Document text
§TJTJin>MC
Ultraviolet Light Disinfection in the Use of
Individual Water Purification Devices
Technical Information Paper #31-006-0306
PURPOSE
This information paper provides an in-depth review of ultraviolet (UV) light for use as a
disinfection technology in potable water supplies. This paper is intended to assist the reader in
evaluating the disinfection capabilities of UV light-using Individual Water Purification Devices
(IWPDs) to inactivate disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and cysts.
REFERENCES
Appendix A contains a list of references.
INTRODUCTION
Background
Understanding the disinfection capabilities of UV light to inactivate disease-causing
microorganisms is important in protecting Soldiers, who are considering using this technology,
from acute health threats posed by these microorganisms. Soldiers deployed beyond traditional
field drinking water supplies must have access to microbiologically safe water. Using IWPDs is
one way to provide microbiologically safe water in these situations. These IWPDs must protect
the Soldier from acute microbial health threats. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Guide Standard and Protocol for Testing Microbiological Water Purifiers (reference 1)
provides performance standards by which an IWPD that uses UV light can be evaluated. The
performance standards are a minimum 6-log reduction/inactivation of bacteria, 4-log
reduction/inactivation of viruses, and 3-log reduction/inactivation of protozoan cysts. UV -using
IWPDs meeting these standards are considered effective against disease causing bacteria,
viruses, and protozoan cysts. Some IWPD manufacturers test their devices using this protocol.
This is the best way to evaluate the IWPDs disinfection capabilities. In the absence of that
testing data, this information paper can be used to gain an understanding of UV light disinfection
capabilities and help detennine if an IWPD using UV light could successfully meet the EPA
Guide’s minimum perfonnance standards. This information paper was developed primarily
using information obtained from the EPA’s Draft Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual
(reference 2). The manual provides a comprehensive review of available scientific literature
concerning UV disinfection in drinking water systems.
b. History of UV Light in Potable Water Applications. The gennicidal properties of UV
light were discovered in 1887. The first application of UV light in drinking water occurred in
Report Documentation Page
Form Approved
OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for the collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington
VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to a penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it
does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
1. REPORT DATE
MAR 2006
2. REPORT TYPE
technical
3. DATES COVERED
00-10-2005 to 00-03-2006
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
Ultraviolet Light Disinfection in the Use of Individual Water Purification 5b GRANT NUMBER
Devices -
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S) 5d. PROJECT NUMBER
Steven Clarke; William Bettin 31-006-0306
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine report number
(USACHPPM),5158 Blackhawk Road, APG,MD, 21010 TIP 31-006-0306
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S ) AND ADDRESS(ES ) 10. SPONSOR/MONITOR' S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Approved for public release; distribution unlimited
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
Soldiers deployed beyond traditional field drinking water supplies must have access to microbiologically
safe water. Using Individual Water Purification Devices (IWPDs) is one way to provide microbiologically
safe water in these situations. These IWPDs must protect the Soldier from acute microbial health threats.
Understanding the disinfection capabilities of ultraviolet (UV) light to inactivate disease-causing
microorganisms is important in protecting Soldiers, who are considering using this technology, from acute
health threats posed by these microorganisms. This information paper provides an in-depth review of UV
light for use as a disinfection technology in potable water supplies. This paper is intended to assist the
reader in evaluating the disinfection capabilities of UV light-using IWPDs to inactivate disease-causing
bacteria, viruses, and cysts.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
water; drinking water; water treatment; purification; ultraviolet light; disinfection; military; IWP
(individual water purifier); pathogen removal
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
U.S. Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine
(USACHPPM),5158 Blackhawk Road, APG,MD, 21010
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
a. REPORT
unclassified
b. ABSTRACT
unclassified
c. THIS PAGE
unclassified
17. LIMITATION OF
18. NUMBER
ABSTRACT
OF PAGES
15
RESPONSIBLE PERSON
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39-18
TIP #31-006-0306
1910 at Marselles, France. Since then, UV light is used in drinking water systems worldwide
primarily for disinfection. Currently there is only one Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS)
IWPD using UV light for disinfection. However, as UV research continues, more COTS IWPDs
incorporating UV technology may be developed.
