Spotlight

Media Filtration
By C.F. Chubb Michaud, CE, CWS-VI

The Dynamics of

ne thing I have come to appreciate during my three plus decades as a water treatment professional is just how accomplished our industry really is. Congratulations! No matter what it is that is wrong with waterno matter how disgusting or toxic that contaminant may beno matter how large or small the need, we can fix that water. A sewage plant operating in Orange County, CA converts their wastewater back to potable water standards that exceed the original water quality sent to homes and businesses in the area. I drank some of this water and I am still here to write about it. Being a resident of Orange County, I will, no doubt, drink it again some day! There are countless island nations that routinely transform seawater into potable water. Unthinkable water from nuclear reactors is purified to stringent discharge standards every day. We have the knowledge. Does that mean we are 100-percent correct 100 percent of the time? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Table 1. Types of media filters Type Non-reactive Multi-media Sand Zeolite Reactive media Oxidizing Greensand Pyrolox Birm Adsorptive media Activated carbon Activated alumina Iron oxide Neutralizing media Calcite Magnesium oxide Polyphosphate Ion exchangers Softeners Deionizers Mixed-bed polishers Selective ion exchange
Water Conditioning & Purification

Our industry professionals have the knowledge and skills to solve any water or wastewater problem. Yet we have failures because the necessary level of knowledge is not shared by all, but assumed by many. Also, the necessary level of professionalism is not practiced by all. A mistake made out of ignorance is still a mistake. All filtration technologies have limitations. Failures occur when those limitations are exceededusually through a lack of understanding.

Scope

This article will examine a variety of technologies and explain how they work. This will help the reader visualize what can go wrong and why things sometimes fail if some other set of properties come into play. It is not the authors intent to produce an epic reference design manual, but rather to reveal hidden technologies that make different filters do different things. The focus will be on media filters.

Suggested flowrates 5-7 gpm/sq. ft. 3-5 gpm/sq. ft. 5-10 gpm/sq. ft.

Classifications of media filters

Media filters can be classified as either non-reactive or reactive. Non-reactive filters are those that work as barriers for particulate removal. They are non-chemical in nature and are more sensitive to hydraulics (surface flow) than they are to time. Figure 1. Barrier filters

5 gpm/sq. ft. 5-6 gpm/sq. ft. 5 gpm/sq. ft. 1-5 gpm/cu. ft. 1-3 gpm/cu. ft. 2-5 gpm/cu. ft. 2-5 gpm/cu. ft. 2.5 gpm/cu. ft. 5 gpm/cu. ft. (continuous) 3-5 gpm/cu. ft. 1-2 gpm/cu. ft. 3-5 gpm/cu. ft. 2-5 gpm/cu. ft.
February 2011

Reactive filters are those that work by altering the chemistry of the water. These include oxidation filters, neutralization media filters and phosphate (sacrificial media), adsorption filters and ion exchangers. These filters are sensitive to retention time. Keep in mind that reactive media are also barrier filters, and that they can release particulate if subjected to variable flow. Table 1 lists some types of media filters, along with suggested flowrates. It is not an all-inclusive list and some liberties can be taken with special applications.

Non-reactive (barrier) filters

two in service to backwash the third unit (at 15 to 18 gpm/sq. ft. [56.78 to 68.13 L/m]), and flow per square foot goes through the roof. Fine suspended particles trapped at the lower flowrate head downstream. This not only overwhelms RO prefilters but sends a stream of fine mud up into the third filter. If the application is for a critical performance media filter, it is much better to design the system with a bank of six or more parallel filters so that when one is pulled off line, total flow increase through online units is minimized. Also, consider using a separate source of clean water for backwashing. The expense for the storage tank and the extra pump will be worth it.

