Makerere University: Faculty of Technology

MAKERERE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF TECHNOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
PERFORMANCE OF BIOSAND FILTERS WITH

PRETREATMENT IN IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF RAW
WATER FOR DRINKING PURPOSES
A final year project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the

requirement for the award of the Degree of B.Sc. Civil
Engineering
Main Supervisor: MRS KULABAKO ROBINAH

Signature:
Co Supervisor: ENG. Dr. RUGUMAYO ALBERT

Signature:
Student: MASUBA IVAN

Reg. No: 03/U/314
Signature:
DEDICATION
This work is dedicated to my family and relatives.
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Village Health
Project of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA for the financial support that has
greatly facilitated this research. To Mr Kimera without him, it would have not been
possible to conduct this research.
Limitless thanks go to my faculty supervisors Mrs. Robinah Kulabako and Eng. Dr.
Rugumayo for their tireless contribution to this research project.
My sincere thanks go to Rita, Moses and Budigi for their technical support offered during
the laboratory sessions of this study.
I also wish to extend my gratitude to my fellow colleagues more especially Charles

Kalinaki who was a partner in this research.
Finally, my special appreciations go to my family and relatives for their continued

support and above all to the Almighty God without whom, I would not be.
ii
ABSTRACT
This study was conducted to assess the performance of biosand filters with cloth pre-
filtration in improving the quality of drinking water from different domestic sources in
Kampala (Kawempe division). It involved the construction, installation and the
commissioning of three biosand filter units.
Field visits were undertaken to identify and locate the domestic water supply sources and
collect water samples from these sources; a spring, a shallow well and a concrete
rainwater tank supplied by an iron roof catchment. Laboratory experiments were then
undertaken to determine the quality of raw water from these sources, cloth filtered water
and treated biosand filtered water.
Results showed that the raw water sources were contaminated with the worst
bacteriological contamination in the shallow well (upto 10300 TTCs cfu/100ml). The
cloth filtration prior to the BSF improved the quality of the raw water particularly the
microbiological quality and turbidity by over 30 to 50% and therefore the BSFs with
prior cloth filtration performed better than those without with respect to these parameters.
The filters’ flow rates were between 1.25 – 1.67 L/min through out the test period and
hence due to the limited duration of the research study the filter runs were not
ascertained. From this, it is recommended that the filters should be tested for a longer
period preferably at least one year to cover the impact of seasonal variations and to
determine filter runs. Since the BSFs did not completely remove the faecal bacteria
coliforms, further treatment of the filtered water is recommended for example with
chlorine disinfection to kill off the remaining pathogens.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
............................................................................................................................1
DEDICATION......................................................................................................................i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT...................................................................................................ii
ABSTRACT.......................................................................................................................iii
LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................v
LIST OF TABLES...............................................................................................................v
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION........................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY...........................................1
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM.........................................................................2
1.3 STUDY AREA..........................................................................................................2
1.4 OBJECTIVES............................................................................................................3
1.5 SCOPE.......................................................................................................................3
1.6 REPORT LAYOUT...................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................5
2.1 INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................5
2.2 WATER QUALITY...................................................................................................5
2.2.1 Bacteriological Quality Aspects.........................................................................5
2.2.2 Physical Quality Aspects....................................................................................5
2.2.3 Chemical parameters...........................................................................................7
2.2.4 Water Quality Standards.....................................................................................8
2.3 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER ......................................................................9
2.3.1 Shallow groundwater..........................................................................................9
2.3.2 Rainwater harvesting .......................................................................................10
2.4 WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES ..................................................................10
2.5 BIOSAND FILTER TECHNOLOGY.....................................................................11
2.5.1 Theory of Biosand Filtration.............................................................................12
2.5.2 Pre-Treatment of Raw Water Prior to BSF.......................................................13
2.5.3 Benefits of Biosand Filtration...........................................................................16
2.5.4 Performance and Considerations of Biosand Filtration ...................................16
CHAPTER 3 - MATERIALS AND METHODS..............................................................18
3.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................18
3.2 ACTIVITIES............................................................................................................18
3.2.1 Construction of Biosand Filters........................................................................18
3.2.2 Installation and Commissioning.......................................................................20
3.2.3 Source Identification and Water Sample Collection.........................................21
3.2.4 Experimental set-up..........................................................................................22
3.3 METHODS..............................................................................................................23
3.3.1 Water Quality Analysis.....................................................................................23
3.3.2 Filter Run..........................................................................................................25
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS..................................................................................................25
CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...............................................................26
4.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................26
4.2 WATER QUALITY.................................................................................................26
4.2.1 pH......................................................................................................................26
4.2.2 Temperature......................................................................................................29
iv
4.2.3 Turbidity...........................................................................................................31
4.2.4 Apparent Colour ...............................................................................................35
4.2.5 Dissolved Oxygen, DO.....................................................................................38
4.2.6 Electrical conductivity, EC...............................................................................39
4.2.7 Iron and Manganese..........................................................................................44
4.3 FLOW RATES ........................................................................................................52
CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...................................54
5.1 INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................54
5.2 CONCLUSIONS......................................................................................................54
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................55
REFERENCES..................................................................................................................56
APPENDIX........................................................................................................................58
A.1: Table of Results.....................................................................................................58
A.2: BSF Construction Photos.......................................................................................62
LIST OF FIGURES
LIST OF TABLES
Figure 1. 1: Map of Kampala showing the study areas in Kawempe division (The
positions of the water sources are approximate)..................................................................4
Table 2. 1: Classification of raw waters according to bacterial numbers as given by the
WHO European standards (Source: Twort et al., 1985)......................................................8
Table 2. 2: Drinking Water Standards (Source: DWD, 2005).............................................9
Table 2. 3: Water treatment processes (Source: CRC, 2005)............................................11
Figure 2. 1: Cross section of a typical biosand filter (Source: Manz, 2006).....................12
Table 2. 4: The different forms of pre-treatment methods (Source: Herman et al., 1996)
............................................................................................................................................14
Table 2. 5: Performance of Biosand Filter (Source: Manz, 2006)....................................17
Figure 3. 1: A spring in Makerere Kikoni..........................................................................21
Figure 3. 2: A shallow well in Mukere, Kawempe I..........................................................22
Figure 3. 3: A concrete rainwater tank at Dr. Musaazi Residence in Makerere University
............................................................................................................................................22
Figure 3. 4: Shows the stages of raw water treatment.......................................................22
Figure 4. 1: pH variation of the raw, pretreated water and BSF effluents with time.........29
Figure 4. 2: Temperature variation of raw, pretreated water and BSF effluents with time.
............................................................................................................................................30
v
Figure 4. 3: Turbidity Variation of raw, pretreated water and BSF effluent with time.....34
Figure 4. 4: Turbidity comparison of BSF with or without cloth filtration.......................35
Figure 4. 5: Colour variation with time of raw, pretreated water and BSF effluents........38
Figure 4. 6: DO variation of raw, pretreated water and BSF effluent with time...............41
Figure 4. 7: EC variation of raw water, pretreated water and BSF effluent with time......44
Figure 4. 8: Iron variation of raw, pretreated water and BSF effluent with time..............47
Figure 4. 9: Manganese variation of the raw, pretreated water and BSF effluent with time.
............................................................................................................................................48
Figure 4. 10: TTCs and E. coli variation of raw, pretreated water and BSF effluent with
time....................................................................................................................................51
Figure 4. 11: TTCs comparison in the BSF effluent with or without pre-filtration...........52
vi
CHAPTER 1- INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY

The demand for water is rapidly increasing at a rate three times faster than the world’s
population growth. It was highlighted at the 3 rd World Water Forum that about 1.2 billion
people in the world are lacking safe water supplies. This Forum and many more in the
past have consistently emphasized the need for local communities, governments, and
non-government organizations to build on sustainable development and technologies to
improve water supply and sanitation needs in developing countries (Yung, 2003).
Currently 2.3 billion people suffer from diseases related to unclean water conditions,
resulting in 5 million deaths each year which is ten times the number of people killed in
wars (Kelly et al., 2004). To address this need, low cost and appropriate water treatment
technologies have been developed and implemented world wide. Examples of these
include: the traditional slow sand filters, the rapid sand filters, biosand filters, purifier of
water (PuR), fabric filters, use of coagulants and flocculants, sedimentation, and many
more. However of interest to this study is the use of biosand filter technology to address
the above issues. It is an innovation on traditional slow sand water filters, having been
specifically designed for intermittent use because of its adaptability and sustainability in
developing communities. It can achieve excellent removals of waterborne pathogens, is
cheap to construct, requires little maintenance, and operates under gravity flow
conditions (ie. no pumping required during treatment). The technology has the ability to
improve community health. Overall, it is an attractive technology for local governments
on a limited budget, as well as hospitals, humanitarian NGOs, disaster relief camps and
individual households (Cleary et al., 2004).
Recent studies show that there are 20,000 household size concrete BioSand Filters (BSF)
in over 30 developing countries. The BSF is a simple and robust design and is made from
readily available materials such as concrete, sand, and piping. However, in the case of
almost all projects, the BSF continues to require more research and address issues such as
1
the appropriateness of the design when applied to a developing country, cost, and the
technical problems that the BSF encounters under different environments (Yung, 2003).
In Uganda, increased urbanization and industrialization in the recent years, especially in

the capital city, Kampala has led to an increase in the city’s population and development
of informal settlements. The informal low-cost settlements in peri-urban areas lack or
have inadequate clean water supply (Kulabako, 2005). Therefore this project was
designed to assess the performance of biosand filters with pretreatment in improving the
quality of raw water from different domestic supply sources for drinking purposes in
Kampala, Uganda.
1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

It has been observed that the poor environmental sanitation in peri-urban settlements in
Kampala has consequently led to contamination of the shallow groundwater aquifers, a
source that is heavily relied on by these communities (Howard et al., 2003). In 2004 for
example cholera hit Kawempe and parts of central division of Kampala claiming over 12
lives. According to the Ministry of Health statistics, the cholera epidemic claimed 119
lives in Uganda in 2002. A recent out break of cholera in Kawempe and Makindye
divisions which saw 147 patients admitted and ten dead in Kampala (Mwanje, 2006).
This therefore calls for a need to develop suitable and less costly technologies that will
safely treat contaminated waters to make them suitable for drinking as given by the WHO
and National guidelines for drinking water quality.
This study assessed the performance of BSF technology with regard to drinking water
treatment. Like all other slow sand filters, the BSFs can only treat relatively clear water,
pretreatment was included to cater for high turbid waters as well as improve on the
bacteriological quality of water.
1.3 STUDY AREA

