111Equation Chapter 1 Section 1CHNG3807

School of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering

Faculty of Engineering
University of Sydney

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

4.1 Ceramic Filters

Ceramic filters function by obstructing the passage of particles larger than a water molecule. In most
cases, they are treated with silver in the colloidal form to hamper growth of mould, algae and
bacteria. The generic design of these filters has a receptacle placed beneath the filter to collect the
purified water.
Ceramic materials are brittle in nature and therefore allow the formation of hairline cracks that are
not clearly visible. This will allow larger particles to penetrate the filter and thus defeat the purpose
of the device.
4.2

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

4.3.1 Solar Trough Treatment

This method utilizes sunlight as a source for disinfecting water. The simplest form is the solar box,
which can be used for water pasteurization. It consists of a cardboard box, painted black on the
inside, and a clear plastic lid. A covered pot, polished black, is placed inside the box where it needs
to remain at 65oC for a few minutes. This method has a capacity to pasteurize 1 gallon of water (3.5
litres) in three hours on a very sunny day (Rolla, 1998). Another application of this technology is the
parabolic trough reactor, which concentrates parallel rays of the active ultra violet part of the solar
spectrum by a factor of 30 to 50. Flow rates of 500 to 3000 litres per hour can be achieved in this
device (Goslich, Dillert, & Bahnemann, 1997).
4.3.2 Chlorination (Benchmark Technology)
Chlorination is chosen as the benchmark technology as it is an effective way to kill and inhibit the
growth of microorganisms in water. It is the most common disinfectant in Australia and therefore is
used in many Australian cities. The availability and cost of chlorine raises questions on the viability
of this method in our target area, Sudan. On the upper hand, chlorination has numerous impressive
benefits such as, effective at low doses, controls odour and taste, provides residual protection and
thus avoids recontamination, easy to apply, control and monitor. There are some limitations to
chlorine in that it produces unfavourable by-products, it is not effective against cryptosporidium and
it needs to be transported and stored in a chemical form (*).
6

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

Pressurised Sand Filter/ Treatment Combo

Once the sand has been filtered the water must be purified by either solar pasteurisation or by
chlorination. Considering that chlorination requires regular use of a manufactured chemical it is
proffered if solar pasteurisation can be used as much as possible in its place.
Pasteurisation effectiveness
For water to be effectively cleaned by solar pasteurisation it must be brought to a high temperature
and held at it for a given period of time. Sources differ between the required temperature (and time)
required to safely treat water; it is recommended by the World Health Organisation (Source, ) to
bring water to the boil. Considering a solar box situated at the equator, working in a batch situation
the maximum evaporation rate (Seider, Seader, & Lewin, 2004) given is:
An area of 100 m2 a 10 m 10 m collector would require approximately 15 hours of continuous
heating to achieve the 200 litres of water.
Chlorination effectiveness
Chlorination is a proven method of water treatment that is used in developed countries to purify
water. Chlorine is able to remove nearly all common bacteria and viruses (Find Syd water source),
the US EPA recommends 8 tablespoons of household bleach (5.45%) (SOURCE, ) per litre of
contaminated water, for shock chlorination treatment in emergencies. Considering the target volume
of water is 200L per day, this means 0.26 L of household bleach per day or 95 L per year, and
considering a price of around $3-4 a litre of household bleach in Australia, this means an annual cost
of nearly $400, which is not an ideal situation in a third world country. However this is a ballpark
value and more accurate dosing figures are monitored by measuring levels of hyperchlorous acid
levels keeping it below the maximum does of 4-5 ppm (Source).
5.1 Selection Matrix
Criteria
Weight
Cost
0.3
Efficiency
0.3
Maintenance
Total
1

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

414\* MERGEFORMAT (.)

Giving a velocity of:

2.315 106
3.28105 m s -1
0.071
U 0.12 m hr 1

515\* MERGEFORMAT (.)

Which falls within the recommended flow rate range.

Filter Depth
The Schmutzdecke
First mechanism of the slow sand filter is the removal of biomass by the film of bacteria
(schmutzdecke or bio-layer) that forms on the upper layer of a slow sand filter. A typical
schmutzdecke continues to remove bacteria to 0.3 m - 0.4m below the top layer of sand, depending
on the fluid velocity and the grain size used. The kinetics of bacterial removal in the schmutzdecke
involves modeling a predator/prey system with much of the input data dependant on empirical data
obtained via experimentation or using cited values.
Bacterial Kinetics
Assuming that the substrate growth within the filter is minimal, a simplified kinetic model can be fit
to simulate the bacterial dynamics within the filter. Using Matlabs Simulink, a model was designed
to solve the following three equations.
Firstly, the Monod Equation was modelled using the bacterial concentration as the limiting growth
factor:
Sc
max
K s Sc
616\* MERGEFORMAT (.)
Secondly, two differential equations were modelled to highlight the interaction between the substrate
and biomass (bacteria and protozoa);

dX Q
Q
X i X X Kd X
dt V
V

717\* MERGEFORMAT (.)

dS Q
X
Si S

dt V
Y

818\* MERGEFORMAT (.)

Sc
dPr
k g max pr
Pr (kd pr Pr )
dt
k ss Sc

919\* MERGEFORMAT (.)

1
dSc
Nc
Sc
k g max s
Sc kds 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

11111\* MERGEFORMAT (.)

Where:
Sedimentation Area

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

13113\* MERGEFORMAT (.)

So that equating the settling velocity to the surface loading as an inequality the size of particles that
are deposited can be found.
1.15 10 3 0.01 d p 2 0.110 3
d p 2 10 m
14114\* MERGEFORMAT (.)
10

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

18118\* MERGEFORMAT (.)

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)

Volumetric flow rate (L/ day)

(1.6)

Filter volume (L)

Inlet biomass concentration (g/L)
Death rate constant (day-1)
Inlet bacterial concentration (g/L)
Yield of biomass on bacterial (g biomass / g bacteria)
concentration of predator organisms
Maximum specific growth rate of predator organisms
Concentration of prey organisms
Half saturation coefficient for prey
Death rate of predator organisms
Maximum specific growth rate of prey organisms
Concentration of prey food (TOC, nitrates, et cetera)
Death rate of prey organisms
Growth yield coefficient for the predator (g predator / g prey biomass)
Porosity of the medium, 0.38
Diameter of the particle, 0.025 mm
Ratio of densities of suspended matter and water (less that 0.01)
Fluid velocity through the filter
Height of sand
Pressure drop (m)
Permeability of sand
Temperature of the medium, 25oC
Sphericity of the medium, assumed to be 0.95

(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

Figure 1: Coliform Counts in the Nile over 12 months

13

6.1

Brainstorm
Sand filter with pump
Activated carbon filter
Chlorination

Boiling/Pasteurisation
Membrane filter
Ozone treatment

UV treatment
Ceramic filter
Magic

Fluidised bed

Slow sand filter

Reverse Osmosis
Mixed oxidant gases
systems (MOGGOD)
Chemical flocculants

Dew new source

Pump water from clean

source
Nylon mesh

Parabolic trough
reactor
Well

Hot water coils

Ship water from

cleaner source
Tow an iceberg

Solar box
Silver/Titanium

Flow through unit

Genetically modified
anti-bacteria bacteria
Add alcohol

Sell bottled water

(EVIANS)
Research new chemical
treatment
Carbon Nanotubes

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

CFCs from scrap Fridges

7

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