South African Journal of Chemical Engineering 39 (2022) 97–105

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

South African Journal of Chemical Engineering

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

Hydrodynamic evaluation of a filter bed of porous material from stratified

sedimentary rocks for the removal of turbidity in surface waters
Angel Villabona-Ortíz , Candelaria Tejada-Tovar *, David López-Barbosa
Chemical Engineering Department, Process Design, and Biomass Utilization Research Group (IDAB), Universidad de Cartagena, Avenida del Consulado St. 30. Cartagena
de Indias, 130015, Colombia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this study, the behavior of a filter bed of stratified sedimentary rocks was evaluated through the analysis of
Bed turbidity removal efficiency and head losses. Two types of sands were used as materials, fine and medium, as well
Stratification as crushed limestone. The materials were characterized to determine the average particle diameter, porosity, and
Filtration
permeability coefficient, obtaining respectively 0.17 mm, 0.39, and 1 × 10− 3 cm/s for fine sand, 0.33 mm, 0.41,
Sand
Limestone
and 3 × 10− 3 cm/s for medium sand, and 1.26 mm, 0.45, and 1 × 10− 2 cm/s for crushed limestone. Hydro­
Turbidity dynamic analyses of the clean filter under conditions of rapid filtration were carried out, by which the different
Surface water rates of filtration to be used in each experiment were determined, establishing a direct correlation between the
rate of filtration and the thickness of the bed; in this way, it was possible to determine the maximum bed
thickness that could be used to maintain a rate of rapid filtration higher than 120 m/day. A hydrodynamic study
with synthetic turbid water prepared at 8 NTU using tap water and bentonite was also carried out. Total head
losses and turbidity removal were studied for each material at a rate of 153 m/day with removal efficiencies of
93.7% for medium sand with a loss of 23 cm and 67.8% for limestone with a loss of 4.5 cm and a rate of 389 m/
day. It is recommended to use the medium sand and limestone type material for use in surface water filtration
processes.

1. Introduction
Drinking water is an increasingly scarce resource whose supply is
diminishing due to the depletion of water sources and pollution, while
demand is rapidly increasing due to population growth, industrializa­
tion, mechanization, and urbanization (Sahu et al., 2019). Thus, the
processes of treatment and potabilization of raw water, extracted from
surface and underground sources, are necessary to provide safe quality
water for consumption (Torres-Lozada et al., 2018). Much of the water
used in rural and urban areas is extracted from surface sources such as
rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, and springs, which is usually treated by
clarification by flocculation or sedimentation, filtration, and disinfec­
tion (Ma et al., 2017). One of the main surface water contaminants is
associated with the presence of turbidity, which is conventionally
removed using filtration by deposition of the particles in the filter media
(Sutherland, 2014).
The development and implementation of appropriate water purifi­
cation technologies at rural community level in developing countries is
necessary due to the lack of economic resources. Among these is the
filtration of water through filters with porous media; these technologies
allow obtaining effluent water with good physical-chemical and bacte­
riological quality (Verma et al., 2017). In this sense, several studies have
been carried out on different porous materials, of mineral or sedimen­
tary rock type, as alternatives to conventional sand filters. The potential
for water filtration that these materials have is due to the fact that they
have two levels of porosity, one of the materials itself and the other of
the filter bed. Among the most relevant materials are granular activated
carbon, dolomite, calcite, limestone, sandstone, pumice, and zeolites
(Farhaoui and Derraz, 2016). These porous materials can be found in
different soil layers, which gives it the ability to transport and store
water (Sabiri et al., 2017).
The objective of this research was to evaluate, through the analysis of
the efficiency of turbidity removal and head losses, the behavior of a
stratified sedimentary rock porous material taken from soil in the village
of Galerazamba, Bolívar. The material was characterized by granulo­
metric analysis, and density and permeability determination. The
technology proposed in this work is an alternative treatment for surface
waters that have issues with turbidity, microorganisms, and organic

