Water Filtration by Using of Glass Plastic and Aluminum Filings as a Filter Media

8/9/2019 Water Filtration by Using of Glass Plastic and Aluminum Filings as a Filter Media

1/19


2/19

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –

6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online), Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 80-98 © IAEME

81

best medium comparison with sand in terms of run time when the gradation and its depth were

changed.

In the second stage, the glass, plastic and aluminum media had run time longer than it for

sand media by (9.1- 17.6) %, (19.2- 31.5) % and (19.2- 29.4) % respectively, so the plastic was the

best medium comparison with sand medium in terms of run time when the filtration velocity was

increased.In the last stage, the glass, plastic and aluminum media had run time longer than it for sand

media by (10.7- 15.7) %, (19.2- 26.3) % and (15.3- 25) %, so the plastic was best medium

comparison with sand medium in terms of run time when the Ci was increased.

The backwashing for sand media needed amount of water less than the amount of water for

glass, plastic and aluminum filings. This difference coincides with that the reserved turbidity in sand

media was less than it in solid wastes filings, so it was needed less amount of water to cleaning sand

medium.

INTRODUCTION

One of the major goals of sustainable solid wastes management was to aggrandizement the

capacity of its reusing and recycling. Reusing is a reasonable option for materials not adequate forcompositing.

In water filtration there are many types of mechanisms which are rapid sand filter (RSF),

slow sand filter (SSF), roughing, multistage filtration, pressure filter and diatoms earth filter. The

most common factors influencing the selection of filter media were the effective size (ES) or (D10)

and uniformity coefficient (UC) as well as other factors like density, grain size, shape, and porosity

The flow rate in a conventional rapid filter is in the range of (5 – 15) m3 /m

2hr through sand filter

media in height of (60-70) cm, D10 from 0.4 mm until 1.4 mm and UC ≤ 1.5.

Hudson, (1959) and (1981) showed that rounded particles produce purer water than angular

particles because of angular media had greater porosity. Trussell et al., (1980) pointed out that

angular media results in an improved performance from each side. As well as Kawamura, (1999)

announced that angular grains usually perform better than rounded.

Rutledge and Gagnon, (2002) examined the use of crushed glass rather than silica sand in

dual-media filtration. One filter was composed of pulverized recycled glass and anthracite layers

while the other filter contained silica sand and anthracite. Both filters contained a 60 cm deep layer

of anthracite over 40 cm of either glass or silica sand. Filtration rate was 5 m/h.

Nasser, (2010) studied the performance of crushed glass solid wastes as filter media through

pilot filtration unit. The filter column had 10 cm in diameter, depth of media was 70cm, height of

column was 180cm, and flow rate was (5- 15)m/hr. Different depths and different grain sizes of

crushed glass were used as mono and dual media with sand and porcelaniate in the filtration process.

Sundarakumar, (1996) examined four combinations of filter media in pilot filtration unit. The

column of filtration was 40 cm of inner diameter, 225 cm of height, and 100cm of media depth.

Conventional rapid sand filter(D10 = 1 mm with depth 100 cm), combined sand of (D10 = 1 mm with

depth 57 cm depth) and polypropylene media of (D10 =3.66 mm with 43 cm), ,combined coarse sandof (D10 = 2.5 mm with 57 cm depth) and polypropylene media filter (D10 = 3.66mm with 43 cm

depth), and synthetic floating dual media comprises polypropylene of (D10 = 2.57 mm with 55 cm

depth) and polystyrene of (D10 = 1.1 mm with 45 cm depth)

Alwared and Zeki, (2014) studied the ability of using aluminum filings which is locally solid

waste as a mono media in gravi6ty rapid filter. This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of

variation of influent water turbidity (10, 20 and 30 NTU), flow rate (30, 40, and 60 l/hr).


