Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification
Author: Theodore Clifford Phillips; Edward John Schneider
Date: 2019-07-24T00:00:00+00:00
Keywords: Sewage -- Purification

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification

This ebook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this ebook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

Title: Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification

Author: Theodore Clifford Phillips

Edward John Schneider

Release date: July 24, 2019 [eBook #59980]

Language: English

Credits: Produced by Richard Tonsing and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK COMPARISON OF METHODS OF SEWAGE PURIFICATION ***

Transcriber’s Note:

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

COMPARISON OF METHODS
OF
SEWAGE PURIFICATION

BY
THEODORE CLIFFORD PHILLIPS
AND
EDWARD JOHN SCHNEIDER
THESIS
FOR DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE
IN MUNICIPAL AND SANITARY ENGINEERING
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
PRESENTED JUNE 1900

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

May 31, 1900.

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE THESIS PREPARED UNDER MY SUPERVISION BY Theodore Clifford Phillips and Edward John Schneider ENTITLED Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification IS APPROVED BY ME AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Bachelor of Science in Municipal and Sanitary Engineering.

HEAD OF DEPARTMENT OF Municipal and Sanitary Engineering.

Contents

Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification
Dilution
Irrigation
Intermittent Downward Filtration
Chemical Precipitation
Septic Tank
Contact Bed
Discussion
Conclusion

Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification.

The disposal of sewage is one of the most important problems that confront the municipal and sanitary engineer to-day.

The study of this subject dates back to 1844 when the Healths of Towns Commission of London made the report which first showed the real course of the rapid increase in the death rate of the larger cities. In this country practically nothing was done until 1872 when the Massachusetts Legislature instructed the State Board of Health to investigate and report on the subjects of sewerage, sewage disposal, and the pollution of streams, and to-day Massachusetts leads in the investigation of the best methods of sewage disposal.

Six different methods for the treatment of sewage are now in use. These methods are used separately or in combination, the choice depending upon local conditions and the amount of purification required:—

These methods are:

1—

Dilution.

2—

Irrigation.

3—

Intermittent Downward Filtration.

4—

Chemical Precipitation.

5—

Septic Tank.

6—

Contact Bed.

The purpose of this thesis is to investigate each method and make a comparison along the following lines:

1—

Purification.

2—

Capacity.

3—

Applicability.

4—

Cost.

Dilution

Disposal of sewage by dilution is the most common method at the present time, and no doubt will continue to be for some time to come where the stream or body of water is not used for domestic purposes. Under certain conditions this affords a satisfactory solution of the problem. However, if the water into which the sewage is discharged is a source of water supply, two very important questions arise. They are: 1—How large must the dilution be? 2—How far must the polluted stream flow before the water way may be used with safety to public health?

In 1867 Dr. Letheby and others in England made the statement that if sewage is diluted at least twenty times its volume, it will not only be made inoffensive but be thoroughly destroyed after flowing a dozen miles or more.

The Rivers Pollution Commission of Great Britain in 1878 maintained that no river in England was long enough to allow of a complete disappearance of sewage matter discharged into it.

Mr. F. P. Stearns in an article on The Pollution and Self-Purification of Streams in the Massachusetts State Board of Health Report 1890 gives a table showing, “The calculated composition of sewage for different degrees of dilution in a running stream”. A comparison was made of the Blackstone and Merrimack rivers, and extended over three years. It was from this investigation that the Commissioner of the City of Chicago reported that the flow of the Chicago Drainage Canal should be four cubic feet per second per 1000 inhabitants.

The purification by dilution may be due to three things:

1—

Oxidation of organic matter.

2—
Subsidence.
3—

Destruction of the organic matter by small animals and plants.

The oxidation is a very slow process and depends mainly upon bacterial life and conditions favorable to it. Subsidence depends upon the difference in the specific gravity of the suspended matter, and the clarification is increased as the velocity is diminished.

In regard to the destruction of the organic matter by small animals and plants Dr. Sorby says, (Journal Royal Microscopic Society, 1884 p. 988.) “It appears to me that the removal of impurities from rivers is more of a biolytic than a chemical question, and it is most important to consider the action of minute animals and plants, which may be looked upon as being indirectly most powerful agents.”

Irrigation

Although the method of broad irrigation has been carried on successfully in several of the largest cities of the old world, it has not been used to any great extent in the United States, except at a few state institutions in the east, and in the arid districts of the west.

