See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237709774

ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF DRINKING WATER TREATMENT PLANT

USING TURBIDITY AS THE MAIN PARAMETER (CASE STUDY: MOI
UNIVERSTITY-KENYA)

Article

CITATION READS

1 3,477

2 authors, including:

Fred Otieno
Masinde Muliro University of Science and Technology
87 PUBLICATIONS   633 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Optimization of Multi-Stage Filtration (MSF) units in Kenya. View project

Hydrological Modelling and Forecating using Data driven modeling techniques View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Fred Otieno on 02 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ASSESSING THE PERFORMANCE OF DRINKING WATER
TREATMENT PLANT USING TURBIDITY AS THE MAIN
PARAMETER (CASE STUDY: MOI UNIVERSTITY-KENYA)

C.B.A. Ogutu and F.A.O. Otieno

Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Tshwane University of

Technology, Private Bag X680 Pretoria 0001, Tel (012)3185120, Fax (012)3185568 Email
ogutucba@tut.ac.za and otienofao@tut.ac.za

ABSTRACT

The conventional water treatment plant, especially in developing countries, faces major
challenges in terms of assessing its operation and performance due to inappropriate
technologies, insufficient equipment and deficiency in skilled expertise. Simple but efficient
technologies are therefore necessary for reasonable evaluation of the daily performance of
the plant. Turbidity is thought of as a convenient surrogate to give favorable indication of
the biological and physical quality of the treated water thus by extension provide a fair
gauge of the performance of the treatment plant with respect to water purification. Besides,
it is fairly simple to measure, cheap and can easily be understood by the operators.

In this study, sampling of water was done at the inlet and outlet of each of the process
units of the Moi University drinking water treatment plant (Kenya) regularly for six months
and turbidity tests done to asses their performance in terms of turbidity removal. Other
physical parameters like pH, Residual chlorine and suspended solids were also measured
and their relationship with turbidity developed. Results revealed that the optimum
coagulant dosage for this plant should be 2mg/l at pH of 6.8 for optimal turbidity removal;
this however, varies from plant to plant. WHO recommendations for turbidity of filtered
water to be disinfected with chlorine should be less than 1NTU. Higher turbidities
measured in this study revealed the presence of cracks and mud balls in the sand media
of the filter units causing inefficiencies in filtration as well as lower filtration rates. WHO
also recommends turbidities of less than 5NTU for drinking water and higher turbidities
ranging 5-7NTU measured in this study indicates possibility of faults in the treatment plant
and distribution system. Corrective measures should therefore be pursued.

INTRODUCTION

Turbidity is the measure of the degree to which the water looses its transparency due to
the presence of suspended particulates. These can be; clay, silt, finely divided organic and
inorganic matter, plankton and other microscopic organisms which cause light to bounce
off and scatter. It is therefore the measure of how light scatters when it is aimed at water
and how it bounces off the suspended particles and not the measure of the particles
themselves. Surface waters being major sources of water for most communities especially
in developing countries, in its nature has higher turbidities than ground water sources.
Treatment of this water before drinking is therefore a major requirement in order to:
1)remove suspended particles carried along with the surface water, 2)remove dissolved
organic and inorganic matter and 3)remove disease causing micro-organisms in the water
to ensure its safety for drinking.
A typical drinking water treatment plant for treating surface water consists of unit
processes for the unit operations starting by screening where the large particles in the
intake water are removed; a coagulant such as alum is then added to coagulate the
suspended particles that escaped the screens. This is immediately followed by flocculation
process wherein the floccs are allowed to grow into larger and denser floccs for easy
settling in the sedimentation units. The water from sedimentation units is reduced in
suspended solids and can now pass through filter units to remove turbidity and micro-
organisms. This water then flows to contact tanks where chlorination is done to disinfect it
before it is taken to storage tanks for distribution into various consumption points. A typical
process scheme of a treatment plant is shown in Figure 1.

