DOCSLIB.ORG

Water Quality and Common Treatments for Private Drinking Water Systems

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Water Quality and Common Treatments for Private Drinking Water Systems Water Quality and Common Treatments for Private Drinking Water Systems Revised by Uttam Saha, Leticia Sonon, Mark Risse1 and David Kissel Agricultural and Environmental Services Laboratories 1Marine Extension and Georgia Sea Grant Originally written by Anthony Tyson and Kerry Harrison Extension Engineers CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction 1.0 Introduction ..........................................................1 An abundant supply of clean, safe drinking water is 2.0 Drinking Water Standards ....................................2 essential for human and animal health. Water from 2.1 Primary Drinking Water Standards ...............2 municipal or public water systems is treated and 2.2 Secondary Drinking Water Standards ...........3 monitored to ensure that it is safe for human consump- 3.0 Water Testing ........................................................3 tion. Many Georgia residents, especially in rural areas, 3.1 Mineral Analysis ...........................................4 rely on private water systems for human and livestock 3.2 Microbiological Tests ....................................4 consumption. Most private water systems are supplied 3.3 Pesticide and Other Organic Chemical Tests 4 by wells. 3.4 UGA’s Recommended Guidelines for Testing Drinking Waters ............................................4 Water from wells in Georgia is generally safe for con- 3.5 Collecting a Water Sample ............................5 sumption without treatment. Some waters, however, 3.6 Common Water Quality Problems and may contain disease-causing organisms that make Solutions .......................................................7 them unsafe to drink. Well waters may also contain 4.0 Water Treatment .................................................11 large amounts of minerals, making them too “hard” 4.1 Point of Entry Water Treatment Systems ....11 for uses such as laundering, bathing or cooking. Some 4.2 Point of Use Water Treatment Systems .......12 contaminants may cause human health hazards and 4.3 Some Common Water Treatment others can stain clothing and fixtures, cause objec- Techniques ..................................................12 tionable tastes and odors, or corrode pipes and other 4.4 Solutions to Some Specific Water Quality system components. Problems .....................................................14 4.5 Independent Validation and Certification of Surface water sources, such as springs and cisterns, Water Treatment Equipment .......................24 are seldom used for drinking water. They are almost 4.6 Questions to Ask When Purchasing Water always contaminated with pathogenic microorgan- Treatment Equipment .........................................26 isms; therefore, surface water should always be treated 5.0 Summary ............................................................27 before being consumed. Sources ......................................................................28 The quality of drinking water from private sources is or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a greater the responsibility of the homeowner. State laws do not margin of safety than MCLs, but these are non-en- require testing of private domestic water supplies, and forceable public health goals. Both MCL and MCLG regulatory agencies do not regularly monitor the qual- are usually expressed in milligrams per liter (mg/L) or ity of water from private supplies. Therefore, the only parts per million (ppm), which are numerically equiva- way homeowners can be certain that their water is safe lent. Table 1 lists the current primary drinking water to drink is to have it tested periodically. standards, including organic/inorganic chemicals, radioactive elements and microbial pathogens. Table 1 Current Primary Standards for Drinking Water. Maximum Maximum Contaminant Contaminant Level Level Goal Contaminant (mg/L) (mg/L) Inorganics Arsenic 0.010 0 Figure 1: An abundant supply of clean, safe drinking water Barium 2.00 2.00 is essential for human and animal health. (Sources: Left Bromate 0.010 0 photo: authors; Right photo: www.photobucket.com). Copper 1.300 1.300 Cadmium 0.005 0.005 2.0 Drinking Water Standards Chromium (total) 0.100 0.100 Fluoride 4.000 4.000 Lead 0.015 0 The EPA standards for drinking water fall into two cat- Mercury (inorganic) 0.002 0.002 egories: Primary Standards and Secondary Standards. Nitrate (as N) 10.00 