Desalination 249 (2009) 571–576

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / d e s a l

Slow sand filtration of UASB reactor effluent: A promising post treatment technique
Vinay Kumar Tyagi a, Abid Ali Khan a, A.A. Kazmi a, Indu Mehrotra a, A.K. Chopra b,⁎
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee, India
b
Department of Zoology & Environmental Science, Gurukul Kangri University, Haridwar, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The study was carried out to evaluate the feasibility of slow sand filtration as a promising post treatment
Accepted 11 December 2008 method for the up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactor effluent. Laboratory scale filter column of
Available online 6 October 2009 10 cm diameter and 0.54 m sand media depth was used to study the process performance. It was found out
that slow sand filtration with 0.43 mm effective sand size is the most effective at a filtration rate of 0.14 m/h.
Keywords:
It is capable of removing 91.6% of turbidity, 89.1% of suspended solids (SS), 77% of chemical oxygen demand
BOD
Coliforms
(COD) and 85% of bio-chemical oxygen demand (BOD), 99.95% of total and fecal coliforms (TC and FC) and
Post treatment 99.99% of fecal streptococci (FS). Slow sand filters efficiently reduce the mass of suspended material and
Slow sand filtration extend the filter run for more time (7 days) at a hydraulic load of 0.14 m/h as compared to the hydraulic load
Suspended solids of 0.19 m/h and 0.26 m/h. Therefore, due to excellent effluent quality, it can be said that slow sand filtration
UASB would be a promising technology for the post treatment of small-scale UASB reactor effluent in developing
countries, where treated effluent can be reused for various recreational purposes i.e. gardening and
irrigation, as well as for safe discharge.
© 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction post treatment of anaerobic effluent is necessary to reduce these

The great increase in water demand due to the continuous growth
of human population has aroused a strong interest in wastewater
reuse as a way of industrial and municipal water supply. When
appropriately treated and recycled, wastewater can become a feasible
option as a water source. Furthermore, this alternative reduces the
environmental impact [1].
A major dilemma in this context is regarding the choice of an
appropriate treatment technology to achieve optimal reuse of water
and nutrients at a minimal energy expense. Anaerobic treatment
doesn't require oxygen and therefore no energy input is required and
in turn will yield energy in the form of biogas (Methane: CH4).
Anaerobic treatment plants have limited space requirements and
therefore can be planned at locations within or just outside the city
[2]. In addition, due to low sludge production and better stability of
the sludge under anaerobic treatment, the cost involved in further
treatment of sludge can be considerably reduced [3].
However, the residual concentration of organic (BOD and COD)
and microbiological (quantified by fecal coliforms) pollutants in the
anaerobic reactor effluent usually exceeds the maximum permissible
level prescribed by the effluent discharge standards of most
developing countries including India [4–6]. From this standpoint,
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: vinayiitr@rediffmail.com (V.K. Tyagi), abidkdce@iitr.ernet.in
(A.A. Khan), kazmifce@iitr.ernet.in (A.A. Kazmi), indumfce@iitr.ernet.in (I. Mehrotra),
profakchopra@yahoo.co.in (A.K. Chopra).
parameters to the required level.
At present, UASB facilities in India are integrated with pond system
for post treatment. However, due to low detention times, these
integrated ponds are found to be ineffective for the removal of
pathogens, BOD and TSS. Nevertheless, several studies show that
pathogenic microorganisms and BOD5 and TSS can be removed by
various systems such as aerated lagoons, downflow hanging sponge
(DHS), rotating biological contractor, trickling filters, biological aerated
filters [1,2,7,8]. Most of these processes require high energy and a huge
capital cost for operation and maintenance and in addition even the
effluent quality is not in compliance with the standards for the disposal.
Regarding the effluent quality, cost efficacy and operational
simplicity, slow sand filtration can be considered as one of the most
promising post treatment options. Various researchers investigated
the effectiveness of slow sand filters for tertiary treatment of
wastewater at laboratory and pilot scale using different hydraulic
loading and sand size, and suggest that slow sand filters are capable of
removing BOD and SS, turbidity and total coliforms up to 86%, 68%,
88% and over 99%, respectively [9–13]. Slow sand filters have been
used for the treatment of high quality surface waters [14–16], as well
as for the treatment of secondary effluents [9,17–22]. The sand filters
have multiple variables and have been conventionally designed on
hydraulic loadings as well as on organic loading rates. It is an
economical technique which requires less skilled manpower due to its
simplicity [23–27].
