london crypto - iuvanews.com · water for life. this year, 2008, is the international year of...

in the next issue . . .10th Anniversary Celebration and UV for the Holidays

Upcoming Conference – Boston, Massachusetts, May 2009

ISSN 1528-2017VOLUME 10/NO. 3 OCTOBER 2008

JJooiinn IIUUVVAA!!

nnooww oonnlliinnee aatt

wwwwww..iiuuvvaa..oorrgg

FEATURES

IUVANEWS

ARTICLESUV VALIDATION FOR WASTEWATER APPLICATIONS:IS A UNIFORM PROTOCOL POSSIBLE?

UV PROCESS AND FOULING TESTING AT TRICKLING FILTER PLANT: KEY FACTORS IN UV DESIGN FOR TRICKLING FILTER EFFLUENT

BIODOSIMETRY OF A FULL-SCALE UV DISINFECTION SYSTEM TO ACHIEVE REGULATORY APPROVAL FOR WASTEWATER REUSE

LONDON CRYPTO WORKSHOP GENERATES STRONG INTEREST

Top: Speaker Roundtable Q&A

Mid/bottom: Attentive Audience

http://www.calgoncarbon.com/uv

OCTOBER 2008 | 3

CONTENTS INDEX OFADVERTISERS

News From IUVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Hot UV News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

UV Industry News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

ARTICLES

EDITORIAL BOARDJames P. Malley, Jr., Ph.D., Univ. of New Hampshire

Keith E. Carns, Ph.D., P.E., EPRI, CEC

Christine Cotton, P.E., Malcolm Pirnie

Thomas Hargy, P.E., Clancy Environmental Consultants

Marc LeChevallier, American Water

Karl G. Linden, Ph.D., Duke University

Sam Jeyanayagam, P.E., Ph.D., DEE, Malcolm Pirnie

Bruce A. Macler, Ph.D., U.S. EPA

Rip Rice, Ph.D., Rice International Consulting Enterprises

G. Elliott Whitby, Ph.D., Calgon Carbon Corporation

Harold Wright, Carollo Engineers

Printed by RR Donnelley

Editor in Chief:Mr. Paul OverbeckIUVA News (print version) (ISSN 1528-2017) ispublished quarterly by the International UltravioletAssociation, Inc. (IUVA) An electronic version isprovided free to all IUVA Members.

Head Office:Paul Overbeck ([email protected])Diana Schoenberg ([email protected])International Ultraviolet AssociationPO Box 28154, Scottsdale, AZ 85255Tel: (480) 544-0105 Fax: (480) 473-9068www.iuva.org

IUVA Editorial [email protected] Advertising [email protected] Membership visit www.iuva.org or

[email protected] (480-544-0105)

IUVA Executive Committee- Linda Gowman, Ph.D.- Bertrand Dussert, Ph.D.- Guus IJpelaar, Ph.D.- Chris Schulz- Andreas Kolch, Ph.D.

- Oluf Hoyer, Ph.D.- Karl Linden, Ph.D.- Jim Malley, Ph.D.- Regina Sommer, Ph.D.- Elliott Whitby, Ph.D.

American Air and Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Calgon Carbon Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . .IFC

Camp, Dresser & McKee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Carollo Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

Eta plus electronic gmbh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Gap EnviroMicrobial Services . . . . . . . . . . .33

Heraeus Noblelight GmbH . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

HF Scientific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

ITT/Wedeco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

Light-Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

LIT Europe b.v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Philips Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OBC

Real Tech Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

S.I.T.A. s.r.l. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Trojan Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IBC

UV Validation for Wastewater Applications:Is a Uniform Protocol Possible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13O. Karl Scheible

UV Process and Fouling testing at TricklingFilter Plant: Key Factors in UV Design forTrickling Filter Effluent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Alicia Gilley, Joe Foster, Gary Hunter, Derek Cambridge, and Lucas Botero

Biodosimetry of a Full-Scale UV DisinfectionSystem to Achieve Regulatory Approval for Wastewater Reuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23B. Ferran, R.F. Kelly, S. Jin, O. K. Scheible, and S. Chengyue

4 | IUVA News / Vol. 10 No. 3

While I hope each of you had somepleasant time off during the nice summermonths, I am happy to report that interestin UV Technology and applicationsremained strong...

A Frost & Sullivan report featured a section“Resurgent European Disinfection Market:Improved techniques of UV & ozonecontinue to enhance their position againstconventional chemical disinfectants”.

I witnessed an energized IUVA Board ofDirectors at our June meeting during AWWA in Atlanta. It wasexciting to see members step forward and volunteer to join twonew Task Forces formed to focus on Regulatory Support andupdating IUVA Bylaws and Operations (details later in this issue).I’ve said it before and will say it again, “Volunteers and BoardMembers of “Not-for-Profit” associations are real heroes, donating

time and resources to achieve a common goal”.

The Board also confirmed its commitment to deliver the UVbenefits message to a global audience. We displayed at theinaugural Singapore International Water Week (SIWW), gaininggreat exposure to engineers, regulators and potential technologyusers from the Mideast and Southeast Asia. The attendees visitingthe IUVA booth seemed knowledgeable, had good questions andwalked away with a broader understanding of UV applications.

Next, we were off to Europe. IUVA completed an informative andwell attended Disinfection Workshop in London (details later in thisissue). We will display at Aquatech Amsterdam from 30 Septemberto 03 October and will make a 45 minute technical presentation atthe AquaStages program during the conference.

We return to North America to exhibit at both WEFTEC in Chicago,Illinois (19-22 October) and AWWA WQTC in Cincinnati, Ohio (16-18 November). I should point out that all the booth space iscomplimentary from these expositions because these groupsrecognize that IUVA brings technical value to their events.

We will hold a North American municipal focused conference inMay 2009 (see Call for Papers) and will soon announce our 5thIUVA World Congress for the fall of 2009. Additionally, we intendto hold regional workshops in 2009 and look to you, our members,for event ideas that support IUVA’s mission and your local needs.We look forward to you joining us at some of our upcoming events.

EDITORIALPaul OverbeckEditor-in-Chief

Paul Overbeck

As many of you will know, the UnitedNations has made the period 2005-2012the International Decade for Action:Water for Life. This year, 2008, is theInternational Year of Sanitation. As such,we thought it would be appropriate todedicate this issue of IUVA News to articlessurrounding the treatment of waste water.Often the IUVA and IUVA News havefocused on issues surrounding thetreatment of drinking water, yet asubstantial part of the market of UV

installations worldwide is in waste water applications. Indeed,properly treating waste water can be key in protecting the integrityof our drinking water sources.

Many staggering numbers exist regarding the severe problems thatface us as a planet coping with water stress. From the UnitedNations website “About 90 per cent of sewage and 70 per cent ofindustrial wastes in developing countries are discharged into watercourses without treatment, often polluting the usable watersupply.” It isn’t just developing economies that dump untreatedeffluent- until very recently Halifax, Canada, dumped untreatedsewage into the ocean. But now a sewage treatment plantcomplete with UV disinfection has rendered Halifax harbour safe forswimming for the first time in many decades.

In another example, waste water that was to have been dischargedto ocean outfall in California was instead properly processed,treated with UV disinfection and used to create a wetland. Thewetland remediated an industrial site. Waste water treatment hasbenefited the area ecologically and may be the sort of treatmentprocess that helps us attain sustainability in the use of our naturalresources, including water and land.

On other matters, I am delighted to announce that Oliver Lawal hastaken on leadership of the Manufacturer’s Council of IUVA, and thatMs. Phyllis Posy has taken on leadership of the Regulatory Group.Both of these groups seek to work within our mandate of being aneducational not-for-profit organization, bringing people in theindustry together to share and disseminate information andknowledge. In addition, Dr. Jim Malley is leading our Bylaws Group,which is looking to update our operational rules. Ms. Mary Clancyremains head of the Air Group. Thanks to Oliver, Phyllis, Jim andMary for taking on these roles. For those members who would liketo participate in these groups, please contact the respective leaders.

Our efforts at the moment are to bring IUVA to a broaderinternational audience. With that in mind we just conducted a one-day workshop in London, England, and will be conducting anotherin Boston, USA, in May 2009. Mark that time on your calendars. Forthose IUVA members who are anxious to host an IUVA workshop orevent in your geography, please contact Paul Overbeck or me. Weare always looking for volunteers to help to organize such events.

Lastly, I welcome Dr. Bertrand Dussert as our president-elect. Ienjoy working with Bertrand as we transition to his leadership in thelatter half of 2009. Please consider whether you would like to servethe IUVA by participating in a working group and/or in a leadershipposition. We can use all of the help we can get, so if you areinterested, please advise us…

Linda

AMESSAGEfrom the IUVA President

Linda Gowman

Linda Gowman

Share your exciting Ultraviolet and Ozone technological advancements and experiences in this unique forum - showcasing the world’s premeir advanced treatmet technologies!Ozone and Ultraviolet both hold an integral place in North American markets and are more important now than ever before.

This regional conference will provide current technical, process and operational information to engineers, scientists, and end users of Ultraviolet and Ozone technologies with focus on North American municipal drinking water, wastewater, water reuse and emerging contaminants.

TOPICS MAY INCLUDE:• Advanced Oxidation • Ozone Generation • UV and O3 Contactor Design• Biofiltration • Ozone Mass Transfer • Ultraviolet Lamps• Bromate Formation and Control • Ozone Measurement • Ultraviolet Measurement• Chemical and Biochemical Reactions • Pools and Water Features • UV and O3 Power Supplies• Disinfection • Regulatory Perspectives • Wastewater Treatment• Emerging Contaminants • Soil Remediation • Water Reuse• Drinking Water Treatment Additional Topics will be considered, please submit!

Hotel/Registration/Exhibitor Information: Diana Schoenberg - Communications & Operations ManagerPO Box 28873 • Scottsdale, AZ 85255, USA • T: 480-544-0105 • F: 480-473-9068 • [email protected] or [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL OZONE ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL ULTRAVIOLET ASSOCIATION

NORTH AMERICAN JOINT REGIONAL

CONFERENCE & EXPOSITION

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS

MAY 4-5, 2009

CALL FOR PAPERS

Abstracts should be e-mailed to [email protected] DATES TO REMEMBER

ABSTRACTS DUE

DEC. 1, 2008

NOTIFICATION OF

ACCEPTANCE

JANUARY 1, 2009

FULL PAPERS DUE

MARCH 1, 2009

THE IUVA AND IOA-PAG REQUESTABSTRACTS FOR BOTH ORAL AND POSTER

PRESENTATIONS FOR THEIOA / IUVA 2009 JOINT REGIONAL

CONFERENCE AND EXPOSITIONTO BE HELD AT THE

HYATT REGENCY CAMBRIDGE


IUVA LONDON WORKSHOP REPORTCryptosporidium was “Top of Mind” at the IUVAWorkshop, held 15 September 2008 at the ImperialCollege London, as is clear from the photo of Dr. MichaelTempleton one of our distinguished workshop speakers.

The workshop, “Cryptosporidium Control in DrinkingWater with UV Disinfection - Status, Experience,Developments and Outlook”, co-organized by the IUVAand WRc, was very timely, as UK regulations have recentlybeen amended to allow UV as part of parasite controltreatment systems.

Eighty attendees from the USA,Canada, the UK and theContinent heard industryexperts discuss UV technology,application and performance,process guidance andoperational and regulatoryissues from North Americanand European perspectives. A participant commented,”…they were great talks in myview, with lots of timelytechnology transfer to theregion given recent water-

borne crypto issues in Wales and Ireland.”

Professor Jim Malley noted, “Good questions from theaudience and I believe the hallway comments were thatthey got a lot out of the workshop. The changing UKDrinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) regulations will openthe door for UV disinfection of their drinking water and soagain the conference was timely”.

The workshop speakers as a group and IUVA membersPhyllis Posey (Atlantium) and Margarete Bucheli (EAWAG)who attended, expressed a consensus view that moreEuropean IUVA workshops can and should be planned.

IUVA thanks our workshop Presenters, Exhibitors - TrojanUV, ITT Water & Wastewater and Severn Trent Services andour Sponsors – Black & Veatch, AQUAFIDES and TrojanUVfor their support.

