Rainwater_Filtration_Spring_Final_Report_2.0

WATER FILTRATION SYSTEM
DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND PHYSICS
ELIZABETHTOWN COLLEGE, ELIZABETHTOWN, PA
ANTHONYDAVALA, CAL GRAZIANO, ZACH
KARASEK, BRYNNE KIRSCH, DEREK MUNSCH,
ADVISOR: DR. SARA ATWOOD
APRIL 29, 2016

2
Abstract:
Providing clean, accessible drinking water is a challenge faced across the world. From developing
nations to our own country, water that may seem abundant to many of us is an infrequent
commodity for others. Still, the majority of the world population has yet to take advantage of
natural resources in order to solve this issue. Rainwater is an untapped source of drinkable water,
and much like the sun is harnessed for solar use, it is completely natural and unlimited.
The purpose of our project is to provide a rainwater collection and purification system to
communities or residences with limited water supply. Our system will be completely automated,
with low energy needs subsidized by batteries, transportable, and easy to use. This system will
also be fully capable of providing potable water to the user anywhere it is needed. Communities
equipped with our rainwater collection and purification system will be able to receive accessible
white water in a much simpler, hassle-free fashion.

3
Introduction and Background:
Water is abundant across the world, from lakes to streams to rain, yet providing clean drinking
water to the entire human population is a struggle. In 2008, it was estimated that 5 million South
African citizens lacked a formal water supply, while 15 million lacked basic sanitation [1]. On a
global scale, estimates point to 884 million people without access to safe water [2]. Even in less
dire scenarios, in more advanced countries where access to water is based on proximity to a
supermarket, consumers are looking to lower their energy consumption and maximize their
efficiency. By utilizing the largest source of reoccurring, natural water production through
collecting and purifying rainwater, the crisis of water shortages can be diminished drastically.
The entire world population stands to benefit from natural production of necessities. Limiting our
overall energy reliance not only saves money, but also increases worldwide environmental
sustainability. The need for accessible drinking water is most prominent in dry, arid areas where
potential potable water can’t be wasted. Developing countries find numerous communities
struggling to gain access to drinking water on a daily basis, and even then, many suffer from
diseases from the potentially contaminated water.
While efforts to reconstruct a suitable infrastructure in these developing countries has increased
greatly, many communities within developing nations still rely on local streams or rivers for their
potable water. Paired with the fact that 68% of Sub-Saharan communities still use an outdated,
unhygienic method of waste sanitation, this seemingly drinkable water leads to high levels of E.
coli and other harmful bacteria [3]. The current solutions are low-cost, effective filters that can take
most water and purify it into a drinkable liquid. While most of these products are deliverable and
successful, they don’t eliminate the issue of time effectiveness in accessing white water.
Our solution is a rainwater collection and purification system. This system will be capable of
providing drinkable water directly to the user’s home, with no effort or hassle. Since it is a
completely automated system, accessing potable water after a day’s rain is as simple as turning on
the faucet. Our goal is to create a system that will become a catalyst in continuing the push and
development behind providing safe water to people across the world.
Project Design Specifications (PDS) and Market Analysis:
When we chose the concept for this project, we had very little knowledge of the process needed to
create drinkable water. This led us to research the type of filtration that would create drinking
water, and the difference between white water and grey water. White water can be defined as water
that can be used for drinking and cooking. It is clean water that has no harmful additives that can
damage the digestive tract. Grey water can be defined as water that is unsuitable for drinking but
can be used for a large range of uses such as watering plants and water for toilets. Grey water is
very easy is to create because it has very little restraints on what it contains. This is due to the fact
that grey water can contain soaps or other harmful contaminants. For grey water, we would only

