WT - Slow Sand Filtration

Slow Sand Filtration

by Mary Rust and Katie McArthur

Introduction
The history of slow sand filtration in the United
reluctant acceptance. Many European cities choose
water treatment method because of its simplicity,
(Collins). Slow sand filters in the United States

States has been one of

slow sand filtration as a
reliability, and economy
are found primarily in smaller

communities with fewer than 10,000 people, 45% of which serve fewer than 1,000
people (Sims). This is primarily due to the associated low cost of slow sand
treatment facilities compared with alternative water treatment technologies
(Sims). The number of operating slow sand filters by state in the United States
as of 1991 can be seen in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Number of slow sand filters operating in each state as of 1991. (Sims)

Physical Characteristics
Slow sand filtration is a water purification process in which water is passed
through a porous bed of filter medium. Slow sand filters are typically
characterized by certain design components: the supernatant (water above the
filter sand that provides hydraulic head for the process), filter sand varying
in depth, the underdrain medium (usually consisting of graded gravel), and a set
of control devices (Sims). In a mature sand bed, a thin upper sand layer called
a Schmutzedecke forms. The Schmutzedecke consists of biologically active
microorganisms that break down organic matter while suspended inorganic matter
is removed by straining (Van Duk). Slow sand filters are distinguished from
rapid sand filters by the biologically active sand medium (including the
Schmutzedecke), and slow detention times. Rapid sand filters utilize primarily a
physical removal process, are periodically backwashed for cleaning, and operate
with long detention times. Slow sand filters are cleaned by periodically
scraping the existing Schmutzedecke (Van Duk). Figure 2 is a schematic of a
common cross section of a slow sand filter.
Figure 2. Typical cross section of a slow sand filter.
Drawing by Mary Rust
The supernatant serves two distinct purposes. First, it provides a head of water
sufficient to pass the raw water through the filter bed. Second, the supernatant
creates a detention time of several hours for the treatment of the raw water.
The supernatant should not be considered as a reservoir for sedimentation. If
the raw water has a high content of suspended mater, then pretreatment should be
considered to prevent rapid clogging of the filter bed. The supernatant depth is
typically a meter (Van Duk).
The physical characteristics of a sand bed are important in maintaining the slow
sand filter s efficiency. The effective size is the size opening that will pass
ten percent by weight of the filter material (Haarhoff). Effective sizes in the
range of 0.15 mm to 0.35 mm are used (Van Duk). The uniformity coefficient is

the ratio of the size openings that pass sixty percent of filter material to the
size openings that pass ten percent of filter material, e.g. the effective size
(Haarhoff). Uniformity coefficients range between two and five; most facilities
maintain uniformity coefficients less than three (Haarhoff). The filter medium
itself should consist of inert and durable grains; sand should be washed so that
it is free of clays, loams, and organic matter. Depth of a filter bed ranges
between 1.0 and 1.4 meters (Van Duk). The clean filter medium from a slow sand
filter in a treatment plant near Paris, France can be seen in Figure 3.
Photo by Dr. Robert Hoehn
Figure 3. Clean slow sand filter without supernatant water layer.
The underdrain system serves two purposes. It provides unobstructed passage for
the collection of treated water and it supports the bed of filter medium. It is
important that the underdrain system provide a uniform velocity over the entire
filter area (Van Duk). The underdrain gravel is placed so that the finest gravel
is directly underneath the sand and the coarsest gravel is surrounding the
underdrain pipes or covering the underdrain block (Pyper). This prevents the
filter sand grains from being carried into the treated water system. An example
of support media and underdrain system is shown in Figure 4.
Photo by Dr. Robert Hoehn
Figure 4. Underdrain and support media.
Biological and Physical Mechanisms
Biological activity in the sand bed is not well understood. Scientists have a
vague idea of the processes involved, but specific interactions are still
unknown. Suggested biological removal mechanisms are predation, scavenging,
natural death and inactivation, and metabolic breakdown (Haarhoff). In the
Schmutzedecke, algae, plankton, diatoms, and bacteria break down organic matter
through biological activity. It has been hypothesized that as the raw water
passes through the bed, it constantly changes direction. Thus, the sand grains
develop a uniform sticky layer of organic material that absorbs to the particles
by various attachment mechanisms. The sticky layer around the sand grains is
biologically active (bacteria, protozoa, bacteriophages) and the organic
impurities are biologically converted to water, carbon dioxide and harmless
salts. According to a study by Collins, the bacterial concentrations in the
Schmutzedecke were a function of the elapsed time and potential for cell growth
rather than the filtration of free-living bacteria from the source water
(Collins). The biologically active section of the entire filter bed extends
0.4-0.5 m downward from the surface of the Schmutzedecke (Van Duk).
Physical processes are also inherent to slow sand filter mechanisms. As the
biological activity of the filter bed decreases, the physical processes of
adsorption and chemical oxidation are the primary mechanisms (Van Duk).
Adsorption accounts for removals that were traditionally thought to be purely
biological. For example, the removal of chlorinated organics and the
distribution of viruses are thought to follow adsorption isotherms (Haarhoff).
Furthermore, suspended inorganic matter may be removed by the physical process
of straining (Van Duk).
Organic Carbon Removal
Adsorption and biodegradation are considered to be the primary natural organic
matter removal mechanisms (Collins). Literature cited by Collins suggests that
large hydrophobic-humic organic molecules are removed by adsorption, and smaller
organic molecules are removed by both adsorption and biodegradation. The smaller

