Report36 Modelling Coagulation

The Cooperative Research
Centre for Water Quality and

Treatment is an unincorporated
joint venture between:
ACTEW Corporation
Australian Water Quality Centre
Modelling
CRC for Water Quality and
Australian Water Services Pty Ltd
Brisbane City Council
Centre for Appropriate
Coagulation
Treatment
Private Mail Bag 3
Technology Inc
City West Water Limited to Maximise
Removal of
Salisbury SOUTH AUSTRALIA 5108 CSIRO
Tel: (08) 8259 0351 Curtin University of Technology
Fax: (08) 8259 0228
Department of Human Services
Organic Matter
E-mail: crc@sawater.com.au
Victoria
Web: www.waterquality.crc.org.au
Griffith University
Melbourne Water Corporation
Research Report 36
Monash University
Orica Australia Pty Ltd
Power and Water Corporation - A Pilot Plant
and Laboratory
Queensland Health Pathology &
Scientific Services
RMIT University
South Australian
Water Corporation
South East Water Ltd
Based Study
Sydney Catchment Authority
Sydney Water Corporation
Chemical Dose Prediction
The University of Adelaide
The University of
New South Wales
The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Water Quality
36
and Treatment is Australias national drinking water research The University of Queensland
centre. An unincorporated joint venture between 29 different United Water International Pty Ltd
organisations from the Australian water industry, major
universities, CSIRO, and local and state governments, the CRC University of South Australia
Research Report
combines expertise in water quality and public health. University of Technology, Sydney
The CRC for Water Quality and Treatment is established Water Corporation
and supported under the Federal Governments Cooperative Water Services Association
Research Centres Program.
of Australia
Yarra Valley Water Ltd
Modelling Coagulation to Maximise Removal
of Organic Matter
- A Pilot Plant and Laboratory Based Study
Chemical Dose Prediction
Robert Daly, John van Leeuwen and Mike Holmes
Research Report No 36
MODELLING COAGULATION TO MAXIMISE REMOVAL OF ORGANIC MATTER
CRC for Water Quality and Treatment 2007
DISCLAIMER
The Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment and individual contributors are not
responsible for the outcomes of any actions taken on the basis of information in this research report,
nor for any errors and omissions.
The Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment and individual contributors
disclaim all and any liability to any person in respect of anything, and the consequences of anything,
done or omitted to be done by a person in reliance upon the whole or any part of this research report.
The research report does not purport to be a comprehensive statement and analysis of its subject
matter, and if further expert advice is required the services of a competent professional should be
sought.
Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment

Private Mail Bag 3
Salisbury SA 5108
AUSTRALIA
Telephone: +61 8 8259 0351

Fax: +61 8 8259 0228
Web site: www.waterquality.crc.org.au
Modelling Coagulation to Maximise Removal of Organic Matter. A Pilot Plant and Laboratory Based
Study, Chemical Dose Prediction
Research Report 36
ISBN 18766 1661X
2
CRC FOR WATER QUALITY AND TREATMENT RESEARCH REPORT 36
FOREWORD
Research Report Title: Modelling coagulation to maximise removal of organic matter- A pilot plant
and laboratory based study: Chemical dose prediction.
Research Officers: Robert Daly, Mike Holmes, Ian Fisher, George Kastl, Arumugam
Sathasivan.
Project Leader: John van Leeuwen
Research Nodes: Australian Water Quality Centre,

United Water International,
Sydney Water Corporation.
CRC for Water Quality and Treatment Project No. 3.2.8 Modelling coagulation to maximise removal
of organic matter- A pilot plant and laboratory study.
3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
From studies conducted as part of CRC for Water Quality and Treatment project Characterisation of
NOM (Project Number 1.0.0.2.1.1) mathematical relationships were found that relate alum doses with
several easily determined raw water parameters i.e. UV absorbance at 254 nm, colour (absorbance
at 456 nm), turbidity and alkalinity for maximising removal of NOM for a specific coagulation pH.
Alum dose rates (per mg of DOC) needed to achieve high percentage removals of DOC were found to
be related to raw water buffer capacity, UV254 nm, colour and DOC. These studies indicated that raw
waters high in UV254 nm, colour and DOC and having high specific ultraviolet absorbance (SUVA)
and specific colour, required higher absolute alum doses to maximise removal of DOC but overall
lower dose rates (mass of coagulant per mass of DOC) than waters with lower SUVA and specific
colour. It was postulated that the basis for this was that waters in reservoirs that had undergone prior
soil permeation and interaction with clay would have had a larger proportion of humic substances
being absorbed to iron and aluminium hydrous hydroxides present in soils, than waters that had
permeated through sandy loamy soils low in clay content. Hence, in lower DOC waters (from clayey
soil sub-catchments) the proportion of high molecular weight hydrophobic compounds, i.e. humic
substances, are relatively lower (leading to lower SUVA and specific colour) than higher DOC waters
(from sandy/loam soil sub-catchments). The consequence of this is that the alum dose rate (per mg of
DOC) to achieve a high percentage removal of DOC present in the raw water is higher for lower DOC
natural waters than for higher DOC natural waters. These results were also supported by studies (part
of CRC for Water Quality and Treatment project 1.0.0.2.1.1) conducted at the time, of sub-catchments
at Myponga and Mt Bold, where the impact of gypsum on NOM and P transport were investigated.
In the earlier project, studies were conducted to evaluate and quantify the impact of coagulant dosing
and coagulation pH on the removals of DOC, based on the character of the DOC. The characters of
DOC in raw and in treated waters were investigated using a variety of techniques, including Diffuse
Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy, Pyrolysis-Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry,
13
Thermochemolysis, UV-Visible spectroscopy, Resin and Ultra Fractionation and C CPMAS NMR.
From these earlier studies, mathematical relationships were established between the buffering
capacity of raw water and pH titration curves, enabling pH shift prediction from the application of an
alum (aluminium sulphate) dose, hydrochloric and sulphuric acids and sodium hydroxide. The model
developed is based on the raw water pH being predicted from the buffering capacity, where highly
buffered waters have higher natural pH levels than lower alkalinity waters. Its application therefore
only requires a measure of the raw waters buffering capacity and the alum dose rate.
At the commencement of this current project there were no other known modelling developments for
practically suitable, (readily applied at a water treatment plant) feed-forward prediction of metal
coagulant doses for enhanced coagulation other than by artificial neural networks, as reported by
Stanley et al. 2000. The aim of the study (CRC for Water Quality and Treatment Project Number
1.0.0.3.2.8) reported here was to validate the models already developed, under pilot plant conditions,
using a range of raw water types, to improve the models where warranted and develop them in user-
friendly software that would, in practice, enable prediction of coagulant doses at a water treatment
plant. It was anticipated that further modelling developments would include expansion of the current
options to include ferric-based coagulants and possibly polyaluminium chloride (though it was
recognised that the various forms would make the development of a generic model difficult or
unlikely). As part of Project 1.0.0.3.2.8, models were developed for:
(1) ferric chloride dose prediction for enhanced coagulation,
(2) dose prediction where a percentage of coagulable DOC removal is selected,
(3) determination of whether a new source water is suitable to be applied to the models
developed,
(4) where a water is determined to be unsuitable [potentially influenced by wastewaters, high

algae numbers, organics altered by prechlorination] alternative models can be used but
require DOC as an input variable (and consequently would be more difficult to use at a water
treatment plant) and
4
(5) pH and acid/alkali dose prediction based upon carbonate theory, as detailed by Najm (2001).
The results of this study reported herein show that feed-forward prediction of coagulant (alum and
ferric chloride) doses is feasible using mathematical relationships established from a range of raw
waters varying in water quality and the dose rates needed to remove high percentages of coagulable
DOC. The input parameters to these models are UV absorbance at 254 nm, colour, turbidity and
alkalinity and are only applicable for natural surface or groundwaters not highly impacted by algae,
domestic or industrial wastewaters or having undergone pre-chlorination. Development of models
were by jar testing under laboratory conditions and validations were conducted through flat-bed
clarifier pilot plant trials (with pilot plant capacities between ~800 L/h to 2,700 L/h) in South Australia at
Happy Valley WTP, Middle River WTP and Anstey Hill and in New South Wales/Canberra at the
Googong WTP. Further evaluation trials were conducted in conjunction with enhanced coagulation
trials conducted at the Barossa WTP by United Water International during the time of this project. At
the request of United Water International, models were developed on the basis of allowing dose
prediction for selected percentage removals of coagulable DOC. Evaluation data of this model option
shows that actual coagulable DOC removals may be markedly different (10% or more) from the
nominal value selected, but this is expected from jar test data where higher DOC removal variability
occurs at coagulant dosing below enhanced coagulation conditions. This variability increases with
lower coagulant dosing. Nonetheless, during the time of this project and subsequently, this model
option has been reliably used by UWI after site specific correlation of a selected model percentage to
a required actual removal percentage of DOC (and where maximising DOC removal was not required)
at a particular WTP. This approach is always recommended for this model option.
Only limited validation data were obtained for models that were developed for alum and ferric chloride
dose prediction for waters with very high DOC concentrations, highly impacted by algae and/or
wastewaters and/or had been pre-chlorinated. These models require raw water DOC as an input
variable and were developed so that coagulant dose predictions are similar to natural surface and
ground waters as doses from models that do not require raw water DOC as an input variable. Further
data collected for waters high in algae and DOC, being impacted by wastewaters and/or pre-
chlorinated should be incorporated to verify or to improve the current models.
The accuracies of pH predictions using the model developed in the previous CRC project (1.0.0.2.1.1)
and based on the raw water buffering capacity alone were found to be higher for medium to high
alkalinity waters than for very low alkalinity waters. The results from this study indicate that better pH
prediction accuracy may be obtained using models based on carbonate theory. Predictions of acid and
alkali doses for pH correction to achieve a target coagulation pH were found to be similar for the two
types of pH predictions methods developed/adopted, indicating that at a WTP, the addition of a
predicted pH control reagent dose needs to be done in conjunction with pH level monitoring.
The current models can be further developed to include coagulants other than alum and ferric
chloride. Models should also be expanded to include prediction of lime compounds used in the water
industry to control pH in low buffered waters and for pH elevation prior to distribution in the network
system.
Papers published from work conducted through this project and relevant preceding papers from CRC
for Water Quality and Treatment project 1.0.0.2.1.1 include the following:
van Leeuwen JA, Fabris R, Sledz L and van Leeuwen JK (2001) Modelling enhanced alum treatment
of southern Australian raw waters for drinking purposes. International Congress on Modelling and
Simulation. MODSIM 2001. 10-13 December 2001. ANU, Canberra, Australia. Vol. 4, pp1907-1912.
Kastl, G, Fisher I, Sathasivan A and van Leeuwen J (2002) Mathematical model of DOC removal by
enhanced coagulation. Management of productivity at water utilities, International Water Association
Specialisation Conference. Prague, 2002.
van Leeuwen J, Heidenreich C, Holmes M, Kastl G, Fisher I, Nguyen T, Oemcke D, Craig K and
Bursill D (2003) Modelling of coagulant and pH control reagent doses for enhanced coagulation. AWA,
Ozwater, Perth, CD-ROM.
5
Kaeding U, van Leeuwen J, Walsh B, Holmes M and Daly R (2003) At the end of the road for
conventional coagulation water treatment processes. Chemicals of Concern in Water AWA/IWA
Sydney, 4-5 June. CD-ROM.
Kastl, G, Fisher I, Sathasivan A and van Leeuwen J (2003) Optimisation of DOC removal by enhanced
coagulation to deliver target TTHM in chlorinated systems. AWA, Ozwater, CD-ROM.
van Leeuwen J, Holmes M, Heidenreich C, Daly R, Fisher I, Kastl G, Sathasivan A, and Bursill D
(2003) Modelling the application of inorganic coagulants and pH control reagents for removal of
organic matter from drinking waters. MODSIM Integrative Modelling of Biophysical, Social and
Economic Systems for Resource Management Solutions, Townsvillle, 14-17 July 2003, CD-ROM, pp.
1835-1840.
Kastl G, Fisher I, Sathasivan A, Chen P and van Leeuwen J, (2003) Modelling water quality from
source water to tap by integrated process models. MODSIM Integrative Modelling of Biophysical,
Social and Economic Systems for Resource Management Solutions, Townsvillle, 14-17 July 2003,
CD-ROM, pp. 1799-1804.
Kastl G, Fisher I, Sathasivan A and van Leeuwen J (2004) Modelling DOC removal by enhanced
coagulation. J. AWWA, February, 96:2, p79-89.
Fisher I, Kastl G, Sathasivan A, Chen P, van Leeuwen J and Holmes M (2004) Tuning the enhanced
coagulation process to obtain best chlorine and THM profiles in the distribution system. NOM
Research: Innovation and Applications for Drinking Water Treatment, Victor Harbor, Australia, 2-5
March 2004. Proceedings. p103.
Daly R, van Leeuwen J, Holmes M, Mobius W, Kastl G, Sathasivan A and Fisher I (2004) Model
predictions of coagulant doses to maximise removal of DOC from humic water and residual DOC after
treatment. NOM Research: Innovation and Applications for Drinking Water Treatment, Victor Harbor,
Australia, 2-5 March, 2004. Proceedings. p73.
van Leeuwen J, Daly R, Holmes M (2005) Modeling the treatment of drinking water to maximise
dissolved organic matter removal and minimise disinfection by-product formation. Desalination. Vol.
188, pp 81-89.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword ................................................................................................................................................ 3
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. 4
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. 7
List of Figures........................................................................................................................................ 9
List of Tables ....................................................................................................................................... 11
Acronyms ............................................................................................................................................. 13
1 Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 14
1.1 Significance of NOM in drinking water......................................................................................... 14
1.2 Methods for determination of coagulant doses in water treatment.............................................. 15
2 Materials and Methods..................................................................................................................... 20
2.1 Study locations and sample collections ....................................................................................... 20
2.2 Chemicals .................................................................................................................................... 21
2.3 Analytical Procedures .................................................................................................................. 22
2.3.1 Filtration................................................................................................................................. 22
2.3.2 UV absorbance ..................................................................................................................... 22
2.3.3 True Colour ........................................................................................................................... 23
2.3.4 Turbidity................................................................................................................................. 23
2.3.5 pH.......................................................................................................................................... 23
2.3.6 Alkalinity and Buffering Capacity .......................................................................................... 23
2.3.7 Dissolved Organic Carbon .................................................................................................... 23
2.3.8 Jar Test ................................................................................................................................. 23
2.3.9 Trihalomethane Formation Potential..................................................................................... 24
2.3.10 Simulated Distribution System test and 72 hour Chlorine Decay ....................................... 24
2.3.11 Residual Metals................................................................................................................... 24
2.4 Pilot Plant..................................................................................................................................... 24
2.4.1 Description and Process Design ........................................................................................... 24
2.4.2 Happy Valley WTP ................................................................................................................ 25
2.4.3 Middle River WTP and Anstey Hill WTP ............................................................................... 26
2.4.4 Googong................................................................................................................................ 28
2.5 Curve fitting and statistical analysis............................................................................................. 30
2.6 General descriptions of model and software: .............................................................................. 30
2.6.1 Models for DOC removal....................................................................................................... 30
2.6.2 Models for pH control reagent and target pH prediction ....................................................... 32
3 Results and Discussion ................................................................................................................... 33
3.1 Happy Valley WTP Trials ............................................................................................................. 33
3.1.1 Raw water quality.................................................................................................................. 33
3.1.2 Jar Test ................................................................................................................................. 33
3.1.3 Pilot Plant .............................................................................................................................. 38
3.1.4 Evaluation of Coagulant Predictions ..................................................................................... 40
3.1.5 Simulated Distribution System and THMFP Analyses.......................................................... 40
3.1.6 Evaluation of pH predictions ................................................................................................. 42
3.1.7 Turbidity Spiking Trial............................................................................................................ 42
3.1.8 Summary of Happy Valley Pilot Plant Studies. ..................................................................... 44
3.2 Middle River WTP Trials .............................................................................................................. 44
7

3.2.2 Jar Test ................................................................................................................................. 45
3.2.3 Pilot Plant Trials .................................................................................................................... 50
3.2.4 Evaluation of pH predictions. ................................................................................................ 55
3.2.5 Summary of Pilot Plant studies conducted at Middle River WTP ......................................... 60
3.3 Googong WTP Trials ................................................................................................................... 61
3.3.2 Jar Tests................................................................................................................................ 61
3.3.3 Pilot Plant studies.................................................................................................................. 64
3.3.4 Evaluation of pH predictions ................................................................................................. 68
3.3.5 Summary of Googong Pilot Plant studies. ............................................................................ 71
3.4 Anstey Hill WTP Trials ................................................................................................................. 71
3.4.2 Anstey Hill Jar Tests ............................................................................................................. 72
3.4.3 Anstey Hill Pilot Plant ............................................................................................................ 75
3.4.4 Anstey Hill : Evaluation of pH predictions ............................................................................. 78
3.4.5 Summary of studies conducted at Anstey Hill WTP ............................................................. 82
3.5 Barossa WTP Trials ..................................................................................................................... 82
3.5.1 Barossa Raw water quality.................................................................................................... 83
3.5.2 Barossa Jar Test ................................................................................................................... 83
3.5.3 Water Treatment Plant .......................................................................................................... 85
3.5.4 Evaluation of Coagulant Predictions ..................................................................................... 85
3.5.5 Evaluation of pH Correction Requirements........................................................................... 85
3.5.6 Summary of Barossa WTP trials ........................................................................................... 86
3.6 Jar tests performed on further waters.......................................................................................... 86
3.6.1 Wanneroo, Western Australia ............................................................................................... 87
3.6.2 Torrens River, South Australia .............................................................................................. 89
3.6.3 Rocky River, Kangaroo Island, South Australia .................................................................... 91
3.6.4 Bendora Dam, Canberra ....................................................................................................... 93
4 General discussion .......................................................................................................................... 95
5 Conclusions and recommendations ............................................................................................ 100
5.1 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................... 100
5.2 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 100
Project Research Organisations and Personnel ............................................................................ 102
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................... 102
References ......................................................................................................................................... 103
Appendices ........................................................................................................................................ 107
8
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Schematic of pilot plants used in this study ........................................................................ 25
Figure 2.2 a) Picture of pilot plant showing (from left) clarifier, operator, outlet swan-neck (top),
contactor, inlet pipework, raw ballast tank & pump. b) Picture of pilot plant on truck for transport.
c) Picture of pilot plant showing clarifier inlet, outlet launder, sludge cone & blanket. .................. 27
Figure 2.3 a) Picture of chemical dosing set up showing (clockwise from bottom) chemical tank,
metering pump and calibration column. b) Schematic of calibration column................................. 27
Figure 2.4 a) Raw water inlet pipe and chemical dosing line. b) WTP raw water inlet channel........... 28
Figure 2.5 a) Picture of pilot plant showing (from left) scaffolding, inlet pipework, contactor, clarifier.
b) Picture showing outlet launder and clarifier inlet top tank....................................................... 29
Figure 3.1.5.1 Chlorine decay curves of treated water samples from Happy Valley Pilot Plant trials.
Curves were standardised by adjusting the chlorine residual at 0.5 hour to 3.0 mg/L chlorine..... 41
Figure 3.1.5.2 THMs in treated waters 72 hours after chlorination (SDS data) and THMFP data from
pilot plant trials. .............................................................................................................................. 41
Figure 3.1.7.1 Comparison of pilot plant treated water quality before and after turbidity spiking using
model predicted coagulant dose. ................................................................................................... 43
Figure 3.2.1.1 Map of Kangaroo Island showing location of the Middle River water treatment plant
and the pipeline supplying treated water to the majority of consumers. ........................................ 44
Figure 3.2.1.2 Raw water DOC and turbidity trends in Middle River Reservoir ................................... 45
Figure 3.2.2.1 Comparison of DOC removals in three Middle River jar tests using alum.................... 46
Figure 3.2.2.2 Middle River jar test results using ferric chloride at pH 5.5........................................... 47
Figure 3.2.3.1 Percentage removals of DOC at various coagulation pH levels, using alum................ 51
Figure 3.2.3.2 Pilot plant and Jar test results showing percentage of DOC removed using different
amounts of alum at pH 6.0-5.5....................................................................................................... 51
Figure 3.2.3.3 Liner relationship between Middle River water residual DOC (~3.6 and 5.3 mg/L)
and THMFP .................................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 3.2.3.4 Percentage removals of DOC at various coagulation pH levels, using ferric chloride.. 53
Figure 3.2.3.5 Residual DOC in Middle River waters following treatment with alum and ferric chloride
at model predicted doses and at various coagulation pH levels.................................................... 53
Figure 3.2.3.6 Chlorine decay curves of treated water samples from Middle River Pilot Plant trials and
WTP. Curves were standardised by adjusting the chlorine residual at 0 hour to 6.0 mg/L chlorine.
........................................................................................................................................................ 54
Figure 3.2.3.7 Total THMs from SDS tests and corresponding THMFP data recorded....................... 54
Figure 3.2.4.1 Comparisons of actual and predicted pH titration curves for two samples of Middle
River raw water (left = low alkalinity, right = very low alkalinity) .................................................... 55
Figure 3.2.4.2 a) Slope of titration curves near to pH 6 for a range of samples collected from Middle
River. b) Mean absolute error in pH for predicted titration curves to pH 5.5. ................................ 56
Figure 3.2.4.3 Comparison of model pH predictions and actual pH values recorded in jar tests of
Middle River water samples. .......................................................................................................... 56
Figure 3.2.4.4 Comparison of model pH/alkali predictions and actual pH values recorded in Middle
River pilot plant trials. ..................................................................................................................... 57
Figure 3.3.2.1 DOC removal data from jar tests performed on Googong Reservoir water................. 63
Figure 3.3.3.1 Comparison of pilot plant and jar test data: residual DOC after alum treatment
at pH ~6.......................................................................................................................................... 66
9
Figure 3.3.3.2 Relationship between THMFP and residual DOC in alum treated waters
from Googong ................................................................................................................................ 67
Figure 3.3.4.1 Comparison of actual and predicted pH titration curves for Googong raw water ......... 68
Figure 3.3.4.2 Comparison of actual and predicted values for pH from jar test results. ...................... 69
Figure 3.3.4.3 Comparison of actual and predicted values for pH from pilot plant results................... 70
Figure 3.4.3.1 THMFP of waters treated at Anstey Hill ........................................................................ 78
Figure 3.4.3.2 Filtered turbidities of waters following pilot plant treatment at various
coagulant doses ............................................................................................................................. 78
Figure 3.4.4.1 Comparison of predicted and actual pH values and pH control reagents recorded in
pilot plant trials using alum............................................................................................................. 81
pilot plant trials using ferric chloride. .............................................................................................. 82
Figure 3.5.2.1 DOC removals compared with model predicted alum dose under different pH
coagulation conditions.................................................................................................................... 83
Figure 3.5.2.2 Percentage DOC removals in jar tests and in the Barossa WTP using various alum
doses at pH 6.1. (Source: Mr U. Kaeding, United Water International) ......................................... 85
Figure 3.5.5.1 Comparison of coagulation pH target and recorded values in jar tests conducted
during the Barossa trials (MAE: 0.11, SD: 0.14). ........................................................................... 86
Figure 3.6.1.1 Removal of coagulable DOC from Wanneroo raw water using alum
and ferric chloride........................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 3.6.2.1 Removal of coagulable DOC from Torrens River raw water using alum
Figure 3.6.3.1 Removal of coagulable DOC from Rocky River raw water using alum
10
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Polyelectrolytes sourced from WTP for pilot plant trials ....................................................... 22
Table 3.1.2.1 Happy Valley Jar Test results using alum: DOC removals and residual Al.
16/10/2001 to 13/11/2001. ............................................................................................................. 35
Table 3.1.2.2 Happy Valley Jar Test results using alum : DOC removals and residual Al.
30/11/2001 to 2/10/2002. ............................................................................................................... 36
Table 3.1.2.3 Happy Valley Jar Test results using ferric chloride : DOC removals and residual Fe.
19/07/2002 to 16/08/2002. ............................................................................................................. 37
Table 3.1.3.1 UV and DOC removals with alum treatment in Happy Valley pilot plant trials,
October to December 2001............................................................................................................ 39
Table 3.1.3.2 UV and DOC removals with alum treatment in Happy Valley pilot plant trials,
February to May 2002. ................................................................................................................... 39
Table 3.1.3.3 DOC removals with ferric chloride treatment in Happy Valley pilot plant trials,
July to August 2002........................................................................................................................ 40
Table 3.1.6.1 Mean absolute errors and standard deviations of coagulation pH predictions used
in jar tests of Happy Valley waters ................................................................................................. 42
Table 3.1.7.1 Selected raw and clarified water properties.................................................................... 43
Table 3.2.1 1 Middle River raw water quality February-July 2003........................................................ 45
Table 3.2.2.1a Middle River jar test results-alum.................................................................................. 48
Table 3.2.2.1b Middle River jar test results-ferric chloride ................................................................... 49
Table 3.2.2.2 Comparison of actual and predicted values relating to % coagulable DOC removed.... 49
Table 3.2.4.1 Evaluation of the three predictive pH models based on 18 titrations of
Middle River raw water................................................................................................................... 58
Table 3.2.4.2 Comparison of model predictions from jar test results of Middle River water samples. . 59
Table 3.2.4.3 Data of model pH/alkali predictions from Middle River pilot plant trials.......................... 60
Table 3.3.1 Raw water quality at Googong WTP during Pilot Plant Trials. .......................................... 61
Table 3.3.2.1 DOC removal data from Googong jar tests. ................................................................... 62
Table 3.3.2.2 Comparison of actual and predicted values relating to % coagulable DOC removed.... 63
Table 3.3.3.1 Pilot Plant trials conducted at Googong Water Treatment Plant in October 2003. ........ 65
Table 3.3.3 2: Summary of DOC removals with alum treatment in Googong pilot plant trials ............. 66
Table 3.3.3.3 Mean (S.D.) of percentages of THMs formed from residual DOC in THMFP analyses . 67
Table 3.3.4.1 Statistics for three predictive pH models based on a typical titration ............................. 68
Table 3.3.4.2 Comparison of Googong pilot plant recorded pH and acid doses with
predicted values. ............................................................................................................................ 70
Table 3.4.2.1 Anstey Hill Jar Test results using alum:.......................................................................... 73
Table 3.4.2.2 Anstey Hill Jar Test results using ferric chloride. ............................................................ 74
Table 3.4.3.1: DOC removals with alum treatment in Anstey Hill plant trials, September 2003 to
January 2004. Water source- Murray River, Mannum. .................................................................. 76
Table 3.4.3.2 DOC removals with ferric chloride treatment in Anstey Hill plant trials,
January to April 2004. .................................................................................................................... 77
Table 3.4.3.3 Summary of pilot plant data where alum was used. ....................................................... 77
Table 3.4.3.4 Summary of pilot plant data were ferric chloride was used. ........................................... 77
11
Table 3.4.4.1 Mean absolute errors and standard deviations of coagulation pH predictions
used in jar tests of Anstey Hill waters. ........................................................................................... 79
Table 3.4.4.2a Evaluation of pH predictions in Anstey Hill pilot plant trials-alum. ................................ 80
Table 3.4.4.2b Evaluation of pH predictions in Anstey Hill pilot plant trials-ferric chloride................... 81
Table 3.5.2.1 DOC removal data from Barossa jar tests ...................................................................... 84
Table 3.6.1.1 Raw water quality data for sample from Wanneroo River .............................................. 87
Table 3.6.1.2 DOC removals from Wanneroo water with alum and ferric chloride treatment,
in jar tests. ...................................................................................................................................... 88
Table 3.6.2.1 Raw water quality data for sample from Torrens River .................................................. 89
Table 3.6.2.2 DOC removals from Torrens River water with alum and ferric chloride treatment,
in jar tests. ...................................................................................................................................... 90
Table 3.6.3.1 Raw water quality data for sample from Rocky River ..................................................... 91
Table 3.6.3.2 DOC removal under jar test conditions........................................................................... 92
Table 3.6.4.4.1 Target pH and MAE (S.D.) of actual values recorded. ................................................ 94
Table 4.1 Summary of DOC removals (% coagulable) at MPDs from all jar tests for waters tested
at coagulation pH ~5.5-6.5 ............................................................................................................. 96
Table 4.2 Summary of DOC removals in pilot plant trials ..................................................................... 96
Table 4.3 Comparison of doses predicted by NM-PM and ECDPM..................................................... 98
12
ACRONYMS
ACTEWAGL Formerly ACT Electricity and Water
ADWG Australian Drinking Water Guidelines
Alk-M Alkalinity determined by titration of raw water with alum, ferric or standard acid to pH 5.5
Alk-S Alkalinity determined by standard methods- Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and Wastewater, 20th ed. American Public Health Association, Washington, DC
ANN Artificial Neural Networks
ARMCANZ Agricultural and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand
AWQC Australian Water Quality Centre
CF100 Curve fitted 100% model predicted dose
CRC Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment
DBP Disinfection by-Products
DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon
ECDPM Extended coagulant dose prediction model
HPSEC High performance size exclusion chromatography
HU Hazen Units
MAE Mean absolute error
ML Megalitres
MPD Model Predicted dose
MDR-CF Maximum DOC removal as determined by exponential decay curve fitting
NHMRC National Health and Medical Research Council
NM-MPD Near maximum DOC removal model predicted dose
NM-PM Near maximum DOC removal prediction model
NOM Natural Organic Matter
NTU Nephelometric Turbidity Unit
PACl Poly Aluminium Chloride coagulant
pH_MC pH prediction based on carbonate chemistry theory as described by Najm (2001)
pH_MS pH prediction models based on sigmoidal curve fitting of pH titration curve
pH_MSA pH_MS model for alum treatment
pH_MSF pH_MSF model for ferric chloride treatment
PID Proportional Integral Derivative Control
PLC Programmable Logic Control
SCD Streaming Current Detector
S.D. Standard deviation
SDS Simulated Distribution System
SDSTHM Trihalomethane formation in the simulated distribution system test
SUVA Specific ultraviolet absorbance
TOC Total Organic Carbon
THM Trihalomethanes
THMFP Trihalomethane formation potential
TTHM Total trihalomethanes
UV/vis Ultraviolet visible wavelengths
WTP Water Treatment Plant
13
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF NOM IN DRINKING WATER

