Changes in water treatment processes not only affect
primary objectives but also bring about secondary
benefits or detriments. This article examines the types
of secondary (and possibly unintended) effects that can
be triggered by implementation of various column
treatment technologies for arsenic removal.
To meet the new arsenic standards, many small
utilities may select strong-base anion exchange, activated
alumina, or granular ferric hydroxide/granular
ferric oxide media because of their lower capital cost.
However, these technologies can result in lead dissolution
from brass fittings and solder, higher levels of
iron corrosion, and an increase in copper pitting of
plumbing.
When making their decisions about which process to
implement for arsenic removal, water providers should
consider the secondary effects of implementing certain
treatment processes. For those utilities that already
have these treatment processes in place, this study will
enable them to be proactive in checking for possible
corrosion problems in the distribution system or in
consumers' homes. Includes 95 references, tables, figures.
| Edition : | Vol. 100 - No. 12 |
| Number of Pages : | 14 |
| Published : | 12/01/2008 |