Reservoir
Add coagulant
Disinfection

Screens Flocculation Sedimentation Filtration Storage

Intake
Fig 1: Typical Surface Water treatment plant

TURBIDITY IMPLICATIONS ON WATER QUALITY AND WATER TREATMENT

It is important to control turbidity in public water for both health and aesthetic reasons
since suspended matter can contain toxins such as heavy metals and biocides and can
also harbor microorganisms, protecting them from disinfection which eventually can cause
outbreak of diseases. As such, turbidity can be used as a parameter to indicate the safety
of water leaving a filtration system or the performance of the treatment plant as a whole
since the filtration unit is highly dependant on the other preceding unit processes.
Particulate matter (e.g., inorganic, higher microorganisms) can protect bacteria and
viruses from the effects of disinfection. Research indicates that an increase in turbidity
from 1.0NTU to 10NTU would result in an eight fold decrease in the disinfection efficiency
at a fixed chlorine dose (LeChavellier et al, 1991) and that Viruses and coliforms that
adsorb to the organic matter are more resistant to disinfection than those that adsorb to
inorganic material such as clay and aluminium phosphate (Hoff, J.C, 1978). Viruses can
also be absorbed on or within particulate matter and may be very difficult to remove; 1%
recovery is not unusual (Robec, G.G, 1962).During coagulation, protozoa bacteria and
viruses along with other sources of turbidity, become trapped in the floc and eventually
ends in filtration units of a conventional drinking water treatment plant ending up
overloading the filter units. The implications of turbidity on health and treatment are
summarized in Table 2.
 Table 1: Turbidity and implications for water quality and water treatment

Source of Possible water Treatment implications

turbidity quality/chemistry
implications

Inorganic particles - raise/lower pH and alkalinity - major influence on coagulation,

(silt, clay, natural - source of micronutrients flocculation and sedimentation
precipitants, e.g., - affect zeta potential design
CaCO3, MnO2, - source of metals and metal - harbour/protect microorganisms
Fe2O3, etc.) oxides
- cloudy/turbid appearance
- affect taste

Organic particles - source of energy and nutrients - high disinfectant demand

(decomposed for microorganisms - potential to form chlorinated
plant and animal - cause colour organics
debris, humic - impart taste and odour - potential to form ozonation by-
substances) - serve as precursors for the products
formation of chlorinated or - high coagulant dose
ozonated compounds - reduce clarifier overflow rates
- possess ion exchange and - increase
complexing properties that flocculation/sedimentation times
include association with toxic - harbour/protect microorganisms
elements and micropollutants - reduce filter runs
- affect pH - can compete with pollutant
- affect zeta potential compounds for adsorption sites in
activated carbon adsorption
- can precipitate in the distribution
systems

Biological - impart taste and odour - - plug filters – high disinfectant

organisms (algae, potential source of toxin demand - need multiple barriers to
cyan bacteria, (microcystin-LR) - disease ensure effective microbial
zooplankton, transmission - corrode tanks, inactivation - flotation may be more
filamentous or pipes, etc. - stain fixtures - effective than sedimentation -
macro bacterial cause aesthetic problems due microbial inactivation required
growth) to sloughing of growths from
tanks, filters, reservoirs and
distribution system

Limitations such as sampling techniques and instrument calibration can affect the turbidity
results but despite these, turbidity is still the most practical physical parameter with which
to gauge filtration plant performance (Peter, J et al, 1999). Other water parameters such
as PH and Alkalinity can indicate optimal performance of chemical or individual major unit
process, but they do not serve as an adequate surrogate for particle and microbial
removal.
BACKGROUND OF MOI UNIVERSITY TREATMENT PLANT AND OBJECTIVES OF
THE STUDY

The Moi University Drinking water treatment plant follows a conventional water treatment
for surface water as represented by a flow scheme in Figure 2, and its phase one
(commissioned in 1987) was supposed to meet a water demand of 7000m3/day while
second phase (not yet completed ) was to meet an additional demand of 3200m3/day. It
obtains its water from Kesses dam along river Sambul (East of Eldoret town in the Rift
Valley Province of Kenya) with an average turbidity of 16NTU. The water from the river
flows to the treatment plant by gravity and goes through coagulation by alum, flocculation,
sedimentation in big sedimentation tanks, rapid sand (double media) filtration, and
disinfection by chlorine and finally it is pumped to a concrete storage for distribution to
consumption points. The intake channel is divided into three chambers with a level
difference of 0.2m between the first and the second chambers. The first two chambers are
1.5x 1.4m2 while the third is 1.5x9m2. Alum is dosed after the second chamber at 50kg
every 12hours manually by dissolving it in the solution tank and using a hose pipe to dose
it. There are 16 flocculation chambers of 1.3x1.3m2x2.45m deep. The sedimentation tanks
are four and are of 15.65x5m2x3.4-2.8m deep each with overflow weirs notched at the
end. There are four filter units, two of which are incomplete and are of dimensions 3x4.5m2
each. The yearly design capacity of the treatment plant is 2Mm3 and the design daily
capacity is 5500m3. This capacity is not fully utilized since the actual daily flow is
2750m3/day.