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ctejadat@unicartagena.edu.co (C. Tejada-Tovar).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sajce.2021.10.002
Received 11 March 2021; Received in revised form 27 August 2021; Accepted 20 October 2021
Available online 25 October 2021
1026-9185/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Institution of Chemical Engineers. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Villabona-Ortíz et al.
Fig. 1. PFD of the pilot filtration plant.
matter, it is low-cost, very efficient, easy to operate, suitable for small
communities, of application at both domestic and public scales, and it
can be improved by a process of disinfection (Zuluaga-Gomez et al.,
2020).
2. Methodology
2.1. Materials
The granulometric analysis of the sedimentary rock samples was
performed using Standard A.S.T.M.E-11 sieves. The turbidity of the
samples was determined using a VELP TB1 turbidimeter. Synthetic
turbid water was prepared at a concentration that emulated a real sur­
face water reservoir using tap water and bentonite. In this work, bed
depth (cm) and initial turbidity (NTU) were considered as independent
variables; and flow rate (cm3/s), head losses (cm), removal efficiency
(%), and the type of filter bed material were considered as response
variables.
2.2. Design of experiments
The hydrodynamic analysis was performed following a multilevel
factorial experimental design 2 × 3 × 5, where three factors are taken
into account: the initial turbidity (0 and 8 NTU), the bed material (sand
1, sand 2, limestone), and the bed depth (1 – 5 cm), for a total of 60
experiments. All experiments were performed in duplicate.
2.3. Filter bed characterization
The sand and limestone samples were taken in the village of Galer­
azamba (Bolivar), using a sharp-edged cylinder according to Standard I.
98
South African Journal of Chemical Engineering 39 (2022) 97–105
N.V. E-104-13. Afterward, they were dried in an oven at 110 ± 5 ◦ C to a
constant mass and then reduced in size. The granulometric analysis was
determined following the I.N.V. E-123-13 Standard (Instituto, 2014).
The bulk density was determined by the cylinder method (Eq. (1)). A soil
sample was selected, and the auger was introduced with the cylinder,
taking care not to compact the soil so it would keep the same structure
and known volume. The cylinder was hermetically sealed so that there
was no loss of moisture and weight. The sample was dried at 110 ◦ C for
24 h or until constant weight, and the moisture was determined by loss
of mass. The volume of the cylinder was calculated according to the
diameter and height of the cylinder.
ρ = Ws /Vt (1)
Where Vt is the cylinder volume, and Ws is the dry soil weight.
The density of the samples was determined according to the standard
I.N.V. E-128-13 using a VIDRIOLAB 250 mL pycnometer (Instituto,
2015). Porosity (ε) was calculated according to Eq. (2):
ε = ρr − ρa / ρr (2)
Where ρr and ρa are the apparent and real densities, respectively, in
g/cm3. The real density of soils corresponds to the density of the total
particles, excluding the pore spaces between particles (Xu and Bezuijen,
2019). The apparent density was obtained as a relation between the
volume occupied in a specimen by a certain mass of material, the real
density was obtained by a specific gravity test according to Eqs. (3) and
(4) using a 250 mL pycnometer and 90.4 g and taking as reference the
density of distilled water at 4 ◦ C (1 g/cm3); both tests were performed in
triplicate for each material and the result was averaged. Specific gravity
(SG) and real density (ρr) are calculated using the following ratios:
SG = Wm /Wm + Wwater + Wm+water (3)
A. Villabona-Ortíz et al.
Fig. 2. Flow diagram of the pilot filter calibration process for constant level control.
SG = ρr /ρw (4)
Where Wm, Wwater, and Wm+water are the mass of material, water, and
material+water in g, respectively.
Finally, the permeability of air-dried soil samples containing less
than 10% of soil passing 75 µm (No.200) sieve and removing sizes larger
than 19.0 mm (3/4′′ ) was determined using a 58 cm head, a 6.5 cm
diameter packed bed, and 5 cm depth. During the test, five times the
flow rate or volume discharged by the equipment was measured in a
given amount of time, the average flow rate was used to calculate the
permeability coefficient (κ) according to Eq. (5) (Zhou et al., 2019). (I.
Instituto Nacional de Vías, 2015).
k = Q ∗ L/A ∗ t ∗ h (5)
Where Q is the amount of water discharged in L, L is the distance
between the gauges from the permeameter in mm, A is the cross-
sectional area of the specimen in mm2, t is the total drainage time in s
and h is the head difference between the gauges in mm.
2.4. Construction of the pilot filtration plant
As a filtration column, an acrylic cylinder of 35 cm height and 4.1 cm
internal diameter was used, coupled at each end with a universal PVC
fitting of 1½”; these fittings allow the column to be easily assembled and
disassembled from the system for easy cleaning. Once the cylinder was
connected to the fittings, a cm-scale was placed and holes were drilled
on the side of the column, from the base and 1 cm away from each other,
which were used to couple a system of piezometers and sampling points
to the column, similar to the pilot filter used by (Farizoglu et al., 2003).
Once the column was completed, it was attached to a system of PVC
piping, ½” valves, and a flow meter that conducts and controls the flow
of water through the system. Three tanks were installed at the plant: a
60 L tank for storing turbid water equipped with a 17 W submersible
pump, a 7 L tank for feeding water to the system, and a 9 L tank for
collecting treated water, as shown in the pilot plant’s Process Flow Di­