10.00 The current standards for some selected primary and Nitrate (as NO3) 45.00 45.00 secondary contaminants are listed below in Tables 1 Selenium 0.050 0.050 and 2. For further details about EPA’s drinking water Uranium 0.030 0 standards, visit http://water.epa.gov/drink/contami- Organics nants/index.cfm#List. Endrin 0.002 0.002 Lindane 0.0002 0.0002 Methoxychlor 0.040 0.040 2.1 Primary Drinking Water Standards Toxaphene 0.003 0 2, 4-D 0.07 0.07 Primary Standards are based on health considerations 2, 4, 5-TP (Silvex) 0.050 0.050 a and are enforced by the EPA in public water systems. Total Trihalomethanes 0.080 n/a They protect you from three classes of toxic pollut- Volatile Organic Chemicals ants: microbial pathogens, radioactive elements and Benzene 0.005 0.005 organic/inorganic chemicals. Many of these contami- Carbon Tetrachloride 0.005 0.005 Para-dichlorobenzene 0.075 0.075 nants occur naturally in trace amounts in ground or 1, 2-dichloroethane 0.005 0.005 surface water. Primary Standards set a limit, called the 1, 1-dichloroethylene 0.007 0.007 Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL), which is the 1, 1, 1-trichloroethane 0.200 0.200 highest allowable concentration of a contaminant in Trichloroethylene 0.005 0.005 drinking water supplied by public water systems. The Vinyl Chloride 0.002 0.002 MCL is an enforceable health goal based on calculated Radionuclides risk due to exposure for a period of time. For example, Radium 226 and 228 5 pCi/Lb 5 pCi/Lb EPA calculates health risk for arsenic based on as- (combined) Gross Beta Particles 50 PCi/L 50 PCi/L sumption that an individual would drink from a singu- Gross Alpha Particles 15 pCi/L 15 pCi/L lar water source for 70 years. Besides MCL, Primary Standards set another limit, called Maximum Con- taminant Level Goal (MCLG), the level of a contami- nant in drinking water below which there is no known Water Quality and Common Treatments for Private Drinking Water Systems 2 UGA Extension Bulletin 939 Microbiological Table 2 Current Secondary Standards for Drinking Water. Total Coliform 0c 0c Constituents Secondary Maximum Fecal coliform and 0 0 Contaminant Level E. coli Inorganics (mg/L) Turbidityd 1-5 turbidity N/Ae units Chloride 250 Copper 1.00 a Although there is no collective MCLG for this contaminant Fluoride 2.00 group, there are individual MCLGs for some of the indi- Foaming Agents 0.5 vidual contaminants: Iron 0.3 bromodichloromethane (zero); bromoform (zero); dibro- Manganese 0.05 mochloromethane (0.06 mg/L): chloroform (0.07mg/L). Silver 0.100 Sulfate 250 b Concentrations of radioactive elements are measured in Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) 500 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), a measure of radioactivity. Zinc 5 c ‘Colony Forming Units (CFU)’ or ‘Most Probable Number Physical Problems (MPN)’ in a 100 milliliter sample of water. Color 15 color units Corrosivity noncorrosive d Turbidity is a measure of the cloudiness of water. It is Odor 3 TON (threshold odor used to indicate water quality (e.g., whether disease-caus- number) ing organisms are present) and filtration effectiveness. pH Not less than 6.5 and not Higher turbidity levels are often associated with higher greater than 8.5 on pH levels of disease-causing microorganisms such as viruses, scale parasites and some bacteria. These organisms can cause symptoms such as nausea, cramps, diarrhea and associ- ated headaches. 3.0 Water Testing e Not available. To ensure that water is safe for human consumption and livestock use, water supplies should be tested and 2.2 Secondary Drinking Water Standards checked to ensure they meet the acceptable levels for bacterial and chemical contents. Secondary Drinking Water Standards regulate con- stituents that cause offensive taste, odor, color, cor- The local health department in most counties can con- rosivity, foaming and staining. The concentration limit duct a microbiological test. The University of Georgia is called the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level Cooperative Extension can conduct both microbiologi- (SMCL). Secondary Standards are not enforceable. cal and chemical or mineral analysis. Many private Public water systems are not required to test for or laboratories also offer these tests. To test your water, remove secondary contaminants. Secondary Standards call your local county Extension office (1-800-ASK- are guidelines for water treatment plant operators and UGA1) or check with your municipal water supplier state governments attempting to provide communities or county health department to find a certified private with the best quality water possible. See Table 2 for laboratory near you. A list of water testing laboratories Secondary Drinking Water Standards, including inor- certified by Georgia Department of Natural Resources ganic chemicals and physical problems. is also available at https://epd.georgia.gov/sites/ epd.georgia.gov/files/related_files/site_page/Micro% 20Labs%20for%20Internet.pdf. The testing procedure is not the same for all contami- nants. Call your local Extension office, health depart- ment or private lab for appropriate bottle(s) and in- structions on sample collection and submission. After sending a water sample to a laboratory, the laboratory
