You are on page 1of 464

Occurrence of Manganese

in Drinking Water
and Manganese Control

Subject Area:
High-Quality Water
Occurrence of Manganese
in Drinking Water
and Manganese Control

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


About the Awwa Research Foundation
The Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF) is a member-supported, international, nonprot organization
that sponsors research to enable water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionals to provide
safe and affordable drinking water to consumers.

The Foundations mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To achieve
this mission, the Foundation sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including supply and
resources, treatment, monitoring and analysis, distribution, management, and health effects. Funding
for research is provided primarily by subscription payments from approximately 1,000 utilities, consulting
rms, and manufacturers in North America and abroad. Additional funding comes from collaborative
partnerships with other national and international organizations, allowing for resources to be leveraged,
expertise to be shared, and broad-based knowledge to be developed and disseminated. Government
funding serves as a third source of research dollars.

From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, the Foundations staff directs and supports the efforts of
more than 800 volunteers who serve on the board of trustees and various committees. These volunteers
represent many facets of the water industry, and contribute their expertise to select and monitor research
studies that benet the entire drinking water community.

The results of research are disseminated through a number of channels, including reports, the Web site,
conferences, and periodicals.

For subscribers, the Foundation serves as a cooperative program in which water suppliers unite to pool
their resources. By applying Foundation research ndings, these water suppliers can save substantial
costs and stay on the leading edge of drinking water science and technology. Since its inception, AwwaRF
has supplied the water community with more than $300 million in applied research.

More information about the Foundation and how to become a subscriber is available on the Web
at www.awwarf.org.

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Occurrence of Manganese
in Drinking Water
and Manganese Control

Prepared by:
Paul M. Kohl
Philadelphia Water Department, Philadelphia, PA 19107
and
Steven J. Medlar
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM), Philadelphia, PA 19102

Jointly sponsored by:


Awwa Research Foundation
6666 West Quincy Avenue, Denver, CO 80235-3098
and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington D.C.

Published by:

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


DISCLAIMER

This study was jointly funded by the Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) under Cooperative Agreement No. R-82940901. AwwaRF and USEPA assume no responsibility
for the content of the research study reported in this publication or for the opinions or statements of fact expressed
in the report. The mention of trade names for commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or
endorsement of AwwaRF or USEPA. This report is presented solely for informational purposes.

Copyright 2006
by Awwa Research Foundation

All Rights Reserved

Printed in the U.S.A.

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


CONTENTS
TABLES ................................................................................................................................ ix

FIGURES............................................................................................................................... xi

FOREWORD ......................................................................................................................... xv

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..................................................................................................... xvii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... xix

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1


Overview of the Project ............................................................................................. 1
Research Tasks............................................................................................... 1
Highlights of This Reports Organization...................................................... 2
Brief Background on Manganese in Drinking Water ................................................ 3
Overview of Manganese Chemistry and Treatment ...................................... 3
The Problem with Manganese ....................................................................... 4
Regulatory Considerations for Mn................................................................. 4
Overview and Purpose of Research Tasks................................................................. 5
Initial Surveys ................................................................................................ 5
Detailed Surveys ............................................................................................ 6
Distribution System Occurrence Sampling.................................................... 7
Case Study I: Pilot-Scale Research................................................................ 8
Case Study II: Full-Scale WTP Research ...................................................... 8
Cost Analysis ................................................................................................. 9

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................ 11


Introduction................................................................................................................ 11
The Problem: Reduction in Drinking Water Quality................................................. 12
Regulatory Background ............................................................................................. 13
Regulation of Mn in Drinking Water............................................................. 13
Non-Drinking-Water Regulation of Mn ........................................................ 14
Health Effects............................................................................................................. 16
Absorption and Pharmacokinetics ................................................................. 16
Acute, Sub-Chronic, and Chronic Toxicity ................................................... 17
Central Nervous System Toxicity.................................................................. 18
Epidemiological Studies ................................................................................ 19
Essentiality..................................................................................................... 19
Chemistry................................................................................................................... 20
Biochemical Phenomena................................................................................ 23
Speciation....................................................................................................... 24
Analytical Techniques ............................................................................................... 26
Treatment and Removal Technology......................................................................... 28
In Situ Treatment ........................................................................................... 29
Biological Treatment ..................................................................................... 31
Chemical Oxidation Followed by Physical Separation ................................. 33
Oxide-Coated Media...................................................................................... 40
v

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Physical Separation........................................................................................ 43
Ion Exchange ................................................................................................. 46
Incidental Precipitation .................................................................................. 46
Sequestering Agents....................................................................................... 46
Miscellaneous Issues Regarding Treatment Technologies ............................ 47

CHAPTER 3 METHODS AND MATERIALS .................................................................... 49


Literature Review....................................................................................................... 49
Initial Surveys ............................................................................................................ 49
Identifying Potential Survey Utilities ............................................................ 49
Initial Survey Instrument ............................................................................... 51
Miscellaneous Considerations ....................................................................... 51
Analysis of Initial Survey Data...................................................................... 52
Detailed Surveys ........................................................................................................ 52
Selecting Utilities for Detailed Surveys......................................................... 52
Detailed Survey Instrument ........................................................................... 52
Distribution System Occurrence Sampling................................................................ 53
Purpose of Sampling ...................................................................................... 53
Selection of Utilities ...................................................................................... 53
Sampling Methodology.................................................................................. 54
General WQ Parameters Sampling and Analysis .......................................... 55
Metals Sample Collection .............................................................................. 55
Metals Analysis.............................................................................................. 57
Comments on Handling of Non-Detect (ND) Data Values (aka the Playbook) 58
Case Study I: Pilot-Scale Research for Manganese Control...................................... 59
Purpose of Pilot Testing................................................................................. 59
Case Study Objectives ................................................................................... 59
Pilot Plant Description and Standard Operating Procedures ......................... 60
Case Study II: Comparison of Anthracite and GAC filters for Manganese Removal
in a Full-Scale WTP...................................................................................... 62
Cost Model................................................................................................................. 63
Consumer Benefit .......................................................................................... 63
Utility Costs ................................................................................................... 65
Basic Assumptions......................................................................................... 65
References for the Cost Model ...................................................................... 66

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION...................................................................... 67


Initial Surveys ............................................................................................................ 67
Demographics of Utilities Participating in Initial Survey.............................. 68
Self-Reported Mn Concentrations ................................................................. 71
Utility Responses to Other Questions in Initial Surveys ............................... 75
Detailed Surveys ........................................................................................................ 77
Demographics of Utilities Participating in Detailed Surveys ........................ 78
Self-Reported Water Quality and Mn Concentration Data............................ 80
Customer Complaint Tracking and Assessment ............................................ 92
Seasonal Distribution System Occurrence Sampling ................................................ 93
Overall Findings............................................................................................. 93
Introduction.................................................................................................... 94

vi

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Distribution System Seasonal Sampling Results ........................................... 95
Distribution System Seasonal Sampling Correlation Analysis...................... 106
Case Study I: Pilot-Scale Research for Manganese Control...................................... 118
Background .................................................................................................... 118
IOCME Mn Control....................................................................................... 119
The Ability of an OCM Filter (IOCME) to Control Mn after Loss of Chlorine 123
Mn Migration in an OCM Filter Media ......................................................... 135
Using Percent Removal to Analyze Case Study I Data ................................. 136
Control of Mn with pH .................................................................................. 136
Control of Oxidized Mn (via Ozone) with pH............................................... 137
EH as Predictive Tool for Reduction of Mn ................................................... 138
Case Study II: Full-Scale WTP Research on Manganese Removal .......................... 138
Cost Model................................................................................................................. 142
Using and Interpreting the Cost Tables ......................................................... 142
Significance of Benefit Relative to Manganese Concentration ..................... 143

CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................. 151


Introduction................................................................................................................ 151
Initial Survey.............................................................................................................. 151
Detailed Survey.......................................................................................................... 152
Seasonal Occurrence Sampling.................................................................................. 153
Case Study I ............................................................................................................... 154
Case Study II.............................................................................................................. 154
Cost Model................................................................................................................. 155

CHAPTER 6 RECOMMENDATIONS TO UTILITIES ...................................................... 157


Operational................................................................................................................. 157
Treat Mn at the Source................................................................................... 157
Induced Oxide Coated Media Effect.............................................................. 158
Ozone ............................................................................................................. 158
Mn Effluent Water Quality Goal ............................................................................... 159
Water Quality Goal ........................................................................................ 159
Friendly Quote ............................................................................................... 159
Mn Testing ................................................................................................................. 159
MDL or RL .................................................................................................... 160
Wet Chemical Testing.................................................................................... 160
Mn Filtering ................................................................................................... 160
Additional Research................................................................................................... 160
Conceptualization of the Utilities Water Distribution System .................................. 160

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 163

ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................... 179

APPENDICES AG (ON CD-ROM PACKAGED WITH THE PRINTED REPORT)

APPENDIX A: INITIAL AND DETAILED SURVEY INSTRUMENTS.......................... 185

vii

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


APPENDIX B: PROTOCOL FOR SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM TESTING,
CASE STUDY I, AND CASE STUDY II................................................................. 195

APPENDIX C: DETAILED SURVEY DATA .................................................................... 221

APPENDIX D: DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SEASONAL TESTING DATA .................... 227

APPENDIX E: CASE STUDY I DATA .............................................................................. 391

APPENDIX F: CASE STUDY II DATA ............................................................................. 415

APPENDIX G: COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS MODELS................................................... 425

viii

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


TABLES

2.1 Drinking water limits for manganese (mg/L) ............................................................ 15

2.2 Dietary reference intakes: intakes recommended for individuals.............................. 20

2.3 Manganese compounds of common valence states ................................................... 22

2.4 Analytical methods for determining manganese in water and environmental samples 27

2.5 Theoretical reaction stoichiometry for manganese (II).............................................. 33

3.1 Items shipped to each utility participating in the seasonal sampling study ............... 55

3.2 Reference half-cell potential ...................................................................................... 62

4.1 Facilities providing Mn concentration data in initial surveys.................................... 71

4.2 Maximum source water Mn concentrations reported in initial survey ...................... 73

4.3 Mn concentrations in distribution system water, from initial surveys....................... 74

4.4 Facilities providing Mn concentration data in detailed surveys ................................ 81

4.5 Analysis of source and finished water Mn concentration data from detailed surveys 87

4.6 U.S. region, source water type, and Mn treatment type for utilities
participating in distribution system occurrence sampling for Mn ................. 94

4.7 Record of utility participation in distribution system Mn occurrence sampling ....... 95

4.8 Results of correlation plots of Mn with other water quality parameters.................... 109

4.9 Number of occurrences of near Mn concentrations being more than entry........ 115

4.10 Condition of flow at sample tap for entry and near sample taps ............................... 116

4.11 Mass capture rate and % removal of Mn for IOCME process once chlorine is
terminated ..................................................................................................... 125

4.12 Fe loading onto filters ................................................................................................ 135

4.13 Avg. percent Mn removal by GAC and dual media filters depending upon
applied chlorine............................................................................................. 136

4.14 Three no-chlorine filter samples that controlled chlorine.......................................... 137

4.15 Cost table for CGS treatment..................................................................................... 145

4.16 Cost table for direct filtration treatment..................................................................... 146


ix

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


4.17 Cost table for manganese greensand treatment.......................................................... 147

4.18 Cost table for membrane treatment............................................................................ 148

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


FIGURES

4.1 Geographic distribution of U.S. utilities participating in initial survey (n = 217)....... 68

4.2 Types of source water treated by facilities in initial survey (n = 242) ...................... 69

4.3 Facilities in initial surveys grouped by treatment type (n = 242) .............................. 70

4.4 Type of primary coagulant used to treat water (n = 242) .......................................... 71

4.5 Box-and-whiskers plot of average source water Mn concentration data from


initial surveys, showing mean, median, and percentile ranges ..................... 72

4.6 Box-and-whiskers plot of average finished water Mn data from initial surveys....... 73

4.7 Primary disinfectant at initial survey facilities (n = 242) .......................................... 75

4.8 Facilities grouped by oxidant and oxidant combination within WTP ....................... 76

4.9 Geographic distribution of detailed surveys in U.S. .................................................. 78

4.10 Types of source water treated by facilities in detailed survey (n = 52) ..................... 79

4.11 Facilities in detailed surveys grouped by treatment type (n = 52)............................. 79

4.12 Type of primary coagulant used to treat water in detailed surveys (n = 52) ............. 80

4.13 Correlation analysis of finished water Mn concentrations to specific water


quality parameters, from detailed surveys .................................................... 83

4.14 Results of distribution system seasonal Mn occurrence sampling for


Utility 2 (data presented as mean and of triplicate samples)................... 98

4.15 Results of distribution system seasonal Mn occurrence sampling for


Utility 9 (data presented as mean and of triplicate samples).................. 99

4.16 Results of distribution system seasonal Mn occurrence sampling for


Utility 22 (data presented as mean and of triplicate samples)................ 100

4.17 Results of distribution system seasonal Mn occurrence sampling for


Utility 269 (data presented as mean and of triplicate samples).............. 101

4.18 Individual water quality parameters associated with Mn concentrations from


distribution system sampling ......................................................................... 103

4.19 Individual water quality parameters associated with Mn concentrations from


distribution system sampling (continued)...................................................... 104

xi

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


4.20 Individual water quality parameters associated with Mn concentrations from
distribution system sampling (continued)...................................................... 105

4.21 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of total Mn to various water quality
parameters collected at the entry, near, mid, and far points of the distribution
system ............................................................................................................ 107

4.22 Total Mn versus apparent color. The solid regression line is for all data, the
second, dashed regression omits the single data point at 25 color units and
0.131 mg/L Mn. ............................................................................................ 110

4.23 Particulate Mn as a function of apparent color. The second, dashed regression


line omits the single data point at 25 color units and 0.131 mg/L Mn. ........ 110

4.24 Mn that passes through a 0.22-m filter as a function of Mn that passes through a
30-kDa filter.................................................................................................. 111

4.25 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of manganese concentration (total


and dissolved) at the far point to the entry point (total) of the distribution
system. .......................................................................................................... 112

4.26 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of manganese concentration (total


and dissolved) at the far point to the entry point (total) of the distribution
system. ........................................................................................................... 113

4.27 Seasonal distribution system testing: Dissolved manganese at the distribution


system far point as a function of the entry point............................................ 114

4.28 Seasonal distribution system testing: Dissolved manganese at the distribution


system far point as a function of the entry point........................................... 114

4.29 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of total and dissolved manganese
at the distribution system near point to the entry poiny, and 1:1 line
reference line................................................................................................. 116

4.30 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of total and dissolved manganese
at the distribution system near point to the entry point, and 1:1 line
reference line.................................................................................................. 117

4.31 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of particulate manganese at the


distribution system near point to the entry point, and 1:1 line reference line. 117

4.32 Pilot plant filter effluent Mn concentration as a function of temperature:


Coagulation pH 6.5 for filtration pH of 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, and 8.5 (0.25)
with a free chlorine residual of 0.4 mg/L or greater ..................................... 120

xii

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


4.33 Pilot plant filter effluent Mn concentration as a function of temperature:
Coagulation pH 6.5, filtration pH 6.5 (0.25) with a free chlorine
residual of 0.4 mg/L or greater. ..................................................................... 121

4.34 Pilot plant filter effluent Mn concentration as a function of temperature:


Coagulation pH 6.5, filtration pH 7.0 (0.25) with a free chlorine
residual of 0.4 mg/L or greater. .................................................................... 121

4.35 Pilot plant filter effluent Mn concentration as a function of temperature:


Coagulation pH 6.5, filtration pH 7.5 (0.25) with a free chlorine
residual of 0.4 mg/L or greater ...................................................................... 122

4.36 Pilot plant filter effluent Mn concentration as a function of free chlorine


concentration: Coagulation pH 6.5, filtration pH 6.5 (0.25) for
temperature greater than 8C. ........................................................................ 123

4.37 Belmont pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss
and pH on Mn control. .................................................................................. 127

4.38 Belmont pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss
and pH on Mn control. .................................................................................. 128

4.39 Baxter pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss
and pH on Mn control. .................................................................................. 129

4.40 Belmont pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss
and pH on Mn control. .................................................................................. 130

4.41 Belmont pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss
and pH on Mn control. .................................................................................. 131

4.42 Baxter pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss
and pH on Mn control. .................................................................................. 132

4.43 Belmont pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss
and pH on Mn control ................................................................................... 133

4.44 September 2004 full-scale Case Study II sample event............................................. 140

4.45 November 2004 full-scale Case Study II sample event ............................................. 141

4.46 December 2004 full-scale Case Study II sample event ............................................. 141

xiii

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


xiv

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


FOREWORD
The Awwa Research Foundation is a nonprofit corporation that is dedicated to the
implementation of a research effort to help utilities respond to regulatory requirements and
traditional high-priority concerns of the industry. The research agenda is developed through a
process of consultation with subscribers and drinking water professionals. Under the umbrella of
a Strategic Research Plan, the Research Advisory Council prioritizes the suggested projects
based upon current and future needs, applicability, and past work; the recommendations are
forwarded to the Board of Trustees for final selection. The foundation also sponsors research
Applications, and Tailored Collaboration programs; and various joint research efforts with
organizations such as the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U. S. Bureau of
Reclamation, and the Association of California Water Agencies.
This publication is a result of one of these sponsored studies, and it is hoped that its
findings will be applied in communities throughout the world. The following report serves not
only as a means of communicating the results of the water industrys centralized research
program but also as a tool to enlist the further support of the nonmember utilities and individuals.
Projects are managed closely from their inception to the final report by the foundations
staff and large cadre of volunteers who willingly contribute their time and expertise. The
foundation serves a planning and management function and awards contracts to other institutions
such as water utilities, universities, and engineering firms. The funding of this research effort
comes primarily from the Subscription Program, through which water utilities subscribe to the
research program and make an annual payment proportionate to the volume of water they deliver
and consultants and manufacturers subscribe based on their annual billings. The program offers
a cost-effective and fair method for funding research in the public interest.
A broad spectrum of water supply issues is addressed by the foundations research
agenda: resources, treatment and operations, distribution and storage, water quality and analysis,
toxicology, economics, and management. The ultimate purpose of the coordinated effort is to
assist water suppliers to provide the highest possible quality of water economically and reliably.
The true benefits are realized when the results are implemented at the utility level. The
foundations trustees are pleased to offer this publication as a contribution toward that end.

Walter J. Bishop Robert C. Renner, P.E.


Chair, Board of Trustees Executive Director
Awwa Research Foundation Awwa Research Foundation

xv

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


xvi

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors of this report recognize and appreciate the cooperation and participation of
the organizations and utilities that were involved in this project:

All 242 utilities that participated in this study


Philadelphia Water Department
West Virginia American Water Works, Sandra Johnson

The 242 utilities are not named in this report as part of the participation agreement
established at the initiation of the project. When this project started, security concerns were
prevalent and it was thought that utilities would be reluctant to participate. Therefore, it was
agreed that process information and water quality data would not be associated with water
utilitys name and location, therefore a numbering system was used instead. To all those utilities
that participated, the principle investigators (PIs) hereby acknowledge you, in anonymity, with
heart felt gratitude.
The help and advice provided by AwwaRF project manager Linda Reekie and the Project
Advisory Committee (PAC) including David Chang, Golden State Water Company, Christy
Muhlen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, and
Steve Schindler, New York City Department of Environmental Protection are truly
appreciated.
The authors would like to thank our Technical Advisory Committee members, David
Dixon (Univ. of Melbourne), Phillippe Daniel (CDM), Chris Schultz (CDM), and Philip Singer
(Univ. of North Carolina).
The authors would lastly like to thank those who helped conduct interviews, run the pilot
plants, analyze samples, interpret data, write sections of the report, keep us on schedule, and sign
the contracts. Thanks to Amit Sen (CDM) and Steven Pugsley (PWD); John Consolvo, Nicole
Charlton, Matthew Smith, Doug Crawshaw, Shawn Garner, Philip Godorov, Gary Burlingame,
and Juliana Appiah (PWD); Nick Maxin, Larry Smith, Theodore Schlette, Mack Rugg, Miles
Ehrlich, and Christina Davis (CDM); David Hambly (Anthratec Western Inc.), and Fred Pontius
(Pontius Consultants).

xvii

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


xviii

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this AwwaRF research study, Occurrence of Manganese in Drinking
Water and Manganese Control, was first to evaluate the occurrence, chemistry, and treatment
methods associated with manganese in ground and surface waters. Building upon these findings,
a further goal was to study problems associated with manganese in water distribution systems
and to estimate appropriate, cost-effective target levels for manganese, below the current
drinking water advisory standard of 0.05 mg/L, that utilities could practically achieve.

BACKGROUND

Manganese (Mn) in drinking water is an aesthetic problem, characterized by so-called


black water, laundry spotting, and similar issues. The control of manganese in a water
distribution system relates more to reducing consumer complaints rather than protecting health.
However, utilities are often judged by consumers based on the appearance, odor, and color of the
water at the tap even if it is safe to consume. Therefore, it is important to control the amount of
manganese in potable water.
The control of manganese is complicated by its complex chemistry and the existence of
numerous chemical species of Mn with differing valence or oxidation states. The various
oxidation states of Mn and their associated solubility are understood in a very general way, but
these are simplifications. Highly simplified, the Mn(II) formthe most common valence state
is soluble in water, while Mn(IV) is not, and thus precipitates out. The actual oxidation state of
Mn in a real system, however, is more of an assumption than a known. One of the most
important complexities associated with Mn is that manganese oxides will form a surface coating
on many materials, or on their own as fine-grained crystals. This allows manganese to exert
much more influence over water chemistry than its concentration would suggest because it is at
the interface between a liquid and a solid. Manganese predominates in many water reactions.
Historically, manganese was largely a groundwater problem. The solution to a
manganese problem used to be simply digging another well or diluting the water with other
supplies. This type of solution went a long way but eventually, as a result of increasing demand,
treatment was usually required. The first processes used for manganese control were primitive
and usually for groundwater sources. The industrys early success with manganese control and
our general but limited understanding of manganese chemistry allowed many to believe
manganese was a minor issue. This was especially true for surface water treatment plants that
used granular filtration media with chlorine as an oxidant. Through a process the authors have
termed the induced oxide-coated media effect (IOCME), the filter ended up as an efficient
manganese removal process. The medias ability to capture and control manganese was so
effective that many utilities did not even realize it was occurring.
As the water industry has changed, though, so have some basic operational assumptions.
Because of regulatory restrictions and disinfectant by-product control, many water treatment
plants began to reduce or eliminate chlorine addition before filtration and to reduce the pH of
coagulation. The small amount of manganese in their source water augmented by the small
amount of manganese in treatment chemicals and recycle stream suddenly became important,
because the changed treatment conditions eliminated the IOCME.
The current study began with a literature review to establish the existing state of
knowledge. Research tasks included utility surveys, detailed Mn sampling in a number of
utilities distribution systems, experimental case studies at two WTPs, and cost modeling of Mn
reduction methods.
xix

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


SURVEYS

We interviewed many drinking water utilities over a wide geographic area to explore the
industrys general understanding of manganese (i.e., issues, treatment, and occurrence). We
found that few utilities fully understand the chemistry, treatment, and problems associated with
manganese. This is not surprising, as Mn chemistry is very complex and the understanding of the
realm of chemical/biological interactions within the distribution system is an emerging issue.
The trends in water treatmentwith greater emphasis on aesthetic issuesare making water
professionals more and more aware of Mn.
Mn was an issue in every area we looked at, but not every utility within each area had Mn
issues. There are many sources of Mn; source water, component of an added chemical or an
impurity in an added chemical, resuspended or solubilized in sediment, recycled in a side stream
process, or leached from oxide-coated filter media. There was also a wide range in the severity of
and response to Mn issues, with some utilities having operational alarms if Mn was greater than
15 g/L while others allowed concentrations of up to 300 g/L (but always within the regulatory
limit for their state).
The survey was executed in such a way as to gain input from at least one utility that uses
each type of Mn treatment technique that we identified. From the survey data we discerned that,
Mn-specific treatment processes work very well. Problems associated with certain treatment
techniques are those that occur when a process was designed primarily for something else and
was forced, by necessity, to handle Mn as well. While utilities told many successful stories of
treatment for Mn, not all have been successful.
We found that even though the addition of potassium permanganate is a frequently used
technique to control manganese, most of the utilities that control manganese do so with chlorine
and a filter media. Of interest is that many places that use ozone for disinfection and/or oxidation
do not control manganese with it; they rely on other processes to control Mn. These findings
allowed the researchers to see that simply oxidizing Mn is not the whole story of Mn treatment
because both KMnO4 and O3 oxidize Mn.
One of the most counter-intuitive survey findings was that the utilities that have the most
problems dealing with manganese are not those with the highest influent Mn concentrations.
Instead, it is those that have a markedly variable amount of Mn in their influent water. Those
utilities that have high influent Mn have specific Mn treatment and it usually works well. The
ones with variable or intermediate Mn loading are often not prepared to handle it and therefore
Mn passes through treatment directly into the distribution system. From the analysis of reported
influent Mn concentrations, the researchers found that a ratio of maximum Mn to average Mn
concentration greater than 10:1 resulted in obvious Mn problems.

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OCCURRENCE SAMPLING

We looked at several different drinking water utilities distribution systems to see if the
amount of manganese in the distribution system water was related to how much Mn was in
treated water at the plant effluent. The simple answer is yes they are related, the more manganese
added the more manganese will be found in the distribution system. However, the further the
distance from the water treatment plant the less manganese is found in the water. Manganese is
therefore accumulated within the distribution system. Even if only a small amount of manganese
is added to the system, it will accumulate and under the correct conditions resuspend. This
implies that if a water treatment plant fails to control manganese during an episode of high

xx

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


manganese loading, or if manganese is only moderately treated over a long period of time, it will
eventually be noticed by the consumer.
Both high and low concentrations of manganese in treated water resulted in deposition of
manganese oxides in the pipe and on pipeline surfaces. Bacteria associated with biochemical Mn
deposition have been isolated in systems that have no chlorine or in which the chlorine residual
dissipates before the end of the distribution system. Chemical deposition occurs when Mn(II)
enters the distribution system and is oxidized to Mn(IV) by chlorine used for disinfection.
Manganese deposition generally decreases with distance from the treatment plant. The
progression of deposition through the distribution system is generally affected by the
concentration of Mn and the capacity of the pipeline surface to adsorb the manganese oxide. This
capacity depends on the average water velocity, which determines the shear force and the width
of the boundary layer within which the manganese oxide remains protected. Once the capacity of
the pipeline is exceeded or when higher flow rates occur, manganese oxide coating will detach
(until equilibrium is reached) and sediment will suspend, causing deterioration in water quality at
the tap.
Mn speciation testing was conducted via filtration with a 0.22-m filter and 30-
kiloDalton filter to separate particulate, colloidal, and truly dissolved fractions of Mn. We rarely
found colloidal manganese in the distribution systems and when we did, it was concentrated in
the plant effluent and associated with the use of polyphosphates. Therefore the use of 0.22-m
filter is sufficient to measure dissolved manganese in distribution systems.

CASE STUDIES

The case study work looked into the limits of the induced oxide-coated media effect
(IOCME). When dissolved manganese in the water is loaded onto a granular media filter in the
presence of chlorine, an oxide coating is established. This oxide coating then becomes an
efficient adsorption site for other dissolved manganese and the adsorbed manganese is then
oxidized to manganese dioxide (MnO2). This process is very effective but we know little about
it. It works so well over such a wide range of conditions that it calls little attention to itself and
sometimes goes unnoticed.
Removal of manganese relies on the combination of two independent mechanisms which
are interrelatedoxidation and adsorption. The parameters that control these processes overlap.
The pH of the filtered water is the most significant water quality parameter these two processes
share. The higher the pH, the more rapid the oxidation process and the greater the adsorption
capacity of the oxide-coated media. Another water quality parameter that affects both processes,
but not so obviously, is temperaturethe warmer the water, the more rapid the oxidation process
and, seemingly, the greater the media adsorptive capacity. A water quality parameter that seems
to be paramount in oxidation with a secondary effect on adsorption is the presence of free
chlorine. Free chlorine oxidizes adsorbed manganese and converts it to MnO2, thus yielding
more sites for future adsorption. This increases the adsorptive capacity. IOCME can occur even
when there is no free chlorine residual leaving the filter. Free chlorine must be present and
available when manganese is adsorbed onto the media surface. This explains why granular
activated carbon (GAC) can be used as a media for IOCME in the presence of chlorine, even
though GAC dechlorinates water.
IOCME is a self-regenerative process and, as such, requires both chlorine and
manganese. If there is no manganese in the filter influent water, there is not likely to be an
available coating of MnO2. If there is no chlorine, then the surface chemistry changes and Mn is
released back into the water. Therefore, intermittent use of IOCME is not recommended. MnO2

xxi

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


is an essential catalyst for the oxidation of Mn(II). For such cases of periodic use there has been
success in manganese control if all manganese is converted to MnO2 prior to filtration. The filter
must then have a high enough oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) or there must be enough Ca2+
for the manganese oxide to remain stable.
Our research using ozone indicated that if enough ozone was used to produce MnO2,
simply having excess dissolved oxygen (DO) in the water was sufficient to prevent subsequent
reduction, that is DO above saturation which is often the case when ozonating the water. If high
levels of manganese are present and excess ozone is used, colloidal manganese can be formed. It
is important to understand this for two reasons. This colloidal manganese is of a size that makes
it hard to remove by filtration; therefore it may pass through treatment and enter into the
distributions system. Also if a utility ozonated the water and then tested for dissolved Mn using a
0.22 m filter, it may presume that oxidation of Mn was not successful, when it was. The authors
believe that although the formation of colloidal Mn from ozonation is a possibility and examples
of this phenomenon exist, the amount of manganese and ozone required to produce it are
unlikely to occur in most applications.
The amount of manganese present in the water is also a factor in understanding how best
to control manganese. For the most part, as long as there is some manganese and the quantity of
DBPs formed is not an issue, then IOCME works well. However, if the manganese treatment
process selected by a utility involves oxidation in bulk water, a good understanding of reaction
kinetics is required; the more manganese the better, as the reactions will proceed faster and the
overall removal will be more effective. The most successful methods used to control Mn
involved the use of both an oxidant and a contact media.

COST MODELS

The main purpose of the cost model was to quantify the approximate economics of
constructing and operating a treatment facility to produce water with a manganese concentration
less than 0.05 milligrams per liter.
Reduction of manganese at the water treatment plant makes sense. The utility will most
likely end up saving money through less flushing and fewer customer service calls. However,
this is hard to quantify. The main societal advantage is that for every dollar spent by the utility,
the overall benefit to the customer is higher. It makes more economic sense for the utility to
control manganese than it does for each customer to deal with the manganese in the drinking
water. In the work we have done to date, all the utilities that we spoke to agree with this. It is
better to control manganese in a cost-effective manner than to simply do nothing until the
customer calls.
The cost associated with improving removal, via operational changes, is small as
compared to the capital cost associated with changing the primary Mn treatment. It cost more to
start to treat for Mn than it does to improve upon existing treatment. Therefore the reluctance to
treat for Mn is often the reluctance to build new treatment, not to optimize existing treatment.
Therefore, the change in a utilitys internal goal from 0.05 mg/L to any other, has less to do with
aesthetics or customer complaints than it has to do with the threshold limit for which they will
have to build new treatment.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results from this research program indicate that problems associated with manganese
are much more common than previously thought. Geographically, manganese can occur,

xxii

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


virtually throughout the world and be present in both ground and surface waters. Reliable
treatment processes are available to economically reduce source water manganese to well below
the present US drinking water standard, SMCL, of 0.05 mg/L. Our research suggests that a more
appropriate target level for Mn to minimize consumer problems would be 0.02 mg/L. The
surveys conducted during this study indicated that a standard of 0.05 mg/L Mn was not
sufficiently low to ensure minimal consumer complaints. Most existing treatment plants designed
to reduce Mn can be modified, usually with operating chemistry, to produce water with a
manganese concentration considerably below the current standard.

xxiii

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


xxiv

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
This report documents the research and findings of AwwaRF Project No. 2863,
Occurrence of Manganese in Drinking Water and Benefits of Enhanced Manganese Control,
an effort begun in early 2003 to advance the water industrys understanding of the control and
regulation of manganese. Historically, because of the dirty water problems and laundry
spotting it can cause, manganese has been regulated more as an aesthetic problem than a health
issue. In the absence of urgent public health reasons to set science-backed control levels, the
manganese concentrations allowed or recommended in potable water have often been determined
in a highly subjective manner and left, until recently, unreviewed for decades. In todays water
industry, however, with its increased drive for aesthetic quality and consumer satisfaction, the
question of how to control manganese, and how much, at what cost, is gaining in importance.
This introduction gives an overview of the project as a whole, a brief background on
manganese in relation to drinking water treatment and regulation, and an introduction to each of
the main research tasks accomplished for this project.

OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT

The purpose of the research conducted under this project was to further our
understanding of the occurrence and control of manganese (Mn) in drinking waterfrom source
water to the treatment process to the distribution systems that deliver water directly to
consumers. This overall goal encompassed a number of more specific objectives, including:

Correlating not only total Mn concentrations but the concentrations of individual


chemical species of Mn to several water quality parameters
Determining whether specific Mn concentrations in treated water (at the plant
effluent) relate to consumer acceptability
Assessing the costs and benefits of implementing control strategies that reduce Mn to
below the current regulatory level
Investigating the effect of certain plant operation parameters on the Mn removal
process that is accomplished by oxide-coated filtration.

This final report presents and interprets existing and new data and offers practical
recommendations that will help utilities make optimum decisions about manganese control.
Moreover, it is a step towards developing more scientific basis upon which future manganese
regulation can rely.

Research Tasks

At the outset of the project, the authors conducted an extensive literature review to more
clearly identify what was known and not known about manganese in drinking water, and to set
the stage for the research. Hundreds of papers, texts, and reports were reviewed. In Chapter 2 we
have attempted to summarize the pertinent existing knowledge in some detail. While papers on
the occurrence, chemistry, and treatment of Mn are most relevant to the current project, we have
also summarized medical literature that has helped shape the developing consensus that Mn is an
aesthetic, rather than health-related, problem.

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The new research for this project was conducted in a series of logical steps that started
with data-gathering surveys of water utilities and culminated with observational and
experimental case studies involving field testing. While being necessarily limited to those
utilities that were both experiencing Mn problems and had the time and resources to participate
in the project, the research team attempted to evaluate as many different treatment processes and
representative geographical areas as possible. The main research tasks were:

Initial Surveyssurveys of 242 water treatment facilities conducted by telephone


Detailed Surveysin-depth surveys of 52 treatment facilities, conducted by telephone
and by the utilities reporting of existing data
Distribution System Occurrence Samplingquality-controlled sample gathering from
the distribution systems of 12 water utilities, and analysis of the samples for
manganese occurrence and speciation
Case Study Icontrolled experimentation on manganese removal by varying specific
parameters in a pilot-plant facility at the Philadelphia Water Department
Case Study IIfield research at an operating full-scale conventional treatment plant
in West Virginia to evaluate the efficacy of the oxide-coated-media effect in
removing Mn with granular activated carbon vs. anthracite filters
Cost Analysiscomparison of order-of-magnitude capital and operating costs for
alternative treatment processes that can accomplish Mn removal

Highlights of This Reports Organization

The chapters of this report follow the sequence of (1) Introduction, (2) Literature Review,
(3) Methods & Materials, (4) Results and Discussion, (5) Summary and Conclusions, and (6)
Recommendations to Utilities.
The Literature Review chapter serves in a sense as an expanded Introduction, presenting
a more in-depth background on current industry concerns, concepts, and solutions regarding
manganese. The References section at the end of this report gives full citations to references
cited in the literature review and throughout this document.
Since each of the research tasks listed above followed its own distinct method and
produced its own uniquely structured set of data, for ease of organization the authors have
divided each of Chapters 3, 4, and 5 into subsections covering these tasks in order. Chapter 6
attempts to distill the most important and clearest findings of the project as a whole into useful
recommendations.
During the conduct of the project so much data was generated that only a selected portion
is presented in the text of this report. Additional detailed data has been compiled into extensive
appendices supplied on CD-ROM. Appendices A and B give more detail on the materials and
methods discussed in Chapter 3. Appendices C through F provide more detailed data from the
surveys, sampling and case studies, and Appendix G supplies detailed cost analysis tables and
charts.

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


BRIEF BACKGROUND ON MANGANESE IN DRINKING WATER

Overview of Manganese Chemistry and Treatment

Mn is an essential trace element for both plants and animals. Chemically it occurs in
several species with different valence states (+2, +3, +4, +5, +6, +7), often represented by roman
numerals. For this study we will focus on Mn(II), Mn(IV), and Mn(VII). The key significance of
Mn speciation in relation to drinking water is that both Mn(II) and Mn(VII) are soluble in water
while Mn(IV) is not. Manganese is most stable in its +2 valence state; therefore most naturally
occurring manganese is dissolved Mn(II). The next most common species is the particulate state
of Mn(IV). To remove Mn from water one usually tries to convert it into an insoluble state and
remove it physically; that is, converting Mn(II) or Mn(VII) into Mn(IV). This means either
oxidizing Mn(II) to MnO2(s), or else reducing MnO4 permanganate ions to MnO2(s), where the
(s) notation indicates solid form. It is important to note that stoichiometric manganese dioxide,
MnO2, is extremely rare if it exists at all. Though we will refer to MnO2 or manganese dioxide
frequently, in reality it is a nonstoichiometric oxide solid of Mn. The common property of most
Mn dioxides is that they are black.
Treatment of water to remove Mn may be categorized into four distinct, yet somewhat
interrelated, approaches:

Oxidizing the manganese (usually at elevated pH) using chlorine, potassium


permanganate, air, or ozone with subsequent settling and/or filtration.
Relying on the adsorbance of and catalytic oxidation of manganeseMn(II)
oxidizing to Mn(IV)on the oxide-coated filter media itself. The pH must be
controlled and an oxidant such as potassium permanganate or chlorine must be
present. Examples of this type of filter would be (1) manganese greensand and (2)
those plants that rely on the addition of a small dose of chlorine just prior to filtration
to maintain a coating of manganese dioxide.
True ion exchange, which relies on the exchange of divalent manganese cations with
some other cation, usually sodium. Ion exchange relies on the manganese all being in
the dissolved, Mn(II).
Using membrane filters to remove all particulate manganese, MnO2; or, if the
manganese is dissolved, using reverse osmosis (RO). The selection of the appropriate
membrane filter type depends on the valance state of the Mn.

The first two types of processes are by far the most commonly used, although all four are
addressed in this study.
For the second example of the second process given above, a word of elaboration is in
order. A filter media that is covered with a manganese dioxide will adsorb Mn(II) directly onto
its surface. Once there, it can be quickly oxidized to Mn(IV) in the presence of chlorine. The new
Mn dioxide will become a new site for additional Mn(II) adsorption. This process is similar
enough to the process of Mn removal with manganese greensand that some refer to it as the
induced greensand effect (IGE). However, it is more complicated than that and there is no
greensand involved, so the authors have used a more generic term, the induced oxide-coated
media effect (IOCME).
For the most part, manganese chemistry for the purposes of water treatment can be
usefully simplified, as it was in the preceding explanation. Yet problems exist with this
3

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


simplification. The detailed chemistry is more complex; in fact, far more complex than we
currently understand. For example, under certain conditions (usually high oxidation conditions)
MnO2(s) can be formed in such small clumps as to be colloidal. These colloidal particles do not
settle and are sometimes hard to capture on a filter. Sometimes too much oxidant is added to a
process and soluble MnO4 is passed out into the distribution system. Sometimes MnO2 is
reduced to Mn(II), becomes soluble and passes into the distribution system. Certain bacteria
utilize metabolic pathways to change the valence states of Mn. These and other facts make the
behavior of Mn in drinking water a more complicated phenomenon and can make one-size-fits-
all cookbook control solutions elusive.

The Problem with Manganese

Although research data is continually being developed, it appears that Mn has no negative
health effects at the levels commonly found in drinking water. However, the long-recognized
aesthetic problems caused by Mn are a continuing source of concern for customers and for water
utilities. Problems associated with Mn include water discoloration (usually black or dark red),
clothes and fixture staining, turbid water, sediments, and, at very high levels, metallic taste.
Household problems only occur when the manganese is in the particulate or oxidized
form. If the Mn remains soluble it will pass through undetected by the human eye. The problem
is that Mn usually does not stay dissolved in the oxidizing environments of our water distribution
systems. Even if the Mn did remain dissolved until reaching a customers home, the clothes for
which it causes the biggest problem (whites) are often washed with bleach (NaOCl), an oxidizer.
In such a chemical environment, the Mn precipitates directly onto the surface of the clothing,
leaving small black dots. While these dots can often be removed by washing the clothes with a
reducing agent, the idea of bleaching and then reducing each load of white laundry can quickly
become asinine.
There are many sources of manganese. Manganese may enter a water supply from a
surface water or groundwater source, from the treatment chemicals being used, as a contaminant
in treatment chemical or internally from a recycle stream. The occurrence of Mn in a particular
utilitys source water may be episodic, such as during reservoir turnover, or it may be persistent,
as in many systems whose main source is groundwater wells. Manganese may seem ubiquitous
because there are enough sources and enough variability in concentrations to confound simple
explanation.

Regulatory Considerations for Mn

The current U.S. EPA secondary standard, or SMCL, for Mn is 0.05 milligrams per liter
(mg/L). Most states have adopted this standard, although a few regulate both iron and manganese
with a combined standard of either 0.3 or 0.5 mg/L for these elements. Some states enforce the
secondary standards as a primary standard.
The standard for Mn of 0.05 mg/L was established subjectively over 40 years ago
(1962)and later adopted without change by EPA (1979)as the level at which most
consumers will avoid household problems with discoloration or staining. It first appeared in a
United States Public Health Service (USPHS) publication of 1943 in combination with iron (Fe),
it suggested the combination of Fe and Mn should not exceed 0.3 mg/L. Prior to this the USPHS
(1925) listed "Iron (Fe) should not exceed 0.3 p.p.m." and made no mention of Mn. However,
as consumer expectations for water quality, often based on aesthetics, increase, the public
perception that a particular water is acceptable decreases. Thus the historical standard of 0.05

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


mg/L may not be low enough to ensure consumer satisfaction. Some utilities today are targeting
0.015 mg/L as the concentration at which minimal consumer problems will develop, and are
maintaining distribution system Mn well below that level.
In light of the above, several regulatory-related questions helped drive and focus the
research for this project. These included:

How prevalent is Mn in drinking water distribution systems?


Should the concentrations of particular Mn chemical species be targeted for control,
in addition toor instead oftotal Mn? How can a utility analytically separate
dissolved from particulate Mn?
Are the current treatment processes commonly used for Mn reduction adequate to
produce water with Mn at levels below the regulatory standard of 0.05 mg/L?
What would be the capital and operating cost implications of treating water to achieve
Mn levels less than 0.05 mg/L?
At what Mn level might household problems be completely eliminated?

OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF RESEARCH TASKS

As mentioned above, before the main investigative work of the project began, a literature
review updated the project team about the state of knowledge on Mn in drinking water, and the
gaps in that knowledge, so as to best focus the new research efforts.
The following overview of the research tasks undertaken during the project discusses the
primary activities and goals of each task and briefly sketches the methods used. It conveys an
understanding of the logical sequence of the work and some of the difficulties involved in
developing not only reliable data but also practical recommendations for handling the real but
sometimes elusive problem of Mn in drinking water. Throughout the project, the research team
acknowledged the importance of both anecdotal reports from participating water utilities and
hard scientific data, and attempted to derive useful analysis and conclusions from both.

Initial Surveys

The participation of water utilities being central to the projects success, the research
team gave considerable thought to how best to elicit useful data from them. The initial surveys
were designed as a telephone interview between a member of the research team and a utility
representative that had a good understanding of Mn concerns. The purpose of the initial surveys
was to develop a geographically diverse database of information about manganese problems, and
to find utilities that were willing to participate further in the project.
The initial survey questionnaires were designed to obtain the most useful information in
the least amount of time. Before actual surveys began, the principal investigators (PIs) of the
project conducted a formal training program with the interviewers and ran through dress
rehearsals. The PIs then participated in a series of trial run interviews with utilities to ensure that
interviewers were including follow-up questions appropriately. The actual conduct of the
surveys varied from 15 minutes to over two hours, depending on the extent of Mn issues at that
particular facility. An interview form was completed for each facility water source or treatment
plant.
The scope of the initial surveys was to determine the extent of Mn occurrence, identify
types of treatment systems for Mn, ask about problems associated with Mn, obtain limited water

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


quality data, and determine if the utility was willing to participate in further research (Mn
sampling and analysis or a more detailed interview). We obtained Consumer Confidence Reports
(CCR) for each utility interviewed and requested specific analytical data as available.
Interviewers also visited the Web sites of those utilities that had them, and added any
supplemental information available on the Web sites to the utility file.
In all 348 utilities, some having multiple water sources or treatment plants (facilities),
were identified as systems that may have Mn issues and thus potential candidates for initial
surveys. Of these 242 facilities were determined to have Mn levels justifying further discussion.
Therefore, 242 initial facility surveys were conducted. Each utility was asked if they would be
willing to participate in a more detailed survey; most agreed.
Data from the initial surveys was input into a database that allowed the project team to
review the information and draw useful conclusions. The surveys were not designed to provide a
statistically reliable analysis of Mn occurrence geographically, but rather a reasonable cross
section of the types of sources, problems, and treatment systems associated with Mn. To respect
the confidentiality of individual utility information, we have used identification numbers rather
than names in reporting the results. In most cases the location of the utility is not essential to
understanding the usefulness of the data. Where appropriate we did identify geographical
location and, in a few critical instances, we have named the utility (with permission).
The research team found during the initial surveys that utility self-knowledge of Mn
problems is not always clear-cut. Many utilities do not perceive that they have a manganese
problem since the Mn is removed incidental to treatment for some other more primary problem,
such as turbidity removal or disinfection. Also, in most cases utilities are able to lower the Mn
concentration to a level below the secondary standard or to sequester the Mn and reduce
household problems. Many utilities feel there is no Mn problem as long as the concentration
leaving the plant is below the secondary standard. As we will discuss later, these assumptions are
not necessarily true. Consequently, one of the challenges in conducting the initial surveys was to
uncover Mn problems in utilities that did not recognize some of the subtle issues surrounding Mn
problems.

Detailed Surveys

Once the initial surveys were completed, 52 detailed interviews were conducted with
utilities that clearly were experiencing Mn treatment or system problems and that were willing to
spend the time for the interview and to send additional analytical data for inclusion in the
research database. Of the 52 detailed surveys, 10 were conducted with utilities outside the United
States. The purpose of the detailed surveys was to obtain more specific information in three
areas: (1) the source of the Mn, (2) the manner in which the problem was resolved, if any, and
(3) the type of treatment process or chemical addition that was used relative to the Mn. The
detailed surveys were also used to identify systems willing to participate in the next phase of the
projecttaking seasonal distribution system samples for Mn speciation analysis.
The detailed surveys collected considerable information about the distribution system,
types of complaints if any, treatment chemicals used, and levels of Mn in the distribution system.
We were particularly interested in those systems that were at or close to the regulatory limit of
0.05 mg/L for Mn, but were still experiencing discoloration or sediment problems. Each utility
was asked to complete a detailed water quality table with historical data for such parameters as
raw, treated, and distribution system Mn; pH; color; TOC; iron; turbidity; alkalinity; hardness;
calcium; and conductivity. For each treatment plant we identified each unit process in the train
along with pertinent design and operating criteria. We also explored target treatment goals and

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


any other information that would help to shed light on Mn issues. In many cases the detailed
survey for a particular utility required more than one telephone interview since there was not
always a single person knowledgeable about all the problems associated with Mn or all the
components of the distribution system. The detailed surveys provided some extremely useful
information.
Through the detailed survey interviews, the research team selected 12 utilities for the next
project phase, Mn occurrence sampling and testing. The utilities selected had to have: (1) the
willingness to participate, since considerable time and cost were involved, (2) the technical
resources to conduct sampling and analysis, and (3) a Mn issue or distribution system issue that
might translate to distribution system problem.

Distribution System Occurrence Sampling

The purpose of Mn occurrence sampling in utilities water distribution systems was to


begin to study the relevant chemical details of Mn in the water as it might affect household
consumers. This task thus measured not just total Mn concentrations, but concentrations of
dissolved versus non-dissolved chemical species of Mnroughly, Mn(II) vs. Mn(IV).
Distribution system water samples were taken from 12 facilities. Samples were taken at four
locations in each system: entry point (i.e., plant effluent), near the source (i.e., near the plant
effluent), at the mid-point in the distribution system, and at the end of the distribution system.
Each location was sampled seasonally to measure the effects of temperature. This temperature
was achieved both geographical and climatically. The samples were physically taken by the
participating utility and sent to the PIs laboratorythe Philadelphia Water Department Bureau
of Laboratory Services (PWD-BLS)for Mn analysis as well as measurement of several other
parameters.
This task analyzed the distribution system for total Mn, colloidal Mn, and dissolved Mn.
To accomplish this, before sending the samples to Philadelphia the utilities processed the raw
samples through a set of fine filters that left each sub-sample containing a relevant Mn fraction.
Each utility filtered portions of the sample first through a 0.22-micron filter and then through a
30,000-Dalton (30-kDa) ultrafilter. The Mn concentration in the unfiltered sample is total Mn.
The Mn concentration after 0.22-micron filtering is considered the dissolved fraction, and the
concentration after 30-kDa filtering is considered the truly dissolved fraction. The difference
between the 0.22-micron and 30-kDa filtered samples is Mn in colloidal suspension, and
similarly the difference between the concentrations in the unfiltered and 0.22-micron samples is
the particulate Mn fraction. The two filter sizes were selected on the basis of the literature
review and consideration of the practical aspects of field filtration of analytical samples.
In addition to the samples sent for Mn analysis, each utility conducted its own field
sampling and testing at each site for chlorine, pH, temperature, and several other values to
determine if a correlation existed among total, colloidal, or dissolved Mn and any other
analytical parameters. All the water quality data gathered during this task were plotted against
total and dissolved Mn concentrations. For each plot, correlation coefficients were calculated.
The data generated by this task were used to evaluate Mn as water traveled through the
distribution system and to determine if there were any trends in the speciation of Mn with time.
In addition the research team also wanted to explore whether any of the other water quality
parameters either affected or correlated with the concentrations of Mn reported, or to the
speciation of the Mn.

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Case Study I: Pilot-Scale Research

The purpose of Case Study I was to use the pilot plant facilities at the Philadelphia Water
Department (PWD) to conduct research on alternative methods and operating procedures for
reducing Mn in a surface water supply. More specifically, this case study tested the operational
boundaries of Mn control via oxide-coated media. The setting of a pilot plant allowed for the
type of controlled experimentation that is difficult to perform at a full-scale WTP relied on by
customers for consistently high-quality water.
PWD has two substantial pilot plants available for research, one at the Baxter Water
Treatment Plant and the other at the Belmont WTP. The two pilot plants have similar process
trains but different source waters. The process trains include flash mixing, tapered flocculation,
sedimentation, intermediate ozonation, and filtration. Of the six filters per plant, four contain
dual media coal-over-sand and two contain granular activated carbon (GAC). The pilot plants are
designed to closely parallel full-scale plant operation of a conventional and modified
conventional water treatment plant. No intermediate pumping occurs from flash mixing through
filtration. The plants are equipped with on-line, continuous monitors for turbidity, particle
counts, filter head loss, pH, flow, and ozone concentration. Operating variations can be obtained
by taking units from service, changing flow rate, or bypassing units. The pilot plants are fully
supported by the analytical services of the PWD-BLS.
The operating variables studied in this task were pH, chlorine application point and dose,
ozone, coagulant concentration, and filter media type. The pilot plant was used to determine if
ozone or chlorine alone or in some combination could be used to control Mn without sacrificing
other water quality. Another purpose was to explore the sensitivity of Mn reduction to pH,
taking into account seasonal and temperature variations. The research evaluated a comparison of
filter media with and without pre-chlorine addition. We wanted to determine if there was an
elution effect of Mn from filter media that had been precoated with manganese dioxide, if the
preoxidant ahead of the filters were suddenly terminated.
This particular phase of the research went very well. The limits of the IOCME were
discerned for both pilot plants. IOCME is a robust treatment process but it does have limits,
mostly associated with temperature and pH. Once established the oxide-coated media is stable
as long as the redox-potential does not change significantly.

Case Study II: Full-Scale WTP Research

The purpose of Case Study II was to evaluate the full-scale efficacy of Mn removal using
the induced oxide-coated media effect on GAC at an operating WTP. The oxide-coated media
process is known to work on sand and anthracite filters that have a free chlorine residual in the
effluent. However, a GAC filter will consume the chlorine so there will be no chlorine residual in
the effluent. Yet an induced oxide-coated media was established and Mn was removed.
A water treatment plant in West Virginia agreed to participate in this study. The facility
uses flash mixing, flocculation, sedimentation, and filtration of a surface water supply source that
contains variable and elevated levels of Mn. One of the treatment plants 12 filters is an
anthracite coal filter; the rest are GAC, providing a somewhat unusual opportunity for
comparison. The plant has successfully reduced Mn by controlling the pH going on the filters
along with the addition of chlorine.
Therefore the major part of the research effort was a success. However, as with most
full-scale endeavors the control of certain variables and the retrieval of all pertinent information
was difficult. This has a lot to do with the need to keep the process optimized regardless of the

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


experiments being conducted and the amount and availability of staff; along with the often not
data friendly distributed control systems.
A comment about the prevalence of research on IOCME is that the process works well
and can be happening without the facility knowing it. Changes in the water treatment industry
are forcing operational changes that would reduce the robustness of the process, taking some by
surprise. There is an already existing body of information on classic Mn removal processes and
many of the operational pit falls, especially for smaller system, have already been worked out.
Yet, it would be an oversimplification to say that there is no new and vital information to be
obtained. Our research was focused on larger scale.

Cost Analysis

In the cost analysis, a cost model and tables were developed to give utilities an
approximate comparison of the capital and operating costs of various treatment methodologies
for reducing Mn. The bases of this comparison are national average treatment costs and are not
adjusted for geographically specific unit costs. However, the tables should be accurate for cost
comparisons. Cost comparison tables were developed for three sizes of treatment plants: 1 mgd,
10 mgd, and 100 mgd. The tables are based on the cost to reduce Mn from an assumed raw water
level of 0.5 mg/L down to one of four finished water concentrations: the current regulatory
standard of 0.05 mg/L, or alternatively to 0.02 mg/L, 0.015 mg/L, or 0.01 mg/L. In some cases
the capital cost to reduce Mn to levels well below the regulatory standard is the same as the cost
to just meet the standard since the type of process, e.g. membranes, will inherently remove the
Mn to levels below detection. In those cases the operating cost is usually for additional analytical
testing that may be required to ensure that the lower level is being met.
The types of treatment processes included in the cost analysis include conventional
treatment with coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation and dual media filtration, direct filtration,
lime softening, advanced clarification, membrane filtration, manganese greensand filtration,
diatomaceous earth filtration, and ion exchange. The capital costs presented are for the treatment
plant as if it were constructed only for the removal of Mn; that is, a new plant using a particular
technology but constructed specifically for Mn. Obviously, in many cases Mn might be
incidental to other water quality problems and some processes, such as conventional treatment or
even lime softening, would only be used for Mn if some other water issue were also present.
Other processes, such as manganese greensand, might be selected solely on the basis of reducing
Mn. All the operating costs presented in the tables relate to the incremental cost for reducing Mn.
In some cases this incremental cost is for additional monitoring, reporting, or testing and for
additional chemical doses, if necessary. In some cases the filter run time may be reduced and
more frequent backwashing required.

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


10

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
At the outset of the current project, an extensive review of the existing literature on
manganese in drinking water helped the principal investigators understand the state of
knowledge on the subject and guide the ensuing new research efforts. For this review the PIs
requested the assistance of the independent consultant Fred Pontius, since his literature
compilation for the previous AwwaRF Project No. 2691, Manganese Control and Related Issues
(Casale, LeChevallier, and Pontius 2002) was so thorough and since that project led to the
creation of this one. This chapter incorporates and adapts much of the previously reviewed
material, and expands on it.
The PIs of the current project wanted to suggest that Mn does not appear to be harmful to
health at the levels typically found in raw water, and that the Mn-related issues of most concern
to utilities are, in fact, aesthetic. Because the PIs are not qualified to make statements about the
overall health implications of Mn they have devoted a significant portion of the literature review
to health. This review covers a selection of the literature on medical aspects, some of which
entered into the USEPAs 2003 decision not to pursue a health-related regulation for Mn.
However, this does not make Mn immune to the topic of sensational articles. For example in a
recent media release by the title Does Manganese Inhaled from the Shower Represent a Public
Health Threat? says that it is the first study to show the potential for permanent brain damage
from breathing vaporized manganese (Wake Forest 2005).

INTRODUCTION

The first reported case of manganese-related water quality problems in the United States
was in 1898, when a well water supply for a New England mill contained so much Mn that the
well had to be abandoned (Weston 1909). The well extended below a peaty layer overlying
water-bearing sand, from which Mn was suspected to have leached into the groundwater.
Manganese is an abundant metallic element that constitutes about 0.1% of the earths
crust. The elemental form of Mn does not occur naturally in the environment, but Mn is a
component of over 100 minerals. Manganese oxide, manganese carbonate, and manganese
silicate are a few of the most common mineral forms.
Manganese occurs naturally in soil, air, water, and food at low levels. Deutsch, Hoffman,
and Ortner (1997) even found Mn concentrations ranging from 0.3 to 11.3 g/L in rain and snow
samples in Darmstadt, Germany. In groundwaters, Mn concentrations depend upon the mineral
composition of the alluvium, the pH, and redox potential (Troester 1998). Manganese in
groundwater wells may initially be low and remain low for many years, but then unexpectedly
increase until the water quality becomes unacceptable (Viraraghavan et al. 1987).
Biologically, Mn is essential for the proper function of several enzymes and is necessary
for normal bone structure and brain function. Although manganese is an essential trace element
in humans, exposure to high levels of it can have adverse neurological effects. The USEPA
(2004) put it this way Adverse health effects can be caused by inadequate intake or over
exposure. Mn deficiency in humans is thought to be rare because Mn is present in many
common foods. Many of the reports of adverse effect from Mn exposure in humans are from
inhalation exposure in occupational settings.
Manganese concentrations at or even below the current USEPA Secondary Maximum
Contaminant Level (SMCL) of 0.05 mg/L can create problems for drinking water providers by

11

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


causing customer dissatisfaction, including complaints about plumbing fixture and laundry
staining, discolored water, and taste and odor problems.

THE PROBLEM: REDUCTION IN DRINKING WATER QUALITY

Excessive Mn in water entering the distribution system is undesirable because it results in


Mn deposition on pipe surfaces and poor aesthetic quality. Deposition of iron and manganese
precipitates in the distribution system can reduce pipe diameter and eventually clog the pipe
(Kothari 1988, Costello 1984).
Consumers are inconvenienced by the presence of high concentrations of Mn in drinking
water. The most common effects are purple-black discoloration of laundered clothes and
plumbing fixtures; peculiar-tasting tea, coffee, and other heated beverages made with tap water;
swimming pools that look uninvitingly dirty because of the presence of dark manganese oxides
and turbidity (Moore 1977, Hagopian 1975). Iron and manganese can impart a metallic or bitter
taste to water and can foul home water softeners, reducing softener efficiency (Kothari 1988).
Dirty-water problems caused by Mn sometimes coincide with an increase in the Mn
concentration of the source water, but typically the cause of dirty water is not so obvious.
Anderson, Row, and Sindelar (1973) conducted iron and manganese studies of Nebraska water
supplies, concluding that Mn problems may be encountered in a water supply that meets the
recommended limit of 0.05 mg/L. They cited the case of Grand Island, Neb., which experienced
serious problems with a well water supply having an average Mn concentration of 0.04 mg/L.
The most extensive studies to date of Mn deposition in a drinking water distribution
system have been conducted in Australia by L.I. Sly and colleagues (Sly and Arunpairojana
1987; Sly, Arunpairojana, and Hodgkinson 1988b; Sly, Hodgkinson, and Arunpairojana 1990;
Dixon et al. 1989). Dixon et al. (1989) noted that in regions of Australia where laundry staining
has been severe, the concentration of Mn in the water supply did not exceed 0.05 mg/L. Dirty
water and staining were the result of a buildup of Mn within the distribution system occurring
over a long period of time, followed by a change in conditions which caused its sudden release
(Sly, Hodgkinson, and Arunpairojana 1988a). Twort (1963) indicated that Mn causes a black
slime to be deposited in distribution system pipes. These deposits can periodically slough off and
appear at the consumers tap. The slime deposits can also restrict water flow in pipelines
resulting in head loss due to increased frictional forces at the surface (Sly, Hodgkinson, and
Arunpairojana 1990). Deposits in water mains can be resuspended by increased flow rates,
thereby causing high turbidities (Kothari 1988).
Manganese deposition in distribution systems can occur at concentrations as low as 0.02
mg/L (Sly, Hodgkinson, and Arunpairojana 1989; Bean 1974; Griffin 1960). Because of this,
Sly, Hodgkinson, and Arunpairojana (1989) argued that the drinking water guideline level for
Mn should be lowered from 0.05 mg/L to 0.01 mg/L.
Biochemical manganese oxidation and deposition can occur in areas of the distribution
system with insufficient chlorination to control biofilm growth. This microbial deposition results
from accumulation of Mn by manganese-oxidizing budding hyphal bacteria such as
Pedomicrobium manganicum and Metallogenium sp. (Sly, Arunpairojana, and Hodgkinson
1988b; Sly, Hodgkinson, and Arunpairojana 1990; Tyler and Marshall 1967). These
microorganisms were shown to be the dominant Mn-depositing bacteria in high-water-velocity
conditions (Sly, Hodgkinson, and Arunpairojana 1988a). Dirty water of microbial origin was
found to be localized and caused by sporadic sloughing during periods of increased flow rates or
intermittent chlorination of areas usually free of chlorine. Dirty water sediments of microbial

12

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


origin may be readily distinguished from chemical deposits by the presence of budding hyphal
bacteria.
Mn can support the growth of microorganisms such as Clonothrix and Crenothrix.
Manganese and iron serve as electron donors for these and other autotrophic bacteria (Wong
1984). Mn-utilizing bacteria occurring in drinking water distribution system biofilms include
Pseudomonas, Arthrobacter, Hyphomicrobium, and Sphaerotilus discophorus (CCMS 1987).
These bacteria have been found in distribution systems with Mn at concentrations between 0.01
and 0.05 mg/L. The presence of these and other oxidizing bacteria may lead to black-water
problems (Percival, Walker, and Hunter 2000).
Increasing chlorination at the treatment plant will not reduce Mn deposition when
excessive Mn(II) continues to enter the distribution system. On the contrary, increased
chlorination may considerably worsen chemical oxidation and deposition and cause more serious
widespread dirty water because the rate of chemical deposition is considerably greater than
microbial deposition (Sly, Hodgkinson, and Arunpairojana 1990).

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

Regulation of Mn in Drinking Water

The 1962 U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS 1962) standards included a drinking water
guideline for manganese; it was 0.05 mg/L, based solely on controlling aesthetic water quality
problems caused by Mn. In 1977, the USEPA issued a proposed rule for manganese under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) for a non-enforceable Secondary Maximum Contaminant
Level (SMCL) of 0.05 mg/L (USEPA 1977a). The following justification was provided by the
agency for this proposed level:

Manganese, like iron, produces discoloration in laundered goods and impairs the
taste in drinking water and beverages, including tea and coffee. At concentrations
in excess of 0.05 mg/L, manganese can occasionally cause buildup of coatings in
distribution piping which can slough off and cause brown spots in laundry items
and unaesthetic black precipitates. Manganese can usually be removed from water
by the same process used for iron removal.

It should be noted that at approximately the same time, Stiles (1978) estimated that 20
percent of U.S. municipal water sources contained Mn above 0.05 mg/L, with small systems
being the most vulnerable to these problems. No public comments were submitted on USEPAs
1977 proposed SMCL for manganese. From the time the SMCL was finalized by USEPA in
1979 at 0.05 mg/L (USEPA 1979) until the writing of this report in 2005, the regulatory
guideline has remained unchanged.
Between 1979 and 1998, manganese in drinking water received very little regulatory
attention because it was not thought to pose a major risk to human health. However, in 1998, Mn
was included on USEPAs Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List (DWCCL) as a
regulatory determination priority contaminant (USEPA 1998a). SDWA Section 1412(b)(1)(A)
specifies that the determination to regulate a contaminant on the DWCCL must be based on a
finding that each of the following criteria are met:

13

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The contaminant may have adverse effects on the health of persons,
The contaminant is known to occur or there is substantial likelihood that the
contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of
public health concern, and
In the sole judgment of the [USEPA] Administrator, regulation of such contaminant
presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by
public water systems.

USEPA evaluated available data regarding the occurrence, health effects, and control of
Mn in drinking water for a regulatory determination to address the above three statutory criteria
(USEPA 2001a, 2001b). However, because Mn is generally not considered to be very toxic when
ingested with the diet, and because drinking water accounts for a relatively small proportion of
Mn intake, USEPA concluded that setting an enforceable National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation (NPDWR) for Mn was unwarranted at this time because it would not likely present a
meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons served by public water systems. A
preliminary determination from USEPA to this effect was published June 3, 2002 (USEPA 2002)
and a final determination was published July 18, 2003 (USEPA 2003). USEPA has, though,
decided to develop a Drinking Water Advisory for Manganese (Pontius 2004).
Besides the U.S. federal government, numerous other governmental and inter-
governmental agencies have issued regulatory guidelines or limits for Mn in drinking water. For
instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) also recommends a manganese concentration of
not greater than 0.05 mg/L. Comparable recommended limits for Mn have been established by
various international and state drinking water agencies (see examples in Table 2.1). In general,
these guidelines are based on ensuring the aesthetic quality of drinking water, and are not health-
based limits. A few states, however, have adopted enforceable limits for Mn.

Non-Drinking-Water Regulation of Mn

Manganese and manganese compounds are regulated under several U.S. federal programs
in addition to the SDWA (USEPA 2000). Discharge of Mn to surface waters is regulated as total
Mn under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Both Mn and Mn
compounds are listed as Hazardous Air Pollutants under section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act and
are subject to Best Available Control Technology limits (USEPA 2000). The Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund) includes
Mn compounds as hazardous substances, although no reporting thresholds are assigned to this
broad class (USEPA 1998b).
Manganese is also a Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) chemical. The TRI was established
by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), which requires
certain industrial sectors to publicly report the environmental release or transfer of chemicals
included in this inventory (USEPA 1998b). Mn and some of its compounds are also listed as air
contaminants by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). This listing
establishes permissible exposure limits (PELs) for various Mn compounds to regulate workplace
exposure (ATSDR 2000).

14

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table 2.1
Drinking water limits for manganese (mg/L)
Mn
Organization or state Reference
limit

Vermont VT DEC 1997


0.84 Enforcement standard for groundwater
0.42 Preventive action limit
New Hampshire NH DES 2000
0.84 Health-based standard
0.05 SMCL
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia/ NHMRC/AWRC
Australian Water Resources Council 2004
0.5 Health guideline
0.1 Aesthetic guideline
World Health Organization WHO 2004a
0.4 Health guideline
0.05 Aesthetic guideline
0.3* New York (MCL) NYSDEC 1999
0.2 New Mexico (standard for domestic water supply) NMAC 1990
Nevada NAC 2000
0.1 Secondary standard
0.05 Standard above which public must be notified
0.05 Bottled water standard
New Jersey NJ DEP 2004
0.1 MCL with sequestering treatment (raw water 0.1 mg/L) (36 N.J.R. 5383)
0.05 MCL for raw water above 0.1 mg/L Mn
0.05 Recommended upper limit
0.05 Idaho (secondary groundwater standard) IAC 2005
0.05 USEPA SMCL (non-enforceable) USEPA 1979
0.05 Washington (groundwater standard) WADE-WAC 1990
Wisconsin (groundwater standard) WAC-DNR 2004
0.05 Enforcement standard
0.025 Preventive action limit
0.05 U.S. Food and Drug Administration (concentration in bottled USFDA 2003
water)
0.05 Health Canada Aesthetic Objective (AO) Health Canada 1996
0.05 European Union (guideline) European Union 1998
*If both Mn and Fe are present, the total Mn and Fe must be 0.5 mg/L or less.

15

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


OSHA has set limits of 5 mg/m for fume and 0.2 mg/m for particulate matter as the
average amounts of Mn permissible in workplace air over an 8-hour workday (OSHA 1998).
Similarly, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has set a
limit of 1 mg/m for manganese fume and 0.2 mg/m for the average amount of Mn, either
elemental or as inorganic compounds, that can be present in the air over an 8-hour workday
(ACGIH 1998). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) lists the
airborne concentration Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health (IDLHs) for manganese
compounds (as Mn) at 500 mg Mn/m3 (NIOSH 2002).

HEALTH EFFECTS

As mentioned previously, manganese in drinking water is largely an aesthetic problem


rather than a health problem, and based on a body of available research the USEPA has declined
to issue an enforceable health-based regulatory limit on Mn. There were no studies found that
reported exposure to elevated inorganic manganese with cancer in humans. Cancer studies in
animals have provided equivocal results. Therefore, there are little data to suggest that inorganic
manganese is carcinogenic (USEPA 2004). However, various aspects of the literature about the
health effects of Mn may be of interest to the drinking water industry.
In 1973, the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council (NRC)
determined an estimated safe and adequate daily dietary intake of Mn to be 2 to 5 mg/day for
adults (USEPA 1975). The average daily consumption of Mn from food for humans was
estimated to be from 3 to 7 mg (NAS 1973). In 1977, an NRC assessment of Mn in drinking
water was published (USEPA 1977b), they concluded that ingestion of Mn in moderate excess of
the normal dietary level of 3 to 7 mg/day was not considered to be harmful.
Although Mn is an essential trace element required for normal growth and health in
humans and animals, exposure to high levels of Mn can result in toxicity. (For instance, a
reported outbreak of manganismi.e., manganese poisoningin Japan was attributed to the
drinking of well water containing about 14 mg/L of Mn.) Manganese toxicity varies with the
route of exposure, chemical species, age, sex, and animal species. Comprehensive reviews of Mn
health effects and Mns role in biological processes are available (Mergler 1999, Sigel and Sigel
2000).

Absorption and Pharmacokinetics

Manganese is absorbed via oral or inhalation routes. The adrenal glands regulate the
concentration of Mn in the blood. Aschner (2000) reviews Mn speciation in the blood and the
transport kinetics of Mn into the central nervous system. Although Mn may be distributed to the
tissues, most of the excess is discharged via the bile or by other gastrointestinal routes. Mn
concentrates in mitochondria and organs with high mitochondrial density, such as the liver,
pancreas, kidney, adrenal glands, and intestines (Hudnell and Mergler 1999). Inorganic
manganese excretion is almost exclusively fecal; whereas organic forms are excreted in both
feces and urine (USEPA 1975). Diets associated with higher Mn intake include food such as
whole-grain cereals, nuts, green leafy vegetables, and tea.
The biochemical role of Mn is to serve as an activator of several enzymes including
hydrolase, kinases, decarboxylases, and transferases. Mn is also required for the activity of three
metalloenzymes: arginase, pyruvate carboxylase, and mitochondrial superoxide dismutase
(Welder 1994). It has also been determined that Mn uptake into the central nervous system is

16

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


increased in individuals with iron deficiency anemia (Aschner and Aschner 1991; Aschner,
Vrana, and Zheng 1999).

Acute, Sub-Chronic, and Chronic Toxicity

The representative oral LD50 values for rats are 410 to 475 mg Mn/kg for manganese
chloride, 379 to 750 mg Mn/kg for potassium permanganate, and 2,197 mg Mn/kg for
manganese dioxide (Holbrook et al. 1975, Kostial et al. 1978, Smyth et al. 1969, Shigan and
Vitvitskaia 1971). USEPAs Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database lists a total oral
reference dose (RfD) for Mn of 0.14 mg/kg/day (USEPA 1996). The RfD is an estimate of daily
exposure that is likely to be without appreciable risk of deleterious health effects during a
lifetime. This RfD of 0.14 mg/kg/day translates to a drinking water lifetime health advisory of
300 g/L (USEPA 2004). This limit was derived using a 70 Kg adult, 20% intake from drinking
water, 2L per day of water consumed and a modifying value of 3. It is important to note that
health advisory is not a regulatory limit and is to be used as guidance by public health officials
during emergencies or episodic events. Concentrations below the health advisory are expected to
be with out adverse effects on both health and aesthetics.
However, in a chapter of a book on occupational medicine Hudnell and Mergler (1999),
using the USEPAs IRIS database as the source, published an RfD of 200 g/L (which we
suppose to be a health advisory and not an RfD). In the field of public health physicians are
greatly trusted (as well they should be) so a physician in your community may present the 200
g/L as the appropriate value to guard public health based on a medical text as opposed to the
current USEPA lifetime health advisory of 300 g/L. A communitys health department is often
a good source of clarity on such matters and they will have access to the current health advisory
levels.
To continue with the theme of changing standards for Mn, the World Health Organization
(WHO) listed a limit of 0.5 mg/L (WHO 1993) is adequate to guard public health. However
within that publication they calculated a 0.4 mg/L drinking water limit based on 12 mg/day safe
exposure, 60 Kg adult, 20% intake through drinking water and an uncertainty factor of 3. They
also said that no single study is suitable for calculating a guideline value. In 2004 the WHO
(2004a, 2004b) revised their limit from 0.5 to 0.4 mg/L.
Several oral studies conducted in rodents identified biochemical changes in the brain
following administration of manganese chloride tetrahydrate in drinking water (Chandra and
Shukla 1981; Lai, Leung, and Lim 1981; Lai et al. 1982; Leung, Lai, and Lim 1981). The
relevance of these biochemical changes to humans has been challenged since rodents do not
exhibit the same neurological deficits following exposure to Mn. Marsden and Jenner (1987)
hypothesized that the ability of certain drugs to induce Parkinsonism in primates, but not in
rodents, is due to the relative lack of neuromelanin in rodents. Because Mn selectively
accumulates in pigmented regions of the brain, this species difference is fundamentally
important. A study performed in a group of four Rhesus monkeys showed muscular weakness
and rigidity of the lower limbs after 18-month exposure to 6.9 mg Mn/Kg-day (Gupta, Murphy,
and Chandra 1980). Histological analysis showed degenerated neurons in the substantia nigra
and scanty neuromelanin granules in other pigmented cells. While this study demonstrated
neurotoxicity resulting from excessive exposure to Mn, the exact mechanism is not clear.
Oral exposure studies conducted in animals have demonstrated subchronic toxicity
including hematological changes, alteration of liver enzyme activities, decreased rate of body
weight gain, decreased absolute and relative liver weights, and histopathological changes in liver
tissue following exposure to inorganic manganese compounds (Shukla, Sigh, and Chandra 1978;

17

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Hietanen, Kilpio, and Savolainen 1981; Leung et al. 1982; Komura and Sakamoto 1991; NTP
1993).

Central Nervous System Toxicity

Couper (1837) first recognized the toxic capacity of manganese. Since then, numerous
descriptions of manganese poisoning (manganism) have been detailed (Rodier 1955; Schuler et
al. 1957; Tanaka and Lieben 1969; Smyth et al. 1973; Cook, Fahn, and Brait 1974; Chandra,
Shukla, and Srivastava 1981; Roels et al. 1999; Ferraz et al. 1988; Iregren 1990; Wennberg et al.
1991; Chia et al. 1993; Mergler et al. 1994; Chu et al. 1995; Lucchini et al. 1995, 1997, 1999).
The signs and symptoms of manganism present a variety of neurological and behavior symptoms
that are related to the three functional areas of the nervous system (cerebellum, cerebral cortex,
and corpus striatum).

Cerebellum regulates muscle coordination. These symptoms include asthenia


(weakness/fatigue), gait deficits, loss of balance on rising, slurred speech, difficulties
with fine movements, limb stiffness, tremor, micrographia (cramped handwriting),
and dysdiadochokinesia (inability to perform alternating coordinated movements).
Cerebral cortex enables higher intellectual and emotional functions. Symptoms
include somnolence (sleepiness), decreased libido, memory and intellectual deficits,
nervousness, decreased mental capacity, aggressive behavior, bizarre compulsive
acts, emotional lability, hallucinations, flight of ideas, and sensory deficits.
Corpus striatum (basal nuclei or basal ganglia) regulates body and limp posture and
muscle tone, which provide the foundation for movements. Symptoms include
bradykinesia (too few and slow associative movements), postural problems, masked
facies (tight, unemotional facial expression), and dystonia (inability to maintain
proper body posture and tone).

Other associated symptoms include urinary problems, cramps, difficulties in swallowing,


and headaches. Individuals with manganese poisoning can exhibit any combination of these
symptoms. Symptoms are usually progressive and only partially reversible following cessation of
exposure (Huang et al. 1993, 1998; Nelson et al. 1993; Meco et al. 1994; McMillan 1999).
The neurotoxicity of Mn in adults with occupational inhalation exposure is well
established (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 2001; Cook et al 1974; Roels et
al 1999). . . In contrast, findings from studies of environmental exposure to Mn are limited
(Hudnell 1999, Mergler 1999 Mergler and Baldwin 1997) (Wasserman et al 2006). Therefore
they (Wasserman et al) conducted a study in Araihazar Bangladesh to look at the possible
consequences of human exposure to Mn via drinking water. In that study children (and mothers)
were tested for intellectual functions and Mn exposure. They confined the study to those wells
that had < 10 g/L of arsenic. They indicated that there was a relationship between Mn exposure
and reduced intellectual function. They concluded that in both Bangladesh and the United
States, some children are at risk of Mn-induced neurotoxicity. To put the findings of this study in
perspective, the strongest correlations to better scores in intellectual function were from those a)
with a more educated mother; b) that lived in more adequate dwelling; c) that had access to
television; d) that were taller; e) that had larger head circumference. Also the average Mn
concentration was high 793 g/L with the children being put into four groups those with
exposure to <200 g/L, 200 to 499 g/L, 500 to 999 g/L and greater than 1,000 g/L.

18

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Epidemiological Studies

An epidemiological study of Mn in drinking water was performed in three communities


in northwest Greece that use well water (Kondakis et al. 1989). Drinking water Mn
concentrations ranged from 3.6 to 14.6 g/L (area A), 81.6 to 252.6 g/L (area B), and 1,600 to
2,300 g/L (area C). The population of each community ranged between 3,200 and 4,350 people.
Study subjects included individuals over the age of 50 drawn from a random sample of 10
percent of all households. Each community was similar with respect to social and dietary
characteristics. Dietary manganese was not reported in the study, but the authors indicated that
most of the food was purchased from markets and was expected to be comparable for all three
study areas. Chemical characteristics of the well water were reported to be within Economic
Community (EC) standards with the exception of hardness.
Whole blood and hair Mn concentrations were determined. Whole blood Mn levels were
comparable between the test groups, but Mn in hair was 3.51, 4.49, and 10.99 g/g dry weight
for areas A, B, and C, respectively. The study showed that lifetime consumption of drinking
water containing naturally high concentrations of Mn leads to increased Mn retention as
demonstrated by the concentration of Mn in hair. Neurological examinations were also
conducted that evaluated the presence and severity of 33 neurological symptoms (such as
weakness/fatigue, gait disturbances, tremors, and dystonia). Significant differences in the mean
neurological scores for the C and A groups were observed. The authors suggested that at Mn
concentrations of approximately 2 mg/L, some neurological impairment might be apparent in
people over 50 years of age.
Studies comparing human breast milk and infant formulas have also investigated oral Mn
exposure. Human breast milk is relatively low in Mn (7 to 15 g/L), whereas levels in infant
formulas are much higher (50 to 300 g/L) (Collipp, Chen, and Maitinsky 1983). Collipp and
colleagues found that learning-disabled children had Mn concentrations in hair (0.434 g/g)
significantly greater than those of normal children (0.268 g/g). Other studies have also
associated Mn intake in infants with elevated levels of Mn in hair and learning disabilities in
children (USEPA 1993, Pihl and Parkes 1977). Although these studies do not demonstrate
causality, further investigation of Mn intake by infants and any correlation with learning
disabilities is warranted, as is study of the potential contribution of Mn in drinking water to
infant formula.

Essentiality

Manganese is an essential element to a wide variety of organisms, including bacteria,


plants, birds, and mammals. In humans, the divalent manganese ion activates many enzyme
reactions involved in carbohydrate breakdown and in the metabolism of organic acids, nitrogen,
and phosphorus. Typical Western diets contain from <1 to >10 mg Mn per day (Greger 1999)
with even higher Mn intake associated with vegetarian diets (USEPA 2004). Mn deficiency is
associated with growth retardation, changes in circulating high density lipid cholesterol and
glucose levels, impaired growth, and reproductive failure, as well as ataxia and skeletal
abnormalities in neonates (i.e., babies generally less than one month old) (Freeland-Graves and
Llanes 1994). Also described were several disease states associated with low levels of serum
manganese: epilepsy, exocrine pancreatic insufficiency, multiple sclerosis, cataracts, and
osteoporosis. Although these conditions correlate with low manganese serum levels, a causal
relationship has not been demonstrated.

19

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council has determined an
Adequate Intake (AI) for Mn, based on median intakes reported from the Food and Drug
Administration Total Diet Study. The AI for adult men and women is 2.3 and 1.8 mg/day,
respectively. A Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) of 11 mg/day was set for adults based on a
no-observed-adverse-effect-level for Western diets (NRC 2001).
A table of AI values and Tolerable Upper Intake Levels (UL) of Mn for males and
females was assembled by the NAS (National Academy of Sciences) in 2004. They used prior
publication to assemble these values. A presentation of their summary work is shown in Table
2.2. Specifically UL is the maximum level of daily nutrient intake that is likely to pose no risk of
adverse effects, and represents total intake from food, water and supplements

CHEMISTRY

To begin this topic, it is prudent to start with the basics before exploring the more
complex world of Mn chemistry. The authors want the reader to start this journey knowing that
we do not yet know all there is to know about Mn. There are mysterious things about

Table 2.2
Dietary reference intakes: intakes recommended for individuals
AI UL
Life stage group
(mg/day) (mg/day)
Infant
0-6 months 0.003 ND
7-12 months 0.6 ND
Children
1-3 years 1.2 2
4-8 years 1.5 3
Males
9-13 1.9 6
14-18 2.2 9
19-70 2.3 11
Females
9-13 1.6 6
14-18 1.6 9
19-70 1.8 11
Pregnancy
14-18 2.0 9
19-50 2.0 11
Lactation
14-18 2.6 9
19-50 2.6 11
Source: Data from Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Science (2004)

20

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


how Mn behaves, which can be frustrating to the scientifically minded. A college chemistry
textbook (Bailar et al. 1978) gives some of the basics:

Manganese is widely distributed on Earth and is the eleventh most abundant


element (0.0095%). Its primary ore is the mineral known as pyrolusite, MnO2
xH2O. Manganese imparts hardness and strengthens steel and is also used in other
alloys, for example manganese bronze (copper and manganese) and a
nonconducting alloy (with nickel and copper) called manganin. Manganese is a
silvery metal with a slightly pink appearance. It has several allotropic forms that
vary in brittleness and ductility, it corrodes in moist air. Manganese is one of the
essential trace elements for both plants and animals, and manganese sulfate is
added to some fertilizers. Compounds are known containing manganese in
oxidation states +2, +3, +4, +5, +6, and +7. Compounds in the +3 and +5 states
are not common. Manganese is most stable in its +2 state, Mn(II). Mn(IV) oxide,
or manganese dioxide, MnO2, is the most abundant ore from which compounds of
the metal are obtained. Stoichiometric1 manganese dioxide is extremely rare, if it
exists at all. Analysis of the material found in nature as well as of that prepared in
the laboratory shows a Mn to O ratio of 1 to 1.85 (approximately). X-ray analysis
shows that this material has the crystal structure calculated for pure
manganese(IV) dioxide, but that several percent of the oxygen atoms are missing,
leaving holes in the crystal lattice. Oxides ions from adjacent sites are able to
move into these holes, thus leaving new holes; this process makes the oxide
conductive. It is both the oxidizing power and conductivity of manganese(IV)
oxide that makes it valuable in dry cell batteries. The most interesting aspect of
manganese chemistry is the behavior of manganese compounds and ions in
oxidation-reduction reactions.

Of particular interest in this long reference is that Mn is not a simple element that makes
up simple compounds. It can change oxidation states and therefore chemical properties. The
solid form of Mn oxide is also an oxidizing agent and a cation exchange agent, not an inert solid.
Then if one puts this complex element into real settings the chemistry gets even more complex.
For example, Bratina says that although Mn is a minor chemical constituent of marine water and
freshwater, the oxides of manganese may play a pivotal role in aquatic geochemical cycles. The
central role for manganese oxides is due to their remarkable surface area and charge distribution,
which make them a potentially rich reservoir of adsorbed metals. Hydrous manganese oxides are
often present in amorphous or microcrystalline forms which have surface areas as high as 300
m2/g. (Bratina et al. 1998). Post (1999) writes that because Mn oxide minerals commonly occur
as coatings and fine-grained aggregates with large surfaces areas, they exert chemical influence
far out of proportion to their concentration. He adds because of the large tunnels in todorokite
(common mineral of Mn) it is of interest for use as a catalyst and as a cation exchange agent.
Also for another one of the common minerals, birnessite; the birnessite-group minerals have
layer structures and readily undergo oxidation reduction and cation-exchange reactions and play
a major role in controlling groundwater chemistry.

1
Stoichiometry is the branch of chemistry that deals with the proportions of chemical analysis. A
stoichiometric molecule of MnO2 means that there are two atoms of oxygen for each atom of Mn. Nonstoichiometric
means that the molecule is not actually in those exact proportions.
21

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Some common valence states of manganese and some compounds of Mn are summarized
in Table 2.3. Manganate, MnO42, is stable only in alkaline solutions. The (II), (IV), and (VII)
valence states are the only forms of manganese stable over a wide range of acidity, and we will
therefore focus on these. Both Mn(II) and Mn(VII) are soluble in water while Mn(IV) is not.
Manganese is most stable in its +2 valence state; therefore most naturally occurring manganese
is dissolved Mn(II). The next most common is the particulate state of Mn(IV). If one wishes to
remove Mn from water one usually tries to convert the Mn into an insoluble state and remove it
physically. This means allowing the MnO4 to be reduced to MnO2(s) or oxidizing Mn(II) to
MnO2(s).
Manganese exists in the soil predominantly as insoluble oxides and hydroxy-oxides such
as pyrolusite (MnO2), hausmanite (Mn3O4), and braunite ((Mn, SI)2O3) (Morgan 1967, Moore
1977, Sawyer and McCarty 1978). Under anaerobic conditions, these highly insoluble
compounds are reduced from an oxidation state of IV to a soluble oxidation state of II (Sawyer
and McCarty 1978, Stone 1987). This natural reduction occurs through the decomposition of
organic materials in the soil, which consumes oxygen, thereby creating reducing conditions that
release carbon dioxide. As water moves through the decomposing organic matter, the dissolving
carbon dioxide forms carbonic acid. As a result, the pH is suppressed and reducing conditions
increase, thus perpetuating the further reduction of additional insoluble Mn into soluble Mn
(Gehm and Bregmen 1976).
Humic acid can reduce various Mn oxides. Birnessite or -MnO2, which is also written as
MnO1.75(OH)0.25, commonly occurs in soils and sediments (Dixon et al. 1986). In reactions with
terrestrial humic acid, the Mn(IV) is reduced to Mn(III), but further reduction to Mn(II) is
inhibited (Banerjee and Nesbitt 2001). That study made use of electron spectroscopy for
chemical analysis, also known as X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS), to reveal the various
redox reactions by determining the amounts of manganese, oxygen, and carbon on the oxide
surface.

Table 2.3
Manganese compounds of common valence states
Valence
Chemical formula Physical form and description
state
0 Mn(s) Manganese metal, silvery metal with slight pink
appearance
2 Mn(OH)2 Manganese(II) hydroxide, flesh colored
2 MnS Manganese(II) sulfide, salmon colored
2 MnSO4 Manganese(II) sulfate, reddish
2 MnCl2 Manganese(II) chloride, pink

MnCl2 4H2O Manganese(II) chloride tetrahydrate, rose colored
4 MnO2(s) Manganese in solid pyrolusite, dark brown or black
(nonstoichiometric)
6 K2MnO4 Potassium manganate(VI), dark bottle-green
7 KMnO4 Potassium permanganate(VII), intense purple
Source: Data from Bailar et al. (1978)

22

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The inhibition was ascribed to the formation of exceptionally strong complexes between Mn(III)
and the humic acid, which restricted metal dissolution by blocking access to the oxygen sites on
the oxide surface, along lines postulated elsewhere (Stumm 1995). A similar result was obtained
in studies of the reductive dissolution of -MnO2 by oxalate (Banerjee and Nesbitt 1999). Dixon
et al. (2006) indicated in their Cooperative Research Center (CRC) report that although they are
fairly convinced that Mn(III) also exists in aqueous form, the sensitivity of the available
analytical techniques is not yet good enough to prove it, or at least not their collective
satisfaction.
The introduction of the idea of the soluble but oxidized species, i.e. Mn(III), challenges
our understanding to date. A presentation at the AWWA WQTC in Quebec 2005 said that they
found it on filter media. They suggest that Mn oxide covering the filter media in an IOCME
filter is not solely made of Mn(IV) oxides but is an equilibrium mix of Mn(IV) and Mn(III). The
Mn(III) stays adsorbed to the filter media when chlorine is present but that it is replaced by
cations like Fe+3 or Al+3 when it is not (Gabelich, et al 2005). An ongoing AwwaRF project
2951, with John Tobiason as the PI, is looking into the existence of Mn(III) in IOCME filter
media as well.

Biochemical Phenomena

The occurrence of Mn in source water supplies is largely dependent on biological activity


(Griffin 1960; Wong 1984; Nealson and Myers 1992; Carlson, Knocke, and Gertig 1997; Bratina
et al. 1998). The Mn biogeochemical cycle involves two groups of bacteria, each utilizing a
different form of Mn. The reducing (often anaerobic) bacteria utilize solid MnO2 in the place of
O2 during respiration. This process releases soluble Mn(II)into the environment. The oxidizing
bacteria (e.g. Metallogenium sp.) utilize soluble Mn(II)for energy and produce MnO2 (solid). The
precipitated manganese dioxide solid settles to the bottom of the body of water, thus perpetuating
this cycle.
The direction of manganese cycling depends upon the dissolved oxygen conditions in the
water column. When adequate dissolved oxygen is available, aerobic conditions predominate and
MnO2 is formed and precipitates from the water column. When conditions are anaerobic,
Mn(II)is formed and released into the water column.
Understanding the predominant direction of this cycle in a source water supply is vital for
controlling Mn. Dissolved oxygen levels predict the direction of these reactions. Carlson,
Knocke, and Gertig (1997) found that dissolved oxygen levels correlated with total Mn levels
and the partitioning of Mn between dissolved and solid species. They determined that for a
particular reservoir supply, at dissolved oxygen levels less than 3 mg/L, dissolved Mn was
detected, and when dissolved oxygen fell to less than 2 mg/L, Mn levels increased. The degree of
stratification within an impounded water supply is another influential factor. When aerobic
metabolic activity depletes the dissolved oxygen in the hypolimnion (the water immediately
above the sediment), Mn enters the water column.
Zaw and Chiswell (1995) reached conclusions somewhat contradictory to the
conventional understanding of reservoir phenomena. Typically, manganese in the lower reservoir
level is predominantly in the soluble form. Using XPS, samples of the North Pine Dam reservoir
near Brisbane, Australia, were analyzed. Oxidized (particulate) manganese, Mn(IV),
predominated in the reservoirs upper layer or epilimnion, whereas both dissolved manganese,
Mn(II), and particulate manganese were present in the middle and lower reservoir layers
(metalimnion and hypolimnion, respectively). Data presented by Zaw and Chiswell strongly
supported the conclusion that particulate Mn dominates the entire water column.

23

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The work done by Bratina et al. (1998) revealed that manganese can be reduced by
microbes even in oxic regions. The presence of microbes (Carnobacterium) and particulate Mn
seemed to be required for this process. Even when thermodynamic stability of Mn(II) or Mn(IV)
can be predicted, the change between these states is very slow and often requires a catalyst
meaning that Mn in source water tends to stay in whatever state it is in unless mediated by a
microbial process. Usually the reduction of MnO2 requires direct cell contact with the oxide
which serves as the terminal electron acceptor, as is the case with Geobacter metallireducens (an
obligate anaerobe) and Shewanella putrefaciens (a facultative anaerobe), but MnO2 can also be
reduced indirectly by microbial metabolites such as sulfides and organic acids. This is believed
to be the case with the genus Carnobacterium, where MnO2 is reduced incidentally more along
the lines of fermentation (lactic acid) than respiration. The benefit may be that nutrients captured
on the surface of MnO2 are released and become available during reduction.
Overall, Bratina et al.s (1998) work revealed findings similar to Carlsons work
(Carlson, Knocke, Gertig, 1997) inasmuch as the highest concentration of Mn(II) was in the
anaerobic zone below the oxic zone as it would be expected both thermodynamically and
microbiologically.

Speciation

Speciation of an element is the determination of the individual physicochemical forms of


that element which together make up its total concentration in a sample. Speciation is sometimes
necessary to understand the fate, toxicity, and biological activity of trace metals and their counter
ions in natural waters. Techniques used for speciation of Mn may be divided into three main
groups: physical separation, chemical speciation, and computer modeling.
Physical separation techniques are used to separate soluble from insoluble forms of
Mn. Several investigators have described procedures for physically dividing the forms of Mn
into operationally-defined size classes by ultrafiltration of water through different filter sizes
(Balikungeri, Robin, and Haerdi 1985; Chiswell and Zaw 1991; Laxen, Davison, and Woof
1984). Carlson, Knocke, and Gertig (1997) present a fractionation procedure using two filtration
steps, a technique we also used in the current project. The water sample is initially filtered
through a 0.2-m filter to remove particulate metal species. The filtrate is then passed through an
ultrafilter (30,000-Dalton molecular weight cutoff [MWCO]) to separate the colloidal and
dissolved species. The ultrafilter MWCO must be small enough to capture the smallest metal
colloid. The optimum ultrafilter pore size can be dependent upon water quality conditions. Mn
can form complexes with natural organic matter (NOM) (Borg 1987, Krom 1978). Therefore, the
ultrafilter MWCO must be large enough to ensure no significant removal of NOM. Ultrafiltration
has the advantage of being a simple technique to operate but has limitations, including the
expense, the potential for sample contamination, and the possibility of dissociation of large
molecules (Chiswell and Mokhtar 1986, Florence 1982).
By this method three relevant fractions of Mn species can be quantified: particulate,
colloidal, and truly dissolved. (In practice, the initial filtration that separates out the particulate
Mn leaves a fraction that is called dissolved, but which actually consists of both colloidal and
truly dissolved Mn.) Speciation is done by making three analytical measurements and two
calculations as follows.

24

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Mn concentration (by measurement): is all the Mn present in the sample.
Particulate Mn (by calculation): is solid Mn dioxide that can be filtered out by
standard filtration (e.g. 0.2 m). Calculated by subtracting dissolved from total.
Dissolved Mn (by measurement): is the Mn present in the filtrate after standard
filtration.
Colloidal (by calculation): is the solid Mn dioxide that passed through the 0.2-m
filter but not through the ultrafilter. Calculated by subtracting truly dissolved from
dissolved.
Truly dissolved (by measurement): is that which remains in the filtrate after
ultrafiltration, and is assumed to be Mn(II).

Chemical speciation measurements of a metal require selective analytical techniques.


Very few techniques can respond to only one particular species of an element in solution, and
analytical techniques for chemical speciation of Mn are limited (Chiswell and Mokhtar 1986).
Ion selective electrodes (ISEs) may be constructed that respond only to the Mn(II)(aq).
The sensitivity is limited (~0.5 mg/L) and the method is subject to interferences, and such
electrodes are not generally available commercially.
Anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV) is used to determine the complexation capacity of
natural waters for manganese (Kalavska 1991, Florence 1982, Chiswell and Mokhtar 1986). This
method distinguishes between labile and bound metal species. Following a sample titration,
the bound metal is determined as the difference between total and labile metal and the strength of
the bound metal-complexes can be determined mathematically. Based on the total amount of
metal, and the strength of the complexes, a chemical-equilibrium speciation computer program
can be used to more specifically determine the metals chemical speciation in the water. The
analytical technique itself, however, is not species-specific, and is subject to interference by
organic compounds present in natural waters. Potential drawbacks to the use of this method in
the water treatment industry include the amount of time required to perform the analysis (usually
only one sample can be titrated per day) and the low ionic strength of fresh water. This method is
better suited to marine waters that naturally contain electrolytes (required for any
electrochemical analysis of a water sample). ASV, as well as potentiometric stripping analysis
(PSA) and differential pulse polarography (DPP), have been applied to determine Mn in natural
waters, but these methods suffer from interferences and are limited in their ability to speciate Mn
(Chiswell and Mokhtar 1986).
Electron paramagnetic/spin resonance spectroscopy (EPR/ESR) is an important technique
for studying the formation of complexes between ligands and a metal ion. Because Mn(II) gives
a good EPR spectrum, the technique has been widely used (Chiswell and Mokhtar 1986, 1987;
Carpenter 1983), but it is costly and not generally available except in certain research
laboratories. Ion exchange/chelating columns have also been used to separate Mn(II)(aq) from
colloidal Mn (Chiswell and Mokhtar 1986, Florence 1982, Kalavska 1991).
Computer modeling to determine Mn speciation based on solubility relationships is
possible, but may not bear resemblance to reality (Florence 1982). Modeling is most useful when
applied to speciation of Mn under equilibrium conditions. A few studies have applied computer
models to seawater speciation (Carpenter 1983; Kumar 1985; Turner, Whitfield, and Dickson
1981).

25

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

Inorganic Mn in water may either be analyzed directly, or, if the concentration of Mn is


too low, a concentration step (e.g., evaporation, extraction, and binding to a resin) may be
necessary (detection limits ranging from 0.005 g/L to 50 g/L). In all cases, acid is added to the
sample to prevent precipitation of Mn and adsorption of Mn to the walls of the sample container.
Analytical methods for Mn in water and other environmental samples are summarized in
Table 2.4. The table lists the method name and the generalized detection limits which are the
Method Detection Limits (MDLs). The MDL is the lowest possible limit the method can detect.
It represents an idealized situation and does not represent normal operating conditions. The term
reporting limit (RL) (not used in the table) refers to the lowest level the analyst is able to report.
The RL is often taken as the lowest calibration standard but some analysts present the MDL as
the lowest limit even if a particular run was not calibrated down to that level. The term IDL, or
instrument detection limit, is mentioned in the table. This is the lowest limit the instrument can
produce and is always lower than the MDL. We chose to use the term generalized detection
limit, because MDL depends on the instrument and the analyst, so it can vary.
Colorimetric methods for manganese oxidize the Mn to permanganate by reagents such
as bismuthate, periodate, and persulphate, and then measure absorbance of the 528-nm charge-
transfer band of permanganate. The method is suitable for determinations in the 50-g/L range
(Marczenko 1986, APHA 1998). Chiswell, Rauchle, and Pascoe (1990) review in detail
spectrophotometric methods that use organic color-forming reagents.
Chiswell and OHalloran (1991) developed a colorimetric method for measurement of
Mn by chelation with the reagent ,,,-tetrakis(4-carboxyphenyl)porphine [T(4-CP)P]. This
method has a manganese detection limit of 10 g/L. It has been successfully applied to
determine Mn in lake water and can be used either for batch analysis in the laboratory or in an
autoanalyzer unit (Aldridge et al. 1989).
Deutsch, Hoffman, and Ortner (1997) investigated Mn(II) concentrations in rain and
snow samples using a sensitive ion chromatographic (IC) method. A photometric procedure
based on the oxidation of Leucomalchite Green (LMG) to Malachite Green (MG) by
permanganate (MnO4) was adapted to a flow-through IC system. A detection limit of 1 g/L
Mn(II) was achieved.
Beklemishev, Stoyan, and Dolmanova (1997) developed a catalytic kinetic method to
measure Mn concentrations in tap and river water. Their analytical method relies on an indicator
reaction that is catalyzed by Mn(II)specifically, the oxidation of 3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine
[TMB] by potassium periodate [KIO4]and is carried out on the surface of a paper-based
sorbent. The Mn-containing sample and TMB are preconcentrated onto filter paper, KIO4 is
added to catalyze oxidation, and the absorbance is measured. This technique has a lower
detection limit (0.005 g/L) than do other established methods and is transportable, allowing it to
be used for rapid field tests.
The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) lists three methods for
determining the concentration of Mn in water (ASTM 2002): AA, direct (flame) (D85802A);
AA, chelation-extraction (using flame or graphite furnace) (D85802B); and AA, graphite
furnace (D85802C). An ASTM colorimetric method based on persulfate oxidation was
discontinued in 1988. The colorimetric method was published in its entirety in the 1988 Annual
Book of ASTM Standards, Volume 11.01.
Determination of Mn levels in soils, sludges, or other solid wastes requires an acid
extraction/digestion step prior to analysis. Method details vary with the specific characteristics of

26

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


the sample, but usually treatment involves heating in nitric acid, oxidation with hydrogen
peroxide, and filtration and/or centrifugation to remove insoluble matter.
Manganese levels in foods have been determined in order to more clearly define human
dietary requirements or levels of absorption of Mn from the diet (Tinggi, Reilly, and Patterson
1997). Atomic absorption spectrometry has been the most widely used analytical technique to
determine Mn levels in a broad range of foods, as well as other environmental and biological
samples (Tinggi, Reilly, and Patterson 1997). Because Mn is often found at very low levels in
many foods, its measurement requires methods with low detection limits.

