A recently invented device, “UV Waterworks,” uses ultraviolet (UV) light to disinfect drinking water. Its novel features are: low cost, robust design, rapid disinfection (12 seconds), low electricity use (40W), low maintenance (every 6 months), high flow rate (15 l/min) and ability to
work with unpressurized water sources. The device could service a community of 1000 persons, at an annual total cost of less than 10 cents US per person. UV Waterworks has been successfully tested in the laboratory. Limited field
trials of an early version of the device were conducted in India in 1994-95. Insights from these trials led to the present design. Extended field trials of UV Waterworks, initiated in South Africa in February 1997, will be coordinated by the South African Centre for Essential Community Services (SACECS), with technical and organizational support from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and the Natural Resources Defence Council (both USA). The first of the eight planned sites of the year long trial is an AIDS hospice near Durban. Durban Metro Water and LBNL lab-tested a UV Waterworks unit prior to installing it at the hospice in August, 1997. We describe the field test plans and preliminary results from Durban

Anushka Drescher (7224209)

Ashok Gadgil (7218269)

Cynthia Motau (7224212)

David Greene (417151)

Frank Stevens (7224215)

Peter Miller (782016)

English

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

D   WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT: GADGIL, DRESCHER, GREENE, MILLER, MOTAU and STEVENS15323rd WEDC Conference Durban, South Africa, 1997Field-testing UV disinfection of drinking waterAshok Gadgil et al., USAWATER AND SANITATION FOR ALL: PARTNERSHIPS AND INNOVATIONSA RECENTLY INVENTED device, “UV Waterworks,” usesultraviolet (UV) light to disinfect drinking water. Its novelfeatures are: low cost, robust design, rapid disinfection (12seconds), low electricity use (40W), low maintenance(every 6 months), high flow rate (15 l/min) and ability towork with unpressurized water sources. The device couldservice a community of 1000 persons, at an annual totalcost of less than 10 cents US per person. UV Waterworkshas been successfully tested in the laboratory. Limited fieldtrials of an early version of the device were conducted inIndia in 1994-95. Insights from these trials led to thepresent design. Extended field trials of UV Waterworks,initiated in South Africa in February 1997, will be coordi-nated by the South African Centre for Essential Commu-nity Services (SACECS), with technical and organizationalsupport from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory(LBNL) and the Natural Resources Defence Council (bothUSA). The first of the eight planned sites of the year longtrial is an AIDS hospice near Durban. Durban MetroWater and LBNL lab-tested a UV Waterworks unit priorto installing it at the hospice in August, 1997. We describethe field test plans and preliminary results from Durban.UV disinfection of drinking waterAs of 1994, more than 1 billion people in the world stilllacked access to safe drinking water (WHO/WSSCC/UNICEF, 1996). The problem of unsafe drinking water isrecognized to be not an isolated technical problem, butinterrelated to the problems of adequate water supply,community education in public hygiene, access to sanita-tion, and effective and safe disposal of human and animalwastes (USAID, 1990). Nevertheless, a device that offersaffordable, simple, robust and low-maintenance disinfec-tion of drinking water can be an important part of thesolution.The use of ultraviolet (UV) light to disinfect water ofwater-borne pathogens capitalizes on the germicidal prop-erties of a narrow range of the UV spectrum. Given properdosage, UV wavelengths ranging from 240 to 280nanometers (nm) deactivate, or effectively kill, microor-ganisms by damaging their DNA so as to prevent the DNA,and the organism, from replicating (Harm, 1980). The UVdose, measured in microwatt-seconds per square centime-tre, is the product of UV intensity and exposure time:dosages for a 90 per cent kill of most bacteria and virusesrange from 2,000 to 8,000 mW-s/cm2, while dosages forGiardia, Cryptosporidium, and other large cysts and para-sites are essentially an order of magnitude greater (ap-proximately 60,000-80,000 mW-s/cm2) at a minimum(Wolfe, 1990).Most current UV systems use a low-pressure or medium-pressure mercury vapour lamp and expose water to UV bypumping the water around a sleeve within which the UVlamp is supported. Typical system designs deliver UVdosages of 25,000 to 35,000 mW-s/cm2 and are adequateto deactivate only bacteria and viruses (Wolfe, 1990). UVsystems can be coupled with a prefilter to remove thoselarger organisms that would otherwise pass through theUV system unaffected. The prefilter also clarifies the waterto improve light transmittance and therefore UV dosethroughout the entire water column.Proper handling and storage of UV-treated waters are acritical part of any UV treatment system. UV treatmentdoes not offer any residual disinfection, and treated bacte-ria can repair their DNA and reactivate in a few days whenexposed to visible light (Harm, 1980).UV systems compare favourably with other water disin-fection systems in terms of cost, labour, and the need fortechnically trained personnel for operation and