ULTRAVIOLET DISINFECTION
UV Light Description
In drinking water, UV light is used for disinfection. The use of UV for disinfection involves: (1)
the generation of UV light with the desired germicidal properties, and (2) the delivery (or
transmission) of that light to microbial pathogens. As Figure 1 shows, UV light lies between x-
rays and visible light in the electromagnetic spectrum. The UV spectrum covers the wavelength
range from 100-400 nm. UV light at certain wavelengths can inactivate microorganisms. UV
light with wavelengths from 200-300 nm inactivates most microorganisms, with the greatest
amount of inactivation occurring around 260 nm.
Figure 1. The Electromagnetic Spectrum.
Frequency, Hz
1.0 10 10 10
$ 10 12 14 16 1$ 20 22 24
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
Visible light
Source: http://www.sentinelarchiving.com/ARTICLES/electromag.htm
UV Light Generation
Generation of UV light is similar to the generation of light in a fluorescent lamp. In general, a
UV lamp contains an inert gas (e.g., argon) and a small amount of liquid mercury. When a
2
TIP #31-006-0306
voltage is applied to the lamp, some of the liquid mercury vaporizes. Free electrons and ions
then collide with the gaseous mercury atoms, “exciting” the mercury atoms into a higher energy
state. Excited mercury atoms have a tendency to return to their ground, or normal, energy state
by discharging energy. The energy discharged is in the form of UV light. Mercury is
advantageous for UV disinfection applications because it emits light in the gennicidal
wavelength range (200 - 300 nm). The UV light produced depends on the concentration of
mercury atoms in the UV lamp, which is directly related to the mercury vapor pressure. Low
pressure mercury vapor produces monochromatic (light at primarily one wavelength) UV light at
a wavelength of 253.7 nm. Higher pressure mercury vapor produces UV light at several
wavelengths (polychromatic).
UV Lamps
UV Lamp Types
For water treatment systems, there are three general types of UV lamps typically used; low-
pressure (LP), low-pressure high-output (LPHO), and medium-pressure (MP). These terms are
based on the vapor pressure of mercury when the lamps are operating. LP and LPHO lamps
operate at mercury vapor pressures of 2x10' - 2x10" pounds per square inch (psi), thereby
producing monochromatic UV light at 253.7 nm. MP lamps operate at much higher mercury
vapor pressures of 2 - 200 psi and produce polychromatic UV light at a higher intensity. LP and
LPHO lamps operate at temperatures of 40 - 200° C, while MP lamps operate at a much higher
temperature range of 600-900° C. LP lamps have the lowest power requirements, while LPHO
and MP lamps have higher power requirements. Subsequently, LP lamps have the lowest
gennicidal output (0.2 W/cm), while LPHO and MP lamps have higher germicidal outputs
(0.5 - 3.5 W/cm and 5-30 W/cm, respectively). Figure 2 shows drawings of LP, LPHO, and
MP lamps. There is generally no difference in disinfection capability between these lamps. But
there are advantages and disadvantages to each. For example, compared to LP lamps, MP lamps
have a higher gennicidal output, typically require fewer lamps for a given applications, and
would likely be a smaller reactor. There are other types of lamps that can produce UV light such
as metal halide lamps, electrode-less mercury vapor lamps, and eximer lams. However, because
these lamps are not commonly used for drinking water UV disinfection application, they are not
discussed here. Most UV-using IWPDs will likely use LP lamps due to lower operating
temperatures and lower power requirements.
3
TIP #31-006-0306
Figure 2. LP, LPHO, and MP Lamp Drawings.
Source: Reference 2
UV Lamp Breakage
Lamp sleeves can break. Breakage is a concern due to potential for mercury release. UV lamps
contain mercury or an amalgam composed of mercury and another element, such as indium or
gallium. LP and MP lamps generally contain elemental mercury, while LHPO lamps generally
contain a mercury amalgam. The mercury contained within a UV lamp is isolated from exposure
by a lamp envelope and surrounding lamp sleeve. For the mercury to be released, both the lamp
and lamp sleeve must break. Breakage can occur when lamps are in operation as well as when
not operating but during maintenance. The mercury content in a single UV lamp used for water
treatment typically ranges from 0.005 to 0.4 grams (5-400 mg). LP lamps have less mercury
(5-50 mg/lamp) compared to LPFIO (26-150 mg/lamp) and MP lamps (200-400 mg/lamp).