Table 2.4
Analytical methods for determining manganese in water and environmental samples
Generalized Sample
Matrix & method Technique
detection limit preparation
Air
Collection on
NIOSH 1984a XRF 2 g/sample filter, direct
analysis
Collection on
1 g/sample
NIOSH 1984b ICP/AES filter, acid
(5 g/m3)
digestion
Sediments, sludges, soils
Acid digestion,
EPA Methods Variable,
oxidation,
3050 and 6010 AAS, ICP/AES depending on
filtration /
(USEPA 1986a, b) matrix
centrifugation
Water
ASTM D858-02A Acidify with nitric
AAS (direct) 100 g/L
(ASTM 2002) acid
ASTM D858-02B AAS, chelation- 10 g/L Acidify with nitric
(ASTM 2002) extraction acid
ASTM D858-02C AAS (furnace) 5 g/L Acidify with nitric
(ASTM 2002) acid
Beklemishev et al. Catalytic kinetic 0.005 g/L Preconcentration
1997 method
Deutsch et al. 1997 IC 1 g/L Oxidize with NaIO4
in an acetate buffer
EPA Method 243.1 AAS (direct 10 g/L Acidify with nitric
(USEPA 1983a) aspiration) acid
EPA Method 243.2 AAS (furnace) 0.2 g/L Acidify with nitric
(USEPA 1983b) acid
SM 3111 B AAS (direct 10 g/L Acidify with nitric
(APHA 1998) aspiration) acid
(continued)

27

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table 2.4 (Continued)
Matrix & Generalized Sample
Technique
method detection limit preparation
Water
Extraction and Adjust pH to 2-4,
SM 3111 C
AAS (direct <10 g/L extract with APDC
(APHA 1998)
aspiration) into MIBK
SM 3113 Acidify with nitric
AAS (furnace) 0.2 g/L
(APHA 1998) acid
SM 3120 B Acidify with nitric
ICP 2 g/L
(APHA 1998) acid
SM 3125 B No MDL given Acidify with nitric
ICP/MS
(APHA 1998) IDL 0.002 g/L acid
Persulfate
SM 3500-Mn B Acidify with nitric
oxidation, ~50 g/L
(APHA 1998) acid
colorimetric
Water and wastes
EPA Method 200.7 Acid digestion
ICP/AES 2 g/L
(USEPA 1982) if > 1 NTU
EPA Method 200.8 Acid digestion
ICP/MS 0.02 g/L
(USEPA 1994) if > 1 NTU
EPA Method 7460 AAS (direct Acid digestion
10 g/L
(USEPA 1986c) aspiration) if > 1 NTU
EPA Method 6010 Acid digestion
ICP/AES 2 g/L
(USEPA 1986b) if > 1 NTU
Foods
AAS-flame: Digest wet or dry
Tinggi, Reilly, and AAS (flame or 0.15 mg/kg foods with HNO3-
Patterson 1997 furnace) or AAS-furnace: H2SO4 mixture
1.10 g/kg (12:2 mL)

TREATMENT AND REMOVAL TECHNOLOGY

Manganese can be removed or controlled in a variety of ways using a variety of


technologies. Each technology has specific advantages and disadvantages depending upon the
level of Mn contamination, the treatment processes, competing water quality objectives, and the
water systems overall Mn control strategy. The following Mn removal technologies are
reviewed here:

In situ treatment
Biological treatment
Chemical oxidation
Oxide-coated media
Physical separation
Ion exchange
Incidental precipitation
Sequestration

28

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


In Situ Treatment

In situ treatment is a process by which Mn is encouraged to remain in an oxidized form


so that it does not become mobile. The idea is to control Mn issues by preventing Mn from
entering the treatment facility or well.
Aeration of surface water sources, aeration of ground waters, and adsorption and
oxidation are effective in situ treatment technologies for Mn. Though slow, rates of Mn(II)
oxidation observed in natural waters are typically orders of magnitude faster than the rate of
Mn(II) oxidation in homogeneous solutions. The enhanced rate of Mn(II) oxidation in natural
waters is thought to be due to bacterial oxidation. Davies and Morgan (1989) note that the
catalytic effect of metal oxide surfaces may also be important. They examined the rates of
oxidation of Mn(II) to Mn(III) and Mn(IV) in the presence of goethite, lepidocrocite, silica, and
alumina, using a surface complex formation model to describe adsorption of Mn(II) to the oxide
surfaces. All of these solids were found to enhance the rate of Mn(II) oxidation.

Aeration

Aeration techniques can be a beneficial surface water management practice for Mn


(Bernhardt 1967; Geney 1986, 1988, 1992; van der Tak, Snyder, and Martens 1992). Reservoirs
can periodically experience episodes when anaerobic conditions are present in the bottom layer
of the impoundment and excessive levels of soluble iron and manganese can be released into the
water column. Chiswell (1998) reviews Mn speciation in surface reservoirs, noting that artificial
aeration prevents the introduction of soluble Mn spikes into the raw water of the treatment plant,
as long as the intake is above the aeration depth. Chiswell et al. (1992) examined Mn over
several years in a number of dams and streams, using electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR)
spectroscopy and selective-pore-size membrane filtration techniques. They concluded that
virtually all of the soluble manganese is present as simple Mn(II) ions; manganese complexation
does not appear to play a major role in freshwater chemistry.
Hickman et al. (2001) reported on lake monitoring at Black Shoals reservoir in Rockdale
County, Ga. from February thru September 2000 relative to iron and manganese concentrations
at three locations and various depths. The reservoir is dimitic. One purpose of the evaluation was
to analyze aeration requirements to alleviate iron and manganese problems associated with the
cycling of metals from the sediments. Reservoir turnover in the spring and fall will create serious
problems for a prospective treatment. At Black Shoals Lake a properly designed lake aeration
system might alleviate these surges and provide a uniform influent water quality into the
treatment plant.
The Black Shoals Lake dam was filled in 1998, stores 4,870 million gallons, and has a
surface area of 654 acres and an average depth of 23 feet. High iron and manganese are typically
associated with anoxic conditions at the water/sediment interface where iron and manganese are
reduced from the bottom deposits into the reservoir water. Decaying algae from the reservoir
surface can settle to the bottom, creating an oxygen demand resulting in anoxic conditions.
The study reported that when the reservoir was stratified the iron concentration in the
hypolimnion was as high as 22 mg/L and the Mn was less than 2.5 mg/L. The highest Mn
concentrations were close to the water/sediment interface. The required oxygen demand for lake
aeration was calculated on the basis of the accumulation rate of chlorine demand. The reservoir
oxygen demand was calculated on the basis that each 1 mg/L of chlorine demand is equivalent to
0.226 mg/L of oxygen demand. The total calculated oxygen required by Black Shoals Lake was
approximately 5,200 kg O2/day. The study recommended hypolimnion aerators of the Twin Full-

29

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Lift design. The total installed cost was estimated to be $2.5M, with maintenance at $65,000 per
year and operation at $100,000 per year.

Hypolimnetic Systems

Conventional diffused aeration systems use rising air bubbles to pump low-oxygen
bottom water to the surface so that natural re-aeration processes can occur. Hypolimnetic
aeration systems allow aeration of the low dissolved oxygen layer without disturbing the natural
stratification of the reservoir. Hypolimnetic systems may be used to aerate water within the same
temperature gradient, thereby preventing mixing of the thermal layers. Alternatively, lake
aeration systems such as the SolarBee may be used to provide aeration as well as mixing of the
water body, thereby maintaining dissolved oxygen levels throughout the water column. Utilities
that correctly size and operate these aeration systems can benefit from improved Mn control,
frequently realize benefits in control of taste and odor problems as well, and can dramatically
reduce treatment chemical costs. Van der Tak, Snyder, and Martens (1992) suggested that lake
aeration can be an effective control measure for Mn, but all areas of the sediment/water interface
near the drinking water supply intake must be adequately aerated.
While successful in some instances, reservoir aeration should not be viewed as a panacea
for manganese problems. Chiswell and Mokhtar (1990) reported that installation of a reservoir
aeration system in the Hinze Reservoir near Brisbane, Australia, destratified the reservoir and
indeed changed the nature and concentration of Mn in the water column. However, based on two
years of testing, reservoir destratification with air was found to increase the concentration of Mn
in the water column and was more of a detriment than a benefit. Jung (2004) of the East Bay
MUD in California has also been tracking the use of a hypolimnetic oxygenation system (HOS)
in that agencys Upper San Leandro and Sobrante reservoirs for three years. The HOS delivers a
small flow of oxygen (not air) under pressure, at the bottom of the reservoir. The system was
installed to control algae that were causing taste and odor (T&O) problems, with Mn control
being incidental to that. The system is successful in creating saturated and supersaturated DO
levels within the reservoir, and the amount Mn entering the water treatment plants is lower than
in the two years prior to installation. It effectively reduced the T&O (blue-green) algae, but in the
second year of operation, it seems to have created an environment that favored filter-clogging
algae (Cratium). East Bay MUD recently reduced the amount of oxygen transferred, so that only
the lower stratum of the lake is saturated with DO. Clearly, the effectiveness of reservoir aeration
for Mn control will be site specific.

Groundwater in situ

Water systems with wells drawing groundwater containing soluble Mn can have
production capacity losses. Zienkiewicz (1985) reported on the Vyredox method for removing
Mn from groundwater at the source, in the ground, before the water is drawn to the well. This is
an in situ method that works by raising the redox potential in the ground around a well with
periodic recharges of aerated water using specially engineered conditioning equipment and
recharge wells. Oxygen in the recharge water acts as a catalyst to begin a biochemical reaction
that transforms Mn from its soluble form to insoluble compounds that are kept in the ground
away from the well. Braester and Martinell (1988) described and formulated mathematically the
phenomena involved in the Vyredox process, including flow, transport, chemical reactions, and
bacteriological processes.

30

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Biological Treatment

Biological treatment for Mn is essentially a filtration process that takes advantage of the
oxidizing ability of certain bacteria and their ability to assimilate Mn. Usually applied as a
pretreatment for wells, this process attempts to promote the selective growth of beneficial
bacteria. Since the bacteria are aerobic the technology employed is simply a surface to grow on
and air to make sure there is oxygen in the water. The oxidized metal must be later removed by
physical separation or by removal of bacteria that have accumulated the metal.
Biological filtration processes are not typical in the United States, but they are common
in Europe. The first facilities for the biological removal of iron and manganese were built in
Germany more than 100 years ago (Charlottengurg, in 1874) and in the United States (Atlantic
Highland, NJ, in 1893) (OConnor 1971).
Large bacterial populations can be established in filters that oxidize iron and manganese
and precipitate the metals in the surrounding filter medium. These processes are generally rapid,
occurring more quickly than physical/chemical treatment processes. The cost of a biological
oxidation plant may be considerably less than the cost of a conventional chemical
oxidation/filtration system, and pilot studies are typically conducted to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the process for a particular water (Larson 1995; Yannoni, Kinsley, and Marston
1999).
Bacteria capable of removing Mn include Sphaerotilus, Leptothrix, Crenothrix,
Siderocapsa, Siderocystis, Hyphomicrobium, and Metallogenium (Mouchet 1992). These
organisms remove Mn through the following processes: (1) intercellular oxidation by enzymatic
action, (2) adsorption of dissolved Mn at the surface of the cell membranes, and (3) extracellular
oxidation by catalytic action of excreted polymers (Czekalla, Mevius, and Hanert 1985;
Schweisfurth 1972; Ghiorse 1984; Gounot, Di Ruggiero, and Haroux, C. 1988; Rittmann and
Snoeyink 1984; Sokolova-Dubinina 1979; Vandenabeele et al. 1992). Sphaerotilus and
Leptothrix transform Mn(II) to Mn(IV) (Mulder and van Veen 1983). Generally, these
manganese dioxide precipitates have better structures than those produced by physical-chemical
processes and are more likely to be removed in the filter (Czekalla, Mevius, and Hanert 1985;
Tuschewitzki and Dott 1983; Hatva et al. 1985).
Specific operating conditions are required to establish the necessary microbial
populations to successfully remove Mn as follows: (1) full aerobic conditions must prevail
within the biofilter, (2) dissolved oxygen levels must be greater than 5 mg/L, (3) the pH must be
7.5 or greater, and (4) a redox potential of 300 to 400 mV must be achieved (Mouchet 1992). If
necessary, the water should be aerated in pretreatment to produce appropriate dissolved oxygen
levels. In addition, the source water must not contain substances toxic to the bacteria, including
chlorine (from pretreatment of backwash water), hydrogen sulfide (levels must be less than 0.01
mg/L), heavy metals, ammonia nitrogen, phosphates, organics, or hydrocarbons (Sommerfeld
1999).
Iron can also be removed through biological processes, although the operating conditions
differ from those for Mn removal (Cameron 1996, Sommerfeld 1999). Bacteria commonly used
for iron removal are Gallionella, Leptothrix, Crenothrix, and Siderocapsa. Operating conditions
require (1) pH between 6.5 and 7.22 (2) dissolved oxygen levels of 5 to 25 mg/L, and (3)
temperatures of 10 to 25oC. The same toxicity restrictions apply for the iron- and manganese-
removal bacteria. Generally, if both iron and manganese bio-removal processes are used, they are

2
Seemingly contradictory, pH above 7.2 generally does not adversely affect removal, the mechanism of
removal may change from biological to chemical.
31

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


done in tandem with the iron-removal stage first. Typical treatment protocol would have initial
aeration with biological filtration for iron removal, secondary aeration and pH adjustment,
biological filtration for Mn removal, and finally appropriate post-treatment such as disinfection.
According to Smith (1993), who visited such plants in Europe, German plants typically add as
much oxygen as possible to enhance Fe removal. In France, utilities try to zero in on a very
specific range of dissolved oxygen, usually below saturation. The German biological process
may verge on chemical process as a result of all the oxygen that is added, while the French is
truly biological. In the specific plants visited by Smith the metal loading was much higher in
Germany than France. When establishing a biological filtration process for Fe removal the
biofilm was established and stable within days. However, when developing one that would also
remove Mn, the startup time was much longerweeks to months. It seemed to take longer for
the correct bacteria to be of a sufficient population to be effective.
Bouwer and Crowe (1988) suggested that biological Mn removal is closely associated
with nitrification. Both nitrifying and Mn-oxidizing bacteria obtain similar amounts of free
energy from their respective oxidants, both use oxygen as an electron acceptor and carbon
dioxide as a carbon source, and they may be expected to have similar growth rates (Rittmann and
Snoeyink 1984). Because of these similarities, the conditions that permit nitrifiers to accumulate
may also allow Mn oxidizers to accumulate as well.
Shorney et al. (1998) reported on pilot studies of enhanced Mn removal in a biologically
active filter at the Lincoln, Neb., water system. The treatment plants used aeration and
chlorination combined with sand filtration at one plant and in-line filtration with ozone and dual
media filtration at a second plant. Mn had been an ongoing issue and the utility set a goal of 20
g/L in the treated water. However, meeting this goal has been a challenge at the sand filtration
plant, and pilot plant studies were subsequently conducted at both treatment plants. A method for
controlling oxidation/reduction environments within a biologically active filter was developed by
maintaining a continuously regenerated oxide-coated surface for trace soluble Mn control in the
upper layer of the filters and simultaneously maintaining biological activity for AOC control in
the lower layer of the filters. The Mn removal by filtration was improved by chlorine addition.
As the chlorine dose was increased, up to a maximum of 1.4 mg/L as Cl2, more Mn was
removed. However, as the chlorine dose increased, microbial activity decreased. The source
water Mn at the two plants varied from 30 g/L to over 140 g/L, and the goal of 20 g/L was
met using chlorine alone. At a lower chlorine dose (0.3 mg/L) the Mn removal was reduced but
the biological activity in the pilot filter was not totally compromised. A portion of the upper filter
media was precoated with manganese oxide by soaking in a solution of 100 mg/L of potassium
permanganate for over 20 hours. The precoating yielded effective Mn removal in the absence of
chlorine addition during the three months of pilot testing without affecting microbial activity in
the lower filter layers.
Schulz et al. (1999) reported on a series of pilot plant tests at Lake Havasu City, Ariz.
The groundwater supply for Lake Havasu City contains Mn between 1.0 and 1.2 mg/L. Pilot
plant studies were conducted related to the construction of a new 26-mgd treatment plant
designed primarily for Mn, but also in anticipation that the wells may eventually be deemed
under the direct influence of surface water. Processes evaluated included manganese greensand
filtration, electromedia filtration, biological filtration, and ozone followed by low head automatic
backwash filters. The target level of Mn during the study was 0.05 mg/L, which was achieved by
all the processes. However, the biological Mn process (IDI Mangazur) had the lowest 15-year
cycle cost for a 26-mgd facility. The estimated construction cost for the plant was estimated to be
$0.50/gallon with supporting facilities.

32

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Chemical Oxidation Followed by Physical Separation

This is the most common practice employed for the removal of Mn in drinking water. In
the simplest of descriptions, it is the oxidation of soluble Mn(II) to solid Mn(IV) via an oxidizing
compound, producing a precipitate that can be physically separated (Carlson, Knocke, and Gertig
1994). The process description is simple but the application of the oxidant and the later physical
removal of the solid can be very complicated.
Various oxidizing agents can be used to change the oxidation state of Mn so that it can be
removed from a drinking water supply. Table 2.5 describes the Mn oxidation reactions for
oxidants typically used in drinking water, listing the ideal or theoretical stoichiometric ratio of
oxidant to metal for each reaction.
The ability of an oxidant to effectively convert manganese from its dissolved state (Mn+2)
to solid MnO4 depends on a variety of factors: total oxidant demand in the water, temperature,
pH, alkalinity, and the presence of competitive oxidizing species (iron, sulfide, nitrate, ammonia,
and organic compounds) (Posselt, Reidies, and Weber 1968; Posselt, Anderson, and Weber
1968; Hammer 1975). Generally, oxidant doses greater than the stoichiometric ratios are
necessary in actual drinking water applications. Additionally, the kinetics of the specific reaction
under the existing treatment process condition must be considered to determine if adequate
oxidation will occur within the available process detention times.

Table 2.5
Theoretical reaction stoichiometry for manganese (II)
Stoichiometric ratio,
Oxidant Reaction
mg oxidant : mg Mn metal
2+ +
O2(aq.) Mn + 1/2O2 + H2O MnO2(s) + 2H 0.29 : 1
HOCl Mn2+ + HOCl + H2O MnO2(s) + Cl + 3H+ 1.30 : 1
MnO4 3Mn2+ + 2KMnO4 + 2H2O 5MnO2(s) + 2K+ + 4H+ 1.92 : 1
O3(aq.) Mn2+ + O3 + H2O MnO2(s) + O2 + 2H+ 0.88 : 1
ClO2 Mn2+ + 2ClO2 + 2H2O MnO2(s) + 2ClO2 + 4H+ 2.45 : 1
Source: Adapted from Sommerfeld 1999

33

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The following equations depict the three-step reaction process for the oxidation of Mn in
water. This reaction is neither a first- nor second-order reaction but rather an autocatalytic
reaction. The final reaction step is pH-dependent.

Mn(II) + O2 MnO2(s) (slow) (2.1)


Mn(II) + MnO2(s) Mn(II)MnO2 (fast) (2.2)
Mn(II) MnO2 + O2 2MnO2(s) (very slow) (2.3)

The kinetics of oxidation are very important. Knocke et al. (1990) did seminal work in
this area and presented information about the kinetics of oxidation, mostly in the bulk water
phase. However, the concentrations of Mn used to do this research were higher than one might
find typically, so Gregory and Carlson (2003) conducted research using lower concentrations of
Mn. They found that the reaction kinetics were even slower than Knocke predicted. They also
found that for ozone, when the initial Mn concentration was low (60 and 200 g/L) a final
residual of <10 g/L was not achievable and in many cases permanganate was formed.
Because of its adsorptive properties, manganese dioxide accelerates the removal of
Mn(II) from solution and causes the mixed oxide to form. It is the presence of this manganese
dioxide on filter media that makes the removal of Mn(II) during oxide-coated media filtration so
effective. Later in this chapter there will be a more detailed discussion of this process.
The presence of organic material can complicate the oxidation and removal of Mn. The
organic matter influences Mn oxidation through one or more of the following three strategies:

Changing the nature of the oxidant


Changing the speciation of the metal
Competition with the metal for the oxidant

Aeration can be an effective oxidation process for iron removal, but it is generally not
effective for oxidation of Mn (Griffin 1960, Stumm and Lee 1961). It is possible to oxidize Mn
by air, but that is a slow process and requires alkaline pH conditions above 9.5 (Morgan and
Stumm 1964, Weber 1972). Highly alkaline conditions are not prevalent in most drinking water
treatment processes, except in water-softening operations, which require highly alkaline pH
conditions.
Raveendran, Ashworth, and Chatelier (2001) evaluated alternative methods for oxidizing
and removing Mn from the South Gippsland Region Water Authority (SQRWA) in Australia,
which owns and operates 10 water treatment plants that experience reoccurring Mn problems.
Methods examined included aeration, chlorine, sodium hypochlorite, and potassium
permanganate. The researchers concluded that reservoir aeration might be considered as primary
treatment, but would likely not oxidize all of the reservoir Mn and that oxidizing agents would
still be required at the treatment plants. Potassium permanganate as an oxidizing agent was found
to be very effective for converting soluble Mn to the insoluble form, but if the source-water Mn
concentration fluctuated significantly, adjusting the permanganate dose was operationally
difficult. High pH, above 8, resulted in improved Mn removal by subsequent filtration, but alum
coagulation at the higher pH would be difficult. SGRWA found adequate Mn removal when they
raised the pH up to 7.5 to 8.0 with a detention time of 10 minutes before alum addition.
Once adequately oxidized from a soluble form to an insoluble form, Mn can be removed
from water by physical separation. In cases where there is a large enough quantity of Mn, a
significant percentage of it is removed by settling. That which is not removed by settling (or
clarification in general) is removed by filtration. Complications occur in these unit processes
34

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


when sludges and backwash waters are recycled and Mn reenters the treatment process. Also,
under certain conditions, the particulate Mn formed is not easily removed by filters and it passes
through. There is also the simple matter of filter capacity. The filer may only be able to hold so
much Mn and may require backwashing on the basis of Mn loading as opposed to other more
typical scenarios.
The following discussion reviews details of chemical oxidation using various different
oxidizers.

Chemical Oxidation by Chlorine

Chlorine oxidizes Mn much less efficiently than it oxidizes iron. Alkaline pH conditions
and dosages well above the stoichiometric requirements are needed to produce effective rates of
Mn oxidation (Griffin 1960; Knocke, Hoehn, and Sinsabaugh 1987; Knocke et al. 1990). Mn(II)
oxidation is extremely slow under neutral or acidic pH conditions.
Hao, Davis, and Chang (1991) reported on the mechanism of soluble Mn oxidation to the
insoluble Mn(IV) form with chlorine. Experimentally, ratios of chlorine to Mn(II) of 0.8 to 3.8
were investigated. At an experimental pH of 8, the time for Mn(II) to convert to MnO2 was
significantly reduced as the ratio of chlorine to manganese increased. However, even at a
chlorine to manganese ratio of 3.8, over 100 minutes was required for 1.0 mg/L of Mn(II) to be
fully oxidized. The rate of Mn oxidation greatly depends on the pH of the solution, and most
importantly on the dose of chlorine. A model was developed based on homogenous Mn(II)
oxidation and heterogeneous Mn(II) adsorption/ oxidation onto MnO2. The addition of MnO2
accelerated the oxidation of Mn(II), as did excess chlorine.
Knocke et al. (1990) found that even at dosages 4 times greater than stoichiometric
requirements for free chlorine, a minimum of a 3-hour contact time was necessary to achieve the
reduction in the soluble Mn concentration from 1.0 mg/L to 0.7 mg/L at pH 7.0. When pH was
increased to 9.0, Mn(II) was effectively oxidized within 1 hour to below the SMCL of 0.05
mg/L. Temperature also influences Mn(II) oxidation. When temperature was reduced from 25C
to 14C, comparable Mn(II) oxidation was not possible even if reaction time was increased by a
factor of three or four.
Knocke, Hamon, and Thompson (1988) also observed that the presence of fulvic acids
inhibited the rate of Mn(II) oxidation by free chlorine. However, effective removal was still
observed at a pH of 9.0 and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentrations up to 5.0 mg/L.
Manganese removal is significantly enhanced when free chlorine is used in combination with
oxide-coated filter media (Weng, Hoven, and Schwartz 1986; Knocke, Hamon, and Thompson
1988).
For facilities that do not practice breakpoint chlorination and maintain a chloramine
residual as the preoxidant, Mn removal is generally not effective. The oxidation rate of
chloramines is too slow to be useful in water treatment processes for the removal of Mn
(Kawamura 2000).

Chemical Oxidation by Potassium Permanganate

Potassium permanganate has diverse applications in drinking water treatment to control


taste and odor, remove iron and manganese, function as a bactericide and algaecide, and
regenerate greensand or pyrolusite filter beds (Humphrey and Eikleberry 1962, Spicher and
Skrinde 1963, Ficek and Waer 1993). Potassium permanganate was recognized in the 1960s as
being a general and economical solution to the problem of iron and manganese removal

35

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Robinson, Breland, and Dixon 1967). Typical permanganate dosages range from 0.5 to 2.0 ppm
(as KMnO4) depending on the oxidant demand in the source water and the available contact time.
Potassium permanganate has been demonstrated to oxidize a wide variety of substances under
acid, neutral, or alkaline conditions (Kolthoff and Belcher 1957). This list includes sulfide,
sulfite, thiosulfate, cyanide, iron, manganese, chromium, and numerous organic compounds such
as organic acids, alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, phenols, and some nitrogen compounds.
Permanganate does not, however, oxidize ammonia to nitrogen or nitrogen oxides.
For Mn control, Knocke et al. (1990) established permanganate effectiveness over a wide
range of temperature and pH conditions. More importantly, the rate of permanganate oxidation is
significant for the detention times observed in drinking water treatment facilities. For a pH range
of 5.5 to 9.0, Mn oxidation by permanganate at 105 percent of the stoichiometric requirement for
Mn(II) occurs within 60 seconds (temperature 25C and <1.0 mg/L DOC). When the temperature
was reduced to 7C at pH 5.5, complete oxidation of Mn occurred within 60 seconds and at 2C
it occurred within 120 seconds. These researchers also indicated that the presence of DOC (up to
10 mg/L) decreased the rate of Mn(II) oxidation, but it was still relatively short (<12 minutes)
at 25C and pH 7.0.
The use of potassium permanganate to oxidize and remove Mn(II) must be precisely
optimized, and the applied permanganate must completely oxidize the source water Mn(II)
without allowing excess permanganate to be present. If excess permanganate is present in a
water that has little to no oxidant demand, it may persist through the drinking water treatment
process. The permanganate, Mn(VII), will then later reduce to Mn(IV) allowing MnO2(s) to be
formed in or pass into the distribution system. Usually the presence of a filter media will allow
for the presence of an adsorption surface and this usually controls the passage of Mn. However
when Carlson, Knocke, and Gertig (1994) were trying to optimize KMnO4 addition for soft, low
TOC waters (i.e., waters with low oxidant demand), they found Mn was able to pass through the
filters. They noted that the destabilization of colloidal MnO2(s) is influenced by Ca2+
concentration and therefore oxidized Mn will pass through the filters more easily in soft waters.
Knowing that oxidation and removal of Mn in low-hardness, low-alkalinity, and low-pH
waters can be difficult, Lauf (1995) developed a mathematical model to predict optimum
conditions for Mn removal. It is based on the filterability index (FI) concept. The FI is defined
as the ratio of the time required to filter 200 mL of treated water to the time required to filter 200
mL of deionized water using a 0.22-micron filter for both. The closer the FI is to 1, the more
favorable the Mn removal. Major factors affecting the FI are the oxidant dose, initial Mn
concentration, pH, hardness, coagulant dose, and coagulant type. For low-hardness waters,
knowing the fraction of dissolved Mn will enable optimization of potassium permanganate. In
soft waters, adding calcium may aid in Mn oxidation and removal.
An additional benefit of using potassium permanganate in the pretreatment of drinking
water is that it can also oxidize certain THM precursors (Colthurst and Singer 1982). The
manganese dioxide precipitate that is generated by the reduction of permanganate can adsorb
THM precursors.
Ballantyne et al. (2002) considered alternative measures to reduce Mn levels in the
District Municipality of Muskova MacTier treatment plant in Ontario, Canada. The conventional
treatment plant (flash mixing, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration) treating the MacTier
reservoir water could not reduce the Mn levels to acceptable levels. The raw water Mn was about
0.44 mg/L and plant could only lower the Mn to about 0.38 mg/L. Manganese in the treated
water created black water and discoloration problems in the distribution system. A study was
conducted to determine the cause of the Mn problems and evaluate potential changes to the
treatment process that would eliminate system problems. These included elevated pH and
36

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


aeration and/or oxidation with the chemicals available at the MacTier treatment plant. These
chemicals were chlorine, air (aeration), lime, and carbon dioxide. Potassium permanganate,
which was not available at the plant, was only to be considered if other available treatment
options were not successful.
Bench-scale tests were conducted from September to November 2001. Aeration of the
raw water prior to conventional treatment did not help in the removal of Mn unless very long
oxidation times (over 60 minutes) were provided. This was considered to be uneconomical. The
raw water TOC averaged 5.3 mg/L during the study. Pre-chlorination was evaluated but a
chlorine dose of 10 mg/L was necessary to oxidize the Mn to acceptable levels. The high
chlorine dose, however, created unacceptable disinfection byproduct levels and was not
considered an acceptable alternative. Alkaline conditions at pH values over 10 did not improve
the removal of Mn in the conventional treatment process. Potassium permanganate was tested at
a dose of between 0.25 mg/L and 4.0 mg/L. Potassium permanganate was the only oxidant that
could substantially reduce Mn levels and it was able to reduce raw water Mn from 0.36 mg/L to
less than 0.05 mg/L in bench-scale tests. The permanganate dose also had a distinct effect on the
residual color in the treated water.

Chemical Oxidation by Ozonation

Ozone used in preoxidation for water treatment processes allows the removal of inorganic
compounds such as iron and manganese (Seby et al. 1995). The extremely fast kinetics of iron
oxidation result in the preferential oxidation of uncomplexed Fe(II) over Mn(II) (Stoebner and
Rollag 1981, Knocke et al. 1990). Although ozone may be utilized for iron and manganese
oxidation, ozonation is not frequently practiced due to greater capital costs than other available
methods, as well as the risk of completely oxidizing the manganese to permanganate with a
result of pink effluent water.
Netzer and Bowers (1975) discussed the potential for excessive ozone doses to cause the
formation of permanganate. Long, Hulsey, and Hoehn (1999) reviewed water quality problems
that can occur when pre-ozonation is used to oxidize Mn. Most likely, if either oxidized or
reduced Mn concentrations in the raw or settled water exceed 0.1 mg/L, permanganate would
form at concentrations sufficiently high to create problems, especially if the ozone dosages are
high enough to achieve pathogen inactivation.
Knocke et al. (1990) found that ozone oxidized uncomplexed Mn(II) more effectively
than organically complexed Mn(II). Additionally, ozone oxidation occurred more effectively
under acidic conditions than basic. They found that although alkalinity conditions did not
significantly influence the rate of Mn(II) oxidation, pH was a factor in the decomposition of
ozone. They found that the concentration of soluble Mn decreased at pH 5.13 for the first 60
seconds, but at pH 6.35, there was no additional decrease in soluble Mn after 30 seconds. Nowell
and Hoigne (1987) also found that Mn reacts directly with ozone and is not an initiator of
hydroxyl radicals. The decomposition of ozone is initiated by hydroxide ions (Hoigne and Bader
1977, Staehelin and Hoigne 1983). An increase in pH increases the rate of ozone decay, thereby
reducing the effective ozone dose.
Seby et al. (1995) studies the reactivity of ozone and Mn over a wide pH range. They
characterized oxidized Mn species as permanganate ion at pH = 2, and manganese dioxide at pH
= 4 to 8. They also said that it was difficult to determine species because of secondary reactions,
the main one being the interaction between indigo (used to determine ozone concentration) and
MnO2, which will oxidize the indigo and return to Mn(II).

37

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


In pilot studies at Snowbird, Utah, Nieminski and Evans (1995) found that an ozone dose
of 2 mg/L, contacted with the water for 1 minute prior to filtration, was optimum for iron and
manganese removal from 0.4 mg/L and 40 g/L, respectively, to below detection limits. Studies
at Moscow, Idaho, found that ozone doses varying from 2.8 mg/L to 8.8 mg/L would be needed
to oxidize Mn concentrations ranging from 0.5 mg/L to 1.2 mg/L, with a reaction time of at least
30 seconds (Furgason and Day 1975a, 1975b). Ozonation was found by Domonkos and Varszegi
(1994) to be the best alternative for the Budapest Waterworks to oxidize iron and Mn using an
ozone dose of 0.9 to 1.2 mg/L with a hydraulic residence time of 7 to 8 minutes.
Oxidation of Mn(II) by ozone was inhibited by the presence of humic materials (Paillard
et al. 1989, Knocke et al. 1990, Reckhow et al. 1991). Knocke et al. (1990) determined that the
required ozone dose ranged from 2 to 5 times the theoretical stoichiometric ratio if humic carbon
was present. These increases were due to competition between the Mn and the humic carbon for
the oxidant. However, Reckhow et al. (1991) found that Mn oxidation by ozone was less
inhibited by the presence of organic carbon than was the oxidation of iron.
These studies also demonstrated that bicarbonate had an influence under humic
conditions (Paillard et al. 1989, Knocke et al. 1990, Reckhow et al. 1991). Specifically, Reckhow
et al. (1991) and Paillard et al. (1989) said that the inhibition of humic carbon on the oxidation of
Mn is reduced at elevated bicarbonate concentrations (0.5 to 4.0 meq/L). Yet the increase in
bicarbonate alkalinity from 50 mg/L to 200 mg/L did not result in acceleration of the Mn
oxidation in the absence of organic matter. However, in the presence of organic matter, higher
bicarbonate levels created conditions that resulted in more complete oxidation of the Mn after the
complete decay of the applied ozone. This suggests that bicarbonate ion stabilizes ozone (by
quenching the hydroxyl radicals), and thereby lowers the ozone dose required to achieve a given
degree of Mn oxidation, or that more bicarbonate allows for a more stable MnO2 molecule. Both
Carlson, Knocke, and Gertig (1994) and Jenkins (1974) demonstrated that Ca2+ makes a more for
stable MnO2 that is more readily captured by filter media.
Gregory and Carlson (2001) studied oxidation of Mn(II) by ozone with respect to natural
organic matter (NOM) and initial Mn(II) concentrations using post-ozonation dissolved Mn
residuals as the metric. For an initial Mn(II) concentration of 200 g/L, dissolved Mn residuals
<10g/L were attainable only in the absence of NOM. The presence of NOM complicates the
use of ozone for Mn(II) removal by increasing dosage requirements. Legube et al. (1989) found
that Mn oxidation by ozone was partially inhibited by fulvic acid, particularly in the absence of
bicarbonate ions.
McKnight et al. (1993) preferred application of ozone to the settled water for Mn
oxidation. These authors contended that high ozone doses required to oxidize Mn in raw water
applications are detrimental to coagulation and that oxidized Mn forms a small pinfloc that does
not settle well and is difficult to remove by filtration. Ozone oxidation practices can provide
additional Mn removal benefits if the application point of ozone is moved from the raw water to
the settled water. Since there is reduced oxidant demand in the settled water, competition is
reduced, lower ozone doses can be applied, and the potential to encourage the formation of
pinfloc is reduced. Additional cost savings can be realized by the reduced size of the ozone
generator and application facilities.
Wilczak et al. (1993) evaluated Mn control during ozonation of water containing organic
compounds. Pilot plant testing of Delaware River water was conducted using four preoxidants
(potassium permanganate, chlorine, chlorine dioxide, and ozone) followed by clarification and
dual media anthracite-sand filtration. As the ozone dose was increased the formation of MnO2
increased until at high ozone doses (over 3.8 mg/L O3), permanganate was formed, causing a
characteristic pink color. Addition of KMnO4 after ozonation but prior to coagulation
38

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


considerably improved the removal of soluble manganese. The application of ozone alone may
not always result in the removal of soluble Mn to acceptable levels.
OBrien et al. (1996) reported on removal of Mn using ozone oxidation and polymer-
assisted filtration. The research was conducted at the 50-mgd Lincoln, Neb., treatment plant,
which draws water from wells along the Platte River. The plant process includes ozonation
followed by dual media filtration. Although the plant consistently produces water with Mn less
than 0.050 mg/L, distribution system problems and consumer complaints persisted. Anionic and
nonionic filter aid polymers were not successful in helping the removal of Mn in the ozone/dual
media filtration plant even though the Mn was oxidized into an insoluble form. It was postulated
that cationic filter aids would be more effective since colloidal Mn tends to exhibit a slightly
negative charge. Consequently, the study evaluated the performance of four cationic filter aid
polymers that could potentially maintain a filtered water Mn concentration less than 0.020 mg/L.
The researchers also investigated the impact of filter media conditioning by presoaking filter
media in concentrated potassium permanganate and chlorine or by the addition of filter aid
polymer during the later stages of backwashing. Applied ozone dose varied from 0.5 to 3 mg/L.
Dissolved Mn concentrations were analyzed based on filtering samples through 0.22-micron
nylon filter disks. Filter aid polymers were added just prior to the pilot filters after ozonation.
The study concluded that staining problems were experienced in Lincoln even when the Mn
standard of 0.05 mg/L was met. A level of 0.020 mg/L was necessary to control consumer
problems from staining. Addition of a cationic filter aid polymer improved filter performance in
removing Mn, but there was no significant difference in the four cationic filter polymers tested.
Research was conducted at the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) into using ozone
to achieve Cryptosporidium inactivation (Kim et al. 2001, CDM 2000). Results of this study
indicated that when ozone was applied at levels required to meet the anticipated inactivation, Mn
concentrations were lower through biologically active filters (i.e., no applied chlorine) than when
no ozone was applied. However the use of ozone did not always controlled Mn to below the
SMCL of 0.05 mg/L. Control of Mn was best achieved with chlorine. Also the old media filter
controlled Mn better than the new media filter in all cases. This encouraged PED to conduct
more studies into the control of Mn.
Kohl, Kim, and Charlton (2002) examined the limitations of ozone for removing Mn in
comparative studies at PWD. Ozone, without the addition of any chlorine prior to filtration, was
not able to control the source water Mn down to the utilitys goal of 0.015 mg/L. Ozone did
change the nature of the total Mn from primarily dissolved to a particulate form. Filter
effluent Mn was in dissolved form, implying that Mn(IV) was entering the filter while only
Mn(II) left the filter.
Other conclusions from the PWD research suggested that the low doses of ozone required
for 3-log Giardia inactivation were generally not effective for Mn control (unable to produce Mn
oxides) and that the hydraulic residence times tested in the ozone contactors had little effect on
Mn removal. At the higher doses of ozone (1.5 mg/L), Mn was effectively controlled in colder
water (less than 12C), but not when the water temperature exceeded about 18C. As source
water TOC increased, the Mn removal efficiency, using only intermediate ozone decreased.
Chlorine applied to the filter performed better for Mn removal than intermediate ozonation alone.
The researchers concluded that ozone as a replacement for filter-applied chlorine may not be
viable.
Lefebvre and Deguin (1997) examined bromate ion formed by oxidation of water
containing bromide ion, along with the removal of triazines and/or Mn. Under identical
conditions of ozonation, BrO3 formation was specific for each water and depended on
parameters such as total organic carbon, UV absorbance at 254 nm, applied ozone, and ozone
39

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


residual. Mn oxidation by ozone appeared to be achieved without high bromate formation.
Indeed, the presence of Mn hindered BrO3 formation.

Chemical Oxidation by Chlorine Dioxide

Chlorine dioxide can be used in drinking water treatment for disinfection, DBP reduction,
and taste and odor control as well as oxidation of Mn(II) and subsequent removal of manganese
dioxide (Griffin 1960). The mechanism of oxidation of Mn by chlorine dioxide is similar to its
oxidation by potassium permanganate (Knocke et al. 1990). Reaction rates for oxidation with
chlorine dioxide are similar to permanganate. Rates increase when pH increases and decrease in
the presence of organic carbon. When humic carbon is present, improved Mn(II) oxidation is
observed when the pH is increased. Temperature <10C is a limiting factor to Mn oxidation
(Knocke, Hoehn, and Sinsabaugh 1987).
In the presence of reduced Mn, chlorine dioxide is not completely reduced to chloride ion
(Cl); rather, it is only reduced to chlorite (ClO2). When the oxidative capacity is limited in this
manner, a transfer of only one electron rather than five occurs. The Stage 1 D/DBP Rule
(USEPA 1998c) sets an MCL for chlorite at 1.0 mg/L. Because only a small portion of the
oxidizing capacity of chlorine dioxide is utilized in this reaction, the stoichiometric dosage for
Mn(II) oxidation is very high (Table 2.4) and the application of chlorine dioxide for Mn(II)
oxidation is limited (Knocke et al. 1990).

Chemical Oxidation by Hydrogen Peroxide

Knocke et al. (1987, 1990) found that no reaction occurred between Mn(II) and hydrogen
peroxide over the pH range of 5.5 to 8.5.

Oxide-Coated Media

Manganese Greensand

Manganese greensand is a purple-black granular filter medium processed from glauconite


sand. Glauconite is synthetically coated with a thin layer of manganese dioxide, MnO2(s). These
coated sand particles have a distinct green color, thus the name greensand. Glauconite media has
an effective size of 0.30 to 0.35 mm, a uniformity coefficient of less than 1.60, and a specific
gravity of approximately 2.4 (Sommerfeld 1999).
Prior to use, greensand must be conditioned by soaking in a potassium permanganate or
chlorine solution. This strong oxidizing solution converts the manganous ion (Mn2+) surface
coating into manganese dioxide, MnO2(s). Once greensand filters are appropriately conditioned,
manganese and iron removal occurs through both filtration and adsorption. Generally, it takes
several weeks of operation for new greensand filters to achieve optimum removal efficiencies
(Wormald and Clark 1994). Greensand filters are best applied in groundwater systems with iron
and manganese concentrations below 5 mg/L. The capacity of greensand for manganese is about
0.09 pounds per cubic foot, and the amount of potassium permanganate required for regeneration
is 0.18 pounds per cubic foot. Greensand loading rates should be between 3 to 5 gpm/sf with
backwash at 8 gpm/sf. Maximum pressure drop across the media should be kept to less than 6 to
8 psi to avoid degradation of the greensand (Griffin 1960).
Richards and Foellmi (1985) found through pilot testing that chemical oxidation with
both chlorine and potassium permanganate followed by manganese greensand pressure filters,
that were continuously regenerated, was the most cost-effective treatment process for Mn
40

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


removal at Hibbing, Minnesota. The source water at Hibbing which is in the heart of
Minnesotas iron mining region had elevated Fe and Mn. The full-scale Mn removal operation
was fairly large with an average treatment of 1.9 MGD and a design maximum of 3.2 MGD.
The operation of a greensand treatment facility typically involves the use of an oxidant
prior to filtration, which is referred to as continuous regeneration. Iron and manganese that have
been oxidized into insoluble forms are removed by physical filtration mechanisms. Mn that has
not been oxidized into an insoluble form is adsorbed onto the MnO2(s) surface of the greensand
particle. If potassium permanganate is used as the oxidant, proper dosage must be applied so that
excess residual does not pass through the filter and cause an effluent that is pink in color.
In the process termed intermediate regeneration, preoxidation occurs with aeration,
which is only effective for iron. The particulate iron is removed by filtration, with the remaining
dissolved Mn adsorbed onto a fully regenerated MnO2(s) coating. Intermediate regeneration
practices have an advantage when raw water constituents, such as organic carbon, ammonia, and
hydrogen sulfide, interfere with the preoxidation or filtration processes for Mn removal
(Sommerfeld 1999).
A third operational mode using greensand involves oxidation of iron by aeration,
followed by a chlorine feed at a sufficient dose to continuously regenerate the Mn coating on the
media. Manganese is then removed by adsorption. In this mode, the chlorine feed must
adequately control both the continuous regeneration of the media and meet the other chemical
demands of the water to provide the desired free chlorine residual in the filter effluent.
Regardless of the mode of operation, the manganese oxide material acts as a catalyst
providing the necessary oxygen for the oxidation reaction of soluble iron and manganese. The
removal mechanisms involved in greensand applications are both adsorption and oxidation. After
the initial removal of Mn from the water by absorption of the divalent species, the slower
oxidation process (Equation 2.3) occurs. Removal rates are 0.01 pound of Mn(II) and 0.13 pound
of Fe(II) per cubic foot of filter media and the removal capacity increases with increasing
solution pH (Moore 1977).

Pyrolusite

Manganese and iron can also be removed from solution by adsorption on a packed bed of
granular pyrolusite (McGhee 1991). Pyrolusite is the mineral form of MnO2(s). It is mined in the
United States, Australia, Brazil, and South Africa. The ore is crushed into specific sizes needed
for filters used in potable water treatment. Since the individual pieces of pyrolusite media are
actually MnO2, it is not necessary to develop a manganese dioxide coating on the media particles
as is required with greensand-type filters.
Pyrolusite filters are typically a blend of pyrolusite and sand. The range of this blend is
from 10% pyrolusite / 90% sand to 50% pyrolusite / 50% sand (percent by volume (Sommerfeld
1999). The necessary ratio of pyrolusite to sand will depend on the levels of iron and manganese
that need to be removed from the raw water. Depending upon source water quality, aeration can
be used to remove unwanted gases (hydrogen sulfide) and to oxidize iron. Typically, chlorine is
fed at a sufficient level to keep the pyrolusite continuously regenerated. If preoxidation with
chlorine is not desired due to minimizing disinfection byproduct formation, intermediate
regeneration practices are used and regeneration occurs when chlorinated water is used for filter
backwash.
Since pyrolusite has a high specific gravity (approximately 4.0), pyrolusite filters require
higher backwash flow to fluidize the bed and provide necessary cleaning. Generally, air scour is
also used in the backwash to adequately clean these filters. Since this media does not have a

41

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


simple coating of manganese dioxide, air scour during backwash can provide excellent results
without significant changes to the particle size, shape, or removal capacity. Air scour also aids in
keeping the pyrolusite and sand a homogenous mixture.
A benefit to the use of pyrolusite media is that comparatively higher filtration rates are
possible with this application. Generally, filtration rates associated with greensand processes are
limited to 3 to 5 gpm/sf, but with pyrolusite, filtration rates of 10 to 15 gpm/sf have been
achieved (Odell and Cyr 1998). The increased filtration rate reduces filter size and construction
costs.

Induced Oxide-Coated Media Effect (IOCME)

Soluble Mn may also be removed by absorption onto manganese oxide-coated filter


media, with subsequent oxidation by free chlorine. Dr. Knocke termed the induced greensand
effect. For various reason this research team used the term induced oxide-coated media effect.
The rate of soluble Mn(II) uptake on Mn oxide-coated media is increased with an
increase in the number of sorption sites, increased solution pH, and the presence of free chlorine
(Knocke, Hamon, and Thompson 1988; Knocke, Occiano, and Hungate 1990). Davies and
Morgan (1989) examined the rates of oxidation of Mn(II) to Mn(IV) in the presence of goethite,
lepidocrocite, silica, and alumina. Goethite and lepidocrocite are oxides of iron. Adsorptive
uptake of Mn(II) on each of these substances depended greatly on pH, it rapidly increases with
increasing pH over a narrow range. The half-life for adsorption was generally less than 5
minutes. However, the kinetics of Mn(II) adsorption are rapid compared to rates of Mn(II)
oxidation, which generally are very slow (half-life greater than 60 minutes).
Removal of soluble Mn(II) by Mn oxide-coated media has been found to be a dependable
technique under a wide range of filter influent conditions (Hargette and Knocke 2001). There are
two potential modes of operation for an oxide-coated filter: (1) intermittent regeneration and (2)
continuous regeneration. In the intermittent regeneration mode, the filter media adsorbs
dissolved Mn in the absence of a strong oxidant. The adsorptive capacity is periodically
regenerated by the addition of chlorine or potassium permanganate. With continuous
regeneration, free chlorine is continuously applied to oxidize the adsorbed Mn to the insoluble
manganese dioxide form. Merkle et al. (1996, 1997) developed techniques for characterizing
surface coatings of filter media and a process model for soluble Mn(II) removal by oxide-coated
media. The model relies on continuous regeneration of filter media with free chlorine, and
accounts for Mn removal over a wide range of process variables for both natural and synthetic
media.
Catalytic oxidation on manganese dioxidecoated filter media has developed as an
important treatment method for Mn removal in both conventional and natural glauconite
filtration plants. Addition of chlorine prior to filtration is a basic premise of catalytic oxidation.
However, the increasingly stringent disinfection byproduct regulations coupled with regulatory
pressure to reduce the use of free chlorine has motivated utilities to optimize treatment for Mn
reduction, and in some cases seek alternative treatment methods.
Charlton et al. (2002) reported on the pilot testing conducted at the PWD relative to
disinfection byproduct control and simultaneous Mn removal. The Mn originates from the source
water, from the potassium permanganate added to the source water for algae and T&O control,
and from the ferric chloride used as the primary coagulant. Removal of Mn has been effective at
Philadelphias full-scale plants because they achieve IOCME by adding chlorine to the settled
water prior to dual media filtration. However, free chlorine increases the formation of
disinfection byproducts.

42

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The pilot testing was conducted over four seasons at Philadelphias Baxter treatment
plant (drawing from the Delaware River) and simultaneously at the Belmont treatment plant
(which draws from the Schuylkill River). At a low pH of about 6.5 (suggested as a target pH for
enhanced coagulation), Mn control was not obtained until the chlorine dose was at 0.5 mg/L
above that which was required to achieve breakpoint. Essentially the same result was noted at a
lower pH of 5.8. Increasing the pH to just over 7 allowed for Mn control at much lower chlorine
doses, as low as 0.5 mg/L below breakpoint. When the water temperature was less than 10oC, the
effectiveness of Mn removal was hampered even when the applied chlorine dose exceeded 1.0
mg/L above breakpoint. A relationship was demonstrated between breakpoint chlorination, pH,
and manganese removal. Charlton et al (2002) concluded that breakpoint chlorination can be
used to establish a balance between disinfection byproduct formation and Mn control.
In addition to influencing the oxidation of manganese in solution, the sorption of Mn(II)
onto MnO2(s) has been demonstrated to be pH-dependent (Morgan and Stumm 1964). The ratio
of Moles of Mn(II) removed from solution in relation to the Moles of MnO2 already present (as a
coating on sand particles) increased from <0.2 at pH 4.5, to 0.5 at pH 7, to 0.8 at pH 8. The
effect of pH was also observed in filters with large amounts of surface oxide coating (Knocke et
al. 1988; Knocke, Occiano, and Hungate 1990). They found that highly oxidized forms of Mn,
[MnO1.8(s) to MnO2(s)] of the oxide coating had an increased soluble Mn(II) removal capacity,
which was reduced when acidic pH (<6.5) conditions prevailed. They also found that a decrease
in either solution pH or free chlorine concentration in the filter-applied water will adversely
affect the ability of the surface oxide coating to promote efficient Mn removal.
Coffey, Gallagher, and Knocke (1993) developed models to predict design parameters
and operational conditions needed to implement oxide-coated media as a treatment process for
soluble manganese removal. They used two separate models one to predict the continuous
removal of Mn in the presence of free chlorine (continuous regeneration (or Nakanishi) model),
and another to predict the eventual breakthrough of soluble manganese without oxidant addition
(intermittent regeneration model). The Nakanishi model was found to be helpful for predicting
the removal of soluble manganese. A linear-adsorption isotherm effectively predicts the
performance of oxide-coated filters operating in an intermittent regeneration mode and is useful
for treatment plants that cannot apply chlorine continuously to their filter-applied water.

Physical Separation

As mentioned previously, once solid Mn has been formed it must be removed by a


physical separation process. In conventional treatment plants this is both the settling basin and
the filter.

Filtration Processes

Oxidized Mn may be removed by granular media filters. Sommerfeld (1996) discusses


the chemistry of Mn removal employing oxidation and/or adsorption followed by granular media
filtration. Jenkins (1974) derived a mathematical-chemical relationship to predict the most
effective concentrations of Ca2+ as a filter aid for removal of colloidal Mn oxides. The
concentration of calcium necessary to cause effective removal of Mn was shown to be
stoichiometric with the oxide concentration.
Bratby (1988) described laboratory and pilot studies to define the optimum conditions for
Mn removal and washwater recovery at the Serra Azul direct filtration plant in Belo Horizonte,
Brazil. The inverted sequence of chemical addition of chlorine, ferric chloride, lime, was found

43

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


to offer definite advantages for Mn oxidation. Neither the use of polyelectrolytes nor the
recycling of filter washwater was found to be advantageous.

Dissolved Air Flotation

Although not specifically an iron or manganese removal technique, dissolved air flotation
can remove the precipitates formed following the oxidation of soluble iron and manganese
(Sommerfeld 1999). Dissolved air flotation is generally more effective on waters with low rather
than high Mn concentrations.
Roscoe (2002) reported on Mn problems at the North East Water (NEW), Australia towns
of Benalla, Tungamah, and St. James. Black-water events from Mn were periodically a major
problem. At times the Mn concentration in the finished water exceeded the Australian guideline
of 0.1 mg/L. Consumer confidence was diminished as a consequence of the black-water
problems.
Until 1998 the town of Benalla was supplied from a surface water reservoir with water
that only received chlorination. In December 1998 a new treatment plant was commissioned with
a capacity of 19 ML per day using dissolved air flotation. The plant used liquid alum as the
primary coagulant, LT20 polymer as the flocculation aid, and soda ash for pH correction. The
filtered water was disinfected with chlorine at a residual of 0.2 to 0.5 mg/L. The plant was also
capable of adding powdered activated carbon, potassium permanganate, and aqueous ammonia.
In October 1999 after 10 months of operation the daily demand on the plant significantly
increased, causing oxidized deposits of Mn on the supply pipelines to be scoured into the
distribution system, resulting in serious consumer complaints about black water from the
manganese. Potential solutions considered by the utility included optimizing the current
coagulant and aids, pretreatment with potassium permanganate, alternative coagulants, and
implementing different detention times and alternative disinfection treatment and processes. The
average raw water Mn concentration at the Benalla plant was 0.08 mg/L with virtually all of the
Mn passing into the distribution system. After conducting a series of jar tests, potassium
permanganate was introduced into the raw water to oxidize the soluble manganese. First the
permanganate was added to the raw water, and then the pH was raised to 8.0 with soda ash,
followed by a retention time of 5 to 20 minutes. Subsequently alum was added at a pH of 5.5 to
7.5 followed by flocculation and dissolved air flotation. The full-scale plant results were poor. It
was concluded that a longer oxidation contact tank would be needed which would require major
capital works improvement.
Additional jar testing on PACl (polyaluminum chlorohydrate) suggested that changing
the coagulant might significantly improve the removal of Mn in the DAF process. Once the full-
scale plant change had been implemented, the total soluble Mn was reduced from over 0.08
mg/L to less than 0.02 mg/L. Based on both jar tests and full-scale testing, PACl was an effective
coagulant for removing Mn as compared to aluminum sulfate. The PACl performed 95 percent
better than the alum alone even with a preoxidant. The change to PACl produced a treated water
quality well below the Australian guideline of 0.1 mg/L of manganese, and significantly reduced
black-water complaints. Additional research is needed to determine exactly how PACl removes
Mn.

Membrane Processes

Schneider, Johns, and Huehmer (2001) studied the application of oxidation followed by
microfiltration on three types of surface water: the Eagle River in Colorado, the Tygart River

44

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


impoundment in West Virginia, and the Alcovy River in Georgia. Preoxidants investigated
included chlorine, ozone, hydrogen peroxide, chlorine dioxide, and potassium permanganate.
The membranes studied had pore openings of 0.1 and 0.2 m. The raw water Mn ranged from
0.1 mg/L to 0.3 mg/L in the three supplies. Using the appropriate preoxidant, the filtered water
Mn could be reduced to less than 0.025 mg/L. No significant difference was reported between
the 0.1-m and 0.2-m microfilters in terms of Mn concentration in the filtrate. The researchers
reported that ozone and chlorine dioxide performed best as preoxidants. Hydrogen peroxide did
not sufficiently oxidize the Mn while chlorine required a reaction time of over 100 minutes for
Mn oxidation to produce a filtrate less than 0.05 mg/L. These authors concluded that
oxidation/microfiltration is an effective process for the removal of Mn from surface water.
Pilot studies at Lake Havasu City, Ariz., found that ultrafiltration using a membrane with
a molecular weight cutoff of 100,000 Daltons was not successful for removing Mn (Schulz et al.
1999). No preoxidant was used and the researchers postulated that ultrafiltration might be
appropriate if a strong preoxidant was used prior to filtration. During the study the membranes
irreversibly fouled.
Iron and Mn may cause problems with reverse osmosis, nanofiltration, and
electrodialysis/electrodialysis reversal membrane systems. However, if the metals are maintained
in a reduced or dissolved state, they cause little problem with reverse osmosis and nanofiltration
systems. Addition of acid prevents metal oxide precipitation that occurs in the presence of
oxygen or at elevated pH
Mann et al. (2002) reported on a comprehensive study at the Sweetwater Authority,
Richard A. Reynolds Groundwater Demineralization Facility, National City, Calif. which uses
reverse osmosis to treat local groundwater. When certain alluvial wells containing iron and
manganese were used, rapid fouling of the reverse osmosis membranes was experienced. The
alluvial wells contained iron ranging from 0.42 to 2.9 mg/L and manganese from 0.06 to 1.90
mg/L. The study investigated the pretreatment processes of oxidation and removal of iron and
manganese by a combination of aeration and low pressure membrane filtration using
microfiltration or ultrafiltration in parallel. The study evaluated the operation of the RO
membranes with and without pretreatment. The RO system was designed to treat well water
containing 600 to 800 mg/L of dissolved solids.
Aeration was chosen as the oxidation process preceding prefiltration, since air was
expected to oxidize the iron and leave the Mn in solution, and since the use of a chemical oxidant
would require close control and removal of its residuals. The study evaluated prefiltration with
microfilters having a pore size of 0.1 microns and ultrafilters with a pore size of 0.015 microns.
Microfiltration alone could not meet the performance goal of a minimum of 30 days without the
need for cleaning. Ultrafiltration did meet the process and operating requirements after switching
to cross flow operation, adding a sulfuric acid cleaning step, and reducing the flux loading to less
than 54 gfd. Unexpected water quality variations may cause dramatic fouling of the membranes
but test data suggested that aeration followed by low-pressure membrane filtration appeared to
be an effective method for the removal of iron and manganese prior to reverse osmosis treatment
(Mann et al. 2002).
Iron and manganese can foul electrodialysis/electrodialysis reversal systems because
electrodialysis product water does not pass through the membrane. Provisions must be made in
the pretreatment design to exclude unwanted colloids and organic carbon in the feedwater
(Conlon 1990). Electrodialysis feedwater systems normally require pretreatment if the source
water contains iron concentrations >0.3 mg/L or manganese >0.1 mg/L. Pretreatment techniques
can include oxidation followed by granular media filtration, oxidation followed by manganese
greensand filtration, or cation exchange softeners.
45

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Ion Exchange

The free cations of iron and manganese can be removed using zeolite processes. As water
flows through the zeolite medium, cationic exchange occurs. Backwashing the zeolite, typically
with a brine solution prepared from sodium chloride (NaCl), removes the iron, manganese, and
hardness cations that have accumulated. After regeneration, the zeolite medium is rinsed with
clean water to remove residual brine prior to returning the process to service.
The use of oxidation practices prior to zeolite softening is not recommended for iron and
manganese removal because the zeolite process requires the iron and manganese to be in a
cationic form and not in an oxidized, insoluble form. Additionally, the accumulation of solid iron
and manganese oxides can clog and plug the zeolite medium (Sommerfeld 1999).

Incidental Precipitation

Lime (CaO) or soda ash (Na2CO3) treatment is effective for removing both iron and
manganese because it raises the pH to a level at which iron and manganese are insoluble
(Ferguson and Given 1976). Softening processes are especially effective for pre-aerated waters
with pH above 9.5 and an alkalinity above 20 mg/L. Manganese will not precipitate at pH less
8.8, but at pH 9.4 to 9.8 manganese was removed at 98% to 100% (Kawamura 1991). Since
lime softening is more expensive than other iron and manganese removal processes, lime
softening would typically only be used if significant softening of the water is required in addition
to iron and manganese removal (Wormald and Clark 1994, Benefield and Morgan 1990,
Sommerfeld 1999).
Aziz and Smith (1992) conducted batch experiments using dolomitic limestone, gravel,
and crushed red brick to remove Mn. At a final pH value of 8.5, limestone gave 95% removal of
Mn, crushed brick gave 82% removal, and gravel gave about 60% removal. Mn removal using
aeration and settling with no solid media was <15%. The results indicated that rough solid media
and the presence of carbonate are beneficial in the precipitation of Mn from water. These media
are low cost and may be suitable for rural water treatment in developing countries. Subsequent
laboratory-scale filtration studies found good Mn removal using limestone media at an input pH
of 7 and a manganese concentration of 1 mg/L (Aziz and Smith 1996).

Sequestering Agents

Sequestering can be used to control aesthetic water quality problems associated with Mn.
However, sequestering is not a removal technique (Knocke, Hoehn, and Sinsabaugh 1987;
Knocke et al. 1990; Carlson, Knocke, and Gertig 1997). Sequestering agents will keep
manganese in a form that generally will not cause consumer problems. Sequestering agents
essentially keep manganese in solution by preventing soluble manganese from oxidizing to an
insoluble form, or by inhibiting colloidal manganese from forming larger colloids.
Use of sequestering agents to control negative aesthetic effects is generally applicable to
water containing less than 2 mg/L of iron and manganese (Kawamura 2000). To be effective,
iron and manganese must be in the bicarbonate form. Sequestering agents include compounds
such as sodium silicate, trisodium phosphate, hexametaphosphate, and zinc orthophosphate. The
proper dosage of sequestering chemicals must be determined based on water quality
characteristics and the manufacturers recommendations. A typical hexametaphosphate dose
required to control 1 mg/L of iron would be approximately 2 mg/L. However, the industry
approach is to limit hexametaphosphate doses to 4 mg/L, since it can promote biological growth

46

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


in the distribution system. Successful use of a sequestering agent will depend on the
concentrations of iron and manganese, the amount of hardness in the water, and the detention
time through the distribution system.
Polyphosphates can be used as sequestering agents for the control of Mn, as sequestering
prevents oxidation. Mn is held in solution so that precipitation in the drinking water distribution
system is prevented or delayed. Sequestering of iron differs from Mn in that the iron is oxidized
(typically with chlorine) to a colloidal ferric form. Sodium silicate or a polyphosphate can be
used as an iron sequestering agent to stabilize colloidal iron in a form that is too small to cause
any apparent color or turbidity. Sodium silicate, however, has not been successful for
sequestering Mn (Sommerfeld 1999).
The use of a sequestering process is only applicable to cold waters, as these agents lose
their dispersing properties in water that is heated or boiled (Kawamura 2000). Another important
issue that must be considered in the use of sequestering agents is that the use of polyphosphate
can increase the nutrient level in the drinking water. Increased phosphate may support the
regrowth of bacteria, increase HPC counts, or have an adverse effect on the level of phosphate in
the communitys wastewater discharge. The use of sodium silicate will increase drinking water
sodium levels, which may be of concern for individuals on sodium-restricted diets.

Miscellaneous Issues Regarding Treatment Technologies

Changing Process pH

Changing process pH and oxidation practices can have a direct, negative impact on Mn
removal strategies. If Mn is oxidized completely before the coagulation process, effective
removal is possible, especially if the MnO2(s) remains stable. However, if Mn is oxidized after
the coagulation process, the pH depression associated with enhanced coagulation can affect the
efficiency of the removal process. The extent that Mn removal is affected is dependent on
solution pH, temperature, oxidant type and concentration, and contact time. If potassium
permanganate, chlorine dioxide, or ozone is applied before coagulation, the oxidation rate is fast
enough that complete reaction can occur in the contact time available before coagulation
(typically less than 5 minutes) even at pH values as low as 4.5 (Knocke et al. 1990). The impact
of the low oxidizing power of chlorine and the short contact time associated with most enhanced
coagulation practices makes Mn removal in the bulk water by chlorine ineffective. Most
conventional water treatment plants have less than 2 hours of chlorine contact time between the
coagulation and filtration processes.
USEPA (1999) provides guidance for the development of a Mn removal strategy with
enhanced coagulation. A utility should (1) document Mn concentration and fractionation
(particulate, colloidal, and dissolved); (2) identify unambiguous finished water Mn goals; and (3)
optimize processes with respect to oxidation, adsorption, and coagulant purity.

Manganese Contamination of Ferric Salts

Manganese contained in many ferric salts that are used in water treatment is also a
potential problem in that it can introduce additional Mn beyond what is found in the source
water. If a utility switches from low doses of ferric or alum to high doses of ferric, the coagulant
itself may significantly increase the amount of dissolved Mn added to the water stream. In an
enhanced coagulation study, Mn contamination of liquid ferric chloride resulted in soluble Mn
concentrations up to 0.5 mg/L (Crozes et al. 1996). The greater the amount of Mn in the water

47

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


stream does not necessarily preclude effective Mn removal, but efficient Mn removal at the
reduced pH and lower oxidant conditions typical of enhanced coagulation (one of the reasons for
increase coagulant feed) becomes more difficult. The introduction of Mn via a coagulant is even
more pronounced for utilities that once used a Mn free product. For these utilities, the Mn is not
just increased; it sort of just appears, often taking them by complete surprise. This is discussed
in this reports utility survey, Chapter 4.

Residual Management

Mn removed in sedimentation and filtration processes is ultimately directed to plant


residuals. Mn and iron associated with sludge will be release from sludge blankets if anaerobic
conditions develop, which often happens in manually cleaned sedimentation basins, and the
resulting total Mn concentration applied to the filters can exceed that in the raw water (Hoehn,
Novak, and Cumbie 1987; Trace Inorganic Substances Committee 1987; Cornwell and Lee
1993). Release of Mn into the water column is also expected from sludge that accumulates in
backwash water holding tanks and other facilities used to hold or handle treatment plant
residuals. An optimized coagulation study conducted in 1996 of a 6.4-mgd surface water
treatment plant in Pennsylvania demonstrated that iron and manganese were released from
coagulation and backwash residuals and that operational difficulties resulted from this release
(Casale, LeChevallier, and Pontius 2002).
For drinking water treatment plants that recycle supernatant from clarifiers, holding
tanks, and sludge press facilities, the contribution of Mn from recycled water can be significant.
Ibrahim, Crossland, and Dixon (1997) determined levels of Mn in drinking water plant recycle
streams and found 0.07 to 1.90 mg/L in gravity thickener decant and 3.3 to 68.0 mg/L in sludge
press decant. Preventing accumulated sludge from turning anaerobic, balancing recycled water to
a small portion of the total plant flow, and maintaining adequate Mn oxidation/adsorption
practices can minimize recycled manganese impacts.

48

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


CHAPTER 3
METHODS AND MATERIALS
The research conducted for this study was performed using several different methods
suited to the diverse tasks outlined in Chapter 1. Existing literature was examined, surveys were
taken, field samples were collected and tested, experiments were conducted, and costs were
modeled and analyzed. The methods followed for these tasks are fairly distinct from each other
and are therefore each described separately. This breakdown by research task is also followed for
Chapters 4 (Results and Discussion) and 5 (Summary and Conclusions), rather than trying to fit
the diverse data sets and task results into one continuous narrative.
The headings in this and the following chapters thus follow the specific tasks completed.
The PIs began this research with a literature review, as presented in Chapter 2. The next step was
to collect data using initial and detailed surveys. After the detailed utility surveys, the research
team collected samples from water utility distribution systems for chemical and physical
analysis, including quantitative speciation of manganese. Experimental case studies explored
treatment options for Mn, and a cost analysis explored the fiscal implications of treatment.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature review was conducted to update the PIs on current understanding and
developments in Mn treatment, occurrence, chemistry, problems, and related areas. The literature
review also served as a source of utility contacts for the initial survey part of this project.
The techniques used to identify references were primarily database searches, library
reviews, association inquiries, university sources, personal contacts, and known thesis
publications. The searches revealed hundreds of relevant references. The investigators collected
as many as possible (although some were unobtainable) and considered the literature review
sufficiently complete and current to meaningfully advance the project goals. The lengthy list of
initial references was narrowed down to identify those articles and documents that provided the
most pertinent information. This smaller list of detailed references was read by the PIs,
summarized, and subsequently used as part of the literature review presented in Chapter 2,
augmenting previous review efforts.

INITIAL SURVEYS

The initial surveys were conducted to help the researchers determine the depth and
breadth of utility experience with manganese issues, problems, and experiences. A manganese
issue is defined as any problem associated with the treatment, sequestration, or occurrence of Mn
that could or does result in a distribution system problem. Distribution problems could be in the
consumers homes or associated with the operation of the distribution system, such as flushing.
The collection of this information was focused on utilities that had reported Mn problems in the
literature, had constructed a treatment plant to remove Mn, or were known to the PIs as locations
where Mn was a potential problem.

Identifying Potential Survey Utilities

A list of potential survey utilities was assembled to ensure that we contacted utilities that
were representative of surface waters and groundwaters; diverse geographical regions; small,
medium, and large utilities; and at least one of each of the commonly used Mn control

49

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


technologies. Both domestic and international input provided the benefit of utility contacts that
were using different approaches to Mn problems, as well as exposure to new technology.
International input was solicited from Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and the UK.
The purpose of the initial surveys was to confirm that the utility had a problem associated
with Mn, and ascertain the nature of the problem and the approach to mitigation of the problem.
The utility location and specific data associated with the interviews were maintained in
confidential files. Consequently, the results of the surveys are presented in this report generically
and in summarized tables. The list of potential utilities to be contacted for the initial surveys was
generated from several sources, as follows.

Personal contacts. Co-PI Steven Medlar provided a list of 86 utilities having Mn


issues that he and others in the consulting firm CDM have worked with in the past.
Additional utilities were provided by personal contacts of the project technical
advisory group (TAG) and project advisory committee (PAC) members. Several
additional contacts were made through networking at AwwaRF and AWWA
conferences.
Manufacturers installation lists. Hungerford and Terry provided an installation list
of several hundred facilities around the U.S. that have greensand filters. Several other
water treatment equipment manufacturers Web sitesnamely Filtronics, ONDEO
(Mangazur biological process), and Osmonics (membrane filtration)provided the
names of utility installations that were also contacted. Some manufacturers were
responsive to our requests for installation locations and data, while others were
reluctant to provide the information. The purpose of obtaining the information was
neither to judge the appropriateness of the application nor to disclose proprietary
information.
United States Geological Survey (USGS) and United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) Web sites. The USGS National Stream Water-Quality Monitoring
Network (WQN) provides Mn data from river samples throughout the U.S., and
various USGS published reports present studies of groundwater Mn measurements
from test wells. We combined this USGS data with USEPA data to identify likely
utility prospects for the study. The USEPA Safe Drinking Water Information System
(SDWIS) Web site lists every public water system; this was searched for potential
utilities along rivers or around aquifers where the USGS data indicated the potential
for elevated Mn concentrations.
California manganese occurrence data. The State of California Department of Health
Services has a published list of all utilities in California that have reported a source
water Mn concentration greater than 0.50 mg/L from 1994 through 2002. This list
includes 213 systems from 41 counties.
General Internet search. We used several Internet search engines to find documents
containing such key words as Mn, treatment, drinking water, etc., as well as specific
state names. This search uncovered many utilities that post their Consumer
Confidence Reports (CCRs) on their Web sites, and was useful in identifying utilities
in areas of the country where we did not have personal contacts.
Literature search articles. Several of the articles found in the literature search task of
this project provided names of specific communities that had Mn in the water or were
using a specific technology for Mn treatment.

50

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Using the above criteria we identified 348 utilities. The project goal was to complete 100
initial surveys through direct telephone contact with the utility. Some of the utilities had multiple
water sources or multiple (i.e. discrete) water treatment plants (facilities). Of the 348 potential
utilities, 158 were contacted. Those 158 utilities represented a far greater number of facilities.
Therefore if a utility had more than one facility that was determined to have Mn levels justifying
further discussion, a separate initial survey was conducted. Each survey represented a discrete
water treatment plant. From the 158 participating utilities, we collected 242 initial surveys. The
results and geographical distribution of the surveys are given in Chapter 4.
The PIs felt that a reasonable representation of Mn occurrence and problems was
obtained using this approach. A secondary purpose of the surveys was to obtain utility
information for subsequent detailed interviews. It was not to obtain a representative statistical
distribution of Mn issues and occurrence in the United States or elsewhere.

Initial Survey Instrument

Based on the investigators understanding of Mn in water treatment and from insight


gained through the literature search, the PIs conducted a series of meetings and workshops with
the research team to develop the initial survey content and form. The survey was intended to be a
means by which we could gather and normalize available data. The survey was conducted by
telephone using a carefully devised survey protocol designed to elicit useful information in a
brief contact and maintain consistency in the types of information gathered from the various
utilities. The information obtained built upon the existing experience of the project team
members (retrospective data) about Mn issues, problems, occurrence, treatment, and associated
cause-and-effect relationships.
Specific survey questions were designed to gather information concerning source water
type and treatment method used, including chemical addition, individual unit operations,
frequency of Mn testing in the raw, finished, and distribution system waters, average minimum
and maximum Mn concentrations, and the Mn analytical method(s) used. A copy of the initial
survey instrument is included in Appendix A. The survey was designed to be completed in less
than 20 minutes, although many took less time. Each utility was asked to provide a copy of its
Consumer Confidence Report or a Web site address to obtain a copy of the report. Survey
participants were asked about their willingness to participate in a future, detailed survey, if
requested.
Five members of the research team were trained by the PIs prior to conducting the
surveys to minimize variance in the survey-taking practices. Completed surveys were punctually
typed and submitted electronically to the project data manager for entry into a database. The
database served to track task progress as well as being used for data analysis.

Miscellaneous Considerations

Each survey was facility specific. A facility was defined as a treatment plant, chemical
feed system, or source of supply if no treatment was provided, that had a discrete connection to
the distributions system. For example if a water treatment plant had vastly different treatment
trains but the combined effluent connected to the distribution system in one place it was
considered one facility. If a utility had three separate water treatment plants that connected to an
independent (or somewhat independent) distribution system, then each facility was eligible for
the survey.

51

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The sizes of utilities that were surveyed ranged from large utilities serving several million
customers to small communities with less than 1,000 people. The size of utility often influences
the approach to Mn control: large utilities may invest substantially in new unit treatment
processes to control source-water Mn, while smaller utilities may choose to add a sequestering
agent post-treatment or find an entirely new water source with low Mn concentrations.

Analysis of Initial Survey Data

After entry into a database, the information gathered from the initial survey was
examined to determine the typical ranges of source water Mn seen by the utilities and correlate
this with source water type and certain water quality parameters. It was used as the basis for
selection of detailed survey participation. The PIs used it as the initial source to discern the
industrys general awareness of Mn and the implications of Mn control.

DETAILED SURVEYS

Selecting Utilities for Detailed Surveys

The project PIs and core working group met at least monthly to review completed initial
surveys, and from these surveys, select utilities for further in-depth study. The investigators
looked for facilities with substantial challenges related to Mn removal problems or occurrence.
As with the initial survey, criteria for detailed survey facilities included fair
representation of surface and groundwaters, a breadth of Mn removal technologies, utility size,
and geographic distribution throughout the United States.

Detailed Survey Instrument

The detailed survey focused on four specific areas of interest: source water, treatment,
distribution system, and customer satisfaction. The source water questions probed specific issues
such as reservoir turnover or seasonal changes. The treatment questions were designed to probe
utility water quality goals, recycle streams, and fate of solids. The distribution system section of
the survey investigated size, detention time, materials, oxidant residuals, and flushing programs.
The customer satisfaction section reviewed the tracking and follow-up of customer complaints.
A utilitys ability to offer differentiable customer complaint information was one of our criteria
for further investigation. In addition to the survey questionnaire, the utilities were asked to
provide annual water quality data for 20 specific water quality parameters, collected in the raw
water, finished water, and distribution system. A separate spreadsheet was sent electronically to
each participating utility for the respondent to return when completed. The detailed survey
instrument and water quality data spreadsheet are included in Appendix A. NOTE: In Appendix
A, only the raw water quality data (WQ) sheet is shown as the finished and distribution WQ data
sheets are simply duplicates of it.
The detailed survey was also conducted by telephone, usually by the same individual who
completed the initial facility survey. Advance contacts were made to determine utility
willingness to participate, and to give the utility personnel time to gather relevant information
prior to the survey interview and ascertain the most appropriate contact person for specific
survey questions. The survey interviews typically took about one hour to conduct, but the
utilitys overall participation required about two additional hours to compile information and
water quality data and forward it to the research team.

52

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Fifty two detailed interviews were conducted with utilities that clearly were experiencing
Mn treatment or system problems. They were willing to spend the time for the interview and to
send additional analytical data for inclusion in the research database. Of the 52 detailed surveys,
10 were conducted with utilities outside the United States. The purpose of the detailed surveys
was to obtain more specific information in three areas: (1) the source of the Mn, (2) the manner
in which the problem was resolved, if any, and (3) the type of treatment process or chemical
addition that was used relative to the Mn. The detailed surveys were also used to identify
systems willing to participate in the next phase of the projecttaking seasonal distribution
system samples for Mn speciation analysis. We also explored, through the survey questions, the
adequacy of the present USEPA secondary standard for Mn of 0.05 mg/L.
The survey takers were trained by the PIs to maintain uniformity in eliciting responses.
The completed survey response was typed and sent to the PIs. Also, a 1-page summary cover
sheet was created for entry into the database. The utilities usually submitted the water quality
data electronically at a later date.

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OCCURRENCE SAMPLING

Purpose of Sampling

One of the main research efforts associated with this project was the determination of
how much Mn was present in the distribution systems in those utilities that had reported Mn
issues. We knew that some utilities that have source water Mn, and treat for it, still have Mn
issues in the distribution system. We also knew that Mn can become a problem with consumers
even if the Mn leaving a treatment plant is below the secondary standard, and that Mn can
precipitate within system piping over time and then be resuspended during hydraulic transients.
Consequently, our interest was related to systems that were producing water from the source or
treatment plant that contained an identifiable concentration of Mn, even if it was below the
present secondary standard. However, we did not know how much Mn would be found in a
distribution system at any given time compared to the concentration of Mn entering the system.
In addition we did not know how the speciation of the Mn between the particulate and soluble
forms would change as the water flowed through the piping network. We did suspect that there
were various influences on the speciation of Mn, including residence time, pH, temperature,
cation and anion matrix, organic concentration, and biological activity. We asked utilities to
sample their distribution system water once a quarter for a full year, in order to capture seasonal
variations.
Samples were taken seasonally starting in the winter of 2004 ending in the winter of
2005, representing five seasonal sample sets. Samples were sent to the Philadelphia Water
Department Bureau of Laboratory Services (PWD-BLS) for metals analysis, alkalinity, arsenic,
calcium, hardness, total iron/manganese, colloidal iron/manganese, dissolved iron/manganese,
and sodium. The utilities themselves were to analyze the water for general WQ parameters and
when they were not capable of doing certain analysis in-house they sent sample water to a
contract laboratory.

Selection of Utilities

The basis of utility selection for this task had much to do with willingness and
enthusiasm. The demands placed on the utility to conduct this sampling were substantial. From
the pool of willing utilities, 12 were chosen for system sampling and analysis. The utilities

53

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


selected conformed to the concepts of reasonable geographical and demographic distribution, a
variety of treatment processes, both ground and surface water, and both large and small systems.
The cooperation from the 12 utilities that participated in the sampling program was excellent.
The sample locations were selected by the utility on the basis of proximity to the source
and accessibility. Samples were to be taken from the distribution systems at three locations
defined as near, mid, and far, in reference to their distance from the treatment plant. The team
recognized that each utility has different hydraulic considerations, flow patterns, and retention
times, so no attempt was made to normalize the sampling events from utility to utility. Rather the
investigators attempted to determine, for each particular utility, how the Mn leaving the source or
treatment plant was behaving relative to concentration and speciation. The utilities themselves
were asked to pick the locations they defined as near, mid, and far; these points were often the
same as those chosen by the utilities for impending DBP rules. The utilities were asked to collect
water samples, conduct field measurements, perform filtrations, and conduct some laboratory
analyses. Unfiltered and filtered samples were then sent to the PWD-BLS for metals analysis.

Sampling Methodology

Sampling Materials

Prior to initiation of the seasonal testing at each of the 12 utilities, staff in the metals
laboratory of the PWD-BLS water quality laboratory packed and shipped all supplies necessary
for the collection of samples for general water quality parameters and metals. The contents of
each package are listed in Table 3.1. An instructional DVD, explaining the sampling process for
collection of the metals samples, was filmed at PWD and included in the shipment of sampling
supplies.
Grab samples for turbidity, alkalinity, UV254, color, ORP, and conductivity were
collected in 1-L Nalgene (Nalge Nunc International, Rochester, N.Y.) high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) bottles. Metals samples were collected in 250-mL Nalgene HDPE bottles. The metals
samples were sub-sampled into 60-mL polyethylene (PE) bottles from SCP Science (Baie
DUrf, P.Q.). Filtered metals samples were filtered through Millipore Millex-GS 0.22-m filters
(Millipore Corp., Billerica, Mass.), with mixed cellulose ester (MCE) membranes. The filters
were attached to 60-mL plastic Becton-Dickson (Franklin Lakes, N.J.) syringes. A Millipore
Amicon stirred-cell ultrafiltration kit was used to further fractionate an aliquot of each sub-
sample. Millipore YM30 UF regenerated cellulose filters were used for filtration in the
ultrafiltration cell. These filters have a size exclusion fraction of 30 kDa. High purity nitrogen
(N2) gas supplied pressure within the ultrafiltration chamber for filtration.
Presently, many utilities use 0.45-m filters for separating particulate and non-particulate
Mn. However, separation of truly dissolved from particulate Mn may likely require a finer
porosity. Therefore, we selected 0.22 m and 30 kDa as research sizes for this study. The 0.22-
m filter is a size that most utilities treating for Mn could easily incorporate into an analytical
program. On the other hand the 30-kDa requires special equipment and considerably more time.
For this research it was felt that the 30 kDa was a reasonable size that would give good assurance
that the filtered water sample only contained dissolved Mn

Preservation, Reagents, and Standards

Samples for metals analysis were preserved with 0.25 mL of trace metal grade nitric acid
(HNO3) at PWD-BLS, not in the field. This made sample collection and shipping easier.

54

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Analysis of samples for As, Na, Mn, Ca, and Mg was performed at PWD-BLS using an
Agilent HP4500 inductively coupled plasmamass spectrometer ICP-MS (Agilent Technologies,
Inc., Palo Alto, Calif.). The following isotopes of each analyte were measured: As 75, Na 23, Mn
55, Ca 44, and Mg 24. Analysis of samples for Fe was performed using a Leeman Labs Profile
inductively coupled plasmaatomic emission spectrometer ICP-AES (Teledyne Technologies
Inc., Los Angeles, Calif.). Iron emission was measured at 259.9 nm. Ultrapure argon gas was
supplied to both instruments for plasma generation and to serve as a cooling gas. Standards were
made in a solution of 1% HNO3 that was prepared using Milli-Q water and concentrated trace
metal grade HNO3. High-concentration stock standards were diluted to prepare calibration and
external (second source) standards. A blank and four standards were used for each calibration
curve. The calibration ranges were as follows (in g/L): As (1 to100), Na (50 to 5,000), Mn (10
to 1,000), Ca and Mg (100 to 10,000), and Fe (10 to1,000). Internal standards were used to
monitor and account for drifts in instrument response on the ICP-MS. The standards used as
internal standards were Scandium at mass 45 (for Na, Ca, Mg, and Mn) and Yttrium at mass 89
(for As).

Table 3.1
Items shipped to each utility participating in the seasonal sampling study
Item Manufacturer or source Purpose
1-L HDPE bottles Nalgene General WQ parameter samples
250-mL HDPE bottles Nalgene Metals grab samples
60-mL PE bottles SCP Science Metals sub-samples
Plastic 60-mL syringe Becton-Dickson 0.22-m filtration
0.22-m filters Millipore Filtration
Ultrafiltration kit Millipore Ultrafiltration
30-kDa filters Millipore Ultrafiltration
DVD PWD Sample collection demo
Chain of custody sheets PWD Sample tracking
Field data sheets PWD Field WQ data

General WQ Parameters Sampling and Analysis

Sampling and analysis of general water quality parameters was performed by each
respective utility. For the parameters measured in the field (free and total chlorine, pH,
temperature, and dissolved oxygen), PWD supplied a field data sheet for recording all data and
QC measures. These sheets were returned to PWD and reviewed by project staff.

Metals Sample Collection

Sampling for metals analysis was also conducted by the individual utilities. However,
following collection of the samples for metals, utilities returned the samples to the PWD-BLS for
processing and analysis. Details on the sampling and sample preparation protocol followed by
utilities are included in Appendix B, and summarized in the following.
A diagram depicting the sample collection scheme for metals samples is shown in
Appendix B, Figure B.1. In addition to the distribution water samples, each utility collected

55

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


blank samples. Deionized (DI) water was used to generate the field, 0.22-m, pre-ultrafiltration,
and post-ultrafiltration blanks, for each seasonal sampling event.
Metals samples were collected in triplicate at each location. These were grab samples that
were collected in 250-mL HDPE bottles. Each bottle was labeled with location information, date
and time of collection, and replicate number (1, 2, or 3). New bottles were used with each
sampling and at each location. Sample collectors were instructed to rinse each bottle several
times with sample water before collecting the actual sample.
Following collection of the triplicate grab samples, each replicate was sub-sampled for
total (unfiltered), dissolved (<0.22 m), and truly dissolved (<30 kDa) metals, according
to the terminology introduced in Chapters 1 and 2. As shown in the diagram in Appendix B, this
resulted in the collection of 9 samples from each location (3 total, 3 dissolved, and 3 truly
dissolved). These sub-samples were collected in 60-mL polyethylene bottles. The total metals
sample was an unfiltered aliquot of the grab sample, poured from the 250-mL bottle directly into
a sub-sample bottle. Prior to each collection of unfiltered sample, an aliquot of the grab sample
was used to rinse and condition the sample bottle. The dissolved sample was an aliquot of
water from the 250-mL bottle that was filtered through a 0.22-m filter. Prior to collecting this
filtered sample, a small aliquot was wasted through the syringe and filter, to condition the
syringe and filter with sample water. This waste was collected in the actual sample bottle so that
the bottle was also rinsed with an aliquot of sample water before an actual sample was collected.
The truly dissolved sample was collected in two steps. The first step was identical to the
collection of the dissolved sample. Following filtration of this sample through the 0.22-m filter,
this 0.22-m-filtered sample was further filtered through the 30-kDa filter. An initial aliquot was
wasted in order to rinse and condition the filter. The waste was collected in the actual sample
bottle so that the bottle was also rinsed before sample collection.
Before initial use, each 30-kDa ultrafilter was soaked in DI water for one hour. This
water was changed three times during the hour-long soak. Between all samples, the ultrafiltration
cell was rinsed with 50 to100 mL DI water. Between 25 to 50 mL DI water was also filtered
through the system after each sample to rinse the system and the filter. Sample was collected by
pouring the 50 mL of prefiltered (0.22-m) sample into the ultrafiltration cell. The cell was
capped and pressurized with approximately 10 psi N2 gas. Approximately 10 mL of sample was
collected into the sample bottle for rinsing/conditioning the sample bottle before collecting actual
sample. The remainder of the sample within the ultrafiltration cell was then collected in the
sample bottle.
These sub-sample bottles were labeled with sample type, location, date, time, and
replicate number. Chain of custody sheets were supplied to each utility. Detailed sample
collection information was recorded on these sheets and returned with the samples to PWD.
Samples shipped to PWD for metals analysis were assigned sample identification numbers by the
PWD-BLS Central Receiving Unit (CRU) and logged into the departments LIMS (Laboratory
Information Management System).
Following entry in the LIMS, samples were taken to the metals laboratory and acid
preserved with HNO3 to a pH less than 2. (Acidification displaces dissolved metals that have
adsorbed to the sample container walls, returning the cations to the bulk sample solution).
Following acidification, samples were held at least 16 hours and the pH was checked to verify
that it was less than 2.

56

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Metals Analysis

Samples were analyzed for As, Na, Mn, and hardness (Ca and Mg) using inductively
coupled plasmamass spectrometry (ICP-MS), based on EPA Method 200.8. A brief description
of the analytical process, as described in the Standard Operating Procedure for Method 200.8,
Revision 5.4, follows.
Sample material in solution is introduced by pneumatic nebulization into a radio-
frequency plasma where energy transfer processes cause desolvation, atomization, and
ionization. The ions are extracted from the plasma through a differentially pumped vacuum
interface and separated on the basis of their mass-to-charge ratio by a quadrupole mass
spectrometer having a minimum resolution capability of 1 amu peak width at 5% peak height.
The ions transmitted through the quadrupole are detected by an electron multiplier and the ion
information is processed by a data handling system. Interferences relating to the technique are
recognized and corrected. Such corrections include compensation for isobaric elemental
interferences and from polyatomic ion interferences derived from the plasma gas, reagents, or
sample matrix. Instrumental drift as well as suppressions or enhancements of instrument
response caused by the sample matrix are corrected for by the use of internal standards.
The samples were analyzed for Fe levels using inductively coupled plasmaatomic
emission spectrometry (ICP-AES), based on EPA Method 200.7. Iron measurements were
initially made using ICP-MS, but it was discovered that the interference equation that corrects
for the common calcium oxide interference (Ca40O16) at the iron mass (56) was not adequate for
the low levels of Fe in most of these samples. A brief description of the analytical process, as
described in the Standard Operating Procedure for Method 200.7, Revision 4.4, follows.
The Leeman Labs Profile ICP-AES is a sequential instrument. The instrument measures
characteristic atomic-line emission spectra by optical spectrometry. Samples are nebulized and
the resulting aerosols are transported to the plasma torch. Element-specific emission spectra are
produced by a radio-frequency inductively coupled plasma. The spectra are dispersed by a
grating spectrometer, and the intensities of the line spectra are monitored at specific wavelengths
by a photosensitive device. Photocurrents from the photosensitive device are processed and
controlled by a computer system. A background correction technique compensates for variable
background contribution to the determination of analytes. The background is measured adjacent
to an analyte wavelength during analysis.
With both methods, quality control was monitored throughout the analysis. Following
calibration, the calibration standards were analyzed as samples and required to be accurate within
10% of the expected concentration. Following these checks, a second source standard was
analyzed to verify that the calibration standards were accurate. The second source standards were
required to be accurate within 10% of the expected concentration. Throughout each analysis,
one sample in every 10 was analyzed in duplicate. The relative percent difference between
duplicate measurements was required to be <20%. Additionally, one sample in every 10 was
spiked with known amounts of the method analytes, and recoveries of the spiked amounts were
required to be within 30% of the expected concentration. Internal standards were monitored
throughout analysis by ICP-MS, and used to correct analyte measurements for instrumental drift.
Each internal standard response was required to be within 60% to 125% of the response at the
beginning of the analysis. If a sample measurement was outside of the calibration range, an
additional standard outside of the calibration range was run to ensure that the instrument
response was linear and accurate at the sample level. Alternatively, if a sample contained an
analyte at a level significantly greater than the highest calibration standard, the sample was

57

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


reanalyzed with a dilution factor adequate for bringing the samples level to within an acceptable
range.

Comments on Handling of Non-Detect (ND) Data Values (aka the Playbook)

To maintain statistical consistency in analysis, presentation, and interpretation of data


from the research, both in the occurrence sampling task and other experimental tasks, we chose a
specific method of handling non-detect (or ND) data; i.e., values less than the detection limit.
The process of handling ND data depended on the purpose for which the data was to be used, the
numeric value of the method detection limit (MDL, or the reporting limit, RL), and the source of
the data.
It is important to note that there were many sources of data for this project. Much of the
self-reported data from the utilities was taken at face value. The analytical results sent on to us
by the utilities did not always include data on analytical precision.

Mathematical Manipulation

When performing statistical evaluation of data, such as averaging, we used the MDL for
all ND data. We prefer this conservative method; however, it may overestimate a sample
concentration.
The analytical data generated by PWD-BLS has MDL values of <0.001 mg/L for Mn,
and <0.005 mg/L for Fe. Therefore, for all [Mn] <0.001 mg/L we used the value of 0.001 mg/L,
and for all [Fe] <0.005 we use 0.005 mg/L, for ND data values. However, not all data used in this
report were generated by BLS. The MDL or RL presented by the source of the data was used.
The handling of triplicate analysis using this method was done using the above described
procedure. For example, if a triplicate sample was analyzed for Mn using a method with an MDL
= 0.001 mg/L for which results were ND, ND, and 0.004 mg/L, then the average result of our
calculation would be (0.001 + 0.001 + 0.004) / 3 = 0.002 mg/L. If the results from the triplicate
samples were all ND then the average would be 0.001 mg/L; yet if this set of data is referred to
in the text the average would be presented as below the detection limit or at <0.001 mg/L.
Some special cases of water quality data analyzed by outside laboratories, and submitted
for use in this project, have much higher reporting limits than the in-house analysis. In some
cases we were forced to discard the data, such as that from a utility which listed an iron MDL of
<0.100 mg/L. Using this MDL would greatly skew the data set. In another case, a utility listed
<0.040 mg/L as the detection limit, and in this case we chose to include the data, using the value
0.040 mg/L (Fe) in our calculations.

Data Presentation

When we present the data in the text or in a table, we list the actual analytical result. For
example, an ND Mn sample will be written as <0.001 mg/L.
For statistical values derived from multiple analyses, data presentation is handled in the
following way: if all values are ND, then the average is presented as below the detection limit,
and if any one of the analytical values is detectable, then the MDL is used for calculation and
presentation of all the ND data points. The average will therefore always be greater than the
detection limit. A zero is not used in a tabular data presentation.

58

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Graphing

When possible the ND data is presented as the MDL with a note on the chart or graph and
a legend entry of hash marks to call it out. Sometimes the MDL may be so low that the value
may appear to be zero on a chart or graph.

Graphical Presentation of Manipulated Data

For cases where the average value is used in a graphic, the above listed graphing rule
applies. If all the analytical values are ND, then the MDL value appears on that graph.
For example, if a triplicate sample is analyzed for Mn (MDL = 0.001 mg/L) and results in
values of ND, ND, and 0.004 mg/L, it will appear on a figure as a 0.002 mg/L data point or bar,
while values of ND, ND, ND would appear on the figure as a 0.001 mg/L point or bar with hash
marks and a note in the graph or chart legend. There should be no data point represented as a
zero.

CASE STUDY I: PILOT-SCALE RESEARCH FOR MANGANESE CONTROL

Purpose of Pilot Testing

To achieve very low Mn concentrations in finished water, the Philadelphia Water


Department relies upon contact oxidation and adsorption on oxide-coated filter media in the
presence of a pre-filter free chlorine residual. Strategies to reduce disinfection by-product
formation such as use of alternative disinfectants, reduction of chlorine residuals, and delaying
the point of chlorination downstream in the treatment process may impede the existing Mn
removal mechanisms. The pilot plant investigations conducted at PWD as part of this project
were designed to characterize the effects of pH, pre-filter chlorine, coagulant type, filter media,
and seasonal raw water quality on the ability to remove and retain Mn. The complete Case Study
I protocol can be found in Appendix B. A summary of it follows.

Case Study Objectives

Case Study I had four major investigational objectives, plus two minor objectives, only
the first two were used to write the report:

Investigation 1. Study the effect of pH on Mn control using ferric chloride as the


primary coagulant, and intermediate ozone to oxidize the Mn. This was done in order
to minimize or eliminate the concentration of soluble Mn applied to the filters.
(PWDs current ferric chloride product, from Eaglebrook Inc., Mattson, Ill., contains
some Mn). A range of filtration pH values from 6.5 to 9.0 were tested. Each of two
parallel trains was filtered through one dual media filter with pre-filter chlorine, one
dual media filter without chlorine, and one GAC filter without chlorine.
Investigation 2. Characterize the Mn retention of a previously chlorinated manganese
oxidecoated filter bed upon cessation of pre-filter chlorine, over a range of filtration
pH levels from 6.5 to 8.5. This investigation was performed with ferric chloride
coagulation.

59

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Pilot Plant Description and Standard Operating Procedures

The PWD has two pilot plants, each located at a full-scale water treatment plant. These
plants draw water from two different river sources, the Schuylkill River and the Delaware River.
A schematic of the Belmont WTP pilot plant is presented in Appendix B, Figure B.2.
The pilot plants draw water from the river source without any pretreatment. About 20
gpm of river water enters a 600-gallon raw water basin that provides about 30 minutes of contact
time to model pretreatment chemical addition.
The water is pumped and split into two parallel 8-gpm process trains. First the flow enters
two small rapid-mix basins, followed by two (Belmont pilot) or five (Baxter pilot) flocculation
basins, with a tapered floc mixing scheme. The water then flows through a lamella plate,
upflow clarifier for settling; the full-scale plants have gravity settling basins.
Depending on the investigation protocol, the settled water from one of the two process
trains may enter an 8-column, counter current, intermediate ozone contactor. Ozone is typically
added in the first column only, and then quenched, if necessary, in the last column.
The settled water, or post ozone contact water if required in the investigation, is then
filtered by gravity. Each train has two dual media filters (21 in. anthracite and 9 in. sand) and one
biologically active GAC filter (29-in. depth).
Online monitors measure raw water turbidity and flow; flocculation pH; sedimentation
pH, turbidity, and particle counts; filter head loss, turbidity, and particle counts; intermediate
ozone residual in various locations throughout the columns; plus ozone feed gas and off-gas
concentrations. All online data is recorded at 2-minute intervals in a PC-based data logger.
The Case Study I schedule ran from March 2004 to February 2005. At least two of the
investigations were repeated twice to obtain seasonal data.