The selected study areas were located in Kawempe division of Kampala (Fig 1.1) and
included: a spring situated in Makerere Kikoni which lies on the western side of
Makerere University campus and is about 3 km northwest of Kampala city centre; a
2
shallow well located in Mukere, Kawempe about 5 km from Kampala centre; and a
concrete rain water tank situated at Dr Musaazi residence in Makerere University. These
areas with the exception of Makerere University are informal low-lying settlements with
a high population density. They have inadequate infrastructure and poor services
including water supply. The water table in these areas is high and prone to anthropogenic
pollution.
1.4 OBJECTIVES
The aim of this project was to assess the performance of a biosand filter with
pretreatment in improving the quality of raw water from different sources for drinking
purposes.
The specific objectives were to:
i) construct three full scale models of the biosand filters
ii) identify the different domestic water supply sources and collect samples from
these sources.
iii) determine the raw water quality from the selected water sources prior to treatment
and also to determine the quality of influent (pretreated water) and effluent from
the BSF.
iv) compare the performance of BSF with or without pretreatment so as to justify or
otherwise the essence of the pretreatment stage.
v) determine the filter run and hence make recommendations on the filter with or
without pretreatment.
1.5 SCOPE
The study was limited to water sources in Kampala, specifically a spring, shallow well
and collected rainwater from an iron roof house. Drinking water treatment was limited to
the BSF with cloth filtration. Water quality tests were limited to pH, temperature, DO,
EC, turbidity, colour, iron, manganese, thermotolerant coliforms and E. coli.
1.6 REPORT LAYOUT

This project research report is organized into five chapters. Chapter one provides
background information to the study. Chapter two covers the literature on water quality
standards, the drinking water sources, water treatment processes and the BSF
3
technologies including pretreatment methods. Chapter three illustrates the methodology
used to achieve the objectives of the study. Chapter four presents results and discussions.
Chapter five gives conclusions and recommendations based on the outcome of the study.
Kawempe
MAKERERE UNIVERSITY
Nakawa
Central
Rubaga
Makindye
Shallow well in Mukere Kawempe I

Spring in Makerere Kikoni
Rain concrete tank in Makerere University
Figure 1. 1: Map of Kampala showing the study areas in Kawempe division (The positions of the water
sources are approximate)
4
CHAPTER 2 - LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 INTRODUCTION
In many developing countries adequate sanitation facilities are scarce to non-existent
especially in the rural areas as well as in informal settlements in the peri-urban areas of
the cities. Sanitation issues increase when rural or urban areas become densely populated
without appropriate water treatment services and sewage is left untreated in the
community’s drinking water supply (Yung, 2003). This chapter covers the literature on
water quality standards, the drinking water sources, water treatment processes and the
BSF technologies including pre-treatment methods.
2.2 WATER QUALITY

This section covers aspects of bacteriological quality, physical quality, chemical quality
and the water quality standards.
2.2.1 Bacteriological Quality Aspects

The main purpose of bacteriological examination is the detection of the recent faecal
contamination and pollution in drinking water sources. Ideally, drinking water should not
contain any microorganisms known to be pathogenic. It should also be free from bacteria-
indicative of excremental pollution. Water samples should be examined regularly for
indicators of faecal pollution (Hutton, 1990). The primary bacterial indicator for this
purpose is the coliform group of organisms, in particular the E. coli and thermotolerant
coliforms found in the faeces of man and other warm blooded animals. The verification
of the microbial quality of drinking-water includes testing for Escherichia coli as an
indicator of faecal pollution. E. coli provides conclusive evidence of recent faecal
pollution and should not be present in drinking-water. In practice, testing for
thermotolerant coliform bacteria can be an acceptable alternative in many circumstances
(WHO, 2006).
2.2.2 Physical Quality Aspects

Turbidity
Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of water- the cloudier the water, the greater the
turbidity. Turbidity in water is caused by suspended matter such as clay, silt, and organic
5
matter and by plankton and other microscopic organisms that interfere with the passage
of light through the water. Turbidity is closely related to total suspended solids (TSS), but
also includes plankton and other organisms. The turbidity measurement of drinking water
is important for the following reasons: aesthetic reasons, filterability because the filtration
of turbid waters can impede the flow significantly in filters and lastly where disinfection
is applied prior to filtration, it would reduce the contact between the agent and the
pathogens thus making it less effective (Twort et al., 1985).
Colour
The colour of drinking water may be due to the presence of organic matter (primarily
humic and fulvic acids) associated with the humus fraction of the soil. Colour is strongly
influenced by the presence of iron and other metals, either as natural impurities or as
corrosion products. Coloured water is not only undesirable because of consumers’
objection to its appearance, but may discolour clothing (WHO, 2006).
pH
pH represents the effective concentration (activity) of hydrogen ions (H+) in water. The
activity of hydrogen ions can be expressed most conveniently in logarithmic units. pH is
defined as the negative logarithm of the activity of H+ ions: pH = -log [H+]
Although pH usually has no direct impact on drinking water consumers, careful attention
to pH is necessary to ensure satisfactory water clarification and disinfection because it’s
important in the control of a number of water treatment and waste treatment processes
and in control of corrosion (Steel et al., 1979).
Temperature
The temperature of water is important because it affects the concentration of dissolved
oxygen and can influence the activity of bacteria and toxic chemicals in water (Hutton,
1990).
Electrical conductivity, EC
A rapid method of estimating the dissolved salts in a water sample is by measurement of
its electrical conductivity. The conductivity is related to the total concentration of ions in
solution, their valency (charge), mobility and to the temperature. Conductivity increases
6
with increasing amount and mobility of ions. These ions, which come from the
breakdown of compounds, conduct electricity because they are negatively or positively
charged when dissolved in water. Therefore, SC is an indirect measure of the presence of
dissolved solids such as chloride, nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, sodium, magnesium,
calcium, and iron, and can be used as an indicator of water pollution (Hutton, 1990).
2.2.3 Chemical parameters

Iron
Iron can exist in water either in dissolved aqueous form, or in solid form as a brown,
suspended Iron (III) compound. Iron is objectionable in domestic water supplies where it
imparts an undesirable taste and colour to the water, and stains laundry and plumbing.
High quantities of iron normally occur in groundwater usually as a result of weathering of
iron minerals by acid water (Twort et al., 1985).
Manganese
Manganese occurs in water less commonly than iron and generally in smaller amounts. If
the manganese concentration exceeds 0.05 mg/l, manganese is oxidized into sediment,
which clogs pipes, discolours fabrics, and stimulates organic growths. The colour of the
deposits and stains ranges from dark brown, if there is a mixture of iron, to black if only
manganese oxide is present (Steel et al., 1979).
Dissolved Oxygen, DO
The concentration of dissolved oxygen in water varies greatly and is dependant on
several physical, chemical, biological and microbiological processes. Water in contact
with air will contain a quantity of oxygen depending on: the atmospheric pressure, the
temperature of water and the salinity or TDS. In groundwater the dissolved oxygen
content ranges from zero to 100% saturation. The lower values at depth may be due to
oxidation of organic material depleting the oxygen as the water percolates downwards or
may be related to oxidation of iron and manganese. In surface waters the dissolved
oxygen content is influenced by the degree of biological and biochemical activity
(Hutton, 1990).
7
2.2.4 Water Quality Standards
The primary purpose of the Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality is the protection of
public health. Water is essential to sustain life and a satisfactory (adequate, safe and
accessible) supply must be available to all. Improving access to safe drinking-water can
result in tangible benefits to health. Every effort should be made to achieve a drinking-
water quality as safe as practicable (WHO, 2006).
a) Raw Water Quality Standards

The classification of raw waters can sometimes be useful in indicating under what
conditions a water source could be used or whether it’s inadvisable to use it at all for
public supply purposes. In any such classification, bacteriological quality of water plays a
dominant part (Twort et al., 1985). Table 2.1 classifies raw water according to their
degree of bacterial contamination.
Table 2. 1: Classification of raw waters according to bacterial numbers as given by the WHO
European standards (Source: Twort et al., 1985)
Classification Total coliforms per Faecal coliforms per
100ml 100ml
Bacterial quality applicable to disinfection treatment 0 – 50 0 – 20
only
Bacterial quality requiring g conventional methods of 50 – 5000 20 – 2000
treatment (coagulation, filtration, disinfection
Heavy pollution requiring extensive types of treatment 5000 – 50000 2000 – 20000
Very heavy pollution, un acceptable unless special Greater than 50000 Greater than 20000
treatment designed for such water are used, source to be
used only when avoidable
b) Drinking Water Standards

The quality of drinking-water may be controlled through a combination
of protection of water sources, control of treatment processes and
management of the distribution and handling of the water. Guidelines
must be appropriate for national, regional and local circumstances,
which require adaptation to environmental, social, economic and
cultural circumstances and priority setting (WHO, 2006). For this
reason National and DWD guidelines for drinking water quality are
summarized in the table 2.2.
8
Table 2. 2: Drinking Water Standards (Source: DWD, 2005)
Parameter Units WHO, 2006 National Remark
Guidelines Guidelines, 1996
Turbidity NTU 5 10 Appearance
o
Temperature C - -
Iron mg/l 0.3 1 Taste, Colour, Staining of
laundry, plumbing and
food
Manganese mg/l 0.4 1 Taste and staining of
laundry
TDS mg/l 1000 1000 Taste and corrosion/
encrustation
Conductivity µS/cm - Taste
Colour PtCo 5 Appearance
pH ----- 6.5 - 8.5 5.5 - 8.5 High: taste, soapy feel
Low: corrosion
DO ----- - -
E. Coli/FC cfu/100ml 0 0 Health
2.3 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER

There are various sources of drinking water however this study will be limited to the
shallow groundwater sources and rainwater harvesting in Kampala.
2.3.1 Shallow groundwater

