1 
 
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 Class Book Volume 
 
 * - ’I ^ .. ^ 
 
 Je OG-IOM 
 

 ‘ ' t" .c 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. ' 23 
 
 — j 
 
 FRIDAY, AFTERNOON SESSI^-f 
 
 ^a^fanuary 27, 1905. 
 
 X 
 
 The State and Local Boards of Healtlyrhet at 1 150 P. M. and were 
 called to order by Vice-President Chapp:^^, who said : 
 
 The first paper for this afterg^On is “Sewage Disposal” by Mr. 
 George A. Johnson, Engineer ir^^arge, Sewage Testing Station, Colum- 
 bus, Ohio. 
 
 Mr. George A. John^ft: Mr. President and Gentlemen: 
 
 I think I ought explain first of all that since a very complete 
 description of the >gi^wage testing station was given in a recent number 
 of the Ohio Sa|silary Bulletin, that paper having been prepared by the 
 engineer oL^ Ohio State Board of Health, Mr. Pratt, perhaps some 
 informatipd on the science of sewage purification in general may be of 
 more especial interest, and I have therefore prepared a short paper on 
 the '‘general subject of sewage disposal. 
 
 SEWAGE DISPOSAL. 
 
 By George A. Johnson, 
 
 Engineer in Charge, Sewage Testing Station, Columbus, Ohio. 
 
 The speaker has been asked to say a few words to you this after- 
 noon on the subject of sewage disposal, prior to your visit to the Sewage 
 Testing Station, and in the beginning perhaps a general outline of the 
 progress which is being made in this line of municipal work may be of 
 interest to you. 
 
 The statement was recently made by Mr. George W. Fuller before 
 the International Engineering Congress, that of the urban population 
 of the United States in 1900, amounting to about 28,000,000 people, 73 
 per cent, discharge their sewage into inland streams or lakes; 23 per 
 cent, into the sea or tidal estuaries; and but about 4 per cent., or a 
 little over one million people, are tributary to sewage purification works. 
 
 Regarding the standing of the State of Ohio in this line of work, 
 it may be said that while Ohio ranks fifth among the states in the 
 amount of sewage treated, yet of the two and one-third millions of 
 people constituting the urban population of Ohio, only about 50,000 are 
 tributary to sewage purification works. In a recent report to the State 
 Board of Health on “Sewage Purification Plants in Ohio,” by R. Win- 
 throp Pratt, Engineer to the Board, it is stated that in 1903 there were 
 twenty-four such plants in actual operation, while eighteen more were 
 V either under construction, or being planned. Considering that eleven 
 
 ^ 15808 
 
24 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 years ago there was not a sewage purification plant in operation in this 
 state, the activity which has been shown along this line in the past decade 
 is worthy of note. 
 
 Of the 24 sewage purification works in operation in Ohio in 1903, 
 12 were designed for the treatment of the sewage of cities and towns, 
 and the remaining 12 for the treatment of the sewage of various public 
 and private institutions, the amount of sewage treated daily, and the 
 population tributary to these works being divided up as follows: 
 
 Table No. I. 
 
 Sewage Purification Works in Ohio. 
 
 
 Number 
 
 of 
 
 Plants 
 
 Estimated Popu- 
 lation Con- 
 nected to 
 Sewers 
 
 Estimated 
 Amount of 
 Sewage Treated 
 Daily. 
 (Gallons.) 
 
 Cities and towns 
 
 12 
 
 46,100 
 
 8,300 
 
 5,850,000 
 
 833,000 
 
 Institutions 
 
 12 
 
 Of the sewage purification works now in operation in this country 
 over 80 per cent, have been built within the past dozen years. That an 
 idea may be had of how these works are divided up among the different 
 states the following table has been prepared from the previously mentioned 
 statements made by Mr. Fuller. 
 
 Table No. II. 
 
 States in Which Over One Million Gallons of Sewage are Treated Daily. 
 (In Communities of 3,000 Inhabitants or Over.) 
 
 
 
 Estimated Popu- 
 
 Estimated 
 
 
 Number 
 
 lation Con- 
 
 Amount of 
 
 State. 
 
 of 
 
 nected to 
 
 Sewage Treated 
 
 
 Plants. 
 
 Sewers in 
 
 Daily. 
 
 
 
 1904. 
 
 (Gallons.) 
 
 Massachusetts 
 
 17 
 
 226,000 
 
 23.200,000 
 
 Rhode Island 
 
 4 
 
 190.000 
 
 21,000,000 
 
 New York 
 
 9 
 
 150,000 
 
 15,700,000 
 
 Connecticut 
 
 5 
 
 62,000 
 
 7,800,000 
 
 Ohio 
 
 i 8 
 
 40,000 
 
 5,200,000 
 
 riinois 
 
 i 8 
 
 35,000 
 
 3.000,000 
 
 Pennsylvania 
 
 1 2 
 
 30,000 
 
 3.000,000 
 
 New Jersey 
 
 1 6 
 
 1 20.000 
 
 2,800,000 
 
 Wisconsin 
 
 1 3 
 
 1 24,000 
 
 2,500,000 
 
 California* 1 
 
 ' 0 1 
 
 1 110.000 
 
 7,800,000 
 
 Utah* 
 
 1 1 
 
 ! 22.000 
 
 5,000,000 
 
 * C'ih''ornia and Utah are p’a''ed 'act- in the table for the reason that this 
 sp\va'>^e f’pse ?tn'es is largely ii«ed fo^- '^•ation purposes, the purification of the 
 som^ '-.ein "or most part inpida ’In’ disposal process. 
 
 In the follov^ states a- ’ or'i n there a’'e contained one or more 
 se'^'a'^e r.tirifi''at 0*' '”0’'ks i '’F oF from 3,000 to i5»ooo people 
 
 are tribute rv. and in whic* a' ' from 1 00,000 to 1,000.000 gallons 
 
 of s^w?" '’r'’ tr d'lil”: Indiana Indian Territory, Iowa, 
 
iVj.jL ^ 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 25 
 
 $ 
 
 cP 
 
 Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina, South 
 Carolina, Texas. 
 
 Considering that the city of Columbus is at the present time engaged 
 upon the construction of a system of sewage purification, which will 
 probably be completed within the next two years, Ohio will soon take 
 a much more prominent place among the states in regard to sewage 
 purification, as when the Columbus plant goes into service the percentage 
 of the urban population tributary to purification works in Ohio will be 
 increased from about 2 per cent, to about 9 per cent. 
 
 REASONS FOR SEWAGE PURIFICATION. 
 
 Chief among the many considerations involving the necessity for 
 the purification of sewage before it is discharged into other bodies of 
 water are, first, the sanitary reasons, and, second, the aesthetic reasons. 
 