Natural organic matter (NOM) in raw and treated drinking waters is an important issue for the water
industry because it causes water to be coloured, is a precursor in formation of disinfection by-
products, causes water to have a higher chemical disinfectant demand, lowers disinfectant residual
and is a substrate for microbial growth in distribution systems. The treatment of water specifically to
maximise the removal of NOM from drinking water has become a key focus in several countries and
especially in those where regulation is driving this treatment approach. In Australia, the removal of
natural organic matter has also become a key driver in water treatment for water industries where high
concentrations of NOM are present in raw waters.
Maximising DOC removal from drinking water by the application of higher coagulant doses is now
commonly referred to as enhanced coagulation (Arora et al. 1997, Krasner and Amy, 1995; White et
al. 1997; Vrijenhoek et al. 1998) and exceeds coagulant doses needed for turbidity and colour
removal. In the U.S. enhanced coagulation refers to the removal of regulation-specified percentages
(through the US EPA Safe Drinking Water Act, Disinfectant/Disinfection By-Product Rule) of total
organic carbon (TOC) based on the raw water TOC and the alkalinity levels. The focus in this
approach is that the degree of removal required is dependent on the raw water quality and what is
economically and practically feasible in TOC removal. One of the key aspects of this rule is that higher
coagulant dosing efficiency to remove NOM is dependant on achieving an optimum coagulation pH for
a specific coagulant. The lowering pH effect by application of an acidic coagulant from ambient pH to
an optimum coagulation pH is dependent on the buffering capacity (alkalinity) of the water. Where the
alkalinity is too high the pH after coagulant addition alone will be higher than that of the optimum
coagulation pH while where the alkalinity is too low the addition of coagulant will depress the
coagulation pH to levels that may result in solubilisation of the aluminium hydrous oxide complexes
leading to high metal residual and poor coagulation. In this case, co-addition of lime or caustic
becomes essential for pH control. In the former case, where coagulation pH is higher (~7-8) than
optimum for NOM removal (~5.5-6 for alum and ~5-5.5 for ferric) then sweep coagulation presides
over charge neutralisation. Although effective for removal of colour and turbidity, sweep coagulation is
less effective for removal of dissolved NOM (dissolved organic carbon, DOC). The efficiency of NOM
removal by application of inorganic coagulants is also highly impacted by the character of the NOM
(Krasner and Amy, 1995; Edwards, 1997; Chow et al., 1999). Generally, high molecular weight
hydrophobic compounds such as humic acids are more readily removed than small molecular weight
hydrophilic compounds such as sugars, amino sugars, and acids (Krasner and Amy, 1995). The
application of enhanced coagulation as described in the USEPA Safe Drinking Water Act, aims to
maximise NOM removal in a practical sense at water treatment plants but does not necessarily result
in the maximum removal of organics that is achievable. Maximum removal can be achieved by
application of sufficient coagulant dose with the coagulation pH controlled at ~ optimum. Further
practical constraints exist in treatment to remove organics and include the need to minimise corrosion
of water treatment plant infrastructure (e.g. concrete settling tanks) from a too low pH and the need to
use lime agents or caustic to bring the treated water pH back to near neutral after treatment and
before distribution for drinking.
Where chlorine is used to disinfect water for drinking purposes, a residual is also needed in the treated
water distribution system to control microbial growth. With higher concentrations of NOM in water after
coagulation and filtration, higher chlorine doses are needed to ensure that free chlorine/chloramine
residual persists in the distribution network. Chlorine reacts with NOM lowering the chlorine residual
and results in the formation of disinfection by-products (DBPs) such as trihalomethanes, haloacetic
acids and haloacetonitriles (incl. Collins et al. 1985, Vrijenhoek et al., 1998, Summers et al. 1996 and
Singer et al. 1995). The issue of DBP formation (concentrations and types) is not static (e.g. in Europe
and USA) and water and health authorities are continually assessing new research data and findings
on the significance of known and newly identified DBPs in drinking waters. This issue can be further
complicated by community perceptions and tolerances of chemical disinfectants in drinking water.
14
In Australia, the drinking water industry is expected to comply with the Australian Drinking Water
Guidelines which specify levels of disinfection by-products (DBPs) in treated waters. These guidelines
do not specify any removal or concentration of natural organics in treated water, though in order to
remain under the guideline level for DBPs, the removal of organics and residual levels need to be
achieved for some water sources through treatment processes applied at WTPs.
1.2 METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF COAGULANT DOSES IN

WATER TREATMENT
Routine methods and equipment used for determination of coagulant doses in conventional water
treatment include jar tests, streaming current detectors (SCD), charge titrators (a form of SCD) and
zeta meters. The most common and relied upon method is jar tests which essentially simulate
treatment at the water treatment plant itself. In this test, coagulant type (inorganic or organic) dose,
floc aids, liming agents and pH control reagents are applied to determine best treatment conditions to
achieve the required treated water quality. The jar test is generally reliable and gives treatment
conditions relevant to the raw water quality and the treatment plant conditions. An advantage of the jar
test is that coagulant/chemical dose rates can be determined accurately for the quality of water being
tested and therefore is highly likely to be suitable for the treatment of water at that time. However, it is
labour intensive and requires a range of analyses (pH, turbidity, organics, colour, metals, etc.) to be
conducted in order to interpret the test. Performance of a jar test can be lengthy and where raw water
quality changes quickly, the results of a jar test may no longer be relevant for water coming into the
water treatment plant. This can result in under or over dosing.
Alternative approaches to the use of jar tests for determination of coagulant doses include the
application of streaming current detectors (SCD), Zeta meters and mathematical models (Dentel,
1995; Ratnaweera and Blom, 1995; Edwards, 1997, van Leeuwen et al. 1997).
Where raw water quality can change rapidly, such as in the case where the source water is from a
river or small reservoir, methods such as the streaming current detector (Bernhardt and Schell, 1995
and 1996, van Leeuwen et al. 1997) or feed-forward models with easily obtained water quality
parameters may be used. The acceptance of streaming current detectors in the water industry globally
has been reported, including, in 1995, an estimated 1000 units in service in North America and a
lesser number in Western Europe and Asia (Dentel, 1995). In the functioning SCD instrument, a
destabilised water sample (post coagulant addition) is caused to move back and forth through an
annulus between a moving piston and piston housing. Counter ions are sheared from particles and
colloids temporally attached to the piston and piston housing (Dixon et al. 1993, Dentel, 1995) causing
an electrical current. This current is proportional to the net charge, which is related to the zeta
potential. Dentel (1995) showed that the streaming current measured by a SCD is linearly proportional
to the Zeta potential. Coagulant dosing is seen as most efficient at charge neutralisation when the
Zeta potential is zero, theoretically attained when the overall negative charges of dissolved organics,
colloids and particles matches the positive charges from hydrous metal oxides. In practice however,
the point of zero charge is offset in the SCD reading. Traditional application of SCDs has been to
initially perform jar tests from which an optimum dose is selected to achieve the desired water quality,
followed by measurement of the streaming current. This then becomes a set point used to target and
adjust coagulant dosing. It requires regular re-evaluation of a set point value matching the desired
water quality. Alternative applications have been described by Bernhardt and Schell (1995 and 1996),
where SCD measurements are taken with incremental coagulant doses added to raw water in
conjunction with pH control, to achieve a curve of SCD current vs coagulant dose. An S-shaped
charge titration curve is obtained where the inflection point is the point of zero-charge. The inflection
point is determined as the optimum or most efficient dose at the selected titration pH. Although this
technology had seen growth in application at WTP and WWTPs in the 1980s and 1990s for chemical
dose predictions (and industries such as paper manufacturers), no published research reports were
found that dealt with SCD operation specifically for maximising removal of organics or enhanced
coagulation as now regulated by the US-EPA for the US industry.
According to Schlenger et al. (1996) process instrumentation and control modelling can be divided into
three levels of sophistication (1) supervisory control, (2) automatic control and (3) advanced control.
Supervisory control requires the water treatment plant operator to monitor and evaluate operational
performances against managerial set requirements and implement changes in operations as required.
15
According to Baxter et al. (2002) this control is largely reactive as process changes are not made until
the quality of the process effluent begins to degrade. Automatic control is based on control logic that
consists of simple algorithms or linear models, while advanced control is sophisticated and may
include complex algorithms and non-linear process models (Baxter et al. 2002). Automatic controlled
systems can be based on multivariate mathematical equations where coefficients of contributing
factors that influence the coagulant dose are statistically determined, and applied, as exemplified by
Evans and Enoch, (1998) and van Leeuwen (1999a). Although these equations can be practically
useful, they are not based on physico-chemical processes and hence are at risk of giving erroneous
predictions where input parameters (alone or in combination) lie outside of the dataset used to build
the model(s). Despite the descriptions that water treatment processes are complex and highly non-
linear (Adgar et al. 2003) and arguments that advanced intelligent control systems are required to
meet the current high demands in water quality and processing, a fundamental understanding of
processes provides important benefit in understanding coagulation and coagulation control. The work
of Najm (2001), where the knowledge of carbonate chemistry is applied to describe changes in pH and
alkalinity with application of acids and bases in a water treatment, provides highly useful information
for plant operators.
In the past, a number of studies have reported the application of mathematical models for determining
coagulant doses for treatment of drinking water (Ratnaweera and Blom, 1995; Bazer-Bachi et al.
1990; Critchley et al. 1990; Girou et al. 1992; van Leeuwen et al. 1999a). These models include feed-
forward or feed-forward and feed-back data processing and include polynomial (Bazer-Bachi et al.
1990), matrix factorial fractional and Doehlert lattice (Girou et al. 1992) and multivariate algorithms
(Ellis et al. 1991, Ratnaweera and Blom, 1995). They can involve a relatively large number of input
parameters (e.g. 8 parameters) and their apparent interactions (Girou et al. 1992).
Bazer-Bachi et al. (1990) developed two separate models based on polynomial equations used to
determine coagulant feed rates for the Clairfont water treatment plant in France. One model, called
CALME, comprised four variables (turbidity, resistivity, temperature and organic material) as input data
and was developed for waters of low turbidity (< 20 NTU), while the second model (CRUES model)
incorporated a fifth parameter (the ratio between colloidal titration and turbidity) for higher turbidity
waters.
In the application of models, different types of input data (water quality parameters) have been
applied. The model of Girou et al. (1992) is based on the concentrations of calcium ions, bicarbonate
ions, sulphate ions, humic acids, initial turbidity, temperature and pH. The parameters used in the
model developed by Ratnaweera and Blom (1995) are hydraulic flow, sedimentation time,
temperature, turbidity (influent and effluent water), orthophosphate concentration (influent), pH
(influent) and conductivity (influent).
A model based on feed-forward and feed-back control using measurements of colour, turbidity and
coagulant residual is described by Critchley et al. [1990]. The model is as follows: Coagulant dose =
k1 x colloidal colour + k2 x raw water turbidity + k3, where k1, k2 and k3 are constants and k3
represents the pH, conductivity and the temperature influences. According to Critchley et al. (1990),
the pH variable in the above algorithm is of secondary importance.
Variation in parameter use in mathematical models for coagulant dose prediction may be due to the
following:
1. Raw water parameters in particular water sources do not vary significantly leading to these
being a constant factor and omitted in model development.
2. Some raw water parameters exert much higher coagulant demands than others; the minor
influencing parameters may not be included in the models depending on difficulty and costs of
analyses and level of predictive accuracy accepted.
3. Target water quality varies, with some water quality parameters being seen as irrelevant.
16
A number of studies (Evan and Enoch, 1998; Juuso et al. 1999; Valentin et al. 1999, Bhme et al.
1999; Adgar et al. 2000; Baxter et al. 2002; Cox et al. 2003 and Adgar et al. 2003) have reported the
potential benefits of advanced control systems in improving water treatment processing and
subsequent water quality. These control systems include (1) neural-fuzzy networks (Evan and Enoch,
1998), (2) use of Self-Organising Map (SOM) for validation and reconstruction of input data followed
by a sigmoid multilayer perceptron (MLP) artificial neural networks (ANN) with training using Optimum
Brain Damage (OBD) learning and pruning algorithm (Valentin et al. 1999a and 1999b), (3) Fuzzy
Systems and Linguistic Equations (Juuso et al. 1999), (4) conventional PI unit combined with an ANN
to calculate controller settings, MLP-ANN, Radial Basis Function Network (RBF), and Auto-Associative
Neural Network (AANN) (Adgar et al. 2000), (6) PI controller with Linguistic Equations (Joensuu et al.
2004) and (7) advanced control based on streaming current detector measurements (Adgar et al.
2003).
Often it is reported that these systems enable prediction, through feed-back and/or feed-forward
process monitoring, of an optimum coagulant (and flocculant) dose. Optimum dose has been
described as that dose which leads to a target/desired water quality (where under-dosing leads to poor
water quality and over-dosing leads to higher costs, wastage of chemicals and less efficient process
performances e.g. filtration and sedimentation). However, optimum doses vary according to different
objectives and targets in water treatment such as turbidity and colour removal, reduction of organics to
minimise disinfection-by products, compliance with regulations and guidelines that themselves vary
according to country, state and province.
According to Adgar et al. (2000), the application of automatic control in the water industry in the past
has been compromised by the poor quality of instrumentation, in terms of reliability and accuracy.
However, with advent of low cost modern computers and advanced modeling and control techniques,
sensor limitations and process difficulties can now be reduced (Adgar et al. 2000).
Within the class of advanced control systems is the application of artificial neural networks (ANN). In
this processing system, predictions are made based on establishing connections between historical /
experienced results (output data) and the apparent influencing factors (input data). The actual
relationships between the input and output data are unknown; they are developed through training
processes linking the input to the output data. The processing system simulates a biological neural
network where various stimuli (electrical impulses) to a brain lead to a response (output). In ANN, after
the network has been developed through suitable training processes, it can be used to make
predictions from new input data, provided that this data lies within the data range used for training the
network. This approach avoids the need to determine process and empirical relationships between the
influencing factors and the outcomes of interest. However, it would still be a requirement to search for
and identify the important input factors i.e. those that drive the coagulation/flocculation processes.
Sensitivity analysis is one means of determining the significance of parameters in the ANN. Various
applications of this technique have been reported including sensory signal processing; anaerobic
digester control, water quality, potentiometric stripping analysis, alum dosing for colour and turbidity
removal (Sperring et al. 1992; Wilcox et al. 1995; Maier and Dandy, 1996, Chow et al. 1997, van
Leeuwen et al. 1999a). Mirsepassi et al. (1995, 1996) evaluated the capacity of ANN for the prediction
of alum doses at a water treatment facility in New South Wales, Australia.
Various forms of ANN have been trialled and evaluated but few reports were found in the literature
where ANN has been adopted into everyday operations for chemical dose predictions at a major water
or wastewater treatment facility. Notable developments include that reported by Baxter et al. (2002) of
an ANN based advanced process control system of a pilot plant, to achieve enhanced coagulation.
Other ANN developments reported in the literature include those suitable to account for sensor failures
and erroneous input data (Valentin et al. 1999b). In the ANN approach, the accuracy of the model is
based on closeness to actual historical treatment data but does not necessarily explicitly deal with that
being optimum against criteria used at that time, i.e. it assumes that the treatment history was
acceptable and based on this, so too will be future treatment conditions.
The need for sophisticated model developments for advanced process control is based on the
complexity and non-linearity of treatment processes and objectives. Some authors refer to the need
for well structured and designed process control and plant management policies in order to achieve
improvements such as production consistency, reduced operation costs, and improved safety (Adgar
17
et al. 2000). They describe situations were ANN can be used to help provide solutions that contribute
to improvements in overall plant performances.
Notwithstanding the correctness of this, it seems that embodied within these developments are
unstated priorities of various treatment objectives, i.e. training data used for ANN development would
encompass acceptable operation values and their ranges. Although held within the training or
modeled data, the priorities of treatment objectives (possibly inferred in policies, as detailed by Adgar
et al. 2000) are not explicitly described, nor their possible change accounted for in model
developments. Hence it would appear that recommendation of well structured and designed process
control and plant management policies (for improved plant performance) infers a need for clear and
consistent treatment objectives. From this consistency models can then be developed and adopted
even without explicitly knowing the priorities by modelers but are self-evident to plant operations
personnel/managers. Confusion and apparent model failure may be more through a lack of
understanding of treatment objective priorities by modelers and confidence of operators that models
can reliably deal with these. Intuitively, more intelligent advanced control systems are seen to be
better based on their sophisticated capacity and conditional high accuracy prediction, but
nonetheless may suffer seriously from a lack of adaptability, non-clarity of processing and high
expertise dependency. Level of adoption of modeling tools is impacted by prediction accuracy,
robustness, reliability and ease of use. Where these are high then one would expect their adoption
and dependency to be high but where any of these become low then so too would the level of model
application.
Further, it may be argued that where a predictive tool is highly complex and/or functions in an
unknown manner, and unless it has been extensively proven that it is reliably accurate and adaptive, it
will be treated with a high level of caution.
Simpler mechanistic models of various components of a treatment train might be seen as more
operationally acceptable than those that attempt to tackle a whole operation, on the basis of
consistency of prediction outcome though lacking very high levels of accuracy (compared with
historical treatment). The work of Najm (2001) where he details relevant carbonate chemistry and user
friendly procedures to determine pH changes in potable water supplies varying in TDS, alkalinity, initial
pH and temperature, with a range of chemicals used in the water industry, is an example of application
of more fundamental chemistry knowledge for water treatment control and optimisation. In this project,
this information was used to develop an option for pH prediction.
Perhaps one of the reasons for the perpetuation of labour intensive methods for chemical dose
determination, such as the jar test, is its simplicity, reliability and being readily adaptable to cover a
wide range of treatment conditions and scenarios. Mechanistic models that deal with all areas of
treatment trains would be ideal for confidence, reliability and adaptability but, as previously discussed,
are seen as perhaps not achievable due to the highly complex nature of water treatment processes
(and difficulties in obtaining input data for models if they were available).
It would appear that current tools for determination and prediction of treatment conditions needed in
relation to overall treatment objectives will continue to include those that are established within
industries, such as jar tests, to acceptable scenario generating and planning tools e.g. first and second
order disinfectant decay models, to the advanced process control systems that include intelligent
processes such as ANNs. Interestingly, and as noted above, research development includes hybrid
systems such as the less intelligent PID system with the more intelligent ANN processor (Adgar et
al. 2000 and Joensuu et al. 2004) in order to utilise the benefits of both.
Future modeling development relevant to the water and wastewater treatment industries appears likely
to integrate a variety of approaches (hybridisation) to utilise the benefits of adaptability, robustness
and accuracy of each. The need for particular capacity levels of adaptability, robustness, accuracy etc.
is likely to vary from site to site, which would then impact on the types of models used and integrated.
Models used to predict doses for enhanced coagulation

Few studies have been reported of model developments to predict chemical dosing requirements for
enhanced coagulation or DOC removals by enhanced coagulation. Examples where this has been
attempted include Edwards (1997), Tseng and Edwards (1999), and Stanley et al. (2000). Stanley et
18
al. (2000) applied ANN for prediction of clarified water turbidity and colour, and to describe the
enhanced coagulation process. Tseng and Edwards (1999) introduced the concept of a Langmuir
model to predict TOC removal during enhanced coagulation. This was particularly relevant to the US
water industry where enhanced coagulation is now regulated. The concept of Langmuir model
development for DOC removal prediction and application at a water treatment plant was further
studied in this project and results have been published by Kastl et al. (2004).
Aim of project
The aim of the study reported here was to determine the feasibility of using the mathematical models,
initially developed through CRC for Water Quality and Treatment Project 1.0.0.2.1.1 Characterisation
of NOM, on a larger scale, at pilot plant and at conventional water treatment plants, for prediction of
chemical dosing for enhanced coagulation. The models were designed to predict alum doses that
would maximise removal of DOC and enable prediction of the pH following alum dosing and acid or
alkali addition to achieve a target coagulation pH. These models also incorporated a simple
relationship to predict a component of alum dosing specifically needed to remove turbidity for raw
water turbidity up to about 200 NTU. Subsequent developments in this project (WQ 100328) included:
1. models that would predict ferric chloride doses that maximise DOC removal
2. standardisation of model dose predictions to a selected definition of maximising (or near-

maximum) DOC removal
3. criteria from which new waters could be tested for suitability for model application
4. dose prediction for selected % coagulable DOC removal
5. coagulant dose prediction for very high turbidity waters >> 200 NTU
6. models that describe carbonate chemistry by which pH and acid/alkali doses can be predicted
and
7. a model based on the same principles as described in van Leeuwen et al. (2001) that enable
pH and acid and alkali dose prediction from raw water alkalinity, where ferric chloride is used
as coagulant.
The second major component of the overall study was the development of models and software for
the accurate prediction of the removal of DOC (and thereby prediction of the residual DOC) in treated
waters at selected coagulation pH. This was the key objective of research partners from Sydney Water
Corporation and the results of this study component are reported separately.
19
2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1 STUDY LOCATIONS AND SAMPLE COLLECTIONS

Locations of water sources used in pilot plant studies and for sample collections are detailed in the
figure below. Waters were selected on the basis of variances in turbidity, alkalinity, organic content
and change in water quality throughout the year. Selection was also based on opportunities that arose
during the study where pilot plants were available and water industries were supportive of the
objectives of the study. Further water samples were collected and tested (not detailed on map) in
order to develop new models from those already developed through CRC project 1.0.0.2.1.1. For
these new models (e.g. ferric chloride dose prediction, alum dose prediction for waters with high algal
influence and very high DOC), testing of specific waters varying in the parameters of interest was
conducted to generate data needed to develop the models.
1,2,5,8
6,7 3,4
1. Anstey Hill WTP 5. Happy Valley WTP
2. Barossa Res. 6. Middle River Res.
3. Bendora Res. 7. Rocky River
4. Googong Res. 8. Torrens River
9. Wanneroo WTP
Anstey Hill WTP/Millbrook Reservoir (South Australia)

The Anstey Hill WTP is supplied with water from the River Murray via the Mannum-Adelaide pipeline
or from the Millbrook Reservoir (Storage capacity 16,500 ML). The water can be supplied as a mixture
from both sources. The Mannum-Adelaide pipeline is 60 km in length and has a rated capacity 380
ML/day. Source waters supplied to the plant can be rapidly changed with direct supply from the River
Murray. This can lead to rapid changes in water quality of the source waters.
Barossa WTP (South Australia)

The Barossa WTP is supplied by water from the Barossa, South Para, Warren reservoirs. These
reservoirs are supplemented with waters from the River Murray.
20
Bendora Dam (Canberra)

Water from the Corin Dam is released into the Cotter River which flows into Bendora Dam. Water from
Bendora is gravity feed to the Mt Stromlo WTP.
Googong WTP/Dam (Canberra/NSW)

Googong Dam is located approximately 15 km south-east of Canberra and has a capacity of 124,500
ML. Water is sourced from the Queanbeyan River and other local creeks, the catchment area is
protected and the predominant vegetation is native.
Happy Valley WTP/Reservoir. (South Australia)The water treatment plant is located 15 km south of
Adelaide. The source water is primarily from the River Murray and is supplemented by the Mt Bold
catchment. The Happy Valley Reservoir has a storage capacity of 11,600 ML.
Middle River WTP/Reservoir (Kangaroo Island, South Australia)

Middle River is located on the northern side of Kangaroo Island and discharges into Investigator Strait.
The Middle River Dam is located approximately 17 km north-west of Parndana and is the main water
source for Parndana, Kingscote and Emu Bay. The surrounding land use is a mixture of agriculture,
forestry and native vegetation.
Rocky River (Kangaroo Island, South Australia)

Rocky River is located at the western end of Kangaroo Island. It is not currently used for drinking
water supply and flows freely into the Southern Ocean. The river is wholly contained within the
Flinders Chase National Park and the predominant vegetation is native.
Torrens River (South Australia)

Waters of the Torrens River are feed from local catchments and from the River Murray. Local
catchments include agricultural, industrial, commercial and urban environments.
Wanneroo WTP (Western Australia)

The Wanneroo WTP is supplied with ground water (confined and unconfined wells) that has a high
load of natural organic matter. A MIEX treatment step has been incorporated into the conventional
alum coagulation, treatment.
2.2 CHEMICALS
General
All laboratory solutions were prepared using Milli-Q water (MQ water).
Alum
All alum doses are expressed as mg/L Al(SO4)3.18H2O.
Alum for the pilot plant trials was taken from the local water treatment plant supply. Typically this was
Potable Water Purification Grade supplied by Pivot (SG: 1.32 g/mL, Conc.: 52.2% w/w as Al(SO4)3.
18H2O). Laboratory solutions were made up from the same grade of alum sampled from Hope Valley
WTP.
Ferric Chloride
All ferric doses are expressed as mg/L FeCl3.
Ferric chloride solution was purchased from Ace Chemical Company (SG: 1.45 g/mL, Conc.: 42.0%
w/w as FeCl3) and used as supplied. Laboratory solutions were made up from this supply and
discarded within one week (before signs of precipitation were evident).
Polyelectrolyte
Polymer/polyelectrolyte as a flocculation aid was sampled from the local water treatment plant batch
tank.
21
Table 2.1 Polyelectrolytes sourced from WTP for pilot plant trials
Location Polyelectrolyte Supplier Type
Happy Valley Magnafloc LT-22 Ciba High MW cationic polyacrylamide
Middle River CP-406 PWG Rheochem High MW cationic polyacrylamide
Googong Magnafloc LT-22 Ciba High MW cationic polyacrylamide
Anstey Hill Magnafloc LT-22 Ciba High MW cationic polyacrylamide
Sodium Hydroxide
All doses are expressed as mg/L NaOH.
For the Middle River pilot plant trials a sample of caustic soda solution from the water treatment plant
was diluted from 50% solution to ~20% in a bulki-box. Several samples were collected and titrated
against a known acid to calculate the concentration of the solution.
For the Anstey Hill pilot plant trials caustic soda solution was purchased from Ace Chemical Company
and used as supplied (30% or 15% w/w as NaOH).
Laboratory solutions were prepared from AR Grade NaOH (Ajax) and discarded within 2 weeks.
Sulphuric Acid
All doses are expressed as mg/L H2SO4.
Sulphuric acid was used at Happy Valley and Anstey Hill and was purchased from Ace Chemical
Company and used as supplied (SG: 1.14 g/mL, 20% w/w as H2SO4). Laboratory solutions were made
by diluting AR grade (BDH) 98% sulphuric acid.
Hydrochloric Acid
All doses are expressed as mg/L HCl.
Hydrochloric acid was used during the Googong pilot plant trials and was commercial grade (for
swimming pools) purchased from Hydroquip Distributors, ACT (SG: 1.15, Conc.: 32.0% as HCl) and
was used as supplied or diluted 50:50 to ensure the minimum flow for metering pump was met.
Laboratory reagents were diluted from AR Grade concentrated hydrochloric acid (36%, BDH).
2.3 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

2.3.1 Filtration
Samples for UV, true colour and DOC analysis were filtered through cellulose nitrate membranes with
a 0.45 m pore size. Typically in-line syringe filters were used, (one for each sample) and were
washed with 60 mL MQ water followed by 30 mL of the sample. More turbid samples were filtered
under vacuum using 47 mm membranes in a Millipore filter holder which were washed with 250 mL
MQ water followed by 30 mL of the sample.
2.3.2 UV absorbance
UV absorbance was determined using a Shimadzu 1201 UV/VIS spectrophotometer; samples were
filtered (0.45 m) and a 1cm quartz cell was used.
22
2.3.3 True Colour

Colour was determined spectrophotometrically by comparing the absorbance of a 0.45 m filtered
sample at 456 nm with a platinum/cobalt standard (50 Hazen Units) (Bennett and Drikas, 1993) using
a Shimadzu 1201 UV/VIS spectrophotometer and 5cm cell.
2.3.4 Turbidity
A Hach 18900 ratio turbidimeter (Hach, USA) was used to give a direct reading of the turbidity of a
sample in nephelometric turbidity units (NTU).
2.3.5 pH
The pH was measured using a portable pH meter (pH-340i meter, WTW, Germany) with a
combination electrode filled with either a liquid (sentix 61) or gel (sentix 41) electrolyte. The meter had
built in data logger that was used to monitor the pH of the pilot plant settled water.
The pilot plant had an in-line pH meter (EXA, Yokogawa); an analogue output (4-20 mA) from the
meter was continuously logged using a data logger (DataTaker, 10 min interval).
Both meters were calibrated using a two point calibration at pH ~7 (7.00 or 6.865) and pH 4.001.
2.3.6 Alkalinity and Buffering Capacity

The alkalinity of raw water samples was determined using a method derived from Standard Methods
for The Examination of Water and Waste Water, 20th Edition, American Public Health Association,
Washington, DC (AlkS). Alkalinity (was determined by an autotitrator (Radiometer Autotitrator
comprising TTT85 Titrator, ABU80 Autoburette, SAC80 Automatic sample changer and PRS12
printer) with 0.02M hydrochloric acid titrated to pH 4.5. Alkalinity was determined as mg/L CaCO3.
The model software incorporated an alternative procedure for measuring the buffering capacity of
water based on the amount of alum or acid required to depress the raw water pH to 5.5. Typically this
was measured by titrating 20,000ppm alum or 0.1 M H2SO4 into 1 L of raw water in 0.5 mL aliquots
using a burette. After each addition the pH was allowed to stabilise (as judged by the auto-read
feature of the WTW pH meter), recorded, another aliquot added, and this procedure repeated until a
pH of 5.5 was reached. The volume of aliquots and the concentration of the acid were changed to suit
the buffering capacity of the water. From the above buffering capacity determination, the alkalinity of
the water was estimated from relationships to alkalinity measures determined by standard methods
(AlkM)
2.3.7 Dissolved Organic Carbon

DOC concentrations were determined using 0.45 m filtered samples and a total organic carbon
analyser (Model 820, Sievers Instruments Inc., USA). In order to check the calibration and efficiency of
inorganic carbon stripping, samples with known concentrations of organic and inorganic carbon were
analysed at the beginning and end of each run of samples. The accuracy of the measurements was
also checked by running two blind samples prepared by the AWQC quality control lab; the results of
these samples were required to be within two standard deviations (instrument accuracy) of the actual
value.
2.3.8 Jar Test

A variable speed, six paddle gang stirrer (SEM FMS6V) with 7.6 cm diameter flat paddle impellers and
2 L Gator jars was used. Chemicals needed for pH correction (0.2M NaOH, 0.1M H2SO4) to a target
coagulation pH were determined using the model software based on the results of a titration of the raw
water to pH 5.5 with acid or alum. These chemicals were added before or with the coagulant and were
measured with an appropriate capacity auto-pipette (Eppendorf 200 L, 1 mL, 5 mL). Coagulant (alum
or FeCl3) was added to each jar simultaneously, by means of rotatable test tube rack, while stirring at
230 RPM (G=480 s-1). After 1 minute the speed was reduced to 25 RPM (G=18 s-1) for 14 minutes so
flocculation could occur, during this time the initial pH of the samples was determined and minor
adjustments to coagulation pH were made (if necessary). The samples were allowed to settle for 15
minutes and 700 mL of the settled water was then drawn off. Settled water turbidity and final pH were
23
measured at this point. The settled water samples were then filtered under gravity through Whatman
No.1 papers, which had been rinsed by 3 volumes of milliQ water, the first 100 mL of filtered sample
was discarded. Filtered water samples were used for turbidity, colour, UV, DOC, THMFP and metal
residual analysis.
2.3.9 Trihalomethane Formation Potential

Trihalomethane formation potential (THMFP) analyses were performed by the Australian Water
Quality Centre. The THMs were formed by heating a buffered water sample (pH 7.4) at 35C for 4
hours with an excess of chlorine (approximately 20 mg/L chlorine). The sample was subsequently
quenched with ascorbic acid. THM components were determined using a gas chromatograph with a
headspace autosampler, coupled with an electron capture detector (similar to Standard Methods,
Eaton et. al., 1998).
2.3.10 Simulated Distribution System test and 72 hour Chlorine Decay