The major source of groundwater supply within Kampala is springs within the shallow
aquifer. Shallow wells, dug in alluvial clayey sediments are limited in yield due to low
soil percolation and therefore, their occurrence is fairly low. Springs supply about 50% of
Kampala’s population with the majority of these occurring in high-density settlement
areas mainly in the peri-urban. In these areas, they are susceptible to pollution related to
anthropogenic activities even when notionally “protected”. The previous studies
undertaken on the protected springs in Kampala point to widespread faecal contamination
and the findings demonstrate microbiological contamination to be most severe during the
rainy (recharge) season. The sources of contamination of these shallow groundwaters are
noted to result from solid waste dumps, low coverage of excreta disposal facilities (pit
latrines), resulting in indiscriminate disposal of faecal matter into the environment. Most
of the shallow groundwater sources particularly the springs have acceptable physico-
9
chemical quality (electrical conductivity, turbidity and total hardness). However, the pH
is below 5.5 (acidic range) for most of these sources (Kulabako, 2005).
2.3.2 Rainwater harvesting

For domestic rainwater harvesting the most common surface for collection is the roof of
the dwelling. The style, construction and material of the roof affect its suitability as a
collection surface for water. Typical materials for roofing include corrugated iron sheet,
asbestos sheet; tiles (a wide variety is found), slate, and thatch (from a variety of organic
materials). The rapid move towards the use of corrugated iron sheets in many developing
countries favours the promotion of rainwater harvesting. Debris, dirt, dust and droppings
will collect on the roof of a building or other collection area. When the first rains arrive,
this unwanted matter will be washed into the tank. This will cause contamination of the
water and the quality will be reduced. Many rainwater harvesting systems therefore
incorporate a system for diverting this 'first flush' water so that it does not enter the tank.
Rainwater is often used for drinking and cooking and so it is vital that the highest
possible standards are met. Rainwater, unfortunately, often does not meet the World
Health Organisation (WHO) water quality guidelines. This does not mean that the water
is unsafe to drink provided the rainwater is clear, has little taste or smell, and is from a
well-maintained system. Generally the chemical quality of rainwater will fall within the
WHO guidelines and rarely presents problems. There are two main issues when looking
at the quality and health aspects of drinking rainwater harvesting: Firstly, there is the
issue of bacteriological water quality. Rainwater can become contaminated by faeces
entering the tank from the catchment area. It is advised that the catchment surface always
be kept clean. Rainwater tanks should be designed to protect the water from
contamination by leaves, dust, insects, and vermin. Tanks should be sited away from
trees, with good fitting lids and kept in good condition. Incoming water should be filtered
or screened, or allowed to settle to take out foreign matter (Petersen et al., 1999; Lee et
al., 1992).
2.4 WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES

The processes and technologies used to remove contaminants from water and to improve
and protect water quality are similar all around the world. The choice of which treatment
10
to use from the great variety of available processes depends on the characteristics of the
water, the types of water quality problems likely to be present, nature of catchment and
the costs. The most widely applied water treatment technology includes; a combination of
some or all of coagulation, flocculation and sedimentation, and filtration which has been
used routinely for water treatment since the early part of the twentieth century with a
tertiary treatment of disinfection (Cooperative Research Centre, 2005). Table 2.3
summarizes the roles and limitation of water treatment processes.
Table 2. 3: Water treatment processes (Source: CRC, 2005)
Treatment processes Role Limitation
Sedimentation Settlement of particles from It’s a slow process.
standing water. Requires a temporary storage tank
or basin
Coagulation and Flocculation Chemicals (coagulants), such as The chemicals such as alums are
alum, are added to the water. costly
These react with the unwanted
particles to form larger particles,
called flocs, which settle out of
water.
Filtration Removes fine suspended solid Nature and type of filter medium
matter as well as some other
particles, such as larger
microorganisms.
Ion Exchange Remove inorganic contaminants Expensive.
if they cannot be removed
Work in very narrow range of
adequately by filtration or
effective doses.
sedimentation.
Water stabilization by lime or Neutralize the pH to prevent Addition of lime increases Ca2+
carbon dioxide. corrosion of the pipings. ions thus hardness
Disinfection using chlorine or Kill any pathogens that may be Expensive.
ozone or irradiation by ultra- present in the water supply and to
violet rays. prevent them from re-growing in
the distribution systems.
Most of the water treatment processes in Table 2.3 are applied on a large scale like Gaba
I and II treatment plants in Uganda but they are not appropriate for household treatment
because of the high costs and technical expertise involved. For this purpose, this study
seeks to assess the performance of the BSF as an appropriate drinking water treatment
facility.
2.5 BIOSAND FILTER TECHNOLOGY

The BSF (Fig. 2) is a water filtering technology that was modified from the traditional
large-scale community slow sand filter to a small-scale filter for household use. The BSF
was developed in 1988 by Dr. David Manz of the University of Calgary, Canada, in
11
response to various issues that were brought to attention from previous water treatment
projects. The issues the BSF had to face were higher flow rates than the traditional slow
sand filter, effective pathogen removal, improve the taste and appearance of the water,
allow for intermittent flow, and still provide an appropriate technology for the developing
world. The filter can be produced locally anywhere in the world because it is built using
materials that are readily available. It is simply a concrete container, enclosing layers of
sand and gravel whose purpose is to eliminate sediments, pathogens and other impurities
from the water. Water is poured into the top of the filter as needed, where a diffuser plate
placed above the sand bed dissipates the initial force of the water. Traveling slowly
through the sand bed, the water then passes through several layers of gravel and collects
in a pipe at the base of the filter. At this point, the water is propelled through plastic
piping encased in the concrete exterior, and out of the filter, for the user to collect (Yung,
2003).
Figure 2. 1: Cross section of a typical biosand filter (Source: Manz, 2006)
2.5.1 Theory of Biosand Filtration

As with all slow sand filters, the removal of pathogens occurs in the BSF due to a
combination of biological and mechanical processes. When water is poured into the top
of the filter, the organic material it is carrying is trapped at the surface of the fine sand,
forming a biological layer (biofilm) or schmutzdecke. Over a period of two to three
weeks, micro-organisms colonize the schmutzdecke, where organic food and oxygen
12
derived from the water abounds. The biofilm involves a set of biological mechanisms in
which it is not easy to pinpoint a specific mechanism that attributes to the removal, as the
system operates in multiple biological and physical mechanisms. The biological
mechanisms include:
• Predation: where micro-organisms within the Schmutzdecke consume bacteria and
other pathogens found in the water (i.e. bacteria grazing by protozoa)
• Scavenging: detritus are scavenged by organisms such as, aquatic worms that are
found in the lower layers of the sand beds.
• Natural death/inactivation: most organisms will die in a relatively hostile
environment due to increased competition. For example, it was found that E. Coli
numbers decrease as soon as they are introduced into the filter supernatant water.
• Metabolic breakdown: is a step that accounts for partial reduction of the organic
carbon.
The physical mechanisms include:
• Straining: particle capture mechanism where particles are too large to pass
through the media grains.
• Adsorption: even though a physical process, it still accounts for organic matter
removals that were traditionally attributed to purely biological effects (Yung,
2003).
2.5.2 Pre-Treatment of Raw Water Prior to BSF

The sand within the BSF requires periodic cleaning because typically the Schmutzdecke
layer (biofilm) in the BSF continues to accumulate and grow until the pressure and flow
loss due to the top layer becomes excessive. The Schmutzdecke layer in the BSF is
cleaned every one to three months depending on the average level of turbidity. However,
during wet seasons, the turbidity is so high that the sand requires cleaning every two
weeks or even as frequent as daily cleaning. The amount of cleaning depends on
available head, sand particle distribution, the quality of influent, and the temperature of
the water. As the filter becomes more clogged and the flow rate decreases, the initial head
(5cm above the sand) in the outflow pipe decreases causing the overall head loss to
increase. As the media pore sizes decreases, the amount of particle capture increases.
13
Without cleaning the biofilm, build-up of particles will become excessive. An important
note is that the majority of the water turbidity could be eliminated in pre-treatment
processes preceding the BSF, whereby lowering the amount of suspended solids would
reduce the amount of cleaning of the biosand layer (Yung, 2003).
There are many forms of pre-treatment methods that are implemented world wide
however studies must be made on the appropriateness of these methods when
implemented in a developing country. Table 2.4 gives the different forms of pre-
treatment methods with their respective advantages and disadvantages. In this study, the
pre-treatment preferred was a cotton cloth filter. Water collected after cloth filtration has
a greatly reduced pathogen count - though it is not necessarily perfectly safe, it is an
improvement for poor people with limited options. Cotton cloth is preferred because
repeated washing reduces the space between the fibres. The cloth is effective because
most pathogens are attached to particles and plankton, particularly a type of zooplankton
called copepods, within the water. By passing the water through an effective filter, most
cholera bacteria and other pathogens are removed. It was demonstrated by Dr. Rita
Colwell, 2003 to greatly reduce cholera infections in poor villages where disinfectants
and fuel for boiling are difficult to get. A cotton cloth folded four to eight times, creates a
smaller effective mesh size (approximately 20-μm). This should be small enough to
remove a large proportion of the cholera in the water. The cloth filter provides less than
ideal purification on its own - usually filtering is an initial step, to be followed by further
treatment methods e.g. disinfection. However, where there are no other options, water
professionals may consider that it is "of course, better than nothing" (Colwell, 2003).
Table 2. 4: The different forms of pre-treatment methods (Source: Herman et al., 1996)
Forms of Pre-treatment Description/ Function Advantage Disadvantages
Physical forms of pre-treatment methods
Roughing filter In this method, the water Effectively removes It would increase the
passes through one or two large particles and initial cost
roughing filters in series. excess iron and substantially due to
This allows most of the manganese increased filter
solids to be filtered out. materials.
14
Fiber/cloth filter Fiber filters contain spun Its cheap. Easily contaminated
cellulose or rayon or cloth. It’s less larbour and needs cleaning
They remove suspended intensive. after every use.
sediment (or turbidity). Requires less training.
It effectively removes
large particles.
Carbon filtering Charcoal, a form of carbon It’s cheap. Slightly changes the
with a high surface area, Absorbs toxic colour of water and
absorbs many compounds compounds. taste
including some toxic
compounds.
Reverse Osmosis It includes a pre-filter to Effective at removing It’s expensive.
remove sediment, an pathogens and large Unless membranes are
activated carbon filter to and small particles in well-maintained, algae
remove odors and taste, a water. and other life forms
semi-permeable membrane Removes odors and can colonise the
through which water flows taste. membranes.
under pressure
Ultrafiltration membranes They use polymer film with Effective at removing Needs pressure to
chemically formed large particles and drive the water
microscopic pores that can microorganism through the
be used in place of granular (pathogens) membrane.
media to filter water It’s expensive.
effectively without
coagulants.
pH Adjustment
Softeners (lime/Soda ash) If the water is acidic, lime Removes hardness- Expensive.
or soda ash is added to raise calcium and
the pH. magnesium.
Coagulation and flocculation methods
Alum (Aluminium Sulphate) Alum removes dissolved Very effective in Expensive.
salts by forming flocs of removing dissolved High concentrations of
aluminium hydroxide. particles alum are toxic to
humans.
Iron Sulphate or Chloride This acts similarly to Alum Work over a large pH Leave brownish stains
by forming Iron (III) range compared to in water.
coagulant Alum Impart slight changes
It’s a needed trace in taste of water.
mineral in humans Not as effective as
Alum
Cationic and Other Polymers These act in conjunction Produce less settled Expensive.
with inorganic compounds waste. Block sand filter.
to remove arsenics in water. Don’t need water to be Work in very narrow
alkaline. range of effective
doses.
15
Moringa Coagulant In this method, particles are Cheaper than the Limited to only
destabilized through chemical coagulants. Moringa growing
electrostatic means by the It’s independent of raw areas.
addition of a Moringa water pH, and it does
coagulant, thereby leading not affect the pH of the
to the formation of larger treated water.
flocs.
Sedimentation
Sedimentation in tank or This is the quiescent settling It’s a self cleansing It’s a slow process
basin of suspended particles with action. Requires a temporary
specific weight heavier than storage tank or basin
water.
2.5.3 Benefits of Biosand Filtration

