AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS

INSTITUTED 1852


TRANSACTIONS


Paper No. 1191


WATER PURIFICATION PLANT, WASHINGTON, D. C.
RESULTS OF OPERATION.[1]

By E. D. Hardy, M. Am. Soc. C. E.


With Discussion by Messrs. Allen Hazen, George A. Johnson,
Morris Knowles, George C. Whipple, F. F. Longley, and E. D. Hardy.


The Washington filtration plant has already been fully described.[2] At the time that paper was written (November, 1906), the filtration plant had been in operation for only about 1 year. It has now been in continuous operation for 5 years, and many data on the cost, efficiency, and methods of operation, have accumulated in the various records and books which have been kept. It is thought that a brief review of the results, and a summary of the records in tabular form, will be of interest to the members of the Society, and it is also hoped that the discussion of this paper will bring out the comparative results of operation of other filter plants. As a matter of convenience, the following general description of the plant is given.

Description of the Filtration Plant.—The Washington filtration plant was completed and put in operation in October, 1905. It consists of a pumping station for raising the water from the McMillan Park Reservoir to the filter beds; 29 filters of the slow sand type, having an effective area of 1 acre each; the filtered-water reservoir, having a capacity of about 15,000,000 gal.; and the necessary piping and valves for carrying water, controlling rates of filtration, etc.

[1 Presented at the meeting of February 15th, 1911.]

[2 "Works for the Purification of the Water Supply of Washington, D. C.," by Allen Hazen and E. D. Hardy, Members, Am. Soc. C. E., Transactions, Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. LVII, p. 307.]

In the pumping station, there are three centrifugal pumps, which are directly connected to tandem compound engines; two sand‑washer pumps; three small electric generating sets for furnishing electric light; and four 200‑h.p., water-tube boilers.

Each of the centrifugal pumps has a nominal capacity of 40,000,000 gal. per day when pumping against a head of 21 ft., and each sand‑washer pump has a capacity of 2,500,000 gal. when pumping against a head of 250 ft. The electric light engines and generators supply the current for lighting the pumping station, the office and laboratory and other buildings, and also the courts and interior of the filter beds, and for operating a machine‑shop.

The filters and filtered‑water reservoir are built entirely of concrete masonry. The floors are of inverted groined arches on which rest the piers for supporting the groined arch vaulting. All this concrete work is similar to that in the Albany, Philadelphia, and Pittsburg filters.

The filters contain, on an average, 40 in. of filter sand and 12 in. of filter gravel. The gravel is graded from coarse to fine; the lower and coarser part acts as part of the under‑drain system, and the upper and finest layer supports the filter sand. The raw water from the pumps is carried to the filters through riveted steel rising mains which have 20‑in. cast‑iron branches for supplying the individual filters. The filtered water is collected in the under‑drainage system of the several filter beds, and is carried through 20‑in., cast‑iron pipes to the regulator‑houses. These regulator‑houses contain the necessary valves, registering apparatus, etc., for regulating the rate of filtration, showing the loss of head, shutting down a filter, filling a filter with filtered water from the under‑drains, and for turning the water back into the raw‑water reservoir, or wasting it into the sewer. From the regulator‑houses, the filtered water flows directly to thefiltered‑water reservoir. Generally, five filters are controlled from one house, but there are two cases where the regulator‑houses are smaller, and only two filters are controlled from each.

The dirty sand removed from the filters is carried by a portable ejector through one or more lengths of 3‑in. hose and a fixed line of 4‑in. pipe, to the sand washers. From the sand washers, the washed sand is carried to the reinforced concrete storage bins, each of which has a capacity of 250 cu. yd., and is at such an elevation that carts may be driven under it and loaded through a gate.

Until April, 1909, the sand was replaced in the filters by carts which were filled through the gates in the sand bins. It was then hauled to the top of the filter beds and dumped through the manholes on the chutes, which could be revolved in any direction. These chutes were used to prevent the sand from being unduly compacted in the vicinity of the manholes, and to facilitate spreading it in the filters. Since April, 1909, all the sand has been replaced by the hydraulic method. An ejector is placed under the gate in the sand bin, and the sand is carried in a reverse direction from the bin through the 4‑in. piping and one or more lengths of hose to the filter bed. This process has lowered the cost of re‑sanding considerably, and present indications are that it will prove entirely satisfactory in every way.

The average effective size and uniformity coefficient of the filters are shown in [Table 1].

Table 1—Filter Sand as Originally Placed.
Filter No.Average effective size, in millimeters.Average uniformity coefficient.Depth of sand, in inches.Average turbidity.
10.321.8835.32,600
20.301.7837.72,200
30.321.7740.23,000
40.291.8042.51,800
50.341.7444.92,700
60.311.7837.72,300
70.291.7240.12,300
80.321.7540.22,800
90.321.7842.52,900
100.301.6939.52,500
110.341.9337.12,600
120.291.6634.72,100
130.321.8333.63,500
140.291.6633.62,600
150.331.7539.02,400
160.331.7842.33,000
170.331.8645.53,300
180.341.8048.73,100
190.341.8052.0...
200.341.8739.02,700
210.321.8242.32,400
220.331.7445.52,200
230.331.8148.72,300
240.351.8052.02,600
250.291.6439.52,400
260.311.7137.12,100
270.311.7134.71,900
280.331.9333.62,300
290.341.9333.63,000
Maximum0.361.9352.03,300
Minimum0.291.6433.61,800
Average0.321.7740.42,600

Description of Washington Aqueduct.—The water supply of Washington is taken from the Potomac River, at Great Falls, about 16 miles above the city. At that place, a dam has been built across the river, which holds the water at an elevation of 150.5 ft. above mean tide at Washington. From Great Falls the water flows by gravity for a distance of 16 miles through a 9‑ft. conduit, three reservoirs, and a tunnel. From McMillan Park Reservoir, the last of the three, the water is lifted by centrifugal pumps about 21 ft. to the filters. After passing through the filters, it flows to the filtered‑water reservoir, and later to the city mains. In its passage from Great Falls to the filters, the water flows through three settling reservoirs, which have already been referred to. These reservoirs are known as the Dalecarlia, the Georgetown, and the McMillan Park Reservoirs, and have available capacities of 141,000,000, 140,000,000, and 180,000,000 gal., respectively.

Turbidity.—The Potomac River water is rather turbid, the turbidity being caused by very fine particles of clay. The river is subject to sudden fluctuations, it being no uncommon thing to have a turbidity of 100 one day, and 1,000 the next. The high turbidity usually disappears about as rapidly as it comes, and is seldom higher than 500 for more than 5 days at a time. It is frequently the case, however, that a succession of waves of high turbidity will appear so close together that the effect of one has not disappeared before that of another is felt.

The clarification of the water supply begins at the dam at Great Falls. Here it is a clarification by exclusion, for when an excessive quantity of mud appears in the river water, the gates are closed, and the muddy water is allowed to flow over the dam and form mud‑bars in the Lower Potomac, while the city is supplied from the water stored in the three settling reservoirs. Until a comparatively recent date, the excessively muddy water was never excluded, having been taken, like other decrees of Providence, as it came.

During the summer of 1907, the practice of shutting out water with a turbidity of 500 or more was established for the warm months. This practice was discontinued during the cold months, as it was feared that a very high consumption of water might occur at the time of low water in the reservoirs, and so cause a partial famine. During the winter of 1909‑10, however, the gates were closed, as was the practice throughout the summer months.

When the reservoirs are well filled, and the consumption of water is less than 70,000,000 gal. per day, it is safe to close the gates at Great Falls for a period of about 4 days.

While a considerable reduction in turbidity is effected in each of the reservoirs, the bulk of the mud is deposited at the upper end of Dalecarlia Reservoir. This reservoir had become so completely filled, that, in 1905, it was necessary to dredge a channel through the deposit, in order to allow the water to pass it. During the summers of 1907 and 1908, a 10‑in. hydraulic dredge removed more than 100,000 cu. yd. of mud which had been deposited in this reservoir. The mud deposited in Georgetown and McMillan Park Reservoirs is so fine that the accumulation of many years is not very noticeable in its effect on the depth of water.

The particles of clay which remain in the water after its passage through the three reservoirs, are so exceedingly small that they do not settle out in any reasonable length of time. Even the filtration of the water through one or more slow sand filters occasionally fails to remove the last trace of turbidity. This is especially true in the colder months, and not a winter has passed when the water supply has not been noticeably turbid at some time.

A general idea of the quantity of mud contained in the river water, the quantity excluded by closing the gates at Great Falls, and that removed by sedimentation and filtration, may be gained from [Table 2], which is, of course, only a rough approximation.

[Table 2] also shows that the gates were closed 10.50% of the time, thereby excluding 40.06% of the total suspended matter which otherwise would have entered the system.

The turbidities, bacterial counts, and chemical analyses of numerous samples of water are shown in Tables [3], [4], [5], and [6]. The amount of work done in the pumping station, average consumption of water, death rate from typhoid fever, and filter runs are shown in Tables [7], [8], [9], and [10].

Raking.—At the time the filters were first put in service, the sand bins had not been completed, and, consequently, the work of cleaning the filters was carried on in the old‑fashioned way of scraping by hand and wheeling out the sand in barrows. This method of cleaning was used from October, 1905, to April, 1906; then the regular sand‑handling system was commenced.

At times, during the first two summers the filters were in operation, considerable difficulty was experienced in keeping them cleaned as fast as was necessary to provide an ample supply of filtered water. For a short period in each summer it was found necessary to organize night shifts, and keep the work of cleaning in progress for from 16 to 24 hours per day.

Table 2—Tons of Suspended Matter Entering System, Etc.
Month.Amount that would have entered the system if the gates had been left continuously open.Number of hours gates were closed.Amount shut out.Amount deposited in Dalecarlia Reservoir.Amount deposited in Georgetown Reservoir.Amount deposited in McMillan Park Reservoir.Amount entering filtration plant.Total.
1909.
July31832.03012574116318
August146 47.01078 38 29 146
September97 57.0 7 21 13 38 18 97
October 61 90.5 8 7 9 25 12 61
November 50 60.0 4 13 5 17 11 50
December 370 99.0 126 108 33 59 44 370
1910.
January 2,410136.01,1091,02067117972,410
February 839 117.5 481 126 56 75 101 839
March 208 7.5 13 43 15 13 124 208
April 321 65.0 17 195 43 43 23 321
May 197 84.5 58 54 22 24 39 197
June 1,505124.07865354988471,505
Total6,522920.02,6132,2125156116616,522

In order to relieve the situation at such times, the expedient of raking was tried. This was first attempted with the filters filled with water; the effluent was first shut off in order to prevent a downward flow of water, and the filter was then raked or harrowed from boats. This method was not satisfactory, however, as the work was neither as uniform nor as thorough as necessary. Later, the filters were drained to the necessary depth, and the surface of the sand was thoroughly stirred with iron garden rakes. The filters were then filled with filtered water through the under‑drains and put in service.

This latter method proved so satisfactory that it has been resorted to at all times when the work was at all pressing. When the runs were of short duration, and the depth to which the mud had penetrated the filter sand was slight, a raking seemed to be nearly as effective in restoring the filter capacity as a scraping; it could be done in 8 hours by 3 laborers, and there seemed to be no ill effects from lowered efficiency.

Table 3—Turbidities.
Average by Months.
(United States GeologicalSurvey Standard.)
Month.Great Falls.Reservoirs:
Dalecarlia Outlet.Gerogetown Outlet.McMillan Park Outlet.Filtered water.
Max.Ave.Max.Ave.Max.Ave.Max.Ave.Max.Ave.
1905.
October1003640213218201141
November351934192214141131
December1,50019925084150749539146
1906.
January70094180601206085522012
February1204585415529352253
March1,75027235018112056904686
April1,2701671807295587546127
May6005650204516341032
June1,7003035001254509418041132
July1,000130180541504725043133
August1,5303752501129566654552
September12033180349528752572
October1,025127110376024552111
November1602775204516241311
December60069110318028802682
1907.
January40013515070110757053117
February552626153616401752
March9502481807713070905774
April2004780336030452442
May130294018261514911
June400104160487532401811
July600114130617847453111
August80073130358526301410
September600129[1][1]15051702810
October7532[1][1]6528752640
November30097[1][1]10045452321
December680135[1][1]1806110046104
1908.
January2,100202340732508216065207
February3,0003023005215052753274
March300911507810068654254
April752365413727262032
May2,000172130488537502011
June4004070294024301811
July1,500149...7417044751500
August900129200[1]15056853921
September7524[1][1]5019351800
October9520[1][1]5518281500
November2411[1][1]2011191000
December209171114910700
1909.
January4007295326023251641
February650194120649051553543
March25051[1][1]9044603784
April75098[1][1]13042763121
May48057[1][1]3019301221
June650141[1][1]12051803010
July40048[1][1]215461203521
August18023[1][1]501718900
September26162414[1][1]25600
October141015101198400
November1191181086400
December60063110318028501530
1910.
January3,00035720058150531153052
February3,00014315055120501003674
March210361003595381004395
April3505510025551825810[2]
May3003355195017281310[2]
June1,5002461804211037501610[2]
Fiscal years.
1905-06[2]1,750133500704504718031205
1906-071,530114250461503725029132
1907-083,000117340532504516031202
1908-091,500792005017032852281
1909-102,1008620030215291201891

[1 Reservoirs out of service.]

[2 October to June 30th.]

Table 4—Bacteria.
Averages by Months.
Month.Reservoirs:
Dalecarlia Inlet.Dalecarlia Outlet.Georgetown Outlet.McMillan Park Outlet.Filtered water.
1905.
October.........21080
November.........15027
December...15,500...3,80060
1906.
January...2,800...1,50039
February2,9004,1001,80055016
March1,8001,10090065019
April3,3001,70070040022
May425210956517
June7,9004,60032522017
July13,50060047516026
August8,7001,1001,20019014
September42525014013514
October2,30095065027016
November1,8001,1001,20022012
December6,9003,8003,60070045
1907.
January4,4002,4002,20095070
February1,0009501,00070045
March11,5008,3007,2003,60065
April3,7002,1001,40047521
May75035032513026
June2,3001,00060010018
July2,70057535016017
August3,0002754258017
September6,200[1]1,90023032
October1,400[1]95027527
November8,900[1]6,6001,50027
December16,000[1]9,6004,300190
1908.
January11,0008,7009,4003,700190
February11,5006,0005,0002,80075
March4,6004,0002,9001,30030
April70045025012013
May9,5001,10065032517
June7501201109512
July4,900...4001508
August1,60032530010012
September325[1]2008011
October375[1]3251408
November550[1]30020012
December80075037517023
1909.
January11,0002,7001,60070031
February8,0003,5002,4001,30060
March3,800[1]2,6001,00039
April2,200[1]1,40055012
May900[1]35014016
June3,400[1]1,20017021
July550[1]50025033
August400[1]3255518
September325240[1]7018
October35027525013020
November60050050018013
December21,0009,1005,9004,500250
1910.
January76,00078,00088,00052,000800
February45,00035,50031,00017,500350
March9,9007,6007,4004,80080
April7,9004,1003,50065029
May1,23081083044828
June3,66093080032427
Fiscal years:
1905-063,300[2]4,300[3]750[4]850[2]33[2]
1906-074,9001,9001,70065031
1907-086,3602,7002,9001,30055
1908-093,4002,00095040021
1909-1014,30013,90010,9006,890143

[1 Reservoirs out of service.]

[2 October to June 30th.]

[3 December to June 30th.]

[4 February to June 30th.]

Table 5—Results of Tests for Bacillus Coli.
Percentage Positive.
Month.Great Falls, or Dalecarlia Reservoir Inlet.Dalecarlia Reservoir Outlet.Georgetown Reservoir.McMillan Park Reservoir (applied water).Filtered water reservoir.Tap water from various parts of city.
10 c.c.1 c.c.0.1 c.c.10 c.c.1 c.c.0.1 c.c.10 c.c.1 c.c.0.1 c.c.10 c.c.1 c.c.0.1 c.c.10 c.c.1 c.c.10 c.c.1 c.c.
1906.
January[1]55.638.922.269.223.17.756.040.08.055.622.207.20......
February33.326.76.726.117.48.730.413.04.48.34.2000......
March50.012.5045.518.2020.88.3018.57.43.70000
April72.233.316.795.550.04.659.122.74.632.08.004.0000
May20.08.04.020.012.007.8000000000
June57.738.519.240.032.08.050.034.6023.17.73.8003.10
July65.050.05.060.025.010.015.05.05.09.5004.80......
August84.669.261.588.565.434.680.057.723.163.033.307.43.711.95.1
September50.010.0030.010.010.040.010.0032.012.008.003.10
October60.030.010.055.533.3080.060.020.048.122.23.73.7013.03.7
November37.50025.012.512.537.525.0020.012.008.0000
December55.544.5066.744.522.266.722.2020.88.34.216.78.37.50
1907.
January77.833.322.266.733.3055.555.522.269.334.63.819.211.514.00
February37.525.0012.50037.512.5017.44.40002.90
March87.550.0075.037.5050.025.0030.87.70002.10
April44.511.111.166.722.211.177.811.111.146.119.23.83.803.20
May91.365.217.488.933.3087.550.012.523.100001.40
June80.068.024.087.562.5066.744.511.140.08.000000
July42.330.819.225.012.5022.222.203.800001.41.4
August48.129.63.733.316.716.736.418.2014.83.700000
September62.554.125.0.........41.733.316.716.04.004.001.70
October51.940.87.4.........53.340.06.738.725.89.76.5012.52.8
November80.064.024.0.........72.754.5058.617.33.5004.90
December56.048.016.0.........46.238.57.745.229.0019.33.212.94.3
1908.
January46.230.815.450.012.5033.30022.69.73.23.201.91.9
February12.50025.00012.5000000000
March38.519.27.744.411.1011.1009.7000000
April15.47.700000006.73.300000
May76.052.040.087.550.012.533.322.2045.116.200000
June7.70000011.1000000000
July26.915.411.522.222.2011.1006.46.400000
August46.226.93.944.433.3062.525.012.512.93.20001.60
September20.08.04.042.928.61.422.211.1016.710.00004.30
October18.43.700009.1009.76.43.20000
November13.00028.60011.1006.6000000
December11.57.73.800012.5003.2000000
1909.
January12.08.0030.010.000003.23.203.2000
February52.147.847.828.614.3037.5007.13.63.6003.43.4
March69.434.63.850.025.0044.511.1032.319.43.26.502.81.4
April42.315.43.933.322.211.144.422.211.136.610.000000
May88.426.14.350.012.5033.30012.93.200000
June85.060.025.060.040.010.044.433.311.153.320.00001.40
July34.88.74.4.........33.311.1025.812.900000
August50.015.47.7.........40.010.0022.66.53.20000
September43.521.88.725.025.012.500013.33.300000
October36.413.6018.2000003.2000000
November4.50010.0000000000000
December38.523.17.736.436.418.233.322.211.129.022.609.76.57.31.5
1910.
January72.048.024.044.533.311.175.025.0061.335.59.75.83.215.93.2
February47.843.517.463.221.15.340.030.05.032.27.103.6000
March33.314.8030.811.13.729.622.27.412.93.200000
April41.733.320.840.032.016.038.523.115.423.313.300000
May47.817.4052.020.0036.016.04.016.112.900000
June95.586.431.880.846.219.264.028.08.043.36.70001.40
Fiscal years:
1905-0635.219.49.30.03.25.26.44.91.74.38.3.8.31.81.30
1906-0761.543.69.27.79.22.31.19.80.72.53.0.4.52.15.41.0
1907-0844.631.33.02.32.33.14.42.14.12.29.4.4.80.33.10.9
1908-0938.920.38.40.05.007.48.52.86.77.1.8.801.20.4
1909-1045.526.90.15.34.08.87.99.86.23.60.4.1.30.82.20.4

[1 Presumptive tests.]

Table 6—Summary of Sanitary Chemicals Analyses of Weekly Samples, July 1st, 1909, to June 30th, 1910.
(Results in Parts per Million.)
(A) Maximum.
Reservoirs.Turbidity[1]Ammonia.Nitrogen as:HardnessAlkalinityChlorine
FreeAlbuminoidTotalNitritesNitrates
Dalecarlia inlet2,1000.0340.2640.2800.00700.45120.0106.05.4
Dalecarlia outlet[2]2000.0340.1800.2060.00500.70115.0105.85.7
Georgetown outlet[3]2150.0300.1820.1820.00600.60115.0105.04.9
McMillan Park outlet1200.0280.1260.1540.00600.65118.0104.44.2
Filtered water90.0160.0780.0860.00100.70119.5106.34.5
Table 6—(Continued.)
(B) Minimum.
Reservoirs.Turbidity[1]Ammonia.Nitrogen as:HardnessAlkalinityChlorine
FreeAlbuminoidTotalNitritesNitrates
Dalecarlia inlet70.0000.0160.0160.00000.0052.939.51.0
Dalecarlia outlet[2]70.0000.0400.0400.00000.0054.338.20.9
Georgetown outlet[3]70.0000.0440.0440.00000.0051.440.60.7
McMillan Park outlet20.0000.0100.0100.00100.0051.438.50.2
Filtered water00.0000.0000.0000.00000.0052.940.30.4
Table 6—(Continued.)
(C) Average.
Reservoirs.Turbidity[1]Ammonia.Nitrogen as:HardnessAlkalinityChlorine
FreeAlbuminoidTotalNitritesNitrates
Dalecarlia inlet860.0060.1670.1130.00270.1993.281.42.9
Dalecarlia outlet[2]300.0080.1060.1140.00230.1895.579.53.4
Georgetown outlet[3]290.0050.1010.1060.00270.1893.480.92.9
McMillan Park outlet180.0040.0770.0810.00270.1794.083.02.7
Filtered water10.0020.0270.0290.00000.1994.984.02.8

[1 Summary of daily samples of water.]

[2 Reservoir out of service from July 1st to September 13th, 1909.]

[3 Reservoir out of service from September 10th to October 4th, 1909.]

No chemical determinations were made during February, March, April, and May, 1910, on account of the rearrangement of the laboratory and equipment.