Although a lot of work has been carried out on slow sand filters as a
tertiary treatment process of biologically treated municipal sewage,

0011-9164/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2008.12.049
572 V.K. Tyagi et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 571–576
not sufficient studies have been conducted regarding the post
treatment of UASB reactor effluent. Therefore, the objective of this
study was to investigate the performance of slow sand filter as post
treatment option for the UASB reactor effluent and its feasibility in
satisfying water reuse standards. The experiments have been carried
out at the bench scale filter column. The performance has been
determined with respect to the removal of turbidity, SS, BOD, COD,
and coliforms bacteria (total and fecal) efficiency.
2. Material and methods
2.1. Set up of the experimental column
The principal apparatus employed in this investigation consists of
100 mm (10 cm) internal diameter vertical Perspex tube of 120 cm
(1.2 m) in height, packed with mixed filter media to a height of 54 cm
(Fig. 1).
The column was filled with locally available natural sand. The
2500 g of sand was sieved mechanically on a set of sieves and sieve
fractions were weighed. Ninety-three per cent of the sand was in full
range of 0.212–0.425 mm grain size; the main fraction (with 74.4% of
total weight) had a grain size of 0.425 mm.
Before filling it into the column, the sand was thoroughly washed
with distilled water to remove clay and other mineral contaminants
from the sand particles and dried in an oven at 120 °C overnight.
The lower section of the column contains 11 cm depth of coarse
gravel (4.75 mm) above 2 cm underdrain of spherical glass balls. The
coarse gravel was overlaid by 11 cm layer of 2 mm fine gravel which is
followed by 22 cm of 1.18 mm coarse sand along with a 10 cm of
0.15 mm fine sand at the top. The effective size (d10) and uniformity
coefficient (d60/d10) of the combined sand media were 0.43 mm and
2.35, respectively.
The depth of the sand bed was so arranged that its top surface was
at a level with the flanged joint in the filter tube. A perforated PVC disc
was mounted on top for the inflow tube to the column in order to
supply homogeneously wastewater to sand bed in column. An
overflow opening port was attached at the top along the wall of filter
column. A T joint connection was inserted at the bottom of the filter
column to withdraw the filtered water and through which water is
added for cleaning the filter media. The Perspex tube was covered
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram of laboratory scale slow sand filter column.
with black ribbon to prevent the growth of algae on the media. A
constant inflow was maintained by a peristaltic pump. The filter was
fed from the UASB reactor effluent, collected in a 100 L capacity plastic
tank. In order to maintain all the solids in suspension, UASB reactor
effluent i.e. influent for slow sand filter column, was slowly and
continuously stirred at the rate of 70 rpm.
The criterion applied for terminating the filter run was the
attainment of head loss i.e. due to clogging of filter. The desired
flow rate could not be maintained over this head loss. Cleaning of the
filter was done at the time of termination of the operation by
backwashing the filter. Slow sand filters are usually not backwashed
but in this case it was necessary as the influent turbidity and SS
concentration were higher than the recommended values.
The filter column was operated at different hydraulic loadings of
0.14 m/h, 0.19 m/h and 0.26 m/h.
2.2. Sample collection
A UASB based sewage treatment plant of 38 MLD capacity at the
city of Saharanpur was selected for regular monitoring over a period
of 4 months (March 2007–June 2007). Grab samples of wastewater
were obtained at the outlet of UASB reactor.
2.3. Sample analysis
Samples were collected from the outlet of filter column at the
intervals of 6 h. As a result, four samples were obtained within 24 h.
All the samples were assayed for microbiological (total coliforms, fecal
coliforms, fecal streptococci) and physico-chemical parameters (COD,
BOD, TSS and turbidity) as per Standard Methods [28].
