0696 2.28 7.38
50 9.689 988 0.547 0.553 0.0679 2.29 12.33
60 9.642 983.2 0.466 0.474 0.0662 2.28 19.92
70 9.589 977.8 0.404 0.413 0.0644 2.25 31.16
80 9.53 971.8 0.354 0.364 0.0626 2.2 47.34
90 9.466 965.3 0.315 0.326 0.0608 2.14 70.1
100 9.399 958.4 0.282 0.294 0.0589 2.07 101.33

a - At atmospheric pressure.
b - In contact with the air.
Source: Water Treatment Principles and Designs – Third Edition, John C. Crittenden , R.
Rhodes, David W. Hand, J. Howe, Gemorge Tchobanoglous,
With Contributions By: James H. Borchardt P.E., Table c 2, page 1862

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-95
 Annex – J

Annex J: Periodic Table

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-96
Glossary
The terms used throughout this Manual are defined as follows:
Term Definition
Coagulation The process in which chemicals are added to water, causing a reduction of the forces tending
to keep particles apart. Particles in source water are in a stable condition and the purpose of
coagulation will destabilize particles and enable them to become attached to other particles so
that they may be removed in settling processes. Particulates in source waters that contribute to
color and turbidity are mainly clays, silts, viruses, bacteria, fulvic and humic acids, minerals
(including asbestos, silicates, silica, and radioactive particles), and organic particulates. At pH
levels above 4.0, particles or molecules are generally negatively charged. The coagulation
process physically occurs in a rapid mixing process.

Coagulant The inorganic or organic chemicals that, when added to water at an optimum dosage, cause
chemicals particle destabilization. Most coagulants are cationic when dissolved in water and include
chemicals such as alum, ferric salts, lime, and cationic organic polymers.

Direct filtration The treatment train that includes coagulation, flocculation, and filtration, but excludes a
separate sedimentation process. With direct filtration, all suspended solids are removed by
filtration. In the process sometimes called in-line filtration, flocculation occurs in the conduit
between the rapid mixing stage and the filter, in the volume above the filter media, and within
the filter media.

Enhanced A phrase used by the USEPA in the Disinfectants and Disinfection By-products Rule. The
coagulation rule requires that the coagulation process of some water supplies be operated to remove a
specified percentage of organic material from the source water, as measured by total organic
carbon (TOC). Enhanced coagulation (removal of TOC) can be achieved in most cases by
either increasing coagulant chemical dosage or adjusting the pH during the coagulation
reaction.

Flocculation The agglomeration of small particles and colloids to form settleable or filterable particles
(flocs). Flocculation begins immediately after destabilization in the zone of decaying mixing
energy following rapid mixing, or as a result of the turbulence of transporting flow. In some
instances, this incidental flocculation may be an adequate flocculation process. A separate
flocculation process is most often included in the treatment train to enhance contact of
destabilized particles and to build floc particles of optimum size, density, and strength.

Flocculation Chemicals used to assist in forming larger, denser particles that can be more easily removed
aids by sedimentation or filtration. Cationic, anionic, or non-ionic polymers are most often used in
dosages of less than 1.0 mg/L.

Flow Diagram A systematic representation of the sequence of steps or operations used in the production or
manufacture of a particular water item.

Hazard A biological, chemical, physical or radiological agent in, or condition of water, with the
potential to cause an adverse health effect. Another word for hazard includes “contaminant”.
Low-pressure The hollow-fiber membrane systems that provide micro- or ultrafiltration. These systems have
membranes pore sizes that are 10 to 100 times smaller than those of primary protozoa of concern (i.e.,
Cryptosporidium and Giardia lamblia). The membrane is a thin layer of polymer capable of
separating materials based on size and chemical properties. These membrane systems
typically operate in the range of - 83 kPa vacuum to 276 kPa pressure.
Mixing Commonly referred to as flash mixing, rapid mixing, or initial mixing. The purpose of rapid
mixing is to provide a uniform dispersion of coagulant chemical throughout the influent water.
Monitor The act of conducting a planned sequence of observations or measurements of control
parameters to assess whether a control point is under control or whether the water meets
quality criteria.
Risk For the purposes of this Manual, risk assessment has the same meaning as hazard analysis.
Assessment
Solids contact The proprietary devices that combine rapid mixing, flocculation, and sedimentation in one
clarifiers unit. These units provide separate coagulation and flocculation zones and are designed to
cause contact between newly formed floc and settled solids.

D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-97
D3- Water Quality & Treatment Manual/ NWSDB/ Revision – 01 (Nov 2020) A-98