WATER FILTRATION BY USING OF GLASS, PLASTIC AND ALUMINUM FILINGS AS A FILTER MEDIA

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online), Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 80-98 © IAEME
80
WATER FILTRATION BY USING OF GLASS, PLASTIC
AND ALUMINUM FILINGS AS A FILTER MEDIA
Prof. Dr. Mohammad Abid Muslim Al-Tufaily
Babylon University – College of Engineering – Professor in Environmental Engineering
Dheyaa Mudher Abdul-Mahdi Zwayen
Babylon University – College of Engineering- B.Sc. in Civil Engineering
ABSTRACT
The aim of this research was to find an economical and environmentally efficient way for
reuse industrial solid wastes like glass, plastic and aluminum (which caused problems in filling
spaces and large volumes being non-biodegradable automatically and resulted in the nuisance and
harm such as smells and insects as a result of accumulation over time and the lack of effective waste
management) as substitute for sand filter media to remove turbidity from aqueous solutions. So
necessitated set up pilot filtration unit included mainly on four columns transparent plastic, the
specifications of each column were 5.7 cm of inner diameter, 240 cm of height and 50 cm of filter
material above 10 cm of gravel.
The solid wastes for this study were collected from different sources and treated by washing,
crushing and sieving according to sand (as a reference in the evaluation of results) sizes of (0.6-1)
mm, (1-1.4) mm and (1.4-2) mm.
Examination the ability of solid waste filings in filtration process was done by change three
different parameters which were change the gradation and its depth (for medium) in first stage with
fixing the filtration rate (ʋF) at 5 m/hr and influent turbidity (Ci) at average 17 NTU, change ʋF from
5 to 6, 7.5, 8.5 and 10 m/hr in second stage but fixing the gradation with its depth besides the Ci at
average 17 NTU and finally change the Ci from 17 to 20, 24.5, 27 and 30 NTU with fixing the
gradation and its depth as well ʋF at 5 m/hr. The 52 runs were made in pilot filtration unit to
achievement these three phases. Each run time was stopped at effluent turbidity (C) / Ci ≥ 0.7.
Generally (except some cases), whenever the operating time was longer, the average of
effluent turbidity was less at same run. Thus more efficient media.
When the inlet turbidity was increased, the average of removed turbidity was increased but
run time decreased.
In the first stage, the glass, plastic and aluminum media had run time longer than it for sand
media by (10.7- 16.6) %, (21.4- 29.16) % and (22.7- 29.16) % respectively, so the aluminum was
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH IN ENGINEERING
AND TECHNOLOGY (IJARET)
ISSN 0976 - 6480 (Print)
ISSN 0976 - 6499 (Online)
Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 80-98
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ IJARET.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2015): 8.5041 (Calculated by GISI)
www.jifactor.com
IJARET
© I A E M E