3. Results and discussion
The range and average values of the physico-chemical and
microbiological characteristics of the UASB reactor effluent used as
the influent for slow sand filter are reported in Table 1.
3.1. Determination of the optimal flow rate/hydraulic load
Filtration rate control is the key element in operation of filters. For
treatment of surface water, generally a filtration rate of 0.1 to 0.32 m/
h is recommended [29] but up to 0.6 m/h is reported in literature [30].
This study was conducted in two phases. The first phase employed the
optimization of flow rate. The filter was operated at three different
flow rates of 1.0 L/h, 1.5 L/h and 2.0 L/h, i.e. hydraulic loading of
0.14 m/h, 0.19 m/h and 0.26 m/h, respectively. The flow rate of slow
sand filter was optimized with respect to the head loss measurement
(as H2O) as well as residual total suspended solids (TSS) and BOD of
the treated effluent. Fig. 2 displays the head loss profile of 7 days
operational period at three selected flow rates. The shortest duration
(4 days) of filter operation was observed at a hydraulic load of 0.26 m/
h. The head loss development at a hydraulic load of 0.26 L/h and
0.19 m/h were observed faster than that of 0.14 m/h. The head loss at
a hydraulic load of 0.26 m/h and 0.19 m/h reached at 44 cm and 46 cm
Table 1
Characteristics of UASB reactor effluent.
Parameters Values (average)
pH 7.1–7.8 (7.73)
Turbidity (NTU) 35–60 (56.5)
TSS (mg/L) 110–180 (168)
COD (mg/L) 109–256 (120)
BOD (mg/L) 38–55(50)
Total coliforms (MPN/100 mL) 2.3 × 105–2.3 × 107 (4.3 × 106)
Fecal coliforms (MPN/100 mL) 4.3 × 104–9.3 × 106 (4.3 × 106)
Fecal streptococci (MPN/100 mL) 2.3 × 104–2.3 × 106 (2.3 × 106)
 V.K. Tyagi et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 571–576
Fig. 2. Head loss development in slow sand filter column at different flow rates
(hydraulic loadings).
H2O in a filter run of 90 h (app. 4 days) and 114 h (app. 5 days),
respectively. However, the longest duration (7 days) of filter
operation was observed at a hydraulic load of 0.14 m/h. At this
particular hydraulic load, the head loss development was observed
slowest (40 cm H2O in 7 days).
The observations revealed that slow sand filter column extend its
operation up to 40% more at a filtration rate (hydraulic load) of 1.0 L/
h (0.14 m/h) in contrast to the flow rate of 1.5 L/h (0.19 m/h) and
2.0 L/h (0.26 m/h). The filter run was terminated when the filter
column got fully clogged although the filtrate quality was still
acceptable (in terms of SS and BOD) for discharge in surface waters
as well as for unrestricted irrigation.
In all three cases of different flow rates (Figs. 3 and 4), the average
SS and BOD of treated effluent was b30 mg/L at the time of filter
termination and in order to meet the water reclamation and effluent
discharge limits (SS: 100 mg/L and BOD: 30 mg/L) [32].
The BOD and SS removal efficiency of filter was observed to vary in
the range of 34–95% and 37–94% (flow rate: 1 L/h); 29–88% and 26–
90% (flow rate: 1.5 L/h) and 27–82% and 22–85% (2.0 L/h), respec-
tively. After 2 days of filter run, filter gave N80% BOD and SS removal
at a hydraulic load of 0.14 m/h. Almost 80% of the SS and BOD were
removed at a hydraulic load of 0.14 m/h. This percentage removal of
SS and BOD dropped only to 70% and 60% when hydraulic load was
increased to 0.19 m/h and 0.26 m/h, respectively. Therefore, slow
sand filters efficiently reduce the mass of suspended material and
extend the filter run for more time at a hydraulic load of 0.14 m/h as
compared to the hydraulic load of 0.19 m/h and 0.26 m/h. Thus,
lowering the flow rate increased the duration of the filter run without
deteriorating the filter effluent quality.
Fig. 3. BOD removal in slow sand filter column at different flow rates (hydraulic
loadings).
573
Fig. 4. SS removal in slow sand filter column at different flow rates (hydraulic loadings).