4
need to create a way to store water that would allow for it to be used safely. White water needs to
be further stripped of all harmful material, such as bacteria and debris, so that it is safe to drink
and cook with.
We chose to create a system that produces white water because it allows us to have a very flexible
system capable to be used for any purpose. Research into this area showed that to make water safe
to drink it has to be purified using either a heating source, chemicals, or ultra violet light. Our
original assumption that only these three methods were effective in producing white water was
inaccurate. After further research into the matter, we discovered that the filter used in the previous
group’s project was capable of purifying rainwater. The filter was able to remove bacteria from
the water, meaning our previous design of adding a second barrel to house a UV system to keep
the water safe was excessive and unnecessary. We changed our design to include only one barrel
and the filter, and began research on the range of filters that could be used to produce white water.
The full PDS is located in Appendix A.
Project Management:
This semester our team’s project management has been centered on organization, having
expectations for every week, and holding everyone responsible for what they have to do. The first
way that our group has worked efficiently is by having a group meeting every week. Although this
meeting time had changed week to week due to scheduling conflicts, we always met to ensure that
tasks were completed. In most cases our weekly meeting took on a Sunday or Monday evening
from 7pm-9pm. During these meetings each member of the group was expected there; however if
a member of the group is not able to attend the team meeting, our group makes an attempt at
finding another time to meet.
Along with having weekly meetings we began this semester by creating what we called “bubble
charts”. These are really called mind maps, and they are a free flowing group of tasks and ideas
that lead the group to the final product. An example of this is seen as Figure 1. Each member was
assigned a portion of the total project that he or she was most comfortable with or had previously
worked on. After the maps were made by each group member for their specific parts we created a
larger map that would encompass everything that needed to be accomplished over the semester.
With all the goals laid out over the semester we then used the map to create a Gantt chart that the
group would use to stay on track for the rest of the semester. However as the semester got into
swing we found out that not all the times on the chart would be able to be met do to time constraints
or waiting on parts to be delivered. Because of this the Gantt chart had to be changed a multitude
of times and the final Gantt chart is seen in Appendix B.

5
Figure 1: An example of a mind map used during the semester
Throughout this project, conflict has always played a part in decisions made and time delays. From
miscommunication on what parts are being installed on work days to when meetings were
scheduled around sporting events, someone was frustrated at some point. In the event of a conflict
that was negotiable, the plan was to confront the problem and discuss ways to fix the problem. The
next step would be to either take a vote on the choices or see a professor who could provide insight
into the problem. The most challenging set back was in construction; no one knew when parts were
going to get installed due to miscommunication or laziness. This led to at least two weeks of delays
when testing should have occurred. The project was completed on time but, if the schedule and
communication was adhered to, we could of hade an extra month to review the results of testing
and run more.
Budget:
With five group members, we were allotted $1,000 for our project budget, at $200 per member.
Our projected spending at the beginning of the semester was estimated to be $389.36, with our
maximum, worst-case scenario cost to be $467.23. However, throughout the semester we
encountered additional issues and extra costs which compromised our projected spending.
Our final budget is shown in Table 1 below, where we have listed the product that was purchased,
followed by where it was purchased from and how much it cost. Although we slightly exceeded

6
our projected budget from the beginning of the semester, we stayed below our worst-case scenario
budget. We used only 40.2% of our total allotted budget, saving the department nearly $600.
Table 1: Budget and spending summary
We were able to reach such a low budget partially due to the fact that we reused parts from the
previous group’s project. Since we were continuing an existing project, we were able to use the
barrel and filter case the previous group had left behind. This was vital in maintaining a low budget
because the barrel and the filter case were two of the more expensive items within the system.
Additionally, we repurposed the wood that the previous group had used as their stand. Since we
had redesigned the system to be mobile and easily transportable instead of static and grounded, we
took apart the wood used for the stand and used it to construct our mobile base. By reusing old,
but still functional materials, we not only reduced our spending, but also upheld our sustainable
efforts.
Social, Ethical, and Environmental:
This system has potential to be featured in areas with any amount of rain water and capable of
being built with minimal cost. Although this product may be expensive, $450, initially, it will be
able to provide drinking water for a long period of time, which will end up saving the customer
money. This issue has become the ethical aspect of this project in that people should not have to
spend a substantial amount of money for drinkable water. This has to do with the fact that drinkable
water is something that is an essential to everyone and should not be something that people should
have to spend absurd amount of money on to obtain. However, the general public may not trust it
Product Store Cost
Delavan PowerFLO Diaphragm Pump Ruralking.com $39.34
K-Style Foam Gutter Filter Home Depot $7.04
PVC Plain Edge/Elbows Home Depot $20.00
P-Trap Home Depot $35.24
Microguard Carbon Cartridge Amazon $75.58
3” Uniseal Uniseal.com $5.43
PVC Tubing & Rubber Stopper Home Depot $5.62
Home & Well Water Test Kit Amazon $150.04
Caster break,Battery, connectors Hostetters $58.23
Hinges Hostetters $3.52
Brackets Hostetters $2.03
Total Cost $401.98
Budget Left Over $597.93