81
best medium comparison with sand in terms of run time when the gradation and its depth were
changed.
In the second stage, the glass, plastic and aluminum media had run time longer than it for
sand media by (9.1- 17.6) %, (19.2- 31.5) % and (19.2- 29.4) % respectively, so the plastic was the
best medium comparison with sand medium in terms of run time when the filtration velocity was
increased.
In the last stage, the glass, plastic and aluminum media had run time longer than it for sand
media by (10.7- 15.7) %, (19.2- 26.3) % and (15.3- 25) %, so the plastic was best medium
comparison with sand medium in terms of run time when the Ci was increased.
The backwashing for sand media needed amount of water less than the amount of water for
glass, plastic and aluminum filings. This difference coincides with that the reserved turbidity in sand
media was less than it in solid wastes filings, so it was needed less amount of water to cleaning sand
medium.
INTRODUCTION
One of the major goals of sustainable solid wastes management was to aggrandizement the
capacity of its reusing and recycling. Reusing is a reasonable option for materials not adequate for
compositing.
In water filtration there are many types of mechanisms which are rapid sand filter (RSF),
slow sand filter (SSF), roughing, multistage filtration, pressure filter and diatoms earth filter. The
most common factors influencing the selection of filter media were the effective size (ES) or (D10)
and uniformity coefficient (UC) as well as other factors like density, grain size, shape, and porosity
The flow rate in a conventional rapid filter is in the range of (5 – 15) m3
/m2
hr through sand filter
media in height of (60-70) cm, D10 from 0.4 mm until 1.4 mm and UC ≤ 1.5.
Hudson, (1959) and (1981) showed that rounded particles produce purer water than angular
particles because of angular media had greater porosity. Trussell et al., (1980) pointed out that
angular media results in an improved performance from each side. As well as Kawamura, (1999)
announced that angular grains usually perform better than rounded.
Rutledge and Gagnon, (2002) examined the use of crushed glass rather than silica sand in
dual-media filtration. One filter was composed of pulverized recycled glass and anthracite layers
while the other filter contained silica sand and anthracite. Both filters contained a 60 cm deep layer
of anthracite over 40 cm of either glass or silica sand. Filtration rate was 5 m/h.
Nasser, (2010) studied the performance of crushed glass solid wastes as filter media through
pilot filtration unit. The filter column had 10 cm in diameter, depth of media was 70cm, height of
column was 180cm, and flow rate was (5- 15)m/hr. Different depths and different grain sizes of
crushed glass were used as mono and dual media with sand and porcelaniate in the filtration process.
Sundarakumar, (1996) examined four combinations of filter media in pilot filtration unit. The
column of filtration was 40 cm of inner diameter, 225 cm of height, and 100cm of media depth.
Conventional rapid sand filter(D10 = 1 mm with depth 100 cm), combined sand of (D10 = 1 mm with
depth 57 cm depth) and polypropylene media of (D10 =3.66 mm with 43 cm), ,combined coarse sand
of (D10 = 2.5 mm with 57 cm depth) and polypropylene media filter (D10 = 3.66mm with 43 cm
depth), and synthetic floating dual media comprises polypropylene of (D10 = 2.57 mm with 55 cm
depth) and polystyrene of (D10 = 1.1 mm with 45 cm depth)
Alwared and Zeki, (2014) studied the ability of using aluminum filings which is locally solid
waste as a mono media in gravi6ty rapid filter. This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of
variation of influent water turbidity (10, 20 and 30 NTU), flow rate (30, 40, and 60 l/hr).

82
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
1- Filter Media
Sand and Gravel
The sand and gravel for this study were brought from the local market, the gradations for
sand were (0.6- 1) mm, (1- 1.4) mm and (1.4- 2) mm. The gradation for gravel (the supporting and
drainage system layer for sand, glass, plastic and aluminum media in filtration columns) was
(2.5- 6.5) mm, (Ministry of Interior, 1992) and (Central Organization for Standardization and Quality
Control, 2000).
The sieving, chemical and physical analysis for sand size of (0.6-1) mm and its granular
distribution showed in table (1) and figure (1).
Table (1): the sieving, chemical and physical analysis for sand size of (0.6-1) mm
Weight of original sand sample (g) = 1250
Iraqi Specification
No. 1555 in year
2000 and its
modifications
Sieve size (mm)
Accumulated
retained weight (g)
Accumulated
retained %
Accumulated
passing %
Passing percent from
sieve below 5%
Retained percent on
sieve up 5%
1.18 0 0.0 100
1 20 1.6 98.4
0.85 152.5 12.2 87.8
0.71 571.25 45.7 54.3
0.60 1131.25 90.5 9.5
0.5 1200 96 4
D10 = 0.6 (0.6-0.65)mm
UC = 1.21 1.5 maximum
Granule density = 2577 (2500-2670) kgm/m3
Silica = 92.9 Not less than 90%
Shape = semi spherical, rounded
D10 = 0.6 mm, UC = D60/D10 = 0.73/0.6 = 1.21
Figure (1): the granular distribution for sand size of (0.6-1) mm
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0.1 1 10
Accumulated
passing%
Sieve size (mm)

