Comparison of Process

for Drinking Water Treatment

 Hydraulic Intensive Clarifier Mechanical Intensive High Density Clarifier
Clarifier
Capital Investment Modified Intensive Clarifier by our own, moderately Modified Intensive Clarifier by our own, Expensive
cheap moderately cheap

Operation Cost ADSORICA Dosing; Energy Consumption of Feed Energy Consumption of flocculator, Sludge Need coagulant and flocculant; Energy
Pump, Sludge pump pump; ADSORICA Dosing Consumption of Sludge Scraper, Flocculation
Turbine, Sludge pump

Effectiveness Effective Effective Very effective for clarification

Advantages No Moving Part; cost-effective More effective mixing than hydraulic Can treat water with turbidity up to 900;
intensive clarifier; cost-effective proven results

Disadvantages No Proven results for drinking water treatment No Proven results for drinking water Complicated structure; not easy to operate
treatment
 Sand Filter With Air And Water Siphon Filter Valveless Gravity Filter
Backwash
Structure Complicated Structure Complicated structure; no sophisticated
valves; no moving parts;

Valves and Control Many Control valves, not easy to operate Siphon piping but no valves; using vacuum Fully automated backwash operation; no PLC;
system (vacuum pump, vacuum tank, no ON/OFF valves;
pipeline, inlet and wash siphon pipes, filter
bag) to automatically control the filter; No
need of penstock

Operation and Manual Backwash based on water headloss
2.5m~3m; filtration duration reach 3~4 days; filtered
Maintenance water quality higher turbidity than expected
No need of any external energy cost; no
need of electrical or hydraulic control, no
need of backwash water tank or backwash
pump; can control the filtration velocity
automatically based on feed water flow rate
Easy to operate and maintenance; little
maintenance required; simple and robust
design; No moving parts, hence less
Maintenance; No need of expensive power,
hence low
operating cost

Capital Investment High Capital investment is 20%~30% lower than No need of expensive valves,
sand filter; save 30%~40% metal material; instrumentation, and backwash pumps
and hence cost competitive; Compact and
modular design, hence low
expansion and installation cost

Works for Small, For Small, Medium and big plants For Medium and big plants For Small and Medium plants

Medium or Big Plants

Advantages Less sensitive to changes in raw water quality;
1~2MLD/m2; long filtration duration
Avoid negative loss, control valves all are
near the vacuum tank, easy to operate;
cheap; operational cost low
Small footprint; easy to control; no need of
vacuum equipment, no need of sophisticated
valves; Reliable automatic backwash; no need
of manpower as the filter operate
automatically

Disadvantages Ineffective against taste and odour problems Filter depth 5~6m; backwash water head is Troublesome to replace sand
low.
 Chlorine NaOCl ClO2

Cost Low Cost Moderately Low Cost Moderately Low Cost

Safety Concern High Moderate High

Stability Stable Slightly Unstable Unstable, must be generated as used

Effectiveness produces good results Produces good results More powerful than Chlorine

Advantages If your water is pretty clean, free of natural organic
matter, low in salts and ammonia and other
chemicals, then chlorine is a relatively cheap and
cost effective sanitiser.
Produce residual disinfectant
lasts longer; also more effective in cleaner
water, but can cope with more water
contamination than chlorine can. Lowest
dosage; contact time is lower; increase
coagulation; compact,

Disadvantages Only truly effective under relatively narrow Dangerous and corrosive A safer bet; Dangerous and corrosive
conditions; Dangerous and corrosive