4.5 Article

Optimizing booster chlorination in water distribution networks: a water quality index approach

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT
Volume 185, Issue 10, Pages 8035-8050

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-013-3153-z

Keywords

Free residual chlorine; Water quality; Water distribution network; EPANET; Water quality index

Funding

  1. National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC)
  2. RES'EAU-WaterNET

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The optimization of chlorine dosage and the number of booster locations is an important aspect of water quality management in distribution networks. Booster chlorination helps to maintain uniformity and adequacy of free residual chlorine concentration, essential for safeguarding against microbiological contamination. Higher chlorine dosages increase free residual chlorine concentration but generate harmful by-products, in addition to taste and odor complaints. It is possible to address these microbial, chemical, and aesthetic water quality issues through free residual chlorine concentration. Estimating a water quality index (WQI) based on regulatory chlorine thresholds for microbial, chemical, and aesthetics criteria can help engineers make intelligent decisions. An innovative scheme for maintaining adequate residual chlorine with optimal chlorine dosages and numbers of booster locations was established based on a proposed WQI. The City of Kelowna (BC, Canada) water distribution network served to demonstrate the application of the proposed scheme. Temporal free residual chlorine concentration predicted with EPANET software was used to estimate the WQI, later coupled with an optimization scheme. Preliminary temporal and spatial analyses identified critical zones (relatively poor water quality) in the distribution network. The model may also prove useful for small or rural communities where free residual chlorine is considered as the only water quality criterion.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available