THEORY AND EFFICIENCY OF CONTINUOUS FILTRATION.
The first filters for a public water-supply were built by James
Simpson, engineer of the Chelsea Water Company at London in 1829. They
were apparently intended to remove dirt from the water in imitation
of natural processes, and without any very clear conception of either
the exact extent of purification or the way in which it was to be
accomplished. The removal of turbidity was the most obvious result, and
a clear effluent was the single test of the efficiency of filtration,
as it remains the legal criterion of the work of the London filters
even to-day, notwithstanding the discovery and use of other and more
delicate tests.
The invention and use of methods for determining the organic matters
in water by Wanklyn and Frankland, about 1870, led to the discovery
that the proportion of organic matters removed by filtration was
disappointingly low, and as, at the time, and for many years afterward,
an exaggerated importance was given to the mere quantities of organic
matters in water, it was concluded that filtration had only a limited
influence upon the healthfulness of the filtered water, and that
practically as much care must be given to securing an unpolluted water
as would be the case if it were delivered direct without filtration.
This theory, although not confirmed by more recent investigation,
undoubtedly has had a good influence upon the English works by causing
the selection of raw waters free from excessive pollutions, and, in
cases like the London supplies, drawn from the Thames and the Lea, in
stimulating a most jealous care of the watersheds and the purification
of sewage by the towns upon them.
It was only after the discovery of the bacteria in water and their
relations to health that the hygenic significance of filtration
commenced to be really understood. Investigations of the bacteria in
the waters before and after filtration were carried out at Berlin
by Plagge and Proskauer, at London by Dr. Percy Frankland, and also
at Zürich, Altona, and on a smaller scale at other places. These
investigations showed that the bacteria were mainly removed by
filtration, the numbers in the effluents rarely exceeding two or three
per cent of those in the raw water. This gave a new aspect to the
problem.
It was further observed, especially at Berlin and Zürich, that the
numbers of bacteria in effluents were apparently quite independent
of the numbers in the raw water, and the theory was formed that all
of the bacteria were stopped by the filters, and that those found in
the effluents were the result of contamination from the air and of
growths in the underdrains. The logical conclusion from this theory was
that filtered water was quite suitable for drinking regardless of the
pollution of its source.
It was, however, found that the numbers of bacteria in the effluents
were higher immediately after scraping than at other times, and it was
concluded that before the formation of the sediment layer some bacteria
were able to pass the sand, and it was therefore recommended that the
first water filtered after scraping should be rejected.
Piefke at Berlin gave the subject careful study, and came to the
conclusion that it was almost entirely the sediment layer which
stopped the bacteria, and that the bacteria themselves in the sediment
layer formed a slimy mass which completely intercepted those in the
passing water. When this layer was removed by scraping, the action
was stopped until a new crop of bacteria had accumulated. In support
of this idea he stated that he had taken ordinary good filter-sand
and killed the bacteria in it by heating it, and that on passing
water through, no purification was effected—in fact, the effluent
contained more bacteria than the raw water. After a little, bacteria
established themselves in the sand, and then the usual purification
was obtained. Piefke concluded that the action of the filter was a
biological one; that simple straining was quite inadequate to produce
the results obtained; that the action of the filter was mainly confined
to the sediment layer, and that the depth of sand beyond the slight
depth necessary for the support of this layer had no appreciable
influence upon the results. The effect of this theory is still seen in
the shallow sand layers used at Berlin and some other German works,
although at London the tendency is rather toward thicker sand layers.
Piefke’s deductions, however, are not entirely supported by his data
as we understand them in the light of more recent investigation.
The experiment with sterilized sand has been repeatedly tried at
the Lawrence Experiment Station with results which quite agree with
Piefke’s, but it has also been found that the high numbers, often many
times as high as in the raw water, do not represent bacteria which pass
in the ordinary course of filtration, but instead enormous growths of
bacteria throughout the sand supported by the cooked organic matter in
it. It has been repeatedly found that ordinary sand quite incapable of
supporting bacterial growths, after heating to a temperature capable
of killing the bacteria will afterwards furnish the food for most
extraordinary numbers. A filter of such sand may stop the bacteria of
the passing water quite as effectually as any other filter, but if so,
the fact cannot be determined without recourse to special methods, on
account of the enormous numbers of bacteria in the sand, a small part
of which are carried forward by the passing water, and completely mask
the normal action of the filter.