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Preliminary Assessment of the Montréal Process Indicators of Air Pollution for the United States
    A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE MONTRÉAL PROCESS INDICATORS OF AIR POLLUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES JOHN W. COULSTON1∗, KURT H. RIITTERS2 and GRETCHEN C. SMITH3 1 Department of Forestry, North Carolina State University, Southern Research Station, U.S. Forest Service, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; 2 U.S. Forest Service, Southern Research Station, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; 3 Department of Natural Resources Conservation, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts ∗ ( author for correspondence, e-mail: [email protected]) (Received 11 October 2002; accepted 9 May 2003) Abstract. Air pollutants pose a risk to forest health and vitality in the United States. Here we present the major findings from a national scale air pollution assessment that is part of the United States’ 2003 Report on Sustainable Forests. We examine trends and the percent forest subjected to specific levels of ozone and wet deposition of sulfate, nitrate, and ammonium. Results are reported by Resource Planning Act (RPA) reporting region and integrated by forest type using multivariate clustering. Estimates of sulfate deposition for forested areas had decreasing trends (1994–2000) across RPA regions that were statistically significant for North and South RPA regions. Nitrate deposition rates were relatively constant for the 1994 to 2000 period, but the South RPA region had a statistically decreasing trend. The North and South RPA regions experienced the highest ammonium deposition rates and showed slightly decreasing trends. Ozone concentrations were highest in portions of the Pacific Coast RPA region and relatively high across much of the South RPA region. Both the South and Rocky Mountain RPA regions had an increasing trend in ozone exposure.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of EPA's Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME) and Long‐Term Monitoring (LTM) Programs: Evaluation Methodology
    May 2009 EVALUATION OF EPA’S TEMPORALLY INTEGRATED MONITORING OF ECOSYSTEMS (TIME) AND LONG-TERM MONITORING (LTM) PROGRAMS Promoting Environmental Results Throu gh Evaluation Acknowledgements This evaluation was conducted by Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) and Ross & Associates Environmental Consulting, Ltd. (Ross & Associates) for EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation under Contract EP‐W‐07‐028. An Evaluation Team guided the effort consisting of David LaRoche, Jerry Kurtzweg, Michael Hadrick, and Michele McKeever of EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation; Matt Keene of EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation; and Nancy Tosta, Jennifer Major, Shawna McGarry, and Tim Larson of Ross & Associates. Matt Keene also served as the technical program evaluation advisor. Keith Sargent, EPA National Center for Environmental Economics; Jay Messer, EPA Office of Research and Development; and Kent Thornton, FTN Associates also provided important historical context and input regarding analysis of economic data. We would also like to thank TIME/LTM program principal investigators who agreed to be interviewed for this evaluation. This report was developed under the Program Evaluation Competition, sponsored by EPA’s Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. To access copies of this or other EPA program evaluations, please go to EPA’s Evaluation Support Division’s website at http://www.epa.gov/evaluate . TABLE OF CONTENTS ACRONYMS........................................................................................................................................i
    [Show full text]
  • Sulfates and Hydrogen Sulfide
