Mexico; Grey Water Systems - SARAR

796 views

Published on

Mexico; Grey Water Systems - SARAR

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
796
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
65
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Mexico; Grey Water Systems - SARAR

  1. 1. Fall 08 Grey Water SystemsEngineers for a Sustainable WorldStanford UniversityJune 8th, 2009Prepared by:Jonathan GlassmanBecca KanegawaDiane LeeAndrew MartinezFinal Portfolio
  2. 2. Table of ContentsTable of Contents...........................................................................................2Executive Summary ........................................................................................3Assessment of Current Grey Water Systems .........................................................5Grey Water Content......................................................................................................................5Water Usage.................................................................................................................................5System Components .....................................................................................................................5 Sink....................................................................................................................................................5 Grease Trap.........................................................................................................................................6 Filter...................................................................................................................................................7Terrain..........................................................................................................................................8Objectives ....................................................................................................9Grey Water Quality Standards ......................................................................................................9Discussion of Grease Trap Prototype ...............................................................10Increased Volume Capacity.........................................................................................................10Exterior Pipe Connections...........................................................................................................11Inlet and Outlet Baffles................................................................................................................11Sludge Catcher............................................................................................................................11Insights.......................................................................................................................................12Design Recommendations ..............................................................................12Sink ..........................................................................................................................................12Grease Trap ..............................................................................................................................13 Basic Recommendation ......................................................................................................................14 Optional Recommendations ................................................................................................................17Filter .........................................................................................................................................19 Intermittent Sand Filter......................................................................................................................20 Rapid Multi-media Vertical Filter........................................................................................................23Proposed Alternatives....................................................................................26 Mulch Basin...............................................................................................................................26Community Grey Water Treatment System..................................................................................28Irrigation Application..................................................................................................................28System Costs................................................................................................29Next Steps...................................................................................................30Works Cited.................................................................................................31Appendix ....................................................................................................33Filter Treatment Efficiency:.........................................................................................................33 2
  3. 3. Executive SummaryThrough Engineers for a Sustainable World, Stanford University students collaborated withSARAR Transformación in an effort toward a sustainable water and sanitation program forthe community in San Miguel Suchixtepec in Oaxaca, Mexico (population: 2,500). Theoverall program is broken up into four sub-projects: water quality, grey water systems,popostero design, and dry sanitation and hygiene. This sub-project concerns thedevelopment of domestic grey water systems.SARAR Transformación designed the original grey water systems while the World WildlifeFund (WWF) and Grupo Saneamiento Ecologico (SAE) installed the systems in 38 homesin San Miguel Suchixtepec in February 2008. As a result, kitchen and laundry water fromthe basin sink was no longer untreated runoff; instead, it was typically diverted through aparticle filter, grease trap, and vertical filter, ultimately supplying water for ornamentalplants. The broader goal of removing nitrates, phosphates, pathogens, and otherconstituents through grey water treatment was to reduce the risk of health andenvironmental hazards. These hazards included human contamination and eutrophicationin the upper watersheds of the Copalita, Zimatan, and Huatulco river region of Oaxaca,Mexico. One year later, however, only 8-10 of the 38 grey water systems installed continueto be properly and regularly maintained.This report presents design recommendations for an updated grey water system that is morerobust, easily installed and maintained, and