1

COAGULATION, FLOCCULATION AND

CLARIFICATION OF DRINKING WATER
By Terry L. Engelhardt, Application Development Manager, Drinking Water

Photo by author

The intent of this paper is to provide cursory information about coagulation, flocculation
and clarification. This knowledge will provide a basis for understanding the needs of the
customer wishing to monitor these processes. There is no attempt to provide an
exhaustive description of various coagulants, coagulant aids, flocculants, mechanical
flocculation techniques, clarification designs or configurations or a comparison of
relative merits of the various designs, troubleshooting or operational theories. Consult
citations in the list of references if more detailed information is desired.

January 2014.
 2

Table of Contents
Table of Figures.............................................................................................................................................. 3
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 4
Coagulation .................................................................................................................................................... 5
Schultz–Hardy Rule ................................................................................................................................... 9
Coagulation with Salts of Aluminum and Iron .......................................................................................... 9
Other Coagulants and Coagulant Aids..................................................................................................... 10
Polyelectrolytes ....................................................................................................................................... 10
Health Effect Concerns for Use of Polymers ........................................................................................... 11
Enhanced Coagulation ............................................................................................................................. 11
City of Houston Study ............................................................................................................................. 13
UV-254 Measurement May Be Valuable ................................................................................................ 14
Measuring Prior to Coagulation ................................................................................................................... 17
Measuring Following Coagulation ............................................................................................................... 18
Flocculation .................................................................................................................................................. 19
Ballasted Flocculation ............................................................................................................................. 20
Measurement Tools for Coagulation and Flocculation................................................................................. 22
Measuring Aluminum and Iron................................................................................................................ 22
The Jar Test ............................................................................................................................................. 22
Zeta Potential ........................................................................................................................................... 27
Streaming Current.................................................................................................................................... 27
Clarification .................................................................................................................................................. 29
Solids Contact and Blanket Clarifiers ...................................................................................................... 31
Tube Settlers and Parallel Plates to Enhance Separation ......................................................................... 34
Effluent Collection................................................................................................................................... 36
Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Clarifiers ................................................................................................ 37
Clarifier Design Impacts Disinfection ..................................................................................................... 39
Measuring Clarifier Performance ................................................................................................................. 40
Log Removal ................................................................................................................................................ 42
Monitoring the Process is a Complex Task .................................................................................................. 44
Summary and Conclusion............................................................................................................................. 45
The Water Treatment Continuum ............................................................................................................ 46
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................................... 46
Appendix – Calculations .............................................................................................................................. 47
Rectangular Clarifier Volume .................................................................................................................. 47
Circular Clarifier Volume ........................................................................................................................ 48
Detention Time ........................................................................................................................................ 49
Surface Overflow Rate (Surface Loading Rate) and Weir Overflow Rate .............................................. 51
Chemical Feed Calculations .................................................................................................................... 52
Alkalinity Requirement for Aluminum and Iron Coagulants .................................................................. 54
References .................................................................................................................................................... 56

January 2014.
 3

Table of Figures
Figure 1: Earthen jars used to store water ..................................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Table of particle size vs. settling rate ............................................................................................. 6
Figure 3: Lake Tekapo................................................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4: Illustration of diffuse double layer (Edney) ................................................................................... 8
Figure 5: pH ranges and alkalinity consumed for aluminum and iron coagulants......................................... 9
Figure 6: pH correction for alum feed ......................................................................................................... 10
Figure 7: Required removal of TOC by enhanced coagulation ................................................................... 12
Figure 8: NOM in source water ................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 9: City of Houston DBP/TOC study ................................................................................................ 14
Figure 10: Relationship of SAC to other parameters ................................................................................... 15
Figure 11: Total carbon fractions ................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 12: Measurements for raw water prior to coagulation...................................................................... 18
Figure 13: Source Water Panel and the Event Monitor® Trigger System .................................................. 19
Figure 14: Flocculator designs .................................................................................................................... 20
Figure 15: Two stage flocculation basin ...................................................................................................... 20
Figure 16: Actiflo process for ballasted flocculation................................................................................... 21
Figure 17: Reagents for Iron and Aluminum Tests ..................................................................................... 22
Figure 18: Jar test apparatus ........................................................................................................................ 23
Figure 19: Wagner™ Jar ............................................................................................................................. 23
Figure 20: Preparation of stock jar test solutions ........................................................................................ 25
Figure 21: Six-place assembly for filtering samples after a jar test. ............................................................ 25
Figure 22: Equipment and apparatus for the jar test .................................................................................... 26
Figure 23: Schematic diagram of a streaming surrent sensor (Edney) ........................................................ 28
Figure 24: Accufloc Streaming Current Monitor. ....................................................................................... 29
Figure 25: Rectangular clarifier ................................................................................................................... 29
Figure 26: Rectangular clarifier sludge removal system ............................................................................. 30
Figure 27: Clarifier w/ perforated inlet baffle wall...................................................................................... 30
Figure 28: SpiraCone Solids Contact Clarifier ............................................................................................ 31
Figure 29: Claricone cross-sectional diagram. ............................................................................................ 32
Figure 30: Clar-I-Vator................................................................................................................................ 33
Figure 31: Cut view of the Clar-I-Vator Solids Contact Clarifier. .............................................................. 33
Figure 32: Tube Settlers enhance settling .................................................................................................... 34
Figure 33: Inclined Plate Settlers................................................................................................................. 35
Figure 34: Circular drinking water clarifier with radial launderers and v-notch weir plates ....................... 36
Figure 35: Clarifier effluent weir configurations......................................................................................... 37
Figure 36: DAF Schematic for food processing .......................................................................................... 37
Figure 37: DAF sequence of operation ........................................................................................................ 38
Figure 38: Table of baffling factors ............................................................................................................. 39
Figure 39: Clarifier performance measurements ......................................................................................... 40
Figure 40: Sonatax for sludge level in clarifiers .......................................................................................... 40
Figure 41: pH monitoring ............................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 42: Turbidity and suspended solids monitoring for clarifier effluent ............................................... 41
Figure 43: Digital Tirator ............................................................................................................................ 41
Figure 44: USEPA Microbial Toolbox options for source water and clarification ..................................... 42
Figure 45: Percent vs. Log Removal .......................................................................................................... 42
Figure 46: Treatment plant schematics ........................................................................................................ 44
Figure 47: Typical water treatment process................................................................................................. 45
Figure 48: The Water Treatment Continuum .............................................................................................. 46
Figure 49: Rectangular clarifier ................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 50: Rectangular clarifier with sloped bottom ................................................................................... 48
Figure 51: Circular clarifier with conical bottom ........................................................................................ 49

January 2014.
 4

Introduction
Most water treatment practices including coagulation, flocculation and clarification, date
back hundreds and in some cases thousands of years. References as old as 2000 B.C
describe what we know today as coagulation.

Figure 1: Earthen jars used to store

water
“It is good to keep water in copper
vessels, to expose it to sunlight and
filter through charcoal.” And, “…heat
foul water by boiling and exposing to
sunlight and by dipping seven times
into it a piece of hot copper, then to
filter and cool in an earthen vessel.”
(Baker, Vol. 1). Left, a jar (‘earthen
vessel’ from the Middle East from
about 300 BC; right, a jar used in the
SW United States in the 1860s. Photos
by author.

Use of the seeds of Strychous potatorum, a deciduous tree, as a coagulant may date back
to the 6th century B.C. The seeds contain – “a polysaccharide consisting of a 1:7 mixture
of galactomannan and galactan. These findings suggest that such seed extracts may
function as a particulate, colloidal and soluble polymeric coagulant as well as a coagulant
aid. The presence of other constituents in these seed extracts is uncertain, and there is
concern that they may contain toxicants, because the portions of the plant also are used
for medicinal purposes.” (Sobsey, WHO).

Vitruvius (15 B.C.) recommended that cisterns be constructed in two or

three compartments and the water transferred from one to another of them,
thus allowing the mud to settle, and insuring clearness and limpidity.
Otherwise, he wrote, it would be necessary to clarify the water by adding
‘salt’. Pliney (c.77 A.D. said that polenta, a kind of food, added to nitrous
or bitter water would render it potable in two hours, and that a similar
property is possessed by chalk of Rhodes and the argilla of Italy. This is
the first mention found of lime and aluminous earth as precipitants.
(Baker, Vol. 1)

But it has been only in the last 100 years or so that we’ve come to understand and thus
gain some control over the mechanisms of these processes.

January 2014.
 5

Today:
• The scientific principles behind water treatment are better understood.
• There is a better appreciation for the multiple barrier approach to water treatment.
• Individuals using the measurement tools and treatment processes are better educated
and trained.
• Modern measurement tools permit identification of process variation whereby
operators can refine and further improve water treatment operations.
• Improved measurement capability and improved operations have permitted engineers
to improve treatment process designs.

More than to any other development, credit for improvement of water

quality is due to the development of reliable water quality monitoring
devices in the last two decades. These include instruments that measure
and record pH, residual chlorine and turbidity. A variety of other quality-
sensing devices is available, but the three foregoing are the most
commonly used. These devices enable the operator to identify episodes of
deficient treatment which in the past frequently went unnoticed. Now
these deviations in quality are conspicuously apparent on the quality-
sensing recorders and corrective action can be taken promptly. (Hudson,
1981)

Hudson’s observation is certainly true of the processes of coagulation, flocculation and

sedimentation. Measurement tools such as zeta meters, streaming current monitors, and
conventional and laser nephelometers have become available in just the last 30 years.
Even the modern pH and conductivity instruments have been available since only the
1950’s and 1960’s. Improved ability to make chemical and physical measurements of
water treatment processes have allowed designs used for centuries to be refined and new
designs to be created. Perhaps more important, these same measurements enable better
operation once the design is implemented in steel and concrete!

Coagulation
Chemical treatment typically is applied prior to sedimentation and filtration to enhance
the ability of a treatment process to remove particles. Two steps typically are employed:
coagulation and flocculation. Coagulation is a process to neutralize charges and then to
form a gelatinous mass to trap (or bridge) particles thus forming a mass large enough to
settle or be trapped in the filter. Flocculation is gentle stirring or agitation to encourage
the particles thus formed to agglomerate into masses large enough to settle or be filtered
from solution.

Particles in water smaller than about 10 microns are difficult to remove by simple settling
or by filtration. This is especially true for particles smaller than 1 micron – colloids.

January 2014.
 6

Particle Size Vs. Settling Rate Table

(Assuming specific gravity of 2.65)
Particle Total Surface Area Total Time to Time to
Mass, mg
Diameter, Example Number of Settle Settle One
per particle*
mm Metric English Particles One Ft.** Meter**
2
10 Gravel 3.1419 cm 0.487 in.2 1.3868E+03 1.E+00 0.3 sec 0.98 sec
Coarse 2 2
1 31.4193 cm 4.87 in. 1.3868E+00 1.E+03 3.0 sec 9.84 sec
Sand
Fine
0.1 314.1929 cm2 48.7 in.2 1.3868E-03 1.E+06 38 sec. 2.08 min
Sand
0.01 Silt 0.3140 m2 3.38 ft.2 1.3868E-06 1.E+09 33 min 1.80 hrs
2 2
0.001 Bacteria 3.1340 m 33.7 ft. 1.3868E-09 1.E+12 55 hrs 7.52 days
2 2
0.0001 Colloidal 31.7728 m 38 yd 1.3868E-12 1.E+15 230 days 2.07 yrs
2
0.00001 Colloidal 2832.7995 m 0.7 acres 1.3868E-15 1.E+18 6.3 yrs 20.66 yrs
2
0.000001 Colloidal 28327.99 m 7.0 acres 1.3868E-18 1.E+21 63 yrs 206.64 yrs
* Note: Total mass in the system remains constant at 1.386 grams or 1,386 mg
**Assumes completely quiescent conditions
Figure 2: Table of particle size vs. settling rate
Adapted from Water Quality and Treatment, 3rd Ed. The left column indicates starting
with a single particle 10 mm in diameter. The table then illustrates the resulting change in
particle size, total surface area, number of particles and settling time as the initial particle
is ground up to make smaller particles. One particle 10mm in diameter becomes 1012
particles by the time it is ground to a size of 0.001 mm (1µm). Notice also while the mass
per unit particle decreases, the total mass in the system remains unchanged. Clearly, there
is not necessarily any correlation between particle counts and mass, turbidity and mass or
between particle counts and turbidity!