3/19



82

EXPERIMENTAL WORK

1-

Filter Media

Sand and GravelThe sand and gravel for this study were brought from the local market, the gradations for

sand were (0.6- 1) mm, (1- 1.4) mm and (1.4- 2) mm. The gradation for gravel (the supporting anddrainage system layer for sand, glass, plastic and aluminum media in filtration columns) was

(2.5- 6.5) mm, (Ministry of Interior, 1992) and (Central Organization for Standardization and Quality

Control, 2000).

The sieving, chemical and physical analysis for sand size of (0.6-1) mm and its granular

distribution showed in table (1) and figure (1).

Table (1): the sieving, chemical and physical analysis for sand size of (0.6-1) mm

Weight of original sand sample (g) = 1250

Iraqi Specification

No. 1555 in year

2000 and its

modifications

Sieve size (mm) Accumulated

retained weight (g) Accumulated

retained %

Accumulated

passing %Passing percent from

sieve below 5%

Retained percent on

sieve up 5%

1.18 0 0.0 100

1 20 1.6 98.4

0.85 152.5 12.2 87.80.71 571.25 45.7 54.3 0.60 1131.25 90.5 9.5

0.5 1200 96 4

D10 = 0.6 (0.6-0.65)mm

UC = 1.21 1.5 maximum

Granule density = 2577 (2500-2670) kgm/m3

Silica = 92.9 Not less than 90%

Shape = semi spherical, rounded

D10 = 0.6 mm, UC = D60 /D10 = 0.73/0.6 = 1.21

Figure (1): the granular distribution for sand size of (0.6-1) mm

A c c u m u l a t e d

p a s s i n g %

Sieve size (mm)


4/19

International Journal of Advanced

6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online),

Glass

The sources of glass wastes

After that, glass wastes were crushe

and sieved into three sizes (0.6-1)

sieving, chemical and physical anashowed in table (2) and figure (2).

Plate (1): glass crushing by el

grinder machine

Table (2): the sieving

Weight of origin

Sieve size (mm/10) Accumulated

retained weight (

1.18 0

1 20

0.85 140

0.71 334

0.60 457

0.5 498 D

Granul

Shape = Pol

esearch in Engineering and Technology (IJAR

Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 80-98 © IA

83

were shops selling glass (as discarded) and bro

by electric grinder machine as shown in plate

mm, (1-1.4) mm and (1.4-2) mm as shown

lysis for glass size of (0.6-1) mm and its gra

ectric Plate (2): sieving process

and physical analysis for glass size of (0.6-1)

al glass sample (g) = 500

f

) Accumulated

retained %

Accumulated

passing %P

0.0 100

4 96

28 72

66.8 33.2

91.4 8.6

99.6 0.4

10 = 0.625

C = 1.28

density = 2426 (

ygonal or angularity

T), ISSN 0976 –

ME

ken glass bottles.

(1), then washed

in plate (2).The

ular distribution

or glass

mraqi Specification

No. 1555 in year

2000 and its

modifications

or sand s ize (0.6-1)

mm

assing percent from

sieve below 5%

etained percent on

sieve up 5%

(0.6-0.65) mm

1.5 maximum

500-2670) kgm/m3


5/19



84

D10 = 0.625 mm, UC = D60 / D10 = 0.8/0.625 = 1.28

Figure (2): the granular distribution for glass size of (0.6-1) mm

Plastic

The plastic wastes were collected from plastic manufacturing plants which resulted as

discarded. These wastes were washed, crushed by the electric grinder machine and sieved into three

gradations (0.6-1) mm, (1-1.4) mm and (1.4- 2) mm.The sieving, chemical and physical analysis for

plastic size of (0.6-1) mm and its granular distribution showed in table (3) and figure (3).

