Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018) 759–769

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Using a geotextile with flocculated filter backwash water and its impact on T
aluminium concentrations
I. Jahan, M. Wood, C.B. Lake∗, G.A. Gagnon
Department of Civil and Resource Engineering, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The use of geotextiles (i.e. geotextile tubes) in wastewater treatment applications is ever increasing. This paper
Geosynthetics examines the potential of using a geotextile to improve upon the treatment of aluminium present in a filter
Aluminium backwash water that is generated from a water treatment plant in Halifax, Canada. A field investigation to
Filter backwash water ascertain the distribution of aluminium in the filter backwash water treatment process is provided and compared
Geotextile
to regulatory guidelines at the environmental compliance point. It is shown that aluminium is undergoing in-
Geotextile tube
complete treatment at various times throughout the year. To examine a potential corrective action, the results of
bench scale studies are presented in which cationic additives (i.e. CaO, MgO, and Fe3O4) are combined with a
polymer to remove aluminium from solution and flocculate particulate matter from the filter backwash water. A
geotextile is utilized to retain particulate matter generated from this process. It is shown that the combined use
of the cationic additive with polymer can successfully reduce aluminium concentrations in the filter backwash
water and that filtration via a geotextile can retain the aluminium particulate in the filter backwash water to
levels close to regulatory requirements. Further optimization with the flocculation process is recommended prior
to pilot testing.

1. Introduction Municipality. Filter backwash wastewater (FBWW) aluminium levels have

Geotextile tubes, which consist of geotextiles sewn together to form
hollow longitudinal tubes, have become common in engineering practice
(Lawson, 2008). The use of geotextiles to dewater sludges and con-
taminated sediments is well documented in the literature (e.g. Fowler
et al., 1994; Fowler et al., 1996; Gaffney et al., 1999; Yee et al., 2012;
Bourgès-Gastaud et al., 2014). Aydilek and Edil (2002, 2003), Kutay and
Aydilek (2004) and Guimarães et al. (2014) serve as examples of research
performed to examine the potential for high water content wastewater
treatment sludge to be filtered and subsequently dewatered with geotextile
tubes. Satyamurthy and Bhatia (2009), Khachan et al. (2014); Guo et al.
(2015) have all examined different methods of improving the dewatering
efficiency for geotextile tubes. The focus of past geotextile tube studies has
been related to the dewatering aspect of the sediment or sludge. A few
studies (e.g. Rupakheti and Bhatia, 2017; Bhatia, 2017; Koerner et al.,
2016; Rupakheti et al., 2016; Mori et al., 2002) have discussed water
quality aspects related to geotube dewatering. Few studies have examined
the use of flocculation combined with a geotextile as a treatment process
for improving water quality.
The J.D. Kline Water Treatment Plant (JDKWTP) in Halifax, Nova
Scotia, Canada is the main water treatment facility for Halifax Regional
created regulatory challenges in the current treatment process used in the
plant. The overall objective of this paper is to examine how geotextiles
could play a role in the reduction of aluminium discharge concentrations
in the FBWW at the plant. This work presents a proof of concept for a
potential new geotextile application in which particulate and dissolved
aluminium in the FBWW are removed via flocculation and subsequent
retention by a geotextile. To present this proof of concept, the paper first
describes the study site and field testing performed to assess the dis-
tribution of aluminium in the FBWW treatment system for the plant.
Secondly, the results of bench scale testing are presented in which the
ability of a geotextile to aid in the retention of aluminium from the FBWW
of this plant is assessed; commercially available cationic additives (i.e.
CaO, MgO, and Fe3O4) and a polymer are examined as a treatment phase
to reduce particulate and dissolved aluminium in the FBWW followed by
retention of the particulate matter by the geotextile.
2. Background information related to the study area: J.D. Kline
Water Treatment Plant
The J.D. Kline Water Treatment Plant (JDKWTP) is a direct dual
media filtration plant, currently operating at an average daily

