VATTEN 62:171–177.

Lund 2006

Micro screening in wastewater treatment –

an overview
by MICHAEL LJUNGGREN, Water and Environmental Engineering/Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Lund University, P.O. Box 118, SE-221 00 Lund
e-mail: [email protected]

Abstract
Microscreens, or microstrainers, are widely used within wastewater treatment, and applications include primary
and tertiary treatment as well as treatment of stormwater. The following paper is an attempt to present an over-
view of literature in order to identify possibilities and key questions associated with two types of microscreens
based on gravity flow – disc- and drumfilters. Generally there is a good foundation based on practical experi-
ence, especially for tertiary treatment. The particle size distribution and floc strength are identified as crucial
parameters in understanding and design of microscreens. Difficulties in applying chemical pre-treatment and
clogging of filter media are described as drawbacks but also as key questions for further development of the
technology.
Key words – micro screening, disc filtration, drum filtration, particle separation, wastewater treatment

Introduction discs with filter media on each side (Figure 1) or the

drum itself is covered with filter media (Figure 2).
Microscreens, or microstrainers, can be found in various
During filtration solids are caught on the filter panels
applications within water and wastewater treatment.
and the flow of water through the filter is impeded.
The following paper is an attempt to present an over-
Consequently, the water level inside the filter rises and
view of literature in order to identify possibilities and
eventually backwashing is initiated. It should be noted
key questions associated with two types of microscreens
that filtration is continuous and not stopped due to
based on gravity flow – disc- and drumfilters. The litera-
backwashing. Nozzles spray the screen and solids are
ture presented is limited to applications within waste­
thereby rinsed off and discharged via a solids collection
water treatment and is by no means complete. During
trough. Typically the backwash requires a few percent of
the 1960’s and 1970’s quite many papers and reports
the total flow. A downstream retaining weir and an up-
were published but more recent publications seem to be
stream by-pass arrangement are normally used to limit
few. The older material is undoubtedly of high quality,
the differential head across the micro-fabric, while the
but the lack of recent scientific papers is noteworthy,
since there is a commercial interest for the technology in
many parts of the world. In this study commercial mate-
rial, available on the internet etc., has been disregarded
although often quite informative.

Principle
The main principle of operation is relatively simple and
straightforward. Water flows by gravity into a central Figure 1. Example of disc­ Figure 2. Example of drumfilter
drum. This drum either supports vertically mounted filter principle. principle.