mainte-nance:• Deep tubewells fitted with handpumps, while perhapsthe simplest system to operate, require expensive drill-ing rigs, are immobile sources, and often produce hardwater that some communities find distasteful;• Chlorine disinfection treats larger organisms and of-fers residual disinfection, but systems are expensivewith their need for special operator training and asteady supply of a potentially hazardous material;• Boiling water over a biomass cookstove is the mostreliable treatment method, but it demands labour, andimposes high economic, environmental, and humanhealth costs. UV treatment is rapid and, in terms ofprimary energy use, approximately 20,000 times moreefficient than boiling.UV Waterworks (UVWw)In the summer of 1993, prompted by the outbreak in Indiaof a mutant strain of cholera (“Bengal” Cholera) againstwhich there was no vaccine, we initiated a design effort fora low-cost, robust, and low maintenance device for drink-ing water disinfection. We found that one could disinfectwater with a UV dose of 40,000 mW-s/cm2 at an attrac-tively low cost of 2 US cents per metric ton of water.However, the available UV water disinfection systems hadtwo drawbacks: they allD   WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT: GADGIL, DRESCHER, GREENE, MILLER, MOTAU and STEVENS154• required a pressurized source of water, due to variousfilters integral to the devices;• used a UV-transparent sleeve to separate the UV lampfrom the surrounding water stream. This sleeve fouledwith biofilm and chemical deposits, reducing its UV-transparency, and thus required frequent mechanicaland chemical cleaning. This was beyond the technicaland time resources of the communities we hoped tohelp.Our goal was to disinfect communities’ drinking watercollected by hand from surface sources, or with handpumps.The water entering the device might have a pressure of onlya few cm of water column. Thus, we decided to do awaywith any integrated filter (and the need for pressurizedwater to push it through the filter). If filtering was neces-sary, it would have to be done outside the device, using aslow sand filter, or an in-line filter cartridge if one had apressurized line. We circumvented the sleeve fouling prob-lem with a design having a bare UV lamp supported belowa reflector, above the free surface of flowing water. Thereare no solid surfaces prone to fouling between the waterand the UV lamp. We set the maintenance interval of thedesign conservatively at 6 months. Our initial design waswholly of welded stainless steel sheet, consumed 40 Watts,disinfected 30 litres per minute (lpm), and cost aboutUS$900.Limited field tests of this design were conducted in India.The Indian communities informed us that the flow capac-ity of the device was higher than necessary, and that thedevices were too bulky and costly. In response, we devel-oped the present design (shown schematically in Figure 1)that still uses 40 Watts, but now disinfects 15 lpm, is muchmore compact, and has a substantially lower manufactur-ing cost. The unit is designed to treat water with a UVextinction coefficient of 0.3 cm-1, equal to that of the* membrane filter method according to Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th ed. (1992), Method 9222 B. Petri dishesprepared with HACH brand m-ENDO prepared broth, a total coliform broth, although some other varieties of bacteria may also form colonies. This count istherefore neither as limiting as a total coliform count nor as inclusive as a total heterotrophic plate count.** Colilert (a product of IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.) turns sample from clear to yellow if any coliform bacteria are present.Table 1. Disinfection of various water samples using UV waterworks at LBNLD   WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT: GADGIL, DRESCHER, GREENE, MILLER, MOTAU and STEVENS155average effluent from US municipal wastewater treatmentplants.The present design was tested at Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory (LBNL) for its effect on a pure strainof E.coli in:• clear and• turbid deionized water, and• on total coliforms in local creek water.The results are presented in Table 1. As expected,UVWw was most effective against bacteria in deionizedwater and least effective with turbid, unfiltered creekwater.Goals and work plan of field tests in SouthAfricaThe primary objectives of the field-test are to:• Identify and correct any design problems and unantici-pated technical flaws in the device, and ensure itscompatibility with the user preferences and require-ments in South African communities.• Evaluate and document the field performance of thedevice and its effectiveness in limiting the occurrence ofwaterborne biological contaminants in drinking water.• Determine appropriate media and delivery systems for:(a) community placement and acceptance of the de-vice;(b) the necessary user education to assure sanitary andexclusive use of disinfected water for drinking andfood preparation;(c) relevant community education in public hygieneand sanitary practices.