The 72 hour chlorine demand of a sample was determined by dosing a number of sub-samples with
increasing amounts of chlorine. After 72 hours the chlorine residual of each was determined and the
sample with a residual close to 0.5 mg/L was used to calculate the Cl2 demand. Chlorine decay was
measured by dosing 1 litre of treated water with an amount of chlorine equal to the 72 hour demand +
0.5 mg and then stored in an amber bottle in the dark at 20C. At predetermined times 100mL
samples were withdrawn for chlorine analysis over a period of 72 hours.
The chlorine residual was determined using the DPD ferrous titration method. N,N-diethyl-p-
phenylenediamine (DPD) is used as an indicator in the titration procedure with ferrous ammonium
sulphate (Eaton et. al., 1998).
Simulated distribution system trihalomethane (SDSTHM) tests were performed by taking a sub-sample
of the chlorinated water (at t = 0) above and filling a separate 60 mL amber bottle such that there was
no head space. After incubation for 72 hours under the above conditions the sample was quenched
with ascorbic acid and analysed for THMs using the equipment described above (THMFP).
2.3.11 Residual Metals

Residual metal concentrations of Al, Fe & Mn were determined at the Australian Water Quality Centre
using the methods described by Eaton et. al. (1998). Analyses were performed on a Spectro
(Analytical Instruments GMBH, Germany) Spectroflame inductively coupled plasma-atomic emission
spectrometer (ICP-AES). The samples were acidified to ~1% with concentrated nitric acid (Aristar)
prior to analysis.
2.4 PILOT PLANT

2.4.1 Description and Process Design
All of the pilot plants used in this study were of similar design (see Figure 2.1) and consisted chiefly of
a flat bottom clarifier. This design was chosen for its simplicity owing to the fact that there are no
moving parts except the raw water feed pump. Full scale water treatment plants of this type are
common around the world, however, certain practical limitations of these plants limit their use for
municipal supply. Firstly they are not suited to stop/start running and also not suitable for large
changes in loading rate. These limitations were not expected to be problematic during these pilot plant
trials because they could be run continuously at constant loading. The settled water turbidity of these
plants is slightly inferior to a conventional sedimentation design. However since the main focus of this
study was DOC removal this was not seen as a major concern.
Raw water was pumped from the raw water source into a holding tank. To ensure a constant head of
water, the flow into the tank was slightly higher than the demand of the pilot plant and the surplus
water was allowed to overflow to waste. The water was pumped from this tank at a constant rate and
the flow to the pilot plant was regulated by two valves (process and recycle) and the flow measured
using a rotameter or magnetic flow meter.
24
Water treatment chemicals were injected into the process stream using diaphragm pumps and mixed
using an orifice plate or static mixer. The pH of the water downstream of chemical dosing was
monitored using an in-line pH meter. The dosed water was introduced into a contactor to aid formation
of micro-floc before the clarifier.
The process stream was injected, at a predetermined velocity, near the bottom of the clarifier tank
through a pipe arranged perpendicular to the base. The velocity of the water entering the clarifier
creates a turbulent stirring action that ensures adequate mixing (locally) and builds floc size by
promoting collisions between floc particles (generally). The treated water was withdrawn from the
clarifier tank near the top through a submerged launder. The natural tendency of the floc to settle in
the clarifier is offset by constant rise in the water column and results in the formation of a sludge
blanket in the mid section of the clarifier. Once a suitable volume of sludge was collected in the
clarifier, small amounts were periodically withdrawn through a suspended cone to maintain the height
of the blanket.
Figure 2.1 Schematic of pilot plants used in this study
2.4.2 Happy Valley WTP

The plant comprises two parallel streams with raw water sourced directly from the main plant raw
water intake. The raw water was dosed with coagulant and a suitable pH control reagent before
entering a conditioning tank with a residence time of approximately 60 seconds to improve
coagulation. The water was then further dosed with a flocculant aid (LT-22) before being injected at
the base of a 1 m diameter 5 m high flat bottomed clarifier. A sludge blanket formed at the height of
a sludge cone suspended 1.5 m from the surface of the clarifier which concentrated the sludge
allowing the clarified water to overflow the clarifier. The clarifier was operated at a rise rate of 1.5 m/h.
Dosing of the primary coagulant was achieved via flow-paced control with feedback from a magnetic
flow meter on the raw water inlet pipe, as was flocculant aid dosing. The chemical dosing pumps
(ProMinent gamma/L) were operated at constant stroke length and the feed rate changed by varying
the frequency. Pumps were calibrated initially, using a measuring cylinder at the suction end, and the
volume/stroke factor programmed into a programmable logic controller (PLC). Dosing of the pH control
reagent was achieved via proportional integral derivative (PID) control with feedback from a pH probe
downstream of the coagulant and pH control reagent dosing points.
25
Sludge was released intermittently from the sludge cone via a pipe to the base of the clarifier and an
automatic valve controlled by the PLC. Two identical streams enabled one to be used as a baseline
(generally operated at model predicted dosing conditions), while the second stream enabled
alternative dosing conditions to be trialed.
Turbidity Spiking
Trials involving spiking clay to increase turbidity in raw water were conducted at the Happy Valley pilot
plant between 13/8/02 and 27/8/02.
A concentrated suspension of clay was prepared by adding potters clay (5-20 kg) in small pieces (~1
cm cubes) to 200 L of treated water with constant stirring. The suspension was stirred until all of the
clay was suspended (~24 hours); occasionally this required lumps to be broken up by hand.
The concentrated clay suspension was dosed into the pilot plant raw water feed (after feed pump,
before coagulant dosing) using a diaphragm pump. Samples of the turbidity-spiked water were taken
from a sample tap located before the chemical dosing point and the turbidity measured using a
laboratory meter. The dosing pump rate and stroke length were adjusted until the required turbidity
was achieved.
Model parameters (UV254, colour, turbidity) were measured for spiked samples and used to set
chemical dosing conditions. The plant was run overnight to equilibrate then samples collected by
immersing sample bottles into the clarified water.
Natural raw water turbidity was between 5-8 NTU, the plant was run successfully spiked to 50, 118
and 135 NTU.
Some difficulties were encountered with pumping the highly turbid suspensions. The dosing pump
originally had a coarse filter on the end of the suction hose; this often clogged causing the pump to
loose prime during the equilibration stage. This filter was removed midway through the trials.
2.4.3 Middle River WTP and Anstey Hill WTP

The pilot plant used at the Middle River and Anstey Hill WTPs was designed to be more easily
transported than the Happy Valley pilot plant. The clarifier consisted of a fibre glass tank 1.5 m 3 m
that could be easily placed on a truck and moved to different locations (see Figure 2.2a). The contact
tank (see Figure 2.2b) provided a contact time of 3.5 minutes and was constructed from a 3.3 m length
of 250 mm sewer pipe with end caps and 50 mm tank connectors at either end. The contactor was
supported on a circular plinth and secured against the side of the clarifier using luggage straps with
open cell foam in between for packing. The inlet pipe work was attached to the contactor and
consisted of a diaphragm valve (for flow control), a rotameter, injection ports for coagulant and pH
control reagent, a static mixer, an inline pH meter and an injection port for polyelectrolyte. After the
contact tank, the water flowed into the clarifier, under gravity, through a pipe that was open at the top
and tapered towards the bottom. The outlet orifice was 300 mm from the base of the clarifier and 25
mm in diameter in order to create a jet of water with a velocity of ~1.5 m/s at the design flow of 2700
L/h (1.5 m/h surface loading).
26
Figure 2.2 a) Picture of pilot plant showing (from left) clarifier, operator, outlet swan-neck (top),
contactor, inlet pipework, raw ballast tank & pump. b) Picture of pilot plant on truck for transport. c)
Picture of pilot plant showing clarifier inlet, outlet launder, sludge cone & blanket.
Chemical
Tank
Figure 2.3 a) Picture of chemical dosing set up showing (clockwise from bottom) chemical tank,
metering pump and calibration column. b) Schematic of calibration column.
27
The chemical dosing pumps (ProMinent beta-4a) were operated by adjusting the stroke length and
frequency settings to achieve the desired feed rate and were calibrated at each setting using a 100 mL
Koflo calibration column (see Figure 2.3) and stopwatch.
Sludge was withdrawn from the sludge blanket through a cone suspended 950 mm from the surface of
the water (see Figure 2.2 c). A flexible hose connected the bottom of the cone to an outlet near the
base of the tank and the flow was controlled by an electrically actuated ball valve. The transition of the
valve through closed-open-closed took 15 seconds and released 6.35 L of sludge, the frequency of
this discharge was controlled by a timer and was adjusted with each trial so that the concentration of
sludge in the waste steam was ~30% by volume after 30 minutes settling time.
The outlet launder (see Figure 2.2c) was constructed of PVC pipe arranged in a 1m 1m square with
holes drilled at ~75 mm intervals along inner and outer sides, it was suspended horizontally ~200 mm
below the surface of the water and connected to an outlet in the side of the tank. The level in the tank
was regulated by a swan neck arrangement on the outside of the clarifier tank (see Figure 2.2a). At
Anstey Hill, polymer (LT22 0.3% Soln) was used.
2.4.4 Googong
During the trial the water treatment plant was not running. The raw water used for the pilot plant was
pumped from the reservoir (through the pipe shown in Figure 2.4a) into the raw water inlet channel for
the water treatment plant (Figure 2.4b). This channel was used as a holding tank and the raw water
was allowed to backflow through an existing dry-chemical dosing line (see Figure 2.4a) to the pilot
plant under gravity. The raw water inlet channel was refilled once during the trial. The receiving tank at
the pilot plant end had a float valve to control the level in the tank (rather than an overflow).
To
Pilot
Figure 2.4 a) Raw water inlet pipe and chemical dosing line. b) WTP raw water inlet channel.
The pilot plant (see Figure 2.5a) had the same basic design and layout as the Middle River/Anstey Hill
pilot plant except it was smaller in scale. The clarifier had a diameter of 590 mm and was fabricated
from polypropylene; it was operated at a flow of 900 L/h (3.3 m/h surface loading). The contact tank
28
was also made from polypropylene (3.3 m 150 mm) and provided a residence time of 3.9 min. The
clarifier inlet consisted of a top tank connected to a pipe that extended down to 300 mm from the
bottom of the tank and terminated in a 13.5 mm nozzle that ensured the water entered with sufficient
velocity (1.75 m/s @ 900 L/h). The open-top design of the clarifier inlet was intended to let entrained
air bubbles escape before entering the clarifier because bubbles rising through the sludge blanket
caused high turbidity in the settled water. It was essential that the base of the top-tank was below the
surface of the water otherwise bubbling occurred. The outlet launder (see Figure 2.5b) was
constructed of PVC pipe arranged in a 43 mm 26 mm rectangle with holes drilled at ~50 mm
intervals along inner and outer sides, it was suspended horizontally below the surface of the water and
connected to an outlet in the side of the tank.
Alum and polyelectrolyte were dosed using ProMinet gamma/L metering pumps which were calibrated
initially using a 100 mL Koflo calibration column (and the volume/stroke recorded), then subsequent
dosing changes made by altering the pump frequency (digital). Acid was dosed using a ProMinent
beta 4 metering pump; doses were set by adjusting the frequency and stroke length settings
(analogue) and were calibrated at each setting with a calibration column.
Figure 2.5 a) Picture of pilot plant showing (from left) scaffolding, inlet pipework, contactor, clarifier. b)
Picture showing outlet launder and clarifier inlet top tank.
29
2.5 CURVE FITTING AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Curves were fitted to experimental data using least squares regression; best fit parameters were
determined using TableCurve 2D version 4 by Jandel Scientific, Origin 7 by OriginLab or Solver
Excel add in.
Absolute error = absolute value of measured-predicted
Mean absolute error = mean of absolute value of measured - predicted
Model efficiency was determined as detailed by Mayer, D.G. and Butler, D.G., (1993) Statistical
Validation. Ecol. Modelling, 68:21-32.
ModellingE fficiency =1
(y i y i ) 2
(y i y)2
y i : observed
y i : calculated
y : average
Determination of maximum coagulable DOC removal

The maximum coagulable DOC removal was determined using data of residual DOC (mg/L) vs
coagulant dose applied from jar tests and from pilot plant trials. This was done from curve fitting of the
data including the use of a first order decay curve, Y (DOC) = A + Be-x, where at x (dose) = and A =
maximum DOC removal and/or the residual DOC at a very high coagulant dose (~200% MPD or
greater).
2.6 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF MODEL AND SOFTWARE:

2.6.1 Models for DOC removal
Models were initially developed as part of CRC project WQ 1.0.0.2.1.1. The preliminary models were
improved and new ones developed in the current project. Only general descriptions of the models are
given here because the details are considered to have IP value for the three project partners and the
CRC. Preliminary and general descriptions have been previously published (van Leeuwen et al. 2001,
2003 and 2005). Relationships between coagulant dose and DOC are based upon a rationale that
most waters used for potable purposes have either undergone catchment surface flow with low soil
water interaction, soil penetration leading to ground water recharge or other subsurface flows (e.g. A/B
and B/C horizon flows). In waters that have penetrated soils, the organics would have undergone
various degrees of interaction with metal hydrous oxides (as hydroxo complexes) leading to the
immobilisation of some types of NOM, particularly large molecular weight hydrophobics. Waters that
have passed through soils with highly permeable clay and rich in iron, aluminium and calcium would
have an overall lower NOM concentration and a greater relative abundance of organics not amenable
to removal with conventional metal coagulants used in the water industry. It was found in other project
work (CRC project 1.0.0.2.1.1) that a higher relative coagulant dose was needed for these waters (per
mg DOC) than humic waters from surface sources and from catchments with low clay, sandy soils.
2.6.1.1 Near-maximum DOC removal

The term near maximum removal was adopted to describe removal of DOC using alum or ferric
chloride dose where most of the removable or coagulable DOC is removed and where the doses are
practically applicable. The models were generated using a diverse range of water sources and further
developed from those initially developed in CRC project 1.0.0.2.1.1 Characterisation of Natural
Organic Matter. Waters used were predominantly surface waters that ranged from low to high DOC
concentrations and low to high alkalinity and turbidity.
30
In attempting to improve the models for near-maximum DOC removal in this project, a criterion of
DOC/dose of -0.015 was used. This equates to a dose that gives a reduction of 0.15 mg/L DOC per
10 mg/L of coagulant. Although this value was used to develop the models, their application may not
actually lead to a dose prediction that gives this gradient value. The -0.015 value is more
conservative than that applied in the US EPA Safe Drinking Water Act the Disinfectant/Disinfection
By-Product rule where a point of diminishing returns (PODR) dose needs to be applied that gives a
reduction of 0.3 mg/L DOC per 10 mg/L coagulant in some circumstances (see USEPA 16 December
1998).
For rapid application of these models only data of parameters easily and rapidly obtainable at a
conventional water treatment plant were used. These parameters are UV absorbance at 254 nm/cm,
colour at 456 nm (HU), turbidity and alkalinity (as CaCO3). Models based on these parameters are
referred to in this report as primary models because they were designed to be the preferred models
wherever suitable for application. Doses predicted from these models (NM-PM) are referred to as near
maximum model predicted doses (NM-MPD).
2.6.1.2 Percentage Coagulable DOC removal

Models were developed that enable a selected percentage removal of coagulable DOC. The general
details of these models have been published (van Leeuwen et al. 2003). These models require input
of a selected % of coagulable DOC to be removed and were developed using the same waters as for
near-maximum removal. The percentages of coagulable DOC removals of these waters were used to
build the models. The range was only between 90 to 50% removal, which, assuming a non removal
fraction of ~50%, would lead to absolute removals of 25 to 45 %. Below 50% coagulable removal
(~25% absolute) the change in DOC per dose was considered to be too speculative to warrant
modelling. Under an Australia-Germany Program (1995-1998) empirical models were developed for
the removal of colour and turbidity from raw water (van Leeuwen et al. 1999a). Comparing dose
predictions for colour and turbidity removal only with that for near-maximum DOC removal, the dose
factor found was about three; i.e. for near-maximum DOC removal about three times the alum dose is
required compared with that needed to lower the colour to 10 HU, settled turbidity to ~3 NTU, filtered
turbidity ~0.2 NTU (Whatman No. 1) and residual aluminium to less than 0.2 mg/L. A percentage
removal of coagulable DOC of ~55-60% gives an alum dose of ~1/3 of that needed for near-maximum
removal. The application of the % coagulable DOC removal was to enable selection of a dose less
than what would be needed for enhanced coagulation but would allow other treated water quality
targets to be met; i.e. reducing unnecessary coagulant dosing.
2.6.1.3 Model suitability check

This function was developed to check that the NOM character of a new water lay within the range of
characters and concentrations of waters used to build the model. Three key parameters are used i.e.
UV absorbance, colour at 456 nm and DOC. Waters with NOM concentrations and characters outside
that used to establish the primary models would be determined as unsuitable and this is then
displayed by the software.
2.6.1.4 Extended coagulant dose prediction model

When the model suitability check determines that a water is not suitable for the application of the
primary models, other models requiring DOC as an input variable are displayed for use. These models
are referred to as extended coagulant dose prediction models (ECDPM). They are based on less data
than the primary models but were developed to give similar prediction doses. The coagulant dose
predictions are based on the treatability of the DOC determined by character and by the concentration
of DOC present in the water. These models are aimed for unusual waters such as very high DOC
(~>16 mg/L) and waters that have had a high algae loading (low UV @254 nm, low colour but very
high comparative DOC).
2.6.1.5 Prediction of DOC removal based on UV @ 254 nm, colour and

DOC
From data of the relationships between the % of DOC that can be removed by metal coagulants and
the character of the DOC (UV at 254 nm, colour and DOC), relationships were developed that enable
31
predictive estimation of DOC removal (linear regression best fit value and range). This enables
estimation of the removal of DOC prior to any jar testing, pilot plant work or other.
2.6.2 Models for pH control reagent and target pH prediction

(i) A mathematical model had been previously developed through CRC Project WQ 1.0.0.2.1.1 -
Characterisation of NOM to predict pH shift when alum dosing was applied, dependant on the
alkalinity of raw water. The model prediction is based on an assumed raw water pH and therefore
does not require this as an input variable. The pH prediction models were developed based on
sigmoidal curve fitting of standard acid additions (HCl or H2SO4) to raw waters with pH shift over a
defined pH range (~ pH 5.5 - 8); these have been previously described (van Leeuwen et al. 2001).
In this report this model type is referred to as pH_MS; one was developed for application using alum
(pH_MSA) and a second when ferric chloride (pH_MSF) is used.
(ii) Model based on carbonate chemistry (Najm, 2001).
pH_MC
In jar tests and in pilot plant trials at Middle River, Googong and Anstey Hill WTPs, both pH_MSA and
pH_MSF were evaluated for alum and for ferric chloride use, even though their original development
was intended for a specific coagulant use. This was done to extend the pH model prediction
evaluations and was conducted by converting the acidity of each coagulant to that of a standard acid
equivalent (hydrochloric or sulphuric) from which the pH shift by coagulant dosing was determined and
the acid or alkali to attain a target pH was then predicted. Hence, evaluation data is presented for both
models (pH_MSA and pH_MSF) even though only one coagulant type was used for that data.
32
3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results are presented chronologically according to the pilot plant studies conducted, firstly at Happy
Valley WTP, followed by Middle River WTP, Googong WTP and Anstey Hill WTP. Further
opportunities arose during the project to evaluate predictive models, at the Barossa WTP, SA when
acid dosing for pH control was being trialled, Bendora Reservoir, Canberra, after severe fires in the
summer of 2002-2003 resulted in extensive vegetation clearing in catchments leading to significant
reservoir water quality problems, and with availability of water samples varying in water quality, i.e.
Wanneroo, Western Australia, Torrens River, SA and Rocky River, Kangaroo Island, SA.
3.1 HAPPY VALLEY WTP TRIALS

Happy Valley water was the first to be tested in pilot plant trials as the plant at that location was the
first of three to be constructed. Construction of this plant had commenced prior to initiation of this
project as part of UWI studies on filter performances and optimisation of the Happy Valley WTP.
Through this project the pilot plant was enhanced in its capacity for chemical dose control and on-line
treated water quality monitoring. The pilot plant was initially considered to be suitable for transport to
subsequent trial locations (Middle River, Kangaroo Island, Myponga Reservoir and Murray River) as
much of its control system (SCADA) and dosing pumps were constructed within a shipping container
and it was considered that this, along with the two clarifiers, raw water balance tank, pumps,
associated pipework and external construction etc. could be readily transported by semi-trailer.
However, cost estimates for transport, labour requirements and time needed for dismantling and
reassembly made the option of construction of a smaller and more mobile single clarifier pilot plant the
preferred option for subsequent locations. Pilot plant trials were conducted from October to December
2001 and February to May 2002 using alum and, from July to August 2002 using ferric chloride.
3.1.1 Raw water quality

Water quality data of Happy Valley Reservoir raw water sampled between 15 October and 30
December 2001 at the intake to the pilot plant are shown in Appendix 3.1.1 [turbidity (A); pH (B); UV
@ 254 nm (C); colour (D), DOC (E) and aluminium (F)]. Turbidity, UV @ 254 nm, colour and DOC
values were generally consistent over this period reflecting little change in raw water quality, though
aluminium concentrations varied markedly and pH showed a general increase from October to
November 2001. Model predictions for alum doses based on the organics and turbidity present in raw
water were consequently similar ranging from 89 to 94 mg/L (Appendix 3.1.1, G). Raw water quality
data between 19 February and 3 May 2002 are given in Appendix 3.1.1 [turbidity (H); pH (I); UV @
254 nm (J); colour (K) and DOC (L)]. A small but consistent increase in turbidity occurred during April
and early May while UV absorbance, colour and DOC declined from February to May 2002. In July -
August 2002, the following raw water parameters were recorded, turbidity, 2-5 NTU; UV @ 254 nm,
0.229-0.240; colour, 26-31 HU and DOC, 8.0-8.6 mg/L.
3.1.2 Jar Test

Jar testing was performed throughout the pilot plant trials for several reasons. Primarily these were to
compare and check the performances of the pilot plant for DOC removals, to modify and improve on
the models developed at that time and for development of new models i.e. for ferric chloride dose
prediction for enhanced coagulation. At the time of commencement of the Happy Valley trials, the
models developed were for alum dose prediction for maximising DOC removal, turbidity removal and
coagulation pH control. This had been done as part of a previous CRC project (WQ 1.0.0.2.1.1).
In conjunction with jar testing performed on Happy Valley water with ferric chloride, water samples
from River Murray (Mannum), SA; Myponga Reservoir, SA; Middle River Reservoir, SA; Noosa, Qld,
Nth Richmond, NSW; Illawarra WTP, NSW; Baroon, Qld were also jar tested to generate data for
model development.
Results of jar tests of Happy Valley water using alum and conducted for comparison with pilot plant
performances are shown in tables 3.1.2.1 to 3.1.2.2. and Appendix 3.1.2 A to I. Similarly, results of jar
tests using ferric chloride are given in Table 3.1.2.3 and Appendix 3.1.2 J to M.
33
Between 16/10/2001 and 13/11/2001 jar tests were conducted using a very high alum dose necessary
to depress the natural pH to ~5.5 and being about 2 times the MPD. The removals of DOC using the
MPD at various pH levels above 5.5 were compared to the very high doses applied. Ideal comparisons
between DOC removals using the MPD and maximum coagulable removal is made when the
coagulation pH is the same. Where the highest alum dose applied in jar tests was less than twice the
model predicted dose, an exponential decay curve was fitted to the available jar test data of DOC
removal versus coagulant dosing (at similar coagulation pH) and the estimated DOC removal at 200%
MPD determined. Although this approach assumes correct curve fitting selection and data analysis
beyond the actually obtained data range, it was done to provide a more conservative DOC removal
estimate than when applying an assumption that the highest dose used in the jar test represents the
point of maximum coagulable removal. The dose for assessment of maximum DOC removal was
selected as being ~2 times the model predicted dose though as demonstrated from results of the jar
tests performed on 18/9/2002, 21/11/2002 (alum) and 16/8/2002 (ferric chloride), further DOC
removal, albeit at low %, was achievable at much higher dosing levels. Mean % DOC removals with
alum at MPDs were 58% (S.D. 7.3%) at pH ~5.5 and 54% (S.D. 5.1%) at pH ~6.1. Recorded residual
aluminium concentrations in treated waters were, in all cases except one, (18/9/2002, 110% MPD, pH
5.5) below the ADWG value of 0.2 mg/L. In jar tests using alum as coagulant, predicted coagulation
pH values were mostly within 0.2 units of the actual values recorded (except 16/10/2001). The mean
% removal of DOC using ferric chloride at MPD at coagulation pH levels between 5.5 and 5.8 was
59.5 % (S.D. 2.5%). When comparing % coagulable DOC removals, alum treatment at coagulation pH
~5.5 resulted in removals of 85.5% and 98.8% between 16/10/2001 - 21/11/2002 while ferric chloride
treatment resulted in removals of 85.4% and 98.8% between 19/7/2002 and 16/8/2002. Residual Fe
concentrations in treated waters exceeded the ADWG level of 0.3 mg/L when under-dosing (10 mg/L
at pH 5.5) and over-dosing (150 mg/L at pH 5.3-5.4).
In jar tests using ferric chloride with a target pH of 5.5, the actual coagulation pH values recorded
ranged from 5.35 to 5.86 (Table 3.1.2.3). Comparisons are only made where target pH values had
been recorded on jar test data sheets at the time when the jar tests were performed.
34
Table 3.1.2.1 Happy Valley Jar Test results using alum: DOC removals and residual Al. 16/10/2001 to
13/11/2001.
% Coagulable
%MPD/Date
% DOC red.
DOC (mg/L)
Alum (ppm)
DOC red.
Target pH
Al (mg/L)
pH
16/10/2001 0 - 7.97 11.60 - - 0.212
100 98 6.1 6.29 5.20 55.2 98.8 <0.02
100 98 5.5 5.4 4.53 61.0 103.8 0.037
127 124 6.1 6.32 5.12 55.9 100 0.024
184 180 5.5 6.05 4.79 58.7 100 0.029
23/10/2001 0 - 7.9 9.85 - - -
79 75 6.1 6.14 4.59 53.4 81.5 -
89 85 6.1 6.17 4.34 55.9 85.4 -
100 95 5.5 5.63 3.75 61.9 94.6 -
100 95 6.1 6.17 4.19 57.5 87.7 -
205 195 5.5 5.53 3.40 65.5 100 -
1/11/2001 0 - - 9.90 - - 0.059
79 75 6.1 6.2 4.66 52.9 83.2 <0.02
89 85 6.1 6.15 4.5 54.5 85.7 0.022
100 95 6.1 6.13 4.31 56.5 88.8 <0.02
100 95 6.1 6.07 4.22 57.4 90.3 <0.02
111 105 6.1 6.14 4.19 57.7 90.7 <0.02
211 200 5.5 5.62 3.6 63.6 100 0.027
6/11/2001 0 - 10.02 - - 0.097
100 93 - 6.18 4.35 56.6 88.0 0.024
100 93 - 6.45 4.57 54.4 84.6 0.027
100 93 - 6.78 5.03 49.8 77.4 0.054
100 93 - 7.07 5.54 44.7 69.5 0.077
209 194 5.5 5.63 3.58 64.3 100 0.025
13/11/2001 0 - - 10.13 - - 0.05
100 95 - 5.4 3.67 63.8 98.8 0.106
100 95 - 5.91 4.12 59.3 91.8 0.023
100 95 - 6.45 4.84 52.2 80.8 0.041
100 95 - 6.93 5.72 43.5 67.3 0.055
200 190 5.5 5.59 3.59 64.6 100 0.02
35
Table 3.1.2.2 Happy Valley Jar Test results using alum : DOC removals and residual Al. 30/11/2001
to 2/10/2002.
%Coagulable
%MPD/Date
% DOC red.
DOC (mg/L)
Alum (ppm)
DOC red.
Target pH
Al (mg/L)
pH
30/11/2001 0 - - 10.33 0 - -
79 75 - 5.58 4.07 60.6 93.7 -
79 75 - 6.1 4.53 56.1 86.7 -
79 75 - 6.6 5.36 48.1 74.4 -
100 95 - 5.53 3.76 63.6 98.3 -
100 95 - 6.08 4.24 59 91.2 -
100 95 - 6.34 4.92 52.4 81.0 -
13/11/2001 190 - 5.59 3.59 64.6 100 0.02
21/03/2002 0 - 7.78 10.10 - - <0.02
47 42 - 6.21 6.20 38.3 59.0 <0.02
69 62 - 6.22 5.10 49.3 75.9 <0.02
80 72 - 6.74 5.30 47.3 72.8 <0.02
102 92 - 6.24 4.42 56.0 86.3 <0.02
124 112 - 6.20 4.00 60.2 92.8 <0.02
MDR-CF 180 6.2 3.55 64.9 100
18/09/2002 0 - - 7.50 - - 0.342
79 50 6.1 6.16 4.36 41.9 76.9 0.041
94 60 6.1 6.16 4.15 44.6 81.8 0.034
CF100 63.5 5.5 3.9 48.0 82.5
CF100 63.5 6.2 4.17 44.4 81.4
110 70 6.1 6.17 4.08 45.6 80.6 <0.020
110 70 5.5 5.40 3.59 52.2 89.9 0.469
419 266 5.5 5.61 3.15 58.0 100 0.044
419 266 6.1 6.20 3.42 54.4 100 <0.020
21/11/2002 0 7.77 0.63
80 50 6.1 6.17 4.34 44.1 77.9 0.033
96 60 6.1 6.17 4.21 45.8 80.9 0.034
CF100 62.5 5.5 3.93 49.4 82.5
CF100 62.5 6.2 4.1 47.2 83.3
112 70 - 6.84 4.83 37.8 66.7 0.045
112 70 6.1 6.14 4.02 48.3 85.2 0.036
112 70 5.5 5.68 3.72 52.1 84.2 0.094
432 270 5.5 5.55 3.10 60.1 100 0.091
432 270 6.1 6.16 3.39 56.4 100 <0.020
MDR-CF, maximum DOC removal from curve fit
36
Table 3.1.2.3 Happy Valley Jar Test results using ferric chloride : DOC removals and residual Fe.
19/07/2002 to 16/08/2002.
Ferric chloride
%Coagulable
% DOC rem.
DOC (mg/L)
Target pH
Fe (mg/L)
DOC red.
%MPD
(ppm)
pH
19/07/2002 0 - - 8.52 - - 0.136
46 20 5.5 5.69 4.66 45.3 68.0 0.142
69 30 5.5 5.67 3.85 54.9 82.4 0.091
93 40 5.5 5.64 3.49 59.0 88.6 0.097
CF100 5.6 3.3 61.3 92.0
116 50 5.5 5.63 3.19 62.6 94.0 0.135
139 60 5.5 5.60 2.93 65.6 98.5 0.168
MDR-CF 5.6 2.84 66.6 100
29/07/2002 0 - - 8.55 - - 0.293
46 20 5.5 5.7 4.58 46.4 68.2 0.174
92 40 5.5 5.65 3.38 60.5 89.0 0.091
CF100 43.5 5.6 3.29 61.5 90.4
115 50 5.5 5.6 3.11 63.6 93.5 0.086
138 60 5.5 5.76 3.45 59.6 87.6 0.050
161 70 5.5 5.56 2.76 67.7 99.5 <0.030
184 80 5.5 5.5 2.74 68.0 100 0.048
2/08/2002 0 - - 8.33 - - 0.350
24 10 5.5 5.86 6.73 19.2 29.0 2.280
48 20 5.5 5.86 4.89 41.3 62.3 0.088
72 30 5.5 5.82 4.05 51.3 77.4 0.061
96 40 5.5 5.77 3.82 54.1 81.6 0.066
CF100 41.7 5.8 3.6 56.8 85.7
120 50 5.5 5.77 3.27 60.7 91.6 0.085
144 60 5.5 5.72 3.15 62.2 93.8 0.032
MDR-CF 5.8 2.81 66.3 100
16/08/2002 0 - - 7.98 - - 0.231
100 40.5 - 6.87 4.76 40.4 54.6 0.039
100 40.5 - 6.37 4.1 48.6 65.8 0.081
100 40.5 - 5.89 3.46 56.6 76.5 0.090
100 40.5 - 5.54 3.1 61.2 82.8 0.107
370 150 - 5.4 2.08 73.9 100 0.340
37
3.1.3 Pilot Plant

