INTRODUCTION

Jar testing is a pilot-scale test of the treatment chemicals used in a particular water

treatment plant. It simulates the coagulation/flocculation process in a water treatment plant
and helps to determine if they are using the right amount of treatment chemicals, and, thus,
improves the plant's performance. It also helps to give reasonable idea of the way a
treatment chemical will behave and operate with a particular type of raw water. Because it
copy full-scale operation, jar test can help to determine which treatment chemical will work
best with the company system’s raw water. (Zane Satterfield, P.E., 2005)

According to research done by (Valley et al., 2012) on a jar test study on the use of alum
and ferric chloride for turbidity removal. Results showed that coagulation process could
remove turbidity effectively using Alum and Ferric chloride tested within (50-100mg/L)
dose range. It was noted that turbidity removal is dependent on pH, coagulant dosage as
well as initial turbidity of lake for both used coagulants. The highest turbidity removal
efficiency was within 66-76 % for Alum and 71-80% for Ferric chloride over applied range
of dose. Both applied coagulants demonstrated promising performance in turbidity removal
from the lake sample.

OBJECTIVE

 To determine the effect of coagulant dosage, flocculants dosage and pH to turbidity.

 To determine the removal efficiency of the waste water depending on the dosage of
coagulant, flocculants and pH.
 To determine the time of flocs formation and the time taken of the flocs to form.
RESULTS

Initial Turbidity = 921

Initial pH = 7.65

Table 1: Set 1

Set 1 (Coagulation process)

Jar Dosage (ml)
pH Turbidity (NTU)
Coagulant Flocculants
1 1.5 0.5 7.65 745
2 2.0 0.5 7.65 919
3 2.5 0.5 7.65 772
4 3.0 0.5 7.65 750
5 3.5 0.5 7.65 594
6 (Control) 0 0 7.65 921

Table 2: Set 2

Set 1 (Flocculation process)

Jar Dosage (ml)
pH Turbidity (NTU)
Coagulant Flocculants
1 3.5 1.0 7.65 683
2 3.5 2.0 7.65 550
3 3.5 3.0 7.65 476
4 3.5 4.0 7.65 319
5 3.5 5.0 7.65 143
6 (Control) 0 0 7.65 914

Table 3: Set 3

Set 1 (Coagulation process)

Jar Dosage (ml)
pH Turbidity (NTU)
Coagulant Flocculants
1 3.5 5.0 5 196
2 3.5 5.0 6 222
3 3.5 5.0 7 339
4 3.5 5.0 8 305
5 3.5 5.0 9 273
6 (Control) 0 0 7.65 890
 SET 1: Turbidity vs Coagulant Dosage
12

10

8
Turbidity (NTU)

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Coagulant (ml)

Figure 1: Turbidity according to Coagulant dosage

SET 2: Turbidity vs Flocculants Dosage

1000
900
800
700
Turbidty (NTU)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Flocculants (ml)

Figure 2: Turbidity according to Flocculants dosage

 SET 3: Turbidity vs pH
1000
900
800
Turbidity (NTU) 700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
pH

Figure 3: Turbidity according to pH

Removal efficiency vs Coagulant Dosage

40
35
30
Removal efficiency

25
20
15
10
5
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Coagulant Dosage

Figure 4: Removal efficiency according to the Coagulant dosage

 Removal efficiency vs Flocculants Dosage
90
80
70
Removal efficiency
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Flocculants Dosage

Figure 5: Removal efficiency according to the flocculants dosage

Removal efficiency vs pH
90
80
70
Removal efficiency

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
pH

Figure 6: Removal efficiency according to pH

According to turbidity vs coagulant dosage graph, the higher the turbidity will lower the
turbidity reading until 594 FAU. So, the most optimum coagulant dosage obtained is 3.5 ml
which is Jar 5. From turbidity vs flocculants dosage graph, it shows that Jar 5, the turbidity is
decrease until 143 FAU when the amount of flocculants increase. The turbidity vs pH graph
shows that the most optimum pH obtained is 5 as the turbidity is reduced to 196 FAU which is
Jar 1. The removal efficiency of jar test 1 is increasing as the coagulant dosage increase except
for 2 ml. the graph for increasing of flocculants shows the increasing removal efficiency of the
wastewater.

Floc formation in final 15 minutes

Experiment 1

Beaker 1: Coarse (15 minutes)

Beaker 2: Moderate (13 minutes)

Beaker 3: Moderately fine (11 minutes)

Beaker 4: Fine (6 minutes)

Beaker 5: Fine (4 minutes)

Beaker 6: -

Figure 7: Flocs formation for Jar test 1 in 15 minutes

Experiment 2

Beaker 1: Coarse (15 minutes)

Beaker 2: Moderate (12 minutes)

Beaker 3: Moderately fine (9 minutes)

Beaker 4: Fine (7 minutes)

Beaker 5: Fine (5 minutes)

Beaker 6: -
 Figure 8: Flocs formation for Jar test 2 in 15 minutes

Experiment 3

Beaker 1: Moderately fine (5 minutes)

Beaker 2: Moderate (7 minutes)

Beaker 3: Very coarse (12 minutes)

Beaker 4: Coarse (9 minutes)

Beaker 5: Moderate (6 minutes)

Beaker 6: -

Figure 9: Flocs formation of Jar test 3 in 15 minutes

LABORATORY EXERCISES

1. Why Jar Test must be done according to the condition of the real plant?
It is because the system operator can use jar testing to help determining which treatment
chemical will work best with their system’s raw water.

2. Name a few of the coagulants.

Ferric sulfate, ferric chloride, aluminiun chloride

3. What other reagent can be used to replace lime in pH adjustment?

Calcium carbonate, magnesium hydroxide.

4. What is the DOE (Department of Environment) Standard (Standard A and Standard B) of

aluminium according to the Environmental Act of Malaysia (1974)?
For Standard A, 10 mg/L is acceptable and for Standard B, 15 mg/L is acceptable.

APPENDIX

i. Preparation 1% Alum (Aluminium sulphate) solution, 1% Sodium Hydroxide (NaOH)

solution and 1% Sulfuric acid (H2SO4)
1g
× 1000ml=10 g
100 ml

ii. Preparation of 0.1% Polymer solution

0.1 g
× 1000ml=1 g
100 ml

iii. Concentration of coagulant in ppm

C 1 V 1=C 2 V 2
10 g
( 3.5 )=C 2 ( 1000 ml )
L
g mg
C 2=0.035 =35
L L

iv. Concentration of flocculants in ppm

C 1 V 1=C 2 V 2
10 g
( 5 )=C 2 ( 1000 ml )
L
g mg
C 2=0.05 =50
L L
Valley, E., Water, M., Elsinore, L., Noblet, J. A., Campbell, E., & Cervantes, G. (2012). a Jar Test Study
on the Use of Alum for Turbidity and Nutrient Removal in Canyon Lake , Ca. (May).

Zane Satterfield, P.E., Nescen. S. (2005). Tech Brief - Jar Testing. On Tap, 5(1), 1–4.