VATTEN · 2 · 06 171
operational pressure can be controlled via a level sensor. size opening is small. The presence of particles larger
Microscreens operate at comparatively small head loss, than the filter opening could be explained by refloccula-
which is normally described as an advantage compared tion in the effluent tank or by the interpretation of par-
to other filtration processes. When comparing disc and ticle size and the analysis method applied – that is if
drum filtration one important difference is the filtration imperfections and leakage from the influent side can be
area available, which is considerably higher (per ground excluded.
surface area required) for the discfilter.   In some samples negative separation, i.e. increase of
particle counts, for the smallest particles, was noticed.
Kobler & Boller (1997) noticed the same phenomenon,
Separation mechanism which probably is explained by breakage of flocs. Boller
& Blaser (1998) point out several interesting aspects, for
Micro screening or micro straining should not be con- example the possibility of flocs being deformable and
fused with the membrane process referred to as micro estimations of strain forces in the entrance to a porous
filtration. There is some overlap in terms of pore size but media filter. Furthermore, interactions related to surface
while microscreens are commercially available with filter chemistry rather than geometry of pores and particles
openings from about 10 µm, membranes for micro fil- are naturally possible. However, Shea & Males (1971)
tration are available with much smaller pores. Filter con- conclude that the particle size distribution is the key
struction, operation and expected removal are also com- characterizing parameter in determination of treatment
pletely different, although the separation mechanism is effectiveness and an assumption of sieving/screening/
similar. straining of particles as the main separation mechanism
  Micro straining is based on physical blocking of par- seems reasonable.
ticles in well defined apertures. Thus there is a funda-
mental difference with respect to granular media filtra-
tion or depth filtration where other mechanisms ideally Applications
are more important for particle separation. This inter-
pretation is supported by the fact that the last liquid Microscreens were originally used for pre-treatment to
passing the screen, just before backwashing, nearly has slow and rapid sand filters at potable water treatment
the same concentration of suspended solids (SS) as the works. Coagulant dose could be reduced as well as wash-
first (Ewing 1976). There is however agreement that water consumption and solids loading and thus filter
previously deposited particles and flocs forming a mat run times could be increased. There are also related
or cake of solids, sometimes referred to as Schmutzdecke ­applications entirely based on micro straining (and dis-
(Kirkup 1971), can aid the filtration process. The effi- infection) as well as applications with screening after
ciency of filtration is thus at maximum just before clean- sand filtration for control of organisms breeding in filter
ing. Analogously there is a risk for break-through, which sand beds. (Boucher 1967, Kirkup 1971, Lowndes
depends on aperture size, strength of intercepted 1970)
­material and the hydraulic force applied to the solids
spanning the apertures (Lowndes 1970). It is however
reasonable to assume that deep-bed filters could produce
an effluent with somewhat lower particle content and
several comparisons confirm this statement (Kobler &
Boller 1997, Hultman 1979, Tholander 1979).
  Figure 3 shows a principal illustration of particle sep-
aration in a discfilter applied on effluent polishing.
Separation is interpreted as relative difference between
influent and effluent particle counts in different size in-
tervals, and each size interval is replaced with the aver-
age size on the x-axis. (Original data and methodology is
described in Persson et al 2005). First and foremost, par-
ticles larger than the pore openings are effectively sepa-
rated. The separation of particles smaller than the pore
opening is explained by the filter cake of retained parti-
cles reducing the pore opening during the filtration
cycle. These particles are however not necessarily con- Figure 3. Particle separation as a function of size in micro screen-
tributing significantly to mass (SS) if the applied pore ing (applied on effluent polishing).