7
just because a well-known company did not manufacture it. Depending on the knowledge of the
customer, providing the pH test may influence them in a positive way. This water filtration system
that we have designed has a smaller carbon footprint than we had initially intended, needing only
a new $75 filter every 4-6 months based upon usage.
Our original system called for water to be cleaned by a UV light so there would be no chemicals
added to the water. This eliminated any ethical issues because the water from the system would
have been safe to drink. If the water had been released into the environment, it would’ve been safe
for any plants or animals it may come in contact with. The filter we have is also capable of
achieving the same results and may also kill off any types of organisms that may enter the system
and if the water was spilt, it would be safe for the environment.
Design:
Initial Screening
The initial screening is the driving force keeping organic material out of the system. When this
project started two years ago, there was not an initial screening component designed in. Knowing
that twigs, acorns, leaves, and other debris could damage the pump and filter, we addressed this
problem to find a suitable design to keep the organic material out.
We researched a few designs that could prevent organic material from entering our system. The
three designs we found are chicken wire, a gutter helmet, and a gutter guard. Using the chicken
wire as the DATUM, we weighed out the pros and cons of the gutter helmet [4] and gutter guard
[5]. A gutter helmet is a plastic cover that prevents debris from entering the gutter, but allows
water to drain in. The gutter guard is a piece of foam that allows water to drain in through the
porosity of the foam keeping debris out, see Figure 2.
Table 2: Design choices for preventing debris from entering the barrel

8
As seen in Table 2, the gutter helmet has two pluses, three negatives, and no same results to the
DATUM, and the gutter guard has three pluses, one negative, and one same as the DATUM. In
analyzing this data, we came to the conclusion that the more important factors are efficiency and
installment. Both designs have pluses for efficiency because they both will keep organic material
out of the system, but the gutter helmet has a negative in installment. The installment process the
helmet is screwing the product to the gutter, while the guard is just a piece of foam placed into the
gutter. The porosity of the foam allows water to travel through easily. We decided that the gutter
guard would be the best choice for our project. This easy to install product will prevent any debris
from entering and damaging the system.
Figure 2: The foam used to prevent debris from entering
Filter
The filter for our system, a Pentek MG-10MCB, is the same one the previous group had used in
their design. The filter and cartridge, Figure 3, has its specifications in Appendix C, which is the
data sheet from the Pentek website [7]. This is a generic filter where water flows in through a 3/8”
input hole, around and through a carbon cartridge, and then out the 3/8” exit hole. The filter
requires between 5 and 88 psi functioning properly thus this leading us to know that we need to
design the system to have sufficient pump.

9
Figure 3: The carbon filter and shell from the previous group’s project [7]
Pump
The pump chosen for the system is the Delavan PowerFLO Series 2200-201 Diaphragm Pump,
Figure 4. The specs sheet for this pump can be seen in Appendix D, Figure 5. When we started
this project, the previous group had a hand pump, which, in our attempts, barely pushed water
through the filter. A Pugh chart, Table 3, lead us to know that a pump was one of the first
components needing upgrading. The data shows equal marks between the two choices; however,
efficiency was the number one specification taken into account when deciding on the design. The
hand pump could not perform this specification, thus we decided to search for an electric pump
that could perform to meet this specification.
Table 3: Pugh table deciding between a mechanical or electrical pump
Design Mechanical Electrical
Energy Consumption + -
Cost + -
Efficiency - +
Lifespan S S
Ease of use - +
∑+ 2 2
∑- 2 2
∑S 1 1

