September 2005
NSF 05/13b/EPADWCTR
EPA/600/R-05/108
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Removal of Chemical Contaminants in
Drinking Water
Kinetico Incorporated
Pall/Kinetico Purefecta™ Drinking Water
Treatment System
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
ET
VAIVI ^^
V
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: POINT-OF-USE DRINKING WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
APPLICATION: REMOVAL OF CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING
WATER
PRODUCT NAME: PALL/KINETICO PUREFECTA™
COMPANY: KINETICO INCORPORATED
ADDRESS: 10845 KINSMAN ROAD PHONE: 800-944-9283
NEWBURY, OH 44065 FAX: 440-564-9541
EMAIL: CUSTSERV@KINETICO.COM
NSF International (NSF) manages the Drinking Water Systems (DWS) Center under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. The
DWS Center recently evaluated the performance of the Pall/Kinetico Purefecta™ point-of-use (POU)
drinking water treatment system. NSF performed all of the testing activities, and also authored the
verification report and this verification statement. The verification report contains a comprehensive
description of the test.
EPA created the ETV Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV
Program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and
more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-
reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting,
purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, stakeholder groups
(consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters), and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing
test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as
appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF 05/13b/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2005
VS-i
-------
ABSTRACT
The Pall/Kinetico Purefecta™ POU drinking water treatment system was tested for removal of aldicarb,
benzene, cadmium, carbofuran, cesium, chloroform, dichlorvos, dicrotophos, fenamiphos, mercury,
mevinphos, oxamyl, strontium, and strychnine. The Purefecta™ employs several components: a reverse
osmosis (RO) membrane, carbon filters, and a bacteria/virus removal filter to treat drinking water.
Treated water is stored in a three-gallon storage tank. The system was first tested with only the RO
membrane component in place. The target challenge concentration of each chemical for each RO
membrane test was 1 mg/L. Following the RO membrane challenges, the post-membrane carbon filter
component was challenged alone with each chemical that the RO membrane did not remove to below 10
Hg/L, except for cesium, which is not well removed by carbon. The target feed concentration of each
chemical to a carbon filter component was the maximum effluent level measured during the RO
membrane tests.
A total of 20 RO membrane components were tested, divided into ten pairs. Each pair of membranes was
tested with only one of the ten organic chemicals because of concern that a chemical could compromise
the integrity of the membrane material or membrane seals. One pair of RO membrane components was
also challenged with the inorganic chemicals. Each RO membrane chemical challenge was conducted
over a one-day period. Influent and effluent samples were collected during the operation period, and also
the next morning. Post-membrane carbon filter challenges were conducted over a 15-hour duration. Two
filters were tested for each chemical challenge, and each pair was only used for one challenge. Influent
and effluent samples were collected at the beginning, middle, and end of the challenge period.
The Purefecta™ system as a whole, considering both the RO membrane challenge and post-membrane
carbon filter challenge results combined, reduced all of the challenge chemicals by 99% or more, except
for cesium.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description was provided by the manufacturer, and has not been verified.
The Purefecta™ is a five-stage POU drinking water treatment system. It employs activated carbon filters
and an RO membrane to remove chemical contaminants from drinking water, and a mechanical filtration
"biofilter" to remove microorganisms. The system includes a three-gallon maximum capacity pressurized
bladder tank for storing the treated water, and a faucet to mount on the kitchen sink. The biofilter is
manufactured by the Pall Corporation and supplied to Kinetico, who manufactures the system.
The influent water first passes through a pre-membrane sediment or carbon filter, and then through the
RO membrane. The permeate water travels through the first stage of the Pall biofilter for virus removal,
and then into the storage tank. When the flow of water into the system is started, treated water will be
continually produced until the storage tank is nearly full. At that time, the water pressure in the tank
activates an automatic shut-off device, stopping the flow of water through the system. After a portion of
the water is dispensed from the storage tank, the shut-off device deactivates, allowing water to again flow
into the system until the storage tank is nearly full. When the user opens the faucet, the partially treated
water exits the storage tank, passes through the post-membrane carbon filter, and finally through the
bacteria removal portion of the Pall biofilter. The Purefecta™ is designed to produce approximately four
gallons of reject water for every gallon of treated water.
NSF 05/13b/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2005
VS-ii
-------
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site
The testing site was the Drinking Water Treatment Systems Laboratory at NSF in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
A description of the test apparatus can be found in the test/QA plan and verification report. The testing
was conducted August through November of 2004.
Methods and Procedures
Verification testing followed the procedures and methods detailed in the Test/QA Plan for Verification
Testing of the Pall/Kinetico Purefecta™ Point-of-Use Drinking Water Treatment System for Removal of
Chemical Contamination Agents. Because any contamination event would likely be short-lived, the
challenge period for each chemical lasted only one day. Long-term performance over the life of the
membrane was not investigated.
The system was first tested with only the RO membrane component in place. The complete Purefecta™
system, including the storage tank, was used for these tests, but empty cartridges were used in place of the
carbon and bacteria/virus filters. A total of 20 RO membranes were challenged with the chemicals in
Table 1. The target challenge concentration for each chemical was 1 mg/L. The 20 RO membrane
components were divided into ten pairs. Each pair was tested with only one of the ten organic chemicals
because of concern that a chemical, especially benzene or chloroform, could compromise the integrity of
the membrane material or membrane seals. One pair of the RO membrane components was also
challenged with the inorganic chemicals. The inorganic chemical challenges were conducted prior to the
organic challenges to eliminate the possibility of damage to the membranes that could bias the inorganic
chemical challenge results. Reduction of total dissolved solids (TDS) was also measured to evaluate
whether any organic chemicals damaged the membrane material or membrane seals during the challenges.
Table 1. Challenge Chemicals
Organic Chemicals Inorganic Chemicals
Aldicarb Cadmium Chloride
Benzene Cesium Chloride (nonradioactive isotope)
Carbofuran Mercuric Chloride
Chloroform Strontium Chloride (nonradioactive isotope)
Dicrotophos
Dichlorvos
Fenamiphos
Mevinphos
Oxamyl
Strychnine
Prior to chemical challenge testing, the RO membrane components were service-conditioned for seven
days by feeding the systems test water without any chemical spikes. After completion of the conditioning
period, the membranes were subjected to a TDS reduction test using sodium chloride to verify that they
were operating properly. Each RO membrane chemical challenge was conducted over a one-day period.
The systems were operated for six tank-fill periods, and then were allowed to rest overnight. Influent and
effluent samples were collected at start-up, after the 3rd tank fill, after the 5th tank fill, and the next
morning after the membranes rested under pressure overnight.
NSF 05/13b/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2005
VS-iii
-------
Following the RO membrane challenges, post-membrane carbon filters were challenged with the
chemicals that the RO membrane did not remove to below 10 ng/L, except for cesium, which is not well
removed by carbon. The carbon filters were attached to a separate manifold that was of the same design
as the manifold in the full system. The pre-membrane carbon filter was not tested because it is only
designed to remove chlorine to protect the RO membrane. Two carbon filter components were tested for
each chemical challenge, and each filter was only used for one challenge. The target challenge
concentrations were the maximum effluent levels measured during the RO membrane tests.
Prior to testing, each carbon filter was service-conditioned by feeding water containing chloroform to
simulate the potential chemical loading on the carbon halfway through the filter's effective lifespan. The
target chloroform concentration was 300 ± 90 |~ig/L, which is the influent challenge concentration for the
VOC reduction test in NSF/ANSI Standard 53 (chloroform is the surrogate challenge chemical for the
test). The filters were operated at a flow rate of 0.5 gallons per minute (gpm) for 250 gallons (Kinetico's
design capacity for the filter is 500 gallons).
The post-membrane carbon filter challenges were 15 hours in duration. Influent and effluent samples
were collected at the beginning, middle, and end of the challenge period. The carbon filters were
operated on an "on/off operation cycle where the "on" portion was the time required to empty the system
storage tank when full, and the "off portion was the time required to fill the storage tank.
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
The results of the RO membrane challenges are presented in Table 2. The RO membrane treatment
process removed 96% or more of all challenge chemicals except mercury and chloroform. The TDS
reduction by each membrane component for all challenge tests was 94% or higher, and the TDS levels in
the treated water samples did not increase through any of the challenge periods. This indicates that none
of the chemicals compromised the performance of the membrane components to a degree that could be
detected.
Table 2. RO Membrane Challenge Data
Mean Influent Mean Effluent Percent
Chemical (|ig/L) (|qg/L) Reduction (%)
Cadmium
Cesium
Mercury
Strontium
Aldicarb
Benzene
Carbofuran
Chloroform
Dichlorvos
Dicrotophos
Fenamiphos
Mevinphos
Oxamyl
Strychnine
1000
1000
1100
850
950
1100
950
1100
1100
790
740
1400
980
1100
1.9
40
680
2
7
48
6
170
23
ND(10)
2
19
5
18
>99
96
38
99
>99
96
>99
85
98
99
>99
99
>99
98
NSF 05/13b/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2005
VS-iv
-------
The post-membrane carbon filter components were challenged with mercury, benzene, chloroform,
dichlorvos, mevinphos, and strychnine, based on the criteria that the RO membrane challenge effluents
were above 10 |~ig/L. The target challenge levels were the maximum effluent levels measured during the
RO membrane challenges. The carbon filters were operated at 0.8 gpm on an operation cycle where the
"on" portion was four minutes and thirty seconds, and the "off portion was one hour and ten minutes.
The carbon challenge results are shown below in Table 3. The carbon filters reduced all substances to
non-detectible levels, except for mercury. However, the mean effluent value for mercury was only 2.7
Hg/L, which still gives a percent reduction greater than 99%. Note that the percent reduction of
strychnine was limited by the detection limit for the chemical.
The RO membrane and carbon challenge data combined shows that the two treatment technologies
working in concert within the Purefecta™ system removed 99% or more of all of the challenge chemicals,
except for cesium.
Complete descriptions of the verification testing results are included in the verification report.
Table 3. Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenge Data
Mean Influent Mean Effluent Percent
Chemical (|qg/L) (ng/L) Reduction (%)
Mercury
Benzene
Chloroform
Dichlorvos
Mevinphos
Strychnine
960
83
320
29
20
31
2.7
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND(5)
>99
>99
>99
>99
99
84
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
NSF ETV and QA staff monitored the testing activities to ensure that the testing was in compliance with
the test plan. NSF also conducted a data quality audit of 100% of the data. Please see the verification
report referenced below for more QA/QC information.
NSF 05/13b/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2005
VS-v
-------
Original signed by Andrew Avel, 9/26/05 Original signed by Robert Ferguson, 10/5/05
Andrew P. Avel Date Robert Ferguson Date
Acting Director Vice President
National Homeland Security Research Center Water Systems
United States Environmental Protection NSF International
Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no expressed
or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will
always operate as verified. The end-user is solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable
federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade names, or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products. This report is not an NSF
Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the test protocol, the verification statement, and the verification report (NSF report # NSF
04/13b/EPADWCTR) are available from the following sources:
(NOTE: Not all of the appendices are included in the verification report. The appendices are available
from NSF upon request.)
1. ETV Drinking Water Systems Center Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2. NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/etv/dws/dws_reports.html, and from
http://www.nsf.org/etv/dws/dws_project_documents.html (electronic copy)
EPA web site: https://www.epa.gov/etv (electronic copy)
NSF 05/13b/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2005
VS-vi
-------
September 2005
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Removal of Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water
Kinetico Incorporated
TM
Pall/Kinetico Purefecta Drinking Water Treatment System
Prepared by:
NSF International
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jeffrey Q. Adams, Project Officer
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) through its Office of Research and
Development has financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under
Cooperative Assistance Agreement No. R-82833301. This verification effort was supported by
the Drinking Water Systems (DWS) Center, operating under the Environmental Technology
Verification (ETV) Program. This document has been peer-reviewed, reviewed by NSF and
USEPA, and recommended for public release.
