Dirty Water Flocculents

Hi Jeff,

Alum (aluminium sulfate) is toxic even in small quantities. While OK to use for the dunny and washing water, do not use for drinking.

Cheers

Captain

Captain,
Thanks for the reminder on how dumbed down we have become . Politics aside, it seems we all need a minute-by-minute supervised nappy change this era. JH.

Actually most water treatment plants will more than likely use Alum as a coagulant/floculating agent as it is safe when use correctly, however at certain pH levels and increased dosage levels, the residue from these aluminimum compounds are considered toxic.

Andrew

Hi Andrew,

Yep, alum is much cheaper than say ferric sulfate and is why its often used in water treatment plants.

However, in a situation where you might only be treating say 60 litres, the amount of alum required is very small (typically 10 ppm) so you would only need to add 0.6ml. Its unlikley anyone could dose this amount accurately in a camping situation (or too easy to get wrong) and is why it shouldn't be used IMHO, especially when there are many other chemicals that can be used.

Alum can be used if you understand what you are doing, but its relatively easy to make a dosing mistake and end up with a toxic mix. Much better to use other chemicals that don't carry such a health risk if you make a simple mistake.

Cheers

Captain

yeh, i agree ;-)

Andrew

Captain,
If I appeared abrupt earlier, please forgive, as I was called away.(Long story: Black Books 'n Christmas.)
My point was going to be that we bought a little Mazda ,4 years ago, and virtually every page of the manuel carried a hazard sign plus warning. Had I known that I was buying the Bride such a dangerous item, I'm sure we would have bought a horse instead.
(now THAT would have been worthy of the odd warning alarm !)

To return to Rotord's post: he sought advice re flocculents. Perhaps I presume too much; perhaps he thinks clear water equates to drinkable water. Hmm. I feel that he is a tad more intlgnt than that.

Wilankurgab (mongrel handle for us wun finga typists, mate), uses same chemical in a totally different situation. No problems.

Captain, you mentioned that there may be other, more appropriate systems available. Perhaps Rotord, Willy and meself would all benefit the environment should you be inclined to show us the light.
(Just my little dig here. I get really depressed when some idiot asks a question on this forum, and is promptly told to buggeroff and see 'Parting Of The Red [sorry: Dead] Sea Scrolls', skin 3, scroll 7, reconstituted hairyglyph mcixl.(sub clause ~^)

Thanks Captain, mainly in jest; just a little in earnest
And yes Mike H., the drugs still work for me old son.
Best wishes to all who seek clear water in
'07. (and good luck to those who seek clean water). Jeff. h.

Jeff,

You seem to be uptight over a good answer that explained some of the issues to be aware of when dealing with these compounds. :-)

From my observations, it seems that Captain knows what he is talking about, or at the very least his answer is correct in its statement.

BTW there are numerous other products that will achieve similar results though very few of them are as cheap and available as Alum. As an example, an increasing number of water treatment system operators are tending to use polyaluminium chloride (PACs) as a flocculant due to its operational characteristics over a wider pH range. The subsequent reduction in lime, soda ash etc offsets some of the increased cost with the product.

Other products able to be bought commercially include various long-chain polymer flocculants, including modified polyacrylamides, though these tend to require an extra step in the treatment process to activate them.

There are also numerous other types of less common flocculating compounds including derivatives of iron (ferric sulphate etc), calcium, sodium, or magnesium each with their benefits and disadvantages. One of the better alternatives to Alum is ferric sulphate, due to its relatively safe storage characteristics, wide pH range and its price.

At the end of the day, Alum is the most common form, generally the cheapest, and works relatively well in a controlled situation.

BTW i'm still not sure where your postings are coming from.....it is hard to read the emotion into your previous thread and work out if you are serious or just having a good dig at society in general. :-)

The OP asked for "what is popular these days other than filters" and i'm sure that my and Captain's post will answer some of the original question. The big issue is that whatever flocculant is used, some sort of post-filtration/sedimentation MUST be used. Flocculating agents are not a replacement for filtration.

Andrew

Hi Jeff and Andrew,

First, Andrew you certainly seem to know your flocculants and coagulants! I assume you are some type of Chemical Engineer involved in Water treatment as well ;)

Secondly, no offence was taken Jeff . I too get a bit peeved at the way we are wrapped in cotton wool these days, but my reasoning was that this is not like an "Engels vs Waceo" debate - this has the potential to make you seriously ill or worse!