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976
6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online), Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp.
Glass
The sources of glass wastes were shops selling glass (as discarded) and broken glass bottles.
After that, glass wastes were crushed by electric grind
and sieved into three sizes (0.6-1) mm, (1
sieving, chemical and physical analysis for glass size of (0.6
showed in table (2) and figure (2).
Plate (1): glass crushing by electric
grinder machine
Table (2): the sieving and physical analysis for glass size of (0.6
Weight of original glass sample (g) = 500
Sieve size (mm/10)
Accumulated
retained weight (g)
1.18 0
1 20
0.85 140
0.71 334
0.60 457
0.5 498
D
UC = 1.28
Granule density = 2426
Shape = Polygonal or angularity
e), Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 80-98 © IAEME
83
glass wastes were shops selling glass (as discarded) and broken glass bottles.
After that, glass wastes were crushed by electric grinder machine as shown in plate (
1) mm, (1-1.4) mm and (1.4-2) mm as shown in plate (
sieving, chemical and physical analysis for glass size of (0.6-1) mm and its granular distribution
by electric Plate (2): sieving process for glass
grinder machine
the sieving and physical analysis for glass size of (0.6-1) mm
Weight of original glass sample (g) = 500
Iraqi Specification
fo
retained weight (g)
Accumulated
retained %
Accumulated
passing %
Retained percent on
0.0 100
4 96
28 72
66.8 33.2
91.4 8.6
99.6 0.4
D10 = 0.625
UC = 1.28
Granule density = 2426 (2500
Shape = Polygonal or angularity
© IAEME
glass wastes were shops selling glass (as discarded) and broken glass bottles.
er machine as shown in plate (1), then washed
2) mm as shown in plate (2).The
1) mm and its granular distribution
sieving process for glass
1) mm
Iraqi Specification
No. 1555 in year
2000 and its
modifications
for sand size (0.6-1)
mm
sieve below 5%
Retained percent on
sieve up 5%
(0.6-0.65) mm
1.5 maximum
(2500-2670) kgm/m3

84
D10 = 0.625 mm, UC = D60/ D10 = 0.8/0.625 = 1.28
Figure (2): the granular distribution for glass size of (0.6-1) mm
Plastic
The plastic wastes were collected from plastic manufacturing plants which resulted as
discarded. These wastes were washed, crushed by the electric grinder machine and sieved into three
gradations (0.6-1) mm, (1-1.4) mm and (1.4- 2) mm.The sieving, chemical and physical analysis for
plastic size of (0.6-1) mm and its granular distribution showed in table (3) and figure (3).
Table (3): the sieving and physical analysis for plastic size of(0.6-1) mm
Weight of original plastic sample (g) = 296
Iraqi
Specification No.
1555 in year 2000
and its
modifications
for sand size
(0.6-1) mm
Sieve size
(mm/10)
Accumulated
retained weight
(g)
Accumulated
retained %
Accumulated
passing % Passing percent
from sieve below
5%
Retained percent
on sieve up 5%
1.18 0 0.0 100
1 3.552 1.2 98.8
0.85 79.92 27 73
0.71 207.2 70 30
0.60 269.36 91 9
0.5 285.344 96.4 3.6
D10 = 0.62 (0.6-0.65) mm
Granule density = 942
(2500-2670)
kgm/m3
Shape = angularity and fusiform
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.1 1 10
Accumulated
passing%
Sieve size (mm)

85
D10 = 0.62 mm, UC = D60/ D10 = 0.8/0.62= 1.29
Figure (3): the granular distribution for plastic size of (0.6-1) mm
Aluminum
The sources of aluminum wastes were the local manufacturing plants for windows and
aluminum counters in addition to turnery shops for wheel car frame which discarded as wastes. The
wastes form second source were crushed by electric grinder machine, then put in HCl acid 10% to
remove the color from waste’s surface which causes additional turbidity. After removing color, the
wastes washed by distilled water until the pH value for washing water became normal.
The wastes form first source were in the form of filings and did not cause a color therefore it
washed by distilled water, mixed with filings from second source and sieved into three gradations
(0.6-1) mm, (1-1.4) mm and (1.4-2) mm. The sieving, chemical and physical analysis for aluminum
size of (0.6-1) mm and its granular distribution showed in table (4) and figure (4).
Table (4): sieving and physical analysis for aluminum size of(0.6-1) mm
Weight of original aluminum sample (g) = 488
Iraqi Specification
No. 1555 in year
2000 and its
modifications
for sand size (0.6-
1) mm
Sieve size
(mm/10)
Accumulated
retained weight (g)
Accumulated
retained %
Accumulated
passing % Passing percent
from sieve below
5%
Retained percent
on sieve up 5%
1.18 0 0.0 100
1 13.664 2.8 97.2
0.85 107.36 22 78
0.71 334.28 68.5 31.5
0.60 440.17 90.19 9.8
0.5 475.312 97.4 2.6
D10 = 0.6 (0.6-0.65) mm
Granule density = 950.8
(2500-2670)
kgm/m3
Shape = thin sheets rectangular, square, triangular and fusiform
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.1 1 10
Accumulated
passing%
Sieve size (mm)