made of local materials. The aim through thesedesign recommendations is to motivate sustained maintenance by the women in thehousehold who currently take on the responsibilities of the grey water system. Inaccessibilityand difficulty in cleaning factor in to the current lack of grey water system maintenance.To develop an understanding of both community context and technological considerations,the team utilized the ESW April 2009 San Miguel Suchixtepec Assessment Report and“Guía Preliminar” from SARAR Transformación, along with other preliminary materials.The team continued to conduct an exploration of grey water technologies both in moredeveloped and developing communities. Based on both cultural and terrain limitations inthe local community and through counsel from SARAR Transformación, the teamultimately pursued design recommendations to improve the current grey water system inlieu of proposing alternative technologies or an educational/motivational program.The design recommendations span over three components of the grey water system: thebasin sink, grease trap, and vertical filter. Influenced by prototyping, existing systems, andscholarly articles, the recommendations account for appropriate sizing dimensions giventypical domestic water usage flow rates, capacity volumes, and required detention times foroptimal system performance. Along with the dimensional recommendations are thefollowing suggested design features to promote convenient maintenance.A colander or strainer-like particle filter is recommended for the sink. These filters come inmany different shapes and sizes to accommodate the non-standard size of sink orifices and 3
  4. 4. are available in utility stores. The in-sink filter also removes food scraps and large particlesbefore the grey water passes through the system. It is also recommended if possible to buildthe sink holding table at a height of 65 cm such that the grease trap tank would be able to fitunderneath it.The grease trap capacity should be approximately 90 L to accommodate for the flow rate of100 L/hr. PVC Unions or flexible pipe connections can be added to the inlet and outlet pipeto make the grease trap assembly easier to disconnect for cleaning. A baffle lid designfeature acts to dissipate the inlet stream fluid velocity laterally as well as vertically as to notdisturb the already settled particles or grease layer. A flush drain can be added near thebottom of the tank for convenient discharge of the contents inside. Optional grease traprecommendations include a grease siphon, inclined sludge plane, and sludge basket, each ofwhich serve to minimize direct contact with grey water when cleaning the systems.The design recommendation for the vertical filter is to implement an intermittent sand filterin place of the current multi-media filter. While sand filters are used in drinking watersystems and provide for a high quality of effluent, they are also appropriate for these greywater system because of the possibility of human excreta and pathogens being introducedinto the system. The sand filter is also easier to maintain than the existing multi-media filterbecause only the top layer of sand media in the filter has to be regularly replaced, comparedto digging out and replacing all of the particle media in the drum.Finally, the report includes projected quantitative data including cost and effective effluentquality calculations based on our design recommendations. Based on the original designs ofSARAR Transformación, these design recommendations for retrofitting and new systemsultimately contribute to the development of a technically appropriate and contextuallyviable grey water system that promotes sustained household maintenance. 4
  5. 5. Assessment of Current Grey Water SystemsGrey Water ContentThe known content of the community grey water resulting from kitchen and laundryactivities included food particles, cooking oil and grease, various biodegradable soaps andpossible pathogen content from diaper washing (Bulnes, 2009). Other typical constituentsare shown in Table 1. Table 1: Typical constituents of grey water (Source: “Greywater Reuse in Rural Schools: Guidance Manual”)Water UsageCurrent household water usage included both flow rate as well as capacity data, which wasrelevant to the team’s study. Dishes typically produced 20L of grey water in 30 minutes,while laundry produced approximately 100L in one hour. Overall grey water loads rangedbetween 100 – 300 L per day. The intended grey water detention time in the grease trap was30 minutes (Bulnes 2009). While this data varied among households, it provided a basis forappropriate sizing requirements.System ComponentsAll current grey water systems incorporated gravity-flow systems. However, the teamrecognized along with SARAR Transformación that the current grease traps and verticalfilters were not sized appropriately for optimal performance. Furthermore, the teamidentified components of the grey water system difficult for users to access, operate andmaintain. The effluent water quality of the treated grey water was unknown.SinkThe current sinks ranged in dimension, with various drainage hole sizes and heights abovethe ground. This variation presented challenges for the team to offer standardrecommendations for the sink. The team observed that sufficient height was necessary toallow proper flow of grey water from the sink. There were no sinks observed that utilized 5
  6. 6. any kind of particle filter around the drainage hole. A few homes utilized a consolidatedgrey water system design, with the grease trap located directly beneath the sink, given anaccommodating sink height. Figure 1: Various sink set-ups. (Source: ESW Assessment 2009)Grease TrapThe current grease trap was not large enough to accommodate the threshold water usageflow rates and grey water volumes. The current grease trap containers held a volume of 20L. This capacity was insufficient to handle the flow rate of 100L/hr (Bulnes 2009).Other design aspects of the grease trap discouraged sustained maintenance due to difficultyof disassembly from the rest of the system and other tasks that involved a user to be infrequent contact with grey water.Through two holes in the grease trap bucket, PVC pipes connected the grease trap to the restof the grey water system. These pipes were typically two inches in diameter. They werelocated inside the grease trap bucket and consequently often submerged in dirty water, 6