And finally, the reason I didn't elaborate in detail is that the "correct" answer would fill a book. Its a bit like asking "what 4WD should I buy" without knowing any other details. While water is all wet, you really have no idea of whats in it unless you have it analysed. And clear running water from a stream may be contaminated with any sort of bacteria that would make you very sick (nothing worse that a tummy bug when camping).

Using something like puritabs is arguably the best thing to do for drinking water IF you know there are no other issues (puritabs will sterilise it only). But how do you know there are no heavy metals (Arsenic, Cadmium etc...). These are uncommon, but still present, in many areas on surface water and in streams. But "generally", if the water supports life (ie. fish, plants etc...) then its "unlikely" to have a big issue. But tannins are likley in water around plants so watch washing with this.

As a rule of thumb, only use water that appears to support healthy life and then use puritabs. After the 30 min wait, if its still cloudy I would not use for drinking water. I would not add any type of floc as while it may clear the water, why was it cloudy in the first place?

Maybe not the "cure-all" answer one wanted in the first place (and a bit long winded too) but many, many people have gotten sick from drinking contaminated water and some have even died (not so much in Australia). Its not something that in reality should not be taken lightly and I certainly wouldn't recommend people adding chemicals they know little about then drinking it to test if they got it right!!!

Cheers

Captain

If you don't mind, could you possibly give us an update when you do it on how successful epsom salts are, how much you used v's water quality, etc. I am personally interested to see how well it works in an uncontrolled situation, no other reason :-)

Thanks

Andrew

Andrew, I've just viewed your post from 12:02, 4.1.07. Up until then I was happy to accept you as a bright, up and coming young Engineer. (And there's no reason to think otherwise. After all, many of us present our thoughts via distorted posts during the dark hours.)

As an example, you ask Rotord how much was used , and the water quality.
Now that's a fairly subjective,"uncontrolled situation," (your term), useless set of data for a bright Lad such as yourself. You have a set of wheels,water quality appears to be your passion, so do the leg work yourself, record your results faithfully, and publish a 'rule of thumb' article on EO in 5 years time.I can almost guarantee that, given Rotord's situation, alum will feature fairly highly on the list of preferred treatments.

I'm content to leave it at that. When Members need to speak off Forum, EO provides the venue. I've enjoyed the privilage of private dialogue with both Captain (for whom I have developed enormous respect), and Rotord , who's situation is not too far removed from that which I had envisaged.
As they say, Walk quietly, eh. JH.

Jeff,

My posting is quite innocent and genuine and to imply that it isn't would be a major mistake in any case. I am dissapointed that you have said such remarks and to say comments about "walking quietly", "do the legwork yourself" etc is not called for in this thread. I have not tried to finish the thread, rather to ask a genuine question from someone who seems to be in a better situation to try out epsom salts.

Being more familiar with the behaviour of the traditional commercial coagulants, i am just curious how epsom salts pans out in an realworld experience rather than a controlled experiment (ie lab environment).

All i wanted to hear about is something along the lines of "a handful of epsom salts in a 20L drum worked with mildy turbid water". Yes this is subjective, however that is all i was chasing.

An "uncontrolled situation" in this case is preferred to a test as pH etc is not measured/considered and therefore the information gathered will not be used commercially :-) Each water location will produce different results due to varying characteristics, so what works for rotord may not work for others and viceversa. After all, no information is useless , rather that i like to hear from other experiences and learn from them.

==When Members need to speak off Forum, EO provides the venue.==

What has this to do with anything in this thread? I'm sure it would be more benefitial for others who may be watching, without posting, if any useful information could be displayed.

Again, i am dissapointed that you have taken such an genuine posting and turned it around with many misguided statements. I hope you can see that i wasn't atttacking anyone here, especially considering i added a smiley to the end of my previous posting.

Andrew

G'day Andrew.
This thread seems to get messier and messier. Sadly, I've contributed to the mess, for which I apologise. If only I hadn't suggested alum originally : or perhaps if I had stressed that we do not ingest water treated with alum, then the peace may have remained unbroken.

My suggestion that you do the legwork yourself and compile data over a number of years is surely not without merit? Some folk record bird sightings, some collect mineral specimens: it strikes me that water treatment observations should be right up your alley, and probably of considerable interest to users of this site.

We both run fairly distinctive vehicles.Would enjoy a yarn should our paths cross.
Till such time, please forgive my transgressions. Jeff.

Thanks for your reply Jeff.

I'll keep my eye out for a yellow canoe on a rodeo ute :-)

Andrew

Same same, 99ROO JH