You are on page 1of 13

A R S E N I C R E M O VA L

Arsenic
removal
by coagulation
This utility’s goal of 90 percent arsenic removal
was attained through treatment with 6.5 mg/L
ferric chloride.

Karen N. Scott, James F. Green,


Hoang D. Do, and Stephen J. McLean
T he current 50-µg/L maximum contaminant
level (MCL) for arsenic in drinking water was first
set by the US Public Health Service in 1942 and was
adopted by the US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) in 1975.1 The standard was based primarily
on toxic effects resulting from short-term or acute
exposure to arsenic.2 Subsequent investigations have
linked arsenic in drinking water with skin cancer and,
more recently, with cancers of the liver, lung, bladder,
and kidney.2–4 These studies have raised the concern
that the current arsenic MCL may be too high. Accord-
ing to a February 1994 federal court decision, USEPA
is obligated to propose a
new arsenic regulation
This study evaluated the removal of naturally occurring arsenic in by November 1995.* The
a full-scale (106-mgd) conventional treatment plant. When the new regulation is ex-
source water was treated with 3–10 mg/L of ferric chloride or 6, pected to lower the MCL
10, or 20 mg/L of alum, arsenic removal was 81–96 percent (ferric
chloride) and 23–71 percent (alum). Metal concentrations in the *At press time USEPA had
sludge produced during this study were below the state’s current sought to delay the arsenic rule-
making in order to conduct fur-
hazardous waste levels at all coagulant dosages. No operational ther research before proposing a
difficulties were encountered. new rule. For additional informa-
tion, see Legislation/Regulation,
beginning on page 12 of this issue.

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


114 JOURNAL AWWA
Sludge samples (far left) collected
from sedimentation basins at the
Henry J. Mills Filtration Plant were
settled, decanted, and dried
in an oven to simulate landfill
disposal conditions.

of 90 percent arsenic removal


(from 20 to 2 µg/L) was chosen
for this study.
Previous studies have shown
that conventional treatment
with aluminum and iron salts
can be used to remove arsenic
from drinking water.6–10 Shen6
compared the ability of 20-mg/L
doses of alum, lime, ferrous sul-
fate, and ferric chloride to
remove arsenic from well water
(pH 6.8, 1.0 mg/L arsenic) in
bench-scale tests; arsenic re-
to 2.0–20 µg/L.1,5 In anticipation of this regulation, the movals of 32, 20, 24, and 82 percent were achieved
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California with the respective coagulants. Because arsenic (III) is
(MWDSC) analyzed the feasibility of meeting the most likely to be found in anaerobic groundwater,8,11
lowest anticipated arsenic MCL in its conventional the well water treated in Shen’s study6 probably con-
treatment plants through treatment with ferric chlo- tained arsenic (III). Pretreatment with chlorine—pre-
ride or alum. MWDSC typically has 2–5 µg/L arsenic sumably oxidizing the arsenic (III) to arsenic (V)—
(V) in its surface water supplies; however, future wa- enhanced the ability of the ferric chloride to remove
ter sources could potentially include water with arsenic; Shen reported removals of 82.5 percent to
arsenic levels exceeding 20 µg/L. Therefore, a goal approximately 100 percent with 50 mg/L FeCl3. 6

TABLE 1 MWDSC’s bench-, pilot-, demonstration-, and full-scale test parameters

Test Scale

Parameter Bench Pilot Demonstration Full

Design flow 6 gpm 5.5 mgd 54.5 mgd


Detention time—min
Rapid mix 1.0 1.3 0.8 s 0.4
Flocculation basin 15 15 30 22
Sedimentation basin 60 99 84
Mixer type
Rapid mix Two-blade vertical Four-blade vertical In-line static mixer Multijet slide gate
paddle paddle
Flocculator Two-blade vertical Four-blade vertical Four-blade horizontal Six-blade vertical turbine
paddle paddle paddle
Velocity gradient(G)—s—1
Rapid mix 90 33 2,500 1,000–2,000
Flocculator, stage 1 35 80 30 123
Flocculator, stage 2 25 15 123
Flocculator, stage 3 8 15 123
Flocculator, stage 4 5
Loading rates—gpm/sq ft
Sedimentation basin 1.0 1.1
Filters 6 5 6
Filter media 12 in. silica sand 20 in. anthracite coal, 20 in. anthracite coal, 20 in. anthracite coal,
8 in. silica sand 8 in. silica sand 8 in. silica sand
Water temperature—oC
FeCl3 tests ~20 24 ± 0.7 11.9 ± 1.5 12.9 ± 2.1
Alum tests ~20 24 ± 0.7 17.2 ± 1.5 23.4 ± 1.2
(20ofor 30 mg/L)
Influent turbidity—ntu
FeCl3 tests 4.5 ± 1.5 2.0 ± 0.3 1.45 ± 0.67 1.5 ± 0.5
(0.37 for 4 mg/L)
Alum tests 4.5 ± 1.5 2.0 ± 0.3 1.9 ± 0.42 2.4 ± 0.4
(1.3 for 30 mg/L)

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


APRIL 1995 115
TABLE 2 Test matrix and raw-water quality parameters

Test Conditions Plant Influent Water Quality

Total
Dose Filtration pH Alkalinity
µM/L Polymer Module Rate of Tem- mg/L
Dose Fe(III) Dose Flow gpm/ Coagu- Turbidity Arsenic perature TDS TOC as
Coagulant mg/L or Al(III) mg/L mgd sq ft lation ntu µg/L pH oC mg/L mg/L CaCO3

3 18.5 2 38.8 4.21 7.55 1.6 1.7 7.89 11.1 222 65


2 45.2 3.95 7.59 1.4 1.6 7.92 11.1 210 2.37 69
6.5 40.1 3 48.4 4.87 7.32 1.6 1.6 7.88 11.0 212 69
3 35.5 3.44 7.37 1.4 1.6 7.92 11.3 219 68
10 61.7 3 35.5 3.46 7.20 1.5 1.6 7.88 11.0 217 67
Ferric 3 29.1 3.55 7.31 1.3 1.6 7.95 10.8 219 69
chloride 4 24.7 2 30.9 3.71 7.62 0.37 1.5 8.15 12.4 398 101
(Lake 2 48.4 2.87 7.79 0.37 1.5 8.26 12.3 400 3.185 107
Perris)
6.5 40.1 3 35.5 5.75 7.42 1.7 1.2 8.13 12.5 205 70
3 32.3 5.94 7.46 1.4 1.3 8.66 13.4 211 2.96 73
5 30.8 3 38.3 5.86 7.64 2.8 1.3 8.65 14.2 228 71
3 45.2 6.48 7.80 0.9 1.2 8.63 14.8 238 3.323 76
5 30.8 2.5 21.0 3.80 7.44 1.3 1.7 8.12 16.7 295 73
2.5 16.1 3.92 7.44 0.92 1.7 8.34 17.4 304 3.62 74
Average
(SPW) 1.5 1.5 8.16 12.9 232 3.07 70
6 20.2 3 37.1 5.30 7.63 2.2 2.2 8.38 21.9 298 76
3 40.4 4.78 7.65 1.9 2.1 8.25 22.2 304 3.17 78
Alum 10 33.6 3 42.0 4.43 7.46 2.5 2.1 8.29 22.7 302 75
3 45.2 4.71 7.50 2.7 2.1 8.11 23.5 302 3.34 78
20 67.3 3 42.0 5.27 7.18 3.4 2.2 7.98 24.5 296 73
3 32.3 5.14 7.20 1.5 2.1 7.96 25.3 295 3.09 78
Average 2.4 2.1 8.16 23.4 300 3.20 76