10
When searching for the right pump on the market, we began by looking into our PDS and the filter
we currently had. The filter was capable, at .15 microns, of sifting out bacteria, which is the
smallest of the most harmful substances one can ingest. We knew that the filter needed between
5-88 psi to properly function. In our PDS, we wanted this project to be environmentally friendly;
in other words, have the smallest carbon footprint possible. The initial design was that a solar panel
would be attached to the system to generate the electricity needed. After some debate, we realized
that using a battery would be friendlier towards the environment and cheaper to purchase and
maintain. This meant we needed a pump within the range of pressure required, but that would not
consume large amounts of energy.
Table 4: Pugh table showing the positive and negative attributes of each pump
Design Delavan Doheny Intex Hand pump RV Pump
Energy Consumption + D - + +
Cost + A - + -
Efficiency + T + - +
Installation S U S S S
Lifespan + M - + +
Ease of Use + + - +
Reliability + - + +
∑+ 6 2 4 5
∑- 0 4 2 1
∑S 1 1 1 1
When researching for pumps, we took into account analyzing energy consumption, cost,
efficiency, installation, lifespan, and ease of use. As seen in Table 4, we display the possible
pumps and compared each one. The pumps used in this Pugh chart are a Delavan, a Doheny, and
Intex, the hand pump, and a Remco RV pump.

11
Figure 4: The Delavan PowerFLO Series 2200-201 chosen for this project [8]
The most important specifications in Table 4 are cost, energy consumption, and efficiency. By the
results shown in, the Delavan won 6 positives to 1 negative. Overall, a pump that was very
reasonably priced, took 12 V to power, could generate 40 psi, and have a 1.0 GPM flow rate was
the obvious choice.
Circuit:
A circuit was required to run the electric pump, and needed to work off 12 V to function. We
needed to design a circuit that would hold two 6 V batteries easily and not fail. We brainstormed
a couple ideas for the circuit: a hinge design and a spring design. We decided by discussion that
the hinge was the worse design due to the precision needed in cutting and rounding edges to ensure
the connection would stay stable. The double spring concept, Figure 6, would be much easier to
manufacture and implement into the system. At this point, the circuit is not protected from the
elements, but the addition of a cover to seal and water proof the circuit could be built at little
additional cost or effort.
Figure 6: Rough sketch of the battery circuit for the pump

12
Piping
The purpose of the piping is to successfully carry water from the collection barrel, throughout the
systems involved, and out of the end spout. While most facets of the total system are allotted some
freedom and flexibility in determining the final design choice, the piping design choices were
constrained to the other apparatuses within the system and their specifications. The piping needed
to make several connections onto separate mechanisms including the pump, filter, and barrel. Both
the pump and the filter have existing connection points installed on their outer body, meaning the
piping must match the size of these pre-existing outlets and inlets.
Both the pump and the filter have connection points sized at a 3/8” diameter. Therefore, the piping
design choice must be a type of piping with 3/8” diameter as well. Since the barrel outlet will be
created by puncturing the barrel ourselves, we can also run 3/8” diameter piping out of the barrel
in order to simplify the total run of piping and keep it consistent. Butterfly clamps were utilized at
every connection point to secure the piping around the hose barb, and ensure there was no leakage.
Table 5: Possible piping options
Design Rubber Clear PVC PEX
Durability D + +
Cost A S -
Flexibility T - -
Smoothness U S S
Ease of Attachment M S -
∑+ 1 1
∑- 1 3
∑S 3 1
Another piping decision that had to be made was selecting what type of piping should be used.
Due to the specifications of the pump and filter, our design choices were constrained once again.
Both the pump and filter have barbed outlets and inlets, meaning a flexible piping material that is
able to fit around the house barb had to be used. The top flexible piping options available were
rubber, clear PVC, and PEX piping. The Pugh chart provided above in Table 5 details the strengths

