Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Best Practice Protocols for Response and
Recover Operations in Contaminated Water
Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review
Report
WESTERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
Bowling Green, Kentucky
UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY
Lexington, Kentucky
UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE
Louisville, Kentucky
UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI
Columbia, Missouri
Prepared by Thomas Clevenger and Ron Belyea, University of Missouri
1
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
1. Introduction
The objective of this project is to develop an analysis and decision support tool (either a
computer model or guidance document) that will provide guidance to water sector owners and
operators for the decontamination of water systems after a significant chemical or biological
agent contamination. The desired outcome of this project is guidance that will assist local, state,
and regional Water Sector utility owners and operators during their initial response to, and
subsequent decision making regarding, flushing and restoring contaminated water systems.
The first step in this process was to conduct a literature review of the latest literature pertaining
to the decontamination of drinking water systems. All literature was to be open to the general
public. This is a preliminary copy being shared with the advisory committee. The draft copy is
due on March 15, 2011 to National Institute for Hometown Security.
It is clear from the results of the search of the open literature there is a lack of information on
the actual decontamination of a drinking water distribution system. For example one search
gave:
Search phrase
Contaminants in drinking water
Contaminants in drinking water systems
Removing contaminants from drinking water systems
2565
239
13
It also became evident that most of the information on different chemical, biological, and
radiological agents was located in secured locations. EPA has been working to develop a
comprehensive information resource and will be utilized in the cause of emergency. It is
thought that this project should not duplicate this effort but provide stakeholders with the
necessary information to be prepared to implement EPA recommended decontamination
treatment procedures in the case of an emergency.
The following is the general search procedure used. Various combinations of key words were
used but concentrated on decontamination of drinking water.
2
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Broad literature search o f websites and databases: contaminants in drinking
water/distribution systems
Government websites:
EPA/DHS
CIPAC
NIMMS/NIPP
GAO
NAS/NRC
Research databases:
Academic search Premier
Compendex
Scopus
Technology Research Database
Water Research Abstracts
Background
Following the attacks on 9/11 and other terrorism activities, legislative action (Bioterrorism Act)
and executive directives (HSPD 7, Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization and Protection) gave
the USDHS the overall responsibility of protecting critical infrastructure and key resources. It gave the
EPA the specific responsibility of protecting the water sector. To address these responsibilities, EPA
formed the Water Protection Task Force in 2001, later designated the Water Security Division (WSD) in
2003. The Office of Research and Development (ORD) subsequently formed the National Homeland
Security Research Center (NHRSC) in 2003. The NHSRC has the responsibility of conducting applied
research and to develop analytical methods, models, decontamination technologies, technical guides
and risk assessment techniques for use by the water sector to protect infrastructure. WSD has the
responsibility of providing the water sector with risk assessment and response systems and tools,
technical assistance and with maintaining information databases and coordination. The combined
3
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
activities of these two agencies lead to a series of publications for addressing security and protection of
the drinking water and wastewater sectors.
In 2002, EPA issued a document (EPA, 2002) that provided a detailed set of guidelines for water
utilities to use as a basis for responding to, recovering from and remediating of facilities in response to
emergencies related to water systems, which included both drinking water and waste water
infrastructure. This document provided general guidance for sampling contaminated material and gave
examples of response actions for different types of contamination events
In early 2003, the EPA issued a document (EPA, 2003a) that provided guidelines for water
systems to refer to when making vulnerability assessments; largewater systemswere required to submit
the assessment to the EPA in 2003 and 2004. The assessment documented characteristics of the
system, including structural aspects, equipment, critical assets, liability for intrusion, security measures,
and other security related information. The water utility was required to document evidence of an
emergency response plan, which was at that point was quite general.
Later in 2003, EPA (2003b) provided detailed guidelines for large water systems to use in
creating an emergency response plan (ERP); this addressed issues such as documenting infrastructure,
identifying alternative water sources, creating a chain of command of responsible personnel,
establishing a communication network, providing for worker safety, creating equipment inventory,
providing training for personnel, incident specific action plans, and other aspects associated with
emergency management. This provided water systems and personnel an organized and detailed plan
for dealing with contamination of water and water systems.
In 2003 and 2004, EPA published a series of documents that addressed in significant detail plans
for the water sector to use as guidelines for responding to contamination threats and incidences (EPA,
2003c-2004c). These documents were designated as Response Protocol Tool Boxes (RPTB); each
document (Module) addressed specific aspects of detecting and responding to contamination events.
Module 1 (EPA 817D03001) provided planning guidelines for water utilities to respond to contamination
events. It provided information about what constitutes a contamination threat versus an incident and
presented classes and examples of contaminants. It also provided guidelines for how to respond to
contamination events, how to develop a plan for responding (equipment and personnel) and how to
manage information flow and communications.
Module 2 (EPA 817D03002) addressed specific aspects of contaminant threat management. It
suggests the responsibilities of key personnel and provided guidelines for distinguishing amongdifferent
stages of contaminant threats. It specifically discusses the role of different types and sources of
information used in determining threat stages. Finally, this document suggests overall responses when
a contamination event is confirmed.
Module 3 (EPA 817D03003) provided detailed information regarding characterization of
contamination sites and sampling approaches. It specifically addresses how contamination sites should
be managed to preserve information and integrity, how to obtain relevant samples and how to
characterize the site. It suggests roles of responsible personnel and provides detailed information on
sampling materials, sampling methods, sample preservation, field kit testing and other relevant
information.
4
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Module 4 (EPA 817D03004) addresses analytical measurement of contaminants and has has
sections focusing on specific aspects of analytical measurement. It provides a broad discussion on
laboratory types and capabilities in respect to the different types (classes) of contaminants. There is
discussion about handling emergency samples, laboratory infrastructure, data analysis and management
and sample procurement and processing. There is discussion about how to deal with unknown
contaminants. Finally, there is significant detailed discussion about specific analytical procedures for the
different classes of contaminants; examples of site-specific contaminants and appropriate analytical
approaches are also provided.
Module 5 (EPA 817D03005) addresses public health issues. This provides guidelines for
determining personnel and agencies responsible for public health responses, for developing a
communication approach and response actions, for assessing effects on distribution and public health,
for developing operational responses (containment, etc.) and for notifying the public. It also addresses
the issue of alternative water sources, water purification and use of contaminated water for nonpotable purposes. The appendix contains worksheets that provides for recording of data that are
important in contaminant characterization and for public health responses. Some general
contamination alternatives are suggested; a brief description is provided for PipelineNet, which is an
EPA modeling program that predicts fate and transport of contaminants in distribution systems.
Module 6 (EPA 817D03006) addresses remediation of contaminated water and infrastructure
and recovery/return to normal use. This document specifically provides guidance of planning activities
for effective remediation and recovery and outlines roles and responsibilities of key personnel. It shows
how to carry out risk assessment, how to characterize systems so that remediation activities can be
carried out, how to sample for relevant analytical data, how to carry out feasibility and treatability
studies to determine practical approaches and how to evaluate alternative strategies for
decontamination. Technologies for decontaminating both water and infrastructure are described in
detail. There are guidelines for evaluating remedial activities, for dealing with post-remedial issues,
such as residuals and contaminated water and infrastructure, and for providing alternative water
sources. Finally, there is discussion about how to provide the public with appropriate information about
the status of the incident.
In 2004, EPA published Response Guidelines (EPA 817D04001); this document was a condensed
version of the RPTB modules 1-6 and provided guidelines for water utilities to use as a reference for
responding to a contamination event (2004c). It presented an outline of relationships for
communication among personnel responsible for different activities in response to a contamination
event. It contained data sheets for evaluating threats, security breaches and other activities related to
contamination threats; it also contained data sheets for documenting changes in water quality and
public health concerns related to contamination of water supplies. It provided detailed and concise
guidelines for obtaining and handling relevant samples for analytical measurements, for site
characterization and preservation, for on-site testing and for dealing with unidentified contaminants.
There are description of classes of contaminants and examples within each class and suggested methods
for decontamination. It also presents a worksheet that can be used to assess public health concerns and
communication. At the end of the document are a series of matrices that provide guidelines for
evaluating threat stages and for appropriate responses. Overall, this document provides relatively
concise information for evaluating and responding to contamination.
In 2005, EPA (2005a) published documentation that encouraged and provided guidelines for the
establishment of Security-Information Collaboratives. These were formal or informal relationships
5
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
among water utilities and various public agencies that could share information related to security of
water and water systems. For example, a water utility could attain access to the Water Information
Sharing and Information Center (WaterISAC), which can provide timely information regarding threats,
contamination and related security issues. A primary goal of this effort was to promote information
sharing among public agencies and increasing public awareness about water security, contamination
and decontamination/recovery and to promote effective interaction among affected agencies.
`
The overall roles and responsibilities of the WSD and NHSRC were published in a follow-up
document (EPA 600R04037) that summarized current and future activities related to security of the
water sector (EPA, 2004d). The technical projects briefly described in this publication are presented in
greater detail in the Technical Action Plan (EPA 600R04063). `The Water Security Research and
Technical Action Plan (EPA 600R04063) provides a detailed description of the history and structure of
the efforts to attain security of the water sector (EPA 2004e). This document describes the overarching
needs of the program, such as identifying and characterizing the most likely contaminants and
developing methods for detection. It also addressed the needs for containing and decontaminating
water and distribution infrastructure, such as need for fate and transport data for critical contaminants
and need for better understanding of distribution structures and surfaces. It also addressed the need
for contingency operations, such as alternative water sources and new technologies for providing water
supplies when sources are disrupted. Finally, the document describes the interaction among different
agencies and institutions to share and dispense appropriate data and information for use by the water
sector to address contamination events.
In 2004, EPA published a document (EPA 816R04002) that provided guidelines for small and
medium sized water systems to use for devising emergency response plans (EPA 2004f). This document
provided information for small and medium facilities to develop important components of an
emergency response plan, such as roles and responsibilities of personnel, communication procedures,
safety, sampling and monitoring and planning for alternative water sources. It also provided examples
of communications regarding drinking water status and treatment and examples of actions for water
utilities for different security threat levels.
In 2005, EPA published a document (EPA 625R05002); this publication provide guidelines for
water utilities and other relevant agencies to form associations for sharing information and addressing
important central issues. It provides the opportunity for relationships to be developed among personnel
who have responsibilities for dealing with a contamination event. It also provides the opportunity for
sharing resources and ideas. Three case studies are presented and analyzed as examples of security
collaborative. In 2005, EPA published a document (EPA 817D05003) describing efforts to develop
warning systems for detecting contamination events (EPA, 2005b). This system would integrate on-line
monitoring of water, analytical data, consumer input, health responses and other information to assess
contamination events. An important contribution would be the integration of relevant data to make
evaluate contamination events and to suggest consequences and management. In 2005, EPA also
published guidelines for small water systems (less than 3300 users) for carrying out vulnerability
assessments and developing emergency response plans. The guidelines are based on plans for larger
systems but are simpler and involve fewer resources and personnel.
In 2007, EPA reported the creation of a database (Water Contaminant Information Tool, WCIT;
EPA 817F07001) that includes critical information about contaminants that could pose significant threats
6
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
to water security (EPA, 2007d). It is located in a secure website; availability is limited to certain
personnel in the water sector. There over 100 contaminants in the database; for each contaminant,
there is important information, such as chemical characteristics, fate and transport, health risks,
environmental impacts, decontamination methods and other data. The WCIT is continually being
updated and includes both regulated and non-regulated materials. In the event of a contamination, the
WCIT presumably would serve as an immediate source of detailed, concise information about the
characteristics of the contaminant, health risks and appropriate responses.
In 2008, the Critical Infrastructure Partnership Advisory Council (CIPAC) issued a report that addressed
decontamination issues. CIPAC consisted of members from the water sector and from the government
sector; its main objective was to identify priorities for decontamination and recovery from
contamination events. Their objectives were to identify key decontamination issues and gaps in
information, develop recommendations for priorities for EPA to address, and to develop a long term
strategy for addressing decontamination issues. They developed a priority list of 16 decontamination
issues that needed attention. These issues (in abbreviated form) were:
1. Dealing with contaminated water.
2. Short term solutions.
3. Decontamination of treatment plants.
4. Decontamination decision-making.
5. Decontamination of distribution system.
6. Outreach and training.
7. Communications to public.
8. Clean up levels.
9. Treatment methods for contaminated water.
10. Fate and transport data.
11. Waiver process.
12. Roles and responsibilities.
13. Resources for decontamination.
14. Analytical.
15. Health and safety of personnel.
2. Decontamination Procedures and Applications
Following a confirmed contamination event, the decontamination, remediation and recovery
processes would typically be initiated. The direction that decontamination will take probably will
depend on several factors, such as class, concentration and characteristics of the contaminant;
type/surface characteristics of the distribution system; volume of affected water; extent of
contamination; resources available for response; and other factors. Contamination most likely will
initially will involve water-either at the source or from within the water distribution system. Many
contaminants will react, to one extent or another, with surfaces, deposits and films of distribution
systems. Therefore, it is assumed that, for most contaminants, contamination of water will result in
contamination of infrastructure. Thus, decontamination considerations will have to include both water
and water system.
7
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Fox (2004) evaluated technologies available for decontaminating water and water systems. The
water decontamination technologies included activated carbon, coagulation/settling/filtration, direct
filtration and membrane systems. Infrastructure technologies included flushing, disinfection, cleaning
compounds and mechanical cleaning. He suggested that some of these technologies could be readily
adaptable for decontamination either at the treatment plant level or at the end user level. He also
emphasized that some of the treatment technologies create residual material that may be hazardous
and need special attention. He indicated that there was a lack of data on the effectiveness of
surfactants in removing contaminants from distribution surfaces.
A. Decontamination of Water
Technologies and procedures for decontamination of water are described in detail in EPA 817
D03006 (EPA, 2004b). There are a number of technologies developed for and used by the water sector
for addressing water quality and composition issues. Table 1 provides a summary of each of these
technologies and relative effectiveness against each class of contaminant. While this table does not
provide data to indicate expected removal efficiency, it does provide an overview of potential methods
for removing a wide variety of contaminants from water.
Table 1. Technologies used to decontaminate water and relative effectiveness1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Inorganic
Technology
Chemicals
Microbes
Non volatile
Volatile
Radio-
organic
organic
nuclides
chemicals
chemicals
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Activated alumina
+++2
ne3
+++
id4
id
Activated carbon
+
id
+
++
++
Air stripping
ne
ne
ne
ne
++
Chloramination
id
+
ne
id
id
Chlorination
+
++
ne
id
+
Chlorine dioxide
+
++
ne
id
+
Coagulation/filtration
+
++
ne
+
ne
Direct filtration
id
++
id
id
id
Ion exchange
++
ne
++
ne
ne
MF/UF5
id
++
id
ne
ne
Ozonation
+
++
ne
+
+
RO/UF
++
++
++
++
ne
UV disinfection
ne
++
ne
id
id
Advanced oxidation
+
++
ne
++
++
6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
1
Data taken from EPA (2004b).
2
+ = typically less effective; +++ = typically more effective.
3
ne = not effective.
4
id = insufficient data.
5
MF/UF = microfiltration/ultrafiltration.
6
RO/UF = reverse osmosis/ultrafiltration.
These technologies are described in more detail in the following pages. Table 2 (following
descriptions) contains detailed information about mode of actions, residuals generated and practical
usefulness of each technology and target contaminant (s).
1. Activated alumina
Activated alumina removes ions in water by adsorption. It will remove inorganic anions and
cations, some organic matter and radium. Effectiveness (efficiency of removal) can be affected by
conditions of the water source, such as pH, concentrations of other contaminants, contact time and
method used for regeneration. Residuals are created in the regeneration process, which is
accomplished by flushing with strong base, water and strong acid. The resulting brine will contain high
contentrations of the contaminant and impurities. Activated alumina is commercially available and
typically used mostly for water treatment and less frequently for remediation.
2. Activated carbon
Activated carbon is similar in activity to activated alumina in that its mode of action is
adsorption. It typically is in two forms, granular activated carbon (GAC) and powdered activated carbon
(PAC). It is most effective against dissolved aromatic and aliphatic organic compounds; it is less effective
against dissolved metals and other inorganic compounds. Conditions impact effectiveness; for example,
presence of impurities, pH, temperature, contact time and concentration of dissolved organic matter.
Residuals occur when adsorption sites in activated carbon become saturated and can result in
downstream contamination, if not managed correctly. When regenerated, the resulting material can
contain high concentrations of the contaminant (s) as well as impurities. GAC has been used in water
treatment to control odor and taste but could be used for remediation. Commercially available systems
could be quickly and readily adaptable to water systems for quick response to a contamination event.
3.
Advanced Oxidation Processes
In advanced oxidation processes, remediation is achieved by exposure of the contaminant to
strong oxidants; UV energy, ozone and/or peroxide often is/are used to enhance the process. The
process is effective against bacteria (pathogens) and a variety of organic compounds with double bonds,
such as toluene, petroleum and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Certain conditions can significantly impede
the process, including high concentrations of minerals and lipids. The process does not result in
residuals, but disinfection by-products can be produced from certain organic compounds. This
technology is well developed, and commercial systems are readily available.
9
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
4.
Air Stripping
Air stripping is a physical process in which volatile organic compounds are separated from water
with a stream of air; the equipment can take different forms. Air stripping is effective against non-polar
volatile organic compounds, some pesticides and petroleum products. Interference can occur with high
concentrations of inorganic compounds or bacteria. High temperatures, turbulence and air to water
ratio also can affect effectiveness of air stripping. Volatile contaminants will be produced; the resulting
off-gas may need treatment. Air stripping is a practical technology; commercial systems are available
and can be configured to meet conditions at local facilities.
5.
Chloramination
Chloramination is a disinfection process that removes pathogens by oxidation; it has no effect
on other contaminants. It is attained by combining chlorine and ammonia, forming chloramines.
Chloramines have a longer lasting residual effect than chlorine and produce less disinfection byproducts.
They are less germicidal than chlorine and require longer contact time than chlorine. Chloramines are
toxic to aquatic animals. Effectiveness is impacted by pH, contact time, temperature and oxygen
demand. There are no residuals per se, but disinfection byproducts can be formed, which can have toxic
effects. Chloramination is a well developed technology; commercial systems are available to meet
different local requirements and conditions.
6.
Chlorination
Chlorination is another disinfection process in which chlorine gas or hypochlorite is added to
water; this results in hypochlorus acid, which will inactivate bacteria, viruses, spores and parasites by
oxidation. Chlorination can result in oxidation of some inorganic and organic compounds. Effectiveness
is dependent of contact time, concentration, pH, temperature and form of compound. No residuals are
created, but disinfection byproducts (halomethanes and haloacetic acids) can be formed. These are toxic
and a concern. Chlorination has been used in water treatment for a long time; equipment and chemicals
are commercially available for a wide variety of local conditions. Because chlorine gas is hazardous, it
must be managed correctly.
7.
Chlorine Dioxide
This treatment process in attained by combining chlorine and sodium hypochlorite in water. It
is very effective against bacteria, viruses, spores and parasites; it also can oxidize some organic and
inorganic compounds. It typically is a stronger biocide than chlorine, because it does not dissociate at
normal pHs. Contact time, pH, temperature, concentration and oxygen demand can affect
effectiveness. No residual material is created when chlorine dioxide is used to treat water, but
disinfection byproducts can be formed and are toxic. Chlorine dioxide is less frequently used for water
treatment, but commercial systems are readily available for use by local water systems.
8.
