United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory
Cincinnati OH 45268
EPA 600 2-79 152
August 1979
Research and Development
Separation of Algal
Cells from
Wastewater Lagoon
Effluents
Volume II
Effect of Sand
Size on the
Performance of
Intermittent Sand
Filters
\
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1 Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution-sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service. Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-79-152
August 1979
SEPARATION OF ALGAL CELLS FROM WASTEWATER LAGOON EFFLUENTS
Volume II: Effect of Sand Size on the Performance
of Intermittent Sand Filters
by
Basil Tupyi, D. S. Filip, James H. Reynolds,
and E. Joe Middlebrooks
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
Contract No. 68-03-0281
Project Officer
Ronald F. Lewis
Wastewat.er Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was created because of increasing
public and government concern about the dangers of pollution to the health and
welfare of the American people. The complexity of the environment and the
interplay between its components require a concentrated and integrated attack
on the problem.
Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solution
and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and searching for
solutions. The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory develops new and
improved technology and systems for the prevention, treatment, and management
of wastewater and solid and hazardous waste pollutant discharges from munici-
pal and community sources, for the preservation and treatment of public drink-
ing water supplies, and tp minimize the adverse economic, social, health, and
aesthetic effects of pollution. This publication is one of the products of
that research; a most vital communications link between the researcher and
the user community.
As part of these activities, this report was prepared to make available
to the sanitary engineering community a full year of operating and performance
data from a field scale intermittent sand filter system employed to upgrade
waste stabilization lagoon effluent. The main objective of this research was
to determine the effect of sand size on filter performance.
Francis T. Mayo
Director
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
Varying effective sand sizes, hydraulic loading rates and application
rates resulted in profound effects on effluent quality of single stage inter-
mittent sand filtration for secondary wastewater lagoon effluents. The finer
effective sand size produced an effluent that satisfied the State of Utah,
Class C Regulations except for the requirements for coliform bacteria counts.
The lower effective sand size produced greater influent 5-day biochemical oxy-
gen demand and suspended solids removals. Very high coliform removal was ex-
hibited by all prototype intermittent sand filters. The length of consecutive
days of operation without plugging was increased by lowering the hydraulic
loading rate. It was estimated that a single stage intermittent sand filter
system with a design flow of 3785 m /d (1.0 MGD) and a hydraulic loading rate
of 3742 m-Vha-d (0.4 MGAD) can be constructed and operated at a cost of $70
per million gallons of filtrate (with 75 percent Federal assistance) and pro-
duce an effluent that will satisfy the State of Utah discharge requirements.
Influent biochemical oxygen demand (8005) concentrations and suspended solids
concentrations were too low to determine whether the Federal Secondary Treat-
ment Standards were satisfied.
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-
0281 by Utah State University under the sponsorship of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Experimental work described and discussed herein covers
the period of August 1975 to August 1976.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword ill
Abstract iv
Figures vii
Tables x
Acknowledgments xii
1. Introduction 1
Nature of the Problem 1
Objectives 2
2. Conclusions 3
3. Recommendations 6
4. Literature Review 7
History 7
Performance 8
Climatic Studies and Effects 11
Filtering Mechanisms 13
Clogging Mechanisms 13
Design and Operation 14
Economic Analysis 18
5. Method and Procedures 20
Experimental Setting 20
Sampling and Analysis 25
6. Results and Discussion 27
General 27
Hydraulic Loading Rates and Application Rates .... 27
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Removal Efficiency .... 28
Chemical Oxygen Demand Performance 34
Suspended Solids Removal Performance 40
Volatile Suspended Solids Performance 46
Oxidation of Nitrogen 51
pH and Alkalinity 72
Phosphorus Performance 81
Dissolved Oxygen 88
Climatic Conditions 94
Bacterial Removal Performance 98
Algae and Zooplankton Removal 99
Length of Filter Operation 100
Sampling of Suspended Solids with Time 105
Sampling Biochemical Oxygen Demand with Time .... 112
Final Effective Size Filter Sand Analysis 119
Performance Summary 121
-------
CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
7. Intermittent Sand Filter Design 124
General 124
Construction 124
Operation 126
References ..... 128
Appendix A. Tabulation of Results 132
Appendix B. Cost Estimates , 149
vi
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Percent influent biochemical oxygen demand removal of a
0.31 mm effective size sand compared with depth
(Grantham et al., 1949) 9
2 Hypothesized variation of nitrate concentration in sand
filters (Pincince and McKee, 1968) 12
3 The location of the intermittent sand filters with respect
to the City of Logan's lagoon system . 21
4 A plan view of the six single stage prototype intermittent
sand filters utilized in the experiment 22
5 A typical intermittent sand filter design 23
6 Weekly biochemical oxygen demand (BOD,.) performance ... 30
7 Weekly chemical oxygen demand performance » . 36
8 Weekly suspended solids performance ........ 42
9 Weekly volatile suspended solids performance ...... 48
10 Volatile suspended solids removal efficiency as a function
of effective size filter sand; hydraulic loading rate
was 9354 m3/ha.d (1.0 MGAD) for all sand filters,
except the 0.17 mm effective size sand filter which
was operated at a hydraulic loading rate of 3742
m3/ha«d (0.4 MGAD) 52
11 Weekly ammonia-nitrogen performance , 57
12 Weekly nitrite-nitrogen performance ......... 60
13 Weekly nitrate-^nitrogen performance 63
14 Weekly total Kjeldahl nitrogen performance 66
15 Weekly total nitrogen results 69
16 Weekly pH performance 75
vii
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
17 Weekly alkalinity performance 78
18 Weekly total phosphorus performance 82
19 Weekly orthophosphate performance • 85
20 Weekly dissolved oxygen performance .91
21 Weekly water temperature recordings 95
22 Bar graph illustrating the average length of filter
operations with various effective size sands,
hydraulic loading rates, and application rates . . . 102
23 Influent suspended solids and volatile suspended solids
concentrations with time 106
24 Suspended solids with time of the 0.68 mm effective size
sand filter with an application rate of 0.048 m^/sec
(1.68 cfs) 107
25 Suspended solids with time of the 0.68 mm effective size
sand filter with an application rate of 0.008 m-Vsec
(0.29 cfs) 108
26 Suspended solids with time of the 0.40 mm effective size
sand filter with an application rate of 0.048 m-Vsec
(1.68 cfs) 109
27 Suspended solids with time of the 0.40 mm effective size
sand filter with an application rate of 0.008 m-Vsec
(0.29 cfs) 110
28 Suspended solids with time of the 0.31 mm effective size
sand filter with an application rate of 0.048 m-Vsec
(1.68 cfs) Ill
29 Suspended solids with time of the 0.31 mm' effective size
sand filter with an application rate of 0.008 m^/sec
(0.29 cfs) 112
30 Suspended solids with time of the 0.17 mm effective size
sand filter 113
31 Influent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD,-) with time . . . . 114
viii
-------
FIGURES (CONTINUED)
Number Page
32 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) with time of the 0.68 mm
effective size sand filter with an application rate
of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) .......... 115
33 Biochemical oxygen demand (3005) with time of the 0.68 mm
effective size sand filter with an application rate
of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) .......... 116
34 Biochemical oxygen demand (8005) with time of the 0.40 mm
effective size sand filter with an application rate
of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) .......... 117
35 Biochemical oxygen demand {BOQg) with time of the 0.40 mm
effective size sand filter with an application rate
of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) .......... 118
36 Biochemical oxygen demand (8005) with time of the 0.31 mm
effective size sand filter with an application rate
of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) .......... 119
37 Biochemical oxygen demand (6005) with time of the 0.31 mm
effective size sand filter with an application rate
of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) ...... .... 120
38 Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) with time of the 0.17 mm
effective size sand filters .......... 121
ix
-------
TABLES
Number Page
1 Length of filter runs during a winter experimental period
at Utah State University (Reynolds et al., 1974) ... 13
2 Filtration process variables and particle removal mechanisms
as stated by Tchobanoglous (1970) 14
3 Recommended hydraulic loading rates for a 0.2 mm to 0.35 mm
effective size sand filter (Metcalf and Eddy, 1935) . . 17
4 Degree of rejuvenation of a plugged intermittent sand
filter at various periods of rest (Schwartz et al.,
1967) 19
5 Comparison of filter run performances with various methods
of rejuvenating a plugged intermittent sand filter
(Gaub, 1915) 19
6 Description of Logan municipal sewage lagoon system .... 24
7 Effective size of sands, hydraulic loading rates, and
application rates utilized in the study 24
8 Initial sieve analysis of the various filter sands used ... 25
9 Procedures for analyses performed ... 26
10 Summary of the five-day biochemical oxygen demand
performance 29
11 Yearly summary of the chemical oxygen demand
performance ....... 35
12 Yearly summary of the suspended solids performance . . . .41
13 Yearly summary of the volatile suspended solids
performance 47
14 Yearly summary of the ammonia-nitrogen performance .... 53
15 Yearly summary of the nitrite-nitrogen performance .... 54
-------
TABLES (CONTINUED)
Number
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Yearly summary of the nitrate-nitrogen performance ....
Yearly summary of the total Kjeldahl nitrogen
Yearly summary of the total phosphorus performance ....
Yearly summary of the orthophosphate as phosphorus
Yearly summary of the dissolved oxygen performance ....
Filter run lengths achieved by the various effective
Number of months the monthly average effluent concentrations
Page
55
56
73
74
88
89
90
101
122
of various effective size sands satisfied the State of
Utah and federal secondary treatment standards
(independent of influent concentrations) 123
26 Estimated cost per million gallons of filtrate produced
by various designs of intermittent sand filters ... 127
xi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation and assistance of the Logan City Engineer, Mr. Ray Hugie,
is greatly appreciated. Assistance in the operation of the Logan City Waste
Stabilization Lagoon System was provided by Logan City personnel.
xii
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
NATURE OF THE PROBLEM
Waste stabilization lagoons are employed by over 4,000 communities
throughout the United States for the treatment of wastewater. Apparently,
90 percent of the communities have populations of less than 5,000 people.
Often these small communities are lacking in resources and competent personnel
to maintain and operate sophisticated wastewater treatment facilities.
Historically, wastewater lagoons have provided small communities with
simple, efficient, and economical wastewater treatment. However, as state
and federal discharge requirements become more stringent, the degree of treat-
ment achievable with a conventional lagoon system may be inadequate to
satisfy these stringent discharge standards. Because a large number of small
communities already employ lagoon systems and because there are significant
advantages to lagoon systems, an inexpensive method of upgrading lagoon
effluent is sorely needed.
Intermittent sand filtration has been shown to successfully upgrade
lagoon effluent for relatively low cost (Middlebrooks et al., 1974; Marshall
and Middlebrooks, 1974; Reynolds et al., 1974; Harris et al., 1975; Bishop,
1976; Hill, 1976; and Messinger, 1976). These studies have indicated that
intermittent sand filter effluent quality is significantly affected by the
effective size of the filter sand employed. Smaller effective size filter
sands produced a higher quality effluent. However, smaller effective size
filter sands and high hydraulic loading rates also significantly reduced the
length of filter run. Thus, optimal intermittent sand filter operation
requires balancing the effective size of the filter sand with hydraulic load-
ing rate and length of filter run. Unfortunately, previous studies only
provided a cursory evaluation of the effect of various effective size filter
sands on intermittent sand filter effluent quality, hydraulic loading rate and
length of filter run (Marshall and Middlebrooks, 1974).
Editorial Note: The definition of secondary treatment for federal regulation
of municipal wastewater treatment plant effluents has been or is being modi-
fied. The Federal Register Vol. 41, No. 144, Monday, July 26, 1976, pp.
30786-30789, contains amendments pertaining to effluent values for pH and
deletion of fecal coliform bacteria limitations from the definition of second-
ary treatment. The Federal Register, Vol. 42, No. 195, Friday, October 7,
1977, contains changes in the suspended solids requirements for small munici-
pal lagoon systems serving as the sole process for secondary treatment of
wastewaters.
-------
OBJECTIVES
The general objective of the study was to evaluate the effects of various
effective size filter sands and hydraulic loading rates on the effluent
quality and filter run lengths of intermittent sand filters employed to up-
grade facultative waste stabilization lagoon effluent.
To satisfy the above general objective, the following specific objectives
were achieved on a small prototype facultative lagoon-intermittent sand fil-
ter system:
1. Evaluate the effects of various effective size filter sands on
hydraulic loading rate and application rate.
2. Evaluate the effects of various effective size filter sands on ef-
fluent quality.
3. Evaluate the effects of various effective size filter sands on length
of filter run.
4. Determine the cost of intermittent sand filter operation with various
effective size filter sands.
5. Develop design criteria for intermittent sand filters employing
various effective size sands.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study indicate that the application rate of lagoon
effluent applied to an intermittent sand filter may have a significant effect
on filter effluent quality. Conclusions drawn from this study are presented
below and divided according to the two application rates studied.
The following conclusions are based on data obtained with a high appli-
cation rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs):
1. Th,e 0.17 mm effective size sand filters with hydraulic loading rates
of 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) and 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) were able to satisfy
the effluent biochemical oxygen demand (BODc) and suspended splids concen-
trations set forth by the State of Utah discharge requirements and the Federal
Secondary Treatment Standards.
2. The 0.40 mm and 0.68 mm effective size sand with hydraulic loading
rates of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD) were not capa-
ble of satisfying the effluent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and suspended
solids concentrations established by the State of Utah, Class C Regulations.
Federal Secondary Treatment Standards were met, but influent BOD^ and SS con-
centrations were lower than the standards.
3. Finer effective size filter sands produced a more nitrified effluent.
The 0.17 mm effective size sand filters produced a higher nitrified effluent
than the other effective size sand filters.
4. Hydraulic loading rate has little effect on effluent quality of
various effective size sands.
5. The 0.17 mm effective size sand filters were able to satisfy the
effluent pH values established in the Federal Secondary Treatment Standards
and the State of Utah discharge requirements.
6. The 0.40 mm effective size sand with hydraulic loading rates of
9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD) did not consistently
satisfy the effluent pH values set forth in the Federal Secondary Treatment
Standards and the State of Utah discharge requirements. The 0.40 mm filter
satisfied the proposed treatment standards 50 percent of the time.
7. The 0.68 mm effective size sand with hydraulic loading rates of
9354 m3/ha.d (1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m3/ha.d (2,0 MGAD) were not able to satisfy
-------
the effluent pH values set forth in the Federal Secondary Treatment Standards
and the State of Utah discharge requirements.
8. A nitrogen loss of 6 percent was generally observed in all effective
size sands.
9. Filter sand size, hydraulic loading rate and application rate appear-
ed to have negligible effects on nitrogen loss.
10- Little phosphorus removal was observed in all filter sand sizes.
11. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the effluents from the larger
effective size sands were generally higher than those observed with the fine
sands (e.s. < 0.31), but none were less than 4 tng/1 during the study.
12. All filter sand sizes studied met the effluent dissolved oxygen re-
quirements established by the Federal Secondary Treatment Standards and the
State of Utah discharge requirements.
13. The effluent total and fecal coliform counts do not satisfy the
Federal Secondary Treatment Standards or the State of Utah discharge require-
ments. Disinfection of filter effluent is required.
14. Finer effective size sands produce a lower effluent total and fecal
coliform concentration.
15. Total influent zooplankton removal was achieved by the 0.17 mm, 0.31
mm, 0.40 mm, and 0.68 mm effective size sands.
16. Higher influent algae removals were obtained with finer effective
size sands.
17. Greater effective size sands require less time to remove the fine
sands and grit accumulated from the previous days loading.
18. Hydraulic loading rate and application rate have no significant ef-
fect on the removal of fine sands and grit accumulated from the previous day's
loading.
19. Cold climatic conditions found in northern Utah present no problems
in operation of intermittent sand filters with various hydraulic loading rates
and sand sizes.
20. High hydraulic loading rates of 28,062 m3/ha-d (3.0 MGAD) resulted
in short filter run lengths for the 0.40 mm and 0.68 mm effective size sands.
3 3
21. Hydraulic loading rates of 9354 m /ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m /ha-d
(2.0 MGAD) produce satisfactory filter run lengths for the 0.40 mm and 0.68 mm
effective size sands.
22. The 0.17 mm effective size sand with a hydraulic loading rate of 1871
m^/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) did not plug during the study. However, the 0.17 mm filter
-------
was scraped after 280 consecutive days of operation to remove weeds that had
grown on the filter surface. The 0.17 nun filter operated 90 consecutive days
without plugging following the weed removal.
23. The 0.17 mm effective size sand with a hydraulic loading rate of
1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) is capable of achieving filter run lengths greater
than 100 consecutive days.
Lowering the application rate appears to have a profound effect on ef-
fluent quality; however, further study should be conducted with various hy-
draulic loading rates and effective size filter sands to fully evaluate appli-
cation rates effect on effluent quality. The following conclusions are based
on data obtained with a low application rate of 0.008 nrVsec (0.29 cfs) :
24. The 0.40 mm effective size sand filter with a hydraulic loading rate
of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) is capable of satisfying the effluent BOD5 and SS
concentrations established by the State of Utah, Class C Regulations.
25. Lower application rates produce a higher nitrified effluent.
26. Lower application rates appear to produce a lower effluent DO con-
centration.
27. Long filter run lengths may be achieved through utilizing low appli-
cation rates. The 0.40 mm filter operated 40 days without cleaning or scrap-
ing during the summer months.
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The effluent quality of a 0.25 mm to 0.31 mm effective size sand fil-
ter receiving a wastewater with BOD5 and SS concentrations in excess of the
Federal Standards should be evaluated to determine whether the Federal
Secondary Treatment Standards and State of Utah discharge requirements can
be satisfied.
2. Higher influent biochemical oxygen demand (6005) and suspended
solids concentrations should be evaluated to determine the ability of 0.40 mm
and 0.68 mm effective size sand filters to satisfy the Federal Secondary
Treatment Standards.
3. Further study of the effects of application rates on effluent water
quality is required for all effective size sands.
-------
SECTION 4
LITERATURE REVIEW
HISTORY
Intermittent sand filtration is the intermittent application of waste-
water to a natural or artificial sand bed. Initial development of intermit-
tent sand filters is credited to Sir Edward Frankland of Britain (Emerson,
1945). In 1870, Sir Edward indicated that intermittent sand filtration was
both a physical and biological process and that visually the effluent quality
was hardly distinguishable from potable water. Design criteria developed by
Sir Edward were employed to construct an intermittent sand filter plant at
Merthyd Tydvil, Wales, in 1872 (Pincince and McKee, 1968). This plant con-
sisted of four separate filters with a total surface area of 8 hectares (20
acres) which received raw sewage at a hydraulic loading rate of 561 m3/ha-d
(0.06 MGAD).
The first intermittent sand filtration system in the United States was
developed by the Massachusetts State Board of Health at the Lawrence Experi-
ment Station in 1887 (Massachusetts Board of Health, 1912). Studies conducted
on the Lawrence Experiment Station intermittent sand filters indicated that
(1) smaller effective size filter sands and lower hydraulic loading rates
required less filter bed depth to produce a high quality effluent than coarser
effective size filter sands and higher hydraulic loading rates, (2) lower
hydraulic loading rates are required with smaller effective size filter sands
to maintain practical filter run lengths, (3) the amount of wastewater treated
by an intermittent sand filter for a given filter run length is more dependent
on the concentration of the organic matter within the wastewater than on the
absolute volume of wastewater, and (4) uniform distribution of wastewater
over the filter surface is unnecessary.
By 1904 there were 41 intermittent sand filter plants treating wastewater
from approximately 250,000 people in the United States (Fuller, 1914). Since
intermittent sand filters required large land areas, as population increased
their popularity diminished and they were replaced by processes requiring less
land area such as trickling filters and activated sludge (ASCE-WPCF Joint
Committee, 1959). However, after World War II, numerous retirement commu-
nities and tourist facilities were constructed in Florida. These relatively
small installations revitalized the use of intermittent sand filters and
stimulated intermittent sand filter research at the University of Florida
(Emerson, 1945).
In 1947 the University of Florida conducted studies on pilot plant inter-
mittent sand filters (Grantham et al., 1949; Furman, 1954; Calaway et al.,
-------
1952; Calaway, 1957). The filters received screened raw domestic sewage at
hydraulic loading rates from 692 m3/ha-d (0.075 MGAD) to 1637 nP/ha-d (0.175
MGAD) and employed filter sands with effective sizes from 0.25 mm to 0.46 mm.
The results of these studies indicated that (1) suspended solids performance
is a function of filter sand effective size and depth of filter sand, (2) oxi-
dation of nitrogen forms is more complete with smaller effective size filter
sands, (3) organic removal efficiency increased with increasing temperatures,
(4) dosing the filters twice a day permitted higher daily hydraulic loading
rates, and (5) hydraulic loading rates up to 1169 m3/ha-d (0.125 MGAD) may be
employed on filter sand with an effective size of 0.25 mm and up to 1403 m3/
ha-d (0.15 MGAD) on filter sand with an effective size of 0.31 mm and 0.44 mm
without significant operational difficulties.
Recently, intermittent sand filters have been employed to upgrade lagoon
effluent. Several laboratory, pilot scale, and prototype studies have been
conducted at Utah State University (Marshall and Middlebrooks, 1974; Reynolds
et al., 1974; Harris et al., 1975; Bishop, 1976; Hill et al., 1976; Messinger,
1976). These studies have employed 0-17 mm to 0.72 mm effective size filter
sands and hydraulic loading rates from 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) to 14,031 m3/
ha-d (1.5 MGAD). Intermittent sand filtration of lagoon effluents has result-
ed in final effluent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) and suspended solids
(SS) concentrations of less than 10 mg/1 (Reynolds et al., 1974; Harris et al.,
1975).
Hill et al. (1976) conducted pilot scale studies of intermittent sand
filters operated in series utilized to upgrade lagoon effluents. Series in-
termittent sand filter operation resulted in a high quality effluent (BOD5
and SS < 10 mg/1) and filter run lengths in excess of 130 days. Bishop (1976)
conducted pilot scale studies of intermittent sand filters receiving aerated
lagoon effluents and found that intermittent sand filtration of lagoon efflu-
ents was not effective. Messinger (1976) conducted laboratory scale studies
of intermittent sand filters treating anaerobic lagoon effluent and reported
that intermittent sand filtration of anaerobic lagoon effluent was not effec-
tive.
PERFORMANCE
Biochemical Oxygen Demand Performance
Grantham et al. (1949) and Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974) have reported
that intermittent sand filter effluent is highly oxidized and that the efflu-
ent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) is well into the nitrogenous phase. Bio-
chemical oxygen demand (8005) performance is significantly affected by the
depth of the sand filter bed as shown in Figure 1 (Grantham et al., 1949).
Grantham et al. (1949) reported that the critical filter bed depth for BODs
removal for a 0.35 mm effective size filter sand was approximately 30 cm
(12 inches). However, a practical minimum depth of filter bed for field in-
stallations is 60 cm (24 inches) (Grantham et al., 1949).
Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974) and Grantham et al. (1949) have reported
that the effective size of the filter sand has a significant affect on
8
-------
c
UJ <
x
O
O Q
O
2 <
00 5
UJ
a
100-i
90-
80-
70-
60
0
I
10
I
20
I
30
40
50
I
60
I
70
I
80
100
DEPTH (cm)
Figure 1. Percent influent biochemical oxygen demand removal of a 0.31 mm effective size sand com-
pared with depth (Grantham et al.s 1949). cm x 2.54 = inches.
-------
intermittent sand filter BOD5 removal. Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974) using
a 0.17 mm effective size flit . sand produced an average filtered effluent
BOD5 concentration of 2 mg/1 with a hydraulic loading rate of 3742 m /ha-d
(0.4 MGAD) and an average filtered effluent BOD5 concentration of 4 mg/1 with
a hydraulic loading rate of 7483 m3/ha-d (0.8 MGAD). However, with a 0.72 mm
effective size filter sand the filtered effluent BOD5 concentration increased
to 5 mg/1 with a hydraulic loading rate of 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) and 6 mg/1
with a hydraulic loading rate of 5612 m3/ha-d (0.6 MGAD).
Suspended Solids Performance
Studies performed at the University of Florida (Furman, 1954) reported
suspended solids removals ranging from 89 percent to 96 percent with influent
suspended solids concentrations ranging from 90 mg/1 to 130 mg/1. Salvato
(1972) states that intermittent sand filters if operated properly can attain
90 percent to 98 percent influent suspended solids removal.
Recent studies performed at Utah State University reported effluent sus-
pended solids concentrations were near zero immediately before an intermittent
sand filter plugged. As the intermittent sand filter approaches failure, the
infiltration rate decreases, increasing the influent suspended solids removal
(Marshall and Middlebrooks, 1974). Laboratory studies by Marshall and Middle-
brooks (1974) showed that hydraulic loading rate has little effect on sus-
pended solids removal efficiency, and that finer effective size filter sands
produce higher suspended solids removals.
Hill et al. (1976) reported 75 percent removal of the influent suspended
solids with a series intermittent sand filter system of 0.72 mm, 0.40 mm, and
0.17 mm effective size filter sands. The 0.72 mm effective size sand filter
removed the major portion of the influent suspended solids. Harris et al.
(1975) showed that the length of filter run is related to the influent sus-
pended solids concentration and the hydraulic loading rate. Harris et al.
(1975) also concluded that an effluent suspended solids concentration of less
than 10 mg/1 can be attained with intermittent sand filters used to upgrade
lagoon f: "fluent.
Phosphorus Removal Efficiency
Significant amounts of phosphorus are not removed by intermittent sand
filtration. Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974) have shown that initially phos-
phorus will be removed by adsorption to the sand particles. However, once
the ion exchange sites within the sand filter bed have saturated, significant
phosphorus removal does not occur.
A study conducted at the Whitby Experimental Station, Ontario, Canada,
resulted in considerable phosphorus reduction with intermittent sand filters
by mixing a "Red Mud" into the upper 20 cm (8 inches) of the sand filter bed
(Chowdry, 1972, 1973). The "Red Mud," which was composed of 16.7 percent
Si02, 2.5 percent CaO, 22.7 percent Na20, 22.7 percent A1203 and 25.3 percent
Fe203, increased the number of ion exchange sites available for phosphorus
adsorption. Once the adsorption sites became saturated, significant phos-
phorus removal ceased.
10
-------
Nitrogen Removal Performance
Oxidation of ammonia to nitrate within the intermittent sand filter bed
has been reported by Furman et al. (1955) and Grantham et al. (1949). Grant-
ham et al. (1949) reported that oxidation of ammonia to nitrate increased as
the depth of filter bed increased and also as the effective size of the filter
sand became smaller. With an effective size filter sand of 0.31 mm and a hy-
draulic loading rate of 115 m3/ha-d (0.075 MGAD), Grantham et al. (1949) ob-
served that 98 percent of the influent ammonia was oxidized to nitrate. Grant-
ham et al. (1949) also reported better nitrification occurred when two equal
doses of wastewater per day were applied to the filters.
Pincince and McKee (1968) found that the aerobic condition of the sand
filter bed has a significant affect on the oxidation of ammonia to nitrate
in intermittent sand filters. Their hypothesis is illustrated in Figure 2.
Pincince and McKee (1968) postulated that the nitrate concentration within the
sand filter bed would be constant while water was ponded on the sand filter
surface (i.e., tg in Figure 2). Once the water had infiltrated into the sand
filter bed, leaving the sand filter surface exposed to the atmosphere, oxygen
(air) would move into the sand filter bed and nitrification would commence
(i.e., ti to t3 in Figure 2). As the oxygen penetrates deeper into the sand
filter bed, nitrification at deeper depths will occur (i.e., t, to t7 in
Figure 2).
CLIMATIC STUDIES AND EFFECTS
Many ideas have been proposed to overcome the effects of harsh winter
climatic conditions upon intermittent sand filters. Techniques of winter
maintenance and operation differ among designers.
Metcalf and Eddy (1935) reported that best filtration results during the
winter are obtained by leaving the intermittent sand filter beds flat. The
chief reasons are the expense of furrowing the beds and the greater difficulty
in removing the accumulated solid matter from the furrows.
Frost (Fuller, 1914) considered'the application of large doses to be one
of the vital points in the maintenance of sewage filters during the winter.
Frost did not attempt to keep an area of filtering surface open during the
winter. While operating in this mode, Frost also planted corn on the beds.
When the stalks were cut the mounds allowed the ice formations to rest upon
them, keeping the filtering material open.
Boiling (1907) furrowed the filter bed with furrows 91.4 cm (3 feet)
apart and 30.5 cm (12 inches) deep. The ice rested upon the tops of the
ridges. Allardice (Fuller, 1914) reported that the Clinton, Massachusetts,
plant was operated in much the same manner as Boiling used at Brockton, Mas-
sachusetts. However, only 20 percent of the beds were furrowed during the
winter months. The City of Brockton had experienced little difficulty in
this technique with hydraulic loading rates exceeding 4677 m-Vha-d (0.5 MGAD)
upon the furrowed beds (Daniels, 1945).
11
-------
NITRATE - CONCENTRATION
't
Ct Cc
Ct C,
I
1- .
a. d
UJ
o
t~
^
t,
/
J
LU
O
NITRATE - CONCENTRATION
C0 Cf CQ Cf Co
Ct C(
\ t,
ct
t0 : after hydraulic loading
t,,t2- resting
t3- prior to hydraulic loading
t4,t5,t6 : during hydraulic loading
i7: after hydraulic loading
Figure 2. Hypothesized variation of nitrate concentration in sand filters
(Pincince and McKee, 1968).
Reynolds et al. (1974) reported that winter operation of filters under
fairly harsh climatic conditions did not create any serious operational prob-
lems. Reynolds et al. (1974) performed the experiment under four modes of
operation which are shown in Table 1.
12
-------
TABLE 1. LENGTH OF FILTER RUNS DURING A WINTER EXPERIMENTAL PERIOD AT UTAH
STATE UNIVERSITY (REYNOLDS ET AL., 1974)
Mode of
Operation
Control
Furrowed
Flooded
Staked
Filter
Number
6
1
2
4
Hydraulic
Loading Rate
(MGAD)
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
Length of
Filter Run
(Days)
189
131
80
92
FILTERING MECHANISMS
The development and improvement of sand filtration of wastewater pro-
gre^sed without the full understanding of the mechanisms of filtration (Camp,
1964). Tchobanoglous (1970) reported nine mechanisms involved in rapid sand
filtration which may be applied to intermittent sand filters (Table 2). Re-
moval mechanisms 1 through 4 are related to the physical characteristics of
a filter sand. Mechanisms 5 through 8 are related to the chemical properties
of the filtration process, and the final mechanism refers to the biological
activity in the filter.
Sand filter purification is not solely a mechanical mechanism. The high
BOD5 performance results achieved by intermittent sand filtration are higher
than would be expected by mechanical properties alone. Large numbers of
bacteria, protozoa and many multicellular organisms are present in active ef-
ficient filters. Calaway (1957) states that biological oxidation is the most
important removal mechanism of intermittent sand filtration. Six groups of
bacteria (Calaway, 1957) are the primary agents in the oxidation of organic
substances; however, bacterial growth would contribute to plugging if the
bacteria were not consumed by protozoa and metozoa. Calaway (1957) reported
the oligochaet worm to be the most important member of the metozoa group,
which feeds on the slimes and sludges of the filter bed and thus keeping the
bed open and accessible to oxygen.
The number of bacteria reported decreased with depth and increased with
an increase in dosings. The presence of Flavobacterium was more prominent
with high hydraulic loading rates. Bacillus was reported in greater numbers
with lower hydraulic loading rates (Calaway, 1957) .
CLOGGING MECHANISMS
Using hydraulic conductivity as a measure, Jones and Taylor (1965) work-
ing with slow sand filters receiving septic tank effluent reported that the
initial soil clogging zone is the region at the sand gravel interface and
occurs 3 to 10 times faster under an anaerobic environment than under an
13
-------
TABLE 2. FILTRATION PROCESS VARIABLES AND PARTICLE REMOVAL MECHANISMS AS
STATED BY TCHOBANOGLOUS (1970)
Process Variables
Removal Mechanisms
1. Filter media grain size, shape,
and density
2. Filter media porosity
3. Media headloss characteristics
4. Filter bed depth
5. Filtration rate
6. Allowable headloss
7. Effluent characteristics
8. Chemical treatment
9. Floe strength
10. Filter bed charge
11. Fluid characteristics
1. Straining:
a. Mechanical
b. Chance contact
2. Sedimentation
3. Inertial impaction
4. Interception
5. Chemical adsorption:
a. Bonding
b. Chemical interaction
6. Physical adsorption:
a. Electrostatic forces
b. Electrokinetic forces
c. Van der Waals forces
7. Adhesion and adhesion forces
8. Coagulation-flocculation
9- Biological growth
aerobic condition. Three distinct phases of clogging were noted under aerobic
conditions. The first phase was a sudden drop of performance (hydraulic con-
ductivity declines to near 25 percent of its initial value). During the sec-
ond phase, performance fluctuates slightly and the third phase represents
complete filter plugging. However, deVries (1972) also working with hydraulic
conductivity, stated that clogging occurred on the surface of the sand filter.
Mitchell and Nevo (1964) reported that the plugging condition is caused
by the accumulation of polysaccharides both with and without glueuronic acid
residues. Their studies also indicated that ferrous sulfide accumulation had
little effect on water percolation. Similar experimentation by Avnimelch and
Nevo (1964) reported that clogging was more highly correlated with polyurcnide
concentrations than with polysaccharide concentrations. Harris et al. (1975)
indicated that heavy algal growth which caused pH to exceed a value, of 10
produces calcium carbonate precipitation. This calcium carbonate precipi-
tate forms a "plaster like" film on the filter surface and thus causes the
filter to plug.
DESIGN AND OPERATION
Many factors govern the design of intermittent sand filters. Intermit-
tent sand filters have been used as a primary, secondary and recently as a
tertiary means of treatment. The land area required, coupled with the exten-
sive manual labor for maintenance of the filters probably limits the use of
intermittent sand filters to small communities.
14
-------
The preliminary treatment, an essential part of the process, may consist
of primary settling treatment only, or more complete treatment may be provided
before the wastewater is applied to the intermittent sand filter. Sand filtra-
tion following biological treatment will produce an effluent hardly distin-
guishable in appearance from drinking water; therefore, in many cases sub-
sequent treatment is not needed unless disinfection is required (Babbitt and
Baumann, 1958).
Construction
A flexible operation will have a minimum of three intermittent sand fil-
ters and preferably four. If multiple filters are used one can be in use,
one drying, another being cleaned and the fourth being a spare for adverse
flow conditions. Other than the minimum requirement, the quantity of inter-
mittent sand filters needed is dependent upon the total average daily flow
and the maximum number of doses to be applied daily.
The size, shape and grouping of intermittent sand filters are dictated
by topography, means of distributing the influent over the beds and collecting
the effluent in underdrains, as well as economics. Intermittent sand filters
having areas of approximately one acre have proved most desirable (Metcalf
and Eddy, 1935; Steel, 1960). The majority of intermittent sand filters con-
structed are rectangular in shape with the underdrainage system and means for
distribution of sewage having the greatest influence in determining the shape.
A design using long beds is discouraged as the distribution of sewage is not
uniform unless troughs are used. Troughs interfere with the maintenance of
the sand filters.
The floor of an intermittent sand filter is pitched to a slight grade
for collecting the effluent into open joint or perforated tile underdrains.
The underdrains are usually laid in trenches below the bottom layer of the
sand so as to make the entire depth of sand effective for filtration and keep
the drains well below the sand surface. The drains are usually constructed
to have a free outlet (Babbitt and Baumann, 1958) . The main underdrain is
usually 15 cm (6 inches) or 20 cm (8 inches) in diameter and may be laid down
the center of the filter, or along the side of the filter. Laterals feeding
into the main have a minimum diameter of 10 cm (4 inches) and are spaced up
to 9.1 m (30 feet) with 4.6 m (15 feet) or less a more common value (ASCE-
WPCF Joint Committee, 1959). The underdrains should be laid on a slope suf-
ficient to give a velocity of 0.91 m/sec (3 fps) to 1.2 m/sec (4 fps) when
flowing full. Clay tile and PVC drain pipe have been used successfully. The
use of concrete pipe is discouraged due to its inability to resist deteriora-
tion by acids biologically formed in the beds.
Embankments for intermittent sand filters are constructed in the same
manner as for lagoons (Missouri Basin Engineering Health Council, 1971). Em-
bankment slopes range from 2:1 to 6:1 of compacted soil. The use of soil em-
bankments is the most economical construction method, but because of weed
growth and erosion, soil embankments require the most maintenance. Embank-
ments must be mowed continually to keep the vegetation from encroaching on the
sand filters (Metcalf and Eddy, 1935). Rip rap is often placed on the
15
-------
embankment to prevent or curtail weed growth and erosion. Reinforced rubber
lining has been successfully used in small filter systems.
