Journal of Environmental Management 189 (2017) 22e28

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

Short communication

The modified swirl sedimentation tanks for water purification

Marek Ochowiak*, Magdalena Matuszak, Sylwia Włodarczak, Małgorzata Ancukiewicz,
_
Andzelika  ska
Krupin
Poznan University of Technology, Faculty of Chemical Technology, Institute of Chemical Technology and Engineering, Poznan, Poland

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper discusses design, evaluation, and application for the use of swirl/vortex technologies as liquid
Received 18 October 2016 purification system. A study was performed using modified swirl sedimentation tanks. The vortex sep-
Received in revised form arators (OW, OWK, OWR and OWKR) have been studied under laboratory conditions at liquid flow rate
9 December 2016
from 2.8,10
5 to 5.1,10
4 [m3/s]. The pressure drop and the efficiency of purification of liquid stream
Accepted 10 December 2016
were analyzed. The suspended particles of different diameters were successfully removed from liquid
with the application of swirl chambers of proposed constructions. It was found that damming of liquid in
the tank increases alongside liquid stream at the inlet and depends on the tank construction. The effi-
Keywords:
Swirl sedimentation tank
ciency of the sedimentation tanks increases alongside the diameters of solid particles and decrease in the
Efficiency of sedimentation of sand liquid flow rate. The best construction proved to be the OWR sedimentation tank due to smallest liquid
damming, even at high flow rates, and the highest efficiency of the purification liquid stream for solid
particles of the smallest diameter. The proposed solution is an alternative to the classical constructions of
sedimentation tanks.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction O'Connor, 1996; Weib, 1997). Pre-treatment of suspensions,

Technological advancements, economic and industrial growth
as well as the related high level of industrialization, all favor the
increase of quality of life, in particular of human civilization needs.
The recurring emergence of new technologies gives rise to signifi-
cant amounts of contaminants that mix with waste water and in
turn lead to disruptions in water management and environmental
sustainability (Simate, 2015). An important issue appears to be
surface water purification, allowing for its further use to ensure
adequate conditions for human life and also for industrial purposes.
For this reason, numerous modernization works in sewage treat-
ment plants and water purification stations are being now con-
ducted in Poland and other countries (Cywin  ski et al., 1972; Kowal

and Swiderska-Br  z,
o _ 2000; Bien  and Wystalska, 2011). Simpler
water purification constructions, such as sedimentation tank sys-
tems, are also being developed with the aim of increasing their
number in urban areas and improving their purification capabilities
while saving space required for their installation (Field and
* Corresponding author. Present address: Poznan University of Technology,
Department of Chemical Engineering and Equipment, ul. Berdychowo 4, PL 60-965
Poznan, Poland.
E-mail address: ochowiak@op.pl (M. Ochowiak).
enabling their further processing and use, forms the basis for
sewage waste management (Mołoniewicz et al., 1979). The sedi-
mentation plays an important role in the removal of sediments
(Simate, 2015; Chhetri et al., 2016). By implementing the technique
of sedimentation it is possible, through the simple construction of
the sedimentation tank, separate contaminated liquid from solid
particles at a relatively low cost (conventional clarifiers, enhanced
gravity separators and lamella gravity settlers) (Bandrowski et al.,
1995; Field and O'Connor, 1996; Davidson and Summerfelt,
2005a; Patziger et al., 2012; Tarpagkou and Pantokratoras, 2014;
Liu et al., 2015; Chhetri et al., 2016). Such technical solutions are
currently all the more preferred since they do not require the
application of complicated constructions, or the use of materials
that are rare or difficult to access. The use of sedimentation tanks in
such a wide environmental range is possible due to their simple
construction and easy operation (Bandrowski et al., 1995; Liu et al.,
2015). The tanks are widely used, among others, in ground water
and surface water purification systems, for chemically enhanced
primary treatment of sewage, highway runoff treatment (removing
particles and metals) and wastewater treatment (Field and
O'Connor, 1996; Davidson and Summerfelt, 2005a; Li et al., 2008;
Hreiz et al., 2015). These devices can be operated in the periodic,
semi-continuous or continuous mode (Anielak, 2000; O'Doherty
et al., 2009). Detailed classification and description of the settlers