Pilot plant trials were conducted at Happy Valley WTP between 15 October and 30 December 2001
and between 19 February and 5 May 2002 using alum as coagulant and from July to August 2002
using ferric chloride.
3.1.3.1 Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials using alum: 15 October -

30 Dececember 2001.
Removals of organic compounds (measured as UV abs 254 nm and DOC) with alum dosing are given
in Table 3.1.3.1. Treated water quality data from Clarifier A is shown in Appendix 3.1.3.1 [turbidity (A),
pH (B), UV @ 254 nm (C), colour (D) and aluminium (E)]. Treated water quality data from Clarifier B is
shown in Appendix 3.1.3.1 [alum dosing (F) turbidity (G), pH (H), colour (I) and aluminium (J)]. As with
jar test data, curve fitting was performed to estimate removals at both 100% and 200% MPDs. The
WTP dosing (78 mg/L alum, no pH correction) was initially simulated using Clarifier A and then the
alum dose was increased to 130 mg/L with a coagulation pH of 6.1. Clarifier B operated using various
alum doses at pH 6.1, a pH level considered to be suitable for main plant operation. The least removal
of DOC was found at conditions that simulated the WTP; this was expected as those conditions were
the lowest alum dose applied at the highest pH. At doses near to the NM-MPD (Clarifier B, pH ~6.1)
removals of DOC were about 7% higher than WTP conditions while at higher alum doses (142% MPD
and CF 200%) removals were higher again, at ~10%. Estimated DOC removals determined from
exponential curve fittings were 57.2% at the MPD and 59.8% at 200% MPD. This represents a
coagulable removal of DOC at the MPD of 95.6%.
3.1.3.2 Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials using alum: 19 February

and 5 May 2002.
Removals of organic compounds (UV 254 nm absorbing and DOC) with alum dosing during trials
conducted between February and May 2002 are shown in Table 3.1.3.2. Treated water quality data
from Clarifier A is shown in Appendix 3.1.3.2 (A) and from Clarifier B in Appendix 3.1.3.2 [x MPD (B)
UV @ 254 nm (C), pH (D), colour (E) and turbidity (F)].
Clarifier A was operated with an alum dose and coagulation pH (72 mg/L, pH ~6.6) that simulated
treatment conditions at the WTP (Table 3.1.3.2). DOC removals under those conditions were less
(40.5% and 48.0%) than what would have been expected had treatment been at the MPD (53.5% at
CF100, pH 6.1-6.4) and found from Clarifier B operation at a mean alum dose of 112% MPD. Clarifier
B was operated consistently using alum at a dose near to the NM-MPD (mean = 112% MPD, S.D. 5%)
at a mean pH of 6.34 (S.D. 0.13), where the mean percentage reduction in DOC (n=4) was 53.6%
(S.D. 2.25%). Hence, by application of the MPD without pH correction at the time of the trials, the
DOC removal could have been improved to 50.5 % and with further coagulation pH reduction (to 6.1-
6.3) to removals of ~53.5%. The estimated maximum % DOC removal with alum dosing determined
from curve fitting was a further 3-4% from the MPD.
38
Table 3.1.3.1 UV and DOC removals with alum treatment in Happy Valley pilot plant trials, October to
December 2001
Clarifier A Mean S.D. n Mean S.D. n Mean n

Alum (%MPD) pH % Red. UV % Red. DOC
78 (86) 6.51 0.10 24 69.0 1.3 24 50.2 6
130 (142) 6.03 0.05 6 78.8 1.5 6 N.A.
Clarifier B Mean S.D. n Mean S.D. n Mean n
Alum (%MPD) pH % Red. UV % Red. DOC
85 (93) 6.14 0.10 7 75.9 1.7 7 56.8 1
CF100 6.1 57.2
98 (108) 6.17 0.15 8 76.3 2.2 8 58.0 2
110 (120) 6.10 0.18 6 77.9 1.5 6 57.4 2
130 (142) 6.03 0.08 6 80.5 0.7 6 59.8 1
MDR-CF 6.1 59.8
N.A. not available; MPDs ranged from 89 to 94 mg/L alum (mean: 91 mg/L, S.D. 1.3 mg/L)
Table 3.1.3.2 UV and DOC removals with alum treatment in Happy Valley pilot plant trials, February to
May 2002.
Clarifier A Alum pH UV 254 nm DOC % Coagulable

%MPD mg/L % red. % red. DOC red.
60 50 6.36 64.6 44.1 78
79 72 6.69 68.1 40.5 70
81 72 6.61 67.8 48.0 85
85 72 6.15 70.8 54.5 96
CF100 6.1-6.4 53.5 94
{146} 120 6.11 75.4 54.3 96
MDR-CF 6.1-6.4 56.8 100
Clarifier B Alum pH UV 254 nm DOC % Coagulable
%MPD mg/L % red. % red. DOC red.
110 98 6.36 75.2 55.9 98.4
115 98 6.30 71.7 53.5 94
118 98 6.62 72.3 50.5 89
{120} 98 6.07 78.2 54.3 96
39
3.1.3.3 Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials using ferric chloride: July-August
2002
Removals of DOC from Happy Valley water with ferric chloride treatment in pilot plant trials are shown
in Table 3.1.3.3 and Appendix 3.1.3.2 G. Removals generally exceeded those attained with alum. At
the MPD and coagulation pH 5.5, the DOC removal was ~64%, which was close to the maximum
recorded, 66.1%. However, at the model predicted dose, higher coagulation pH levels resulted in
marked increases in residual DOC, i.e. 54.3% reduction at pH 6.1 and 45.3% at pH 6.7. Benefits in
DOC removal at MPD with ferric chloride in excess of alum dosing at MPD would therefore occur at
coagulation pH less than 6.
Table 3.1.3.3 DOC removals with ferric chloride treatment in Happy Valley pilot plant trials, July to
August 2002
%MPD Ferric chloride pH DOC %DOC % Coagulable

mg/L mg/L red. DOC reduction
50 21 5.5 3.67 54.8 84
75 31 5.5 3.64 56.0 85
100 41 6.7 4.34 45.3 69
100 45 6.1 3.94 54.3 83
100 43 5.5 3.04 64.2 98
125 50 5.5 2.91 66.1 101
150 60 5.5 2.98 64.8 99
MDR-CF 5.5 65.6 100
3.1.4 Evaluation of Coagulant Predictions

In Happy Valley trials, NM-MPD applied in jar tests resulted in mean coagulable DOC removals of
91% with alum and 89% with ferric chloride. In pilot plant trials using alum as coagulant, mean
coagulable DOC removals were 96% and 94%, during October-December 2001 and February-May
2002, respectively. In pilot plant trials using ferric chloride, the MPD resulted in a coagulable DOC
removal of 98%. These % removals based on actual or projected removals at very high coagulant
dose (~200% MPD) are considered sufficient for meeting the objective of maximising DOC removal.
3.1.5 Simulated Distribution System and THMFP Analyses

Data of chlorine decay curves from simulated distribution system analyses are given in Figure 3.1.5.1
where the inserted legend gives the residual DOC concentrations of the treated waters. These curves
were standardised by adjusting the chlorine concentration at 0.5 hour to 3 mg/L (the first recorded
values). Treatment conditions (coagulant type, dose and coagulation pH) that resulted in the residual
DOC concentrations detailed in Figure 3.1.5.1 are given in Appendix 3.1.5.1. These curves show a
general trend of decreasing residual DOC leading to lower chlorine demand and improved residual
chlorine maintenance. Highest DOC removal occurred when ferric chloride was used at 150% MPD
and pH 5.5 (2.98 mg/L) which was very similar to treatment at MPD and pH 5.5 (3.04 mg/L).
Treatment with ferric chloride at 100% MPD and at higher pH levels (6.1 and 6.7) resulted in higher
residual DOC concentrations (3.94 and 4.34, respectively). Alum treatment at 100% MPD pH 6.1
resulted in the highest residual DOC recorded (4.39 mg/L) which had a chlorine decay curve very
similar to that following treatment with ferric chloride at 100% MPD, pH 6.7. Data of THMFP and THMs
formed in SDS tests are given in Figure 3.1.5.2 and appendices 3.1.5.1 and 3.1.5.2. Clear
relationships are evident between the concentrations of residual DOC and THMs formed. With
polynomial fitting and curves passing near to the origin, the relationships are as follows, THMs (SDS)
2 2
= 0.16 +11.0 x DOC + 5.2 x DOC ; (R = 0.889) THMs (THMFP) = -0.043 + 8.15 x DOC + 5.25 x
2 2
DOC (R = 0.995). For a residual DOC of 3 mg/L, the fitted THM production would be 80 g/L in SDS
40
and 72 g/L in THMFP tests. For 5 mg/L DOC, the THMs would be 186 g/L and 179 g/L,
respectively.
Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials-Chlorine Decay Curves
3.5
DOC mg/L
4.39
3
4.34
3.94
2.5 3.67
Chlorine (mg/L)
3.65
2 3.08
2.98
1.5
0.5
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Hours
Figure 3.1.5.1 Chlorine decay curves of treated water samples from Happy Valley Pilot Plant trials.
Curves were standardised by adjusting the chlorine residual at 0.5 hour to 3.0 mg/L chlorine.
200
180 SDS
160 THMFP
140
THMs (ug/L)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00 4.50 5.00
DOC (mg/L)
Figure 3.1.5.2 THMs in treated waters 72 hours after chlorination (SDS data) and THMFP data from
pilot plant trials.
41
3.1.6 Evaluation of pH predictions

Predictions of acid or alkali additions required for a target coagulation pH following addition of either
alum or ferric chloride in jar tests and in pilot plant trials at Happy Valley were evaluated by
comparison to actual values recorded. Two models were used throughout the trials, i.e. pH_MSA and
pH_MSF (see section 2.6.2).
3.1.6.1 Evaluation of pH predictions in Jar Tests

Mean absolute errors (MAE) and standard deviations of coagulation pH predictions using pH_MS
method are shown in Table 3.1.6.1. Considerable variation was found between jar tests conducted
using the same coagulant and between the two coagulants. The initial target in development of the pH
models were for predictions to be within 0.15 pH unit; in 2 of 8 jar tests the MAEs exceeded this level.
However, errors may be due to other factors besides model prediction including instrument and
operator errors. With the consistency in raw water quality at Happy Valley during the trials and
variation in the MAEs between jar tests, it appears that some variations of pH predictions from those
recorded were from other error sources other than model prediction inaccuracy.
Table 3.1.6.1 Mean absolute errors and standard deviations of coagulation pH predictions used in jar
tests of Happy Valley waters
Date Coagulant pH : MAE pH : SD

16/10/2001 Al 0.265 0.266
23/10/2001 Al 0.068 0.039
1/11/2001 Al 0.062 0.053
18/09/2002 Al 0.065 0.076
21/10/2002 Al 0.078 0.051
19/07/2002 Fe 0.146 0.035
29/07/2002 Fe 0.128 0.095
2/08/2002 Fe 0.300 0.056
3.1.6.2 Evaluation of acid dose predictions to achieve coagulation pH

levels in Happy Valley pilot plant trials.
Comparisons of predicted and actual acid dosing rates (2M H2SO4 mL per min) used to achieve target
coagulation pH levels in pilot plant trials at Happy Valley are shown in Appendix 3.1.6.2 (A), (alum)
and (B), (ferric chloride). Mean absolute errors in acid (2M sulphuric acid) dose rate predictions were
0.33 mL/min (or 7.9%) when alum was used and 0.27 mL/min (5.6%) when ferric chloride was used.
3.1.7 Turbidity Spiking Trial

In August 2002, pilot plant trials were conducted after the raw water had been spiked with clay to
increase turbidity. This was done because Happy Valley raw waters had consistently low turbidity (~10
NTU or less) and the capacity of the model to predict alum dosing for turbidity removal had not been
previously evaluated at pilot plant scale.
With turbidity spiking between 50 and 135 NTU by the addition of clay, the application of MPD at ~pH
6 resulted in treated water quality (as measured by colour, UV, turbidity and DOC) at levels similar to
that obtained for the unmodified raw water (Table 3.1.7.1 and Figure 3.1.7.1). This indicates that the
extra dosing predicted by the model (~20 to 70 mg/L) was sufficient to remove the higher turbidities
spiked. The low DOC value for the 118 NTU run is explained by the lower coagulation pH (5.83)
relative to the other samples (~6.1).
42
Table 3.1.7.1 Selected raw and clarified water properties
Raw Water Parameters Clarified Water

Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity Set.
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
Alum Dose
Raw DOC
reduction
% DOC
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
(NTU)
UV254
Date
pH
4.8 67 8.59 19-Jul 4.58 46.7 6.00 NR 0.073 1.9
5.7 69 8.27 2-Aug 4.42 46.6 6.10 NR 0.081 3.5
7.2 68 8.08 14-Aug 4.18 48.3 6.15 2.0 0.073 3.0
7.8 69 8.48 10-Jul 4.32 49.1 6.14 2.7 0.073 4.0
50 89 8.08 15-Aug 3.99 50.6 6.13 2.0 0.075 3.0
118 112 7.90 21-Aug 3.53 55.3 5.83 2.9 0.065 4.1
135 138 8.15 27-Aug 4.00 50.9 NR 2.3 0.068 4.0
H appy V alley Turbidity S piking Trials

15/8 - 27/8 2002
T u rbidity (tre ated)
U V 25 4nm
8
C olour
7
6
Turbidity 10 (NTU)
UV254 100
5
Colour (HU)
4.6 6.00
DOC
4.4 6 .10 X .X X pH clarified w ate r
6.14
DOC (mg/L)
4.2 6.15
4.0 6.13
3.8
3.6
5.83
3.4
0 20 40 60 80 100 12 0 140
R aw W ate r T urbidity (spiked)
Figure 3.1.7.1 Comparison of pilot plant treated water quality before and after turbidity spiking using
model predicted coagulant dose.
43
3.1.8 Summary of Happy Valley Pilot Plant Studies.

Pilot plant trials conducted at the Happy Valley WTP showed that models developed for prediction of
coagulant (alum and ferric chloride) doses for maximising DOC removal, did result in high percentage
removals of coagulable DOC. Associated jar testing for further assessment of DOC removal gave
results that were consistent with those from pilot scale testing. Models developed to predict coagulant
requirements for the removal of inorganic/mineral turbidity were found to be satisfactory, based on
clay spiking trials conducted on Happy Valley water.
Acid dose rates applied in conjunction with coagulant dosing to achieve a target coagulation pH were
also able to be satisfactorily predicted by the models developed. However, in jar tests conducted
throughout the Happy Valley trials, 2 of 8 were unsatisfactory in pH predictions (exceeding 0.15 pH
unit) when compared with recorded coagulation pH levels.
3.2 MIDDLE RIVER WTP TRIALS

Pilot Plant trials were conducted at Middle River WTP from February to July 2003, following
construction of the single flat-bed clarifier of ~2,800 L/h capacity. In these trials alum was used from
February to April and ferric chloride was used from May to July. The raw water quality of the source
water (detailed below) was generally of high DOC, low turbidity and low alkalinity. Emphasis was
placed on developing and evaluating models that would predict coagulant doses that would lead to
maximising removal of NOM, for both chlorine residual maintenance and minimising DBP formation,
particularly THMs. Although a rapid sand filter was constructed for this pilot plant, lack of automatic
control and intermittent attendance at the pilot plant precluded its operation for data acquisition of
filtered turbidity.

The location of Kangaroo Islands main water treatment plant at Middle River (Figure 3.2.1.1) creates
significant challenges for the supply of water that meets the Australian Drinking Water Guidelines. The
water from the Middle River Reservoir typically has high levels of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) of
which a significant proportion remains in the water after alum coagulation. This coupled with the
distance treated water has to travel to the majority of consumers (~50 km) can lead to high levels of
disinfection by-products (DBPs) in the reticulated water. Pilot plant trials were conducted at the Middle
River water treatment plant to assess the various model predictions and also to investigate the effect
of altering coagulation conditions (pH) or coagulants (ferric chloride) on the DPB formation in treated
water.
WTP location Majority of consumers

Emu Bay
Kingscote
Cape Borda
Penneshaw
American River
Parndana
Cape du Couedic
Cape Gantheaume
Figure 3.2.1.1 Map of Kangaroo Island showing location of the Middle River water treatment plant and
the pipeline supplying treated water to the majority of consumers.
44
Water quality data of the Middle River Reservoir during the trial period are shown in Table 3.2.1.1 and
Figure 3.2.1.2. During the period 31 January to 28 May 2003 the quality of the water in Middle River
Reservoir remained relatively constant. There was a gradual reduction in DOC from 11.7 mg/L to 10.1
mg/L while the turbidity showed no particular trends and remained low, between 3-5 NTU. After this
period both the DOC and turbidity increased (to ~16 mg/L, ~12 NTU) and was likely the effect of
rainfall in the catchment leading to flows into the reservoir.
18
16
14
DOC (mg/l), Turbidity (NTU)
12
10
4
Turbidity
2
DOC
0
21/09/2002 10/11/2002 30/12/2002 18/02/2003 9/04/2003 29/05/2003 18/07/2003
Date
Figure 3.2.1.2 Raw water DOC and turbidity trends in Middle River Reservoir
The average SUVA value of 4.4 m-1 mg-1L suggests that the organics in the water were composed
mainly of highly treatable humic materials, as detailed by Edzwald, (1993). The high humic character
is also evident by the high colour. The amount of coagulable DOC was predicted to be between 63-
71% using a model based on the character of the DOC in the raw water (UV, colour and DOC. see
section 2.6.1).
Table 3.2.1 1 Middle River raw water quality February-July 2003
DOC UVat SUVA Colour Turbidity Alkalinity mg/L as

mg/L 254 nm m-1mg-1L (HU) (NTU) CaCO3
Minimum 10.1 0.414 3.7 62 2.9 9.8
Average 11.9 0.522 4.4 100 5.1 29.3
Maximum 16.9 0.721 5.1 147 12.0 38.0
3.2.2 Jar Test

A summary of DOC removals from Middle River water samples under different alum coagulation
conditions from four jar tests is presented in Table 3.2.2.1a. The residual DOC follows the expected
exponential decrease with increasing coagulant at constant coagulation pH (see Figure 3.2.2.1 and
Figure 3.2.2.2). Exponential decay curves were fitted to the data to determine the absolute maximum
DOC removal at each set of conditions and also to assess the rate of DOC removal at the MPD by
calculating the derivative of the function. The jar test data allowed other predictions, such as the
percentage removal of coagulable DOC, to be assessed.
45
Alum
At high alum doses it was possible to remove 61-73% of the total DOC depending on coagulation pH
(these results compare favourably with the estimate of coagulable DOC predicted above). The NM-
MPD was 98-110 mg/L and removed 54-71% of total DOC (depending on pH) which corresponded to
removal of 92-98% of coagulable DOC. The removal rates, expressed as mg DOC removed per mg
alum added, were between 0.006 and 0.014 (average 0.011) at the MPD. Similarly, the extended DOC
removal model [(uv,col,turb,DOC)] (see Section 2.6.1.3) predicted an alum dose of 83-111 mg/L and
removed 54-71% of the total DOC (88-98% of coagulable).
0%
3/10/02 pH ~5.5
10%
Exponential decay f it
20% 6/2/03 pH ~6.0

% Coaguable DOC Removed
30% 6/2/03 pH ~5.5

40% 19/3/03 pH ~6.0
50%
19/3/03 pH ~5.5
60% Exponential decay f it
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
%MPD
Figure 3.2.2.1 Comparison of DOC removals in three Middle River jar tests using alum
A model option that predicts a coagulant dose needed to remove a selected percentage of coagulable
DOC was assessed using data from the jar tests (see Table 3.2.2.2). Actual coagulant doses applied
in jar tests (A) resulted in % coagulable DOC removals detailed in column C. However, the model
predicted doses for the actual % coagulable DOC removals found are given in column B. The
predicted % coagulable DOC removals from actual alum doses applied (A) are given in column D.
When the curves described by the model function were compared with the curve fits of the
experimental data they typically followed the trend accurately but the predictions were above or below
the actual values. The MAE of the alum doses predicted to achieve the experimentally determined
removal of coagulable DOC was 10.7 mg/L (S.D. 6.5 mg/L). Similarly, the error in the predicted
amount of coagulable DOC removed at a given alum dose was 3% (S.D. 2%).
Ferric Chloride
Using a high ferric chloride dose it was possible to remove 70% of the total DOC at pH 5.5 (Table
3.2.2.1b). The NM-MPD was 56 mg/L and removed 49-66% of total DOC depending on the
coagulation pH. At pH 5.5 the model predicted dose removed 95% of coagulable DOC and the
removal rate was 0.017 (expressed as mg DOC removed per mg FeCl3 added). The extended DOC
removal model [(uv,col,turb,DOC)] predicted a similar ferric dose, 55 mg/L, and removed 67% of the
total DOC (96% of coagulable) at pH 5.5.
46
0%
26/2/03 pH~5.5
10% Exponential decay fit
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
%MPD
Figure 3.2.2.2 Middle River jar test results using ferric chloride at pH 5.5
The MAE of the ferric doses predicted to achieve the experimentally determined removal of
coagulable DOC was 5.0 mg/L (S.D. 4.5 mg/L). Similarly, the error of the predicted amount of
coagulable DOC removed at a given ferric dose was 4% (S.D. 2%).
47
Table 3.2.2.1a Middle River jar test results-alum
%Removable
MPD (mg/L)
DOC (mg/L)
%Removal
Coagulant
% MPD
(mg/L)
Date
pH
3/10/2002 110 0 0 13.60 0 0
Alum 60 54 5.49 4.84 64 88
80 73 5.49 4.23 69 95
100 91 5.52 3.99 71 97
110 100 5.53 3.93 71 98
120 109 5.53 3.82 72 99
140 127 5.53 3.73 73 100
MDR-CF 3.70 73 100
6/02/2003 104 0 0 11.45 0 0
Alum 105 101 6.313 4.98 57 100
160 154 6.45 5.00 56 100
75 72 6.04 5.33 53 85
105 101 6.10 4.80 58 93
160 154 6.03 4.39 62 98
MDR-CF 4.28 63 100
75 72 5.51 4.68 59 94
105 101 5.59 4.52 61 96
160 154 5.48 4.25 63 100
MDR-CF 4.25 63 100
19/03/2003 98 0 0 10.23 0 0
Alum 100 102 6.49 4.71 54 101
160 163 6.46 4.78 53 100
75 77 6.13 4.89 52 86
100 102 6.07 4.43 57 94
160 163 5.87 4.13 60 98
MDR-CF 4.03 61 100
75 77 5.55 4.77 53 86
100 102 5.48 4.38 57 92
160 163% 5.58 3.96 61 99
MDR-CF 3.87 62 100
48
Table 3.2.2.1b Middle River jar test results-ferric chloride
%Removable
MPD (mg/L)
DOC (mg/L)
%Removal
Coagulant
% MPD
(mg/L)
Date
pH
26/02/2003 56 0 0 11.20 0 0
Ferric 56 100 6.40 5.74 49 -
56 100 6.00 4.42 61 -
30 54 5.50 4.65 58 84
38 68 5.40 4.26 62 89
56 100 5.5 3.77 66 95
75 134 5.50 3.39 70 100
MDR-CF 3.38 70 100
Table 3.2.2.2 Comparison of actual and predicted values relating to % coagulable DOC removed.
% Coagulable DOC
Sample Coagulant (mg/L)
Coagulant Removed
Date
A-Actual B-Predicted C-Actual D-Predicted
Alum 3/10/2002 60 80 88 80
80 100 95 88
100 110 97 95
110 112 98 97
120 117 99 99
6/02/2003 75 68 85 88
105 89 93 97
75 94 94 88
105 102 96 97
19/03/2003 75 68 86 89
100 89 94 97
75 68 86 89
100 84 92 97
Mean Absolute Error
10.7 (13.1) 3 (4.5)
(Standard Deviation)
Ferric 26/02/2003 30 32 84 80
38 37 89 90
56 45 95 101
Mean Absolute Error
5.1 (6.6) 4 (5.0)
(Standard Deviation)
49
3.2.3 Pilot Plant Trials

3.2.3.1 Pilot plant trials using alum
The results of pilot plant trials using various alum doses and coagulation pH conditions are shown in
figures 3.2.3.1 and 3.2.3.5 and in appendices 3.2.3.1 and 3.2.3.3 (settled turbidity). Comparison of
results of trials where the coagulation pH was between 5.5-6.0 with those from jar tests is shown in
Figure 3.2.3.2. In this pH range, the model predicted dose removed ~60% of total DOC which is
similar to what was observed in jar tests. Increasing the alum dose from the MPD to ~140% of the
MPD did not significantly improve DOC removal. Figure 3.2.3.1 shows removals of DOC at three
different alum doses; below (~72%), above (~141%) and at the MPD. The results demonstrate a
strong pH effect with greater removals at lower pH. At pH ~6, the MPD gives a removal of about 60-
64% DOC. Of this data set, the highest removal of DOC recorded (65%) occurred with the highest
dose at low pH <5.5. However, at these low pH levels the residual aluminium level significantly
exceeded the ADWG. For this water source, with alum treatment alone at ~72% to 141% MPD,
residual DOC concentrations ranged from about 4-5 mg/L. This resulted in THMFP levels ranging from
~180 to 230 g/L. A fitted linear relationship between residual DOC (~3.6 to 5.3 mg/L) and THMFP for
this water is shown in Figure 3.2.3.3. A polynomial fit to this data with the curve passing near to the
2 2
origin is as follows, THMFP (g/L) = -0.43 + 38.4 x DOC + 1.9 x DOC (R = 0.985). Using this
polynomial fit, the THMFP for 3 and 5 mg/L DOC would be 132 g/L and 239 g/L, respectively. These
values are substantially higher than those determined for Happy Valley treated waters at the same
residual DOC. Bromine levels in raw waters were recorded between ~0.3 to 0.9 mg/L which explains
the presence brominated THMs found in THMFP analyses (See Appendix 3.2.3.2).
The 100% model predicted alum doses at pH ~5.5-6.1 resulted in a residual DOC of ~4.5 mg/L. Using
the above polynomial, a THMFP of ~210 g/L would be expected. This DOC concentration is only a
moderate improvement from that in the WTP treated water (DOC ~5 mg/L) where the pH was about
6.4 after treatment using a dose similar to that of the MPD.
Considering the length of the Middle River distribution system, the need for re-chlorination, the above
ground pipeline and warm summer temperatures, the potential of exceeding the ADWG level at the
time of the pilot plant trials would be high.
50
50%
~141% MPD
52%
~100% MPD
54%
~72%MPD
56%
%DOC removed
58%
60%
62%
64%
66%
68%
4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Coagulation pH
Figure 3.2.3.1 Percentage removals of DOC at various coagulation pH levels, using alum
0%
Pilot Plant Results pH 6.0-5.5
10%
Jar Test Results pH 5.5
20%
Jar Test Results pH 6.0
%DOC removed
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180% 200%
%MPD
Figure 3.2.3.2 Pilot plant and Jar test results showing percentage of DOC removed using different
amounts of alum at pH 6.0-5.5
51
300
280
260
r = 0.917
240
THMFP (ug/L)
220
200
180
160
140
120
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
DOC (mg/L)
Figure 3.2.3.3 Liner relationship between Middle River water residual DOC (~3.6 to 5.3 mg/L) and
THMFP
3.2.3.2 Pilot Plant Trials using Ferric Chloride.

The results of pilot plant trials using different ferric chloride doses and coagulation pH are shown in
figures 3.2.3.4 and 3.2.3.5 and in appendices 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.3 (settled turbidity). The strong effect
of pH is again evident with higher doses giving higher percentage removals. At about pH 6, DOC
removals at ~105% MPD ranged from 55 to 60% while at ~125% MPD removals ranged from 60 to
65%. This data indicates that higher dosing with ferric chloride, beyond the MPD can lead to further
removals of DOC that may be important for minimising DBPs and improving chlorine residual
maintenance. Also, if the MPD is considered adequate for the purposes of residual DOC, DBPs and
chlorine residual, then lowering the dose from MPD seems feasible to ~83%.
Chlorine decay curves for various treated waters having different residual DOC concentrations are
shown in Figure 3.2.3.6. The treatment conditions that resulted in these DOC residuals are given in
Appendix 3.2.3.4 and data of individual THMs are given in Appendix 3.2.3.5. Total THMs from SDS
tests and THMFP data are shown in Figure 3.2.3.7. As expected, the lowest residual DOC
concentrations resulted in the lowest chlorine demands which would result in highest residual chlorine
maintenance. Treatment conditions that resulted in the lowest residual DOC concentrations listed in
Figure 3.2.3.6 were dosed with %100 MPDs at pH 5.5. The 100% MPD alum dose at pH 6.2 gave a
similar residual DOC concentration (~4.2 mg/L) as alum treatment at pH 5.5, though predominantly,
residual DOC concentrations at pH 6 were ~4.5 mg/L.
52
40%
~125% MPD
45%
~105% MPD
50% ~84%MPD
%DOC removed
55% ~73%MPD
60%
65%
70%
75%
4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Coagulation pH
Figure 3.2.3.4 Percentage removals of DOC at various coagulation pH levels, using ferric chloride
Middle River Pilot Plant Trials

6.0
Ferric Chloride MPD - Pilot Plant
Ferric Chloride MPD - Jar Test
Predicted residual DOC (Ferric)
5.5 Alum MPD - Pilot Plant
Alum MPD - Jar Test
Predicted residual DOC (Alum)
WTP
Residual DOC (mg/L)
5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 6.6
Settled Water pH
Figure 3.2.3.5 Residual DOC in Middle River waters following treatment with alum and ferric chloride
at model predicted doses and at various coagulation pH levels.
53
3.2.3.3 Simulated Distribution System and THMFP Analyses
Middle River Pilot Plant Trials-Chlorine Decay Curves
DOC mg/L
7
5.24
4.93
6 4.86
4.86
5 4.75
Chlorine (mg/L)
4.70
4 4.42
4.19
3 4.16
3.34
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Hours
Figure 3.2.3.6 Chlorine decay curves of treated water samples from Middle River Pilot Plant trials and
WTP. Curves were standardised by adjusting the chlorine residual at 0 hour to 6.0 mg/L chlorine.
Middle River Pilot Plant Trials: THM data from SDS Tests
400 6
350
5
300
72hr Chlorine Demand
4
Total THM (g/L)
250
200 3
150
2
THMFP
100
Total THM (g/L)
72hr Cl2 Demand mg/L 1
50
0 0
3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
DOC (mg/L)
Figure 3.2.3.7 Total THMs from SDS tests and corresponding THMFP data recorded.
54
3.2.4 Evaluation of pH predictions.