3.2. Effect of slow sand filtration
Once the optimum flow rate has been determined, filter column
was operated at a hydraulic load of 0.14 m/h in order to ascertain the
efficiency of slow sand filtration with respect to the removal of
turbidity, SS, BOD, COD, total coliforms, fecal coliforms and fecal
streptococci.
3.2.1. Turbidity removal
Turbidity is one of the most important parameters for monitoring
the performance of a filter. It is believed that turbidity serves as a
carrier for nutrients and pathogens which can result in biological
activity.
The turbidity removal was observed to be significantly high and
stable since the start of the experiment. The turbidity level in the filter
influent ranged from 35 to 60 NTU (Avg. 56.5 NTU), whereas at a
particular operational period, the effluent turbidity levels lie in the
range of 1.6 to 6.2 NTU (Avg. 2.9 NTU) during the entire study. This
may be due to the maturation of biological layer at the top of the sand
media. Following the development of this layer, the purifying bacteria
become well established and play an important part in the treatment
process. The percentage turbidity removal ranged from 77% to 96%
(Avg. 91.60%) during the entire study period. The average percentage
removal of turbidity i.e. 91.6 % in this study at the sand depth of 54 cm
and effective size of 0.43 mm was better than the values reported by
Al-Adham [12]. He reported a percentage turbidity removal of 88% for
the smaller size of sand with an effective size of 0.23 mm and a sand
depth of 84 cm. Our results are concomitant with those reported by
Cleasby et al. [31] (97.5% turbidity removal), for surface water where
the influent turbidity concentration ranged from 0.35 to 18.1 NTU.
The observations suggest that using a combination of coarse and
fine sand in a deep bed, rather than fine sand in a shallow bed leads to
improve the efficiency.
3.2.2. Suspended solids
The concentration of suspended solids in the effluent of UASB
reactor was significantly high i.e. 110–180 mg/L (Avg. 168 mg/L) and
a complementary polishing was observed in sand column with an
average SS removal of 89.05% (range: 82–94%). However, the effluent
SS concentration was varying from 11 to 30 mg/L (Avg. 17 mg/L) after
36 h of filter run to entire study period. The observed SS removal of
89% in our study is significantly higher to those reported by Al-Adham
[12] i.e. only 68% at a hydraulic loading of 0.16 m/h and an effective
sand size of 0.23 mm. Our observations are in good agreement with
Ellis [9], as he observed almost similar (90%) removal of suspended
solids.
The effluent concentration of SS is in compliance with the Indian
standards of effluent discharge in surface water bodies [32].
574 V.K. Tyagi et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 571–576

Fig. 5. SEM images: attached growth of (A) cocci and (B) rod shaped bacterial (C) diatoms (D) protozoa and (E) dense algal mat onto the sand particles.

3.2.3. BOD and COD removal
As expected, the average removal of both BOD and COD during the
first few hours (36 h) was modest i.e. only 43% and 34%, respectively.
The average filtered BOD was 9.7 mg/L (Min.: 3.6 mg/L; Max.:
11.5 mg/L), i.e. almost three times lower than the permissible limit
of 30 mg/L [32]. Whereas, the average BOD removal was 85% (Min.77%
Max.: 93%) during a study period of 7 days. The observed removal
efficiency of BOD is remarkably superior to the 35–45% removal of
BOD suggested in published results [23–25] of slow sand filter
operation, whereas, similar to those (86%) reported by Al-Adham [12].
The overall COD concentration in filter effluent was measured as
23.44 mg/L (Min.:15 mg/L; Max.: 27 mg/L). Slow sand filter was found
efficient in COD removal i.e. ranging from 71 to 83% (Avg. 79%) for the
majority of the operational period. At the end of the filter run, the BOD
and COD removal efficiencies were 78 and 71%, whereas, the residual
effluent concentration of BOD (11.5 mg/L) and COD (27 mg/L) was
observed under the permissible limit of effluent discharge [32].