Depending on the state mercury is in (gas, solid, or liquid) when a lamp breaks can be important
when detennining potential health risks. Mercury in the vapor phase may be released as very
fine particles, which may readily dissolve in water, as opposed to solid or liquid mercury that
will tend to settle. There is very little information on determining the amount of mercury
released relative to the amount of mercury in the lamp prior to breakage. One study involving
the breakage of a UV lamp containing 150 mg mercury in a 50 L batch reactor resulted in a
concentration of 2.5 ug/L of mercury in the reactor. However, it was not reported whether all
4
TIP #31-006-0306
150 mg of mercury was recovered. For IWPD use, since it is assumed that LP lamps are used,
breakage of the lamp during operation may result in contamination of water being treated with
5-50 mg of mercury.
UV Reactors
In drinking water systems, UV lamps are contained in a UV reactor. UV reactors operate as
either batch or continuous flow reactors. Several characteristics must be taken into account
when designing, installing, and operating a UV reactor. Among them are water quality
characteristics, distance between the lamp and the reactor wall, and the distribution of UV light.
Additionally, continuous flow reactors must take into account hydraulic characteristics of water
flowing through the reactor. Due to all these characteristics, microorganisms will not all receive
the same UV dose. For example, UV lamp placement in a reactor influences UV dose delivery.
If the distance between the lamp and the reactor wall is too large (i.e., a large amount of water
between the lamp and the reactor wall), microorganisms furthest from the lamp will receive less
UV intensity and subsequently a lower UV dose. Figure 3 is a schematic of a continuous flow
UV reactor. Most UV-using IWPDs will likely utilize a batch reactor system.
Figure 3. Continuous Flow UV Reactor Schematic.
UV Intensity
Sensor )
Reactor
Casing
Temperature
Sensor
UV Lamp Housed ill
Quartz S lee’
.Effluent
Pipe
Influent
Pipe"
UV Panel
Transmittance
Monitor
Quartz Sleeve
Wiper
Wiper
Motor
Electrical . '
UV Intensity Connection * „
Sensor to Lamp
Control
Source: Reference 2.
5
TIP #31-006-0306
UV Dose
Definition of UV Dose
In drinking water applications, disinfection using UV light follows the familiar CT concept
(disinfectant concentration times contact time). However, instead of using CT to describe UV
disinfection, UV dose is used instead. UV dose is defined as the measurement of the energy per
unit area that falls upon a surface. UV dose is the product of UV intensity, I, and exposure time,
T (IT), similar to the CT concept. UV intensity is usually expressed as mW/cm2 and exposure
time is measured in seconds (s). So UV dose is reported as mWs/cm . However, UV dose is
commonly expressed as millijoules per square centimeter (mJ/cm2), because 1 mWs = 1 mJ.
Estimating UV Dose
When disinfection test data is not available models can be used to gain an understanding of
disinfection capabilities of UV-using IWPDs. Several complex models have been developed to
estimate UV intensity delivered to a microorganism. With the estimated UV intensity, the UV
dose can calculated based on various exposure times and compared to UV doses detennined in
scientific literature. The simplest model used to estimate UV intensity is the radial model:
I(r) = (PL / 27tr) x (e"aer)
Where: Pl = UV power emitted per unit arc length of the lamp (mW/cm)
r = Radial distance from the lamp (cm)
ae = Base e absorption coefficient of the water (1/cm), ae = 2.303*A254
I(r) = UV intensity (mW/cm2) at a distance r from the lamp
Using data provided by the manufacturer on UV power emitted (Pl), dimensions of the IWPD
UV reactor, and assuming water quality variables to develop an absorption coefficient (ae), UV
intensity can be calculated. In the absence of good quality IWPD specific testing data, this
model can be used to provide a rough evaluation of disinfection capability.