We offer our great appreciation for the efforts made by TomHall and WRc plc our co-organizer. WRc is an innovative,research-based group, providing consultancy in the water,waste and environment sectors. They assist governmentsand regulatory bodies in creating soundly based regulation.

A CD of the workshop technical presentations includingshipping and handing is available for $50.00 US. ContactDiana at [email protected] to order.

PRESIDENT-ELECTLinda Gowman, President of the IUVA and the IUVA Boardof Directors are pleased to announce the election ofBertrand Dussert as President-elect of the IUVA. Bertrandwill become President at the completion of the soon to beannounced 5th Ultraviolet World Congress in planning forthe autumn of 2009.

About Our President Elect:

Bertrand Dussert, Ph.D. is the Global Product Manager forUV Technologies in the Chemical Feed & DisinfectionGroup at Siemens Water Technologies Corp., based inVineland, NJ, USA. Bertrand joined Siemens, a leadingglobal provider of equipment and services, over sevenyears ago. In his role there, heleads, develops and implementsproduct, product line & businessstrategies worldwide for UVtechnologies.

Additionally, he has written aguide to “Essential Criteria forSelecting an UltravioletDisinfection System”, firstpublished through the AmericanWater Works Association. He waspreviously a member of theCalgon Carbon research team thatproved Ultraviolet light was acost-effective option to inactivatecryptosporidium in drinking water, first presented at the1998 American Water Works Association conference.

Dr. Dussert has a Ph.D. in Environmental Engineering fromthe National Institute of Applied Sciences in Toulouse,France. He has published more than 40 papers and holds

NEWS FROM IUVA

Dr. Michael Templeton, Imperial College London

Bertrand Dussert

Speakers (left to right), Dr. Michael Templeton, Dr. JamalAwad, Elinor Cordiner, Dr. Regina Sommer, Michael Joyce,Tom Hall, Dr. Andreas Kolch, Bob Hulsey, Prof. Jim Malley,(missing - Dr. Richard Sakaji)

OCTOBER 2008 | 7

five patents in such water treatment technologies as UV,ozone, activated carbon, chlorine dioxide and membraneseparation processes.

He has over 20 years of water treatment experience, with15 years in the UV industry. He has been involved in theIUVA since its inception, joined the IUVA Board in 2001 andwas the founding member and Chairman of the IUVAManufacturer’s Council, before accepting his new position.

Goals For The Future Of The IUVA In His OwnWords…

My vision is fourfold. I wish to build on the momentumwe’ve gained, thanks to Linda Gowman and each of ourpast Presidents. They have done a wonderful job and I lookto continuing in their footsteps.

We will work to update and implement the strategic planthat was developed in 2006 for the future of theassociation.

Based on our Mission Statement, I would like to focus onUV applications that benefit public health and theenvironment, but have not been a major emphasis so far,including swimming pools, residential applications,commercial and industrial applications, etc. in an effort toexpand our horizons past just our most familiar municipalwater and wastewater markets.

Finally, I want our membership to become a betterrepresentation of the world that we strive to serve. Thismeans continuing to bolster membership numbers outsideNorth America, thus solidifying our status as a trulyinternational organization. The future is bright and I lookforward to the many accomplishments in IUVA’s future.

IUVA MANUFACTURERS’ COUNCILOliver Lawal is the new Chair of the IUVA Manufacturers’Council, subsequent to the election of Bertrand Dussert asour IUVA President-elect.

The objectives of the Council are to:

• Represent the common interests of Ultraviolet (UV)manufacturers and related companies

• Provide responsible representation for, and involvementof, IUVA Corporate Members

• Provide policy input as well as develop responses andcomments within the framework of IUVA on mattersaffecting IUVA Corporate Members.

• Encourage the establishment of standards and protocolswhich accomplish a legitimate and legal purpose, suchas safety or increased industrial efficiency

Since its inception, the Council, which has now 22members, has worked diligently and, notably, completedthe following projects:

• Proposed Method for Measurement of the Output of

Monochromatic (254 nm) Low-pressure UV Lamps Usedfor Air and Water Applications

• Recycling of UV Lamps – Worldwide Guidelines

The Council has the following ongoing projects:

• Sizing Drinking Water UV Disinfection Equipment:Minimum UV Dose Requirements

• Proposed Method for Measurement of the Output ofMedium-pressure UV Lamps Used for Air and WaterApplications

• Proper Maintenance of UV Equipment; Best Practices

The Council also works in cooperation with industryexperts and partner associations for the following projects:

• Development of a Standard Protocol for Low DoseWastewater Bioassay

• Development of an AWWA Standard on UV Disinfectionfor Water

• Expansion of NSF 55 Standard for Residential andCommercial applications

We thank the members of the Manufacturers’ Council fortheir efforts to date and wish Oliver and the committedmembers listed below much success in their efforts.

IUVA BYLAWS TASK FORCEThe IUVA will celebrate its 10th anniversary in 2009! TheIUVA’s evolution from a start-up educational association in1999 to one with global reach and diverse member needshas led us to review if the existing IUVA Bylaws help usmeet our strategic goals.

President Linda Gowman presented this idea at the JuneBoard of Directors meeting during AWWA in Atlanta.Discussion led to establishment of Bylaws Task Force (BTF)to evaluate the need for changes to the Bylaws andpotential establishment of IUVA Rules of Operation and aprofessional practice or code of ethics.

Richard Hubel, Jim Malley and Guus IJpelaar volunteered tojoin the Bylaws Task Force and held a meeting later in the

Volker Adam John AndrosGregg Burnett James Jian ChenBertrand DussertStuart EngelBruno FerranJaak Geboers Craig HowarthLaszlo LaskaiOliver Lawal

Gaspar LesznikMyron LupalJeremy MeierJennifer Muller Karl Platzer Phyllis PosySabine ProftPeter Schwarz-KieneDick StoweElliot WhitbyDave Witham


week. As many of you have come to expect, ProfessorMalley volunteered to Chair the BTF based on hisinvolvement in Bylaws development and operations withinother associations. The task force is off and running andwill evaluate our Bylaws and our current operationalstructure before making recommendations at a futureBoard meeting.

IUVA REGULATORY SUPPORT TASK FORCEThe IUVA directly and through many of its membersreceives requests to comment on or provide technicalsupport on local, regional or national legislation andregulation. IUVA management and members haveparticipated in support of the US EPA LT2 and GWR andother initiatives. Many times, involvement is after thelegislative stage and more focused on the regulationdevelopment process.

Ideally, it is best to get involved early in the process. To dothis, President Gowman asked the Board for volunteers toestablish a Regulatory Support Task Force (RSTF). The taskforce’s objective is to map out the regulatory priorities forIUVA and put a process in place so that IUVA can offertechnically supportable commentary on regulatory issuesof relevance. We will develop an informed consensus fromindustry experts to support public health and

governmental driven legislative and regulatory issues.

The Task Force, Chaired by Phyllis Posey, currently includesMatt Valade, Heather Landis, Rick Sakaji and ReginaSommer.

We request feedback from IUVA members regarding yourexperiences and what you perceive as materials necessaryto provide sound technical transfer to public, legislativeand regulatory groups. We would also like to learn aboutcurrent regulatory governance position on UV in drinkingwater, wastewater, reuse and air treatment in your city,state, province or country.

The RSTF is currently reviewing the Water SupplyCommittee of the Great Lakes--Upper Mississippi RiverBoard of State and Provincial Public Health andEnvironmental Managers “Ten State Standards”http://www.10statesstandards.com/waterstandards.html#ultra

Additionally, the RSTF volunteered to support the efforts ofthe Chinese Technical Standardization Committee 299(TC-299), focused on “development of four ChineseNational Standards or Protocols”.

Please send the RSTF local information and yourexperiences to [email protected] for distribution to the taskforce.

http://www.hfscientific.com

OCTOBER 2008 | 9

HOT UVNEWS

12 Sep 2008: Emerging Markets Aid Bottled Water Growth

The demand for clean water in emerging markets such as Africahelped boost global bottled water consumption in 2007,according to the 2008 Global Bottled Water report.

Overall, global bottled water consumption increased 6 percentto 206 billion liters (about 54 billion gallons) in 2007, accordingto the press release.

Regional market figures increased 14 percent and 10 percent inAfrica and Eastern Europe, respectively. Asia/Australia remainsthe largest regional market with a 26.5 percent share, reachinga 10 percent increase from 2006 numbers. The only regionalmarket to see a decline in consumption volume, WesternEurope, showed a 0.2 percent decrease, which was assumed tobe caused by poor summer weather.

The report also shows that the United States and China were thetwo largest national markets. Data on the world’s four topbottled water companies, Nestle, Danone (Dannon), Coca-Colaand PepsiCo, are also included in the release.

11 September 2008: AP Enterprise: Drugs affect moreDrinking Water

Testing prompted by an Associated Press story that revealedtrace amounts of pharmaceuticals in drinking water supplies hasshown that more Americans are affected by the problem thanpreviously thought — at least 46 million.

That's up from 41 million people reported by the AP in March aspart of an investigation into the presence of pharmaceuticals inthe nation's waterways.

The AP stories prompted federal and local legislative hearings,brought about calls for mandatory testing and disclosure, andled officials in at least 27 additional metropolitan areas toanalyze their drinking water. Positive tests were reported in 17cases, including Reno, Nev., Savannah, Ga., Colorado Springs,Colo., and Huntsville, Ala. Results are pending in three others.

The test results, added to data from communities and waterutilities that bowed to pressure to disclose earlier test results,produce the new total of Americans known to be exposed todrug-contaminated drinking water supplies.

The overwhelming majority of U.S. cities have not testeddrinking water while eight cities — including Boston, Phoenixand Seattle — were relieved that tests showed no detections.

The substances detected in the latest tests mirrored those citedin the earlier AP report.

Chicago, for example, found a cholesterol medication and anicotine derivative. Many cities found the anti-convulsantcarbamazepine. Officials in one of those communities, ColoradoSprings, say they detected five pharmaceuticals in all, includinga tranquilizer and a hormone.

And while the new survey expands the known extent of theproblem, the overwhelming majority of U.S. communities haveyet to test, including the single largest water provider in thecountry, New York City's Department of EnvironmentalProtection, which delivers water to 9 million people.

The AP National Investigative Team can be reached atinvestigate (at) ap.org

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hozicnCmH9ZltqydDTw3ni1dn-TAD934NAL80

08 September 2008: US Bottled Water Growth Rate Slowing

The US bottled water market is slowing down after years ofsteady growth, suggesting that international awarenesscampaigns may be curbing consumer demand. While bottledwater continues to expand in global popularity, the US market isexpected to grow 6.7 percent this year, the smallest increase thisdecade, according to data collected by the Beverage MarketingCorporation. The United States is the largest consumer ofbottled water, but opposition is growing. In the past year, severalrestaurants, municipalities, natural food stores, and schools aredeciding to 'buy local' - choosing tap water rather thanpackaged products - for economic, environmental, or socialjustice reasons.

The U.S. bottled water industry's growth has declined for fouryears in a row. But Tom Lauria, vice president of communicationsfor the International Bottled Water Association, said theadvocacy campaigns are not the cause. 'We have enjoyedmeteoric growth in the past, but that's bound to level off,' hesaid.

Global consumption of bottled water reached nearly 189 billionliters last year alone - a 7.6 percent increase from 2002 - led bygrowing demand in China. The United Arab Emirates, Mexico,and Italy lead the world in per capita consumption, according tothe beverage marketing data

The following are interesting media items that may effect the UV Industry:


26 August 2008: Water and Wastewater treatment in Bosniaand Herzegovina Funding

The European Investment Bank (EIB) is lending 60 million EUROfor implementation of the water and sanitation projects ofmunicipalities and cantons in the Federation of Bosnia andHerzegovina. This will help to improve the quality of life of thecountry’s citizens and meet Bosnia and Herzegovina’s needsregarding future compliance with EU environmental legislation.The EIB loan will finance an investment program for the waterand wastewater sector in 15 towns that will result in animprovement and expansion of water supply and sewagesystems and the construction of wastewater treatment plants.The Bank would be prepared to consider a similar operation forRepublika Srpska, representing the other entity of Bosnia andHerzegovina.

