Premium
Comparison of Microbial Removal Between Slow Dead‐End Versus Tangential Sand Filtration
Author(s) -
Dizer Halim,
Schmidt Ralf,
Szewzyk Regine,
LópezPila Juan M.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
water environment research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.356
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1554-7531
pISSN - 1061-4303
DOI - 10.2175/106143017x15131012153086
Subject(s) - filtration (mathematics) , dead end , slow sand filter , water quality , chemistry , suspended solids , water treatment , environmental engineering , wastewater , environmental science , pulp and paper industry , chromatography , biology , ecology , mathematics , flow (mathematics) , statistics , geometry , engineering
Both river bank filtration and dead‐end sand filtration are becoming increasingly applied in rural areas to improve the quality of fecally contaminated water. To evaluate the capacity of both treatments to remove E. coli , fecal streptococci, and somatic and K13‐phages, this study investigates their concentrations in diluted wastewater after short‐distance tangential sand filtration and dead‐end sand filtration. Bacteria were almost undetectable in both systems after 60 cm depth, and at a pore‐water velocity of 1 m/d. Both phages underwent removal of 2.5 logs by tangential filtration, whereas dead‐end filtration removed 5.1 logs and 3.9 logs of K13‐phages and somatic phages, respectively. After discounting removal by the schmutzdecke , observed only in the dead‐end filtration, both systems removed phages similarly. It is concluded that short‐distance river bank filtration, alone, does not meet WHO requirements for drinking water. However, the concomitant reduction of suspended solids renders the filtered water amenable to further treatment steps.