Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Name
SID
Date Submitted:
Table of Contents
1
Executive Summary.....................................................................3
Background Information...............................................................4
Needs......................................................................................... 5
Categorizing Needs...........................................................................5
3.1
Specifications..................................................................................5
Ideas.......................................................................................... 6
4.1
Ceramic Filters................................................................................6
4.2
Reverse Osmosis.............................................................................6
4.3
Disinfection....................................................................................6
4.3.1 Solar Trough Treatment................................................................................... 6
4.3.2 Chlorination (Benchmark Technology)............................................................6
4.4
Filtration........................................................................................7
4.4.1 Rapid filtration................................................................................................ 7
4.4.2 Slow sand filtration......................................................................................... 7
Ideas Screening.......................................................................................7
4.4.3 Ideas Matrix.................................................................................................... 7
Selection..................................................................................... 7
5.1
Selection Matrix..............................................................................8
5.1.1.......................................................................................................................... 8
5.1.2.......................................................................................................................... 8
5.1.3.......................................................................................................................... 8
5.1.4.......................................................................................................................... 8
5.1.5.......................................................................................................................... 8
5.1.6.......................................................................................................................... 8
5.1.7.......................................................................................................................... 8
5.1.8.......................................................................................................................... 8
5.1.9.......................................................................................................................... 8
5.1.10........................................................................................................................ 8
5.1.11........................................................................................................................ 8
5.1.12........................................................................................................................ 8
5.1.13........................................................................................................................ 8
APPENDIX.................................................................................. 13
6.1
Brainstorm....................................................................................14
7.................................................................................................... 14
1 Executive Summary
The aim of this investigation was to design a product for a third world country that would effectively
solve their drinking water treatment problems. Our chosen region was a small community residing
near the river Nile just outside the central city of Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. The main issue
with the water supply to this community was the presence of coliform bacteria in the water that
reaches levels of about 2000 counts/dl during the rainy season. This is very much higher than the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards for clean drinking water.
So to keep it realistic, our group decided to design a slow sand filtration system for a small group of
4 or 5 households with a maximum of 10 people requiring at least 200 litres of water every day.
Following the steps of a successful chemical product design process, we first brainstormed ideas
from a range of sources and narrowed them to a few which we then analyzed using different
selection criteria.
2 Background Information
The provision of drinking water of adequate quality and quantity remains a major public health need
in many African countries. In 2002, according to the World Health Organisation, 39 000 Sudanese
people died due to improper water, sanitation and hygiene (World Health Organisation, 2008). One
of the principle areas affected by this problem is a small village located on the peripheries of
Khartoum City. The village is characterised by crowding, poor housing and inadequate water and
sanitation.
The target village has a population of approximately 5 000 people, and is situated on the bank of the
river Nile, 70 km north of Khartoum and is called Wadramli (the precise location is shown in Figure
1) (Musa, Shears, Kafi, & Elsabag, 1999). Currently, water is obtained and distributed by being
pumped from the Nile into an overhead storage tank, and there is a chlorination unit and slow-sand
filter bed connected, but neither of these has been functioning for many years.
Figure 1 Location of Wadramli near Khartoum on the River Nile (Musa, et al., 1999)
The general life expectancy in Sudan is 60 years (World Health Organisation, 2009). In 1999, a study
by Musa, et al. (1999)found that over the course of one year the cases of diarrhoea within the people
of Khartoum province ranged from around 2 500 per month up to 8 500 per month in the wet season.
The study also found that faecal coliform counts within the water reached as high as 2000 counts per
100 millilitres.
The EPA says on the effects that faecal coliforms can have on humans who consume them in water:
Faecal coliform and E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be
contaminated with human or animal wastes. Disease-causing microbes (pathogens) in these
wastes can cause diarrhoea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. These pathogens
4
may pose a special health risk for infants, young children, and people with severely
compromised immune systems.(Environmental Protection Agency, 2009a)
It would be fair to assume for the purpose of this investigation that the average income of the people
of the target village is significantly less than this figure. This means that availability of money for
purchasing clean water is limited, and should be taken into account for possible design
considerations.
3 Needs
The main problem with the water out of the Nile in our selected area is the bacterial coliforms in the
river and its parasitological content. A study by Attar, Gawad et al. (1982) in the Upper Nile Delta in
Egypt in traditional zir earthen jars where water had been taken from the River Nile - revealed
significant amount of protozoan cysts within the water; of the 107 water samples examined, the study
found significant difference between the zir samples and that of tap water. Ascaris (roundworm) was
found in 15 per cent of the samples tested and Strongyloides (threadworm) in 10.3 per cent.