Several years ago this method of disposal was given much attention as it was thought the sewage if used would yield large profits, but more recent information shows conclusively that such is not the case.

Perhaps the most noticeable examples of this system that are now in operation in the United States are the plants at the State Hospital of the Insane, Worcester, Mass., at the Rhode Island State Institute, and at the Reformatory at Concord, Mass. In all cases the labor was done by the inmates so that it is not possible to get a fair statement of the cost. General information regarding the use of sewage for irrigation in the west may be obtained from Baker and Rafters’ “Sewage Disposal in the United States”.

Undoubtedly the best example of sewage farming is at Berlin. The following summary is given by James H. Fuentes, M. Am. Soc. C. E., in No. 2. Vol. 40 of the Engineering Record. The average quantity of sewage pumped to the farms and distributed amounts to from 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 gallons per acre per year, or in other words each acre serves for 750 people. The area farmed is divided into small beds about 150 by 200 feet separated from each other by slight embankments and ditches for distributing the sewage over the surface. The sewage is admitted into the carriers from the force mains through checking chambers made of woven willow and posts driven into the sand.

The farms are said to yield small profits over the expenses of working them, consequently contribute scarcely anything toward the cost of pumping the sewage.

The great reason why this method of disposal has been possible and profitable in a degree at Berlin is that this large and beautiful city lies in the midst of an extensive sandy area, the greater part of which in the immediate neighborhood is quite sterile and therefore comparatively thinly populated. Better conditions for such sewage farms could not exist.

Statistics compiled by Chas. S. Swan, M. Am. Soc. C. E. in his paper, Notes on European Practice in Sewage Disposal, in Jour. Assn. of Eng. Soc. Vol. 7 No. 7 shows the volume of sewage per acre per day (yearly average) to vary from 2155 to 29450 gallons, and the average depth per annum varies from 2.4 to 32.8 feet.

The nineteenth annual report of the Massachusetts State Board of Health 1888 states that on an ordinary farm in Massachusetts 2500 gallons per acre per day are as much as could be applied to any valuable grass crop. This would require such a large area for large cities that irrigation could not be depended upon for preventing the pollution of streams.

It is evident from the above report that the irrigation system can be used to advantage only where large tracts of low land can be obtained at a low cost, and where help and plenty of cheap labor can be obtained.

Intermittent Downward Filtration

Filtration means the concentration of sewage on an area of especially chosen porous ground, or on an especially prepared bed as small as will absorb and purify it. The intermittency of application is a necessary requirement even in suitably constituted soils wherever complete success is arrived at. The reason for this is that free oxygen is indispensable to nitrification and the nitrifying organism.

This method has been in operation only during the last thirty years, and the correct theory of its action has been found out within the last ten years.

Dr. Frankland, in the first report of Rivers Pollution Commission of England, shows that not only a chemical action but also a biolytic action takes place with the assistance of minerals and the oxygen of the air. This biolytic action is known as nitrification, and consists in the oxidation of the nitrogen of ammonia and its ultimate conversion into nitric acid. This change takes place in two stages, each characterized by a distinct organism. The office of one of these organisms is to convert ammonia into nitrite, while the other converts nitrites into nitrate.

The bacteria are present or quickly develop in the sewage which may be considered a nutrient medium for them by reason of containing a large amount of their natural nitrogenous food.

These organisms, according to Warrington, may be separated by successive cultivations in favorable media; from a potassium nitrate solution with no ammonia we may obtain nitric organism alone; from an ammonium carbonate solution we may obtain nitrous organisms in a pure state.

It is a noticeable fact that frost checks nitrification, but several satisfactory methods have been used so that no serious objection can be raised to intermittent filtration on this ground.

“The purification of sewage by this method depends upon the oxygen and the time of action” (Hazen). To obtain the highest efficiency the sewage must be applied intermittently and there must be a large percentage of voids in the sand.

Experiments made on especially prepared beds at Lawrence, Mass. show that by treating 85000 gallons per acre per day, 94 percent of the organic matter and 98 percent of the bacteria are removed, and by treating 60,000 gallons per acre per day, 97 to 99 percent of the organic matter may be removed. The above data shows that 100,000 may be successfully treated with a five foot bed of sand.