The EIB loan will cover up to 50% of the total costs of theplanned projects that will be co-financed by the budgets of theFederation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the country’smunicipalities and cantons and the EU Instrument for Pre-Accession. The remaining funds will be provided by theEuropean Bank for Reconstruction and Development and theWorld Bank, representing another example of the goodcoordination and cooperation among all three internationalfinancial institutions in the Western Balkans.

At present, project preparation in a number of towns is alreadyin progress, assisted by grants provided by the European Unionunder the Environmental Project Preparation Facility. Some ofthe required feasibility studies have already been completed incooperation between the municipal authorities andinternationally experienced consultants, e.g. in Velika Kladusa,Orasje and Bosanski Petrovac, and more are to be undertaken inthe course of 2008.

25 August 2008: Total Water Impacts of Consumer Products

If the full water requirements of a morning roast are calculated -farm irrigation, bean transportation, and the serving of thecoffee - one cup requires 140 liters of water. This notion of aproduct's 'water footprint' is gaining traction. Defined as thetotal volume of freshwater required to produce a nation's goodsand services, the tool tracks domestic water demand and theimpact of consumption on water resources across the globe.

As world water availability begins to decline as the result ofpopulation growth, overconsumption, and climate change,more water advocates are encouraging governments andconsumers to internalize the true cost of water through anaccount of their water footprint.

One single hamburger accounts for an estimated 2,400 liters ofwater; one kilogram of beef consumes 15,000 liters of water; aslice of white bread takes in 40 liters of water; and one kilogramof cheese absorbs 5,000 liters of water.

Source: Worldwatch Institute

31 July, 2008: Protect Yourself from Pool Parasites

Cryptosporidium in swimming pools continued to receive strongmedia attention during the summer swim season after the CDCreport and the City of Phoenix Arizona Forced Phoenix to Closeand Disinfect 29 Pools

Visithttp://abcnews.go.com/GMA/SummerSizzle/story?id=5484186 toview a video report by ABC News – Good Morning America

23 July 2008: Inaugural International Water Conference 2008

The inaugural event was held July 23-24 at the New York Cityheadquarters of the United Nations.

The conference was organized by the New York Institute ofTechnology’s Center of Water Resources Management incooperation with the United Nations (Department of Economicsand Social Affairs) and the World Bank. According to a pressrelease, “The conference program addressed the critical role ofwater efficiency and water resource management when it comesto achieving drinking water sustainability. Specifically, theprogram seeks to identify practical and affordable technologicalsolutions to more effectively address the evolving challengesassociated with achieving drinking water sustainability.”

This was reflected in a gathering of experts in water resourcemanagement, representatives from the United Nations and itsmember nations, water practitioners in the field, and otherleading organizations that are collectively working together toaddress the global drinking water challenge.

The conference included presentations highlighting newtechnologies and initiatives that are currently underwayincluding those from ITT Fluid Technology, Siemens WaterTechnologies, GE Water & Process Technologies, and Dow WaterSolutions.

Currently, it is estimated that 20 percent of the world’spopulation — 1.2 billion people — do not have proper access topotable water. One of the eight Millennium Development Goalsestablished by the United Nations in September 2007 includeshalving the number of people without access to safe drinkingwater by the year 2015. The availability and accessibility of low-cost technologies for the drinking water sector will play a criticalrole in achieving this goal.

http://www.nyit.edu/academics/events_and_conferences/international_water_conference

02 July 2008: China to invest US$29bn between 2008-2010 inSewage Treatment Industry - Source: Business Wire

Research and Markets has announced the addition of the 'ChinaSewage Treatment Industry Report, 2008'. The China sewagetreatment industry is in a stage of rapid development and hashuge market potential. By the end of 2007, China's sewagetreatment capacity had reached 80 million tons per day, and the

OCTOBER 2008 | 11

urban sewage treatment rate had hit 58%. According to theEleventh Five-Year Plan (2006-2010), it is estimated that China'ssewage treatment capacity will reach 10,000 tons per day andurban sewage treatment rate will rise to 70% in 2010. Chinacurrently has an imbalance in its sewage treatment industrydevelopment in different regions, it has high sewage treatmentrates in eastern region and low sewage treatment rates in thewestern region.

According to the Research on Sustainable Utilization of ChinaUrban Water Resources, China's total investment in its sewagetreatment industry is expected to reach CNY200 billion (approx.US$29bn) in the period 2008-2010, indicating China's sewagetreatment industry with huge market potential will be able tohave a rapid and sustainable development.

This report includes an in-depth study on the current situation,competition and development trend of China's sewagetreatment industry as well as detailed analysis on China's top tensewage treatment companies.

01 July 2008: July was UV Safety Month

Eye M.D.s across the nation are urging Americans to protecttheir eyes and their children’s eyes by wearing sunglasses andwide-brimmed hats.

http://www.aao.org/aaoesite/eyemd/uv.cfm

June 2008: CDC Report Released on Swimming Pools PathogenIssues

“Prevalence of Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia Intestinalis inSwimming Pools” - Study leads to recommendation for UVTreatment.

Abstract

Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia intestinalis have been foundin swimming pool filter backwash during outbreaks. Todetermine baseline prevalence, we sampled pools not associatedwith outbreaks and found that of 160 sampled pools, 13 (8.1%)were positive for 1 or both parasites; 10 (6.2%) for Giardia sp.,2 (1.2%) for Cryptosporidium spp., and 1 (0.6%) for both.

http://www.cdc.gov/eid/content/14/6/948.htm

http://www.carollo.com


UVINDUSTRYNEWS

The following are some items of note from IUVA MemberAnnouncements:

19 September 2008: Halma Acquires Fiberguide Industries Halma p.l.c, a leading sensor, safety and technology group andparent of Ocean Optics and Labsphere, announced its acquisition ofoptical fiber manufacturer, Fiberguide Industries. Halma is aworldwide group of 40 manufacturing businesses operating in 26countries with a turnover of $700m.

Andrew Williams, Halma Chief Executive says, “Fiberguide deepensour presence within the growing Photonics market and strengthensour existing fiber optic assembly activities. There are excellentopportunities for Fiberguide to develop strongly within Halma –particularly through technical collaboration with other Halmaphotonics companies such as Ocean Optics and Labsphere.”www.halma.com

16 September 2008: Advance announces its launch of an excitingrepositioning campaign that will serve to both acknowledge itslong-standing position and history as a leader in the ballast industrywhile firmly reflecting its affiliation to global technology leader andcorporate parent Philips. As part of the initiative, Advance willofficially become known as Philips Lighting Electronics NorthAmerica (N.A.) and will adopt Philips Advance as its product brandon all existing electronic and magnetic fluorescent and HID ballasts.www.philips.com/advance

16 September 2008: Fusion UV’s new web site,www.fusionuv.com, has added a Maintenance and Repair Supportsection. Any visitor to the site can quickly see such information asglobal repair and support contacts, training, warranty details, andservice contracts. The Fusion UV Systems, Inc. site debuted on 04 August with anupdated look to allow visitor registration and improved navigation.

Visitors can now register to more easily download the wealth ofeducational and technical information available at the site such ascase studies, white papers and technical articles about UV curing.Fusion UV customers who register can download commonly neededinformation which was previously only available upon request fromFusion UV such as bulb spectral data, system quick start guides, andpart number listings.

Especially helpful for new site visitors, revised navigation quicklyguides the user to what they need based on whether they are anexisting customer, potential customer, chemistry formulator, ormachine builder/OEM.

10 September 2008: In response to a specific request from a largemachine builder customer, Fusion UV Systems, Inc. recentlyacquired certification of its F300S/SQ product to “IECEE CBScheme”. This is in addition to TUV, CSA and other certifications(TUV, CSAC22-2, UL1012, EN60204-1, and EN55011) covering theF300S/SQ.

The “IECEE CB Scheme” is based on international standards and isa multilateral agreement among the IECEE member countries andtheir respective organizations. Currently some fifty countries aremembers of the IECEE. UV systems, such as the Fusion UV F300S/SQ

possessing IECEE Certification Bodies’ Scheme (CB) certificationrequire no further regulatory compliance testing prior to beingaccepted by the member countries. www.fusionuv.com

31 July 2008: Heraeus Noblelight displayed and will be showing itslatest innovations of UV lamps for water treatment at the followingwater events • Heraeus Noblelight will be represented at IWA Vienna 2008 and

AQUATECH in Amsterdam• UV treatment – a reliable and environmentally friendly method• Product innovation will be launched at AQUATECH

An innovative and powerful UV Amalgam Lamp will be launched atAQUATECH in Amsterdam. www.heraeus.com

24 July 2008: Ocean Optics Introduces Video Tutorials for Use withOcean Optics Spectrometers and Software.Nicknamed “Spectroscopy TV”, the tutorials are designed to helpnew Ocean Optics customers set up, calibrate and use theirspectrometers in a variety of applications. Episodes are alsodedicated to demonstrating SpectraSuite, the company’sspectroscopy software. www.oceanoptics.com/tv.asp

http://www.realtech.ca

OCTOBER 2008 | 13

UV VALIDATION FOR WASTEWATERAPPLICATIONS: IS A UNIFORM PROTOCOL POSSIBLE?

O. Karl Scheible HydroQual, Inc.

ABSTRACTWith the release of the USEPA Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual (USEPA, November 2006), the protocols for UV reactorperformance validation reached a new level of standardization and acceptance. This paper addresses the concept of a uniformprotocol for wastewater applications, including reuse, secondary effluents and low grade wet-weather flows, modeled after theUVDGM and encompassing existing wastewater protocols published by NWRI and the USEPA ETV program. The suggestedapproach would allow for validation over a prescribed operating range (flow, UVT, power, etc.) as defined by the manufacturer,rather than assign a specific application. The protocol would introduce flexibility with respect to surrogate selection, include theuse of chemical actinometry with dyed microspheres, and emphasize the operating strategy of the system (intensity setpoint andcalculated dose control). Credit for validated performance would address experimental variability and the accuracy of key systemand experimental measurement components. The overall intent of this effort, which is underway, is to provide a modern, updatedprotocol that can be used universally and be accepted in the owner, design and regulatory communities.

Key Words: UV disinfection, treated wastewaters, reuse, validation protocols, surrogates

A number of verification and validation protocols exist that address the performance of UV systems designed for disinfection ofdrinking waters and treated wastewaters. An effort is underway that will attempt to unify these protocols, first focusing on thosethat deal with treated wastewater application, using the recently released UVGDM as a model template.

CURRENT VERIFICATIONPROTOCOLSFirst, let us briefly review the status of current protocols.

1. USEPA UV Disinfection GuidanceManual (UVDGM) (November 2006)The UVDGM had been in development for nearly 5years, and was released in final form in November2006. Formal drafts were released for comment in June2003 and January 2005, and updates were givenlimited distribution in December 2005 and April 2006– these drafts were used for validations of systems forthe past several years. This document is expected tobecome the primary validation protocol reference fordrinking water applications. It is less prescriptive thanthe European protocols, and provides for flexibility intesting, while establishing QA goals that have to bemet for acceptance of test results, and which can affectthe RED accreditation for the targeted pathogens.Additionally, it offers alternative testing and analysisapproaches for different operating/dose-controlstrategies, and suggests a multivariate regression

analysis to establish the variability/uncertaintyassociated with a test program. There is globalinterest in the UVDGM, with national agencies citingthe document and its validation requirements withintheir regulatory framework.

Regulators are expecting to require UVDGM validationon systems offered within their jurisdiction. Suchtesting has been underway at both validation centersin the United States (Portland OR and Johnstown NY)since 2003, generally for dose-control systems; thevalidation reports attempt to meet current UVDGMdata analysis requirements, or, at minimum, reportfield data that will allow for credited RED or loginactivation analysis under the final UVDGM. Newvalidations will necessarily follow the UVDGMprotocols in order to attain inactivation credits for thetargeted pathogen.