Table (3): the sieving and physical analysis for plastic size of(0.6-1) mm

Weight of original plastic sample (g) = 296

Iraqi

Specification No.1555 in year 2000

and its

modificationsfor sand size(0.6-1) mm

Sieve size(mm/10)

Accumulatedretained weight

(g)

Accumulatedretained %

Accumulatedpassing % Passing percent

from sieve below

5%

Retained percent

on sieve up 5%

1.18 0 0.0 100

1 3.552 1.2 98.8

0.85 79.92 27 73

0.71 207.2 70 30

0.60 269.36 91 9

0.5 285.344 96.4 3.6

D10 = 0.62 (0.6-0.65) mm


Granule density = 942 (2500-2670)

kgm/m3

Shape = angularity and fusiform

A c c u m u l a

t e d

p a s s i n g %

Sieve size (mm)


6/19



85

D10 = 0.62 mm, UC = D60 / D10 = 0.8/0.62= 1.29

Figure (3): the granular distribution for plastic size of (0.6-1) mm

Aluminum

The sources of aluminum wastes were the local manufacturing plants for windows and

aluminum counters in addition to turnery shops for wheel car frame which discarded as wastes. The

wastes form second source were crushed by electric grinder machine, then put in HCl acid 10% to

remove the color from waste’s surface which causes additional turbidity. After removing color, the

wastes washed by distilled water until the pH value for washing water became normal.

The wastes form first source were in the form of filings and did not cause a color therefore it

washed by distilled water, mixed with filings from second source and sieved into three gradations

(0.6-1) mm, (1-1.4) mm and (1.4-2) mm. The sieving, chemical and physical analysis for aluminum

size of (0.6-1) mm and its granular distribution showed in table (4) and figure (4).

Table (4): sieving and physical analysis for aluminum size of(0.6-1) mm

Weight of original aluminum sample (g) = 488

Iraqi Specification

No. 1555 in year

2000 and itsmodifications

for sand size (0.6-

1) mm

Sieve size

(mm/10) Accumulated

retained weight (g) Accumulated

retained %

Accumulated

passing % Passing percent

from sieve below5%

Retained percent

on sieve up 5%

1.18 0 0.0 100

1 13.664 2.8 97.2

0.85 107.36 22 78

0.71 334.28 68.5 31.5

0.60 440.17 90.19 9.8

0.5 475.312 97.4 2.6

D10 = 0.6 (0.6-0.65) mm


Granule density = 950.8(2500-2670)

kgm/m3

Shape = thin sheets rectangular, square, triangular and fusiform

A c c u m u l a

t e d

p a s s i n g %

Sieve size (mm)


7/19



86

D10 = 0.6 mm, UC = D60 / D10 = 0.8/0.6=1.33

Figure (4): the granular distribution for aluminum size of (0.6-1) mm

2- Pilot Filtration UnitA pilot filtration unit was set to examine the glass, plastic and aluminum filings waste

materials as filter media comparison with sand filter media to remove turbidity from syntheticpolluted water. Figure (5) showed a schematic diagram of pilot filtration unit and plate (3) showed

pictures for the pilot filtration unit.

Figure (5): schematic diagram of pilot filtration unit

A c c u m

u l a t e d

p a s s i n g %

Sieve size (mm)


8/19



87

Plate (3): the pilot filtration unit: (a) Front view (b) Side view

Filtration Columns

Four columns of transparent plastic were designed and set to run in parallel with down flow

direction. Each column was 5.7 cm in diameter according to Kawamura (2000), indicated “the size of

the filter column should be (100) times the ES of the filter medium”. The length of the column was

240 cm.

Above the media in each column was a stainless steel mesh 0.3 mm in size to prevent media

like plastic and aluminum from float, under media was stainless steel mesh 0.3mm in size to support

the media and to prevent exit the small granules.

3- Preparation of Turbid Water

For making synthetic polluted water by turbidity, the pure clay like bentonite was passedthrough sieve size of 200µm and used. It was found when putting 0.1g of this bentonite in 1L of tap

water and mixed for (30-45) min the resulted turbidity was (29-32) NTU.