Coagulation/Filtration and Direct Filtration
10
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
In these processes, a coagulant is added to water to create aggregates or flocs; in
coagulation/filtration, the floc is allowed to settle (clarify) and smaller particles are removed by
filtering, such as through a sand bed. In direct filtration, the clarification step is omitted and the
coagulant-water mix is filtered after the flocculation step. These processes are most effective against
microbes and suspended solids but may remove some organic and inorganic compounds. A variety of
factors can affect the effectiveness of these processes, including turbidity, pH, temperature, coagulant
concentration, mixing and variation in composition of the treated water stream. A significant amount
of residual material (sludge) can be created from these processes; sludge can contain the contaminant
(s). These technologies typically are used to treat waste water and source waters; commercial units
are available but typically are used in small, specific applications, such as hospitals.
9.
Ion exchange
This process uses exchange resins to remove anionic and/or cationic contaminants from water.
This can include inorganic and organic compounds that are charged, as well as certain radionuclides.
Removal efficiency is affected by several factors, such as pH, speciation, contact time, regeneration
method, competing ions and other factors. Ion exchange can result in significant residues that arise
when the resin is regenerated; the resulting residue can contain high concentrations of contaminants
and also can be corrosive. This technology is well developed; there are different configurations and
applications, and there are many vendors. The most common application is for softening water;
applications for removing contaminants may less well developed and expensive.
10. Microfiltration/Ultrafiltration
In these processes, contaminants are separated from water under pressure passes across a
membrane with specific porosity. Compounds (contaminants) that are too large to clear the pores are
retained in the retentate; the size of the pores determines what is removed. Depending on pore size,
these processes are effective in removing larger particles and microbes (microfiltration) or small
particles, some organic compounds and viruses (ultrafiltration). Conditions, such as pressure, flow rates,
concentration of contaminant, concentration of other solutes, temperature, membrane material and
other factors can affect removal efficiency. Filtration results in significant residual material that arises
from the retentate, which can contain high levels of contaminants and other compounds. Washing
cycles also can create harmful residual material. Micro/ultrafiltation is a well developed technology that
us very flexible and can adapt to many situations and conditions. Units can be connected in different
configurations to attain maximum efficiency and can be combined with other technologies (i.e,
coagulation) to improve effectiveness.
11. Ozonation
Ozone is a very strong oxidizing compound and is produced by producing ozone from oxygen
and dissolving it in water; ozone reacts quickly and decomposes. It will inactivate most organisms, some
organic compounds, some viruses, some sprores and some parasites. Efficiency is affected by pH,
temperature, oxygen concentration, temperature, ozone concentration and other factors. The main
residual is off-gas (ozone), which can react with many compounds and create secondary products that
11
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
can be harmful. The ozone process is used to treat water. Equipment is commercially available and
could be used by water utilities. It requires considerable electrical energy, and operators need special
training to operate ozone equipment to prevent health problems.
12. Reverse Osmosis/Nanofiltration
In both reverse osmosis and nanofiltration, membranes are use to separate contaminants from
water. Water is forced under pressure through a semipermeable membrane; compounds in the water
are selectively retained, depending on the porosity of the membrane. Both processes can remove
dissolved organic and inorganic molecules, pathogens and viruses. RO is capable of removing ions, such
as Na and Cl; nanofiltration is not capable of this separation. Efficiency of removal depends on type of
membrane and conditions of the water stream (amount of suspended solids, which cause fouling). Both
processes generate waste streams that can be high in contaminants as well as solutes. There also can
be significant amounts of membrane cleaning wastes. RO/NF technology often is used to process
brackish water; systems are commercially available and can be adapted to a variety of conditions.
Pretreatment is often needed to prevent fouling.
13. UV Disinfection
In this process UV electromagnetic energy from mercury arc lamps is used to inactivate
microorganisms (pathogens) by disrupting the structure of DNA. This technology is effective against
most bacteria, viruses and protozoa. Water temperature and pH do not impact effectiveness, but
turbidity and high concentrations of organic matter can reduce activity. No residual wastes are
generated with UV treatment, but disinfection byproducts can be formed and create health concerns.
Commercial units are readily available and can be configured to meet a variety of conditions and sizes of
water utility systems. Some advantages are low contact times and high flow rates, simplicity of
configuration and relatively automatic operation.
12
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Table 2. Characteristics of water decontamination technologies
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mode of
Effective
Residuals
Practical
Technology
action
against
generated
usefulness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Activated alumina
Adsorption
Inorganic chem. ,
cations and ions
Regen. mater. +
contaminant
+++
Activated carbon
Adsorption
Aromatic + aliphatic
organic cmpds.
Contaminant
+++
Advanced oxidation
Oxidation
Microbes +
some organic cmpds.
None
DBP possible
+++
Air stripping
Physical
action
Volatile organic
cmpds.
Contaminant
off-gas
+++
Chloramination
Oxidation
Bacteria, viruses,
spores, protozoa
DBP possible
+++
Chlorine dioxide
Oxidation
Bacteria, viruses,
Spores. Protozoa
DBP possible
+++
Coagulation/Filtration Separation/
and Direct Filtration
Filtration
Suspended particles,
dissolved organic and
inorganic cmpds.
Sludge +
contaminant
+
Ion exchange
Adsorption
Ionic metals, nonmetals, organic
acids, radionuclides
Regenerant +
contaminant
+
Microfiltration/
Ultrafiltration
Separation/
Filtration
Larger particles,
bacteria, viruses,
some organic cmpds
Retentate +
contaminant
+++
Ozonation
Oxidation
Most bacteria, some Ozone off-gas
organic cmpds, some
viruses, protozoa, spores
+
Reverse Osmosis/
Nanofiltration
Membrane
Separation
Dissolved organic and Contentrated
inorganic cmpds.,
contaminant
bacteria and viruses
stream
+
UV
Disinfection
Most bacteria, viruses, None
+++
spores, parasites
DBP possible
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
B. Technologies for Decontamination of Infrastructure
Contamination of infrastructure typically would occur secondarily to contamination of water per
se. Therefore, it is apparent that treatment of water could either precede treatment of the
distribution system or possibly coincide with treatment of the system to remove the contaminant (s).
Some treatment technologies could apply to both water decontamination and system
decontamination. For example, disinfection could be used to treat both water and infrastructure, either
separately or simultaneously. A general description of technologies that could be used to
decontaminate infrastructure is provided by EPA (2004b) and is summarized below.
1. Disinfection
Disinfection of infrastructure could involve chlorine, chloramination, chloride dioxide and other
methods. Disinfection typically would be directed at biological agents, such as bacteria (pathogens),
viruses, spores and parasites. These agents can be embedded in the deposits and surfaces of pipes and
other infrastructure materials, which can make disinfection a difficult and unpredictable process under
certain conditions. As with treating water, this method can result in disinfection byproducts, which can
result in health concerns.
2. Flushing
Flushing most likely would be the first mode of action under many circumstances. Flushing could
mean strictly removing a pool of contaminated water from the facilities to a treatment or disposal
outlet. Flushing also can refer to the rinsing of facilities after contamination has occurred and
contaminated water has been flushed out. The assumption would be that the contaminant (s) is
known to adhere in significant concentration on the deposits and/or surfaces of the distribution
system. Considerable residual material may be produced when the system is flushed, and the
contaminant could be present in significant concentrations. Flushing can be accomplished by using
only water or by including cleaning compounds.
3. Pigging, Swabbing, Mechanical Cleaning and/or Chemical Cleaning
These processes involve action that removes the deposits of surfaces of the distribution
systems, typically pipes. Usually water under high pressure is used to carry the cleaning agent (bullet
or chemical) through pipes, dislodging deposits, biofilm, scale and other material. Presumably, this
would also remove embedded contaminants. This approach could generate a significant amount of
residual material that could contain high concentrations of the contaminant (s).
4. Air Scouring
Air scouring involves forcing compressed air through an isolated section of the distribution
system to physically remove deposits, scale, biofilm and other material. Presumably, the contaminant
(s) would be removed with the scoured out material. Residual water will contain debris; removal of the
residual water should remove the debris. The contaminant concentration of the residual material could
be significant and pose a disposal challenge.
14
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
5. Sandblasting
In sandblasting, abrasive material, such as sand or bicarbonate, is blown against surfaces of
infrastructure (usually larger equipment, such as tanks) to remove deposits adhering to surfaces.
This can remove biofilm, deposits, scale, sediment and other materials; adherent contaminants are
simultaneously removed and can be found in the resulting residues. Contaminant concentrations
can be significant under some conditions and may have to be dealt with secondarily.
6. Relining Systems
Systems that are beyond adequate remediation may have to be relined; this can be done in
different ways. Usually, it is accomplished by coating pipe surfaces with various compounds by
brushing or spraying. The lining material can be concrete or epoxy resins; the latter bind very
strongly to pipe materials, which makes the surface stable and inert. Contaminants are sealed in the
layers and are controlled; they can not leach into the water stream. Linings made of resins make the
water distribution system quite inert and stable. Relining is more cost effective than replacing water
system pipes.
7. Replacing Infrastructure
Contamination of the system could be too extensive or difficult to remediate; in this
case, portions or all of the distribution system may have to be replaced. Sections that are removed
could contain significant amounts of the contaminant (s) and, depending on the contaminant and its
characteristics, disposal could require special attention. Replacing the system or portions of the
system may be a longterm process, and alternative water sources may be needed.
C. Disposal of Residual Material
Many of the technologies for removal of contaminants from water and/or infrastructure
result in residual material or contaminated equipment that may contain significant quantities of the
contaminant(s). For example, coagulation/filtration can generate considerable quantities of solids
(sludge) that presumably would contain the contaminant (s). Depending on what the contaminant is,
what it concentration is and what its characteristics are, disposal of secondary materials could
require specific methods. Contaminated materials could also include water, soil, filters, protective
gear, etc. that may require specific disposal actions as required by different regulatory agencies.
Contaminated water could arise directly from the contamination event and include all the
water in the distribution system and from end users. It also could arise indirectly, such as
contamination of surface waters or wells due to runoff or migration. The fate of contaminated water
will depend on the type of contaminant, how hazardous it is and what its concentration is. If it is
determined to be not hazardous, it may be discharged to a water source or sent to a water treatment
facility (POTW). If the contaminant is hazardous, the contaminated water may be discharged to a
POTW or injected underground. In order for a POTW to process the contaminated water, it must
have the capability to carry out appropriate treatment, to meet various regulatory requirements and
to contain the contaminated water without further contamination of the environment. Injection of
15
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
contaminated water into the ground (wells) depends on the type of contaminant and how hazardous
it is. There are different well classes that are designed to accommodate different types of
contaminants.
D. Decontamination Experiments
The preceding information provides basic information about different approaches for
decontaminating water distribution infrastructure. Obviously, the type/class of contaminant and its
concentration are important determinants of remediation methods. However, there are few
published data that can be used to make specific evaluations and resulting remediation approaches.
For example, if a system became contaminated with arsenic, what proportion of the contaminant
load would be expected to adhere to the walls, deposits, films, and scale of distribution lines
compared to the proportion remaining in the water phase. What decontamination approach should
be used for the water per se versus the approach for infrastructure. How strongly does arsenic
adhere to surfaces and deposits? Which decontamination approach will be most effective for
removing the media to which arsenic is adhered? What proportion of the adherent arsenic will be
removed by a specific technology?
Because of the lack of data on the behavior of contaminants in water systems and responses to
decontamination technologies, EPA carried out experiments to obtain relevant data on certain
contaminants/classes. These data were published in 2008 (EPA, 2008a) and provide the basis for
what is currently known about decontamination of water distribution systems. In these experiments,
five specific contaminants were used as test materials. They included arsenic, mercury, Bacillus
subtilis, diesel fuel and chlordane. The characteristics of these contaminants are summarized in
Table 3. These contaminants represent many of the contaminant profiles that water utilities might
have to face in a contamination event.
16
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Table 3. Characteristics of contaminants used in EPA pipe-loop experiments1
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Contaminant
Class
Characteristics
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Arsenic
Inorganic
chemical
Very water soluble
Inorganic poison
Mercury
Heavy metal
Fungicide
Water soluble
Bacillus subtilis
Microbial agent
Aerobic sporeformer
Surrogate for pathogens
Diesel fuel
Industrial
organic
chemical
Chlordane
Toxic organic
Chemical
Low water solubility
Represent organic contaminants
Adheres to surfaces intensely
Stable in water
Pesticide
Not water soluble
Stable and persistent
Can migrate in sediments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
EPA (2008a).
In this report, EPA described experiments used to obtain basic information on these specific
contaminants. The first sets of experiments were short term, bench scale tests to obtain initial data on
adherence of arsenic and mercury to cement ductiles. In these tests, cement ductiles were placed in
reactors and exposed to water contaminated with either sodium arsenite or mercury chloride for two
days. After two days, samples were analyzed for concentration of either contaminant and adherence
was calculated as proportion of total amount presented. Following these initial experiments, the EPA
carried out a series of dynamic experiments to determine: (1) the adherence of each contaminant to
pipe surfaces, and (2) the effectiveness of appropriate decontamination methods to remove adhered
contaminant. These experiments were done using a distribution simulation system in which water
containing the contaminant was circulated through a pipe loop that consisted of PVC pipes, feed tank,
valves pumps and other equipment. Sections of used cement ductile pipe from a utility or of clean PVC
pipe were placed in different positions in the loop; some sections were upstream and near the source
water, while others were downstream and distant from the source. The loop system was exposed
appropriate conditions to allow a biofilm to generate on the pipe surfaces. After the biofilm was
17
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
established, experiments were carried out with each contaminant; contaminant was added to the water
supply and circulated for 2 days. Some contaminants were circulated at different flow rates. Two pipe
surfaces (cement ductiles and PVC) were evaluated; some sections of pipe were located at the beginning
of the pipe loop and some were located at the end of the loop. The contaminated water was circulated
to two days; samples were taken from the contaminated water and from the cement ductiles and PVC
pipe for contaminant measurement and adherence determination. Then the contaminated surfaces
were exposed to decontamination methods; the decontamination approach varied with each
contaminant. After each run, contaminated ductiles were removed and replaced with uncontaminated
sections. A summary of contamination treatments and decontamination approaches is summarized in
Table 4.
Table 4. Contaminant, flow rates of contaminated water and decontamination approaches.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Flow
Decontamination
Contaminant
rate
approach
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic
1
15
60
60
60
60
60
60
60
Water flushing
Water flushing
Water flushing
Low pH flushing
Phosphate buffer flushing
Acidified permanganate flushing
Flushing compound 1
Flushing compound 2
Flushing compound 3
Mercury
1
15
60
60
60
Water flushing
Water flushing
Water flushing
Low pH flushing
Acidified permanganate flushing
Bacillus subtilis
60
60
Water flushing
Shock chlorination
Diesel fuel
60
60
Water flushing
Flushing compound 4
Chlordane
60
Flushing compound 4
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
The bench scale measurements for arsenic and mercury adherence to cement lined ductile
sections are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Adsorption of arsenic and mercury to cement lined ductiles (bench scale tests).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Based on water
Based on ductile
Extraction
measurements1
measurements2
efficiency3
Contaminant
%
%
%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Arsenic
27
18
67
Mercury
77
53
68
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Based on changes in concentration of water.
2
Based on changes in concentration in ductiles.
3
Ductile response/water response x 100.
These data show several interesting effects. There was a big difference between adsorption of
arsenic compared to mercury; adsorption of mercury was greater than for arsenic by about 3X (77 vs 27
% and 53 vs 18 % for water and ductile responses, respectively). Secondly, the adsorption based on
ductile measurements was substantially less than adsorption based on water responses. The reason for
the variation between the two approaches is not apparent; about 1/3 of each contaminant could not be
accounted for in the ductile measurements, compared to the water mass measurements.
Data from the dynamic tests using the pipe loop simulated distribution system show distinct
differences among the contaminants in adherence to surfaces and differences due to contaminant flow
rates and to position in the loop. These effects are summarized in Table 6. The data in Table 6 are
concentrations of contaminant per square inch; these data allow for a relative comparison of
concentrations, rather than absolute uptakes. However, the data show many important effects. At the
lowest flow rate (1 gal/min), concentrations of arsenic and mercury for ductiles at the beginning of the
loop were similar to those at the end. At the next flow rate (15 gal/min), concentrations in ductiles at
the end of the loop were substantially lower than those at the beginning for both contaminants; the
decline was greater for mercury than arsenic. Also, the concentration of arsenic in the beginning
sections increased a small amount (from 0.08 to 0.13 mg/ sq. in.), while for mercury the increase was
19
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
much greater (from 0.03 to 0.60 mg/sq. in.). At the highest flow rate (60 gal/min), concentration of
arsenic in ductiles at the beginning of the loop increased slightly, compared to the 15 gal/min flow rate.
For mercury, the increase in concentration for cement ductiles at the beginning of the loop was
substantial, compared to the 15 gal/min rate (from 0.60 to 1.7 mg/sq. in.). In ductiles at the end of the
loop, the concentration of arsenic increased from 0.16 to 0.30, while the concentration of mercury
increased from 1.7 to 2.0 mg/sq. in. of ductile.
Table 6. Concentrations1,2 of contaminants on pipe surfaces ( adherence tests): effect of flow rate,
position of test sections and pipe surface.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cement ductiles
PVC pipe
Flow
----------------------------------------Contaminant rate3
Beginning4
End4
Beginning4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Arsenic
1
15
60
0.08
0.13
0.16
0.08
0.06
0.30
0.03
0.02
0.02
Mercury
1
15
60
0.03
0.60
1.7
0.02
0.04
2.0
0.01
0.02
0.01
Bacillus subtilis 60
104-105
104-105
104
Diesel fuel
Chlordane
1.1
1.6
1.3
0.6
0.4
60
60
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Mg/ sq. in. for arsenic, mercury, diesel fuel and chlordane. CFU/ sq. in. for Bacillus subtilis.
2
Estimated means for duplicate ductiles.
3
Flow rate of water containing contaminant (gal/min).
4
Location of test section in pipe loop.
The effects of decontamination methods on removal of contaminants from the contaminated
pipe sections are summarized in Table 7 for arsenic and mercury and for Bacillus subtilis, diesel fuel and
chlordane in Table 7. For arsenic, ductiles contaminated at the low flow rate (1 gal/min), water flushing
was relatively effective (41 % for ductiles located at the beginning of the loop and 46 % for those at the
end of the loop). For ductiles exposed to contaminated water circulating at the two higher flow rates
(15 and 60 gal/min), concentrations of arsenic generally were higher than at the low flow rate.
Decontamination with water flushing was ineffective for ductiles exposed to contaminated water
circulated at 15 gal/min for both locations and for the 60 gal/min flow rate for ductiles located at the
beginning of the loop. For ductiles located at the end of the loop, water flushing removed 51 % of the
contaminant. The reason for the disparity among these treatments is not apparent. Flushing ductiles
20
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
with phosphate buffer had little effect on removal of arsenic; concentrations after flushing were higher
than before flushing for ductiles at both locations. Flushing with acidified permanganate was highly
effective for ductiles located at both locations (54 and 61 %, respectively). The cleaning compounds
gave different responses. Cleaner 1 removed much of the arsenic on ductiles from both locations (54
and 61 %). Cleaner 2 was ineffective for both locations; cleaner 3 was effective for ductiles from the
beginning of the loop but less effective for ductiles at the end of the loop. There was a great deal of
difference in the arsenic concentrations of ductiles in both locations prior to flushing. It is not clear why
this occurred, and it is not clear how this might have affected the effectiveness of decontamination.