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension Extension 1996 G96-1275 Drinking Water: Sulfates and Hydrogen Sulfide David L. Varner University of Nebraska at Lincoln, [email protected] Sharon Skipton University of Nebraska–Lincoln, [email protected] Paul J. Jasa University of Nebraska at Lincoln, [email protected] Bruce I. Dvorak University of Nebraska–Lincoln, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist Part of the Agriculture Commons, and the Curriculum and Instruction Commons Varner, David L.; Skipton, Sharon; Jasa, Paul J.; and Dvorak, Bruce I., "G96-1275 Drinking Water: Sulfates and Hydrogen Sulfide" (1996). Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension. 1425. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist/1425 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Extension at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Historical Materials from University of Nebraska-Lincoln Extension by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Nebraska Cooperative Extension G96-1275-A Drinking Water: Sulfates and Hydrogen Sulfide This NebGuide discusses recommended practices to manage sulfur in a domestic water supply. Dave Varner, Extension Educator; Sharon Skipton, Extension Educator; Paul Jasa, Extension Engineer; Bruce Dvorak, Extension Environmental Engineering Two forms of sulfur are commonly found in drinking water supplies: sulfate and hydrogen sulfide. Both forms are nuisances that usually do not pose a health risk at the concentrations found in domestic water supplies. Sources of Sulfate and Hydrogen Sulfide in Drinking Water Sulfate Sulfates are a combination of sulfur and oxygen and are a part of naturally occurring minerals in some soil and rock formations that contain groundwater.
    [Show full text]
  • AP Environmental Science Scope and Sequence
    AP Environmental Science Scope and Sequence Grading Period Unit Title Learning Targets Throughout the I. Earth Systems and Resources (10–15%) School Year A. Earth Science Concepts (Geologic time scale; plate tectonics, earthquakes, volcanism; seasons; solar intensity and latitude) B. The Atmosphere (Composition; structure; weather and climate; atmospheric circulation and the Coriolis Effect; atmosphere–ocean interactions; ENSO) C. Global Water Resources and Use (Freshwater/saltwater; ocean circulation; agricultural, industrial, and domestic use; surface and groundwater issues; global problems; conservation) D. Soil and Soil Dynamics (Rock cycle; formation; composition; physical and chemical properties; main soil types; erosion and other soil problems; soil conservation) II. The Living World (10–15%) A. Ecosystem Structure (Biological populations and communities; ecological niches; interactions among species; keystone species; species diversity and edge effects; major terrestrial and aquatic biomes) B. Energy Flow (Photosynthesis and cellular respiration; food webs and trophic levels; ecological pyramids) C. Ecosystem Diversity (Biodiversity; natural selection; evolution; ecosystem services) D. Natural Ecosystem Change (Climate shifts; species movement; ecological succession) E. Natural Biogeochemical Cycles (Carbon, nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur, water, conservation of matter) III. Population (10–15%) A. Population Biology Concepts (Population ecology; carrying capacity; reproductive strategies; survivorship) B. Human Population 1. Human
    [Show full text]
  • NYSERDA) Is a Public Benefit Corporation Created in 1975 by the New York State Legislature
    MONITORING THE DEPOSITION AND EFFECTS OF AIR POLLUTION IN THE HUDSON VALLEY, NY FINAL REPORT 05 -01 FEBRUARY 2005 NEW YORK STATE ENERGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is a public benefit corporation created in 1975 by the New York State Legislature. NYSERDA’s responsibilities include: • Conducting a multifaceted energy and environmental research and development program to meet New York State’s diverse economic needs. • Administering the New York Energy $martSM program, a Statewide public benefit R&D, energy efficiency, and environmental protection program. • Making energy more affordable for residential and low-income households. • Helping industries, schools, hospitals, municipalities, not-for-profits, and the residential sector, including low-income residents, implement energy-efficiency measures. • Providing objective, credible, and useful energy analysis and planning to guide decisions made by major energy stakeholders in the private and public sectors. • Managing the Western New York Nuclear Service Center at West Valley, including: (1) overseeing the State’s interests and share of costs at the West