86
D10 = 0.6 mm, UC = D60/ D10 = 0.8/0.6=1.33
Figure (4): the granular distribution for aluminum size of (0.6-1) mm
2- Pilot Filtration Unit
A pilot filtration unit was set to examine the glass, plastic and aluminum filings waste
materials as filter media comparison with sand filter media to remove turbidity from synthetic
polluted water. Figure (5) showed a schematic diagram of pilot filtration unit and plate (3) showed
pictures for the pilot filtration unit.
Figure (5): schematic diagram of pilot filtration unit
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0.1 1 10
Accumulated
passing%
Sieve size (mm)

87
Plate (3): the pilot filtration unit: (a) Front view (b) Side view
Filtration Columns
Four columns of transparent plastic were designed and set to run in parallel with down flow
direction. Each column was 5.7 cm in diameter according to Kawamura (2000), indicated “the size of
the filter column should be (100) times the ES of the filter medium”. The length of the column was
240 cm.
Above the media in each column was a stainless steel mesh 0.3 mm in size to prevent media
like plastic and aluminum from float, under media was stainless steel mesh 0.3mm in size to support
the media and to prevent exit the small granules.
3- Preparation of Turbid Water
For making synthetic polluted water by turbidity, the pure clay like bentonite was passed
through sieve size of 200µm and used. It was found when putting 0.1g of this bentonite in 1L of tap
water and mixed for (30-45) min the resulted turbidity was (29-32) NTU.
4- Experimental Runs
Samples of effluent were collected and tested at certain time interval (each 30 min) during the
run time. The filtration run continued until the C/Ci ≥ 0.7, where the C is the effluent concentration
and Ci is the influent concentration. The summary of experimental runs was given in table (5).

88
Table (5): the summary of experimental runs
No. of run Media / No. of column / size
D10
(mm)
UC
Layer
depth
(cm)
ʋF
(m/hr)
Ci
(NTU)
(average)
1
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.21 50 5 17
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.625 1.28 50 5 17
Plastic / 3/
(0.6-1) mm
0.62 1.29 50 5 17
Aluminum / 4 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.33 50 5 17
2
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Sand / 1 /
(1-1.4) mm
0.6
+
1
1.21
+
1.17
35
+
15
5 17
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Glass / 2 /
(1-1.4) mm
0.625
+
1
1.28
+
1.2
35
+
15
5 17
Plastic / 3 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Plastic / 3 /
(1-1.4) mm
0.62
+
1
1.29
+
1.2
35
+
15
5 17
Aluminum / 4 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Aluminum / 4 /
(1-1.4) mm
0.6
+
1
1.33
+
1.24
35
+
15
5 17
3
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Sand / 1 /
(1-1.4) mm
0.6
+
1
1.21
+
1.17
25
+
25
5 17
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Glass / 2 /
(1-1.4) mm
0.625
+
1
1.28
+
1.2
25
+
25
5 17
Plastic / 3 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Plastic / 3 /
(1-1.4) mm
0.62
+
1
1.29
+
1.2
25
+
25
5 17
Aluminum / 4 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Aluminum / 4 /
(1-1.4) mm
0.6
+
1
1.33
+
1.24
25
+
25
5
17