agram (PFD) Fig. 1.
The filtration pilot plant was placed in operation, loading T-101 with
the water to be treated, then P-101 was turned on to pump water to T-
102, in this tank the water level rises to an overflow placed at 8 cm and
then recirculates to T-101; once the level in T-102 is stabilized, V-101 is
opened to allow the flow to the filtration column, V-102 was kept
completely open during the filtration process and it is closed to measure
the water flow through V-101; when the water level in C-101 reached
the desired level, V-103 was opened until the desired rate was obtained
and V-101 was manipulated in order to calibrate the plant with control
at a constant level. When the flow through V-101 and V-103 was
equalized, the water level was kept constant and the filtration run was
started (Fig. 2). When working with cloudy water, constant rate control
was used, because of the retention of material in the bed, which tends to
99
South African Journal of Chemical Engineering 39 (2022) 97–105
Table 1
Specifications of the supporting gravel.
Layer Gravel size (mm) Approximate thickness of the medium (cm)
1 9 – 10 1.0 – 1.5
2 2–9 0.5 – 1.0
3 1–2 0.5
plug or clog, decreasing the filtration rate and causing an increase in the
water level. To do this, V-103 was gradually opened as the filtration run
progressed in order to keep the water level at a constant C-101.
A system consisting of three layers was used as drainage: a High-
Density Polyethylene geogrid covered on both sides by a Poly­
propylene non-woven geotextile, the geotextile serves the function of
preventing fine sand particles to pass into the effluent without
obstructing the water flow. As a support for the sand bed, a spherical
gravel bed of approximately 2.5 cm deep was used, stratified in several
layers according to the particle size, following the recommendations of
the Colombian Regulations (C. y T., 2013); the stratification used is
presented in Table 1.
A calibration curve was made to relate the concentration of solids in
mg/L with the turbidity of the water in NTU. Initially, the synthetic
water was prepared, taking into account the bentonite concentration in
mg/L to obtain the desired turbidity according to the calibration curve;
then the total volume of water to be prepared was taken and the total
amount of bentonite in mg was calculated. With this amount the sus­
pension was prepared and diluted to the total volume, taking into ac­
count the dead volumes that were used both to keep the P-101 pump
submerged in water and to keep the level constant in the T-102 tank,
which was calculated with the dimensions of the tank to a total of 4.2 L.
2.5. Clean filter analysis
The clean filter hydrodynamic analysis was performed by filtering
clean water (T0 ≈ 0 NTU), using the three filter materials under study
(sand 1, sand 2, and limestone). The discharge rate was measured in
triplicate using a 100 mL test tube and the average value was used to
calculate the filtration rate. Head losses were measured at different
depths of the bed using the system of piezometers attached to the col­
umn, located 1 cm away from each other, these losses represent the
initial or clean filter losses h0 (Fig. 3).
2.6. Soiled filter analysis
The hydrodynamic analysis of the soiled filter was done by carrying
out the filtration process using turbid water with initial turbidity of 8
NTU, this analysis was done for each of the materials under study (sand
1, sand 2, and limestone), considering the same assembly done for the
clean filter (Fig. 3). The losses obtained at this stage represent the total
A. Villabona-Ortíz et al.
Fig. 3. Graphic representation of the assembly and the response variables, to an initial turbidity T0 and a specific bed material with thicknesses of (a) 1 cm, (b) 2 cm,
(c) 3 cm, (d) 4 cm, (e) 5 cm.
losses or hT ; by subtracting from the total losses the initial losses h0 , the
final or by clogging losses hf are obtained. The turbidity was measured at
different levels of bed depth by taking a water sample using a 15 mL
syringe, through sampling points coupled to the piezometer system.
Both turbidity and losses were measured every 15 min during a 2-hour
filtration run.
The head losses hi , were obtained for each value of bed thickness L
through piezometers located at 1 cm distance between each one, these
losses were added to obtain the total head loss or hT , using a total head h
of 30 cm for each experiment; with this information, the hydraulic pa­
rameters described in Darcy’s Law, such as the energy available Δh, and
the hydraulic gradient i, were calculated as described in Eq. (6):
Δh = h − h0 ; i = Δh/L
South African Journal of Chemical Engineering 39 (2022) 97–105
2.7. Evaluation of the stratified filter of sedimentary rocks
The operating parameters, such as stratification and filtration rate to
be used were determined based on the results obtained in the hydro­
dynamic analysis of each material. The thickness of each material that
obtained the best results for removal percentages and head losses was
established as the thickness of each layer of the stratified bed, placing
the material with the highest particle diameter in the upper layer and the
one with the lowest particle diameter in the lower layer.
Head losses and turbidity removal percentages were obtained by
stratification evaluation, using turbid water with initial turbidity of 8
NTU, and response variables were measured in a similar manner to the
hydrodynamic analysis. Turbidity profiles and time-dependent head
(6)
losses were obtained during a 2-hour filtration run. The turbidity
removal efficiency (TRE) was calculated with Eq. (7).
TRE (%) = Ti − Te /Ti × 100 (7)
100
A. Villabona-Ortíz et al. South African Journal of Chemical Engineering 39 (2022) 97–105