• Determine the content and delivery systems for techni-cal training of maintenance personnel, local manage-ment systems for community ownership and operationof the device to ensure its ongoing functioning.We plan to place UVWw at a total of 8 locations in aphased manner, thus enabling us to improve our approachin the later stages of the work from the lessons learned inthe early stages. Of these 8 installations, 3 will be inten-sively monitored (about 50 samples a week for 50 weeks)for the bacterial contamination along the drinking waterchain, from the outlet of the device, to the householdstorage cisterns, to the water in the drinking cups. Theother 5 sites will be monitored less frequently (about 10samples a week for about 20 weeks).The community placement of the device, and communityeducation and management of the technology will beorganized by working with local NGOs who have the trustof the community and who understand the local customs,politics, and issues. We will document the outcome ofvarious approaches to address these important dimensionsof the problem.Testing UVWw for South Africa installationA UVWw production prototype was tested at DurbanMetro Water prior to its installation at an AIDS hospice forinfants near Durban. This hospice relies on untreatedwater from a nearby deep borehole. The performance ofUVWw in Durban with reagent grade water spiked withE.coli was consistent with tests performed at LBNL (seeTable 1). The unit reduced concentrations of E.coli andtotal coliforms from slightly above 10,000 CFU/100ml toless than 1 CFU/100ml (South African tests uses Chromocultgrowth media by Merck).Durban Metro Water also wanted to test UVWw per-formance with water from their major surface source,Inanda dam (ID). A 2 liter sample of water from ID wastested at LBNL for both biological and physical character-istics to test its amenability to UV disinfection. We foundFigure 1. Simplified schematic of the interior of UV Waterworks.The housing (not shown) is made of rugged molded plastic or metal.D   WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT: GADGIL, DRESCHER, GREENE, MILLER, MOTAU and STEVENS156the ID water samples had a UV extinction coefficient ofapproximately 0.3 cm-1 and had significant turbidity fromsuspended particles. A reduction in UV energy dose deliv-ered to the bacteria from reduced transmittance and shield-ing by suspended particles can be expected to decreasebiological deactivation. Using the same testing protocol asused for earlier tests of creek water (see Table 1, row c,column 2), the concentration of total coliforms (see firstfootnote beneath Table 1) was reduced from 20,000 CFU/100ml to 20 CFU/100ml. Filtering the sample through a2mm filter led to an improved performance, with a 104reduction after UV exposure.UVWw performance at the first field siteinstallation in South AfricaWe measured the borehole water from the field test site tohave a UV extinction coefficient almost identical to that ofdistilled water. It also was visually clear. In lab tests inDurban, exposing three 170ml samples in a 4 cm deeplayer for ten seconds in the UV unit reduced initial coliformconcentrations of 6 million CFU/100ml to an average of 6CFU/100ml, a 106 reduction. With these results in hand,we installed the unit to disinfect the water supplied to thekitchen at the Lily of the Valley hospice. The flow rate wasset at 8 liters/minute, which is adequate for the hospiceneeds (primarily preparation of baby formula and provid-ing drinking water in feeding bottles). We measured 4,000coliform (including 200 E. coli) CFU/100ml in the un-treated water entering the unit, and no detectable coliformsin the treated water leaving the UV unit.Concluding remarksDeep borehole water from the Lily of the Valley AIDShospice was found to be contaminated with fecal and totalcoliforms. The UVWw unit successfully treated this waterand delivered drinking water that meets WHO and USEPAbacterial standards. As expected, we found that low UVtransmittance and high turbidity of water reduced UVWwperformance; hence it is important to test these character-istics of site water samples prior to unit installation.AcknowledgmentsUVWw design and field tests have received support fromseveral private foundations and trusts, UNICEF-India, theBrook Bond-Lipton Tea foundation in India, USAID, US-DOE, the SA-US BiNational Commission and WaterHealthInternational (US manufacturer of UVWw).ReferencesHARM, W., 1980, “Biological Effects of Ultraviolet Ra-diation”, International Union of Pure and Applied Bio-physics, Biophysics series, Cambridge University Press.USAID, 1993, “Lessons Learned in Water, Sanitation andHealth”, compiled and published by the Water andSanitation for Health (WASH) Project of USAID’ Officeof Health, Bureau for Research and Development, Wash-ington DC 20523.WHO/WSSCC/UNICEF, 1996. “Water Supply and Sani-tation Sector Monitoring Report 1996 - Sector Status asof 31 Dec. 1994”, World Health Organization, WaterSupply and Sanitation Collaborative Council, and UnitedNations Children’s Fund. WHO/EOS/96.15, Geneva1996.WOLFE, R.L., 1990, “Ultraviolet Disinfection of PotableWater”, Env. Sci. and Technology 24(6):768-773.ASHOK GADGIL, PhD., Staff Scientist, Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory.ANUSHKA DRESCHER, PhD., Visiting Researcher.DAVID GREENE, Guest Researcher, Lawrence BerkeleyNational Laboratory, USA.PETER MILLER, Senior Scientist, Natural ResourcesDefense Council, USA.CYNTHIA MOTAU, National Director, South AfricanCenter for Essential Community Services, South Africa.FRANK STEVENS, Manager of Water Research andDevelopment, Durban Metro Water, South Africa.