Valley Demonstration Project, a federal/State radioac- tive waste clean-up effort, and (2) managing wastes and maintaining facilities at the shut-down State- Licensed Disposal Area. • Coordinating the State’s activities on energy emergencies and nuclear regulatory matters, and monitoring low-level radioactive waste generation and management in the State. • Financing energy-related projects, reducing costs for ratepayers. NYSERDA administers the New York Energy $martSM program, which is designed to support certain public benefit programs during the transition to a more competitive electricity market. Some 2,700 projects in 40 programs are funded by a charge on the electricity transmitted and distributed by the State’s investor-owned utilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Impact of Energy Development on Water Resources in Arid Lands: Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography
    The Impact of Energy Development on Water Resources in Arid Lands: Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography Item Type text; Book Authors Bowden, Charles Publisher Office of Arid Lands Studies, University of Arizona (Tucson, AZ) Download date 04/10/2021 05:21:56 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/238692 Arid Lands Resource Information Paper No.6 University of Arizona OFFICE OF ARID LANDS STUDIES Tucson, Arizona 85719 1975 ADDITIONAL PUBLICATIONS ON ARID LANDS Office of A rid Lands Studies: Seventy-Five Years of Arid Lands Research at the University of Arizona, A Selective Bibliography, 1891-1965 Arid Lands Abstracts, nos. 3, 1972- to date J ojoba and Its Uses, An International Conference, 1972 Remote Sensing Conferences, Proceedings of the 2d (1971) - 4th (1973) Arid Lands Resource Information Papers Nos. 1-5 University of Arizona Press (*= OALS Authors): *Deserts of the World *Arid Lands in Perspective *Food, Fiber and the Arid Lands Coastal Deserts, Their Natural and Human Environments Polar Deserts and Modern Man *Arid Lands Research Institutions: A World Directory Arid Lands Resource Information Paper No. 6 THE IMPACT OF ENERGY DEVELOPMENT ON WATER RESOURCES IN ARID LANDS Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography by Charles Bowden Research Assistant Office of A rid Lands Studies University of Arizona The work upon which this publication is based was supported in part by funds provided by the United States Department of the Interior, Office of Water Research and Technology, as authorized under the Water Resources Research Act of 1964, as amended. University of Arizona OFFICE OF ARID LANDS STUDIES Tucson, Arizona 85721 1975 CONTENTS Page Foreword Author's Preface Abstract iii A cknowledgments iv I.Water and Energy in the Past 1 1.Ancient Energy Systems 1 2.Energy Appetites and Resources 7 3.The Problem of Aridity 16 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Housing REPRINTED 2002 PUBLICATION 356-488
    Virginia Cooperative Extension Housing REPRINTED 2002 PUBLICATION 356-488 HOUSEHOLD WATER QUALITY Hydrogen Sulfıde in Household Water Blake Ross, Kathleen Parrott, and Janice Woodard* Hydrogen sulfide gas is a nuisance that is not usually a appreciable levels of iron and/or manganese, or that has health risk at concentrations normally found in household a low pH. water. Water containing hydrogen sulfide, commonly called sulfur water, has a distinctive “rotten egg” odor, Testing for Hydrogen Sulfide which may be especially noticeable when running hot water. Such water can discolor coffee, tea and other To determine an appropriate treatment method, it is beverages, and alter the appearance and taste of cooked necessary to find out how much hydrogen sulfide is foods. present in the water supply. Since hydrogen sulfide is a gas that is dissolved in water and can readily escape from Hydrogen sulfide dissolved in water can also corrode it, determining the concentration of hydrogen sulfide plumbing metals, such as iron, steel, copper and brass and requires that the water sample be tested at the site or be exposed metal parts in washing machines and other water- immediately stabilized for laboratory analysis. Sample using appliances. The corrosion of iron and steel from bottles with stabilizing chemical should be obtained from hydrogen sulfide forms ferrous sulfide or “black water” the laboratory that does the analysis. These stabilized which can darken silverware and discolor copper and water samples cannot be analyzed for other contaminants. brass utensils. Hydrogen sulfide can also interfere with When sewage pollution is a suspected source of hydrogen the effectiveness of water softeners.