Coagulation is, “the effect produced by the addition of a chemical to a colloidal

dispersion resulting in particle destabilization by the reduction of the forces tending to
keep the particles apart.” (Water Quality and Treatment, 3rd, ed., p. 72)

January 2014.
 7

Figure 3: Lake Tekapo

Lake Tekapo is fed by run off from glaciers and rivers near Mt Cook and Mt Tasman on the South
Island of New Zealand. Colloidal glacial till (glacial flour) in suspension causes the color. “The
unique, turquoise coloured lake water of Tekapo is the result of ancient glacier ice crushing
mountain rock on its journey from the slopes of the Southern Alps to the rivers of the massive valleys
that deliver the melted ice to the lake. The crushed rock produces a fine, flour-like powder that
remains suspended in the water and, when reflecting light, produces the pale blue colour for which
Lake Tekapo is renowned. The lake is 32 km long and 120 meters deep at its deepest part.” (Earth
and Sky, Ltd.) Photo by author.

Colloids are stable in water because:

• Colloids have a very large surface area relative to their mass (See Figure 2).
• Colloids typically have a static electric charge. Most colloidal particles in water have
a negative charge.
• Static charge is a surface effect. The greater the surface area relative to the particle
mass, the greater the effect of the charge.
• The mass of the particles is small enough that even Brownian motion is sufficient to
‘stir’ the suspension.
• The particles cannot agglomerate into larger particles and settle because
o They repel one another.
o The force of repulsion exceeds the force of gravity that otherwise would cause
them to settle!
o The charged particles attract a cloud of other charges to surround the colloidal
particle. This is often termed the ‘double-layer theory” or double-layer model.
So, colloids repel one another and they are kept apart by the double-layer effect.

January 2014.
 8

Figure 4: Illustration of diffuse double layer (Edney)

“The double layer model is used to explain the distribution of ions around each colloidal
particle. This is a long standing conventional approach to colloid analysis; a more detailed
description is available in a number of works on this subject (e.g. Bratby, 1980).

For illustrative purposes we will assume a

negatively charge colloid. Closest to the
negative surface of the colloid there is a layer
of strongly bound positive ions – this is
known as the Stern layer. Further positive
ions are still attracted to the colloid but are
repelled by the Stern layer; likewise, negative
ions are attracted to the positive ions but
repelled by the colloid. A dynamic
equilibrium of negative and positive ions
forms outside the Stern layer, known as the
diffuse layer. The concentration of positive
ions in the diffuse layer gradually decreases
as the distance from the colloid increases
until beyond a certain distance the ion
concentrations are the same as the
equilibrium in the water.

The strongly held positive ions near the

surface and the charged layer surrounding
this is where the name double layer comes
from. The point just outside the stern layer is
often called the shear plane as motion of the
particle through the water shears the diffuse
layer away.

The thickness of these layers depends on the

concentration of ions in solution. At any
distance from the surface the charge density
is equal to the difference between the concentration of positive and negative ions at that
distance. This results in an electrical potential (which is a voltage, caused by separation of
charges) existing across the layers. This potential is greatest near the surface and decreases to
zero as the distance from the colloid increases. A graph of this potential curve is useful because
it indicates the distance at which the interaction between colloids will occur. The potential at
the boundary between the Stern layer and diffuse layer is called the zeta potential. Zeta-
potential is useful, as it is a direct indication of the amount of energy required to bring separate
particles together.” (Edney)

The purpose of adding a coagulant is to neutralize the charge. In theory, since most
particles in water are negatively charged, any positive ion (cation) can be used as a
coagulant. A sodium compound (like sodium hydroxide), contributes a monovalent ion,
Na+ A calcium compound (like calcium hydroxide) contributes a divalent ion, Ca2+.
Aluminum and iron coagulants contribute trivalent aluminum ions, Al3+ and trivalent iron
ions, Fe3+, respectively. Two chemists, Schultz in 1882 and Hardy in 1900, demonstrated
the greater the charge of the cation, the greater the effectiveness of charge neutralization.

January 2014.
 9

Schultz–Hardy Rule
The Schultz-Hardy Rule indicates the relative effectiveness for mono- vs. di- vs. trivalent
ions is in the ratio of 1:100:1000 respectively. For a variety of reasons, for drinking
water applications the relative effectiveness of the monovalent (Na+) vs. divalent (Ca2+)
vs. trivalent (Al3+) ions is 1:60:700, respectively. That is, a trivalent aluminum ion will
be 700 times more effective in charge neutralization than the monovalent sodium ion.
Thus aluminum and iron compounds are most often used as coagulants. Sodium or
calcium salts added for pH adjustment may contribute to the coagulation process. One
will occasionally find references to use of hydrated lime (calcium hydroxide) as a
coagulant.

Charge neutralization occurs very rapidly. Thus, design of the rapid mix system of a
water treatment plant is extremely important. After a short time, the ions form hydroxide
gels. The gels then can trap particles or bridge between particles creating a floc that may
settle or at least be large enough to be removed by filtration. Where the
coagulation/flocculation process appears to be inefficient or ineffective it is reasonable to
suspect inadequate mixing as at least part of the cause.

In the early part of the 1900’s much of the emphasis in coagulation was placed on
controlling coagulation to produce floc that was large, tough and dense. The clarifiers
and filter designs used at that time were designed for such flocs. By the 1950’s a greater
appreciation of the function of charge neutralization was gained. Then, in the 1960’s, a
practical meter for measuring the effect of charge neutralization was developed - the zeta-
meter. By the 1980’s an on-line streaming current monitor had become fairly common.
Returning to the quote from Hudson in the introduction – the practice of water treatment
has followed improvements in measurement techniques. Today it is widely accepted and
practiced that a combination of charge neutralization and floc formation is necessary to
effectively and efficiently remove colloidal sized particles from water.

Coagulation with Salts of Aluminum and Iron

Powdered, granular or crystalline salts and solutions of iron and aluminum like hydrated
aluminum sulfate (5.8 to 8.5% water soluble alumina, Al2O3), liquid alum (17% Al2O3,
typically equivalent to 5.33# of dry alum per gallon), ferric sulfate and ferric chloride
(typically a 38-42% solution) still are still widely used. Measurement and management
of pH and alkalinity are critical when these salts are used. Alkalinity is consumed when
these compounds are used. There is an ideal range of pH for each of the compounds.

Coagulant Empirical Formula pH Range (s) Alkalinity Consumed*

Theory 5.5 to 7.8 0.49 mg/l for each 1 mg/l
Aluminum Sulfate Al2(SO4)3 · 14 H2O
Typical 6.0 to 7.4 of alum
0.53 mg/l for each mg/l of
Ferric Sulfate Fe2SO4 · 9 H2O 4.0 to 11.0
ferric sulfate
0.92 mg/l for each mg/l of
Ferric Chloride FeCl3 4.0 to 11.0
ferric chloride
* See Alkalinity Requirement for Aluminum and Iron Coagulants in the Appendix for calculation of
the alkalinity requirements for alum, ferric sulfate and ferric chloride.
Figure 5: pH ranges and alkalinity consumed for aluminum and iron coagulants

January 2014.
 10

Sodium aluminate, NaAlO2, has a variety of industrial uses and has been utilized as a
coagulant in drinking water treatment as a supplement to alum and may be encountered in
lime-soda softening processes. It has been used in wastewater treatment as a coagulant in
the phosphorous removal process. While the other aluminum and iron salts act as acids
consuming alkalinity, sodium aluminate acts as a base. Each mg/l of sodium aluminate
contributes nearly 2 mg/l as CaCO3 of alkalinity. Thus, sodium aluminate may be useful
in soft, low alkalinity water.

450.00 Figure 6: pH correction for alum feed

400.00

350.00 >2µ Alum was being used as a coagulant at a

relatively high pH. At point A on the
300.00
chart the pH was 7.8. At point B sulfuric
Particles/mL

250.00 acid addition was started and the pH

200.00 A B lowered to 7.2, a much better pH for alum
150.00 coagulation. Particle counts immediately
dropped. Establishing the proper
100.00
conditions of pH and alkalinity before
50.00
addition of a coagulant are important to
0.00 successful coagulation and flocculation.
8:30

9:30

10:30

Time

Other Coagulants and Coagulant Aids

A number of other compounds are being used today either to replace the metal salts or to
complement them. When used to complement the metal salts they are referred to
generally as a coagulant aid or perhaps as flocculant aids. Interest in use of other
compounds is generally driven by one or a combination of three factors: Reduced cost;
reduced solids; or, less dependence on conditions of alkalinity and pH.

A compound often encountered is polyaluminum chloride. As can be seen in the

equations above, alum and ferric compounds, when added to water, hydrolyze consuming
alkalinity thus having a significant effect on pH. Polyaluminum chloride (PAC or PACl -
more commonly today PACl is preferred to PAC as the term PAC sometimes is used to
mean powered activated carbon) is pre-reacted during manufacture and thus the pH and
alkalinity of the water are not impacted as much as with alum. PFCl or Polyferric
chloride is available but will seldom be encountered.

Polyelectrolytes
Polymers used in water treatment are generally low molecular weight (<500,000) and
may be used as primary coagulants, coagulant aids, flocculent aids or as filter aids.
Cationic, anionic and nonionic compounds are available. Polymers used for primary
coagulants, coagulant aids are generally cationic compounds. Flocculant aids will
typically be anionic or nonionic and slightly higher molecular weight. Those used as
filter aids may be slightly cationic or nonionic.

January 2014.
 11

Polymers used as primary coagulants are typically dosed at 0.1 to 2 mg/l. Polymers used
as coagulant aids are typically dosed at 0.1 to 0.5 mg/l and those used as flocculant or
filter aids might be dosed at less than 0.1 mg/l.

Cationic polymers most often encountered are one of two quaternary amines:
polydiallyldimethyl ammonium chloride (polyDADMAC) or epichlorohydrin
dimethylamine (epiDMA). There are a large number of chemical suppliers compounding
an enormous variety of polymers. Each product, of course, claims to be superior to
anything else. The fact is most of them will work well - somewhere! The only way to be
certain a particular polymer will work in a particular treatment system is to jar test and
pilot test the use of the compound.

Those desiring detailed discussion of various coagulants and the mechanisms by which
they function can refer to Water Quality and Treatment, 5th ed., chapter 6 and Handbook
of Public Water Systems, 2nd ed., chapter 10.

Health Effect Concerns for Use of Polymers

As one might suspect, addition of these compounds to water is not without some concern.
PolyDADMAC and epiDMA have been associated with formation of nitrosamines.
There are about 9 compounds in this general group that can be produced as DBP from
chlorination and chloramination practices. These compounds are toxic and may be
carcinogenic. N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) specifically is of concern and is on
USEPA’s Priority Pollutant and Contaminate Candidate List 3. USEPA currently has no
MCL’s set for any of the nitrosamines but some states and the World Health Organization
(WHO) have set guidelines. WHO guidelines for NDMA call for less than 100 ng/l. The
State of California has set an action level and public health goal of 10 ng/l and 3 ng/l of
NDMA, respectively.

Enhanced Coagulation
‘Enhanced coagulation’ is the phrase used to define the process of obtaining improved
removal of disinfection byproduct (DBP) precursors by conventional treatment.
(Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced Precipitative Softening Guidance Manual).

Concern with formation of DBP resulting from reactions of chlorine with naturally
occurring organic matter (NOM) led to the Disinfection and Disinfection Byproducts
Rule (DDBP). Specific goals are spelled out for managing the water treatment process in
order to optimize removal of NOM.

Because TOC (total organic carbon) is easily measured and monitored, the
treatment technique uses a TOC removal requirement. However, basing a
performance standard on a uniform TOC removal requirement is
inappropriate because some waters are especially difficult to treat. If the
TOC removal requirements were based solely upon the treatability of
"difficult-to-treat" waters, many systems with "easier-to-treat" waters
would not be required to achieve significant TOC removal. Alternatively,

January 2014.
 12

a standard based upon what many systems could not readily achieve
would introduce large transactional costs to States and utilities.

