WHAT S UP WITH Cr(VI)?
|
|
- Phebe Wheeler
- 8 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 WHAT S UP WITH Cr(VI)? Ilke McAliley, P.E., HDR Inc. Peter C. D Adamo, Ph.D., P.E., HDR Inc. Phil Brandhuber, Ph.D., P.E., HDR Inc. ABSTRACT Chromium is a naturally occurring element in the environment. In aquatic systems, chromium occurs in two oxidation states: trivalent chromium Cr(III) and hexavalent chromium - Cr(VI). Cr(III) is considered to be a micronutrient and dietary guidelines have been established by the National Institute of Health (NIH). Cr(VI), on the other hand, is considered carcinogen. Chromium can be introduced into water sources either by natural weathering of chromite containing minerals or by contamination from a variety of industrial sources such as leather tanning, metal plating, wood treatment and corrosion control. Relying on Cr(III) occurrence data to estimate Cr(VI) occurrence has been a very common method due to limited availability of Cr(VI) occurrence data. Currently, the existing Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) set by the U.S. EPA is for total chromium. Total chromium is the sum of trivalent and hexavalent chromium. The existing MCL for total chromium is based on non-cancer based health effects. Currently, there is no federal regulation (MCL) for hexavalent chromium. In 2008, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) published studies which concluded that oral ingestion of hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) caused an increase in the incidence of cancer in rats and mice. After the completion of Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Cr(VI) in 2010, the U.S. EPA has proposed to classify Cr(VI) as probable human carcinogen and lower the Cr(VI) reference dose (RfD) for non-cancer effects by a factor of three. These changes to IRIS will require EPA to review the existing chromium MCL and possibly establish a Cr(VI) specific MCL. Based on the proposed changes to IRIS, a Cr(VI) specific MCL in the low part per billion to sub-part per billion range is possible. The Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule 3 (UCMR 3) requires monitoring of 30 contaminants including Cr(VI) during period. In February 2012, a new schedule was developed for completing IRIS Cr(VI) assessment. U.S. EPA anticipates that the draft assessment (oral and inhalation) will be released for public comment and external peer review in This presentation will review Cr(VI) occurrence data and public health concerns, provide a regulatory update for Cr(VI) including recent events, provide an overview of chromium chemistry, and review potential Cr(VI) treatment technologies. The presentation will benefit utilities and regulators as they prepare for possible MCL standards for Cr (VI). KEYWORDS Chromium, Hexavalent Chromium, INTRODUCTION In recent years the hexavalent form of the element chromium, has received increased focus as a drinking water contaminant due to its potential human carcinogenicity when ingested in trace amounts. In aquatic systems, chromium occurs in two oxidation states: trivalent chromium Cr(III) and hexavalent chromium - Cr(VI). Cr(III) is considered a micronutrient and dietary guidelines have been established by National Institute of Health (NIH). Alternatively, Cr(VI). is considered a carcinogen associated with inhalation exposure routes, and a Federal toxicology review of Cr(VI) by ingestion is in progress. Research concerning Cr(VI) toxicity, occurrence and treatability in drinking water is ongoing. Meanwhile, there has been increased activity toward regulating Cr(VI) as a drinking water contaminant. The State of California has already established a non-enforceable Public Health Goal (PHG) that could be followed by
2 a maximum contaminant level (MCL) in the near future. EPA is also considering development of a Federal MCL to regulate Cr(VI) after finalization of the toxicity review. Greater understanding of Cr(VI) drinking water occurrence and treatability is required to understand the implications of regulation. REGULATORY REVIEW In 2008, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) published studies which concluded that oral ingestion of hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) caused an increase in the incidence of cancer in rats and mice. After the completion of the draft Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Toxicological Review of Cr(VI) in 2010, the U.S. EPA has proposed to modify the status of Cr(VI), as follows, pending peer-review and comment: (i) classify Cr(VI) as a probable human carcinogen and (ii) lower the Cr(VI) reference dose (RfD) for non-cancer effects by a factor of three (Table 1), Table 1:Proposed Cr(VI) status changes based on draft 2010 IRIS Review Results Current IRIS Value Proposed IRIS Value Oral RfD mg/kg-day mg/kg-day Cancer Slope None 0.5 (mg/kg-day) -1 In February 2012, a new schedule was developed for finalizing the IRIS Cr(VI) assessment. U.S. EPA anticipates that a new draft assessment incorporating updated information on Cr(VI) carcinogenicity and modes of action will be released for public comment and external peer review in The results of this review will impact the potential regulatory developments for hexavalent and total chromium. The proposed changes to IRIS require EPA to review the existing total chromium MCL. The current EPA MCL for total chromium is 100 ug/l. Total chromium is the sum of trivalent and hexavalent chromium. This total chromium MCL is based on non-cancer health effects (i.e. allergic dermatitis), and does not account for the Cr(VI)-specific carcinogenicity discussed above. Evaluation of the existing total chromium MCL could lead to development of a Cr(VI) specific MCL. Based on the proposed changes to IRIS, a Cr(VI) specific MCL in the low part per billion to sub-part per billion range would not be unlikely. In April 2012, EPA decided to include monitoring of Cr(VI) in the third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3). As result of research and UCMR3, EPA will decide either to review total chromium regulations or set a new MCL for Cr(VI). The State of California is considering independent regulation of Cr(VI) in drinking water. In 2011, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) established a non-enforceable Public Health Goal (PHG) for Cr(VI) for 0.02 µg/l. The PHG is a non-enforceable standard set at a onein-one million excess cancer lifetime risk level due to exposure to Cr(VI) in drinking water. California, at the time of this study, has not promulgated an enforceable Cr(VI) standard. However, the availability of a final PHG enables California Department of Public Health (CDPH) to proceed with setting a primary drinking water standard. CDPH estimates that an enforceable MCL will be established between July of 2014 and 2015 if no major delay in the process occurs (CDPH Website). Table 2 compares regulatory levels for chromium that have been set by various agencies throughout the world. At present Cr(VI) is not regulated in Europe or Canada, nor has the World Health Organization WHO published a Cr(VI)-specific regulatory recommendation. California regulates total chromium at a level similar to these other organizations (see Table 2), but it remains to be seen if the California PHG represents a level at which Cr(VI) might be regulated in the future Table 2:Comparison of Chromium regulations by various world health agencies Agency Contaminant Drinking Water Limit USEPA Total Chromium 100 µg/l MCL State of California Total Chromium 50 µg/l MCL
3 Cr(VI) 0.02 µg/l PHG World Health Organization Total Chromium 50 µg/l MCL EU Drinking Standards Total Chromium 50 µg/l MCL Canada Total Chromium 50 µg/l MCL Sub-part-per-billion levels of Cr(VI), such as the California PHG, when proposed for regulatory purposes have, until recently, presented obstacles for accurate and consistent measurement. USEPA Method Determination of Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water by Ion Chromatography with Post- Column Derivatization and UV-Visible Spectroscopic Detection, presents a reliable method that is capable of measurement of concentrations in this range, and other technologies are in development. The limited available technology and potential high costs associated with Cr(VI) sampling and analysis have important implications for implementation of an MCL in this concentration range. Development of an MCL is further confounded by the fact that expectations for occurrence of Cr(VI) in drinking water systems are not well-informed. Only recently have improvements in Cr(VI) analysis techniques facilitated collection of a substantial body of Cr(VI) occurrence data, though the occurrence picture remains incomplete. SOURCES AND OCCURRENCE Chromium can occur naturally and also be introduced into water sources by natural weathering of chromite containing minerals. In general, total chromium concentrations in the part-per-billion range are expected in most natural waters, but this occurrence usually consists of Cr(III). Outside of a handful of recently identified natural Cr(VI) occurrences, Cr(VI) has been associated with anthropomorphic contamination. Cr(VI) contamination may have its source in a variety of industrial processes such as leather tanning, metal plating, wood treatment or corrosion control (McNeill et al, 2012). Until recently, Cr(VI) occurrence information has been limited by analytic capability. Reliance on total chromium occurrence data to estimate Cr(VI) occurrence has been common.. This is especially problematic in light of toxicological information that emphasizes concentrations of Cr(VI) in the sub-partper-billion range. With historical limitation in Cr(CI) analytic techniques, and no historical federal regulatory framework for mandating collection of Cr(VI) sampling information, a reliable picture of Cr(VI) occurrence within the continental United States has yet to emerge. Figure 1 shows a summary of total chromium sampling data collected by EPA for its 6-year review of regulated contaminants (Seidel et al(2012)). It must be noted that this map is based on results obtained only from the systems which report total Cr results. All total chromium results are much higher than the PHG established by the State of California (0.02 ug/l). This means that if regulation of Cr(VI) is to be implemented based on the PHG or similar concentrations, many utilities around the country will be considered out of compliance and will be responsible for installing new treatment technologies to remove chromium. While natural weathering and industrial contamination are recognized as sources of chromium in source waters, treatment processes and chemicals can also be source of chromium in tap water. Chromium can be present at trace levels in treatment chemicals such as alum and lime which can introduce the contaminant into the treated water leaving the plant (McNeill et al (2012), Song et al (2013)).