 The sanitary importance of the question has long been recognized 
 by sanitarians, and the indiscriminate discharge of crude wastes into 
 public waterways is receiving much attention with the view to the pas- 
 sage of laws prohibiting this questionable procedure. The efforts of the 
 Ohio State Board of Health in this direction have been noteworthy, and 
 the passage of the act of 1893 gave it considerable power towards pre- 
 venting the pollution of public water supplies, by giving it control over 
 proposed plans for sewerage and water supplies. The Board would 
 obtain more complete and satisfactory control over the pollution of the 
 streams in the state were it given the further power to regulate the dis- 
 charge of sewage from outlets which existed previous to 1893. 
 
 In this country where the large centers ot population are much 
 more widely scattered than in some foreign countries, it is perhaps not 
 so strange that it has become the custom to lead the sewage of cities and 
 towns to the nearest waterway, into which it is discharged in its crude 
 state. Where the dilution offered by the body of water into which the 
 sewage is discharged is sufficiently great, the aesthetic senses of the 
 community are not shocked by the odors of putrefaction, which is sure 
 to be the case when the reverse is true. There still remains the question, 
 however, of whether by merely diluting the sewage with a sufficient 
 quantity of comparatively pure water to prevent the production of obnox- 
 ious odors, all danger is removed from bacterial infection on the part 
 of the citizens of communities situated further down stream who are 
 obliged to take this more or less polluted water for the’r drinking supply. 
 It would appear that the effect of polluted water supplies on the public 
 health is quite clearly shown by the deplorable epidemics of tvphoid fever, 
 which are growing in frequency with time, and also, it may be added, 
 with the increasing volume of untreated wastes which are being dis- 
 charged into public waterways. 
 
 In 1901, Dr. J. L. Leal, in his admirable review of “The Legal 
 Aspects of Water Pollution,” divided the states and territories into five 
 classes, explaining that “This classification shows not only the tenor of, and 
 the chief object sought by the statute laws of each class, but also p’-e- 
 sents an orderly sequence in the development of the whole matter of the 
 legal prevention of water pollution from the point of time.” 
 
26 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 Describing the character of the legislation adopted by the states in 
 the five classes into which they are divided, Dr. Leal states that in Class 
 I are included those states in which the statute law goes no further than 
 to forbid the “poisoning” of wells, springs and reservoirs. In Class II 
 are contained those states and territories, the laws of which seek to pre- 
 vent the pollution of water in certain ways. Class III includes those 
 states where the chief aim of the legislature seems to be the protection 
 of certain water supplies. To Class IV belong those states and terri- 
 tories where the statute laws forbid the pollution of all waters used for 
 water supply. In Class V, representing the most advanced legislation 
 in this respect, are contained those states and territories which have 
 sought by law to protect all waters within their boundaries. 
 
 Dr. Leahs classification of the states is as follows: 
 
 Class I. Georgia and Rhode Island. 
 
 Class 11. California, Idaho, Indiana, Oklahoma, Vermont and Wis- 
 consin. 
 
 Class III. The District of Columbia and Michigan. 
 
 Class IV. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Flor- 
 ida, Kansas, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, 
 New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wyoming. 
 
 Class V. Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachu- 
 setts, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North 
 Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Wash- 
 ington, and West Virginia. 
 
 Descriptive of the legislative conditions obtaining in the states in- 
 cluded in Classes IV and V, Dr. Leal further states : “The various laws 
 differ widely in the different states, but their prevading spirit is the pro- 
 tection of water used for potable purposes. Many of these laws show 
 plainly the changes in scientific opinion within comparatively few years. 
 Some of the first of them forbid the pollution of potable waters, but made 
 exception in the case of the discharge into them of the sewage of cities 
 and towns, and the waste matters of certain industries. Then a little 
 later will appear a law in the same or some other state forbidding such 
 discharge within three or more miles of the intake of a water supply.” 
 
 “In many of the states is has been necessary to exempt from the 
 provisions of the law certain waters practically used as a means of sewage 
 disposal by cities and towns too ignorant, or too selfish, to be willing to 
 allow their opportunities for the commission of such hygienic sin to be 
 curtailed, or in connection with which certain influential interests are 
 involved. The tendency is for these exceptions to grow fewer, however, 
 and it seems reasonable to expert from the present outlook that it is only 
 a question of a short time when the pollution of all inland waters must 
 cease.” 
 
 Quite recently Mr. E. B. Goodell has reviewed the same subject, 
 and has adopted a somewhat more condensed classification, grouping the 
 various states and territories according to the progress which they have 
 made in this direction. In his grouping he divides the states into three 
 classes, namely: 
 
OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 27 
 
 Class 1. States with partial restrictions. 
 
 Class II. States with general restrictions. 
 
 Class III. States with severe restrictions. 
 
 Mr. Goodell’s Classification is as follows: 
 
 Class /. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, 
 Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, North 
 Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and Wisconsin. 
 
 Class 11. California, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, 
 Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, South 
 Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia 
 and Wyoming. 
 
 Class III. Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hamp- 
 shire, New Jersey, New York and Vermont. 
 
 METHODS OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL. 
 
 Decisions regarding the method most applicable to the disposal, of 
 a given sewage depend very largely upon local conditions. If the flow 
 of the stream into which the sewage is discharged is too small to per- 
 mit of disposal by dilution, nuisances incidental to the discharge of raw 
 sewage into streams under such conditions may be frequently avoided 
 by recourse to a process aiming particularly at the removal of a sub- 
 stantial percentage of the suspended matters. Where other communities, 
 situated a comparatively short distance below, take water for drinking pur- 
 poses from the same stream, more careful and complete purification of 
 the sewage is demanded for sanitary reasons. 
 
 In deciding upon a method for the purification of a sewage there 
 must be considered not only the individuality of the sewage itself, but 
 the geological conditions existing in the locality in question. This latter 
 consideration has to do with factors of cost of construction which can- 
 not be ignored. In sections of the country where the glacial drift forma- 
 tion is absent, the soil is usually of a clayey nature, and to a greater or 
 less extent impervious to water. Obviously such soil is very poorly 
 adapted to filtration purposes. If suitable soil is not a natural product 
 of a section of the country where purification of the sewage is to be 
 undertaken, it follows that either such material must be obtained from a 
 distance, thereby adding materially to the first cost of the plant, or one of 
 the more recently devised treatments adopted. 
 
 These later developments in the art of sewage purification may 
 include either very complete preparation of the sewage prior to its appli- 
 cation to fine-grain beds, or else some of the more modern methods of 
 treatment may be adopted, in which coarse-grain beds are made use of 
 for the finishing devices. By thoroughly preparing the raw sewage, 
 prior to its application to fine-grain beds, it has been found possible to 
 maintain materially higher rates of treatment. The reduction in filter 
 area thus effected offsets in an appreciable manner the comparatively 
 high cost of fine-grain material. In coarse-grain beds much higher rates 
 of treatment are employed than in the case of beds composed of fine 
 material, and consequently less material is required for their construe- 
 
28 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 tion, although from a standpoint of purification higher efficiencies are 
 naturally to be expected from fine-grain beds, than from those composed 
 of coarse material. 
 
 DISPOSAL OF SEWAGE BY DILUTION. 
 