172 VATTEN · 2 · 06
  In municipal wastewater treatment disc- and drumfil- ment by drum filtration. With 20 micron filter opening
ters are used for particle separation both in primary and SS was on average reduced with close to 50 % at hydrau-
tertiary treatment as well as in related applications like lic loadings up to 50 m/h (influent SS 100–150 mg/l).
stormwater treatment. The first rotating drumfilter was A recent study by Petterson (2004) on drum filtration of
constructed in the 1940’s by Glenfield & Kennedy Ltd municipal (strictly from households) wastewater showed
and soon after used for effluent polishing of biologically that SS could be reduced with approximately 50 % (in-
treated wastewater. The first installation was established fluent SS 200 mg/l) and COD with 30 % with 30 or 60
in Luton, England 1950 and soon installations could be micron filter opening. Tests by Ljunggren et al (2005)
found in Australia, South Africa and North America showed that it is possible to reduce SS with 50–75 % in
(Diaper 1969). Kummer and Geiger (1994) present an municipal wastewater after grit removal. Both disc- and
innovative wastewater application where micro screen- drumfilters were tested with pore openings in the size
ing is introduced between the aeration tank and the range of 20–60 micron.
final clarifier in an activated sludge process with the in-
tention to reduce drifting of sludge during wet weather
flow. A more recent parallel to the original applications
described above is pre-treatment to different membrane Tertiary treatment
processes. Furthermore there are several industrial Microscreens are used worldwide for tertiary treatment
­applications for the process with fibre recovery and use of biologically treated water. The definition of tertiary
on fish-farms being two important examples. treatment is not entirely clear and different authors use
the term in somewhat different contexts, but additional
treatment after biological treatment incorporating par­
ticle removal, i.e. effluent polishing, could be a working
Primary treatment definition. Chemical treatment could be integrated with
Primary treatment often refers to primary clarification. the tertiary treatment step (post-precipitation). The first
Sometimes preliminary steps, like screens and gritcham- installation was designed for treatment of trickling filter
bers are included. Ødegaard (1975) discusses the role of effluent, but treatment of effluents from final clarifica-
micro screening for primary treatment and makes the tion after activated sludge treatment was also soon to
important distinction between screening for protection come. During the first decades drumfilters with filter
of downstream units and screening for removal of for openings of 23 or 35 microns were almost exclusively
example suspended solids and related fractions of organ- used. Removal rates are heavily dependent upon the in-
ics and nutrients. The overall conclusion is that primary fluent solids concentration and thus on the functioning
settlers could be replaced by microstrainers. Särner of the upstream process, but effluent values well below
(1976, 1978) reaches the same conclusion. With filter 10 mg/l and removal rates ranging from 45–85 % are
apertures of 200 microns an SS-reduction of 20–35 % reported in a compilation of microscreen installations
was possible in filtration of raw wastewater. Smaller fil- published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ter openings (40 and 120) were tested but the problem (EPA 1975). Low Sludge Retention Time and high clar-
of clogging from oil and grease was considered as too ifier loadings result in higher screen effluents but not
frequent. It is interesting to note that the selection of necessarily lower percentage removal (Ewing 1976). In a
pore opening was based on operational considerations more recent German investigation (Grau et al 1994)
rather than removal efficiency. It was furthermore noted drum filtration (20 micron) resulted in 75–85 % solids
that small particles, for example as a result of reject water reduction and a consistent effluent concentration < 5 mg/l.
addition, heavily reduced filter capacity. In comparison Hultman (1979) described a trend from 35 to 23 mi-
to settling more maintenance was required although cron made possible with improved machine design. One
­operation was considered as easy with special cleaning of could perhaps say that this is an ongoing trend since
the screens every second or third week. Another inter- many installations today are equipped with 10 micron,
esting and important reflection considered the fact that or similar, filter cloths. Furthermore discfilters are now
the effluent was close to saturated with oxygen meaning frequently used instead of drumfilters. Persson et al
that for example a downstream pre-denitrification or (2005) present successful disc filtration of an effluent
bio-P process could be negatively affected. Garman from a post denitrifying biofilm process utilising sus-
(1975) presents a comparison of different microscreens pended carrier material (The Kaldnes Moving Bed™
used for primary treatment including one disc- and one Process). Filter cloth with 10 and 18 micron filter open-
drumfilter indicating that screening should be a com- ings produced effluents in the range of 2–5 and 2–8
petitive alternative. Eriksson & Nielsen (1974) present mg/l respectively and influent SS of 10–50 mg/l.
an extensive study on primary and stormwater treat- Bourgeous et al (2003) present the cloth-media disk fil-