13
and weaknesses for each piping type. Ultimately, clear PVC piping was decided to be the best
option for our purposes. The clear PVC was exactly similar to the rubber tubing, except the clear
PVC had higher durability, while rubber tubing held the advantage on flexibility.
A compromise that came with the PVC piping was its inability to easily connect to the barrel. Our
solution for that issue was to use a custom made component called a Uniseal, which is designed to
create piping connections into an object with no connection port. Essentially, by cutting a hole
with the same diameter as the Uniseal into any object, the Uniseal can create a tight and secure
connection between the piping and the barrel. Since the barrel had no openings or ports where the
piping could easily enter, the Uniseal had to be bought and used on the system.
Barrel:
When beginning our project in junior year our initial idea was to involve a two barrel system. One
barrel would be used to collect rainwater off the roof and the other barrel would be used to collect
the filtered water. Once the water was filtered and in the second barrel a system of Ultra Violet
lights that would be placed in the barrel would be used to purify the water. As we began to research
and look into outside sources a decision was made to eliminate this second barrel, due to the fact
that it was an unnecessary expense.
Table 6: Possible colors for the barrel
Colored Black Left White Clear D
Heat of water increases (negative
effect)
- + + A
Ease to color + + - T
Probability of water forming
bacteria
+ - - U
Price to create color + + - M
With the decision made the final design that is shown in the final project uses only one barrel. This
barrel needed to be able to hold at least 55 gallons; as seen in Table 6, and after research the color
was shown not to matter. Because of this we decided to use the old group’s barrel. Using this barrel
kept costs down and because we already had it at school helped in keeping the group on track.

14
Failsafe:
The initial failsafe design was that of the old group: a simple float. The float worked by opening
the downspout once the water reached a certain level in the barrel. This opening would prevent
water from entering the system, keeping the system from overflowing. Once this design was
researched we determined that trying to implement a float into our system would be difficult
because of the constraints of the barrel’s openings. The failsafe would have to either be designed
small enough for the opening or would have to be something else entirely to compensate for the
size of the opening. After considering alternatives with Pugh charts, seen in Tables 7 and 8, the
decision was to use a trap design as a failsafe. This trap sits on the side of the barrel and because
of this will not have to deal with the small top opening of the barrel. The trap can be seen as
Figure 7.
Table 7: Pugh chart weighing the possible failsafe options
The trap would be placed in the side of the barrel and as the water rose, the piping in the trap would
fill up. Once the water level in the trap reaches the height of the barrel the water would begin to
pour out or would be redirected to another area. The design allows the barrel to fill completely
without water back flowing into the gutter. Along with this advantage, the design uses only gravity
as a way of moving water out of the barrel. Using gravity cuts down on the possibility of something
failing because of the lack of mechanical parts in the system to failing.
Holes with
mesh cover
Open/close gate
system
Foam
bobber
Electronic
System
Bobber
system
Able to be used with
old system
+ + - + D
Simplicity + - - - A
Let in least amount of
particles
- + + + T
Ease to make or design + + - - U
Price to make + - - + M

15
Table 8: Another set of design for the failsafe design
Trap Hinge Holes
Price - + D
Expectation to work + - A
Ease of use + - T
Ability to be integrated
into the system
+ - U
Ability to keepmaterial
out
+ + M
Figure 7: The “P-Trap” failsafe design
Cart:
The previous group designed a stand to hold the barrel full of water static. We needed something
that could easily transport the system to show our design as a proof of concept anywhere. The
wooden stand they manufactured, seen in Figure 8, was disassembled to reuse the wood for a new
design.
Figure 8: An Inventor drawing of the stand from the previous group