89
4
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Sand / 1 /
(1.4-2) mm
0.6
+
1.48
1.21
+
1.114
35
+
15
5 17
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Glass / 2 /
(1.4-2) mm
0.625
+
1.46
1.28
+
1.14
35
+
15
5 17
Plastic / 3 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Plastic / 3 /
(1.4-2) mm
0.62
+
1.45
1.29
+
1.17
35
+
15
5 17
Aluminum / 4 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Aluminum / 4 /
(1.4-2) mm
0.6
+
1.5
1.33
+
1.18
35
+
15
5 17
5
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Sand / 1 /
(1.4-2) mm
0.6
+
1.48
1.21
+
1.114
25
+
25
5
17
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Glass / 2 /
(1.4-2) mm
0.625
+
1.46
1.28
+
1.14
25
+
25
5 17
Plastic / 3 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Plastic / 3 /
(1.4-2) mm
0.62
+
1.45
1.29
+
1.17
25
+
25
5 17
Aluminum / 4 /
(0.6-1) mm
+
Aluminum / 4 /
(1.4-2) mm
0.6
+
1.5
1.33
+
1.18
25
+
25
5 17
6
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.21 50 6 17
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.625 1.28 50 6 17
Plastic / 3 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.62 1.29 50 6 17
Aluminum / 4 / (0.6-1) mm 0.6 1.33 50 6 17
7
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.21 50 7.5 17
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.625 1.28 50 7.5 17
Plastic / 3 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.62 1.29 50 7.5 17
Aluminum / 4 / (0.6-1) mm 0.6 1.33 50 7.5 17
8
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.21 50 8.5 17

90
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.625 1.28 50 8.5 17
Plastic / 3 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.62 1.29 50 8.5 17
Aluminum / 4 / (0.6-1) mm 0.6 1.33 50 8.5 17
9
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.21 50 10 17
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.625 1.28 50 10 17
Plastic / 3
(0.6-1) mm
0.62 1.29 50 10 17
Aluminum / 4 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.33 50 10 17
10
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.21 50 5 20
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.625 1.28 50 5 20
Plastic / 3 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.62 1.29 50 5 20
Aluminum / 4 /
(0.6-1) mm 0.6 1.33 50 5 20
11
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.21 50 5 24.5
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.625 1.28 50 5 24.5
Plastic / 3 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.62 1.29 50 5 24.5
Aluminum / 4 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.33 50 5 24.5
12
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.21 50 5 27
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.625 1.28 50 5 27
Plastic / 3 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.62 1.29 50 5 27
Aluminum / 4 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.33 50 5 27
13
Sand / 1 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.21 50 5 30
Glass / 2 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.625 1.28 50 5 30
Plastic / 3 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.62 1.29 50 5 30
Aluminum / 4 /
(0.6-1) mm
0.6 1.33 50 5 30
5- Backwashing
The filter media from run No. 6 to run No. 13 were backwashed by distilled water at velocity
calculated form equation (A), (Qasim, et al., 2000). The duration for each backwashing was
(average) 15 min. The details of backwashing showed in table (6).
Ub = D60 ……….……. (A)
Where: Ub = back wash rate, m/min

Table (
media
Ub = d60
(m/min) (mm)
Sand 0.73
Glass 0.8
Plastic 0.8
Aluminum 0.8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
Examine the ability of solid waste as filter media was done by change three parameters. At
first, the ʋF and Ci were fixed but the
five runs. After the fifth run, the longest run was chosen, the thickness of media gradation and C
were fixed but ʋF was changed until five runs, this was done in second stage. At third stage, the C
was changed to five runs but the thickness of gradation
medium was stopped at C/Ci ≥ 0.7.
The results of each stage were analyzed by ratio of effluent turbidity with running time as
well as recording some parameters like pH and temperature.
The Results
1. Run No. 1
The results for run No. 1
Figure (6): ratio of effluent turbidity with run time for run No. 1 within group No. 1 at
2. Run No. 2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
Column No.1 Column No.2
91
Table (6): details of backwashing
60 (0.6-1)
(m/min) (mm)
Volume of
water (m3
)
Discharge
(m3
/min)
0.73 0.0279 1.86*10-3
0.8 0.0306 2.04*10-3
0.8 0.0306 2.04*10-3
8 0.0306 2.04*10-3
were fixed but the size and its height of media were changed every rune time until
ive runs. After the fifth run, the longest run was chosen, the thickness of media gradation and C
was changed until five runs, this was done in second stage. At third stage, the C
was changed to five runs but the thickness of gradation and ʋF were fixed. The run time for each
well as recording some parameters like pH and temperature.
run No. 1 were shown in figure (6).
ratio of effluent turbidity with run time for run No. 1 within group No. 1 at
and Ci (average) = 17 NTU
The results for run No. 2 were shown in figure (7).
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Running Time (min)
Column No.2
Column No.4
© IAEME
Expansion
bed (%)
30
30
50
50
size and its height of media were changed every rune time until
ive runs. After the fifth run, the longest run was chosen, the thickness of media gradation and Ci
was changed until five runs, this was done in second stage. At third stage, the Ci
were fixed. The run time for each
ratio of effluent turbidity with run time for run No. 1 within group No. 1 at ʋF = 5 m/hr
1000 1100 1200

