See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/237189238

The Effectiveness of Slow Sand Filters to Treat Canadian Rural Prairie Water

Article  in  Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering · April 2011

DOI: 10.1139/l11-018

CITATIONS READS
31 3,524

4 authors, including:

Dena W Mcmartin
University of Lethbridge
103 PUBLICATIONS   1,737 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Extremes in the Americas View project

Engineering Professionalism View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Dena W Mcmartin on 14 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 455

The effectiveness of slow sand filters to treat

Canadian rural prairie water
Ann M. Gottinger, Dena W. McMartin, Doug Price, and Bruce Hanson

Abstract: The following manuscript provides a technical review of slow sand filters (SSFs) as well as two case studies from
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Regina Library on 04/19/11

the province of Saskatchewan, Canada in which an optimized technology has been successfully designed and implemented
to produce high quality potable water for very small populations. Renewed interest in SSF systems for small communities
has resulted in enhanced plant and filter design, improved operating procedures for increased efficiency and expanded range
of acceptable raw water quality input and an overall low maintenance system design. Despite some limitations to the use of
SSFs, recent design modifications and improvements for operation and maintenance of SSFs have expanded their application
to a broader range of contaminants under highly variable environmental and operating conditions. The flexible and modular
design options inherent to SSF systems, along with the modifications in expanded application, make SSFs highly attractive
for potable water treatment in rural and remote regions. The SSFs designed and tested in Saskatchewan are modular poly-
ethylene systems that include pre- and posttreatment processes such as ozone oxidation, roughing, and biological activated
carbon (BAC) filters to provide significant reductions in turbidity, heavy metals, colour, and organics.
Key words: slow sand filtration, rural water quality, potable water treatment, biological activated carbon filtration.
Résumé : Le présent article fournit une revue technique des filtres sablonneux lents ainsi que deux études de cas de la pro-
vince de Saskatchewan, Canada, dans lesquelles une technologie optimisée a été conçue et implantée avec succès pour pro-
duire une eau potable de grande qualité destinée à de très petites populations. L’intérêt renouvelé dans les systèmes de
For personal use only.

filtres sablonneux lents pour les petites communautés a permis d’améliorer la conception des filtres et des usines, les procé-
dures opérationnelles, permettant une efficacité accrue, ainsi que la plage étendue de qualité d’eau brute pouvant être traitée
et la conception de système global à faible entretien. Malgré certaines limites à l’utilisation des filtres sablonneux lents, de
récentes modifications à la conception et un meilleur fonctionnement et entretien des filtres sablonneux lents ont permis de
les appliquer à une plus grande plage de contaminants sous des conditions environnementales et opérationnelles très varia-
bles. La conception flexible et modulaire inhérente aux systèmes de filtres sablonneux lents, de même que les modifications
dans l’utilisation étendue, rendent les filtres sablonneux lents très attrayants pour le traitement de l’eau potable dans les ré-
gions rurales et éloignées. Les filtres sablonneux lents conçus et mis à l’épreuve en Saskatchewan sont des systèmes de po-
lyéthylène modulaires qui comprennent des procédés de pré- et de post-traitement, tels qu’une oxydation à l’ozone, le
dégrossissage et les filtres biologiques au charbon actif pour fournir des réductions importantes de la turbidité, de la concen-
tration en métaux lourds, de la couleur et du contenu en matières organiques.
Mots‐clés : filtration par sable lent, qualité des eaux rurales, traitement de l’eau potable, filtration biologique au charbon
actif.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Introduction located nearby large surface water supplies that are natural or
have been developed. Furthermore, urban centres have much
In small rural and remote communities across Canada larger and extensive resources to access, develop, and protect
there is an identified need for cost-effective and reliable pot- those drinking source water supplies. With economies of
able water treatment. Lippy and Waltrip (in Cleary 2005) re- scale, larger communities can also develop more sophisti-
ported that rates of non-compliance to drinking water cated water treatment infrastructure and obtain skilled opera-
standards are directly correlated to decreases in the size of tors. Conventional treatment technologies tend to be too
populations served. Source water in rural areas is typically expensive, complex, and labour intensive for most rural com-
of poorer quality than that of urban centres, which are often munities and may not perform as consistently when scaled
Received 25 January 2010. Revision accepted 14 February 2011. Published at www.nrcresearchpress.com/cjce on 8 April 2011.
A.M. Gottinger. Mainstream Water Solutions, Inc., 1509 Park Street, Regina, SK S4N 2E9, Canada; Faculty of Engineering & Applied
Science, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, SK S4S 0A2, Canada.
D.W. McMartin. Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science, University of Regina, 3737 Wascana Parkway, Regina, SK S4S 0A2,
Canada.
D. Price and B. Hanson. Mainstream Water Solutions, Inc., 1509 Park Street, Regina, SK S4N 2E9, Canada.
Corresponding author: Ann M. Gottinger (e-mail: agottinger@mainstreamwater.com).
Written discussion of this article is welcomed and will be received by the Editor until 31 August 2011.