16
At first, we wanted to simply add a piece of wood to the stand for the pump, but we kept forgetting
the entire system needed to move easily. Thoughts of just adding wheels to the base floated around,
but the top barrel would reach well over 8 feet if we did that. A design, Figure 9, was then
produced. This designed used two of the four 4x4’s at 42”, six 2x4’s at 22.5”, and we cut out two
7” 2x4 wedges, and two 12” 2x4’s. We decided the cart needed four wheels, with wheel breaks, to
let us smoothly glide the system around even if the barrel was filled to its limit, but not run away
with all that momentum.
Figure 9: Machine drawings of the cart designed to house the barrel, pump, filter, and circuit
Implementation/Fabrication report:
For the fabrication of the system, we reserved time slots to work in the Fabrication Laboratory.
This time was spent deconstructing the old project, building the new cart and planning for future
visits. The visits also had the assistance of the Mr. Gatti, technician of the Laboratory, who
provided guidance to us when we ran into a problem such as designing simple yet efficient circuit,
selecting the wheels, and what would be the best methods for attaching the piping to the barrel.
Initial Screening
This section is a little different because the initial screening could not be shown as a part of our
presentation. On the actual design, the gutter guard will be installed into the homeowner’s gutter.
From there, the barrel will collect the water. However, we did not use a full gutter as a part of our

17
presentation. Instead, we cut a small part of the gutter guard and fit it into a shortened piece of
gutter for visualization. On top of our barrel there is a small fixture that we are able to pour water
into. Figure 9 shows how the water will be initially filtrated before entering the barrel.
Figure 9: Machine drawings for the wood structure holding the gutter
Circuit
The circuit is a simple design using basic electrical concepts to power the pump. By using an
electric drill press, two identical ¾ inch pieces of plywood, dimensioned at 6 and ¼ inches by 3
and 7/16 inches, were drilled out .375 inches to fit two 6 V batteries side by side, Figure 10.
Machining knowledge allowed us to accurately leave about ½ inch as a lip ensuring the batteries
couldn’t fall out.
Figure 10: Dimensions for the two pieces of plywood

18
The next task was drilling two holes through the top piece where the (+) of one battery would be
and the (-) for the other would be, Figure 11, 12, and 13. These holes, eventually will have a bolt
and washers placed at these locations to make the connections to the batteries. The holes were cut
for the battery springs, (+) and (-), furthest from one another, leaving a large gap in the middle
untouched. From there, we marked where the inner two (+) and (-) terminals would be. By
attaching an aluminum bar where the inner two terminals are, this completes the circuit when
attached together, Figure 13. By splicing an ends of an extension wire and adding connectors, the
(+) and (-) ends connected in between the bolt and washers at each of the holes fully connecting
the circuit together.
To keep the pressure needed for the circuit to maintain connection, springs were added. The
locations of the springs are on both ends, top and bottom, of the cutout plywood. These springs
made the connection possible for the circuit to work properly. A problem was that the top piece
wasn’t fully making connection because the two springs were pulling down where there was an
empty gap opposite side of the springs of the battery terminals. To prevent this, a wood chip was
glue on the inside edge of the top piece to prevent from the connection falling off, seen in as the
stripped object in Figure 11 and 13.
Figure 12:The outside of top piece Figure 13: The inside of the top piece
Figure 11: The top piece of the battery circuit

19
Piping
While most other parts of the system were constructed at the same time, the piping was unique due
to the fact that it was the final subsystem to be attached. In order to know the correct size and cuts
for the piping, the rest of the system had to be assembled. Therefore, by the time most of the system
was completed, the piping was added in order to finalize the system.
The run of piping went from the bottom of the barrel via the 3/8” Uniseal, around to the pump,
then to the filter and outwards to create a spigot, or open ended hose. Even making the cut for the
Uniseal had to wait until the rest of the assembly was completed; because the run of piping
depended on the exact orientation the barrel would be in. Since the design had already been
thoroughly planned out and had gone through all potential troubleshooting, implementation was
simple and speedy, with the total time to assemble the piping taking less than an hour. Throughout
all of the testing phases, the piping was checked to ensure the implementation was successful, and
it was found to be effective.
Cart
Building the cart consisted of screwing together each piece in its proper spot. The biggest problem
was ensuring that the barrel would not slip off the cart. We developed two 2x4 wedges, at a 45
degree angle, to hold the barrel and prevent it falling off the cart. This firmly held the barrel on the
cart with no chance of tipping off. What made this cart design so crucial to our project is that it
could house the barrel, pump, circuit, and filter all in one. Because it was primarily made of wood,
screwing the components onto it was quick and easy.
Failsafe
Once the failsafe was implemented into the barrel, the hole cut into the barrel leaked. Implementing
a Uniseal element quickly solved this problem. This Uniseal product fits in the hole that was cut
into the barrel and once the PVC portion of the trap was placed in the hole was filled creating a
watertight seal. With this problem solved a test of the system was initiated and at the end of this
test we determined that the failsafe works at redirecting water out of the barrel safely without
causing the barrel to overflow.
Testing results and analyses:
After the construction of the cart, attaching the pump, circuit, and filter to the cart, adding the
piping, pump, and filter, we were finally able to test whether the system could actually provide
clean drinking water. We used two test kits to run the tests for both tap water and rainwater, before