The theory that all or practically all of the bacteria are intercepted
by the sediment layer, and that those in the effluent are the result
of growths in the sand or underdrains, received two hard blows in 1889
and 1891, when mild epidemics of typhoid fever followed unusually
high numbers of bacteria in the effluents at Altona and at Stralau in
Berlin, with good evidence in each case that the fever was directly due
to the water. Both of these cases came during, and as the result of,
severe winter weather with open filters and under conditions which are
now recognized as extremely unfavorable for good filtration.
As a result of the first of these epidemics a series of experiments
were made at Stralau by Fränkel and Piefke in 1890. Small filters were
constructed, and water passed exactly as in the ordinary filters.
Bacteria of special kinds not existing in the raw water or effluents
were then applied, and the presence of a very small fraction of them
in the effluents demonstrated beyond a doubt that they had passed
through the filters under the ordinary conditions of filtration. These
experiments were afterwards repeated by Piefke alone under somewhat
different conditions with similar results. The numbers of bacteria
passing, although large enough to establish the point that some do
pass, were nevertheless in general but a small fraction of one per cent
of the many thousands applied.
This method of testing the efficiency of filters had already been
used quite independently by Prof. Sedgwick at the Lawrence Experiment
Station in connection with the purification of sewage, and has since
been extensively used there for experiments with water-filtration.
Kümmel also found at Altona that while in the regular samples for
bacterial examination, all taken at the same time in the day, there
was no apparent connection between the numbers of bacteria in the raw
water and effluents, by taking samples at frequent intervals throughout
the twenty-four hours, as has been done in a more recent series of
experiments, and allowing for the time required for the water to pass
the filters, a well-marked connection was found to exist between the
numbers of bacteria in the raw water and in the effluents.
[Illustration: FIG. 14.—SHOWING BACTERIA SUPPOSED TO COME THROUGH
FILTERS AND FROM THE UNDERDRAINS.]
The subject has more recently been studied in much detail at the
Lawrence Experiment Station, and it now appears that the bacteria
in the effluent from a filter are from two sources: directly from
the filtered water, and from the lower layers of the filter and
underdrains. Thus we may say:
Bacteria in effluent = Bacteria from underdrains + _a_/100 × bacteria
in raw water,
where _a_ is the per cent of bacteria actually passing the filter.
Both of these terms depend upon a whole series of complex and but
imperfectly understood conditions. In general the bacteria from the
underdrains are low in cold winter weather, often almost _nil_, while
at Lawrence with water temperatures of 70 to 75 degrees, and over, in
July and August, the numbers from this source may reach 200 or 300,
but for the other ten months of the year rarely exceed 50 under normal
conditions. In summer especially it seems to be greater at low than
at high rates of filtration (although a high rate for a short time
only increases it), and so varies in the opposite way from the numbers
actually passing the filters. This subject is by no means clearly
understood; it is difficult, almost impossible, to separate the numbers
of bacteria into the two parts—those which come directly through and
may be dangerous, and those which have other origins and are harmless.
The sketch, Fig. 14, is drawn to represent my idea of the way they may
be divided. It has no statistical basis whatever. The light unshaded
section shows the percentage number of bacteria which I conceive to
be coming through a filter under given conditions at various rates of
filtration, while the shaded section above represents the bacteria from
other sources, and the upper line represents the sum of the two, or
the total number of bacteria in the effluent. The relative importance
of the two parts would probably vary widely with various conditions.
With the conditions indicated by the sketch the number of bacteria in
the effluent is almost constant: for a variation of only from 1.4 to
2.5 per cent of the number applied for the whole range is not a wide
fluctuation for bacterial results, but the number in the lower and
dangerous section is always rapidly increasing with increasing rate.
This theory of filtration accounts for many otherwise perplexing facts.
The conclusion reached at Zürich and elsewhere that the efficiency of
filtration is independent of rate may be explained in this way. This is
especially probable at Zürich, where the number of bacteria in the raw
water was only about 200, and an extremely large proportion relatively
would have to pass to make a well-marked impression upon the total
number in the effluent.
These underdrain bacteria are, so far as we know, entirely harmless;
we are only interested in them to determine how far they are capable
of decreasing the apparent efficiency of filtration below the actual
efficiency, or the per cent of bacteria really removed by the filter.