For mercury, flushing with water gave variable results, similar to those for arsenic. For example,
the ductiles contaminated at the lowest flow rate (1 gal/min) and at the beginning of the loop had -18 %
removal (concentration was higher after flushing than before), compared to 40 % for ductiles at the end
of the loop. Similar variability occurred for ductiles contaminated at the two higher flow rates and
flushed with water. Flushing with low pH water gave low removal efficiencies (23 and 221 %). Flushing
with acidified permanganate resulted in effective removal of mercury from ductiles from both locations
(96 and 72 %, respectively), which was greater than the effect of acidified permanganate on arsenic
removal. It also must be noted that the mercury content of the ductiles before flushing was highly
variable from one flushing regime to another, such as those used in the acidified permanganate flushing
(6.5 and 4.6 mg) compared to ductiles used in the low pH flushing (25.6 and 20.1 mg, respectively). The
reason for these discrepancies is not apparent, and the effect on decontamination effectiveness is not
clear.
21
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Table 7. Effect of decontamination methods on removal of arsenic and mercury
from pipe sections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quantity on section1
DecontaLocation
-------------------------------Flow Pipe
mination
of
Before After Removal
Contaminant rate2 type3 method
section4
flush flush %
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Arsenic
1
D
Water flush
B
1.6
0.9
41
1
D
Water flush
E
1.6
0.8
46
15
D
Water flush
B
2.5
2.7
-10
15
D
Water flush
E
1.2
1.8
-55
60
D
Water flush
B
3.1
3.3
-7
60
D
Water flush
E
5.7
2.1
51
Mercury
60
60
D
D
Buffer flush
Buffer flush
B
E
5.6
4.6
6.5
5.7
-16
-24
60
60
D
D
Acidified permang.
Acidified permang.
B
E
6.3
4.5
2.9
1.8
54
61
60
60
D
D
Cleaner 1
Cleaner 1
B
E
2.1
1.7
1.1
0.6
46
65
60
60
D
D
Cleaner 2
Cleaner 2
B
E
2.1
1.7
1.9
2.0
67? (10)
63? (-18)
60
60
D
D
Cleaner 3
Cleaner 3
B
E
5.6
4.0
1.8
3.1
46? (68)
65? (22)
1
1
D
D
Water flushing
Water flushing
B
E
3.1
2.3
3.7
1.4
-18
40
15
15
D
D
Water flushing
Water flushing
B
E
11.2
6.2
4.9
5.1
57
19
60
60
D
D
Water flushing
Water flushing
B
E
31.7
37.3
25.5
20.2
18
46
60
60
D
D
Low pH flushing
Low pH flushing
B
E
25.6
20.1
19.7
15.8
23
21
60
D
Acidified permang.
B
6.5
0.29 96
60
D
Acidified permang.
E
4.6
1.3
72
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Mg of contaminant; averages of two ductiles per measurement.
2
Flow rate of water with contaminant in adherence phase.
22
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
3
D = cement ductile sections; PVC = PVC sections.
Location of pipe sections in loop; B = beginning; E = end.
The effects of different methods for decontamination of Bacillus subtilis, diesel fuel and
chlordane are presented in Table 8. For Bacillus subtilis, water flushing was ineffective. For both ductile
locations, concentrations were slightly higher after flushing than before. However, shock chlorination
was very effective. Bacteria concentrations were reduced about an order of magnitude for ductiles from
both locations, resulting in 94 and 96 % removal efficiency, respectively. For diesel fuel, flushing
removed a portion of the contaminant from the concrete ductiles(38 and 36 % for thos at the beginning
and end of the loop, respectively). Removal of diesel fuel from the PVC sections was much more
effective (74 % removal). Flushing with cleaner 4 was much more effective in removing diesel fuel from
the ductiles (> 91 and >96 %, respectively) and improved removal from the PVC sections a small amount
(78 %). For chlordane, cleaner 5 was highly effective in removing the contaminant from both concrete
ductile and PVC surfaces (91, 89 and 99 %, respectively).
4
Table 8 Effect of decontamination methods on removal of Bacillus subtilis, diesel fuel and chlordane
from pipe sections.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Quantity
on section1
DecontaLocation
----------------Flow Pipe
mination
of
Before After Removal
2
3
4
Contaminant rate
type method
section
flush flush %
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bacillus
60
D
Water flushing
B
4.6
5.4
-29
subtilis
60
D
Water flushing
E
5.6
6.2
-11
Diesel fuel
Chlordane
60
60
D
D
Shock chorination
Shock chlorination
B
E
7.9
4.8
0.46
0.18
94
96
60
60
60
D
D
PCV
Water flushing
Water flushing
Water flushing
B
E
B
22.6
25.5
11.8
14.1
16.2
3.8
38
36
74
60
60
60
D
D
PVC
Cleaner 4
Cleaner 4
Cleaner 4
B
E
B
33.8
75.0
20.0
<3.0
<3.0
4.5
>91
>96
78
60
60
60
D
D
PVC
Cleaner 5
Cleaner 5
Cleaner 5
B
E
B
29.5
11.9
6.5
2.7
1.3
.05
91
89
99
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
Mg of contaminant for diesel fuel and chlordane; CFU x 104/ml for Bacillus subtilis. Averages of two
ductiles per measurement.
2
Flow rate of water with contaminant in adherence phase.
3
D = cement ductile sections; PVC = PVC sections.
4
Location of pipe sections in loop; B = beginning; E = end.
23
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
In summary, mercury, Bacillus subtilis, diesel fuel and chlordane adhered strongly to concrete
ductile surfaces, while arsenic adhered less. Flow rate (mass effect) affected mercury adherence but not
arsenic. Adherence of contaminants to PVC was much less than for concrete ductiles. Flushing with
water had little effect on removal of these contaminants, except for removal of diesel fuel from PVC
surfaces. Acidified permanganate was effective in removing substantial amounts of both arsenic and
mercury from ductile surfaces; cleaners were effective in removing arsenic. Shock chlorination removed
most of the Bacillus subtilis contamination. Cleaners were effective in removing both diesel fuel and
chlordane.
Other Pertinent Literature
Abbaszadegan et al. 2007. Efficacy of removal of CCL viruses under enhanced coagulation conditions.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 41:971-977. In bench scale tests, increased ferric chloride and pH were evaluated
for effectiveness of removal of surrogate viruses. The concentration of most viruses was reduced about
2 orders of magnitude with certain conditions. In pilot scale tests, reductions were somewhat greater.
KW: Viruses, removal, coagulation, enhanced coagulation
Adams et al. 2008. The reduction of microbial and chemical contaminants with selected POU/POE
systems. World Environ. Water Res. Congr. 2008:1-10. Compared several different point of use
systems for ability to remove a variety of microbial and chemical contaminants. Generated significant
amounts of analytical and performance data. Systems varied in effectiveness in removing contaminants;
could serve as residential barrier as well as temporary contaminant removal systems for communities.
KW: Chemical contaminants, microbial contaminants, contaminant removal, POU, POE
Ahmad et al. 2009. Detection and occurrence of indicator organisms and pathogens. Water Environ.
Res. 81:959-980. Review of occurrence and transport of indicator organisms and pathogens in different
environmental settings, including ground water, watersheds and wetlands. Reviewed newer
technologies for detecting pathogens, including different PCR methods, markers and immunoassays.
Ahmed et al. 2010. Performance of nanofiltration membrane in a vibrating module (VSEP-NF) for
arsenic removal. Desalin. 252:127-134. Determined performance of a vibratory shear process in
combination with two NF with different pore sizes for arsenic removal from drinking water. The system
was relatively effective; arsenate was more completely removed than arsenic. A variety of operating
conditions had significant impacts on removal efficiency.
Ahmedna et al. 2004. The use of nutshell carbons in drinking water filters for removal of trace metals.
Water Res. 38:1062-1068.
Compared filter made from nutshells to commercial point of use filters in ability to remove
several toxic trace metals. Nutshells were more effective than commercial filters; combination of two
nutshell types were the most effective. Nutshell filters were longer lasting and less costly.
KW: GAC, drinking water filtration, POU filter, pecan shells, walnut shells, copper, lead, zinc
Akun. 2006. The weak link in the provision of safe drinking water. 8th Ann. Water Dist. Syst. Analysis
Sympos., Cinn., OH. Discussion about drinking water infrastructure. System originally designed for fire
24
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
protection. Made mainly of large diameter pipes that have long residence times and can result in
excessive biofilm buildup. May require necessary excessive disinfection. Usually contain large number
of joints that eventually usually leak and result in contamination during backpressure events.
Justification for a dual water system. KW: Distribution systems, drinking water quality, biofilms,
chemical and microbial contaminants
Alfonso et al. 2010. Multiobjective optimization of operational responses for contaminant flushing in
water distribution networks. JWRPM 136:48-58. Presents a method for finding sets of operational
interventions (algorithms) in a distribution network for flushing a contaminant in a way to minimize the
effects on users. Describes the system for a US city and discusses the approach used for optimization.
Includes use of EPANET. KW: Optimization, flushing, operation, water distribution system, water
pollution
Allgeier and Magnuson. 2004. Responding to threats and incidents of intentional drinking water
contamination. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ. 129:13-17. Discussion related to vulnerability of water
systems and approach to dealing with contamination events. One section on planning for response to a
contamination event; second section on evaluation significance of contamination threat. Third section
on response to contamination threat. KW: Contamination, threats, response to contamination,
evaluating contamination threat
Altman et al. 2006. Interaction of introduced biological agents with biofilms in water distribution
systems. 8th Ann. Water Distrib. Analys. Sympos., Cinn., OH. Investigated interaction of different
bacteria in reactors to chlorination after biofilm was established. Although pathogens integrated into
biofilms quickly, chlorination reduced concentrations significantly. Pathogens did not appear to recover
after chlorination was completed. It is not clear how accurately this effect might be in distribution
pipes, because of different conditions.
Amstutz et al. 2008. The integration of network-based models for spill response and homeland
security. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 4.554-550. Describes integration three GIS models that describe
infrastructure of US water distribution systems and how they could be related to other infrastructure
and used to monitor events surrounding a contamination event.
An et al. 2005. Selective removal of arsenate from drinking water using a polymeric ligand exchanger.
Water Res. 39:4993-5004. Developed a polymeric ligand exchanger by adding Cu++ to a chelating resin
and evaluated effectiveness in removing arsenate from water in a lab setting. Complex was highly
selective for arsenate, could process large volumes of contaminated water before exhausting and
operates in neutral pH. Can be regenerated readily and reused.
Ando et al. 2010. Comparison of natural organic matter adsorption capacities of super-powdered
activated carbon and powdered activated carbon. Water Res. 44:4127-4136. Showed that finely
ground (pulverized) activated carbon had greater adsorption capacity than activated carbon largely due
to increase in surface area.
Anipsitakis and Dionsyiou. 2006. Chemically induced redox reactions in water treatment: a summary of
advanced and direct technologies. World Environ. Water Res. Congress. 2006:1-10. Detailed discussion
of oxidation-redux reactions used to remove contaminants from drinking water.
25
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Atkins and Morandi. 2003. Protecting water system security information. Nat. Conf. State Legisl. 2003.
Ppg. 1-35. Overview of regulations that protect water security information from public access through
FOIA. Lists states with exemptions and their specific legal language.
Atkinson. 2006. Filtration technology verified to remove arsenic from drinking water. Membr. Technol.
March, 2006. Membrane technology cost effective method for removal of arsenic. Smaller water
distribution systems adapting technology extensively.
Bahadur et al. 2004. PipelineNet: a model for monitoring introduced contaminants in a distribution
system. World Water Congr. 2003. Describes an approach to monitor contamination and identify most
likely nodes for intrusion.
Banasiak and Shafer. 2009. Removal of inorganic trace elements by electodialysis in a remote
Australian community. Desalin. 248:48-57. Electrodialysis and ion exchange membranedused to
remove inorganic contaminants in drinking (surface) water in rural Australia. Reduced total dissolved
solids and different ions to low levels; amount of applied voltage was a factor. Fouling of the membrane
was an issue.
Baranowski et al. 2008. Consequence management utilizing optimization. J. Water Resources Plann.
Mgt. 134:386-394. Described how to use an optimization model to evaluate and minimize risks to a
water system by minimizing contamination. Applied to two practical situations for effectiveness.
Barbeau et al. 2005. Dead end flushing of a distribution system: short and long term effects on water
quality. J. Water Supply: Res. Technol. 54:371-383. Evaluated effect of spot flushing of dead end test
pipes; measured bacteria concentrations over different time periods. Found that flushing decreased
counts within first two weeks and little effect over the longer time periods.
Batte et al. 2003. Biofilm responses to ageing and to a high phosphate load in a bench scale drinking
water system. Water Res. 37:1351-1361. Ageing affected the composition of biofim; increasing P
increased P content but not other measures.
Bender. 2008. Update on water sector strategy for decontamination. Proceed. Water Res. Found. 2008
(91-108):7159-7162. Report on activities of CIPAC which had Identified important priorities and issues
related to water sector securing and produced recommendations to address these issues.
Benotti et al. 2009. Pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds in US drinking water.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 43:597-603. Detailed discussion of common pharmaceuticals and disruptors in
drinking water, effectiveness of removal during treatment and which compounds could serve as
indicators/surrogates.
Berry et al. 2009. Designing contaminant warning systems for municipal water networks using
imperfect sensors. J. Water Res. Plan. Mgt. 135:253-263. Describes the implications of sensor for
measuring contaminants when there is a high probability of false positives and false positives.
Besener et al. 2008. Effect of disinfectant residual on microbial intrusion: a review of experiments. J
ASSWA 100:116-130. Detailed review of the interactions of biofilm and microorganisms in bench scale
and pilot scale equipment. Found that bacteria persisted in bench scale systems when disinfectant was
26
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
applied; in pilot scale equipment, bacteria concentrations declined dramatically. However, viruses and
protozoa persisted in pilot scale environments. Found that intrusion was most likely with low flow rates
and significant delay in application of disinfectant (i.e., when water pipes break and are unattended).
Also raised question of culturing of bacteria vs live counts, which usually are greater.
Bibby et al. 2010. Pyrosequencing of the 16S RNA gene to reveal bacterial pathogen diversity in
biosolids. Water Res. 44:4252-4260. Isolated DNA from wastewater solids and other sources was
sequenced using a pyrosequencing method. Populations were similar for plants having similar
processing conditions and variable for those with differing processing conditions. All samples contained
a large number of pathogens.
Bielefeldt et al. 2009. Bacterial treatment effectiveness of point of use ceramic water filters. Water
Res. 43:3359-3365. Compared effectiveness of several ceramic water filters in removing bacteria from
experimental solutions. Filters generally were quite effective (several log units reduction) when clean
but effectiveness declined significantly with use. Recoating filters with silver compound regenerated
effectiveness.
Bielefeldt et al. 2010. Removal of protozoan sized particles in point of use ceramic water filters. Water
Res. 44:1482-1488. Compared effectiveness of six filters to remove virus size microspheres. Removal
effectiveness increased as particle size increased. Removal of very small particles varied markedly
among filter types. Coating of silver improved effectiveness for the very small particles.
Bolto and Gregory. 2007. Organic polyelectrolytes in water treatment. Water Res. 41:2301-2324.
Detailed review of polymer structure, function, mechanism of action, etc. Discussion about toxicity of
monomer toward aquatic organisms and polymer in drinking water. Polymers with high charge density
are most effective in removing organic matter. Polymers appear to form few, if any, disinfection
byproducts of concern.
Bond et al. 2010. Disinfection by-product formation of natural organic matter surrogates and
treatment by coagulation, MIEX and nanofiltration. Water Res. 44:1645-1653. Determined amount of
DBPs formed for several different natural organic matter surrogates when exposed to disinfection and
subjected to nanofiltation, coagulation or ion exchange. Removal of natural organic matter compounds
did not appreciably affect DBP formation. Coagulation had little effect. Hydrophilic nanofiltration
removed hydrophilic surrogates.
Bottino et al. 2009. Membrane technologies for water treatment and agroindustrial sectors. C.R.
Chemie. 12:882-888. A review of different membrane technologies used in water treatment and
characteristics. Describes different membrane types, configuration, construction materials, operating
conditions and characterization techniques.
Bougeard et al. 2010. Comparison of the disinfection byproduct formation of treated waters exposed to
chlorine and chloramines. Water Res. 44:729-740. Compared disinfection byproducts from water from
11 treatment plants in UK. Found broad array of byproducts for both treatments. Chloramine resulted
in lower concentrations than chlorine. Higher bromide resulted in increased brominated compounds.
Bristow and Brumbelow. 2006. Delay between sensing and response in water contamination events. J.
Infrast. Syst. 12:87-95. Characterized phases of activity in a contamination event.
27
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Broseus et al. 2009. Ozone oxidation of pharmaceuticals, endocrine interrupters and pesticides during
drinking water treatment. Water Res. 43:4707-4717. Ozone found to be effective means of removing
organic pollutants from drinking water; pesticides were the most resistant to degradation. Caffeine
found to be a good indicator of effectiveness of ozone treatment.
Brown et al. 2004. Trace contaminants in water treatment chemicals: sources and fate. J AWWA 96:111125. Reviewed of large national study on presence of trace contaminants (inorganics) in a large number
of water treatment chemicals. In contrast to earlier studies, there was little evidence of overall
presence of contaminants in these chemicals, but there were isolated incidences of contamination,
usually during transportation or handling. Trace contaminants associated with coagulants were
recovered in residuals rather than water.
Brownell et al. 2008. Assessment of a low cost, point of use ultraviolet disinfection technology. J. Water
Health 6:53-66. Described a simple point of use water treatment device made from local material. Based
on UV light and PVC tube lined with stainless steel (to prevent leaching). Testing in residences showed a
significant reduction in coliform bacteria counts.
Butterfield et al. 2003. Chlorination of model drinking water biofilm: implications for growth and
organic carbon removal. Water Res. 36:4391-4405. Experiments showed that a variety of conditions
affected biofilm composition; chlorine reduced biofilm mass but resulted in greater growth and activity.
Other factors had varying effects.
Byer and Carlson. 2005. Real time detection of intentional chemical contamination. J. AWWA. 97:130133. Evaluated real time measurement of four toxic materials vs lab bench measurements. On-line
measurements were based on changes in characteristics of water (i.e, conductivity) and were effective
at measuring appropriate materials.
Carriere et al. 2005. Evaluation of loose deposits in distribution systems through unidirectional flushing.
JAWWA 97: 82-92. Removed deposits from distribution systems in Canada using unidirectional flushing;
determined composition of deposits. Concentrations of solids varied from <0.1 g/m to 42 g/m. Amount
of residue was directly related to velocity of flush water. Iron compounds made up most of the residue
(38-72 %), while silica compounds (7-16 %) and organic material (14-24 %) accounted for the remainder.
Bacteria counts were 10 log units; coliforms accounted for about 1 % of the bacterial counts.
Cartier et al. 2009. Evaluating aerobic endospores as indicators of intrusion into distribution systems. J
AWWA 101:46-58. Aerobic endospores are soil borne and are resistant to disinfection. Measured
aerobic endospores in water systems; concentrations were low in both water and distribution system
surfaces. Flushing of normal systems revealed concentration not different from water; flushing after
pipe repairs showed a small increase in numbers. Concluded that aerobic endospores could be used as
indicators of intrusion.
Cederkvist et al. 2010. Full-scale removal of arsenate and chromate from water using a limestone and
ochreous sludge mixtures as a low cost adsorbent. Water Environ. Res. 82:401-408. Showed that a
mixture of limestone and ochresous sludge was very effective in removing arsenate and chromate from
water. Low cost, can treat large volumes and rapid.
28
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Chen et al. 2006. Treatment of organic chemicals on the EPA contaminant candidate list using ozone
and the O3/H2O2 advanced oxidation process. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:2734-2739. Used batch
reactors to evaluate the O3/H2O2 advanced oxidation process to determine reactivity with a variety of
volatile organic chemicals. Aromatic organics reacted rapidly and were removed quickly (within
minutes); aliphatic organics were less reactive and not effectively removed. Bromide was formed when
bromobenzene was present.