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is charged by Congress with
protecting the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national
environmental laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a
compatible balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and
nurture life. To meet this mandate, USEPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base
necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center
for investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term
research plan. It is published and made available by USEPA's Office of Research and
Development to assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
Table of Contents
Verification Statement VS-i
Title Page i
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vi
Abbreviations and Acronyms vii
Acknowlegements viii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Purpose and Operation 1
1.2 Purpose of Verification 1
1.3 Development of Test/Quality Assurance (QA) Plan 1
1.4 Challenge Chemicals 2
1.5 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 2
1.5.1 NSF International 2
1.5.2 Kinetico Inc 3
1.5.3 Pall Corporation 3
1.5.4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3
Chapter 2 Equipment Description 4
2.1 Principal of Operation 4
2.1.1 RO Membrane 4
2.1.2 Activated Carbon Filtration 4
2.2 Equipment Capabilities 4
2.3 System Components 4
2.4 System Operation 5
2.5 Rate of Waste Production 6
2.6 Equipment Operation Limitations 7
2.7 Operation and Maintenance Requirements 7
Chapter 3 Methods and Procedures 8
3.1 Introduction 8
3.1.1 RO Membrane Challenges 8
3.1.2 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenges 9
3.1.3 System Operation Scenarios 9
3.2 Verification Test Procedure 10
3.2.1 Challenge Protocol Tasks 10
3.2.2 Test Rig 10
3.2.3 Test Water 10
3.2.3.1 RO Membrane Conditioning and Challenge Test Water 10
3.2.3.2 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Conditioning and Challenge Test Water 11
iv
-------
3.2.3.3 Chemical Challenges 12
3.2.4 Test Unit Installation and Conditioning 12
3.2.4.1 RO Membrane Test Units 12
3.2.4.2 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Test Units 13
3.2.5 Challenge Protocols and Sampling Plans 13
3.2.5.1 TDS Reduction System Performance Check 13
3.2.5.2 RO Membrane Challenge Testing 13
3.2.5.3 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenge Testing 16
3.3 Analytical Methods 17
3.3.1 Water Quality Analytical Methods 17
3.3.2 Challenge Chemical Analytical Methods 18
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 19
4.1 RO Membrane Conditioning 19
4.1.1 RO Membrane Test System Operation Data 19
4.2 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Conditioning 19
4.3 TDS Reduction System Performance Check 19
4.4 RO Membrane Chemical Challenges 20
4.4.1 Inorganic Chemicals Challenge 20
4.4.2 Organic Chemical Challenges 21
4.5 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenges 23
4.6 Conclusions 24
Chapters QA/QC 25
5.1 Introduction 25
5.2 Test Procedure QA/QC 25
5.3 Sample Handling 25
5.4 Analytical Methods QA/QC 25
5.5 Documentation 26
5.6 Data Review 26
5.7 Data Quality Indicators 26
5.7.1 Representativeness 26
5.7.2 Accuracy 26
5.7.3 Precision 27
5.7.4 Completeness 27
5.7.4.1 Number of Systems Tested 28
5.7.4.2 Water Chemistry Measurements 28
5.7.4.3 Challenge Chemicals 28
Chapter 6 References 30
-------
Appendix
Appendix A. Conditioning and Chemical Challenges Data Tables 31
List of Tables
Table 1-1. Challenge Chemicals 2
Table 3-1. Challenge Chemicals 9
Table 3-2. Summary of Sampling Plan for RO Membrane Challenges 15
Table 3-3. Summary of Sampling Plan for Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenges 17
Table 3-4. QC Limits and Method Reporting Limits for Analyses 17
Table 4-1. RO Membrane Test Unit Operation Data 19
Table 4-2. RO Membrane Inorganic Chemicals Reduction Data 20
Table 4-3. Inorganic Chemicals Challenge Reject Water Data 21
Table 4-4. RO Membrane Organic Chemical Challenge Data 22
Table 4-5. TDS Reduction Data for Organic Chemical Challenges 23
Table 4-6. Organic Chemical Challenge Reject Water Data 23
Table 4-7. Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenge Data 24
Table 5-1. Completeness Requirements 27
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Cutaway Schematic Diagram of Purefecta™ Treatment Elements 5
Figure 2-2. Photograph of the Purefecta™ 6
Figure 3-1. RO Membrane Systems Installed at a Test Station 14
Figure 3-2. Post-Membrane Carbon Filters Installed at a Test Station 16
VI
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ANSI
°C
DWS
ETV
°F
GC/MS
gpd
gpm
HC1
HPLC
ICP/MS
L
mg
mL
NaOH
ND
NRMRL
NSF
NTU
POE
POU
psi
QA
QC
QA/QC
RO
RPD
RSD
SOP
IDS
TOC
Mg
USEPA
American National Standards Institute
Degrees Celsius
Drinking Water Systems
Environmental Technology Verification
Degrees Fahrenheit
Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry
Gallons Per Day
Gallons Per Minute
Hydrochloric Acid
High Pressure Liquid Chromatography
Inductively Coupled Plasma - Mass Spectrometry
Liter
Milligram
Milliliter
Sodium Hydroxide
Non-detect
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF International (formerly known as National Sanitation Foundation)
Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
Point-of-Entry
Point-of-Use
Pounds per Square Inch
Quality Assurance
Quality Control
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Reverse Osmosis
Relative Percent Difference
Relative Standard Deviation
Standard Operating Procedure
Total Dissolved Solids
Total Organic Carbon
Microgram
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
vn
-------
Acknowledgments
NSF was responsible for all elements in the testing sequence, including collection of samples,
calibration and verification of instruments, data collection and analysis, data management, data
interpretation and the preparation of this report.
The manufacturer of the equipment was:
Kinetico Incorporated
10845 Kinsman Road
Newbury, OH 44065
NSF wishes to thank the members of the expert technical panel for their assistance with
development of the test plan.
Vlll
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Purpose and Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has created the ETV Program to facilitate
the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through performance
verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV Program is to further
environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-
effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed
data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting,
purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; with stakeholder
groups consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation
of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative
technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, by
conducting field or laboratory testing, collecting and analyzing data, and by preparing peer-
reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance
protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results are
defensible.
The USEPA has partnered with NSF International (NSF) under the ETV Drinking Water
Systems (DWS) Center to verify performance of drinking water treatment systems that benefit
the public and small communities. It is important to note that verification of the equipment does
not mean the equipment is "certified" by NSF or "accepted" by USEPA. Rather, it recognizes
that the performance of the equipment has been determined and verified by these organizations
under conditions specified in ETV protocols and test plans.
1.2 Purpose of Verification
The purpose of this verification was to evaluate treatment system performance under a simulated
intentional or non-intentional chemical contamination event. Because any contamination event
would likely be short-lived, the challenge period for each chemical lasted only one day. Long-
term performance over the life of the membrane was not investigated.
1.3 Development of Test/Quality Assurance (QA) Plan
USEPA's "Water Security Research and Technical Support Action Plan" (USEPA, 2004)
identifies the need to evaluate point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE) treatment system
capabilities for removing likely contaminants from drinking water. As part of the ETV program,
NSF developed a test/QA plan for evaluating POU reverse osmosis (RO) drinking water
treatment systems for removal of chemical contaminants. To assist in this endeavor, NSF
-------
assembled an expert technical panel, which gave suggestions on a protocol design prior to
development of the test/QA plan.
The product-specific test/QA plan for evaluating the Pall/Kinetico Purefecta™ was entitled
Test/QA Plan for Verification Testing of the Pall/Kinetico Purefecta™ Point-of-Use Drinking
Water Treatment System for Removal of Chemical Contamination Agents.
By participating in this ETV evaluation, the vendor obtains USEPA and NSF verified
independent test data indicating potential user protection against intentional or non-intentional
chemical contamination of drinking water. Verifications following an approved test/QA plan
serve to notify the public of the possible level of protection against chemical contamination
agents afforded to them by the use of a verified system.
1.4 Challenge Chemicals
The challenge chemicals for this verification are listed in Table 1-1.
Table 1-1. Challenge Chemicals
Organic Chemicals Inorganic Chemicals
Aldicarb Cadmium Chloride
Benzene Cesium Chloride (nonradioactive isotope)
Carbofuran Mercuric Chloride
Chloroform Strontium Chloride (nonradioactive isotope)
Dicrotophos
Dichlorvos
Fenamiphos
Mevinphos
Oxamyl
Strychnine
1.5 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the Pall/Kinetico Purefecta™ was a cooperative effort between the following
participants:
NSF
Kinetico, Inc.
USEPA
The following is a brief description of each of the ETV participants and their roles and
responsibilities.
1.5.1 NSF International
NSF is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to public health and safety, and to protection of the
environment. Founded in 1946 and located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, NSF has been instrumental
-------
in the development of consensus standards for the protection of public health and the
environment. The USEPA partnered with NSF to verify the performance of drinking water
treatment systems through the USEPA's ETV Program.
NSF performed all verification testing activities at its Ann Arbor location. NSF prepared the
test/QA plan, performed all testing, managed, evaluated, interpreted, and reported on the data
generated by the testing, and reported on the performance of the technology.
Contact Information:
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone:734-769-8010
Fax: 734-769-0109
Contact: Bruce Bartley, ETV Program Manager
Email: bartley@nsf.org
1.5.2 Kinetico Inc.
The verified system is manufactured by Kinetico Inc., a manufacturer of water treatment
products for home and business.
The manufacturer was responsible for supplying the RO systems in accordance with section
3.1.1, and for providing logistical and technical support as needed.
Contact Information:
Kinetico Inc.
10845 Kinsman Road
Newbury, OH 44065
Phone: 1-800-944-9283
Contact Person: Mr. Rod Yoder
Email: ryoder@kinetico.com
1.5.3 Pall Corporation
The Pall Corporation is a manufacturer of products for fluid filtration, separation, and
purification. Pall manufactures and supplies to Kinetico the bacteria and virus removal filter
component for the Purefecta™.
1.5.4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The USEPA, through its Office of Research and Development, has financially supported and
collaborated with NSF under Cooperative Agreement No. R-82833301. This verification effort
was supported by the DWS Center operating under the ETV Program. This document has been
peer-reviewed, reviewed by the USEPA, and recommended for public release.
-------
Chapter 2
Equipment Description
2.1 Principal of Operation
2.1.1 RO Membrane
Membrane technologies are among the most versatile water treatment processes because of their
ability to effectively remove a wide variety of contaminants. RO membranes operate by the
principal of cross-flow filtration. In this process, the influent water flows over and parallel to the
filter medium and exits the system as reject water. Under pressure, a portion of the water
diffuses through the membrane becoming "permeate". The membrane allows water molecules to
pass through its pores, but not most dissolved inorganic chemical molecules and larger molecular
weight organic chemical molecules. These molecules are concentrated in and washed away with
the reject water stream.
2.1.2 Activated Carbon Filtration
Activated carbon removes organic chemicals from water through the process of adsorption. The
chemicals are attracted to and attach to the surface of the carbon through electrostatic
interactions. The adsorbent properties of activated carbon are a function of the raw material used
and the activation process. Once the carbon is saturated with adsorbed molecules, it must be
replaced.