Can. J. Civ. Eng. 38: 455–463 (2011) doi:10.1139/L11-018 Published by NRC Research Press
 456
down (Cleary 2005). Slow sand filtration (SSF) has attracted
attention as a potential solution to these types of rural water
quality and treatment challenges due to the low costs for cap-
ital and operating, ease of operation, reliability and minimal
requirements for maintenance and labour (Huisman and
Wood 1974; Logsdon et al. 1990).
Conventional slow sand filtration operation
and maintenance
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Regina Library on 04/19/11
Although SSF has been used since the 19th century and its
ability to treat water efficiently is not in doubt, application
waned with the development of modern technologies. Ironi-
cally, one of the most significant advantages of SSF, its sim-
plicity, also lends the misperception of it being an irrelevant
and antiquated technology.
Traditional SSFs can remove microorganisms in existing
chlorine disinfection plants using relatively high quality raw
water, but are not recommended for influent water with tur-
bidities greater than 5 nephelometric turbidity units (NTU).
High turbidity may result in filter clogging and decreased fil-
ter run length and the requirement for frequent cleaning
(Logsdon et al. 2002). In addition to turbidity, source water
quality parameters for application of SSF without pretreat-
ment include low chlorophyll a (<0.05 µg/L); low iron and
manganese concentrations (<0.3 and 0.05 mg/L, respec-
For personal use only.
tively); minimal dissolved heavy metals, pesticides, and color
compounds; and no oxidant residual prior to filtration (Logs-
don et al. 2002). Slow sand filtration systems operate best for
non-clay-bearing water sources (Cleary 2005).
Slow sand filters are open vessels partially filled with me-
dia — typically fine sand. Raw water flows into the top of
the filter where it is retained above the sand bed allowing
sedimentation (Wotton 2002). The water percolates slowly
through the sand bed facilitating purification by a variety of
physical, biochemical, and biological processes within the
sand bed (Visscher 1990; Weber-Shirk and Dick 1997a).
Conventional SSFs have a slow filtration rate (0.1–0.3 m/h)
with no chemical pretreatment and long filter runs (Collins
et al. 1991; Campos et al. 2002). Filter beds are cleaned by
scraping, washing, and resanding. Additionally, the sand in
SSFs is of uniform grain size (0.1–0.3 mm) at all depths
(Campos et al. 2002).
Slow sand filtration ripening is facilitated by pumping raw
water through the filters to waste until both biological and
physical–chemical ripening occur and develop biological ac-
tivity and straining and adsorption mechanisms, respectively
(Weber-Shirk and Dick 1997a). Physical–chemical particle
removal is more efficient when particles are already depos-
ited in the sand bed due to enhanced adsorption of influent
particles to retained particles (Weber-Shirk and Dick 1997b).
Biological development is less predictable as it depends on
several factors including pH, temperature, available organic
nutrients, filtration rate, and raw water quality. Biological de-
velopment may occur over several days or several months.
In operation, a thin layer of detritus and biological material
called the schmutzdecke forms on the sand bed (Bellamy et
al. 1985a; Weber-Shirk and Dick 1997b). Although it is ac-
knowledged that the schmutzdecke, or filter cake, aids in pu-
rification through physical, chemical, and biological means,
the mechanisms are poorly defined. Biological growth devel-
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011
ops within the sand bed and the gravel support layer. How-
ever, the extent of its contribution to purification is largely
unknown. The biological activity was thought to assist par-
ticle removal through better screening by the biofilm, en-
hanced adsorption of influent particles to sand grains due to
the bacteriological production of sticky polymers and preda-
tion and grazing of bacteria by higher order organisms (Bell-
amy et al. 1985b; Weber-Shirk and Dick 1997a). Weber-
Shirk and Dick (1997a) suggested physical–chemical mecha-
nisms are significant for particles between 0.75 and 10 µm,
while biological processes are important for particles in the
0.75–2 µm diameter range. Their research proved that, when
biological processes were stopped, no significant difference
in removal of particles > 2 µm was observed. These results
also indicated that bacterivory is primarily by flagellates that
graze on bacteria smaller than 2 µm (Weber-Shirk and Dick
1999).
Maintenance of SSFs is required when significant headloss
occurs. The SSF is drained and the top layer of sand and
schmutzdecke (approximately 0.5 to 2 cm) removed by scrap-
ing (Logsdon et al. 2002 and Huisman and Wood 1974).
After several scrapings, the filter media may be reduced to
its minimum bed depth and require resanding with either
new or cleaned filter media.
Conventional SSF performance