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2016.12.023
0301-4797/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 M. Ochowiak et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 189 (2017) 22e28
are shown in articles (Heidrich and Witkowski, 2005; Kro likowska,
2011).
The measure of effectiveness of sedimentation tanks is the
content of solids in the water after the sedimentation process (Field
and O'Connor, 1996; Luyckx and Berlamont, 2004; Weib, 1997).
Sedimentation efficiency h depends on the type of sedimenting
particles and duration of the process, and is referred to as (Kuropka,
1988; Weib, 1997):
mz
h¼ ,100%
m0
where:
mz e mass of the solid retained in the sedimentation tank, [kg],
m0 e mass of the solid in the water at the inlet to the sedi-
mentation tank, [kg].
Swirl sedimentation tanks offered by many of companies
(EcoTech Sp. z o.o. Sp. k., 2016; Pur Aqua System Sp. z o.o., 2016) in
the market are designed to collect solid contaminants, sludge,
slurries resulting from rainwater and snowmelt, as well as tech-
nological wastewater flowing gravitationally through sewers. The
tanks prove to be the appropriate solution for urban areas where
devices with high efficiency and relatively small dimensions are
required. Their construction results in highly efficient separation of
suspensions at heavy hydraulic loads (Mołoniewicz et al., 1979;
Egarr et al., 2009). Sometimes a small changes in separator
design contribute to the improvement of the efficiency of purifi-
cation of liquid stream, for example Davidson and Summerfelt
(2005a, 2005b) showed that a radial-flow settler was found to
provide approximately twice the solids removal efficiency of a swirl
separator of identical size and surface-loading rate.
The swirl cylindrical separators with a conical base were studied
by Veerapen et al. (2005). The authors showed that tank height and
the position of the inlet have a minor influence on separation
performance compared to outlet geometry, inlet diameter and tank
diameter. It was also shown that solids separation is mainly due to
gravity rather than centrifugal forces. The centrifugal forces was too
small. Swirl dimension tanks are, in principle, highly efficient pu-
rificators, have smaller installation area as compared to other tanks,
offer the possibility of placing the inlet at any angle (which facili-
tates connection to the sewage system) as well as easy operation
(EcoTech Sp. z o.o. Sp. k., 2016; Pur Aqua System Sp. z o.o., 2016).
2. Experimental
The aim of this paper was to construct and experimentally
determine the efficiency of purifying water from solid contami-
nants in single-chamber swirl sedimentation tanks. The influence
of tank construction and the volumetric flow rate of liquid on the
efficiency of purification from model solid particles of different
diameters was studied. Additionally, liquid damming in the studied
constructions of swirl sedimentation tanks was also discussed.
The main items of experimental equipment (Fig. 1) were the
studied swirl sedimentation tanks, VA-40 liquid flow meter deliv-
ered by Krohne Messtechnik GmbH&Co KG, a Center 309 multi-
point electronic thermometer by Center, a Grundfos CHI 2e30 ro-
tary pump, digital laboratory scale, Casio Exilim HS EX-F1 digital
camera and PC computer. The camera was used for visualization of
flow inside the sedimentation tanks.
The tested constructions of swirl sedimentation tanks are
shown in Fig. 2. Experimental studies were conducted on four cy-
lindrical, swirl sedimentation tanks with the internal diameter of
0.19 m and a total height of 0.65 m. Active height of the device was
