New Technology for Disinfection

Published on by in Technology

Is there new technology to disinfection the raw water from such illnesses as typhoid fever, dysentery, cholera, and gastroenteritis - without using chlorine?

Taxonomy

26 Answers

  1. Dear Mohammed,

     

    As most of the disinfection experts agree with my opinion about ozone disinfectionn properties, I will explain some advantages in ozone use.

    The ozone is really the most effective disinfectant that you can use to kill bacteria, eliminate visuses, theid ADN, and even can transform them into CO2 and water. Aas you can look for it (or google it), the Contact Tables have data that compare the ozone, and the chlorine.

     

    A good disinfection example explained in those Contact Tables is the inactivation of Giardia Cyst by free Cholrine for a 3 log at pH = 7, 10 Celsius degree, the free chlorine concentration value will be 137 ppm to disinfect in 1 contact time. To disinfect with ozone at the same values is just 1,43 ppm, 93 times less!

    On te other hand, Cotact time (CT) Values for 4 logs Inactivation of Viruses by chlorine is 6 ppm and for Ozone is just 1 ppm.

     

    The ozone have 3 important parameters to have into account in the disinfection design:

     

    1) Ozone dose in the water to reach the concentration on the liquid stream (water): it will depend on the ozone consumption in that water, and the disponible contact time to reach the desired disinfection.

    2) Concentration on the gas stream (ozone): the ozone concentration in the gas stream is importand due to it is related with the quantity of ozone that can be dissolved in that water. If you have a poor ozone generator that gives a low concentration in that gas stream (less than 3 % w/w) you could not dissolve enought ozone in that water and will need a bigger ozone generator to disinfect the same water. If you have a good ozone generator with a hihger ozone concentration (over the 5% w/w) you could have a small ozone generator due to you can dissolve more ozone in that water.

    3) Dissolving technology: The dissolving technology have an important role. Of course if you use a poor inefficient dissolving system (as bubbling system) as somebudy suggest, you will be wasting your money and time with this system due to you will not be dissolving enought ozone. If you use at least venturi type injectors instead of bubbling system you could use a simple and really economic system that dissolve and suspend gas microbubbles in that system reaching a better concentration in that water.

     

    Maybe somebody not informed and that does not understand that the ozone can dissolve in water could suggest that the ozone gas can not be dissolved in water, but you can easily google for it and understand that no all the thinks that some experts express are really true, and htat the ozone dissolves in water.

     

    Using this kind of ozone system you must not use high pressure systems that use too much energy pressuring the complete water to disinfect all of it.

     

    Always try to compare the comparable.

     

    Regards,

     

    Orlando D. Gutiérrez Coronado

    1 Comment

    1. Water treatment with ozone is wonderful where the local economy has the money to support it, but with virtually all technologies in common use this is not for the poor of the developing world.  In 2015, in the public health journal Elsevier, decision-makers in the effort to get safe drinking water to the poor acknowledged that of all technologies assessed for viability in this effort, only boiling had achieved scale. And yet, from the inception of this effort boiling was negated as a possible technology because the poor could not afford it.

      Ozone water treatment should not be singled out as not being viable, but as with the other technologies in common use the poor will only have the benefit of this through substantial subsidy.  Even given such subsidy however, there will be a real question as to the sponsors’ commitment to a prolonged period of monitoring and evaluation. 

      Even so, such projects are bound to be few and far between and ultimately those deciding on such goals as those of 2030 will feel compelled to extend these to 2040 or 2050.  The only alternative is for the decision makers to take bold steps in seeking out genuinely sustainable technologies of water treatment, not waiting for the technologies to come to them.

      1 Comment reply

      1. Dear Anthony,

        I agree with you, the ozone havemany advantages over other technologies, and at the same time must be used with some engineering  criteria.

        Can be used for poor people? Yes

        Can be used in isolated zones? Yes

        Can be used in small scale or individual homes? Yes

        Is ozone more effective killing bacteria and elimating viruses than other disinfectants? Yes

        Need some training to use? Yes

        Has the local economy, money to support ozone disinfection system? Sometimes

        There are many ways to disinfect from thermal methods as boiling to chemical adition methods as ozone, peroxide, and chlorine, and to find the best option we need to do a very good technical and cost-effective analysis.

        Sometimes the boiling could be the best, in other cases ozone can be, in other casess a mix of them as the use of filtration followed by ozonation, but even always the decision-maker, his team and their knowkedge will influence the final decision.

        That is the reason to adquire more knowledge in water disinfection, and not in limiting to the actual more known technologies.

