Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 2167–2183 | Cite as

Intermittent flux from a sand filter for household wastewater and integrated solute transfer to the vadose zone

  • Behzad NasriEmail author
  • Olivier Fouché
Groundwater under threat from diffuse contaminants: improving on-site sanitation, agriculture and water supply practices


Depending on the actual number of soil-based on-site wastewater treatment system (OWTS) in an area, on-site sanitation may be a significant source of pollutants and a threat to groundwater. Even in the case of a system functioning correctly, here, a sand filter substituted for the in-situ soil, as the treated effluent may reach to the water table, it is necessary evaluating in situ how much the sand and underneath soil respectively contribute to pollutant removal. On the plot of a household in a small rural community, the functioning of a real scale OWTS was monitored for 1.5 years. This system, composed of a septic tank connected to a 5 × 5 m2 and 0.7-m thick aerobic sand filter was equipped with soil hydrodynamic probes (water content and matrix potential) during construction. By using the instantaneous profile method of water content, the intermittent infiltrated flux was determined across the sand-pack according to position and time. Treated water infiltrates into underneath soil acting as post-treatment. Quality of interstitial liquid from the sand and the soil was analysed each month on a 12-h pumping sample obtained through porous plates. Results of water fluxes and concentrations provide an estimate of the annual flux to the vadose zone and groundwater of metals, nutrients and some organic micro-pollutants (parabens and triclosan) through the OWTS and subsoil.


On-site sanitation Monitoring Paraben Triclosan Organic micro-pollutant SUVA Purification Soil Colluvium Groundwater France 



For the financial and scientific support, the authors thank the GESSOL program (grant MEEDDM-CDGDD-DRI R-2011-8C-0028-A0, French Ministry of Ecology, French Agency for Environment Management and Energy ADEME) through the ANCRES project, and the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs for student grant no 756564K. The authors are grateful to the owners of the house, Guillaume and Carole. We also warmly thank Nadia Guerguadj, Christophe Saillé, Nicolas Forquet, Vivien Dubois, Emilie Caupos and Mohamed Saad, for technical help in field and laboratory work. Thanks to the SPANCs (Public Service of OSS) of Tours and Toucy cities (France).