Chaidez and Gerba. 2004. Comparison of the microbiological quality of point of use (POU)-treated
water and tap water. Intern. J. Environ. Health Res. 14:253-260. Measured bacteria concentrations in
tap water before and after treatment in POU filters (activated carbon based). Found concentrations
were significantly higher in treated than untreated water samples. Coliforms were present in most of
treated water samples.
Chen et al. 2006. Treatment of volatile organic chemicals on the EPA contaminant candidate list using
ozonation and the O3/H2O2 advanced oxidation process. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:2734-2739.
Determined effectiveness of this process on removal of several aliphatic compounds. Most were quite
resistant to degradation. Bromide was formed when a bromate compound was present.
Cho et al. 2003. Quantitative evaluation of the synergistic sequential inactivation of Bacillus subtilis
spores with ozone followed by chlorine. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37:2134-2138. Ozone pretreatment
enhanced inactivation by chlorine by disrupting cell membranes; the timing of ozone treatment during
microbial growth is important.
Cho et al. 2006. Using UV 254 as a TOC surrogate for intentional contamination detection in drinking
water distribution systems. 8th Ann. Water Distrib. Syst. Analysis Sympos. Cinn., OH. Found that UV254
and TOC were highly correlated and sensitive to contamination by a variety of organic (i.e., pesticides)
compounds. Less effective for inorganics (i.e., sod cyanide).
Chong et al. 2010. Recent developments in photocatalytic water treatment technology: a review.
Water Res. 44:2997-3027. Detailed review of photocatalytic reactors and membranes, operational
parameters, effectiveness and inferences for future work. Evaluated effectiveness in
photomineralization and photodisinfection. Detailed literature list.
Chu et al. 2010. Bio-diatomite dynamic membrane reactor for micro-polluted surface drinking water.
Water Res. 44:1573-1579. Evaluated effectiveness of a diatomite membrane reactor to remove
contaminants in water. Removed COD, ammonia, organic compounds effectively. Microorganisms in
reactor were the most important component; membrane alone was less effective.
CIPAC documents (N=5). TBC.
Clark et al. 1994. Measuring and modeling chlorine propagation in water distribution systems. J.
Water Res. Plan. Mgt. 120:871-.887. Field study in Ct. in which a propagation model was used to
evaluate chlorine residual content. Showed that residual concentrations were difficult to maintain.
Clark et al. 2008. Controlling disinfection residual losses in drinking water distribution systems: results
from experimental studies. Proc. 10thAnn. Water Distrib. Syst. Analys. Conf., Kruger Nat. Park, SA.
29
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Measured effects of flow rate and pipe materials on chlorine residual material. Higher flow rates and
iron pipe reduced residual chlorine material. PVC pipe did not take up disinfectant.
Cole et al. 2008. Process monitoring the inactivation of ricin and model proteins by disinfectants using
fluorescence and biological activity. Biotechnol. Prog. 24:784-791. Used natural fluorescence of amino
acids to monitor activity of compound. Chlorine reduced biological activity rapidly, while chloramines
was less effective and required relatively higher concentrations. Fluorescence could be used to monitor
activity of toxins during disinfection.
Coleman et al. 2007. Removal of contaminants of concern in water using advanced oxidation
techniques. Water Sci. Technol. 55:301-306. Showed that advanced oxidation using titanium
dioxide/photocatalysis was effective in degrading different refractory organic compounds. One
commercial catalyst was the most effective in supporting degradation.
Collivignarelli and Sorlini. 2009. AOPs with ozone and UV radiation in drinking water: contaminant
removal and effects on disinfectants byproducts formation. Water Sci. Technol. 49:51-56. Compared
effects of advanced oxidation with ozone +/- UV on removal of several organic compounds. Ozone was
effective in removing two volatile compounds but UV was needed with ozone to remove a pesticide.
Ozone + UV resulted in lower bromate formation than conventional oxidation.
Cornelissen et al. 2005. A nanofiltration retention model for trace contaminants in drinking water.
Desalin. 178:179-192. Determined effectiveness of two nanofiltration membranes to remove several
trace contaminants in lab and bench scale tests. High removal rates were obtained for contaminants
larger than the molecular weight cutoff for the membranes.
Cooper et al. 2010. The effect of carbon type on arsenic and trichloroethylene removal capabilities of
iron (hydr) peroxide nanoparticle-impregnated granulated activated carbons. J. Hazard. Mater. 183:381388. Found that carbon impregnated with nanoparticles was more effective in removing arsenic but less
effective in removing TCE.
Cornelissen et al. 2005. A nanofiltration retention model for trace contaminants in drinking water
sources. Desalin. 178:179-192. System was effective in retaining (85 %) larger molecules but not
smaller molecules.
Correa et al. 2010. Use of ozone photocatalytic oxidation (O3/UV/TiO2) and biological remediation for
treatment of produced water from petroleum refineries. J. Environ. Engineer. 136:40-45. Determined
ability of ozone/UV/TiO2 system with algae to degrade contaminants In a bench scale reactor. The
ozone/UV/TiO2 system was effective in removing some of the contaminants but effluent was toxic to
bacteria and indicator fish. Subsequent treatment with algae removed the toxicity. The combination of
systems was effective in removing contaminants and provides an effective method.
Cotruvo and Cotruvo. 2003. Nontraditional approaches for providing potable water in small systems.
Part 1. JAWWA 95:69-76. Describe several different systems/approaches for providing water and
rationale for each approach.
30
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Danneels and Finley. 2004. Assessing the vulnerabilities of US drinking water systems. J. Contemp.
Water Res. Educ. 129:8-12. Brief summary of vulnerability of water systems, potential threats, how
vulnerabilities might be addressed and future security considerations.
Davis and Janke. 2008. Importance of exposure model in estimating impacts when a water distribution
system is contaminated. J. Water Res. Plann. Mgt. 134:457-465. Evaluated effects of exposure time as
function of contaminant concentration and intake quantity over time. Implications on remediation
approach
Dodge et al. 2003. Association of uranium with iron oxides typically formed on corroding steel
Showed that uranium formed various complexes with different forms of iron.
Dorea. 2009. Coagulant-based emergency water treatment. Desalin. 248:83-90. Detailed description
of use of coagulation process to treat water in emergency situations. Advantages include availability of
coagulant (aluminum sulfate), mobility of system, adaptability to local conditions and simplicity of
operation. Addresses conditions for operation, residuals, concerns with sludge, etc..
Dotson et al. 2010. UV/H2O2 treatment of drinking water increases post-chlorination DBP formation.
Water Res. 44:3703-3173. UV is very effective against Cryptosporid with no formation of DBP. High
doses of UV/H202 (adv. oxid.) could be used to remove various organic pollutants. However, to maintain
residual disinfection, chlorine typically follows UV. The object was to determine amount of DBP formed
with this approach. The higher UV/H202 doses + chlorine resulted in significant increases in DBP
formation.
Elless et al. 2005. Pilot-scale demonstration of phytofiltration for treatment of arsenic in New Mexico
drinking water. Water Res. 39:3863-3872. Evaluated effectiveness of arsenic-loving ferns to remove
arsenic from continuous flowing phytofiltration system. Was very effective in reducing arsenic in water;
could be solar energy driven and used to treat smaller water distribution systems
EPA documents (N=44).
Farami et al. 2007. Real time modeling of a major water supply system. Water Mgt. 160:103-108. Used
models to characterize water flow and water quality in a Morvian city. Detailed description of system,
flow characteristics, etc.
Fencil and Hartman. 2009. Cincinnati’s drinking water contaminant warning system goes through fullscale exercise. J. AWWA 101:52-56. Detailed description of a test exercise to evaluate the warning
mechanisms and response plan and actions for a simulated contamination event at the main Cincinnati
water treatment facility. Discusses and describes events, activities, responsibilities, etc.. for such an
event.
Fengyi et al. 2009. Performance of microbiological control by a point-of-use filter system for drinking
water purification. J. Environ. Sci. 21:1237-1246. Evaluated a POU filter device that would attach to
water faucets in residences. It was effective in removing particulate matter (turbidity and ions); it did
not remove bacteria. In fact, with time an apparent biofilm developed and lead to increased bacteria
counts in treated water.
31
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Figoli et al. 2010. Influence of operating parameters on the arsenic removal by nanofiltration. Water
Res. 44:97-104. Compared two nanofiltration systems for removal of arsenic. Effectiveness of removal
was affected by feed rate, pH, membrane pressure differential and temperature. One membrane was
more effective than the other.
Fox. 2004. Water treatment and equipment decontamination techniques. J. Contemp. Water Res.
Educ. 129:18-21. Discussion of different techniques that could be used to decontaminate water and
water distribution systems.
Francy et al. 2009. Comparison of traditional and molecular analytical methods for detecting biological
agents in raw and drinking water following ultrafiltration. J. Appl. Microb. 107:1479-1491. First
published research report on effectiveness of molecular techniques for detecting microorganisms in
comparison to traditional methods. PCR methods were as effective as traditional methods. Advantage
is speed-molecular methods are much faster. More development work is needed to improve and
broaden methodology.
Friedman et al. 2002. Developing and implementing a distribution system flushing program. J. AWWA
94:48-56. Detailed discussion regarding the decision to flush, how flushing should be carried out, types
of flushing methods (techniques), implications of flushing, data collection and interpretation, and
evaluation of the flushing approach.
GAO documents (N=4).
Gasser et al. 2010. Quantitative evaluation of tracers for quantification of wastewater contamination
of potable water sources. Environ. Sci. Techno. 44:3919-3925. Evaluated effectiveness of chloride and
carbamazepine as tracers for wastewater into drinking water sources.
Gelover et al. 2006. A practical demonstration of water disinfection using TiO2 and sunlight. Water
Res. 40:3274-3280. Assessed effectiveness of a system in which TiO2 was immobilized in a gel and
placed over solar collectors. Bacteria were inactivated quickly and disinfection was maintained for
several days.
Gerba et al. 2008. Virus removal from water with a water treatment device. Wilderness Environ. Med.
19:45-49. Evaluated effectiveness of a POU filter (based on carbon) to remove a number of pathogenic
viruses from water. The system was highly effective (>99.99%) of agents.
Gibbons and Gagnon. 2010. Adsorption of arsenate from a Nova Scotia groundwater onto water
treatment residual solids. Water Res. 44:1-10. Measured arsenate concentration in water treatment
residuals from different water treatment facilities. Plants using ferric and limestone had greater
removal of arsenate from water than those using alum
Gibbs et al. 2010. Calibration and optimization of the pumping and disinfection of a real water supply
system. J. Water Res. Plann. Mgt. 136:493-501. Detailed description of the design and operation of a
booster disinfection system in Australia.
32
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Gillman. 2006. A simple technology for arsenic removal from drinking water using hydrotalcite. Sci.
Total Environ. 366:926-931. Hydrotalcite is prepared clay; was very effective in removing arsenic and
arsenate from water. Can be recycled as fertilized.
Girones et al. 2010. Molecular detection of pathogens in water-the pros and cons of molecular
techniques. Water Res. 44:4325-4339. Molecular techniques are more developed and used for
detecting pathogens in food, water and other media. These techniques are quicker than traditional
methods, more sensitive and more quantitative. They can detect changes in genetic material and can be
used to monitor water quality. Techniques need more development and refinement for broader
applications.
Gray and Becker. 2002. Contaminant flows in urban residential water systems. Urban Water 4:331346. Detailed description of water flow in residential systems in Australia. Presents data, flow charts,
etc.
Guan et al. 2006. Identification of contaminant sources in water distribution systems using simulationoptimization method: case study. J. Water Resources Plann. Mgt. 132:252-262. Developed an
optimization model that uses non linear techniques for tracking contaminants in a water system. It uses
EPANET to predict contaminant concentrations at different points in the system and indicate possible
points of contamination. The model was tested in a public water system and appeared to be quite
robust.
Guesseme et al. 2010. Biogenic silver for disinfection of water contaminated with viruses. Appl.
Environ. Microb. 76:1082-1087. Nanoparticles (bacteria) containing biogenic silver were highly effective
in inactivating viruses quickly, while chemical forms of silver were ineffective. This technique appears to
have potential for decontaminating water contaminated with viruses.
Guo et al. 2009. Removal of antimony (V) and antimony (III) from drinking water by coagulationflocculation-sedimentation. Water Res. 43:4327-4335. Examined a variety of conditions that affect
antimony removal. Type of coagulant, pH and species of antimony were important factors.
Gutierrez et al. 2009. Adsorption of rotavirus and bacteriophage MS2 using glass fiber coated with
hematite nanoparticles. Water Res. 42:5198-5208. Glass fiber coated with hematite (iron oxide) was
effective in inactivating viruses; operating conditions were important for optimal effectiveness.
Competitive ions reduced effectiveness. System could be used as an effective POU device for removing
viruses from drinking water.
Haramoto et al. 2010. Real-time PCR detection of adenoviruses, polyomaviruses and torque teno
viruses in river water in Japan. Water Res. 44:1747-1752. First to show that polyomaviruses and other
adenoviruses were present in several rivers in Japan. Used an immunomagnetic PCR method-was very
sensitive, more than straight PCR.
Harisha et al. 2010. Arsenic removal from drinking water using thin film composite nanofiltration
membrane. Desalinat. 252:75-80. Thin film nanofiltration membranes were very effective in removing
arsenic and did not appear to have significant fouling issues.
33
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Harmless and Ricardi. 2006. An integrated modular approach to water distribution system monitoring.
8th Ann. Water Distibut. Syst. Analys. Sympos. Cinn, OH. An effect approach for attaining water
security will be a system that has real time, continuous monitoring of water supplies and relates data to
operations center. A three tiered system was described that achieves this goal. Tier 1 involves
monitoring/analyzing samples from water supplies. Tier 2 receives, interprets and verifies analytical data
from Tier1. Tier 3 verifies and identifies the contaminant.
Hart and Murray. 2010. Review of sensor placement strategies for contamination warning systems in
drinking water systems. J. Water Resources Plann, Mgt. 136:611-619. Review of papers dealing with
placement of sensors in contaminant warning systems for optimal operation. Discussion includes issues
associated with warning systems, such as dealing with large scale challenges (reliability and data
integrity), improving data quality and robust comparisons to other detection methods.
Hart et al. 2009. The TEVA-SPOT toolkit for drinking water contaminant warning system design. World
Environ. Water Res. Congr. 2009. Description of sensor placement tool and how it can be used in water
distribution systems.
Hartzinger. 2005. Perchlorate biodegradation for water treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:239A-247A.
Description of bioreactors used to degrade perchlorate that has contaminated much of the groundwater
in California. Data on equipment design and effect of remediation.
Hazeltine. 2010. Small scale purification projects-determinants of success. World Environ. Water Res.
Congr. 2010. Considerable detailed discussion about five technologies that could be used as POU
devices. Description of technologies, advantages and adaptability. Address issues that accompany water
treatement-social, financial and logistical.
Haxton and Walski. 2009. Modelling a hydraulic response to a contamination event. World Environ.
Water Res. Cong. 2009: Great Rivers @ 2009 ASCE. Modelled a contamination event; includes plume
volumes, flushing volumes, flow rates, effectiveness of flushing and other relevant data.
Heibling and VanBriesen. 2009. Modeling residual chlorine response to a microbial contamination
event in drinking water distribution systems. J. Environ. Engin. 135:918-927. Used EPANET to model
chlorine behavior after a contamination event. Suggested that changes in chlorine concentration in
nodes downstream from the contaminating nodes can provide indications that contamination occurred.
Heibling and VanBiesen. 2008. Continuous monitoring of chlorine concentrations in response to
controlled microbial intrusions in a laboratory-scale distribution system. Water Res. 42:3162-3172.
Evaluated effectiveness of chlorine sensors as monitors for surrogates. Found that sensors responded to
chlorine demand as bacterial loads varied and could be used to monitor vulnerability to pathogens.
Helmi et al. 2008. Interactions of Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia lamblia, vaccinal Poliovirus type 1
and bacteriophages pX174 and MS2 with a drinking water biofilm and a wastewater biofilm. AEM
74:2079-2088. Parasites and infectious viruses attach quickly (within an hour) to biofilms. Both are
persistent and remained in the biofilm for long periods of time after the initial exposure. Biofilms can be
sources of secondary infection. Release of agent was increased with turbulent flow of flush water.
Hijnen et al. 2010. GAC adsorption filters as barriers for viruses, bacteria and protozoa (oo)cysts in
water treatment. Water Res. 44:1224-1234. Evaluated effectiveness of GAC adsorption filters to
34
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
remove viruses, bacteria and protozoa in pilot plant tests. Viruses were not removed; bacterial were
partially removed, while oocytes were effectively reduced. GAC filters considered a significant barrier
only for protozoa oocytes
Hladik et al. 2008. Neutral degradates chloroacetamide herbicides: occurrence in drinking water and
removal during conventional water treatment. Water Res. 42:4905-4914. Found degradates for most
herbicides in treated water in spring and fall. In fall, concentrations in treated water were similar to
source water; in spring, treated water had lower concentrations, because systems were using activated
carbon to help remove contaminants.
Holowecky et al. 2090. Evaluation of ultrafiltration cartridges for a water sampling apparatus. J. Appl.
Microbiol. 106:738-747. Detailed comparison of five ultrafiltration cartridges by different institutions
for ability to remove bacteria, spores and parasites from spiked water samples. All devices were
effective and could serve as effective POU devices for water treatment at the plant or residential level.
Hong et al. 2009. Removal of anionic contaminants by surfactant modified activated carbon (SM-PC)
combined with ultrafiltration. J. Hazard. Mater. 170:1242-1246. Combined a surfactant (cetylpyridinium
chloride) with activated carbon. Used in conjunction with ultrafiltration determine for removing
inorganic contaminants. Certain oxyanions (i.e., arsenate and chromate) bind to surfactant-carbon
material and are removed from water with ultrafiltration. Removal of chromate was higher than
arsenate (about 90 % vs about 40 %); the system was easily regenerated.
Hua et al. 2006. Ozone treatment and the depletion of detectable pharmaceuticals in drinking water
sourced from the upper Detroit River, Ontario, Canada. Water Res. 40:2259-2266. Determined effect
of conventional treatment (coagulation/flocculation + filtration) versus ozone treatment for removal of
organics. Found that ozone treatment effectively reduced concentrations of organic compounds in
water, whereas the conventional methods had little effect.
Huang and McBean. 2009. Data mining to identify contaminant event locations in water distribution
systems. J. Water Res. Plann. Mgt. 135:466-474. Used modeling program (EPANET) and data to
identify most likely intrusion points for contamination to occur. In this scenario, data from a large
number of sensors was used to quickly identify intrusion points effectively.
Huang et al. 2009. Pretreatment for low pressure membranes in water treatment. A review. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 43:3011-3019. Describes pretreatment alternatives that remove various compounds and
materials in water prior to filtration. Includes removal of microbiological material.
Iesan et al. 2008. Evaluation of a novel hybrid inorganic/organic polymer type material in the arsenic
removal process from drinking water. Water Res. 42: 4327-4333. Hybrid material consisting of
hydrated ferric oxide and polymer was used in lab bench tests to evaluate effectiveness of arsenic
removal. The complex was highly effective in removing arsenic, even in the presence of potentially
interfering compounds.
Janke et al. 2006. Comparison of physical sampling and real time monitoring strategies for designing a
contaminant warning system in a drinking water distribution system. J. Water Res. Plann. Mgt. 132:310313. Showed that real time monitoring has advantages over physical sampling due to the time lag to
measurement.
