4.8 Article

Impact of water treatment on the contribution of faucets to dissolved and particulate lead release at the tap

期刊

WATER RESEARCH
卷 46, 期 16, 页码 5205-5216

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.watres.2012.07.002

关键词

Drinking water; Corrosion; Lead; Pilot-study; Brass; Dezincification; Galvanic corrosion; Faucet

资金

  1. Canadian Water Network
  2. City of Montreal, Ville de Laval and JMI-Veolia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A field study was performed in a building complex to investigate the extent and sources of lead (Pb) release in tap water and brass material was found to be the main contributor in the very first draw (250 mL). Based on these results, a pilot installation was built to study Pb leaching from old and new faucets in the presence and absence of a connection to Cu piping. Four water quality conditions were tested: i) no treatment; ii) addition of 0.8 mg P/L of orthophosphate; iii) pH adjustment to 8.4; and iv) adjustment to a higher chloride to sulfate mass ratio (CSMR; ratio from 0.3 to 2.9). Pb concentrations in samples taken from the faucets without treatment ranged from 1 to 52 mu g/L, with a mean of 11 mu g/L. The addition of orthophosphate @ 0.8 mg P/L (OrthoP) was the most effective treatment for all types of faucets tested. On average, OrthoP reduced mean Pb leaching by 41%, and was especially effective for new double faucets (70%). In the presence of orthophosphates, the relative proportion of particulate Pb (Pbpart) (>0.45 mu m) increased from 31% to 54%. However, OrthoP was not efficient to reduce Zn release. The higher CSMR condition was associated with greater dezincification of yellow brass but not of red brass. Corrosion control treatment influenced Pb concentration equilibrium, directly impacting maximal exposure. Significantly higher Pb release (3 fold) was observed for 1 of the 8 faucets connected to Cu exposed to high CSMR water, suggesting the presence of galvanic corrosion. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据