  7. 7. grease, and other grime. As a result, they did not allow for easy disassembly and requireduser contact with grey water. Due to this inconvenience, grease traps were often idle andwere not emptied out and cleaned regularly.User contact with grey water during cleaning appeared to be the main factor in discouragingconsistent maintenance. Skimming the top layer of accumulated grease from the grease trapbefore emptying the other contents and a submerged particle filter required the user to be incontact with grey water. Figure 2: Current grease trap and particle filter designs. (Source: ESW Assessment 2009)FilterThe last step in the grey water treatment system is the vertical filter. The current verticalfilter systems consisted of a typically 55-gallon drum containing bark, pumice, gravel, andriver stones constituting the filter media. The various media aid in the removal of bacteria,viruses, turbidity, and other grey water constituents. The removal and treatment efficiencyof the filter is dependent on the media used, the depth of each media layer, and the flow rateentering the filter.The effluent from the vertical filter was ideally deposited into a garden for ornamentalplants. While both vertical and horizontal filters were currently used, vertical filters aremore heavily documented in the Assessment Report and are the focus of this report.In some current filters, influent was disposed onto the top of the filter from a free-flowingpipe, rather than spread out evenly across the filter in smaller, individual loadings. To solvethis problem, some filters had a perforated pipe placed over the top. While this preventedan excessive loading on one small area of the filter and thus limited damage due to waterpuncturing through the top layer of the filter, the perforated pipe still did not utilize theentire surface area of the filter.There were several concerns regarding current media type. There appeared to be a lack offine particles included in the filter media to remove bacteria and other constituents in thegrey water. Additionally, there was little information regarding the properties of pine barkused in the top layer of current filter media. Though the bark was effective because itfostered the growth of microorganisms that helped treat the grey water, users were unawarethat it had to be replaced frequently. Since the team could not obtain detailed properties ofthe media in the current vertical filter, the effectiveness of the effluent was unknown andcould not be calculated. 7
  8. 8. The current filter design also discouraged maintenance. As a multi-media filter with largermedia at the top and smaller at the bottom, the fine particles in the grey water got trappedthroughout the entire depth of the filter as the water trickled downwards. This required thatall of the media got cleaned out on a regular basis.Without regular cleaning, there were not enough pore spaces to allow the water to filterthrough and resulting flow rates were drastically reduced. Furthermore, the effectiveness ofthe filter decreased with increase use as less of the media surface area was available for thegrey water particles to attach. Many of the households were unaware of the maintenancerequirements of the current multi-media filters. Figure 3: Current filter designs. (Source: ESW Assessment 2009)TerrainTerrain issues were a constraining factor of the current grey water systems. Many of thehouseholds were built on steep and vertical slopes and had extremely limited space for thegrey water system components. As a result, the placement of the current grey water systemson this terrain hindered accessibility and consequently, convenient maintenance. Figure 4: Example of local terrain. (Source: ESW Assessment 2009) 8
  9. 9. ObjectivesThe original team objectives were to revisit the current designs of the grease trap and filter,research solutions to improve efficiency, offer a portfolio of viable system recommendationsand/or technological alternatives, and develop educational/motivational materials. As aresult of later information and counsel from SARAR Transformación, the project focusshifted solely on improving the current grease trap and vertical filter technology.The recommendations of this report will focus on the sizing and design features of the sink,grease trap, and vertical filter. The main focus of the design recommendations is to improvethe ease with which the system can be maintained. The team will also provide data on thetreatment efficiency of the proposed vertical filters, as well as cost calculations for theproposed system.Grey Water Quality StandardsThere are currently limited standards available for the quality of grey water effluent whenused for landscape purposes. The World Health Organizations only recommendation is thatthere is a fecal coliform count of less than 1000CFU/100mL (Table 2). The other guidelinesfocus on turbidity, dissolved oxygen, and pH levels. Hence, in the recommendations, theteam has sought to provide removal efficiencies to reduce the fecal coliform count, whichminimizes the potential health hazards of re-using grey water. To best remove anypathogens, an appropriately designed filter is necessary. Through this filter, fine particles onthe order of micrometers, will be removed from the effluent. This includes bacteria (0.5-10μm), chemical precipitates (1-1000 μm), and "turbidity" (0.1-10 μm) (CEE 271A CourseReader). Table 2: Summary of water quality standards and criteria suitable for domestic water recycling (Salvato, 2003) 9
  10. 10. Discussion of Grease Trap Prototype The team constructed a grease trap prototype using materials that were purchased locally from Home Depot. The figure below is a visual comparison of the current grease traps used in the town with the grease trap that was constructed at Stanford. Figure 5: Current working grease traps in San Miguel Suchixtepec (Source: ESW Assessment 2009) Figure 6: Prototype developed at Stanford University. Inlet and Outlet BafflesEasy-to-disconnectconnections Sludge catcher Figure 7: Grease trap prototype with key features highlighted in red. Increased Volume Capacity There are several changes to the original design that have been incorporated in the prototype. One significant change is the increase in volume. SARAR Transformación has been aware that the grease traps currently employed in the town are too small for the expected flow rates. They requested a grease trap with a volume of at least 90 L (approximately 23 gallons). The container used for the grease trap prototype has a volume of 18 gallons. Though the prototype volume is smaller than the size suggested by SARAR Transformación, it was selected because it was a readily available container that was significantly larger than the original current grease trap volume. 10