        Thanks to Mohammed to ask about it!

        Regards,

         

        Orlando D. Gutiérrez Coronado

  2. To all participants in this discussion:

    All mentioned disinfection methods and systems have positive but limited effect. Still the original question (Is there new ​technology to ​disinfection ​the raw water ​from such ​illnesses as ​typhoid fever, ​dysentery, ​cholera, and ​gastroenteritis ​- without using ​chlorine? ) from Mr. Al Hadrami is not sufficiently answered. In fact, all the mentioned technologies focus only of the content of the water, but do ignore the containments. It is known fact, that on all surfaces which are in steady contact with water biofilm is developed and formed. Biofilm as such is the best breeding space for bacteria and germs. However, chlorine has good disinfection capabilities within the water itself, but only as long as high doses of chlorine are used. Chlorine does not harm or release the biofilm. Once flushed out, the water will be contaminated by the bacteria and germs survived and protected from the biofilm. Nano Filtration technologies are useful but limited to one specific point of use, are very expensive, must be completely changed in short period and have no effect on biofilm. UV technologies are effective at the place where installed, but do not harm or release the biofilm.  Ozon is known as high efficient disinfectant. But inserted in Water as Gas it does not dissolve and the effect is very limited.

    Axenic Prim has invented a technology which combines certain aspects of standard technologies with the effects of physical laws and integration of natural effects.

    We create in controlled way Nano (0,005 mm) air bubbles through cavitation. The air bubbles consists either of  environmental air or Ozon. The air bubbles remain up to 48 hours in the water. In contact with other surfaces - germs and bacteria, pharmaceutical residuals and Biofilm these Nano air bubbles create multiple effects while imploding:

    A) High Temperature (5000 C, 1000 bar)

    B) High sheer forces of water molecules accelerated in multiple directions

    C) Development of hydroxyl radicals

    Thus through this method we are able to combine the direct destructive mechanical impact on cellular surfaces, the disruptive mechanical impact of the sheer force of the water molecules on cellular structures and the development of hydroxyl radicals which have a 20 times higher disinfection rate than chloride. We are able to eradicate all bacteria, germs and biofilm, disinfect (oxidise)pharmaceutical residuals within closed or open water circulation systems. Of course we use re-flushable filter systems to remove the destroyed and disinfected cellular structures. This system is not limited to mentioned water contaminations. We can remove effectively algae (in water reservoirs) and fungus (from surfaces) or oxidise mineral and metallic salts.

    We can proof the efficiency of this system by accredited lab reports and permanent control through public health authorities, as well as a comparison study from Technical University Vienna, The study is about disinfection efficiency of cooling towers located at a hospital in Vienna.  The study shows the results of the disinfection efficiency of standard chlorine addition to water  vs. Axenicprim technology installed in one of two cooling towers at a hospital in Vienna. 

    In addition there are clients like Opera Frankfurt, EADS Munich, Schools in Salzburg, public pools (Prienavera Chiemsee), etc.

    Gerhard Mangold / g.mangold@axenicprim.de

  3. Yes, ozone can disinfect it, but at the same time you must know how to use it to reach your goals.

     

  4. Regarding some of the responses to my earlier comment on the limitations of silver:  Chlorine and other primary disinfectants are broad spectrum, and effective in seconds to minutes. Studies that test silver against coliform indicator bacteria are not reflective of performance against many pathogens. Silver is slow acting and has a limited performance data base against non coliforms. Many of the published studies used laboratory  deionized water as the medium, which negates the results. The internationally reviewed WHO report is extensive and up to date to its publication date.  Drinking water doses cannot be higher than about 50 to 100 ppb because of the argyria possibility. Silver works selectively in plumbing to suppress legionella growth, where it has multiple hour contact opportunity. Silver impregnated activated carbon point of use systems, where silver is allowed as a potential biostat for regrowth of HPC bacteria on the  filter, but NOT as a biocide for the water,  have limited and temporary efficacy even for HPC suppression .  Ceramic or other filtration systems are beneficial, per se, but the role of silver, separate from the  filtration, is debatable. Silver also can be affected by presence of other ions like chloride in the water. And by the way, silver is known in some cases to have induced resistance in some bacteria, so it can lose whatever efficacy it had. Silver has its place, but NOT as a universal and broadly acting municipal  water  drinking water disinfectant!   To the silver  advocates: please tell us what the CT values are for silver versus a broad spectrum of bacterial, viral and protozoan pathogens.

    2 Comments

    1. Still waiting for that WHO study that indicates problems with silver ceramic filters and water treatment.  Please furnish additionally the information on the particular ceramic filters since there are many differences from one to the next.

