You are on page 1of 9

Abstract

The jar test is a common laboratory procedure used to determine the optimum operation
conditions of the real plant. This method manipulated parameter in pH, variation in coagulant or
polymer dose, alternating mixing speeds and testing in coagulant or polymer types on a small
scale in order to predict the functioning of a large scale treatment operation. As a overall
purpose, a jar test stimulates the coagulation and flocculation processes that allows the removal
of suspended colloids and organic matter which can lead to turbidity, odor and taste problems.
Diagram bellows is a jar testing procedures.

Figure 1: Diagram of jar test device

Jar Test procedure have a 6 paddles along with 6 jar beaker which stir the 1 liter water sample. 5
containers will be different in whether coagulant or flocculant dose and 1 beaker will be act as
control. The stirring action allows for the constant control in all of the containers. The summaries
of 3 set of parameter study will be as listed. The result for the first set is the most effective
coagulant dosage is 1.0 ml. On the other hand, the most effective flocculant dosage is 2.5 ml and
finally, the most suitable optimum pH is pH 6.0. As a conclusion, increasing in coagulant dose
will improve the residual turbidity. The addition of excess coagulant may reduce turbidity
beyond required but also could lead to production of more sludge which would need disposal.
3.0 Data and Result

SET 1 parameter study: Optimum coagulant dosage

Initial pH: 8.01

Initial turbidity: 176 NTU

Jar Number 1 2 3 4 5 Control


Coagulant 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
dosage: ml
pH 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01
Flocculants 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Dosage: ml
Turbidity 14.2 4.16 6.3 11.9 7.46 45.0
(NTU)

SET 2 parameter study: Flocculants optimum dosage

Jar Number 1 2 3 4 5 Control


Coagulant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
dosage: ml
pH 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01 8.01
Flocculants 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 -
Dosage
Turbidity 24.4 19.9 24.8 31.8 19.0 82.9
(NTU)

SET 3 parameter study: Optimum pH

Jar Number 1 2 3 4 5 Control


Coagulant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
dosage: ml
pH 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 8.01
Flocculants 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Dosage
Turbidity 7.1 6.38 14.1 36.3 97.4 74.7
(NTU)
Calculation

1) Percentage removal of turbidity for table 1:


Since the optimum coagulation dosage is 1.0 mL, the percentage removal of turbidity will
be calculated from Jar 2.
Initial turbidity Final turbidity
100
Percentage removal of turbidity = Initial turbidity

( 1764.16 ) NTU
100 =97.64
176 NTU

2) Percentage removal of turbidity for table 2:


Since the optimum flocculant dosage is 2.5 ml, the percentage removal of turbidity will
be calculated from Jar 5.
Initial turbidity Final turbidity
100
Percentage removal of turbidity = Initial tur bidity

( 17619.0 ) NTU
100 =89.2
176 NTU

3) Percentage removal of turbidity for table 3:


Since the optimum pH is 7, the percentage removal of turbidity will be calculated from
Jar 2.
Initial turbidity Final turbidity
100
Percentage removal of turbidity = Initial turbidity

( 1766.38 ) NTU
100 =96.38
176 NTU

From the table,

The most effective coagulant dosage is 1.0 ml

The most effective flocculant dosage is 2.5 ml

The most suitable optimum pH is pH 6.0


4.0 Discussions

In this experiment of jar test unit, the objectives that need to achieved are to perform the jar
testing on the sample water and to determine the most favorable conditions for heavy metals
removal in sample water using this procedure. In set 1 of experiment, coagulant dosage will be
manipulating variable whereas in set 2, manipulating flocculants in order to identify the optimum
dosage. At the last set, manipulating of pH to know the suitable condition for heavy metal
removal. In this experiment, polyacralamide is used as the coagulant dosage. In paper industry
especially in retention process, coagulant such as aluminium salts and sodium aluminate (SAL)
are used to remove unwanted anionic trash. However, in drinking water industry, iron salts will
add to remove particles, colour and impurities. The function of coagulant is enhancing the
coagulation process to form floc that will help in rapid removal heavy metals, nutrients, organic
substances and particles.

Turbidity (NTU) vs. coagulant dosage (ml)


50

40

30
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Coagulant dosage (ml)


Graph 1: A graph of turbidity vs. coagulation dosage

Previously, the pH of the raw water is 8.01 whereas the initial turbidity level is 176 NTU. Based
on graph 1, the optimum coagulant dosage and turbidity can be identified. The graph 1 showed
fluctuated line of data. It showed that the most optimum coagulant is at dose of 1 ml as the
turbidity level is at the lowest which 4.16 NTU. The percentage removal of turbidity was
97.63%. The least turbidity level is at the control where there is no added of coagulant. This
affecting the turbidity level as higher reading of turbidity obtained at control jar test which is 45
NTU. This involving coagulation and flocculation process that used to eliminate particulate
impurities and non-settleable solids contain in water. Non settleable solids defined as colloidal
material that exhibits slightly negative charges where it repelled one another and staying in
suspension. Colloids are approximately 10 micrometers in diameter which is small suspended
particles in water that cannot be removed naturally because of their stability and weight
(Baghvand et al., 2010).