0.4 m. The tanks differed in design of their inlet and outlet. The inlet
and outlet had a diameter of 0.032 m. The following sedimentation
23
(1)
Fig. 1. Experimental set-up:
1etank, 2epump, 3evalves, 4erotameters, 5einlet port for solid, 6eentrance region,
7ethermometer, 8eswirl sedimentation tank, 9ecamera, 10escale.
tanks were studied: standard swirl sedimentation tank (OW), swirl
sedimentation tank with a directional elbow (OWK), swirl sedi-
mentation settler with a profiled pipe (OWR) and the swirl sedi-
mentation tank with a directional elbow and reversed outlet
(OWKR). The inlet was positioned at 0.4 m from the bottom of the
device. All the tanks with a directional elbow had their inlet tube
ended with the elbow bent at the horizontal angle of 45 and
vertical angle of approx. 30 . In the OWR tank, the inlet pipe of the
tank axis is directed vertically downward (length 0.1 m) and is
ended with the above-mentioned elbow. The contaminated stream
(containing the predetermined fraction of solids) was administered
into the tank with the inlet marked grey in Fig. 1. The purified liquid
stream left the tank through the outlet (marked white) located in
the axis of the device. The values measured were: diameters of solid
grains, mass of the solid entering the liquid stream and exiting the
tank, volumetric liquid stream (V), _ water damming (DH) and
temperature of the process.
The research material consisted of sands from the area of
Mielno, near Koszalin. The contaminants were coastal beach sands
with well-rounded grains. Their characteristics was demonstrated
in the earlier paper (Ochowiak et al., 2016). The sand dried in a
laboratory drying oven at temperature 90  C. The sand sieve anal-
ysis was performed using a set of sieves and the sieve shaker
“Retsch AS 200”. The precision scales “Radwag PS210/C/2” with the
accuracy of þ/
0,001 g was used to measure the suspension mass.
The choice of sedimentation tank is made primarily on the basis
of the place of application of the device, as well as the type of
suspensions and substances that are to be separated in the process
of sedimentation (Bandrowski et al., 1995). Into account taken
should be physical and chemical parameters, such as viscosity and
density, disperse and dispersing phases along with their volume,
hydration of the solid, impact of porosity and the rate of descent in
terms of the volume of suspension storage and cardinality of
removing suspensions from the sedimentation tank (Ciborowski,
1973; Mołoniewicz et al., 1979; Davidson and Summerfelt, 2005a;
O'Doherty et al., 2009). In addition, determined should be the
appropriate, mean size parameters for solid particles retained at
the bottom of the tank, such as density and hydraulic diameters (Li
et al., 2008; Egarr et al., 2009; O'Doherty et al., 2009; EcoTech Sp. z
o.o. Sp. k., 2016; Pur Aqua System Sp. z o.o., 2016). It should be
known that the sedimentation techniques will not remove the fine
particles from the water. This is because fine particles (with di-
ameters under 30 mm) have low settling velocities that make
gravitational removal methods impractical. Assessment of the ef-
ficiency of the sedimentation tanks was conducted for the pre-
determined fractions of suspension with grain diameters of 125,
175, 250 i 400 mm. The tests were carried out within the range of
the volumetric water stream from 2,8,10
5 to 5,1,10
4 [m3/s]. The
liquid temperature was 20  C. The data obtained were processed
and analyzed statistically using Statistica 12 software (StatSoft Inc.).
24 M. Ochowiak et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 189 (2017) 22e28

