Subscriber access provided by UNIV OF SOUTHERN INDIANA
Environmental Processes
Impact of different combinations of water treatment processes on the concentration of disinfection byproducts and their precursors in swimming pool water Bertram Skibinski, Stephan Uhlig, Pascal Müller, Irene Slavik, and Wolfgang Uhl Environ. Sci. Technol., Just Accepted Manuscript • DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.9b00491 • Publication Date (Web): 10 Jun 2019 Downloaded from http://pubs.acs.org on June 10, 2019
Just Accepted “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. They are posted online prior to technical editing, formatting for publication and author proofing. The American Chemical Society provides “Just Accepted” as a service to the research community to expedite the dissemination of scientific material as soon as possible after acceptance. “Just Accepted” manuscripts appear in full in PDF format accompanied by an HTML abstract. “Just Accepted” manuscripts have been fully peer reviewed, but should not be considered the official version of record. They are citable by the Digital Object Identifier (DOI®). “Just Accepted” is an optional service offered to authors. Therefore, the “Just Accepted” Web site may not include all articles that will be published in the journal. After a manuscript is technically edited and formatted, it will be removed from the “Just Accepted” Web site and published as an ASAP article. Note that technical editing may introduce minor changes to the manuscript text and/or graphics which could affect content, and all legal disclaimers and ethical guidelines that apply to the journal pertain. ACS cannot be held responsible for errors or consequences arising from the use of information contained in these “Just Accepted” manuscripts.
is published by the American Chemical Society. 1155 Sixteenth Street N.W., Washington, DC 20036 Published by American Chemical Society. Copyright © American Chemical Society. However, no copyright claim is made to original U.S. Government works, or works produced by employees of any Commonwealth realm Crown government in the course of their duties.
Page 1 of 47
Environmental Science & Technology
1
IMPACT OF DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF WATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
2
ON THE CONCENTRATION OF DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS AND THEIR
3
PRECURSORS IN SWIMMING POOL WATER
4 5
Bertram Skibinski,1,2* Stephan Uhlig,2 Pascal Müller,2 Irene Slavik,2,3 Wolfgang
6
Uhl,2,4,5,*
7
1
8
Germany.
9
2
Technische Universität Dresden, Chair of Water Supply Engineering, 01062 Dresden, Germany.
10
3
Wahnbachtalsperrenverband, 53721 Siegburg, Germany
11
4
Norwegian Institute for Water Research (NIVA), 0349 Oslo, Norway.
12
5
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Institute of Civil and Environmental
13
Technical University of Munich, Chair of Urban Water Systems Engineering, 85748 Garching,
Engineering, 7491 Trondheim, Norway.
14 15 16
* Corresponding authors. E-mail addresses:
17
[email protected] (Bertram Skibinski)
18
[email protected] (Wolfgang Uhl)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Keywords: swimming pool water treatment, disinfection by-products (DBPs),
32
activated carbon, ultrafiltration, UV radiation
33 34
Type of article: Research Paper
1 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
35
ABSTRACT
36
To mitigate microbial activity in swimming pools and to assure hygienic safety for
37
bathers, pool systems have a re-circulating water system ensuring continuous water
38
treatment and disinfection by chlorination. A major drawback associated with the use
39
of chlorine as disinfectant is its potential to react with precursor substances present in
40
pool water to form harmful disinfection by-products (DBPs). In this study, different
41
combinations of conventional and advanced treatment processes were applied to
42
lower the concentration of DBPs and their precursors in pool water by using a pilot-
43
scale swimming pool model operated under reproducible and fully-controlled
44
conditions. The quality of the pool water was determined after stationary
45
concentrations of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) were reached. The relative removal
46
of DOC (Δc cin–1) across the considered treatment trains ranged between 0.1 ± 2.9%
47
and 7.70 ± 4.5%, where conventional water treatment (coagulation and sand filtration
48
combined with granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration) was revealed to be the most
49
effective. Microbial processes in the deeper, chlorine-free regions of the GAC filter
50
have been found to play an important role in the degradation of organic substances.