VATTEN · 2 · 06 173
ter as an alternative to granular-medium filtration for oped a mathematical model describing drumfilter ca-
wastewater recycling producing effluent turbidity values pacity on the basis of the expression:
less than 2 NTU with an influent of 25 NTU. It should H = H0 · e IV
be noted that this filter type is somewhat different from
a microscreen in the sense that is described as random- where H refers to the pressure gradient and V to filtered
weave filter cloth offering some degree of depth filtra- volume. I is denoted the filterability index. Assuming
tion. Grabbe et al (1998) present low effluent values that the pressure over the filter is changed according to
with a modified filter cloth mounted on a discfilter. the equation an expression for drumfilter capacity was
developed on the basis of the pressure gradient, filter
area, rotational speed and filterability index. It should
Stormwater treatment be noted that the filterability index is a measure for the
Microscreens have been tested in different stormwater cloth and the filterability of the water and must be esti-
applications. Diaper & Glover (1971) present a system mated from practical tests. The expression was later
with micro straining of combined sewer overflow (CSO) modified by Mixon (1970).
followed by ozonation and chlorination. Filter openings
of 23 and 35 micron were tested and pre-treatment with
solids trap and bar screen was recommended. With 23 Design parameters
micron average solids removal of 80 % with an average Design of microsreens is dependent upon a number of
influent SS of 174 mg/l could be achieved. Mason & factors: clogging rate, rotational speed of drum or disc,
Gupta (1972) present a process alternative with drum area of submergence, backwash efficiency, applied head
filtration and flotation. The screening unit had relatively and not least water characteristics. A compilation of key
wide filter apertures, 297 micron, resulting in SS-re- parameters and applicable values from a number of full-
moval of 20–30 % and BOD-removal of 20 %. Keil­ scale installations for tertiary treatment can be found in
baugh et al (1969) made some interesting remarks on EPA (1975):
analyses of samples from a similar application. BOD- • 20–25 micron filter opening with variations from
removal turned out to be a very difficult parameter to 15–60 micron
measure, since BOD in several cases increased signifi- • Hydraulic loadings of 12–25 m/h based on sub-
cantly over the screen despite considerable solids reduc- merged drum filter area
tion. Several explanations are discussed but the one •  Head loss < 0.15 m
­considered most likely is that bacterial food supply is
made more available since more surface area is produced Higher values of head loss are also reported. Drum dia­
on the escaping solids and thus growth kinetics are en- meter is normally set to maximum 3 m and peripheral
hanced. In Eriksson & Nielsen (1974) drum filtration speed limited. Backwash pressure is in general set to 3.5
was occasionally and successfully tested on stormwater. bars. It is furthermore noted that screen performance
tends to be better at lower hydraulic loadings, which is
confirmed in several other studies. In the German inves-
tigation previously mentioned (Grau et al 1994) drum
Design filtration with filter openings of 10, 20 and 40 micron
Design of micro screening plants could be performed was operated at similar hydraulic loadings (10–35 m/h).
according to (Ewing 1976): Saffran & Kormanik (1976) are pointing out each ap-
•  Bench tests plication as unique but give some rules of thumb; 15–30
•  Pilot tests m/h for tertiary treatment and 60–120 m/h for CSO
•  Rule of thumb but there is no note on pore openings. In tertiary treat-
•  Data from similar installations ment SS-removal of 50–80 % can be expected and for
treatment of combined sewer overflows 30–70 %. The
30 years later these alternatives are still practical. Rule of maximum head loss is set to 0.30 (m) for tertiary treat-
thumb and data from similar installations are obviously ment. Regarding primary and stormwater treatment the
closely related and the cheapest alternatives if reliable applied surface loadings are obviously much higher due
data is available. Pilot tests are perhaps the best alterna- to the use of larger filter apertures.
tive but on the other hand costly. Bench tests could   There are other aspects to design of microscreen units
serve as indications of filterability. With wastewater that are of crucial importance in order to accomplish
being very variable site specific tests are always valuable. maximum capacity and high removal efficiency. Several
Models for removal efficiency and capacity are normally authors conclude that pumping should be avoided in
empirical. However, Boucher (1947) originally devel- order to minimize shearing action (Diaper 1969). It is