A literature review was conducted to investigate the issues and problems in drinking water in the
Nile Delta, in Sudan. Major issues associated with water quality are sewage, pollution from animals
and diarrheal diseases. The counts of specific micro-organisms have been utilized as indicators as to
whether the pollution is faecal or not. The ratio of E. coli to faecal streptococci gives an indication of
the nature of the source.
A study by Khairy et. al. in 1982 of the parasitological content of water in the Upper Nile Delta in
Egypt in traditional zir earthen jars where water had been taken from the River Nile - revealed
significant amount of protozoan cysts within the water; of the 107 water samples examined, the study
found significant difference between the zir samples and that of tap water. Ascaris (roundworm) was
found in 15 per cent of the samples tested and Strongyloides (threadworm) in 10.3 per cent. The
study also noted a difference in the presence of both E. Coli and Giardia from the river water and
that from the tap, however, it was not especially significant.
Categorizing Needs
Essential
Enough water for 20
people;
Removal of bacteria,
viruses, protozoa as well as
solids
Affordable
Useful
Easy to use.
Safe to operate (i.e. in terms of
chemicals)
Low dependence on replacement
parts/chemicals
Reliability
Table 1 - Categorising Needs
Desirable
No manual labour required
to operate
Taste
Portable
Environmentally sustainable
No external power required
3.1 Specifications
The United States Environmental Protection Agencys (EPA) has the standard that the ideal level is a
0 count per 100 mL the public health goal and a maximum contaminant level goal of a count
of 5 per 100 mL(Environmental Protection Agency, 2009b). A study by Dirar (1985) detailing the
bacteriological content of the Nile near Khartoum revealed a count, in the worst months, of nearly
5000 per 100 mL. The drinking water standard for bacteria is 5 per 100 ml for minimal or no risk.
The input water into the system is 5000 per 100 ml therefore we need to remove 4995 per 100ml.
We have a target population of 20 people. According to De Zuane (1997), eight litres of water per
person per day for both drinking and cooking are an requirement, this value can be scaled up for our
population unit. For twenty people we will need to deliver around 200 litres per day of filtered water,
allowing for over-engineering, which is a total volume of around 0.2 m 3 per day. With a coliform
count of 5 per 100 mL considered the maximum allowable level, we would expect to be removing, in
5
the worst season, 4995 per 100 mL, or more, along with the excessive levels of protozoa in their
water supplies.
The average income of a villager is around 93 cents per day therefore we would have to manufacture
our product to meet this financial constraint. This value is subjective and it can be assumed that the
start up costs for the water purification device would be supplied by an external source such as
charity, corporate sponsors.
4
Ideas
Reverse Osmosis
Reverse osmosis is a filtration process that removes chemicals and microbes from water by trapping
molecules larger than water through the semi-permeable membrane. This is efficient at decreasing
the amount of total dissolved solids and suspended matter. Examples of minerals removed include
salts, lead, manganese, iron and calcium. They may decrease levels of soluble organic compounds
such as pesticides or organic compounds. The process requires a significant amount of water in
cleaning the membrane and the device. The purifying abilities of reverse osmosis are not sufficient
enough to maintain the standards of municipally treated water which is due to the fact that some
pollutants like e.g. chlorine are physical smaller than water. Therefore the water does not fully satisfy
requirements and pose health problems.
4.3
Disinfection
4.4 Filtration
Filtration processes are used to reduce turbidity and microorganism levels in the water supply.
Filtration has proven to be quite effective in removing pathogens and viruses.
4.4.1 Rapid filtration
This method involves water passing through a filter bed comprising of gravel. Water can be
processed at a rate of 2-5 m hr -1 (Mol, 2004) by removing large microorganisms and suspended
solids. However, this method is only available as a pre-treatment option as it does not disinfect the
water, leaving faecal pathogens still active. The estimated cost for constructing a rapid sand filtration
system is approximately US$20 (per capita?), with a mean operational maintenance cost of US$4.8
per capita per year (Rose, 1991).
4.4.2 Slow sand filtration
Slow sand filtration provides a more biological approach by passing dirty water through a sand bed.