  11. 11. Exterior Pipe ConnectionsThe team also incorporated features in the prototype to make the grease trap easier to clean,especially by minimizing direct contact between the user and grey water. One of themodifications included pipe connections on the exterior of the grease trap container wallsthat were easy to remove by twisting. The connections shown in Figure 7 illustrate theexterior union connections. A flexible pipe fitting with clamps would also work.Inlet and Outlet BafflesInlet and outlet baffles were added to replace the current T-shape pipe connections. Thepurpose of the inlet baffle was to direct influent downward so that incoming grey water doesnot disturb the grease layer residing on top of the water already within the grease trap. Theoutlet baffle prevents grease from exiting with the water effluent. Both of these baffles wereattached to the lid of the container so that they could be easily removed for cleaningpurposes.Sludge CatcherThe sludge catcher was another feature of the prototype. This design was constructed fromthick metal wires and a metal mesh. Its purpose was to quickly remove accumulatedsediment and sludge at the bottom of the grease trap without requiring the user tocompletely drain the grease trap. The catcher utilized wire handles so the user minimizedcontact with grey water. The sludge catcher would not eliminate the need to periodicallyempty out the contents of the grease trap, but aimed to reduce the frequency of morerigorous cleanings.Figure 8: Representation of the process that occurs in the grease trap. Influent enters from the inlet pipe and isdirected beneath the grease layer by the baffle. Within the grease trap that grease is allowed to float to the top whilesludge settles to the bottom. Water is allowed to pass upwards into the outlet pipe toward the filter. The connectionat the outlet pipe prevents grease from exiting with the effluent. 11
  12. 12. InsightsSeveral, but not all, aspects of the prototype were incorporated in the final designrecommendations. While the baffle for the inlet pipe worked well during the testing phase,that of the outlet pipe was difficult to construct. The inlet pipe baffle was able to direct theinfluent downward below the grease layer so that the settled grease layer was not disturbed.The outlet baffle intended to prevent grease from leaving with the effluent, but for it to workproperly it required adhesion to the side wall of the grease trap so that water only enteredthe outlet pipe from below the grease layer. This degree of accuracy was particularlydifficult to achieve in prototyping and was not recommended.Design RecommendationsSinkThe sink design recommendations do not change the function of the sink but rather work toeasily integrate and improve pre-filtration for the grease trap and vertical filter (Figure 9). Figure 9: Recommended Sink ConfigurationColander/Strainer Particle FilterIt is recommended that a simple colander or strainer-like filter be used in the sink to removelarger food and dirt particles (Figure 10). These types of filters will help remove large scrapsto prevent the filter from becoming clogged. Furthermore, with the particle filter located inthe sink, as opposed to inside the grease trap, the user does not have to come in contact withsettled grease trap grey water during maintenance. Strainer-like sink filters come in manydifferent shapes and sizes and can be found at utility stores or even fabricated from wiremesh and wire given a skillful hand. 12
  13. 13. Figure 10: Prefabricated removable strainers (McMaster Carr, 2009)Height and LayoutThe structure that the sink is on should be sized such that grease trap can be placedunderneath it to utilize space constraints. This means that the height from the bottom of thesink to the top of the grease trap be about 10 cm. Using the height of the prototype as areference, the recommended height of the bottom of the sink to the floor is 50 cm. This iswould put the height of the top of the sink at about 65 cm, which is at about hip level for aaverage woman in Mexico (Osuna-Ramirez, 2006). After the sink orifice, the plumbingpipe should increase to two inches to ensure that the pipes do not clog.Grease TrapThe recommended grease trap design has many advantages over the existing design andworks to implement simple design components for both existing systems and new models.The recommendations are broken up into two categories: basic feature recommendationsand optional features (Figures 12 and 19, respectively). The basic features are the easiest andleast expensive to implement in a working system, whereas the optional feature makes thesystem initially more expensive and harder to construct, but ultimately promote usermaintenance. 13
  14. 14. Figure 11: Grease trap design with representative dimensions shown. Figure 12: Grease Trap with Basic FeaturesBasic RecommendationContainer/Holding TankThe grease trap container should be larger based on design flow rate of 100L/hr andcapacity of 300L/d. For a grease trap to properly function the fluid requires a 30 minuteretention time to settle out the particles and grease. As seen in the table and figure below,the container should be approximately 90L. This size is based on an empirical fit of currentcommercial grease traps (Figure 13) and should be viewed as a fairly conservative numberand allows for a safety factor with regards to inflow rate. An appropriately sized system is 14
  15. 15. imperative for proper functioning of the entire system. Current systems are undersized (see“Current Grey Water Systems” section) which leads to ineffective performance when greaseand particles bypass the grease trap and clog the subsequent filter. Figure 13: Polynomial fit to existing system volume requirements vs. inflow rate. Data from (Zurn Plumbing Inc.) Table 3: Recommended grease trap container volume for a given design flow rate L/hr Fluid Volume Min (L) 20 53.15 40 62.90 60 72.61 80 82.29 100 91.92 120 101.52 140 111.08 160 120.61 180 130.09Quick Disconnect for Inlet/Outlet pipesThere are two quick disconnection methods, with the first method being advantageous tothe second. The first method consists of a simple flexible pipe fitting with either screw typeor butterfly clamps. The fitting can be found in most utility stores and are widely used inplumbing applications. The second is a screw type PVC (recommendation for PET) union(Figure 14). The unions may be more difficult to find in larger sizes but are easy to connectand disconnect and do not require tools. Both methods allow the user to disconnect thegrease trap container from the plumbing, thus making cleaning the system easier. The usermust no longer reach into the tank to disconnect the pipes, reducing the possibility ofcontact with the fluid. 15