Mechanism of UV Disinfection
Inactivating Versus Killing Microorganisms
When discussing UV light disinfection capabilities, a distinction must be made between
inactivating and killing microorganisms. For chemical disinfectants (e.g., chlorine, chlorine
dioxide, iodine), inactivating and killing can be considered synonymous terms since chemical
disinfectants destroy and damage cellular structures which interferes with metabolism,
biosynthesis, and growth. In contrast, UV light does not destroy or damage cellular structures.
Rather, UV light prevents microorganisms from reproducing. Microorganisms that cannot
6
TIP #31-006-0306
reproduce cannot infect and are thereby inactivated. Subsequently, when evaluating UV
disinfection capability, Giardia cyst and Cryptosporidium oocyst assays that measure infectivity,
not viability must be used. Excystation assays measuring viability are not accurate indicators of
UV disinfection capability.
Inactivation Mechanism
UV light inactivates microorganisms by damaging deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic
acid (RNA). When DNA and RNA absorb UV light, damage results from the formation of
dimers (covalent bonds between the same nucleic acids). Dimers cause faults in the transcription
of information from DNA to RNA, which in turn results in disruption of microorganism
replication. The microorganism continues to live, but it can’t reproduce and therefore is not
infective. A microorganism that cannot replicate cannot infect a host. Microorganisms
developed two mechanisms to repair damage caused by UV light. These mechanisms are termed
light and dark repair. It is possible for microorganisms to repair themselves to the extent where
they will become infective again after exposure to UV light. Fortunately, however, most data
indicates UV doses typically used in water treatment prevent most repairs. In general,
microorganism inactivation by UV light follows first order reaction rates. However, inactivation
rates can vary depending on microorganism type, and water quality conditions (e.g., turbidity,
particulate matter, and clumping of microorganisms). Lastly, similar to chemical disinfectants
and the CT approach to disinfection evaluation, data has shown that UV disinfection follows the
law of reciprocity over an intensity range of l-200mW/cm . For example, a UV dose of 1
mW/cm2 for 200 sec (i.e., 200 mJ/cm2) achieves the same level of inactivation as a UV dose of
200mW/cnr for 1 sec (i.e., 200 mJ/cm2).
Environmental Effects
Introduction
UV light can interact with materials potentially reducing disinfection capability. Interactions
include absorption, reflection, refraction, and scattering. Absorption is the transfonnation of
light to other forms of energy. When UV light is absorbed, it is no longer available for
disinfecting microorganisms. The remaining interactions, reflection, refraction, and scattering,
change the direction of UV light and the light is still available for disinfection. UV transmittance
and UV absorbance are two related common water quality parameters used to measure these
interactions. UV transmittance (UVT), particle content, and constituents that foul lamp sleeves
are the most significant water quality factors impacting UV disinfection capability. Water
temperature and pH do not generally have an impact on UV disinfection capability.