4-

Experimental Runs

Samples of effluent were collected and tested at certain time interval (each 30 min) during the

run time. The filtration run continued until the C/Ci ≥ 0.7, where the C is the effluent concentration

and Ci is the influent concentration. The summary of experimental runs was given in table (5).


9/19



88

Table (5): the summary of experimental runs

No. of run Media / No. of column / sizeD10

(mm)UC

Layer

depth

(cm)

ʋF

(m/hr)

Ci

(NTU)

(average)

1

Sand / 1 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.21 50 5 17

Glass / 2 /(0.6-1) mm

0.625 1.28 50 5 17

Plastic / 3/

(0.6-1) mm0.62 1.29 50 5 17

Aluminum / 4 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.33 50 5 17

2

Sand / 1 /

(0.6-1) mm

+

Sand / 1 /

(1-1.4) mm

0.6

+

1

1.21

+

1.17

35

+

15

5 17

Glass / 2 /

(0.6-1) mm+

Glass / 2 /

(1-1.4) mm

0.625

+

1

1.28

+

1.2

35

+

15

5 17

Plastic / 3 /

(0.6-1) mm

+

Plastic / 3 /

(1-1.4) mm

0.62

+

1

1.29

+

1.2

35

+

15

5 17

Aluminum / 4 /

(0.6-1) mm

+

Aluminum / 4 /

(1-1.4) mm

0.6

+

1

1.33

+

1.24

35

+

15

5 17

3

Sand / 1 /

(0.6-1) mm

+

Sand / 1 /(1-1.4) mm

0.6

+

1

1.21

+

1.17

25

+

25

5 17

Glass / 2 /

(0.6-1) mm

+

Glass / 2 /

(1-1.4) mm

0.625

+

1

1.28

+

1.2

25

+

25

5 17

Plastic / 3 /(0.6-1) mm

+

Plastic / 3 /

(1-1.4) mm

0.62

+

1

1.29

+

1.2

25

+

25

5 17

Aluminum / 4 /

(0.6-1) mm

+

Aluminum / 4 /

(1-1.4) mm

0.6

+

1

1.33

+

1.24

25

+

25

5

17


10/19



89

4

Sand / 1 /

(0.6-1) mm

+

Sand / 1 /

(1.4-2) mm

0.6

+

1.48

1.21

+

1.114

35

+

15

5 17

Glass / 2 /

(0.6-1) mm+

Glass / 2 /

(1.4-2) mm

0.625

+

1.46

1.28

+

1.14

35

+

15

5 17

Plastic / 3 /

(0.6-1) mm

+

Plastic / 3 /

(1.4-2) mm

0.62

+

1.45

1.29

+

1.17

35

+

15

5 17

Aluminum / 4 /

(0.6-1) mm

+

Aluminum / 4 /

(1.4-2) mm

0.6

+

1.5

1.33

+

1.18

35

+

15

5 17

5

Sand / 1 /(0.6-1) mm

+

Sand / 1 /

(1.4-2) mm

0.6

+

1.48

1.21

+

1.114

25

+

25

5

17

Glass / 2 /(0.6-1) mm

+

Glass / 2 /

(1.4-2) mm

0.625

+

1.46

1.28

+

1.14

25

+

25

5 17

Plastic / 3 /

(0.6-1) mm+

Plastic / 3 /

(1.4-2) mm

0.62

+

1.45

1.29

+

1.17

25

+

25

5 17

Aluminum / 4 /

(0.6-1) mm

+

Aluminum / 4 /

(1.4-2) mm

0.6

+

1.5

1.33

+

1.18

25

+

25

5 17

6

Sand / 1 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.21 50 6 17

Glass / 2 /

(0.6-1) mm0.625 1.28 50 6 17

Plastic / 3 /

(0.6-1) mm0.62 1.29 50 6 17

Aluminum / 4 / (0.6-1) mm 0.6 1.33 50 6 17

7

Sand / 1 /(0.6-1) mm

0.6 1.21 50 7.5 17

Glass / 2 /

(0.6-1) mm0.625 1.28 50 7.5 17

Plastic / 3 /

(0.6-1) mm0.62 1.29 50 7.5 17

Aluminum / 4 / (0.6-1) mm 0.6 1.33 50 7.5 17

8Sand / 1 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.21 50 8.5 17


11/19



90

Glass / 2 /

(0.6-1) mm0.625 1.28 50 8.5 17