3. Run No. 3
The results for run No. 3 were shown in figure (
Figure (8): ratio of effluent turbidity with run time for run No. 3 within group
4. Run No. 4
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
C/Ci Column No.1 Column No.2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
Column No.1
Column No.2
Column No.3
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
92
of effluent turbidity with run time for run No. 2 within group No. 2 at
n No. 3 were shown in figure (8).
The results for run No. 4 were shown in figure (9).
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Running Time (min)
Column No.2
Column No.4
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Running Time (min)
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Running Time (min)
Column No.2
Column No.4
© IAEME
of effluent turbidity with run time for run No. 2 within group No. 2 at ʋF = 5 m/hr
No. 3 at ʋF = 5 m/hr
1000 1100 1200
1100 1200
1100 1200

5. Run No. 5
6. Run No. 6
The results for No. 6 were shown in figure (
7. Run No. 7
Figure (12): ratio of effluent turbidity with run time for run No. 7 within gro
m/hr and C
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
Column No.1
Column No.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
Column No.1
Column No.2
93
r No. 6 were shown in figure (11).
o of effluent turbidity with run time for run No. 6 within group No. 1 at
m/hr and Ci (average) = 17 NTU
400 500 600 700 800 900
Running Time (min)
Column No.2
Column No.4
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Running Time (min)
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Running Time (min)
© IAEME
o of effluent turbidity with run time for run No. 6 within group No. 1 at ʋF = 6 m/hr
up No. 1 at ʋF = 7.5
1000 1100 1200
1100 1200
1100 1200

8. Run No. 8
m/hr and C
9. Run No. 9
10. Run No. 10
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
Column No.1
Column No.2
94
No. 8 were shown in figure (13).
m/hr and Ci (average) = 17 NTU
n No. 9 were shown in figure (14)
No. 10 were shown in figure (15)
and Ci (average) =20 NTU
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Running Time (min)
Column No.2
Column No.4
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Running Time (min)
Column No.2
Column No.4
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Running Time (min)
© IAEME
ratio of effluent turbidity with run time for run No. 8 within group No. 1 at ʋF = 8.5
1100 1200
1000 1100 1200
1000 1100 1200

11. Run No. 11
Figure (16): ratio of effluent turbidity with run time for r
12. Run No. 12
13. Run No. 13
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0 100 200 300
C/Ci
Column No.1
Column No.2
95
No. 11 were shown in figure (16).
and Ci (average) =24.5 NTU
and Ci (average) =27 NTU
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000Running Time (min)
Column No.2
Column No.4
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Running Time (min)
Column No.2
Column No.4
400 500 600 700 800 900 1000
Running Time (min)
© IAEME
un No. 11 within group No. 1 at ʋF = 5 m/hr
1000 1100 1200
1000 1100 1200
1100 1200