35
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Jeong et al. 2006. The role of reactive oxygen in electrochemical inactivation of microorganisms.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:6117-6122. Examined the specific causes of electrochemical disinfection of
spore-forming microorganisms. EC disinfection results in production of chlorine and several Ocontaining compounds. Found that OH- and 03 were responsible for inactivation of microorganism; OHappeared to be primary factor and 03 appeared to be synergistic. pH and temperatures were factors.
Jeong et al. 2009. Radiological risk assessment for an urban area: focusing on a drinking water
contaminatin. Annals Nuclear Energy 36:1313-1318. Used Ces-137 to model effects of contamination of
drinking water system. Data on flows and contamination.
Jiang and Waite. 2003. Degradation of contaminants using coupled sonochemistry and Fenton’s
reagent. Water Sci. Technol. 47:85-92. Showed that phenol degradation was markedly enhanced with
this system but conditions were important factors.
Kenar et al. 2007. Comparative sporicidal effects of disinfectants after release of a biological agent.
Milit. Med. 172:616-621. Compared effects of different disinfectants (sodium hypochlorite, chlorine,
etc.) on different types of materials (porcelain, soil, clothe, etc.).
Kim and Herrara. 2010. Characteristics of lead corrosion scales formed during drinking water
distribution and their potential influence on the release of lead and other contaminants. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 44:6054-6061. Measured concentrations of lead and other inorganic contaminants in lead
pipes in water distribution system in London, Ontario. Hydrocerussite was the most prevalent lead form
found in scale, along with less amounts of lead oxides. Other toxic inorganics were detected in the
corrosion scale. Al and Pb concentrations were highly correlated.
Kim et al. 2006. Arsenic removal from water using lignocelluloses adsorption medium (LAM). J.
Environ. Sci Hlth. (A) 41:1529-1542. Described a low cost process for arsenic removal using cotton
coated with iron. Effective and can be regenerated after treatment with dilute sodium hydroxide.
Kim et al. 2008. Source tracking of microbial intrusion in water systems using artificial neural networks.
Water Res. 42:1308-1314. Described a process in which neural networks were used to characterize
contamination by bacteria and to identify contaminated areas for isolation.
Klosterman et al. 2009. Comparing single and multi -species water quality modeling approaches for
assessing contamination exposure in drinking water distribution systems. World Environ. Water Res.
Congr. 2009. Great Rivers @ ASCE Compared single vs multiple species model to assess responses of
arsenate and bacteria in distribution systems. Multiple species model was more effective at
explaining/predicting responses than single.
Ko et al. 2007. Arsenic removal by a colloidal iron oxide coated sand. J. Environ. Engineer. 133:891913. Process developed for use in small systems; consisted of iron oxide particles deposited onto sand.
Performance was less than expected, possibly because other anions competed for adsorption sites.
Kroll and King. 2006. Laboratory and flow loop validation and testing of the operational effectiveness
on an on-line security platform for the water distribution system. 8th Ann. Water Dist. Syst. Analysis
Sympos., Cinn., OH. Developed a system consisting of common analytical methods plus interpretative
36
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
algorithms to monitor flow in distribution systems. In particular, the system was designed to identify
and characterize back flow events, such as associated with intentional contamination.
Kruithof et al. 2007. UV/H2O2 treatment : a practical solution for organic contaminant control and
primary disinfection. Ozone: Sci. Engineer. 29:273-280. Netherlands water treatment program altered
to exclude use of chlorine. Changed to UV/H2O2 to increase disinfection effectiveness and widen the
range of biological and chemical contaminants. Is very effective at disinfection and decontaminating,
with few secondary products. Much higher UV exposure was needed for removing organics than for
disinfection.
Kryvoruchko et al. 2004. Ultrafiltration removal of U(VI) from contaminated water. Desalin. 162:229236. Polyelectrolytes (polyethylimine) complexing with ultrafiltration was effective in removing
uranium. pH was less important than with ultrafiltration alone. Flux rate was not important.
Kumar and Goel. 2010. Factors influencing arsenic and nitrate removal from drinking water in a
continuous flow electocoagulation (EC) process. J. Hazard. Mater. 173-528-533. Evaluated different
conditions that affected arsenic and nitrate removal in a reactor. Voltage, concentration of compound
and turbidity affected removal efficiency, but water source did not.
Kumar et al. 2009. Characterizing reactive contaminant sources in a water distribution system. World
Environ. Water Res. Congr. 2009. Great Rivers @ ASCE. Conditions that cause abnormal
concentrations in chlorine could be used to signal presence of a contaminant at specific sites or nodes.
Kumar et al. 2010. Identification of reactive contaminant sources in a water distribution system under
the conditions of data uncertainty. World Environ. Water Res. Cong. 2009: Great Rivers @ 2010 ASCE.
Showed that using residual chlorine concentrations can be used to identify potential nodes as sources of
contamination.
Kuo and Abustan. 2009. Disinfection and antimicrobial processes. Water Environ. Res. 81:1361-1375.
Detailed review of disinfection. Main discussion sections on regulations and policies, challenges, health
risks and disinfection methods. Reviewed current disinfection methods, byproducts, microbial aspects,
biofilms and biosolds. Extensive reference list.
Lakshmanan et al. 2011. Comparative study of arsenic removal by iron using electrocoagulation and
chemical coagulation. Water Res. (In press). Compared electrocoagulation (EC) to chemical coagulation
(CC) for arsenic (3 and 4) removal under different conditions. EC had variable effects at pH 6.5 and was
more effective at pH 7.5-8.5. CC was less affected by pH. Soluble Fe compounds cause interference.
Adsorption of As (4) generally was greater than As (3).
Langmark et al. 2007. The effects of UV disinfection on distribution pipe biofilm growth and pathogen
incidence within the greater Stockholm area, Sweden. Water Res. 41:3327-3336. Assessed the effects
of change from chlorination to UV disinfection. Did not observe any significant effects on biofilm or
pathogens.
Lantagne. 2008. Sodium hypochlorite dosage for household and emergency water treatment. J. AWWA
100:106-119. Detailed discussion about how sodium hypochlorite can be used as a POU technology for
controlling intestinal diseases in developing countries. Addresses the issue of amount of sodium
37
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
hypochlorite would be needed under different water characteristics to attain an effective free chlorine
concentration. Gives examples of different applications and concentrations.
Le Noir et al. 2006. Removal of trace contaminants using molecularly imprinted polymers. Water Sci.
Technol. 53:205-212. Polymers imprinted with molecular templates were effective in removing
estrogenic compounds from water and were highly specific. The polymers could be regenerated easily.
The target compounds could be removed and degraded.
Lee et al. 2009. Low pressure propagation at service lines. World Environ. Water Res. Cong. 2009:672680. Showed how instances of low pressure in residence infrastructure could contaminate water supply
through pressure differentials. Based on a pilot scale plumbing system.
Lehtola et al. 2005. Pipeline materials modify the effectiveness of disinfects in drinking water
distribution systems. Water Res. 39:1962-1971. Compared effectiveness of UV and chlorine to disinfect
water in copper and plastic pipes in a pilot scale system. UV decreased bacterial concentrations on
surfaces of pipes but not in films. Chlorine was effective In treating water in plastic pipes but less
effective with copper pipes; chlorine concentrations decreased rapidly in water carried in copper pipes.
Lenes et al. 2010. Assessment of the removal and inactivation of influence viruses H5N1 and H1N1 by
drinking water treatment. Water Res. 44:2473-2486. Compared current water treatment physical
technologies (coagulation/flocculation /settling/filtration/UV) and disinfectant methods (chlorine,
chlorine dioxide, chloramines, ozone) for removal and inactivation of two pathogenic viruses.
Concluded that the current technologies were appropriate for these viruses.
Li et al. 2008. Antimicrobial nanomaterials for water disinfection and microbial control: potential
applications and implications. Water Res. 42:4591-4602. Extensive review of the efficacy of different
nanomaterials for removing microbial contaminants. Concluded that several nanomaterials (i.e.,
chitosan, TiO2) had potential to replace current disinfection chemicals and thereby avoid secondary
products. Economic and other issues prevent use at the present.
Liu et al. 2009. Kinetics and mechanism for degradation of dichlorvos by permanganate in drinking
water. Water Res. 43:3435-3442. Showed that permanganate degraded dichlorvos into several
secondary products. Secondary products were more toxic that parent compound.
Lockwood et al. 2004. Analysis of contaminant co-occurrence in community water systems. J. Amer.
Stat. Assoc. 99:45-56. Carried out analysis of common occurrence of several contaminants and
estimated distributions of several contaminants concurrently. Estimates distributions of concurrent
contaminants based on water characteristics. Provides inferences on the distribution of concurrent
contaminants and effects on modeling and identification of contaminants.
Luster-Teasley and Onochie. 2009. Development of slow release chemical oxidation methods for
environmental remediation. World Environ. Water Res. Cong. 2009: Great Rivers @ 2009 ASCE.
Described a slow release oxidation technique that could be used in water treatment. Used KMnO4 in a
biodegradable polymer.
38
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Lykins et al. 1994. U. S. drinking water standards: treatment technologies and costs. J. Environ.
Engineer. 120:783-802. Detailed summary of concentrations of contaminants, treatment processes and
economics of treatment. Extensive literature list.
Lyon et al. 2009. Removal of selenium and nitrate from surface waters using a subsurface microbial
filter. World Environ. Water Res. Congr. 2009:5726-5733. Designed a pilot scale, low cost filtration
system using gravel. Effective in removing contaminants and easy to operate/manage.
Lytle et al. 2010. Particulate arsenic release in a drinking water distribution system. J. AWWA 102:8798. Showed that arsenic adhering to solids in distribution pipes can dissociate and contaminate water
supplies. In some samples, arsenic concentration of solids was several times the concentration in the
source water. Arsenic content of water was highly correlated with iron content of water.
Macova et al. 2010. Monitoring the biological activity of micropollutants during advanced wastewater
treatment with ozonation and activated carbon filtration. Water Res. 44:477-492. Showed that the
combination of coagulation, floccuolation, dissolved air flotation, sand filtration and ozonation
significantly reduced concentrations of micropollutants. Effectiveness of the individual techniques was
limited, compared to the combination.
Magnuson and Speth. 2005. Quantitative structure-property relationships for enhancing predictions of
synthetic organic chemical removal from drinking water by granulated activated carbon. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 39:7706-7711. Evaluation of factors that impact removal of contaminants by activated carbon,
such as properties of the contaminant, water quality, other compounds in the water, etc.
Magnuson et al. 2005. Responding to water contamination threats. Environ. Sci. Technol. 39:153A159A. Detailed discussion about sequence of events that should follow a contamination event. Includes
Significant section on detection methods for different contaminants.
Meier-Haack et al. 2003. A permeability-controlled microfiltration membrane for reduced fouling in
drinking water treatment. Water Res. 37:585-588. Evaluated a membrane constructed from
polypropylene modified with acrylic. Was able to maintain flux better than other membranes.
Metz et al. 2010. The effect of UV/H202 on biofilm formation potential. Water Res. (In press).
Cincinnati water plant is changing to UV/H202 to degrade organic compounds (i.e., endocrine
disruptors) in drinking water. Did a study to find effects of this technology on biofilm production.
Process was able to degrade organic test material quite effectively, but cause degradation of inherent
organic matter into products preferred by a Pseudomonas species and increased biofilm formation.
Activated carbon filtration prior to UV treatment reduced degradation products. The medium pressure
UV lamp resulted in more viable biofilm than the low pressure lamp, presumably due to more
degradation products.
Miles et al. 2009. Point of use drinking water devices for assessing microbial contamination in finished
water and distribution systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 43:1425-1429. Compared point of use filtration
devices for detecting presence of bacteria; could be used to indicate contamination. Solid block carbon
filter appeared to be the most effective.
39
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Moller et al. 2009. Arsenic in groundwater in New England-point of entry and point of use treatment of
private wells. Desalin. 243:293-304. Summary of data obtained from study on effect of POE and POU
devices to reduce natural arsenic content of groundwater. All devices reduced arsenic concentrations to
low levels; most were effective for a year (expected life of the media). Was an effective and practical
technology.
Moraci and Calabro. 2010. Heavy metals removal and hydraulic performance in zero-valent
iron/pumice permeable reactive barriers. J. Environ. Mgt. 91:2336-23241. Zero valent iron used for
remediation of groundwater; with continued use, water flow is often reduced through the system.
Adding pumice to the system sustained flow without compromising the remediation aspects of the
system.
Morrow and Cole. 2009. Enhanced decontamination of Bacillus spores in a simulated drinking water
system by germinant addition. Environ. Engineer. Sci. 26:993-1000. Established biofilms containing
surrogate bacterial spores and determined effect of disinfectants with or without germinants. High
disinfectant concentrations reduced bacterial concentrations about 2 log units, while germinants
reduced concentrations about 4 log units. Heat or disinfectants after germinants reduced concentrations
more than 4 log units.
Morrow et al. 2008. Association and decontamination of Bacillus spores in a simulated drinking water
system. Water Res. 42:5011-5021. Evaluated a number of factors affecting two bacterial surrogates in a
simulated drinking water system. Found that bacteria associated with biofilms required much more
disinfectant than those in suspension. Spores on copper pipes required high Ct values than PVC pipes.
Increased shear increased association of spores with pipe surfaces.
Muhammad et al. 2008. Development of a water security filtration system for whole house water
suppy. World Environ. Water Res. Congress. 2008:1-9. Developed a system suitable for home use.
Consisted of multi-layer cartridge filter plus UV for disinfection. Was very effective against spores and
some organics; less effective for bacteria and viruses. Higher UV dosage could improve disinfection
capability.
Muhammad et al. 2009. Ceramic filter for small system drinking water treatment: evaluation of pore
membrane size and importance of integrity monitoring. J. Environ. Engineer. 135:1181-1191. Two
ceramic filters with two porosities were compared for effectiveness in removing turbidity and
microbiological contaminants. The small porosity filters were effective in removing both turbidity and
bacteria. Small porosity filters had reduced flow rates with higher turbidity.
Muhammad et al. 2009. Development of a community water security filtration system using composite
cartridges. World Environ. Water Res. Cong. 2009: Great Rivers @ ASCE.
Developed a system
consisting of a two filtration module followed by UV. Effective in significant reductions in virus and
spore concentrations.
Muhammad et al. 2010. Evaluation of long term performance of point of use (POU) systems for
drinking water treatment. World Environ. Water Res. Cong. 2010:289-299. Compared effectiveness of
two point of use filtration systems based on reverse osmosis. Both were very effective in removing
surrogates for bacteria, viruses and parasite spores.
40
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Murphy et al. 2009. Removal of waterborne particles by electrofiltration. World Environ. Water Res.
Congr. 2009. Electrofiltration (electrodes embedded in sand) evaluated in bench scale tests.
Improved effectiveness of removal of particles and organic matter from water compared to sand alone.
Murray et al. 2008. Sensor network design of contaminant warning systems: a decision framework. J.
AWWA 100:97-109. Describe a model to determine optimal location of sensors using the TEVA-SPOT
technology. Application to actual system evaluated.
Nguyen et al. 2009. Arsenic removal by a membrane hybrid filtration system. Desalin. 236:363-369.
Nanofiltration was more effective than microfiltration at removing arsenic compounds; arsenate
removal greater than arsenite. Addition of nonvalent iron increased removal markedly.
Nilsson et al. 2005. Simulating exposures to deliberate intrusions into water distribution systems.
Separ.Purif. Technol. 69:7-21. Used modeling software/programs to simulate an intentional intrusion
into a drinking water system. Large amount of soluble contaminant was introduced at one node and
tracked. Extensive measurements were determined and simulations made. Considerable data provided
that characterize the simulation.
Ning. 2002. Arsenic removal by reverse osmosis. Desalin. 143:237-241. Showed that arsenate
removed very effectively with RO technology. Arsenic removal dependent on pH.
Nirmalakhandan et al. 1991. Evaluation of cascade air stripping-pilot-scale and prototype studies. J.
Environ. Engineer. 117: 788-798. Evaluated effectiveness of cascade air stripping for removing volatile
organic compounds compared to conventional stripping. Cascade stripping was associated with lower
air flows and greater contaminant removal.
Noir et al. 2006. Removal of trace elements using molecularly imprinted polymers. Water Sci. Technol.
53:205-212. Showed that MIP have potential to be very efficient adsorbent of specific organic
molecules.
Oakes. 2005. Membrane processes for removing arsenic from drinking water. EWRI. 2005. Detailed
description of filtration systems, operational conditions and effectiveness against different
contaminants and their removal efficiency.
NRC. 2003. A Review of the EPA Water Security Research and Technical Support Action Plan: Parts 1 and
2. National Research Council. National Academy of Sciences. Detailed review of the EPA water
security program. Made recommendations for addressing important issues for both drinking water and
waste water systems, such as a database that identifies critical contaminants, better systems to detect
and monitor contaminants, improved analytical methods, etc.
NRC. 2005. Public Water Supply Distribution Systems: Assessing and Reducing Risks-First Report.
National Research Council. National Academy of Sciences. Extensive review of the US water distribution
system. Discusses the current state of the distribution system: ageing and deterioration of
infrastructure, role of pipe connections, role of biofilms, intrusions, loss of disinfection residuals, etc..
41
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
NRC. 2007. Improving the Nation’s Water Security: Opportunities for Research. National Research
Council. National Academy of Sciences. Review of EPA research efforts and recommendations for
future research.
Oakes. 2005. Membrane filtration processes for removing arsenic from drinking water. ASCE Library.
Membrane processes have been shown to be effective technologies for removing arsenic from water.
Discussion about advantages and disadvantages of different membrane systems.
Okun. 2006. The weak link in the provision of safe drinking water. World Envion. Water Res. Congr.
2006. Discusses issues related to current water distribution system, including long residence times,
low flow rates and volumes, pipe joints and their role in contamination, biofilms etc..
Parks and Edwards. 2006. Precipitative removal of As, Ba, B, Cr, Sr and V using sodium carbonate. J.
Environ. Engineer. 132:489-496. Detailed summary of removal of inorganics from water samples from a
large number of water distribution systems. Effectiveness of removal depended on the element,
conditions, concentration and other factors.
Parks and VanBriesen. 2009. Booster disinfection for response to contamination in a drinking water
distribution system. J. Water Res. Plann. Mgt. 135:502-511. Compared booster disinfection to EPANET
model expectations. Found that booster response approach could reduce amount of consumed
contaminated water but location of booster system was important and dependent on effectiveness of
sensors and decay rate of disinfectant.
Patterson et al. 2009. Evaluation of a UV/ozone treatment process for removal of MTBE in groundwater
supplies in New Mexico. World Environ. Water Res. Cong. 2009: Great Rivers @ 2009 ASCE. Process
reduced MTBE concentrations in ground water using UV/GAC system. Acetone was side product.
Pavoni et al. 2006. Assessment of organic chlorinated compound removal from aqueous matrices by
adsorption on activated carbon. Water Res. 40:3571-3579. Compared effectiveness of five activated
carbon sources to remove organic chlorinated compounds from water from a treatment plant. One
compound was more effective than the others; 90 % or more of contaminant was removed.
Pellegrin et al. 2009. Membrane Processes. Water Environ. Res. 81:1217-1292. Extensive review of
water and wastewater treatment methods and associated issues. Includes reactors, nutrient removal,
bioreactors, membrane processes, films, etc..
Peng et al. 2010. Characterization of elemental and structural composition of corrosion scales and
deposits formed in drinking water distribution systems. Water Res. 44:4570-4580. Characterized
corrosion scales and deposits from water distribution systems. Measured iron, sulfur, organic carbon,
calcium, inorganic carbon, etc. Concentrations of most constituents in flush water were similar to those
in the sediments, except for carbon compounds, suggesting that turbulent flow had a small impact on
inorganics.