The complete process involves multiple stages mainly classified under transport, attachment and
purification mechanisms (Huisman & Wood, 1974)
Biological filters are really easy to operate. Daily routine checks for the water temperature, turbidity
and the filter head loss are required to maintain constant functionality. Depending on the raw water
quality, a slow sand filter can easily run without being cleaned for about 20 to 90 days. Slow sand
filters can be cleaned by manually removing the top few inches of the sand. This sand can either be
thrown away or washed and kept for later use. A technical limitation is the fact that it requires at least
1 or 2 days after the cleaning procedure for the sand system to redevelop. (*)
Water systems with relatively high turbidity dont work too well with slow sand filters. Ideally, a
turbidity value of less than 20 NTU is recommended. A cost study conducted in 1992 showed that a
slow sand filtration system with a capacity of 50,000 gallons per day would represent a construction
cost of $207,900 and an annual operational and maintenance cost of $6,800 (*).
Ideas Screening
4.4.3
Ideas Matrix
Criteria
Cerami
c Filter
Reverse
Osmosi
s
UV
Solar
Trough
Chlorinatio
n
Rapid
Filtratio
n
Slow
Filtration
Sand
Table 2
5 Selection
Based upon the needs of the AS
Criteria
Sun
UV
Idea
Chlorinatio
SSF n
Essential
Enough water for 20 people
Affordable
Removal of bacteria, viruses, protozoa as well
as solids
+
+
++
+++
0
0
Desirable
++
++
Easy to use
+
+
Safe to operate
+
+
Low dependence on replacement
parts/chemicals
++
Reliability
Table 3 Qualitative Comparison of Selected Ideas
0
0
0
0
0
Slow sand
Chlorine*
Solar
Table 4: Ideas Matrix in reference to the benchmark technology. *Chlorine is the benchmark.
Design
Sizing of the sand filter
8
Surface area
Given that the velocity of water for safe slow sand filtration is around 0. 1 m hr -1 to 0. 5 m hr-1 (Page
et al, 2006) and the flow rate through the system is defined as 200 l day -1, the surface area can be
adjusted to meet this requirement.
Q 200 L day -1
212\* MERGEFORMAT (.)
Q 2.315 106 m3 s -1
313\* MERGEFORMAT (.)
Using a filter of cylindrical shape, so that the surface area is circular, using a diameter of 0.3 m this
gives a surface of:
A
D 2 3.14 0.32
0.071 m 2
4
4
2.315 106
3.28105 m s -1
0.071
U 0.12 m hr 1
dX Q
Q
X i X X Kd X
dt V
V
dS Q
X
Si S
dt V
Y
Sc
dPr
k g max pr
Pr (kd pr Pr )
dt
k ss Sc
dt
ks Nc
Ypr kss Sc
Pr
10110\*
MERGEFORMAT (.)
Sand Filtration
The second portion involves the sedimentation of larger objects (usually greater than 10 m) being
filtered by the small pores formed by the packed sand which for sand particles of 0.15mm the
smallest pores are close to 20 m in diameter. For one cubic meter of sand the gross surface area for
sedimentation assuming the area of sand particles is one continuous surface (Huisman & Wood,
1974).
Sedimentation Area
6
(1 )
dp
6
1 0.38 15000 m 2
0.0025
12112\*
MERGEFORMAT (.)
According to Huisman & Wood (1974) even allowing for surfaces not facing upwards and other
resistances to sedimentation this area is easily in excess of 1000 m 3. With this area and a flow rate of
1.1 m hr-1 this gives a surface loading is 0.1 10-3 m hr-1. Using Stokes formula for settling velocity
it is now trivial to find the maximum size of particles that can be removed.
u 1.15 103
P
d p2
Meaning that small and light particles and colloidal particles will not be removed by sedimentation
and any small microorganisms will have to be removed by the bio-layer.
Pressure drop through the sand filter
By modeling equation for (laminar) pressure drop as described by Darcy as:
UH
P
k
15115\* MERGEFORMAT (.)
Where:
k 150 0.72 0.028T
2 ds2
(1 )2
16116\* MERGEFORMAT
(.)
Where:
so that:
k 150 0.72 0.028 25
0.38
1 0.38
k 1.7 m hr 1
0.952 0.252
17117\*
MERGEFORMAT (.)
Substituting into the Darcy equation
0.12 1
1.7
P 0.06m
P
However this is under ideal situations where the filter sand is completely clean, a more realistic
situation occurs where the sand in the filter is clogged with biomass and other impurities removed by
the filtration process. (French source), study found that during the end of a SSF cycle up to one-third
of the pores in the sand becomes clogged, reducing the porosity to around 0.2. Under these
circumstances the pressure drop increases to 0.7 m of head loss. From this worst case scenario it can
be seen that a pressure head in excess of 0.7m is needed. A safe amount of pressure is needed, as
recommended by Page, Wakelin, van Leeuwen, & Dillon, 2006 (2006) of 1.5 m of pressure head.