Table 7—Daily Results at Pumping Station.
(A)
Month.Million gallons pumped:Lift to filters.Pressure at sandwasher pumps, per square inche.Coal consumed per day in tons.Station duty, per 100 lb. of coal consumed.
To filters.To sand washers.
Max.Min.Ave.Max.Min.Ave.Max.Min.Ave.Max.Min.Ave.
1909.
July76.1657.6564.051.1400.2980.73024.18110.013.48.410.867.852.361.4
August69.3154.4461.420.6290.1570.44122.18110.012.48.010.164.249.556.6
September66.0252.8269.320.8310.2070.57222.26110.012.78.710.561.048.955.1
October78.5048.1259.180.7610.0600.46721.84110.013.48.010.359.649.153.6
November64.9249.8355.250.4680.1410.27220.49110.011.37.99.255.645.751.1
December67.8348.3256.770.3070.0390.17420.54110.010.38.59.561.045.450.4
1910.
January70.0451.0262.490.4990.0080.15622.43110.012.79.110.459.649.854.9
February70.7955.1960.280.2840.0410.17321.44112.312.38.710.257.444.851.5
March59.1151.6456.040.4090.0630.17119.76120.010.57.89.253.245.249.8
April66.5353.7958.320.7150.1670.47420.78120.011.18.19.758.747.253.7
May61.9354.5557.760.5250.0590.25120.30120.010.17.48.860.748.154.9
June70.4950.4258.370.2810.1240.20721.19117.312.37.49.160.149.954.4
Fiscal years:
1909-1078.5048.1259.191.1400.0080.37321.45113.313.47.49.867.844.854.0
1905-06[1]80.5957.1866.072.0620.0890.74721.71107.414.86.48.979.648.262.8
1906-0780.2957.4466.892.1200.0230.58021.60120.815.07.010.071.646.558.6
1907-0880.3854.3564.910.7350.0170.34722.20125.012.07.29.670.751.360.3
1908-0978.9347.8361.470.8750.0600.45322.52122.313.27.010.074.045.757.7
Fiscal Year. Name of coal used. Cost per ton. Duty per 100 lb. of coal consumed. Cost of coal per 1,000,000 ft-lb. of work performed.
1905‑06 George's Creek Big Vein $3.34 62.8 $0.00238
1906‑07 George's Creek Big Vein 3.43 58.6 0.00261
1907‑08 George's Creek Big Vein 3.75 60.3 0.00278
1908‑09 Orenda 3.47 57.7 0.00268
1909‑10 Orenda 3.15[2] 54.0 0.00255

[1 Raw water shut off from city supply on October 5th.]

[2 Corrected for increase or decrease in ash and British thermal units, as determined by United States Geological Survey.]

Table 8.—Average Consumption of Water for Twenty-Four Hours, Per Million Gallons.
Month.Fiscal years.
1903.1904.1905.1906.1907.1908.1909.1910.
July59.8061.5063.2069.8069.1868.6471.0864.05
August59.0059.7067.7071.4068.0367.7468.1461.42
September56.5061.1067.9071.3069.8268.9365.8360.32
October58.7059.1063.9068.4069.1466.4665.8959.18
November54.7058.6062.1066.1065.5161.5460.0655.25
December60.7060.1070.3067.2065.7162.2957.9956.77
January60.1065.3075.1065.3067.6263.3657.7262.49
February59.3067.8086.0068.7074.6868.1755.4260.28
March55.3060.0067.6064.3064.2359.6355.3156.04
April55.1057.2063.1062.7063.4561.5158.1958.32
May57.7060.8066.3065.6062.4762.9659.2557.76
June59.5062.3070.6067.8063.5367.9660.1258.37
Average58.0361.1068.7067.4066.9064.9161.4759.19

The length of runs, depth of scraping, etc., after the scraping or raking, are shown in Tables [10] and [11].

Sand Handling.—For the first three years of operation, the sand was carried from the sand bins in carts and dumped through the numerous manholes of the filters on chutes which could be revolved in various directions, in order to facilitate the spreading of the sand evenly over the surface of the filter.

About a year ago, however, this method was changed, by substituting sand ejectors for the carts. By this method, an ejector is either attached to, or placed directly under, the outlet gate of the sand bin, the gate is opened, and the ejector is started. From this ejector, the sand is carried back through the line of 4‑in. fixed pipe, and one or more lengths of 3‑in. hose, to the point of discharge in the filter bed which is being re‑sanded.

Table 9.
(A) Number of Deaths from Typhoid Fever, by Months, in the District of Columbia for the Last Fourteen Fiscal Years.
Fiscal year.July.August.September.October.November.December.January.February.March.April.May.June.Total.
1896‑97815252518161344469147
1897‑98101618109188429620130
1898‑992422222821161047636169
1899‑190093830282726176810512193
1901‑02163328212216198129139206
1902‑03213925321920959663194
1903‑04172618198145561088144
1904‑05162225141191115713125
1905‑06[1]153023261466454109152
1906‑0721322125174764672152
1907‑0810181719117411883107
1908‑091513231716131683877146
1909‑101212171212234755495
Average15.325.522.921.516.613.19.64.45.86.76.47.5155.4
Table 9—(Continued.)
(B) Number of Deaths from Typhoid Fever Reduced to Death Rates per 100,000 Inhabitants per Year.
Fiscal year.July.August.September.October.November.December.January.February.March.April.May.June.Annual death rate.
1896‑973565109109787056171717263953
1897-984369784339783117838258546
1898-991029393119896842172925122659
1899‑19003715812511611210869243341204974
1900-018216711810211469288328164065
1901-026413211284886475314735513568
1902-038315398126757935193523231263
1903-04661006973315419192338303046
1904-05618395534234414192641139
1905-06561118597522222151815363347
1906-0769105698256132420132024742
1907-08356460673925144428281132
1908-0953458060564556281028242443
1909-104242604242711142417171428
Average monthly death rate.599989846553382422262430...

[1 Filtered water supplied since October, 1905.]


Table 10—Periods of Operation, and Quantities Filtered.
Month.Number of filter runs ended after:Number of days since previous:Million gallons filtered since previous:
Scraping.RakingScraping.Raking
Scraping.Raking.Max.Min.Ave.Max.Min.Ave.Max.Min.Ave.Max.Min.Ave.
1909.
July140894467.4000229.01106.27163.289000
August80745160.4000175.54124.94152.581000
September130985368.3000237.52114.37161.702000
October185813259.9433339.4206.0978.78132.35996.5071.5182.708
November82794453.4473742.0168.1982.32112.60399.0090.2394.615
December34626161.3635057.3135.77128.33132.647144.35106.11125.940
1910.
January94957988.0887277.0204.38146.58178.461189.48152.33170.735
February14999999.0935171.0205.73205.73205.730192.98118.85158.890
March34120110113.7108101104.3275.96257.36265.493249.68224.49238.993
April10121266284.81292165.3295.96104.13181.972307.5745.22142.448
May32863869.7553243.5186.6481.66150.230102.1569.7985.978
June1321006179.712978103.5213.70130.85171.059181.25167.84174.540
Year 1909‑10103391263271.11292166.6295.9681.66159.151307.5745.22143.832
Fiscal years:
1905-067101953891.1000497.45116.66240.379000
1906-0710141992477.0321421.7466.1269.76220.693103.2832.1376.870
1907-08143771801154.963728.6477.1928.20146.912165.2517.0875.775
1908-09128501351149.9931334.2298.0839.26125.617244.1941.4188.439

In re‑sanding a filter, it is first filled with water to the proposed depth of the sand layer. The outlet end of the hose is connected to a 3‑in. pipe which is supported on a boat, and the sand is discharged through this pipe at the point required. Work is first begun at the far end of the filter, and it is gradually filled by swinging the boat from side to side and backing it by degrees to the front end.

At first it was feared that a small quantity of mud would be deposited on the surface of the old sand, and that this mud would ultimately cause subsurface clogging. For this reason, when this method was first adopted, a man was required to rake the sand very thoroughly in front of the discharge. Later, it was found that by giving the end of the discharge pipe a slope of about 45° downward from the horizontal, the force of the current of sand and water could be depended on to cut the old surface of sand to any required depth, and move it ahead together with the new sand, thus completely breaking up the possible mud layer between the old and new sand layers. After having used this method almost exclusively for 15 months, in which time eleven filters have been re‑sanded, and 24,531 cu. yd. of sand have been replaced, there seems to be no indication of an increased initial loss of head. The sand is very compact, and has no apparent tendency to separate into different sizes. The general appearance is similar to that of very fine sand on the seashore. The filters re‑sanded in this way have been considerably more efficient than those in which the sand was replaced with carts, and as yet, no harmful results have been noted. The rate at which the sand is replaced is shown in [Table 12], and the cost of labor for sand handling is given in detail in [Table 14], which shows that quite a perceptible saving has been effected by the hydraulic method.

The figures showing the cost for sand handling do not include any charge for the quantity of water used, that item having been carried on the pumping‑station account.

Table 11—Quantities of Sand Removed.
Month.No. of filters scraped when last treatment was:Cubic yards when last treatment was:Depth, in inches, when last treatment was:
Scraping.Raking.Scraping.Raking.Scraping.Raking.
Max.Min.Ave.Max.Min.Ave.Max.Min.Ave.Max.Min.Ave.
1909.
July140338121190.60002.510.901.415000
August80356149218.50002.651.111.631000
September8052497178.60003.900.721.330000
October9515093115.8301121169.01.120.690.8622.240.901.256
November2213488111.013281106.51.000.650.8250.980.600.790
December02000133126129.50000.990.940.965
1910.
January24155112133.5195121147.81.150.830.9901.450.901.100
February04000390160225.80002.901.191.678
March14489489489.0262179214.33.643.643.6401.951.331.593
April41217284119.3230146178.81.280.620.8851.711.091.331
May12320320320.0249241245.02.382.382.3801.851.791.820
June02000203190196.50001.511.411.460
Year 1909-10493752484176.739081181.03.900.621.3142.900.601.373
Fiscal Years:
1905-0671060071250.00004.470.531.799000
1906-0794253652259.0398276337.04.000.561.9312.952.052.500
1907-08815352746190.241135118.43.920.211.5073.060.210.881
1908-09925058055169.547281177.54.310.411.2593.510.601.317
Table 12—Rates of Sand Handling.
DateSand removed from filters.Sand replaced in filters.
Ejector hours.Cubic yards of sand removedAverage rate in cubic yards per hourEjector hours.Cubic yards of sand removedAverage rate in cubic yards per hour
1906.
April492535.2.........
May3802,5116.6.........
June5673,2805.8.........
July9315,3765.8.........
August1055335.1.........
September3151,8926.0.........
October1,0675,1735.8.........
November1689355.6.........
December2031,0735.3.........
1907.
January3992,9747.3.........
February1401,1398.1.........
March1158787.6.........
April4273,1037.3.........
May1339397.0.........
June1056746.4.........
July7466.6.........
August905746.4.........
September3061,3966.5.........
October2731,7016.2.........
November2021,2586.8.........
December3042,1385.9.........
1908.
January5463,7086.8.........
February987767.9.........
March3152,8329.0.........
April4693,7758.1.........
May1821,4147.8.........
June2802,0577.4.........
July280-1/22,6839.6.........
August327-1/22,8088.6.........
September4023,3718.4.........
October3082,6968.7.........
November47-1/23337.0.........
December153-3/41,2688.3.........
1909.
January119-1/21,0558.8.........
February161-1/21,4799.2.........
March1441,46510.2.........
April214-3/42,26010.51882,40512.8
May219-3/42,22310.11902,19611.5
June3553,0968.72433,05412.6
July312-1/42,7078.7425-1/24,0509.5
August218-3/41,9559.064-1/26209.6
September172-1/21,3607.94082,8427.0
October2031,8709.2261-1/42,3509.0
November543977.400...
December623826.200...
1910.
January1047036.800...
February106-1/21,0589.928-1/437113.1
March9898510.0721,00814.0
April268-3/42,85210.7134-1/42,15916.1
May58-3/469311.8171-3/43,04217.7
June58-3/464210.99-3/416617.0

The cost for pumping water for sand handling, including all labor, materials, and repairs, amounts to $0.06 per cu. yd. of sand ejected and washed, and $0.03 per cu. yd. for replacing.

In addition to the water used for carrying the sand which is being replaced, it is customary to keep a slight upward flow in the filter, thus using about 500,000 gal. of filtered water per day for this purpose. Assuming the value of this water to be the total cost for pumping, filtering, etc., or $3.80 per 1,000,000 gal., the cost per cubic yard of sand replaced would be about $0.02 when one ejector is used, and $0.01 when two are in operation.

It is not considered absolutely necessary to have an upward flow of water in the filter which is being re‑sanded, and it is not always done. It was used, however, as an additional safeguard against the formation of a stratum of mud between the old and new layers of sand while the hydraulic method was in an experimental stage.

The quantities of sand removed from the filters per scraping and the rates of sand handling are shown in Tables [11] and [12].

Cost of Operation.—It is frequently difficult to compare the relative cost of corresponding items for different plants, because of the different methods of dividing the cost and the varying opinions of the officials as to what should properly be charged to each item.

In order that the data may be in sufficient detail to permit it to be rearranged to compare with other plants, a list of employees and charges for supplies is given in [Table 13]. This list accounts for the entire appropriation for the care and maintenance of the filtration plant, including pumping the water to the filters, parking and caring for the grounds, buildings, roads, sidewalks, etc. The cost for the various items per million gallons pumped to the filters is shown in [Table 14], and the cost per cubic yard of sand handled in [Table 15].

Preliminary Treatment.—Before the present filtration plant was designed, Rudolph Hering, George W. Fuller, and Allen Hazen, Members, Am. Soc. C. E., made an investigation and report. This report was dated February 18th, 1901, and contained the following paragraph:

"In consideration of the full evidence, we recommend the construction of a complete system of slow or sand filters, with such auxiliary works as may be necessary for preliminary sedimentation, and the use of a coagulant for part of the time. There is no reason to believe that the use of this coagulant will in any degree affect the wholesomeness of the water."

Notwithstanding this opinion, considerable prejudice existed among the citizens of Washington against the use of a coagulant, and, as finally passed, the bill providing for the construction of the filters did not include an appropriation for the coagulant.

Table 13—List of Employees, Rates of Pay, and Approximate Cost for Supplies.
1 Superintendent$3,000.00
1 Chief Chemist and Assistant Superintendent2,100.00
1 First Assistant Chemist1,500.00
1 Second Assistant Chemist1,000.00
1 Stenographer and Clerk1,200.00
1 Surveyor1,200.00
1 Laboratory Helper720.00
1 Janitor600.00
1 Chief Steam Engineer1,800.00
1 First Assistant Steam Engineer1,440.00
1 Second Assistant Steam Engineer1,080.00
3 Oilers, at $900 each2,700.00
3 Firemen, at $900 each2,700.00
3 Laborers, at $540 each1,620.00
1 Filter Foreman1,200.00
2 Foremen, at $900 each1,800.00
1 Timekeeper900.00
3 Watchmen and Gauge Tenders, at $900 each2,700.00
1 Machinist1,140.00
1 Blacksmith900.00
1 Storekeeper900.00
1 Painter900.00
1 Mechanic900.00
1 Electrician900.00
4 Skilled Laborers at $600 each2,400.00
1 Watchman and Special Officer900.00
1 Recorder720.00
27 Laborers, at $1.50 per day for 300 days12,150.00
3 Teams, at $2.00 per day for 200 days1,200.00
Laboratory and office supplies2,700.00
Filter supplies, tools, hose, repair of roads, parks, shrubs, etc.8,820.00
Pumping station supplies, oil, waste, packing, repairs, etc.3,570.00
3,600 tons of coal, at $3.15 per ton11,340.00
Charges in U. S. Engineer Office, labor2,900.00
Charges in U. S. Engineer Office, materials400.00
Total$82,000.00

The results obtained from operating the filters being such as to justify the conclusions in the report referred to, an experimental plant was constructed for the purpose of studying the efficiency of various methods of preliminary treatment of the water. This plant consisted of three cylindrical concrete filter tanks, each 10 ft. in diameter. These tanks were filled with the layers of gravel and sand necessary to make them represent as accurately as possible the large slow sand units of the main filtration plant. Means were also provided for giving a preliminary treatment to the water supplying each of these experimental slow sand filters. In two cases, the preliminary treatment was rapid filtration, while the third consisted of sedimentation and coagulation. The sedimentation tank was of sufficient size, when compared with the area of the experimental slow sand filter, to represent the Georgetown and McMillan Park Reservoirs when used in connection with the large filters. The first preliminary filter was very similar in construction and operation to a mechanical filter. The sand for this filter was taken from the main filters, and, consequently, was finer than is generally used in mechanical filters. The second preliminary filter was a Maignen scrubber. It consisted of a cylindrical concrete tank, 4 ft. in diameter and 8‑1/2 ft. deep, which contained 12 in. of cobble‑stones on the bottom, then, successively, 12 in. of egg‑size coke, 12 in. of stove‑size coke, 24 in. of nut‑size coke, and 24 in. of sponge clippings as the final or top layer.

Table 14—Cost Per Million Gallons Filtered.
(A) Labor.
Month.Office and laboratory.Pumping station.Filter Operations:Parking (care of grounds).Experimental filters.Main office.Total.
Sand handling.Repairs, etc.
1909.
July$0.73$0.57$0.86...$0.31...$0.15$2.62
August0.750.640.59...0.71...0.142.83
September0.830.670.80...0.51...0.172.98
October0.720.660.73...0.34...0.082.53
November0.870.760.42...0.38...0.182.61
December0.900.690.27...0.40...0.122.38
1910.
January0.810.630.33...0.14...0.102.01
February0.940.740.35$0.070.11...0.162.37
March0.920.810.300.070.18...0.132.41
April0.930.830.490.030.36...0.132.77
May0.860.720.360.030.55...0.182.70
June0.880.670.38...0.38...0.122.43
Average0.840.700.27[1]0.250.36...0.142.56
Fiscal years:
1905‑19060.450.450.470.020.01...0.091.49
1906‑19070.570.570.580.210.07$0.030.042.07
1907‑19080.700.560.420.320.150.090.092.36
1908‑19090.720.610.410.340.220.010.132.44
Table 14—(Continued.)
(B) Materials.
Month.Office and laboratory.Pumping station.Filter Operations:Parking (care of grounds).Experimental filters.Main office.Total.
Sand handling.Repairs, etc.
1909.
July......$0.01............$0.01
August$0.01.........$0.07...$0.010.09
September0.05$0.310.04...0.01...0.030.44
October0.080.110.13...0.46...0.020.80
November0.130.780.10...0.34...0.021.37
December0.030.170.05...0.01...0.050.31
1910.
January0.120.740.14...0.01......1.01
February0.071.880.18...0.01...0.012.15
March0.260.280.01............0.55
April0.181.220.10...0.29...0.021.81
May0.060.720.02...0.11...0.020.98
June0.542.23...[2]$2.160.46...0.045.43
Average0.130.690.02[3]0.210.17...0.021.24
Fiscal years.
1905‑19060.040.590.02............0.65
1906‑19070.030.670.080.200.02......1.00
1907‑19080.050.540.040.070.06...0.010.77
1908‑19090.100.690.050.180.18...0.021.22

[1 $0.02 for new sand-handling system.]

[2 $2.02 for new sand-handling system.]

[3 $0.16 for new sand-handling system.]

Table 14—(Continued.)
(C) Totals.
Month.Office and laboratory.Pumping station.Filter Operations:Parking (care of grounds).Experimental filters.Main office.Total.
Sand handling.Repairs, etc.
1909.
July$0.73$0.57$0.87...$0.31...$0.15$2.63
August0.760.640.59...0.78...0.152.92
September0.880.980.84...0.52...0.203.42
October0.800.770.86...0.80...0.103.33
November1.001.540.52...0.72...0.203.98
December0.930.860.32...0.41...0.172.69
1910.
January0.931.370.47...0.15...0.103.02
February1.012.620.53$0.070.12...0.174.52
March1.181.090.310.070.18...0.132.96
April1.112.050.590.030.65...0.154.58
May0.921.440.380.030.66...0.203.63
June1.422.900.382.160.84...0.167.86
Average.0.971.390.290.460.58...0.163.80
Fiscal years:
1905‑19060.491.040.490.020.01...0.092.14
1906‑19070.601.240.660.410.09$0.030.043.07
1907‑19080.751.130.460.390.210.090.103.13
1908‑19090.821.300.460.520.400.010.153.66

The two preliminary filters were operated at a rate of about 50,000,000 gal. per acre per day, and the three slow sand filters at rates of from 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 gal. per day.

This plant was put in service during the early part of February, 1907, and was kept in practically continuous operation until the end of July, 1908.

Table 15—Average Cost for Labor for Sand Handling.
(A) Per Million Gallons Pumped To Filter.
Month.Scraping.Ejecting.Washing.Smoothing.Raking.Re-Sanding.Total.
1909.
July$0.10$0.21$0.03$0.02...$0.21$0.57
August0.070.160.030.01...0.040.31
September0.050.130.020.01$0.010.270.49
October0.060.150.030.010.020.120.39
November0.020.06......0.02...0.70
December0.020.040.01...0.010.010.09
1910.
January0.040.07...0.010.02...0.14
February0.040.10...0.01...0.020.17
March0.040.06...0.010.010.050.17
April0.100.150.040.010.020.060.38
May0.020.030.01...0.010.110.18
June0.020.04......0.020.010.09
Average0.050.100.010.010.010.080.26
Fiscal years:
1905‑060.060.290.020.06...0.040.47
1906‑070.070.200.050.02...0.240.58
1907‑080.090.140.030.010.020.130.42
1908‑090.070.150.030.010.010.140.41
Table 15—(Continued.)
(B) Per Cubic Yard of Sand.
Month.Scraping.Ejecting.Washing.Smoothing.Raking.Re-Sanding.Total.
1909.
July$0.08$0.15$0.03$0.01...$0.10$0.37
August0.070.150.030.01...0.110.37
September0.070.170.030.01...0.170.45
October0.060.150.030.01...0.090.34
November0.100.230.020.02......0.37
December0.120.250.040.02...0.080.51
1910.
January0.100.19...0.02......0.31
February0.070.15...0.01...0.090.32
March0.060.11...0.02...0.080.27
April0.070.090.030.01...0.050.25
May0.060.090.030.01...0.060.25
June0.060.12...0.01...0.100.29
Average0.070.140.020.01...0.100.34
Fiscal years:
1905‛060.070.350.040.07...0.140.67
1906‑070.060.190.030.02...0.170.47
1907‑080.090.150.030.01...0.140.42
1908‑090.060.140.030.01...0.130.37

For convenience in referring to the different systems, the combined rapid and slow sand filter will be designated as Filter Plant No. 1, the combined Maignen scrubber and slow sand filter as Filter Plant No. 2, and the combined coagulating basin and slow sand basin as Filter Plant No. 3.

The length of run of Filter Plant No. 1 was relatively long at first. The rapid rate of filtration, however, tended to carry the clay, which was suspended in the applied water, to a considerable depth in the filtering material, so that the runs gradually decreased in length until they were reduced to about three days. Unfortunately, it was necessary to use unfiltered water for washing, which, together with the great penetration from the applied water, finally made it necessary to remove all the filtering materials, and wash them.

Although this preliminary filter was operated at a high rate, its efficiency was quite satisfactory. In fact, at times when the applied water was comparatively good, very little work was left for the slow sand filter. At times of high turbidity, however, some of the exceedingly fine mud in the applied water passed through this filter, as well as the slow sand filter connected with it, and it proved to be absolutely impossible to produce a clear effluent at all times with this combination.

Filter Plant No. 2 proved more economical and convenient in operation, but somewhat less efficient than Filter Plant No. 1. Neither filter could be depended on to give a clear effluent when the applied water was turbid.

In the operation of Filter Plant No. 3, sulphate of alumina was used when the applied water contained too much turbidity to be treated satisfactorily by slow sand filters.

When the water was comparatively clear, either one of the three systems, or slow sand filtration alone, was entirely satisfactory. At times of high turbidity, however, Filter Plant No. 3 was the only one which could be depended on to produce a clear effluent.

A fair comparison between the results of the three systems when treating turbid water in January, 1908, is given in [Table 16].

[Table 16] shows very clearly that neither Filter Plant No. 1 nor No. 2 would prove at all satisfactory when treating turbid water, while No. 3 could be depended on under all conditions. The results of operation are shown in detail in Tables [17], [18], and [19]. It will be noticed in [Table 17], that on March 10th, 1908, Filter Plant No. 1 was put out of service and a Puech system of preliminary filters was substituted for it.