2.2 Equipment Capabilities
The Purefecta™ is certified by NSF to NSF/ANSI Standard 58 -Reverse Osmosis Drinking
Water Treatment Systems. The system has a certified production rate of 19.8 gallons per day
(gpd), and an efficiency rating of 25.9%. Efficiency rating as defined by Standard 58 is "a
percentage measure of the amount of influent water that is delivered as permeate under a closed
permeate discharge set of actual use conditions." These measurements are based on system
operation at 50 pounds per square inch (psi) inlet pressure, a water temperature of 77 °F, and a
total dissolved solids (TDS) level of 750 ± 40 mg/L. The amount and quality of treated water
produced varies depending on the inlet pressure, water temperature, and level of TDS. These
measurements were not subject to verification during this study.
2.3 System Components
The Purefecta™ is a five-stage POU treatment system. It uses activated carbon, an RO
membrane, UF membranes, and optional sediment filtration to treat drinking water. The system
also includes a three gallon maximum capacity storage tank, and a faucet to dispense the treated
water. A cutaway diagram of the treatment components is shown in Figure 2-1, and a
photograph of the full system is shown in Figure 2-2. The inlet water first passes through an
activated carbon or sediment filter, and then through the RO membrane. The permeate water
travels through the first stage of the Pall biofilter for virus removal. The partially treated water is
-------
then sent to the storage tank. When the user opens the faucet, the water exits the storage tank,
passes through the post-membrane activated carbon filter, and then lastly through the bacteria
removal portion of the Pall biofilter, before exiting the faucet. Please note that this description,
and the system operation description in section 2.4 are given for informational purposes only.
This information was not subject to verification.
Figure 2-1. Cutaway Schematic Diagram of Purefecta™ Treatment Elements
. t
Five Stages of Filtration
1. Sediment or Carbon Prefilter
2. Reverse Osmosis Membrane
* Removal of dissolved solids
such as lead and nitrates
3. Pall Virus Filter DV 20, 0.02 urn
" Four log reduction of viruses
such as Rotavirus and Norwalk
virus
Storage Tank (not pictured)
A. Carbon Block
o Reduces volatile organic
chemicals and chlorine
5. Pall Ultipor, 0.2 urn Final Filter
» Six log reduction of bacteria
such as Klebsietts terigena and
Legionella pneumophiSa
Independent Faucet
2.4 System Operation
When the flow of water into the system is started, treated water will be continually produced
until the storage tank is nearly full. At that time, the water pressure in the tank causes an
automatic shut-off device to activate, stopping the flow of water through the system. After
approximately two-thirds of the water is dispensed from the storage tank, the shut-off device
deactivates, allowing water to again flow into the system until the storage tank is nearly full.
The operational storage tank capacity will vary slightly from unit to unit, and is also affected by
the inlet water pressure, but is approximately two gallons under normal use conditions.
The Purefecta™ uses Kinetico's "PureMometer™" filter life indicator to tell the user how much
capacity remains on the carbon or sediment prefilter, the biofilter, and the post-membrane carbon
-------
filter. The PureMometer™ is located on the top of the system manifold, easily visible to the user
(see Figure 2.2). The PureMometer™ indicator stick decreases in height as treated water is
produced. After approximately 500 gallons are produced, the system shuts off. The meter is
reset when the user replaces the post-membrane carbon filter.
Figure 2-2. Photograph of the Purefecta
TM
2.5 Rate of Waste Production
As discussed in section 2.2, the efficiency rating of the Purefecta™ is 25.9%, which means the
system produces approximately three gallons of reject water for each gallon of product water
produced. The efficiency rating was not verified as part of this evaluation.
-------
2.6 Equipment Operation Limitations
Kinetico gives the following limitations for the drinking water to be treated by the system:
• temperature of 35 - 100 °F;
• inlet pressure of 40 - 100 psi;
• pHof3-ll;
• maximum TDS level of 3000 mg/L;
• hardness less than 10 grains per gallon; and
• iron less than 0.1 mg/L.
2.7 Operation and Maintenance Requirements
Kinetico recommends that all maintenance be done by qualified Kinetico professionals. The
following are the operation and maintenance requirements:
• Replacement of the pre-membrane carbon or sediment filter, the biofilter, and the post-
membrane carbon filter annually, or when the meter described in section 2.4 stops the
production of treated water;
• Sanitization of the system when the carbon filters and biofilter are replaced; and
• Measurement of the TDS level of the product water when the other filters are changed.
RO membrane replacement is recommended when the TDS reduction performance falls
below 90%.
-------
Chapter 3
Methods and Procedures
3.1 Introduction
The challenge tests followed the procedures described in the Test/QA Plan for Verification
Testing of the Pall/Kinetico Purefecta™ Point-of-Use Drinking Water Treatment System for
Removal of Chemical Contamination Agents.
As described in section 2.3, the Purefecta™ employs an RO membrane, activated carbon filters,
and a bacteria/virus removal filter to treat drinking water. The system was first tested with only
the RO membrane component in place. After the RO membrane challenges were complete, the
post-membrane carbon filter was challenged alone. This approach allowed an evaluation of the
individual performance of each component, and also served to simulate a worst-case scenario
where the carbon filters are at or past the end of their useful life. This approach also allowed
each treatment component to be challenged using a test water that presented more of a worse-
case scenario for that component. The pre-membrane carbon filter was not tested, because it is
not a standard component, and it is only designed to remove chlorine to protect the RO
membrane. The pre-membrane sediment filter also was not tested, because it also is not a
standard component, and it is only designed to remove suspended sediment particles to protect
the RO membrane from clogging.
3.1.1 RO Membrane Challenges
The RO membranes were challenged with each chemical in Table 3-1. The target challenge
concentration for each chemical was 1 mg/L, which is much higher than most challenge levels in
the NSF/ANSI Standards for POU devices. Only two membranes were challenged with each
chemical. The organic chemical challenges were conducted one chemical at a time, but the
inorganic chemicals were combined into one challenge. Each membrane was only tested with
one of the ten organic chemicals, because of concern that some of them, especially benzene and
chloroform, could damage the membranes or membrane seals at the high challenge levels. This
approach eliminated the possibility that membrane performance against subsequent chemicals
was negatively biased. TDS reduction was also measured during the challenges, to serve as a
membrane performance benchmark, and also to evaluate whether any organic chemicals
damaged the membrane or integrity of the membrane seals.
A total of twenty RO membrane units were tested, divided into ten pairs. The inorganic
chemicals challenge was conducted first. The two systems used for the inorganic chemicals
challenge were used again for an organic chemical challenge.
As discussed in section 1.2, each challenge period was only one day. The systems were operated
for six tank-fill periods, and then were allowed to rest overnight. Influent and effluent samples
were collected during the operation period, and also the next morning after the rest period. In
addition to influent and effluent samples, reject water samples were also collected and analyzed
-------
in an attempt to determine whether any of the chemicals adsorbed onto or absorbed into the
membrane material in significant amounts. See section 3.2.5.2 for RO membrane challenge
protocol details.
Table 3-1. Challenge Chemicals
Organic Chemicals Inorganic Chemicals
Aldicarb Cadmium Chloride
Benzene Cesium Chloride (nonradioactive isotope)
Carbofuran Mercuric Chloride
Chloroform Strontium Chloride (nonradioactive isotope)
Dicrotophos
Dichlorvos
Fenamiphos
Mevinphos
Oxamyl
Strychnine
3.1.2 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenges
The post-membrane carbon filter was tested alone with the organic chemicals the RO membrane
did not remove to below 10 |ag/L. The inorganic chemicals were considered on a case-by-case
basis, since USEPA does not consider carbon to be the best available technology for removing
cadmium, cesium, or strontium. As with the membranes, the carbon filters were challenged in
pairs, and each pair was only tested once. Each challenge was 15 hours. The target challenge
concentrations for the carbon filter tests were the maximum effluent levels measured during the
RO tests. See section 3.2.5.3 for the post-membrane carbon filter test protocol details.
3.1.3 System Operation Scenarios
The challenge protocol was designed to evaluate system performance under two different
operation scenarios. The first is operation with the product water storage tank over half full,
giving high back-pressure. This is how the system is likely to operate in the home, as the user
will usually dispense small volumes of water until the shut-off valve deactivates, allowing the
storage tank to fill again. RO membrane performance is affected by the net driving pressure on
the membrane. The net driving pressure is the feed water pressure minus the osmotic pressure
minus the back-pressure from the storage tank. As the storage tank fills up and the tank bladder
expands, the back-pressure increases, reducing the net driving pressure. As the net driving
pressure drops, the ion rejection performance of the membrane can also drop (Slovak, 2000).
This test protocol was designed so that the test units operate for multiple tank fills under
conditions where the net driving pressure was as low as possible. After the first tank fill, the lab
technician dispensed the product water to the drain until the shut-off valve deactivated, allowing
the unit to again produce treated water. This cycle was repeated for a total of five storage tank
fill periods.
-------
The second operation scenario is continued contaminant rejection while the system is at rest.
The NSF/ANSI Standard 58 testing protocols call for a two-day stagnation period to check
whether the membrane can maintain rejection of the contaminants. NSF has observed that RO
systems can give higher contaminant concentrations after the rest period than before. This
phenomenon is due to the membrane's difficulty maintaining the osmotic differential across the
membrane, and perhaps also imperfections in the membrane material. At the end of each
challenge, the test units were allowed to rest under pressure overnight, and product water
samples were collected for analysis the next morning.
3.2 Verification Test Procedure
3.2.1 Challenge Protocol Tasks
The following are the tasks in the challenge protocol, and the order in which they were
conducted:
1. Installation of the RO test units on the test rig, and seven days of conditioning
(section 3.2.4.1);
2. One-day TDS challenge test to evaluate system integrity (section 3.2.5.1);
3. Conditioning of the post-membrane carbon filters while the RO membrane tests are
being conducted (section 3.2.4.2); and
4. Chemical challenge tests
a. RO inorganic chemicals challenge (section 3.2.5.2)
b. RO organic chemical challenges (section 3.2.5.2)
c. Post-membrane carbon filter challenges (section 3.2.5.3).
3.2.2 Test Rig
All test units were plumbed to "injection rig" test stations in the NSF Drinking Water Treatment
Systems Testing Laboratory. The injection rigs have a common 90-gallon tank to hold the test
water without the challenge chemicals. Fresh water is periodically added to the tank as it is
being used. Online monitors and a computer system automatically control the water level and
water chemistry. Downstream of the feedwater tank a precisely controlled pump is used to inject
the challenge chemical(s) at the proper concentrations. Immediately downstream of the pump
lies a motionless in-line mixer to assure complete mixing of the challenge water. An influent
sample port is downstream of the in-line mixer. No schematic diagram of the injection rig is
available, due to the proprietary nature of the design.
3.2.3 Test Water
3.2.3.1 RO Membrane Conditioning and Challenge Test Water
The test water for the RO membrane conditioning and challenges was a synthetic water
constructed from deionized municipal drinking water. The municipal water was first filtered
through activated carbon to remove chlorine, then it was deionized and treated with reverse
osmosis. Sodium chloride was added for TDS, and the pH was adjusted with hydrochloric acid
10
-------
(HC1) or sodium hydroxide (NaOH), if necessary, to achieve the following characteristics prior
to addition of the challenge chemical(s):
• pH - 7.5 ± 0.5 for the TDS reduction test, conditioning, and organic chemical challenges,
6.0-6.5 for the inorganic chemicals challenge;
• total chlorine - < 0.05 mg/L;
• temperature - 25 ± 1 °C;
• TDS - 750 ± 75 mg/L; and
• turbidity - < 1 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU).