FIGURE 1 Mills filtration plant

Finished-
water
reservoir

Basin 1 Basin 2 Basin 3 Basin 4

Module 1 Module 2

Control
room
Sampling
location

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


116 JOURNAL AWWA
Dried sludge samples represented the driest—and
therefore the most concentrated—sludge that
MWDSC sent to the landfill.

Gulledge and O’Connor spiked water with


arsenic (V) and tested 10–50 mg/L alum and ferric
sulfate at pH 5–8 in a bench-scale study.7 The fer-
ric sulfate achieved better removal than the alum
(88.6–99.0 percent versus 18.5–93.6 percent) and
was less sensitive to increases in pH. Sorg and Logs-
don reported comparable findings—i.e., significant
removal of arsenic with conventional treatment
and superior performance by the ferric coagulant—
in their pilot-scale study,8 also citing similar results
from an earlier, bench-scale evaluation conducted
by Logsdon, Sorg, and Symons.12
Cheng and co-workers9,10 used 3–40 mg/L fer-
ric chloride and alum to treat arsenic (V)-spiked water stant-rate, rising-level, self-backwashing filters are
at various pH conditions in bench-, pilot-, and demon- dual media (20 in. of anthracite and 8 in. of silica
stration-scale studies in order to determine the effec- sand supported by 18 in. of gravel). Module 2—the test
tiveness of arsenic removal at each level. These stud- module—has a design capacity flow of 54.5 mgd. Key
ies were the first steps in determining the extent of design parameters of module 2, as well as those of
treatment necessary to achieve potential arsenic MCLs the previous test facilities, are listed in Table 1.
at MWDSC. Chlorine is added at the rapid-mix basin, to the set-
tled-water conduit of each module, and at the fin-
Objectives ished-water reservoir inlet. Overall chlorine doses
This study evaluated the removal of naturally occur- generally range from 3 to 5 mg/L. Ammonia and fil-
ring arsenic in a full-scale conventional treatment plant ter aid are also typically fed at the settled-water con-
using an analytical technique with a 0.02-µg/L arsenic duit of each module; however, during the alum phase
detection limit.13 There were three main objectives: of this study, the plant was using only free chlorine.
• Determine whether MWDSC can—by increas- A total chlorine residual of about 1.5 mg/L and a
ing the dosages of alum or ferric chloride coagu- total ammonia residual of 0.33 mg/L (as NH3-N) typ-
lants—achieve a 90 percent reduction in arsenic con- ifies the plant effluent. Free-chlorine doses of approx-
imately 4–5 mg/L were

A
added to maintain a free-
chlorine residual of approx-
lum was less effective than ferric imately 1.3 mg/L in the
plant effluent during the
chloride at removing arsenic. alum testing. Sedimentation
basin sludge and filter-back-
wash water are gravity-fed
to one of seven retention
centration and thereby comply with the lowest basins for drying prior to disposal. Separate basins
anticipated arsenic MCL. were used for the ferric chloride and alum sludge.
• Validate the results of bench-, pilot-, and demon-
stration-scale studies and ensure that their results Experimental setup
can be applied to a full-scale plant. Ferric chloride doses of 3, 4, 5, 6.5, and 10 mg/L as
• Ensure that, in the process of complying with FeCl3 [or 18.5, 24.7, 30.8, 40.1, and 61.7 µM Fe(III)/L]
the arsenic regulations for drinking water, MWDSC and alum doses of 6, 10, and 20 mg/L as Al2(SO4)3 ·
is not compromising other water quality parameters 14H2O [or 20.2, 33.6, and 67.3 µM Al(III)/L] were
or creating hazardous wastes that cannot be disposed applied for one-week periods (Table 2). Dosages started
of in the landfills being used for sludge disposal. at levels normally used to maintain effluent turbidity
levels of <0.1 ntu and were gradually adjusted, based
Test site on Cheng and co-workers’ results,9 in an attempt to
This study was conducted at the Henry J. Mills Fil- attain 90 percent arsenic removal. Test conditions were
tration Plant, a 106-mgd conventional drinking water set on Mondays, and samples were typically collected
treatment plant in Riverside, Calif. The Mills plant is on Thursdays and the following Mondays. Optimal
composed of two nearly identical modules, each of polymer* doses of 2–3 mg/L were determined by jar
which consists of one rapid-mix basin; two parallel,
rectangular flocculation basins; and two parallel, rec- *Cationic polyDADMAC, Magnifloc 587C, Cytec Industries, West Pater-
tangular sedimentation basins (Figure 1). The con- son, N.J.

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


APRIL 1995 117
TABLE 3 Trace metal analyses of Mills plant’s dried ferric chloride sludge*

Metal Concentration

California FeCl3 Dose


Regulatory
Limit (Title 22)† 3 mg/L 4 mg/L 5 mg/L 5 mg/L 6.5 mg/L

Metal TTLC STLC Total Total Total Soluble Total Soluble Total Soluble
mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/L

Antimony 500 15 0.4 0.16 0.4 0.73 0.4


Arsenic 500 5 36 25 61 1.18 67.4 1.89 57 1.61
Barium 10,000 100 263 97.2 293 311 270
Beryllium 75 0.75 1.7 0.45 1.2 1.19 1
Cadmium 100 1 0.58 0.22 0.52 0.42 0.39
Chromium (III/VI)‡ 2,500/500 560/5 47.2 15.1 52 1 52.9 0.92 45.2
Cobalt 8,000 80 16 4.74 15.6 15.4 16.4
Copper 2,500 25 136 70.4 273 6.96 193 148
Lead 1,000 5 31.7 8.94 29.7 30 26
Mercury 20 0.2 0.45 ND§ < 0 .09 0.6 0.17 0.27
Molybdenum 3,500 350 15.1 1.59 4.36 4.57 4.02
Nickel 2,000 20 57.9 19 60 58.4 52.2
Selenium 100 1 3 ND < 3 ND < 5 ND < 10 ND < 1
Silver 500 5 0.15 0.03 0.12 0.1 0.07
Thallium 700 7 0.21 0.05 0.18 0.21 0.19
Vanadium 2,400 24 160 53 216 238 161
Zinc 5,000 250 156 48.1 218 183 140
Percent solids ~ 100 ~ 100 ~ 100 ~ 100 ~ 100

*No landfill disposal restrictions would be imposed on these samples.