3.2.4.1 Evaluation of pH predictions pH titrations of raw waters.
The pH prediction models were assessed under laboratory conditions using the results of pH titrations
of raw water with solutions of alum, ferric chloride, sulphuric acid and hydrochloric acid. Many samples
were collected during the period of the Middle River pilot plant trials and comparisons were made
between the pH predictions and the amount of sulphuric acid predicted to achieve each pH reading
(Table 3.2.4.1). The alkalinity of raw water samples collected varied from low (39.9 mg/l as CaCO3) to
very low levels (3.5 mg/l as CaCO3) and this variation was found to influence the accuracy of the pH
predictions (see Figure 3.2.4.2.b)
Two pH titrations of Middle River raw water with sulphuric acid are shown in Figure 3.2.4.1 together
with the curves described by the different models. The two samples shown represent the highest and
lowest alkalinity samples out of all of the samples collected. The models gave reasonably accurate
predictions for the sample with the highest alkalinity with mean absolute error in pH between 0.07 and
0.12. In contrast, the models gave poor predictions for the pH response of the very low alkalinity water
with mean absolute error in pH all greater than 0.5. The predictions obtained for the intermediate
samples appeared to follow the trend that as the alkalinity decreased so did the accuracy of the pH
predictions.
8.0 7.1
Actual Titration Actual Titration
pH_MSA 6.9 pH_MSA
pH_MSF pH_MSF
7.5
pH_MC 6.7 pH_MC
6.5
7.0
pH
pH
6.3
6.5
6.1
5.9
6.0
5.7
5.5 5.5
0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
0.025 M Sulfuric Acid (ml/l) 0.02M Sulfuric Acid (ml/l)
Figure 3.2.4.1 Comparisons of actual and predicted pH titration curves for two samples of Middle
River raw water (left = low alkalinity, right = very low alkalinity)
The reduced accuracy of the models at low alkalinity can partly be explained by examining how the
rate of change in pH with acid addition is affected by the alkalinity of the raw water. A graph of the
slope of the pH titration curves near pH 6 is shown in Figure 3.2.4.2a. Slopes were measured between
the two points in the titration that were the closest to, but greater than, pH 6; this region of the curve
was chosen because it is relatively flat and is typical for optimised coagulation. It can be seen that the
rate of pH change increases sharply as the alkalinity decreases. If, for example, a given model could
predict acid doses to within 1 mg/L as H2SO4, at an alkalinity of 40 mg/L the resultant pH would be
within ~0.05 of the actual value while at an alkalinity of 5 mg/L the resultant pH would be within ~0.15
i.e. for the same error in acid, the error in pH is three times greater. The slope, and therefore the error
increases towards pH 5.5.
The pH_MSA and pH_MSF models do not have initial pH as an input parameter as these are
predicted based on the raw water alkalinity. It can be seen that with the lowest alkalinity water, the
predicted curve follows the general trend though the estimate for the initial pH contributes largely to
the error in these models. The initial pH may be added as an optional parameter to these models in
order to improve the accuracy of prediction for such cases. (The raw water pH has been incorporated
as an option in a separate version of the models and software at the time of writing of this report but
requires evaluation of its predictive performance). It should be noted also that the pH_MC has been
incorporated into the developed software within this project, and is based on established knowledge of
alkalinity and pH, and has raw water pH included as an input parameter. Therefore, use of this model
would be preferred for low alkalinity waters.
55
0.25 0.8
pH_MSF
Slope of titration near pH 6 0.7 pH_MSA
-0.5391
0.20 Trend line y = 0.3252x pH_MC
Mean Absolute Error in pH

0.6
pH per mg of H 2SO4
R2 = 0.7817
0.5
0.15
0.4
0.10 0.3
0.2
0.05
0.1
0.00 0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50
Raw Water Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3) Raw Water Alkalinity (mg/L as CaCO3)
a) b)
Figure 3.2.4.2 a) Slope of titration curves near to pH 6 for a range of samples collected from Middle
River. b) Mean absolute error in pH for predicted titration curves to pH 5.5
3.2.4.2 Evaluation of pH predictions - Jar Tests

Model predictions based on acid or alum titration to pH 5.5 were compared with pH measurements
taken during the jar tests discussed above. A total of 26 jars were used ranging in pH from 5.5 to 6.7;
applied alum doses ranged between 75 and 200 mg/L while ferric chloride doses ranged between 30
and 60 mg/L. Because of the high coagulant doses and low alkalinity of the water, all of the jars
(except one) required sodium hydroxide addition, ranging between 1-47 mg/L, to achieve a
coagulation pH > 5.5. The actual and predicted values for pH and NaOH are shown in Table 3.2.4.2
and are compared in Figure 3.2.4.3. Referring to Table 3.2.4.2, with raw water alkalinity (#1) and
coagulant dose (#2 or #3) applied in jar tests, the addition of sodium hydroxide or acid (#4) resulted in
coagulation pH values listed in column #5. Using the various models with a target pH set as the pH
values recorded (#5), the predicted alkali or acid doses are listed in columns #9, #10 and #11. The pH
values in columns #6, #7 and #8 are predicted values when the alkali or acid values (column #4) are
applied doses.
50
7 45
40
35
6.5
Predicted NaOH (mg/l)
30
Predicted pH
25
6
20
15 y=x
y=x
pH_MSA
Alum Model 10
5.5
pH_MSF
Ferric Model
5 pH_MC
CO3 Model
0
5 0 10 20 30 40 50
5 5.5 6 6.5 7
Actual NaOH (m g/l)
Actual pH
Figure 3.2.4.3 Comparison of model pH predictions and actual pH values recorded in jar tests of
Middle River water samples
In jar test experiments, the pH models used for pH and sodium hydroxide dose prediction, performed
mostly as expected. The mean absolute error in pH prediction was 0.15 (S.D. 0.13) for the pH_MSF
model, 0.14 (S.D. 0.14) for pH_MSA and 0.12 (S.D. 0.13) for pH_MC. For the waters studied, the
variability in pH increased towards pH 5.5 while the error in the predicted amount of hydroxide
remained relatively uniform for all pH targets. This observation is consistent with the discussion above,
regarding the rate of change in pH at different alkalinity and pH values; the same error in alkali
56
prediction/measurement can translate to very different errors in pH under different treatment

conditions. The MAE in alkali prediction was between 1.2 mg/L (S.D.1.3) and 2.2 mg/L (S.D. 1.9) for
the different models. Based on these observations the accuracies of the different models were
pH_MC>pH_MSA>pH_MSF.
3.2.4.3 Evaluation of pH predictions - Pilot Plant

The amount of caustic soda used in pilot plant trials at the Middle River WTP was generally not
recorded. Initially, the chemical dosing for pH control was set by adjusting the metering pump until the
desired pH was achieved. In later trials, a calibration column, as described in the Materials and
Methods section, was installed in-line with the suction hose to allow convenient and accurate
measurement of chemical dose flow. The conditions that were recorded are shown in Table 3.2.4.3
together with pH/alkali predictions from the three different models; the values are compared
graphically in Figure 3.2.4.4. Data of Table 3.2.4.3 is directly comparable to that of jar tests shown in
Table 3.2.4.2.
Some of the results were recorded during a period of low alkalinity in the Middle River Reservoir water
(estimated as ~3 mg/L as CaCO3). It can be seen that the pH predictions given by the pH_MC model
for the two lowest alkalinity waters are much lower than the actual recorded pH while the pH_MSA and
pH_MSF models are closer to predicting the actual value. However, for these samples, comparatively
large differences were found between the alkalinity determined by the Alk_S and Alk_M methods (3.7
c.f. 9.8, 2.2 c.f. 13.1). When the alkalinity values determined by Alk_S were used, the pH predictions
obtained using the pH_MC improved significantly (MAE: 0.1, S.D. 0.09) while those for the other
models (pH_MS) were slightly worse. It should also be noted however, that the pH_MS development
was based on the Alk_M method for determining alkalinity and therefore better predictive accuracy
may be achieved by this method when using the pH_MS models for pH prediction.
Again, and in contrast to the pH predictions, the error in the predicted amount of alkali needed to
achieve the desired pH was found to be relatively uniform across the range of raw water alkalinity
values tested in these experiments.
40
7
35
6.5
30
Predicted NaOH (mg/l)
6
Predicted pH
25
5.5
20
5
y=x 15
y=x
pH_MSA
pH_MSA
pH_MSF
4.5 pH_MSF
pH_MC 10
pH_MC
4 5
5 5.5 6 6.5 7 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Actual pH Actual NaOH (m g/l)
Figure 3.2.4.4 Comparison of model pH/alkali predictions and actual pH values recorded in Middle
River pilot plant trials
57
Table 3.2.4.1 Evaluation of the three predictive pH models based on 18 titrations of Middle River raw water
Titration pH_MSA pH_MSF pH_MC

Alkalinity
Acid / pH Acid pH Acid pH Acid

coagulant (mg/L as H2SO4) (mg/L as H2SO4) (mg/L as H2SO4)
MAE SD MAE SD MAE SD MAE SD MAE SD MAE SD
40 Sulphuric 0.080 0.110 1.12 1.09 0.073 0.090 1.20 0.66 0.116 0.048 2.49 1.31
40 Alum 0.054 0.088 0.63 0.72 0.049 0.069 0.78 0.57 0.133 0.041 2.43 0.88
30 Sulphuric 0.056 0.048 0.70 0.28 0.050 0.043 0.84 0.76 0.108 0.045 1.67 0.73
29 Sulphuric 0.137 0.121 1.83 1.00 0.135 0.086 2.12 0.74 0.132 0.052 2.19 0.81
29 Ferric 0.134 0.235 1.43 1.84 0.103 0.166 1.27 1.67 0.213 0.137 3.36 1.90
29 Sulphuric 0.151 0.124 1.88 1.08 0.185 0.093 2.89 0.94 0.133 0.073 1.79 0.81
29 Ferric 0.096 0.143 1.05 0.97 0.073 0.085 0.96 0.74 0.177 0.115 2.63 1.38
28 Sulphuric 0.218 0.173 2.78 1.94 0.236 0.115 3.54 1.15 0.120 0.122 1.60 1.07
28 Ferric 0.152 0.193 1.89 1.62 0.147 0.125 2.16 1.19 0.197 0.147 2.79 1.51
28 Sulphuric 0.067 0.023 0.87 0.13 0.081 0.078 1.39 1.25 0.094 0.044 1.24 0.52
27 Alum 0.026 0.049 0.28 0.30 0.063 0.079 0.98 0.85 0.174 0.075 2.24 0.77
19 Ferric 0.493 0.077 5.90 1.08 0.504 0.108 7.51 2.24 0.128 0.106 1.59 0.87
15 Sulphuric 0.158 0.065 1.61 0.64 0.238 0.150 3.33 2.00 0.131 0.162 0.78 0.67
15 Alum 0.027 0.056 0.16 0.23 0.112 0.104 1.53 1.29 0.419 0.355 2.53 1.29
15 Ferric 0.109 0.068 1.09 0.55 0.205 0.069 2.74 0.93 0.317 0.306 2.08 1.24
10 Sulphuric 0.351 0.037 3.01 0.35 0.450 0.088 5.53 1.40 0.218 0.271 1.01 0.94
3.5 Sulphuric 0.517 0.089 3.34 0.18 0.688 0.160 7.39 1.78 0.563 0.440 1.28 0.89
3.4 Sulphuric 0.488 0.091 3.21 0.27 0.646 0.156 6.93 1.83 0.539 0.464 1.21 0.88
Alkalinity = mg/L as CaCO3 (Alk_M), MAE = Mean Absolute Error, SD = Standard Deviation,
58
Table 3.2.4.2 Comparison of model predictions from jar test results of Middle River water samples
Jar Test Results pH predictions NaOH predictions

(mg/L)
#10. pH_MSF
#9. pH_MSA
#6. pH_MSA
#7. pH_MSF
#11. pH_MC
#8. pH_MC
#4. NaOH
Alkalinity*
#3. Ferric
#2. Alum
#1. Raw
#5. pH
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
41 100 (mg/L)
21.6 6.55 6.70 6.66 6.57 18.8 19.6 21.1
41 100 8.6 5.94 6.02 6.01 5.93 7.4 7.2 8.8
41 100 18.0 6.25 6.51 6.47 6.40 12.9 13.5 14.7
41 55 16.9 5.90 6.02 6.01 5.93 15.0 14.7 16.4
41 55 27.0 6.44 6.55 6.51 6.44 24.8 25.6 27.0
41 56 25.4 6.30 6.43 6.39 6.33 22.7 23.4 24.7
41 56 17.4 6.10 6.01 6.01 5.93 18.9 19.3 20.5
41 30 (11.3) 5.50 5.20 5.52 5.13 (9.2) (11.5) (8.2)
15 59 35.3 6.40 6.31 6.40 6.02 36.2 35.4 38.5
24 75 6.8 5.51 5.77 5.93 5.39 5.1 2.0 7.5
24 75 10.8 6.04 6.14 6.20 5.90 9.5 8.4 12.4
24 105 16.7 5.59 5.82 5.97 5.48 15.0 12.1 17.4
24 105 20.6 6.10 6.18 6.23 5.94 19.6 18.7 22.6
24 105 25.5 6.31 6.55 6.56 6.31 22.4 21.9 25.5
24 160 38.7 6.03 6.25 6.29 6.01 36.0 34.8 38.9
24 160 43.6 6.45 6.62 6.62 6.37 41.3 41.1 44.6
30 75 1.1 5.55 5.50 5.73 5.27 1.4 1.1 2.6
30 75 5.8 6.13 6.00 6.05 5.93 7.7 7.3 8.4
30 100 8.9 5.48 5.50 5.73 5.27 8.8 6.1 10.0
30 100 13.7 6.07 6.00 6.046 5.93 14.6 14.1 15.4
30 100 19.6 6.49 6.40 6.39 6.38 21.1 21.3 21.2
30 160 27.7 5.58 5.50 5.73 5.27 28.2 25.9 29.4
30 160 32.5 5.87 6.00 6.05 5.93 30.9 29.7 31.9
30 160 38.5 6.46 6.40 6.39 6.38 39.4 39.6 39.6
29 100 15.9 5.96 6.12 6.15 5.95 13.8 12.8 16.0
29 200 47.2 5.99 6.12 6.15 5.95 45.5 44.6 47.8
Mean absolute error 0.14 0.15 0.12 1.68 2.19 1.16
Standard deviation 0.14 0.14 0.13 1.82 1.97 1.44
Model efficiency 78% 71% 75% 97% 96% 99%
*Alkalinity is estimated from titration of acid or alum to pH 5.5
Bracketed numbers are acid, mg/L as H2SO4
59
Table 3.2.4.3 Data of model pH/alkali predictions from Middle River pilot plant trials
Pilot Plant data pH predictions NaOH predictions

(mg/L)
#10. pH_MSF
#6. pH_MSA
#9. pH_MSA
#7. pH_MSF
#11. pH_MC
#8. pH_MC
#4. NaOH
Alkalinity*
#3. Ferric
#2. Alum
#1. Raw
#5. pH
(mg/L)
(mg/L)
30 95 (mg/L)
19.5 6.41 6.49 6.48 6.28 18.2 18.3 21.9
29 49 13.3 5.43 5.52 5.75 5.20 12.8 9.8 14.5
28 51 24.5 6.19 6.33 6.33 6.14 22.5 22.1 25.2
10 53 36.9 6.44 6.83 6.87 6.47 33.8 32.7 36.7
3.7 48 29.7 6.53 6.07 6.37 4.29 32.5 31.2 40.7
2.2 46 28.9 6.10 6.07 6.40 4.20 29.0 26.1 32.2
Mean absolute error 0.20 0.24 0.76 1.63 2.58 3.16
Standard deviation 0.28 0.21 1.03 2.04 2.04 4.08
*Alkalinity is estimated from titration of acid or alum to pH 5.5 (i.e. Alk_M)
3.2.5 Summary of Pilot Plant studies conducted at Middle River WTP

In jar tests of Middle River water using 100% MPD alum, percentage removals of coagulable DOC
were found to range between 92% and 98%. In jar tests using 100% MPD ferric chloride at pH 5.5, 95
% of coagulable DOC was removed.
In pilot plant trials, alum doses ranged from ~72% to 140% MPD. Removals of DOC at 100% MPD
were found to be very similar to removals at ~140% MPD at pH 6, ranging from ~59% to 63.5%. In
these trials the effect of coagulation pH on DOC removal was clearly evident, with removals
decreasing from ~52% to 57% at pH ~6.4 to 6.7. In pilot plant trials using ferric chloride ranging
between ~73% and 128% MPD, no differences were detected between ~84% to ~105%, with DOC
removals ranging between ~58% and 62%. A percentage DOC removal increase of ~5% occurred
when the dose was increased to ~125% MPD.
Residual DOC in treated water was found to directly influence the THMFP. By using a polynomial fit,
an estimated THMFP from 5 mg/L DOC is ~240 g/L. This DOC concentration (5 mg/L) was typical of
WTP treated water at the time of the pilot plant trials. As with THMFP, chlorine decay curves were
found to be directly related to the concentration of DOC in the treated water. A reduction in DOC of 1.9
mg/L resulted in a lowering in chlorine demand of ~1.7 mg/L after 72 hours at 20oC.
Evaluation of pH and pH control chemical dose prediction was conducted using data from pH titrations
of the raw water with coagulant and standard acid, from jar tests and from the pilot plant trials
conducted. Highest pH prediction accuracies occurred when the alkalinity of Middle River raw water
was at its higher range ~30 mg/L and least accurate at its lowest alkalinity levels. This can be
explained by the very low buffered waters undergoing rapid pH change with the addition of an acid or
an alkali. Greater confidence can be placed on prediction of the chemical dose required to achieve a
target pH, though in very low buffered waters, small errors in chemical dose can lead to large errors in
the resultant pH.
Assuming that predictive data is normally distributed, standard deviations of pH predictions of jar test
data were determined to be ~0.15 pH units. On the above assumption, prediction between 0.3 pH
units from the true value would encompass 95.4% ( 2) of the data. Standard deviations of pH
predictions made using pH_MS models in pilot plant trials were higher than that found from jar tests,
being 0.28 and 0.21 for alum and ferric chloride, respectively. However, caustic dose predictions were
consistent in their deviation from actual measurements across a range of raw water alkalinities and
60
standard deviations of these were similar to those of jar tests. It would appear that greater confidence
can be placed on the prediction of the chemical dose required for pH control than the pH level itself,
though accurate coagulation pH attainment would require dosing with concurrent pH monitoring
particularly for very low alkalinity waters.
3.3 GOOGONG WTP TRIALS

Due to the short time that was available for pilot plant trials (two weeks) at the Googong WTP only
minor changes in raw water quality occurred. As detailed previously (Section 2.4.4) the raw water was
pumped from the reservoir into the WTP inlet channel and then used for the trials from that location.
The variations in raw water quality during the pilot plant trials are summarised in Table 3.3.1. The
relatively low SUVA value of ~2 m-1mg-1L suggests that the organics in the water were composed
mainly of less treatable non-humic materials. The low humic character is also evident by the
comparatively low water colour. The amount of coagulable DOC was predicted to be ~45% (and
between 31-53%) using a model that estimates DOC removal capacity from the character of the DOC
(UV, colour and DOC. See section 2.6.1.5).
Table 3.3.1 Raw water quality at Googong WTP during Pilot Plant Trials
DOC UV at SUVA Colour Turbidity pH Alkalinity as CaCO3

mg/L 254 m-1mg-1L (HU) (NTU) (mg/L)
nm
Maximum 6.9 0.139 2.1 12.3 2.5 7.3 51
Average 6.5 0.129 2.0 10.3 1.7 6.9 48
Minimum 6.2 0.120 1.8 9.4 1.3 6.6 46
3.3.2 Jar Tests

Data for DOC removals from Googong water with alum treatment under different coagulant dose and
pH conditions in three jar tests are presented in Table 3.3.2.1. The residual DOC with alum treatment
followed the expected exponential decrease with increasing dose at constant coagulation pH (see
Figure 3.3.2.1). Exponential decay curves were fitted to the data and used to determine the maximum
DOC removal under each set of conditions and to determine the rate of DOC removal at the MPD (by
calculating the derivative of the function). The jar test data allowed other model predictions such as
the percentage removal of coagulable DOC to be assessed.
At high coagulant doses it was possible to remove 50-55% of the total DOC which is comparable to
the treatability predicted above. The NM-MPD was 45 mg/L and removed 40-51% of total DOC which
corresponded to removal of 81-94% of coagulable DOC. The removal rates, expressed as mg DOC
removed per mg alum added, were between 0.011 and 0.024 (average 0.016) at the MPD. Similarly,
the extended DOC removal model [(uv,col,turb,DOC)] predicted an alum dose of 47 mg/L and removed
45-53% of the total DOC (90-98% of coagulable).
The model used to predict coagulant doses for a selected percentage of coagulable DOC removal
(see Section 2.6.1.2) was also evaluated using data from these jar tests (Table 3.3.2.2). When curves
generated from the model function were compared with the curve fits of the experimental data, they
typically followed the trend accurately but as expected, were either above or below the actual values.
The MAE of the alum doses predicted to achieve the experimentally determined removal of coagulable
DOC was 7.8 3.0 mg/L. Similarly, the error in the predicted amount of coagulable DOC removed at a
given alum dose was 7.0 2.3%.
61
Table 3.3.2.1 DOC removal data from Googong jar tests
pH Coagulation
%Removable
ALUM (mg/l)
DOC (mg/l)
%Removal
MPD(mg/l)
% MPD
Date
10/10/2003 43 0 0 - 6.44 0 0
10 24 6.14 5.87 9
20 48 6.17 4.72 27 54
30 72 6.21 4.18 35 71
40 96 6.16 3.85 40 81
CF100 81
50 120 6.17 3.63 44 88
60 144 6.18 3.58 44 89
MDR-CF 3.24 50 100
14/10/2003 45 0 0 - 6.83 0 0
28 62 6.33 3.79 45 81
42 93 6.25 3.39 50 91
CF100 93
88 194 6.36 3.09 55 99
MDR-CF 3.07 55 100
42 93 6.13 3.37 51 -
42 93 6.64 3.66 46 -
42 93 6.91 3.86 43 -
16/10/2003 46 0 0 - 6.66 0 0
30 65 6.09 3.82 43 82
45 97 6.09 3.44 48 93
CF100 93
83 179 6.10 3.23 52 99
MDR-CF 3.19 52 100
30 65 5.72 3.55 47 87
45 97 5.76 3.28 51 94
CF100 95
103 222 5.80 3.06 54 100
MDR-CF 3.07 54 100
62
0% 10/10/03 pH ~6.2
Exponential decay fit
10%
14/10/04 pH ~6.3
20% 16/10/04 pH ~6.1

Coaguable DOC Removed
30% 16/10/04 pH ~5.8

40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
MPD
Figure 3.3.2.1 DOC removal data from jar tests performed on Googong Reservoir water
Table 3.3.2.2 Comparison of actual and predicted values relating to % coagulable DOC removed
Alum (mg/L) % Coagulable DOC Removed

Sample
Date Dose Predicted to DOC Removal
Actual Give Observed DOC Actual Predicted from Alum
Removal Dose
10/10/2003 20 17 54 61
30 25 71 77
40 34 81 87
14/10/2003 28 36 81 72
42 50 91 86
16/10/2003 30 38 82 74
45 53 93 87
30 44 87 74
45 56 94 87
MAE (SD) 7.8 (7.4) 7.0 (7.5)
63
3.3.3 Pilot Plant studies

Pilot plant trials were conducted at the Googong Water Treatment Plant during October 2003 and
results from these are summarised in Table 3.3.3.1. The main focus of the trials was to compare the
treated water quality at the model predicted dose with that resulting from higher and lower alum doses
at pH ~6. The raw water alkalinity during the trial required the use of acid (hydrochloric) to achieve this
pH for all but very high doses of alum and therefore provided an opportunity to test the pH predictions
at pilot scale.
A graph comparing the residual DOC after alum treatment at pH ~6 from both pilot plant and jar test
experiments is shown in Figure 3.3.3.1. It can be seen that the results are very similar in the region
close to the MPD, with some variation between jar test and pilot plant trial results at higher and lower
coagulant dosing. Absolute residual DOC differences may be partially explained by storage of raw
waters collected for jar testing where available plastic containers used (new polypropylene containers)
leach out organics over time. Where possible PET containers were used for sample collection and
storage where analyses could not conducted on site, as these were found to not leach organics.
64
Table 3.3.3.1 Pilot Plant trials conducted at Googong Water Treatment Plant in October 2003
UV at Colour DOC % DOC Raw/settled Filtered W#1 Al

Treatment Condition THMFP CHCl3 CHBrCl2 CHBr2Cl CHBr3
254 nm (HU) (mg/L) removal turbidity (NTU) turbidity (NTU) (mg/L)
Raw 0.12 9.4 6.84 1.6
110% MPD at pH 6 0.044 2.2 3.32 51.5 0.36 0.125 0.014 59 43 14 2 <1
Raw 0.121 9.4 6.22 1.29
107% MPD at pH 6.42 0.05 2.2 3.7 40.5 2.6 0.13 0.01 56 41 13 2 <1
Raw 0.121 9.4 6.22 1.29
78% MPD at pH 6.1 0.052 2.2 3.67 41.0 1.8 0.16 0.007 56 41 13 2 <1
Raw 0.121 9.4 6.22 1.29
86% MPD at pH 6 0.05 2.9 3.58 42.4 0.8 0.099 0.007
Raw 0.134 10.9 6.87 1.8
188% MPD at pH 5.8 0.042 2.9 2.89 57.9 2.08 0.05 0.011 46 32 12 2 <1
Raw 0.139 12.3 6.56 2.5
87% MPD at pH 6.25 0.052 3.6 3.61 45.0 1.6 0.12
Raw 0.136 10.5 6.65
101% MPD at pH 6 0.045 3.6 3.23 51.4 2.5 0.06 0.009 59 42 15 2 <1
Raw 0.136 10.9 6.62 1.9
44% MPD at pH 6 0.056 4.3 3.74 43.5 2.3 0.07 0.022 70 52 16 2 <1
65
Table 3.3.3 2: Summary of DOC removals with alum treatment in Googong pilot plant trials
%Coagulable
Alum (mg/L)
DOC (mg/L)
% DOC red.
DOC red.
%MPD
pH
44 MPD 20 6.0 3.74 43.5 80
78 MPD 32 6.1 3.67 41.0 76
86 MPD 35 6.0 3.58 42.4 78
CF100 ~6.0-6.1 50 92
101 MPD 47 6.0 3.23 51.4 95
110 MPD 45 6.0 3.32 51.5 95
188 MPD 84 5.8 2.89 57.9 107
MDR-CF ~6.0-6.1 54.2 100
7
Pilot Plant Data
Jart Test pH ~6.3 (14-10-03)

6
Exponential Decay Fit
Residual DOC (mg/l)
Jart Test pH ~6.1 (16-10-03)

5
Exponential Decay Fit
2
0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
Alum MPD
Figure 3.3.3.1 Comparison of pilot plant and jar test data: residual DOC after alum treatment at pH ~6
At the model predicted dose, 51.4% of the total DOC was removed at pH 6 which corresponded to
approximately 92-95% removal of coagulable DOC (tables 3.3.3.1 and 3.3.3.2). When no acid was
66
used, the ~MPD (107%) resulted in a coagulation pH of 6.4 and under these conditions 40.5% of the
total DOC was removed.
The residual aluminium concentrations did not show any particular trends according to the applied
alum dose. However all were below the ADWG limit of 0.2 mg/L (NHMRC &ARMCANZ, 1996). The
filtered (Whatman No.1) water turbidity exhibited a general downward trend with increasing alum dose
and was approximately 0.1 0.04 NTU at the model predicted dose. A filtered water turbidity of 0.1
NTU is generally accepted as a good operational target to ensure filtration provides a suitable barrier
to pathogens (Le Chevallier et al. 2004).
The relationship between the residual DOC in waters after alum treatment with the formation potential
of trihalomethanes is shown in Figure 3.3.3.2. The trend is as expected with increases in THMFP
proportional to increases in residual DOC, at a rate of 16.8g/mg (S.D. 1.6g/mg). Regardless of the
residual DOC concentration in each treated water sample, the relative proportions of individual THM
compounds formed were very similar (Table 3.3.3.3). The predominant THM formed from Googong
water was chloroform, and bromoform was not detected in any of the samples.
Table 3.3.3.3 Mean (S.D.) of percentages of THMs formed from residual DOC in THMFP analyses
THM CHCl3 CHBrCl2 CHBr2Cl CHBr3

Mean 72.4 24.1 3.5 ND
S.D. 1.71 1.34 0.48 ND
70
65
THMFP (ug/L)
60
55
50
45
2.8 3.0 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4.0

DOC (mg/L)
Figure 3.3.3.2 Relationship between THMFP and residual DOC in alum treated waters from Googong
67
3.3.4 Evaluation of pH predictions

Titrations-pH predictions
The pH prediction models were assessed under laboratory conditions using the results of jar tests and
pH titrations with alum. A typical pH titration of Googong raw water with alum is shown in Figure
3.3.4.1 together with the curves described by the different models using the buffering capacity
determined by the titre at pH 5.5 (53.6 mg/L as CaCO3). Comparisons were made between the pH
predictions based on the alum dose applied, and also the alum requirement predicted to achieve each
pH reading (Table 3.3.4.1).
It can be seen that all three models, while not identical, fit the data well, each having a pH MAE below
0.07 while the error in alum prediction was less than 3 mg/L.
For this particular water each model shows a slight positive bias in the initial steep section of the curve
(pH range 7.0-7.5) however, in the pH range ideal for optimised coagulation (~6) the predictions are
very close to actual values.
Table 3.3.4.1 Statistics for three predictive pH models based on a typical titration
Googong Raw pH_MSA pH_MSF pH_MC

pH Alum pH Alum pH Alum
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
Mean |Error| 0.070 2.92 0.028 1.23 0.043 1.83
Standard Deviation 0.048 1.29 0.037 1.01 0.032 0.76
8.0
Actual Titration
pH_MSA
7.5 pH_MSF
pH_MC
7.0
pH
6.5
6.0
5.5
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Alum (mg/L)
Figure 3.3.4.1 Comparison of actual and predicted pH titration curves for Googong raw water
68
Evaluation of pH predictions - Jar Tests

Model predictions based on alkalinity determined by the Alk_S method (~50 mg/L as CaCO3) were
compared with pH measurements made during the jar tests. Data from 18 jars were used, ranging in
coagulation pH from 6.9 to 5.7. Applied alum doses ranged between 10 and 103 mg/L while acid
doses ranged up to 55 mg/L as H2SO4. Comparisons of actual and predicted values for pH are shown
in Figure 3.3.4.2.
As with the pH predictions from titrations, the different models predicted very similar pH values for
each jar test condition. The accuracies of the predictions from jar tests were slightly more variable
compared with those for titrations as indicated by an increase in the MAE (~0.10.1). However, the
sources of experimental error are greater in the jar test due to the need to measure two chemicals
(coagulant and pH control reagent) and also the difficulty in accurately measuring the pH in all six jars
during the slow mixing phase. Therefore, it was expected that the predicted values from jar tests
would not be as accurate as those for the titrations.
6.9
Model MAE S.D. ME
6.7 pH_MSA 0.10 0.09 76%
pH_MSF 0.13 0.10 64%
6.5 pH_MC 0.10 0.09 78%
Predicted pH
6.3
6.1
5.9
y=x
pH_MSA
5.7
pH_MSF
pH_MC
5.5
5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 6.7 6.9
Actual pH
Figure 3.3.4.2 Comparison of actual and predicted values for pH from jar test results
Evaluation of pH predictions - pilot plant trials

A list of the various treatment conditions tested in the pilot plant trials and the recorded pH values are
shown in Table 3.3.4.2, together with acid and pH predictions derived using the pH_MSA and
pH_MSF models. With the raw water alkalinity levels (#1) and alum doses (#2) applied in pilot plant
trials and hydrochloric acid doses (#3) added for coagulation pH control, the resultant coagulation pH
values are shown in Column #4. Using the pH_MS models with a target pH set as pH values recorded
(#4), the predicted alkali or acid doses are listed in columns #7 and # 8. The pH values in columns #5
and #6 are predicted values when acid doses in Column #3 are applied.
A comparison of pH predictions with pilot plant data is shown graphically in Figure 3.3.4.3. The MAE of
pH predictions using the pH_MSA was 0.12 with a model efficiency of 80% while the pH_MSF was
slightly better with a MAE of 0.11 and ME of 83%. Similarly, the amounts of acid needed to achieve
the recorded pH (given the alkalinity and alum dose) were also compared with the actual amounts
used in the pilot plant. The MAE of acid doses (1.91 mg/L HCl) predicted by the pH_MSF model was
similar to that of the pH_MSA model (2.09 mg/L HCl), while the ME values were 93% and 91%,
respectively.
69
Table 3.3.4.2 Comparison of Googong pilot plant recorded pH and acid doses with predicted values
Acid predictions HCl

Pilot Plant Results pH predictions
(mg/L)
#1. Raw
#2. Alum #3. Acid #5. #6. #7. #8.
Alkalinity #4. pH
(mg/L) HCl (mg/L) pH_MSA pH_MSF pH_MSA pH_MSF
46 45 0.0 6.42 6.56 6.51 2.69 1.71
46 32 9.6 6.12 6.25 6.21 12.12 11.45
46 35 11.4 5.97 6.11 6.08 13.74 13.44
51 84 0.0 5.78 6.10 6.05 5.34 5.35
46 84 0.0 5.79 5.95 5.94 2.26 2.58
48 40 6.5 6.25 6.33 6.28 8.24 7.24
48 47 7.8 5.99 6.18 6.13 11.24 10.73
48 22 17.9 6.0 6.02 5.99 18.13 17.59
48 23 25.3 5.30 5.32 5.51 25.45 27.52
48 20 15.4 5.99 6.18 6.14 18.87 18.36
Average absolute error 0.12 0.11 2.09 1.91
Standard deviation 0.09 0.08 1.54 1.49
Model efficiency 80% 83% 91% 93%
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
Predicted pH
6.1
y=x
5.9
pH_MSA
pH_MSF
5.8
5.7
5.7 5.8 5.9 6 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5
Actual pH
Figure 3.3.4.3 Comparison of actual and predicted values for pH from pilot plant results
70
3.3.5 Summary of Googong Pilot Plant studies.