Fig 2: Flow scheme for Moi University Drinking Water treatment plant

The water from the treatment plant was realized, through laboratory experiments and
physical observations, to be containing water of turbidity as high as 7NTU while the WHO
standards requirement for drinking water should not exceed 5NTU and nil suspended
solids. This is typical of most treatment plants having performance problems with their
process units due to various factors: Generally, greater pH than 7.8 in water causes
certain ions like aluminium to become soluble hence the efficiency of coagulation becomes
greatly reduced. Also, if optimum pH is exceeded, reversed reaction can occur in the
flocculation chambers leading to higher turbidities in the product water. In addition, muddy
and cracked sand beds in the filter units produce waters with greater turbidities since the
cracks allow suspended particles to pass through. Sand grading of the filter units reveal
the uniformity coefficient and the particle size of the sand which play a great role in
filtration. Finally, operation and maintenance practices cannot be ignored as they greatly
influence the performance of any treatment plant in terms of the right coagulant dosage as
well as filter units’ maintenance. In a system with high turbidities, higher chlorine doses are
required to ensure proper disinfection.

The main objectives of this study therefore included:

1. To examine the operation practices at the treatment plant aimed at obtaining
information about the routine practices and their performance.
2. To assess the turbidity of the water from the various process units aimed at
establishing each unit’s percentage reduction of turbidity in the water. This goes
along way in determining each unit’s performance in treating water
3. To compare the turbidity results with the WHO standard guidelines for drinking
water to establish the treatment work’s performance level.
4. To recommend both short term and long term solutions and operation and
maintenance alternatives aimed at improving the plants performance.

METHODOLOGY

Turbidity was the main parameter tested in this study and due to its relationship with
residual chlorine, suspended solids and pH; these parameters were also subsequently
measured.

Sampling of water from each of the treatment units for testing in the laboratory was the
main data collection method used as illustrated in Table 2 and figure 2. The samples were
then immediately done for turbidity, suspended solids and pH. Special instruments were
used for measurements of both turbidity and pH i.e. the turbidimeter and pH meter
respectively while the mass balance method was used to find the suspended solids. Jar
test was done on the raw water sample to obtain the optimum pH and alum dose for
optimum coagulation and the results compared with the situation in the field. Observation
was another method used to asses the operations and maintenance of the treatment plant
since the dosing of coagulant and chlorine were done manually.
 Table 2: Sampling points and purpose of the tests

Treatment No of Test Purpose of the test

units samples done
Coagulation 1x2 turbidity Either high or low turbidity water is hard to coagulate
pH Greater than 7.8, aluminium ions become soluble hence
efficiency of coagulation is reduced
SS Should be coagulated by the coagulant hence reduction in
suspended solids.

Flocculation 1x16 pH Optimum pH of 6-7 for the removal of turbidity. Reversed

unit reaction can occur if pH is exceeded
SS To monitor the effectiveness of flocculation and reduction of
the load on sedimentation unit
Turbidity should be removed substantially for effectiveness of the
sedimentation basins

Sedimentation 1x2 Turbidity sedimentation can never be achieved well if

units flocculation/coagulation was poor
SS Should be reduced substantially and the floccs formed
should settle without short-circuiting
pH Should range between 6-7

Filtration units 1x2 Turbidity Checked 15minutes post backwash. Maximum turbidity is
within the first 4hrs of filter operation
Also should be checked at 30minutes post backwash
SS Should reduce substantially to approximately 1NTU
pH Should be in the range of 6.5-8.5

Raw water 1x2 Jar test To obtain the optimum coagulant dose and the optimum pH
Intake of dosage
pH The optimum pH for optimum coagulant dose should be
used.
SS To be able to monitor the suspended solids reduction during
the treatment process
Turbidity To help analyze the percentage removal of turbidity by
other treatment units

Treated water 1x2 Turbidity Should be less than 5NTU

SS should be NIL in the treated water

From Table 2 it can be seen that two samples from every treatment units were tested at
any one given time of the experiment for each of the parameters tested. Samples were
taken at the exit points of every unit. The table also summarizes the specific reasons for
each of the tests at each sample point. This exercise took seven months and the results
are summarized in Table 3.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The filtered results for the various treatment units indicate that turbidity decreases along
the treatment process while the pH conditions are relatively constant throughout the
treatment plant. The results also show an abnormality with the suspended solids removal
across the treatment process i.e. higher values at the tap water than at the intake water to
the treatment plant.

