4.8 Article

Assessing microbiological water quality in drinking water distribution systems with disinfectant residual using flow cytometry

Journal

WATER RESEARCH
Volume 65, Issue -, Pages 224-234

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2014.07.029

Keywords

Drinking water; Distribution system; Disinfection; Chlorine; Chloramine; Regrowth potential

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Flow cytometry (FCM) as a diagnostic tool for enumeration and characterization of microorganisms is rapidly gaining popularity and is increasingly applied in the water industry. In this study we applied the method to obtain a better understanding of total and intact cell concentrations in three different drinking water distribution systems (one using chlorine and two using chloramines as secondary disinfectants). Chloramine tended to result in lower proportions of intact cells than chlorine over a wider residual range, in agreement with existing knowledge that chloramine suppresses regrowth more efficiently. For chlorinated systems, free chlorine concentrations above 0.5 mg L-1 were found to be associated with relatively low proportions of intact cells, whereas lower disinfectant levels could result in substantially higher percentages of intact cells. The threshold for chlorinated systems is in good agreement with guidelines from the World Health Organization. The fact that the vast majority of samples failing the regulatory coliform standard also showed elevated proportions of intact cells suggests that this parameter might be useful for evaluating risk of failure. Another interesting parameter for judging the microbiological status of water, the biological regrowth potential, greatly varied among different finished waters providing potential help for investment decisions. For its measurement, a simple method was introduced that can easily be performed by water utilities with FCM capability. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available