Some of the main benefits of the BSF include:
i) Allows for intermittent flow and can be used only during the times when
treatment is required without any decrease in performance.
ii) Pre-treatment methods or other treatment process can be used before or after the
BSF.
iii) BSF has a faster flow rate of 0.6 m/h (30L/hr), whereas the traditional slow sand
filtration rates are 0.1m/hr.
iv) There is no surface scraping, media disposal or replacement, and very little
wastewater. The means of cleaning the Schmutzdecke is through a method called
filter harrowing. The sand within the filter does not need replacement and filter
harrowing does not produce a lot of sludge, therefore waste levels are kept at a
minimum (Yung, 2003).
2.5.4 Performance and Considerations of Biosand Filtration

Taking into account that the BSF is versatile, and that biological treatment of the raw
water is very successful (Table 2.5), there are two major drawbacks of the current BSF
technology. These drawbacks include:
i) The BSF’s inability to handle high turbidity during wet seasons, where the high
amount of rain and runoff greatly increase the turbidity. The high turbidity leads
to increased particle deposition and decreased pore size. As a result, frequent
clogging of mainly the top layer of the sand occurs, reducing the flow rate of the
BSF greatly.
16
ii) The initial cost of the BSF is also relatively high in most developing countries,
depending on the availability of the materials (Yung, 2003).
In view of the above, despite the relatively high initial cost of the BSF, it’s a one-time
cost and the maintenance is free. To address the issues of high turbidity clogging the
BSF, a cloth filter pre-treatment method was considered in this study (section 2.5.2).
Table 2. 5: Performance of Biosand Filter (Source: Manz, 2006)

Water Quality Parameters Purification Effect
Faecal coliform More than 90% reduction
Protozoa and helminthes 100% removal
Organic and inorganic toxicants 50-90% removal
Iron and Manganese < 67% reduction
Arsenic <47% reduction
Zinc, copper, cadmium and lead 95-99% removal
Suspended sediments Removes all
17
CHAPTER 3 - MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter covers the activities and techniques that were undertaken, details of which
are presented in the subsequent sections.
3.2 ACTIVITIES
The activities that were carried out included; the construction of the BSFs, source
identification, collection of the water samples and the experimental set up.
3.2.1 Construction of Biosand Filters

Three BSFs were constructed in view of the different selected water sources. The
construction and installation of the BSFs was done according to the concrete biosand
water filter construction manual provided by Manz (2006). The activities included:
Construction of the concrete filter body

Tools and materials used included: rubber hammer, two spanners, claw hammer, spade,
wheelbarrow, a file, trowel, hack saw and spare blades, PVC primer and cement, a piece
of wood (wedge), tape measure, steel mould, steel rod, hand wrench, sand, gravel and
Portland cement.
Construction photos are shown in the appendix - A.2.
Procedure
• The mould surfaces were oiled with the Mukwano vegetable oil which, were to be
in contact with the concrete and then the mould was set up.
• The PVC pipe was measured, marked and cut into 585mm, 75mm and 60mm
pieces. After the three pipe pieces (standpipe components) ends were smoothened
with a file.
• The connections of the standpipe components were primed with PVC cement and
joined with elbows to form the standpipe.
• The bolts on the front, back and one side of the steel mould were loosened and the
stand pipe was held in place with the pin.
18
• The standpipe was positioned over the ‘nose’ plate on the front panel and the
‘nose’ plate was clamped.
• The second side panel was located, the bolts were hand tightened and further
tightened firmly with a wrench.
• The wood spacer was used to position the standpipe intake and the interior mould
was covered with a small piece of plastic paper from the cement bag.
Field concrete mixing and placing
• The sand was measured and spread on the clean surface.
• An equal volume of gravel to sand was measured and spread on the gravel.
• The cement of the same volume was measured and the dry ingredients were
mixed thoroughly. The ratio of sand to gravel to cement was 1:1:1. A depression
was made in the centre of the pile.
• Water was added into the depression and the mixture mixed thoroughly well.
• The concrete was added to the mould and a steel rod was used to make sure that
the concrete was properly distributed throughout the mould. A rubber hammer
was used to make sure that the concrete was in contact with the mould.
• After about 3 hours the wood spacer block was removed and extra concrete was
added to the top of the mould to allow for settling. After the concrete had started
to harden, the base was levelled and smoothened to remove the excess concrete.
Removing the filter from the mould
• After 24 hours, the filter was removed from the mould, first by removing the pin
and loosening the locating bolts.
• The ‘nose’ plate was removed and the mould was turned on its side. The bolts
from the base were then loosened and removed.
• The puller was located and inserted into the base. After which the puller bolts
were tightened. The nut was then also tightened until the interior mould was
released. The mould was lifted until it entirely was released and carefully
removed.
• The remaining bolts were removed. After which the side and back panels were
then removed.
19
• The concrete mould was then tilted to seat on its base and a thin strip of wood was
placed beneath the bottom edge then the front panel was finally removed.
Repairing and cleaning the mould
• Cement and sand was mixed to repair any damaged areas on the filter especially
the ‘nose’.
• The mould surfaces and panels were cleaned.
• After, all the steel mould surfaces were oiled immediately after cleaning.
Diffusers and Lids

• A well fitting bucket was used as a diffuser. The grid of 1”X1” was drawn on the
bottom of the bucket and a hot iron wire of about 1/8” in diameter was used to
make the holes.
• A small wooden lid was constructed to be placed on the filter top.
Sieve set and Filter media

Sieve set
The materials included three sieve screens of ½ inch (12mm opening), ¼ inch (6mm
opening) and mosquito netting and sieve frame of 24” (60cm) by 18” (45cm)
• The sieve frame was constructed and the screens were added to the frame and
were held by bent nails to the frame.
Filter media
Material – Crushed inert rock
• The crushed inert rock was sieved first through the mosquito netting to obtain the
fines, then the residue was sieved through the ¼ inch to obtain the sand and lastly
the residue was sieved through the ½ inch to obtain the gravels/coarse.
• These were then washed until clean and placed in three clean bags.
3.2.2 Installation and Commissioning

After the construction of the filters’ concrete body, they were placed at the Makerere
appropriate technology centre for installation because it was a safe location (protected
from direct sunlight, wind, and rain) and its proximity to the PH and EE laboratory.
20
Procedure
• Gravel was added to the filter up to a depth of 2” and then well leveled.
• After the support media was added to a depth of 2” and water was added to cover
the support media. Finally the filter media was added.
• The diffuser basin was inserted and water poured through the filter until it was
clean.
Sanitation of Filter
• A sanitation pipe was attached to the outlet of the standpipe and 2 litres of
sanitizing solution (Sodium Hypochlorite) was carefully poured into it. The filter
was then flushed with 20 litres of clean water.
3.2.3 Source Identification and Water Sample Collection

The selected study areas in Kawempe division were visited for source identification. The
three sources identified included a shallow well (Fig 3.2) located in Mukere, a spring (Fig
3.1) in Makerere Kikoni, and a rain water concrete tank (Fig 3.3) located at Dr Musaazi
residence in Makerere University. Water samples were collected once a week in sterilized
plastic bottles and analyzed taking into consideration the seasonal variations. These
samples were analyzed for pH, DO, EC, turbidity, temperature, apparent colour,
thermotolerant coliforms and E. coli in the Public Health and Environment Engineering
Laboratory, and for iron and manganese in the Chemistry Laboratory, Makerere
University.
Figure 3. 1: A spring in Makerere Kikoni
21
Figure 3. 2: A shallow well in Mukere, Kawempe I
Figure 3. 3: A concrete rainwater tank at Dr. Musaazi Residence in Makerere University
3.2.4 Experimental set-up

The experiment set up involved a pre-treatment stage with the cloth filter and the final
treatment stage with the BSF as shown in the Fig 3.4.
Raw water Cloth Filter Pretreated BSF Effluent

Water
Figure 3. 4: Shows the stages of raw water treatment
22
The procedure involved placing the cloth (folded about 8 times) on an empty clean
bucket. Raw water was then filtered through the cloth to remove suspended particles.
After filtering, the cloth was rinsed in clean water and then dried in sunlight. The
pretreated water from the cloth filter was then subjected to the BSF from which the
effluent was collected.
3.3 METHODS
This section covers the analytical techniques used in the testing of the collected water
samples.
3.3.1 Water Quality Analysis