The Puech preliminary filters consisted of five units containing gravel of varying sizes through which the water was filtered successively before it was finally applied to the final slow sand filter. A general idea of this system may be obtained by referring to [Figure 8].

Table 16—Turbidity Results with Experimental Filters, During Period of High Turbidity, January, 1908.
Date.Raw water.Filter No. 1Filter No. 2Filter No. 3
Effluent preliminary filter.Effluent sand filter.Effluent preliminary filter.Effluent sand filter.Effluent coagulant basin.Effluent sand filter.
January 12th4010112120
January 13th11045251220
January 14th210953113420
January 15th325190122221530
January 16th360210372474250
January 17th242122241472660
January 18th137......73760
January 19th1174012cleaning...50
January 20th72316sand filter...cleaning0
January 21st55204254sand filter...
January 22d49173214sand filter...
January 23d4012315330
January 24th4011313330

It is unfortunate that this system was not in operation in January, 1908, when the water was cold and turbid. The results, however, indicate that it would be no more successful than either Filter Plant No. 1 or No. 2.

Experimental Rate Studies.—In September, 1908, an experimental plant consisting of six small filters was put in operation. The object of these experiments was to study the relative efficiencies and cost for the operation of slow sand filters when operated at different rates.

The units of the plant consisted of cylindrical galvanized‑iron tanks 4 ft. in diameter and 9 ft. high. The filter sand in these tanks was taken from the supply for the main filters. It was supported on gravel layers and supplied with under‑drains of suitable sizes for the proposed rate of flow in each case.

The units of the experimental plant were designated as Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, and it was the original intention to operate them at rates of 1,000,000, 3,000,000, 6,000,000, 10,000,000, 30,000,000, and 100,000,000 gal. per acre daily, respectively.

This schedule of rates was carried out in a general way with all the filters, with the exception of Nos. 5 and 6. For these, the rates were found to be higher than could be maintained for any great length of time, owing to the deeper penetration of the mud in the filter sand, which caused high initial losses of head, short runs, and deep scrapings. A rate of about 30,000,000 gal. was maintained in the case of Filter No. 5 from the time it was started on September 9th, 1908, until November 8th, 1909, when it was reduced to about 17,000,000 gal., which rate was maintained thereafter until the filter was shut down in February, 1910.

In the case of Filter No. 6, it was found impossible to maintain a rate of 100,000,000 gal. for more than a very few days at a time. It was started at about this rate, however, at the beginning of each run, and kept as high as possible for the remainder of the time during the first seven runs. At the end of the seventh run, on October 17th, 1908, the filter was given a very deep scraping and re‑sanded.

The layer of clean sand restored the original capacity, and the filter was operated as before, but with gradually decreasing rates until December, 1908, when the rate was reduced to about 40,000,000 gal. Even this lower rate was too high to be maintained without removing and replacing a large part of the sand. The rates, therefore, gradually decreased to about 23,000,000 gal. on March 13th, 1909, when the filter was again re‑sanded. After this re‑sanding the rate was reduced to about 20,000,000 gal., and the filter was operated at approximately that rate until it was again re‑sanded on November 13th, 1909, when the rate was again reduced to about 14,000,000 gal., which was maintained until the filter was put out of service on February 28th, 1910.

This experimental plant was in service from September, 1908, to the latter part of February, 1910, or for about 1‑1/2 years, and the leading results are summarized in [Table 20.]