The writers inspected the intermittent downward filtration plant at Mendota Illinois and the following data were obtained. The city has a population of about 6000 with 8 miles of sewers and 210 house connections. The average daily flow is about 350,000 gallons although during the rainy season there is a considerable amount of ground water present.

The disposal plant was constructed under the supervision of the Iowa Engineering Company of Clinton, Iowa, on a 15 acre tract of land, one and a half miles south of the city. Although original plans called for 18 beds with five feet of gravel, only four beds each 275 feet by 75 feet were finished, and instead of 5 feet of ground only 24 inches was used. The plant was complete in July 1899 and was operated until December, when it was discontinued on account of cold weather, it not being considered necessary to operate it during the winter. From December until April the sewage was discharged directly into a creek which runs along one side of the land.

The beds have no automatic device for distributing the sewage at definite intervals of time, but are connected with the main sewer by a number of gate valves which were regulated by the attendant. The sewage is distributed by means of a wooden sluice way which extended the entire length of the bed and has six inch openings on the side every 16 feet which gave a fairly even distribution.

Although no analysis of the sand and gravel was made, it was apparent that the uniformity coefficient was very large.

The material was shipped a distance of 90 miles and resembles ordinary ballast used for rail roads. The largest pieces were thrown along the sluice way to prevent excessive washing. The finest of the sand was of a size which would be considered too fine for good mortar sand. No attempt was made to screen the material. The gravel would not be considered first class for filtering beds.

Samples of the sewage and effluent were taken at two different times. The first was between 9:00 and 10:30 A. M., April 20, 1900. Until the day before no sewage had been applied to the beds since last fall. The second collection was made two weeks later, when samples of the sewage and effluent were collected at intervals of one hour during the day, and mixed into composite samples. The sewage was taken from a manhole just above the beds, and the effluent from the outlet of the underdrain about 900 feet below the beds.

The analysis is given in Table I. and the results show that the beds are not working as efficiently as might be expected from a first class plant. This may be accounted for from the fact that the filtration is too rapid and that the material which is less than two feet in depth is not suitable for such a purpose.

TABLE I.
Analyses of Sewage and of Effluent from Intermittent Downward Filtration Plant at Mendota, Ills.
Parts per 1,000,000
| April 20, 1900 | May 4, 1900
Sewage | Effluent | Efficiency | Sewage | Effluent | Efficiency
Oxygen consumed: Total | 48.5 | 6.50 | 86% | 27.7 | 12.0 | 55%
| In suspension | 33.4 | | | 15.5 | 4.6 | 70%
| In solution | 15.1 | | | 12.2 | 7.4 | 40%
Nitrogen as albuminoid ammonia | | | | | |
| Total | 10.4 | .32 | 97% | 3.68 | .768 | 79%
| In suspension | 9.28 | | | 2.816 | .416 | 85%
| In solution | 1.12 | | | .864 | .352 | 59%
Total organic nitrogen | 17.960 | .920 | 95% | 9.60 | 1.860 | 81%
| In suspension | 15.04 | | | 7.500 | 1.152 | 85%
| In solution | 2.92 | | | 2.100 | .708 | 66%
Nitrogen as free ammonia | 7.20 | 2.40 | 67% | 3.84 | 1.28 | 67%
Nitrogen as nitrites | .675 | .375 | | 000 | 000 |
Nitrogen as nitrates | 4.00 | 18.00 | | .120 | .120 |
Chlorine as chlorides | 53.0 | 49.0 | | 47.0 | 44.0 |

Chemical Precipitation

When certain chemicals are added to sewage a precipitate is formed which under favorable conditions may carry down with it all the suspended matter as well as a portion of the dissolved organic matter. The addition of the chemicals together with the working of the various appliances for grinding and mixing the same, the decanting of the effluent, and the caring for the sludge all constitute what is known as the chemical treatment of sewage, the complete process being in reality partly chemical and partly mechanical.

The following matter concerning the theory of precipitation is taken from Baker and Rafter’s Sewage Disposal.

The reagents chiefly used at the present time are lime, sulphate of alumina, and ferrous sulphate. In the case of lime, there is a combination of some of the lime and with free and partially combined carbon dioxide to form an insoluble carbonate of lime. There is probably a further combination of an additional part of the lime with a portion of the organic matter in solution. The insoluble substances so formed sink to the bottom, carrying with them the major portion of the suspended matter in the sewage in the form of sludge.