  16. 16. Figure 14: Inlet and outlet connection recommendations, PVC Union type and flexible pipe coupling typeBottom Flush DrainA flush drain can be added near the bottom of the holding tank to make the process ofdischarging the holding water during a cleaning cycle easier. The most challenging parts ofinstalling a bottom drain are ensuring a seal as well as a flush finish on the inside of thetank. Figure 5 shows one method, which uses PVC bushings and female to pipe connectionto create a force seal between inner and outer surface. This seal can be improved by the useof a silicon sealer.The flush drain will only be used when a cleaning cycle is required. The user would situatethe tank so that a smaller more manageable bucket can be placed underneath the drain. Thisis accomplished by propping the grease trap up using a brick, wood slap, or even a naturalfeature such as a mound of dirt. The user would drain a portion of the tank fluid into thesmaller bucket and then dispose of the bucket into a mulch basin or infiltrating soil. Thesystem could also be set up to have the flush drain plumbed to an appropriate disposallocation so the user would only have to open the valve to drain most of the fluid out of thesystem. Figure 15: PVC bushing to female to pipe connection Figure 16: Possible caps for the bottom drain, valve type or screw type 16
  17. 17. Baffle LidThe purpose of the baffle lid is to dissipate the inlet flow velocity horizontally and verticallyto minimize disturbance to the grease layer and settled particles (Figure 17 and 18). Thebaffle can be made of a PVC bucket, laterally cut and adhered to the lid. It also allows foreasier access when trying to skim off the grease because the user would not have to navigatearound a T-connection. It should be noted that the T-connection is still needed at the outletto prevent the top grease layer from exiting with the effluent (see “Insights” section). Figure 17: Grease trap top view. Inlet baffle diffuses flow laterally and vertically Figure 18: Baffle is fixed to the lid for easy removal and to allow for space for the fluid to go under the baffleOptional RecommendationsThe following recommendations are optional to implement as each would add cost to thesystem, but would lessen user contact with grey water (Figure 19). These designs should beprototyped first and integrated on a trial basis before mass implementation. 17
  18. 18. Figure 19: Grease trap with all the options Grease Siphon The grease siphon design requires grease to be in a liquid state, which may not necessarily the case. The user would first plug the inlet and outlet pipes as to isolate the holding tank. Then water would be added slowly directly to the tank to raise the water level. The water level would continue to rise as water is added until it reaches the level of the grease siphon which would then pull the top liquid grease layer down into the pipe (Figure 20) and into another bucket that can be carried away for proper disposal, such as in a mulch basin. Sediment Collector The sediment collector design is also optional and could be implemented (Figure 21). The sediment collector can be made out of many different materials but some sort of corrosive- resistant metal or plastic is recommended. The mesh materialFigure 20: Grease siphon in should be fine enough to trap most sediment but not necessarilyaction. Fluid level rises until the all of it. Any sort of mosquito netting should be adequate as it istop layer is siphoned into the as a particle filter in many applications in the developingdown pipe. world. The intent of the sediment collector is to be able toquickly clean the grease trap without emptying the tank. This could prolong the timebetween intensive cleanings. 18
  19. 19. Figure 21: Sediment CollectorInclined Sludge PlaneThe purpose of the inclined sludge plane is to reduce the size of the sediment collector byfocusing the sediment to one area (Figure 22). By concentrating the sediment and sludge toone area the collection and removal process becomes easier. Care must be taken in installingthis. If the plate is not adhered properly and securely to the tank, then particles may fallbetween the plate and sides of the tank. This would cause a large problem and complicateuser-maintenance. Figure 22: Inclined Sludge PlaneFilterThe design recommendations focus on improving two main concerns with the current filter:treatment efficiency and ease of maintenance.The treatment efficiency is based off of the ability to remove particles of different sizes(mainly in the micrometer scale). This is called the collection efficiency. The removal ofuniformly sized particles in filter is due to diffusion, interception, and sedimentation 19
  20. 20. processes. Please see the appendix for equations and parameters chosen for both verticalfilter computations.The ease of maintenance was qualified according to how often and difficult it is to clean.The filters recommended require anywhere from weekly to no maintenance.Intermittent Sand FilterIn order to provide an effective and easy-to-maintain system, the team recommends that anintermittent sand filter be installed. An intermittent sand filter treats the water to a very highstandard. Unlike rapid (multi-media) filtration, which depends on physical removal ofparticles, this bio-filter fosters microorganism growth to absorb and remove pathogens andother fine colloids. The layer of microorganisms, the “schmutzdecke” or biofilm, forms atthe top few centimeters of the filter and takes two to three weeks to fully develop.The intermittent sand filter is designed to foster the growth of the biofilm. Like any livingorganism, the microorganisms need food, water, and oxygen. There are many rich nutrientsin grey water which serves as food for the microorganisms. To provide adequate water, aconstant water level is required (figure 19). This is why the outlet is 3 cm above the top ofthe sand layer. The 3 cm of water is also shallow enough to keep the system aerobic (withoxygen). The air vent is necessary to keep an adequate flow of oxygen into the system.The biofilm should not be disturbed. It must be allowed to have sufficient contact time withthe grey water. To do this, an overflow bucket is needed on top of the filter to hold the waterand slowly release it through a 0.05” diameter hole at the bottom (refer to appendix forcalculations). The 5 gal bucket is sufficient to hold enough water for a flow rate up to300L/d. A diffuser plate, such as an aluminum or plastic sheet with holes in it, will let thewater sprinkle down onto the biofilm. To prevent overloading during the rainy season, a toplid is necessary to keep the rainwater from entering the system. 20