concentrations of coliforms (TC and FC) and FS throughout the filter
run were 4.3 × 106 and 2.3 × 106 MPN/100 mL, respectively. Whereas,
the lower effluent concentration of TC (Avg. 2.1 × 103 MPN/100 mL),
FC (Avg. 1.3 × 103 MPN/100 mL) and FS (Avg. 3.8 × 102 MPN/100 mL)
was observed after 36 h of operation. The average percentage removal
of coliforms (TC and FC) and FS were observed 99.95% and 99.99%,
respectively. That is significantly higher than 96% reported by Al-
Adham [12] at a sand depth of 1.05 m which further indicates that the
effective sand size of 0.43 mm and a greater height of sand bed
improved the removal rate of total coliforms. Cleasby et al. [31]
reported that the average percentage coliforms removal was over 99%
using an effective sand size of 0.32 mm and sand depth of 94 cm. The
results of the present study are better when compared to the findings
of Ellis [9] who reported the average percent removal of 97% for total
coliforms bacteria using the effective sand size of 0.30 mm and the
findings of Bellamy et al. [35] who reported that the average coliforms
removal of 97% using the effective sand size of 0.29 mm and sand bed

3.2.4. Bacterial removal

Bacterial dynamics in slow sand filters consist of growth, decay Table 3
and protozoa grazing [33]. Filtration was effective in reduction of fecal Results of paired t-test: two sample for means between turbidity, SS, COD, BOD and TC,
FC and FS.
coliforms bacteria and in no case did the effluent of either filter media
exceed the required geometric mean of 25 fecal coliforms/100 mL Variables TC FC FS
[34]. Samples for microbiological analysis were routinely collected at Turbidity Data paired
6 h interval from the outlet of filter column. The average influent r2 0.97 0.91 0.93
t-statistic 2.5 2.7 3.6
Table 2 t-critical 2.1 2.1 2.1
Correlation matrix for physico-chemical and microbiological variables measured from p b 0.05 b 0.05 b0.05
filter effluent. SS r2 0.97 0.97 0.91
t-statistic 4.2 4.2 4.4
Parameters Correlation coefficient, r t-critical 2.1 2.1 2.1
p b 0.05 b 0.05 b0.05
Turbidity SS COD BOD TC FC FS
COD r2 0.94 0.96 0.82
Turbidity t-statistic 6.9 6.9 7.3
SS 0.97106 t-critical 2.1 2.1 2.1
COD 0.94738 0.96977 p b 0.05 b 0.05 b0.05
BOD 0.95123 0.94946 0.98451 BOD r2 0.94 0.92 0.80
TC 0.96539 0.96606 0.94082 0.94132 t-statistic 8.0 5.2 5.9
FC 0.91326 0.97435 0.95739 0.92035 0.94954 t-critical 2.1 2.1 2.1
FS 0.92568 0.90996 0.81513 0.79754 0.90924 0.87322 p b 0.05 b 0.05 b0.05
 V.K. Tyagi et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 571–576
depth of 97 cm. Our findings were also found superior pertaining to
the 90% removal of coliforms reported by Al-Sawaf [11].
After 3 days of continuous filter run, the effluent FC concentration
was observed below the permissible limit of 1000 MPN/100 mL
prescribed by WHO [36] for unrestricted irrigation.
The high coliforms removal efficiency achieved by slow sand filter is
partly explained by the slow filtration rate and fine effective size of the
sand, but is also attributed to biological processes in the layer of slime
material that accumulates above the sand surface (schmutzdecke) and
within the upper layers of the sand bed. Most of the purification occurred
at or about the surface sand layer in the mixture of humus, sand, algae,
protozoa and metazoan referred as the “filter-skin schmutzdecke”. This
biologically active schmutzdecke layer onto the top of sand media was
considered the major reason of such a high coliforms removal in slow sand
filtration. The thickness of the schmutzdecke was approximately 0.5 cm
after 2 days of filter operation and increased to 2.0 cm after 7 days on the
filter bed. The SEM (Scan Electrone Microscopy) of the schmutzdecke layer
was performed and overall some 10–15 micrographs at various
magnifications were taken of sand grains. Although it was not possible
to draw any quantitative conclusions from these photographs the
impression was evident of a very dense biomass of attached solids on
the sand grains viewed. The bacteria of cocci and rod shapes, diatoms,
protozoans (Paramecium sp.) are frequently present and dense growth of
algal mat are apparent the general impression is of an abundance of life
into the schmutzdecke layer (Fig. 5).