Sulphate of alumina exercises a precipitating effort by a combination of the sulphuric acid with lime while alumina hydrate forms a flocculent precipitate which entangles and carries down the suspended organic matters.

On November 11, 1899 the writers visited the chemical precipitation plant at Madison Wisconsin and through the kindness of Mr. McClellen Dodge, City Engineer, were shown the plant at that time in operation.

The sewage was screened as it came from the city and emptied into a well. Here it was dosed with lime and then pumped to one of the four settling tanks. These are 15 feet deep and 25 feet in diameter. The sewage enters near the bottom of the tanks. The sludge settles to the bottom and the effluent rises to the top, where it is carried away to three of the filter beds. These three beds are in continuous use. A fourth bed is out of use while it is washed and allowed to rest for one day.

The total area of the beds is 5550 square feet. The flow through the beds is about 8,000,000 gallons per acre per day.

The company that constructed and operated the plant agreed that the effluent on analysis should be found to be equal to the waters of Lake Mendota and the analyses of Lake Mendota water which was adapted as a standard of purity is reproduced in the Engineering News Vol. 42 No. 26 p. 414. Samples of the crude sewage tank effluent and filter effluent were taken and analyzed as shown in Table II. A comparison of this table with the standard shows that in no particulars does the effluent from the plant come up to the standard.

The company has since abandoned the contract and the city is considering other methods of disposal and purification “in order that there may be no more fiascos in civil engineering at the seat of this well known school.” (University of Wisconsin)

TABLE II.
Analyses of Sewage and Effluent from Chemical Precipitation Plant and Filter Beds at Madison, Wis.
Parts per 1,000,000.
| November 23, 1900
Chemical Precipitation | Filter-beds
Sewage | Effluent | Efficiency | Sewage | Effluent | Efficiency
Oxygen consumed: Total | 38.3 | 23.2 | 40% | 23.2 | 14.3 | 38%
| In suspension | 27.2 | 12.1 | 55% | 12.1 | 3.5 | 71%
| In solution | 11.1 | 11.1 | 00% | 11.1 | 10.8 | 3%
Nitrogen as albuminoid ammonia | | | | | |
| Total | 8.32 | 4.00 | 52% | 4.00 | 2.46 | 38%
| In suspension | 7.12 | 2.56 | 64% | 2.56 | 1.60 | 37%
| In solution | 1.20 | 1.44 | –20% | 1.44 | .864 | 40%
Total organic nitrogen | 15.30 | 5.32 | 67% | 5.32 | 3.56 | 33%
| In suspension | 12.48 | 1.86 | 85% | 1.86 | 1.54 | 17%
| In solution | 2.82 | 3.46 | –23% | 3.46 | 2.02 | 42%
Nitrogen as free ammonia | 32.0 | 32.0 | 0% | 32.0 | 32.0 | 0%
Nitrogen as nitrites | | | | | |
Nitrogen as nitrates | .120 | .240 | | 0.240 | 0.60 |
Chlorine as chlorides | 134 | 136 | | 136 | 119 |

Another example of the use of chemical precipitation is at Alliance, Ohio. There are three tanks each with a capacity of 144000 gallons. The amount of sewage flowing into the tanks during the year 1897 averaged about 300,000 gallons per day. During the year 1897 each day 180 pounds of chemicals were added to the sewage and 650 pounds of sludge was precipitated and pressed daily.

The total cost of the disposal plant was $20755.00. The cost of operation and maintenance for the years 1897 and 1898 was $1290.00 and $1567.43 respectively. The average amount of lime used during this time was 95000 pounds yearly.

Two men perform all the labor necessary for the operation of the plant.

From the chemical analyses given in the Engineering Record Jan. 13, 1900 of the sewage and effluent, averages representing five months show the efficiency in albuminoid ammonia to be 40 percent and oxygen required 30 percent.

Septic Tank

We will now discuss a very different process of treating sewage, the septic method. The septic tank consists of a tank from which generally the air and light are excluded and through which the sewage flows with a slow velocity, thus allowing the matter in suspension to settle to the bottom or rise to the top by reason of its specific gravity, there to be further acted upon or decomposed by bacteria. The currents should be so guided that they are distributed over a considerable depth and not allowed to disturb the sediments at the bottom or the material at the top. The darkened ill ventilated and modestly heated conditions in the tank are all conducive to the propagation of a micro-organism known as bacteria. The activity of these organisms causes a chemical decomposition of the organic matter in the sewage a part passing off as gas and a part passing off in the effluent as inorganic matter, while another portion is deposited in the bottom of the tank as sludge.