Filter Media
Filter media selection is governed by the availability of sand and by
the quality of effluent desired. The bottom layer is usually washed gravel,
broken stone or blast furnace slag placed in three layers of varying sizes.
A 12.5 cm (5 inch) layer of 3.8 cm (1.5 inch) to 5.1 cm (2 inch) aggregate is
placed about the underdrain. A 7.6 cm (3 inch) layer of 1.9 cm (0.75 inch)
to 2.5 cm (1.0 inch) aggregate is placed above the coarse aggregate. The next
layer consists of 1.3 cm (0.5 inch) to 0.6 cm (0.25 inch) diameter gravel at
a depth of approximately 10.2 cm (4 inches), giving a total depth of approxi-
mately 30.5 cm (12 inches) for the support layer.
The Ten States Authority (Babbitt and Baumann, 1958) recommends an effec-
tive size sand between 0.36 mm and 0.60 mm with a uniformity coefficient not
greater than 3.5- The Committee on Filtering Materials of the American Society
of Civil Engineers (Babbitt and Baumann, 1958) recommend that the sand not ex-
ceed 0.2 mm to 0.5 mm effective size and the uniformity coefficient be less
than 5.0. However, other studies have shown that a uniformity coefficient of
10 has almost identical hydraulic characteristics as a filter sand with a uni-
formity coefficient of 1.0, as long as the effective size remains equal (Sal-
vato, 1954). Harris et al. (1975) and Reynolds et al. (1974) employed a fil-
ter sand with an effective size of 0.17 mm and a uniformity coefficient of
9.74 to upgrade lagoon effluents. The sand should be free from roots and
cementing materials, relatively insoluble and devoid of significant amounts of
organic matter and clay. Siliceous sands that are rounded or oval are pre-
ferred over sharp, calcareous or argillaceous material (Babbitt and Baumann,
1958).
Depth of the filter media has a pronounced effect upon the quality of
effluent; however, beyond the "critical depth" of the filter, effluent quality
increases at a slow rate. An investigation by Furman et al. (1955) illustrat-
ed the effects of depth versus effluent quality and is shown in Figure 1.
Filters constructed with depths of 76.2 cm (30 inch) to 101.6 cm (40 inch) in-
sure high performance and allow needed maintenance without replacing or adding
additional sand for several years. Shallow beds require that underdrains be
spaced at lower intervals (Furman et al., 1955).
Operation and Maintenance
Filter hydraulic loading rates have been found to have little effect on
effluent quality; however, the hydraulic loading rate has a profound effect
upon the length of filter cycle. Hydraulic loading rates exceeding 9354 m^/
ha-d (1.0 MGAD) have produced cycles of less than 20 days, using secondary
lagoon effluent (Harris et al., 1975). Hydraulic loading rates of 1871 m^/
ha-d (0.2 MGAD) and 3742 m^/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) under similar conditions have
doubled the filter cycle (Harris et al., 1975). Hydraulic loading rates often
employed with intermittent sand filtration are illustrated in Table 3 (Metcalf
and Eddy, 1935).
16
-------
TABLE 3. RECOMMENDED HYDRAULIC LOADING RATES FOR A 0.2 MM TO 0.35 MM EFFEC-
TIVE SIZE SAND FILTER (METCALF AND EDDY, 1935)
TV,-- f TJ.-H. Hydraulic Loading Rate _ _ .
Type of Filter J . 3. & Persons Per Acre
(m~7ha-d)
Primary Treatment 187 - 701 400 - 1000
Secondary Treatment 468 - 1169 500 - 1500
Tertiary Treatment 935 - 7483 1000 - 10000
Controlled distribution of the wastewater is necessary to prevent erosion
and permit uniform application of sewage upon the filter (Metcalf and Eddy,
1935; Holmes, 1945; ASCE-WPCF Joint Committee, 1959). Control of distribution
may be accomplished through several methods such as:
1. Troughs running the full length of the beds
2. Radiating or arterial troughs
3. Quarter point distribution
4. Corner point distribution
Distribution points should be spaced not more than 9.1 m (30 feet) to
18.2 m (60 feet) apart with a concrete slab not over 0.61 m (24 inches) in
diameter placed at outlets to prevent erosion.
Multiple dosing of filters has been found to produce a higher quality
effluent (Furman et al., 1955; Imhoff et al., 1973). However, the appropriate
size and frequency of the dose depend largely on the effective size of the
filter sand, condition of the filter bed and the character of the wastewater
applied. A dose should reach a maximum head of 10.2 cm (4 inch) and disappear
within 20 minutes to maintain proper aeration and peak performance of the in-
termittent sand filter (Babbitt and Baumann, 1958). Reynolds et al. (1974)
recommended that hydraulic loading of intermittent sand filters be performed
during the hours of darkness to limit algae growth in the influent on the
filter bed.
Once the filter has reached a condition where the influent from the pre-
vious day's loading remains over 100 percent of the surface area, the filter
is considered plugged. Several methods of rejuvenating a clogged intermittent
sand filter have been tried. Story (1909) used two methods to rejuvenate
clogged slow sand filters. Raking the surface proved satisfactory but was
not performed too frequently because the mixing of deposited fine materials
became mixed with the sand and decreased filter performance. Removal of the
thin surface coat proved to be the best means of rejuvenation, but involved
a great deal more effort. Harris et al. (1975), Babbitt and Baumann (1958),
Metcalf and Eddy (1935), and Daniels (1945) all stress that removal of the
clogged surface area is essential in reaching an optimum length of filter
cycle.
17
-------
Furman et al. (1955) attempted to rejuvenate a filter by allowing the
bed to rest for 8 to 10 days, but this proved ineffective, with filter runs
very seldom exceeding 7 days after resting. However, studies conducted by
Schwartz et al. (1967) indicate that the filter may be rejuvenated if allowed
to rest after clogging (see Table 4).
Possibly one oi the major disadvantages with an intermittent sand filter
system is the replacement of spent filter sand (Mitchell, 1921). Mechanical
washers have been used in the eastern United States with success (Gaub, 1915;
Karalekas, 1952). The basic sand washer consists of hydraulic ejectors and
rakes working simultaneously. A suction is placed above the system to re-
move the fines and grit. The effectiveness of six methods of rejuvenating a
filter are summarized in Table 5 (Gaub, 1915). The Brooklyn and Nichols
methods are mechanical washers that wash the in-place filter sand. The piling
method involves scraping the sand filter and piling the spent filter sand on
the filter bed to be removed once yearly. The spading method merely required
the filter surface to be broken and overturned.
Elliott et al. (1976) reported on a new irrigation technique that is
capable of rejuvenating the spent filter sand for minimum cost. The irriga-
tion technique consists of depositing the spent filter sand on a sludge drying
bed and irrigating the bed with 5 cm (2 inch) of potable water weekly, for 6
weeks.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Engineering News Record (1976) Cost Indices were used to update reported
costs to 1976 values. Costs reported in the literature are listed and then
followed by the updated 1976 value in parenthesis.
Construction costs of intermittent sand filters are largely dependent up-
on the availability of sands with the proper effective size and the value of
land. Story (1909) reported an entire construction cost of $50,724
($1,214,840) for 1.6 ha (4 acres) of slow sand filters. Construction costs
in 1903 of $1320 per ha ($33,902) or $3260 per acre ($84,760) of intermittent
sand filter in Massachusetts was reported by Fuller (1914). Metcalf and Eddy
(1935) reported a construction cost of $3,540 per ha ($53,100) or $8,850 per
acre ($132,750) in 1924. Hill et al. (1976) reported construction costs of
$2227 per ha to $2551 per ha ($55,000 per acre to $63,000 per acre) for two
intermittent sand filters in series and built in existing cells of a lagoon
system. A 1136 iP/ha-d (0.3 MGAD) lagoon intermittent sand filter system in
Huntington, Utah, was completed in 1976 at a total cost of $600,858. This
included the cost of the collection system, facultative lagoons and intermit-
tent sand filters (Valley Engineering, 1977).
Maintenance and operating costs of intermittent sand filters will vary
according to design flow, design flow rate and available labor. In 1903 the
Massachusetts Board of Health reported operating costs of $2.05 ($53.20) per
1000 m3 or $7.75 ($201.50) per million gallons of filtered effluent. Seven
years later Powell (1911) reported a slow sand filter operating cost of $0.72
($17.07) per 1000 m3 or $2.74 ($64.66) per million gallons of filtrate in
Baltimore, Maryland.
18
-------
TABLE 4. DEGREE OF REJUVENATION OF A PLUGGED INTERMITTENT SAND FILTER AT
VARIOUS PERIODS OF REST (SCHWARTZ ET AL., 1967)
Resting Duration
(Days)
Percent of Original Hy-
draulic Acceptance Rate
Recovered
8
10
25
101
34
60
136
104
TABLE 5. COMPARISON OF FILTER RUN PERFORMANCES WITH VARIOUS METHODS OF RE-
JUVENATING A PLUGGED INTERMITTENT SAND FILTER (GAUB, 1915)
Method
Brooklyn
Removal
Nichols
Rake No. 1
Rake No. 2
Rake No. 3
Piling
Spading
Yield
(m3 x 10~5)
Max.
2.5
14.3
21.5
10.6
4.5
2.8
6.3
3.4
Min.
0.2
0.4
1.1
0.1
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.4
Ave.
0.7
2.8
5-7
3.2
2.0
1.6
1.3
1.9
Max.
49
105
148
75
31
24
19
22
Days Run
Min.
6
4
11
2
6
5
2
4
Ave .
14
27
45
24
15
14
18
15
Million Gallons x 3785 =
m
Recent studies by Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974), Harris et al. (1975),
Bishop (1976), and Messinger (1976) have estimated total cost of $3.96 to
$17.16 per 1000 m3 ($15 to $65 per million gallons) of filtrate with 75 per-
cent Federal assistance. Hill et al. (1976) estimated the total cost using
intermittent sand filters in series to be $10.30 to $23.50 per 1000 m3 ($39
to $89 per million gallons) of filtered effluent.
Comparing the cost of intermittent sand filters with other processes to
polish wastewater lagoon effluents, Middlebrooks et al. (1974) found the in-
termittent sand filter to be very competitive. Though the cost indices have
increased substantially during recent years, it is likely that the cost of
intermittent sand filters has increased proportionally with other treatment
processes, allowing the intermittent sand filter to remain a favorable method
of upgrading lagoon effluents.
19
-------
SECTION 5
METHOD AND PROCEDURES
EXPERIMENTAL SETTING
The intermittent sand filtration study was performed at the Logan
Municipal Sewage Lagoons, Logan, Utah. The lagoon system is described
in Figure 3 and Table 5. Six prototype single stage intermittent sand
filters, 7.6 m (25 feet) by 11.0 m (36 feet) (83.6 m2 [900 sq. feet])
were utilized. This was the same facility employed by Harris et al.
(1975). A schematic of the facility is shown in Figure 4. Construction
of the facility was performed by a local firm, using materials that were
readily available with the exception of the 0.31 mm, 0.40 mm, and 0.68
mm effective size filter sands. These sands were prepared by sieving a
local sand to achieve the desired effective size. A cross section of a
typical filter is shown in Figure 5. The soil embankment was constructed
of bank run granular fill material. To prevent infiltration and exfiltra-
tion, the filters were lined with a 10 mil vinyl material. The drainage
system consisted of 10.2 cm (4 inches) perforated corrugated PVC pipe
placed at a slope of 0.025. The filter bed consisted of 10.2 cm (4 inches)
of 3.8 cm (1 1/2 inches) maximum diameter rock, followed by 10.2 cm (4
inches) of 1.9 cm (3/4 inch) maximum diameter rock. The final 10.2 cm
(4 inches) layer supporting the filter sand was 0.6 cm (1/4 inch) maxi-
mum diameter rock. The filter sand is approximately 91.4 cm (36 inches)
deep. Table 7 indicates the effective size of each sand employed in the
experiment and a sieve analysis of each filter sand is shown in Table 8.
The intermittent sand filters were loaded once daily during the late
morning hours with secondary effluent from the Logan Municipal Sewage Lagoon
system. Hydraulic loading rates and application rates utilized by the six
prototype single stage intermittent sand filters are shown in Table 7.
An intermittent sand filter is considered plugged if the sand filter
bed (100 percent of the surface area) is covered with influent 24 hours
after a loading. Once an intermittent sand filter became inoperative, it
was necessary to remove the "schumtzdecke" before proper operation can
resume. During the experiment removal of the plugged filter surface sand
was accomplished by scraping off the top 10 cm (4 inches) of the sand from
the surface of the filter. This procedure fully restored the intermittent
sand filter to normal operation. Other methods of rejuvenating a plugged
sand filter that were tried during the experiment, but proved unsuccessful
were, resting the plugged filter and burning the filter surface. The
20
-------
Cell
Al
A2
A2
B2
C
D
E
Total
Water
Surface
Area (.Hectares)
38.5
38.4
28.7
29.3
26.1
15.9
11.5
188.4
Effective Vol.
m3
704,000
703,000
586,000
598,000
580,000
384,000
297,000
852,000
B2
A2
Dlffusers
Raw Sewage
Effluent
Intermittent
Sand Filters
Flow Diagram of
LOGAN,UTAH LAGOON
Figure 3. The location of the intermittent sand filters with respect to the
City of Logan's lagoon system.
21
-------
SECONDARY LAGOON
EFFLUENT DISCHAKUt CHANNEL
I 5
=*
*
EFFLUE
NT DISCHARGE CHANNEL
I
ROADWAY
NOT TO SCALE
Figure 4. A plan view of the six single stage prototype intermittent sand filters utilized in the
experiment.
-------
-LINER
0.6 cm MAX DIA. ROCK
INFLUENt
sum* /
/
SEAW
1.9 cm MAX DIA. ROCK /&
.8 cm MAX
SECTION 2-2
SAND AND GRAVEL PLACEMENT
SUPPLY
SEAL
SCALE Icm = 0.8m
1
t
LINER AND F
PLAN
LINE -'-X
>. 1
/
Si
L j —
\
t fj — ^ —
VIEW
t \
2
4-
y^~LINER AND PIPE
f
V /
\
L
N
-
j— V jrt
- »flfiAIM PI PI
i
t
\ T \SEAL BETWEEN
+ LINER AND PIPE
SCALE Icm = 1.4m
LINER
SEAL BETWEEN DRAIN PIPE
AND LINER WITH SUITABLE
MATERIAL
SECTION l-l
LINER SECTION
SCALE Icm = 1.4m
Figure 5. A typical intermittent sand filter design.
1 ft = 0.348 meters)
(1 in = 2.5 cm and
23
-------
TABLE 6. DESCRIPTION OF LOGAN MUNICIPAL SEWAGE LAGOON SYSTEM
Cell
Water Surface
Area (Hectares)
Effective Vol.
Normal Oeprating
Depth (ft)
Al
A2
Bl
B2
C
D
E
38.5
38.4
28.7
29.3
26.1
15.9
11.5
704,000
703,000
586,000
598,000
580,000
384,000
297,000
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.6
Total 188.4 852,000
Meters x 3.281 = feet; Hectares x 2.471 = acres; Meters3 x 35.31 = feet3
TABLE 7. EFFECTIVE SIZE OF SANDS, HYDRAULIC LOADING RATES, AND APPLICATION
RATES UTILIZED IN THE STUDY
Effective
Size of
Filter Filter
Number Sand
(mm)
1 0.17
6 0.17
3 0.31
0.31
2 0.40
0.40
0.40
5 0.40
0.40
0.40
3 0.68
0.68
4 0.68
0.68
0.68
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(m3/ha-d)
3
1
9
9
14
9
9
28
18
9
14
9
28
18
9
,742
,871
,354
,354
,031
,354
,354
,062
,708
,354
,031
,354
,062
,708
,354
Application
Rate
(m3/sec)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.048
.048
.048
.008
.048
.048
.008
.048
.048
.008
.048
.048
.048
.048
.008
Aug;
Aug.
June
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
May
Aug.
Aug =
July
Aug.
Oct.
Aug.
Sept
June
Period of Operation
15,
15,
28,
12,
15,
27,
10,
15,
27,
19,
24,
31,
24,
.18,
2,
1975
1975
1976
1976
1975
1975
1976
1975
1975
1976
1975
1975
1975
1975
1976
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
May
Aug.
Aug.
July
Aug.
Oct.
June
Sept
May
Aug.
25,
25,
11,
25,
20,
9,
25,
17,
8,
25,
9,
10,
• 4,
14,
25,
1976
1976
1976
1976
1975
1976
1976
1975
1976
1976
1975
1976
1975
1976
1976
24
-------
technique of restoring a plugged filter is discussed in detail in the
"Length of Filter Operations" section.
SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS
Sampling was initially conducted twice weekly (August 15, 1975 to
September 30, 1975). However, it was later decided to extend the entire
study an additional two months, therefore, samples were collected once
a week from October 1, 1975 to August 25, 1976. Grab samples of filter
influent and effluent were collected and analyzed for suspended solids,
5-day biochemical oxygen demand, chemical oxygen demand, ammonia-nitrogen,
nitrite-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, total phos-
phorus, ortho-phosphate, alkalinity, temperature, and the dissolved oxgen
concentration of both the filter influent and effluent were measured in-situ
at the time the weekly grab samples were collected. Table 8 summarizes the
procedure used in analyzing the samples. Analysis of the samples were
performed at the Utah Water Research Laboratory. The efflent samples from
the 0.17 mm effective size sand filters (Filters No. 1 and 6) were collected
two hours after the filters were loaded. Samples from the 0.31 mm, 0.40 mm,
and 0.68 mm effective size sand filters (Filters No. 2, 3, 4, and 5) were
collected 30 minutes after loading the filter. The time lapse before sam-
pling was necessary in order to eliminate contamination from the fine sands
and grit being washed out from the previous day's loading. The "wash-out"
effect is discussed further in the section entitled "Variations in Suspended
Solids Concentrations with Time."
TABLE 8. INITIAL SIEVE ANALYSIS OF THE VARIOUS FILTER SANDS USED
Sieve
Size
Number
4
8
10
16
30
40
50
100
Number of Samples
Effective Size Sand,
Percent Passing Sample
Opening
(mm)
4.760
2.380
2.000
1.190
0.590
0.420
0.297
0.149
P10
A
92
—
62
—
—
27
—
6
2
0.17
B
95
67
61
45
25
—
9
5
3
0.31
C
93
65
—
38
19
—
6
1
2
0.40
D
77
39
—
19
9
—
4
2
3
0.68
Uniformity Coefficient,
P10/p60
9.7
6.5
5.5
5.1
25
-------
TABLE 9. PROCEDURES FOR ANALYSES PERFORMED
Analysis
Procedure
Ref. No.
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Suspended Solids
Volatile Suspended Solids
Total Phosphorus
Orth©phosphorus
Ammonia
Nitrite
Nitrate
Dissolved Oxygen
Temperature
pH
Alkalinity
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
EPA Methods
Strickland and Parsons
(Murphy-Riley Technique)
Solorzano (Indophenol)
Strickland and Parsons
(Diasotization Method)
Strickland and Parsons
(Cadmium—Reduction
Method)
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
Standard Methods
EPA Methods
APHA et al., 1971
APHA et al., 1971
APHA et al., 1971
APHA et al., 1971
EPA, 1974
Strickland and
Parsons, 1968
Solorzano, 1969
Strickland and
Parsons, 1968
Strickland and
Parsons, 1968
APHA et al., 1971
APHA et al., 1971
APHA et al., 1971
APHA et al., 1971
EPA, 1974
26
-------
SECTION 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
GENERAL
The results of the 12% month study are presented in Tables A-l through
A-9 of Appendix A. The different effective size sands, 0.17 mm, 0.40 mm, and
0.68 mm were evaluated to determine the effects on intermittent sand filter
effluent quality. After approximately 11 months of data collection, the sand
in Filter No. 3 (0.68 mm effective size) receiving a hydraulic loading rate of
9354 nH/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) was replaced with 0.31 mm effective size sand to
broaden the spectrum of comparison between the different effective size sands.
HYDRAULIC LOADING RATES AND APPLICATION RATES
During the initial stages of the study, high hydraulic loading rates
produced short filter run lengths, thus it was necessary to reduce the
hydraulic loading rates on four of the six prototype intermittent sand fil-
ters. The hydraulic loading rates employed on the 0.68 mm effective size
sand (Filters No. 3 and 4) were reduced from 14,031 m3/ha-d (1.5 MGAD) and
28,061 m3/ha-d (3.0 MGAD), respectively, to 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD),
respectively. The hydraulic loading rates employed on the filters with 0.40
mm effective size sand (Filters No. 2 and 5) were reduced from 14,031 m3/ha-d
(1.5 MGAD) and 28,062 m3/ha.d (3.0 MGAD), respectively, to 9354 m3/ha-d
(1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD), respectively. These new hydraulic
loading rates were maintained during the major portion of the study. The
0.17 mm effective size sand filters (Filters No. 1 and 6) operated at
hydraulic loading rates of 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) and 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD)
respectively throughout the study.
As shown in Figure 3, the Logan Lagoon System consists of seven cells;
however, the primary cells (Cells Aj and A2) and the secondary cells (Cells
EI and B2) are in parallel. Thus, the system consists of five cells in
series. Primary effluent is defined as originating from either Cell A^ or
Cell A2- Secondary effluent is defined as originating from either Cell Bj or
Cell B2.
Secondary lagoon effluent from Cell Bj was applied daily to the six
prototype intermittent sand filters from August 15, 1975, to August 25, 1976.
However, after May 9, 1976, the 0.40 mm effective size sand filter receiving
a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) (Filter No. 2) was loaded
with primary lagoon effluents from Cell A2 twice weekly at one-sixth the
application rate previously employed. The influent applied to the 0.40 mm
27
-------
effective size sand filter (Filter No. 2) was changed to accommodate a
chlorination experiment, which was conducted concurrently with this study.
Initial performance results of applying primary lagoon effluent with an ap-
plication rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) on the 0.40 mm effective size sand
filter (Filter No. 2) indicated that the application rate of wastewater to
the filter may be an important operational parameter. The application rate
is defined as the volume of influent applied per unit time, expressed as
cubic meters per second or cubic feet per second, while the hydraulic loading
rate is defined as the volume of influent applied per unit area per unit
time, often expressed as cubic meters per hectare per day or gallons per acre
per day.
To evaluate the effects of filter application rate an overall filter
performance, beginning on June 2, 1976, the application rate employed on the
0.68 mm effective size sand filter (Filter No. 4) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) was reduced from 0.048 m3/sec (1.74 cfs) to
0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs). In addition, on July 19, 1976, the application rate
on the 0.40 mm effective size sand filter (Filter No. 5) with a hydraulic
loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) was reduced from 0.048 m3/sec (1.74
cfs) to 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs). Thus, the 0.40 mm and 0.68 mm effective size
filter sands (Filters No. 4 and 5, respectively) were employed to evaluate
the effects of application rate on filter effluent quality. The effect of
application rate on the performance of the 0.31 mm effective size filter sand
was evaluated not due to a lack of time and the effect of application rate
on the 0.17 mm effective size filter sand was not evaluated because this sand
produced an excellent quality effluent under the higher application rate
(0.048 m3/sec (1.74 cfs)).
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND REMOVAL EFFICIENCY
General
The biochemical oxygen demand (6005) performance of all the intermittent
sand filters with respect to various effective size sands, hydraulic loading
rates and application rates is illustrated in Table 10 and Figure 6. Yearly
average BOD5 concentration in the influent applied to the filters (secondary
lagoon effluent) was 11 mg/1 with the daily BOD^ concentration ranging from
3 mg/1 to 22 mg/1 throughout the study. A complete listing of the filter
influent and effluent BOD5 concentrations is presented in Tables A-l through
A-7 of Appendix A.
Efficiency of 0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
The effluent BOD5 concentration from the 0.68 mm effective size sand
filter (Filter No. 4) with a high hydraulic loading rate of 28,062 m3/ha-d
(3.0 MGAD), averaged 7 mg/1 and varied from 3 mg/1 to 12 mg/1. The filter
run length was 10 days. Though the effluent 6005 concentration was satis-
factory, the filter run length is probably unsatisfactory for economical
intermittent sand filter operation. More operating and maintenance data are
needed for a complete economic evaluation.
28
-------
TABLE 10. SUMMARY OF THE FIVE-DAY BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND PERFORMANCE
Effective
Size
Sand
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(m3/ha.d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,602
Appli-
cation
Rate
f\
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
Influent
BOD5
(mg/1)
Min.
3
3
5
10
3
5
10
3
10
3
4
4
3
6
Max.
22
22
21
10
22
20
12
22
10
22
21
13
22
13
Ave.
11
12
14
10
11
12
11
11
10
12
13
8
12
9
Effluent
BODc
(mg/1)
Min.
0.3
0.1
5
6
4
4
4
3
5
4
3
4
3
3
Max.
4
7
11
6
18
11
6
23
5
17
15
7
16
12
Ave.
1
3
8
6
8
5
5
9
5
8
8
6
9
7
Average
Percent
Removal
90.1
77.2
43.5
33.7
21.9
56.0
53.3
23.9
54. 6+
28.8
39.8
27.5
21.0
27.1
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008
76
27
28
11
60.8
Based on one observation.
Lowering the hydraulic loading rate of the 0.68 mm effective size sand
filters (Filters No. 3 and 4) to 9354 ro3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m3/ha-d
(2.0 MGAD), respectively, resulted in no significant change in the effluent
BOD5 concentration. The mean effluent BOD5 concentration was 9 mg/1 and
daily values varied from 3 mg/1 to 17 mg/1. The 0.68 mm effective size sand
filters (Filters No. 3 and 4) produced a BOD5 concentration of less than 5
mg/1 during 20 percent of the study. The daily effluent BOD5 concentrations
were less than or equal to 10 mg/1 (.State of Utah, Class C Regulation) during
less than 25 percent of the study.
Lowering the rate of application on the 0.68 mm effective size sand
filter (Filter No. 4) from 0.048 m3/sec (1.69 cfs) to 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs)
while applying a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) improved
BODc removal. The mean effluent BOD5 concentration during this short period
of study was 8 mg/1, with daily values varying from 3 mg/1 to 15 mg/1. High
influent zooplankton concentrations were observed during this period of the
study. Zooplankton are more easily filtered because of their greater size
when compared with algae. Therefore, the increased performance exhibited by
29
-------
UJ
O
X
o
2 O
GO O
1s
HI
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
2O
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
22.3
FILTER I
—O— INFLUENT
—£r— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effictne Silt Sant
3742 m'/tw-d (0.40 MSAD)
0.046 m5/t«c (I.6B cfs)
FILTER 6
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
1871 m'/ha a (0 ZMGftD)
0.048 mVlec (1.68 cf<)
AU6
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 6. Weekly biochemical oxygen demand (BODc;) performance.
-------
UJ
e>
>
x
o
o
5
Ul
g
03 Q
O
52
Q
UJ
il
o>
E
tf)
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
10 -
8 -
6 -
4 -
2 -
20 -
18 -
16 -
14
12 —
10
8
6 -
4 -
2 -
FILTER 5
—O— INFLUENT
—A- EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Size Send
28.062 np/ta-i (3.0 MO AD) August 15,1975 lo Auguit 17. 1975 75
18,706 r»5/ho-iII2 OMGA01 Auguit 27. 1975 lo July B. 1976
9,554 ••/hrlU.O M6AD) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976-6
0.048 m>/t«c (I 68 els) August 15, 1975 lo July a, 1976
0 008 m'/t.c (0.29 cfs) My 19, 1976 to August 25. 1976
—O— INFLUENT
-A— EFFLUENT
0.40mm E.ffoctiM Silo Saad
14,011 raVna-dtl.5MGAO) Auguit IS. 1975 to August ZO, 1976
9,354_m>/ho d (I OMGAD) Auguit 27,1976 to AuguM 25,1976
0.048 m^Me U.68 cfi) August 15, 1975 to May 9, 1976
0.008 ms/s«c (0.29 cr«l May 10. I97S to Auguit 25, 1976
Loadod with primary lagoon sfflusnt tuics wstkly
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
I
DEC
TIME
T
T
T
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
JUNE
JULY
AUG
Figure 6. Continued.
-------
Co
to
UJ
o
X
o
o
s
111
x
o
o
CO
o
HI
o»
E
10
o
o
00
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
20
18
16 •
14
12
10 •
8
6
4 -
2
22.3
FILTER 4
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm EJfoetly* Si» Sand
?8.06Zm'/ta.d (3.6 M6AD)
I8,708m3/ha-d (2.0MGAD)
9,»4mVlia-d (I.OM6AD)
August 24, 1975 to S«pl«mb«r 4( 1975
S*pt«mb*r 18, 1975 to May 14, (976
Juna 2, 1976 to AuQult 25, 1976
0.046 ms/SOG (1.66 eft) AuQuat 24, 1976 to May 14, 1976
0.008 m9/s«c (0.29 cftl Junfl 2. 1976 to Auaml 25, 1976
FILTER 3
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm E(t«cti»t Silo Sand
0.31 mm Effteliv* Six* Sand
14,031 m3/l1a-d(!.5M6ADI
9,U4m9/ha-d (I.OMOAO)
0.048 ms/l«c (l.68cfs* '
O.O08 m'/MC (0.29 eft
Aujutl 24, 1975 to Juiw 10,1976
Jura 28. 1976 to August 25, 1976
Auguit 24, 1975 to October 9, 1975
Octotar 31, 1975 ID Auguit 25, 1976
Auguit 24, 1975 to August II, 1976
Augutt 12, 1976 to Augint 25, 1976
I
AUG SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
I I I
JULY AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
-------
the lower rate of application may be due the change in the nature of the
influent composition rather than actual improvement in overall efficiency.
Efficiency of 0.40 mm Effective
Size Filter Sand
The initial high hydraulic loading rate of 28,062 m3/ha-d (3.0 MGAD) on
the 0.40 mm effective size sand filter (Filter No. 5) produced an effluent
BODg concentration of 5 mg/1. A filter run length of only three days was
achieved, but unfortunately a filter run of such short duration is impractical.
Therefore, the hydraulic loading rates on the 0.40 mm effective size sand
(Filters No. 2 and 5) were decreased from 14,031 m3/ha-d (1.5 MGAD) and
28,062 m^/ha-d (3.0 MGAD), respectively, to 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and
18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD), respectively. Operating at the lower hydraulic
loading rates, the BOD^ performance decreased slightly; however, the filter
run length was increased significantly. These filters (Filters No. 2 and 5)
operating at the lower hydraulic loading rates (9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and
18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD)) were able to satisfy the State of Utah, 1980
Effluent Standards less than 30 percent of the time. Influent 8005 concen-
trations were too low to permit evaluation of the Federal Secondary Treatment
Standards.
On July 19, 1976, the hydraulic loading rate and application rates were
lowered on the 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 5) to 9354 m3/ha-d
(1.0 MGAD) and 0.008 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) from 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD)
and 0.048 m^/sec (0.29 cfs) to establish a comparison of effluent quality
with low and high rates of application of wastewater. The mean effluent BOD^
concentration with the low application rate was 5 mg/1 and daily values
ranged from 4 to 11 mg/1. With these operating conditions, Filter No. 5 was
able to satisfy the State of Utah, 1980 Effluent Standards 100 percent of the
time. However, a high Daphnia, concentration was present in the filter
influent at the time of the experiment. Daphnia are more easily removed than
algae; thus, the results may not be completely representative of intermittent
sand filter operation (Calaway, 1954).
Efficiency of 0.31 mm Effective
Size Filter Sand
During the short period of study of the 0.31 mm effective size sand with
a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha.d (1.0 MGAD) and an application rate
of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs), the mean influent BOD5 concentration was 14 mg/1
and daily values ranged from 5 to 21 mg/1. The mean effluent BOD5 concen-
tration was 8 mg/1 and daily values ranged from 5 to 11 mg/1. Again, high
BOD5 performance may be significantly influenced by the high concentration
of readily removable Daphnia in the filter influent.
Efficiency of 0.17 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 1 and 6) produced an ef-
fluent that satisfied the State of Utah, 1980 Effluent Standards of 100 mg/1
throughout the entire study. However, influent BOD5 concentrations were too
low to evaluate performance against the Federal Secondary Treatment Standards.
33
-------
The 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 6) receiving a hydraulic loading
rate of 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) produced an effluent BOD5 concentration of
less than 5 mg/1 throughout the entire study. Effluent BOD5 concentrations
ranged from 0.3 to 4 mg/1. The effluent BOD5 concentration was less than
2 mg/1 90 percent of the time.
The 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 1) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) produced an effluent BOD5 ranging from 0.1 to
7 mg/1. At no time during the study did the effluent BOD5 concentration of
either of the 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 1 and 6) exceed 10
mg/1. These results are similar to the BOD5 performance reported by Marshall
and Middlebrooks (1974), Reynolds et al. (1974), Messinger (1976), Bishop
(1976), and Hill et al. (1976).
Summary
The BOD5 removal performance of the 0.40 mm and 0,68 mm effective size
sand (Filters No. 2, 3, 4, and 5) with a high application rate of 0.048 m3/sec
(1.68 cfs) was not adequate to produce an effluent that consistently meets
the State of Utah, 1980, Effluent Discharge Standard of 10 mg/1. The 0.31 mm
effective size sand (Filter No. 3) produced a significant BOD^ removal; how-
ever, the influent characteristics at the time of study indicate that these
results are inconclusive. Lowering the application rate on the 0.40 mm
(Filter No. 5) and the 0.68 mm (Filter No. 4) effective size sands appeared
to increase BOD^ removal; however, the zooplankton in the influent during that
experiment make such a conclusion questionable. The 0.17 mm effective size
sand (Filters No. 1 and 6) was shown to be capable of high 8005 removal at low
hydraulic loading rates of 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) and 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD).
No conclusion can be established with relation to the Federal Secondary Treat-
ment Standards which requires an effluent BOD^ of 30 mg/1 or less because the
influent 6005 concentration did not exceed 23 mg/1 during the entire study
period.
CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND PERFORMANCE
General
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) performance of the filters is shown in
Table 11 and Figure 7. A complete listing of the filter influent and ef-
fluent COD performance is presented in Tables A-l through A-7, Appendix A.
The yearly mean influent CQD concentration (secondary lagoon effluent) was
52 mg/1 with daily influent COD concentrations ranging from 24 to 36 mg/1.
Efficiency of 0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
Hydraulic loading rates ranging from 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) to 28,062
m3/ha-d (3.0 MGAD) were attempted with the 0.68 mm effective size sand
(Filters No. 3 and 4). Filter run lengths at the higher hydraulic loading
rate of 28,062 m3/ha-d (3.0 MGAD) were not practical, thus lower hydraulic
loading rates were employed.
34
-------
TABLE 11. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE CHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND PERFORMANCE
Effective
Size
Filter
Sand
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
3
(m /ha-d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
Influent
COD
(mg/1)
Min.
24
24
51
54
24
51
32
24
N.A.
24
34
48
25
47
Max.
90
136
136
58
77
90
32
136
N.A.
77
136
75
77
90
Ave.
51
54
79
56
49
63
32
50
N.A.
45
69
69
48
69
Effluent
COD
(mg/1)
Min.
3
8
40
35
19
35
21
23
N.A.
22
28
36
24
40
Max.
23
35
80
40
48
69
21
78
N.A.
53
86
55
67
79
Ave.
11
18
56
37
34
46
21
38
N.A.
36
51
42
39
59
Average
Percent
Removal
78
67
30
33
31
28
35
25
N.A.
19
26
39
20
14
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008 48 203 84 15 67 40
53
The minimum daily effluent COD concentration from the 0.68 mm filter
sand was 22 mg/1 at a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) while
the maximum daily effluent COD concentration of 86 mg/1 occurred at a hydrau-
lic loading rate of 9354 m-Vha-d (1.0 MGAD) also. However, in general, higher
effluent COD concentrations occurred at the higher hydraulic loading rates.
A comparison of the mean yearly effluent COD concentrations reported in Table
11 indicates a range from 36 mg/1 with a hydraulic loading rate of 9354
3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) to 59 mg/1 at a hydraulic loading rate of 28,062 m3/ha-d
m
(3.0 MGAD).
In general, COD percentage removals for all the filter sands is less than
30 percent.
Efficiency of 0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
Hydraulic loading rate appeared to have a slight effect on COD removal by
the 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 2 and 5). The 0.40 mm effective
size sand (Filter No. 2) with a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha.d (1.0
MGAD) produced a mean effluent COD concentration of 34 mg/1 with a daily
range of 19 mg/1 to 48 mg/1 (Table 11). The 0.40 mm effective size sand with
a hydraulic loading rate of 18,708 n^/ha-d (2.0 MGAD) produced a mean effluent
35
-------
135.5
0>
UJ
Q
UJ
X
O
O
5
111
I
O
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
FILTER I
O— INFLUENT
A— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
3742 Iti'/hod (0.40MGAD)
0.048 mVsec (1.68 el!)