Although directed to drinking water validations, theUVDGM validation protocol has raised the standard forthe concept itself – it is comprehensive and flexible, hasundergone substantial peer review and regulatoryinput, essentially becoming the industry standard forvalidation. We strongly believe that it serves as the


basis, in format, methods and data analysis techniques,for a uniform protocol across all water/wastewaterapplications.

2. NWRI/AwwaRF UV Design Guidance forReuse and Drinking Waters (2003)This protocol (along with the ETV protocols discussedbelow), remain the only formally recognized testmethods for wastewater-related applications. Sincedevelopment of the first protocol, a new NWRI/AwwaRFedition has been published (2003) and there is someindication that this will undergo a second revision in thenear future. We are seeing interpretations of verificationreports (non-ETV) that suggest that the NWRI/AwwaRFguidance is leaning more to the approaches found inthe UVDGM. Specifically, these include limits to thedegree of replication needed, and the use of multiplelinear regression modeling to assess the data, determinedose-delivery as a function of operating variables andestablish uncertainty factors based on the MLR analysis.Scaling is accepted, and commissioning validatedsystems is addressed by hydraulic checks. New worksuggests alternate approaches to commissioning asystem, verifying expectations from the validation tests.

3. USEPA Environmental TechnologyVerification Program (ETV)The UV-related verifications within the ETV programare administered through NSF International, Ann ArborMI. Within the ETV program, there are four verificationprotocols:

A. ETV: UV Disinfection of Reuse WatersThis verification protocol is designed to mimic veryclosely the NWRI/AwwaRF protocols for drinkingwaters and reuse waters (NWRI/AwwaRF, 2000). Thesecond edition of the NWRI/AwwaRF (2nd Edition) wasreleased in 2003; the only validation modificationaddressed the size of the system to be tested – the newversion allows testing of one reactor instead of aminimum of two reactors in series. It contains thebasic approach to validate dose-delivery performanceat alternate transmittance levels, representing varyinglevels of treatment prior to UV (granular filtration,membrane filtration and RO), and adds separateprotocols for verifying specific system design andoperational claims, including lamp aging and foulingattenuation factors, and velocity profiles.

B. ETV: UV Disinfection of Secondary EffluentsThis is very similar to the Reuse ETV, except that itrequires incorporating tracer analyses to verifyhydraulic characteristics, and establishes differentdefault attenuation factors than suggested by theReuse ETV. Strictly followed, these differences meanadditional testing (and expense) to yield data that arestill within the operating range of the Reuse ETV. Thedifferences are more an artifact of existing practice

(and past tests) than due to any technical justification.Additionally, the secondary protocols rely on MS2testing, which is now considered inappropriate forsuch “low-dose” applications.

C. UV Disinfection of Wet Weather FlowsThis was written after extensive stakeholder input andreview, and subsequent modifications once vendorscommitted to conducting such tests. It requires testingin three phases, addressing dose-delivery underspecific UVT conditions in a non-particle matrix, thenin a primary effluent matrix, and, finally, verification ofthe units’ cleaning mechanism. These are similar tothe Reuse/Secondary effluent protocols, except thatthe testing phases are required in combination and arenot separated as independent optional ETVs.

D. UV Disinfection of Drinking WatersDifferent than NSFI’s Standards, such as Standard 55,for small POU/POE UV units, the ETV program has averification protocol for application to drinking waters.These are generally intended for systems larger thanthe POU/POE units covered under Standard 55. Thefirst versions were limited in scope, generally verifyingdelivery of a targeted single dose at rated designconditions. It is our understanding that NSFInternational, at its 2003 stakeholders meeting,decided to craft a new protocol that is based on the

American Air & Water®, Inc. - a UVC industryleader - carries a complete line of air, surface

and water disinfection systems for ANY facility.Replacement UV lamps also available.

UVC SYSTEMS FOR AHEALTHIER INDOOR ENVIRONMENT

Toll Free: 888-378-4892 * Fax: 843-785-2064

www.americanairandwater.com

http://www.americanairandwater.com

OCTOBER 2008 | 15

USEPA’s UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (UVDGM).This is not in place, possibly because the UVDGM hasbeen in draft form and has itself undergone significantmodifications. The final UVDGM is now available(USEPA, November 2006).

3. Other Validation ProtocolsOther widely recognized protocols exist that influencethe industry:

A. DVGW (Germany)This protocol was recently updated in 2003. It is veryprescriptive, and is directed only to verification ofintensity setpoints for system dose control. Because ofits limited nature, it has not been used extensivelyoutside of Germany. Testing by this protocol isgenerally done at a facility in Germany

B. ONORM (Austria)Similar to the German protocol, this is protocol findslimited use outside of Europe, with testing done at afacility in Austria.

UNIFIED PROTOCOLThere have been legitimate concerns regardingdissimilarities between protocols and their expense. Withthe release of the final EPA Guidance Manual for drinkingwaters, the evolution of the validation concept has reacheda point where we believe we can reach some unity in theapproach that validation protocols can use, leaving thedetails of their implementation with a well-designed testplan and QA guidance. This unified protocol couldeventually be applicable to both wastewater and drinkingwater. At this point we suggest that we focus on thewastewater protocols, since the UVDGM will essentially bethe standard for drinking water, even from a regulatorystandpoint. To this end, we are suggesting that a genericWastewater UV Disinfection protocol be developed, basedprimarily on the NWRI/AwwaRF, ETV and UVDGM protocols,and structured in a fashion similar to that of the UVDGM.

The approach we are taking is to:

• First review and summarize the protocols in thecontext of the UVDGM.

• Draft an extended outline for new wastewaterprotocol, based on the comparisons to the UVDGM,and on testing methods that reflect currentapproaches to validation.

• Subject the draft outline to critical review within theindustry.

• Reflecting comments/editing suggested by reviewers,complete first draft will for critical review.

• Once this first draft has been reviewed and a seconddraft prepared, the second draft will be distributed toa broader stakeholder group.

The final protocol is expected to be completed by the thefall of 2007.

At this point, based on our knowledge and understandingof the ETV, NWRI and UVDGM protocols, we anticipatereconsideration and adjustment of the following elementsin developing the generic, uniform protocol for wastewatervalidation:

1. Use the UVDGM format (contents and context,outline and checklists) as the format for the proposedprotocol.

2. Eliminate Directed UV Protocol specific to UVapplication (reuse, secondary, wet weather, etc.). Theindividual test plans written for a validation canaddress meeting specific requirements (e.g., Title 22);the protocol itself should focus on the procedures –and accommodate the wide range of water quality (asexpressed by the UVT) expected for wastewaterapplications (e.g., 20 to 80% UVT). The manufacturerwill determine the application and the operatingrange for its specific system.

3. Separate the protocols dealing with dose performance(the primary focus of this effort) lamp outputattenuation, fouling attenuation and cleaning deviceefficacy. .This is not the case in the ETV wet-weatherprotocol. Additionally, these ancillary protocolsshould be updated – this is not currently the focus ofthis effort, but can be after it is completed. Inparticular, work and documents that have been underdevelopment by others should be reviewed andbrought into these updates.

4. Particle impacts can be studied separately and specificto an application. The ETV for wet-weather flowsrequires testing in a primary effluent matrix to assessthe impact of particles. This is influenced by thecharacteristics of the wastewater used for the tests,which limits its application as a generic verification.We propose eliminating this from the validationprotocol. Rather, a protocol can be written (as aseparate option) to develop dose-responserelationships in the laboratory for a particular siteapplication, addressing the effect of particle size (byfractionation, or serial filtration) on performance.

5. By making the different tasks independent, amanufacturer can choose one or more in the conductof a validation. From a practical standpoint, the doseperformance validation would be done separately(inclusive of technical testing that normallyaccompanies such a validation) because it generallyrequires larger systems and the testing can be done ina matter of weeks. The other validations requiredifferent setups and timeframes and can be done on asmaller scale.

6. Additionally, the test matrix should encompass anexpanded operational envelope for dose-deliverytesting, reduce the degree of replication and support a


valid multivariate regression analysis. The verificationshould allow for flexibility in developing the test matrix– a manufacturer may choose to verify performance in atargeted UVT range, instead of the specific targets (e.g.,40% for wet weather or 65% for secondary) suggestedin the current protocol. These steps bring this protocolcloser to the “unified” goal, allow for more cost-effectivevalidations, and give the manufacturer flexibility insetting the design operating range for verification.

7. Remove replication of dosimetry runs as arequirement, leaving the requirement to collect aminimum of three influent and three effluent sampleswith each test event (an “event” being defined as thecollection of the inf/eff samples at a prescribed set ofunit operating and water quality conditions – flow,power, number of lamps, UVT, etc.). This allows for abroader spectrum of operating conditions, instead ofexpending budget on test repetitions. At the user’sdiscretion, replication can be added to the testprogram, with the benefit of reducing the uncertaintyof the regression analysis. California has allowed this,conditioned on the collection of quality, low-variabilitytest data. Data across a wider, or more varied, testmatrix, will support the MLR approach, and gives thevendor a more “marketable” verification report.

8. Incorporate the reactor operating strategy into thedesign of the test plan for a specific reactor. This wouldfollow the UVDGM approach, which specificallydiscusses test matrices for sensor-setpoint and dose-algorithm strategies. As such, smaller systems wouldtypically be evaluated in the simpler setpoint approach,while larger systems that have dose-control (or arerequired to have dose control and readout) would betested over a broad operating envelope. Such flexibilityrecognizes the diversity of commercial systems.

9. Adopt the UVDGM dose-response collimated beamprotocol as a standard through all test ranges. Thissimply updates all protocols to the latest standard – itis more rigorous, and has specific methods foranalyzing the data generated by the collimated beamtest. It would also assure that there is uniformityacross all applications and among laboratories.

10. Quality control limits for the dose-response curvesshould be updated. NWRI and the UVDGM showsuch limits for MS2; the UVDGM for B. subtilis. Newsurrogates that are in use should also have datadeveloped to support such an assessment. T1 and QBare examples.

11. Unify the attenuation factors. Default factors can beadopted for the different lamp technologies, with theflexibility to adopt factors that have beendemonstrated through a documented alternativestudy. Derivation and application of these factorswould be made consistent throughout all applications(this is not the case, for example, when comparing thereuse and secondary ETV protocols). Validations

typically combine the two to a single attenuationfactor, defined by the vendor. This typically becomesimportant when the setpoint approach is used. It isnot necessarily an issue when evaluating the dose-control strategy, except to assess the sensor intensityas a function of power and/or UVT.

12. Incorporate intensity-power-UVT tests into theprotocol. This serves as very useful design andoperating data for validated RED estimates. Fromthese, one can estimate the level to which lamps andor fouling can deteriorate before RED performancegoals are affected.

13. Sensors are critical elements of any reactor design,especially for drinking water reactor applications. TheUVDGM approach for evaluating UV sensors issuggested – making this consistent through allapplications. Design guidance, outside of thevalidation protocols, will set standards with respect tothe number of sensors that should be installed in areactor – the validation protocol should only assess theresponsiveness of these sensors and their variabilityrelative to reference sensors. QA limits, asincorporated in the UVDGM, would be used across allapplications.

14. Eliminate the hydraulic tracer analysis requirementsfound with the current secondary effluent ETVprotocol. Its use is outdated.

15. Add the multiple linear regression (MLR) approach tothe protocols for analysis of the biodosimetric test datadeveloped in the field. This is an important feature ofthe current version of the UVDGM and is a preferredapproach with reuse applications. This techniqueallows one to design the test matrix rationally, andprovides a correlation of the RED as a function of theunit operating parameters, such as UVT, power,banks/modules, flow, etc. Examination of theuncertainty of the correlation (developed on the basisof the variability of the observed data about theregression line) can establish the lower confidencelevels, and the credited RED. This approach can use amanufacturer’s dose algorithm; the verification wouldsimply establish the variability of the observed dataabout the predictive relationship.