The simplest types of filters to build and understand are non-reactive media (particulate) filters. These may be all of one Reactive media filtersoxidative media or multiple layers with different densities that classify and Reactive media filters, such as oxidation filters, often have settle to the same position after backwashing. These are known as upstream oxidants added to precipitate iron and manganese so barrier filters and are used primarily to remove that filters act as particulate polishers. These suspended dirt and turbidity. The packed meprecipitates are very fine and the filters must Figure 2. dia presents a series of channels through which be run with low velocities, as indicated in Table Multi-media barrier filter water passes. If suspended particles are larger 1. The same rules apply here. If run too fast, or than the space between the media granules, it superficial flow is suddenly increased by taking is retained in the filter. There are, however, two one of the filters out of service, trapped iron will filter mechanisms at play in such a filter: 1) the blow off and enter the downstream flow. Take barrier (size of the space between particles of the same design precautions by using multiple the media) and 2) the tortuous path, which is smaller units in parallel, rather than only two the quiet space between granules where smaller or three. suspended matter can settle. What else can go wrong? I recently had The open space between a uniform stack a call from a dealer who had installed a wellof filter media granules (picture a stack of designed iron oxidation filter in a home; it canon balls) is approximately six percent of the was working just fine. A water analysis on diameter of the media itself (see Figure 1). This the effluent revealed a high arsenic level. The means that when using a media measuring 0.5 influent was below the MCL at only six ppb but mm in diameter (500 microns), such as typical the effluent was over the 10-ppb limit. The home filter sand, the free space between the grains is had the usual variable flowrate and when the approximately 30 microns (). We have a 30- flow would peak, it was blowing precipitated barrier filter. It matters little how fast water iron through the filter, but not above the 0.3is run through it. As this filter begins to load ppm limit level. The iron, however, was binding up, the spaces between grains get smaller and to the arsenic and when iron increased during it actually becomes a more effective filter. All higher flows, it was carrying the arsenic with you have done, however, is to load the surface of the media one it. A downstream particulate filter was suggested to capture the or two inches (25.4 or 50.8 mm) down into the bed and created errant iron along with the arsenic. a serious pressure drop which now requires a backwash to straighten things out.1 Reactive media filtersadsorptive Slow that filter down to 4 to 6 gpm/sq. ft. (15.14 to 22.71 L/m) Adsorptive media filters are definitely dependent on empty or less, and it creates eddies between the grains that contain dead bed contact time (EBCT). If a GAC filter is designed with a spotsareas of almost stagnant flow that can trap much smaller short retention time, it can still function as a very successful particles. By slowing down, particulates in the range of 15 to 20 dechlorination system. Design a GAC filter with a short can effectively be trapped with this same filter. If multi-media, retention time for the removal of trihalomethane (THM) and or a layered media bed containing anthracite and garnet (see you fail. The same is true for activated alumina used for fluoride Figure 2), is used, the anthracite layer will capture larger particles reduction and a host of iron-based media used for arsenic and the garnet will stop intermediate particles. Typically the removal. An EBCT of three to five minutes is a good design. It top (anthracite) layer is 0.8 to 0.9 mm and a somewhat flattened still works at higher flows but the reaction time comes so close platelet that creates a zig-zaggy path that can trap 25- to 30- to the actual retention time achieved that working capacity solids. The garnet is a 0.4- to 0.6-mm granule that is irregular in is seriously compromised. Increasing flow through a bed of shape, so space between grains is very tight. This layer can trap alumina from 1.5 gpm/cu. ft. (5.67 L/m) up to only 3.0 gpm/cu. solids in the 10- to 15- range. Using 0.6- to 0.8-mm anthracite and ft. (11.35 L/m) reduces the capacity by 40 percent.2 Most arsenic a #60 garnet (0.25 mm) will create a 5- to 7- filter that can remove adsorbers will lose 50 to 60 percent of their capacity when flow 90 percent of particles in this range. If this filter is upstream of doubles from 2.5 gpm/cu. ft. to 5.0 gpm/cu. ft. (9.46 to 18.92 a reverse osmosis 5- prefilter, the filters will last three to four L/m).3 One has to ask the media supplier what flowrate was times longer! used in calculating the projections for capacity. With adsorption How can such a purely mechanical filter fail? Lets say you media, it is always advisable to make the filters big enough. It have a tri-plex setup that you have carefully designed to run at 6 is also good advice to use redundant systemsa worker and a gpm/sq. ft. It is working great (with all three filters online). One polisherjust in case. filter is taken out of service for backwashing. Flow through the What else can go wrong? The mere fact that a particular two online units suddenly jumps to 9 gpm/sq. ft. (34.06 L/m). media will remove a particular contaminant does not mean that Worse yet, it is using clean product water from the outlet of the it will work for all applications with equal aplomb. Adsorption of
Water Conditioning & Purification February 2011