-.135.5
FILTER 6
• INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
1871 mVha-d I0.2MGAD)
0.048 m'/l.c (I 68 eft)
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
I I
JULY AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 7. Weekly chemical oxygen demand performance.
-------
135.5
(jO
D»
E
Q
Z
<
5
LJ
Q
UJ
O
>-
X
O
<
O
UJ
X
O
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
100 -
90 -
80 -
70 -
60 -
50
40
30
20
10
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
26,062 m'/ho-d (3.0 MGAD) August IS, 1975 to August 17, 1975
8,708 m'/no-d (20 MGAO) August 27, 1975 lo July 8, 1976
9,354 m'/ho-dll.O MSAD) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.046 mViec (I 68 cfs > August 15, 1975 to July 8, 1976
0.006 m'/sec (0.29cfs) July 19, 1976 to August 25. 1976
202.9 M7.8 122.1
FILTER 2
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
0.40mm Effective Size Sand
14,031 m3/ho a (1.5 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 20, 1976
9,354 m'/na-d (1.0 MGAD) August 27, 1976 to August 25,1976
0.048 m'/sec (1.68 cfsl August 15, 1975 to May 9, 1976
0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfsl May 10, 1975 to August 25, 1976
Loaded with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly
May 10, 1976 to August 25, 1976
AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
Figure 7. Continued.
-------
o>
00
UJ
a
UJ
o
X
o
_J
o
UJ
I
o
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.66 mm Effective Size Sand
28,062m3/ha d (3.0 MGAD)
IB,70Bir.*/ho-d I 2.0 MGAD)
9.354m*/ho d (1.0 MGAD)
August 24, 1975 to September 4, 1975
September 18, 1975 to May 14, 1976
June 2, 1976 ta August 25, 1976
0.048 mVsec (1.68 cfs) August 24, 1976 to May 14, 1976
0.008 mVsec (0.29 cfs! June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
135.5
FILTER
INFLUENT
—A— -EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
August 24, 1975 to June 10, 1976
m Effective Size Sand
June 28, 1976 to August 25, 1976
August 24, 1975 to October 9, 1975
October 31, 1975 to August 25, 1976
14,031 m*/ho-d ( 1.5 MGAD)
9,354 m'/ho-d (1.0 MGAD)
0.048 m'/s«c (1. 68 cfs) August 24, 1975 to August II, 1976
0.008 m'/sec (0 29 els) August 12, 1976 to August 25, 1976
T I I I I I I I
AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
Figure 7. Continued.
-------
COD concentration of 38 mg/1 with the daily values ranging from 23 mg/1 to
78 mg/1. The COD removal by the 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 2
and 5) does not follow the BOD^ performance closely.
The 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 2) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and an application rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29
cfs) loaded twice weekly with primary lagoon effluent achieved a moderately
high COD removal, averaging 53 percent. The mean yearly primary lagoon ef-
fluent (filter influent) COD concentration was 84 mg/1 and daily values
ranged from 48 to 203 mg/1. The 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 2)
with a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and an application
rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) loaded twice weekly with primary lagoon ef-
fluent produced a mean effluent COD concentration of 40 mg/1, and the daily
concentrations varied from 15 to 67 mg/1.
Efficiency of 0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
COD removal by the 0.31 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 3) was very
similar to the COD performance of the 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filters
No. 2 and 5). The 0.31 mm filter (Filter No. 3) with a hydraulic loading rate
of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and an application rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs)
produced a mean effluent COD concentration of 56 mg/1 and the daily concen-
trations ranged from 40 to 80 mg/1. This compares to a 0.40 mm effective size
sand mean of 31 mg/1 (Filter No. 2) and the 46 mg/1 (Filter No. 5) with the
same hydraulic loading rate as Filter No. 3.
Efficiency of 0.17 mm Effective Size Sand
COD removal by the 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 1 and 6) was
very similar to the BOD^ performance reported earlier. The 0.17 mm filter
(Filter No. 6) receiving a hydraulic loading of 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD)
produced a mean yearly effluent COD concentration of 11 mg/1 and a daily
range of 3 to 23 mg/1. This represents a 78 percent removal efficiency. The
0.17 mm sand (Filter No. 1) with a hydraulic loading rate of 3742 m3/ha-d
(0.4 MGAD) achieved a mean yearly effluent COD concentration of 18 mg/1 and
the daily concentrations varied from 8 to 35 mg/1. This represents a 66 per-
cent removal efficiency.
Summary
Chemical oxygen demand (COD) removal by intermittent sand filters is
directly related to the effective size of the sand. In general, COD removal
increases as the effective size of the filter sand decreases. Decreasing the
hydraulic loading rate generally improved the COD removal. The 0.17 mm ef-
fective size sand (Filters No. 1 and 6) with hydraulic loading rates of 1871
m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) and 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) produced the highest COD re-
moval efficiency of all effective size sands studied.
As discussed in the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) performance section,
the low application rate data is insufficient to develop definite conclusions.
However, there is some indication that lower application rates increase COD
removal performance.
39
-------
SUSPENDED SOLIDS REMOVAL PERFORMANCE
General
Suspended solids (SS) removal by intermittent sand filters with various
effective size sands, hydraulic loading rates and application rates are shown
in Table 12 and Figure 8. The mean yearly influent suspended solids concen-
tration (secondary lagoon effluent) was 23 mg/1 and the daily SS concentration
ranged 3 to 65 mg/1. A complete listing of the filter influent and effluent
SS concentrations are shown in Tables A-l through A-7, Appendix A.
Efficiency of 0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
The mean effluent SS concentration from the 0.68 mm effective size sand
(Filter No. 4) with a hydraulic loading rate of 28,062 m3/ha-d (3.0 MGAD) and
an application rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) was 35 mg/1 and the daily SS
concentration varied from 19 mg/1 to 58 mg/1. The mean influent SS concen-
tration during this period was 45 mg/1, and the range of daily values was 33
to 52 mg/1. Suspended solids removal under these operating conditions was
poor (i.e., less than 22 percent); however, the poor performance is partially
attributed to the removal or organic and inorganic material from the filter
bed which had accumulated or grown from wastewater application of the previous
day. During filter start up, fine inorganic silt or dirt is washed from the
sand filter bed. This phenomenon is termed "wash out" (Reynolds et al., 1974)
and results from the filter sand not being completely washed prior to instal-
lation in the filter. In addition, Reynolds et al. (1974), have reported the
growth of algae in the wastewater overlying the filter surface. The high
hydraulic loading rate, 28,062 m3/ha-d (3.0 MGAD) occurred at the beginning
of the study and thus the filter bed may not have been completely "washed out"
prior to data collection. This is probably a partial cause of the high ef-
fluent suspended solids concentration. However, the 0.68 mm effective size
sand was not effective in suspended solids removal.
Because of a short filter run length of 11 days for the 0.68 mm effective
size sand (Filter No. 4) with a hydraulic loading rate of 28,067 m3/ha-d (3.0
MGAD), the hydraulic loading rates for the 0.68 mm effective size sand (Fil-
ters No. 3 and 4) were lowered to 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m3/ha-d
(2.0 MGAD), respectively. Lowering the hydraulic loading rate produced no
significant change in SS removal. Even with these lower hydraulic loading
rates 0.68 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 3 and 4) was unable to satisfy
the State of Utah Effluent Discharge Standard of 10 mg/1 over 50 percent of
the time. Careful analyses of the data indicated that when the influent
suspended solids concentration exceeded 17 mg/1, the 0.68 mm effective size
sand effluent suspended solids concentration exceeded 10 mg/1.
As indicated in Figure 8, the 0.68 mm effective size filter sand removal
efficiency was heavily influenced by the influent suspended solids concen-
tration. During periods of high influent suspended solids concentrations, the
effluent suspended solids concentrations exceeded 30 mg/1 (i.e., Federal
Secondary Discharge Standard), thus the 0.68 mm effective size filter sand is
not suitable for polishing lagoon effluents to meet stringent discharge
standards.
40
-------
TABLE 12. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE SUSPENDED SOLIDS PERFORMANCE
Effective
Size
Filter
Sand
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
3
(m /ha-d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
Influent
SS
(mg/1)
Min.
3
3
8
20
3
12
34
3
45
3
9
18
3
33
Max.
74
74
65
20
51
36
45
65
45
51
74
52
51
52
Ave.
23
21
28
20
19
22
40
18
45
16
34
38
17
45
Effluent
SS
(mg/D
Min.
0.6
0.3
8
10
1
2
11
1
83
2
3
7
3
19
Max.
24
18
29
21
31
16
13
46
83
25
40
30
24
58
Ave.
3
3
15
16
13
7
12
12
83
11
15
20
13
35
Average
Percent
Removal
88
83
45
22
30
65
71
40
0
29
55
49
22
21
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008 11 71 34 3 18
77
Lowering the rate of application on the 0.68 mm effective size sand fil-
ter (Filter No. 4) from 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) to 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs)
while applying a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) reduced the
effluent suspended solids concentrations. The mean effluent SS concentration
during this short period of the study was 16 mg/1 with a daily range of 3 to
40 mg/1. The effluent SS concentration met the State of Utah, 1980 Effluent
Standards of 10 mg/1, 67 percent of the time. However, a high concentration
of Daphnia was present in the influent; thus, the above data may not be repre-
sentative of normal intermittent sand filter operation.
Efficiency of 0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 2 and 5) with hydraulic
loading rates of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD) and a
high application rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) were able to produce an
effluent which met the State of Utah, 1980 Effluent Standard of 10 mg/1 less
than 40 percent of the time during the study. The effluent SS concentration
averaged 12 mg/1 over the entire study and daily values ranged from 1 to 52
mg/1. The high daily effluent suspended solids concentrations are associated
with high influent suspended solids concentrations (see Figure 8), and thus,
indicate the inability of this filter sand to satisfy stringent Federal dis-
charge standards.
41
-------
74.3
,64.8
50 -
40 -
«— 30-
20 —
V)
o
LU
o
z
UJ
CL
CO
O
w
10
50 -
40-
30 —
20 -
10 -
FILTER
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
O.ITnwi Efftetiv* Sit* Sond
I8TI m'/ho-d (0 ZMQAO)
0.048 m'/i.c (I.Sg cfl)
FILTER
INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
O.IT mm Entctlx Slt< Sent
574C n'/Md (0.40HGA01
0.04Bro9/ue (1.68 eft)
AUG SEPT OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 8. Weekly suspended solids performance.
-------
O>
E
o
m
o
Q
LJ
O
Z
LU
Q.
en
•3
to
so -
40 -
30 -
2O -
IO -
50 -
40 -
3O -
20 -
10 -
FILTER
—O— INFLUENT
-A- EFFLUENT
0.40mm Effective Sir. Sond
14,031 mVho-d (1.5 M6AD) Auguct 15. I9T5 to August 20,1976
9,954 rn'/hu 1 (1.0 MGAO) August 27,197610 Augtltt 25,1976
0 048 m9/sec (1.66 cfs) August 15, 1975 to May 9, 1976
0.008 ms/s8C (O.Z9eFs) Moy 10, 1975 to August 25, 1976
Loadftd with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly
May 10, 1976 to August 25, 1976
70.2R
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
I
I
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
JUNE
JULY
AUG
Figure 8. Continued.
-------
50 -
40 -
— 30 -
20 —
co
g
H
o
co
a
ui
o
z
u
Q.
CO
D
CO
10 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
AUG SEPT OCT
NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
JUNE JULY
AUG
Figure 8. Continued.
-------
Operating these filters with a lower application rate of 0.008 m3/sec
(0.29 cfs) and a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha«d (1.0 MGAD), the 0.40
mm sand (Filter No. 5) produced an effluent which satisfied the State of Utah,
1980 Effluent Standard of 10 mg/1 during 80 percent of the study. As before,
the influent contained a high concentration of Daphnia and thus these results
may not be conclusive.
Applying primary lagoon effluent twice weekly, the 0.40 mm filter (Fil-
ter No. 2) at a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and a low
application rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) produced relatively high quality
effluent. The mean effluent SS concentration for this filter was 8 mg/1 with
a daily range of 3 to 18 mg/1.
Efficiency of 0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
Poor SS removals were obtained with the 0.31 mm effective size sand
(Filter No. 3) receiving a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
and a high application rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs). State of Utah, 1980,
standards were met on less than one-third of the sampling days. The mean
effluent SS concentration was 15 mg/1 and the daily effluent SS concentration
ranged from 8 to 29 mg/1.
Efficiency of 0.17 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 1 and 6) with hydraulic
loading rates of 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) and 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) produced
a low effluent suspended solids concentration throughout the entire study.
Filter No. 1 produced a mean effluent SS concentration of 4 mg/1 with daily
values ranging from 0.3 to 18 mg/1. Filter No. 6 received a hydraulic loading
rate of 1871 m3/ha.d (0.2 MGAD) and produced a mean effluent SS concentration
of 3 mg/1 and a daily range of 0.6 to 24 mg/1. The 0.17 mm effective size
sand (Filters No. 1 and 6) produced an effluent SS concentration of 30 mg/1 or
less the entire period of operation and satisfied the State of Utah, 1980
Effluent Standards of 10 mg/1 97 percent of the time.
Sunmiary
The 0.68 mm, 0.40 mm, and the 0.31 mm effective size sands (Filters 2, 3,
4, and 5) with a high application rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) were unable
to satisfy the State of Utah, 1980 Effluent Standards more than 50 percent of
the time. Lowering the application rate to 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) on the
0.68 mm and 0.40 mm effective size sand filters (Filters No. 4 and 5) in-
creased suspended solids removal performance and satisfied the State of Utah,
1980 Effluent Standard of 10 mg/1 a minimum of 67 percent of the time. The
indication that influent suspended solids significantly influenced effluent
suspended solids concentrations preclude the use of these filter sands to
satisfy stringent discharge standards. It appears that lower application
rates increase SS removal, but a definite conclusion cannot be reached due to
the short period of study at the lower application rate and the heavy growth
of Daphnia in the secondary lagoon effluent during the low application rate
s t udy.
45
-------
The 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 2) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and a low application rate of 0.008 m3/sec
(0.29 cfs) loaded with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly produced high SS
removals. Suspended solids removals averaged 76 percent during the study and
further indicates that application rate may have a definite effect on SS
removal. However, operation of this filter does not represent normal single
stage intermittent sand filter operation since lagoon effluent was applied to
the filter only twice weekly, rather than daily.
The 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 1 and 6) with hydraulic
loading rates of 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) and 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) were
capable of meeting the State of Utah, 1980 Effluent Standard of 10 mg/1 and
the Federal Secondary Discharge Standard of 30 mg/1.
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS PERFORMANCE
General
The volatile suspended solids removal obtained with the single stage
intermittent sand filters using various effective size sands, hydraulic load-
ing rates and application rates are shown in Table 13 and Figure 9. The mean
yearly influent volatile suspended solids (VSS) concentration of the secondary
lagoon effluent was 18 mg/1 with a minimum daily influent VSS concentration
of 2 mg/1 and a maximum influent VSS concentration of 68 mg/1. Daily filter
influent and effluent VSS concentrations are presented in Tables A-l through
A-7 in Appendix A.
During initial operation of the intermittent sand filters, the volatile
suspended solids removal was not directly related to the suspended solids
removal because of the wash-out of fine inorganic material from the filter.
This inorganic material is present initially in the filter sand because the
sand was not washed prior to installation in the filter. But, after approxi-
mately 30 days of operation the SS performance was observed to be similar to
VSS performance. Hill et al. (1975) and Hill et al. (1976) reported a similar
experience.
Efficiency of 0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
Hydraulic loading rate had little influence on volatile suspended solids
(VSS) performance. During the fall, winter, and spring months of the study
the 0.68 mm sand (Filters No. 3 and 4) with hydraulic loading rates of 9354
m3/ha.d (1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD) achieved VSS removals of 37
percent and 38 percent, respectively. The effluent VSS concentration of
Filter No. 3 receiving a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
averaged 9 mg/1 and ranged from 2 to 23 mg/1 during the study. The effluent
volatile suspended solids concentration of Filter No. 4 with a hydraulic load-
ing rate of 18,708 m3/ha-d (20 MGAD) averaged 8 mg/1 and ranged from less than
1 to 23 mg/1.
46
-------
TABLE 13. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS PERFORMANCE
Effective
Size
Filter
Sand
(mm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
.31
.31
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.68
.68
.68
.68
.68
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(m3/ha-d)
1
3
9
9
9
9
14
18
28
9
9
14
18
28
,871
,742
,354
,354
,354
,354
,031
,708
,062
,354
,354
,031
,708
,062
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m3/sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
Influent
VSS
(mg/1)
Min.
2
2
7
16
3
7
24
2
33
2
5
9
2
23
Max.
68
68
62
17
47
32
33
62
33
48
68
45
47
36
Ave.
18
19
25
17
14
19
29
24
33
14
26
25
13
31
Effluent
VSS
(mg/D
Min.
0.1
0.2
2
3
1
1
4
1
8
2
2
3
0.3
9
Max.
3
9
27
3
27
15
5
32
8
23
37
13
23
17
Ave.
1
2
12
3
5
5
5
7
8
9
11
7
8
13
Average
Percent
Removal
95
88
54
82
64
72
84
70
75
37
57
74
38
58
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008 9 64 35 2 7
88
Efficiency of 0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
Volatile suspended solids removal by the 0.40 mm effective size sand
(Filters No. 2 and 5) with hydraulic loading rates of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
and 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD) was relatively good. Average influent VSS
removal rates of 64 percent and 70 percent, respectively, were observed. The
0.40 mm sand (Filter No. 2) produced a mean effluent VSS concentration of 5
mg/1 with daily concentrations ranging from 1 to 27 mg/1. Filter No. 5 re-
ceiving a hydraulic loading rate of 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD), produced a
mean effluent VSS concentration of 7 mg/1 with daily values ranging from 1 to
32 mg/1. When the application rate of Filter No. 5 was lowered to 0.008
m3/sec (0.29 cfs) and the hydraulic loading rate was lowered to 9354 m3/ha-d
(1.0 MGAD), the 0.40 mm sand (Filter No. 5) did not show any significant
improvement in VSS performance when compared with the higher application rate
of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs). However, when primary lagoon effluent was applied
twice weekly to this same filter (Filter No. 2) at the same hydraulic loading
rate (9354 m3/ha*d (1.0 MGAD)) and same application rate (0.008 mj/sec (0.29
cfs)) high VSS removals occurred. Under these conditions (i.e., primary
lagoon effluent, hydraulic loading rate = 9354 m3/ha-d, application rate =
0.008 m3/sec) the effluent VSS concentration of Filter No. 5 averaged 4 mg/1,
and individual concentrations ranged from 2 to 7 mg/1.
47
-------
62.0
-P-
00
FILTER
—O— INFLUENT
—£r— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Send
3742 m3/ho-d (0.40 MGAD)
0.048 m'/sec (1.68 cfs)
FILTER 6
INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
1871 m'/ho d (0.2 MGAD)
0.048 m*/>ec (1.66 cf« 1
AUG
SEPT
MAR
I I I
APR MAY JUNE JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 9. Weekly volatile suspended solids performance.
-------
40 -
— 30 -
O»
V)
Q
20 -
o 10 H
CO
Q
UJ
O
,44.6
FILTER 5
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
28,062 tnVha-d (3.0 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 17, 1975
18,708 ms/ha-d(2 0 MGAD) August 27, 1975 to July 8, 1976
9,354 ms/no-a 11.0 MGAD! July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0 048 m'/sec (l.6$cfs) August 15, 1975 to July 8, 1976
0.008 ms/sec (0.29cfs) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
UJ
Q.
CO
D
V)
)44.6
46.
64.0
40 -
30 -
UJ
=! 20 -
g 10 H
FILTER 2
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40mm Effective Size Sand
14,031 mVha d {I. 5 MGAD) nuvi>a. .*., ,^> *. ,u HUwuai *,,*, i7,v
9,354_m3/ha-d U.OMGAD) August 27,1976 to August 25,1976
0.048 m'/s«c (I 68 cfsl August 15, 1975 to Moy 9, 1976
O.OOSm'/'sec (0.29 cfsl May 10, 1975 to August 25. 1976
Loaded with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly
May 10, 1976 to August 25, 1976
August 15, 1975 to August 20, (976
AUG SEPT OCT
I I I I \
NOV DEC JAN FE8 MAR APR
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
Figure 9. Continued.
-------
Cn
o
V)
o
o
CO
o
uj
a
•z.
UJ
a.
en
^
CO
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
40 -
30 -
UJ
d! 20
O
10 -
_
INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68mm Effective Size Sand
28.062m3/ha d 13.0 MGADI
I8,70ems/ho-d (2.0MGAD)
9.354m3/ho d (1.0 MGAD)
August 24, 1975 to September 4, 1975
September IS, 1975 to May 14, 1976
y, jj-rm f »u-u v '-vi m»Hu i June 2, 1976 to Auflutt 25, 1976
0.048 m3/sec (l.68cf«) August 24, 1976 to May 14. 1976
0 008 m3/sec (0.29c(s) June Z, 1976 to August 25, I97€
FILTER 3
INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
August 24, 1975 to June 10, 1976
June 28, 1976 to August 25, 1976
August 24, 1975 to October 9, 1975
October 31, 1975 to August 25, 1976
14,031 m3/ho-d (f.5 MGAD)
9,SS4m3/ho-d (I.OMGAD)
0.048 m'/sec (1.68 el!) August 24, 1975 la August II, 1976
0.008ms/sec (0.29cfs) Auguet 12, 1976 to August 25. 1976
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 9. Continued.
-------
Efficiency of 0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
Volatile suspended solids removals by the 0.31 mm sand (Filter No. 3)
with a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and a high applica-
tion rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) was slightly less than the 0.40 mm ef-
fective size sand (Filter No. 3) under similar operating conditions. The
mean effluent VSS concentration of Filter No. 3 was 12 mg/1 and daily values
ranged from 2 to 27 mg/1. Lowering the application rate to 0.008 nrVsec
(0.29 cfs) improved removals from 54 percent to 82 percent during 14 con-
secutive days of operation. A heavy Daphnia concentration at the time of
sampling and the short period of data collection makes it difficult to draw
conclusions from these data.
Efficiencyof 0.17 mm Effective Size Sand
Excellent volatile suspended solids removal was obtained with 0.17mm sand
(Filters No. 1 and 6). A mean effluent VSS concentration of 1 mg/1 was
achieved with the 0.17 mm sand (Filter No. 6) loaded at a rate of 1871 m^/ha-d
(0.2 MGAD). Individual daily sampling concentrations ranged from less than 1
mg/1 to 3 mg/1. At a hydraulic loading rate of 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD), the
0.17 mm sand (Filter No. 1) produced a mean effluent VSS concentration of 2
mg/1 with individual concentrations varying from less than 1 to 9 mg/1.
Summary
Hydraulic loading rates did not affect volatile suspended solids per-
formance. However, the effective size of the sand appears to have a profound
affect on VSS removal (Figure 10). Lower effective size sands produce lower
effluent VSS concentrations.
The effect of the application rate on filter performance was obscured by
the presence of high concentrations of Daphnia in the lagoon effluent. However,
the limited results of the study suggest that lowering the application rate
will increase VSS removal efficiency. Further study is required before the
exact impact of application rate on filter VSS performance can be defined.
OXIDATION OF NITROGEN
General
An evaluation of the oxidation of nitrogen by. intermittent sand filters
was performed by determining the influent and effluent concentrations of
ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N), nitrite-nitrogen (N02-N), nitrate-nitrogen (N03-N)
and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) produced by the various effective size sands,
hydraulic loading rates and application rates. The various nitrogen forms
present in the filter influent and effluents are shown in Tables 14, 15, 16,
and 17 and Figures 11, 12, 13, and 14. Figure 15 illustrates the total
nitrogen (TKN + N02~N + N03-N) performance of the filters.
51
-------
100-i
90
80-
_, 70-
<
o 60 H
1 50-
£ 40-
LJ
QC 30-
LJ
Q.
20-
!0 -
0
O
= - 64.0 X+ 99.9
(r=0.99)
Low application rate 0.008m3/sec (0.29 cfs)
High application rate 0.048m3/sec (1.68 cfs)
I
I
0.20 0.40 0.60
EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND (mm)
0.80
Figure 10. Volatile suspended solids removal efficiency as a function of ef-
fective size filter sand; hydraulic loading rate was 9354 m3/ha»d
(1.0 MGAD) for all sand filters, except the 0.17 mm effective
size sand filter which was operated at a hydraulic loading rate
of 3742 m3/ha.d (0.4 MGAD).
Efficiency of 0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
Nitrogen oxidation in the 0.68 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 3 and
4) with hydraulic loading rates of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and application
rates of 0.048 m^/sec (1.68 cfs) was relatively low. The nitrate-nitrogen
concentration of the lagoon effluent after passing through these filters
(Filter No. 3 and 4) only increased from <0.1 mg/1 to between 0.3 and 0.7
mg/1. The respective ammonia-nitrogen concentrations remained relatively
unchanged at approximately 5 mg/1 (see Table 14).
Lowering the application rate on the 0.68 mm sand (Filter No. 4) from
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) to 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) increased the rate of
nitrification slightly. The nitrate-nitrogen concentration of the lagoon
effluent passing through the filters increased from <0.1 to 1.3 mg/1, with a
52
-------
TABLE 14. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE AMMONIA-NITROGEN PERFORMANCE
Effective
Size
Filter
£1 J
Sand
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(m3/ha-d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
Min.
<0. 1
<0. 1
1.0
1.0
<0.1
1.0
1.0
<0. 1
N.A.
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
0.1
<0.1
Influent
Max.
8.5
8.5
3.1
1.2
8.5
1.3
1.0
8.5
N.A.
8.5
3.1
2.6
8.5
<0.1
Ave.
3.2
3.2
1.3
1.0
4.7
1.1
1.0
4.0
N.A.
5.0
1.0
1.0
5.0
0.1
Min.
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
1.0
<0. 1
1.0
<0. 1
N.A.
1.0
0.1
<0.2
<0.1
0.1
Effluent
Max.
2.2
6.9
1.3
0.3
8.1
1.0
1.0
8.1
N.A.
7.8
1.1
1.4
8.1
1.1
Ave.
2.4
1.9
0.8
0.2
3.5
0.5
1.0
2.7
N.A.
5.1
0.6
0.5
4.3
0.4
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008 <0.8 7.4 4.0 <0.4
3.4
2.0
N.A. = Not available.
corresponding reduction in the ammonia-nitrogen concentration from 1.0 to 0.6
mg/1.
As illustrated in Figure 15, approximately 7 percent of the total nitro-
gen in the wastewater is removed by the filters. This loss of nitrogen may
be due to solids deposition in the filter bed, removal with sand scrapings,
or lost to the atmosphere.
Efficiency of 0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 2 and 5) produced a more
nitrified effluent than the 0.68 mm sand (Filters No. 3 and 4). Receiving
hydraulic loading rates of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m3/ha«d (2.0
MGAD) and an application rate of 0.48 m3/sec (1.68 cfs), the 0.40 mm effective
size sand (Filters No. 2 and 5) produced a mean effluent nitrate-nitrogen con-
centration of 1.2 mg/1 while daily values ranged from <0.1 mg/1 to 12.0 mg/1.
The mean influent nitrate-nitrogen concentration was <0.1 mg/1 while daily
values ranged from <0.1 mg/1 to 0.2 mg/1. The corresponding lagoon effluent TKN
concentrations decreased from 7.7 to 6.2 mg/1 and the ammonia-nitrogen con-
centrations decreased from 4.2 to 3.1 mg/1.
53
-------
TABLE 15. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE NITRITE-NITROGEN PERFORMANCE
Effective
Size
Filter
C ITI A
oana
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(m3/ha-d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
Influent
NO -N
Min . Max . Ave .
<0.1 0.2 <0.1
<0.1 0.2 <0.1
<0.1 0.1 <0.1
<0.1 <0.1 <0.1
<0 . 1 0.6 <0 . 1
<0.1 0.1 <0.1
0.2 0.2 0.2
<0.1 0.6 <0.1
N.A. N.A. N.A.
<0.1 0.1 <0.1
<0.1 0.1 <0.1
<0.1 0.6 0.1
<0.1 <0.1 0.1
<0.1 0.6 0.2
Effluent
N02-N
Min . Max .
<0.1 0.2
<0 . 1 0.1
0.1 0.1
<0.1 0.1
<0.1 0.1
<0 . 1 <0 . 1
0.3 0.3
<0.1 0.4
N.A. N.A.
<0.1 0.1
<0.1 0.1
<0.1 0.4
<0.1 0.4
<0.1 0.6
Ave.
<0. 1
<0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
<0. 1
0.3
<0. 1
N.A.
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
0.1
0.2
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008 <0.1 <0.5 <0.1 <0.1
<0.2
N.A.
Not available.
Decreasing the application rate to 0.008 m /sec (0.29 cfs) doubled the
nitrogen oxidation performance of the 0.40 mm sand (Filter No. 5) with a
hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m^/ha-d (1.0 MGAD). During the last three
months (June, July, and August of 1976) of the experiment, the mean influent
nitrate-nitrogen concentration was <0.1 mg/1. The three month mean filter
effluent nitrate-nitrogen concentration was 0.9 mg/1 and daily concentrations
ranged between 0.2 mg/1 and 1.5 mg/1. During this same period the average
wastewater TKN concentrations decreased from 5.1 to 2.7 mg/1. The mean filter
influent ammonia-nitrogen concentration was 1.1 mg/1 and daily values varied
from 0.9 to 1.3 mg/1. The mean filter effluent ammonia-nitrogen concen-
tration was 0.5 mg/1 and daily concentrations ranged between 0.2 and 1.0 mg/1.
The 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 2) treating primary lagoon
effluent applied twice weekly at an application rate of 0.008 mrVsec (0.29
cfs) produced a well nitrified effluent. The mean influent nitrate-nitrogen
concentration increased from 0.2 to 5.2 mg/1 in the effluent. The mean
influent ammonia-nitrogen concentration was decreased from 4.0 to 2.0 mg/1.
The wastewater TKN concentrations decreased from 7.7 to 4.4 mg/1 when passed
through this same filter (Filter No. 2).
54
-------
TABLE 16. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE NITRATE-NITROGEN PERFORMANCE
Effective „ .
Size Hydraulic
Filter fading
T?at-f>
Sand
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.40
N.A. -
(m3/ha-d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
Loaded
9,354
Not available
Appll- Influent
cation »°37«
Pate (mg/1)
,3, . Min.
(m /sec)
0.048 <0.1
0.048 <0.1
0.048 <0.1
0.008 <0.1
0.048 <0.1
0.008 <0.1
0.048 0.5
0.048 <0.1
0.048 N.A.
0.048 <0.1
0.008 <0.1
0.048 <0.1
0.048 <0.1
0.048 <0.1
With Primary Lagoon
0.008 <0.1
•
Max.
0.5
0.5
<0.1
<0.1
0.2
<0.1
0.5
0.2
N.A.
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
<0.1
Ave.
0.1
0.1
<0. 1
<0. 1
0.1
<0.1
0.5
0.1
N.A.
0.7
<0. 1
0.1
0.2
<0.1
Effluent Twice
<0.7
<0.2
Effluent
NO -N
(mgJ/l)
Min.
1.6
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.2
0.2
1.8
<0. 1
N.A.
<0.1
0.7
<0. 1
<0. 1
<0. 1
Weekly
<1.7
Max.
9.5
9.1
0.3
1.1
8.2
1.5
1.8
12.0
N.A.
0.9
4.0
4.1
5.6
1.3
13.7
Ave.
4.0
2.9
0.2
0.7
1.2
0.7
1.8
1.2
N.A.
0.3
1.3
0.8
0.7
0.4
5.2
Efficiency of 0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
Very little oxidation of ammonia-nitrogen to nitrate-nitrogen occurred
in the 0.31 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 3) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) with an application rate of 0.048 m3/sec
(1.68 cfs). The mean nitrate-nitrogen concentration of the wastewater only
increased from <0.1 mg/1 to 0.2 mg/1 while the mean ammonia concentration
decreased from 1.1 mg/1 to 0.5 mg/1. The corresponding mean TKN concen-
trations decreased from 5.1 mg/1 to 3.2 mg/1.
Lowering the application rate from 0.048 m3/day (1.68 cfs) to 0.008
m3/day (0.29 cfs) increased nitrification slightly with the wastewater mean
nitrate-nitrogen concentration increasing from <0.1 to 0.7 mg/1. The cor-
responding mean ammonia-nitrogen concentration decreased from 1.0 to 0.2 mg/1
while the corresponding mean TKN concentrations decreased from 3.5 to 2.1
mg/1.
Figure 15 indicates an average loss of total nitrogen of 30 percent with
the 0.31 mm sand.
55
-------
TABLE 17. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN PERFORMANCE
Effective
Size
Filter
C «« A
band
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(m /ha.d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
Min.
1.0
1.0
3.6
3.5
2.1
4.4
5.4
1.0
N.A.
1.8
1.9
2.4
1.8
2.4
Influent
TKN
(mg/1)
Max.
14.0
14.0
6.9
3.5
14.0
6.5
5.4
14.0
N.A.
14.0
8.6
11.8
14.0
4.9
Ave.
6.8
7.1
5.1
3.5
8.1
5.1
5.4
7.3
N.A.
8.3
5.0
5.7
8.5
4.1
Min.
0.2
0.2
2.3
2.1
1.6
1.4
2.9
1.0
N.A.
1.4
1.4
2.7
1.4
2.6
Effluent
TKN
(mg/1)
Max.
7.5
9.6
4.5
2.1
11.3
3.3
2.9
11.8
N.A.
10.9
6.2
12.9
1.3
3.6
Ave.
2.2
3.7
3.2
2.1
6.6
2.7
2.9
5.7
N.A.
7.4
3.3
5.7
7.5
3.1
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008 3.4 15.1 7.7 2.6
7.5
4.4
N.A. = Not available.
Efficiency of 0.17 mm Effective Size Sand
The greatest oxidation of ammonia-nitrogen occurred in the 0.17 mm
effective size sands (Filters No. 1 and 6). The average influent ammonia-
nitrogen concentration in the lagoon effluent treated by the 0.17 mm effective
size sands (Filter No. 6) with a hydraulic loading rate of 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2
MGAD) was reduced from 3.2 mg/1 to 2.4 mg/1. The corresponding average
nitrate-nitrogen concentration increased from <0.1 mg/1 to 4.0 mg/1 after
passage through the filter. The average TKN concentration in the wastewater
passing through the 0.17 mm effective size sand decreased from 6.8 mg/1 to
2.2 mg/1.
With a hydraulic loading rate of 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD), the 0.17 mm
effective size sand (Filter No. 1) reduced the average lagoon effluent
ammonia-nitrogen concentration from 3.2 to 1.9 mg/1. This is a slightly
greater reduction than the 1871 m^/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) hydraulic loading rate but
is not significantly different. The corresponding average nitrate-nitrogen
concentration in the wastewater increased from 0.1 to 2.9 mg/1, while the
corresponding TKN concentration was reduced from 7.1 to 3.7 mg/1.
56
-------
o»
E
til
o
o
a:
\-
10
9
8
7 •
6
5
4
3
2
I
FILTER I
~O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
3742 m'/ha-d (0.40MGAO)
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs)
IO
< 9
O 6
*5 5
< 4 -
FILTER 6
—O— INFLUENT
—&— EFFLUENT
0.17 mm Effective Size Sond
1871 m*/ho a (0.2 MGAD)
0.048 m*/t«c (1.68 eft)
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 11. Weekly ammonia-nitrogen performance.
-------
Ui
00
o»
Z
UJ
CD
O
o:
i-
co
z
o
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
IO -
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
I '
FILTER S I
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT ' I
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand I
28,062 m3/no-d (3.0MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August IT, I9T5
18,TOO m5/na-d(2 OMGAOI August 27, 1975 to July 8, 1976
9,354 m'/ho-dll.O MGADI July 19, 1976 to August 25. 1976
0.048mVsec (l.66efs) August 15, 1975 to July 8, 1976
0.008 m*/sec (0.29cfs) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
FILTER 2
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
14,031 m'/tia-d (1.5 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 20, 1976
9,354 m'/ha-d (I.O MGAD) August 27,1976 to August 25, 1976
0.046" mVsee (l.68cfsl August 15, 1975 to May 9, 1976
0.008 mVsee (0.29 cfs) May 10, 1975 to August 25, 1976
Loaded with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly
May 10, 1976 to August 25, 1976
14.2
AUG
SEPT
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 11. Continued.