20
filtering and after filtering. The control variable for this experiment was to use the same test kit for
the same type of water; this would keep the results as accurate as possible.
The datum or nominal setting for the results was the tap water because tap water meets industry
standards and is safe to drink straight out of the faucet. To truly test the system, we collected
rainwater in a cooler and brought into the lab so the final test results would be as authentic as
possible. At first, we wanted to run tests on the campus’ pond, Lake Placida, to determine how
well our system would work against water with large amounts of bio mass, but lake water is not
technically rainwater and this test would skew our final results.
Figure 14: The final results of all four testing between the tap and rainwater
As seen in Figure 14, we ran two sets of tests: unfiltered tap water and rainwater. We used the
WaterSafe Test Kit to measure tap water levels of bacteria, pesticides, nitrates, nitrites, lead, iron,
hardness, pH, chlorine, and copper, and the PurTest Test Kit tested rainwater for bacteria,
pesticides, nitrates, nitrites, lead, iron, hardness, pH, chlorine, copper, and alkalinity. The tap water
yielded safe results across the board except for trace amounts copper and medium hardness. This
makes sense because the pipes are most likely copper and tap water is usually pretty hard. The
rainwater had levels, in ppm, of bacteria, pesticides, lead, iron, chlorine, and copper, as well as
low hardness, a slight basic pH, and an elevated alkalinity. The filter should capable of sifting out
the solid material found in the test.
The filtered tap water yielded the same results as the unfiltered water; the N/A in the pesticides
row was caused by an unknown error; the test results simply read off inconclusive result, but we
know were no pesticides present in the tap water. As for the rainwater, these results came back

21
high positive. The only element left within the water was copper and the same levels of hardness,
pH, and alkalinity. Our filter has shown to remove the 99.9999% of bacteria present during the
tests. The results show that all levels of bacteria, pesticides, lead, iron, and chlorine had been
removed during the filtration process
The last piece of information needed for this analysis is to know what levels of copper are
dangerous. The tests strips showed the levels were at their maximum testing level, 3 ppm.
According to water safety, [6] the amount of copper in water should not exceed 1.3 ppm. This water
safety criteria means that the rainwater sample contained at least double the recommended levels
of copper one should ingest. The reason for this can be from the house having copper gutters or
roofing material. The copper levels could also of came from the cooler due to it having held
something made out of copper and thus tainting the results. The public safety concern is because
children lack the ability to filter out high levels of copper. The high levels of copper in our
rainwater testing shows that, although the rest of the tests came back clean, the water does not
meet safety standards. A second experiment of fresh rainwater, not off a roof, and into a clean
contain would need to be made to verify these results.
Manufacturing plan:
Originally, this project had been designed for Elizabethtown College. When our group picked this
project up in the fall of 2014, we redesigned the water filtration system so it would be suitable for
a wide variety of customers. This design has the potential for mass production, however our
specific system is not. This is simply because we have used materials from past years, as well a
few miscellaneous parts from our fabrication lab. In addition to this, we definitely hit a couple of
roadblocks causing our initial design to change, as expected. If we were to recreate drawings of
our current system, we would be able to mass-produce.
However, depending on the situation, this may not be ideal. This project can be scaled at many
different sizes. You may not want a pump that produces three gallons of water per minute for a
single family, small home, and vice versa. It would not be as beneficial for a large family home to
have a water filtration system with a pump that only produces one gallon per minute.
Our world is moving in a more sustainable, green world so we can all live healthier lives. The
point of this project is to help add to that cause. This system allows our customers to take rainwater
and turn it into pure, drinkable water rather than wasting clean water. Using this system, we are
able to turn gray water into clean water. Although our water filtration system may not be ideal to
mass-produce, it is plausible. Sizing the project and offering different versions (size of pumps,
barrels, etc.) would definitely be necessary to meet the customer’s needs.
Final discussion and conclusions:
By the end of this project we came to the conclusion that were able meet our group’s initial goal