Table 2
Data for differential and accumulative granulometric analysis of the sand sample 1.
Differential analysis Accumulative analysis
Material No. sieve Opening (mm) Retained mass (g) Retained fraction (Δφi Average diameter Dpi (mm) Accumulative fraction Passing fraction

Sand 1 30 0.6 0 0 — 0 1
50 0.3 0.8 0.0035 0.45 0.0035 0.9965
100 0.15 163.9 0.7223 0.225 0.7259 0.2741
200 0.075 59.9 0.2640 0.1125 0.9899 0.0101
Fondo 0 2.3 0.0101 0.035 1 0
Total (g) 226.9 1 — — —
Sand 2 20 0.85 0 0 — 0 1
30 0.6 20.7 0.1035 0.725 0.1035 0.8965
40 0.425 43.6 0.218 0.5125 0.3215 0.6785
60 0.25 82.5 0.4125 0.3375 0.734 0.266
100 0.15 43.1 0.2155 0.2 0.9495 0.0505
200 0.075 10.1 0.0505 0.1125 1 0
Total (g) 200 1 — — —
Limestone 8 2.36 0 0 — 0 1
10 2 37.6 0.1705 2.18 0.1705 0.8295
20 0.85 149.6 0.6785 1.425 0.849 0.151
30 0.6 20.6 0.0934 0.725 0.9424 0.0576
40 0.425 12.7 0.0576 0.5125 1 0
Total (g) 220.5 1 — — —

Table 3 Table 4
Granulometric parameters calculated from differential and accumulative Porosity calculation.
analysis.
Fine Medium Crushed
Material Average d60 d10 Effective Uniformity sand sand limestone
diameter dM (mm) (mm) size de coefficient, Cu
Average apparent density (g/ 1.39 1.49 1.33
(mm) (mm)
cm3)
Sand 1 0.17 0.2 0.1 0.1 2 Average real density (g/cm3) 2.65 2.66 2.42
Sand 2 0.33 0.39 0.19 0.19 2.05 Porosity 0.47 0.44 0.45
Limestone 1.26 1.6 0.71 0.71 2.25

Where Ti and To are the turbidity of the affluent and effluent in NTU, Table 5
Constant head permeability test results.
respectively.
Fine sand Medium sand Crushed limestone
3. Results Test Output Time Output Time Output Time
(cm3) (s) (cm3) (s) (cm3) (s)