Field-testing UV disinfection of drinking water

A recently invented device, ``UV Waterworks,`` uses ultraviolet (UV) light to disinfect drinking water. Its novel features are: low cost, robust design, rapid disinfection, low electricity use, low maintenance, high flow rate and ability to work with unpressurized water sources. The device could service a community of 1,000 persons, at an annual total cost of less than 10 US cents per person. UV Waterworks has been successfully tested in the laboratory. Limited field trials of an early version of the device were conducted in India in 1994--95. Insights from these trials led to the present design. Extended field trials of UV Waterworks, initiated in South Africa in February 1997, will be coordinated by the South African Center for Essential Community Services (SACECS), with technical and organizational support from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory(LBNL) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (both US). The first of the eight planned sites of the year long trial is an AIDS hospice near Durban. Durban metro Water and LBNL lab-tested a UV Waterworks unit prior to installing it at the hospice in August, 1997. The authors describe the field test plans and preliminary results from Durban

Gadgil, A.

Drescher, A.

Greene, D.

Miller, P.

Motau, C.

Stevens, F.

UNT Digital Library

Field-testing UV Disinfection of Drinking Water September, 1997 Ashok Gadgil, Anushka Omscher, David Greene, Peter Miller, U.S.A. Cynthia Motau, Frank Stevens, South Africa A recently invented device, "UV Waterworks," uses ultraviolet (UV) light to disinfect drinking water. Its novel features are: low cost, robust design, rapid disinfection (12 seconds), low electricity use (40W), low maintenance (every 6 months), high flow rate (15 Umin) and ability to work with unpressurized water sources. The device could service a community of 1000 persons, at an annual total cost of less than l o  cents US per person. UV Waterworks has been successfully tested in the laboratofy. Limited field trials of an early version of the device were conducted in India in 1994-95. Insights from these trials led to the present design. Extended field trials of UV Waterworks, initiated in South Africa in February 1997, will be coordinated by the South African Center for Essential Community Services (SACECS), with technical and organizational support from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (both USA). The first of the eight planned sites of the year long trial is an AIDS hospice near Durban. Durban Metro Water and LBNL lab-tested a UV Waterwo-rks unit prior to installing it at the hospice in August, 1997. We describe the field test plans and preliminajr results from Durban. UV diinfection of drinking water As of 1994, more than 1 billion people in the world stilt lacked access to safe drinking water (WHO/ WSSCC/UNICEF, 1996). The problem of unsafe drinking water is recognized to be not an isolated technical problem, but interrelated to the problems of adequate water supply, community education in public hygiene, access to sanitation, and effective and safe disposal of human and animal wastes (USAID, 1990). Nevertheless, a device that offers affordable, simple, robust and low-maintenance disinfection of drinking water can be an important part of the solution. The use of ultraviolet (UV) light to disinfect water of water-borne pathogens capitalizes on the germicidal properties of a narrow range of the UV spectrum. Given proper dosage, UV wavelengths ranging from 240 to 280 nanometers (nm) deactivate, or effectively kill, microorganisms by damaging their DNA so as to prevent the DNA, and the organism, from replicating (Harm, 1980). The UV dose, measured in micrwatl- seconds per square centimeter, is the product of UV intensity and exposure time: dosages for a 90% kill of most bacteria and viruses range from 2,000 to 8,000 pW-s/cm2, while dosages for Giardia, Cryptosporidium, and other large cysts and parasites are essentially an order of magnitude greater (approximately 60,000-80,000 pW-dcm2) at a minimum (Wok, 1990). Most current UV systems use a low-pressure or medium-pressure mercury vapor lamp and expose water to UV by pumping the water around a sleeve within which the UV lamp is supported. Typical system designs deliver UV dosages of 25,000 to 35,000 pW-s/cm2 and are adequate to deactivate only bacteria and viruses (Wolfe, 1990). UV systems can be coupled with a prefilter to remove those larger organisms that would otherwise pass through the W