4 CHROMIUM SPECIATION Figure 1. Total Chromium Occurrence (Seidel et al, 2012) Chromium is present in the aqueous phase in various oxidation states (from +6 to -2) but the two most ubiquitous forms are in hexavalent or trivalent state. Aqueous speciation and solubility of chromium are determined primarily by ph level and re-dox conditions, as shown in the diagram in Figure 2. Figure 2. pe-ph Diagram for Chromium Speciation (McNeill et al, 2012) Cr(III) can be found in water samples in a variety of forms including soluble species, low solubility Cr(OH) 3 solids, sorbed or fixed onto ferric oxides, or complexes with humic and fulvic acids. In general, trivalent chromium occurs as: (i) a cation at low ph, (ii) an insoluble hydroxide at moderate ph and
5 (iii) an anionic hydroxide at high ph. While Cr(III) is predominantly an insoluble hydroxide across a range of typical drinking water ph conditions, Cr(VI) species remain soluble as CrO 4-2 species under most ph conditions. Significantly, Cr(VI) is favored thermodynamically under more oxidative conditions, similar to those that might occur in distribution systems where a strong oxidant disinfectant residual (i.e. sodium hypochlorite) is present. Based on thermodynamic stability and evaluation of typical ranges for the redox reaction rate associated with the presence of free chlorine, it has been posited that if total chrome is not adequately removed in the treatment plant, it can potentially be oxidized to Cr(VI) in the distribution system (McNeill et al, 2012), Lindsay et al (2012)). Potentially Cr(III) could also be oxidized by distribution system materials such as ferrous iron leached from cast iron pipes. These considerations associated with the speciation of Cr(VI) have meaningful implications for regulation and monitoring approaches, as well as establishing treatment requirements that will be stringent enough to prevent Cr(VI) formation in the distribution system. At the time of this writing, sampling data exploring the formation of Cr(VI) in the distribution system is not available. CHROMIUM (VI) TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES The effectiveness of treatment for removal of chromium, with emphasis of removal of Cr(VI) to sub-partper-billion concentrations needs further exploration to determine the level of treatment that will be required to meet potential regulatory limits. Several treatment technologies are currently being evaluated. The following treatment methods will be summarized in this literature review, and further explored in the case studies in this research: 1. Coagulation/Precipitation/Filtration 2. Ion Exchange 3. Membrane Treatment 4. Adsorption 5. Electrochemical technologies The following section provides a brief overview of each of these technologies. For comparison, their relative effectiveness is summarized in Table 3, along with some of the issues that need to be resolved or considered for each treatment technology. Coagulation/Precipitation/Filtration Reduction Assisted Cr(VI) reduction with various chemicals such as ferrous salts, zero valent iron, and sodium bisulfite have been researched in great detail specifically for the removal of Cr(VI). The mechanism is to reduce Cr(VI) to Cr(III) and then co-precipitate less-soluble Cr(III) with Fe(III) oxyhydroxides or hydroxides. Zero valent iron (Fe 0 ) is commonly used as permeable reactive barriers in in-situ treatment of groundwater sources contaminated with Cr(VI) (Fruchter (2002)). Although several studies have observed different rates of reaction (Wilkin et al (2005), Melitas et al (2001), Ponder et al (2000), Liu et al (2008)), it has been noted that the rate greatly depends on Fe o concentration, ph, and Fe o type. Considerable Cr(VI) removal efficiency (around 99%) has been observed in groundwater remediation applications (Wilkin et al (2005). The effect of ph in the removal is pronounced, with higher ph levels (ph>8.0) shown to decrease the removal (Alowitz and Scherer (2002)). Ferrous iron has been studied for it is effectiveness in reduction of Cr(VI) to Cr(III) and subsequent precipitation as Cr(III) hydroxides (Eary and Ral (1988), Qin et al (2005), Burge and Hug (1997), Lee and Hering (2003), Brandhuber et al (2004)). Fe(II) oxidation by Cr(VI) requires approximately a 3:1 molar ratio of Cr(VI) to Fe(II) at ph 6.5 yielding Cr(III) Fe(III) hydroxide precipitates (Qin et al (2005)). The process that achieves the removal is known as Reduction/Coagulation/Filtration or Reduction/Precipitation/Filtration (RPF). It has been observed that ph, temperature, ionic strength and
6 solution composition such as dissolved oxygen, phosphates, humic and fulvic acids, affect Cr(VI) removal (Seldak and Chan (1997), Pettine et al (1998)). However, rapid reduction and precipitation have been observed by many researchers (Eary and Rai (1998), Qin et al (2005), Buerge and Hug (1997), Lee and Hering (2003)). It has been noted that between ph 2 and 10, the stoichiometric reduction of Cr(VI) is successfully achieved, however, under conditions of higher ph and the presence of phosphates, non stoichiometric reduction occurs due to dissolved oxygen competition (Eary and Rai (1998)). Another study observed minimum reaction rate at ph 4, increasing above and below that value (Buerge and Hug (1997)). Higher filtration rates, dissolved oxygen concentration and high filtration ph (above 7.5) have also been found to negatively affect the removal of Cr(III) precipitates (Qin et al (2005)). Song et al (2013) successfully removed low level Cr(VI) contamination to sub-ppb levels with the RPF process. Trace levels of chromium in lime used at a softening plant were contributing approximately 0.4 ppb Cr(VI) to the treated water. With a combination of ferrous iron and ferric salt that was used for coagulation, Cr(VI) removal to below 0.1 ppb was achieved without compromising TOC and turbidity removal. This study was the first to demonstrate that Cr(VI) removal at sub-ppb level is achievable and a combination of coagulants for reduction and precipitation can potentially provide a low cost alternative (relative to large capital improvements for new treatment equipment) for drinking water providers. There may be costs associated with retrofitting for the reduction step. Overall, the results of RPF studies have been promising and the level of process understanding is relatively high. RPF provides a potential alternative for Cr(VI) removal at conventional plants without having to change treatment processes substantially; however further evaluation of the RPF approach is needed to determine whether Cr(VI) removal will be commensurate with the possible regulatory MCLs