Plastic / 3 /

(0.6-1) mm0.62 1.29 50 8.5 17

Aluminum / 4 / (0.6-1) mm 0.6 1.33 50 8.5 17

9

Sand / 1 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.21 50 10 17

Glass / 2 /

(0.6-1) mm0.625 1.28 50 10 17

Plastic / 3

(0.6-1) mm0.62 1.29 50 10 17

Aluminum / 4 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.33 50 10 17

10

Sand / 1 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.21 50 5 20

Glass / 2 /

(0.6-1) mm0.625 1.28 50 5 20

Plastic / 3 /

(0.6-1) mm0.62 1.29 50 5 20

Aluminum / 4 /

(0.6-1) mm 0.6 1.33 50 5 20

11

Sand / 1 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.21 50 5 24.5

Glass / 2 /

(0.6-1) mm0.625 1.28 50 5 24.5

Plastic / 3 /

(0.6-1) mm0.62 1.29 50 5 24.5

Aluminum / 4 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.33 50 5 24.5

12

Sand / 1 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.21 50 5 27

Glass / 2 /

(0.6-1) mm0.625 1.28 50 5 27

Plastic / 3 /(0.6-1) mm

0.62 1.29 50 5 27

Aluminum / 4 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.33 50 5 27

13

Sand / 1 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.21 50 5 30

Glass / 2 /

(0.6-1) mm0.625 1.28 50 5 30

Plastic / 3 /

(0.6-1) mm0.62 1.29 50 5 30

Aluminum / 4 /

(0.6-1) mm0.6 1.33 50 5 30

5-

BackwashingThe filter media from run No. 6 to run No. 13 were backwashed by distilled water at velocity

calculated form equation (A), (Qasim, et al., 2000). The duration for each backwashing was

(average) 15 min. The details of backwashing showed in table (6).

Ub = D60 ……….……. (A)

Where: Ub = back wash rate, m/min


12/19



Ta

mediaUb = d60

(m/min)

Sand 0.7

Glass 0.8

Plastic 0.8

Aluminum 0.8

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

Examine the ability of solidfirst, the ʋF and Ci were fixed but th

five runs. After the fifth run, the lo

were fixed but ʋF was changed unti

was changed to five runs but the t

medium was stopped at C/Ci ≥ 0.7.

The results of each stage w

well as recording some parameters li

The Results

1. Run No. 1

The results for run No. 1

Figure (6): ratio of effluent turbidi

2. Run No. 2


0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300

C / C

i



91

le (6): details of backwashing

(0.6-1)

(mm)

Volume of

water (m3 )

Discharge

(m3 /min)

3 0.0279 1.86*10-3

0.0306 2.04*10-3

0.0306 2.04*10-3

0.0306 2.04*10-3

waste as filter media was done by change thrsize and its height of media were changed eve

ngest run was chosen, the thickness of media

l five runs, this was done in second stage. At t

ickness of gradation and ʋF were fixed. The r

re analyzed by ratio of effluent turbidity wit

ke pH and temperature.

were shown in figure (6).

ty with run time for run No. 1 within group No.and Ci (average) = 17 NTU


400 500 600 700 800 900 1Running Time (min)

T), ISSN 0976 –

ME

Expansion

bed (%)