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: iffat.jahan@dal.ca (I. Jahan), megan.wood@wsp.com (M. Wood), craig.lake@dal.ca (C.B. Lake), graham.gagnon@dal.ca (G.A. Gagnon).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.07.008
Received 19 September 2017; Received in revised form 5 July 2018; Accepted 8 July 2018
0266-1144/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
I. Jahan et al.
production of approximately 84 ML/day (Stoddart and Gagnon, 2015).
Pockwock Lake serves as the source water for the plant and its water is
characterized by low pH, alkalinity and turbidity. Treatment of this
source water prior to distribution involves first pumping raw water to
the plant, screening and then sending this water to a series of premix
tanks. The first premix tank is for pH adjustment (∼pH 10); followed by
potassium permanganate addition (to oxidize iron and manganese) and
a third premix tank for carbon dioxide addition (to ∼ pH 5.5) and
coagulant addition (aluminium sulphate at 8 mg/L). A polymer (Mag-
nafloc LT20) is added during cooler temperatures, as a coagulant, to
increase floc strength. After flocculation, the water is sent through eight
dual media filters consisting of sand and anthracite. The filtered water
is then subjected to addition of chlorine (disinfection), zinc/ortho
phosphate (corrosion control), sodium hydroxide (pH adjustment to
7.4) and hydrofluosilic acid (preventing tooth decay).
The dual media filtration process at the plant is designed to retain
particulate matter prior to disinfection. As the retention process occurs
under constant flow of water, a reduction of hydraulic conductivity (i.e.
clogging) of the filter beds occurs over time, accompanied by an in-
crease in turbidity of the filtered water. To rectify this reduction in filter
performance, the filters are routinely drained and 700,000 L of filtered
water (i.e. before chlorine, zinc/ortho phosphate, sodium hydroxide,
and hydrofluosilic acid addition) is then pumped from the base of the
filter beds to fluidize the dual media filters and remove particulate
matter from within the beds. After this process, the dual media filters
regain their original hydraulic conductivity and can function as de-
signed. This 700,000 L of water and accompanying solid particles used
to “unclog” the filters is referred to as filter backwash water (FBWW) in
this paper. This FBWW is sent via gravity flow to two engineered clay
lined lagoons (capacity of 14,000 m3) where sedimentation of particu-
late matter takes place. The outlets for both lagoons are overflow weirs;
the size of the openings of which can be adjusted. The overflow from
the two lagoons combines at an outlet chamber and discharges into a
natural wetland, through a 1 m diameter concrete pipe. As shown in
Fig. 1, the natural wetlands have a 1.5 km stream running through
Hamilton Pond which subsequently discharges into Little Pockwock
Lake. Little Pockwock Lake is downstream of Pockwock Lake; a con-
trolled dam separates them. Where the wetlands discharge into Little
Pockwock Lake at the edge of Halifax Water's property, the discharge
criteria has been implemented (i.e. the “compliance point”) by Nova
Scotia Environment, the provincial regulator. At the compliance point,
the FBWW discharge shall meet the following criteria: total suspended
solids (TSS) must be below 25 mg/L; chlorine residual must be below
0.002 mg/L; pH must be between 6.5 and 9; total aluminium must be
below 184 μg/L; and; discharge must be nontoxic to aquatic life.
To gain a better understanding of the occurrence of aluminium
throughout the FBWW treatment process at JDKWTP, flow monitoring,
tracer studies and water sampling were performed. All data were col-
lected to provide insight into possible causes of the shortcomings of
treatment of the FBWW with respect to aluminium.
The volumetric flow rate of water being discharged from the lagoon
and the wetland was determined with the use of HOBO® U20 water
level loggers (Onset® Computer Corporation, Bourne, Massachusetts,
United States) and a 625DF2N digital pygmy meter (Gurley Precision
Instruments, Troy, New York, United States). Two data level loggers
were used; one at the lagoon discharge and the other at the wetland
discharge. The third data logger was used to record barometric pres-
sure. Readings were recorded every ten minutes. The pygmy meter was
used to determine velocity and calculate the flow rate using the cross-
sectional area of the flow channel. A rating curve for the inlet and outlet
of the wetlands was created using the flow rates at a range of depths.
Flow monitoring over a period of one year captured the cycles of
FBWW discharge to the lagoons. Typically results showed that with
each nightly backwash, there was a 95% increase in the flow into the
wetland from a normal base flow of about 0.3 L/s to a maximum of 7 L/
s which quickly began to taper off within ten minutes. This suggests
760
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018) 759–769
that the lagoons are not providing flow equalization before discharging
into the wetlands. The wetland effluent flow saw a similar diurnal flow;
however, the surge was dampened greatly. The flow increased by 20%
from the average minimum of 240 L/s to 300 L/s. There was a three to
five hour delay between the peak discharge into the wetlands and the
peak discharge out of the wetlands. The drastic difference in flow vo-
lumes and the relatively short delay in between the peak flows at the
inlet and outlet of the wetlands suggests that any treatment of alumi-
nium occurring may be from dilution.
To gain an understanding of the reasons behind the observed flows,
the hydraulic retention times throughout the FBWW treatment process
were calculated from two rhodamine dye tracer studies. One tracer test
was performed in July 2013 in which rhodamine dye (500-mL of rho-
damine diluted in 23-L of water from the third flocculation tank) was
injected at the gatehouse from a manhole that provides access to the
influent pipe of the south lagoon. A two-filter backwash of 1400 m3 was
used. A second tracer test was performed in November 2012 for the
wetland, starting where the lagoons discharge into the wetlands. The
rhodamine dye concentration was continuously monitored where the
wetlands discharged into Little Pockwock Lake at the compliance point.
The study was conducted in-sync with a three-filter backwash that
produced a volume of 2000 m3 of backwash water. For the lagoon
tracer study, the pink colour of the rhodamine could be seen at the
overflow weir of the outlet within 25 min of the backwash pumps
turning on. The mean retention time of the first backwash was calcu-
lated as 3 h and 50 min. Throughout the lagoons, there was clear short-
circuiting around the perimeter of the lagoon. The rhodamine move-
ment through the natural wetlands highlighted the very direct route
from the lagoon discharge through the center of Hamilton Pond and
discharging at the compliance point at Little Pockwock Lake. The mean
retention time of the wetlands was calculated to be 12 h and 51 min.
The relatively short retention time for the wetlands can be attributed to
a sudden surge of FBWW and a very distinct channel running directly to
Little Pockwock Lake. The lagoon discharge is not being contained for a
sufficient time period in the wetlands or in Hamilton Pond.
The influence of this FBWW flow through the treatment system on
aluminium concentrations was assessed via water sampling and water
quality testing. FBWW water was sampled at three points along the
FBWW treatment site. The three sample sites included the FBWW
flowing into the lagoons, the lagoon discharge and the wetland dis-
charge. In this paper the results for aluminium, pH, and TSS are re-
ported. The lagoon discharge and wetland discharge were sampled
during low flow conditions to represent a more typical discharge. Water
quality results from field sampling are documented in Table 1. The
results shown in Table 1 represent samples taken over the period be-
tween 2012 and 2013. The pH of the water discharging into Little
Pockwock Lake fell just below the lower limit of the Canadian Water
Quality Guidelines (CWQG) of 6.5. However, the pH of the water in this
area is typically low; Pockwock Lake water averages a pH of 5.8
(Halifax Water, 2015). It was noted that on average, the dissolved
aluminium concentration did not change within the lagoons. This is
reasonable as the lagoons generally provide settlement of particulate
matter. However, the dissolved aluminium increased throughout the
wetlands, which is counter to the customary treatment method in a
natural wetland that involves plant uptake of dissolved constituents
such as aluminium (Kadlec and Wallace, 2009). It is also inconsistent
with the pH of ∼6.4 within the wetland, which is the range at which
aluminium usually precipitates in water. This increase in dissolved
aluminium in the wetland may be caused by anaerobic conditions.
During sampling, odor indicative of anaerobic conditions was noted,
however, more studies would be required to confirm this hypothesis.
Based on these field observations, it is apparent that the current
treatment process for the FBWW is not performing as desired in terms of
removing aluminium prior to discharge. To reduce aluminium con-
centrations in the FBWW prior to discharge, a simple addition to the
treatment train was examined in the laboratory; namely the use of
I. Jahan et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018) 759–769

Fig. 1. Map showing flow of FBWW from JDKWTP to Little Pockwock Lake.