TDS, pH, temperature, and turbidity were maintained within the appropriate range by a computer
system with on-line monitors. In addition, grab samples were collected and analyzed for all
parameters according to the sampling plans described in sections 3.2.4.1, 3.2.5.1, and 3.2.5.2.
Note that the pH specification for the inorganic chemicals challenges was 6.0 to 6.5, to ensure
that the inorganic chemicals were present as dissolved free ions in the challenge water. This
ensured that the inorganic chemicals challenges were testing the ability of the RO membrane to
reject the ions instead of physically removing suspended particles of the inorganic chemicals.
3.2.3.2 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Conditioning and Challenge Test Water
The test water for post-membrane carbon filter conditioning and testing was the "general test
water" specified in NSF/ANSI Standard 53, Drinking water treatment units - health effects (NSF
International, 2002). This water is the Ann Arbor municipal drinking water that is adjusted, if
necessary, to have the following characteristics prior to addition of the challenge chemical:
• pH-7.5 ±0.5;
• TDS - 200-500 mg/L
• temperature - 20 ± 2.5 °C;
• total organic carbon (TOC) - > 1.0 mg/L; and
• turbidity - < 1 NTU.
Please note that the TOC parameter only has a minimum level specified, since it is the natural
TOC in the municipal water supply. During testing, the TOC in the water supply ranged from
1.9 to 2.6 mg/L. However, the TOC levels in the organic chemical challenge waters were much
higher due to the methanol used as the carrier solution for the chemicals.
TDS, pH, and temperature were maintained within the appropriate range by a computer system
with on-line monitors. The pH of the Ann Arbor drinking water was above 7.5 during the test
period, so the pH was adjusted with HC1. The TDS level was within the allowable range, so no
adjustments were needed. The water was not dechlorinated prior to use.
Grab samples were collected and analyzed for all parameters according to the sampling plans
described in sections 3.2.4.2 and 3.2.5.3. Total chlorine was also measured, although there is no
specification given for it as there is in section 3.2.3.1 for the RO membrane test water.
11
-------
3.2.3.3 Chemical Challenges
The appropriate chemical(s) were added to the base test waters given in sections 3.2.3.1 and
3.2.3.2 to make the challenge waters. The RO membrane challenge target concentration for each
chemical was 1 ± 0.5 mg/L. The target challenge concentrations for the carbon filter tests were
the maximum effluent levels measured during the RO tests. For each challenge, concentrated
solution of the chemical(s) was made, and this mixture injected into the influent water stream at
an appropriate rate. Due to analytical procedure lengths, the amount of chemical to add to the
test water to achieve the proper challenge concentration was calculated based on the known
concentration in the feed solution. The tests were conducted without waiting for confirmation of
the influent level from the chemistry laboratory. All challenge chemical influent samples were
within the allowable limits.
3.2.4 Test Unit Installation and Conditioning
3.2.4.1 RO Membrane Test Units
The RO membrane test units were delivered and installed on the test rigs by Kinetico
representatives. Kinetico's recommended conditioning procedure of operation for two tank-fill
periods was not conducted, instead the units underwent a seven day, seven tank-fills conditioning
period. Previous POU RO system ETV tests for microbial agents indicated that perhaps
membrane performance does not stabilize until after four or five days (four or five tank fills) of
conditioning. A seven-day conditioning period ensured that the membranes were performing
optimally prior to the chemical challenges.
For the first six days, the units were operated at 60 ± 3 psi inlet pressure for one storage tank fill
period per day using the water described in section 3.2.3.1. Influent water samples were
collected each day at the beginning of the operation period for analysis of pH, TDS, temperature,
total chlorine, and turbidity. The units rested under pressure overnight, and the storage tanks
were emptied the next morning prior to beginning that day's operation period.
On the seventh day, the units were instead operated at 80 ± 3 psi inlet pressure. Influent water
samples were collected at the beginning of the operation period for analysis of pH, TDS,
temperature, total chlorine, and turbidity. The times required to fill the storage tanks were
measured and recorded for the three units whose tanks filled the fastest. On the morning of the
eighth day, the times to dispense the first liter of water and to empty the storage tanks with the
faucet fully open were measured and recorded for the three units whose operating times were
recorded the previous day. The tank fill times, times to empty the storage tank, and first liter
flow rate data were used to determine the operating parameters for the post-membrane carbon
filters during the carbon filter challenge tests. The longest time to empty the storage tank was
used for the "on" time portion of the operation cycle. The shortest tank fill time was used for the
"off portion of the cycle. The flow rates for the carbon filter challenges were set at the fastest
first liter flow rate. Operation at 80 psi instead of 60 psi caused the tank fill time to be shorter,
which gave a worse case testing scenario for the carbon filters. See section 3.2.5.3 for further
discussion about the post-membrane carbon filter challenge tests.
12
-------
3.2.4.2 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Test Units
The carbon filters were plumbed to a test station and operated using the water described in
section 3.2.3.2 amended with 300 ± 90 |~ig/L of chloroform until 250 gallons passed through each
filter. This is the volume equal to one-half of Kinetico's stated capacity of 500 gallons for the
filter. The filters were operated at an inlet water pressure of 60 ± 3 psi and a maximum flow rate
of 0.5 gallons per minute (gpm), on a ten minutes on, ten minutes off cycle. Chloroform at 300
|ag/L is the influent challenge concentration for the organic chemical reduction test in NSF/ANSI
Standard 53 (chloroform is the surrogate chemical for the Standard 53 organic chemical
reduction claim). The chloroform served to load the carbon filters to a degree that simulated
contaminant loading in the middle of their effective lifespan. Influent samples were collected for
analysis of chloroform, pH, temperature, TOC, and turbidity at start-up, approximately 25% of
capacity, and approximately 50% of capacity. Effluent samples were collected at the same three
points for chloroform analysis.
If the filters were not immediately used for a challenge test, they were stored with the
conditioning water still in them. The manifold inlets and outlets were closed off by valves to
ensure that all of the chloroform remained on the carbon.
3.2.5 Challenge Protocols and Sampling Plans
3.2.5.1 TDS Reduction System Performance Check
After the RO membrane conditioning period was complete, they underwent a short-term TDS
reduction test to verify that they were operating properly. The challenge was conducted as
follows:
1. The product water storage tanks were drained, and test unit operation was started at 50 ± 3
psi inlet pressure using the water described in section 3.2.3.1 without any challenge
chemicals added.
2. Immediately after the units began operation, influent samples were collected for analysis of
pH, temperature, total chlorine, turbidity, and TDS.
3. The systems were allowed to operate until the automatic shut-off mechanisms activated.
4. The entire contents of the storage tanks were emptied into separate containers, and three 250
mL samples were collected from each container for TDS analysis.
Removal of 75% or more of the TDS was required for the use of each membrane for the
chemical challenges.
3.2.5.2 RO Membrane Challenge Testing
As discussed in section 3.1.1, the RO membrane systems were divided into ten pairs. The
inorganic chemical challenges were conducted first, followed by the organic chemicals. Figure
3-1 shows a pair of test units plumbed to the test rig.
The challenge tests were conducted as follows:
1. At the start of each challenge period, the system storage tanks were emptied.
13
-------
2. The initial dynamic inlet water pressure was set at 50 ± 3 psi, and system operation was
started using the test water described in section 3.2.3.1 with the proper challenge chemical(s)
added.
3. Influent and effluent water samples were collected for analysis of the challenge chemical(s)
and TDS immediately after the units began operation. Influent samples were also collected
for analysis of pH, temperature, total chlorine, and turbidity. All influent and effluent
samples for challenge chemical analysis were collected and analyzed in triplicate, except
where indicated below. To collect the triplicate samples, the volumes necessary to obtain the
triplicate samples were first collected into a polyethylene container, and then the triplicate
samples were collected from that volume. However, due to the volatility of benzene and
chloroform, true triplicate samples were not collected for these chemicals. Instead, three
consecutive replicate samples were collected directly into the sample bottles that were
delivered to the NSF Chemistry Laboratory. TDS samples were collected as single samples.
Figure 3-1. RO Membrane Systems Installed at a Test Station
14
-------
4. While under operation for the first storage tank fill period, duplicate samples were collected
from the reject water line of one of the test units for challenge chemical(s) analysis at start-
up, approximately halfway through, and approximately three-fourths of the way through the
period.
5. The units were operated continuously until the shut-off valves activated. The faucets were
then fully opened, and a minimum of one liter, the volume required for sample analysis, or
the amount needed to fully deactivate the shut-off valve, was dispensed to drain from each
system. Full deactivation was estimated by monitoring resumption of the flow of reject water
as the product water was dispensed. The shut-off valve was considered fully deactivated
when the flow of reject water appeared to have fully resumed.
6. Step 5 was repeated until five storage tank fill periods were complete. After the third storage
tank fill period ended, influent and effluent samples were collected for analysis of the
challenge chemical(s) and TDS.
7. Approximately halfway through the last tank fill period, duplicate reject water samples were
collected for challenge chemical(s) analysis. The samples were collected from the same
system from which the reject water samples were collected in step 4. This sample served to
check whether any chemical adsorption/absorption observed during the first storage tank fill
period was still occurring, or the membrane became saturated with the chemical.
8. After the fifth storage tank fill, effluent samples were collected from each system for
challenge chemical(s) and TDS analysis. Influent samples were collected for analysis of the
challenge chemical(s), TDS, pH, temperature, total chlorine, and turbidity. If a system did
not resume operation after sample collection, the additional volume necessary to resume
operation was dispensed from each system.
9. The units were then allowed to operate until the shut-off valves activated, and then rest under
pressure for at least eight hours. After the rest period, the faucets were fully opened, and the
first draw out of each faucet was collected for single challenge chemical and TDS analysis.
After collection of the first draw water, the rest of the contents of each storage tank were
collected into suitable containers, and three samples were collected from each volume for
triplicate challenge chemical analysis. Table 3-2 gives a summary of the sampling plan.
Table 3-2. Summary of Sampling Plan for RO Membrane Challenges
T ... _ , XT i Effluent Sample Numbers
Influent Sample Numbers , .
(per system)
Water Chemistry Challenge Challenge
Sample Point Parameters Chemical TDS Chemical TDS
Start Up 1 for each parameter 31 3 1
1st Tank Reject Water Samples
Start Up 2 (from one system)
Half Tank 2 (from one system)
Three-fourths Tank 2 (from one system)
3rd Tank Fill 31 3 1
5th Tank Fill 1 for each parameter 31 3 1
Reject Water - Halfway Through 2 (from one system)
5th Tank Fill
Post-Rest - First Draw 1 1
Post-Rest-Rest of Tank 3
15
-------
3.2.5.3 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenge Testing
The post-membrane carbon filter in the Purefecta™ is downstream from the storage tank, so it
was tested at the flow rate measured at the faucet outlet during the RO membrane conditioning
step. Each challenge was 15 hours. The filters were operated on an "on/off operation cycle
where the "on" portion was the time required to empty the storage tank when full, and the "off
portion of the cycle was the time required to fill the storage tank at 80 psi inlet pressure, as
measured during the RO membrane conditioning period. Figure 3-2 shows a pair of carbon
filters being tested.
The challenge tests were conducted as follows:
1. The proper "on/off cycle parameters were entered into the test station computer.
2. The initial dynamic inlet water pressure was set at 60 ± 3 psi, and filter operation was started
using the water described in section 3.2.3.2 with the proper challenge chemical added. The
flow rate was adjusted as necessary using a valve downstream of each filter on the effluent
line.
3. Influent and effluent samples were collected for challenge chemical analysis immediately
after operation began. All effluent samples were collected during the last half of the "on"
portion of the operation cycle, so that the dwell water was flushed out prior to sample
collection. All challenge chemical samples were collected and analyzed in triplicate. The
sample volumes were those required to obtain the triplicate samples.