system unaffected. The prefilter also clarifies the water to improve l i h t  transmittance and therefore UV dose throughout the entire water column. Proper handling and storage of Uv-treated waters are a critical part of any UV treatment system. W treatment does not offer any residual disinfection, and treated bacteria can repair their DNA and reactivate in a few days when exposed to visible light (Harm, 1980). UV systems compare favorably with other water disinfection systems in terms of cost, labor, and the need for technically trained personnel for operation and maintenance: (1) Deep tubewells fitted with handpumps, while perhaps the simplest system to operate, require expensive drilling rigs, are immobile sources, and often produce hard water that some communities find distasteful; (2) Chlorine disinfection treats larger organisms and offers residual disinfection, but systems are expensive with their need for special operator training and a steady supply of a potentially hazardous material; (3) Boiling water over a biomass cookstove is the most reliable treatment method, but it demands labor, and imposes high economic, environmental, and human health costs. UV treatment is rapid and, in terms of primary energy use, approximately 20,000 times more efficient than b To appear in RocrrdinPs. 23ni WEDC conference 'Wafer and SMiratiOn for  AU, I) September 1-5, 1997, Durlwr, South Africa Page 1 5 September, 1!W* . a, -. LBNL 40360-REV UV Waterworks ( U r n )  In the summer of 1993, prompted by the outbreak in India of a mutant strain of cholera (“Bengal” Cholera) against which there was no vaccine, we initiated a design effort for a lowcost, robust, and low maintenance device for drinking water disinfection. We found that: one could disinfect water with a UV dose of 40,000 pW-s/cm2 at an attractively low cost of 2 US cents per metric ton of water. However, the available UV water disinfection systems had two drawbacks: they all (1) required a pressurized source of water, due to various filters integral to the devices, and (2) used a UV-transparent sleeve to separate the UV lamp from the surrounding water stream. This sleeve fouled with biofilm and chemical deposits, reducing its W-transparency, and thus required frequent mechanical and chemical cleaning. This was beyond the technical and time resources of the communities we hoped to help. Our goal was to disinfect communities’ drinking water collected by hand from surface sources, or with handpumps. The water entering the device might have a pressure of only a few cm of water column. Thus, we decided to do away with any integrated filter (and the need for pressurized water to push it through the filter). If filtering was necessary, it would have to be done outside the device, using a slow sand filter, or an in-line filter cartridge if one had a pressurized line. We circumvented the sleeve fouling problem with a design having a bare UV lamp supported below a reflector, above the free surface of flowing water. There are no solid surfaces prone to fouling between the water and the UV lamp. We set the maintenance interval of the design conservatively at 6 months. Our initial design was wholly of welded stainless steel sheet, consumed 40 Watts, disinfected 30 liters per minute (Ipm), and cost about US$900. Limited field tests of this design were conducted in India. The Indian communities informed us that the Row capacity of the device was higher than necessary, and that the devices were too bulky and costly. In response, we developed the present design (shown schematically in Figure 1) that still uses 40 Watts, but now disinfects 15 Ipm, is much more compact, and has a substantially lower manufacturing cost. The unit is designed to treat water with a UV extinction coefficient of 0.3 cm-l, equal to that of the average effluent from US municipal wastewater treatment plants. strain of €.coli in (a) clear and (b) turbid deionized water, and (c) on total coliforms in local creek water. The results are presented in Table 1. As expected, UWW was most effective against bacteria in deionized water and least effective with turbid, unfiltered creek watsr. The present design was tested at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) for its effect on a pure Goals and work plan of field tests in South Africa The primary objectives of the field-test are to: (1) identify and correct any design problems and unanticipated technical flaws in the device, and ensure its compatibility with the user preferences and requirements in South African