 The question of the degree of dilution necessary in order to preclude 
 the production of obnoxious odors where sewage is discharged directly 
 into running streams of water, has received much careful consideration 
 in the past. Over 17 years ago, Mr. Rudolph Hering found, in connec- 
 tion with such studies as these, that if sewage is discharged into streams 
 where the minimum flow is less than about 2.5 cubic feet per second 
 per 1,000 persons, an offense would be almost sure to arise; but where 
 the flow of the stream is greater than 7 cubic feet per second per 1,000 
 persons, the reverse would probably obtain. 
 
 More recently these limits have been quite materially reduced by 
 Mr. X. H. Goodnough, Chief Engineer of the State Board of Health 
 of Massachusetts. After an extended study of the question in connec- 
 tion with certain small rivers in Massachusetts, Mr. Goodnough states: 
 that “Where the rate of dilution is less than 3.5 cubic feet per second 
 'Objectionable conditions are likely to result from the discharge of sewage 
 into a stream ; while in cases where the dilution exceeds 6 cubic feet per 
 second per 1,000 persons, objectionable conditions have not been pro- 
 duced.'’ The figures above referred to roughly correspond to the follow- 
 ing dilutions : 
 
 Table No. III. 
 
 Disposal of Sewage by Dilution. 
 
 Investigator. 
 
 Objectionable Conditions 
 Dilution is Less Than 
 Likely to Arise When 
 
 Esimated Safe Limit, 
 Above Which Objec- 
 tionable Conditions 
 May Not Arise. 
 
 Hering 
 
 1 to 16 
 
 1 to 45 
 
 Goodnough 
 
 1 to 23 
 
 1 to 36 
 
 
 It is recognized that these conclusions are to a greater or less extent 
 empirical, and that they are not strictlv capable of general application. 
 It is further to be borne in mind that Mr. Hering’s studies applv more 
 particularly to large waterways, whereas those made by Mr. Goodnough 
 relate to conditions obtaining in comparatively small streams, in which 
 manufacturing wastes play an important role. 
 
 Aside from the aesthetic phase of the question, to which such figures 
 as the above particularly relate, in aiminp- at the prevention of obnoxious 
 odors, and the unsightly appearance of the stream, there still remains 
 the sanitary phase of the matter particularly relating to cases where sev- 
 eral cities are located comparatively short distances apart on the same 
 stream, into which the sewage of the several cities is discharged in its 
 crude state, and from which they obtain their several water supplies. 
 
OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 29 
 
 While the flow of the stream may be ample at all times to prevent 
 the production of obnoxious odors, there still remains the question of 
 whether by dilutin^q’ the crude wastes with a comparatively large volume 
 of water all danger from pathogenic forms of bacterial life is removed. 
 Quite obviously this depends very largely upon the velocity of flow of 
 the stream in question, and the distance between the cities. The ex- 
 pressed opinions of leading sanitarians regarding this point are consider- 
 ably at variance at this time, and it appears needless for the speaker to 
 add his personal views. But it is not to be denied that it would be far 
 better to prevent the entrance of unpurified wastes into public water- 
 wavs, than to speculate on the possible harm which might accrue from 
 such a manifestly questionable procedure. 
 
 BROAD IRRIGATION AND SEWAGE FARMING. 
 
 In communities where land is available, both from a standpoint of 
 suitability and cost, broad irrigation and sewage farming are quite exten- 
 sively practiced. This form of treatment consists in distributing sewage 
 over extensive areas of land, which is rarely ever artificially underdrained. 
 If the soil is porous the sewage percolates downward until it meets an 
 underlying impervious stratum of clay or rock, to appear later as springs, 
 or as feeders of other bodies of water, in a greater or less state of purifi- 
 cation dependent upon the volume of sewage treated, and the character 
 of the soil through which it passes. 
 
 In America this form of sewage treatment is confined more particu- 
 larly to the extreme western sections, where the rainfall is comparatively 
 small. There the sewage is essentially used for irrigation purposes in 
 the majority of instances, being applied to orange groves, vegetable farm 
 land, and the like. 
 
 In the immediate neighborhood of large cities in this country, even 
 where the soil is suitable, this form of sewage treatment is considered 
 as being practically out of the question, as the large areas of land re- 
 quired are rarely obtainable at a reasonable cost. It has been estimated 
 that the land required in this treatment is about i acre per 100 persons. 
 
 While the number of cities employing broad irrigation or sewage 
 farming, in the disposal of sewage is steadily growing less, there are 
 still a number of notable examples of this form of treatment abroad, 
 among which may be mentioned Paris, where the four sewage fa^ms 
 have a combined area of about 13,300 acres; Nottingham, Eng., where 
 the total area of the farm amounts to about 1,950 acres; and Berlin, 
 where the area of the sewage farm amounts to about 19,000 acres, or 
 over 30 square miles. 
 
 Regarding the practice of sewage farming abroad, the following 
 figures are interesting in showing the population served per acre, and 
 the amount of sewage treated per acre daily on a number of sewage 
 ‘farms and irrigation fields in England and Europe. The table is com- 
 piled from data contained in a lecture delivered in 1903, by Mr. J. D. 
 Watson, engineer to the Birmingham, Rea and Tame Drainage Board, 
 and from the Report of the Royal Bureau for Water Purification and 
 Sewage Disposal of Berlin, for 1904. 
 
30 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 Table No. IV. 
 
 Sewage Farming in England and Europe. 
 
 City. 
 
 Population 
 Served per Acre. 
 
 Volume of Sewage 
 Treated per Acre Daily. 
 (U. S. Gallons.) 
 
 Birmingham 
 
 451 
 
 16,500 
 
 Chettenham 
 
 165 
 
 15,950 
 
 Charlottenburg 
 
 485 
 
 13,500 
 
 Bedford 
 
 260 
 
 13,300 
 
 Nottingham 
 
 461 
 
 12,900 
 
 Burton-on-Trent 
 
 98 
 
 12,900 
 
 Preston 
 
 225 
 
 12,000 
 
 Norwich 
 
 358 
 
 11,150 
 
 Danzig 
 
 285 
 
 9,700 
 
 Breslau 
 
 190 
 
 9,170 
 
 Paris 
 
 
 7,830 
 
 Leicester 
 
 m 
 
 6,870 
 
 Wolverhampton 
 
 209 
 
 6,660 
 
 Berlin 
 
 105 
 
 4,250 
 
 Oxford 
 
 102 
 
 3,720 
 
 Wrexham 
 
 83 
 
 3,320 
 
 Leamington 
 
 82 
 
 2,950 . 
 
 INTERMITTENT SAND FILTRATION. 
 
 In 1870 Dr. Edward Frankland first introduced the theory of the 
 process of sewage purification which later developed into what is now 
 known as intermittent sand filtration. In this form of sewage treatment 
 beds of sandy soil are laid out, and usually provided with underdrains. 
 To these beds sewage is intermittently applied, periods of rest being 
 allowed so that air may enter the beds between each application of sew- 
 age. The result obtained is an oxidation of the organic matters con- 
 tained in the sewage, which is chiefly brought about by bacterial action, 
 maintained by the frequent periods of rest which are allowed for aeration. 
 