Slow sand filtration has proven efficient for removing
many types of microbial, chemical, and physical impurities
in raw water sources (Table 1). There are chemical impur-
ities, however, that are not effectively removed by SSF alone,
including sulphate (SO42–), nitrate (NO3–), sodium (Na2+), to-
tal dissolved solids (TDS), calcium (Ca2+), magnesium (Mg2+),
and hardness (as CaCO3) (Peterson and Corkal 1997). In fact,
biological treatment most often converts ammonium (NH4+)
to nitrate (NO3–) creating compliance challenges and exceed-
ances (Peterson and Corkal 1997). Additionally, fine, stable
colloidal matter is difficult to remove using SSFs (Cleary
2005).
Advantages and challenges. A balance of benefits and
challenges is required for all communities considering an
SSF for potable water production. Slow sand filters can effec-
tively provide treatment for a wide variety of physical, chem-
ical, and microbiological water quality problems.
The technology is uncomplicated requiring little process
adjustment and, therefore, minimal expertise and time for op-
eration, maintenance, and monitoring (Logsdon et al. 1990;
Visscher 1990). On the whole, SSFs are relatively inexpen-
sive to operate (Logsdon et al. 1990). There are no chemical
inputs, minimal chlorine required for residual (Amburgey et
al. 2005) and low maintenance and energy requirements due
to gravity flow operation (Cleary 2005). Few waste residuals
are produced by SSF water treatment systems, except during
filter scraping at which time dirty sand may result (Logsdon
et al. 1990). Furthermore, very little water is wasted during
the filter cleaning procedure (Cleary 2005), thus protecting
source water and reducing volume of effluent to be managed.
The comparably large SSF footprint and need for a heated
enclosure in cold climates may be considered a hindrance in
some cases. The labour and time required for SSF filter
scraping and resanding, as well as ripening must also be con-
Published by NRC Research Press
 Gottinger et al.
Table 1. Typical removal efficiencies of conventional slow sand filters.
Parameter Effluent or removal efficiency
Turbidity <1 NTU
True color 25–40%
30–100%
Organic matter 60–75%
UV absorbance (254 nm) 3–35%
THM precursors <25%
Viruses Virtually complete removal
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Regina Library on 04/19/11
Fecal coliforms 95–100 to 99–100%
Standard plate count bacteria 96%
Giardia cysts Virtual 100%
Cryptosporidium oocysts 99.8–99.99%
Poliovirus 99.997% average
Iron and manganese 30–95%
Note: THM, trihalomethane.
sidered. Both microbiological and organics removals are af-
fected by lower temperatures (Huisman and Wood 1974;
Moll et al. 1999; Melin et al. 2001; Logsdon et al. 2002;
Juhna and Melin 2006), thus requiring a relatively consistent
For personal use only.
operating temperature irrespective of seasonal fluctuations.
For instance, Moll et al. (1999) noted a significant reduction
in natural organic matter (NOM) removal by a SSF operated
at 5 °C in comparison with those operated at 20 and 35 °C.
Contrastingly, Liu et al. (in Juhna and Melin 2006) noted
minimal impact on organics removal at low temperatures. It
may be hypothesized that an abundant and active biomass
can act as a buffer to operational changes and at lower tem-
peratures biodegradation occurs along the bed depth rather
than being confined to the top of the filter (Juhna and Melin
2006). Published results are contradictory as to whether or not
cooler water temperatures (4 to 8 °C) can produce a diverse
microbial community (Schuler et al. 1991; Mauclaire et al.
2006). Mauclaire et al. (2006) concluded that microbial popu-
lations adapt to specific operating conditions, as necessary.
Cold climate impacts on SSF performance may also in-
clude limited availability of nutrients for biomass growth and
maintenance (Melin et al. 2001). Sufficient bioavailable inor-
ganic phosphorus and nitrogen are required to support micro-
bial growth. In water with excessive organic carbon, these
same nutrients can become limiting (Juhna and Melin 2006).
Cold climate also impacts the design of SSFs, which are
traditionally open to the environment. Open SSFs receive in-
puts from the environment as well as the raw water and may
benefit from interaction with external organisms, such as
aquatic insects, which can aid in water purification. When
comparing biomass development in covered and open SSFs,
Campos et al. (2002) documented that covered biomass accu-
mulated at a slower rate and was not as dense or thick. How-
ever, no discernable difference was noted in effluent quality
or total organic carbon (TOC) and dissolved organic carbon
(DOC) removal rates. The researchers concluded that covered
SSFs may produce high quality potable water, limit biomass
accumulation, and reduce headloss and clogging potential
(Campos et al. 2002).
457
Reference(s)
Visscher (1990); Galvis et al. in Cleary
(2005)
Galvis et al. in Cleary (2005)