16. Low-dose alternative challenge microbes should bereadily allowed. MS2 validations are effective for REDlevels greater than about 30 mJ/cm2. This has led toissues when validating at lower doses. The UVDGMaddresses this with application of an RED bias, whichaccounts for differences that might occur in ahydraulically inefficient reactor when the targetedmicrobes (such as Crypto, E. coli, Giardia, fecalcoliforms) are more sensitive to UV than the challengemicrobe. As described in the UVDGM, if there is noindependent, direct measurement of dose-distributionin a reactor, one can apply the “RED bias” as anuncertainty factor. Alternately, use a test surrogate that is

OCTOBER 2008 | 17

closer in sensitivity to the targeted pathogen orpathogenic indicator (e.g., use T1 for low dosesecondary effluents). This should be addressed across allprotocols, and should provide for using a more sensitiveorganism than MS2, or demonstrate independently theactual dose-distribution within the reactor.

17. Establish the same QA goals as the UVDGM across allapplications. These specifically relate to flow metercalibrations; sensor variability relative to references;variability of the collimated-bean, dose-response data;radiometer calibrations; and spectrophotometercalibrations. Additionally, there are normal field andlab QA/QC analyses relating to field, trip and labblanks, and variability among influent and effluentsample sets.

18. Flexibility for Challenge Microbe Selection. Thisshould be allowed across all applications. There isconsiderable new work that has been done ondifferent challenge microbes, including investigationsinto high dose surrogates. Although choices will likelyfocus on current favorites, such as MS2, T1 and Q-beta coliphage, the protocols should allow theflexibility to respond to new, acceptable organisms.

19. Incorporate dose-distribution measurement by dyedmicrospheres. This method is relatively new and canbe considered demonstrated (Blatchley, et.al., 2006aand 2006b, Shen and Scheible, 2007). It usesfluorescent actinometry to determine the dosedelivered to individual particles injected into thefeedstream. By measuring thousands of suchparticles, one can determine the dose-distributionwithin a reactor. This is a critical parameter that isspecific to a reactor’s hydraulic behavior and intensityfield. Applying dose-response kinetics determinedfrom collimated beam measurements allows one toestimate the delivered dose for any targetedorganism. Establishing a protocol for the dyedmicrospheres approach would advance thetechnology, and provide a potentially cost-effectivemethod for validating a system.

Additional elements can be identified and discussed. Theobjective, however, is to introduce and incorporate acommonality to the protocols. Eventually, this will result ina testing protocol that simply addresses the operatingrange for a particular UV reactor design. From thisvalidated operating range, one can decide the applicationon a site-specific basis. For example, if a vendor designs asystem that is meant to operate in a UVT range of 40 to65%, it may have applications relating to wet weatherflows (stormwaters), secondary effluents or reuse waters.Using the format of the UVDGM will allow for a betterunderstanding of the protocols and encourage a greateruniformity as we move forward. We also anticipate thatthis protocol would be adopted under the ETV program asan option to the manufacturer.

UV clean

Our experts – in R&D, customer care and test lab – support you professionally. Heraeus UV lamps are reliable and preciselymatched to the installation and the individual process. This saves energy, maintenance and operating costs. Superior Heraeus Amalgam lamps feature a unique Longlife coating, offering the highest output – even at 185 nm.

Your partner in UV. Because we highlight your success.

Quality is more than a product.

USAHeraeus Noblelight LLCDuluth, GA 30096Phone +1 (770) [email protected]

GermanyHeraeus Noblelight GmbH63450 HanauPhone +49 (6181) [email protected]

www.heraeus-noblelight.com/disinfection

08_049_final_Korr.qxd 26.02.2008 13:36 Uhr Seite 1

http://www.heraeus-noblelight.com/disinfection


REFERENCESUSEPA Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual for the Final

Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule,United States Environmental Protection Agency, Officeof Water, EPA-815-R-06-007, November, 2006.

National Water Research Institute (NWRI)/AWWA ResearchFoundation (AwwaRF) Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidelinesfor Drinking Water and Water Reuse, Second Edition.Fountain Valley, CA, 2003.

USEPA – Environmental Technology Program, VerificationProtocol for Secondary Effluent and Water ReuseDisinfection Applications NSF International Water QualityCenter, October 2002

USEPA – Environmental Technology Verification Program,Generic Verification Protocol for High-Rate, Wet-WeatherFlow Disinfection Applications NSF International, Draft5.0, September 2001

DVGW UV Disinfection Devices for Drinking Water Supply,German Gas and Water Management Union (DVGW),Bonn, Germany, 2003.

ÖNORM ÖNORM M 5873-1, Plants for the Disinfection ofWater Using Ultraviolet Radiation: Requirements andTesting Low Pressure Mercury Lamp Plants,

Österreichisches Normungsinstitut, Vienna, Austria,2001.

ÖNORM ÖNORM M 5873-2, Plants for the Disinfection ofWater Using Ultraviolet Radiation: Requirements andTesting Medium Pressure Mercury Lamp Plants,Österreichisches Normungsinstitut, Vienna, Austria,2003.

Blatchley III, E.R., Shen, C., Naunovic, Z., Lin, L., Lyn, D.A.,Robinson, J.P., Ragheb, K., Grégori, G., Bergstrom, D.E.,Fang, S., Guan, Y., Jennings, K., Gunaratna, N. “DyedMicrospheres for Quantification of UV DoseDistributions: Photochemical Reactor Characterizationby Lagrangian Actinometry,” Journal of EnvironmentalEngineering, ASCE, 132, 11, 1390-1403, 2006a.

Blatchley III, E.R., Shen, C., Scheible, O.K., Robinson, J.P.,Ragheb, K., Bergstrom, D.E., Rokjer, D. “Validation ofLarge-Scale, Monochromatic UV Disinfection SystemsUsing Dyed Microspheres,” conference proceedings,AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference, Denver,Colorado, November 5-9, 2006b.

Shen, C., Scheible, O.K. “Validation of Full-Scale UVDisinfection Systems Using Dyed-Microspheres”,proceedings, WEF Disinfection conference, Pittsburgh,Pennsylvania, February 4-7, 2007.

http://www.sitauv.com

OCTOBER 2008 | 19

Alicia Gilley1, Joe Foster1, Gary Hunter2, Derek Cambridge2, and Lucas Botero2

1. City of Olathe, 100 E. Santa Fe, Olathe, KS 66061 2. Black & Veatch, 8400 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO 64114

ABSTRACTThe City of Olathe, KS has been using ultraviolet (UV) light for over 20 years to disinfect waste-water effluent. The Olathe systemwas one of the first low pressure/low intensity UV systems installed in the state of Kansas. Two pilot-scale UV systems were testedat the treatment plant to compare the extent of fouling of their quartz sleeves. The pilot testing included a multi-phase processto establish the operation and maintenance requirements for each system. The first phase of the testing was conducted to validatethe performance of the pilot system. The second phase of the testing was to conduct a fouling study. Results of the studyindicated that after one week the sleeve transmittance was close to zero percent. The results of the fouling study were used todetermine projected cleaning requirements for the new UV system. A baseline condition was established to allow a comparisonto be made after new equipment is installed.

Key Words: UV, Trickling Filters, quartz sleeve fouling.

BACKGROUNDFor over 20 years, Olathe, KS, has used ultraviolet (UV)light for disinfection of treated wastewater effluent asshown on Figure 1. This system one of the first lowpressure/low intensity UV systems installed in the State ofKansas, consists of modules that must be raised frombelow grade, cleaned, and then lowered back into thechannels, all by hand- a procedure that requires significantoperator effort. The low pressure UV system was designedto provide a dose of 30 mJ/cm2 at a peak flow rate of 6.4mgd. At the average daily flow of 1.8 mgd the applieddose is in excess of 70 mJ/cm2. According to plantoperating data, the UV transmittance and TSS valuesappear to be higher than those from other trickling filterplants, as shown on Figure 2. The higher transmittance

may be due to factors such as lower organic loading, a 2to 1 recycle ratio for the trickling filters, and the use of anitrifying biotower.

Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is electromagnetic energy lyingwithin the spectrum of energy reaching Earth from theSun, but outside the wavelength range of visible light. UVlight between the wavelengths of 235 and 270nanometers (nm) has been found to be biocidal tobacteria and viruses in natural water, wastewater, andprocess waters. This biocidal property is the basis for usingUV radiation as a physical disinfectant in the municipalwastewater industry.

UV PROCESS AND FOULING TESTING AT TRICKLING FILTER PLANT: KEY FACTORS IN UVDESIGN FOR TRICKLING FILTER EFFLUENT

Figure 1 Olathe UV SystemFigure 2 Historical Transmittance Values – City of Olathe Data


Ultraviolet radiation is readily absorbed bydeoxyribonucleic acids (DNA) in certain pathogens foundin municipal wastewater. When this energy is absorbed, apathogen's molecular structure can be altered, making itunable to replicate. While this effect can be reversed(referred to as reactivation) under certain conditions, UVradiation has proven effective in disinfecting municipalwastewater.

Since 1990, more sophisticated and reliable UV systemshave been developed that operate much more cost-effectively and have been installed in many treatmentplants, as an alternative to disinfection with chlorine asincreasingly tighter effluent chlorine, residual limits arebeing imposed.

PILOT PROJECTIn order to establish design parameters and to comparethe two systems, a multi-phase demonstration study wasconducted. This paper will focus on the results fromperformance and fouling tests conducted as part of thisstudy.

Equipment The two pilot units evaluated as part of this study weresupplied by Trojan Technologies and by ITT Wedeco.Trojan System UV3000 Plus was 12 lamp system with achemical/mechanical wiping system. The 12 lamps werearranged in a single bank consisting of three verticalmodules of 4 lamps each, with each lamp rated for amaximum power output of 250 watts. Influent flow wasmonitored using an in-line flow-meter calibrated by Citystaff. On-line transmittance was measured using a HACHUV transmittance unit. The pilot unit was controlled usinga standard Trojan PLC that controlled the UV dosesupplied.

ITT/Wedeco supplied a 12 lamp TAK 55 pilot unit with amechanical wiping system. The lamps were arranged in asingle bank of two 6 lamp modules in a 2 by 3 array witheach lamp rated for a maximum power output of 360watts. Influent flow was monitored using an in-lineflowmeter calibrated by City staff.

Study ElementsThe study was divided into several tests to demonstrateand compare the performance of the two UV systems

• Performance

o Study 1 – Trojan only

o Study 2 – Trojan and Wedeco units

• Fouling Study

o Study 1 - Trojan only

o Study 2 – Trojan and Wedeco units

• Process Transmittance Study – Trojan and Wedeco units

• Flow Impacts – Trojan and Wedeco units

• Power Study – Trojan and Wedeco units

• Reliability Study – Trojan and Wedeco units

Performance StudyThe initial performance study was conducted to confirmthat the performance of the Trojan System UV3000Pluswas similar to that of the plant’s existing low pressure UVsystem. During this study, samples were collected andshipped to Trojan Technologies for collimated beamanalysis. A second performance study was completed afterinstallation of Wedeco unit to compare the performance ofthe two pilot units.

Fouling StudyA major objective of this study was to evaluate fouling ofthe quartz sleeves. The first system to be tested was theTrojan System UV3000Plus. The purpose of the foulingstudy was to determine how fast the quartz sleeves wouldbecome fouled after the cleaning system was turned offand then to determine the length of time needed for thecleaning system to return the sleeves to their UV sleeves torecover to pre-fouled condition.

The UV transmittance of the quartz sleeves wasdetermined by measuring double-layer UV transmittancethrough the sleeve and converting the result to single-layer UV transmittance. This method does not give anabsolute measurement due to the curvature of the sleeve,but a relative measure that can be used to comparesleeves, or the changes in fouling on a sleeve undercontrolled test conditions. The measurements were takenusing a Varian Cary 50 UV/Visible Spectrophotometer withholders that keep the sleeve stationary and leveled so thatthe beam passes through the center of both sides of thesleeve and into the detector.

Power StudyThe performance of the UV systems was evaluated todetermine if the input power to the lamps was the samefor both systems. This was done to see if the performanceof the Wedeco system was influenced by input power.