 As to the areas of land required in this form of treatment it is to 
 be said that this depends upon the character of the sewage to be treated, 
 the nature of the filtering material, and whether or not the raw sewage 
 undergoes any form of preparatory treatment before it is applied to the 
 beds. In New England, where this form of sewage treatment is more 
 generally used than elsewhere in this country, on account of the avail- 
 ability of suitable filtering material, experience indicates that raw sewage 
 may not be efficiently and economically treated on intermittent sand 
 filters at rates in excess of about 100,000 gallons per acre daily, the aver- 
 age rate being considerably lower than this figure. The land required 
 under these conditions would approximate i acre per 1,000 persons. 
 
 Where the raw sewage undergoes some of the numerous forms of 
 preliminary treatment, aiming at the removal of a substantial percentage 
 of the suspended matter, considerably higher rates of treatment than the 
 above have been found to be possible. Some representative results in 
 connection with this type of sewage purification as practiced in Massa- 
 chusetts, are shown in the following table, which has been prepared from 
 the data contained in the Annual Report of the State Board of Health 
 of Massachusetts, for 1903. 
 
OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 31 
 
 Table No. V. 
 
 Efficiency of Intermittent Sand Filtration in Massachusetts. 
 (Analytical Results = Averages 1900-3, inclusive.) 
 
 City or 
 Town. 
 
 Estimated Popula- 
 tion connected to 
 Sewers at end of 
 1903. 
 
 Per Acre of 
 Filt. Surface. 
 
 Character of 
 Filtering 
 Material. 
 
 Purification Effected 
 (by Albumin ’d Amm) 
 
 Population 
 
 Served. 
 
 Gals. Sewage 
 
 treated daily 
 
 Parts 
 
 per 
 
 Million 
 
 Per cent 
 
 Removed. 
 
 Sew. 
 
 Eff. 
 
 Andover 
 
 3,600 
 
 986 
 
 34,200 
 
 Med. fine sand... 
 
 10.9 
 
 .64 
 
 94.1 
 
 Brockton . . . 
 
 25,000 
 
 1,164 
 
 40,900 
 
 Coarse sand .... 
 
 14.2 
 
 .14 
 
 99.0 
 
 Clinton 
 
 10,000 
 
 426 
 
 33,400 
 
 Coarse sand .... 
 
 10.9 
 
 .83 
 
 92.3 
 
 Framingham 
 
 7,500 
 
 377 
 
 32,800^ 
 
 Fine sand 
 
 11.3 
 
 .23 
 
 98.0 
 
 Marborough 
 
 10,000 
 
 900 
 
 98,200 
 
 Med. fine sand... 
 
 8.0 
 
 .56 
 
 93.0 
 
 Natick 
 
 4,000 
 
 360 
 
 51,000 
 
 Med. fine sand... 
 
 3.3 
 
 .26 
 
 92.0 
 
 Spencer 
 
 3,000 
 
 323 
 
 40,300 
 
 Med. coarse sand 
 
 5.6 
 
 .16 ' 
 
 ”97.1 
 
 Westb’r’ugh 
 
 3,000 
 
 750 
 
 70,000 
 
 Coarse sand .... 
 
 5.8 
 
 .78 
 
 86.5 
 
 THE PREPARATORY TREATMENT OF SEWAGE. 
 
 In order to satisfactorily maintain higher rates of treatment in the 
 finishing processes than would otherwise be possible, it has been found 
 advisable to subject the raw sewage to a preparatory treatment before 
 it is applied to the final beds, the object being to remove a substantial 
 percentage of the suspended matters from the sewage, and, in some of 
 the forms of preparatory treatment, to effect also a partial resolution 
 into simpler forms, of the organic compounds contained in the sewage. 
 
 Among the best known forms of preparatory treatment may be 
 mentioned sedimentation, chemical precipitation, strainers or roughing 
 filters, and the septic treatment. In the first three of these treatments 
 the main object is the removal of suspended matter, i. e., the clarification 
 of the sewage. In the septic treatment three objects are aimed at, namely, 
 (a) the removal of suspended matter through subsidence, (b) the partial 
 resolution of crude organic matters into simpler compounds, and (c) 
 the disposal of a material portion of the sludge deposited, through lique- 
 faction brought about by bacterial action. 
 
 Of all of these preparatory processes it is to be mentioned in pass- 
 ing that their field of usefulness is quite sharply restricted to the pre- 
 paration of the sewage so that it may be efficiently purified by subsidiary 
 devices at materially higher rates of treatment than would otherwise be 
 possible. It rarely ever happens that the effluent of any of these prepara- 
 tory processes is sufficiently well purified to be discharged from the 
 works without further treatment. It is true that a very substantial re- 
 moval of the organic matters in the sewage is obtained, but the efflu- 
 ents are very rarely indeed of a stable nature, and putrefy on standing. 
 
 Where merely the abatement of a nuisance is desired, such a nuisance 
 being due to putrefactive odors arising from the stream into which the 
 crude sewage is discharged, such forms of sewage treatment as aim 
 essentially at clarification, and therefore only a partial purification of the 
 
32 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 sewage, are frequently successful. Thus at London, England, where 
 some 240 million gallons of sewage are treated daily with lime and sul- 
 phate of iron and allowed to settle, the analyses show that something 
 over 400 tons of suspended matters are removed from the sewage each 
 day in this manner. The settled, or chemically precipitated sewage is 
 discharged below the city into the river Thames. It is understood that 
 actual nuisances arising from the production of offensive odors is thus 
 largely eliminated, although the effluent as it is discharged has been 
 found to contain about 100,000 coli-like forms of bacteria per cubic 
 centimeter, and during periods of extreme low flow in the river, is diluted 
 to the extent of less than 1.5 parts of river water to i part of sewage 
 effluent. In fact the average dilution of the sewage effluent is said to be 
 less than 5 to i. 
 
 TREATMENT OF SEWAGE IN COARSE-GRAIN BEDS. 
 
 Where suitable fine, porous material is not obtainable at a reasonable 
 cost, sewage has been treated with success in coarse-grain beds, at mater- 
 ially higher rates than are possible in connection with intermittent sand 
 filters. Among the more successful types of these processes may be 
 mentioned the contact bed and sprinkling filter. In both of these pro- 
 cesses the beds are well underdrained, and the filtering material ordin- 
 arily consists of from about 3 to 6 feet in depth of broken stone, slag, 
 clinker, cinder or some similar material, the particles ranging in size 
 from less than 0.5 inch to 3 and 4 inches. 
 