Table 17—Record of Experimental Filter Plant No. 1.
Date.Preliminary Filter.Final Filter.Turbidity.Bacteria.
Rate, millions of gallons per acre daily.Loss of head.Rate, millions of gallons per acre daily.Loss of head.Applied water.Effluent preliminary filter.Effluent final filter.Applied water.Effluent preliminary filter.Effluent final filter.
1907.
Feb. 819.400.713.100.17.........1,1002,0002,500
Feb. 921.500.813.110.16.........200950500
Feb. 1020.600.953.040.14..................
Feb. 1120.101.083.030.1212326009001,300
Feb. 1219.801.233.020.131442650650650
Feb. 1319.501.382.960.121562600600950
Feb. 1421.201.673.210.111542650700800
Feb. 1525.402.033.900.131242600550800
Feb. 1625.002.233.890.121432850550500
Feb. 17Shut down for changes in size of meter and piping.
Feb. 18.....................1,200...650
Feb. 2138.601.593.930.1820421,8001,100700
Feb. 2238.001.843.920.151532Holiday.
Feb. 2342.102.363.950.1420521,600600220
Feb. 2447.903.043.930.132063Sunday.
Feb. 25Shut down change meter from outlet to inlet.1,400800450
Feb. 27...2.24...0.131763700550280
Feb. 2849.802.553.900.131563800470230
Mar. 150.002.903.930.131553650450140
Mar. 250.203.213.930.1315531,000650200
Mar. 338.803.093.890.133183Sunday.
Mar. 450.003.543.930.12351051,200......
Mar. 550.004.013.900.1313539813,0003,700600
Mar. 650.004.823.900.1313539818,0004,500...
Mar. 750.005.893.900.1310234624,0005,0002,000
Mar. 850.006.583.900.1310025422,0005,0001,400
Mar. 950.007.213.930.139025424,0004,000650
Mar. 1050.007.523.900.1382225Sunday.
Washed.
Mar. 1150.000.843.900.136819618,0002,100350
Mar. 1250.000.953.960.134619411,0006,000310
Mar. 1350.001.173.990.13401949,0004,900300
Mar. 1450.001.534.010.13391745,5001,300130
Mar. 1550.002.274.050.13351546,5001,50060
Mar. 1650.003.084.030.13602045,0001,200100
Mar. 1750.004.264.030.13135354Sunday.
Mar. 1850.005.654.000.131704979,0001,20095
Mar. 1950.007.024.010.131253767,000600100
Washed.
Mar. 2050.001.083.980.131023054,80030075
Mar. 2150.001.233.980.121253248,5001,00085
Mar. 2250.001.464.000.131906547,5001,10045
Mar. 2350.001.763.990.131806567,50060055
Mar. 2450.002.113.990.12140527Sunday.
Mar. 2550.002.464.000.11883054,40050085
Mar. 2650.002.754.000.12622243,60030065
Mar. 2750.003.044.080.13471842,20016060
Mar. 2850.003.383.940.11351031,30010055
Mar. 2950.003.704.000.1126837008029
Mar. 3050.004.424.000.1125633107035
Mar. 3150.005.253.990.112152Sunday.
Apr. 150.006.144.000.1220526002530
Washed.
Apr. 250.002.104.000.1224522702832
Apr. 350.003.004.000.1224524602643
Apr. 450.004.014.000.1220522802026
Apr. 550.005.154.000.1220424503741
Washed.
Apr. 650.00O.763.590.122042320634
Apr. 750.00O.993.470.122042Sunday.
Apr. 850.001.394.030.1418323301020
Apr. 950.002.044.010.131832140935
Apr. 1050.003.034.020.1330217504329
Apr. 1150.004.454.020.1466114,00090026
Apr. 1250.006.144.010.137211214,000170041
Washed.
Apr. 1350.000.954.000.148021213,000130070
Apr. 1450.001.184.000.1377253Sunday.
Apr. 1550.001.574.000.14622137,00038055
Apr. 1650.002.334.000.15472033,60016033
Apr. 1750.003.334.000.15391521,6007039
Apr. 1850.004.814.000.16301021,81013034
Apr. 1950.006.293.990.1625727905032
Washed.
Apr. 2050.000.934.010.1620525402428
Apr. 2150.001.363.970.162032Sunday.
Apr. 2250.002.224.020.1618212351528
Apr. 2350.003.333.990.1415211701416
Apr. 2450.004.783.970.1519111503214
Apr. 2550.006.433.900.1534117002018
Washed.
Apr. 2650.00O.973.970.1446211,2001616
Apr. 2750.002.374.000.1452311,7002517
Apr. 2850.005.333.990.144541Sunday.
Washed.
Apr. 2950.000.813.990.1444516001617
Apr. 3050.001.753.990.1439615502712
May 150.000.803.990.1431515002411
Washed.
May 250.001.134.000.1424415001216
May 350.002.094.000.1419312803025
May 450.003.804.000.1416214002012
May 550.005.384.000.141511Sunday.
Washed.
May 650.000.913.900.1413113905040
May 750.001.563.900.1412111901980
May 850.002.253.990.141011.........
May 950.003.374.000.1410113902138
May 1050.005.164.000.1410113001413
Washed.
May 1150.001.034.000.1412113901312
May 1250.001.894.000.141711Sunday.
May 1350.003.824.000.1435216003315
May 1450.006.314.000.143931500277
Washed.
May 1550.000.854.000.1417215002029
May 1650.001.423.990.1424212901940
May 1750.002.473.990.1418212601916
May 1850.004.314.000.1315111901620
Washed.
May 1950.000.833.990.131211Sunday.
May 2050.001.664.000.1312112601741
May 2150.003.834.000.1316112602625
Washed.
May 2250.000.823.990.1320112801619
May 2350.001.644.000.1315111302022
May 2450.003.854.000.1315111701732
Washed.
May 2550.000.844.000.1315113402555
May 2650.001.673.990.131811Sunday.
May 2750.003.034.000.1313112101040
Washed.
May 2850.000.874.010.1316112602655
May 2950.001.434.010.1316115001950
May 3050.002.554.000.131411Holiday.
May 3150.004.194.000.1317113802250
June 150.006.263.990.1315119002750
Washed.
June 250.000.783.980.131711Sunday.
June 350.001.194.000.1324115504150
June 450.002.154.000.1337216,50015060
June 550.003.674.010.1365413,20015046
June 650.006.064.000.14771211,5006027
Washed.
June 750.000.864.000.14641912,1006845
June 850.001.414.000.14461616003544
June 950.002.624.010.1444121Sunday.
June 1050.004.794.000.1436812403135
Washed.
June 1150.000.774.000.1430612804747
June 1250.001.204.010.1434613307055
June 1350.002.424.000.1435814804375
June 1450.004.444.000.1531714405545
Washed.
June 1550.000.803.990.1532614201734
June 1650.001.154.000.152651Sunday.
June 1750.002.153.990.1426513405537
June 1850.004.364.000.14316144014140
Washed.
June 1950.000.794.010.1537815007024
June 2050.001.194.000.1530713304927
June 2150.002.653.980.1425511703018
June 2250.005.584.000.1420411001813
Washed.
June 2350.000.853.620.132631Sunday.
June 2450.002.023.990.131401111,7002736
June 2550.004.773.990.131302614007023
Washed.
June 2650.000.734.010.138227175020041
June 2750.001.174.010.1365181.........
June 2850.003.103.990.1347161...20...
Washed.
June 2950.000.673.990.1337712203529
June 3050.001.024.000.133061Sunday.
July 150.002.703.990.133061400463
Washed.
July 250.000.694.000.1332711808038
July 350.001.213.990.1336813507090
July 450.003.403.990.1344101Holiday.
Washed.
July 550.000.773.990.134411155018034
July 650.001.194.010.13391012506026
July 750.003.723.990.133481Sunday.
Washed.
July 850.000.783.970.1325512203121
July 950.001.273.980.13224150109
July 1050.003.114.090.134791Lost.
Washed.
July 1150.000.833.990.1390191150198
July 1250.001.473.990.13972513004023
July 1350.003.614.000.13962912204716
Washed.
July 1450.000.843.990.1390301Sunday.
July 1550.001.304.000.13953013755521
July 1650.002.723.990.14120351Lost.9013
July 1750.005.083.990.1485321270211
Washed.
July 1850.000.853.990.14562211,6757050
July 1950.001.434.000.14411214509522
July 2050.003.233.990.14621913003811
Washed.
July 2150.000.803.990.1462211Sunday.
July 2250.001.063.980.14802611,4001507
July 2350.002.183.990.141053013,700Lost.11
July 2450.004.953.980.1595301770Lost.22
Washed.
July 2550.000.843.980.15772212503311
July 2650.001.223.980.15671911401004
July 2750.002.364.000.1654151300957
July 2850.004.743.980.1646121Sunday.
Washed.
July 2950.000.833.990.173610147011018
July 3050.001.024.000.172971Plates lost.
July 3150.001.664.000.172151Plates lost.
Aug. 148.202.954.000.171641Plateslost.
Aug. 246.404.964.000.1715211304213
Washed.
Aug. 342.600.794.000.171611120416
Aug. 449.100.914.000.172111Sunday.
Aug. 549.101.594.000.17291123016011
Aug. 648.203.164.000.1734218520012
Aug. 745.605.653.990.172121200Lost4
Washed.
Aug. 850.000.803.990.1719211007011
Aug. 949.100.944.000.17161175449
Aug. 1048.201.514.000.17241160136
Aug. 1148.203.324.000.176231Sunday.
Washed.
Aug. 1241.900.833.990.171201416201105
Aug. 1349.101.143.990.171072918205336
Aug. 1449.101.724.000.1882301850160110
Aug. 1548.203.304.000.1865221150374
Aug. 1646.400.844.000.194515127011013
Aug. 1748.201.054.000.19351013401106
Aug. 1850.001.544.000.192151Sunday.
Aug. 1949.102.294.000.1918411808513
Aug. 2049.103.743.990.192021210858
Washed.
Aug. 2144.101.013.980.19202113001159
Aug. 2245.601.864.000.19272138002651
Aug. 2347.304.083.990.19492125007013
Washed.
Aug. 2441.301.293.970.1936613900466
Aug. 2544.102.113.980.203471Sunday.
Aug. 2648.203.423.990.2021517001400
Aug. 2748.205.104.000.2019414701004
Washed.
Aug. 2846.401.284.000.201831500493
Aug. 2941.901.904.020.201721360800
Aug. 3045.603.234.000.2015113201901
Aug. 3146.404.574.000.201311200203
Sept. 150.005.173.650.201411Sunday.
Sept. 248.205.974.000.201211Holiday.
Washed.
Sept. 347.301.134.000.20121130091
Sept. 448.202.014.000.201611600602
Sept. 546.405.413.670.20341036072...
Washed.
Sept. 640.601.423.980.20160120150001400
Sept. 742.605.193.990.206418120001301
Washed.
Sept. 842.601.254.000.2056181Sunday.
Sept. 946.403.074.000.2259181220804
Washed.
Sept. 1045.601.023.990.235716118000578
Sept. 1148.202.364.000.23651812700901
Washed.
Sept. 1244.101.143.990.24721811000474
Sept. 1346.403.613.990.25872012300775
Washed.
Sept. 1438.201.423.970.26721912400805
Sept. 1545.604.274.000.2765181Sunday.
Washed.
Sept. 1640.001.063.990.2865181Lost.22Lost.
Sept. 1746.402.484.010.2852161420751
Washed.
Sept. 1846.401.114.000.2860131900373
Sept. 1946.402.764.000.288516120001860
Washed.
Sept. 2044.101.124.000.3110019142001107
Sept. 2148.202.073.990.3312024111001103
Washed.
Sept. 2244.101.303.670.34137291Sunday.
Sept. 2345.603.793.990.391122512400502
Washed.
Sept. 2445.601.153.970.401002514000694
Sept. 2548.202.064.000.42432531560006800
Sept. 26Stopped, unable to wash preliminary.
Sept. 2850.001.744.000.71127351......37
Washed.
Sept. 2944.102.853.990.82105311Sunday.
Sept. 3044.903.783.971.04115321Lost.Lost.160
Washed.
Oct. 144.101.203.981.348226160018055
Oct. 249.103.223.971.54651914,4001205
Washed.
Oct. 344.101.313.971.56591719005510
Oct. 449.102.973.971.6555151850606
Washed.
Oct. 544.901.313.981.75591612,00011038
Oct. 646.403.653.991.8959171Sunday.
Washed.
Oct. 744.901.343.981.99521311,2507015
Oct. 849.103.493.982.175413111,000656
Washed.
Oct. 944.101.203.972.33511312,000854
Oct. 1049.102.223.982.55501218003610
Oct. 1146.404.594.002.51471112,0005710
Oct. 12Shut off to remove sand in preliminary filter in order to clean out the under-drains.
Nov. 550.001.383.973.49185501.........
Nov. 648.203.253.983.791705215,0001,500240
Washed.
Nov. 745.601.183.984.0510035114,0001,000220
Nov. 848.204.083.994.37953211,900270160
Nov. 942.006.583.984.39802714,000500190
Nov. 10Shut down for scraping. Removed 266,000 cu. cm. of sand.
Nov. 1250.000.983.990.2540101.........
Nov. 1350.001.514.000.2236811,60075085
Nov. 1448.202.604.000.21421112,700700210
Nov. 1547.303.804.000.2035911,800350180
Nov. 1647.304.874.000.1926511,10020034
Nov. 1750.005.754.000.192041Sunday.
Nov. 1850.006.414.000.1917311,60029055
Washed.
Nov. 1948.201.063.990.2016211,30048060
Nov. 2048.202.053.990.2045316,5003,700800
Nov. 2148.203.483.990.2052919,9004,000300
Nov. 2247.304.853.990.206517110,0001,000380
Nov. 2348.206.113.990.204915118,0001,000320
Washed.
Nov. 2446.403.713.980.20134241Sunday.
Nov. 25Shut down for fear of washing preliminary with such muddy water.
Nov. 2950.001.554.000.2180251.........
Nov. 3047.303.143.980.22541613,800950160
Dec. 147.304.483.980.2337101Sunday.
Dec. 247.305.633.980.2536612,90055090
Washed.
Dec. 346.400.983.990.2529612,90048075
Dec. 450.001.153.990.2620412,00027070
Dec. 550.001.484.000.2518311,10027050
Dec. 648.202.043.630.2516213,000......
Dec. 748.202.804.000.2614112,40019010
Dec. 850.003.403.720.271211Sunday.
Dec. 949.103.934.000.2711111,2001707
Dec. 1049.104.504.000.2712118009055
Dec. 1148.205.524.000.272554416,500------
Dec. 12Shut down 12/11 at 6 P.M. turbidity too high to wash.
Dec. 15---------------------Sunday.
Dec. 1650.004.023.990.2890352---------
Washed.
Dec. 1740.001.903.970.307025221,00010,0001,200
Washed.
Dec. 1844.101.083.970.31491526,5004,200800
Dec. 1948.201.883.980.3139101Lost.Lost.Lost.
Dec. 2046.404.773.990.3142131Lost.Lost.Lost.
Dec. 2146.406.683.990.322661Lost.Lost.Lost.
Washed.
Dec. 2249.101.143.990.322041Sunday.
Dec. 2349.102.174.000.3134711,400300100
Dec. 2449.103.764.000.311955619,00095070
Dec. 25Shut down 12/24 at 9 P.M. turbidity too high to wash. Holiday.
Dec. 3050.002.613.970.3356192---------
Dec. 3144.805.573.980.3639121---------
Washed.
1908.
Jan. 146.401.303.980.363161Holiday.
Jan. 248.203.364.000.363991---------
Jan. 347.304.953.990.3536913,10049090
Jan. 450.005.283.990.3532712,40024043
Jan. 549.106.264.000.352651Sunday.
Washed.
Jan. 649.100.993.980.35204160020037
Jan. 750.001.154.000.3520411,10015047
Jan. 850.001.414.000.3522411,90016030
Jan. 949.101.924.000.354511113,0001,30070
Jan. 1049.102.564.000.367025110,0003,500170
Jan. 1150.003.173.990.375618116,0004,000240
Jan. 1249.103.734.000.3740101Sunday.
Jan. 1350.004.144.000.371104528,5001,200840
Jan. 1449.104.653.990.3821095316,0003,900500
Jan. 1549.105.233.990.413251901224,0007,000550
Jan. 1650.005.753.990.433602103728,0008,5001,200
Jan. 1749.106.344.000.452421222465,00015,0001,700
Jan. 18------------------------------
Jan. 1950.001.174.000.461174012Sunday.
Jan. 2050.001.384.000.46723161,6001,800320
Jan. 2150.001.683.570.37552045,000450
Jan. 2249.102.044.000.44491733,600600100
Jan. 2350.002.473.240.33401231,800290130
Jan. 2449.103.033.000.34401122,30027065
Jan. 2550.003.613.000.35391021,10018060
Jan. 2649.104.182.990.353272Sunday.
Jan. 2750.004.813.000.3532723004024
Jan. 2848.205.452.990.35451221,2009031
Jan. 2949.106.012.990.35602121,00023050
Jan. 3049.106.622.990.36572221,40017048
Washed.
Jan. 3150.001.302.990.36421521,10019023
Feb. 150.001.512.990.37391127504031
Feb. 250.001.783.000.372772Sunday.
Feb. 349.102.133.000.3729621,3002007
Feb. 450.002.693.000.37255160016018
Feb. 549.103.312.990.37245175014041
Feb. 650.003.892.990.3720412,00018029
Feb. 748.204.502.990.371731...3815
Feb. 849.105.112.990.3715319009524
Feb. 949.105.653.000.381431Sunday.
Feb. 1049.106.432.990.3811318508521
Feb. 1150.006.903.000.3810311,0007020
Washed.
Feb. 1249.101.292.990.388217502016
Feb. 1350.001.502.990.399217004011
Feb. 1450.001.802.990.399211,200397
Feb. 1549.102.353.000.39611315,5006007
Feb. 1649.103.282.990.3980302Sunday.
Feb. 1748.204.852.990.398029333,0003,800130
Feb. 1847.306.392.990.39130443---2,600160
Feb. 1945.507.322.980.40320143628,0006,000180
Washed.
Feb. 2250.001.403.000.4185305Holiday.
Feb. 2350.001.773.000.4160214Sunday.
Feb. 2449.102.252.990.41461433,6002,80090
Feb. 2550.002.613.000.4131722,30014047
Feb. 2650.003.063.000.4130623,80014045
Feb. 2748.203.652.990.4130511,30010022
Feb. 2850.004.243.000.4137611,40010040
Feb. 2948.205.282.990.4112352213,50042040
Washed.
Mar. 144.601.562.990.4297395Sunday.
Mar. 248.202.902.990.42823048,00032060
Mar. 346.404.692.980.428733411,00075030
Mar. 447.306.132.990.42672436,00029034
Mar. 548.207.312.990.42591934,40022041
Washed.
Mar. 649.101.532.990.42722427,00017041
Mar. 750.001.953.000.43823029,50021034
Mar. 849.102.622.990.4392373Sunday.
Mar. 950.003.193.000.4312556411,00070065
Mar. 10Preliminary filter discontinued and the Puech system started.
Table 17—Record of Experimental Filter, Puech system.—(Continued.)
Date.Puech system:Final filter.Turbidity.Bacteria.
Rates, millions of gallons per acre daily.Rate, millions of gallons per acre daily.Loss of head.Applied water.Effluent, preliminary filter.Effluent, final filter.Applied water.Effluent, preliminary filter.Effluent, final filter.
1908.
Mar. 112651709053182.990.531558076,5008,500490
Mar. 122651709053182.990.601357075,9006,000360
Mar. 132651709053183.000.601225261,9001,700140
Mar. 142651709053183.000.61974051,8001,600130
Mar. 152651709053182.990.6477314Sunday.
Mar. 162651709053183.000.69652631,4001,20050
Mar. 172411558248162.990.715919390020045
Mar. 182521628650172.990.75672221,00070033
Mar. 192411558248162.990.7860212...80044
Mar. 2029418910059202.990.85571821,30065037
Mar. 212791799556192.990.926721280060034
Mar. 222651709053182.990.9980272Sunday.
Mar. 232651709053182.991.06903224,6001,30033
Mar. 242651709053182.991.12823432,50095038
Mar. 252651709053182.991.18672731,600...30
Mar. 262651709053182.991.226020355040024
Mar. 272651709053183.001.235918295036028
Mar. 282651709053183.001.255114265023018
Mar. 292651709053182.991.283162Sunday.
Mar. 302651709053182.991.36305150016025
Mar. 312651709053182.991.43397175014026
April 12651709053183.001.4844917506041
April 22651709053182.991.5642911,10014026
April 331820410864222.991.6341811,5004711
April 429418910059202.991.70541317008035
April 52791799556193.001.7350131Sunday.
April 62791799556192.991.7641914406517
April 72651709053183.001.7835616506534
April 82651709053183.001.7939615504410
April 92651709053183.001.7940613903025
April 102651709053183.001.7740615002716
April 112651709053183.001.7845714302828
April 122651709053182.991.8052111Sunday.
April 13265170905318...1.81501014901726
April 14Shut down on account of losing water when aqueduct was drained; also cleaned coarse sand filter. Started April 22d.
April 23241155824816...1.82294114060038
April 242411558248163.001.8721312001,00013
April 252411558248162.991.9520318518025
April 262521628650173.001.952431Sunday.
April 272411558248163.001.931821953523
April 282411558248163.001.962021702418
April 292411558248162.991.9724311102124
April 302411558248162.992.03212170256
May 12411558248163.002.0732411302018
May 22411558248162.992.1226311401612
May 32411558248162.992.172231Sunday.
May 42411558248163.002.191921853017
May 52411558248163.002.201821130339
May 62411558248162.992.231821230556
May 72521628650173.002.2419211607510
May 82411558248163.002.251921375558
May 931820410864222.992.2918211,200129
May 1031820410864222.992.303031Sunday.
May 112651709053182.992.33601012,80013011
May 122521628650172.992.39701512,9001359
May 132411558248163.002.41661411,80011016
May 142651709053183.002.3845712,7006518
May 152521628650173.002.4139519504514
May 162411558248163.002.4149718003210
May 172411558248163.012.344671Sunday.
May 182411558248163.002.313141700266
May 192521628650173.002.2636413752817
May 202521628650173.002.2041514253811
May 2134422111769233.002.183031300259
May 222411558248163.012.17537195022018
May 232651709053182.992.251273812,40060021
May 2433121211266223.002.19110393Sunday.
May 2531820410864223.012.029025360030040
May 262791799556193.021.871354533,20011034
May 272651709053183.011.6311039314,50032045
May 282521628650173.011.41902731,0009528
May 292521628650173.011.24701731,10015026
May 302521628650173.011.075092Holiday.
May 312411558248163.011.033442Sunday.
June 12521628650173.000.833541.........
June 22411558248163.000.743951.........
June 32521628650173.000.683541.........
June 42411558248163.000.633031.........
June 52521628650172.990.603031.........
June 62411558248163.000.562731.........
June 72411558248162.990.532221.........
June 82411558248163.000.492011.........
June 92411558248162.990.462011.........
June 102411558248163.000.441711.........
June 1133121211266222.980.421211.........
June 1231820410864222.980.421111.........
June 132651709053183.000.403631.........
June 142521628650172.990.403951.........
June 152411558248162.990.392531.........
June 162411558248162.990.403431.........
June 172521628650172.990.4164111.........
June 182411558248162.990.4257111.........
June 192411558248162.990.424681.........
June 202411558248162.990.424051.........
June 212411558248163.000.432841.........
June 222411558248162.990.432531.........
June 232411558248162.990.432531.........
June 242411558248162.990.432941.........
June 252411558248162.990.431821.........
June 262411558248162.800.421511.........
June 272411558248162.990.441211.........
June 282411558248162.990.44911.........
June 292411558248162.990.44811.........
June 302411558248162.990.441011.........
July 12411558248163.000.4581180104
July 22411558248163.000.46810290245
July 32411558248163.000.47810350456
July 42411558248162.990.49910.........
July 530519510361213.000.511010.........
July 62411558248163.000.51910300367
July 72411558248162.990.53810110103
July 82521628650173.000.5391085222
July 92411558248163.000.5481085262
July 10..............................20035
July 1130519510361213.000.56121014573
July 122411558248162.990.581110.........
July 132411558248163.000.6010101153455
July 142411558248162.990.6216103005530
July 152411558248162.990.6417101803223
July 162411558248163.000.6713101001153
July 172411558248162.990.711010652755
July 182411558248162.990.7311103842510
July 192411558248163.000.761210.........
July 202411558248162.990.791010959070
July 212521628650172.990.83101170174
July 222411558248162.990.87131144085
July 2330519510361212.990.925441650265
July 2433121211166222.980.993056111,650......
July 252651709053182.981.083308512,60011515
July 262521628650172.981.21290772.........
July 2730519510361212.981.4033587235,000250...
July 282521628650172.981.681705221,2001,35015
July 292521628650172.972.141805222,00060013
July 302521628650172.972.652375628001,30012
July 312411558248162.953.012506021,0003107
Table 18—Record of Experimental Filter Plant No. 2.
Date.Preliminary Filter.Final Filter.TurbidityBacteria
Rate, millions of gallons per acre daily.Loss of head.Rate, millions of gallons per acre daily.Loss of head.Applied water.Effluent preliminary filter.Effluent final filter.Applied water.Effluent preliminary filter.Effluent final filter.
1907.
Feb. 821.500.042.810.17.........1,1002,100...
Feb. 921.600.041.090.06.........2005502,100
Feb. 1020.900.051.590.08..................
Feb. 1119.800.053.010.1512626001,1601,100
Feb. 1219.700.063.010.141252650400700
Feb. 1319.600.063.010.121552660900700
Feb. 1424.700.072.650.1315626501,100900
Feb. 1537.20...3.400.121252600800850
Feb. 1637.30...3.400.111442850950600
Feb. 17Shut down for changes in meters and piping.
Feb. 18.....................1,200...600
Feb. 2144.50...4.360.1920621,8001,400800
Feb. 2248.60...4.370.161542Holiday.
Feb. 2348.40...4.200.1520721,600750380
Feb. 2448.30...4.020.1320103Sunday.
Feb. 25Shut down several hours.0.14201031,4001,000450
Feb. 2648.600.044.120.1420103700800260
Feb. 2753.200.044.080.151783700700290
Feb. 2852.800.044.090.151583800650500
Mar. 153.000.044.100.161583650550200
Mar. 253.300.044.110.1615731,000800300
Mar. 350.600.054.110.1631113Sunday.
Mar. 442.400.054.120.17351561,2001,500360
Mar. 542.700.054.110.17135521013,000850...
Mar. 648.600.074.130.17135541218,0008,000...
Mar. 750.500.084.120.1810246824,0006,5001,800
Mar. 851.800.094.120.1810040622,0006,0001,600
Mar. 953.000.104.120.189040524,0006,000800
Mar. 1054.400.124.110.1982396Sunday.
Mar. 1151.000.124.120.196832718,0004,300240
Mar. 1251.200.124.070.194625511,0004,600210
Mar. 1350.500.124.000.19402059,0001,500200
Mar. 1446.500.12...0.20392045,5001,20090
Mar. 1545.800.123.980.20351846,5001,100150
Mar. 1642.500.123.970.19602445,000800160
Mar. 1749.300.143.980.19135455Sunday.
Mar. 1852.600.163.980.201705999,0001,700100
Mar. 1953.500.174.010.191255187,0001,000120
Mar. 2052.900.173.990.181024064,80070075
Mar. 2148.200.164.000.191254258,5001,10090
Mar. 2251.800.184.010.201908257,5001,10055
Mar. 2351.600.194.010.201807567,5001,30090
Mar. 2448.200.174.010.20140687Sunday.
Mar. 2548.500.184.010.20884054,40090075
Mar. 2645.900.183.980.20623243,60075090
Mar. 2750.500.204.040.20472542,20040060
Mar. 2849.600.203.920.19351631,30035055
Mar. 2942.200.173.980.192612370018020
Mar. 3048.000.224.010.19257331022039
Mar. 3149.100.223.990.202162Sunday.
April 149.100.244.000.20206260011038
April 249.700.254.000.20246227011029
April 351.400.274.000.2124624608531
April 448.700.274.000.2220622806022
April 548.100.274.000.2220524507040
April 6Shut down awaiting Mr. Maiguen to apply bone-charcoal.
April 7Removed 1.06 in. of sand.Sunday.
April 852.200.334.050.271843330......
April 946.900.294.020.2918421406032
April 1047.600.314.030.28304175012028
April 1146.000.304.040.2866724,000...32
April 1245.400.314.030.297220314,0002,90085
April 1345.100.323.990.328030313,0002,50095
April 1449.000.344.000.3277354Sunday.
April 1547.800.353.990.33623147,0001,10060
April 1647.400.363.990.34472743,60065031
April 1745.600.364.000.34392131,60016038
April 1845.700.364.000.34301321,81021042
April 1945.600.374.000.34259279019034
April 2045.300.404.000.3620625408723
April 2147.200.443.990.382042Sunday.
April 2245.200.423.990.3818312355522
April 2344.900.444.050.4015311704516
April 2440.500.414.020.4419211501414
April 2539.600.414.030.4534317001223
April 2640.700.444.050.4546411,2008016
April 2739.300.444.000.4452411,70016023
April 2834.700.434.050.444551Sunday.
April 2937.200.454.000.4244616006010
April 3043.000.494.000.4139715505515
May 141.300.494.000.4131615008017
May 242.400.494.000.4124515008019
May 340.700.484.000.4019412807548
May 433.800.474.000.391631400809
May 526.200.434.000.391511Sunday.
May 629.000.383.990.37132139010065
May 727.600.36...0.3712211906019
May 824.700.313.990.371021.........
Washed.
May 924.400.033.980.3910213906510
May 1024.800.044.000.4210213008018
May 1150.000.064.000.44122139011012
May 1250.000.084.000.481721Sunday.
May 1350.000.094.000.47353160010018
May 1450.000.104.000.4639415006515
May 1548.500.154.000.4517315007016
May 1647.000.164.000.4624312907016
May 1747.000.163.990.471831260409
May 1847.000.194.000.481521190...17
May 1947.000.213.990.511221Sunday.
May 2046.600.244.000.5312212604013
May 2146.400.244.000.551621260659
May 2246.400.274.000.5820212803512
May 2346.400.294.000.6115211303510
May 2446.400.304.000.631521170266
May 2546.400.324.000.6615213408013
May 2646.400.343.990.701821Sunday.
May 2746.400.863.990.741321210807
May 2846.400.383.150.7616212607010
May 2946.000.443.880.7816215005512
May 3045.600.463.990.861421Holiday.
May 3145.600.464.000.9217213806511
June 145.600.464.000.9815219004810
June 245.600.484.001.091721Sunday.
June 345.600.514.001.2024215507516
June 445.600.544.001.3237316,500...22
June 545.600.554.001.4865513,20014019
June 645.600.564.013.66771611,50021014
June 745.000.574.001.80642712,10023020
June 845.000.574.001.904622160024033
June 945.000.554.012.0044181Sunday.
June 1045.000.564.002.093612124011043
June 1145.000.584.002.17308128013060
June 1245.000.604.012.27348133015060
June 1345.000.624.002.3635101480...120
June 1445.000.633.992.493191440...65
June 1545.000.643.992.563281420...49
June 1644.700.654.002.632671Sunday.
June 1744.400.644.002.67266134027055
June 1845.000.633.982.69317144014065
June 1945.000.634.002.733710150011024
June 2045.000.624.012.7230913307034
June 2145.000.614.012.68257117013060
June 22Shut down to scrape and apply asbestos and coke; removed 0.79 in. of sand.
June 23Applied 8 lb. of asbestos and 10 lb. of bone-charcoal.
June 2550.000.544.000.27130451400......
June 2650.000.574.010.468237175055035
June 2750.000.634.010.5565261...1,200140
June 2850.000.653.990.6347211...1,20026
June 2950.000.704.000.73379122080022
June 3050.000.773.990.823081Sunday.
July 150.000.874.000.8030814009037
July 250.000.954.010.73329118023025
July 350.001.014.000.66361013508058
July 450.001.034.000.5844121Holiday.
July 550.001.073.990.542414155013047
July 650.001.104.000.523912125011033
July 750.001.144.000.5034101Sunday.
July 850.001.164.000.48257122019014
July 950.001.184.000.46225150303
July 1050.001.203.990.4547111Lost.Lost.Lost.
July 1150.001.203.990.459030115014012
July 1250.001.204.010.449735130011020
July 1350.001.154.000.479039122012014
July 1450.001.154.000.4890401Sunday.
July 1550.001.143.990.489540137532019
July 1650.001.194.000.48120451Lost.15012
July 1750.001.214.000.4885421270605
July 1850.001.193.990.50563211,6752339
July 1950.001.163.990.524120145020013
July 2050.001.163.990.56622913002208
July 2150.001.193.990.6362311Sunday.
July 2250.001.203.990.77803611,400709
July 2350.001.213.990.931054013,70037025
July 2450.001.383.991.079540177026031
July 2550.001.173.991.22773212502303
July 2650.001.074.001.37672911409012
July 2750.001.114.00 542513001806
July 2850.001.223.981.6546191Sunday.
July 2950.001.214.001.823616147023018
July 3050.001.203.991.9829111Plates lost.
July 3150.001.203.992.112191Plates lost.
Aug. 151.001.213.992.271661Plates lost.
Aug. 251.001.213.992.4315411301304
Aug. 351.001.214.002.661631120804
Aug. 450.001.213.992.952131Sunday.
Aug. 550.001.213.983.2229312302104
Aug. 650.001.223.983.5034418532019
Aug. 750.001.213.993.742141200Lost.19
Aug. 848.201.20...4.09194110015017
Aug. 950.001.18...4.451631752209
Aug. 1047.301.16...4.6724316025010
Aug. 11Shut down to drain and scrape sand filter; O.9 in. depth over all.
Aug. 16Out of service all the rest of month washing sponge and asbestos.
Sept. 350.000.024.000.161251300......
Sept. 450.000.023.990.141661600260370
Sept. 550.000.024.010.13346136071165
Sept. 646.400.024.000.1216052115,0001,900120
Sept. 750.000.034.000.11642612,00017062
Sept. 846.400.043.990.1156251Sunday.
Sept. 950.000.054.900.11592512201319
Sept. 1050.000.054.000.115721118,00010024
Sept. 1150.000.064.000.11652512,70015025
Sept. 1250.000.074.000.12722611,00019036
Sept. 1350.000.084.000.12873012,300...35
Sept. 1450.000.094.010.12722712,400130230
Sept. 1548.200.114.000.1265251Sunday.
Sept. 1651.000.134.000.1265251Lost.Lost.27
Sept. 1750.000.144.000.12522114206029
Sept. 1849.100.144.000.13601819008041
Sept. 1950.000.154.000.13852212,000...19
Sept. 2049.100.174.000.131002914,20030028
Sept. 2149.100.184.000.131203411,10016030
Sept. 2248.200.204.000.13137411Sunday.
Sept. 2349.100.194.000.131123712,4009034
Sept. 2446.400.193.990.141003514,00021012
Sept. 2546.400.204.000.1443280156,00051027
Sept. 2645.600.244.000.153858041,30045055
Sept. 2744.800.274.000.162457034,00024041
Sept. 2846.400.303.990.1612746215,00043037
Sept. 2946.400.313.990.16105412Sunday.
Sept. 3046.400.314.000.17115421Lost.1,600110
Oct. 148.200.334.000.1882361600600120
Oct. 250.000.334.010.19652714,40017047
Oct. 348.200.334.000.195934190021044
Oct. 448.200.344.000.195520185020037
Oct. 550.000.384.000.1992112,00015034
Oct. 648.200.414.000.1959241Sunday.
Oct. 748.200.424.000.195521711,25020028
Oct. 850.000.424.000.195416111,00021028
Oct. 944.800.404.000.19511612,00031029
Oct. 1048.200.424.000.195015180022016
Oct. 1148.200.434.000.20471312,00031046
Washed.
Oct. 1250.000.144.000.20361111,20037025
Oct. 1347.300.154.000.2140151Sunday.
Oct. 1450.000.184.000.22471911,20039022
Oct. 1553.000.204.000.234116190014016
Oct. 1650.000.204.000.2435121Lost.31018
Oct. 1750.000.214.000.2530815501807
Oct. 1850.000.214.000.25256126010033
Oct. 1950.000.214.000.25256175022015
Oct. 2050.000.224.000.252051Sunday.
Oct. 2150.000.234.000.25195148012011
Oct. 2250.000.244.000.261841230707
Oct. 2350.000.254.000.26153125012012
Oct. 2450.000.264.000.2615313008012
Oct. 2550.000.274.000.2715214506015
Oct. 2650.000.284.000.271521450Lost.14
Oct. 2750.000.294.000.271320Sunday.
Oct. 2850.000.304.000.2713201901109
Oct. 2950.000.314.000.272520380......
Oct. 3050.000.324.000.272130.........
Oct. 31Out of commission. 4-in supply pipe stopped up.
Nov. 450.000.164.000.28125111.........
Nov. 550.000.174.000.281856116,0003,000220
Nov. 650.000.184.000.291706615,0001,100150
Nov. 750.000.204.000.3010045114,0001,600120
Nov. 850.000.214.000.32954211,9002,00029
Nov. 950.000.224.000.34803614,0002,000110
Nov. 1050.000.234.000.3667291Sunday.
Nov. 1150.000.243.460.38522011,900460160
Nov. 1250.000.263.990.40401317,5001,100110
Nov. 1350.000.274.000.44361011,60055050
Nov. 1450.000.284.000.49421312,70095048
Nov. 1550.000.294.000.55351111,80090049
Nov. 1650.000.304.000.6526711,10036035
Nov. 1750.000.313.980.802051Sunday.
Nov. 1850.000.323.990.9817411,60020035
Nov. 1950.000.343.991.2616311,30040055
Nov. 2050.000.353.981.6445416,5003,500200
Nov. 2150.000.363.992.03521219,9004,500130
Nov. 2250.000.373.982.336524110,0005,500220
Nov. 2350.000.383.992.604919118,0003,500100
Nov. 2450.000.403.982.85134321Sunday.
Nov. 2548.200.453.983.1022587250,00019,000340
Nov. 2650.000.493.983.6223790240,00011,000220
Nov. 2750.000.513.994.1518577216,0007,500310
Nov. 2850.000.543.844.44130572Holiday.
Nov. 2950.000.553.674.558036110,0002,20080
Nov. 3050.000.563.444.65542513,8002,20055
Dec. 2Shut down to scrape sand filter.
Dec. 650.000.644.000.461631---------
Dec. 750.000.644.000.3914312,4001,200490
Dec. 850.000.644.010.351221Sunday.
Dec. 950.000.654.010.3311211,20042060
Dec. 1050.000.654.000.33122180095066
Dec. 1147.300.644.000.352558436,5001,600140
Dec. 1246.400.703.980.39212100648,00015,0001,800
Dec. 1350.000.793.980.49495217942,00020,0001,600
Dec. 1452.000.843.970.65357167949,0009,5001,200
Dec. 1549.100.843.980.77157766Sunday.
Dec. 1649.100.863.970.849042419,000800700
Dec. 1749.100.883.980.917031221,00018,0001,600
Dec. 1848.200.893.980.94492126,5007,000600
Dec. 1950.000.913.980.9739131Lost.Lost.Lost.
Dec. 2049.100.923.981.0342161"""
Dec. 2150.000.943.981.082671"""
Dec. 2250.000.973.981.132051Sunday.
Dec. 2350.000.953.981.1934911,400500160
Dec. 2447.300.933.981.281957529,0001,700130
Dec. 2544.100.913.971.474452109Holiday.
Dec. 2646.401.013.971.63370172751,0008,000250
Dec. 2750.001.113.981.81245110555,0005,600210
Dec. 2848.201.123.991.8710246310,0004,500140
Dec. 2950.001.143.991.8575322Sunday.
Dec. 3049.101.153.981.86562424,4001,900190
Dec. 3150.001.174.001.873915114,0001,30060
1908.
Jan. 150.001.183.981.903181.........
Jan. 250.001.183.991.94391114,40075045
Jan. 350.001.193.981.98361113,1001,60070
Washed.
Jan. 450.000.173.972.0932912,4001,20043
Jan. 550.000.183.982.222661Sunday.
Jan. 650.000.193.982.28205160060049
Jan. 750.000.203.982.3720511,10033049
Jan. 850.000.213.992.4322511,90090043
Jan. 950.000.233.982.524513113,0003,40050
Jan. 1050.000.243.992.667030110,0008,00050
Jan. 1150.000.273.982.745622116,000220200
Jan. 1250.000.283.982.8340121Sunday.
Jan. 1349.100.303.982.931105128,5001,20043
Jan. 1448.200.333.993.04210113416,0006,000280
Jan. 1546.400.353.983.213252221524,0009,500700
Jan. 1650.000.403.983.493602474228,00014,000900
Jan. 1750.000.433.983.862421472665,00020,0001,200
Jan. 1850.000.463.913.991377377,0006,500400
Jan. 19.....................Sunday.
Jan. 20Scraped.
Jan. 2150.000.483.000.7655254.........
Jan. 2250.000.483.010.60492143,6001,900150
Jan. 2350.000.493.000.57401531,800700170
Jan. 2450.000.492.990.60401332,30095090
Jan. 2550.000.502.990.65391231,10080095
Jan. 2650.000.502.980.693292Sunday.
Jan. 2750.000.512.990.76329230070070
Jan. 2850.000.522.990.82451521,20090070
Jan. 2950.000.552.990.90602621,0001,40095
Jan. 3050.000.572.980.98572721,40021033
Jan. 3150.000.582.981.08421821,10075045
Feb. 150.000.592.991.16391427501,00070
Feb. 249.100.602.991.222792Sunday.
Feb. 349.100.612.981.3029821,30075020
Feb. 450.000.642.991.40256260090060
Feb. 550.000.662.991.50246275020075
Feb. 650.000.672.991.5520522,00080060
Feb. 750.000.683.001.561741...60034
Feb. 850.000.693.001.53154190022035
Feb. 950.000.713.001.541441Sunday.
Feb. 1050.000.722.991.60114185050028
Feb. 1150.000.742.991.6210411,00050023
Feb. 1250.000.752.981.6884175029018
Feb. 1350.000.762.991.7494170026010
Feb. 1448.200.762.991.779411,20025027
Feb. 1551.800.792.991.89611815,5004,80013
Feb. 1648.200.792.992.0880402Sunday.
Feb. 1748.200.812.992.248040333,0001,30060
Feb. 1847.300.822.992.31130653...950120
Feb. 1951.800.922.992.45320200728,00022,000360
Feb. 2052.700.992.992.6117797922,00016,300350
Feb. 2151.801.032.992.6810552610,6003,800270
Feb. 2250.901.072.992.7285425Holiday.
Feb. 2350.001.092.992.7660304Sunday.
Feb. 2451.801.122.992.80461933,6001,700120
Feb. 2550.001.142.992.8431922,3001,30060
Feb. 2650.001.173.002.8730823,8001,30043
Feb. 2748.201.182.992.9030711,30090042
Feb. 2847.301.192.992.9437711,40080031
Feb. 2951.801.232.993.0112349213,50075035
Mar. 148.201.202.982.9997445Sunday.
Mar. 250.001.282.993.12823548,0002,50070
Mar. 350.901.322.983.228738411,0006,00055
Mar. 450.001.332.993.28672936,0001,40038
Mar. 550.001.352.993.32592334,4002,50037
Mar. 6Discontinued; sand filter being used for sedimentation experiments.