96
Discussion
It was discussed and compared the results of run times between the sand medium and solid
wastes filings. From the experimental data, it can be noticed that the crushed of glass, plastic and
aluminum solid wastes were best rather than sand media filter in terms of run time (i.e. the run time
for media is a function of turbidity removal efficiency)
Assessment the ability of solid wastes in filtration process were done due to the following
physical parameters:
1. Effect of Change the Gradation and its Depth for Media
Five different groups of media were used in this study, look to the section (4-3). The best
result for all media (longest run time) was done in first run (group No.1) within Ci (average) = 17
NTU and ʋF = 5 m/hr where the media consisted from just size (0.6-1) mm. This result is in good
unison with (Degremont, 1991) who showed that more straining occur in the fine media. Where the
aluminum media had longest run time (1050 min) but close from run time for plastic media (1020
min) and both of it had longest run time than glass (930 min) and sand media (840 min).
When depth of the size (0.6-1) mm was reduced and offset the decrease of media by
size of (1-1.4) mm or (1.4-2) mm , the porosity of media increased (UC decreased), so the run time
was decreased within fixed the ʋF and Ci, look to the table (5-14) run No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. This
behavior indicates that turbidity removal happens at all height of filter medium. But the effect of size
(1.4-2) mm on run time was more significant from size (1-1.4) mm within fixed the depth both layers
due to UC for the first was smaller than the second, and D10 for the first was bigger than the second.
This result is in good agreement with (Kang and Shah, 1997) who showed that when the porosity of
media increased, the filtration efficiency decreased.
In the first stage, the run time for sand reduced by 3.5 %, 14.2 %, 7.14 % and 21.4 % in
run No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively with average of 11.56 %, the run time for glass reduced by 3.22%,
9.67 %, 6.45 % and 19.35% in run No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively with average of 9.67 %, the run
time for plastic reduced by 2.94 %, 8.82 %, 5.88 % and 17.64 % in run No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively
with average of 8.82 % and the run time for aluminum reduced by 2.85%, 11.42 %, 8.57 % and
22.85 % in run No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively with average of 11.42 %. So the sand media was more
influenced by change the depth and gradation.
In this stage, the glass media had run time longer than it for sand media by (10.7- 16.6)
%, the plastic media had run time longer than it for sand media by (21.4- 29.16) % and aluminum
media had run time longer than it for sand media by (22.7- 29.16) %, so the aluminum was best
medium comparison with sand in terms of run time when the depth and gradation were changed.
2. Effect of Increase the Filtration Velocity
Five different velocities were tested in this study within group No. 1 and Ci (average) = 17
NTU at run No. 1, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
As seen from these runs, the low filtration velocity (5m/h) had longest run time (i.e.lowest
average effluent turbidity) and this upshot is in a good matching with (Degremont, 1991) who
reported that employing low filtration velocities result in more attachment by adhesion on filter
media.
When the filtration velocity was increased, the average effluent water turbidity was also
increased but run time was decreased. When filtration velocity was increased, the shear off for
particles was also increased, i.e. the particles have an inclination to egress with the effluent water,
and this result is in good compatibility with (Tobiason et al., 2011) whom said that using of higher
filtration rates shortens the filter cycle.
In this stage, the glass media had run time longer than it for sand media by (9.1- 17.6) %, the
plastic media had run time longer than it for sand media by (19.2- 31.5) % and aluminum media had

97
run time longer than it for sand media by (19.2- 29.4) %. So the plastic was the best medium
comparison with sand medium in terms of run time when the filtration velocity was increased.
3. Effect of Increase the Influent Turbidity
Five different influent turbidities were tested in this study within group No. 1 and ʋF = 5 m/hr
at run No. 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13. The longest run time was at Ci = 17 NTU.
It was observed that the filter run time was decreased with increase of Ci for all media. When
influent turbidity was increased, the deposition of particles through the filter medium was also
increased which leads to increase secession, where the detained particles can became partially
detached and be driven deeper into the medium and carried off in the filtrate. The results in this study
is in good consistency with (Moran et al., 1993) and (Crittenden et al., 2012) whom showed that
detachment is highly dependent on specific deposit, particle removal in granular filters is not an
irreversible process and detachment of particles may occur during the filtration cycle. Detachment
occurs when shearing forces (flow) are greater than the adhesive forces that holding the particle.
When influent turbidity was increased from 17 to 20 NTU, the average of effluent turbidity
was decreased at run No. 10 but increased in run No. 11, 12 and 13 with decrease of run time at these
runs, while the average of removed turbidity was increased by increase the influent turbidity.
In this stage, the glass media had run time longer than it for sand media by (10.7- 15.7) %,
the plastic media had run time longer than it for sand media by (19.2- 26.3) % and aluminum media
had run time longer than it for sand media by (15.3- 25) %. So the plastic was best medium
comparison with sand medium in terms of run time when the Ci was increased.
REFERENCES
1. Alwared, A. I., and Zeki, S. L., (2014). “Removal of Water Turbidity by using Aluminum
Filings as a Filter Media”, Journal of Engineering, Vol. 20, No. 7: (103-114).
2. Central Organization for Standardization and Quality Control, (2000). “Filter Sand and Filter
Gravel for Water Purification Filters”, Standard Specification, second edition, No. 1555, Iraq.
3. Crittenden, J. C., Trussell, R. R., Hand, D. W., Howe, K. J., and Tchobanoglous, G., (2012).
“MWH’s Water Treatment: Principles and Design”, third edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
Hoboken, New Jersey.
4. Degremont, (1991). “Water Treatment Handbook”, Vol. 1, sixth edition, Lavoisier Publishing,
Paris.
5. Hudson, H. E., (1959). “Operating Characteristics of Rapid Sand Filters”, J. AWWA, Vol. 51,
No. 1: (115–122).
6. Hudson, H. E., (1981). “Water Clarification Processes: Practical Design and Evaluation”,
P. (175–176), Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
7. Kang, P. K., and Shah, D. O., (1997). “Filtration of Nanoparticles with
Dimethydioctadecylammonium Bromide Treated Microporous Polypropylene Filters”,
Langmuir, Vol. 13, No. 6: (l820-1826).
8. Kawamura S., (2000). “Integrated Design and Operation of Water Treatment Facilities”,
second edition, John Wiley & Sons Inc.
9. Ministry of Interior, (1992). “General Establishment for Water and Sewerage Projects”,
General Specification for Electro- Mechanical and Civil Works, Vol. 1, Baghdad- Iraq.
10. Moran, M. C., Moran, D. C., Cushing, R. S., and Lawler, D. F. (1993) “Particle Behavior in
Deep-Bed Filtration: Part 2—Particle Detachment,” J. AWWA, Vol. 85, No.12: (82–93).
11. Nasser, N. O. A., (2010). “Investigating the Ability of using Crushed Glass Solid Wastes in
Water Filtration”, Ph. D. Thesis, University of Baghdad, Iraq.