Samples of raw water, filtered water from the cloth filter and the effluent from the BSFs
were analyzed once a week for physical, chemical and bacteriological parameters as
described in the subsequent sections.
3.3.1.1 Physical parameters
Turbidity
The turbidity of water samples was determined by the HACH DR 4000
spectrophotometer in Formazin Turbidity Units (FAU) using the Attenuated Radiation
Method (HACH, 1999).
Colour
The apparent colour tests were determined by the HACH DR 4000 spectrophotometer in
Platinum Copper Units (PtCo) using Attenuated Radiation Method (HACH, 1999).
pH and temperature
Measurement of pH and temperature was by using a HANNA HI 991003 pH/temperature
meter according to the electrode method following the instrument operation manual. This
involved lowering the probe of the pH meter into the water and taking the stable readings
of pH and temperature.
Dissolved Oxygen, DO
DO was determined using a CAMBLAB handylab OX1 meter according to the electrode
method following the instrument operation manual. The probe was lowered in the water
and stable readings taken of DO on the meter in mg/l.
23
Electrical conductivity, EC
EC was determined using a WTW LF 197 conductivity meter according to the electrode
method following the instrument operation manual. The probe was lowered into water
and the EC was recorded in μS/cm.
3.3.1.2 Chemical parameters
Iron
Total iron was determined using the FerroVer method according to HACH DR 4000
spectrophotometer Handbook (1999).
Manganese
The pan method was used to determine manganese in the water samples using the HACH
DR 4000 spectrophotometer (HACH DR 4000 spectrophotometer Handbook, 1999).
3.3.1.3 Bacteriological Analysis
Thermotolerant coliforms analysis

This involved the analysis of thermotolerant coliforms using the Membrane Filtration
Technique according to Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater
(APHA/AWWF/WEF, 1998). The method gives a direct count of thermotolerant
coliforms present in a given sample of water. A measured volume of water is filtered,
under vacuum, through a cellulose acetate membrane of uniform pore diameter 0.45μm.
Bacteria are retained on the surface of membrane which is placed on a suitable selective
medium in sterile container and incubated at 44oC. If thermotolerant coliforms are present
in the water, characteristic yellow colonies form that can be counted directly and
expressed as number of colonies per 100ml of sample (APHA/AWWF/WEF, 1998).
E. coli analysis
E. coli was analyzed using the Petrifilm plate method which involved point source testing
for E. coli in 1ml of water, which was then incubated at 35 oC for 24 – 48 hours. The
details of this method are given in the Petrifilm interpretation Guide (2001).
24
3.3.2 Filter Run
The filter run is the period between two successive filter cleanings. This was determined
by assessing the flow rates of the filter until they were very low necessitating filter
cleaning. The filter flow rate was determined by measuring the time it would take to fill a
known volume of the container and was calculated from the formula:
Volume of container
Flow Rate =
Time taken to fill container
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS

Ms Excel software package was used for the development of graphical plots for the
analysis of water quality variations from different water sources. From these graphical
plots, the trends of water parameters were compared with each other and with the WHO
(2006) and National drinking water standards.
25
CHAPTER 4 – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the results obtained from the laboratory experiments that were
carried out over a period of 14 weeks from January to March 2007 and their subsequent
discussions. The details of these are presented in the next sections.
4.2 WATER QUALITY

This section covers the discussion of results on the water parameters that were analyzed
in Laboratory. Water from the three sources that is shallow well, spring and rain were fed
into filters 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The table of results on the water quality parameters is
presented in Appendix – A.1.
4.2.1 pH
pH results are presented in Fig 4.1, from which it can be seen that the pH values of the
rain raw water were higher than those in the shallow groundwater sources. This suggests
that probably the storage in the concrete tank, the nature of the iron roof considering its
old age (Fig 3.3) and the materials that were on the roof (dust, decomposing organic
matter i.e leaves) must have been the contributing factors to these pH values of stored
rainwater (section 2.3.2). There was very little difference between the pH values of raw
water from the spring and shallow well. Most of their pH values were lying between 4.40
and 6.91, which implied that these two water sources were acidic. This agrees with the
results of previous studies on shallow groundwaters in Kampala, which showed that they
were acidic (Rukia et al., 2005; Kulabako, 2005). It can also be seen in Fig 4.1 that the
pH values of the raw water and the filtered water through the cloth (pretreated) were
nearly the same for all the three filters suggesting that cloth material composition had no
effect on the pH.
Generally all the three BSFs raised the pH irrespective of the water sources implying that
filter medium had residual bases (alkali ions) that were constantly dissolving into the
water and thus raising the pH (Manz, 2006). This may explain why the trend of BSF
performance with respect to pH resembles that of electrical conductivity (Fig 4.7) since
26
both parameters have to do with dissolved solids. Generally the pH values of water
collected from the three BSFs were above the WHO (2006) and National pH set range of
6.5-8.5 (Table 2.1). pH does not have a direct health impact on consumers but high
values above 8.5 as was the case of the BSFs effluents, affect the taste of drinking water
(WHO, 2006).
27
Filter 1 - Shallow well
Raw water Pretreated water BSF Effluent
15
10
pH 5
0
1 2 3 8 10 11 12 13 14
Time (Weeks)
Filter 2 - Spring
Raw water Pretreated water BSF-Effluent

15
10
pH
0
1 2 3 8 10 11 12 13 14
Time (Weeks)
28
Filter 3 - Rain water
15
10
pH
5
0
1 2 3 8 10 11 13
Time (Weeks)
Figure 4. 1: pH variation of the raw, pretreated water and BSF effluents with time.
4.2.2 Temperature
The results of temperature measurement are presented in Fig 4.2. From this figure, it can
be seen that there was no significant temperature difference that was noted between raw
water, the filtered water from the cloth and the BSF effluent from the three water sources.
This is attributed to the fact the analysis was done a few hours after sampling implying
that the samples had adequate time to adjust to the room temperature. From the WHO,
2006 drinking water guideline values there is no impact of temperature on the human
health although it affects the other water quality parameters like the total dissolved solids
(WHO, 2006).
29
Raw water Preteated water BSF Effluent
26
25
Temp
(oC)
24
23
22
1 2 3 Time
8 (Weeks)
10 11 12 13 14
Filter 2 - Spring
Raw water Pretreated water BSF-Effluent
26
25
Temp
(oC)
24
23
22
1 2 3 8 10 11 12 13 14
Time (Weeks)

26
25
Temp
24
(oC)
23
22
21
1 2 3 8 10 11 13
Figure 4. 2: Temperature variation of raw, pretreated
Time (Weeks)water and BSF effluents with time.
30
4.2.3 Turbidity
The results on turbidity of the raw water, pretreated water and treated BSF water with
time for the three water sources are shown in Fig 4.3. From which it can be observed that
the turbidity of the raw water for all the three sources did not exceed 20 FAU with the
rain water registering the highest turbidity followed by the shallow well and the least in
spring water source. This trend resembles that of Fig 4.5 with the rain raw water
registering the highest colour values of the three sources. The turbidity of the rain raw
water was attributed to suspended matter and the suspected iron III oxide (section 2.2.2)
while the turbidity of the spring raw water was lower than that of the shallow well
because of the soil filtration that removes suspended matter (section 2.3.1). It can be
observed that the turbidity of the spring and rain raw water was higher in weeks 10 and
13 than the other weeks. This was attributed to the flesh replenishment to the sources,
which carried with it suspended matter (section 2.3). This also explains the same trend in
Fig 4.5.
From Fig 4.3, it can be seen that the cloth reduced the turbidity of raw water, after which
the BSFs reduced the turbidity of the filtered water through the cloth (pretreated water)
further. The cloth improved the water quality with respect to turbidity by up to 37 % for
the shallow well, 50% for the spring and 40% for the rain water source (section 2.5.2).
On further filtration through the BSFs, the water quality with respect to turbidity was
improved by over 87% for filter 1, 96% for filter 2 and 86% for filter 3. Irrespective of
the source, the overall turbidity of raw water was improved by over 90% (Table 2.5). It
can be noted that the removal efficiency of the filter 2 was highest, followed by filter 1
and then filter 3. Therefore the removal efficiencies of the BSFs with respect to the
turbidity were directly related to the turbidity of the raw water from the sources (that is
the lower the turbidity of the raw water the higher the removal efficiency of the BSF).
Despite the break between week 3 and 8, the BSFs performance were not affected
because the BSF units were fed daily with water from the three sources.
Fig 4.4 shows results of turbidity in the comparison of BSF with or without cloth
filtration. From this figure it can be seen that filters with pre-filtration performed better
31
than those without. This was attributed to the initial cloth removal of suspensions (solid
particles) that were present in the raw water prior to the BSF filtration (section 2.5.2).
It was noted that the turbidity of the BSFs effluents were within the WHO (2006) and the
National guideline for drinking water (≤ 5 FAU), which implied that the water collected
from the BSFs were aesthetically acceptable (Table 2.2).
32
BSF Effluent Raw water Pretreated water

25
20
Turbid
(FAU)
15
ity 10
5
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Time (Weeks)
Filter 2 - Spring

25
20
Turbid
(FAU)
15
ity
10
5
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Time (Weeks)
33
25
20
Turbid
(FAU)
15
ity
10
5
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Time (Weeks)
Figure 4. 3: Turbidity Variation of raw, pretreated water and BSF effluent with time.
34
With Pre-filtration Without Pre-filtration
Turbid
(FAU)
6
ity
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (Weeks)
Filter 2 - Spring