Table 19—Record of Experimental Filter Plant. No. 3.
Date.Sand Filter.Turbidity.Bacteria.Coagulant.
Rate.Loss of head.Applied water.Effluent, coagulant.Effluent, sand.Applied water.Effluent, coagulant.Effluent, sand.Grains, per gallon.
1907.
Feb. 122.990.1814...2............
Feb. 133.000.1715...2600.........
Feb. 143.190.1815...2650.........
Feb. 153.860.2212...2600...2,500...
Feb. 163.840.2914...2850...1,600...
Feb. 17...........................
Feb. 18...............1,200...300...
Feb. 213.910.3220...21,800...550...
Feb. 223.950.3915...22 Holiday.
Feb. 233.940.4320...31,600...1,100...
Feb. 243.890.4720...33 Sunday.
Feb. 254.190.5220...31,400...600...
Feb. 264.130.5720...3700...650...
Feb. 273.320.6217...3700...2,300...
Feb. 284.410.6715...3800...550...
Mar. 13.910.7215...3650...300...
Mar. 23.930.7915...31,000...270...
Mar. 33.900.8231...3 Sunday.
Mar. 43.920.8035...31,200...1401.45
Mar. 53.960.98135...413,000...1901.94
Mar. 64.051.2513529218,0002,1001602.03
Mar. 73.951.5210215124,0003,5001601.50
Mar. 83.901.6710015122,0001,8001301.38
Mar. 93.931.809015124,0003,5001301.37
Mar. 103.951.9182161 Sunday. 1.26
Mar. 113.962.086818118,0006,0001201.24
Mar. 124.022.194618111,0009,0001401.08
Mar. 134.022.31401519,0005,0001200.94
Mar. 143.962.44391615,5003,600900
Mar. 154.072.42352016,5003,800850
Mar. 163.852.20602915,0003,5001001.26
Mar. 173.952.21135251 Sunday. 1.52
Mar. 183.882.861702519,0001,900851.75
Mar. 193.823.311252117,000700651.57
Mar. 203.783.471022014,8001,500601.31
Mar. 213.713.701252018,5001,500701.38
Mar. 223.643.811902517,5001,100351.57
Mar. 233.583.951802617,500470551.68
Mar. 243.464.18140191 Sunday. 1.52
Mar. 25Scraped, 1.03 in. of sand removed.
Mar. 274.060.2247812,200480601.08
Mar. 284.020.3735...01,300250801.00
Mar. 294.020.4626......700240650
Mar. 30Shut down to fill coagulant basin.
......25......310......0
Mar. 314.000.4521151 Sunday. 0
Apr. 13.390.42201516001,000430
Apr. 23.060.4624171270Lost.350
Apr. 33.010.4924171460"410
Apr. 42.950.5020151280550270
Apr. 52.950.51201314501,000600
Apr. 62.960.492012132050350
Apr. 72.990.4820121Sunday.0
Apr. 83.010.4918121330650220
Apr. 93.010.5518121140750210
Apr. 103.020.57301507505,000290
Apr. 113.040.61661604,000550251.11
Apr. 123.090.727213014,0002,200171.15
Apr. 133.070.888019013,0003,900251.14
Apr. 142.981.0477181 Sunday. 1.17
Apr. 152.971.20621817,0602,200191.09
Apr. 163.011.32471713,600900221.08
Apr. 173.051.44391901,6001,100120
Apr. 183.041.41302011,8101,870140
Apr. 193.041.3525181790910140
Apr. 203.071.3020151540480150
Apr. 213.071.2620151 Sunday. ...
Apr. 223.041.2118120235420210
Apr. 233.061.221510017042080
Apr. 242.991.2619100150250170
Apr. 253.041.2734120700260190
Apr. 263.071.28461201,200320800
Apr. 272.941.4952...01,7001,500700
Apr. 282.961.8845...1 Sunday. 0
Apr. 292.992.40443316001,400190
Apr. 303.002.83392915501,200140
May 13.012.71312115001,300200
May 23.012.5124151500850160
May 33.002.3619121280650340
May 43.012.2916100400550240
May 53.012.251590 Sunday. 0
May 63.062.321380390460800
May 72.962.461270190...180
May 83.002.511050.........0
May 93.002.7710503901,100140
May 103.012.871050300500210
May 112.993.161260390650160
May 123.003.341770 Sunday. 0
May 133.003.443590600470270
May 143.013.4639120500550250
May 153.013.5617...0500900230
May 162.934.0724...02902,500250
May 173.014.3418...02602,000160
May 182.934.251580190600190
May 192.974.361280 Sunday. 0
May 203.014.641280260450150
May 212.994.551680260330140
May 223.014.572080280390220
May 233.004.511580130240190
May 242.984.441580170240300
May 253.004.381580340400410
May 263.004.381880 Sunday. 0
May 27Shut down to scrape sand filter; 1.09 in. of sand removed.
May 28Cleaning coagulant basin and treating coagulant basin with 1:2,000,000 solution of copper sulphate.
May 29 16......solution of copper sulphate.
May 303.000.111481 Holiday. 0
May 313.010.10178138018,0001500
June 13.010.0915819007,0001500
June 23.010.101781 Sunday. 0
June 33.010.10241015508,0001300
June 43.040.11371316,5007,5001400
June 53.000.11652913,2003,6001100
June 63.000.11774611,500800601.17
June 72.990.12642112,1001,500901.18
June 82.980.17462216601,000600
June 93.000.1844301 Sunday. 0
June 103.010.1836261240400320
June 113.000.1730201280300310
June 123.000.1734221330...280
June 132.990.1735251480480390
June 142.980.1731221440550320
June 152.990.1932221420450270
June 163.020.2126181 Sunday. 0
June 172.990.2326161340750140
June 183.020.2531201440750210
June 193.020.2937271500460350
June 203.000.3230211330440880
June 213.010.3625161170370230
June 223.000.4020121100300170
June 232.970.4326111 Sunday. 0
June 242.970.441403611,700350221.59
June 253.020.45130271400250161.55
June 26Interrupted, defective meter.750330...0
June 273.000.4365150...1,400...0
June 283.000.4447190...1,4001200
June 292.990.4437200220300...0
June 302.970.4230190 Sunday. 0
July 12.990.3730180400600850
July 23.010.33321901801,000500
July 33.000.3136210350310210
July 43.000.3044300 Holiday.
July 53.000.2944350550400410
July 63.000.2839300250280220
July 73.000.2834240 Sunday. 0
July 83.000.2825160220260270
July 93.000.27221305040190
July 102.980.2747271Lost.Lost.Lost.0
July 113.000.27904111505081.27
July 123.000.2997211300200131.27
July 133.000.3490200220160171.27
July 143.000.4090190 Sunday. 1.27
July 153.000.5495180375150 1.27
July 163.000.59120200Lost.50Lost.1.36
July 173.000.58851602706031.26
July 182.990.61561301,67570 1.17
July 193.010.6141180450700110
July 202.990.516227030072080
July 213.000.4762320 Sunday. 0
July 223.000.47803401,400560141.17
July 233.010.491052103,700490401.25
July 243.010.6095190770110801.27
July 253.000.68771602508051.22
July 262.990.68671701404040
July 273.000.6954200300130210
July 283.000.7246270 Sunday. 0
July 293.000.74362604702901000
July 302.990.7629190Lost.Lost.Lost.0
July 312.990.7721120Lost.Lost.Lost.0
Aug. 13.000.751690Lost.Lost.Lost.0
Aug. 23.000.74158013014040
Aug. 33.000.74167012018060
Aug. 43.000.752160 Sunday.
Aug. 53.000.762980230100440
Aug. 63.000.793412085470...0
Aug. 72.991.0121120200450...0
Aug. 83.001.3119110100180450
Aug. 92.981.4416907580160
Aug. 103.001.4424906090110
Aug. 113.001.4962220 Sunday.
Aug. 123.001.62120390620260161.45
Aug. 132.972.06107220820520101.38
Aug. 142.973.0682190850120261.22
Aug. 152.813.916515015026061.17
Aug. 163.004.2945180270340170
Aug. 173.003.8635220340200130
Aug. 183.003.4721130 Sunday.
Aug. 193.003.4918100180220170
Aug. 203.003.562080210180160
Aug. 213.003.58201001,30065080
Aug. 222.993.73271303,80036060
Aug. 233.004.00493402,500700100
Aug. 243.004.05362603,900630120
Aug. 252.984.0634240 Sunday.
Aug. 263.004.2021130700310160
Aug. 273.004.3119110470250120
Aug. 282.994.4018100500160180
Aug. 293.014.41179036011090
Aug. 302.984.461580320310140
Aug. 31Scraped. 1.88 in. of sand removed.13......200100...0
Sept. 53.000.103440360950...1.04
Sept. 63.000.101603015,0001,5001901.35
Sept. 73.000.0964302,0002601001.20
Sept. 83.000.085640 Sunday....1.04
Sept. 93.000.085930220180381.04
Sept. 102.970.07573018,000150291.06
Sept. 112.980.0765202,700200371.04
Sept. 122.980.0872201,000125191.04
Sept. 133.000.0887302,300200721.20
Sept. 143.000.0872302,400360361.12
Sept. 153.000.086530 Sunday. 1.04
Sept. 163.000.086520Lost.Lost.381.04
Sept. 173.000.085220420200381.07
Sept. 183.000.086020900200171.07
Sept. 192.980.0885202,000220251.12
Sept. 202.980.09100204,200320311.24
Sept. 212.990.09120301,100160191.33
Sept. 223.000.0913730 Sunday. 1.45
Sept. 233.020.09112402,100190151.41
Sept. 243.000.10100404,000620131.33
Sept. 253.000.114323056,00029071.83
Sept. 262.990.11385201,300950192.34
Sept. 273.000.12245404,000Lost.201.91
Sept. 282.980.131274015,0001,00081.54
Sept. 292.980.1410540 Sunday. 1.34
Sept. 302.990.1511530Lost.Lost.461.35
Oct. 13.000.1582306001,700221.24
Oct. 22.980.1665304,40055081.09
Oct. 33.000.175920900330151.04
Oct. 42.990.175520850250111.03
Oct. 52.990.1959202,000450251.04
Oct. 62.980.205920 Sunday. 1.04
Oct. 72.980.2152201,2502,300421.04
Oct. 82.970.21542011,000100151.04
Oct. 92.980.2251202,0001,60071.04
Oct. 102.980.245020800Lost.241.04
Oct. 112.980.2547202,0001,200210
Oct. 122.970.2636301,2001,200190
Oct. 132.980.274040 Sunday. 0
Oct. 142.980.2947501,200830250
Oct. 152.990.314150900Lost.1050
Oct. 162.990.323540Lost.550190
Oct. 172.980.343040550800210
Oct. 183.000.35254026035090
Oct. 193.000.352540750310350
Oct. 203.000.352030 Sunday. 0
Oct. 213.000.351930480540350
Oct. 222.990.361830230440170
Oct. 232.990.371530250440390
Oct. 242.980.381530300500600
Oct. 252.990.391530450410650
Oct. 262.990.401530450500440
Oct. 272.990.411320 Sunday. 0
Oct. 282.990.431320190500500
Oct. 292.980.44252038060750
Oct. 302.990.46212045018030
Oct. 312.960.4825302,300390750
Nov. 43.000.5112520.........0
Nov. 53.000.53185206,0001,600901.70
Nov. 62.990.56170205,0003,90061.70
Nov. 72.990.601003014,00030091.48
Nov. 82.990.6495301,90023021.27
Nov. 92.990.7080404,0002,7002000
Nov. 102.990.796740 Sunday. 0
Nov. 112.991.0052601,9002,0002000
Nov. 122.991.4640907,5002,3001600
Nov. 132.982.09361001,6001,1001700
Nov. 142.992.7442902,7009501300
Nov. 152.992.9835801,800800110
Nov. 162.993.0326801,100800900
Nov. 173.003.072060 Sunday. 0
Nov. 183.003.0917501,6007001000
Nov. 202.993.1745306,5001201200
Nov. 212.993.2252309,9001,000800
Nov. 222.993.27655010,0003,200900
Nov. 232.993.33498018,0002,4001000
Nov. 242.993.41134110 Sunday. 0
Nov. 252.983.5422512150,0002,100651.68
Nov. 262.983.6823713140,0002,400951.76
Nov. 272.993.9618516116,0002,600601.74
Nov. 282.984.29130181 Holiday. 1.57
Nov. 292.974.488019110,0002,500651.50
Nov. 302.974.54541513,8001,900850
Dec. 6Scraped, 1.62 in. of sand removed.
Dec. 82.970.161230 Sunday. 1.17
Dec. 92.980.1611301,200410101.17
Dec. 102.980.1512308005501501.17
Dec. 112.990.15255306,5006001301.52
Dec. 123.000.132122048,0005001301.99
Dec. 132.980.134954042,0005001202.06
Dec. 142.990.143575049,0007501502.12
Dec. 152.990.1515760 Sunday. 1.69
Dec. 162.980.16909019,000900201.28
Dec. 172.980.207012021,0004001701.17
Dec. 182.980.24491216,5007,0003501.17
Dec. 192.980.293991Lost.Lost.Lost.1.17
Dec. 202.980.364271Lost.Lost.Lost.1.17
Dec. 212.970.452650Lost.Lost.Lost.1.17
Dec. 222.980.572040 Sunday. 1.17
Dec. 232.980.7134301,4001,3002201.17
Dec. 242.980.83195209,0001,0001401.49
Dec. 252.980.9744520 Holiday. 2.43
Dec. 262.981.113702051,0001,000392.15
Dec. 272.981.272453055,0001,600701.91
Dec. 282.981.401024010,0001,000801.50
Dec. 292.981.607530 Sunday. 1.21
Dec. 302.971.8556304,400700801.17
Dec. 312.982.07392014,0001,200651.17
1908.
Jan. 12.992.113120 Holiday. 1.17
Jan. 22.982.1739204,400700191.17
Jan. 32.982.2636203,1001,000131.17
Jan. 42.982.3432202,400550191.17
Jan. 52.982.412620 Sunday. 1.17
Jan. 62.982.492020600230181.17
Jan. 72.982.5820201,100370121.17
Jan. 82.992.6122201,9001,100201.17
Jan. 92.992.63452013,0001,200221.21
Jan. 102.982.67702010,000700161.17
Jan. 112.982.72562016,0001,200111.17
Jan. 122.982.784020 Sunday. 1.17
Jan. 132.982.84110208,5009061.27
Jan. 142.982.952102016,000150231.56
Jan. 152.983.073253024,0001,100191.92
Jan. 162.983.233605628,0001,000142.10
Jan. 172.973.732426065,000490231.91
Jan. 182.984.42137607,0001,600141.66
Jan. 192.994.7511750 Sunday. 1.50
Jan. 21Scrape, 1.45 in. of sand removed.
Jan. 233.000.144030.........1.17
Jan. 243.000.1440302,300550551.17
Jan. 253.000.1339301,100850950
Jan. 263.000.133230 Sunday. 0
Jan. 273.000.133220300280600
Jan. 282.990.1545301,200700700
Jan. 292.990.2069611,000900750
Jan. 302.990.2457811,400650500
Jan. 312.990.3042611,100600360
Feb. 12.990.34395175050250
Feb. 22.990.412741 Sunday. 0
Feb. 32.990.5129301,300220160
Feb. 42.990.562530600370100
Feb. 52.990.582440750700210
Feb. 62.990.6120602,00065040
Feb. 73.000.641781...410260
Feb. 82.990.661581900160420
Feb. 93.000.671481 Sunday. 0
Feb. 102.990.671181850450180
Feb. 113.000.6610711,000600260
Feb. 123.010.64861750350160
Feb. 133.000.62951700120100
Feb. 143.000.619511,200950430
Feb. 153.000.6061515,5001,000230
Feb. 163.000.608061 Sunday. 0
Feb. 173.000.628014133,0006,100360
Feb. 182.990.67130201...2,000110
Feb. 192.990.7632018228,0009,0001200
Feb. 202.990.8317715222,0008,5001900
Feb. 293.000.8512381.........0
Mar. 13.000.879791 Sunday. 0
Mar. 22.990.92821318,0004,400500
Mar. 32.980.968719111,0002,100260
Mar. 42.991.02672116,0004,70070
Mar. 52.991.08592514,40010,000360
Mar. 62.991.15722527,0007,400500
Mar. 72.981.21822529,5006,500280
Mar. 82.991.2592292 Sunday. 0
Mar. 92.991.3012534211,0004,800250
Mar. 102.991.351423928,5001,200230
Mar. 112.991.391553526,5002,400200
Mar. 122.991.421352925,9001,500110
Mar. 132.991.461221921,9001,100120
Mar. 142.991.47971211,80070060
Mar. 152.991.487781 Sunday. 0
Mar. 163.001.5265901,40070080
Mar. 172.991.665970900800110
Mar. 182.991.72671111,00065080
Mar. 192.991.7560241...600180
Mar. 202.991.81572511,300750200
Mar. 212.991.8967221800480180
Mar. 222.991.9580211 Sunday. 0
Mar. 233.002.00902614,600440190
Mar. 242.982.06823212,5001,200100
Mar. 252.992.17673911,600650200
Mar. 262.992.246036155041070
Mar. 272.992.2959301900900290
Mar. 283.002.3251211650250420
Mar. 292.992.3531181 Sunday. 0
Mar. 303.002.3830141500650280
Mar. 312.992.433991750290300
Apr. 12.992.504471750390320
Apr. 22.992.5842811,100280470
Apr. 32.992.65411111,500550700
Apr. 42.992.745412170038040
Apr. 53.002.8250121 Sunday. 0
Apr. 62.992.884114144015040
Apr. 72.992.9835131650270420
Apr. 82.983.1539111550210650
Apr. 92.993.354081390160950
Apr. 102.983.5040815001301300
Apr. 112.993.6545704301451000
Apr. 122.993.795250 Sunday. 0
Apr. 132.993.925040490160800
Apr. 142.994.054540550170900
Apr. 152.994.164530420160120
Apr. 16...4.244530360130900
Apr. 21Scraped, 0.12 in. of sand removed.
Apr. 23...0.132520140140...0
Apr. 243.000.122120200Lost.1500
Apr. 253.000.10202085550450
Apr. 263.000.102130 Sunday. 0
Apr. 273.000.10183095850500
Apr. 283.000.10203070220480
Apr. 293.000.092430110210950
Apr. 303.000.09213070140290
May 13.000.093230130210650
May 23.000.092630140140550
May 33.000.112250 Sunday. 0
May 43.000.11194085210750
May 53.000.111840130150480
May 62.990.121830230430500
May 73.000.13193016090400
May 83.000.14193037542570
May 92.990.1418301,20918060
May 103.000.143030 Sunday. 0
May 113.000.1360302,800150120
May 123.000.1370302,900225260
May 133.000.1366701,800450530
May 143.000.1445902,700550100
May 152.990.143970950300650
May 162.990.224960800250490
May 172.990.334640 Sunday. 0
May 182.990.4431307001,700800
May 192.980.623630375950530
May 202.990.754130425700460
May 212.990.89314030060060
May 222.991.015050950230170
May 232.991.12127502,40032280
May 242.991.2011060 Sunday. 0
May 252.991.2490901,10085090
May 262.981.311351103,200150170
May 272.971.541101201,45017580
May 282.971.81901001,00013270
May 292.972.0870701,10023080
May 302.972.365050 Holiday. 0
May 312.982.633440 Sunday. 0
June 12.982.773520.........0
June 22.982.843920.........0
June 32.983.023530.........0
June 43.003.013040.........0
June 53.002.973050.........0
June 63.012.812750.........0
June 73.012.622250.........0
June 83.012.382040.........0
June 93.002.192030.........0
June 103.012.021730.........0
June 112.991.891230.........0
June 122.981.921120.........0
June 132.981.993620.........0
June 142.982.083920.........0
June 152.982.252540.........0
June 162.982.543450.........0
June 172.972.856450.........0
June 182.973.205750.........0
June 192.983.474670.........0
June 202.993.733780.........0
June 212.994.102980.........0
June 222.994.442560.........0
June 232.994.612550.........0
June 263.010.091520.........0
June 273.000.091220.........0
June 283.000.09920.........0
June 293.000.08820.........0
June 303.000.071020.........0
July 13.000.07620807530
July 23.000.078202902030
July 33.000.0782035014040
July 43.000.07920 Holiday. 0
July 53.000.071020 Sunday. 0
July 63.000.079203005240
July 73.000.078201103520
July 83.000.079208510520
July 93.000.07820858030
July 10...............3006510
July 113.000.08122014595110
July 123.000.081120 Sunday. 0
July 133.000.08102011510570
July 143.000.0916208003410
July 153.000.09172018016530
July 163.000.1014261009520
July 173.000.101020656510
July 183.000.11112038200240
July 193.000.111220 Sunday. 0
July 203.000.121020953110
July 213.000.1210207010020
July 223.000.1313204501340
July 232.990.13542065032540
July 242.990.14305201,650325...0
July 253.000.15330402,6005520
July 263.000.1529090 Sunday. 0
July 273.000.1633511035,0001,20060
July 282.990.171701001,20067560
July 293.000.17180802,000270110
July 302.990.182377080019020
July 313.000.19250601,00031060
Table 20—Summary of Results of Experimental Filters.
Filter number
Number of runs
1
3
2
6
3
11
4
12
5
25
6
28
Rate, million gallons per acre per day:
Maximum...............1.353.957.9612.6037.5118.9
Minimum................0.622.303.735.776.687.1
Average.................1.063.266.6910.1726.138.54
Length of run, in days:
Maximum...............233.5150.575.290.948.7139.83
Minimum................181.742.014.510.10.670.62
Average.................206.4109.648.8940.514.4112.61
Million gallons filtered per acre per run:
Maximum...............242.61484.46534.67960.721,463.351,022.27
Minimum................202.60135.6693.7992.5719.5353.32
Average.................218.58302.82326.76417.23374.14361.92
Cubic yards of sand removed per acre at end of each run:
Maximum...............2692696721,6122,4203,360
Minimum................269134101134134101
Average.................269213272392583635
Cubic yards of sand removed per acre per million gallons filtered..........1.230.700.830.941.551.72
Average initial loss of head..........0.070.190.510.783.885.38
Turbidity, influent:
Maximum...............12012012012090100
Minimum................222222
Average.................202021221819
Turbidity, effluent:
Maximum...............111317183030
Minimum................000000
Average.................112243
Percentage reduction..........95.095.090.590.977.884.3
Bacteria, influent:
Maximum...............180,000180,000180,000110,000180,00037,500
Minimum................222022202524
Average.................4,8005,1004,5004,2006,9005,900
Bacteria, effluent:
Maximum...............4,0001,3003,2005,40012,8002,400
Minimum................231122
Average.................16085110120190180
Percentage,Reduction..........96.798.397.697.397.397.0
Number of samples examined for bacillus coli in influent:
10 c.c. ...................549478476436325336
1 c.c. ...................560492486445335342
0.1 c.c. ................525459452413318317
0.01 c.c. ..............511443439405308304
0.001 c.c. ............500434429394299294
Number of samples examined for bacillus coli in effluent:
10 c.c. ...................512452454404296309
1 c.c. ...................513454457406299311
0.1 c.c. ................480419426383271286
0.01 c.c. ..............478406410367261276
0.001 c.c. ............478406410367261276
Number samples positive, influent:
10 c.c. ...................226211201258136152
1 c.c. ...................1271231161088193
0.1 c.c. ................555954514342
0.01 c.c. ..............263433332725
0.001 c.c. ............665633
Number samples positive, effluent:
10 c.c. ...................1001091349894106
1 c.c. ...................516155564650
0.1 c.c. ................9131616413
0.01 c.c. ..............000000
0.001 c.c. ............000000
Percentage of samples showing bacillus coli in influent:
10 c.c. ...................41.244.242.259.241.945.2
1 c.c. ...................22.725.023.924.324.227.2
0.1 c.c. ................10.512.811.912.313.513.2
0.01 c.c. ..............5.17.77.58.28.88.2
0.001 c.c. ............1.21.41.21.51.01.0
Percentage of samples showing bacillus coli in effluent:
10 c.c. ...................19.524.129.524.231.734.3
1 c.c. ...................10.013.412.013.815.416.1
0.1 c.c. ................1.93.13.84.21.54.5
0.01 c.c. ..............000000
0.001 c.c. ............000000
Cost per million gallons for sand handling..........$0.43$0.25$0.29$0.33$0.54$0.60
Interest charges at 3%..........6.852.251.120.730.320.22
Total..........7.282.501.411.060.86.82

Coli tests presumptive.