To address these concerns, a two-step standard for enhanced coagulation

and enhanced precipitative softening was developed. Step 1 includes TOC
removal performance criteria which, if achieved, define compliance. The
Step 1 TOC removal percentages are dependent on alkalinity, as TOC
removal is generally more difficult in higher alkalinity waters, and source
water with low TOC levels. Step 2 allows systems with difficult-to-treat
waters to demonstrate to the State, through a specific protocol, an
alternative TOC removal level for defining compliance. The final rule also
contains certain alternative compliance criteria that allow a system to
demonstrate compliance. (Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced
Precipitative Softening Guidance Manual).

Figure 7: Required removal of TOC by enhanced coagulation

From Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced Precipitative Softening Guidance
Manual

Achieving NOM reduction may also involve use of a preoxidant such as ozone, chlorine
dioxide or permanganate (sodium or potassium permanganate). Some utilities will find
measurement of TOC and/or UV absorbance (UV254) to be useful in optimizing
coagulation.

January 2014.
 13

Figure 8: NOM in source water

Enhanced coagulation refers to optimizing coagulation, flocculation, clarification and filtration to
remove organic matter from water that may contribute to formation of disinfection byproducts.
The organic matter may be from man-made sources such as industrial discharges. Mother
Nature also contributes. Decaying vegetable matter in the high mountain meadow (above left) as
well as decaying matter from the mangroves in the Florida Everglades (above right) can
contribute significant organic matter. The brown color of the water around the mangroves is due
to the tannins and humic substances from the decomposing plant material.

The contribution from the high mountain meadow may be seasonal or after a storm event while
levels of organic matter in warmer climates will be more constant. In some cases the constant
instance may be easier to treat. The treatment process once established needs only to be
monitored and maintained. Seasonal or intermittent start/stop treatment needs may be more
difficult to control. In either case, the key to successful enhanced coagulation is measurement!
Photos by author.

City of Houston Study

In the late 1990’s, the City of Houston, Texas planned a study to address concerns about
compliance with rules for DBPs:

The City of Houston, Texas has been aware of the implications that
current and pending regulatory standards would have on the operation of
their four surface water treatment facilities. In particular, the City has
closely monitored changes in regulations related to enhanced coagulation,
total organic carbon (TOC) removal, and disinfection by-products (DBP)
reduction. The City has, and continues, to conduct extensive bench, pilot,
and plant scale tests to determine how these regulatory changes would
impact the operation of their surface water facilities.
The TOC content of the source and finished water is the common attribute
that significantly impacts each of the regulations of interest. TOC is
perhaps the one water quality parameter that could impact the financial
bottom line of a utility most. In most cases, a fully automated surface
treatment facility still measures TOC by collecting periodic grab samples
for laboratory analysis. Making treatment decisions based on periodic
TOC grab samples is comparable to flying a commercial airliner without
instrumentation. (Reavis)

January 2014.
 14

Extensive laboratory investigations were followed by a year long pilot study with
continuous on-line instrumentation. The study concluded in 2001 with the
recommendation to purchase on-line TOC analyzers.

ALUM / LIME / ALUM / POLYMER ALUM / NO POLYMER

POLYMER / NO LIME OR LIME
8.0 65
Settled pH
60

7.0
Alum Dose/ mg/l 55

% TOC Removal/Alum Dose (mg/L)

50
LOST Target
6.0 LIME
TOC (mg/L)/Settled pH

TOC 45
FEED Removal
40
5.0
35
Raw TOC

30
4.0

25
Settled
TOC 20
3.0

REMOVAL % 15

2.0 10
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time units (15 minutes)

Figure 9: City of Houston DBP/TOC study

“After nearly a year of plant scale evaluation, the recommendation is being made
that on-line TOC analyzers be purchased to enhance facility operations. During the
trial, the instrument was used to monitor plant performance and to evaluate
alternate coagulants and coagulant aids. The most interesting results of the study
related to how poorly the operators responded to changing raw water parameters
when given daily grab sample results and how much better they were able to
respond when allowed to utilize the on-line analyzer. The on-line TOC analyzer
allowed the operators to track real time water quality changes and therefore
respond much quicker than would be possible if grab samples were being used.”
(Ibid.)

UV-254 Measurement May Be Valuable

Compounds of concern for DDBP and thus enhanced coagulation - humic substances,
tannins, and lignin - are compounds containing double bonds (atoms bound by two pairs
of electrons). These compounds absorb ultraviolet light and thus may be detected at a
wavelength of 254 nm. All of these substances are a portion, or subset of total organic
carbon. Thus in many waters measurement at a wavelength of 254 nm may be a good
surrogate for TOC. Measurement at a wavelength of 254nm, as with the DR5000 or
UVAS is of Specific Absorption Coefficient (SAC) in units of 1/meter or m-1.

The SAC at a wavelength (λ) of 254 nm:

• Is a summing parameter measuring dissolved organic constituents
• Reports the UV absorption of the water at λ = 254 nm.
• It may be possible to directly correlate SAC to other parameters including
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand (COD), and TOC.

January 2014.
 15

o Direct correlation to any of these may not always be possible.

o In drinking water applications while it may not always be possible to correlate to
TOC, the SAC may still be useful in observing the trend of the organic
constituents of the water.
A relationship of SAC to TOC, BOD and COD is illustrated below.

Figure 10: Relationship of SAC to other parameters

SAC 254 is an independent total parameter for the dissolved organic content of water and evaluates,
like all other total parameters, only a specific fraction of the water load. Despite major similarities,
total parameters can only be converted from one to another within certain limits. However, if a
correlation is found between UV and another total parameter, the converted measured values from
UVAS probes can be displayed as TOCuv, BODuv, and CODuv. To determine the correlation,
measure the SAC value over several days.

During periods of low and high load UV absorption:

• Take a representative sample at the UVAS probe location.
• Read the related SAC value from the probe.
• Perform a laboratory measurement of the parameter to be correlated, e.g. BOD, COD, TOC, etc.
Repeat this analysis over a period of several days to weeks in order to determine the exact
correlation. (Hach DOC023.54.03230 UVAS sc Sensor USER MANUAL October 2005, Edition 2)

Specific Ultraviolet Light Absorbance, SUVA may be calculated. SUVA is the ratio of
SAC to DOC in units of mg/l·m-1. Dissolved organic carbon (DOC), is that fraction of
total organic carbon after the sample is passed through a 0.45µm filter.

January 2014.
 16

Total Carbon -TC Total Organic Carbon - TOC

Dissolved - DOC - passes a 0.45µm filter

Total Inorganic Carbon - TIC

Particulate - POC - retained on 0.45µm filter
Carbonate, bicarbonate,
dissolved CO2

Volatile - VOC - removed by acidifying and sparging

Nonpurgable - NPOC
Figure 11: Total carbon fractions

UV-254 measurement thus may be valuable to provide compliance with the DDBP rule
but may be independently used to control the coagulation process directly.

The higher molecular weight fraction of NOM (the fraction that tends to
be removed by coagulation and that has the greater yield of disinfection
byproducts) absorbs UV light and consequently, UV light absorbance
(typically at a wavelength of 254 nm) can be used as a simple surrogate
measure for DOC. Also, the ratio of the UV absorbance to the DOC
concentration (called the specific UV absorbance or SUVA) can be used
as an indicator of the molecular weight distribution of the NOM in the
water…Waters with a low humic acid fraction (generally low-DOC
waters) tend to have SUVA’s that are less then 2 L/mg C·m-1, whereas
water with a high humic acid fraction have SUVA’s between 3 and 5
L/mg C·m-1. A high SUVA means that the DOC of the water will tend to
control the coagulant dosage and relatively high removals of DOC can be
expected…When the SUVA is less than 3 L/mg C·m-1; the effect of the
DOC on the coagulant dosage may be negligible. (Water Quality and
Treatment, 5th ed., pg 6.4)

Connie Schreppel, Mohawk Valley Water Authority, Utica, NY reported (Opflow,

January 2010):

MVWA installed on-line continuous-read UV254 monitors at the treatment

plant and a portable UV254 instrument was incorporated in the
laboratory…MVWA is using the UV254 test to supplement color and
turbidity analysis…UV254 measures the amount of UV light absorbed or
transmitted through water, indicating the amount of the water’s dissolved
NOM.
Relying on turbidity alone without using UV254 as an indicator of NOM in
water can result in ineffective optimization of coagulation. Although
organic levels are increasing or decreasing, turbidity can remain the same.

January 2014.
 17

By monitoring UV254 on raw water as it enters the plant, operators can

determine if a sudden increase in organics occurs…
For years, the color test has been recognized as a good NOM indicator
because certain humic acids can sometimes give visible color to water.
However, it’s possible to have water with low visible color without having
correspondingly low amounts of organics. UV254 testing can fill the gap
and provide a better picture of the water’s real organic content.
MVWA’s first UV254 online monitor was installed at the treatment plant to
continuously monitor raw water organic content. This single monitor was
programmed later to also monitor filtered water UV254 levels. Using these
two UV254 readings MVWA began to asses the treatment process’
effectiveness in removing NOM. MVWA went another step by
synchronizing raw water UV254 results to correspond with filtered water
UV254 results, resulting in real-time NOM reduction and enhanced
coagulation.

Measuring Prior to Coagulation

As has been demonstrated and discussed above, certain values, especially pH and
alkalinity are critical for control of the coagulation process. Adjustments to pH and/or
alkalinity must be made prior to coagulant addition to be most effective. And for
enhanced coagulation one may need to make other measurements as well, such as TOC
and or SAC (absorbance at UV254). Other water quality issues may dictate the need for
additional monitoring. Problem parameters commonly encountered include manganese,
iron, nitrate, arsenic and other less common parameters. The following table lists on-line
and grab sample testing that should be considered in raw water prior to coagulation.

January 2014.
 18

Laboratory
Parameter On-line Measurement Reason to monitor
Measurement
Water quality,
Alkalinity Digital Titrator APA 6000 Alkalinity
coagulation control
ECR or Aluminon
Aluminum NA Coagulation
methods
HQd series meter and AISE sc probe w sc200 or Water quality,
Ammonia
ISE probe sc1000 controller disinfection
Silver
Arsenic Diethydithiocarboma NA Health MCL
te method
HQd series meter and Contacting probe w sc200 or Raw water
Conductivity
probe sc1000 controller contamination
Dissolved HQd series meter and LDO w SC200 or SC1000
Water quality
Oxygen LDO controller
Hardness Digital Titrator APA 6000 Hardness Water quality
FerroVer Iron
Iron NA Aesthetic; Coagulation
method
PAN or Periodate
Manganese NA Aesthetic
methods
Nitrate NitraVer 5; ISE NITRATAX plus sc Health MCL
HQd series meter and ORP w sc200 or sc1000 Water quality, control
ORP
probe controller of preoxidant
PAN or Periodate
Permanganate NA Preoxidant for NOM
methods
HQd series meter and pHD probe w sc200 or sc1000
pH Coagulation control
probe controller
astroTOC, BioTector® B7000 Water quality, SUVA
Total Organic or B3500C calc., coagulation
TOC test
Carbon BioTector is a registered trademark of control, DDBP rule
BioTector Analytical Systems, Ltd. compliance
2100Q, 2100N or SS7, SOLITAX sc w sc200 or
Turbidity/Solids Water quality
2100AN sc1000 controller
NOM, SUVA,
UV254 DR5000 UVAS
coagulation control
Figure 12: Measurements for raw water prior to coagulation

Measuring Following Coagulation

Immediately following coagulant addition (after sufficient time for the coagulant and
coagulant aid to be well mixed, typically at the end of rapid mix) one may measure zeta
potential, streaming current, alkalinity and pH. Where the water is well buffered
(alkalinity > 100 mg/l) periodic grab sample alkalinity measurement may be sufficient.
However in poorly buffered (low alkalinity) water and aluminum or iron salts are used as
coagulants, an APA 6000 Alkalinity analyzer will pay dividends. pH is critical and
should always be monitoring continuously following coagulant addition. Grab sample
measurement of zeta potential and/or continuous on-line measurement of streaming
current potential also will pay significant dividends in control of the coagulation process.
See Measurement Tools for Coagulation and Flocculation, below, for more detail on
measurement of these important parameters.