Pereira et al. 2010. Assessment of the presence and dynamics of fungi in drinking water sources using
cultural and molecular techniques. Water Res. 44:1-21. Compared different detection methods to
characterize fungi DNA when isolated by membrane filtration. Showed that fungi populations differ
with water source and time of the year.
42
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Perelman and Ostfeld. 2010. Extreme impact contamination events sampling for water distribution
systems security. J. Water Res. Plann. Mgt. 136:80-87. Developed algorithm to describe events
surrounding a rare contamination event. Includes examples of flow data for two distribution systems
and multiple nodes of contamination.
Petrusevski et al. 2002. Adsorbent-based point-of-use system for arsenic removal in rural areas. J.
Water Supply Res. and Technol. 51:135-144. Compared several simple technologies for removing
arsenic from drinking water in rural far east countries. Filter with iron coated granular carbon was
effective and long-lasting.
Porco et al. 2008. DHS domestic municipal end-to-end water security architecture study. 8th Ann. Water
Distrib. Syst. Analysis Sympos. 2006. Review of threats to water systems. Focus on contaminants of
greatest concern, characteristics that help to decide threat level, gaps in the data/information and
short/longterm needs.
Porco. 2010. Municipal water distribution system security study: recommendations for science and
technology investments. J. AWWA 102:30-32. Summary of current state of art related to distribution
system security. Discusses contaminants of greatest concern, technologies for monitoring contaminants,
decontamination aspects and expected economic impacts contamination of different size systems.
Poulin et al. 2008. Heuristic approach for operational response to drinking water contamination. J.
Water Res. Plann. Mgt. 134:457-465. Describes simple topological approach to isolate contaminated
water within a zone. Based on local sensors and flow conditions; controls contaminated water using
infrastructure management.
Poulin et al. 2010. Planning unidirectional flushing operations as a response to drinking water
distribution system contamination. J. Water Res. Plann. Mgt. 136:647-657. Addresses the challenge of
removing contaminated water from a distribution system. Based on system management concepts
rather than hydraulic concerns. Uses heuristic approach to modeling. Applied to two actual networks
for validation.
Pradeep and Anshup. 2009. Noble metal nanoparticles for water purificantion: a critical review. Thin
Solid Films 517:6441-6478. Detailed review of role of nanoparticles in removing contaminants from
drinking water. Nanoparticles based on silver have a number of advantages, including degradation of
pesticides, removal of heavy metals and anti-microbial activities. Ideal for removal of toxic materials
from drinking water. Detailed description of silver nanoparticles and how constructed, properties, etc.
Extensive literature list.
Pratson et al. 2010. The effectiveness of arsenic remediation from groundwater in a private home.
Ground Water Monitor. Remed. 30:85-91. Documented arsenic concentrations of bottled water to be
generally low (<1.5ppb). Evaluated several POU and POE devices for removing arsenic from water
sources. All devices were effective in removing arsenic to very low levels (<0.05ppb) and appropriate for
remediating water at the residential level.
Pressman et al. 2010. Concentration, chlorination and chemical analyses of drinking water for
disinfection byproduct mixtures health effects research: US EPA four lab study. Environ. Sci. Technol.
43
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
44:7184-7192. Developed a process to produce DBP in concentrated forms. Detailed analysis of
compounds and concentrations. Identified several new DBP. Implications on health.
Propato and Uber. 2003. Effectiveness of disinfectant residual against microbiological contamination in
water systems: assessing vulnerability. World Water Congress. 2003:1-10. Discusses vulnerability of a
water system to intrusion, risk of consumers getting contaminated water and strategies for minimizing
the risk.
Propato et al. 2010. Linear algebra and minimum relative entropy to investigate contamination events
in drinking water systems. J. Water Res. Plan. Mgt. 136:483-492. Mathematical approach to identify
source of intrusion in a contamination event.
Qi. 2009. Predicting minimum carbon usage for PAC adsorption of trace organic contaminants from
natural water. J. Environ. Engin. 135:1199-1205. Used model to estimate minimal activated carbon
needed to remove specific trace organic compounds. Showed that iron coated sand and iron coated
activated carbon in form of a filter was very effective removing arsenic from drinking water in rural
areas.
Quinlivan et al. 2005. Effects of activated carbon characteristics on the simultaneous absorption of
aqueous organic micropollutants and natural organic matter. Water Res. 39:1663-1673. The goal was
to determine physical and chemical characteristics of activated carbon on simultaneous sorption of
trace organic pollutants and natural organic matter. Compared several activated carbon fibers at
different activation and chemical levels as well as different granular activated carbon sources. MTBE
and TCE were contaminants. Found that hydrophobic carbon sources were more effective in adsorbing
contaminants than hydrophilic carbon sources. Pore size of adsorbent was a critical factor.
Radjenovic et al. 2008. Rejection of pharmaceuticals in nanofiltration and reverse osmosis membrane
drinking water treatment. Water Res. 42:3601-3610. Determined removal from drinking water a wide
array of pharmaceuticals using nanofiltration and reverse osmosis. Found that both systems were very
effective at removing many of the compounds. A concern was the presence of the contaminants in used
brine from reverse osmosis and retentate from filtration.
Ratnayake and Jayatilake. 1999. Study of transport of contaminants in a pipeline network using the
model PIPENET. Water Sci. Technol. 40:115-120. Used the PIPENET model to characterize
contamination events under different conditions. Concluded that movement of contaminant was not
dependent on concentration or variation in concentration. If detected quickly, contamination effects
would be minimal and effective points for disinfection/decontamination would be identified.
Rice et al. 2005. Inactivation of spores of Bacillus anthracis Sterne, Bacillus cereus, and Bacillus
thuringiensis subsp. Isrealensis by chlorination. AEM 71:5587-5589. Compared three species of Bacillus
spores as surrogates for Bacillus anthracis when exposed to disinfection. Bacillus thurg. was found to
be acceptable surrogate for use in chlorine disinfection studies.
Richards et al. 2009. Impact of speciation on fluoride, arsenic and magnesium retention by
nanofiltration/reverse osmosis in remote Australian communities. Desalin. 248:177-183. Developed a
method that included solar energy as energy source and filtration system consisting of
44
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
nanofiltration/reverse osmosis. Compared different nanofiltration membranes and operating conditions
on removal of fluoride, arsenic and magnesium. pH affected magnesium removal but no fluoride or
arsenic. Some nanofiltration membranes more effective than others.
Richards et al. 2010. Impact of pH on the removal of fluoride, nitrate and boron by
nanofiltration/reverse osmosis. Desalin. 261:331-337. Determined effect of pH on removal of
contaminants with several different units. Found that pH did not affect flow rates. pH affected removal
of each compound. Boron was removed most effectively at high pH (>11). Nitrate removal varied among
units. Fluoride removal was most efficient a high pH, similar to Bo.
Ritter. 2010. Invited paper: Environmental biotechnology in water and wastewater treatment. J.
Environ. Engineer. 136:348-352. Detailed review of advances in understanding microbial activities using
molecular techniques. This knowledge provides the basis for improving contaminant removal from
drinking water systems.
Rittman. 2010. Environmental biotechnology in water and wastewater treatment. J. Environ. Engineer.
136:348-353. Detailed discussion about changes in environmental microbiology and how this has
contributed to new developments, such as more efficient methane generation. Molecular techniques
have lead to better understanding of metabolism and identification of unknown microorganisms.
Microbial activities can be used to produce fuel cells and electricity from biosolids using molecular
techniques.
Rose et al. 2005. Chlorine inactivation of bacterial terrorism agents. AEM 71:566-568. Compared
susceptibility of seven species of bacteria to free chlorine. Found that concentrations of free chlorine
maintained in drinking water was sufficient to the concentration of spores of most species by 2 orders of
magnitude in 10 min. Spores of Bacillus anthracis would require additional treatment.
Rose. 2002. Water quality security. What is needed to safeguard our drinking water supplies from a
bioterrorism attack. Environ. Sci.Technol. 36 :247A-250A. Review of microbiological and biotoxins that
could contaminate drinking water. Lists categories and risks. Significant data on threat, doses, survival
times, etc.
Rossner et al. 2009. Removal of emerging contaminants of concern by alternative adsorbents. Water
Res. 43:3787-3796. Compared effectiveness of four adsorbents (activated carbon, carbonaceous resin
and two zeolites in removing various emerging contaminants. Found activate carbon to be the most
effective; carbonaceous resin was next in effectiveness and zeolites were least effective. Pore size and
heterogeneity was an important factor in adsorption; zeolites had smaller and uniform pores, compared
to activated carbon.
Saranthy and Mohseni. 2010. Effects of UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation on chemical characteristics and
chlorine reactivity of surface water natural organic matter. Water Res. 44: 4087-4096. Determined
effects of UV/H202 advanced oxidation on raw and treated water and secondary product formation. In
raw water, advanced oxidation partially oxidized organic matter but did not mineralize organic matter;
secondary product formation was not reduced. In treated water, organic matter was oxidized and
mineralized; secondary product formation was substantially reduced.
45
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Sarkar et al. 2006. Arsenic removal from groundwater and its safe containment in a rural environment:
validation of a sustainable approach. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:4268-4273. Reviews practical impact of
renewable adsorbents used to remove arsenic from wellheads in India. Significant data and diagrams
Schrock et al. 2008. Occurrence of contaminant accumulation in lead pipe scales from drinking water
distribution systems. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:4285-4291. Measured constituents and contaminants in
pipe residues. Found that some contaminants were in sufficient concentrations to be of concern to end
users. Constituents did not exhibit predictable behavior, suggesting need for considerable fate and
transport data for constituents.
Shriks et al. 2010. Toxicological relevance of emerging contaminants for drinking water quality. Water
Res. 44:461-576. Reviewed data on concentration of 50 emerging contaminants. Concluded that most
do not pose a significant health risk, because concentrations were well below guidelines.
Silverstein. 2006. Investigation of the capability of Point-of-Use/Point of Entry treatment devices as a
means of providing water security. EPA 600R06012. Reviewed literature to evaluate different types of
POU devices. Compared effectiveness, costs, benefits, limitations and other relevant information.
Concluded that POE devices had advantages in specific situations, such as critical facilities and that POU
devices could be important in serving part of the end users. Concluded that prefiltration, RO, carbon
adsorption and UV disinfection were the most promising technologies for decontaminating water.
Recommended that POE devices be used in critical facilities, that testing of POU/POE devices continue
and keeping inventory of devices available from industry as developed.
Sinha et al. 2006. Evaluation of ceramic filtration for drinking water treatment in small systems. World
Environ. Water Res. Cong. 2007:1-11. Determined effectiveness of a ceramic filtration system that could
be used by small communities. Was highly effective in removing turbidity and Crypto spores and less
effective against bacteria.
Sinha et al. 2007. Evaluation of advanced oxidation processes for the treatment of methyl tert-butyl
ether drinking water treatment in small systems. World Environ. Water Res. Congr. 2007:1-8.
Compared effectiveness of three advanced oxidation systems to remove MTBE from water. Systems
were H2O2, UV/ozone and UV/H2O2/peroxide at pilot scale size. Also compared low pressure to high
pressure UV lamps. Responses varied, depending on combinations. Low pressure UV was more
effective with UV/ozone and UV/H2O2/peroxide treatments.
Sinha et al. 2008. Evaluation of point of use (POU) systems for the removal of microbiological
contaminants in drinking water. World Environ. Water Res. Cong. 2008:1-9. Evaluated point of use
filtration systems for removing contaminants. Effective against microbial contaminants (reported in
more detail in Muhammad et al., 2010, above).
Smith et al. 2010. Comparison of byproduct formation in waters treated with chlorine and iodine:
relevance to point of use treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. (in press). Compared byproduct formation
from presence of iodine in water to those formed when chlorine is present. The byproduct profiles were
similar for the two disinfectants. Cytotoxicity data suggest that certain iodine byproducts (iodoform) are
more toxic than those from chlorination. A POU device was effective in removing iodine byproducts.
46
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
Sobsey et al. 2009. Point of use household drinking water filtration: a practical effective solution for
providing safe drinking water in the developing world. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42:4261-4267. Compared
several POU technologies for effectiveness, practical application, cost, durability, ease of use, etc..
Concluded that ceramic filters and biosand filters were among most useful POU methods and most likely
to be of use in developing countries. Provide considerable data comparing the various technologies.
Sorlini and Gialdini. 2010. Conventional oxidation treatments for the removal of arsenic with chlorine
dioxide, hypochlorite, potassium permanganate and monochloramine. Water Res. 44:1-7. Determined
efficiency of oxidation of arsenic with different chemicals, conditions and doses. Found that
permanganate was the most effective, and monochloramine was the least effective.
Speth and Schrock. 2007. Removing esoteric contaminants from drinking waters: impacts of treatment
implementation. J. Environ. Engineer. 133:665-669. Make detailed comparison of water treatment
technologies using perchlorate as the contaminant/test material. Includes ion exchange, biological
treatment, membranes, adsorbents. Discuss some the implications of interactions with different
methods.
States et al. 2003. Utility-based analytical methods to ensure public water supply safety. JAWWA
95:103-115. Detailed discussion/review of methods available to detect various contaminants and
limitations.
States et al. 2004. Rapid analytical techniques for drinking water security investigations. JAWWA
96:52-64. Detailed discussion of contaminant categories and appropriate analytical methods. Tables of
methods, contaminants and data.
Sylvester et al. 2007. A hybrid sorbent utilizing nanoparticles of hydrous iron oxide for arsenic removal
from drinking water. Environ. Engineer. Sci. 24:104-112. Developed a system for arsenic removal.
Consisted of hydrous iron oxide nanoparticles in a polymer matrix. Four month test indicated that
arsenic concentrations were reduce to low levels and maintained with no significant problems.
Advantage is that arsenic interacts with nanoparticles and is not affected by presence of other anions.
Szabo et al. 2006. Persistence of Klebsiella pneumonia on simulated biofilm in a model drinking water
system. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:4996-5002. Kp did not populate pipe surfaces nor remain viable in
reactors for longer than 2 weeks, with or without presence of chlorine. Apparently free chlorine
reduced Kp concentrations dramatically. However, some Kp was detected for some time.
Szabo et al. 2007. Persistence and decongamination of Bacillus atrophaeus subsp globigii spores on
corroded iron in a model drinking water system. AEM 73L:2451-2457. Determined persistence of
Bacillus at spores on corroded iron coupons in a reactor. About half of the spores that initially adhered
to corroded surface were gone in about 1 month. When a low concentration of chlorine was
introduced, spore concentration decreased about 2 orders of magnitude. Increased chlorine
concentration at the time of infection did not increase inactivation. Indicated that chlorine did not make
contact with a portion of the attached spores, and that spores could persist for long periods of time in
the presence of free chlorine.
Szabo et al. 2008. Sensor response to contamination in chloraminated drinking water. J. AWWA
100:33-40. Evaluated response of commercial sensors to contamination in model system using
47
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
chloramines as disinfectant. TOC was reliable parameter for contamination; response less dramatic
than in system using chlorine as disinfectant.
Szabo et al. 2009. Bacillus spore uptake onto heavily corroded iron pipe in a drinking water system
simulator. Can. J. Civ. Engineer. 36:1867-1871. Contaminated reactor containing heavily corroded iron
pipe and measured survival of bacteria spores. Showed that spores for a long time on corroded iron
surfaces
Szabo et al. 2009. Bacillus spore uptake onto heavily corroded iron pipe in a drinking water distribution
system simulator. Can. J. Civ. Engin. 36:1867-1871. Corroded iron pipe was contaminated with Bacillus
glob spores and chlorinated. Spore concentration was reduced about 2 orders magnitude in 5 mins and
about 4 orders magnitude in 4 d. However, spores were detected after disassembly, indicating that
spores can persist on corroded surfaces after disinfection.
Szabo et al. 2009. Persistence and decontamination of surrogate radioisotopes in a model drinking
water system. Water Res. 43:5005-5014. Used cesium and cobalt chloride as surrogates for
radioisotopes in reactors containing corroded pipe surfaces. Cesium did not interact, but cobalt was on
corroded surfaces for extended periods of time. Cobalt resisted flushing with mild chemical solutions.
Strong solutions of base and acid removed much of the contaminant.
Tamminen et al. 2008. Water supply system performance for different pipe materials Part 1. Water
quality analysis. Water Res. Mgt. 22:1579-1607. Estimated decay of chlorine disinfection with time in
cast iron and polyethylene pipes using EPANET software. Cast iron pipes required higher chlorine
concentrations than polyethylene to sustain effective concentrations through the system. Wall decay
significant in iron but not polyethylene pipes.
Tansel et al. 2007. Compatability assessment of membrane processes for closed-loop water recovery
and recycling. World Environ. Water Res. Congress. 2007. Describes design and performance of
membrane filtration systems with aerobic reactors. Used by NASA in space vehicles for recycling water.
Thompson and VanBriesen. 2009. Novel, rapid molecular techniques for detecting contamination in
drinking water distribution systems. World Environ. Water Res. Cong. 2009: Great Rivers @ 2009 ASCE.
Described indicator classes of microorganisms used to indicate contamination and QPCR detection
methods. Resulted in faster and more comprehensive assessment and detection.
Upadhyayula et al. 2009. Application of carbon nanotube technology for removal of contaminants in
drinking water: a review. Sci. Total Environ. 408:1-13. Reviewed different aspects of using carbon
nanotube technology for water treatment. Concluded that the superior adsorption ability of CNTs
provide potential for removing wide range of potential contaminants and could be particularly useful
point of use roles. High cost and toxic nature are concerns for practical use. (Extensive references)
Vitello et al. 2009. A mobile emergency drinking water system powered by renewable energy. World
Environ. Water Res. Cong. 2009: Great Rivers @ 2009 ASCE. Designed a trailer-mounted system that
uses UV and filtration cartridges to provide drinkable water from surface water sources; powered by PV
cells and/or wind turbine.
Wingender and Flemming. 2004. Contamination potential of drinking water distribution network
biofilms. Water Sci. Technol. 49:227-286. Investigated biofilms established on a variety of pipe
48
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
materials and over different lengths of time. Found no correlation between amount of colonization and
pipe age. Most infrastructure materials did not appear to be a significant sites for pathogens; rubber
surfaces harbored extensive development of bacterial colonies, including pathogens.
Yang et al. 2008. Model and testing of reactive contaminant transport in drinking water pipes: chlorine
response and implications for online contaminant detection. Water Res. 42:1397-1412.
Did pipe flow experiments with slugs of sodium fluoride and aldocarb. Found close relationship among
aldocarb slug, residual chlorine loss and concentration of chlorine in final product. Reaction was similar
to that predicted by models as linear response. Residual loss response curves appear useful in
identifying contaminant slugs and their behavior.
Yang et al. 2009. Real-time contaminant detection and classification in a drinking water pipe using
conventional water quality sensors: techniques and experimental results. J. Environ. Mgt. 90:24942506. Used a real time detection method to monitor changes in a variety of characteristics (pH, free
chlorine, redux, etc.) in water in pilot scale setting. Eleven contaminants(chemical, biological, toxin
surrogates) at three concentrations were used as test materials. System was able to detect
contamination events accurately.
Yang et al. 2010. Alumina nanofibers grafted with functional groups: a new design in efficient sorbents
for removal of toxic contaminants from water. Water Res. 44:741-750. Thiol groups were attached to
aluminum oxide nanofibers; were very effective in removing organic toxic molecules. Can function well
at high flow rates.
You et al. 2005. Removal and inactivation of waterborne viruses using zerovalent iron. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 39:9263-9269. Evaluated ability of zerovalent iron to remove viruses from water using
columns/reactors. System was effective in removing or inactivating most of the viruses. Suggested to be
an alternative to using chlorine.