    [Show full text]
  • Chris Groenhout Dan Wolz Clean Water Education Grant Chris Groenhout Graduated from Michigan State University with a Degree in Biology and a Minor in Chemistry
    Chris Groenhout Dan Wolz Clean Water Education Grant Chris Groenhout graduated from Michigan State University with a degree in biology and a minor in chemistry. He has a masters degree in Biology and is currently finishing up his masters degree in Educational Technology at MSU. Chris grew up with an appreciation for our amazing freshwater resources here in Michigan and seeks to impart that appreciation in his students. He has been teaching for 13 years and is currently teaching chemistry and AP Environmental Science at Grandville High School near Grand Rapids. [email protected] http://chrisgroenhout.weebly.com Aquarium Science as a Model for Teaching Water Quality in Chemistry and AP Environmental Science By Chris Groenhout With Funding from the Michigan Water Environmental Association and the Grandville Education Association Support for Model Based Instruction • Relevance - For students to truly learn, they must make a connection between what they are seeing and what they already know. • Modeling - Visual, tactile access to concepts help make connections and clarify understanding. • Foundation for Context - Not all student come to class with the same experiences but can all have the same in-class experiences to relate to and discuss. The Goal – Better Understanding of Water • Preconceptions − Water − Bacteria − Dirt • Lacking understanding of… − Solubility of solids − Solubility of gasses − Effects of pH − Nitrogen Cycle − Testing techniques − The variety of bacteria − Human impact − Clear understanding of “Clean Water” − Lack
    [Show full text]
  • Sulfates and Hydrogen Sulfide Rotten Egg / Sulfur Smell Sulfate Reducing Bacteria
    Montana Environmental Laboratory LLC 1170 N. Meridian Rd. P.O. Box 8900 Kalispell, MT 59904 Ph: 406-755-2131 Fax: 406-257-5359 www.melab.us Sulfates and Hydrogen Sulfide Rotten Egg / Sulfur Smell Sulfate Reducing Bacteria Two forms of sulfur are commonly found in drinking water supplies: sulfate and hydrogen sulfide. Both forms are nuisances that usually do not pose a health risk at the concentrations found in domestic water supplies. Sources of sulfate and hydrogen sulfide in drinking water Sulfates Sulfates are a combination of sulfur and oxygen and are a part of naturally occurring minerals in some soil and rock formations that contain groundwater. The mineral dissolves over time and is released into groundwater. Hydrogen sulfide Sulfur-reducing bacteria, which use sulfur as an energy source, are the primary producers of large quantities of hydrogen sulfide. These bacteria chemically change natural sulfates in water to hydrogen sulfide. Sulfur-reducing bacteria live in oxygen-deficient environments such as deep wells, plumbing systems, water softeners and water heaters. These bacteria usually flourish on the hot water side of a water distribution system. Hydrogen sulfide gas also occurs naturally in some groundwater. It is formed from decomposing underground deposits of organic matter such as decaying plant material. It is found in deep or shallow wells and also can enter surface water through springs, although it quickly escapes to the atmosphere. Hydrogen sulfide often is present in wells drilled in shale or sandstone, or near coal or peat deposits or oil fields. Occasionally, a hot water heater is a source of hydrogen sulfide odor.