3.1. Characterization of the filter bed material 1 12.5 30 37 30 65 15

2 11 30 36 30 65 15
3 10.5 30 35 30 64 15
Four materials were collected: a clayey material, two sandy materials 4 10.5 30 35 30 64 15
(sand 1 and sand 2), and a sedimentary rock type material of calcareous 5 10.5 30 36 30 65 15
origin (limestone). Of these, the clayey material was not taken into ac­ Average 11 30 35.8 30 64.6 15
Flow 0.37 1.19 4.31
count because it was a plastic clay. The granulometric analysis was
(cm3/s)
carried out using a different series of sieves depending on the nature of κ (cm/s) 9 × 10− 4
3 × 10− 3
1 × 10− 2

the material. With the data of the mass retained in each sieve, the
respective differential and accumulative analyses were made for each
material (Table 2). In the differential analysis, the fractions of the
sample Δϕi , retained in sieve i, are represented, assuming that the
retained particles have a size equal to the arithmetic average of the
meshes between which said fraction is retained; therefore, ϕi represents
the fraction in weight of the sample constituted by particles of diameter
dpi . With these values, parameters such as the average diameter of the
sample were calculated. The accumulative analysis is made from the
differential analysis by the accumulative sum of the individual differ­
ential increments, from the one retained in the mesh with the largest
opening, which allows obtaining parameters such as the effective par­
ticle size and the uniformity coefficient (Andreoli and Sabogal-Paz,
2020).
A summary of the granulometric parameters for the materials found
is presented in Table 3. According to ASTM D2487-17, sand 1 can be
classified according to particle size as fine sand, sand 2 as medium sand,
and limestone as very coarse sand; this granulometric distribution for
limestone is due to the fact that it was previously crushed (ASTM In­
ternational, 2017). The values of d60 and d10 obtained, represent the
opening of the dummy mesh that would let pass 60% and 10% of the
sample respectively.
To calculate the porosity according to Eq. (2), the apparent and real
density values of each material were first determined. Average values of
apparent density and real density for each filter material were obtained,
with deviations of 0.01. The summary of porosity calculation is pre­
sented in Table 4.
From the results obtained, it is deduced that the fine sand is a loamy
soil material, and the medium sand is a sandy-loam soil material;
however, there is no point of comparison for the limestone bed since it
was crushed to a specific particle size (Hoslett et al., 2018). For lime­
stone, a range of 2.4–2.6 g/cm3 was defined (González de Corbella and
Ruiz Abrio, 2015). According to the final results of porosity, it is
observed that the greater porosity was obtained for the fine sand, which
means that this one has a higher amount of empty space, nevertheless,
this does not mean that it is the most appropriate for retention or
transport of water since this test does not establish what percentage of
these pores are interconnected. A range of total porosity has been
established for both fine and coarse sands between 0.2 and 0.5, but only
between 0.1 to 0.35 is effective porosity, that is, they are interconnected

101
A. Villabona-Ortíz et al. South African Journal of Chemical Engineering 39 (2022) 97–105

Table 6
Calculation of filtration rate.
Material Bed thickness (cm) Discharged flow (cm3/s) Filtration rate (cm/s) Filtration rate (m/day)
1 2 3 Average Deviation

Sand (1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.076 65.60
2.00 0.65 0.65 0.66 0.65 0.01 0.05 43.20
3.00 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.34 0.01 0.026 22.50
4.00 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.00 0.019 16.4
5.00 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.01 0.015 13.0
Sand (2) 1.00 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 0.00 0.64 553.00
2.00 7.00 6.80 6.90 6.90 0.10 0.52 449.30
3.00 4.6 4.50 4.50 4.53 0.06 0.34 293.80
4.00 2.30 2.40 2.30 2.33 0.06 0.17 152.70
5.00 1.10 1.00 1.00 1.03 0.06 0.078 67.40
Crushed Limestone 1.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.76 656.60
2.00 8.60 8.80 8.30 8.57 0.25 0.65 561.60
3.00 6.70 6.70 6.50 6.63 0.12 0.50 432.00
4.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 0.00 0.45 388.8
5.00 5.70 5.50 5.30 5.50 0.20 0.41 354.2