 Contact Beds. In the contact bed, which had its origin in England 
 some II years ago, the sewage is run into the bed until it is full, allowed 
 to stand thus for a varying period of time, and then slowly drawn off, 
 and the bed allowed to rest empty for a varying, but considerable period 
 of time. The purification which takes place during this process is very 
 considerable, and in many places a uniformly non-putrescible effluent is 
 obtained. Where satisfactory results are not to be obtained with a 
 single contact the effluent of the first bed is allowed to flow into a second 
 bed, similarly constructed, thereby constituting what is known as the 
 double contact treatment. In perhaps the majority of cases, however, 
 owing to certain features of construction involved, it has been found 
 advisable to make use of but a single contact, operating the beds at 
 approximately one-half the rate possible with double contact beds. 
 
 In the contact bed the action is chiefly an oxidizing one, in which 
 bacterial agencies are mainly instrumental. While the sewage stands in 
 contact with the material the organic matter present is resolved into 
 simpler compounds, which are the more readily acted upon, and eventu- 
 ally, mineralized, by the activity of bacterial agencies during the periods 
 of rest. 
 
 That an idea may be had regarding the purification effected in con- 
 tact beds operating under favorable conditions, the following table, com- 
 piled from date given in a lecture on “Sewage Purification in England,’^ 
 delivered in 1903, by Mr. J. D. Watson, engineer to the Birmingham, Rea 
 and Tame Drainage Board, is presented. 
 
OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 33 
 
 Table No, VI. 
 
 Efficiency of Contact Beds in England. 
 
 
 ^ — > 
 fli tfl 
 
 Ih ^ 
 
 ^ S:? 
 
 'T3 
 
 (U 
 
 CO 
 
 bo V 
 
 efl Ih • 
 
 ^ U en 
 
 Percentage Purification 
 
 Process and 
 
 Location of Plant. 
 
 Time duri 
 which beds 
 at work. ("! 
 
 Depth of ] 
 
 (Feet.' 
 
 Amount of S 
 
 treated per 
 
 Daily. 
 
 (U. S. Gall< 
 
 By 
 
 Oxygen 
 
 Absorbed. 
 
 By 
 
 Albuminoid 
 
 Ammonia 
 
 Single Contact. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Croydon 
 
 2 
 
 3.75 
 
 762,750 
 
 64 
 
 61 
 
 Manchester 
 
 4.5 
 
 3.33 
 
 550,800 
 
 600,000 
 
 75 
 
 70 
 
 Birmingham 
 
 1 
 
 4.50 
 
 80 
 
 79 
 
 Double Contact. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Blackburn 
 
 2 
 
 5.50 
 
 720,000 
 
 75-80 
 
 97 
 
 Burnley 
 
 5 
 
 3.00 
 
 231,600 
 
 87 
 
 85 
 
 Carlisle 
 
 2 
 
 4.00 
 
 1,086,840 
 
 71 
 
 61 
 
 Leeds 
 
 2 
 
 5-6 
 
 600,000 
 
 95 
 
 90 
 
 Sheffield 
 
 3 
 
 5.00 
 
 1,200,000 
 
 87-90 
 
 92 
 
 Sheffield 
 
 3 
 
 3.33 
 
 780,000 
 
 87-90 
 
 92 
 
 Sprinkling Filters. The sprinkling filter is only beginning to come 
 into use in this country, there being at this time but a few small plants 
 of this type in operation, the largest installation being that at Madi- 
 son, Wis., which has a capacity of about 1,000,000 gallons per day. 
 In England, however, there are a number of comparatively large plants 
 of this type in successful operation. 
 
 In the operation of the sprinkling filter, the sewage is distributed 
 over the surface of the material in fine drops, or as a spray, and allowed 
 to percolate downward through the bed. At Madison the sewage is 
 applied through lines of 3-inch perforated vitrified pipe, laid about 2 feet 
 apart. By these methods of applying the sewage to the beds, the inter- 
 stices between the particles of filtering material are never completely 
 filled, the sewage constantly percolating through the beds in the presence 
 of air. 
 
 In their action upon sewage sprinkling filters have been found to 
 give very satisfactory results. The sewage in its passage through the 
 bed takes up oxygen in its descent, in fact the proper working of this 
 type of filter depends upon the constant presence of air within it. Under 
 such conditions aerobic bacterial activity is maintained to its fullest 
 extent. It has been found advantageous to employ some preparatory 
 treatment of the raw sewage, prior to its application to sprinkling filters, 
 the reason for which has mainly to do with the removal of suspended 
 matters, which would be likely to clog the distributing system. 
 
 Following is a table of results, compiled from the beforementioned 
 lecture by Mr. J. D. Watson of the Birmingham, Rea and Tame Drain- 
 age Board, which gives a fair idea of the results obtained from this type 
 of coarse-grain bed in the purification of sewage in England. 
 
34 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 Table No. VII. 
 
 Efficiency of Sprinkling Filters in England, 
 
 Location. 
 
 1 
 
 Number of Years 
 Beds were at work. 
 
 Depth of Bed. 
 
 (Feet) 
 
 Rate of Treatment 
 
 per Acre Daily. 
 
 (U. S. Gallons) 
 
 Percentage Purification. 
 
 By 
 
 Oxygen 
 
 Absorbed. 
 
 By 
 
 Albuminoid 
 
 Ammonia. 
 
 Leeds 
 
 3.5 
 
 9 
 
 1 1,200,000 
 
 95 
 
 90 
 
 Accrington 
 
 3.0 
 
 8-9 
 
 2,323,000 
 
 90 
 
 91 
 
 Birmingham 
 
 0.5 
 
 5 
 
 1 1,200,000 
 
 86 
 
 88 
 
 Hyde 
 
 3.0 
 
 9 
 
 1 2,513,000 
 
 86 
 
 90 
 
 York 
 
 1.0 
 
 6.5 
 
 1 2,555,500 
 
 84 
 
 90 
 
 Rochdale 
 
 2.5 
 
 9 
 
 1 2,323,000 
 
 1 
 
 84 
 
 84 
 
 THE DISPOSAL OF SLUDGE. 
 
 The disposal of sludge produced in sewage purification works con- 
 tinues to be a somewhat unsettled problem. Cities located near the sea 
 ship it thence, and London in this way satisfactorily disposes of some 
 8,000 tons of sewage sludge daily. In places not so conveniently located 
 the sludge is sometimes pressed into cakes and buried. Elsewhere it is 
 treated on beds specially prepared for the purpose, where it is dried, and 
 either sold or given away as fertilizer. There are instances where it is 
 pressed into cakes and incinerated, as at Leyton, England, where during 
 the year ending March 31, 1899, 9,425 tons of pressed sludge cake were 
 disposed of in this manner. This method of sludge disposal is used also 
 at Huddersfield, England, and several other places. 
 
 SUMMARY. 
 
 A large part of the failures, or indifferently successful sewage puri- 
 fication works now in operation in the world, are either a result of the 
 adoption of types of construction unsuited to the local requirements, or 
 of a lack of intelligent supervision. In deciding upon a system for the 
 treatment of a sewage in the absence of preliminary study, only designs 
 may be properly adopted which are thoroughly capable of comprehensive 
 analysis, and which have been proved successful in the treatment of 
 sewage under like conditions. 
 