98
12. Qasim, S. R., Motely, E. M., and Zhu, G., (2000). “Water Works Engineering”, Prentice Hall
PTR, United States of America.
13. Rutledge, S. O., and Gagnon G. A., (2002). “Comparing Crushed Recycled Glass to Silica
Sand for Dual Media Filtration”, J. Environ. Eng. Sci., Vol. 1, No. 5: (349–358).
14. Sundarakumar, R., (1996). “Pilot Scale Study on Floating Media Filtration for Surface Water
Treatment”, M.Sc. Thesis, Asian Institute of Technology School of Environmental, and
Resources Development Bangkok, Thailand.
15. Tobiason, J. E., Cleasby, J. L., Logsdon, G. S., and O’Melia C. R., “Granular Media
Filtration”, Ch. 10, In: Edzwald, J. K., (2011). “Water Quality & Treatment, A Handbook on
Drinking Water”, sixth edition, American Water Works Association, McGraw-Hill
Companies.
16. Rumman Mowla Chowdhury, Sardar Yafee Muntasir, Md. Niamul Naser and Sardar Rafee
Musabbir, “Water Quality Analysis of Surface Water Bodies Along the Dhaka-MawaBhanga
Road Based on Pre-Monsoon Water Quality Parameters for Aquaculture”, International
Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 154 - 168,
ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
17. Prof.Dr.Mohammad Abid Moslim Al-Tufaily and Wisam Sh. Jabir Al- Salami, “Computerize
RCRA, EWC and BC Hazardous Wastes Classification System using Visual Basic- 6
Language”, International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 5,
Issue 1, 2014, pp. 111 - 124, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316
18. R Radhakrishanan and A Praveen, “Sustainability Perceptions on Wastewater Treatment
Operations in Urban Areas of Developing World”, International Journal of Civil Engineering
& Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 1, 2012, pp. 45 - 61, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308,
ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

WATER FILTRATION BY USING OF GLASS, PLASTIC AND ALUMINUM FILINGS AS A FILTER MEDIA

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to WATER FILTRATION BY USING OF GLASS, PLASTIC AND ALUMINUM FILINGS AS A FILTER MEDIA

Similar to WATER FILTRATION BY USING OF GLASS, PLASTIC AND ALUMINUM FILINGS AS A FILTER MEDIA (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

WATER FILTRATION BY USING OF GLASS, PLASTIC AND ALUMINUM FILINGS AS A FILTER MEDIA