Fig. 4. Filtration rate profile as a function of bed thickness.
pores. Previous studies report a porosity of 0.41 for coarse gravel and
0.45 for fine gravel (Andreoli and Sabogal-Paz, 2020).
The permeability coefficient (κ) was obtained through a constant
head permeability test; the results of this test are shown in Table 5.
According to the permeability values obtained, it can be established
that fine sand (sand 1) has a low degree of permeability, which means
that, despite having a high porosity, a large part of these pores are not
interconnected; therefore, it is considered that this material is not
appropriate for the process of infiltration or runoff, since these non-
interconnected voids cannot contribute to the transport of water
through the porous media. (Lee and Kim, 2018). On the other hand, both
the medium sand (sand 2) and the crushed limestone, have a medium
permeability level, being higher for the calcareous material, which
means that these materials have a better interconnection between their
pores and allow a better water transport through the porous media.
Permeability coefficient values have been determined for fine sands
between 10− 6 and 10− 4 cm/s, for coarse sands between 10− 4 and
10− 2 cm/s, and for gravel >10− 2 cm/s (Fujikura, 2019), which is
consistent with the results obtained in this research.
3.2. Hydrodynamic analysis of filter bed materials
The pilot filtration equipment was calibrated to control the level and
filtration rate by establishing an initial opening of V-103 at half a turn of
the valve (50%), and a level of 30 cm on the scale located on the
filtration column. All experiments were standardized for these
conditions.
During the clean filter analysis, the filtration velocity or rate (m/day)
was determined by the correlation between the flow discharged by the
filter and the surface area of the bed. The discharged flow was calculated
as the volume discharged in 10 s, this was measured in triplicate and
averaged; the bed diameter is equivalent to the internal diameter of the
column (4.1 cm), therefore the surface area was calculated at 13.2 cm2.
The experimental data of measured flow and calculated rate are pre­
sented in Table 6. Fig. 4 shows the filtration rate profile as a function of
the bed thickness used.
This research studies the behavior of two sandy materials and one
limestone type, under conditions of rapid filtration (this condition oc­
curs when the filtration rate is greater than 120 m/day) (C. y T., 2013).
From this and the data recorded in Table 6, it can be seen that the rate at
which sand 1 operates does not meet the requirement for rapid filtration,
so this material was not taken into account for the rest of the research. In
the same way, it was determined by linear interpolation that sand 2 has a
thickness limit of 4.6 cm in which the rate equals 120 m/day, therefore it
was decided to use a maximum thickness of 4 cm for the rest of the
investigation.
Regarding the filtration time, a filtration rate that varied between 1.7
and 7.2 m/day was previously reported in a slow sand filter for use at
home with a turbidity removal of. The most influential variable in the
establishment of the filtration period was the quality of the fed water
(Maciel and Sabogal-Paz, 2018). On the other hand, when using sand
and anthracite as a filter medium in two rapid filter columns, a constant
filtration rate of 72 m/day was established; It was found that the quality
of the effluent of the anthracite obtained was better for all the filtering,
the development of the pressure drop over time was greater for the sand
filter in all the filtering cycles (Sabiri et al., 2017).
From the information in Fig. 4, it can be seen that the behavior of
sands 1 and 2 show an approximately linear trend, which indicates a
proportionality between the filtration rate and bed thickness, that is, the
initiation of flow in these materials is given as a free or gravitational
flow that depends on a combination of external hydraulic load, flow
length and permeability coefficient. On the other hand, limestone does
not show this proportionality reason why it is not possible to establish a
free flow in this material, which is given by the effect of the interaction
between electrical charges present in the material and the electrical
charges of the water; in these materials, the flow is generated by surface
tension, in the case of capillary flow, or must be forced by the applica­
tion of energy different from that associated exclusively with the
terrestrial gravitational field (Rybakov et al., 2019), (Vecherkovskaya
and Popereshnyak, 2017).
3.3. Obtaining initial head losses
The experimental data of the measured head losses for each bed

102
A. Villabona-Ortíz et al. South African Journal of Chemical Engineering 39 (2022) 97–105

Table 7
Initial or clean filter head losses.
Material Bed thickness (cm) Filtration rate (m/day) Head losses (cm)
h1 h2 h3 h4 h5 h0 Δh i

Medium sand 1 553 1.1 - - - - 1.1 28.9 28.9

2 449.3 2.3 1.2 - - - 3.5 26.5 13.25
3 293.8 2.5 4.2 1.7 - - 8.4 21.6 7.2
4 152.7 4.5 5.8 3.7 2.6 - 16.6 13.4 3.35
5 67.4 3.8 5.9 7 4.9 3.4 25 5 1
Crushed Limestone 1 656.6 0.1 - - - - 0.1 29.9 29.9
2 561.6 0.4 0.5 - - - 0.9 29.1 14.55
3 432 0.9 1 0.4 - - 2.3 27.7 9.23
4 388.8 1 1.5 0.9 0.4 - 3.8 26.2 6.6
5 354.2 0.5 1.3 2 1.7 1 6.5 23.5 4.7

Fig. 5. Initial head loss profile as a function of filtration rate.

Fig. 6. Total head loss profile as a function of time at different bed thicknesses.

thickness value and their respective rate are shown in Table 7. Based on
Darcy’s Law ratio is not met and then the non-linear behavior is
the information in Table 7, it is observed that the losses are considerably
observed (Daneshi et al., 2018).
greater for sand than for limestone, this is due to the fact that sand
opposes greater resistance to the viscous forces that drive the flow due to
3.4. Soiled filter analysis
the relationships between different parameters of the material such as
the sphericity of the particles, permeability, porosity and particle
The total head losses hi , in cm, were obtained for each bed thickness
diameter, causing the filtration rate produced by sand to be lower
value L through piezometers located at 1 cm distance from each other
compared to limestone (Singh, Singh & Gangacharyulu, 2016).
during a 2 h filtration run. These losses were added up to obtain the total
Fig. 5 shows the profile of initial head losses as a function of filtration
head loss (hT ); It was used a total head h equal to 30 cm for each
rate, observing a behavior initially linear for sand that then becomes
experiment. The total head loss profiles as a function of the filtration run
non-linear, while the limestone presents a completely non-linear
are shown in Fig. 6.
behavior of initial head losses with respect to filtration rate, this is
The variation of the total head losses is evident as a function of the
consistent with the results reported by (Khelladi et al., 2020), which
bed thickness and the filtration run. For sand 2, it is observed that the
studied filter losses with three varieties of sand of different particle size
thickness of the bed is the most significant variable in the filtration run,
and porosity.
obtaining only 15 min of the race when the thickness was 1 cm before
It was determined that the behavior presented is due to the high
the bed is completely plugged, and the head losses reach 30 cm of total
filtration rates due to the hydraulic conditions of the filter media
head, until a race greater than 2 h when the bed of 4 cm was used, this
described by the Reynolds Number. The Reynolds Number calculated in
behavior was also observed by (Mahanna et al., 2015), in which it is
this experiment varies for sand from 0.28 to 2.37, which explains the
attributed to the capacity of penetration of the material suspended in the
initially linear behavior for the lower rates, for limestone the Reynolds
bed due to the high filtration rates and the deposition of this material in
Number varies from 5.79 to 10.74, which explains the non-linear
the pores of the bed; in the case of limestone, there is no significant
behavior; this difference of the Reynolds Number is due to the me­
relationship in the filtration run in relation to head losses or bed
dium particle size being larger for limestone than for sand. According to
thickness, due to the fact that the flow through the limestone bed is not
(Taghavijeloudar et al., 2019), the non-linear behavior of the head losses
driven in the same way as in a sand bed by the possible interaction
as a function of the filtration rate exhibited by the pilot filtration
between electrical charges present in the material and the capillary flow
equipment when using the two filter materials could be due to the large
by the action of surface tension. The linear increase of total head losses
initial flow handled in the present study; this considering that it has been
when using the sand at different bed heights, due to the constant
reported as a significant part of the total permeate flow (approximately
accumulation of material in the bed, decreasing the porosity and
30–50%) (Yao et al., 2018). Likewise, for Reynolds Number values less
restricting the flow, which indicates that the phenomenon of filtration in
than or equal to one (Re ≤ 1) the head losses behave in a linear manner
the sand occurs by sifting; however, in the limestone is also observed a
with respect to the filtration rate, following Darcy’s Law ratio; for higher
linear behavior in time but tends to remain constant, suggesting that the
rates where the Reynolds Number is greater than one (Re > 1) the
mechanism of filtration in the limestone is not given by retention of