This efficiency is dependent upon a large number of conditions many
of which have already been discussed in connection with grain-size
of filter sand, underdrains, rate of filtration, loss of head, etc.,
and a mere reference to them here will suffice. Perhaps the most
important single condition is the rate, the numbers of bacteria passing
increase rapidly with it. Next, fine sand and in moderately deep
layers tends to give high efficiency. The influence of the loss of
head, often mentioned, is not shown to be important by the Lawrence
results, nor can I find satisfactory European results in support of
it. Uniformity in the rate of filtration on all parts of the filtering
area and a constant rate throughout the twenty-four hours are regarded
as essential conditions for the best results. Severe winter weather
has indirectly, by disturbing the regular action of open filters, an
injurious influence, and has been the cause of most of the cases where
filtered waters have been known to injure the health of those who have
drunk them. This action is excluded in filters covered with masonry
arches and soil, and such construction is apparently necessary for the
best results in places subject to cold winters.
The efficiency of filtration under various conditions has been studied
by a most elaborate series of experiments at Lawrence with small
filters to which water has been applied containing a bacterium (_B.
prodigiosus_) which does not occur naturally in this country and is
not capable of growing in the filter, so that the results should
represent only the bacteria coming through the filter and not include
any additions from the underdrains. These results, which have been
published in full in the reports of the Massachusetts State Board of
Health, especially for the years 1892 and 1893, show that the number
of bacteria passing increases rapidly with increasing rate, and slowly
with decreasing sand thickness and increased size of sand-grain.
Assuming that the number of bacteria passing is expressed by the formula
1 [(rate)^2 × effective size of sand]
Per cent bacteria passing = — ————————————————————————————————————————
2 ([sqrt](thickness of the sand in inches))
where the rate is expressed in million gallons per acre daily, and
calculating by it the numbers of bacteria for the seventy-three months
for which satisfactory data are available from 11 filters in 1892 and
1893, we find that
In 14 cases the numbers observed were 4 to 9 times as great as the
calculated numbers;
In 6 cases they were 2 to 3 times as great;
In 35 cases they were between 1/2 and 2 times the calculated numbers.
In 17 cases they were 1/2 to 1/3 of them.
In 11 cases they were less than 1/3 the calculated numbers.
The agreement is only moderately good, and in fact no such formula
could be expected to give more than very rough approximations, because
it does not take into consideration the numerous other elements, such
as uniformity and regularity of filtration, the influence of scraping,
the character of the sediment in the raw water, etc., which are known
to affect the results. Perhaps the most marked general difference is
the tendency of new or freshly-filled filters to give higher, and
of old and well-compacted filters to give lower, results than those
indicated by the formula.
Comparing this formula with Piefke’s results given in his “Neue
Ermittelungen”[28] the formula gives in the first series (0.34 mm.
sand, 0.50 m. thick, and rate 100 mm. per hour), 0.25 per cent passing,
while the average number of _B. violacious_ reported, excluding the
first day of decreased efficiency after scraping, was 0.26 per cent. In
the second series, with half as high a rate the numbers checked exactly
the calculated 0.06 per cent.
In other experiments,[29] however, in 1893, when the calculated per
cent was also 0.25, only 0.03, 0.04, and 0.07 per cent were observed in
the effluents.
Comparing the results from the actual filters, (which numbers also
include the bacteria from the underdrains and should therefore be
somewhat higher) with the numbers calculated as passing through,
I find that for the 46 days, Aug. 20 to Oct. 4, 1893, for which
detailed results of the Stralau works are given by Piefke, the average
calculated number passing is 0.20 per
cent, while twice as many were observed in the effluents; although
three of the filters gave better effluents than the other eight, and
the numbers from them approximated closely the calculated numbers. If
we calculate the percentages of bacteria passing a number of filters,
using the maximum rate of filtration allowed for the German filters
where this is accurately determined, and for the English filters
taking the maximum rate at one and one-half times the rate obtained by
dividing the daily quantity by the area of filters actually in use, we
obtain:
----------------------+--------+---------+-----------+--------------
|Average |Effective| Maximum | Per cent
|Depth of| Size of | Rate of | Bacteria
| Sand, | Sand- |Filtration.| passing
| Inches.| grain. | | 1 r^2d
| | | |= - ----------
| | | | 2 [sqrt]sand
----------------------+--------+---------+-----------+--------------
Hamburg | 32 | 0.31 | 1.60 | 0.07
Altona | 28 | 0.34 | 2.57 | 0.21
Berlin, Stralau | 20 | 0.34 | 2.57 | 0.25
Berlin, Müggel | 20 | 0.34 | 2.57 | 0.25
Berlin, Tegel | 20 | 0.37 | 2.57 | 0.27
London, Southwark & | | | |
Vauxhall | 36 | 0.34 | 2.81 | 0.22
London, West Middlesex| 39 | 0.37 | 2.81 | 0.23
London, Chelsea | 54 | 0.36 | 3.27 | 0.26
London, Grand Junction| 30 | 0.40 | 3.27 | 0.39
London, Lambeth | 36 | 0.36 | 3.75 | 0.42
Middlesborough | 20 | 0.42 | 5.85 | 1.58
Zürich | 26 | 0.35 | 7.50 | 1.90
----------------------+--------+---------+-----------+--------------
The numbers actually observed are in every case higher than the
calculated per cents passing, as indeed they should be on account of
those coming from the underdrains, accidental contamination of the
samples, etc.