Turbid
(FAU)
6
ity
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (Weeks)
Filter 3 - Rainwater
With cloth filtration Without cloth filtration
Turbid
(FAU)
6
ity
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Figure 4. 4: Turbidity comparison
Timeof(Weeks)
BSF with or without cloth filtration
4.2.4 Apparent Colour
Apparent colour includes colour from dissolved materials plus that from suspended
matter (Steel et al., 1979). Fig 4.5 shows results of apparent colour variation with time.
35
From which it can be observed that rain raw water registered the highest colour of the
three water sources followed by the shallow well and then the spring. It was observed
during sampling that the colour of the rain raw water was brown which was attributed to
probably the presence of precipitated Iron III oxides and suspended matter (section
2.2.2). The colour difference of the raw water from the shallow well and the spring may
be attributed to fact that the shallow well (Fig 3.2), allows freely the unfiltered run off to
end up in it. As earlier mentioned the trend of Fig 4.5 resembles that of Fig 4.3 showing
that there is a close relationship between colour and turbidity since both are indicative of
suspended matter (Twort et al., 1985). This may explain why where there high colour
values, there are high turbidity values for any given source. This is very noticeable in the
case of the rainwater source.
It also can be seen in Fig 4.5 that the cloth slightly removed the apparent colour of the
raw water irrespective of the water source. This may be attributed to the fact that most of
the suspensions in the raw water were smaller than the pore size of the cloth. However on
further treatment through the BSFs it can be noted that the colour removal was by 53%
for filter 1, 45% for filter 2 and 62% for filter 3. This implies that the colour removal
efficiencies of the BSFs were directly related to the colour of the raw water source. The
BSFs’ performance with respect to colour removal was not affected by the break between
week 3 and 8 because the units were fed daily.
Although it was observed during experimentation that the water treated by the BSF was
aesthetically attractive, the apparent colour of all BSFs’ effluents were between 9 and 59
PtCo, implying that there was still a considerable number of suspended matter (Steel et
al., 1985) and dissolved materials (Fig 4.7) in the effluent. According to WHO, 2006 and
the National guidelines for drinking water there is no health-based effect of water colour
but it’s recommended for drinking water to have values ≤ 15 PtCo (Table 2.2).
36
200
150
Colou
(PtCo
100
r
)
50
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Time (Weeks)
Filter 2 - Spring
Pretreated water Raw water BSF Effluent
200
150
(PtCo)
Colou
100
r
50
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Time (Weeks)
37
200
150
100
Colour
(PtCo) 50
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Time (Weeks)
Figure 4. 5: Colour variation with time of raw, pretreated water and BSF effluents.
4.2.5 Dissolved Oxygen, DO

The results of dissolved oxygen are presented in Fig 4.6, from which it can be seen that
the values of the DO of the raw water and filtered water through the cloth were nearly the
same for any one given source. However the DO values varied from one source to
another with the shallow well registering the highest values up to 2.2 mg/l, followed by
the spring and then the rainwater. This may be explained from the fact that since the
shallow well is open to the atmosphere (Fig 3.2) it’s well replenished with atmospheric
oxygen compared to the other two sources (spring and the rain water concrete tank). The
rain raw water had the least DO values of the three water sources which may be attributed
to depletion processes by the oxidation of organic matter and soluble ions (like Fe 2+)
(WHO, 2006). The following subsequent weeks after week 3, there was a general
decrease in the water DO irrespective of the sources. This decrease in DO values may be
attributed to the fact that there was no (recharge) fresh replenishment of the sources
during this dry period.
Generally all the three BSFs reduced DO values of water. The decrease in dissolved
oxygen by the BSF was due to microbial reduction within the BSF (Manz, 2006). No
health-based guideline values were recommended for DO (WHO, 2006) but basing on the
DO levels in the raw water, pretreated water and BSF treated water of all the three
sources (Fig 4.5) show that the waters had enough oxygen because there were low
quantities of iron and manganese (Fig 4.8 and 4.9) and there was no odour problems
usually associated with low DO after oxidation of organic matter (section 2.2.3).
38
4.2.6 Electrical conductivity, EC
Electrical conductivity results are presented in Fig 4.7 with the highest values of EC
recorded in the shallow well raw water followed by the spring and the lowest EC values
were recorded in the rain raw water. This may be explained from the fact that water from
the groundwater sources (shallow well and the spring) interact with soil material thus
increasing the number of dissolved solids in water (section 2.3.1). The rain water lacks
the above interaction except with the roof and the concrete tank (storage). It was also
noticed that the EC values of raw water for the spring dropped after it had rained the
previous day before sampling was done (week 10 and 13). This decrease may be
attributed to the dilution due to the recharge (section 2.3.1). It can also be observed in the
same figure that the cloth filtration prior to the BSF had no impact on the EC of the raw
water implying that physical straining by the cloth has no impact on EC.
It was also observed in Fig 4.7 that there was a general increase in the electrical
conductivity of the BSFs’ effluents for all the three filters irrespective of the raw water
quality. This increase may have been the result of the total dissolved solids from the filter
medium, which suggest that the medium may have probably contained considerable
amounts of dissolved solids (section 2.2.2). The trend of EC of BSFs’ effluents resembles
that of pH (Fig 4.1), which is in agreement with the findings of WHO (2006) since both
are indicative of dissolved solids. And according to WHO and National guidelines values,
EC have no known health consequences but the high values of EC would suggest a
considerable number of dissolved solids were present in the BSFs effluents (Table 2.2).
39
3
2
(mg/l)
DO
1
0
1 2 3 8 10 11 12 13 14
Time (Weeks)
Filter 2 - Spring
3
2
(mg/l)
DO
0
1 2 3 8 10 11 12 13 14
Time (Weeks)

3
2
(mg/l)
DO
0
1 2 3 8 10 11 13
Time (Weeks)
40
Figure 4. 6: DO variation of raw, pretreated water and BSF effluent with time.
41
42
400
300
EC
(µS/c
m)
200
100
0
1 2 3 8 10 11 12 13 14
Time (Weeks)
Filter 2 - Spring
400 Raw water Pretreated water BSF Effluent
300
(µS/c
EC
m)
200
100
0
1 2 3 8 10 11 12 13 14
Time (Weeks)
43
400
300
200
(µS/c
EC
m)
100
0
1 2 3 8 10 11 13
Time (Weeks)
Figure 4. 7: EC variation of raw water, pretreated water and BSF effluent with time.
4.2.7 Iron and Manganese

The results of iron and manganese are presented in the Fig 4.8 and Fig 4.9 respectively.
Sample tests of these two parameters began on week 8 because of lack of financial
logistics. The rain raw water registered the highest values of iron and manganese of the
three sources and the lowest were recorded in the shallow well. The slightly higher values
of iron in the rain raw water compared to the other two sources may be attributed to the
rusty condition of the iron roof which was evidenced by the observed brown color of the
water suggesting the presence iron as earlier discussed in section 4.2.4. Manganese
presence in the rainwater may be attributed to the concrete tank material and dust
particles on the roof (section 2.3.2). The spring contained slightly higher values of iron
and manganese than the shallow well which may be attributed to the weathering of Iron
and manganese rock minerals in earth by water (acidic) to form soluble compounds
(section 2.2.3). It can also be observed in the same figures that the values of iron and
manganese in the spring and shallow well raw waters in weeks 10 and 13 (samples were
collected after it had rained) were lower than the other weeks. This may be explained
from the fact that the recharge from the runoff and the infiltration for the shallow well
and spring respectively increased the water oxygen, which precipitated the iron and
manganese out of solution (section 4.2.5). This too explains why the DO values of the
raw water for the spring and shallow well in week 10 and 13 remained the same as the
other weeks despite the recharge (Fig 4.6), may be because part of the oxygen was being
used up by the iron and manganese to form insoluble oxides (section 2.2.3).
44
It can be seen in Fig 4.8 and 4.9 that there was generally a slight decrease in the amounts
of iron and manganese present in pretreated water (after raw water was filtered through
the cloth). This may be explained from the fact that as water was filtered through the
cloth, aeration (increased DO) of the raw water took place, which precipitated some of
iron and manganese ions out of solution (section 2.2.2).
The BSFs reduced further the remaining amounts of iron and manganese that were still
present in water. The effluent from filter 1 had lowest values iron and manganese of the
three filters while filter 3 effluents had the highest values of iron and manganese. This
implies that the performance of the BSF with respect to the iron and manganese removal
was directly related to the quantities in the raw water sources (that is the higher the
quantities in the raw water, the higher is quantities in the BSF effluent as was the case of
the rain raw water with filter 3). It is worth noting, that the levels of iron and manganese
in raw water, pretreated water and BSF treated water were all within the National and
WHO (2006) guideline values of less than 0.3 mg/l and 0.4 mg/l respectively (Table 2.2).
This implies that these two parameters had little to do with taste and colour of water.
45
0.25
0.2
0.15
(mg/l)
Iron
0.1
0.05
0
8 10 11 12 13 14
Time (Weeks)
Filter 2 - Spring
0.25
0.2
(mg/l)
0.15
Iron
0.1
0.05
0
8 10 11 12 13 14
Time (Weeks)
46
0.25
0.2
0.15
(mg/l)
0.1
Iron
0.05
0
8 10 11 13
Time (Weeks)
Figure 4. 8: Iron variation of raw, pretreated water and BSF effluent with time.
47
0.25
0.2
(mg/l
Mn 0.15
0.1
) 0.05
0
8 10 11 12 13 14
Time (Weeks)
Filter 2 - Spring
0.25
0.2
(mg/l
Mn
0.15
)
0.1
0.05
0
8 10 11 12 13 14
Time (Weeks)

0.25
(mg/l
0.2
Mn
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
8 10 11 13
Figure 4. 9: Manganese variation of the raw, pretreated water and BSF effluent with time.
Time (Weeks)
4.2.8 Bacteriological Quality

The results of thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms (TTCs) and E. coli of the raw water,
cloth filtered water (pretreated water) and BSF treated water are presented in Fig 4.10.
From this figure it can be observed that zero counts of coliforms were recorded in the
first BSFs’ effluents (week 1). This is because the filters had earlier been disinfected
48
using sodium hypochlorite (section 3.2.2). It was also observed in the same figure that the
worst contaminated of the three water sources was the shallow well, with values up to
10300 TTCs (cfu/100 ml) and 2200 E. Coli (cfu/100ml). This may be explained by Fig
3.2, which shows that the area surrounding the well was uncovered and was therefore
vulnerable to pollution as a result of contaminated run off. The rainwater source was the
least contaminated of the three sources however its contamination may be attributed to
the birds’ (marabou-storks) droppings, which would eventually be washed into the
concrete tank after raining (section 2.2.1). The spring raw water registered an
intermediate number of thermotolerant (faecal) coliforms and E. coli of the three sources.
The spring bacteriological contamination was attributed to low coverage of excreta
disposal facilities (pit latrines) and sewage contamination (Kulabako, 2005; Rukia et al.,
2005). Coliform counts were high in weeks 10 and 13 due to the flesh replenishment of
the sources (it had rained the day before samples were collected).
It was observed that the cloth removed up to 30%-50% of the coliform bacteria from the
raw water irrespective of the water source. This removal performance of the cloth was
attributed to the fact that the cloth was folded eight times, which reduced its pore spacing
(Colwell, 2003). Fig 11 shows TTCs and E. coli results in the treated BSF water with or
without cloth pre-filtration. The coliforms numbers were lower in the BSFs’ effluents
with cloth pre-filtration than without.
For all the three filters the removal efficiencies with respect to the coliforms varied from
90% to 100% with filter 3 exhibiting the highest removal up to 100% followed by filter 2
which was also followed by filter 1. From this it can be said that the performance of the
BSFs was dependant on the level of contamination of the raw water sources. It can also
be seen that the trend of E. coli resembles that of TTCs implying that, in the absence of
E. coli test, TTC test can be an acceptable alternative for feacal contamination (WHO,
2006). The raw water and the pretreated water did not meet the National and WHO
drinking water standards (Table 2.2). The water from the BSF was not completely safe or
clean for drinking even in those effluents that had zero coliform counts in 100ml because
other pathogens like viruses were not tested for.
49
cfu
/10
0m
l
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Time (Weeks)
TTCs x 10 in Raw water Pretreated water BSF Effluent
E. coli in Raw water Pretreated water BSF Effluent
Filter 2 - Spring
cfu/
100
ml
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Time (Weeks)
TTCs x 10 in Raw water Pretreated water BSF effluent
E. coli in Raw water Pretreated water BSF effluent
50
cfu/
100
ml
400
300
200
100
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Time (Weeks)
TTCs in Raw water Pretreated water BSF effluent
E. coli in Raw water Pretreated water BSF effluent
Figure 4. 10: TTCs and E. coli variation of raw, pretreated water and BSF effluent with time.
51
600
400
(cfu/10
TTCs
0ml)
200
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Time (Weeks)
Filter 2 - Spring

150
(cfu/1
00ml)
100
TTCs
50
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Time (Weeks)
Filter 3 - Rainwater
With Prefiltration Without Prefiltration
25
15
100ml)
TTCs
(cfu /
5
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
Figure 4. 11: TTCs comparison in the BSF(Weeks)
Time effluent with or without pre-filtration
4.3 FLOW RATES

From the appendix A.1, the flow rate of filters 1, 2 and 3 were between 1.36 – 1.5L/min,
1.5 – 1.67L/min and 1.25 – 1.36L/ min respectively. Of the three filters, filter 3 which
treated the rain water had the lowest flow rate. This may be attributed to the high
52
turbidity (Fig 4.3) of rain raw water as compared to the other raw water sources. Filter 2
which treated spring water with the least turbidity (Fig 4.3), had the highest flow rates of
the three filters. This implied that the BSF flow rate was higher with less turbid waters
and lower with higher turbid waters. This is in agreement with Yung (2003) findings on
the effect on turbidity on the BSF flow rates.
53
CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter highlights the conclusions and recommendations drawn from the study.
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
• The selected raw water sources did not conform to the WHO (2006) and National
drinking water standards with high thermotolerant coliforms and E. Coli counts in
the shallow well (up to 10300 cfu/100ml) and the spring (up to 3600 cfu/100ml).
In the rain raw water, the coliform numbers were ≤ 360 cfu/100ml. Turbidity of
the sources were between 5 and 20 FAU and hence outside the National and
WHO guideline values (<5 FAU). Colour values were generally above 20 PtCo
with the highest colour recorded in the rain source and the least in the shallow
well. Generally the pH values were below 6 for the shallow groundwater sources
(acidic range) and above 7 for the stored rainwater. Iron and Manganese were
within the guideline values.
• The quality of the raw water was improved upon cloth filtration with the notable
improvement seen in the coliform reduction (30-50%) and turbidity (37-50%).
• The BSFs exhibited the following performance, irrespective of the water sources:
After a period of one week, the filters were able to remove between 90% to 100%
of the coliform bacteria (TTC and E. Coli); the turbidity of raw water was
improved by over 86% and the colour removal efficiency was between 45 – 65%;
there was a slight decease in the DO after filtration through the BSF which was
attributed to the microbial action in the schmutzdecke layer; the BSFs generally
increased the EC and the pH, which were attributed to the dissolved solids in the
filtered water from the filter medium; and there was a noticeable reduction (over
60%) in the iron and manganese.
• The BSFs’ performance varied with the quality of the raw water sources. They
performed better with the least contaminated source with respect to the
microbiological quality and turbidity.
54
• The quality of treated water by the BSFs particularly the microbiological quality,
pH and EC did not completely conform to the National and WHO drinking water
guidelines.
• The performance of the BSF with cloth pre-filtration was higher than that without
in terms of turbidity, and coliform (TTC and E. Coli) removal efficiencies
irrespective of the raw water sources. Therefore cloth filtration prior to the BSF is
justified as a pretreatment stage since it improved on the performance of the BSF.
• Generally, for all the three filters during the test period, the flow rates were
between 1.25 – 1.67 L/min, which were fairly high. Due to the limited duration of
the research study, the filter runs were not ascertained.
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS
• The filters should be tested for longer periods of time preferably at least one year
to cover the impact of seasonal variations and to determine the filter runs.
• The nature of the crushed rock as filter medium with respect to dissolved solids
should be investigated. Where local conditions permit, the medium chosen should
be free of clay and silt. This will prevent tedious medium washing, increase in the
pH and the EC of the filtered water.
• Further investigation should be done to develop an alternative, economical and
sustainable material such as plastics for the construction of the filter vessel. The
typical concrete filter is heavy, requires an expensive steel mould and takes a day
to build.
• An investigation should be carried out to evaluate other potential methods of
pretreatment prior to the BSF such as moringa coagulation/ sedimentation etc.
• The treated BSF water should be subjected to further treatment for example
chlorine disinfection to kill off the remaining pathogens.
55
REFERENCES
1. APHA/AWWA/WEF (1998). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Waste Water 20th Edition. American Public Health Association, American
Water Works Association and Water Environment Federation Publication.
Washington D.C, USA.
2. Clearly, S. and Canham, E. (2004). BioSand Filtration Project Proposal. Faculty
of Engineering, University of Waterloo.
3. Cooperative Research Centre (2005). Cooperative Research Centre for Water
Quality Treatment. The research Journal of Australia’s National Water Drinking
Research Centre.
4. David H.Manz (2006). Review of Government Approvals for the Use of the
Biosand Water Filters. Alberta, USA.
5. Directorate of Water Development, DWD (2005). National Guidelines for
Drinking Water Quality 1996 (Summary). The Drinking Water Quality Guideline
Journal.
6. HACH (1999) DR/4000 Spectrophotometer Handbook. Hach Company, USA.
7. Howard, G., Pedley, S., Barrett, M., Nalubega, M., and Johal, K., (2003). Risk
factors contributing to microbiological contamination of shallow groundwater in
Kampala, Uganda. Water Research 37: 3421-3429.
8. Hutton, L. G. (1990). Field Testing of Water in Developing Countries. Water
Research Centre, UK.
9. Lee, Michael D. and Visscher, Jan Teun, (1992). Water Harvesting - A Guide for
Planners and Project Managers. IRC International Water and Sanitation Centre,
USA.
10. Liam Kelly, Christina Sabatino, Joel Westberg (2004). An Investigation into the
Maintenance of a Biosand Filter. Research proposal, Faculty of Engineering,
University of Waterloo.
11. Mwanje, R. (2006). Cholera: 147 admitted ten dead in Kampala. An article
published by the Daily Monitor Publishers, Kampala, Uganda dated 5 th December
2006.
56
12. Peterson, E. N., and Gould, J., (1999). Rainwater Catchment Systems for
Domestic Supply. Practical Action Publishing Ltd.
13. Petrifilm Interpretation Guide (2001). Microbiology Product- E. coli/ Coliform
Count Plate Guide Manual. 3M Company, St. Paul, MN, USA.
14. Colwell Rita (2003). Reduction of cholera in Bangladeshi villages by simple
filtration. Research project.
15. Rukia, H., Ejobi, F., and Kabagambe, E. (2005). The quality of water from
protected springs in Katwe and Kisenyi parishes. African Health Science Journal.
16. Steel, E. W., and McGhee T. J. (1979). Water Supply and Sewerage Fifth Edition.
McGraw-Hill (Publisher) Co – Singapore.
17. Twort, A. C., Law, F. M., and Crowley (1985). Water Supply Third Edition.
Edward Arnold (Publishers) Ltd, London, Britain.
18. World Health Organization (2006) Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality First
Addendum to third Edition Vol.1 Recommendations. Geneva, Switzerland.
19. Yung, K. (2003). BioSand Filtration: Application in the Developing World.
Research project proposal, Civil Engineering, University of Waterloo.
20. Kulabako, R. (2005). Analysis of the Impact of Anthropogenic Pollution on
Shallow Groundwater in Peri-Urban kampala. TRITA-LWR LIC Thesis 2029.
57
APPENDIX
A.1: Table of Results

DATE OF SAMPLING Jan 3rd, 2007 Jan 10th Jan 17th, 2007
DATE OF TEST Jan 3rd, 2007 Jan 10th Jan 17th, 2007
Weather Condition Dry Dry Dry
Filter: 1 Source: Shallow well, Flow Rate: 1.5 Flow Rate: 1.43 Flow Rate: 1.5
Parameters Raw Pretreated Treated Raw Pretreated Treated Raw Pretreated Treated
pH 6.94 6.67 11.27 6.91 7.09 9.77 6.64 6.4 11.58
Temp (Lab) (oC) 23.5 23.5 23.3 23.5 23.5 23.4 24.3 24.3 24.5
EC (Lab) (µS/cm) 77.5 77.7 119 76.4 77.3 108.7 71 70 177
Turbidity(FTU) 8 5 0 10 7 1 5 3 0
Colour (Pt Co) 35 37 30 70 70 29 86 65 40
DO (mg/L) 2 2 1.7 2 2.3 2 2.2 2.2 2
FC (Lab) (FC/100mL) 2000 1500 0 1500 900 200 2400 1300 250
Filter: 2 Source: Spring, Flow Rate: 1.5 Flow Rate: 1.67 Flow Rate: 1.67
pH 6 5.67 10.7 6.11 5.93 8.4 6.5 7.11 11.01
Temp (Lab) (oC) 23.6 23.3 23.4 23.7 23.8 23.6 24.6 24.6 24.6
EC (Lab) (µS/cm) 56.4 53.6 57.4 56.7 58.1 109 54 55.5 207
Turbidity(FTU) 4 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 0
Colour (Pt Co) 28 28 30 45 33 30 47 34 30
DO (mg/L) 1.8 1.9 1.7 1.9 2 1.9 1.6 1.6 1.4
FC (Lab) (FC/100mL) 86 56 0 400 240 41 230 160 10
Filter: 3 Source: Rain water, Flow Rate: 1.25 Flow Rate: 1.25 Flow Rate: 1.36
pH 8.56 8.65 10.09 8.26 7.98 10.68 9.14 8.78 11.15
Temp (Lab) (oC) 23 23.2 23.2 22.9 22.9 23.2 24.5 24.4 24.5
EC (Lab) (µS/cm) 17.59 17.6 70 16.56 16.77 95.8 18.88 19.33 285
Turbidity(FTU) 13 7 3 10 8 2 5 3 1
58
Colour (Pt Co) 120 100 50 111 109 53 105 80 35
DO (mg/L) 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.4 1.7 1.6 1.6
FC (Lab) (FC/100mL) 120 80 0 100 70 0 100 60 0
DATE OF SAMPLING Feb 14th Feb 28th, 2007 March 6th

DATE OF TEST Feb 14th Feb 28th, 2007 March 6th
Weather Condition Wet Wet Dry
pH 6.35 6.37 9.76 7.32 10.99 10.57 5.77 6.52 9.11
Temp (Lab) (oC) 24.8 24.7 24.7 23.7 23.8 23.8 25.5 25.5 25.6
EC (Lab) (µS/cm) 71.4 70.5 89.5 68 70.4 117 67.8 69.4 94.5
Turbidity(FTU) 7 6 0 2 0 0 5 4 0
Colour (Pt Co) 59 58 41 25 20 9 59 48 42
DO (mg/L) 0.93 0.92 0.71 0.76 0.73 0.6 0.5 0.37 0.42
FC (Lab) (FC/100mL) 5200 4000 130 7800 4100 10 3800 2000 120
E Coli (per 100mL) 1000 500 60 1000 600 0 1500 800 0
Iron (mg/L) 0.15 0.144 0.019 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.19 0.165 0.038
Manganese (mg/L) 0.026 0.024 0.021 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.145 0.14 0.06
pH 6.06 6.38 7.6 7.4 7.27 9.57 4.23 4.42 9.38
Temp (Lab) (oC) 24.5 24.5 24.5 23.4 23.5 23.8 25.4 25.4 25.4
EC (Lab) (µS/cm) 56.6 59.3 86.2 9.96 11.45 50.5 60.7 62.6 59.3
Turbidity(FTU) 4 2 0 13 11 2 1 1 0
Colour (Pt Co) 30 24 21 75 68 40 21 20 18
DO (mg/L) 1.02 1 0.92 0.7 0.7 0.71 0.41 0.56 0.47
FC (Lab) (FC/100mL) 460 250 50 3600 2000 200 620 300 40
E Coli (per 100mL) 200 110 10 600 100 0 200 100 0
Iron (mg/L) 0.179 0.159 0.143 0.045 0.023 0.001 0.231 0.221 0.124
Manganese (mg/L) 0.03 0.025 0.022 0.012 0.01 0.001 0.053 0.053 0.042
59
Filter: 3 Source: Rain water, Flow Rate: 1.36 Flow Rate: 1.36 Flow Rate: 1.30
pH 6.62 6.6 11.53 8.88 8.82 7.64 6.78 6.53 10
Temp (Lab) (oC) 24.4 24.4 24.5 23.9 24.3 23.6 25.4 25.6 25.6
EC (Lab) (µS/cm) 16.05 17.7 366 16.95 18.74 130.3 11.42 13.05 97.7
Turbidity(FTU) 7 5 1 9 6 1 6 5 0
Colour (Pt Co) 96 82 33 111 94 11 66 56 36
DO (mg/L) 0.75 0.69 0.67 0.68 0.73 0.67 0.51 0.36 0.44
FC (Lab) (FC/100mL) 70 40 0 360 100 0 280 100 10
E Coli (per 100mL) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Iron (mg/L) 0.17 0.158 0.104 0.211 0.194 0.025 0.207 0.201 0.107
Manganese (mg/L) 0.216 0.189 0.042 0.111 0.079 0.031 0.123 0.122 0.12
DATE OF SAMPLING March 13th, 2007 March 20th March 29th, 2007
DATE OF TEST March 13th March 20th March 29th
WEATHER
CONDITION Dry Wet Dry
pH 5.3 5.64 10.39 5.54 5.84 9.81 6.36 5.87 10.38
Temp (Lab) (oC) 24.5 24.3 24.6 24.8 24.8 24.8 25.8 25.7 25.7
EC (Lab) (µS/cm) 67.6 70.5 179.6 67.6 69.3 122.8 67.6 68.6 86.4
Turbidity(FTU) 1 1 0 4 3 1 6 4 1
Colour (Pt Co) 27 19 7 53 52 38 74 65 50
DO (mg/L) 0.74 0.74 0.55 0.55 0.54 0.38 1.24 1.25 0.94
FC (Lab) (FC/100mL) 3500 2000 30 10300 6300 100 3300 1700 20
E Coli (per 100mL) 400 300 0 2200 1300 20 1100 600 20
Iron (mg/L) 0.13 0.11 0.065 0.02 0.01 0.001 0.176 0.163 0.084
Manganese (mg/L) 0.103 0.102 0.032 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.04 0.038 0.034
pH 6.45 6.7 8.54 6.24 6.02 8.97 5.04 5.02 10.01
60
Temp (Lab) (oC) 25.5 25.4 25.1 25 25 25.1 25.5 25.5 25.7
EC (Lab) (µS/cm) 29.5 31.1 76.2 27.1 28.1 56.2 44.5 47.1 64.2
Turbidity(FTU) 1 0 0 7 5 0 7 1 0
Colour (Pt Co) 52 50 30 53 52 32 21 18 18
DO (mg/L) 0.7 0.68 0.58 0.47 0.47 0.38 1.04 1.14 0.89
FC (Lab) (FC/100mL) 400 330 10 510 300 30 400 220 2
E Coli (per 100mL) 0 0 0 220 140 0 400 200 0
Iron (mg/L) 0.186 0.165 0.081 0.063 0.043 0.001 0.19 0.173 0.084
Manganese (mg/L) 0.041 0.041 0.036 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.022 0.021 0.021
Filter: 3 Source: Rain water, Flow Rate: Flow Rate: 1.25 Flow Rate:
pH 6.14 6.3 9.93
Temp (Lab) (oC) 25.2 25 25
EC (Lab) (µS/cm) 19.65 21.7 113.4
Turbidity(FTU) 20 8 1
Colour (Pt Co) 180 125 34
DO (mg/L) 0.43 0.43 0.39
FC (Lab) (FC/100mL) 310 160 0
E Coli (per 100mL) 100 60 0
Iron (mg/L) 0.221 0.213 0.114
Manganese (mg/L) 0.104 0.102 0.042
 Flow rates were determined in litres per minute.
61
A.2: BSF Construction Photos
i) Oiling of the steel molds using cooking oil
ii) Assembling of the steel mold and the stand pipe
iii) Stand pipe held in place by a wood wedge and nut tightening of the mold.
62
iv) Compacting of concrete using a steel rod and finished cast concrete a waiting wedge
removal.
v) Concrete filter vessels after de-molding
63

Makerere University: Faculty of Technology

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Makerere University: Faculty of Technology

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

MAKERERE UNIVERSITY

PERFORMANCE OF BIOSAND FILTERS WITH

A final year project report submitted in partial fulfilment of the

Main Supervisor: MRS KULABAKO ROBINAH

Co Supervisor: ENG. Dr. RUGUMAYO ALBERT

Student: MASUBA IVAN

I also wish to extend my gratitude to my fellow colleagues more especially Charles

Finally, my special appreciations go to my family and relatives for their continued

1.1 BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION OF STUDY

In Uganda, increased urbanization and industrialization in the recent years, especially in

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

1.3 STUDY AREA

1.6 REPORT LAYOUT

Shallow well in Mukere Kawempe I

Rain concrete tank in Makerere University

2.2 WATER QUALITY

2.2.1 Bacteriological Quality Aspects

2.2.2 Physical Quality Aspects

2.2.3 Chemical parameters

a) Raw Water Quality Standards

b) Drinking Water Standards

2.3 SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER

2.3.1 Shallow groundwater

2.3.2 Rainwater harvesting

2.4 WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES

2.5 BIOSAND FILTER TECHNOLOGY

Figure 2. 1: Cross section of a typical biosand filter (Source: Manz, 2006)

2.5.1 Theory of Biosand Filtration

2.5.2 Pre-Treatment of Raw Water Prior to BSF

2.5.3 Benefits of Biosand Filtration

2.5.4 Performance and Considerations of Biosand Filtration

Table 2. 5: Performance of Biosand Filter (Source: Manz, 2006)

3.2.1 Construction of Biosand Filters

Construction of the concrete filter body

Diffusers and Lids

Sieve set and Filter media

3.2.2 Installation and Commissioning

3.2.3 Source Identification and Water Sample Collection

Figure 3. 1: A spring in Makerere Kikoni

Figure 3. 3: A concrete rainwater tank at Dr. Musaazi Residence in Makerere University

3.2.4 Experimental set-up

Raw water Cloth Filter Pretreated BSF Effluent

3.3.1 Water Quality Analysis

3.3.1.1 Physical parameters

3.3.1.2 Chemical parameters

3.3.1.3 Bacteriological Analysis

Thermotolerant coliforms analysis

3.4 DATA ANALYSIS

4.2 WATER QUALITY

Raw water Pretreated water BSF-Effluent

Filter 3 - Rain water

BSF Effluent Raw water Pretreated water

BSF Effluent Raw water Pretreated water

With Pre-filtration Without Pre-filtration

With Pre-filtration Without Pre-filtration

4.2.4 Apparent Colour

4.2.5 Dissolved Oxygen, DO

Filter 3 - Rain water

4.2.7 Iron and Manganese

Filter 3 - Rain water

4.2.8 Bacteriological Quality

With Pre-filtration Without Pre-filtration