So far only matter in suspension has been considered but it is also true that chemical action takes place to some extent in the organic matter in solution. This chemical action is a denitrifying action similar to that which takes place in intermittent downward filtration.

An important fact in the septic tank effluent is that its compounds have been broken down and it can now be more readily purified.

The septic tank process is self-regulating, self-acting, requires no attention except the occasional cleaning out of the sludge.

As an illustration of this process the septic tank at Champaign Illinois may be described.

This tank although designed in 1895, has only been in operation since 1897. The dimensions of this tank are 37 by 16 by 5 feet and it has a cubic capacity of 22,000 gallons. It has taken care of a dry weather flow of 300,000 gallons per day, about 13 times its cubic contents. The tank has operated with a range of from 11 to 27 times its cubic capacity with a high efficiency of purification though much of this was ground water.

The reduction of the organic matter in suspension, as shown by the reduction of oxygen consumed, nitrogen as albuminoid ammonia, and total organic nitrogen in three analyses averaged 94 percent. However it is not considered that an average of more than 80 to 90 percent may generally be expected. The reduction of organic matter in solution is considerable, averaging 17 percent.

This sludge at the bottom is a black muddy looking silt-like deposit containing about 60 percent of water and 5 percent of organic matter. Its value as a fertilizer is small.

Although the amount of sludge is relatively small the accumulation requires removal occasionally, three or four times a year.

It is estimated that for every 1,000,000 gallons sewage there is about 3 cubic feet of dry matter. By chemical precipitation this would amount to from 20 to 25 cubic feet per 1,000,000 gallons.

Another good example of the septic tank method is the one in use at Exeter, England.

This plant has been in operation since 1896. It was designed for 98000 gallons capacity. The sewage is allowed to remain in the tank nearly 24 hours. The tank is used in conjunction with five beds in which further purification is used. The beds are filled with coke breeze and one is always resting for a week at a time. The tank is made nearly air tight by an arched roof and any gasses collecting may be burned at a vent.

The rate of working this tank is much slower than the process at Champaign Illinois.

At Southwold England, there is another good illustration of this method. This has been called an open septic tank and is used in conjunction with two beds, an anaerobic, and an aerobic bed, the latter containing polarite.

This plant is interesting from the fact that the effluent from the anaerobic bed is distributed over the aerobic bed by means of a revolving sprinkler which prevents the liquid from passing unequally through the large grain, porous material. The action upon these beds is continuous.

From a report of this system the analysis of gas found in three samples are as follows:—

| Oxygen | Nitrogen | Carbon dioxide | Sulphuretted hydrogen
Septic tank | 0.25% | 28.46% | 70.03% | 1.26%
Anaerobic bed | 7.26% | 39.10% | 52.37% | 0.91%
Aerobic bed | 20.62% | 78.63% | 0.75% | 0.00%

Contact Bed

The contact bed as distinguished from the bacteria bed may be said to be made up of fine material, while the bacteria beds are built of coarse material. The latter are used for taking out the rougher solids, and the former for taking out the more finely divided material, and the organic matter in solution. While this distinction is not commonly made it seems to be growing into usage.

In the process of purification by means of contact beds the sewage is applied intermittently by distributing pipes or troughs so as to slowly fill the beds which are filled from a depth of from three to six feet with any kind of hard, porous, jagged material. The change which takes place is due to the action of certain bacteria in the presence of air. Although this process is not a new one, the method by which the results were obtained was not fully understood until the more recent discoveries in the science of bacteriology were made.

The beds are made water tight to a depth of about four feet, the bottom being channeled or tiled to drain the effluent either to a secondary bed or into the effluent channel.

Many eminent men have advocated special material as coal, coke, clinker slag, sand, and gravel, and even glass for filling material. The results do not differ materially and Prof. L. P. Kennicutt in an article in the Journal of the Association of Engineering Societies, February 1900 makes the following statement, “The material should be more or less porous so as to have a larger water absorbing area and have a jagged surface on which the gelatinized micro-organisms can be easily retained.”

