Drinking water advisory communication toolbox

"The goal is to provide a protocol and practical Toolbox for communicating with stakeholders and the public about water advisories that is based upon research and identified practices. The project focuses on water systems and addresses the range of situations that generate drinking water advisories. This project was a collaborative effort among the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), and National Environmental Health Association (NEHA). A technical workgroup of public health and drinking water agencies and drinking water system experts advised and guided the project. The project also engaged a broad cross-section of relevant stakeholders and technical experts including local government, emergency response, and hazard communication experts." - p. 1About the drinking water advisory communication toolbox -- Section 1: Before an advisory -- Section 2: During an advisory -- Section 3: After an advisory -- Appendix A: Glossary of terms and abbreviations -- Appendix B: Online resources -- Appendix C: Toolbox bibliographyDate from document properties: 8/4/2011.Available via the World Wide Web as an Acrobat .pdf file (4.54 MB, 162 p.)

Global sensitivity analysis of a filtration model for submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR)

The results of a global sensitivity analysis of a filtration model for submerged anaerobic MBRs (AnMBRs) are assessed in this paper. This study aimed to (1) identify the less- (or non-) influential factors of the model in order to facilitate model calibration and (2) validate the modelling approach (i.e. to determine the need for each of the proposed factors to be included in the model). The sensitivity analysis was conducted using a revised version of the Morris screening method. The dynamic simulations were conducted using long-term data obtained from an AnMBR plant fitted with industrial-scale hollow-fibre membranes. Of the 14 factors in the model, six were identified as influential, i.e. those calibrated using off-line protocols. A dynamic calibration (based on optimisation algorithms) of these influential factors was conducted. The resulting estimated model factors accurately predicted membrane performance.This research work has been supported by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness (MINECO, Projects CTM2011-28595-C02-01/02) jointly with the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) which are gratefully acknowledged.Robles Martínez, Á.; Ruano García, MV.; Ribes Bertomeu, J.; Seco Torrecillas, A.; Ferrer, J. (2014). Global sensitivity analysis of a filtration model for submerged anaerobic membrane bioreactors (AnMBR). Bioresource Technology. 158:365-376. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2014.02.087S36537615

Posttreatment of olive mill wastewater by immobilized TiO2 photocatalysis

A photocatalytic reactor with UV/TiO2 was used for the post-treatment of olive mill wastewater after anaerobic digestion. A factorial experimental design was adopted to determine the statistical significance of each parameter tested, namely initial COD, pH, treatment time and recirculation flow, and possible interactions, in three response variables: phenols, colour, and COD removals. Removal efficiencies of 90.8 ± 2.7 %, 79.3 ± 1.9 %, and 50.3 ± 6.3 % were obtained for total phenols (TPh), colour, and COD, respectively. TPh and colour were almost completely removed after 24 h of treatment, while the COD removal was partial. Because increasing the treatment time is economically unfeasible a recirculation to the anaerobic reactor should be considered. Regarding the most significant variables, the TPh removal efficiency is dependent of the initial COD concentration; the colour removal efficiency decreased with increasing COD concentration and pH; and, the COD removal efficiency is directly linked with the treatment time. The interaction between the initial COD and treatment time affect negatively the response variables tested because of the inactivation of some active sites of the TiO2 paper.The Portuguese Science Foundation (FCT) and the European Social Fund (ESF, POPH-QREN) gave financial support through the Post-Doctoral grant attributed to Jose Carlos Costa (SFRH/BDP/48 962/2008) and through the project PTDC/ENR/69 755/2006. The authors thank Dr. M.N. Pons and Dr. O. Zahraa the offer of the reactor and Mr Ing. J. Dussaud from Alstrohm (Pont-Eveque, France) for the TiO2 paper