communities; (2) evaluate and document the field performance of the device and its effectiveness in limiting the Occurrence of waterborne biological contaminants in drinking water; (3) determine appropriate media and delivery systems for (a) community placement and acceptance of the device, (b) the necessary user education to assure sanitary and exclusive use of disinfected water for drinking and food preparation, and (c) relevant community education in public hygiene and sanitary practices; and (4) determine the content and delivery systems for technical training of maintenance personnel, local management systems for community ownership and operation of the contaminakd aluminum water in r e f l e c t o r  uv lamp Figure 1. Simplified schematic of the interior of W Waterworks. The housing (not shown) is made of rugged molded plastic or metal. To appear in Roccemnps. . 23ni WELX conference aWa&r and Sanirclbbn for An, September 1-5,1997, Duhzn, South Africa Page 2 This repon was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government Neither the United Stam Governmar oor any agency thereof. nor any of their employees makes zny wuranty, uprep or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy. completeness. or use- fulness of any information, apparatus, product, or proass disdod, or rrprrsents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Referaxe h e m a  to any spe- cific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, vuftmrrt manufac- turer. or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or impiy iu mdonrmcnt. ream- mendauon, or favoring by the United States Goveinmeat or my agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors exprcsd herein do not n s e a u n l y  state or rcfica those of the United Stares Government or any agency tbaeof. DISCLAlMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. September, 1997 device to ensure its ongoing functioning. approach in the later stages of the work from the lessons learned in the early stages. Of these 8 installations, 3 will be intensively monitored (about 50 samples a week for 50 weeks) for the bacterial contamination along the drinking water chain, from the outlet of the device, to the household storage cisterns, to the water in the drinking cups. The other 5 sites will be monitored less frequently (about 10 samples a week for about 20 weeks). will be organized by working with local NGOs who have the trust of the community and who understand the iocal customs, politics, and issues. We will document the outcome of various approaches to address these important dimensions of the problem. We plan to place U W  at a total of 8 locations in a phased manner, thus enabling us to improve our The community placement of the device, and community education and management of the technology Table 1. Disinfection of various water samples using UV Wateworks at LBNL Sample Test description Initial Final FinaVlnitial description Concentration Concentration Concentration (CFU/l 00 ml)' (CFUIlOO ml)' (a) E. coliin flow through unit 5x105, 6x103, <1 ,<1 = <2x10* deionized water at 15 Vmin Colilert" test: Colilert" test C2X1043 (DO yellow clear (b) E. coli in DI flow through unit 1t03x106 made turbid with at 15 Vmin, various concentra- 0.1 - 80 NTU tions of kaolinite (c) surface water (i) flow through (i) 104 (10 NTU), (i) 1, q 1 (i) <I ~ 1 0 4 ,  from a local creek: unit at 15 Vmin 103 (80 NTU) < 1 10-3 (ii) 12 sec UV exposure of 21 o (ii) 105 (ii) 9 (ii) 9 x 10-5 ml of sample (iii) same as (ii), but af&er filtering through 2pm (iii) 1.4 x 105, (iii) < 1 (iii) c 7 x 10-6, 8 x lo4  2 10-5 . .  - membrane filter method according to 18th ed. (1992). Method 9222 B. Petri ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ % % i ~  ~ C ' H " ~ ~ ~ d ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l  coliform broth, although some other varieties of bacteria may also form colonies. This count is therefore neither as limiting as a total coliform count nor as inclusive as a total heterotrophic plate count. * Colilert (a product of IDEXX Laboratories, Inc.) turns sample from clear to yellow if any coliform bacteria are present Testing WUVw for South Africa installation A UVlMN production prototype was tested at Durban Metro Water prior to its installation at an AIDS hospice for infants near Durban. This hospice relies on untreated water from a nearby deep borehole. The performance of UVWw in Durban with reagent grade water spiked with €.coli was consistent with tests performed at LBNL (see Table 1). The unit reduced concentrations