 Without a careful study of local conditions, the conclusion so often 
 drawn that because one particular method of treatment has proved suc- 
 cessful in one place, and under one set of conditions, it is more or less 
 universally applicable, is obviously pure hypothetical reasoning. Take 
 for example the wave of popularity in the case of the chemical precipita- 
 tion method of sewage treatment which swept over England a number 
 of years ago. It is only until quite recently that a number of English 
 cities have come to the realization that more economic, as well as effici- 
 
OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 35 
 
 ent results, may be obtained from other methods of treatment. Mr. M. 
 N. Baker, who completed a tour of inspection of the sewage works of 
 Great Britain last June, states that a number of cities are actually rival- 
 ling each other in their haste to abandon the chemical precipitation treat- 
 ment, for other processes which they have found upon investigation to 
 be better suited to local conditions. 
 
 This, of course, is not to be taken as a statement that the chemical 
 precipitation treatment is being universally abandoned throughout Eng- 
 land, for on the contrary a number of the larger cities are still using this 
 method, and show no present signs of changing. Thus Glasgow is at 
 the present time increasing the capacity of its chemical precipitation 
 works, and these additions when completed, will enable the works to 
 dispose by this method of about 140 million gallons of sewage daily. 
 
 There appears to be no room for doubt but that the treatment of 
 sewage on intermittent sand filters will, in the vast majority of instances, 
 yield the highest degree of purification of all the known methods of 
 sewage treatment. In England the natural soil is not uniformly favor- 
 able to this form of treatment, and except in the northern and eastern 
 sections, the same is true in this country. It has become necessary, 
 therefore, to pay particular attention to the perfection of numerous forms 
 of preparatory treatment, whereby higher rates are made possible in the 
 case of intermittent sand filtration, and other subsidiary processes, there- 
 by reducing the cost of the plant by reducing the acreage required. It 
 has also become necessary to study more carefully the applicability of 
 certain of the more recently devised methods of sewage treatment, where- 
 in coarse-grain material, such as is locally available, can be made use of. 
 
 As to the supervision of sewage purification works, it is perfectly 
 obvious that no matter how well designed, or how well a plant may be 
 fitted to meet local conditions, without conscientious operation it cannot 
 be expected to do good work. It is poor economy to spend large sums 
 of money upon the construction of a sewage disposal works, and prac- 
 tically nothing upon its supervision and attendance. No sewage purifi- 
 cation works will run itself, even in the face of the somewhat extrava- 
 gant claims of inventors of certain automatic devices. Such works must 
 not only be inherently capable of meeting the constantly changing condi- 
 tions, but must be made to do so by competent operators. 
 
 It would seem that general supervision over such matters as these 
 could well be placed in the hands of the State Boards of Health, but to 
 do this legislative action would be necessary in order that there might be 
 secured the necessary authority and funds to carry on the work of mak- 
 ing frequent inspections of sewage purification works. Were all such 
 works operated under the general supervision, and with the advice of 
 such bodies as these, provided they were equipped with men competent 
 to do such work, their efficiency could not but be improved, and the gen- 
 eral sanitary considerations surrounding the problem of sewage purifica- 
 tion could not fail to materially profit thereby. 
 
 THE COLUMBUS SEWAGE TESTING STATION. 
 
 From tLe $1,200,000 appropriation authorized by the people of Co- 
 lumbus a little over a year ago, for the extension and improvement of 
 
36 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 the sewerage system, and the construction of a sewage purification works, 
 the sum df $46,000 was set apart in the spring of last year for the con- 
 struction and maintenance of a testing station, where certain of the var- 
 ious processes of sewage purification in successful operation in other 
 places might be given a test under local conditions extending over a 
 period of one year. This station has been in operation since August of 
 last year, and will continue until the four seasons of the year have been 
 covered. 
 
 As to the wisdom of these investigations, preliminary to the con- 
 struction of one of the largest sewage purification works in America, 
 there can be no doubt. Looking at the matter from a broad standpoint 
 it is merely a business proposition wherein about 4 per cent, of the 
 capital investment is to be expended in order to learn which one, among 
 the numerous methods of purification, will be at once economical from 
 a standpoint of construction, and efficient and economical from a stand- 
 point of operation. 
 
 One good reason among many why such preliminary study is well- 
 advised, relates to the fact that the sewage of each community possesses 
 certain characteristics more or less peculiar to itself. Some sewages are 
 composed almost entirely of domestic wastes, while others contain in 
 addition large volumes of industrial wastes. Some sewages are very 
 strong, while others are very weak, owing to the leaching of ground 
 waters into the sewers, or to the extravagant use of water on the part 
 of the citizens of the community in question. It is very rare indeed that 
 the sewages of two cities are found to be the same in composition. All 
 of these things, some more than others, influence the character of the 
 treatment which will cope most successfully with the problem of purify- 
 ing the sewage of a given city. There are at this time over a dozen 
 different methods in use for the purification of the sewage of cities and 
 towns in this country, each one presumably being particularly fitted to 
 meet the requirements of local conditions. 
 
 The work carried on at the Sewage Testing Station at Columbus 
 is not so essentially experimental as some people might think. The 
 processes under test are in a large measure duplicates of sewage works 
 in successful operation on a large scale in this country and abroad. By 
 testing them all under as nearly parallel conditions as possible, it is 
 expected that it will be possible to select one process which is clearly 
 better able than the rest to meet the problem of purifying the local 
 sewage. 
 
 The sewage used for the purposes of the tests is obtained from the 
 main intercepting sewer, which runs under one corner of the property 
 on which the Testing Station is located. It is estimated that this sewer 
 carries three-fourths of the total dry weather flow of the city, and it is 
 believed that the sewage pumped at the Testing Station fairly repre- 
 sents in character that which the main disposal works will handle. 
 
 The tests are conducted on a sufficiently large scale to render the 
 results obtained of substantial value. The quantity of sewage treated 
 daily amounts to about 350,000 gallons, or roughly equal to the volume 
 of sewage discharged by a community of 4,000 persons. A list of the 
 various devices undergoing the test is given below: 
 
OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 37 
 
 Table No. VIH. 
 
 Derices Under Test in the Sewage Station. 
 
 Devices. 
 
 Number 
 
 of Units. 
 
 Capacity of Tanks, or area 
 of Filtering Surface. (Per unit) 
 
 Primary Processes. 
 
 
 
 Grit Chambers 
 
 2 
 
 17,000 gallons. 
 
 Settling Tanks 
 
 2 
 
 17,000 
 
 Septic Tanks 
 
 3 
 
 17,000 
 
 Strainers (Coke) 
 
 2 
 
 (1=43.5) (1=130 sq. ft.) 
 
 Intermediate and Finishing Processes. 
 
 
 
 Primary Contact Beds. (Broken Stone.) 
 
 2 
 
 130 square feet. 
 
 Primary Contact Beds. (Crushed Coke.) 
 
 2 
 
 43.5 “ 
 
 Secondary Contact Beds. (Crushed Coke.) 
 