30

30

50

50

e parameters. Atry rune time until

gradation and Ci

hird stage, the Ci

un time for each

running time as

1 at ʋF = 5 m/hr

000 1100 1200


13/19




3. Run No. 3



4. Run No. 4



0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300

C / C

i

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

0 100 200 300

C / C

i

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300

C / C

i



92

ty with run time for run No. 2 within group No.

and Ci (average) = 17 NTU







400 500 600 700 800 900 100Running Time (min)

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Running Time (min)

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Running Time (min)

T), ISSN 0976 –

ME

2 at ʋF = 5 m/hr

3 at ʋF = 5 m/hr

4 at ʋF = 5 m/hr

1100 1200

1100 1200

1100 1200


14/19



5. Run No. 5


Figure (10): ratio of effluent turbid

6.

Run No. 6

The results for No. 6 we

Figure (11): ratio of effluent turbid

7. Run No. 7


Figure (12): ratio of effluent turbi

m

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300

C / C

i

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300

C / C

i

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300

C / C

i



93


ity with run time for run No. 5 within group No.


e shown in figure (11).

ity with run time for run No. 6 within group No.



dity with run time for run No. 7 within group

hr and Ci (average) = 17 NTU

400 500 600 700 800 900Running Time (min)

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Running Time (min)

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Running Time (min)

T), ISSN 0976 –

ME

5 at ʋF = 5 m/hr

1 at ʋF = 6 m/hr

o. 1 at ʋF = 7.5

1000 1100 1200

1100 1200

1100 1200


15/19



8. Run No. 8


Figure (13): ratio of effluent turbi

m

9. Run No. 9



10. Run No. 10



0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300

C / C

i

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300

C / C

i

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0 100 200 300

C / C

i



94


dity with run time for run No. 8 within group

hr and Ci (average) = 17 NTU

were shown in figure (14)



0 were shown in figure (15)

ty with run time for run No. 10 within group N

and Ci (average) =20 NTU

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Running Time (min)

400 500 600 700 800 900 100Running Time (min)

400 500 600 700 800 900 100

Running Time (min)

T), ISSN 0976 –

ME

o. 1 at ʋF = 8.5

1 at ʋF = 10 m/hr

. 1 at ʋF = 5 m/hr

1100 1200

1100 1200

1100 1200


16/19



11. Run No. 11



12. Run No. 12



13. Run No. 13



0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300

C / C

i

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300

C / C

i

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

0 100 200 300

C / C

i



95

1 were shown in figure (16).


and Ci (average) =24.5 NTU



and Ci (average) =27 NTU




400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Running Time (min)

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Running Time (min)

400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

Running Time (min)

T), ISSN 0976 –

ME

. 1 at ʋF = 5 m/hr

. 1 at ʋF = 5 m/hr

. 1 at ʋF = 5 m/hr

1100 1200

1100 1200

1100 1200


17/19



96

Discussion

It was discussed and compared the results of run times between the sand medium and solid

wastes filings. From the experimental data, it can be noticed that the crushed of glass, plastic and

aluminum solid wastes were best rather than sand media filter in terms of run time (i.e. the run time

for media is a function of turbidity removal efficiency)

Assessment the ability of solid wastes in filtration process were done due to the followingphysical parameters:

1.

Effect of Change the Gradation and its Depth for Media

Five different groups of media were used in this study, look to the section (4-3). The best

result for all media (longest run time) was done in first run (group No.1) within C i (average) = 17

NTU and ʋF = 5 m/hr where the media consisted from just size (0.6-1) mm. This result is in good

unison with (Degremont, 1991) who showed that more straining occur in the fine media. Where the

aluminum media had longest run time (1050 min) but close from run time for plastic media (1020

min) and both of it had longest run time than glass (930 min) and sand media (840 min).