51
Almost all treatment combinations were capable of removing trihalomethanes to some
52
degree, and trichloramine and dichloroacetonitrile almost completely. However, the
53
results demonstrated that effective removal of DBPs across the treatment train does
54
not necessarily result in low DBP concentrations in the basin of a pool. This raises the
55
importance of the DBP formation potential of the organic precursors, which has been
56
shown to depend strongly on the treatment concept applied. Irrespective of the filtration
57
technique employed, treatment combinations employing UV irradiation as a second
58
treatment step revealed higher concentrations of volatile DBPs in the pool compared
59
to those employing GAC filtration as a second treatment step. In the particular case of
2 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 2 of 47
Page 3 of 47
Environmental Science & Technology
60
trichloramine, results confirm that its removal across the treatment train is not a feasible
61
mitigation strategy since it cannot compensate for the fast formation in the basin.
3 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
62
1
Introduction
63
By their nature, people release microorganisms as well as organic and inorganic matter
64
into swimming pool water while bathing (1, 2). In order to avoid microbiological
65
contamination and to prevent spreading of pathogenic diseases among bathers, most
66
pool waters are disinfected using chlorine-based disinfectants (3). However, the
67
pollutants released by the bathers, as well as natural organic matter (NOM) present in
68
the filling water of swimming pools, react with chlorine, leading to the formation of a
69
variety of harmful disinfection by-products (DBPs) that are characterised as eye- and
70
skin-irritating, carcinogenic or as triggers of respiratory problems (4, 5). Many previous
71
studies have dealt with the occurrence and formation of DBPs in swimming pool water
72
(6, 7). More than 100 DBPs have been identified in swimming pool water (8), with
73
trihalomethanes (THMs), halogenated acetic acids (HAAs), chloramines (CAs) and
74
haloacetonitriles being the most studied examples (9, 10). To ensure efficient
75
disinfection while having a minimal concentration of DBPs in the pool, swimming pool
76
water is continuously circulated over a treatment train that consists of different
77
consecutive treatment steps (3).
78
Besides conventional water treatment processes, such as coagulation, sand filtration
79
or granular activated carbon (GAC) filtration, advanced processes, such as membrane
80
filtration (micro- (MF) or ultrafiltration (UF)) or UV irradiation are increasingly used for
81
pool water treatment (9, 11, 12). Yet, only a few studies have determined the impact
82
of membrane filtration and UV irradiation on the water quality in pools (9, 13-18). The
83
few results reported are barely comparable with each other. Major concerns for
84
comparability arise due to the different operating conditions of the swimming pool
85
systems tested. This includes, for instance, differences in bather loading, filling water
86
quality, concentration of free chlorine, pH, chlorine/precursor ratio and water
87
temperature (1, 2, 7, 19). 4 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 4 of 47
Page 5 of 47
Environmental Science & Technology
88
Only Judd et al. and Goeres et al. established a swimming pool system that allowed
89
pool operations on a comparable basis (20, 21). However, Goeres et al. focused their
90
work on biofilm formation and did not investigate further the removal efficiencies of
91
different treatment processes. Judd et al. compared different swimming pool water
92
treatment processes under controlled conditions using a pilot-scale swimming pool
93
model, but the number of different treatment combinations that they compared was
94
insufficient to get a full picture of the various treatment combinations typically used in
95
swimming pools. Further, assessment of the water quality was limited to a small
96
selection of DBPs (22), not taking into account other relevant nitrogenous DBPs such
97
as trichloramine, dichloroacetonitrile and trichloronitromethane.
98
Given the current state of knowledge, the main objective of this study was to assess
99
and compare the impact of a high number of treatment combinations with regard to the
100
concentration and composition of organic substances and DBPs present in swimming
101
pool water. Treatment combinations included advanced processes such as
102
coagulation, powdered activated carbon adsorption, ultrafiltration (UF) and UV
103
irradiation as well as conventional processes such as coagulation, sand filtration and
104
GAC filtration. In order to guarantee comparability of the results, the treatment
105
combinations were assessed and compared under fully controlled and reproducible
106
conditions using a pilot-scale swimming pool system.