January 2014.
 19

Figure 13: Source Water Panel and

the Event Monitor® Trigger System
The Source Water Monitoring Panel
can be configured with six probes
selected to meet the particular needs of
the individual water source. Select
from the Solitax, pH, conductivity,
ORP, LDO, NH4D, NitraTax and
UVAS. Combine the panel with a
TOC Analyzer and the Event Monitor
for the most sophisticated source water
monitoring system available.
Hach Company stock photos

Flocculation
“Flocculation is the turbulent mixing phase following the dispersion, hydrolysis, and
polymerization of the coagulant in the rapid mix.” (Hudson). More simply put:
flocculation is slow mixing to encourage collision of particles and the gel to form a larger
mass that will be settled or filtered from solutions. Flocculation may be carried out by
deliberate mixing for a half hour or more and is then followed by settling. Flocculation
may also occur due to simple random motion of particles in solution – Brownian motion.
Brownian motion is usually described as being caused by molecules of the fluid
impacting the solid in solution. The effect is typically significant only on submicron
particles.

Particles not removed by settling are removed by filtration. If direct filtration is

employed, the flocculated water will proceed directly to filtration without any settling. In
this case, flocculation is typically carried out for only a few minutes.

Flocculator mixing schemes vary and may include a baffled basin, maze basin, vertical or
horizontal paddles, axial-flow impellers and others.

January 2014.
 20

Figure 14:
Flocculator
designs
Maze Flocculation
Basin Left,
Rotating
horizontal Pickets
(paddles) Right.
Photos by author.

Figure 15: Two stage flocculation basin

A
Two stage flocculation basin with (A) a perforated
inlet wall followed by horizontal flocculator paddles.
Then (B), water passes from the first chamber into
the second chamber through horizontal slats.
Horizontal paddles are again employed in the
second chamber. Ozone, chlorine or chlorine
dioxide applied prior to this point for disinfection
credit would certainly benefit from a baffling factor
of 0.7 or higher for this basin design. See Table of
B Baffling Factors, in the section titled “Clarifier
Design Impacts Disinfection.” Photo by author.

Ballasted Flocculation
Flocculation efficiency is affected by the ability of a floc to form and, once formed to
efficiently settle. Particles in the raw water and the chemical floc formed may not be
ideal for settling and filtration; thus, various agents may be added to enhance the floc
formation and floc density. As mentioned above, chemicals such as polymers can be
added as flocculation aids but they may or may not provide any enhancement in ability to
settle or even to form a floc. They primarily improve the quality of floc. In some cases it
is desirable to add a ‘target’. Just as a rain drop requires a nucleus for the drop to form
on, so floc requires a nucleus. Sand, powdered activated carbon and clay have all been
used to provide nuclei to enhance floc formation and to provide density to enhance

January 2014.
 21

settling. A relatively modern variation of that process one frequently encounters is under
the brand name Actiflo® - a trademark of I. Kruger Inc. In the Actiflo process, very fine
sand is mixed in rapid mix with the coagulant.

A B

In the Actiflo process,

very specific sand (A
and B) is added during
the coagulation process
(D). Floc forms (C)
with the sand as a
nucleus thus providing
ballast to enhance
settling. After settling,
pumps draw the
sand/floc mixture from
the bottom of the
settling basin (F) and
return it to cyclone
separators (E) where a C
significant portion of
the sand is recovered
and recycled.
Photos by author.

E: Cyclone
separators

D: Sand
Hopper F: Solids return
lines to cyclone
separators.

Figure 16: Actiflo process for ballasted flocculation

January 2014.
 22

Measurement Tools for Coagulation and Flocculation

Measuring Aluminum and Iron

When iron or aluminum chemicals are used as coagulants, the metal should be measured
in the raw water, filter influent and filter effluent. The iron or aluminum concentration in
the filter effluent should be no more than and preferably less than, the raw water and
filter influent concentrations. For most water the FerroVer® 3 Iron Reagent (1, 10
Phenanthroline method) for total iron is appropriate for iron and the AluVer 3®
Aluminum Reagent (Aluminon method) is appropriate for aluminum. For low level iron
use the FerroZineTM Iron Reagent and for low level aluminum the Eriochrome Cyanide R
(ECR) method (ECR may not be used with DR900’s). When measuring aluminum,
fluoride interferes (and vise versa). All aluminum measurements must be corrected for
fluoride interference. Once the fluoride is measured, use the fluoride interference
correction chart in the method. The correction charts for the AluVer 3 and the ECR
method are different. Care must be taken to use the correct chart.

Use the SPADNS 2 (arsenic-free) or fluoride electrode to measure fluoride. Fluoride

must be measured regardless of whether or not the utility fluoridates. Fluoride exists
naturally in every water source on earth – ground or surface. Natural fluoride
concentration may range from 0.1 to over 10 mg/l.

Iron and Aluminum Reagents Instrument*

Test Reagent Range – mg/l Cat. No.
Iron (total) FerroVer PP 0.02 - 3.00 2105769 C, S, PC
FerroVer AV 0.02 - 3.00 2507025 C, S, PC
Iron FerroZine 0.009 - 1.400 230166 C**, S
Aluminum AluVer 3 0.008 - 0.800 2242000 C, S, PC
Aluminum ECR 0.002 - 0.250 2603700 S
* PC – Pocket Colorimeter C – colorimeter S – spectrophotometer
**DR900
Figure 17: Reagents for Iron and Aluminum Tests

The Jar Test

The jar test is the most basic test for control of coagulation/flocculation/filtration and is
completed with a multiple stirrer such as the Phipps Bird. It would seem a test and an
apparatus so simple would have existed for many years. Yet, at least in the water
industry, the multiple place stirrers can be traced to as recently as about 1920. An early
attempt to conduct the equivalent of today’s jar test but using a single glass dish is
recorded just a few years earlier.

January 2014.
 23

Figure 18: Jar test apparatus

Phipps Bird 6-Place Programmable Multiple Stirrer with 1-liter
round glass beakers. Hach Company stock photo

The jar test can be performed with round jars, square jars, ½ L jars, 1 L jars, 2 L Wagner
Jars or for that matter, mayonnaise jars.
• Features the customer should look for are a back panel, typically black to view the
water in the jars and a white or lighted base.
• You may encounter Hach brand multiple stirrers that used ½ liter jars. The product
was discontinued several years ago.
• The Phipps Bird has a lighted base under the jars.
• When using the lighted base, the light should be left off except when observing the
floc formation or settling process. When the lights are on, the base will generate heat
sufficient to create convection currents. Changing the temperature of the water
during coagulation and flocculation will lead to non-representative floc formation and
the convection currents will interfere with settling.

Wagner™ Jar – p/n 41170-00, 2-liter

square plastic floc jar for the jar test.
The Wagner Jar has a tap near the
bottom of the jar to facilitate withdrawal
of a sample for further testing of pH,
turbidity, alkalinity, streaming current,
zeta potential, etc. Photo by author.

Figure 19: Wagner™ Jar

The jar test is as much art as it is science. A different coagulant dose is added to each of
the 4 or 6 jars. A short period of rapid mixing (for coagulation) and then a longer period
of slow mixing (flocculation) occur. Last, a no-stirring quiescent period permits settling.
Chemicals for pH adjustment, coagulant aids; ballasting substances (carbon, clay, etc.)
also may be added to the jars. It is important to vary only one parameter at a time!

During stirring and the quiescent periods the operator or lab tech will observe the jar for
floc formation and settling rate and use this information to then make chemical dose
changes to the process. Each plant operator and chemist (or university professor,
engineer, chemical sales person, etc) is very sensitive about their particular technique so

January 2014.
 24

one should tread carefully in suggesting any variation in their technique. Users will be
adamant about use of a square vs. round jar, big jar or little jar, this rapid mix period vs.
another, the slow stir speed, etc. They will be absolutely sure their combination of art
and science is THE way to do it.

The jar test is an attempt to simulate in a one or two liter jar what is going on in a basin
20’X30’X15’ containing 67,000 gallons. The jar test is also an attempt to simulate with
little 1”x2” paddle stirrers and jars the mixing energy with a train of huge paddles
extending the entire length of a 40 foot long flocculation chamber and maybe 15 feet in
diameter.

It is as much an art as a science because operators have to learn to interpret “when my

little jar looks this way, my big basin will look this way.” The more measurements are
made; the better the operator or lab person can interpret the jar test results – based more
on measurement (science) and less on art. This is important because filter performance is
directly affected by how well the floc forms, settles and withstands shearing effects
during mixing and filtration. Apparatus to enhance the jar test include a wide array of
other Hach products:

• Measure pH with the HQd series or SensIon series pH meter and probe – One must
measure pH especially with aluminum or iron salts (aluminum sulfate, liquid alum,
ferric chloride, ferric sulfate).
o Coagulants have an optimal pH range in which they should be used.
o Aluminum sulfate or liquid alum work well from a pH of about 5.5 (optimum
color removal) to the low 7’s.
o Iron compounds – ferric sulfate and ferric chloride – operate well over a much
wider range of pH well into the high 8’s.
o Monitor the endpoint of the alkalinity titration with pH measurement, see below.
• Measure alkalinity with the Digital Titrator® and associated reagents. Use of the
metallic salts as coagulants consumes alkalinity.
o As a rule of thumb, one must have (numerically) ½ the alkalinity of the amount of
alum or ferric sulfate coagulant dose needed. If a dose of 20 mg/l of alum is
needed, then the alkalinity must be at least 10 mg/l. For ferric chloride, it’s nearly
1:1. That is, for a dose of 30 mg/l ferric chloride, at least 30 mg/l of alkalinity
must be available.
o Customers should be encouraged to monitor the alkalinity titration with pH
measurement rather than trying to observe the color changes. Whether using
methyl orange or bromcresol green/methyl red indicators, it is difficult for many
if not most people to see the subtle color changes.
• Measure turbidity with a lab or portable turbidimeter (2100P, 2100Q, 2100N or
2100AN). Measure the turbidity at the beginning and the turbidity of the supernatant
at the end of the settling period. Filter a portion of the supernatant through medium
speed filter paper and again measure the turbidity.
• Both a large (1-10ml) and small (0.1-1.0 ml) TenSette® Pipet – Use the TenSette to:
o Prepare standard jar test solutions such that each ml of stock solution added to a
jar of sample to be tested results in a concentration of 10 mg/l. Add the number

January 2014.
 25

of grams or milliliters specified to 300 ml of dilution water. Mix and dilute up to

one liter (1000 ml) for the stock solution.

For dry alum or iron coagulants:

Concentration resulting
Size of
Milligrams of dry alum or iron coagulants for when 1 ml of stock
sample for
each 1 liter of stock solution solution is added to the
jar test
water to be tested
0.5 liter jars 5,000 mg (5 g)
1.0 liter jars 10,000 mg (10 g) 10 mg/l
2.0 liter jars 20,000 mg (20 g)
For liquid alum or liquid ferric chloride
ml of liquid alum ml of ferric chloride Concentration resulting
Size of
(assuming a 48% (assuming a 40% when 1 ml of stock
sample for
solution) to prepare 1 solution) to prepare 1 solution is added to the
jar test
liter of stock solution liter of stock solution water to be tested
0.5 liter jars 7.8 ml 8.9 ml
1.0 liter jars 15.6 ml 17.8 ml 10 mg/l
2.0 liter jars 31.2 ml 35.7 ml
Figure 20: Preparation of stock jar test solutions

o Use the TenSette pipet to dose each of the jars with the appropriate
coagulant/coagulant aid dose.
ƒ Use the 1-10 TenSette pipet for 10 mg/l increments or
ƒ Use the 0.1-1.0 TenSette pipet for 1 mg/l increments.
ƒ Realistically 1 mg/l increments are about all the resolution one can achieve
with the jar test.
o Use to withdraw aliquot of supernatant
ƒ For testing turbidity and for a filtration test
ƒ Alkalinity measurement
• Plastic funnels and medium speed filter paper. Filtering supernatant through medium
speed filter paper is a surprisingly good simulation of what can be achieved with
filtration in the plant’s filters. Measure turbidity before filtration to determine
effectiveness of settling and then after filtration to estimate how well the sample will
hold up (floc tough enough to withstand the shearing forces) during filtration.

Figure 21: Six-place assembly for filtering samples after a jar test.
Photo by author.

January 2014.
 26

When a treatment plant uses liquid alum, or other liquid coagulant, coagulant aids or
filter aids, the products can vary in percent of active component from manufacturer to
manufacturer and in some cases from lot to lot. The percent concentration must be
known before one can calculate how to make a standard solution (as above) for these
liquid products.