†TTLC—total threshold limit concentration, the regulatory limit for total metal concentrations; STLC—soluble threshold limit concentration, the regulatory limit for
soluble metal concentrations. Sludge analyzed for total concentration first; then, if total concentration > 10 ˘ STLC, the soluble concentration was determined.
‡Sludge analyzed for total chromium (not speciated)
§ND–not detected

testing, and no acid was applied for adjusting the coag- Trace metals in sludge. Sludge samples were
ulation pH. Filter aid* was applied to the settled-water collected from the sedimentation basins for each
conduit at 0.01 mg/L throughout the study. Because the test condition and from the alum and ferric chloride
plant was in service, flows in module 2 fluctuated from sludge lagoons after the sludge had accumulated.
16.1 to 48.4 mgd, and the filtration rates ranged from To simulate sludge that is disposed of in landfills,
2.87 to 6.48 gpm/sq ft (Table 2). The filters were back- the sludge samples were settled, decanted, and dried
washed when the filter head loss reached approxi- in an oven at 104oF. The resultant dried sludge rep-
mately 6.0 ft, the filter effluent turbidity reached resented the driest—and therefore the most con-
approximately 0.25 ntu, or the filter length of run centrated (85–100 percent solids)—sludge that
(LOR) approached 30 h, whichever came first. MWDSC sends to the landfill. The sludge samples
Silverwood Lake state project water (SPW) was were analyzed by the laboratory for the inorganics
used for all the tests except the 4-mg/L ferric chloride regulated in California as hazardous waste14 (Tables
test, which used SPW from Lake Perris. The perti- 3 and 4) to ensure that the optimization of arsenic
nent raw-water quality parameters of the water removal would not create waste disposal problems.
treated in this study are listed in Table 2. Analyses The total metals concentrations were determined
for the following constituents were conducted using an ICPMS method (USEPA 6020).15 Those
throughout this study: arsenic, trace metals in sludge samples that exhibited total metal concentrations
and in the water, turbidity, total suspended solids exceeding 10 times the soluble threshold limit con-
(TSS), total organic carbon (TOC), and total alkalin- centration (STLC; a California MCL) were analyzed
ity. In addition, particle counts, pH, temperature, fil- further to determine the soluble metal concentra-
ter head loss, and the LOR for each filter were mon- tions. The waste extract test procedure and an ICPMS
itored; jar tests were routinely conducted prior to method (USEPA 6020)15 were used to determine
changes in the coagulant dosage at the plant. the soluble metal concentrations.
Trace metals in finished water. Water samples
Sample analyses were collected for analysis of the inorganics regu-
Arsenic. Arsenic samples were collected at the lated in California’s drinking water14 (Table 5) at the
plant influent and combined filter effluent on each plant influent and combined filter effluent. The pur-
sampling date and at the filter influent for selected pose of these analyses was to ensure that water qual-
ferric chloride tests. The arsenic analyses were con- ity would not deteriorate when elevated dosages of
ducted by an outside laboratory† using a hydride gen-
*Nonionic polyacrylamide, Magnifloc 985N, Cytec Industries, West
eration–inductively coupled plasma–mass spectrom- Paterson, N.J.
etry (ICPMS) method (detection limit 0.02 µg/L).13 †West Coast Analytical Service Inc., Santa Fe Springs, Calif.

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


118 JOURNAL AWWA
TABLE 3 Trace metal analyses of Mills plant’s dried ferric chloride sludge,* Continued

Metal Concentration

Lagoon Samples
California FeCl3 Dose (mixed dosages)
Regulatory
Limit (Title 22)† 6.5 mg/L 10 mg/L 2/14/94 7/11/94 7/18/94

TTLC STLC Total Soluble Total Soluble Total Soluble Total Total Soluble
Metal mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/kg mg/L

Antimony 500 15 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.29 0.55


Arsenic 500 5 51.2 1.51 35 55 2.71 13 55 0.80
Barium 10,000 100 274 233 225 392 191
Beryllium 75 0.75 1.57 0.93 0.38 0.3 0.4
Cadmium 100 1 31 0.36 0.16 ND <0.06‡ 0.13
Chromium (III/VI)§ 2,500/500 560/5 51.5 0.9 33.2 29.1 29.8 24.4
Cobalt 8,000 80 16.1 10.7 6.93 10.9 7.19
Copper 2,500 25 184 157 65.9 32 63.4
Lead 1,000 5 32.4 22.6 11.7 5 10.7
Mercury 20 0.2 ND <0.3 3 ND <0.05 0.12 0.5 0.7
Molybdenum 3,500 350 5.16 3.72 1.98 0.82 2.14
Nickel 2,000 20 58.9 42.1 24.2 14 20.8
Selenium 100 1 ND <5 3 ND <3 ND <10 ND <10
Silver 500 5 0.14 ND <0.1 0.08 0.13 0.14
Thallium 700 7 0.18 0.09 0.09 0.29 0.06
Vanadium 2,400 24 201 130 105 84 ND <60
Zinc 5,000 250 181 112 63.8 60.2 43.6
Percent solids ~ 100 ~ 100 ~ 100 87.1 99.6

*No landfill disposal restrictions would be imposed on these samples.


†TTLC—total threshold limit concentration, the regulatory limit for total metal concentrations; STLC—soluble threshold limit concentration, the regulatory limit for
soluble metal concentrations. Sludge analyzed for total concentration first; then, if total concentration > 10 ˘ STLC, the soluble concentration was determined.
‡ND—not detected
§Sludge analyzed for total chromium (not speciated)

TABLE 4 Trace metal analyses of Mills plant’s dried alum sludge*

Metal Concentration
Title 22
Limit† 6 mg/L Alum 10 mg/L Alum 20 mg/L Alum Sludge Lagoon

TTLC STLC Total Soluble Total Soluble Total Soluble Total Soluble
Metal mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/L mg/kg mg/L

Antimony 500 15 0.3 0.2 0.19 0.09


Arsenic 500 5 50 64 3.15 89 2.47 36
Barium 10,000 100 297 290 211 299
Beryllium 75 0.75 1.4 1.2 1 0.8
Cadmium 100 1 0.5 0.38 0.36 0.14
Chromium (III/VI)‡ 2,500/500 560/5 53.1 0.6 44.6 37.5 32.2
Cobalt 8,000 80 16.5 13.5 10.3 9.36
Copper 2,500 25 248 199 144 82.7
Lead 1,000 5 34.9 29.6 23.2 14.2§
Mercury 20 0.2 2.4 ND§ 1.8 0.5 ND < 0.3
< 0.03
Molybdenum 3,500 350 5.99 5.13 2.35 0.75
Nickel 2,000 20 58.2 52.5 42.7 36.4
Selenium 100 1 ND < 7 ND < 7 ND < 10 ND < 10
Silver 500 5 ND < 0.1 ND < 0.1 0.09 0.06
Thallium 700 7 0.28 0.22 0.12 0.11
Vanadium 2,400 24 184 143 93 60
Zinc 5,000 250 223 182 146 77.9
Percent solids 99.8 87.8 98.4 91.3

*No landfill disposal restrictions would be imposed on these samples.