When depth of the size (0.6-1) mm was reduced and offset the decrease of media by

size of (1-1.4) mm or (1.4-2) mm , the porosity of media increased (UC decreased), so the run time

was decreased within fixed the ʋF and Ci, look to the table (5-14) run No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Thisbehavior indicates that turbidity removal happens at all height of filter medium. But the effect of size

(1.4-2) mm on run time was more significant from size (1-1.4) mm within fixed the depth both layers

due to UC for the first was smaller than the second, and D10 for the first was bigger than the second.

This result is in good agreement with (Kang and Shah, 1997) who showed that when the porosity of

media increased, the filtration efficiency decreased.

In the first stage, the run time for sand reduced by 3.5 %, 14.2 %, 7.14 % and 21.4 % in

run No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively with average of 11.56 %, the run time for glass reduced by 3.22%,

9.67 %, 6.45 % and 19.35% in run No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively with average of 9.67 %, the run

time for plastic reduced by 2.94 %, 8.82 %, 5.88 % and 17.64 % in run No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively

with average of 8.82 % and the run time for aluminum reduced by 2.85%, 11.42 %, 8.57 % and

22.85 % in run No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively with average of 11.42 %. So the sand media was more

influenced by change the depth and gradation.

In this stage, the glass media had run time longer than it for sand media by (10.7- 16.6)

%, the plastic media had run time longer than it for sand media by (21.4- 29.16) % and aluminum

media had run time longer than it for sand media by (22.7- 29.16) %, so the aluminum was best

medium comparison with sand in terms of run time when the depth and gradation were changed.

2. Effect of Increase the Filtration Velocity

Five different velocities were tested in this study within group No. 1 and Ci (average) = 17

NTU at run No. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9.

As seen from these runs, the low filtration velocity (5m/h) had longest run time (i.e.lowest

average effluent turbidity) and this upshot is in a good matching with (Degremont, 1991) who

reported that employing low filtration velocities result in more attachment by adhesion on filtermedia.

When the filtration velocity was increased, the average effluent water turbidity was also

increased but run time was decreased. When filtration velocity was increased, the shear off for

particles was also increased, i.e. the particles have an inclination to egress with the effluent water,

and this result is in good compatibility with (Tobiason et al., 2011) whom said that using of higher

filtration rates shortens the filter cycle.

In this stage, the glass media had run time longer than it for sand media by (9.1- 17.6) %, the

plastic media had run time longer than it for sand media by (19.2- 31.5) % and aluminum media had


18/19



97

run time longer than it for sand media by (19.2- 29.4) %. So the plastic was the best medium

comparison with sand medium in terms of run time when the filtration velocity was increased.

3.

Effect of Increase the Influent TurbidityFive different influent turbidities were tested in this study within group No. 1 and ʋF = 5 m/hr

at run No. 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13. The longest run time was at Ci = 17 NTU.It was observed that the filter run time was decreased with increase of C i for all media. When

influent turbidity was increased, the deposition of particles through the filter medium was also

increased which leads to increase secession, where the detained particles can became partially

detached and be driven deeper into the medium and carried off in the filtrate. The results in this study

is in good consistency with (Moran et al., 1993) and (Crittenden et al., 2012) whom showed that

detachment is highly dependent on specific deposit, particle removal in granular filters is not an

irreversible process and detachment of particles may occur during the filtration cycle. Detachment

occurs when shearing forces (flow) are greater than the adhesive forces that holding the particle.

When influent turbidity was increased from 17 to 20 NTU, the average of effluent turbidity

was decreased at run No. 10 but increased in run No. 11, 12 and 13 with decrease of run time at these

runs, while the average of removed turbidity was increased by increase the influent turbidity.

In this stage, the glass media had run time longer than it for sand media by (10.7- 15.7) %,the plastic media had run time longer than it for sand media by (19.2- 26.3) % and aluminum media

had run time longer than it for sand media by (15.3- 25) %. So the plastic was best medium

comparison with sand medium in terms of run time when the Ci was increased.