Table 1
Water quality throughout the FBWW treatment during regular, low flow condition taken during 2012–2013 (average ± standard deviation) (non-detect, ND) (n ≥ 6,
unless ND n ≥ 2).
Water Quality Parameter (μg/L) CWQG FBW Lagoon Discharge Wetland Discharge

Aluminium 5 48,500 ± 23,500 1550 ± 1120 669 ± 471

Dissolved Aluminium NA 45.0 ± 21.0 43.0 ± 23.0 108 ± 93.0
pH 6.5–9.0 5.50 ± 0.20 6.40 ± 0.20 6.30 ± 0.30
TSS (mg/L) NA 255 ± 190 7.90 ± 6.50 2.70 ± 2.30

Table 2 Kline Water Treatment Plant, at the beginning of a given backwash

Water quality characteristics of FBWW used for bench scale testing. cycle. Samples were then placed in sterile 40 L plastic containers, la-
Raw Water Quality Parameters Average Values (3 trials)
belled, and stored at room temperature (21 °C ± 1 °C) prior to testing.
During the course of the study, samples were collected in two different
pH 7.5 (September and January) months (September and January) which resulted in different initial
Total aluminium 2250 μg/L (January) total aluminium concentrations for the laboratory experimental pro-
3104 μg/L (September)
gram, as shown in Table 2.
Dissolved aluminium 140 μg/L (January)
TSS 1 mg/L (September and January) In an attempt to reduce aluminium (total and dissolved) as well as
total suspended solids concentrations in the FBWW effluent, a combi-
nation of cationic additives (CaO, MgO, and Fe3O4), pH adjustment,
additives (CaO, MgO, and Fe3O4) combined with flocculation and re- and polymer dosage were used in this research. All three additives are
tention by a geotextile. As will be shown throughout the sections that commercially available and would satisfy environmental requirements
follow, the presence of dissolved aluminium in the FBWW necessitated for the plant. Various additives have been examined in the literature as
the use of the absorbents; the presence of small-sized particulate alu- coagulant aids and/or adsorbents to assist in the removal of dissolved
minium and the additives necessitated the use of the polymer for and particulate matter present in FBWW for different processes
flocculation. The geotextile function in this application was to act as a (Bourgeois et al., 2004). This use of additives as coagulant aids is
filtration step in the process to retain particulate matter originally common in geotextile tube practice; the primary objective being to
present in the FBWW as well as that generated from the additive/ increase particle sizes in dewatering applications to ensure solids re-
flocculation step. tention by the geotextile tube occurs during filling (e.g. Satyamurthy
and Bhatia, 2009). Bourgeois et al. (2004) used cation additives such as
3. Materials and methods: bench scale testing with flocculation CaO and MgO in water treatment applications while Navratil and Akin
and geotextile retention (2009) and Carlos et al. (2013) are examples of those who have ex-
amined the use of Fe3O4 as an additive for wastewater applications.
3.1. Bench scale testing performed on FBWW Additives in this study were obtained from Thermo Fisher Scientific.
A cationic polymer (NOVUS CE 2667) used in this research was ob-
For bench scale testing, samples of filter backwash wastewater tained from another Halifax Water treatment plant (i.e. Lake Major).
(FBWW) were collected from the top of the dual media filter at the J.D. This polymer was chosen based on its experience with alum-based

761
I. Jahan et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018) 759–769

Table 3
Selected generic properties of GT500 geotextile (Tencate, 2011).
Mechanical Properties Test Method Unit Minimum Average Roll Value

MD CD

Wide Width Tensile Strength (at ultimate) ASTM D4595 kN/m (lbs/in) 78.8 (470) 109.4 (625)
Wide Width Tensile Elongation ASTM D4595 % 20 (max) 20 (max)
Apparent Opening Size (AOS) ASTM D4751 mm (U. S. sieve) (0.43) 40
Water Flow Rate ASTM D4491 l/min/m2 (Gpm/ft2) (813) 20
Pore Size Distribution (O50) ASTM D6767 Micron 80
Pore Size Distribution (O95) ASTM D6767 Micron 195
Mass/Unit Area ASTM D5261 g/m2 (Oz/yd2) (585) 17.3
Thickness ASTM D5199 mm (mils) 1.8 (70)

Table 4
Summary of FBWW preliminary mixing program with polymer and cationic additive.
Additive Polymer Dosage (mg/L) Additive Dosage (g/L) Initial pH Adjustment to 6.5? Geotextile Filtration?