DISCUSSION

Allen Hazen, M. Am. Soc. C. E. (by letter).—This paper contains a most interesting and instructive record of the actual operation of a large filter plant, and also a record of a number of experiments. The author has described some useful arrangements for improving the efficiency or reducing the cost.

The utility of raking, as an intermediate treatment between scrapings, seems to have been clearly demonstrated. Its practical effect is to allow a greater quantity of water to be passed between scrapings, thereby saturating—if the term may be used—the surface layer with clay and other fine matter before removing it, instead of taking it off when only a thin surface layer of it has been thus saturated.

The large proportion of the total purification that takes place in passing through three reservoirs successively, holding in the aggregate a quantity of water equal to about 7 days' use, is very striking. Taking all the records, the percentage remaining after passing through these reservoirs, is as follows:

Sediment for the year, 1909-1910, [Table 2] 17%
Turbidities, 5-year average, [Table 3] 25%
Bacteria, 5-year average, [Table 4] 24%
Bacteria, selected winter months with high numbers in the raw water 20%
Bacteria, selected summer months with high numbers in the raw water 2.5%

There is considerable seasonal fluctuation in the results of settling and filtering, as is shown in [Table 21].

Table 21—Average Removal of Turbidity and Bacteria by Washington Filters for Whole Period, Arranged by Seasons.
Winter.Spring.Summer.Fall.Year.
Turbidity, in parts per million:raw1359614442105
settled3328271526
filtered4310.52
Percentage left from:settling2429193625
filtering1210438
both310.312
Bacteria per cubic centimeter:raw16,6004,1504,1001,9606,700
settled6,3009801602701,940
filtered14929182254
Percentage left from:settling382441429
filtering2.43.011.28.22.8
both0.900.790.441.120.81

The fluctuation in the efficiency of the plant as a whole by seasons is greater with the turbidity than with the bacteria. During the winter the effluent contains 3% of the turbidity of the raw water, and in summer only 0.3 per cent. Most of this difference is represented by the increased efficiency of the filters in summer, and only a little of it by the increased efficiency of settling. With bacteria, on the other hand, the seasonal fluctuation of the plant as a whole is comparatively small, but the settling and storage processes are much more efficient in summer than in winter, the filters being apparently less efficient. The writer believes that they are only apparently less efficient, and not really so, the explanation being that some bacteria always grow in the under‑drains and lower parts of the filter, and are washed away by the effluent. The average number of bacteria in summer in the settled water is 160 per cu. cm. and in the filtered water 18. These are very low numbers. It is the writer's view that nearly all of these 18 represent under‑drain bacteria, and practically bear no relation to those in the applied water, and, if this view is correct, the number of bacteria actually passing through the various processes is at all times less than the figures indicate. In the warmer part of the year the difference is a wide one, and the hygienic efficiency of the process is much greater than is indicated by the gross numbers of bacteria.

The reduction of the typhoid death rate has not been as great with the change in water supply as was the case at Lawrence, Albany, and other cities, apparently because the Potomac water before it was filtered was not the cause of a large part of the typhoid fever.

The sewage pollution of the Potomac is much less than that of the Merrimac and the Hudson, and it is perhaps not surprising that this relatively small amount of pollution was less potent in causing typhoid fever than the greater pollution of rivers draining more densely populated areas.

The method of replacing the washed sand hydraulically seems to have worked better than could have been reasonably anticipated, and the writer believes that this was due, in part, to the excellent method of manipulation described in the paper. It is his feeling, however, that part of the success is attributable to the very low uniformity coefficient of the sand. In other words, the sand grains are nearly all of the same size, due to the character of the stock from which the filter sand was prepared; and, therefore, there is much less opportunity for separation of the sand according to grain sizes than there would be with the filter sand which has been available in most other cases. Filter sand with a uniformity coefficient as low as that obtained at Washington has been rarely available for the construction of sand filters, and while the method of hydraulic return should certainly be considered, it will not be safe to assume that equally favorable results may be obtained with it with sands of high uniformity coefficients until actual favorable experience is obtained.

The writer believes that in calculating the cost of the water used in the plant itself the price chosen by the author, covering only the actual operating expenses of pumping and filtering, is too low. The capacity of the whole Washington Aqueduct system is reduced by whatever quantity is used in this way, and, in calculating the cost of sand handling, the value of the water used should be calculated on a basis which will cover the whole cost of the water, including all capital charges, depreciation, operating expenses, and all costs of every description. On this basis the water used in the sand‑handling operations would probably be worth five or more times the sum mentioned by the author.

The cost of operation of the plant has come within the estimates made in advance, and has certainly been most reasonable. The cost of filter operations has averaged only about 50 cents per million gallons, and is so low that it is obvious that the savings which may be made by introducing further labor‑saving appliances would be relatively small. It will be remembered that ten or fifteen years ago the cost of operating such filters under American conditions was commonly from $2 to $5 per million gallons.

The experiments represented by Tables [17] to [19], inclusive, serve to show that preliminary filtration, or multiple filtration, or any system of mechanical separation is incapable of entirely removing the finer clay particles which cause the residual turbidity in the effluent. They also show that this turbidity may be easily and certainly removed by the application of coagulant to the raw water during the occasional periods when its character is such as to require it.

These general propositions were understood by those responsible for the original design of the plant, as is shown by the author's quotations. These experiments, however, were necessary in order to demonstrate and bring home the conditions to those who thought differently, and who believed that full purification could be obtained by filtration alone, or by double filtration, without recourse to the occasional use of coagulant.

The experiments briefly summarized in [Table 20] are of the greatest interest and importance. Six small filters, otherwise alike and like the large filters, all received the same raw water and were operated at different rates to determine the effect of rate on efficiency.

That the experimental results from the filter operating at the same rate as the large filters were on the whole somewhat inferior to those from the large filters for approximately the same period, may be attributed to the fact that the experimental filter was new while the large filters had been in service for some time and had thereby gained in efficiency. The greatest difference was in the coli results in [Table 20], where it is shown that 24% of the 10‑cu. cm. effluent samples from the experimental filter contained coli, in comparison with only from 1 to 3% of such samples from the main filters.

The results from the experimental filter operating at a rate of 1,000,000 gal. per acre daily may fairly be excluded, as the effluent probably contained more under‑drain bacteria in proportion than filters operated at higher rates. The number of bacteria in the filter operating at a 3,000,000‑gal. rate were 1.7% of those in the applied water; for the filter operating twice as fast, the percentage was 2.4; and, for the one operating more than ten times as fast, was only 3.0; thus indicating a surprisingly small increase in the number of bacteria with increase in rate.

Further and more detailed study by the writer of the unpublished individual results, briefly summarized in [Table 20], confirms the substantial accuracy of the comparison based on the average figures as stated in that table.

It must be kept in mind, in considering these results, that the number of bacteria in each case is made up of two parts, namely, those coming through the filter—which number is presumably greater as the rate is greater—and, second, those coming from harmless growths in the under‑drains and lower parts of the filter—the numbers of which per cubic centimeter are presumably less as the rate is greater—and these two parts, varying in opposite directions, may balance each other, as they seem to do in this case, through a considerable range. It may thus be that the number of bacteria really passing the filter varies much more with the rate than is indicated by the gross results.

It is also of interest to note that the sand filter (called a preliminary filter) in [Table 18], filled with the same kind of sand, when operated at an average rate of 50,000,000 gal. per acre daily for a year, allowed 18% of the applied bacteria to pass, in comparison with 3% found in Filter No. 6 of [Table 20], operated at an average rate of 38,000,000 gal. per acre daily.

There was one point of difference in the manipulation: the preliminary filter was washed by a reversed current of water, as mechanical filters are washed, while Filter No. 6 was cleaned by scraping off the surface layer, as is usual with sand filters. Whether the great difference in bacterial results with a relatively small difference in rate is to be attributed to this difference in manipulation the writer will not undertake to state.

If the experimental results of [Table 20] indicate correctly the conditions which obtain in filtering Potomac water, then increasing the rate of filtration so as to double it, or more than double it, would make but little difference in the quality of the effluent as measured by the usual bacterial methods. If the increase in rate were accompanied by the preliminary filtration of the water, then, presumably, there would be little change in the quality of the effluent, and the maintenance of excellent results might be incorrectly attributed to the influence of the preliminary filter.

It would also seem that the apparatus which is sometimes used for determining and controlling the rate with more than the ordinary degree of precision is hardly justified by such experimental results as those presented by the author.

In contrast to these results may be mentioned those obtained by Mr. H. W. Clark,[1] for experimental filters operated with Merrimac River water, at rates ranging from 3,000,000 to 16,000,000 gal. per acre daily. The results are the average of nearly two years of experimental work, the period having been nearly coincident with that covered by the author's experiments, and of many hundreds of bacterial analyses of each effluent, and form, with the author's experiments, the most thorough‑going studies of the effect of rate on efficiency that have come to the writer's attention.

Mr. Clark's results are given in [Table 22].

[1 Journal, New England Water-Works Association, Vol. 24, p. 589.]

Effective size of sand. Filter No. Rate in gallons acre daily. Bacteria per cubic centimeter in Bacteria efficiency. B. Coli in 1 cu. cm. (percentage of positive tests).
0.28 A 3,000,000 48 99.1 5.0
0.25 B 5,000,000 85 98.4 24.0
0.22 C 7,500,000 105 98.1 25.0
0.22 D 10,000,000 110 98.0 25.0
0.22 E 16,000,000 280 95.0 38.0

It will be seen that the number of bacteria passing increases rapidly with the rate, and whether the total number of bacteria is considered or the B. coli results, the number passing is approximately in proportion to the rate. In other words, doubling the rate substantially doubles the number of bacteria in the effluent.

This is entirely in harmony with all the Lawrence experimental results extending over a period of 20 years. There have been occasional apparent exceptions, but, on the whole, experience with Merrimac River water has uniformly been that more bacteria pass as the rates are higher.

The theory sometimes advanced, that the efficiency of filtration is controlled to a certain extent by gelatinous films, and that, as far as thus controlled, is less dependent on rate, would not seem to be borne out by these results. The Merrimac River water, carrying large amounts of organic matter, would certainly seem better adapted to the formation of such films than the clay‑bearing Potomac water, comparatively free from organic matter; but it is the Potomac water which seems to show the least influence of rate on efficiency.

The experiments show that turbidity passes more freely at the higher rates with the Potomac water, as has also been found to be the case with other clay‑bearing waters.

In the last lines of [Table 20] are given cost per million gallons for filtering at various rates. There is no discussion of these figures, and as they differ considerably from those which the writer has been accustomed to use, the calculation in [Table 23], made three years ago for a particular case, may be of interest.

Table 23—Relative Cost of Filtering at Different Rates.
Nominal rate, in millions of gallons per acre daily:
351020
Percentage which average yield is of nominal rate85 80 75 65
Average output per acre, in millions of gallons per day2.554.007.5 13.0
Cost of that part of filters per acre dependent on rate$12,000 $20,000 $40,000 $80,000
Cost of that part of filters per acre not dependent on rate50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
Total cost of filters per acre60,000 70,000 90,000 130,000
Cost per million gallons of capacity20,600 14,000 9,000 6,500
Cost per million gallons of average daily output24,400 17,500 12,000 10,000
Capital charges and depreciation at 6% on cost per million gallons4.002.871.971.64
Operating expenses, the same at all rates1.001.001.001.00
Total cost of filtering, excluding pumping, storage, and all auxiliaries5.003.872.972.64
Relative cost1.291.000.770.68

When the costs of pumping, pure‑water reservoirs usually necessary, etc., are taken into account (which add equally to the cost at all rates), the cost of filtering will vary less with the rate than is indicated.

The effect of rate on cost, as calculated in [Table 23], and also the percentages of the bacteria of the raw water found in the effluents by the author and by Mr. Clark, are shown on [Figure 10].

Considering all these results together, and also all the other evidence known to the writer bearing on this point, it seems clear that filters are not as sensitive to changes in rate, within reasonable limits, as has been frequently assumed; but, on the other hand, there is usually a substantial increase in the percentage of bacteria passing through a filter with increased rate.

Filters furnish relative, not absolute, protection against infectious matter in the raw water. The higher the bacterial efficiency, the more complete is this relative protection.

The cost of filtering does not decrease in inverse ratio to the rate, but at a much slower rate. This is especially true with rates of more than 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 gal. per acre daily.

In general, a rate of filtration may rationally be selected at which the value of the possible danger resulting from an increase in rate is equal to the saving that may be made in cost by its use. This point must be a matter of individual judgment. The tendency of the last few years has been to use higher rates, or, in other words, to cheapen the process and to tolerate a larger proportion of bacteria in the effluent. The use of auxiliary processes has been favorable to this, especially the use of chloride of lime, in connection with either the raw water or the effluent.

Figure 10—Rate Million Gallons Per Acre Daily.

By the judicious use of this substance, efficiency may be maintained while using higher rates than would otherwise have been desirable.

The writer believes that there will be many cases where the added risk of using too high a rate is not worth the relatively small saving in cost that accompanies it.

George A. Johnson, Assoc. M. Am. Soc. C. E.—This paper contains information of an exceedingly interesting nature. There is comparatively little difficulty in obtaining accurate figures on the cost of construction of water purification works, but, with costs of operation of such works, it is different. The data available in published reports and papers are usually more or less fragmentary, and unexplained local conditions with reference to the character of the raw water, the cost of labor and supplies, and methods of apportioning these costs, introduce variables so wide as frequently to render the published figures almost useless for purposes of comparison.

Mr. Hardy's paper is noteworthy in that it presents certain relatively new features of slow sand filter operation which have been only lightly touched on in water purification literature up to the present time. These refer particularly to means whereby a filter may be continued in service without removing a portion of the surface layer of the filter surface itself when the available head has become exhausted, and to methods whereby washed sand may be expeditiously and more economically restored to the filter than has been the case hitherto.

Sand handling is the most important item of expense in the operation of a slow sand filter. Quite recently a charge of $1.50 per cu. yd. for sand scraping, transportation to sand washers, washing, and restoring to the filter, was not considered exorbitant, but the improved methods developed during recent years at Washington, Philadelphia, Albany, and more recently at Pittsburg (at all of which places hydraulic ejection plays an important part), have shown the feasibility of reducing this figure by nearly, if not quite, two‑thirds.

The practice observed at Washington of raking over the surface of the sand layer when the available head becomes exhausted, in order to avoid the cost and loss of time necessitated by shutting down the filter and scraping off the surface layer, is unquestionably one of the most striking advances in slow sand filter operation in recent years. In rapid sand filter operation, to prolong the period of service between washings, agitation of the filter surface has been used to advantage for many years. The full value of surface raking may not be generally appreciated, but the results which have followed a trial of this procedure at Washington, Philadelphia, and Pittsburg have shown that the output of filtered water between scrapings may be doubled or trebled thereby, with no injury to the filter itself or to the quality of the filtered water. The cost of raking over the surface of a 1‑acre slow sand filter unit is less than $10 at all the above‑mentioned places, which fact in itself shows the great saving in money and time effected by periodically substituting surface raking for scraping. Under ordinary conditions it has been found that a filter can be raked to advantage at least twice between scrapings.

In the case of filters thus raked, a deeper penetration of suspended matter into the sand layer is inevitable, but at Pittsburg, as at Washington, such penetration does not extend more than about 2 in. below the filter surface. When the filter is finally scraped, a deeper layer is removed, of course, but it is clearly more economical to remove a deep layer at one operation than to remove separately several thinner layers of an equal total thickness.

The lost‑time element is an important one, and at Washington this was the main reason for trying surface raking. It became necessary to increase the output of the filters, and the ordinary scraping consumed so much time that the sand‑handling force was increased, working day and night. The raking expedient introduced at this time overcame this, and Mr. Hardy states that it is still followed when the work is at all pressing. The speaker has found at Pittsburg, as Mr. Hardy has found at Washington, that raking is nearly if not quite as effective as scraping in restoring the filter capacity.

Eleven years ago the speaker was connected with the preliminary investigations into the best methods of purifying the Potomac River water for Washington. It then appeared that while for the greater part of the time during an average year the Potomac River could be classed among the clear waters of the East, there were periods when excessive turbidity made it necessary to consider carefully methods of preparatory treatment before this water could be filtered effectively and economically. As Mr. Hardy has said, considerable prejudice existed against the use of a coagulating chemical, and the expedient was therefore adopted of giving the water a long period of sedimentation in order to remove enough of the suspended matter to allow the clarified water to be treated on slow sand filters. The expert commission, consisting of Messrs. Hering, Fuller, and Hazen, recommended the occasional use of a coagulating chemical, but this recommendation was not carried out.

The Potomac River is somewhat peculiar, in that the turbidity of its waters, as shown by the results presented in Mr. Hardy's paper, ranges from 3,000 to practically nothing. The bacterial content also varies widely, and Mr. Hardy's tables show this variation to be from 76,000 to 325 per cu. cm. Such a water as this requires particularly careful preparatory treatment. The Dalecarlia Reservoir has a capacity of something like 2 days' storage, the Georgetown Reservoir the same, and the McMillan Park Reservoir nearly 3 days, making a total sedimentation of more than 7 days. Without the use of a coagulant, it is significant that during a period of five years, even with 7 days' sedimentation, the average maximum turbidity of the water delivered to the filters was 106 parts per million, and the maximum average turbidity in one month was 250 parts per million. The water filtration engineer can readily understand that waters as turbid as this cannot be treated economically and efficiently in slow sand filters. It would appear that coagulating works might advantageously have been installed at the entrance to the Dalecarlia Reservoir. If this had been done, and coagulant had been added to the water at times when it was excessively turbid, a considerably shorter period of subsequent sedimentation than now exists would in all probability have rendered the water at all times amenable to efficient and economical slow sand filter treatment.

The prejudice in Washington against the use of coagulants has also manifested itself in other localities, but the results which have been obtained during the past twenty years from rapid sand filters and from slow sand filters, treating waters previously coagulated with salts of iron or alumina, have shown how thoroughly unreasonable were these objections. In this connection it is interesting to note that there are in the United States more than 350 rapid sand filter plants, and that nearly 12% of the urban population of Continental United States is being supplied with water filtered through rapid sand filters, in connection with all of which a coagulating chemical is used in the preparatory treatment.

Note.— Statistics from Birmingham, Ala., Dayton, Ohio, Fall River, Mass., Louisville, Ky., Memphis, Tenn., Oakland, Cal., and Providence, R. I., are not included, as they are incomplete.
City.Typhoid Fever Death Rate per 100,000 Population.
19061907190819091910Average for six years, 1900-05, inclusive.Average for five years, 1906-10, inclusive.Average for 11 years, 1900-11, inclusive.
Albany, N. Y.2020111915251721
Atlanta, Ga.5064474443655058
Baltimore, Md.3441312341363435
Boston, Mass.2210261411231620
Bridgeport, Conn.101313139151214
Buffalo, N. Y.2429212320292326
Cambridge, Mass.181010912181215
Chicago, Ill.1818151214271622
Cincinnati, Ohio714619136543144
Cleveland, Ohio2019131219511736
Columbus, Ohio45381101713614554
Denver, Colo.6867582430374942
Detroit, Mich.2228221916172219
Grand Rapids, Mich.3930301727342831
Indianapolis, Ind.3929262231763055
Jersey City, N. J.201410810191216
Kansas City, Mo.3840352338483542
Los Angeles, Cal.1823191812351827
Lowell, Mass.79241121191417
Milwaukee, Wis.3126172145192823
Minneapolis, Minn.3326182058382934
Nashville, Tenn.6685625348545856
Newark, N. J.1824121113171617
New Haven, Conn.5430342017443138
New York, N. Y.1517121212191417
New Orleans, La.3056312528403437
Omaha, Nebr.2824223175203627
Paterson, N. J.411105725717
Philadelphia, Pa.7460362217474245
Pittsburg, Pa.14113553[1]13[1]12[1]13271104
Richmond, Va.4441502422663653
Rochester, N. Y.171612913151314
St Louis, Mo.1816151514331625
St Paul, Minn.2117122020141816
San Francisco, Cal....57271715202924
Scranton, Pa.1176111114183526
Syracuse, N. Y.1016151230141715
Toledo, Ohio4536403132363736
Worcester, Mass.121410816171215
Washington, D. C.5236393323593749

[1 Filtered water section. Allegheny District not included.]

Attention has repeatedly been called to the fact that the relatively high typhoid death rate in Washington, since the filter plant was installed, was a possible indication that the filters were inefficient. It is true that there has not been the marked reduction in the typhoid death rate in Washington, following the installation of the water filtration works, that has been observed in other cities in America. For the six years prior to the date on which filtered water was supplied to the citizens of Washington, the average typhoid fever death rate was 59 per 100,000 population, as against 37 per 100,000 for the five years following, a reduction of 37 per cent. At Albany, N. Y., where the first modern slow sand filter was built in 1899, the typhoid death rate has been reduced by 75 per cent. At Cincinnati, Ohio, the average death rate from typhoid ranged around 50 per 100,000 for years, but since the installation of the filtration plant it has been reduced to a point which places that city, with respect to freedom from typhoid fever, at the head of all the large cities in America; in 1910 the death rate from typhoid in Cincinnati was 6 per 100,000. Similarly, at Columbus, Ohio, where the typhoid death rate before the installation of the filtration plant in 1906 was even higher than at Cincinnati, it was reduced to less than 13 per 100,000 in 1910, whereas, for the previous five years, it was 61 per 100,000. Philadelphia, before the installation of the filtration works, had a typhoid death rate of 60 or more per 100,000, and in 1910 the death rate from this disease was 17. Pittsburg, at least that part of it now supplied with filtered water, for years had a typhoid death rate of more than 130 per 100,000, but the present rate is about 12 per 100,000.

