Evaluating GAC for Trihalomethane Control

McGuire, Michael J.; Davis, Marshall K.; Tate, Carol H.; Aieta, E. Marco; Howe, Elaine W.; Crittenden, John C.

doi:10.1002/j.1551-8833.1991.tb07084.x

Cited by 20 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In other words, as the target DBP concentration (i.e., MCL) decreases, the cost of an operational safety factor will increase dramatically. Even so, this study shows that the cost of using EC and PAC to meet a stringent TTHM MCL in CRW is considerably less than the cost of using GAC 16 …”

Section: Optimization Analysismentioning

confidence: 77%

Optimizing enhanced coagulation with PAC: A case study

Najm¹,

Tate²,

Selby³

1998

Journal AWWA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Enhanced coagulation plus PAC achieves required NOM removals at minimum cost. Enhanced coagulation can remove only a finite fraction of the natural organic matter (NOM) in water. Supplementing enhanced coagulation with powdered activated carbon (PAC) increases the removal of NOM and disinfection by‐product (DBP) precursors. The removal of total organic carbon (TOC) and DBP precursors from Colorado River water was evaluated in an experimental matrix of jar tests using four ferric chloride dosages and four PAC dosages. On the basis of the chemical dosages used, the cost of each combination of coagulant and PAC addition was estimated. For a given TOC removal goal, a particular combination of ferric chloride and PAC dosages resulted in the lowest chemical costs. The analysis also indicated that this same dosage combination would produce the least sludge at the water treatment plant. This study shows that the combination of a chemical coagulant and PAC can be more cost‐effective than a chemical coagulant alone for meeting the requirements of Stage 1 of the Disinfectants/DBP (D/DBP) Rule. In addition, the combination of a chemical coagulant and PAC may be a cost‐effective alternative to granular activated carbon for meeting the requirements of Stage 2 of the D/DBP Rule.

show abstract

Section: Optimization Analysismentioning

confidence: 77%

Optimizing enhanced coagulation with PAC: A case study

Najm¹,

Tate²,

Selby³

1998

Journal AWWA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In preparation for the pending disinfectant/dis-infection by-product (D/DBP) regulations, MWDSC initiated a two-year pilot study in 1986 to evaluate the use of granular activated carbon (GAC) at its WTPs for trihalomethane (THM) control. 1,2 The results of this treatability study indicate that GAC is capable of reducing total THMs (TTHMs) to levels as low as 10 µg/L. This treatability study, however, did not evaluate the feasibility and economics of siting and constructing GAC adsorption and regeneration facilities in Southern California.…”

Section: Siting a Large Gac Regeneration Facilitymentioning

confidence: 96%

“…CUR ϭ (2) in which EBCT is the empty bed contact time (min), RF is the regeneration frequency (days), 1,000 is a conversion factor (1,000 gal/mil gal), 26 is a conversion factor (lb/cu ft), 1,400 is a conversion factor (min/day), and 7.48 is a conversion factor (gal/cu ft).…”

Section: Estimation Of Emission Rates From Gac Regeneration Facilitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Siting a large GAC regeneration facility

Sun¹,

Welch²,

Owen³

et al. 1996

Journal AWWA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Researchers at a large Southern California utility considered hazardous waste and air quality regulations as well as public concerns, space allocations, and estimated costs. In anticipation of future disinfectant/disinfection by‐product regulations, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California has evaluated the issues associated with siting a large granular activated carbon (GAC) regeneration facility in Southern California. This study identified significant issues related to GAC regeneration, including process criteria, air quality effects, management of spent GAC, space constraints and costs, and public acceptance.

show abstract

“…During drinking-water treatment, NOM can be removed intact (i.e., separation) during coagulation (33,34), granular activated carbon (GAC) adsorption (35,36), membrane filtration (37,38), or biological degradation (39,40), or it can be transformed by oxidants such as ozone (40) or as part of an advanced oxidation process (41,42). Characterization of NOM is essential in understanding how best to remove NOM (10).…”

Section: Nom Characterization and Reactivitymentioning

confidence: 99%