CaO, MgO, Fe3O4 1 0.1,1.0, 2.5, 5.0 No No

CaO, MgO, Fe3O4 1 0.1,1.0, 2.5, 5.0 Yes No
CaO, MgO, Fe3O4 1 0.1,1.0, 2.5, 5.0 Yes Yes

water treatment applications at Lake Major. The polymer is composed
of isoparaffinic petroleum distillate (15–40% by weight), poly (oxy-1,
2-ethanediyl)(1–5% by weight), and ammonium chloride (1–5% by
weight). It has a specific gravity of 1.03 and a pH of 5.0. In the ex-
periments described subsequently, a concentration of 1 mg/L of the
cationic polymer was chosen based on previous studies of Fanous et al.
(2014).
The bench scale testing plan for this research, in summary, involved
two distinct phases: 1) preliminary FBWW mixing tests with the ad-
ditives and polymer addition for floc creation followed by sedimenta-
tion, and, 2) geotextile filtration tests with FBWW, additives and
polymer. A GT500 polypropylene woven geotextile (manufactured by
Tencate) was used for these geotextile filtration tests. Generic proper-
ties of the geotextile, as provided by the manufacturer, are shown in
Table 3 (Tencate, 2011). Below is a more detailed description of each of
these two phases.

Fig. 2. Total aluminium concentrations in FBWW at different cation additive dosages and 1 g/L polymer addition (no pH adjustment).

762
I. Jahan et al.
Fig. 3. Total aluminium concentrations in FBWW at different cation additive dosages and 1 g/L polymer addition (pH adjustment to 6.5).
3.2. Preliminary mixing tests
The purpose of the preliminary mixing tests was to provide some
initial understanding of aluminium and TSS removal rates with the
different additives and polymer under sedimentation conditions. It also
allowed additional analyses to be performed on the water obtained
from sedimentation testing to understand the amount of dissolved
aluminium present, zeta potential of the water and particle size for
filtration purposes. Previous testing performed by Fanous et al. (2014)
was used to develop parameters for preliminary mixing tests. Jar test
units (Phipps & Bird, Richmond, VA, USA) consisting of 2 L square jars
with sample ports at 0.01 m depth were used in this research to perform
the mixing process of FBWW and the additives/polymers. Each of the
jar testing treatment evaluations involved subjecting 1 L of the FBWW
to ultrasonic treatment for 5–10 min for particle disaggregation prior to
transferring it to the jar where water samples for aluminium and TSS
were obtained. The selected cationic additive was then applied to the
FBWW in the jar testing apparatus at the desired dosage, immediately
followed by 1 mg/L of the polymer. The mixture was then stirred at a
constant rate (i.e. 80 rpm) until the solution was thoroughly mixed (i.e.
typically 20 min for the 0.1 g/L and 1 g/L dosages and 1 h for the 2.5 g/
L and 5 g/L dosages). For the Fe3O4 tests, a glass rod was used to
manually stir the jar due to the magnetic properties of this additive.
After mixing, the solution underwent 1.5 h of sedimentation with a
paraffin wax cover, prior to water samples being taken at the jar sam-
pling port. The testing plan with the additive at different dosages,
polymer, and/or pH adjustment is summarized in Table 4. As noted in
Table 4, for the tests in which the pH was adjusted to 6.5, the solution
763
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018) 759–769
was allowed to equilibrate for 1.5 h prior to sampling. pH adjustment
was accomplished with either using 3M of H2S04 or 1M of NaOH.
3.3. Geotextile rapid filtration testing
As shown in Table 4, geotextile rapid filtration testing (Tencate, 2017)
was performed for the 6.5 pH adjusted samples. The purpose of this phase
of the testing was to examine the ability of the geotextile to retain the
solids created in the treatment process from the treated FBWW. As dis-
cussed by Aydilek (2012), existing criteria for traditional soil filtration
applications do not adequately address the retention of high water content
geomaterials for dewatering applications. In the case of high water content
solids such as the FBWW examined in this study, this is likely the case and
hence as a starting point the rapid filtration method was selected for as-
sessment. For these tests, the geotextile fabric was cut in a 0.15 m diameter
circle from the larger roll and situated in a funnel, over a 20 L plastic
bucket. After repeating the procedure discussed in the previous paragraphs
for mixing the additives and polymer and pH adjustment, the entire
treated FBWW sample (i.e. 1 L of solids and liquid) was poured through
the geotextile fabric after 1.5 h of sedimentation. An additional 100 ml of
deionized water (Milli-Q) was used to wash the jars completely of treated
FBWW and ensure all flocs were removed from the jar. Water quality
testing was performed on the samples before and after geotextile filtration.
3.4. Water quality test methods
For total aluminium concentrations, nonfiltered water samples were
used. Testing for dissolved aluminium involved passing the samples
I. Jahan et al.
Fig. 4. Particle size distributions of FBWW after additive/polymer addition, pH adjustment, and sedimentation.
through a Micron-PES, polysulphone 0.45 micron (47 mm diameter)
filter paper prior to analysis. Total aluminium and dissolved aluminium
concentrations for the bench scale tests were analyzed with a HACH
DR5000/2010 Spectrophotometer (HACH Company, Loveland, CO)
using Eriochrome Cyanine R Method (method 8326) having a range of
0.002 mg/L to 0.250 mg/L Al+3 (HACH, 2018). In this procedure, the
pH of the samples was adjusted to between 2.9 and 4.9 or 7.5–11.5, as
the range between pH of 4.9–7.5 may accelerate dissolved aluminium
to partially convert to colloidal and insoluble forms. For field sampling,
an X-Series 2 Inductively Coupled Mass Spectrometer (Thermo Fisher
Scientific, Massachusetts, United States) was used to measure alumi-
nium concentrations using the same preparation procedure for total and
dissolved aluminium as described above. Total suspended solids were
measured according to APHA et al. (2005).
Zeta potential is the potential difference between the dispersing
medium (FBWW) and the double layer of the particles in the FBWW
764
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018) 759–769
(Crittenden et al., 2012). Zeta potential analyses of the water samples
were performed using a Melvern Zeta Sizer to assess changes in particle
surface charge during some of the experiments. Unfiltered samples were
collected from the jars after the mixing and completion of the sedi-
mentation period of 1.5 h. A disposable folded capillary cell was filled
with unfiltered samples and each of the samples was analyzed by taking
five measurements and an average value was taken.
Particle size analysis of the FBWW was performed using Micro Flow
Imaging (MFI) software that was incorporated with a DPA 4100/4200
flow microscope for obtaining the particle size (Brightwell Technologies
Inc.). The measurements were performed for a range of particle sizes
between 2 μm and 400 μm. 1 mL of unfiltered sample was used in the
analyses. Samples were taken after the 1.5 h sedimentation process was
complete. Particle size distributions were created similar to soil grain
size distribution plots expressing particle size distribution in terms of
percent smaller versus ECD (Equivalent Circular Diameter) in μm.
I. Jahan et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018) 759–769