“The quantity of sewage that can be successfully treated by intermittent filtration has been shown not to be over 100,000 gallons per acre per day, a quantity so small as to be quite useless for towns and cities which would be obliged to construct beds with sand not “in situ”. This point was quickly perceived in England where sand “in situ” is not of common occurrence. These bacteria beds were not used long before the problem arose: Can the amount of land required by the intermittent filtration method be so reduced that the construction of artificial bacteria beds will be a practical possibility?

“The results of the investigation started by this problem have given us what is known as the contact system of treatment and the septic tank treatment and have apparently shown not only that by combining these two methods the amount of area required for 100,000 gallons can be reduced from one acre to about one seventh of an acre but also that the bacterial treatment is possible with sewage containing manufacturing refuse, and have outlined how sewage containing storm water may be treated.”

It has been found by experiment that after two or three weeks there is a marked reduction in the initial capacity of the tank due to breaking down of the filling material and also to the filling material becoming charged and coated over with a gelatinous slime consisting of living organisms and organic matter in the process of transformation.

If the bed is not overworked the capacity of the tank will remain constant after the first two or three weeks, showing that the durability is unlimited.

The beds are usually filled in half an hour, and the sewage allowed to remain on them about two hours when the effluent is run off and the beds allowed to rest several hours before again being filled.

By contact beds in series, the number depending upon the kind of sewage, almost any degree of purification can be obtained.

The Engineering Record of Jan. 27, 1900 gives a very interesting account of the sewage disposal works at Sutton, England. The works were constructed in 1891–93, and comprise an area of 28 acres, 18 acres only being capable of irrigation. They were originally designed for chemical precipitation and broad irrigation, but after giving these methods a two years’ trial the local board found itself unable to satisfy the requirements of the conservators of the River Thames, into which the effluent flowed.

Mr. W. J. Dibdin advised the construction of filters or fine grained bacteria beds. Two beds having a combined area of a quarter of an acre and a capacity of 200,000 gallons, were built in 1895–96 for the purification of the chemically treated sewage. In 1896 the first bacteria bed was constructed for the treatment of crude sewage.

As previously stated, many tests were made to determine the best kind of material for filling the beds.

The crude sewage, after being screened to intercept floating matter, is run directly onto the filters without the addition of any chemicals. After remaining in the beds for a period of two hours the effluent is in a fit condition to be discharged into the brook leading to the Thames and is uniformly superior to the effluent obtainable by local land treatment.

All experiments with bacteria beds show that the objects for which they were intended, to abolish sludge, has been realized and that sewage can be purified without chemicals at a small cost, being but little more than that incurred by the labor in attending to, or supervising the filling and discharging, the filters, and that sewage purification can be carried on with little or no nuisance.

Discussion

The amount of purification to be obtained by dilution depends upon the size of the stream into which the sewage is discharged and also upon the amount of oxygen contained in the stream. The latter condition is controlled very largely by the rate of flow of the stream and its previous condition of pollution. Mr. E. P. Stearns in his report to the Massachusetts State Board of Health, 1890, on Pollution and Self-Purification of Streams, gave a table showing the calculated amount of free ammonia, dissolved solids and chlorine which sewage adds to running streams.

Much interest is being taken in the effect of the discharge of the sewage of Chicago, and the waters of Lake Michigan, into the Illinois River, and the outcomes of the analyses of samples taken along the river is awaited with interest. Published reports have not been given out, but information from the most reliable sources seem to show that a considerable purification takes place in the passage down the river.

No reliable data could be obtained giving the percent of purification by irrigation. At Berlin the sewage is purified by this method, and the effluent comes well within the requirements of the German law.

With chemical treatment about 90 percent of the matter in suspension and a small percent of that in solution is removed, and the purification is about 53 percent of the total organic matter.

The best examples of intermittent downward filtration show an efficiency of 95 percent on the total organic matter. However, if this process is used in connection with other methods the organic matter may be reduced 99 percent and the chemical analyses of the effluent may fill the drinking water requirements.

Results of analyses of sewage and effluent from septic tanks show an efficiency of from 85 to 90 percent in the organic matter in suspension. Very little change takes place in the matter in solution.

The result of experiments with a single contact bed at Sutton, England, from November 1896 to March 1898 shows a purification of 64 percent; if, however, two beds are used in series, a further purification of 50 percent is obtained or a total purification of 82 percent of the crude sewage.