174 VATTEN · 2 · 06
furthermore important to recognise that different pro­ and some organic solvents but is resistant to for example
cesses result in markedly different characteristics affect- chlorine (Ewing 1976). Cleaning and prevention of
ing screen capacity (Ewing 1976). Control of peripheral clogging can be performed in many ways. By applying
speed and head loss are other aspects of great impor- high pressure systems using 4–8 bar, and perhaps even
tance to the filtration result (Kirkup 1971, Ewing 1976) higher, the need for chemical cleaning can in many cases
and fine tuning of these parameters can result in great be reduced presupposed that spray patterns are uniform
improvements in both SS-removal and capacity (Diaper and nozzles well functioning. Increase of pressure has
& Glover 1971). Lynam et al (1971) suggest micro proven to be effective (Truesdale & Birkbeck 1967).
screening at lower drum speeds for better effluent qual-   Truesdale & Birkbeck (1968) and Vandyke (1971)
ity, since a better straining action through a thicker mat describe clogging as a result of biological growth and
of solids building up at low speeds is possible. This is ­solution of the problem by chlorination. UV-light was
also noted by Ewing (1976) arguing that there is a criti- tested but not sufficient. Acid cleaning is suggested in
cal drum speed for deflocculation. Hydraulic head across case of precipitation of manganese and iron oxides
screen media should also be limited in order not to drive (Diaper 1969) and for removal or organic impurities
particles through. It is furthermore stressed that the ef- (Ives 1971 cited by Hultman 1979). Some installations
fectiveness of the solids collection system is important for tertiary treatment were equipped with UV-irradia-
in order to get all particles in the collection through and tion (Anonymous 1971) in order to inhibit biological
not back into the drum pool thus reducing capacity. and algal growth. Application of chemicals can be per-
formed manually or via the backwash system. With re-
spect to applications for primary treatment oil, fat and
Operational experiences grease seem to be the major problems. Hot water and/or
steam are sometimes practised. Särner (1976) also re-
Two key issues can be identified with respect to opera- ports on the successful use of a degreasing aid.
tion of disc- and drumfilters; clogging of filter media
and the possibility to practise chemical pre-treatment.
Chemical pre-treatment
If micro screening could be combined with chemical
Media, clogging and cleaning pre-treatment the possible applications for the technol-
Filter media can be made of several different materials ogy would increase. Several authors note difficulties
for example stainless steel, nylon or polyester. Stainless when adding a coagulant to improve tertiary treatment
steel has a long history and demonstrated service life but (Truesdale & Birkbeck 1968, Lynam et al 1971), simply
the material is susceptible to attack from certain chemi- because the flocs are not strong enough to withstand
cals. Also polyester (Figure 4 and 5) also has a demon- shear forces in the strainer. Hultman (1979) concludes
strated service life and good flow characteristics. The that chemical flocs must be strengthened by a polyelec-
material could be adversely affected by strong alkalis trolyte. Ewing demonstrates very good results (SS re-

Figure 4. Polyester filter cloth with 10 micron filter opening. Figure 5. Polyester filter cloth with 40 micron filter opening.