22
of producing a rainwater filtration system. This system can take the incoming rainwater off of a
person’s roof and turn that water into clean and drinkable water. This purification process is done
by taking in rainwater through an initial gutter screening device, store it in a barrel, and then once
needing water, turning on a pump that would draw water through a filter producing drinkable
water. Along the way we have had to adjust our initial PDS, mostly to simplify our design because
we didn’t need a second tank and ultraviolet purification. Once this problem was identified we had
to come up with different plans that would allow our group to not only finish on time, but be able
to complete a fully functional project.
In the end our project worked almost exactly how we intended. All the main components of the
system; the failsafe, the pump, the filter, and the piping were all able to work not only individually,
but also as a whole. The failsafe was able to keep water from backing up the system, the piping
held up without leaking, the pump was able to pull water from the barrel, and the filter was able to
create purified water. Every major aspect of our system worked as we planned, which is rare to
happen. However we feel that the reason for our success had to do with how early we were able to
start work on our project. We left ourselves plenty of time work out all the kinks and come up with
a fully functional project.
Although we were able to finish our project and were able to produce clean drinkable water, if we
had to do anything differently I think we would look into a better and more set work schedule for
building, and possibly the addition of a fixed water dispenser, so that we could easily hold the
water from the pump instead of pumping into a bucket. The system was able to be built by the end
of the semester and we did have enough time to change things that did not work; however we feel
that the system could have been built more quickly if we had a better schedule in the Fabrication
lab. With a better schedule we could have easily built the system faster, which would have given
our group more time for testing. At the end of the semester we showcased a working system that,
even with the presence of copper, could achieve our main goal, produce bacteria free water for
consumption.

23
Bibliography:
1. “South Africa: The quiet water crisis.” Irinnews.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.
<http://www.irinnews.org/report/82750/south-africa-the-quiet-water-crisis>
2. “Clean Water.” Justoneafrica.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.
<https://justoneafrica.org/clean-water.html>
3. Elvira Morella “Climbing the Ladder: The State of Sanitation in Sub-Saharan
Africa.” Infrastructureafrica.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Sept. 2015.
<http://www.infrastructureafrica.org/system/files/bp13_sanit_sect_summary.pdf>
4. “Gutter Helmet”- gutterhelmet.com. N.p., n.d. Web 10 October, 2015.
5. “Gutter Guard”- N.p., n.p. Web 10 October, 2015.
<http://www.homedepot.com/p/GUTTERSTUFF-5-in-x-48-in-K-Style-Foam-Gutter-
Filter-GS-K5-SPAN/203318223.>
6. "Drinking Water Contaminants – Standards and Regulations." EPA. Environmental
Protection Agency, Web. 15 Apr. 2016. <https://www.epa.gov/dwstandardsregulations>.
7. "Water Treatment Solutions." Pentek Microguard MG-10MCB HF & Carbon. N.p., n.d.
Web. 29 Apr. 2016.
8. "Delavan 1.0GPM 40PSI Demand Pump 2200-201." By Remco Industries for $29.99 in
Pumps. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Apr. 2016. <http://www.ruralking.com/delavan-1-0gpm-
40psi-demand-pump-2200-201.html>.

Rainwater_Filtration_Spring_Final_Report_2.0

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Similar to Rainwater_Filtration_Spring_Final_Report_2.0

Similar to Rainwater_Filtration_Spring_Final_Report_2.0 (20)

Rainwater_Filtration_Spring_Final_Report_2.0