-------
10
9
8
VD
2
O
UJ
CD
O
OC i
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
FILTER 4
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
28,062m3/ho-d(3.0MSAD)
18,708 m'/ha-d (2.0M6AD)
9.354m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
August 24, 1975 to September 4, 1975
September 18, 1975 to May 14, 1976
June 2, 1976 to Atigult 25, 1976
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) August 24, 1976 to Moy 14, 1976
0.008 m'/sec (0.29cfs) June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
FILTER 3
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
14,031 ms/ho-d (1.5 MGAD)
9,364 m3/ha-
-------
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
— 0.30
O» 0.25
3 0.20
~~ 0.15
0. 10
0.05
UJ
CD
O
o:
JO.602
FILTER I
—O— INFLUENT
—6— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
3742 m'/ha-d (0.40 MGAD)
0.048 ro'/sec (1.68 cfs)
tr
I-
0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0. 15
0. 10
0.05
50.602
AUG
FILTER 6
—O— INFLUENT
-A— EFFLUENT
O.t7mm Effective Size Sand
1871 m'/ho.dtO.ZMSAOl
0.048-tns/MC -M.M-cfi)
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 12. Weekly nitrite-nitrogen performance.
-------
0 50
0 45
0 40
0.35
CT 0.30
O» 0.25
,B 0.20
2 0. 15
UJ
O 0. 10
pf 0.05 —
9°
.602
—O— INFLUENT
—A- EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
28,062 mVtlo-d (3.0 MGAD) August IS, 1975 to August 17, 1975
18,706 m5/tra.d(2.0MGAO) August 27, 1975 to July 8, 1976
9,354 m3/hQ-d (1.0 MGAD) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m3/see (1.68 cfs I August 15, 1975 to July 8, 1976
0.008 n>9/see (0.29 cfs) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
V)
<
UJ
te
(T
> 0.602
0.50 -
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0. 15
0. 10
0.05
FILTER 2
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
0.4Omm Effective Siie Sand
14,031 m3/ho d (1.5 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 20, 1976
9,354m'/ha-d (I OMGAD) August 27,1976 to August 25,1976
0.048m3/sec (1.68 cfs) August 15, 1975 to Moy 9, 1976
0.008 mVsec (0.29 cfs) Moy IO, 1975 to August 25, 1976
Loaded with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly
May 10, 1976 to August 25, 1976
AUG SEPT
OCT
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 12. Continued.
-------
0.50 —
0.45 — i
0.40 — l
0.35 —
C^ 0.30 —
O> 0.25 —
,H 0.20 -
Z 015-
UJ
CD 0. 10 -
o
,P 0.05 -
Q_
z
0.50 —
CO
^jf 0 45 —
LU 0.40 -
h-
< 035-
oe.
i_ 0.30 -
I
Z 0.25 -
0.20 -
015-
010-
0.05 -
0.6029 f°
1
1
,
ttr
64
u/MXV
FILTER 4
— O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68mm Effective Size Sond
28,062m3/ho-d (3.0 MGAD) August 24, 1975 to September 4, 1975 1
I8,70em3/ho-a (2.0MGAD) September 18, 1975 to Ma) 14, 1976
9. 354m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) August 24, 1976 to May 14, 1976
0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) June 2. 1976 to August 25, 1976
A
A R . /
OL — A^A-^*0 — O^N /s/dbri^^ A /AXA^-^^^
U^yW^-a^r^^*^^^
nO.602
Q
\
\
)
s
-^V
V
^^U
FILTER 3
— O— INFLUENT
— i^— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
August 24, 1975 to June 10, 1976
0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
June 28, 1976 to August 25, 1976
14,031 m3/ho-d (1.5 MGAO) August 24, 1975 to October 9, 1975
9,354 m3/had ( 1.0 MGAD) October 31, 1975 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) August 24, 1975 to August II, 1976
0.008 m'/sec (0.29cfs) August 12, 1976 to August 25, 1976
f^~&-fr\ f
-0 — rf grS^***" \C^»A-A^--A--A-A--y^-A^^-^A^SX^ — ^ yi^n. _ ^x0-^ J O^/U-O
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 12. Continued.
-------
10 -
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
O>
E
ill
CO
o
cr
CO
<
QJ 8 -
cr
h-
FILTER I
-O— INFLUENT
—tf— EFFLUENT
0.17mm EffBctiue Size Sand
3742 m'/hod (0.40 MGADI
0.048 mVsec (1-68 cfs]
FILTER 6
—O— INFLUENT
—t*— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
1871 m'/ha-d (O.ZMOAD)
0.048 m'/lee (1.68 cf« )
I I I
AUG SEPT OCT NOV
I 1 I I I I I I I
DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 13. Weekly nitrate-nitrogen performance.
-------
AI2.0
o»
E
yj
o
o
tr
i-
co
<
LJ
Od
I-
FILTER 5
INFLUENT
—^— EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
28,062 mVha-d (3-0 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 17, 1975
ie,70S ms/ha-d(2 0 MGAD) August 27, 1975 to July 8, 1976
9,354 m3/ho-d( 1.0 MGAD) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m'/sec (l.68cfs) August 15, 1975 to JulyS. 1976
0.008 m3/sec (O.29c(s) July 19. 1976 to August 25, 1976
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
0.40mm Effective Size Sand
14,031 m'/hod (I.5MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 20, 1976
9,354 mVha-d II.0 MGAD) August 27,1976 to August 25. 1976
0.048i*Vsec (!.68cfs) August 15, 1975 to Moy 9, 1976
0.008 mVsec (0.29 cfs) May 10, 1975 to August 25, 1976
Loaded with primary logoon effluent twice weekly
Moy 10, 1976 to August 25, 1976
AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
Figure 13. Continued.
-------
Ui
v^
0»
5
Z
UJ
0
o
tr
H
z
CO
UI
H-
•4
tr
i—
z
10 -
Q
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
1 -
FILTER
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
0.68fflm Effective Size Sond
28,062m3/ho-d(3.0MGAO>
IB.TOSm'/Mi a (2.0MSAD1
9,354m3/hoH (I.OMGAD)
August 24. 1975 to September 4, 1975
September IB, I97S to Moy 14, I9T6
June 2, 1976 to Augull 25, 1976
0.048 m'/sec (1.68 cf>) August 24, 1976 to May 14, 1976
0.008 m'/sec (0.29cfs! June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Effective Size Sond
0.3tmm Effective Size Sond
August 24, 1975 to June 10, 1976
14,031 m3/ho-d (I.5MGADI
9,354 m'/Bo-o1 (I.OMGAD) -., —
0.048 ms/sec (1.68 cfs) August 24, 1975 to August M, 1976
O.O08 ms/sec (0.29cfs) August 12, 1976 to August 25, 1976
June 28, 1976 to August 25, 1976
August 24, 1975 to October 9, 1975
October 31, 1975 to August 25, 1976
AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
TIME IN MONTHS (1975- 1976)
JUNE
JULY
AUG
Figure 13. Continued.
-------
II.8
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
FILTERJ
INFLUENT
—ff— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
3742 m'/hod (0.40MG&D)
0.048 m3/s«c (1.68 cfs)
FILTER 6
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
1871 m'/ha-d (O.Z MGAD )
0.048 m'/i.c (I 68 cfm
I I I I I I I ! I
AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 14. Weekly total Kjeldahl nitrogen performance,
-------
11.891
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
I -
10 -
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
I
FILTER 5
INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
28,062 m5/ha-d (3.0 MGAD) August IS, 1975 to August 17, 1975
16,708 m3/ha-d (2 0 MGAD) August 27. 1975 to July 8, 1976
9,354 m'/ha-dd.O MGAD) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m3/sec (l.68cfs) August 15, 1975 to Julys, 1976
0.008 m3/sec (0.29cfs! July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
11.3.
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
0.40mm Effective Size Sand
14,031 m3/ho-d (1.5 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 20, 1976
9,354 mVho-d 11.0 MGAD) August 27,1976 to August 25,1976
0.048m3/sec (l.68cts) August 15, 1975 to May 9, 1976
0 008 m3/sec {0.29 cfs 1 Moy 10, 1975 to August 25, 1976
Loaded with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly
Moy 10, 1976 to August 25, 1976
-.15.1
-,16.1
26.4
I
I
I
I
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 14. Continued.
-------
oo
.TER 4
INFLUENT
_ EFFLUENT
0.68mm Effective Size Sand
28,062m3/ho d(3.0MGAD)
18.708 m3/ho-d (2.0MOAD)
9.354m'/na d (10 MGAD)
August 24, 1975 to September 4, 1975
September 18, 1975 to May 14, 1976
June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
9.354m*/na.d (l.u M6AO1 June z. 1975 10 August 29
0.048 m3/sec 11.68 eft) August 24, 1976 to May 14, 1976
0.008 ms/sec (0.29 els) Jam 2. 1976 to August 25, 1976
FILTER 3
INFLUENT
—£r- EFFLUENT
0.68mm Effective Size Sand
August 24, 1975 to June 10, 1976
June 28, 1976 to August 25, 1976
August 24, 1975 to October 9, 1975
October 31, 1975 to August 25, 1976
14,031 m5/ho-d (I. 5 MGAD)
9.354m5/ha-d (I.OMOAD) ... ,— —
0.048 m'/sec (I 68cfs> August 24, 1975 to August II, 1976
0.008 m3/sec (0.29cfs) August 12, 1976 to August 25, 1976
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEE
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 14. Continued.
-------
110 10.9
ON
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
oc
I-
10 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
FILTER L
—O— INFLUENT
—fr— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sond
3743 m'/hod {0.40MCAD)
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 eft)
14.0^-^16.0
FILTER 6
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
i-d(O.ZMGAO)
(I 68 cfll
O.I7mm I
IB7I mVha-d (0.2
0.048 m3/iec (I
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
I I
JUNE JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 15. Weekly total nitrogen results.
-------
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
S2
(V I
10.7,
FILTER 5
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Sin Sana
28,062 m'/ha-d (3.0 MOAD) August 15, 1975 to August 17, 1975
18,706 m'/ho-d(2 0 MGAO) August 27, 1975 to July 8, 1976
9,354 m'/ha-dll.O MSAD) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m'/sec (l.68cfs) August IS, 1975 to July 8, 1976
0.008 ma/sec (0.29cfs) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
10 -
9
8
O
h- 7
6
5
4
3
2
I
All.5
12.2
FILTER 2
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40mm Effective Size Sand
14,031 m3/ha-d ( 1.5 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 20, 1976
9,354 rnVha-d U.O MGAO) August 27, 1976 to August 25,1976
0.048 mVssc (1.68 cfs) August 15, 1975 toMay9.!976
0 008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) May 10, 1975 to August 25, 197$
Loaded with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly
May 10, 1976 to August 25, 1976
15.1
9 4V
.16.5
I
I
AUG
SEPT
OCT
I
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 15. Continued.
-------
il.OJO.9
UJ
o
o
QL
H
Z
O
I-
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
6 -
5 -
4 -
3 -
2 -
I -
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 •
6
5
4
3
2
I
FILTER 4
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
O.68mm Effective Size Sand
28,062m'/ha-d (3.0 MGAD)
I8,708m*/ha d (2.0MGAD)
9, 354m5/ha-d (t.O MGAD)
August 24, 1975 to September 4, 1975
September 18, 1975 la M«> 14, 1976
June 2, 1976 la Augult E5. 1976
0.048 mVsec 11.68 cfi) Auguil 24, 1976 la Mai 14, I97S
O.O08 m'/sec (O29cl>) Jun« 2, 1976 10.August 25, P976
10.9
FILTER 3
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Eftecti.e Size Sand
0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
14,031 mVhd'd (1.5 MGAD)
9.354 ms/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
0048
0.008
August 24, 1975 to June 10, 1976
June 28, l»76 to August 25, 1976
August 24, 1975 to October 9, 1975
- - .... October 3t, !975 to August 25, 1976
m3/sec it.6Bcts) August 24, 1975 to August II, 1976
ms/sec {0.29cfs) August tZ, 1976 to August 25, 1976
I
I
I
AU6
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AU6
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 15. Continued.
-------
Overall, as indicated by Figure 15, about 6 percent of the total nitrogen
(TKN, N02-N, N03-N) was removed.
Summary
The 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 1 and 6) produced a higher
nitrified effluent than the other effective size sands (Filters No. 2, 3, 4,
and 5).
Application rate was shown to have a substantial effect on the degree of
nitrification with the 0.31 mm, 0.40 mm, and 0.68 mm effective size sands
(Filters No. 2, 3, 4, and 5). The lower application rate produced a greater
nitrified effluent.
A greater degree of nitrogen oxidation was observed with the finer ef-
fective size sands, but nitrogen losses were not affected by the size of sand.
pH AND ALKALINITY
General
Variations in the influent and effluent pH values and alkalinity concen-
trations for the various effective size sands are reported in Tables 18 and 19
and shown in Figures 16 and 17. Comparison of the influent pH values with
the influent alkalinity concentrations indicates a decrease in alkalinity
occurs at high pH values (i.e., pH above 9.0). This is typical of lagoon
effluent and is a result of calcium carbonate precipitation under high pH
conditions caused by algal growth (Sawyer and McCarty, 1967).
In general, the median influent pH values for all the filter runs ranged
from 8.3 to 9.1. The corresponding average influent pH values ranged from
8.6 to 9.3 with individual values ranging from 7.7 to 9.8.
Efficiency of 0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.68 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 3 and 4) with hydraulic
loading rates of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD) and an
application rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) did not lower the influent pH
value to meet the Federal Secondary Treatment Standards of 6 and 9 consistent-
ly. The median effluent pH values for these effective size sands were 8.9 and
8.4, respectively.
Lowering the application rate on the 0.68 mm filter (Filter No. 4) with
a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) to 0.008 m3/sec (0.29
cfs) reduced the pH value within the Federal Secondary Treatment Standards
on 80 percent of the samples. The resulting median effluent pH value was 8.4.
The 0.68 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 3 and 4) operating under
various hydraulic loading rates and application rates achieved effluent
alkalinity concentrations that followed very closely the influent alkalinity
concentrations with a mean decrease of 4 mg/1 as CaCOq.
72
-------
TABLE 18. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE pH PERFORMANCE
Effective „ , , .
Size Hydraulic
Filter Loadin§
Sand
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
Rate
(m3/ha-d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
Influent
PH
Min.
7.7
7.7
8.3
8.8
7.7
8.3
8.9
7.7
N.A.
7.7
8.6
8.3
7.7
9.1
Max.
9.8
9.8
9.5
8.8
9.8
9.2
8.9
9.8
N.A.
9.8
9.6
9.3
9.8
9.4
Median
8.6
8.6
9.1
8.8
8.3
8.8
8.9
8.6
N.A.
8.3
9.1
9.1
8.1
9.3
Min.
6.9
7.0
7.6
7.6
7.3
7.3
8.9
7.4
N.A.
7.7
7.4
7.8
7.7
8.0
Effluent
pH
Max.
8.7
8.9
9.0
7.6
11.5
9.0
8.9
9.8
N.A.
10.2
9.6
9.0
10.5
9.0
Median
7.9
8.0
9.1
7.7
8.2
7.8
8.9
8.5
N.A.
8.9
8.4
8.9
8.4
8.9
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008 8.3 9.3 8.3 8.1
7.1
N.A.
Not available.
Efficiency of 0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
Federal Secondary Treatment Standards for the pH value were met 50 per-
cent of the time by the effluent from the 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter
No. 5) with a hydraulic loading rate of 18,708 m3/ha.d (2.0 MGAD) .
A significant difference in pH and alkalinity was observed with Filter
No. 5 when a wastewater application rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) and a
hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD). The median influent pH
value was 8.8 and the median effluent pH value was 8.4. The mean effluent
alkalinity concentration increased from 251 to 264 mg/1 as CaC03<
Efficiency of 0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
The median influent pH value of 9.1 was unchanged when wastewater was
applied to the 0.31 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 3) receiving a
73
-------
TABLE 19. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE ALKALINITY PERFORMANCES
Effective
Size
Filter
Sand
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(m /ha«d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
Appli-
cation
Rate
3
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
Influent
Alkalinity
(mg/1 CaC03)
Min.
210
210
203
263
251
203
N.A.
251
N.A.
251
203
N.A.
251
N.A.
Max.
348
348
263
284
348
284
N.A.
348
N.A.
348
284
N.A.
348
N.A.
Ave.
286
287
243
270
307
251
N.A.
295
N.A.
300
247
N.A.
285
N.A.
Effluent
Alkalinity
(mg/1 CaC03)
Min.
212
181
202
266
276
257
N.A.
217
N.A.
221
223
N.A.
217
N.A.
Max.
332
332
257
285
334
275
N.A.
346
N.A.
349
267
N.A.
337
N.A.
Ave.
271
271
231
270
302
264
N.A.
286
N.A.
296
243
N.A.
299
N.A.
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008 262 339 285 232
317
265
N.A. = Not available.
Q
hydraulic loading rate of 9354 nr/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) at an application rate of
0.048 (1.68 cfs) even though the mean influent alkalinity concentration
decreased from 243 to 231 mg/1 CaCO-j.
When the application rate was lowered to 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs), the
median alkalinity concentration was 270 mg/1 as CaCOo for both the influent
and effluents. The median pH value decreased from 8.8 to 7.8.
Efficiency of 0.17 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filters No. 1 and 6) produced an ef-
fluent pH value that satisfied the Federal Secondary Treatment Standards the
entire period of study. The median wastewater pH value decreased from 9.8 to
7.9. The yearly mean alkalinity concentration decreased from 287 to 271 mg/1
as CaC0.
The 0.68 mm and 0.40 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 2, 3, 4, and 5)
with an application rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) appear unable to satisfy
74
-------
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
FILTER I
—O— INFLUENT
—6— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sond
3742 m'/ho d 10 40M6AD)
0.048 m'/sec (1.68 cfsl
10
9 -
FILTER 6
—O— INFLUENT
—ff— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Eff«ct'tv« Size Sand
1871 m'/ha d (O.ZMGAD)
0.048 mViec I I 68 cfl I
7 -
AUG
I I I I I I I I I
SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 16. Weekly pH performance.
-------
10 -
9 -
FILTER 5
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
28,062 m'/ho-d (3.0 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 17, 1975
18,708 m3/ha d(2 OMGAO) August 27, 1975 to July 8, 1976
9,354 mVha-dll.OMGAO) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m3/sec (l.68cfs) August 15, 1975 to July 8, 1976
0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) July 19, (976 to August 25. 1976
X
Q.
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
0.40mm Etfectiv* Size Sand
14,031 m'/ha d (1.5 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 20, 1976
9,354 m3/ hd-d (1.0 MGAD) August 27, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) August 15, 1975 to May 9, 1976
0.008m'/sec (0.29 cfs] Moy 10. 1975 to August 25. 1976
Loaded with primary lagoon eftluent twice weekly
May 10, 1976 to August 25, 1976
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 16. Continued.
-------
10 -
8 -
FILTER 4
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
2B,062m3/ha-d (3.0 MGAD) August 24, 1975 to September 4, P975
18,708m3/ha-d (2.0MGAD) September 18, 1975 lo May 14, 1976
9,354ms/ho d (1.0 MSAD) June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m'/sec (1.68 cfs) August 24, 1976 lo May 14, 1976
O.OO8 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
10 -
9 -
8 -
7 -
FILTER 3
—O— INFLUENT
—&- EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Effective Size Sond
0.31mm Effective Site Sand
August 24, 1975 to June 10, 1976
14,031 m'/ho-d (1.5 MGAD)
9,354 m'/ho-d 11.0 MGAD)
June 28, 1976 to August 25, 1976
August 24, 1975 to October 9, 1975
, October 31, 1975 to August 25, 1976
0.048ms/sec 11.68 cfs) August 24, 1975 to August II, 1976
0.008 m*/sec (0.29 cfs) August 12, 1976 to August 25, 1976
AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
Figure 16. Continued.
-------
325 -
275 -
--* 225 -
O»
e
175
00
_ 325 -
_l
<
—I 275 -
<
225 -
175
FILTER I
—O— INFLUENT
—6— EFFLUENT
017mm Effective Size Sand
3742 ms/ha d (0.40MSAD)
0.048 s/l,0.d(0.2MGAD>
0.048 ms/iec (1.68 cf« )
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
D£C
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 17, Weekly alkalinity performance.
-------
375 -
325 -
275 -
225 -
O>
FILTER 5
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
28,062 m'/ha-d (3.0 MGAO) August IS, 1975 to August IT, 1975
19,706 ms/rio-d(2 0 MGAD) August 27. 1975 to July 8, 1976
9,354 m'/ha-dU.O MGAO) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048m*/sec (1.68 cfs) August 15, 1975 to July 8, 1976
0.008 m'/sec (0.29 cfs) July 19; 1976 lo August 25, 1976
175
375 -
VO
325 H
—I 275 -
225 -
175
FILTER 2
—O— INFLUENT
—£r— EFFLUENT
0.40mm Effective Size Sand
14,031 m5/ ho d (1.5 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 20, 1976
3,354 of I ho d (I O MGAD) August 27,1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 mVsec (7.68 cfs) August 15, 1975 to May 9, i976
0.008 fliVsec (0.29 cfs) Moy 10, 1975 to August 25, 1976
Loaded with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly
Moy 10, 1976 to August 25. 1976
I
I
I
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975)
Figure 17. Continued.
-------
375 -
325 -
275 -
225 -i
175
00
o
E
— ' 375 H
325
~J 275 -
225 -
175
FILTER
—0— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68mm Effective Size Sand
28.062m5/ ho-d 13.O MSAO)
I8,708ms/hod (2.0MGAD)
9,354m3/ho d (1,0 MGAD) .. _.
0.048 mVsec (1.68 cfs) August 24, 1976 to May 14, 1976
0 008 m'/sec (0.29 cfs) June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
August 24, 1975 to S«pt«mber 4, 1975
Sepletr.b«i 18, 1975 to May 14, 1976
June Z. 1976 10 August 25, 1976
FILTER 3
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Effective size Sand
0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
14,031 m3/ho-d (i.5 MGAD)
9.354m3/hod (I.OMGADI
August 24, 1975 to June 10, 1976
June 28, 1976 to August 25, 1976
August 24, 1975 to October 9, 1975
October 31, 1975 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m9/sec (I.SScfs) August 24, 1975 to August II, 1976
0.008 m9/sec (0.29 cfs) August 12, 1976 to August 25, 1976
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975- 1976)
Figure 17. Continued.
-------
the pH standards imposed by the Federal Secondary Treatment Standards. The
0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 5) with a low application rate of
0.008 m-Vsec and the 0.31 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 3) appear capable
of satisfying the Federal Secondary Treatment Standards.
An effluent meeting the Federal Secondary Treatment Standards was pro-
duced by the 0.17 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 1 and 6) with hydraulic
loading rates of 3742 nrYha-d (0.4 MGAD) and 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) .
PHOSPHORUS PERFORMANCE
General
Weekly phosphorus concentrations for the filter influent and effluent are
shown in Figures 18 and 19. A yearly summary of the phosphorus results are
listed in Tables 20 and 21.
Phosphorus removal was indicated during the initial operation of the
intermittent sand filters. As operation continued, phosphorus removal became
less apparent. Marshall and Middlebrooks (1974) reported that phosphorus
removal in intermittent sand filters is a result of ion exchange in the sand.
Once the ion exchange sites are saturated with phosphorus, phosphorus removal
is no longer obtained.
The mean yearly influent total phosphorus concentration was 2.1 mg/1 with
individual values ranging from 0.3 to 3.5 mg/1. The mean yearly influent
orthophosphate concentration was 1.7 mg/1 as phosphorus and individual sample
concentrations varied from 0.4 to 3.3 mg/1 as phosphorus.
Efficiency of 0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.68 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 3 and 4) achieved greater
than 30 percent influent total phosphorus removal during the first month of
operation. However during the remainder of the study, no phosphorus removal
was observed. Varying hydraulic loading rates and application rates showed
no significant change in phosphorus removal performance.
Efficiency of 0.31 mm and 0.40 mm Effective
Sand Size
The 0.40 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 2 and 5) and the 0.31 mm
effective size sand (Filter No. 3) resulted in significant phosphorus removal
during the initial 15 days of operation, but no significant phosphorus removal
was observed during the remaining months of the study. This lack of further
phosphorus removal indicates the saturation of the ion exchange sites.
Efficiency of 0.17 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.17 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 1 and 6) consistently lower-
ed the influent total phosphorus by 8 percent. The mean yearly effluent total
phosphorus concentration was 1.9 mg/1. Wastewater orthophosphate concentrations
81
-------
4 -
"I
2 -
I -
00
O»
ID 4
O
Q- 3
CO
O
2 -
£
O
FILTER I
—O— iNFLUENT
—&— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sflnd
3742 m3/ho d (0.40 MGAO)
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs)
FILTER 6
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
1871 m"/ha d (0.2 MGAD)
0.04S m3/sec (1.68 cfs)
r i i i i i i i i r i i I
AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 18, Weekly total phosphorus performance.
-------
4 -
oo
FILTER 5
INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
28,062 mVha-d (3.0 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 17. 1975
18,708 m3/lui'd 12 0 MGAD) August 27, 1975 to July 8, 1976
9,354 mVha'dd.O MGAD} July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048m3/sec (l.68cfs) August 15. 1975 to July 8, 1976
0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
FILTER 2
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40mm Effective Size Sand
14,031 m3/ha d (1.5 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 20, 1976
9,354 m*/ha-d (I.OMGAO) August 27, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 mVsec (1.68 cfs) August 15, 1975 to May 9, 197
0.008m3/sec (0.29 cfs) May 10, 1975 to August 25, 1976
Loaded with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly
Moy 10. 1976 to August 25 1976
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975- 1976)
Figure 18. Continued.
-------
4 —
3 -
2 -
00
CO
i? 4
O
X
Q.
CO 3
O
Q.
2 -
I -
FILTER 4
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68mm Effective Size Sond
28,062m3/ho-dl 3.0 MGAD)
I8,708ro3/ha-d (2.0MGAD)
9,354m3/ha d (1.0 MGAD)
August 24, 1975 to September 4, 1975
September 18, 1975 to May 14, 1976
June 2. 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) August 24, 1976 to May 14, 1976
0 008 t
FILTER 3
INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.66 mm Effective Size Sand
August 24, 1975 to June 10, 5976
0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
June 28, 1976 to August ZS, 1976
August 24, 1975 to October 9, 1975
October 31, 1975 to August 25, 1976
14,031 m'/ha-d (1.5 MGAD)
9.354m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) August 24, 1975 to August II, 1976
0.008m3/sec (0.29 cfs) August 12, 1976 to August 25, 1976
I
I
I
I
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 18. Continued.
-------
o
Q.
4 -
3 ~
2 -
O>
E
I -
QO
Cn
ID
a:
o
I-
o
FILTER I
—O— INFLUENT
—&— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Send
3742 m'/had (0.40MGAD)
0.048 m'/sec (1.66cf8)
Q_
O
X
o:
3 -
2 -
I -
FILTER 6
—O— INFLUENT
—&— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
]-d (O.ZMGAD)
(1.66 cf<)
0.17mm
1871 m'/ho-d ((
0.048 m3/»c
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 19. Weekly orthophosphate performance.
-------
00
O
Q_
4 -
3 -
cn
(/>
tr
o
x
O_
in
O
x
a.
o
x
i-
cc
o
FILTER 5
INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40mm Effective Size Sand
28,062 ms/ha-d (3-0 MGAD) August 15, 1975 to August 17, 1975
I8.70B m3/ha-d (2 0 MGAD) August 27, 1975 to July 8, 1976
9,354 m'/ha-d 11-0 MGAD) July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
O.048 m'/sec (l.68cfs) August 15. 1975 to July 8. 1976
0.008 m3/sec (0.29cfs! July 19, 1976 to August 25, 1976
4 -
2 -
i -
FILTER 2
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40 nun Effective Size Sand
14,031 m'/tia d ( 1.5 MGAD) August 15, 1975 1C August 20, 1976
9,354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) August 27,1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m'/sec (1.68 cfs) Auousl 15, 1975 loMoy9,!976
0 008 m3/sec (0 29 cfs) May 10, 1975 to August 25, 1976
Loaded with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly
May 10. 1976 to August 25, 1976
I
I
I
I
AUG
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975 - 1976)
Figure 19. Continued.
-------
4 -
*
o
Q-
i
O
3 -
2 -
i -
o:
o
INFLUENT
-A- EFFLUENT
0.68mm Effective Size Sand
" August 24, 1975 to September 4, 1975
(2.OMGAD) September 18, 1975 to May 14, 1976
9,354m3/r]o.(i 11 OMGAD) June 2, 1976 to Augutt 25, 1976
0.046 mVsec (1.68 cf>) Augutl 24, I97E to May 14, 1976
0 008 mViec (0.29cfs) June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
4 -
Co
—i
O
£.
O
I
h-
o: 2
o
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
0.31 n
i Effective Size Sand
14,031 m3/hO'd { 1.5 MGAD)
9,354 m3/ha-d (I.OMGAD) .. - -
0.048 m'/set
-------
TABLE 20. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS PERFORMANCE
Effective Hydraulic
Size Loading
Filter Rate
Sand
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
3
(m /ha-d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
Influent
Total-P
(mg/1)
Min.
0.3
0.3
1.6
1.5
0.8
1.5
2.1
0.3
N.A.
0.7
0.3
1.1
0.7
1.4
Max.
3.5
3.5
2.3
1.5
3.5
1.8
2.1
3.5
N.A.
3.5
1.7
2.0
3.5
1.6
Ave.
2.1
2.1
1.7
1.5
2.4
1.9
2.1
2.1
N.A.
2.5
1.5
1.5
2.4
1.2
Effluent
Total-P
(mg/1)
Min.
0.9
0.7
0.8
1.9
0.9
1.5
1.6
0.9
N.A.
0.6
1.2
0.4
0.6
0.7
Max.
3.2
3.5
2.3
1.9
3.4
2.1
1.6
3.7
N.A.
3.3
2.1
3.2
3.7
0.9
Ave.
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.9
2.4
1.7
1.6
2.2
N.A.
2.5
1.5
0.9
2.4
0.8
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008 1.5 5.6 2.5 1.9
3.4
2.4
N.A.
Not available.
increased 10 percent throughout the study.
concentration was 1.8 mg/1 as phosphorus.
Summary
The mean yearly orthophosphate
Although initial phosphorus removal by the filters was observed, overall
phosphorus removal performance was not significant. Varying hydraulic load-
ing rates and application rates produced little change in filter phosphorus
performance. Different effective size sands produced similar effluent phos-
phorus concentrations. An intermittent sand filter is not recommended for
phosphorus removal from lagoon effluent.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN.
General
The intermittent sand filters were able to maintain high effluent con-
centrations of dissolved oxygen (DO) throughout the study. The mean yearly
88
-------
TABLE 21. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE ORTHOPHOSPHATE AS PHOSPHORUS PERFORMANCE
Effective „ ,
Size Hydraulic
Filter Loading
Sand *ate
(mm)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.17
.17
.31
.31
.40
.40
.40
.40
.40
.68
.68
.68
.68
.68
(m /ha.d)
1,
3,
9,
9,
9,
9,
14,
18,
28,
9,
9,
14,
18,
28,
871
742
354
354
354
354
031
708
062
354
354
031
708
062
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m /sec)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.048
.048
.048
.008
.048
.008
.048
.048
.048
.048
.008
.048
.048
.048
Influent
0-P04
(mg/1)
Min.
0.4
0.4
0.5
1.2
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.4
N.A.
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
Max.
3.3
3.3
1.8
1.3
3.3
1.8
1.5
3.3
N.A.
3.3
1.3
1.7
3.3
0.8
Ave.
1.7
1.7
1.1
1.2
2.0
1.1
1.5
1.8
N.A.
2.2
0.9
0.8
2.2
0.7
Effluent
0-P04
(mg/1)
Min.
0.8
0.6
0.5
1.7
0.5
1.0
1.4
0.8
N.A.
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
Max.
3.2
3.3
2.1
1.8
3.2
2.0
1.4
3.4
N.A.
3.3
1.6
2.3
3.6
0.9
Ave.
1.9
1.8
1.0
1.8
2.2
1.5
1.4
2.0
N.A.
2.2
1.3
0.8
2.3
0.6
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008 0.8 2.8 1.6 1.3
2.7
2.1
N.A.
Not available.
influent DO was 8.5 mg/1 and daily concentrations varied from 0.4 to 19.8 mg/1.
An ice layer was formed on the lagoons in November, 1975, and continued into
March 1976. The ice layer prevented oxygen transfer from the atmosphere to
the lagoon waters, causing low influent DO concentrations during December, 1975,
January, February, and March of 1976.
The high influent DO concentrations in April 1976 were caused by heavy
algal growth in the lagoon system during April 1976.
The intermittent sand filter dissolved oxygen performance is shown in
Table 22 and Figure 20.
Efficiency of 0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.68 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 3 and 4) with a high ap-
plication rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) and various hydraulic loading rates
produced an effluent DO greater than 7 mg/1 more than 90 percent of the study.
The mean yearly influent DO was 8.5 mg/1 and the mean yearly effluent DO was
near 9.5 mg/1.
89
-------
TABLE 22. YEARLY SUMMARY OF THE DISSOLVED OXYGEN PERFORMANCE
Effective
Size
Filter
c ~~ A
oanu
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(m3/ha-d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
Influent
DO
Min.
0.4
0.4
2.3
8.7
0.4
4.0
8.1
0.4
9.8
0.4
4.0
1.9
0.4
9.3
(mg/1)
Max.
19.8
19.8
10.3
8.7
19.8
9.8
9.8
19.8
9.8
19.8
19.4
18.0
19.8
14.9
Ave.
8.5
8.5
9.0
8.7
7.4
8.1
9.0
8.3
9.8
7.0
9.8
11.9
7.2
12.4
Min.
5.4
4.2
5.7
7.9
5.5
4.0
7.1
2.9
7.3
7.6
1.4
6.9
3.5
4.9
Effluent
DO
(mg/1)
Max.
12.4
10.4
9.0
7.9
13.4
6.4
7.3
15.0
7.3
13.0
8.0
9.2
14.3
7.5
Ave.
8.3
7.1
6.9
7.9
9.1
5.5
7.2
8.4
7.3
9.8
6.2
8.0
9.5
6.5
0.40
Loaded With Primary Lagoon Effluent Twice Weekly
9,354 0.008 3.4 11.2 7.2 2.7
9.4
6.8
Lowering the application rate to 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) produced an ef-
fluent DO greater than 7 mg/1 during more than 66 percent of the study. The
monthly mean influent DO was 9.8 mg/1 and the monthly mean effluent DO was
6.2 mg/1.
Efficiency of 0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.40 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 2 and 5) with various
hydraulic loading rates and an application rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs)
achieved an effluent DO concentration greater than 7 mg/1 during 20 percent
of the study. The mean influent DO was 7.8 mg/1 and the mean effluent DO was
8.7 mg/1. Operation under the low application rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29
cfs) resulted in an effluent DO concentration less than 7 mg/1 during the
entire study.
Filter plugging was preceded by a decrease in effluent DO concentration
when the 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 5) was operated at a
hydraulic loading rate of 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD) and an application rate
of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs). This may indicate the lack of oxygen circulation
in the filter bed once the filter surface pores are clogged.
90
-------
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
12 -
= 10-
0> 8 -
— 6 -
Z 4-
UJ
(D 2
X
O 20
Q 18
UJ
> l6
CO ,2
— 10
8
6
4
2
AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 20. Weekly dissolved oxygen performance.
-------
>x
o»
J
z
UJ
CD
20 -
18 -
16 -
14 -
I o
10 -
8 —
6 -
4 —
2 -
C
£
X
O 20
K)
Q
UJ
O
U)
en
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Sice Sand
August 15, 1975 10 August 20, 1976
9,354 m'/ho-d II.OMGAD) August 27, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0 048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs! August 15, 1975 to May 9, 1976
Vsec (0 29 cfs! May 10, 1975 to August 25, 1976
25, 1976
AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AU6
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 20. Continued.
-------
20
18
16
14
12
^ '°
—• 6
Ul
CD
4 -
2 -
20 -
to
O 18
111
> '6
d»
$ I2
5 10
8
6
4
2
f«.TEH -4
- BJFUWIT
EFFLUENT
0,68 mm Effective Site Sand v
a8.06Zm5/ho d(3 OMGAO) Auguit 24. 1975 to September 4, 1975 {
i 18,708m'/liod (2.0MGAD! S«l>t»ml)»r 18, 1975 10 Mo, 14, 1976
1 9,354m3/tio d (I OM6ADI June Z. 1976 lo Auguit Z5, 1976
10 048 m'/sec (1.68 cM August 24, 1976 to Moy 14, 1976
\0 008 mViec (0 29c!s) June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Eff«ctive Size Sand
August 24. 1975 to June IO, 1976
0.31 mm Effective Size Send
June 28, 1976 to August 25, 1976
14,031 m3/ho^d US MGAO) August 24, (975 to October 9, 1975
9,354 mVha-d {1.0 MSAO) October 31, 1975 lo Auguit 25, 1976
0.048 mvsec (l.68cfs) August 24, !975 to August It, 1976
0.008 m9/»c 10 29cfsl August 12, 1976 to August 25, 1976
AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 20. Continued.