hydrophilic material (carbohydrates, aldehydes, and simple organic acids) are

considered to be primarily removed by biodegradation. A common oxidant for the
treatment of water in the United States is chlorine; the hydrophobic-humic
organics (considered to be the more trihalomethane reactive) were removed in
greater than 80% of all comparisons of organic parameters cited in the Collins
study.
Another interesting aspect of the Collins paper was the fact that natural
organic matter and organic precursor material were a function of filter media
biomass: the greater the biomass, the greater the organic carbon removals. Three
US sand filters were compared; the West Hartford filters use a unique
Schmutzedecke cleaning procedure called the filter-harrowing cleaning technique
(discussed in more detail under Filter Scraping). This procedure allows for the
minimization of biomass removal from mature sand filters resulting in increased
removals of biodegradation and bioadsorption (Collins).
Removal of Giardia and Cryptosporidia
In the past decade the protozoan parasite Cryptosporidium parvum has been
recognized as a significant threat to public water supplies. The resistant stage
of Cryptosporidia is called an oocyst; this stage is relatively untouched by a
chlorination disinfection process. Slow sand filtration has been looked at in
numerous studies to determine the viability of this treatment process for the
removal of Cyrptosporidia. A study in England by Timms found reductions of
oocysts greater than 99.97%; the oocysts were found in the filter media above
2.5 cm. Another study in British Columbia by Fogel contradicts the
aforementioned study. Fogel found removal efficiencies of 48%; this figure is
significantly different than the 100% removals Fogel cites from previous
literature. However, a point to note concerning the British Columbia filters is
that they were operating well out of the range of the recommended design limits
for the uniformity coefficient at 3.5 (Fogel). Furthermore, temperature can
adversely affect the performance of a slow sand filter; the British Columbia
filters were operating at extremely low temperatures of less than 1C (Fogel).
Overall, the literature supports data that strongly suggests slow sand
filtration is a viable alternative for Cryptosporidia removals.
Slow sand filters have also been proven highly efficient in removing Giardia
lamblia, a frequently identified pathogenic intestinal protozoa. The same study
by Fogel found that despite the uniformity coefficient parameter and the low
temperatures, Giardia removals were complete. This data was further supported by
literature cited by Fogel. Furthermore, fecal and total coliform
below the detection limit, and the removal rates were similar to
removals (Fogel).
Schmutzedecke Scraping Operations
Scraping typically involves the removal of the Schmutzedecke and
is site specific. Frequency of scraping depends on the available

counts were
Giardia
the operation
head, the media

grain-size distribution, the influent water quality, and the water temperature
(Letterman). Higher frequencies of scraping are associated with increased water
temperature, high solids concentrations in the influent, low head, and small
media pore size. A typical operation involves draining the supernatant (usually
by continuing filtration with no influent) to 20 cm below the sand surface,
skimming off one inch of the Schmutzedecke and associated sand, and then filling
the filter from the bottom of the bed using filtered water to prevent air
entrapment. The bed should be refilled until depth is sufficient to continue
normal operations (Letterman). A filter in the process of having the
Schmutzdecke scraped is shown in Figure 5.
Photo by Dr. Robert Hoehn
Figure 5. Removal of Schmutzdecke.

The study by Collins at West Hartford Treatment Plant suggests a unique way to
scrape the Schmutzedecke that minimizes the amount of biomass removed. The
supernatant is drained to a height roughly 30 cm above the bed. A rubber-tired
tractor equipped with a comb-tooth harrow is place on top of the filter to rake
the sand; simultaneously the filter drains are opened, causing a steady
discharge of overlying water. As the Schmutzedecke is loosened, the colloidal
debris is caught by the moving water and discharged at the filter surface drain.
The process is repeated as necessary by backflushing until the entire filter
surface has been harrowed (Collins).
Summary comments by Dr. Robert Hoehn on the use of slow sand filtration in the
United States.
If you are interested in the latest concerns about the operation of slow sand
filters in the United States you may want to take a look at the AWWA Slow Sand
Filtration Forum.
References
Collins, Robin M., T. Taylor Eighmy, James M. Fenstermacher Jr., and Stergios
K. Spanos. "Removing Natural Organic Matter by Conventional Slow Sand
Filtration." Journal of the American Water Works Association 84.5 (1992):
80-90.
Fogel, Doug, Judith Isaac-Renton, Ronald Guasparini, William Moorehead, and
Jerry Ongerth. "Removing Giardia and Cryptosporidium by Slow Sand Filtration."
Journal of the American Water Works Association 85.11 (1993): 77-84.
Haarhoff, Johannes, and John L. Cleasby. "Biological and Physical Mechanisms
in Slow Sand Filtration." Slow Sand Filtration. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers, 1991.
Letterman, Raymond D. "Operation and Maintenance." Slow Sand Filtration. New
York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1991.
Pyper, Gordon R., and Gary S. Logsdon. "Slow Sand Filter Design." Slow Sand
Filtration. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers, 1991.
Sims, Ronald C., and Lloyd A. Slezak. "Slow Sand Filtration: Present Practice
in the United States." Slow Sand Filtration. New York: American Society of
Civil Engineers, 1991.
Timms, S., J.S. Slade, and C.R. Fricker. "Removal of Cryptosporidium by Slow
Sand Filtration." Water Science and Technology 31.5-6 (1994): 81-84.
J.C. Van Duk and J.H.C.M. Oomer, "Slow Sand Filtration for Community Water
Supply in Developing Countries," Technical Paper No. 2, WHO International
Reference Centre for Community Water Supply, Voorburg (The Hague), The
Netherlands, 1978.

Water Treatment Table of Contents

Previous Topic
Next Topic

Send comments or suggestions to:

Student Authors: Katie McArthur, kmcarthu@vt.edu and Mary Rust, mrust@vt.edu
Faculty Advisor: Daniel Gallagher, dang@vt.edu
Copyright 1996 Daniel Gallagher
Last Modified: 02/24/1998