103
A. Villabona-Ortíz et al.
Fig. 7. Turbidity removal profile as a function of time for a bed thickness
of 1 cm.
particles in the bed (Yiǧit Hunce et al., 2016).
3.5. Turbidity removal percentage profiles
The turbidity values Ti , in NTU, were obtained similarly for each bed
thickness value L through sampling points located 1 cm away, with
initial turbidity of approximately 8 NTU. Fig. 7 shows the turbidity
removal percentage profiles as a function of the filtration run. It is noted
that at the beginning of each race of filtration, the turbidity in the
effluent is relatively high and it takes a few minutes to reach the mini-
mum turbidity in a period called maturation or "ripening" (Mahanna
et al., 2015); in the present study the maturation period was located
between 5 and 10 min and the filtration run was timed after the end of
this period.
The variation of the turbidity according to the thickness of the bed
and the filtration run is evident. For sand 2 it was presented that in each
case the requirement of Colombian Regulations for treated drinking
water is fulfilled, which establishes a maximum permissible turbidity
value of 2 NTU (Martínez-Orjuela et al., 2020), (Martínez-Orjuela et al.,
2020), obtaining minimum values of 0.71 NTU for the 1 cm bed, 0.6
NTU for the 2 cm bed, 0.54 NTU for the 3 cm bed, and 0.5 NTU for the
4 cm bed, with average values in time of 0.8 NTU, 0.84 NTU, 0.96 NTU,
and 0.73 NTU, respectively. It was also presented that, only for the 4 cm
bed, the 2-hour filtration run was completed without complete filter
plugging, because it allowed a better distribution of the suspended
material in the bed due to the lower filtration rates increase the removal
efficiency by increasing the time of water retention in the bed (Mahanna
et al., 2018). For the 4 cm sand bed a maximum filtration run of
approximately 2 h and 30 min was achieved before the filter got
completely clogged, which means that after this period of time the filter
column would need to be washed. In the case of limestone, the standards
are not met, obtaining minimum values of 4.36 NTU for the 1 cm bed,
4.02 NTU for the 2 cm bed, 3.27 NTU for the 3 cm bed, and 2.59 NTU for
the 4 cm bed, with amounts that vary over time and tend to stabilize at
approximately 5.4 NTU, 4.56 NTU, 4.24 NTU, and 4.15 NTU,
Table 8
Turbidity removal percentage result comparison.
Bed Material Bed thickness (cm) Filtration rate (m/día)
Coarse sand 75 183
Sand 60 206
Limestone - 12
Course sand 80 144
Medium sand 4 153
Crushed linestone 4 389
104
South African Journal of Chemical Engineering 39 (2022) 97–105
respectively. For the limestone bed, a period for filter column wash was
not determined, as this bed was only left running for up to 4 h, in which
time it did not get clogged. Table 8 presents a comparison between the
results of this research with other studies carried out, in which it is
observed that the different studies of rapid sand filters have obtained
similar turbidity removal percentage results, which gives credibility to
the results presented in this research.
From Fig. 7 it is established that the behavior of the percentage of
turbidity removal as a function of time for the sand presents a linear
trend in accordance with the trend of the head losses since as the losses
increase there is a reduction in the removal efficiency, this is due to the
fact that as the filtration run passes the suspended material accumulates
in the bed diminishing the porosity and therefore limiting the capacity of
adhesion of the suspended solids causing that these solids penetrate
through the bed towards the effluent (Davies and Wheatley, 2012). For
the limestone it is observed that the profile does not present a defined
trend, but tends to oscillate in time and to stabilize in a final value of
turbidity, this added to the fact that the total head losses tend to remain
constant in time allows supposing that the phenomenon by which the
limestone removes turbidity is not by the deposition of particles in the
middle or sifting, which occurs with the sand. Previously, it was
concluded that the removal potential of limestone is due to an adsorp­
tion phenomenon that occurs on the surface of the solid thanks to the
presence of calcium ions in its composition (Affam and Ezechi, 2019).
It has been previously reported that the turbidity removal efficiency
increased with increasing initial turbidity of the water sample; and that
decreases at high flow rates. Thus, removal efficiencies of 57% and 22%
were achieved when a filtration rate of 388.8 m/day and 1719.4 m/day
was used. (Senaratne et al., 2001). Likewise, when evaluating sand fil­
ters with different bed height, a decrease in turbidity from 1.6 NUT to
0.0724 NTU was achieved, finding that the turbidity of the fluctuating
effluent did not affect the performance of the filter with respect to the
removal of turbidity. (Napotnik et al., 2017). Previously, it was reported
that the increase in turbidity in the feed water has a positive effect on the
removal efficiency, the above taking into account that there is greater
availability of dissolved and suspended solids to be retained in the
packed filter bed. (Maciel and Sabogal-Paz, 2018).
4. Conclusion
This study concludes that: (i) the use of medium sand and calcareous
type material is recommended as a filter bed material. (ii) From the
characterization, it was obtained that these materials have an average
particle diameter, porosity, and permeability coefficient of 0.17 mm,
0.39, and 1 × 10− 3 cm/s for fine sand, 0.33 mm, 0.41, and 3 × 10− 3 cm/
s for medium sand, and 1.26 mm, 0.45 and 1 × 10− 2 cm/s crushed
limestone, respectively. (iii) The hydrodynamic analysis of the clean
filter made it possible to identify a direct ratio between the filtration rate
and the bed thickness, making it possible to determine which maximum
bed thickness could be used to maintain a rapid filtration rate higher
than 120 m/day. (iv) From the soiled filter analysis, the total head loss
and turbidity removal values were obtained for each material, using
turbid water of 8 NTU; at a rate of 153 m/day presenting removal effi-
ciencies of 93.7% for the medium sand with a loss of 23 cm and
the limestone a removal of 67.8% with a loss of 4.5 cm and a rate of 389
m/day.
Turbidity (NTU) Removal efficiency (%) Reference
30 90 (Farizoglu et al., 2003)
9.27 88.4 (Davies and Wheatley, 2012)
150 79
10 95 (Mahanna et al., 2018)
8.05 93.8 This study
8.05 67.8
A. Villabona-Ortíz et al.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Disclosure statement
The authors reported no potential conflict of interest
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Angel Villabona-Ortíz: Conceptualization, Visualization, Method­
ology, Software. Candelaria Tejada-Tovar: Data curation, Writing –
original draft. David López-Barbosa: Investigation, Software, Formal
analysis, Validation, Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declared that they have no conflicts of interest to this
work.
Acknowledgements
The authors express their thanks to the University of Cartagena for
providing the equipment and reagents required to complete this
research.
References
A.C. Affam and E.H. Ezechi, “Application of graded limestone as roughing filter media for
the treatment of leachate,” in Handbook of Research on Resource Management For
Pollution and Waste Treatment, 2019, pp. 176–219.
Andreoli, F.C., Sabogal-Paz, L.P., 2020. Household slow sand filter to treat groundwater
with microbiological risks in rural communities. Water Res 186. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2020.116352.
ASTM International, ASTM D2487-17: standard practice for classification of soils for
engineering purposes (unified soil classification system), vol. 04. 2017, pp. 1–12.