Equipment and Apparatus for the Jar Test

Cat. No. Description Use
Multiple Stirrer, choose one of the following
2631700 Phipps Bird 6-Place Programmable Multiple Stirrer supplied Multiple stirrer for jar test
with 6 1-liter round glass beakers,
2703800 6-place nonprogrammable w/o beakers Multiple stirrer for jar test
2704000 4-place programmable w/o beakers Multiple stirrer for jar test
2703900 4-place nonprogrammable w/o beakers Multiple stirrer for jar test
4117000 Wagner Jar 2-liter square plastic floc jar
50083 Glass Beaker, round, 1 liter, pk/6 Jar test w round jars
pH Meter, choose one of the following or better
pH SensION+ 3w/ pH Combination Electrode Measure pH/ alkalinity end point
HQ11d pH meter w/ gel-filled combination pH electrode, Measure pH/ alkalinity end point
8505900 buffers and probe stand

Digital Titrator, cartridges and indicators

Universal Digital Titrator Kit w/ manual, 100 ml graduated Alkalinity test
2270900 cylinder, 125 and 250 ml Erlenmeyer flasks
1438801 0.1600 N H2SO4 Titration Cartridge Low range alkalinity test
1438901 1.600 N H2SO4 Titration Cartridge High range alkalinity test
94299 Phenolphthalein PP, pk/100 Indicator for p-alkalinity test

94399 Bromcresol Green Methyl Red PP pk/100 Indicator for total alkalinity test
Reagent Set for Alkalinity – includes titration cartridges and
2271900 indicators above.

Other Instruments and Apparatus

2100Q01 2100QPortable Turbidimeter OR Test clarity of supernatant and filtrate
4700000 2100N Laboratory Turbidimeter OR from jar test
4700100 2100AN Laboratory Turbidimeter
19700-01 TenSette Pipet, 0.1-1.0 in Jar test chemical dosing
2185696 Pipet tips, 0.1-1.0
TenSette Pipet, 1.0-10.0 in Jar test chemical dosing, transfer
1970010
supernatant for further testing
2199796 Pipet tips, 1.0-10.0
108368 Funnel, each Filtration testing of the supernatant
69257 Filters, pleated Filtration testing of the supernatant

Figure 22: Equipment and apparatus for the jar test

January 2014.
 27

Zeta Potential
Zeta potential is a test to quantify the charge on colloids in the water to be treated.
Ideally one would like to be able to monitor the zeta potential of the raw water and use
with feed-forward control to set the coagulant dosage. In practice it is nearly universally
used for feed-back control. That is, after coagulant addition a sample can be immediately
taken to determine the charge neutralization and then that information used to adjust the
coagulant dose. Zeta potential of zero is theoretically ideal. In practice most utilities will
have a slightly negative zeta potential after coagulation. A positive zeta potential
indicates a likely overfeed of coagulant. There are several drawbacks to use of zeta
potential.

• It is a laboratory, grab sample tool.

• Instruments for measuring zeta potential are relatively expensive, typically in excess
of $15,000.
• While they are not complicated tools, learning to interpret the data from a zeta meter
is often time consuming.
• There is not a clear cut procedure for how to interpret zeta potential measurements
and apply them to the process. Every treatment plant is different and each water
source is different.
• Learning what zeta potential is ideal for a particular treatment plant and water
involves repeated testing and observation. A good place to start is with the jar test. If
a treatment plant has learned to interpret the jar test, then the zeta potential of the
dosage selected during the jar test can be measured. A sample is also taken from the
application point of the coagulant in the process immediately after rapid mixing. If
the plant sample has a different zeta potential than the jar, the coagulant feed can be
adjusted to match the zeta potential of the jar test.
• After further observation of the process quality, additional minor adjustments can be
tried. Again the process should be observed and measured. The results are used to
refine judgments made both in the process and in interpretation of the jar test.
• This trial and error process carried out over time in a disciplined manner will result in
a better optimized chemical feed. While a jar test may indicate a coagulant dose to
the nearest 2-3 mg/l, using zeta potential can refine that judgment to within tenths of
an mg/l of coagulant. The time invested is well spent as savings in several areas of
the treatment process will result. Properly applied, the return on investment can
easily be less than a year.
• The bottom line is few utilities use measurement of zeta potential. Cost, complexity,
lack of understanding of the principle, and lack of the desire for disciplined study
have limited the use of this very valuable tool.

Streaming Current
Streaming current is an on-line measurement of how well charge neutralization has
occurred. It is not the same as zeta potential but can provide much the same level of
information for process control. It has both drawbacks and advantages over zeta potential
measurement.

January 2014.
 28

Figure 23: Schematic diagram of a streaming

surrent sensor (Edney)

The SCM is based on the effect where the

walls of the capillaries through which the
colloidal material flows quickly gain a coating
of particles and take on the surface charge
characteristics of these particles. The SC
sensor consists of a piston and a close-ended
chamber. A narrow gap, an annulus 200-
500um wide, exists between the piston and the
walls of the chamber. The piston is driven up
and down at a fixed frequency, typically 4-5
strokes per second, forcing sample water in
and out of the chamber through the annulus.

As the piston and chamber surfaces are coated

with charged particles, the water flowing
rapidly up and down through the annulus
results in displacement of the counter-ions.
The SC signal measured by electrodes in the
annulus is proportional to the water velocity and therefore alternates in time with the piston. This
signal is typically in the range of 0.05uA to 5uA depending on the particular conditions.
Measurement of SC in a closed chamber has several advantages compared to measurement directly
in a flowing stream:
• The closed end is electrically isolated and removes problems caused by large potentials in the
process stream from other sources.
• The signal is alternating at the frequency of the piston. This allows it to be separated from external
noise and offset caused by electrode drift and dissymmetry.
• Practical aspects of instrumentation, such as that the closed chamber can be shielded from
electromagnetic interference and cleaned easily. (Edney)

• Streaming current is an on-line measurement providing continuous feedback

• Optimally, one would use both zeta potential and streaming current measurement.
• pH of the process must be controlled for effective coagulation and flocculation. If pH
is not controlled, it will be difficult to achieve benefit of a streaming current meter.
• Streaming current is strongly influenced by salinity, conductivity and pH variations.
If the pH, conductivity, or salinity of the water to be treated is highly variable,
streaming current measurements may have limited value or will be problematic.
• On the other hand, if streaming current has worked well for a period of time and
suddenly seems to not correlate well, that is a signal of a significant change in water
quality that should be investigated and understood.
• Streaming current requires much less effort to learn to use than a zeta potential
measurement.
• Streaming current meters are less expensive than zeta meters.
• One of the greatest challenges of streaming current application is locating the right
point of measurement. The sample must be as close as possible to the point of
application of the coagulant but after it is well mixed. Often the ideal point is not
accessible.

January 2014.
 29

Figure 24: Accufloc Streaming

Current Monitor.

Clarification
Clarifiers (sedimentation basins) provide a quiescent, low velocity (typically <0.5 ft/sec)
area where the solid/floc mixture can settle from solution. A variety of designs are in use
– square, rectangular and round. Many are fitted with proprietary modifications to
improve settling performance. Detention time in a clarifier is typically between 30 and
45 minutes.
Some will be described below. Characteristics common to all will be:
• A means to introduce the flocculated water uniformly to the clarifier
• A means to collect and discharge accumulated solids
• A means to collect clear effluent and transport to the filtration step
• A means to ensure complete treatment and minimize or prevent short circuiting

Perhaps the simplest designs one will encounter is a rectangular basin with sloped floor
equipped with manual or automatic means of solids collection and withdrawal.

Clarifier
effluent

Inlet
zone Flow

Solids
removal

Settling
Zone
Figure 25: Rectangular clarifier

January 2014.
 30

Figure 26: Rectangular clarifier sludge removal system

Left, basin with flight and chain sludge removal system. Horizontal scrapers move settled sludge to a
collection trough. Right, as water passes through a clarifier, settling progresses, one sees the floc
cloud ending before the water reaches the end of the clarifier. Photos by author.

Figure 27: Clarifier w/ perforated inlet baffle wall

The rectangular clarifier pictured has a perforated inlet baffle wall. The design is intended to
uniformly distribute the flocculated water across the basin to provide uniform settling time and to
minimize short circuiting. At left, the perforated inlet wall. Sludge collection pipes (white) visible
at the bottom. At right one can see jet streams (red arrows) of the flocculated water entering the
basin through the holes. This design would be credited with a baffling factor of 0.7 or better for
purposes of calculation of CT. See discussion below under Clarifier Design Impacts Disinfection.
Photos by author.

January 2014.
 31

Modifications to improve performance may include some baffling to minimize short

circuiting, automatic systems to remove solids including scrapers moving along the
bottom, or vacuum sludge withdrawal systems. A variety of clarifiers known as solids
contact clarifiers enhance floc formation and settling characteristics. To enhance settling,
modifications such as closely-spaced parallel plates and tube settlers may be employed.

Solids Contact and Blanket Clarifiers

Solids contact clarifiers attempt to enhance floc formation and settling characteristics by
providing an environment where newly forming and newly formed flocs
collide/mix/interact with existing solids. Solids contact clarifiers combine the
flocculation and settling steps into a single unit process. A blanket clarifier is similar in
that the newly formed floc typically ‘rises’ through a layer or blanket of existing solids.

Several companies offer solids contact clarifiers each with a variation of the application
of this concept they believe is superior to other approaches. The different designs do
have sets of conditions and treatment objectives for which they are truly optimized. “One
size” does not fit all. A few designs one is likely to encounter are:

• Solids CONTACT CLARIFIER™ by WesTech Engineering, Inc. - “The recirculation

impeller is the “Heart” of the Solids CONTACT CLARIFIER™. WesTech’s radial impeller is located
at the top of the draft tube and is designed with swept back blades to minimize shearing of floc
particles and horsepower required. WesTech’s Solids CONTACT CLARIFIER ™ is available in both
center pier and bridge supported configurations, circular or square basins, and concrete or steel tanks.
Cylindrical or conical reaction wells are designed for specific applications.”

• SpiraCone™ by Siemens – “The General Filter SPIRACONE™ Clarifier is an up flow sludge

blanket clarifier that combines mixing, flocculation and sedimentation in a single basin. Raw water and
chemicals are hydraulically mixed then pass upward through the various zones within the basin for
reaction, flocculation, sludge removal and clarification. Hydraulic mixing eliminates mechanical
mixers, while the conical shape eliminates scrapers.”

Figure 28: SpiraCone Solids Contact Clarifier

Photo by author.

January 2014.
 32

• Superpulsator® by Infilco Degremont – “The Superpulsator® Clarifier combines basic

chemical principles and proven clarification technology in a high-rate, solids contact clarifier that
offers maximum efficiency. This unique design combines flocculation and clarification functions in
one basin for optimal use of space. Vacuum generated flow pulsations create a homogeneous sludge
blanket that results in excellent effluent quality at minimal operating costs.”

• Claricone® by CB&I, Inc. – “The ClariCone maintains a dense, suspended, rotating slurry
blanket that provides excellent solids contact, accelerated floc formation and exceptional solids
capture. Thus, chemical usage is reduced and O&M costs are minimized. The conically shaped
concentrator maximizes the slurry discharge concentration and allows plant personnel to visually
monitor slurry discharge.”

Illustration provided
courtesy of CB&I, Inc.

Figure 29: Claricone cross-sectional diagram.

January 2014.
 33

• Clar-I-Vator® by Smith and Lovelace, Inc. – “A CLAR-I-VATOR® solids contact clarifier

overcomes some of the problems exhibited in the sludge blanket clarifier. It basically controls the
chemical reactions taking place, flocculation, and the sedimentation phenomena more positively than
in a sludge blanket clarifier and is not as readily affected by changes and flows or by process. In the
CLAR-I-VATOR® solids contact clarifier, the liquid stream enters into a central detention zone where
chemicals can be added. Within this zone, there is a re-circulator paddle which is activated by a
variable speed drive. This paddle creates a pressure differential within this zone and essentially pumps
previously settled material from a central settling cone into the re-circulation zone and positively
contacts it with the incoming waste. In so doing, the incoming waste can be flocculated with chemicals
added at that point. The incoming solids create a thermodynamically favorable environment to bring a
chemical reaction to completion, conserve chemicals and provide a more favorable settling
characteristic to the solid.”

Figure 30: Clar-I-Vator

Used with permission of Smith and Lovelace, Inc.

Figure 31: Cut view of the Clar-I-Vator Solids Contact Clarifier.