  21. 21. Figure 23: Sketch of critical components of the intermittent sand filterAfter the grey water passes through the biofilm layer, it will enter the sand media. The lowfiltration rates allow for long detention times in the sand media. The remaining particles inthe grey water are removed in the top portion of the sand layer. Three different media willbe used for the filter (Table 4). Near the outlet pipe, the media may need to be larger than15cm to prevent clogging. Table 4: Details of the media used in the intermittent sand filter Grain Length Media Diameter Porosity (m) (m) First layer FINE SAND 3.0E-04 0.8 0.65 COARSE Second Layer SAND 4.0E-03 0.8 0.05 Third Layer GRAVEL 1.5E-02 0.5 0.05 21
  22. 22. Treatment EfficiencyThis system will treat the water up to drinking water quality standards, thus meeting thegrey water effluent standards documented earlier. The removal efficiency for two particles,0.5 and 1.0 μm, is over 99% (Table 5 and Figure 24).Table 5: Collection and overall removal efficiency for two particle sizes in the intermittent sand filter Particle Size (μm) Media 0.5 1.0 First layer FINE SAND 3.89E-03 2.74E-03 Second Layer COARSE SAND 7.58E-04 7.51E-04 Third Layer GRAVEL 2.26E-04 3.13E-04 Overall Filter Removal Efficiency (%) 99.9 99.3 Figure 24: Particle removal efficiency for the Intermittent Sand FilterAccording to a study done for a flow rate of 0.3m/hr and media size of 0.35mm sand, theremoval efficiencies of fecal and total coliforms, turbidity, and color are all above 88%(Table 6). 22
  23. 23. Table 6: Average percent removal of fecal and total coliform, turbidity, and color given flow rate of 0.3m/h and mediadiameter of 0.35mm (Source: (Muhammad, Ellis, Parr, & Smith, 1996)) Average % Removal FC TC Turbidity Color 98.0 97.3 88.9 88.2Ease of MaintenanceWith regards to maintenance, this system is verysimple to upkeep. Unlike the rapid filters, thissystem should only be cleaned when effluent flowrates become unacceptably low. To clean the filter,a process called “wet harrowing” should be used.This is done by first closing the effluent pipe andremoving the lid and diffuser plate. Using a bucketof clean water, slowly pour the water into the filter.Being careful not to disturb or touch the biofilmand sand layers, swirl the water as it is being Figure 25: Decanting process in a filter (Source:poured in. This will loosen the dirt and other (Lukacs, 2002))particles that have accumulated in the filter suchthat they will be re-suspended in the water. Then, using a cup, decant the dirt and waterfrom the filter (Figure 25). If the top of the filter becomes in great disrepair, then the top fewcentimeters of sand could be removed. This is not recommended for common maintenance,as this will destroy the biofilm layer, which takes two to three weeks to grow again.Rapid Multi-media Vertical FilterThis type of filter is currently implemented in the household’s grey water systems. Unlikethe intermittent sand filter, there is no biofilm layer. To encourage microorganism growth, alayer of mulch (bark) could be used. The team is recommending six different media layersthat go from a large grain diameter to a smaller one at the bottom (Figure 26 and Table 7).This will allow the particles in the grey water to get trapped throughout the length of thefilter. The bottom two layers increase in diameter to prevent clogging of the effluent pipe. 23
  24. 24. Figure 26: Sketch of the proposed multi-media filter Table 7: Details of the media used in the multi-media filter. Grain Media Diameter Porosity Length (m) (m) First layer MULCH 7.5E-02 0.5 0.25 Second Layer MED. GRAVEL 1.5E-02 0.5 0.10 Third Layer PEA GRAVEL 4.0E-03 0.5 0.10 Fourth Layer FINE SAND 3.0E-04 0.8 0.20 Fifth Layer COARSE SAND 4.0E-03 0.8 0.10 Sixth Layer COARSE GRAVEL 2.0E-02 0.5 0.05Care should be taken to evenly distribute the flow across the entire top surface area of thefilter. This could be done using the same diffuser plate as described above. A splash platecould also be used. This is a square piece of durable material that is placed on the top medialayer directly under the inlet pipe. When water hits the splash plate, the water will slowlyfall over the edges of the plate, thus decreasing velocity and spreading it out over a largerarea. 24
  25. 25. A T-connection at the inlet pipe could also help distribute the flow. It should be rotatedoften so as not to wear down the same two locations. This last method is not as highlyrecommended as the above two.Treatment EfficiencyThis filter does not remove pathogens and other small particles as well as the intermittentsand filter (Table 8 and Figure 27).Table 8: Collection and overall removal efficiency for two particle sizes in the multi-media filter. Particle Size (μm) Media 0.5 1.0 First layer MULCH 6.55E-05 1.31E-04 Second Layer MED. GRAVEL 1.40E-04 1.78E-04 Third Layer PEA GRAVEL 3.01E-04 2.79E-04 Fourth Layer FINE SAND 2.52E-03 1.74E-03 Fifth Layer COARSE SAND 4.82E-04 4.47E-04 Sixth Layer COARSE GRAVEL 1.21E-04 1.65E-04 Overall Filter Removal Efficiency (%) 75.5 62.4 25
  26. 26. Figure 2: Particle removal efficiency for the Multi-media Filter.Ease of MaintenanceThe rapid multi-media filter requires regular maintenance. Since the particles are trappedthroughout the depth of the filter, all of the media will need to be removed and thoroughlycleaned. This should be done on a monthly basis or when effluent flow rates becomeunacceptably slow. The mulch layer will need to be replaced on a weekly basis, dependingon use. If not regularly replaced, the mulch layer will begin to degrade and clog up the filter.If available, this system could be adapted to be in the form of a dresser or stacked traysystem. Each layer of media would be placed in a separate drawer. This will greatly increasethe ease of maintenance, as it would not be necessary to reach into a large 1m-high filter toremove all of the media.The top of the tray system could be open to the atmosphere. This would allow plants to begrown in the filter. Since components in soap, including sodium, are harmful to most plants,there is a chance that the plants will not survive.Proposed AlternativesThe team developed several alternatives to the current grey water treatment system in SanMiguel Suchixtepec. These ideas have been discussed with SARAR Transformación andare included in this section to illustrate ideas that the team feels may be beneficial to thetown in the future if space and other issues can be resolved.Mulch BasinMulch basins are a low-cost, effective, and easy way of treating grey water. If spacepermits, the team highly recommends that a mulch basin be used since it requires the leastamount of maintenance and treats the grey water to the appropriate level. They not only 26