-------
Efficiency of 0.17 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.17 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 1 and 6) with hydraulic
loading rates of 3742 m3/ha*d (0.4 MGAD) and 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) produced
an effluent with a DO concentration greater than 7 mg/1 during 35 percent of
the study. The mean yearly influent DO concentration was 8.5 mg/1 and the
mean yearly effluent DO concentration was 7.8 mg/1.
Summary
In general higher effluent dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were
achieved with greater effective size sands. However, effluent DO concen-
trations were always greater than 4 mg/1 for all effective size sands. Lower
application rates appear to produce a lower effluent DO concentration; how-
ever, due to insufficient data a definite conclusion cannot be reached.
Slightly lower effluent DO concentrations were observed during the summer
months than during the winter months. In addition, a. slight decrease in ef-
fluent DO concentration was observed just prior to the filters plugging.
CLIMATIC CONDITIONS
General
The intermittent sand filters performance was satisfactory under all
climatic conditions. Ambient air temperatures varied from -21°C (-7°F) to
34°C (95°F). The influent temperature varied from 1.0°C (34°F) to 20°C (68°F).
The effluent temperatures as shown in Figure 21 were similar to the influent
temperature throughout the study.
Winter Operation
The six intermittent sand filters operated continuously during the winter
months with little operational difficulties. The 0.17 mm effective size sand
filters (Filters No. 1 and 6) with hydraulic loading rates of 3742 m3/ha-d
(0.4 MGAD) and 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD), respectively, experienced surface ice
formations of 7.6 cm (3 inches) and 3.8 cm (1.5 inches) in thickness, res-
pectively, caused by the slow filtration rate resulting from the 0.17 mm
effective size sands and freezing temperatures. However, the ice layer
caused no difficulty in filter operation. The 0.40 mm effective size sand
(Filters No. 2 and 5) with hydraulic loading rates of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
and 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD), respectively, did not experience ice formation
on the bed of the sand filter even during freezing temperatures because the
wastewater remained on the filter less than 45 minutes (due to the higher
infiltration rate of the 0.40 mm sand). The 0.68 mm effective size sand
(Filters No. 3 and 4) with hydraulic loading rates of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
and 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD), respectively, performed in much the same manner
as the 0.40 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 2 and 5). No ice cover"
formed on Filters No. 3 and 4 during freezing conditions due to the rapid
infiltration of the water.
94
-------
25 -
o
v£>
Ln
FILTERJ
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
FILTER 6
INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.17mm Effective Size Sand
1871 m'/ho-d (0.2MGAD)
0.048 m'/sec (1.68 eft)
AUG SEPT OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
1 I I
MAY JUNE JULY AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975-1976)
Figure 21. Weekly water temperature recordings.
-------
25 -
20 —
15 -
10 -
5-
UJ
a:
DC
LU
20
FILTER 2
—O— INFLUENT
—A— EFFLUENT
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
14,051 mVho-d (I.5MGAO) August 15, 1975 to August 20, 1976
9,354 m'/ha-d U.O MSAD) August 27, 1976 to August 25,1976
0.048 m3/sec (I 68 cfs) August 15, 1975 to May 9, 1976
0.006 m3/sec 10.29 cfsl May 10, 1975 to August 25. 1976
Loaded with primary logoon effluent twice weekly
May 10, 1976 to August 25. 1976
10 -
5 -
I I I I I I I I
AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUG
TIME IN MONTHS (1975 - 1976)
Figure 21. Continued.
-------
25 -
20 -
15
10
^ 5 -
111
tr
1-25-
tr
a! 20
UJ
t- '5
10 -
5 -
INFLUENT
-A— EFFLUENT
0.68mm Effective Size Sand
28,062m5/ ha d (3.0 MGAD)
I8,708ms/ha d (2.0 MGAD)
9.354m3/Ho d (1.0 MSAOI
August 24, 1975 to September 4, 1975
September 18, 1975 to May 14, 1976
June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) August 24, 1976 to May 14, 1976
0 006 m3/sec (0 29 cfs) June 2, 1976 to August 25, 1976
INFLUENT
EFFLUENT
0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
August 24, 1975 to June 10, 1976
0.31mm Effect ve Size Sand
June 28, 1976 to August 25, 1976
August 24, 1975 to October 9, 1975
October SI, 1975 to August 25, 1976
14,031 rrr/hG d (1.5 MGAD)
9,354 m3/ha
-------
Biological activity in the filters appeared to decrease during the colder
weather as indicated by the BOD5 performance shown in Figure 6. The average
influent BOD^ concentrations during December and January were 9 mg/1 and
during July and August were 13 mg/1. The 0.17 mm effective size sand with a
hydraulic loading rate of 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) produced an average effluent
BODj concentration of 3 mg/1 during December and January and 1 mg/1 during
July and August. The 0.17 mm effective size sand with a hydraulic loading
rate of 1876 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) produced an average effluent BOD5 concen-
tration of 1 mg/1 during December and January and less than 1 mg/1 during
July and August.
Warm Weather Operation
Warm weather increased the filter biological activity as illustrated by
an increase in BOD5 removal during the summer months (Figure 6).
During the warm months, high influent algae concentrations necessitated
more frequent cleaning of the 0.40 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 2 and
5) with hydraulic loading rates of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and 18,708 m3/ha-d
(2.0 MGAD). Loading the filters during the hours of darkness may help to
increase the filter run lengths (Reynolds et al., 1974) and reduce the
frequency of cleaning.
The 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 6) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) experienced a heavy growth of weeds on the
filter during May 1976 and August 1976. The plants were removed in May 1976,
but the August 1976 plants were not removed because the study ended before
September 1976.
Obnoxious odors occurred during the months of July and August 1976 on the
0.31 mm, 0.40 mm, and 0.68 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 2, 3, 4, and
5) receiving 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) at an application rate of 0.008 m3/sec
(0.29 cfs). However, the odors did not persist beyond approximately 10 m
(30 ft) of the filters. This unpleasant odor was probably caused by decaying
organic matter on the filter surface.
Summary
Northern Utah's climate presented few problems to year-round operation of
intermittent sand filters. Warm temperatures (summer operation) increased
biological activity, increasing 6005 and COD removal and oxidation of nitro-
gen. Potential problems that may occur during the summer months include odor
production and weed growth on the filter bed.
BACTERIAL REMOVAL PERFORMANCE
Total and fecal coliform removal efficiency was determined for the 0.17
mm, 0.31 mm, 0.40 mm, and 0.68 mm effective size sands. The results are
tabulated in Appendix A, Tables A-8 to A-ll.
98
-------
Influent geometric mean total coliform concentrations ranged from 198
organisms/100 ml to 6.6 x 10* organisms/100 ml. The effluent geometric mean
total coliform concentrations ranged from 81 organisms/100 ml with the 0.17 mm
effective size sand to 2.6 x 10* organisms/100 ml with the 0.31 mm effective
size sand. In general, total coliforms were not significantly reduced by
filtration through any of the various effective size sands. Also, removal
percentage appeared to be independent of the effective size of the sand
Several samples indicated an increase in total coliform as the lagoon effluent
passed through the filter sand. However, such increases were slight and were
not observed consistently. This is probably due to the growth of micro-
organisms within the filter bed.
Influent geometric mean fecal coliform concentrations ranged from 30
organisms/100 ml to 2.6 x 104 organisms/100 ml. Effluent geometric mean fecal
coliform concentrations ranged from <1 organism/100 ml with the 0.68 mm
effective size sand to 1.8 x 103 organisms/100 ml with the 0.40 mm effective
size sand. Fecal coliform removal appeared to be independent of sand size.
In addition to the overall removal of fecal coliforms by all sand sizes was
not substantial.
It appears that both total and fecal coliform bacteria are not substan-
tially removed by any of the various effective size sands studied and that
disinfection of the filtered effluent will be required to satisfy State of
Utah and Federal discharge requirements.
ALGAE AND ZOOPLANKTON REMOVAL
Influent Algae Genera
Individual alga genera counts are reported in Table A-9 of Appendix A.
Palmella sp. was the predominant influent alga during the initial months of
study. However during October 1975 the Palmella sp. disappeared and the
Microcystis sp. became the predominant influent alga. Cryptomonas sp. and
Chlamydpmonas sp. were frequently observed from August 1975 to April 1976.
During the summer months of the study Microcystis sp. and other blue green
algae were predominant in the influent. In addition high concentrations of
Euglenoids sp. were observed during the summer months. Microcystis sp. was
observed throughout the study.
Influent Zooplankton Count
Influent zooplankton were counted during December and the latter months
of study. Zooplankton counts were low in December and high near the conclusion
of the study. Influent zooplankton counts as high as 420 per liter were ob-
served during July.
Filter Performance
High rates of algae removal were observed for the lower effective size
sands. However, the algal removal performance of the 0.31 mm effective size
sand (Filter No. 3) did not exceed the 0.68 mm and 0.40 mm effective size sand
99
-------
algal performance. The 0.17 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 1 and 6)
consistently removed 70 percent or more of the influent algae concentration.
The 0.40 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 2 and 5) showed a slightly
higher algal removal performance than the 0.68 mm effective size sands
(Filters No. 3 and 4). Both effective size sands produced erratic influent
algal removals, ranging from 0 percent to 95 percent, but the wide variation
in percent removal may be due to the low influent algae concentrations. Poor
algae removal was observed by the 0.17 mm, 0.40 mm, and the 0.68 mm effective
size sands (Filters No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6) when influent algae concen-
trations were 100/ml or less.
Complete influent zooplankton removal was observed by all intermittent
sand filters during the entire experiment.
LENGTH OF FILTER OPERATION
General
The finer effective size sands produced a superior effluent in all cate-
gories measured. However, this higher efficiency was attained at the expense
of a filter run length. Table 23 and Figure 22 show the effect of effective
size sand, hydraulic loading rate, and application rate on filter run length
before plugging.
Filter Rejuvenation
Three methods of rejuvenating a plugged filter were attempted. These
methods included (i) complete removal of the top layer of sand (scraping),
(ii) resting the filter after initial plugging for several days before
attempting to reapply wastewater, and (iii) burning off the solids collected
on the filter surface. Complete removal of five to ten centimeters of
plugged filter sand proved most successful.
Resting the sand bed involved less maintenance, but short filter run
lengths were obtained. The 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 5) with
a hydraulic loading rate of 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD) was rested 22 days
after initial plugging and then wastewater was again applied at the respective
loading rate. It operated only 6 days before plugging occurred. The 0.68 mm
effective size sand (Filter No. 4) with a hydraulic loading rate of 18,708
m-Vha.d (2.0 MGAD) operated 19 days before plugging again after being allowed
to rest for 19 days following the initial plugging.
Rejuvenation of the plugged filters, which had earlier been allowed to
rest (i.e., Filter No. 4 and 5) required scraping 15 centimeters (6 inches)
off the filter surface. The clogging penetration of the filters, which had
earlier been allowed to rest, was the deepest observed during the entire study.
Burning the plugged filter surface was not successful. A propane weed
burner, used as the source of heat, merely darkened the filter surface and
did not penetrate into the clogged sand layer to combusted the material
clogging the pores.
100
-------
TABLE 23. FILTER RUN LENGTHS ACHIEVED BY THE VARIOUS EFFECTIVE SIZE SANDS
DURING THE STUDY
Effective
Size
Sand
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.40
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
3
(m /ha-d)
1,871
3,742
3,742
3,742
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
18,708
18,708
18,708
18,708
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
18,708
18,708
18,708
28,062
Loaded
9,354
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
Suspended J^3^1*
Solids SiMpended
Removal 1,Solldsi
Ckel Removal
( g) (kg)
121.03
14.19
29.69
55.95
75.56
44.43
5.45
40.92
59.10
20.47
42.06
20.03
15.25
28.33
0.00
68.00
87.01
61.98
0.00
71.67
124.20
102.03
51.31
0.00
101.26
14.95
46.36
With Primary Lagoon
0.008
62.25
100.17
10.26
22.65
53.47
68.68
48.29
15.02
63.31
60.08
19.73
39.41
17.31
20.26
37.35
2.86
67.77
65.71
57.34
17.89
79.46
98.16
102.57
42.43
11.93
106.82
12.85
47.22
Effluent
72.74
Method
of
Rejuvenation
N.A.
Scraped
Scraped
Scraped and
Rested 14
Days
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
Scraped
Scraped
N.A.
N.A.
Scraped
Scraped
Rested 22
Days
Scraped
Scraped
Scraped
Scraped
Scraped
N.A.
N.A.
Scraped
Rested 19
Days
Scraped
Scraped
N.A.
Scraped
Twice Weekly
N.A.
".secutive
Days of
Operation
374+
11
36
166
103
45
14
44
177
17
37
6
7
18
6
148
42
23
3
196
84
46
23
19
152
11
11
30
+Filter operated 280 days, weeds removed, operation continued another 94 days
until the study terminated.
101
-------
N.P. Filter failure was not observed
O
220 -
o 20°-
< 180 -
o:
£ 160-
o
u. I4°-
0
w I20~
I 100-
W 80 -
t; eo-
O
U 40
•-*•*»*
* *** »
i ••• « ». «
V.VA
0.17
0.31 0.40
EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND (mm)
0.68
Figure 22. Bar graph illustrating the average length of filter operations with various effective size
sands, hydraulic loading rates, and application rates.
-------
Efficiency of 0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.68 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 4) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 28,062 m-Vha.d (3.0 MGAD) produced a low filter run length of 11 days,
but removed nearly 47 kg (103 Ibs) of influent suspended solids. A filter
run length of 196 consecutive days without plugging was achieved with a
hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD), removing 72 kg (158 Ibs)
of influent suspended solids. A hydraulic loading rate of 18,708 m3/ha-d
(2.0 MGAD) produced a very satisfactory filter run length of 152 days removing
more than 100 kg (220 Ibs) of influent suspended solids. The 0.68 mm effec-
tive size sand (Filter No. 4) with a hydraulic loading rate of 18,708 m3/ha-d
(2.0 MGAD) following a resting period of 19 days operated for only 23 days
when wastewater was reapplied.
Efficiency of 0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 5) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 28,062 m3/ha-d (3.0 MGAD) operated 3 days before plugging occurred,
removing 18 kg (39 Ibs) influent volatile suspended solids. The 0.40 mm
effective size sand (Filter No. 2) with a hydraulic loading rate of 9354
m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) operated 177 consecutive days and removed 60 kg (132 Ibs)
influent SS prior to plugging. Performance of the 0.40 mm effective size
sand filter (Filter No. 5) with a hydraulic loading rate of 18,708 m3/ha-d
(2.0 MGAD) was similar to the 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 2) with
a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha«d (1.0 MGAD) and removed 68 kg (150
Ibs) of influent suspended solids during 148 consecutive days of operation.
Harris et al. (1975) studying the 0.17 mm effective size sand with a
hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m3/ha.d (1.0 MGAD) reported a filter run
length of less than 60 days with removals of 166 kg (364 Ibs) of suspended
solids. More influent suspended solids were removed during the Harris et al.
(1975) study, but shorter filter run lengths were reported.
The 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 5) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 18,708 m3/ha-d (2.0 MGAD) operated six consecutive days before
plugging. During this run no influent suspended solids removal was reported
(due to experimental error); however, 3 kg (6 Ibs) of influent volatile
suspended solids were removed.
Suspended solids and volatile suspended solids removed by the 0.40mm effee
tive size sand (Filter No. 2) with a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 m-Vha-d (1.0
MGAD) and an application rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) of primary lagoon
effluent loaded twice weekly exceeded the suspended solids and volatile
suspended solids removal by the other 0.40 mm effective size sands receiving
secondary lagoon effluent by a factor of four. The 0.40 mm effective size
sand (Filter No. 2) with a hydraulic loading rate of 9354 nP/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
of primary lagoon effluent loaded twice weekly, and an application rate of
0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) removed 62 kg (136 Ibs) of influent suspended solids
and 72 kg (158 Ibs) of influent volatile suspended solids during 30 non-
consecutive days of operation.
103
-------
Efficiency of 0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.31 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 3) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 9354 rnVha-d (1.0 MGAD) did not plug during the short study period.
The 0.31 mm effective size sand filter (Filter No. 3) with a hydraulic load-
ing rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) showed poor influent suspended solids and
volatile suspended solids removal, removing 44 kg (96.8 Ibs) of influent sus-
pended solids and 48 kg (106 Ibs) of influent volatile suspended solids during
45 consecutive days of operation without plugging.
Efficiency of 0.17 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 1) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 3742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) produced very satisfactory filter run lengths
of 166 and 103 consecutive days and removed 56 kg (123 Ibs) of influent
volatile suspended solids and 76 kg (167 Ibs) of influent suspended solids,
respectively. Harris et al. (1975) reported average filter run lengths for
the 0.17 mm effective size sand with a hydraulic loading rate of 3742 m-Vha-d
(0.4 MGAD) of 33 days. The average filter run length reported by this study
for the 0.17 mm effective size sand filter with a hydraulic loading rate of
3742 m3/ha«d (0.4 MGAD) is 79 days, which exceeds that reported by Harris
et al. (1975) by a factor of two. However, Harris et al. (1975) reported a
substantially higher total influent suspended solids removal of 234 kg (514
Ibs) compared to 76 kg (167 Ibs) influent suspended solids for this study.
To remove the anaerobic condition that was present in the sand filter
bed, the 0.17 mm effective size sand filter (Filter No. 1) with a hydraulic
loading rate of 3742 m-Vha-d (0.4 MGAD) was allowed to rest 14 days following
plugging on April 29, 1976. The anaerobic condition was created by the
continued hydraulic loading of the intermittent sand after plugging occurred
(operational error). Influent seepage through the embankment prevented the
detection of the plugged condition at an earlier date. The 0.17 mm effective
size sand filter (Filter No. 1) with a hydraulic loading rate of 3742 m-Vha«d
(0.4 MGAD) resumed operation on May 14, 1976.
Superior filter run length performance was observed for the 0.17 mm
effective size sand (Filter No. 6) with a hydraulic loading rate of 1871
m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD). The 0.17 mm filter operated throughout the entire study
without plugging. Vascular weed growth on the filter surface was removed in
May to maintain equal filtration over the surface area; yet at the time of
weed removal the filter showed no signs of plugging. The 0.17 mm filter
(Filter No. 6) operated 280 consecutive days prior to the weed removal. After
weed removal, this same filter operated another 94 consecutive days with no
visible signs of plugging. The 0.17 mm filter (Filter No. 6) removed 121 kg
(266 Ibs) of influent suspended solids.
Harris et al. (1975) studying the 0.17 mm effective size sand with a
hydraulic loading rate of 1871 m3/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) reported similar total
influent suspended solids and volatile suspended solids removals of 118 kg
(260 Ibs) and 91 kg (200 Ibs), respectively.
104
-------
Summary
High hydraulic loading rates of 28,062 m3/ha-d (3.0 MGAD) resulted in
short filter run lengths for the 0.40 mm and 0.68 mm effective size sands
(Filters No. 2, 3, 4, and 5). Hydraulic loading rates of 18,708 m3/ha-d
(2.0 MGAD) and less, resulted in satisfactory filter run lengths for the 0.40
mm and 0.68 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 2, 3, 4, and 5). The 0.17
mm effective size sand (Filter No. 6) with a hydraulic loading rate of 1871
nH/ha-d (0.2 MGAD) did not plug during the one year study. The 0.17 mm
effective size sand (Filter No. 1) with a hydraulic loading rate of 3742
mj/ha.d (0.4 MGAD) produced satisfactory filter run lengths. Due to in-
sufficient data from the 0.31 mm effective size sand filter (Filter No. 3)
and the 0.68 mm and 0.40 mm effective size sand filters (Filters No. 4 and 5)
with hydraulic loading rates of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and a low application
rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs), no conclusion can be reached. However, data
collected thus far, suggest that filter run length may be increased by lower-
ing the application rate.
SAMPLING OF SUSPENDED SOLIDS WITH TIME
General
During the first month of operation of the 0.31 mm, 0.40 mm, and 0.68 mm
effective size sand filters (Filters No. 2, 3, 4, and 5), high effluent sus-
pended solids (SS) concentrations were observed. The high effluent suspended
solids concentration was due to the removal of fine sands and dirt from the
filter bed. However, after the initial month of operation, effluent SS con-
centrations no longer exceeded influent SS concentration. This suggests that
an intermittent sand filter requires an initial washing cycle to remove the
fine sands and grit.
In addition, high effluent suspended solids concentrations were observed
at the beginning of each daily effluent run. This phenomenon is referred to
as "wash out." Tests were performed on all effective size sands, 0.17 mm,
0.31 mm, 0.40 mm, and 0.68 mm effective size sands with various application
rates to determine the extent of the "wash-out" and whether the sampling
performed by this study was representative of intermittent sand filter per-
formance. Figures 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, and 30 show the effluent sus-
pended solids concentrations with time. A slight increase in effluent SS
concentration was generally observed during the latter stages of daily opera-
tion. This suggests that algal growth may be occurring in the ponded waste-
water above the filter surface (Reynolds et al., 1974).
Variations in influent SS and volatile suspended solids (VSS) concen-
trations with time were studied to determine the extent of influent SS and
VSS fluctuation and to determine if one sample is representative of the
influent SS and VSS concentration during a four hour period. Figure 23
illustrates the influent SS and VSS concentrations with time. During a four
hour period, the mean influent SS concentration was 46 mg/1 with a standard
deviation of 2.1 mg/1. The mean influent VSS concentration during the same
four hour period was 23 mg/1 with a standard deviation of 1.6 mg/1. Influent
105
-------
60-,
50-
en
£ 40-
CO
Q
_J 30-
O
CO
UJ
20-
10-
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
AVERAGE 46 mg/l
STANDARD DEVIATION 2 mg/l
VOLATILE SUSPENDED SOLIDS
AVERAGE 23 mg/l
STANDARD DEVIATION 2 mg/l
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270
TIME (Minutes)
Figure 23. Influent suspended solids and volatile suspended solids concen-
trations with time.
SS and VSS concentrations were relatively constant and the variation between
samples is probably due to the analytical technique employed (APHA, AWWA,
WPCF, 1971). The low standard deviations indicate that one influent SS and
VSS sample is sufficient during the four hour period employed.
0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.68 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 5) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 9354 m-Vha-d (1.0 MGAD) required 10 minutes (Figure 24) to remove the
fine sands and grit accumulated from the previous day's operation. Lowering
the application rate to 0.008 m-Vsec (0.29 cfs) resulted in no change in time
(Figure 25) necessary to stabilize daily filter operation. However, change in
application rates from 0.48 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) to 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs)
produced a change in length of daily filter operation from 30 minutes to 155
minutes.
106
-------
30
28
26
24
~ 22
? 20
Q
O
CO
O
UJ
Q
CO
CO
16 -
14 -
12
10
8
6
2 -
U.Q
AVERAGE INFLUENT
HIGH RATE I MGAD
0.68mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
9384 m3/ha-d (I.OMGAD)
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 CFS)
~i—I—i—|—I—|—i—|—i—|—r
30 45 60
TIME (Minutes)
' - - '
FILTER 4
SEPTEMBER 3, 1976
Figure 24. Suspended solids with time of the 0.68 mm effective size sand fil-
ter with an application rate of 0.048 m-Vsec (1.68 cfs).
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
The effluent suspended solids concentration compared with time for the
0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 5) with a hydraulic loading rate of
9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) is similar (Figure 26) to the 0.68 mm effective size
sand (Filter No. 4) performance (Figure 24). The length of the "wash-out"
period was 5 minutes (Figures 26 and 27) for application rates of 0.048 m^/sec
(1.68 cfs) and 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs). Decreasing the application rate from
107
-------
42-i_
40 -
38 -
36 -
34 -
o>
en
Q
13
o
en
Q
LJ
Q
z
UJ
0.
cn
D
en
AVERAGE INFLUENT
0.68mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
9354m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
0.008 m3/sec (0.29 CFS)
FILTER 4
45
TIME (Minutes)
AUGUST 28, 1976
Figure 25. Suspended solids with time of the 0.68 mm effective size sand fil-
ter with an application rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs).
108
-------
30
28
26
24
C 22
I* 20
18
CO
Q
—, 16
O
Z
UJ
Q.
CO
AVERAGE INFLUENT
0.40mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 CFS)
g —
6 -
4 —
z
o
UJ
ID
O
a
o
_l
^YVO~®" ®
a
UJ
l-g
w<
_|O
to
UJ
' i ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' I — ' — I — ' — I — ' — | — ' — 1 — ' — I — i — 1 — rn — r— 1
0
FILTER 5
15 30 45 60 75 90 105 120
TIME (Minutes)
SEPTEMBER 3, 1976
Figure 26. Suspended solids with time of the 0.40 mm effective size sand fil-
ter with an application rate of 0.048 m-Vsec (1.68 cfs).
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) to 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) increased the length of
filter operation from 35 minutes to 160 minutes.
0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
A time lapse of 15 minutes (Figure 28) was necessary for the 0.31 mm
effective size sand (Filter No. 3) with a hydraulic loading rate of 9354
m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and application rates of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) 0.008
m3/sec (0.29 cfs) to remove the fine sands and grit accumulated from the
previous day's operation. The length of daily operation of the 0.31 mm
effective size sand (Filter No. 3) nearly doubled (Figure 29) when the
109
-------
0.40mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
9354 m3/ho-d {1.0 MGAD)
0.008 m3/sec (0.29 CFS)
AVERAGE INFLUENT
, ' i ' i ' I ' i T I T i r I T ,
0 15 30 45 60 75 80 105 120 135 150
TIME (Minutes)
FILTER 5 AUGUST 25, 1976
Figure 27. Suspended solids with time of the 0.40 mm effective size sand fil-
ter with an application rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs)_.
3 3
application rate was decreased to 0.008 m /sec (0.29 cfs) from 0.048 m /sec
(1.68 cfs).
0.17 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 1) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 3742 m-Vha-d (0.4 MGAD) required a "wash-out" period of 45 minutes
(Figure 30). The length of daily filter operation exceeded 3.5 hours, though
a consistent trickle of effluent was observed from the discharge pipe between
loadings.
Summary
Application rate did not produce a change in the length of time required
for daily filter "wash-out." The 0.31 mm, 0.68 mm, and 0.40 mm effective size
110
-------
30 -,
28 -
26 -
24 -
22 -
20-J
18 -
CO
9 I6H
o
co 14 H
Q
y 12-1
£ '0
CO
co 8
6
4
2
AVERAGE INFLUENT
0.31mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
9354 m3/ha-d (I.OMGAD)
0.048 m3/sec (I.68CFS)
-------
UJ
a.
CO
i>
CO
12 -
10 -
8 —
6 -
4 -
2 -
1
0.31mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
0.008 m3/sec (0.29 CFS)
AVERAGE INFLUENT
—
I
UJ
m
5
(0
5
i-
ill
o
«r
o
j
_i
LL.
U.
Ill
0
FILTER 3
I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I ^1 ' IM r I ' I ' 1 ' I ' I '
15 30 45 60 75 80 105 120 135 150
TIME (Minutes)
AUGUST 25,1976
Figure 29. Suspended solids with time of the 0.31 mm effective size sand fil-
ter with an application rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs).
may be considered representative of the influent SS and VSS concentrations
during a four hour period.
SAMPLING BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND WITH TIME
General
The effluent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) concentrations with time
for the various effective size sands (Filters No. 1, 3, 4, and 5) are shown
112
-------
22 "1
21 -
20 -
19 -
AVERAGE INFLUENT
HIGH RATE
0.17mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
3742 m3/ha-d
0.048 m3/sec
(0.40 MGAD)
(1.68 CFS)
0 15
FILTER I
30 45
1 I ' I ' I ' I '
60 75 90 105 120 135
TIME (Minutes)
150
~r
165
180
AUGUST 28,1976
Figure 30. Suspended solids with time of the 0.17 mm effective size sand
filter.
in Figures 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, and 38. The effluent BOD5 performance
with time is similar to the effluent suspended solids performance with time.
During the initial minutes of daily filter operation, high effluent BOD5 con-
centrations were observed. Thus, indicating removal of organic matter that
may have accumulated from the previous day's hydraulic loading or may have
grown in the filter bed since the previous day's hydraulic loading. The
effluent BOD5 performance with time was erratic after the initial discharge.
Several factors which may have influenced this phenomena are: (i) error in
the BOD5 test, (ii) erratic influent BOD5 concentration, or (iii) the
bacterial activity (i.e., growth of organic matter) in the sand filter bed
is not constant.
Variations in influent BOD^ concentration with time were studied, and,
Figure 31 illustrates the results. During a three hour study, the average
influent BODr concentration was 7 mg/1 with a standard deviation of 1.0 mg/1.
113
-------
o>
£
UJ
Q
UJ
X
O
o
^
UJ
X
o
o
OD
10^
9-
8-
7-
6-
t)
4-
3-
2-
0
AVERAGE 7 mq/l
STANDARD DEVIATION I mg/l
0
I
30
60
90 120
TIME (Minutes)
150 180 210 240 270
Figure 31. Influent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) with time.
The standard deviation is representative of the accuracy attainable by the
5-day biochemical oxygen demand test (APHA, AWWA, WPCF, 1971), suggesting
that one influent BOD^ sample is sufficient during a three hour period of
sampling.
0.68 mm Effective Size Sand
Application rates of 0.008 'm3/sec (0.29 cfs) and 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs)
required 15 (Figure 32) and 5 (Figure 33) minutes, respectively, before a
uniform effluent BOD^ concentration was observed for the 0.68 mm effective
size sand (Filter No. 4) with a hydraulic loading rate 9354 m3/ha-d (l.OMGAD),
0.40 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.40 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 5) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) and a low application rate of 0.008 m3/sec
114
-------
80
78
76
74
0.68mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
9354 m3/ho-d (1.0 MGAD)
0.008 m3/sec (0.29 CFS)
AVERAGE INFLUENT
CO
18
15
30 45 60 75 90 105 120
TIME (Minutes) August 25,1976
135
Figure 32. Biochemical oxygen demand (BODc) with time of the 0.68 mm effec-
tive size sand filter with an application rate of 0.008 m-Vsec
(0.29 cfs).
(0.29 cfs) produced very erratic effluent BOD5 concentrations with time during
the 2.5 hours of operation (Figure 34). Increasing the application rate to
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) for the 0.40 mm effective size sand filter (Filter
No. 5) gave a consistent and stable effluent BOD^ performance after 5 minutes
of filter operation (Figure 35).
0.31 mm Effective Size Sand
The effluent BODc performance with time for the 0.31 mm effective size
sand (Filter No. 3) is very similar (Figure 36) to the effluent BOD5
115
-------
UJ
5 °
O Z
15
14
13
12
10 -
9-
8 -
AVERAGE
INFLUENT
0.68mm EFFECTIVE
9354 m°/ha-d
0.048 m3/sec
(1.0 MGAD)
(1.68 CFS)
>-
X
0 6-
< 5-
O
5 4 -
UJ
I
0 3 -
O
co 2 —
1 -
\
z
o
-------
36
35
a. 34
e
m
o
2
1 '0
UJ
>- Q
,
LU
o
s
UJ
X
o
g
CD
9 -1
8H
7 -
AVERAGE INFLUENT
0.40mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
0.008m3/sec (0.29 CFS)
30
i—I—r
i i i
45 60 75 90
TIME (Minutes)
105 120 135 150
AUGUST 25,1976
Figure 34. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD^) with time of the 0.40 mm effec-
tive size sand filter with an application rate of 0.008 m-
(0.29 cfs).
0.17 mm Effective Size Sand
The 0.17 mm effective size sand (Filter No. 1) with a hydraulic loading
rate of 3742 m-Vha-d (0.4 MGAD) effluent BOD5 revealed no significant change
in effluent BOD5 concentration with time (Figure 38). This may indicate that
little organic matter is washed from the filter during the initial loading of
daily operation.
117
-------
•\
"*"''
Q
Z
LJ
>_ 0
Q ^
UJ C9
— x
O
_J
^f
o
UJ
X
o
g
CD
15 — i
14 —
13 -
1 p
11 -
10 -
B —
8 —
7 —
6 -
5 -
4 —
3 -
2 —
I
AVERAGE INFLUENT
0.40mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 CFS)
0
1
\
\
\
X
\
3\ o
e> \ 7\ ~
K I / \ jG)
i 1 / er"^
Z 0 \ 1
3 CO \ 1
Si 5 /
ml |(_ X
(^ iii
Z [3
Q i— '
O '><-
-1 U
1 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1
0 15 30 45 60
TIME (Minutes)
SEPTEMBER 17, 1976
Figure 35. Biochemical oxygen demand (8005) with time of the 0.40 mm effec-
tive size sand filter with an application rate of 0.048 m
(1.68 cfs).
Summary
3
A low application rate of 0.008 m /sec (0.29 cfs) produced a nonuniform
effluent BOD5 concentration with time for the 0.31 mm and 0.40 mm effective
size sand filters (Filters No. 3 and 5).
High application rate of 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs) on the 0.31 mm, 0.68 mm,
and 0.40 mm effective size sands (Filters No. 3, 4, and 5) indicated that the
118
-------
AVERAGE INFLUENT
0.31 mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
9354 mVha-d
(1.0 MGAD)
(1.68 CFS)
0.048 mVsec
0
15
I ' I ' I ' I ' I ' I
30 45 60 75
TIME (Minutes)
SEPTEMBER 17, 1976
Figure 36. Biochemical oxygen demand (8005) with time of the 0.31 mm effec-
tive size sand filter with an application rate of 0.048 m-Vsec
(1.68 cfs).
variation of effluent BOD,- concentration with time is similar to the vari-
ation in effluent SS concentration with time.
FINAL EFFECTIVE SIZE FILTER SAND ANALYSIS
At the conclusion of the study a final sieve analysis (Table 24) of the
0.17 mm and 0.68 mm effective size sands revealed a decrease to 0.12 mm and
0.64 mm effective size, respectively. The 0.40 mm effective size sand was
119
-------
AVERAGE INFLUENT
0.31mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
9354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD)
(0.29 CFS)
0
FILTER 3
TIME (Minutes)
50
AUGUST 25, 1976
Figure 37. Biochemical oxygen demand (BODc) with time of the 0.31 mm effec-
tive size sand filter with an application rate of 0.008 m-Vsec
(0.29 cfs).
determined to be 0.44 mm effective size. The discrepancies between initial
and final effective size of the sands may be due to: (i) laboratory pro-
cedures, (ii) washing and removing of fine sands from the filter during
operation, or (iii) the abrasive action on the sand, interface during opera-
tion of the filter. Hill (1976) reported a decrease in 0.40 mm effective
size sand and little change in 0.17 mm and 0.72 mm effective size sands,
after one year of operation.
120
-------
15-
14-
13-
_ 12-
^, 11 -
~ 10-
Q
Z 9-
Uj 8 -
Q
< Z 7 -
Q LU
u£ 6-
> X
5 —
_J
2 4-
W
X
0
0 2-
OD
1 -
AVERAGE INFLUENT
0.17mm EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
374?. m3/ha-d (0.40 MGAD)
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 CFS)
z
UJ
ffi
z
a
o
i .jGX _r^_ Q
*^ o—^"^
' I ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' 1 ' — 1 — ' — 1 — ' — 1 — ' — 1 — ' — 1 — ' — 1 — ' —
0 15 30 45 60 75
TIME (Minutes)
90 105 120
SEPTEMBER 17, 1976
Figure 38. Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) with time of the 0.17 mm effec-
tive size sand filters.
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY
A performance summary for each effective size s.and compared to the State
of Utah and Federal Secondary Treatment Standards is shown in Table 25. The
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and suspended solids performance with res-
pect to the Federal Secondary Treatment Standards are somewhat misleading.
Table 25 indicates that all effective size sands complied with the Federal
Secondary Treatment BODg and suspended solids standard nearly all the time.
However, the influent concentrations to the filter sands were generally less
than the effluent quality required by the Federal Secondary Treatment
121
-------
TABLE 24. FINAL SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FILTER SANDS
Sieve
Size
Number
4
8
10
16
30
40
50
100
Number of Samples
pening
(mm)
4.760
2.380
2.000
1.190
0.590
0.420
0.297
0.149
Final Effective Size, P (mm)
Initial Effective
Size, PIQ (mm)
Percent Passing Sample
A
95
—
71
61
47
—
28
13
2
0.12
0.17
B
95
67
61
45
25
—
9
5
3
0.31
0.31
C
89
—
47
31
14
—
5
1
2
0.44
0.40
D
84
—
49
—
7
—
3
—
2
0.64
0.68
Uniformity Coefficient,
P /P
10' 60
9.3
6.5
2.9
4.2
Standard. Thus, the various effective size sands were not stressed to
satisfy the Federal standards.