similar to the California PHG. Conventional The removal of chromium using coagulation and precipitation without reduction has demonstrated limited effectiveness with respect to Cr(VI) removal. Low Cr(VI) removal rates (<30%) have been observed with iron-based coagulants, even with high Fe(III) concentrations (Lee and Hering, 2003). This alternative is not favorable due to the limited effectiveness of the metal coagulants, the potential re-oxidation of Cr(III) to Cr(VI) during backwash water recycling and poor settleability performance (McNeill et al (2012), Sharma et al (2008)). Ion Exchange Ion exchange is one of the EPA recommended treatment techniques for the removal of chromium, and it has shown promising results for Cr(VI) (Sharma et al, 2008). Cation exchangers are effective in the removal of Cr(III) (Sharma et al (2008)). Weak base anion (WBA) and strong base anion (SBA) resins have been used in several Cr(VI) removal studies (Brandhuber et al (2004), McGuire et al (2007)). Several factors such as solution ph and competing ions have been found to affect the removal efficiency of ion exchange resins, and additional study is required to resolve these issues with respect to Cr(VI) removal to meet potential sub-part-per-billion regulation. SBA resins for Cr(VI) removal have successfully demonstrated removal of more than 95% of Cr(VI) (Brandhuber et al. (2004)). In a recent study by McGuire et al, (McGuire et al (2007)) bench and pilot scale experiments were performed at the City of Glendale, CA with WBAs. WBAs showed more capacity than SBAs for Cr(VI) and were able to remove Cr(VI) to an average of 30 ug/l to <5 ug/l. The major difference between these two types of resins is that SBAs can be regenerated whereas WBAs are only single-pass resins. While brine disposal is employed for SBAs, ph adjusted resin disposal is required for WBA. Brine and resin disposal are serious considerations for implementation of these technologies, and could represent large operational expenditures for utilities in the long run. Studies have also shown that acidic conditions enhanced chromate removal for both cation and anion resins. A lower limit or around ph 3 has been observed, where no additional removal is observed with
7 decreasing ph (Sengupta and Clifford (1986), Rengaraj (2003)). It has also been noted that the presence of chloride negatively affects the removal capacity of the resins (Sengupta and Clifford (1986)). Performance of ion exchange resins has been proven and there is a good process understanding for the removal mechanisms. The main limitations of this technique are regular regeneration for SBA, resin disposal for WBA, concentrate disposal, potential fouling, ph adjustment, and competing ions in the water (McNeill et al (2012), Sharma et al(2008)). Additional study is needed to resolve issues associated with competing ions, especially with respect to the presence of high chloride concentrations. Membrane Treatment Membrane technology (reverse osmosis (RO) and nanofiltration (NF)) has an important role in the removal of inorganic contaminants, and has shown promising results for Cr(VI) removal (Brandhuber et al 2004, Yoon et al (2009), Hafiane et at (2000), Muthukrishnan and Guha (2007)). The major factors that influence removal have been found to be ph, surface membrane charge, conductivity and initial Cr(VI) concentration (Yoon et al (2009), Brandhuber et al. (2004)). NF and RO have been more successful in the removal of Cr(VI) than ultra-filtration (UF) due to their smaller pore size. They can be integrated into existing water treatment plant processes with relative ease (Brandhuber et al (2004)) due to their relatively small footprint. Regardless of the membrane type, studies have shown that rejection of chromate decreases with increasing conductivity and increases with increasing ph (Yoon et al (2009), Hafiane et at (2000), Muthukrishnan and Guha (2007)). The rejection of low and high initial solution chromate concentrations is impacted by solution ph: Lower rejection occurs at higher concentrations for alkaline ph and higher rejection occurs at lower concentrations at acidic ph. This trend has been attributed to chromium speciation at different ph levels. Size exclusion and electrostatic repulsion have been found to be the major mechanisms that affect chromium rejection (Yoon et al (2009)). Lately inorganic membranes are also getting attention from researchers due to their high chemical and thermal stability (Owlad et al (2009)). Ceramic membrane combined with adsorption/ultrafiltration removal technology was able to remove about 0.5 ppm Cr(III) down to 10 ppb (Pagana et al (2008)). In general, membrane removal is well understood and can be incorporated into an existing plant with relative ease compared to other major retrofits. There are several issues that need to be considered such as overall cost, treatment of reject water, and potential fouling (McNeill et al (2012), Sharma et al (2008)). Adsorption Adsorption is a process where a contaminant is removed from the aqueous phase and accumulates at the solid-liquid interface of an adsorbent. Generally, concentration, ph, salinity, temperature, and solution composition affect the efficiency and adsorption capacity of the adsorbents (Owland et al (2009)). Various adsorbent materials have been studied by researchers to test the chromium removal efficiency including; different activated carbons, biological materials, zeolites, chitosan, nut shells, clay, peat moss, industrial waste, rice, and wool (Babel and Kurniawan (2003), Mohan and Pittman (2006), Owland et al (2009), Dakiky et al (2002)). All these potential absorbents have a varying degree of adsorption capacities ranging from 0.57 mg/g for bentonite clay to 273 mg/g for chitosan to 145 mg/g for Filtrasorb GAC (Babel and Kurniawan (2003). Studies have shown that increased ph and salinity impact adsorption capacities unfavorably (Di Natale et al (2007), Han et al (2000)). Adsorption capacity can also be hindered by interfering species such as sulfate, phosphate, and dissolved organic carbon. Activated carbon, in particular, shows promising treatment effectiveness. The removal mechanism is believed to be two-fold: adsorption onto the surface and Cr(VI) reduction to Cr(III) in the presence of activated carbon. There may be an additional benefit, as reactivation may increase adsorption capacity. Han et al (2000) compared regenerated versus virgin carbon adsorption capacities in their studies and found that the carbons regenerated with potassium phosphate and sulfuric acid showed approximately three times more capacity than that of virgin carbons in the removal of chromium.