REFERENCES

1. Alwared, A. I., and Zeki, S. L., (2014). “Removal of Water Turbidity by using Aluminum

Filings as a Filter Media”, Journal of Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 7: (103-114).

2. Central Organization for Standardization and Quality Control, (2000). “Filter Sand and Filter

Gravel for Water Purification Filters”, Standard Specification, second edition, No. 1555, Iraq.

3. Crittenden, J. C., Trussell, R. R., Hand, D. W., Howe, K. J., and Tchobanoglous, G., (2012).

“MWH’s Water Treatment: Principles and Design”, third edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,

Hoboken, New Jersey.

4. Degremont, (1991). “Water Treatment Handbook”, Vol. 1, sixth edition, Lavoisier Publishing,

Paris.

5. Hudson, H. E., (1959). “Operating Characteristics of Rapid Sand Filters”, J. AWWA, Vol. 51,

No. 1: (115–122).

6. Hudson, H. E., (1981). “Water Clarification Processes: Practical Design and Evaluation”,

P. (175–176), Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.

7. Kang, P. K., and Shah, D. O., (1997). “Filtration of Nanoparticles with

Dimethydioctadecylammonium Bromide Treated Microporous Polypropylene Filters”,

Langmuir, Vol. 13, No. 6: (l820-1826).

8.

Kawamura S., (2000). “Integrated Design and Operation of Water Treatment Facilities”,second edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc.

9. Ministry of Interior, (1992). “General Establishment for Water and Sewerage Projects”,

General Specification for Electro- Mechanical and Civil Works, Vol. 1, Baghdad- Iraq.

10. Moran, M. C., Moran, D. C., Cushing, R. S., and Lawler, D. F. (1993) “Particle Behavior in

Deep-Bed Filtration: Part 2—Particle Detachment,” J. AWWA, Vol. 85, No.12: (82–93).

11. Nasser, N. O. A., (2010). “Investigating the Ability of using Crushed Glass Solid Wastes in

Water Filtration”, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Baghdad, Iraq.


19/19



98

12. Qasim, S. R., Motely, E. M., and Zhu, G., (2000). “Water Works Engineering”, Prentice Hall

PTR, United States of America.

13. Rutledge, S. O., and Gagnon G. A., (2002). “Comparing Crushed Recycled Glass to Silica

Sand for Dual Media Filtration”, J. Environ. Eng. Sci., Vol. 1, No. 5: (349–358).

14. Sundarakumar, R., (1996). “Pilot Scale Study on Floating Media Filtration for Surface Water

Treatment”, M.Sc. Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology School of Environmental, andResources Development Bangkok, Thailand.

15. Tobiason, J. E., Cleasby, J. L., Logsdon, G. S., and O’Melia C. R., “Granular Media

Filtration”, Ch. 10, In: Edzwald, J. K., (2011). “Water Quality & Treatment, A Handbook on

Drinking Water”, sixth edition, American Water Works Association, McGraw-Hill

Companies.

16. Rumman Mowla Chowdhury, Sardar Yafee Muntasir, Md. Niamul Naser and Sardar Rafee

Musabbir, “Water Quality Analysis of Surface Water Bodies Along the Dhaka-MawaBhanga

Road Based on Pre-Monsoon Water Quality Parameters for Aquaculture”, International

Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 154 - 168,

ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

17. Prof.Dr.Mohammad Abid Moslim Al-Tufaily and Wisam Sh. Jabir Al- Salami, “Computerize

RCRA, EWC and BC Hazardous Wastes Classification System using Visual Basic- 6Language”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 5,

Issue 1, 2014, pp. 111 - 124, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316

18. R Radhakrishanan and A Praveen, “Sustainability Perceptions on Wastewater Treatment

Operations in Urban Areas of Developing World”, International Journal of Civil Engineering

& Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 45 - 61, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308,

ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

Documents

Water Filtration by Using of Glass Plastic and Aluminum Filings as a Filter Media