Visscher (1990)
Visscher (1990)
Galvis et al. in Cleary (2005)
Galvis et al. in Cleary (2005)
Visscher (1990)
Visscher (1990)
Bellamy et al. (1985a)
Bellamy et al. (1985a)
Hall et al. (1994), Ghosh et al. (1989),
EES and TWU (1996) in Logsdon et
al. (2002)
Poynter and Slade in Logsdon et al.
(2002)
Visscher (1990)
Similarly, there have been constraints to SSF use in cases
of intermittent operation and flow in that this is thought to
negatively impact filter functionality. Intermittent flow re-
gimes can prolong the time required for a filter to achieve
steady-state and may also promote anaerobic activity (Huis-
man and Wood 1974; Logsdon et al. 2002). Since the micro-
organisms are limited by the amount of organic matter in the
raw water, the stationary phase of bacterial populations oc-
curs when flow is stopped (where cell growth and cell death
are at equilibrium). In this phase, organic matter is released
and made available to microorganisms deeper within the fil-
ter. Steady-state biological growth and biodegradation of or-
ganic matter is achieved in this manner (Huisman and Wood
1974).
When the filter flow is stopped the pore and ponded water
may become depleted of substrates, dissolved oxygen, and
nutrients, compromising the microorganisms in the filter. Ni-
quette et al. (1998) observed a drastic reduction in DO within
approximately 2 h after stopping flow in a bacteriologically
active filter. The production of near-anaerobic conditions re-
duced the overall fixed bacteria density in the filter. However,
the effect was less pronounced at lower water temperatures
where microbes are already less active. Despite the observed
reduction of biomass, Niquette et al. (1998) observed little
effect on produced water quality.
Modifications to conventional SSF
technology
Renewed interest in SSF has focused on redesign to fulfill
the demand for uncomplicated, effective water treatment for
small, rural, and remote communities. These design modifi-
cations increase treatment efficiency and expand the range of
applicable raw water quality. As a result, SSF has evolved
into a robust process that can operate within a broad range
of water quality and operating conditions with minimal proc-
ess adjustment (Cleary 2005).
Pretreatment design modifications, in particular, illustrate
how SSF technology has evolved in recent years. Pretreat-
ment extends filter runs and preserves the integrity of the
Published by NRC Research Press
 458
Table 2. Reported removal efficiency for SSF combined with pretreatment (ozone and roughing filtration) and BAC–GAC post treat-
ment.
Parameter Reported removal efficiencies
Turbidity 92% with roughing filter pretreatment
99.4–99.7% with O3 pretreatment and BAC polishing
Iron 95% with biological roughing up flow filtration
99.3–97% with ozone pretreatment and BAC polishing
99.9% with O3 pretreatment and BAC polishing
Manganese 88% with biological roughing up flow filtration
Arsenic 92% with O3 pretreatment and BAC polishing
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Regina Library on 04/19/11
99% with O3 pretreatment and BAC polishing
THM precursors 90% with GAC
DOC 80%
Colour 81–91% with O3 pretreatment and BAC polishing
E. coli 99% with horizontal flow roughing filter
Total coliforms 98% with horizontal flow roughing filter
Note: BAC, biological activated carbon; GAC, granular activated carbon; THM, trihalomethane; DOC, dissolved organic carbon.
SSFs. Processes that can reduce damage to biological growth
include pre-oxidation using ozone in the place of chlorine
(Logsdon et al. 2002). Ozone can facilitate the removal of
NOM and colour by cleaving large organic molecules into
more bioavailable material (Logsdon et al. 2002). Ozonation
can also improve cold temperature performance. Seger and
For personal use only.
Rothman (in Logsdon et al. 2002) reported that TOC removal
was increased by the use of pre-ozonation in water warmer
than 8 °C and even further increased at cooler temperatures.
Further pretreatment modifications, such as roughing fil-
ters composed of course gravel media, can reduce solids
loading on the sand filters, increase length of the filter run,
allow operation at higher hydraulic loadings and improve
overall effluent quality (Cleary 2005). Roughing filters can
be designed as upflow, downflow, or horizontal flow and are
considered to be simplistic in design, operation and mainte-
nance. Depending on design, roughing filters can handle tur-
bidity in the range of 50 to 200 NTU as well as turbidity
spikes as high as 500 to 1000 NTU (Ochieng et al. 2004).
The use of a roughing filter also increases performance of
SSFs in cold water conditions by providing additional biolog-
ical activity and increased retention time that can compensate
for any downstream loss of efficiency (Logsdon et al. 2002).
A similar concept, the pebble matrix filter (PMF), consists
of large pebbles infilled with a mixed layer of sand and peb-
bles. The PMF is most applicable for high suspended solids