Table 25—Average Monthly Results for the Period, 1905-1910.
Reservoirs.Period of sedimentation in days.Turbidity in parts per million.Bacteria per cubic centimeter.Percentage Removed
TurbidyBacteria
River...1066,400......
Dalecarlia2.2505,0005322
Georgetown2.2383,4002432
McMillan2.8262,0003141
Totals and averages7.2......7569

While it may perhaps seem unreasonable to single out Washington as a particular sufferer in this respect, it is highly probable that a large share of the typhoid is still caused by secondary infection, flies, impure milk, and private and public wells. The speaker remembers distinctly that ten years ago, when he made an investigation into the purity of the water of about 100 public wells in that city, a large number of them showed unmistakable evidence of being polluted with sewagic matter. Conclusive evidence would be secured to dispel any doubt as to the sanitary quality of the filtered product if hypochlorite of lime were added to the filtered water throughout one year or throughout the typhoid months. It seems strange to the speaker, that for this, if for no other reason, this safe and non‑injurious germicide has not as yet been used at Washington, in view of the fact that at the present time it is being used continuously or intermittently in the treatment of the water supplies of scores of the most important cities of this country, among which may be mentioned New York, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Pittsburg, St. Louis, and Minneapolis.

Morris Knowles, M. Am. Soc. C. E. (by letter).—This description of the operation of the Washington Filtration Works is timely and of great interest. It is ten years since the writer, in collaboration with Charles Gilman Hyde, M. Am. Soc. C. E., presented a similar record for the Lawrence, Mass., filter. That paper was the first complete, detailed, and continuous history of the actions and results obtained for a long period of time with such a purification works. [1] Since then, the art of filtration has advanced in many ways, particularly in regard to the methods of cleaning slow sand filters and in the accompanying processes. It is well, therefore, again to take account of stock and see really what progress has been made. Therefore, Mr. Hardy's paper, giving a description of the operations of a system thoughtfully designed, after long consideration of the problem, and of operations carried on under efficient and economical administration, with thorough record of all details, should furnish a groundwork for the careful consideration of the question stated above.

The writer, using as a text some of the ideas given in the paper, but more particularly some of those becoming prevalent elsewhere, desires to discuss methods and costs of operation, especially in relation to sand handling; and to offer suggestions looking toward greater efficiency, as well as economy, in carrying out the standard and well‑tried methods.

Theory of Slow Sand Filtration.—First, what is the process of slow sand filtration? The answer to this question involves many factors, some of which are even yet but imperfectly understood. In the early history of filtration, at the time of the construction of the London filters, only the straining capacity of the sand bed, to remove gross particles, was known. Later, when the organic contents of water had become better understood, the chemical or oxidizing powers of the process were recognized as performing an important part. Finally, co‑existent with the discovery of the so‑called "germ theory of disease," a study of the bacterial action of filters resulted in the recognition of its importance. It is now universally thought that each of these factors performs its useful function; that the size of the sand, the amount of organic matter remaining on the surface of the bed, the turbidity of the applied water, and the bacterial content of the influent, are some of the things on which depends the determination of the relative importance of each.

[1 Transactions, Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. XLVI, p. 258.]

Engineers have been taught to believe, by the German school of thought, that the film of organic matter on the surface of the sand plays a very important role in filtration. This Schmutzdecke, as it is called, has been considered so precious that stress has been placed on treating it with great care. It was not to be wholly removed at the time of cleaning, and it was not to be walked on, or indented, or in any other way consolidated or destroyed. In fact, in some cases, the wasting of the first water after cleaning has been advocated, for the reason that not a sufficient amount of this organic film would be left on top of the sand to begin the filtration process properly immediately after the cleaning.

In late years, however, there has been a tendency to depart from this fundamental doctrine of slow sand filtration. Various new processes for cleaning the sand surface have been advocated; some of these partly destroy and others completely exterminate any semblance of a bacterial film on the sand bed. These ideas, advanced without any real and serious discussion of their intrinsic merits, or their effects on the public health, are not founded on long continuous records of such results as are necessary to establish confidence in the final value of any of these methods.

Rapid advances along this line have been made more recently, notwithstanding the occurrence of notable instances of trouble and the resultant need of complete repair of filtration beds. Because of the rough treatment of the sand surface, a penetration of organic matter and filth into the bed had taken place. This caused deep clogging, prevented the usual yield of water, and brought about a lessened bacterial efficiency, due to the attempt to force water through the filters, and because some organic matter and growths in the lower part of the bed had furnished a breeding place for more bacteria.

All these endeavors to reduce the work of cleaning have been commendable, because scraping and sand handling are the items of greatest expense in slow sand filter maintenance. Every one has been desirous of minimizing this cost. However, as the writer will endeavor to show, it seems that attempts along this line should be with the idea of doing more economically, as well as efficiently, the things which one knows will accomplish the proper results, rather than unwisely to adopt new methods which have not been tried for a long enough period to determine their effect on the public health.

Pittsburg Methods.—When first taking up the problem of design in Pittsburg, in 1902, the writer had presented to him for consideration and adoption, a suggestion that a certain method of cleaning sand filters, which would involve the washing of the sand in place (similar to that recently tried at the Jerome Park Experiment Station, New York City), would be advisable and economical. The decision then made has never been regretted. As this plan involved such a complete departure from those principles which had been well tried and had proven successful, it was believed that it was not safe to adopt such a method on the municipal filtration works, from which the people were to derive their drinking water. There is more to be considered in such a problem than mere economy of operation; the economy of human life, the effect on which requires far longer than a few months of trial to determine, is a much more important factor. Believing that no one should depart, until after a long period of conclusive experimentation, from that principle which is known to be safe (viz., to take off a small portion of the clogging surface), the writer studied to determine more efficient and economical methods of accomplishing this end.

A device for scraping the material, in just the same way as with shovels, but more efficiently and more exactly, was developed by George P. Baldwin, M. Am. Soc. C. E., under the general supervision of the Bureau of Filtration, of which the writer was in charge. However, on account of the unfortunate and earlier arrangement of other constructive matters, which the City's Legal Department advised could not be changed without upsetting the contract, the entrance doors to the original forty‑six filters were not built large enough to permit the rapid and economical transfer of these machines, and, as this act takes so large a proportion of the total time of operation, it has not been found economical to use them. The additional ten filters, recently constructed, with doors especially designed and large enough to pass the machines, have not yet been placed in operation. This is said to be on account of lack of funds and of employees. Therefore, there has been no opportunity to demonstrate what the scraping machines can do, under the conditions for which they were designed to operate. The restoring machine, a complementary device in mechanical operation, which simply replaces the sand in the same condition that it would be if wheeled back, but, with a small percentage of moisture, has accomplished its purpose well and economically. The sand is placed in the filters so that there is no further settling; with a smooth surface, needing no additional adjustment; with absolutely no possibility of sub‑surface clogging; and with the filters starting off exceedingly well in operative results.

Washington Methods.—In Washington, it is stated that the filters are still cleaned by the old‑fashioned method of scraping with shovels, throwing the sand into piles, and afterward removing it with a movable ejector. Between scrapings there is also an occasional mid‑period action of raking the unwatered sand surface, for the purpose of stirring up the dirty film. This process does not remove any of the clogging material from the bed, but it is said that no injurious effects are produced, and that it is economical. It is stated that the so‑called "Brooklyn method," of stirring the surface of the sand while the water is on the bed, has been tried at Washington, but with unsatisfactory results. It seems to have been advocated with greater fervor in some other places.

The method of dry raking does not remove the dirty material, but loosens up the pores of the surface, and through this porosity permits clogging to penetrate deeper into the filter. The method of raking with water on the bed, although it removes some of the organic dirt, also permits deeper penetration of the remainder. The latest devised system of washing the sand in place, by upward spraying with water, called the "Blaisdell method," thoroughly destroys the Schmutzdecke above, and, at the same time, must permit the formation of a subsidiary one below. In the Nichols method, the material removed by shovel scraping is conveyed by an ejector to a portable separator, where it receives a single washing; the dirty water overflows to the sewer, while the washed sand is discharged through a hose and deposited on the recently scraped surface. As the latter is partly impregnated with impurities, there is, by this process, a tendency toward sub‑surface clogging.

All these processes are marked and serious departures from the well‑tried method of cleaning slow sand filters, which, it is well known, will operate successfully to purify polluted river waters and make them safe to drink. In all there is the danger that they have not been sufficiently and carefully tried, under scientific observation, as to results and possible effects on the public health, to be sure that the bacterial efficiency can long continue to be satisfactory, with the application of specifically infected waters. It is dangerous, and may even jeopardize the safety of human lives, to experiment on water which is furnished for drinking purposes. There is also the added danger, well known from past experience, that in a few years (it may be more or less, depending on the extent and intensity of the new workings) the filters will need renovation, partly, if not wholly, throughout the entire bed. Thus, considering the total cost during a long term of years, the apparently cheaper method may become the most expensive.

There is also an interesting query in regard to the Washington method of replacing sand in the filters, and it is worthy of most careful thought and attention. If the process described can be carried on with success and safety, it will prove to be a long and progressive step in the methods of operation. The difficulty, however, is in determining from any short‑term runs whether such a process can be continued permanently without impairing the efficiency of the sand bed. Apparently good conditions may change, after a few years' trial, and be followed by unsafe results and predicaments. This replacing of sand with whatever dirt and detritus may travel with it in the carrying water is certainly not equivalent to the care with which it has been understood that sand should be deposited in filters. It is not comparable with the care with which it is placed, when wheeled from a washer, where dirty water overflows the lip, or where it is placed by a machine restorer in the filter, where the transporting water also overflows the weir and is carried to the sewer.

These cheap and rapid methods of doing the work, advanced in the interests of economy, and the idea that sand filters, receiving polluting waters, can operate at higher rates than those which we have demonstrated, and, therefore, have been led to believe are safe, is a speeding up of the whole organization and of operating conditions. It is like speeding up a machine for the purpose of getting a greater output, with the usual result that fast running means quicker wearing out of both man and machine. Quicker operations generally mean carelessness in doing the work, especially in municipal service. Carelessness is engendered by the thought that such work can be handled in a rough and rapid way, and, further, by the ridicule of all these things, which we have learned to be careful about, as old‑fogyish, out‑of‑fashion, and archaic. Carelessness in operation breeds contempt for the art. Some of the less efficient filter plants, from the standpoint of effect on the public health, may reflect such ill‑considered methods.

Economy with Efficiency in Operation.—It is particularly important to find out whether one can secure the desired economy, and, at the same time, the required efficiency. The development of efficiency in every line of human endeavor is receiving much attention at present, and not the least cause for this is the growing recognition of the demand for a high standard of service for the expense caused. One of the first requirements is to have well‑defined ideals and standards. When one knows how to secure a good and safe result, it is unwise to depart therefrom for a mere whim, or to secure a supposedly lessened expense, unless other facts be also determined favorably. The desire for economy must be tempered by good sense, which means that one should be willing to change a method only when the wisdom of such has been clearly demonstrated. Efficient service can only be secured by strict discipline, accompanied by fair dealing. This means employing no more men than are actually necessary, paying them on the basis of the standard of service and output produced, taking an interest in the working conditions, and providing for their health and welfare.

About twelve years ago, the writer made some investigations of the efficiency of laboring gangs in scraping and handling sand at filter beds, [1] and found that ten men was the most economical number to use in scraping the surface of the Lawrence filter, as then built and operated. This result was determined by numerous studies of the output per man per minute, with different numbers of men working under different conditions. This same sort of study has been carried further by adepts in the art, in reference to shop and similar management, but one fails to find corresponding development along this line in municipal organization except by a few of the scattered Bureaus of Municipal Research. These results, also, have related to a few of the more common and general factors, such as determining the cost per mile, or per square yard, of street cleaned, or per million gallons of water pumped.

[1 Transactions, Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. XLVI, p. 291.]

The cost of the management of water‑works, one of the largest factors of public enterprise, has never been investigated extensively and thoroughly. There is much possibility in planning for greater efficiency and in determining what can be accomplished under economical administration. Every one is aware of the multiplicity of men in municipal service. Some of these are entirely incompetent, others partly so; the recent appointees may be more efficient, but the majority of them gradually deteriorate under the subtle influence of the prevailing atmosphere, and each new incoming administration places more and more men on the work, without reason or necessity. All these tendencies have made the cost and maintenance of public work greater and greater, and, at the same time, have resulted in frequently and steadily decreasing the output and efficiency per employee.

The Washington situation, however, presents an admirable contrast to this, because of the methods of administration of the public works of the District of Columbia and their freedom from petty political influence. The limited number of employees has tended toward economy, and rendered this plant the envy of all who have desired to obtain good management. Its cost items have been looked on as a result long hoped for, but seldom obtained. It is to be regretted, therefore, that such an abrupt change in methods of removing clogging material and replacing sand has taken place without years of experimental trial on filters not furnishing drinking water to the public, and without an attempt, under such excellent conditions, to maintain the efficiency by a better labor output and by improved working and machine methods in the performance of the older and established order of doing things.

In preparing water for the use of the people, the realms of the unknown are so much larger than those which have been investigated and developed that there may be many undiscovered factors affecting the public health, and many ways in which it is dangerous to depart from well‑known and surely safe methods. Who can say that in some subtle and, at present, unknown manner, the failure in some places, where filtration is practiced, to reduce the death rate from typhoid fever may not be due to the introduction of radical departures from the older, slower, safer, and more efficient methods which have produced such excellent results, both in America and in Europe? Further, in cases where there has been a falling off in the typhoid death rate, the failure to secure an accompanying improvement in general health conditions, which follows so closely in communities supplied by water filtered in accordance with the more conservative principles, may be due to the introduction of some of these not thoroughly tried processes. Some day full information may be available as to the influence of these methods of plant operation on the health of the community. Until that time, is it not a much better policy to follow the principles which have been proven by many years of experience to produce safe results, and to make the foremost object the improvement of the methods of operation in accordance with these established truths?

There is opportunity for the upbuilding of greater efficiency in the conduct of employees and in securing the maximum output, by establishing more comfortable and healthful conditions than usually exist. The elimination of political influence from municipal service is also a task which challenges the people of to‑day, and the operating and managing engineer is in a position to perform an important part in accomplishing this end. The number of employees can be reduced to those actually needed, and the way opened for the employment of men who thoroughly understand the necessities of honesty and efficiency in the conduct of public affairs. It should be remembered that to design and construct well is only half the job; to operate economically and efficiently is even more of a problem than to build, and requires just as good talent, just as keen appreciation of the various problems, and is even more essential to public welfare. It seems to the writer that the logical development of the art of obtaining economy as well as efficiency should be along these lines, rather than to revolutionize methods, without having a long‑period test of their value, and at the same time allow political influences to control, to a large extent, the labor item.

Preliminary Treatment.—The decision as to the preliminary treatment of the Potomac River water before filtration is of interest, particularly because various other conclusions have been reached in different sections of the country. However, in the main, these decisions have been due to differences in the character of the waters, but it must be evident that they have sometimes been the result of ill‑considered action, or the desire to promote some special interest. The use of preliminary filters, which involves a large investment, is not always to be commended, particularly because at times of reasonably good water the removal of some of the organic matter is really injurious and lessens the effect of the final filters.

For a long time, the writer has believed that, where other things are equal, and where there is no important reason for double or preliminary filtration, long periods of storage, accompanied by the use of coagulant at times of severe and extreme muddiness, as planned at Washington, solves the problem in the most practical and economical way. It is true that the investment for a large storage basin may equal, or even exceed, that required for preliminary filters; but the influence of storage on the quality of raw water is never injurious, and, by ripening the condition of the water, may be greatly beneficial in the process of filtration.

The storage available in such a basin makes it possible to shut off the supply from the river during the worst conditions of the water. The duration of the most troublesome spells ordinarily does not exceed a few days, and it is usually possible to secure sufficient capacity in the basin to tide over these periods. Then again, long periods of storage, in addition to assisting in breaking up organic matter, permit the dying out of bacteria, particularly many of the pathogenic kind, and, therefore, the water is rendered much safer from this standpoint. In other words, there is additional insurance in long storage against the faulty and careless operation of incompetent filter employees. The addition of coagulant, especially the fact that only a very small investment of capital is required for the necessary apparatus for dosing the water, and that the cost of the coagulating materials has to be met only when used, seems to give the process, in a most satisfactory manner, the requirement for economical management and thoroughness in preparing the water for final filtration.

Parking Public Works.—It is disappointing that the author has not mentioned some of the steps contemplated in reference to the landscape treatment of the Washington filtration area. Probably every one has been impressed by the barren aspect of the works as they are approached, and as one looks over them. Recently, however, it is stated that some steps have been taken to lay out the grounds, treat the surface in an attractive manner, and make a park of the area. The writer has a firm opinion that when an investment is made for public works, it costs but little in addition to construct buildings along appropriate architectural lines, to treat the grounds in a pleasing manner, and to make the entire works a credit to the municipality from an artistic standpoint. When treated on broad lines, such areas become public parks, and afford open breathing places for the residents, and, if near centers of population, may well be equipped with playground facilities for the children. When thus developed they should have care, that the planting and equipment should not deteriorate and the last state become worse than the first.

The influence which these ever‑present examples of attractiveness have on the community is becoming better recognized by students of social progress, and there seems to be no doubt that spending money on such features is not only desirable from the artistic standpoint, but is justified on practical grounds as well. It is cheaper than to create parks, when necessity and demand can no longer be resisted, by buying property and occasionally tearing down buildings and constructing de novo. That this work is now being done in Washington, even after construction, is certainly a recognition of the advisability of original efforts in this direction.

George C. Whipple, M. Am. Soc. C. E. (by letter).—Mr. Hardy's paper is an excellent presentation of the results of the operation of the Washington water filtration plant from the time of its construction in 1905 until June, 1910. Papers of this character are altogether too infrequent, and the actual results from the filters now in use are not readily accessible in detailed form. Yet it is only by studying the results obtained by filters in actual use that improvements can be made and the art advanced.

Among the many important facts brought out by Mr. Hardy, only a few can be selected for discussion. One of these is the operation of filters under winter conditions. It is well known that the efficiency of sedimentation basins and filters is lower during winter than at other times, yet it is just at this season of the year that there is the greatest danger of typhoid fever and similar water‑borne diseases being transmitted by water. Most of the great typhoid epidemics have occurred during cold weather, and the very use of the term "winter cholera" is of significance. Apparently, typhoid bacilli and similar bacteria are capable of living and retaining their vitality longest during that season of the year. Just why this is so, bacteriologists have not satisfactorily explained. Doubtless many factors are involved. Because of the increased viscosity of the water, sedimentation takes place less readily at lower temperatures, and inasmuch as sand filtration is partly dependent on sedimentation, the efficiency tends to fall off in cold weather. During winter some of the external destroying agencies are less potent, such as the sterilizing effect of sunlight, and the presence and activity of some of the larger forms of microscopic organisms which prey on the bacteria. Another factor may be the greater amount of dissolved oxygen normally present in water during cold weather, as experiments have shown that dissolved oxygen favors longevity.

Still another reason for the larger numbers of bacteria that pass through a water filter during cold weather may be the effect that the low temperature has on the size of the bacteria themselves. A few experiments made recently by the writer appear to indicate that at low temperatures the gelatinous membrane which surrounds the bacterial cells tends to become somewhat contracted, thus decreasing the apparent size of the bacteria as seen under the microscope. Either this contraction occurs, or the cells themselves are smaller when they develop in the cold. It is possible also that low temperature affects the flagella of the organisms in the same way. It is not unreasonable to suppose that the effect of low temperature is to form what may be, in effect, a protective coating around the cells, which tends to make them smaller, less sticky, and less subject to outside influences. This would tend to make them pass through a filter more readily. In line with this idea also is the well‑known fact that disinfection is less efficient in cold water than in warm water.

Another way of viewing the matter is that cold retards the growth of bacteria on the filter, thus reducing the effect of the Schmutzdecke. Still another view of the greater danger from bacterial contamination in winter is the theory that cold prolongs the life of the bacteria by merely preventing them from living through their life cycle and reaching natural old age and death as rapidly as in warm weather.

Another topic in Mr. Hardy's paper which has interested the writer is that of preliminary filters. The experiments described at length indicate clearly that such devices would prove of little or no benefit under the conditions existing in Washington, and that when the river contains considerable amounts of suspended clay nothing less than chemical coagulation will suffice to treat the water so that the effluent will be perfectly clear. Preliminary filters have been used for a number of years at various places and with varying success. In few instances have they been operated for a sufficient length of time or been studied with sufficient care to determine fully their economy and efficiency as compared with other possible methods of preliminary treatment.

Among other experiments on this matter are those made at Albany, N. Y., and published by Wallace Greenalch, Assoc. M. Am. Soc. C. E., in the Fifty‑ninth Annual Report of the Bureau of Water for the year ending September 30th, 1909. The Hudson River water used at Albany is quite different in character from the Potomac River water used at Washington, as it is less turbid and contains rather more organic matter. The results obtained in these experiments showed that during the summer the number of bacteria in the effluent from the experimental sand filter used in connection with a preliminary filter did not differ widely from the number found in the effluent of the city filter where there was no other preliminary treatment than sedimentation. In the winter, however, the numbers of bacteria did not increase in the effluent from the experimental filter as they did in the effluent from the city filter. This is shown by [Table 26], taken from the report mentioned.

Apparently, therefore, at Albany the benefits of the preliminary filter, as far as bacterial efficiency is concerned, would be confined to a short period of three or four months in each year. Under such circumstances it may well be questioned whether the advantages of preliminary filtration justify its cost.

Table 26—Results of Experiments with Preliminary Filter at Albany, N. Y.
MonthBacteria in raw water.Bacteria in preliminary filter effluent.Bacteria in effluent from experimental sand filter.Bacteria in effluent from city filter.
1906.
March133,48036,000151706
April77,4204,81072155
May15,8002,2504837
June4,5203583834
July2,0901632522
August2,7401213622
September8,2804452024
October38,3504,23567227
November67,91015,570337341
December645,50025,4401442,783
1907.
January127,5604,66048443
February28,0001,80013116

On the diagram, [Figure 11], will be found various data taken from the published records of the Albany filter, from 1899 to 1909. These data include: The numbers of bacteria before and after filtration; the percentage of bacteria remaining in the effluent; the average quantity of water filtered, in millions of gallons per day; the quantities of water filtered between scrapings; the turbidity of the raw water; the cost of filtration, including capital charges and cost of operation; and the typhoid death rates of the city per month. Several points are brought out conspicuously by this diagram. One is the uniformly low death rate from typhoid throughout the entire period. The filter was operated from 1899 until the fall of 1907 with raw water taken from what is known as the "Back Channel." Since then it has been taken from a new intake which extends into the Hudson River itself. Until the fall of 1908 the preliminary treatment consisted merely of sedimentation, but since then the water has received an additional preliminary treatment in mechanical filters operated without coagulant, along the lines of the experiments just mentioned. During this time the average rate of filtration of the sand filter has not changed materially, although it is said that the maximum rate has been increased since the preliminary filters were put in service. The study of the bacteriological analyses shows that the best results were obtained during 1902, 1903, and 1904. Since then the numbers of bacteria in both the raw and filtered water have increased. This was especially noticeable during the winters of 1907 and 1908 when the water was taken from the new intake. It will be interesting to compare the results after the preliminary filters have been operated for a long period to ascertain their normal effect on efficiency and on the increased yield.

