1. P14417: B9 Particle Filter Introduction & Background Results Daniel Anderson, Thomas Heberle, Perry Hosmer, Karina Roundtree and Kelly Stover Design and Requirements Engineering Requirements Goal: To help a local non-profit organization, B9 Plastics, improve water quality in the developing world with their “Better Water Maker” (BWM) water disinfection system by creating a pre-filter for the product. B9 would like to develop an inexpensive filter that would either have a very long life before replacement is required or that can be recharged/backwashed in the field for continued use and eliminate problems that currently exist. Background: The BWM is designed for use in developing countries where water is unsafe for drinking and electricity is scarce. The current BWM is a batch Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system that treats ½ gallon per minute of water at a time. The overall effectiveness of a treatment system using UV light to disinfect water is dependent on the source water clarity (low turbidity), which is related to the particles that are either dissolved or suspended in the water. The design of our filter seeks to remove suspended particles and lower the water turbidity, thereby improving the effectiveness of the UV treatment process.  B9 Plastics, Inc. - Bob Bechtold - Kate Chamberlain  Rochester Institute of Technology - Multidisciplinary Senior Design - Gerald Garavuso - Gary Werth - Mark Smith - Christine Fisher - Professors - Dr. Scott Wolcott - Dr. Brian Thorn - Dr. Marca Lam - David Hathaway - Dr. Hany Ghoneim - Dr. Surendra Gupta - Dr. Elizabeth DeBartolo  CONSOL Energy - Tom Conner Acknowledgements Taste Testing Overall, people either preferred our filtered water over tap and spring water. We met our marginal goal of over 50%. Based on the Brush Durability Testing the expected life cycle for the brush is approximately 2.2 years which complies with customer requirement, of a life of 2-5 years. Analysis of Variance for Flow Through Time, using Adjusted SS for Tests Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P NumThrow 11 59388 11942 1086 0.28 0.965 Prototype 1 138890 138890 138890 35.21 0.002 Error 5 19725 19725 3945 Total 17 218003 Based on the durability testing the overall assembly did not undergo any negative impact on the functionality of the filter when it was thrown off a building multiple times. Importance Customer Requirement FunctionMetricsUnitsMarginalTarget Concluded Condition 3 Easy to clean / recharge Easy to prepare for use Time to cleanMinutes<10<5 Meets Target 3 Has a minimal start-up period. Minimize start- up Time elapsed between beginning of pour and first water that enters the bucket s (seconds)<30<10 Meets Target 3 Usable by a family of 5, for 2- 5 years w/out full replacement Maximize durability of filter Mean Time To FailureNumber of Uses>730>3650 Meets Marginal Goal 9 Removes Particles (turbidity/total suspended solids), improves UV TRANSMISSION Turbidity is decreased TurbidityNTU3010 Meets Marginal Goal 3 Does not negatively affect the taste of the water No negative taste of water Percent of people who say water tastes the same or better %>50%>75% Meets Marginal Goal 3 Use scenarios Provides enough water for family of 5, daily Flow ratelpm0.03940.631 Meets Marginal Goal Durability Testing Turbidity Testing One-Sample T: Percent Reduction Test of mu = 0.5 vs > 0.5 Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean Bound T P %Reduction 19 0.6404 0.3183 0.0730 0.5137 1.92 0.035 Based on the turbidity testing, we can conclude with confidence that the turbidity of water which has passed through the filter experiences at least a 50% reduction. Because % reduction is not the best statistic, end state turbidities were also analyzed. One-Sample T: End state turbidity Test of mu = 30 vs < 30 Variable N Mean StDev SE Mean T P End.Turbid 19 24.05 24.66 5.66 -1.05 0.154 The end state turbidities can be said to be less than 30 at any significance level α ≤.154. Using a strong statistic, rather than the weak statistic of percent reduction, allows the team to be more confident in the results. Flow Testing Our flow testing shows that while variation in flow rate is not entirely dependent on the turbidity of the source water, there is some indication that samples with higher turbidities will have lower flow rates. Solids Removal. Dissolved and Suspended Solids Avg. TDS (mg/L) Avg. TSS (mg/L) Avg. TS (mg/L) River Unfiltered333.1777.21410.38 River Filtered343.5513.55357.10 River % Reduction-3.1282.4512.98 Pond Unfiltered4309.67420.004279.67 Pond Filtered3879.0333.333912.36 Pond % Reduction9.9992.0617.28 Pond water prior to filtrationPond water after filtration Analysis was performed to assess the effectiveness of the filter screen in removal of dissolved, suspended, and total solids. Based on tested samples, the filter was able to remove 82% of suspended solids from river water, and 92% from pond water.