†TTLC—total threshold limit concentration, the regulatory limit for total metal concentrations; STLC—soluble threshold limit concentration, the regulatory limit for
soluble metal concentrations. Sludge analyzed for total concentration first; then, if total concentration > 10 X STLC, the soluble concentration was determined.
‡Sludge analyzed for total chromium (not speciated)
§ND—not detected

ferric chloride and alum were used. The analyses combined filter effluent. These samples allowed
were conducted by the outside lab, using an ICPMS comparison of the relative efficacy of the various
method (USEPA 200.8).16 dosages of ferric chloride and alum for turbidity
Turbidity. Turbidity samples (grab samples) were removal and served as indicators of water quality
collected at the plant and filter influents and at the during the testing. The samples were measured

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


APRIL 1995 119
TABLE 5 Trace metals in water at Mills plant

California Metal Concentration—µg/L


Regulatory
Level FeCl3 Dose
(Title 22)
(and 3 mg/L 6.5 mg/L 10 mg/L
Upcoming
MCLs) Plant Filter Percent Plant Filter Percent Plant Filter Percent
Metal µg/L Influent Effluent Removal Influent Effluent Removal Influent Effluent Removal

Aluminum 1,000 ND* <20 ND <20 39.0 2.5 93.6 33.7 4.6 86.4
Arsenic 50 (2.0–20) 1.60 0.27 83.10 1.30 0.14 89.23 1.60 0.07 95.63
Barium 1,000 27.7 25.3 8.7 24.4 20.6 15.6 27.2 25.7 5.5
Cadmium 10 (5) ND <0.3 ND <0.3 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 0.5 ND <0.3 NC
Chromium 50 ND <1 ND <1 ND <0.4 ND <0.4 ND <0.8 ND <0.8
Copper 1,000 2.3 1.5 34.8 2.6 1.8 30.8 2.9 2.0 31.0
Iron 300 ND <100 ND <100 105.0 64.0 39.0 102.0 58.0 43.1
Lead 50 (BAT) ND <0.3 ND <0.3 0.2 0.1 NC 7.7 0.5 93.5
Manganese 50 5.0 ND <2 > 60 17.5 4.1 76.6 11.3 10.4 8.0
Mercury 2 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 ND <0.2 ND <0.2 ND <0.4 ND <0.4
Selenium 10 (50) ND <4 ND <4 ND <9 ND <9 ND <40 ND <40
Silver 50 (no MCL) ND <0.1 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 ND <0.2 ND <0.2
Zinc 5,000 4.0 2.0 50.0 5.4 5.5 NC 3.0 2.0 33.3

*ND—not detected
†Negative numbers denote an increase of metals in the treatment train; however, with the exception of the aluminum, these apparent increases are insignificant.
‡NC—no change; the influent and effluent values were the same within experimental error.
§Samples were taken from an alternate location, which was inappropriate for this test. Copper tubing, leaded solder, and brass fittings came in contact with the water
sample.

using a nephelometric turbidimeter,* which was ent to determine relative particle removal on each
calibrated daily. sampling date. The particle counter‡ was set up in
TSS. TSS samples were analyzed by standard batch mode, and each grab sample was measured
laboratory procedures.17 The samples were collected three times. Total and size differential particle counts
at the filter influent for each test condition. This were recorded for each sample. Six channels were
parameter was used as a measure of filter solids programmed to measure the following size ranges:
loading. 2–4, >4–6, >6–8, >8–10, >10–15, and >15–200 µm.
TOC and total alkalinity. The TOC and total alka- pH. The pH was measured at the plant influent,
linity measurements provide raw-water quality infor- after coagulant addition (in the flocculation basin),
mation (Table 2). The TOC was measured with a car- and at the reservoir inlet on each sampling date. A pH
bon analyzer,† and the total alkalinity tests were meter§ was used for these analyses.
conducted by standard titration methods.17 Filter head loss and LOR. Terminal headloss, as
Particle counts. Particle counts were measured measured by differential pressure cells, and LOR for
at the plant influent and the combined filter efflu- each filter were monitored continuously on the con-
trol system computer. De-
creases in these parameters
FIGURE 2 Average arsenic removal in SPW with alum and ferric chloride indicate stress on the filters
coagulation and deterioration of plant
performance.
FeCl
3
Al (SO ) . 14H O
2 4 3 2
Jar testing. Jar testing
3 82
was completed each week,
prior to changes in test con-
4 Lake Perris water 89 ditions, to ensure that the
Coagulant Dose—mg/L

86
coagulant dosages of the next
5
test condition would not com-
6 23 promise the Mills plant’s
effluent water quality.
6.5 92

10 95
*Model 2100A, Hach Co., Loveland,
Colo.
10 45 †Dohrmann model DC-180, Rose-
mount Analytical Corp., Santa Clara, Calif.
20 69 ‡Model 250 batch sampler, model
214 single-sensor counter, or model LB100
light-blocking laser sensor, Met One Inc.,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Grants Pass, Ore.
A i R l t §Model 130, Corning Inc., Corning,
N.Y.

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


120 JOURNAL AWWA
TABLE 5 Trace metals in water at Mills plant, Continued

California Metal Concentration—µg/L


Regulatory
Level Alum Dose
(Title 22)
(and 6 mg/L 10 mg/L 20 mg/L
Upcoming
MCLs) Plant Filter Percent Plant Filter Percent Plant Filter Percent
Metal µg/L Influent Effluent Removal Influent Effluent Removal Influent Effluent Removal
Aluminum 1,000 40.0 77.1 –92.8* 66.0 105.0 –59.1 65.3 70.4 –7.8
Arsenic 50 (2.0–20) 2.10 1.60 23.81 2.10 1.20 42.86 2.10 0.69 67.1
Barium 1,000 38.1 36.8 3.4 38.3 35.8 6.5 36.7 37.7 NC†
Cadmium 10 (5) ND‡ <0.3 ND <0.3 ND <0.4 ND <0.4 ND <0.3 ND <0.3
Chromium 50 ND <0.8 ND <0.8 ND <0.5 ND <0.5 ND <0.8 ND <0.8
Copper 1,000 2.4 3.0 –25.0 2.0 3.0 –50.0 3.2 Invalid§
Iron 300 96.0 57.0 40.6 137.0 31.0 77.4 129.0 73.0 43.4
Lead 50 (BAT) 0.5 0.5 NC 0.3 0.2 NC 0.6 Invalid§
Manganese 50 9.6 0.3 96.9 9.3 0.4 95.7 9.8 0.3 96.9
Mercury 2 ND <0.4 ND <0.4 ND <0.3 ND <0.3 ND <0.4 ND <0.4
Selenium 10 (50) ND <40 ND <40 ND <30 ND <30 ND <40 ND <40
Silver 50 (no MCL) ND <0.2 ND <0.2 ND <0.1 ND <0.1 ND <0.2 ND <0.2
Zinc 5,000 4.0 3.0 25.0 ND <0.9 ND <0.9 3.0 Invalid§

*Negative numbers denote an increase of metals in the treatment train; however, with the exception of the aluminum, these apparent increases are insignificant.
†NC—no change; the influent and effluent values were the same within experimental error.
‡ND—not detected
§Samples were taken from an alternate location, which was inappropriate for this test. Copper tubing, leaded solder, and brass fittings came in contact with the water
sample.

