Evaluation of Particle Removal at Water Treatment Plants in Nova Scotia

Eisnor, John D.; O’Leary, Kevin C.; Gagnon, Graham A.

doi:10.2166/wqrj.2001.007

Cited by 11 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The poor correlation between source water particulate material (represented here by turbidity) and treated water particle concentrations further supports the suggestion made in previous works that removal efficiency measures (such as log removals and percent removals) do not provide a useful indication of the actual particulate quality of the treated water (Eisnor et al, 2001; Hargesheimer & Lewis, 2000; Hargesheimer et al, 2000; Hargesheimer & Lewis, 1995). The greater magnitude of particulate material in source water relative to treated water means that changes in treated water quality may affect overall removal values very little; these values are more likely to respond to changes in the source water quality.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

Small particles in distribution systems—The effect of improving treatment

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Particles originating in water following treatment can create operational and water quality issues in distribution systems. The effect of treated water particle concentration on distribution water quality was assessed by monitoring particles at the beginning and end of four pilot distribution systems (PDSs). Flow conditions in this study produced a 75‐h retention time that included three 8‐h overnight stagnation periods. Generally, higher levels of treatment produced water of lower particle concentration, which resulted in lower particle concentrations and particle volume concentrations in the PDSs. Particles entering the PDS were almost all in the 0.5‐ to 2‐μm size fractions. Deposition and resuspension were found to be the primary mechanisms influencing particle behavior in these systems, with particles lost in systems through deposition and resuspension during flow disturbances. Study results suggest that particle monitoring should be more widely adopted as a management tool and that instruments capable of detecting smaller size fractions should be used.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 84%

Small particles in distribution systems—The effect of improving treatment

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2. The conventional coagulation/flocculation and sand filtration are replaced by ultrafiltration (Doyen et al, 2000;Eisnor et al, 2001;Glucina et al, 2000). Nanofiltration is used to replace conventional softening and activated carbon filtration.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of pressure-driven membrane processes and traditional processes for drinking water production in Europe based on specific impact criteria

Bruggen¹,

Verberk²,

Verhack³

2004

WSA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to the policy of many governments of encouraging the use of alternative water sources instead of groundwater, there is a clear need for enhanced water purification systems such as pressure-driven membrane processes. In this article a comparison is made between drinking water production from surface water using pressure-driven membrane processes and using traditional surface water treatment systems. Three alternatives are considered: Traditional treatment using coagulation/flocculation, sand filtration, physicochemical softening, activated carbon adsorption and disinfection (Process A); spiral-wound nanofiltration with ultrafiltration pretreatment followed by marble filtration and disinfection (Process B); and direct capillary nanofiltration with only a limited pretreatment and post-treatment by marble filtration and disinfection (Process C). An evaluation protocol was used (CRIME-DAV), in which the following impact criteria were taken into account: Quality and public health, operational aspects, the environment; the landscape, the economy, and administrative, legal and societal acceptance. The comparison of these aspects shows that none of the considered alternatives is favourable for all aspects. In practice, weight factors used in the protocol may have to be revised, shifting the optimal solution to one of the three processes. The general comparison is to be considered a rough indication and a template for a more detailed practical study. Process A proved to be advantageous for the aspects 'environment' and 'economy' but performance for 'quality and public health' and 'landscape' was poorer than for alternatives B and C. The latter both had a particularly good performance for 'quality and public health' and "operational aspects". Process C was more advantageous than B for economical aspects and the environment.

show abstract

“…However, particle counting is becoming more popular because of an increase interest in pretreatment optimization and the ability to accurately monitor fil-tration and particle removal. Particle counting has been shown to be a more sensitive tool for quantifying filtration performance, especially for lower turbidity levels typical of filtration effluent (Eisnor et al 2001;Chowdhury et al 1997). Particle counting has been shown to detect particle breakthrough sooner and to be capable of detecting changes in effluent quality due to minor process changes (Hargesheimer et al 1998).…”

Section: Assessment Of Filter Performancementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing crushed recycled glass to silica sand for dual media filtration

Rutledge¹,

Gagnon²

2002

Journal of Environmental Engineering and Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objective of this project was to evaluate the performance of a pressure filter utilizing crushed glass as the filter media in a dual media anthracite-glass filter compared to a dual media anthracite-sand filter. In general, the particle removal capabilities of the crushed-glass filter were slightly poorer than those of a sand filter, as quantified in a field application in the community of Orangedale, Nova Scotia. It was found that the crushed glass used in this project had a higher angularity and slightly higher uniformity coefficient then the sand tested. After 6 months of use the crushed-glass filter was able to produce a filter effluent of 50-70 particles/mL (diameter >2 µm), which is greater than the 25-50 particles/mL (diameter >2 µm) that was produced by sand filter. Over the course of the 6-month study the dual media crushed-glass filter was able to achieve a 1.4-log removal, which was only slightly greater than the dual media silica sand filter that achieved a 1.6-log removal of particles with diameters >2 µm.

show abstract

Evaluation of Particle Removal at Water Treatment Plants in Nova Scotia

Cited by 11 publications

References 6 publications

Small particles in distribution systems—The effect of improving treatment

Small particles in distribution systems—The effect of improving treatment

Comparison of pressure-driven membrane processes and traditional processes for drinking water production in Europe based on specific impact criteria

Comparing crushed recycled glass to silica sand for dual media filtration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About