It may be said that filtration now practised in European works under
ordinary conditions never allows over 1 or 2 per cent bacteria of the
raw water to pass, and ordinarily not over one fourth to one half
of one per cent, although exact data cannot be obtained owing to
masking effect of the bacteria which come from below and which bear
no relation to those of the raw water. By increasing the size of the
filters, fineness and depth of sand (as at Hamburg), the efficiency
can be materially increased above these figures. At the same time
it must be borne in mind that the effectiveness of a filter may be
greatly impaired by inadequate underdraining, by fluctuating rates of
filtration where these are allowed, by freezing in winter in the case
of open filters in cold climates, and by other irregularities, all of
which can be prevented by careful attention to the respective points.
The action of a continuous filter throughout is mainly that of an
exceedingly fine strainer, and like a strainer is mainly confined to
the suspended or insoluble matters in the raw water. The turbidity,
sediment, and bacteria of the raw water are largely or entirely
removed, while hardness, organic matter, and color, so far as they are
in solution, are removed to only a slight extent, if at all. Hardness
can be removed by the addition of lime in carefully determined quantity
before filtration (Clark’s process), by means of which the excess of
carbonic acid in the water is absorbed and the lime added, together
with that previously in the water, is precipitated.
Ordinary filtration will remove from one fourth to one third of the
yellow-brown color of peaty water. A larger proportion can be removed
by the addition of alum, which by decomposing forms an insoluble
compound of alumina with the coloring matter, while the acid of the
alum goes into the effluent either as free acid, or in combination with
the lime or other base in the water, according to their respective
quantities. Freshly precipitated alumina can be substituted for the
alum at increased expense and trouble, and tends to remove the color
without adding acid to the water. These will be discussed more in
detail in connection with mechanical filters. Alum is but rarely used
in slow sand filtration, the most important works where it is used
being in Holland with peaty waters.
After all, the most conclusive test of the efficiency of filtration is
the healthfulness of the people who drink the filtered water; and the
fact that many European cities take water-supplies from sources which
would not be considered fit for use in the United States and, after
filtering them, deliver them to populations having death-rates from
water-carried diseases which are so low as to be the objects of our
admiration, is the best proof of the efficiency of carefully conducted
filtration.
It is only necessary to refer to London, drawing its water from the
two small and polluted rivers, the Thames and the Lea; to Altona,
drawing its water from the Elbe, polluted by the sewage of 6,000,000
people, 700,000 of them within ten miles above the intakes; to Berlin,
using the waters of the Havel and the Spree; to Breslau, taking its
water from the Oder charged with the sewage of mining districts in
Silicia and Galicia, where cholera is so common; to Lawrence, with its
greatly decreased death-rate since it has had filtered water, and to
the hundred other places which protect themselves from the infectious
matters in their raw waters by means of filtration. A few of these
cases are described more in detail in Appendices V to IX, and many
others in the literature mentioned in Appendix X.
An adequate presentation of even those data which have been already
worked up and published would occupy too much space. I think every one
who has carefully studied the recent history of water filtration in
its relation to disease has been convinced that filtration carefully
executed under suitable and normal conditions, even if not an absolute,
is at least a very substantial protection against water-carried
diseases, and the few apparent failures to remove objectionable
qualities have been without exception due to abnormal conditions which
are now understood and in future can be prevented.