    2. Thanks for the expression of concerns about water filter media of granulated ceramics.  While this looks like an argument it could rather be viewed as a useful set of questions.  It would be particularly interesting to see within those studies of silver treatment (wherever it is) the details of the silver treatment and why in heavens name this is slow acting.  To look only at effectiveness against pathogens is most certainly not enough.

      One should not disparage the excellant work of the WHO in their sanctioning ceramic pot filters, which incidentally have been verified in treatment of E.coli to log 10.0 effectiveness.  That for the filters tested these had not been properly treated with silver is even more interesting.

      About the possibility of those drinking water the water of silver treated filters getting argyria (the cosmetic condition caused by ingesting some forms of silver), filters that are properly treated with silver are well within the EPA limits of silver leaching, at 100 micrograms per liter.

      Before debating the efficacy of silver in a ceramic filter medium it is first necessary to seek out the relevant studies.   It should also be noted that claims of silver effectiveness take into account what is clearly the number one contaminant, responsible for the greatest numbers of illnesses and deaths: pathogens.  Other contaminants need to be dealt with in other ways. 

      By the same token, claims for municipal-style water treatment, using granulated silver media, are intended in combining the two steps of filtration and disinfection into a single step.  These do not account for such other needs of water treatment as those of other contaminants.  Then again, for example, turbidity can be remediated by simple processes of settling the particles out, without certain products or chemicals.

      It should be noted that in many developing world communities the only problems with the water are pathogens and turbidity. Treatment intended to deal with all  conceivable problems with water are quite obviously too expensive.

      Once again, referencing WHO guidelines, for such water treatment as is necessary in the developing world, reduction of E. coli is regarded as the pragmatic approach; an indicator for other pathogens. To suggest the need to lab test a great many other pathogens is to make water treatment too expensive for the needs of the poorest.  We need a realistic business model!

      Otherwise a big part of what needs to be discussed is arguments on two sides, by experts who are equally knowledgeable; rather a moral question. Do we insist on the highest standard for all:  log 5 or log 6 effectiveness?  Or do we allow for what will get safe drinking water to the greatest number of beneficiaries:  log 4 or even log 3 effectiveness?  Insisting upon log 5 or 6 will most certainly not achieve the 2030 goals, or even by 2040 or 2050!

      And by the way, over what period of time will those municipal-style treatment, supposedly sustainable facilities in low income communities be monitored and evaluated?  Two years is not good enough. Make it ten!  In the spirit of seeking answers any thoughts are appreciated.

  6. Silver is notoriously slow acting and not known to be a biocide for all of the different pathogens in water!!!! Read the recent WHO report on silver. Copper silver works well on managing legionella in plumbing but it has several hours of contact time.

    4 Comments

    1. To reiterate, one should not say that silver is slow acting without describing how the ceramic filter was designed and how it was treated with silver. Or at least tell how produced the filters and what claims the made. 

      There are many ways of combining the variables of ceramic filter production and only if done improperly is the silver slow acting at reducing pathogens.  To be scientifically responsible one must give the details of the ceramics, and not only the details of the pathogen reduction!

    2. Not to belabor the point, but the following posting was published through the WHO, by the UNC Water Institute hosted, Household Water Network, Newsletter no. 52:  http://hwts.web.unc.edu/2019/01/29/household-water-newsletter-issue-51-2/   

      The following posting is found scrolling down to the header, *Publications*

      Filtering Safe Drinking Water through Granulated Ceramics
      The world is thirsty for safe drinking water. But too many do not have access, especially in developing regions. Silver-treated ceramic granule filters offer an affordable, sustainable option for purifying water in households, and even on municipal scales. Find this article by Harvey et al. (TAM Ceramics) here, and for further information, contact rharvey@tamceramics.com.

    3. A further reason why silver is remarkably effective against pathogens in granulated ceramic media is that there is a huge amount of surface area  on the combined granules.  This far exceeds that surface area that's typical of monolithic ceramic filters.

    4. The WHO report on silver is outdated and not well informed.  If silver is slow acting it would have a lot to do with the amount of it, numbers of silver contacts and the residence time of pathogens.  This and doubts about efficacy with particular pathogens indicate insufficient study.

  7. There is an altogether new and genuinely sustainable technology of water treatment, using water filter media of granulated ceramics; a small amount of silver bonded to the granules. There was a problem with a link that I sent to this the other day but hopefully the attached PDF file will download. Scroll down to page 24 for the article. (There must be something peculiar about the upload app because I can't tell whether it's uploaded once or three times. Sorry.)