 2 
 
 43.5 “ 
 
 Sprinkling Filters. (Broken Stone.) 
 
 5 
 
 (3=43.5) (1=80) (1=130 
 sq. ft.) 
 
 Intermediate Settling Tank '. 
 
 1 
 
 700 gallons. 
 
 Intermittent Sand Filters 
 
 21 
 
 43.5 square feet. 
 
 A brief sketch of the principal processes which are being studied at 
 the Sewage Testing Station is as follows: 
 
 Outline of the Principal Processes of Sewage Purification Under 
 Test at Columbus. 
 
 1. Raw sewage, — which is first screened and passed through a grit 
 chamber — applied at different rates, and under varying conditions : 
 
 (a) To coke strainers, the effluents of which are applied at different 
 rates to 
 
 (i) Contact beds. (2) Intermittent sand filters. 
 
 (b) To contact beds, the effluents of which are applied at different 
 rates to 
 
 (i) Secondary contact beds. (2) Intermittent sand 
 filters. 
 
 (c) To sprinkling filters, the effluents of which 
 
 (i) Are or are not settled for varying periods of time, 
 and are then applied at different rates to 
 (2) Intermittent sand filters. 
 
 (d) To intermittent sand filters. 
 
 2. Raw sewage as in (i), settled for varying periods of time and 
 then applied at different rates and under varying conditions to 
 
 (a) Sprinkling filters, (b) Intermittent sand filters. 
 
 3. Raw sewage as in (i), treated in septic tanks in which varying 
 periods of flow are employed, and then applied at different rates and 
 under varying conditions to 
 
 (a) Sprinkling filters, (b) Intermittent sand filters. 
 
 This outline, which can only be very incompletely given here, may 
 serve to indicate in a measure, a few of the studies which are deemed 
 essential in arriving at a solution of the local problem. An immense 
 amount of labor is involved in the tests, necessitating long hours of 
 service on the part of each member of the Testing Station staff, which 
 
38 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 are most cheerfully given. The station is operated day and night, seven 
 days in the week, and is never shut down except in case of accident. 
 
 Connected to the station is a well equipped laboratory, where the 
 numerous and systematic analyses of the sewages and effluents are made. 
 An idea of the amount of analytical work which is being done may be 
 had from the statement that i,8oo complete chemical and 2,500 bacterial 
 analyses have been made to date, covering a period of about five months. 
 In this statement, no account is taken of a large amount of analytical work 
 which has been done along special lines. ^ 
 
 The work is being conducted under the general supervision of Mr. 
 Julian Griggs, Chief Engineer of the Board of Public Service, with the 
 speaker in direct charge of the station. Messers. Hering and Fuller are 
 the Consulting Engineers. Mr. A. E. Kimberly is Chemist. Mr. W. R. 
 Copeland is Bacteriologist, and Mr. G. P. Shute is Assistant Engineer. 
 There are in addition, two trained assistants in each of the chemical, 
 bacteriological and engineering departments, two inspectors, a stenogra- 
 pher and a janitor, making a total of 14 men in the staff. 
 
 Vice President Chapman : This paper is now before the association 
 for discussion. I suppose the discussion will take the range of question- 
 ing more than anything else. If any gentlemen wish to talk on the mat- 
 ter we will now hear them, and I am sure Mr. Johnson will sum up the 
 questions and answer them if possible. 
 
 Dr. Probst: I rise to make a motion. 
 
 We have with us two very distinguished visitors whd have come a 
 long ways from home to attend this meeting, gentlemen who are partic- 
 ularly interested in the subject of sewage disposal. Dr. Hodgetts, secretary 
 of the Provincial Board of Health of Ontario, and Dr. Amyot, who is 
 their offlcial bacteriologist. 
 
 I wish to move that the courtesies of the floor be extended to these 
 gentlemen during the continuation of these meetings. 
 
 Motion seconded and unanimously carried. 
 
 Vice President Chapman: We would like to hear from these gen- 
 tlemen on any subject. 
 
 Dr. Probst: I am just informed that we also have with us Mr. 
 Winslow, of Boston, who is Professor Sedgewick’s assistant, and I move 
 that he be included in the previous motion. 
 
 Motion seconded and unanimously carried. 
 
 Vice President Chapman : This gentleman is included, and we would 
 like to hear from him on this subject or any other. 
 
 Mr. Winslow, of Boston: I am very glad indeed to be able to 
 extend a word of congratulation to you here on the work that is being 
 done in this matter. We used to think in Massachusetts that we knew 
 something about sewage disposal. As you all know, the first work in 
 this country, and perhaps the first real scientific work in the world, was 
 
OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 39 
 
 done down there. But that time has gone by and we have to come out 
 to the Mississippi and Ohio valleys now to learn about sewage disposal, 
 and that is what my mission in the west is now. I think it is a thing 
 on which the citizens of Columbus ought to be very heartily congratu- 
 lated, having been the first city in the United States to approach this 
 matter in a rational, scientific and far-seeing way, and we have all heard, 
 all over the country, of how splendidly this work has been conducted, 
 and is being conducted, and I know that everybody in the east who 
 knows anything about sanitary matters envies me the opportunity of 
 seeing the work practically going on. 
 
 Dr. Hodgett : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : I see that pretty 
 much the same questions that we have at home you are having before 
 this meeting for discussion. The great amount of money this city has 
 spent and is going to spend in investigating this important subject — one 
 which, as this country increases in population, and I am speaking not 
 only for the United States, but also for Canada, comes home to every 
 state and provincial board of health — requires more earnest study than 
 ever it has obtained in the past, and one which I think must not devolve 
 so much upon the municipality as upon the states and provinces. I know 
 that the provincial board of health of Ontario feels that the matter is 
 so important that it is one that should not be at the expense of one par- 
 ticular city to study the question, but that the provincial board of health, 
 which represents the government of the province, should out of the rev- 
 enues of the province provide the proper number of officers and the 
 proper system for the examination of the sewage of the different towns 
 and cities. 
 
 I know in Ontario we are meeting with the difficulty that our grow- 
 ing towns, manufacturing towns, are polluting the streams ; and as a 
 consequence the dairying interests, which are growing very rapidly, pro- 
 pose, since the towns are growing in population, that they are suffering 
 from the polluted streams, and already our courts have decided that it 
 is illegal for any municipality or any individual to pollute a running 
 stream or a lake. The contention of the judges on appeal was that the 
 water was pure, and that no individual or municipality had a right to 
 pollute that stream ; that they must provide for the proper treatment and 
 disposal of their sewage, and I think that is only sound common sense. 
 
 Then another direction in which we are protecting the individual 
 is in favoring the treatment of our domestic sewage on the farms and of 
 the residences in our scattered villages and towns, where they at present 
 have no system of sewage disposal. I mean by this the septic tank and 
 the land disposition of the sewage. 
 