8 Adsorption mechanisms for chromium removal process are not fully understood. Effectiveness is still being studied for many adsorbents at bench-scale level. The major drawbacks of this treatment alternative are poor performance at ph 7-9 (which entails addition of ph adjustment chemicals to a treatment stream), expense and effectiveness of carbon regeneration (as applicable), and poor selectivity of adsorbents (Mohan and Pittman (2006), McNeill et al (2012). Electrochemical Removal Electrochemical treatment using electrodes and electrolytes is a newer approach than the alternatives discussed above (Owlad et al (2009)). It has been mostly studied in the industrial wastewater area. The major factors affecting the efficiency of chromium removal are ph, influent concentration and the charge applied (Golub and Oren (1989)). Up to 98% chromium removal has been observed in acidic conditions and also with higher charge (Rana et al, 2004). This technology has been studied at bench-scale level and at high chromium concentrations (2-100 ppm) (Rana et al. (2004), Golub and Oren (1989)). This approach has not been studied at sub ppb levels that are encountered in drinking water. RESULTS Evaluations for treatment technologies and associated costs have been completed for several utilities through various studies (McGuire et al. (2007), Blute (2011), McNeill et al (2012)). While there are certain advantages to each treatment alternative, there are also issues to consider and these are listed in Table 3. RFP treatment has been shown to achieve the Cr(VI) removal to sub ppb levels commensurate with potential regulation. Alternatives such as membranes and ion exchange resins are also proven technologies, but likely entail higher operating costs. Adsorption and electrochemical removal technologies have shown effective removal of chromium in preliminary studies, but substantial research is needed to optimize treatment to achieve consistent removal to sub-part-per-billion Cr(VI) concentrations. Table 3. Summary of Hexavalent Chromium Treatment Options for Drinking Water Treatment Technology Impact of Lower Chromium Issues to Consider MCL (20 ug/l => 5 ug/l) Strong Base Anion Exchange (SBA) Weak Base Anion Exchange (WBA) Membrane Reduction/Precipitation/ Filtration Adsorption with Activated Carbon Frequent resin regeneration high volumes of brine requiring disposal Large capacity treatment system required; less by-pass flow Frequent resin replacement Large capacity treatment system required; less by-pass flow. Large capacity treatment system required; less by-pass flow Greater water loss Residual disposal Performance at sub ppb levels Additional chemical requirements Increased solids production Not yet demonstrated for lower chromium levels Unknown cost implications Disposal of Cr-containing brine Co-occurring ion competitive effects Regeneration Large ph changes needed Cost and availability of resin Disposal of resin Leaching of resin Disposal of Cr containing concentrate. Water loss may be unacceptable Membrane fouling Capital cost Complex system Large footprint Possible cost associated with retrofit Poor selectivity Performance depends on carbon Expense and effectiveness of
9 Electrochemical Precipitation Learning curve Not demonstrated for lower chromium levels regeneration Sludge Production Production of loose deposit CONCLUSIONS The regulatory future of hexavalent chromium remains uncertain. After the current toxicological review in finalized, U.S. EPA might decide to regulate hexavalent chromium as a separate MCL, and/or make changes to existing total chromium regulation. If development of a potential MCL for Cr(VI) should follow the precedent established with the California PHG, regulation at sub-part-per-billion concentrations is a likelihood that must be considered. There are many aspects of hexavalent chromium occurrence and treatment that need further evaluation before the feasibility and effectiveness of such an MCL can be fully evaluated. Resolution of the following issues will be of key importance in the near future: 1. Sources of Cr(VI) are not well understood. Natural occurrence, and contributions of Cr(VI) either via treatment processes or drinking water distribution need clarification to inform monitoring approaches and control strategies. 2. The removal efficiency and cost of available treatment technologies has not been adequately evaluated with respect to potential sub-part-per-billion MCLs for Cr(VI). Treatment evaluation relates directly to the feasibility of establishing a given MCL. 3. Oxidation of Cr(III) to Cr(VI) in re-dox conditions typical of drinking water distribution systems is thermodynamically probable, but has not been adequately explored or observed in-situ. Greater understanding is needed to determine where best to monitor Cr(VI) in drinking water systems, and whether Cr(VI) would best be regulated in a manner similar to disinfection by-products. REFERENCES Alowitz, M.J., and Scherer, M.M., Kinetics of Nitrate, Nitrite, and Cr(VI) Reduction by Iron Metal. Environ. Sci. Technol., 34(3): Babel, S., and Kurniawan T.A., Low-Cost Adsorbents for Heavy Metals Uptake From Contaminated Water: A Review. Jour. of Hazardous Mat., B27: Blute N., Cr(VI) Treatment Options and Cost. Water Research Foundation Tech Transfer Workshop on Hexavalent Chromium. Brandhuber P., Frey M., McGuire M.J., Chao P., Seidel C., Amy G., McNeill L., and Banerjee K., Low Level Hexavalent Chromium Treatment Options: Bench-Scale Evaluation. Water Research Foundation Report #91042, Denver, CO. Buerge, I.J., and Hug, S.J., Kinetics and ph Dependence of Chromium(VI) Reduction by Iron(II). Environ. Sci. Technol.,31(5), CDPH Website, February Dakiky, M., Khamis M., Manassara A., Mere eb M., Selective Adsorption of Chromium (VI) in Industrial Wastewater using Low-Cost Abundantly Available Adsorbents. Advances in Environmental Research, 6: Di Natale F., Lancia A., Molino Al. Musmarra O., Removal of Chromium Ions from Aqueous Solutions by Adsorption on Activated Carbon and Char. Jour. of Hazardous Mat.,145: Eary, L.E., and Rai, D., Chromate Removal from Aqueous Wastes by Reduction with Ferrous Ion. Environ. Sci. Technol.,22(8): Fruchter, J., In Situ Treatment of Chromium-Contaminated Groundwater. Environ. Sci. Technol.,36(23): 464A-472A Golub, D., and Oren, Y., Removal of Chromium From Aqueous Solutions by Treatment with Porous Carbon Electrodes: Electrochemical Principles. Jour. of Applied Electrochemistry, 19: Hafiane A., Lemordant D., and Dhahbi, M., Removal of Hexavalent Chromium by Nanofiltration. Desalination, 130:
10 Han, I., Schlautman, M.A., and Batchelor, B., Removal of Hexavalent Chromium from Groundwater by Granular Activated Carbon. Water Environment Research, 72(1):29-39 Lee G., and Hering J.G., Removal of Chromium(VI) from Drinking Water by Redox-Assisted Coagulation with Iron (II). Journ. of Water Supply Res. and Technol. Aqua, 52(6): Lindsay D.R., Farley K.J., and Carbanaro R.F., Ozidation of Cr(III) to Cr(VI) During Chlorination of Drinking Water. Journal of Environmental Monitoring, 14: Liu T., Tsang D.C., and Lo, I.M., Chromium (VI) Reduction Kinetics by Zero-Valent Iron in Moderately Hard Water with Humic Acid: Iron Dissolution and Humic Acid Adsorption. Environ. Sci.Technol., 42: McGuire, M. J., Blute N.K., Qin G., Kavonunas P., Froelich D., and Fong L., 2007, Hexavalent Chromium Removal Using Anion Exchange and Reduction With Coagulation and Filtration. Water Research Foundation Report # 91193, Denver, CO. McNeill L., McLean J., Edwards M., and Parks J., State of the Science of Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water. Water Research Foundation Report #4404, Denver, CO. Melitas, N., Chuffe-Moscoso, O, and Farrell, J., Kinetics of Soluble Chromium Removal from Contaminated Water by Zerovalent Iron Media: Corrosion Inhibition and Passive Oxide Effects. Environ. Sci. Technol., 35(19): Mohan, O., and Pittman Jr. L.U., Activated Carbons and Low Cost Asdorbents for Remediation of Tri- and Hexavalent Chromium from Water. Jour. of Hazardous Mat. B137: Muthukrishnan, M., and Guha, B.K., Effect of ph on rejection of Hexavalent Chromium by Nanofiltration. Desalination, 219: Owlad M., Aroura M.K., Wan Daud W.A., and Baroutian S., Removal of Hexavalent Chromium- Contaminated Water and Wastewater: A Review. Water Air Soil Pollut, 200:59-77 Pagana A.E., Sklari S.D., Kikkinides E.S., and Zaspalis V.T., Microporous Ceramic Membrane Technology for the Removal of Arsenic and Chromium Ions from Contaminated Water. Microporous and Mesoporous Materials, 110: Pettini M., D Ottone L., Campanella L., Millero F.J., and Passino R., The Reduction of Chromium (VI) by Iron (II) in Aqueous Solutions. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 62(9): Ponder S.M., Darab, J.G., and Mallouk T.E., Remediation of Cr(VI) and Pb(II) Aqueous Solutions Using Supported, Nanoscale Zero-Valent Iron. Environ. Sci. Technol., 34(6): Qin G., McGuire M.J., Blute N.K., Seidel C., and Fong L., Hexavalent Chromium Removal by Reduction with Ferrous Sulfate, Coagulation, and Filtration: A Pilot-Scale Study. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39(16): Rana, P., Mohan, N, and Rajagopal, C., Electrochemical Removal of Chromium From Wastewater by Using Carbon Aerogel Electrodes. Water Research, 38: Rengaraj, S., Joo, C.K., Kim, Y., and Yi, J., Kinetics of Removal of Chromium from Water and Electronic Process Wastewater by Ion Exchange Resins: 1200H, 1500H and IRN97H.Journal of Hazardous Materials, B102: Sengupta, A.K., and Clifford, D., Important Process Variables in Chromate Ion Exchange. Environ.Sci.Technol., 20(2): Sharma, S.K., Petrusevski, B., and Amy, G., 2008.Chromium Removal from Water: A Review. Journ. of Water Supply Res. and Technol.- Aqua, 57(8): Song, R., Zhu E., Frit E., and Brandhuber P., Low Level Hexavalent Chromium Reduction at Louisville Water Company. USEPA, CFR Part 141. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. USEPA, 2010, Draft Toxicological Review of Hexavalent Chromium: In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). Federal Register, 76:70:20349 Wilkin R.T., Su, C., Ford, R.G., and Paul, C.J., Chromium-Removal Process during Groundwater Remediation by a Zerovalent Iron Permeable Reactive Barrier. Environ. Sci. Technol., 39(12): Yoon, J., Amy G., Chung J., Sohn J., and Yoon Y., Removal of Toxic Ions (Chromate, Arsenate, and Perchlorate) using Reverse Osmosis, Nanofiltration, and Ultrafiltration Membranes. Chemosphere, 77:
Chromium in Drinking Water: A Technical Information Primer
Objective This technical information primer is intended to inform drinking water systems about chromium in drinking water and identifies resources and references that systems may find helpful in addressing
More informationRemoving Heavy Metals from Wastewater
Removing Heavy Metals from Wastewater Engineering Research Center Report David M. Ayres Allen P. Davis Paul M. Gietka August 1994 1 2 Removing Heavy Metals From Wastewater Introduction This manual provides
More informationHEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REMOVAL FROM INDUSTRIAL WATSEWATER BY CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION METHOD
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM REMOVAL FROM INDUSTRIAL WATSEWATER BY CHEMICAL PRECIPITATION METHOD Dr. C.R.Ramakrishnaiah P.G-Environmental Engineering Dept of Civil Engineering, B.M.S. College of Engineering Bull
More informationIron and Manganese BACTERIA AND IRON AND MANGANESE
Iron and Manganese Iron and manganese control is the most common type of municipal water treatment in Minnesota. Iron and manganese occur naturally in groundwater. Neither element causes adverse heath
More informationHow To Remove Selenium From Water
Information Technology Solutions ABSTRACT The discharge of selenium to natural water systems is regulated by law. Those with permitted outfalls must treat the waste stream to below the US EPA regulatory
More informationIMPACT OF CHEMICALS ADDITION IN WATER/WASTEWATER TREATMENT ON TDS CONCENTRATION AND SLUDGE GENERATION Jurek Patoczka, PhD, PE Hatch Mott MacDonald 27 Bleeker Str., Millburn, NJ 07041 (973) 912 2541 jurek.patoczka@hatchmott.com
More informationComparison of natural radioactivity removal methods for drinking water supplies: A review
Comparison of natural radioactivity removal methods for drinking water supplies: A review E. Esmeray, M. E. Aydin Selcuk University Environmental Engineering Department, Konya Turkey e-mail: eesmeray@selcuk.edu.tr
More informationSubject: Technical Letter 22 April 1977 Removal of Water Supply Contaminants -- Copper and Zinc
STATE OF ILLINOIS Department of Registration and Education JOAN G. ANDERSON DIRECTOR. SPRINGFIELD BOARD OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION JOAN G. ANDERSON CHAIRMAN BIOLOGY THOMAS PARK CHEMISTRY H.
More informationDissolved Mineral Radioactivity in Drinking Water
WD-WSEB-3-11 2004 Dissolved Mineral Radioactivity in Drinking Water General New Hampshire's bedrock contains naturally occurring radioactivity. A few examples with health importance include radon, radium
More informationWater Softening for Hardness Removal. Hardness in Water. Methods of Removing Hardness 5/1/15. WTRG18 Water Softening and Hardness
Water Softening for Removal 1 in Water High concentration of calcium (Ca2+) and magnesium (Mg2+) ions in water cause hardness Generally, water containing more than 100 mg/l of hardness expressed as calcium
More informationGranular Ferric Hydroxide for Elimination of Arsenic from Drinking Water
Pal : Granular Ferric Hydroxide for Elimination of Arsenic from drinking Water 59 Granular Ferric Hydroxide for Elimination of Arsenic from Drinking Water B. N. Pal M/S Pal Trockner [P] Ltd. 25/1B Ibrahimpur
More informationChemical and Isotopic Signatures for Environmental Remediation and Nuclear Forensic Analysis
Chemical and Isotopic Signatures for Environmental Remediation and Nuclear Forensic Analysis Sue B. Clark Washington State University, Department of Chemistry, Pullman, WA 99163 s_clark@wsu.edu Abstract
More information8 Chemicals from water treatment and distribution
8 Chemicals from water treatment and distribution 8.1 Introduction Chemicals from water treatment and distribution reach drinking-water by the most direct route. They fall into three broad categories:
More informationOccurrence and Treatment of Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic. in Arizona Municipal and Industrial Waters. Alexandra Bowen
Occurrence and Treatment of Hexavalent Chromium and Arsenic in Arizona Municipal and Industrial Waters by Alexandra Bowen A Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master
More informationDepartment of Environmental Engineering
Department of Environmental Engineering Master of Engineering Program in Environmental Engineering (International Program) M.Eng. (Environmental Engineering) Plan A Option 1: (1) Major courses: minimum
More informationMetal Ion + EDTA Metal EDTA Complex
Simplified Removal of Chelated Metals Sultan I. Amer, AQUACHEM INC. Metal Finishing, April 2004, Vol. 102 No. 4 Chelating agents are used in large quantities in industrial applications involving dissolved
More informationStandard methods in water analysis
Branch General analytical laboratories; water analysis Keywords Water analysis; standard methods; ASTM; DIN; ISO; USP; EPA; SLMB; EN; SCA; titration; ion chromatography; voltammetry; branch 1; branch 2
More informationDevelopment of Nano-Zero Valent Iron for the Remediation of Contaminated Water
A publication of CHEMICAL ENGINEERING TRANSACTIONS VOL. 28, 2012 Guest Editor: Carlo Merli Copyright 2012, AIDIC Servizi S.r.l., ISBN 978-88-95608-19-8; ISSN 1974-9791 The Italian Association of Chemical
More informationRemoving Thallium from Industrial FGD Scrubber Water with Sorbster Adsorbent Media
Case History MAR Systems Inc. Removing Thallium from Industrial FGD Scrubber Water with Sorbster Adsorbent Media Trace thallium levels in process and wastewater streams pose a human toxicity threat. Tidwell
More informationWastewater Reuse. Typical treated wastewater is:
Wastewater Reuse Most metal finishing industries have in-house wastewater treatment to economically dispose of the acids, alkali, oils, and dissolved metals in the rinse water and occasional tank solution
More informationGUIDELINES FOR LEACHATE CONTROL
GUIDELINES FOR LEACHATE CONTROL The term leachate refers to liquids that migrate from the waste carrying dissolved or suspended contaminants. Leachate results from precipitation entering the landfill and
More informationNitrate and Nitrite Removal from Municipal Drinking Water Supplies with Electrodialysis Reversal
Technical Paper Nitrate and Nitrite Removal from Municipal Drinking Water Supplies with Electrodialysis Reversal Authors: Ted Prato and Richard G. Parent, Ionics Reprinted from Proceedings of 1993 AWWA
More informationArsenic Removal Technologies for Drinking Water in Vietnam
Arsenic Removal Technologies for Drinking Water in Vietnam Pham Hung Viet 1*, Tran Hong Con 1, Cao The Ha 1, Nguyen Van Tin 2, Michael Berg 3, Walter Giger 3 and Roland Schertenleib 3 Abstract Severe and
More informationA Low Cost Chemical Remediation Technology for Heavy Metals in Shipyard Stormwater. SBIR Topic N06 133
A Low Cost Chemical Remediation Technology for Heavy Metals in Shipyard Stormwater SBIR Topic N06 133 1 Normal Ave, CSAM RI 121A Montclair, NJ 07043 973 655 7385 SIROM TECHNOLOGY SIROM has developed a
More informationPresented by Paul Krauth Utah DEQ. Salt Lake Countywide Watershed Symposium October 28-29, 2008
Basic Nutrient Removal from Water Beta Edition Presented by Paul Krauth Utah DEQ Salt Lake Countywide Watershed Symposium October 28-29, 2008 Presentation Outline Salt Lake County waters / 303(d) listings
More informationChemistry at Work. How Chemistry is used in the Water Service
Chemistry at Work How Chemistry is used in the Water Service WATER TREATMENT Everyday, more than 100 water treatment works in Northern Ireland put approximately 680 million litres of water into the supply
More informationION EXCHANGE FOR DUMMIES. An introduction
ION EXCHANGE FOR DUMMIES An introduction Water Water is a liquid. Water is made of water molecules (formula H 2 O). All natural waters contain some foreign substances, usually in small amounts. The water
More informationECOAZUR BLUEWATER WATER PURIFICATION PLANTS
ECOAZUR BLUEWATER WATER PURIFICATION PLANTS CONTACT EcoAzur Calle 11a #492 x 60 y 62 Tel: +52-999-920-1972 Col. Residencial Pensiones Email: info@eco-azur.com C.P. 97217 Merida, Yucatan, Mexico Website:
More informationIon Exchange Softening
Ion Exchange Softening Ion-exchange is used extensively in small water systems and individual homes. Ion-exchange resin, (zeolite) exchanges one ion from the water being treated for another ion that is
More informationTreatment of Arsenic Residuals from Drinking Water Removal Processes
EPA/6/R/33 June 2 Treatment of Arsenic Residuals from Drinking Water Removal Processes by Michael J. MacPhee Gail E. Charles David A. Cornwell Environmental Engineering & Technology, Inc. Newport News,
More informationEPB 311- Strategies for Dealing with Groundwater Treatment Systems Having High Natural Ammonia
EPB 311- Strategies for Dealing with Groundwater Treatment Systems Having High Natural Ammonia Background The occurrence of ammonia (NH 3 ) in the water source is often associated with pollution due to
More informationREMOVAL OF PHOSPHATE FROM WASTEWATER USING LOW-COST ADSORBENTS
International Journal of Engineering Inventions ISSN: 2278-7461, www.ijeijournal.com Volume 1, Issue 7 (October2012) PP: 44-50 REMOVAL OF PHOSPHATE FROM WASTEWATER USING LOW-COST ADSORBENTS Dr. C.R.Ramakrishnaiah
More informationRemoval of arsenic from drinking water and soil bioremediation
International Congress Mexico City, 20-24 June 2006 Natural Arsenic in Groundwaters of Latin America Removal of arsenic from drinking water and soil bioremediation M.L. Castro de Esparza Pan American Center
More informationTotal Suspended Solids Total Dissolved Solids Hardness
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) are solids in water that can be trapped by a filter. TSS can include a wide variety of material, such as silt, decaying plant and animal matter, industrial wastes, and sewage.
More informationHardness ions also interfere with many chemical processes such as chemical compounding and aqueous cleaners.
Water Softeners Industrial Water Purification (800) CAL-WATER By Dave Peairs, Cal Water, Technical Director Rev: 06/08/2004 Before any discussion of water softeners, we must first define what hard water
More informationGuidelines for Arsenic Removal Treatment for Small Public Drinking Water Systems
February 2010 Guidelines for Arsenic Removal Treatment for Small Public Drinking Water Systems Ted Strickland, Governor Lee Fisher, Lt. Governor Chris Korleski, Director Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
More informationSafe Water Technology for Arsenic Removal
Johnston and Heijnen : Safe Water Technology for Arsenic Removal 1 Safe Water Technology for Arsenic Removal Richard Johnston Consultant to UNICEF and WHO and Han Heijnen WHO Environmental Health Advisor,
More informationTesting Water for Gardening and Lawn Irrigation
wellcare information for you about Testing Water for Gardening and Lawn Irrigation Within a household, water may serve many functions beyond everyday household uses such as drinking, cooking, laundry,
More informationTREATMENT OF PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER PLANT WASTE WATER IN FLORIDA FOR DISCHARGE AND RE USE PURPOSES
TREATMENT OF PHOSPHATE FERTILIZER PLANT WASTE WATER IN FLORIDA FOR DISCHARGE AND RE USE PURPOSES JOHN F. BOSSLER, SIEMENS Water Technologies Corp., Hoffman Estates, IL RONALD TRAVIS, SIEMENS Water Technologies
More informationCERTIFICATION TO OPERATE WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATE BOARD FOR CERTIFICATION OF WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEMS OPERATORS CERTIFICATION TO OPERATE WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
More informationREMOVAL OF ANTIMONY FROM WATER BY SORPTION MATERIALS
2008/2 PAGES 1 6 RECEIVED 15.3.2008 ACCEPTED 26.4.2008 J. ILAVSKÝ REMOVAL OF ANTIMONY FROM WATER BY SORPTION MATERIALS JÁN ILAVSKÝ, PhD. Assistant Professor at the Department of Sanitary and Environmental
More informationEngineered Media for Removal of Fission Products from Aqueous Streams 14580. Abigail Holmquist, UOP - A Honeywell Company
Engineered Media for Removal of Fission Products from Aqueous Streams 14580 Abigail Holmquist, UOP - A Honeywell Company ABSTRACT Nuclear fission products from fuel have the potential to be released into
More informationTHE NWF WATER PURIFICATION PROCESS FRESH WATER IN A NATURAL WAY. Esko Meloni Ferroplan Oy
THE NWF WATER PURIFICATION PROCESS FRESH WATER IN A NATURAL WAY Esko Meloni Ferroplan Oy 1 The NWF Water Purification Process: list of contents 1. NWF biological purification of groundwater Iron and manganese
More informationA NOVEL ION-EXCHANGE/ELECTROCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY FOR THE TREATMENT OF AMMONIA IN WASTEWATER
A NOVEL ION-EXCHANGE/ELECTROCHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY FOR THE TREATMENT OF AMMONIA IN WASTEWATER ABSTRACT Leonard P. Seed, M.Sc., P.Eng., Enpar Technologies Inc. * Daren D. Yetman, A.Sc.T., Enpar Technologies
More informationTreatment options for hydrogen sulfide. Testing for hydrogen sulfide
Sometimes hot water will have a sour smell, similar to that of an old damp rag. This smell often develops when the thermostat has been lowered to save energy or reduce the potential for scalding. Odor-causing
More informationCHAPTER 7: REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER
CHAPTER 7: REMEDIATION TECHNOLOGIES FOR CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER There are a number of technologies that are being use to remediate contaminated groundwater. The choice of a certain remediation technology
More informationAdvanced Water Treatment and Membrane Technology in Japan
PUB-JWRC Symposium 2012.7.5 Dealing with Source Water Deterioration-Advanced Water Treatment Technology and Management Advanced Water Treatment and Membrane Technology in Japan Masahiro FUJIWARA, Dr.Eng.