    1 Comment

    1. BTW, please note that this is described as genuinely sustainable, suggesting remarkably low cost as well as easy maintenance.  As such this is intended for those who are poor and of modest income, while all other approaches to those of low income appear to be heavily subsidized. Thus their drinking water projects seem to be few and far between.

  8. There is nothing new right now. But the use of the RNA microbial group has been use for 40 plus years. Zero pathogens found in 40 years of monthly testing.

    1 Comment

    1. dear Guy, there is an alternative. EcoClearProx is a stabilised hydrogen peroxide, without the use of silver. perfectly suitable for the use as disinfectant, no residual products. 100% biodegradable.

      1 Comment reply

      1. Hi Gino; Always good to know options. One reason I have used the Archaea microbes is after their bioremediation process the waste will be in elemental form. Therefore the water can be declared potable and returned to the water reservoir insitu. This would eliminate waste infrastructure and expected costs and also allow waste treatment insitu. Home, office, industrial facility etc. As far as safety these microbes are non pathogenic and harmless to any living thing.

  9. There is not anything really new as far as I know. However technologies such as UV disinfection have come on a long way in recent years and will also provide protection against cryptosporidium.  It does require good quality in the water to be disinfected and has no residual effect and so a small dose of chlorine is advised. This will also protect against viruses which require a much higher radiation flux to disinfect properly using UV 

    1 Comment

    1. dear Steve, there is an alternative. EcoClearProx is a stabilised hydrogen peroxide, without the use of silver. perfectly suitable for the use as disinfectant, no residual products. 100% biodegradable.

      1 Comment reply

      1. Surely if it is 100% biodegradeable and has no residual products it would be unsuitable to provide any form of lasting protection.

  10. Good Afternoon Mr. Al-hadhrami,

    The Aquathin AquaShield integrates antimicrobial properties and has been used successfully in South Africa, Haiti, Honduras, Ghana.

    Click HERE.  Test Data available.

    Warmest regards,

    Alfred J. Lipshultz

    President & CEO

    Aquathin Business Center  /  950 South Andrews Avenue / Pompano Beach, FL  33069

    T 954 781 7777 / F 954 781 7336 /E info@aquathin.com  / Skype aquathinhq.alfie

    1 Comment

    1. Hi, Alfred Lipshultz! As the network's editor, I have to advise you to consider publishing this post as a company update or service since it would gain much more visibility (and you can upload a bunch of photos as well).

      To find out how it all works, take a look at our Business Exchange here:   https://thewaternetwork.com/organization- c6k/products 

      You should also know that posting there is completely free of charge, but you can subsequently promote your product for a small fee. Read more about our promotional packages here: https://thewaternetwork.com/shop

      1 Comment reply

      1. Good Afternoon Branka,

        Thank you for reaching and teaching !  We'll review shortly and certainly take advantage of this feature.

        Warmest regards,

        FOR THE BEST TASTE IN LIFE

        Celebrating 40 Years Pure Excellence

        ...into anotherHalf Century re-inventing the water industry !

        Think Aquathin...AquathinK !

        ( visit the all new www.aquathin.com )

         

        ** AN ISO9001:2000, ISO9001:2008, ISO9001:2015 QMS REGISTERED / CERTIFIED COMPANY - (IMS 0192, NQA 12635) **

        & 2008 PRESIDENT'S E STAR AWARD RECIPIENT( visit www.aquathin.com/estar2008.pps )

         

                Alfie

        Alfred J. Lipshultz

        President & CEO

        Aquathin Business Center  /  950 South Andrews Avenue / Pompano Beach, FL  33069

        T 954 781 7777 / F 954 781 7336 /E info@aquathin.com  / Skype aquathinhq.alfie

  11. Hi Mohammed.  Please do not neglect the need for maintaining a residual in the water after disinfection.  Many of the quoted alternatives do not provide a residual to keep the water clear in the distribution system.  Chlorine or chloramines are traditionally used for this.  Other chemical methods that also provide a residual are chlorine dioxide (more costly) and bromine (also more costly and some concern over the formation of bromates).  

    1 Comment

    1. Hi Ian, Can you please explain this comment?  For example, if water is properly stored once properly treated what re-contamination could there possibly be?

      1 Comment reply

      1. Because in the real world there is pipework that wasn't installed today and that has a biofilm and storage reservoirs  have to be vented thereby allowing air to come in and out of the tank and this can carry contaminants even if there is insect screening.