Results and discussion sedimentation basin (Table 6). Alum was less effective
Arsenic removal. Average arsenic removals of than ferric chloride at removing arsenic. Alum doses
82, 89, 86, 94, and 96 percent were achieved when of 6, 10, and 20 mg/L [or 20.2, 33.6, and 67.3 µM
3, 4, 5, 6.5, and 10 mg/L ferric chloride [or 18.5, Al(III)/L] reduced the SPW arsenic concentrations
24.7, 30.8, 40.1, and 61.7 µM Fe(III)/L] were used by 23, 45, and 69 percent, respectively. These per-
(Table 6 and Figure 2). This treatment reduced the centages correspond to reductions in arsenic con-
arsenic level from approximately 1.6 µg/L in the plant centrations from approximately 2.15 µg/L to 1.65,
influent to 0.07–0.32 µg/L in the filter effluent when 1.15, and 0.66 µg/L, respectively.
SPW and Lake Perris water were used. Most of the Previous studies have shown that the percentage
arsenic removal (48–88 percent) was achieved in the of arsenic removed by the use of alum and ferric

TABLE 6 Arsenic removal at Mills plant

Conditions Arsenic—µg/L Arsenic Removal—percent

Coagulant Filtration Removal in Removal


Dose Rate Plant Filter Filter Sedimentation in Filters Total Averaged
Coagulant mg/L gpm/sq ft Influent Influent Effluent Basins Only Removal Removal

Ferric 3 4.21 1.7 0.32 81


chloride 3.95 1.6 0.27 83 82
4 3.71 1.5 0.78 0.16 48 41 89
(Lake Perris) 2.87 1.5 0.18 88 89
5 3.8 1.7 0.21 88
3.92 1.7 0.22 87
5.86 1.3 0.30 0.20 77 8 85
6.48 1.2 0.18 85 86
6.5 4.87 1.6 0.19 0.10 88 6 94
3.44 1.6 0.09 94
5.75 1.2 0.24 0.11 80 11 91
5.94 1.3 0.14 89 92
10 3.46 1.6 0.36 0.08 78 18 95
3.55 1.6 0.07 96 95
Alum 6 5.3 2.2 1.7 23
4.78 2.1 1.6 24 23
10 4.43 2.1 1.1 48
4.71 2.1 1.2 43 45
20 5.27 2.2 0.63 71
5.14 2.1 0.69 67 69

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


APRIL 1995 121
the influent arsenic concen-
FIGURE 3 Average log particle removal in SPW with alum and ferric chloride
tration varied from 2.0 to 100
coagulation
µg/L. It is therefore reason-
able to assume that the re-
FeCl Al (SO ) . 14H O
3 2 43 2 moval percentages achieved
3 1.8 during this study will apply
when influent arsenic con-
4 Lake Perris water 1.4
centrations increase. At 20
Coagulant Dose—mg/L

5 1.9 µg/L, the highest arsenic con-


centration anticipated in
6 2.8 MWDSC’s source waters, 90
6.5 2.1 percent removal would be
required to meet an arsenic
10 1.8 MCL of 2 µg/L. This could be
10
achieved through treatment
2.5
with ferric chloride at a dose
20 2.5 of approximately 6.5 mg/L.
Alum doses much greater
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 than 20 mg/L would be nec-
essary to achieve 90 percent
Average Log Particle Removal
removal. To safely meet a 2.0-
µg/L arsenic level if 5 µg/L
(the highest value found to
chloride coagulation is independent of initial arsenic date in SPW) were initially present, 60 percent arsenic
(V) concentration over a wide range of condi- removal must be attained. This would easily be
tions.9,18,19 Cheng et al9 showed nearly constant achieved with 3.0 mg/L ferric chloride but would
arsenic removal percentages while varying the ini- require > 10 (but < 20) mg/L alum.
tial arsenic (V) concentration from 2.2 to 128 µg/L Turbidity removal. Good water quality, as mea-
when treating with 20 mg/L alum and 30 mg/L fer- sured by filter effluent turbidities, was maintained
ric chloride. Similarly, Hering et al19 showed that throughout the study at levels typical for the Mills plant
during treatment with 4.9 mg/L ferric chloride, arsenic under normal operating conditions (0.05–0.1 ntu) (Table
removal percentages remained nearly constant while 7). The turbidity removal ranged from 90 to 96.4 per-

TABLE 7 Turbidity, total suspended solids, and particle count data

Turbidity—ntu

Total
Conditions Removal TSS— Particle Count (2–200 µm)
(at mg/L number/mL
Coagulant Filtration Combined Combined
Dose Rate Plant Filter Filter Filter Filter Plant Filter Log
Coagulant mg/L gpm/sq ft Influent Influent Effluent Effluent—% Influent Influent Effluent Removal

Ferric 3 4.21 1.6 2.3 0.09 94.4 4.1 3,274 63 1.72


chloride 3.95 1.4 2.2 0.08 94.3 3,107 50 1.80
4 3.71 0.37 0.74 0.08 78.4 3.8 1,995 66 1.48
(Lake Perris) 2.87 0.37 1.1 0.05 86.5 1,819 88 1.32
3.8 1.3 1.5 0.09 93.1 1.4 2,198 28 1.89
5 3.92 0.92 1.2 0.08 91.3 2,773 59 1.67
5.86 2.8 2.5 0.10 96.4 4.2 5,077 70 1.86
6.48 0.9 3.0 0.09 90.0 4,210 33 2.11
4.87 1.6 2.5 0.10 93.8 5.7 3,537 103 1.54
6.5 3.44 1.4 1.6 0.08 94.3 3,320 10 2.54
5.75 1.7 1.7 0.07 95.9 2.6 5,580 28 2.30
5.94 1.4 1.5 0.07 95.0 5,260 56 1.98
10 3.46 1.5 1.0 0.08 94.7 5.0 3,263 88 1.57
3.55 1.3 1.3 0.09 93.1 3,173 27 2.08
Average
(SPW) 4.65 1.5 1.9 0.09 93.9 3.8 3,731 51 1.92
Alum 6 5.3 2.2 1.8 0.07 96.8 2.6 6,157 8 2.87
4.78 1.9 2.1 0.06 96.8 4,125 9 2.65
10 4.43 2.5 1.8 0.08 96.8 2.8 4,218 10 2.61
4.71 2.7 1.9 0.05 98.1 4,296 19 2.36
20 5.27 3.4 0.5 0.07 98.1 0.7 4,142 14 2.47
5.14 1.5 0.7 0.06 96.0 3,806 14 2.45
Average 4.94 2.4 1.5 0.07 97.1 2.0 4,457 12 2.57

