Comparison of Physical Sampling and Real-Time Monitoring Strategies for Designing a Contamination Warning System in a Drinking Water Distribution System

Protecting Water Supply Critical Infrastructure: An Overview

“…The goal of a CWS is to detect contamination incidents early enough to allow for an effective response that minimizes further public health or economic impacts. Janke et al (2006) showed that a CWS based on real-time monitors could be more effective at reducing public health impacts than sampling-based strategies and that response time was critical to reducing impacts. A CWS is defined as a proactive approach that uses advanced monitoring technologies and enhanced surveillance activities to collect, integrate, analyze, and communicate information to provide a timely warning of potential contamination incidents.…”

Securing Water and Wastewater Systems

“…Numerous general or Salmonella-specific incidence models exist. Murray et al (2006) proposed a general susceptible, infected, and recovered population model of the spatial and temporal disease distribution in a WDS. Chandrasekaran (2006) modeled Salmonella incidence from contaminated water storage tanks, Danyluk et al (2006) estimated the risks of consuming raw almonds and Mena et al (2008) estimated the risks from pipe cross connections.…”

“…Chandrasekaran (2006) modeled Salmonella incidence from contaminated water storage tanks, Danyluk et al (2006) estimated the risks of consuming raw almonds and Mena et al (2008) estimated the risks from pipe cross connections. Murray et al (2006) estimated mortality while the others only estimated incidence. Herrick et al (2011) developed a Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) model to estimate illness duration, physician, and emergency room visits, inpatient hospitalizations, mortality, and resultant costs for the Gideon, Missouri Salmonella waterborne disease outbreak.…”

“…Response delay time can be defined as the time period from the first uncertain detection to the cessation of any additional public health consequences. Numerous researchers have examined the influence of response time on the magnitude of public health consequences (Janke et al 2006;Skadsen et al 2008;Murray et al 2008) and showed that the effectiveness of a CWS to reduce public health exposures can decrease by 50 % or more when response delay increases from 12 to 48 h. Murray et al (2008) show that the performance of a CWS can decrease substantially (as much as 70 %) when the response delay time is increased from 6 to 24 h. It is hard to imagine how response could be initiated in sufficient time without a continuous, real-time understanding of system flows and chemical (water quality) transport. Bristow and Brumbelow (2006) examine the ''temporal and procedural space'' between the detection of anomalous water quality event to the response decision(s) which result in the cessation of individuals ingesting contaminated tap water.…”

A graphical procedure for sensor‐placement guidance for small utilities

“…Research efforts aimed at improving water security and minimizing threats to drinking water systems have led to the development of contamination warning systems (CWS) (Janke et al, 2006). Research efforts aimed at improving water security and minimizing threats to drinking water systems have led to the development of contamination warning systems (CWS) (Janke et al, 2006).…”