Fig. 5. Zeta potential measurements of FBWW after additive/polymer addition, pH adjustment, and sedimentation.

Fig. 6. Dissolved aluminium concentrations in FBWW at different cation additive dosages and 1 g/L polymer addition (pH adjustment to 6.5).

4. Bench scale test results
4.1. Preliminary mixing tests (no pH adjustment)
The results of the preliminary mixing test performed with the
FBWW, additives and polymer, without any pH adjustment, are shown
in Fig. 2. The purpose of these tests with no pH adjustment was to
observe potential pH changes and examine the potential for aluminium
removal with the additives. Given these were sedimentation tests, the
mechanism for removal is different than that of filtration via geotextile
but useful from the perspective of trying to establish feasibility of
aluminium removal via the additives. As shown in Fig. 2a, the pH of the
FBWW increased from a pH of 6, to 10 and 13 for MgO and CaO, re-
spectively, as the dosage level increased. The pH values for the Fe3O4
dosages remained relatively unchanged (between 6 and 7). As noted in
Fig. 2b, the removal of aluminium was poor for CaO and Fe3O4 dosages

765
I. Jahan et al.
Fig. 7. Total aluminium concentrations in FBWW after geotextile rapid filtration at different cation additive dosages and 1 g/L polymer addition (pH adjustment to
6.5).
of 0.1 g/L, 1 g/L, and 2.5 g/L. For these two mixtures, the removal
improved somewhat at the 5 g/L dosage. The MgO mixtures exhibited
the best removal at all dosages, with the 5 g/L dosage providing alu-
minium removal to approximately 140 μg/L. It was established from
this testing, that removal of aluminium from the FBWW would be
minimal via agglomeration of particles (i.e. optimal precipitation con-
ditions were not being achieved) and that control of pH to 6.5 would be
required to optimize aluminium precipitation.
4.2. Preliminary mixing tests (initial pH adjustment to 6.5)
Fig. 3a and b shows the results of the mixing tests after initial pH
adjustment to 6.5. For CaO, the pH stayed below 8 for all dosages at the
time of sampling. Fe3O4 maintained a pH near 6.5 for all dosages. MgO
exhibited pH values between 8.5 and 9.5. In terms of aluminium re-
moval, it is apparent when comparing Figs. 2b and 3b that aluminium
removal was improved for all dosages, for each of the additives. For all
of the dosages except 5 g/L, the additives effectiveness would rank
Fe3O4 as most effective, followed by CaO and MgO. The exception to
this was at the 5 g/L dosage with Fe3O4 being the least effective of the
three. At the 5 g/L dosage, Fe3O4 had similar pH values as CaO yet CaO
performed better, as did MgO. It is likely that other mechanisms of
aluminium removal beyond precipitation, such as sweep coagulation
(Crittenden et al., 2012), may have occurred at this dosage.
Particle size analyses of the mixing tests after sedimentation are
shown in Fig. 4. Three tests were performed for each additive dosage
and the original FBWW. All data are shown on Fig. 4 (data are over-
lapping in some cases). For comparison purposes, the original FBWW
samples are shown on the same graph as the particle sizes for the
various additive dosages. It can be seen from Fig. 4 that particle sizes,
when increased due to additive dosages, increase mostly in the 2–20 μm
size range. Very little change in particle size was noted for the 0.1 g/L
dosage for any of the additives. The CaO additive exhibited the most
change in particle size at dosages of 2.5 and 5 g/L while MgO exhibited
limited particle size change for any of the dosages. Fe3O4 dosages from
1 g/L to 5 g/L showed more change in particle size than that at 0.1 g/L.
766
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018) 759–769
It is important to note however that these particles are those present
after sedimentation; larger particles would have settled during sedi-
mentation and are not part of the analysis.
To better understand total aluminium removal via sedimentation,
(i.e. Fig. 3), zeta potential measurements were performed on the mix-
tures to understand the surface charge chemistry (see Fig. 5). As noted
by Crittenden et al. (2012), when zeta potential is reduced to less than
20 mV, flocculation will likely occur due to particle instability in the
FBWW (i.e. aluminium associated with particles will aggregate to larger
sized particles due to interparticle attractive forces). It can be seen for
the measurements taken that the CaO and MgO dosages resulted in
negative surface charges of the FBWW. For CaO and Fe3O4, there was
little change in zeta potential with dosage. The exception to this was
MgO which exhibited a decrease in zeta potential as the dosage in-
creased from 0.1 g/L to 2.5 g/L, stabilizing from 2.5 g/L to 5 g/L. This
decrease in zeta potential from 0.1 to 2.5 g/L agreed with decreased
amounts of total aluminium in the mixing tests, indicating perhaps
improved particle destabilization with increase in dosage. Given that
most of the dosages did not significantly change zeta potential in the
FBWW, it is likely that other mechanisms than flocculation are re-
sponsible for removal of aluminium during these pH adjusted mixing
tests, as discussed above.
The transformation of dissolved aluminium to particulate alumi-
nium is one potential mechanism responsible for observed total alu-
minium removal rates in these mixing tests. This association with
particulate matter is essential if retention of aluminium is to be
achieved with the geotextile. Fig. 6 shows the concentration of dis-
solved aluminium in the treated FBWW water for the different applied
dosages. As shown in Fig. 6, for the CaO dosages, dissolved aluminium
concentrations decreased with increasing dosages. This is likely a
combination of adsorption of aluminium to the CaO via mechanisms
such as precipitation and/or cation exchange. Dissolved concentrations
