Lead pipe and<scp>lead–tin</scp>solder scale formation and structure: A conceptual model

Snoeyink, Vernon L.; Tang, Min; Lytle, Darren A.

doi:10.1002/aws2.1246

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Specifically, the mean lead concentrations dropped by 45% and 60% in Marston and Moffat pH 8.8 loops, respectively, compared to the pre‐treatment conditions ( p < .0001). The decrease in lead levels for the high pH treatment can be attributed to the lower solubility of the lead carbonate species at high pH, as discussed by Schock et al (1996) or a change in scale structure, such as decreased scale porosity (Snoeyink et al, 2021).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…One of the LSLs on each rack was segmented to allow portions of the LSL to be removed and destructively analyzed for elemental and scale composition. Results from the pipe scale analysis have been reported by Snoeyink et al (2021) but are discussed in more detail in this study. Additional details about the scale analysis methods and results can be found in Appendix S1.…”

Section: Pipe Rack Setup and Operationmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of coupon and pipe rack studies for selecting corrosion control treatment

Masters

Poncelet‐Johnson²,

Walsh³

et al. 2022

AWWA Water Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study directly compared the data obtained from coupon studies and flow‐through pipe rack studies from two sources in the Denver Water system. The pipe rack study was completed over multiple years using harvested lead service lines. The coupon studies were completed in about 2 months using pure lead coupons. Orthophosphate at 2 mg/L was found to reduce lead concentrations by about 81% in the pipe racks, whereas 74%–81% was observed in the coupons. At an orthophosphate dose of 1 mg/L lead concentrations were reduced by 62%–65% in the pipe loop and by 55%–75% in the coupons, pH at 8.8 reduced lead by 45%–60% in the pipe racks and by 27%–48% in the coupons. The pipe racks were able to give insights into the transition from one condition to another, which is time‐based and dependent on existing pipe scales. Both types of demonstration studies produced similar conclusions about treatment options. The pipe rack was more representative of conditions in the distribution system while the coupon studies were performed in a fraction of the time.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Pipe Rack Setup and Operationmentioning

confidence: 91%

Comparison of coupon and pipe rack studies for selecting corrosion control treatment

Masters

Poncelet‐Johnson²,

Walsh³

et al. 2022

AWWA Water Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By comparison, PFAS are present at concentration orders of magnitude lower than IAs and are much more selective (e.g., K PFOA/C = 10 4. 36 ), 39 so it is expected that PFAS of interest (such as PFOA) will break through much later than IAs. In fact, studies have reported a breakthrough in the 10 6 BVs range for PFOA in groundwater on PFA694E.…”

Section: Batch Competitive Isotherm Experiment a Competitive Ie (Ie-a...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Changes in source water quality brought about gradually (e.g., seasonal changes) or rapidly (e.g., alternating source inputs) could likewise lead to temporal effluent water quality changes. Water quality shifts may impact the distribution system where (i) stable alkalinity and pH are typically desired − and (ii) chloride, sulfate, and bicarbonate concentrations affect corrosion potential as indicated by the Larson ratio (LR) for iron-based pipes (e.g., LR >0.8 is shown to increase iron release) − and the chloride-to-sulfate mass ratio (CSMR) for galvanic corrosion (e.g., CSMR >0.5 is shown to increase lead release). ,− Therefore, it is important to understand transient water quality to minimize potential unintended consequences when implementing SB-AEX for PFAS removal, and the development of an ion exchange column model (IEX-CM) to simulate effluent IA and PFAS concentrations would be beneficial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anion Exchange Resin and Inorganic Anion Parameter Determination for Model Validation and Evaluation of Unintended Consequences during PFAS Treatment

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When implementing anion exchange (AEX) for perand polyfluoroalkyl substances treatment, temporal drinking water quality changes from concurrent inorganic anion (IA) removal can create unintended consequences (e.g., corrosion control impacts). To understand potential effects, four drinking water-relevant IAs (bicarbonate, chloride, sulfate, and nitrate) and three gel-type, strong-base AEX resins were evaluated. Batch binary isotherm experiments provided estimates of IA selectivity with respect to chloride (K x/C ) for IA/resin combinations where bicarbonate < sulfate ≤ nitrate at studied conditions. A multi-IA batch experiment demonstrated that binary isotherm-determined K x/C values predicted competitive behavior. Subsequent column experiments with and without natural organic matter (NOM) allowed for the validation of a new ion exchange column model (IEX-CM; https://github.com/USEPA/Water_Treatment_Models). IA breakthrough was well-simulated using binary isotherm-determined K x/C values and was minimally impacted by NOM. Initial AEX effluent water quality changes with corrosion implications included increased chloride and decreased sulfate and bicarbonate concentrations, resulting in elevated chloride-to-sulfate mass ratios (CSMRs) and Larson ratios (LRs) and depressed pH until the complete breakthrough of the relevant IA(s). IEX-CM utility was further illustrated by simulating the treatment of low-IA source water and a change in the source water to understand the resulting duration of changes in IAs and water quality parameters.

show abstract

“…The main lead source in a lead pipe is the pipe itself. Besides lead-manufactured pipes, another source of lead in non-lead pipe systems are brass fixtures and lead-solder connections [41][42][43][44][45]. These fittings represent discrete sources of lead that may give rise to significant lead concentrations in drinking water.…”

Section: Materials Used To Manufacture Drinking Water Distribution Pi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Behavior of Polymeric Pipes in Drinking Water Distribution System—Comparison with Other Pipe Materials

Stefan,

Bosomoiu,

Teodorescu

2023

Polymers

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The inner walls of the drinking water distribution system (DWDS) are expected to be clean to ensure a safe quality of drinking water. Complex physical, chemical, and biological processes take place when water comes into contact with the pipe surface. This paper describes the impact of leaching different compounds from the water supply pipes into drinking water and subsequent risks. Among these compounds, there are heavy metals. It is necessary to prevent these metals from getting into the DWDS. Those compounds are susceptible to impacting the quality of the water delivered to the population either by leaching dangerous chemicals into water or by enhancing the development of microorganism growth on the pipe surface. The corrosion process of different pipe materials, scale formation mechanisms, and the impact of bacteria formed in corrosion layers are discussed. Water treatment processes and the pipe materials also affect the water composition. Pipe materials act differently in the flowing and stagnation conditions. Moreover, they age differently (e.g., metal-based pipes are subjected to corrosion while polymer-based pipes have a decreased mechanical resistance) and are susceptible to enhanced bacterial film formation. Water distribution pipes are a dynamic environment, therefore, the models that are used must consider the changes that occur over time. Mathematical modeling of the leaching process is complex and includes the description of corrosion development over time, correlated with a model for the biofilm formation and the disinfectants–corrosion products and disinfectants–biofilm interactions. The models used for these processes range from simple longitudinal dispersion models to Monte Carlo simulations and 3D modeling. This review helps to clarify what are the possible sources of compounds responsible for drinking water quality degradation. Additionally, it gives guidance on the measures that are needed to maintain stable and safe drinking water quality.

show abstract

Lead pipe andlead–tinsolder scale formation and structure: A conceptual model

Cited by 5 publications

References 23 publications

Comparison of coupon and pipe rack studies for selecting corrosion control treatment

Comparison of coupon and pipe rack studies for selecting corrosion control treatment

Anion Exchange Resin and Inorganic Anion Parameter Determination for Model Validation and Evaluation of Unintended Consequences during PFAS Treatment

The Behavior of Polymeric Pipes in Drinking Water Distribution System—Comparison with Other Pipe Materials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About