Table 3: Summary of the test results

Sample points
Parameter Test Raw Flocculation sedimentation filtration tap water
No. water
Turbidity 1 4.4 3.15 1.94 1.28 4
(NTU)
2 20.61 10.28 6.01 6.26 6.47
3 24.6 10.2 4.88 3.28 7.44
4 14.3 19.92 4.05 3.45 6.88
5 22.7 10.2 4.7 3.3 6.9
6 11.35 16.6 2.4 3.3 6.1
7 14.8 21.2 4.4 4.4 5.4

PH 1 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.9

2 6.95 6.44 6.7 6.89 7.06
3 7.12 6.39 6.49 6.86 7.91
4 7.28 7.01 6.88 7.12 7.35
5 7.14 6.71 6.5 6.75 7.04
6 7.14 6.71 6.5 6.75 7.04
7 7.14 6.71 6.5 6.75 7.04

SS (Mg/l) 1 8 3 4
2 9 6 14
3 9 6 14
4 9 6 6
5 9 3 4
6 9 3 2
7 9 4 12

In test No. 1, the turbidity of the water in all the treatment units was generally lower than all
the turbidities in the subsequent tests probably because of the dry season resulting in
lower levels of suspended and dissolved solids washed by the run-off to the surface water
source. It is also evident that turbidity levels reduce considerably along the treatment
process units due to settlement of floccs formed during coagulation/flocculation process.
The percentage turbidity removal by the flocculation unit increases steadily from test 1 to 3
and this can be directly attributed to improved coagulant dosage. Similar conclusion can
be made of the sedimentation unit. The turbidity removal of the filtration unit, however,
stands at 30%.

The increased turbidity of the raw water inlet has a direct influence on the turbidity levels of
the tap water as can be observed from the turbidity removal trend of the treatment units in
figure 3.
 Turbidity removal trend in treatment units

30

25

20
Turbidity (NTU)

Raw water
flocculation unit
15 sedimentation unit
filtration unit
Tap water

10

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Test Excercises

Figure 3: Turbidity removal trend of the treatment units

From the figure, it is evident that sedimentation and filtration units have almost similar
turbidity levels despite the fact that turbidity should have been remarkable reduced by the
sedimentation process. Another serious anomaly from this figure is that the tap water
turbidity is constantly higher for both the filtered water and the water immediately after
sedimentation.

The summary of turbidity results as well as the recommended WHO standards for various
water treatment process units is given in table 4.

Table 4: Turbidity and Suspended results compared to WHO standards

Test Unit Sample point Results WHO Comments
standards
Turbidity NTU raw water 16.1 Non
Flocculation 13.8 up to 20 within standards
Sedimentation 4.05 <20 within standards
Filtration 3.61 <1 NOT within stds
Tap water 6.17 <5 NOT within stds

Suspended mg/l Raw water 9 non

solids
Filtration 4 non
Tap water 8 Nil NOT within stds

The water immediately after filtration unit and the tap water have averagely turbidities
above the WHO recommendations. Tap waters also have suspended solids while the
requirement is that it should be nil.
Jar test done to obtain optimum coagulant dosage as well as pH for optimal coagulation
are summarized in Figure 4
 Figure 4: Optimum coagulant dose for turbidity removal

The optimum coagulant dosage is 2mg/l of alum for minimum turbidity results of 4mg/l of
water from the treatment plant. Any dosage lower or higher than the optimal dosage
results in higher turbidities.

COCNCLUSION

The WHO requirements of drinking water should have a turbidity of less than 5NTU from
the taps and 1NTU for water after filtration if disinfection is by chlorine. This system
therefore, does not meet this standard.

It is evident that the problem is with the filtration as well as the distribution system.
However, filtration units are fed with water from the sedimentation units and therefore
without proper sedimentation of the floccs in the sedimentation process, the filter units are
bound to be overloaded which can cause clogging of the filters. Without proper
coagulation/flocculation, the suspended particles do not form denser floccs which are able
to settle in the sedimentation tanks. This therefore is a ripple effect since the treatment
units are interrelated.

Improper coagulant dosage is another probable cause for high turbidities especially if the
coagulant is not dosed optimally. This is an operation and maintenance problem.

Finally, leaks within the distribution system can be a good explanation for sudden
increased turbidities in the tap waters obtaining their water directly from the distribution
mains since difference in atmospheric pressure and that inside the pipes can cause dirt
and other particles to be sucked into the distribution system during low flows.
 REFERENCES

1. Charles, R.C. Operation and Control of water treatment processes. (1994)

2. Chartterjee, A.K. 7th Ed. Water Supply, Waste Disposal and Environmental
Engineering. 2001.
3. Mangat, I.B. Patel et al. Pre-final design for Water and Sewerage for Moi University.
Eldoret, Kenya. (1993).
4. Metcalf and Eddy. 3rd Ed. Waste Water Engineering Treatment, Disposal and
Reuse. (1995).
5. Tebbutt, T. H. Y. Principles of Water Control. (1998).
6. Terrence, J. 6th Ed. Water Supply and Sewerage. (1991)
7. Twort, A.C. et al. Water Supply. Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd., London.
8. WHO. Operations and Maintenance of Urban Water Supply and Sanitation
Systems. (1994).

View publication stats