Author
Listed:
- Mark Elliott
(Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487, USA)
- Christine E. Stauber
(School of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30302, USA)
- Francis A. DiGiano
(Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)
- Anna Fabiszewski De Aceituno
(Hubert Department of Global Health, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA)
- Mark D. Sobsey
(Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA)
Abstract
The biosand filter (BSF) is an intermittently operated, household-scale slow sand filter for which little data are available on the effect of sand composition on treatment performance. Therefore, bench-scale columns were prepared according to the then-current (2006–2007) guidance on BSF design and run in parallel to conduct two microbial challenge experiments of eight-week duration. Triplicate columns were loaded with Accusand silica or crushed granite to compare virus and E. coli reduction performance. Bench-scale experiments provided confirmation that increased schmutzdecke growth, as indicated by decline in filtration rate, is the primary factor causing increased E. coli reductions of up to 5-log10. However, reductions of challenge viruses improved only modestly with increased schmutzdecke growth. Filter media type (Accusand silica vs. crushed granite) did not influence reduction of E. coli bacteria. The granite media without backwashing yielded superior virus reductions when compared to Accusand. However, for columns in which the granite media was first backwashed (to yield a more consistent distribution of grains and remove the finest size fraction), virus reductions were not significantly greater than in columns with Accusand media. It was postulated that a decline in surface area with backwashing decreased the sites and surface area available for virus sorption and/or biofilm growth and thus decreased the extent of virus reduction. Additionally, backwashing caused preferential flow paths and deviation from plug flow; backwashing is not part of standard BSF field preparation and is not recommended for BSF column studies. Overall, virus reductions were modest and did not meet the 5- or 3-log10 World Health Organization performance targets.
Suggested Citation
Mark Elliott & Christine E. Stauber & Francis A. DiGiano & Anna Fabiszewski De Aceituno & Mark D. Sobsey, 2015.
"Investigation of E. coli and Virus Reductions Using Replicate, Bench-Scale Biosand Filter Columns and Two Filter Media,"
IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 12(9), pages 1-24, August.
Handle:
RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:9:p:10276-10299:d:54723
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:12:y:2015:i:9:p:10276-10299:d:54723. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.