  27. 27. take the place of the filter, but also make the grease trap and particle filter unnecessary. Amajor advantage of the mulch basin is that it does not require any extensive engineering,unlike the other proposed systems. The only engineering that is necessary is the constructionof the pipes and/or trenches that will carry the grey water from the source to the basin itself.The mulch basin should have an infiltration area of 20m2 (Figure8). This is the area requiredfor 376L/d (Ludwig, 2006). The pipe could be placed at the same level as the top of themulch basin. Grease and particles such as food scraps rest on the top of the mulch and areallowed to compost. The water is filtered through the mulch material and eventually flowstowards a tree at the center of the basin. If there is concern about having the pipe aboveground, then a flat stone could be placed on top of the pipe to cover it. Also, the pipe couldbe placed 6” below the mulch surface and surrounded with stones, creating a small cave.The only problem with the latter method is that the inlet should be checked on a monthlybasis to make sure that it has not become clogged. Figure 28: Mulch basin design sketch (Adapted from: (Ludwig, 2006))A typical home in San Miguel Suchixtepec may require multiple mulch basins. Space can belimited depending upon where the house is located in the town, thus mulch basins can onlybe recommended on a case-by-case basis. Instead of using mulch basins as the primary greywater treatment option, the team recommends that where space is available, a mulch basincan be constructed to handle overflow from the grease trap should this be a concern for aparticular grey water system.Treatment EfficiencyThere are no quantitative methods available to calculate the treatment efficiency of themulch basin. It is known that soil and mulch are excellent natural methods for cleaning greywater. The living microorganisms in the ground remove most harmful constituents of greywater and make the water ready for ornamental application.Ease of MaintenanceThis system is by far the easiest to maintain, requiring the user to occasionally removeparticles that may be blocking the pipe and rearranging the mulch material with a shovel. Ifa layer of scum forms at the pipe outlet, it can be removed if desired. This is not vital to theeffectiveness of the mulch basin since the water will simply flow over the layer of solidifiedscum and infiltrate at another location. If many large food scraps are present in the effluent, 27
  28. 28. then it may be necessary to remove them to ensure that these particles do not block the pipeopening.Community Grey Water Treatment SystemAnother option considered was to develop a centralized community grey water treatmentsystem. The benefits of a large-scale system are that treatment is consolidated at an off-sitelocation, thus no longer requiring each resident to deal with cleaning and maintainingindividual grey water systems.The image below (Figure 29) shows a bird’s eye view of the town. San Miguel Suchixtepecis situated on top of a mountain ridge. The town can be divided into separate zones whereresidences within each zone would have their grey water delivered to a centralized location.These zones depend on the geography of the town. Since the centralized grey water systemwould be entirely gravity-controlled, it would be very difficult and costly to route pipes fromall homes to one centralized location. Instead, multiple treatment locations can be utilizedto service the needs of a particular town area. Grey water can be treated downhill from theproduction source and the treated water can then be used to irrigate gardens at the bottomof the hill and along the slope, or can be released to the environment. Figure 29: Bird’s eye view of San Miguel Suchixtepec (Google Inc. , 2009)There are two concerns with this type of system. One concern set forth by SARARTransformación is that neighbors may not want to work together to install a collective greywater system. This type of system requires collaboration from all participants and the fear isthat not everyone will work well together. Another concern is that additional land isrequired for this collective grey water treatment system. To obtain this land, thegovernment must donate subplots for the town to use – this can be a timely and uncertainprocess, one in which can be avoided by using individual household grey water treatmentsystems.Irrigation ApplicationOnce the grey water has passed through the entire system, it is ready to be applied to ahousehold’s garden. Plants that would most likely do well with grey water application are: 28
  29. 29. oleander, rose, rosemary, bermuda grass, honeysuckle, oaks, cottonwood, olive, ice plants,many native plants, and juniper. Rhododendrons, hydrangeas, azaleas, violets, inpatients,begonias, ferns, gardenias, camellias, and primroses may also survive, but are moresusceptible to high sodium and chloride levels. Plants that are very susceptible and notrecommended are: crape myrtle, redwoods, star jasmine, holly, and deodar cedar.(Kennedy, 1995)System CostsThis section provides an estimate of the costs to construct a grease trap and intermittentsand filter. The price per piece of material was found in the list of materials provided bySARAR Transformación. The table below shows the costs for the proposed grease trap.Table 9: Cost to construct a grease trap per piece (US QuantityMaterial Total Cost dollars) NeededTote (18 gal) $3.88 1 $3.88Bucket (5 gal) $4.00 1 $4.00PVC Pipe (20ft) $7.60 1 $7.60PVC Elbow $0.42 2 $0.84PVC Tee $0.79 2 $1.58Flexible Pipe Connection $4.21 2 $8.42PVC Male Bushing $12.27 1 $12.27PVC Cap $10.73 1 $10.73PVC Female Adapt $17.39 1 $17.39PVC Cement $5.54 1 $5.54Silicon $3.70 1 $3.70Wire (16-18 gauge) $4.28 1 $4.28 total $80.23For the filter, the majority of the cost is due to the container itself (Table 10). Sincehouseholds with grey water systems currently installed already have this, the cost isdramatically reduced. 29