water sources and has been proven efficient for removal of
suspended solids throughout the 25 to 5000 mg/L range (Ra-
japakse and Ives 1990).
Some modern SSFs include granular activated carbon
(GAC) (or their biologically activated cohort, BAC) filters to
provide “polishing” or removal of contaminants including or-
ganics, taste and odour compounds, pesticides, herbicides,
trihalomethane (THM) precursors, and ozonation by-products
(Cleary 2005). Addition of pre-ozonation and GAC or BAC
filtration to SSFs provide consistently improved treatment re-
sults than SSF alone. Furthermore, they are highly suitable
for cold climate use (Galvis et al. in Cleary 2005).
Multistage filtration (MSF) describes SSF combined with a
pretreatment phase, particularly in reference to ozonation and
roughing filtration (Table 2). Multistage filtration has been
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011
Reference(s)
El-Taweel and Ali (2000)
Peterson et al. (1997)
Pacini et al. (2005)
Peterson et al. (1997)
Pokhrel et al. (2005)
Pacini et al. (2005)
Peterson et al. (1997)
Pokhrel et al. (2005)
Fox et al. in Logsdon et al. (2002)
Sketchell et al. (1999)
Peterson et al. (1997)
Ochieng et al. (2004)
Ochieng et al. (2004)
popularized due to its proven ability to produce high quality
potable water from substantially polluted sources (Ochieng et
al. 2004). A study comparing the performance of MSF and
conventional treatment concluded that, in general, the MSF
treatment units performed better than conventional systems
for both suspended solids and turbidity removal by a small
but statistically significant margin. The MSF systems have
been shown to greatly improve the bacteriological quality
and require lower disinfection than the conventional train
(Ochieng et al. 2004).
Options to extend filter runs include in situ modifications
to the filters such as addition of nonwoven synthetic fabrics
to the sand bed surface (Mbwette et al. 1990). Placement of
an appropriate fabric type and thickness was shown to extend
filter runs by a factor of 3–5. The fabrics offer further advan-
tages including minimal disruption to filter hydraulics, no re-
quirement for scraping and cleaning sand, and ease of
washing and replacing fabric. The feasibility of removing,
cleaning, and replacing fabrics on filters larger than 30 m2
has not been examined to date. Currently, the use of bed sur-
face fabrics is limited to small-scale treatment facilities.
Cleaning processes to reinstate adequate flow regimes and
reduce clogging in SSF systems can be labour-intensive and
time consuming. However, several mechanized and hydraulic
systems have been designed to reduce both the time and la-
bour required. It is important to maintain a low wash water
velocity while backwashing to ensure minimum bed expan-
sion, a low degree of scouring, and minimal disturbance of
subsurface biologically active layers (Huisman and Wood
1974). The use of well-graded sand can circumvent the like-
lihood that redistribution of fine particles promotes more fre-
quent clogging and shorter runs (Huisman and Wood 1974).
Modifications to the design, operation, and maintenance of
SSFs have expanded their effectiveness for treating a wider
range of contaminants in highly variable environmental and
operating conditions. These modifications, combined with
the inherent advantages of SSF, have increased the attractive-
ness of SSFs for small rural communities. Within recent
years, regulatory authorities in the Canadian Prairie provinces
have approved municipal SSF systems for use in commun-
ities with hard-to-treat water supplies.
Published by NRC Research Press
 Gottinger et al.
Fig. 1. Flow diagram for Village of Osage, Saskatchewan 11.4 m3 SSF drinking water treatment plant.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Regina Library on 04/19/11
For personal use only.
Case studies
Village of Osage, Saskatchewan
In the spring of 2005 the Village of Osage, a community
of less than 50 people in southeastern Saskatchewan installed
an 11.4 m3/d SSF plant for improving the treatment effi-
ciency of reservoir water, particularly for turbidity and
THMs. The SSF plant consists of ozone pre-treatment, clari-
fication, SSF, and biological activated carbon (BAC) filtra-
459
tion (Fig. 1). To reduce the loading on the SSF and the
backwash frequency a down flow roughing filter replaced
the settling tank in spring 2007. The filtration rates of the
roughing, SSF, and BAC filters are 1.3, 0.2, and 0.5 m/h, re-
spectively.
The ozone contacting system is composed of a 4 g/h co-
rona discharge ozone generator with an air dryer producing
7 mg O3/L injected into a 66 cm Ø contacting tank. The
SSF contains a pea gravel base overlain with silica sand (ef-
Published by NRC Research Press
 460 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Fig. 2. Underdrain system for 1.75 m Ø SSF. Table 3. Reported results for raw and treated water for the Village
of Osage, Saskatchewan on 27 June 2006.