Fig. 2. The tested swirl sedimentation tanks:

a) OW, b) OWK, c) OWR, d) OWKR.

3. Results and analysis w e velocity of particle, [m/s], R e radius of rotation, [m].

The gravitational acceleration is the acceleration on an object
Sediment removal due to centrifuge effect in a swirl concen- caused by the force of gravitation and equals approximately
trator is insignificant. This is because the inlet pipe water velocity g ¼ 9.81 [m/s2]. For example, a typical case would be an 2 m
does not generate significant centripetal acceleration. The cen- diameter swirl concentrator (R ¼ 1 m) with an inlet pipe flow ve-
tripetal acceleration (a) is: locity of 0.5 [m/s] for the water quality event. Particle removal due
to centripetal acceleration of 0.25 [m/s2] is only about 1/40 the
w2 particle removal due to gravity acceleration.
a¼ (2) Fig. 3 shows the relation between liquid damming in the sedi-
R
where: mentation tanks and the stream of liquid. It was demonstrated that
 M. Ochowiak et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 189 (2017) 22e28
with the increased liquid flow rate (hydraulic load of the device)
increases the damming of liquid in the tank. The smallest damming
of liquid occurs in the OWR tank which employs the most
complicated inlet pipe. The largest liquid damming, meanwhile,
was observed for the OWKR tank, followed closely by the OWK
construction. It follows that additional elbow inlet contributes to an
increase in liquid damming as compared to the traditional OW
solution. Reversal of the outlet (OWKR), compared to a similarly
constructed solution with an outlet pipe directed upwards (OWK),
also contributes to the increased liquid damming in the tank.
The head losses (or accidental) are expressed in heights of liquid
(liquid damming) DH:
w2outlet
DH ¼ x$
2$g
where:
woutlet e velocity of liquid at outlet nozzle, [m/s], x e friction
pressure drop or head losses.
The detailed statistical analysis of the head losses shown that for
turbulent flow for OWR x ¼ 3.09 ± 0.35, for the OW classical sedi-
mentation tank x ¼ 4.34 ± 0.45, for OWK x ¼ 5.19 ± 0.45, and for
OWKR x ¼ 5.77 ± 0.45. In the OW sedimentation tank the liquid
stream, flowing by the tangential inlet port, collides with the layer
of liquid rotating inside the settling tank. As a result of the collision
occurs narrowing of the stream and simultaneous increase in the
swirl radius, which consequently leads to an increase in head losses
friction (x ¼ 4.34). The additional elbow mounted on the inlet
(OWK) increases in head losses friction (x ¼ 5.19). A reversal exit
port changes the flow inside settling tank obstructing outflow of
the liquid, and resulting in a further increase in x. The smallest
values of x observed for the OWR tank result from the reduction of
height (from the bottom) of the liquid inlet. In this case the liquid
stream does not collides with the layer liquid rotating inside the
tank. All these results depend on the flow inside the tank, among
others on phenomenon of creating a vortex.
Sedimentation occurs due to the density difference between the
solid particles and water. Assuming a particle to be heavier than
water, under the force of gravity it will fall through the water with
Fig. 3. The relation between liquid accumulation in the tested sedimentation tanks
and the volumetric liquid stream.
25
increasing speed until it reaches a terminal value for its settling
velocity. Additional phenomenon used in the studied settlers is a
swirling motion of the liquid. This contributes to prolong the path
of the particles in tank what causing increasing of the efficiency.
Figs. 4e7 show the relation between the efficiency of sedimenta-
tion tanks and the stream of liquid and particle diameters for the
predetermined fraction of the solid. Out of the tested sedimenta-
tion tanks, the least efficient for all the solid fractions proved to be
the OW swirl sedimentation tank (Fig. 4). It is widely used in
sewage treatment systems. The OW type tanks are an popular so-
lution in urban areas, where it is required to use devices of rela-
tively high efficiency and not big dimensions. A relatively high
efficiency of separation of the suspended solids at high hydraulic
loads is achieved, and simultaneously the planned settling tank
surface is reduced (in comparison with classical sedimentation
(3)
tanks). In terms of construction, it is the simplest of the tanks
presented in this paper. This means that the cost of its production is
the lowest, but it also offers the lowest efficiency in purifying
contaminated liquid streams.
Adding a directional elbow to the OW sedimentation tank (OWK
tank) contributes to the efficiency of liquid purification (Fig. 5). This
is due to the orientation of the inlet stream down the tank, which
helps reduce the weight of solid particles entering from the upper
part of the tank, soon after flowing into it, directly to the outlet.
For the fraction of solid particles 250 mm, the OWR tank ach-
ieved the efficiency of almost 100% (Fig. 6). This sedimentation tank
proved to be the most efficient out of the tested constructions for
the particles of the smallest diameters. At the inlet, the particles
come across a greater depth than in the other constructions.
Furthermore, small-size solid particles entering through the inlet
pipe are not directed toward the outlet, whereby the efficiency of
the sedimentation tank for small particles is relatively high. This
means that the device can handle high hydraulic loads while
maintaining satisfying efficiency. This construction, however, has a
more complicated pattern of introducing the contaminated liquid,
which might cause an increase in construction costs of the device.
The OWKR tank for grains with a diameter of 250 mm also
achieves 100% efficiency, but here the construction is characterized
Fig. 4. The relation between the efficiency of purifying the stream from contaminants
in the OW sedimentation tank and the volumetric liquid stream and particle size of the
solid.
26 M. Ochowiak et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 189 (2017) 22e28

Fig. 5. The relation between the efficiency of purifying the stream from contaminants Fig. 7. The relation between the efficiency of purifying the stream from contaminants
in the OWK sedimentation tank and the volumetric liquid stream and particle size of in the OWKR sedimentation tank and the volumetric liquid stream and particle size of
the solid. the solid.

by a large decrease in efficiency of purification for the smallest solid According to the EPA, the removal efficiency defined as:
particulates (Fig. 7). This is due to reversing of the outlet down the
tank, generated funnel (waterspout) and suction of the solids from
the bottom of the sedimentation tank (Fig. 8). The flow pattern is
similar to that generated by a tornado in nature. It is particularly 100$P
evident at the higher liquid flow rates. h¼ ½% (4)
1 þ BP
The smaller the particles, the more difficult the purification
process becomes since (Fig. 9), due to their low weight, particles was related to the gravity separation parameter (ideal settling
form a single stream along with the purified liquid. Larger particles parameter) P:
are more likely to settle at the bottom of the tank, resulting in the
high efficiency of purification of the contaminated liquid from
larger particles.