Chemical doses will be established based on previous testing experience, full scale
plant operations, and jar testing in accordance with the judgment of the pilot plant
staff.
Both Train A and Train B will be in service with equal influent flow of 8 gpm to each
train. Both pilot plants will run at 8 gpm through flocculation and waste 2 gpm before
sedimentation.
Rapid mixing and flocculation will be set to optimized G-values as determined from
previous investigations. The flocculation basins have tapered mixing intensities.
The coagulation and filtration pH will be varied as described above.
For Investigations 1 and 3, intermediate ozone will be used with eight contact
columns, providing a total hydraulic residence time (HRT) of 17 minutes at 6 gpm.
- Apply an ozone dose of 2 mg/L or more as needed to yield a measurable ozone
residual at the outlet of the final contact column in an attempt to oxidize all the
Mn.
- Apply sodium hydroxide for pH adjustment, if necessary, at the influent to the 7th
column to achieve the targeted filtration pH.
- Quench the ozone residual with sodium bisulfite, applied at the inlet to the 8th
column such that an ozone residual of >0.0 but <0.1 mg/L remains at the outlet
bottom tap of the 8th column. This trace ozone residual will verify that there is no
carry over of reducing agent (sodium metabisulfite) into the filters.
Train A will provide settled/ozonated water to dual media Filters A-1 and A-2 and
GAC Filter A.

60

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Train B will provide settled/ozonated water to dual media Filters B-1 and B-2 and
GAC Filter B.
In each train, there will be a dedicated chlorinated dual media filter, a dedicated non-
chlorinated dual media filter, and a dedicated non-chlorinated biologically active
GAC filter. Pre-filter chlorine, when applicable for each investigation, will be added,
as sodium hypochlorite, to yield a 0.5 mg/L free residual at the filter effluent.
Filters will be operated at 4 gpm/ft2. Filter runs will be conducted until 72 hours of
run time or as dictated by scheduling constraints, terminal headloss of 96 inches, or
turbidity breakthrough of 0.1 NTU. A shorter filter run time may be used for
Investigation 6 once metals sampling at steady state has been completed.
Upon changing coagulant from ferric to polyaluminum chloride and back again, there
will be a period of acclimation to allow the development of steady state conditions.
During this period, no data will be collected, but the pilot plants will be operated for
approximately one week, or as required for the filters to adjust to the change of
coagulant.

Further details of the pilot testing protocol, operating procedures, and sample collection
schedules are located in Appendix B.

Oxidation-Reduction Potential Measurements

Oxidation-reduction potential (ORP) is part of the case study sampling regimen. To


measure ORP, the investigators used either a Thermo Orion 9678 BN Epoxy Body Combination
Pt/Ag-AgCl Electrode (Thermo Electron Corporation, Beverly, Mass.) or an Accumet Pt/Ag-
AgCl ORP probe (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, Pa.) with a Denver Instrument Model 225
pH/mV/temp/ISE meter (Denver Instrument Co., Arvada, Colo.) Redox potential (EH) may prove
to be a valuable operational tool to determine the level at which Mn will oxidize or reduce and to
draw correlations to Mn breaking through the filters. Measurements are taken at the pre-filter
water (after any ozonation and/or chlorination) and at the filter effluent. All EH measurements are
accompanied by temperature (redox potential measurements are temperature dependent), pH,
chlorine residual, and Mn measurements.
The data are measured and recorded as:

EH = ORP + Ereference (3.1)

where EH = reported redox potential


ORP = half-cell potential (mV)
Ereference. = reference potential (mV)

The half cell potential is measured with an inert (platinum) indicator electrode at a given
temperature, and Ereference is the reference potential measured with a reference (Ag-AgCl)
electrode at that same temperature.
The Ereference table provided by the manufacturer to convert ORP read on the meter to EH
is listed in Table 3.2.

61

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


CASE STUDY II: COMPARISON OF ANTHRACITE AND GAC FILTERS FOR
MANGANESE REMOVAL IN A FULL-SCALE WTP

The Huntington Water Treatment Plant treats water for drinking-water compliance using
traditional treatment techniques. Prior to the D/DBP Rule they coagulated at an elevated pH and
relied on GAC filtration to reduce taste and odor compounds. They have changed their
operational practices to remove more TOC via coagulation and moved the initial point of
chlorination further back into their water treatment process.
Water from the Ohio River is pumped into a holding reservoir where solids are allowed
to settle. Following the initial settling of solids, sulfuric acid (to enhance removal of TOC in
coagulation), ferric sulfate (coagulant) and a polymer coagulant aid are added at the mixing tank,

Table 3.2
Reference half-cell potential
Temperature Ereference half-cell potential
(C) (mV)
10 214
20 204
25 199
30 194
Source: Thermo Electron Corporation (2003)

before the water splits into two settling basins. In each of the settling basins, there are four
flocculation chambers consisting of baffling, settling, and plate settlers. As the water leaves the
sedimentation basin, sodium hydroxide is added to increase the pH to around 7.0, followed by
addition of a filter aid and chlorine. The addition of 2 mg/L chlorine prior to filtration aids in Mn
oxidation and subsequent removal through filtration. To remove taste and odor causing organics,
the plant has historically used GAC media in all twelve of the filter basins. Recently, one of the
GAC filters was replaced with anthracite. Depending on other water quality parameters,
occasionally some Mn (which may remain dissolved) passes through the filter even with the
raising of pH and addition of chlorine. The Mn that passes through the filters manifests itself in
increased turbidity in the clearwell. There is no chlorine residual leaving the GAC filters.
Comparing the levels of Mn in the sedimentation effluent to the effluents of the anthracite
filter and an adjacent GAC filter will directly evaluate the performance of the two media types
on Mn removal ability. The experiment will limit media type as the only variable.
A detailed description of the Case Study II protocol and schematics of the Huntington
WTP unit operations and sampling locations are presented in Appendix B.
The case study protocol calls for continuous measurement of Mn at the filter influent, the
effluent of one anthracite filter, the effluent of one GAC filter, and the combined effluent of all
12 of the plants filters. Online Mn measurements were obtained with a Tytronics Sentinel online
analyzer (Galvanic Applied Sciences USA Inc., Lowell, Mass.).
Grab samples collected throughout the plant process will be analyzed on site for Mn with
the Hach DR/2400 spectrophotometer (Hach Co., Loveland, Colo.) using the 1-2-(Pyridylazo)-2-
Naphthol PAN method (low range). These grab samples will also be analyzed on site for pH,
alkalinity, free and total chlorine, and conductivity.
Additional samples will be collect at points through out the plant process, with portions
filtered, and shipped to Philadelphia Water Department, Bureau of Laboratory Services (PWD-
BLS) for metals analysis. These unfiltered (total) metals samples were analyzed for Mn, Fe, Na,
62

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


P, Ca, Mg, by ICP-AES and ICP-MS, as described earlier. Hardness as CaCO3 will be calculated
from the calcium and magnesium values. For iron and manganese, the samples will be filtered at
the plant through a 0.22-m filter, and a 30-kDa filter, for determining dissolved and truly
dissolved fractions, and analyzed by PWD-BLS.
The reliability of the PAN method will be confirmed by comparing results with the
results obtained by ICP-AES analysis at PWD-BLS.

COST MODEL

The purpose of the cost model is to provide utilities a guideline for comparing the capital
and operating costs for various treatment technologies for Mn. The tables are not designed as an
estimating tool for new facilities but rather as a cost comparison. Out of necessity, the tables,
located in Chapter 4, present overall national costs rather than geographical specific estimates.
This section describes how the tables were calculated and the basic assumptions that went into
the tables.

Consumer Benefit

The consumer benefit with any of the secondary standards is very difficult to quantify,
since the acceptable level of a particular contaminant will vary with the individual. Therefore,
the research team developed a set of assumptions that judgmentally seemed reasonable as both
typical and representative of many water utilities in the United States. The assumptions that
formed the basis of the tables are as follows:

The influent Mn concentration is about 0.5 mg/L. Naturally, this concentration will
vary with source and utility location. However, the costs associated with a plant
constructed for raw water Mn between approximately 0.2 mg/L and 2.0 mg/L will be
about the same. Once raw water Mn exceeds 2 to 5 mg/L, some direct filtration
processes would be stressed and, probably not applicable.
Treated water target concentrations were selected as 0.05 mg/L, the present USEPA
secondary standard, 0.02 mg/L, 0.015 mg/L, and 0.01 mg/L. The value of 0.02 mg/L
was selected as a level that would significantly reduce Mn problems compared to the
present standard but would not necessarily completely eliminate some household
difficulties. The value of 0.01 mg/L represents a very low target level of Mn that
might be set by utilities that wished to achieve the very highest water quality relative
to Mn. The value of 0.015 mg/L is quite simply the value between 0.02 mg/L and
0.010 mg/L.
All costs are presented in US dollars based on 2005 estimates
The per capita consumption used for the tables (and consequently population served)
is 378 liters per day (L/d) or 100 gallons per capita per day (gpcd). Per capita
consumption will vary geographically and with type of community. Although the
industry consensus seems to be that the per capita consumption may be less than 100
gpcd, overall national figures suggest that this estimate is reasonable when one
decides plant production by population served. We do recognize that per capita
consumption will vary from over 400 gpcd in the arid southwest to less that 40 gpcd
in the cooler northeast.
Unaccounted water is taken as 15 percent of plant production. Unaccounted water for
this study was taken as the difference between water produced by a plant and the

63

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


water billed to consumers. Therefore, unaccounted water would include system
leakage, fire use, hydrant flushing, etc. Again, this figure of 15 percent will vary with
utility. Fifteen percent was selected as a reasonable estimate for a well maintained
distribution system and generally represents the target used by many state regulatory
agencies.
The three plant sizes of 1 mgd, 10 mgd, and 100 mgd (3.8, 38, and 380 ML/d) were
selected as a broad range in plant sizes that cover the majority of utilities that may
have Mn problems. The initial and detailed surveys, supported by the literature
search, indicate that the majority of utilities that do have Mn issues are relatively
small systems producing less than 2 to 3 mgd. Comparatively, fewer systems over
100 mgd must remove Mn with notable exceptions such as the City of Philadelphia.
The industrial consumption was taken as 10 percent of the water remaining after
removing an allowance for unaccounted for water. The 10 percent estimate was
selected as a reasonable allowance for cost comparison purposes. Some utilities will
have very little industry while other systems will be dominated by industrial
demands. Industrial impacts of Mn were not a factor in the cost tables since most
industries that might require Mn reduction would provide their own in-house
treatment system.
Using all these assumptions, we calculated the population that would be served by
treatment plants having capacities of 1 mgd, 10 mgd and 100 mgd as 7,650 persons,
76,500 persons, and 765,000 persons, respectively. These population estimates served
as the foundation for the cost benefit analysis included on the tables.
An estimate was made relative to the number of persons who may experience Mn
problems at the present regulatory standard of 0.05 mg/L. The standard was originally
developed to represent a concentration where most consumers would not have Mn
problems in the home. However, the actual number in a particular distribution system
is very difficult to quantify. For the cost tables we conservatively assumed that
approximately 1 percent of the residential population served would experience some
staining, discoloration or sediment problems annually. Therefore, the affected
population for a system population of 7,650 persons would be 77 people per year, for
a system serving a population of 76,500 persons would be 765 per year, and for a
system serving a population of 765,000 would be 7,650 per year.
The most difficult assumption is estimating the cost to an individual consumer if
problems in the household are experienced with Mn. The impact was assessed on the
basis of individually, rather that on households since all residents of a particular
house or apartment complex would likely be affected. Some of the costs can be
quantified such as lost or destroyed clothes, cleaning of dishwashers and clothes
washers, use of non chlorine detergent, purchase of bottled water, telephone calls to
the water supplier, purchase of special reducing chemicals, precipitation in toilets and
shortened fixture life, attendance at meetings, etc. Some of the problems cannot be
quantified such as aggravation, and loss of consumer confidence. Taking all these
factors into consideration the research team felt that a reasonable allowance for cost
associated with Mn problems at the regulatory standard of 0.05 mg/L would be about
$150 per consumer per year for those consumers that do have problems. Therefore,
the annual cost impact to consumers for a 1 mgd plant serving a population of 7,650
persons would be about $11,600 per year. The cost to reduce this cost to consumers
will depend on the type of treatment process (if any) that is presently used. The total

64

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


annual cost impact to consumers for a 10 mgd treatment plant serving a population of
76,500 persons would be about $115,000 per year. The total annual cost impact to
consumers for a 100 mgd treatment plant serving about 765,000 persons would be
about $1,150,000 per year.
The cost to benefit analysis was based on population served and a fixed, per person
impact, i.e., cost. This makes the annual impact constant irrespective of the type of
treatment process that may be used. This makes sense because, regardless of the
means by which one achieves the goal, the goal is achieved and the benefit realized.
If a utility has system specific information relative to the basic model assumptions, it
will be able to generate a more representative model. For the cost to benefit model the
estimate to achieve a certain level of Mn in the water leaving a treatment plant
includes the capital cost for a new or upgraded facility and the additional operating
cost to achieve the lower Mn level. The cost to benefit numbers included on the tables
assume a raw water Mn concentration of 0.5 mg/L and a finished water Mn target
goal that has been reduced from 0.05 mg/L to 0.015 mg/L.
The cost to benefit ratio presented in the tables is calculated on the basis of the cost to
the utility to reduce Mn levels to a lower goal compared to the cost that the customer
spends to receive water with Mn at a certain level. It might be pointed out that if
water is produced at a particular plant that contains less Mn (i.e., from 0.05 mg/L to
0.015 mg/L), there will not necessarily be a cost benefit to the utility, but rather to the
individual consumers. It is possible that consumers will use more water, purchase less
bottled water and demand less utility time for complaints, but these costs are nebulous
at best.

Utility Costs

The utility cost assumptions are also presented in the Chapter 4 tables. These cost tables
are based on either constructing a new plant or upgrading an existing facility to produce water at
a lower Mn level. The costs include construction of a new plant or, in the case of upgrading, the
costs associated with adding a chlorine or potassium permanganate feed system. The specific
chemicals would be sodium hypochlorite or dry potassium permanganate solubilized. Capital
costs do not include raw and finished water pumps, equipment superstructure, standby power,
land, legal, engineering or contingencies. Equipment life was taken as 20 years. Costs include
equipment and piping, process tanks, chemical feed storage and equipment, operating labor and
maintenance, plant power, reporting, and costs for chemicals. In many cases, only a nominal
operating cost is associated with a lower Mn target because the process inherently will achieve
very low treated water concentration anyway. An example would be lime or ion exchange
softening, which usually reduces Mn as the process softens the water. Therefore, the additional
cost for a lower Mn target may primarily be for increased sampling and monitoring and
reporting.

Basic Assumptions

All the basic assumptions are tabulated above. These assumptions should be reasonable
for comparing relative impacts of treating water to Mn levels below the regulatory level of 0.05
mg/L. Since many of the impacts from Mn are very difficult to quantify, each utility should
conduct an assessment relative to the benefits that may be achieved from dealing with this
secondary issue. The concept that water with a manganese concentration of 0.05 mg/L will likely

65

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


cause system problems is valid and supported by this study. Therefore, each utility that has Mn
either in the raw water or contained in the treatment chemicals might use the cost tables to
evaluate the potential benefit to consumers of targeting as low a manganese level as possible.

References for the Cost Model

The references used for the cost model are included in the References section. However,
it should be indicated that published references of Mn removal costs are at best, sparse. Reliance
was made on in-house cost information available to the project team and individual experience at
particular utilities.

66

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
As mentioned earlier, the organization of this chapter will again follow the sequence of
the six primary research tasks performed during the project. Since each task used methods and
gathered data substantially distinct from those of the other tasks, results will be presented in
several ways, with each data set discussed in its own subsection. Overall these results combine to
help elucidate a larger picture of the occurrence and control of manganese in drinking water.
The initial data sets resulting from this research were gained via surveys. First were the
initial surveys; these were brief conversations with utilities, with all data being self-reported,
mostly over the telephone. The initial survey results can be thought of as a broad but shallow
data set. Next were the detailed surveys. These, conducted with a subset of the utilities from the
initial survey, again produced self-reported, but much more in-depth, data. The detailed survey
results can be thought of as a narrow but deep data set.
The next data set was produced by the seasonal sampling program for Mn and its
chemical species in drinking water distribution systems. Water samples were collected in the
distribution systems of 12 facilities. The water was then sent to Philadelphia for metals analysis
while split samples were analyzed for other water quality parameters by the utility.
There were two experimental case studies on treatment and removal of Mn, one done by
pilot plant work and the other using a full-scale water treatment plant, each of which resulted in
its own data set.
The last section of the results and discussion is based on a cost analysis model produced
to compare the costs of installing or enhancing Mn treatment to reach various concentrations of
Mn at or below the current USEPA regulatory level of 0.05 mg/L.

INITIAL SURVEYS

The initial surveys were conducted to help the researchers determine the depth, breadth,
and trends of water utilities experience in manganese control. The collection of this information
was focused on known places with Mn issues. In order to understand this analysis it is important
to know that the initial surveys were not a scientifically random sampling of water utilities that
can be used to generate statistically significant projections about the water industry as a whole. It
was, rather, a focused survey to look into the specific experiences of a number of utilities that we
suspected would have Mn issues.
Our goal was to complete at least 100 surveys. Knowing this we had a goal of getting
contact information for over 200; we assumed that only about 50% of the utilities contacted
would respond favorably to our request for information. It turned out that we were wrong, the
industry response was overwhelmingly favorable and our success rate was over 90%. The
industry felt comfortable talking about Mn issues. Therefore, we did not need all 200 potential
candidates based on response rate. However, we had certain demographic criteria (geographic,
Mn technology, source water, population, etc.) and we ended up increasing our pool of potential
candidates to 348. From this pool, we connected with 158 utilities and from these participating
utilities we conducted 242 initial surveys. Each survey is facility-specific, and in some cases a
utility that has several discrete facilities gave information for more than one facility. Since the
research was distribution systemcentric, we defined a discrete facility as one that had its own
connection to the distribution system. Initial surveys were done only for facilities that had
possible Mn issues. That is to say, we did not complete a separate initial survey for each possible
facility, but only for those that helped tell some aspect of the story of Mn in drinking water.
67

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Demographics of Utilities Participating in Initial Survey

Geographic Distribution

Of the 242 initial surveys conducted there were 217 domestic facilities and 25
international facilities, of which 15 were Canadian. The other international participants were
from the UK and Australia.
The map of the U.S. in Figure 4.1 shows the number of facilities that participated from
each state. For the domestic surveys, we attempted to contact at least one utility in each state. We
succeeded for all but four statesHawaii, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Vermontresulting in
robust geographic distribution. The states that received the most attention were Massachusetts,
California, and New Jersey. Massachusetts has the most surveys because of its historical Mn
issues. California was the second largest because of its large population and many wells. New
Jersey is the third largest contributor to the data set as it is the most densely populated state in the
union.

4
4
5 2
7
4 4
3 3 1 3
1 5 NH-3
4 4
2 8 VT-0
3 2 1 4
1 MA-37
3 4 4 0
4 RI-3
28
0 CT-5
2 2 2
8 1 NJ-13
2 1 3
DE-2
3
6 MD-2
3
DC-0
1

Figure 4.1 Geographic distribution of U.S. utilities participating in initial survey (n = 217)

Source Water Type

The database created from all of the completed initial surveys has several interesting
characteristics. Figure 4.2 shows the breakdown of source water types. As one might expect,

68

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


most of the targeted Mn utilities have groundwater as their source (53%). The next largest group
is surface water (40%). Some 5% of the participating facilities blend their source water, that is,
blend surface water with groundwater. There are several ways in which a utility can blend its
source water, for instance by turning on different wells or diverting water from one reservoir to
another; however, we decided to limit use of the term to those that blended GW and SW. We felt
that grouping GW and SW would be more useful to understanding Mn than using a broader
definition of blending. Another 2% of utilities had source waters categorized as groundwater
under the direct influence of surface water (GWUDI). We believe we achieved a balanced
distribution of source water types.

Treatment Type

We wanted to survey a wide variety of facilities using different treatment types and were
successful at getting a good distribution of types. However, to analyze the data and express them
in graphical format conveniently, Figure 4.3, we grouped some techniques into larger categories.
We recognize that since each facility is a unique and a discrete reality, such grouping is, though
useful, in a small way artificial. For example, a plant that uses GAC for taste and odor control
but has a conventional pretreatment process is grouped under conventional gravity settling
(CGS), while if it used the GAC for taste and odor but without pretreatment, it would be a GAC
plant.
The largest treatment type surveyed is conventional gravity settling. Specifically, CGS is
defined as rapid mix, flocculation, settling, and granular media filtration. The next largest group
is pressure filtration for Fe and Mn removal. This group includes mostly proprietary systems that
all utilize pressure filters and specific media. Since we went looking for facilities that have Mn

40%

Ground Water
5%
Surface Water
2%
Blend of GW and SW

GWUDI

53%

Figure 4.2 Types of source water treated by facilities in initial survey (n = 242)

issues it is to be expected that a large portion of them are built specifically for Mn treatment. The
direct filtration and inline filtration plants were grouped together as they were similar, with
inline plants not having flocculation. Disinfection only makes up a considerable proportion of
our database (14%); these are mostly groundwater systems but all have high-quality sources. The
69

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


next grouping included all forms of advanced clarification, such as dissolved air floatation or
upflow pulsating clarifiers. Lime softening plants also constituted 5% of our database.
Sequestration only denotes plants that add sequestering agents to deal with water quality issues
instead of installing capital-intensive unit process equipment; usually the smaller systems. The
other grouping was a catchall category that included aeration or air stripping, ion exchange,
and membrane filtration including reverse osmosis. Also included in this catchall others group
was GAC adsorption; that is, GAC alone without pretreatment. Although sequestration only is
presented as a separate group, these plants disinfect the water also, so in a sense they could be
considered part of disinfection only. If grouped that way, disinfection only as a treatment
technique might be the third most prevalent process type.

Type of Coagulants Used

The distribution of coagulants used in presented in Figure 4.4. Over half (51%) of the
facilities do not use a coagulant of any kind. Although some GW systems use coagulants, by far
the majority do not, so the 53% of facilities surveyed having GW as a source explains the 51%
without coagulant use. The most prevalent coagulant, of those that do use one, is alum (26%)
with ferric salts making up only 9%. Ferric salts themselves can be a source of Mn. Of the
remaining types most are aluminum-based. Another 5% of the facilities use polymers as the
primary coagulant.

14% 5%
CGS

Pressure Filtration for Fe/Mn 15% 5%

Direct or Inline Filtration 3%

Disinfection Only 5%

Advanced Clarification
Lime Softening 19%

Sequestration Only

Others 34%

Other treatment types include: Aeration, Air Stripping, Ion Exchange, Membrane Filtration,
Reverse Osmosis, and GAC filters for organics removal.

Figure 4.3 Facilities in initial surveys grouped by treatment type (n = 242)

70

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


No Coagulant Used 9%
26%
Alum 6%
5%
Ferric Salts 2%
PACl 1%
Polymers

Specialty Aluminum Products

Not Given
51%
Figure 4.4 Type of primary coagulant used to treat water (n = 242)

Self-Reported Mn Concentrations

The initial survey included questions about the concentration of Mn in source water,
finished water, and distribution system water; the response is shown in Table 4.1. Of the 242
participating facilities, 185 provided some form of source water Mn data, be it average,
minimum, or maximum. All told, 204 said that they did measure their source water for Mn. For
finished water, 190 facilities provided some form of Mn data, and 202 said that they measured
finished water Mn. Only 46 facilities provided distribution system Mn data, while 55 said they
measured it.
Thus over 80% of the utilities contacted measure Mn in both source and finished water,
while only 23% look for it in their distribution system. This may appear logical, as most
operational measurements are made at locations that allow for operational adjustment. It may
also reflect the prevailing thought process that the distribution system is a black box in which
nothing changes. However, this assumption is not correct and we as an industry should change
our testing habits.

Table 4.1
Facilities providing Mn concentration data in initial surveys
Number of facilities (out Number of facilities that say
Water of 242) providing data Percent they make the measurement Percent
Source 185 76% 204 84%
Finished 190 78% 202 83%
Distribution 46 19% 55 23%

Analysis of Initial Survey Source Water Mn Data

For source water Mn, 179 of the 242 facilities (74%) provided average Mn concentration
data, 59 gave a minimum, and 77 gave a maximum. Figure 4.5 is a plot of a statistical analysis of
average source water Mn data.

71

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


In this statistical plot, the boxes represent the 25th through 75th percentiles of Mn
concentration. The solid line within the box is the median Mn concentration, while the dotted
line is the mean. The 10th and 90th percentiles are the whiskers; the furthest extremities of data
shown are the open circles representing the 5th and 95th percentiles. The maximum average
value of manganese in source water reported by facilities was 3.0 mg/L for GW and 0.5 mg/L for
SW. GWUDI is presented but the n value is so low it is hard to make comparisons or
conclusions; the 25th to 75th percentile range is the maximum statistic that could be calculated.
The range of average influent Mn concentrations for GW is far greater than for SW or
blending. Clearly GW is a greater source of Mn than SW or blending, yet SW can still be a
substantial source of Mn. Of interest is that the median values for GW and SW are similar and
below 0.10 mg/L. The range of average Mn values for SW is tighter than for GW, indicating that
the natural processes of Mn oxidation and settling help to moderate Mn concentrations.
However, the overall SW data set includes reservoirs, so at certain times of the year, for
example during turnover, the Mn concentrations can be very high. To illustrate this, an analysis

1.20 95th Percentile

1.00
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.80 90th Percentile

0.60
75th Percentile
0.40
Mean

0.20 Median
25th Percentile
10th and 5th Percentile
0.00
Ground Water Surface Water Blending GWUDI
n = 92 n = 73 n = 10 n=4
Figure 4.5 Box-and-whiskers plot of average source water Mn concentration data from
initial surveys, showing mean, median, and percentile ranges

of maximum reported values was also done. Table 4.2 presents maximum data. The maximum
GW and maximum SW are similar. This means that SW can, at times, be as great a source of Mn
as GW. This observation must be understood in relation to the average, as SW has a narrower
range of values and a lower mean value, meaning these high points are unusual and occur
infrequently. Yet they do exist, which can significantly influence treatment.

72

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Analysis of Initial Survey Finished Water Mn Data

For finished water, 189 of the 242 facilities (78%) provided average Mn concentration
data, 47 gave a minimum, and 52 gave a maximum. Average concentrations are plotted in Figure
4.6, in a graphical representation similar to that in Figure 4.5.

Table 4.2
Maximum source water Mn concentrations reported in initial survey
Source water type n value Maximum Mn concentration
(mg/L)
Groundwater (GW) 32 4.5
Surface water (SW) 36 4.0
Blending 6 2.0
GWUDI 3 2.3

0.080

0.070

0.060
Total Manganese (mg/L)

95th Percentile

0.050 90th Percentile

0.040

0.030
75th Percentile
0.020 Mean
Median
0.010 25th Percentile
10th Percentile
5th Percentile
0.000
Ground Water Surface Water Blending GWUDI
n = 98 n = 75 n = 11 n=5
Figure 4.6 Box-and-whiskers plot of average finished water Mn data from initial surveys

Though hard to see on the figure, for groundwater the median, 25th, and 10th percentiles
were all the same value (0.005 mg/L), and for SW the 10th and the 25th percentiles were the
same at 0.005 mg/L. The preponderance of 0.005 mg/L data resulted from a detail of our data-
handling protocol. As explained in Chapter 3, the non-detect (ND) data values were assigned the
value of the MDL or RL of that analysis. We did this to be able to conduct statistical
calculations. This protocol was spelled out in a document called the playbook, generated by
the project team, that outlined how we handled ND data. Its main points are included in the
Chapter 3 discussion.

73

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The longest whiskers (10th and 90th percentiles) for finished water Mn concentrations
are for blending; however, observations based on an n value of 11 may not be significant. Of
particular interest is that the 95th percentile for SW is greater than for GW, and far greater than
its own 90th percentile, implying a bit of a skew in the data set.
The highest average finished water concentration was 0.39 mg/L for GW and 0.35 mg/L
for SW. These values are similar, and very high. Using the above statistical information, one can
see that these highest values are indeed unique and not at all the norm.
The finished water 90th percentile values for GW and SW are at or below 0.050 mg/L
Mn. The arithmetic mean for all sources is 22 g/L or less, and the geometric mean is 10 g/L or
less. This means that the majority of plants produce finished water at below the SMCL of 50
g/L and more than half the plants control it to below 25 g/L. Again this is not a random data
set, so these values cannot be applied to the industry as a whole.
Reference to the 1996 WaterStats Database was made in the AwwaRF report entitled
Manganese Control and Related Issues (Casale, LeChevallier, and Pontius 2002). That report
indicated that 349 GW systems and 428 SW systems provided finished water quality Mn data.
That report indicated that 88.3% of GW systems and 95.6% of SW systems had finished water
levels below 0.05 mg/L (it is assumed the report was dealing with average data.)

Analysis of Distribution System Mn Data from Initial Survey

For distribution system water, 44 of the 242 facilities (18%) provided average Mn
concentration data, 13 gave a minimum, and 14 gave a maximum. This is not a large data set;
however, we did perform a statistical analysis on it, sorted by source water type and presented in
Table 4.3. The GW and SW seem to have about the same amount of Mn in the distribution
system samples, and all but the highest average values are at or below the SMCL of 0.050 mg/L.

Table 4.3
Mn concentrations in distribution system water, from initial surveys
Average reported Mn concentrations in distribution system (mg/L)
10th Geometric Arithmetic 90th
Source type n Lowest %-ile mean mean %-ile Highest
Groundwater 18 0.003 0.005 0.010 0.017 0.050 0.050
Surface water 20 0.001 0.005 0.013 0.021 0.045 0.090
Blending 4 ND 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
GWUDI 2 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
Notes: ND = non-detect; all values in this cell were ND; refer to playbook.
All utility data reported as non-detect was assigned a value of 0.005 mg/L for
statistical analysis, unless an MDL value was also furnished by the utility; 20 of 44
facilities reported non-detect for the average distribution system water Mn.

Methods Used by the Utilities to Generate Self-Reported Mn Data

During the initial surveys most of the utilities contacted were asked how they measured
Mn. In some cases they were not sure, or the question was not asked. This resulted in 90 of the
participating utilities (158 utilities) giving a useful response. More than half, 57 out of 90 (63%),
used an onsite colorimetric assay (e.g. Hach PAN method) while the remaining 36% used a more
advanced atomizing process (e.g. AA, ICP-AE, or ICP-MS). As one would imagine, the majority
of colorimetric analysis was done onsite while most of the atomizing analysis was done in a

74

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


separate laboratory facility, either their own or an outside laboratory. (NOTE: We are giving
these numbers by utility, not facility.)
For the most part, the utilities seemed to rely on a quick colorimetric method with
seasonal confirmation (be it quarterly, annually, or every three years) to measure Mn
concentration for plant operation purposes. Some utilities did use the more advanced laboratory
assays to monitor the process, but these were larger ones.
Of the participating utilities, few of them filter the samples to determine dissolved Mn
35 of the 90 (38%). They simply rely on total measurement to provide the necessary information.

Utility Responses to Other Questions in Initial Surveys

What Is Your Primary Disinfectant?

Since oxidation is the primary method of Mn control, and more specifically, since
chlorine is a necessary component of oxide-coated media control, we asked each facility to
describe the oxidants used in their process and to describe which they used as the primary
disinfection. The answers to these questions are presented in Figures 4.7 (primary disinfection)
and 4.8 (oxidants as a whole).

3.3%
Chlorine
0.8%
Ozone
0.4%
Chloramines
0.4%
None
90% 11% 0.4%
Advanced Oxidation
5.8%
UV

not given

Figure 4.7 Primary disinfectant at initial survey facilities (n = 242)

The overwhelming majority of facilities (90%) use chlorine as the primary disinfectant;
even some plants that use ozone indicate that they use chlorine as the primary disinfectant.
Almost 6% of the facilities did not reveal the primary disinfectant. The next largest disinfectant
(oxidant) grouping was ozone (3%). One facility, a membrane plant, did not use an oxidant as its
primary disinfectant. The main pie chart wedges are 90% and 11%, totaling 101% due to
rounding.

What Type of Oxidants do You Have in Your Facility?

In terms of oxidants in general, 53% of the facilities have nothing other than chlorine in
their process (Figure 4.8). The rest have other oxidants used in conjunction with chlorine at
75

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


various locations for various purposes. The largest other oxidant reported was KMnO4 (29%).
Some 5% of the facilities used both chlorine and ozone, while 4% use chlorine and chlorine
dioxide. Since we targeted facilities that might have Mn issues and since chlorine dioxide and
ozone share about the same percentage, it was deduced that utilities were just as ready to use
ozone as chlorine dioxide for Mn control. Similar to the primary disinfection question, 6% did
not reveal the oxidants used in their processes. One facility (a membrane filtration plant)
indicated that they did not use an oxidant.
The significance of this is that over 90% of the facilities currently have the ability to
oxidize Mn. More important is that most have chlorine, a critical component of the induced
oxide-coated media effect (IOCME). The oxidation process must be followed by some sort of
physical separation and IOCME requires filter media.

Do You Have a Manganese Problem?

We asked all the utility participants to answer the question, Do you consider yourself to
have a Mn problem/issue? Of the facilities, 125 indicated that they did not have a Mn problem
while 117 indicated that they did. That translates into 52% no and 48% yes. Since we were
targeting facilities with Mn issues, we were somewhat disconcerted with more no than yes
responses.

Chlorine only
29% 5%

Chlorine and potassium permanganate 4%

Chlorine and ozone 3%


0%
Chlorine and chlorine dioxide
6%
More than two oxidants

No oxidant used

Not reported 53%

Figure 4.8 Facilities grouped by oxidant and oxidant combination within WTP (n = 242)

Although we did not intend this to be a trick question, we did leave it open ended. One of
the ideas of the project was to get a feel for what people perceived about Mn and Mn-related
problems. If a utility has the Mn issue under control, then the issue may be perceived to no
longer be a problem. Sometimes Mn has been an issue for such a long time that the facility no
longer considers it an issue. A great story is that of a pumping station operator who has to put on
boots to inspect a certain area of the station, and has been doing it for so long that he no longer
considers a foot of water on the floor an issue. The initial survey was not a sophisticated
psychological tool with repeat or confirming questions, though, so only so much can be gleaned
from this analysis.

76

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Of the 125 that said no, 31 of them had source water Mn above 50 g/L, 5 had finished
water above 50 g/L, and 20 used KMnO4 somewhere in their process. There is a certain amount
of overlap in these counts, but if we do not double-count, the total count of 56 is reduced to 44
facilities. That is, 44 facilities have information that would lead the authors to assume that the
facility had a Mn issue but they nonetheless gave a no answer. If we use these criteria to
change a perceived no to a yes, we would have 33% no and 67% yes. This is a marked
change from more no to more yes, a 20% swing. This post-data-collection processing
reassured the research team that we had achieved our goal of targeting facilities with Mn issues.

Do You Currently Treat Specifically for Manganese?

Of the 242 facilities that were surveyed, 128 of them (53%) have specific Mn treatment.
Of these 128 facilities, 41 (32%) use KMnO4 to oxidize Mn; 38 (29%) use some sort of
trademark pressure filtration system (Manganese Greensand, Pyrolusite, Filtronics); 26 (20%)
use induced oxide-coated media; 12 (1%) use sequestration alone. The other processes are
chlorine and/or chlorine dioxide (4), biological removal (2), ozone (2), and aeration only (2). We
found through additional inquiries that some facilities treat Mn with induced oxide-coated media
but simply did not know it. Interestingly enough, some of these facilities are controlling Mn on
GAC filters; that is, using chlorine to form a layer of oxide-coated media.
Casale, LeChevallier, and Pontius, in their AwwaRF report (2002) said that the 1996
WaterStats Database revealed that 18.1% of GW and 7.9% of SW systems specifically used
iron/manganese control processes, and that 6.9% of the GW systems and 0.2% of SW systems
used greensand or oxide-coated media. Those percentages are lower than those presented in this
data set; therefore the PIs believe that the goal of targeting facilities with Mn issues was met.
The results of this and the previous question reveal something about utility perception. Of
all the respondents to the initial surveys, 48% of facilities said they had a Mn problem yet 53%
said they had specific Mn treatment. As previously mentioned, this makes sense if one assumes
that successfully treating Mn means there is no remaining problem.
However, if one makes a similar comparison to the modified Mn issue percentage, then
67% have a Mn issue while only 53% specifically treat for Mn. That is, only 79%, of the
facilities are aware of how they are actively handling Mn. This may indicate that there are as
many as 1 in 5 facilities that treat for Mn without really knowing it. Again, this data set is from a
focused survey, and should not be projected to the industry as a whole.
So, it appears from our initial survey sample that most utilities know if they have Mn
issues and know how they are handling them. Yet, there is a substantial fraction of utilities that
appear to have Mn issues or potential issues, but since there is not currently an active unresolved
problem that translates into consumer dissatisfaction, the issue is not perceived as a problem.
While the semantic issue of some interviewees considering a known and fixed problem as a non-
problem may be trivial, the issue of utilities having a Mn problem they are unaware of, and
treating it by accident, is more important.

DETAILED SURVEYS

The initial surveys provided an interesting look into what utilities were experiencing
relative to source water Mn occurrence, method used for Mn treatment, and methods used to
measure Mn. To gather more in-depth information, the research team developed a detailed
survey. The source of contacts for this survey was the large group of initial survey participants.
The detailed survey participants were a subset of those from the initial survey.

77

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The detailed surveys, often (but not exclusively) conducted over the telephone, took a
considerably longer time than the initial surveys (1 to 3 hours vs. 10 to 20 minutes). The survey
had four main sections: source water, water treatment process, distribution system, and customer
interaction. These detailed surveys provided not only more detailed water quality data but also
more detailed stories of strange and wonderful happenings in the world of water treatment.

Demographics of Utilities Participating in Detailed Surveys

There were 52 detailed survey participants: 42 domestic, 10 international. (More


precisely, detailed surveys were taken of 52 facilities, since several utilities provided detailed
survey data for more than one plant.) Geographic distribution of the 42 domestic participants is
shown in Figure 4.9. Though spread throughout the U.S., the highest concentrations were in
California and the Northeast. A significant number of detailed surveys were done in
Massachusetts, which traditionally has Fe and Mn issues, so it was easy to get information
most of the utilities contacted had experience with Mn. California was surveyed rather heavily,
as it represents a large population. Locations of the utilities that participated in seasonal
distribution system sampling for Mn are also shown on Figure 4.9. Similarly to the description of
the initial survey facilities, the demographics of source water, treatment type, and coagulant used
are presented in Figures 4.10 through 4.12.

12 Seasonal Testing Facilities


1
1

1 1
1
1 2
NH-1
3
1 1 MA-6
1
2 NJ-2
1
8 2 MD-1

1
1 1
1

Figure 4.9 Geographic distribution of detailed surveys in U.S. (numbers) (n = 42) and
location of the 12 facilities that participated in seasonal distribution system sampling for
Mn (dots)

78

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


38%

Surface Water
6%
Ground Water

GWUDI

56%
Figure 4.10 Types of source water treated by facilities in detailed survey (n = 52)

CGS 13% 10%


2%
Pressure Filtration for Fe/Mn 8%
2%
Direct or Inline Filtration
Advanced Clarification 2%
17%
Sequestration Only 2%
Oxidation / Gravity Filtration
Aeration
Disinfection Only
Lime Softening
44%
Figure 4.11 Facilities in detailed surveys grouped by treatment type (n = 52)

79

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


10%
No Coagulant Used
10%
Alum 37%
4%
Ferric Salts
2%
Polymers

PACl

Specialty Aluminum Products

37%

Figure 4.12 Type of primary coagulant used to treat water in detailed surveys (n = 52)

Compared to the initial surveys there is a notable difference, in that more surface water
sources participated in the detailed survey than groundwater sources. This has to do with the SW
facilities utilizing a wider range of technology, having more varied stories, and often being large
enough (having enough staff) to participate in the study on a deeper level. For similar reasons,
disinfection only treatment facilities did not have as strong a representation in the detailed
survey statistics as they did in the initial survey.
The PIs believe the demographic goals of the detailed survey were met, and that the
detailed survey participants are a reasonable subset of the larger initial survey.

Self-Reported Water Quality and Mn Concentration Data

For the detailed survey the researchers asked for more water quality data along with more
detailed and substantive Mn data. Each utility was asked to submit a full years worth of Mn data
along with various other water quality parameters.
The facilities that participated in the detailed survey were a little more likely to provide
water quality data than those that participated in the initial survey, 80% to 86% as compared to
76% to 78% for source and finished water respectively (see Table 4.4). The quantity of water
quality data requested was substantial, however, and about 14% did not complete the task. Only
a few sent distribution system water quality data, mostly because they did not have it. This was
also observed in the initial survey. Most utilities do not collect distribution system water quality
information. The information required to comply with the total coliform rule (TCR) and the lead
and copper rule does not provide the kind of water quality data the authors were looking for.
The self-reported data was collected and analyzed in two major ways. The first and most
obvious was a correlation analysis, in which average (mean) Mn values for each facility were
correlated with each of a number of other water quality parameters. The second was a look at the
distribution of Mn concentrations themselves, including minimum, maximum, and average
values, overall and using the stories told by each facility.

80

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Quality Parameter and Mn Concentration Correlations

The authors were hoping to find a profound correlation between annual water quality data
and the Mn concentration. For each facility, an average of each non-Mn water quality parameter
(on an annual basis) was determined, as well as the average total Mn concentration. This annual
average Mn concentration was then plotted as a function of one annual average water quality
parameter at a time. Therefore, each facility contributed one data point per plot. We did this for
source water, finished water, and distribution system water.
A significant drawback for this type of analysis is that the water quality data was supplied
on an annual basis and it was not sent as coupled data. So, correlating a specific Mn
concentration with a specific value of another water quality parameter taken at the same time
was not possible. (Collection and analysis of such coupled data, however, was done as part of
this research project in the seasonal occurrence sampling of distribution systems, discussed later
in this chapter.)
In the correlation analysis, 16 separate plots were created for each water type (source,
finished, and distribution system water). Figure 4.13 is an example of the analysis, done for
finished water. All three sets of plots can be found in Appendix C. Each plot contains the n value
along with the R2 value of the regression analysis.

Table 4.4
Facilities providing Mn concentration data in detailed surveys
Water Number of facilities that provided data Percent out of 52
Source 42 80%
Finished 45 86%
Distribution 12 23%

For the 16 source water correlation plots, none of the R2 values were above 0.50, save
one, dissolved oxygen (DO). It had an R2 of 0.64 but n value was 10 which is low. However,
the trend makes sense as there was more Mn associated with lower D.O. Likewise the 16
finished water plots had low R2 values. There was one with an R2 of 0.798 (Mn as a function of
DO), but this too had a low n (n = 6). These two correlations seem to indicate that the oxidation
reduction potential as characterized by DO could be significant. If more DO data was supplied
there could have been more conclusive comments made.
For the 16 distribution system plots, where self-reported data was scarce, the highest n
value plot (n = 13) was total Mn as a function of pH, yielding a very low R2 of 0.056. The
distribution turbidity plot has n = 11 with an R2 of 0.405. There is another plot with a fairly high
R2 (R2 = 0.60) but the n value is so extremely low (n=4) that it is difficult to infer much meaning.
This parameter was Total Mn as a function of apparent color. Of interest is that this parameter
has the strongest correlation in the seasonal distribution sampling data, presented later.
When looking at all the utilities at once, with annual data being summarized into one
average value, there were no strong correlations. Mn concentration cannot be predicted by a
single water quality parameter.

81

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


82

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water
pH vs Total Manganese Hardness vs Total Manganese UV254 Absorbance vs Total Manganese Total Iron vs Total Manganese
0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

0.090 n = 41 0.090 n = 29 0.090 n=8 0.090 n = 32

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080

0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070


R2 = 0.1041

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060
2
R = 0.1715 0.050
0.050 0.050 0.050
R2 = 0.0002
0.040 2 0.040 0.040 0.040
R = 0.0084
0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140
pH (units) Hardness (mg/L) UV254 Absorbance (1/cm) Total Iron (mg/L)

Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water


Turbidity vs Total Manganese Alkalinity vs Total Manganese Apparent Color vs Total Manganese Sodium vs Total Manganese
0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

0.090 n = 38 0.090 n = 39 0.090 n = 20 0.090 n = 29

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080


R2 = 0.1793
0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060
R2 = 0.0728
0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050
2
R = 0.0096 R2 = 2E-05
0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Turbidity (NTU) Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) Apparent Color (Color Units) Sodium (mg/L)

Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water


Dissolved Oxygen vs Total Manganese Total Organic Carbon vs Total Manganese Orthophosphate vs Total Manganese Calcium vs Total Manganese
0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

0.090 n=6 0.090 n = 17 0.090 n = 15 0.090 n = 23

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080

0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070


R2 = 0.3202

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060
R2 = 0.0002
R2 = 0.798 0.050
0.050 0.050 0.050

0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040


R2 = 0.0074
0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
D.O. (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) Orthophosphate (mg/L as P) Calcium (mg/L)

Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water


Conductivity vs Total Manganese Dissolved Organic Carbon vs Total Manganese Sulfate vs Total Manganese Total Dissolved Solids vs Total Manganese
0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

0.090 n = 29 0.090 n=5 0.090 n = 30 0.090 n = 20

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080

0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070


Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060

0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050


R2 = 0.0052 R2 = 0.004
0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040
R2 = 0.0182
0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030
2
R = 0.028
0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Conductivity (mho/cm) DOC (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) TDS (mg/L)

Figure 4.13 Correlation analysis of finished water Mn concentrations to specific water quality parameters, from detailed surveys

83

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


84

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Analysis of Ratios of Max to Average Mn Concentrations

Overall Explanation of Table 4.5. A years worth of total self-reported Mn data from the
detailed surveys was sorted into minimum, average, and maximum for each facility, as shown in
Table 4.5. This was done for source water and for finished water. A ratio of max to average Mn
concentration was generated for each set; that is, the maximum value divided by the average.
This was done to get an idea of how large a difference there was between the average condition
and a large excursion. Also, the percentage of Mn removal (from source to finished water) based
on average data was calculated. The left-hand box of Table 4.5 is utility description information;
each facility that also participated in the seasonal distribution system testing for Mn is identified
with an X. The middle box is source water information and the third is finished water, with the
far right-hand box being percent Mn removal during treatment.
At the bottom of several of the columns are totals. There are 44 separate facilities
represented on the table, representing 44 of the 52 detailed surveysthose that reported
sufficient Mn data for this analysis. Two of them are entered twice (i.e., ID Nos. 2 and 2a, also
28 and 28a; see below), so there is a possible total of 46 data points per column. At bottom right
there is also a matrix of counts above 0.050 mg/L and at or below 0.020 mg/L for the finished
water values. Note that not every utility that participated in the detailed survey provided min,
max, and average data. Fields were left blank where no data was offered. All of this data is
presented in Table 4.5 along with each utilitys n values denoting the total number of Mn
concentrations reported for source and finished water.
The analysis of the table can be done from left to right for overall treatment analysis or it
can be analyzed vertically, looking for high and low values. The table is color-coded to aid in
analysis. Utilities that have no in-plant Mn treatment or that use sequestering alone were
identified with a pink box. A utility that has a raw water Max:Avg ratio greater than 10 was
identified by brown shading and those that have a finished water Max:Avg ratio greater than 10
are shaded in blue. Yellow shading was used to identify finished water concentrations that were
less than or equal to 20 g/L, while a finished water value of greater than 50 g/L was left white
but boxed with a black border. Aqua green shading is used to identify facilities that use KMnO4
alone to control Mn.
Utility 2 is listed twice as 2 and 2a because one treatment process (i.e., 2) is used all year
long while 2a is used only part of the year, yet both processes are within one treatment plant and
enter the same distribution system. Utility 5 has two distinct process trains within the one
treatment plant but since they are both used constantly the plant overall is thought of as one
process. Utility 28 is listed twice (as 28 and 28a) because it has two distinct sources of water yet
the same treatment train, so data was generated for each source and compared to the common
finished water.
Looking at the n values on Table 4.5 can tell you something about the size of the data set
and also something about the utility. Certain utilities provided more than one years worth of
data. For example the highest n was 1,885 (source) and 2,382 (finished) from a UK facility,
which represents at least 3 years worth of data So this utility collects a little under two Mn
samples per day of source water and over two per day of finished. The next highest n value was
904 (source) and 908 (finished) for Utility 400; this utility intends to measure Mn three times a
day and almost achieved it (which would be 1,095), less monitoring on weekends. The source
water n value for Utility 2 is only 5 while it is 365 for finished. This utility controls Mn using a
sample location within the process, both north and south, measured daily. They have several

85

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


wells so they only measure source Mn occasionally. Utility No. 3 gave us two years worth of
source water data so their n = 730 means they actually sample daily, yet they only gave us one
data point for finished water. As is to be expected, not all facilities gave us the n value used to
generate the statistics they gave us. About 1/3 of the utilities measure Mn about once a day (i.e.,
n > 300), indicating that they seem to really need to keep an eye on things. Those that do not
have a problem or seem to be able to control Mn consistently have an n value of 12 to 52,
indicating weekly or monthly analysis.
Looking at Max:Avg Ratios in Table 4.5. Of the 39 facility source waters that have a
Max:Avg ratio, 19 of them, or about 50%, have a ratio <2.5 (see the first part of the last column
in the source water box). These facilities report that Mn treatment was usually not a problem for
them because the Mn coming in was fairly constant. This was true even for a utility that had very
high source water Mn concentrations. For example, utility #281 has 2.1 mg/L of Mn on average
with a maximum of 4.5 mg/L, yet they consistently remove it.
The brown-shaded group of five utilities (13% of the 39) have a Max:Avg source water
ratio greater than 10 (i.e., maximum value at least 10 times greater than the average value). From
information obtained via the detailed survey, they all consider Mn to be difficult to treat even
though some of their maximum values are not as high as some other utilities average values.
They suffer under variable influent conditions. Most of these are SW plants, with only one true
GW plant. For some the maximum value appears for only two weeks a year, for example at
reservoir turnover. For the GW plant, it occurs when water demand requires them to access water
supplies that they know have Mn. In such cases, with high values for small periods of time, these
utilities are faced with the dilemma of the cost of increased Mn treatment vs. its infrequent use.
How are they to justify the cost? Currently they simply seem to suffer through. Once a spike in
Mn occurs the utility tries to do what it can to treat the Mn within the treatment plant, but mostly
they rely on distribution system flushing.
The next column of Max:Avg ratios for source waterthat is, the very last column in the
source water box of the tablelists those whose ratio is 7.5 or more. Besides the five utilities
with a >10 ratio, there are five additional utilities that fit into this category, for a total of 10
utilities (25%). These too suffer with variable Mn influent.
Of the five utilities that have a source water ratio >10, three of them also have a finished
water ratio >10. And for those 10 utilities with a source water ratio of 7.5 or more, six of them
also have a finished water ratio greater than 7.5. This illustrates that influent variability is more
likely than not to be transferred to finished water variability.
The Max:Avg ratio is a helpful tool. A designer can consider it when designing a WTP,
asking if the Mn is a constant problem or a periodic one. This consideration can be used in
costing out Mn treatment and including a certain amount of additional capacity or technology
when warranted. It can also help an operator understand the inherent difficulty he or she is
facing.

86

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table 4.5 Analysis of source and finished water Mn concentration data from detailed surveys
Source Water Finished Water
Utility Seasonal Type of Water Mn Specific Total Manganese n Ratio Ratio max:avg Ratio Total Manganese n Ratio Ratio max:avg Ratio AVG
ID Testing Country Source Treatment Treatment min max avg value min:avg max:avg <2.5 >10 >7.5 min max avg value min:avg max:avg < 2.5 > 10 >7.5 Removal
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) raw to fin
1 USA SW Pre-O3, DF IOCME 0.020 0.560 0.160 354 0.13 3.5 0 0 0 0.001 0.050 0.010 357 0.10 5.0 0 0 0 94%
2 X USA GW CGS Aeration, KMnO4 1.020 2.240 1.630 5 0.63 1.4 1 0 0 0.019 0.153 0.045 365 0.42 3.4 0 0 0 97%
2a X USA GW Green sand Greensand 0.110 0.625 0.350 5 0.31 1.8 1 0 0 0.006 0.087 0.028 87 0.22 3.2 0 0 0 92%
3 USA SW CGS ClO2, IOCME 0.100 0.300 0.200 730 0.50 1.5 1 0 0 0.005 0 0 0 98%
4 USA SW Pre-O3 CGS KMnO4, IOCME 0.020 0.380 0.130 14 0.15 2.9 0 0 0 0.005 0.010 0.010 14 1.0 1 0 0 92%
5 USA SW AC & CGS both w/ Int O3 PreO3 0.005 4.000 0.090 0.06 44.4 0 1 1 0.050 0.050 0.050 240 1.0 1 0 0 44%
7 X USA SW CGS KMnO4, 0.063 0.254 0.111 125 0.57 2.3 1 0 0 0.001 0.052 0.019 211 0.05 2.7 0 0 0 83%
8 USA SW CGS KMnO4 0.035 0.341 0.107 365 0.33 3.2 0 0 0 0.001 0.062 0.021 365 0.05 3.0 0 0 0 80%
9 X USA SW CGS IOCME 0.036 0.176 0.061 13 0.59 2.9 0 0 0 0.001 0.011 0.003 23 0.37 4.0 0 0 0 96%
13 USA GW Fe/Mn treatment Greensand 0.446 0.580 0.517 11 0.86 1.1 1 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 100%
21 X USA GW Fe/Mn treatment Greensand 0.211 0.305 0.270 337 0.78 1.1 1 0 0 0.001 0.050 0.010 337 0.10 5.0 0 0 0 96%
22 X USA SW AC w/ Int O3 IOCME, (aux KMnO4) 0.019 0.883 0.157 47 0.12 5.6 0 0 0.002 0.046 0.011 46 0.18 4.2 0 0 0 93%
28 USA SW CGS ClO2 0.009 0.087 0.022 52 0.40 4.0 0 0 0 0.001 0.002 0.001 52 1.00 1.7 1 0 0 95%
28a USA SW CGS ClO2 0.001 0.039 0.005 52 0.19 7.2 0 0 1 0.001 0.002 0.001 52 1.00 1.7 1 0 0 81%
29 USA SW AC Reservoir aeration, PreO3 0.020 0.098 0.060 10 0.33 1.6 1 0 0 0.005 0.020 0.010 12 0.50 2.0 1 0 0 83%
58 USA GW Fe/Mn treatment Greensand 0.070 0.0 1 0 0 0.010 0 0 0 86%
90 USA SW MF KMnO4 2.200 0.811 10 2.7 0 0 0 0.005 0.005 0.005 1.0 1 0 0 99%
117 USA GWUDI O3 , DF IOCME 0.001 1.148 0.068 244 0.01 16.8 0 1 1 0.001 0.344 0.010 244 0.10 36.1 0 1 1 86%
191 USA GW Air Stripping Sequestration 0.080 0.090 0.085 0.94 1.1 1 0 0 0.080 0.090 0.085 0.94 1.1 1 0 0 0%
216 X USA SW Disinfection None 0.021 0.227 0.087 383 0.24 2.6 0 0 0 0.021 0.227 0.087 383 0.24 2.6 0 0 0 0%
218 USA GW Fe/Mn treatment Aeration, KMnO4 0.200 1.000 0.450 54 0.44 2.2 1 0 0 0.001 0.700 0.080 10 0.01 8.8 0 0 1 82%
251 USA SW CGS KMnO4, IOCME 0.047 0.213 0.135 12 0.35 1.6 1 0 0 0.018 0.043 0.027 12 0.67 1.6 1 0 0 80%
258 Canada GW Mn treatment Filtronics 0.003 2.150 0.466 85 0.01 4.6 0 0 0 0.001 0.057 0.018 10 0.06 3.2 0 0 0 96%
269 X USA GW Disinfection Sequestration 0.001 0.430 0.040 0.03 10.8 0 1 1 0.001 0.430 0.040 0.03 10.8 0 1 1 0%
281 USA GW CGS Aeration, KMnO4 0.800 4.500 2.100 12 0.38 2.1 1 0 0 0.006 0.025 0.019 12 0.32 1.3 1 0 0 99%
315 X USA SW CGS IOCME on GAC 0.020 1.800 0.240 350 0.08 7.5 0 0 1 0.001 1.060 0.018 350 0.06 58.9 0 1 1 93%
317 USA SW AC KMnO4 0.161 0.0 1 0 0 0.030 0 0 0 81%
318 X USA GW Disinfection Sequestration 0.069 0.082 0.076 13 0.91 1.1 1 0 0 0.069 0.082 0.076 13 0.91 1.1 1 0 0 0%
319 USA GW Fe/Mn treatment IOCME 0.001 0.980 0.112 13 0.01 8.8 0 0 1 0.001 0 0 0 99%
320 USA GW Fe/Mn treatment Pyrolusite Filter 0.075 0.130 0.090 20 0.83 1.4 1 0 0 0.001 0.010 0.002 52 0.63 6.3 0 0 98%
321 USA GW Fe/Mn treatment Pyrolusite Filter 0.058 0.150 0.124 81 0.47 1.2 1 0 0 0.002 0.049 0.024 81 0.10 2.1 1 0 0 81%
322 USA GW Fe/Mn treatment Pyrolusite Filter 0.130 0.0 1 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 99%
324 Australia SW DF Aeration, KMnO4, IOCME 0.001 0.092 0.008 350 0.13 11.5 0 1 1 0.001 0.039 0.002 350 0.50 19.5 0 1 1 75%
325 Australia SW CGS Aeration, KMnO4, IOCME 0.010 0.200 0.050 350 0.20 4.0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 98%
326 Australia SW CGS IOCME 0 0 0 0.002 0.020 0.008 2.5 1 0 0
327 UK SW AC IOCME 0.002 2.970 0.303 41 0.00 9.8 0 0 1 0.002 0.009 0.002 51 0.83 5.1 0 0 99%
328 UK GW DF Mn coated media "Adkolit" 0.023 0.224 0.160 0.14 1.4 1 0 0 0.002 0.040 0.005 0.38 7.7 0 0 1 97%
329 UK SW CGS w/ GAC None 0.481 0.055 1885 8.7 0 0 1 0.005 0.293 0.019 2382 0.26 15.4 0 1 1 65%
334 USA SW CGS KMnO4, IOCME 0.030 0.950 0.140 79 0.21 6.8 0 0 0.001 0.056 0.016 70 0.06 3.5 0 0 0 89%
336 X USA SW CGS IOCME on GAC 0.003 1.002 0.096 227 0.03 10.4 0 1 1 0.001 0.039 0.005 38 0.22 8.5 0 0 1 95%
344 USA SW Lime Softening Lime Softening 0.520 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 100%
350 USA GW Disinfection Sequestration 0.048 0.057 0.055 12 0.88 1.0 1 0 0 0.048 0.057 0.055 12 0.88 1.0 1 0 0 0%
351 Australia SW CGS IOCME 0 0 0 0.006 0.080 0.014 0.43 5.7 0 0
352 Australia SW CGS IOCME 0 0 0 0.006 0.080 0.014 0.43 5.7 0 0
400 X USA SW CGS w/ int O3 KMnO4 0.001 0.258 0.073 904 3.5 0 0 0 0.001 0.039 0.010 980 0.10 3.9 0 0 0 86%
401 X USA SW AC w/ Int O3 Reservoir HOS / None 0.005 0.053 0.020 308 2.7 0 0 0 0.001 0.039 0.009 308 0.11 4.3 0 0 0 55%
44 12 Totals 37 39 43 19 5 10 38 38 46 13 5 8 43
0 0 0 > 0.050 mg/L 78%
32 (39) 0 0 0.020 mg/L
0% 0% 0% > 0.050 mg/L
0% 0% 0% 0.020 mg/L

87

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


88

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Looking at the Individual Utilities That Were Highlighted in Table 4.5. Utility #5 has
several reservoirs, and turnover can really change the amount of Mn in the water. They recently
upgraded the plant, so they use both the older conventional side and the upgraded advance
clarifier side. The large change in influent water quality, both Mn and algae, is handled with pre-
ozone. Since the change in source water quality was integrated into the design, there is enough
ozone and enough contact time for the Mn to be changed to MnO2 and settled out. The effluent
Mn concentration is always below their reporting limit of 50 g/L but no specific numerical
concentrations were provided. So, without more specific data, we entered the reporting limit as
the value on Table 4.5. Therefore, the overall percent removal shown on the table appears low
(44%), though it is likely higher in reality.
Utility #117 has had a history of Mn issues. The issues were severe enough that this
utility had to change from the use of biologically active filtration (BAF) after ozone to using
chlorine on the filters to get the remaining Mn out of solution. The high finished water Mn value
(maximum) may be an artifact of water quality data prior to the conversion because the process
seems to be working now. Keep in mind that the chemistry of Mn is not simple, so the use of
chlorine on the filter may or may not constitute IOCME as listed on the table, since the Mn may
already be Mn(IV). If so, then the chlorine keeps the Mn(IV) in that state, preventing it from
reducing to Mn(II), or it may be a real IOCME where Mn(II) is captured on the media and
converted to Mn(IV). It is the PIs belief that there is not enough ozone or time to oxidize all the
Mn so that the process at this plant is an actual IOCME. This is also a direct filtration plant; there
is no solid separation step prior to filtration.
Utility #269 is a GW system that has a history of Mn issues. They rely on a notorious
well, known to have high Mn, simply to meet water supply demands during the hot season. Since
the Mn control method is sequestration only, all the Mn that comes out of the well goes into the
distribution system. They have Mn complaints. The distribution system is routinely flushed to
control Mn.
Utility #315 uses IOCME but on GAC media, applying chlorine and NaOH prior to
filtration. They use this process routinely, and it works most of the time. However, backwashing
practices and media age seem to have an impact on process robustness. Also the application of
NaOH prior to filtration can be problematicsometimes too much, sometimes not enough
especially when source water alkalinity changes. The source water is a river that receives acid
mine drainage (AMD); therefore, depending on precipitation, the alkalinity can change as well as
the overall Mn concentrations. This is much less predictable than even a reservoir turnover event.
Utility #336 also uses the IOCME on GAC media. However, they use it seasonally and
do not apply chlorine to the filters regularly. They have been successful at taking the peak out of
the Mn spike that occurs at reservoir turnover, but there is still a fair amount of variability in
their finished water values. Prior to instituting this chlorination of GAC filter process full-scale,
they tested it on pilot scale. There they showed that they could reasonably expect to remove 50%
of the influent Mn. The treatment plant has also discovered that their new (recently built)
sedimentation basins were not effectively cleared of solids, which resulted in Mn pass-through
via reduction of MnO2 to Mn(II) from anaerobic sediment. So, the load that caused the
distribution system problem actually came from internal plant sources. Improvements in
sediment removal led to overall improvements. Mn data associated with the distribution system
problem is not contained in table 4.5.
Utility #324 is an Australian facility that treats water from a dammed reservoir. Turnover
does not seem to be an issue and they aerate the reservoir, yet there is variability within the Mn

89

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


influent concentrations, although the maximum value is low. The water is very low in alkalinity
and hardness, so the first step is addition of carbonate via lime (recarbonation). It is a direct
filtration plant so all Mn removal is done on the filters. The pH of coagulation and filtration is
very high, at 9.2, so Mn precipitation is promoted. Even though the influent and effluent Mn
concentrations are quite variable, the finished water is always below 50 g/L, and it is 2 g/L on
average. This utility does not monitor customer complaints, but their client, the town council,
does. However, the authors are under the impression they do not have any complaints.
Utility #329 is a UK facility that treats a lowland river supply. They did not specifically
treat for Mn. They are a conventional gravity settling (CGS) plant that uses GAC filters
following clarification; even so they remove about half of the influent Mn. This was not
sufficient for them, so they are planning on installing a specific Mn control process. They are
going to have granular media filter with alkali and chlorine feeds (pH 7.5, and 2 to 2.5 mg/L
respectively), which we would refer to as IOCME. They have an internal Mn goal of <25 g/L
for 99% of the time to prevent Mn buildup in pipes, thereby reducing dirty water complaints.
Looking at Mn-Specific Treatment Techniques in Table 4.5. Five of the seven utilities
that have no Mn-specific treatment process (pink shading) remove no Mn at all. The other two
remove 55% and 65% of Mn. The difference is that those two plants have more water treatment
processes than the other five, implying that if one treats the water for turbidity or DOC removal
one can expect about a 50% reduction in Mn.
Preozonation was the specific Mn treatment process used for two facilities (Utilities #5
and #29). Their removal percentages were 44% (which may be falsely low) and 83%,
respectively. The inclusion of pre-ozonation improves removal from the no treatment level of
around 50% to a little above it. Both rely on sedimentation for Mn removal.
The use of KMnO4 alone to control Mn is not the most effective technique listed. Those
utilities that use it achieve between 80% and 86% removal. One of the utilities (#90) that
participated in the detailed survey uses KMnO4 to oxidize Mn(II) to Mn(IV), then removes it via
membranes. The process requires KMnO4, because if Mn is not oxidized it can pass through the
membrane. This process removes 99% of the Mn.
Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) alone, i.e., without other Mn control processes, seems to control
Mn. The utility that used ClO2, followed by sedimentation, removed over 95% of the influent Mn
from one water source and 81% from the other but always to a low level, (maximum was less
than 2 g/L). Chlorine dioxide oxidizes Mn well and it is faster than ozone.
Utilities that coupled KMnO4 with other technologies get better removal than if it is used
alone. For two GW treatment plants, the combination of aeration and KMnO4 was very effective.
These plants have a lot of Mn coming in and have processes set up to contact the Mn with
KMnO4. On average, Utility #2 removed 97% of the influent Mn but they still have Mn issues.
These issues are associated with plant hydraulics; at high demand times the oxidation and
settling times are reduced so much that Mn removal is no longer effective. This can be seen in
the maximum finished water value (153 g/L). Utility #281 has a lot of iron and Mn coming in,
and the water is always so cold that they heat it up via a heat exchanger in a boiler room. The
concentrations and the heat force removal kinetics to a very favorable level. This facility
removes 99% of influent Mn and has less than 20 g/L on average with a maximum of 25 g/L.
Utility #218 also uses aeration and KMnO4 (and chlorine) but only removes 82% of
influent Mn. Utility #218 treats groundwater from six wells via aeration, sedimentation,
filtration, and disinfection. They aerate the water, then they add KMnO4 and chlorine in the
sedimentation basin with about 1 hour of contact time. They quench the chlorine prior to

90

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


filtration with ammonia so there is no IOCME. They used to add NaOH to sedimentation basin
effluent to raise the pH but stopped because of operational problems. Overfeed resulted in filter
media grain size growing because of the collection of metals. They may have internal Mn issues
as the sedimentation basin is cleaned manually once a quarter (they are planning on installing
removal equipment). The chlorine and permanganate may be sufficient to keep all the Mn
oxidized. The primary purpose of their treatment is to control Fe, with Mn being a side issue. All
of their complaints to date have been red water, never black water. Therefore, 82% Mn removal
is acceptable to them.
The use of oxide-coated media (either greensand or similar) and induced oxide-coated
media (IOCME) were the most prevalent techniques used, and the most effective. When these
techniques were employed alone or in concert with others, the removal was generally above
90%. In cases where the removal was not above 90%, other factors could explain why. For
example, at Utility #117, the average source is 68 g/L and finished water average is 10 g/L so
the percentage is mathematically low but really the process is quite effective. Two of the three
facilities that used both KMnO4 and IOCME, Utility #251 and Utility #334, had 80% and 89%
removal, respectively. Utility #251 has internal recycling of sediment decant, so the loading of
Mn on the system is higher than indicated by source water. The effluent concentrations are low,
always <50 g/L, so the process works. Utility #334 also has an internal recycle of Mn via
settling lagoon recycle, but this is usually low and they have an average effluent of 0.02 mg/L.
So the below 90% removal (by 1%) is mathematical.
Interestingly enough, Utility #334 does not consider itself to be a true IOCME plant even
though they carry a free chlorine residual across the filters (1.0 to 1.2 mg/L at filter effluent) at a
pH of 6.6. Historically the pretreatment free chlorine residual carried across the sedimentation
basin with a contact time of 4 to 6 hours removed all the Mn. They do have Mn on the anthracite
but not on the lower layers of sand below it. Once they reduced chlorine across the plant and
delayed the initial point of application for DBP reduction, they had Mn problems. They are now
using KMnO4 to preoxidize the Mn and remove it by settling. The sand below the filters may yet
turn black.
Oxide-coated media Mn-specific treatment via greensand, Pyrolusite, and Filtronics
version of greensand all were successful at removing Mn. The finished water effluent Mn
concentrations (average) were consistently low, however, there were high maximum values. In
fact several facilities had maximum values above 50 g/L. The media is capable of producing a
low level of Mn but the run length depends upon what level of Mn the operator is comfortable
with. The lower the maximum level allowed out of the process, the more backwashing and
reconditioning one must do, and the overall cost of treatment increases.
This is one of the main differences between this type of greensand treatment and IOCME.
The IOCME process is constantly being reconditioned, as long as Mn and chlorine are fed into
the filter. Since it is usually an ancillary process, the reconditioning does not increase overall
operational cost. It is reasonable to assume that the manganese greensand facilities can operate to
produce low maximum values too, but it simply takes more time and money.
Looking at Finished Water Values in Table 4.5. In looking at finished water values that
are summarized in the bottom box, 33 of the utilities had an average finished water effluent Mn
concentration of 20 g/L or less, while 9 (actually 8 as Utility #28 is counted twice) had a
maximum of 20 g/L or less. This indicates that it is possible for most of these utilities (75%) to
achieve an average finished water effluent concentration of <0.020 mg/L, yet only 20% of them
could always be under it. Some 32 facilities have a minimum Mn effluent concentration <20

91

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


g/L. Some utilities reported no minimum, but if one looks at the average for these and if it is
<20 g/L then the minimum must be 20 g/L, and the count goes from 32 to 39, as noted in
the table by parentheses. This means that 39 of our 44 facilities are capable at some time within
the year of controlling Mn to below 20 g/L. Conversely, only five facilities have minimum Mn
above 20 g/L. Of those five, one is only 1 g/L above 20 (it has no Mn-specific treatment), and
the other is an artifact of the utilitys supplying data at a <50 g/L reporting limit. So only three
of the five values are real, and of those three, all of them at sequestering plants. This stresses the
point that plants that use sequestration are always adding Mn into the distribution system. All
other treatment techniques have periods of little to no Mn entering the system.
The eight utilities that have finished water Mn concentrations below 20 g/L at all times
do not have distribution system Mn problems. Many of them did at one time, but once Mn
treatment was optimized they no longer have an issue.
Five facilities (11%) had an average effluent Mn concentration above 50 g/L, and 16
(43%) (or 17, counting 2 and 2a separately) had a maximum above 50 g/L. Of the five with
average Mn greater than 50 g/L, three were sequestration plants, one had no specific Mn
treatment, and one was just not all that successful at Mn treatment. For these facilities,
exceeding the federal secondary standard (SMCL) was not a violation; their state rules either
accepted higher Mn with sequestration or allowed for a combination of both Fe and Mn.
Although in compliance, these systems were not without customer issues, which in many cases
seems to have a greater impact on facility response than the regulations themselves, especially
secondary ones. For example, one of the utilities, which relies on a sequestering agent only, was
flushing Mn from the system using a fire hydrant. This flushing was being done at night. The
crew was called back to the hydrant the next day because the street was so dirty from all the
black Mn sediment dumped onto it, an impressive example of system buildup. They used brooms
and shovels to clean the area.

Customer Complaint Tracking and Assessment

One of the sections in the detailed survey focused on customer interactions. We asked
four specific questions about this. (Refer to detailed survey form in Appendix A.) Of the 52
detailed surveys completed, 49 (94%) of the facilities track customer complaints, and 44 (85%)
can differentiate one type of complaint from another, such as color vs. taste & odor vs. pressure,
etc. Of the respondents, 43 indicated that they follow up with complaints and 40 (77%) test for
Mn.
In retrospect, the authors feel that this survey instrument was not the best tool to gather
this information. The interrelations of water treatment staff, distribution staff, and administrative
staff along with the wide range of response to complaints was too complex to be assessed by
these questions. As one might imagine, there was a wide range of ability to track and respond to
complaints. As can be seen in the data just mentioned, almost everyone tracks complaints. The
three that indicated they did not were courageous in admitting that they did not track them. In
two cases the utility responds to complaints as they happen (e.g. flushing) but makes no record of
it. In one case the complaints are handled by another entity so the utility could only answer with
no they did not. With almost everyone saying yes to each question, the differentiation
anticipated was not seen.
The best picture of the utilities process regarding complaints was seen in the comment
section associated with the questions. For example, in the United Kingdom (UK) customer
complaints are maintained in computerized files and are part of the regulatory environment, i.e.,

92

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


they are audited by regulators. In Australia the local town council or other public service entity
tracks complaints and interfaces with the utility. In the U.S. the utility does this themselves. The
larger systems use computer databases to look at records (some have regional call centers) while
the smaller ones may keep a log book or have no record at all. The small systems seem to
respond to individual complaints individually, with the response they think will fix the problem.
The large ones also respond, but try to see if there are trends or larger reasons for the complaint.
The comment section also revealed that, for the most part, Mn was not the most prevalent
complaint. Even when dirty water was an issue it was often associated with hydraulic
disturbances and lumped in with Fe. This is logical, and relative to addressing the complaint,
correct. It just limits the use of such information for the purposes of this study.
Some 77% of the respondents indicated they tested for Mn in association with
complaints. When asked about it more specifically, however, the answer tended to switch to an
indication that they could test for Mn if they needed to, but to their best recollection they have
never actually tested for Mn even with dirty water complaints. They usually flush the system in
the area of complaint and only if the issue persists do they test for Mn. The PIs wonder if the
wording of the survey form or questions could have been ambiguous and sometimes
misinterpreted so that a utility answering that we test for Mn might not have been clearly
intended to be implying that it was a test specifically in the distribution system and specifically
in response to a complaint.
Ultimately the authors were not able to make a connection between customer complaints
and Mn treatment, though some specific utilities could anecdotally tell us that after installation of
Mn treatment they had fewer customer complaints.

SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM OCCURRENCE SAMPLING

Overall Findings

An analysis of the overall data set produced by this research task yielded the following
observations.

The concentration of Mn always decreased along the length of the distribution


system. In the rare cases where it did not, other system anomalies could explain why
it did not.
The greater the Mn concentration entering the system, the greater the drop across the
system implying the drop in Mn was a function of the amount of Mn entering the
system not the amount in the distribution system itself. This also reveals that the more
Mn entering the distribution system the greater the accumulation of Mn within the
distribution system.
The dissolved Mn concentration always decreased at a greater rate than the total
concentration, revealing a conversion of Mn(II) to Mn(IV).
Rarely was colloidal Mn found in the distribution system. It only occurred in
distribution systems with high Mn concentrations and where phosphates were being
added either as a sequestering agent or as a corrosion inhibitor.
The lack of colloidal Mn implies that the 0.22 m filter is sufficient to determine
dissolved and particulate Mn concentration under most conditions. Since filtration
with a 0.22 m filter is significantly easier than a 30K Dalton this is a welcome
observation.

93

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


For the two sample sets taken during high flow periods (caused by fire hydrant use
nearby), the Mn level increased dramatically, and it consisted entirely of the total
Mn fraction (i.e., particulate Mn).

Introduction

From the detailed survey participants, 11 utilities (12 facilities) were selected to sample
water from within their distribution systems. Facility selection was based on diversity of Mn-
related customer complaints, geographic location, source water type, and treatment type, along
with the most important qualifier, willingness to conduct this elaborate sampling. The geographic
regions of the U.S., source water type, and treatment type are summarized in Table 4.6. The
approximate locations of these facilities were presented in Figure 4.9.
The sampling was scheduled to occur four times (seasonally) over the course of one year.
Utilities were to collect water samples from three distribution system locations, filter through a
0.22-m and a 30-kDa filter, and ship to Philadelphia for metals analysis as described
previously. Each sample (total and filtrates) was collected in triplicate. Split samples were also
collected for in-house analyses of other water quality parameters. The full study protocol is in
Appendix B.
As with the detailed survey data, these data were examined to determine if any water
quality parameters correlated to distribution system Mn concentrations. For various reasons, not
all of the participants were able to complete four sample sets. Because of this, an extra set of
samples was requested from some participants; this extra sample set was collected in winter
2005. A synopsis of seasonal utility participation is given in Table 4.7.
The purpose of the sampling was to determine Mn concentrations and speciation in actual
water distribution systems, and to examine the data for spatial trends in Mn behavior throughout
distribution systems and correlations between Mn and ancillary water quality parameters. Each
utility sampled its plant effluent (representing the distribution system entry sampling point) and
then sampled at three locations in the system: near, mid, and far from the entry point. The actual

Table 4.6
U.S. region, source water type, and Mn treatment type for utilities participating in
distribution system occurrence sampling for Mn
Utility ID Region Source Mn-specific treatment process
2, 2a Midwest GW Aeration, KMnO4, and manganese greensand
7 South SW KMnO4
9 Mid-Atlantic SW Induced oxide-coated media effect (IOCME)
21 Northeast GW Greensand
22 Mid-Atlantic SW IOCME with auxiliary KMnO4
216 Northeast SW None
269 Northwest GW Sequestration
315 Mid-Atlantic SW IOCME on GAC
318 West GW Sequestration
336 Mid-Atlantic SW KMnO4, IOCME on GAC
400 West SW KMnO4
401 West Reservoir oxygenation system (HOS) / none

94

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table 4.7
Record of utility participation in distribution system Mn occurrence sampling
Utility Winter Spring Summer Fall Winter
Source
ID 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005
2 GW Yes Yes Yes Yes
7 SW Yes Yes Yes Yes
9 SW Yes Yes Yes Yes
21 GW Yes Yes Yes Yes
22 SW Yes Yes Yes Yes
216 SW Yes Yes Yes
269 GW Yes Yes
315 SW Yes Yes Yes Yes
318 GW Yes Yes Yes
336 SW Yes Yes Yes Yes
400 SW Yes Yes
401 SW Yes Yes
4 GW
Counts 6 sets 10 sets 9 sets 9 sets 6 sets
8 SW

location of each of these points was selected by the utility. Two utilities with small distribution
systems collected only two distribution system locations.

Distribution System Seasonal Sampling Results

The plots generated to analyze this data have been compiled in Appendix D. Due to the
extensive amount of data, it was not practical to present all the data in the text of this report, nor
is it practical to discuss each utility separately. Rather, we discuss general observations. A subset
of the data is presented and discussed in the following subsections, which cover the two main
methods used to analyze the datathe spatial relations of Mn concentrations, and Mn
concentration correlations with other water quality data.

Spatial Relations of Mn Concentrations in the Distribution System

Mn concentration data as a function of sample location is presented for 4 of the 12


participating utilities in Figures 4.14 through 4.17. Each data point represents the mean value of
triplicate samples and the error bars represent one standard deviation. The reporting limit for Mn
was 0.001 mg/L. In the plots, Mn concentrations reported as <0.001 mg/L were plotted at 0 on
the y-axes. There are two to four plots per figure. These represent separate (seasonal) sampling
events. The date of each sampling is labeled at the top of each plot. The geographic location of
each utility, as well as the source water type and treatment type, are listed at the bottom of each
figure.
A spatial view of the data is presented from left to right along the x-axis. The entry point
is the far left point and each succeeding point to the right is further along the distribution system
(entry, near, mid, and far).

95

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Mn is plotted as a red circle, the dissolved Mn (<0.22 m) is plotted as a green
square, and the truly dissolved (<30,000 Dalton) is plotted as a blue triangle. If most of the Mn is
dissolved, then all three data labels lie near each other. If most of the Mn is particulate, then the
total and dissolved values are separated by a space. The overlapping of blue triangle and green
square signify that most of the dissolved Mn is truly dissolved and that the 0.22-m filtering
predicted the truly dissolved Mn. Only on a few occasions did the triangle and square not
overlap. When this occurs, there is colloidal Mn presentthat is, Mn-oxide that is so small it
passes through the 0.22-m filter yet it will not pass through the ultrafilter.
Utility 2. Figure 4.14 contains the distribution system Mn data for Utility 2, a Midwestern
utility that has two parallel trains, both using groundwater as their source. One train (used year-
round) is conventional gravity settling (CGS) preceded by aeration and KMnO4 oxidation, while
the other process train (used seasonally) is manganese greensand. Utility 2 has a large difference
in demand from summer to winter. It augments its summer water supply by pumping more water
from its primary wells and from sources not in use during the cooler months. The alternative
supplies tend to have more Mn and therefore add to the Mn loading, but these alternative
supplies are treated by the manganese greensand. This process train is effective at controlling the
Mn. The CGS process train suffers the most during increased flow periods. There is a reduction
in hydraulic retention time that reduces the processs ability to handle the Mn loading. The
distribution system was sampled during high and low demand periods. The spring and the
summer sampling events coincided with high demand periods. Also tripolyphosphate is added to
the plant effluent as a corrosion inhibitor.
In the winter (2/26/04) and fall (11/9/04) sampling, levels of total Mn were low (<0.010
mg/L) and did not vary spatially. Most of the Mn in the winter and fall samples was particulate,
i.e., very little dissolved Mn. During the warmer-season samplings (5/20/04 and 8/31/04) the Mn
in the filter effluent at the entry to the distribution system was >0.040 mg/L. The Mn
concentration decreased through the distribution system. Additionally, in the spring and summer,
colloidal manganese was detected in the entry-point sample. The colloidal Mn was still present at
the near sampling point, but was no longer present by the mid sampling point. Although the total
Mn decreased through the system in spring/summer, it remained higher even out to the far
sampling point than the Mn in any part of the system during winter and late fall.
Utility 9. Utility 9 (Figure 4.15) is a Mid-Atlantic surface water plant treating water by
conventional gravity settling and removing Mn constantly via IOCME. Throughout the course of
this study, Mn was under control and the utility received no Mn-related customer complaints.
There was very little Mn at any sampling point during any season. There is Mn in its source
water but its main source of Mn is in its ferric chloride coagulant. This utility also adds
potassium permanganate in its raw water basin in the spring and summer to control taste and
odor along with algal blooms. The Mn is effectively controlled, as none gets into the distribution
system. This otherwise boring series of plots reinforces the effectiveness of the IOCME that
often runs in the background. As discussed earlier and in other literature, such an effective
control mechanism can work so well for so long that it is taken for granted, and only once it
becomes disrupted does it become known. The plots reveal that not only is Mn constantly low
coming out of the treatment plant, it is low all through the distribution system all year long.
Utility 22. Utility 22 (Figure 4.16) is a Mid-Atlantic plant with surface water that treats
its water with advanced clarification followed by ozone. They treat Mn specifically by
chlorinating the intermediate ozone effluent so that they pass the water through a chlorinated
filter. In essence they are trying to recreate the IOCME effect they used to have prior to

96

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


upgrading to intermediate ozone. In all but the spring (4/20/04) sampling, the total Mn level in
the plant effluent entering the distribution system was >0.01 mg/L. As with Utility 2, the Mn
level generally decreased through the distribution system. Unlike Utility 2, there was no colloidal
Mn fraction. All Mn passing through the 0.22-m filter also passed through the 30-kDa filter. In
the three cases in which the entry Mn was >0.01 mg/L, there were only particulate and truly
dissolved fractions. In the April sampling, the entry Mn was approximately 0.005 mg/L, and
decreased only slightly to 0.003 mg/L at the farthest sampling point. During this spring
sampling, all of the Mn present both at the entry to the distribution system and throughout the
distribution system was truly dissolved.
Utility 269. Utility 269 (Figure 4.17) is a groundwater facility in the Northwest that uses
polyphosphates to sequester Mn. Note that the y-axis in these plots extends to 0.25 mg/L for the
summer and 0.20 mg/L for the winter. There were only two seasons sampled by this utility and,
because the system is small, one sampling point was eliminated. Mn entering the distribution
system was between 0.15 and 0.2 mg/L. Colloidal Mn was present at all three sampling locations
in the summer samples. In contrast to this, in the winter, only the entry sample point shows any
evidence of having colloidal Mn. In both sample sets, the use of polyphosphates maintained a
Mn residual of approximately 0.1 mg/L at the farthest sampling point.

97

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


2/26/2004 5/20/2004
0.060 0.060

Total Manganese
0.050 0.22 m Filtered Manganese 0.050
30 kDa Filtered Manganese
Manganese (mg/L)

0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

8/31/2004 11/9/2004
0.060 0.060

0.050 0.050
Manganese (mg/L)

0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far
Utility ID :2
U.S. Geographic location : Midwest
Source water : Ground Water
Treatment type : Parallel conventional gravity settling and manganese greensand
Mn Specific Treatment : Aeration and KMnO4 / Greensand

Figure 4.14 Results of distribution system seasonal Mn occurrence sampling for Utility 2
(data presented as mean and of triplicate samples)

98

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


3/9/2004 6/16/2004
0.050 0.050
Total Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
0.040 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

9/10/2004 12/8/2004
0.050 0.050

0.040 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

Utility ID :9
U.S. Geographic location : Mid-Atlantic
Source water : Surface Water
Treatment type : Conventional Gravity Settling
Mn Specific Treatment : Induced Oxide Coated Media

Figure 4.15 Results of distribution system seasonal Mn occurrence sampling for Utility 9
(data presented as mean and of triplicate samples)

99

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


1/24/2004 4/20/2004
0.050 0.050
Total Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
0.040 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

8/27/2004 11/12/2005
0.050 0.050

0.040 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far
Utility ID : 22
U.S. Geographic location : Mid-Atlantic
Source water : Surface water
Treatment type : Advanced clarification with intermediate ozone
Mn Specific Treatment : Induced oxide coated media - auxiliary KMnO4

Figure 4.16 Results of distribution system seasonal Mn occurrence sampling for Utility 22
(data presented as mean and of triplicate samples)

100

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


7/22/2004
0.250

0.200

Manganese (mg/L)
0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000
Entry Near Mid Far

12/20/2004
0.200

0.150
Manganese (mg/L)

0.100

0.050
30 kDa Filtered Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
Total Manganese

0.000
Entry Near Mid Far

Utility ID : 269
U.S. Geographic location : Northwest
Source water : Groundwater
Treatment type : Disinfection
Mn Specific Treatment : Sequestration

Figure 4.17 Results of distribution system seasonal Mn occurrence sampling for Utility 269
(data presented as mean and of triplicate samples)

101

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Mn Concentrations and Other Water Quality Data

A graphical representation of all the essential seasonal testing data was produced for each
utility. This required the generation of three figures with three plots per figure. The top plot of
each figure is the Mn concentration, total and dissolved. The next two plots are of associated
water quality parameters. All are presented in bar chart format. The data are grouped by sample
point and sequenced by date. The bottom plots x-axis has data that applies to all three plots
(temperature, pH, date, and location of the sample). All of this was done in an attempt to increase
the data density per figure. By looking at one page you can see the Mn concentrations as a
function of location, temperature, pH, and date while looking at other water quality parameters in
similar plots. An example of this representation is shown for Utility 2 in Figures 4.18 through
4.20.
These figures were used by the research team to analyze the data. They provided an
opportunity for an initial look at possible correlations between Mn and other water quality
parameters. Unlike the self-reported data from the detailed surveys, this water quality data is
directly associated to the Mn concentration data on a per sample basis. These figures are
presented for only one utility (No. 2) in this chapter, for the purpose of illustration. We refer the
reader to the complete set of data, all utilities, presented in Appendix D.
Figure 4.18 illustrates the interesting hump that occurs at Utility 2 when the utility is
using an auxiliary source water to meet demand and is pushing water through the older half of
the plant at greater rates. The hump is the increase in Mn concentration entering the system
during the spring and summer. The winter and fall concentrations are much lower making a
pattern of low, high, high, low (in other words a hump). The hump gets smaller as we move
through the distribution system. Also the amount of dissolved Mn for each sample date decreases
as one moves through the distribution system from near to far.
Another interesting point about Utility #2 is the temperature data. One of the reasons the
PIs designed the experiment to last over one year was because seasonally the temperature would
change. Since this utility uses a groundwater source, the temperature does not change that
significantly from season to season. Yet this utility does display a significant difference in Mn
concentrations from season to season. As discussed previously, this is due to water source and
water treatment process capacity. Another interesting thing about the temperature data is that the
water temperature changed less than 3C at the entry point while the far sample point changed
9C.
The TDS was extremely high (Figure 4.18), in fact so high we had to confirm the values.
The PIs were not use to seeing such values. The utility has been producing more and more water
and the TDS values have been going up over the years. The citys success has lead to increase in
population and more water use and a gradual change in water quality. The TDS are so high that
a visitor to the city might experience some gastrointestinal anomalies, especially if they live in an
area with low TDS.
Although this utility uses many wells and puts into production the ones with high Mn
when water demand forces them too, they have no arsenic. The plot reveals that there was not
even detectable arsenic; all results were less than 0.001 mg/L (Figure 4.20).
All the utilities studied were unique and interesting. It is highly recommend that the
reader spend time looking at the data in Appendix D.

102

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Utility 002 - Distribution Water Quality & Manganese Data as a Function of Location
(Geo.: Midwest; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Parallel Conventional Gravity Settling & Mn Greensand)

0.075 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.060
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

4.50
TOC Turbidity 4.50
4.00 4.00
3.50 3.50

Turbidity (NTU)
TOC (mg/L)

3.00 3.00
2.50 2.50
2.00 2.00
1.50 1.50
1.00 1.00
0.50 0.50
0.00 0.00

1000 Conductivity TDS 1000


900 900
800 800
Conductivity (mhos)

700 700

TDS (mg/L)
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
10.5 12.5 13.3 10.5 6.0 13.0 14.7 16.5 6.5 14.0 17.6 14.5 9.5 13.5 18.5 16.0

6.8 6.8 6.0 6.6 6.50 6.80 6.30 7.00 6.80 6.80 6.60 6.50 6.70 7.00 6.50 7.10

2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure 4.18 Individual water quality parameters associated with Mn concentrations from
distribution system sampling

103

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Utility 002 - Distribution Water Quality & Manganese Data as a Function of Location
(Geo.: Midwest; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Parallel Conventional Gravity Settling & Mn Greensand)

0.075 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.060
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.090 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)

0.075

0.060
Iron (mg/L)

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

160.0 Calcium Sodium 20.0

140.0 18.0
16.0
120.0

Sodium (mg/L)
14.0
Calcium (mg/L)

100.0 12.0
80.0 10.0

60.0 8.0
6.0
40.0
4.0
20.0 2.0
0.0 0.0
10.5 12.5 13.3 10.5 6.0 13.0 14.7 16.5 6.5 14.0 17.6 14.5 9.5 13.5 18.5 16.0

6.8 6.8 6.0 6.6 6.50 6.80 6.30 7.00 6.80 6.80 6.60 6.50 6.70 7.00 6.50 7.10

2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure 4.19 Individual water quality parameters associated with Mn concentrations from
distribution system sampling (continued)

104

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Utility 002 - Distribution Water Quality & Manganese Data as a Function of Location
(Geo.: Midwest; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Parallel Conventional Gravity Settling & Mn Greensand)

0.075 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.060
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.0050 Arsenic

0.0040
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010

0.0000

0.8 Orthophosphate Total Phosphate (not measured)


0.7
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
10.5 12.5 13.3 10.5 6.0 13.0 14.7 16.5 6.5 14.0 17.6 14.5 9.5 13.5 18.5 16.0

6.8 6.8 6.0 6.6 6.50 6.80 6.30 7.00 6.80 6.80 6.60 6.50 6.70 7.00 6.50 7.10

2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure 4.20 Individual water quality parameters associated with Mn concentrations from
distribution system sampling (continued)

105

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Distribution System Seasonal Sampling Correlation Analysis

Each Mn concentration was plotted as a function of a water quality parameter. This was
done to determine the strength of correlations. Because these samples represent a variety of
water types, treatment types, and seasons, a strong correlation between Mn and any water quality
parameters would be significant. However, the authors did not find any, save a few weak ones.
An example of the plots used to determine the strength of the correlations is shown in
Figure 4.21. The different shapes of data points are coded to legends of utility numbers. In this
figure there are 16 plots. In each, the total Mn concentration is plotted on the y-axis and the other
water quality parameter is plotted along the x-axis; that is, y = f(x). This same type of analysis
was done for the other forms of Mn (particulate, dissolved, and truly) as well; and for each plot,
a regression analysis was performed. Table 4.8 lists the R2 values of the regression analyses. This
table represents 114 correlations. The table itself has three sections; correlations of Mn to water
quality parameters, to other metals, and to various fractions of Mn. The R2 above 0.5 are in bold;
there were only five. Only one water quality parameter, i.e., apparent color, correlated with total
and particulate Mn in the distribution system. It did not correlate to the dissolved or truly
dissolved fractions (<0.22-m or <30-kDa Mn, respectively).
A larger plot of both total and particulate Mn as a function of apparent color (Figures
4.22 and 4.23) reveals that the correlation is weaker than it first seems. First, the number of
facilities that collected apparent color data was only five (n = 56), which is one of the smaller
data sets. Second, there is one high Mn and color value that strengthens the correlation but that
can be logically removed. During events in the distribution when Mn increases, it is most often
in particulate form (oxidized) and will show up in apparent color analysis (as will particulate iron
in the water). The dashed line in each figure represents the regression line with the one (high)
point excluded.
Figure 4.24 is a plot of the dissolved (<0.22 m) Mn fraction as a function of the truly
dissolved (<30 kDa) Mn fraction. A strong correlation was observed (R2 = 0.9304). Data lying
above the 1:1 line indicate the presence of a colloidal fraction, and the only two utilities with a
significant measure of this colloidal fraction were Utilities #2 and #269 (both using
polyphosphates, one as a sequestering agent and the other as a corrosion inhibitor). However,
they are not the only two plants that used sequestering agents in this study. Data below the line is
not possible, as there cannot be less dissolved than truly dissolved. So the few points below the
line may represent sampling error or variability in analysis. The significance of this plot is that it
shows that a 0.22-m filter provides a good measure of the truly dissolved concentration.
From our literature review we found out that one might expect to find colloidal Mn
immediately after ozone use. However, we only found colloidal Mn in the distribution system
when sequestration was used. One utility (No. 400, see Appendix D) which uses ozone had some
colloidal Mn in one entry point sample but there was none in the distribution system. Two other
facilities that use ozone (Nos. 22 and 401, see Appendix D) did not have colloidal Mn in the
entry sample point or in the distribution system.
From detailed survey data presented earlier in this chapter, one utility (in Australia)
reported having colloidal Mn in the distribution system when chlorine had died off and
biological activity had started. This change in Mn speciation is attributed to Mn-utilizing bacteria
present in non-chlorinated water.

106

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


2 2 2 2
Total Manganese vs Alkalinity Total Manganese vs Total Organic Carbon Total Manganese vs Specific Conductance Total Manganese vs Turbidity
0.20 7 0.20 7 0.20 7 0.20 9
9 9 9 22
22 22 22 216
216 216 216 269
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
269 269 269 315
315

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
315 315 318
318 318 318 336
0.10 336 0.10 336 0.10 336 0.10

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 1 2 3 4 5
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) TOC (mg/L) Specific Conductance (mho/cm) Turbidity (NTU)

2
Total Manganese vs Total Chlorine Total Manganese vs Orthophosphate Total Manganese vs Oxidation Reduction Potential 2 Total Manganese vs Dissolved Oxygen 2
0.20 7 0.20 2 0.20 0.20
9
9 9
21 22
22 216
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
216 269
269
Total Mn (mg/L)

315

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)
315 318
0.10 318 0.10 336 0.10 0.10
336

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 200 400 600 800 0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Total Chlorine (mg/L) Orthophosphate (mg/L as PO4) ORP (Eh) DO (mg/L)

2 2
Total Manganese vs Free Chlorine 2 Total Manganese vs Total Phosphate Total Manganese vs Sulfate Total Manganese vs Total Dissolved Solids
0.20 0.20 0.20 22 0.20 7
7
318 22
9
269
21
269 336
0.15 269 0.15 0.15 0.15
216 318
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

315
318
0.10 336 0.10 0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 0 250 500 750
Free Chlorine (mg/L) Orthophosphate (mg/L as PO4) Sulfate (mg/L) TDS (mg/L)

2 2 2
Total Manganese vs pH Total Manganese vs UV254 Absorbance Total Manganese vs Apparent Color 2 Total Manganese vs Temperature
0.20 7 0.20 7 0.20 0.20 7
9 7 9
9
21 9 21
22
22 22 22
0.15 0.15 216 0.15 0.15
216 216 269
269
269 216
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
315
315 318 315
0.10 318 0.10 336 0.10 0.10 318
336 336

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
pH (units) UV254 Absorbance (cm-1) Apparent Color (PtCo units) Temperature (C)

Figure 4.21 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of total Mn to various water quality parameters collected at the entry, near, mid, and far points of the distribution system

107

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


108

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table 4.8
Results of correlation plots of Mn with other water quality parameters
Number Total Particulate <0.22-m <30-kDa
n
WQ parameter of manganese manganese manganese manganese
value
facilities R R R R
Alkalinity 9 99 0.0777 0.0007 0.1165 0.0978
TOC 8 83 0.0433 0.0003 0.1114 0.1487
DOC 2 13 0.0635 0.2035 0.0635 0.0468
Free chlorine 9 123 0.0012 0.0056 0.0001 0.0022
Total chlorine 10 137 0.0033 0.0114 0.0260 0.0273
Apparent color 5 56 0.7865 0.7979 0.0418 0.0479
True color 5 47 0.0417 0.4576 0.0022 0.0101
Conductivity 9 105 0.0017 0.0030 0.0090 0.0060
DO 1 16 0.0240 0.0287 0.0128 0.0731
ORP 2 32 0.1405 0.2632 0.0428 0.0950
pH 10 135 0.0049 0.0065 0.0014 0.0046
Orthophosphate 8 90 0.0233 0.0028 0.0490 0.0363
Polyphosphate 2 13 0.2865 0.0516 0.3098 0.0796
Total phosphate 2 15 0.0411 0.0020 0.1172 0.0379
Sulfate 3 41 0.0544 0.0389 0.0899 0.1152
Temperature 10 111 0.0055 0.0021 0.0043 0.0024
TDS 5 57 0.0218 0.0262 0.0076 0.0120
Turbidity 8 77 0.1791 0.0444 0.2016 0.1954
UV254 8 57 0.2124 0.0015 0.3053 0.2724

Arsenic 12 156 0.0811 0.0049 0.2035 0.2538


Calcium 12 152 0.0015 0.00003 0.0049 0.0029
Hardness 12 156 0.0001 6 E-07 0.0009 0.0002
Total iron 12 132 0.1008 0.4104 6 E-05 0.0001
Particulate iron 12 132 0.0817 0.4170 0.0014 0.0012
<0.22 m iron 12 132 0.1105 0.0010 0.2101 0.2113
<30 kDa iron 12 132 0.0689 0.0133 0.1815 0.2440
Sodium 12 153 0.1883 0.0043 0.2423 0.2530

Total manganese 12 156


Particulate
12 156 0.4880
manganese
<0.22 m
12 156 0.7011 0.0379
manganese
<30 kDa manganese 12 156 0.5597 0.0068 0.9304

109

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.20
2
7
0.15 9
Total Mn (mg/L)

22
2
R = 0.79 216
0.10

0.05
2
R = 0.58

0.00
0 10 20 30
Apparent Color (PtCo Units)

Figure 4.22 Total Mn versus apparent color. The solid regression line is for all data, the
second, dashed regression omits the single data point at 25 color units and 0.131 mg/L Mn.

0.20
2
7
0.15 9
Particulate Mn (mg/L

22
2 216
0.10 R = 0.80

0.05

2
R = 0.65
0.00
0 10 20 30
Apparent Color (PtCo Units)

Figure 4.23 Particulate Mn as a function of apparent color. The second, dashed regression
line omits the single data point at 25 color units and 0.131 mg/L Mn.

