Drinking water treatment efficiency

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Question

How efficient is microbiological treatment (reported as log-decrease) as used in most common Finnish water treatment processes?

Answer

+ Show code

Rationale

Data

Microbiological cleansing as log-decrese
Water treatment method Pathogen
Campylobacteri E.coli O157:H7 Rotavirus Norovirus Sapovirus Cryptosporidium Giardia
Coagulation and flotation [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] [1]
Slow sand filtration [2]
Limestone filtration 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Active carbon filtration 0 0 0 0 0 [3] [3]


Water treatment processes

Coagulation/Flotation
Coagulation works well
Enhanced coagulation
Sand filtration
Limestone filtration
Active carbon filtration
Drinking water treatment efficiency(log-decrease)
ObsTreatmentMethodPathogenUnitResult
1Coagulation and flotationcampylobacterLogdecrease1.5(0.6-3.7)
2Coagulation and flotationE.coli O157:H7Logdecrease2.46(1.88-3.14)
3Coagulation and flotationrotavirusLogdecrease3.99(2.57-5.19)
4Coagulation and flotationnorovirusLogdecrease3.99(2.57-5.19)
5Coagulation and flotationsapovirusLogdecrease3.99(2.57-5.19)
6Coagulation and flotationcryptosporidiumLogdecrease1.5(0.6-3.7)
7Coagulation and flotationgiardiaLogdecrease3.4
8Slow sand filtrationcampylobacterLogdecrease2.7
9Slow sand filtrationE.coli O157:H7Logdecrease2.7
10Slow sand filtrationrotavirusLogdecrease2.2
11Slow sand filtrationnorovirusLogdecrease2.2
12Slow sand filtrationsapovirusLogdecrease2.2
13Slow sand filtrationcryptosporidiumLogdecrease4.8
14Slow sand filtrationgiardiaLogdecrease4.9
15Limestone filtrationcampylobacterLogdecrease0
16Limestone filtrationE.coli O157:H7Logdecrease0
17Limestone filtrationrotavirusLogdecrease0
18Limestone filtrationnorovirusLogdecrease0
19Limestone filtrationsapovirusLogdecrease0
20Limestone filtrationcryptosporidiumLogdecrease0
21Limestone filtrationgiardiaLogdecrease0
22Active carbon filtrationcampylobacterLogdecrease0
23Active carbon filtrationE.coli O157:H7Logdecrease0
24Active carbon filtrationrotavirusLogdecrease0
25Active carbon filtrationnorovirusLogdecrease0
26Active carbon filtrationsapovirusLogdecrease0
27Active carbon filtrationcryptosporidiumLogdecrease1.1
28Active carbon filtrationgiardiaLogdecrease2
29NonecampylobacterLogdecrease0
30NoneE.coli O157:H7Logdecrease0
31NonerotavirusLogdecrease0
32NonenorovirusLogdecrease0
33NonesapovirusLogdecrease0
34NonecryptosporidiumLogdecrease0
35NonegiardiaLogdecrease0

Calculations

+ Show code

Saves the data on the page

+ Show code

Cuts the data form the page to only include chosen treatment methods.

+ Show code

See also

References

  1. Jump up to: 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 Anna-Maria Hokajärvi, Tarja Pitkänen, Päivi Meriläinen, Ari Kauppinen, Ville Matikka, Sara Kovanen, Asko Vepsäläinen and Ilkka T. Miettinen 2018. Determination of Removal Efficiencies forEscherichia coli, Clostridial Spores, and F-SpecificColiphages in Unit Processes of Surface Waterworksfor QMRA Applications. Water 2018, 10(11), 1525 [1]
  2. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named hijnen
  3. Jump up to: 3.0 3.1 Hijnen, W. A., Suylen, G. M. H., Bahlman, J. A., Brouwer‐Hanzens, A. and Medema, G. J. (2010). "GAC adsorption filters as barriers for viruses, bacteria and protozoan (oo)cysts in water treatment." Water research 44: 1224‐123