Premium
Treatment Plant Design for Particulate Removal: Effects of Flow Rate and Particle Characteristics
Author(s) -
Boccelli Dominic L.,
Small Mitchell J.,
Diwekar Urmila M.
Publication year - 2004
Publication title -
journal ‐ american water works association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.466
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1551-8833
pISSN - 0003-150X
DOI - 10.1002/j.1551-8833.2004.tb10743.x
Subject(s) - filtration (mathematics) , particulates , particle size , volumetric flow rate , effluent , particle (ecology) , particle size distribution , range (aeronautics) , water treatment , environmental engineering , volume (thermodynamics) , environmental science , chemistry , materials science , mechanics , mathematics , thermodynamics , composite material , statistics , physics , organic chemistry , oceanography , geology
The removal of particulate matter is central to the drinking water treatment process. An integrated model for describing contact, direct, and nonsweep conventional filtration is incorporated into an optimization framework to determine least‐cost treatment configurations and design parameters that satisfy hydraulic and effluent concentration constraints. Various influent particle concentrations, size distributions, and size ranges under different flow rates and particle densities are explored to illustrate the importance of size distribution characteristics, flow rate, and particle density on design decisions. In general, contact filtration and conventional filtration are the predominant treatment processes, with direct filtration used sparingly for waters with higher concentrations of small particles. The results illustrate that the volume average diameter is not sufficient to characterize the treatment performance; rather, the particle size range and distribution shape are also needed to determine the appropriate treatment configuration. Increasing the design flow rate (2, 10, and 75 mgd [7.57, 37.85, and 283.88 ML/d]) and particle density (1.05, 1.20, and 2.40 g/cm 3 ) both lead to a preference for contact filtration over conventional filtration.