Used with permission of Smith and Lovelace, Inc.

January 2014.
 34

Tube Settlers and Parallel Plates to Enhance Separation

Figure 32: Tube Settlers enhance settling

Tube settlers are modules which can be incorporated

into new clarifiers or retrofitted to old. The ‘tubes’ are
typically about 2”X2” square assembled in modules as
pictured (above left). The tubes are usually inclined at
about 60°. The relatively large surface area provides
friction which encourages solids/liquid separation. The
steep incline of 60° encourages gravity settling of the
accumulated solids. As solids move by gravity down the
tubes they also interact with solids in the water rising in
the tubes to trap additional solids. The system pictured
above right is functioning quite well. The system
pictured at left is not functioning as well as the many of
the tubes are nearly plugged by solids. Often all that is
needed for a situation like that pictured is to stop flow
temporarily, drop the water level down rather quickly
to ‘flush’ the solids and then go back to normal
operation. Note the clarification process at left is being
monitored with a Hach Company Solitax sc ts-line
suspended solids probe. Photos by author.

January 2014.
 35

A B

C D

Figure 33: Inclined Plate Settlers

The most well known brand of inclined plate settlers is Lamella® (a registered trademark of Parkson
Corp.). In a fashion somewhat similar to the tube settlers, the plates typically are spaced about 2”
apart and are inclined at about 60° to encourage solid/liquid separation and to encourage solids to
roll down the plates (D). Parallel plates can be fitted to conventional clarifiers (A and B). Plate
settlers are somewhat less prone to the type of solids accumulation previously shown for tube settlers.
Parallel plate settlers can be used in a complete module as illustrated in (C) as a package clarifier.
Effluent from a flocculator can be fed directly to a module as pictured. Photos by author.

January 2014.
 36

Effluent Collection
Clarifiers typically have a collection trough (launderers) around the outside edge or may
have multiple radial collection troughs in round clarifiers. Rectangular clarifiers may
have a single trough at the end of the basin or multiple parallel troughs. Regardless of
configuration, the collection trough (launderer) has one purpose – to collect the effluent
water uniformly and thus discourage ‘short circuiting’. A scum baffle may be provided
to prevent floating scum, foam and or solids from entering the trough. The wall of the
effluent trough typically will be fitted with a weir plate. It may be a simple flat plate, a v-
notch plate or a plate with uniformly spaced circular orifices. The weir plate typically is
thin forming a ‘sharp crest’ which provides minimal drag (frictional resistance to flow)
and which minimizes collection of solids, oils or chemical films that would inhibit the
free escape of the water past the weir. One can observe that the design with perforations
or orifices would be more prone to plugging. Plugging results in non-uniform collection
and short circuiting.

Figure 34: Circular drinking water clarifier with radial launderers and v-notch weir plates
Photo by author.

January 2014.
 37

Scum baffle
Flat weir

V-notch weir

Perforated weir plate

Figure 35: Clarifier effluent weir configurations

Left: Primary clarifier at a wastewater treatment plant with scum baffle and v-notch weir plate.
Right: Typical clarifier effluent weir configurations. Photo by author.

Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) Clarifiers

Dissolved air flotation or DAF clarification, as the name indicates, relies on floating
particles to the surface using air bubbles rather than the conventional approach of gravity
clarifiers. DAFs are employed in drinking water where gravity clarifiers are ineffective
such as where particulate contamination is low and the objective is removal of low-
density materials such as microorganisms (algae, cysts), natural organic matter (NOM)
and floc in low turbidity, soft water. They’re also used in iron and manganese removal
systems.

Figure 36: DAF

Schematic for food
processing

DAFs find use in

wastewater treatment
as sludge thickeners
and in many industrial
processes ranging
from food processing
to oil/water separation
in oil fields and
refineries. Illustration
courtesy of Marc
Hansen, Hach
Company

January 2014.
 38

Figure 37: DAF sequence of operation

A portion of clarified or filtered water is saturated with air in the

saturator tank (A).

The air-saturated water is injected into the clarifier influent stream.

The air bubbles ‘attach’ to the flocculated particle and float them to
the top (B).

A scraper arm (C) then removes the layer of ‘dirt’-laden foam and
deposits in a waste trough (D). Some DAFs will use hydraulic removal
of the accumulated foam. In this case the foam is caused to float over
the outlet weir periodically by either lowering the outlet weir or
restricting the effluent clear water draw off (thus temporarily raising
C the surface level) and causing it to overflow the fixed weir.

The lower layer of clarified water then is drawn off of the clarifier by
an effluent manifold (E).
Photos by author.

January 2014.
 39

Clarifier Design Impacts Disinfection

If a disinfectant – chlorine, ozone or chlorine dioxide – is applied prior to flocculation
and/or clarification; then, the design of the basin must be considered in calculation of CT
for the US EPA rules established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA); Long
Term 1 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, LT1ESWTR; Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule, LT2ESWTR; and/or the Ground Water Rule. CT (or Ct,
there is no difference in the two expressions) is an expression of the concentration of a
chemical disinfectant, C in mg/l, multiplied by the contact time, T in minutes. The unit
of measure for CT then is (mg-min)/l. See Calculation of CT Values for Compliance with
Drinking Water Regulations, for detailed information about CT calculations.

The contribution of the flocculation and clarification steps CT is to provide contact time,
T. And, the contribution is based on how well designed (baffled) the flocculation and
clarification processes are to provide plug flow. Consider: If a circular basin is 20 feet
high, 60 feet in diameter with a minimum working level of 12 feet, then the detention
time at a flow of 5000 gallons/min. is 50.7 minutes:

Volume in gallons = πr2h X 7.48=253,661 gallons.

Detention Time 253,661 gal. 1 min. 50.7 minutes.

= X =
(contact time) 5000 gal.
How well does the basin provide plug flow? Does it really take every drop of water 50.7
minutes to transit through the basin? Does a certain volume of water travel through the
device as a plug flow (first in, first out) or can the flow short circuit? The table below
can help determine what actual credit for contact time should be allocated to the process.

Baffling Conditions Baffling Factor Baffling Description

None, agitate basin, very low length to width ratio, high inlet
Unbaffled (mixed
0.1 and outlet flow velocities. Can be approximately achieved in
flow)
flash mix tank.
Single or multiple unbaffled inlets and outlets, no intra-basin
Poor .0.3
baffles
Average 0.5 Baffled inlet or outlet with some intra-basin baffles
Perforated inlet baffle, serpentine or perforated intra-basin
Superior 0.7
baffles, outlet weir or perforated launders
Very high length to width ration (pipeline flow), perforated
Perfect (plug flow) 1.0
inlet, outlet and intrabasin baffles
Figure 38: Table of baffling factors

Actual Detention Time = Calculated Detention Time X Baffling Factor

If the basin is unbaffled, then
Actual Detention Time = 50.7 minutes X 0.1 or 5.1 minutes!

It should be apparent that a poorly baffled basin also will not provide good performance
for flocculation or clarification either!

January 2014.
 40

Measuring Clarifier Performance

Many of the same analytical methods and instruments used to monitor the raw water can
and should be repeated for clarifier effluent. Of course if iron or aluminum coagulants
have been used, they should be measured. Ideally, one would like the iron and/or
aluminum in clarifier effluent to be equal to or less than the amount in the raw water.
Certainly, the filter effluent values must be less than for raw water.

Parameter Laboratory Measurement On-line Measurement Reason to monitor

Water quality,
Alkalinity Digital Titrator APA 6000 Alkalinity
coagulation control
Aluminum ECR or Aluminon NA Coagulation
Hardness Digital Titrator APA 6000 Hardness Water quality
Iron FerroVer Iron NA Aesthetic; Coagulation
Manganese PAN or Periodate Method NA Aesthetic
HQd series meter and ORP w sc200 or Water quality, control of
ORP
probe sc1000 controller preoxidant
Permanganate PAN or Periodate Method NA Preoxidant for NOM
Clarifier effluent/filter
Particle 2200 PCX Particle influent particle counts to
Counting Counter determine log removal of
particles
HQd series meter and pHD pH w sc200 or
pH Coagulation control
probe SC1000 controller
Sludge Judge sampler or
TSS Portable Hand-held Sonatax w sc200 or Manage sludge level in
Sludge Level
Turbidity, Suspended sc1000 controller the clarifier
Solids and Sludge Level
Water quality, SUVA
Total Organic
TOC test 1950+ calc., coagulation control,
Carbon
DDBP rule compliance
SS7, UltraTurb, or
Turbidity/Solids 2100Q, 2100N or 2100AN Solitax w sc200 or Water quality
sc1000 controller
NOM, SUVA, coagulation
UV254 DR5000 UVAS
control
Figure 39: Clarifier performance measurements

Figure 40: Sonatax for sludge level in clarifiers

Monitoring sludge level in a drinking water clarifier

can be a challenge. The system pictured is a primary
clarifier at wastewater plant. Wastewater sludge
tends to be much more dense than sludge caused by
drinking water flocs. Thus ultrasonic sludge level
devices such as the Sonatax work well in wastewater
applications but may not work as well in a drinking
water application. It is prudent to pilot test a Sonatax
for drinking water. If Sonatax is found to work well,
the articulated arm (pictured) normally is not
necessary as drinking water clarifiers typically do not
have a surface rake. Photo by author.

January 2014.
 41

Figure 41: pH monitoring

There should be little doubt of the importance of monitoring pH

in clarifier effluent, especially if the process requires pH
adjustment prior to filtration as is the case in some iron and
manganese removal processes. Measurement and management of
pH from raw water to final effluent is critical to a successful
drinking water treatment process. It is especially important in
coagulation/flocculation and clarification.
Photo by author.

Figure 42: Turbidity and suspended solids monitoring for clarifier effluent
The Solitax, UltraTurb and Surface Scatter 7 are all good choices for monitoring clarifier effluent.
For in-line monitoring or expression as solids rather than NTU, the Solitax is a great choice. For the
UltraTurb be sure to include the self-cleaning option. Photos by author.

Figure 43: Digital Tirator

The Digital Titrator is ideal for testing the alkalinity

and hardness to monitor the raw water, coagulation
process and finished water. For alkalinity the user
should be encouraged to monitor the titration with a
pH meter rather than by color change. The color
changes are difficult for many people to adequately
interpret. Using a pH meter to titrate first to a pH
of 8.3 (phenolphthalein or P alkalinity) and then to
a pH of 4.5 (total or T alkalinity) is much easier and
more accurate than looking for color changes.
Photo by author.

January 2014.
 42

Log Removal

Figure 44: USEPA Microbial Toolbox options for source water and clarification

As can be seen in the above figure the terms ‘log removal’ or ‘log credit’ are widely used
to express performance of various treatment processes. The table indicates a 0.5 log
credit for cryptosporidium removal is applicable for coagulation and sedimentation prior
to filtration.

The terms can be somewhat confusing for users. Recall a logarithm is the exponent to
which a number is raised for a particular number base, in the 10-base counting system it
is the exponent to which 10 is raised. The log removal calculation is straight forward:
log(Influent/effluent) which can also be calculated as log(influent) – log(effluent).
(Recall from algebra, log (a/b) = log a – log b)

For example, if a raw water has 16,000 particles/ml >2µm

• 16,000 = 1.6 X 104, or log 16,000 = 4.204, or 16,000 = 104.204
• If after filtration the water has 16 particles/ml >2µm,
o then there was a 3 log removal (103) –the decimal moved to the left 3
places.
o Or, 99.9 % of the particles (16,000-16/16,000 = 0.999 or 99.9%)
• If the effluent counts were 123, then the log removal would be log(16,000/123) or
log(16,000) – log(123) = 2.114.

Percent Decimal Log

Removal equivalent Removal
90 % 0.90 1 log
99 % 0.99 2 log
99.9 % 0.999 3 log
99.99 % 0.9999 4 log
Figure 45: Percent vs. Log Removal

January 2014.
 43

For some treatment processes, it is problematic to express results in terms of log removal.
When monitoring membranes with a particle counter, permeate (effluent) may approach
zero particle counts. As the permeate approaches zero particle counts
log(influent/effluent) becomes undefined – division by zero. Rearranging the expression
to log(influent) – log(effluent) does not solve the problem. There is no exponent
(logarithm) to which any number can be raised which will yield zero. Log(0) is
undefined. Hence if the effluent approaches zero, it is best to express the removal as a
percent removal.