110

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


2
0.20 7
9
Manganese < 0.22 m (mg/L 2
R = 0.9304 21
0.15 22
216
269
0.10 315
318
336
0.05 400
401

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Manganese < 30k Da (mg/L)

Figure 4.24 Mn that passes through a 0.22-m filter as a function of Mn that passes
through a 30-kDa filter

Additional Correlations by Source Water Type

After performing the correlation analyses described above, the overall data set from the
distribution system sampling was subdivided into two smaller sets defined by source water. An
analysis of correlations between Mn concentrations and water quality parameters was then
conducted separately for surface water sources and groundwater sources. While there were a few
strong correlations for groundwater, these were from the parameters with the smallest data sets.
Also a known high flow period event was removed from the data set. The parameters that had
a strong correlation to Mn in groundwater were alkalinity, conductivity, sulfate, and TDS.
Sodium had an R2 value of greater than 0.5 when correlated to the <30-kDa fraction. For the
surface water sources, the only parameter to maintain a correlation with an R2 value greater than
0.5 was apparent color.
There were three hundred correlation plots generated to discern this information, yet
there did not seem to be any correlations that hold up as statistically valid.

Comparison of Mn Concentrations by Sample Location

Figure 4.25 is a plot of the concentration of Mn (total and dissolved) at the far sample
point as a function of the total Mn concentration at the entry point, and illustrates that there is a
strong correlation. This implies that the two are related, that the more Mn entering the system the
more will be found in the far sample point. Within the plot there is also a 1:1 reference line,
dotted line from corner to corner. When a sample point lies on this line it indicates that there is
neither a net loss nor gain of total or dissolved manganese through distribution. When it lies

111

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


above it that means there is more at the far sample than at the entry and if it is below it means
there is less. There are more sample points below the 1:1 line than on it or above it.
The correlations are strong and the regression lines are below 1:1, meaning that Mn is
accumulating in the distribution system. The loss of dissolved (<0.22 m) Mn is much more
pronounced than total Mn between the entry and far points. This suggests that there is either a
conversion (oxidation) of Mn(II) to Mn(IV) or an adsorption of it, or both. This decrease in
dissolved manganese corresponds to an increase in particulate manganese. Where total Mn falls
below the 1:1 line, overall Mn loss has occurred. This is most likely due to precipitation of the
particulate Mn or adsorption to pipe walls. Where total Mn lies above the 1:1 line, suspension or
sheering from pipe walls is the most likely cause.
Also in the legend of Figure 4.25 is a separate symbol denoting those sample points from
facilities that use sequestering agents to control Mn. They are included in the data set and are
part of the regression. The two sequestering plants maintained the highest Mn concentrations
throughout the distribution system. The loss from the entry to the far point was more pronounced
when the entry level concentration was high, >0.15 mg/L than when the Mn level entering the
system were lower, 0.05 to 0.1 mg/L. The meaning of this is uncertain. It may be that at these
higher Mn concentrations the sequestration could not keep the Mn suspended. Or it could mean
that the sequestration was not optimized for these levels. The data points greater than 0.15 are for
one utility and the data points between 0.05 and 0.10 are for another.

0.20
Mn(Total)
Mn (Diss.)
Mn (Total) - sequestration
Far Manganese (mg/L)

0.15
Mn (Diss.) - sequestration

0.10 2
R = 0.87

0.05 2
R = 0.81

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Entry Total Manganese (mg/L)
Figure 4.25 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of manganese concentration
(total and dissolved) at the far point to the entry point (total) of the distribution system. 1:1
line plotted as reference.

112

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.075

Mn(Total)
Mn (Diss.)
0.05
Far Mn (mg/L)

2
R = 0.53
0.025

2
R = 0.14
0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075
Entry Total Mn (mg/L)
Figure 4.26 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of manganese concentration
(total and dissolved) at the far point to the entry point (total) of the distribution system. 1:1
line plotted as reference. Sequestration Facilities omitted

Figure 4.26 presents the same data but with the sequestering plants removed. The
strength of the correlations drops significantly. Only the total Mn has an R2 value of above 0.5.
The trend lines associated with this data have greater slopes than in the previous figure.
Removing sequestration from the data set reveals an even greater tendency for Mn to accumulate
in the system. The dissolved Mn data indicates that dissolved Mn will not be present even when
high levels of Mn are introduced into the system. One can expect to find dissolved Mn in the
distribution system if one applies a sequestering agent.
Figure 4.27 presents dissolved Mn at entry versus the dissolved Mn at far point of the
distribution system. A 1:1 ratio line is provided and the legend identifies which utilities use
sequestration to control Mn. Here again the utilities that use sequestration have the highest Mn
concentrations. Most of the data points lie below the 1:1 line indicating that dissolved Mn
concentration decreases as it passes through the distribution system.
When data from the sequestration facilities are omitted, there is a very weak correlation
between entry and far point (Figure 4.28). The regression line is almost flat indicating that there
tends to be very little dissolved Mn at the far sample point regardless of the entry point
concentration. For one sample set, 0.038 mg/L of dissolved manganese entered the distribution
system and <0.001 mg/L was present at the far point. The decrease in dissolved manganese is
offset by an increase in particulate manganese. However, this offset is not complete, as shown
earlier; there is a decrease in total Mn too. A few samples were slightly greater in dissolved
manganese from entry to the far point, but this was limited to samples with less than a 0.005
mg/L of Mn at the entry point. Also the increase was always less than 0.005 mg/L too. It is hard

113

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.20

0.15 Mn (Diss.)
Far Dissolved (mg/L

Mn (Diss.) - sequestration

0.10
2
R = 0.88
0.05

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Entry Dissolved Mn (mg/L)
Figure 4.27 Seasonal distribution system testing: Dissolved manganese at the distribution
system far point as a function of the entry point; 1:1 line reference line

0.05

Mn (Diss.)
0.04
Far Dissolved (mg/L

0.03

0.02

0.01 2
R = 0.03

0.00
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Entry Dissolved Mn (mg/L)
Figure 4.28 Seasonal distribution system testing: Dissolved manganese at the distribution
system far point as a function of the entry point; 1:1 line reference line. Sequestration
facilities omitted.

114

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


to make conclusions about these numbers but with consideration for that, it can be suggested that
since the distribution system is collecting Mn, mostly in the solid form, and releasing it during
high flow events. That it could also act as a sink for dissolved Mn; when the entry point Mn is
low, some Mn dissolved back into solution to reestablish equilibrium.

Comparison of Change in Mn Concentrations from Entry to Near

The authors noticed an odd occurrence when looking at the seasonal distribution data.
The manganese concentration seemed to increase from the entry point to the near sample point.
A simple table was constructed to see if this was actually happening (Table 4.9). If the
concentration of near was within 0.002 mg/L of the entry then there was considered to be no
change. If it was greater or less, it was considered different and noted. Clearly there is a trend.
There is more total Mn in the near points as opposed to the entry points. The trend is even
stronger for particulate Mn. However, there is no such trend when looking at the dissolved
numbers where more often than not, there is no change.
The PIs investigated if there was a fundamental difference in the sample collection. Most
utilities used a continuously running sample tap to collect the sample at entry to the distribution
system, and drew from the distribution system points from non-continuously running taps (Table
4.10). The most likely explanation for higher Mn levels at the near sampling point is that the
process of opening the tap disturbed sedimentary material in the pipes that was then captured in
the sample. This explanation makes even more sense considering that the trend is for total and
particulate, and not for dissolved Mn. It should be noted that the utilities had been instructed to
run the taps for several minutes before sample collection and there is no reason to suppose that
this did not occur. It may be that several minutes of running sample water was insufficient
To look further, Utilities #269 and #318 did not have a continuously running tap for their
entry point sample. For Utility #269 one of the two sample sets that they collected had higher Mn
at the near then entry. Utility #318 did not sample the near location but at a location they deemed
mid, using that location one of the three sample sets collected had a higher mid than entry value.
Both Utility #269 and #318 had small distribution systems, so small they could not easily
distinguish between near and mid. Also Utility #216 has both a continuous running entry and
near sample tap and it has a greater concentration of Mn in the near as opposed to the entry for
all three of the sample sets. Therefore the explanation, that the sample collection method
disturbed the particulate Mn, although reasonable, does not seem to be wholly complete.
Additional entry-to-near analysis is shown in Figure 4.29. The near Mn concentration
data is plotted as a function of entry Mn. This plot is slightly different than previous plots, that is,
total near Mn concentration is correlated to total entry and dissolved near is correlated to
dissolved entry, as opposed to both being correlated to total.

Table 4.9
Number of occurrences of near Mn concentrations being more than entry
(n = 33) Total Mn Particulate Mn Dissolved Mn
Near < Entry 6 4 9
No Change 8 9 15
Near > Entry 19 20 9

115

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table 4.10
Condition of flow at sample tap for entry and near sample taps
Is the sample tap constantly running (i.e., open)?
Utility ID Source Plant Effluent Near Sample point
2 GW Yes No
7 SW Yes No
9 SW Yes No
21 GW Yes No
22 SW Yes No
216 SW Yes Yes
269 GW No No
315 SW Yes No
318 GW No Not Applicable
336 SW Yes No

There is a correlation between the total Mn concentrations of the two locations and a
strong correlation for dissolved Mn. These correlations are made even stronger by removing the
sequestration plant data and one outlier due to a known distribution system high flow event
(Figure 4.30) However, the trend lines seem to reveal some interesting information. For both
figures the dissolved trend lines are below the 1:1 line, meaning that there is always more
dissolved Mn entering the system than appears even in the near sample. This seems true for the
total line until one removes the plants that use sequestering to control Mn. Then the trend line

0.20

Mn (Total) - all data


2
0.15
Mn (Diss.) - all data R = 0.58
Near Manganese (mg/L)

Mn (Total) - sequestration
Mn (Diss.) - sequestration
0.10

2
R = 0.83
0.05

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Entry Manganese (mg/L)

Figure 4.29 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of total and dissolved
manganese at the distribution system near point to the entry point, and 1:1 line reference
line.

116

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.06

Mn (Total)
Near Manganese (mg/L)

Mn (Diss.) 2
R = 0.93
0.04

2
R = 0.94
0.02

0.00
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Entry Manganese (mg/L)

Figure 4.30 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of total and dissolved
manganese at the distribution system near point to the entry point, and 1:1 line reference
line. Omitted sequestration plant data, plus one system event data point corresponding
to 0.006 mg/L total Mn at entry and 0.131 mg/L total Mn at the near point
0.06
Sequestration facilities omitted
Near Particulate Manganese

Mn (Particulate)
0.04
(mg/L)

2
R = 0.86
0.02

0.00
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Entry Particulate Manganese (mg/L)

Figure 4.31 Seasonal distribution system testing: correlation of particulate manganese at


the distribution system near point to the entry point, and 1:1 line reference line. Omitted
sequestration plant data, plus one system event data point corresponding to 0.006mg/L
total Mn at Entry and 0.131mg/L total Mn at the Near point

117

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


seems to be 1:1, that is, the total Mn concentration remains about the same from entry to near (no
loss of Mn). As discussed previously, a stable or constant total Mn concentration combined with
a decrease of dissolved Mn indicates an increase in particulate Mn.
Therefore, one more data analysis was performed. The particulate Mn concentrations for
near and entry (without sequestration) are plotted in Figure 4.31. All the data points are on or
above the line. There is more particulate Mn in the near sample than in the entry sample. Even
though this increase is small, it is consistent. This increase in particulate Mn represents the
conversion of soluble Mn to insoluble Mn.

Overall

All of this implies that there is an overall process of conversion of dissolved to particulate
and then later a settling of the particulate Mn (loss of total Mn). The settled Mn can then be
suspended in high flow periods (high total Mn events).
The authors do not believe this explains the fate and transport of all the Mn that enters the
distribution system; however, we do believe it is the predominant fate for distribution systems
that maintain a chlorine residual of some kind. There were no samples taken from a system that
had demonstrable biological activity.

CASE STUDY I: PILOT-SCALE RESEARCH FOR MANGANESE CONTROL

The overall occurrence study is augmented by additional Mn-specific research. This


research was done on pilot scale using surface water as the source.

Background

The Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) has two pilot-scale research facilities, one on
the Delaware River and one on the Schuylkill River. During certain ozone related work it was
noticed that Mn can bleed through the filters. This was new to PWD since Mn had never been an
issue.
At full-scale, PWD produces finished water with Mn concentrations mostly of non-detect
(<0.001 mg/L), even though there is Mn in source water and in the coagulant. PWD chlorinates
with free chlorine prior to filtration and has substantial amounts of Mn in the sedimentation basin
effluent. PWD unknowingly relied upon induced oxide-coated media effect (IOCME).
Prior to the initiation of this research project several observations were made at pilot
scale about the ability of certain filters to control Mn. Filters without chlorine could not control
Mn. Chlorine alone was not always sufficient to control Mn. The lower the pH of filtration, the
less stable the IOCME process was. If the water was very cold the IOCME process was not
stable even with significant amounts of free chlorine. If an oxide-coated media (OCM) filter was
operated without chlorine, Mn would be removed at the beginning of the run but later it would
come out in concentrations often higher than it was coming into it. When using ozone,
particulate Mn would be formed and enter the filter, and for filters without chlorine, dissolved
Mn would exit the filter. The amount of ozone used and the ozone contact time seemed to have
an impact on the ability of the filters to control Mn.
These observations led to much discussion and experimentation, and ultimately this
research project. The control of Mn via IOCME, or induced greensand effect as per Knockes

118

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


AwwaRF report (1990), was very effective, yet it had limits. Dr. Knocke let PWD know that at
pHs lower than 5.8 the Mn(II) would not adsorb onto the Mn oxide-coated media, stopping the
process. He also described the process as working with 1 mg/L free chlorine residual in filter
effluent. So PWD began testing the limits of the IOCME process and evaluating its stability.
PWD found out that the amount of chlorine required to control Mn was less than the
prescribed 1.0 mg/L. For example, at a pH of 6.5, if a chlorine dose of 0.5 mg/L (greater than
breakpoint) was applied, then Mn would be controlled. The reason we specified greater than
breakpoint was to ensure that there was a free chlorine residual being applied to the filters. It
turned out that it was not even necessary to have a free chlorine residual leaving the filter for the
IOCME process to work, however, free chlorine was required to be fed onto the filter. If the pH
of filtration was raised from 6.5 to 7.0, the process was more robust. This trend continued for
each increase in pH. It was discovered that a filter will continue to control Mn for a period of
time after chlorine was turned off, and that the higher the pH the longer it would control it. It was
also noted that particulate Mn could be retained on a filter and remain stable (that is not turn to
dissolved) by controlling the filtration pH even without chlorine. This observation seemed to
be related to the presence of dissolved oxygen in the water at levels above saturation.

IOCME Mn Control

Temperature and pH Constraints on IOCME

Figure 4.32 is a compilation of IOCME filter effluent Mn data as a function of


temperature. There were 149 discrete filter runs for water that had been coagulated with ferric
salts at a pH of 6.5 (0.25), with a free chlorine residual of greater than 0.40 mg/L (the free
chlorine target was 0.5 mg/L). This plot illustrates that as the water gets colder, the ability of the
IOCME process to control Mn decreases. If the water temperature is above 10C, then 0.5 mg/L
of free chlorine leaving the filters is sufficient to control Mn. It is not until the water temperature
drops below 10C that control becomes more variable. For example, at a filtration pH of 6.5
(diamonds) and a temperature of 7.0C, Mn in the filter effluent was below 15 g/L for only one
of the four runs and it was always above 10 g/L. The observation that IOCME is affected by
temperature makes sense to the PIs as it is an oxidation process which is limited by reaction
kinetics.

119

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.060

Filter pH 6.5
Filter pH 7.0
0.045
Total Manganese (mg/L)

Filter pH 7.5
Filter pH 8.0 and 8.5

0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (C)
Figure 4.32 Pilot plant filter effluent Mn concentration as a function of temperature:
Coagulation pH 6.5 for filtration pH of 6.5, 7.0, 7.5, 8.0, and 8.5 (0.25) with a free chlorine
residual of 0.4 mg/L or greater. (n = 149)

Looking specifically at each filtration pH series, Figures 4.33 through 4.35, we can see
that as the pH increases, the variability of Mn control starts at a lower temperature. Using PWDs
internal goal of 15 g/L of Mn as a criterion, a line can be drawn that indicates the temperature
at which this variability starts. For pH of filtration of 6.5 the start of variability seems to be 8C,
for pH 7.0 the start of variability is 4C and for pH 7.5 it is 3C. There is not enough cold water
data to make a similar observation for filtration pH of 8.0 and 8.5, n = 9 and 5 respectively, with
none of it being below 8C. Yet it can be inferred that the temperature limit would be even lower
than 3C.
Another interesting pattern is that as the pH increases, the variability of the effluent Mn
decreases. Since our play book calls for all ND data to be plotted as the MDL, the values show
on the plot as 1 g/L but in reality the values for the higher pH values are all Non Detects. As the
pH increase from 6.5 to 8.5, the effluent Mn concentrations go from low but measurable to non-
detect. The pH of filtration is a significant parameter for IOCME.

120

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.060

Filter pH 6.5

0.045
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (C)

Figure 4.33 Pilot plant filter effluent Mn concentration as a function of temperature:


Coagulation pH 6.5, filtration pH 6.5 (0.25) with a free chlorine residual of 0.4 mg/L or
greater. (n = 64)

0.060

Filter pH 7.0

0.045
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (C)

Figure 4.34 Pilot plant filter effluent Mn concentration as a function of temperature:


Coagulation pH 6.5, filtration pH 7.0 (0.25) with a free chlorine residual of 0.4 mg/L or
greater. (n = 44)

121

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.060

Filter pH 7.5

0.045
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (C)

Figure 4.35 Pilot plant filter effluent Mn concentration as a function of temperature:


Coagulation pH 6.5, filtration pH 7.5 (0.25) with a free chlorine residual of 0.4 mg/L or
greater. (n = 27)

IOCME at Low Chlorine Levels

Looking at the same data set (IOCME filters, coagulation using ferric salts at a pH of 6.5)
in a different way, we attempted to see if there was a lower limit of free chlorine residual that
resulted in a loss of Mn control. We sorted the data into groups using filtration pH and
temperature. For each pH the researchers used the cut off temperature established in the
previous section. Figure 4.36 is an example of the pH 6.5 data. From this plot one can see that
filter effluent free chlorine can drop to below 0.1 mg/L before Mn control becomes variable.
Even at no free chlorine residual there was both high and low Mn concentrations in the effluent.
These points represent conditions where chlorine was applied and were total chlorine residual
was measurable, just not free chlorine. This specific data point was generated at temperature of
17C.
For the other pH values (7.0, 7.5, 8.0, 8.5 - data not shown) the Mn was controlled for all
data points, however, the free chlorine residual was never below 0.3 mg/L. Therefore the PIs
could not present information confirming a limit below 0.3 mg/L of free chlorine. However, as
occurred in the pH 6.5 data set, they believe a lower limit of zero free chlorine residual leaving
the filter is possible. That is to say, if a free chlorine concentration is applied to an IOCME filter,
the free chlorine residual need not be maintained through the filter to achieve Mn control. This
was corroborated by full-scale work done at two utilities that apply chlorine to GAC media
filters. There is no free chlorine residual, but Mn is controlled on the media.

122

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.090
Temperature > 8C
0.075
Filter pH 6.5
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.060

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Free Chlorine (mg/L)

Figure 4.36 Pilot plant filter effluent Mn concentration as a function of free chlorine
concentration: Coagulation pH 6.5, filtration pH 6.5 (0.25) for temperature greater than
8C. (n = 53)

To summarize the previous two sections, IOCME is an oxidation process therefore a


function of kinetics parameters such as temperature and oxidant dose (e.g. chlorine dose). It is
also an adsorption process and therefore a function of adsorption parameters like adsorptive
capacity and favorable adsorption conditions (e.g. pH). For the most part, the acceptable range of
these parameters is wide and the process seems to work under all conditions, and independently
of them, but IOCME is a complex combination of interlocking mechanisms.

The Ability of an OCM Filter (IOCME) to Control Mn after Loss of Chlorine

An experiment was designed to simulate chlorine loss on an already operating IOCME


filter. The purpose was to determine how long a filter would continue to remove Mn if there was
no longer an oxidation process occurring on the media surface. The removal mechanism would
be shifted from IOCME to adsorption alone. In essence, we are measuring the adsorptive
capacity of the OCM filters.
OCM filters were used and they were operated in steady state mode with chlorine for 6 to
20 hours before the chlorine was shut off. At regular intervals, Mn concentrations were
measured, and ORP measurements were made. The filter was allowed to terminate and restart all
without chlorine. The water for all of these experiments was pretreated via ferric chloride
coagulation at pH 6.5 followed by flocculation and sedimentation. The filtration pH was adjusted
to the target levels of 6.5, 7.5, and 8.5. The whole set of experiments was repeated seasonally to
investigate the effect of temperature.
Almost the entire experiment is represented graphically (Figures 4.37 through 4.43). The
experiment was done on two separate filters using the same source water; therefore, each figure

123

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


has two graphs, one on top of the other. There are three time lines: the actual date and time line,
the elapsed time since chlorine was shut off line, and the filter run time line. The filter run time
starts when the filters go on-line, so if two filter runs were conducted, there will be a resetting of
the filter run time. Also the run time reveals how long the filter was operating in steady state
prior to chlorine shut off. The filters were returned to IOCME status between each investigation
using free chlorine and Mn present from ferric chloride.
The Mn and EH measurements were discreet sample points while operational control was
maintained via on-line instruments. So where there seems to be no data yet the time line
continues the filter was still in operation but for some reason samples were not being taken. The
most common reasons were that of time, we did not staff the filters for 24 hours a day.
The EH lines are colored one for influent and the other effluent. At the beginning of the
run, they are projected backwards, to the left, to help illustrate steady state conditions. They are
dashed so as not to be confused with data lines that connect actual data points. The left axis is EH
(mV) and the right is Mn concentration (mg/L). Written within the graph and depicted in green is
the filter run start and written in red is filter termination time and reason. These comments are
relative to all the plots in this section, Figures 4.37 to 4.43. At the top of the figure is a box of
influent water quality conditions (averages of the parameters listed) that are to be assumed
constant, which is a reasonable assumption. The target filtration pH is also listed top right.
Within the figure is a dashed blue line, this line represents the internal goal of 15 g/L, so Mn
values below this meet the criteria and those above it do not. Seven figures are included in this
report, but all of them (13) are contained in Appendix E.
Again refer to figures 4.37 to 4.43. The first observation is the precipitous drop in EH as
soon as the chlorine is turned off. This drop makes sense as there is no longer any free chlorine.
The other observation is that the influent and effluent EH are about the same and track each other
well. At the beginning of these experiments it was anticipated that the EH values would change
from influent to effluent and that these values might predict Mn release. Specifically, we
assumed if the oxidation reduction potential changed within the filter and on the media surface,
we would be able to measure it in the bulk water. We were wrong. Through these experiments
and others, the PI could not discern a predictive pattern using EH. However, it is obvious that
when you loose chlorine the EH drops and that Mn control changes within the filters. The second
observation is that the top graph and bottom graph mirror each other very well. These are two
separate filters, yet their performance is almost identical.
Another overall observation is that the total and dissolved Mn concentrations are the
same for almost all of the data points, shown as a red triangle in a yellow box. Dissolved Mn is
defined as that which passes through a 0.22m filter. This means that when Mn is leaving the
filters it is in dissolved form. We are not having breakthrough of particulate Mn.
For the warm water (20C plus) and for high pH (8.5), the Mn was controlled for more
than two filter runs. The control mechanism is adsorption as the oxidation process is no longer
working. It would seem that the filter could control Mn indefinitely but we do not think that this
is true. From other sample run data, the PIs observed varying performance in Mn control at high
pH and warm water.
The second figure represents warm water filtration at pH 7.5. Mn was controlled during
the first filter run, yet is slowly and unmistakably crept up during the second. It did not exceed
the PWD internal goal of 15 g/L.
The third figure is for pH 6.5. The plot indicates that not long after chlorine is terminated
the Mn breaks through. An interesting effect occurs at the beginning of the second filter run.

124

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


After the filter is backwashed, it appears the media regains some adsorptive capacity. This
capacity is quickly exhausted. Fresh adsorption sites must have been created or freed up during
backwashing. The backwash water was not chlorinated.
Now we look at colder water. Once the water gets cold the effect of pH is magnified. At
high pH (8.5), Figure 4.40, the Mn is controlled for two filter runs. Not shown but for Baxter
pilot plant, the Mn started to creep up at the end of the second filter run. However, for the Baxter
investigation the initial run conditions are hard to interpret. The EH seemed to be too low at time
zero. Also the actual pH of filtration was not as close to the goal as could be wished.
Looking at pH 7.5, Figure 4.41, we see the Mn break through earlier. Instead of taking
more than two filter runs, it took less than one run. We can also see the reduced Mn
concentration in the effluent right after backwashing. This regaining of the medias ability to
adsorb Mn after backwashing does not always occur.
Two cold water investigations conducted at pH 6.5 are shown in Figures 4.42 and 4.43,
one for Belmont and one for Baxter. As soon as the chlorine application point is terminated, the
Mn concentration in the effluent increases. This increase takes on the form of an exponential
function until the concentration of Mn entering is equal to the amount of Mn leaving the filters.

In warmer water, the Mn was controlled longer than in cold water.


The Mn was controlled longer with higher pH.
The drop in EH was different at different temperatures and different pHs. This makes
sense as EH is a composite measure, not a specific measurement. But, it allows one to
see how much the presence or absence of free chlorine has changed in the bulk water.

The authors then performed a more qualitative analysis of the figures. The mass of Mn
that was leaving the filter was subtracted from the mass of Mn loading onto the filters. This value
was then normalized using the filter run time. This analysis was done for each filter used in each
filter run, and then sequential run data was combined to account for the backwash and restart of
each filter. These results were translated into a mass capture rate (mg/hr) and percent removal
and are shown in Table 4.11. The capture rate is both a function of the amount of Mn loaded and

Table 4.11
Mass capture rate and % removal of Mn for IOCME process once chlorine is terminated
Temperature pH of Mass capture Removal
Pilot Plant
(C) filtration (mg/hr) percent
18 8.2 6.20 96%
Baxter 20 7.5 5.10 84%
22 6.6 2.30 31%
22 8.5 15.2 99%
Belmont 24 7.5 13.6 98%
26 6.7 12.1 99%
8 8.4 9.60 98%
Baxter 8 7.5 5.70 83%
5 6.6 2.17 20%
12 8.5 8.30 100%
Belmont 13 7.5 6.78 74%
8 6.6 2.31 22%

125

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


the amount captured. Since loading was always slightly different, the mass capture rate is
empirical.
The Belmont pilot plant had more success at removing Mn even though the loading was
slightly higher there than at the Baxter pilot plant. For all warm water runs at the Belmont Plant,
the percent removal was 98% to 99% for all pH values while it ranged from 31% to 96% for
Baxter. In the cold water, a similar trend was established. The PIs have no mechanistic
explanation for this. One interesting water quality difference between the two rivers is the
amount of alkalinity; there is more of it at Belmont.
The higher the pH of filtration, the greater the mass rate of capture and the higher the
percent removal; and the colder the water, the lower the capture rate and percent removal. For
the Baxter pilot plant, there was one filter run with a negative capture rate. This happened in cold
water at low pH conditions but did not happen at the Belmont pilot plant. The negative capture
rate indicates that Mn was not only passing through the filter but some of the Mn that was on the
filter was leaving.
A filter that is used to control Mn in the IOCME mode will continue to control Mn even
if chlorine is lost. The length of time that this process will work depends on the temperature and
pH of the water.

126

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 040510 22 to 23 C 8.63 0.078 mg/L 0.047 mg/L 0.091 mg/L 0.088 mg/L Filtration: 8.5
Run 040512 21 to 25 C 8.34 0.065 mg/L 0.035 mg/L 0.081 mg/L 0.078 mg/L

Filter 1
-18.1 -8.1 1.9 11.9 21.9 31.9 41.9 51.9 61.9 71.9
Inflow EH Outflow EH Dissolved Manganese Total Manganese PWD Mn Goal
900 0.090

End Filter Run 040512; End Reason - TM


End Filter Run 040510; End Reason - TM
Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040512
800 Starting Run 040510 0.075

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
05/10/04 05/10/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/14/04 05/14/04
Date & Time
04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

3.5
4.5

25.0
2.5

5.5

24.0

26.0
27.0

29.0
23.5

48.5

50.5

52.5
1.5

47.5

70.8

72.5
0.0
0.5

Shutoff (hours)
0.0

Run Time (hours)

1.0

3.0
4.0

6.0
2.0

24.5

27.5
0.0
0.5
18.1
18.6
19.6
20.6
21.6
22.6
23.6

25.5

29.5

47.8

49.5
Filter 6
-18.1 -8.1 1.9 11.9 21.9 31.9 41.9 51.9 61.9 71.9
900 0.090

End Filter Run 040512; End Reason - TM


End Filter Run 040510; End Reason -TM
Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040512
800 0.075
Starting Run 040510

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
05/10/04 05/10/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/14/04 05/14/04
Date & Time
04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine


24.0
25.0

27.0
3.5
4.5

26.0

29.0
2.5

5.5

23.5
1.5

48.5

50.5

52.5
47.5

70.8

72.5
0.0
0.5

Shutoff (hours)
0.5

2.0
1.0
0.0

0.0

6.0
3.0
4.0

24.5

27.5
18.1

25.5
18.6

29.5

47.8

49.5
20.6

23.6
19.6

21.6
22.6

Run Time (hours)

h Both Run 040510 and Run 040512 were terminated due to TM - time constraints.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure 4.37 Belmont pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on Mn control.

127

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 040517 25 C 7.40 0.094 mg/L 0.027 mg/L 0.077 mg/L 0.076 mg/L
Filtration: 7.5
Run 040519 23 to 24C 7.54 0.073 mg/L 0.035 mg/L 0.076 mg/L 0.075 mg/L

Filter 1
-18.6 -8.6 Inflow EH 1.4 11.4
Outflow EH 21.4
Dissolved 31.4
Manganese (mg/L) 41.4 51.4
Total Manganese (mg/L) 61.4
PWD Mn Goal 71.4
900 0.090

End Filter Run 040519; End Reason - TM


Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040519
End Filter Run 040517; End Reason - HL
800 0.075

700 0.060
Starting Run 040517

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
17/05/04 17/05/04 18/05/04 18/05/04 18/05/04 18/05/04 19/05/04 19/05/04 19/05/04 19/05/04 20/05/04 20/05/04 20/05/04 20/05/04 21/05/04 21/05/04
Date & Time
03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

29.7

49.5

51.5
24.0

47.5

73.5
71.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0

30.2

53.5
Shutoff (hours)
0.0

Run Time (hours)


18.6
19.1
19.6
20.6
21.6
22.6
23.6

42.6

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

42.0

44.0
0.3
0.8
0.0
900
Filter 6 0.090

End Filter Run 040519; End Reason - TM


End Filter Run 040517; End Reason - HL

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040519


800 0.075
Starting Run 040517

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
17/05/04 17/05/04 18/05/04 18/05/04 18/05/04 18/05/04 19/05/04 19/05/04 19/05/04 19/05/04 20/05/04 20/05/04 20/05/04 20/05/04 21/05/04 21/05/04
Date & Time
03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
1.0

47.5
0.0
0.5

2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0

29.7

73.5
24.0

30.2

49.5

51.5

53.5

71.5
Shutoff (hours)
0.0

Run Time (hours)


18.6
19.1
19.6
20.6
21.6
22.6
23.6

42.6

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

42.0

44.0
0.8
0.3
0.0

h High headloss rates were observed during Run 040517. Further investigation determined that the high headloss rate was a function of a slight coagulant overdose. The ferric dose was decreased and the headloss rates dropped to a range considered "normal".
h Run 040519 terminated due to TM - Time constraints.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure 4.38 Belmont pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on Mn control.
128

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 040524 22 to 23 C 6.53 0.072 mg/L 0.003 mg/L 0.039 mg/L 0.038 mg/L Filtration: 6.5
Run 040527 22 to 23 C 6.60 0.058 mg/L 0.004 mg/L 0.044 mg/L 0.042 mg/L

Filter 1
-19.2 -9.2 0.8 10.8 20.8 30.8 40.8 50.8 60.8 70.8
Inflow EH Outflow EH Dissolved Manganese Total Manganese PWD Mn Goal
1000 0.090

End Filter Run 040524; End Reason - HL

End Filter Run 040527; End Reason - TM


Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040527
900 Starting Run 040524
0.075

800 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

700 0.045

600 0.030

500 0.015

400 0.000
05/24/04 05/24/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/28/04 05/28/04
Date & Time
03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

49.6
50.1
51.6
3.0
4.0
5.0

53.1
1.0
2.0
-0.2

71.6
Shutoff (hours)
0.0

0.0

0.9
22.2
23.2
19.0

2.4
20.2
21.2

24.2

0.4

3.8

22.4
Run Time (hours)

-19.2 -9.2 0.8 10.8 20.8 30.8Filter 3 40.8 50.8 60.8 70.8
1000 0.090

End Filter Run 040527; End Reason - TM


End Filter Run 040524; End Reason - HL

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040527


900 0.075
Starting Run 040524

800 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

700 0.045

600 0.030

500 0.015

400 0.000
05/24/04 05/24/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/28/04 05/28/04
Date & Time
03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

49.3
49.8
-0.2
1.0
2.0
3.0

23.8

27.8
4.0

52.7
51.3
5.0

71.3
Shutoff (hours)

22.4
0.0

0.0
19.0
20.2
21.2
22.2
23.2
24.2

43.0

47.0

0.9
2.4
3.8
0.4
Run Time (hours)

h Run 040524 was terminated due to HL - headloss. Run 040527 was terminated due to TM - Time Constraints.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001 mg/L) for Mn data.
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure 4.39 Baxter pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on Mn control.
129

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 041025 12 C 8.43 0.029 mg/L 0.018 mg/L 0.049 mg/L 0.049 mg/L Filtration: 8.5
Run 041027 12 to 13 C 8.51 0.028 mg/L 0.019 mg/L 0.047 mg/L 0.045 mg/L

Filter 1
-22.9 -12.9Inflow EH -2.9 Outflow EH 7.1 Dissolved17.1
Manganese 27.1 Total Manganese 37.1 PWD47.1
Mn Goal 57.1
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041025; End Reason - TB

End Filter Run 041027; End Reason - TB


Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041027
800 0.075

700 0.060
Starting Run 041025

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
10/25/04 10/25/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/28/04 10/28/04 10/28/04 10/28/04
03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM Date & Time

49.0
26.5

28.5

45.0
25.5
26.0

27.5

30.5

39.0

41.0

43.0

47.0

51.0

54.5
53.0
0.0

2.0
3.0
0.5
1.0
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
Shutoff (hours)

1.1

6.1

14.6

16.6

18.6

20.6

26.6

28.6

30.1
22.6
1.6
2.1
3.1
4.1

24.6
22.9
23.4

24.9
25.9
23.9
0.0

Run Time (hours)

0.0
-22.9 -12.9 -2.9 7.1 17.1
Filter 6 27.1 37.1 47.1 57.1
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041025; End Reason - TB

End Filter Run 041027; End Reason - TB


Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041027
800 0.075

700 0.060
Starting Run 041025

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
10/25/04 10/25/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/28/04 10/28/04 10/28/04 10/28/04
Date & Time
03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM

49.0

54.5
27.5

30.5

39.0

41.0

47.0

53.0
0.0

43.0

45.0
0.5

25.5

26.5

28.5

51.0
26.0
2.0

4.0
1.0

3.0

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine


Shutoff (hours)
0.0

22.6

6.1

22.6
3.1
4.1
Run Time (hours)

30.1
2.1
1.1
1.6

14.6
22.9
23.4
23.9
24.9
25.9

16.6

18.6

20.6

24.6

26.6

28.6
0.0
h Both Run 041025 and Run 041027 were terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure 4.40 Belmont pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on Mn control.
130

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 041102 13 to 14 C 7.55 0.032 mg/L 0.018 mg/L 0.050 mg/L 0.050 mg/L
Filtration: 7.5
Run 041104 12 to 13 C 7.65 0.038 mg/L 0.018 mg/L 0.051 mg/L 0.051 mg/L

Filter 1
-3.6 6.4
Inflow EH 16.4Outflow EH 26.4 Dissolved Manganese36.4 46.4
Total Manganese 56.4PWD Mn Goal 66.4
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041102; End Reason - TB

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041104


800 0.075
End Filter Run 041104;
Starting Run 041102

End Reason - TM
700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
11/02/04 11/02/04 11/02/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/05/04
11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM 11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM 11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM Date & Time

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

48.5
0.5

18.5

22.5

26.5

46.5

50.5

52.5
14.5

16.5

24.5

28.5

30.0

66.5
2.0

20.5

54.5

64.5
0.0

3.0

5.0
1.0

Shutoff (hours)

30.1
20.1

24.1

26.1

32.1

19.9
18.1

5.9

9.9

21.9
3.6

4.6
5.6

28.1

33.6

1.9

3.9
4.1

6.6

8.6

21.1

7.9
0.0
Run Time (hours)
0.0

Filter 6
-3.6 6.4 16.4 26.4 36.4 46.4 56.4 66.4
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041102; End Reason - TB

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041104


800 0.075
End Filter Run 041104;
Starting Run 041102

700 0.060 End Reason - TM

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
11/02/04 11/02/04 11/02/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/05/04
Date & Time
11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM 11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM 11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

50.5
1.0

24.5
20.5

54.5
0.0

3.0

14.5

16.5

18.5

22.5

26.5

28.5

30.0

38.5

42.5

48.5

52.5

66.5
0.5

2.0

5.0

40.5

64.5
46.5
Shutoff (hours)
0.0

5.9
8.6

18.1

20.1

46.1
4.6

26.1

28.1

32.1

33.6

19.9

21.9
3.6

5.6

22.1

24.1

0.0
4.1

6.6

30.1

42.1

44.1

1.9

3.9

9.9
7.9
Run Time (hours)

h Run 041102 terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough, and Run 041104 terminated due to TM - time constraints.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure 4.41 Belmont pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on Mn control.

131

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water
Target pH of
Run 041220 5 C 6.59 0.175 mg/L 0.027 mg/L 0.058 mg/L 0.056 mg/L Filtration: 6.5

Filter 1
-19.4 -14.4 Inflow EH -9.4 -4.4
Outflow EH 0.6 5.6
Dissolved Manganese 10.6 Total Manganese 15.6 20.6Mn Goal
PWD 25.6
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041220;


800 0.075 End Reason - TB

700 0.060
Starting Run 041220

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
12/20/04 03:04 PM 12/20/04 09:04 PM 12/21/04 03:04 AM 12/21/04 09:04 AM 12/21/04 03:04 PM 12/21/04 09:04 PM 12/22/04 03:04 AM 12/22/04 09:04 AM Date & Time

10.3

22.5
1.3

20.5

24.5
6.2

26.5
0.0

2.3

4.3
0.8

3.2

8.3
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
Shutoff (hours)

19.4

22.7
20.7
20.2

21.7

23.7

27.7

41.9

45.9
25.7

39.9

43.9
29.7
0.0

Run Time (hours)

-19.4 -14.4 -9.4 -4.4 0.6 5.6 Filter 3 10.6 15.6 20.6 25.6
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041220; End Reason - TB


800 0.075
Starting Run 041220

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
12/20/04 03:04 PM 12/20/04 09:04 PM 12/21/04 03:04 AM 12/21/04 09:04 AM 12/21/04 03:04 PM 12/21/04 09:04 PM 12/22/04 03:04 AM 12/22/04 09:04 AM Date & Time

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

10.3

20.5

24.5
1.3

22.5
6.2
0.8

3.2
2.3

4.3

8.3
0.0

Shutoff (hours)
19.4
20.2
20.7

21.7

22.7

23.7

25.7

27.7

29.7

39.9

41.9

43.9
0.0

Run Time (hours)

h During Run 041220 both filters terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough.


h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001 mg/L) for Mn data.
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure 4.42 Baxter pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on Mn control.

132

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water
Run 041115 7 to 8 C 6.61 0.023 mg/L 0.017 mg/L 0.055 mg/L 0.054 mg/L
Target pH of
Run 041117 7 to 8 C 6.67 0.024 mg/L 0.020 mg/L 0.056 mg/L 0.056 mg/L Filtration: 6.5
Run 041118 9 C 6.65 0.028 mg/L 0.020 mg/L

Filter 1
-18.1 -8.1 Inflow EH 1.9 Outflow11.9
EH 21.9
Dissolved Manganese31.9 41.9 Manganese
Total 51.9 PWD Mn61.9
Goal 71.9
1000 0.120

End Filter Run 041117; End Reason - TB


End Filter Run 041115; End Reason - TB

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041117

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041118


900 0.105
End Filter Run 041118;
800 0.090 End Reason - TM
Starting Run 041115

Mn (mg/L)
700 0.075
EH (mV)

600 0.060

500 0.045

400 0.030

300 0.015

200 0.000
11/15/04 11/15/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/19/04 11/19/04
Date & Time
03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM
2.0 Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

6.3

28.8

32.8

58.3
0.0

4.0

26.8
24.8

34.8

47.3

49.3
8.3

30.8

36.5

45.3

70.3
1.0

3.0

51.3

60.3
0.5

Shutoff (hours)

Run Time (hours)


18.1
18.6
19.1
20.1
21.1
22.1

24.3

26.3

11.5

13.3

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

13.1
3.5

1.1
7.5

3.1
5.5
1.5

9.5
0.0

0.0

0.0
Filter 6
-18.1 -8.1 1.9 11.9 21.9 31.9 41.9 51.9 61.9 71.9
1000 0.120

End Filter Run 041117; End Reason - TB


End Filter Run 041115; End Reason - TB

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041117

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041118


900 0.105
End Filter Run 041118;
800 0.090 End Reason - TM
Starting Run 041115

Mn (mg/L)
700 0.075
EH (mV)

600 0.060

500 0.045

400 0.030

300 0.015

200 0.000
11/15/04 11/15/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/19/04 11/19/04
Date & Time
03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM

72.3
70.3
26.8

32.8

34.8

36.5

58.3
28.8

30.8
10.3

45.3
0.0

4.0

6.3

47.3

49.3

55.3

60.3
1.0

8.3
3.0

24.8
2.0

12.3
0.5

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

51.3

53.3
Shutoff (hours)

13.3
19.1

21.1

3.5

1.1
18.1

30.0

32.0

13.1
18.6

28.4

30.4

1.5

5.5

22.0

26.0

3.1

15.1
22.1

24.3
20.1

26.3

11.5

24.0

28.0
9.5
7.5
0.0

0.
0.0

Run Time (hours)

h Runs 041115 and 041117 terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough; run 040518 terminated due to TM - time constraint.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure 4.43 Belmont pilot plant; Mn and EH as a function of time. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on Mn control.

133

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


134

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Mn Migration in an OCM Filter Media

A case study presented at the 2005 AWWA WQTC showed some interesting insight into
what happens once a filter used in the IOCME mode losses chlorine (Gabelich et al. 2005). This
study was done in response to Mn related water quality issues that revealed themselves in the
distribution system. The filters had been previously chlorinated but chlorine was terminated and
the filters allowed to become biologically active since the plant had upgraded primary
disinfection from chlorine to ozone.
Mn that was once captured on the surface of the anthracite filter media migrated to lower
layers in the filter (sand, hematite and garnet). The authors of that presentation suspected that the
Mn oxide coating on the anthracite was a mixture of Mn(III) and Mn(IV), as opposed to all
Mn(IV), and that the Mn(III) was held in place by the presence of chlorine. It was also suspected
that Mn(III), a soluble form of Mn, desorbed off the media by cation exchange with Fe+3 and
Al+3. The liberated Mn(III) was then oxidized to Mn(IV) in the sand and hematite layers.
With this new information, the IOCME data for Case Study I was reanalyzed. The idea
was to investigate whether the change in Mn adsorptive capacity was a function of water
temperature or the Fe+3 loading. Originally the PIs had interpreted the change in behavior
associated with decreased temperature as a function of temperature, however, this may have been
a secondary observation. The primary influence could have been that the lower temperatures lead
to less efficient coagulation and therefore more cation loading on the filter.
Table 4.12 presents the concentrations of iron being added to the filters for each of the
runs conducted. Both total and dissolved iron concentrations are presented. There is more total
iron being added to the filters in the colder water. This reveals that more floc particles are being
passed onto the filters in cold weather. The floc particles were presumed to be bound, ferric
hydroxide. The amount of dissolved iron, presumed to be free, trivalent cationic iron, that is
being loaded to the filters is about the same for all runs.

Table 4.12
Fe loading onto filters
Temperature pH of Dissolved Fe Total Fe
Pilot Plant
(C) filtration loading (mg/L) loading (mg/L)
18 8.2 0.009 0.674
Baxter 20 7.5 0.005 0.739
22 6.6 <0.005 0.595
22 8.5 0.007 1.043
Belmont 24 7.5 0.007 0.990
26 6.7 0.006 0.792
8 8.4 0.006 0.939
Baxter 8 7.5 0.006 0.851
5 6.6 0.007 0.932
12 8.5 0.005 1.582
Belmont 13 7.5 0.012 1.755
8 6.6 0.008 1.959

135

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The idea that Fe+3 is being exchanged for Mn(III) is exciting and interesting but not
confirmed by this work. It may be that since the filters were run in IOCME mode before and
after each of these experiments that the phenomenon described by Gabelich et al. (2005) was not
yet happening in our filters.

Using Percent Removal to Analyze Case Study I Data

It is sometimes helpful to look at the results of many experiments on a global level.


Therefore, the PIs had the pilot plant databases queried for percent Mn removal. Each pilot plant
has its own database, and this data was generated over a two year period. Each filter run is a
discrete event. The experiments were carried out under a variety of conditions, notably
temperature and pH. There was a variety in coagulant use, although the majority of the work was
done with ferric chloride.
When testing for the efficacy of IOCME filtration, we often operated a no chlorine filter
in parallel to confirm the data. It is from these parallel runs both with dual media and GAC
media that we obtained these results. Also, there were times when we missed our operational
goal of 0.5 mg/L free chlorine in the filter effluent. Therefore we were able to make separate
columns for pilot runs conducted with effluent free chlorine at less than 0.4 mg/L and one for
equal to and greater than 0.4 mg/L. The summary of this data is presented in Table 4.13. A fuller
presentation of this statistical data is in Appendix E.
For a dual media filter, when no chlorine is used, the majority of Mn entering the filter
will leave that filter. Both Belmont and Baxter pilot plants averaged only a 6% Mn removal.
GAC filters, without chlorine addition, removed a little more Mn than dual media filter, but not
much more (11% 15%). If chlorine is applied to the filter so as to have a free chlorine residual,
both pilot plants illustrate that one can expect 90% Mn removal. Also if chlorine is applied, even
if not enough to achieve a free chlorine residual (above 0.4 mg/L in this case), then there is
significantly more Mn removal than if no chlorine was applied (64%).

Control of Mn with pH

We analyzed the No Chlorine filter data (both dual media and GAC) for actual Mn
concentration in the effluent, as opposed to percent Mn removal. There were occasions in which
the Mn effluent was below 0.020 mg/L but these usually corresponded to low Mn loading (i.e.,
<0.020 mg/L). Out of a total of 253 filter runs conducted without chlorine, only three (1%) were
less than or equal to 0.020 mg/L. The pH and temperature of the three sample points are
presented in Table 4.14.

Table 4.13
Avg. percent Mn removal by GAC and dual media filters depending upon applied chlorine
Dual media GAC Dual media Dual media
no chlorine no chlorine [Cl2] < 0.4 [Cl2] 0.4
Pilot plant n Removal n Removal n Removal n Removal
Belmont 99 6% 53 15% 0 NA 109 91%
Baxter 67 6% 34 11% 14 64% 56 89%

136

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table 4.14
Three no-chlorine filter samples that controlled chlorine.
Temperature Influent [Mn] Effluent [Mn] Removal
Filter media pH (C) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
Baxter Dual media 8.6 16 0.040 0.002 95
Baxter Dual media 7.8 16 0.034 0.010 71
Belmont GAC 7.3 21 0.077 0.020 74

For the Baxter pilot plant, only two dual media filter runs effectively controlled Mn to
below 0.020 mg/L. These were the highest filtration pH runs conducted at the Baxter pilot plant.
Once the filter pH dropped below 7.75, Mn control was no longer effective. There were no GAC
filter runs that produced a filter effluent below 0.020 mg/L.
For the Belmont pilot plant, none of the dual media filters effectively controlled Mn even
though there were two runs at high pH values, i.e., above 7.75. Only one No Chlorine filter run
at Belmont controlled Mn, a GAC filter and the pH at which it did, was not the highest pH value
of all the GAC filter runs.
The PIs were not able to achieve effective Mn control across filter media using filtration
pH alone.

Control of Oxidized Mn (via Ozone) with pH

The authors then asked, If a utility uses ozone as it primary disinfectant, is it possible to
control Mn without chlorine? That is, will a filter hold Mn dioxide without chlorine? An
experiment was designed to answer this question. Ozone was used to fully oxidize water,
converting all the Mn(II) to Mn(IV), and then pass this water through a chlorinated and non-
chlorinated filter at various pHs.
Details of the experiment are listed in Chapter Three. The major points of the design are:
(1) ozonation was conducted with a high dose, at pH 6.5 so that Mn is oxidized by molecular
ozone, (2) when the pH needed to be raised, it was raised after ozonation, (3) Mn was analyzed
in three size ranges, total, <0.22 m and <30 kDa. The results showed that ozone was effective in
converting dissolved Mn to oxidized Mn and on occasion, some of the oxidized Mn was in the
colloidal form.
The answer to the previous question is yes. A utility can control Mn (without chlorine)
via pH once the Mn has been converted to Mn(IV). The higher the pH the more stable the Mn
dioxide is and the more effective the control. The percent removal as a function of media type,
with or without chlorine, with or without ozone can be seen in Appendix E. The pH at which
effective control was achieved is different for the Belmont pilot plant and the Baxter pilot plant.
The Belmont pilot plant achieved over 90% removal of Mn at pH 7 and above, while the Baxter
pilot plant achieved over 90% at pH 8 or greater. The Belmont and Baxter plants receive
different source water (Schuylkill River and Delaware River respectively). There is more
alkalinity in the Schuylkill River compared to the Delaware River.
Since ozone was used to oxidize the Mn, and it is generated from oxygen, the water had a
high dissolved oxygen concentration, in many cases above saturation. It may be the presence of
dissolved oxygen (an oxidant) at the pH values mentioned that helps keep the Mn oxidized on
the media surface. In other words, once Mn is oxidized to Mn(IV), the presence of dissolved

137

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


oxygen, at slightly elevated pH values (7 at Belmont, 8 at Baxter), is enough to keep the Mn
oxidized. Oxygen by itself, under these conditions, would not have enough oxidative power to
convert Mn(II) to Mn(IV) but seems to have enough oxidative power to prevent Mn(IV) from
being reduced to Mn(II). Since the experiment was not set up to study the effects of oxygen on
Mn control there is limited data available and these conclusions are speculative.

EH as Predictive Tool for Reduction of Mn

From previous pilot plant work (Kohl 2002) it was shown that even if Mn entered a filter
completely oxidized, i.e., Mn(IV), without chlorination (and at pH 6.5) it would leave the filter
in soluble form, Mn(II). This led the team to investigate the use of EH to determine if the
reduction of Mn(IV) to Mn(II) in the filter was measurable. After 2 years of attempts, it was
determined that EH could not be used as a predictive tool. There is Mn reduction occurring within
the filter but this reduction could not be correlated to bulk water EH. Both reduction and
oxidation seem to take place on the filter media surface so that the overall change in bulk water
ORP, as measured by EH, did not change enough or consistently enough to be predictive.

CASE STUDY II: FULL-SCALE WTP RESEARCH ON MANGANESE REMOVAL

A full scale test was conducted at one of the participating facilities. The facility examined
its ability to control Mn across GAC filters in comparison to anthracite filters using chlorine and
pH. The experiments as conceived were not fully realized; therefore, a certain amount of the data
collected is not included in this report, and the analysis of the data was limited. The results of
each of the experiments along with a process flow chart are included in Appendix F, and several
very interesting observations can be made.

Background

The full-scale facility was designed as a conventional water treatment plant used to treat
surface water. It was also designed to control taste and odor issues, and as such, was fitted with
GAC filters that treated high pH water. When Stage 1 D/DBP rule came into effect, the plant had
to lower the pH of coagulation (to allow for the removal of TOC) and limit prechlorination. This
has changed the effectiveness of the sedimentation basin to control Mn. Also, the source water
from the river seems to have more Mn spikes, a cumulative result of acid mine drainage.

Results and conclusions

Figure 4.44 presents a full-scale WTP sampling event. The sampling locations and time
are shown on the x-axis. Mn data was collected using three separate means. The triangles
represent the ICP-MS data which is considered to be the most accurate. The other two data
points are Mn concentrations gathered using on-site, colorimetric analytical methods. The
squares present bench top analysis using PAN, and the diamonds are on-line data points. The
graphic shows the Mn concentration at three sampling times for each unit process. The units
process from left to right represent source water to finished drinking water. The two filter
effluent data sets are for separate filters being operated in parallel. The pretreatment consisted of
coagulation/flocculation followed by sedimentation. The pH is raised at the sedimentation basin
effluent with NaOH and chlorine as added via NaOCl to control Mn across the filters. Because of

138

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


these chemical additions the sedimentation basin effluent was sampled separately from the filter
influent. This plant uses ICOME but since most of the filters are GAC (11 out of 12) this is
unique. They have rebuilt one filter with anthracite media to determine if Mn control is better
with a different media.
This experiment was conducted three times, as shown in Figures 4.44 through 4.46. In all
three cases both the anthracite and the GAC filters controlled Mn. Chlorine residual was always
present in the anthracite filter effluent but was not detected in the GAC filter effluent. Based on
this information and previous information, the PIs determined that free chlorine residual does not
need to be maintained across a filter to achieve IOCME.
The September experiment was the first one done by the utility. As is expected with the
first run of an experiment, several experimental bugs were worked out. For example, the
filtration pH changed during the experiment (raised from 6.5 to 7.4). This change was
unintended by the utilitys researcher but it happened none the less.
For the December experiment the total Mn concentration increased after filtration, (i.e.,
the clear well samples were greater than the filter effluent samples), this did not happen in
September (except for one sample) or in November. The pH in the clear well was about 7.4 for
all three experiments. The reason for this increase is unknown and is unexpected. There are a
couple possible explanations and they are: (1) since only two of the 12 filters were being
monitored, it could be that other filters were passing Mn; (2) a shift in upstream pH could have
allowed for the release of Mn that had coated the clear well walls; (3) some Mn was somehow
stirred up in the clear well. All of this is conjecture, but it is interesting to note that the Mn
concentrations are not as static as we may believe.
An incidental observation made from these experiments pertains to the method used to
measure Mn. Our survey work revealed that, for those utilities that measure Mn, most use a
bench type, colorimetric process. For these three experiments, the on-line meter and the bench
scale analysis, both colorimetric methods, did not measure the Mn accurately, as compared to the
ICP-MS. Not only were the values different but they were different in different ways depending
on the sample location. For example, for the sedimentation basin effluent and filter influent
samples, the ICP-MS measurements indicated that there was more Mn in the water than the other
two methods, and just the opposite once the water had been filtered, i.e., the ICP-MS method
revealed less Mn than the other two methods. The colorimetric methods under-represented the
Mn concentrations for some samples and over represented it for others. The colorimetric
methods are subject to positive and a negative interference. This experiment was not set up to
analyze the efficacy of different Mn measurement methods, so the work needed to identify the
interferences and to make quantitative conclusions was not done. However, the implication of
the qualitative conclusion is still profound; the on-site method most commonly used to measure
Mn, and therefore, monitor the control process, has both positive and negative interferences.
Specifically from the three experiments shown here, the use of the PAN method gave different
results than the ICP-MS and indicated that the plant was not operating as well as it really was.
In defense of the PAN method. From the detailed survey questions and from
conversations with other Mn researchers, the bench top PAN method is regarded as accurate. It
has even been demonstrated as accurate by other researchers, who were looking to reduce the
cost of analysis by performing more Mn analysis using bench scale units as opposed to analyzing
samples with more advanced laboratory equipment. They conducted side by side analysis and
deem two methods similar enough to continue with the bench unit alone.

139

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Anecdotal information gathered from one of the participating utilities that uses the PAN
method may also have some bearing here. When the operator is adding the chemicals for the
colorimetric test, the chemical reaction usually looks a certain way. If the look changes to a
particular, slightly different appearance, even if the meter reads the same, then the operator
knows that Mn would leave the plant and be detected in a down stream sample. The operator
then begins to anticipate the need for operational changes. The operator is familiar enough with
the method to utilize information obtained on a non-quantifiable basis.
The PIs suggest that each utility confirm the accuracy of the test they use and look for
interferences.

0.80
Spetember 14-16, 2004 On-Line
0.70
Filtration pH = 6.5-7.4
Grab - PAN
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.60
Grab - ICP-MS
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 2 24 46 2 24 46
hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr
Source Sed Basin Filter Anthracite GAC Clearwell Mid- Clearwell
Water Effluent Influent Filter Eff Filter Eff Influent Clearwell Effluent

Figure 4.44 September 2004 full-scale Case Study II sample event

140

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.16
November 2-4, 2004 On-Line
0.14
Filtration pH = 7.0-7.2
Grab - PAN
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.12
Grab - ICP-MS
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 2 24 46 2 24 46
hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr
Source Sed Basin Filter Anthracite GAC Clearwell Mid- Clearwell
Water Effluent Influent Filter Eff Filter Eff Influent Clearwell Effluent

Figure 4.45 November 2004 full-scale Case Study II sample event

0.16
December 28-30, 2004 On-Line
0.14
Filtration pH = 6.5
Grab - PAN
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.12
Grab - ICP-MS
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
2 24 48 . 2 24 48 . 2 24 48 . 2 24 48 . 2 24 48 . 2 24 48 2 24 48 2 24 48
hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr
Source Sed Basin Filter Anthracite GAC Clearwell Mid- Clearwell
Water Effluent Influent Filter Eff Filter Influent Clearwell Effluent

Figure 4.46 December 2004 full-scale Case Study II sample event

141

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


COST MODEL

The cost model presented on the cost and benefit tables is based on reasonable capital and
operating cost assumptions that a utility may experience when faced with a manganese problem.
The assumptions for the model have been previously presented. The bases for the model are:

Plant size 1 mgd, 10 mgd, and 100 mgd


Influent manganese concentration 0.5 mg/L
Treated water manganese goals of 0.05 mg/L, 0.02 mg/L, 0.015 mg/L and 0.01 mg/L
At a manganese concentration of 0.02 mg/L in the distribution system, approximately
1 percent of the residential population will have problems
The per capita water consumption is 378 liters per day
Unaccounted-for water is 15 percent
Residential consumption is 90 percent and industrial consumption is 10 percent after
deducting unaccounted-for water
Annual cost impact on residential households is about $150 per person
Costs do not include low and high lift pumps, legal, engineering, contingencies,
residuals handling and disposal, and building superstructure
Capital costs do include process equipment, chemical feed systems, monitoring
equipment and all support facilities
Operating costs include labor, plant power, maintenance, analytical, and regulatory
reporting
Equipment life of 20 years
Effective interest rate 5 %
Chlorine dose for Mn control is 1 mg/L
Potassium permanganate dose (where used) is 0.5 to 1.0 mg/L

The authors thought it prudent to expand upon the use of 0.5 mg/L as an influent water
quality assumption. This value is reasonable for ground water sources, however, it seems high
for surface water sources, and on average it is, please refer to Figure 4.5. The PIs used the
worse case scenario idea in the selection of design criteria of surface water Mn treatment. The
thought process being that ground water sources tend to be stable and surface water sources can
be flashy. The average of the maximum surface Mn concentration is 0.4 mg/L (self reported
initial survey data). The other advantage to using 0.5 mg/L for all the influent water conditions is
that is makes analyzing the tables easier.
These figures will vary tremendously from utility to utility and, of course,
geographically. However, the cost tables can be used to judge the relative differences in cost that
may result if the Mn treatment goal at a particular plant is reduced or if a particular process is to
be modified for Mn treatment. All calculations and a complete set of analysis are located in
appendix G. There are also graphic representations of comparative cost presented in that
appendix.

Using and Interpreting the Cost Tables

The cost tables (Tables 4.15 through 4.18) present the total capital cost for building a
treatment plant for manganese with a capacity of 1 mgd, 10 mgd, or 100 mgd or for upgrading an

142

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


existing plant. Two capital costs are presented, the total cost to build the facility and the portion
of the capital cost that is associated with manganese treatment only. For example, the cost to
construct a manganese greensand plant (assuming only manganese is present and not iron), is the
same as the cost allocated for manganese removal. On the other hand the allocated cost for
manganese removal with a lime softening plant is negligible since the softening process would
remove manganese incidental to the removal of hardness. The annual capital recovery associated
with manganese removal is calculated on the basis of the capital cost associated with the
manganese removal taken over a 20 year period at 5 percent interest. Therefore, the annual
payment to construct a 1 mgd, manganese greensand treatment plant would be about $60,200
while the annual capital cost associated with a lime softening plant would be zero, since the
softening plant would be designed for hardness and the manganese removal secondary.
The operating costs provided in the tables include the additional expenses associated with
removing manganese from 0.05 mg/L to the various target goals. Included in the costs are
chemicals, labor, additional monitoring and reporting. For example, the total annual operating
cost to reduce raw water manganese from a concentration of 0.5 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L, for a 1 mgd
manganese greensand facility, would be about $40,000. If the manganese goal from the plant
were decreased to 0.02 mg/L, the annual cost would increase by approximately $7,000 to
$47,000 per year. The additional cost would be for more frequent filter backwashing, additional
monitoring and an increase in chemical feed. Again, it should be emphasized that these costs
should be used to compare treatment approaches and not to estimate the absolute costs to a utility
if a manganese treatment plant were to be constructed or an existing plant modified.
The annual total cost presented in the tables is the sum of the annual capital recovery cost
associated with manganese and the total annual operating cost associated with that particular
type of treatment process. The annual impact is calculated on the basis of the estimated cost to
the residential consumers using the assumptions listed previously (i.e., $150 per year per affected
resident). The cost to benefit ratio compares the annual total cost to the annual impact. The
benefit as defined in this study was based on the reduction in consumer problems associated with
manganese when the concentration of the treated water was reduced from 0.05 mg/L to the target
goal. Therefore, the cost to benefit ratio for a finished water manganese concentration of 0.05
mg/L is not applicable. The ratio is applicable at target manganese concentrations of 0.02 mg/L,
0.015 mg/L and 0.01 mg/L. In all cases, as the size of the plant increases the cost to benefit ratio
decreases, meaning that a larger plant realizes more benefit than a smaller plant. This is logical
since the cost and complexity of a larger plant are less than a smaller facility. The technologies
that treat manganese as incidental to the process have a very low cost to benefit ratio because
very little capital costs were incurred.

Significance of Benefit Relative to Manganese Concentration

A complete set of tables is located in Appendix G. The cost for treating water does not
seem to vary significantly depending on the source of Mn. Most treatment processes rely on
converting the dissolved, soluble Mn to the less soluble, particulate form for subsequent
separation using filtration or clarification. Some processes rely on attachment and then
oxidation, such as manganese greensand, in most cases the Mn is oxidized and then removed.
Two processes which can remove dissolved Mn directly are ion exchange and membranes.
For the purpose of the cost model, specific costs associated with utility expenses as a
consequence of elevated Mn were not included other than the actual operating and capital costs
associated with treatment. Therefore, the cost tables presented in this report tend to understate

143

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


the actual costs to utilities associated with Mn. Interviews conducted with utilities during this
research indicated that utilities experiencing Mn problems recognized an associated cost, which
could be quite significant. However, only direct consumer costs are included as a comparison to
treatment costs.
The cost to benefit ratios presented in Appendix G, Figures G.1 and G.2 range from a low
of 0.75 to a high of 18.0. A ratio less that 1.0 indicates that the cost associated with producing
water, with less Mn than the existing 0.05 mg/L level, is justified on the basis that the money
saved by the consumer is greater than the money spent by the utility. A cost to benefit ratio
greater than 1.0 suggests that savings to the consumer is less than the cost to the utility, and
therefore implementation on a cost basis may not be justified. It is important to note that in all
cases the utility is spending money and the consumer is saving money. The ratio is simply a
method to compare the two values. In terms of social policy, the lower the ratio, the more
favorable the economics, allowing for the great good to come at a lower cost. Ratios above 1 do
not imply that consumer benefit is less, it simply implies that it comes at a greater cost to the
utility. Several treatment technologies, including CGS, direct filtration, lime softening, advanced
clarification, and membranes (Mn removal incidental to membranes employed for other
treatment requirements) fall below the 1.0 cost to benefit ratio, especially for plant at or above 10
mgd capacity.

144

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table 4.15
Cost table for CGS treatment

Flash Mixing, Flocculation, Sedimentation, Dual-media Filtration


Design Capital cost Capital cost Annual capital
flow associated recovery
(mgd) with Mn removal
Plant #1 1 $2,000,000 $115,000 $9,200
Plant #2 10 $15,000,000 $155,000 $12,000
Plant #3 100 $120,000,000 $340,000 $27,000
Assumptions:
Effective Interest rate = 5%
2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.

Equipment life (compounding period) = 20 years


145

Plant Operating Annual Annual Annual Annual impact Cost to


flow cost, operating capital Total to customers - benefit
(mgd) ($/mgd) cost recovery cost 0.050 mg/L Mn ratio
Plant #1 1 $15 $5,000 $9,200 $14,200 $11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $10 $37,000 $12,000 $49,000 $115,000 N/A
0.050 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $9 $329,000 $27,000 $356,000 $1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 1 $30 $11,000 $9,200 $20,200 $11,600 1.74
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $25 $91,000 $12,000 $103,000 $115,000 0.90
0.020 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $23 $840,000 $27,000 $870,000 $1,150,000 0.76
Plant #1 1 $35 $13,000 $9,200 $22,200 $11,600 1.91
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $32 $117,000 $12,000 $129,000 $115,000 1.12
0.015 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $30 $1,095,000 $27,000 $1,120,000 $1,150,000 0.97
Plant #1 1 $35 $13,000 $9,200 $22,200 $11,600 1.91
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $32 $117,000 $12,000 $129,000 $115,000 1.12
0.010 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $30 $1,095,000 $27,000 $1,120,000 $1,150,000 0.97
Table 4.16
Cost table for direct filtration treatment

Flash Mixing, Flocculation, Sedimentation, Dual-media Filtration


Design Capital cost Capital cost Annual capital
flow associated recovery
(mgd) with Mn removal
Plant #1 1 $1,500,000 $55,000 $4,400
Plant #2 10 $12,000,000 $70,000 $6,000
Plant #3 100 $95,000,000 $160,000 $13,000
Assumptions:
Effective Interest rate = 5%
2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.

Equipment life (compounding period) = 20 years

Plant Operating Annual Annual Annual Annual impact Cost to


flow cost, operating capital Total to customers - benefit
146

(mgd) ($/mgd) cost recovery cost 0.050 mg/L Mn ratio


Plant #1 1 $15 $5,000 $4,400 $9,400 $11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $10 $37,000 $6,000 $43,000 $115,000 N/A
0.050 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $9 $329,000 $13,000 $342,000 $1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 1 $30 $11,000 $4,400 $15,400 $11,600 1.33
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $25 $91,000 $6,000 $97,000 $115,000 0.84
0.020 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $23 $840,000 $13,000 $850,000 $1,150,000 0.74
Plant #1 1 $35 $13,000 $4,400 $17,400 $11,600 1.50
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $32 $117,000 $6,000 $123,000 $115,000 1.07
0.015 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $30 $1,095,000 $13,000 $1,110,000 $1,150,000 0.97
Plant #1 1 $35 $13,000 $4,400 $17,400 $11,600 1.50
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $32 $117,000 $6,000 $123,000 $115,000 1.07
0.010 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $30 $1,095,000 $13,000 $1,110,000 $1,150,000 0.97
Table 4.17
Cost table for manganese greensand treatment

Flash Mixing, Flocculation, Sedimentation, Dual-media Filtration


Design Capital cost Capital cost Annual capital
flow associated recovery
(mgd) with Mn removal
Plant #1 1 $750,000 $750,000 $60,200
Plant #2 10 $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $522,000
Plant #3 100 N/A N/A N/A
Assumptions:
Effective Interest rate = 5%
2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.

Equipment life (compounding period) = 20 years


100 mgd not a practical size for manganese greensand
147

Plant Operating Annual Annual Annual Annual impact Cost to


flow cost, operating capital Total to customers - benefit
(mgd) ($/mgd) cost recovery cost 0.050 mg/L Mn ratio
Plant #1 1 $110 $40,000 $60,200 $100,000 $11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $95 $347,000 $522,000 $870,000 $115,000 N/A
0.050 mg/L
Plant #3 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 1 $130 $47,000 $60,200 $107,000 $11,600 9.2
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $115 $420,000 $522,000 $940,000 $115,000 8.2
0.020 mg/L
Plant #3 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 1 $160 $58,000 $60,200 $118,000 $11,600 10.2
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $140 $511,000 $522,000 $1,030,000 $115,000 9.0
0.015 mg/L
Plant #3 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 1 $200 $73,000 $60,200 $133,000 $11,600 11.5
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $180 $657,000 $522,000 $1,180,000 $115,000 10.3
0.010 mg/L
Plant #3 100 N/A N/A N/A N/A $1,150,000 N/A
Table 4.18
Cost table for membrane treatment

Flash Mixing, Flocculation, Sedimentation, Dual-media Filtration


Design Capital cost Capital cost Annual capital
flow associated recovery
(mgd) with Mn removal
Plant #1 1 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $136,000
Plant #2 10 $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $1,280,000
Plant #3 100 $156,000,000 $156,000,000 $12,500,000
Assumptions:
Effective Interest rate = 5%
2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.

Equipment life (compounding period) = 20 years


Membrane life = 10 years
No bypass
148

Plant Operating Annual Annual Annual Annual impact Cost to


flow cost, operating capital Total to customers - benefit
(mgd) ($/mgd) cost recovery cost 0.050 mg/L Mn ratio
Plant #1 1 $185 $67,500 $136,000 $204,000 $11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $150 $548,000 $1,280,000 $1,830,000 $115,000 N/A
0.050 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $130 $4,750,000 $12,500,000 $17,300,000 $1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 1 $200 $73,000 $136,000 $209,000 $11,600 18.0
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $160 $584,000 $1,280,000 $1,860,000 $115,000 16.2
0.020 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $140 $5,110,000 $12,500,000 $17,600,000 $1,150,000 15.3
Plant #1 1 $200 $73,000 $136,000 $209,000 $11,600 18.0
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $160 $584,000 $1,280,000 $1,860,000 $115,000 16.2
0.015 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $140 $5,110,000 $12,500,000 $17,600,000 $1,150,000 15.3
Plant #1 1 $200 $73,000 $136,000 $209,000 $11,600 18.0
WTP Mn Goal
Plant #2 10 $160 $584,000 $1,280,000 $1,860,000 $115,000 16.2
0.010 mg/L
Plant #3 100 $140 $5,110,000 $12,500,000 $17,600,000 $1,150,000 15.3
The SMCL is intended to prevent household problems for the majority of consumers.
Based on the initial and detailed surveys, and supported by the occurrence sampling, the level of
0.05 mg/L for manganese may not be sufficiently low to insure an acceptable water quality most
of the time. In fact, the interviews conducted during this research strongly suggest that many
consumers, perhaps the majority, will experience episodic difficulties if the Mn concentration in
the household water remains at 0.05 mg/l. The target concentration of either 0.02 or 0.015 mg/L,
is a more reasonable level given increasing consumer expectations. Manganese is not a primary
standard, thus, there may be some industry complacency.
Therefore, as with any aesthetic contaminant, the benefit is difficult to quantify from the
perspective of benefit to the utility. There is a cost benefit to the consumer since discoloration,
sediment and staining from manganese can, indeed, cost money. As can be seen from the cost
tables, the economic benefit to a utility from implementing more stringent control of manganese
is nominal, although there may be such things as less system flushing, etc. Consumers tend to
judge the overall quality of the healthfulness of tap water on the basis of appearance and taste.
Consequently, aesthetics of water are very important in maintaining consumer confidence and
support. It is suggested that each utility that deals with manganese establish a good monitoring
program that truly tracks the concentration of manganese in the distribution system and
consumer complaints associated with the manganese.
Many systems that have Mn problems are small groundwater utilities that may not have
the financial resources to support additional treatment beyond that required for public health. The
difference in costs associated with capital improvement and operational improvement should be
clearly understood. For example, a small utility may be, because of limited financial resources,
less likely to build new treatment. So if a new well is dug or an old one starts to have more Mn,
the utility is less likely to build Mn specific treatment, then it is to blend the water and hope for
the best. However, if that utility, albeit small, already has Mn treatment, it is not restricted by the
relatively small amount of additional cost associated with treating to a level below the SMCL, if
it sees it as in it best interest.
In another example, a large water utility that had relied on well water for most of it
existence is now struggling to meet demand and has dug new well, a well with Mn. This utility
is reluctant to treat this new well for Mn, although it is an issue, simply because they have no
history of doing so. In this example, the obstacle is not financial, because it is a city that has
resources, it is institutional inertia. In both cases the biggest obstacle to lowering Mn
concentrations in the drinking water is the initial capital cost, not the operating cost.

149

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


150

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS

INTRODUCTION

As with the other chapters this will follow the sequence of the major investigations.
However, each section will include knowledge gained during all the investigations.

INITIAL SURVEY

Most utilities are aware of whether or not they have a Mn issue. The strongest source of
Mn feedback comes from their customers. Since Mn is an aesthetic issue, the first people to
notice problems are the consumers.
Most utilities are quite capable of dealing with Mn. However, if there is no history of
customer complaints regarding Mn, the utility may be unaware of latent Mn issues. Specifically,
if a utility controls Mn without recognizing the mechanism, say, by way of induced-oxide coated
media effect (IOCME) then a Mn problem may occur if that process is disturbed. This
disturbance is more likely to occur today than in previous years, since many utilities are seeking
ways to reduce DBPs. In many instances, the initial point of chlorine application is being moved
further back in the process, and in some cases this initial point of chlorination is after the filters
eliminating the benefits of IOCME.
Mn is an issue for both surface water and groundwater systems. Most utilities measure
both source water and finished water for Mn while few routinely measure the Mn in distribution
system. The utilities that routinely sample and monitor Mn are those utilities that experience
complaints. Our initial survey results indicated that less than one quarter actually sample
distribution system Mn concentration. This may reflect a prevailing thought process that the
distribution system concentration is equal to the finished water concentration. This thought
process is incorrect.
On a side note, there are utilities whose source water is affected by acid mine drainage
(AMD), that used to have only a little Mn or only a few episodes, however, now seem to have
more Mn and more frequent episodes. Such utilities are working with their watershed
associations as best they can to combat the trend of increased Mn occurrence in source water.
The analysis of the finished water concentration of the surveyed facilities revealed that
for all source waters and all treatment types, the average amount of Mn is 22 g/L in the treated
water leaving the plant. The 90th percentile of the data was below 50 g/L. Currently, Mn is
being controlled at many utilities to below the SMCL, yet customer complaints still exist. This
suggests that utilities respond to Mn issues as part of customer service as opposed to regulatory
compliance.
Pressure filtration for iron and Mn removal is used in many smaller systems especially
those with groundwater sources. This treatment process becomes prohibitively expensive as the
system size increases. Pressure filtration is designed to primarily remove iron and Mn, therefore
if other treatment requirements are imposed on a utility, then that utility has to utilize additional
unit processes. This need for additional treatment tends to move the process selection process
away from treatment for iron and Mn removal only, and toward alternative processes for which
iron and Mn is removed (or reduced) subsequent to (or in addition to) the primary design. For
larger water treatment plants, particularly those that rely on surface water, several unit processes

151

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


are usually required. From the results of our survey, the control of Mn often dictates the design
parameters of at least one of them.
In some cases water treatment plants create their own Mn problem through addition of
Mn either by adding chemicals containing Mn, by recycling water from solids handling facilities,
or from sub-optimal sedimentation solids removal.
Although sequestration is an acceptable Mn treatment technique, it is not always effective
for several reasons. Sequestering agents degrade within the distribution system so if the detention
time in a system is long the effectiveness of sequestration decreases. More importantly, the
chemistry of sequestration is much more complex than it appears. If too little sequestering
chemical is added, then Mn is not completely sequestered; if too much is added, previously
formed Mn coating on the pipes may be released. Some utilities intentionally overdose the
sequestering agent to clean the pipes. And according to survey participants, all vendors
recommend a slight overdose of the chemical for the reason that 95% of the dose will be used to
sequester hardness (i.e., calcium, and magnesium). Careful consideration of dose is important
and therefore optimization is required. Optimization usually occurs at the initiation of the use of
sequestering agents. Optimization is often done with the help of the products manufacturer who
provides useful advice. This optimization is acceptable and applicable only if the utilitys
process remains constant all year long. The most important reason sequestering agents are not
heavily used is that they do not remove the Mn. Sequestration and corrosion inhibition are not
the same process and use different chemical agents, but since phosphate is commonly used for
both, some confusion exists within the industry.

DETAILED SURVEY

There appears to be no strong correlations between source water or finished water Mn


concentrations and other water quality parameters. Although useful information relative to
optimizing treatment for Mn in a particular case can be concluded from water quality parameters,
these cannot be used to predict the likelihood nor the magnitude of Mn to be expected in the
distribution system. Even iron (Fe), which often co-exists with Mn did not correlate to Mn. This
specific correlation did not work because the relative amounts of each are so variable, i.e., they
are not proportionally related even though they often occur together.
The many treatment processes used to treat water and those used specifically to control
Mn work best under constant loading, even when this loading is very high. Variable loading is
difficult to handle, and those facilities that have a maximum to average concentration ratio of
greater than 7.5 report trouble with Mn episodes. Mn concentration variability in the source
water will, more likely than not, result in finished water Mn variability.
KMnO4 is a very powerful and effective oxidant that will quickly convert Mn(II) to
Mn(IV) and when used in conjunction with other processes it was highly effective (e.g., pressure
filtration). However when followed by settling alone (either conventional or advanced
clarification plants) utilities averaged 83% removal of Mn through the treatment process, with a
finished water concentration of 0.020 mg/L. It was also determined that removal of Mn via
settling need to be monitored and controlled, when it was not, Mn events occurred. Survey result
indicated that KMnO4 is often used to treat Mn but it was not always the most effective.
The survey data indicated that IOCME may be the best process for removing Mn, with
finished water averaging 0.007 mg/L. However, IOCME requires chlorine, and thus is limited in
many cases by DBP formation considerations. Also, the increased pH needed to optimize the
process may require chemical feed systems and additional chemical cost. The most attractive

152

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


aspect of IOCME is that it seems to work without monitoring as long as there is chlorine (and
Mn) present and the pH is above 5.8.
There is not a lot of Mn entering the distribution systems in the utilities surveyed, almost
always less than 50 g/L. Seventy two percent (72%) of the surveyed utilities have less than 20
g/L of Mn entering the distribution system.
Almost every water utility surveyed has some form of customer complaint tracking
(94%). All respond to complaints. However, few have actually tested for Mn in response to
complaints. Often, there is a general understanding that the response to a dirty water complaint
is flushing. Therefore, confirmation that the source of the complaint is Mn, Fe, or both is often
not considered important.

SEASONAL OCCURRENCE SAMPLING

Both high and low concentrations of manganese in treated water result in either chemical
or biochemical deposition of manganese oxides on pipeline surfaces. Biochemical deposition
occurs in systems that have no chlorine or the chlorine residual dies off before the end of the
distribution system. Chemical deposition occurs when Mn (II) enters the distribution system and
is oxidized to Mn (IV) by chlorine used for disinfection. Manganese deposition generally
decreases with distance from the treatment plant. The progression of deposition through the
distribution system is generally affected by the concentration of manganese and the capacity of
the pipeline surface to adsorb the manganese oxide. This capacity depends on the average water
velocity, which determines the shear force and the width of the boundary layer within which the
manganese oxide remains protected. Once the capacity of the pipeline is exceeded or when
higher flow rates occur, manganese oxide coating will detach until equilibrium is reached,
possibly causing deterioration in water quality at the tap. Evidence of this was gathered from
some excursion sampling, when a distribution systems Mn concentration was 5 to 10 times
higher than the Mn entering the system.
There were no strong correlations between Mn concentration and other water quality
parameters within a distribution system. Therefore, no surrogate water quality parameter was
found. The study suggests that there is no substitute for Mn sampling nor is there a good
predictor of Mn concentration. The parameter with the most promise of producing a strong
correlation was apparent color. The occurrence of Mn within the distribution system is a function
of how much Mn enters from the source. It is also a function of the local conditions, most
notably the velocity since it stirs up the settled particulate Mn. The predominance of MnO2
during these high velocity (re-suspension) episodes adds to the availability of adsorption sites
and an increase in catalytic action thereby decreasing the concentration of any soluble Mn.
Therefore, at high flow conditions MnO2 is the predominant form of Mn, and this causes colored
water. This is advantageous for flushing because Mn is removed from the distribution system
when local velocities increase. Yet it can detrimental because this suspension of Mn particles
increases complaints as it is highly visible.
The need to define Mn speciation after ozone is based on informing the operator whether
or not the ozone process has oxidized the Mn. If colloidal Mn is formed and the water tested via
a 0.22 m filter it would seem as if there was dissolved Mn ergo not enough oxidant present.
This would be a misinterpretation of the reality of the situation. The PIs took this one step
further and tested to see how far into a distribution system colloidal Mn could be found. In this
study, only the facilities that use sequestration to control Mn problems had colloidal Mn in their
distribution system. The study did not indicate that ozone use results in colloidal Mn in the

153

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


distribution system. The application of ozone can create colloidal Mn, but at the ozone doses
used in the drinking water industry, this does not seem to be an issue.

CASE STUDY I

Under certain raw water conditions, IOCME did not maintain Mn below acceptable
levels. Factors which influenced this were dose of chlorine and filtration pH. The ability of the
filters to remove Mn was, as expected, also influenced by seasonal temperature variations.
Between the tested pH values of 6.5 and 8.5, the lower the pH, the less reliable the process of Mn
removal. Mn oxidizes more readily at elevated pH. Also, the ratio of soluble Mn to particulate
Mn will vary with raw water conditions and with coagulant dose. Particulate Mn will be
coagulated, settled and filtered, while soluble Mn must be oxidized either in the pretreatment
basins or through IOCME on the media grains, if not it will pass through the treatment process.
The oxidation reaction of Mn is a kinetic one (i.e., time and temperature dependent); the colder
the water the slower the reaction and, consequently, the process of Mn removal is less efficient
when the raw water is colder in the winter.
The use of ozone to control Mn was possible even if no chlorine was applied to the filter.
When ozone was applied to the incoming water, the Mn was oxidized from the soluble to the
insoluble form and subsequently removed by filtration. Any Mn that was not oxidized by the
ozone passed through the filters, unless chlorine was applied to the filters. It is possible to apply
ozone to water and not convert the Mn to the particulate form. In order for Mn to be oxidized it
must have sufficient contact with molecular ozone. Since ozone is very reactive and is
scavenged there must be enough ozone applied to overcome this competition. Lowering the pH
of ozonation helps to promote the presence of molecular ozone by having less scavenging by
OH-. For this research a pH of 6.45 was chosen to accomplish this.
Another benefit of using ozone to oxidize Mn from Mn(II) to Mn (IV) is that there is an
overall increase in oxidation reduction potential (ORP), making the capture of MnO2 more
successful. That is, once particulate Mn is produced it can remain stable in the filter. We
hypothesize that the presence of dissolved oxygen, at or above saturation, after the water has
been ozonated was enough to keep it in this oxidized form. Empirical evidence also indicated
that more alkalinity in the water lead to better control of Mn using ozone. This we believe to be a
result of MnO2 stability, as opposed to ozone interaction, as Ca2+ is itself, an ozone scavenger. It
is possible to combine the use of ozone and free chlorine. The dose need for both would be
reduced as compared to the use of either alone.
The research conducted for the Case Study I demonstrated that a nominal dose of
chlorine applied to the settled water will generate a manganese dioxide coating on filter media
grains. The manganese dioxide coating will further enhance Mn removal by adsorbing dissolved
Mn and then providing further oxidation and removal. This observation should not be unique to
the type of raw river water at Philadelphia but rather should be applicable to many waters that
use conventional treatment and chlorinate the water just prior to filtration.

CASE STUDY II

Although not necessarily recommended as a permanent solution for Mn reduction, the


use of GAC in the IOCME mode is feasible (two of the participating utilities use this technique).
That is by increasing pH and applying chlorine, the GAC filter will develop a layer of oxide
coated media, and Mn is controlled. An interesting side effect of such use can be the changing of
the density of the media. This change is more profound for GAC than for anthracite. Over time,

154

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


through the back washing process, heavier oxide coated media will migrate to the bottom of the
filter. This by itself is not bad unless the utility is using the GAC as an absorbing medium for
organics removal. In this case, the adsorbed organic material can leach back into solution as the
spent GAC moves to the end of the contactor. Basically the migration of the GAC disrupts the
adsorbance isotherm and shortens the life span of the GAC as an adsorber.
The easy to use, on-site, bench top technique for the analysis of Mn has long been
accepted as useful and reasonably accurate for process control work. However, at the low
concentrations of Mn targeted during this study, the method seemed to be problematic having
both positive and negative interferences. In two of the three data sets, the bench top analysis
under predicted performance and did not reflect the actual variability of water quality measured.
The on-line Mn monitor was not successfully used in this research project.

COST MODEL

The interviews conducted during this research strongly suggest that many consumers,
perhaps the majority, will experience episodic difficulties if the Mn concentration in the
household water remains at 0.05 mg/L. From the work completed for this study, the investigators
believe that a 0.02 mg/L Mn target reasonably balances benefits to the cost of producing water at
a low Mn concentration. Some utilities, such as the Philadelphia Water Department, have
established an even lower internal goal of 0.015 mg/L.
The cost to benefit ratios in Appendix G tables and figures suggest that several treatment
technologies can cost effectively remove manganese in drinking water, based on the models and
assumptions developed for this study. A complicating factor is that many states do not enforce
the secondary standards and rely on consumer pressure to drive utility action. Many utilities are
sensitive to public pressure, but still have difficulty justifying treatment costs on the basis of
reducing consumer complaints if it means producing water at a lower standard than the minimum
required. The intangible costs to both utilities and customers, although difficult to quantify,
would strongly suggest that most customers would be willing to pay an additional price for water
if the water were aesthetically acceptable the majority of the time. Today, many people have
become much more sensitive to aesthetic water quality and tend to judge the quality of service
that a utility is providing on the basis of water palatability. In addition, many consumers today
tend to equate the safety of water with taste, odor, and appearance.
Many systems that have Mn problems are small groundwater utilities that may not have
the financial resources to support new treatment especially if that new treatment is to treat water
beyond that required for public health. Even larger systems may not respond to the need for
additional Mn treatment if that additional treatment requires the building of new treatment.
Utilities are more likely to accept small increases in operational cost than they are to incur capital
debt to improve upon parameters that meet existing suggested limits.
Since the Safe Drinking Water Act was signed in 1974, there have been numerous
regulations and standards that have been implemented to deal with such issues as disinfection
byproducts, synthetic organics, radionuclides and metals; very nominal attention has been given
to the impacts and reasonableness of the secondary standards including Mn. This research has
concluded that the Mn standard of 0.05 mg/l, as it now exists, is not adequate to control
consumer complaints associated with household problems. Yet, the cost of treating water to a
lower level than the SMCL is not justified solely on the basis of cost savings to the consumer as
compared to the capital and operating treatment costs. However, many utilities do operate their
treatment facilities to produce as low a Mn concentration as affordably possible. There seems to

155

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


be a general recognition that if water contains Mn at the SMCL, there will be many consumer
complaints and problems.

156

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS TO UTILITIES

OPERATIONAL

Treat Mn at the Source

It is the opinion of the PIs that controlling Mn prior to the distribution system is the best
option. The distribution system will adsorb Mn over a long period of time and will release it
from time to time as conditions dictate. However, the frequency and intensity of this release will
be less if less Mn enters the distribution system. Once the water enters the distribution system
there is very little that can be done to control it.
Sequestering agents if used properly can control Mn. However, the use of sequestering
agents is more complex than most people are led to believe. Establishing the correct chemistry is
often difficult because of constantly changing water quality and conditions in the distribution
system. In many distribution systems, what is just right for near may not be right for far, and
what is just right for far may not be right for near. Even with the correct chemistry, if Mn enters
the home where laundry is being done with hot water and bleach, the sequestration breaks down.
This will release Mn(II) that will then be oxidized to Mn(IV) directly on the material surface,
making black spots.
The amount of Mn present and the frequency of its presence in the water are the main
factors in selecting the best method of control (as well as understanding how Mn control occurs).
Oddly enough, the more Mn, and the more constant its presence, the simpler the design and the
more effective the operation will be. The oxidation of Mn is a kinetic reaction so the more Mn,
the more oxidation will occur. The less advantageous aspect of this is that the treatment cost
money and some utilities are so used to having little to no treatment that even this modest step
seems extremely expensive. Under constant Mn loading, consider using a Mn specific filter
media either self-generated induced oxide coated media (IOCM) or proprietary filter media.
The use of KMnO4 to oxidize Mn is effective under these conditions too but it requires
monitoring as well as good settled solids control.
The selection of treatment options for other scenarios becomes harder as the Mn
concentration decreases and become less frequent. The main driving force is economic. Effect
treatment, built for only occasional use, is inherently expensive. When the capacity of treatment
systems, sized to handle a specific loads, is exceeded, Mn pass through occurs. For these
situations the most effect process was the IOCME. This process has a large capacity and is
always active. The prerequisites for this process are: granular filter media, chlorine, and Mn (at
least enough to have an oxide coating on media). The down side of this is the continued reliance
on the DBP forming chlorine within the treatment process. Even if a treatment plant converts to
ozone disinfection the use of IOCME can keep the treated water Mn free.
Distribution systems that experience a seasonal change in delivered water volumes have
additional Mn issues. During periods of low flow, the Mn loading into the system seems to be
low enough so as to have no effect on the water quality; however, as the flow rate increases the
systems ability to hold a specific amount of Mn decreases. The Mn is then released and the
customers see it. The problem can be severely exacerbated when the seasonal change in flow is
great and the low flow period allows for sections of the distribution to have no chlorine. These
zones become biologically active and the mechanisms of Mn oxidation reduction change. Even
more Mn is released than predicted by the increase in water velocity alone.
157

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Induced Oxide Coated Media Effect

Control of Mn by way of IOCME is so effective that we know little about it. It works so
well over such a wide range of conditions that it calls little attention to itself. If not for the work
of Dr. Knocke et. al. much of what little we know would be still be a mystery.
However, when we do approach the limits of the effectiveness of IOCM, we get a
glimpse at how complex it is. The effectiveness of IOCM results from the combination of two
mechanisms which are interrelated oxidation and adsorption. The parameters that control these
processes overlap. The pH of the filtered water is the most significant water quality parameter
these two processes share. The higher the pH, the more rapid the oxidation process, and the
higher the pH, the greater the adsorption capacity of the oxide coated media. Another water
quality parameter that affects both processes, but no so obviously, is temperature. The warmer
the water, the more rapid the oxidation process, and the greater the media adsorptive capacity
will be. For temperatures above 10C, IOCME worked very well. For temperatures below 8C
(free chlorine residual leaving the filter in excess of 0.4 mg/L), the pH had to be greater than 6.5
for IOCME to be reliable. IOCME was effective for water temperatures down to 3C as long as
the pH was raised to 8.0 or above.
A water quality parameter that seems to only be important to oxidation but has an effect
on adsorption is free chlorine. The presence of free chlorine oxidizes the adsorbed Mn and
converts it to MnO2 thus yielding more sites for future adsorption, thereby increasing the
adsorptive capacity. Free chlorine is required to be present and available when Mn is adsorbed
onto the media surface. However, IOCM can occur even when there is no free chlorine residual
leaving the filter. This explains why GAC can be used as a media for IOCM. Although the
effect of each parameter on the separate process is related, it is not proportional. For example,
water temperature is much more significant to the oxidation process than the adsorption process.
Utilities should expect reduced Mn control across IOCM filters in colder water and to offset this
reduced performance by increasing the pH and/or increasing chlorine.

Ozone

If a utility uses intermediate ozone and has intermittent Mn issues, it should consider
applying more ozone during the high Mn event so that all the Mn is MnO2. The oxidation of
Mn(II) to Mn(IV) requires the presence of molecular ozone. In the application of ozone there is
either not enough ozone applied, or it is applied in such a scavenger rich environment that
molecule ozone is in solution for only a short period of time. One may wish to speciate the
ozonation process effluent using 30K Dalton filters to see if oxidation is complete. The presence
of colloidal Mn indicates there has been enough oxidant used. The presence of colloidal Mn in
the distribution system was not found to be an issue for the utilities that participated in this study.
Once the Mn(IV) is formed, granular filter media seems to be able to retain it in. The presence
of dissolved oxygen above saturation seemed to be enough to keep it stable on the media. Pilot
results indicated that the higher the pH the more stable the filtration process and better Mn
capture even without chlorine.
The other consideration is to simply keep a filter in the IOCME mode to capture Mn even
if ozone is used. For one utility, the filter that used to be operated in IOCME mode (albeit
unknowingly) was the source of distribution system Mn occurrence. The Mn appeared once the
plant converted to ozone disinfection and stopped chlorinating the filters. The utility eventually
replaced the media as opposed to continued chlorine application.

158

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


MN EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY GOAL

Water Quality Goal

The authors are not suggesting that the USEPA change the current SMCL. Our findings
indicate that the SMCL was rarely the basis for utility action. The wide range of responses to the
federal SMCL by the individual states further illustrates the variety of opinions about the Mn
SMCL. However, the authors have, after some consideration, come to the conclusion that most
utilities would be well served to adopt a finished water Mn goal of 0.02 mg/L. This level is
achievable and measurable. While achieving the goal does not guarantee a worry-free life, it
severely limits the distribution systems ability to accumulate troublesome levels of Mn.

Friendly Quote

When discussing Mn treatment our Australian friend, who indicated he was quoting the
English, said Do not be greedy. By this he meant that when one is treating for the removal of
Mn, go ahead and plan, build and operate for it. Although Mn removal can be achieved
incidentally by a unit process, if the process is not designed and operated for it, then there will be
occasions that Mn control is lost. Also, the operation of a unit process can be severely restricted
if it has multiple functions. Therefore, at times, when a seemingly simple solution to a problem
cannot be made because of incidental implications, one may feel the pinch. Worse yet, one
forgets the incidental implications and makes a decision that results in system upset. The
sentiment is valid (a bit harsh) and if used wisely (gently) will enable the utility to best discern
how to handle their Mn issues.
When one builds in more treatment and has more testing, one is spending more money, is
more likely to be successful at treatment, and the community is likely to benefit. The utility is
less likely to have customer complaints associated with Mn and therefore reduce costs associated
with those complaints.
The cost model shows how much less consumers would have to spend for each dollar
spent by the utility. The idea is sort of communal in as much as the centralized entity betters the
life of the community at a cost to itself. It is not so much that reducing the Mn levels pays for
itself by reducing the utilities expenses, although there is some benefit. The utility treats the
water to a level that improves the overall water quality for the community even though it does
not have to.
To better understand the Australian mindset the PIs encourage the reader to study the
water quality system in that country. The government has not established itself as the champion
of the people by mandating water quality standards so much as it has set itself up as the mediator
between consumers and utilities, giving the consumer a way of asking for water quality
improvements to be made and an ability to understand what that will cost them.

MN TESTING

Mn analysis is thought to be simple, and it can be. There are several techniques
available. Choosing one is not complicated, but it is important. There are several aspects that
should be considered before applying a specific technique.

159

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


MDL or RL

The method detection limit (more importantly the reporting limit) of the analysis being
performed for your utility is very important. On several occasions, utilities provided the PIs with
Mn concentration below detection limits. This may have given some a good feeling or even
satisfied some internal requirement. However, the ND or < symbol are hard to use for data
analysis and therefore have limited use, especially if the reporting limit is high. For example,
<50 g/L lets the utility know that Mn is below the SMCL but little else. Most analysis can
achieve a much better resolution. The PIs recommend you look at Mn at 0.010 mg/L or less.

Wet Chemical Testing

It is acceptable to use wet chemical assays for routine operational work, but always have
a series of confirmatory analytical assays. As with any measurement system, it is best to know
the limits of the method.

Mn Filtering

For this project 0.45m, 0.22m, and 30 K Dalton filters were used. It is the PIs opinion
that 0.22m filters offer the best choice. Although it makes little difference between the filters
for Mn, with Fe it does, and since Fe and Mn often occur together it was thought best that
0.22m filters be used. The appearance of colloidal Mn is not common and usually associated
with ozonation, high Mn levels within a system that uses a chelating agent or has lost all chlorine
residual at the end of the system. So unless you have these conditions, there is no need to use the
30 K Dalton filter as it requires significant effort. However, to be certain about levels that are
truly dissolved, using the 30K Dalton filter is a good choice.

ADDITIONAL RESEARCH

The PIs would like to know if the presence of saturated dissolved oxygen is chemically
(thermodynamically) capable of keeping MnO2 as a solid on a filter surface once it has been
captured.
The use of apparent color to discern the concentration of Mn has merit and it may be
prudent to look into its use more substantially.
The PIs want to know if the soil chemistry associated with the reduction of MnO2 is
congruent with aqueous chemistry by investigating the intermediate step of Mn(III) in the
oxidationreduction process. It is still a mystery to the PIs as to how a filter is able to capture
oxidized Mn yet release dissolved Mn. Is this process biological, chemical, or a combination of
both?

CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THE UTILITIES WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM

In the not too distant past and in the minds of many consumers, a distribution system was
nothing more than a clean vessel (in some minds sterile) used to hold and deliver water. It is
clean, but not sterile and it has films and sediments. The water industry has known this and has
acted on this knowledge. This is simply one more of those occasions. The distribution system is
not an inert unit process but an interactive one. There are many physical and biochemical
processes at work within them.

160

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Therefore, the utility should increase its knowledge of how it is working and what
happens as water passes through it. The PIs do not want utilities to become alarmed about their
systems or even give the impression that systems change radically every hour. For the most part,
the changes are subtle and complex. The PIs simply urge utilities to start the process of looking
(observing and noting).
As a practical suggestion, use existing DBP sites and sample specifically for Fe and Mn.
Use a method that has the level of detection suited for the utilitys purpose. If the utilitys
laboratory or contract laboratory cannot measure to a level that is low enough to analyze the
data, do not waste time and money. Once utilities have sampled for a while, integrate the
analysis with the utilitys understanding of the actual water flow.
The PIs are of the opinion that long term studies with repeat analysis are more suited to
this type of research, as opposed to a broad search for many things over a short period of time.
For utilities that have occasional black water complaints, note them, locate them, get flow
data relative to them (i.e., flushing or fire) and analyze the water for Fe and Mn. If this process
is followed over a long period of time, a utility may see where Mn builds up.