11
Table
max
S
KS
Q
V
Xi
Kd
Si
Y
Pr
kg max pr
Sc
kss
kd pr
kg max s
Nc
kds
Ypr
ds
P/p
U
H
P
K
T
Table of Equations
Use
Specific growth rate
Maximum specific growth rate
Bacterial concentration (g/L)
Maximum specific growth rate of bacteria
First used in
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.5)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(1.7)
(1.7)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(1.8)
(1.9)
(1.9)
(1.9)
(1.9)
(1.10)
(1.10)
(1.12)
(1.14)
(1.14)
(1.14)
(1.14)
(1.15)
(1.15)
12
APPENDIX
6.1
Brainstorm
Sand filter with pump
Activated carbon filter
Chlorination
Boiling/Pasteurisation
Membrane filter
Ozone treatment
UV treatment
Ceramic filter
Magic
Fluidised bed
Parabolic trough
reactor
Well
Solar box
Silver/Titanium
Waste water
treatment/recycling
Solar still
Aerobic reactor
Electrolysis
Seed flocculation
Anaerobic reactor
Centrifuge
Acid/base purification
(CaSO4 insoluble salt)
Drink juice
Desalinate from
another source
Clean up the Nile
Radiation
Chemical
Analysis
Blue Nile
White Nile
Nile
Canadian Standard
Temperature (oC)
20
20
20
15
pH
7.5
8.2
7.9
6.5 8.5
Conductivity
(s/cm)
240
190
210
1000
AOX (g/L)
32
11
30
TOC ( g/L)
5.9
7.4
15
Cd (g/L)
0.008
0.002
0.024
Pb (g/L)
0.5
<0.1
0.2
10
Cr (g/L)
0.6
6.6
3.9
Nitrate (mg/L)
< 0.002
0.011
0.032
3.2
Table 5. Summary of observed water parameters compared to MAC (Maximum Allowable
Concentration). Note: TOC (Total Organic Carbon) and AOX (Absorbable Organic Halides)
(Abdalrahim, 2007)
References
Abdalrahim, O. (2007). Effect of Khartoum city for water quality of the River Nile. Linkping
University, Linkping.
14
Attar, E. L., Gawad, A. A., Khairy, A. E. M., & Sebaie, O. E. (1982). The Sanitary Condition of
Rural Drinking Water in a Nile Delta Village. I. Parasitological Assessment of 'Zir' Stored and
Direct Tap Water The Journal of Hygiene, 88(1), 57-61.
De Zuane, J. (1997). Handbook of Drinking Water Quality (2nd ed. ed., pp. 575). New York: Van
Nostrand.
Dirar, H. A. (1985). Coliform bacterial counts in the Nile water at Khartoum. Environment
International, 71, 571-576.
Environmental Protection Agency (2009a). Drinking Water Contaminants Retrieved 15-08-09, from
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html#5
Environmental Protection Agency (2009b). National Drinking Water Regulations MCL Booklet May
2009 Retrieved 15-08-09, from http://www.epa.gov/safewater/consumer/pdf/mcl.pdf
Goslich, R., Dillert, R., & Bahnemann, D. (1997). Solar Water Treatment: Principles and Reactors.
Water Science and Technology, 34(4), 137-148.
Huisman, L., & Wood, W. (1974). Slow Sand Filtration. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
Mol, J. (2004). Effect of bio-sand filters on water quality, from
http://www.biosandfilter.org/biosandfilter/index.php/item/310
Musa, H. A., Shears, P., Kafi, S., & Elsabag, S. K. (1999). Water quality and public health in northern
Sudan: a study of rural and peri-urban communities. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 87,
676-682.
Page, D., Wakelin, J., van Leeuwen, J., & Dillon, P. (2006). Review of Biofiltration Processes
Relevant to Water Reclamation via Aquifiers. Adelaide: University of South Australia.
Rolla, T. (1998). Sun and Water: An Overview of Solar Water Treatment Devices. Journal of
Environmental Health, 60(10).
Rose, J. (1991). Water and the Environment. Philadelphia Gordon and Breach Science Publishers.
Seider, W., Seader, J., & Lewin, D. (2004). Product and process design principles : synthesis,
analysis, and evaluation. New York: Wiley.
World Health Organisation (2008). Safer Water, Better Health: Costs, benefits and sustainability of
interventions to protect and promote health. Geneva: World Health Organisation.
World Health Organisation (2009). WHO | Sudan, 19-08-09, from
http://www.who.int/countries/sdn/en/
15