Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
IJSREM68350
Volume:
10 |
10 |
Oct 2026
Pages:
1-5
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.

Civil Engineering
Priyadarshini College of Engineering
Civil Engineering
Priyadarshini College of Engineering

Civil Engineering
Priyadarshini College of Engineering

Civil Engineering
Priyadarshini College of Engineering
Municipal wastewater treatment is essential for reducing water pollution and promoting sustainable water resource management. This study evaluates the performance of pellet activated carbon and powdered activated carbon–biochar in a gravity-driven filter for municipal wastewater treatment. The system utilizes gravity to pass wastewater through filtration media, potentially reducing energy requirements and operational complexity. The treatment performance is assessed by comparing selected water quality parameters, including pH, turbidity, total dissolved solids (TDS), dissolved oxygen (DO), and chemical oxygen demand (COD), before and after filtration. The study focuses on comparing the effectiveness of both filtration configurations and understanding their suitability for improving wastewater quality. The results are intended to identify differences in treatment performance and the potential of carbon-based filtration media as supplementary treatment options. This research may contribute to the development of simple, resource-efficient approaches for wastewater treatment and potential reuse, subject to applicable water quality requirements.
KEYWORDS
This study evaluated the performance of pellet activated carbon and powdered activated carbon–biochar in a gravity-driven filter for municipal wastewater treatment. Based on the experimental readings, the powdered activated carbon–biochar filter showed more favourable results for turbidity, TDS, and DO, while both filters exhibited pH values within the reported range. The COD values recorded for the two filters ranged approximately from 50 to 125 mg/L, indicating variations in treatment performance. Overall, the findings suggest that powdered activated carbon–biochar has potential for improving selected wastewater quality parameters. However, further testing under comparable flow conditions and verification of initial wastewater characteristics are required to establish the relative treatment efficiency of both filtration media.
1. Huggins et al., “Granular biochar compared with activated carbon for wastewater treatment and resource recovery”, Water Research, Volume 94, Pages 225-232 Issue 2016. 2. Benstoem et al., “Performance of granular activated carbon to remove micropollutants from municipal wastewater—A meta-analysis of pilot-and large-scale studies”, Chemosphere, Volume 185, Issue 2017. 3. Boehler et al., “Removal of micropollutants in municipal wastewater treatment plants by powder-activated carbon”, Water Science and Technology, Volume 66, Issue 2012. 4. Hatt et al. “Granular activated carbon for removal of organic matter and turbidity from secondary wastewater”, Water Science and Technology, Volume 67, Issue 2013. 5. Mailler et al., “Mastering granular activated carbon filtration to remove organic micropollutants, antibiotic resistance and metals for municipal wastewater reuse” , Science of the Total Environment, Volume 952, Article 175918, Issue 2024. 6. Nadiyah et al. (2023), Jurnal Kesehatan Lingkungan, “Variations in the flow rate of activated carbon filtration are implemented to reduce the amount of biochemical oxygen demand in gray water canteen”, Volume 20, Issue 2, Pages 163-170, Issue 2023. 7. Altmann et al., “Direct comparison of ozonation and adsorption onto powdered activated carbon for micropollutant removal in advanced wastewater treatment” , Water Research, Volume 55, Issue 2014. 8. Thompson et al., “Environmental comparison of biochar and activated carbon for tertiary wastewater treatment” , Environmental Science & Technology, Volume 50, Pages 11253-11262, Issue 2016.
Publication Date
10/26/2026
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
1
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
4
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...