Figure 3 UV Pilot Systems

OCTOBER 2008 | 21

Process Transmittance StudyThe transmittance study was conducted to determine ifchanges in the treatment process would result in adecrease in transmittance. A review of the literatureindicated that typical transmittance of a trickling filterplant effluent is 50 percent. The transmittance of theHarold Street plant effluent ranges from 62 to 65 percent.During this study, temporary changes were made to thetreatment process to see if the changes would result intransmittance values that were more typical of an averagetrickling filter effluent.

Reliability StudyThe reliability study was conducted to assess theperformance and reliability of the two UV systems withlamps out of service. Because of adverse weatherconditions that restricted access to the system this studycould not be completed.

RESULTSPerformance Study During the performance study a number of parameterswere validated. One of the key parameters wastransmittance. Transmittance data provided by plant staffwere based on one grab sample collected daily. Since theplant is operated only 8 hours per day, the dailytransmittance pattern had to be determined using an on-line transmittance device. A typical 48 hour plot oftransmittance, shown on Figure 4, indicates thattransmittance follows a pattern similar to the diurnal flowpattern at the plant. In addition, the transmittancemeasurements did not appear to remain constantthroughout the day.

Based on the previous results, it can be noted thathistorically the transmittance ranges from a high of 75percent to a low 54 percent. During the pilot testing thetransmittance ranged from 63 percent to 54 percent, withan average value of approximately 59 percent.

In addition to transmittance data, influent fecal coliformand E. Coli data were collected three times each day todetermine any variability in the treatment plant. The rawinfluent data to the UV system collected during the studyshow a decrease in fecal coliforms during the afternoon’shigher temperatures and an increase effluent fecalcoliforms as the water temperature dropped. The results ofsampling during various times of the day indicate thehighest values for effluent fecal coliforms, effluent TSS, andturbidity during the afternoon of each day.

To determine the effectiveness of UV in disinfecting theplant effluent, a UV dose response test, typically calledcollimated beam test, was conducted. In this test, planteffluent is exposed to various doses of UV to determine theeffluent fecal coliform count. Both Trojan Technologiesand ITT/Wedeco completed collimated beam testing.

Trojan Technologies completed the testing during the first8 weeks of the study (before the performance of the plantwas impacted by cold weather). Figure 5 shows the resultsof the collimated beam study conducted by TrojanTechnologies. ITT/Wedeco conducted the tests during thelast part of the study.

Results of both collimated beam tests indicate that UV canbe used effectively to meet the disinfection requirementsat the plant.

Figure 4 On-line Transmittance Data Figure 5 Trojan Collimated Beam Test Data

Figure 4 Influent Fecal Coliforms and E. coli


Validation of UV Dose A comparison was made between the collimated beamtesting and the actual disinfection performance of the pilotunits to validate the UV dose required for disinfection.After comparing the results of the two tests, the followingconclusions were drawn:

1. A UV dose of 40 mJ/cm2 or more will produce aneffluent fecal coliform concentration of 200 fc/100 mLor less (Permit requirements).

2. The Trojan pilot unit’s disinfection performance resultsmatched the collimated beam data.

3. The Wedeco pilot unit’s disinfection performance resultsdid not match the collimated beam data. Since thecoliform counts in the pilot unit’s effluent were usuallylow, it is possible that the dose recorded by the WedecoPLC is not a reflection of the actual dose applied in thepilot unit. Additional study will be needed to determineif the PLC did not function correctly.

Fouling Study Quartz sleeves were allowed to become fouled by turningoff the cleaning system, to determine how many cleaningcycles would be needed to restore the sleeves to their pre-fouling condition. The fouling study for the Trojan unitwas done in two phases – 1st fouling study and 2nd foulingstudy. The fouling study for Wedeco was done in thesecond phase. Results of the fouling study are shown onFigures 6 and 7. The overall fouling performance wasindicated by the effluent fecal coliform count.

As the fouling increased, the sleeve transmittance keptdecreasing until it dropped to zero. When thetransmittance reached zero, the cleaning cycle was turnedon, to slowly increase the transmittance through thequartz sleeves to their pre-fouling condition.

According to the information from the pilot study, theTrojan system needed an average of 48 cleaning cycles (2days at a rate of 1 cycle/hr) to restore the sleeves to theirpre-fouling condition, whereas the Wedeco system neededan average of 96 cleaning cycles (4 days at a rate of 1cycle/hr). This difference in recovery performance may be

attributed to the fact that Trojan’s system uses a chemicalagent to supplement the physical cleaning by the cleaningcartridges, while the Wedeco system relies only on thephysical cleaning by the wipers. Both systems returned tothe prefouled state after cleaning.

Laboratory tests listed in Table 1 were conducted todetermine the composition of the fouling material in theHarold St. WWTP.

Based on the results of laboratory testing, it was determinedthat the foulants accumulated on the sleeves wereinorganic; moreover, no measurable amounts of organicfoulants were found. This implies that the wastewatercharacteristics are a major factor in the UV systemperformance, and those systems that rely on a combinationof physical (mechanical) and chemical cleaning are morelikely to remove inorganic components from the sleevesthan systems that rely only on physical cleaning due to theenhanced molecular unbonding by chemical agents.

SUMMARYTesting conducted as part as study indicated that both UVsystems tested would achieve the same performance asthe existing UV system. This was in part due to the factthat the UV transmittance of the Harlod Street planteffluent averages 65 percent which is significantly higherthan would be expected at a trickling filter plant. Theexisting UV facility at the Harold Street plant requiresadditional labor by plant staff because of fouling of thequartz sleeves. Results of fouling testing indicated thatboth systems would be capable of removing any materialthat may foul quartz sleeves.

Figure 7 ITT/WEDECO’s Fouling Study

Figure 6 Trojan’s Fouling Study

OCTOBER 2008 | 23

B. Ferran1, R.F. Kelly1, S. Jin1, O. K. Scheible2 and S. Chengyue2

1. Degremont North American Research & Development Center2. HydroQual, Inc.

ABSTRACTIn order to respond to the stringent disinfection requirements for reclaimed wastewater in the United States, Ozonia NorthAmerica (ONA) undertook a bioassay validation study of a low-pressure very high-output (LPVHO) ultraviolet (UV) disinfectionsystem. The disinfection performance of this process technology was verified via biodosimetry in accordance with the UltravioletDisinfection Guidelines for Drinking Water and Water Reuse, 2nd Edition (NWRI/AwwaRF, May 2003). The biodosimetry testprogram utilized full-scale reactors having 36-lamps with the goal to simplify extrapolation of the results to full scale design.Dose-flow relationships were obtained for both granular media-filtered and membrane-filtered wastewater reuse effluents.Although the influent velocity profiles were non-homogeneous during testing, the performance of the most upstream reactor wasnot compromised and dose additivity with the number of reactors arranged in series was demonstrated.

Based on the results of this verification testing, the LPVHO UV disinfection system can be sized for wastewater reuse applicationsusing a ratio of target dose to dose delivered per reactor. The bioassay validation report has been submitted to the State ofCalifornia Department of Health Services for conditional acceptance of the LPVHO UV system for reclaimed wastewaterdisinfection applications.

Keywords: UV, Wastewater Reuse, Ultraviolet Disinfection, Biodosimetry

INTRODUCTIONInadequate water supplies and increasing pollution inmany parts of the world have become a growing concernduring the past quarter century. Several factors havecontributed to these problems, including sustainedpopulation growth in urban areas, contamination ofsurface and ground water supplies, uneven distribution ofwater resources and frequent drought linked to extremeglobal weather patterns. Through careful engineering andmanagement, wastewater reuse is a viable process toaugment traditional water resources (Asano, 2001).Wastewater reuse is most commonly practiced for non-potable water demands such as agricultural use andirrigation for landscapes, public parks, and golf courses.Other non-potable applications include cooling watersupplies for power plants and oil refineries. Additionally,reclaimed wastewater may be used indirectly for potablepurposes, such as recharging of ground water aquifers toaugment ground water supplies and to prevent salt waterintrusion in coastal areas (USEPA Region IX, 1998).

Chlorination continues to be the most utilized disinfectiontreatment for wastewaters. However, the production ofcarcinogenic disinfection by-products (DBPs) and safetyconcerns with transportation, storage and handling of

chlorine gas have caused alternate disinfectiontechnologies such as UV irradiation to garner increasedconsideration in recent years. In order to gain acceptancefor the UV disinfection technology wastewater reuseeffluents, Ozonia North America (ONA) performed anextensive validation testing of a low-pressure very high-output (LPVHO) ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system. Thistesting was pursued in collaboration with HydroQual, Inc.,serving as the third party engineering consultant and field-testing organization. This paper presents the resultsobtained from this test program.

EXPERIMENTALDescription of the LPVHO UV Reactor The LPVHO UV reactor consists of a rectangular stainlesssteel frame equipped with 36 low pressure amalgam lampsas shown in Figure 1. Each lamp yields a minimum of 160watts UVC, based on measurements performed in air withan IL 1700 radiometer, SED240 cell, NS254 filter and W-diffuser (International Light, Inc., Peabody, MA). Thelamps are oriented vertically in a staggered grid of 6 rowsby 6 lamps. A low-profile triangular-shaped side deflectoris present for each row of lamps and is located on the sideof the reactor where the lamp to wall spacing is greatest.

Biodosimetry of a Full-Scale UV DisinfectionSystem to Achieve Regulatory Approval forWastewater Reuse


Figure 2 depicts how the reactors of a LPVHO UV systemare typically arranged in series, within open concretechannels that may contain up to 4 reactors wide. Oncewastewater flows through the reactors in the channels thepresence of a staggered lamp array and side deflectorsminimizes pathogen shortcircuiting, while preserving anear plug-flow hydraulic behavior.

Validation ApproachDue to an initial lack of regulatory standards andreproducible test methods to assess the disinfectionperformance of UV disinfection systems, various regulatoryauthorities in the United States enforced performancevalidation testing based on biodosimetry. The protocolsfor the validation test program of the LPVHO UV system

Figure 1. Lamp arrangement for the LPVHO UV reactor.

Figure 2. Typical arrangement of an LPVHO UV system.

OCTOBER 2008 | 25

were designed to conform mainly to the “UltravioletDisinfection Guidelines for Drinking Water and WaterReuse, 2nd Edition” (NWRI/AwwaRF, May 2003), hereafterreferred to as the NWRI/AwwaRF Guidance. Additionally,with modifications that reflect current validation practice,the methods used for this test program generally followedthe protocols presented in “ETV Verification Protocol forSecondary Effluent and Water Reuse DisinfectionApplications” (NSF, October 2002).

HydroQual, Inc. was utilized as the third party engineeringconsultant responsible for all field testing and preparationof the final verification report. The overall objective of thisvalidation test program was to validate the disinfectionperformance of the LPVHO UV system for wastewaterreuse applications. Specifically, validation of six keyperformance criteria were identified as follows,

1) Verify the dose-flow relationship for the system at anominal UV transmittance (T10) of 65% to simulatemembrane-filtered effluent for reuse applications.

2) Verify the flow-dose relationship for the system at anominal UV transmittance (T10) of 55% to simulategranular filtered effluent for reuse applications.

3) Verify the dose-delivery performance over an operatingenvelope defined by the system’s effective output, flowrate and UVT.

4) Verify the velocity profiles at upstream anddownstream locations for both reactors over the fulloperating range of the system.

5) Establish the power consumption characteristics of theLPVHO UV system and the relationships of power andsensor readings as a function of the water UVtransmittance.

6) Determine the head loss through the reactors as afunction of the flow and velocity.