VATTEN · 2 · 06 175
duction of 85 % and SS < 4 mg/l for tertiary treatment) Acknowledgements
and states that polymers or combinations of trivalent Hydrotech AB is gratefully acknowledged for providing
metal salts and anionic polymers can be effectively used. the pictures. Thanks also to Erik Särner for providing
Detention times of 2–4 minutes for the metal salt and several papers and to Åsa Lindblad at the Library of
1–2 minutes for the polymers together with slightly re- Chemistry and Chemical Engineering for great assist-
duced drum speeds are suggested. Rimer (1971) presents ance in finding some of the older papers and reports.
results with drum filtration (60 and 25 micron) of paper
mill wastewater pre-treated with a number of different
combinations of chemicals. The study showed that References
chemical addition resulted in better quality effluent Anonymous (1971). Microstraining plant for effluent polish-
than with the strainer only and that very high removal ing. Effluent Water Treatment Journal, vol. 11, 1971.
efficiencies were possible (> 90 %). With respect to Boller, M., Blaser, S. (1998). Particles under Stress. Water,
chemical pre-treatment of raw wastewater followed by Science & Technology, vol. 37, No. 10, 1998.
Boucher, P. L. (1947). A new measure of the Filtrability of
micro screening very few results seem to be published. Fluids with Applications to Water Engineering. Journal of
Aspects on chemical pre-treatment, including clogging the Institution of Civil Engineers, No. 4, 1946–1947.
problems, is reported by Karlsson (2005). Garman Boucher, P. L. (1967). Micro-Straining and Ozonation of
(1975) concluded that although apparently good floc Water and Waste Water. Proceedings of the 22nd Industrial
formation was achieved it was difficult to form strong Waste Conference, Purdue University, May, 1967.
enough flocs. In tests performed by Ljunggren et al Bourgeous, K. N., Riess, J., Tchobanoglous, G., Darby, J. L.
(2005) the same problem was noticed but for some (2003). Performance Evaluation of a Cloth-Media Disk
combinations successful screening was achieved indicat- Filter for Wastewater Reclamation. Water Environment
Research, vol. 75, No. 6, 2003.
ing a potential for this type of treatment.
Brinker, A. Schröder, H. G., Rösch, R. (2005). A high-resolu-
tion technique to size suspended solids in flow-through
fish farms. Aquacultural Engineering, 32, 2005.
Final reflections Carlstedt, C., Stahre, P. (1973). Mikrosilning av obehandlat
avloppsvatten vid Åkeshovs reningsverk. Kungl. Tekniska
Micro screening is obviously a competitive alternative Högskolan, Institutionerna för Vattenförsörjnings- och
for primary, tertiary and stormwater treatment, espe- Avloppsteknik samt Vattenkemi. Publikation 73:1, 1973.
cially when compact units are needed. There is a need Diaper, E. W. J. (1969). Tertiary treatment by microstraining.
for more documentation on the technology, especially Water & Sewage Works, vol. 116, No. 6, 1969.
with respect to disc filtration. Generally there is a good Diaper, E. W. J., Glover, G. E. (1971). Microstraining of com-
foundation based on practical experience, especially for bined sewer overflows. Journal Water Pollution Control
tertiary treatment with drumfilters. Federation, vol. 43, No. 10, 1971.
  With the particle size distribution identified as a key EPA 625/1-75-003a. Process design manual for suspended
parameter it should be possible to use particle size analy- ­solids removal. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
sis in modelling and design of microscreens and thereby Technology Transfer, 1975.
Eriksson, Ö., Nielsen, P. (1974). Mikrosilning av obehandlat
create a stronger theoretical basis. Already 1973 Carlstedt
avloppsvatten samt dag- och bräddvatten. Kungl. Tekniska
& Stahre suggested that such a methodology possibly Högskolan, Institutionerna för Vattenförsörjnings- och
could be established for selection of appropriate pore Avloppsteknik samt Vattenkemi. Publikation 74:2, 1974.
size opening. A successful attempt has been made by Ewing, L. (1976). Design Criteria for Microscreening
Brinker et al (2005) in predicting filtration efficiency on Biological Wastewater Plant Effluents. Water & Sewage
basis of PSD for a fish farm. Works, April 1976.
  In many studies floc strength is considered as an im- Garman, J. J. (1975). Silning av kommunalt avlöpsvann.
portant parameter, both with respect to upstream units Vann, nr. 4, 1975.
(like pumps, weirs etc) but also to chemical pre-treat- Grabbe, U., Seyfried, C. F., Rosenwinkel, K. H. (1998).
ment which must be designed in order to form very Upgrading of wastewater treatment plants by cloth-filtra-
strong flocs. With the possibility to practise chemical tion using an improved type of filter cloth. Water, Science
pre-treatment the number of possible applications & Technology, vol. 37, No. 9, 1998.
Grau, A., Haeusler, M., Schmitt, W. (1994). Micro-straining
would increase. as advanced treatment of wastewater applied to the main
  A problem reported in almost every single publica- wastewater treatment plant in Wiesbaden. Water, Science
tion, is irreversible clogging of the filter media. With & Technology, vol. 29, No. 12, 1994.
careful operation, supervision and proper cleaning Hultman, B. (1979). A comparison between deep-bed filters
methods the problem can normally be solved, but clog- and microstrainers. Nordforsk rapport 2, Filtrering av av-
ging still remains the major drawback related to micro lopsvann, Stockholm 1979.
screening. Ives, K. J. (1971). Filtration of water and wastewater. CRC