Protecting public health during drought conditions

"In April 2008, CDC, the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) committed to collaboratively creating a guide for public health and other professionals concerned with the health implications of drought. Several key processes were employed over a period of months to help inform the writing of the drought document. CDC first conducted a review of the existing drought-related public health guidance, information, and literature, and identified a need for a consolidated drought planning resource for public health. A working group was then organized composed of both internal subject-matter experts and external experts representing diverse fields, including all levels of public health, environmental protection, and water-related sciences. Over the course of several months, the working group held a series of conference calls to discuss and prioritize the type of information that should be included in the proposed drought document, along with the appropriate format and structure. The research and consultations culminated in a 3-day workshop, which took place on September 17-19, 2008, in Atlanta, Georgia. The Public Health Effects of Drought Workshop was attended by experts from diverse disciplines, including federal, state, and local public health; environmental engineering and science; coastal ecology; regulatory engineering; water-related research; risk communication; water systems management; and emergency management (see Acknowledgments section for a list of participants and their affiliations). Participants were presented with several tasks during the 3-day meeting. They worked together through a computer-based communications/facilitation tool and engaged in discussions to identify and prioritize drought-related public health issues, identify research gaps and needs in the area of public health as it relates to drought, and develop recommendations to ensure that the nation's public health system is better prepared for drought. Workshop participants also shared personal experiences with drought within their regions, including lessons learned, best practices, and challenges. The recommendations contained within this document are based on the experience and knowledge of the working group members who participated in numerous conference calls, the experts who attended the 2008 Public Health Effects of Drought Workshop, and the literature and data that have been collected regarding the impact of drought on health. The document has been reviewed and vetted by CDC, AWWA, EPA, NOAA, and other stakeholder agencies and organizations, including the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), the National Association of Local Boards of Health (NALBOH), and the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO)." - p. 13Acknowledgments -- Executive summary -- Introduction -- Background -- Drought basics. -- Water basics -- Water-related policy -- The impact of drought on health. -- Preparing for and responding to drought -- Response: public health activities for late-stage severe drought conditions -- Future needs: drought-related research and initiatives. -- Drought resources for public health professionals -- References -- Additional resources -- Appendix. Target audiences, communication objectives, and communication actions"CS214614-A."The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) would like to thank all agencies, organizations, and individuals who either assisted directly in or supported the development of When Every Drop Counts: Protecting Public Health During Drought Conditions--A Guide for Public Health Professionals. In addition to CDC/NCEH, other primary agencies and organizations who coordinated the development of this guide are the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Special thanks are offered to members who participated in the Public Health Effects of Drought Workshop (facilitated by Brett Boston and Vern Herr of Group Solutions, Inc.) held in Atlanta in September 2008. Their expertise, input, and insight greatly contributed to the development of this guide. Other individuals offered recommendations, consultation, and advice through conference calls, in-person meetings, and document reviews.This guide reflects the commitment of many individuals who contributed their time, skills, and expertise to its development. Members of the CDC/NCEH project coordinating group include Rob Blake, Val Carlson, Katelyn Hardy, Martin Kalis, and CAPT Mark Miller.Ultimately, however, this guide could not have been developed without the expertise and patience of our technical writer/editor, Rachel Wilson. Ms. Wilson worked closely with the CDC/NCEH project coordination group to develop a draft version of the guide, prepare it for external review, and incorporate suggestions and revisions offered by key partners and stakeholders.Also avavailable via the World Wide Web as an Acrobat .pdf file (5MB, 56 p.).Includes bibliographical references (p. 42-44).Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and American Water Works Association. 2010. When every drop counts: protecting public health during drought conditions--a guide for public health professionals. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Estandarización de la documentación del Laboratorio de control de proceso -Planta de Tratamiento de Agua Residuales de la empresa Centroaguas S.A ESP

El siguiente trabajo describe los procesos de Sistemas de Gestión y Control de la empresa CENTROAGUAS S.A. ESP, a través de la realización de la documentación y estandarización de las metodologías desarrolladas en el laboratorio de control de proceso de la planta de tratamiento de agua residual PTAR -Tuluá. Para ello, se tuvieron en cuenta el numeral 7.5 Información documentada de la norma NTC ISO 9001:2015, el numeral 8.3 de la NTC ISO/IEC 17025:2017, el documento Norma Fundamental SGC-NO-001 definido por la organización para la estandarización de documentos y los métodos de referencia del Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation. 23rd ed., Washington DC, 2017. Se diseñó y elaboró la documentación necesaria y adecuada para el desarrollo de las actividades ejecutadas en el laboratorio de control de proceso, se incluyó el manejo de residuos que se generan como resultados de los análisis efectuados y se elaboraron los registros requeridos para dejar evidencia que soporte la ejecución de las actividades, facilitando la trazabilidad de la información, garantizando de esta forma la toma de decisiones basadas en hechos y datos.The following work describes the Management and Control Systems processes of the company CENTROAGUAS S.A. ESP, through the documentation and standardization of the methodologies developed in the process control laboratory of the wastewater treatment plant PTAR -Tuluá. For this, the numeral 7.5 Documented information of the NTC ISO 9001: 2015 normative, the numeral 8.3 of the NTC ISO / IEC 17025: 2017, the Fundamental Standard document SGC-NO-001 defined by the organization also was considered for the standardization of documents and reference methods of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation. 23rd ed., Washington DC, 2017. It was designed and adequate documentation was and prepared for the development of the activities carried out in the process control lab. The management of waste generated as results of the analyzes carried out was included and the required records were prepared to leave supporting evidence the execution of activities, facilitating the traceability of information, thus guaranteeing decision-making based on facts and data

