Views
6 days ago

galvis

Water treatment

Table 6.4. An example of

Table 6.4. An example of identification of MSF alternatives fulfilling established treatment objectives for removing turbidity, faecal coliform bacteria and colour, based on experiences in the Andean Colombian Cauca Valley. Filtration stages DyGF Filter bed length (m) Filtration rates (mh -1 ) 0.6 2.5 0.6 2.0 Type Influent contamination levels F. coliforms Turbidity Colour Maximum P 95% Max. (CFU/100ml) (NTU) (PCU) DyGF stage Individual efficiencies F. coliforms (log. units) Turbidity (%) Colour (%) X 1 Y 1

Mean Max Y 4 < 15,000 < 45,000 DyGF 2.5 DyGF 2.0 DyGF 2.0 DyGF 1.5 DyGF 1.5 SSF 0.15 SSF 0.15 SSF 0.15 SSF 0.15 UGFS(3) 0.6 UGFS(3) 0.6 UGFS(3) 0.6 UGFS(3) 0.45 UGFS(3) 0.3 SSF 0.15 Faecal coliforms (CFU/100ml) Y Y 3 < 5,000 < 15,000 Y 2 < 1,500 < 5,000 Y 1 < 750 < 2,500 DyGF 2.5 DyGF 2.0 DyGF 2.0 DyGF 1.5 DyGF 1.5 SSF 0.15 SSF 0.15 SSF 0.15 SSF 0.15 UGFS(2) 0.6 UGFS(2) 0.6 UGFS(3) 0.6 UGFS(3) 0.45 UGFS(3) 0.3 SSF 0.15 DyGF 2.5 DyGF 2.0 DyGF 2.0 DyGF 1.5 DyGF 1.5 SSF 0.15 SSF 0.15 SSF 0.15 SSF 0.15 UGFL 0.6 UGFL 0.6 UGFS(3) 0.6 UGFS(3) 0.45 UGFS(3) 0.3 SSF 0.15 DyGF 2.5 DyGF 2.0 DyGF 2.0 DyGF 1.5 DyGF 1.5 SSF 0.20 SSF 0.15 SSF 0.15 SSF 0.15 UGFL 0.75 UGFL 0.6 UGFS(3) 0.6 UGFS(3) 0.45 UGFS(3) 0.3 SSF 0.15 Turbidity (NTU) Colour (PCU) X Z Mean < 5 10 16 20 25 P 95% < 15 30 50 60 70 Maximum < 50 100 150 225 300 X 1 X 2 X 3 X 4 X 5 Mean < 10 13 16 18 20 Maximum < 30 40 50 55 60 Z 1 Z 2 Z 3 Z 4 Z 5 (1) The number between brackets indicates the number of filtration steps in UGFS alternatives. The sub-index means filtration rates in mh -1 . (2) Raw water may be directly disinfected (without filtration) if turbidity and faecal coliform levels are below 5 NTU and 20 CFU/100 ml in 95% of samples respectively. These low contamination levels must be confirmed periodically with sanitary inspections and analyses in the watershed area. (3) DyGF + SSF (without CGF stage) could be applied if turbidity and faecal coliform levels are below 10 NTU and 20 CFU/100 ml in 95% of samples respectively. These low contamination levels must be confirmed periodically with sanitary inspections and analyses in the watershed area. (4) Turbidity treatment objectives (≤ 10 and 5 NTU in CGF and SSF effluents respectively) should be obtained with 95 percentile (P 95 ) turbidity values. It is expected that maximum (peak) turbidity values can be treated thanks to the protection capacity of DyGF stage, combining flow reductions with higher removal efficiencies. (5) Faecal coliform treatment objectives (≤ 1,000 and 10 CFU/100 ml in CGF and SSF effluents respectively) should be obtained with maximum faecal coliform levels. With medium faecal coliform levels in raw water sources SSF effluents should have effluents with mean values ≤ 3 CFU/100 ml before terminal disinfection). (6) Colour treatment objective (≤ 15 PCU in SSF effluents) should be obtained with Maximum colour levels. This is a secondary treatment objective and should not compromise previous treatment objectives or terminal disinfection as a safety barrier. Figure 6.4. An example of a selection guide for MSF alternatives fulfilling established treatment objectives for removing turbidity, faecal coliform bacteria and colour, based on experiences in the Andean Colombian Cauca Valley. If high turbidity values last for more than a few (2 or 3) days, another treatment stage such as plain sedimentation becomes necessary. Even with low turbidity water sources a grit chamber may be required before DyGF stage if rivers or streams transport significant amounts of sand or similar materials. Mean turbidity raw water values shown in figure 6.4 should allow MSF alternatives to produce effluents with mean turbidity values ≤ 1 NTU. However, this possible treatment objective may limit MSF technology in those regions with more turbid raw water sources. This objective seems to be arguable since low microbial sanitary risk can be obtained with turbidity levels > 1 NTU. However, in those regions with mean raw water turbidity levels < 25 NTU, like the hillsides of the Cauca Valley, it is an achievable objective benefiting the efficacy of terminal low dose disinfection. 204

Screen Filtration for Ballast Water Treatment Applications - Cross ...
Pall Aria™ AP-Series Packaged Water Treatment ... - Pall Corporation
Water Treatment Improvements and Plant Capacity ... - Ohiowater.org
Precursor Removal from Ground Water Using GAC ... - Ohiowater.org
Pall Aria™ AP-Series Packaged Water Treatment ... - Pall Corporation
may 4th am water treatment.pdf(18358.4kb) - PNWS-AWWA
Waste water treatment without chemistry Atec Advanced Oxidation ...
Everpure Water Filtration - Lenox-Martell Inc
The Treatment of Scottish Water for Private Communities
Understanding Emulsified Water Filtration - Donaldson Company, Inc.
The best solutions in water treatment - Istobal
Water Treatment Products - Colorfil
Microorganisms (The Coliform Group Bacteria)
Pilot Testing and Evaluation of Three Filtration Technologies - pncwa
Capacity Charts for Water Treatment Systems
2003 City of Roanoke Water Quality Report - Western Virginia Water ...
Water treatment for Semiconductors industry
Council Bluffs Water Works South Water Treatment Plant – Planning ...
19/02/2018 Sinergroup - Filter housings Catalog - Standard housings, Big housings, Housings brackets, Housings wrenches
FILTRATION - Environmental Protection Agency
Technical Advances in the Treatment of Water and Air for ... - IAAPA
Chemicalfree Water Treatment - Necon
Water Quality Report - 2010 - Presidio Trust
Commercial water treatment solutions - CMS
Water Analysis and Treatment - Ohiowater.org
Evaluation of Treatment Options for the Raspberry ... - Loudoun Water
environmentally responsible water treatment - Promolife