Figure 11—Filters at Albany, N. Y. Results of Operation. 1899‑1909. Compiled from data in Annual Reports.

Another fact to be drawn from the plotted Albany data is the increase in the cost of filtration, both in capital charges and in operation. From 1899 until 1906 the cost of operation, including the cost of low‑lift pumping, was approximately $5 per million gallons of water filtered; and the total cost of filtration, including capital charges, was about $10 per million gallons. During the year ending September 30th, 1909, the cost of operation had increased to $7.63 per million gallons, and the total cost of filtration to $15.92 per million gallons, or approximately 50% in three years.

Table 27—Results of Bacteriological Analyses of Samples of Water at Peekskill, N. Y., Before and After Filtration.
Bacteria per cubic centimeter.
Date.Raw water.Clear reservoir.Effluent No. 1.Effluent No. 2.Effluent No. 3.Effluent No. 4.Tap in city.
1909.
December 29th190100...............
1910.
February 15th13510103020...265
March 31st22550254560...35
May 18th300292226354336
July 6th3004493411031
August 16th6050411315
October 3d55014121438......
November 21st3152226176......
1911.
January 25th4157846...7
Average277301416262265
Table 27—(Continued.)
Filter Sand Tests for B. Coli.
Quantity of water tested.Percentage of Samples Containing B. Coli.
Raw.Filtered.
0.1 cu. cm.00
1.0 cu. cm.200
10.0 cu. cm.400

As a matter of record, the results of a series of analyses made at Peekskill, N. Y., during 1910 are presented in [Table 27]. A sand filter was constructed for the water supply of this city in 1909, and put in operation in December. The filter has a capacity of 4,000,000 gal. per day. The supply is taken from Peekskill Creek, and the water receives about one week's nominal storage before flowing to the filters. An aerator is used before filtration during the summer, when algae are likely to develop in the reservoir. The filter was installed after an epidemic of typhoid which was apparently caused by an infection of the water supply. Normally, the water has been little contaminated, but the supply is subject to accidental contamination at any time, among other possible sources of infection being the camps of workmen now engaged in constructing the Catskill Aqueduct for New York City.

Table 28—Average Results of Chemical Analysis at Peekskill, N. Y., Made at Intervals of Six Weeks During 1910.
Parts per Million. Parts per Million.
Raw water.Filtered water.Raw water.Filtered water.
Turbidity2.0000.000Total residue70.0076.00
Color25.00020.000Loss on ignition19.0017.00
Nitrogen as albuminoid amonia0.1120.076Fixed residue50.0059.00
Nitrogen as free ammonia0.0240.006Iron0.170.13
Nitrogen as nitrites0.0010.001Total hardness38.7045.10
Nitrogen as nitrates0.0600.060Alkalinity33.9042.60
Incrustants4.6004.500Chlorine2.602.70

F. F. Longley, Assoc. M. Am. Soc. C. E. (by letter).—In this paper the author has presented a mass of data which will be welcomed by engineers engaged in water purification work, because complete operating records form a substantial basis for improvement in the art, and are often the inspiration for interesting discussions and the exchange of experiences of different observers whose views are mutually appreciated.

Recent tendencies in filtration engineering have been largely in the direction of reducing the cost of operation. A comparison of the operating costs of the earlier American plants of about a decade ago, with those here presented of the Washington plant, is very gratifying to those who have been intimately connected with the latter work. Through perfection in design and reasonable care in operation, the cost of filter cleaning, which is a very considerable part of the total cost, has been reduced to an unusually low figure, without any sacrifice in efficiency, and in the interests of the public health.

[Table 14] shows that, from the first year, there has been a progressive increase in the total cost of operation per million gallons filtered, but this has not meant an increase in the annual total expenditure. The largest percentage of increase in any item has been in "Care of Grounds and Parking," and covers much‑desired landscape improvements. Aside from this, the principal factor affecting the table of costs has been the reduction in water consumption in the District of Columbia. Nothing pertaining to this reduction has produced any corresponding reduction in the force required for the maintenance and operation of the filtration plant, office and laboratory, and pumping station, though probably there has been some reduction in filter cleaning. Obviously, then, the total cost per million gallons would increase.

This decrease in consumption has been brought about by the elimination of waste in the distribution system, which is not in the same department as the filtration plant, but with regard to which a word may not be amiss in connection with this discussion.

The Washington Aqueduct was built half a century ago on lines which at that time were considered extraordinarily generous. Until recently, therefore, there has been no occasion for concern over the high rate of consumption. During recent years, however, the use and waste of water have increased, reaching a climax under unusual conditions in the winter of 1904‑05. The maximum capacity of the aqueduct system is about 90,000,000 gal. The maximum daily consumption at the time mentioned arose almost to 100,000,000 gal., with the result that, before normal conditions were restored, the reservoirs of the system were almost depleted.

This had a beneficial effect, as provision was made for an active campaign for reducing the waste of water, which was known to be very large. These investigations, using the pitometer, were begun in July, 1906, and have been pursued continuously since that time, with most excellent results. Up to January, 1909, leaks aggregating about 12,000,000 gal. per day were detected and eliminated, and about half the house services had still to be covered by the pitometer bureau.

Although this reduction in waste has brought about an apparent increase in the cost of filtration, its economical results have been far‑reaching. The causes which brought about this investigation also resulted in securing an appropriation for the study of the question of increased supply. The writer was in charge of these studies, and the most significant conclusion was that, owing to the excellent results of the efforts for waste restriction, the total consumption and waste of water in the district during the next few years would be far enough below the safe working capacity of the existing aqueduct system to make it entirely safe to postpone the construction of new works, involving the expenditure of several million dollars, in spite of the threatening conditions of a few years ago.

There has been so much controversy over typhoid fever in the District of Columbia that the writer hesitates to discuss this subject. Viewing the situation through the perspective of several years, however, it does not seem to be as hopeless as the criticisms of four or five years ago would lead one to believe.

In [Table 9], showing the typhoid death rates, out of nine years given prior to 1905‑06, when the filters were started in operation, only one shows an annual death rate as low as the highest one since that year. Further than this, the annual average typhoid death rate for the period since that year has been one‑third lower than for a corresponding period before the filters were started.

The exhaustive researches of the Public Health and Marine Hospital Service into this whole question, covering a period of about four years, have raised the present filtered water supply of the District of Columbia above any well‑founded criticism. There has long been a strong and growing feeling that the water supply, before filtration was introduced, had been blamed for more than its share of the typhoid, and this is borne out by much evidence that has been presented from time to time.

It is not an unreasonable conjecture, therefore, that perhaps the reduction of one‑third in the total typhoid death rate may represent a much larger reduction in that part of the total which was due to polluted water alone; and that, as the authorities in the District of Columbia and in certain other cities, particularly in the South, are now recognizing, the fight against much of the remaining typhoid must be in the direction of the improvement of milk supplies, precautions against secondary infection, and attention to a large number of details surrounding the individual, which may effectively protect him against the insidious attack of the disease favored by unknown agencies.

Experiments in Filter Cleaning.

The author refers to the difficulty encountered during the first two summers in keeping the filters cleaned fast enough to maintain the capacity of the plant. The real seriousness of this may be judged from the following facts. The average increase in loss of head on all the filters for the entire year, July 1st, 1906, to July 1st, 1907, was about 0.053 ft. per day. During the 1906 period of low capacity under discussion, the loss of head on twelve of the filters increased for a period of eight days at the average rate of 0.45 ft. per day, or about nine times the normal rate of increase. This difficulty was caused by the presence of large numbers of micro‑organisms in the applied water. During the first summer (1906) this fact was not recognized, but the sudden decrease in capacity was supposed to have been caused by the unusually high and long‑continued turbidity which prevailed during that summer in the Potomac River, and persisted in the water supplied to the filters even after about four days of sedimentation in the reservoirs. During the second summer (1907) the same phenomenon of suddenly and rapidly increasing losses of head appeared again, but without any unusual turbidity in the applied water. Investigation, however, showed the presence of large quantities of organisms, particularly melosira and synedra, in the applied water, and examinations in subsequent years have shown a periodic recurrence of these forms in quantities sufficient to cause the trouble mentioned. In June, 1907, examination showed repeatedly more than 1,000 and 1,500 standard units of melosira per cu. cm., and one count showed nearly 3,000 standard units.

Several expedients were tried in an effort to restore the rapidly decreasing capacity of the filters. One of the earlier conjectures as to the cause of the trouble was that it might be due to the accumulation of large quantities of air under the surface of the sand, as air had been observed bubbling up through the sand, especially in filters which had been in service for some time. The expedient was tried, therefore, of draining the water out of the sand and then re‑filling the filter in the usual manner from below, in the hope of driving out the entrained air. Presumably this treatment got rid of the air, but it did not restore the capacity of the filter, as the point of maximum resistance was in the surface of the sand and not below it.

As the author states, raking the filters was tried and found to give results which were satisfactory enough to meet the emergencies already referred to. When the filters were first put in operation, in the fall of 1905, the method of bringing back the capacity of a filter after the end of a run was to remove all the dirty sand to a depth determined by the marked discoloration caused by the penetration of the clay turbidity. This sometimes necessitated the removal of large quantities of sand at a cleaning, as the turbidity was exceedingly fine, and penetrated at times to a depth of 3 or 4 in.

With the idea of effecting an economy in the cost of cleaning the filters, a schedule of experiments was arranged shortly before July 1st, 1907. The general object of the experiments was to determine, first, the relative costs of all different methods tried; second, whether the removal of only a thin layer of sand, or the mere breaking up of the surface of the sand by thorough raking, would give the filter its proper capacity for the succeeding run; third, whether the filters under these treatments would maintain a high standard of quality in the effluents; fourth, whether the continued application of any less thorough method than the one then in use might materially affect the future capacity of the filters.

To this end the filters were divided into four groups which, during a period of about six months, were subjected to treatments as follows:

Group A. Filters scraped deep at the end of each run;
Group B. Filters scraped light at the end of each run;
Group C. Filters raked at the end of each run, until raking failed to bring back the proper capacity; then they were scraped light, and at the end of the next run the raking was resumed;
Group D. Light scrapings and rakings alternate at ends of runs.

The term "deep scraping" means the removal of practically all the discolored sand, in accordance with the usual practice prior to the beginning of these experiments; "light scraping" means the removal of only a thin surface layer of sand. This depth has usually averaged about 3/8 in. "Raking" means the thorough breaking up of the clogged surface of the filter by iron‑toothed rakes, to a depth of about 1 or 2 in.

Results.—A general summary of the results of these experiments is given in [Table 29], which also shows the relative costs of the different methods per million gallons of water filtered. A normal period of 9 months just prior to the beginning of these experiments shows a labor cost (corresponding to that in [Table 29]) of $0.29‑1/4 per million gallons filtered.

Table 29—Average Results.
Per Run:Per Million Gallons FilteredBacteria per cu. cm. in effluent.Turbidity in effluent.
Group.Number of filters.Number of days of service.Million gallons filtered.Cost of labor per treatment.Sand removed in cubic yards.Sand removed in cubic yards.Cost of labor.
A582221.2$68.442151.11$0.309131
B936101.429.25840.830.288161
C52160.010.92240.400.182181
D103286.020.10460.540.234221

Capacity of Filters.—The capacity of the filters under the different methods of treatment are shown in a general way in [Table 29] for days of service and millions of gallons filtered per run. This element by itself is decidedly in favor of the deep scrapings, and least in favor of the repeated rakings.

A clearer conception of the capacities of the filters under these different conditions may be obtained from the four diagrams, [Figure 12], showing, for the four different groups, the average number of days of service of the successive runs. The diagram for Group A shows that the variations in the period of service of the filters scraped each time to clean sand follow a more or less definite curve from year to year. For the period covered by this curve, the tendency seems to be toward a slight decrease in capacity from year to year, as shown by the lower average maximum and minimum in the second year than in the first. Group B shows a sudden decrease in capacity following the first light scrapings and, since that time, a low but quite constant capacity. Group C shows a constantly decreasing capacity with successive rakings. The only significance attaching to the curve after the first raking is the prohibitively low capacity indicated, and the ineffectiveness of the measures taken to restore the capacity after the sixth raking. Group D, after the first raking, shows a prohibitively low and constantly decreasing capacity. The diagrams for C and D indicate a dangerous reduction in capacity if long persisted in. The method followed with Group C may be dismissed with the statement that it is entirely insufficient, and would be of use only in the rarest emergencies.

As far as the question of capacity is concerned, these diagrams indicate that a filter in normal condition may safely be raked once. It is believed that the constantly decreasing capacity shown in Group D is not due so much to the rakings as to the small quantities of sand removed at the alternate scrapings, and therefore it would not be proper to condemn this method of treatment without a further trial in which this defect was remedied. This view seems to be supported by the results of Group B. The low but approximately constant capacity there shown would undoubtedly have been higher if a greater depth of sand had been removed each time.

Figure 12—Average Number of Days of Service of Successive Runs for Groups A, B, C, and D.

Quality of the Effluent.—The averages given in [Table 29] show but little difference in the bacterial contents of the effluents from the four groups of filters. All are entirely satisfactory, and the differences in favor of one method or another are small. In looking for possible differences in the quality of the effluents from the four groups, it was thought that such differences might be most apparent at a time when the entire plant was working under the most adverse conditions. The bacterial counts, therefore, were summarized for the period from December 23d, 1907, to January 6th, 1908, inclusive, following a period of high turbidity and high bacteria in the raw water, with results as follows:

Group............ A B C D
Maximum....... 204 178 189 206
Minimum........ 61 45 62 57
Average......... 120 107 104 155

The following is a summary of the turbidity results for a similar period:

Group............ A B C D
Maximum....... 10.8 11.7 8.7 9.3
Minimum........ 6.7 4.7 6.2 5.7
Average......... 8.7 8.3 7.2 7.9

These numbers, though high, do not show any significant differences. All the averages for each group are less than the lowest maximum, and all are greater than the highest minimum, and therefore vary less than do the individual filters, from other causes, within the different groups.

Future Capacity of the Filters.—An indication of the dangers which might affect the future capacity of the filters was shown in the above discussion of the present capacity. A more effective way of showing this was obtained by a study of the initial resistances or losses of head in the four groups. A filter kept in ideal condition would show no increase in this initial loss of head from one run to the next. If there is such an increase, it means that at some future time measures more heroic than ordinarily used would be necessary to restore the proper capacity.

The average initial losses of head for the different groups are plotted on the diagram, [Figure 13]. Group A shows an initial loss of head, increasing gradually but slightly during more than two years of service. In Group B the initial loss of head increased in a manner similar to that in Group A, up to the time of the beginning of these experiments; after which the increase becomes more rapid. Groups C and D show conditions generally similar to Group B, with some variations which are self‑explanatory.

Conclusions.—The quality of the effluents from all four groups was satisfactory, and no consistent difference was apparent in favor of one or another method of treatment. The method pursued with Group C was entirely insufficient to maintain the capacity indefinitely. The methods pursued in Groups B and D were both insufficient, but would have been more effective if a greater depth of sand had been removed. The costs of treatment of Groups B and D were less than for Group A. It appears, then, that a treatment which would be more economical than the old method of Group A, and would still maintain the proper capacity, would be one similar to that of Groups B or D, with the removal of a quantity of sand greater than was done in the case of these two groups, but less than in the old method.

Figure 13—Average Initial Losses of Head for Groups A, B, C, and D for Successive Runs.

At the time the above results were summarized, it was proposed to proceed with the filter treatment along the lines just mentioned. The writer did not have an opportunity to study the subsequent results, as he was transferred to other work. A statement by the author of any new facts that may have come to light in this connection would be of interest.

Mention should be made, too, of another expedient that was used to hasten the restoration of the capacity of a filter, which proved to be a most useful one. The removal of the scraped sand from a filter was a matter of a good many hours' work, under the most favorable conditions. To get the filters quickly into service again, the dirty sand in a number of them was simply scraped from the surface, heaped into piles, and left there; then the water was turned in, and the filter was started again. This was done with some hesitation at first for fear the presence of the piles of dirty sand might cause high bacterial counts in the effluents of those filters. No such effect was observed, however, the counts being entirely normal throughout. The writer subsequently found the same treatment being applied as an emergency measure at the Torresdale plant, in Philadelphia, and, through the courtesy of the Chief Engineer of the Bureau of Filtration, was furnished with the bacterial counts through a number of runs made under these conditions, and there, too, the results were entirely normal.

There was practically no economy in this method, as the sand had ultimately to be ejected and washed. The piling up of the sand had the effect of reducing the effective filtering area by a small percentage, with a corresponding increase in the actual rate of filtration, but this was of trifling importance. The great benefit derived from the method was the saving of time in getting a filter back into service after scraping, and in this respect it was very valuable.

Physical Theory of Purification of Water by Slow Sand Filters.

The first and most natural conception of the action of a sand filter is that the removal of impurities is effected by a straining action. This, of course, is perfectly true as far as it relates to a large part of the visible impurities. Much of this is gross enough to be intercepted and held at the surface of the sand. This very straining action is an accumulative one. After a quantity of suspended matter thus strained out mats itself on the surface of the sand, it in turn becomes a strainer, even better adapted than the clean sand surface which supports it for the removal of suspended matter from the water.

This, however, cannot explain certain features of the purification of water by a layer of sand. The removal of color, the reduction of nitrates, and certain other changes in the organic content of the water have for a long time been recognized as due to a bio‑chemical action carried on by certain bacteria in the sand. Both the straining action and this bio‑chemical action are not all‑sufficient for the explanation of certain phenomena, and it has been recognized, too, that sedimentation in the pores of the sand played a large part in the purification process in those cases in which it was apparent that the biological agencies were not the chief ones.

In the purification of water containing only insignificant quantities of suspended matter, but a relatively large amount of unstable organic matter, it will be conceded at once that the chief factor in the purification is the nitrification produced by the bacteria in the upper layers of the sand. On the other hand, the purification by sand filters of a hypothetical water containing no organic matter, but only finely‑divided mineral matter in suspension, could take place only by the physical deposition of the particles upon the sand grains. Between these two extremes lie all classes of water. In all problems of water purification by filtration through sand, both these factors—biological action and sedimentation—play their parts, assisting and supplementing each other, the relative importance of one factor or the other depending on the place of the particular water in question on the scale between the two extreme conditions just mentioned.

In Mr. Hazen's paper on "Sedimentation"[1] there is an interesting development of the theory of the removal of suspended matter by sedimentation in the pores of a layer of sand. The factors influencing this removal are the rate of filtration, the effective size of the sand, and the temperature of the water. For the conditions at the Washington plant, it may be assumed that the first two of these factors are constant. The third factor, however, varies through wide limits, and the observations on the turbidity removal, and on the different phases of the filter operation of which the turbidity of the water is a factor under varying temperature conditions, together with the known relations between hydraulic values and temperatures of water, furnished good substantiative evidence that this highly‑induced sedimentation may be a considerable factor in the purification of the water as effected at this plant. This temperature relation, briefly stated, is as follows: For particles of a size so small that the viscosity of the water is the controlling factor in determining the velocity of their subsidence in still water, that velocity will vary directly as (T + 10) / 60, in which T is the temperature, in degrees, Fahrenheit. That is, when the temperature of the water is between 70° and 80° Fahr., a particle will settle with twice the velocity it would have if the water were near the freezing point.

The layer of sand in a slow sand filter may be considered as a very great number of small sedimentation basins communicating one with another, not in the manner of basins connected in series, but rather, as Mr. Hazen has expressed it, as a long series of compartments connected at one side only with a passageway in which a current is maintained. In any section of the sand layer there are areas through which the water passes with a velocity much greater than its mean velocity through the total area of voids, while there are other areas in which the velocity is very much less, perhaps in an almost quiescent state from time to time, greatly favoring the deposition of particles, but with a gentle intermittent circulation, displacing the settled or partly‑settled water and supplying from the main currents water containing more suspended matter particles to be removed. There is thus a considerable percentage of the total volume of voids in which the water is subjected to very favorable conditions for sedimentation, almost perfect stillness and an exceedingly small distance for a particle to settle before it strikes bottom on the surface of a grain of sand.

[1 Transactions, Am. Soc. C. E., Vol. LIII, p. 59.]

If sedimentation were the predominating factor in the purification of the water, we would then expect to find the following phenomena in the operation of the filters: A more rapid deposition of a given amount of sediment under summer temperature conditions than under winter, as the water passes through the sand, and therefore, for the former condition of higher temperature:

  • (a) A greater concentration of this turbidity-producing material in the top layer of sand, or, in other words, a thinner sand layer to be removed in scraping if all the dirty sand is removed;
  • (b) Because of the greater concentration, a greater rate of Increase of the loss of head, and consequently shorter periods of service between scrapings;
  • (c) A higher limit for turbidity in the water applied to the filter to produce a given turbidity in the effluent.

The operation of this plant during the first year and a half offered an excellent opportunity for the study of sedimentation in the sand, and the data in [Table 30] are presented to show that certain of the phenomena of filter operation observed during this period seem to be fairly explicable by the physical theory of purification. These data are given only for the period of operation before the summer of 1907. At that time the experiments in filter cleaning already described were begun. Before that time, whenever a filter had been cleaned, all the discolored sand had been removed, leaving for the following run a new sand surface substantially in the perfect condition of a newly‑constructed filter. After that time the experimental methods of cleaning, and the new routine adopted as a result thereof, interfered with the tracing of the evidence as clearly as during the earlier periods.

Month. Number of filters. Average period of service in days. Average depth of sand removed, in inches. Mean temperature, in degrees, Fahrenheit.
January 13 75 2.09 39
February 6 98 2.46 37
March 5 130 2.66 41
April 8 149 2.96 53
May 7 130 2.80 67
June 11 124 2.35 77
July 17 70 2.12 81
August 2 49 1.98 80
September 5 73 2.48 76
October 37 70 1.56 64
November 20 42 0.81 49
December 14 57 0.94 40

Figure 14—Periods of Service and Depths of Scraping for Runs Ending in Various Months Covering Entire Period Oct. 1, 1905, to Mar. 1, 1907.

[Table 30] and the corresponding diagram, [Figure 14], show the general variations in the length of runs and depth of penetration, with the seasonal temperature changes. The increase in length of runs and quantity of sand removed under low temperature conditions is very marked. There is, however, a secondary maximum which appears, as the diagram shows, where a minimum for the year would be expected. This may have been an irregularity occurring this one year, which will not appear in the average of several years, and caused by some factor which has escaped observation. A careful analysis of the data at hand fails to show any explanation for it. It may exist in some of the little‑understood biological actions which have their maximum effect under warm‑water conditions, or it may be due—in some obscure way—to the liberation of air under the surface of the sand, accumulating with pressure enough to break the surface at innumerable points, thereby reducing the loss of head and extending the period of service. Some evidence was observed pointing to this explanation, but it was never conclusively proven.