BACTERIAL EXAMINATION OF WATERS.
Every large filter-plant should have arrangements for the systematic
bacterial examination of the water before and after filtration,
especially where the raw water is subject to serious pollution. Such
examinations need not be excessively expensive, and they will not
only show the efficiency of the plant as a whole, but may be made to
show the relative efficiencies of the separate filters, the relative
efficiencies at different parts of the periods of operation, the effect
of cold weather, etc., and will then be a substantial aid to the
superintendent in always securing good effluents at the minimum cost.
In addition a complete record of the bacteria in the water at different
times may aid in determining definitely whether the water was connected
with outbreaks of disease. Thus if an outbreak of disease of any
kind were preceded at a certain interval by a great increase in the
number of bacteria,—as has been the case, for example, with the
typhoid epidemics at Altona and Berlin (see Appendices II and VII),—a
presumption would arise that they might have been connected with
each other, and each time it was repeated the presumption would be
strengthened, while, on the other hand, outbreaks occurring while the
bacteria remained constantly low would tend to discredit such a theory.
Bacterial investigations inaugurated after an epidemic is recognized,
as has frequently been done, seldom lead to results of value, both
because the local normal bacterial conditions are generally unknown at
the commencement of the investigation, and because the most important
time, the time of infection, is already long past before the first
samples are taken. The fact that such sporadic activities have led
to few definite results should throw no discredit upon continued
observations, which have repeatedly proved of inestimable value.
Considerable misconception of the use of bacterial examinations
exists. The simple bacterial count ordinarily used, and of which I
am now speaking, does not and cannot show whether a water contains
disease-germs or not. I object to the Chicago water, not so much
because a glass of it contains a hundred thousand bacteria more
or less, as because I am convinced, by a study of its source in
connection with the city’s death-rate, that it actually carries
disease-germs which prove injurious to thousands of those who drink
it. Now the fact being admitted that the water is injurious to health,
variations in the numbers of bacteria in the water drawn from different
intakes and at different times probably correspond roughly with varying
proportions of fresh sewage, and indicate roughly the relative dangers
from the use of the respective waters. If filters should be introduced,
the numbers of bacteria in the effluents under various conditions would
be an index of the respective efficiencies of filtration, and would
serve to detect poor work, and would probably suggest the measures
necessary for better results.
I would suggest the desirability of such investigations where
mechanical filters are used, quite as much as in connection with
slow filtration; and it would also be most desirable in the case of
many water-supplies which are not filtered at all. Such continued
observations have been made at Berlin since 1884; at London since 1886;
at Boston and Lawrence since 1888; and recently at a large number
of places, including Chicago, where observations by the city were
commenced in 1894. They are now required by the German Government in
the case of all filtered public water-supplies in Germany, without
regard to the source of the raw water. The German standard requires
that the effluent from each single filter, as well as the mixed
effluent and raw water, shall be examined daily, making at some works
10 to 30 samples daily. This amount of work, however, can usually be
done by a single man; and when a laboratory is once started, the cost
of examining 20 samples a day will not be much greater than if only
20 a week are taken. In England and at some of the Continental works
drawing their waters from but slightly polluted sources, much smaller
numbers of samples are examined.
The question whether the examinations should be made under the
direction of the water-works company or department, or by an
independent body—as, for instance, by the Board of Health—will depend
upon local conditions. The former arrangement gives the superintendent
of the filters the best chance to study their action, as he can himself
control the collection of samples in connection with the operation
of the filters, and arrange them to throw light upon the points he
wishes to investigate; while examination by a separate authority
affords perhaps greater protection against the possible carelessness or
dishonesty of water-works officials. An arrangement being adopted in
many cases in Germany is to have a bacterial laboratory at the works
which is under the control of the superintendent, and in which the very
numerous compulsory observations are made, while the Board of Health
causes to be examined from time to time by its own representatives,
who have no connection with the water-works, samples taken to check
the water-works figures, as well as to show the character of the water
delivered.
It seems quite desirable to have a man whose principal business is to
make these examinations; as in case he also has numerous other duties,
the examinations may be found to have been neglected at some time when
they are most wanted. Such a man should have had thorough training in
the principles of bacterial manipulation, but it is quite unnecessary
that he should be an expert bacteriologist, especially if a competent
bacteriologist is retained for consultation in cases of doubt or
difficulty.