Pilot plant trials were conducted at Googong WTP over a short period enabling only evaluation of
models for alum dose prediction. Over the trial period raw water quality was consistent with a
moderate DOC concentration, low colour and turbidity and moderate alkalinity. In Jar Tests, the model
predicted alum dose of ~45 mg/L at pH ~6.1 removed 50-55% of total DOC, determined to be
equivalent to 81-95% {mean 91%} of coagulable DOC.
In pilot plant trials, DOC removed at the MPD (100%) and pH ~6.0 was 50-51%, which was
determined to represent 85-92% of coagulable DOC. These values were very similar to those obtained
for jar tests. Residual DOC concentrations ranged from ~2.9-3.7 mg/L depending on the coagulation
conditions used, resulting in THMFP of 46-70 g/L. This represents a THMFP rate of approximately 17
g/mg DOC, a value much lower than the rates found for Middle River (~48 g/mg DOC) and Happy
Valley (~30 g/mg DOC).
Model predictions of coagulation pH and pH control reagent (HCl) were evaluated in jar tests and in
the pilot plant trials. In jar tests, predictions using the pH_MSA and pH_MC models were biased with
most being less than actual values recorded (MAE 0.1 pH unit). Conversely, in pilot plant trials where
the pH_MSA model was applied, the pH predictions were mostly higher than those recorded with an
MAE of 0.12.
3.4 ANSTEY HILL WTP TRIALS

The final site selected for pilot plant trials was Anstey Hill WTP, South Australia. This site was selected
because the raw water supplied to the plant varied rapidly in quality due to it being from two separate
sources (Murray River and Millbrook Reservoir). Concentrations of DOC, alkalinity and turbidity levels
are known to vary markedly in Murray River water and with the different raw water quality of Millbrook
Reservoir, it was considered that Anstey Hill would enable testing of models for pH control, turbidity
removal and DOC removal with rapid changes in raw water quality.
At the time of this study, Murray River water was chlorinated at the off-take pipe at Mannum for biofilm
control in the raw water pipeline to the water treatment plant. Chlorination results in the oxidation of
organics, lowering both the UV absorbance and colour, and consequently would also result in lowering
a model prediction for coagulant dose. In this study the extent of this oxidation of organics and the
impact on the dose prediction was unknown and required determination. However, concentrations of
organics and colour in Murray River water tended to be low resulting in consistent attainment of the
ADWG for DBP for Anstey Hill treated water. Raw water from Millbrook is generally higher in DOC
concentration but again ADWG for DBP were consistently achieved. Of greater importance to the
operations of the WTP at the time of this investigation was having a reliable capacity to rapidly
respond to raw water quality changes, especially in buffering capacity and turbidity. At the same time
however, sufficient DOC removal should be achieved to ensure compliance for DBP in treated water.
During these trials, checks for the suitability for applying models for dose prediction to pre-chlorinated
raw water was routinely performed and the results of these checks are reported below. Also, the
extended DOC removal models were applied for comparison to primary model dose predictions.
Results of suitability checks and comparisons between the model and extended model predictions are
shown in Appendix 3.4.0.1, together with model suitability checks and comparisons with extended
model predictions for Murray River water collected at Morgan. Morgan is located about 140 km
upstream of Mannum and with an assumed river flow rate of ~6.6 km per day (recorded while tracking
the transport of an algal bloom, Baker et al. 2000), the number of days to reach Mannum would be 21
days. Data of the River Murray (unchlorinated) at Morgan collected by SA Water Corporation between
16/7/2003 and 11/5/2004 were compared with River Murray water collected at Anstey Hill WTP
between 23/9/2003 and 12/2/2004, that had been chlorinated at Mannum. Data in Appendix 3.4.0.1
are of water sources from Mannum only, Mannum and Millbrook combined and from Millbrook
Reservoir only.
In the model suitability check, two options are available to test for the suitability of a new water for
dose prediction (to check that the water lies within the data range used to build the models); one
based on the ratio of UV to colour (SC_U/C) and the second the ratio of UV and DOC to colour
(SC_UD/C). Using SC_U/C, 16 of 35 (45.7%) raw water samples from Mannum that had been
71
chlorinated were determined as unsuitable while only 1 of 9 (11.1%) from Morgan (unchlorinated)
were unsuitable (Appendix 3.4.0.2). All samples from Millbrook Reservoir were determined as suitable.
Using the SC_UD/C ratio, 23/28 (82.1%) of water samples from Mannum were determined as
unsuitable while none from Morgan and Millbrook were determined as unsuitable. This data clearly
points to chlorine dosing of the raw water at Mannum impacting on the organic character and on
subsequent predictive dosing. This conclusion is further supported by the specific UV and specific
colour data, with Anstey Hill (Mannum source) values being 1.34 and 0.54 and Morgan values being
2.32 and 2.86, respectively. The impact on dose prediction can be clearly seen from the comparison of
ratio of dose predictions using the standard and extended models. The design of the extended models
(ECDPM) is such that coagulant predictions will be similar to the primary models for general surface
waters that are not significantly influenced by wastewaters and/or algal growth. This was found for
both Millbrook and Morgan waters where the mean percentages of primary model NM-MPD to
ECDPM MPD (for DOC only) were ~92% and 94%, respectively. In contrast, this ratio was only ~55%
for the Mannum source water.
The Anstey Hill pilot plant trials and models used to predict coagulant doses for both jar tests and in
pilot plant trials were based on UV, colour and turbidity. However, for comparison the ECDPM dose
predictions using DOC data subsequently acquired are given wherever possible. A key feature of
model application at Anstey Hill is for rapid dose prediction associated with rapid water quality change
and hence the requirement for obtaining DOC data that could take several days would preclude its
practical application. Hence, although chlorination was known to potentially significantly impact on
dose prediction at the commencement of pilot plant trials, its actual effects were unknown at the time
and so were investigated.

Raw water sources during Anstey Hill pilot plant trials were the Murray River (Mannum) from 23
September 2003 to 12 February 2004; combined from the Murray River and Millbrook Reservoir on 17
February 2004 and Millbrook Reservoir from 20 February 2004 to 30 April 2004.
Raw water quality data acquired during the period of pilot plant trials are shown in appendices 3.4.0.1,
3.4.1A (DOC), 3.4.1B (Colour), 3.4.1C (UV254 nm), 3.4.1D (turbidity), 3.4.1E (alkalinity) and 3.4.2.1
and 3.4.2.2. DOC values in Murray River water were highly variable ranging from 3.6 to 9.5 mg/L
while DOC in Millbrook Reservoir water varied from 7.4 to 11.6 mg/L. Similarly, high levels of variation
were found in colour (1 to 53 HU), UV absorbance at 254 nm/cm (~0.04 to 0.39); turbidity (~5 to 95
NTU) and in the buffering capacity (~20 to 75 mg/L as CaCO3) of the raw water.
3.4.2 Anstey Hill Jar Tests

Jar tests were performed on 24/9/2003, 25/9/2003, 6/01/2004 and 13/01/2004 using alum and on
20/1/2004, 3/2/2004, 5/2/2004 and 30/4/2004 using ferric chloride. The water source, except on
30/4/2004, was from the Murray River (Mannum).
Results from jar tests are given in tables 3.4.2.1 (alum) and 3.4.2.2 (ferric chloride), appendices
3.4.2.1 (alum) and 3.4.2.2 (ferric chloride). Model predictions for coagulant dose were based on the
UV absorbance at 254 nm/cm, colour and turbidity of water at the Anstey Hill WTP, regardless of
water source. Alum doses applied in jar tests ranged up to ~170% MPD.
Significant differences were found between coagulant doses predicted using the NM-MPD primary
models and the ECDPM (tables 3.4.2.1 and 3.4.2.2). Low percentage DOC removals (~24% and 33%)
were recorded with alum at primary model NM-MPD, as well as higher removals that would be
anticipated (~48% and 57%) at pH ~6. These differences are not readily explained as the lowest
removals occurred when the raw water had higher SUVA values and turbidity. It may be that the
character of the NOM differed between September 2003 and January 2004 when alum was used,
through seasonal impacts and chlorine oxidation causing the differences found in the percent of DOC
removed. Percentage coagulable DOC removals were not determined due to the likely impact of pre-
chlorine on the treatability of the NOM and insufficient doses tested (based on the ECDPM) to
determine maximum removals.
72
Higher DOC removals occurred with the use of ferric chloride at pH 5.5, ranging from about 52-64% at
the MPD. The high impact of pH can be seen from jar tests conducted on the 30 April 2004 with lower
DOC removals occurring at higher coagulation pH. On April 30, the source water was Millbrook
Reservoir and the removal of coagulable DOC at NM-MPD were ~84% at pH 6 and ~86% at pH 5.5.
Table 3.4.2.1 Anstey Hill Jar Test results using alum:

24/09/2003 to 13/1/2004 (Source water: Murray River-Mannum)
%MPD/Date
Alum (mg/L)
DOC (mg/L)
% DOC red.
Target pH
Al (mg/L)
24/09/2003 0 6.0 pH
- 4.44 - -
30 10 6.0 5.95 3.31 25.5 -
70 20 6.0 5.95 2.76 37.8 -
#
100 [59 ] 30 6.0 5.96 2.33 47.5 -
130 40 6.0 5.96 2.17 51.1 -
130 40 6.4 6.32 2.28 48.6 -
200 60 6.0 6.00 2.07 53.4 -
25/09/2003 0 6.0 - 4.44 - -
29 10 6.0 5.88 2.82 36.5 0.050
57 20 6.0 5.89 2.15 51.6 0.041
86 30 6.0 5.94 2.01 54.7 0.019
CF100 [67] 35 5.95 1.93 56.5
114 40 6.0 5.92 1.85 58.3 0.022
114 40 6.4 6.50 2.04 54.1 0.013
171 60 6.0 6.00 1.92 56.8 0.012
MDR-CF 5.95 1.87 57.9
6/01/2004 0 - - 5.35 - 9.8
85 63 6.0 6.07 4.22 21.1 0.141
93 69 6.0 6.21 4.17 22.1 0.073
100 [79] 74 6.0 6.13 4.09 23.6 0.124
108 80 6.0 5.96 3.71 30.7 0.135
130 95 6.0 6.11 3.75 29.9 0.072
MDR-CF 6.1 3.2 36.6
13/01/2004 0 - - 5.89 - 10.4
82 67 6.0 5.95 4.06 31.1 0.138
91 75 6.0 5.93 4.06 31.1 0.162
100 [80] 82 6.0 5.95 3.96 32.8 0.163
124 102 6.0 6.20 3.78 35.8 0.047
150 123 6.0 5.93 3.54 39.9 0.098
MDR-CF 6.0 3.39 42.4
# bracketed values are the percentages of the extended model prediction doses (ECDPM) where
DOC is used as an input variable.
73
Table 3.4.2.2 Anstey Hill Jar Test results using ferric chloride
(Source waters: 20/01/2004, 3/02/2004, 5/202/2004, Mannum and 30/4/2004, Millbrook)
Ferric chloride
%MPD/Date
% DOC red.
DOC (mg/L)
Target pH
(mg/L)
pH
20/01/2004 - 5.46
6 x 100
[89] 71 6 5.67 2.6 52.3
S.D. 0.04 0.07 1.27
3/02/2004 0 - - 6.78 -
53 30 5.5 5.54 3.30 51.3
72 40 5.5 5.58 2.82 58.4
87 49 5.5 5.59 2.80 58.7
100 [74] 56 5.5 5.57 2.55 62.4
117 66 5.5 5.53 2.36 65.2
150 85 5.5 5.48 2.34 65.5
MDR-CF 2.27 66.5
5/02/2004 0 - - 6.76 -
43 25 5.5 5.39 2.98 55.9
65 37 5.5 5.34 2.44 63.9
83 48 5.5 5.38 2.08 69.2
100 [89] 58 5.5 5.44 2.18 67.8
114 66 5.5 5.38 2.08 69.2
156 90 5.5 5.37 2.08 69.2
MDR-CF 5.4 2.02 70.1
30/04/2004 0 - - 11.47 -
42 22 5.5 5.67 7.26 36.7
68 35 5.5 5.69 5.13 55.3
100 [93] 52 5.5 5.71 4.14 63.9
144 75 5.5 5.70 3.52 69.3
MDR-CF 5.70 2.93 74.5
42 22 6.0 6.08 7.92 30.6
100 [93] 52 6.0 6.07 4.96 56.7
144 75 6.0 6.07 4.46 61.1
MDR-CF 6.1 3.74 67.7
42 22 7.0 6.88 8.78 23.4
100 [93] 52 7.0 6.89 6.94 39.5
144 75 7.0 6.92 6.23 45.7
MDR-CF 6.9 5.8 49.4
74
3.4.3 Anstey Hill Pilot Plant

With rapid variability in source water quality, pH and coagulant dosing conditions continually varied
making the evaluation of MPD more difficult when compared with the earlier tested waters. This was
especially the case when compared with trials conducted at Happy Valley WTP where the pilot plant
consisted of two flat-bed clarifiers enabling direct comparison of two treatment conditions concurrently
performed.
Results of pilot plant trials using alum (23 September 2003 to 9 January 2004) are shown in Table
3.4.3.1 and Appendix 3.4.3.1 [A: xMPD vs Date, B: Settled Water pH vs Date, C: Residual Aluminium
vs Date, D: Settled Water DOC vs Date, E: Treated water Colour vs Date, F: Treated Water UV 254
nm abs. vs Date, G Settled Water Turbidity vs Date, H: Filtered water turbidity vs Date, I: % Removal
DOC vs MPD {pilot plant}, J: % Removal DOC vs MPD {WTP}, K: TSS vs MPD, L: UV 254 nm abs vs
MPD, M: Filtered Turbidity vs MPD, N: Settled Turbidity vs MPD, O: Residual aluminium vs MPD] and
using ferric chloride (22 January 2004 to 29 April 2004) in Table 3.4.3.2 and Appendix 3.4.3.2 [A:
xMPD vs Date, B: Settled Water pH vs Date, C: Treated Water DOC vs Date, D: Treated Water Colour
vs Date, E: Treated Water UV 254 nm abs vs Date, F: Settled Water Turbidity vs Date, G: Filtered
Water Turbidity vs Date, H: % DOC Removal vs MPD-River Murray, I % DOC Removal vs MPD-
Millbrook, J: % UV 254 nm Abs Removal vs MPD-River Murray, K: % UV 254 nm Abs Removal vs
MPD-Millbrook Res., L Filtered water Turbidity vs MPD, M: Settled Water Turbidity vs MPD, N:
Residual Metals Concentrations vs MPD].
Tables 3.4.3.1 and 3.4.3.2 chronologically list the coagulant doses used, their equivalent as a % of
MPD (and ECDPM), the coagulation pH and the % removals of DOC.
Appendices 3.4.3.1 I and J show a general trend of higher DOC removal with higher alum dose,
though no greater removals were found at doses above MPD. Both filtered (3.4.3.1 M) and settled
(3.4.3.1 N) water turbidity show a decline with increasing alum dose while TSS increased with dose
(3.4.3.1 K), as would be expected. Residual aluminium concentrations remained under the ADWG
level where coagulation pH was 5.9 or higher (3.4.3.1 O).
For River Murray water treated with ferric chloride, percentage DOC removals were very similar
between 0.7 and 1.3 MPD, ranging mostly between 53% and 60% (Appendix 3.4.3.2 H). Percentage
removals of DOC from Millbrook Reservoir water increased with higher ferric chloride doses (Appendix
3.4.3.2 I). When the dose was increased from MPD to 1.5 x MPD, a further 5% removal occurred at
coagulation pH ~5.6. Trends in removal of UV 254 nm absorbing compounds were similar to those of
DOC (Appendix 3.4.3.2 J - River Murray and Appendix 3.4.3.2 K - Millbrook Reservoir)
Using multivariate analyses, good correlations were found between actual and modelled fits for %
DOC removals where variables were %MPD, raw water pH and DOC. For treatment with alum
(September 2003 to January 2004) the following relationship was found:
%DOC removal = pH x 2.016 + Raw Water DOC x 4.776 + %MPD x 0.1693 5.228 (see also
Appendix 3.4.3.3) with r = 0.879, MAE: 4.42; SD: 3.41. For ferric chloride treatment (January to April
2004), % DOC removal = pH x -5.504 + Raw Water DOC x 1.242 + %MPD x 0.2223 + 56.24
(Appendix 3.4.3.4) with r = 0.893, MAE: 2.99; SD: 2.37. This data indicates that these raw water
variables are significant factors in determining the % removal of DOC by coagulation using alum and
ferric chloride.
Data were also grouped according to percentages of MPDs applied in pilot plant trials and are given in
Table 3.4.3.3 for alum and Table 3.4.3.4 for ferric chloride. For both alum and ferric chloride, the
MPDs resulted in DOC removals as could be expected, ~55% and 58%, respectively. However, in
both cases, increasing coagulant doses beyond the MPD resulted in further significant removals (to
60% and 66%, respectively). This was also found in jar testing of source waters for Anstey Hill WTP
and may be explained by under-dosing caused by reduction of UV and colour of the raw water by pre-
chlorination. This result also reinforces the need to check that application of MPDs will lead to the
expected water quality.
75
For Murray River and Millbrook Reservoir source waters, THMFP values were found to be below the
ADWG values after treatment that resulted in residual DOCs of less than 2.25 mg/L and 5.0 mg/L,
respectively (Appendix 3.4.2.3 and Table 3.4.3.1). The available data indicates that THMFP per mg of
DOC was markedly different between the two source waters with the formation potential of DOC from
the Murray River being about twice that of Millbrook Reservoir.
A key objective at Anstey Hill WTP when the source water is from the River Murray is consistently
achieving good turbidity removal and low settled and filtered turbidity in treated waters. High turbidity
in the raw water can lead to the need for using high alum doses, and with rapid changes in alkalinity,
this can present a significant challenge to the Anstey Hill WTP operators. Results from pilot plant trials
of settled water turbidity are given in Appendix 3.4.3.1 N (alum) and 3.4.3.2 M (ferric chloride) and of
filtered water (Whatman No. 1) in Table 3.4.3.2, Appendix 3.4.3.1 M (alum) and Appendix L (ferric
chloride). For both coagulants, turbidity levels were generally lowered in treated waters with increasing
dose, with lowest values being achieved near to the NM-MPDs. At lower alum and ferric chloride
doses, comparatively higher turbidities were recorded for settled and filtered waters. The data
indicates that MPDs provided for sufficient removal of turbidity to achieve acceptable treated water
levels for both settled and filtered turbidity. The models are based on predicting separate doses for
turbidity and DOC removals, and in model application the two doses are summated. Hence, it is
expected (from model design) that with sufficient coagulant applied for colour (from humics) removal
to ~10 HU or less, the further coagulant dose predicted to lower the turbidity in treated waters will be
to turbidity levels of < 3 NTU for settled water and < 0.2 NTU for filtered water.
Table 3.4.3.1: DOC removals with alum treatment in Anstey Hill plant trials, September 2003 to
January 2004. Water source- Murray River, Mannum.
%
Raw water Alum %DOC
Date %MPD Extended pH
DOC (mg/L) (mg/L) reduction
MPD
23/09/2003 5.33 135 72 42 6.17 57.8
24/09/2003 4.44 125 98 40 6.33 48.9
2/10/2003 4.80 106 - 34 6.32 50.6
7/10/2003 3.61 106 83 35 5.83 39.9
8/10/2003 4.79 103 67 34 5.83 53.2
9/10/2003 5.08 96 66 35 5.77 55.7
10/10/2003 3.97 101 78 35 5.47 48.4
15/10/2003 6.53 49 28 22 5.95 39.3
16/10/2003 7.04 71 47 38 6.06 61.1
20/10/2003 7.56 63 43 41 5.90 57.6
22/10/2003 4.91 57 58 45 5.30 37.7
23/10/2003 8.91 86 49 54 5.47 66.1
28/10/2003 4.93 82 54 58 5.59 37.9
28/10/2003 4.93 82 69 58 5.59 40.0
30/10/2003 9.49 88 56 67 5.83 71.7
31/10/2003 9.49 112 - 75 6.11 67.6
3/11/2003 7.53 109 75 77 6.12 58.5
3/11/2003 7.53 109 - 77 6.10 61.0
13/11/2003 8.98 135 78 91 5.75 71.0
14/11/2003 7.31 148 97 99 5.71 62.3
9/01/2004 5.62 86 75 70 5.82 33.1
76
Table 3.4.3.2 DOC removals with ferric chloride treatment in Anstey Hill plant trials, January to April
2004.
Raw
%
water FeCl3 %DOC
Date Water Source %MPD Extended pH
DOC (mg/L) reduction
MPD
(mg/L)
22/01/2004 Mannum 5.58 119 - 78 6.26 55.4
23/01/2004 Mannum 5.67 106 64 69 6.37 46.6
27/01/2004 Mannum 6.19 105 88 72 - 56.7
5/02/2004 Mannum 5.32 100 84 61 4.9 58
5/02/2004 Mannum 5.32 100 85 62 3.6 59.7
6/02/2004 Mannum 4.87 100 - 61 5.66 53.8
6/02/2004 Mannum 4.87 100 - 61 5.46 56.4
10/02/2004 Mannum 5.5 82 67 44 5.54 57.8
12/02/2004 Mannum 4.73 125 105 63 5.3 57.8
17/02/2004 Mann/Mill 7.36 76 72 43 6.06 52.5
20/02/2004 Millbrook 7.39 74 75 41 5.52 54.8
15/04/2004 Millbrook 11.6 137 - 75 5.37 74.6
16/04/2004 Millbrook 11.6 142 137 78 5.66 70.1
16/04/2004 Millbrook 11.6 145 137 78 5.59 71.2
22/04/2004 Millbrook 11.6 101 92 55 5.6 65.5
22/04/2004 Millbrook 11.6 101 92 55 5.5 65.5
27/04/2004 Millbrook 11.5 60 54 33 6.42 40.1
29/04/2004 Millbrook 11.4 58 55 32 5.82 47.5
29/04/2004 Millbrook 11.4 58 55 32 5.53 56
Table 3.4.3.3 Summary of pilot plant data where alum was used.
Group n Mean pH Mean %MPD Mean %DOC

(% MPDs) removed
49-71 4 5.80 60 48.9
82-88 5 5.66 85 49.8
96-112 8 5.94 105 54.4
125-148 4 5.99 136 60.0
Table 3.4.3.4 Summary of pilot plant data were ferric chloride was used.
Group n Mean pH Mean %MPD Mean %DOC

(%MPDs) removed
58-60 3 5.92 59 47.9
74-82 3 5.71 77 55.1
100-106 8 5.30 102 57.8
119-145 5 5.64 134 65.8
77
Anstey Hill Pilot Plant Trials - THMFP data
160
140
THMs (ug/L) 120
100
80
60 Murray River
40 Millbrook Res
20
0
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
DOC (mg/L)
Figure 3.4.3.1 THMFP of waters treated at Anstey Hill
0.3
Alum
Ferric Chloride
Linear (Alum)
0.25
Linear (Ferric Chloride)
Filtered Turbidity (W#1, NTU)
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%
MPD
Figure 3.4.3.2 Filtered turbidities of waters following pilot plant treatment at various coagulant doses
3.4.4 Anstey Hill : Evaluation of pH predictions

The MAE and S.D. of pH predictions in jar tests used by the pH_MS models are given in Table
3.4.4.1. In all jar tests, the MAE and standard deviations were less than 0.13 pH units and are
considered satisfactory for prediction purposes.
78
Table 3.4.4.1 Mean absolute errors and standard deviations of coagulation pH predictions used in jar
tests of Anstey Hill waters
Coagulant
pH MAE
Date
S.D.
24/09/2003 Al 0.043 0.026
25/09/2003 Al 0.073 0.082
6/01/2004 Al 0.112 0.093
13/01/2004 Al 0.086 0.115
3/02/2004 Fe 0.059 0.042
5/02/2004 Fe 0.114 0.033
30/04/2004 Fe 0.130 0.130
Data of evaluations of pH predictions and acid/alkali doses for coagulation pH control in pilot plant
trials are shown in Table 3.4.4.2a. With raw water alkalinity as detailed in Column #1, the alum dose
applied in Column #2 and acid or alkali added (#4) for coagulation pH control, the resultant
coagulation pH is detailed in Column #3. Predictions of pH control reagents doses (acid or alkali)
obtained using the three pH prediction models where raw water alkalinity (#1) and alum dose (#2) are
input variables and pH (#3) is assigned as the target pH are given in columns #6 (for pH_MSA), #8
(for pH_MSF) and #10 (for pH_MC). Predictions of pH where raw water alkalinity (#1), alum dose (#2)
and acid or alkali dose (#4) are input variables are given in columns #5 (pH_MSA), #7 (pH_MSF) and
#9 (pH_MC). Mean absolute errors of pH predictions using the three models ranged from 0.21 to 0.27
pH units, where pH_MSA<pH_MSF<pH_MC. Although the pH_MSA model was specifically developed
for prediction of pH with alum dosing, data of pH_MSF predictions are also given where alum was
used in pilot plant studies following conversion of the acidity of alum to an equivalent ferric chloride
dose. Similar data for pH predictions and acid and alkali doses when ferric chloride was applied in pilot
plant trials are given in Table 3.4.4.2.b.
Graphs of predicted and actual pH values and pH control reagent doses are shown in Figure 3.4.4.1
(alum) and in Figure 3.4.4.2 (ferric chloride). Greater scatter of data occurred in the pH data compared
with the pH control reagent doses. This can be explained by low alkalinity waters, as is the case of
River Murray water, being susceptible to rapid changes in pH with acid or alkali additions.
79
Table 3.4.4.2a Evaluation of pH predictions in Anstey Hill pilot plant trials-alum
#1. #2. #3. #4. #5. pH #6. #7. pH #8. #9. pH #10.
Alkalinity Alum Actual acid or pH_MSA pH_MSA pH_MSF pH_MSF pH_MC pH_MC
(Alk_M) Dose pH alkali acid/ alk. acid/alk. acid/alk
(mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
35.8 42.0 6.30 0.0 6.43 2.9 6.41 -2.0 6.31 -0.2
32.5 40.0 6.39 0.0 6.40 0.2 6.39 -0.1 6.21 -3.6
34.3 40.0 6.30 0.0 6.44 3.1 6.42 2.7 6.31 0.4
32.8 34.0 6.32 0.0 6.52 4.1 6.50 3.9 6.31 -0.2
31.5 34.0 6.06 5.8 6.20 8.5 6.21 9.1 6.05 5.8
28.0 34.0 6.32 0.0 6.42 1.9 6.42 2.1 6.19 -2.1
26.2 34.9 5.83 8.8 5.77 8.1 5.91 10.2 5.43 4.4
25.9 34.2 5.85 8.8 5.79 8.0 5.92 10.0 5.45 4.4
25.9 35.0 5.77 9.6 5.67 8.6 5.85 11.0 5.29 5.2
24.1 21.6 5.95 6.8 6.20 10.4 6.24 12.1 5.93 6.5
24.1 37.5 6.09 0.0 6.24 2.3 6.28 3.5 5.98 -1.5
24.1 45.3 5.91 0.0 6.04 1.8 6.12 3.7 5.76 -1.6
21.6 41.3 5.86 0.0 6.05 2.3 6.14 4.8 5.67 -1.8
19.2 54.3 5.46 0.0 5.14 -1.0 5.75 3.3 4.33 -4.1
16.3 58.0 5.50 -3.5 5.35 -4.0 5.84 -0.3 4.32 -7.9
15.2 66.6 5.74 -11.3 6.09 -8.5 6.23 -5.5 5.51 -12.8
15.5 75.0 6.09 -19.1 6.62 -13.7 6.66 -12.0 6.10 -18.9
16.5 76.6 6.07 -19.2 6.61 -13.6 6.64 -12.0 6.15 -18.3
16.5 76.6 5.95 -19.2 6.61 -12.5 6.64 -10.4 6.15 -16.9
15.3 95.0 5.67 -17.2 5.71 -17.0 6.00 -13.7 4.72 -20.8
16.5 90.6 5.71 -17.4 6.01 -15.2 6.15 -12.2 5.45 -19.1
16.5 99.3 5.62 -20.0 5.99 -17.4 6.15 -14.1 5.42 -21.2
20.8 72.4 5.88 -9.8 6.01 -8.4 6.12 -6.4 5.59 -12.4
20.8 72.4 5.95 -10.8 6.11 -9.1 6.19 -7.4 5.72 -13.3
22.7 70.3 5.87 -10.4 6.20 -6.7 6.25 -4.9 5.85 -10.6
22.7 70.0 5.96 -10.7 6.23 -7.5 6.28 -6.0 5.88 -11.7
23.2 99.4 6.28 -20.2 6.27 -20.3 6.31 -19.8 5.92 -25.8
23.2 99.4 6.28 -20.2 6.27 -20.3 6.31 -19.8 5.92 -25.8
MAE 0.21 2.3 0.26 3.7 0.27 2.2
SD 0.22 2.1 0.19 2.4 0.34 2.1
In columns #4, #6, #8, #10, negative pH control numbers refer to sodium hydroxide, positive numbers
refer to sulphuric acid.
80
Table 3.4.4.2b Evaluation of pH predictions in Anstey Hill pilot plant trials-ferric chloride
#1. #2. #3. #4. #5. pH #6. #7. pH #8. #9. pH #10.
Alkalinity Ferric Actual acid or pH_M pH_MS pH_MS pH_MS pH_MC pH_MC
(Alk_M) Dose pH alkali SA A acid/ F F acid/alk
(mg/L) (mg/L) alk. acid/alk (mg/L)
(mg/L) (mg/L)
21.8 77.7 6.22 -36.8 4.84 -44.9 5.67 -44.1 4.31 -50.7
22.1 69.2 6.28 -35.3 5.92 -39.4 6.04 -38.8 5.47 -45.4
22.3 71.5 5.94 -38.3 6.06 -37.0 6.14 -35.4 5.66 -41.6
28.3 60.8 5.54 -25.8 5.90 -22.6 5.98 -20.0 5.59 -25.3
27.6 66.9 5.53 -31.1 5.95 -27.4 6.02 -24.7 5.66 -29.9
39.3 43.3 5.91 -8.2 5.96 -7.4 5.97 -7.1 5.84 -9.3
42.8 40.5 5.52 0.0 5.63 -1.1 5.71 -2.8 5.52 0.0
72.5 78.3 5.54 -4.0 5.26 -7.0 5.36 -7.0 5.40 -6.0
72 32.5 6.45 0.0 6.52 2.9 6.45 0.0 6.49 1.6
71.6 52.6 5.96 0.0 6.06 3.2 5.98 0.8 6.05 3.2
MAE 0.33 3.1 0.24 3.4 0.35 3.7
SD 0.52 3.9 0.31 4.3 0.63 5.5
Negative pH control numbers refer to sodium hydroxide, positive numbers sulphuric acid
6.5
20
6.0
10
Predicted pH Control
H2SO4
Predicted pH
5.5 0
NaOH
5.0 -10
pH_MSA pH_MSA
4.5 pH_MSF -20 pH_MSF
pH_MC pH_MC
y=x y=x
4.0 -30
5.0 5.2 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20
Actual pH Actual pH Control
pilot plant trials using alum
81
6.6 10
pH_MSA
6.4 pH_MSF
H2SO4
0
pH_MC
-40 -30 -20 -10 0
6.2 y=x
-10
Predicted pH Control
6.0 NaOH
Predicted pH
-20
5.8
5.6 -30
5.4 -40
pH_MSA
5.2 pH_MSF
-50
pH_MC
5.0 y=x
5.5 5.7 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.5 -60
Actual pH Actual pH Control
pilot plant trials using ferric chloride
3.4.5 Summary of studies conducted at Anstey Hill WTP