  12. Dear Mohammed,

     

    We can supply a new ultra filtration technology that does not use membranes to filter it and that does not fail as membranes do. This new ultrafiltration system can be used directly with raw water (susing 2 steps) and in some cases without the use of chemicals for coagulation or floculation (due to the size of the filtrationg pores).

    The bacterias have an average size between 20 and 4 micrometers and our system can filter till 0,2 micrometers, enought to retain even the viruses.

    After this microfiltration we can supply an ozone system that is more effective than the chlorine in disinfection as you can easy verify in CT (Contact Time) tables. Even you can use directly the ozone if you have a good treatment system to disinfect the water.

     

    You can contact to me if you are interested in this effeicient process.

     

    Regards,
     
    Orlando D. Gutiérrez Coronado

  13. Dear Mohammed, yes we have a technology where we have proof from accredited labs and health authorities over long time that we are able to remove all bacterium and germs from water with our total chemical free technology. Same time we destroy all biofilm and clean all tubes, basins, tanks or surfaces (cooling towers). Thus we are able to provide continuously germ free water. See also www.axenicprim.com  For more details contact Dipl. Ing. Gerhard Mangold g.mangold@axenicprim.de

  14. Hi Mohammed Al-hadhrami,

    The answer is ‘yes,’ there is new technology of water treatment that does not require the use of chlorine. In a recent publication of the American Ceramic Society, is the article, * Filtering safe drinking water through granulated ceramics*,

    http://tamceramics.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/-TAM-feature_01-02-2019.pdf  The technology is genuinely sustainable and as such is remarkably low cost and user-friendly with production in close proximity.

    Reid Harvey, Senior scientist, TAM Ceramics

    1 Comment

    1. Thank you so much for your feedback Mr. Anthony Reid Harvey could you please resend the link again or another link because it doesn't work with me  

      1 Comment reply

  15. Dear, we produce a 100% biodegradable solution for your problem.check our general brochure.

  18. I am little confused with your Question.......first you need to correlate with the Typhoid Fever and Raw water ! Then question comes why it needs disinfection of the raw water ? 

    Why you do not want to disinfect  with Chlorine, what causing problem by chlorine...........you have already got any answers...........I do not want to go further discussion on it.

  20. Chlorine at higher than 0.6 ppm leaves a bad taste in the water and can develop disinfection byproducts (DBPs) if there is sufficient organics in the water (>2 ppm). Ultraviolet (UV) disinfection is an excellent alternative as efficiency continues to increase with LEDs, etc.  UV is only effective on filtered water where the UV photons can penetrate far enough to sever the DNA of the pathogens.  Filtration must provide a UV transmivity (UVT) of greater than 75% so the UV can do its job.  The contact time must be sufficient.  Combining solar power (PV) and a battery will provide the UV with power in remote areas.

  21. Chlorine is a better than other alternative, however, if recurring and maintainance cost are not issue then opt for UV disinfection just before intake of water. 

    Apart from this if both treatment costly, you may opt for SODIS but land could be an issue.

    #purenvision

    Regards,

    Mahesh Gadekar

  22. Ozone treatment is the next alternate to Chlorine. UV is suitable for small scale immediate use application.

    Membrane filtration removes all microbes but it may reappear. For bottling plants it is suitable.

    But Chlorine is the best for municipality big scale application, since the residual remains for longer duration.  

  24. The other two answers are right on the money with UV- however you may want to consider ozone as well - as long as bromide levels are low the DBPs should be low. After ozone, the chlorine residual can be much lower. There are other disinfection methods out there as well such as Filox, a solid-state oxidant but it has nothing near the power of ozone. . The big take away of the Surface Water Treatment Rule is that difficult to inactivate pathogens must be removed by filtration. 

  25. Why would you want to disinfect raw water?  If you wanted to waste a lot of money you could use high intensity medium pressure UV. Why the aversion to chlorine---it really works except for crypto, and it's cheap. I did a recent study that found no change in bladder cancer rates in Canada and USA in the 40 years since THMs were regulated. Let me know if you want to read it.

    1 Comment

    1. That chlorine and look-alikes are acceptable for Canada and the U.S. is a point well taken, while there have been no other inexpensive alternatives.  But for the developing world chlorine is not viable.  This is because, 1) In point-of-use treatment dosing is a problem, that either too much or not enough is used, and 2) In large scale treatment, this is not sustainable:  too expensive and not monitored and evaluated for the long periods necessary.  We need to talk about applications not only in the industrial world, but also in the developing world.

  26. Yes, but typically treated and not raw water is disinfected as a tertiary stage,

    membranes, ozone and ultraviolet are recognised alternatives to chlorine