5 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
107
2
Materials and Methods
108
2.1
Pilot-scale swimming pool model
109
2.1.1 Components
110
A pilot-scale swimming pool model (Figure 1) was established to assess the impact of
111
different combinations of treatment processes on organic matter and DBPs present in
112
pool water. Table 1 summarises the operating conditions of the pool model, which
113
consisted of a basin with spillway and air space, a stirred (~200 rpm), double-walled
114
and temperature-controlled splash water tank and a modular water treatment train. A
115
pump P1 (CRNE1-7, Grundfos) took water from the splash water tank and fed it at a
116
turnover water flow rate of 0.57 m³ h–1 over the treatment train back into the basin
117
through 48 evenly distributed nozzles at the bottom of the pool.
118
To assure a residence time in the basin of the swimming pool model that is equal to
119
that of real-scale pools, the turnover water flow rate was calculated according to the
120
German pool water standard DIN 19643 (assuming the pool being only used for
121
swimming (e.g. no paddling of pool)) (3). The modular treatment train of the swimming
122
pool model consisted of conventional and advanced treatment processes, which are
123
described in detail in Section 2.1.3. Two ventilators (V1, V2) fed air into the air space
124
above the basin over a perforated flow channel near the spillway. The ratio between
125
recirculated air (V1) and fresh air (V2) was controlled by orifice plates to maintain a
126
constant absolute humidity of 11–14 g kgair–1 1.5 m above the water level. The air was
127
heated by two inline heating coils. All dimensions and flow rates of the pool model were
128
chosen according to German swimming pool standards (3).
6 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Page 6 of 47
Page 7 of 47
Environmental Science & Technology
129 130
Figure 1: Flow scheme of the swimming pool model. Red arrows indicate discontinuous sampling ports (SPs) and continuous sampling port (CSP).
131 132 133
Table 1:
Dimensions and operating conditions of the swimming pool model.
Parameter
Value
Volume of the basin (L x W x D: 1.6 x 0.8 x 2.1 m)
2.69 m³
Volume of the splash water tank
0.17 m³
Recirculation flow rate
0.57 m³ h–1
Fresh water input
8.5 L h–1
Hydraulic retention time in the basin in single pass operationa
4.7 h
Hydraulic retention time in the systemb
14.2 d
Free chlorine conc. (at 0.12 m depth)c
0.54 ± 0.13 mg L–1 (as Cl2)
pH (at 0.12 m depth)c
7.08 ± 0.14
Water temperature (at 0.12 m depth)c
28.0 ± 0.4 °C
Air temperature (1.5 m above the water level)c
27.2 ± 2.2 °C
Humidity in the air hut (1.5 m above the water level)
11 - 14 g kgair–1
134
a respecting
a circulation flow of 0.57 m³ h-1 and a volume of the basin of 2.69 m³
135
b respecting
a fresh water flow of 8.5 L h-1 and a total water volume in the pool system of ~2.9 m³
136
c
Errors represent the standard deviation ( n = 712). Data shown in Section A of the supplementary material (SM).
7 ACS Paragon Plus Environment
Environmental Science & Technology
137 138 139
2.1.2
Dosing of fresh water and bather load
140
Fresh water was fed at 8.5 L h–1 into the splash water tank for the purpose of dilution.
141
This amount was calculated using the maximum permitted bather loading of the pool
142
model (~0.28 bather h–1) and a fresh water flow rate of 30 L per bather (3). A constant
143
water volume was maintained by discharging the same amount of pool water by a
144
peristaltic pump P2 (503S, Watson Marlow). To ensure fully controlled conditions, the
145
local tap water used as fresh water was pre-treated by GAC filtration leading to a DOC
146
of