4. Single influent samples were also collected for analysis of pH, TDS, temperature, TOC, total
chlorine, and turbidity whenever challenge chemical samples were collected.
5. After 7.5 and 15 hours of operation, second and third sets of influent and effluent samples
were collected for challenge chemical analysis. The flow of challenge water through the
filters was started manually if they were not in the "on" portion of the operation cycle. Table
3-3 gives a summary of the sampling schedule.
Figure 3-2. Post-Membrane Carbon Filters Installed at a Test Station.
16
-------
Table 3-3. Summary of Sampling Plan for Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenges
Influent Water Challenge Chemical Challenge Chemical
Chemistry Sample Influent Sample Effluent Sample
Sample Point Numbers Numbers Numbers
Start Up
7.5 Hours
15 Hours
1 for each parameter
1 for each parameter
1 for each parameter
->
5
->
5
3
->
5
->
5
3
3.3 Analytical Methods
3.3.1 Water Quality Analytical Methods
The following are the analytical methods used during verification testing. All analyses followed
procedures detailed in NSF's Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). The reporting limits, and
the acceptable precision and accuracy for each parameter are shown in Table 3-4.
• pH - All pH measurements were made with an Orion Model SA 720 meter. The meter
was operated according to the manufacturer's instructions, which are based on Standard
Methods method 4500-H+.
• Temperature - Water temperature was measured using an Omega model HH11 digital
thermometer.
Table 3-4.
Parameter
pH
TDS (conductivity)
TDS (gravimetric)
TOC
Total Chlorine
Turbidity
Aldicarb
Benzene
Cadmium
Carbofuran
Cesium
Chloroform
Dicrotophos
Dichlorvos
Fenamiphos
Mercury
Mevinphos
Oxamyl
Strontium
Strychnine
QC Limits and Method
Reporting Limit
NA
2 mg/L
5 mg/L
0.1 mg/L
0.05 mg/L
0.1 NTU
l.Ong/L
0.5 |J,g/L
0.3 |j,g/L
lUg/L
1 |J.g/L
0.5 |J,g/L
10 ng/L
0.2 |J.g/L
2|ag/L
0.2 |J,g/L
0.4 |ag/L
l.Ojig/L
2 M-g/L
5^g/L
Reporting Limits for
Acceptable Precision
(RPD)
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
RSD < 30%
RSD < 30%
RSD < 30%
20%
RSD < 30%
20%
20%
20%
Analyses
Acceptable Accuracy
(% recovery)
90-110%
80-120%
90-110%
80-120%
90-110%
95-105%
70-130%
80-120%
70-130%
70-130%
70-130%
80-120%
70-130%
70-130%
70-130%
70-130%
70-130%
70-130%
70-130%
80-120%
17
-------
• TDS (by conductivity) - TDS for the TDS reduction system check test was measured
through conductivity according to Standard Method 2510 using a Fisher Scientific
Traceable™ Conductivity Meter.
• TDS (gravimetrically) - The TDS in the carbon filter conditioning and challenge water
was measured gravimetrically. The method used was an adaptation of USEPA Methods
160.3 and 160.4. An appropriate amount of sample was placed in a pre-weighed
evaporating dish. The sample was evaporated and dried at 103-105 °C to a constant
weight. The dish was then weighed again to determine the total solids weight.
• Total Chlorine - Total chlorine was measured according to Standard Method 4500-C1 G
with a Hach Model DR/2010 spectrophotometer using AccuVac vials.
3.3.2 Challenge Chemical Analytical Methods
The following are the analytical methods used during verification testing. All analyses followed
procedures detailed in NSF SOPs. The reporting limits, and the acceptable precision and
accuracy for each parameter are shown in Table 3-4.
• Aldicarb, Carbofuran, and Oxamyl were measured by high pressure liquid
chromatography (HPLC) according to USEPA Method 531.1 or 531.2.
• Dichlorvos, Dicrotophos, Fenamiphos, and Mevinphos were measured by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) according to USEPA Method 525.2.
• Cadmium, Chromium, Mercury, and Strontium were measured by Inductively Coupled
Plasma - Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS) according to USEPA Method 200.8.
• Benzene and Chloroform were measured by purge and trap capillary gas chromatography
according to USEPA Method 502.2.
• There is no standard analytical method for strychnine. NSF developed a method to
measure it using reverse phase HPLC with ultraviolet lamp detection.
18
-------
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
4.1 RO Membrane Conditioning
As discussed in section 3.2.4.1, the RO membrane test units were conditioned for seven days
prior to the chemical challenges. The units were conditioned simultaneously at four different test
stations, with six units plumbed to each station. All of the water quality parameters in section
3.2.3.1 were maintained within the allowable ranges. The individual data values for these
parameters can be found in Table A-l of Appendix A.
4.1.1 RO Membrane Test System Operation Data
As described in section 3.2.4.1, the storage tank fill times, first liter dispense times, and times to
dispense the entire tanks were measured and recorded for the three systems whose tanks filled
the fastest. The first liter flow rates were calculated for each of the three systems from the first
liter dispense times. The results are given below in Table 4-1. This data was used to determine
the operation parameters for the carbon filter challenges.
Table 4-1. RO Membrane
Tank Fill Time 1st Liter Time
Unit (minutes) (seconds)
16
3
18
69
70
75
20
22
21
System Operation Data
1st Liter Flow
Rate (gpm) Tank Dispense Time
0.79
0.72
0.75
4
4
4
min., 44 sec.
min., 44 sec.
min., 36 sec.
4.2 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Conditioning
As described in section 3.2.4.2, the post-membrane carbon filters were conditioned with water
containing 300 ± 90 |ag/L of chloroform until 250 gallons of the conditioning water had passed
through them. Eight filters were conditioned first, and then another six were conditioned later.
Influent and effluent samples were collected for analysis at start-up, after approximately 125
gallons, and after approximately 250 gallons. All effluent samples were non-detect (< 0.5 ng/L)
for chloroform, except one for Unit 11. This unit had an effluent chloroform level of 6.4 ng/L in
the 250-gallon sample. The influent water data are given in Table A-2 of Appendix A.
4.3 TDS Reduction System Performance Check
After the RO membranes were conditioned, all underwent the TDS reduction test described in
section 3.2.5.1. The maximum effluent TDS level measured was 30 mg/L, corresponding to
greater than 96% reduction of TDS for all units. The average TDS reduction for the Purefecta™ ,
as measured during certification testing, was 89.3%, so test units were representative of expected
19
-------
membrane performance. The TDS reduction data for each RO membrane system can be found in
Table A-3 of Appendix A.
4.4 RO Membrane Chemical Challenges
The RO membrane challenges were conducted according to the procedure in section 3.2.5.2.
The tank-fill times were approximately 70 minutes, so the systems were in operation for
approximately seven hours per challenge. After each tank-fill period, 2 to 3.5 liters were drawn
out of the storage tanks for sample analysis and to disengage the automatic shut-off valve.
4.4.1 Inorganic Chemicals Challenge
The inorganic chemicals challenge data are shown in Table 4-2. Each challenge chemical data
point is the arithmetic mean of the triplicate sample analyses, except for the post-rest first liter
draws, which were only single samples. All individual sample values constituting the triplicate
analyses are presented in Table A-4 of Appendix A. As discussed in section 3.1.1, the challenge
water also contained TDS at a target concentration of 750 mg/L to serve as an RO membrane
integrity check. The TDS reduction data are also presented in Table 4-2. The TDS data points
are from single sample analyses. The challenge water chemistry data are presented in Table A-6
of Appendix A.
Table 4-2. RO Membrane Inorganic Chemicals Reduction Data
Cadmium Cesium Mercury Strontium TDS
Sample (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (mg/L)
Start-up Influent
Start-up Effluent, Unit 1
Start-up Effluent, Unit 2
3rd Tank Influent
3rd Tank Effluent, Unit 1
3rd Tank Effluent, Unit 2
5th Tank Influent
5th Tank Effluent, Unit 1
5th Tank Effluent, Unit 2
Post-Rest 1st Draw, Unit 1
Post-Rest 1st Draw, Unit 2
Post-Rest 2nd Sample, Unit 1
Post-Rest 2nd Sample, Unit 2
Mean Influent
Mean Effluent, Unit 1
Mean Effluent, Unit 2
Percent Reduction, Unit 1
Percent Reduction, Unit 2
Overall Mean Effluent
Overall Percent Reduction
Units Tested
1000
0.6
1.8
1000
1.8
2.5
1000
1.7
2.3
1.8
2.5
1.8
2.4
1000
1.5
2.3
>99
>99
1.9
>99
1,2
1000
15
31
1000
40
50
1100
37
48
38
52
37
50
1000
33
46
97
95
40
96
1,2
1100
190
460
1100
740
760
1100
810
840
730
760
750
750
1100
640
710
42
35
680
38
1,2
840
2
2
850
2
3
860
2
2
2
3
2
2
850
2
2
>99
>99
2
>99
1,2
740
30
32
760
760(1)
36
750
29
34
34
34
NA
NA
750
31
34
96
95
33
96
(1) Sample result not included in mean effluent and percent reduction calculations, see section
5.7.4.3 for further discussion.
20
-------
The RO membrane performed very well against cadmium, cesium, and strontium, removing 96%
of the cesium, and more than 99% of the cadmium and strontium. The RO membrane did not
perform well against the mercury challenge, but this was expected. There are no POU RO
systems certified by NSF for mercury reduction because mercury is not well removed by RO
membranes using the test water specified in NSF/ANSI Standard 58.
The reject water sample data are given in Table 4-3. The values presented are the arithmetic
means of the duplicate sample analyses, except where indicated. The individual sample results
are presented in Table A-7 of Appendix A. The chemical levels are somewhat higher than
expected, given that the Purefecta™ has an efficiency rating (as defined by NSF/ANSI Standard
58) of 26%. The efficiency is the amount of influent water that is delivered as permeate. This
efficiency means the reject water should have approximately 25% more of the challenge
chemical than the influent water, assuming 100% rejection by the membrane. The efficiency
will be higher at the start of unit operation, since the storage tank is empty, and thus is not
supplying any back-pressure. However, by halfway and three-fourths of the way through the
tank-fill period, the measured reject water challenge chemical levels are still greater than 25%
above the influent levels, indicating that the test units achieved greater than 26% efficiency.
Table 4-3. Inorganic Chemicals Challenge Reject Water Data
Sample Cadmium (|~ig/L) Cesium (|~ig/L) Mercury (|~ig/L) Strontium (|J.g/L)
Start-Up 2100 2000 1200
1/2 Through 1st Tank 1800 1700 1300
3/4 Through 1st Tank 1700(1) 1700(1) 1200
1/2 Through 5th Tank 1500 1500 1200
Unit Sampled 1 1 1
(1) Result is from only one of the duplicate analyses, due to analytical errors.
1700
1400
1400(1)
1200
1
4.4.2 Organic Chemical Challenges
The organic chemical challenge data are shown below in Table 4-4. Each data point is the
arithmetic mean of the triplicate sample analyses, except for the post-rest first draw samples,
which were only single samples. All individual sample values constituting the triplicate analyses
are presented in Table A-5 in Appendix A. The water chemistry data for these challenges are
presented in Table A-6 in Appendix A.
As discussed in section 3.1.1, the challenge water also contained TDS to serve as a membrane
integrity check. The TDS reduction data are presented in Table 4-5.
The reject water data are shown in Table 4-6. The values presented are the arithmetic means of
the duplicate sample analyses, except where indicated. The individual sample results are
presented in Table A-8 of Appendix A.