The capacities of irrigation, and intermittent downward filtration plants, and contact beds are usually stated in terms of the number of gallons per acre per day.

TABLE III.
RATE OF SEWAGE TREATMENT.
System. | Location. | Sewage treated in gallons per acre per day.
IRRIGATION. |
| Berlin, Germany. | 18,000.
| Manchester, Eng.—Estimated but not constructed. | 18,500.
INTERMITTENT DOWNWARD FILTRATION. |
| Framingham, Mass. | 19,000.
| Leicester, Mass. | 38,750.
| Brockton, Mass. | 44,000.
| Marlborough, Mass. | 54,000.
| Gardner, Mass. | 140,000.
| Mendota, Ills. | 184,000.
| Worcester,[1] Mass. | 322,000.
| Worcester,[1] Mass. (Fletcher’s estimate). | 500,000.
| Madison,[1] Wis. | 8,000,000.
CONTACT BEDS. |
| Manchester, Eng. (crude sewage) | 500,000.
| Manchester,[1] Eng. | 700,000.
| Manchester, Eng. (storm water sewage) | 2,500,000.

1. Secondary filtration.

Table III shows the capacity of representative plants. Best authorities consider 100,000 gallons per acre per day to be the maximum rate permissible under the best conditions for the treatment of crude sewage by the intermittent downward filtration system. With unfavorable conditions the quantity of sewage should be limited to as low as 20,000 gallons. Wherever too large a dose is applied to the bed the sewage is not properly purified and the beds soon become clogged up and unfit for further use.

When the beds are used for secondary purification, 750,000 gallons may be treated per acre per day.

The results of extensive experiments made at Manchester, England in 1898 and 1899 show that by means of contact beds crude sewage may be treated at the rate of 500,000 gallons per acre per day. When the beds are used for secondary purification, 750,000 gallons may be successfully treated, and storm water sewage treated at the rate of 2,500,000 gallons per acre per day.

The capacity of the chemical precipitation plant at Madison, Wisconsin is 68 percent of the daily flow, which in 1899 was estimated at 300,000.

The company that built the plant agreed that the plant should have a daily capacity of 1,200,000 for each and every day in the year. This shows the estimated capacity of the tank to be 28 percent.

At Worcester, one of the best examples of this process is in operation. The size of the tanks is equal to 28 percent of the total flow of 17.1 million gallons per day of which 10.1 million gallons is the out flow from a comparatively clear pond. If the actual amount of sewage is considered the tanks have a capacity of 65 percent of the total flow.

Rafter and Baker in their discussion of the size of tanks recommends that the total capacity should be nearly 50 percent of the average daily flow.

The two typical types of septic tanks are those at Exeter, England and at Champaign Illinois. The first has a cubic capacity of 93 percent of the total daily flow, while the second has a capacity of 7.5 percent of the daily flow.

When the capacity of the tank is as small as at Champaign the bacteria do not have time to act upon the sewage as they would if the flow was not so rapid.

It is conceded now by the highest authorities on this subject that the tank should have a capacity equal to from one fourth to one half of the average daily flow.

Concerning the conditions for which the various processes are applicable, it may be said that the dilution process is used when advantage may be taken of natural resources. This method can be utilized by most cities situated along rivers or streams large enough to sufficiently dilute and carry away the sewage, and fulfill sanitary requirements.

As an example of the use of dilution the Chicago River may be cited. There the uncertain flow of the river was made to pass inward toward the Illinois River with a speed of 2½ miles per hour and a discharge of 20,000 gallons per minute per 100,000 inhabitants. The Blackstone River was used by the cities of Massachusetts until the pollution of the river became unbearable and the state was compelled to pass a law forcing the cities to purify their sewage.

Broad irrigation is a method which cannot generally be used on account of the large amount of land and labor required. This method is especially applicable to asylums, alms houses, and reformatories where cost of labor is small. It is used in the West where the value of all available water leads to the application of sewage to crops, and also on account of the low stage of western streams during the summer which renders sewage discharged into them an unbearable nuisance.

Intermittent downward filtration may be used where there is a considerable area of sandy soil, and also where a high degree of purification is necessary.