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


122 JOURNAL AWWA
TABLE 8 Comparative arsenic, turbidity, and particle removals at bench, pilot, demonstration, and full scale
(SPW, no acid or ozone addition)*

Conditions

Coagulant Arsenic Removal—percent Turbidity Removal—percent Particle Removal (log)


Dose
Coagulant mg/L BS† PS DS FS BS PS DS FS BS PS DS FS

Ferric 3 83 82 91.7 94.0 1.30 1.76


chloride 4 (Lake Perris) 89 82.0 1.40
5 92 86 93.0 92.7 2.26 1.88
6.5 92 94.8 2.09
10 91 96 95 97.7 95.6 93.9 1.31 1.82
20 97 98 96.6 96.7 1.65
30 >97‡ 99 93 98.1 97.7 94.5 2.00 2.21
Alum 6 23 96.8 2.76
10 72 26 45 97.2 91.8 97.5 1.71 2.45
12 39 94.7 1.40
15 64 94.7 1.15
20 89 51 69 96.5 95.7 97.0 1.81 2.46
30 96 68 >67§ 95.8 95.1 94.6

*Detection limit = 0.02 mg/L, except for bench scale (0.5 mg/L) and where noted; all removals are based on samples collected from the raw water and filter effluents.
†BS—bench scale, PS—pilot scale, DS—demonstration scale, FS—full scale
‡No arsenic detected in filter effluent (detection limit = 0.5 mg/L)
§No arsenic detected in filter effluent (detection limit = 1.0 mg/L)

cent (average 93.9 ± 1.8) in the SPW ferric chloride 2.76, 2.49, and 2.46 for the 6, 10, and 20 mg/L alum
tests to achieve an average filter effluent turbidity of tests, respectively. In addition to the greater log
0.09 ntu. The alum tests achieved slightly better turbidity removals of particles during the alum tests, the filter
removal (96–98.1 percent; average 97.1 ± 0.8) and effluent particle counts were also lower throughout
averaged 0.07 ntu in the filter effluent. Most of the dif- the alum tests as compared with the ferric chloride
ference in percent turbidity removal can probably be tests (averages of 8.8–14.5 particles/mL versus aver-
attributed to the slightly higher influent turbidities dur- ages of 47.3–57.5 particles/mL in SPW). These results
ing the alum tests. The plant influent turbidities ranged are consistent with those of previous studies,22,23
from 0.92 to 2.8 ntu (average 1.49 ± 0.48) for the fer- which, at ambient pH, showed better particle removal
ric chloride SPW tests and from 1.9 to 3.4 ntu (average by alum than by ferric chloride. However, it should be
2.37 ± 0.66) in the alum tests. The warmer water tem- noted that the superior particle removal by alum dur-
peratures experienced during the alum tests (average ing the study may have resulted from water quality
23.4oC versus 12.6oC) may have also enhanced the differences such as increased temperature and influ-
effectiveness of the alum coagulation. ent particle counts during the alum testing.
TSS. The TSS measured at the filter influent fluc- Comparing arsenic, turbidity, and particle
tuated between 1.4 and 4.7 mg/L (average 3.8 mg/L) removal in bench-, pilot-, and demonstration-scale
for the ferric chloride tests, with no clear trends emerg- studies. Bench-, pilot-, and demonstration-scale
ing from the data (Table 7). TSS during the alum tests arsenic removal studies were performed at MWDSC by
ranged from 0.7 to 2.8 mg/L (average 2.0 mg/L). The Cheng and co-workers from 1992 through 1994.9,10,23
sudden drop in the TSS levels from 2.8 mg/L at 10 Key design and water quality parameters of each of the
mg/L alum to 0.7 mg/L at 20 mg/L alum indicated tests are listed in Table 1. Despite design and water
that sweep coagulation had been attained. This find- quality differences and the inherent variability in full-
ing supports previous research, which shows alum scale studies (e.g., changing flow rates), the studies
doses of 20 mg/L at pH 7.2 to be in the sweep coagu- conducted at the different scales demonstrated trends
lation zone of the alum coagulation diagram.20,21 The in arsenic, turbidity, and particle removal that were
decrease in TSS during the alum tests as compared similar to those found in this full-scale study (Table 8).
with the ferric chloride tests may also have resulted Excellent turbidity removal was achieved at all scales
from better coagulation due to warmer water tem- and dosages when either ferric chloride or alum was
peratures and slightly higher raw-water turbidity. used; however, correspondingly good arsenic removal
Particle counts. Improvement in arsenic removal was achieved at all scales and dosages only with fer-
did not correlate with increased particle removal. The ric chloride treatment. Particle removal did not cor-
particle count data presented in Table 7 and Figure 3 relate with arsenic removal.
indicate that alum may be more effective than ferric Figure 4 shows that the bench-, pilot-, and demon-
chloride at removing particles. Average log removals stration-scale tests provided reasonable predictions of
of 1.76, 1.88, 2.09, and 1.98 were achieved when arsenic removal at a full-scale plant with ferric chloride
SPW was treated with 3, 5, 6.5, and 10 mg/L ferric treatment. The 10-degree increase in water tempera-
chloride, respectively. Average log removals were ture during the alum tests in the full-scale study appears

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


APRIL 1995 123
conclusions can be drawn
FIGURE 4 Arsenic removal in SPW with bench-, pilot-, demonstration-, and full-
concerning the ability of the
scale ferric chloride coagulation
demonstration-scale plant to
predict full-scale results with
>97 alum treatment because sim-
98
97 ilar conditions were not
98 91 tested; however, the general
93 96 trends were the same.
Arsenic Removal—percent

100

Arsenic Removal—percent
100
90 90 Trace metals in sludge.
80 80
70 95 92 70 The results of the sludge analy-
60 92 60 ses are presented in Tables 3
50 50
40
86
89 83 40 and 4. The sludge samples
30 82
30 evaluated throughout the
20 20
10 10
study were all well below the
Lake
Perris current California (Title 22)
30 Bench Scale
20
water MCLs and were suitable for
Pilot Scale
Fer 10 6.5 nonhazardous waste landfills.
Dorsic Ch
e— lorid
mg/ e
5
4
Demonstration Scale Treatment of SPW with 3–10
L Full Scale mg/L ferric chloride or 6–20
3
mg/L alum should not create
hazardous waste or present a
FIGURE 5 Arsenic removal in SPW with bench-, pilot-, demonstration-, and full-
disposal problem. However, if
scale alum coagulation
current MCLs for hazardous
waste are lowered, or if poten-
96 tial new sources of water con-
89 taining high levels of arsenic
100
are developed by MWDSC,