40 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 Last summer Dr. Amyot and myself made a tour through our lake 
 districts, and we were very much pleased to find that the work instituted 
 some six years ago by my predecessor in office, Dr. Bryce, who perhaps 
 is known to a good many of you, has been carried on pretty successfully ; 
 and that a large number of the hotels in our summer resorts dispose of 
 the sewage without polluting the waters of the lake, and that the systems 
 there have been in operation six or seven years without having cost the 
 hotel proprietors a cent for repairs, or anything of that kind. 
 
 There is one point in the paper which particularly struck me, and 
 that is the importance of municipalities providing proper men to super- 
 vise these systems. 
 
 We have had systems in Ontario in the past where, under the pro- 
 vincial board of health, systems have been installed, and they have been 
 left to their own sweet will, with the idea that they would simply work 
 along perfectly satisfactory, and as a consequence the systems that have 
 been established have fallen into disrepute ; they have become a nuisance, 
 and where they have had a disposal of some kind they have come back 
 to the provincial board, saying: ^‘Here you have given us a wrong 
 system.” 
 
 The reader of the paper impresses the fact that we want intelligent 
 supervision and constant supervision, not only by the local authorities, 
 but by the state authorities, if you wish them to be a success. I thank 
 you, gentlemen. 
 
 Mr. R. Winthrop Pratt: I would like to say a word emphasizing 
 what Mr. Johnson said in regard to the fertilizing value of sewage. A 
 good many people have the idea that sewage is very valuable, and that 
 it contains many valuable substances for fertilizers, and that it is a waste 
 not to get these substances out. This is not so. 
 
 In the arid regions of the west it has been found that it is profitable 
 to run the sewage on the excessively dry land, for the reason that land 
 will take up the liquid as well as the solid portions — absorb all that 
 goes on to it. 
 
 In the east, on the filtration beds, sewage crops have been grown 
 with success. However, it has been found that after a few years the 
 filtering material suffers by decreasing in size, and a nuisance is created 
 by the ponding of the sewage. Much care is therefore required. 
 
 Then there recently has been proposed a scheme for separating the 
 solid from the liquid matter of the sewage and changing it into fertilizer 
 by a reduction process. When we consider that it takes over ten thou- 
 sand people to make two tons of sludge each day, and that only a small 
 per cent, of these two tons contains material which has value for fer- 
 tilizer, we can see that only in the very largest cities would it be profitable 
 
OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 41 
 
 to separate the solid matter from the liquid matter in sewage, even if 
 a practicable method for so doing could be devised. 
 
 Furthermore, after the solid matter has been separated for that pur- 
 pose the liquid matter would still be so impure that we should have to 
 have further purification for it. 
 
 Vice President Chapman: Mr. Johnson, do you wish to make any 
 further remarks? 
 
 Mr. Johnson: No, I thank you. 
 
 Dr. Probst : I think really we owe a debt of thanks to Mr. Johnson. 
 He is not a member of our association, but he has kindly consented to 
 give his time and come here and present this valuable paper, and also 
 he made it possible for us to visit the experiment station this afternoon. 
 
 I would, therefore, move that a vote of thanks be extended to Mr. 
 Johnson. 
 
 Motion seconded and unanimously carried. 
 
 Vice President Chapman : We have twenty minutes before we need 
 to adjourn to the street car, and I have one question here. Are there 
 any othCT questions in the gentlemen’s pockets? If there are hand them 
 up to me\nd I will try to see they are read now. 
 
 I have^hree questions on one paper; with your permission I will 
 read them, t^at some of you may answer them. 
 
 Question :%i Would it be admissible to quarantine patients suffering 
 from smallpox m. one room of house, fumigating the place and allow the 
 others to attend tc>. their duties? 
 
 That is a pertinent question; can any one answer it? 
 
 Dr. Friedrich: Vj have just had experience in that matter, and 
 decidedly it is not adii^ssible. I think that is the best way of spreading 
 smallpox, for if you define one in one room of a house and let the 
 others go as they pleas^dt is simply impossible to keep them separate 
 unless there is a man at tl% door, and then it is hard to control them. I 
 think the only way is to j1|st take the patient out. Remove him to a 
 hospital ; keep him there, and ’^nder no circumstances do I think it would 
 be advisable to have a room q%rantined, and the rest of the house not 
 under quarantine. % 
 
 Vice President Chapman: any one take another view of that? 
 
 Dr. Brand : I am not at all surp^^sed that this question was brought 
 forward. In a little discussion with yJk coming down on the train yes- 
 terday I anticipated the wrong applicatioifi^f this observation quarantine 
 in just such a manner as this. 
 
 While personally I am an advocate of tte method of quarantining 
 smallpox, I am only an advocate of it in so fa^that the health officer of 
 the community shall be a medical officer who ik trained in that work ; 
 
42 
 
 OHIO SANITARY BULLETIN. 
 
 that he shall have competent, trained medical inspectors, to keep his 
 observation over these houses that are quarantined in that way; and 
 unless the communities are so provided with physicians who are thor- 
 oughly competent to carry on a quarantine in that method, it is not 
 advisable to handle smallpox in that way, because unless a man is qual- 
 ified medically to deal with such a disease he can not handle smallpox 
 or prevent the spread of the disease in that manner. 
 
 The great fault is that very many of our health officers, particularly 
 in the townships, are men who have absolutely no medical qualifications 
 whatever; they have no knowledge of pathology, or in fact of the symp- 
 toms of the disease. They endanger the lives of the communities by any 
 manner of handling smallpox except the correct manner. 
 
 Vice President Chapman : Then you would not advocate the quar- 
 antining in a room — that is the question ? 
 
 Dr. Brand: No, sir; not by any means. 
 
 Dr. Anderson, Lakewood : In regard to these questions. They say 
 not to quarantine in one room. Dr. Friedrich speaks of taking to the pest 
 house. We have no pest house. 
 
 Dr. Friedrich: Take a schoolhouse; hire a schoolhouse. 
 
 Dr. Andersen : And I handed the question in for that reason ; to 
 find out whether it would be permissible for the State Board of Health 
 to allow any condition of that kind. 
 
 Vice President Chapman : It is a practical difficulty. I have had 
 considerable experience in this thing, and have had considerable trouble 
 in getting a pest house. I sympathize with the asker of the question as 
 to getting a hospital. 
 
 I don’t myself think it is advisable to have the case of smallpox in 
 one house with anybody else. 
 
 Dr. A. L. Jones, of Lima: I don’t think every community can have 
 a pest house, and I think it devolves upon the community to isolate small- 
 pox. The pest house is a luxury for a good many places, and especially 
 the townships where it is to-day out of the question. 
 
 In speaking of the quarantining that is being done in the country, 
 why, around Lima the trustees are kind enough to call in the physician 
 or physicians that are eligible to take care of smallpox, to protect these 
 cases. If the character of the people is such that they require guards, 
 why, they are given guards ; if not they are permitted to occupy their 
 home and their wants are supplied by the attending physician. If they 
 have stock one of the boys or the father attends to it. 
 
 While, of course, there may be many objections to this, at the same 
 time it is out of the question, so far as expense goes, for that township, 
 perhaps, to protect the case in any other manner or form.