Only the 0.17 mm effective size sand was capable of satisfying the State
of Utah biochemical oxygen demand (BODj) and suspended solids standard con-
sistently. No sand satisfied the State of Utah bacterial standards. In
general, the finer sands meet the standards more often than the coarse sands.
122
-------
TABLE 25. NUMBER OF MONTHS THE MONTHLY AVERAGE EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS OF VARIOUS EFFECTIVE SIZE
SANDS SATISFIED THE STATE OF UTAH AND FEDERAL SECONDARY TREATMENT STANDARDS (INDEPEN-
DENT OF INFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS)
Effective
Size
Filter
Sand
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31
0.31
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.68
0.40t
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(m3/ha-d)
1,871
3,742
9,354
9,354
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
9,354
14,031
18,708
28,062
9,354
Appli-
cation
Rate
(m /sec)
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
0.048
0.048
0.048
0.008
Federal Standard*
(No. /Total Possible)
BOD5
13/13
12/12
3/3
1/1
10/10
2/2
1/1
12/12
1/1
8/8
3/3
3/3
8/8
1/1
4/4
SS
13/13
12/12
3/3
1/1
9/10
2/2
1/1
10/12
0/1
8/8
3/3
3/3
7/8
0/1
4/4
PH
(Median)
13/13
12/12
3/3
1/1
9/10
2/2
1/1
10/12
N.A.
6/8
3/3
3/3
7/8
1/1
4/4
**
Fecal
Colif orm
N.A.
8/11
2/2
N.A.
2/9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
4/6
1/1
State of Utah+
(No. /Total Possible)**
BOD
13/13
12/12
3/3
1/1
6/10
2/2
1/1
6/12
1/1
3/8
3/3
3/3
3/8
1/1
2/4
SS
13/13
12/12
1/3
0/1
6/10
1/2
0/1
5/12
0/1
6/8
0/3
0/3
3/8
0/1
4/4
PH
(Median)
13/13
12/12
3/3
1/1
9/10
2/2
1/1
10/12
N.A.
6/8
3/3
3/3
7/8
1/1
4/4
Total
Coli-
form
N.A.
4/11
0/2
N.A.
0/9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
0/6
0/1
Fecal
Coli-
form
N.A.
2/11
0/2
N.A.
0/9
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
N.A.
0/6
1/1
Not available.
N.A.
No. of months standard satisfied/total number of months in operation.
BOD5 .1 30 mg/1; SS £ 30 mg/1; pH = 6.9; Fecal Coliform geometric mean £ 200/100 ml.
-hBased on June 30, 1980: BOD5 £ 10 mg/1; SS <. 10 mg/1; pH = 6.5-9.0; Tot. Col. geometric
mean £ 200/100 ml; Fecal Coli geometric mean <. 20/100 ml.
CLoaded with primary lagoon effluent twice weekly.
-------
SECTION 7
INTERMITTENT SAND FILTER DESIGN
GENERAL
Based upon the data collected in this study, tentative design param-
eters have been formulated. Satisfying the Federal Secondary Treatment
Standards and the State of Utah, discharge requirements were considered when
establishing the design criteria. Construction, operation and economics
costs of intermittent sand filters in this section reflect the conditions
found in northern Utah and should not be directly applied to other areas
without consideration of the variable construction and operating parameters.
A minimum of two intermittent sand filters per lagoon treatment facility
is required to facilitate maintenance and adverse flow conditions. However,
a flexible wastewater treatment facility should have four intermittent sand
filters (ASCE-WPCF, 1959).
CONSTRUCTION
Embankments and Filter Bed
Shape and size of intermittent sand filters are dictated by the loca-
tion, topography, length of outfall and pumping requirements. Intermittent
sand filters should not exceed one acre (Metcalf and Eddy, 1935; Steel, 1960)
and yet be of size to handle mechanical equipment for maintenance. Rectan-
gular intermittent sand filters have been utilized most often but other
shapes have been used effectively.
Embankments and filter beds should be constructed of relatively im-
pervious materials compacted sufficiently (85 percent-95 percent) to form
a stable structure, and help eliminate erosion, infiltration and exfiltra-
tion of neighboring bodies of water. Other methods of sealing the inter-
mittent sand filter bed include vinyl liners, soil amendments, asphalt
liners, and concrete.
Width of the embankment is dependent upon size of maintenance vehicles
and size of the intermittent sand filters. To permit access of maintenance
vehicles, a minimum embankment top width of 2.4 m (8 feet) is necessary.
Many intermittent sand filters will not require a maintenance roadway on the
embankment due to the small size of the intermittent sand filter. However
all intermittent sand filters should contain a paved ramp leading onto the
124
-------
bed of the intermittent sand filter to allow easy access of maintenance
equipment.
Interior slopes of the embankment should vary from 3:1 to 6:1 with
rip rap or other protective material being placed on the slopes to prevent
erosion and vegetation growth. Exterior slopes of the embankment, if needed,
should not exceed 3:1 with perennial type, low growing and spreading grasses
planted to prevent exterior erosion of the embankment.
Filter Drainage
Clay tile or perforated PVC piping may be used for collecting the
effluent. The underdrains are usually placed in trenches below the bottom
of the sand with 0.3 m (1 ft) of graded gravel, to make the entire depth
of the sand effective for filtration. Lateral drains feeding into the main
drain should be spaced approximately 4.6 m (15 feet) with all piping sloped
to a slight grade (0.025) to provide a flow rate of 0.91 m/sec (3 fps) to
1.2 m/sec (4 fps) when flowing full to be self cleaning.
Filter Media
The bottom medium should be washed gravel, broken stone or blast fur-
nace slag placed in three layers of varying sizes. About the underdrains
a 3.3 cm (1.5 inch) maximum diameter rock may be placed that extends to 10.2
cm (4 inch) above the pipe. A 10.2 cm (4 inch) layer of 1.9 cm (0.75 inch)
maximum diameter rock should proceed the 3.8 cm (1.5 inch) maximum diameter
rock. A 0.6 cm (0.25 inch) maximum diameter rock layer of 10.2 cm (4 inch)
concludes the support for the filter sand.
To satisfy the State of Utah, discharge requests the 0.17 mm effective
size sand is recommended. The 0.17 mm effective size sand is available
locally as pit run concrete sand. The higher effective size sands must
either be transported from other areas or sieved at local gravel yards. The
0.31 mm, 0.40 mm and 0.68 mm effective size sands with a low application
rate of 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs) appear to satisfy the State of Utah, dis-
charge requirements; however, more study with low application rates should
be performed before constructing with these layer sands.
Influent Distribution System
The method of influent distribution on the intermittent sand filters
is dictated by the available head. A gravity fed system requires a total
head of 10 feet for the intermittent sand filter system (ASCE and WPCF, 1959)
to operate satisfactorily. Pumps may be utilized where insufficient head is
available.
The means of distributing the influent over the intermittent sand fil-
ters need not be complex. Troughs with discharge ports may be used. The use
of single corner or multiple corner side aprons of stone or concrete should
be used on small intermittent sand filters [15 m by 15 m (50 feet by 50
feet) or smaller] as a means of flow distribution. An automated lagoon
effluent discharge system with a manual override is recommended to allow the
operation of intermittent sand filters at any desired time.
125
-------
OPERATION
Hydraulic Loading Rates
Hydraulic loading rates of 1,871 m3/ha'd (0.2 MGAD) and 3,742 m3/ha'd
(0.4 MGAD) on the 0.17 mm effective size filter sands produced an effluent
that satisfied the State of Utah discharge requirements in all categories,
except effluent total and fecal coliform concentrations. Multiple dosings
per day should be considered as well as hydraulic loading during the evening
to achieve the maximum efficiency possible.
Application Rate
The low infiltration rate coupled with low hydraulic loading rates
utilized by the 0.17 mm effective size sand permit high application rates of
0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs). Effluent quality from the 0.17 mm effective size
sand filters does not change by varying the application rate.
Maintenance
Vegetation growth on the intermittent sand filters should be prevented
by complete removal of the weeds or ranking the filter bed periodically. Any
signs of erosion, filter seepage or pipe breakage should be repaired immedi-
ately to avoid further operational problems.
Plugged intermittent sand filters may be rejuvenated by several methods.
Removal of the plugged filter surface was the most effective rejuvenation
method experienced by this study. A 25 to 35 horsepower tractor with a rear
1.2 m (4 feet) to 1.8 m (6 feet) blade and a 0.9 m (3 feet) front end loader
would eliminate much manual labor involved in scraping a plugged filter and
minimize the down time of an intermittent sand filter.
The spent filter sand should be stockpiled to be washed and recycled
to the intermittent sand filter (Elliott et al., 1976).
Construction and Operation Cost Estimate
A breakdown of the individual costs of construction of intermittent
sand filters is presented in Appendix B. The unit prices quoted in Appendix
B reflect general in-place estimates for northern Utah and costs will vary
according to availability of materials, manpower, and pumping requirements.
Table 26 summarizes the cost of 3 different designs of single-stage
intermittent sand filters. Total costs given in this paper include opera-
ting and maintenance costs.
A design flow of 3,785 m3/d (1.0 MGD) and a hydraulic loading rate
of 9,354 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD) is estimated to cost $45 per million gallons
of filtrate including operation and maintenance costs with 75 percent federal
assistance. Utilizing the same design flow of 3,785 m3/ha-d (1.0 MGAD),
and decreasing the hydraulic loading rate to 3,742 m3/ha-d (0.4 MGAD) in-
creases the total estimated cost including operation and maintenance costs
126
-------
TABLE 26.
IILTEAIE PRODUCED BY
Design
Flow
(MGD)
0.1
1.0
1.0
Design
Hydraulic
Loading
Rate
(MGAD)
0.2
0.4
1.0
mzuzzzzzizi
Effective
Size
Sand
(mm)
0.17
0.17
0.31, or
0.40, or
0.68
Cost With
Federal
Assistance
($/!06 Gal)
$236
$ 70
$ 45
Cost
Without
Federal
Assistance
($/lQ6 Gal)
$503
$179
$ 95
Construction
Cost
Per Acre
($/Acre)
$144,194
$130,581
$142,648
to $70 per million gallons of filtrate with 75 percent federal assistance.
However, this design will satisfy the State of Utah, effluent discharge re-
quirements in every respect, except colifonn concentrations.
Harris et al. (1975) estimated a total annual cost including operation
and maintenance costs of $33 per million gallons filtrate with 75 percent
federal assistance for a 1,892 m3/d (0.5 MGD) sand filter system with a
hydraulic loading rate of 5,612 m3/ha'd (0.6 MGAD).
Estimated construction costs per hectare of filter vary from $58,355
per hectare ($144,194 per acre) for the 379 m3/d (0.1 MGD) design flow to
$52,846 per hectare ($130,581 per acre) for the 3,785 m3/d (1.0 MGD) de-
sign flow. Harris et al. (1975) reported a construction cost of $41,114
per hectare ($101,592 per acre) of intermittent sand filter with a design
flow of 1,892 m3/d (0.5 MGD).
Lining the base and the embankments of the intermittent sand filters
with vinyl to prevent infiltration and exfiltration represented more than
10 percent of the initial construction costs for all estimates. Constructing
an intermittent sand filter on clay soil will require 85 percent to 95 per-
cent compaction to prevent seepage and would eliminate the need to line an
intermittent sand filter. Other methods of decreasing the construction cost
of intermittent sand filters are to utilize the highest hydraulic loading
rate that will achieve effluent requirements, utilize the available head,
optimize the pumping requirements, and select a shape of intermittent sand
filter system that will require minimum lengths of piping, and optimizing
excavation and fill costs.
127
-------
REFERENCES
APHA, American Water Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion. 1971. Standard methods for the examination of water and waste-
water. 13th edition. American Public Health Association, Inc., New
York, New York. 874 p.
ASCE-WPCF Joint Committee. 1959. Sewage treatment plant design. New York,
New York. 375 p.
Avnimelch, Y., and Z. Nevo. 1964. Biological clogging of sands. Soil
Science 98(4):222-226.
Babbitt, Harold E., and E. Robert Baumann. 1958. Sewerage and sewage treat-
ment. Eighth Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, New York.
790 p.
Bishop, Richard P. 1976. Upgrading aerated lagoon effluent with intermit-
tent sand filters. M.S. Thesis. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
123 p.
Boiling. 1907. The maintenance of intermittent sewage filters in winter.
Engineering News 56:628-629.
Calaway, W. T. 1957. Intermittent sand filters and their biology. Sewage
and Industrial Wastes Journal 29(1):1-4.
Calaway, W. T., W- R. Carroll, and S. K. Long. 1952. Heterotrophic bacteria
encountered in intermittent sand filtration of sewage. Sewage and In-
dustrial Wastes Journal 24(5):642-653.
Camp, Thomas R. 1964. Theory of water filtration. Journal of the Pro-
ceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Sanitary Engineer-
ing Division 90(SA4):1-30.
Chowdry, N. A. 1972. Underdrained filter systems Whitby Experimental Station,
Part I. Private Waste and Water Management Branch, Ministry of the
Environment, Ontario, Canada.
Chowdry, N. A. 1973. Underdrained filter systems Whitby Experimental Station,
Part II. Private Waste and Water Management Branch, Ministry of the
Environment, Ontario, Canada.
Daniels, Francis E. 1945. Operation of intermittent sand filters. Sewage
Works Journal 17(5):1001-1006.
128
-------
devries, J. 1972. Soil filtration of wastewater effluent and the mechanism
of pore clogging. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation
44(4):565-573.
Elliott, J. T., Daniel S. Filip, and James H. Reynolds. 1976. Disposal
alternatives for intermittent sand filter scrapings utilization and
sand recovery. PRJER033-1, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State
University, Logan, Utah. 54 p.
Emerson, D. L. 1945. Studies on intermittent sand filtration of sewage.
Florida Engineering and Industrial Experiment Station. University of
Florida, Gainesville, Florida. Bulletin No. 9, November.
Engineering News Record. 1976. Construction Scoreboard. December 2. p. 33.
Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Methods for chemical analysis of
water and wastes. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Fair, Gordon Muskew, John Charles Geyor, and Daniel Charles Okun. 1968.
Water and wastewater engineering. Vol. II: Water purification and
wastewater treatment and disposal. John Wiley and Sons, New York,
New York (27):2-9.
Fuller, George W. 1914. Economics of sewage filters. Engineering News
72(18):876-877.
Furman, Thomas de Saussure. 1954. Sewage plant design criteria for the
semi-tropics. Sewage and Industrial Wastes Journal 26(6):745-758.
Furman, Thomas de Saussure, Wilson T. Calaway, and George R. Grantham. 1955.
Intermittent sand filters—multiple loadings. Sewage and Industrial
Wastes Journal 27(3):261-276.
Gaub, John. 1915. Methods of washing slow sand filters. Journal of the
American Water Works Association 2(4):596-611.
Grantham, G. R. , D. L. Emerson, and A. K. Henry. 1949. Intermittent sand
filter studies. Sewage Works Journal 21(6):1002-1014.
Harris, Steven E., James H. Reynolds, David W. Hill, D. S. Filip, and E. J.
Middlebrooks. 1975. Intermittent sand filtration for upgrading waste
stabilization pond effluents. Presented at 48th Water Pollution Control
Federation Conference, Miami, Florida (October 5-10, 1975). 49 p.
Hill, David W., J. H. Reynolds, D. S. Filip, and E. J. Middlebrooks. 1976.
Series intermittent sand filtration of wastewater lagoon effluents.
PRWR153-1, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan,
Utah. 172 p.
Holmes, Paul M. 1945. Intermittent sand filter found useful in rural sanita-
tion. Civil Engineering 15(6):284-285.
129
-------
Imhoff, Karl, W. P. Muller, and D. K. B. Thistlethwayte. 1973. Disposal of
sewage and other waterborne wastes. 2nd edition. Ann Arbor Science
Publishers, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan. 405 p.
Jones, Joe H., and George S. Taylor. 1965. Septic tank effluent percolation
through sands under laboratory conditions. Soil Science 99(5):301-309.
Karalekas, Peter. 1952. High rate slow sand water filters. American City
67(9):99-100.
Marshall, Gary R., and E. J. Middlebrooks. 1974. Intermittent sand filtra-
tion to upgrade existing wastewater treatment facilities. PRJEW115-2,
Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
80 p.
Massachusetts Board of Health. 1912. The condition of an intermittent sand
filter for sewage after twenty-three years of operation. Engineering
and Contracting 37:271.
Messinger, Steven S. 1976. Anaerobic lagoon-intermittent sand filter system
for the treatment of dairy parlor wastes. M.S. Thesis. Utah State
University, Logan, Utah. 79 p.
Metcalf, Leonard, and Harrison P. Eddy. 1935. American sewerage practice.
Volume III: Disposal of sewage. 2nd Edition, McGraw Hill Book Company,
New York, New York. 892 p.
Middlebrooks, E. J., Donna H. Falkenborg, Ronald F. Lewis, and Donald J.
Ehreth. 1974. Upgrading wastewater stabilization ponds to meet new
discharge standards. PRWG159-1, Utah Water Research Laboratory, Utah
State University, Logan, Utah. 244 p.
Missouri Basin Engineering Health Council. 1971. Waste treatment lagoons—
state of the art. Project No. 17090 EHX, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 151 p.
Mitchell, George. 1921. Notes on water filtration. Engineering and Con-
struction 56:197-198.
Mitchell, R., and Z. Nevo. 1964. Effect of bacterial polysaccharide accumu-
lation on infiltration of water through sand. Applied Microbiology
12(3):219-223.
92nd Congress. 1972. Public Law 92-500. Office of Public Affairs. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. 89 p.
Pincince, Albert B., and Jack E. McKee. 1968. Oxygen relationships in inter-
mittent sand filtration. Journal of the Proceedings of the American
Society of Civil Engineers, Sanitary Engineering Division 94(SA6):1093-
1119.
130
-------
Powell, S. T. 1911. Operating costs and qualitative results of slow sand
and mechanical filters. Engineering News 65(18):532-533.
Reynolds, J. H., S. E. Harris, D. W. Hill, D. S. Filip, and E. J. Middle-
brooks. 1974. Intermittent sand filtration to upgrade lagoon efflu-
ents—preliminary report. PRWG159-1. Utah Water Research Laboratory,
Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Salvato, J. A. 1954. Discussion. Sewage and Industrial Wastes Journal
27(8):909-916.
Salvato, Joseph A. 1972. Environmental engineering and sanitation. Second
edition. Wiley-Interscience, New York, New York. 916 p.
Sawyer, Glair N., and Perry L. McCarty. 1967. Chemistry for sanitary engi-
neers. Second edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, New
York. 518 p.
Schwartz, W. A., T. W. Bendixes, and R. E. Thomas. 1967. Project report of
pilot studies on the use of soils as waste treatment media. Federal
Waste Pollution Control Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Solorzano, L. 1969. Determination of ammonia in natural waters by phenol-
hypochlorite method. Limnology and Oceanography 14(5) :799-801.
Steel, Ernest W. 1960. Water supply and sewerage. Fourth edition. McGraw-
Hill Book Company, Inc., New York, New York. 655 p.
Story, C. F. 1909- Operation of the intermittent water filters at the
Ludlow Reservoir, Springfield, Massachusetts. Engineering News 61(11):
301-303.
Strickland, J. D. H. , and T. R. Parsons. 1968. A practical handbook of
seawater analysis. Bulletin No. 167, Fisheries Research Board of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario. 311 p.
Tchobanoglous, George. 1970. Filtration techniques in tertiary treatment.
Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 42(4) :604-623.
Utah State Board of Health. 1974. Water quality standards. Water Pollution
Control Committee. Salt Lake City, Utah.
Valley Engineering. 1977. Preliminary engineering report for Huntington,
Utah. Valley Engineering, Logan, Utah.
Water Pollution Control Federation. 1961. Operation of sewage treatment
plants-intermittent sand filters. Journal of the Water Pollution Con-
trol Federation 33(4):419-422.
131
-------
TABLE A-l.
APPENDIX A
TABULATION OF RESULTS
PERFORMANCE OF THE 0.17 MM EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND FILTER (FILTER NO. 6)
BOD^
{IBK/D
1 i It.-r Run l,.-i»t(h So. 1 :
i'-.lr.iuiK- Ui-iJinR RJII?: I
Appt l.-.H i.'i R-ne: 0.048 n
L8 11.5
: i u . «
:s .9
'(.'nthlv ,Wf. .;
••«.';> tontier - .3
9 .S
15 .9
8 .5
:i .5
39 .4
.Vt.b.r 6 .3
23 .5
NWember 3 -J
i: .0
19 .6
26 .7
'l.-nchly Ave. .9
10 .5
17 .8
22 .8
29 .4
January 7 13.5
14 14.7
21 11.3
Monthly Ave. 12.3
February 4 15.2
11 16.3
18 15.4
Monchly Are. 15.7
March 3 13-8
10 21.4
1 20.6
Monthly Av . 19.5
April 16.3
7.0
1 4.J
28 2.2
Monthly Ave. 6.3
12 5. 4
19 5.3
26 6.6
Monthly Av*. 6.0
June 2 13.8
9 9.3
16 3.7
23 17.4
30
July 7 20.8
It 14.6
21 12.7
28 19.8
Monthly Ave. 17.0
August 11 6.2
18
25 9.7
Monthly Ave. 8.0
COD
(Bg/1)
It ft' did not
i» /h.rd (0.
PC (0.29 cfs
31.7 1
36.3 1
52.8 1
46.7
61.8
73.0 I
66.6
46.8
75.2
37.3
30.1
24.5
26.8
46.7 1
35.1
41.7 1
37.7 1
37.8 1
45.7 1
48. 8 1
44.1 1
48.7 2
SO.O 2
48.4 1
61.4 1
66.4 I
57.9 1
57.1 1
63. 1 t
46.9
77.4
61.2
13.6
57.3
37.8
40.8
34.4
51.0 1
40.1
61.6 1
135.5
64.3 1
74.1 2
88.4 2
75.8 1
50.5
S4.1 1
57.8 1
54.1 1
SS VSS HRj-H N02-N NOj-N TKN
(ng/1) g/l) (=B/D ("g/D Og/D
E. eff. inf. eff. inf. eff. Inf. e
2.09 2.49 1.51 2.60 8.1
1.95 2.00 0.78 1.88 3.8
1.44 1.41 0.55 1.37 2.9
1.78 1.89 0.91 1.91 1.9
1.48 1.41 0.72 1.38 9.3
1.33 1.20 0.69 1.16 3.2
1,51 0.97 0.94 0.99 1.5
1.62 1.02 1.09 0.99 0.8
1.19 1.00 0.91 1.06 8.0
1.08 0.88 1.07 0.94 1.8
1.95 1.08 1.73 1.10 1.9
1 16.0 2.29 2.20 2.09 2.11 9.3 1
4 10.9 2.37 2.36 2.26 2.32 6.8
9 6.3 2.25 2.12 1.94 1.95 5.4 I
7 6.4 2.22 1 . 99 1 . 84 1 . 84 9.8 1
3 9.2 2.27 2.11 2.09 2.09 0.8 1
! J1 2~68 I'll I'n I'll 'll '
7 5.6 3.32 3.11 3.25 -• 3.10 0.6
7,5 3.35 2.88 3.04 2.86 0.5
6.1 3.22 3.12 2.84 3.05 0.4
4.0 2.75 2.87 2.29 2.86 6.2
3.3 2.25 2.15 1.25 2.10 18.4
4.2 2.55 2.64 2.06 2.60 8.8
3.0 0.68 1.26 0.43 1.21 10.6
3.0 0.48 1.15 0.38 1.07 8.8
2.2 0.78 1.16 0.53 1.06 10.3
2.8 0.67 1.30 0.46 1.23 12.0
S.2 1.51 0.85 0.62 0.82 12.0
10.2 1.09 0.86 0.66 0.78 10.9
4.4 0.31 1.15 1.04 1.02 5.2
5.S 1.50 1.05 0.98 1.01 10.8
5.1 1.76 1.16 0.51 I. 11 19.4
6.3 1.74 1.40 I. 01 1.25 8.5
3.3 1.63 1.26 0.94 1.22 9.7
4.6 1.76 1.23 0.95 1.16 4.0
4.9 1.73 1.28 0.83 1.19 10.4
3.7 1.47 1.48 0.95 1.34 9.8
3.8 1.52 1.30 1.18 1.3S 8.7
1.50 l.M 1.23 1.41
6 4.2 1.50 1.40 1.13 1.37 6.7
W.itcr Temp.
(°C)
f. Inf. eff. I
.9 20.3 21.5
.3 9-8 20.2
.0 9.0 19.0
.0 9.9 20.8
.2 9.2 20.0
.1 9.0 19.1
.9 0.0 20.0
.9 7.9 18.0
.8 7.2 17.9
.5 6.0 17.5
.2 22.2 21.9
-0 5.0 6.3
.9 5.8 6.9
.5 3.0 2.8
.4 2.5 2.0
.4 4.1 4.9
.2 2.0 1.5
.9 2.5 4.5
.6 2.5 3.0
.8 3.8 4.0
-3 5.1 7.2
.6 10.4 10.1
.8 7.8 8.3
.0* 16.0 17.5
.2 19.0 18.0
.6 18.0 18.0
.8 16.9 17.3
.1 20.0 20.7
.2 20.0 20.3
-4 17.0 18.5
.* 16.2 18.3
.5 23.9 24.2
.1 23.0 24.9
•0 23.0 23.8
.6 23.0 24.5
.6 24.4 23.2
.* 23.0 23.2
.0 20.5 22.5
20.0 20.5
-1 21.2 22.1
pH
f . e
.9
.2
.4
.2
. 1
. 1
.0
.0
.1
.0
.3
.1
.1
.3
.1
.1
.3
.5
.8
.6
.1
.7
.1
.0
.0
.9
.5
.4
.6
.7
.7
.7
.6
.6
.1
.5
.0
.4
.3
.6
.8
.8
.7
.7
Alk.j| Jnity
(iftK/U
f. inf. .-ft
.3
.9 -
.0 -
.0
.3
.0 -
.8 -
.2 -
.9 -
.0 -
.6 -
.7 -
.7 -
.3 30 282
.1 30 276
.9 33 302
.9 30 285
,5 30 278
.1 28 259
.6 27 271
.5 329 273
.0 260 290
3.2 307 294
.9 331 305
.7 348 331
.8 - 312
.6 325 312
.5 299 312
.7 280 302
. 5 260 290
.0 260 261
.0 253 227
.7 270 278
.5 253 216
.5 289 230
.2 252 220
.3 261 220
.3 249 225
.8 274 236
.8 210 254
.0 272 244
.9 247 212
.1 234 217
.6 249 212
.4 203 238
.8 233 220
.9 234 283
.5 284 243
.0 263 265
.1 267 264
-------
TABLE A-2. PERFORMANCE OF THE 0.17 MM EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND FILTER (FILTER NO. 1)
OJ
BODj COD
tate (Bg/1) (•»/!}
ss
(Hg/1)
Filter Run Ho. 1: 11 con*ccntiw day* of operation
Hydraulic loading Rate: 3741 » /twd (0,4 HGAD)
Appllc.llon Rat*: 0.048 .3/a*c (1.68 cf»)
August IS, I97S 9.8
IB 11.5
21 12.8
25 12.9
Monthly Ave. tl.B
Filter Run Av«. 11.8
1.1 31.7
1.4 36.3
2.5 90.3
1.4 SZ.8
1.4 52.8
12.0
13.9
28,3
IB. 7
18.7
Filter Run Length Mo. 2: 36 consecutive day* of
September 2
9
11
15
18
24
29
Monthly Ave.
Filter Run Ave.
6,5
7.5
7.0
7.0
Filter Run Length No. 3:
November 19
26
Monthly Ave.
17
22
29
Monthly Ave.
Janua'; 7
14
21
26
Monthly Ave.
February 4
11
18
26
March 3
10
17
23
Monthly Ave.
April 1
8
14
21
28
Monthly Ave.
Filter Run Ave.
2.6
3.7
3.2
7.8
9.8
6.4
6.5
13.5
14.7
11.3
9.5
12.3
15.2
15.9
13.8
20.
ZZ.
19,
16.
14.
12,
16.
Filter Run length So. 4:
May 19
26
Monthly Ave.
June 2
9
16
23
10
Monthly Av*.
July 7
21
21
1 1
IB
25
Monthly Ave.
5.3
6.6
6.0
11.8
9.3
3.7
17.4
10.2
10.9
20.8
14.6
12.7
19.8
17.0
4.S
6.2
9.7
A. 8
1 1 .04
1.4 61.8
2.2
1,8 64.1
66 consecutive
2.9 23.8
1.4 24.5
2.1 35.1
2.5 45.6
4.4 48.8
4.2 44.1
3.3 44.1
4.2 48.7
4.5 49.5
4.2 4B.4
7.4 61.4
5.2 66.4
3.7 55.2
5.1 57.9
6.5 57.1
3.6 63.1
2.3 46.9
2.0 77.4
4.3 63.2
103 COMCCUtlv
1.1 57.3
I.I 37.8
I.I 47.6
1.0 34.4
I.S 51.0
1.2 40.1
1,2 61,6
0.8 61,0
1.2 49.6
1.4 135. S
1.4 64.1
2.2 74,1
2.) 88.9
1.8 90.2
0.5 11.1
O.I. 50.5
O.I 54,1
O.H $7.8
0.6 51.4
t.2 M-2
9.6
15.3
34.3
50.1
49.7
44.8
44.8
operatl
26.7
35.0
31.2
days ol operat
13.2
8.4
13.8
17.0
19.0
16.4
32.9
35.4
19.6
29.4
22.9
17,6
22. 4-
24.4
• 26.9
12.6
15.2
20.9
c day.
24.4
14.8
19,6
11.9
18.7
17,2
15.6
IS. 8
19.8
18,7
22,8
15.4
19,2
14.3
11.8
12.0
11.8
12,5
3.2
11.2
21.3
17.4
7.1
15.7
10.1
8.8
8.9
8.5
7-9
8.5
8.5
12.8
23.1
19.4
51.5
28.6
of opera
20,5
24.0
22.3
74,3
18.5
8.9
21.2
14.6
27.7
64,8
22.4
20.8
35.9
17.0
8.2
12,2
20.1
20.0
15.1
20.8
1.9
3.7
8.7
4.2
4.2
n
2.5
3.3
5.2
ion
1.1
2.8
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.0
5.8
2.7
3.4
2.5
3.2
2.3
2.9
3.5
3.6
2.7
2.4
tlon
8.4
4.5
6.5
3.0
3,1
1.7
1.3
1.6
2.1
2.5
3,1
3.5
5. a
3,7
0.1
1.2
0.3
1.0
0.7
2.7
vss
24.4
36.0
35.8
32,4
32.4
21.4
24.0
22.9
3.2
19.8
16.0
6.5
14.3
7.0
8.8
6.4
7.0
7.5
7.0
11.8
21.9
16.3
46.5
25.8
11.9
20.1
16.0
67.6
15.6
5.5
19.6
13.9
24.5
62.4
18.2
16.3
31.9
32.5
6.7
10. 0
16.1
11.0
22.7
)
O.B
2.4
7.7
3.1
3.1
1.2
2.5
3.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.3
0.2
2.7
3.4
2.7
2.0
2.7
2.8
3.0
2.5
1.6
3.9
2.0
1.6
1.8
1.4
1.9
1.5
1.0
0.9
1.4
1.9
2.3
3.4
5.5
3.3
0.2
0.6
0.6
0.7
(•8/D
0.943
0.036
0.391
0.391
0406
0.652
0.620
5.657
.144
5.075
5.682
5.540
5.828
7.773
8.516
8.031
8.375
6.948
7.966
6.175
4.837
4.415
0,682
3.738
0.067
0.139
0,100
0,094
0.574
1.160
1.146
0.920
0.760
0.112
1.100
1.082
1.247
0.680
3.090
1.180
1.149
0.935
1.550
0.097
0.097
0.582
0.582
0.074
0.058
0.081
4.031
0.191
2.301
3.244
1.900
4.169
4.591
5.888
6.870
6.472
5.562
6.198
6.813
5.510
4.435
0.599
3.861
0.071
0.065
0.094
0.096
0.077
0.063
0.068
0.086
0.091
0.088
0.099
0.083
0.100
0.184
0.024
0.062
0.060
0.100
(ttg/D (ng/
0.190
0.001
0.097
0.097
0.008
0.034
0.017
0.021
0.054
.033
.030
.004
.029
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.0
0.0
0.001
0.003
0.012
0.003
0.040
0.019
0.012
0.007
0.006
0.005
0.006
0.014
0.028
0.012
0.008
0.016
0.071
0.010
0.026
0.003
0.040
0.019
0.013
0.019
0.003
0.006
0.010
0.006
0.006
0.008
0.004
0.007
0.007
0.021
0.042
0. 16
0. 37
0. 24
0. 29
0.062
0.034
0.016
0.007
0.012
0.049
0.021
0.026
0.021
0.027
0.031
0.028
0.002
0.004
0.002
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.004
0.003
0.010
0.016
0.006
0.011
0.011
0.027
0.008
0.003
0.020
0.015
0.523
0.286
0,020
0.276
0.276
0.034
0.131
0.102
0.102
0.065
0.109
0.136
0.042
0.010
0.073
0.083
0.040
0.025
0.022
0.028
0.011
0.023
0.019
0.021
0.013
0.145
0.056
0.037
0.032
0.064
0.046
0.019
0.041
0.028
0.040
0.064
0.035
0.033
0.028
0.040
0.028
0.026
0.013
0.036
0.026
H TKH
2.660
1.892
1.060
1.871
1.871
-
•
0.657
0.309
1.381
1.381
3.393
3.730
3.156
2.474
2.249
3.953
8.249
2.188
5.032
0.356
0.343
0.907
1.660
0.733 1
0.604
0.747
1.014
0.862
1.263
1.671
1.168
Z.853
Z.161
2.820
2.470
2.294
1.190
3.480
3.280
3.120
2.768
4.090
2.980
2.210
6.096
3.843
.4 5.2
.2 1.8
.7 4.9
.3 7.0
.7 3.6
.7 4.4
.0 8.6
.7 7.0
.2 6.3
.4 8.7
.9 9.6
.0 7.9
.9 8.1
.9 9.4
,0 7.7
.1 6.5
.6 2.2
.4 5.9
T°U*1 •Total-P
\
-
-
_
8.5
5.3
9.7
9.3
8.8
7.8
14.0
10. a
10.2
11.4
10.9
11.0
10. 9
10.9
9.0
8.1
6.7
8.5
'-
-
-
_
8.6
5.5
7.5
9.2
7.6
12.6
to. a
11.5
11.3
9.1
9.9
8.8
9.8
10.1
B.3
7.2
3.2
6.8
2.09
1.95
1.63
1.89
1.89
1.46
1.33
1.62
1.08
1.41
1.41
2.32
2.27
2.87
2.75
2.66
3.12
3.03
3.17
3.34
3.47
3.48
3.10
3.35
3.22
2.75
2.56
2.25
2.55
1.96
1.71
1.57
1.75
1.75
1.46
1.20
1.21
1.06
1.18
1.18
1.89
2.14
2.65
2.74
2.49
2.78
2.78
2.85
2.51
3.31
3.50
2.50
2.97
3.44
2.86
2.84
1.80
1.82
2.55
0-P04
(ag/1)
1.51
0.78
0.80
1,03
1,03
0.72
0.69
1.09
1.07
0.88
0.88
2.34
2.09
2.59
2.58
2.46
2.78
2.74
2.89
3.03
3.17
2.69
3.27
3.04
2.84
2.29
2.05
1.86
1.25
2.06
Z.04
1.51
1.66
1.74
1.74
1.40
1.57
1.09
1.12
1.20
1.20
2.23
2.00
2.59
2.69
2.42
2.76
2.71
2.75
2.46
3.07
2.29
3.24
2.77
3.34
2.76
2.54
1.81
1.80
2.45
DO
(Bg/1)
e.i
13.6
14.9
11.7
11.7
9.3
13.2
10,8
12.7
12.7
7.4
10.8
1.4
0.7
4.9
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
6.2
0.9
18.2
18.4
8.8
6.6
6.8
5.9
6.5
6.5
6.4
6.2
7.2
6.7
6.7
9.3
10.6
6.7
7.8
8.4
9-7
6,7
7.6
4.8
4.2
5.5
7.2
5.4
6.1
7.2
8.6
5.7
5.7
6.7
Vat
20.3
19.8
19.0
20.1
20. 1
19.3
19.0
17.9
17.2
18.4
18.4
4.0
4-9
1.5
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.8
5.1
9.7
9.9
10.4
7.8
er T«np.