Parameter Raw Treated

Turbidity (NTU) 8.3 0.10
Colour, True (TCU) 25 10
Iron (mg/L) 0.13 0.04
Manganese (mg/L) 0.232 <0.0002
DOC (mg/L) 12 7
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 178 185
Bicarbonate (HCO3) 191 226
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Regina Library on 04/19/11

Carbonate (CO3) 12.8 <0.6

Hydroxide (OH) <0.4 <0.4
Hardness (as CaCO3) 178 184
TDS (calculated) 236 285
pH 8.67 7.95
Conductivity (mS/cm) 406 448
Total coliform (CFU/100 mL) Overgrown <1
Fecal coliform (CFU/100 mL) <1 <1
Note: NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; TCU, true colour units; DOC,
dissolved organic carbon; TDS, total dissolved solids.

missioning (March 2005) is visible since turbidity in the ef-

fluent exceeds that of the raw water while fines are being
flushed from the media. A period of approximately 60 days
was required for the effluent turbidity to meet the regulatory
For personal use only.

fective size 0.45–0.55 mm), to a total bed depth of 1.02 m in
a 1.75 m Ø polyethylene tank. Ozonated water enters the fil-
ter through an inlet 10 cm above the sand bed. Filtered water
exits through an underdrain system of 0.5 mm slotted sched-
ule 40 PVC pipe (Fig. 2). The BAC filter has a total bed
depth of 1.23 m including a base layer of gravel, followed
by layers of sand and carbon in a 1.07 m Ø tank.
The system requires minimal maintenance and filters are
clean-in-place not requiring scraping or resanding. This
method loosens and removes a small portion of the schmutz-
decke meaning that minimal re-ripening is required. Instead,
the cleaning involves a light air scour and low-rate upflow
wash with unchlorinated filtered water through the under-
drain system. The procedure is similar for both SSF and
BAC filters. The filter is drained from the surface leaving ap-
proximately 20 cm of water on the bed. Air is applied at
120 L/min at 22 psi for 10 s. The filter is again drained
from the surface another 15 cm. Both air and water (at
150 L/min @ 22 psi) is then applied through the underdrain
system until the water level in the filter rises approximately
40 cm. The surface water is then drained and the filter is re-
filled to normal operating level with process water. The filter
is run-to-drain until turbidity is below 1 NTU which takes
approximately 1 to 2 h. This process is similar to the collapse
pulsing backwash procedure as described by Amburgey et al.
(2005). Total water volume required for each backwash cycle
for the SSF is approximately 1 m3. The roughing filter is
backwashed every 10 days, the SSF every 40 days, and the
BAC filter every 90 days.
Finished water quality has been monitored closely since
commissioning. Sample analysis was performed by an inde-
pendent accredited laboratory. An example of a typical analy-
sis of raw and treated water is shown in Table 3. Turbidity
has been closely monitored from commissioning to present
day to assess treatment efficiency (Fig. 3). The time of com-
standard of 1 NTU. The SSF provides exceptional turbidity
removal at an overall average of 93%, regardless of seasonal
variations in raw water conditions and influent turbidity even
prior to the addition of the roughing filter. Typically turbidity
of finished water is between 0.20 and 0.40 NTU.
Prior to installation of the SSF plant THM results were
less than 100 mg/L 23% of the time (Fig. 4). In the 5-year
period since installation 86% of the THM results are less
than 100 mg/L. With the THM standard regulating this con-
taminant to be less than 100 mg/L based on the annual aver-
age of 4 seasonal samples, the utility has never been out of
compliance.
Bacteriological analyses indicate that microorganisms have
not been present in the treated water stream since the plant’s
commissioning.
The only chemical addition to the treatment train is chlor-
ine for disinfection and production of a distribution residual.
On a daily basis, the operator needs 15 min to check chlorine
and turbidity levels; on a monthly basis, the operator takes 2–
3 h for filter cleaning. Therefore, the total monthly operator
commitment is between 9 and 11 h.
Hamlet of Peebles, Saskatchewan
In the fall of 2004 the Hamlet of Peebles, Saskatchewan in-
stalled an 11.4 m3/d SSF treatment system to remove iron and
manganese from their groundwater. The system consists of aer-
ation, slow sand filtration, BAC filtration, and chlorine disin-
fection. The SSFs are two 1.07 m Ø polyethylene tanks. The
total bed depth of 1.06 m consists of a base of gravel with a
76 cm layer of sand (effective size 0.45–0.55 mm). One simi-
lar sized BAC filter with a gravel base and a sand layer under-
neath a layer of activated carbon provides final polishing. The
filtration rate for the SSFs and the BAC filter are 0.3 and
0.5 m/h. The filters are constructed and maintained in a similar
manner as described in the previous case study.

Published by NRC Research Press

 Gottinger et al. 461

Fig. 3. Turbidity (NTU) of finished water for Village of Osage, Saskatchewan SSF plant: (A) turbidity (NTU) during commissioning period
(March 2005 – July 2006) and (B) turbidity (NTU) for operational period (August 2006 – December 2010). Biological carbon filter represents
treated, unchlorinated water.
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Regina Library on 04/19/11
For personal use only.

Fig. 4. Historical and post SSF plant installation THM analysis trends for Village of Osage, Saskatchewan.

Aeration proved ineffective at oxidizing manganese and
was replaced with ozone pretreatment. The ozone contacting
system is composed of a 4 g/h corona discharge ozone gener-
ator with an air dryer producing an ozone dose of 7 mg/L
injected into a 66 cm Ø contacting tank.
Plant performance is assessed by daily turbidity monitoring
and periodic sampling and comprehensive water matrix anal-
ysis completed by independent laboratories (Table 4). Aver-
age turbidity of the finished water (excluding the initial
ripening period) is 0.10 NTU. Since the plant has been in-

