Risk-Based Framework for the Development of Public Health Guidance for Decentralized Non-Potable Water Systems

Sharvelle, Sybil; Ashbolt, Nicholas J.; Clerico, Edward A.; Holquist, Robert; Levernz, Harold; Olivieri, Adam W.

doi:10.2175/193864717822158189

Cited by 36 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…National standards for microbial hazards in harvested rainwater/storm water (1), as well as guidelines for direct potable reuse (2) and nonpotable reuse (3) of municipal wastewater recently accepted in the State of California (4), require specified log reductions in the amounts of enteric viruses, bacteria, and parasitic protozoa. There are significant uncertainties, however, when one is estimating microbial counts, due to matrix effects and associated variable losses with the different processing and data analysis methods used (5–9).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spiked Virus Level Needed To Correctly Assess Enteric Virus Recovery in Water Matrices

Qiu

Pang

et al. 2019

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) identifies human enteric viruses in municipal wastewater as the pathogen group requiring the highest log reductions for various reuse applications. However, the performance of methods for estimating virus concentration is not well understood, and without performance assessment, actual risks are likely severely underestimated. To evaluate the efficiency of virus recovery from water, a water sample is often spiked with “known” amounts of virus, and the virus is then recovered after a series of analytical procedures. Yet for water matrices such as wastewater, due to the unknown background concentrations of targeted viruses in the matrix and the variable recovery efficiency between individual processes, only an approximation of the recovery efficiency may be obtained from such spike-and-recovery experiments. In this study, we demonstrated theoretically that for two widely used approximations, the error in estimating virus recovery should be less than the ratio of the amount of target virus in the background sample to that in the spike. Furthermore, we developed an applicable method, based on this new understanding, for deciding on the amount of virus for spiking before conducting a spike-and-recovery experiment, so that the approximation error is restricted to an acceptable level for each individual process. Finally, we applied the method to a set of experimental data for viruses in wastewater, demonstrating its utility and noting its general applicability to other pathogens or water matrices. IMPORTANCE The performance of procedures for pathogen log reduction is at the heart of new risk-based guidance/regulation globally, yet the methods for undertaking assessments of pathogen recovery are not standardized despite their fundamental impacts on assessing log reductions. Here we describe the level of spiking agent(s) that is necessary to correctly assess spiked pathogen/surrogate recovery with whatever method is deployed. The significance of our research lies in identifying the importance of the amount of spiking agents for reducing uncertainty in recovery estimates, which will allow the development of a recommendation for spiking experiments, proactively applying this understanding.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Spiked Virus Level Needed To Correctly Assess Enteric Virus Recovery in Water Matrices

Qiu

Pang

et al. 2019

Appl Environ Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The purpose here is to introduce PR and to highlight some of the issued involved. Because the body of literature related to PR has increased dramatically, the following reports, all available on the internet, are recommended (Tchobanoglous et al, 2011(Tchobanoglous et al, , 2015Mosher et al, 2016;NWRI, 2016;Sharvelle et al, 2017). It should be noted that the US EPA acknowledged the importance of and highlighted the increased interest in pursuing potable water reuse, in its recently issued 2017 Potable Reuse Compendium (US EPA and CDM Smith, 2017) as a supplement the previously published Guidelines for Water Reuse (US EPA/USAID, 1992; US EPA, 2004, 2012).…”

Section: Potable Reusementioning

confidence: 99%

Water Reuse: From Ancient to Modern Times and the Future

Angelakιs

Asano

Bahri³

et al. 2018

Front. Environ. Sci.

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

From the beginning of the Bronze Age (ca. 3200-1100 BC), domestic wastewater (sewage) has been used for irrigation and aquaculture by a number of civilizations including those that developed in China and the Orient, Egypt, the Indus Valley, Mesopotamia, and Crete. In historic times (ca. 1000 BC−330 AD), wastewater was disposed of or used for irrigation and fertilization purposes by the Greek and later Roman civilizations, especially in areas surrounding important cities (e.g., Athens and Rome). In more recent times, the practice of land application of wastewater for disposal and agricultural use was utilized first in European cities and later in USA. Today, water reclamation and reuse projects are being planned and implemented throughout the world. Recycled water is now used for almost any purpose including potable use. This paper provides a brief overview of the evolution of water reuse over the last 5,000 years, along with current practice and recommendations for the future. Understanding the practices and solutions of the past, provides a lens with which to view the present and future.

show abstract

“…Other components such as pipes (50.8 mm or 2 in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and 38.1 mm or 1.5 in chlorinated PVC), filters, day tank and pressure tank, pumping energy (0.19 kW h/m 3 ), and treatment (bag filter and UV) were consistent with Ghimire et al (2017). Additional treatment processes of chlorination and corrosion inhibitor (orthophosphate) were included as best management practices for non-potable use, as proposed by the Water Environment & Reuse Foundation (Sharvelle et al, 2017).…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Pumping energy intensity (i.e., energy use per unit volume of water) was estimated using simple power equation as described by Ghimire et al (2017). The LCI data from Ghimire et al (2017) was adapted by retrofitting additional treatment trains as best management practices for non-potable use (proposed by the Water Environment & Reuse Foundation (Sharvelle et al, 2017)) and by modifying input amounts according to system size (Eq. 5).…”

Section: Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Life cycle assessment of a rainwater harvesting system compared with an AC condensate harvesting system

Ghimire

Johnston

Garland

et al. 2019

Resources, Conservation and Recycling

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study presents a life cycle assessment (LCA) of a rainwater harvesting (RWH) system and an air-conditioning condensate harvesting (ACH) system for non-potable water reuse. U.S. commercial buildings were reviewed to design rooftop RWH and ACH systems for one to multi-story buildings’ non-potable water demand. A life cycle inventory was compiled from the U.S. EPA’s database. Nine scenarios were analyzed, including baseline RWH system, ACH system, and combinations of the two systems adapted to 4-story and 19-story commercial buildings in San Francisco and a 4-story building in Washington, DC. Normalization of 11 life cycle impact assessment categories showed that RWH systems in 4-story buildings at both locations outperformed ACH systems (45–80% of ACH impacts) except equivalent in Evaporative Water Consumption. However, San Francisco’s ACH system in 19-story building outperformed the RWH system (51–83% of RWH impacts) due to the larger volume of ACH collection, except equivalent in Evaporative Water Consumption. For all three buildings, the combined system preformed equivalently to the better-performing option (≤4–8% impact difference compared to the maximum system). Sensitivity analysis of the volume of water supply and building occupancy showed impact-specific results. Local climatic conditions, rainfall, humidity, water collections and demands are important when designing building-scale RWH and ACH systems. LCA models are transferrable to other locations with variable climatic conditions for decision-making when developing and implementing on-site non-potable water systems.

show abstract

Risk-Based Framework for the Development of Public Health Guidance for Decentralized Non-Potable Water Systems

Cited by 36 publications

References 0 publications

Spiked Virus Level Needed To Correctly Assess Enteric Virus Recovery in Water Matrices

Spiked Virus Level Needed To Correctly Assess Enteric Virus Recovery in Water Matrices

Water Reuse: From Ancient to Modern Times and the Future

Life cycle assessment of a rainwater harvesting system compared with an AC condensate harvesting system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About