for MgO showed little discernible trend with the highest dissolved
aluminium concentrations present at the 2.5 g/L dosage. Fe3O4 dis-
solved aluminium concentrations actually increased slightly as the do-
sage increased. Even with this increase, dissolved aluminium
I. Jahan et al.
Fig. 8. SEM photos of geotextiles after rapid filtration testing with FBWW (a) CaO with 1 mm scale; (b) MgO with 1 mm scale; (c) Fe3O4 with 1 mm scale; (d) CaO
with 400 μm scale; (e) MgO with 400 μm scale.
concentrations for Fe3O4 were below the 184 μg/L limit for total alu-
minium for all the applied dosages. It is likely that there are complex
interactions occurring between the pH adjustment (promoting pre-
cipitation of aluminium to AlOH), polymer addition and cationic ad-
ditive for all the mixing tests.
It is possible that the aluminium removal observed in this mixing/
sedimentation portion of the study was due to several mechanisms,
namely adsorption of dissolved aluminium to the additives, precipita-
tion of aluminium to solid form as AlOH and perhaps entrapment/
sweep flocculation when CaO and MgO is present (Bourgeois et al.,
2004). More work would have to be performed in order to identify the
mechanisms responsible for the removal observed.
4.3. Geotextile rapid filtration testing
The total aluminium removal results for the rapid filtration testing
performed with the geotextile are shown in Fig. 7. When comparing
Figs. 7–3, it is noted that equal or better removal of total aluminium can
be obtained with filtration via the geotextile compared to removal from
sedimentation. CaO dosages of 2.5 g/L and 5.0 g/L showed effluent
total aluminium levels below the 184 μg/L standards for the plant. MgO
showed increased removal at increasing dosages but levels never re-
duced to below 184 μg/L. Interestingly, when comparing particle size
distributions for CaO and MgO (i.e. Fig. 4), it is apparent that particle
767
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018) 759–769
sizes are increasing with CaO dosage but there is little change in par-
ticle size for MgO. This may explain the difference in removal between
these two alkaline based additives. It is possible that any flocs formed
from MgO may not be sufficiently strong to survive during the handling
of the water which also would occur in field scale work. When ex-
amining dissolved levels of aluminium for CaO and MgO sedimentation
tests, aluminium dissolved concentrations were high for the MgO test
relative to the CaO test at the 2.5 g/L dosage which also may explain
better removal rates for CaO. It is also important to remember that
particles that would have otherwise settled during sedimentation
testing (i.e. not present in particle size distributions) are also being
retained by the geotextile.
Fe3O4 dosages showed increasing aluminium removal with in-
creasing dosage, with removals being achieved to less than 184 μg/L in
the 2.5 and 5 g/L dosage. Fe3O4 actually performed the best for all the
dosages, which, when examining dissolved aluminium levels, is likely
due to aluminium dissolved levels being low for the range of dosages
examined. Particle sizes increased slightly which suggests the increased
size of the particles contributed to removal of aluminium.
As was shown in Fig. 4, the diameter of particles remaining after
flocculation and sedimentation in which 85% of the sample is smaller
(i.e. D85) was less than approximately 10 μm. This is considerably
smaller than both the O50 and O95 pore size values reported for the
geotextile used in this study (see Table 3). Given that there is still
I. Jahan et al.
Fig. 9. TSS concentrations in FBWW after geotextile rapid filtration at different cation additive dosages and 1 g/L polymer addition (pH adjustment to 6.5).
aluminium in the FBWW after additive and polymer addition and
geotextile filtration suggests that the some of the smaller particles ob-
served in Fig. 4 would not be filtered. However, it is apparent when
examining the total aluminium concentrations of sedimentation com-
pared to geotextile filtration, there was additional removal observed
from filtration. To assess this removal mechanism further, Scanning
Electron Microscope (SEM) was performed on selected geotextile sam-
ples that underwent filtration. To prepare samples for SEM work, the
geotextiles which were used to filter the treated FBWW were dried at
room temperature for at least 24 h and placed in a desiccator. The dried
geotextile samples were then cut into 10–15 mm square shapes and
labelled per specific additive dosage.
Fig. 8 shows the geotextile microscope images taken at a magnifi-
cation in which the fibres of the geotextile are visible. All the images
shown in this figure are for the 1 g/L additive dosage. Although this is
one set of images for the study, the images are typical of other dosages
as well. As noted from these images, for each of the additives utilized,
while there are very few larger sized flocs present in the openings of the
geotextiles, it can be observed that most particles are less than 100 μm
in size and predominately are adhered to the surface of the geotextile
surface. The lack of particles shown in the images is inherently a
function of the small mass of solids in the treated FBWW but the lo-
cation of the particles does assist in understanding the observed re-
moval rates. Although the images represent samples that were dried to
prepare for imaging, it is apparent that these particles have precipitated
to the surface of the geotextile. There is likely some colloidal attraction
of the treated particles to the geotextile which has resulted in their
attachment. Images for the CaO and MgO samples are enlarged to show
in more detail the particle sizes present on the surface of the geotextile.
Although the necessary drying of the geotextiles for imaging likely af-