  30. 30. Table 10: Cost to construct an intermittent sand filter. per piece (US QuantityMaterial Total Cost dollars) NeededPlastic Tub (200L) $94.40 1 $94.40Lid for Tub $5.00 2 $10.00Bucket w/lid (5 gal) $8.00 1 $8.00Filter Media (sand) (m3) $17.85 0.17 $3.03Filter Media (gravel) (m3) $11.13 0.03 $0.33Filter Media (course $11.13 0.03 $0.33gravel)PVC Elbow $0.42 4 $1.68Connection Pipes $7.60 1 $7.60 total $125.38Next StepsGiven the proposed design recommendations in this document, SARAR Transformacióncan determine if any features should be implemented. The team’s recommendations focusedon providing adequately sized components to handle the threshold capacities, ensuring thatthe components would adequately and reliably treat the grey water, and designing thecomponents to provide convenient, sustained maintenance.As the Stanford ESW interns leave for San Miguel Suchixtepec for this Summer 2009, theteam hopes that they will be able to build a full-scale working prototype incorporating someor all of the recommended features. The ten weeks that they are there will provide themwith enough time to use the system and try performing the required maintenance duties.Since the success of the grey water system greatly depends on household’s willingness andability to maintain the system, the interns should conduct a survey with the households thathave the proposed system installed to gauge preference for the new design features. It shouldfocus on aesthetics and any comments on maintenance duties. As with any project, there arealways ways to further improve systems and make them more appealing. Hence, the surveywill allow future work to focus on the household’s needs and wants.The water quality team has prepared a GPS system to map out the water system in SanMiguel. If time permits, while the interns map this out, it would be helpful to locate whereall the current grey water systems are. This will help in future decisions in determining ifshared household grey water systems should be considered. 30
  31. 31. Works CitedBulnes, M. and Garduño, F. (2009, May 20). Conference Call with SARARTransformación.Ellis, K. (1987). Slow Sand Filtration. WEDC J. Developing World Water , 2, 196-198.Google Inc. . (2009, May). Google Maps. Retrieved May 2009, from maps.google.comGrace, P. L. (2009). Whole Filter Models Information Sheet. In P. L. Grace."Greywater Reuse in Rural Schools: Guidance Manual.” National EnvironmentalEngineering Research Institute (NEERI) and UNICEF.<http://ddws.gov.in/documents/SSHE/Guidance%20Manual%20on%20Greywater%20Reuse%20in%20Rural%20Schools-English.pdf>.Huisman, L., & Wood, W. (. (1974). Slow Sand Filtration. Geneva.Kennedy, D. (1995). Using Greywater in your landscape: Greywater Guide. State of California,Department of Water Resources.Ludwig, A. (2006). Create an Oasis with Greywater. Oasis Design.Lukacs, H. (2002). rom Design to Implementation: Innovative Slow Sand Filtration for Usein Developing Countries. MSc Thesis. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA.McMaster Carr. (2009, May). McMaster Carr Online Catalogue. Retrieved May 2009, fromwww.mcmaster.comMilena, J. E. (2009). Assessment Trip. Stanford University, Stanford.Muhammad, N., Ellis, K., Parr, J., & Smith, M. (1996). Optimization of slow sandfiltration. Reaching the unreached: challenges for the 21st century. 22nd WEDC Conference,(pp. 283-285). New Delhi.National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI). (1982). Slow sandfiltration. Final project report, Nagpur, India.Osuna-Ramirez, I. H.-P. (2006). Indice de masa corporal y percepcion de la imagencorporal en una poblacion adulta mexicana. Salud Publica de Mexico , 48 (2).Salvato, J. N. (2003). Environmental Engineering. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.SARAR Transformación. (n.d.). Guía Preliminar de Filtros de Aguas Grises.Van der Ryn, S. (1978). The Toilet Papers: Recycling Waste and Conserving Water. Sausalito,California: Ecological Design Press.Water for the World. Constructing a Household Sand Filter, Technical Note RWS. 3.C.1. 31
  32. 32. Yao, K. H. (1971). Water and Waste Water Filtration: Concepts and Applications. Environ.Sci. Technol. , 5 (11), 1105-1112.Zurn Plumbing Inc. (n.d.). Grease Traps. Retrieved May 2009, from Zurn PlumbingProducts: http://www.zurn.com/pages/catalog.asp?ProductGroupID=73&OperationID=7# 32
  33. 33. AppendixFilter Treatment Efficiency:The particle removal efficiencies for the intermittent sand filter and rapid multi-media filter,are based on diffusion, interception, and sedimentation processes (Figure 30). Strainingprocesses are where particles that are larger than the spaces between the media becomestuck and hence removed from the water.Figure 30: Basic transport mechanisms in filtration (Source: (Yao, 1971)).Interception is where the water flow streamlines are close enough to the collector (the mediain the filter) to attach to the media. Sedimentation is due to the gravitational forces andallows the particles to move across streamlines and attach to the media. Lastly, diffusion isdue to random Brownian movements that brings particles near the media.Combining these processes allows the computation of the removal efficiency of a uniformlysized particle. Table 10 shows the parameters used for this analysis. 33
  34. 34. Table 1: Parameters for filter analysis (Adapted from: (Grace, 2009))According to Yao et al. (1971), the equations for a single media filter are:Diffusion Contact Efficiency:Interception Contact Efficiency:Sedimentation Contact Efficiency:The sum of the above processes yield the contact efficiency for a single grain: 34
  35. 35. Thus, the collection efficiency for the entire media of a filter is:Using the following equations, the performance of a packed bed and hence the removalefficiency is related to the efficiency of a single spherical collector:For a multiple media filter, the overall ratio of the filter effluent to filter influent is:The results have been documented in the Filter section.Acknowledgements:Models were adapted from Grace, P., Luthy, R. “Whole Filter Models Information Sheet,”Feb. 2009. Original models from Yao, K.M., Habibian, M.T., O’Melia, C.R.: Water andWaste Water Filtration: Concepts and Applications. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol 5, No. 11, pp1105-1112, 1971, Dept. of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of NorthCarolina, Chapel Hill, N.C. 27514. Reprinted in CEE 271A Course Reader, section 11-A,Winter 2009. 35

×