THM by GAC is far slower than the catalytic reduction of chlorine and, even though the same media and hardware are used, their success dictates two very different flowrates. In addition, dechlorination filters are considered fine if they remove 75 percent of the chlorine.4 Toxic organics, however, may necessitate 95 percent or more reduction. Chlorine can be removed with an EBCT of one minute. Chloramine takes about three minutes and THM may require EBCT of 10 minutes. Please keep all of this in mind when you put a 10-inch (25.4-cm) cartridge online. They work great when polishing RO effluent at 125 cc/min. but may not work at all at 1 gpm (3.78 L/m) (the equivalent of 40 gpm/ cu. ft. [151.41 L/m] through a tank system). There is a concept called half-length, which holds true for almost all adsorption media. It tells us that if we can remove 50 percent of a contaminant with x seconds of EBCT, it will take an equal amount of time (another x seconds) to reduce the remaining contaminant by an additional 50 percent. So, two half-lengths make a whole, right? Not quite. You see, the second half-length only removes 50 percent of the remaining 50 percent for a total of 75 percent. The next half-length takes 50 percent of the remaining 25 percent for a total of 87.5 percent. It takes five half-lengths to get to 97-percent reduction, and seven to get to 99 percent. As an adsorber removes contaminant from the fluid stream, the driving force that pushes the contaminant onto the media decreases. As the driving force decreases, the rate of removal decreases as well. If a water supply has a low (acidic) pH, it is common to use a sacrificial neutralization media to save plumbing and fixtures. The most commonly used media are calcium carbonate (calcite) and magnesium oxide (Corosex). Both of these media are solid forms of a high pH base. Calcite (CaCO3) is converted to the bicarbonate (Ca(HCO3)2) by low pH water and is effectively neutralized. Magnesium oxide, a much stronger base, simply acts as a hydroxide to neutralize the acid. The biggest bang for the buck is in treating very low pH water. As water approaches neutral (pH > 6.5) however, the calcite slows down quite a bit and it may take a mix with magnesium oxide to do the trick. I suggest 2-to-3 parts calcite to 1-part magnesium oxide. I also suggest an upflow bed to prevent the bed from fusing together or caking. Water remaining in the filter tank at night will jump in pH and may over-correct the situation (resulting in a pH > 8.5). Although not harmful, it is outside the US EPA range. For this reason, I favor calcite, which is less prone to over-correction. I did some lab studies a few years back to determine the relative properties of these two media. If you run pH 2.7 water through calcite at a flow of 3.0 gpm/cu. ft., you can neutralize to about pH = 6.5. A 50/50-mix of calcite and magnesium oxide results in a pH of 6.7. Slow that down to 1 gpm/cu. ft. and you get pH = 6.8 and 8.6 respectively (over-correction). If you feed pH 4.6 (this represents a possible RO water where the low pH is from dissolved CO2), the response is pH 6.4 through calcite and 6.9 through the blend (the media is slow to respond to weak acid such as carbonic acid). At a feed of pH 7.6, the effluent doesnt change through the calcite and comes out at pH 8.5 through the blend. After standing for 24 hours, the first water out of the calcite is pH 7.6. The first water out of the blend is 9.3, and straight magnesium oxide is 9.9.5 I suggest a 3:1 blend of calcite and magnesium oxide and a flow of 2.5 gpm/cu. ft. The guesstimated pH of the effluent will be just under 7.0.

Neutralization media

(for lasting suds) and a laundry additive (to tie up hardness and boost pH for better cleaning). In large doses, hardness will totally precipitate with the phosphate, and although the water may be cloudy, it has been chemically softened. At low levels of addition, phosphates do not soften the water but attach to the hardness in such a manner as to interfere with the formation of hardness scale. This is known as threshold chelation and there is research on it going back to 1945. The scale is softer and tends to not stick to pipes. Low-dose phosphates reduce iron deposits as well. In addition, phosphates will react with copper to form a glassy layer on the copper surface (inside of the pipe). This provides not only scale control but corrosion control as well. Development of glassy phosphates (typically hexametaphosphate) provides a convenient method of introducing the low-level dose to feedwater. Glassy phosphate in the form of large granules or beads is very slow to dissolve in water. Passing water slowly through a bed of these beads will add only 1 to 2 ppm of phosphate to the water. This is the perfect dose for the aforementioned applications. If you place a weighed quantity of glassy phosphate in a jar and fill it with water, then weigh the amount of phosphate remaining a month later, you will note that the weight loss is about five percent; a month later you loose another five percent. To determine how much crystal or bead would be needed to treat a given stream of water, first calculate the amount of water to be used in a month at a given sustained flowrate. So, 1 gpm = 1,440 gpd (5,450.99 L/d) = 43,200 gallons (163,529.78 liters), and the weight of that water is 360,000 pounds (163,293.25 kilos). To add 2 ppm of phosphate, divide that weight by 1,000,000 and then multiply that number by 2, which determines the addition of 0.72 lbs. (0.32 kilos) of phosphate. Since glassy phosphate dissolves at the rate of five percent per month, the necessary supply would be 0.72/0.05 = 14.4 pounds (6.53 kilos) of product to treat a continuous stream of one gpm. How does this translate to a residential need that has intermittent flow and only uses about 300 gpd (1,135.62 L/d)? Glassy phosphate does not completely dissolve in water because it rapidly reaches a saturation level, and the rate of solubility drops dramatically. Beads can sit in water for several years. When glassy phosphate is used for intermittent flow, the total amount dissolved in any given day is pretty much the same as that with a continuous flow of water; the total amount of treatment is similar. It is simply not distributed evenly. Nonetheless, this still works well in preventing corrosion and reducing the hardness of scale. Base filter size on the total water demand per month and add about 25 to 30 percent more crystals to the filter. If a household uses 10,000 gpm (37,854.11 L/m), which is approximately one quarter of the calculation above, use a cartridge with about 5 pounds (2.26 kilos) of bead, and top it off every three or four months.