Arsenic Removal—percent
Arsenic Removal—percent

100 then this issue may need to be


90 68 90
80 >67 72
80 revisited. SPW has relatively
70
70 51
60
low arsenic concentrations;
60 69 64
50 50 other utilities with higher
40 40 arsenic concentrations in their
30 30
20 39
26 20 source waters may find that
10 45 10 compliance with a more strin-
gent drinking water MCL for
Bench Scale
30 23 arsenic will create a hazardous
20 Pilot Scale waste disposal problem.
Alu 15
mD
ose
12 Demonstration Scale Trace metals in water.
—m 10
g/L 6 Full Scale Results of the analyses of trace
metals in water are shown in
Table 5. All metal concentra-
tions in the reservoir inlet water
to have had no effect on the relative efficacy of alum were well below the regulated levels. Few trends, aside
for removing arsenic. In the pilot- and demonstration- from the previously discussed arsenic removals, emerged
scale studies, there was little temperature change from these data. Because of the relatively high
throughout the testing, yet when the arsenic removal (7.18–7.65) pH of coagulation, aluminum levels
capabilities of alum and ferric chloride were compared, increased in the filter effluent water with alum treat-
they showed the same trends as the full-scale studies. ment. When alum has been applied at a lower pH,
The arsenic removals achieved at the different which coincides with the minimum solubility of alu-
scales were more variable with alum treatment (Fig- minum, its residual in the finished water is lowered.9
ure 5). Better arsenic removal was achieved at the The slight increases (0.6 and 1.0 µg/L) in copper dur-
bench scale than at the full scale (72 and 89 percent ing the alum tests were probably caused by copper
compared with 45 and 69 percent at 10 and 20 mg/L impurities in the alum. Copper levels decreased slightly
doses of alum). The pilot-scale tests removed less (0.8–0.9 µg/L) during each of the ferric chloride tests.
arsenic than both the full-scale and the bench-scale Iron and manganese were removed with both coagu-
tests, removing only 26, 51, and 68 percent at 10, lants. Many of the apparent increases and decreases in
20, and 30 mg/L alum, respectively. These results are metal levels were insignificant, based on detection lim-
consistent with Sorg’s observations that better arsenic its and quality control analyses. Copper, lead, and zinc
removal is achieved at the bench scale than at the results from the 20-mg/L alum test were invalidated
pilot scale with alum treatment, whereas bench- and because the alternative sampling point used for this
pilot-scale results are similar for iron coagulation.24 No sample exposed the water to these metals.

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


124 JOURNAL AWWA
the first treatment scenario
TABLE 9 Impact of elevated coagulant dosage on filters will have no cost impact, and
the second scenario will
Average Average
Filter Average Head Loss increase costs modestly. The
Coagulant Run Terminal Accumulation additional O&M costs that
Dose Lengths Headloss Rate would be incurred at the Mills
Coagulant mg/L h ft fph
plant to achieve approxi-
Ferric chloride 3 13.2 6.4 0.4 mately 90 percent arsenic
4 16.6 6.1 0.3
5 9.9 6.1 0.5
removal are shown in Table
6.5 18.5 6.2 0.3 10. Cost increases will result
10 23.5 5.8 0.2 from increasing the ferric
Alum 6 24.9 5.8 0.2
10 24.4 6.0 0.2 chloride and caustic soda
20 27.0 5.4 0.2 dosages. When 6.5 mg/L fer-
ric chloride is used in SPW, an
TABLE 10 Additional O&M costs for arsenic removal using 6.5 mg/L ferric additional 2.1 mg/L caustic
chloride at 134 mgd soda is necessary to raise the
pH to approximately 8.3 to
Unit Cost Additional Cost restabilize the water. Energy
Cost Item $ $/year
costs will also increase at the
Ferric chloride 268/ton* 191,000 plant. Significant contributors
Caustic soda 292/ton* 125,000
Energy 0.07/kW 23,000
to this increase include the
Sludge hauling and disposal 60/ton 65,500 additional electrical costs for
Total additional cost 8.28/mil gal 404,500 the vertical turbine pumps,
*Dry-weight basis which return reclaimed water
back to the head of the plant,
and the sump lift pumps,
which transport dirty wash-
Operational impact. Increasing the dosages of fer- water and sedimentation basin sludge to the lagoons.
ric chloride and alum had little impact on plant oper- Finally, the cost for sludge disposal and hauling will
ation (Table 9). Filter LORs increased at the higher fer- also increase slightly because of the ferric chloride
ric chloride dosages and during the alum tests. Filter dosage increase. Overall, the Mills plant O&M costs
terminal head loss was fairly consistent throughout the would rise by approximately $404,500/year ($8.28/mil
study. During most of the testing, the filters were back- gal) to remove approximately 90 percent of the arsenic
washed because of accumulated head loss. For the 20- using 6.5 mg/L ferric chloride.
mg/L alum test, the filters were backwashed because the
filter LORs approached 30 h. The longer filter LORs Conclusions
and lower rates of head loss accumulation during the If a low arsenic MCL is promulgated, a higher fer-
alum tests probably resulted from the lower solids load- ric chloride dosage will allow compliance. Ferric chlo-
ing of the filters, as measured by TSS (Table 7). The ride doses of approximately 6.5 and 3.0 mg/L will
sedimentation basin sludge was removed during the remove approximately 90 and >80 percent of the
normal weekly traveling-bridge run. Good effluent arsenic, respectively. Alum doses of 20 mg/L removed
water quality was maintained throughout the study. approximately 69 percent of the arsenic; higher
Cost of arsenic removal treatment. Data from dosages would be necessary to remove 90 percent.
this study indicate that ferric chloride is the preferred On a metal-equivalent basis, Fe(III) removed more
coagulant for arsenic removal. Therefore, cost esti- arsenic than Al(III) in the pH range from 7.18–7.8.
mates were prepared for two ferric chloride treatment Analyses of the trace metals, in sludge and in water,
scenarios at the Mills plant: (1) operating with 3.0 and turbidity removal indicated that current solid
mg/L to remove >80 percent of the arsenic and (2) waste and water quality standards would be met by
operating with 6.5 mg/L to remove approximately 90 MWDSC during arsenic removal when current sources
percent of the arsenic. At these moderate doses, no were treated. However, if potential new sources con-
capital expenditures would be required (e.g., expand- taining high levels of arsenic are developed, the con-
ing the chemical storage and feed systems, upgrad- centrations of trace metals in the sludge will have to
ing the sludge processing facilities, or implementing be reevaluated. Other utilities are cautioned to conduct
additional corrosion control measures). All operations their own sludge analyses to determine whether they
and maintenance (O&M) costs assume that the plant can simultaneously meet both a lower arsenic MCL for
is operating at an average flow of 134 mgd. This num- drinking water and MCLs for hazardous waste. Further
ber is an estimate of the average plant flow in 1997, particle counting work with alum and ferric chloride
the currently anticipated effective date of the arsenic is needed to determine whether adequate particle
rule. All cost estimates are in 1994 dollars. removal can be achieved when using ferric chloride.
Currently, the Mills plant operates with a ferric Arsenic removal studies conducted at bench, pilot,
chloride dose of approximately 3 mg/L. Therefore, and demonstration scales produced trends similar to