The RO membrane removed all chemicals but chloroform by 96% or more. At start-up, the
membranes removed greater than 99% of the chloroform, but the effluent levels rose from
sample point to sample point after that. The maximum effluent was 310 |~ig/L, from the unit 2
21
-------
Table 4-4. RO Membrane Organic Chemical Challenge
Aldicarb Benzene Carbofuran Chloroform Dichlorvos Dicrotophos Fenamiphos
Sample (ug/L) (jig/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
Start-Up Influent
Start-Up Effluent, Unit 1
Start-Up Effluent, Unit 2
3rd Tank Influent
3rd Tank Effluent, Unit 1
3rd Tank Effluent, Unit 2
5th Tank Influent
5th Tank Effluent, Unit 1
5th Tank Effluent, Unit 2
Post-Rest 1st Draw, Unit 1
Post-Rest 1st Draw, Unit 2
Post-Rest 2nd Sample, Unit 1
Post-Rest 2nd Sample, Unit 2
Mean Influent
Mean Effluent, Unit 1
Mean Effluent, Unit 2
Percent Reduction, Unit 1
Percent Reduction, Unit 2
Overall Mean Effluent
Overall Percent Reduction
Units Tested
960
4
5
920
7
8
980
8
8
8
8
8
8
950
7
7
>99
>99
7
>99
1,2
1100
ND (0.5)
0.7
1200
20
20
1100
67
78
96
85
61
48
1100
49
46
96
96
48
96
3,4
900
ND(1)
ND(1)
980
7
5
980
7
6
7
6
7
6
950
6
5
>99
>99
6
>99
5,6
1100
0.7
1.3
1200
71
110
1100
230
320
260
310
150("
250
1100
140
200
87
82
170
85
7,8
1000
27
33
1100
26
22
1200
18
16
31
19
20
23
1100
23
23
98
98
23
98
11, 12
1000(l)
ND(10)
ND(10)
740
ND(10)
ND(10)
790
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
790
ND(10)
ND(10)
99
99
ND(10)
99
9, 10
680
ND(2)
ND(2)
900
2
3
650
2
2
2
ND(2)
3
3
740
2
2
>99
>99
2
>99
13, 14
Data
Mevinphos
(ng/L)
1300
15
13
1300
18
21
1500
19
22
12
21
20
23
1400
17
20
99
99
19
99
15, 16
Oxamyl
(Hg/L)
970
3
4
980
5
5
1000
5
5
5
4
5
5
980
5
5
>99
>99
5
>99
17, 18
Strychnine
(ng/L)
1100
15
ND(5)
1100
29
ND(5)
1100
32
7
34
6
33
6
1100
29
6
97
>99
18
98
19,20
Note: The detection limit values were used for calculating the mean effluents and percent reductions.
(1) Number only the average of two of the triplicate analysis numbers, due to analytical errors.
post-rest first draw sample. This corresponds to 72% reduction, using the mean influent for the
percent reduction calculation. The rising effluent level trend was also evident for benzene. Both
of these substances are volatile, so perhaps volatility played a role in their passage through the
membrane. They may have adsorbed onto and diffused through the membrane material, or
perhaps they began to break down the membrane.
The absorption theory is lent some weight by an examination of the reject water data in Table 4-
6. The average concentrations for benzene and chloroform are lower than for the other
chemicals. The reject water concentrations for all other chemicals are above the influent
challenge levels, indicating that they did not adsorb onto the membrane or surfaces in contact
with the water. The organic chemical challenges reject water data also indicates that the test
units operated at greater than 25% efficiency, as discussed above in section 4.4.1.
If benzene or chloroform did begin to degrade the integrity of the RO membrane, it is not evident
through an examination of the TDS reduction data in Table 4-5, nor is it evident that any other
chemicals adversely affected membrane performance. More research would be needed to
determine why the amounts of benzene and chloroform passing through the membrane increased
through the challenge period.
22
-------
Table 4-5.
Aldicarb
IDS
Sample (mg/L)
Start-Up Influent
Start-Up Effluent, Unit 1
Start-Up Effluent, Unit 2
3rd 'lank Influent
3rd Tank Effluent, Unit 1
3rd Tank Effluent, Unit 2
5th Tank Influent
5th Tank Effluent, Unit 1
5th Tank Effluent, Unit 2
Post-Rest 1st Draw, Unit 1
Post-Rest 1st Draw, Unit 2
Mean Influent
Mean Effluent, Unit 1
Mean Effluent, Unit 2
Percent Reduction, Unit 1
Percent Reduction, Unit 2
860
16
99
840
38
21
730
15
22
18
17
810
22
40
97
95
TDS Reduction Data
Benzene Carbofuran Chloroform
TDS TDS TDS
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
730
21
15
750
18
12
750
19
13
20
13
740
20
13
97
98
750
130
23
730
17
100
740
18
20
17
13
740
46
39
94
95
740
22
20
740
16
20
750
16
21
16
22
740
18
21
98
97
for Organic Chemical Challenges
Dichlorvos Dicrotophos Fenamiphos Mevinphos Oxamyl
TDS TDS TDS TDS TDS
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
760
19
13
750
16
14
740
17
14
17
14
750
17
14
98
98
750
30
27
750
20
23
760
19
22
20
23
750
22
24
97
97
1000
120
1000(l)
830
570
2700
750m
11
15
II
14
750
11
15
99
98
760
16
14
770
17
15
770
16
15
17
15
770
17
15
98
98
760
14
13
750
13
12
750
14
12
14
12
750
14
12
98
98
Strychnine
TDS
(mg/L)
760
34
17
750
36
15
750
37
15
38
15
750
36
16
95
98
(1) Sample results not included in mean effluent and percent reduction calculations. See section 5.7.4.3 for further
discussion.
Table 4-6. Organic Chemical Challenge Reject Water Data
Sample
Start-Up
1/2 through 1st Tank
3/4 through 1 st tank
1/2 through 5th Tank
Unit Sampled
Aldicarb
(Hg/L)
1800
1500
1500
1400
1
Benzene
(Hg/L)
970
1100
1000
970
3
Carbofuran
(Hg/L)
1300
1600
1500
1400
5
Chloroform
(fig/L)
980
990
970
1000
7
Dichlorvos
(Hg/L)
2700
1800
1800
1300
9
Dicrotophos
(Hg/L)
1400
1200
1700
880
12
Fenamiphos
(Hg/L)
1500
1400
1200
1100
13
Mevinphos
(Hg/L)
2000
2100
1800
1400
15
Oxamyl
(Hg/L)
1700
1500
1500
1300
17
Strychnine
(Hg/L)
1900
1800
1700
1500
19
4.5 Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenges
Based on the RO membrane challenge results, and the criteria discussed in section 3.1.2, the
post-membrane carbon filter was challenged with mercury, benzene, chloroform, dichlorvos,
mevinphos, and strychnine. The target challenge levels were the maximum effluent levels
measured during the RO membrane challenges. Based on the data in Table 4-2, the carbon filters
were operated at 0.8 gpm on an operation cycle where the "on" portion was four minutes and
thirty seconds, and the "off portion was one hour and ten minutes.
The carbon challenge results are shown below in Table 4-7. Each data point is the arithmetic
mean of the triplicate sample analyses, except for the footnoted Mevinphos data points. The lab
technician did not use the proper preservative for the Mevinphos samples, and the preservative
interfered with the internal standard, making it impossible to determine the amount of
Mevinphos in some of the samples. See section 5.7.4.3 for further discussion. All individual
sample values constituting the triplicate analyses are presented in Table A-9 in Appendix A. The
water chemistry data for these challenges can be found in Table A-10 of Appendix A.
The carbon filters reduced all substances by 99% or more, except for strychnine. The percent
reduction of strychnine was limited by the detection limit for the chemical.
23
-------
Table 4-7. Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenge Data
Mercury Benzene Chloroform Dichlorvos Mevinphos
Sample (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L) (ng/L)
Target Influent Level
Start-Up Influent
Start-Up Effluent, Unit 1
Start-Up Effluent, Unit 2
7.5 Hours Influent
7.5 Hours Effluent, Unit 1
7.5 Hours Effluent, Unit 2
15 Hours Influent
1 5 Hours Effluent, Unit 1
15 Hours Effluent, Unit 2
Mean Influent
Mean Effluent, Unit 1
Mean Effluent, Unit 2
Percent Reduction, Unit 1
Percent Reduction, Unit 2
Overall Mean Effluent
Overall Percent Reduction
840
830
1.4
1.7
IToo
3.4
3.6
970
2.8
3.0
960
2.6
2.8
>99
>99
2.7
>99
96
83
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
82
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
85
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
83
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
>99
>99
ND (0.5)
>99
320
320
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
300
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
330
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
320
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
>99
>99
ND (0.5)
>99
33
28
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
28
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
31
ND (0.2)
NDJ0.2)
29
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
>99
>99
ND (0.2)
>99
23
21
ND (0.2)(1)
ND (0.2)
19
ND (0.2)(1)
ND (0.2)(1)
21
ND (0.2)(2)
ND (0.2)(2)
20
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
99
99
ND (0.2)
99
Strychnine
(HS/L)
30
37
ND(5)
ND(5)
28
ND(5)
ND(5)
21
ND(5)
ND(5)
31
ND(5)
ND(5)
84
84
ND(5)
84
Note: The detection limit values were used for calculating the mean effluents and percent reductions.
(1) Mean calculated from only two sample analyses, see section 5.7.4.3 for further discussion.
(2) Only one sample analyzed for data point, see section 5.7.4.3 for further discussion.
4.6 Conclusions
The RO membrane was not able to remove more than 90% of the chloroform or mercury
challenges. However, the membrane and post-membrane carbon filter challenge data combined
shows that the two treatment technologies working in concert within the Purefecta™ system
removed 99% or more of all challenge chemicals, except for cesium, which was not used to test
the carbon filter.
24
-------
Chapter 5
QA/QC
5.1 Introduction
An important aspect of verification testing is the QA/QC procedures and requirements. Careful
adherence to the procedures ensured that the data presented in this report was of sound quality,
defensible, and representative of the equipment performance. The primary areas of evaluation
were representativeness, precision, accuracy, and completeness.
Because the ETV was conducted at the NSF testing lab, all laboratory activities were conducted
in accordance with the provisions of the NSF International Laboratories Quality Assurance
Manual.
5.2 Test Procedure QA/QC
NSF testing laboratory staff conducted the tests by following an NSF SOP created specifically
for the tests. NSF QA Department Staff performed an informal audit during testing to ensure the
proper procedures were followed.
All water quality measurements were within the specifications in sections 3.2.3.1 and 3.2.3.2,
except for TDS in the RO membrane conditioning and challenge water. Two of the influent TDS
samples from the Aldicarb challenge, and two of the influent TDS samples from the Fenamiphos
challenge were above the allowable upper limit of 825 mg/L (see Table 4-7). However, the high
TDS levels were not significant deviations. It is unlikely that these deviations affected the
chemical challenge tests in any way.
5.3 Sample Handling
All samples analyzed by the NSF Chemistry Laboratory were labeled with unique ID numbers.
These ID numbers appear on the NSF laboratory reports for the tests. All samples were analyzed
within allowable hold times.
5.4 Analytical Methods QA/QC
The calibrations of all analytical instruments, and the analyses of all parameters complied with
the QA/QC provisions of the NSF International Laboratories Quality Assurance Manual.
The NSF QA/QC requirements are all compliant with those given in the USEPA Method or
Standard Method for the parameter. Also, every analytical instrument has an NSF SOP
governing its use.
