Drinking water treatment efficiency: Difference between revisions

From Opasnet
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
Line 35: Line 35:
| Giardia
| Giardia
|----
|----
|Traditional cleaning
| Coagulation and flotation
|colspan="6"| <ref name="hijnen">Hijnen, W. A. and Medema, G. (2007). Elimination of micro‐organisms by water treatment processes, KWR Watercycle Research Institute.</ref>
|<ref name="honka"/>
|----
|<ref name="honka">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 [https://doi.org/10.3390/w10111525]<ref/>  
| Well working cleaning
|<ref name="honka"/>
|colspan="6"| <ref name="hijnen"/>
|<ref name="honka"/>
|----
|<ref name="honka"/>
| Enhanced cleaning
|
|colspan="6"| <ref name="abbas">Abbaszadegan, M., Mayer, B. K., Ryu, H. and Nwachuku, N. (2007). "Efficacy of removal of CCL viruses under enhanced coagulation conditions." Environ Sci Technol 41(3): 971‐7.</ref>
|----
|----
| Slow sand filtration
| Slow sand filtration
Line 86: Line 85:


<t2b index = "TreatmentMethod,Pathogen,Unit" unit = "log-decrease">
<t2b index = "TreatmentMethod,Pathogen,Unit" unit = "log-decrease">
Traditional cleaning|campylobacter|Logdecrease|2.1
Coagulation and flotation|campylobacter|Logdecrease|1.5(0.6-3.7)
Traditional cleaning|E.coli O157:H7|Logdecrease|2.1
Coagulation and flotation|E.coli O157:H7|Logdecrease|2.46(1.88-3.14)
Traditional cleaning|rotavirus|Logdecrease|3
Coagulation and flotation|rotavirus|Logdecrease|3.99(2.57-5.19)
Traditional cleaning|norovirus|Logdecrease|3
Coagulation and flotation|norovirus|Logdecrease|3.99(2.57-5.19)
Traditional cleaning|cryptosporidium|Logdecrease|3.2
Coagulation and flotation|cryptosporidium|Logdecrease|1.5(0.6-3.7)
Traditional cleaning|giardia|Logdecrease|3.4
Coagulation and flotation|giardia|Logdecrease|3.4
Well working cleaning|campylobacter|Logdecrease|1
Well working cleaning|E.coli O157:H7|Logdecrease|1
Well working cleaning|rotavirus|Logdecrease|1.2
Well working cleaning|norovirus|Logdecrease|1.2
Well working cleaning|cryptosporidium|Logdecrease|1.4
Well working cleaning|giardia|Logdecrease|2.1
Enhanced cleaning|campylobacter|Logdecrease|3
Enhanced cleaning|E.coli O157:H7|Logdecrease|3
Enhanced cleaning|rotavirus|Logdecrease|4
Enhanced cleaning|norovirus|Logdecrease|4
Enhanced cleaning|cryptosporidium|Logdecrease|4.2
Enhanced cleaning|giardia|Logdecrease|4.4
Slow sand filtration|campylobacter|Logdecrease|2.7
Slow sand filtration|campylobacter|Logdecrease|2.7
Slow sand filtration|E.coli O157:H7|Logdecrease|2.7
Slow sand filtration|E.coli O157:H7|Logdecrease|2.7

Revision as of 10:37, 20 September 2019


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 Cryptosporidium Giardia
Coagulation and flotation [1] Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag [2]


Water treatment processes

Coagulation/Flotation
Coagulation works well
Enhanced coagulation
Sand filtration
Limestone filtration
Active carbon filtration
Drinking water treatment efficiency: Difference between revisions(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 flotationcryptosporidiumLogdecrease1.5(0.6-3.7)
6Coagulation and flotationgiardiaLogdecrease3.4
7Slow sand filtrationcampylobacterLogdecrease2.7
8Slow sand filtrationE.coli O157:H7Logdecrease2.7
9Slow sand filtrationrotavirusLogdecrease2.2
10Slow sand filtrationnorovirusLogdecrease2.2
11Slow sand filtrationcryptosporidiumLogdecrease4.8
12Slow sand filtrationgiardiaLogdecrease4.9
13Limestone filtrationcampylobacterLogdecrease0
14Limestone filtrationE.coli O157:H7Logdecrease0
15Limestone filtrationrotavirusLogdecrease0
16Limestone filtrationnorovirusLogdecrease0
17Limestone filtrationcryptosporidiumLogdecrease0
18Limestone filtrationgiardiaLogdecrease0
19Active carbon filtrationcampylobacterLogdecrease0
20Active carbon filtrationE.coli O157:H7Logdecrease0
21Active carbon filtrationrotavirusLogdecrease0
22Active carbon filtrationnorovirusLogdecrease0
23Active carbon filtrationcryptosporidiumLogdecrease1.1
24Active carbon filtrationgiardiaLogdecrease2
25NonecampylobacterLogdecrease0
26NoneE.coli O157:H7Logdecrease0
27NonerotavirusLogdecrease0
28NonenorovirusLogdecrease0
29NonecryptosporidiumLogdecrease0
30NonegiardiaLogdecrease0

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. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named honka
  2. 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