161

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


162

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


REFERENCES
ACGIH. 1998. TLV-Threshold limit values and biological exposure indices for 1996-1997.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Cincinnati, OH.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2000. Toxicological profile for
manganese (update). Draft for public comment. Atlanta: Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry.
Aldridge, P., B. Chiswell, M.K. Leigh, K.R. O'Halloran, and M. Pascoe. 1989. Water, Journal of
the Australian Water and Wastewater Association, 15(6): 35-37.
Anderson, D.R., D.D. Row, and Gary E. Sindelar. 1973. Iron and Manganese Studies of
Nebraska Water Supplies. Journal AWWA, 65(10):635-641.
APHA. 1998. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 20th edition.
American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Aschner, M. 2000. Manganese: Brain Transport and Emerging Research Needs. Environ. Health
Perspectives, 108(Supp 3):429-432.
Aschner, M. and J.L. Aschner. 1991. Manganese Neurotoxicity: Cellular Effects and Blood-
Brain Transport. Neurosci. Behav. Rev., 15:33-340.
Aschner, M., K.E. Vrana, and W. Zheng. 1999. Manganese Uptake and Distribution in the
Central Nervous System (CNS). NeuroToxicology, 20(2-3):173-180.
ASTM. 2002. Standard Test Methods for Manganese in Water. D85802. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, Vol. 11.02. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Aziz, H.A., and P.G. Smith. 1992. The Influence of pH and Coarse Media on Manganese
Precipitation from Water. Water Research, 26(6):853-855.
Aziz, H.A., and P.G. Smith. 1996. Removal of Manganese from Water Using Crushed Dolomite
Filtration Technique. Water Research, 30(2):489-492.
Bailar, John C. Therald Moeller, Jacob Kleinberg, Cyrus O. Guss, Mary E. Castellion, Clyde
Metzl 1978. Chemistry Academic Press New York, New York
Balikungeri, A., D. Robin, and W. Haerdi. 1985. Manganese in natural waters I. Speciation of
manganese in running waters and sediments. International Journal of Environmental
Analytical Chemistry, 19:227-241.
Ballantyne, L., G. Bache, D. Currie, and A. Smith. 2002. Waking Up to Manganese: Dealing
with a Sudden Raw Water Quality Change. Proceedings 2002 AWWA Annual
Conference. New Orleans. AWWA, Denver.
Banerjee, D., and Nesbitt, H.W. 1999. Oxidation of aqueous Cr(III) at birnessite surfaces:
Constraints on reaction mechanism. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 63: 1671-1687.
Banerjee, D., and Nesbitt, H.W. 2001. XPS study of dissolution of birnessite by humate with
constraints on reaction mechanism . Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, 65: 1703-1714.
Bean, E.L. 1974. Potable water-quality goals. Journal AWWA, 66:221-230.
Beklemishev, M.K., T.A. Stoyan, and I.F. Dolmanova. 1997. Sorption-catalytic determination of
manganese directly on a paper-based chelating sorbent. Analyst, 122:1161-1165.
Benefield, L.D., and J.M. Morgan. 1990. Chapter 10, Chemical Precipitation. In: Water Quality
and Treatment. 4th Edition. Edited by F.W. Pontius. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Bernhardt, H. 1967. Aeration of Wahnback Reservoir without Changing the Temperature
Profile. Jour. AWWA, 59(8):943.
Borg, H. 1987. Fractionation of Metals in Water, Sediment, and Soil Systems (Edited by L.
Landner). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Bouwer, E.J. and P.B. Crowe. 1988. Biological Processes in Drinking Water Treatment. Jour.
AWWA, 80(9):82-93.
163

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Braester, C., and R. Martinell. 1988. Modelling of Flow and Transport Processes in Vyredox and
Nitredox Subsurface Treatment Plant. Water Science and Technology 20(3):165-172.
Bratby, J.R. 1988. Optimizing Manganese Removal and Washwater Recovery at a Direct
Filtration Plant in Brazil. Jour. AWWA, 80(12):71-81.
Bratina, B.J., B.S. Stevenson, W. J. Green, T.M. Schmidt, 1998. Manganese reduction by
microbes from oxic regions of the lake Vanda (Antarctica) water column. Applied
Environmental Microbiology 64(10), 3791 3797.
Cameron, I. 1996. Biological Iron and Manganese Removal: An Untapped Potential. Water, J.
of the Australian Water and Wastewater Association, 23(3):25-28.
Carlson, K.H., W.R. Knocke, and K.R. Gertig. 1994. Modeling Manganese Oxidation with
Potassium Permanganate. In: Proceedings 1994 AWWA Annual Conference, New York.
Denver, CO: AWWA.
Carlson, K.H., W.R. Knocke, and K.R. Gertig. 1997. Optimizing treatment through Fe and Mn
fractionation. Journal AWWA, 89(4):162-171.
Carpenter, R. 1983. Quantitative electron spin resonance (ESR) determinations of forms and
total amounts of Mn in aqueous environmental samples. Geochimica et Cosmochimica
Acta, 47:875-885.
Casale, R.J., M.W. LeChevallier, and F.W. Pontius. 2002. Manganese Control and Related
Issues. AwwaRF Report No. 90896. Denver, CO: AWWA Research Foundation and
AWWA.
[CCMS] Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society. 1987. Drinking Water Microbiology.
J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol. 7:1.
CDM .2000. Philadelphia Water Department, Water Treatment Plant Optimization and
Advanced Treatment Pilot Studies, Phase II Report. Philadelphia, Pa.: Camp Dresser &
McKee.
Chandra, S.V., and G.S. Shukla. 1981. Concentrations of Striatal Catecholamines in Rats Given
Manganese Chloride Through Drinking Water. J. Neurochem., 36(2):683-687.
Chandra, S.V., G.S. Shukla, and R.S. Srivastava. 1981. An Exploratory Study of Manganese
Exposure to Welders. Clin. Toxicol., 18:417-423.
Charlton, N., E. Tikos, L. Gaffney, and P. Kohl. 2002. Breakpoint Breakdown: Optimization of
Manganese Removal to Very Low Levels with Oxide-Coated Filter Media. Proceedings
2002 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference.
Chia, S.E., S. Foo, S.L. Gan, J. Jeyaratnam, and C.S. Tian. 1993. Neurobehavioural Functions
Among Workers Exposed to Manganese Ore. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health, 19:264-
270.
Chiswell, B. 1998. Speciation of Manganese in Water Storages. Lithology and Mineral
Resources, 33(5):491-495.
Chiswell, B., and M.B. Mokhtar. 1986. The Speciation of Manganese in Freshwaters. Talanta,
33(8):669-677.
Chiswell, B., and M.B. Mokhtar, 1987. Speciation of Manganese in Fresh WaterI. Use of EPR
Studies. Talanta, 34(3):307-311.
Chiswell, B. and M.B. Mokhtar. 1990. Some Effects of Dam Destratification Upon Manganese
Speciation. In: Surface and Colloid Chemistry in Natural Waters and Water Treatment,
Edited by R. Beckett. New York: Plenum Press.
Chiswell, B. and K.R. OHalloran. 1991. Comparison of Three Colorimetric Methods for the
Determination of Manganese in Freshwaters. Talanta, 38(6):641-647.
Chiswell, B., G. Rauchle, and M. Pascoe. 1990. Spectrophotometric Methods for the
Determination of Manganese. Talanta, 37(2):237-259.
164

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Chiswell, B. and M. Zaw. 1991. Lake destratification and speciation of iron and manganese.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 19:433-447.
Chiswell, B., D.R. Dixon, G. Hamilton, L.I. Sly, and T.D. White. 1992. Manganese Speciation in
Surface Waters. Chemistry in Australia. Aquatic Chemistry Supplement. August 1992.
pg 22.
Chu, N.S., F.H. Hochberg, D.B. Caine, and C. W. Olanow. 1995. Neurotoxicology of
Manganese. Handbook of Neurotoxicology, Edited by L.W. Chang and R.S. Dyer. Hong
Kong: Marcel Dekker Inc.
Coffey, B.M., D.L. Gallagher, and W.R. Knocke, 1993. Modeling Soluble Manganese Removal
by Oxide-Coated Filter Media. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 119(4):679-693.
Collipp, P.J., S.Y. Chen, and S. Maitinsky. 1983. Manganese in infant formulas and learning
disability. Ann. Nutr. Metab., 27(6):488-494.
Colthurst, J.M. and P.C. Singer. 1982. Removing trihalomethane precursors by permanganate
oxidation and manganese dioxide adsorption. Jour. AWWA, 74(2):78-83.
Conlon, W.J. 1990. Chapter 11, Membrane Processes. In: Water Quality and Treatment. 4th
Edition. Edited by F.W. Pontius. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Cook, D.G., S. Fahn, and K. Brait. 1974. Chronic Manganese Intoxication. Arch. Neurol.,
30:59-64.
Cornwell, D.A., and R.G. Lee. 1993. Impacts of Recycle Stream on Finished Water Quality. In:
Proceedings 1993 AWWA Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX. Denver, CO: AWWA.
Costello, J.J. 1984. Postprecipitation in Distribution Systems. Journal AWWA, 76(11):46-49.
Couper, J. 1837. On the Effects of Black Oxide of Manganese when Inhaled into the Lungs. Br.
Ann. Med. Pharm., 1:41-42.
Crozes, G., P. White, D. Gray, and T.R. Shepherd. 1996. Dealing with the Side Effects of
Implementing Enhanced Coagulation for DBP Control. In: Proceedings 1996 AWWA
Annual Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Denver, CO: AWWA.
Czekalla, C., W. Mevius, and H. Hanert. 1985. Quantitative Removal of Iron and Manganese by
Microorganisms in Rapid Sand Filters (in Situ Investigations). Water Supply, 3:111-123.
Davies, S.H.R., and J.J. Morgan. 1989. Manganese(II) oxidation kinetics on metal oxide
surfaces. Journal of Colloid and Interface Science, 129:63-77.
Deutsch, F., P. Hoffman, and H.M. Ortner. 1997. Analytical characterization of manganese in
rainwater and snow samples. Fresenius J. Anal. Chem., 357:105-111.
Dixon, J.B., D.C. Golden, G. A. Uzochukwu, and C. S. Chen. 1986. Soil Manganese Oxide
Minerals in Soil Colloids, Structures and Associations. In Soil Aggregates. Edited by
M.H.B. Hayes and A. Herbillon. NATO workshop. Ghent, Belgium, September 3-7,
1984.
Dixon, D.R., L.I. Sly, T.D. Waite, B. Chiswell, and G.E. Batley. 1989. Manganese Removal: A
Model of Cooperative Research. Water, February, 32-34.
Dixon, D., N. Anderson, B. Bolto, B. Chiswell, L Sly, T. Hurse, K Craig, G Hamilton, B.
Hutchinson, C. West, and R. Woolley. 2006. The Removal of Manganese from Drinking
Waters. Research Report No. 26. Salisbury Australia: CRC for Water Quality and
Treatment
Domonkos, L. and C. Varszegi. 1994. New Pilot Plant Studies at the Budapest Waterworks.
Ozone Science and Engineering, 16:26-40.
European Union. 1998. COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 98/83/EC of 3 November 1998 on the quality
of water intended for human consumption Official Journal of the European Communities.

165

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Ferguson, J.F., and D.N. Given. 1976. Chemical Precipitation in Water Softening and Iron and
Manganese Removal. Proceedings Eighteenth Annual Public Water Supply Engineers'
Conference--Water Treatment, Part I; Champaign, IL AWWA: Denver.
Ferraz, H.B., P.H.F. Bertolucci, J.S. Pereira, J.C.G. Lima, and L.A.D. Andrade. 1988. Chronic
Exposure to the Fungicide Maneb may Produce Symptoms and Signs of CNS Manganese
Intoxication. Neurol., 38:550-553.
Ficek, K.J. and M.A. Waer. 1993. The Application of Potassium Permanganate for the
Production of Quality Water. Proc. Of the Fifth National Conference on Drinking Water,
Winnipeg, Manitoba. Denver, CO: AWWA. Pg 205-219.
Florence, T.M. 1982. The speciation of trace elements in water. Talanta, 29:345-364.
Freeland-Graves, J. and C. Llanes. 1994. Models to Study Manganese Deficiency. In:
Manganese in Health and Disease. Edited by D.J. Klimis-Tavantzis. Boca Raton, FL:
CRC Press.
Furgason, R.R., and R.O. Day. 1975a. Iron and Manganese Removal with Ozone, Part I. Water
And Sewage Works, 122(6):42,45-47.
Furgason, R.R., R.O. Day. 1975b. Iron and Manganese Removal with Ozone, Part II. Water and
Sewage Works, 122(7) 61-63.
Gabelich, C.F., C.L. Gerringer, and W. Knocke. 2005. Sequential Manganese desorption-
adsorption anthracite coal and silica sand filters. In Proceedings 2005 AWWA Water
Quality Technology Conference. Denver, Colo.: AWWA
Gehm, H.W., and J. I. Bregman. 1976. Handbook of Water Resources and Pollution Control.
New York, N.Y.: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company.
Geney, R.S. 1986. Management Techniques for Surface Raw Water Reservoirs. In:
Proceedings 1986 AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference, Portland, Oregon.
Denver, CO: AWWA.
Geney, R.S. 1988. Reservoir Management for Water Quality Improvement. In: Proceedings
1988 AWWA Annual Conference, Orlando, FL. Denver, CO: AWWA.
Geney, R.S. 1992. A Cost-Effective Approach to Water Treatment. In: Proceedings 1992
AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference, Toronto, Ontario. Denver, CO: AWWA.
Ghiorse, W.C. 1984. Biology of Iron- and Manganese-Depositing Bacteria. Ann. Rev.
Microbiology, 38:515-550.
Gounot, A.M., Di Ruggiero, J. Haroux, C. 1988. Bacterial Manganese Transformations in
Groundwaters. In: Current Perspectives in Environmental Biogeochemistry. Edited by
G. Giovannozzi-Sermanni and P. Nannipieri. Rome, Italy: CNR-IPRA Publ.
Greger, J.L. 1999. Nutrition versus Toxicology of Manganese in Humans: Evaluation of
Potential Biomarkers. NeuroToxicology, 20(2-3):205-212.
Gregory, D., and K.H. Carlson. 2001. Ozonation of Dissolved Manganese in the Presence of
Natural Organic Matter. Ozone: Science and Engineering, 23:149-159.
Gregory, D. and K. Carlson. 2003. Effect of soluble Mn concentration on oxidation kinetics
Journal AWWA. 95(1): 98-108.
Griffin, A.E. 1960. Significance and removal of manganese in water supplies. Journal AWWA,
52:13261334.
Gupta, S.K., R.C. Murphy, and S.V. Chandra. 1980. Neuromelanin in Manganese-Exposed
Primates. Toxicol. Letters, 6:17-20.
Hagopian, J.V. 1975. Manganese in Drinking Water in Rhode Island. Journal of the New
England Water Works Association, 89(2):101-104.
Hammer, M.J. 1975. Water and Wastewater Technology, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

166

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Hao, O. J., A. P. Davis, and P.H. Chang. 1991. Kinetics of Manganese(II) Oxidation With
Chlorine. Journal of Environmental Engineering. 117:3:359-374.
Hargette, A.C., and W.R. Knocke. 2001. Assessment of Fate of Manganese in Oxide-Coated
Filtration Systems. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 127(12):1132-1138.
Hatva, T., H. Seppnen, A. Vuorinen, and L. Carlson. 1985. Removal of Iron and Manganese
from Groundwater by Reinfiltration and Slow Sand Filtration. Aqua Fenn., 15:211.
Health Canada. 1996. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality. Sixth Edition. Minister
of Health, Ottawa.
Hickman, C., L. van der Tak, T.A., Bongiorni Ajello, P. Sacco, Sr., and L. Ashmore. 2001. Lake
Monitoring for Evaluation of In-Lake Aeration Control Options of Iron, Manganese, and
Taste and Odor Control. Proceedings 2001 AWWA Annual Conference.
Hietanen, E., J. Kilpio, and H. Savolainen. 1981. Neurochemical and Biotransformational
Enzyme Responses to Manganese Exposure in Rats. Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol.,
10(3):339-345.
Hoehn, R.C., J.T. Novak, and W.E. Cumbie. 1987. Effects of Storage and Preoxidation on
Sludge and Water Quality. Jour. AWWA, 79(6):67.
Hoigne, J., and H. Bader. 1977. Ozonation of Water: Selectivity and Rate of Oxidation of
Solutes. In: Proceedings 3rd International Ozone Association, Paris, France.
Holbrook, D.J., Jr., M.E. Washington, H.B. Leake, and P.E. Brubaker. 1975. Studies on the
Evaluation of the Toxicity of Various Salts of Lead, Manganese, Platinum, and
Palladium. Environ. Health Perspect. 10:95-101.
Huang, C.C., C.S. Lu, N.S. Chu, F. Hochberg, D. Lilienfeld, W. Olanow, and D.B. Calne. 1993.
Progression After Chronic Manganese Exposure. Neurol., 43:1479-1483.
Huang, C.C., N.S. Chu, C.S. Lu, R.S. Chen, and D.B. Calne. 1998. Long-Term Progression in
Chronic Manganism: Ten Years of Follow-Up. Neurol., 50:698-700.
Hudnell, K., and D. Mergler. 1999. Manganese: Essential Element and Neurotoxin. In:
Occupational Medicine Secrets. Edited by R. Bowler, K. Cone. Philadelphia: Hanley &
Belfus, Inc.
Humphrey, S.B., and M.A. Eikleberry. 1962. Taste and Odor Control Using KMnO4. Water &
Sewage Works, 109:142.
[IAC] Idaho Administrative Code. 2005. IDAPA 58.01.11 Rules of the Department of
Environmental Quality, IDAPA 58.01.11 Ground Water Quality Rule
http://adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/rules/idapa58/0111.pdf
Ibrahim, E.A., E.A. Crossland, and K.L. Dixon. 1997. Optimizing Drinking Water Treatment for
Conflicting Objectives. In: Proceedings AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference,
1997. Denver, Colo.: AWWA.
Iregren, A. 1990. Psychological Test Performance in Foundry Workers Exposed to Low Levels
of Manganese. Neurotoxicol. Teratol., 12:673-675.
Jenkins, S.R. 1974. The Effectiveness of Sand Filters for the Removal of Colloidal Manganese
Oxides from Water Using Selected Cations as Filter Aids. National Technical
Information Service. No. OWRR B-011-WYO(1)
Jung R., J.O. Sanders, and H.H. Lai. 1999. Improving Raw Water Quality Through Lake
Oxygenation at Camanche Reservoir. Presented at North American Lake Management
Society Annual Symposium, Reno, Nev. December 1, 1999.
Jung R., H.H. Lai, and A. Wilczak.2003. Hypolimnetic Oxygenation Operating Experience in a
Eutrophic Reservoir and its Effect on Water Treatment (Abstract). Poster at AWWA
Water Quality Technical Conference, Philadelphia, Penn., November 2-6, 2003.

167

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Jung, R. 2004. Oxygenating Upper San Leandro Reservoirs Hypolimnion: 2002-2004. East Bay
Municipal Utility District internal presentation.
Kalavska, D. 1991. Determination of Mn(II) in tap water. International Journal of
Environmental Analytical Chemistry, 45:159-167.
Kawamura, S. 1991. Integrated Design of Water Treatment Facilities. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Kawamura, S. 2000. Integrated Design of Water Treatment Facilities. 2nd ed. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Kim, A.J., P. Kohl, N. Spivey, C Schulz, and D. Franz. 2001. Practical Application of the Latest
Cryptosporidium Inactivation Research to the Design of Ozone Facilities. In 2001
Annual Conference Proceedings of the American Water Works Association. Denver
Colo.: AWWA.
Knocke, W.R., R.C. Hoehn, and R.L. Sinsabaugh. 1987. Using Alternative Oxidants to Remove
Dissolved Manganese for Waters Laden with Organics. Jour. AWWA, 79(3):75-79.
Knocke, W.R., J.R. Hamon, and C.P. Thompson. 1988. Soluble Manganese Removal on Oxide-
Coated Filter Media. Jour. AWWA, 80(12):65-70.
Knocke, W.R., S. Occiano, and R. Hungate. 1990. Removal of Soluble Manganese from Water
by Oxide-Coated Filter Media. Denver, CO: AWWA Research Foundation.
Knocke, W.R., J.E. Van Benschoten, M. Kearney, A. Soborski, and D.A. Reckhow. 1990.
Alternative Oxidants for the Removal of Soluble Iron and Manganese. Denver, CO.:
AWWA Research Foundation.
Kolthoff, I.M., and R. Belcher. 1957. Volumetric Analysis, New York: Interscience Publishers,
Inc.
Kohl, P., A. Kim, and N. Charlton. 2002. Limitations of Ozone for Removal of Manganese to
Very Low Levels, A Comparative Study. Proceedings 2002 AWWA Water Quality
Technology Conference.
Komura, J. and M. Sakamoto. 1991. Short-Term Oral Administration of Several Manganese
Compounds in Mice: Physiological and Behavioral Alterations Caused by Different
Forms of Manganese. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol., 46:921-928.
Kondakis, X.G., M. Makris, M. Leotsinidis, M. Prinou, and T. Papapetropoulos. 1989. Possible
health effects of high manganese concentration in drinking water. Arch. Environ. Health,
44(3):175-8.
Kostial, K., D. Kello, S. Jugo, I. Rabar, and T. Maljkovic. 1978. Influence of Age on Metal
Metabolism and Toxicity. Environmental Health Perspectives, 25:81-86.
Kothari, N. 1988. Groundwater, Iron and Manganese: An Unwelcome Trio. Water/Engineering
& Management, 135(2):25-26.
Krom, M.D. 1978. On the Association of Iron and Manganese with Organic Matter in Anoxic
Marine Pore Waters. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 42:607.
Kumar, A. 1985. Chemical speciation of manganese in fresh water, sea water and their mixtures.
Indian Journal of Chemistry, 24A:8-11.
Lai, J.C.K., T.K.C. Leung, and L. Lim. 1981. Brain Regional Distribution of Glutamic Acid
Decarboxylase, Choline Acetyltransferase, and Acetylcholinesterase in the Rat: Effects of
Chronic Manganese Chloride Administration after Two Years. J. Neurochem.,
36(4):1443-1448.
Lai, J.C.K., T.K.C. Leung, J.F. Guest, A.N. Davison, and L. Lim. 1982. The Effects of Chronic
Manganese Chloride Treatment Expressed as Age-Dependent, Transient Changes in Rat
Brain Synaptosomal Uptake of Amines. Journal of Neurochemistry, 38(3):844-847.

168

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Larson, A.L. 1995. Biological Water Treatment Provides Economical Solution in Washington.
Proceedings 1995 AWWA Annual Conference, Anaheim, California. Denver: AWWA.
Lauf, G.F. 1995. Modeling of Manganese Oxidation and Removal From Low Hardness Waters.
Carus Chemical Company, LaSalle, IL, 61301.
Laxen, D.P.H., W. Davison, and C. Woof. 1984. Manganese chemistry in rivers and streams.
Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 48:2107-2111.
Lefebvre, E., and A. Deguin. 1997. Compromise between Bromate Ion Formation and Pesticides
Degradation and/or Manganese Removal. Ozone: Science & Engineering. 19(1):39-53.
Legube, B., J.P. Croue, J. DeLaat, and M. Dore. 1989. Ozonation of an Extracted Aquatic Fulvic
Acid: Theoretical and Practical Aspects. Ozone: Science and Engineering, 11:69-92.
Leung, T.K.C., J.C.K. Lai, and L. Lim. 1981. The Regional Distribution of Monoamine Oxidase
Activities Towards Different Substrates: Effects in Rat Brain of Chronic Administration
of Manganese Chloride and of Aging. Journal of Neurochemistry, 36(6):2037-2043.
Leung, T.K.C., J.C.K. Lai, M. Tricklebank, A.N. Davison, and L. Lim. 1982. Chronic
Manganese Treatment of Rats Alters Synaptosomal Transport of Dopamine and the
Behavioral Response to Amphetamine Administration. Journal of Neurochemistry,
39:1496-1499.
Long, B.W., R.A. Hulsey, and R.C. Hoehn. 1999. Complementary Uses of Chlorine Dioxide
and Ozone for Drinking Water Treatment. Ozone: Science and Engineering. 21:465-476.
Lucchini, R., L. Selis, D. Folli, P. Apostoli, A. Mutti, O. Vanoni, L. Iregren, and L. Alessio.
1995. Neurobehavioral Effects of Manganese in Workers from a Ferroalloy Plant after
Temporary Cessation of Exposure. Scand. J. Work. Environ. Health, 21:143-149.
Lucchini, R., E. Bergamaschi, A. Smargiassi, D. Festa, and P. Aportoli. 1997. Motor Function,
Olfactory Threshold and Hematological indices in Manganese Exposed Ferroalloy
Workers. Environ. Res., 73:175-180.
Lucchini, R., P. Apostoli, C. Perrone, D. Placidi, P. Migliorati, D. Mergler, M.-P. Sassin, S.
Palmi, and L. Alessio. 1999. Long Term Exposure to Low Levels of Manganese Oxides
and Neurofunctional Changes in Ferroalloy Workers. NeuroToxicology, 20(2-3):287-
298.
Mann, M.A., D. Thomson, E. Jabari, and D. Rohe. 2002. Microfiltration and Ultrafiltration:
Novel Pre-Treatments for Iron and Manganese Removal from a Reverse Osmosis
Feedwater. Water Quality Technology Conference, Seattle, WA. AWWA. Denver, CO.
Marczenko, Z. 1986. Separation and Spectrophotometric Determination of Elements. Horwood,
Chichester.
Marsden, C.D., and P.G. Jenner. 1987. The Significance of 1-methyl-4-phenyl-1,2,3,6-
tetrahydropyridine. In: Selective Neuronal Death. Ciba Foundation Symposium 126.
Chichester: Wiley.
McGhee, T.J. 1991. Water Supply and Sewerage. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
McKnight, K.F., M. Carlson, P. Fortin, and C. Ziesmer. 1993. Comparison of Ozone Efficiency
for Manganese Oxidation Between Raw and Settled Water. Ozone: Science and
Engineering, 15(4):331-341.
McMillan, D.E. 1999. A brief History of the Neurobehavioral Toxicity of Manganese: Some
Unanswered questions. NeuroToxicology, 20(2-3):499-508.
Meco, G., V. Bonifati, N. Vanacor, and E. Fabrizio. 1994. Parkinsonism after Chronic
Exposure to the Fungicide Maneb. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health, 20:301-305.
Mergler, D. 1999. Neurotoxic Effects of Low Level Exposure to Manganese in Human
Populations. Environmental Research, Sec. A. 80:99-102.

169

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Mergler, D., G. Huel, R. Bowler, A. Iregren, S. Belanger, M. Baldwin, R. Tardiff, A. Smargiassi,
and L. Martin. 1994. Nervous System Dysfunction among Workers with Long-Term
Exposure to Manganese. Environ. Res., 64:151-180.
Merkle, P.B., W. Knocke, D. Gallagher, J. Junta-Rosso, and T. Solberg. 1996. Characterizing
Filter Media Mineral Coatings. Jour. AWWA. 88(12):62-73.
Merkle, P.B., W.R. Knocke, D.L. Gallagher, and J.C. Little. 1997. Dynamic Model for Soluble
Mn2+ Removal by Oxide-Coated Filter Media. Journal of Environmental Engineering,
123(7):650-658.
Moore, J.W. 1977. Iron and Manganese Removal by Direct Filtration. M.S. Thesis, Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg.
Morgan, J.J. 1967. Chemical equilibria and kinetic properties of manganese in natural waters. In
Principles and Application of Water Chemistry. Edited by S. Faust and J. Hunter. John
Wiley & Sons.
Morgan, J.J., and W. Stumm. 1964. Oxygenation of Aqueous Manganese(II). Jour. Coll. Sci.,
19:347.
Mouchet, P. 1992. From Conventional to Biological Removal of Iron and Manganese in France.
Jour. AWWA, 84(4):158-167.
Mulder, E.G., and W.L. van Veen. 1983. Investigations of the Sphaerotilus-Leptothrix Group.
Antonie van Leeuwehoek. 29:121.
[NAC] Nevada Administrative Code. 2000. Water Quality Standards; 445A.455 Secondary
standards: General requirements; public notice
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/nac/NAC-445A.html#NAC445ASec455
NAS. 1973. National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Division of Medical
Sciences. Medical and Biologic Effects of Environmental Pollutants: Manganese.
Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NAS. 2004. National Academy of Sciences - Food and Nutrition Board Institute of Medicine.
Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs): Recommended Intakes for Individuals, Vitamins
http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/21/372/0.pdf
Nealson, K.H. and C.R. Myers. 1992. Microbial reduction of manganese and iron: New
approaches to carbon cycling. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 58: 439443
Nelson, K., J. Golnick, T. Korn, and C. Angle. 1993. Manganese Encephalopathy: Utility of
Early Magnetic Resonance Imaging. British Journal of Internal Medicine, 50:510-513.
Netzer, A., and A. Bowers. 1975. Removal of Trace Metals from Wastewater by Lime and
Ozonation. In: Proceedings First Intl. Symp. On Ozone for Water and Wastewater
Treatment. Edited by R.G. Rice and M.E. Browning. Norwalk, CT: Intl. Ozone Assoc.
[NH DES] New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services. 2000. Environmental Fact
Sheet WD-WSEB-3-7: Removal of Iron and Manganese from Drinking Water -
Technical Version.
http://www.des.state.nh.us/factsheets/ws/inc/3-7.html
[NHMRC/AWRC]. 1980. Desirable Quality for Drinking Water in Australia. National Health
and Medical Research Council and the Australian Water Resources Council, Australian
Government Publishing Service (AGPS), Canberra.
[NHMRC/AWRC] Australian Government: National Health and Medical Research Council /
Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council. 2004. National Water Quality
Management Strategy, Australian Drinking Water Guidelines 6.
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/_files/awgfull.pdf
Nieminski, E., and D. Evans. 1995. Pilot Testing of Trace Metals Removal with Ozone at
Snowbird Ski Resort. Ozone: Science and Engineering, 17:297-309.
170

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


NIOSH. 1984a. Total manganese-method 7200. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 3rd
ed. Vol.1. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 84-100.
NIOSH. 1984b. Total manganese-method 7300. In: NIOSH manual of analytical methods. 3rd
ed. Vol. 1. Cincinnati, OH: National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS
(NIOSH) Publication No. 84-100.
NIOSH. 2002. NIOSH Pocket Guide to Chemical Hazards and Other Databases. NIOSH
Publication No. 2002-140 (June 2002).
[NJ DEP] State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Safe
Drinking Water. 2004. Safe Drinking Water Act Regulations (N.J.A.C. 7:10) [36 N.J.R.
5383]
http://www.state.nj.us/dep/watersupply/sdwarule.pdf
[NMAC] New Mexico Administrative Code. 1990. State of New Mexico Standards for Intrastate
and Interstate Streams. 20.6.4. Environmental Protection, Water Quality, Ground and
Surface Water Protection. New Mexico Water Quality Commission.
http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/NMED_Regs/gwb/20_6_2_NMAC.pdf
Nowell, L.H., and J. Hoigne. 1987. Interaction of Iron (II) and other Transition Metals with
Aqueous Ozone. In: Proceedings from 8th Ozone World Congress, International Ozone
Association, Norwalk, CT. E80-E95.
NRC. 2001. National Research Council. Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K,
Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel,
Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
NTP. 1993. Studies of Manganese (II) Sulfate Monohydrate in F344/N Rats and B6C3F Mice
(Feed Studies). Manganese(II) Sulfate Monohydrate. TR-428. Research Triangle Park,
NC: National Toxicology Program.
[NYSDEC] New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 1999. NYCRR Part
703, Surface Water and Groundwater Quality Standards and Groundwater Effluent
Limitations. 703.5 Water quality standards for taste-, color- and odor-producing, toxic
and other deleterious substances. (Environmental Conservation Law, 3-0301[2][m],
15-0313, 17-0301, 17-0809).
http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/regs/part703.html#top
OBrien, W.J., E. Lee, S. Freeman, H. Shorney, B. Long, and D. Elder. 1996. Manganese
Oxidation and Removal by Ozone and Polymer-Assisted Filtration. Proceedings 1996
AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference. Boston, MA. AWWA: Denver.
OConnor, J.T. 1971. Iron and Manganese. In: Water Quality and Treatment, A Handbook of
Public Water Supplies. 3rd Edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.
Odell, L.H., and R. Cyr. 1998. Rethinking Iron and Manganese Removal. In: Proceedings
AWWA Water Quality Technology Conference, 1998. Denver, CO: AWWA.
OSHA. 1998. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Code of Federal Regulations 29
CFR 1910.1000. Table Z-1. Limits for air contaminants.
Paillard, H., B. Legube, M.M. Bourbigot, and E. Lefebvre. 1989. Iron and Manganese Removal
with Ozonation in the Presence of Humic Substances. Ozone Science and Engineering,
11:93-114.
Percival, S.L., J.T. Walker, and P.R. Hunter. 2000. Biofilms and Drinking Water. Boca Raton,
Fla.: CRC Press.
Pihl, R.O. and M. Parkes 1977. Hair element content in learning disabled children. Science,
198:204-206.

171

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Pontius, F.W. 2004. Drinking water contaminant regulationWhere are we heading? Jour.
AWWA, 96(3):56-69 (Mar. 2004).
Posselt, H.S., A.H. Reidies, and W.J. Weber. 1968. Coagulation of Colloidal Hydrous
Manganese Dioxide. Jour. AWWA, 60(1):48-68.
Posselt, H.S., F.J. Anderson, and W.J. Weber. 1968. Cation Sorption on Colloidal Hydrous
Manganese Dioxide. Environmental Science and Technology, 2:1097.
Post, J.E. 1999. Manganese oxide minerals: crystal structures and economic and environmental
significance. Proceedings Nat. Acad. Sci. USA 96:3447-3454
Raveendran, R., B. Ashworth, B. Chatelier. 2001. Manganese Removal in Drinking Water
Systems. 64th Annual Victorian Water Industry Engineers and Operators Conference.
Bendigo, Vic. Australia, September 5-6, 2001.
Reckhow, D.A., W.R. Knocke, M.J.Kearney, and C.A. Parks. 1991. Oxidation of Iron and
Manganese by Ozone. Ozone Science and Engineering, 13(6):675.
Richards, R.P., and S.N. Foellmi. 1985. Utility Battles Iron and Manganese. Public Works,
116(6):91-95.
Rittmann, B.E., and V.L. Snoeyink. 1984. Achieving Biologically Stable Drinking Water. Jour.
AWWA, 76(10):106-114.
Robinson, L.R., E.D. Breland, and R.A. Dixon. 1967. Factors Affecting the Removal of Iron and
Manganese from Groundwater. Water Resources Research Institute. Mississippi State
University, State College, Mississippi.
Rodier, J. 1955. Manganese Poisoning in Moroccan Miners. Brit. J. Ind. Med., 12:21-35.
Roels, H.A., M.I. Ortega Eslava, E. Ceulemans, A. Robert, and D. Lison. 1999. Prospective
Study on the Reversibility of Neurobehavioral Effects in Workers Exposed to Manganese
Dioxide. NeuroToxicology, 20(2-3)255-271.
Roscoe, J. 2002. Simple Solutions to Manganese Problems. 65th Annual Water Industry
Engineers and Operators Conference. Kardinia Heights Centre, Geelong. 4 and 5
September 2002.
Sawyer, C.N., and P.L. McCarty. 1978. Chemistry for Environmental Engineering. New York,
N.Y.: McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Schneider, C., P. Johns, and R.P. Huehmer. 2001. Microfiltration for Removal of Manganese
from Surface Water. Proc. AWWA 2001 Annual Conference.
Schuler, P., H. Oyanguren, V. Maturana, A. Valensuela, E. Cruz, V. Plaza, E. Schmidt, and R.
Haddad. 1957. Manganese Poisoning: Environmental and Medical Study at a Chilean
Mine. Int. Med. Surg. Pgs. 167-173.
Schulz, R.S., T. Crowley, C.H. Yu, K.P. Murphy. 1999. Biological Manganese Removal for a 26
mgd Water Treatment Plant. Proceedings 1999 Water Quality Technology Conference.
Tampa, FL. AWWA: Denver
Schweisfurth, R. 1972. Magaoxydierende Microorganismen in Trinkwasser-versorgugsanlagen.
GWF-Wasser/Abwasser. 113(12):562.
Seby, F., M. Potin-Gautier, A. Chastetbon, and M. Astruc. 1995. Study of Ozone-Manganese
Reaction and the Interactions of Disulfonate Indigo Carmin/Oxidized Manganese Forms
as a Function of pH. Ozone: Science and Engineering, 17:135-147.
Shigan, S. A., and B.R. Vitvitskaia. 1971. Experimental Proof of Permissible Residual
Concentrations of Potassium Permanganate in Drinking Water. Gig. Sanit., 36(9):15-18.
Shorney, H.L, E. Lee, D. Smith, W.R. Knocke, and B.W. Long. 1998. Enhanced Manganese
Removal in a Biologically Active Filter. Proceedings 1998 Water Quality Technology
Conference. San Diego, CA . AWWA: Denver.

172

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Shukla, G.S., S. Sigh, and S.V. Chandra. 1978. The Interaction Between Manganese and
Ethanol in Rats. Acta Pharmacol. Toxicol. (Copenh)., 43(5):354-362.
Sigel, A., and H. Sigel. 2000. Manganese and its Role in Biological Processes. In Metals Ions in
Biological Systems, vol. 37. New York: Marcel Dekker.
Sly, L.I., and V. Arunpairojana. 1987. Isolation of manganese-oxidizing Pedomicrobium cultures
from water by micromanipulation. Journal Microbiol. Methods, 6:177-182.
Sly, L.I., M.C. Hodgkinson, and V. Arunpairojana. 1988a. Effect of water velocity on the early
development of manganese depositing biofilm in a drinking-water distribution system.
FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 53:175-186.
Sly, L.I., V. Arunpairojana, and M.C. Hodgkinson. 1988b. Pedomicrobium manganicum from
drinking water distribution systems with manganese-related dirty water problems.
Systematic and Applied Microbiology, 11:75-84.
Sly, L.I., M.C. Hodgkinson, and V. Arunpairojana. 1989. The Importance of High Aesthetic
Quality Potable Water in Tourist and Recreational Areas. Water Science and
Technology, 21(2):183-187.
Sly, L.I., M.C. Hodgkinson, and V. Arunpairojana. 1990. Deposition of manganese in a drinking
water distribution system. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 56:628-639.
Smith, J.F.. 1993. Iron Removal using Biological Filtration. Masters Thesis. Drexel University.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Smyth, H.F., Jr., C.P. Carpenter, C.S. Weil, U.C. Pozzani, J.A. Striegel, and J.S. Nycum. 1969.
Range-finding Toxicity Data: List VII. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J., 30(5):470-476.
Smyth, L.T., R.C. Ruhf, N.E. Whitman, and T. Dugan. 1973. Clinical Manganism and Exposure
to Manganese in the production and Processing of Ferromanganese Alloy. J. Occ. Med.,
15:101-109.
Sokolova-Dubinina, G.A. 1979. Mechanism of the Oxidation of Divalent Iron and Manganese by
Iron Bacteria Growing at Neutral pH of the Medium. Microbiology, 47:471.
Sommerfeld, E.O. 1996. Manganese Removal: Why So Many Failures? Proceedings of the 48th
Annual Conference of the Western Canada Water and Wastewater Association, Regina,
Saskatchewan.
Sommerfeld, E.O. 1999. Iron and Manganese Removal Handbook. Denver, CO: AWWA.
Spicher, R.G., and R.T. Skrinde. 1963. Potassium Permanganate Oxidation of Organic
Contaminants in Water Supplies. Jour. AWWA, 55:1174-1194.
Staehelin, J., and J. Hoigne. 1983. Mechanism and Kinetics of Decomposition of Ozone in
Water in the Presence of Organic Solutes. Vom Wasser, 61:337.
Stiles, J.F. 1978. Survey of the Iron and Manganese Problems in the USA. In Proceedings 1978
AWWA Annual Conference, Atlantic City, N.J. Denver Colo.: AWWA.
Stoebner, R.A., and D.A. Rollag. 1981. Ozonation of a Municipal Groundwater Supply to
Reduce Iron, Manganese, and Trihalomethane Formation. In: Proceedings 1981 AWWA
Annual Conference, St. Louis, MO. Denver: AWWA.
Stone, A.T. 1987. Microbial Metabolites and the Reductive Dissolution of Manganese Oxides:
Oxalate and Pyruvate. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 51:919-925.
Stumm, W., and G.F. Lee. 1961. Oxygenation of Ferrous Iron. Idus. Eng. Chem., 53:143.
Stumm, W. 1995. The Inner-Sphere Surface Complex: A Key to Understanding Surface
Reactivity. In Aquatic Chemistry: Interfacial and Interspecies Processes (American
Chemical Society Advances in Chemistry Series No. 244). Edited by C. P. Huang, C. R.
OMelia, and J. J. Morgan. Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society.
Tanaka, S. and J. Lieben. 1969. Manganese Poisoning and Exposure in Pennsylvania. Arch.
Environ. Health. 19:674-684.
173

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Thermo Electron Corporation. 2003. Orion Platinum Redox Electrode Instruction Manual,
Ag/AgCl Orion 96-78, 97-78, Revision D. Beverly, Mass.: Thermo Electron Corporation.
Tinggi, U., C. Reilly, and C. Patterson. 1997. Determination of manganese and chromium in
food by atomic absorption spectrometry after wet digestion. Food Chem. 60:123-128.
Trace Inorganic Substances Committee. 1987. Committee Report: Research Needs for the
Treatment of Iron and Manganese. Jour. AWWA, 79(9):119-122.
Troester, J.W. 1998. Ground-Water Chemistry in the Valle De Yabucoa Alluvial Aquifer,
Southeastern Puerto Rico. American Water Resources Association Third International
Symposium on Tropical Hydrology, San Juan, Puerto Rico, July 12-16, 1998.
Turner, D.R., Whitfield, and A.G. Dickson. 1981. The equilibrium speciation of dissolved
components in freshwater and seawater at 25C and 1 atm pressure. Geochimica et
Cosmochimica Acta, 45:855-881.
Tuschewitzki, G.J., and W. Dott. 1983. Rasterelektronenmikroskopische (REM) Untersuchung
von Manganablagerungen auf Filtermaterialen der Trinkwasseraufbereitung. A. Wasser-
Abwasser Forsch. 16(4):121.
Twort, A.C. 1963. A Textbook of Water Supply. New York: American Elsevier Publishing
Company, Inc.
Tyler, P.A., and K.C. Marshall. 1967. HyphomicrobiaA Significant Factor in Manganese
Problems. Jour. AWWA, 59:1043-1048.
USEPA. 1975. Scientific and Technical Assessment Report on Manganese. EPA 600/6-75-002.
National Environmental Research Center, Research Triangle Park, N.C.
USEPA. 1977a. National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Proposed Regulations. Fed.
Reg., 42(62):17143-17147.
USEPA. 1977b. Drinking Water and Health. Recommendations of the National Academy of
Sciences. Fed. Reg., 42(132):35764-35779.
USEPA. 1979. National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations; Final Rule. Fed. Reg.,
44(140):42195-42202 (July 19, 1979).
USEPA. 1982. Inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission spectrometric method for trace
element analysis of water and wastesmethod 200.7. Cincinnati, OH: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development.
USEPA. 1983a. Manganese: Atomic-absorption, direct aspirationmethod 243.1. In: Methods
for chemical analysis of water and wastes. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA-600/4-79-020.
USEPA. 1983b. Manganese: Atomic absorption, furnace techniquemethod 243.2. In: Methods
for chemical analysis of water and wastes. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development. EPA-600/4-79-020.
USEPA. 1986a. Acid digestion of sediments, sludges, and soilsmethod 3050. In: Test methods
for evaluating solid waste. 3rd ed. SW-846. Washington, DC: U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
USEPA. 1986b. Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectroscopymethod 6010. In:
Test methods for evaluating solid waste. 3rd ed. SW-846. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
USEPA. 1986c. Manganese (atomic absorption, direct aspiration)method 7460. In: Test
methods for evaluating solid waste. 3rd ed. SW-846. Washington, DC: U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.
USEPA. 1993. Drinking Water Criteria Document for Manganese. Final Draft. Environmental
Criteria and Assessment Office, Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, ECAO-
CIN-D008. Cincinnati, OH.
174

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


USEPA. 1994. Methods for the Determination of Metals in Environmental Samples
Supplement 1. EPA/600/R-94-111, Cincinnati, Ohio. Environmental Monitoring Systems
Lab., Chemistry Research Div.
USEPA. 1996. Integrated Risk Information System; Manganese. Office of Research and
Development.
USEPA. 1998a. Announcement of the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List. Notice.
Fed. Reg., 63(40):10273-10287 (March 27, 1998).
USEPA. 1998b. Title III list of lists: Consolidated list of chemicals subject to the Emergency
Planning and Community Right-to-know Act (EPCRA) and Section 112(r) of the Clean
Air Act, as Amended. EPA Report 550-B-98-017.
USEPA. 1998c. Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Final. Fed. Reg.,
63:241:69390-69476. (Dec. 16, 1998).
USEPA. 1999. Enhanced Coagulation and Enhanced Precipitative Softening Guidance Manual.
EPA 815-R-99-012.
USEPA. 2000. Regulatory matrix of TRI chemicals in other federal programs. Washington,
D.C.: USEPA. Available on the Internet at: www.epa.gov/tri/chemicals.htm
USEPA. 2001a. Contaminant Candidate List Preliminary Regulatory Determination Support
Document for Manganese. EPA 815-R-01-013. November.
USEPA. 2001b. Health effects support document for Manganese. External review draft. Office
of Water. EPA report 815-R-01-022.
USEPA. 2002. Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determinations for Priority
Contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List. Fed. Reg.,
67(106):38222-38244 (June 3, 2002).
USEPA. 2003. Announcement of Regulatory Determinations for Priority Contaminants on the
Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List; Notice. Fed. Reg., 68(138):42898-42906
(July 18, 2003).
USEPA. 2004. Drinking Water Health Advisory for Manganese. EPA report 822-R-04-003
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/pdfs/reg_determine1/support_cc1_magnese_dwreport.pdf
[USFDA] U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 2003. 21 CFR 165.110. Title 21--Food and
Drugs; Chapter I--Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human
Services; Part 165Beverages; Subpart B Requirements for Specific Standardized
Beverages; (b)(4)(i)(A).
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/14mar20010800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_20
03/aprqtr/pdf/21cfr165.110.pdf
US Public Health Service. 1943. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards. (Adoption of
Revisions to the 1925 Drinking Water Standards for interstate commerce). Public Health
Reports. 58(3):69-82. January 15, 1943.
US Public Health Service. 1925. Report of Advisory Committee on Official Water Standards.
(Revisions to the 1914 Treasury Department Standard for drinking water on interstate
common carriers). Public Health Reports. 40(15):693-722. April 10, 1925.
USPHS. 1962. 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Standards. In: Drinking Water Regulation and
Health. Edited by F.W. Pontius. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (2003).
Van der Tak, L. E. Snyder, and T. Martens. 1992. Partial Aeration of a Virginia Reservoir for
Iron, Manganese, and THM Control. In: Proceedings 1992 AWWA Water Quality
Technology Conference, Toronto, Ontario. Denver, CO: AWWA.
Vandenabeele, J., D. deBeer, R. Germonpre, and W. Verstraete. 1992. Manganese Oxidation by
Microbial Consortia from Sand Filters. Microbial Ecology, 24:91-108.

175

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Viraraghavan, T., E.L. Winchester, G.J. Brown, G.P. Wasson, and R.C. Landine. 1987.
Removing Manganese From Water at Fredericton, N.B., Canada. Jour. AWWA. 79(8):43-
48.
[VT DEC] State of Vermont: Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental
Conservation. 1997. Groundwater Protection Rule and Strategy. Rule Number: 97-P14;
Chapter 12, Table 2. Secondary Groundwater Quality Standards.
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/watersup/gwrule97.htm
[WAC-DNR] Wisconsin Register. 2004. Wisconsin Administrative Code, Department of Natural
Resources Chapter NR 140 Groundwater Quality.
http://www.legis.state.wi.us/rsb/code/nr/nr140.pdf
[WADE-WAC] Washington State Department of Ecology. 1990. Chapter 173-200 WAC, Water
Quality Standards for Ground Waters of the State of Washington.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/wac173200.pdf
http://www.leg.wa.gov/wac/index.cfm?fuseaction=chapterdigest&chapter=173-200
Wasserman G.A., X. Liu, F. Parvez, H. Ahsan, D. Levy, P. Factor-Litvak, J. Kline, A. van
Green, V. Slakovick, N. Lolacono, Z. Cheng, Y Zheng, J. Graziano. 2006. Water
Manganese Exposure and Childrens Intellectual Function in Araihazar, Bangladesh.
Environmental Health Prospectives 114(1): 124-129
Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. 2005. Does Manganese Inhaled from the
Shower Represent a Public Health Threat? Winston Salem, N.C. Wake Forest University
School of medicine and North Caroline Baptist Hospitals media release.
Weber, W.J., Jr. 1972. Physicochemical Processes for Water Quality Control. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Welder, F.C. 1994. Biochemical and Nutritional Role of Manganese: An Overview. In:
Manganese in Health and Disease. Edited by D.J. Klimis-Tavantzis. Boca Raton, LA:
CRC Press.
Weng, C.-N., D.L. Hoven, and B.J. Schwartz. 1986. Ozonation: An Economic Choice for Water
Treatment. Jour. AWWA, 78(11):83-89.
Wennberg, A., A. Iregren, G. Struwe, G. Cizinsky, M.M. Hagman, and L. Johansson. 1991.
Scand. J. Work, Env. Health, 17:255-262.
Weston, R.S. 1909. The Purification of Ground-Waters Containing Iron and Manganese.
Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Paper No. 1106.
WHO 1993 Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality Second edition volume 1. Geneva, World
Health Organization.
WHO 2004a Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality Third edition volume 1. Geneva, World
Health Organization.
WHO. 2004b. Manganese in drinking-water. Background document for preparation of WHO
Guidelines for drinking-water quality. Geneva, World Health Organization.
(WHO/SDE/WSH/03.04/104)
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/chemicals/manganese.pdf
Wilczak, A., W.R. Knocke, R.E. Hubel, and E.M. Aieta. 1993. Manganese Control During
Ozonation of Water Containing Organic Compounds. Jour. AWWA,
Wong, J.M. 1984. Chlorination-Filtration for Iron and Manganese Removal. J. AWWA.
76(1):76-79.
Wormald, E.E., and J. Clark. 1994. Effectiveness of Existing Greensand Filtration System for
Iron and Manganese Removal. In: Proceedings 1994 AWWA Annual Conference
Engineering and Operations, New York, NY. Denver, CO: AWWA.

176

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Yannoni, C.C., B.P. Kinsley, and T.R. Marston. 1999. Biological Filtration for Removal of
High Levels of Iron and Manganese. Jour. New England Water Works Association,
113(3):211-219.
Zaw, M., and B. Chiswell. 1995. Speciation of Iron and Manganese in Dam Water Particles
Using Electron Spectroscopy for Chemical Analyses. Talanta, 42:1:27-40.
Zienkiewicz, A.W. 1985. Removal of Iron and Manganese from Ground Water with the
Vyredox Method. Second International Conference on Ground Water Quality Research:
Proceedings. National Center for Ground Water Research, Houston, Texas. P 74-77.

177

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


178

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


ABBREVIATIONS
#/MG pounds (mass) per million gallons
$M million US dollars
$/mgd US dollars per million gallons per day

AA atomic adsorption
AAS atomic adsorption spectrometry
AC advanced clarification
ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists
Ag/Ag-Cl silver/silver chloride
AI adequate intake
Alk alkalinity
AMD acid mine drainage
amu atomic mass unit
AO aesthetic objective
AOC assimilable organic carbon
APDC ammonium l-pyrrolidine carbodithioate
APHA American Public Health Association
app. apparent (color)
aq. aqueous
AS air stripping
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ASV anodic stripping voltammetry
atm atmosphere
ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
aux. auxiliary
Avg average
AWRC Australian Water Resources Council
AWWA American Water Works Association
AwwaRF Awwa Research Foundation

BAF biologically active filtration


BDOC biodegradable organic carbon
BLS Bureau of Laboratory Services (Philadelphia Water Department)

C degrees Celsius
Calif. California
CCR consumer confidence report
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CDM Camp Dresser & McKee
CD-ROM compact disc read only memory
CGS conventional gravity settling
CRC Cooperative Research Center an Australian research entity
CRU Central Receiving Unit (Philadelphia Water Department)
CW clear well

179

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Da Dalton
DAF dissolved air floatation
DBP disinfection byproducts
D/DBP disinfection/disinfection byproduct
DE diatomaceous earth
DF direct filtration
DI deionized
Diss. Dissolved
DNR Department of Natural Resources
DO dissolved oxygen
DOC dissolved organic carbon
DPD N, N-diethyl-p-phenylenediamine
DPP differential pulse polarography
DVD digital video disc
DWCCL Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List

EC Economic Community an early reference to the European Union


EH redox potential
EPA (United States) Environmental Protection Agency
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act
EPR/ESR electron paramagnetic resonance / electron spin resonance
EQ pilot plant filter run end reason equipment failure

FI filterability index
FSTRAC Federal-State Toxicology Risk Analysis Committee

GAC granular activated carbon


gfd gallons per foot per day
g/L grams per liter
gpcd gallons per capita day
gpm gallons per minute
gpm/sf gallons per minute per square foot
GW groundwater
GWUDI groundwater under the direct influence (of surface water)

HDPE high density polyethylene


HL pilot plant filter run end reason headloss
HOS hypolimnetic oxygenation system
HPC heterotrophic plate count
HRT hydraulic residence time

IC ion chromatographic
IAC Idaho Administrative Code
ICP inductively coupled plasma
ICP-AES inductively coupled plasma - atomic emission spectrometry
ICP-MS inductively coupled plasma - mass spectrometry
IDAPA Idaho Administrative Procedure Act
IDL instrument detection limit
180

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


IDLHs immediately dangerous to life or health concentrations
IGE induced greensand effect
in inch
Int O3 intermediate ozonation
IOCME induced oxide coated media effect
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ISE ion selective electrode

K kilo
kDa kilodalton
kg kilogram

L/d liters per day


LD50 median lethal dose
LG leucomalchite green
LIMS laboratory information management system

Mass. Massachusetts
MCE mixed cellulose ester
MCL maximum contaminant level
MDL method detection limit
meq/L milliequivalents per liter
MF membrane filtration
MG malachite green
2
m /g square meters per gram
mg/day milligrams per day
mgd million gallons per day
mg/kg milligrams per kilogram
mg/kg-day milligrams per kilogram day
mg/kg/day milligrams per kilogram per day
mg/L milligrams per liter
mg/L as CaCO3 milligrams per liter as calcium carbonate
mg/L as P milligrams per liter as phosphorus
mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter
MIBK methyl isobutyl ketone
mL milliliter
ML/d megaliters per day
mm millimeter
MS mass spectrometer
MUD Municipal Utility District
mV millivolts
MWCO molecular weight cutoff
g/g microgram per gram
g/kg microgram per kilogram
g/L microgram per liter
g/m3 microgram per cubic meter
m micrometer
mho/cm micromho per centimeter
181

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


n number of observations
N/A not applicable
NAC Nevada Administrative Code
NAS National Academy of Sciences
ND non-detect
NEW North East Water
NH New Hampshire
NHDES New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council
NIOSH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
NJ New Jersey
NJDEP New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
N.J.R. New Jersey Register
nm nanometers
NMAC New Mexico Administrative Code
NOM natural organic matter
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPDWR National Primary Drinking Water Regulation
NRC National Research Council
NTU nephelometric turbidity units
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

OCM oxide coated media


ORP oxidation-reduction potential
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PAC project advisory group


PACl polyaluminum chloride
PAN 1-(2-pyridylazo)-2-naphthol
PEL permissible exposure limit
PI principal investigator
PP polypropylene
PP pilot plant
p.p.m. part per million
PSA potentiometric stripping analysis
psi pounds per square inch
Pt-Co units platinum cobalt color units
PWD Philadelphia Water Department
PWS public water system

QA quality assurance
QC quality control

R2 proportion of variation
RfD reference dose
RL reporting limit
RO reverse osmosis
182

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


s solid
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
SDWIS Safe Drinking Water Information System
SGRWA South Gippsland Region Water Authority
SM Standard Method
SMCL Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
sp. species
SW surface water
standard deviation of sample population

T(4-CP)P ,,,-tetrakis(4-carboxyphenyl)porphine
TAG technical advisory group
TB pilot plant filter run end reason turbidity breakthrough
TCR Total Coliform Rule
TDS total dissolved solids
THM trihalomethane
TMB 3,3',5,5'-tetramethylbenzidine
T&O taste and odor
TOC total organic carbon
TM pilot plant filter run end reason time constraints
TRI Toxic Release Inventory
TSS total suspended solids

UF ultra filtration
UK United Kingdom
UL tolerable upper level intake
US United States of America
USA United States of America
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFDA United States Food and Drug Administration
USGS United States Geological Survey
USPHS United States Public Health Service
UV ultraviolet
UV254 ultraviolet absorbance at 254 nm

vs. versus
VT DEC Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation

WAC Washington (State) Administrative Code


WAC Wisconsin Administrative Code Department of Natural Resources
WADE Washington State Department of Ecology
WHO World Health Organization
WQ water quality
WQN National Stream Water-Quality Monitoring Network
WTP water treatment plant
WQ water quality

183

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


XPS X-ray photoelectron spectroscopy
XRF X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy

184

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


APPENDIX A

INITIAL AND DETAILED SURVEY INSTRUMENTS

INITIAL CONTACT SCRIPT AND FORM

Utility Information

Name of Utility:
Contact Name:
Title of Contact Person:
Contact Information:

Hello I am ________ _________

I am calling regarding an AwwaRF project. The project is entitled The occurrence of Manganese in Drinking water
and Benefits of Enhanced Manganese Control.
Are you familiar with AwwaRF and its work? [If not describe it to them.]

The American Water Works Research Foundation is a nonprofit organization that exists to
conduct research for the water industry and share that research among its many members. Their
membership consists of utility participants, consultant participants and manufacturing participants.

The purpose of my call is to ask you a few questions about your experience with Mn and to see if you are (your
utility is) willing to help us with this task. This project is projected to run for two years. We are attempting to put
together information based on geographic location (national and international), source water types and facility
treatment types as well as Mn specific technology. The information we are gathering has to do with the occurrence
and speciation of Mn in our drinking water systems.

Would you mind participating in 10-minute survey? Yes No

The survey will be completed over the phone with you, based on our information we believe that
you are the correct contact person, however, if you are not, can you give me the correct contact
information?
Name / Title / Phone Number

FYI: The results of this survey will be recorded in a database. This database is part of the project
but will not be released to AWWARF or other entities as a whole. The project team will be the
only people to use it in its entirety.

Is there more than one water treatment plant in your utility? What are their names?

185

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Please describe your water source on a per facility basis. (Coordinate source water with facility.)

In order to help up analysis the survey results I will need to categorize your water treatment
process. In a broad sense how would you categorize your water treatment process?

May I ask you to describe you water treatment process in a little more detail? Y / N
Do you use a coagulant?

What type of disinfection is used in the treatment process?

Can you offer me a list of chemicals that you add?


Is the list you are giving me in order of application? Y / N

If they did not list this please specifically ask if they use KMnO4 anywhere in their process and
for what purpose?

Do you filter your water? If yes, what is the filter media you use, how deep?

Do you consider yourself to have a Mn problem/issue? Yes No


Comments:

Have you measured Mn in your Source Water? Yes No dont measure


- If measured what is your typical concentration?

- How often do you make this measurement?

186

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Have you measured Mn in your Finished Water? Yes No dont measure
- If measured what is typical concentration?

- How often do you make this measurement?

Have you measured Mn in your distribution system? Yes No dont measure


- If measured what is typical concentration?

- How often do you make this measurement?

Do you currently treat specifically for Manganese? Yes No


If, yes how so?

Can they send us a brochure of their plant or plant schematic, a CCR? Y / N

Can you give us a web site to visit you on-line?

As we analyze our initial survey data we may find it necessary to call you back, is that OK?
This may involve a more in-depth survey. Yes No Maybe

If the contact seems knowledgeable, ask the following questions:


What method do you use to measure Mn, by?
Colorimetric, AA or ICP etc.

Using Hach PAN. EPA 200.7, EPA 200.8, etc.

Do they filter their samples? (i.e. Speciation?) Yes No


(Total / Dissolved/ Colloidal)

What size filter 0.45m or 0.2m for dissolved Mn


Do you use a membrane filter (Ultra filter) for 30 KDa filtration?

187

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


DETAILED SURVEY FORM

Utility Name:

Contact Name & Phone Number:

Facility Name:

Plant Capacity (MGD) and Customers Served:


Ask specifically for average flow and design flow (or maximum)

Section I Source Water

What is the type of source water for your facility? (Circle one)
Surface GW GWUDI Blend (Multiple) Consecutive System

Name of Source(s):

If GW:
- Ask them to describe the ground water supply

- Comments/Description

If GWUDI: Ground Water Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water


(use above space and questions plus these)

- What influences (source of influence)?

- Is influence seasonal / climatic?

- Comments/Description

If SW: River Lake / Reservoir (Circle one)

If River:
- Seasonal / Climatic Issues?

- Algal Blooms? Algae control via what? KMnO4, CuSO4, other


Do you impound your water before treatment?
Size (MG)?

- Comments/Description

188

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


If Lake/Reservoir:
- Size

- Multiple Intakes? Yes No

- Intake(s) depth location

- Is there an aeration system

- Turnover Issues Yes No

- Seasonal / Climatic Issues? Yes No


- Algal Blooms Yes No
- If yes, algae control via what? KMnO4, CuSO4, other
- Comments/Description

Does your utility blend source waters? Yes No


If yes:
- What water sources are blended (names, type, % of blend)?

- Describe reasons for blending:

How do you achieve blending?

Comments on above:

Typical Overall WQ Parameters of Source Water:


Analytes like pH, Alk, Hardness, TOC, DOC, Conductivity, Turbidity, Color (app/true), D.O.
Temperature (range throughout year), Metals (Iron, Mn, Arsenic)
[Remember to tell them a list of these parameters will be sent to them via fax/email]

We will ask for average with min and max for the last year.

While discussing source water quality see if you can get plant effluent water quality and
distribution water quality. Remember that these are different and that distribution water quality
is harder to get information on.

Can you mail/fax/email us these WQ data? Yes No

Give address/Fax number/email address for them to send information to us.

189

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Section II Water Treatment Process

Obtain overall description of process from source to distribution.

Mark-up schematic: (Use a separate piece of paper and the system we agreed upon)

{CGS, Advanced Clarification (AC), DF, MF, RO, Softening, Disinfection only, Treatment for
Fe/Mn only, Air Stripping (AS)}
Please be sure to include:
- Size of plant Design and average flow (MGD) This should be done at beginning
- When was the plant built
- When were major modifications made
- List all Major Unit processes
- Chemical addition, points of application, typical dosage (#/MG or mg/L)
- Disinfection (focus on where it is used and why)
- Filter bed material and depth
- pH of coagulation, filtration, distribution

Do you have any recycle streams in your treatment process? Yes No


If yes, describe the waste stream
- flow rate
- pH
- solids (TSS mg/L)
- from where to where
- If treated, how

What is its ultimate fate of your solids? (Sewer or processed on site, etc.)
Do you have special Mn treatment? What benefits do you see from Mn Treatment (less
Customer complaints)?

Do you have a water quality goal for Manganese? Yes No


(To meet SMCL, ND or other?)
If, yes what is it, and why?

Section III Distribution System

-Disinfectant residual entering distribution system


- Type

- Range of residual leaving the plant? (mg/L)

- Do you carry a residual through out the whole system?

- Do you change the type or dose of residual Seasonally

190

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


What is the average amount of time that the water stays in your distribution system,
approximately?
What is the maximum amount of time that the water stays in your distribution system,
approximately? (days)

How much distribution storage do you have? (We are looking for a volume)

Does this value include the clear well?

Do you have a regular flushing program for the distribution system? Yes No

If yes, how frequent?

If not done on a regular basis, what is the intent of program?

-Approximate Miles of Mains

Pipe Materials (Unlined Cast Iron, Ductile Iron, etc.)


Can you give me an approximate break down of how much of one type of pipe material you have
(i.e. % cast iron, % concrete)?

-Biological Stability Measurement (if any) or how utility measures


(e.g. AOC, BDOC)

- Do you use a Manganese Sequestering Agent in the Distribution System? Yes No


- Type / Dosage / Chemical / Trade Name

- Comments

Section V Customer Interaction

Do you track customer complaints? Yes No

Does your system differentiate between complaints? Yes No

If, yes, how?

How do you get a complaint?

191

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


What do you do with it?

Who responds to complaint?

How do you record complaints?

Water sampling follow up?

Can you see clusters of complaints within your distribution system? Yes No

If you see a cluster of complaints directly due to manganese;


Do you adjust treatment at your facility? Yes No

Is your procedure successful? Yes No

Comments:

Closure

Thanks for spending the time to answer this survey. If we have additional questions is it all right
to call you back for clarification of information? Yes No

Let me give you the address again for sending your Source Water and CCR information.

I will send you (OR) I have already sent you a list of parameters requested for both raw water
and finished water.

192

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


DETAILED SURVEY - ANNUAL WATER QUALITY DATA REQUEST FORM
Source Water Quality

Name of Utility:

Name of Source Water:

Please provide 1 year of data, preferably for a calendar year.

You may report your information in whatever units you normally use
However, please make sure you note what those units are.
Number of
Additional info samples
Parameter Units or comments Min Max Average "N" value
Name (e.g. 0.2 m or 0.45 etc)

pH
Temp (C)
Turbidity (NTU)
D. O. (mg/L)
Conductivity (mho-cm)
Hardness (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
DOC (mg/L)
-1
UV254 Absorbance (cm )
Apparent Color (PtCo)
Tru Color (PtCo)
Total Mn (mg/L)
Dissolved Mn (mg/L)
Total Fe (mg/L)
Dissolved Fe (mg/L)
Total As (mg/L)
Dissolved As (mg/L)
Hydrogen Sulfide (mg/L)
Phospate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Total Na (mg/L)
Phosphorus (mg/L)
ORP measure (Eh)
Biostability Measure
SUVA (L/mg-m)
Total Calcium (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)

193

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


194

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


APPENDIX B
PROTOCOL FOR SEASONAL DISTRUTION SYSTEM TESTING,
CASE STUDY (I), AND CASE STUDY (II)

SEASONAL TESTING SAMPLING AND FILTERING PROTOTCOL

Field Sampling

1. Collect the water sample into three 250 mL Grab Sample bottles.
2. Carry 9 pre-labeled 50mL bottles to the field; total metal, pre-ultra filtration and
0.22m analysis.
3. Make sure to have your field blank samples with you.

For each one of the 250 mL bottles follow the below procedure

A. Total Metals Sample Collection

From the 250 mL bottles, rinse the Total metal bottle with 10 mL of sample water.
Discard rinse water as waste.
(Lid of the 250-mL sample bottle should be returned to bottle it need not be re-threaded
but should cover the bottle to reduce the possibility of dust entering the bottle. The cap
of the 50 mL bottles should be placed face up to avoid contamination if no clean area is
available, and returned to the bottle as soon as possible.)
Pour 50 mL of sample water into Total metal bottle. (Do not filter this sample)

B. 0.22m Filtration Samples

Preparation of syringe
The remaining two 50 mL bottles will contain filtered water.
Attach the 0.22m filter to the syringe, remove the plunger and pour 10 mL of Grab
Sample water into the syringe, replace plunger.
(Try to avoid the pulling of the sample out of the Grab Sample bottle by use of syringe
sucking action.)
Rinse syringe swirl back and forth all around then dump rinse to waste.
Conditioning of 0.22m filter and the bottle
Fill syringe will 50 mL of Grab Sample water.
Filter 5 mL to waste
Filter 10 mL into the first 0.22m bottle to rinse it. Dump the waste into the second bottle
to rinse and then discard the waste. During this time the syringe should be rested on clean
low lint wipes or cloths.
Filtration through 0.22m filter
Place combination( syringe and filter) onto the bottle and being to push on syringe to
begin filtering.

195

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


The pressure on the plunger should be minimal during filtration to risk enlarging the pore
size on the filter.
Filtrate in the pre-ultra filtration should be 50 mL and that for the 0.22m analysis
should be approximately 30 mL.
Discard the remaining sample water in syringe by removing filter from tip of syringe.
The syringe will be used for all triplicate samples hence should be rinse/conditioned each
time with the respective sample water.

Laboratory Sampling filtration through the 30K Dalton Ultra Filter

A. Assembling of Parts

Wear gloves for the trace metal technique to avoid contamination.


The kit contains parts of the apparatus and self-explanatory instructions with pictures to
aid assembling.
Ultrahigh purity nitrogen and a magnetic stirrer will be needed. Note: anything that might
come into contact with sample should be covered in plastic.(e.g. tubing from N2 tank)
Include in the kit are a membrane/filter holder (base) and the filter. Soak filter in
deionized (DI) water for one hour within this time change water three times.
Use nonmetal forceps to hold membrane/filter. Let it dry to see the glossy side.
Place glossy side up in the membrane holder by handling it on the edge with the forceps,
and then place ring over the filter (push gently on the ring making sure its holding filter.)
Place the cell over the base and invert the whole body. Insert base plate and place stirrer
into cell. There are 2 notches on the filter holder. Place the spout with the graduation side
facing you.
Rinse cell with 50-100mL DI water first and in between sample.
Add cap with pressure relief valve and press down and twist. Then open valve with knob
turned horizontally(vertical knob means closed)
Insert the spout tube and place cell body into housing. Push in until a click sound is heard
(implies its locked in place) and place it onto magnetic stirring plate.
At the back of the cell body is an opening to attach tubing for N2 tank. Keep the magnetic
stirrer on slow setting and AVOID fast stirring, which will create a vortex.(General
rule of thumb; the vortex should be a third of the sample volume)

B. Rinsing of cell body and spout tubing and collection of 1st sample

Have a waste container nearby and waste 25-50mL of DI.


To get a good sample flow rate through the filter, the cell body should be maintained at
10psi.
Pressurize the cell by opening the on/off switch on the N2 tank.
Place waste container under spout tube to collect filtrate (DI waste).
For 1st sample, waste 5-10mL first before collection.
Disassemble parts and rinse with DI water making sure that the DI comes into contact
with the entire inside of cell body.

196

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


C. Collection of 2nd sample

Place cleaned cell body and into housing.


Replace N2 tube and close pressure relief valve. Turn on N2 to pressurize the cell body at
10psi, and turn stirrer on to start dripping of sample. Fill 30kDa ultra filter labeled bottle
to 30mL.
Open pressure relief valve, disconnect gas line tube and place N2 tube into a plastic bag.
Cleaning is now done for 2nd sample collection.
Pour 2nd sample into cell body, place stirrer into cell then cap it.
Close the pressure relief valve and begin to collect 5-10mL to waste, then collect 30mL
of sample into 30kDa ultra filter labeled bottle.
Repeat steps for 2nd sample and 3rd sample.

D. Apparatus Clean-up

Disassemble parts and clean using DI water.


Remove filter using nonmetal forceps.
Filter can be reused as explained in instructions.
Clean filter by placing its glossy side down into a container with filled fresh DI
water.(This also serves as storage)

E. Important Things to note before Handling Sample or Apparatus.

Lid should be face down if area is clean otherwise face up.


Cap exposure to atmosphere should be minimal.
Use Kim wipes to create clean working area.
Change cloth/Kim wipe for placing parts between samples.
Be cautious of dirty environment.
Tubes should not touch side of labeled bottle but be centered.
Run 50-100mL DI water in between sample to rid of traces of previous sample.
Do not leave ultra filter dry; store in fresh DI water to keep moist.
Only use nonmetal forceps to handle filter, and it should be held by the edges.
Rinse stirrer and cell with DI water for the next samples and in between sample
collection through filter, rinse filter by pouring 20-25mL of DI into cell.

197

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Figure B.1 Sample splitting and filtration technique for distribution system protocol

198

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


CASE STUDY (I) PROTOCOL
PILOT TESTING FOR MANGANESE CONTROL

1.0 Introduction

To achieve very low manganese concentrations in the finished water, PWD relies upon
contact oxidation and adsorption on oxide coated filter media in the presence of pre-filter free
chlorine residual. Strategies to reduce disinfection by-product formation such as use of
alternative disinfectants, reduction of chlorine residuals, and delaying the point of chlorination
downstream in the treatment process could impede the existing manganese removal mechanisms.
The investigations for Phase VII pilot testing are designed to characterize the effects of pH, pre-
filter chlorine, coagulant type, filter media, and seasonal raw water quality on the ability to
remove and retain manganese.

Manganese control was a major element of Phase III (2000 to 2001), Phase IV (2001 to
2002), and Phase VI (2003) piloting. The effects of pH, chlorine residual, intermediate
ozonation, biologically active filtration (BAF), and coagulant type on manganese control were
evaluated. Contact oxidation and adsorption in the presence of adequate free chlorine residual
(about 0.5 mg/L over breakpoint) was found to be the most effect method of achieving the 0.015
mg/L total manganese goal. Intermediate ozone and BAF were not found to be effective for
manganese control.

Phase VII piloting will include four major and two minor investigations which are
summarized as follows:

Investigation 1 The objective of this investigation will be to study the effect of pH


on manganese control using ferric chloride (which contains substantial manganese
concentration) as the primary coagulant. Intermediate ozone will be used to oxidize
the manganese in order to minimize or eliminate the concentration of soluble
manganese applied to the filters. A range of filtration pH values from 6.5 to 9.0 will
be tested. On each of Trains A and B, one dual media filter will be treated with pre-
filter chlorine, while one dual media filter and one GAC filter will receive no pre-
filter chlorine.
Investigation 2 The objective of this investigation will be to characterize the
manganese retention of a previously chlorinated manganese oxide coated filter bed
upon cessation of pre-filter chlorine, over a range of filtration pH levels from 6.5 to
8.5. This investigation will be performed with ferric chloride coagulation, following
the completion of Investigation 1.
Investigation 3 The objective of this investigation will be to study the effect of pH
on manganese control using a primary coagulant containing negligible manganese,
such as polyaluminum chloride (PACl). Therefore, in this investigation, the
manganese loading to the treatment process will consist of background levels existing
in the raw water. Investigation 3 will include the same experiments described for
Investigation 1 with the exception of the change to a non-manganese primary
coagulant.

199

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Investigation 4 - The objective of this investigation will be to characterize the
manganese retention of a previously chlorinated manganese oxide coated filter bed
upon cessation of pre-filter chlorine over a range of filtration pH levels from 6.5 to
8.5, using a non-manganese containing primary coagulant. This investigation will be
performed using an alternative coagulant which achieves acceptable overall treatment
process performance. (Previous phases of testing indicate that the optimum
alternative coagulant will most likely be PACl), following the completion of
Investigation 3.
Investigation 5 The pilot plants have recently (Phase VI) standardized on a 0.22 m
nominal pore size membrane filter, whereas the water industry at large still uses a
0.45 m membrane for filtration of dissolved metals samples. The objective of this
investigation will be to determine the effect on iron and manganese of filtering
samples through 0.45 m, 0.22 m, and 30K Dalton membrane filters. The
evaluation will consist of an analysis of supplementary data collected during the
experiments conducted under Investigations 1 and 3.
Investigation 6 The objective of this QA investigation will be to determine whether
the ozone quenching agent, sodium metabisulfite, liberates manganese from oxide
coated filters. The findings will assist in interpretation of data in the event of an
accidental bisulfite overfeed.

2.0 Investigations

2.1 Pilot Plant Operation & Data Collection

Pilot Plant Design

The PWD has two pilot plants, each located full scale water treatment plants; these plants
draw water from two different river sources, the Schuylkill River and the Delaware River. A
schematic of the Belmont WTP pilot plant (Schuylkill River source) is presented Figure B.2

The pilot plants draw water from the river source, without any pretreatment. About 20
gpm of river water enters a 600 gallon raw water basin that provides about 30 minutes of contact
time to model pre-treatment chemical addition.

The water is pumped and split into two parallel 8 gpm process trains. First the flow
enters two small rapid mix basins, followed by two (Belmont pilot) or five (Baxter pilot)
flocculation basins, with a tapered floc mixing scheme. The water then flows through a lamella
plate, upflow clarifier for settling; the full scale plants have gravity settling basins.

Depending the investigation protocol, the settled water from one of the two process trains
may enter an 8 column, counter current, intermediate ozone contactor. Ozone is typically added
in the first column only, and then quenched if necessary in the last column.

The settled water, or post ozone contact water, is then filtered by gravity. Each train has
two dual media filters (21 anthracite and 9 sand) and one biologically active GAC filter.

200

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Figure B.2 WD Belmont pilot plant schematic shown typical for investigation 1

201

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Online monitors measure: raw water turbidity and flow; flocculation pH; sedimentation
pH, turbidity, and particle counts; filter head loss, turbidity, and particle counts; intermediate
ozone residual in various locations throughout the columns, plus ozone feed gas and off gas
concentrations. All online data is recorded at two minute intervals in a PC based data logger.

Schedule

The schedule for Phase VII is from March 2004 to February 2005. Pilot Plant
information relevant to AwwaRF 2863 will be forwarded to the PIs for inclusion in the final
report by November 2004. At least two of the investigations will be repeated twice to obtain
seasonal data. Investigations 1 and 3 are complex and labor-intensive and will require the
piloting staff from both Baxter and Belmont to work together first at one plant then at the other
to complete the experiment. Investigations 2, 4, and 6 may be performed at each plant with its
own staff.

New Measurements

Oxidation-reduction potential was added to the sampling regimen during previous Phase
VI testing. Technical problems with the instrumentation prevented collection of useful data
during Phase VI piloting. The piloting staff changed the ORP equipment to new (Orion) probes
and are able to produce reliable data for Phase VII testing. Redox potential may prove to be a
valuable operational tool to determine the level at which manganese will oxidize or reduce and to
draw correlations to manganese breakthrough. Measurements will be taken at the applied water
after ozonation or chlorination and at the filtered water. Redox potential measurements are
temperature dependent so all Eh measurements will be accompanied by a temperature. The Eh
will be taken along with pH, chlorine residual, and manganese measurements.
The detailed standard operating procedure for the determination of redox potential is
provided in the next section of this appendix . The data are measured and recorded as:

Eh = ORP + Eref

where Eh is the reported redox potential, ORP is the half-cell potential in millivolts of the
sample measured with an inert (platinum) indicator electrode at the given temperature, and Eref is
the reference potential measured with a reference (Ag-AgCl) electrode at that same temperature.

Standard Operating Procedures

Chemical doses will be established based on previous testing experience, full scale
plant operations, and jar testing in accordance with the judgment of the pilot plant
staff.
Both Train A and Train B will be in service with equal influent flow of 8 gpm to each
train. Both pilot plants will run at 8 gpm through flocculation and waste 2 gpm
before sedimentation.
Rapid mixing and flocculation will be set to optimized G-values as determined from
previous investigations.
The coagulation and filtration pH will be varied as described in Section 2.2.

202

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


For Investigations 1 and 3, intermediate ozone will be used with eight contact
columns, providing a total HRT of 17 minutes at 6 gpm.
- Apply an ozone dose of 2 mg/L or more as needed to yield a measurable ozone
residual at the outlet of the final contact column in an attempt to oxidize all the
manganese.
- Apply sodium hydroxide for pH adjustment, if necessary, at the influent to the 7th
column to achieve the targeted filtration pH.
- Quench the ozone residual with sodium bisulfite, applied at the inlet to the 8th
column such that an ozone residual of > 0.0 but < 0.1 mg/L remains at the outlet
bottom tap of the 8th column. This trace ozone residual will verify that there is no
carry over of reducing agent (bisulfite) into the filters.
Train A will provide settled/ozonated water to dual media Filters A-1 and A-2 and
GAC Filter A.
Train B will provide settled/ozonated water to dual media Filters B-1 and B-2 and
GAC Filter 2.
In each train, there will be a dedicated chlorinated dual media filter, a dedicated non-
chlorinated dual media filter, and a dedicated non-chlorinated biologically active
GAC filter. Pre-filter chlorine, when applicable for each investigation, will be dosed
to yield a 0.5 mg/L free residual at the filter effluent.
Filters will be operated at 4 gpm/ft2. Filter runs will be conducted until 72 hours of
run time or as dictated by scheduling constraints, terminal headloss of 96 inches, or
turbidity breakthrough of 0.1 NTU. A shorter filter run time may be used for
Investigation 6 once metals sampling at steady state has been completed.
Upon changing coagulant from ferric to polyaluminum chloride and back again, there
will be a period of acclimation to allow the development of steady state conditions.
During this period, no data will be collected, but the pilot plants will be operated for
approximately one week, or as required for the filters to adjust to the change of
coagulant.
Startup and routine operations requirements will include the following procedures:
At the beginning and end of any shutdown, backwash the filters.
Empty and flush the sedimentation basin hoppers weekly.
Wipe lamella plates clean at least monthly, or more frequently if needed.
During weekend shutdowns, continue raw water flow through the raw water basin to
the overflow. Run High Service water from pretreatment through the sedimentation
basins to overflow. Leave the filters filled with water.
During extended shutdowns lasting longer than a weekend, run high service water
from pretreatment through the filters. Maintain flow through the filters with plant
water.

2.2 Investigation Description

An investigation matrix for Phase VII Investigations 1 through 6 is provided in Table


B.1. This table summarizes the investigation description, variables, constants, evaluation
criteria, and number of runs. The sampling matrix for these investigations is provided in Table
B.2. Bureau of Laboratory Services (BLS) sampling is summarized in Table B.3.

203

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Investigation 1 Effect of pH on Manganese Control with Ferric Coagulation

Objective: The objective of this investigation will be to study the effect of pH on manganese
control using ferric chloride as the primary coagulant over a range of filtration pH
values from 6.5 to 9.0.

Description: Both Baxter and Belmont plant staffs will work at each plant in turn due to the
complexity and labor intensiveness of the investigation. Due to the difficulty of
filtered manganese and redox potential measurement, only three filters will be
operated a time. Both Train A and Train B pretreatment will be started up
together to facilitate a smooth transition from the Train A filters to the Train B
filters. Both trains will be coagulated at pH 6.5 using ferric chloride throughout
the investigation.

Intermediate ozone will be used at pH 6.5 with an applied dose of 2 mg/L and all
8 columns in service providing a total HRT of about 17 minutes at 6 gpm. The
dose is expected to yield a measurable ozone residual after the given contact time,
ensuring that all the manganese has been oxidized. If ozone residual is not
detected prior to quenching, increase the ozone dose until a residual is detected.
At the effluent of the 6th ozone column, add caustic soda for pH adjustment, as
described below. At the influent to the 8th column, the ozone residual will be
quenched with sodium bisulfite such that an ozone residual of > 0.0 but < 0.1
mg/L remains at the effluent of the 8th column. This trace ozone residual will
verify that there is no carry over of reducing agent (bisulfite) into the filters which
could potentially cause a manganese breakthrough. The ozone system will first
be connected to receive the settled water from Train A and supply ozonated water
to the three Train A filters. Then, the ozone system will be switched over to
receive settled water from Train B and supply ozonated water to the three Train B
filters.

The pH of the ozonated water will be adjusted using caustic soda added at the
effluent of the 6th ozone contact column (influent to the 7th column) to attain the
desired range of experimental values in a series of three sub-investigations. The
post-ozonation filtration pH will be monitored at the effluent of the 7th column. In
Investigation 1A, Train A will remain at pH 6.5 post-ozonation while Train B will
be adjusted to pH 7.0. In Investigation 1B, Train A will be adjusted to pH 7.5 and
Train B to pH 8.0. In Investigation 1C, Train A will be adjusted to pH 8.5 and
Train B to pH 9.0.

Note that it may be difficult to impossible to maintain ozone residual in the 7th
column at the highest pH tested due to rapid conversion of ozone to hydroxyl
radical. If this proves to be the case, monitor the residual upstream of the pH
adjustment point to ensure proper dosing. Under such conditions, it will not be
necessary to use the quenching agent.

204

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Train A Filter 1 will be treated with pre-filter chlorine at sufficient dose to
maintain a 0.5 mg/L free chlorine residual in the filter effluent. Train A Filter 2
and GAC1 will receive no chlorine. A Train A run will be conducted with the full
regimen of sampling with flow from Train A pretreatment to the ozone system to
the three filters. Upon completion of this run, the ozone will be piped to Train B.
Train B Filter B-1 will receive pre-chlorine at sufficient dose to maintain 0.5
mg/L free chlorine residual in the filter effluent. Train B Filter B-2 and GAC2
will receive no chlorine. A Train B run will be conducted with the complete
sampling regimen. The procedure will be repeated for Investigations 1A, 1B, and
1C, testing the range of pH values.

Investigation 2 Effect of pH on Oxide Coated Filter Media without Pre-Filter Chlorine (Ferric
Coagulation)

Objective: The objective of this investigation will be to characterize the manganese retention
of a previously chlorinated filter which has a developed manganese oxide coating
upon cessation of pre-filter chlorine over a range of filtration pH levels from 6.5
to 8.5. This investigation will be performed using coagulation with ferric chloride
following Investigation 1.

Description: Continue pretreatment established in the immediately preceding Investigation 1.


Discontinue intermediate ozone. The filters receiving pre-filter chlorine, Train A
Filter A-1 and Train B-1 will be operated for this investigation. A series of runs
will be conducted with filtration pH varied from 6.5 to 8.5.

Establish steady state, normal operations with pre-filter chlorination yielding a 0.5
mg/L free residual at the effluent. After 2 hours of run time, the chlorine will be
shut off, and the manganese concentration over the course of the filter run
established by taking measurements at various time intervals, e.g., time zero, 30
minutes, and thereafter hourly increments. After one run, the filter will be
backwashed and restarted without chlorine with measurement of the manganese
profile. Based on the judgment of piloting staff, if unsteady conditions are still
evident, repeat runs will be conducted.

Investigation 3 Effect of pH on Manganese Control with Alternative Coagulant

Objective: The objective of this investigation will be to study the effect of pH on manganese
control using a non-manganese containing primary coagulant, such as PACl. The
manganese loading to the treatment process will therefore consist of the
background levels present in the raw water.

Description: The experiments will be as described above for Investigation 1, with the
exception of the substitution of the alternative coagulant such as PACl instead of
ferric as the primary coagulant.

205

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Investigation 4 Effect of pH on Oxide Coated Filter Media without Pre-Filter Chlorine
(Alternative Coagulant)

Objective: The objective of this investigation will be to characterize the manganese retention
of a previously chlorinated filter which has developed manganese oxide coating
upon cessation of pre-filter chlorine over a range of filtration pH levels from 6.5
to 8.5. This investigation will be performed with a non-manganese containing
coagulant, such as PACl, following Investigation 3.

Description: The experiments will be as described above for Investigation 2, with the
exception of the substitution of alternative coagulant such as PACl instead of
ferric as the primary coagulant, as well as timing of the investigation to follow
Investigation 3.

Investigation 5 Effect of Membrane Filter Nominal Pore Size on Metals Fractionation

Objective: The objective of this investigation will be to determine the effect on iron and
manganese of filtering samples through 0.45 m, 0.22 m, and 30K Dalton
membrane filters.

Description: The evaluation will consist of an analysis of supplementary data collected during
the experiments conducted under Investigations 1 and 3. At least once per
seasonal investigation, and more frequently if possible, collect a 0.45 m metals
sample, from the settled, ozonated, and filtered water. This collection should
coincide with the sampling for 0.22 m and 30K Dalton samples. The effect of
membrane size on manganese and iron will be quantified.

Investigation 6 Effect of Sodium Metabisulfite on Manganese Oxide Coated Filter Media

Objective: The objective of this QA investigation will be to determine whether the ozone
quenching agent, sodium metabisulfite, liberates manganese from oxide coated
filters.

Description: Establish pre-treatment, including intermediate ozone, as described for


Investigation 1, operating Train A and Filters 1 and 2. Coagulate and filter at pH
6.5. Apply chlorine to the chlorinated Filter 1 yielding 0.5 mg/L free chlorine
residual in the filter effluent, and no chlorine to Filter 2. Beginning with the
typical baseline dose, increase the dose of sodium metabisulfite in 0.1 increments
until there is a zero ozone residual at the effluent of column 8. Wait 2 hours for
each new dose, increasing each dose by 0.5 mg/L. Sample the filter effluent for
total and dissolved metals.

206

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


3.0 Pilot Plant Reporting

Communication of results between pilot plant staff, WTP managers and engineers,
project managers, and the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) is an important aspect of the
pilot program. Reports to be produced for Phase VII pilot study are described below.

3.1 Run Reports

A progress report summarizing the investigation will be due 4 to 5 weeks after completion of the
investigation, depending upon receipt of analytical results from Bureau of Laboratory Services
(BLS). Weekly run reports are delivered to the PWD project manager for review and for
compilation in the Phase VII reference binder.

Components of the weekly run report include pilot plant as well as full scale plant
operating parameters including point of chemical application, chemical dose, flowrate through
each process unit, number of units in service, mixing intensity, HRTs, projected loading rates,
and filtration rates. Pilot plant water quality parameters will be summarized including raw,
settled and filtered water quality, profiles of on-line filter headloss, turbidity, and particle counts,
water quality data from BLS, and a summary of filter run production data.

3.2 Semiannual Technical Memorandum Report

A technical memorandum report will be prepared for review by the TAC summarizing
the results of investigations on manganese control. The report will be based on the analysis
completed in the seasonal objective summary reports, augmented as needed by weekly report
information. After a review period, a conference call will be held with the Pilot Plant TAC, the
pilot plant team leaders, and project managers. Based upon the results of the conference call, the
report may be revised or conference call minutes appended.

3.3 AwwaRF Memorandum Report

A technical memorandum report will be prepared for review by the PIs summarizing the
results of investigations on manganese control. The report will be based on the Technical
Memorandum already written as described in section 3.2. This report will be completed in time
for inclusion in the AwwaRF 2863 report. As per the AwwaRF 2863 schedule that will be the
end of November 2004.

207

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table B.1
Phase VII Manganese Control

Investigation Description Variables Constants Evaluation Criteria


1 Effect of pH on Evaluate the effect of - Filtration pH - Flowrate, HRTs - iron, manganese
manganese filtration pH ranging from - Pre-filter - Rapid mix &flocculation G- - Eh (ORP)
control with 6.5 to 9.0 on manganese chlorine value - metals fractions (0.45
ferric coagulation control using dual media (with/without) - Coagulant type and dose m, 0.22 m, 30K
filters with and without pre- - Filter media - Coagulation pH Dalton)
filter chlorine and a GAC - Sedimentation loading rate
filter with ferric coagulation - Ozone dose and contact time
and intermediate ozone. - Chlorine residual
- Filtration rate
2 Effect of pH on Characterize the profile of - Filtration pH - Flowrate, HRTs - iron, manganese
oxide coated filter filtered manganese over - Rapid mix &flocculation G- (Total and 0.22 m)
media without pre- time for an oxide coated value - Eh (ORP)
filter chlorine filter in the absence of pre- - Coagulant type and dose
(ferric coagulation) filter chlorine over a range - Coagulation pH
of filtration pH from 6.5 to - Sedimentation loading rate
8.5. - Filtration rate

3 Effect of pH on Evaluate the effect of - Filtration pH - Flowrate, HRTs - iron, manganese


manganese filtration pH ranging from - Pre-filter - Rapid mix &flocculation G- - Eh (ORP)
control with 6.5 to 9.0 on manganese chlorine value - metals fractions (0.45
alternative control using dual media (with/without) - Coagulant type and dose m, 0.22 m, 30K
coagulant filters with and without pre- - Filter media - Coagulation pH Dalton)
filter chlorine and a GAC - Sedimentation loading rate
filter with PACl coagulation - Ozone dose and contact time
and intermediate ozone. - Chlorine residual
- Filtration rate

208

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table B.1, continued
Phase VII Manganese Control

Investigation Description Variables Constants Parameters Evaluated


4 Effect of pH on Characterize the profile of - Filtration pH - Flowrate, HRTs - iron, manganese
oxide coated filtered manganese over - Rapid mix &flocculation G- (Total and 0.22 m)
filter media without time for an oxide coated value - Eh (ORP)
pre- filter chlorine filter in the absence of pre- - Coagulant type and dose
(alternative filter chlorine over a range - Coagulation pH
coagulant) of filtration pH from 6.5 to - Sedimentation loading rate
8.5. - Filtration rate

5 Effect of Determine the effect on iron - Filter pore size - Utilization of data generated in - metals fractions (0.45
membrane and manganese used to determine Investigations 1 and 3 m,
filter nominal measurement of filtering fractionation 0.22 m, 30K Dalton)
pore size on metals samples through 0.45 m,
fractionation 0.22 m, and 30K Dalton
membrane filters.
Information will be
collected via investigations
1 and 3.
6 Effect of sodium Determine whether the - bisulfite dose - Flowrate, HRTs - - iron, manganese
metabisulfite on ozone quenching agent, - Pre-filter - Rapid mix &flocculation G- (Total and 0.22 m)
manganese oxide sodium metabisulfite, chlorine value
coated filter liberates manganese from (with/without) - Coagulant type and dose
media oxide coated filters. - Coagulation and filtration pH
- Sedimentation loading rate
- Ozone dose and contact time
- Chlorine residual
- Filtration rate

209

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table B.2
Phase VII Manganese Control
Sampling Matrix for Investigations: General Parameters

GENERAL PARAMETERS

Dissolved Oxygen

Ozone Residual
Apparent Color

Total Chlorine

Free Chlorine
Temperature

True Color
Alkalinity

Turbidity
SAMPLING LOCATION

Particles
UV254
ORP
Raw water, pre-chemicals O, 2R pH
O, 4R 4R 4R O, 4R 1R 1R 2R

Rapid mix, post-chemicals O, 4R 4R

Settled water O, 4R 4R 4R O, 4R O

Applied water
4R 2R 4R 4R 2R O, 4R
(ozonated/chlorinated)

Filtered water S, 2R 4R 2R 4R 4R O, 4R D D O 4R 4R 2R

S = start of run O = pilot plant on-line instrument, D = discretionary,


Steady State: 1R = once per run 2R = twice per run 4R = four times per run

210

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table B.3
Phase VII Manganese Control - Sampling MaB.trix for Investigations: BLS Parameters

BLS PARAMETERS

Investigations 1, 3, 5 Investigations 2, 4, 6

30K Dalton Dissolved Iron/Al


30K Dalton Dissolved Mn [1]
0.45 m Filtered Manganese

0.22 m Filtered Manganese

0.45 m Filtered Manganese

0.22 m Filtered Manganese


0.22 m Filtered Iron/Al [1]
0.45 m Filtered Iron/Al

0.45 m Filtered Iron/Al

0.22 m Filtered Iron/Al


Total Organic Carbon

Total Organic Carbon


SAMPLING

Total Manganese

Total Manganese
Total Iron/Al

Total Iron/Al
LOCATION

[1]

[1]
Raw water, pre-
2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R
chemicals
Rapid mix, post-
chemicals

Settled water 2R 2R D 2R 2R 2R D 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R

Applied water
2R 2R D 2R 2R 2R D 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R 2R
(ozonated/chlorinated)

Filtered water 2R 2R D 2R 2R 2R D 2R 2R 2R F F F F

1R = once per run, 2R = twice per run, D = discretionary, F = frequent, see protocol
[1] Dissolved metals to be sampled at least once per run and, if possible, twice per run to obtain a replicate sample.
211

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


OXIDATION REDUCTION POTENTIAL (ORP), STANDARD METHOD 2580

1.0 This SOP provides guidance for the determination of oxidation-reduction


potential in clean water.
2.0 Detection limits
The lowest possible value for ORP is X millivolts.
3.0 Scope and Application
3.1 The following discussion is given in Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 19th ed. Oxidation and reduction reactions mediate the behavior of
many chemical constituents in drinking, process and wastewaters as well as most aquatic
compartments of the environment. The reactivities and mobilities of important elements in
biological systems (e.g. Fe, S, N and C) as well as those of a number of other metallic elements,
depend strongly on redox conditions. Reactions involving both electrons and protons are both
pH- and Eh-dependent; therefore, chemical reactions in aqueous media often can be characterized
by pH and Eh together with the activity of dissolved chemical species. Like pH, Eh represents an
intensity factor. It does not characterize the capacity (i.e., poise) of the system for oxidation or
reductionEh values measured in the field correlate poorly with Eh values calculated from the
redox couples present. Nevertheless, measurement of redox potential, when properly performed
and interpreted, is useful in developing a more complete understanding of water chemistry.
3.2 This laboratory uses a combination platinum electrode and reference electrode.
4.0 Summary of Method
5.0 Definitions
5.1 The following discussion is given in Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 19th ed. Electrometric measurements are made by potentiometric
determination of electron activity (or intensity) with an inert indicator electrode and a suitable
reference electrode. Ideally, the indicator electrode will serve as either an electron donor or
acceptor with respect to electroactive oxidized or reduced species in solution. At redox
equilibrium, the potential difference between the ideal indicator electrode and the reference
electrode equals the redox potential of the system. However, inert indicator electrodes that
behave ideally in all aqueous systems, particularly in natural waters, do not exist. Electrodes
made of platinum are most commonly used for Eh measurements. They have limitations, as do
alternative materials such as gold and graphite.
6.0 Interferences
6.1 Contamination of the electrode sufrace, salt bridge or internal electrolyte in the
case of reference electrodes can lead to excessive drift and poor performance. Organic matter,
sulfide and bromide may cause these problems. If problems persist after cleaning, discard the
electrode.
6.2 Redox potential is sensitive to pH if hydrogen or hydroxide ion are involved in
the redox half-cells. Cell potentials tend to increase as pH decreases, and vice-versa.
6.3 Sample handling and preservation will govern the samples resistance to changes
in redox potential. Under clean water conditions, handle reduced samples very carefully to avoid
exposure to atmospheric oxygen. Samples cannot be stored or preserved; analyze at sampling.
6.4 Obtain the Eh standard solution reading for the electrode pair at a temperature as
close as possible to that of the sample. Temperature determines the Eh reference potential for a
particular solution and electrode pair. It also may affect the reversibility of the redox reaction,
the magnitude of the exchange current, and the stability of the apparent redox potential reading,

212

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


particularly in poorly poised solutions. Hold temperature constant for all measurements and
report it with Eh results.
7.0 Safety
7.1 Saftey glasses and gloves should be worn when handling chemicals and during
sample analysis.
7.2 ZoBells solution, the check standard reagent, contains cyanide. This chemical
should be handled carefully and contact with the chemical should be minimal.
8.0 Equipment and Supplies
8.1 Inert metal electrode and reference electrode capable of measuring ORP. This
laboratory currently uses an Accumet Platinum/Ag-AgCl combination electrode, Fisher catalog
number 13-620-81 (Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA)
8.2 pH/ISE meter. This lab currently uses the Denver Instruments model 225 pH/ISE
meter with automatic temperature compensation (ATC).
8.3 Beakers, preferably polyethylene or Teflon.
8.4 Magnetic stirrer and stirring bars.
8.5 Kimwipes. Kimwipes EX-L for blotting dry electrode bulb after use.
8.6 KCl electrode filling solution. This electrode requires the use of 4M KCl.
8.7 Plastic squeeze bottle for rinsing electrode with deionized water.
9.0 Reagents and Standards
9.1 ZoBells solution. This contains 1.4080 g potassium ferrocyanide, 1.0975 g
potassium ferricyanide and 7.4555 g potassium chloride per 1000 mL deionized water. This
solution will be prepared by the Bureau of Laboratory Services as needed.
9.2 Deionized water for rinsing electrodes.
10.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, Shipment and Storage.
11.1. Sample containers and preservation
10.1.1.1 Samples should be collected in a glass BOD bottle with stopper. The
bottle should be full with no air space.
10.1.1.2 Samples should be analyzed within ten minutes of collection.
11.0 Quality Control
11.1 All quality control data should be maintained and available for easy reference or
inspection.
11.2 Follow manufacturers instructions on preparation of the electrode.
11.3 Quality control checks will be performed with ZoBells solution. The potential of
this solution changes as a function of temperature, and can be calculated from Eh = [0.428
0.022 (T 25)] * 1000, where T is the solution temperature in degrees Celsius. If the measured
potential is more than +/- 10 mV from this value, perform electrode cleaning procedure and
repeat analysis.
12.0 Calibration and Standardization
12.1 Calibration steps are specific to the pH meter currently in use in this laboratory
(Denver Instrument Model 225 pH/ISE meter). If the make or model of meter changes, consult
the meters instruction manual for detailed calibration instructions. For this make and model,
there are no calibration procedures specific to ORP.
12.2 Standardization steps are specific to the pH meter currently in use in this
laboratory (Denver Instrument Model 225 pH/ISE meter). If the make or model of meter
changes, consult the meters instruction manual for detailed calibration instructions.
12.2.1 Initial Setup

213

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


12.2.1.1 Follow manufacturers instructions for initial setup of the Accumet
combination Platinum/Ag-AgCl electrode.
12.2.1.2 After the probe has been connected to the meter, turn the meter on.
12.2.1.3 Press the Standardize button. Press 4 for mV options menu.
12.2.1.4 Press the Standardize button. Press 4 for mV options menu.
12.2.1.5 Press 1 for resolution- set to 1 mV.
12.2.1.6 Press 2 for stability criteria- set to medium
12.2.1.7 Press 3 for signal averaging- set to medium
12.2.1.8 Press 6 to return to the standardization menu. Press Mode to return to
mV mode.
12.2.1.9 The above steps only need to be repeated if the meter has been turned off.
12.2.2 Check standard
12.2.2.1 Remove black plastic end protector from the electrode.
12.2.2.2 Very gently polish the platinum wire with Bon Ami and a q-tip.
12.2.2.3 Rinse electrode thoroughly with DI water.
12.2.2.4 Replace the black plastic end protector.
12.2.2.5 Place the electrode in a beaker of ZoBells solution, and provide moderate
stirring.
12.2.2.6 After allowing the reading to stabilize, record the mV value and the
temperature.
12.2.2.7 The recorded value should be within +/- 10 mV of the calculated value for
ZoBells solution at the recorded temperature. This value can be calculated by Eh = [0.428
0.0022 (T 25)] * 1000. A table of values for various temperatures will be provided for easy
reference.
12.2.2.8 If the recorded value is not within the desired range, repeat analysis with a
fresh sample. If the value is still not within range, change electrode filling solution and repeat
analysis. If still not within range, perform electrode cleaning procedure. If still not within range,
discard the electrode and begin analysis with new electrode.
12.2.2.9 After analysis, rinse electrode with DI water and place electrode in storage
solution.
13.0 Procedure
13.1 Once daily, analyze the check standard using the procedure found in section 13.
Ensure that the check standard is within range.
13.2 Remove the electrode from the storage solution. Rinse electrode thoroughly over
a waste beaker with DI water from a plastic squeeze bottle. Gently blot electrode with a
Kimwipe.
13.3 Immerse the electrode in the first sample, and provide moderate stirring.
13.4 Allow approximately 1 minute for the reading to stabilize. Once the reading has
stabilized, record the mV and temperature for the sample.
13.5 Rinse and repeat for the remaining samples.
13.6 After the last sample in a batch has been analyzed, rinse the electrode thoroughly
with DI water, blot and return the electrode to the storage solution.
14.0 Calculations
14.1 Report millivolt values to the nearest 1.0 mV, and temperature to the nearest C.
15.0 Method Performance
15.1 MDLs?