Due to the heavy growth of biomass the rate of removal is highest
in the upper part of filters i.e. caused by better oxygen conditions,
higher numbers of active protozoa, high bacterial biomass and smaller
pore sizes due to biological clogging. Adsorption onto the sand
particle surface and predation by protozoa are two major bacterial
immobilization processes. According to Ellis [9] the removal of
coliforms organisms was achieved principally in the surface layer
but this removal also continued, sometimes substantially through the
whole sand bed. The schmutzdecke removes natural organic matter,
transforms synthetic organic compounds and retains pathogens,
producing microbiologically safe water.
3.3. Interrelationships of physico-chemical and microbiological variables
The relationships between physico-chemical (Turbidity, SS, COD
and BOD) and microbiological variables (TC, FC and FS) were
investigated by regression analysis of the data obtained for filter
effluent during the filter run at a hydraulic load of 0.15 m/h. Table 2
depicted that the removal of turbidity, suspended solids and organic
pollutant (COD & BOD) appeared to be related to the reduction in
numbers of all types of indicator organisms (TC, FC & FS) with a
correlation coefficient r varying from 0.91 to 0.97 for turbidity and SS;
0.82–0.96 for COD and 0.80–0.94 for BOD.
Our observations support the hypothesis that all the physico-
chemical and microbial parameters exhibit a similar decreasing trend
in slow sand filter as well as the decrease is driven by a common force.
The removal of physico-chemical parameters in slow sand filters takes
place by straining and attachment by/to medium and previously
removed particles. Almost similar pattern of removal is followed by
bacterial indicators i.e. by straining and attachment to biofilm growth
and capturing by predators (suspension feeders and grazers) [37,38].
In order to test the significance of r values, t-distribution was
employed in all cases. At 5% probability level it was observed that the
values of t-stat are higher than the t-critical values (obtained from t-
distribution table; Table 3) in all cases. It shows that the chances of
error in drawing out conclusions are less than 5%.
3.4. Paired two sample mean t-test
In order to determine whether the observed differences between two
sets of experimental data were significant or not, data were subjected to
575
paired two sample mean t-test. Results obtained from the statistical
analysis of data are summarized in Table 3. The results obtained from
paired t-test between turbidity and TC indicate that the critical values of t
(2.1) obtained from the t-distribution table at 5% probability level is lower
than the observed values of t-stat (2.5–3.6). Almost similar results were
found between turbidity and FC, FS and hence null hypothesis is rejected.
Thus, it can be concluded that the real and significant differences exist
between the obtained experimental data for SS and TC, FC, FS in filter
effluent.
Similarly when paired t-tests were conducted between SS, COD
and BOD in relation to TC, FC and FS, it was observed that the critical t
values obtained from t-distribution table at 5% probability level are
quite lower than the observed t statistical values in all cases. Thus,
null hypothesis is rejected in these cases too. Hence, it is concluded
that the differences that exist among the observed sets of experi-
mental data are quite obviously significant and not obtained by
chance. These interrelationships can be helpful in routine monitoring
as well as up gradation of slow sand filter efficiency in time.
4. Conclusions
Slow sand filtration could be a promising process for the post
treatment of small-scale UASB effluent. The quality of filter effluent in
terms of turbidity, BOD, SS and coliforms could be achieved for reuse
purposes. Filter runs time and head loss is found to be mainly
dependent on hydraulic loading rate. The maximum filter run of
7 days was obtained at 0.15 m/h hydraulic loading. Development of
head loss was extremely small during the initial period of filter
operation, which later increased exponentially and reaches its
maximum value within 7 days. Furthermore, various pollution
indicators have been correlated in terms of turbidity, SS, COD, BOD,
TC, FC and FS. All variables showed strong positive correlations with
removal of each other in the sand filter which proved to be vital for
quick evaluation of microbial removals. The filter run of 7 days is
considered to be short as the average influent turbidity (56.5 NTU)
was high for a slow sand filter operation. Thus, to overcome this
problem, roughing filters can be used to remove excessive turbidity
prior to SSF treatment. As, the gravel rock roughing filters have been
used for decades as a pre-treatment method for source waters subject
to high fluctuations in turbidity.