  1. AFNOR (2013) XP DTU 64.1 – Mise en œuvre des dispositifs d’assainissement non collectif (dit autonome) – Maisons d’habitation individuelle jusqu’à vingt pièces principales. Indice de classement. pp 16–603Google Scholar
  2. Amy G, Drewes J (2007) Soil aquifer treatment (SAT) as a natural and sustainable wastewater reclamation/reuse technology: fate of wastewater effluent organic matter (EfOM) and trace organic compounds. Environ Monit Assess 129(1–3):19–26Google Scholar
  3. Banerjee G (2011) Underground pollution travel from leach pits of on-site sanitation facilities: a case study. Clean Techn Environ Policy 13:489–497Google Scholar
  4. Beach D, Huntzinger N, McCray JE (2003) Numerical modeling of unsaturated flow in wastewater soil absorption systems. Groundwater Monit Remediat 23(2):64–72Google Scholar
  5. Beal CD, Gardner EA, Menzies NW (2005) Process, performance, and pollution potential: a review of septic tank-soil absorption systems. Aust J Soil Res 43(7):781–802Google Scholar
  6. Bedinger MS, Fleming JS, Johnson AI (1997) Site characterization and design of on-site septic systems. ASTM, PCN 04–013240-38, STP 1324Google Scholar
  7. Bedoux G, Roig B, Thomas O, Dupont V, Le Bot B (2012) Occurrence and toxicity of triclosan and by-products in the environment. Environ Sci Pollut Res 19(4):1044–1065Google Scholar
  8. Borchardt MA, Chyou PH, DeVries EO, Belongia EA (2003) Septic system density and infectious diarrhea in a defined population of children. Environ Health Perspect 111(5):742–748Google Scholar
  9. Branchu P, Dumont E, Pétillon G, Gérolin A, Trotzier C, Burnel R (2016) ANC - Études de sol à la parcelle: les enseignements d’une enquête nationale. DGALN, CEREMA, mars 2016, 6 pGoogle Scholar
  10. Bremer JE, Harter T (2012) Domestic wells have high probability of pumping septic tank leachate. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16(8):2453–2467Google Scholar
  11. Brigand S, Lesieur V (2008) Assainissement non collectif: mise en œuvre, contrôles réglementaires et entretien. Le Moniteur, Paris 257 pGoogle Scholar
  12. Canosa P, Rodríguez I, Rubí E, Negreira N, Cela R (2006) Formation of halogenated by-products of parabens in chlorinated water. Anal Chim Acta 575:106–113Google Scholar
  13. Carman PC (1939) Permeability of saturated sand, soils and clays. J Agric Sci 29:263–273Google Scholar
  14. Carroll S, Goonetilleke A, Thomas E, Hargreaves M, Frost R, Dawes L (2006) Integrated risk framework for onsite wastewater treatment systems. Environ Manag 38(2):286–303Google Scholar
  15. Cha J, Cupples AM (2009) Detection of the antimicrobials triclocarban and triclosan in agricultural soils following land application of municipal biosolids. Water Res 43:2522–2530Google Scholar
  16. Cha J, Cupples AM (2010) Triclocarban and triclosan biodegradation at field concentrations and the resulting leaching potentials in three agricultural soils. Chemosphere 81:494–499Google Scholar
  17. Chapuis R (2004) Predicting the saturated hydraulic conductivity of sand and gravel using effective diameter and void ratio. Can Geotech J 41(5):787–795Google Scholar
  18. Charles K, Ashbolt N, Roser D, McGuinness R, Deere D (2005) Effluent quality from 200 on-site sewage systems: design values for guidelines. Water Sci Technol 51(10):163–169Google Scholar
  19. Chu S, Metcalfe CD (2007) Simultaneous determination of triclocarban and triclosan in municipal biosolids by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1164:212–218Google Scholar
  20. Conn K, Barber LB, Brown GK, Siegrist RL (2006) Occurrence and fate of organic contaminants during onsite wastewater treatment. Environ Sci Technol 40:7358–7366Google Scholar
  21. Crites RC, Tchobanoglous G (1998) Small and decentralized wastewater systems. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, BostonGoogle Scholar
  22. Darby J, Tchobanoglous G, Nor MA, Maciolek D (1996) Shallow intermittent sand filtration performance evaluation. Small Flows J 2(1):3–15Google Scholar
  23. Dawes L, Goonetilleke A (2003) An investigation into the role of site and soil characteristics in onsite sewage treatment. Environ Geol 44(4):467–477Google Scholar
  24. Du B, Price AE, Scott WC, Kristofco LA, Ramirez AJ, Chambliss CK, Yelderman JC, Brooks BW (2014) Comparison of contaminants of emerging concern removal, discharge, and water quality hazards among centralized and on-site wastewater treatment system effluents receiving common wastewater influent. Sci Total Environ 466-467:976–984Google Scholar