It makes sense to express quantitative measurements (particle counts, number of cysts or

oocysts, mg/l of iron) in terms of log reduction or log removal. It does not make sense to
express qualitative measurements, like turbidity, in terms of log removal. In spite of this,
users and even some regulatory rules and documents will use ‘log removal of turbidity’
as a criteria for performance. Notice the table above makes reference to, “a monthly
mean reduction of a 0.5-log or greater in turbidity or alternative State-approved
performance criteria.”

“Turbidity is not a direct measure of suspended particles in water but, instead, a measure
of the scattering effect such particles have on light." (Reference: Turbidity Science,
Hach Company, M Sadar. Original edition titled: Understanding Turbidity Measurement,
Hach Company, Clifford Hach).

One certainly can express any number of measurements in terms of log removal or
percent removal if it makes sense to the user to do so. It doesn't make any sense but one
could maintain that starting at a pH of 14 and ending at a pH of 1.4 is a "one log
removal." Actually pH is a logarithmic function. A change from pH 14 to 13 is a one
log change. Is that one log removal?

So the raw turbidity is 2.9. If the clarifier effluent is 0.28 NTU, is that greater than 1-log
removal? Many utilities and regulatory agencies will say it is. The difficulty is, since
turbidity is qualitative, not quantitative, there is no way to prove it! Here lies the crux of
the problem of encouraging customers to think of turbidity in terms of log removal.
Sooner or later someone will ask you to prove it.

If a customer or regulatory agency thinks it is meaningful to express turbidity in terms of

log removal, that's their prerogative. But Hach Company should not encourage it or
condone it because it can’t be proven!

January 2014.
 44

Monitoring the Process is a Complex Task

It takes more than just analytical measurement to understand what is going on in the
treatment process. Consider the system illustrated below:

Figure 46: Treatment plant schematics

The treatment plant illustrated was built in

three phases with clarifier #2 and filters 1-4,
then clarifier #1 and filters 5-8 and finally
clarifier #3. One can see it is very difficult to
tell how the plant hydraulics actually work.
There are valves to isolate each clarifier and
also modulate the flows such that any filter can
be fed from any clarifier. If one wants to
monitor filter influent to say filter #7, which
clarifier is feeding it? Is it a blend of clarifiers
#1 and #3? If the influent is a blend of the
clarifier effluents, what is the ratio? When
working with a treatment facility on a
monitoring plan it is very useful to get and use
the plant piping schematics and illustrations
such as these to get a feel for the complexities
and not to just shoot from the hip with a guess
as to the number and location of best
monitoring points. Turbidity, particle counts,
and pH should all be monitored continuously
on each of the clarifier effluents near the filter
buildings.

(Illustrations used with permission of McGoodwin, Williams and Yates, Inc., Fayetteville, AR)

January 2014.
 45

Summary and Conclusion

No single unit process in drinking water treatment stands alone. The success
(effectiveness) of every step in the process depends on preceding processes and steps that
follow to make the entire treatment process function. And measurement is critical at
every step. Perhaps monitoring of source water, coagulation and clarification are the
most overlooked when instrumentation is installed in a water treatment process. Possible
reasons include:

1. No mandate. With few exceptions monitoring of source water, coagulation,

flocculation and clarification is for operational control - there are few regulatory
requirements.
2. Budgets are always a problem and the few dollars available are allocated to the
measurements that are regulatory mandates
3. There is a lack of understanding of the importance measurement plays in the
successful application of these unit processes
4. Tools like streaming current and Zeta Potential are relatively new, poorly understood
and expensive and thus are underutilized.

The figure below illustrates the treatment process from source to tap with suggestions for
measurements at each point in the process. The illustration is by no means exhaustive but
can be a guide for exploring opportunities when talking about measurement opportunities
at a water treatment facility.

pH pH
Chlorine Turbidity
Ozone Chlorine
Chlorine Dioxide Permanganate
Permanganate

Mixer Flocculate
Clarifier
Filtration
pH
Turbidity Streaming Turbidity
Coagulant feed

pH Current Fe
Conductivity Al
UV254 Disinfection
ORP
TOC pH Turbidity
Color Chlorine Chlorine
Odor Turbidity pH
Mn Conductivity TOC
Fe TOC F-
Al
F Chemical Pumps

Figure 47: Typical water treatment process

January 2014.
 46

The Water Treatment Continuum

Figure 48: The Water Treatment Continuum

Most water treatment practices in use today have been used for centuries. Quality of the
treatment plant effluent is better than ever before for
four primary reasons:

The ability to measure the process –

chemical, physical and biological – is
better than ever before.

Improved measurement ability has

lead to a better understanding of the
water treatment processes and
functions.

Persons charged with managing and

operating the systems are better
trained than ever before.

Finally, better measurement, better understanding

and better operations then permit better
engineering designs. And so it starts again – with yet better measurement tools.

Acknowledgements
The following individuals contributed to preparation of this paper by their review,
editorial critique and suggestions on technical content: Rebeccah Engelhardt, Steve
Cason, Vadim Malkov and Robert Geary. Their assistance is very much appreciated.

January 2014.
 47

Appendix – Calculations
Rectangular Clarifier Volume
Volume of a rectangular clarifier is calculated by:
V (ft3) = Length (ft) X Width (ft) X Height (ft) or depth

Figure 49: Rectangular clarifier

1. Calculate the volume, in gallons of a rectangular clarifier 40 ft long, 20 ft wide with a

maximum water depth of 13 ft.

V = L X WX H
V (gal.) = 40 ft x 20 ft x 13 ft x 7.48 gal
ft3

V = 62,233.60 gallons

January 2014.
 48

2. Calculate the volume in gallons of a clarifier 40 ft long and 25 feet wide. The clarifier
has a sloped bottom. Water is 18 feet deep at one end, 15 ft deep at the other.

15

40
18
25

3
Figure 50: Rectangular clarifier with sloped bottom

The simplest way to approach this problem is to calculate the volume of the basic
rectangular portion, 40 ft X 25 ft X 15 ft. Then, add the volume added by the sloped,
triangular bottom. The volume of the triangular portion is: ½ (L X W X H).

Where, H is just the 3 feet of additional depth.

Volume of rectangular portion gal

V (gal) = 40 ft x 25 ft x 15 ft x 7.48 gal
rect. ft3

V (MG) = 112,200 gal

Volume of the triangular portion in MG

V (MG) = 1 x 40 ft x 25 ft x 3 ft x 7.48 gal
triangle 2 ft3

V (MG) = 11,220 gal

Total volume of clarifier = 112,400 gal + 11,220 gal

= 123,620 gal.

Circular Clarifier Volume

3. Calculate the volume in gallons of a circular clarifier with a diameter of 60 feet and a
sidewall depth of 12 feet. The clarifier has a conical bottom with center depth of 17
feet.

As with the previous problem with a rectangular clarifier with sloped bottom, the easiest
solution to this problem is to calculate the volume of the cylinder and the volume of the
conical bottom separately, then add the two together.

Volume of a cylinder = ½ πr2H (area of the circle X height or depth)

January 2014.
 49

Volume of a cone = ⅓ πr2H

D = 60 ft; r = 30 ft

12 ft
17 ft

5 ft

Figure 51: Circular clarifier with conical bottom

V (gal) = 1 x π x (30 ft)2 x 12 ft x 7.48 gal

cylinder 2 ft3

V (gal) = 1 x π x 900 ft2 x 12 ft X 7.48 gal

cylinder 2 ft3

V (gal) cylinder = 40,392 gal.

V (gal) = 1 x π x (30 ft)2 x 5 ft x 7.48 gal

cone 3 ft3

V (gal) cone = 11,220 gal.

Total volume = 40,392 gal + 11,220 gal = 51,612 gal

Detention Time
Detention time, time to fill, and time to empty are all the same calculation

Detention time (DT): DT = Volume x 1

Flow rate
Or,
DT = Volume x time
volume
For the rectangular clarifier example above, calculate the detention time in minutes at a
flow rate of 2500 gallons/min.

January 2014.
 50

One must be certain the units of measure are the same for the volume and flow rate. That
is, if volume is given in gallons, then the flow rate must be in gallons.

DT min = 123,620 gal x min

2500 gal

DT min = 49 min

4. Calculate the detention time in minutes for the above circular clarifier if the flow rate
is 2 cfs (cubic feet per second)
Make certain the units of measure agree!

DT min = 51,612 gal x 1 ft3 x sec x min

7.48 gal 2 ft3 60 sec
DT min = 58 min.
A ground-level storage tank with flat bottom, 200 feet in diameter and 38 feet tall with a
maximum water level of 36 feet, is 1/3 full and has an outflow of 4,500 gal/min.
Simultaneously, in flow to the tank is 5,800 gal/min. How long will the tank take to fill
in minutes?

This problem is best visualized if broken into parts. It helps a great deal to make a sketch
and label it.

36 ft

Flow in = 5,800 Flow out = 4,500

gal/min 12 ft gal/min

First, calculate the total volume of the tank. If the diameter is 200 ft, then the tank radius
is 100ft.

V (gal) = 1 x π x (100 ft)2 x 36 ft x 7.48 gal

cylinder 2 ft3

Vol. gal = 8,455,392 gallons

But, the problem indicates the tank has only 12 feet of water so,
Vol. currently in the tank

Vol. currently = 8,455,392 gal x 12

in tank, gal 36

Vol. in tank = 2,818,464 gal in tank. That means the tank needs 5,636,928 gallons to
fill. (8,455,392 gal - 2,818,464 gal = 5,636,928 gal)

January 2014.
 51

Now, the demand on the tank is 4500 gallons/min while it is filling at a rate of 5,800
gallons. Thus, the NET fill rate is 1,300 gallons/min (5,800 gal/min – 4,500 gal/min =
1,300 gal/min)

Time to fill, = 5,636,928 gal x min

min 1,300 gal

Time to fill, min = 4,336 min. Or,

Tim to fill in = 4,336 min x 1 hr

hrs 60 min

Time in hours = 72.3 hrs

Surface Overflow Rate (Surface Loading Rate) and Weir Overflow Rate
Surface overflow (loading) rate is calculated by dividing the average daily flow by the
surface area of the clarifier typically with final units of gallons per day per square foot.
The weir overflow (loading) rate is the average daily flow rate divided by the number of
lineal feet of weir with final units of gallons per day per foot.

5. Calculate the surface overflow and weir overflow rates for a basin 40 ft X 25 ft X 12 ft
at a flow of 1000 gallons/min if the weir is 90% of the width of the clarifier.

Surface = 1000 gal x 60 min x 24 hr x 1

Overflow Rate, min hr day 40 ft X 25 ft
Gal/da/ft2

Surface Overflow Rate, Gal/da/ft2 = 1,400 gal/da/ft2

6. Calculate the weir overflow rate. Since the weir length is 90% of the basin width, the
weir length = 25 ft X 0.90 =22.5 ft.

Weir Overflow = 1000 gal x 60 min x 24 hr x 1

Rate, Gal/da/ft2 min hr day 22.5

Weir Overflow Rate, Gal/da/ft2 = 64,000 gal/day/ft

January 2014.
 52

Chemical Feed Calculations

Most chemical feed calculations can be solved with a single, easy to use equation. To
find concentration in mg/l or ppm (parts per million – one part by weight to a million
parts by weight):
mg/l or ppm = # of chemical
8.34 X MGD

Where: MGD is million gallons per day and 8.34 is the weight of a gallon of water. Thus
the denominator, 8.34 X MGD simply converts the denominator to units of pounds per
day instead of million gallons. Most chemical feed problems are weight to weight
concentration calculations.

Another way to express the calculation is:

mg/l or ppm = # of chemical x 1 gallon of water x 1 day
day 8.34# MG

Parts per million – ppm, and mg/l often are used interchangeably. They are equivalent
only when working with solutions with the specific gravity (density) of water at 4ºC.
For most ordinary purposes when working with water within normal ambient ranges, one
can assume the specific gravity of water at 4ºC. (Specific gravity of water is 1 or density
of 1g/1cc. And at 4ºC, 1cc of water is equal to 1 ml of water. In English units the
density is 8.34 #/gallon)

If a solution is being used that is not the specific gravity of water, ppm and mg/l are not
interchangeable.