Test EquipmentTwo full-scale LPVHO UV reactors were arranged in seriesin an open steel channel 7.6 m (25 ft) long and 0.74 m(29.25 inches) inside width. Figure 3 presents dimensionalsketches of the channel. Figure 4 is a photo of thechannel, showing placement of the reactors. The sidewallswere 2 m (6.5 ft) tall. Water enters and exits the channelthrough 610-mm (24-inch) diameter flanged openings,with inverts approximately 2 inches above the channelfloor. At the upstream end of the channel, cross bars arepositioned downstream of the inlet wall, which were usedto brace a flow spreader baffle and various inlet perforatedbaffle plates. The objective of the baffle plates was tobreak the inlet water rush and distribute the velocity acrossthe entire channel cross-section, thus more closelysimulating open channel configuration with longer, evenlydistributed approach

The first reactor (UV Reactor 2) was positioned with thelead edge 1.52 m (5 ft) downstream of the perforatedbaffle. The spacing between the reactors was 0.91 m (3ft). An adjustable weir was installed 1.52 m (5 ft)downstream of the second reactor (UV Reactor 1). Thisweir was used to maintain a constant water depth of 1676mm (66 inches) at a location approximately 0.6 m (2 ft)upstream of the lead reactor.

Biodosimetry ProceduresAll testing for the LPVHO UV disinfection system wasconducted at the UV Validation and Research Center ofNew York (UV Center), located at the Gloversville-Johnstown Joint Wastewater Treatment Facility, Johnstown,

Figure 3. Test channel layout.


NY. The UV Center, which is operated by HydroQual, wasinstalled at the plant under the auspices of the New YorkState Energy Research and Development Authority(NYSERDA), with a portion of the funding from the NewYork City Department of Environmental Protection(NYCDEP). Direct funding participation is also providedby a number of UV equipment manufacturers.

The facility consists of several functionally similar teststands that are defined by the nominal size of theirrespective delivery piping. These range from 2-inchthrough 36-inch, capable of processing flows from very

low gpm levels to as high as 45,000 gpm. Figure 5 is anaerial photo of the UV Center. The facility employs severallarge tanks that are used to prepare source water forchallenge testing, or to accept testing effluent for disposal.As highlighted on Figure 5, Tanks 1 and 2 are used forsource water storage, with a total capacity ofapproximately 2 million gallons, and Tanks 3 and 4 fordisposal of used water, also with a total capacity ofapproximately 2 million gallons. Pumps are installed inboth Tanks 3 and 4 to transfer the water back to thewastewater treatment facility for final disposal. A batteryof 8 diesel centrifugal pumps is used to transfer the testwater from the source tanks to the waste tanks throughthe various test stands available on site.

The test channel location is shown on the schematic of theUV center test facility in Figure 6. It was installed on the24-inch test stand, fed by up to 2 of the centrifugal dieselpumps. A 24-inch Advanced Flow electromagnetic flowmeter is installed, with straight-runs of pipe before andafter the meter to assure accurate performance.

A 150-kVA diesel-fired generator was used exclusively forthe LPVHO UV system, conditioned as needed. During alltesting, the main power was recorded with a three-phasepower data logger. All ancillary electrical requirementswere provided through local plant feeds.

The bioassay flow-tests were conducted on a mixture ofpotable water or granular filtered effluent, modified by theaddition of lignin sulfonate (LSA) to adjust the UVtransmittance, and the direct injection of the MS2bacteriophage stock to reach a targeted density. Theinjection point was located approximately 6 feet upstreamof the high-efficiency vortex mixer shown on Figure 6.The UV transmittance adjustment of the water was doneeither on a batch basis by mixing with the tank contentsdirectly, or “on-the-fly” as the feed water was beingpumped to the test channel. Transmittancemeasurements were conducted in 1-cm quartz cuvettes

Figure 4. Picture of the test channel.

Figure 5. Aerial view of the UV center test facility.

OCTOBER 2008 | 27

with the same cuvette filled with DI water as a reference.All transmittance measurements were conducted at 254nm with a properly calibrated Gen-Tech Model 1901double-beam UV/Vis spectrophotometer.

For the flow tests conducted during this validation, Tank 1was used for staging the challenge water. Before testing,the tank was drained and cleaned. For those tests thatwere applicable to granular-media filtered (refer to as GMFhereafter) effluents, the tank was charged with cloth-filtered secondary effluent. A potable water supply wasused for those tests associated with membrane-filtered(refer to as MF hereafter) effluent applications. In all cases,the water was mixed and dechlorinated with sodiumsulfite. After preparing the tank, the water was checkedfor total chlorine to assure that the concentration was non-detectable at the 0.05 mg/L level.

Grab samples were collected in sterile, 120 mL single-usespecimen cups. Influent samples were collected at a valveapproximately 20 feet upstream of the channel inlet.Effluent samples were collected at a valve installed on thechannel, at the effluent side of the adjustable weir. Thevalves were allowed to flush freely before samples werecollected. Both influent and effluent samples werecollected simultaneously and in triplicate, resulting in sixsamples for each flow test. The samples were placed onice in a closed (dark) cooler and transported to the lab.Samples were analyzed within 24-hours of collection.

During the test series, large batch solutions of MS2bacteriophage were prepared with a titer of approximately1 to 4 x1011 pfu/mL. The MS2 was ATCC 15597-B1 andthe host E. coli strain was ATCC 23631. The propagationprocedure was based on an ISO method (ISO, 1995),which was refined to produce the large volumes used inbioassay tests. The enumeration of viable MS2 fromsamples was based on ISO method 10705-1 (ISO, 1995).The same enumeration process was used for thedevelopment of the dose-response curves and for thebiodosimetric flow tests to minimize any bias.

or each type of test wastewater (GMF and MF) the LPVHOUV system was validated at four flows per train of 2, 4, 8and 12 mgd with a “train” defined as a 1-reactor widechannel. For each test flow condition the lamp “effective”output (EO) was set at three different target levels. Thelamp EO is defined as the product of the lamp-aging factor(Fp), the quartz sleeve fouling factor (Ft), and the lampoutput dimming factor (Di). Due to the effect oftemperature on lamp output, the product of these factorsis also adjusted by a temperature factor (TF).

[1] EO = FP. FT

. Di. TF

Within the framework of this validation, the three targetEO levels were defined, referenced to a water temperatureof 20°C or a TF20 of 1.0. The first represents new lamps,clean sleeves, and 100% power input (4.5A lamp current).

[2] EO(target) = 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 = 1.0

Similarly, the second represents aged lamps, fouled sleevesand power dimming to 62% of nominal (2.8A lampcurrent), hereto at 20°C.

[3] EO(target) = 0.85 x 0.80 x 0.62 x 1.0 = 0.42

The third level is between the previous two, representingaged lamps, fouled sleeves and 100% power input (4.5Alamp current), normalized to 20°C. This is the more likelydesign-operating EO for a commissioned LPVHO UVsystem.

[4] EO(target) = 0.85 x 0.8 x 1.0 x 1.0 = 0.68

For purposes of this validation, the impact of aged lampsand fouled sleeves were simulated by adjustment of thetest water transmittance. The TF20 factor was included inthis adjustment of transmittance. Before the start of abiodosimetry test run, the test water transmittance isadjusted downward from the nominal UV transmittance asdefined by the granular or membrane filtration objectiveswith Lignin Sulfonate (LSA) until the test EO at a watertemperature of T is equivalent to the target EO for a watertemperature of 20°C. The following set of equations canbe written

[5] EO(test) . Iavg(UVT)= EO(target)__________

Iavg(UVT55orUVT65)

Where Iavg(UVT55 or UVT65) is the average fluence rate (irradiance)in the system at the nominal UV transmittances of 55%(GMF) or 65% (MF). Iavg is the average fluence ratecalculated at the equivalent attenuation factor. Since thebioassay testing is actually conducted with new lamps andclean sleeves the equation above can be written as follows.

Figure 6. Schematic of the test facility test stands.

Iavg(UVT)[6] 1.0 . 1.0 . Di . TF20 . ____________ = EO(target)

Iavg(UVT55 or UVT65)

Finally, the required attenuation can be calculated asfollows.

Iavg(UVT) EO(target) FP . Ft

[7] –––––––––––– = –––––––––––– = ––––––––––Iavg(UVT55orUVT65) Di . TF20 TF20

The UV transmittance reduction from the nominal valuesof 55% and 65% can be calculated to adjust the reactornominal average intensity Iavg(UVT55or65) by the targetedattenuation: (Fp * Ft) / TF20. The results shown in Table Ibelow are an example of this calculation for Fp = 0.85, Ft= 0.80 and a water temperature T of 12°C. The resultingattenuation is 0.763. A line-source integration software(Janex, 2002) is used to calculate the average fluence rateof the LPVHO reactor for various water UV transmittance.

Table I. Example of UV transmittance adjustment.

Transmittance Iavg Iavgx0.763(%T/cm) (mW/cm2) (mW/cm2)

55 8.465 6.45946 6.459

65 11.543 8.80456 8.804

Based on these calculations, verification testing wasperformed at adjusted transmittances. For a watertemperature of 12°C and 65% nominal transmittancecondition, which simulates MF water per NWRI/AwwaRFguidance, the actual operating transmittance duringtesting was 56%. For the 55% nominal transmittance,which simulates GMF water, the actual operatingtransmittance was 46%.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONUV Intensity Sensor CharacterizationThe UV intensity sensor readings obtained from the LPVHOUV reactors were recorded as percentage of full scale 20madc for different water UV transmittance levels. Figure 7illustrates the sensor reading as a function of UVtransmittance. A power function was observed to providea good model fit of the results.

The UV intensity sensor readings at two fixed UVtransmittances with different lamp arc current settings areplotted in Figure 8. The normalized sensor readings areexpressed as the percentage of the sensor reading at thenominal lamp current of 4.5 A. Readings were fitted usingquadratic equations and the fitting parameters were usedto determine the lamp dimming factor (Di), which is usedto calculate the lamp “effective” output factor EO.


Figure 7. UV intensity sensor reading as a function of UVtransmittance.

Figure 8. Normalized UV intensity sensor readings versuslamp current.

Helping make our world safer and cleaner through the implementation of UV technologies.

Offices Nationwide • www.pirnie.com

http://www.pirnie.com

The UV intensity readings obtained from the duty sensorsof the LPVHO UV reactors and an IL 1700 SUD 240 (witha 254 filter) reference detector were compared, based ontheir respective values normalized to their maximumreadings. Figure 9 presents this comparisondemonstrating the excellent linear agreement observedbetween the two detectors, suggesting that the UVintensity sensor, which equips the LPVHO UV reactorsprovides an accurate measure of intensity, and is linearlyresponsive across their operating range.

Head Loss Head loss through a UV disinfection system should exist atany non-negligible flow rate, because of the hydraulicresistance due to viscous flow and the presence ofobstacles such as lamps, baffles and mounting frame.Head loss measurements were made by attaching staffgages to the inside of the reactor channel wall,approximately 30 cm up- and downstream of the tworeactors, and between the reactors. The channel wasleveled within 0.5 cm before the start of test. The waterlevel was measured at the three positions for each flowrate, and the head loss estimated as the calculateddifferences in water level among these three locations.Zero-readings were obtained with no flow through thechannel, but with the channel filled with stationary water.

The results are depicted on Figure 10 along with the headloss obtained from CFD modeling to show that themodeled head loss is in agreement with the experimentalvalues.

Velocity Profile The NWRI/AwwaRF guidance mentions that commissionedsystem should have velocity profiles that are equivalent orbetter than demonstrated by the validation test unit. A 6x 13 measurement matrix was designed for the cross-section of the LPVHO UV test channel. Thesemeasurements were conducted at flow rates 2, 4, 8 and 12mgd, upstream of the lead reactor, downstream of the lagreactor and in between the two reactors. A specificallydesigned frame was used to position the velocity meter atdesired location inside the channel. At each location,three readings of flow velocity were recorded. The velocitymeter was a Marsh-Mc Birney. Each reading was anintegrated average recorded by the meter over a period of7 seconds.

A general observation is that the velocity profiles werevariable and not within a +/- 20% band about thetheoretical velocity (flow/area) at all points. As a briefdemonstration of the velocity profiling data, Figure 11 ispresented showing the average of the horizontalmeasurements for each depth location with the floor asthe zero datum (INF is upstream of UV Reactor 2, EFF isdownstream of UV Reactor 1) for flows of 2 and 12 mgd.The average profiles for the three measurement locationsare shown, as is the mean theoretical velocity and the +/-20% band about the theoretical velocity. The non-idealbehavior at the influent to the first reactor is obvious, anartifact of the shortened approach channel length. Evenwith the baffle in place, the velocity gradients created bythe 24-inch inlet pipe to the channel are significantlyvariable. The most stable profile was evident at thelocation between reactors, but appeared to become lessstable at the effluent location, possibly because of theupflow pattern caused by the level control weir.