7
TIP #31-006-0306
Effect ofUVT
Both UVT and UV absorbance describe the amount of UV light passing through water. They are
related by the following equation:
% UVT = 100 x io_A254 *d
Where: UVT = UV transmittance at a 254 mn and a 1 cm pathlength
A254 = UV absorbance at 254 mn based on a 1 cm pathlength (unitless)
d = distance from UV lamp (cm). When measuring UV absorbance,
d = 1cm
UVT is affected by turbidity, particulate matter, and natural organic matter (NOM). UVT
directly affects dose-delivery, and subsequently disinfection capability. As turbidity increases,
UVT decreases and UV absorbance increases. Decreased UVT decreases UV intensity delivered
to the microorganism, thereby decreasing disinfection capability. Table 1 illustrates the effect of
turbidity on UVT, UV absorbance, UV intensity, and the required exposure time necessary to
achieve a UV dose of 5 mJ/cm (reference 3). Notice as turbidity increases, UVT decreases, UV
Absorbance increases, and UV intensity decreases. Therefore, to maintain a consistent 5 mJ/cm2
dose, exposure time must be increased. UV absorbers in typical source waters include humic
and fulvic acids, other organics, metals (e.g., iron), and anions (e.g., nitrates, sulfites). Both
soluble and particulate forms of these compounds will absorb UV light, subsequently reducing
UVT. UVT and UV absorbance will vary over time due to changing concentrations of these
compounds. UVT and UV absorbance are more variable in rivers and small lakes and will also
vary seasonally. Water systems using coagulation/flocculation, filtration, and oxidation
treatment processes will increase UVT by reducing UV absorbing compounds, thereby
increasing UV disinfection capability. For water systems considering the use of UV disinfection,
UV should be installed after filtration. Installing UV prior to filtration will require higher UV
doses to achieve the same level of inactivation due to higher levels of NOM, turbidity, and
particulate matter. Particles can reduce UV disinfection capability by absorbing UV light and
shielding microbes from UV light. No clear correlations have been observed between the
amount of turbidity, its characteristics, and the impact on UV disinfection capability (reference
4). Some studies have demonstrated that turbidities above 10 nephelometric turbidity unit
(NTU) and even up to 100 NTU have no impact on UV disinfection (references 1 and 5). While
other studies observed reduced UV disinfection capability at turbidities in the 5 NTU range
(reference 4). In general, increasing turbidities result in decreasing UV disinfection capability.
One study showed increasing turbidities from 0.25 to 20 NTU resulted in a 0.8-log and 0.5-log
decrease in inactivation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia, respectively (reference 3). The type of
particle present in water can affect UV disinfection. Particles with higher organic content were
observed to protect particle-associated viruses from UV light compared to particles of the same
size with no organic content (reference 6).
8
TIP #31-006-0306
Table 1. Effect of Turbidity on UVT, UV Absorbance, UV Intensity, and Exposure Time.
Turbidity ttvt UV UV Intensity Exposure time necessary to
(NTU) _ 0 _ Absorbance (mW/cm2) _ achieve 5 m.l/cm2 dose (s)
0.25
86
0.07
0.40
12.4
5.0
78
0.11
0.39
12.8
10.0
71
0.15
0.36
13.9
20.1
59
0.23
0.33
15.0
Effect of Water Temperature and pH
An advantage of UV disinfection over chemical disinfectants is that inactivation is generally
independent of water temperature and pH. Overall, effect of water temperature is insignificant
on UV disinfection capability. Temperature can affect the activity of repair enzymes and nucleic
acid configuration, which may result in a very slight increase in UV dose necessary with
decreasing temperatures to achieve the same log inactivation. Compared to turbidity, particulate
matter, and NOM, the effect of water temperature is insignificant. The water pH has an
insignificant effect on UV disinfection capability. Repair and nucleic acid configuration are
affected by pH. However, pH within a cell is relatively constant and does not vary with water
pH. Studies using MS2 virus showed pH over 6-9 range had no effect on inactivation.
Effect of Fouling Contaminants
Fouling of UV lamps will reduce UV disinfection capability. Hardness, alkalinity, temperature,
iron concentration, and pH all influence fouling. Compounds exhibiting decreasing solubility
with increasing temperatures (e.g., CaCCfi, CaSCfi, FeCCfi) are prime contributors to lamp
fouling. One study showed at total and calcium hardness levels less than 140 mg/L and iron less
than 0.1 mg/L, mechanical cleaning (wiper sweeping) every 15 min to 1 hour during operation of
a continuous flow UV reactor was sufficient to overcome impact of sleeve fouling. The
Langelier Saturation Index and Calcium Carbonate Precipitation Potential can be used to help
indicate fouling potential by indicating the tendency of the water to form a calcium carbonate
precipitate. For UV-using IWPDs, fouling of the UV lamp is not expected to be significant.
Although groundwaters are primarily associated with high hardness and dissolved solids, there
are also surface waters containing high levels of hardness and dissolved solids (reference 7).
Most IWPDs would likely be used with surface waters. However, since IWPD use would be
intermittent, not continuous, and the same source would likely not be used consistently, UV lamp
fouling is not expected to be a significant factor reducing UV disinfection capability.