More informationHow To Water System
Mid-Monroe Water System: Soluble Iron and Manganese Removal via Oxidation & Filtration Daniel Rickard, P.E. Engineering Project Manager Pennsylvania-American Water Company Who Is American Water We are
More informationEnvironmental Technology March/April 1998
Treating Metal Finishing Wastewater Sultan I. Amer, Ph.D. AQUACHEM INC. Environmental Technology March/April 1998 Wastewater from metal finishing industries contains high concentrations of contaminants
More informationION EXCHANGE RESINS INTRODUCTION
ION EXANGE RESINS Ion exchange resins are polymers that are capable of exchanging particular ions within the polymer with ions in a solution that is passed through them. This ability is also seen in various
More informationEvaluation of Alternatives to Domestic Ion Exchange Water Softeners. Mara Wiest Dr. Peter Fox Dr. Lee Wontae, HDR Tim Thomure, HDR
Evaluation of Alternatives to Domestic Ion Exchange Water Softeners Mara Wiest Dr. Peter Fox Dr. Lee Wontae, HDR Tim Thomure, HDR April 26, 2011 OUTLINE Water Quality and reuse in the Southwest US Ion
More informationWastewater Nutrient Removal
Wastewater Nutrient Removal An overview of phosphorus and nitrogen removal strategies Presented by: William E. Brown, P.E. Peter C. Atherton, P.E. Why are nutrients an issue in the environment? Stimulates
More informationTREATMENT OPTIONS FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIFIC IMPURITIES FROM WATER. S. Vigneswaran Faculty of Engineering, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia
TREATMENT OPTIONS FOR REMOVAL OF SPECIFIC IMPURITIES FROM WATER S. Vigneswaran Faculty of Engineering, University of Technology, Sydney, Australia C. Visvanathan Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok,
More informationState of the Science of Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water Updated May 2012
State of the Science of Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water Updated May 2012 Prepared by: Laurie McNeill and Joan McLean Utah State University Utah Water Research Laboratory 8200 Old Main Hill Logan
More informationDifferentiation Summary. Revolutionizing Water Clean-Up Opportunities
Differentiation Summary Revolutionizing Water Clean-Up Opportunities NanoClear is a water clean-up process that affordably and efficiently converts salt, brackish or waste water into pure, usable water.
More informationInventory of Performance Monitoring Tools for Subsurface Monitoring of Radionuclide Contamination
Inventory of Performance Monitoring Tools for Subsurface Monitoring of Radionuclide Contamination H. Keith Moo-Young, Professor, Villanova University Ronald Wilhelm, Senior Scientist, U.S. EPA, Office
More informationAppendix D lists the Field Services Standard Operating Procedures. Appendix E lists the Biological Monitoring Standard Operating Procedures.
Page 16 of 87 3.3 Sample Collection, Storage and Preservation Figure 3 details required containers, sample volumes, preservation techniques, and holding times for proper sample collection. A discussion
More informationWater Pollution. A Presentation for Café Scientifique Cherie L. Geiger, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry, UCF
Water Pollution A Presentation for Café Scientifique Cherie L. Geiger, Ph.D. Department of Chemistry, UCF Overview What is Causing it? Problems with Groundwater Contamination Traditional Remediation Techniques
More informationIrrigation Water Quality for Greenhouse Production
Agricultural Extension Service The University of Tennessee PB 1617 Irrigation Water Quality for Greenhouse Production 1 Table of Contents Factors Affecting Water Quality 3 ph 3 Alkalinity/Carbonates and
More informationEnvironmental Engineering Professors Cal (Chair of Department), Richardson Associate Professor Huang Adjunct Faculty Brady, Hendrickx
Environmental Engineering Professors Cal (Chair of Department), Richardson Associate Professor Huang Adjunct Faculty Brady, Hendrickx Degrees Offered: B.S. in Environmental Engineering; M.S. in Environmental
More informationReuse of Alternative Water Sources for Cooling Tower Systems Two Case Studies Using Non-Traditional Water Sources
Reuse of Alternative Water Sources for Cooling Tower Systems Two Case Studies Using Non-Traditional Water Sources Matthew L. Haikalis Veolia Water Solutions & Technologies April 24, 2013 Operational Priorities
More informationEnhanced Organic Precursor Removals Using Aged Filter Media Page 1. Enhanced Organic Precursor Removals Using Aged Filter Media
Enhanced Organic Precursor Removals Using Aged Media Page 1 Enhanced Organic Precursor Removals Using Aged Media O b j e c t i v e s The main goals of this project was to evaluate the dissolved organic
More informationParts per million (ppm) or Milligrams per liter (mg/l): one part by weight of analyte to 1 million parts by weight of the water sample.
2015 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report St. Johns County Utility CR 214 Mainland We're pleased to present to you this year's Annual Water Quality Report. This report is designed to inform you about the
More informationGUIDELINES FOR SELECTING RESIN ION EXCHANGE OR REVERSE OSMOSIS FOR FEED WATER DEMINERALISATION
GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING RESIN ION EXCHANGE OR REVERSE OSMOSIS FOR FEED WATER DEMINERALISATION Prepared by: Purolite International Date: November 2003 Operating Puropack Plant 2 GUIDELINES FOR SELECTING
More informationSECTION 6 PLANNING AND DESIGN OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT CENTERS
SECTION 6 PLANNING AND DESIGN OF HAZARDOUS WASTE TREATMENT CENTERS Planning and designing a hazardous waste treatment center (HWTC) is a necessary complement to construction of common effluent treatment
More informationPhosphate Recovery from Municipal Wastewater through Crystallization of Calcium Phosphate
Phosphate Recovery from Municipal Wastewater through Crystallization of Calcium Phosphate A. Alamdari, Ph.D. * and S. Rohani, M.Sc. * Department of Chemical Engineering, School of Engineering, Shiraz University,
More informationCorrosion Inhibitors in Antifreeze Coolants
44th International Petroleum Conference, Bratislava, Slovak Republic, September 21-22, 2009 Corrosion Inhibitors in Antifreeze Coolants Bratislava 2009. 09. 22. Bálint Szilágyi Product development engineer
More informationIron and manganese are two similar elements
L-5451 2-04 Drinking Water Problems: Iron and Manganese Mark L. McFarland, Associate Professor and Extension Soil Fertility Specialist Monty C. Dozier, Assistant Professor and Extension Water Resources
More informationRemoval of Sulfate from Waste Water by Activated Carbon. Mohammed Sadeq Salman Computer Centre/ University of Baghdad
Al-Khwarizmi Engineering Journal, Vol. 5, No. 3, PP 72-76 (29) Al-Khwarizmi Engineering Journal Removal of Sulfate from Waste Water by Activated Carbon Mohammed Sadeq Salman Computer Centre/ University
More informationDrinking Water Treatment Systems
Drinking Water Treatment Systems By Barbara Daniels and Nancy Mesner June, 2005 NR/WQ/2005-24 If your home water comes from a public water supply, it has been tested and meets EPA standards for drinking
More informationCharacterizing Beauty Salon Wastewater for the Purpose of Regulating Onsite Disposal Systems
Characterizing Beauty Salon Wastewater for the Purpose of Regulating Onsite Disposal Systems Fred Bowers 1,2, Ph.D. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Quality August 14,
More informationWater Quality in the Distribution System. Syed A. Imran
Water Quality in the Distribution System Syed A. Imran The Drinking Water Continuum Drinking Water Treatment Wastewater Treatment Sources Groundwater Surface Water Sea Water Distribution and Collection
More informationROSS Technology Removal of Oil, Solids and Scale Formers
ROSS Technology Removal of Oil, Solids and Scale Formers Frac Flowback and Produced Treatment for Reuse WATER TECHNOLOGIES Treatment for Reuse and Enhanced Oil Recovery ROSS Technology is a an effective
More informationCoagulation and Flocculation
Coagulation and Flocculation Groundwater and surface water contain both dissolved and suspended particles. Coagulation and flocculation are used to separate the suspended solids portion from the water.