  25. Emerick RW, Test RM, Tchohanglous G, Darby J (1997) Shallow intermittent sand filtration: microorganism removal. Small Flows J 3(1):12–22Google Scholar
  26. EPA (2005) Water quality in Ireland, 2001–2003. Environmental Protection Agency, WexfordGoogle Scholar
  27. Erickson AJ, Gulliver JS, Weiss PT (2007) Enhanced sand filtration for storm water phosphorus removal. J Environ Eng 133(5):485–497Google Scholar
  28. Fourie AB, van Ryneveld MB (1995) The fate in the subsurface of contaminants associated with on-site sanitation: a review. Water SA 21(2):101–111Google Scholar
  29. Geary PM, Whitehead JH (2001) Groundwater contamination from on-site domestic wastewater management systems in a coastal catchment. In: Proceedings of the Ninth National Symposium on Individual and Small Community Sewage Systems, Fort Worth, Texas, American Society of Agricultural EngineersGoogle Scholar
  30. Gill LW, O'Luanaigh N, Johnston PM, Misstear B, O'Suilleabhain C (2009) Nutrient loading on subsoils from on-site wastewater effluent, comparing septic tank and secondary treatment systems. Water Res 43:2739–2749Google Scholar
  31. Green RE, Ahuja LR, Chong SK (1985) Hydraulic conductivity, diffusivity, and sorptivity of unsaturated soils: field methods. In: Klute A (ed) Methods of soil analysis. Part 1. Agronomy, vol 9, pp 771–798Google Scholar
  32. Halden RU, Paull DH (2005) Co-occurrence of triclocarban and triclosan in U.S. water resources. Environ Sci Technol 39:1420–1426Google Scholar
  33. Hillel D (1987) Unstable flow in layered soils: A review. Hydrol Process 1(2):143–147Google Scholar
  34. Jayarathne R, Yuen STS, Connor MA, Pivonka P, Pharoah A (2012) A hydrological study of on-site soil absorption systems. ICE proceedings, paper 1100029. Water Manage 166(1):43–53Google Scholar
  35. Lawrence AR, MacDonald DMJ, Howard AG, Barrett MH, Pedley S, Ahmed KM, Nalubega M (2001) ARGOSS 2001 – Guidelines for assessing the risk to groundwater from on-site sanitation. British Geological Survey Commissioned Report, CR/01/142, 97 pGoogle Scholar
  36. Levett KJ, Vanderzalm JL, Page DW, Dillon PJ (2010) Factors affecting the performance and risks to human health of on-site wastewater treatment systems. Water Sci Technol 62(7):1499–1509Google Scholar
  37. Liénard A, Guellaf H, Boutin C (2001) Choice of the sand for sand filter used for secondary treatment of wastewater. Water Sci Technol 44:189–196Google Scholar
  38. Maillard K (1998) Les filtres à sable verticaux en assainissement autonome regroupé: rôle des conditions opératoires, des écoulements et des transferts gazeux sur les performances épuratoires et le vieillissement. PhD, Université de RennesGoogle Scholar
  39. Morales VL, Parlange JY, Steenhuis TS (2010) Are preferential flow paths perpetuated by microbial activity in the soil matrix? A review. J Hydrol 393(1–2):29–36Google Scholar
  40. Nasri B, Fouché O, Ramier D (2014) Monitoring infiltration under a real on-site treatment system of domestic wastewater and evaluation of soil transfer function (Paris Basin, France). Environ Earth Sci 73(11):7435–7444Google Scholar
  41. Nasri B, Fouché O, Torri D (2015) Coupling published pedotransfer functions for the estimation of bulk density and saturated hydraulic conductivity in stony soils. Catena 131:99–108Google Scholar
  42. Parkin TB (1987) Soil microsites as a source of denitrification variability. Soil Sci Soc Am J 51:1194–1199Google Scholar
  43. Parlange JY, and Hill DE (1976) Theoretical analysis of wetting front instability in soils. Soil Sci 122:236–239Google Scholar
  44. Pell M, Nyberg F (1989a) Infiltration of wastewater in a newly started pilot sand-filter system: I. Reduction of organic matter and phosphorus. J Environ Qual 18:451–457Google Scholar
  45. Pell M, Nyberg F (1989b) Infiltration of wastewater in a newly started pilot sand-filter system: III. Transformation of nitrogen. J Environ Qual 18:463–467Google Scholar
  46. Piao C, Chen L, Wang Y (2014) A review of the extraction and chromatographic determination methods for the analysis of parabens. J Chromatogr B 969:139–148Google Scholar
  47. Pivetz BE, and Steenhuis TS (1995) Soil and matrix macropore biodegradation of 2, 4-D. J Environ Qual 24:564–570Google Scholar
  48. Pujari PR, Padmakar C, Labhasetwar PK, Mahore P, Ganguly AK (2012) Assessment of the impact of on-site sanitation systems on groundwater pollution in two diverse geological settings—a case study from India. Environ Monit Assess 184(1):251–263Google Scholar