    [Show full text]
  • Nitrogen Removal by Sulfur-Based Carriers in a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR)
    membranes Article Nitrogen Removal by Sulfur-Based Carriers in a Membrane Bioreactor (MBR) Thi-Kim-Quyen Vo, Jeong-Jun Lee, Joon-Seok Kang, Seogyeong Park and Han-Seung Kim * Department of Environmental Engineering and Energy, Myongji University, 116 Myongji-ro, Cheoin-gu, Yongin-si, Gyeonggi-do 17058, Korea; [email protected] (T.-K.-Q.V.); [email protected] (J.-J.L.); [email protected] (J.-S.K.); [email protected] (S.P.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +82-31-330-6695 Received: 14 October 2018; Accepted: 19 November 2018; Published: 22 November 2018 Abstract: Sulfur-based carriers were examined to enhance the nitrogen removal efficiency in a mixed anoxic–anaerobic-membrane bioreactor system, in which sulfur from the carrier acts as an electron donor for the conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas through the autotrophic denitrification process. A total nitrogen removal efficiency of 63% was observed in the system with carriers, which showed an increase in the removal efficiency of around 20%, compared to the system without carriers. The results also indicated that the carriers had no adverse effect on biological treatment for the organic matter and total phosphorus. The removal efficiencies for chemical oxygen demand (COD) and total phosphorus (TP) were 98% and 37% in both systems, respectively. The generation of sulfate ions was a major disadvantage of using sulfur-based carriers, and resulted in pH drop. The ratio of sulfate in the 2− − effluent to nitrate removed in the system ranged from 0.86 to 1.97 mgSO4 /mgNO3 -N, which was lower than the theoretical value and could be regarded as due to the occurrence of simultaneous heterotrophic and autotrophic denitrification.
    [Show full text]
  • Biogeochemistry of Sulfur in Small Forested Catchments of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park
    University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 5-2018 Biogeochemistry of Sulfur in Small Forested Catchments of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park Adrian Miguel Gonzalez University of Tennessee, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Recommended Citation Gonzalez, Adrian Miguel, "Biogeochemistry of Sulfur in Small Forested Catchments of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2018. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/4901 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Adrian Miguel Gonzalez entitled "Biogeochemistry of Sulfur in Small Forested Catchments of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Civil Engineering. John S. Schwartz, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Michael E. Essington, Qiang He, Anna Szynkiewicz Accepted for the Council: Dixie L. Thompson Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) Biogeochemistry of Sulfur in Small Forested Catchments of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Adrian Miguel Gonzalez May 2018 Copyright © 2018 by Adrian Miguel Gonzalez All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparisons of Watershed Sulfur Budgets in Southeast Canada and Northeast US: New Approaches and Implications
    Biogeochemistry DOI 10.1007/s10533-010-9455-0 Comparisons of watershed sulfur budgets in southeast Canada and northeast US: new approaches and implications Myron J. Mitchell • Gary Lovett • Scott Bailey • Fred Beall • Doug Burns • Don Buso • Thomas A. Clair • Francois Courchesne • Louis Duchesne • Cathy Eimers • Ivan Fernandez • Daniel Houle • Dean S. Jeffries • Gene E. Likens • Michael D. Moran • Christopher Rogers • Donna Schwede • Jamie Shanley • Kathleen C. Weathers • Robert Vet Received: 21 December 2009 / Accepted: 18 April 2010 Ó Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010 Abstract Most of eastern North America receives recovery in previously acidified aquatic ecosystems. elevated levels of atmospheric deposition of sulfur Accurate watershed S mass balances help to evaluate (S) that result from anthropogenic SO2 emissions the extent to which atmospheric S deposition is from fossil fuel combustion. Atmospheric S deposi- retained within ecosystems, and whether internal tion has acidified sensitive terrestrial and aquatic cycling sources and biogeochemical processes may ecosystems in this region; however, deposition has be affecting the rate of recovery from decreasing S been declining since the 1970s, resulting in some atmospheric loads. This study evaluated S mass balances for 15 sites with watersheds in southeastern Canada and northeastern US for the period 1985 to With the exception of Mitchell and Lovett, authors are listed 2002. These 15 sites included nine in Canada (Turkey alphabetically. Lakes, ON; Harp Lake, ON; Plastic Lake, ON; Hermine, QC; Lake Laflamme, QC; Lake Clair, QC; Electronic supplementary material The online version of Lake Tirasse, QC; Mersey, NS; Moosepit, NS) and this article (doi:10.1007/s10533-010-9455-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
    [Show full text]