Using Historical LCR and Water Quality Data to Evaluate Corrosion Control Treatment

Bradley, Tyler; Horscroft, Nicola

doi:10.1002/awwa.1143

Cited by 6 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results from both demonstration studies indicate a point of diminishing returns at higher orthophosphate doses. These findings are consistent with lead solubility models shown in Figure 6 as well as other studies that have found diminishing returns for especially above 1.5-2 mg/L as PO 4 in the pH 7-8 range (Bradley & Horscroft, 2018;Cardew, 2009;Schock, 1980;Schock et al, 1996;Schock & Gardels, 1983;Wahman et al, 2021).…”

Section: Comparison Of Orthophosphate Treatment In Coupon and Pipe Ra...supporting

confidence: 92%

“…In addition, the average sulfate and total dissolved solids concentration at Marston was 2 times higher than at Moffat (Table 1). Other studies have also found that blending of treated water from different sources in the drinking water distribution system can increase metals release which may explain the phenomenon observed in this study (Bradley & Horscroft, 2018;Zhang et al, 2018). Because all operational parameters were maintained during this period and this is a normal occurrence, these data were included in the analysis.…”

Section: Lead Release In Ph Adjustment and Orthophosphate Pipe Racksmentioning

confidence: 81%

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: Comparison Of Orthophosphate Treatment In Coupon and Pipe Ra...supporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Lead Release In Ph Adjustment and Orthophosphate Pipe Racksmentioning

confidence: 81%

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

“…WLLs in key concentration ranges for selected utilities and for all utilities in groups 1, 2, and 4 are shown in Table . This type of visualization has been used successfully in other studies to investigate the efficacy of CCT. , 95% of WLLs for group 1 systems are less than or equal to 5 ppb, compared to 81.1% of group 2 systems. Systems in compliance group 1 are likely to have a lower percentage of lead results in the 5–15 ppb range than group 2 systems.…”

Section: Looking Beyond the Lead 90th Percentile Action Levelmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Can Utilities Expect from New Lead Fifth-Liter Sampling Based on Historic First-Draw Data?

Masters¹,

Bradley

Burlingame

et al. 2021

Environ. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The United States Environmental Protection Agency recently released their most sweeping overhaul to the Lead and Copper Rule in three decades. One of the most significant changes is requiring a fifth-liter (L5) sample at homes with lead service lines (LSLs) rather than the original first-liter (L1) sample for a demonstration of compliance with water lead level (WLL) limits. We analyzed sequential sampling data from three large water systems and compliance data from Michigan utilitieswhich base compliance on the 90th percentile of the greater of L1 and L5 samplesto evaluate whether L5 WLLs better represent water in contact with LSLs and to explore regulatory impacts of including L5 samples in compliance monitoring. The sequential sampling data demonstrated that it is impossible to use a single sample volume within a sequential profile to universally capture the volume of water in an LSL. While L5 is not always a reliable indicator of water in contact with an LSL, Michigan compliance data showed that the L5 sample is more likely to be from an LSL and can identify utilities that benefit from an improved corrosion control treatment. Michigan compliance data indicate that it is likely that L5 sampling will result in more systems having a higher 90th percentile WLL and that a high proportion of the systems likely to exceed regulatory action levels based on L5 samples can be identified through a retrospective analysis of historic L1 data. The impact of the switch to L5 sampling on the effectiveness of corrosion control treatment over time has yet to be determined.

show abstract

“…In addition to phosphorous impact on the amount of copper corrosion in the system, increased phosphorous concentrations can promote increased nitrification during periods of stagnation, as phosphorous is a key nutrient for nitrifying bacteria [123]. Some utilities use zinc orthophosphate for corrosion control [125,126] and the combination of zinc and copper at moderate levels may provide increased stability for monochloramine and reduce nitrification levels [123,127,128].…”

Section: Corrosionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nitrification in Premise Plumbing: A Review

Bradley

Haas

Sales

2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nitrification is a major issue that utilities must address if they utilize chloramines as a secondary disinfectant. Nitrification is the oxidation of free ammonia to nitrite which is then further oxidized to nitrate. Free ammonia is found in drinking water systems as a result of overfeeding at the water treatment plant (WTP) or as a result of the decomposition of monochloramine. Premise plumbing systems (i.e., the plumbing systems within buildings and homes) are characterized by irregular usage patterns, high water age, high temperature, and high surface-to-volume ratios. These characteristics create ideal conditions for increased chloramine decay, bacterial growth, and nitrification. This review discusses factors within premise plumbing that are likely to influence nitrification, and vice versa. Factors influencing, or influenced by, nitrification include the rate at which chloramine residual decays, microbial regrowth, corrosion of pipe materials, and water conservation practices. From a regulatory standpoint, the greatest impact of nitrification within premise plumbing is likely to be a result of increased lead levels during Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) sampling. Other drinking water regulations related to nitrifying parameters are monitored in a manner to reduce premise plumbing impacts. One way to potentially control nitrification in premise plumbing systems is through the development of building management plans.

show abstract

Using Historical LCR and Water Quality Data to Evaluate Corrosion Control Treatment

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 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

What Can Utilities Expect from New Lead Fifth-Liter Sampling Based on Historic First-Draw Data?

Nitrification in Premise Plumbing: A Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About