25
-------
5.5 Documentation
All laboratory activities were documented using specially prepared laboratory bench sheets and
NSF laboratory reports. Data from the bench sheets and laboratory reports were entered into
Microsoft Excel spreadsheets. These spreadsheets were used to calculate average influents and
effluents, and percent reductions for each challenge chemical. One hundred percent of the data
entered into the spreadsheets was checked by a reviewer to confirm all data and calculations
were correct.
5.6 Data Review
NSF QA/QC staff reviewed the raw data records for compliance with QA/QC requirements.
NSF ETV program staff checked 100% of the data in the NSF laboratory reports against the
laboratory bench sheets.
5.7 Data Quality Indicators
The quality of data generated for this ETV can be established through four indicators of data
quality: representativeness, accuracy, precision, and completeness.
5.7.1 Representativeness
Representativeness refers to the degree to which the data accurately and precisely represent the
conditions or characteristics of the parameter represented by the data, or the expected
performance of the RO system under normal use conditions. Representativeness was ensured by
consistent execution of the test protocol for each challenge chemical, including timing of sample
collection, sampling procedures, and sample preservation. Representativeness was also ensured
by using each analytical method at its optimum capability to provide results that represent the
most accurate and precise measurement it is capable of achieving.
5.7.2 Accuracy
Accuracy was quantified as the percent recovery of the parameter in a sample of known quantity.
Accuracy was measured through use of both matrix spikes of a known quantity, and certified
standards during calibration of an instrument. The following equation was used to calculate
percent recovery:
Percent Recovery = 100 x [(Xknown - XmeaSLlred)/Xknown]
where: Xkaown = known concentration of the measured parameter
Xmeasured = measured concentration of parameter
The accuracy of the benchtop chlorine, pH, TDS, and turbidity meters were checked daily during
the calibration procedures using certified check standards. For samples analyzed in batches
(gravimetric TDS, TOC, all challenge chemicals), certified QC standards and/or matrix spikes
were run with each batch.
26
-------
The percent recoveries of all matrix spikes and standards were within the allowable limits for all
analytical methods.
5.7.3 Precision
Precision refers to the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements and provides
an estimate of random error. One sample per batch was analyzed in duplicate for the gravimetric
TDS, TOC and challenge chemical analyses. Duplicate drinking water samples were analyzed as
part of the daily calibration process for the benchtop chlorine, pH, TDS, and turbidity meters.
Precision of the duplicate analyses was measured by use of the following equation to calculate
relative percent deviation (RPD):
RPD =
x200
Sl+S2
where:
Sl = sample analysis result; and
S2 - sample duplicate analysis result.
All RPDs were within NSF's established allowable limits for each parameter.
5.7.4 Completeness
Completeness is the proportion of valid, acceptable data generated using each method as
compared to the requirements of the test/QA plan. The completeness objective for data
generated during verification testing is based on the number of samples collected and analyzed
for each parameter and/or method.
Table 5-1. Completeness Requirements
Number of Samples per Parameter
and/or Method Percent Completeness
(MO 80%
11-50 90%
> 50 95%
Completeness is defined as follows for all measurements:
%C = (V/T)X100
where:
%C = percent completeness;
V = number of measurements judged valid; and
T = total number of measurements.
27
-------
5.7.4.1 Number of Systems Tested
Twenty units were tested, as called for in the test/QA plan, giving a completeness measurement
of 100% for this category.
5.7.4.2 Water Chemistry Measurements
One hundred percent of the planned samples were collected and reported for every parameter but
TOC. During the carbon filter mercury challenge one TOC sample was missed. A total of 18
TOC samples were to be collected during the carbon filter challenges, plus six more during the
carbon filter conditioning periods. The missed sample gives a completeness of 96%.
5.7.4.3 Challenge Chemicals
Five TDS samples were reported, but not included in the percent reduction calculations in Table
4-3 and Table 4-6 because there was likely a sampling error associated with the sample. The
samples were the third tank unit 1 effluent sample from the inorganic chemicals challenge, and
the start-up and third tank effluent TDS samples from both test units for the RO membrane
fenamiphos challenge. These five TDS analyses were not included in the percent reduction
calculations because they were all much higher than expected. The inorganic chemicals
challenge third tank unit 1 effluent sample had a reported level of 760 mg/L, the same as the
influent. The unit 1 TDS levels from the start-up and fifth tank samples were 30 mg/L and 29
mg/L, respectively, indicating that the unit was functioning properly, and that the third tank
sample was an aberration.
Of the fenamiphos challenge effluent TDS samples in question, one result was equal to the
influent (unit 2 start-up), while the other three were over 100 mg/L. The effluent fenamiphos
levels from the same start-up and third tank sample points were at or near the detection limit of 2
Hg/L, which indicates that the test units were functioning properly. Also, the fifth tank and post-
rest effluent TDS sample results were all less than 15 mg/L. It is highly unlikely that the test
units improved in performance over a matter of hours such that the effluent TDS levels dropped
over tenfold. It is likely that there was a sampling error, or the samples were somehow
contaminated. Discarding these five samples gives a completeness of 96% for this parameter.
One reject water sample from the inorganic chemicals challenge was likely subject to a dilution
error, so the results were not used to calculate the mean reject water levels in Table 4-4. The
reported cadmium, cesium, and strontium results for the "3/4 through 1st tank" sample are only
the second duplicate sample. The first duplicate sample results were approximately twice as
high as the second sample. The same sample was analyzed separately for mercury, and the first
and second samples both gave results of 1200 |~ig/L. If the amount of the chemicals in the first
sample was actually twice that of the second sample, it is likely that it also would have been
evident in the mercury analysis. A total of eight reject water samples were collected during the
inorganic chemicals challenge. The one sample whose results were discarded gives a
completeness of 87.5% for the reject water samples.
28
-------
Two challenge chemical data points in Table 4-5 are the mean of only two of the triplicate
sample analyses, due to likely dilution errors during analysis. The unit 1 post-rest second sample
from the chloroform reduction challenge is reported as 150 ng/L. This number is the mean of
120 |~ig/L and 180 |~ig/L. The third number triplicate analysis number is more than four times
higher than the mean of 150 ng/L, at 690 ng/L. The start-up influent for dichlorvos is reported as
1000 |~ig/L. The two triplicate analyses constituting this mean are both 1000 |~ig/L. The third
triplicate number not used is 540 ng/L, which is approximately half of the other two numbers.
Both the 690 |ag/L and 540 |ag/L are reported in the appendix in Table A-5. The one sample
result discarded for each chemical out of the 35 samples collected (excluding the reject water
samples), gives a completeness percentage of 97%.
The samples for mevinphos analysis from that chemical's carbon filter challenge were
improperly preserved with sodium thiosulfate instead of sodium sulfite. The sodium thiosulfate
gave high sulfur levels in the samples, which caused a suppression of the internal standard added
during the sample extraction process. This suppression in turn caused an exaggeration of the
recovery standard during sample analysis, which made it impossible to accurately determine the
Mevinphos levels in some of the effluent samples. Six samples were affected, out of a total of 63
that were collected during both the RO membrane and carbon filter mevinphos challenges. This
corresponds to a completeness of 90% for mevinphos.
29
-------
Chapter 6
References
APHA, AWWA and WEF (1998). Standard Methods for Examination of Water and
Wastewater. 20th ed. Washington, D.C. APHA.
NSF International (2005). NSF/ANSI53 - 2005, Drinking water treatment units - health effects.
Ann Arbor, MI, NSF International.
NSF International (2005). NSF/ANSI 58 - 2005, Reverse osmosis drinking water treatment
systems. Ann Arbor, MI, NSF International.
Slovak, Robert (2000). A Practical Application Manual for Residential, Point of Use Reverse
Osmosis Systems. Lisle, IL, Water Quality Association
USEPA (2004). Water Security Research and Technical Support Action Plan. EPA/600/R-
04/063.
30
-------
Appendix A
Conditioning and Chemical Challenges Data Tables
31
-------
Table A-l. RO Membrane Conditioning Water Chemistry Data
Sample
Group A Influent
pH
Temperature (°C)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
Group B Influent
PH
Temperature (°C)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
Group C Influent
pH
Temperature (°C)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
Group D Influent
PH
Temperature (°C)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
Day 1
7.1
25
ND (0.05)
750
0.1
7.3
25
ND (0.05)
770
ND(O.l)
7.4
24
ND (0.05)
770
ND(O.l)
7.5
25
ND (0.05)
770
ND(O.l)
Day 2
7.4
24
ND (0.05)
770
ND(O.l)
7.2
25
ND (0.05)
750
ND(O.l)
7.8
25
ND (0.05)
750
0.1
7.1
24
ND (0.05)
760
0.1
Day 3
7.5
25
ND (0.05)
760
0.1
7.4
25
ND (0.05)
740
0.1
7.5
25
ND (0.05)
740
ND(O.l)
7.2
25
ND (0.05)
730
ND(O.l)
Day 4
7.4
25
ND (0.05)
750
0.1
7.4
25
ND (0.05)
740
0.1
7.4
25
ND (0.05)
740
0.1
7.3
25
ND (0.05)
750
0.1
Day 5
7.4
25
ND (0.05)
740
0.1
7.5
25
ND (0.05)
740
ND(O.l)
7.4
24
ND (0.05)
740
ND(O.l)
7.4
24
ND (0.05)
730
ND(O.l)
Day 6
7.6
25
ND (0.05)
770
ND(O.l)
7.4
24
ND (0.05)
770
ND(O.l)
7.4
24
ND (0.05)
760
ND(O.l)
7.5
24
ND (0.05)
750
ND(O.l)
Day 7
7.2
25
ND (0.05)
760
ND(O.l)
7.1
24
ND (0.05)
750
ND(O.l)
7.1
24
ND (0.05)
740
ND(O.l)
7.2
24
ND (0.05)
740
ND(O.l)
Table A-2. Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Conditioning Influent Water Data
Total
Chloroform Temperature Chlorine Total Organic
Sample Point (ng/L) pH (°C) (mg/L) Carbon (mg/L) Turbidity (NTU)
Group 1
Start-up
125 gallons
250 gallons
Group 2
Start-up
125 gallons
250 gallons
360
310
290
370
350
350
7.5
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.3
7.4
21
21
22
21
21
21
2.5
2.3
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.2
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.1
ND(O.l)
ND(O.l)
0.2
ND(O.l)
ND(O.l)
ND(O.l)
32
-------
Table A-3. RO Membrane TDS reduction System Check Data
Sample
Group 1 Influent
Unit 1
Unit 2
Unit 9
Unit 10
Unit 23
Unit 24
Group 2 Influent
Unit 3
Unit 4
Units
Unite
Unit?