214

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


15.2 If electrode response becomes sluggish, perform electrode cleaning procedure.
16.0 Data Assessment and Acceptance Criteria for QC Measures
16.1 All QQ measures shall be assessed and evaluated on an ongoing basis and QC
acceptance criteria, which follow, shall be used to determine the acceptability of the data.
16.1.1 Quality control checks should be within +/- 10 mV of the expected value.
17.0 Corrective Actions for Unacceptable Data
17.1 Corrective actions for each QC check follow:
17.1.1 Discard check standard and replace with fresh aliquot. Recalibrate. If still
outside of acceptable range, replace electrode filling solution. Recalibrate. If still outside range,
perform electrode cleaning procedure. Recalibrate. If still outside range, discard electrode and
begin procedure with new electrode.
18.0 Contingencies for Handling Unacceptable Data
18.1 Samples may be reported only if the quality control measures are met. If the QC
check is found to be unacceptable, no data associated with the failed criteria is to be reported.
19.0 Troubleshooting
19.1 Meter will not operate. Possible causes: Line/cord may not be firmly connected
to electrical outlet. Solution: Firmly connect cord to outlet.
19.2 Noisy or drifting readings. Possible causes: 1) electrode not plugged into proper
terminal 2) electrode plugs not seated properly 3) reference electrode solution is low, empty or
crystallized 4) cracked, broken or faulty electrode 5) solutions to be tested are at various
temperatures 6) lack of insulator between beaker and stirrer 7) stirring: none, too fast or too slow.
Solutions: 1) plug electrode into designated terminal 2) firmly reseat electrode plug 3) maintain
electrode filling solution level as described in Accumet instructions and see section 20.3 4)
replace electrode 5) not applicable here 6) place an insulator mat between beaker and stirrer 7)
stir at a constant, moderate rate.
19.3 Sluggish Response. If electrode performance becomes sluggish or you experience
excessive drift, perform the electrode cleaning procedure as described below:
19.3.1 Carefully polish the metallic platinum wire with Bon Ami. Rinse with DI and
blot dry.
19.3.2 Repeat the above procedure until performance improves.
19.3.3 If the above procedure did not help, the following has been useful for restoring
electrode performance after long periods of use:
19.3.3.1 Mix 1 volume concentrated nitric acid with 3 volumes concentrated
hydrochloric acid. NOTE: This should be done under a fume hood.
19.3.3.2 Immerse the electrode in this solution for 1-2 minutes.
19.3.3.3 Rinse thoroughly with DI water and blot dry.
19.3.3.4 If the electrode is broken or cracked, replace electrode.
19.3.4 Check standard out of range. Possible causes: 1) cracked or broken electrode 2)
dirty electrode 3) lack of insulator between stirrer and beaker. Solutions: 1) replace electrode 2)
Discard check standard and replace with fresh aliquot. Recalibrate. If still outside of acceptable
range, replace electrode filling solution. Recalibrate. If still outside range, perform electrode
cleaning procedure. Recalibrate. If still outside range, discard electrode and begin procedure
with new electrode. 3) place insulator mat between beaker and stirrer.
20.0 References
20.1 Standard Operating Procedures for Determination of Alkalinity by Tirtration to
pH 4.5. Philadelphia Water Department Bureau of Laboratory Services, January 25, 2002.

215

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


20.2 Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 18th ed.
Oxidation-Reduction Potential (2580) Measurement in Clean Water
20.3 Denver Instruments Model 225 pH/ISE meter Operation Manual, 301127.1 Rev.
D.
20.4 Accumet Instructions for Platinum Electrodes, models 13-620-82 or 13-620-115.

CASE STUDY (II) PROTOCOL


COMPARISON OF ANTHRACITE VS GAC FILTERS FOR MN
REMOVAL IN ONE TREATMENT PLANT

The Huntington Water Treatment Plant treats water for drinking-water compliance using
traditional treatment techniques. Prior to the D/DBP Rule they coagulated at a high pH and
relied on GAC filter to reduce Taste and Odor compounds. They have changed their operational
practices to remove more TOC via coagulation and moved the initial point of chlorination further
back into their water treatment process.

Water from the Ohio River is pumped into a holding reservoir where solids are allowed
to settle. Following the initial settling of solids, sulfuric acid (to enhance removal of TOC in
coagulation), ferric sulfate (coagulant) and a polymer coagulant aid are added at the mixing tank,
before the water splits into two settling basins. In each of the settling basins, there are four
flocculation chambers consisting of baffling, settling, and plate settlers. As the water leaves the
sedimentation basin, caustic is added to increase the pH to 7.0, followed by addition of a filter
aid and chlorine. The addition of chlorine (2 mg/L) prior to filtration aids in Mn oxidation and
subsequent removal via filtration. To remove taste and odor causing organics, the plant has
historically used GAC filters and had twelve of these on site. Recently, one of the GAC filters
was replaced with anthracite. Depending on other water quality parameters, occasionally some
Mn (which we think remains dissolved) passes through the filter even with the raising of pH and
addition of chlorine. The Mn that does pass through the filters manifests itself in increased
turbidity in the clearwell. There is no chlorine residual leaving the GAC filters. Since a chlorine
residual can be maintained across an anthracite filter, making it better filter for removal of Mn,
one of filter has been changed to anthracite.

By comparing the levels of Mn in the sedimentation effluent with the water in the filter
effluents of the anthracite filter and an adjacent GAC filter, we will compare directly the
performance of the two filter types on Mn removal ability. Because the only variable in the filter
effluent samples will be the filters themselves, this study will allow for a direct full-scale
comparison of Mn removal efficiency between the two filter types.

As a result of conducting the detailed survey and continued dialogue with Sandra
Johnson it was thought that the amount of alkalinity in the process water has something to do
with the efficacy of Mn removal. It seems that the more alkalinity that is in the water the better
removal they achieve. This was supported by an observation that at very low source water
alkalinity, alkalinity so low that treatment cannot be conducted, they add lime pre rapid mix.
During these times, Mn removal is much.

216

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Three sampling events will occur during this study. Ideally, the sampling will capture a
wide range of source water alkalinity conditions, although limited time and resources will limit
the plant staffs ability to wait, watch, and capture samples during instances of specific water
quality criteria.

The plant treatment process schematic is presented in Figure B.3.

217

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Figure B.3 Schematic of Huntington Water Treatment Plant

218

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table B.4 summarizes the treatment process and also shows the locations throughout the
treatment process at which samples will be collected for this study.

Table B.4.
Plant treatment process and parameters to be tested throughout the treatment process.

Location Treatment Tested parameters


Source None pH, alkalinity, metals
Source water following KMnO4 (as needed) pH, metals (Mn only)
treatment Fe2(SO4)3, H2SO4, polymer
Sed Basins (floc tanks) None
Sed Basin Eff/Filter Inf NaOH, chlorine gas, Turbidity, pH, chlorine,
polymer alk alinity, metals
Anthracite filter effluent None Turbidity, % valve eff,
particle counts, pH,
chlorine, alkalinity, metals
GAC filter effluent None Turbidity, % valve eff,
particle counts, pH,
chlorine, alkalinity, metals
Combined filter effluent None Turbidity, metals (Mn only)
Clearwell influent NaOH, chlorine gas, pH, particle counts,
hydrofluorosilic acid chlorine, alkalinity
Mid clearwell 1:3 zinc orthophosphate Turbidity, pH, chlorine,
alkalinity, metals
Finished None Turbidity, pH, chlorine,
alkalinity, metals

Where metals are requested, Mn, Fe, Na, P, Ca, Mg, and Hardness will be measured by
ICP-AES. For metals, three size fractions of sample will be collected: unfiltered (total), filtered
(<0.22m filter), ultrafiltered (<30 kDa). Iron and Mn will be measured in the two filtered size
fractions. Where Mn is the only metal requested, Mn will be measured by the Grab PAN method
and/or the plants on-line Mn measuring instrumentat
s samples will be further processed via
filtration through a 0.22m filter and a 30kDa filter. Iron and Mn will be measured in the
filtered samples. Following collection, the metals samples will be returned to the Philadelphia
Water Department, Bureau of Laboratory Services (PWD-BLS) for analysis. For some samples,
a grab sample will also be collected for determination of Mn concentration by the Hach PAN
method at the treatment plant. The reliability of the PAN method will be confirmed by
comparing results with the results obtained by ICP-AES analysis at PWD-BLS. Figure B.4
depicts locations of on-line Mn measuring instrumentation. Where applicable, samples collected
for metals determinations will also have corresponding Mn measurements obtained by the on-
line instrumentation.

219

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Figure B.4 Sampling locations and chemical addition points for Case Study (II)

220

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


APPENDIX C
DETAILED SURVEY DATA

Table C.1
Detailed Survey: Facility - Average Flow, Design Flow, and Population Served
Utility/Facility Distribution System - Average and Maximum Residence Time and Length

Utility Facility Distirbution System


ID ID Country Facility Residence Time
Average Design Population Maximu
Flow Volume Served Average m Length
(MGD) (MGD) (days) (days) (miles)

Mean 28.6 44.9 169,491 3.3 7.9 1,439


Geo Mean 7.8 15.9 51,189 2.0 4.2 528
Min 0.2 0.5 1,000 0.2 0.2 3
Max 168.0 282.0 1,000,000 25.0 90.0 6,000

1 187 USA 100 200 750,000 0.2 0.83 2,200


2 30 USA 8.7 22 20,000 2 2 285
3 38 USA 50 72 400,000 10 28 270
4 26 USA 86 86 300,000 1 3
5 31 USA 16.4 30 102,000 3.5 5.5 638
6 46 USA 2.4 2 11,000 0.33 0.5 50
7 181 USA 16 25 105,000 1 3
8 163 USA 4 8 29,000 2 4 100
9 1 USA 165 282 600,000 6 10 3,400
13 178 USA 2.9 380
21 146 USA 2.9 3.5 6,200 3 5 108
22 169 USA 22 46 160,000 1 3 1,800
28 185 USA 27 86 124,000 500
29 68 USA 14 24 101,000 4 180
30 219 USA 2 4
58 183 USA 35,600
71 51 USA 2 3 22,000 1 1 125
78 45 USA 0.4 1 7,500 3 5 36
90 186 USA 1.64 4.3 5,000 102
95 108 USA 3.5 8 44,000 2 237
95 109 USA 0.8 4 11,000 2 237
Continued on next page

221

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table C.1 (Continued)
Detailed Survey: Facility - Average Flow, Design Flow, and Population Served
Utility/Facility Distribution System- Average and Maximum Residence Time and Length

Utility Facility Distirbution System


ID ID Country Facility Residence Time
Average Design Population Maximu
Flow Volume Served Average m Length
(MGD) (MGD) (days) (days) (miles)
117 22 USA 25 50 240,000 7 10 1,100
122 205 USA 0.3 0.6 7,500 0.2 0.2 3
191 199 USA 4.3 5 236
216 176 USA 100 765,000 1.5 3 6,000
218 246 USA 5 30,000 1 2 420
251 37 USA 3.65 15 17,300 4 5 100
258 70 Canada 6.6 13 50,000 2.2 230
269 155 USA 79 175,000 1 4 971
281 69 USA 0.3 1 2,000
315 105 USA 13 20 87,000 2.5 8 400
317 184 USA 0.35 0.66 1,880 2 3 120
318 256 USA 0.94 6,900 1 2
319 118 USA 0.32 0.48 1,000 1 3
320 126 USA 2 8,600 1 2
321 125 USA 0.43 5,200 1 2
322 124 USA 0.2 1.2 5,500 1.5 3
323 87 Australia 41 75 270,000 1 3 1,700
324 89 Australia 18 42 210,000 5 7 620
325 90 Australia 4.5 10 44,000 3.5 6
326 174 Australia 64.5 64.5 220,000 2.5 10 3,850
327 193 UK 5.1 7.75 4 550
328 191 UK 95 1,000,000 5 3,700
329 192 UK 5 3,700
334 251 USA 35 60 40,000 7 30 584
336 195 USA 36 54 500,000 2.5 8 5,500
344 216 USA 32 42 250,000 1 6
350 258 USA 0.86 6,900 1 2
351 173 Australia 168 181 569,000 2.5 10 3,850
352 172 Australia 64.5 85.2 220,000 2.5 10 3,850
400 244 USA 37 60 200,000 15 30 4,000
401 243 USA 31 60 200,000 25 90 4,000

222

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table C.2
Detailed survey customer complaint response
Utility State Country Track Differentiate Follow Up Test for Mn Overall Assessment of Customer Sys
ID Complaints Complaints Complaints
1 NJ USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Good, Maintains database, however two separate database for two departments.
2 MN USA Yes No Yes No Ok, no computerized system and follow up is done depending on complaint.
3 GA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Don't get complaints from end users, but from consecutive systems Retail customers can differentiate customer complaints. Only one Mn even in last 24 ye
4 NC USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Good; they maintain a database
5 NC USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Seems like a good sysytem. They maintain an Access database system
6 NH USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Good follow-up, but use log book for complaints, and chief plant operator responds to complaints.
7 MS USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Do NOT follow up on black or brown water complaints. Records kept in multiple places, water maintenance keeps a database
8 OH USA Yes Yes Yes Yes They record the complaint in forms and file by year. No computerized system
9 PA USA Yes Yes Yes No Very good - customer call center record in computer database, laboratory branch has direct acces to data
13 NJ USA Yes Yes Yes No Don't have computerized complaint system, only paper files. Mn complaints very rare, compared to T&O, chlorine, or color.
21 ME USA Yes Yes Yes Yes 90% follow up, sounds good, but not a sophisticated system
22 VA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Very good
28 CO USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Very good tracking of complaints. Maintain a database, but they cannot see a cluster of complaints in system.
29 MA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Not computerized; keep phone logs. Complaints go to their Distribution Division and if it's water quality related, it goes to their Lab/Operations. System is
30 TX USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Average - follow-up based on type of complaint
58 OH USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Use Log book to record complaints and do not have computerized sysytem.
71 MA USA Yes No Yes Yes 25% of complaints follwed up. 9 of 10 complaints are for color, 1 in 10 is for Chlorine taste. Use colorimetric Mn analysis. Not sophistcated system.
78 MA USA Yes Yes No Yes No database and not very sophiscated.
90 MA USA Yes No Yes Yes They don't log customer compliant(part of the reason being that they so little compliants twith the new system).
95 MA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes They maintain a spreadsheet, however does not seems very sophisticated system.
95 MA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Maintain spreadsheet, however does not seem very sophisticated
117 NE USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Good, computerized tracking system
122 OR USA No Yes No No Poor, Small utility. Complaints are usually for dirty water, so utility will flush mains
191 WA USA Yes No No Yes Small system
216 NY USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Computerized system for records. Overall the system seems effective.
218 LA USA Yes Yes No Yes Only follow-up is complaint is health related. Recently started tracking data electronically. Solve many complaints by flushing
251 CO USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Utility has an Environmental Services unit to handle all customer complaints
258 NB Canada Yes Yes Yes Yes Detailed tracking of customer complaints
269 ID USA Yes Yes Yes Yes They have a computerized system and seem pretty effective. Follow-up is done if water is affecting customers' health.
281 AK USA Yes No Yes Yes Not sophisticated - no complaints since March 2003 - electronic files prior to March 2003 are lost
315 WV USA Yes Yes Yes No Good. Computerized tracking system with monthly review. Use complaints to modify plant treatment performance.
317 OH USA No No No Yes Not usual to follow up complaints, no computerized complaint system
318 CA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Will follow-up on discoloration complaints, but will only sample if complaint states water makes customer ill. Often problem subsides before lab analysis i
319 CA USA Yes Yes No Yes Only sample if water makes customer ill, field test w/ Hach PAN. They have 24 hr. customer service w/ computerized records, but not very accesable.
320 CA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Will follow-up on discoloration complaints, but will only sample if complaint states water makes customer ill. Often problem subsides before lab analysis i
321 CA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Will follow-up on discoloration complaints, but will only sample if complaint states water makes customer ill. Often problem subsides before lab analysis i
322 CA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Only sample if water makes customer ill, field test w/ Hach PAN. They have 24 hr. customer service but not computerized.
323 QLD Australia Yes Yes No No Only follow up if a cluster of complaints (i.e. over 5 complaints in one area). Most Mn complaints due to hydraulic changes releasing Mn in distribution
324 NSW Australia No No No No Customer complaint monitoring managed by client (Town Council) not by utility
325 QLD Australia Yes Yes Yes No Noosa Council follows up on complaints, not Veola Water. Track complaints in database; few clustered complaints
326 QLD Australia Yes Yes Yes Yes All complaints are recorded in Maximo software. T &O complaints are followed up by WQ onsite sampling. Dirty water complaintsby investigation.
327 Yorks UK Yes Yes Yes No
328 Cumbria UK Yes Yes Yes No All complaints are computerized and audited by regulators.
329 UK Yes Yes Yes No All complaints are computerized and audited by regulators.
334 PA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Have electronic log of complaints and LIMS to investigate. If dirty water, crew will often flush area. No changes to treatment process
336 MD USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Good and useful- could be better by own admission.
344 MO USA Yes No No Yes Follow-up mostly depends on public relations purposes. Not a computerized tracking system
350 CA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Will follow-up on discoloration complaints, but will only sample if complaint states water makes customer ill. Often problem subsides before lab analysis i
351 QLD Australia Yes Yes Yes Yes All complaints are recorded in Maximo software. T &O complaints are followed up by WQ onsite sampling. Dirty water complaintsby investigation.
352 QLD Australia Yes Yes Yes Yes All complaints are recorded in Maximo software. T &O complaints are followed up by WQ onsite sampling. Dirty water complaintsby investigation.
400 CA USA Yes Yes Yes No No Mn related customer complaints
401 CA USA Yes Yes Yes Yes Call center tracks complaints, system inspectors follow up within 24 hours. Response also recorded in database. No Mn complaints on record

52 Totals 49 44 43 40
94% 85% 83% 77%

223

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Raw Water Raw Water Raw Water Raw Water
pH vs Total Manganese Hardness vs Total Manganese UV254 Absorbance vs Total Manganese Total Iron vs Total Manganese
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
14 mg/L Iron data point omitted
n = 33 n = 25 n=9 n = 33

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0


Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0


2
R2 = 0.093 R = 0.3058 2
R = 0.1179 2
R = 0.0007
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
pH (units) Hardness (mg/L) UV254 Absorbance (1/cm) Total Iron (mg/L)

Raw Water Raw Water Raw Water Raw Water


Turbidity vs Total Manganese Alkalinity vs Total Manganese Apparent Color vs Total Manganese Sodium vs Total Manganese
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

n = 30 n = 24 n = 14 n = 14

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0


Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
2
R = 0.3691

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0


2
2
R = 0.4896 2
R = 0.0128 R = 0.1672
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Turbidity (NTU) Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) Apparent Color (Color Units) Sodium (mg/L)

Raw Water Raw Water Raw Water Raw Water


Dissolved Oxygen vs Total Manganese Total Organic Carbon vs Total Manganese Orthophosphate vs Total Manganese Calcium vs Total Manganese
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

n = 10 n = 17 n=4 n = 17

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0


Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
2
R = 0.6397
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2
R = 0.0199 2 2
R = 0.3625 R = 9E-06
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
D.O. (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) Orthophosphate (mg/L as P) Calcium (mg/L)

Raw Water Raw Water Raw Water Raw Water


Conductivity vs Total Manganese Dissolved Organic Carbon vs Total Manganese Sulfate vs Total Manganese Total Dissolved Solids vs Total Manganese
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

n = 25 n=5 n = 14 n = 14

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0


Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
2
2 R = 0.0951
R = 0.162
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
2
R = 0.0241
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
2
R = 0.37

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Conductivity (mho/cm) DOC (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) TDS (mg/L)

Figure C.1 Correlations of raw water total Mn with single water quality parameters. Using the detailed survey self reported data
224

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water
pH vs Total Manganese Hardness vs Total Manganese UV254 Absorbance vs Total Manganese Total Iron vs Total Manganese
0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

0.090 n = 41 0.090 n = 29 0.090 n=8 0.090 n = 32

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080

0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070


R2 = 0.1041

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060
R2 = 0.1715
0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050
R2 = 0.0002
0.040 2 0.040 0.040 0.040
R = 0.0084
0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140
pH (units) Hardness (mg/L) UV254 Absorbance (1/cm) Total Iron (mg/L)

Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water


Turbidity vs Total Manganese Alkalinity vs Total Manganese Apparent Color vs Total Manganese Sodium vs Total Manganese
0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

0.090 n = 38 0.090 n = 39 0.090 n = 20 0.090 n = 29

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080


R2 = 0.1793
0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060
R2 = 0.0728
0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050
2
R = 0.0096 R2 = 2E-05
0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Turbidity (NTU) Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) Apparent Color (Color Units) Sodium (mg/L)

Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water


Dissolved Oxygen vs Total Manganese Total Organic Carbon vs Total Manganese Orthophosphate vs Total Manganese Calcium vs Total Manganese
0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

0.090 n=6 0.090 n = 17 0.090 n = 15 0.090 n = 23

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080

0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070


R2 = 0.3202

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060
R2 = 0.0002
R2 = 0.798
0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050

0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030 R2 = 0.0074 0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
D.O. (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) Orthophosphate (mg/L as P) Calcium (mg/L)

Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water Finished Water


Conductivity vs Total Manganese Dissolved Organic Carbon vs Total Manganese Sulfate vs Total Manganese Total Dissolved Solids vs Total Manganese
0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

0.090 n = 29 0.090 n=5 0.090 n = 30 0.090 n = 20

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080

0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070


Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060

0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050


R2 = 0.0052 R2 = 0.004
0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040
R2 = 0.0182
0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030
R2 = 0.028
0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Conductivity (mho/cm) DOC (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) TDS (mg/L)

Figure C.2 Correlations of finished water total Mn with single water quality parameters. Using the detailed survey self reported data
225

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Distribution System Water Distribution System Water Distribution System Water Distribution System Water
pH vs Total Manganese Hardness vs Total Manganese UV254 Absorbance vs Total Manganese Total Iron vs Total Manganese
0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120

n=9 2 n = 10
n = 13 R n==1 2
0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080


Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
2 2
R = 0.0002 R = 0.3761
0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060
R2 = 0.0564
0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.140 0.160 0.180 0.200
pH (units) Hardness (mg/L) UV254 Absorbance (1/cm) Total Iron (mg/L)

Distribution System Water Distribution System Water Distribution System Water Distribution System Water
Turbidity vs Total Manganese Alkalinity vs Total Manganese Apparent Color vs Total Manganese Sodium vs Total Manganese
0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120
2 n = 11
R = 0.4052 n=9 n=6
0.100 0.100 0.100 n=4 0.100
2
R = 0.6000
0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
2
0.060 0.060 R = 0.0039 0.060 0.060

0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040


2
R = 0.0519

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 5 10 15 20 25 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Turbidity (NTU) Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) Apparent Color (Color Units) Sodium (mg/L)

Distribution System Water Distribution System Water Distribution System Water Distribution System Water
Dissolved Oxygen vs Total Manganese Total Organic Carbon vs Total Manganese Orthophosphate vs Total Manganese Calcium vs Total Manganese
0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120

n=0 n=6 n=5 n=1


0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080


Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060
2
R = 0.1039
0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020


2
R = 0.0523

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 0 5 10 15 20 25
D.O. (mg/L) TOC (mg/L) Orthophosphate (mg/L as P) Calcium (mg/L)

Distribution System Water Distribution System Water Distribution System Water Distribution System Water
Conductivity vs Total Manganese Dissolved Organic Carbon vs Total Manganese Sulfate vs Total Manganese Total Dissolved Solids vs Total Manganese
0.120 0.120 0.120 0.120
n=5
n=8 n=1 n=1
0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100

0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080


Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
2
R = 0.0274
0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060

2
R = 0.0014
0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 174 176 178 180 182 184 186 188
Conductivity (mho/cm) DOC (mg/L) Sulfate (mg/L) TDS (mg/L)

Figure C.3Correlations of distribution system water total Mn with single water quality parameters. Using the detailed survey self reported data
226

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


APPENDIX D

DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM SEASONAL TESTING DATA

DISTIBUTION SYSTEM MANGANESE PLOTS

227

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


2/26/2004 5/20/2004
0.060 0.060

Total Manganese
0.050 0.22 m Filtered Manganese 0.050
30 kDa Filtered Manganese
Manganese (mg/L)

0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

8/31/2004 11/9/2004
0.060 0.060

0.050 0.050
Manganese (mg/L)

0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far
Utility ID :2
U.S. Geographic location : Midwest
Source water : Ground Water
Treatment type : Parallel conventional gravity settling and manganese greensand
Mn Specific Treatment : Aeration and KMnO4 / Greensand
Figure D.1 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented as
mean and of triplicate samples.

228

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


2/26/2004 5/26/2004
0.150 0.150
Total Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
0.120 0.120 30 kDa Filtered Manganese
Manganese (mg/L)

0.090 0.090

0.060 0.060

0.030 0.030

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

11/18/2004 1/10/2005
0.150 0.150

0.120 0.120
Manganese (mg/L)

0.090 0.090

0.060 0.060

0.030 0.030

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

Utility ID :7
U.S. Geographic location : South
Source water : Surface Water
Treatment type : Conventional Gravity Settling
Mn Specific Treatment : KMnO4
Figure D.2 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented as
mean and of triplicate samples.

229

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


3/9/2004 6/16/2004
0.050 0.050
Total Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
0.040 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

9/10/2004 12/8/2004
0.050 0.050

0.040 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

Utility ID :9
U.S. Geographic location : Mid-Atlantic
Source water : Surface Water
Treatment type : Conventional Gravity Settling
Mn Specific Treatment : Induced Oxide Coated Media
Figure D.3 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented as
mean and of triplicate samples.

230

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


4/29/2004 7/15/2004
0.050 0.050
Total Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
0.040 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

11/3/2004 1/4/2005
0.050 0.050

0.040 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

Utility ID : 21
U.S. Geographic location : Northeast
Source water : Groundwater
Treatment type : Manganese Greensand
Mn Specific Treatment : Greensand
Figure D.4 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented as
mean and of triplicate samples.

231

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


1/24/2004 4/20/2004
0.050 0.050
Total Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
0.040 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

8/27/2004 11/12/2005
0.050 0.050

0.040 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far
Utility ID : 22
U.S. Geographic location : Mid-Atlantic
Source water : Surface water
Treatment type : Advanced clarification with intermediate ozone
Mn Specific Treatment : Induced oxide coated media - auxiliary KMnO4
Figure D.5 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented as
mean and of triplicate samples.

232

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


2/11/2004 5/27/2004
0.050 0.050
Total Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
0.040 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

8/19/2004
0.050

0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030

0.020

0.010

0.000
Entry Near Mid Far

Utility ID : 216
U.S. Geographic location : Northeast
Source water : Surface Water
Treatment type : Disinfection
Mn Specific Treatment : None
Figure D.6 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented as
mean and of triplicate samples.

233

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


7/22/2004
0.250

0.200

Manganese (mg/L)
0.150

0.100

0.050

0.000
Entry Near Mid Far

12/20/2004
0.200

0.150
Manganese (mg/L)

0.100

0.050
30 kDa Filtered Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
Total Manganese

0.000
Entry Near Mid Far

Utility ID : 269
U.S. Geographic location : Northwest
Source water : Groundwater
Treatment type : Disinfection
Mn Specific Treatment : Sequestration
Figure D.7 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented as
mean and of triplicate samples.

234

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


2/11/2004 5/26, 5/27, and 6/2/2004
0.050 0.050
Total Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
0.040 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
6 27 e2 27
Entry Near Mid Far y2 ay Jun - May
- Ma - M d -
Ent
ry Ne
ar Mi Far

8/26/2004 11/1/2005
0.050 0.050

0.040 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

Utility ID : 315
U.S. Geographic location : Mid-Atlantic
Source water : Surface Water
Treatment type : Conventional gravity settling
Mn Specific Treatment : Induced oxide coated media on GAC
Figure D.8 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented as
mean and of triplicate samples.

235

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


8/24/2004 10/21/2004
0.100 0.100
Total Manganese
Total Manganese
0.22
0.22 m m Filtered
Filtered Manganese
Manganese
0.080 0.080 30 kDa30 kDa Filtered
Filtered Manganese
Manganese
Manganese (mg/L)

0.060 0.060

0.040 0.040

0.020 0.020

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

1/7/2005
0.100

0.080
Manganese (mg/L)

0.060

0.040

0.020

Note: Some values not triplicates -


sample bottles broken in transit.
0.000
Entry Near Mid Far
Utility ID : 318
U.S. Geographic location : West
Source water : Groundater
Treatment type : Disinfection
Mn Specific Treatment : Sequestration
Figure D.9 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented as
mean and of triplicate samples.

236

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


6/16/2004 8/5/2004
0.050 0.050
Total Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
0.040 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far

11/23/2004 12/22/2004
0.050 0.050

0.040 0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000
Entry Near Mid Far Entry Near Mid Far
Utility ID : 336
U.S. Geographic location : Mid-Atlantic
Source water : Surface Water
Treatment type : Conventional gravity settling
Mn Specific Treatment : Induced oxide coated media on GAC
Figure D.10 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented
as mean and of triplicate samples.

237

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


6/10/2004
0.050
Total Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
0.040 30 kDa Filtered Manganese

Manganese (mg/L)
0.030

0.020

0.010

0.000
Entry Near Mid Far

12/29/2004
0.050

0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030

0.020

0.010

0.000
Entry Near Mid Far
Utility ID : 400
U.S. Geographic location : West
Source water : Surface water
Treatment type : Conventional gravity settling with intermediate ozone
Mn Specific Treatment : KMnO4
Figure D.11 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented
as mean and of triplicate samples.

238

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


6/9/2004
0.050
Total Manganese
0.22 m Filtered Manganese
0.040 30 kDa Filtered Manganese

Manganese (mg/L)
0.030

0.020

0.010

0.000
Entry Near Mid Far

2/9/2005
0.050

0.040
Manganese (mg/L)

0.030

0.020

0.010

0.000
Entry Near Mid Far
Utility ID : 401
U.S. Geographic location : West
Source water : Surface water
Treatment type : Advanced clarification with intermediate ozone
Mn Specific Treatment : Reservoir hypolimnic oxygenation system / none
Figure D.12 Results of distribution system seasonal occurrence sampling. Data presented
as mean and of triplicate samples.

239

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


DISRTIBUTION SYSTEM METALS AND WATER QUALITY DATA

Table D.1 Utility 2 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 2 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Na Ca Mg Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 2/26/2004 1 < 0.001 12.5 114 41 455 0.007 < 0.005 0.008 0.007 0.001 0.001
Entry 2/26/2004 2 < 0.001 13.0 132 47 524 < 0.005 0.005 0.007 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 2/26/2004 3 < 0.001 13.1 125 45 500 < 0.005 0.007 0.013 0.007 0.001 < 0.001

Near 2/26/2004 1 < 0.001 12.9 117 42 465 0.005 0.007 0.006 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 2/26/2004 2 < 0.001 13.0 117 42 464 < 0.005 0.007 0.007 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 2/26/2004 3 < 0.001 13.1 125 45 496 < 0.005 0.009 < 0.005 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 2/26/2004 1 < 0.001 12.7 117 41 462 0.005 < 0.005 0.020 0.006 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 2/26/2004 2 < 0.001 13.1 119 42 472 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 2/26/2004 3 < 0.001 13.3 126 45 500 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.006 0.009 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 2/26/2004 1 < 0.001 12.8 126 45 501 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 2/26/2004 2 < 0.001 13.1 117 42 465 0.007 < 0.005 0.007 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 2/26/2004 3 < 0.001 13.6 126 45 498 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.008 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 2/26/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 < 0.662 0.009 0.002
FIELD BLANK 2/26/2004 0.001 < 0.05 < 0.662 < 0.005 0.002
FILTER BLANK 2/26/2004 0.011 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 2/26/2004 0.006 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 2/26/2004 < 0.006 < 0.001

240

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.2 Utility 2 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 2 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Spring 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Na Ca Mg Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 5/20/2004 1 < 0.001 12.8 122 42 476 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.044 0.032 0.014
Entry 5/20/2004 2 < 0.001 12.9 123 42 481 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.039 0.032 0.003
Entry 5/20/2004 3 < 0.001 13.0 124 42 482 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.041 0.030 0.008

Near 5/20/2004 1 <0.001 13.0 122 42 480 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.036 0.026 0.004
Near 5/20/2004 2 <0.001 12.9 122 42 477 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.033 0.023 0.007
Near 5/20/2004 3 <0.001 12.7 122 42 476 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.033 0.024 0.006

Mid 5/20/2004 1 <0.001 12.2 117 41 461 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.014 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 5/20/2004 2 <0.001 12.4 120 41 471 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.012 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 5/20/2004 3 <0.001 12.5 119 41 467 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.013 0.001 < 0.001

Far 5/20/2004 1 <0.001 11.9 116 40 456 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.022 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 5/20/2004 2 <0.001 12.0 117 41 461 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.024 0.005 < 0.001
Far 5/20/2004 3 <0.001 12.7 126 44 495 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.024 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 5/20/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 < 1.66 < 0.005 0.002
FIELD BLANK 5/20/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 < 1.66 < 0.005 0.002
FILTER BLANK 5/20/2004 <0.006 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 5/20/2004 <0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 5/20/2004 <0.005 <0.001

241

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.1 Utility 2 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 2 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Summer 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Na Ca Mg Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 8/31/2004 1 < 0.001 10.9 111 39 437 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.055 0.038 0.033
Entry 8/31/2004 2 < 0.001 10.8 114 39 443 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.056 0.037 0.033
Entry 8/31/2004 3 < 0.001 10.4 111 37 431 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.058 0.038 0.034

Near 8/31/2004 1 <0.001 10.6 116 38 446 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.055 0.038 0.031
Near 8/31/2004 2 <0.001 10.6 113 38 439 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.058 0.036 0.032
Near 8/31/2004 3 <0.001 10.8 115 39 446 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.057 0.037 0.032

Mid 8/31/2004 1 <0.001 11.1 119 40 461 0.013 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 0.005
Mid 8/31/2004 2 <0.001 10.8 114 39 445 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.025 0.006 0.006
Mid 8/31/2004 3 <0.001 10.5 112 38 434 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.026 0.006 0.006

Far 8/31/2004 1 <0.001 11.0 117 40 455 0.007 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.011 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 8/31/2004 2 <0.001 11.0 117 40 458 0.007 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.011 < 0.001 0.003
Far 8/31/2004 3 <0.001 10.8 113 38 442 0.007 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 8/31/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 0.002
FIELD BLANK 8/31/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 0.002
FILTER BLANK 8/31/2004 < 0.005 0.002
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/31/2004 < 0.005 0.002
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/31/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001

242

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.4 Utility 2 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 2 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Fall 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Na Ca Mg Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 11/9/2004 1 < 0.001 10.8 142 30 477 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.011 0.003 < 0.001 0.004
Entry 11/9/2004 2 < 0.001 14.0 137 39 503 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 11/9/2004 3 < 0.001 14.1 136 40 503 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 11/9/2004 1 < 0.001 15.3 137 44 521 0.142 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 11/9/2004 2 < 0.001 14.3 137 40 506 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 11/9/2004 3 < 0.001 15.9 135 41 506 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 11/9/2004 1 < 0.001 16.2 141 44 534 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 0.001
Mid 11/9/2004 2 < 0.001 16.5 143 46 543 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 11/9/2004 3 < 0.001 15.5 141 43 529 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 11/9/2004 1 < 0.001 15.3 139 44 526 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 11/9/2004 2 < 0.001 15.4 139 43 525 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 11/9/2004 3 < 0.001 15.5 139 44 527 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 11/9/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 0.002
FIELD BLANK 11/9/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 0.002
FILTER BLANK 11/9/2004 < 0.005 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/9/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/9/2004 < 0.006 0.001

243

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.5 Utility 7 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 7 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 2/26/2004 1 <0.001 3 10.2 11 0.011 0.006 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 2/26/2004 2 <0.001 3 10.2 10 0.006 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 2/26/2004 3 <0.001 3 10.3 11 0.013 0.006 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 2/26/2004 1 <0.001 3 10.4 10 0.201 0.114 0.001 0.001


Near 2/26/2004 2 <0.001 3 10.7 10 0.145 0.001 0.002
Near 2/26/2004 3 < 0.001 3 10.6 11 0.577 0.134 0.002 0.002

Mid 2/26/2004 1 <0.001 25 3.4 66 < 0.006 0.033 0.014 0.016


Mid 2/26/2004 2 <0.001 24 3.0 65 < 0.006 0.033 0.014 0.015
Mid 2/26/2004 3 < 0.001 25 2.9 66 0.034 0.015 0.015

Far 2/26/2004 1 <0.001 20 5.0 53 0.063 0.014 0.002 0.002


Far 2/26/2004 2 < 0.001 20 4.4 54 0.051 0.018 0.002 0.002
Far 2/26/2004 3 < 0.001 20 4.9 55 0.058 0.018 0.002 0.002

DI/MQ BLANK 2/26/2004 <0.001 0.2 <2 < 0.006 <0.001


FIELD BLANK 2/26/2004 <0.001 <0.05 <1 < 0.006 <0.001
FILTER BLANK 2/26/2004 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 2/26/2004 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 2/26/2004 <0.001

244

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.6 Utility 7 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 7 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Spring 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 5/26/2004 1 < 0.001 4 11.4 16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.027 0.009 0.004
Entry 5/26/2004 2 < 0.001 4 12.0 16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.026 0.008 0.004
Entry 5/26/2004 3 < 0.001 4 11.5 16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.026 0.009 0.004

Near 5/26/2004 1 < 0.001 4 12.2 17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.027 0.007 0.004
Near 5/26/2004 2 < 0.001 4 12.0 16 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.034 0.007 0.003
Near 5/26/2004 3 < 0.001 4 11.7 16 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.028 0.006 0.003

Mid 5/26/2004 1 < 0.001 13 9.4 37 0.015 < 0.006 < 0.005 0.034 0.002 0.002
Mid 5/26/2004 2 < 0.001 13 9.5 36 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.020 0.001 0.001
Mid 5/26/2004 3 < 0.001 12 9.3 35 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.021 0.001 0.001

Far 5/26/2004 1 < 0.001 8 10.1 24 0.018 < 0.005 0.006 0.022 < 0.001 0.002
Far 5/26/2004 2 < 0.001 8 9.8 24 0.017 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.022 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 5/26/2004 3 < 0.001 8 9.7 24 0.018 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.023 < 0.001 0.002

DI/MQ BLANK 5/26/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 5/26/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 5/26/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 5/26/2004 <0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 5/26/2004 <0.005 <0.001

245

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.7 Utility 7 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 7 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Fall 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 11/18/2004 1 < 0.005 4 13.8 16 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.017 0.003 0.003
Entry 11/18/2004 2 < 0.005 4 12.6 16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.017 0.003 0.003
Entry 11/18/2004 3 < 0.005 4 12.8 16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.017 0.003 0.003

Near 11/18/2004 1 < 0.005 4 12.4 17 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.020 0.008 0.007
Near 11/18/2004 2 < 0.005 4 11.6 16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.006 0.020 0.007 0.009
Near 11/18/2004 3 < 0.005 4 11.9 16 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.020 0.007 0.007

Mid 11/18/2004 1 < 0.006 26 5.3 71 0.010 < 0.005 0.011 0.016 0.002 0.002
Mid 11/18/2004 2 < 0.005 25 4.7 69 0.016 < 0.006 < 0.005 0.016 0.002 0.002
Mid 11/18/2004 3 < 0.005 25 5.7 70 0.007 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.016 0.002 0.003

Far 11/18/2004 1 < 0.005 8 13.3 26 0.012 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.013 0.007 0.008
Far 11/18/2004 2 < 0.005 8 12.3 26 0.012 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.014 0.007 0.007
Far 11/18/2004 3 < 0.005 8 0.015 0.008 0.015 0.013 0.007 0.007

DI/MQ BLANK 11/18/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 11/18/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 11/18/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/18/2004 0.006 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/18/2004 < 0.006 < 0.001

246

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.8 Utility 7 Winter 2005 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 7 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2005
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 1/10/2005 1 < 0.001 3 10.5 10 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.010 0.005 0.001
Entry 1/10/2005 2 < 0.001 3 10.2 10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.002
Entry 1/10/2005 3 < 0.001 3 10.4 10 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.001

Near 1/10/2005 1 < 0.001 3 10.3 10 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.016 0.005 0.005
Near 1/10/2005 2 < 0.001 3 10.5 10 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.016 0.005 0.002
Near 1/10/2005 3 < 0.001 3 9.8 10 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.016 0.006 0.005

Mid 1/10/2005 1 < 0.001 28 2.8 74 0.016 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.049 0.023 0.019
Mid 1/10/2005 2 < 0.001 26 2.5 70 0.014 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.041 0.021 0.020
Mid 1/10/2005 3 < 0.001 26 2.3 67 0.020 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.047 0.021 0.019

Far 1/10/2005 1 < 0.001 6 9.8 17 0.136 0.099 < 0.005 0.011 0.005 0.004
Far 1/10/2005 2 < 0.001 6 9.7 18 0.138 0.087 < 0.005 0.012 0.005 0.004
Far 1/10/2005 3 < 0.001 6 9.8 17 0.140 0.040 < 0.005 0.011 0.004 0.005

DI/MQ BLANK 1/10/2005 < 0.001 0.1 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 1/10/2005 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 1/10/2005 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 1/10/2005 < 0.005 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 1/10/2005 < 0.006 < 0.001

247

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.9 Utility 9 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 9 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 3/9/2004 1 <0.001 31 18.8 105 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 3/9/2004 2 <0.001 30 18.4 99 0.014 <0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 3/9/2004 3 <0.001 31 18.6 105 0.010 <0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 3/9/2004 1 <0.001 31 19.1 108 0.013 0.002 0.001 0.001


Near 3/9/2004 2 <0.001 31 19.4 109 0.012 0.002 0.001 0.001
Near 3/9/2004 3 < 0.001 31 18.7 109 0.010 0.002 0.001 0.001

Mid 3/9/2004 1 <0.001 30 19.3 109 0.014 0.001 < 0.001 0.001
Mid 3/9/2004 2 <0.001 28 19.0 106 0.010 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 3/9/2004 3 <0.001 30 19.5 110 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 3/9/2004 1 <0.001 31 19.2 109 0.009 0.001 < 0.001 0.003
Far 3/9/2004 2 <0.001 31 19.2 109 0.009 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 3/9/2004 3 <0.001 31 NR 110 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 3/9/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.006 <0.001
FIELD BLANK 3/9/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 <0.001
FILTER BLANK 3/9/2004 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 3/9/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 3/9/2004 < 0.005 <0.001

248

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.10 Utility 9 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 9 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Spring 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 6/16/2004 1 <0.001 26 13.4 90 0.013 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 6/16/2004 2 <0.001 27 13.6 91 0.013 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 6/16/2004 3 <0.001 25 13.3 86 0.013 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 6/16/2004 1 <0.001 26 13.2 88 0.012 0.006 < 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.001
Near 6/16/2004 2 <0.001 25 13.2 86 0.011 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 0.001 0.001
Near 6/16/2004 3 < 0.001 25 12.9 85 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001

Mid 6/16/2004 1 <0.001 27 13.5 90 0.007 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 6/16/2004 2 <0.001 24 12.6 83 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 6/16/2004 3 <0.001 27 13.5 91 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001

Far 6/16/2004 1 <0.001 25 13.0 85 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.006 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 6/16/2004 2 <0.001 26 13.0 88 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 6/16/2004 3 <0.001 27 13.4 90 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 6/16/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 < 1.66 < 0.005 <0.001
FIELD BLANK 6/16/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 < 1.66 < 0.006 <0.001
FILTER BLANK 6/16/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 6/16/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 6/16/2004 < 0.005 <0.001

249

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.11 Utility 9 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 9 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Summer 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 9/10/2004 1 <0.001 30 11.4 95 0.014 0.011 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 9/10/2004 2 <0.001 31 11.2 97 0.015 0.014 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 9/10/2004 3 <0.001 29 11.0 92 0.015 0.010 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 9/10/2004 1 <0.001 30 11.0 94 0.012 0.009 0.006 0.002 0.002 0.001
Near 9/10/2004 2 <0.001 29 10.8 91 0.013 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.002
Near 9/10/2004 3 < 0.001 30 11.3 94 0.015 0.010 < 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.002

Mid 9/10/2004 1 <0.001 29 11.0 93 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 9/10/2004 2 <0.001 30 10.8 93 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 9/10/2004 3 <0.001 30 11.1 94 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 9/10/2004 1 <0.001 30 10.8 95 0.006 0.009 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 9/10/2004 2 <0.001 30 11.0 94 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 9/10/2004 3 <0.001 31 11.0 96 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 9/10/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 9/10/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 9/10/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 9/10/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 9/10/2004 < 0.005 <0.001

250

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.12 Utility 9 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 9 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Fall 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 12/8/2004 1 < 0.005 25 8.13 77 0.019 0.017 0.008 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 12/8/2004 2 < 0.005 25 7.91 78 0.018 0.017 0.008 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 12/8/2004 3 < 0.005 25 7.97 77 0.018 0.018 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 12/8/2004 1 < 0.006 25 7.75 77 0.011 0.006 0.008 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001
Near 12/8/2004 2 < 0.005 25 7.77 76 0.010 0.007 0.007 0.001 0.001 0.001
Near 12/8/2004 3 < 0.005 25 7.67 76 0.010 0.007 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001

Mid 12/8/2004 1 < 0.005 25 7.46 76 0.010 0.007 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 12/8/2004 2 < 0.005 25 7.61 76 0.011 0.007 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 12/8/2004 3 < 0.005 25 7.63 76 0.010 0.006 0.007 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 12/8/2004 1 < 0.005 26 8.99 83 0.010 < 0.005 0.006 0.001 < 0.001 0.001
Far 12/8/2004 2 < 0.006 26 9.26 83 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 12/8/2004 3 < 0.005 27 8.75 84 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 12/8/2004 < 0.005 < 0.05 <1 0.014 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 12/8/2004 < 0.005 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 12/8/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 12/8/2004 < 0.005 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 12/8/2004 < 0.006 < 0.001

251

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.13 Utility 21 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 21 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Spring 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 4/29/2004 1 0.003 18 16.8 53 0.006 0.006 < 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.002
Entry 4/29/2004 2 0.003 18 18.2 53 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 0.005 0.002
Entry 4/29/2004 3 0.003 19 17.6 54 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.002

Near 4/29/2004 1 0.003 15 17.4 44 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 0.001 0.001
Near 4/29/2004 2 0.003 19 17.1 55 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.001 0.001
Near 4/29/2004 3 0.003 19 17.8 54 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 4/29/2004 1 0.004 18 17.8 53 < 0.005 0.006 < 0.005 0.006 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 4/29/2004 2 0.004 20 17.4 57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 4/29/2004 3 0.004 18 17.5 53 < 0.005 0.006 < 0.005 0.006 0.001 0.001

Far 4/29/2004 1 0.004 18 18.4 53 0.008 0.009 < 0.006 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 4/29/2004 2 0.004 18 18.0 53 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 4/29/2004 3 0.004 18 17.8 53 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.008 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 4/29/2004 < 0.001 0.3 3 < 0.005 0.004


FIELD BLANK 4/29/2004 < 0.001 0.2 3 < 0.006 0.003
FILTER BLANK 4/29/2004 < 0.005 0.003
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 4/29/2004 0.015 0.003
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 4/29/2004 < 0.005 0.003

252

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.14 Utility 21 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 21 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Summer 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 7/15/2004 1 0.004 18 17.0 52 0.010 0.008 < 0.005 0.010 0.008 0.005
Entry 7/15/2004 2 0.004 18 17.1 52 0.010 0.008 < 0.005 0.010 0.008 0.005
Entry 7/15/2004 3 0.003 18 17.3 52 0.011 0.008 < 0.005 0.010 0.008 0.005

Near 7/15/2004 1 0.003 18 17.4 52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.004 0.001
Near 7/15/2004 2 0.003 18 16.7 51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.011 0.004 0.001
Near 7/15/2004 3 0.003 18 17.3 52 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.011 0.004 0.002

Mid 7/15/2004 1 0.004 19 16.9 54 0.017 0.013 < 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.001
Mid 7/15/2004 2 0.003 18 16.9 52 0.018 0.013 < 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.001
Mid 7/15/2004 3 0.003 18 17.0 52 0.019 0.014 < 0.005 0.005 0.002 0.001

Far 7/15/2004 1 0.004 18 16.7 53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 0.002
Far 7/15/2004 2 0.003 18 16.9 53 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 7/15/2004 3 0.003 18 16.7 52 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 7/15/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 7/15/2004 < 0.001 0.1 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 7/15/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 7/15/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 7/15/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001

253

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.15 Utility 21 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 21 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Fall 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 11/3/2004 1 0.003 20 17.6 57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.004 0.002
Entry 11/3/2004 2 0.003 20 17.9 57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.005 0.002
Entry 11/3/2004 3 0.003 20 17.7 57 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.005 0.002

Near 11/3/2004 1 0.003 20 17.9 57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.004 0.003
Near 11/3/2004 2 0.003 20 18.3 58 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.005 0.003
Near 11/3/2004 3 0.003 20 18.4 57 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.005 0.003

Mid 11/3/2004 1 0.003 20 17.9 57 0.029 0.017 0.011 0.007 0.002 0.002
Mid 11/3/2004 2 0.003 20 18.0 58 0.029 0.016 0.008 0.007 0.002 0.002
Mid 11/3/2004 3 0.004 20 17.7 57 0.029 0.016 0.009 0.006 0.002 0.002

Far 11/3/2004 1 0.003 20 18.3 58 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 0.002 0.002
Far 11/3/2004 2 0.003 20 18.6 58 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 0.002 0.002
Far 11/3/2004 3 0.003 20 17.8 57 0.008 0.006 0.011 0.007 0.002 0.002

DI/MQ BLANK 11/3/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 11/3/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 11/3/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/3/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/3/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001

254

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.16 Utility 21 Winter 2005 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 21 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2005
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 1/4/2005 1 0.004 19 19.8 56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.004
Entry 1/4/2005 2 0.004 19 20.2 57 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.006 0.004
Entry 1/4/2005 3 0.004 19 19.6 56 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.005

Near 1/4/2005 1 0.004 19 19.9 56 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.001
Near 1/4/2005 2 0.004 19 19.8 55 < 0.005 0.008 < 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.001
Near 1/4/2005 3 0.004 19 19.8 56 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 0.002 0.001

Mid 1/4/2005 1 0.003 19 19.7 55 0.008 0.007 < 0.005 0.001 0.009 0.001
Mid 1/4/2005 2 0.003 19 19.1 55 0.007 0.007 < 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001
Mid 1/4/2005 3 0.003 19 19.2 55 0.008 0.007 < 0.005 0.001 0.001 0.001

Far 1/4/2005 1 0.003 19 19.6 55 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 1/4/2005 2 0.003 19 19.1 56 < 0.005 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001
Far 1/4/2005 3 0.004 20 19.0 57 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 1/4/2005 < 0.001 < 0.25 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 1/4/2005 < 0.001 < 0.25 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 1/4/2005 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 1/4/2005 0.007 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 1/4/2005 < 0.005 < 0.001

255

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.17 Utility 22 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 22 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 1/24/2004 1 < 0.001 34 7.29 93 0.011 0.021 0.013 0.012
Entry 1/24/2004 2 < 0.001 34 7.51 92 0.010 0.021 0.013 0.013
Entry 1/24/2004 3 < 0.001 34 7.28 92 0.022 0.013 0.012

Near 1/24/2004 1 <0.001 34 7.50 93 0.014 0.027 0.012 0.011


Near 1/24/2004 2 <0.001 34 7.54 93 0.014 0.025 0.012 0.011
Near 1/24/2004 3 <0.001 34 7.39 93 0.024 0.012 0.011

Mid 1/24/2004 1 <0.001 35 7.40 96 0.026 0.018 0.006 0.006


Mid 1/24/2004 2 <0.001 35 7.46 96 0.008 0.018 0.006 0.006
Mid 1/24/2004 3 <0.001 35 7.54 95 0.018 0.006 0.006

Far 1/24/2004 1 <0.001 37 6.54 100 0.048 0.010 0.004 0.004


Far 1/24/2004 2 <0.001 37 6.82 99 0.026 0.010 0.004 0.004
Far 1/24/2004 3 <0.001 37 6.61 101 0.021 0.010 0.004 0.004

DI/MQ BLANK 1/24/2004 <0.001 0.06 <2. <0.005 <0.001


FIELD BLANK 1/24/2004 <0.001 0.06 <2. <0.005 <0.001
FILTER BLANK 1/24/2004 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 1/24/2004 <0.001

256

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.18 Utility 22 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 22 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Spring 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 4/20/2004 1 < 0.001 29 9.37 79 0.007 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
Entry 4/20/2004 2 < 0.001 29 9.43 80 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.004
Entry 4/20/2004 3 < 0.001 29 9.51 81 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004

Near 4/20/2004 1 <0.001 29 9.60 81 0.012 < 0.005 < 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.004
Near 4/20/2004 2 <0.001 29 9.58 80 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004
Near 4/20/2004 3 <0.001 29 9.29 79 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.004 0.004

Mid 4/20/2004 1 <0.001 29 9.40 80 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.003
Mid 4/20/2004 2 <0.001 29 9.90 80 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.003
Mid 4/20/2004 3 <0.001 30 9.60 81 0.007 < 0.006 < 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.003

Far 4/20/2004 1 <0.001 34 9.69 91 0.014 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.002
Far 4/20/2004 2 <0.001 33 9.30 89 0.015 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.002
Far 4/20/2004 3 <0.001 33 9.42 90 0.015 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.002

DI/MQ BLANK 4/20/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 <1 <0.005 <0.001


FIELD BLANK 4/20/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 <1 <0.005 <0.001
FILTER BLANK 4/20/2004 <0.006 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 4/20/2004 <0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 4/20/2004 <0.005 <0.001

257

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.19 Utility 22 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 22 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Summer 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 8/27/2004 1 < 0.001 32 3.92 85 0.011 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.011 0.004 0.004
Entry 8/27/2004 2 < 0.001 31 3.98 83 0.011 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.004 0.004
Entry 8/27/2004 3 < 0.001 32 3.89 84 0.011 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.011 0.004 0.004

Near 8/27/2004 1 < 0.001 32 3.79 86 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.015 0.004 0.004
Near 8/27/2004 2 < 0.001 32 3.62 85 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.015 0.004 0.004
Near 8/27/2004 3 < 0.001 32 3.52 85 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.015 0.004 0.004

Mid 8/27/2004 1 < 0.001 31 3.67 82 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.008 0.003 0.003
Mid 8/27/2004 2 < 0.001 31 3.52 82 0.006 < 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.003 0.003
Mid 8/27/2004 3 < 0.001 31 3.64 82 < 0.006 < 0.005 0.005 0.009 0.003 0.003

Far 8/27/2004 1 < 0.001 32 3.67 83 0.015 0.006 < 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.003
Far 8/27/2004 2 < 0.001 32 3.70 83 0.013 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.003 0.003
Far 8/27/2004 3 < 0.001 32 3.71 84 0.013 < 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.003

DI/MQ BLANK 8/27/2004 < 0.001 <1 <2 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 8/27/2004 < 0.001 <1 <2 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 8/27/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/27/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/27/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001

258

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.20 Utility 22 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 22 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Fall 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 11/12/2004 1 < 0.001 33.1 5.60 89 0.090 0.078 < 0.005 0.021 0.021 0.012
Entry 11/12/2004 2 < 0.001 33.4 5.67 90 0.094 0.006 < 0.005 0.022 0.012 0.013
Entry 11/12/2004 3 < 0.001 33.5 5.64 90 0.063 0.007 0.010 0.022 0.012 0.012

Near 11/12/2004 1 < 0.001 33.6 5.80 91 0.016 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.018 0.009 0.008
Near 11/12/2004 2 < 0.001 33.3 5.70 90 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.018 0.009 0.009
Near 11/12/2004 3 < 0.001 33.8 5.77 91 0.014 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.019 0.009 0.009

Mid 11/12/2004 1 < 0.001 32.7 5.69 88 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.013 0.005 0.005
Mid 11/12/2004 2 < 0.001 36.3 7.07 99 0.014 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.013 0.006 0.005
Mid 11/12/2004 3 < 0.001 33.0 5.74 89 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.013 0.006 0.005

Far 11/12/2004 1 < 0.001 33.3 5.54 89 0.013 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.005
Far 11/12/2004 2 < 0.001 33.9 5.62 91 0.015 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.005
Far 11/12/2004 3 < 0.001 33.8 5.67 91 0.014 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.005

DI/MQ BLANK 11/12/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 0.010 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 11/12/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 11/12/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/12/2004 < 0.005 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/12/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001

259

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.21 Utility 216 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 216 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 2/11/2004 1 <0.001 21 27.7 81 0.077 0.012 0.008 0.017 0.008 0.008
Entry 2/11/2004 2 <0.001 21 >25.0 82 0.070 0.010 0.011 0.018 0.008 0.008
Entry 2/11/2004 3 <0.001 21 >25.0 83 0.073 0.012 0.007 0.017 0.008 0.008

Near 2/11/2004 1 <0.001 23 > 30.0 89 0.075 0.011 0.007 0.026 0.009 0.009
Near 2/11/2004 2 <0.001 21 28.1 82 0.075 0.011 0.007 0.022 0.008 0.009
Near 2/11/2004 3 <0.001 21 > 25.0 82 0.073 0.009 0.008 0.020 0.009 0.008

Mid 2/11/2004 1 <0.001 21 27.5 83 0.082 0.012 0.007 0.023 0.008 0.008
Mid 2/11/2004 2 <0.001 21 >25.0 82 0.074 0.013 0.007 0.020 0.007 0.008
Mid 2/11/2004 3 <0.001 21 >25.0 81 0.077 0.012 0.008 0.021 0.008 0.008

Far 2/11/2004 1 <0.001 12 16.2 46 0.076 0.017 0.012 0.012 0.003 0.003
Far 2/11/2004 2 <0.001 11 15.0 41 0.079 0.015 0.012 0.011 0.003 0.003
Far 2/11/2004 3 <0.001 13 17.3 50 0.081 0.017 0.028 0.014 0.003 0.003

DI/MQ BLANK 2/11/2004 <0.001 <0.050 <1 <0.001


FIELD BLANK 2/11/2004 <0.001 <0.050 <1 <0.001
FILTER BLANK 2/11/2004 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 2/12/2004 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 2/12/2004 <0.001

260

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.22 Utility 216 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 216 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Spring 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 5/27/2004 1 <0.001 25 34.7 98 0.036 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.017 0.004 0.003
Entry 5/27/2004 2 <0.001 26 34.1 97 0.032 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.017 0.004 0.002
Entry 5/27/2004 3 <0.001 27 35.3 99 0.037 < 0.005 0.006 0.019 0.003 0.002

Near 5/27/2004 1 <0.001 26 35.6 101 0.038 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.020 0.005 0.005
Near 5/27/2004 2 <0.001 26 34.9 98 0.035 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.021 0.005 0.005
Near 5/27/2004 3 <0.001 25 33.6 98 0.033 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.022 0.005 0.005

Mid 5/27/2004 1 <0.001 26 34.2 99 0.033 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.023 0.005 0.005
Mid 5/27/2004 2 <0.001 26 34.5 98 0.033 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.022 0.005 0.005
Mid 5/27/2004 3 <0.001 25 34.5 97 0.030 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.022 0.005 0.005

Far 5/27/2004 1 <0.001 23 30.9 87 0.062 0.010 < 0.005 0.020 0.007 0.007
Far 5/27/2004 2 <0.001 23 31.2 88 0.064 0.010 < 0.005 0.019 0.008 0.008
Far 5/27/2004 3 <0.001 24 32.2 91 0.072 0.010 < 0.005 0.020 0.008 0.008

DI/MQ BLANK 5/27/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 < 1.66 < 0.005 <0.001
FIELD BLANK 5/27/2004 <0.001 0.06 < 1.66 < 0.005 <0.001
FILTER BLANK 5/27/2004 0.005 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 5/27/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 5/27/2004 < 0.006 <0.001

261

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.23 Utility 216 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 216 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Summer 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 8/19/2004 1 <0.001 24.0 36.2 93 0.030 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.038 0.008 0.008
Entry 8/19/2004 2 <0.001 24.0 34.5 95 0.031 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.042 0.008 0.008
Entry 8/19/2004 3 <0.001 24.0 34.9 94 0.033 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.042 0.008 0.008

Near 8/19/2004 1 <0.001 24.0 34.7 94 0.032 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.043 0.009 0.009
Near 8/19/2004 2 <0.001 24.0 34.5 93 0.032 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.044 0.009 0.009
Near 8/19/2004 3 <0.001 24.0 34.3 95 0.032 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.044 0.009 0.009

Mid 8/19/2004 1 <0.001 24.0 34.6 95 0.037 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.041 0.009 0.008
Mid 8/19/2004 2 <0.001 24.0 34.3 94 0.037 0.008 < 0.005 0.041 0.009 0.008
Mid 8/19/2004 3 <0.001 24.0 34.4 94 0.037 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.042 0.009 0.009

Far 8/19/2004 1 <0.001 24.0 34.4 95 0.066 0.012 < 0.005 0.030 0.004 0.004
Far 8/19/2004 2 <0.001 24.0 34.0 94 0.064 0.007 < 0.005 0.027 0.004 0.004
Far 8/19/2004 3 <0.001 24.0 34.2 94 0.063 0.006 < 0.005 0.027 0.004 0.004

DI/MQ BLANK 8/19/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 8/19/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 8/19/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/20/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/20/2004 < 0.006 <0.001

262

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.24 Utility 269 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 269 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Summer 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 7/22/2004 1 < 0.001 30 31.5 86 0.030 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.160 0.098 0.019
Entry 7/22/2004 2 < 0.001 30 31.2 86 0.032 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.160 0.060 0.028
Entry 7/22/2004 3 < 0.001 30 31.0 86 0.030 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.158 0.081 0.061

Near 7/23/2004 1 < 0.001 30 31.6 87 0.042 0.021 < 0.005 0.211 0.096 0.039
Near 7/23/2004 2 < 0.001 30 33.0 87 0.036 0.021 < 0.005 0.200 0.103 0.024
Near 7/23/2004 3 < 0.001 30 32.2 88 0.029 0.019 < 0.005 0.161 0.091 0.041

Far 7/23/2004 1 < 0.001 30 33.1 86 0.029 0.013 < 0.005 0.093 0.067 0.038
Far 7/23/2004 2 < 0.001 30 31.5 87 0.029 0.013 < 0.005 0.094 0.068 0.038
Far 7/23/2004 3 < 0.001 30 31.7 86 0.029 0.007 < 0.005 0.092 0.053 0.042

DI/MQ BLANK 7/22/2004 < 0.001 0.3 <1 < 0.005 0.002
FIELD BLANK 7/22/2004 < 0.001 0.4 <1 < 0.005 0.002
FILTER BLANK 7/22/2004 < 0.005 0.002
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 7/23/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 7/23/2004 < 0.005 0.005

263

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.25 Utility 269 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 269 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Fall 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 12/20/2004 1 < 0.001 30 32.1 88 0.029 0.029 0.025 0.175 0.180 0.113
Entry 12/20/2004 2 < 0.001 30 33.1 89 0.029 0.027 0.023 0.176 0.162 0.162
Entry 12/20/2004 3 < 0.001 30 33.0 88 0.028 0.030 < 0.005 0.176 0.177 0.165

Near 12/20/2004 1 < 0.001 30 32.9 88 0.020 0.018 0.019 0.088 0.089 0.080
Near 12/20/2004 2 < 0.001 30 32.4 88 0.019 0.018 0.014 0.084 0.084 0.080
Near 12/20/2004 3 < 0.001 30 32.7 89 0.020 0.020 0.015 0.087 0.092 0.085

Far 12/20/2004 1 < 0.001 30 32.7 89 0.019 0.020 0.018 0.094 0.096 0.094
Far 12/20/2004 2 < 0.001 30 32.2 88 0.027 0.018 0.023 0.089 0.096 0.091
Far 12/20/2004 3 < 0.001 30 32.1 88 0.024 0.019 0.020 0.090 0.097 0.090

DI/MQ BLANK 12/20/2004 < 0.001 < 0.25 <1 < 0.005 0.002
FIELD BLANK 12/20/2004 < 0.001 < 0.25 <1 < 0.005 0.002
FILTER BLANK 12/20/2004 < 0.005 0.002
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK

264

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.26 Utility 315 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 315 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 2/11/2004 1 <0.001 29 >25 107 0.021 0.015 0.024 0.002 0.001 0.001
Entry 2/11/2004 2 <0.001 31 >25 107 0.024 0.016 0.024 0.002 0.001 0.001
Entry 2/11/2004 3 <0.001 27 >25 110 0.027 0.021 0.026 0.002 0.002 0.001

Near 2/11/2004 1 <0.001 23 >25 110 0.014 0.023 0.022 < 0.001 0.001 0.003
Near 2/11/2004 2 <0.001 28 >25 118 0.015 0.024 0.038 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.003
Near 2/11/2004 3 <0.001 29 >25 121 0.046 0.025 0.045 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 2/11/2004 1 <0.001 26 >25 100 0.034 0.014 0.021 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 2/11/2004 2 <0.001 23 >25 100 0.036 0.016 0.021 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 2/11/2004 3 <0.001 28 >25 103 0.040 0.016 0.027 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 2/11/2004 1 <0.001 31 >25 87 0.049 0.020 0.022 0.005 0.004 0.004
Far 2/11/2004 2 <0.001 27 >25 90 0.050 0.020 0.026 0.005 0.005 0.004
Far 2/11/2004 3 <0.001 25 >25 93 0.055 0.023 0.029 0.007 0.007 0.006

DI/MQ BLANK 2/11/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.01 <0.005
FIELD BLANK 2/11/2004 <0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.01 <0.005
FILTER BLANK 2/11/2004 < 0.01 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 2/12/2004 < 0.01 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 2/12/2004

265

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.27 Utility 315 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 315 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Spring 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 5/26/2004 1 < 0.001 38 20.0 124 0.018 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 0.001
Entry 5/26/2004 2 < 0.001 36 19.7 121 0.014 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 5/26/2004 3 < 0.001 35 19.8 122 0.015 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 0.001

Near 5/27/2004 1 < 0.001 34 21.8 122 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 5/27/2004 2 < 0.001 33 20.2 110 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 5/27/2004 3 < 0.001 34 21.0 117 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 6/2/2004 1 < 0.001 23 27.7 84 0.016 < 0.005 < 0.006 0.012 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 6/2/2004 2 < 0.001 23 28.0 83 0.013 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 6/2/2004 3 < 0.001 24 27.7 84 0.014 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.011 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 5/27/2004 1 < 0.001 33 24.0 120 0.033 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 5/27/2004 2 < 0.001 34 25.9 118 0.033 < 0.005 < 0.006 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 5/27/2004 3 < 0.001 35 24.7 122 0.031 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.006 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 5/26/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 < 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 5/26/2004 < 0.001 0.07 < 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 5/26/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 5/26/2004 < 0.006 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 5/26/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001

Episode 5/27/2004 1 < 0.001 35 19.80 112 1.208 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.121 < 0.001 < 0.001
Episode 5/27/2004 2 < 0.001 34 21.10 127 1.151 < 0.005 < 0.006 0.089 < 0.001 < 0.001
Episode 5/27/2004 3 < 0.001 37 20.90 121 1.066 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.165 < 0.001 < 0.001

266

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.28 Utility 315 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 315 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Summer 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 8/26/2004 1 < 0.001 36 39.7 130 0.009 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 8/26/2004 2 < 0.001 37 41.1 135 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 8/26/2004 3 < 0.001 37 41.2 135 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 8/26/2004 1 < 0.001 34 38.4 122 0.035 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.014 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 8/26/2004 2 < 0.001 34 39.1 125 0.035 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.014 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 8/26/2004 3 < 0.001 34 39.1 125 0.037 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.014 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 8/26/2004 1 < 0.001 32 39.7 117 0.018 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 8/26/2004 2 < 0.001 31 38.8 115 0.019 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.008 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 8/26/2004 3 < 0.001 32 38.8 117 0.020 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 8/26/2004 1 < 0.001 33 38.6 119 0.118 < 0.005 0.006 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 8/26/2004 2 < 0.001 33 38.5 117 0.127 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 8/26/2004 3 < 0.001 34 39.6 121 0.141 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 8/26/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 0.232 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 8/26/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 0.018 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 8/26/2004 0.024 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/26/2004 <0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/26/2004 <0.006 <0.001

267

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.29 Utility 315 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 315 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Fall 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 11/1/2004 1 < 0.001 36 35.6 134 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 11/1/2004 2 < 0.001 35 36.1 134 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 0.001
Entry 11/1/2004 3 < 0.001 31 37.5 120 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 0.001

Near 11/1/2004 1 < 0.001 33 34.5 125 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 0.002
Near 11/1/2004 2 < 0.001 33 35.6 126 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 11/1/2004 3 < 0.001 33 34.6 126 0.011 < 0.005 0.019 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 11/1/2004 1 < 0.001 31 36.0 119 0.018 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 11/1/2004 2 < 0.001 31 36.4 117 0.018 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 11/1/2004 3 < 0.001 35 35.3 132 0.017 < 0.005 0.008 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 11/1/2004 1 < 0.001 32 34.7 120 0.163 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 11/1/2004 2 < 0.001 32 35.5 121 0.178 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 11/1/2004 3 < 0.001 32 35.4 120 0.178 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 11/1/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 11/1/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 11/1/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/1/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/1/2004 < 0.006 < 0.001

268

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.30 Utility 318 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 318 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Summer 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 8/24/2004 1 0.013 42 10.6 128 0.039 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.076 0.059 0.057
Entry 8/24/2004 2 0.013 42 10.5 126 0.039 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.075 0.060 0.054
Entry 8/24/2004 3 0.012 42 10.3 125 0.041 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.073 0.061 0.059

Mid 8/24/2004 1 0.010 41 10.3 125 0.038 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.063 0.049 0.049
Mid 8/24/2004 2 0.011 41 10.2 127 0.033 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.062 0.050 0.050
Mid 8/24/2004 3 0.011 41 10.5 126 0.033 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.062 0.051 0.045

Far 8/24/2004 1 0.013 42 10.8 128 0.040 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.075 0.060 0.055
Far 8/24/2004 2 0.013 42 10.7 126 0.039 < 0.005 0.014 0.075 0.060 0.059
Far 8/24/2004 3 0.013 42 10.9 127 0.037 < 0.005 0.021 0.072 0.061 0.057

DI/MQ BLANK 8/24/2004 < 0.005 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 8/24/2004 < 0.005 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 8/24/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/24/2004 <0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/24/2004 <0.005 <0.001

269

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.31 Utility 318 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 318 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Fall 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 10/21/2004 1 0.012 43 49.1 135 0.036 0.043 < 0.005 0.065 0.070 0.052
Entry 10/21/2004 2 0.013 44 49.5 136 0.042 0.041 < 0.005 0.072 0.070 0.062
Entry 10/21/2004 3 0.013 44 48.8 136 0.042 0.046 < 0.005 0.072 0.070 0.050

Mid 10/21/2004 1 0.013 44 48.3 136 0.037 0.026 < 0.005 0.060 0.052 0.029
Mid 10/21/2004 2 0.013 43 46.8 134 0.038 0.029 < 0.005 0.059 0.055 0.052
Mid 10/21/2004 3 0.013 43 48.3 134 0.037 0.026 < 0.005 0.059 0.047 0.052

Far 10/21/2004 1 0.012 48 43.7 149 0.030 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.060 0.048 0.045
Far 10/21/2004 2 0.011 47 43.8 146 0.029 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.060 0.047 0.044
Far 10/21/2004 3 0.012 47 42.0 147 0.024 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.061 0.047 0.044

DI/MQ BLANK 10/21/2004 < 0.005 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 10/21/2004 < 0.005 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 10/21/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 10/21/2004 <0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 10/21/2004 <0.005 <0.001

270

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.32 Utility 318 Winter 2005 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 318 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2005
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 1/7/2005 1 0.015 46 52.5 142 0.032 0.026 * 0.061 0.062 *
Entry 1/7/2005 2 0.014 46 51.1 140 0.033 0.028 < 0.005 0.063 0.063 0.057
Entry 1/7/2005 3 0.014 46 50.2 141 0.029 0.030 < 0.005 0.065 0.065 0.058

Mid 1/7/2005 1 0.014 46 51.8 141 0.035 * < 0.005 0.066 * 0.056
Mid 1/7/2005 2 0.014 46 53.5 139 0.039 0.033 * 0.062 0.064 *
Mid 1/7/2005 3 0.014 45 53.4 137 0.033 * < 0.005 0.067 * 0.057

Far 1/7/2005 1 0.014 46 54.8 142 0.037 0.026 0.010 0.067 0.062 0.051
Far 1/7/2005 2 0.014 45 52.6 140 0.037 * * 0.066 * *
Far 1/7/2005 3 0.014 45 52.4 140 0.040 * < 0.005 0.065 * 0.054

DI/MQ BLANK 1/7/2005 < 0.005 <1 < 10 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK
FILTER BLANK 1/7/2005 < 0.006 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 1/7/2005 <0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 1/7/2005 <0.005 <0.001

* Indicates sample bottles broken in transit

271

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.33 Utility 336 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 336 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Spring 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 6/16/2004 1 < 0.001 17 9.9 59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 6/16/2004 2 < 0.001 16 9.9 57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 6/16/2004 3 < 0.001 16 10.1 57 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 6/16/2004 1 <0.001 17 10.2 59 0.018 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 6/16/2004 2 <0.001 16 10.6 58 0.016 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 6/16/2004 3 <0.001 18 10.0 62 0.016 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 6/16/2004 1 <0.001 16 10.0 57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 6/16/2004 2 <0.001 16 10.2 58 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 6/16/2004 3 <0.001 16 10.0 58 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 6/16/2004 1 <0.001 25 11.6 86 0.007 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 6/16/2004 2 <0.001 25 11.4 87 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 6/16/2004 3 <0.001 25 12.6 86 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 6/16/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 < 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 6/16/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 < 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 6/16/2004 < 0.006 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 6/16/2004 <0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK

272

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.34 Utility 336 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 336 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Summer 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 8/5/2004 1 < 0.001 16 10.6 58 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 8/5/2004 2 < 0.001 17 10.5 59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 8/5/2004 3 < 0.001 16 10.3 57 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 8/5/2004 1 < 0.001 18 10.6 62 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 8/5/2004 2 < 0.001 17 10.9 61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 8/5/2004 3 < 0.001 17 10.1 59 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 8/5/2004 1 < 0.001 17 10.3 59 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 8/5/2004 2 < 0.001 17 10.2 60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 8/5/2004 3 < 0.001 17 10.5 61 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 8/5/2004 1 < 0.001 20 10.8 69 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 8/5/2004 2 < 0.001 20 10.7 70 0.007 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.006 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 8/5/2004 3 < 0.001 21 10.9 71 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.006 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 8/5/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 8/5/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 8/5/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/5/2004 <0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 8/5/2004 <0.005 <0.001

273

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.35 Utility 336 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 336 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Fall 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 11/23/2004 1 < 0.005 16 8.7 56 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 11/23/2004 2 < 0.005 16 8.4 56 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.019 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 11/23/2004 3 < 0.005 16 8.7 57 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 11/23/2004 1 < 0.005 15 8.7 55 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 11/23/2004 2 < 0.006 15 9.0 55 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 11/23/2004 3 < 0.005 16 8.6 55 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 11/23/2004 1 < 0.005 15 9.0 54 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 11/23/2004 2 < 0.005 15 9.1 53 0.005 0.018 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 11/23/2004 3 < 0.005 15 9.1 54 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 11/23/2004 1 < 0.005 24 10.6 81 0.017 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 11/23/2004 2 < 0.005 24 10.7 80 0.017 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 11/23/2004 3 < 0.005 24 10.3 81 0.015 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 11/23/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 11/23/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 11/23/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/23/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 11/23/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001

274

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.36 Utility 336 Winter 2005 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 336 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2005
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 12/22/2004 1 < 0.001 11 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 12/22/2004 2 < 0.001 10 10.4 47 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 12/22/2004 3 < 0.001 10 9.7 46 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 12/22/2004 1 < 0.001 13 9.7 52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 12/22/2004 2 < 0.001 13 9.5 52 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 12/22/2004 3 < 0.001 13 9.5 51 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 12/22/2004 1 < 0.001 12 10.0 51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 12/22/2004 2 < 0.001 12 9.9 51 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 12/22/2004 3 < 0.001 12 9.2 51 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 12/22/2004 1 < 0.001 29 10.7 103 0.017 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 12/22/2004 2 < 0.001 27 10.8 96 0.016 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 12/22/2004 3 < 0.001 27 10.5 96 0.016 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 12/22/2004 < 0.001 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 12/22/2004 < 0.001 44 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 12/22/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 12/22/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 12/22/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001

275

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.37 Utility 336 Fall 2004 event (reservoir turnover) distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 336 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Event Sample
sam_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 10/5/2004 1 < 0.001 16 9.2 57 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 10/5/2004 1 < 0.001 16 9.4 58 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 10/5/2004 1 < 0.001 16 9.3 58 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.003 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 10/5/2004 1 < 0.001 17 9.4 59 0.017 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.006 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 10/5/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 10/5/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 10/5/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 10/5/2004 <0.005 <0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 10/5/2004 <0.005 <0.001

276

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.38 Utility 400 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 400 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Spring 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 6/10/2004 1 < 0.001 21 26.2 83 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.011 0.008 0.004
Entry 6/10/2004 2 < 0.001 21 25.8 84 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.007 0.004
Entry 6/10/2004 3 < 0.001 21 26.5 84 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.006 0.004

Near 6/10/2004 1 < 0.001 21 25.9 83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.007 0.005
Near 6/10/2004 2 < 0.001 21 26.0 83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.007 0.005
Near 6/10/2004 3 < 0.001 22 26.1 85 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.005

Mid 6/10/2004 1 < 0.001 21 25.6 83 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.007 0.004
Mid 6/10/2004 2 < 0.001 21 25.8 82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.005
Mid 6/10/2004 3 < 0.001 16 19.9 63 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.007 0.006 0.005

Far 6/10/2004 1 < 0.001 21 26.3 82 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.005
Far 6/10/2004 2 < 0.001 20 25.2 79 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.005
Far 6/10/2004 3 < 0.001 21 26.0 83 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.005

DI/MQ BLANK 6/10/2004 < 0.001 1.04 3.10 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 6/10/2004 < 0.001 < 0.05 < 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 6/10/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 6/10/2004 < 0.005 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 6/10/2004 < 0.005 < 0.001

277

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.39 Utility 400 Winter 2005 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 400 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2005
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 12/29/2004 1 < 0.005 16 21.2 60 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.015 0.013 0.004
Entry 12/29/2004 2 < 0.005 16 21.2 61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.015 0.013 0.010
Entry 12/29/2004 3 < 0.005 17 22.0 62 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.015 0.013 0.005

Near 12/29/2004 1 < 0.006 16 22.3 61 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.012 0.004 < 0.001
Near 12/29/2004 2 < 0.005 16 21.5 61 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.012 0.003 0.002
Near 12/29/2004 3 < 0.005 16 21.3 60 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.011 0.004 0.003

Mid 12/29/2004 1 < 0.005 17 21.7 63 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.011 0.002 < 0.001
Mid 12/29/2004 2 < 0.005 18 21.5 65 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.002 0.001
Mid 12/29/2004 3 < 0.005 18 21.4 64 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.002 0.001

Far 12/29/2004 1 < 0.005 18 22.1 65 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.002 0.001
Far 12/29/2004 2 < 0.005 18 22.1 66 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 0.002 0.002
Far 12/29/2004 3 < 0.005 18 22.2 64 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.002 0.002

DI/MQ BLANK 12/29/2004 < 0.001 <1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.05
FIELD BLANK 12/29/2004 < 0.001 <1 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.05
FILTER BLANK 12/29/2004 < 0.005
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 12/29/2004 < 0.005 0.005
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 12/29/2004 < 0.006 0.008

278

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.40 Utility 401 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 401 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Spring 2004
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 6/9/2004 1 0.001 30 27.9 123 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004
Entry 6/9/2004 2 0.001 30 28.7 126 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004
Entry 6/9/2004 3 0.001 30 28.4 126 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004

Near 6/9/2004 1 < 0.001 31 29.3 128 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004
Near 6/9/2004 2 0.001 30 27.8 126 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004
Near 6/9/2004 3 0.001 32 29.5 131 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.004 0.004 0.004

Mid 6/9/2004 1 0.001 30 28.4 125 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005
Mid 6/9/2004 2 0.001 31 28.9 128 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.006 0.005 0.005
Mid 6/9/2004 3 0.001 29 27.8 120 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005

Far 6/9/2004 1 0.001 32 29.4 130 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.006
Far 6/9/2004 2 < 0.001 28 26.6 115 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.008 0.005 0.006
Far 6/9/2004 3 < 0.001 31 28.2 126 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.009 0.006 0.005

DI/MQ BLANK 6/9/2004 < 0.001 0.06 < 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 6/9/2004 < 0.001 0.06 < 1.66 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 6/9/2004 < 0.005 <0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 6/9/2004 < 0.005 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 6/9/2004 < 0.006 < 0.001

279

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.41 Utility 401 Winter 2005 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) metals data

AwwaRF 2863 values are mg/L


Utility 401 Hardness values are mg/L CaCO3
Winter 2005
loc_id colldate rep_num As Ca Na Hardness Fe (T) Fe (<0.22um) Fe (<30kDa) Mn (T) Mn (<0.22um) Mn (<30kDa)
Entry 2/9/2005 1 < 0.001 22.5 90 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 2/9/2005 2 < 0.001 22.7 90 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Entry 2/9/2005 3 < 0.001 23.0 88 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Near 2/9/2005 1 < 0.001 22.8 90 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 2/9/2005 2 < 0.001 22.7 91 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Near 2/9/2005 3 < 0.001 22.5 90 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Mid 2/9/2005 1 < 0.001 23.4 89 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 2/9/2005 2 < 0.001 23.7 90 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Mid 2/9/2005 3 < 0.001 23.5 87 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

Far 2/9/2005 1 < 0.001 24.0 89 < 0.005 < 0.006 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 2/9/2005 2 < 0.001 23.3 91 < 0.005 < 0.006 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Far 2/9/2005 3 < 0.001 22.4 88 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001

DI/MQ BLANK 2/9/2005 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FIELD BLANK 2/9/2005 < 0.001 < 0.05 <1 < 0.005 < 0.001
FILTER BLANK 2/9/2005 < 0.005 < 0.001
PRE-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 2/9/2005 < 0.005 < 0.001
POST-ULTRA FILTER BLANK 2/9/2005 < 0.006 0.001

280

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.42 Utility 2 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

2 002-E1-1 2/26/2004 8:25 238.0 0.21 0.62 6.80 0.061 10.5 1.1 0.0165 <5 940.0 1.1 146.00 1.0 11.0 570.0

2 002-E1-2 2/26/2004 8:25 238.0 0.21 0.62 6.80 0.061 10.5 1.1 0.0165 <5 940.0 1.1 146.00 1.0 11.0 570.0

2 002-E1-3 2/26/2004 8:25 238.0 0.21 0.62 6.80 0.061 10.5 1.1 0.0165 <5 940.0 1.1 146.00 1.0 11.0 570.0

2 002-M1-1 2/26/2004 9:15 242.0 0.30 0.42 6.80 0.23 6.5 1.1 0.017 <5 930.0 1.1 144.00 0.3 10.8 572.0

2 002-M1-2 2/26/2004 9:15 242.0 0.30 0.42 6.80 0.23 6.5 1.1 0.017 <5 930.0 1.1 144.00 0.3 10.8 572.0

2 002-M1-3 2/26/2004 9:15 242.0 0.30 0.42 6.80 0.23 6.5 1.1 0.017 <5 930.0 1.1 144.00 0.3 10.8 572.0

2 002-N1-1 2/26/2004 9:55 240.0 0.30 0.42 6.50 0.074 6.0 1.1 0.0205 <5 930.0 1.0 147.00 0.3 10.8 569.0

2 002-N1-2 2/26/2004 9:55 240.0 0.30 0.42 6.50 0.074 6.0 1.1 0.0205 <5 930.0 1.0 147.00 0.3 10.8 569.0

2 002-N1-3 2/26/2004 9:55 240.0 0.30 0.42 6.50 0.074 6.0 1.1 0.0205 <5 930.0 1.0 147.00 0.3 10.8 569.0

2 002-F1-1 2/26/2004 10:30 237.0 0.22 0.35 6.70 0.478 9.5 1.2 0.014 <5 880.0 1.1 146.00 0.3 10.8 565.0

2 002-F1-2 2/26/2004 10:30 237.0 0.22 0.35 6.70 0.478 9.5 1.2 0.014 <5 880.0 1.1 146.00 0.3 10.8 565.0

2 002-F1-3 2/26/2004 10:30 237.0 0.22 0.35 6.70 0.478 9.5 1.2 0.014 <5 880.0 1.1 146.00 0.3 10.8 565.0

281

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.43 Utility 2 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

2 002-E2-1 5/20/2004 8:30 238.0 0.30 0.49 6.80 0.61 12.5 1.2 0.0215 5 <5 930.0 <1.0 142.00 1.4 9.1 652.0

2 002-E2-2 5/20/2004 8:30 238.0 0.30 0.49 6.80 0.61 12.5 1.2 0.0215 5 <5 930.0 <1.0 142.00 1.4 9.1 652.0

2 002-E2-3 5/20/2004 8:30 238.0 0.30 0.49 6.80 0.61 12.5 1.2 0.0215 5 <5 930.0 <1.0 142.00 1.4 9.1 652.0

2 002-M2-1 5/20/2004 9:15 231.0 0.21 0.25 6.80 0.659 14.0 <1.0 0.023 <5 <5 900.0 <1.0 140.00 1.8 8.5 669.0

2 002-M2-2 5/20/2004 9:15 231.0 0.21 0.25 6.80 0.659 14.0 <1.0 0.023 <5 <5 900.0 <1.0 140.00 1.8 8.5 669.0

2 002-M2-3 5/20/2004 9:15 231.0 0.21 0.25 6.80 0.659 14.0 <1.0 0.023 <5 <5 900.0 <1.0 140.00 1.8 8.5 669.0

2 002-N2-1 5/20/2004 10:30 235.0 0.30 0.40 6.80 0.622 13.0 <1.0 0.029 <5 <5 940.0 <1.0 143.00 1.1 10.3 637.0

2 002-N2-2 5/20/2004 10:30 235.0 0.30 0.40 6.80 0.622 13.0 <1.0 0.029 <5 <5 940.0 <1.0 143.00 1.1 10.3 637.0

2 002-N2-3 5/20/2004 10:30 235.0 0.30 0.40 6.80 0.622 13.0 <1.0 0.029 <5 <5 940.0 <1.0 143.00 1.1 10.3 637.0

2 002-F2-1 5/20/2004 11:05 234.0 0.26 0.30 7.00 0.668 13.5 <1.0 0.0205 <5 <5 880.0 <1.0 136.00 0.8 8.3 604.0

2 002-F2-2 5/20/2004 11:05 234.0 0.26 0.30 7.00 0.668 13.5 <1.0 0.0205 <5 <5 880.0 <1.0 136.00 0.8 8.3 604.0

2 002-F2-3 5/20/2004 11:05 234.0 0.26 0.30 7.00 0.668 13.5 <1.0 0.0205 <5 <5 880.0 <1.0 136.00 0.8 8.3 604.0

282

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.44 Utility 2 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

2 002-E3-1 8/31/2004 7:50 223.0 0.42 0.62 6.00 0.307 13.3 1.2 0.009 <5 <5 760.0 <1.0 143.00 0.32 7.8 550.0

2 002-E3-2 8/31/2004 7:50 223.0 0.42 0.62 6.00 0.307 13.3 1.2 0.009 <5 <5 760.0 <1.0 143.00 0.32 7.8 550.0

2 002-E3-3 8/31/2004 7:50 223.0 0.42 0.62 6.00 0.307 13.3 1.2 0.009 <5 <5 760.0 <1.0 143.00 0.32 7.8 550.0

2 002-M3-1 8/31/2004 8:25 223.0 0.24 0.37 6.60 0.497 17.6 1.5 0.013 <5 <5 750.0 <1.0 145.00 2.01 8.7 552.0

2 002-M3-2 8/31/2004 8:25 223.0 0.24 0.37 6.60 0.497 17.6 1.5 0.013 <5 <5 750.0 <1.0 145.00 2.01 8.7 552.0

2 002-M3-3 8/31/2004 8:25 223.0 0.24 0.37 6.60 0.497 17.6 1.5 0.013 <5 <5 750.0 <1.0 145.00 2.01 8.7 552.0

2 002-N3-1 8/31/2004 9:00 225.0 0.33 0.46 6.30 0.328 14.7 1.2 0.012 <5 <5 810.0 1.0 143.00 1.63 7.9 553.0

2 002-N3-2 8/31/2004 9:00 225.0 0.33 0.46 6.30 0.328 14.7 1.2 0.012 <5 <5 810.0 1.0 143.00 1.63 7.9 553.0

2 002-N3-3 8/31/2004 9:00 225.0 0.33 0.46 6.30 0.328 14.7 1.2 0.012 <5 <5 810.0 1.0 143.00 1.63 7.9 553.0

2 002-F3-1 8/31/2004 9:30 225.0 0.01 0.04 6.50 0.724 18.5 1.4 < 0.009 <5 <5 740.0 <1.0 144.00 1.41 7.2 550.0

2 002-F3-2 8/31/2004 9:30 225.0 0.01 0.04 6.50 0.724 18.5 1.4 < 0.009 <5 <5 740.0 <1.0 144.00 1.41 7.2 550.0

2 002-F3-3 8/31/2004 9:30 225.0 0.01 0.04 6.50 0.724 18.5 1.4 < 0.009 <5 <5 740.0 <1.0 144.00 1.41 7.2 550.0

283

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.45 Utility 2 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

2 002-E4-1 11/9/2004 8:30 217.0 0.58 0.64 6.60 0.491 10.5 1.12 0.024 <5 <5 810.0 3.81 210.00 2.29 8.0 648.0

2 002-E4-2 11/9/2004 8:30 217.0 0.58 0.64 6.60 0.491 10.5 1.12 0.024 <5 <5 810.0 3.81 210.00 2.29 8.0 648.0

2 002-E4-3 11/9/2004 8:30 217.0 0.58 0.64 6.60 0.491 10.5 1.12 0.024 <5 <5 810.0 3.81 210.00 2.29 8.0 648.0

2 002-M4-1 11/9/2004 9:00 228.0 0.80 0.9 6.50 0.675 14.5 0.76 0.046 <5 <5 780.0 1.22 222.00 2.27 6.9 677.0

2 002-M4-2 11/9/2004 9:00 228.0 0.80 0.9 6.50 0.675 14.5 0.76 0.046 <5 <5 780.0 1.22 222.00 2.27 6.9 677.0

2 002-M4-3 11/9/2004 9:00 228.0 0.80 0.9 6.50 0.675 14.5 0.76 0.046 <5 <5 780.0 1.22 222.00 2.27 6.9 677.0

2 002-N4-1 11/9/2004 9:35 219.0 0.15 0.25 7.00 0.552 16.5 1.13 0.032 <5 <5 770.0 3.35 211.00 2.24 7.8 651.0

2 002-N4-2 11/9/2004 9:35 219.0 0.15 0.25 7.00 0.552 16.5 1.13 0.032 <5 <5 770.0 3.35 211.00 2.24 7.8 651.0

2 002-N4-3 11/9/2004 9:35 219.0 0.15 0.25 7.00 0.552 16.5 1.13 0.032 <5 <5 770.0 3.35 211.00 2.24 7.8 651.0

2 002-F4-1 11/9/2004 10:05 226.0 0.13 0.12 7.10 0.736 16.0 0.87 0.026 <5 <5 780.0 1.27 211.00 4.11 8.0 626.0

2 002-F4-2 11/9/2004 10:05 226.0 0.13 0.12 7.10 0.736 16.0 0.87 0.026 <5 <5 780.0 1.27 211.00 4.11 8.0 626.0

2 002-F4-3 11/9/2004 10:05 226.0 0.13 0.12 7.10 0.736 16.0 0.87 0.026 <5 <5 780.0 1.27 211.00 4.11 8.0 626.0

284

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.46 Utility 7 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

7 007-E1-1 2/26/2004

7 007-E1-2 2/26/2004

7 007-E1-3 2/26/2004

7 007-N1-1 2/26/2004 9:30 155 11.0 0.40 3.5 8.89 16.0 25 84.9 42.4

7 007-N1-2 2/26/2004 9:30 155 11.0 0.40 3.5 8.89 16.0 25 84.9 42.4

7 007-N1-3 2/26/2004 9:30 155 11.0 0.40 3.5 8.89 16.0 25 84.9 42.4

7 007-M1-1 2/26/2004 10:40 4967 12.0 1.30 3.3 9.11 16.0 7 164.9 82.4

7 007-M1-2 2/26/2004 10:40 4967 12.0 1.30 3.3 9.11 16.0 7 164.9 82.4

7 007-M1-3 2/26/2004 10:40 4967 12.0 1.30 3.3 9.11 16.0 7 164.9 82.4

7 007-F1-1 2/26/2004 11:50 170 12.0 0.20 1.3 9.13 15.0 5 153.7 77.0

7 007-F1-2 2/26/2004 11:50 170 12.0 0.20 1.3 9.13 15.0 5 153.7 77.0

7 007-F1-3 2/26/2004 11:50 170 12.0 0.20 1.3 9.13 15.0 5 153.7 77.0

285

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.47 Utility 7 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

7 007-E2-1 5/4/2004 20.0 0.10 3.30 8.90 25.0 0.064 6 14 96.0 47.1

7 007-E2-2 5/4/2004 20.0 0.10 3.30 8.90 25.0 0.064 6 14 96.0 47.1

7 007-E2-3 5/4/2004 20.0 0.10 3.30 8.90 25.0 0.064 6 14 96.0 47.1

7 007-F2-1 5/4/2004 170 17.0 0.00 2.0 8.98 26.0 0.053 6 13 117.0 50.5

7 007-F2-2 5/4/2004 170 17.0 0.00 2.0 8.98 26.0 0.053 6 13 117.0 50.5

7 007-F2-3 5/4/2004 170 17.0 0.00 2.0 8.98 26.0 0.053 6 13 117.0 50.5

7 007-M2-1 5/4/2004 4967 22.0 0.00 2.5 8.98 25.0 0.055 6 8 114.0 57.3

7 007-M2-2 5/4/2004 4967 22.0 0.00 2.5 8.98 25.0 0.055 6 8 114.0 57.3

7 007-M2-3 5/4/2004 4967 22.0 0.00 2.5 8.98 25.0 0.055 6 8 114.0 57.3

7 007-N2-1 5/4/2004 155 20.0 0.10 2.7 8.84 26.0 0.063 5 14 100.0 47.9

7 007-N2-2 5/4/2004 155 20.0 0.10 2.7 8.84 26.0 0.063 5 14 100.0 47.9

7 007-N2-3 5/4/2004 155 20.0 0.10 2.7 8.84 26.0 0.063 5 14 100.0 47.9

286

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.48 Utility 7 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

7 007-N4-1 11/18/2004 10:35 155 20.0 0.00 3.2 8.22 20.6 2.3 0.073 4 100.0 50.0

7 007-N4-2 11/18/2004 10:35 155 20.0 0.00 3.2 8.22 20.6 2.3 0.073 4 100.0 50.0

7 007-N4-3 11/18/2004 10:35 155 20.0 0.00 3.2 8.22 20.6 2.3 0.073 4 100.0 50.0

7 007-F4-1 11/18/2004 13:02 170 18.0 0.00 0.0 7.49 21.4 1.6 0.057 3 120.0 60.0

7 007-F4-2 11/18/2004 13:02 170 18.0 0.00 0.0 7.49 21.4 1.6 0.057 3 120.0 60.0

7 007-F4-3 11/18/2004 13:02 170 18.0 0.00 0.0 7.49 21.4 1.6 0.057 3 120.0 60.0

7 007-M4-1 11/18/2004 14:05 4967 20.0 0.30 2.7 9.14 19.0 1.9 0.055 3 180.0 90.0

7 007-M4-2 11/18/2004 14:05 4967 20.0 0.30 2.7 9.14 19.0 1.9 0.055 3 180.0 90.0

7 007-M4-3 11/18/2004 14:05 4967 20.0 0.30 2.7 9.14 19.0 1.9 0.055 3 180.0 90.0

7 007-E4-1 11/18/2004 16:32 22.0 0.10 3.4 8.95 23.0 3.5 0.074 3 100.0 50.0

7 007-E4-2 11/18/2004 16:32 22.0 0.10 3.4 8.95 23.0 3.5 0.074 3 100.0 50.0

7 007-E4-3 11/18/2004 16:32 22.0 0.10 3.4 8.95 23.0 3.5 0.074 3 100.0 50.0

287

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.49 Utility 7 Winter 2005 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