Chemical precipitation does not require a large area for its operation and used alone does not give a high degree of purification. Where land and material for beds is expensive, and partial purification is sufficient, this system may be used.

The septic tank requires a small area. The odors are not offensive and cannot be noticed 100 feet away. The effluent may be discharged into small streams and soon loses its identity.

Contact beds are used where a high degree of purity is required; if the effluent is emptied into rivers or sources of water supply. The beds do not require a large area and the process may be recommended if suitable material is at hand.

The cost of construction and maintenance of the different systems vary so largely according to local conditions that a fair estimate is not possible. As the most striking example of maximum and minimum cost the disposal system at Chicago and at Lowell, Massachusetts may be cited. The purification in both cases is by dilution, the cost being practically nothing at Lowell while the Chicago Drainage Canal cost $33,000,000. It may not be fair to charge this entire cost to the sewerage system; nevertheless up to date it has been used for no other purpose.

At Berlin, Germany where broad irrigation is used, the sewage has to be pumped to the farms and involves a considerable cost. Aside from this the receipts derived from the sale of farm products are enough to pay the running expenses of the farm.

The first cost of the intermittent downward filtration plant is estimated by the writers at $90,000 per million gallons per day of sewage treated, where the beds are artificial. Where natural beds can be used the first cost may be reduced to $7,500 per million gallons per day. The cost of maintenance is about $2.00 per 1,000,000 gallons.

The average cost for operating a chemical disposal plant is about 58 cents per inhabitant per year, or $16.00 per 1,000,000 gallons treated. At Manchester England where broad irrigation and chemical precipitation are used in combination, the average cost was $63.00 per 1,000,000 gallons treated.

A septic tank for treating 1,000,000 gallons of sewage per day will cost less than $10,000 and the cost of maintenance will be about $1.00 per 1,000,000 gallons treated.

Conclusion

In selecting a method of sewage disposal, the conditions, surroundings, and requirements of the city should be carefully studied and analyzed, and judgment and discretion must be used. A matter of so much importance to the community should be placed in the hands of men qualified to make a proper solution of the problem. While in general several methods of purification may be applied to the requirements of the city, usually local conditions and considerations will narrow the choice to two plans or possibly to a single method.

The governing features of the dilution process are so distinct that it is not usually difficult to determine where this method is applicable, and likewise, the broad irrigation process has peculiar conditions. In both, the plans involve only matters of construction.

The other methods have more in common and the determination of their relative value is not so easy. As before stated, the recently developed biolytic processes promise to displace chemical precipitation. Where a suitable deposit of sand or gravel is conveniently located on cheap land which may be made without great expense into filtration areas and the sewage discharged upon them by gravity, intermittent downward filtration may be the most satisfactory, especially if a highly purified effluent is desired. The item of expense of attendance, and labor of maintenance must be considered in connection with the cost of this method. In the absence of such favorable conditions and especially where complete purification is not required the septic tank may be the most suitable. For higher purification the combination of the septic tank with filter beds, or contact beds run at comparatively high rates, makes a satisfactory purification and is applicable to a wide range of conditions. A bacteria bed may be substituted for the septic tank for the roughing process but its applicability in not so general.

In conclusion it may be said that if the next ten years gives as much development in sewage purification as has the last decade, some of the processes herein outlined will have been discarded and sanitary engineering will have achieved still greater triumphs.

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

1. Table of Contents added by transcriber.

2. All text after the Contents was handwritten.

3. Silently corrected typographical errors and variations in spelling.

4. Retained anachronistic, non-standard, and uncertain spellings as printed.

5. Footnotes have been re-indexed using numbers.

*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK COMPARISON OF METHODS OF SEWAGE PURIFICATION ***

Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will be renamed.

Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, especially commercial redistribution.

START: FULL LICENSE

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE

PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK

To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at www.gutenberg.org/license.

Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property (trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8.

1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.

1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the United States and you are located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project Gutenberg™ License.

1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website (www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works provided that:

- • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation.”

- • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ works.

- • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of receipt of the work.

- • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.

1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™

Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit 501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation

Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works

Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.

Table of Contents

- COMPARISON OF METHODS OF SEWAGE PURIFICATION

- Contents

- Comparison of Methods of Sewage Purification.

- Dilution
- Irrigation
- Intermittent Downward Filtration
- Chemical Precipitation
- Septic Tank
- Contact Bed
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES
- THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE