Stormwater polishing: Upflow vs. downflow filters

Mukesh R. Pratap, Uday Khambhammettu, Shirley Elizabeth Clark, Robert Pitt

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

Abstract

One potentially cost-effective approach for stormwater treatment is the treatment of runoff from critical source areas before it mixes with cleaner runoff from 'non-problem' areas through the use of technologies such as filtration. In many cases, filtration is seen as the polishing step for water that has already passed through a sedimentation-type treatment device, e.g., the filter acts like a final polisher by treating the remaining dissolved and colloidal pollutants. This research team has compared the operation of the filtration device in both upflow or downflow modes. The question that remains is whether the operational mode of the filter provides substantial differences in performance when the filter is acting as a polisher. Compared to stand-alone filtration units, polishing filters are not challenged by clogging solids. This research performed comparative upflow vs. downflow filtration experiments using a pilot-scale filter setup (filter diameter 0.47 m). The test water was pumped from a stormwater detention pond draining a mostly medium-density residential neighborhood in Hoover, Alabama. Influent turbidities were low (typically < 20 NTU), as were suspended solids (TSS < 15 mg/L). The results showed that for most dissolved/colloidal pollutants the mode of operation was not significant, as long as the flow rate could be controlled to match the required contact time for the desired level of pollutant removal. Therefore, from the designer's point of view, either upflow or downflow filtration could be used for polishing treatment of pre-treated stormwater. The design question of importance is therefore the speed of processing of water (treatment flow rate and associated filter surface area) and whether, over extended times of operation, the downflow filter's treatment flow rate will be reduced to an unacceptable level due to clogging from the remaining particulates in the pretreated water (the upflow filter operation is much less susceptible to clogging).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Title of host publicationRestoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress
StatePublished - Dec 1 2007
Event2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress: Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Tampa, FL, United States
Duration: May 15 2007May 19 2007

Publication series

NameRestoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress

Other

Other2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress: Restoring Our Natural Habitat
CountryUnited States
CityTampa, FL
Period5/15/075/19/07

Fingerprint

Polishing
stormwater
filter
Flow rate
Runoff
Water
Ponds
Turbidity
Water treatment
Sedimentation
runoff
pollutant removal
pollutant
water
turbidity
water treatment
Processing
surface area
pond
sedimentation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Environmental Engineering
  • Water Science and Technology

Cite this

Pratap, M. R., Khambhammettu, U., Clark, S. E., & Pitt, R. (2007). Stormwater polishing: Upflow vs. downflow filters. In Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress (Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress).
Pratap, Mukesh R. ; Khambhammettu, Uday ; Clark, Shirley Elizabeth ; Pitt, Robert. / Stormwater polishing : Upflow vs. downflow filters. Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress. 2007. (Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress).
@inproceedings{7e170fa6bd38416aa016350a618d465d,
title = "Stormwater polishing: Upflow vs. downflow filters",
abstract = "One potentially cost-effective approach for stormwater treatment is the treatment of runoff from critical source areas before it mixes with cleaner runoff from 'non-problem' areas through the use of technologies such as filtration. In many cases, filtration is seen as the polishing step for water that has already passed through a sedimentation-type treatment device, e.g., the filter acts like a final polisher by treating the remaining dissolved and colloidal pollutants. This research team has compared the operation of the filtration device in both upflow or downflow modes. The question that remains is whether the operational mode of the filter provides substantial differences in performance when the filter is acting as a polisher. Compared to stand-alone filtration units, polishing filters are not challenged by clogging solids. This research performed comparative upflow vs. downflow filtration experiments using a pilot-scale filter setup (filter diameter 0.47 m). The test water was pumped from a stormwater detention pond draining a mostly medium-density residential neighborhood in Hoover, Alabama. Influent turbidities were low (typically < 20 NTU), as were suspended solids (TSS < 15 mg/L). The results showed that for most dissolved/colloidal pollutants the mode of operation was not significant, as long as the flow rate could be controlled to match the required contact time for the desired level of pollutant removal. Therefore, from the designer's point of view, either upflow or downflow filtration could be used for polishing treatment of pre-treated stormwater. The design question of importance is therefore the speed of processing of water (treatment flow rate and associated filter surface area) and whether, over extended times of operation, the downflow filter's treatment flow rate will be reduced to an unacceptable level due to clogging from the remaining particulates in the pretreated water (the upflow filter operation is much less susceptible to clogging).",
author = "Pratap, {Mukesh R.} and Uday Khambhammettu and Clark, {Shirley Elizabeth} and Robert Pitt",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
isbn = "9780784409275",
series = "Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress",
booktitle = "Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress",

}

Pratap, MR, Khambhammettu, U, Clark, SE & Pitt, R 2007, Stormwater polishing: Upflow vs. downflow filters. in Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress. Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress: Restoring Our Natural Habitat, Tampa, FL, United States, 5/15/07.

Stormwater polishing : Upflow vs. downflow filters. / Pratap, Mukesh R.; Khambhammettu, Uday; Clark, Shirley Elizabeth; Pitt, Robert.

Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress. 2007. (Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress).

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

TY - GEN

T1 - Stormwater polishing

T2 - Upflow vs. downflow filters

AU - Pratap, Mukesh R.

AU - Khambhammettu, Uday

AU - Clark, Shirley Elizabeth

AU - Pitt, Robert

PY - 2007/12/1

Y1 - 2007/12/1

N2 - One potentially cost-effective approach for stormwater treatment is the treatment of runoff from critical source areas before it mixes with cleaner runoff from 'non-problem' areas through the use of technologies such as filtration. In many cases, filtration is seen as the polishing step for water that has already passed through a sedimentation-type treatment device, e.g., the filter acts like a final polisher by treating the remaining dissolved and colloidal pollutants. This research team has compared the operation of the filtration device in both upflow or downflow modes. The question that remains is whether the operational mode of the filter provides substantial differences in performance when the filter is acting as a polisher. Compared to stand-alone filtration units, polishing filters are not challenged by clogging solids. This research performed comparative upflow vs. downflow filtration experiments using a pilot-scale filter setup (filter diameter 0.47 m). The test water was pumped from a stormwater detention pond draining a mostly medium-density residential neighborhood in Hoover, Alabama. Influent turbidities were low (typically < 20 NTU), as were suspended solids (TSS < 15 mg/L). The results showed that for most dissolved/colloidal pollutants the mode of operation was not significant, as long as the flow rate could be controlled to match the required contact time for the desired level of pollutant removal. Therefore, from the designer's point of view, either upflow or downflow filtration could be used for polishing treatment of pre-treated stormwater. The design question of importance is therefore the speed of processing of water (treatment flow rate and associated filter surface area) and whether, over extended times of operation, the downflow filter's treatment flow rate will be reduced to an unacceptable level due to clogging from the remaining particulates in the pretreated water (the upflow filter operation is much less susceptible to clogging).

AB - One potentially cost-effective approach for stormwater treatment is the treatment of runoff from critical source areas before it mixes with cleaner runoff from 'non-problem' areas through the use of technologies such as filtration. In many cases, filtration is seen as the polishing step for water that has already passed through a sedimentation-type treatment device, e.g., the filter acts like a final polisher by treating the remaining dissolved and colloidal pollutants. This research team has compared the operation of the filtration device in both upflow or downflow modes. The question that remains is whether the operational mode of the filter provides substantial differences in performance when the filter is acting as a polisher. Compared to stand-alone filtration units, polishing filters are not challenged by clogging solids. This research performed comparative upflow vs. downflow filtration experiments using a pilot-scale filter setup (filter diameter 0.47 m). The test water was pumped from a stormwater detention pond draining a mostly medium-density residential neighborhood in Hoover, Alabama. Influent turbidities were low (typically < 20 NTU), as were suspended solids (TSS < 15 mg/L). The results showed that for most dissolved/colloidal pollutants the mode of operation was not significant, as long as the flow rate could be controlled to match the required contact time for the desired level of pollutant removal. Therefore, from the designer's point of view, either upflow or downflow filtration could be used for polishing treatment of pre-treated stormwater. The design question of importance is therefore the speed of processing of water (treatment flow rate and associated filter surface area) and whether, over extended times of operation, the downflow filter's treatment flow rate will be reduced to an unacceptable level due to clogging from the remaining particulates in the pretreated water (the upflow filter operation is much less susceptible to clogging).

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80051633473&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80051633473&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference contribution

AN - SCOPUS:80051633473

SN - 9780784409275

T3 - Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress

BT - Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress

ER -

Pratap MR, Khambhammettu U, Clark SE, Pitt R. Stormwater polishing: Upflow vs. downflow filters. In Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress. 2007. (Restoring Our Natural Habitat - Proceedings of the 2007 World Environmental and Water Resources Congress).