Fig. 6. The relation between the efficiency of purifying the stream from contaminants
in the OWR sedimentation tank and the volumetric liquid stream and particle size of
the solid. Fig. 8. The funnel observed in OWKR tank at liquid flow rate 3.6,10
4 [m3/s].
 M. Ochowiak et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 189 (2017) 22e28
Fig. 9. The relation the efficiency of purifying the stream from contaminants in the tested sedimentation tanks and the volumetric liquid stream for solid particles with an average
diameter of 175 mm.
wg $A
P¼
Q contaminants of a relatively large diameter.
where:
A e chamber water surface area, [m2], d e particle diameter, [m],
Q e flow rate, [m3/s].
wg e particle gravity settling rate, wg ¼ d ðr18
S
rL Þg
2
hL , [m/s],
r e density of liquid (L) and solid (S), [kg/m3], hL e viscosity of
liquid, [Pa,s], The values of correction coefficient (B) are greater
than zero, and for the tested configurations averaged values of B
equal: for OWR В ¼ 0.68, for OWK В ¼ 0.71, and for OWKR В ¼ 0.73,
for OW В ¼ 0.86. The smaller values of B indicate greater values of
the removal efficiency.
The increase in liquid stream reduces the efficiency of the swirl
sedimentation tank since the turbulent nature of the flow and
heavy liquid stream carry away solid particles entering into the
tank and wash them out of there, outside the purification system.
4. Conclusions
The paper presented four constructions of swirl sedimentation
tanks, experimental tests of liquid damming and the efficiency of
purification of polluted liquid stream. The modifications in con-
structions were aimed primarily at increasing the efficiency of the
devices with respect to the standard swirl sedimentation tank.
Analysis of the obtained data allowed to formulate the following
conclusions:

damming of liquid in the sedimentation increases alongside
liquid stream at the inlet and depends on the tank construction;

efficiency of the sedimentation tanks increases alongside the
diameters of solid particles;

increase in the liquid stream reduces the efficiency of the swirl
sedimentation tank;

the best construction proved to be the OWR sedimentation
tank due to smallest liquid damming, even at high flow rates,
and the highest efficiency of the purification liquid stream for
solid particles of the smallest diameter;
27

an interesting construction procedure appears to be reversing
the outlet, in particular for the purification of streams from
(5)
The design, construction and testing of swirl sedimentation
tanks may lead to improved efficiency of removal of contaminants
from the liquid and possibly reduce the size of devices. High sep-
aration efficiency of the suspensions at high hydraulic loads can be
achieved through slight modifications of the construction. There-
fore, further studies of other constructions of sedimentation tanks
and liquids with different physical and chemical properties seem to
be justified.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by the Ministry of Science and
Higher Education of Poland through grant 03/32/DSPB/0602.
References
Anielak, A., 2000. Chemical and Physico-chemical Purification of Sewage. PWN,
Warszawa (in Polish).
Bandrowski, J., Merta, H., Zioło, J., 1995. Sedimentation of Suspensions. The Rules
and Design. Wydawnictwo Politechniki Sla  ˛ skiej, Gliwice (in Polish).
 , J.B., Wystalska, K., 2011. Sewage Sludge. Theory and Practice. Wydawnictwo
Bien
Politechniki Cze˛ stochowskiej, Cze˛ stochowa (in Polish).
Chhetri, R.K., Bonnerup, A., Andersen, H.R., 2016. Combined sewer overflow pre-
treatment with chemical coagulation and a particle settler for improved per-
acetic acid disinfection. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 37, 372e379.
Ciborowski, J., 1973. Chemical Engineering. Process Engineering. WNT, Warszawa
(in Polish).
Cywin  ski, B., Gdula, S., Kempa, E., Kurbiel, J., Płoszan ski, H., 1972. Urban Sewage
Treatment Plants. Technological Basics and Design Rules. Arkady, Warszawa (in
Polish).
Davidson, J., Summerfelt, S.T., 2005a. Settler evaluation: radial flow vs. tangential
flow. Glob. Aquac. Advocate 8 (3), 56e57.
Davidson, J., Summerfelt, S.T., 2005b. Solids removal from a coldwater recirculating
systems - comparison of a swirl separator and a radial-flow settler. Aquac. Engi.
33, 47e61.
Applied Materials, EcoTech Sp z o.o. Sp k. Sedimentation Chambers. http://www.
eco-tech.pl in Polish (Accessed 1 March 2016).
Egarr, D.A., Faram, M.G., O'Doherty, T., Syred, N., 2009. Experimental study of a
hydrodynamic vortex separator. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part E. J. Proc. Mech. Eng.
223 (1), 1e10.
Field, R., O'Connor, T., 1996. Swirl technology: enhancement of design, evaluation,
and application. J. Environ. Eng. 122 (8), 741e748.
28 M. Ochowiak et al. / Journal of Environmental Management 189 (2017) 22e28
Heidrich, A., Witkowski, A., 2005. Equipment for Sewage Treatment. Design,
Calculation Examples. Wydawnictwo Seidel Przywecki Sp. zo.o., Warszawa (in
Polish).
Hreiz, R., Roche, N., Benyahia, B., Latif, M.A., 2015. Multi-objective optimal control of
small-size wastewater treatment plants. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 102, 345e353.