Zaw and Emett. 2002. Arsenic removal from water using advanced oxidation processes. Toxic. Ltrs.
133:113-118. Described a process in which reduced arsenic was removed using advanced oxidation
process which involved UV light and a photo absorber.
Zein et al. 2006. Bioremediation of groundwater contaminated with gasoline hydrocarbons and
oxygenates using a membrane-based reactor. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40:1997-2003. Developed a field
scale membrane-based bioreactor to remove a variety of hydrocarbons from contaminated
groundwater in RI. Removed essentially all contaminants from the ground source.
Zhang et al. 2003. Fouling and natural organic matter removal in adsorbent/membrane systems for
drinking water treatments. Environ. Sci. Technol. 37:1663-1669. Evaluated behavior of ultrafiltration
membranes when adsorbents were added. Some adsorbents bind with natural organic matter and the
membrane, increasing fouling. Others bind only to the organic matter and do not cause fouling.
Zhang et al. 2010. Preparation and evaluation of a magnetite-doped activated carbon fiber for enhanced
arsenic removal. Carbon 48:60-67. Fabricated an absorbent consisting of nanoparticles of magnetite
impregnated into activated carbon fiber with or without a coating of chitosan. The chitosan prepration
was very effective at removing arsenic from water, compared to the uncoated form.
49
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
References
1.
Adams, J.et al. 2008. The Reduction of Microbial and Chemical Contaminants with Selected POU/POE
Systems. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress.
2.
Ahmedna, M. et al. 2004. The Use of Nutshell Carbons in Drinking Water Filters for Removal of Trace
Metals. Water Research 38, 1062-1068.
3.
Alfonso, L. et al. 2010. Multiobjective Optimization of Operational Responses for Contaminant Flushing
in Water Distribution Networks. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 136:1, 48-58.
4.
Allgeier, S.et al. 2004. Responding to Threats and Incidents of Intentional Drinking Water
Contamination. Journal of Contemporary Water Research and Education 129, 13-17.
5.
Allman, T. et al. 2005. Expanded Summary: Modeling Intentional Distribution System Contamination
and Detection. Journal of the American Water Works Association, 97:1, 58-61.
6.
Amstutz, D. et al. 2008. The Integration of Network-Based Models for Spill Response and Homeland
Security. American Journal of Environmental Sciences 4(6), 544-550.
7.
An, B. et al. 2005. Selective Removal of Arsenate from Drinking Water Using a Polymeric Ligand
Exchanger. Water Research 39, 4993-5004.
8.
Ando, N. et al. 2010. Comparison of Natural Organic Matter Adsorption Capacities of Super-Powdered
Activated Carbon and Powdered Activated Carbon. Water Research 44, 4127-4136.
9.
Anipsitakis, G. et al. 2006. Chemically Induced Redox Reactions in Water Treatment: A Summary of
Advanced and Direct Technologies. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress.
10.
Atkins, C. et al. 2003. Protecting Water Security Information. National Conference of State Legislatures
1-35.
11.
Atkinson, S. 2006. Filtration Technology Verified to Remove Arsenic from Drinking Water. Membrane
Technology, 8-9.
12.
Bahadur, R. et al. 2003. PiplineNet: A Model for Monitoring Introduced Contaminants in a Distribution
Zone. World Water Congress.
13.
Banasiak, L. et al. 2009. Removal of Inorganic Trace Contaminants by Electrodialysis in a Remote
Australian Community. Desalination 248, 48-57.
14.
Baranowski, T. et al. 2008. Consequence Management Utilizing Optimization. Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management 134:4, 386-394.
50
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
15.
Barbeau, B. et al. 2005. Dead-End Flushing of a Distribution System: Short and Long-Term Effects on
Water Quality. Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-AQUA 54.6, 371-383.
16.
Bender, L. et al. 2008. Update on Water Sector Strategy for Decontamination. Proceedings of the
Water Environment Federation. WEFTEC Session 91 through Session 100, 7159-7162.
17.
Benotti, M. et al. 2009. Pharmaceuticals and Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in U.S. Drinking Water.
Environmental Science & Technology 43, 597-603.
18.
Berry, J.et al. 2009. Designing Contamination Warning Systems for Municipal Water Networks Using
Imperfect Sensors. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 135:4, 253-263.
19.
Besner, M. et al. 2008. Efficacy of Disinfectant Residual on Microbial Intrusion: A Review of
Experiments. Journal of The American Water Works Association 100:10, 116-130.
20.
Bibby, K. et al. 2010. Pyrosequencing of the 16S rRNA Gene to Reveal Bacterial Pathogen Diversity in
Biosolids. Water Research 44, 4252-4260.
21.
Bielefeldt, A. et al. 2009. Bacterial Treatment of Effectiveness of Point-of-Use Ceramic Water Filters.
Water Research 43, 3559-3565.
22.
Bielefeldt, A. et al. 2010. Removal of Virus to Protozoan Sized Particles in Point-of-Use Ceramic Water
Filters. Water Research 44, 1482-1488.
23.
Bolto, B. et al. 2007. Review: Organic Polyelectrolytes in Water Treatment. Water Research 41. 23012324.
24.
Bond, T. et al. 2010. Disinfection By-Product Formation of Natural Organic Matter Surrogates and
Treatment by Coagulation, MIEX®. Water Research 44, 1645-1653.
25.
Bottino, A. et al. 2009. Membrane Technologies for Water Treatment and Agroindustrial Sectors. C.R.
Chimie 12, 882-888.
26.
Bougeard, C. et al. 2010. Comparison of the Disinfection By-Product Formation Potential of Treated
Waters Exposed to Chlorine and Monochloramine. Water Research 44, 729-740.
27.
Bristow, E. et al. 2006. Delay between Sensing and Response in Water Contamination Events. Journal
of Infrastructure Systems 12:2, 87-95.
28.
Broseus, R. et al. 2009. Ozone Oxidation of Pharmaceuticals, Endocrine Disruptors and Pesticides
During Drinking Water Treatment. Water Research 43, 4707-4717.
29.
Brown, R. et al. 2004. Trace Contaminants in Water Treatment Chemicals: Sources and Fate. Journal of
The American Water Works Association 96:12, 111-125.
30.
Brownell, S. et al. 2008. Assessment of a Low-Cost, Point-of-Use, Ultraviolet Water Disinfection
Technology. Journal of Water and Health 6:1, 53-66.
51
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
31.
Byer, D. et al. 2005. Expanded Summary: Real-Time Detection of Intentional Chemical Contamination in
the Distribution System. Journal of The American Water Works Association 97:7, 130-133.
32.
Cartier, C. et al. 2009. Evaluating Aerobic Endospores as Indicators of Intrusion in Distribution Systems.
Journal of The American Water Works Association 101:7, 46-58.
33.
Cederkvist, K.et al. 2010. Full-Scale Removal of Arsenate and Chromate from Water Using a Limestone
and Ochreous Sludge Mixture as a Low-Cost Sorbent Material. Water Environmental Research 82:5,
401-408.
34.
Chen, W. et al. 2006. Treatment of Volatile Organic Chemicals on the EPA Contaminant Candidate List
Using Ozonation and the O3/H2O2 Advanced Oxidation Process. Environmental Science & Technology 40,
2734-2739.
35.
Cho, S. et al. 2006. Using UV254 as a TOC Surrogate for Intentional Contaminant Detection in Drinking
Water Distribution Systems. 8th Annual Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium.
36.
Chong, M. et al. 2010. Recent Developments in Photocatalytic Water Treatment Technology: A Review.
Water Research 44, 2997-3027.
37.
Chu, H. et al. 2010. Bio-Diatomite Dynamic Membrane Reactor for Micro-Polluted Surface Water
Treatment. Water Research 44, 1573-1579.
38.
Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Council. 2007. Water: Critical Infrastructure and Key
Resources Sector-Specific Plan as Input to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. Environmental
Protection Agency, Water Sector Coordinating Council.
39.
Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Council. 2008. Recommendations of the CIPAC Metrics
Workgroup for Water. Environmental Protection Agency, Water Sector Coordinating Council.
40.
Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Council. 2008. Recommendations and Proposed Strategic
Plan. Water Sector Decontamination Priorities. Water Sector Decontamination Working Group. Final
Report.
41.
Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Council. 2009. Roadmap to a Secure & Resilient Water
Sector. Water Sector Strategic Planning Working Group.
42.
Critical Infrastructure Protection Advisory Council. 2009. Annual Report.
43.
Clark, R. et al. 2008. Controlling Disinfection Residual Losses in Drinking Water Distribution Systems:
Results from Experimental Studies. Proceedings of the10th Annual Water Distribution Systems Analysis
Conference 1026-1037.
44.
Coleman, H. et al. 2007. Removal of Contaminants of Concern in Water Using Advanced Oxidation
Techniques. Water Science and Technology 55:12, 301-306.
45.
Collivignarelli, C. et al. 2004. AOPs with Ozone and UV Radiation in Drinking Water: Contaminants
Removal and Effects on Disinfection Byproducts Formation. Water Science and Technology 49:4, 51-56.
52
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
46.
Cooper, A. et al. 2010. The Effect of Carbon Type on Arsenic and Trichloroethylene Removal
Capabilities of Iron (Hydr)oxide Nanoparticle-Impregnated Granulated Activated Carbons. Journal of
Hazardous Materials 183, 381-388.
47.
Cornelissen, E. et al. 2005. A Nanofiltration Retention Model for Trace Contaminants in Drinking Water
Sources. Desalination 178, 179-192.
48.
Correa, A. et al. 2010. Use of Ozone-Photocatalytic Oxidation (O3/UV/TiO2) and Biological Remediation
for Treatment of Produced Water from Petroleum Refineries. Journal of Environmental Engineering
136, 40-45.
49.
Cotruvo, J. et al. 2003. Nontraditional Approaches for Providing Potable Water in Small Systems: Part I.
Journal of The American Water Works Association 95:3, 69-76.
50.
Danneels, J. et al. 2004. Assessing the Vulnerabilities of U.S. Drinking Water Systems. Journal of
Contemporary Water Research and Education 129, 8-12.
51.
Davis, M. et al. 2008. Importance of Exposure Model in Estimating Impacts When a Water Distribution
System Is Contaminated. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 134:5, 449-456.
52.
Dorea, C.C. 2009. Coagulant-Based Emergency Water Treatment. Desalination 248, 83-90.
53.
Dotson, A. et al. 2010. UV/H2O2 Treatment of Drinking Water Increases Post-Chlorination DBP
Formation. Water Research 44, 3703-3713.
54.
Elless, M. et al. 2005. Pilot-Scale Demonstration of Phytofiltration for Treatment of Arsenic in New
Mexico Drinking Water. Water Research 39, 3863-3872.
55.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. EPA/625/R-05/002. Security Information Collaboratives: A
Guide for Water Utilities.
56.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA 810-B-02-001. Instructions to Assist Community Water
Systems in Compliance with Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of
2002.
57.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA 810-F-03-007. Large Water System Emergency Response
Plan Outline: Guidance to Assist Community Water Systems in Complying with the Public Health and
Security Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.
58.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA 810-R-02-001. Guidance for Water Utility Response,
Recovery & Remediation Actions for Man-Made and/or Technological Emergencies.
59.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA 817-D-03-001. Response Protocol Toolbox: Planning for
and Responding to Drinking Water Contamination Threats and Incidents. Interim Final. Module 1:
Water Utilities Planning Guide.
60.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA 817-D-03-002. Response Protocol Toolbox: Planning for
and Responding to Drinking Water Contamination Threats and Incidents. Interim Final. Module 2:
Contamination Threat Management Guide.
53
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
61.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA 817-D-03-003. Response Protocol Toolbox: Planning for
and Responding to Drinking Water Contamination Threats and Incidents. Interim Final. Module 3: Site
Characterization and Site Guide.
62.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA 817-D-03-004. Response Protocol Toolbox: Planning for
and Responding to Drinking Water Contamination Threats and Incidents. Interim Final. Module 4:
Analytical Guide.
63.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA 817-D-03-005. Response Protocol Toolbox: Planning for
and Responding to Drinking Water Contamination Threats and Incidents. Interim Final. Module 5:
Public Health Response Guide.
64.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA 817-D-03-006. Response Protocol Toolbox: Planning for
and Responding to Drinking Water Contamination Threats and Incidents. Interim Final. Module 6:
Remediation and Recovery Guide.
65.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. EPA 817-D-03-007. Response Protocol Toolbox: Planning for
and Responding to Drinking Water Contamination Threats and Incidents. Interim Final. Overview and
Application.
66.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. EPA 817-D-04-001. Response Protocol Toolbox: Planning for
and Responding to Drinking Water Contamination Threats and Incidents. Interim Final. Response
Guidelines.
67.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. EPA/600/R-04/ 037. EPA's Role in Water Security Research.
The Water Security Research and Technical Support Action Plan.
68.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. EPA/600/R-04/063. Water Security Research and Technical
Support Action Plan.
69.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. EPA 816-R-04-002. Emergency Response Plan Guidance for
Small and Medium Community Water Systems to Comply with the Public Health Security and
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of 2002.
70.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. EPA 817-D-05-003. WaterSentinel System Architecture, Draft,
Version 1.0.
71.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2005. EPA 817-R-05-001. Drinking Water Security for Small Systems
Serving 3,300 or Fewer Persons. One of the Simple Tools for Effective Performance (STEP) Guide Series.
72.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. EPA 817-B-06-001. A Water Security Handbook: Planning for
and Responding to Drinking Water Contamination Threats and Incidents.
73.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. EPA/600/R-08/059. 2007 Workshop on Decontamination,
Cleanup, and Associated Issues for Sites Contaminated with Chemical, Biological, or Radiological
Materials.
74.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. EPA 817-F-07-001. Water Contaminant Information Tool.
54
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
75.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. EPA 817-F-07-002. U.S. EPA Water Security Initiative.
76.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. EPA 817-F-07-016. A Water Security Fact Sheet for State
Health and Environmental Agencies.
77.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. EPA 817-F-07-017. Water Sector-Specific Plan Fact Sheet.
78.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. EPA 817-R-07-001. Water. Critical Infrastructure and Key
Resources Sector-Specific Plan as input to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan.
79.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. EPA 817-R-07-002. Water Security Initiative: Interim Guidance
on Planning for Contamination Warning System Deployment.
80.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008 EPA 817-R-08-011. Seattle-King County, Washington
Community Case Study Report. Security and Preparedness Practices: A Collaborative Approach to Water
Resiliency.
81.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. EPA 817-R-07-001A. Water. Critical Infrastructure and Key
Resources Sector-Specific Plan as input to the National Infrastructure Protection Plan. Executive
Summary.
82.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. EPA/600/R-08/016. Pilot-Scale Tests and Systems Evaluation
for the Containment, Treatment, and Decontamination of Selected Materials from T&E Building Pipe
Loop Equipment.
83.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. EPA 817-F-08-004. Decontamination and Recovery Planning.
Water and Wastewater Utility Case Study.
84.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. EPA 817-K-08-002. 2008 Annual Update to the Water SectorSpecific Plan.
85.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. EPA 817-R-08-001. Water Security Initiative. Interim Guidance
on Developing Consequence Management Plans for Drinking Water Utilities.
86.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. EPA 817-R-08-002. Water Security Initiative. Interim Guidance
on Developing an Operational Strategy for Contamination Warning Systems.
87.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. EPA 817-R-08-012. Chicagoland Water and Wastewater
Preparedness and Business Resiliency Summit: A Community Forum on Interdependencies. Meeting
Summary Findings and Recommendations.
88.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Roadmap to Secure Control Systems in the Water Sector.
89.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. EPA/600/R-01/036. Water Quality Event Detection Systems
for Drinking Water Contamination Warning Systems. Development, Testing, and Application of CANARY.
90.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. EPA/600/R-04/126E. Standardized Analytical Methods for
Environmental Restoration Following Homeland Security Events. Revision 5.0.
55
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
91.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. EPA/600/R-09/035. Report on the 2008 Workshop on
Decontamination Research and Associated Issues for Sites Contaminated with Chemical, Biological, or
Radiological Materials.
92.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2009. Performance Verification Testing. Rapid Toxicity Monitoring
and Detection Systems. Overview and Analysis.
93.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. EPA 402-R-10-001. Rapid Radiochemical Methods for Selected
Radionuclides in Water for Environmental Restoration Following Homeland Security Events.
94.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. EPA/600/R-09/014. Sensor Network Design for Drinking
Water Contamination Warning Systems. A Compendium of Research Results and Case Studies Using
TEVA-SPOT Software.
95.
Fencil, J. et al. 2009. Security and Preparedness. Cincinnati’s Drinking Water Contamination Warning
System Goes through Full-Scale Exercise. Journal of The American Water Works Association 101:2, 5255, 121.
96.
Fengyi, S et al. 2009. Performance of Microbiological Control by a Point-of-Use Filter System for
Drinking Water Purification. Journal of Environmental Sciences 21, 1237-1246.
97.
Figoli, A. et al. 2010. Influence of Operating Parameters on the Arsenic Removal by Nanofiltration.
Water Research 44, 97-104.
98.
Fisher, M. et al. 2008. Speeding Up Solar Disinfection (SODIS) Effects of Hydrogen Peroxide,
Temperature, pH, and Copper plus Ascorbate on the Photoinactivation of E. Coli. Journal of Water and
Health 6:1, 35-52.
99.
Fox, K. 2004. Water Treatment and Equipment Decontamination Techniques. Journal of Contemporary
Water Research and Education 129, 18-21.
100.
Friedman, M. et al. 2002. Developing and Implementing a Distribution System Flushing Program.
Journal of The American Water Works Association 94:7, 48-56.
101.
United States General Accounting Office. 2003. GAO-04-140T. Critical Infrastructure Protection.
Challenges in Securing Control Systems.
102.
United States General Accounting Office. 2003. GAO-04-29. Drinking Water. Experts’ Views on How
Future Federal Funding Can Best Be Spent to Improve Security.
103.
Gerba, C. et al. 2008. Virus Removal from Water by a Portable Water Treatment Device. Wilderness
and Environmental Medicine 19. 45-49.
104.
Gibbons, M. et al. 2010. Adsorption of Arsenic from a Nova Scotia Groundwater onto Water Treatment
Residual Solids. Water Research 44:19, 5740-5749.
105.
Gibbs, M. et al. 2010. Calibration and Optimization of the Pumping and Disinfection of a Real Water
Supply System. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 136(4), 493-501.
56
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
106.
Guo, X. et al. 2009. Removal of Antimony (V) and Antimony (III) from Drinking Water by CoagulationFlocculation-Sedimentation (CFS). Water Research 43, 4327-4335.
107.
Gutierrez, L. et al. 2009. Adsorption of Rotavirus and Bacteriophage MS2 Using Glass Fiber Coated with
Hematite Nanoparticles. Water Research 43, 5198-5208.
108.
Hall, J. et al. 2007. On-Line Water Quality Parameters as Indicators of Distribution System
contamination. Journal of The American Water Works Association 99:1, 66-77.
109.
Haramoto, E. et al. 2010. Real-Time PCR Detection of Adenoviruses, Polyomaviruses, and Torque Teno
Viruses in River Water in Japan. Water Research 44, 1747-1752.
110.
Harmless, M. et al, 2006. An Integrated Modular Approach to Water Distribution System Monitoring.
8th Annual Water Distribution Systems Analysis Symposium.
111.
Hart, W. et al. 2010. Review of Sensor Placement Strategies for contamination Warning Systems in
Drinking Water Distribution Systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 136, 611619.
112.
Hartzinger, P. 2005. Perchlorate Biodegradation for Water Treatment. Environmental Science &
Technology 39, 240A-247A.
113.