Ion exchangers

Polyphosphate

Phosphate is a good chelating ion for hardness. Sodium tripolyphosphate (STPP) was used for years as a bath additive
Water Conditioning & Purification

As far as reactive media go, ion exchange is very rapid. It only takes a few seconds to soften water. The typical household system may only be one cubic foot and run as fast as 7 to 10 gpm (26.49 to 37.85 L/m). The typical family only uses about 300 gallons of water per day; a single cubic foot of resin rated at 24,000 grains can treat 1,200 gallons (4,542.49 liters) of water with 20 grains per gallon hardness. It may regenerate once every three days. If you look at a commercial application for a 5-gpm softener, however, you have to build it larger because 5 gpm is 300 gph (1,135.62 L/h). There is only a four-hour capacity with a one-cubic-foot system. If this is a 16-hour/day operation, to make it last the entire day, use four cubic feet. If hardness is super critical, make this system a twin-alternating, two cubic feet per side, and bump the
February 2011

salt level to 10 lbs. or more to guarantee low leakage. Not all ion exchange resin systems will be this forgiving. If resin is used for a critical application (such as arsenic, nitrate, uranium, barium, radium or any other health-related need) it must be put together with a generous engineering factor. The engineering factor is an artificial downgrade of system capacity in order to build in a safety factor. Once the cycle is determined, downgrade it by 25 percent to allow for error. Flowrates should not exceed three gpm/cu. ft. to actually achieve rated book capacities. If levels of contamination are high enough to cause an immediate problem to anyone drinking the water, install a polisher (a duplicate system run in series with the primary).

Authors note: Birm and Corosex are trademarks of Clack Corporation, Windsor, WI. Pyrolox is a trademark of Prince Minerals, Quincy, IL.

References

Conclusions

1. Michaud, C.F., Designing for Success. WC&P, April 1992. 2. Michaud, C.F., Fluoridation: The Good, the Bad and the UglyParts 1 and 2. WC&P, February and March 2010. 3. Michaud, C F., Factors Affecting the Capacity of Arsenic Removal Filters. WC&P, March 2008. 4. Michaud, C.F., GACTo Become the Workhorse of Water PurificationPart 3. WC&P, August 1988. 5. Systematix Co., Buena Park, CA, 90620, Neutralization Cartridges product literature.

The water treatment industry has the knowledge to fix any water problem. Oftentimes the treatment is extensive and expensive. If called upon to treat a critical-need water problem, make sure you have your ducks in a row. Make sure the technology is proven and the design is adequate to provide the level of safety the buyer anticipates paying for. Dont expect a cartridge to solve a whole-house problem. Always start with a good water analysis. Most media will do more than one job but they may not do them equally well. Ion exchangers can pick up many ions but they will release them down the road according to selectivity. The same is true for adsorbant media. Contaminants may release if the beds are overrun. You have to design your systems around the weakest link.

About the author

S Chubb Michaud, C.E., CWS-VI, is CEO and Technical Director of Systematix Company, which he founded in 1982. He has served as chair of several sections, committees and task forces with WQA, is a past director and governor and currently serves on the PWQA Board, chairing the Technical and Education Committees. Michaud is one of the original WC&P Technical Review Committee members. He is a past recipient of the WQA Award of Merit and PWQA Roberts Gan Award, as well as a member of the PWQA Hall of Fame. Michaud can be reached at (714) 522-5453 or via email at AskChubb@aol.com

Water Conditioning & Purification

February 2011