The quality of raw water supplying the Anstey Hill WTP varied markedly during the trials, due to two
separate sources being used, as well as mixing of the two sources. Models developed have the
capacity to deal with rapid changing water quality as experienced at Anstey Hill WTP for prediction of
pH control reagents, where the buffering capacity of the raw water changes rapidly. They can also be
applied for raw waters that are not pre-chlorinated, as in the case of Millbrook Reservoir. Pre-
chlorination of raw water can significantly impact on the UV absorbance at 254 nm and colour, and
hence would lead to lower coagulant predictions. The suitability of application of the models using UV,
colour and turbidity (NM-MPD) should be checked and where unsuitable the extended model
(ECDPM) with DOC should then be applied. For removal of turbidity, NM-MPD was found to be
satisfactory for attainment of targets detailed where the water is pre-chlorinated or not, but lower DOC
removals result for the pre-chlorinated waters compared with doses determined by ECDPM. For pre-
chlorinated waters it is recommended that the ECDPM be applied. This study component reinforces
the need to validate model predictions and to anticipate the need to adjust dosing based on practical
outcomes from the dosing regime applied.
3.5 BAROSSA WTP TRIALS

Barossa WTP is a 160 ML/day conventional WTP, employing alum as the primary coagulant. Raw
water DOC concentrations are high (>10 mg/L) and treatment is required to meet compliance with
contractual THM standards (0.2 mg/L). A temporary sulphuric acid dosing station was constructed at
Barossa WTP in 1994 and used for a number of trials on the use of enhanced coagulation between
1994 and 1996, including investigations on the effect of this approach on performance of the
distribution system (Kaeding et al., 1997). The results of these trials were positive, indicating that the
use of sulphuric acid to reduce the coagulation pH to optimal levels allowed a lower alum dose to be
used at the plant and resulted in lower chlorine doses and improved persistence of chlorine in the
distribution system. Enhanced coagulation through pH optimisation was subsequently used as the
preferred method of operation of the Barossa WTP. In 1999 the temporary acid dosing system was
decommissioned and construction was begun on the permanent facility. The permanent facility was
completed in June 2002 and in the meantime enhanced coagulation through increased alum doses
was practiced at the plant, although alum doses were in general slightly lower than those required for
maximum DOC removal.
Due to the significant time between the decommissioning of the temporary system and the
commissioning of the new system, and the subsequent changes in raw water quality, it was
considered necessary to conduct a commissioning trial to determine optimal parameters for use of the
new system. The aim of this trial was to determine the correct combination of alum and sulphuric acid
for optimal plant operation in terms of both product water quality and chemical costs. The trial was
also used to test the applicability of the new enhanced coagulation model.
82
3.5.1 Barossa Raw water quality

During the time of the Barossa WTP trials, the raw water quality was consistent with a high DOC of
~11-12 mg/L; UV at 254 nm ~0.33, colour ~35 HU and low turbidity ~0.5 NTU. The treatability
(removal of DOC) of this water was predicted to be 55% (45%-62%).
3.5.2 Barossa Jar Test

A summary of the DOC removal from Barossa Reservoir water under various coagulation conditions
found from four jar tests is presented in Table 3.5.2.1. The residual DOC follows the expected
exponential decrease with increasing alum at constant coagulation pH (Figure 3.5.2.1). Exponential
decay curves were fitted to the data and used to determine the absolute maximum DOC removal at
each set of conditions and also to assess the rate of DOC removal at the MPD by calculating the
derivative of the function. The jar test data allowed other predictions such as the percentage removal
of coagulable DOC to be assessed.
At high coagulant doses it was possible to remove 57-60% of the total DOC which is comparable to
the treatability predicted above. The NM-MPD was ~85 mg/L and removed 48-56% of total DOC which
corresponded to removal of 81-94% of coagulable DOC. The removal rates, expressed as mg DOC
removed per mg alum added, were between -0.009 and -0.027 (average -0.015) at the MPD. Similarly,
the extended parameter model [(uv,col,turb,DOC)] predicted an alum dose of ~95 mg/L (~112% MPD)
and removed 49-57% of the total DOC (86-96% of coagulable).
For the samples studied there was a clear delineation between the different coagulation pH conditions.
Three similar sets of jar tests were performed and included jars at pH ~6.1 and 5.5. When the sets of
data at each pH are compared they show a high degree of reproducibility in the resulting coagulable
DOC removed relative to the model predicted dose (curve fit R2: >0.999). At pH ~6.1, 89% of
coagulable DOC was removed using the MPD; lowering the pH to ~5.5 achieved a 4% improvement in
organic removal (93%). In contrast, increasing the pH to ~6.7 led to an 8% decrease in the amount of
coagulable DOC removed. At low coagulation pH (~5.5-5.7) and high alum doses (MPD and alum
dose needed to drop the pH to ~5.5), residual aluminium in treated waters exceeded the ADWG.
0%
17-7-02 pH ~6.7 Curve f it pH ~6.7
10% 16-8-02 pH ~6.1 16-8-02 pH ~5.5
3-9-02 pH ~6.1 3-9-02 pH ~5.5

20%
18-9-02 pH ~6.1 18-9-02 pH ~5.5
30% Curve Fit pH ~6.1 Curve Fit pH ~5.5
40%
50%
60%
70%
MPD extended
80%
90%
100%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
%MPD
Figure 3.5.2.1 DOC removals compared with model predicted alum dose under different pH
coagulation conditions
83
Table 3.5.2.1 DOC removal data from Barossa jar tests
%Removable
DOC (mg/L)
Alum (ppm)
%Removal
% MPD
MPD
Date
pH
17/07/2002 83 0 0 11.83 0 0
40 48 6.82 8.05 32 54
50 60 6.8 7.46 37 62
60 73 6.74 6.84 42 71
80 97 6.73 6.24 47 80
CF100 6.70 81
100 121 6.70 5.73 52 87
120 145 6.65 5.52 53 90
Max 59 100
16/08/2002 87 0 0 11.47 0 0
90 101 6.09 5.46 52 89
75 84 6.1 5.85 49 83
60 68 6.08 6.28 45 77
Max 4.71 59 100
CF100 5.7 92
90 101 5.65 5.07 56 93
160 180 5.67 4.66 5 99
Max 4.6 60 100
3/09/2002 87 0 0 11.3 0 0
90 111 6.18 5.61 50 92
75 92 6.17 5.89 48 87
60 74 6.22 6.27 44 81
Max 5.11 55 100
CF100 5.7 93
90 111 5.74 5.07 55 95
162 199 5.77 4.77 58 100
Max 4.74 58 100
18/09/2002 86 0 0 10.83 0 0
90 112 6.13 5.52 49 91
75 93 6.16 5.71 47 88
60 75 6.11 6.15 43 80
CF100 6.1 91
162 201 6.13 4.98 54 100
Max 4.99 54 100
90 112 5.24 4.95 54 96
162 201 5.68 4.71 56 100
Max 4.69 57 100
84
3.5.3 Water Treatment Plant

Data obtained from modification of the treatment conditions of the main treatment plant are described
by Kaeding (2003). These modifications were specifically designed to investigate the benefits of
sulphuric acid dosing for pH control and reduction in the use of alum dosing. The removals of DOC
and UV absorbance at 254 nm under the various treatment conditions trialled are shown in Figure
3.5.2.2.
90%
80%
70%
Percent Removal
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
90 mg/L 90 + Acid 80 + Acid 75 + Acid 60 + Acid
Alum
Plant UV Absorbance Jar Test UV Abs Plant DOC Jar Test DOC
Figure 3.5.2.2 Percentage DOC removals in jar tests and in the Barossa WTP using various alum
doses at pH 6.1. (Source: Mr U. Kaeding, United Water International)
3.5.4 Evaluation of Coagulant Predictions

Based on raw water quality (UV abs at 254 nm, colour and turbidity) at the time of the trials, the NM-
MPD was predicted to be ~86 mg/L. However, for coagulable DOC removals of 85% and 89%, model
predicted alum doses are 60 mg/L and 70 mg/L, respectively. In the above jar tests, a mean of 79% of
coagulable DOC was removed with 60 mg/L alum at pH ~6.1. The data obtained from the WTP
investigations showed that there was a small percentage benefit in absolute DOC removal when alum
dosing was at 90 mg/L with coagulation pH at 6.1 compared with dosing at 60 mg/L at the same pH
i.e. 54% c.f. 50%. Assuming that 90 mg/L alum removed about 90% coagulable DOC (based on the
above jar test data at coagulation pH ~6.1), the maximum absolute percentage removal of DOC would
be 60% with alum. The plant DOC removal of 50% using 60 mg/L with acid at pH ~6.1 corresponds to
a percentage coagulable DOC removal of 83%. This is a similar value to that actually obtained in jar
tests (79%) and the predicted removal (85%) using 60 mg/L alum for this water at the time of the trials.
3.5.5 Evaluation of pH Correction Requirements

Comparison of the target and coagulation pH values recorded in jar tests are shown in Figure 3.5.5.1.
Recorded values are those that resulted from the addition of sulphuric acid or sodium hydroxide
predicted by the models, together with the alum dose predicted, to achieve the target pH. Figure 3.5.4
indicates good accuracy for a coagulation pH at ~6.1 but a bias of about +0.2 pH units when the target
pH is 5.5.
85
Barossa Trials: pH predictions in Jar tests
6.5
6.4
6.3
6.2
Recorded pH
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5
Target pH
Figure 3.5.5.1 Comparison of coagulation pH target and recorded values in jar tests conducted during
the Barossa trials (MAE: 0.11, SD: 0.14)
3.5.6 Summary of Barossa WTP trials

Based on raw water quality of Barossa Reservoir water at the time of these trials, DOC removals
found in jar tests and in WTP trials with alum or alum and acid dosing were within the range of
predicted removals. NM-MPD resulted in removals calculated to range from 81-94% coagulable DOC.
The comparatively low % removal (81%) recorded for coagulation pH 6.7 is however speculative with
no actual jar testing performed above 100% MPD to test the curve fit function applied. Hence this
value would need to be treated with caution. Other predicted removals at pH 5.5 and at 6.1
incorporated very high alum doses, and % coagulable DOC removals exceeded 90%.
DOC removals recorded in jar tests and in WTP trials when lower alum doses than MPD were used,
were similar to those of predicted values.
Predictions of acid and sodium hydroxide doses required additional to alum doses to achieve a target
coagulation pH had a mean absolute error of 0.11 (S.D. 0.14). These predictions would be
operationally acceptable with a target pH of 6.1 ranging in actual values of between 6.07 and 6.22.
3.6 JAR TESTS PERFORMED ON FURTHER WATERS

Jar tests were performed on several water samples that became available for testing during the time
of this project. This was done to further assess model predictions for alum and pH control reagent
dose and coagulable DOC removal. Data is presented of samples collected from Wanneroo, Western
Australia, Torrens River, South Australia, Rocky River, Kangaroo Island, South Australia and Bendora
Reservoir, Canberra. Water sources from Wanneroo, Torrens and Rocky rivers were predominantly
used to test the models dose prediction function for DOC removal. A separate model was developed
from jar test data for turbidity removal from Bendora Reservoir water, after bushfires in 2003 had
cleared vegetation from the catchment and subsequent heavy rain events resulted in high turbidity
waters.
86
3.6.1 Wanneroo, Western Australia

3.6.1.1 Wanneroo raw water
A sample of ground water was collected on 2/12/2002 from Wanneroo, located near Perth in Western
Australia. The water was sampled from a well (Pit 5) that was supplying a nearby water treatment
plant at that time. Raw water quality data for the sample are shown in Table 3.6.1.1. The water had
moderate turbidity and high organic loading with a SUVA value of 5.62 m-1mg-1L. This water was
outside of the range used for modelling the treatability (removal) of DOC using alum at pH 5.5;
however it was predicted to be 76% (76-78%).
Table 3.6.1.1 Raw water quality data for sample from Wanneroo River
DOC UV at SUVA Colour Turbidity Alkalinity mg/L as

9.40 0.528 5.62 121 27.10 79.60
3.6.1.2 Wanneroo DOC removal

Removals of DOC from the Wanneroo water sample using alum at pH 6 and ferric chloride at pH 5.5
are detailed in Table 3.6.1.2. The residual DOC for both experiments followed the expected
exponential decrease with increasing coagulant at constant coagulation pH (Figure 3.6.1.1).
The treatability of this water was high, as predicted, with removal of 72% of the total DOC using a high
alum dose at pH 6 while 82% was removed using ferric chloride at pH 5.5. Under similar conditions,
the model predicted dose of alum (115 mg/L) removed 70% of total DOC while the MPD of ferric
chloride (69 mg/L) removed 79%. In terms of the amount of coagulable DOC removed at a given pH,
alum and ferric chloride MPDs achieved similar results for this water with 98% and 97% removed,
respectively. The removal rate at the MPD for alum and ferric chloride were 0.004 and 0.010 w/w,
respectively. Under the same conditions, the extended parameter model [(uv,col,turb,DOC)] predicted
an alum dose of 87 mg/L and removed 68% of the total DOC (96% of coagulable, -0.010 gradient)
while the ferric chloride NM-MPD of 56 mg/L removed 77% (95% of coagulable, -0.021 gradient).
The two lowest coagulant doses in each jar test were predicted to remove 70% and 80% of coagulable
DOC. For alum the actual removal results were 84% and 91% while those predicted for ferric chloride
were similar at 85% and 90%.
Decreasing the coagulation pH from 6.0 to 5.5 when using the model predicted dose of alum resulted
in a 3% increase in the amount of total DOC removed. Using this result, the estimated maximum
removal of DOC at pH 5.5 would be 75% which is very close to the predicted value of 76%.
87
0%
Wanneroo Fe pH ~5.5
10% Exponential decay f it (Fe)
Wanneroo A l pH~6
20%
Exponential decay f it (A l)
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200%
%MPD
Figure 3.6.1.1 Removal of coagulable DOC from Wanneroo raw water using alum and ferric chloride
Table 3.6.1.2 DOC removals from Wanneroo water with alum and ferric chloride treatment, in jar tests
DOC
Coagulant (mg/L) % MPD Coagulation pH %Removal %Removable
(mg/L)
Alum 0 0 - 9.40 0 0
51.4 45 6.05 3.73 60 84
67.1 58 6.04 3.27 65 91
115 100 6.04 2.83 70 98
200 174 6.02 2.66 72 100
Maximum Removable (from curve fit) 2.69 71 100
115 100 5.48 2.51 73
Ferric 0 0 - 9.40 0 0
36.5 53 5.62 2.92 69 85
41.5 60 5.47 2.51 73 90
69.1 100 5.47 2.11 78 96
150 217 5.47 1.69 82 101
Maximum Removable (from curve fit) 1.77 81 100
88
3.6.2 Torrens River, South Australia

3.6.2.1 Torrens River Raw water
A sample of water was collected on 28/11/2002 from one of the tributaries of the Torrens River, First
Creek, Waterfall Gully, South Australia. The sample was collected the day after heavy rainfall. The raw
water quality data are given in Table 3.6.2.1. The water had low turbidity and moderate organic
loading, the SUVA value of 4.3 m-1mg-1L suggesting that the organics in the water were composed
mainly of treatable humic materials. The model predicted treatability with alum at pH 5.5 was 63% (59-
66%).
Table 3.6.2.1 Raw water quality data for sample from Torrens River

4.46 0.192 4.31 45 1.40 28.9
3.6.2.2 DOC removal from Torrens River water

A summary of the DOC removals with alum and ferric chloride dosing under controlled pH conditions
is presented in Table 3.6.2.2. The residual DOC in treated waters followed the expected exponential
decrease with increasing coagulant at constant coagulation pH (Figure 3.6.2.1). During the ferric
chloride jar test; only about half of the model predicted dose was added and the values reported for
the MPD are estimated using an exponential decay fit of the experimental data.
Using a high alum dose at pH 6.1 it was possible to remove 72% of the total DOC while ferric chloride
at pH 5.5 removed 80%. Under similar conditions, the model predicted dose of alum (61.3 mg/L)
removed 69% of total DOC while the MPD of ferric chloride (39.6 mg/L) removed 79%. In terms of the
amount of DOC coagulable at the particular pH, alum and ferric chloride MPDs achieved similar
results for this water (97% and 99% respectively). The removal rate at the MPD for alum and ferric
chloride were 0.004 and 0.006 w/w, respectively. Under the same conditions, the extended parameter
model [(uv,col,turb,DOC)] predicted an alum dose of 34 mg/L and removed 63% of the total DOC (89%
of coagulable, -0.023 gradient) while the ferric MPD of 19 mg/L removed 69% (87% of coagulable, -
0.050 gradient).
The two lowest coagulant doses in each jar test were predicted to achieve 70% and 80% removal of
coagulable DOC. For alum, the actual removal results were 89% and 93% while those measured for
ferric chloride were similar at 85% and 87%. The measured treatability of this water using alum was
greater than that predicted from its raw water quality, 72% c.f. 63%.
89
0%
Torrens Fe pH ~5.5
10%
Exponential decay f it (Fe)
20% Torrens A l pH ~6.1

30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%
%MPD
Figure 3.6.2.1 Removal of coagulable DOC from Torrens River raw water using alum and ferric
chloride
Table 3.6.2.2 DOC removals from Torrens River water with alum and ferric chloride treatment, in jar
tests
Torrens Dose % MPD pH DOC (mg/L) %Removal %Removable

Alum 0 0 4.46 0 0
32.4 53 6.16 1.66 63 89
43.8 71 6.12 1.51 66 93
61.3 100 6.10 1.40 69 97
140 228 6.04 1.26 72 101
Max 1.30 71 100
Ferric 0 0 4.46 0 0
Chloride 17.1 43 5.49 1.44 68 85
19.8 50 5.53 1.35 70 87
22.1 56 5.45 1.25 72 90
(39.6) CF100 (5.5) (0.95) (79) (99)
100 253 5.54 0.89 80 100
Max 0.90 80 100
Values in brackets estimated from experimental data using linear regression
90
3.6.3 Rocky River, Kangaroo Island, South Australia

3.6.3.1 Rocky River Raw water
A water sample was collected on 2/7/2003 from the Rocky River in the Flinders Chase National Park,
Kangaroo Island. It was collected near West Bay Road after a period of winter rain when there was
considerable flow in the river (the water quality of samples from Middle River, K.I. changed
significantly during this period). Raw water quality data for the sample are shown in Table 3.6.3.1. The
water had low turbidity and high organic loading, the SUVA value of 3.78 m-1mg-1L suggested that the
organics in the water were also composed mainly of treatable humic materials. This water was
determined to be unsuitable for application by the primary models as the high concentration of
dissolved organic material in this sample was outside of the range of samples used to generate the
models.
Table 3.6.3.1 Raw water quality data for sample from Rocky River

20.8 0.786 3.78 140 3.33 4.9
3.6.3.2 Rocky River DOC removal

A summary of the DOC removal from the Rocky River water sample using alum and ferric chloride
under of controlled pH conditions in jar tests is shown in Table 3.6.3.2. The residual DOC for both
experiments followed the expected exponential decrease with increasing coagulant at constant
coagulation pH (Figure 3.6.3.1).
The treatability of this water at pH 5.5 was higher than predicted with removal of 73% of the total DOC
using a high alum dose (range 60-67%) while 77% was removed using ferric chloride. The extended
DOC removal model [(uv,col,turb,DOC)] predicted an alum dose of 167 mg/L and removed 69% of the
total DOC (95% of coagulable, 0.013 gradient) while the ferric MPD of 97 mg/L removed 73% (95% of
coagulable, 0.024 gradient).
91
0%
Rocky River Fe pH~5.5
10%
Exponential decay f it (Fe)
20% Rocky River A l pH ~5.5

30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300%
%MPD
Figure 3.6.3.1 Removal of coagulable DOC from Rocky River raw water using alum and ferric chloride
Table 3.6.3.2 DOC removal under jar test conditions
Rocky River Dose pH DOC (mg/L) %Removal %Removable

Alum 0 20.77 0 0
40 5.387 13.80 34 46
57 5.416 10.70 48 67
82 5.431 8.52 59 81
115 5.541 7.62 63 87
190 5.599 6.24 70 96
220 5.491 5.99 71 98
Max 5.65 73 100
Ferric 0 20.77 0 0
24 5.804 11.85 43 56
29 5.836 11.80 43 56
38 5.826 9.50 54 70
57 5.649 7.90 62 80
86 5.214 5.29 75 97
Max 4.78 77 100
92
3.6.4 Bendora Dam, Canberra

In the summer of 2002/2003, Canberra experienced severe fires causing extensive property damage
in urban residential areas as well as destruction of surrounding native vegetation.
Extensive burning occurred in the Cotter Catchment on the 18 January 2003 in the eastern half and
the western half was moderately burned (Barry Starr Pty Ltd. Report April 2003). Bendora and Corin
reservoirs are located in the Cotter Catchment, part of the Namadgi National Park, Canberra. Storm
events with intensive rainfall occurred in the catchment on the 8 and 9 February. These and further
events on the 21 and 22 February and on the 15 and 28 March caused extensive soil erosion and
transport of ash, inorganic and organic particulate matter, dissolved organic matter, nutrients and
metals through the catchment. The input of these into Corin and Bendora reservoirs caused the
waters to become poor in quality, including very high turbidity levels, elevated manganese
concentrations and dissolved and particulate organic concentrations. The impact of the fires in 2003
on the water quality of Corin is described in detail by Wasson et al. (2003). Data on the water quality
of Bendora Reservoir after the fires of 2003 were provided by staff of ACTEWAGL.
3.6.4.1 Bendora Dam raw water

Raw water quality data from Bendora Reservoir (sampling point 810) are shown in Appendix 3.6.4.1
(A) 14/4/2003, (B) 5/6/2003, (C) 17/6/2003. Data of raw water collected on the 14/4/2003 shows that
turbidity levels in Bendora Reservoir reached extreme levels ranging from about 7 NTU at the surface
to over 1800 NTU at 30 metres, after heavy rainfall had transported ash, soil, burnt vegetation and
charcoal into the reservoir. From this data the turbidity appears to have comprised non-degraded
organic particulate matter as the dissolved oxygen levels were very low and a likely consequence of
aerobic microbial activity. Data of 5 June 2003 showed a lowering of turbidity throughout the water
profile and DOC increasing to ~5 mg/L near the base of the reservoir. Low oxygen conditions were
again recorded near the base of the reservoir. Data of UV absorbance at 254 nm and true colour are
unlikely to be correct due to insufficient filtration (0.45 m filtration was not used) of the water samples
prior to analyses.
On the 17 June 2003, the turbidity was further reduced and UV absorbance, colour and DOC were
determined after filtration through a 0.45 m filter. The recorded values for UV absorbance, colour and
DOC were in relative proportions expected for natural surface waters. The total organic carbon
concentration was measured in order to determine the composition of settled particulate matter at the
base of the reservoir and to compare this to the dissolved fraction. The value recorded of ~19 mg/L TOC
represents a high organic loading, particularly if that material is readily assimilable by micro-organisms.
As part of CRC support to ACTEWAGL, Canberra, to assess water quality degradation in the Bendora
Reservoir and determine possible solution options, jar testing was conducted at the AWQC. Jar tests
were conducted to assess treatment conditions that could be implemented to improve water with high
turbidity to a quality suitable for potable supply. At the time there was no capacity to treat Bendora and
Corin reservoir waters by coagulation and filtration processes, though pilot plant testing and laboratory
evaluations had begun by ACTEWAGL and United Water International (UWI) in preparation for a new
conventional water treatment plant. In jar tests conducted at AWQC, alum was used, while in pilot
plant trials and laboratory studies, UWI and ACTEWAGL evaluated PACl and organic polymers.
3.6.4.2 Turbidity removals

Results of jar tests performed to determine alum doses needed to remove turbidity from Bendora
waters are given in Appendix 3.6.4.2 (A) for raw water turbidity ~46 NTU, (B) raw water turbidity ~280
NTU and (C) raw water turbidity ~600 NTU. Data obtained on turbidity removal from Bendora
Reservoir was found to be similar to alum doses needed to remove turbidity from the Murray River,
previously determined in CRC project WQ 1.0.0.2.1.1. However, the study of Bendora Reservoir
enabled data to be collected that included alum doses for very high turbidity levels. The results found
were that as turbidity became very high the alum dose rate became slightly lower, differing from the
constant value (0.4775 mg alum per NTU) previously found. A new algorithm was determined to
describe the dose rate of Bendora Reservoir that also closely matched the previous constant dose
rate for turbidity removal from the Murray River, at the lower raw water turbidity levels. The algorithm
was subsequently incorporated into all models and software.
93
3.6.4.3 Evaluation of coagulant predictions for turbidity removal

From the above standard jar tests, a specific model was developed for estimation of an alum dose for
turbidity removal from Bendora water, where a target settled water turbidity can be selected. In this
model the target settled water turbidity ranges from 5 to 20 NTU. However, very limited data was used
for its development and any prediction would need to be treated with caution.
Results of further jar tests performed on the same water samples collected on 23 April 2003, as used
to develop the model, with a target settled water turbidity of 10 NTU are shown in Appendix 3.6.4.3.
Three water samples collected with different turbidity levels were also mixed to generate samples with
intermediate turbidity levels. Turbidity values recorded were as ~46, 100, 143, 245, 311 and 603 NTU.
With application of the predicted alum doses (all were less than that needed for enhanced
coagulation) the settled water turbidities were less than 5 NTU and filtered (Whatman No.1) turbidities
less than 0.15 NTU.
3.6.4.4 Predictions of reagent doses for target coagulation pH.