Kowal, A.L., Swiderska-Br  z,
o _ M., 2000. Water Purification. PWN, Warszawa (in
Polish).
Krolikowska, J., 2011. Swirl chamber equipment applied in sewage networks for
decreasing suspended particle load in stormwater sewage. Ecol. Eng. 26,
156e170.
Kuropka, J., 1988. Purification of Waste Gases from Gas Pollutants. Basic Processes.
Wydawnictwo Politechniki Wrocławskiej, Wrocław (in Polish).
Li, Y., Kang, J., Lau, S., Kayhanian, M., Stenstrom, M., 2008. Optimization of settling
tank design to remove particles and metals. J. Environ. Eng. 134 (9), 885e894.
Liu, Y., Cheng, Q., Zhang, B., Tian, F., 2015. Three-phase hydrocyclone separator - a
review. Chem. Eng. Res. Des. 100, 554e560.
Luyckx, G., Berlamont, J., 2004. Removal efficiency of swirl/vortex separators. Urban
Water J. 1 (3), 251e260.
Mołoniewicz, W., Se˛ dzikowski, T., Bonikowski, T., 1979. Small Sewage Treatment
Plants. Design and Construction. Arkady, Warszawa (in Polish).
O'Doherty, T., Egarr, D.A., Faram, M.G., Guymer, I., Syred, N., 2009. Residence time
study of a hydrodynamic vortex separator applied to predicting disinfection
performance. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part E. J. Proc. Mech. Eng. 223 (3), 113e122.
Ochowiak, M., Broniarz-Press, L., Nastenko, O.V., 2016. Air purification in the cy-
lindrical chamber separator. Chem. Eng. Equip. 2, 66e67.
Patziger, M., Kainz, H., Hunze, M., Jozsa, J., 2012. Influence of secondary settling tank
performance on suspended solids mass balance in activated sludge systems.
Water Res. 46, 2415e2424.
Applied Materials, Pur Aqua System Sp z o.o. Vortex Chambers. http://www.
puraqua.pl in Polish (Accessed 2 February 2016).
Simate, G.S., 2015. The treatment of brewery wastewater for reuse by integration of
coagulation/flocculation and sedimentation with carbon nanotubes ‘sand-
wiched’ in a granular filter bed. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 21, 1277e1285.
Tarpagkou, R., Pantokratoras, A., 2014. The influence of lamellar settler in sedi-
mentation tanks for potable water treatment - a computational fluid dynamic
study. Powder Technol. 268, 139e149.
Veerapen, J.P., Lowry, B.J., Couturier, M.F., 2005. Design methodology for the swirl
separator. Aquac. Eng. 33, 21e45.
Weib, G.J., 1997. Vortex separator: proposal of a dimensioning method. Water Sci.
Tech. 36, 8e9, 201-206.