OCTOBER 2008 | 29

Figure 9. IL1700 SUD sensor versus the LPVHO UV intensitysensor.

Figure 10. Reactor modeled & experimental head loss vs.flow.


A key observation that can be made from these data is thatthe hydraulic conditions represent a ‘worse’ case whencompared to minimum full-scale commissioningrequirements. As such, the biodosimetry performancedata of the LPVHO UV system tested can be consideredconservative.

It is the philosophy of the NWRI/AwwaRF testing programupon which this wastewater reuse verification wasdesigned to simulate worst-case scenario in terms of lampfouling, lamp intensity, and transmittance for each

application. Accordingly, no attempt to idealize theinfluent hydraulics was made.

BiodosimetryBiodosimetric testing for the LPVHO UV system was carriedout on seven different dates in the period December 2005through May 2006. A seeded influent sample from eachday was used to develop the dose-response relationshipfor samples collected that day. These dose-response dataare summarized in Figure 12.

Figure 12 shows that 93.4% of the data points lay withinthe boundary limits referenced in the NWRI/AwwaRFguidance. This is well above the minimum requirement of80%. In some instances the inactivation ratios at a givendose vary up to 0.5-log. This variability is typical for suchmicrobiological analyses. It highlights the need for severaldose-response data sets to enhance the statisticalconfidence of the dose-response calibration curve.

Biodosimetric tests were conducted for the two types ofchallenge waters: granular-media filtered (GMF) effluentsand membrane-filtered (MF) effluents over the range offlows from 2 to 12 mgd. Three EO target values weretested for each type of challenge water, with duplicates foreach testing condition at EO of 0.42 and 1.0, and withtriplicates for each testing condition at EO of 0.68. Alltesting conditions are summarized in Table II.

Figure 11. Flow velocity profile for the LPVHO test channel.

Figure 12. Summary of dose-response curves and regressions.

eta plus – our name is our principle

Innovation in the development and production of

efficient and powerful UV light sources

electronic ballasts for UV lamps up to 32 kW

electronic & electro-optical components forcontrol and adjustment of UV installations

We manufacture according to your needs

eta plus electronic gmbhNuertingen/Germanycontact: Anne O’CallaghanTel.: +49 7022 6002 813Fax: +49 7022 658 [email protected], www.eta-uv.de part of the IST METZ group

YourUV Partner

http://www.eta-uv.de

OCTOBER 2008 | 31

A multiple linear regression analysis was developed tocorrelate the validation RED with the flow rate and the EOvalue. The resulting dose algorithm equation will be usedto size and operate the LPVHO UV system in the field. Thedata analysis of the validation data was based upon thelower 75% confidence interval result for each flowcondition (e.g., flow rate, %UVT), and all subsequentdiscussion is based upon the 75% confidence interval aswell. The dose algorithm equation used to estimate theRED per reactor is expressed as follows:

1[8] REDper-reactor = –– . 10A . (Flowrate)B . (EO)C

2

With A, B and C the regression coefficients.

Validation REDs are plotted against the regression fitmodel as illustrated in Figure 13 for MF water. Theresiduals between the predicted REDs and the validation

REDs for both GMF and MF effluents are scattered aroundzero and show no significant trend with either of the threevariables supporting the validity of the regression fitmodel.

The dose-flow curves obtained tend to flatten as the flowincreases showing improved disinfection efficiency athigher velocities. As flow increases, the axial mixingresulting from the staggered lamp array and sidedeflectors enhances the number of microorganismstraversing areas of intense UV irradiance

Evaluation of the Additive Nature ofDownstream ReactorsPart of the operational philosophy of the LPVHO UVsystem is based upon the application of a multiple-reactortrain to meet the dose delivery requirements of a reuseapplication. Additional rows of lamps in the train arebrought online as disinfection requirements increase dueto increased flow rate or to decreased transmittance.Thus, one of the goals of this verification test was toevaluate the dose-additive nature of downstream reactors.

One flow test was conducted with two reactor installedbut only the most downstream unit operating. Thevalidation result for this test was compared with those thatwere tested with two reactors and the same flowconditions, as summarized in Table III. The validated REDsfor these tests demonstrated that the dose delivered by theLPVHO UV system is proportional to the number ofreactors installed. Additionally, it can be inferred from theresults that the non-homogeneous inlet velocity profile didnot compromise the performance of the most upstreamreactor.

Table II. Summary of bioassay flow test matrix.

Test water Target Test flow Rates (mgd)EO 2.0 4.0 8.0 12.0

Granular- Media 0.44 GM1-042-2 GM1-042-4 GM1-042-8 GM1-042-12Filter (GMF) GM2-042-2 GM2-042-4 GM2-042-8 GM2-042-12

0.68 GM1-068-2 GM1-068-4 GM1-068-8 GM1-068-12GM2-068-2 GM2-068-4 GM2-068-8 GM2-068-12GM3-068-2 GM3-068-4 GM3-068-8 GM3-068-12

1.0 GM1-10-2 GM1-10-4 GM1-10-8 GM1-10-12GM2-10-2 GM2-10-4 GM2-10-8 GM2-10-12

Membrane Filter 0.44 M1-042-2 M1-042-4 M1-042-8 M1-042-12(MF) M2-042-2 M2-042-4 M2-042-8 M2-042-12

0.68 M1-068-2 M1-068-4 M1-068-8 M1-068-12M2-068-2 M2-068-4 M2-068-8 M2-068-12M3-068-2 M3-068-4 M3-068-8 M3-068-12

1.0 M1-10-2 M1-10-4 M1-10-8 M1-10-12M2-10-2 M2-10-4 M2-10-8 M2-10-12

Figure 13. RED versus flow rates for MF effluent versusmodel prediction.


CONCLUSIONSCompletion of this verification testing program enabledthe determination of the disinfection performance of a full-scale LPVHO UV system in accordance with the UltravioletDisinfection Guidelines for Drinking Water and Water Reuse,2nd Edition (NWRI/AwwaRF, May 2003). Use of theNWRI/AwwaRF protocol ensured that the verificationtesting was carried out in a consistent and objectivemanner, with appropriate quality control.

The influent velocity profiles measured with the testequipment were non-uniform, however this did notcompromise the performance of the most upstreamreactor. Accordingly, the verification revealed that thedose delivery is additive with the number of reactors in atrain. Based on the verification of dose additivity with thenumber of downstream reactors, the RED values foundduring biodosimetry can be converted to a dose deliveryper LPVHO UV reactor, and readily used in commercialsystem sizing.

The LPVHO UV system was tested at full-scale to validatethe dose delivery of the commercial units, with theobjective of minimizing the need for any scale-upadjustments or considerations. Overall, with theperforated baffling arrangements at the head end of thechannel, in lieu of an extended channel length approach,the hydraulic conditions imposed during testing areconsidered “worse case” when compared to typicalcommissioned installations. As such, commissioningconsiderations can center on verifying hydrauliccharacteristics such as the velocity profiles and head loss,and dose-delivery expectations do not require scaling fromthe validation tests.

The results from this bioassay validation testing have beensubmitted to the State of California Department forconditional acceptance of the use of the LPVHO process inreclaimed wastewater disinfection of filtered wastewaterfor water recycling.

REFERENCESAsano, T. 2001. “Water From Wastewater – The

Dependable Water Resource”, Paper presented at the11th Stockholm Water Symposium, August 12-18,2001, Stockholm, Sweden.

International Standards Organization (ISO). 1995. WaterQuality-Detection and Enumeration of Bacteriophage. PartI: Enumeration of F-Specific RNA Bacteriophage.(Switzerland: International Standards Organization,ISO 10705-1).

Janex M.L., Nace A., Do-Quang Z. 2002. “UV FluenceRate Evaluation in a UV System: Simulating the Impactof Operating and Design Parameters”, Paper presentedat the 2002 annual AWWA show in New Orleans, USA.

National Water Research Institute (NWRI) and AmericanWaste Water Association Research Foundation(AWWARF), 2nd edition. 2003. Ultraviolet DisinfectionGuidelines for Drinking Water and Water Reuse. (FountainValley, California).

NSFI. 2002. ETV Verification Protocol for Secondary Effluentand Water Reuse Disinfection Applications. (Prepared forNSF International and the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency under the EnvironmentalTechnology Verification Program).

US EPA Region IX. 1998. “Water recycling and Reuse: TheEnvironmental Benefits”. EPA Publication, EPA 909-F-98-001.

Table III. Evaluation of dose delivery as a function of # of reactors installed.

Test Date Eff. Flow UVT IDR EO Inactivation # of REDType (MGD) (%) (amps) (test) log (N0/N) Reactors (mJ/cm2)

4/27/2006 MF 2.09 67.9 4.5 0.94 4.049 2 96.62

5/11/2006 MF 1.97 66.4 4.5 0.94 4.102 2 94.53

12/8/2005 GMF 2.00 67.9 4.5 0.90 2.370 1 48.35

OCTOBER 2008 | 33

On the way to environmentally friendly reuse water quality your waste water should pass ITT’s WEDECO TAK UV Disinfection System.

As the last step in the treatment process the WEDECO TAK UV System will ensure the disinfection of up to several 10,000 m³/h wastewater - effectively and efficiently!

Find out more about the benefits of the WEDECO TAK Systems at www.wedeco.com or visit us at the Pollutec, December 2 - 5 2008, booth no. 8 / BT / 133

WEDECO TAK UV System

Safe reuse ofwastewater

Internationally Recognized – accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 Standard (CAEAL)

GAP EnviroMicrobial Services Ltd.Phone: 519-681-0571

Fax: 519-681-7150Email: [email protected]

www.gapenviromic.com

Accurate and Innovative Laboratory Services• Microbial support for UV

reactor validation efforts – bacteriophage and collimated beam analysis

• Pathogen detection

• Microbial Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)

GAP 4101 IUVA Ad:Layout 1 5/1/2008 3:59 PM Page 1

http://www.wedeco.com

http://www.gapenviromic.com

http://www.light-sources.com


�

�

UL TR

AV

IOLET D

ISINFEC

TION

SOLU

TION

S

www.lit-uv.eu

UV LIT EUROPEKerkhofstraat 21, 5554 HG ValkenswaardThe Netherlands

T. +31 (0) 40 224 07 30F. +31 (0) 842 24 68 43E. [email protected]. www.lit-uv.eu

UV LIT EUROPEUV LIT EUROPE

5554 HG ValkenswaardThe Netherlands

Cost effective UV (ultraviolet)disinfection solutions

More than 15 years experience and global competence with UV installations

World leader in ultraviolet (UV) technology

Reliable inactivation of bacteria, viruses and parasites

Lowest operational costs

Easy installation and operation

Fully certified, meeting all international requirements

Robust design

Cost effective UV (ultraviolet)disinfection solutions

More than 15 years experience and global competence with UV installations

World leader in ultraviolet (UV) technology

Reliable inactivation of bacteria, viruses and parasites

Lowest operational costs

Easy installation and operation

Fully certified, meeting all international requirements

Robust design

http://www.cdm.com

http://www.lit-uv.eu

your water.

http://www.trojanuv.com


Our ultraviolet lamps have the power to purify water.

Water is one of the world’s most valuable resources. So to help provide

clean water to areas with shortages, Philips developed a lamp that purifies

water safely by inactivating bacteria

and viruses without using chemicals.

www.philips.com/lighting

S O U R C E S T U D I O

Account / Job title Philips / Ultraviolet Lighting Water Purifier (UK)Order / Job number G051916 / PHB/02/X/00189

Studio number 014604Job location 18th June 2008

Size 297x210mm TrimProof stage FIRST

Run out Page 1Document name 297x210mm T_Ultraviolet Lighting Water Purifier (UK)_014604

Repro house SOURCE

http://www.philips.com/lighting

london crypto - iuvanews.com · water for life. this year, 2008, is the international year of...

Documents