9
TIP #31-006-0306
Bacteria, Virus, and Protozoa Inactivation Capability
Microorganism Inactivation Capability
The effectiveness of UV light on microorganism inactivation varies with different types of
microorganisms. Generally, UV light is most effective at inactivating Cryptosporidium and
Giardia, followed by bacteria and then viruses:
Cryptosporidium and Giardia > Bacteria > Viruses
Interestingly, UV resistance appears to follow microorganism size, with the smallest
microorganisms being most resistant. The reason for this may be due to the amount of UV light
absorption per cell. With microorganisms larger than 1 micron, the absorption of UV light by
the cell can be significant, effectively reducing resistance to UV disinfection. Table 2 is a
summary of numerous UV disinfection studies and shows UV doses and corresponding log
inactivation for various microorganisms. The most UV resistant viruses of concern in drinking
water are adenovirus Type 40 and 41. Because viruses are the most resistant to UV disinfection,
dosing is controlled by log inactivation requirements for viruses, not protozoan cysts (reference
4). As Table 2 shows, Cryptosporidium and Giardia are very sensitive to inactivation by low
doses of UV light (reference 8).
Table 2. UV Dose and Corresponding Log Inactivation by Microorganism.
Microorganism
Type
Microorganism
UV Dose for 3-log
inactivation
(mJ/cm2)
UV dose for 4-log
inactivation
(mJ/cm2)
Virus
Adenovirus Type 40
90
120
Virus
MS2
52
71
Virus
Poliovirus Type 1
23
30
Virus
Hepatitis A
15
21
Spore
Bacillus subtilis
61
78
Bacteria
Salmonella enteriditis
9
10
Bacteria
Salmonella typhi
5
9
Bacteria
Escherichia coli
6.7
8.4
Bacteria
Vibrio cholerae
2.2
2.9
Protozoa
Cryptosporidium parvurn
<6
-
Protozoa
Giardia lamblia
<6
-
Adapted from reference 2.
10
TIP #31-006-0306
Development of UV Dose Tables
Pursuant to the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, the EPA proposed UV
dose tables for various log inactivation of viruses, Cryptosporidium, and Giardia (reference 9).
The proposed UV doses for 3-log Giardia and Cryptosporidium, and 4-log virus inactivation are
shown in Table 3. Comparing these doses to those in Table 2 shows that the EPA proposed UV
doses are higher. These doses are more conservative and were developed to account for
uncertainty associated with the inactivation studies of microorganisms in controlled conditions
using low turbidity water (less than or equal to 1 NTU). These uncertainties are addressed by
applying a safety factor to experimentally detennined UV doses. The EPA collected UV
inactivation research data conducted over the past 50 years for adenovirus, Giardia lamblia,
Giardia muris, and Cryptosporidium parvum. Adenovirus was evaluated because it is
considered the most resistant to inactivation by UV light of the pathogenic waterborne viruses.
The EPA evaluated 19 studies for these microorganisms. When evaluating UV -using IWPDs
that are treating raw, unfiltered waters, higher UV doses than those shown in Table 3 may be
necessary to achieve the same level of inactivation. Higher UV doses can be achieved by longer
exposure time, removing UV absorbing components (e.g., particulate matter, NOM) from the
water prior to UV exposure (e.g., filtration or carbon absorption), or, if possible, increasing UV
lamp intensity. Even at higher UV doses, it appears that a UV-using IWPD can reasonably
achieve minimum 6-log bacteria, 4-log virus, and 3-log Giardia and Cryptosporidium
inactivation. For example, treating a turbid water (e.g., 30 NTU) may require a doubling of the
EPA proposed UV dose of 186 mJ/cnr required for 4-log virus inactivation shown in Table 3
(i.e., a UV dose of 372 mJ/cm2) to assure adequate inactivation. Assuming the UV-using IWPD
delivers an average UV intensity of 0.5 mW/cm2, an exposure time of 744 seconds (-12 min) is
necessary to achieve the required dose.