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


APRIL 1995 125
those found in this full-scale study. Results from the lations. California Administrative Code. CDHS San.
ferric chloride tests were more comparable among Engrg. Sec., Sacramento.
the different scales than were the alum test results. 15. USEPA. Method 6020: Inductively Coupled
Plasma–Mass Spectrometry (Revision 0, Pro-
Acknowledgment posed Update 2). Test Methods for Evaluating
This study was accomplished with the help of many Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods. SW-
people. Dave Snyder, Joe Thomas, and the Mills plant 846. USEPA Envir. Monitoring Systems Lab., Las
operators graciously accommodated the testing effort. Vegas, Nev. (3rd ed., Nov. 1992).
Drew Simon and Alberto Montilla collected most of the 16. USEPA. Method 200.8: Determination of Trace
samples and ran the bulk of the analyses. Mary Elements in Waters and Wastes by Inductively
Romero cheerfully put up with the many requests for Coupled Plasma–Mass Spectrometry (Revision
nonroutine samples, and Vicki Norman straightened 5.4, EMMC Version). Methods for the Determi-
out the computer mess when the samples got out of nation of Metals in Environmental Samples—
hand. Warren Schimpff, Robert Alvarez, Julia Conrad, Supplement 1. EPA/600/R-94/111. Offc. of Res.
Suzie Teague, Millie Lo, and Melinda Tan provided & Devel., Washington, D.C. (May 1994).
invaluable assistance with the analyses of the water 17. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
quality samples. Robert Cheng provided data for the Wastewater. APHA, AWWA, and WEF, Washing-
previous arsenic removal studies at MWDSC, and ton, D.C. (18th ed., 1992).
Mike Claisse was instrumental in getting this project 18. EDWARDS, M. Chemistry of Arsenic Removal Dur-
off the ground. Finally, Robert La Londe, Peggy Kim- ing Coagulation and Fe–Mn Oxidation. Jour.
ball, and Stuart Krasner helped to put it all on paper. AWWA, 86:9:64 (Sept. 1994).
19. HERING, J.; CHEN, P.-Y.; & WILKIE, J. Final Report
References to The Metropolitan Water District of Southern
1. PONTIUS, F. W. Crafting a New Arsenic Rule. Jour. California on Speciation and Matrix Effects on
AWWA, 86:9:6 (Sept. 1994). Arsenic Removal From Synthetic Freshwaters.
2. PONTIUS, F. W.; BROWN, K. G.; & CHEN, C.-J. Health Civil & Envir. Engrg. Dept., Univ. of California,
Implications of Arsenic in Drinking Water. Jour. Los Angeles (Dec. 1994).
AWWA, 86:9:52 (Sept. 1994). 20. EDWARDS, G. A. & AMIRTHARAJAH, A. Removing
3. SMITH, A. H. ET AL. Cancer Risks From As in Drink- Color Caused by Humic Acids. Jour. AWWA,
ing Water. Envir. Health Perspect., 97:259 (1992). 77:3:50 (March 1985).
4. CHEN, C.-J. ET AL. Cancer Potential in Liver, Lung, 21. Trace Inorganic Substances Research Commit-
Bladder and Kidney Due to Ingested Inorganic tee. A Review of Solid–Solution Interactions and
Arsenic in Drinking Water. Brit. Jour. Cancer, Implications for the Control of Trace Inorganic
66:888 (1992). Materials in Water Treatment. Jour. AWWA,
5. REID, J. Arsenic Occurrence: USEPA Seeks Clearer 80:10:56 (Oct. 1988).
Picture. Jour. AWWA, 86:9:44 (Sept. 1994). 22. CHENG, R. C.; WANG, H.-C.; & LIANG, S. Metro-
6. SHEN, Y. S. Study of Arsenic Removal From Drink- politan’s Experiences With Arsenic Removal by
ing Water. Jour. AWWA, 65:8:543 (Aug. 1973). Enhanced Coagulation. Proc. 1993 AWWA
7. GULLEDGE, J. H. & O’CONNOR, J. T. Removal of WQTC, Miami, Fla.
Arsenic (V) From Water by Adsorption on Alu- 23. BUDD, G. C.; IVERSEN, G. A.; & LAWLER, A. J. Eval-
minum and Ferric Hydroxides. Jour. AWWA, uation of Enhanced Coagulation as a Multidi-
65:8:548 (Aug. 1973). mensional/Multiple Goal Process. Proc. 1994
8. SORG, T. J. & LOGSDON, G. S. Treatment Technol- AWWA Enhanced Coagulation Res. Workshop,
ogy to Meet the Interim Primary Drinking Water Charleston, S.C.
Regulations for Inorganics: Part 2. Jour. AWWA, 24. SORG, T. J. Removal of Arsenic From Drinking
70:7:379 (July 1978). Water by Conventional Treatment Methods. Proc.
9. CHENG, R. C. ET AL. Enhanced Coagulation for 1993 AWWA WQTC, Miami, Fla.
Arsenic Removal. Jour. AWWA, 86:9:79 (1994).
10. CHENG, R. C. In-house, unpublished study data. About the authors: Karen N. Scott
11. FERGUSON, J. F. & GAVIS, J. A Review of the Arsenic is an associate engineer at the Metro-
Cycle in Natural Waters. Water Res., 6:1259 (1972). politan Water District of Southern Cal-
12. LOGSDON, G. S.; SORG, T. J.; & SYMONS, M. Removal ifornia (MWDSC), 700 Moreno Ave.,
of Heavy Metals by Conventional Treatment. La Verne, CA 91750. Scott is a grad-
Proc. 16th Water Quality Conference. Univ. Bull. uate of the University of California,
71, Univ. of Illinois, College of Engrg., Urbana– Irvine, with a BS in biology and of
Champaign (1974). the University of Southern California
13. NORTHINGTON, D. J.; HOVANEC, B. M.; & REICH, K. (Los Angeles) with an MS in environmental engineering.
Arsenic in Groundwater by ICPMS and Hydride Her work has been published previously by Ozone Science &
Generation–ICPMS. Proc. 1993 AWWA WQTC. Engineering. James F. Green is an associate engineer, Hoang
14. State of California Department of Health Ser- D. Do is a plant laboratory supervisor, and Stephen J. McLean
vices (CDHS). Title 22, California Code of Regu- is water purification engineer, all at MWDSC.

Copyright (C) 1995 American Water Works Association


126 JOURNAL AWWA