List of symbols
The following symbols are used in this paper:
BOD = bio-chemical oxygen demand
CPCB = Central Pollution Control Board
FC = Fecal coliforms
FS = Fecal streptococci
MPN = Most probable numbers
SS = Suspended solids
NTU = Nephlometric turbidity unit
PVC = Poly vinyl chloride
UASB = Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket
WHO = World Health Organization
References
[1] M.M. Marchioretto, M.A.P. Reali, Ozonation followed by coagulation/flocculation
as post-treatment of the effluent from an anaerobic baffled reactor treating
domestic sewage, Water Sci. Technol. 43 (8) (2001) 99–106.
[2] A. Tawfik, G. Zeeman, A. Klapwijk, W. El-Gohary, G. Lettinga, Treatment of
domestic sewage in a combined UASB/RBC system. Process optimization for
irrigation purposes, Water Sci. Technol. 48 (1) (2003) 131–138.
[3] M.M. Ghangrekar, U.J. Kahalekar, Performance and cost efficacy of two stage
anaerobic sewage treatment, J. Inst. Eng. 84 (2003) 16–22.
576 V.K. Tyagi et al. / Desalination 249 (2009) 571–576
[4] K. Jaya Prakash, V.K. Tyagi, A.A. Kazmi, Kumar Arvind, Post treatment of UASB
reactor effluent by coagulation and flocculation process, Environ. Prog. 26 (2)
(2007) 164–168.
[5] I. Machdar, Y. Sekiguchi, A. Sumino, A. Ohashi, H. Harada, Combination of a UASB
reactor and a curtain type DHS reactor as a cost-effective sewage treatment
system for developing countries, Water Sci. Technol. 42 (3–4) (2000) 83–88.
[6] N. Sato, T. Okubo, T. Onodera, A. Ohashi, H. Harada, Prospects for a self- sustainable
sewage treatment system: a case study on full-scale UASB system in India's
Yamuna river basin, J. Environ. Manag. 80 (2006) 198–207.
[7] R. Keller, R.F. Passamani-France, F. Passamani, L. Vaz, S.T. Cassini, N. Sherrer, K.
Rubim, T.D. Sant'Ana, R.F. Goncalves, Pathogen removal efficiency form UASB + BF
effluent using conventional and UV post-treatment systems, Water Sci. Technol.
50 (1) (2004) 1–6.
[8] M. Tandukar, S. Uemura, I. Machdar, A. Ohashi, H. Harada, A low-cost municipal
sewage treatment system with a combination of UASB and the fourth-generation
downflow hanging sponge reactors, Water Sci. Technol. 52 (1/2) (2005) 323–329.
[9] K.V. Ellis, Slow sand filtration as technique for the tertiary treatment of municipal
sewages, Water Res. 21 (4) (1987) 403–410.
[10] A. Suhail (1987). “Tertiary wastewater treatment by sedimentation and sand
filtration,” MS Thesis, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia.
[11] M.F. A1-Sawaf (1986) Tertiary wastewater treatment by direct filtration. MS
Thesis, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
[12] S.S. A1-Adham (1989) “Tertiary treatment of municipal sewage via slow sand
filtration,” MS thesis, King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran,
Saudi Arabia.
[13] R.M. Gersberg, R.A. Gearheart, M. Ives, Pathogen removal in constructed wetlands, in:
D.A. Hammer (Ed.), Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment: municipal,
industrial and agricultural, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, MI, 1989, pp. 431–445.
[14] J. Haarhoff, J.L. Cleasby, Comparing aluminum and iron coagulants for in-line
filtration of cold water, J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 80 (1988) 168–175.
[15] S.C. Clark, D.F. Lawer, R.S. Cushing, Contact filtration: size and ripening, J. Amer.
Water Works Assoc. 84 (1992) 61–71.
[16] G.S. Logsdon, D.G. Neden, A.M.D. Ferguson, S.D. LaBonde, Testing direct filtration
for the treatment of high turbidity water, J. Amer. Water Works Assoc. 85 (1993)
35–46.