fected the sizes of the particles shown, many of the particles seen in the
image correspond with that observed from particle size analyses in
Fig. 4. Subsequent SEM EDX analysis from additive particles reacted
with the FBWW was able to show the presence of aluminium element
on the surface of the particles varying from the 0.1–0.5% range for the
1 g/L dosage of additives. This confirms the presence of aluminium in
the additive precipitate but does not indicate whether it is there via
768
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018) 759–769
precipitation reactions or sweep coagulation processes from the addi-
tion of the additive. Additional work would be required to determine
this mechanism.
5. Practical application
The issue of aluminium being detected at levels exceeding reg-
ulatory guidelines at the compliance point has created the impetus for
this study. This study, in essence, represents more of a “proof of con-
cept” idea as opposed to a detailed engineering solution to this pro-
blem. In this study it has been shown that the use of cationic additives
such as CaO, MgO and Fe3O4 combined with flocculation and filtration
present feasible alternatives to removing aluminium from the FBWW
prior to discharge to the wetland and subsequently Little Pockwock
Lake. Given the results presented herein are bench scale trials, it is
acknowledged that there are limitations to the work presented.
Limitations to the work would include: 1) polymer dosage was fixed at
1 g/L; 2) only one polymer was used for the study; 3) the role of cooler
temperatures was not examined in the treatment study; 4) the rate ef-
fects of the cationic additive reactions have not been considered; and,
5) implementation of the treatment into a process design has not been
assessed.
Notwithstanding these limitations, the results of the study have
shown the potential for each of the additives to reduce aluminium
concentrations prior to the discharge, albeit to differing degrees. The
study has also shown that the use of geotextiles as a filtration medium
can be more beneficial than relying on a sedimentation processes at
removing aluminium. It is hypothesized by the authors that additional
investigation into polymer addition would allow optimization of the
process investigated herein. On the topic of polymer addition, TSS ef-
fluent discharges are limited to 25 mg/L. Fig. 9 shows TSS levels of the
FBWW after filtration, at the different additive dosages. TSS levels for
MgO appeared to remain at or near the levels required to meet reg-
ulatory requirements but those for CaO and Fe3O4 showed varying
amounts of high TSS (i.e. above 25 mg/L) which suggests that further
optimization of the polymer dosage or type is required.
In terms of practical implementation of this process at the JDKWTP,
I. Jahan et al.
there are several potential practical implementations that could be as-
sessed:
1) Installation of a compact treatment unit which would receive FBWW
overflow at the weir. This treatment unit would be comprised of
reaction vessels and mixing tanks for pH adjustment, additive and
polymer addition that could then be discharged to geotextile tubes
with effluent being directed to the wetland.
2) Addition of pH adjustment, cationic additive and polymer to the
engineered lagoons. Geotextile tubes could then be used to dewater
the sludge accumulated in the lagoon.
Option 1 would mimic the process employed in this paper. Option 2
could require additional infrastructure to be installed in the lagoons to
provide better mixing and perhaps increased hydraulic retention times.
6. Conclusions
This study provided an examination of using a geotextile in a new
application for a water treatment plant. As shown in this paper, the
filter backwash water from the water treatment plant examined pre-
sented challenges with respect to meeting environmental compliance
for aluminium at its discharge point. It was shown that this is a result of
insufficient removal of aluminium in the lagoon and the wetland. The
introduction of the use of geosynthetics (i.e. geotextiles) to retain par-
ticulate aluminium generated from flocculation was examined as a
“proof of concept”.
Results of the bench scale study showed that by adjusting pH levels
to near 6.5 (i.e. to enhance aluminium precipitation), the addition of
CaO, MgO, and Fe3O4 combined with polymer under sedimentation
conditions each reduced the levels of aluminium in the FBWW.
However, the filtration effect of the geotextile provided additional re-
moval compared to sedimentation, in some cases, to near or below
regulatory requirements. The mechanism responsible for this removal is
likely a combination of precipitation, adsorption and sweep coagulation
followed by filtration by the geotextile. It was shown through SEM
images that the geotextiles acted as a surface for the particles to adhere
to and hence the filtration mechanism of the geotextile is not the only
mechanism resulting in removal of aluminium from the FBWW.
Although the results of this study represent a proof of concept and
not an in depth engineering assessment of the studied treatment pro-
cess, further studies should be performed to optimize the removal of
aluminium and TSS from the FBWW. A small pilot study performed to
assess the practical feasibility of such an approach at the JDKWTP
would be an appropriate next step.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Halifax Water and the various
JKDWTP and Lake Major staff that assisted in the fieldwork portion of
this paper. In addition, thanks are extended to Dr. Amina Stoddard,
Dallys Serracin-Pitti, Elliot Wright, Jess Campbell and Heather Daurie.
The geotextiles used for this study were donated courtesy of Kevin
Bossy of Bishop Water Technologies in Ontario, Canada.
References