Published by NRC Research Press

 462 Can. J. Civ. Eng. Vol. 38, 2011

Table 4. Reported results for raw and treated water for the Conclusions
Hamlet of Peebles, SasKatchewan on 5 March 2008.
Despite organizational barriers, SSF is experiencing re-
Parameter Raw Treated newed interest as a result of its potential for application to
Turbidity (NTU) 2.7 <0.1 small-scale systems. Significant advantages of SSF include
Iron (mg/L) 0.380 <0.005 simplicity of design, ease of operation and maintenance, cost
Manganese (mg/L) 0.752 <0.001 effectiveness, and reliability. New designs with pre and post-
Ammonia (mg/L) 0.53 0.12 treatment processes such as ozone oxidation and roughing
DOC (mg/L) 2 2 and BAC filtration have increased the range of treatable raw
Alkalinity (as CaCO3) 492 488 water. Innovative operational and maintenance techniques
have made these systems suitable for small communities
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Regina Library on 04/19/11

Bicarbonate (HCO3) 600 595

Carbonate (CO3) <5 <5 which have limited resources. Modified SSF systems have
Hydroxide (OH) <5 <5 proven to produce exceptional quality water despite operating
Hardness (as CaCO3) 685 663 in cold temperatures, encountering a variety of contaminants,
TDS (calculated) 1020 1010 and in highly variable water conditions with minimal operat-
pH 7.3 7.5 ing costs or maintenance making them a suitable alternative
Conductivity (EC) 1450 1460 for many rural and remote communities.
Note: NTU, nephelometric turbidity units; DOC, dissolved or- References
gainc carbon; TDS, total dissolved solids; EC, electrical conduc-
tivity. Amburgey, J.E., Amirtharajah, A., York, M.T., Brouckaert, B.M.,
Spivey, N.C., and Arrowood, M.J. 2005. Comparison of conven-
tional and biological filter performance for Cryptosporidium and
microsphere removal. Journal American Water Works Association,
stalled all bacteriological tests have showed no organisms 97(12): 77–91.
present. The system successfully removes manganese from Bellamy, W.D., Silverman, G.P., Hendricks, D.W., and Logsdon, G.S.
concentrations as high as 0.8 mg/L to below the acceptable 1985a. Removing Giardia cysts with SSF. Journal American Water
For personal use only.

limit of 0.05 mg/L. Iron, typically slightly above the AO
(aesthetic objective) of 0.3 mg/L, is consistently reduced to
<0.005 mg/L.
Daily the operator needs 10 min to check chlorine concen-
trations and turbidities. The filters are clean-in-place therefore
time and labour commitment is minimal. Time for filter
cleaning is about one half hour per filter. The sand filters are
cleaned every 4 weeks while the BAC filter is cleaned every
6 months. The operator estimates the time commitment to
operate and maintain the plant is 8 h a month.
Barriers to implementation
Considered an alternative treatment method with its fun-
damental mechanisms of treatment poorly defined to this
point (Campos et al. 2002), SSF is not wholly accepted by
the engineering community as a viable technology. Resist-
ance to prescribe this treatment may also be the result of
some misconceptions as well. For example, biological sys-
tems to treat drinking water have been deemed unsafe by
some due to the potential release of microorganisms from
the filters. While it is true that some microorganisms are re-
leased due to sloughing of the biomass and transport on
GAC fines, researchers such as Rickman and Huck, Bouwer
and Crowe (in Sketchell et al. 1997) and Amburgey et al.
(2005) concluded that the released organisms are common
nonpathogenic species that do not pose health problems.
Also because many consulting engineers contracted by small
communities are relatively unfamiliar with the principles and
capabilities of SSF they are reluctant to suggest this treat-
ment method or other alternative technologies, due to liabil-
ity concerns. Regulatory agencies can also pose challenges.
They tend to favour mainstream treatments and require con-
siderable proof of ability to meet regulatory guidelines by
nonconventional methods.
Works Association, 77(2): 52–60.
Bellamy, W.D., Hendricks, D.W., and Logsdon, G.S. 1985b. Slow
sand filtration: Influences of selected process variables. Journal
American Water Works Association, 77(12): 62–66.
Campos, L.C., Su, M.F.J., Graham, N.J.D., and Smith, S.R. 2002.
Biomass development in slow sand filters. Water Research, 36(18):
4543–4551. doi:10.1016/S0043-1354(02)00167-7. PMID:
12418657.
Cleary, S. 2005. Sustainable drinking water treatment for small
communities using Multistage slow sand filtration. M.Sc. thesis,
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ont.
Collins, M.R., Eighmy, T.T., and Malley, J.P.J. 1991. Evaluating
modifications to slow sand filters. Journal American Water Works
Association, 83(9): 62–70.
El-Taweel, G., and Ali, G. 2000. Evaluation of roughing and slow
sand filters for water treatment. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 120
(1–2): 21–28. doi:10.1023/A:1005252900175.
Huisman, L., and Wood, W. 1974. Slow sand filtration. World Health
Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Juhna, T., and Melin, E. 2006. Ozonation and biofiltration in water
treatment – operational status and optimization issues. Techneau
(WP5.3 Operation of water treatment facilities – optimization
efforts and modeling of unit processes).
Logsdon, G.S., Sorg, T.J., and Clark, R.M. 1990. Capability and cost
of treatment technologies for small systems. Journal American
Water Works Association, 82(6): 60–66.
Logsdon, G.S., Kohne, R., Abel, S., and LaBonde, S. 2002. Slow
sand filtration for small water systems. Journal of Environmental
Engineering and Science, 1(5): 339–348. doi:10.1139/s02-025.
Mauclaire, L., Schurmann, A., and Mermillod-Blondin, F. 2006.
Influence of hydraulic conductivity on communities of micro-
organisms and invertebrates in porous media: a case study in
drinking water slow sand filters. Aquatic Sciences, 68(1): 100–
108.
Mbwette, T.S.A., Steitieh, M.A.R., and Graham, N.J.D. 1990.
Performance of fabric-protected slow sand filters treating a
lowland surface water. Journal of the Institution of Water and