22.0
20.8
20.5
21.3
21.3
20.1
21.2
18.2
16.0
19.2
19.2
7.0
5.2
5.0
1.5
1.5
2.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
4.6
5.0
3.5
6.1
9.1
il.O
11.0
11.3
9.7
8.9
9.2
9.3
9.1
9.1
9-1
9.1
9.0
9.1
9.1
9. 1
8.2
7.8
8.6
8.6
8. 6
8.6
8.4
8.0
8.0
6.1
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.7
8.0
7.9
8.9
9.5
8.4
pK
9.
8.C
8.0
8.
e.i
8.4
8.0
8.9
8.4
8.3
8.3
8.3
7.8
7.8
7.5
7.4
8-2
8.4
7.6
8.6
8-4
8.3
8.2
7.7
7.7
7.7
7.6
7.7
7.8
7.8
7.5
8.1
7.8
7.8
Alkalinity
(ng/I)
_
-
; :
_
301 281
319 299
330 302
277 27i
329 276
306 278
315 296
260 296
322 325
332 320
307 309
342 332
331 321
348 326
337 316
3iO 324
339 315
318 327
317 330
325 313
299 321
280 297
260 275
260 137
253 120
270 270
.2 0.7
.0 0.8
.1 0.8
.6 3.1
.9 0.2
.9 0.3
.7 0.6
.6 1,9
.3 1.2
.9 1.2
.2 I.S
.4 n.9
.5 1.7
.5 1.3
.1 0.6
.7 1.1
.5 0.5
.8 0.7
1.2
1.0
1.1
8.7
3,9
1,9
3.7
3.6
4.3
7.0
4.2
4.4
6.5
5.5
5.1
5.7
3.5
4.8
2.6
2.1
2.5
4.3
3.1
2.5
3.4
4.4
3.5
2.4
4.9
4.2
4.B
4.1
4.7
4.1
2.7
4.5
0.48
0.78
0.63
1.51
1.09
0.31
1.50
1.75
1.12
1.76
1.74
1.63
1.76
1.73
2.33
1.47
1.53
1.50
1.70
0.71
0.74
0.72
0.67
0.67
0.86
1.03
1.14
0.86
1.17
1.47
1.28
1.29
1.30
1.69
1.25
1.36
1.55
1.48
0.38
0.53
0.46
0.62
0.66
1.04
0.98
1.17
0.90
0.51
1.01
0.94
0.95
0.85
1.76
0.95
1.18
1,25
1.29
0.61
0.61
0.61
0.67
0.61
0.78
0.06
1.06
0.64
1.08
1.26
1.18
1.22
1. 19
1.69
1.30
1.18
1.41
1.40
8.8
10.3
9.6
12.0
10.9
5.2
10.8
10.3
9.8
19.4
8.5
9.7
4.0
10.4
2.3
9.8
8. 7
6.9
5.8
6.3
6.1
6.6
7.5
6.8
7.9
7.1
7.2
5.6
7.7
5.0
6.0
6.1
5.6
4.6
8.1
6.1
19.0
18.0
18.5
20.0
20.0
17.0
16.2
23,1
19.3
23.9
23.0
23.0
23.0
23.2
22.5
23.0
20.5
20.0
21. S
20.0
18.4
19.2
21.0
21.
20. i
25.
21.
25.
25.
26.
24.
25.
25.0
25.0
23.2
22.5
23.9
9.7
9.7
9.7
9.6
8.6
8.6
9.1
9-1
9.0
9.5
9.0
9.4
9.2
9.3
8.3
8.6
8.8
8.8
8.6
8.3
8.0
8.2
8.3
8.0
7.7
8.0
a!o
7.6
6.1
7.5
7.3
7.7
7.0
7.0
7.4
7.2
1.'
7.7
289 : 1 1
252 196
271 204
249 20-
210 iai
272 2ii
26 j i\:
254 210
247 189'
234 234
249 242
203 269
233 234
263 251
25- 277
284 280
263 296
266 274
254 .'13
-------
TABLE A-3. PERFORMANCE OF THE 0.31 MM EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND FILTER (FILTER NO. 3)
Date
CHUT Run Mo. 1:
Kvdraulic Loading
June 30
Monthly Ave.
July 7
IS
21
28
Monthly Ave.
August 4
11
Monthly Ave.
filter Dun Ave.
Filter Run No. 2:
Application Kate;
August 18
25
Monthly Ave.
BODS COD
(•8/D '-6/U
SS
45 conaecucLve day* without plugging
Kate: 93S4 « /tw-d (1.0 HCAO)
0.2 5.0 1.0
0.8 1 .2 1 5.5
2.7 .1 4.1
9.8 .2 8.9
7.0 .2 90.2
4.5 5.0 51.3
40.0
71.2
51.9
79.9
63.3
43.2
14 consecutive days without
0.008 «3/»ec (0.29 cfs)
54.1
9.7 6.1 57.8
9.7 6.1 56.0
35.4
37.7
14.6 9.6
64.8 18.8
35.9 29.2
36.0 18.7
8.2 7.7
plugging
20.0 10.2
20.1 IS. 5
VSS KHj-H H02-H
(••/I) <•»/!) (Bg/1)
3.9
2.4
1.9
2.5
6.7
16.1
16.5
4.2 0.920
15.5 0.112
26.6 1.247
15.3 0.885
2.2 3.090
3.0 0.935
3.2 1.042
0.882 0.028 0.041
0.527 0.008 0.098
0.881 0.010 0.080
0.696 0.026 0.065
1.314 0.003 0.053
0.214 0.013 0.092
0.242 0.016 0.065
IWj-B tKS ^H*1 Tot«l-P 0-P06 Water Temp. DO
(•g/1) <•»/!> <«g/l) (ag/1) (ng/D (°C) (an/ 1 >
0.028
.064
.028
.040
0.028
0.036
0.025
.160 3.6
.100 6.9
.290 *-5
.175 5.5
0.250 5.1
1.120
0.743 3.5
2.3 3.6 2. 5 .75 0.8 1.1
3.7 7.0 3.8 .76 1.0 0.5
4.5 6.5 4.8 .76 1.4 0.95
3.4 5.5 3.6 .73 1.6 0.85
3.3 5.1 3.6 2.33 2.30 1.76
1.50 1.87 1.25
2.1 3.5 2,5 1.50 1.87 1.22
2.1 3.5 J.S 1,50 1.87 1.22
0.54 3.1 23.0 10.3 8.1
0.61 3.9 23.7 19.4 .5
0.82 3.0 23.0 4.0 .7
0.82 3.2 22.9 10.4 . 7
2.14 22.5 21.5 2.3 6.6
1.76 20.0 19.0
1.75 20.3 20.5 8.7 7.9
1.75 20.3 20. 5 8.7 7.9
pH A Ik..
<<»
9.1 8.9 26J
9.5 8.9 li*l
9.2 9.0 203
9.3 8.9 233
8.3 7.7 263
8.3 7.7 263
9.1 8.7 243
8.8 7.6 263
8.8 7.7 274
8.8 7.7 274
inily
*/!>
22B
202
220
231
228
248
248
231
295
266
270
281
-------
TABLE A-4. PERFORMANCE OF THE 0.40 MM EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND FILTER (FILTER NO. 2)
(•a/i)
int. «rr.
(OH/I) (•>/!} fol/M
nf. tit. inf. tlf. Int. iff.
Mluilntty
_<•*/1 >
fff, lot. fit.
Hydt»ullo Loading R.M; 14,011 o'/tu-d (l.S WAD)
Application Rate: 0.048 a'/as,- (1.08 tft'i
August 15, I97i 9,8 3.9 - - 44.9 H.5 33.3 3.8
IB 11.5 4,0 Jl,7 IO.T M.I 10.7 24,4 5.5 0.943
Soothl? Ave. 10.7 5.0 31.) 10.7 19.6 11.» ZB.9 4.7 0.943
«. IO.T S.O 31,7 10.7 39.6
Monthly A»e. B.9 5.9 - - 51. & 34.1 3J.3 8.7 0.029 O.OM
Septnbei 2 6.3 6.8 46.7 37.3 33.1 38.4 12. i 7.4 0.061 0.236
9 6.S 4.5 61.8 M.B 26.7 16.9 11.4 S.3 0.106 0.087
29 4.4 l.» 46. S 31. B 17.7 11.2 9.1 Z.B 1.139 0.168
Monthly Ave. 7.0 4.B 64.1 38.1 31.2 19.6 11.9 1.1 0.517 0.1)1
.602 0.05* 0.021. Q.1BB 3.9 1.7 3.9 3.9 1.44 0.91 0.5* O.M 11.9 7.J
.004 0.103 0.034 0.37S 2.4 1.8 2.4 1.1 1.48 l.ll 0.71 0.78 9.1 »-1
.008 0.071 0.086 0.9ZO 1.0 2.8 1.1 3.7 1.33 1.08 0.69 1.00 II.Z 7.4
.000 0.096 0.028 0.159 4.1 3.0 4.2 3.1 1.64 I.Z4 0.76 0.15 I*.} 9.1
.033 0.091 0.191 1.5SO 11. B 6.5 12.0 8.1 1.08 1.44 1.07 1.48 U.I 6.5
.017 0.104 0.119* 1.08S 6.1 5.9 6.2 7.0 1.41 1.12 O.BB 1.16 12.7 B.l
0.017 0.115 0.061 1.489 - - - 1.95 2.10 1.73 1.11 1.9 B.S
* It**
I7.Z
ZI-J
M.I
M,l
U.3
IS,*
17.1
»-S
».4 9-2
9-1 JO
9.-J .0
9.1 -J
9.0 -5 -
9-1 -8 -
•eeutlv* d*y* nf sp»rttl(in
Octabci 23 8.S
0.008 0.01S 0.156 0.440
0.047 0.090 0.077 0.637
O.OZ8 0-053 0.117 0.539
2.2S 4.B 11.0 7.8
l.Z I.I 3.Z 1.2
5.17S 0.011 0.017 0.06S 0.370
4.271 O.OZ9 0.027 0.099 1.759
.6 5.617 3.511 0.025 0.036 0.077 1.192
2.34 2.60 2.34 Z.40
0.041 0.120 1.279
2.S9 2.S3 Z.16 2.16 11.4 10.0 S.5 7.1
2.0 «,5 B.I 289
6.S 6.1 37.
4.2 2.4 4.6» 1.036 0.054 0.060 0.109 0.786 5.2 4.8 S.3 5.6 2.17 2.17 1.09
10.9 S.Z60 Z.72
11.3 10.0 4B.B 44.9
7.8 S.540
7^7 ?ll39 5.113
2.97 2.3! 2.57
March
::;;
Apr.
V Ave.
8
2B
15.9
15-7
19.5
17.0
12.7
12.1
11.9
=f
7.4
49.5
5S.2
57.9
57.1
77.4
38.2
32.9
17. B
29.0
of opera
»:J 5:
21". i 10!
Ian
SI, 5 30
3.8
8.9
7~.0
5.7
4.3
8.9
26. S
6.175 4.241 0.001 0.011 0.019 0.73* 10. 6.7 10. 7.4 3.Z! 1.09 2.84 1.95 0.4 B.O 3.8 S.5 7.
"is2 si!! I!'™ sc o'l" !~ot? si ?•; s-j i'\ *•" '•" '•" '•" "•* B-J I0it io-5 *•
9 7.8 137
D 8.1 340
7.7 125
11.5 2M)
B.I 312
134
321
106
296
«g
0.710 3.SOD 3.4
2.704 0.185 0.181 0.001 4.210 6.2
i'iiB o!oo4 a!m a'.ioo 6^844 -
1.121 O.OOS
-------
TABLE A-5. PERFORMANCE OF THE 0.40 MM EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND FILTER (FILTER NO. 5)
CO
S™";^ts
Kontttlr A**.
Fllur ftw **•.
Fllt.r tun MB. 2:
S/L.
rill.t bm Av«.
24
Filter Run Avt.
F1I«W •,« fc. 4:
mrY"
Fllur talk,. Si
"— *" I?
Mmi*«r 3
12
19
Konthtr Ave.
Heath tf Aw.
ia
10
Mntblf »«.
Naatblr Aw.
rilMr bn •». 6:
11
a
11
30
itoathty iff.
teothlr An.
Hltn tea to. •:
J*i;«,.,
n
is
•0
<••
i*r.
••(•i
0.0«*
9.B
7 tool
••HI
t:
7.9
fr com
B!I
8.3
UB t
5.0
1.9
6.4
«.5
11.5
It.)
15.4
11.0
11.4
19.5
lt.3
11.5
11.5
S-3
6.0
10.6
fO.l
fO.4
W.i
13.0
0.001
It! 3
9.7
U.l
>5
•II.
SET-
4.5
ITST.
I.I
..cutlv.
1:1
4.S
«UtlV.
10. 9
-M«tU
3.6
3.9
7.4
10.)
t3.7
16.3
9.7
11.5
to.»
13.1
9.6
12.S
1.6
5.7
«c.tl«
4.*
4.5
11. ft
*.t
j£?
t!s
1.9
5.4
i.1
1.60
*c
71.0
46. B
«*.
_
* d>r
10.1
10.0
46.7
37.7
44.1
4J.4
50.0
40.4
61.4
>7.)
41.1
6J.I
57.3
40.*
51.3
**!•
M.I
135.5
14 5
&
BB.'i
54.1
5 J.I
61.8
«
•«.
f ar*»tlo<
(1.0 )CA1
(•>
(2.0 MU
38. B
29. i
I olMiaitai
.
of oftrtl
23.4
16.1
14.0
37. S
61.1
31.3
15.4
39.6
14.7
71.7
ft Oftlmti,
ST.)
11.*
tt.Z
40.*
of «*•*•((!
34.3
*1.5
41.*
at opaitli
U.O MOW)
cf*>
69.1
35.1
40.1
37.7
(«
UI.
)
44.»
)
;:.-:
14.0
OB
8.8
4.5
3.6
13.4
9.3
S
..,
10,1
35.*
1T.3
U.I
»
1S.1
":!
10.*
39.*
».*
». I
20. 0
17.4
11
I/U
.M.
.1.0
17' 4
11.0
17.1
.lot 12
19.1
ll.l
5.7
3.0
10.0
9.1
5.6
It. I
4.0
13.1
3.1
33.4
6.6
16,0
I'D
1
<*
ut.
15.3
1B.O
A*,* of
6.1
4.0
3.0
4.1
11.3
';'
1,}
31.7
It.)
13.1
11.1
U.O
18.3
31.9
15.0
16.9
16.1
14.1
n
i/D
•if.
a.i
4.6
5.0
««!=,
3.2
Z.9
,.,
1.9
10.0
!:2
20,1
1.1
11.1
I.I
11.*
i.i
lo'.t
2.1
1.1
1.2
"
N
ifi.
0.02*
0.090
1.139
0.664
™.no.
5.124
4.7B1
4.656
7.139
:•%
6.126
1.171
0.01)
1.1S3
1.0*0
0.1 II
l.OU
lilSO
1.149
0.935
1.030
1.078
*
•If.
0.216
0.09B
0.100
0.191
r^lM
1.117
3.175
3.411
4.152
5.156
is
O.MO
O.*l*
O.MO
0.013
o!*oo
0.101
0.63T
0.542
»1
<*
Iml.
0.601
0.013
0.033
0.027
0.008
0.011
0.054
!:«
0.016
0.001
0.01*
0.01*
0.00*
!:«
0.01)
0.011
0.031
l\)
•fl.
9.030
0.010
0.045
O.MS
0.150
0.060
0.031
0.045
S:S!S
0 031
0.017
0.061
0.001
0.037
0,01)
0,001
o!ou
0.009
0.02J
0,011
•0
(^
lal.
0.024
0.067
0.1)3
0.137
0.156
0.156
0.067
0.109
o!o21
0.064
0.079
0.027
0.011
0.01)
O.M4
0.018
0.031
0.013
0.016
0.015
0.017
-•
.((.
0.01B
0.174
11.010
12.010
1.194
O.S12
0.539
1.191
0.611
0.817
0.819
0.713
0.116
O.HI
0,1*0
0.810
o!«43
0.179
1.350
0.»M
O.M1
(*m (m
tat, iff. t*t.
- - -
.
9.2 6.8 9.3
.2 5.1 5.3
1 .S 7.3
It! ;:i °:l
9.1 7.3 9.3
7.4 4.1 7.1
1.1 1.0 1.1
4,0 1.6 4.1
1.1 t.T 1.1
t.9 J.9 7.0'
4.4 1.1 4.4
E.I 1.5 6.5
5.1 1.9 5.5
1.5 1.4 3.1
4.6 1.4 4.6
3.0 Z.7 1.1
Ml
h
*H.
:
-
.
:
8.0
5.7
7.7
a.e
!:!
...
a.i
6.1
1.8
4.1
1.0
«,1
*!o
3.6
1.6
1.0
1.1
<1
lal.
!:S
1.08
1.15
2.33
2.51
Z.17
1.12
3.11
3. 37
3.34
3.47
i.»
z.ao
1.16
0.48
1.11
l.»
1.76
1.63
1.76
1.70
1.53
1.50
1.60
£
•«.
0.92
1.78
2.93
2.76
2.13
1.09
3.15
3.17
3.26
>.»
2.80
l.M
1.04
1.51
1.17
1,J»
l.*9
L60
1.11
1.66
<*
Inf.
0.55
O.SS
0.94
1.00
1.98
2.45
2.0)
2.15
1.78
2.79
3.25
3.03
1.17
Z.55
1.72
0.11
l.M
l.M
0.31
0.94
1.18
1.25
1.11
1.06
/I)
•ft.
0.45
0.4J
1.66
1.95
2.47
2.09
2-*4
2.94
3.18
3.0S
3.30
1.61
1.81
1.07
1.11
1.04
a. ii
1.30
0.99
1.15
1.01
1.71
D
(m
Imt.
9.8
11.9
11.0
4.8
6.6
10.8
11.2
O.S
0.9
0.6
0.5
..,
5.3
11.5
i.i
ll.l
t,B
19.4
9.7
8.7
9.3
/I) (°C)
•f(. inf. iff.
7.3 11,1 11.0
7.* !9.0 19.)
7.7 20.0 1B.7
7.2 17. B 17.5
9.5 7.8 9.2
11.5 5.1 6.0
12.5 4.1 5.0
10.2 I.D 1.5
8.1 1.0 1.0
9.7 1.0 1.5
9.1 1.0 1.0
8.5 1.0 1.0
9.1 1.1 1.1
7.6 10.0 10.0
5.5 19.0 10.0
6.6 13.) 11.6
7.7 18.B 18.1
5.1 13.) 11.3
6.1 13.0 13.0
4.0 23.0 14.0
5.1 13.0 13.5
6.4 10.5 11.5
s.a n!i it'.*
,.
Io(. *'(
9.0 9.0
7.9 7.S
B.3 S.2
... ...
8.6 a.i
8. 4 S.4
8.1 B.I
7.7 7.6
8.1 7.6
7.8 7.6
7.B 7.S
8.1 8.1
t.a 9,2
9.1 9.1
9.1 9.1
8.8 9.0
9.5 9.1
9.4 a.a
9!) tii
B.B 7.1
8.8 7.3
«>-
>.f.
30*
330
319
106
3*5
111
34B
339
325
317
160
151
15B
151
in
161
260
Z48
347
24*
149
103
126
154
143
»1
,.,„
.„
~-
3OG
325
291
287
301
12S
111
333
123
312
313
111
146
114
117
119
264
140
110
157
J7J
266
157
16t
163
-------
TABLE A-6. PERFORMANCE OF THE 0.68 MM EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND FILTER (FILTER NO. 3)
u>
-4
*ODj COO 88 VS8 tty« »j-B IDjHI
tatt (««/l) (n/l) (•»/!) («•/» (••/!) (nt/D (-8/D
inf. •«. Inf. •«£."" lot. «ff. inf. aft. inf. *H. inf. iff. inf. *ff.
TW
(«•/»
inf. iff.
Total
I.
inf.
•ff.
Total-P 0-P04
<•»/!) (Mf/l)
inf.
•ff.
DO
inf. «ff. inf. eff.
Water Tc*p.
inf. eff.
pB Alkalinity
inf.
eff. inf
eff.
Filter ton Ho. 1: 46 cona«cutlv*.d*r* of operation
Hydraulic Loading but 14,031 • /ha'd (1.5 MCAD)
Application Hate: 0.048 M3/MC (1.68 c(a>
Auguat 25. 1975 12.9 4.5 90.3 38.2 49.7 16.0 35.6 4.8 0.038 0.023 .001 0.003 0.020 .160
28 8.9 5.7 - •• 51.6 21.2 35.3 10.2 0.029 0.389 .602 0.006 0.024 .013
Monthly Ave. 10.9 S.I 90.3 38.2 50.7 18.6 35.6 7.5 0.035 0.206 .301 0.005 0.022 .087
September 2 6.3 6.8 46.7 36,1 33.2 27.8 22.5 6.9 0.063 0.048 .004 0.380 0.034 .587
9 6.5 6.5 61.8 36.4 26.7 30.0 21.4 7.0 0.106 0.109 .008 0.429 0.086 .920
11 9.7 6.1 89.6 42.1 49.7 29.3 44.6 12.6 0.931 0.195 .000 0.144 0.026 .200
29 4.4 4.0 46.8 55.4 17.7 7.5 9.2 2.5 1.139 1.383 0.033 0.116 0.193 0.361
October 6 7.3 5.8 75.2 39.9 62.6 12.9 22.9 4.2 2.548 0.883 0.017 0.16B 0.063 4.105
Filter Run Ho. 2: 196 consecutive daya of operation
Hydraulic Loading Rate: 9354 « /ha'd (1.0 MCAD)
14 14.7 14.1 45.7 43.0 21.3 21.1 19.8 17.5 6.144 4.979 0.033 0.011 0.138 0.519
21 11.3 13.6 46.8 46.5 17.4 17.0 16.0 12.4 5.075 4.557 0.030 0.007 0.042 0.298
28 9.5 7.9 U.I 37 .8 7.1 6.1 6.5 4.6 S.6B2 5.041 0.004 0.011 0.010 0.131
Monthly Ave. 12.3 11.2 44.1 41.0 15.7 13.2 14.3 10.3 5.540 4.830 0.029 0.019 0.073 0.321
February 4 15.2 11.8 48.7 40.0 10.1 11.4 7.0 5.6 5.828 5.249 0.006 0.007 0.083 0.162
11 16.3 12.5 45.4 44.1 13.4 10.7 11.3 10.7 7.139 6.103
16 15.4 10.9 50.0 33.4 9.3 9.1 8.6 7.3 6.700 5.918 0.003 0.010 0.034 0.412
26 15.9 9.6 49.5 42.1 8.8 6.1 8.8 5.6 7.773 6.773 0.004 0.021 0.040 0.300
Monthly Ave. 15.7 11.2 48.4 39.9 10.4 9.3 8.9 7.3 6.860 6.010 0.004 0.013 0.052 0.294
March 3 13.8 15.0 40. b 40.5 8.9 8.4 6.4 6.9 8.516 7.610 0.002 0.015 0.025 0.353
10 21.4 17.6 61.4 45.9 8.5 6.6 - •• 8.031 7.421 0.002 0.012 0.022 0.153
17 20.6 14.7 66.4 37.8 7.9 6.9 7.0 5.7 8.375 7.656 0.000 0.009 0.028 0.120
23 22.3 17.1 55.2 45.8 8.5 5.2 7.5 5.2 6.946 7.108 0.000 0.005 0.011 0.031
Monthly Ave. 19.5 16.1 57.9 42.5 8.5 6.8 7.0 5.9 7.970 7.500 0.00 1 0.010 0.023 0.164
April 1 16.3 11.4 57.1 36.5 12.8 7.1 11.8 6.8 6.175 6.175 0.003 0.016 0.019 0.050
8 17.0 13.6 63.1 42.3 23.1 13.1 21.9 12.2 4.837 4.531 0.012 0.035 0.021 0.104
U 14.3 8.6 46.9 37.3 19.4 11.3 16.3 10.0 4.415 3.631 0.003 0.027 0.013 0.306
21 21.5 17.3 71.4 51.5 36.4 25.2 32.3 21.5 2.61$ 2.104 0.035 0.042 0.060 0.476
28 12.2 6.2 77.4 53.3 51.5 25.1 46.5 22.6 0.682 0.591 0.040 0.026 0.145 0.542
Monthly Ave. 16.3 11.5 63.2 44.6 26.6 16.4 25.8 14.6 3.740 3.450 0.019 0.029 0.054 0.296
Kay 5 6.7 4.6 34.6 22.6 13.1 3.5 11.7 2.4 0.072 0.091 0.033 0.00} 0.18Z Q.11Z
12 5.4 4.1 33.6 24.0 11.7 3.4 9.2 2.2 0.083 0.085 0.010 0.002 0.025 O.t31
Monthly Ave- 6.1 4.4 34.1 23.3 12.5 3.5 10.5 2.3 0.080 0.090 0.022 0.004 0.104 0.332
June 2 13.8 14.6 34.4 36.5 - - 67.6 56.3 0.094 0.077 0.006 0.001 0.064 0.932
9 9.3 5.3 51.0 35.7 18.5 5.8 15.6 4.8 0.574 0.500 0.005 0.006 0.046 0.211
Monthly Ave. 11.6 10.0 42.7 36.1 18.5 5.8 41.6 30.6 0.330 0.289 0.006 0,004 0.055 0.572
: :
_
-
8.3 8.0
8. 7.9
9. 7.9
9. 10.8
6. 8.5
7. 7.3
0. 7.4
0. 8.7
4. 10.5
0. 8.5
0. 9.3
1. 9.9
0. 10.3
1. 10.6
10. 10.0
10, 10.9
9. 6.0
8. 7.2
7, 6.0
6. 6.5
8. 7.7
2. 1.4
1. 1.6
2. 1.5
6. 6.0
3. 0.9
6. 3.5
:
_
-
6.4
8.1
9.7
9.3
8.8
7.8
0.7
4.0
0.8
0.2
1.4
0,9
1.0
0.9
10.9
9.0
6.1
7.7
6.7
8.5
2.3
1,6
2.1
8.1
3.9
6.4
:
_
6.2
8.4
8.1
10.9
8.8
7.5
9.1
10.8
8.8
9.7
10.1
10.4
10.6
10.2
11.0
8.1
7.3
7.1
7.0
6.0
1.9
1.7
1.6
6.9
t.l
4.1
1.63
1.4*
1.5*
1.46
1.33
1.64
1.51
1.08
1.95
2.37
2.6B
2.87
J.75
2.66
3.12
3,22
3.32
3.03
3.17
2.34
3.47
3.48
3.10
3. 35
3.22
2.75
2.36
1.97
2.23
2.53
0.75
0.66
0.71
1.31
1.09
1,30
0.4*
0.82
0.63
0.55
1.20
0.14
l.OZ
1.02
3.20
2.4
2.65
3.07
2.85
.2.73
3.06
3.18
3.32
2.97
3.13
3.23
3.33
3.29
2,90
3.19
3.17
2.67
2.65
2.00
1.63
1.41
0.93
0.64
0.7»
1.42
2.98
2.20
0.80 0.41 14. 7.4
0.55 .39 12. 7.7
0.68 .40 13. 7.6
0.72 .55 9. 7.9
0.69 .63 13. 7.2
0.76 .77 14. 9.0
0.9* .85 11.5 6.9
1.07 1.36 11
6 7.9
1.73 2.28 1.9 8.3
2.45 2.2 6
2.26 2.2 6
2.51 2.65 6.
2.59 .73 1.
2.56 .71 0.
2.46 .55 4.
2.78 .65 0.
2.79 .89 0.
3.25 .28 0.
2.74 .87 0.
2.89 .92 0.
3.01 .11 0.
3.17 .10 0.
2.69 .66 0.
3.27 .19 0.
3.04 .01 0.
2.84 .94 0.
2.29 .44 6.
2,05 .17 0,
1.86 .69 18.
1.35 .28 18.
2,06 .15 8.
0.50 .76 17.
0.43 .50 10.
0.46 .64 14.
0.62 .63 12.C
0.66 .71 10.
0.64 0.68 11.
6 10.6
8 10.6
4 10.0
4 10.6
7 10.0
9 10.5
5 10.2
10.0
11.6
10.6
10.6
9.8
8.2
7.6
7.8
6.4
7.9
a.
8.
8.
8.
7.7
7,9
7.8
6.2
6.6
8.4
19.0 18.5
19.0 18.7
19.0 19.1
19.2 18.0
19.0 16.8
19.2 18.4
20,0 18.0
16.0 16.0
22.2 22,9
5.2 5.3
5.8 6.1
4.5 4.0
1.5 1.0
2.0 1.5
3.0 2.5
2.0 1.5
2,0 2.5
2.0 1.5
2-0 3.0
2.0 2.1
2.0 2.0
3.0 2.5
2.5 4.6
2.5 3.0
a. s 3.0
3.8 3.9
5.1 6.5
9.7 10.2
9.9 10.1
10.4 10.6
7.B 8.3
14.5 7.7
16.0 16.0
15.3 11.9
20.0 20.2
20.0 20.2
20.0 20.2
9-3
9.4
9.4
9-1
9-1
9.3
9.0
9.0
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.1
8.4
8.7
8.6
8.6
8.6
6.4
8.1
7.7
B.O
8.0
B.I
7.8
7.7
7.7
7.8
7.7
8.0
7.9
8.9
9.5
8.4
9.8
9.6
9.7
9.6
6.6
9.1
8.7
9.1
8.9
9-0
6.9
9.0
8.7
8.9
7.8
7.8
8.2 304
8.2 301
8.1 309
8. 1 307
8.3 306
8.5 260
8.1 322
8.6 332
8.4 307
8.4 342
8.6 331
8.1 346
8.2 337
8.3 340
7.9 339
7.9
7.9 318
7.7 317
7.8 325
7.7 299
8.0 280
10.2 260
8.8 260
9.1 253
8.8 270
9.3 251
9.6 253
9.. 5 252
9.5 249
9.5 274
9.5 262
\
-_
303
301
308
322
301
286
298
297
308
308
313
317
321
315
321
328
331
349
332
327
318
314
320
301
262
258
248
234
265
221
252
237
253
261
257
296
-------
TABLE A-7. PERFORMANCE OF THE 0.68 MM EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND FILTER (FILTER NO. 4)
Co
00
Dace
Filler Hun No. Il
HvdrnuHt Loading
Application Rate:
28
Monthly Ave.
September 2
Monthly Ave.
filter Run No. I:
Hydraulic Loading
September 16
24
29
Monthly Ave.
Monthly Ave.
filter Run Ave.
12
Filter Run Ave.
Fi leer Run No. 4:
Monthly Ave.
December 3
10
22
29
Monthly Ave.
January 7
21
28
Monthly Ave.
February 4
U
26
Monthly Ave.
Harch 3
10
23
Monthly Ave.
April 1
8
28
Month If Ave.
Hay 5
12
Monthly Ave.
Filter Bun Ave-
Pllter Run to. S:
Hydraulic Loading
Application Kate:
9
23
30
Monthly Ave.
July 7
U
28
Monthly Ave.
August 4
18
25
Monthly Ave.
BODj COD
na.cUt[ve day
5.0 46.7
14.6 48.7
15-6 4S.4
10.7 48.4
12.7 61.4
14.3 61.1
7.5 46.9
18.1 71.4
4.9 77.4
11.5 61.2
4.4 14.6
4.2 33.6
4.3 34.1
uacutlvc
9354 •*/!»• d
•V«*c (0.29
2.9 40.1
6.0 61.6
11.8 135.5
7.5 64.1
6.2 74.1
7.7 88.9
8.8 90.2
4.0 50.5
54.1
8.0 57-8
6.0 S4.1
eff,
ss
Inf.
•ft.
V55
inf.
eff.
(*g/D
tnf.
eff.
"V"
Cog/1)
Inf.
eff.
("g
tnf.
-H TXH
1) («W/1)
eff. inf. eff.
(ng/1) (Bg/1)
inf. eft. inf. eff.
(ng/D
Inf.
eff.
DO
(Dg/1)
pH
Alkalinity
(•K/D
d (1.0 HCAD)
fa)
78,7
51.6
50.7
29.0
24.2
35.4
35.1
35.6
31.2
14.1
13.2
0.029
0.043
1.049
0.435
0.602
0.203
0.011
0.217
0.024
0.026
0.011
0.443
1.44 0.92
1 48 0 55
1.21 0.84
0.55
0.68
0.69
o.so
0.51
0.63
19.0 19.0
19.0 19.0
19.1 18.3
13-
11.
12.4
7.5
6.S
9.4 9.0
9.4 9.0
9.1 8.9
:
d (2.0 MGAD)
44.2
32.6
IS. 2
38.3
of operati
45.9
a of ope rat
24.4
10.6
48.1
56.7
17.9
36. S
61.3
16.7
44.6
25.9
24.1
25.0
of opeiatii
(1.0 HEAD)
cfs)
28.1
40.5
66.2
SI. 6
44.7
66.5
62.3
37.6
38.1
45.9
40.5
26,3
17.7
35.4
16.4
11.3
30.6
on following 19
"•
9.3
10.1
13.4
9.3
8.5
19.4
16.4
51.5
28.6
13.2
11.7
12.5
8.9
22.7
64.6
22.4
20.8
13.9
36.0
12.2
20.1
20.0
30.7
11.8
7.4
15.4
14.9
15.1
5-7
12.6
24.4
15.5
15.6
3.2
3.9
2.9
3.8
36.4
11.1
6.8
14.3
17.2
2.9
4.0
5.6
15.4
9.2
17.9
days of
5.3
7.2
7.0
11.3
8.6
16.3
32.1
46.5
25.8
9.2
10.5
S.5
19.6
62.4
16.2
18.3
31.9
32.5
10.0
16.9
It. 3
S.6
5.2
6.3
resting
1.3
0.3
3.0
7.4
14.9
11.2
II. 7
21.1
15.5
14.7
2.4
1.1
2.0
3.0
15.5
9.0
S.I
12.7
15.8
1.8
2.5
4.6
3.3
11.5
0.778
1.139
1.282
and no
5.218
5.171
5.828
7.139
6.700
8.031
2.615
0.682
0.083
0.078
1.180
1.148
0.112
1.100
1.082
1.2*7
0.881
1.118
1.1*9
0.935
1.010
0.904
0.862
0.848
0.753
scraping
4.501
4.188
5-037
6.238
6.614
1.704
0.002
0.114
0.113
1.088
0.531
0.1*6
0.518
0.545
0.822
0.480
0.492
0.517
0.600
0.552
0.029
0.033
0.028
0.024
0.052
0.006
0.002
0.035
0.040
0.010
0.022
0.006
0.01*
0.008
0.016
0.071
0.010
0.016
0.0*0
0.019
0.013
0.024
0.020
0.1 SS
0.139
0.221
0.018
0-046
0.010
0.014
0.069
0.032
0.004
0.006
0.012
0.046
0.002
0.027
0.018
0.035
0.036
0.053
0.0*7
0.098
0.066
0.036
0.1S6
0.193
0.136
0.072
0.120
0.081
0.022
0.080
0.145
0.023
0.10*
0.019
0.041
0.06*
0.035
0.033
O.OU
0.039
0.02G
0.013
0.036
0.025
0-035
1.112
0.316
2.668
1.001 8.5 6.6
0.364 7.2 6.4
0.354 S.2 .7
0.541 7.7 8.2
10.5 10.4
0.441 1.4 9.1
1.113 7.6 5.5
1.496 6.6 2.9
0.104 1.8 1.3
0.368 2.0 l.l
0.104 1.9 2.1
4.000 3.7 1.4
2.910 6.9 6.2
0.700 . *.2 2.8
1.310 4.4 2.3
1.160 «.S 4.2
1.311 5.3 3.9
0.910 3.7 2.7
0.663 3.3 1.8
0. 700
0.765 4.6 2.3
1.340 5.0 3.1
1.19 1.02
1.08 1.01
1.95 1.83
1.46 1.26
8.6 7.6 2.43 2.41
7.3 6.6 2.59 2.30
5.3 6.1 2.27 2.17
7.9 7.5 2.33 2.44
7.8 8.7 3-12 3.06
3.22 3.22
1.4 9.7 3.47 3.68
7.7 6.6 1.97 2.11
6.7 4.1 2.25 2.12
2.1 1.7 0.72 0.66
1.9 2.3 0.31 1.20
3.7 5.4 1.30 1.31
*.2 3.3 1.74 1.69
4.4 1.6 1.63 1.73
6.3 3.4 1.76 1.61
5.5 3.4 1,73 1.60
3.7 3.6 1.47 1.3*
3.5 2.5 1.53 1.68
1.50 1.63
4.6 3.1 1.50 1.53
5.0 4.6 1.48 1.46
0.91
1.07
I.J3
1.21
2.30
2.16
2.09
2.51
2.79
3.17
1,86
1.2S
0.46
1.04
0.98
1.01
0.94
0.93
o.es
0.93
1.18
1.25
1.13
0.94
0.96
1.04
2.13
2.33
1.30
2.39
2.39
2.29
2.15
2.08
2.03
1.88
0.65
1.03
1.21
1.27
1.24
1.15
1.26
1.15
1.63;
1.17
1.68
1.19
16.0 15.9
22.2 22.0
22.2 22.0
18.0 17.9
7.1 7.0
7.1 7.0
4.9 7.1
5.5 6.5
9.9 10.