176 VATTEN · 2 · 06
 Critical Reviews in Environmental Control, August, 1971. Persson, E., Ljunggren, M., Jansen, J. la Cour, Strube, R.,
Karlsson, J. (2005). Optimering av trumfilter för behandling Jönsson, L. (2005). Disc Filtration for Separation of Flocs
av avloppsvatten. Projektpublikation nr 16, Stockholm from a Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor. Conference proceed-
Vatten, 2005. ings “Nutrient Management in Wastewater Treatment
Keilbaugh, W. A., Glover, G. E., Yatsuk, P. M. (1969). Micro­ Processes and Recycle Streams”, 19–21 September, Krakow,
straining – with ozonation or chlorination – of combined Poland, 2005.
sewer overflows. Water Pollution Control Research Series Petterson, F. (2004). Mikrosilning som förbehandlingsmetod
03/70, 1969. av hushållsavloppsvatten. Projektpublikation nr. 10, Stock­
Kirkup, P. (1971). The techniques of microstraining. Effluent holm Vatten, 2004.
Water Treatment Journal, vol. 11, 1976. Rimer, A. E. Microstraining Paper Mill wastewater. Journal
Kobler, D., Boller, M. (1997). Particle removal in different fil- Water Pollution Control Federation, vol. 43, No. 7, 1971.
tration systems for tertiary wastewater treatment – a com- Saffran, E. P., Kormanik, R. A. (1976). Designing micro-
parison. Water, Science & Technology, vol. 36, No. 4, screens? Here’s some help. Water & Wastes Engineering,
1997. April, 1976.
Kummer, K. D., Geiger, W. F. (1994). Stabilization of acti- Shea, T. G., Males, R. M. (1971). Investigation of Response
vated sludge processes during wet weather flow through Surfaces of the Microscreen Process. Water Pollution
microscreening. Water, Science & Technology, vol. 29, No. Control Research Series, 12/71, 1971.
1–2, 1994. Särner, E. (1978). Silning som förbehandlingsprocess. Bulletin,
Ljunggren, M., Nilsson, B., Strube, R., Jönsson, L., Jansen, J. Serie VA, nr. 12, Lund, 1976.
la Cour. (2005). Microscreening for stormwater treatment. Särner, E. (1978). Silning av obehandlat avloppsvatten.
VATTEN 61, 2005. VATTEN, nr. 1, 1978.
Lowndes, M. R. (1970). Microstraining and its Applications. Tholander, B. (1979). Research with a microstrainer for filtra-
Filtration & Separation, November/December, 1970. tion of effluent from Ejby Molle sewage treatment plant,
Lynam, B. Ettelt, G., McAloon, T. (1969). Tertiary treatment Odense. Nordforsk rapport 2, Filtrering av avlopsvann,
at metro Chicago by means of rapid sand filtration and Stockholm 1979.
microstrainers. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, Truesdale, G. A., Birkbeck, A. E. (1967). Tertiary Treatment
vol. 41, No. 2, 1969. Processes for Sewage Works Effluents. Journal of the
Mason, D. G. (1970). Combined Sewer overflow abatement Institute of Water pollution Control, vol. 66, No. 4,
technology. Water Pollution Control Research Series, 1967.
06/70, 1970. Truesdale, G. A., Birkbeck, A. E. (1968). Tertiary Treatment of
Mason, D. G., Gupta, M. K. (1972). Screening/Flotation Activated-Sludge Effluent. Journal of the Institute of Water
treatment of combined sewer overflows. Water Pollution pollution Control, vol. 67, No. 5, 1968.
Control Research Series, 01/72, 1972. Vandyke, K. G. (1971). Microstraining in water pollution
Mixon, F. O. (1970). Filtrability Index and microscreener de- control. Effluent Water Treatment Journal, vol. 7, 1971.
sign. Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, vol. 42, Ødegaard, H. (1975). Bruk av siler i kloakkrenseteknikken.
No. 11, 1970. Vann, nr. 4, 1975.

VATTEN · 2 · 06 177
178 VATTEN · 2 · 06