7 007-F5-1 1/10/2005 10:24 170 11.0 0.00 2.0 8.90 16.0 4.0 0.044 12 7 203.0 60.0

7 007-F5-2 1/10/2005 10:24 170 11.0 0.00 2.0 8.90 16.0 4.0 0.044 12 7 203.0 60.0

7 007-F5-3 1/10/2005 10:24 170 11.0 0.00 2.0 8.90 16.0 4.0 0.044 12 7 203.0 60.0

7 007-M5-1 1/10/2005 11:55 4967 13.0 0.50 3.5 8.85 13.0 4.3 0.043 8 3 127.0 100.0

7 007-M5-2 1/10/2005 11:55 4967 13.0 0.50 3.5 8.85 13.0 4.3 0.043 8 3 127.0 100.0

7 007-M5-3 1/10/2005 11:55 4967 13.0 0.50 3.5 8.85 13.0 4.3 0.043 8 3 127.0 100.0

7 007-N5-1 1/10/2005 13:17 155 13.0 1.50 3.5 8.93 14.0 3.2 0.049 11 7 90.0 50.0

7 007-N5-2 1/10/2005 13:17 155 13.0 1.50 3.5 8.93 14.0 3.2 0.049 11 7 90.0 50.0

7 007-N5-3 1/10/2005 13:17 155 13.0 1.50 3.5 8.93 14.0 3.2 0.049 11 7 90.0 50.0

7 007-E5-1 1/10/2005 14:30 14.0 1.50 3.13 9.03 13.3 4.0 0.057 7 5 80.0 50.0

7 007-E5-2 1/10/2005 14:30 14.0 1.50 3.13 9.03 13.3 4.0 0.057 7 5 80.0 50.0

7 007-E5-3 1/10/2005 14:30 14.0 1.50 3.13 9.03 13.3 4.0 0.057 7 5 80.0 50.0

288

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.50 Utility 9 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

9 009-M1-1 3/9/2004 9:05 1302 48.6 0.08 2.06 7.34 1.245 14.2 1.05 0.0216 0 0 344.0 0.092

9 009-M1-2 3/9/2004 9:05 1302 48.6 0.08 2.06 7.34 1.245 14.2 1.05 0.0216 0 0 344.0 0.092

9 009-M1-3 3/9/2004 9:05 1302 48.6 0.08 2.06 7.34 1.245 14.2 1.05 0.0216 0 0 344.0 0.092

9 009-N1-1 3/9/2004 9:43 1202 50.1 0.28 2.2 7.29 1.291 9.3 1.24 0.0215 0 0 341.0 0.088

9 009-N1-2 3/9/2004 9:43 1202 50.1 0.28 2.2 7.29 1.291 9.3 1.24 0.0215 0 0 341.0 0.088

9 009-N1-3 3/9/2004 9:43 1202 50.1 0.28 2.2 7.29 1.291 9.3 1.24 0.0215 0 0 341.0 0.088

9 009-E1-1 3/9/2004 10:30 4001 54.3 0.20 2.2 7.24 1.285 9.1 1.03 0.0212 1 0 333.0 0.099

9 009-E1-2 3/9/2004 10:30 4001 54.3 0.20 2.2 7.24 1.285 9.1 1.03 0.0212 1 0 333.0 0.099

9 009-E1-3 3/9/2004 10:30 4001 54.3 0.20 2.2 7.24 1.285 9.1 1.03 0.0212 1 0 333.0 0.099

9 009-F1-1 3/9/2004 11:10 1101 52.2 0.47 2.2 7.22 1.26 9.0 1.08 0.0206 0 0 343.0 0.081

9 009-F1-2 3/9/2004 11:10 1101 52.2 0.47 2.2 7.22 1.26 9.0 1.08 0.0206 0 0 343.0 0.081

9 009-F1-3 3/9/2004 11:10 1101 52.2 0.47 2.2 7.22 1.26 9.0 1.08 0.0206 0 0 343.0 0.081

289

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.51 Utility 9 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

9 009-M2-1 6/16/2004 8:45 1302 40.3 0.09 1.96 7.25 1.279 23.4 1.31 0.026 0 0 307.0 0.074

9 009-M2-2 6/16/2004 8:45 1302 40.3 0.09 1.96 7.25 1.279 23.4 1.31 0.026 0 0 307.0 0.074

9 009-M2-3 6/16/2004 8:45 1302 40.3 0.09 1.96 7.25 1.279 23.4 1.31 0.026 0 0 307.0 0.074

9 009-N2-1 6/16/2004 9:50 1202 40.6 0.05 1.97 7.25 1.279 21.0 1.13 0.0261 0 0 307.0 0.082

9 009-N2-2 6/16/2004 9:50 1202 40.6 0.05 1.97 7.25 1.279 21.0 1.13 0.0261 0 0 307.0 0.082

9 009-N2-3 6/16/2004 9:50 1202 40.6 0.05 1.97 7.25 1.279 21.0 1.13 0.0261 0 0 307.0 0.082

9 009-E2-1 6/16/2004 10:50 4001 40.2 0.05 2.05 7.27 1.275 23.6 1.88 0.0282 0 0 304.0 0.076

9 009-E2-2 6/16/2004 10:50 4001 40.2 0.05 2.05 7.27 1.275 23.6 1.88 0.0282 0 0 304.0 0.076

9 009-E2-3 6/16/2004 10:50 4001 40.2 0.05 2.05 7.27 1.275 23.6 1.88 0.0282 0 0 304.0 0.076

9 009-F2-1 6/16/2004 12:15 1101 41.3 0.05 1.99 7.27 1.266 22.4 1.51 0.0261 0 0 307.0 0.062

9 009-F2-2 6/16/2004 12:15 1101 41.3 0.05 1.99 7.27 1.266 22.4 1.51 0.0261 0 0 307.0 0.062

9 009-F2-3 6/16/2004 12:15 1101 41.3 0.05 1.99 7.27 1.266 22.4 1.51 0.0261 0 0 307.0 0.062

290

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.52 Utility 9 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

9 009-M3-1 9/10/2004 8:30 1302 36.1 0.04 1.91 6.98 1.165 25.3 1.62 0.0305 0 0 275.0 0.056

9 009-M3-2 9/10/2004 8:30 1302 36.1 0.04 1.91 6.98 1.165 25.3 1.62 0.0305 0 0 275.0 0.056

9 009-M3-3 9/10/2004 8:30 1302 36.1 0.04 1.91 6.98 1.165 25.3 1.62 0.0305 0 0 275.0 0.056

9 009-N3-1 9/10/2004 9:15 1202 38.7 0.04 1.96 7.05 1.156 24.3 1.96 0.031 0 0 274.0 0.081

9 009-N3-2 9/10/2004 9:15 1202 38.7 0.04 1.96 7.05 1.156 24.3 1.96 0.031 0 0 274.0 0.081

9 009-N3-3 9/10/2004 9:15 1202 38.7 0.04 1.96 7.05 1.156 24.3 1.96 0.031 0 0 274.0 0.081

9 009-E3-1 9/10/2004 9:55 4001 33.4 0.07 2.15 7.02 1.168 24.7 1.59 0.0333 0 0 266.0 0.070

9 009-E3-2 9/10/2004 9:55 4001 33.4 0.07 2.15 7.02 1.168 24.7 1.59 0.0333 0 0 266.0 0.070

9 009-E3-3 9/10/2004 9:55 4001 33.4 0.07 2.15 7.02 1.168 24.7 1.59 0.0333 0 0 266.0 0.070

9 009-F3-1 9/10/2004 10:45 1101 37.1 0.04 1.67 7.13 1.199 24.8 1.59 0.0308 0 0 275.0 0.056

9 009-F3-2 9/10/2004 10:45 1101 37.1 0.04 1.67 7.13 1.199 24.8 1.59 0.0308 0 0 275.0 0.056

9 009-F3-3 9/10/2004 10:45 1101 37.1 0.04 1.67 7.13 1.199 24.8 1.59 0.0308 0 0 275.0 0.056

291

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.53 Utility 9 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

9 009-M4-1 12/8/2004 8:45 1302 25.0 0.02 2.07 7.01 1.236 11.1 0.0259 0 0 234.0 0.051

9 009-M4-2 12/8/2004 8:45 1302 25.0 0.02 2.07 7.01 1.236 11.1 0.0259 0 0 234.0 0.051

9 009-M4-3 12/8/2004 8:45 1302 25.0 0.02 2.07 7.01 1.236 11.1 0.0259 0 0 234.0 0.051

9 009-N4-1 12/8/2004 9:50 1202 26.1 0.02 2.06 6.97 1.536 13.5 0.0259 0 0 232.0 0.056

9 009-N4-2 12/8/2004 9:50 1202 26.1 0.02 2.06 6.97 1.536 13.5 0.0259 0 0 232.0 0.056

9 009-N4-3 12/8/2004 9:50 1202 26.1 0.02 2.06 6.97 1.536 13.5 0.0259 0 0 232.0 0.056

9 009-E4-1 12/8/2004 10:35 4001 26.3 0.01 2.20 6.87 1.36 8.4 1.51 0.0262 0 0 241.0 0.049

9 009-E4-2 12/8/2004 10:35 4001 26.3 0.01 2.20 6.87 1.36 8.4 1.51 0.0262 0 0 241.0 0.049

9 009-E4-3 12/8/2004 10:35 4001 26.3 0.01 2.20 6.87 1.36 8.4 1.51 0.0262 0 0 241.0 0.049

9 009-F4-1 12/8/2004 11:50 1101 30.3 0.02 1.78 6.58 1.325 12.0 0.0256 0 0 260.0 0.065

9 009-F4-2 12/8/2004 11:50 1101 30.3 0.02 1.78 6.58 1.325 12.0 0.0256 0 0 260.0 0.065

9 009-F4-3 12/8/2004 11:50 1101 30.3 0.02 1.78 6.58 1.325 12.0 0.0256 0 0 260.0 0.065

292

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.54 Utility 21 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

21 021-E2-1 4/29/2004 7:00 1.80 1.9 8.00 19.0

21 021-E2-2 4/29/2004 7:00 1.80 1.9 8.00 19.0

21 021-E2-3 4/29/2004 7:00 1.80 1.9 8.00 19.0

21 021-N2-1 4/29/2004 7:30 1.30 1.4 8.00 16.0

21 021-N2-2 4/29/2004 7:30 1.30 1.4 8.00 16.0

21 021-N2-3 4/29/2004 7:30 1.30 1.4 8.00 16.0

21 021-M2-1 4/29/2004 8:00 0.50 0.6 8.00 17.0

21 021-M2-2 4/29/2004 8:00 0.50 0.6 8.00 17.0

21 021-M2-3 4/29/2004 8:00 0.50 0.6 8.00 17.0

21 021-F2-1 4/29/2004 8:30 0.80 0.9 8.00 15.0

21 021-F2-2 4/29/2004 8:30 0.80 0.9 8.00 15.0

21 021-F2-3 4/29/2004 8:30 0.80 0.9 8.00 15.0

293

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.55 Utility 21 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

21 021-E3-1 7/15/2004 7:30 1.60 1.7 8.00 18.0

21 021-E3-2 7/15/2004 7:30 1.60 1.7 8.00 18.0

21 021-E3-3 7/15/2004 7:30 1.60 1.7 8.00 18.0

21 021-N3-1 7/15/2004 8:30 0.90 1.0 7.90 18.8

21 021-N3-2 7/15/2004 8:30 0.90 1.0 7.90 18.8

21 021-N3-3 7/15/2004 8:30 0.90 1.0 7.90 18.8

21 021-M3-1 7/15/2004 9:00 0.10 0.2 8.00 19.1

21 021-M3-2 7/15/2004 9:00 0.10 0.2 8.00 19.1

21 021-M3-3 7/15/2004 9:00 0.10 0.2 8.00 19.1

21 021-F3-1 7/15/2004 9:20 0.10 0.2 8.00 19.0

21 021-F3-2 7/15/2004 9:20 0.10 0.2 8.00 19.0

21 021-F3-3 7/15/2004 9:20 0.10 0.2 8.00 19.0

294

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.56 Utility 21 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

21 021-N4-1 11/3/2004 8:15 1.00 1.2 7.90 12.0

21 021-N4-2 11/3/2004 8:15 1.00 1.2 7.90 12.0

21 021-N4-3 11/3/2004 8:15 1.00 1.2 7.90 12.0

21 021-M4-1 11/3/2004 8:50 0.10 0.2 7.80 13.0

21 021-M4-2 11/3/2004 8:50 0.10 0.2 7.80 13.0

21 021-M4-3 11/3/2004 8:50 0.10 0.2 7.80 13.0

21 021-F4-1 11/3/2004 9:20 0.10 0.2 7.70 12.0

21 021-F4-2 11/3/2004 9:20 0.10 0.2 7.70 12.0

21 021-F4-3 11/3/2004 9:20 0.10 0.2 7.70 12.0

21 021-E4-1 11/3/2004 10:00 1.60 1.7 7.70 12.0

21 021-E4-2 11/3/2004 10:00 1.60 1.7 7.70 12.0

21 021-E4-3 11/3/2004 10:00 1.60 1.7 7.70 12.0

295

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.57 Utility 21 Winter 2005 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

21 021-N5-1 1/4/2005 8:20 N1 1.00 1.2 7.90 7.0

21 021-N5-2 1/4/2005 8:20 N1 1.00 1.2 7.90 7.0

21 021-N5-3 1/4/2005 8:20 N1 1.00 1.2 7.90 7.0

21 021-M5-1 1/4/2005 8:41 M1 0.10 0.2 8.00 9.0

21 021-M5-2 1/4/2005 8:41 M1 0.10 0.2 8.00 9.0

21 021-M5-3 1/4/2005 8:41 M1 0.10 0.2 8.00 9.0

21 021-F5-1 1/4/2005 9:05 F1 0.20 0.3 8.10 12.0

21 021-F5-2 1/4/2005 9:05 F1 0.20 0.3 8.10 12.0

21 021-F5-3 1/4/2005 9:05 F1 0.20 0.3 8.10 12.0

21 021-E5-1 1/4/2005 10:00 E1 1.70 1.8 8.00 12.0

21 021-E5-2 1/4/2005 10:00 E1 1.70 1.8 8.00 12.0

21 021-E5-3 1/4/2005 10:00 E1 1.70 1.8 8.00 12.0

296

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.58 Utility 22 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

22 022-E1-1 1/24/2004 9:15 HM FW 42.0 2.9 8.00 0.644 4.0 2.37 0.04 0 0 238.0 39.70 0.329 202.0

22 022-E1-2 1/24/2004 9:15 HM FW 42.0 2.9 8.00 0.644 4.0 2.37 0.04 0 0 238.0 39.70 0.329 202.0

22 022-E1-3 1/24/2004 9:15 HM FW 42.0 2.9 8.00 0.644 4.0 2.37 0.04 0 0 238.0 39.70 0.329 202.0

22 022-N1-1 1/24/2004 10:24 T05 42.0 3.5 8.30 0.675 9.0 2.36 0.042 0 0 239.0 39.80 0.254 200.0

22 022-N1-2 1/24/2004 10:24 T05 42.0 3.5 8.30 0.675 9.0 2.36 0.042 0 0 239.0 39.80 0.254 200.0

22 022-N1-3 1/24/2004 10:24 T05 42.0 3.5 8.30 0.675 9.0 2.36 0.042 0 0 239.0 39.80 0.254 200.0

22 022-M1-1 1/24/2004 11:18 T09 46.0 3.1 8.10 0.705 10.0 2.43 0.04 0 0 251.0 39.40 0.231 284.0

22 022-M1-2 1/24/2004 11:18 T09 46.0 3.1 8.10 0.705 10.0 2.43 0.04 0 0 251.0 39.40 0.231 284.0

22 022-M1-3 1/24/2004 11:18 T09 46.0 3.1 8.10 0.705 10.0 2.43 0.04 0 0 251.0 39.40 0.231 284.0

22 022-F1-1 1/24/2004 12:24 T08 46.0 0.8 8.10 0.583 7.0 2.42 0.035 0 0 243.0 39.80 0.26 180.0

22 022-F1-2 1/24/2004 12:24 T08 46.0 0.8 8.10 0.583 7.0 2.42 0.035 0 0 243.0 39.80 0.26 180.0

22 022-F1-3 1/24/2004 12:24 T08 46.0 0.8 8.10 0.583 7.0 2.42 0.035 0 0 243.0 39.80 0.26 180.0

297

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.59 Utility 22 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

22 022-E2-1 4/20/2004 8:20 HM FW 38.0 2.8 7.80 0.46 20.0 2.57 0.038 0 0 226.0 30.60 0.362 177.0

22 022-E2-2 4/20/2004 8:20 HM FW 38.0 2.8 7.80 0.46 20.0 2.57 0.038 0 0 226.0 30.60 0.362 177.0

22 022-E2-3 4/20/2004 8:20 HM FW 38.0 2.8 7.80 0.46 20.0 2.57 0.038 0 0 226.0 30.60 0.362 177.0

22 022-N2-1 4/20/2004 9:56 T05 34.0 2.8 7.50 0.491 22.5 2.34 0.039 0 0 227.0 33.50 0.39 198.0

22 022-N2-2 4/20/2004 9:56 T05 34.0 2.8 7.50 0.491 22.5 2.34 0.039 0 0 227.0 33.50 0.39 198.0

22 022-N2-3 4/20/2004 9:56 T05 34.0 2.8 7.50 0.491 22.5 2.34 0.039 0 0 227.0 33.50 0.39 198.0

22 022-M2-1 4/20/2004 10:55 T09 40.0 2.4 7.80 0.491 19.5 2.39 0.037 0 0 230.0 33.80 0.167 185.0

22 022-M2-2 4/20/2004 10:55 T09 40.0 2.4 7.80 0.491 19.5 2.39 0.037 0 0 230.0 33.80 0.167 185.0

22 022-M2-3 4/20/2004 10:55 T09 40.0 2.4 7.80 0.491 19.5 2.39 0.037 0 0 230.0 33.80 0.167 185.0

22 022-F2-1 4/20/2004 11:51 T08 44.0 0 8.30 0.552 16.5 2.00 0.029 0 0 243.0 33.10 0.165 181.0

22 022-F2-2 4/20/2004 11:51 T08 44.0 0 8.30 0.552 16.5 2.00 0.029 0 0 243.0 33.10 0.165 181.0

22 022-F2-3 4/20/2004 11:51 T08 44.0 0 8.30 0.552 16.5 2.00 0.029 0 0 243.0 33.10 0.165 181.0

298

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.60 Utility 22 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

22 022-N3-1 8/27/2004 9:50 T05 40.0 4.2 7.60 0.552 28.0 3.35 0.063 0 0 225.0 36.50 1.10 180.0

22 022-N3-2 8/27/2004 9:50 T05 40.0 4.2 7.60 0.552 28.0 3.35 0.063 0 0 225.0 36.50 1.10 180.0

22 022-N3-3 8/27/2004 9:50 T05 40.0 4.2 7.60 0.552 28.0 3.35 0.063 0 0 225.0 36.50 1.10 180.0

22 022-M3-1 8/27/2004 10:35 T09 44.0 3.1 7.70 0.613 26.0 3.44 0.055 0 0 218.0 34.60 0.53 182.0

22 022-M3-2 8/27/2004 10:35 T09 44.0 3.1 7.70 0.613 26.0 3.44 0.055 0 0 218.0 34.60 0.53 182.0

22 022-M3-3 8/27/2004 10:35 T09 44.0 3.1 7.70 0.613 26.0 3.44 0.055 0 0 218.0 34.60 0.53 182.0

22 022-E3-1 8/27/2004 11:02 HM FW 44.0 4.2 7.50 0.521 26.5 3.29 0.061 0 0 220.0 37.00 1.03 181.0

22 022-E3-2 8/27/2004 11:02 HM FW 44.0 4.2 7.50 0.521 26.5 3.29 0.061 0 0 220.0 37.00 1.03 181.0

22 022-E3-3 8/27/2004 11:02 HM FW 44.0 4.2 7.50 0.521 26.5 3.29 0.061 0 0 220.0 37.00 1.03 181.0

22 022-F3-1 8/27/2004 11:24 T08 42.0 2.5 8.10 0.583 27.0 3.39 0.050 0 0 223.0 36.00 0.37 211.0

22 022-F3-2 8/27/2004 11:24 T08 42.0 2.5 8.10 0.583 27.0 3.39 0.050 0 0 223.0 36.00 0.37 211.0

22 022-F3-3 8/27/2004 11:24 T08 42.0 2.5 8.10 0.583 27.0 3.39 0.050 0 0 223.0 36.00 0.37 211.0

299

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.61 Utility 22 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

22 022-N4-1 11/12/2004 9:23 T05 38.0 3.9 7.30 0.601 23.5 2.57 0.045 0 0 245.0 44.40 0.80 159.0

22 022-N4-2 11/12/2004 9:23 T05 38.0 3.9 7.30 0.601 23.5 2.57 0.045 0 0 245.0 44.40 0.80 159.0

22 022-N4-3 11/12/2004 9:23 T05 38.0 3.9 7.30 0.601 23.5 2.57 0.045 0 0 245.0 44.40 0.80 159.0

22 022-M4-1 11/12/2004 10:06 T09 36.0 2.4 7.10 0.589 20.0 2.53 0.040 0 0 243.0 44.50 1.14 155.0

22 022-M4-2 11/12/2004 10:06 T09 36.0 2.4 7.10 0.589 20.0 2.53 0.040 0 0 243.0 44.50 1.14 155.0

22 022-M4-3 11/12/2004 10:06 T09 36.0 2.4 7.10 0.589 20.0 2.53 0.040 0 0 243.0 44.50 1.14 155.0

22 022-F4-1 11/12/2004 10:53 T08 40.0 2.0 7.30 0.521 17.0 2.50 0.042 0 0 246.0 44.00 0.39 158.0

22 022-F4-2 11/12/2004 10:53 T08 40.0 2.0 7.30 0.521 17.0 2.50 0.042 0 0 246.0 44.00 0.39 158.0

22 022-F4-3 11/12/2004 10:53 T08 40.0 2.0 7.30 0.521 17.0 2.50 0.042 0 0 246.0 44.00 0.39 158.0

22 022-E4-1 11/12/2004 11:25 HM FW 38.0 4.6 7.50 0.662 15.0 2.54 0.069 0 0 242.0 11.40 0.41 157.0

22 022-E4-2 11/12/2004 11:25 HM FW 38.0 4.6 7.50 0.662 15.0 2.54 0.069 0 0 242.0 11.40 0.41 157.0

22 022-E4-3 11/12/2004 11:25 HM FW 38.0 4.6 7.50 0.662 15.0 2.54 0.069 0 0 242.0 11.40 0.41 157.0

300

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.62 Utility 216 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

216 216-E1-1 2/11/2004 8:20 3587 60.0 0.86 0.95 7.22 2.28 5.2 2.81 0.066 8 334.6 1.06

216 216-E1-2 2/11/2004 8:30 3588 55.2 0.92 1.08 7.13 2.23 3.6 2.97 0.067 9 330.6 0.8

216 216-E1-3 2/11/2004 8:40 3589 55.4 0.97 1.09 7.06 2.01 3.6 2.91 0.067 7 330.1 0.74

216 216-N1-1 2/11/2004 9:12 33450 54.5 0.90 1.05 7.10 2.28 5.0 2.93 0.068 7 332.1 0.74

216 216-N1-2 2/11/2004 9:22 33450 54.3 0.90 1.11 7.13 2.23 4.9 2.93 0.067 6 333.8 0.74

216 216-N1-3 2/11/2004 9:32 33450 54.8 0.87 1.02 7.13 1.99 4.8 2.84 0.065 7 332.6 1

216 216-M1-1 2/11/2004 10:05 33450 55.9 0.60 0.78 7.20 2.2 4.8 3.02 0.067 6 334.0 0.71

216 216-M1-2 2/11/2004 10:15 33450 54.8 0.61 0.8 7.12 1.87 4.4 2.88 0.067 7 332.4 0.74

216 216-M1-3 2/11/2004 10:25 33450 54.6 0.58 0.74 7.11 2.24 4.2 3 0.065 8 333.7 0.81

216 216-F1-1 2/11/2004 10:53 31550 33.4 0.41 0.52 7.21 2.2 4.5 2.29 0.052 6 201.3 0.77

216 216-F1-2 2/11/2004 11:03 31550 32.3 0.40 0.53 7.18 2.13 4.2 2.27 0.053 6 195.5 0.89

216 216-F1-3 2/11/2004 11:13 31550 32.2 0.40 0.53 7.10 2.05 4.1 2.41 0.056 6 197.4 0.89

301

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.63 Utility 216 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

216 216-E2-1 5/27/2004 9:06 BX 33 55.9 0.88 1.06 7.19 2.06 13.7 3.19 0.054 7 380.0 1.16

216 216-E2-2 5/27/2004 9:15 BX 33 55.2 0.90 1.06 7.18 2.05 13.1 2.81 0.053 7 384.0 1.15

216 216-E2-3 5/27/2004 9:23 BX 33 55.5 0.81 0.93 7.18 2.19 13.3 2.48 0.052 6 398.0 1.07

216 216-N2-1 5/27/2004 9:58 38400 54.9 0.62 0.7 7.22 2.43 13.0 2.66 0.055 6 383.0 1.22

216 216-N2-2 5/27/2004 10:06 38400 55.0 0.60 0.76 7.25 1.95 12.5 2.8 0.054 7 384.0 1.22

216 216-N2-3 5/27/2004 10:13 38400 54.7 0.58 0.79 7.25 2.06 12.5 2.55 0.055 6 389.0 1.23

216 216-M2-1 5/27/2004 11:05 33450 54.8 0.42 0.46 7.29 1.98 13.9 2.52 0.054 8 378.0 1.06

216 216-M2-2 5/27/2004 11:13 33450 55.1 0.31 0.43 7.29 2.12 13.7 2.5 0.054 7 383.0 1.15

216 216-M2-3 5/27/2004 11:21 33450 55.0 0.30 0.5 7.27 1.95 13.7 2.72 0.055 7 384.0 0.94

216 216-F2-1 5/27/2004 12:25 31550 49.0 0.07 0.13 7.27 1.92 17.2 2.43 0.05 6 339.0 0.91

216 216-F2-2 5/27/2004 12:33 31550 48.9 0.01 0.16 7.26 1.8 16.7 2.62 0.051 6 344.0 0.95

216 216-F2-3 5/27/2004 12:40 31550 51.5 0.01 0.16 7.24 1.87 16.8 2.45 0.053 7 351.0 1.13

302

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.64 Utility 216 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

216 216-E3-1 8/19/2004 8:20 BX33 56.4 0.90 1.27 6.96 1.43 13.3 2.11 0.048 7 384.1 0.58

216 216-E3-2 8/19/2004 8:30 BX33 56.2 1.08 1.16 6.95 1.49 12.5 2.08 0.049 7 384.5 0.56

216 216-E3-3 8/19/2004 8:40 BX33 56.0 1.21 1.4 6.96 1.69 12.6 2.16 0.048 7 384.4 0.58

216 216-N3-3 8/19/2004 8:40 38400 57.8 1.31 1.56 6.98 2.04 12.0 2.41 0.05 8 384.1 0.67

216 216-N3-1 8/19/2004 9:20 38400 57.6 1.23 1.62 7.00 2.2 12.9 2.06 0.051 7 382.9 0.65

216 216-N3-2 8/19/2004 9:30 38400 57.8 1.29 1.59 6.99 2.38 12.2 2.19 0.05 8 383.6 0.64

216 216-M3-1 8/19/2004 10:10 33450 57.0 0.99 1.27 7.02 2.31 13.4 2.18 0.05 8 385.3 0.66

216 216-M3-2 8/19/2004 10:20 33450 56.9 0.98 1.09 7.02 2.32 13.2 2.15 0.05 6 386.3 0.65

216 216-M3-3 8/19/2004 10:30 33450 57.0 0.96 1.12 7.02 2.33 13.1 2.20 0.05 7 385.1 0.64

216 216-F3-1 8/19/2004 11:30 31550 56.6 0.33 0.60 7.07 1.64 15.7 2.14 0.051 7 385.9 0.67

216 216-F3-2 8/19/2004 11:40 31550 56.6 0.33 0.56 7.06 1.77 14.8 2.13 0.05 7 387.4 0.67

216 216-F3-3 8/19/2004 11:50 31550 56.7 0.43 0.50 7.04 1.73 14.7 2.15 0.05 7 386.1 0.59

303

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.65 Utility 269 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

269 269-E3-1 7/22/2004 11:00 132.0 1.10 1.3 7.00 0.337 0.981 1.318 21.5 0.31 0.004 316.0 2.9 174.0

269 269-E3-2 7/22/2004 11:00 132.0 1.10 1.3 7.00 0.337 0.981 1.318 21.5 0.31 0.004 316.0 2.9 174.0

269 269-E3-3 7/22/2004 11:00 132.0 1.10 1.3 7.00 0.337 0.981 1.318 21.5 0.31 0.004 316.0 2.9 174.0

269 269-F3-1 7/23/2004 9:00 132.0 0.50 0.8 7.25 0.368 0.889 1.257 21.1 < 0.1 0.005 321.0 <0.5 194.0

269 269-F3-2 7/23/2004 9:00 132.0 0.50 0.8 7.25 0.368 0.889 1.257 21.1 < 0.1 0.005 321.0 <0.5 194.0

269 269-F3-3 7/23/2004 9:00 132.0 0.50 0.8 7.25 0.368 0.889 1.257 21.1 < 0.1 0.005 321.0 <0.5 194.0

269 269-N3-1 7/23/2004 10:00 132.0 2.00 2 7.22 0.429 0.981 1.41 21.5 <0.1 0.008 316.0 1.3 194.0

269 269-N3-2 7/23/2004 10:00 132.0 2.00 2 7.22 0.429 0.981 1.41 21.5 <0.1 0.008 316.0 1.3 194.0

269 269-N3-3 7/23/2004 10:00 132.0 2.00 2 7.22 0.429 0.981 1.41 21.5 <0.1 0.008 316.0 1.3 194.0

304

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.66 Utility 269 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

269 269-E4-1 12/20/2004 2:05 112.0 0.80 1.2 7.80 0.399 1.042 1.441 18.6 <0.10 0.004 350.0 1.7 182.0

269 269-E4-2 12/20/2004 2:05 112.0 0.80 1.2 7.80 0.399 1.042 1.441 18.6 <0.10 0.004 350.0 1.7 182.0

269 269-E4-3 12/20/2004 2:05 112.0 0.80 1.2 7.80 0.399 1.042 1.441 18.6 <0.10 0.004 350.0 1.7 182.0

269 269-N4-1 12/20/2004 3:05 109.0 0.30 0.4 7.87 0.496 0.976 1.472 17.9 <0.1 0.002 299.0 2.4 188.0

269 269-N4-2 12/20/2004 3:05 109.0 0.30 0.4 7.87 0.496 0.976 1.472 17.9 <0.1 0.002 299.0 2.4 188.0

269 269-N4-3 12/20/2004 3:05 109.0 0.30 0.4 7.87 0.496 0.976 1.472 17.9 <0.1 0.002 299.0 2.4 188.0

269 269-F4-1 1/11/2005 3:45 110.0 0.20 0.3 7.94 0.399 1.011 1.410 16.4 < 0.1 0.003 308.0 6.5 186.0

269 269-F4-2 1/11/2005 3:45 110.0 0.20 0.3 7.94 0.399 1.011 1.410 16.4 < 0.1 0.003 308.0 6.5 186.0

269 269-F4-3 1/11/2005 3:45 110.0 0.20 0.3 7.94 0.399 1.011 1.410 16.4 < 0.1 0.003 308.0 6.5 186.0

305

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.67 Utility 315 Winter 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

315 315-E1-1 2/24/2004 14:15 2.45 2.55 7.31 5.0

315 315-E1-2 2/24/2004 14:15 2.45 2.55 7.31 5.0

315 315-E1-3 2/24/2004 14:15 2.45 2.55 7.31 5.0

315 315-N1-1 2/25/2004 11:15 1.50 2.2 7.40 5.0

315 315-N1-2 2/25/2004 11:15 1.50 2.2 7.40 5.0

315 315-N1-3 2/25/2004 11:15 1.50 2.2 7.40 5.0

315 315-M1-1 2/26/2004 9:20 2.30 2.5 7.20 5.0

315 315-M1-2 2/26/2004 9:20 2.30 2.5 7.20 5.0

315 315-M1-3 2/26/2004 9:20 2.30 2.5 7.20 5.0

315 315-F1-1 2/27/2004 10:20 1.90 2 7.30 5.0

315 315-F1-2 2/27/2004 10:20 1.90 2 7.30 5.0

315 315-F1-3 2/27/2004 10:20 1.90 2 7.30 5.0

306

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.68 Utility 315 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

315 315-E2-1 5/26/2004 13:00 2.55 2.7 7.28 21.4 1.48 371.0

315 315-E2-2 5/26/2004 13:00 2.55 2.7 7.28 21.4 1.48 371.0

315 315-E2-3 5/26/2004 13:00 2.55 2.7 7.28 21.4 1.48 371.0

315 315-N2-1 5/27/2004 11:50 1.90 2 7.90 16.6 1.17 400.0

315 315-N2-2 5/27/2004 11:50 1.90 2 7.90 16.6 1.17 400.0

315 315-N2-3 5/27/2004 11:50 1.90 2 7.90 16.6 1.17 400.0

315 315-X2-1 5/27/2004 13:30 2.00 2.1 7.90 16.7 2.1 395.0

315 315-X2-2 5/27/2004 13:30 2.00 2.1 7.90 16.7 2.1 395.0

315 315-X2-3 5/27/2004 13:30 2.00 2.1 7.90 16.7 2.1 395.0

315 315-F2-1 5/27/2004 14:30 1.50 1.6 7.70 17.0 1.19

315 315-F2-2 5/27/2004 14:30 1.50 1.6 7.70 17.0 1.19

315 315-F2-3 5/27/2004 14:30 1.50 1.6 7.70 17.0 1.19

315 315-M2-1 6/2/2004 13:15 1.72 1.8 7.45 27.4 1.28

315 315-M2-2 6/2/2004 13:15 1.72 1.8 7.45 27.4 1.28

315 315-M2-3 6/2/2004 13:15 1.72 1.8 7.45 27.4 1.28

307

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.69 Utility 315 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

315 315-E3-1 8/26/2004 13:23 31.0 2.43 2.49 7.60 22.8 1.05 467.0

315 315-E3-2 8/26/2004 13:23 31.0 2.43 2.49 7.60 22.8 1.05 467.0

315 315-E3-3 8/26/2004 13:23 31.0 2.43 2.49 7.60 22.8 1.05 467.0

315 315-M3-1 8/26/2004 10:30 30.0 1.40 1.47 7.90 25.3 1.01 421.0

315 315-M3-2 8/26/2004 10:30 30.0 1.40 1.47 7.90 25.3 1.01 421.0

315 315-M3-3 8/26/2004 10:30 30.0 1.40 1.47 7.90 25.3 1.01 421.0

315 315-N3-1 8/26/2004 11:15 35.0 1.31 1.38 7.50 23.9 1.03 440.0

315 315-N3-2 8/26/2004 11:15 35.0 1.31 1.38 7.50 23.9 1.03 440.0

315 315-N3-3 8/26/2004 11:15 35.0 1.31 1.38 7.50 23.9 1.03 440.0

315 315-F3-1 8/26/2004 9:30 30.0 1.30 1.38 8.00 23.9 1.01 420.0

315 315-F3-2 8/26/2004 9:30 30.0 1.30 1.38 8.00 23.9 1.01 420.0

315 315-F3-3 8/26/2004 9:30 30.0 1.30 1.38 8.00 23.9 1.01 420.0

308

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.70 Utility 315 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, near, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

315 315-E4-1 11/1/2004 14:00 61.0 2.44 2.50 7.23 1.334 20.0 0.98 421.0 0.070

315 315-E4-2 11/1/2004 14:00 61.0 2.44 2.50 7.23 1.334 20.0 0.98 421.0 0.070

315 315-E4-3 11/1/2004 14:00 61.0 2.44 2.50 7.23 1.334 20.0 0.98 421.0 0.070

315 315-N4-1 11/1/2004 12:45 2.00 2.2 7.60 20.0 421.0

315 315-N4-2 11/1/2004 12:45 2.00 2.2 7.60 20.0 421.0

315 315-N4-3 11/1/2004 12:45 2.00 2.2 7.60 20.0 421.0

315 315-M4-1 11/1/2004 14:00 1.80 2.1 7.90 18.3 428.0

315 315-M4-2 11/1/2004 14:00 1.80 2.1 7.90 18.3 428.0

315 315-M4-3 11/1/2004 14:00 1.80 2.1 7.90 18.3 428.0

315 315-F4-1 11/1/2004 13:30 2.00 2.3 7.90 19.3 414.0

315 315-F4-2 11/1/2004 13:30 2.00 2.3 7.90 19.3 414.0

315 315-F4-3 11/1/2004 13:30 2.00 2.3 7.90 19.3 414.0

309

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.71 Utility 318 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

318 318-E3-1 8/24/2004 10:40 180.0 0.80 0.86 7.90 0.83 0 0.797 20.0 <1.0 0.012 0 510.0 49.00 .14

318 318-E3-2 8/24/2004 10:40 180.0 0.80 0.86 7.90 0.83 0 0.797 20.0 <1.0 0.012 0 510.0 49.00 .14

318 318-E3-3 8/24/2004 10:40 180.0 0.80 0.86 7.90 0.83 0 0.797 20.0 <1.0 0.012 0 510.0 49.00 .14

318 318-M3-1 8/24/2004 13:00 20503 180.0 0.90 0.92 7.90 0.59 0.054 0.644 21.7 <1.0 0.012 0 510.0 48.00 .27

318 318-M3-2 8/24/2004 13:00 20503 180.0 0.90 0.92 7.90 0.59 0.054 0.644 21.7 <1.0 0.012 0 510.0 48.00 .27

318 318-M3-3 8/24/2004 13:00 20503 180.0 0.90 0.92 7.90 0.59 0.054 0.644 21.7 <1.0 0.012 0 510.0 48.00 .27

318 318-F3-1 8/24/2004 13:15 20326 180.0 0.74 1.07 7.90 0.52 0.185 0.705 23.3 <1.0 0.015 0 520.0 46.00 .63

318 318-F3-2 8/24/2004 13:15 20326 180.0 0.74 1.07 7.90 0.52 0.185 0.705 23.3 <1.0 0.015 0 520.0 46.00 .63

318 318-F3-3 8/24/2004 13:15 20326 180.0 0.74 1.07 7.90 0.52 0.185 0.705 23.3 <1.0 0.015 0 520.0 46.00 .63

310

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.72 Utility 318 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

318 318-E4-1 10/21/2004 11:59 170.0 0.83 0.89 7.90 0.66 0.996 1.656 15.0 13 0.011 <1 500.0 47.00 <0.10

318 318-E4-2 10/21/2004 11:59 170.0 0.83 0.89 7.90 0.66 0.996 1.656 15.0 13 0.011 <1 500.0 47.00 <0.10

318 318-E4-3 10/21/2004 11:59 170.0 0.83 0.89 7.90 0.66 0.996 1.656 15.0 13 0.011 <1 500.0 47.00 <0.10

318 318-M4-1 10/21/2004 12:14 20503 170.0 0.86 0.87 7.60 0.66 0.781 1.441 16.7 9.5 0.014 <1 510.0 47.00 <0.10

318 318-M4-2 10/21/2004 12:14 20503 170.0 0.86 0.87 7.60 0.66 0.781 1.441 16.7 9.5 0.014 <1 510.0 47.00 <0.10

318 318-M4-3 10/21/2004 12:14 20503 170.0 0.86 0.87 7.60 0.66 0.781 1.441 16.7 9.5 0.014 <1 510.0 47.00 <0.10

318 318-F4-1 10/21/2004 12:29 20326 150.0 0.93 0.98 7.60 < 0.50 > 0.54 1.042 17.8 11 0.012 <1 520.0 48.00 <0.10

318 318-F4-2 10/21/2004 12:29 20326 150.0 0.93 0.98 7.60 < 0.50 > 0.54 1.042 17.8 11 0.012 <1 520.0 48.00 <0.10

318 318-F4-3 10/21/2004 12:29 20326 150.0 0.93 0.98 7.60 < 0.50 > 0.54 1.042 17.8 11 0.012 <1 520.0 48.00 <0.10

311

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.73 Utility 318 Winter 2005 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

318 318-E5-1 1/7/2005 12:20 170.0 0.38 1.04 8.00 < 1.0 > 0.318 1.318 0.23 0.014 < 1.0 480.0 49.00 <

318 318-E5-2 1/7/2005 12:20 170.0 0.38 1.04 8.00 < 1.0 > 0.318 1.318 0.23 0.014 < 1.0 480.0 49.00 <

318 318-E5-3 1/7/2005 12:20 170.0 0.38 1.04 8.00 < 1.0 > 0.318 1.318 0.23 0.014 < 1.0 480.0 49.00 <

318 318-M5-1 1/7/2005 12:40 20503 180.0 0.88 1.08 7.90 < 1.0 >0.68 1.686 0.23 0.016 < 1.0 480.0 55.00 <

318 318-M5-2 1/7/2005 12:40 20503 180.0 0.88 1.08 7.90 < 1.0 >0.68 1.686 0.23 0.016 < 1.0 480.0 55.00 <

318 318-M5-3 1/7/2005 12:40 20503 180.0 0.88 1.08 7.90 < 1.0 >0.68 1.686 0.23 0.016 < 1.0 480.0 55.00 <

318 318-F5-1 1/7/2005 12:54 20326 180.0 0.99 1.12 7.90 < 1.0 >0.50 1.502 0.21 0.015 < 1.0 480.0 50.00 <

318 318-F5-2 1/7/2005 12:54 20326 180.0 0.99 1.12 7.90 < 1.0 >0.50 1.502 0.21 0.015 < 1.0 480.0 50.00 <

318 318-F5-3 1/7/2005 12:54 20326 180.0 0.99 1.12 7.90 < 1.0 >0.50 1.502 0.21 0.015 < 1.0 480.0 50.00 <

312

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.74 Utility 336 Spring 2004 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

336 336-E2-1 6/16/2004 12:20 E2-WQP 36.0 1.14 1.26 7.50 0.121 23.8 0.061 0 178.6 0.2 228.0

336 336-E2-2 6/16/2004 12:20 E2-WQP 36.0 1.14 1.26 7.50 0.121 23.8 0.061 0 178.6 0.2 228.0

336 336-E2-3 6/16/2004 12:20 E2-WQP 36.0 1.14 1.26 7.50 0.121 23.8 0.061 0 178.6 0.2 228.0

336 336-N2-1 6/16/2004 13:30 N2-WQP 42.0 0.91 1.04 7.50 0.351 22.9 0.0468 5 177.6 0.3 228.0

336 336-N2-2 6/16/2004 13:30 N2-WQP 42.0 0.91 1.04 7.50 0.351 22.9 0.0468 5 177.6 0.3 228.0

336 336-N2-3 6/16/2004 13:30 N2-WQP 42.0 0.91 1.04 7.50 0.351 22.9 0.0468 5 177.6 0.3 228.0

336 336-M2-1 6/16/2004 14:20 M2- 46.0 0.97 1.14 7.50 0.165 23.2 0.0451 0 177.4 0.1 216.0

336 336-M2-2 6/16/2004 14:20 M2- 46.0 0.97 1.14 7.50 0.165 23.2 0.0451 0 177.4 0.1 216.0

336 336-M2-3 6/16/2004 14:20 M2- 46.0 0.97 1.14 7.50 0.165 23.2 0.0451 0 177.4 0.1 216.0

336 336-F2-1 6/16/2004 15:10 F2-WQP 60.0 0.67 0.86 7.70 0.875 23.9 0.0554 0 238.0 0.1 236.0

336 336-F2-2 6/16/2004 15:10 F2-WQP 60.0 0.67 0.86 7.70 0.875 23.9 0.0554 0 238.0 0.1 236.0

336 336-F2-3 6/16/2004 15:10 F2-WQP 60.0 0.67 0.86 7.70 0.875 23.9 0.0554 0 238.0 0.1 236.0

313

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.75 Utility 336 Summer 2004 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

336 336-E3-1 8/5/2004 10:00 E3 40.0 1.10 1.44 7.25 1.14 25.7 1.58 .0327 5 163.7 1.86 0.05 172.0

336 336-E3-2 8/5/2004 10:00 E3 40.0 1.10 1.44 7.25 1.14 25.7 1.58 .0327 5 163.7 1.86 0.05 172.0

336 336-E3-3 8/5/2004 10:00 E3 40.0 1.10 1.44 7.25 1.14 25.7 1.58 .0327 5 163.7 1.86 0.05 172.0

336 336-N3-1 8/5/2004 11:25 N3 40.0 0.98 1.10 7.31 1.13 25.5 1.44 0.0342 0 160.5 1.78 0.3 136.0

336 336-N3-2 8/5/2004 11:25 N3 40.0 0.98 1.10 7.31 1.13 25.5 1.44 0.0342 0 160.5 1.78 0.3 136.0

336 336-N3-3 8/5/2004 11:25 N3 40.0 0.98 1.10 7.31 1.13 25.5 1.44 0.0342 0 160.5 1.78 0.3 136.0

336 336-M3-1 8/5/2004 13:20 M3 42.0 1.11 1.30 7.39 1.04 25.0 1.44 0.032 0 160.5 1.85 0.3 116.0

336 336-M3-2 8/5/2004 13:20 M3 42.0 1.11 1.30 7.39 1.04 25.0 1.44 0.032 0 160.5 1.85 0.3 116.0

336 336-M3-3 8/5/2004 13:20 M3 42.0 1.11 1.30 7.39 1.04 25.0 1.44 0.032 0 160.5 1.85 0.3 116.0

336 336-F3-1 8/5/2004 14:05 F3 48.0 0.80 0.96 7.65 0.79 25.5 1.61 0.0353 5 181.2 2.17 0.7 148.0

336 336-F3-2 8/5/2004 14:05 F3 48.0 0.80 0.96 7.65 0.79 25.5 1.61 0.0353 5 181.2 2.17 0.7 148.0

336 336-F3-3 8/5/2004 14:05 F3 48.0 0.80 0.96 7.65 0.79 25.5 1.61 0.0353 5 181.2 2.17 0.7 148.0

314

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.76 Utility 336 Fall 2004 event (reservoir turnover) 2004 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

336 336-E9-1 10/5/2004 9:20 Ee 38.0 1.16 1.32 7.60 1.31 23.0 1.42 0.0649 0 169.8 2.02 0.2 140.0

336 336-N9-1 10/5/2004 10:58 Ne 44.0 0.99 1.16 7.80 0.53 23.2 1.47 0.0511 0 165.0 1.80 0.3 132.0

336 336-M9-1 10/5/2004 11:35 Me 42.0 1.13 1.33 7.70 0.86 22.2 1.39 0.0638 0 163.3 1.77 0.2 152.0

336 336-F9-1 10/5/2004 12:02 Fe 52.0 0.93 1.09 7.90 1.03 21.8 1.37 0.0546 0 167.8 1.70 0.3 136.0

315

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.77 Utility 336 Fall 2004 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

336 336-E4-1 11/23/2004 9:35 E4 48.0 1.50 1.65 7.57 0.135 15.5 1.61 0.058 0 163.7 2.01 0.2 116.0

336 336-E4-2 11/23/2004 9:35 E4 48.0 1.50 1.65 7.57 0.135 15.5 1.61 0.058 0 163.7 2.01 0.2 116.0

336 336-E4-3 11/23/2004 9:35 E4 48.0 1.50 1.65 7.57 0.135 15.5 1.61 0.058 0 163.7 2.01 0.2 116.0

336 336-N4-1 11/23/2004 10:53 N4 52.0 0.83 1.06 7.82 0.046 15.5 1.65 0.0511 0 159.6 2.13 0.3 104.0

336 336-N4-2 11/23/2004 10:53 N4 52.0 0.83 1.06 7.82 0.046 15.5 1.65 0.0511 0 159.6 2.13 0.3 104.0

336 336-N4-3 11/23/2004 10:53 N4 52.0 0.83 1.06 7.82 0.046 15.5 1.65 0.0511 0 159.6 2.13 0.3 104.0

336 336-M4-1 11/23/2004 11:40 M4 48.0 1.11 1.83 7.73 0.028 13.8 1.65 0.0516 0 157.2 2.08 0.3 100.0

336 336-M4-2 11/23/2004 11:40 M4 48.0 1.11 1.83 7.73 0.028 13.8 1.65 0.0516 0 157.2 2.08 0.3 100.0

336 336-M4-3 11/23/2004 11:40 M4 48.0 1.11 1.83 7.73 0.028 13.8 1.65 0.0516 0 157.2 2.08 0.3 100.0

336 336-F4-1 11/23/2004 12:20 F4 70.0 1.21 1.43 7.93 0.136 16.2 1.66 0.0489 0 208.0 2.11 0.3 172.0

336 336-F4-2 11/23/2004 12:20 F4 70.0 1.21 1.43 7.93 0.136 16.2 1.66 0.0489 0 208.0 2.11 0.3 172.0

336 336-F4-3 11/23/2004 12:20 F4 70.0 1.21 1.43 7.93 0.136 16.2 1.66 0.0489 0 208.0 2.11 0.3 172.0

316

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.78 Utility 336 Winter 2005 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

336 336-E5-1 12/22/2004 8:50 E1 23.0 1.65 1.80 8.21 0.436 13.2 1.47 0.0488 0 136.6 1.85 0.11

336 336-E5-2 12/22/2004 8:50 E1 23.0 1.65 1.80 8.21 0.436 13.2 1.47 0.0488 0 136.6 1.85 0.11

336 336-E5-3 12/22/2004 8:50 E1 23.0 1.65 1.80 8.21 0.436 13.2 1.47 0.0488 0 136.6 1.85 0.11

336 336-N5-1 12/22/2004 10:20 N1 29.0 0.74 0.88 7.79 0.410 24.7 1.23 0.0440 0 144.6 1.93 0.12

336 336-N5-2 12/22/2004 10:20 N1 29.0 0.74 0.88 7.79 0.410 24.7 1.23 0.0440 0 144.6 1.93 0.12

336 336-N5-3 12/22/2004 10:20 N1 29.0 0.74 0.88 7.79 0.410 24.7 1.23 0.0440 0 144.6 1.93 0.12

336 336-M5-1 12/22/2004 11:00 M1 29.0 1.30 1.47 7.84 0.682 11.2 1.24 0.0532 0 143.4 1.78 0.11

336 336-M5-2 12/22/2004 11:00 M1 29.0 1.30 1.47 7.84 0.682 11.2 1.24 0.0532 0 143.4 1.78 0.11

336 336-M5-3 12/22/2004 11:00 M1 29.0 1.30 1.47 7.84 0.682 11.2 1.24 0.0532 0 143.4 1.78 0.11

336 336-F5-1 12/22/2004 11:45 F1 60.0 1.85 2.06 7.84 0.834 11.8 1.25 0.0492 0 222.0 1.77 0.18

336 336-F5-2 12/22/2004 11:45 F1 60.0 1.85 2.06 7.84 0.834 11.8 1.25 0.0492 0 222.0 1.77 0.18

336 336-F5-3 12/22/2004 11:45 F1 60.0 1.85 2.06 7.84 0.834 11.8 1.25 0.0492 0 222.0 1.77 0.18

317

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.79 Utility 401 Winter 2005 distribution system sample (entry, mid, and far) water quality data

Ortho Poly Total


Util ID Sample Date Time Util Alk F Cl2 T Cl2 pH phos phos phos Temp TOC UV254 Color- Color- Conduc DOC Sulfate Turbi DO TDS
ID Sample ID phate phate phate Abs App True tivity dity
mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L C mg/L 1/cm PtCo Color- mhos/ mg/L mg/L NTU mg/L mg/L
CaCO3 units True cm

401 401-E5-1 2/9/2005 3.02 8.71 11.6 267.0 0.042

401 401-E5-2 2/9/2005 3.02 8.71 11.6 267.0 0.042

401 401-E5-3 2/9/2005 3.02 8.71 11.6 267.0 0.042

318

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


SEASONAL TESTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER QUALITY DATA

Geo.: Midwest; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Parallel Conventional Gravity Settling & Mn Greensand

0.075 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.060
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

4.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 800


3.50 700
Chlorine (mg/L)

3.00 600

Eh (mV)
2.50 500
2.00 400
1.50 300
1.00 200
0.50 100
0.00 0
Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

550.0 Alkalinity Hardness


500.0
450.0
400.0
350.0
300.0
250.0
200.0
150.0
100.0
50.0
0.0
10.5 12.5 13.3 10.5 6.0 13.0 14.7 16.5 6.5 14.0 17.6 14.5 9.5 13.5 18.5 16.0

6.8 6.8 6.0 6.6 6.50 6.80 6.30 7.00 6.80 6.80 6.60 6.50 6.70 7.00 6.50 7.10

2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location


Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.13: Utility 002 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

319

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Midwest; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Parallel Conventional Gravity Settling & Mn Greensand

0.075 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.060
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

TOC Turbidity
4.50 4.50
4.00 4.00
3.50 3.50

Turbidity (NTU)
TOC (mg/L)

3.00 3.00
2.50 2.50
2.00 2.00
1.50 1.50
1.00 1.00
0.50 0.50
0.00 0.00

1000 Conductivity TDS 1000


900 900
800 800
Conductivity (mhos)

700 700

TDS (mg/L)
600 600
500 500
400 400
300 300
200 200
100 100
0 0
10.5 12.5 13.3 10.5 6.0 13.0 14.7 16.5 6.5 14.0 17.6 14.5 9.5 13.5 18.5 16.0

6.8 6.8 6.0 6.6 6.50 6.80 6.30 7.00 6.80 6.80 6.60 6.50 6.70 7.00 6.50 7.10

2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.14: Utility 002 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

320

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Midwest; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Parallel Conventional Gravity Settling & Mn Greensand

0.075 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.060
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.090 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)

0.075

0.060
Iron (mg/L)

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

160.0 Calcium Sodium 20.0

140.0 18.0
16.0
120.0

Sodium (mg/L)
14.0
Calcium (mg/L)

100.0 12.0
80.0 10.0

60.0 8.0
6.0
40.0
4.0
20.0 2.0
0.0 0.0
10.5 12.5 13.3 10.5 6.0 13.0 14.7 16.5 6.5 14.0 17.6 14.5 9.5 13.5 18.5 16.0

6.8 6.8 6.0 6.6 6.50 6.80 6.30 7.00 6.80 6.80 6.60 6.50 6.70 7.00 6.50 7.10

2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.15: Utility 002 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

321

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Midwest; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Parallel Conventional Gravity Settling & Mn Greensand

0.075 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.060
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.0050 Arsenic

0.0040
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010

0.0000

0.8 Orthophosphate

0.7
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
10.5 12.5 13.3 10.5 6.0 13.0 14.7 16.5 6.5 14.0 17.6 14.5 9.5 13.5 18.5 16.0

6.8 6.8 6.0 6.6 6.50 6.80 6.30 7.00 6.80 6.80 6.60 6.50 6.70 7.00 6.50 7.10

2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04 2/26/04 5/20/04 8/31/04 11/9/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.16: Utility 002 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

322

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: South; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling)

0.150 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)


0.135

0.120
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.105

0.090

0.075

0.060

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

5.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 1100


4.50 1000
4.00 900
Chlorine (mg/L)

3.50 800

Eh (mV)
3.00 700
2.50 600
2.00 500
1.50 400
1.00 300
0.50 200
0.00 100
Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

100.0 Alkalinity Hardness

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
25.0 23.0 13.3 16.0 26.0 20.6 14.0 16.0 25.0 19.0 13.0 15.0 26.0 21.4 16.0

8.9 9.0 9.0 8.89 8.84 8.22 8.93 9.11 8.98 9.14 8.85 9.13 8.98 4.49 8.90

2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location


Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.17: Utility 007 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

323

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: South; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling)

0.150 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)


0.135

0.120
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.105

0.090

0.075

0.060

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

5.00
TOC Turbidity 1.00
4.50 0.90
4.00 0.80

Turbidity (NTU)
TOC (mg/L)

3.50 0.70
3.00 0.60
2.50 0.50
2.00 0.40
1.50 0.30
1.00 0.20
0.50 0.10
0.00 0.00

300 Conductivity TDS 300

250 250
Conductivity (mhos)

200 200

TDS (mg/L)
150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
25.0 23.0 13.3 16.0 26.0 20.6 14.0 16.0 25.0 19.0 13.0 15.0 26.0 21.4 16.0

8.9 9.0 9.0 8.89 8.84 8.22 8.93 9.11 8.98 9.14 8.85 9.13 8.98 4.49 8.90

2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.18: Utility 007 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

324

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: South; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling)

0.150 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)


0.135

0.120
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.105

0.090

0.075

0.060

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.150 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)


0.135
0.120
Total Fe = 0.389 mg/L
0.105
Iron (mg/L)

0.090
0.075
0.060
0.045
0.030
0.015
0.000

30.0 Calcium Sodium 30.0

25.0 25.0

Sodium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)

20.0 20.0

15.0 15.0

10.0 10.0

5.0 5.0

0.0 0.0
25.0 23.0 13.3 16.0 26.0 20.6 14.0 16.0 25.0 19.0 13.0 15.0 26.0 21.4 16.0

8.9 9.0 9.0 8.89 8.84 8.22 8.93 9.11 8.98 9.14 8.85 9.13 8.98 4.49 8.90

2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/041/10/05

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.19: Utility 007 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

325

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: South; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling)

0.150 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)


0.135

0.120
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.105

0.090

0.075

0.060

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.0070 Arsenic

0.0060
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0050

0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010

0.0000

1.0 Orthophosphate
0.9
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
25.0 23.0 13.3 16.0 26.0 20.6 14.0 16.0 25.0 19.0 13.0 15.0 26.0 21.4 16.0

8.9 9.0 9.0 8.89 8.84 8.22 8.93 9.11 8.98 9.14 8.85 9.13 8.98 4.49 8.90

2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/04 1/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/04 1/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/04 1/10/05 2/26/04 5/4/04 11/18/04 1/10/05

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.20: Utility 007 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

326

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

0.010 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)


0.009

0.008
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.000

5.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 1100


4.50 1000
4.00 900
Chlorine (mg/L)

3.50 800

Eh (mV)
3.00 700
2.50 600
2.00 500
1.50 400
1.00 300
0.50 200
0.00 100
Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

150.0 Alkalinity Hardness

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0
9.1 23.6 24.7 8.4 9.3 21.0 24.3 13.5 14.2 23.4 25.3 11.1 9.0 22.4 24.8 12.0

7.24 7.27 7.02 6.87 7.29 7.25 7.05 6.97 7.34 7.25 6.98 7.01 7.22 7.27 7.13 6.58

3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location


Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.21: Utility 009 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

327

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

0.010 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)


0.009

0.008
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.000

TOC Turbidity
3.50 0.14

3.00 0.12

Turbidity (NTU)
2.50 0.10
TOC (mg/L)

2.00 0.08

1.50 0.06

1.00 0.04

0.50 0.02

0.00 0.00

400 Conductivity TDS 300


350
250
300
Conductivity (mhos)

200
250

TDS (mg/L)
200 150

150
100
100
50
50

0 0
9.1 23.6 24.7 8.4 9.3 21.0 24.3 13.5 14.2 23.4 25.3 11.1 9.0 22.4 24.8 12.0

7.24 7.27 7.02 6.87 7.29 7.25 7.05 6.97 7.34 7.25 6.98 7.01 7.22 7.27 7.13 6.58

3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.22: Utility 009 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

328

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

0.010 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)


0.009

0.008
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.000

0.045 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)

0.030
Iron (mg/L)

0.015

0.000

40.0 Calcium Sodium 40.0

35.0 35.0

30.0 30.0

Sodium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)

25.0 25.0

20.0 20.0

15.0 15.0

10.0 10.0

5.0 5.0

0.0 0.0
9.1 23.6 24.7 8.4 9.3 21.0 24.3 13.5 14.2 23.4 25.3 11.1 9.0 22.4 24.8 12.0

7.24 7.27 7.02 6.87 7.29 7.25 7.05 6.97 7.34 7.25 6.98 7.01 7.22 7.27 7.13 6.58

3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.
-- Dissolved iron data is not available for 3/9/04 samples.

Figure D.23: Utility 009 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

329

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

0.010 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)


0.009

0.008
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.007

0.006

0.005

0.004

0.003

0.002

0.001

0.000

0.010 Arsenic
0.009
0.008
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.007
0.006
0.005
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.000

1.8 Orthophosphate
1.6
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
9.1 23.6 24.7 8.4 9.3 21.0 24.3 13.5 14.2 23.4 25.3 11.1 9.0 22.4 24.8 12.0

7.24 7.27 7.02 6.87 7.29 7.25 7.05 6.97 7.34 7.25 6.98 7.01 7.22 7.27 7.13 6.58

3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04 3/9/04 6/16/04 9/10/04 12/8/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.24: Utility 009 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

330

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Northeast; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Manganese Greensand

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

5.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 1100


4.50 1000
4.00 900
Chlorine (mg/L)

3.50 800

Eh (mV)
3.00 700
2.50 600
2.00 500
1.50 400
1.00 300
0.50 200
0.00 100
Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

100.0 Alkalinity Hardness

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
19.0 18.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 18.8 12.0 7.0 17.0 19.1 13.0 9.0 15.0 19.0 12.0 12.0

8.0 8.0 7.7 8.0 8.00 7.90 7.90 7.90 8.00 8.00 7.80 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.70 8.10

4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location


Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.25: Utility 021 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

331

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Northeast; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Manganese Greensand

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

TOC Turbidity
3.50 1.00
0.90
3.00
0.80

Turbidity (NTU)
2.50
TOC (mg/L)

0.70

2.00 0.60
0.50
1.50 0.40
1.00 0.30
0.20
0.50
0.10
0.00 0.00

300 Conductivity TDS 300

250 250
Conductivity (mhos)

200 200

TDS (mg/L)
150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
19.0 18.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 18.8 12.0 7.0 17.0 19.1 13.0 9.0 15.0 19.0 12.0 12.0

8.0 8.0 7.7 8.0 8.00 7.90 7.90 7.90 8.00 8.00 7.80 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.70 8.10

4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.26: Utility 021 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

332

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Northeast; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Manganese Greensand

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.090 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)

0.075

0.060
Iron (mg/L)

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

30.0 Calcium Sodium 30.0

25.0 25.0

Sodium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)

20.0 20.0

15.0 15.0

10.0 10.0

5.0 5.0

0.0 0.0
19.0 18.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 18.8 12.0 7.0 17.0 19.1 13.0 9.0 15.0 19.0 12.0 12.0

8.0 8.0 7.7 8.0 8.00 7.90 7.90 7.90 8.00 8.00 7.80 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.70 8.10

4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.27: Utility 021 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

333

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Northeast; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Manganese Greensand

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.0050 Arsenic

0.0040
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010

0.0000

1.0 Orthophosphate
0.9
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
19.0 18.0 12.0 12.0 16.0 18.8 12.0 7.0 17.0 19.1 13.0 9.0 15.0 19.0 12.0 12.0

8.0 8.0 7.7 8.0 8.00 7.90 7.90 7.90 8.00 8.00 7.80 8.00 8.00 8.00 7.70 8.10

4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05 4/29/04 7/15/04 11/3/04 1/4/05

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.28: Utility 021 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

334

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: Mid-Atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone)

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

5.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 1100


4.50 1000
4.00 900
Chlorine (mg/L)

3.50 800

ORP (mV)
3.00 700
2.50 600
2.00 500
1.50 400
1.00 300
0.50 200
0.00 100
Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

150.0 Alkalinity Hardness

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0
4.0 20.0 26.5 15.0 9.0 22.5 28.0 23.5 10.0 19.5 26.0 20.0 7.0 16.5 27.0 17.0

8.0 7.8 7.5 7.5 8.30 7.50 7.60 7.30 8.10 7.80 7.70 7.10 8.10 8.30 8.10 7.30

1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/0411/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/0411/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/04 11/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/0411/12/04

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location


Notes:
-- ORP and free chlorine data was not available.
-- Total chlorine data for 4/20/04 is reported as 0 mg/L.

Figure D.29: Utility 022 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

335

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: Mid-Atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone)

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

3.50
TOC Turbidity 1.40

3.00 1.20

Turbidity (NTU)
2.50 1.00
TOC (mg/L)

2.00 0.80

1.50 0.60

1.00 0.40

0.50 0.20

0.00 0.00

300 Conductivity TDS 300

250 250
Conductivity (mhos)

200 200

TDS (mg/L)
150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
4.0 20.0 26.5 15.0 9.0 22.5 28.0 23.5 10.0 19.5 26.0 20.0 7.0 16.5 27.0 17.0

8.0 7.8 7.5 7.5 8.30 7.50 7.60 7.30 8.10 7.80 7.70 7.10 8.10 8.30 8.10 7.30

1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/04 11/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/04 11/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/04 11/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/04 11/12/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Figure D.30: Utility 022 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

336

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: Mid-Atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone)

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.090 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)

0.075

0.060
Iron (mg/L)

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

40.0 Calcium Sodium 20.0

35.0 18.0
16.0
30.0

Sodium (mg/L)
14.0
Calcium (mg/L)

25.0 12.0
20.0 10.0

15.0 8.0
6.0
10.0
4.0
5.0 2.0
0.0 0.0
4.0 20.0 26.5 15.0 9.0 22.5 28.0 23.5 10.0 19.5 26.0 20.0 7.0 16.5 27.0 17.0

8.0 7.8 7.5 7.5 8.30 7.50 7.60 7.30 8.10 7.80 7.70 7.10 8.10 8.30 8.10 7.30

1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/0411/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/04 11/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/0411/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/0411/12/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.
-- Dissolved iron data is not available for the 1/24/04 samples.

Figure D.31: Utility 022 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

337

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: Mid-Atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone)

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.0050 Arsenic

0.0040
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010

0.0000

0.8 Orthophosphate

0.7
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0
4.0 20.0 26.5 15.0 9.0 22.5 28.0 23.5 10.0 19.5 26.0 20.0 7.0 16.5 27.0 17.0

8.0 7.8 7.5 7.5 8.30 7.50 7.60 7.30 8.10 7.80 7.70 7.10 8.10 8.30 8.10 7.30

1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/04 11/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/04 11/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/04 11/12/04 1/24/04 4/20/04 8/27/04 11/12/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.32: Utility 022 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

338

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Disinfection Only

0.060 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.045
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.030

0.015

0.000

4.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 1100


3.50 1000
900
Chlorine (mg/L)

3.00
800

Eh (mV)
2.50 700
2.00 600
1.50 500
400
1.00
300
0.50 200
0.00 100
Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

150.0 Alkalinity Hardness

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0
4.1 13.4 12.8 4.9 12.7 12.4 4.5 13.8 13.2 4.3 16.9 15.1

7.14 7.18 6.96 7.12 7.24 6.99 7.14 7.28 7.02 7.16 7.26 7.06

2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Figure D.33: Utility 216 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

339

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Disinfection Only

0.060 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.045
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.030

0.015

0.000

3.50
TOC Turbidity 1.40

3.00 1.20

Turbidity (NTU)
2.50 1.00
TOC (mg/L)

2.00 0.80

1.50 0.60

1.00 0.40

0.50 0.20

0.00 0.00

450 Conductivity TDS 300


400
250
350
Conductivity (mhos)

300 200

TDS (mg/L)
250
150
200
150 100
100
50
50
0 0
4.1 13.4 12.8 4.9 12.7 12.4 4.5 13.8 13.2 4.3 16.9 15.1

7.14 7.18 6.96 7.12 7.24 6.99 7.14 7.28 7.02 7.16 7.26 7.06

2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Figure D.34: Utility 216 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

340

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: Northeast; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Disinfection Only)

0.060 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.045
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.030

0.015

0.000

4.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 1100


3.50 1000
900
Chlorine (mg/L)

3.00
800

Eh (mV)
2.50 700
2.00 600
1.50 500
400
1.00
300
0.50 200
0.00 100
Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

150.0 Alkalinity Hardness

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0
4.1 13.4 12.8 4.9 12.7 12.4 4.5 13.8 13.2 4.3 16.9 15.1

7.14 7.18 6.96 7.12 7.24 6.99 7.14 7.28 7.02 7.16 7.26 7.06

2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Figure D.35: Utility 216 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

341

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: Northeast; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Disinfection Only)

0.060 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.045
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.030

0.015

0.000

3.50
TOC Turbidity 1.40

3.00 1.20

Turbidity (NTU)
2.50 1.00
TOC (mg/L)

2.00 0.80

1.50 0.60

1.00 0.40

0.50 0.20

0.00 0.00

450 Conductivity TDS 300


400
250
350
Conductivity (mhos)

300 200

TDS (mg/L)
250
150
200
150 100
100
50
50
0 0
4.1 13.4 12.8 4.9 12.7 12.4 4.5 13.8 13.2 4.3 16.9 15.1

7.14 7.18 6.96 7.12 7.24 6.99 7.14 7.28 7.02 7.16 7.26 7.06

2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Figure D.36: Utility 216 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

342

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: Northeast; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Disinfection Only)

0.060 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.045
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.090 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)

0.075

0.060
Iron (mg/L)

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

40.0 Calcium Sodium 40.0

35.0 35.0

30.0 30.0

Sodium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)

25.0 25.0

20.0 20.0

15.0 15.0

10.0 10.0

5.0 5.0

0.0 0.0
4.1 13.4 12.8 4.9 12.7 12.4 4.5 13.8 13.2 4.3 16.9 15.1

7.14 7.18 6.96 7.12 7.24 6.99 7.14 7.28 7.02 7.16 7.26 7.06

2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Figure D.37: Utility 269 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

343

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


(Geo.: Northeast; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Disinfection Only)

0.060 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.045
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.0050 Arsenic

0.0040
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010

0.0000

2.5 Orthophosphate
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
4.1 13.4 12.8 4.9 12.7 12.4 4.5 13.8 13.2 4.3 16.9 15.1

7.14 7.18 6.96 7.12 7.24 6.99 7.14 7.28 7.02 7.16 7.26 7.06

2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04 2/11/04 5/27/04 8/19/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Figure D.38: Utility 269 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

344

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Northwest; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Sequestering and Disinfection

0.210 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)


0.195
0.180
0.165
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.150
0.135
0.120
0.105
0.090
0.075
0.060
0.045
0.030
0.015
0.000

0.045 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)

0.030
Iron (mg/L)

0.015

0.000

40.0 Calcium Sodium 40.0

35.0 35.0

30.0 30.0

Sodium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)

25.0 25.0

20.0 20.0

15.0 15.0

10.0 10.0

5.0 5.0

0.0 0.0
21.5 18.6 21.5 17.9 21.1 16.4

7.0 7.8 7.22 7.87 7.25 7.94

7/22/04 12/20/04 7/23/04 12/20/04 7/23/04 1/11/05

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.
-- Samples for the mid location were not collected for this utility.

Figure D.39: Utility 269 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

345

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Northwest; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Sequestering and Disinfection

0.210 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)


0.195
0.180
0.165
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.150
0.135
0.120
0.105
0.090
0.075
0.060
0.045
0.030
0.015
0.000

0.0050 Arsenic

0.0040
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010

0.0000

2.00 Orthophosphate Total Phosphate (entire bar height)


1.80
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
21.5 18.6 21.5 17.9 21.1 16.4

7.0 7.8 7.22 7.87 7.25 7.94

7/22/04 12/20/04 7/23/04 12/20/04 7/23/04 1/11/05

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.
-- Samples for the mid location were not collected for this utility.

Figure D.40: Utility 269 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

346

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

Total Mn = 0.124 mg/L


Manganese (mg/L) .

0.030

0.015

0.000

4.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 1100


3.50 1000
900
Chlorine (mg/L)

3.00
800

Eh (mV)
2.50 700
2.00 600
1.50 500
400
1.00
300
0.50 200
0.00 100
Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

150.0 Alkalinity Hardness

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0
5.0 21.4 22.8 20.0 5.0 16.6 23.9 20.0 5.0 16.7 27.4 25.3 18.3 5.0 17.0 23.9 19.3

7.3 7.3 7.6 7.2 7.40 7.90 7.50 7.60 7.20 7.90 7.5 7.90 7.90 7.30 7.70 8.00 7.90

2/24/045/26/048/26/0411/1/04 2/25/045/27/048/26/0411/1/04 2/26/045/27/04 6/2/04 8/26/0411/1/04 2/27/045/27/048/26/0411/1/04

Entry Near Mid 1 Mid 2 Mid 1 Mid 1 Mid 1 Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location


Notes:
-- Mid 2 sample on 5/27/04 was an episodic sample taken at a different location than the other mid samples.
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.41: Utility 315 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

347

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

Total Mn = 0.124 mg/L


Manganese (mg/L) .

0.030

0.015

0.000

3.50
TOC Turbidity 0.08

3.00 0.07

0.06

Turbidity (NTU)
2.50
TOC (mg/L)

0.05
2.00
0.04
1.50
0.03
1.00
0.02
0.50 0.01

0.00 0.00

500 Conductivity TDS 300


450
250
400
Conductivity (mhos)

350
200

TDS (mg/L)
300
250 150
200
100
150
100
50
50
0 0
5.0 21.4 22.8 20.0 5.0 16.6 23.9 20.0 5.0 16.7 27.4 25.3 18.3 5.0 17.0 23.9 19.3

7.3 7.3 7.6 7.2 7.40 7.90 7.50 7.60 7.20 7.90 7.5 7.90 7.90 7.30 7.70 8.00 7.90

2/24/04 5/26/04 8/26/04 11/1/04 2/25/04 5/27/04 8/26/04 11/1/04 2/26/04 5/27/04 6/2/04 8/26/04 11/1/04 2/27/04 5/27/04 8/26/04 11/1/04

Entry Near Mid 1 Mid 2 Mid 1 Mid 1 Mid 1 Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Mid 2 sample on 5/27/04 was an episodic sample taken at a different location than the other mid samples.
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.42: Utility 315 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

348

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

Total Mn = 0.124 mg/L


Manganese (mg/L) .

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.195 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)


0.180
0.165
0.150
Total Fe = 1.14 mg/L
0.135
Iron (mg/L)

0.120
0.105
0.090
0.075
0.060
0.045
0.030
0.015
0.000

50.0 Calcium Sodium 50.0


45.0 45.0
40.0 40.0

Sodium (mg/L)
35.0 35.0
Calcium (mg/L)

30.0 30.0
25.0 25.0
20.0 20.0
15.0 15.0
10.0 10.0
5.0 5.0
0.0 0.0
5.0 21.4 22.8 20.0 5.0 16.6 23.9 20.0 5.0 16.7 27.4 25.3 18.3 5.0 17.0 23.9 19.3

7.3 7.3 7.6 7.2 7.40 7.90 7.50 7.60 7.20 7.90 7.5 7.90 7.90 7.30 7.70 8.00 7.90

2/24/045/26/048/26/0411/1/04 2/25/045/27/048/26/0411/1/04 2/26/045/27/04 6/2/04 8/26/0411/1/04 2/27/045/27/048/26/0411/1/04

Entry Near Mid 1 Mid 2 Mid 1 Mid 1 Mid 1 Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Mid 2 sample on 5/27/04 was an episodic sample taken at a different location than the other mid samples.
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.43: Utility 315 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

349

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

Total Mn = 0.124 mg/L


Manganese (mg/L) .

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.0050 Arsenic

0.0040
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010

0.0000

1.6 Orthophosphate

1.4
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
5.0 21.4 22.8 20.0 5.0 16.6 23.9 20.0 5.0 16.7 27.4 25.3 18.3 5.0 17.0 23.9 19.3

7.3 7.3 7.6 7.2 7.40 7.90 7.50 7.60 7.20 7.90 7.5 7.90 7.90 7.30 7.70 8.00 7.90

2/24/04 5/26/04 8/26/04 11/1/04 2/25/04 5/27/04 8/26/04 11/1/04 2/26/04 5/27/04 6/2/04 8/26/04 11/1/04 2/27/04 5/27/04 8/26/04 11/1/04

Entry Near Mid 1 Mid 2 Mid 1 Mid 1 Mid 1 Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Mid 2 sample on 5/27/04 was an episodic sample taken at a different location than the other mid samples.
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.44: Utility 315 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

350

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Sequestering and Disinfection

0.090 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.075
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.060

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

2.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 1100

1.75 1000
900
Chlorine (mg/L)

1.50
800

Eh (mV)
1.25 700
1.00 600

0.75 500
400
0.50
300
0.25 200
0.00 100
Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

200.0 Alkalinity Hardness

175.0

150.0

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0
20.00 15.00 21.70 16.70 23.3 17.8

7.90 7.90 8.00 7.90 7.60 7.90 7.90 7.60 7.90

8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05 8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05 8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location


Notes:
-- Samples for the near location were not collected for this utility.

Figure D.45: Utility 318 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

351

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Sequestering and Disinfection

0.090 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.075
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.060

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

16.00
TOC Turbidity 0.80

14.00 0.70

12.00 0.60

Turbidity (NTU)
TOC (mg/L)

10.00 0.50

8.00 0.40

6.00 0.30

4.00 0.20

2.00 0.10

0.00 0.00

600 Conductivity TDS 300

500 250
Conductivity (mhos)

400 200

TDS (mg/L)
300 150

200 100

100 50

0 0
20.00 15.00 21.70 16.70 23.3 17.8

7.90 7.90 8.00 7.90 7.60 7.90 7.90 7.60 7.90

8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05 8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05 8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Samples for the near location were not collected for this utility.
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.46: Utility 318 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

352

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Sequestering and Disinfection

0.090 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.075
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.060

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.090 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)

0.075

0.060
Iron (mg/L)

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

60.0 Calcium Sodium 60.0

50.0 50.0

Sodium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)

40.0 40.0

30.0 30.0

20.0 20.0

10.0 10.0

0.0 0.0
20.00 15.00 21.70 16.70 23.3 17.8

7.90 7.90 8.00 7.90 7.60 7.90 7.90 7.60 7.90

8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05 8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05 8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Samples for the near location were not collected for this utility.
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.47: Utility 318 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

353

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Groundwater; Treatment: Sequestering and Disinfection

0.090 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.075
Manganese (mg/L) .

0.060

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.0150 Arsenic

0.0120
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0090

0.0060

0.0030

0.0000

2.00 Orthophosphate Total Phosphate (entire bar height)


1.80
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
20.00 15.00 21.70 16.70 23.3 17.8

7.90 7.90 8.00 7.90 7.60 7.90 7.90 7.60 7.90

8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05 8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05 8/24/04 10/21/04 1/7/05

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Samples for the near location were not collected for this utility.
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.48: Utility 318 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

354

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

4.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 1100


3.50 1000
900
Chlorine (mg/L)

3.00
800

Eh (mV)
2.50 700
2.00 600
1.50 500
400
1.00
300
0.50 200
0.00 100
Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

100.0 Alkalinity Hardness

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0
23.8 25.7 15.5 13.2 22.9 25.5 15.5 24.7 23.2 25.0 13.8 11.2 23.9 25.5 16.2 11.8

7.50 7.25 7.57 8.21 7.50 7.31 7.82 7.79 7.50 7.39 7.73 7.84 7.70 7.65 7.93 7.84

6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.49: Utility 336 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

355

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

TOC Turbidity
2.50 1.00

2.00 0.80

Turbidity (NTU)
TOC (mg/L)

1.50 0.60

1.00 0.40

0.50 0.20

0.00 0.00

300 Conductivity TDS 300

250 250
Conductivity (mhos)

200 200

TDS (mg/L)
150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
23.8 25.7 15.5 13.2 22.9 25.5 15.5 24.7 23.2 25.0 13.8 11.2 23.9 25.5 16.2 11.8

7.50 7.25 7.57 8.21 7.50 7.31 7.82 7.79 7.50 7.39 7.73 7.84 7.70 7.65 7.93 7.84

6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.50: Utility 336 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

356

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.090 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)

0.075

0.060
Iron (mg/L)

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

30.0 Calcium Sodium 20.0


18.0
25.0
16.0

Sodium (mg/L)
14.0
Calcium (mg/L)

20.0
12.0
15.0 10.0
8.0
10.0
6.0
4.0
5.0
2.0
0.0 0.0
23.8 25.7 15.5 13.2 22.9 25.5 15.5 24.7 23.2 25.0 13.8 11.2 23.9 25.5 16.2 11.8

7.50 7.25 7.57 8.21 7.50 7.31 7.82 7.79 7.50 7.39 7.73 7.84 7.70 7.65 7.93 7.84

6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.51: Utility 336 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

357

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: Mid-atlantic; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.0070 Arsenic

0.0060
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0050

0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010

0.0000

1.2 Orthophosphate
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
23.8 25.7 15.5 13.2 22.9 25.5 15.5 24.7 23.2 25.0 13.8 11.2 23.9 25.5 16.2 11.8

7.50 7.25 7.57 8.21 7.50 7.31 7.82 7.79 7.50 7.39 7.73 7.84 7.70 7.65 7.93 7.84

6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04 6/16/04 8/5/04 11/23/0412/22/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.

Figure D.52: Utility 336 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

358

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

5.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 1100


4.50 1000
4.00 900
Chlorine (mg/L)

3.50 800

Eh (mV)
3.00 700
2.50 600
2.00 500
1.50 400
1.00 300
0.50 200
0.00 100

150.0 Alkalinity Hardness


Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0
6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location


Notes:
-- Chlorine, Eh and alkalinity data was not available.
-- Only two sets of samples were collected for this utility.

Figure D.53: Utility 400 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

359

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

3.50
TOC Turbidity 1.00
0.90
3.00
0.80

Turbidity (NTU)
2.50
TOC (mg/L)

0.70

2.00 0.60
0.50
1.50 0.40
1.00 0.30
0.20
0.50
0.10
0.00 0.00

1 Conductivity TDS 300

1
250
1

1
Conductivity (mhos)

200
1

TDS (mg/L)
1 150
0
100
0

0
50
0

0 0
6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- TOC, turbidity, conductivity and TDS data was not available.
-- Only two sets of samples were collected for this utility.

Figure D.54: Utility 400 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

360

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.090 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)

0.075

0.060
Iron (mg/L)

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

30.0 Calcium Sodium 30.0

25.0 25.0

Sodium (mg/L)
20.0 20.0
Calcium (mg/L)

15.0 15.0

10.0 10.0

5.0 5.0

0.0 0.0
6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.
-- Only two sets of samples were collected for this utility.

Figure D.55: Utility 400 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

361

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.0060 Arsenic

0.0050
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0040

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010

0.0000

1.2 Orthophosphate

1.0
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04 6/10/04 12/29/04

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.
-- Only two sets of samples were collected for this utility.
-- Orthophosphate data was not available.

Figure D.56: Utility 400 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

362

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

5.00 Free Chlorine Total Chlorine (entire bar height) Eh 1100


4.50 1000
4.00 900
Chlorine (mg/L)

3.50 800

Eh (mV)
3.00 700
2.50 600
2.00 500
1.50 400
1.00 300
0.50 200
0.00 100

150.0 Alkalinity Hardness


Alkalinity & Hardness (mg/L as CaCO3) .

125.0

100.0

75.0

50.0

25.0

0.0
6/9/04 6/9/04 1/0/00 1/0/00

Entry Near Mid Far

Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location


Notes:
-- Chlorine, Eh and alkalinity data was not available.
-- Only one set of samples were collected for this utility.

Figure D.57: Utility 401 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

363

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

3.50
TOC Turbidity 1.00
0.90
3.00
0.80

Turbidity (NTU)
2.50
TOC (mg/L)

0.70

2.00 0.60
0.50
1.50 0.40
1.00 0.30
0.20
0.50
0.10
0.00 0.00

300 Conductivity TDS 300

250 250
Conductivity (mhos)

200 200

TDS (mg/L)
150 150

100 100

50 50

0 0
6/9/04 6/9/04 1/0/00 1/0/00

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- TOC, turbidity, conductivity and TDS data was not available.
-- Only one set of samples were collected for this utility.

Figure D.58: Utility 401 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

364

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.090 Dissolved Iron (<0.22 m) Total Iron (entire bar height)

0.075

0.060
Iron (mg/L)

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000

35.0 Calcium Sodium 35.0

30.0 30.0

25.0 25.0

Sodium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)

20.0 20.0

15.0 15.0

10.0 10.0

5.0 5.0

0.0 0.0
6/9/04 6/9/04 1/0/00 1/0/00

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.
-- Only one set of samples were collected for this utility.

Figure D.59: Utility 401 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

365

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Geo.: West; Source: Surfacewater; Treatment: Conventional Gravity Settling w/ Interm. Ozone

Manganese (mg/L) . 0.045 Dissolved Manganese (<0.22 m) Total Manganese (entire bar height)

0.030

0.015

0.000

0.0050 Arsenic

0.0040
Arsenic (mg/L)

0.0030

0.0020

0.0010

0.0000

1.2 Orthophosphate

1.0
Phosphate (mg/L as PO4)

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0
6/9/04 6/9/04 1/0/00 1/0/00

Entry Near Mid Far


Temp (C)/ pH /Date / Location

Notes:
-- Hatch-marked bars represent all data below MDL.
-- Only one set of samples were collected for this utility.
-- Orthophosphate data was not available.

Figure D.60: Utility 401 - Distribution water quality & manganese data as a function of
location

366

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


SEASONAL TESTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER QUALITY DATA
2 2 2 2
Total Manganese vs Total Iron Dissolved Manganese vs. Total Manganese Total Manganese vs Total Calcium Total Manganese vs Total Sodium
0.20 7 0.20 7 0.20 7 0.20 7
There is one iron data pt at 1.1 9 9 9 9
mg/L 21 21 21 21
22 22 22 22
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15
216 216 216 216

Dissolved Mn (mg/L)
269 269 269 269
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)
315 315 315 315
0.10 318 0.10 318 0.10 318 0.10 318
336 336 336 336
400 400 400 400
401 401 401 401
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Total Fe (mg/L) Total Mn (mg/L) Total Ca (mg/L) Total Sodium (mg/L)

2 2 7 2
Particulate Manganese vs Total Iron Particulate Manganese vs. Total Manganese Total Manganese vs Total Calcium Total Manganese vs Total Arsenic
0.20 7 7 9 0.20 7
0.20 0.20
9 9 21 9
21 21 Utility 2 data omitted 22 21
22 22 216 22
0.15 0.15 0.15 216
216 0.15 216 269
Particulate Mn (mg/L)

Total Paticulate (mg/L)


269 269 315
269

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)
315
315 315 318
0.10
318
0.10 318 0.10 318 0.10 336
336
336 336 400
400
400 400 401
401
401 401 0.05
0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0 10 20 30 40 50
Total Fe (mg/L) Total Mn (mg/L) Total Ca (mg/L) Total Arsenic (mg/L)

2 2 2
Dissolved Manganese vs Total Iron Particulate Manganese vs Particulatel Iron Total Manganese vs Hardness
0.20 7 7 7
0.20
9 9 0.20
9
21 21
21
22 22
0.15 0.15 216 22
216 0.15
Particulate Mn (mg/L)

216
Dissolved Mn (mg/L)

269 269

Total Mn (mg/L)
315 269
315
318 315
0.10 318 0.10 336 0.10
336 318
400
400 336
401
401 400
0.05 0.05 0.05
401

0.00 0.00 0.00


0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Total Fe (mg/L) Particulate Fe (mg/L) Hardness (mg/L CaCO3)

2
Manganese < 0.22m vs. Manganese < 30kDa 2 Dissolved Manganese vs Dissolved Iron Total Manganese vs Hardness
7 7
7 0.20 0.20
0.20 9 9
9
21 21 Utility 2 data omitted 21
2 22
R = 0.9304 22
Manganese < 0.22 m (mg/L)

22
0.15 216 0.15 216 0.15 216
Dissolved Mn (mg/L)

269 269 269

Total Mn (mg/L)
315 315 315
318 318 318
0.10 0.10 0.10
336 336 336
400 400 400
401 401 401
0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00


0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0 25 50 75 100 125 150
Manganese < 30k Da (mg/L) Dissolved Fe (mg/L) Hardness (mg/L CaCO3)

Figure D.42 Correlations of distribution system water metals to total, particulate and dissolved manganese.

367

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


2
Total Manganese vs Alkalinity Total Manganese vs Total Organic Carbon 2 Total Manganese vs Specific Conductance 2 Total Manganese vs Turbidity 2
0.20 7 0.20 7 0.20 0.20
7 9
9 9 9 22
22 22 22 216
216 216
0.15 0.15 0.15 216 0.15 269
269 269 269 315
315

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)
315 315 318
318 318 318 336
0.10 336 0.10 0.10 0.10
336 336

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 1 2 3 4 5
Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) TOC (mg/L) Specific Conductance (mho/cm) Turbidity (NTU)

2 2
Total Manganese vs Total Chlorine Total Manganese vs Orthophosphate Total Manganese vs Oxidation Reduction Potential 2 Total Manganese vs Sulfate
0.20 7 0.20 0.20 0.20 22
2 9
9 318
9
21
22
22
0.15 0.15 216 0.15 0.15
216
269
269
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)
315
315
318
0.10 318 0.10 0.10 0.10
336
336

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0 200 400 600 800 0 50 100 150 200 250
Total Chlorine (mg/L) Orthophosphate (mg/L as PO4) ORP (Eh) Sulfate (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs UV254 Absorbance 2


Total Manganese vs Free Chlorine 2 Total Manganese vs Polyphosphate 2 Total Manganese vs Total Dissolved Solids
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20 7
7 7
22
9 9
269
21 22
269 336
0.15 269 0.15 0.15 216 0.15
318
216 269

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

315 315
318 318
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10
336 336

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0 250 500 750
Free Chlorine (mg/L) Orthophosphate (mg/L as PO4) UV254 Absorbance (cm-1) TDS (mg/L)

2 2
Total Manganese vs pH Total Manganese vs Total Phosphate Total Manganese vs Apparent Color Total Manganese vs Temperature
0.20 7 0.20 0.20 2 0.20 7
9 7 9
21 9 21
22 22 22
0.15 0.15 269 0.15 0.15
216 216 269
318
269 216

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

Total Mn (mg/L)
Total Mn (mg/L)

315 315
0.10 318 0.10 0.10 0.10 318
336 336

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
pH (units) Orthophosphate (mg/L as PO4) Apparent Color (PtCo units) Temperature (C)

Figure D.43 Correlations of distribution system water manganese to single water quality parameters.

368

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


SEASONAL TESTING DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER QUALITY DATA
PLOT #1 PLOT #2
Far Mn (Total & Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total) Far Mn (Total & Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total)
0.20 0.10
Mn(T) Sequestration facilities omitted
Mn(D) Mn(T)
0.15 Mn(D)

Far Mn (mg/L)
Far Mn (mg/L)

0.10 0.05 R2 = 0.80


R2 = 0.87

R2 = 0.64
0.05 R2 = 0.81

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10
Entry Total Mn (mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

2 PLOT #4 2
PLOT #3
7 Far Mn (Total & Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total) 7
Far Mn (Total & Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total)
0.20 9 9
0.100
21 One sequestration facility omitted 21
22 22
Far Total Mn (mg/L)

Far Total Mn (mg/L)


0.15 0.075
216 216
269 315
0.10 0.050
315 318
318 336
0.05 336 0.025

0.00 0.000
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100
Entry Total Mn (mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.45 Correlations of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: entry point and far point of system

369

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


PLOT #5 2 2
7
PLOT #7
Far Mn (Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total) Far Mn (Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total)
7
9 9
0.20 0.06
21 21
Sequestration facilities omitted
Far Dissolved Mn (mg/L)

22 22
0.15
216

Far Dissolved Mn
216
0.04
269 315

(mg/L)
0.10 315 336
318
0.02
0.05 336

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Entry Total Mn (mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

PLOT #6 2
Far Mn (Total & Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total) 7
9
0.100
21
Far Dissolved Mn (mg/L)

22
0.075
216
315
0.050 318
336
0.025

0.000
0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100
Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.46 Correlations of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: entry point and far point of system

370

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


PLOT #8 2
PLOT #9 7
Mid Mn (Total & Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total) Mid Mn (Total) vs Entry Mn (Total)
0.075 9
0.075
Mn(T) 21
Mn(D) 22

Mid Total Mn (mg/L)


216
Mid Mn (mg/L)

0.050 0.050
R2 = 0.74 315
318
336
0.025 R2 = 0.63 0.025

0.000 0.000
0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075
Entry Total Mn (mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

2 2
PLOT #10 PLOT #11
7 7
Mid Mn (Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total) Mid Mn (Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total)
9 9
0.075 0.06
21 21
Sequestration facilities omitted
Mid Dissolved Mn (mg/L)

22 22
216

Mid Dissolved Mn
0.050 216
0.04
315 315

(mg/L)
318 336
336
0.025 0.02

0.000 0.00
0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Entry Total Mn (mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.47 Correlations of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: entry point and mid point of system

371

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


PLOT #12 PLOT #13
Near Mn (Total & Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total) Near Mn (Total) vs Entry Mn (Total)
0.20 0.20 2
Mn(T) 7

Near Total Mn (mg/L)


0.15 Mn(D) 2
R = 0.58 0.15 9
Near Mn (mg/L)

21
0.10 22
0.10
216
2
R = 0.97 269
0.05 0.05
315
336
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Entry Total Mn (mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

PLOT #14 2 PLOT #15 2


Near Mn (Total) vs Entry Mn (Total) 7 Near Mn (Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total) 7
0.06 9 0.06 9
Sequestration facilities omitted 21 Sequestration facilities omitted
21
22

Near Diss Mn (mg/L)


R2 = 0.93 22
0.04 216 R2 = 0.83
Near Total Mn

0.04 216
315
(mg/L)

315
336
336
0.02 0.02

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Entry Total Mn (mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.48 Correlations of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: entry point and near point of system

372

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


PLOT #16 2 PLOT #17 2
Near Mn (Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total) 7 Near Mn (Diss.) vs Entry Mn (Total) 7
9
0.20 0.06 9
One data point omitted 21 Sequestration facilities and one point omitted
21
22
Near Dissolved Mn (mg/L)

Near Dissolved Mn (mg/L)


22
0.15 216
0.04 216
269 R2 = 0.83
315
0.10 315
336
336
0.02
0.05

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
Entry Total Mn (mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.49 Correlations of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: entry point and near point of system

373

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


PLOT #18 PLOT #19 2
Far Mn (Total & Diss) vs Near Mn (Total) Far Mn (Total & Diss) vs Near Mn (Total) 7
0.20 0.20 9
Mn(T) 21
Mn(D) 22

Far Total Mn (mg/L)


0.15 0.15
216
Far Mn (mg/L)

269
0.10 0.10
315
R2 = 0.66
336
0.05 0.05
R2 = 0.43

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Near Total Mn (mg/L) Near Total Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.50 Correlations of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: far point and near point of system

374

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


PLOT #20 PLOT #21 2
Entry-to-Far Change in Mn (Total & Diss) vs Entry Mn(T) Entry-to-Far Change in Mn (Total & Diss) vs Entry Mn(T) 7
0.10 0.10 9
Change in Mn(T)
21

Change in Total Mn (mg/L)


0.08 Change in Mn(D) 22
0.08
Far Mn (mg/L)

2
R = 0.77 216
269
0.05 0.05 315
R2 = 0.58 318
0.03 0.03 336

0.00
0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Entry Total Mn (mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.51 Correlations of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: change in manganese from entry point to far
point in the distribution system

375

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


PLOT #22 PLOT #23 2
Entry-to-Mid Change in Mn(Total & Diss) vs Entry Mn(T) Entry-to-Mid Change in Mn(Total & Diss) vs Entry Mn(T) 7
0.04 0.04 9
Change in Mn(T) 21

Change in Total Mn (mg/L)


Change in Mn(D) 22
Change in Mn (mg/L)

0.02 2
0.02 216
R = 0.35
315
R2 = 0.22
0.00 0.00 318
0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 0.000 0.025 0.050 0.075 0.100 336

-0.02 -0.02

-0.04 -0.04
Entry Total Mn (mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.52 Correlations of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: change in manganese from entry point to mid
point in the distribution system

376

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


PLOT #24 2 PLOT #25 2
Entry-to-Near Change in Mn (Total & Diss) vs Entry Mn(T) 7 Entry-to-Near Change in Mn (Total) vs Entry Mn (T) 7
9 9
0.20 0.05
21 21
22 22

Change in Total Mn (mg/L)


Change in Total Mn (mg/L)

0.10 216 0.00 216


269 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 269
315 -0.05 315
0.00
336 336
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20

-0.10 -0.10

-0.20 -0.15
Entry Total Mn (mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L)

PLOT #26 PLOT #27


Entry-to-Near Change in Mn (Total) vs Entry level Mn (T) Entry-to-Near Change in Mn (Total) vs Entry level Mn(T)
0.02 0.02
2 Sequestration Facilities Omitted
7
9 0.01
Change in Mn (mg/L)

Change in Mn (mg/L)
0.00 21
2
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 22 7
216 0.00
9
269 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
21
-0.02 315
22
336 -0.01
216
269
-0.04 -0.02 315
Entry Total Mn(mg/L) Entry Total Mn (mg/L) 336

Figure D.53 Correlations of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: change in manganese from entry point to near
point in the distribution system

377

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


PLOT #28 2 PLOT #29
Near-to-Far Change in Mn(Total) vs Near Mn(T) 7 Near-to-Far Change in Mn(Total) vs Near Mn(T)
0.14 9 0.14
21 Change in MnT
Change in Total Mn (mg/L) .

Change in Total Mn (mg/L)


22 Change in MnD
R2 = 0.77

From Near to Far


From Near to Far

0.09 216 0.09


269
315
336
0.04 0.04
R2 = 0.28

-0.01 -0.01
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Near Total Mn (mg/L) Near Total Mn (mg/L)

PLOT #28 2 PLOT #31 2


Near-to-Far Change in Mn (Total) vs Near Mn(T) 7 Near-to-Far Change in Mn (Diss) vs Near Mn(T) 7
9 9
0.04
21 21
R2 = 0.77

Change in Diss Mn (mg/L)


0.05 22 22
Change in Total Mn (mg/L)

0.03 R2 = 0.57
216 216

From Near to Far


From Near to Far

315 0.02 315


0.03 336 336
0.01

0.01
0.00
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06
0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 -0.01
-0.01
Near Total Mn (mg/L) Near Total Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.54 Correlations of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: change in manganese from near point to far point
in the distribution system

378

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.80 Correlation of speciated manganese to water quality parameters from GROUND
WATER facility distribution system samples.

Groundwater Facilities
Number of
facilities Total < 0.22m < 30 kDa Particulate Colloidal
providing Manganese Manganese Manganese Manganese Manganese
WQ parameter data 'n' value R R R R R

Alkalinity 3 31 0.6976 0.7840 0.7025 0.0752 0.2687


TOC 3 20 0.0183 0.0806 0.1237 0.0274 0.0003
DOC 1 9 0.0908 0.0540 0.0374 0.2011 0.1736
Free Chlorine 4 47 0.0835 0.0441 0.0119 0.0928 0.1393
Total Chlorine 4 47 0.1167 0.0805 0.0359 0.0815 0.1558
Apparent Color 1 1 - - - - -
True Color 1 3 - - - - -
Conductivity 3 31 0.6718 0.7186 0.6434 0.0930 0.2470
DO 1 9 0.0240 0.0128 0.0731 0.0287 0.0313
ORP 1 16 0.0169 0.0254 0.0116 0.0005 0.2329
pH 4 47 0.0006 0.0316 0.0587 0.0970 0.0056
Orthophosphate 3 27 0.1370 0.0042 0.0008 0.0257 0.0134
Polyphosphate 2 11 0.2627 0.2906 0.0673 0.0297 0.2730
Total Phosphate 2 15 0.0411 0.1172 0.0379 0.0033 0.0883
Sulfate 2 25 0.7554 0.7677 0.7806 0.0002 0.1206
Temperature 4 44 0.3039 0.2429 0.2023 0.1653 0.1389
TDS 2 22 0.7690 0.7603 0.6294 0.1876 0.4089
Turbidity 3 24 0.0206 0.0495 0.0587 0.0027 0.0032
UV254 Absorbance 3 30 0.4822 0.4827 0.4380 0.0947 0.1500

Arsenic 4 47 0.0202 0.0724 0.1283 0.0397 0.0083


Calcium 4 47 0.0426 0.0678 0.0670 0.0002 0.0199
Hardness 4 47 0.0534 0.0834 0.0819 0.0001 0.0253
Sodium 4 47 0.3327 0.4645 0.5039 0.0031 0.0812

Total Iron 4 43 0.3431 0.3780 0.3604 0.0483 0.1233


< 0.22 m Iron 4 43 0.1967 0.3554 0.3568 0.0105 0.0908
< 30 kDa Iron 4 43 0.1223 0.2868 0.3981 0.0463 0.0007
Particulate Iron 4 43 0.1060 0.0534 0.0453 0.1223 0.0272
Colloidal Iron 4 43 0.0833 0.1270 0.0696 < 0.0001 0.0888

Total Manganese 4 47
< 0.22 m Manganese 4 47 0.8634
< 30 kDa Manganese 4 47 0.6383 0.9135
Particulate Manganese 4 47 0.3940 0.0874 0.0027
Colloidal Manganese 4 47 0.6868 0.4119 0.1504 0.6247

379

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table D.81 Correlation of speciated manganese to water quality parameters from SURFACE
WATER facility distribution system samples.