Table 3. Proposed UV Dose Requirements for 3-log Cryptosporidium and Giardia
Inactivation and 4-log Virus Inactivation (mJ/cm2)
3-log Cryptosporidium 3-log Giardia 4-log virus
_ inactivation _ inactivation _ inactivation _
12 11 186
UV TOXICITY
Disinfection Byproduct Formation
A main chronic health concern with chemical disinfectants is the formation of disinfection
byproducts (DBPs). Trihalome thanes and haloacetic acids, the only regulated DBPs are not
formed during UV disinfection. However, there are studies that show low-level (i.e., ug/L)
11
TIP #31-006-0306
formation of non-regulated DBPs (e.g., aldehydes). The health effects of non-regulated DBPs at
the levels formed during UV disinfection has not been widely researched. Use of UV-using
IWPDs may result in higher levels of non-regulated DBPs formed since raw, unfiltered waters
would contain higher amounts of DBP precursors (e.g., NOM). However, the IWPDs would be
used on a short-tenn basis (i.e. ,<3 -4 weeks) by healthy adult soldiers. Therefore, exposure to
UV-produced DBPs would likely have negligible adverse health effects.
Mercury Exposure
There is a health concern for the potential of mercury exposure due to lamp breakage. As
discussed earlier, all UV lamps contain some amount of mercury. Lamps used in water
treatment systems reportedly have between 5-400 mg of mercury. The risk associated with a
mercury release to the water due to lamp breakage during operation depends on many factors.
Little infonnation exists regarding the fate of mercury released to the water as a result of UV
lamp breakage. This adds to the uncertainty of the risk of adverse health effects. UV lamp
breakage during operation can result in potential ingestion of mercury. The EPA established a
maximum contaminant level (MCL) for mercury at 0.002 mg/L. The EPA has found mercury to
potentially cause kidney damage from short-term exposures at levels above the 0.002 mg/L MCL
(reference 10). UV lamps in IWPDs will contain mercury. Since these IWPDs will most likely
utilize LP lamps due to lower power requirements and lower operating temperatures, breaking a
UV lamp during operation could result in 5-50 mg of mercury being released into the water
being treated. Therefore, there is cause for concern, even for short-term exposure of mercury to
healthy soldiers if a UV lamp breaks during operation.
CONCLUSIONS
UV Disinfection Capability
UV disinfection is effective against protozoan cysts, bacteria, and viruses. UV light does not kill
microorganisms. Rather, it damages the DNA and RNA and prevents the microorganism from
reproducing. When a microorganism cannot reproduce it cannot infect. UV light is most
effective against Cryptosporidium and Giardia followed by bacteria. UV light is least effective
against viruses. Turbidity, particulate matter, and NOM are the most significant water quality
parameters having the greatest effect on UV disinfection capability. Water temperature and pH
have an insignificant effect on UV disinfection capability. Increasing levels of turbidity,
particulate matter, and NOM absorb more UV light, making less UV light available for
disinfection. Similar to the CT concept, the IT concept [UV intensity (mW/cnr) times exposure
time (s)], commonly referred to as UV dose (mJ/cm2), is used to describe UV disinfection
capability. Increasing concentrations of turbidity, particulate matter, and NOM require higher
UV doses in the form of increased UV intensity and/or longer exposure times to achieve the
same amount of inactivation. Studies evaluating UV disinfection capability indicate UV doses of
120 mJ/cm2 are adequate to achieve 4-log virus inactivation of the most resistant viruses. The
12
TIP #31-006-0306
2
EPA adds a safety factor and proposes a UV dose of 186 mJ/cm for a 4-log inactivation of
viruses. These UV doses will ensure a 3-log Giardia and Cryptosporidium inactivation and
likely ensure a 6-log bacteria inactivation. Most UV lamps used in drinking water applications
contain mercury. There is concern of adverse health effects to the consumer as a result of
mercury exposure from UV lamp breakage during operation.
Evaluating UV-Using IWPDs
UV-using IWPDs can be effective against Cryptosporidium , Giardia, bacteria, and viruses.