Published by NRC Research Press

 Gottinger et al.
Environmental Management, 4(1): 51–61. doi:10.1111/j.1747-
6593.1990.tb01557.x.
Melin, E., Eikebrokk, B., Brugger, M., and Odegaard, H. 2001.
Treatment of humic surface water at cold temperatures by
ozonation and biofiltration. Water Science and Technology, 2(5–
6): 451–457.
Moll, D.M., Summers, R.S., Fonseca, A.C., and Matheis, W. 1999.
Impact of temperature on drinking water biofilter performance and
microbial community structure. Environmental Science & Tech-
nology, 33(14): 2377–2382. doi:10.1021/es9900757.
Niquette, P., Prevost, M., Servais, P., Beaudet, J.F., Coallier, J., and
Can. J. Civ. Eng. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Regina Library on 04/19/11
Lafrance, P. 1998. Shutdown of BAC filters: Effects on water
quality. Journal American Water Works Association, 90(12): 53–
61.
Ochieng, G.M.M., Otieno, F.A.O., Ogada, T.P.M., Shitote, S.M., and
Menzwa, D.M. 2004. Performance of multistage filtration using
different filter media against conventional water treatment systems.
Water S.A. 30(3): 361–367.
Pacini, V.A., Ingallinella, A.M., and Sanguinetti, G. 2005. Removal
of iron and manganese using biological roughing up flow filtration
technology. Water Research, 39(18): 4463–4475. doi:10.1016/j.
watres.2005.08.027. PMID:16225901.
Peterson, H., and Corkal, D. 1997. Biological treatment of ground
water. Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration. Available from
http://www.agr.gc.ca/pfra/water/biotreatmentgw_e.htm. [accessed
17 June 2009].
Peterson, H., Broley, T., Sketchell, J., and Corkal, D. 1997. ADD
For personal use only.
Board 15 and 43 Project Report: Biological treatment of ground
water. (Saskatchewan Research Council. Publication No. R-1640-
6-E-97.)
Pokhrel, D., Viraraghavan, T., and Braul, L. 2005. Evaluation of
View publication stats
463
treatment systems for removal of arsenic from groundwater.
Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
Management, 9(3): 152–157. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1090-025X
(2005)9:3(152).
Rajapakse, J., and Ives, K. 1990. Pre-filtration of very highly turbid
waters using pebble matrix filtration. Water and Environment
Journal, 4(2): 140–147. doi:10.1111/j.1747-6593.1990.tb01569.x.
Schuler, P.F., Ghosh, M.M., and Gopolan, P. 1991. Slow sand and
diatomaceous earth filtration of cysts and other particulates. Water
Research, 25(8): 995–1005. doi:10.1016/0043-1354(91)90149-K.
Sketchell, J., Corkall, D., and Peterson, H. 1997. Pilot testing of in-
house water treatment systems in a surface water treatment trailer.
(Saskatchewan Research Council Publication No. R-1640-7-E-97.)
Sketchell, J., Peterson, H., and Christofi, N. 1999. Dissolved organic
carbon removal from a prairie water supply using ozonation and
biological activated carbon. Water Quality Research Journal of
Canada, 34(4): 615–631.
Visscher, J. 1990. Slow sand filtration: Design, operation and
maintenance. Journal American Water Works Association, 82(6):
67–71.
Weber-Shirk, M., and Dick, R. 1997a. Biological mechanisms in slow
sand filters. Journal American Water Works Association, 89(2):
72–83.
Weber-Shirk, M., and Dick, R. 1997b. Physical–chemical mechan-
isms in slow sand filters. Journal American Water Works
Association, 89(1): 87–100.
Weber-Shirk, M., and Dick, R. 1999. Bacterivory by a chrysophyte in
slow sand filters. Water Research, 33(3): 631–638. doi:10.1016/
S0043-1354(98)00272-3.
Wotton, R. 2002. Water purification using sand. Hydrobiologia, 469
(1–3): 193–201. doi:10.1023/A:1015503005899.
Published by NRC Research Press