Surface Water Facilities


Number of
facilities Total < 0.22m < 30 kDa Particulate Colloidal
providing Manganese Manganese Manganese Manganese Manganese
WQ parameter data 'n' value R R R R R

Alkalinity 6 67 0.0021 0.0007 0.0063 0.0031 0.0406


TOC 6 62 0.2472 0.4043 0.3412 0.1191 0.2891
DOC 1 4 - - - - -
Free Chlorine 5 74 0.0302 0.0306 0.0251 0.0253 0.0123
Total Chlorine 7 89 0.0111 0.0908 0.0668 0.0003 0.0768
Apparent Color 4 54 0.5898 0.0471 0.0447 0.6564 0.0065
True Color 4 44 0.3730 0.0315 0.0005 0.5724 0.4957
Conductivity 7 73 0.0086 0.0286 0.0113 0.0018 0.0936
DO 0 0 - - - - -
ORP 1 16 0.0829 0.0119 0.0636 0.2383 0.1634
pH 7 87 0.0277 0.0037 1 e -08 0.0347 0.0735
Orthophosphate 4 53 0.1851 0.0230 0.0333 0.2513 0.0110
Polyphosphate 0 0 - - - - -
Total Phosphate 0 0 - - - - -
Sulfate 1 16 0.0001 0.0833 0.0410 0.0673 0.4308
Temperature 7 91 0.0186 0.0674 0.0897 0.0027 0.0042
TDS 3 34 0.3069 0.0158 0.0037 0.4221 0.0678
Turbidity 5 54 0.3993 0.2763 0.2766 0.3588 0.0776
UV254 Absorbance 5 60 0.4080 0.3304 0.2801 0.3328 0.1448

Arsenic 8 107 0.0065 0.0049 0.0009 0.0213 0.0026


Calcium 8 103 0.0066 0.0110 0.0133 0.0278 0.0001
Hardness 8 107 0.0504 0.0207 0.0025 0.0509 0.1246
Sodium 8 107 0.0032 0.0019 0.0035 0.0495 0.1146

Total Iron 8 88 0.0342 0.0097 0.0182 0.0383 0.0027


< 0.22 m Iron 8 88 0.0007 0.0156 0.0197 0.0006 0.0004
< 30 kDa Iron 8 88 0.0005 0.0023 0.0007 0.0024 0.0066
Particulate Iron 8 88 0.0414 0.0043 0.0035 0.0549 0.0023
Colloidal Iron 8 88 0.0414 0.0043 0.0035 0.0549 0.0023

Total Manganese 8 107


< 0.22 m Manganese 8 107 0.6148
< 30 kDa Manganese 8 107 0.6010 0.9257
Particulate Manganese 8 107 0.8907 0.0219 0.0025
Colloidal Manganese 8 107 0.0179 0.2599 0.0655 0.0007

380

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Manganese vs. 0.22 m Filtered Manganese 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Particulate Manganese Particulate Manganese vs. Colloidal Manganese
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
y = 0.7571x - 0.0012 y = 0.7952x - 0.0005 y = 0.0914x + 0.0208 y = 0.5312x + 0.0007
2 2
R2 = 0.8634 2
R = 0.9135 R = 0.0027 R = 0.6247

30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L)


0.22m Filtered Mn (mg/L)

0.15 0.15 0.15

Particulate Mn (mg/L)
0.15

Colloidal Mn (mg/L)
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L)

0.20 Total Manganese vs. 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 0.20 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Particulate Manganese 0.20 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Colloidal Manganese

y = 0.5417x + 0.0009 y = 0.1403x + 0.0066 y = 0.1488x + 0.003


2
2
R = 0.6383 R2 = 0.0874 R = 0.1504
30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L)

0.15
0.15 0.15

Colloidal Mn (mg/L)
Particulate Mn (mg/L)
0.10
0.10 0.10

0.05
0.05 0.05

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 -0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L)

0.20 Total Manganese vs. Particulate Manganese 0.20 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Colloidal Manganese

y = 0.2429x + 0.0012 y = 0.2048x + 0.0005


2
2
R = 0.394 R = 0.4119
0.15 0.15
Particulate Mn (mg/L)

Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L)

0.20 Total Manganese vs. Colloidal Manganese

y = 0.2155x - 0.0021
2
0.15 R = 0.6868
Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.55 Correlations of speciated manganese to speciated manganese of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: groundwater facilities only.
381

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Iron vs. 0.22 m Filtered Iron 0.22 m Filtered Iron vs. 30 kDa Filtered Iron 0.20 30 kDa Filtered Iron vs. Particulate Iron 0.20 Particulate Iron vs. Colloidal Iron
0.20 0.20
y = 0.0573x + 0.0074 y = -0.151x + 0.0066
y = 0.1404x + 0.0013
y = 0.4013x + 0.0017 R2 = 0.0005 R2 = 0.0339
R2 = 0.3219 R2 = 0.0898 0.15

30 kDa Filtered Fe (mg/L)


0.22m Filtered Fe (mg/L)

0.15

Particulate Fe (mg/L)
0.15 0.15

Colloidal Fe (mg/L)
0.10 0.10 0.10
0.10

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Fe (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Fe (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Fe (mg/L) Particulate Fe (mg/L)

Total Iron vs. 30 kDa Filtered Iron 0.20 0.22 m Filtered Iron vs. Particulate Iron 0.20 30 kDa Filtered Iron vs. Colloidal Iron
0.20
y = -0.198x + 0.0091 y = -0.3604x + 0.0064
y = 0.0766x + 0.0012
R2 = 0.0281 R2 = 0.0304
R2 = 0.0534
30 kDa Filtered Fe (mg/L)

0.15 0.15 0.15

Particulate Fe (mg/L)

Colloidal Fe (mg/L)
0.10 0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00


0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Fe (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Fe (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Fe (mg/L)

Total Iron vs. Particulate Iron 0.20 0.22 m Filtered Iron vs. Colloidal Iron
0.20
y = 0.5987x - 0.0017 y = 0.8596x - 0.0013
R2 = 0.5137 R2 = 0.7871
0.15 0.15
Particulate Fe (mg/L)

Colloidal Fe (mg/L)

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Fe (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Fe (mg/L)

0.20 Total Iron vs. Colloidal Iron

y = 0.3248x + 0.0005
R2 = 0.2245
0.15
Colloidal Fe (mg/L)

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Fe (mg/L)

Figure D.56 Correlations of speciated iron to speciated iron of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: groundwater facilities only

382

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Manganese vs. Hardness 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Hardness 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Hardness Particulate Manganese vs. Hardness Colloidal Manganese vs. Hardness
600 600 600 600 600
y = -1464.9x + 259.87 y = -1744.4x + 256.8 y = 116.31x + 217.69 y = -2528.2x + 234.68
y = -955.24x + 255.64 500
500 500 R2 = 0.0834 500 R2 = 0.0001 500
R2 = 0.0534 R2 = 0.0819 R2 = 0.0253

Total Hardness (mg/L)


Total Hardness (mg/L)

Total Hardness (mg/L)

Total Hardness (mg/L)


Total Hardness (mg/L)
400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300 300

200 200 200 200 200

100 100 100 100 100

0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Sodium 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Sodium 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Sodium Particulate Manganese vs. Sodium Colloidal Manganese vs. Sodium
70 70 70 70 70
y = 168.31x + 17.414 y = 305.52x + 17.249 y = 319.84x + 21.891
60 60 y = 244.06x + 17.063 60 60 y = 41.85x + 23.446 60
R2 = 0.3327 R2 = 0.5039 R2 = 0.0812
R2 = 0.4645 R2 = 0.0031
50 50 50 50 50

Sodium (mg/L)
Sodium (mg/L)
Sodium (mg/L)

Sodium (mg/L)

Sodium (mg/L)
40 40 40 40 40

30 30 30 30 30

20 20 20 20 20

10 10 10 10 10

0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Calcium 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Calcium 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Calcium Particulate Manganese vs. Calcium Colloidal Manganese vs. Calcium
160 160 160 160 160

140 y = -212.25x + 69.636 y = -328.69x + 70.663 140 140 y = 39.979x + 61.056 140 y = -557.76x + 64.952
140 y = -557.76x + 64.952
R2 = 0.0426 R2 = 0.0678 R2 = 0.0002 R2 = 0.0199
120 120 120 R2 = 0.0199 120 120

Calcium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)

100 100 100 100 100

80 80 80 80 80

60 60 60 60 60

40 40 40 40 40

20 20 20 20 20

0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Filtered Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Filtered Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.57 Correlations of speciated manganese to water quality parameters of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: groundwater facilities only

383

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Manganese vs. Alkalinity 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Alkalinity 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Alkalinity Particulate Manganese vs. Alkalinity Colloidal Manganese vs. Alkalinity
300 300
300 300 300 y = -505.2x + 199.66 y = -1613.8x + 206.82
y = -742.84x + 233.37 y = -952.7x + 231.44 y = -1070.3x + 226.76 250 R2 = 0.0587 250 R2 = 0.2687

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)


250 250 250

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)


Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)

Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)


R2 = 0.6976 R2 = 0.784 R2 = 0.7025

200 200 200 200 200

150 150 150 150 150

100 100 100 100 100

50 50 50 50 50

0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Turbidity 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Turbidity 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Turbidity Particulate Manganese vs. Turbidity Colloidal Manganese vs. Turbidity
7 7
7 7 7

6 6 6
6 6
y = 9.1712x + 1.3844
5 y = 7.0389x + 1.3821 5 2 5 y = -5.373x + 1.7158 5
5 R = 0.0587

Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)

Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)

y = 3.6708x + 1.4421 2
R = 0.0495 2
4 R = 0.0076
4
2
R = 0.0206 4 4 4
y = 5.1545x + 1.5865
3 3 3 3 3 R2 = 0.0032

2 2 2 2 2

1 1 1 1 1

0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. UV254 Absorbance 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. UV254 Absorbance 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. UV254 Absorbance Particulate Manganese vs. UV254 Absorbance Colloidal Manganese vs. UV254 Absorbance
0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080
0.080
y = -0.124x + 0.0175 y = -0.2562x + 0.0181
0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070 2
y = -0.1318x + 0.0231 y = -0.1601x + 0.0225 y = -0.1802x + 0.0216 2
R = 0.0798 R = 0.15

UV254 Absorbance (1/cm)

UV254 Absorbance (1/cm)


UV254 Absorbance (1/cm)

UV254 Absorbance (1/cm)


UV254 Absorbance (1/cm)

0.060 2 0.060 2
R = 0.4827 0.060 2
R = 0.438 0.060 0.060
R = 0.4822
0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050

0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040

0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030

0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020

0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010

0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000


0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. TOC 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. TOC 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. TOC Particulate Manganese vs. TOC Colloidal Manganese vs. TOC
14 14 14 14 14

12 y = 13.111x + 2.2381 12 12 12 12 y = 5.9616x + 2.7179


y = 36.108x + 1.7583 y = 56.679x + 1.534 y = -38.212x + 3.2039
R2 = 0.0183 R2 = 0.0806 R2 = 0.032 R2 = 0.0003
10 10 10 R2 = 0.1237 10 10

TOC (mg/L)

TOC (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)

8 8 8 8 8

6 6 6 6 6

4 4 4 4 4

2 2 2 2 2

0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Filtered Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Filtered Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.58 Correlations of speciated manganese to water quality parameters of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: groundwater facilities only

384

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Manganese vs. Conductivity 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Conductivity 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Conductivity Particulate Manganese vs. Conductivity Colloidal Manganese vs. Conductivity
1000 1000 1000 1000 1000
900 y = -3757.3x + 850.2 900 y = -4701.2x + 835.62 900 y = -5279.4x + 812.46 900 y = -2996.5x + 685.93 900 y = -7975.5x + 714.21
800 R2 = 0.6718 R2 = 0.7186 800 R2 = 0.6434 800 R2 = 0.0777 800 R2 = 0.247
800

Conductivity (mho/cm)

Conductivity (mho/cm)
Conductivity (mho/cm)
Conductivity (mho/cm)

Conductivity (mho/cm)
700 700 700 700 700
600 600 600 600 600
500 500 500 500 500
400 400 400 400 400
300 300 300 300 300
200 200 200 200 200
100 100 100 100 100
0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Filtered Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Filtered Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Orthophosphate 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Orthophosphate 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Orthophosphate Particulate Manganese vs. Orthophosphate Colloidal Manganese vs. Orthophosphate
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 y = -1.3323x + 0.5171 0.9 y = -1.4692x + 0.5098
y = -0.4237x + 0.5191 y = -0.2867x + 0.5072 y = -0.1536x + 0.5007
0.8 0.8 0.8 R2 = 0.0237 0.8 R2 = 0.0134
R2 = 0.0137 0.8 R2 = 0.0042 R2 = 0.0008

Orthophosphate (mg/L)

Orthophosphate (mg/L)

Orthophosphate (mg/L)
Orthophosphate (mg/L)

Orthophosphate (mg/L)
0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Filtered Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Filtered Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Sulfate 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Sulfate 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Sulfate Particulate Manganese vs. Sulfate Colloidal Manganese vs. Sulfate
250 250 250 250 250

y = -1907.7x + 189.84 y = -1930.7x + 172.21


y = -2163.4x + 169.1
200 2 200 2
R = 0.7677 200 200 200
R = 0.7554 R2 = 0.7806

Sulfate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)

Sulfate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)

150 150 150 150 150

100 100 y = -3275.2x + 134.63


100 100 100
R2 = 0.1206
y = 112.27x + 119.41
50 50 50 50 R2 = 0.0002 50

0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Total Dissolved Solids 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Total Dissolved Solids 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Total Dissolved Solids Particulate Manganese vs. Total Dissolved Solids Colloidal Manganese vs. Total Dissolved Solids
800 800 800 800 800
y = -7436.5x + 562.69
700 y = -2894.4x + 635.35 700 y = -3603.3x + 610.05 700 y = -4034.6x + 584.65 700 700
y = -3429.5x + 547.37 R2 = 0.4089
2
R = 0.769 R2 = 0.7603 R2 = 0.6294
600 600 600 600 R2 = 0.1876 600

500 500 500 500 500

TDS (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)

TDS (mg/L)

TDS (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)

400 400 400 400 400

300 300 300 300 300


200 200 200 200 200
100 100 100 100 100
0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.59 Correlations of speciated manganese to water quality parameters of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: groundwater facilities only

385

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Manganese vs. 0.22 m Filtered Manganese 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Particulate Manganese Particulate Manganese vs. Colloidal Manganese
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
0.22m Filtered Mn (mg/L)

30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L)


0.15 y = 0.0758x + 0.0023 0.15 0.15 y = 0.7846x + 0.0064 0.15
y = 0.8562x + 0.0002

Particulate Mn (mg/L)

Colloidal Mn (mg/L)
R2 = 0.1253 2 2
R = 0.025
R = 0.9257 y = 0.0016x + 0.0003
2
R = 0.0007
0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. 30 kDa Filtered Manganese 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Particulate Manganese 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Colloidal Manganese
0.20 0.20 0.20
30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L)

0.15 y = 0.0677x + 0.0021 0.15 y = 0.6532x + 0.0066 0.15

Particulate Mn (mg/L)

Colloidal Mn (mg/L)
2
R = 0.1263 2
R = 0.0219 y = 0.0811x + 6E-05
R2 = 0.0655
0.10 0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00


0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Particulate Manganese 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Colloidal Manganese
0.20 0.20

0.15 0.15
Particulate Mn (mg/L)

Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

y = 0.1438x - 0.0002
y = 0.9239x - 0.0023 2
R = 0.2599
0.10 R2 = 0.9551 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Colloidal Manganese


0.20

y = 0.0081x + 0.0002
0.15
Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

2
R = 0.0179

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.60 Correlations of speciated manganese to speciated manganese of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: surface water facilities only.

386

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Iron vs. 0.22 m Filtered Iron 0.22 m Filtered Iron vs. 30 kDa Filtered Iron 30 kDa Filtered Iron vs. Particulate Iron Particulate Iron vs. Colloidal Iron
0.20 0.20 0.20 0.20
y = 0.173x - 0.0002 y = 0.029x + 0.0014 y = -2.1193x + 0.0294
R2 = 0.3057 R2 = 0.009 2
R = 0.0023

30 kDa Filtered Fe (mg/L)


0.15 0.15 y = 0.003x + 0.0011
0.22m Filtered Fe (mg/L)

0.15 0.15

Particulate Fe (mg/L)
2
R = 0.0016

Colloidal Fe (mg/L)
0.10 0.10
0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05
0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 -0.05
Total Fe (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Fe (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Fe (mg/L) Particulate Fe (mg/L)

Total Iron vs. 30 kDa Filtered Iron 0.22 m Filtered Iron vs. Particulate Iron 30 kDa Filtered Iron vs. Colloidal Iron
0.20 0.20 0.20
y = 0.0056x + 0.0014 y = 0.3593x + 0.0255 y = -0.6886x + 0.0022
R2 = 0.0035 2
R = 0.0007 2
30 kDa Filtered Fe (mg/L)

R = 0.0427
0.15 0.15 0.15

Particulate Fe (mg/L)

Colloidal Fe (mg/L)
0.10 0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00 0.00


0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Fe (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Fe (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Fe (mg/L)

Total Iron vs. Particulate Iron 0.22 m Filtered Iron vs. Colloidal Iron
0.20 0.20
y = 0.8262x + 0.0003
2
R = 0.9106 y = 0.971x - 0.0014
2
0.15 0.15 R = 0.9107
Particulate Fe (mg/L)

Colloidal Fe (mg/L)

0.10 0.10

0.05 0.05

0.00 0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Fe (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Fe (mg/L)

Total Iron vs. Colloidal Iron


0.20

0.15 y = 0.1674x - 0.0015


Colloidal Fe (mg/L)

R2 = 0.2762

0.10

0.05

0.00
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Fe (mg/L)

Figure D.61 Correlations of speciated iron to speciated iron of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: surface water facilities only.

387

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Manganese vs. Hardness 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Hardness 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Hardness Particulate Manganese vs. Hardness Colloidal Manganese vs. Hardness
140 140 140 140
140
y = -292.14x + 84.055 y = -1086.5x + 84.059 y = -270.17x + 82.928
120 120 y = -422.9x + 81.803 120 120 y = -9447.4x + 83.373
R2 = 0.0327 R2 = 0.0207 120
R2 = 0.025
R2 = 0.0025 R2 = 0.1246
Total Hardness (mg/L)

Total Hardness (mg/L)

Total Hardness (mg/L)

Total Hardness (mg/L)


Total Hardness (mg/L)
100 100 100 100 100

80 80 80 80 80

60 60 60 60 60

40 40 40 40 40

20 20 20 20 20

0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Sodium 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Sodium 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Sodium Particulate Manganese vs. Sodium Colloidal Manganese vs. Sodium
50 50 50 50 50
45 y = 11.122x + 16.286 45 y = -310.07x + 17.427 45 y = -364.74x + 17.49 45 y = 28.212x + 16.169 45 y = -259.25x + 16.502
40 R2 = 0.0004 40 R2 = 0.0146 40 R2 = 0.0161 40 R2 = 0.0024 40 R2 = 0.0008
35 35 35 35 35
Sodium (mg/L)

Sodium (mg/L)

Sodium (mg/L)
Sodium (mg/L)

Sodium (mg/L)
30 30 30 30 30
25 25 25 25 25
20 20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Calcium 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Calcium 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Calcium Particulate Manganese vs. Calcium Colloidal Manganese vs. Calcium
50 50 50 50 50
45 y = -75.755x + 24.641 45 45 y = -2664.9x + 24.524 45 y = -79.234x + 24.421 45 y = -2664.9x + 24.524
y = -97.702x + 24.029
40 R2 = 0.0251 40 R2 = 0.1146 40 R2 = 0.0247 40 R2 = 0.1146
40 R2 = 0.0019
35 35 35 35 35

Calcium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)

Calcium (mg/L)

Calcium (mg/L)
Calcium (mg/L)

30 30 30 30 30
25 25 25 25 25
20 20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Filtered Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Filtered Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.62 Correlations of speciated manganese to water quality parameters of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: surface water facilities only

388

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Manganese vs. Alkalinity 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Alkalinity 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Alkalinity Particulate Manganese vs. Alkalinity Colloidal Manganese vs. Alkalinity
70 70 70
70 70
y = 50.412x + 38.809 y = 88.611x + 38.68 y = 81.091x + 38.731 y = -2849.7x + 39.398
y = 277.92x + 38.052 60 60
60 R2 = 0.0021 60 R2 = 0.0007 60 R2 = 0.0031 R2 = 0.0406
R2 = 0.0063
50 50 50 50
Alkalinity (mg/L)

Alkalinity (mg/L)
50

Alkalinity (mg/L)
Alkalinity (mg/L)

Alkalinity (mg/L)
40 40 40 40 40

30 30 30 30 30

20 20 20 20 20

10 10 10 10 10

0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Turbidity 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Turbidity 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Turbidity Particulate Manganese vs. Turbidity Colloidal Manganese vs. Turbidity
2.0 2.0
2.0 2.0 2.0
1.8 y = 25.899x + 0.2186 1.8 y = 173.94x + 0.3906
1.8 1.8 y = 49.71x + 0.2304 1.8 y = 54.117x + 0.2177
y = 20.571x + 0.1864 1.6 R2 = 0.3588 1.6 R2 = 0.0776
1.6 1.6 R2 = 0.2763 1.6 R2 = 0.2766
R2 = 0.3993
1.4 1.4 1.4

Turbidity (NTU)
1.4

Turbidity (NTU)
1.4
Turbidity (NTU)

Turbidity (NTU)

Turbidity (NTU)
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. UV254 Absorbance 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. UV254 Absorbance 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. UV254 Absorbance Particulate Manganese vs. UV254 Absorbance Colloidal Manganese vs. UV254 Absorbance
0.080 0.080 0.080 0.080
0.080
y = 2.2614x + 0.0358 y = 2.2938x + 0.0361 y = 0.9815x + 0.036 y = 6.0298x + 0.0429
0.070 0.070 0.070 0.070
0.070 R2 = 0.2801
2
R = 0.3328 R2 = 0.1448
R2 = 0.3304

UV254 Absorbance (1/cm)


UV254 Absorbance (1/cm)
UV254 Absorbance (1/cm)

UV254 Absorbance (1/cm)


UV254 Absorbance (1/cm)

0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.060

0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050

0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.040


y = 0.8408x + 0.034
0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030
R2 = 0.408
0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020
0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010
0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. TOC 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. TOC 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. TOC Particulate Manganese vs. TOC Colloidal Manganese vs. TOC
5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
4.5 y = 37.105x + 1.7 4.5 y = 123.25x + 1.6898 4.5 y = 35.456x + 1.8547 4.5 y = 539.89x + 2.0546
4.5 y = 122.37x + 1.6749
4.0 R2 = 0.2472 R2 = 0.3412 4.0 R2 = 0.1191 4.0 R2 = 0.2891
4.0 R2 = 0.4043 4.0
3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5

TOC (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)

TOC (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)

3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0


2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Filtered Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Filtered Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.63 Correlations of speciated manganese to water quality parameters of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: surface water facilities only

389

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Total Manganese vs. Conductivity 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Conductivity 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Conductivity Particulate Manganese vs. Conductivity Colloidal Manganese vs. Conductivity
500 500 500 500 500
450 y = -812.5x + 280.1 y = -4342.9x + 284.14 y = -2946.6x + 279.39 y = -34220x + 273.61
450 450 450 y = -488x + 274.91 450
R2 = 0.0086 R2 = 0.0286 R2 = 0.0113 R2 = 0.0936
400 400 400 400 R2 = 0.0018 400

Conductivity (mho/cm)

Conductivity (mho/cm)
Conductivity (mho/cm)
Conductivity (mho/cm)

Conductivity (mho/cm)
350 350 350 350 350
300 300 300 300 300
250 250 250 250 250
200 200 200 200 200
150 150 150 150 150
100 100 100 100 100
50 50 50 50 50
0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Filtered Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Filtered Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Orthophosphate 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Orthophosphate 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Orthophosphate Particulate Manganese vs.Orthophosphate Colloidal Manganese vs. Orthophosphate
2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
2.5
y = 23.303x + 1.0711 y = 30.561x + 1.0475
y = -105.48x + 1.1547
2.0 2.0 R2 = 0.023 2.0 R2 = 0.0333 2.0 2.0
R2 = 0.011

Orthophosphate (mg/L)
Orthophosphate (mg/L)

Orthophosphate (mg/L)
Orthophosphate (mg/L)
y = 35.202x + 0.9036

Orthophosphate (mg/L)
R2 = 0.2513
1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5

1.0 y = 22.784x + 0.913 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0


R2 = 0.1851
0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0


0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Filtered Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Filtered Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Sulfate 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Sulfate 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Sulfate Particulate Manganese vs. Sulfate Colloidal Manganese vs. Sulfate
50 50 50 50
50
y = -8.1456x + 36.229 45 y = -568.08x + 39.587 45 y = -463.58x + 38.787 45 y = 481.91x + 33.28 45
45 2 y = -7402.4x + 38.753
2
40
2
R = 6E-05 40 R2 = 0.0833 40 R = 0.041 40 R = 0.0673 40
R2 = 0.4308
35 35 35 35 35

Sulfate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)

Sulfate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)
Sulfate (mg/L)

30 30 30 30 30
25 25 25 25 25
20 20 20 20 20
15 15 15 15 15
10 10 10 10 10
5 5 5 5 5
0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Total Manganese vs. Total Dissolved Solids 0.22 m Filtered Manganese vs. Total Dissolved Solids 30 kDa Filtered Manganese vs. Total Dissolved Solids Particulate Manganese vs. Total Dissolved Solids Colloidal Manganese vs. Total Dissolved Solids
300 300 300 300
300
y = -2000.4x + 155.33 y = -1042.6x + 150.67 y = -6638.8x + 206.82 y = -15686x + 152.39
y = -4124x + 203.86 2
250 2 250 R = 0.0158 250 2
R = 0.0037 250 2
R = 0.4221 250 2
R = 0.0678
R = 0.3069

200 200 200 200 200


TDS (mg/L)

TDS (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)

150 150 150 150 150

100 100 100 100 100

50 50 50 50 50

0 0 0 0 0
0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Total Mn (mg/L) 0.22 m Filtered Mn (mg/L) 30 kDa Filtered Mn (mg/L) Particulate Mn (mg/L) Colloidal Mn (mg/L)

Figure D.64 Correlations of speciated manganese to water quality parameters of seasonal testing distribution system manganese: surface water facilities only

390

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


APPENDIX E
CASE STUDY (I) DATA

FILTER EFFLUENT MANGANESE AS A FUNCTION OF TEMPERATURE

FREE CHLORINE 0.40 mg/L AND FREE CHLORINE < 0.40 mg/L

391

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.060

Filter pH 6.5
Total Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (C)

0.060

Filter pH 7.0
Total Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (C)

Figure E.1 and E.2 Manganese as a function of temperature, at 0.040 mg/L free chlorine

392

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.060
Filter pH 7.5
Total Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (C)

0.060
Filter pH 8.0 and 8.5
Total Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (C)

Figure E.3 and E.4 Manganese as a function of temperature, at 0.040 mg/L free chlorine

393

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.060

Filter pH 6.5
Filter pH 7.0
0.045
Total Manganese (mg/L) .

Filter pH 7.5
Filter pH 8.0 and 8.5

0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (C)

Figure E.5 Manganese as a function of temperature, at 0.040 mg/L free chlorine combined data

394
2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.
0.090

0.075
Total Manganese (mg/L

Filter pH 6.5 0.10 x < 0.40 mg/L Free Chlorine


0.060
Filter pH 6.5 < 0.10 mg/L Free Chlorine
0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0.090
Filter pH 7.0 < 0.40 mg/L Free Chlorine
0.075
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.060

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Figure E.6 and E.7 Manganese as a function of temperature, at < 0.040 mg/L free chlorine

395
2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.
0.060

0.045
Manganese - Total (mg/L)

Filter pH 6.5
Filter pH 7.0
Filter pH 7.5
0.030

0.015

0.000
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (C)

Figure E.8 Manganese as a function of temperature, at < 0.040 mg/L free chlorine

396
2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.
e 0.090
Temperature > 8C
0.075
Total Manganese (mg/L) .

Filter pH 6.5
0.060

0.045

0.030

0.015

0.000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Free Chlorine (mg/L)

0.060
Temperature > 4C
Total Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

Filter pH 7.0
0.030

0.015

0.000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Free Chlorine (mg/L)

Figure E.9 and E.10 Manganese as a function of free chlorine.

397

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.060
Total Manganese (mg/L) . Temperature > 3C

0.045

Filter pH 7.5

0.030

0.015

0.000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Free Chlorine (mg/L)

0.060
Temperature > 3C
Total Manganese (mg/L) .

0.045

Filter pH 8.0 and 8.5

0.030

0.015

0.000
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Free Chlorine (mg/L)

Figure E.11 and E.12 Manganese as a function of free chlorine

398

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


CASE STUDY (I) MANGANESE REMOVAL AS A FUNCTION OF OXIDANT AND pH
Table E.1
Case Study I - Philadelphia Water Department Pilot (Phase VI, VII, and VIIIa)
July 2003 - March 2005
Manganese removal through filtration - Dual Media and GAC filters

Dual - no chlorine
pH 6.0 0.25 6.5 0.25 7.0 0.25 7.5 0.25 8.0 0.25 8.5 0.25 9.0 0.25
Baxter -9% -4% 9% 9% 71% 95%
n 2 23 31 10 1 1 0
Belmont 0% 6% 17% 31%
n 0 49 30 18 2 0 0

Dual - Ozone - no chlorine


pH 6.0 0.25 6.5 0.25 7.0 0.25 7.5 0.25 8.0 0.25 8.5 0.25 9.0 0.25
Baxter 43% 23% 74% 94% 98% 98%
n 0 5 3 5 4 3 1
Belmont 63% 93% 95% 96% 98% 99%
n 0 3 2 3 2 5 1

GAC - no chlorine
pH 6.0 0.25 6.5 0.25 7.0 0.25 7.5 0.25 8.0 0.25 8.5 0.25 9.0 0.25
Baxter 8% 10% 13%
n 0 21 6 7 0 0 0
Belmont 8% 10% 10% 40% 24%
n 1 25 17 8 2 0 0

GAC - Ozone - no chlorine


pH 6.0 0.25 6.5 0.25 7.0 0.25 7.5 0.25 8.0 0.25 8.5 0.25 9.0 0.25
Baxter 61% 59% 78% 97% 98%
n 0 3 3 4 3 2 0
Belmont 62% 95% 97% 99% 98% 98%
n 0 2 2 4 1 3 1

Dual - chlorine
pH 6.0 0.25 6.5 0.25 7.0 0.25 7.5 0.25 8.0 0.25 8.5 0.25 9.0 0.25
Baxter 83% 70% 96% 86% 98% 97%
n 1 24 21 16 3 3 0
Belmont 90% 89% 90% 94% 99% 99%
n 1 47 30 20 4 2 0

Dual - Ozone - chlorine


pH 6.0 0.25 6.5 0.25 7.0 0.25 7.5 0.25 8.0 0.25 8.5 0.25 9.0 0.25
Baxter 90% 95% 97% 97% 98% 98%
n 0 5 3 6 3 5 1
Belmont 97%
n 0 15 0 0 0 0 0

399

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table E.2
Case Study I - Philadelphia Water Department Pilot Plant (Phase VI, VII, and VIIIa)
July 2003 - March 2005
Manganese removal for dual media and GAC filters with and without chlorine addition.
Baxter Pilot Plant

Filter Media Dual Media GAC Dual Media Dual Media


Free Chlorine
none applied none applied < 0.4 mg/L 0.40 mg/L
Residual
Filter Effluent Filter Influent Mn Removal Filter Effluent Filter Influent Mn Removal Filter Effluent Filter Influent Mn Removal Filter Effluent Filter Influent Mn Removal
(mg/L) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
min 0.001 0.006 -54% 0.004 0.006 -9% 0.001 0.037 -34% 0.001 0.005 -2%
max 0.089 0.094 95% 0.097 0.094 35% 0.059 0.060 98% 0.054 0.055 98%
avg 0.036 0.038 6% 0.040 0.042 9% 0.014 0.043 64% 0.004 0.034 89%
std. dev 0.018 0.018 21% 0.022 0.021 13% 0.021 0.007 48% 0.011 0.014 22%
CoV 0.515 0.470 0.0 0.562 0.491 0.0 1.482 0.161 0.0 2.610 0.407 0.0
# of samples
0.020 mg/L 14 12 5 5 10 0 55 12
0.050 mg/L 59 57 28 26 13 10 56 49
> 0.050 mg/L 9 11 6 8 1 2 2 7
n 68 68 68 34 34 34 14 12 12 58 56 56

Belmont Pilot Plant

Filter Media Dual Media GAC Dual Media Dual Media


Free Chlorine
none applied none applied < 0.4 mg/L 0.40 mg/L
Residual
Filter Effluent Filter Influent Mn Removal Filter Effluent Filter Influent Mn Removal Filter Effluent Filter Influent Mn Removal Filter Effluent Filter Influent Mn Removal
(mg/L) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%) (mg/L) (mg/L) (%)
min 0.001 0.004 46% 0.002 0.004 -61% 0.001 0.004 46%
max 0.046 0.123 99% 0.106 0.110 74% 0.046 0.123 99%
avg 0.005 0.067 91% 0.058 0.066 15% 0.005 0.066 91%
std. dev 0.009 0.031 12% 0.031 0.032 24% 0.009 0.032 11%
CoV 1.683 0.461 0.0 0.530 0.477 0.0 1.661 0.482 0.0
# of samples
0.020 mg/L 19 18 10 9 101 18
0.050 mg/L 23 20 18 10 109 22
> 0.050 mg/L 76 79 35 43 0 87
n 100 99 99 53 53 53 109 109 109

400

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Water Temp Range
Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 040510 18 to 19 C 8.36 0.073 mg/L 0.004 mg/L 0.036 mg/L 0.031 mg/L
Filtration: 8.5
Run 040513 19 to 20 C 8.06 0.072 mg/L 0.002 mg/L 0.034 mg/L 0.029 mg/L

Filter 1
-21.2 -11.2Inflow EH -1.2 Outflow8.8
EH 18.8 28.8
Dissolved Manganese 38.8 48.8
Total Manganese 58.8 PWD Mn Goal 68.8
900 0.090

End Filter Run 040513; End Reason - TM


End Filter Run 040510; End Reason - EQ

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040513


800 0.075

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
Starting Run 040510
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
05/10/04 05/10/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/14/04 05/14/04
Date & Time
04:44 PM 10:44 PM 04:44 AM 10:44 AM 04:44 PM 10:44 PM 04:44 AM 10:44 AM 04:44 PM 10:44 PM 04:44 AM 10:44 AM 04:44 PM 10:44 PM 04:44 AM 10:44 AM

47.5
-0.5
0.5

27.5
2.0

21.3

23.7
1.0

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

71.3
Shutoff (hours)

48.8
42.5

45.0
20.7

22.3
21.8

1.5
0.0

0.0
23.3

25.3
Run Time (hours)

900
Filter 3 0.090

End Filter Run 040513; End Reason - TM


Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040513
End Filter Run 040510; End Reason - EQ
800 0.075

700 0.060
Starting Run 040510

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
05/10/04 05/10/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/14/04 05/14/04
Date & Time
04:44 PM 10:44 PM 04:44 AM 10:44 AM 04:44 PM 10:44 PM 04:44 AM 10:44 AM 04:44 PM 10:44 PM 04:44 AM 10:44 AM 04:44 PM 10:44 PM 04:44 AM 10:44 AM
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
21.3

71.3
47.5
23.7

27.5
-0.5

2.0
0.5
1.0

Shutoff (hours)
48.8

25.3
0.0

1.5
20.7

42.5

45.0
21.8
22.3
23.3

0.0
Run Time (hours)

h Run 040510 terminated due to equipment failure. Filters 1 and 3 reached terminal head loss because the sodium hydroxide feed at the rapid mix was lost for approximately 6-hours due to the carboy running dry.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001 mg/L) for Mn data.
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure E.13: Baxter pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, May 10-14, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

401

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water
Target pH of
Run 040517 19 to 21 C 7.48 0.061 mg/L 0.002 mg/L 0.033 mg/L 0.032 mg/L Filtration: 7.5

Filter 1
-18.2 -8.2 1.8 11.8 21.8 31.8 41.8 51.8
Inflow EH Outflow EH Dissolved Manganese Total Manganese PWD Mn Goal
900 0.090

End Run 040517; End Reason - HL


800 0.075
Starting Run 040517

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
05/17/04 05/17/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/20/04
4:00 PM 10:00 PM 4:00 AM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 10:00 PM 4:00 AM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 10:00 PM 4:00 AM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM Date & Time

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

49.3

51.8
-0.2

47.3
0.6
1.1

23.1

27.3
3.1
Shutoff (hours)
0.0

18.0

21.3

41.3

70.0
45.5

67.5
18.8
19.3

65.5
Run Time (hours)

-18.2 -8.2 1.8 11.8 21.8 Filter 3 31.8 41.8 51.8


900 0.090

End Run 040517; End Reason - HL


800 0.075

700 0.060
Starting Run 040517

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
05/17/04 05/17/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/20/04
4:00 PM 10:00 PM 4:00 AM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 10:00 PM 4:00 AM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM 10:00 PM 4:00 AM 10:00 AM 4:00 PM Date & Time
0.6

27.3
1.1

3.1

23.1

49.3
-0.2

47.3

51.8
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
Shutoff (hours)
0.0

18.0
18.8

65.5
45.5
19.3

21.3

41.3

67.5

70.0
Run Time (hours)

h Run 040517 was terminated due to HL - headloss.


h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001 mg/L) for Mn data.
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure E.14: Baxter pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, May 17-20, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

402

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 040524 22 to 23 C 6.53 0.072 mg/L 0.003 mg/L 0.039 mg/L 0.038 mg/L Filtration: 6.5
Run 040527 22 to 23 C 6.60 0.058 mg/L 0.004 mg/L 0.044 mg/L 0.042 mg/L

Filter 1
-19.2 -9.2 0.8 10.8 20.8 30.8 40.8 50.8 60.8 70.8
Inflow EH Outflow EH Dissolved Manganese Total Manganese PWD Mn Goal
1000 0.090

End Filter Run 040527; End Reason - TM


End Filter Run 040524; End Reason - HL

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040527


900 0.075
Starting Run 040524

800 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

700 0.045

600 0.030

500 0.015

400 0.000
05/24/04 05/24/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/28/04 05/28/04
Date & Time
03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM

49.6
50.1
51.6
3.0
4.0
5.0

53.1
1.0
2.0
-0.2

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

71.6
Shutoff (hours)
0.0

0.9
22.2
23.2
19.0

2.4
20.2
21.2

24.2

0.0

22.4
0.4

3.8
Run Time (hours)

-19.2 -9.2 0.8 10.8 20.8 30.8Filter 3 40.8 50.8 60.8 70.8
1000 0.090

End Filter Run 040527; End Reason - TM


End Filter Run 040524; End Reason - HL

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040527


900 0.075
Starting Run 040524

800 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

700 0.045

600 0.030

500 0.015

400 0.000
05/24/04 05/24/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/25/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/26/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/27/04 05/28/04 05/28/04
Date & Time
03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM 03:02 PM 09:02 PM 03:02 AM 09:02 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

49.3
49.8
-0.2
1.0
2.0
3.0

23.8

27.8
4.0

51.3
52.7
5.0

71.3
Shutoff (hours)

22.4
0.0

0.0
19.0
20.2
21.2
22.2
23.2
24.2

43.0

47.0

0.9
2.4
3.8
0.4
Run Time (hours)

h Run 040524 was terminated due to HL - headloss. Run 040527 was terminated due to TM - Time Constraints.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001 mg/L) for Mn data.
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure E.15: Baxter pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, May 24-28, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

403

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 040510 22 to 23 C 8.63 0.078 mg/L 0.047 mg/L 0.091 mg/L 0.088 mg/L Filtration: 8.5
Run 040512 21 to 25 C 8.34 0.065 mg/L 0.035 mg/L 0.081 mg/L 0.078 mg/L

Filter 1
-18.1 -8.1 1.9 11.9 21.9 31.9 41.9 51.9 61.9 71.9
Inflow EH Outflow EH Dissolved Manganese Total Manganese PWD Mn Goal
900 0.090

End Filter Run 040512; End Reason - TM


End Filter Run 040510; End Reason - TM

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040512


800 0.075
Starting Run 040510

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
05/10/04 05/10/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/14/04 05/14/04
Date & Time
04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
3.5
4.5

24.0
25.0

27.0

29.0
2.5

5.5

23.5

26.0
1.5

48.5

50.5

52.5
47.5

70.8

72.5
0.0
0.5

Shutoff (hours)
0.0

Run Time (hours)

1.0

3.0
4.0

6.0
18.1
18.6
19.6
20.6
21.6
22.6
23.6

0.0

2.0

24.5
25.5

27.5

29.5

47.8

49.5
0.5
Filter 6
-18.1 -8.1 1.9 11.9 21.9 31.9 41.9 51.9 61.9 71.9
900 0.090

End Filter Run 040512; End Reason - TM


End Filter Run 040510; End Reason -TM
Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040512
800 0.075
Starting Run 040510

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
05/10/04 05/10/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/11/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/12/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/13/04 05/14/04 05/14/04
Date & Time
04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM 04:22 PM 10:22 PM 04:22 AM 10:22 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine


25.0
24.0

27.0
3.5
4.5

26.0

29.0
2.5

5.5

23.5

48.5

50.5

52.5
1.5

47.5

70.8

72.5
0.0
0.5

Shutoff (hours)
0.5
1.0
2.0

6.0
3.0
4.0

24.5

27.5
18.1

25.5
0.0

18.6

0.0

29.5

47.8

49.5
20.6

23.6
19.6

21.6
22.6

Run Time (hours)

h Both Run 040510 and Run 040512 were terminated due to TM - time constraints.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.
Figure E.16: Belmont pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, May 10-14, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

404

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 040517 25 C 7.40 0.094 mg/L 0.027 mg/L 0.077 mg/L 0.076 mg/L
Filtration: 7.5
Run 040519 23 to 24C 7.54 0.073 mg/L 0.035 mg/L 0.076 mg/L 0.075 mg/L

Filter 1
-18.6 -8.6 Inflow EH 1.4 11.4
Outflow EH 21.4
Dissolved 31.4
Manganese (mg/L) 41.4 51.4
Total Manganese (mg/L) 61.4
PWD Mn Goal 71.4
900 0.090

End Filter Run 040519; End Reason - TM


Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040519
End Filter Run 040517; End Reason - HL
800 0.075

700 0.060
Starting Run 040517

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
05/17/04 05/17/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/21/04 05/21/04
Date & Time
03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

29.7

49.5

51.5
24.0

47.5

73.5
71.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0

30.2

53.5
Shutoff (hours)
0.0

Run Time (hours)


18.6
19.1
19.6
20.6
21.6
22.6
23.6

42.6

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

42.0

44.0
0.3
0.8
0.0
900
Filter 6 0.090

End Filter Run 040519; End Reason - TM


End Filter Run 040517; End Reason - HL

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 040519


800 0.075
Starting Run 040517

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
05/17/04 05/17/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/18/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/19/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/20/04 05/21/04 05/21/04
Date & Time
03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM 03:24 PM 09:24 PM 03:24 AM 09:24 AM
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
1.0

47.5
0.0
0.5

2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0

29.7

73.5
24.0

30.2

49.5

51.5

53.5

71.5
Shutoff (hours)
0.0

Run Time (hours)


18.6
19.1
19.6
20.6
21.6
22.6
23.6

42.6

18.0

20.0

22.0

24.0

42.0

44.0
0.8
0.3
0.0

h High headloss rates were observed during Run 040517. Further investigation determined that the high headloss rate was a function of a slight coagulant overdose. The ferric dose was decreased and the headloss rates dropped to a range considered "normal".
h Run 040519 terminated due to TM - Time constraints.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.
Figure E.17: Belmont pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, May 17-21, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

405

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water
Target pH of
Run 040524 25 to 27 C 6.70 0.077 mg/L 0.029 mg/L 0.067 mg/L 0.068 mg/L Filtration: 6.5

Filter 1
-17.5 -7.5 2.5 12.5 22.5 32.5
Inflow EH Outflow EH Dissolved Managanese Total Manganese PWD Mn Goal
1000 0.090

900 0.075

End Filter 1, Run 040524;


[1]
800 0.060

End Reason - TB

Mn (mg/L)
Starting Run 040524
EH (mV)

700 0.045

600 0.030

500 0.015

400 0.000
05/24/04 03:28 PM 05/24/04 09:28 PM 05/25/04 03:28 AM 05/25/04 09:28 AM 05/25/04 03:28 PM 05/25/04 09:28 PM 05/26/04 03:28 AM 05/26/04 09:28 AM 05/26/04 03:28 PM
Date & Time

2.0
2.7

5.0

7.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
Shutoff (hours)

17.5

22.5
18.0
18.5

19.5
20.2

24.5
0.0

Run Time (hours)

Filter 6
-17.5 -7.5 2.5 12.5 22.5 32.5
1000 0.090

900 0.075

End Filter 6, Run 040524;


End Reason - TB
800 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
Starting Run 040524
EH (mV)

700 0.045

600 0.030

500 0.015

400 0.000
05/24/04 03:28 PM 05/24/04 09:28 PM 05/25/04 03:28 AM 05/25/04 09:28 AM 05/25/04 03:28 PM 05/25/04 09:28 PM 05/26/04 03:28 AM 05/26/04 09:28 AM 05/26/04 03:28 PM
Date & Time
0.0
0.5
1.0

2.0
2.7

5.0

7.0

27

29

31
25
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
Shutoff (hours)

42.5

44.5

46.5

48.5
17.5

19.5

22.5
18.0
18.5

20.2

24.5
0.0

Run Time (hours)

[1]
Filter 1, Run 040524 was terminated due to turbidity breakthrough which was unusual for a filter being operated at this temperature. Its turbidity trending statistics become erratic after a spike at 25.5 hours of run time. The headloss profile changes shows up approximately 30 minutes after the spike. This
phenomenon was only witnessed on Filter 1.
h Filter 6, Run 040524 was terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough. It ran for 52 hours which precluded the option of a second filter run for this investigation.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure E.18: Belmont pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, May 24-26, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

406

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 041206 8 C 8.07 0.046 mg/L 0.016 mg/L 0.055 mg/L 0.055 mg/L Filtration: 8.5
Run 041208 8 C 8.83 0.059 mg/L 0.014 mg/L 0.053 mg/L 0.053 mg/L

Filter 1
-16.8 -6.8 3.2 13.2 23.2 33.2 43.2 53.2 63.2
Inflow EH Outflow EH Dissolved Manganese Total Manganese PWD Mn Goal
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041208; End Reason - TB


End Filter Run 041206; End Reason - TB

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041208


800 0.075
Starting Run 041206

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
12/06/04 12/07/04 12/07/04 12/07/04 12/07/04 12/08/04 12/08/04 12/08/04 12/08/04 12/09/04 12/09/04 12/09/04 12/09/04 12/10/04 12/10/04
Date & Time
06:18 PM 12:18 AM 06:18 AM 12:18 PM 06:18 PM 12:18 AM 06:18 AM 12:18 PM 06:18 PM 12:18 AM 06:18 AM 12:18 PM 06:18 PM 12:18 AM 06:18 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

20.2

24.2

53.9
43.9

57.9
10.0

22.2

29.6

31.6

33.6

45.9

49.9

55.9
48.4

51.9
-0.8

2.0
1.0

3.0
4.0

6.0

8.0
0.5

Shutoff (hours)

26.5
15.7

18.5
19.5
20.5

22.5

38.7

40.7

30.3
17.0
17.5

16.3

18.3

20.8

22.3

24.3

26.3

28.3
1.9

3.9

5.9
24.5

36.7
0.0

0.0
Run Time (hours)

-16.8 -6.8 3.2 13.2 23.2 Filter 333.2 43.2 53.2 63.2
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041206; End Reason - TB

End Filter Run 041208; End Reason - TB


Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041208
800 0.075
Starting Run 041206

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
12/06/04 12/07/04 12/07/04 12/07/04 12/07/04 12/08/04 12/08/04 12/08/04 12/08/04 12/09/04 12/09/04 12/09/04 12/09/04 12/10/04 12/10/04
Date & Time
06:18 PM 12:18 AM 06:18 AM 12:18 PM 06:18 PM 12:18 AM 06:18 AM 12:18 PM 06:18 PM 12:18 AM 06:18 AM 12:18 PM 06:18 PM 12:18 AM 06:18 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine


1.0

43.9

53.9
10.0

33.6

45.9
-0.8
0.5

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

29.6
3.0

31.6

48.4

49.9

51.9

57.9
55.9
Shutoff (hours)
19.5
20.5

26.5

26.3
16.3

18.3
17.0
17.5
18.5

22.5

24.5

20.8

22.3

24.3
15.7

1.9

3.9

5.9

28.3

30.3
0.0
0.0

Run Time (hours)

h During Run 041206 and 041208, both filters terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001 mg/L) for Mn data.
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure E.19: Baxter pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, December 6-10, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

407

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 041213 8 C 7.46 0.063 mg/L 0.012 mg/L 0.038 mg/L 0.038 mg/L
Filtration: 7.5
Run 041216 7 to 8 C 7.45 0.054 mg/L 0.012 mg/L 0.037 mg/L 0.037 mg/L

Filter 1
-16.4 -6.4 3.6 13.6 23.6 33.6 43.6 53.6 63.6
Inflow EH Outflow EH Dissolved Manganese Total Manganese PWD Mn Goal
900 0.090

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041216

End Filter Run 041216;


End Filter Run 041213; End Reason - TB

End Reason - TM
800 0.075
Starting Run 041213

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
12/13/04 12/14/04 12/14/04 12/14/04 12/14/04 12/15/04 12/15/04 12/15/04 12/15/04 12/16/04 12/16/04 12/16/04 12/16/04 12/17/04 12/17/04
Date & Time
06:04 PM 12:04 AM 06:04 AM 12:04 PM 06:04 PM 12:04 AM 06:04 AM 12:04 PM 06:04 PM 12:04 AM 06:04 AM 12:04 PM 06:04 PM 12:04 AM 06:04 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

54.5
52.5

56.5

58.3
22.5

24.5

26.5

32.5

50.5

68.5
0.0

48.5
1.3

70.5
0.8

2.3
3.2
4.3

6.2

8.3

10.3

20.5

28.5

30.5

34.5
Shutoff (hours)

3.1

11.1
17.7
18.7

20.7

22.7

36.9

38.9

46.9

23.1
5.1

7.1

25.1
16.4
17.2

19.7

24.7

26.7

40.9

42.9

44.9

48.9

50.9

12.8
9.1
0.0

0.0
Run Time (hours)

-16.4 -6.4 3.6 13.6 23.6 33.6 3


Filter 43.6 53.6 63.6
900 0.090

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041216


End Filter Run 041213; End Reason - TB

End Filter Run 041216;


End Reason - TM
800 0.075
Starting Run 041213

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
12/13/04 12/14/04 12/14/04 12/14/04 12/14/04 12/15/04 12/15/04 12/15/04 12/15/04 12/16/04 12/16/04 12/16/04 12/16/04 12/17/04 12/17/04
Date & Time
06:04 PM 12:04 AM 06:04 AM 12:04 PM 06:04 PM 12:04 AM 06:04 AM 12:04 PM 06:04 PM 12:04 AM 06:04 AM 12:04 PM 06:04 PM 12:04 AM 06:04 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine


10.3

48.5
20.5

22.5

24.5

28.5
1.3

58.3

70.5
26.5

30.5

32.5

68.5
34.5

52.5

54.5

56.5
0.0

50.5
0.8

2.3
3.2
4.3

6.2

8.3

Shutoff (hours)

9.1
20.7

22.7

42.9

50.9
38.9

12.8
17.2

36.9

44.9

46.9

48.9

3.1

5.1
16.4

17.7
18.7
19.7

24.7

26.7

11.1

23.1
40.9

7.1

25.1
0.0
0.0

Run Time (hours)

h During Run 041213 both filters terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough. During Run 041216 both filters terminated due to TM - time constraints.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001 mg/L) for Mn data.
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure E.20: Baxter pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, December 13-17, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.
408

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Filtration: 6.5
Run 041220 5 C 6.59 0.175 mg/L 0.027 mg/L 0.058 mg/L 0.056 mg/L

Filter 1
-19.4 -14.4 Inflow EH -9.4 -4.4
Outflow EH 0.6 5.6
Dissolved Manganese 10.6 Total Manganese 15.6 20.6Mn Goal
PWD 25.6
900 0.090
End Filter Run 041220;
800 0.075 End Reason - TB

700 0.060
Starting Run 041220

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
12/20/04 03:04 PM 12/20/04 09:04 PM 12/21/04 03:04 AM 12/21/04 09:04 AM 12/21/04 03:04 PM 12/21/04 09:04 PM 12/22/04 03:04 AM 12/22/04 09:04 AM Date & Time

10.3
1.3

22.5
20.5

24.5
6.2

26.5
0.0

4.3
2.3

3.2
0.8

8.3
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
Shutoff (hours)

22.7
19.4

20.7
20.2

21.7

23.7

27.7
25.7

41.9

45.9
39.9

43.9
29.7
0.0

Run Time (hours)

-19.4 -14.4 -9.4 -4.4 0.6 5.6 Filter 3 10.6 15.6 20.6 25.6
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041220; End Reason - TB


800 0.075
Starting Run 041220

700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
12/20/04 03:04 PM 12/20/04 09:04 PM 12/21/04 03:04 AM 12/21/04 09:04 AM 12/21/04 03:04 PM 12/21/04 09:04 PM 12/22/04 03:04 AM 12/22/04 09:04 AM Date & Time

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

10.3

20.5

24.5
1.3

22.5
6.2
0.8

3.2
2.3

4.3

8.3
0.0

Shutoff (hours)
19.4
20.2
20.7

21.7

22.7

23.7

25.7

27.7

29.7

39.9

41.9

43.9
0.0

Run Time (hours)

h During Run 041220 both filters terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough.


h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001 mg/L) for Mn data.
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure E.21: Baxter pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, December 20-22, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

409

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 041025 12 C 8.43 0.029 mg/L 0.018 mg/L 0.049 mg/L 0.049 mg/L Filtration: 8.5
Run 041027 12 to 13 C 8.51 0.028 mg/L 0.019 mg/L 0.047 mg/L 0.045 mg/L

Filter 1
-22.9 -12.9Inflow EH -2.9 Outflow EH 7.1 Dissolved17.1
Manganese 27.1 Total Manganese 37.1 PWD47.1
Mn Goal 57.1
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041025; End Reason - TB

End Filter Run 041027; End Reason - TB


Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041027
800 0.075

700 0.060
Starting Run 041025

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
10/25/04 10/25/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/28/04 10/28/04 10/28/04 10/28/04
03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM Date & Time

49.0
26.5

28.5

45.0

47.0
25.5
26.0

27.5

30.5

39.0

41.0

43.0

51.0

54.5
53.0
0.0

2.0
3.0
0.5
1.0
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
Shutoff (hours)

14.6

16.6

18.6

20.6

26.6

28.6

30.1
1.1

6.1

22.6
1.6
2.1
3.1
4.1

24.6
22.9
23.4

24.9
25.9
23.9
0.0

Run Time (hours)

0.0
-22.9 -12.9 -2.9 7.1 17.1
Filter 6 27.1 37.1 47.1 57.1
900 0.090
End Filter Run 041025; End Reason - TB

End Filter Run 041027; End Reason - TB


Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041027
800 0.075

700 0.060
Starting Run 041025

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
10/25/04 10/25/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/26/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/27/04 10/28/04 10/28/04 10/28/04 10/28/04
Date & Time
03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM 03:36 AM 09:36 AM 03:36 PM 09:36 PM

49.0

54.5
27.5

30.5

39.0

41.0

47.0

53.0
0.0

43.0

45.0
0.5

25.5

26.5

28.5

51.0
26.0
2.0

4.0
1.0

3.0

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine


Shutoff (hours)
0.0

22.6

6.1
3.1
4.1

22.6

30.1
Run Time (hours)
2.1
1.1
1.6

14.6
22.9
23.4
23.9
24.9
25.9

16.6

18.6

20.6

24.6

26.6

28.6
0.0

h Both Run 041025 and Run 041027 were terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure E.22: Belmont pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, October 25-28, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

410

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 041102 13 to 14 C 7.55 0.032 mg/L 0.018 mg/L 0.050 mg/L 0.050 mg/L
Filtration: 7.5
Run 041104 12 to 13 C 7.65 0.038 mg/L 0.018 mg/L 0.051 mg/L 0.051 mg/L

Filter 1
-3.6 6.4
Inflow EH 16.4Outflow EH 26.4 Dissolved Manganese36.4 46.4
Total Manganese 56.4PWD Mn Goal 66.4
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041102; End Reason - TB

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041104


800 0.075
End Filter Run 041104;
Starting Run 041102

End Reason - TM
700 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
11/02/04 11/02/04 11/02/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/05/04
11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM 11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM 11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM Date & Time

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

48.5
0.5

18.5

22.5

52.5
14.5

16.5

24.5

26.5

28.5

30.0

46.5

50.5

66.5
2.0

20.5

54.5

64.5
0.0

3.0

5.0
1.0

Shutoff (hours)

30.1
18.1

20.1

26.1

32.1

19.9
3.6

24.1

33.6

3.9

5.9

9.9

21.9
4.1
4.6
5.6
6.6

8.6

21.1

28.1

1.9

7.9
0.0
Run Time (hours)
0.0

Filter 6
-3.6 6.4 16.4 26.4 36.4 46.4 56.4 66.4
900 0.090

End Filter Run 041102; End Reason - TB

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041104


800 0.075
End Filter Run 041104;
Starting Run 041102

700 0.060 End Reason - TM

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

600 0.045

500 0.030

400 0.015

300 0.000
11/02/04 11/02/04 11/02/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/03/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/04/04 11/05/04
Date & Time
11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM 11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM 11:24 AM 05:24 PM 11:24 PM 05:24 AM

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine


1.0

24.5

50.5
20.5

26.5
0.0

3.0

16.5

30.0

38.5

42.5

48.5

52.5

54.5

66.5
0.5

2.0

5.0

14.5

18.5

22.5

28.5

40.5

46.5

64.5
Shutoff (hours)
0.0

5.9
8.6

18.1

20.1

32.1

46.1

19.9

21.9
3.6

4.6

24.1

26.1

28.1

30.1

33.6

0.0
4.1

5.6
6.6

22.1

42.1

44.1

9.9
1.9

3.9

7.9
Run Time (hours)

h Run 041102 terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough, and Run 041104 terminated due to TM - time constraints.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure E.23: Belmont pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, November 2-5, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

411

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water Target pH of
Run 041108 9 to 10 C 6.78 0.036 mg/L 0.017 mg/L 0.053 mg/L 0.051 mg/L Filtration: 6.5

Filter 1
-19.0 -14.0 Inflow EH -9.0 Outflow EH -4.0 1.0
Dissolved Manganese 6.0 11.0
Total Manganese 16.0 PWD Mn Goal 21.0
1000 0.090

End Filter Run 041108; End Reason - TB


900 0.075

800 0.060
Starting Run 041108

Mn (mg/L)
EH (mV)

700 0.045

600 0.030

500 0.015

400 0.000
11/08/04 03:00 PM 11/08/04 09:00 PM 11/09/04 03:00 AM 11/09/04 09:00 AM 11/09/04 03:00 PM 11/09/04 09:00 PM 11/10/04 03:00 AM 11/10/04 09:00 AM Date & Time

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

1.0

3.0
0.0

2.0
0.5

4.0

6.0
Shutoff (hours)

19.0
19.5
20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

25.0
0.0

Run Time (hours)

Filter 6
-19.0 -14.0 -9.0 -4.0 1.0 6.0 11.0 16.0 21.0
1000 0.090

End Filter Run 041108; End Reason - TB


900 0.075

800 0.060

Mn (mg/L)
Starting Run 041108
EH (mV)

700 0.045

600 0.030

500 0.015

400 0.000
11/08/04 03:00 PM 11/08/04 09:00 PM 11/09/04 03:00 AM 11/09/04 09:00 AM 11/09/04 03:00 PM 11/09/04 09:00 PM 11/10/04 03:00 AM 11/10/04 09:00 AM Date & Time

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine


0.5

40.8 21.8
1.0

42.8 23.8
4.0
0.0

3.0
2.0

6.0
Shutoff (hours)
19.0
19.5
20.0

21.0

22.0

23.0

25.0
0.0

Run Time (hours)

h Run 041108 terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough.


h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure E.24: Belmont pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, November 8-10, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

412

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Water Temp Actual pH of Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn Avg Total Mn Avg Dissolved Mn
Range Filtration Raw Water Raw Water Settled Water Settled Water
Run 041115 7 to 8 C 6.61 0.023 mg/L 0.017 mg/L 0.055 mg/L 0.054 mg/L
Target pH of
Run 041117 7 to 8 C 6.67 0.024 mg/L 0.020 mg/L 0.056 mg/L 0.056 mg/L Filtration: 6.5
Run 041118 9 C 6.65 0.028 mg/L 0.020 mg/L

Filter 1
-18.1 -8.1 Inflow EH 1.9 Outflow11.9
EH 21.9 31.9
Dissolved Manganese 41.9 Manganese
Total 51.9 PWD Mn61.9
Goal 71.9
1000 0.120

End Filter Run 041117; End Reason - TB


End Filter Run 041115; End Reason - TB

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041117

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041118


900 0.105
End Filter Run 041118;
800 0.090 End Reason - TM
Starting Run 041115

Mn (mg/L)
700 0.075
EH (mV)

600 0.060

500 0.045

400 0.030

300 0.015

200 0.000
11/15/04 11/15/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/19/04 11/19/04
Date & Time
03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM
Elapsed Time Since Chlorine
2.0

6.3

32.8

58.3
4.0

26.8

28.8
0.0

8.3

24.8
1.0

34.8

36.5

45.3

47.3

49.3

70.3
3.0

30.8

51.3

60.3
0.5

Shutoff (hours)

Run Time (hours)


18.1
18.6
19.1
20.1
21.1
22.1

24.3

26.3

11.5

13.3

22.0

24.0

26.0

28.0

13.1
3.5

1.1

3.1
0.0

0.0

5.5

7.5

0.0
1.5

9.5
Filter 6
-18.1 -8.1 1.9 11.9 21.9 31.9 41.9 51.9 61.9 71.9
1000 0.120

End Filter Run 041117; End Reason - TB


End Filter Run 041115; End Reason - TB

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041117

Filter Backwash, Starting Run 041118


900 0.105
End Filter Run 041118;
800 0.090 End Reason - TM

Mn (mg/L)
Starting Run 041115

700 0.075
EH (mV)

600 0.060

500 0.045

400 0.030

300 0.015

200 0.000
11/15/04 11/15/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/16/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/17/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/18/04 11/19/04 11/19/04
Date & Time
03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM 03:10 PM 09:10 PM 03:10 AM 09:10 AM

70.3

72.3
26.8

32.8

34.8

36.5

58.3
30.8
28.8

47.3

49.3
0.0

4.0

6.3

10.3

45.3
1.0

8.3

24.8

55.3

60.3
3.0
2.0

12.3
0.5

Elapsed Time Since Chlorine

51.3

53.3
13.3 Shutoff (hours)

1.1
19.1

21.1
18.1

30.4

3.5

26.0

32.0

13.1
28.4

30.0
18.6

24.3

1.5

5.5

22.0

3.1

15.1
20.1

22.1

26.3

11.5

24.0

28.0
7.5

9.5
0.0

0.
0.0

Run Time (hours)

h Runs 041115 and 041117 terminated due to TB - turbidity breakthrough; run 040518 terminated due to TM - time constraint.
h For graphical continuity, a zero (0.0) was substituted for a reported value of "non-detect" (<0.001-mg/L).
h EH value is assumed to be in steady state before chlorine shutoff.

Figure E.25: Belmont pilot plant runs; manganese and EH as a function of time, November 15-19, 2004. Effect of chlorine loss and pH on manganese control.

413

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


414

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


APPENDIX F
CASE STUDY (II) DATA

Table F.1 Case Study (II) data collection sheet for September 14-16, 2004 sample event

Treated Combined
Source Water Water Sed Basin Eff Filter Influent Anthracite Filter Eff GAC Filter Eff Filter Eff Clearwell Influent Mid Clearwell Finished
On-Line 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 24hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr
Mn 0.011 0.011 0.011 0.050 0.051 0.011 0.052 0.053 0.050
Percent Eff Valve % 30.6 40.0 29.4 12.9 21.8 19.9
Turbidity (NTU) 171 98 1.20 0.67 1.20 0.137 0.051 0.060 0.131 0.041 0.085 0.090 0.13 0.21
P-Counts (#/ml) 1635 2348 2770
pH 7.20 7.10 6.02 7.91 6.78 9.46 7.63 7.73 8.03
Chlorine 3.48 3.17 4.48 1.79 1.81 2.49 4.30 2.43

Grab 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr
Mn PAN - Dissolved 0.340 0.200 0.110 0.054 0.058 0.032 0.025 0.030 0.038 0.026 0.012 0.014 0.024 0.007 0.016 0.020 0.018
Mn PAN - Total 0.649 0.490 0.315 0.049 0.059 0.048 0.050 0.096 0.063 0.053 0.015 0.016 0.017 0.011 0.018 0.016 0.019
Alkalinity 55 55 50 24 16 18 52 22 45 38 30 53 49 36 45 40 53 55
pH 7.22 7.23 7.38 6.06 6.19 6.15 7.10 6.35 7.10 7.00 6.50 7.41 7.04 6.61 7.18 6.76 7.40 7.21
Chlorine - Free 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.96 2.77 3.50 1.13 1.80 1.95 0.03 0.09 0.07 2.58 2.17 2.45
Chlorine - Total 0.05 0.00 0.00 3.04 2.80 3.60 1.23 1.83 2.05 0.09 0.15 0.12 2.58 2.34 2.49
KMnO4
Conductivity 260 260 220 300 300 340 360 290 260 340 280 270 360 280 270 250

Grab BLS 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr


Hardness 102 97 98 87 97 94 94 94 97 115 88 104 86 96 96 82
Iron Total 5.030 0.219 0.245 0.009 0.012 0.012 < 0.006 < 0.005 0.015 0.009 < 0.006 0.017 < 0.005 0.260 0.013 < 0.005
Iron 0.22 m 0.008 0.038 < 0.005 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Iron 30 kDa < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Manganese Total 0.760 0.078 0.133 0.014 0.009 0.006 < 0.001 0.002 0.014 0.006 0.005 0.003 0.002 0.084 0.003 < 0.001
Manganese 0.22 m 0.003 0.076 0.034 0.014 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.004 0.005 < 0.001 0.001 0.065 < 0.001 < 0.001
Manganese 30 kDa 0.005 0.002
Calcium 28.1 27.5 28.2 24.5 27.6 26.7 26.8 26.6 27.4 32.6 24.1 29.6 23.8 27.2 27.3 23.2
Sodium 13.4 15.2 32.3 28.7 32.3 28.1 18.6 27.0 31.3 18.6 30.6 26.1 36.3 18.9 36.5 36.8
Phosphorus Total 0.19 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 0.34 0.35
Magnesium 7.77 6.92 6.59 6.18 6.81 6.63 6.66 6.78 7.00 8.14 6.73 7.36 6.36 6.85 6.83 5.79

415

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table F.2 Case Study (II) data collection sheet for November 2-4, 2004 sample event

Treated Combined
Source Water Water Sed Basin Eff Filter Influent Anthracite Filter Eff GAC Filter Eff Filter Eff Clearwell Influent Mid Clearwell Finished
On-Line 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr
Mn X X X x X X X 0.048 0.049 0.048 0.049 0.054 0.049 0.055 0.049 0.055 0.048 x x x x x x x x x
Percent Eff Valve % x x x x x x x x x x 32.6 27.4 33.9 12.6 12.6 13.4 x x x x x x x x x x
Turbidity (NTU) 16 13 18 x X X X 0.73 0.74 0.96 0.114 0.077 0.073 0.052 0.034 0.033 0.068 x x x 0.11 x x 0.13 x x
P-Counts (#/ml) x x x x X X X 267 253 262 x x x x x x x x x x
pH 7.48 7.59 7.57 6.38 X X X 7.32 7.89 7.78 x x x x x x x 7.89 x x 7.65 x x 7.30 x x
Chlorine x x x x X X X 2.32 1.90 1.66 1.93 1.52 1.38 x x x x 4.65 x x 4.55 x x 2.55 x x

Grab 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr
Mn PAN - Dissolved 0.099 0.045 0.065 0.033 0.029 0.032 0.040 0.039 0.047 0.027 0.013 0.010 0.025 0.014 0.027 x 0.020 0.014 0.015 x 0.012 0.015 0.017 0.015 0.018
Mn PAN - Total 0.114 0.074 0.098 0.032 0.027 0.029 0.050 0.043 0.046 0.044 0.048 0.019 0.041 0.021 0.051 x 0.030 0.022 0.034 x 0.020 0.031 0.026 0.030 0.038
Alkalinity 68 66 66 x 38 43 45 58 56 59 58 55 58 59 57 60 x 67 72 64 70 63 65 67 65 67
pH 7.32 7.4 7.56 x 6.5 6.51 6.63 6.98 7.01 7.12 7.00 7.08 7.17 7.01 7.17 7.22 x 7.29 7.28 7.25 7.45 7.5 7.45 7.36 7.35 7.32
Chlorine - Free x x x x 0.03 - - 2.09 1.60 1.47 1.49 1.30 1.21 0.03 0.15 0.03 x 3.98 2.91 3.87 2.48 2.28 2.55 2.31 2.43 2.42
Chlorine - Total x x x x 0.03 - - 2.16 1.7 1.49 1.52 1.31 1.21 0.04 0.21 0.06 x 3.97 2.91 3.97 2.57 2.28 2.55 2.35 2.46 2.5
KMnO4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Conductivity 400 390 380 x 360 390 388 390 420 390 400 422 400 400 422 400 x 430 450 410 435 445 422 422 442 440

Grab BLS 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hrs 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hrs 2hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr 2 hr 24 hr 50 hrs 2 hr 24 hr 50 hrs


Hardness 145 141 148 161 131 143 148 144 144 147 147 133 156 114 147 150 150
Iron Total 0.682 0.524 0.917 0.720 0.602 0.017 0.008 0.011 < 0.005 < 0.006 0.016 0.010 0.009 0.011 0.011 0.010 0.015
Iron 0.22 m 0.008 0.036 0.013 < 0.005 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.047 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Iron 30 kDa < 0.005 0.008 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.006
Manganese Total 0.080 0.066 0.077 0.065 0.056 0.003 0.001 0.002 0.001 < 0.001 0.003 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.002
Manganese 0.22 m 0.004 0.064 0.031 0.029 0.031 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Manganese 30 kDa 0.005 0.062 0.015 0.025 0.021 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001
Calcium 37.6 37.3 38.9 39.6 35.1 38.5 39.3 38.5 38.0 39.1 39.2 35.3 38.4 30.2 38.1 39.1 39.7
Sodium 21.5 21.3 32.5 33.8 29.5 31.8 33.9 32.6 33.6 32.5 40.5 37.1 39.8 31.4 40.1 41.8 40.2
Phosphorus Total < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.06 < 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.06 < 0.05 0.364 0.331 0.344
Magnesium 12.3 11.6 12.4 15 10.5 11.5 12 11.7 11.9 12.1 12 11 14.5 9.44 12.6 12.7 12.5

416

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table F.3 Case Study (II) data collection sheet from December 28-30, 2004 sample event

Treated Combined
Source Water Water Sed Basin Eff Filter Influent Anthracite Filter Eff GAC Filter Eff Filter Eff Clearwell Influent Mid Clearwell Finished
On-Line 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr
Mn x x x x x x x 0.048 0.048 0.047 0.048 0.054 0.049 0.054 0.054 0.045 0.048 x x x
Percent Eff Valve % x x x x x x x x x x 23.4 29.5 10.3 11.3 10.9 10.3 x x x x
Turbidity (NTU) 62 51 36 x x x x 2.90 2.19 2.06 0.081 0.061 0.039 0.049 0.031 0.039 0.054 x 0.08 0.08
P-Counts (#/ml) x x x x x x x 2255 2418 447 54 x x 68 19 18 x x x x
pH 7.65 7.67 7.87 6.60 x x x 6.70 6.60 6.50 x x x x x x x 7.11 7.30 7.30
Chlorine x x x x x x x 2.09 2.12 1.84 1.12 1.46 1.47 x x x x 4.48 4.44 2.3/2.3

Grab 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr
Mn PAN - Dissolved 0.115 0.098 0.076 0.092 0.041 0.034 0.029 0.032 0.031 0.028 0.014 0.017 0.016 0.015 0.017 0.014 x 0.018 0.021 0.021 0.020 0.020 0.021 0.019 0.019 0.018
Mn PAN - Total 0.158 0.143 0.102 0.118 0.042 0.031 0.029 0.036 0.029 0.030 0.021 0.027 0.022 0.022 0.026 0.021 x 0.022 0.026 0.023 0.023 0.026 0.022 0.023 0.024 0.021
Alkalinity 58 53 55 x 36 33 41 37 34 31 32 34 31 33 30 31 x 50 60 46 50 55 51 52 55 50
pH 7.32 7.6 7.52 x 6.53 6.72 6.55 6.46 6.56 6.51 6.56 6.54 6.51 6.53 6.53 6.55 x 6.83 7.11 7.11 7.22 7.41 7.3 7.16 7.26 7.19
Chlorine - Free x x x x 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.59 1.45 1.55 1.43 1.48 1.35 0.12 0.18 0.22 x 3.34 3.71 3.60 2.38 2.56 2.50 2.20 2.41 2.30
Chlorine - Total x x x x 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.71 1.60 1.68 1.50 1.49 1.42 0.16 0.27 0.27 x 3.66 3.79 3.60 2.49 2.60 2.60 2.33 2.47 2.40
KMnO4 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Conductivity 250 280 285 x 260 270 285 260 280 285 260 240 280 260 260 280 x 290 315 320 275 320 295 280 320 275

Grab BLS 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hrs 2 hr 24 hr 46 hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hrs 2hr 2 hr 24 hr 48 hr 2 hr 24 hr 50 hrs 2 hr 24 hr 50 hrs


Hardness 113 110 113 112 111 111 110 109 111 112 109 110 112 109 107 111 109
Iron Total 2.230 0.673 0.595 0.404 0.014 0.007 < 0.005 0.013 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.011 0.008 0.010 0.008 0.007 0.009 0.008 0.010
Iron 0.22 m 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.010 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.006 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Iron 30 kDa < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 0.016 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005 < 0.005
Manganese Total 0.114 0.058 0.058 0.060 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.002 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.013 0.014 0.012 0.010 0.012
Manganese 0.22 m 0.021 0.046 0.046 0.038 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.011 0.009 0.009 0.002 0.010 0.007 0.005
Manganese 30 kDa 0.022 0.041 0.044 0.036 < 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.001 < 0.001 < 0.001 0.009 0.008 0.006 0.007 0.002 0.008 0.007 0.004
Calcium 30.2 29.1 30.0 29.6 29.2 29.4 29.2 28.5 29.2 29.6 28.9 29.0 29.7 28.9 28.2 29.3 28.6
Sodium 14.5 14.7 17.1 19.5 15.1 16.9 19.0 15.3 17.1 19.5 25.5 26.8 29.7 31.0 26.5 28.5 30.1
Phosphorus Total 0.067 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.06 < 0.05 < 0.05 < 0.06 0.28 0.299 0.353
Magnesium 9.14 8.96 9.26 9.22 9.22 9.16 9.05 9.21 9.25 9.33 9.07 9.15 8.98 9.21 9.02 8.99 9.09 9.08

417

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


418

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.800
Spetember 14-16, 2004
Filtration pH = 6.5-7.4
0.700
On-Line
0.600 Grab - PAN
Grab - ICP-MS
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.500

0.400

0.300

0.200

0.100

0.000
2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 2 24 46 2 24 46
hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr
Source Sed Basin Filter Anthracite GAC Clearwell Mid- Clearwell
Water Effluent Influent Filter Eff Filter Eff Influent Clearwell Effluent

Figure F.1 Case Study (II) manganese concentration through plant process September 14-16, 2004; comparison of ICP-MS,
PAN, and online (colorimetric) sample Mn concentration

419

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.160
Note scale change Spetember 14-16, 2004
Filtration pH = 6.5-7.4
0.140
On-Line
0.120 Grab - PAN
Grab - ICP-MS
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.100

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020

0.000
2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 2 24 46 2 24 46
hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr
Source Sed Basin Filter Anthracite GAC Clearwell Mid- Clearwell
Water Effluent Influent Filter Eff Filter Eff Influent Clearwell Effluent

Figure F.2 Case Study (II) manganese concentration through plant process September 14-16, 2004; comparison of ICP-MS,
PAN, and online (colorimetric) sample Mn concentration

420

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.160
November 2-4, 2004
Filtration pH = 7.0-7.2
0.140
On-Line
0.120 Grab - PAN
Grab - ICP-MS
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.100

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020

0.000
2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 . 2 24 46 2 24 46 2 24 46
hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr
Source Sed Basin Filter Anthracite GAC Clearwell Mid- Clearwell
Water Effluent Influent Filter Eff Filter Eff Influent Clearwell Effluent

Figure F.3 Case Study (II) manganese concentration through plant process November 2-4, 2004; comparison of ICP-MS, PAN,
and online (colorimetric) sample Mn concentration

421

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


0.160
December 28-30, 2004
Filtration pH = 6.5
0.140

On-Line
0.120 Grab - PAN
Grab - ICP-MS
Total Manganese (mg/L)

0.100

0.080

0.060

0.040

0.020

0.000
2 24 48 . 2 24 48 . 2 24 48 . 2 24 48 . 2 24 48 . 2 24 48 2 24 48 2 24 48
hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr hr
Source Sed Basin Filter Anthracite GAC Clearwell Mid- Clearwell
Water Effluent Influent Filter Eff Filter Eff Influent Clearwell Effluent

Figure F.4 Case Study (II) manganese concentration through plant process December 28-30, 2004; comparison of ICP-MS,
PAN, and online (colorimetric) sample Mn concentration

422

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Figure F.5 Schematic of Huntington Water Treatment Plant

423

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Figure F.6 Sampling locations and chemical addition points for Case Study (II)
424

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


APPENDIX G
COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS MODELS

Table G.1 Summary table of total annual cost comparison


of various technologies to remove manganese

Raw Water Mn Conc. Raw Water Mn Conc. Raw Water Mn Conc. Raw Water Mn Conc.
= 0.5 mg/L = 0.5 mg/L = 0.5 mg/L = 0.5 mg/L

Plant Size Finished Water Mn Finished Water Mn Finished Water Mn Finished Water Mn
(MGD) Conc. = 0.05 mg/L Conc. = 0.02 mg/L Conc. = 0.015 mg/L Conc. = 0.01 mg/L
1 $14,200 $20,200 $22,200 $22,200
CGS
10 $49,000 $103,000 $129,000 $129,000
(Conventional)
100 $356,000 $870,000 $1,120,000 $1,120,000
1 $9,400 $15,400 $17,400 $17,400
Direct Filtration 10 $43,000 $97,000 $123,000 $123,000
Technology 100 $342,000 $850,000 $1,110,000 $1,110,000
for 1 $0 $9,000 $11,000 $11,000
Manganese Lime Softening 10 $0 $80,000 $102,000 $102,000
Incidental to 100 $0 $730,000 $910,000 $910,000
Process 1 $15,200 $21,200 $22,200 $22,200
Advanced
10 $56,000 $92,000 $114,000 $114,000
Clarification
100 $392,000 $760,000 $900,000 $900,000
Membranes - 1 $6,000 $11,000 $13,000 $13,000
Mn as 10 $50,000 $100,000 $120,000 $120,000
Incidental 100 $400,000 $900,000 $1,100,000 $1,100,000
1 $100,000 $107,000 $118,000 $133,000
Mn Greensand 10 $870,000 $940,000 $1,030,000 $1,180,000
100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 $204,000 $209,000 $209,000 $209,000
Technology Membranes 10 $1,830,000 $1,860,000 $1,860,000 $1,860,000
for
100 $17,300,000 $17,600,000 $17,600,000 $17,600,000
Manganese
Removal 1 $157,000 $169,000 $171,000 $175,000
Diatomaceous
Only 10 $1,380,000 $1,490,000 $1,510,000 $1,540,000
Earth
100 N/A N/A N/A N/A
1 $133,000 $137,000 $141,000 $141,000
Ion Exchange 10 $1,240,000 $1,280,000 $1,310,000 $1,310,000
100 $11,800,000 $12,200,000 $12,600,000 $12,600,000

425

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L - 1 MGD Plant
WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L - 10 MGD Plant
2 WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L - 100 MGD Plant
Cost to Benefit Ratio

0
CGS Direct Filtration Lime Softening Advanced Membranes -
(Conventional) Clarification Mn as Incidental
Figure G.1 Cost to benefit comparison of technologies for manganese removal only

WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L - 1 MGD Plant


WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L - 10 MGD Plant
WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L - 100 MGD Plant
20

15
Cost to Benefit Ratio

10

0
Mn Greensand Membranes Diatomaceous Earth Ion Exchange
Figure G.2 Cost to benefit comparison of technologies for manganese removal only

426

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table G.2 Overall impact cost to benefit analysis

COST VS. BENEFIT ANALYSIS


OCCURRENCE OF MN IN DRINKING WATER

Assumptions
1. At 0.05 mg/L approximately percentage of the utility's customers get affected = 1%
2. Per capita water consumption = 378 L/day
100 gal/day
3. Unaccounted percentage of water = 15%
4. Of the supplied water, percentage of water for residential use = 90%

Water Treatment Plant Size


For this analysis, plants of the following 3 sizes will be evaluated
Plant #1 = 1 MGD
Plant #2 = 10 MGD
Plant #3 = 100 MGD

Impact Analysis
Plant Total Residential Per Capita Water Population Annual Annual
Capacity Water Usage Consumption Population Affected by Per Capita Impact (0.05 Impact (0.02
(MGD) (MGD) (gal/day) Served 0.05 mg/L Mn Annual Impact mg/L of Mn) mg/L of Mn)
Plant #1 1 0.765 100 7,650 77 $150 $11,600 0
Plant #2 10 7.650 100 76,500 765 $150 $115,000 0
Plant #3 100 76.500 100 765,000 7,650 $150 $1,150,000 0

427

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table G.3 Capital cost analysis worksheet
CAPITAL COST ANALYSIS
OCCURRENCE OF MN IN DRINKING WATER

Legend
shaded cells are for data entry

Assumptions
Capital cost for UPGRADES if manganese is present with the following processes:
Typical Capital Modifications Capital Cost for Capital Cost for Capital Cost for
Contaminant Required for Increased 1 MGD Plant 10 MGD Plant 100 MGD Plant
Process Reduced Manganese Control (Upgrading cost only) (Upgrading cost only) (Upgrading cost only)
Turbidity - Addition of Chlorine prior NaOCl: $ 55,000 NaOCl: $ 70,000 NaOCl: $ 160,000
Organics to filtration* KMnO4: $ 60,000 KMnO4: $ 85,000 KMnO4: $ 180,000
CGS
(conventional) Taste and Odor - Addition to KMnO4 feed Total $ 115,000 Total $ 155,000 Total $ 340,000
Precursors system - raw water
Disinfection
Turbidity - Addition of Chlorine prior NaOCl: $ 55,000 NaOCl: $ 70,000 NaOCl: $ 160,000
Organics to filtration*
Direct
Taste and Odor Total $ 55,000 Total $ 70,000 Total $ 160,000
Filtration
Precursors
Disinfection
Turbidity - Addition of Chlorine prior NaOCl: $ 55,000 NaOCl: $ 70,000 NaOCl: $ 160,000
Advanced Organics to filtration* KMnO4: $ 60,000 KMnO4: $ 85,000 KMnO4: $ 180,000
Clarification Precursors - Addition to KMnO4 feed Total $ 115,000 Total $ 155,000 Total $ 340,000
system - raw water
Hardness - Addition of Chlorine prior Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable
Lime
Barium to filtration*
Softening
- Addition of Chlorine prior NaOCl: $ 55,000 NaOCl: $ 70,000 Not Applicable
to filtration*
Direct
Total $ 55,000 Total $ 70,000
Filtration

* Chlorine would be available for disinfection (primary or system residual). Capital for adding feed capability and additional Chlorinator.
Comments: (1) Assume equipment life is 20 years; (2) Chlorine: Sodium Hypochlorite; (3) Capital cost includes installation, piping,
pumps, feeders, electrical, controls, Cl2 analyzer, storage (4) Capital cost does not include superstructure

428

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table G.4 Conventional gravity settling - manganese control implementation cost analysis
Technology: CGS - Flash Mixing, Flocculation, Sedimentation, Dual-media Filtration
Technology for Manganese Incidental to Process

Comments
1. Raw water manganese is assumed to be 0.5 mg/L.
2. KMnO4 dose is 1.0 to 1.5 mg/L.
3. Chlorine added prior to filtration at dose of 1.0 mg/L for catalytic oxidation
4. Capital cost include equipment, electrical, instrumentation, chemical feed system , superstructure.
5. Capital costs do not include wells, raw water pumps, high service pumps, waste disposal fees, intake, source development
6. Operating costs include labor, analysis, chemicals (chlorine and KMnO4), monitoring, plant power (excluding pumping)

Capital Cost
Effective Interest rate = 5%
Equipment life (compounding period) = 20 years

Capital Cost
Associated with Annual Capital
Capital Cost Mn Removal Recovery
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $2,000,000 $115,000 $9,200
Plant #2 = 10 MGD $15,000,000 $155,000 $12,000
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $120,000,000 $340,000 $27,000

Cost to Benefit Ratio Calculation

Operating Cost, Annual Annual Capital Annual Total Cost to


$/MGD Operating Cost Recovery Cost Annual Impact Benefit Ratio
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $15 $5,000 $9,200 $14,200 11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal = 0.05 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $10 $37,000 $12,000 $49,000 115,000 N/A
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $9 $329,000 $27,000 $356,000 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $30 $11,000 $9,200 $20,200 11,600 1.74
WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $25 $91,000 $12,000 $103,000 115,000 0.90
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $23 $840,000 $27,000 $870,000 1,150,000 0.76
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $35 $13,000 $9,200 $22,200 11,600 1.91
WTP Mn Goal = 0.015 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $32 $117,000 $12,000 $129,000 115,000 1.12
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $30 $1,095,000 $27,000 $1,120,000 1,150,000 0.97
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $35 $13,000 $9,200 $22,200 11,600 1.91
WTP Mn Goal = 0.01 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $32 $117,000 $12,000 $129,000 115,000 1.12
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $30 $1,095,000 $27,000 $1,120,000 1,150,000 0.97

429

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table G.5 Direct filtration - manganese control implementation cost analysis
Technology: Direct Filtration
Technology for Manganese Incidental to Process

Comments
1. Raw water manganese is assumed to be 0.5 mg/L.
2. Chlorine fed prior to filtration for catalytic oxidation. Applied dose 1 mg/L.

Capital Cost
Effective Interest rate = 5%
Equipment life (compounding period) = 20 years

Capital Cost
Associated with Annual Capital
Capital Cost Mn Removal Recovery
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $1,500,000 $55,000 $4,400
Plant #2 = 10 MGD $12,000,000 $70,000 $6,000
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $95,000,000 $160,000 $13,000

Cost to Benefit Ratio Calculation

Operating Cost, Annual Annual Capital Annual Total Cost to


$/MGD Operating Cost Recovery Cost Annual Impact Benefit Ratio
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $15 $5,000 $4,400 $9,400 11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal = 0.05 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $10 $37,000 $6,000 $43,000 115,000 N/A
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $9 $329,000 $13,000 $342,000 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $30 $11,000 $4,400 $15,400 11,600 1.33
WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $25 $91,000 $6,000 $97,000 115,000 0.84
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $23 $840,000 $13,000 $850,000 1,150,000 0.74
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $35 $13,000 $4,400 $17,400 11,600 1.50
WTP Mn Goal = 0.015 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $32 $117,000 $6,000 $123,000 115,000 1.07
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $30 $1,095,000 $13,000 $1,110,000 1,150,000 0.97
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $35 $13,000 $4,400 $17,400 11,600 1.50
WTP Mn Goal = 0.01 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $32 $117,000 $6,000 $123,000 115,000 1.07
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $30 $1,095,000 $13,000 $1,110,000 1,150,000 0.97

430

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table G.6 Advanced clarification - manganese control implementation cost analysis
Technology: Advanced Clarification
Technology for Manganese Incidental to Process

Comments
1. Raw water manganese is assumed to be 0.5 mg/L.
2. KMnO4 dose is 1.0 to 1.5 mg/L.
3. Example of advanced clarification processes include dissolved air flotation, ballasted flocculation,
tube/plate assisted devices, solid contact clarifiers.
4. Capital cost is for clarification alone
5. Chemical feed prior to both clarification and filtration (polymer, chlorine, KMnO4)

Capital Cost
Effective Interest rate = 5%
Equipment life (compounding period) = 20 years

Capital Cost
Associated with Annual Capital
Capital Cost Mn Removal Recovery
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $400,000 $115,000 $9,200
Plant #2 = 10 MGD $3,500,000 $155,000 $12,000
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $30,000,000 $340,000 $27,000

Cost to Benefit Ratio Calculation

Operating Cost, Annual Annual Capital Annual Total Cost to


$/MGD Operating Cost Recovery Cost Annual Impact Benefit Ratio
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $16 $6,000 $9,200 $15,200 11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal = 0.05 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $12 $44,000 $12,000 $56,000 115,000 N/A
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $10 $365,000 $27,000 $392,000 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $32 $12,000 $9,200 $21,200 11,600 1.83
WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $22 $80,000 $12,000 $92,000 115,000 0.80
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $20 $730,000 $27,000 $760,000 1,150,000 0.66
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $36 $13,000 $9,200 $22,200 11,600 1.91
WTP Mn Goal = 0.015 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $28 $102,000 $12,000 $114,000 115,000 0.99
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $24 $876,000 $27,000 $900,000 1,150,000 0.78
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $36 $13,000 $9,200 $22,200 11,600 1.91
WTP Mn Goal = 0.01 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $28 $102,000 $12,000 $114,000 115,000 0.99
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $24 $876,000 $27,000 $900,000 1,150,000 0.78

431

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table G.7 Membrane filtration - cost analysis for membrane unit operations, incidental to manganese removal
Technology: Membranes
Technology for Manganese Incidental to Process

Comments
1. Raw water manganese is assumed to be 0.5 mg/L.
2. No bypass
3. Life of membranes is 10 years.
4. The membrane costs are based on ultrafiltration or nanofiltration

Capital Cost
Effective Interest rate = 5%
Equipment life (compounding period) = 10 years

Capital Cost of Capital Cost Annual Capital


2 Membrane Associated with Recovery in 20
Systems Mn Removal Year Period
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $1,700,000 $0 $0
Plant #2 = 10 MGD $16,000,000 $0 $0
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $156,000,000 $0 $0

Cost to Benefit Ratio Calculation

Operating Cost, Annual Annual Capital Annual Total Cost to


$/MGD Operating Cost Recovery Cost Annual Impact Benefit Ratio
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $15 $5,500 $0 $6,000 11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal = 0.05 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $13 $47,000 $0 $50,000 115,000 N/A
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $11 $400,000 $0 $400,000 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $30 $11,000 $0 $11,000 11,600 0.9
WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $27 $99,000 $0 $100,000 115,000 0.9
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $25 $913,000 $0 $900,000 1,150,000 0.8
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $35 $13,000 $0 $13,000 11,600 1.1
WTP Mn Goal = 0.015 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $32 $117,000 $0 $120,000 115,000 1.0
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $30 $1,095,000 $0 $1,100,000 1,150,000 1.0
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $35 $13,000 $0 $13,000 11,600 1.1
WTP Mn Goal = 0.01 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $32 $117,000 $0 $120,000 115,000 1.0
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $30 $1,095,000 $0 $1,100,000 1,150,000 1.0

432

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table G.8 Membrane filtration - manganese control implementation cost analysis
Technology: Membranes
Technology for Manganese Removal Only

Comments
1. Raw water manganese is assumed to be 0.5 mg/L.
2. No bypass
3. Life of membranes is 10 years.
4. The membrane costs are based on ultrafiltration or nanofiltration

Capital Cost
Effective Interest rate = 5%
Equipment life (compounding period) = 20 years
However, membranes are assumed to be replaced once, as a whole, in the fixed 20 year life cycle
Capital Cost of Capital Cost Annual Capital
2 Membrane Associated with Recovery in 20
Systems Mn Removal Year Period
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $136,000
Plant #2 = 10 MGD $16,000,000 $16,000,000 $1,280,000
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $156,000,000 $156,000,000 $12,500,000

Cost to Benefit Ratio Calculation

Operating Cost, Annual Annual Capital Annual Total Cost to


$/MGD Operating Cost Recovery Cost Annual Impact Benefit Ratio
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $185 $67,500 $136,000 $204,000 11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal = 0.05 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $150 $548,000 $1,280,000 $1,830,000 115,000 N/A
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $130 $4,750,000 $12,500,000 $17,300,000 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $200 $73,000 $136,000 $209,000 11,600 18.0
WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $160 $584,000 $1,280,000 $1,860,000 115,000 16.2
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $140 $5,110,000 $12,500,000 $17,600,000 1,150,000 15.3
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $200 $73,000 $136,000 $209,000 11,600 18.0
WTP Mn Goal = 0.015 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $160 $584,000 $1,280,000 $1,860,000 115,000 16.2
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $140 $5,110,000 $12,500,000 $17,600,000 1,150,000 15.3
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $200 $73,000 $136,000 $209,000 11,600 18.0
WTP Mn Goal = 0.01 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $160 $584,000 $1,280,000 $1,860,000 115,000 16.2
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $140 $5,110,000 $12,500,000 $17,600,000 1,150,000 15.3

433

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table G.9 Manganese greensand - manganese control implementation cost analysis
Technology: Manganese Greensand
Technology for Manganese Removal Only

Comments
1. Raw water manganese is assumed to be 0.5 mg/L.
2. KMnO4 for Mn Greensand regeneration daily
3. Chlorine feed if iron is present
4. 100 MGD is not a practical size

Capital Cost
Effective Interest rate = 5%
Equipment life (compounding period) = 20 years

Capital Cost
Associated with Annual Capital
Capital Cost Mn Removal Recovery
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $750,000 $750,000 $60,200
Plant #2 = 10 MGD $6,500,000 $6,500,000 $522,000
Plant #3 = 100 MGD N/A N/A N/A

Cost to Benefit Ratio Calculation

Operating Cost, Annual Annual Capital Annual Total Cost to


$/MGD Operating Cost Recovery Cost Annual Impact Benefit Ratio
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $110 $40,000 $60,200 $100,000 11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal = 0.05 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $95 $347,000 $522,000 $870,000 115,000 N/A
Plant #3 = 100 MGD N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $130 $47,000 $60,200 $107,000 11,600 9.2
WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $115 $420,000 $522,000 $940,000 115,000 8.2
Plant #3 = 100 MGD N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $160 $58,000 $60,200 $118,000 11,600 10.2
WTP Mn Goal = 0.015 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $140 $511,000 $522,000 $1,030,000 115,000 9.0
Plant #3 = 100 MGD N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $200 $73,000 $60,200 $133,000 11,600 11.5
WTP Mn Goal = 0.01 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $180 $657,000 $522,000 $1,180,000 115,000 10.3
Plant #3 = 100 MGD N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,150,000 N/A

434

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table G.10 Diatomaceous earth - manganese control implementation cost analysis
Technology: Diatomaceous Earth
Technology for Manganese Removal Only

Comments
1. Raw water manganese is assumed to be 0.5 mg/L.
2. Single pass
3. No bypass
4. Vacuum or pressure system
5. Capital cost is same as direct filtration
6. Chlorine fed prior to filtration for catalytic oxidation. Applied dose 1 mg/L.

Capital Cost
Effective Interest rate = 5%
Equipment life (compounding period) = 20 years

Capital Cost
Associated with Annual Capital
Capital Cost Mn Removal Recovery
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $80,200
Plant #2 = 10 MGD $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $722,000
Plant #3 = 100 MGD N/A N/A N/A

Cost to Benefit Ratio Calculation

Operating Cost, Annual Annual Capital Annual Total Cost to


$/MGD Operating Cost Recovery Cost Annual Impact Benefit Ratio
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $210 $77,000 $80,200 $157,000 11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal = 0.05 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $180 $657,000 $722,000 $1,380,000 115,000 N/A
Plant #3 = 100 MGD N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $245 $89,000 $80,200 $169,000 11,600 14.6
WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $210 $767,000 $722,000 $1,490,000 115,000 13.0
Plant #3 = 100 MGD N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $250 $91,000 $80,200 $171,000 11,600 14.7
WTP Mn Goal = 0.015 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $215 $785,000 $722,000 $1,510,000 115,000 13.1
Plant #3 = 100 MGD N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $260 $95,000 $80,200 $175,000 11,600 15.1
WTP Mn Goal = 0.01 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $225 $821,000 $722,000 $1,540,000 115,000 13.4
Plant #3 = 100 MGD N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,150,000 N/A

435

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


Table G.11 Ion exchange - manganese control implementation cost analysis
Technology: Ion Exchange
Technology for Manganese Removal Only

Comments
1. Raw water manganese is assumed to be 0.5 mg/L.
2. Ion exchange for manganese removal only

Capital Cost
Effective Interest rate = 5%
Equipment life (compounding period) = 20 years

Capital Cost
Associated with Annual Capital
Capital Cost Mn Removal Recovery
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $800,000 $800,000 $64,000
Plant #2 = 10 MGD $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $600,000
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $70,000,000 $70,000,000 $5,620,000

Cost to Benefit Ratio Calculation

Operating Cost, Annual Annual Capital Annual Total Cost to


$/MGD Operating Cost Recovery Cost Annual Impact Benefit Ratio
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $190 $69,000 $64,000 $133,000 11,600 N/A
WTP Mn Goal = 0.05 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $175 $639,000 $600,000 $1,240,000 115,000 N/A
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $170 $6,205,000 $5,620,000 $11,800,000 1,150,000 N/A
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $200 $73,000 $64,000 $137,000 11,600 11.8
WTP Mn Goal = 0.02 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $185 $675,000 $600,000 $1,280,000 115,000 11.1
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $180 $6,570,000 $5,620,000 $12,200,000 1,150,000 10.6
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $210 $77,000 $64,000 $141,000 11,600 12.2
WTP Mn Goal = 0.015 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $195 $712,000 $600,000 $1,310,000 115,000 11.4
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $190 $6,935,000 $5,620,000 $12,600,000 1,150,000 11.0
Plant #1 = 1 MGD $210 $77,000 $64,000 $141,000 11,600 12.2
WTP Mn Goal = 0.01 mg/L Plant #2 = 10 MGD $195 $712,000 $600,000 $1,310,000 115,000 11.4
Plant #3 = 100 MGD $190 $6,935,000 $5,620,000 $12,600,000 1,150,000 11.0

436

2006 AwwaRF. All Rights Reserved.


6666 West Quincy Avenue
Denver, CO 80235-3098 USA
P 303.347.6100
www.awwarf.org
email: info@awwarf.org

Sponsors Research
Develops Knowledge
Promotes Collaboration

1P-3.75C-91147-10/06-NH

You might also like