of €.coli and total coliforms from slightly above 10,000 CFU/lOOml to less than 1 CFU/lOOml (South African tests uses Chromocult growth media by Merck). Durban Metro Water also wanted to test U W  performance with water from their major surface source, lnanda dam (ID). A 2 liter sample of water from ID was tested at LBNL for both biological and physical characteristics to test its amenability to UV disinfection. We found the ID water samples had a UV extinction coefficient of approximately 0.3 cm-l and had significant turbidity from suspended particles. A reduction in UV energy dose delivered to the bacteria from reduced transmittance and shielding by suspended particles can be expected to decrease biological deactivation. Using the same testing protocol as used for earlier tests of creek water (see Table 1, row c, column 2), the concentration of total coliforms (see first footnote beneath Table 1) was reduced from 20,000 CFU/lO;rnl to 20 CFU/lOOml. Filtering the sample through a 2pm filter led to an improved performance, with a 10 reduction after UV exposure. To appear in Roccemnps. . 23ni WEDC conference "Water and SMitOrion for AU, Stptember 1-5,1997, D u h ,  South u .  Page 3 LBNL 40360-REV Y & j .  September, ILW ' = t UVWw performance at the first field site installation in South Africa We measured the borehole water from the field test site to have a UV extinction coefficient almost identical to that of distilled water. It also was visually clear. In lab tests in Durban, exposing three 170ml samples in a 4 cm deep layer for ten seconds in the UV6unit reduced initial coliform concentrations of 6 million CFU/lOOml to an average of 6 CFU/lOOml, a 10 reduction. With these results in hand, we installed the unit to disinfect the water supplied to the kitchen at the Lily of the Valley hospice. The flow rate was set at 8 liters/minute, which is adequate for the hospice needs (primarily preparation of baby formula and providing drinking water in feeding bottles). We measured 4,000 coliform {including 200 E. coli) CFU/lOOml in the untreated water entering the unit, and no detectable coliforms in the treated water leaving the UV unit. Concluding remarks Deep borehole water from the Lily of the Valley AIDS hospice was found to be contaminated with fecal and total coliforms. The Uvv\h?r unit successfully treated this water and delivered drinking water that meets WHO and USEPA bacterial standards. As expected, we found that low UV transmittance and high turbidity of water reduced UVWw performance; hence it is important to €est these characteristics of site water samples prior to unit installation. Acknowledgments UVWw design and field tests have received support from several private foundations and trusts, UNICEF- India, the Brook Bond-Lipton Tea foundation in India, USAID, US-DOE, the SA-US BiNational Commission and WaterHealth International (US manufacturer of UWVw). . References Harm, W., 1980. "Biological Effects of Ultraviolet Radiation", International Union of Pure and Applied Biophysics, Biophysics series, Cambridge University Press. USAID. 1993. "Lessons Learned in Water, Sanitation and Health", compiled and published by the Water and Sanitation for Health (WASH) Project of USAID' Office of Health, Bureau for Research and WHOMISSCCIUNICEF, 1996. "Water Supply and Sanitation Sectur Monitoring Report 1996 - Sector Status as of 31 Dec. 1994", World Health Organization, Water Supply and Sanitation Collaborative Council, and United Nations Children's Fund. WHO/EOS/96.15, Geneva 1996. Wolfe, R.L., 1990. "Ultraviolet Disinfection of Potable Water", Env. Sci. & Technology 24(6):768-773. Development, Washington DC 20523. i Authors Ashok Gadgil, Ph.D., (Staff Scientist), Anushka Drescher, Ph.D., (visiting researcher), David Greene (guest researcher); Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, USA. Peter Miller, Senior Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council, USA Cynthia Motau, National Director, South African Center for Essential Community Services, South Africa. Frank Stevens, Manager of Water Research and Development, Durban Metro Water, South Africa. To appear h RocerdmPs. . 23ni W E E  conference "Water and Sanircrtion for AU, " September 1-5, 1997, Durban, South Africa Page 4 

https://repository.lboro.ac.uk/articles/Field-testing_UV_disinfection_of_drinking_water/9590309/files/17229665.pdf

Field-testing UV disinfection of drinking water

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Loughborough University Institutional Repository

UNT Digital Library