Turbidity (NTU) vs. flocculant dosage (ml)


100

80

60
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
40

20

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Flocculant dosage (ml)

Graph 2: Turbidity vs. flocculant dosage


Based on graph 2 above, it show increasing line and decline at the end of the graph. The most
effective flocculant dosage is 2.5 ml due to the lowest turbidity result compared with other jar
test beakers. The lowest turbidity level is 19.0 NTU and the removal turbidity percentage is
89.2%. However, the control which is jar test 6 still indicates higher turbidity thus it cause the
rapidly drastic increase in trend. This is because, the control is natural process that does not
added with coagulant aids. Hence, the natural process is slowest to coagulate and flocculate the
particulates impurities. Moreover, coagulant aids introduce positively charged ions to the water
sample which reduces the repulsive force or zeta potentials between the turbid particles. This
encourages the attractive forces, or van der Waals forces, to overcome the repulsive force,
causing the particles to move together. Next, the coagulant will form flocs and finally will be
settle out.

Turbidity (NTU) vs pH
120
100
80
60 Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
40
20
0
4 6 8 10 12

pH

Graph 3: Turbidity vs. pH

The graph showed increasing and decreasing at two last points. At 1 ml of coagulant dosage and
2.5 ml of flocculant dosage, the most suitable pH have a lowest turbidity level is at pH of 7. The
turbidity level at the end of the experiment is 6.38 NTU. The turbidity percentage at pH 7 is
96.38%. It reflects that only 3.63% of the turbidity that does not removed and still remained.
During the set 3 parameter study, the pH was controlled by adding drops of acid and alkali prior
to the addition of polyacralamide. The increasing line in the graph showed that the pH influence
the coagulation process as it will affect directly to the surface charges of colloids. The lower
turbidity level of raw water sample is between pH of 6 to 8. It can be conclude that, the most
suitable and favorable for coagulant and flocculant to react at the alkaline condition. This can be
supported by the previous research from Metcalf and Eddy (1998) stated that, pH range of
sample water must be between 6 to 8 only to follow and comply the requirement state of
discharges treated sample water.

In overall data recorded, a very significant turbidity level obtained between set 1 (jar test 2) and
set 2 (jar test 1) even though same amount of coagulant and flocculant added in the respective jar
test. The main reason of this error came from turbidity meter which is not accurate and precise.
This also may due to data of turbidity level recorded without waiting for turbidity meter stable in
measuring sample. Thus, the result obtained will be inaccurate. Furthermore, jar test must be
done according to the condition of the real plant and acts as a model to derive relationship
between several input and output parameters. This model or known as jar test will mimic with
the same condition of particular plant in order to investigate and quantified the coagulant and
flocculant dosage. However, this technique is not suited for real time control of continues
process especially when the raw water quality rapidly varies in time and amplitude (Ratnaweera
& Fettiq, 2015). According to Environmental Quality Act 1974, Environmental Quality
(Industrial Effluent) Regulations 2009 Fifth Schedule, the acceptable condition of iron discharge
in industrial effluent is 1.0 mg/L and 5.0 mg/L for standard A and standard B respectively.
5.0 Conclusion and Recommendation

This experiment is successfully been done as the objective of this experiment which to perform
the jar testing on the sample raw water and to determine the optimum conditions for heavy metal
removal in sample water using the jar test procedure has achieved. Theoretically, jar test is a
method of measuring and find the best coagulant dosages under varying condition.

The turbidity test of the water is performed at the end of the experiment to indicate the turbidity
level of each beaker by using a turbidity meter. Based on our observation, the natural process
without coagulant added indicates slow process for heavy metal removal. Thus, the turbidity
level of natural process which is jar test 6 still higher rather that added coagulant agent.

After analyzing the data, the optimum dosage of alum for this system in set 1 is 1 ml of alum.
This is reflect from the result of turbidity level is at a minimum at this point, at 4.16 NTU. Set 2
conclude the optimum polyacralamide as flocculant is 2.5 ml as lowest turbidity recorded which
is 19 NTU. For set 3, the most favorable pH is at 7 and the turbidity level is 6.38 NTU.

Our recommendation for this experiment is Jar Test is very dependent upon the proper
preparation of the polymers being used. The critical part is at dilution technique since it involves
compactly coiled large molecules in emulsions to activation. The polymer needs to be uncoiled
to have maximum contact of surface area with the colloidal particles to be flocculated.

Moreover, turbidity meter must be calibrated before uses. This is to ensure accurate result of
turbidity. The data must be taken after turbidity meter stabilize in measuring the sample. Another
recommendation is ensure the jar test beaker fully dry before added the sample water. This is
because droplet of water will affect directly the turbidity level of sample water. Next, alum
solution and polymer solution need to be added below the surface of sample water. This will
cause inaccurate result obtained due to surface air oxidation. Finally buffer should be added with
the additional of alum. Alum without buffer will caused formation of sulfuric acids and will
become too acidic. Recommended buffer such as sodium bicarbonate or sodium hydroxide can
be used to neutralize the acid.

REFERENCES

Baghvand, A., Zand, A. D., Mehrdadi, N., and Karbassi, A., (2010), Optimizing coagulation

process for low to high turbidity waters using aluminium and iron salts, American Journal

of Environmental Science, 6(5), 442-448

Klimiuk, E., Fillikowska, U. and Korzeniowska, A.,(1999), Effects of pH and coagulant dosage

on effectiveness of coagulation of reactive dyes from model wastewater by

polyaluminium chloride (PAC), Polish Journal of Environmental Studies, 8(2), 73-79

Incopa. (2017). How coagulants work. Retrieved from http://incopa.org/index.php/coagulants.

Ratnaweera, H., and Fettiq, J. (2015). State of the art of online monitoring and control of the

coagulation process. Retrieved from http//doi:10.3390/w7116574

Environmental Quality Act 1974. (2015). Environmental Quality Act 1974( act 127),

Regulations, Rules and Orders. 449.

Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (1998). Wastewater Engineering Treatment and Reuse. 4Th edition. 1743.