CyT. Ministerior de vivienda, Reglamento Técnico del Sector de Agua Potable y
Saneamiento Básico. 2013, p. 198.
Daneshi, N., Nafchi, R.F., Banejad, H., 2018. Prediction of Temporal Changes of Head
Loss in Sand Filter. Predict. Temporal Chang. Head Loss Sand Filter 29 (3), 78–87.
https://doi.org/10.22093/wwj.2017.43597.2068.
Davies, P.D., Wheatley, A.D., 2012. Pilot plant study of alternative filter media for rapid
gravity filtration. Water Sci. Technol 66 (12), 2779–2784. https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2012.517.
Farhaoui, M., Derraz, M., 2016. Review on Optimization of Drinking Water Treatment
Process. J. Water Resour. Prot 08 (08), 777–786. https://doi.org/10.4236/
jwarp.2016.88063.
Farizoglu, B., Nuhoglu, A., Yildiz, E., Keskinler, B., 2003. The performance of pumice as a
filter bed material under rapid filtration conditions. Filtr. Sep 40 (3), 41–47. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0015-1882(03)80137-4.
Fujikura, Y., 2019. Estimation of permeability for sand and gravel based on pore-size
distribution model. J. Mater. Civ. Eng 31 (12), 04019289. https://doi.org/10.1061/
(asce)mt.1943-5533.0002945.
González de Corbella, A., Ruiz Abrio, M.T., 2015. Estudio y análisis del comportamiento
de la piedra caliza de la sierra de esparteros de morón de la frontera (sevilla) durante
el proceso de cocción y apagado posterior. Tecnol. y Desarro. Rev. Ciencia, Tecnol. y
medio Ambient 13, 1–29 [Online]Available. http://www.uax.es/publicacion/es
tudio-y-analisis-del-comportamiento-de-la-piedra-caliza-de-la-sierra.pdf.
Hoslett, J., et al., 2018. Surface water filtration using granular media and membranes: a
review. Sci. Total Environ 639, 1268–1282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2018.05.247.
I. Instituto Nacional de Vías, Norma I.N.V. E - 130- Permeabilidad de suelos granulares.
2015, pp. 1–9.
I. Instituto Nacional de vías, norma I.N.V. E-123-13-Análisis granulométrico de suelos
por tamizado. 2014, pp. 1–7.
105
South African Journal of Chemical Engineering 39 (2022) 97–105
I. Instituto Nacional de vías, norma I.N.V. E-128-13- Determinación del peso específico
de los suelos y del llenante mineral. 2015, pp. 1–8.
Khelladi, R.M.B., Fellah, A.C., Pontié, M., Guellil, F.Z., 2020. Influence of particle and
grain size on sand filtration: effect on head loss and turbidity. Aquat. Sci. Technol 8
(2), 36. https://doi.org/10.5296/ast.v8i2.17512.
Lee, J.S., Kim, C., 2018. Study on permeability, optimum yield and long-term stability in
alluvial well with filter layer change. J. Eng. Geol 28 (1), 101–115.
Ma, L., et al., 2017. Fabrication and water treatment application of carbon nanotubes
(CNTs)-based composite membranes: a review. Membranes (Basel) 7 (1). https://doi.
org/10.3390/membranes7010016.
P.M.F. Maciel and L.P. Sabogal-Paz, “Household slow sand filters with and without water
level control: continuous and intermittent flow efficiencies,” https://doi.org/
10.1080/09593330.2018.1515988, vol. 41, no. 8, pp. 944–958, Apr. 2018, doi:
10.1080/09593330.2018.1515988.
Mahanna, H., Fouad, M., Radwan, K., Elgamal, H., 2015. Predicting of effluent turbidity
from deep bed sand filters used in water treatment. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res 6 (9),
621–626. https://doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2015.09.006.
Mahanna, H., Radwan, K., Fouad, M., Elgamal, H., 2018. Effect of operational conditions
on performance of deep sand filter in turbidity removal. Trends Tech. Sci. Res 2 (5),
1–7.
Martínez-Orjuela, M.R., Mendoza-Coronado, J.Y., Medrano-Solís, B.E., Gómez-Torres, L.
M., Zafra-Mejía, C.A., 2020. Evaluación de la turbiedad como parámetro indicador
del tratamiento en una planta potabilizadora municipal. Rev. UIS Ing 19 (1), 15–24.
https://doi.org/10.18273/revuin.v19n1-2020001.
Napotnik, J.A., Baker, D., Jellison, K.L., 2017. Effect of sand bed depth and medium age
on escherichia coli and turbidity removal in biosand filters. Environ. Sci. Technol 51
(6), 3402–3409. https://doi.org/10.1021/ACS.EST.6B05113. Mar.
Rybakov, Y.P., Semenova, N.V., Safarov, J.S., 2019. Generalizing Darcy’s law for
filtration radial flows through porous media. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng 675 (1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/675/1/012064.
Sabiri, N.E., Monnier, E., Raimbault, V., Massé, A., Séchet, V., Jaouen, P., 2017. Effect of
filtration rate on coal-sand dual-media filter performances for microalgae removal.
Environ. Technol. (United Kingdom) 38 (3), 345–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09593330.2016.1193224.
Sahu, R.L., Dash, R.R., Pradhan, P.K., Das, P., 2019. Effect of hydrogeological factors on
removal of turbidity during river bank filtration: laboratory and field studies.
Groundw. Sustain. Dev 9 (September 2018). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
gsd.2019.100229.
A. Senaratne, G.W.A.R. Fernando, K.M.D.P. Kodithuwakku1, T.H.N.G. Amaraweera2, G.
W.A.R. Fernando3, and K.W.S.N. Kumari2, “Performance of a garnet filter media
developed from red beach sand in Sri Lanka in removal of turbidity,” 2001,
Accessed: Aug. 26, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchgate.net/pu
blication/249325474.
Sutherland, K., 2014. Drinking & other pure water production: filtration and
sedimentation in clean water production. Filtr. Sep 51 (1), 24–27. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0015-1882(14)70032-1.
Taghavijeloudar, M., Park, J., Han, M., Taghavi, A., 2019. A new approach for modeling
flux variation in membrane filtration and experimental verification. Water Res 166.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2019.115027.
Torres-Lozada, P., Amezquita-Marroquín, C.P., Agudelo-Martínez, K.D., Ortiz-
Benítez, N., Martínez-Ducuara, D.S., 2018. Evaluation of turbidity and dissolved
organic matter removal through double filtration technology with activated carbon.
Dyna (Medellin) 85 (205), 234–239 [Online]Available. http://www.scielo.org.co/sc
ielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0012-73532018000200234&lang=pt%0Ahttp://
www.scielo.org.co/pdf/dyna/v85n205/0012-7353-dyna-85-205-00234.pdf.
Vecherkovskaya, A., Popereshnyak, S., 2017. Mathematical modeling of the process of
fluid filtration through a multi-layer filtering element. Technol. Audit Prod. Reserv 4
(36), 9–13. https://doi.org/10.15587/2312-8372.2017.109309, 3.
Verma, S., Daverey, A., Sharma, A., 2017. Slow sand filtration for water and wastewater
treatment–a review. Environ. Technol. Rev 6 (1), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/
21622515.2016.1278278.
Xu, T., Bezuijen, A., 2019. Bentonite slurry infiltration into sand: filter cake formation
under various conditions. Geotechnique 69 (12), 1095–1106. https://doi.org/
10.1680/jgeot.18.P.094.
Yao, W., Wang, Z., Song, P., 2018. The cake layer formation in the early stage of filtration
in MBR: mechanism and model. J. Memb. Sci 310, 393–401. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.memsci.2018.04.042.
Yiǧit Hunce, S., Soyer, E., Akgiray, Ö., 2016. Characterization of granular materials with
internal pores for hydraulic calculations involving fixed and fluidized beds. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res 55 (31), 8636–8651. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.iecr.6b00953.
Zhou, W., Zhang, L., Wu, P., Cai, Y., Zhao, X., Yao, C., 2019. Study on permeability
stability of sand-based microporous ceramic filter membrane. Materials (Basel) 12
(13). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12132161.
Zuluaga-Gomez, J., Bonaveri, P., Zuluaga, D., Álvarez-Peña, C., Ramírez-Ortiz, N., 2020.
Techniques for water disinfection, decontamination and desalinization: a review.
Desalin. Water Treat 181, 47–63. https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2020.25073.