Since raw, unfiltered waters will be treated, UV doses higher than those proposed by the EPA
will likely be required to achieve the same level of inactivation. For example, treating a highly
turbid water (e.g., 30 NTU) may require a doubling of the EPA proposed UV dose of 186
mJ/cnr required for 4-log virus inactivation (i.e., a UV dose of 372 mJ/cm ). Assuming the UV-
using IWPD delivers an average UV intensity of 0.5 mW/cm , an exposure time of 744 seconds
(-12 min) is necessary to achieve the required dose. This seems reasonable and practical for
field use. Models can be used to help understand UV disinfection capabilities of UV-using
IWPDs under various water quality conditions likely to be encountered. There is cause for
concern for adverse health effects from exposure to mercury if the UV lamp is broken during
operation. Since all UV lamps contain mercury and UV-using IWPDs most likely utilize LP
lamps due to lower power requirements and lower operating temperatures, breaking IWPD UV
lamp during operation may result in up to 5-50 mg of mercury being released into the water
being treated. The risk of adverse health effects from UV lamp breakage during operation is
uncertain, however, there is cause for concern, even for short-term exposure of mercury to
healthy soldiers. Table 4 summarizes UV disinfection capabilities, environmental effects, and
potential health concerns with using UV light.
Table 4. UV Disinfection Capabilities.
Parameter
UV Disinfection
General Disinfection
Capability
Viruses most resistant. Giardia and Cryptosporidium
least resistant. UV dose will be based on virus
inactivation.
Bacteria
Effective at reasonable UV doses for IWPD use.
Viruses
Effective at reasonable UV doses for IWPD use. Use
proposed EPA UV dose table for recommended doses
(Table 3). UV doses higher than those recommended
may be necessary based on turbidity, particulate matter,
and NOM.
13
TIP #31-006-0306
Giardia Cysts
Effective at reasonable UV doses for IWPD use.
Cryptosporidium Oocysts
Effective at reasonable UV doses for IWPD use.
Effect of Temperature
Negligible effect.
Effect of pH
Negligible effect.
Effect of
T urbidity/P articulate
Matter/NOM
Significant effect. Higher concentrations require higher
UV doses to achieve same levels of inactivation.
Health Effects
UV lamp breakage during operation may exposure user to
unsafe levels of mercury.
PREPARED BY: Steven H. Clarke, Environmental Engineer
DATED: March 2006
14
TIP #31-006-0206
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Registration Division Office of Pesticide
Program, Criteria and Standards Division Office of Drinking Water, 1987. Guide Standard and
Protocol for Testing Microbiological Water Purifiers. Washington, D.C.
2. EPA, Office of Water, 2003. Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidance Manual. EPA815-D-03-
007. Washington, D.C.
3. Craik, S.A., Amoah, D., & Smith, D.W., 2002. The Impact of Turbidity on Cryptosporidium
and Giardia Inactivation by Ultraviolet Light. Water Quality Technology Conference, American
Water Works Association.
4. Hofmann, R., Andrews, B., & Lachmaniuk, P., 2004. Guidelines for Ultraviolet Disinfection
of Drinking Water: Considerations for Ontario. Journal of Toxicology and Environmental
Health, Part A, 67, 1805-1812.
5. Wojcicka, L., Hofmann, R., Durance, C., & Andrews, R., 2004. Impact of Particulate Matter
on Distribution System Disinfection Efficacy. Water Quality Technology Conference, American
Water Works Association.
6. Templeton, M., Andrews, R.C., & Hofmann, R., 2004. Particle Characteristics Influencing
the UV Disinfection of Drinking Water. Water Quality Technology Conference, American
Water Works Association (AWWA).
7. AWWA, 1999. Water Quality & Treatment A Handbook of Community Water Supplies
Fifth Edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc. New York, NY.
8. Shin, G., Linden, K.G., Arrowood, M.J., & Sobsey, M.D., 2001. Low-Pressure UV
Inactivation and DNA Repair Potential of Cryptosporidium parvurn Oocysts. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 67(7), 3029 - 3032.
9. Federal Register, 2003. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Long Term 2
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule; Proposed Rule. 68(154), 47640-47795.
10. EPA, Office of Water, 1995. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations Contaminant
Fact Sheets Inorganic Chemicals - Technical Version. EPA 81 1-F-95-002-T, Washington, D.C.
15