[17] G. Tchobanoglous, Filtration techniques in tertiary treatment, J. Water Pollut.
Control Fed. 46 (1970) 606–616.
[18] G. Tchobanoglous, R. Eliassen, Filtrartion of treated sewage effluent, J. Sait. Eng. Div
ASCE 96 (1970) 243–265.
[19] E.D. Francisco, M. Strauss, B.A. Dempsey, Phosphorous removal with alum from
secondary effluent, J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 48 (1976) 2002–2006.
[20] M. Kavanaugh, J. Eugster, A. Weber, M. Boller, Contact filtration for phosphorous
removal, J. Water Pollut. Control Fed. 49 (1977) 2157–2170.
[21] T.J. Nieuwstad, E.P. Mulder, A.H. Havelaar, M. Van Olphen, Elimination of
microorganisms from wastewater by tertiary precipitation and simultaneous
precipitation followed by filtration, Water Res. 22 (1988) 1389–1397.
[22] S. Farooq, A.K. Al-Yousef, Slow sand filtration of secondary effluent, J. Environ. Eng.
Div., ASCE 119 (4) (1993) 615–630.
[23] G.A. Truesdale, A.E. Birkbeck, D. Shaw, A critical examination of some methods for
further treatment of effluents from percolating filters, J. Inst. Sewage Purification 63
(1964) 81–101.
[24] HMSO, Polishing of sewage works effluents, Notes on water pollution, 22,
Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, 1963.
[25] S.A. Black, An evaluation of effluent polishing process installations, Ontario Water
Resour. Comm. Div. Res. (1967) Publication No. 20.
[26] K.G. Pullen, Methods of tertiary treatment by slow gravity sand filters, Pollut.
Monit. 1 (1976) 14–16.
[27] M.A. Kershaw, Tertiary treatment of sewage effluents, Process Biochem. 11 (1976)
21–35.
[28] American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and
Water Pollution Control Federation (APHA/AWWA/ WPCF), in: A.D. Eaton, L.S.
Clesceri, A.E. Greenberg (Eds.), Standard methods for the examination of water
and wastewater, 20th Ed., APHA, Washington, D.C, 1998.
[29] H.S. Peavy, D.R. Rowe, G. Tchobanoglous, Environmental engineering, Mc-Graw-
Hill International Editions, Civil Engineering Series, Singapore, 1985.
[30] J.T. Visscher, Slow sand filtration—design operation and maintenance, J. Am.
Water Works Assoc. 82 (6) (1990) 67–71.
[31] J.L. Cleasby, D.J. Hilmoe, C.J. Dimitracpoulos, Slow sand and direct in-line filtration
of a surface water, J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 76 (12) (1984) 44–54.
[32] CPCB, Sewage pollution, Central Pollution Control Board, Ministry of Environment
and Forests, Delhi, 2005.
[33] L.C. Campos, S.R. Smith, N.J.D. Graham, Deterministic-based model of slow sand
filtration. II: model application, J. Environ. Eng., ASCE 132 (8) (2006) 887–894.
[34] R.D. Leon, S.N. Singh, J.B. Rose, R.L. Mullinax, C.E. Musial, S.M. Kutz, N.A. Sinclair,
C.P. Gerba, Microorganism removal from wastewater by rapid mixed media
filtration, Water Res. 20 (5) (1986) 583–587.
[35] W.D. Bellamy, G.P. Silverman, D.W. Hendricks, G.S. Logsdon, Removing Giardia
cysts with slow sand filtration, J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 77 (2) (1985) 52–60.
[36] M.L. Weber-Shrik, R.I. Dick, Physical–chemical mechanisms in slow sand filters,
J. Am. Water Works. Assoc. 89 (1) (1997) 87–99.
[37] M.L. Weber-Shrik, R.I. Dick, Physical–chemical mechanisms in slow sand filters,
J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 89 (1) (1997) 87–99.
[38] M.L. Weber-Shrik, R.I. Dick, Biological mechanisms in slow sand filters, J. Am.
Water Works Assoc. 89 (2) (1997) 72–83.