Drinking water treatment efficiency

From Opasnet
Revision as of 13:56, 23 March 2020 by Päivi Meriläinen (talk | contribs) (Data: added sapovirus)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search


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


+ Show code



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 works well
Enhanced coagulation
Sand filtration
Limestone filtration
Active carbon filtration
Drinking water treatment efficiency(log-decrease)
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
30NoneE.coli O157:H7Logdecrease0


+ 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


  1. 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. 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
VipuvoimaaEU rgb1.jpg Eakr logo fi.png