To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”
Save to my list
Remove from my list
In order for natural water sources to be suitable for human consumption and industrial uses, they often require appropriate treatment. In this laboratory practical, we conducted an analysis of raw water samples and performed a conventional water treatment process at various stages to understand the necessity and effectiveness of water treatment in improving water quality. This report outlines the methods used to perform this practical and presents the recorded results and findings.
We mixed the solution using a Jar Test with a mixing speed of 200 rpm for the first 2 minutes and then controlled it at 20 rpm for another 20 minutes.
Verified writer
Proficient in: Engineering
4.9 (984)
“ Ok, let me say I’m extremely satisfy with the result while it was a last minute thing. I really enjoy the effort put in. ”
After coagulation, we allowed the sample to settle, followed by filtering the water through a prewashed 0.45µm cellulose acetate (CA) filter. We then tested all three parameters of the filtrate.
| Stage | Turbidity (NTU) | UV254_10cm | DOC | Color (Pt/Co) | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Original Sample | 1.44 | 0.41 | 8.97 | 37 | The original sample exceeds the recommended water quality limits for turbidity (NTU) of 0.2, indicating elevated turbidity and organic carbon levels, making it unsuitable for consumption. To assess the effectiveness of water treatment, we measured the same parameters after FeCl3 dosing, sedimentation, and filtration, as shown in Table 2. |
| FeCl3.6H2O (mg/L) | Turbidity (NTU) | Color (Pt/Co) | DOC | UV254_10cm |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 3.5 | 9 | 7.420 | 0.34 |
| 10 | 0.31 | 21 | 6.177 | 0.28 |
| 25 | 0.26 | 9 | 4.007 | 0.16 |
| 50 | 0.24 | 0 | 2.777 | 0.15 |
Table 2 demonstrates the effectiveness of the coagulation and flocculation process in improving water quality by removing pollutants. The values of all measured water parameters decrease as the concentration of FeCl3 in the water increases. However, it is worth noting that the color of the water at 10 mg/L FeCl3 is out of the normal range and may be considered an outlier due to potential procedural errors. The optimal FeCl3 dosage in this experiment was found to be 50 mg/L, as it resulted in the lowest values for all measured parameters. However, 25 mg/L can be considered as an alternative, as it still meets the required standards and is a more cost-effective option compared to 50 mg/L.
Nevertheless, further improvements can be made in water treatment, especially in disinfection processes such as chlorine decay and the formation of carcinogenic byproducts. The results of these tests are detailed in Table 3 and Table 4.
| Time (min) | Total Chlorine (mg-Cl2/L) | Raw Water | 5 mg/L | 25 mg/L | 50 mg/L |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 5 | 0.95 | 1.07 | 0.82 | 1.28 | 1.0 |
| 10 | 0.65 | 0.542 | 0.729 | 1.3 | 1.26 |
| 20 | 0.42 | 0.525 | 0.679 | 1.3 | 1.17 |
| 25 | 0.31 | 0.661 | 0.627 | 1.26 | 1.26 |
| 30 | 0.26 | 0.607 | 0.597 | 1.17 | 1.17 |
| THM (µg/L) | Before 50 mg/L FeCl3 added sample | After 50 mg/L FeCl3 added sample |
|---|---|---|
| 60 | Not Measured | 50 |
From the data in Table 3, it is evident that chlorine decay is slower in samples with higher doses of FeCl3. This is due to the presence of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) in water, as samples with lower FeCl3 concentrations had more DOC and therefore decayed more rapidly. However, chlorine decay also leads to the formation of carcinogenic byproducts such as Trihalomethanes (THMs), as shown in Table 4. It should be noted that we could not compare the THM levels with other FeCl3 dosage amounts (5, 10, or 25 mg/L) due to the limitations of this experiment.
After conducting this experiment, it is clear that the optimal FeCl3 dosage for producing drinkable water is 50 mg/L or 25 mg/L, as it results in pollutant levels below the required standards and slower chlorine decay. However, the amount of THMs produced by each FeCl3 dosage could not be compared due to the limitations of this experiment, as only the sample with 50 mg/L was tested.
In this experiment, we replicated the activated sludge process to remove organic carbon from wastewater, and we measured Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) in wastewater samples. Additionally, we investigated the concentration of heavy metals in treated drinking water and wastewater. This report outlines the methods used and presents the outcomes and findings.
| Time (minutes) | DO (mg/L) | Carbon Removal (mg/L) | DOC (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 7.73 | 0 | 1000 |
| 3 | 6.97 | 0.285 | 999.24 |
| 6 | 6.43 | 0.49 | 998.7 |
| 9 | 5.90 | 0.69 | 998.17 |
| 12 | 5.65 | 0.78 | 997.92 |
| 15 | 5.30 | 0.911 | 997.57 |
| 18 | 4.75 | 1.119 | 997.02 |
| 21 | 4.01 | 1.396 | 996.28 |
| 24 | 3.50 | 1.587 | 995.77 |
| 27 | 2.99 | 1.778 | 995.26 |
| 30 | 2.48 | 1.969 | 994.26 |
As illustrated in Table 1, the removal of carbon increases as the Dissolved Oxygen (DO) level in the sample decreases. This phenomenon is due to the experimental setup in an airtight container, which prevents the replenishment of oxygen as it is consumed by bacteria in the sample. Consequently, the DO level decreases over time. Had the experiment continued until all the oxygen was consumed, approximately 2.9 mg/L of organic carbon would have been consumed during the process. To validate this calculation, it would have been necessary to measure the level of Dissolved Organic Carbon (DOC) in the water after treatment to confirm the carbon removal calculation.
In conclusion, this practical experiment provided valuable insights into water treatment, particularly the activated sludge process. The calculation of organic carbon removal was based on the consumption of Dissolved Oxygen (DO), and it could be further verified using total organic carbon (TOC) analyses to determine the DOC level after treatment. The experiment was limited by time constraints, preventing a detailed investigation into heavy metal concentrations in both drinking water and treated wastewater. Due to the short duration of the experiment, we were unable to analyze heavy metal content thoroughly.
Practical Report: Water Treatment and Wastewater Treatment. (2024, Jan 03). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/document/practical-report-water-treatment-and-wastewater-treatment
👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!
Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.
get help with your assignment