  49. Raats PAC (1973) Steady upward and downward flows in a class of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci 115(6):409–420Google Scholar
  50. Rice EW, Baird RB, Eaton AD, Clesceri LS (eds) (2012) Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 22th edn. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  51. Richards LA (1931) Capillary conduction of liquids through porous mediums. Physics 1:318–333Google Scholar
  52. Richards S, Paterson E, Withers PJA, Stutter M (2016) Septic tank discharges as multi-pollutant hotspots in catchments. Sci Total Environ 542:854–863Google Scholar
  53. Robertson (2008) Irreversible phosphorus sorption in septic tank plumes? Groundwater 46(1):51–60Google Scholar
  54. Robertson WD, Cherry JA, Sudicky EA (1991) Ground water contamination from two small septic systems on sand aquifers. Groundwater 29(1):82–92Google Scholar
  55. Saillé C, Fouché O, Chevrier R-M (2010) Surveiller l'évolution temporelle des éléments majeurs pour mieux gérer les ressources locales en eau souterraine. Cas de l'aquifère Jurassique à la limite Puisaye-Forterre (Yonne). Géologues 163:93–98Google Scholar
  56. SCCS (2010) Scientific committee on consumer safety. Opinion on: triclosan antimicrobial, resistance (SCCP/1251/09) adopted by the SCCP during the 7th plenary on 22 June 2010Google Scholar
  57. Selker J, Leclerq P, Parlange JY, Steenhuis T (1992) Fingered flow in two dimensions: 1 Measurement of matric potential. Water Resour Res 28(9):2513–2521Google Scholar
  58. Siegrist RL (2017) Decentralized water reclamation engineering. A curriculum workbook, 1st edn. Springer, Berlin, 347 pGoogle Scholar
  59. Siegrist RL, McCray JE, Lowe KS (2004) Wastewater infiltration into soil and the effects of infiltrative surface architecture. Small Flows J 5(1):29–39Google Scholar
  60. Teerlink J, Martınez-Hernandez V, Higgins CP, Drewes JE (2012) Removal of trace organic chemicals in onsite wastewater soil treatment units: a laboratory experiment. Water Res 46:5174–5184Google Scholar
  61. Thomas JF, Gomboso J, Oliver JE, Richie VA (1997) Wastewater re-use, storm water management, and the national water reform agenda, report No1. CSIRO, CanberraGoogle Scholar
  62. Tilley E, Lüthi C, Morel A, Zurbrügg C, Schertenleib R (2008) Compendium of sanitation systems and technologies. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (Eawag), Dübendorf, Switzerland, 1st edn.
  63. University of Wisconsin (1978) Management of small waste flows. USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA. EPA/600/2–78-173Google Scholar
  64. USEPA (1986) Septic systems and ground-water protection: an executive’s guide. Technical Report. Office of Groundwater Protection, USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  65. USEPA (2002) Onsite wastewater treatment systems manual. Office of Water, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA. EPA/625/R-00/008Google Scholar
  66. Van Cuyk S, Siegrist R, Logan A, Masson S, Fischer E, Figueroa L (2001) Hydraulic and purification behaviors and their interactions during wastewater treatment in soil infiltration systems. Water Res 35(4):953–964Google Scholar
  67. Verstraeten IM, Fetterman GS, Meyer MT, Bullen T, Sebree SK (2005) Use of tracers and isotopes to evaluate vulnerability of water in domestic wells to septic waste. Ground Water Monit Remediat 25(2):107–117Google Scholar
  68. Watson KK (1966) An instantaneous profile method for determining the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated porous materials. Water Resour Res 2(4):709–715Google Scholar
  69. Weihermüller L, Siemens J, Deurer M, Knoblauch S, Rupp H, Göttlein A, Pütz T (2007) In situ soil water extraction: a review. J Environ Qual 36:1735–1748Google Scholar
  70. Weiss P, Eveborn D, Kärrman E, Gustafsson JP (2008) Environmental systems analysis of four on-site wastewater treatment options. Resour Conserv Recycl 52:1153–1161Google Scholar
  71. Withers PJA, May L, Jarvie HP, Jordan P, Doody D, Foy RH, Bechmann M, Cooksley S, Dils R, Deal N (2012) Nutrient emissions to water from septic tank systems in rural catchments: uncertainties and implications for policy. Environ Sci Policy 11:102–114Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LEESU lab., UMR MA 102, Ecole des Ponts ParisTechUniversité Paris EstMarne-la-Vallée Cedex 2France
  2. 2.GeF lab., Géomatique et foncier, EA 4630, Le CnamParisFrance

Personalised recommendations