10.4 11.
16.0 15.
13.3 11.
17.0 17.0
16.2 IS. 8
23.0 23.3
23.0 22.0
23.0 24.0
23.2 23.6
23.0 22.0
20.5 20.2
20.0 19,5
21.2 20.6
21.0 20.9
11.8
1.9
1.9
10.6
S.3
5.3
6.7
11.4
18.2
18.4
10.6
14.1
S.2
10.8
8.5
9.7
4.0
10.*
9.8
8.7
9.3
9.8
8.6
8.3
8.3
8.8
10.0
10.8
10.2
11.2
8.
3.
8.2
6.2
7.3
1.4
8.0
6.9
5,4
6.6
5.2
7.0
6.1
6.2
9.0 9.0
8.3 7.8
B. a 8.6
8.3 8.3
8.1 8.0
7.8 8.0
8.3 8.3
7.7 8.1
8.9 8.4
9.5 8.1
9.6 9.5
9.7 9-6
8.6 8.5
9.1 8.8
9.0 9.0
9.4 9.0
9.2 8.9
9.3 9.0
8.6 8,2
8.8 7.4
8.8 8,0
8.7 7.9
9.1 8.7
304
299
337
330
307
289
306
260
307
148
317
280
260
260
253
253
252
210
272
234
249
203
233
254
284
263
267
247
301
297
297
337
332
307
272
301
303
315
321
323
321
329
334
334
315
300
277
256
217
223
255
246
242
244
221
263
244
211
239
238
244
ISO
261
267
259
249
-------
TABLE A-8. COLIFORM REMOVAL PERFORMANCE OF FILTER NO. 1 WITH 0.17 MM
EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
Total Coliform
per 100 ml
Fecal Coliform
per 100 ml
Date
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
0.17 mm (0.0067 inch) effective size sand filter (Filter No. 1)
Filter Run No. 2: 36 consecutive days of operation
Hydraulic Loading Rate: 3871.6 m3/ha-d(0.4 MGAD)
Application Rate: 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs)
Sept. 2, 1975
4
9
16
18
23
25
30
Oct. 2
Geometric Mean
1.1 (102)
4.0 (102)
1.5 (102)
4.3 (103)
3.9 (103)
2.3 (103)
9.3 (102)
4.3 (103)
7.0 (102)
5.8 (102)
40
90
140
2.3 (103)
40
40
30
30
90
81
30
30
40
30
30
30
30
30
30
31
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Filter Run No. 3: 166 consecutive days of operation
Nov. 18
Jan. 20
22
27
29
Feb. 3
5
10
12
17
19
24
26
3.3 (103)
2.3 Q03)
1.6 (10,)
3.3 (10?)
1.7 (104)
7.9 (103)
2.4 (104)
9.2 (104)
9.2 (104)
7.9 (104)
1.3 (lO5)
2.3 (104)
7.0 (104)
110
130
350
230
330
330
280
3.5 (103)
1.6 (104)
5.4 (104)
1.7 (104)
2.3 (104)
1.3 (104)
80
1.3 (10?)
A
5.4 (10*)
490
1.7 (10-3)
20
130
350
22
130
4.9 (103) 170
7.9 (103) 110
5.4 (104) 2.2 (103)
9.2 (104) 5.4 (103)
7.9 (104) 3-5 (10*)
3.3 (104) 7.9 (103)
4.9 (104) 7.9 (10?)
2.3 (104) 1.3 (104)
(continued)
139
-------
TABLE A-8. (CONTINUED)
Total Colifortn
per 100 ml
Fecal Coliform
per 100 ral
uace —
March 4
9
11
16
18
23
25
30
April 1
6
8
13
22
Geometric Mean
Filter Run No.
May 8
June 22
24
July 1
8
13
20
22
29
Aug. 17
19
Influent
4.9 (105)
3.3 (105)
3.3 (105)
_
4.9 (105)
2.2 (105)
4.9 (105)
7.9 (105)
4.9 (105)
4.9 (104)
4.9 (104)
2.2 (104)
1.6 (104)
3.0 (104)
Effluent
1.1 (104)
7.9 (103)
7.9 (103)
_
7.9 (103)
7.9 (103)
4.9 (103)
4.9 (104)
1.4 (104)
1.1 (103)
790
110
70
1.7 (103)
4: 103 consecutive days of
140
1.8 (103)
460
630
5.4 (10J)
540
490
330
220
23
1.7 (103)
70
240
1.3 (103)
410
130
540
790
330
3.5 (103)
5.4 (103)
350
Influent
2.2 (105)
3.3 (105)
3.3 (105)
_
1.3 (105)
1.7 (105)
7.9 (104)
1.7 (105)
1.1 (105)
4.9 (104)
4.9 (104)
2.0 (103)
1.3 (103)
2.6 (104)
operation
2
8
7
33
79
170
170
230
20
2
20
Effluent
1.1 (103)
3.3 (104)
2.3 (103)
—
4.9 (103)
1.7 (103)
2.3 (103)
1.1 (104)
7.9 (103)
200
790
50
20
8.4 (102)
2
2
2
2
23
33
5
4
8
2
2
Geometric Mean 3.0 (102) 5.7 (102)
24
140
-------
TABLE A-9. COLIFORM REMOVAL PERFORMANCE OF FILTER NO. 3 WITH 0.31 MM
EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND.
Total Coliform Fecal Coliform
per 100 ml per 100 ml
Date
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
0.31 mm (0.0122 inch) effective size sand filter (Filter No. 3)
Filter Run No. 1: 45 consecutive days of operation
Hydraulic Loading Rate: 9354 m3/ha'd(1.0 MGAD)
Application Rate: 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs)
July
1
8
13
20
22
29
Geometric Mean
630
5.4
540
490
330
220
6.3
(103)
(102)
4
1
2
3
2
2
7
.9
.3
.0
.5
.0
.4
.7
(10*)
do*)
(103)
(io4)
(103)
(IO3)
(IO3)
33
79
170
170
230
20
84
790
700
110
460
20
50
174
Filter Run No. 2: 14 consecutive days of operation
Application Rate: 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs)
Aug 17 23 2.4 (IO4) 20 HO
8" 19 1.7 dO3) 5.4 (IO4) 2 130
Geometric Mean 198 3.6 (IO4) 6.3
141
-------
TABLE A-10. COLIFORM REMOVAL PERFORMANCE OF FILTER NO, 2 WITH 0..4Q MM
EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND.
Total Coliform
per 100 ml
Fecal Coliform
per 100 ml
Date
Influent
Effluent
Influent
Effluent
0.40 mm (0.0158 inch) effective size sand filter (Filter No. 2)
Filter Run No. 2: 37 consecutive days of operation
Hydraulic Loading Rate: 9354 m3/ha-d(1.0 MGAD)
Application Rate: 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs)
Aug. 28 930
Sept. 2 110
4 40
9 150
16 4.3 (103)
18 3.9 (103)
23 230
25 930
30 4.3 (103)
Geometric Mean 6.0 (102)
9.3 (103)
930
230
4.3 (103)
110
930
30
9.3 (103)
1.8 (102)
Filter Run No. 3: 177 consecutive days
Nov.
Jan.
Feb.
March
4
6
13
18
20
22
29
3
5
10
12
17
19
24
26
4
9
220
20
3.3 (103)
3.3 (103)
2.3 (103)
1.6 (105)
1.7 (104)
7.9 (103)
2.4 (104)
9.2 (104)
9.2 (104)
7.9 (104)
7.0 (104)
1.3 (105)
2.3 (104)
4.9 (105)
4.9 (105)
7.0 (103)
110
1.3 (103)
330
7.9 (103)
340
1.7 (103)
230
2.3 (103)
5.4 (104)
170
2.4 (1Q4)
490
230
2.4 (104)
2.4 (104)
80
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
of operation
20
20
790
80
1.3 (103)
5.4 (104)
130
4.9 (103)
7.9 (103)
5.2 (104)
9.2 (104)
7.9 (104)
3.3 (104)
4.9 (104)
2.3 (104)
2.2 (105)
3.3 (105)
90
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
34
50
20
490
80
2.3 (103)
340
460
80
2.3 (103)
2.2 (104)
110
2.4 (104)
230
130
2.4 (104)
2.4 (104)
80
(continued)
142
-------
TABLE A-10. (CONTINUED)
Date
March 11
23
30
April 1
6
8
13
Geometric Mean
Filter Run
May 4
6
Geometric Mean
Filter Run
Application
Total Coliform
per 100 ml
Influent Effluent
3.3 (105) 2.4 (105)
2.2 (1Q5) 2.4 (105)
7.9 (105) 1.1 (105)
4.9 (105) 7.0 (104)
4.9 (104) 1.1 (104)
4.9 (104) 2.2 (104)
2.2 (104) 7.9 (103)
1.6 (104) 2.6 (103)
No. 4: 17 consecutive days of
3.5 (103) 3.5 (103)
140 170
7.0 (102) 7.7 (102)
No. 5: 30 non-consecutive days
Rate: 0.008 m3/sec (0.29 cfs)
Fecal Coliform
per 100 ml
Influent
3.3 (105)
1.7 (105)
1.7 (105)
1.1 (105)
4.9 (104)
4.9 (104)
2.0 (103)
1.1 (104)
operation
940
20
137
of operation
Effluent
1.6 (105)
1.3 (105)
1.1 (105)
4.6 (104)
4.9 (103)
1.4 (104)
1.3 (103)
1.8 (103)
240
23
74
(Utilizing primary lagoon effluent)
May 11
13
18
(?,£* rwno f- T* "i r* Mf* £1 n
3.5 (104) 5.4 (103)
1.7 (105) 7.9 (103)
4.9 (10*) 2.4 (105)
6.6 (104) 2.2 (104)
1.3 (104)
2.3 (10*)
1.7 (104)
1.7 (104)
330
230
2.2 (104)
1.2 (103)
143
-------
TABLE A-ll. COLIFORM REMOVAL PERFORMANCE OF FILTER NO. 3 WITH 0.68 MM
EFFECTIVE SIZE SAND
Total Coliform Fecal Coliform
per 100 ml per 100 ml
Date
Influent Effluent Influent Effluent
0.68 mm (0.0258 inch) effective size sand filter (Filter No. 3)
Filter Run No. 1: 11 consecutive days of operation
Hydraulic Loading Rate: 28,062 m3/ha-d(3.0 MGAD)
Application Rate: 0.048 m3/sec (1.68 cfs)
Aug. 28
Geometric Mean
930
930
7.5 (103)
7.5 (103)
30
30
0
0
Filter Run No. 2: 23 consecutive days of operation
Hydraulic Loading Rate: 18,708 m3/ha-d(2.0 MGAD)
Sept.
9
16
18
23
25
30
Geometric Mean
150
4.3
3.9
230
930
4.3
1.2
(103)
(103)
(103)
(io3)
230
2.3
1.5
390
70
4.3
6.7
(IO3)
(IO3)
(IO3)
(io2)
40
30
30
30
30
30
31
40
40
30
30
30
30
33
Filter Run No. 3: 19 consecutive days of operation following 19 days
of resting and no scraping
Nov.
4
6
13
18
Geometric Mean
Jan.
Feb.
Filter Run
20
29
3
5
10
220
20
3.3 (10J)
3.3 (IO3)
4.7 (IO2)
No. 4: 152
2.3 (IO3)
1.7 (IO4)
7.9 (IO3)
2.4 (IO4)
9.2 (IO4)
790
3.3 (IO3)
1.8 (IO3)
2.8 (IO3)
4.1 (IO3)
consecutive days
80
490
20
1.7 (IO4)
3.5 (IO4)
144
20
20
790
80
71
of operation
1.3 (IO3)
1.7 (IO3)
20
20
700
40
58
50
330
4.9 (IO3) 20
7.9 (IO3) 1.4 (IO4)
5.4 (IO4) 3.5 (IO4)
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-ll. (CONTINUED)
Date
Feb. 12
17
19
24
26
March 23
30
April 1
6
8
13
22
May 4
6
11
13
Total Coliform
per 100 ml
Influent
9.2 (104)
7.9 (104)
7.0 (104)
1.3 (105)
2.3 (104)
2.2 (105)
4.9 (105)
4.9 (105)
4.9 (104)
4.9 (104)
2.2 (104)
1.6 (104)
3.5 (103)
140
mm
-
Effluent
80
5.4 (104)
1.4 (103)
460
3.5 (104)
1.6 (10*)
7.8 (104)
3.3 (104)
6.3 (104)
1.1 (104)
1.3 (104)
800
1.4 (103)
110
_
-
Fecal Coliform
per 100 ml
Influent
9.2 (104)
7.9 (104)
3.3 (104)
4.9 (104)
2.3 (104)
1.7 (105)
1.7 (105)
1.1 (105)
4.9 (104)
4.9 (104)
2.0 (103)
1.3 (103)
940
20
2
2
Effluent
20
3.4 (104)
600
80
3.5 (104)
1.6 (105)
3.3 (104)
3.3 (104)
2.2 (104)
7.0 (103)
700
200
79
20
5
20
Geometric Mean
3.9 (104) 3.5 (103)
1.3 (1
-------
TABLE A-12. ALGAE AND ZOOPLANTON COUNTS
o>
Date
August 28, 1975
Filter No. 6
Filter No. 3
Filter No. 2
September 2
Filter No. 6
Filter No. 3
Filter No. 2
September 1 1
Filter No. 3
Filter No. 2
Filter No. 1
September 18
Filter No. 3
Filter No. 2
Filter No. 1
September 24
Filter No. 3
Filter No. 2
Filter No. 1
October 23
Filter No. 6
Filter No. 5
Filter No. 2
October 28
Filter No. 6
Filter No. 2
November 3
Filter No. 6
Filter No. 3
Filter No. 2
November 12
Filter No. 6
Filter No. 3
Filter No. 2
November 19
Filter No. 3
Filter No. 2
Filter No. 1
Cryptomonas OsciLlatoria Microcystis
(cells/ml) (cellsAil) (cells/ml)
inf.
4,704
4,704
4,704
588
588
588
-
-
-
392
392
392
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
20
20
20
20
-
-
-
39
39
39
eff. Inf.
78 294
274 294
431 294
-
294
294
98
244
-
549
118
-
157
40
-
-
-
-
-
39
-
20
20
20
78
59
-
59
20
eff. inf.
1,568
392 1,568
39 1,568
8,820
8,820
8,820
6,860
6,860
6,860
- 11,956
- 11,956
- 11,956
9,212
9,212
9,212
1,648
1,648
20 1,648
39
39
-
-
-
20
20
20
98
98
98
eff.
176
8,283
196
235
5,488
4,900
196
588
274
1,607
235
-
784
706
1,176
-
78
157
-
-
-
20
-
-
78
-
-
39
-
Chlamydomonas Pamella
(cells/ml) (cells/ml)
inf. eff. inf.
72,128
72,128
39 72,128
313,600
313,600
313,600
1,960 - 1,281,840
1,960 - 1,281,840
1,960 - 1,281,840
11,176
11,176
11,176
134,848
134,848
134,848
- - 59
- 59
59
_
-
39
- -
-
_
- -
-
20
39
20
eff.
16,934
94,080
921
5,449
8,232
35,672
138,768
116,816
14,426
6,742
5,645
4,665
19,757
19,130
81,536
-
294
176
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Navic
(cells
inf.
2,744
2,744
2,744
-
-
-
16,660
16,660
16,660
11,760
11,760
11,760
19,600
19,660
19,600
176
176
176
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ankistro-
ula Euglenoids desmus Other Algae Zooplankton
i/ml) (cells/ml) (cells/ml) (cells/ml) (0/1)
eff. inf.
20
98
706
-
-
-
1,568
686
118
1,254
823
39
274
157
-
-
-
216
-
20
-
_
-
-
39
-
118
-
-
eff. inf. eff. inf.
- 14,210
- - - 14,210
- - - 14,210
- - - 392
- 392
- 392
-
-
-
- - - 247,156
- 247,156
247,156
- 1,960
1,960
1,960
59
- 59
- 59
- - - 39
- 39
_
_
- - -
- - - 20
20
20
-
-
-
eff.
-
5,880
-
-
98
-
-
196
-
6,542
6,116
432
509
235
58
_
215
-
_
-
-
216
118
-
98
-
_
-
-
inf.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
-
76
76
76
34
34
30
30
30
4
4
4
8
8
8
eff.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
-
-
_
_
-
_
-
_
-
-
_
_
-
_
_
-
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-11. (CONTINUED)
Feb.
March
April
May
y
/lA/tma
Date
12
17
19
24
26
23
30
1
6
8
13
22
4
6
11
13
i-fi i- Mfiar
Total Coliform
per 100 ml
Influent
9.2 (104)
7.9 (104)
7.0 (104)
1.3 (105)
2.3 (104)
2.2 (105)
4.9 (105)
4.9 (105)
4.9 (104)
4.9 (104)
2.2 (104)
1.6 (104)
3.5 (103)
140
-
~
> 3.9 (104)
Effluent
80
5.4 (104)
1.4 (103)
460
3.5 (104)
1.6 (105)
7.8 (104)
3.34(104)
6.3 (104)
1.1 (104)
1.3 (104)
800
1.4 (103)
110
-
3.5 (103)
Fecal Coliform
per 100 ml
Influent
9.2 (104)
7.9 (104)
3.3 (104)
4.9 (104)
2.3 (104)
1.7 (10^)
1.7 (105)
1.1 (105)
4.9 (104)
4.9 (104)
2.0 (103)
1.3 (103)
940
20
2
2
1.3 (104)
Effluent
20
3.4 (104)
600
80
3.5 (104)
1.6 (105)
3.3 (104)
3.3 (104)
2.2 (104)
7.0 (103)
700
200
79
20
5
20
1.6 (103)
145
-------
TABLE A-12. ALGAE AND ZOOPLANTON COUNTS
Date
Cryptomonas OsctUatoria Microcystis
(cells/ml) (cellstal) (cells/ml)
inf.
eff. inf.
eff. inf.
eff.
Chlamydomonas Famella
(cells/ml) (cells/ml)
inf. eff. inf.
eff.
Ankistro-
Navicula Euglenoids desmus Other Algae Zooplankton
(cells/ml) (cells/ml) (cells/ml) (cells/ml) (///I)
inf.
eff. inf.
eff. inf. eff. inf.
eff.
inf.
eff.
August 28, 1975
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
September 2
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
September 1 1
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
September 18
Filter No.
Filter No.
I-1 Filter No.
.C-
September 24
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
October 23
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
October 28
Filter No.
Filter No.
November 3
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
November 12
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
November 19
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
6
3
2
6
3
2
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
6
5
2
6
2
6
3
2
6
3
2
3
2
1
4,704
4,704
4,704
588
588
588
-
-
-
392
392
392
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
20
20
20
20
-
-
-
39
39
39
78 294
274 294
431 294
-
294
294
98
244
-
549
118 -
-
157 -
40
-
-
-
-
-
39
-
20
20
20
78
59 -
-
59
20
1,568
392 1,568
39 1,568
8,820
8,820
8,820
6,860
6,860
6,860
- 11,956
- 11,956
- 11,956
9,212
9,212
9,212
1,648
1,648
20 1,648
39
39
-
-
-
20
20
20
98
98
98
176
8,283
196
235
5,488
4,900
196
588
274
1,607
235
-
784
706
1,176
-
78
157
-
-
-
20
-
-
78
-
-
39
-
72,128
72,128
39 72,128
313,600
313,600
313,600
1,960 - 1,281,840
1,960 - 1,281,840
1,960 - 1,281,840
11,176
11,176
11,176
134,848
134,848
134,848
- - 59
- - 59
- 59
_
_
- 39
- -
-
_
- -
_ -
- 20
39
20
16,934
94,080
921
5,449
8,232
35,672
138,768
116,816
14,426
6,742
5,645
4,665
19,757
19,130
81,536
-
294
176
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
2,744
2,744
2,744
-
-
-
16,660
16,660
16,660
11,760
11,760
11,760
19,600
19,660
19,600
176
176
176
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
98
706
_
_
-
1,568
686
118
1,254
823
39
274
157
-
-
-
216
-
20
-
_
-
_
39
-
118
-
-
- - - 14,210
14,210
- - - 14,210
392
392
- 392
_
_
-
- - - 247,156
- 247,156
247,156
- - - 1,960
1,960
1,960
59
59
59
- 39
- 39
_
-
- - -
20
20
- 20
-
-
-
-
5,880
-
-
98
-
_
196
-
6,542
6,116
432
509
235
58
_
215
-
_
-
_
216
118
_
98
-
_
_
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
_
_
_
_
_
-
76
76
76
34
34
30
30
30
4
4
4
8
8
8
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
-
_
-
_
_
-
_
_
-
_
_
_
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-12. (CONTINUED)
Date
Cryptomonea OacillatDrla MLcrocyatla
(cells/ml) (cells/ml) (cells/ml)
November 26
Filter Ho, 6
Filter No. 5
Filter No. 4
Filter No. 3
Filter No. 2
Filter No. 1
December 3
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
December 10
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
December 17
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
December 22
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
December 29
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No,
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
inf.
39
39
39
39
39
39
20
20
20
980
980
980
588
588
588
784
784
784
1,372
1,372
1,372
eff. inf.
39 -
59 -
98 -
78 -
98 -
20 -
137 -
39 -
59 -
392 -
588 -
157 -
588 -
588 -
392 -
980 -
392 -
588 -
980 -
588 -
196 -
eff. inf.
98
98
98
98
98
98
20
20
20
- 1,176
1,176
1,176
392
392
392
196
196
196
-
-
-
eff.
I
20
20
20
196
196
20
196
392
-
392
588
-
-
-
196
Chlamydomonaa
(cella/ml)
inf.
-
1,117
1,117
1,117
10,192
10,192
10,192
5,480
5,480
5,480
6,860
6,860
6,860
8,624
8,624
8,624
eff.
10
12
2
3
4
5
4
6
2
20
216
549
137
,584
,348
,783
,920
,900
588
,880
,508
392
,272
,940
784
Ankiatro-
Pamella Navicula Euglenoida deamua
(cella/ml) (cella/ml) (cella/ml) (cella/fal)
inf. eff. inf.
-
-
-
-
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
392
eff. inf. eff. inf. eff.
78 - -
78 - -
20 ...
...
_
.
...
...
39 -
...
196 -
-
196 - ...
196 - ...
-
392 -
196 - -
Other Algae Zooplankton
(cella/ml) (till)
Inf. eff. inf. eff.
40 12 -
40 20 12
40 79 12 -
40 12 -
40 12 -
40 12 -
18
20 18 -
18 -
10 -
10
10 -
- 8 -
- 8 -
8 -
10 -
10 -
10 -
196 196 8 -
196 - 8 -
196 - S -
January 7, 1976
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
January 14
Filter No.
Filter No,
Filter No.
January 21
Filter 'No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
1,568
1,568
1,568
980
980
980
1,176
1,176
1,176
980 -
588 -
196 -
784 -
392 -
196 -
784 -
392 -
196 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
392
392
392
-
-
-
-
-
-
196
196
-
9,604
9,604
9,604
10,976
10,976
10,976
9,408
9,408
9,408
7
3
1
9
4
6
3
1
,840
,528
,960
,016
,704
784
.272
,920
,176
392
392
392
588
588
588
-
.
-
588 - - 196 -
196 - - 196 -
196 - - 196 -
588 - -
.
196 - -
- 196 -
196 - - 196 -
- 196 -
36
36 -
196 36 -
24 -
196 24
24 -
32 -
32 -
32 -
(continued)
-------
TABLE A-12. (CONTINUED)
oo
Date
February 18
'Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
February 26
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
March 10
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
March 17
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
March 23
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
June 30
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
July 14
Filter No.
Filter No.
July 21
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
August 18
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
Filter No.
Cryptomonas Oscillatoria Microcystis
(cells/ml) (cella/ral) (cells/ml)
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
5
3
1
4
1
5
3
1
5
4
3
1
inf. eff. inf.
_
_
- - -
-
_
- - -
20 20
20
20 -
- - 20
20
- - 20
60 - 60
60 - 60
60 - 60
_
_
-
157
157
- - 39
39
39
60
60
- - 60
20 60
eff.
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
-
175
40
-
155
-
-
314
-
98
-
78
-
59
59
20
40
98
20
40
inf.
-
-
-
-
-
-
60
60
60
_
-
-
-
-
-
451
451
451
2,097
2,097
1,058
1,058
1,058
630
630
630
630
eff.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
40
-
-
-
-
-
-
255
196
20
1,137
79
176
-
-
39
177
725
39
Chlamydomonas
(cells/ml)
inf.
1,196
1,196
1,196
764
764
764
215
215
215
235
235
235
314
314
314
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
eff.
1,921
1,000
294
510
353
216
294
59
-
175
40
40
196
80
60
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Anklstro-
Pamella Navicula Euglenoids desmus
(cells/ml) (cells/ml) (cells/ml) (ce]ls/tnl)
inf. eff. inf. eff. inf.
_
_
_
_
_
-
_
_
_
-
_
-
_
_
- - - -
39 3,881
- 3,881
- 3,881
- 1,392
- 1,392
- 4,939
- 4,939
- 4,939
784
784
784
- - 39 784
eff.
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
431
1,411
157
2,352
1,137
1,274
2,136
1,666
-
137
372
-
inf. eff.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
235 118
235 98
235 59
-
117
39 118
39 -
39 -
79
79 40
79 20
79 137
Other Algae
(cells/ml)
inf.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
20
20
20
-
-
-
7,272
7,272
7,272
6,506
6,506
7,878
7,878
7,878
335,199
335,199
335,199
335,199
eff.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
3,786
4,861
1,883
3,403
1,335
4,940
3,724
79
125,038
186,513
278,905
90,356
Zooplankton
(///I)
inf. eff.
4
4
4
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
340 -
340
-
- -
-
420
420
420
420
-------
APPENDIX B
COST ESTIMATES
Cost Estimates No. 1
Design Flow: 0.1 MGD
Design Hydraulic Loading Rate: 0.2 MGAD
Locally Available Sand
depth
Interest Rate: 7%
Economic Life
Land—100 years
Embankment—50 years
Pumps—10 years
Sand—20 years
Gravel—50 years
Equipment—10 years
Other—50 years
Lining And Ramp—20 years
Initial Construction Cost (in place):
Item
Filter media (sand)
Washed gravel
Pump (850 gpm)
Excavation and embankment
Building
Distribution system
Distribution pipe (10 inch)
PVC pipe (10 inch)
Collection pipe (10 inch)
Ductile iron pipe
Land
Bed Lining
Filter access ramp
0.17 mm effective size filter sand @ 3 feet bed
Quantity
4,294 yd^
1,742 ydJ
2
13,723
1
2
600 ft.
300 ft.
900 ft.
100 ft.
3 acres
61,284 ft
26 ft.
Unit
Cost
7.50
7.50
3000.00
4.50
1500.00
600.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
10.50
1200.00
0.30
36.00
Total
Cost
32,205.00
13,065.00
6,000.00
61,753.50
1,500.00
1,200.00
1,500.00
750.00
2,250.00
1,050.00
3,600.00
18,385.00
936.00
Initial Maintenance Cost
Tractor w/front end
loader and scraper
10,000.00
Total Cost
10,000.00
$154,194.70
149
-------
Amortization
Land: (3600) (0.07008) = 252
Pipe: (1500 + 750 + 2250 + 1050) (0.07246) = 402
Sand: (32,205) (0.09439) = 3,040
Gravel: (13,065) (0.07246) = 947
Pumps: (6,000) (0.14238) = 854
Embankment: (61,753.5) (0.07246) = 4,475
Building: (1500) (0.07246) = 109
Dist. Sys.: (1200) (0.07246) = 87
Lining & Ramp: (18,385 + 936) (0.09439) = 1,824
Tractor: (10,000) (0.14238) = 1,424
Total $13,413
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
Maintenance Cost: 1,000/yr.
Manpower Cost: (1/3 man-year @ 10,000 year) 3,333/yr.
Power 15 H.P. @ 2 hrs. of daily operation 327/yr.
@ $0.04/kw hr
Sand Washing (amortized at 7%) 300/yr.
Total $4,960/yr.
Total Annual Cost $18,373
With federal assistance, 75% of construction costs paid by federal
government, remaining 25% financed at 7% for 20 years.
(154,194.7) (0.25) (0.09439) = 3,639
O.M. 4,960
$8,599/yr.
With federal assistance
Total annual cost _ $8,599/yr
Total annual flow 0.1 MGD 365 d/yr
$0.23/1000 gal.
Without federal assistance
Total annual cost _ $18,373 / yr _ acn^/M
Total annual flow (0.1) (365) ~ ^OJ/M-G-
$0.50/1000 gal.
Construction Cost Per Acre
$144,194/acre
150
-------
Cost Estimates No. 2
Design Flow: 1 MGD
Hydraulic Loading Rate: 1 MGAD
Mechanically Sieved Sand: 0.68 mm or 0.40 mm or 0.31 mm effective size
filter sand @ 3 feet bed depth
Interest Rate: 7%
Economic Life:
Land—100 years
Embankment—50 years
Pumps—10 years
Sand—20 years
Gravel—50 years
Equipment—10 years
Other—50 years
Lining & Ramp: 20 years
Initial Construction Cost (in place):
Item
Filter media (sand)
Washed gravel
Pump (5000 gpm)
Excavation and Embankment
Building
Distribution System
Distribution Pipe (10 inch)
Collection Pipe (10 inch)
PVC Pipe (10 inch)
Ductile Iron Pipe
Land
Bed Lining
Filter Access Ramp
Initial Maintenance Cost
Tractor w/ front end
loader & scraper
Quantity
8,890 yd3
3,855 yd3
2
23,466 yd
1
4
960 ft.
1,250 ft.
400 ft.
100 ft.
5 acres
111,584 ft2
26 ft.
Unit
Cost
10.00
7.50
5,000.00
4.50
1,500.00
600.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
10.50
1,200.00
0.30
36.00
Total
Cost
88,900.00
28,912.50
10,000.00
105,597.00
1,500.00
2,400.00
2,400.00
3,125.00
1,000.00
1,050.00
6,000.00
33,475.20
936.00
10,000.00
10,000.00
Total Cost
$295,295.70
151
-------
Amortization
Land: (6000) (0.07008) =
Pipe: (2400 + 3125 + 1000 + 1050) (0.07246) =
Sand: (88,900) (0.09439) =
Gravel: (28,912.5) (0.07246) =
Pumps: (10,000) (0.14238) =
Embankment: (105,597) (0.07246) =
Building: 1500 (0.07246) =
Dist. Sys.: (2400) (0.07246) =
Lining & Ramp: (33,475.2 + 936) (0.09439) =
Tractor: (10,000) (0.14238) =
Total
420
549
8,391
2,095
1,424
7,652
109
174
3,248
1,424
$25,486
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
Maintenance Cost:
Manpower Cost: (1/2 man-year @ $10,000/yr)
Power: 50 H.P. @ 33 hrs. of daily operation
@ $0.04/kw hr.
Sand Washing (amortized at 7%):
Total
Total Annual Cost:
2,000/yr.
5,000/yr.
1,797/yr.
500/yr.
$9,297/yr.
$34,783/yr.
With federal assistance, 75% of construction costs paid by federal
government, remaining 25% financed at 7% for 20 years.
295,295.70 (0.25) (0.09439)
O.M.
6,968/yr.
9,297/yr.
$16,265/yr.
With federal assistance
Total annual cost
Total annual flow
Without federal assistance
Total annual cost
Total annual flow
$16.265/yr
(1 MGD) 365 d/yr
$34,783/yr
(1 MGD) (365 d/yr)
Construction Cost Per Acre
$285,296/2 Acres = $142,648/Acre
152
$45/M.G.
$0.04/1000 gal.
$95/M.G.
$0.10/1000 gal.
-------
Cost Estimate No. 3
Design Flow: 1 MGD
Design Hydraulic Loading Rate: 0.4 MGAD
Locally Available Sand: 0.17 mm effective size filter sand @ 3 feet bed
depth
Interest Rate: 7%
Economic Life:
Land—100 years
Embankment—50 years
Pumps—10 years
Sand—20 years
Gravel—50 years
Equipment—10 years
Other—50 years
Lining & Ramp—20 years
Initial Construction Cost (in place):
Item
Filter media (sand)
Washed gravel
Pump (5000 gpm)
Excavation and Embankment
Building
Distribution System
Distribution Pipe (10 inch)
Collection Pipe (10 inch)
PVC Pipe (10 inch)
Ductile Iron Pipe
Land
Bed Lining
Filter Access Ramp
Quantity
21,900 yd?
9,348 yd3
61,446 yd3
1
6
2,400 ft.
3,600 ft.
2,400 ft.
100 ft.
10 acres
283,608 ft2
78 ft.
Unit
Cost
Total
Cost
7.50
7.50
5,000.00
4.50
1,500.00
600.00
2.50
2.50
2.50
10.50
1,200.00
0.30
36.00
164,250.00
70,110.00
15,000.00
276,507.00
1,500.00
3,600.00
6,000.00
9,000.00
6,000.00
1,050.00
12,000.00
85,082.40
2,808.00
Initial Maintenance Cost
Tractor w/front end
loader & scraper
10,000.00 10,000.00
Total Cost
$662,907.40
153
-------
Amortization
Land: (12,000) (0.07008) = 841
Pipe: (6000 + 9000 + 6000 + 1050) (0.07246) - 1,598
Sand: (164,250) (0.09439) = 15,504
Gravel: (70,110) (0.07246) = 5,080
Pumps: (15,000) (0.14238) = 2,136
Embankment: 276,507 (0.07246) = 20,036
Building: (1500) (0.07246) = 109
Distribution System: (3600) (0.07246) = 261
Lining and Ramp: (85,082.4 + 2808) (0.09439) - 8,296
Tractor: (10,000) (0.14238) = 1,424
Total 55,285
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs
Maintenance Cost: 2,000/yr.
Manpower Cost: (1/2 man-year @ 10,000/yr) 5,000/yr.
Power: 50 H.P. @ 1 2/3 hours of daily operation 1,819/yr.
2 pumps operated daily @ $0.04/kw hr
Sand Washing (amortized at 7%): 1,200/yr.
Total 10,019/yr.
Total Annual Cost $65,304
With federal assistance, 75% of construction costs paid by federal
government, remaining 25% financed at 7% for 20 years.
662,907.40 (0.25) (0.09439) = $15,643/yr.
0. M. = $10,019/yr.
$28,912/yr.
With federal assistance
Total annual cost = $25.662/yr =
Total annual flow (1 MGD) 365 d/yr
- $0.07/1000 gal.
Without federal assistance
Total annual cost = $65.304/yr «S17Q/M r
Total annual flow (1 MGD) 365 d/yr ?*• /»/*!•<».
= $0.18/1000 gal.
Construction Cost Per Acre
652,907/5 Acres = $13,581/Acre
154
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing
EPA-600/2-79-152
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SEPARATION OF ALGAL CELLS FROM WASTEWATER LAGOON
EFFLUENTS; Volume II: Effect of Sand Size on the
Performance of Intermittent Sand Filters
5. REPORT DATE
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
August 1979 (Issuing Date)
Basil Tupyi, D. S. Filip, James H. Reynolds,
and E. Joe Middlebrooks
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Utah Water Research Laboratory
Utah State University
Logan, Utah 84322
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BC822, SOS #3, Task D-l/19
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
Contract No. 68-03-0281
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory—Cin.,OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final 4/1/75-12/30/76
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/14
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Project Officer: Ronald F. Lewis (513) 684-7644
See also Volume I, EPA-600/2-78-033, NTIS PB 284925/AS, and Volume III, EPA-600/2-78-
097. PB 292537/AS
16. ABSTRACT
Varying effective sand sizes, hydraulic loading rates, and application rates
resulted in profound effects on effluent quality of single stage intermittent sand
filtration for secondary wastewater lagoon effluents. The finer effective sand size
produced an effluent that satisfied the State of Utah, Class C Regulations except for
the requirements for coliform bacteria counts. The lower effective sand size produced
greater influent 5-day biochemical oxygen demand and suspended solids removals. Very
high coliform removal was exhibited by all prototype intermittent sand filters. The
length of consecutive days of operation without plugging by the algae was increased
by lowering the hydraulic loading rate.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
Waste treatment
*Lagoons (ponds)
*Sand filtration
*Algae
Intermittent sand
filtration
Effective sand sizes
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to Public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
167
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77)
155
5 U.S. GOVF.BIWBITPBIKTING OFFICE 1979 -637-060/5458
------- |