Drinking water advisory communication toolbox. Updated 2013

Our goal is to provide a protocol and practical toolbox for communicating with stakeholders and the public about water advisories that is based upon research and identified practices. The project focuses on water systems and addresses the range of situations that generate drinking water advisories.This project was a collaborative effort among the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), and the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA).A technical workgroup of public health and drinking water agencies and drinking water system experts advised and guided the project. The project also engaged a broad cross-section of relevant stakeholders and technical experts including local government officials and emergency response and hazard communication experts.This toolbox was reviewed by EPA and state primacy agencies. Every effort was made to ensure that the toolbox complies with the Public Notification Rule when necessary.More than 500 documents, protocols, regulations, and other resources related to the issuing of drinking water advisories were compiled. Nearly 100 interviews were conducted with water systems, primacy agencies, and local public health departments in the United States and Canada.These findings revealed: Advice to the public varies widely from state to state and community to community; Advisories are a common occurrence in some states and a rare event in others; Major events or disasters were the primary reasons for collaboration between drinking water systems and health departments; Terminology for advisories is inconsistent; Templates and advisory content are difficult to change or adapt to specific audiences or needs; The EPA Public Notification Handbook is the primary information source for drinking water advisories; Agency responsibilities for communicating with institutions, such as hospitals, schools, and restaurants, are highly variable; Good relationships between water systems and local public health departments are often dependent on established relationships between individuals; Local health departments may lack the resources or expertise to address drinking water issues; Local health departments are willing to be consulted by water systems when requested.About the drinking water advisory communication toolbox \ue2\u20ac\u201c Acknowledgements \ue2\u20ac\u201c Introduction -- Section 1: Before an event \ue2\u20ac\u201cpreparing for an advisory -- Section 2: During an event-issuing an advisory -- Section 3: After an event-evaluating an advisory -- Appendix A: Glossary of terms and abbreviations -- Appendix B: Online resources -- Appendix C: Toolbox bibliography.CurrentPrevention and ControlEnvironmental Healt

THE ROLE OF SODIUM ION IN PHOSPHORUS REMOVAL WHEN ALUM IS USED AS A COAGULANT

Jar examination was applied to treat dairy water by using alum as a coagulant. Synthetic samples similar to actual wastewater were prepared from real dairy products to achieve the work.  All tests of characteristics have been performed according to American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), and Water Environment Federation (WEF). The apparatus used in this study is the Jar test model JLT 6 Leaching test VELP Scientifica, with all kits and tools that could complete the work. The results showed the ability of aluminum sulfate to remove phosphorous from dairy wastewater by up to 95%. This resulted in an optimum aluminum dose equal to 0.5 mg / l at 20°C, and a gradient speed of 1076.915 seconds. -1. These results correspond to the role of the sodium ion in removing contaminants as a catalyst; the sodium ion concentration that contributed to this activity was 60 mg per liter, representing 23.07% of the initial concentration. The main goal of this article, it’s how can exploit the factors and circumstances adjacent to reducing pollutants without increasing aluminum dosages

Drinking water advisory communication toolbox

Our goal is to provide a protocol and practical toolbox for communicating with stakeholders and the publicabout water advisories that is based upon research and identified practices. The project focuses on watersystems and addresses the range of situations that generate drinking water advisories.This project was a collaborative effort among the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials (ASTHO), the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA), and the National Environmental Health Association (NEHA).A technical workgroup of public health and drinking water agencies and drinking water system experts advised and guided the project. The project also engaged a broad cross-section of relevant stakeholders and technical experts including local government officials and emergency response and hazard communication experts.This toolbox was reviewed by EPA and state primacy agencies. Every effort was made to ensure that the toolbox complies with the Public Notification Rule when necessary.More than 500 documents, protocols, regulations, and other resources related to the issuing of drinking water advisories were compiled. Nearly 100 interviews were conducted with water systems, primacy agencies, and local public health departments in the United States and Canada.Updated 2013About the Drinking Water Advisory Communication Toolbox -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Section 1: Before an event\ue2\u20ac\u201d preparing for an advisory -- Section 2: During an event\ue2\u20ac\u201d issuing an advisory -- Section 3: After an event\ue2\u20ac\u201d evaluating an advisory -- Appendix A: Glossary of terms and abbreviations -- Appendix B: Online resources -- Appendix C: Toolbox bibliography