APHA, AWWA, WEF, 2005. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. Published jointly by the American Public Health Association. twenty-
first ed. American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation,
769
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 46 (2018) 759–769
New York.
Aydilek, A.H., 2012. Filters and drains, chapter 3. In: Shukla, S.K. (Ed.), Handbook of
Geosynthetic Engineering. Institute of Civil Engineers Publishing, London, UK.
Aydilek, A.H., Edil, T.B., 2002. Filtration performance of woven geotextiles with waste-
water treatment sludge. Geosynth. Int. 9 (1), 41–69.
Aydilek, A.H., Edil, T.B., 2003. Long-term filtration performance of nonwoven geotextile-
sludge systems. Geosynth. Int. 10 (4), 110–123.
Bhatia, S.K., 2017. Sustainable management of dredged sediments and waste using geo-
textile tube dewatering systems. In: Sivakumar Babu, G., Reddy, K., De, A., Datta, M.
(Eds.), Geoenvironmental Practices and Sustainability. Developments in Geotechnical
Engineering. Springer, Singapore.
Bourgeois, J.C., Walsh, M.E., Gagnon, G.A., 2004. Treatment of drinking water residuals:
comparing sedimentation and dissolved air flotation performance with optimal cation
ratios. Water Res. 38, 1173–1182.
Bourgès-Gastaud, S., Stoltz, G., Sidjui, F., Touze-Foltz, N., 2014. Nonwoven geotextiles to
filter clayey sludge: an experimental study. Geotext. Geomembranes 42 (3), 214–223.
Carlos, L., Einschlag, F.S.G., González, M.C., Mártire, D.O., 2013. In: Einschlag, S.G.,
Carlos, C. (Eds.), Applications of Magnetite Nanoparticles for Heavy Metal Removal
from Wastewater in Wastewater Treatment Technologies and Recent Analytical
Developments. 978-953-51-0882-5, . https://doi.org/10.5772/54608.
Crittenden, J.C., Trussell, R.R., Hand, D.W., Howe, K.J., Tchobanoglous, G., 2012. Water
Treatment: Principles and Design, third ed. John Wiley and Sons, New Jersey.
Fanous, M., Lake, C.B., Gagnon, G.A., 2014. Examining the use of geotubes for removing
aluminum in water treatment backwash water. In: Proceedings of the 2014 Canadian
Society for Civil Engineering Annual Conference, Halifax, Canada.
Fowler, J., Bagby, R., Trainer, E., 1996. Dewatering sewage sludge with geotextile tubes.
In: Proceedings of the 49th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, p. 30. St John's,
Newfoundland, Canada.
Fowler, J., Sprague, C.J., Toups, D., 1994. Dredged Material Filled Geotextile Containers.
Environmental Effects of Dredging Technical Notes. US Army ERDC, Waterways
Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Gaffney, D.A., Martin, S.M., Maher, M.H., Bennert, T.A., 1999. In: Dewatering
Contaminated, fine-grained Material Using Geotextiles Proceedings of Geosynthetics
'99, 1016-1031. IFAI, Boston, MA, USA.
Guimarães, M.G.A., Urashima, D.C., Vidal, D.M., 2014. Dewatering of sludge from a water
treatment plant in geotextile closed systems. Geosynth. Int. 21 (5), 310–320.
Guo, W., Chu, J., Zhou, B., 2015. Model tests on methods to improve dewatering effi-
ciency for sludge-inflated geotextile tubes. Geosynth. Int. 22 (5), 380–392.
HACH, 2018. Aluminum, Eriochrome Cyanine R method (8326). DOC316.53.01003.
Available online at: https://ca.hach.com/, Accessed date: 4 May 2018.
Halifax Water, 2015. Typical analysis of Pockwock and Lake Major Water. Available
online at: http://www.halifax.ca/HalifaxWater/documents/Pockwock-LakeMajor_
2014-2015.pdf, Accessed date: 14 June 2017.
Kadlec, R.H., Wallace, S.D., 2009. Treatment Wetlands. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
Khachan, M.M., Bhatia, S.K., Bader, R.A., Cetin, D., Ramarao, B.V., 2014. Cationic starch
flocculants as an alternative to synthetic polymers in geotextile tube dewatering.
Geosynth. Int. 21 (2), 119–136.
Koerner, R.M., Koerner, G.R., Huang, W., 2016. Geotextile tubes for dewatering and
decontamination of fine-grained soils. In: Koerner, R.M. (Ed.), Geotextiles. Elsevier.
Kutay, M.E., Aydilek, A.H., 2004. Retention performance of geotextile containers con-
fining geomaterials. Geosynth. Int. 11 (2), 100–113.
Lawson, C.R., 2008. Geotextile containment for hydraulic and environmental en-
gineering. Geosynth. Int. 15 (6), 384–427.
Mori, H., Miki, H., Tsuneoka, N., 2002. The geo-tube method for dioxin-contaminated
soil. Geotext. Geomembranes 20 (5), 281–288.
Navratil, J.D., Akin, A.C., 2009. Mine water treatment using magnetite and iron ferrites.
In: Water Institute of Southern Africa & International Mine Water Association:
Proceedings, International Mine Water Conference, pp. 439–446.
Rupakheti, P., Bhatia, S.K., Jackson, E.K., 2016. Containment and dewatering of heavy
metal contaminated slurries using reactive minerals and cellulose materials in geo-
textile tubes. In: Geosynthetics, Forging a Path to Bona Fide Engineering Materials:
Honoring Robert M. Koerner - Geo-Chicago 2016. ASCE Geotechnical Special
Publication, Chicago; United States, pp. 126–139.
Rupakheti, P., Bhatia, S.K., 2017. A study on containment of heavy metals using soils and
cellulose materials inside geotextile tubes. Geosynth. Int. 24 (3), 321–332.
Satyamurthy, R., Bhatia, S.K., 2009. Effect of polymer conditioning on dewatering
characteristics of fine sediment slurry using geotextiles. Geosynth. Int. 16 (2), 83–96.
Stoddart, A.K., Gagnon, G.A., 2015. Full-scale prechlorine removal: impact on filter
performance and water quality. J. AWWA (Am. Water Works Assoc.) 107 (12),
E638–E647.
Tencate, 2011. Material data sheet of GT500 geotextile. Available online at: http://www.
tencate.com/, Accessed date: 17 September 2017.
Tencate, 2017. Geotube RDT Test. Available online at: http://www.tencate.com/amer/
Images/bro_rdt_tcm29-12759.pdf, Accessed date: 14 June 2017.
Yee, T.W., Lawson, C.R., Wang, Z.Y., Ding, L., Liu, Y., 2012. Geotextile tube dewatering of
contaminated sediments, Tianjin Eco-City, China. Geotext. Geomembranes 31,
39–50.