More informationCHAPTER 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY SUBGROUP
CHAPTER 6 ENVIRONMENTAL CHEMISTRY SUBGROUP Chapter 6 Page 92 Table of Contents Chromium Environmental Chemistry Subgroup... 94 Summary... 94 Charge Being Addressed... 95 1. Nature of COPR... 95 Charge
More informationMunicipal Standard Solutions. Water Treatment WATER TECHNOLOGIES
Municipal Standard Solutions Water Treatment WATER TECHNOLOGIES Standard Units and Tailor-made Systems Veolia provides the complete range of services required to design, build, maintain and upgrade water
More informationSafety Data Sheet Avesta Neutralization Agent 502
Safety Data Sheet Avesta Neutralization Agent 502 This Safety Data Sheet contains information to help users understand the potential hazards relating to this product and provides advice for risk management.
More information9707 Key West Avenue, Suite 100 Rockville, MD 20850 Phone: 301-740-1421 Fax: 301-990-9771 E-Mail: awt@awt.org
9707 Key West Avenue, Suite 100 Rockville, MD 20850 Phone: 301-740-1421 Fax: 301-990-9771 E-Mail: awt@awt.org Part of the recertification process is to obtain Continuing Education Units (CEUs). One way
More informationWATER QUALITY REPORT FROM JANUARY 1, 2014 TO DECEMBER 31, 2014. Keeping Our Community Educated On the Quality of Our Drinking Water
WATER QUALITY REPORT FROM JANUARY 1, 2014 TO DECEMBER 31, 2014 Keeping Our Community Educated On the Quality of Our Drinking Water The purpose of this report is to keep our Residents informed on the quality
More informationA meaningful, cost-effective solution for polishing reverse osmosis permeate
A meaningful, cost-effective solution for polishing reverse osmosis permeate Electrodeionization or EDI, is a continuous and chemicalfree process of removing ionized and ionizable species from the feed
More informationChemical Reactions in Water Ron Robertson
Chemical Reactions in Water Ron Robertson r2 f:\files\courses\1110-20\2010 possible slides for web\waterchemtrans.doc Properties of Compounds in Water Electrolytes and nonelectrolytes Water soluble compounds
More informationHardness - Multivalent metal ions which will form precipitates with soaps. e.g. Ca 2+ + (soap) Ca(soap) 2 (s)
Water Softening (Precipitation Softening) (3 rd DC 178; 4 th DC 235) 1. Introduction Hardness - Multivalent metal ions which will form precipitates with soaps. e.g. Ca 2+ + (soap) Ca(soap) 2 (s) Complexation
More informationCHEMICAL CLEANING EXPERIMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE RESTORATION OF NF MEMBRANES OPERATED ON SEAWATER FEED 1
CHEMICAL CLEANING EXPERIMENTS FOR PERFORMANCE RESTORATION OF NF MEMBRANES OPERATED ON SEAWATER FEED 1 A. Mohammed Farooque, Ahamed S. Al-Amoudi and Ata M. Hassan Saline Water Conversion Corporation P.O.Box
More informationTECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF SULFATE ION REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR RECOVERY OF WATER FROM MINERAL CONCENTRATE TRANSPORT SLURRY
TECHNICAL AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION AND SELECTION OF SULFATE ION REMOVAL TECHNOLOGIES FOR RECOVERY OF WATER FROM MINERAL CONCENTRATE TRANSPORT SLURRY ABSTRACT Paul J. Usinowicz, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE*, Bruce
More informationComparative Studies for Selection of Technologies for Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water
76 Technologies for Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water Comparative Studies for Selection of Technologies for Arsenic Removal from Drinking Water J. C. Saha Development Design Consultants Limited DDC
More informationReview of Available Technologies for the Removal of Selenium from Water
Final Report Review of Available Technologies for the Removal of Selenium from Water Prepared for North American Metals Council June 2010 Tom Sandy, P.E. CH2M HILL 11301 Carmel Commons Blvd. Suite 304
More informationIn-Situ Bioremediation Demonstration of Coal-Based Acid Mine Drainage. Tide Mine Site Indiana County, Pennsylvania
In-Situ Bioremediation Demonstration of Coal-Based Acid Mine Drainage Tide Mine Site Indiana County, Pennsylvania Presented to: 26 th West Virginia Surface Mine Drainage Task Force Symposium Kelly S. Houston
More informationParticle and Natural Organic Matter Removal in Drinking Water
AWWA MANUAL M37 Chapter 1 Particle and Natural Organic Matter Removal in Drinking Water Kwok-Keung (Amos) Au, Scott M. Alpert, and David J. Pernitsky Introduction One of the most basic processes in the
More informationMolarity of Ions in Solution
APPENDIX A Molarity of Ions in Solution ften it is necessary to calculate not only the concentration (in molarity) of a compound in aqueous solution but also the concentration of each ion in aqueous solution.
More informationMMXII ASH 2012 Hazard Evaluation For Inorganic Oxide (EWC) Asbestos
MMXII ASH 2012 Hazard evaluation for inorganic oxide materials having complex chemical form with emphasis on waste, recycled materials and by-products Rolf Sjöblom, Division of Waste Science and Technology,
More informationPhosphorus Removal. Wastewater Treatment
Phosphorus Removal In Wastewater Treatment by Derek Shires (512) 940-2393 Derek.Shires@ett-inc.com Why do we care? Eutrophication of surface water - Especially reservoirs Maximum agronomic uptake - Limiting
More informationFACT SHEET STATEMENT OF BASIS HARLEY DOME 1 PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: UT0025917 NEW PERMIT MINOR INDUSTRIAL
FACT SHEET STATEMENT OF BASIS HARLEY DOME 1 PRODUCED WATER TREATMENT FACILITY UPDES PERMIT NUMBER: NEW PERMIT MINOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITY CONTACTS Mitch Burroughs, Operator Mailing Address 1716 E. Lincoln
More informationMembrane Filtration Technology: Meeting Today s Water Treatment Challenges
Membrane Filtration Technology: Meeting Today s Water Treatment Challenges Growing global demand for clean water and increasing environmental concerns make membrane filtration the technology of choice
More informationTreatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal
Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal On January 18, 2001, the United States Environmental Protection Aagency (EPA) finalized the maximum contaminant level (MCL) for arsenic at 0.01 mg/l. The EPA subsequently
More informationComplete. Water Solutions. for Rural India
Complete Water Solutions for Rural India More precious than gold. That s what safe drinking water is to India s rural population. Arsenic, iron, fluoride, nitrate, brackishness and pathogens in ground
More informationFDEP Soil Cleanup Target Level Residential soil = 400 ppm Industrial soil = 920 ppm. Arsenic is a known human carcinogen EPA regulation
Environmental Impacts of Lead Pellets at Shooting Ranges in Florida Lena Q. Ma, Ming Chen, and Willie G. Harris Soil & Water Science Department University of Florida Acknowledgment Principle investigators
More informationReverse Osmosis Membranes for Wastewater Reclamation By Craig R. Bartels, PhD Hydranautics, 401 Jones Road, Oceanside California, USA 92054
Reverse Osmosis Membranes for Wastewater Reclamation By Craig R. Bartels, PhD Hydranautics, 401 Jones Road, Oceanside California, USA 92054 Abstract Wastewater reclamation has become a viable alternative
More informationDOW Ultrafiltration. Case History. High Turbidity and Temperature Fluctuation No Obstacle for DOW Ultrafiltration
Case History High Turbidity and Temperature Fluctuation No Obstacle for Site Information Location: HeBei, China Capacity: 12 m 3 /h (5283 gpm) Purpose: Pretreat sea water prior to RO system Time in Operation:
More informationTechnologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water (4606) EPA 815-R-00-028 December 2000 www.epa.gov/safewater Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water . TECHNOLOGIES
More informationThe Grand Miramare Hotel Santa Margherita (Portofino) Italy March 19 22, 2013. Inspiring Innovation and Excellence
The Grand Miramare Hotel Santa Margherita (Portofino) Italy March 19 22, 2013 Inspiring Innovation and Excellence About the IDA Desalination Academy The IDA Desalination Academy aspires to increase knowledge
More information