7. Show that for water at 4ºC, 1 ppm and 1 mg/l are equivalent:

1 mg = 1 mg x 1 liter x 1 ml x 1cc x 1g
liter 1 liter 1,000 ml 1 cc 1g 1,000 mg

1 mg = 1 x 1 x 1 x 1 x 1
liter 1 1,000 1 1 1,000

1 mg = 1 parts = 1 ppm
liter 1,000,000 parts

January 2014.
 53

8. Calculate the chemical dosage in mg/l if 2,000 pounds of aluminum sulfate (alum) are
added to 20 million gallons of water per day.

mg/l or ppm = # of chemical x 1 gallon of water x 1 day

day 8.34# MG water

mg/l (ppm) Cl2 = 2000# alum x 1 gallon of water x 1 day

day 8.34# 20 MG water

mg/l (ppm) Cl2 = 2000 alum x 1 x 1 day

8.34 20 M

mg/l (ppm) Cl2 = 11.99 parts alum = 11.99 mg alum

1000,000 l

Of course the equation can be modified to calculate the pounds of chemical necessary per
day to achieve a particular concentration:

# chemical = Parts x 8.34 # x MG

day M parts gallon day

9. How many pounds per day of lime, Ca(OH)2 must be fed to maintain a concentration
of 10 mg/l (ppm) at a flow rate of 4 MGD.

# Ca(OH)2 = 10 parts x 8.34# x 5 MG

day M parts 1 gallon day

# Ca(OH)2 = 2 x 8.34# x 4
day 1 day

# Ca(OH)2 = 417 #
day day

January 2014.
 54

10. How many pounds per day of ferric sulfate (ferric) should be fed to maintain a
concentration of 40 mg/l at a flow of 10 MGD.

# ferric = 40 parts x 8.34# x 10 MG

day M parts 1 gallon of water day

# ferric = 40 x 8.34# x 10
day 1 day

# ferric = 3,336 #
day day

Example: A concentration of 0.2 mg/l of a polymer coagulant aid is required for a given
treatment objective. The polymer stock solution is 1%. Calculate the ml/min of the stock
solution the polymer pump must deliver if the water flow rate is 5 MGD.

1% of a million parts is 10,000 parts per million parts or 10,000 mg/l

(if one assumes the solution has the density of water)

ml polymer = 0.2 x l x 5 MG x 3780 ml x 1day x 1 hr

mg
min l 10,000 mg day gal 24 hr 60 min

ml polymer = 0.2 x l x 5 MG x 3780 ml x 1day x 1 hr

mg
min l 10,000 mg day gal 24 hr 60 min

ml polymer = 262.5 ml
min min

Alkalinity Requirement for Aluminum and Iron Coagulants

For aluminum sulfate, if one assumes the majority of the alkalinity is available as calcium
bicarbonate, then:
Al2(SO4)3 · 14 H2O + 3Ca(HCO3)2 2Al(OH)3 + 3CaSO4 + 6CO2 + 14H2O

One Mole of hydrated aluminum sulfate (alum) reacts with 3 moles of calcium hydrogen
carbonate (calcium bicarbonate).

One mole of alum = 621 mg; one mole of calcium bicarbonate = 342 mg; and, one mole
of calcium carbonate (CaCO3) = 100 mg.

Since one typically expresses alkalinity as CaCO3:

One mole Ca(HCO3)2 as CaCO3 = 342 mg Ca(HCO3)2 x 100 mg CaCO3

342 mg Ca(HCO3)2

January 2014.
 55

One mole Ca(HCO3)2 as CaCO3 = 100 mg

So, 621 mg (1 mole) of alum reacts with 300 mg of Ca(HCO3) as CaCO3.

Thus the alkalinity required is:

moles of 3 moles of Ca(HCO3)2 as 0.49 moles

300 mg
alkalinity CaCO3 of alkalinity
= = =
1 mole of 1 mole of
Al2(SO4)3 · 14 H2O 621 mg
alum alum

Similarly:
Ferric Sulfate (1 mole = 272 mg):
Fe2SO4 · 9 H2O + 3Ca(HCO3)2 2Fe(OH)3 + 3CaSO4 + 6CO2 + 9H2O

moles of 3 moles of Ca(HCO3)2 0.53 moles of

300 mg
alkalinity as CaCO3 alkalinity
= = =
1 mole of 1 mole of
Fe2(SO4)3 562 mg
Ferric Sulfate Ferric Sulfate

And for ferric chloride (1 mole = 325 mg):

2FeCl3 + 3Ca(HCO3)2 2Fe(OH)3 + 3CaCl2 + 6CO2

moles of 3 moles of Ca(HCO3)2 0.92 moles of

300 mg
alkalinity as CaCO3 alkalinity
= = =
mole of Ferric 1 mole of Ferric
2 moles FeCl3 325 mg
Sulfate chloride

January 2014.
 56

References

1. “Accufloc Case Study– Ngaruawahia,” Application Note, Accurate Measurements NZ Ltd.., August, 2009.
2. “How Can You Control Organic Contaminants?”, AWWA Organic Contaminants Control Committee,
Opflow, American Waterworks Association, February 2008, pp 20-21.
3. “Microfloc Adsorption Clarifier® Improves Filter Effluent Turbidity, Filter Run Time and Net Production
at the Huntsville WTP at Dallas, PA,” Application Note, Siemens Water Technologies.
4. “Package Plant Meets New Surface Water Treatment Rules,” Application Note, Siemens Water
Technologies.
5. “Understanding the Application of CLAR-I-VATOR® Solids Contact Clarifiers,” Publication 9546-1,
Smith and Loveless, Inc., 2002.
6. ACCELATOR® Clarifier / Softener, Infilco Degremont Inc., 2009
7. AQUADAF® Clarifier, Infilco Degremont Inc., 2009
8. Baker, M. N., The Quest for Pure Water, Vol. 1, 2nd ed., American Water Works Association, 1981.
9. ClariCone® Clarifiers and FiltraCone™, Chicago Bridge & Iron Company N.V, 2009.
10. Coagulation and Filtration: Back to the Basics, AWWA Seminar Proceeding, AWWA Annual Conference,
No. 20155, June, 1981.
11. Coagulation and Filtration: Pilot to Full Scale, AWWA Seminar Proceeding, AWWA Annual Conference,
No. 20017, June, 1987
12. Comprehensive Surface Water Treatment Rules Quick Reference Guide: Systems Using Conventional or
Direct Filtration, USEPA, Office of Water (4606), EPA 816-F-04-003 August 2004
13. Degremont, Water Treatment Handbook, Stephen Austin and Sons, Ltd, 1965
14. Eastman, John; “Colloid Stability,” Colloid science; principles, methods and applications. Terance
Cosgrove Ed., Blackwell Publishing, 2005
15. Edney, Daniel, Introduction to the Theory of the Streaming Current Meter, Application Note, Accurate
Measurements NZ Ltd.
16. Eikebrok , Bjørnar, “Water Treatment By Enhanced Coagulation - Operational status and optimization
issues,” SINTEF
17. Emelko, M, et. al., “A review of Cryptosporidium removal by granular media filtration,” Journal of the
American Waterworks Association, Vol. 97, No. 12, Dec 2005, p 101
18. Engelhardt, Terry, Calculation of CT Values for Compliance with Drinking Water Regulations, Hach
Company, 2008.
19. Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced Precipitative Softening Guidance Manual, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water (4607), EPA 815-R-99-012, May, 1999.
20. Filtration: Meeting New Standards, AWWA Seminar Proceeding, AWWA Annual Conference, No. 20028,
June, 1988.
21. Fuller, G, “Removal of Pathogenic Bacteria from Drinking Water by Sand Infiltration,” The Medical and
Surgical Reporter, H Synett, Ed., Philadelphia, Oct 28, 1893, p 686.
22. Hach Company DOC023.54.03230 UVAS sc Sensor USER MANUAL October 2005, Edition 2.
23. Hart, Vincent, Crowley, Thomas, “Expensive Problem, Inexpensive Solution – Boost Alkalinity with
Carbon Dioxide and Lime.” Opflow, American Waterworks Association, Sept 2009.
24. HDR Engineering, Inc, Handbook of Public Water Systems, 2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, 2001.
25. Hendricks, David, Biological Particle Surrogates for Filtration Performance Evaluation, AWWARF,
Project #181, 2000.
26. Hooker, Albert H., Chloride of Lime in Sanitation, John Wiley and Sons, NY, 1913.
27. Hudson, Herbert E., Water Clarification Processes, Practical Design and Evaluation, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, 1981.
28. Kerri, Kenneth, Water Treatment Plant Operation, Vol. 1, California State University, 1990.
29. Kramer, Linda and Horger, John; “The Good, The Bad & The Successful Uses of a Streaming Current
Monitor to Optimize Coagulation Dosages,” City of Philadelphia Water Department. 2003
30. Lowry, Mark V., et. al., Manual of Water Utility Operations, 8th ed., Texas Water Utilities Association,
1988.
31. Lauer, Wm., et. al., Chemical Feed Field Guide for Treatment Plant Operators, American Waterworks
Association, 2008.

January 2014.
 57

32. Miller, Arthur P., Water and Man’s Health, United States Department of State, Agency for International
Development, Washington, DC, 1962.
33. Periši, M.; NOM and Arsenic Removal from Natural Water by Enhanced Coagulation, European Water
Association, 2006.
34. Pollach, Albert J., et. al., Options for Remote Monitoring and Control of Small Drinking Water Facilities,
Battelle Press, 1999.
35. Powell, Sheppard T., “Sodium Aluminate As An Adjunct To Alum For The Coagulation Of Public Water
Supplies.” American Journal of Public Health (NY). 1927 August; 17(8): 804–809.
36. Ravina, Louis, Everything You Want to Know About Coagulation and Flocculation, Zeta-Meter, Inc., 4th
Ed., 1993.
37. Reaves, Wm J, et.al., Can A Utility Afford To Operate Without On-Line Toc Analyzers Considering The
Requirements Of The D/DBP Rule? On-Line Vs. Grab Samples: What Are The Advantages And
Disadvantages?, City Of Houston Public Works And Engineering , Water Quality Control Group,
Houston, Texas, 2001
38. Sawyer, Clair and McCarty, Perry, Chemistry of Environmental Engineering, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 1978.
39. Schlicht, Arthur C., The Mc Clariflow - The Ultimate Upflow Solids Contact Clarifier, Walker Process
Equipment, November 1999.
40. Schreppel, Connie, “Plant Performance Picture Emerges with Instrumentation.” Opflow, American
Waterworks Association, January 2010
41. Sobsey, Mark D., Managing water in the home: accelerated health gains from improved water supply,
World Health Organization, WHO/SDE/WSH/02.07.
42. Solids CONTACT CLARIFIER™ - A "True" Solids Contact Clarifier, WesTech Engineering, Inc, 2009.
43. Sung, Windsor, “Examining the Use of UV-254,” Opflow, American Waterworks Association, February
2008, pp 26-27.
44. SUPERPULSATOR® Clarifier, Infilco Degremont Inc., 2009
45. Synett, H., “Water Filtration and Cholera,” The Medical and Surgical Reporter, H Synett, Ed.,
Philadelphia, Oct 21, 1893, p 643.
46. Taras, Michael J.., The Quest for Pure Water, Vol. 2, 2nd ed., American Water Works Association, 1981.
47. Tchobanoglous, George and Burton, Franklin, Wastewater Engineering, Treatment, Disposal and Reuse, 3rd
Edition, Metcalf & Eddy, Irwin McGraw-Hill, 1991.
48. Walker, Geoff , Colloids, http://sst-web.tees.ac.uk/external/U0000504/Notes/colloids/collintro.html.
November 1999
49. Water Quality and Treatment, McGraw-Hill, 3rd edition, 1971.
50. Water Quality and Treatment, McGraw-Hill, 5th edition, 1999.
51. Wierenga, John and Yavich, Alex, “Computer Model Predicts Coagulation Dosages,” Opflow, American
Waterworks Association, September 2005 pp18-23.
52. Zeta Potential: A Complete Course in 5 Minutes, Zeta-Meter Inc.

FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, PRICE INFORMATION AND ORDERING

Tel: 800-227-4224 | E-Mail: [email protected]
To locate the HACH office or distributor serving you, visit: www.hach.com

LIT2141
© Hach Company, 2014. All rights reserved.
In the interest of improving and updating its equipment, Hach Company reserves the right to alter specifications to equipment at any time.

January 2014.