UnitS
Group 3 Influent
Unit 1 1
Unit 12
Unit 13
Unit 14
Unit 15
Unit 16
Group 4 Influent
Unit 17
Unit 18
Unit 19
Unit 20
Unit 21
Unit 22
TDS
Total Influent Effluent
Temperature Chlorine Turbidity TDS Sample 1
pH (°C) (mg/L) (NTU) (mg/L) (mg/L)
7.4 25 ND(0.05) ND (0.1) 760
16
16
19
18
14
15
7.4 25 ND(0.05) ND (0.1) 750
16
12
14
11
16
18
7.3 25 ND(0.05) ND(O.l) 750
17
13
11
14
15
14
7.4 25 ND(0.05) ND(O.l) 760
13
12
31
15
14
15
TDS
Effluent
Sample 2
(mg/L)
16
16
19
18
14
16
16
11
14
11
16
18
17
13
12
15
16
15
13
12
31
15
15
15
TDS
Effluent
Sample 3
(mg/L)
16
16
19
18
14
16
16
12
14
11
16
18
17
13
11
14
16
15
13
12
31
15
15
15
Percent
Reduction
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
99%
99%
99%
98%
98%
98%
98%
99%
98%
98%
98%
98%
98%
96%
98%
98%
98%
33
-------
Table A-4. RO Membrane Inorganic Chemicals Challenge Data
Sample
Start-up Influent
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
Start-up Effluent, Unit 1
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
Start-up Effluent, Unit 2
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
3rd Tank Influent
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
3rd Tank Effluent, Unit 1
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
3rd Tank Effluent, Unit 2
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
5th Tank Influent
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
5th Tank Effluent, Unit 1
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
5th Tank Effluent, Unit 2
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
Post-Rest 1st Draw, Unit 1
Post-Rest 1st Draw, Unit 2
Post-Rest 2nd Sample, Unit 1
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
Post-Rest 2nd Sample, Unit 2
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
Cadmium
(Hg/L)
970
1000
1100
1000
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.8
1000
1000
1000
1000
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.6
2.5
2.4
2.5
1000
1000
1000
1000
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.7
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.3
1.8
2.5
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.4
2.4
2.4
2.4
Cesium
(fig/L)
1000
1000
1100
1000
15
15
15
15
32
29
31
31
1100
1000
1000
1000
40
40
40
40
51
49
51
50
1100
1100
1000
1100
37
37
37
37
48
48
49
48
38
52
37
38
36
37
50
49
51
50
Mercury
(fig/L)
1100
1100
1100
1100
190
200
190
190
450
490
450
460
1100
1100
1100
1100
710
730
780
740
780
710
780
757
1100
1100
1100
1100
840
780
800
810
840
870
820
840
730
760
750
740
750
750
740
750
760
750
Strontium
(fig/L)
800
840
890
840
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
840
850
850
850
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
860
860
850
860
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
34
-------
Table A-5. RO Membrane Organic Chemical Challenge Data
Aldicarb Benzene Carbofuran
Sample (ug/L) (iig/L) (ug/L)
Start- up Influent
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
Start-up Effluent, Unit 1
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
Start-up Effluent, Unit 2
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
3rd Tank Influent
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
3rd Tank Effluent, Unit 1
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
3rd Tank Effluent, Unit 2
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
5th Tank Influent
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
5th Tank Effluent, Unit 1
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
5th Tank Effluent, Unit 2
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
Post-Rest 1st Draw, Unit 1
Post-Rest 1st Draw, Unit 2
Post-Rest 2nd Sample, Unit 1
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
Post-Rest 2nd Sample, Unit 2
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
940
960
970
960
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
920
980
960
920
7
7
7
7
8
8
8
8
1000
990
960
980
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
(1) Sample results not included in
1000
1100
1200
1100
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1200
1200
1200
1200
17
20
22
20
20
21
20
20
1100
980
1200
1100
68
70
64
67
69
83
82
78
96
85
68
57
58
61
54
49
42
48
880
890
920
900
ND(1)
ND(1)
ND(1)
ND(1)
ND(1)
ND(1)
ND(1)
ND(1)
970
970
990
980
7
7
7
7
5
5
5
5
990
980
970
980
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
7
6
7
7
7
7
6
6
6
6
Chloroform Dicrotophos Dichlorvos
(ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
1000
1100
1100
1100
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.4
1.3
1.1
1.3
1200
1100
1200
1200
67
80
65
71
100
120
110
110
1100
1200
1100
1100
230
220
230
230
340
310
300
320
260
310
690'"
120
180
150
290
250
220
250
mean calculations. See section 5.7
1000
1000
540(l)
1000
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND (10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND (10)
780
830
620
740
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND (10)
ND (10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND (10)
800
800
770
790
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND (10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND (10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND (10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND(10)
ND (10)
.4.3 for discussion.
1200
890
1000
1000
27
28
25
27
33
35
32
33
1100
1100
1100
1100
27
25
25
26
23
22
20
22
1200
1200
1100
1200
17
16
22
18
14
15
18
16
31
19
17
21
23
20
20
23
27
23
Fenamiphos
(Ug/L)
600
620
820
680
ND(2)
ND(2)
ND(2)
ND(2)
ND(2)
ND(2)
ND(2)
ND(2)
1000
820
880
900
2
2
2
2
3
ND(2)
3
3
640
720
590
650
3
2
ND(2)
2
ND(2)
ND(2)
2
2
2
ND(2)
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
Mevinphos
(Hg/L)
1400
1200
1300
1300
14
16
14
15
9.2
16
13
13
1500
1100
1200
1300
15
16
22
18
20
20
24
21
1200
1300
2000
1500
19
20
17
19
23
18
24
22
12
21
19
21
21
20
24
21
24
23
Oxamyl
(Ug/L)
970
960
970
970
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
990
980
980
980
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1000
1000
1000
1000
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Strychnine
(Hg/L)
1100
1100
1100
1100
14
15
15
15
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
1100
1100
1100
1100
29
29
30
29
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
1100
1100
1100
1100
32
32
33
32
7
7
6
7
34
6
32
33
33
33
6
6
6
6
35
-------
Table A-6. RO Membrane Challenge Water Chemistry Data
Inorganics Aldicarb Benzene Carbofuran Chloroform Dicrotophos Dichlorvos Fenamiphos Mevinphos Oxamyl Strychnine
Sample Challenge Challenge Challenge Challenge Challenge Challenge Challenge Challenge Challenge Challenge Challenge
Start-up Influent
pH
Temperature (°C)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
5th Tank Influent
pH
Temperature (°C)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
6.3
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
6.2
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.6
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.6
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.5
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.7
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.4
25
ND (0.05)
0.1
7.3
25
ND (0.05)
0.1
7.4
25
ND (0.05)
0.1
7.5
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.8
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.4
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.3
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.1
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.7
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.4
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.8
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.6
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.6
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.6
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.7
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
7.4
25
ND (0.05)
ND(O.l)
Table A-7. RO Membrane Inorganic Chemicals Challenge Reject Water Data
Sample
Cadmium
(lig/L)
Cesium
(lig/L)
Mercury
(lig/L)
Strontium
(lig/L)
Start-up
Duplicate Sample 1 2000 2000 1200 1700
Duplicate Sample 2 2100 2000 1200 1700
Mean 2100 2000 1200 1700
1/2 Through First Tank
Duplicate Sample 1 1800 1700 1200 1400
Duplicate Sample 2 1700 1700 1300 1400
Mean 1800 1700 1300 1400
3/4 Through First Tank
Duplicate Sample 1 3400(1) 36001" 1200 3300(1)
Duplicate Sample 2 1700 1700 1200 1400
Mean 1700 1700 1200 1400
1/2 Through 5th Tank
Duplicate Sample 1 1400 1400 1200 1100
Duplicate Sample 2 1500 1500 1200 1200
Mean 1500 1500 1200 1200
(1) Sample results not included in mean calculations. See section 5.7.4.3 for
discussion.
Table A-8. RO Membrane Organic Chemical Challenge Reject Water Data
Aldicarb Benzene Carbofuran Chloroform Dicrotophos Dichlorvos Fenamiphos Mevinphos Oxamyl Strychnine
Sample (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L) (ug/L)
Start-up
Duplicate Sample 1 1800 1000 1300 990 1900 2600 1300 1900 1700 1900
Duplicate Sample 2 1800 940 1300 970 850 2700 1700 2000 1700 1900
Mean 1800 970 1300 980 1400 2700 1500 2000 1700 1900
1/2 Through First Tank
Duplicate Sample 1 1400 1100 1600 1000 840 1700 1300 2300 1500 1800
Duplicate Sample 2 1500 1100 1600 980 1600 1800 1400 1800 1500 1800
Mean 1500 1100 1600 990 1200 1800 1400 2100 1500 1800
3/4 Through First Tank
Duplicate Sample 1 1400 890 1500 940 1500 1900 1100 1800 1500 1700
Duplicate Sample 2 1500 1100 1400 1000 1800 1600 1300 1700 1500 1700
Mean 1500 1000 1500 970 1700 1800 1200 1800 1500 1700
1/2 Through 5th Tank
Duplicate Sample 1
Duplicate Sample 2
Mean
1400
1400
1400
980
960
970
1400
1300
1400
1100
970
1000
940
810
880
1200
1400
1300
930
1300
1100
1500
1300
1400
1300
1300
1300
1400
1500
1500
36
-------
Table A-9. Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenge Data
Sample
Target Influent Level
Start-up Influent
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
Start-up Effluent, Unit 1
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
Start-up Effluent, Unit 2
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
7.5 Hours Influent
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
7.5 Hours Effluent, Unit 1
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
7.5 Hours Effluent, Unit 2
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
15 Hours Influent
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
15 Hours Effluent, Unit 1
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
15 Hours Effluent, Unit 2
Triplicate Sample 1
Triplicate Sample 2
Triplicate Sample 3
Mean
X - No analysis result due
Mercury
(fig/L)
840
860
840
800
830
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.8
1.6
1.6
1.7
1100
1000
1100
1100
3.4
3.4
3.5
3.4
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.6
960
990
960
970
2.7
2.9
2.9
2.8
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.0
to sampling error.
Benzene
(Hg/L)
96
76
87
87
83
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
83
79
83
82
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
78
85
93
85
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
See section 5
Chloroform
(Hg/L)
320
330
310
330
320
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
310
290
300
300
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
330
340
330
330
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
ND (0.5)
Dichlorvos
(Hg/L)
33
26
29
28
28
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
28
30
27
28
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
31
31
30
31
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND (0.2)
Mevinphos
(Hg/L)
23
21
21
20
21
ND(0.2)
X
ND(0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND(0.2)
ND(0.2)
ND(0.2)
ND (0.2)
19
18
20
19
X
ND(0.2)
ND(0.2)
ND (0.2)
ND(0.2)
X
ND(0.2)
ND (0.2)
21
22
21
21
ND(0.2)
X
X
ND (0.2)
X
ND(0.2)
ND(0.2)
ND (0.2)
Strychnine
(Hg/L)
30
37
37
37
37
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
27
28
28
28
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
27
27
27
27
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
ND(5)
.7.4.3 for further discussion
37
-------
Table A-10. Post-Membrane Carbon Filter Challenge Water Chemistry Data
Sample
Mercury
Challenge
Benzene
Challenge
Chloroform
Challenge
Dichlorvos
Challenge
Mevinphos
Challenge
Strychnine
Challenge
Start-up Influent
pH
Temperature (°C)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
7.5
20
2.5
2.4
310
0.1
7.3
20
2.6
2.0
290
ND(O.l)
7.4
20
2.3
2.5
320
ND(O.l)
7.3
20
2.6
2.4
290
ND(O.l)
7.4
20
2.7
2.4
290
ND(O.l)
7.2
21
2.3
2.1
320
0.1
7.5 Hour Influent
15
pH
Temperature (°C)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
Hour Influent
PH
Temperature (°C)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
TDS (mg/L)
Turbidity (NTU)
7.4
20
2.2
#
290
ND(O.l)
7.5
21
2.6
2.2
200
ND(O.l)
7.3
20
2.1
1.9
310
ND(O.l)
7.3
20
2.4
2.0
290
0.1
7.4
20
2.7
2.2
280
ND(O.l)
7.5
21
2.5
2.2
300
ND(O.l)
7.3
20
2.8
2.3
280
0.1
7.3
20
2.7
2.4
290
ND(O.l)
7.5
20
1.8
2.3
300
0.2
7.3
20
2.1
2.6
300
0.3
7.4
20
2.5
2.1
310
0.1
7.3
21
2.4
2.1
300
0.1
# Technician missed sample collection
38
------- |