Helbling, D. et al. 2009. Modeling Residual Chlorine Response to a Microbial Contamination Event in
Drinking Water Distribution Systems. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135, 918-927.
114.
Helmi, K. et al. 2008. Interactions of Cryptosporidium parvum, Giardia lamblia, Vaccinal Poliovirus Type
1, and Bacteriophages X174 and MS2 with a Drinking Water Biofilm and a Wastewater Biofilm.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology 74:7, 2079-2088.
115.
Hijnen, W. et al. 2010. GAC Adsorption Filters as Barriers for Viruses, Bacteria and Protozoan (oo)cysts
in Water Treatment. Water Research 44, 1224-1234.
116.
Hladik, M.L. et al. 2008. Neutral Degradates of Chloracetamide Herbicides: Occurrence in Drinking
Water and Removal During Conventional Water Treatment. Water Research 42, 4905-4914.
117.
Hong, H. et al. 2009. Removal of Anionic Contaminants by Surfactant Modified Powdered Activated
Carbon (SM-PAC) Combined with Ultrafiltration. Journal of Hazardous Materials 170, 1242-1246.
118.
Hua, W. et al. 2006. Ozone Treatment and the Depletion of Detectable Pharmaceuticals and Atrazine
Herbicide in Drinking Water Sourced from the Upper Detroit River, Ontario, Canada. Water Research 40.
2259-2266.
119.
Huang, J. et al. 2009. Data Mining to Identify Contaminant Event Locations in Water Distribution
Systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 135:6.466-474.
120.
Huang, H. et al. 2009. Pretreatment for Low Pressure Membranes in Water Treatment: A Review.
Environmental Science & Technology 43:9, 3011-3019.
57
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
121.
Janke, R. et al. 2006. Comparison of Physical Sampling and Real-Time Monitoring Strategies for
Designing a Contamination Warning System in a Drinking Water Distribution System. Journal of Water
Resources Planning and Management 132:4, 310-313.
122.
Jiang, Y. et al. 2003. Degradation of Trace Contaminants Using Coupled Sonochemistry and Fenton’s
Reagent. Water Science and Technology 47:10, 85-92.
123.
Kennedy, M. et al. 2001. Improving the Performance of Dead-End Ultrafiltration Systems: Comparing
Air and Water Flushing. Water Supply 1:5-6, 97-106.
124.
Kim, E.J. et al. 2010. Characteristics of Lead Corrosion Scales Formed During Drinking Water
Distribution and Their Potential Influence on the Release of Lead and Other Contaminants.
Environmental Science & Technology 44:16, 6054-6061.
125.
Kim, J. et al. 2006. Arsenic Removal from Water Using Lignocelluloses Adsorption Medium (LAM).
Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A, 41A. 1529-1542.
126.
Ko, I. et al. 2007. Arsenic Removal by a Colloidal Iron Oxide Coated Sand. Journal of Environmental
Engineering 133:9, 891-898.
127.
Kroll, D. et al. 2006. Laboratory and Flow Loop Validation and Testing of the Operational Effectiveness
of an On-Line Security Platform for the Water Distribution System. 8th Annual Water Distribution
Systems Analysis Symposium.
128.
Kruithof, J. et al. 2007. UV/H2O2 Treatment: A Practical Solution for Organic Contaminant Control and
Primary Disinfection. Ozone: Science and Engineering 29, 273-280.
129.
Kumar, J. et al. 2009. Characterizing Reactive Containment Sources in a Water Distribution System.
World Environmental and Water Resources Congress.
130.
Lakshmann, D. et al. 2010. Comparative Study of Arsenic Removal by Iron using Electrocoagulation and
Chemical Coagulation. Water Research 44:19, 5641-5652.
131.
Lantagne, D. 2008. Sodium Hypochlorite Dosage for Household and Emergency Water Treatment.
Journal of The American Water Works Association 100:8, 106-119.
132.
Le Noir. M. et al. 2006. Removal of Trace Contaminants Using Molecularly Imprinted Polymers. Water
Science and Technology 53:11, 205-212.
133.
Lehtola, M. et al. 2005. Pipeline Materials Modify the Effectiveness of Disinfectants in Drinking Water
Distribution Systems. Water Research 39, 1962-1971.
134.
Li, Q. et al. 2008. Antimicrobial Nanomaterials for Water Disinfection and Microbial Control: Potential
Applications and Implications. Water Research 42, 4591-4602.
135.
Liu, C. et al. 2009. Kinetics and Mechanism for Degradation of Dichlorvos by Permanganate in Drinking
Water Treatment. Water Research 43, 3435-3442.
58
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
136.
Luster-Teasley, S. et al. 2009. Development of Slow-Release Chemical Oxidation Methods for
Environmental Remediation. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress.
137.
Lykins, B. et al. 1994. U.S. Drinking Water Regulations: Treatment Technologies and Cost. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 120, 783-802.
138.
Lyon, S. et al. 2009. Removal of Selenium and Nitrate from Surface Waters Using a Subsurface
Microbial Filter. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress.
139.
Lytle, D. A. et al. 2010. Particulate Arsenic Release in a Drinking Water Distribution System. Journal of
The American Water Works Association 102:3, 87-98.
140.
Macova, M. et al. 2010. Monitoring the Biological Activity of Micropollutants During Advanced
Wastewater Treatment with Ozonation and Activated Carbon Filtration. Water Research 44, 477-492.
141.
Magnuson, M. et al. 2005. Quantitative Structure – Property Relationships for Enhancing Predictions of
Synthetic Organic Chemical Removal from Drinking Water by Granular Activated Carbon. Environmental
and Science Technology 39:19, 7706-7711.
142.
Magnuson, M. et al. 2005. Responding to Water Contamination Threats. Environmental and Science
Technology 39, 153A-159A.
143.
Mansouri, L. et al. 2007. Degradation of Recalcitrant Organic contaminants by solar Photocatalysis.
Water Science and Technology 55:12, 119-125.
144.
Meier-Haack, J. et al. 2003. A Permeability-Controlled Microfiltration Membrane for Reduced Fouling in
Drinking Water Treatment. Water Research 37, 585-588.
145.
Metz, D. et al. 2010. The Effect of UV/H2O2 Treatment on Biofilm Formation Potential. Water Research.
In Press.
146.
Miles, S. et al. 2009. Point-of-Use Drinking Water Devices for Assessing Microbial Contamination in
Finished Water and Distribution Systems. Environmental Science & Technology 43, 1425-1429.
147.
Moraci, N. et al. 2010. Heavy Metals Removal and Hydraulic Performance in Zero-Valent Iron/Pumice
Permeable Reactive Barriers. Journal of Environmental Management 91, 2336-2341.
148.
Morley, K. et al. 2007. Drinking Water Contamination Warning Systems: Water Utilities Driving Water
Security Research. Journal of The American Water Works Association 99:6, 40-46.
149.
Muhammad, N. et al. 2008. Development of a Water Security Filtration System for Whole House Water
Supply. World Environmental and Water Congress.
150.
Muhammad, N. et al. 2008. Evaluating Surrogates for Cryptosporidium Removal in Point-of-Use
Systems. Journal of The American Water Works Association 100:12, 98-107.
151.
Muhammad, N. et al. 2009. Ceramic Filter for Small System Drinking Water Treatment: Evaluation of
Membrane Pore Size and Importance of Integrity Monitoring. Journal of Environmental Engineering
135:11, 1181-1191.
59
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
152.
Muhammad, N. et al. 2009. Development of a Community Water Security Filtration System Using
Composite Cartridges. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress.
153.
Muhammad, N. et al. 2010. Evaluation of Long-Term Performance of Point of Use (POU) Systems for
Drinking Water Treatment.
154.
Murphy, J. et al. 2009. Removal of Waterborne Particles by Electrofiltration.
155.
Murray, R. et al. 2008. Sensor Network Design of Contamination Warning Systems: A Decision
Framework. Journal of The American Water Works Association 100:11, 97-109.
156.
Nguyen, V. et al. 2009. Arsenic Removal by a Membrane Hybrid Filtration System. Desalination 236,
363-369.
157.
Nilsson, K. et al. 2005. Simulating Exposures to Deliberate Intrusions into Water Distribution Systems.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 131:3, 228-236.
158.
Ning, R. 2002. Arsenic Removal by Reverse Osmosis. Desalination 143, 237-241.
159.
Nirmalakhandan, N. et al. 1991. Evaluation of Cascade Air Striping – Pilot-Scale and Prototype Studies.
Journal of Environmental Engineering 117, 788-798.
160.
National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the EPA Water Security Research and Technical Support
Action Plan: Parts I and II. National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press 10772.
161.
National Research Council. 2005. Public Water Supply Distribution Systems: Assessing and Reducing
Risks – First Report. National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press 11262.
162.
National Research Council. 2007. Improving the Nation’s Water Security: Opportunities for Research.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academies Press 11872.
163.
Oakes, K. 2005. Membrane Filtration Processes for Removing Arsenic from Drinking Water. World
Water and Environmental Resources Congress.
164.
Okun, D. 2006. The Weak Link in the Provision of Safe Drinking Water. 8th Annual Water Distribution
Systems Analysis Symposium.
165.
Parks, J. et al. 2006. Precipitative Removal of As, Ba, B, Cr, Sr, and V Using Sodium Carbonate. Journal
of Environmental Engineering 132:5, 489-496.
166.
Parks, S. et al. 2009. Booster Disinfection for Response to Contamination in a Drinking Water
Distribution System. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 135:6, 502-511.
167.
Patterson, C. et al. 2009. Evaluation of UV/Ozone Treatment Process for Removal of MTBE in
Groundwater Supplies in New Mexico. World Environmental and Water Congress.
168.
Pavoni, B. et al. 2006. Assessment of Organic Chlorinated Compound Removal from Aqueous Matrices
by Adsorption on Activated Carbon. Water Research 40, 3571-3579.
60
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
169.
Peng, C. et al. 2010. Characterization of Elemental and Structural Composition of Corrosion Scales and
Deposits Formed in Drinking Water Distribution Systems. Water Research 44, 4570-4580.
170.
Petrusevski, B. et al. 2002. Adsorbent-Based Point-of-Use System for Arsenic Removal in Rural Areas.
Journal of Water Supply: Research and Technology-Aqua. 51:3, 135-144.
171.
Pisano, W. et al. 2003. Automated Sewer and Drainage Flushing Systems in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 129:4, 260-266.
172.
Porco, J. W. 2010. Journal of The American Water Works Association 102:4, 30-32.
173.
Poulin, A. et al. 2008. Heuristic Approach for Operational Response to Drinking Water Contamination.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 134:5, 457-465.
174.
Poulin, A. et al. 2010. Planning Unidirectional Flushing Operations as a Response to Drinking Water
Distribution System Contamination. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 136:6, 647657.
175.
Pradeep, T. et al. 2009. Noble Metal Nanoparticles for Water Purification: A Critical Review. Thin Solid
Films 517, 6441-6478.
176.
Pratson, E. et al. 2010. The Effectiveness of Arsenic Remediation from Groundwater in a Private Home.
Ground Water Monitoring & Remediation 30:1, 85-91.
177.
Propato, M. et al. 2003. Effectiveness of Disinfectant Residual Against Microbiological Contamination in
Water Systems: Assessing Vulnerability. World Water Congress.
178.
Propato, M. et al. 2010. Linear Algebra and Minimum Relative Entropy to Investigate Contamination
Events in Drinking Water Systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 136:4, 483492.
179.
Qim, S. 2009. Predicting Minimum Carbon Usage for PAC Adsorption of Trace Organic Contaminants
from Natural Water. Journal of Environmental Engineering 135:11. 1199-1205.
180.
Quinlivan, P. et al. 2005. Effects of Activated Carbon Characteristics on the Simultaneous Adsorption of
Aqueous Organic Micropollutants and Natural Organic Matter. Water Research 39, 1663-1673.
181.
Radjenovic, J. et al. 2008. Rejection of Pharmaceuticals in Nanofiltration and Reverse Osmosis
Membrane Drinking Water Treatment. Water Research 42, 3601-3610.
182.
Ratnayake, N. et al. 1999. Study of Transport of Contaminants in a Pipe Network Using the Model
EPANET. Water Science Technology 40:2, 115-120.
183.
Richards, L. et al. 2010. Impact of pH on the Removal of Fluoride, Nitrate and Boron by
Nanofiltration/Reverse Osmosis. Desalination 261, 331-337.
184.
Richards, L. et al. 2009. Impact of Speciation on Fluoride, Arsenic and Magnesium Retention by
Nanofiltration/Reverse Osmosis in Remote Australian Communities. Desalination 248, 177-183.
61
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
185.
Rittman, B. 2010. Environmental Biotechnology in Water and Wastewater Treatment. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 136:4, 348-353.
186.
Rose, J. 2002. Water Quality Security. Action is Needed to Safeguard our Drinking Water Supplies from
a Bioterrorist Attack. Environmental Science Technology 36(11) 2476A-250A.
187.
Rossner, A. et al. 2009. Removal of Emerging Contaminants of Concern by Alternative Adsorbents.
Water Research 43, 3787-3796.
188.
Sarathy, S. et al. 2010. Effects of UV/H2O2 Advanced Oxidation on Chemical Characteristics and Chlorine
Reactivity of Surface Water Natural Organic Matter. Water Research 49, 4087-4096.
189.
Shukla, P. et al. 2010. Activated Carbon Supported Cobalt Catalysis for Advanced Oxidation of Organic
Contaminants in Aqueous Solution. Advanced Catalysis B: Environmental 100, 529-534.
190.
Sinha, R. et al. 2006. Evaluation of Ceramic Filtration for Drinking Water Treatment in Small Systems.
World Environmental and Water Resources Congress.
191.
Sinha P. et al. 2007. Evaluation of Advanced Oxide Procedure for Treatment of Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Drinking Water Treatment in Small Systems. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress.
192.
Sinha, R. et al. 2008. Evaluation of Point of Use (POU) Systems for the Removal of Microbiological
Contaminants in Drinking Water. World Environment Water Research Congress.
193.
Sobsey, M., et al. 2008. Point of Use Household Drinking Water Filtration: A Practical, Effective Solution
for Providing Sustained Access to Safe Drinking Water in the Developing World. Environmental Science
& Technology. 42, 4261–4267.
194.
Sorlini S. et al. 2010. Conventional Oxidation Treatments for the Removal of Arsenic with Chlorine
Dioxide, Hypochlorite, Potassium Permanganate and Monochloram. Water Research 44, 5653-5659.
195.
Speth, T. et al. 2007. Removing Esoteric Contaminants from Drinking Waters: Impacts of Treatment
Implementation. Journal of Environmental Engineering 133, 665-669.
196.
Srinivasan, R. et al. 2009. Treatment of Perchlorate in Drinking Water: A Critical Review. Separation and
Purification Technology 69, 7–21.
197.
States, S. et al. 2003. Utility-Based Analytical Methods to Ensure Public Water Supply Security. Journal
of the American Water Works Association 95:4; 103-115.
198.
States, S. et al. 2004. Rapid Analytical Techniques for Drinking Water Security Investigations. Journal of
the American Water Works Association 96:1, 52-64.
199.
Sylvester, P. et al. 2007. A Hybrid Sorbent Utilizing Nanoparticles of Hydrous Iron Oxide for Arsenic
Removal from Drinking Water. Environmental Engineering Science 24:1, 104-112.
200.
Szabo, J et al. 2008. Sensor Response to Contamination in Chlorinated Drinking Water. Journal of the
American Water Works Association 100:4, 33-40.
62
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
201.
Szabo, J. et al. 2009. Bacillus Spore Uptake onto Heavily Corroded Iron Pipe in a Drinking Water
Distribution System Simulator. Canadian Journal Civil Engineering 36, 1867–1871.
202.
Tamminem, S. et al. 2008. Water Supply System Performance for Different Pipe Materials Part I: Water
Quality Analysis. Water Resource Management 22, 1579–1607.
203.
Tansel, B. et al. 2007. Compatibility Assessment of Membrane Processes for Closed-Loop Water
Recovery and Recycling. World Environment Water Research Congress.
204.
Thompson, S. et al. 2009. Novel, Rapid Molecular-Based Technique for Detecting Contamination in
Drinking Water Distribution Systems. World Environmental and Water Resources Congress.
205.
Uber, J. et al. 2004. Use of Systems Analysis to Assess and Minimize Water Security Risks. Journal of
Contemporary Modern Research and Education 129, 34-40.
206.
Upadhyayula, V. et al. 2008. Application of Carbon Nanotube Technology for Removal of Contaminants
in Drinking Water: A Review. Science of the Total Environment 408, 1-13.
207.
Vitello, M. et al. 2009. A Mobile Emergency Drinking Water System Powered by Renewable Energy.
World Environment Water Research Congress.
208.
Vreeburg, J. et al. 2008. How Effective Is Flushing of Cast Iron Pipes. Proceedings of Water Distribution
Systems 340, 1-12.
209.
Wan, W. et al. 2011. Effects of Water Chemistry on Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water by
Electrocoagulation. Water Research 45(1), 384-392.
210.
Water Environment Federation. 2009. Guidance for Decontamination of Water System Infrastructure
(Project. #2981).
211.
Weickgenann, M. et al. 2010. Risk-Based Sensor Placement for Contaminant Detection in Water
Distribution Systems. Journal of Water Resources Planning Management 136:6, 629-636.
212.
Wells, M. et al. 2009. Emerging Pollutants. Water Environment Research 81:10, 2211-2254.
213.
Whitler, J. 2007. Emergency Preparedness for Drinking Water and Wastewater Systems. Journal of the
American Water Works Association 99:3, 3; 36-38.
214.
Wingender, J. et al. 2004. Contamination Potential of Drinking Water Distribution Network Biofilms.
Water Science and Technology 49:11-12, 277-286.
215.
Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd. 2009. Water Sector Measures Analysis. The Water
Sector Coordinating Council & WaterISAC.
216.
Wu, J. et al. 2004. Rapid Screening for Chemical Weapons Infiltration in Drinking Water. Journal of The
American Water Works Association 96:12, 44-47.
217.
Yang, Y. et al. 2008. Modeling and Testing of Reactive Contaminant Transport in Drinking Water Pipes:
Chlorine Response and Implications for Online Contaminant Detection. Water Research 42, 1397-1412.
63
Best Practice Protocols For Response And Recovery Operations In Contaminated Water Systems
Preliminary Copy of Draft Literature Review Report
218.
Yang, Y. et al. 2009. Real-Time Contaminant Detection and Classification in Drain Water Pipes Using
Conventional Water Quality Sensors: Techniques and Experimental Results. Journal of Environmental
Management. 90, 2494-2506.
219.
Yang, D. et al. 2010. Alumina Nanofibers Grafted with Functional Groups: A New Design in Efficient
Sorbents for Removal of Toxic Contaminants in Water. Water Research 44, 741-750.
220.
Yangali, B. et al. 2010. Proposing Nanofiltration as Acceptable Barrier for Organic Contaminants in
Water Reuse. Journal of Membrane Science 362, 334-345.
221.
You, Y. et al. 2005. Removal and Inactivation of Waterborne Viruses using Zerovalent Iron.
Environmental Science & Technology 39, 9263-9629.
222.
Zaw, M. et al. 2002. Arsenic Removal from Water Using Advanced Oxidation Processes. Toxicology
Letters 133, 113–118.
223.
Zhang, M. et al. 2003. Fouling and Natural Organic Matter Removal in Adsorbent/Membrane Systems
for Drinking Water Treatment. Environmental Science & Technology 37:8, 1663-1669.
224.
Zhang, S. et al. 2010. Preparation and Evaluation of a Magnetite-Doped Activated Carbon Fiber for
Enhanced Arsenic. Carbon 48, 60-67.
64