Data of target pH, resultant and final pH values are also shown in appendices 3.6.4.1, 3.6.4.2 and
3.6.4.3. Resultant pH values are those recorded during the early slow mixing stage while final pHs are
those subsequently recorded. Target pH levels were varied from 6.2 to 7.0 and the MAE (S.D.) of the
actual from target values are given in the following table.
Table 3.6.4.4.1 Target pH and MAE (S.D.) of actual values recorded
Source water Target MAE S.D.

turbidity (NTU) pH
46 6.3 0.105 0.034
282 6.2 0.248 0.027
603 6.2 0.237 0.085
various 7.0 0.096 0.103
Actual pH values recorded were predominantly less than the target pH levels, indicating a bias
towards insufficient alkali dose prediction for this water source.
94
4 GENERAL DISCUSSION
Model predictions of coagulant doses for maximising DOC removal were designed to achieve two key
objectives (1) achieving a high % removal of coagulable DOC removal and (2) doses would be
practically suitable at a water treatment plant. Determinations of percentages of coagulable DOC
removals were based on comparison with removals at higher doses at ~2 times the MPD. The
application of very high coagulant doses for comparison purposes to model predicted doses were
readily able to be made in jar tests but less so in pilot plant trials. Very high coagulant doses are
impractical for application at major water treatment plants and in this study were not tested in all pilot
plant trials. Trials were conducted with coagulant dosing at the MPD with doses below (to ~ 50%) and
above (to ~130% or higher). Extensive jar testing was carried out throughout the trials for comparison
and verification of pilot plant data. Summary data of percentage coagulable DOC removals obtained
from jar tests are given in Table 4.1. Model predicted doses mostly led to high percentage removals of
DOC and were at levels that would be acceptable to water authorities/corporations in Australia (these
dose levels were currently being used by some CRC partner organisations). Summary of DOC
removals in pilot plant trials comparing removals at MPD with the higher coagulant doses applied are
given in Table 4.2.
Model predictions were based on establishment of relationships between the character of the raw
water DOC (UV254 nm, colour and in some cases, DOC) and the coagulant dose required to achieve
a removal rate of -0.015 mg DOC per mg alum, where the pH was controlled at optimum for DOC
removal for that coagulant, i.e. pH ~5.5-6 for alum and ~5.5 for ferric chloride. However, dose
predictions from these models were also applied in jar tests and in pilot plant trials at pH levels higher
than optimum for each coagulant in order to assess the impacts of coagulant pH on DOC removal.
The assumption made in the development of the models was that doses determined to be practically
suitable for DOC removal would be the same regardless of coagulation pH i.e. the dose prediction is
independent of pH with respect to DOC removal for any specific coagulation pH. As an example, if the
MPD for a water source is 100 mg/L alum and achieves 95% removal of coagulable DOC, then the
model assumes similar coagulable removals at higher coagulation pH levels. However the absolute
coagulable DOC concentrations will decrease as the coagulation pH moves away from the optimum
(for DOC removal) for that coagulant.
95
Table 4.1 Summary of DOC removals (% coagulable) at MPDs from all jar tests for waters tested at
coagulation pH ~5.5-6.5
Source Coagulant No. of Jar %Coagulable

tests removal
Barossa alum 3 92
Googong alum 4 91
Happy Valley alum 9 91
ferric chloride 4 89
Middle River alum 7 96
Rocky River alum 1 87{95}
ferric chloride 1 80{95}
Torrens River alum 1 97
Wanneroo alum 1 98
{}: with extended model value
Table 4.2 Summary of DOC removals in pilot plant trials
% DOC Coagulation Higher Coaglant

Water Source Coagulant Removal pH Dose (%MPD)
Happy Valley
Oct-Dec 2001 Alum 57 6.1 60 (142)
Feb-May
2002 Alum 53.5 6.1-6.4 54.3 (146)
Happy Valley Ferric chloride 64.2 5.5 64.8 (150)
Middle River Alum 59-64 5.5-6 60-64(140)

Ferric chloride 55-60 6 60-65(125)
Googong Alum 51.4 6 57.9(188)
Anstey Hill Alum 54.4 5.9 60.0(136)

Ferric 65.8(134; pH
Chloride 57.8 5.3 5.64)
Although a key objective in model development was to enable prediction of doses that maximise DOC
removals, the basis for this is minimising the formation of disinfection by-products and improving
disinfectant residual maintenance in the distribution system. In this project, simulated distribution
system tests were performed to compare chlorine maintenance in treated waters with the various
96
residual DOC concentrations after treatment. These concentrations resulted from application of NM-
MPD and doses above and below these doses.
Models to predict coagulant doses for selected percentage removals of coagulable DOC were
developed. Data from jar tests used to develop models for NM-MPD were also used for model
development for selected percentage removals. Relationships were found between the UV254 nm and
colour of source waters and coagulant doses required to remove 50 to 90% of coagulable DOC.
However, no assertion is made that predictions made for new waters will lead to these actual
percentages being achieved. The percentage removal models have been applied in the operations of
United Water International and their benefit is that they allow for flexible dose predictions not restricted
to the higher dose levels that maximise DOC removal. This is necessary where lower coagulant doses
can be used that give sufficient DOC removals for required THM formation limits and to adequately
maintain disinfectant residuals in the distribution system. The application of these models requires
checking and calibration; for example, a model selected % removal might be 80% but actual removal
at the corresponding dose rate is 70%. If the 70% removal of coagulable DOC is sufficient to achieve
THM limits and results in adequate chlorine residuals in the distribution system for that water, then the
80% value would be used in model predictions (until performance data indicates changes in dosing
are required).
Rates of THMs formed from DOC in waters from the various sources used in pilot plant trials varied
markedly with Googong at 17 g per mg DOC, Middle River at ~48 g per mg DOC and Happy Valley
at ~30 g per mg DOC. Hence, although DOC removal can be maximised, for different waters and the
DOC residuals are similar, the DBPs may be markedly different depending on the character of the
residual DOC, temperature, chlorine contact time in distribution system etc. Hence, even waters with
similar residual DOC after treatment may result in markedly different concentrations of DBPs and
follow up monitoring or research studies would be required to test if the DOC residuals (from model
predictions) lead to DBP levels within guideline or licensing requirements and required disinfectant
residuals.
In developing the models for prediction of doses needed for near maximum removal of DOC, the aim
was to achieve a high percentage removal of coagulable DOC. However, in some cases as found in
pilot plant trials at Middle River WTP when ferric chloride was used, doses lower than the NM-MPD
(~84 %MPD) gave similar removals. Hence, although NM-MPD should provide for doses that give a
high percentage DOC removal, the efficiency of lower doses should be tested when the models are
applied at a water treatment plant. Similarly, doses higher than the MPD may provide for greater DOC
removals that provide for compliance to ADWG (DBPs) in some circumstances.
The design of the extended DOC prediction model (ECDPM) was to provide an option for selection of
an alternative model for dose prediction where the character of the DOC or concentration is deemed
uncharacteristic of surface or ground waters and outside of that used to develop the primary models.
These waters include high DOC waters, those impacted by high algal numbers, raw waters that have
been pre-chlorinated and those affected by wastewaters. The selection of ECDPM is based on ratios
of UV254 nm to colour and UV254 nm, colour to DOC to differentiate between waters having DOC
characteristic of surface and ground waters and those assigned as uncharacteristic. Data for the
ECDPM was limited but was pursued to provide this option. To date the ECDPM has been used with
apparent success to predict doses for high DOC waters, as exemplified by Rocky River water,
previously described.
The intent of the ECDPM was that for waters with characteristic DOC concentrations and character
the NM-MPD would predict doses similar to or greater than the ECDPM. Waters with a predicted lower
ECDPM dose than a NM-MPD would indicate a lower DOC concentration than expected for the
UV254 nm and colour properties of that water. This would infer that the water is more treatable with
alum or ferric chloride and lower doses than the NM-MPD (still for maximising DOC removal) may be
possible. A summary of data comparing doses predicted by the NM-PM and ECDPM is given in Table
4.3. Application of the ECDPM requires DOC as an input variable and so its use would be restricted to
those waters where the quality does not change rapidly.
97
Table 4.3 Comparison of doses predicted by NM-PM and ECDPM
Location NM-PM ECDPM NM-PM/ECDPM NM-PM ECDPM NM-PM/ECDPM

Alum Alum Alum FeCl3 FeCl3 FeCl3
Happy Valley 98 97 1.01 42 42 1.00
Middle River 98-110 83-111 1.07 56 55 1.02
Googong 45 47 0.96
Anstey Hill (1) 30 51 0.59* 71 80 0.89*
Anstey Hill (2) 35 52 0.67* 56 76 0.74*
Anstey Hill (3) 74 94 0.78* 58 65 0.89*
Anstey Hill (4) 82 103 0.80* 52 56 0.93
Barossa 85 95 0.90
Wanneroo 115 87 1.32 69 56 1.23
Torrens River 61 34 1.79 40 19 2.11

Rocky River 116 167 0.69 57 97 0.59
* pre-chlorinated water, very high DOC concentration.
Where application of the ECDPM results in predicted coagulant doses being lower than the MPD, then
the SUVA and specific colour are higher than expected and the water has DOC that is overall more
treatable. In this case the lower coagulant dose as predicted by the ECDPM should lead to high
percentage removal of coagulable DOC and the NM-MPD, if applied, may be lowered to the ECDPM
(as in the case of the Torrens River sample).
However, where the ECDPM is higher than the NM-MPD, then the higher dose should be applied.
Wherever possible (when DOC data is available and can be applied as an input parameter to the
models) then both ECDPM and NM-MPD should be determined.
Opportunities in the pilot plant trials to assess the capacities of the models to remove turbidities were
limited with source waters at Happy Valley, Middle River and Googong WTPs being generally low.
Turbidities were moderate to high from the Murray River (Anstey Hill) and from Bendora Reservoir after
clearing of vegetation by bushfires in the Cotter Catchment in 2003. A separate pilot plant trial had been
performed at the Happy Valley WTP where the source water was spiked with clay to increase the
turbidity levels. Prior to evaluation of the models using Bendora waters, a simple multiplier constant had
been applied in models that related coagulant dose to raw water turbidity levels.
In evaluation of Bendora waters it was found that with very high turbidities, the dose rate
(coagulant/turbidity, mg/L/NTU) decreased, in contrast to the previously found relationship, as detailed
in van Leeuwen et al. (2001). However, the algorithms developed to predict coagulant doses for very
high turbidity removal also provide for very similar coagulant dose predictions for turbidities to about
200 NTU as the earlier constant factor applied (~200 NTU was at the highest range of waters used to
generate data from which the constant factor was determined). Studies of Bendora waters enabled
natural turbidities to be evaluated at levels >> 200 NTU.
Model development for turbidity removal had originally been conducted through determination of
coagulant doses for DOC and for turbidity removal. This had been done by determining coagulant
doses for high and low DOC waters with negligible turbidity and then adding turbidity (from the Murray
River) and retesting for the new coagulant requirements. Waters of high and low DOC and turbidities
were cocktailed in order to be able to test a wide range of raw water qualities. Waters from Bendora
Reservoir at the time of collection had comparatively low DOC (to other waters tested in this study)
and also provided a ready opportunity to evaluate coagulant requirements for turbidity removal. Trials
conducted at Happy Valley indicated that model dose predictions for turbidity removal at that time
were suitable for higher turbidity removal base on spiking of fine clay into the raw water.
98
The pH and acid/alkali dose predictions were made using two models (1) where the alkalinity is used
to predict a titration curve of the raw water (previously described, van Leeuwen et al. 2001, 2003 and
2005) and (2) using carbonate chemistry theory as described by Najm (2001). Predictions included the
pH of the water following dosing of one of the two coagulants (alum or ferric chloride), the acid, alkali
or extra coagulant dose needed to achieve the target coagulation pH. Data of mean absolute errors,
standard deviations and model efficiencies of pH predictions (compared to actual pH measurements)
were determined for the waters studied. Variations (in errors) were found within and between water
sources. Variations in predictions within a water source is exemplified by Happy Valley jar tests where
the MEA ranged from 0.062 to 0.3 pH units and the standard deviations varied from 0.035 to 0.266 pH
units. Variation was also found when raw water quality was consistent (e.g. between 16/10/2001 and
1/11/2001, Table 3.1.6.1) indicating that some of the variation was attributable to operator and/or
instrument errors.
Accuracies in predictions were found to be dependent on the alkalinity of the raw water with lowest
accuracies for waters with lowest alkalinity. For very low alkalinity waters, small errors in acid (and
coagulant) and alkali additions were found in some cases to lead to large errors in the predicted pH,
compared with the actual pH. Despite unacceptable inaccuracies in predicted pH values for very low
alkalinity waters, the predicted acid or alkali doses were generally similar to actual doses required to
achieve a target pH. Greater value is likely to be gained in accurate predictions of reagent doses for
pH control and coagulant doses than the actual resultant pH as most modern water treatment plants
are equipped with on-line pH meters. These allow for monitoring of pH with chemical addition in water
treatment and could be used to fine-tune a dose in order to achieve a target pH.
For pH predictions (after coagulant addition and with acid/alkali addition) to be made, the minimum
requirement is having an accurate measure of alkalinity (as CaCO3 mg/L). From this value a predicted
initial raw water pH is assumed using the pH_MS models and pH shifts are predicted with acidic
coagulant and acid/alkali dose addition.
For application of the pH_MC model, the raw water pH is required as an input variable as well as raw
water alkalinity. This allows for greater accuracy prediction in pH for low alkalinity waters, though
accuracies were found to be similar between the models for moderate to high alkalinities. Although the
pH_MS and pH_MC models were run separately for comparison purposes in this study subsequent
applications in any further model and software developments could be to have both models run
concurrently for cross checking, averaging prediction values and automatic selected application based
on the alkalinity of the source waters and known accuracies in prediction at specific alkalinity ranges.
Accuracy in pH predictions and acid/alkali doses are highly dependant on accurate alkalinity
measurement for the water conditions at the time of coagulant addition. Alkalinity measurement made
in an analytical laboratory that is not at the water treatment plant requires sample collection, transport,
analysis time and result reporting. Where source water quality is highly consistent, then alkalinity
measurement made at an analytical laboratory away from the Water Treatment Plant may be feasible.
However, where the source water alkalinity can change over a period of hours or days, it is then
required to conduct a measure of alkalinity at the water treatment plant. This can be done as
previously described by pH titration of the raw water with a standard acid (sulphuric or hydrochloric
acid) to pH 5.5, or application of another standard alkalinity method. Initially it was considered that
alkalinity measurement would be outside the general work requirements of water treatment plant
operators, based on practices at South Australian WTPs, at that time. However, subsequently it was
found that alkalinity measurement is routinely made on raw waters by operators at Googong WTP
(ACTEWAGL, Canberra) and by ESK Water Launceston, Tasmania.
99
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
Mathematical models that enable prediction of alum and ferric chloride doses for enhanced
coagulation have been developed. These predicted doses are practically applicable at water treatment
plants where the removal of organics from drinking water needs to be maximised in order to minimise
DBP formation and maximise disinfectant residual maintenance in the distribution system. These
models require input variables of raw water UV absorbance at 254 nm, colour at 456 nm, turbidity and
alkalinity, parameters readily measurable at a water treatment plant.
Models have also been developed to enable prediction of coagulant doses for selected percentage
removals of coagulable DOC. These require calibration of the nominal percentage value selected with
the removal value actually achieved at the water treatment plant. Alternative models for prediction of
alum and ferric chloride doses to maximise DOC removal from waters with very high DOC (>15 mg/L),
impacted by high algal loads, by wastewaters and/or pre-chlorinated waters have been developed.
These models require DOC as an input variable and at present, have not been extensively used in
trials. They require further evaluation and possibly modification for confidence in application.
Two types of pH prediction models previously described ([1] van Leeuwen et al. (2001) and [2] Najm
(2001)) were evaluated in pilot plant trials and jar tests in this study. Both models gave similar
accuracies in pH prediction for low to high alkalinity waters, while the model based on carbonate
theory demonstrated better accuracy for very low alkalinity waters.
The above models have been used for several years by United Water International at six major
Adelaide metropolitan water treatment plants, indicating the models practical suitability for use at
these plants. They have been integrated in Microsoft Visual Basic software for ease of application by
water treatment plant operators.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
The models developed through this project involve only the use of two common coagulants, alum and
ferric chloride. In both cases, validation was seen as requiring the trialling of model predicted doses at
a pilot plant scale. This form of validation was also seen as a means by which, where the trials are
successful, the water industry would be more likely or willing to try and incorporate the models for
everyday use at a water treatment plant. In that sense, the outcome from this project is as originally
aimed, where the developed models are being routinely used by United Water International at 6 major
water treatment plants in Adelaide. Further, the direct involvement of United Water International in this
project provided the benefit of model development being expanded by their guidance in water
treatment plant and operator needs, for example, UWI requested the specific development of an
option for percentage removal of coagulable DOC. However, the generation of data for model
development was based solely on laboratory analyses and did not require pilot plant generated data.
Subsequent data from jar tests conducted to check pilot plant performances closely matched that
obtained from the pilot plant trials. This indicates that while pilot plant trials provided confidence to
apply a new method for a large scale water treatment plant, the data from the laboratory based
analyses, at least in this case, would have been sufficient for model development and validation. On
that basis, further model development (and application at a large scale WTP) arising from those
already developed may require only data generated and validated under laboratory scale conditions.
Specific recommendations arising from the results of this project include:
1. Where warranted based on demand, expand coagulant type options in the model selection. In
each case this would require data generation by jar testing of a range of waters (low to high
DOC, turbidity and alkalinity) at controlled pH. The efficiency of the coagulant to remove
turbidity would need to be determined and may be a key driver in an expanded software
version. The effect and importance of coagulant type and dose on coagulation pH may also
need to be determined. Further models may have aesthetic water quality targets (e.g. residual
colour and turbidity levels) as key treated water quality objectives.
100
2. Investigate the option for the currently developed models and software being integrated into
hardware that measures UV-vis and turbidity on-line.
3. Integrate into the software, an option for selecting the two methods for pH and acid/alkali dose
prediction, that are available as detailed in this report. The application of the model based on
carbonate theory is recommended where alkalinity levels are very low and where raw water
pH data is available. Where raw water pH data is not available or inaccuracy in raw water pH
measurement is considered, then the alternative model is recommended. In each case
application of predicted acid and alkali doses at a water treatment plant should be checked by
concurrent measurement of the treated waters pH.
4. Incorporate into the models, pH prediction and pH control by chemicals routinely used at water
treatment plants including lime as calcium carbonate and calcium hydroxide.
5. Develop models for prediction of chemical requirements for post coagulation pH targets prior
to supply of the water to the distribution system.
6. Investigate the potential of developing or incorporating sludge production models that could be
used to further optimise coagulant dose selection.
7. In any further software development, all available modelling options should be included, such
as the new water suitability check option and the models for coagulant prediction where a new
water is determined to be unsuitable.
8. Further data generation that improves the predictive accuracies of the established models
should be incorporated into the models.
9. Dose predictions may be tailored towards specific users, such as those in the USA and
based on their regulatory requirements.
10. Dose prediction by the current prime models for pre-chlorinated waters requires a high level of
caution: these models and the selected percentage coagulable removal models are not
generally suitable.
11. Models development should be investigated to determine if prediction of raw water UV-vis
change through chlorination is possible, as part of coagulant dose prediction for pre-
chlorinated waters.
101
PROJECT RESEARCH ORGANISATIONS AND PERSONNEL

Participating organisations
CRCWQ&T, SA Water, Sydney Water and United Water International Pty Ltd.
Project Personnel
Researchers: Robert Daly, Mike Holmes, Craig Heidenriech, Bronwyn Walsh and Jekabs Rozitis
(Summer scholarship student).
Research Advisory, Financial and Administrative: Don Bursill, Uwe Kaeding and Mary Drikas,
Project Leader/Researcher: John Van Leeuwen
Commercialisation: Jack McKean, Don Bursill, Kim Fergusson and Carolyn Haskard.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following are gratefully acknowledged:
Dr Alan Wade and staff from Ecowise Environmental/ACTEWAGL, Canberra, for their support in the
running of trials conducted at the Googong WTP.
Mr Keith Craig, Veolia, for trials and data provision from the Illawarra WTP.
Mr Troy Kirby, SA Water, for trials conducted at the Middle River WTP.
Mr Tung Nguyen, Sydney Water Corporation for support in the initial phase of the project.
Staff from United Water International and SA Water who supported the pilot plant trials.
102
REFERENCES
Adgar A, Cox CS and Bhme TJ (2000) Performance Improvements at surface water treatment works
using ANN-based automation schemes. Transactions of the Institution of Chemical Engineers, Vol. 78,
Part A, October 2000. pp 1026-1039.
Adgar A, Cox CS and Jones CA (2003) Coagulation control using the streaming current detector:
problems and possible solution. EEC 003- European Control Conference. Cambridge, UK, 1-4
September (CD-ROM).
Arora H, LeChevallier MW and Dixon KL (1997) DBP occurrence survey. Journal of the American
Water Works Association 89(6) 60-68.
Baker PD, Brookes JD, Burch MD, Maier HR and Ganf GG (2000) Advection, growth and nutrient
status of phytoplankton in the lower Murray, South Australia. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 16, 327-344.
Baxter CW, Shariff R, Stanley SL; Smith DW, Zhang Q and Saumer ED (2002) Model based
advanced process control of coagulation. Water Science and Technology 45(4-5) 9-17.
Bazer-Bachi A, Puech-Coste E, Ben Aim R and Probst JL (1990) Mathematical modelling of optimum
coagulant dose in water treatment plant. Revue Des Sciences De Leau. 1990: 3, 377-397.
Bennett LE and Drikas M (1993) The Evaluation of Colour in Natural Waters, Water Research 27(7),
1209-1218.
Bernhardt H, Schell H (1995) Experience with an on-line determination of the flocculant dosage using
the LADUNGTITRMAT. Water Supply 1995: 13(3/4) Osaka: 279-284.
Bernhardt H, Schell H (1996) Experience in coagulant control by use of a charge titration unit. Journal
of Water Science Research and Technology - Aqua 1996: 45(1), 19-27.
Bhme TJ and Cox CS (1999) Performance assessment of a neuro self-tuning PI controller to be used
at a Water Treatment Plant. Proceedings of the American Control Conference, 2-4 June. pp 3216-
3220. San Diego
Chow CWK, Davey DE, Mulcahy DE (1997) A neural network approach to zinc and copper
interferences in potentiometric stripping analysis. Journal of Intelligent Materials Systems and
Structures 8(2) 177-183.
Chow CW, van Leeuwen JA, Drikas M, Fabris R, Spark K and Page D (1999) The impact of the
character of natural organic matter in conventional treatment with alum. Water Science and
Technology 40(9) 97-104.
Collins MR, Amy GL and King PH (1985) Removal of organic matter in water treatment. ASCE
National Conference on Environmental Engineering, 1-3 July, Boston, MA. USA.
Cox CS, Rietveld L, Adgar A and Van der Helm A (2003) A new modelling and control system
simulation environment for the rapid design of potable water systems. ADCHEM, 2002. Hong Kong.
Critchley RF, Smith EO and Pettit P (1990) Automatic coagulation control at water treatment plants in
the North-West region of England. Water and Environment Journal 4(6) 535-543.
Dentel SK, Thomas AV and Kingery KM (1989) Evaluation of the streaming current detector- 1. Use in
Jar tests. Water Research 23(4) 413-421
Dentel SK (1995) Use of the streaming current detector in coagulation monitoring and control. Journal
of Water Science Research and Technology - Aqua 44(2) 70-79.
103
Dixon DR, Barron W, Healy TW Pascoe M and Scales PJ (1993) The streaming current detector in
water treatment. Water, 21-25 April.
Eaton AE, Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE (1995) Standard Methods for The Examination of Water and
Waste Water, 19th Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Eaton AE, Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE (1998) Standard Methods for The Examination of Water and
Waste Water, 20th Edition, American Public Health Association, Washington, DC.
Edzwald JK (1993) Water Science and Technology 27(11) 21-35.
Edwards M (1997) Predicting DOC removal during enhanced coagulation. Journal of the American
Water Works Association 89 No. 5, 78-89.
Ellis GW, Collins AG, Ge Xi, Ford CR (1991) Chemical dosing of small water utilities using regression
analysis. Journal of Environmental Engineering 1991: 117(3) 308-319.
Evans J and Enoch C (1998) Investigation of advanced control methods to coagulant dosing at a WTW.
UK Water Industry Research Limited/Sensors for Water Interest Group (UKWIR/SWIG) Workshop
Knowledge based systems, National Motorcycle Museum, Birmingham, UK. 10 December 1998.
Girou A, Franceschi M, Puech-Costes E, Humbert L (1992) Modelisation des phenomenes de

coagulation et etude de la morphologie des flocs: optimisation du taux de coagulant. Recents Prog.
Genie Procedes 1992: 6(20) 373-385
Joensuu I, Piironen M, Juuso E (2004) Adaptive feedback controller for dosage of water treatment
chemicals. International Workshop on Advanced Fuzzy/Neural Control, Oulu, Finland, 2004.
Juuso E Viirret K and Piironen M (1999) Intelligent method in dosing control of water treatment.
Workshop on applications in Chemical and Biochemical Industry, Aachen, Germany, September 15th.
(Http://www.erudit.de/erudit/events/tc-a/erudit-tca-juuso-13052.pdf).
Kaeding UW, Bursill DB and Drikas M (1997) Enhanced alum coagulation in a South Australian water
treatment plant. Proceedings of the 17th Australian Water and Wastewater Association Federal
Convention, Melbourne, March 16-21, pp33-338.
Kaeding U, van Leeuwen J, Walsh B, Holmes M and Daly R (2003) At the end of the road for
conventional coagulation water treatment processes. Chemicals of Concern in Water AWA/IWA
Sydney, 4-5 June. CD-ROM.
Krasner SW and Amy G (1995) Jar-test evaluations of enhanced coagulation. Journal of the American
Water Works Association 87(10) 93-107.
LeChevallier MW and Kwok-Keung Au (2004) Water Treatment and Pathogen Control - Process
Efficiency in Achieving Safe Drinking Water. World Health Organization (WHO).
The Landsat 7 Picture Mosaic of Australia was produced by the Australian Greenhouse Office (AGO)
as part of their National Carbon Accounting System. The mosaic is comprised of 369 individual
(Landsat satellite scenes acquired between July 1999 and September 2000)
NHMRC, National Health & Medical Research Council and the Agricultural and Resource
Management Council of Australia and New Zealand. Australian Drinking Water Guidelines, 1996.
Maier HR and Dandy GC (1996) The Use Of Artificial Neural Networks For The Prediction Of Water
Quality Parameters, Water Research, 32(4) 1013-1022.
Mirsepassi A, Cathers B, Dharmappa HB (1995) Application of artificial neural networks to the real
time operation of water treatment plants. IEEE International Conference on Neural Networks
Proceedings, 1, 516-521. Perth, Western Australia, 27 November-1 December 1995.
104
Mirsepassi A, Dharmappa HB, Cathers B (1996) Economic benefits of applying an Artificial Neural
Network to the operation of a water treatment plant. Proceedings, Watertech, The Centre, Darling
Harbour, Sydney 27-28 May 1996.
Najm I (2001) User-friendly carbonate chemistry charts. Journal of the American Water Works
Association November. 93(11) pp 86-93.
Owen DM, Amy GL, Chowdhury ZK, Paode R, McCoy G and Viscosil K (1995) NOM characterisation
and treatability. Journal of the American Water Works Association 87(1) 46-63.
Randkte SJ (1988) Organic contaminant removal by coagulation and related processes. Journal of the
American Water Works Association 80(5) 40-56.
Ratnaweera H and Blom H (1995) Optimisation of coagulant dosing control using real-time models
selective to instrument errors. Water Supply 13(13/14) 285-289.
Singer PC, Obolensky A and Griener A (1995) DBPs in chlorinated North Carolina drinking waters.
Journal of the American Water Works Association 87(10), 83-93.
Sperring DA, Chow CW, Mulcahy DE, Davey DE, Haskard MR (1992) A neural network applied to
sensory signal processing determination of copper in water, Journal of Intelligent Materials Systems
and Structures 1992: 3(3) 418-431.
Stanley S, Baxter C, Zhang Q and Shariff R (2000) Process Modelling and control of enhanced
coagulation. AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association.
Starr, Barry (Pty Ltd) Cotter Catchment Fire and Storm An analysis of the impact of the January
2003 wildfire and following rainfall events on the stability of Upper Cotter Catchment and management
recommendations. 30 April 2003.
Summers RS, Hopper SM, Shukairy HM and Owen D (1996) Assessing DBP yield: uniform formation
conditions. Journal of the American Water Works Association June 81-93.
USEPA Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 241 / Wednesday, December 16, 1998 / Rules and
Regulations. 69413
Valentin N, Denoeux T and Fotoohi F (1999) An hybrid neural network based system for optimisation of
coagulation doing in a water treatment plant. Proceedings of IJCNN99, Washington D.C. July 1999, IEEE.
Valentin N, Denoeux T and Fotoohi F (1999) Modelling of coagulant dosage in a water treatment
plant. Proceedings of EANN 99, Warsaw, September. pp 165-170.
van Leeuwen J, Schell H, Berger M, Drikas M, Bursill D, Chow C and Clasen J (1997) Comparison of
coagulant doses determined using a charge titration unit with a jar test procedure for eight German
surface waters. Journal of Water Science Research and Technology -Aqua 46(5) 261-273.
van Leeuwen J, Chow CW, Bursill D, and Drikas M (1999a) Empirical mathematical models and
artificial neural networks for determination of alum doses of southern Australian surface waters
Journal of Water Science Research and Technology -Aqua 48(3) 115-127.
van Leeuwen J, Chow C, Fabris R, Drikas M and Spark K (1999b) Enhanced coagulation for dissolved
organic carbon removal in conventional treatment with alum, AWWA 18th Federal Convention
Proceedings, Adelaide, 11-14 April. CDROM.
van Leeuwen J, Page D, Spark K, Fabris R and Sledz L (2001) Characterisation of Natural Organic
Matter in Relation to Drinking Water and Alum Treatment. CRC for Water Quality and Treatment.
August 2001. ISBN 1878818172.
105
Vrijenhoek EM, Childress AE, Elimelech M, Tanaka TS and Beuhler MD (1998) Removing particles
and THM precursors by enhanced coagulation. Journal of the American Water Works Association
90(4) 139-150.
Wasson RJ, Croke BF, McCulloch MM, Mueller N, Starr B, Wade A, Whire I, and Whiteway T (2003)
Sediment, Particulate and Dissolved Organic carbon, Iron and Manganese Input to Corin Reservoir.
ACTEWAGL, Cotter Catchment Fire Remediation Project, August 2003.
White MC, Thompson JD, Harrington GW and Singer PC (1997) Evaluating criteria for enhanced
coagulation compliance. Journal of the American Water Works Association 89(5) 64-77.
Wilcox SJ, Hawkes DL, Hawkes FR, Guwy AJ (1995) A neural network, based on bicarbonate
monitoring, to control anaerobic digestion, Water Research 1995: 29(6) 1465-1470.
106
APPENDICES
Appendix 3.1.1 (A) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
October to December 2001
Happy Valley: Turbidity

12
10
Turbidity (NTU)
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
1
1
1
/0
/0
/0
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
11
11
11
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
8/
5/
2/
23
20
17
14
11
30
27
24
21
18
15
Date
Appendix 3.1.1 (B) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
Happy Valley: pH
8
7.8
7.6
7.4
pH
7.2
7
6.8
6.6
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
1
1
/0
/0
/0
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
11
11
11
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
5/
8/
2/
23
20
14
17
11
30
27
21
24
15
18
Date
107
Appendix 3.1.1 (C) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
Happy Valley : UV 254nm abs.

0.38
0.37
UV 254nm abs.
0.36
0.35
0.34
0.33
0.32
0.31
01
01
01
01
01
2/ 1
01
01
01
01
01
1
1
0
/0
/0
/0
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
11
11
11
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
5/
8/
15
18
21
24
27
30
11
14
17
20
23
Date
Appendix 3.1.1 (D) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
Happy Valley : Colour (HU)
66
64
62
Colour (HU)
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
/0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0
/ 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 /11 /11 /11 / 11 / 11 / 11 / 11 / 11
15 18 21 24 27 30 2 5 8 11 14 17 20 23
Date
108
Appendix 3.1.1 (E) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
Happy Valley : DOC
14
12
10
DOC (mg/L)
8
6
4
2
0
3/ 1
1
7/ 1
1
11 01
01
28 01
01
01
01
15 01
01
19 01
01
01
/0
/0
/0
/0
0/
0/
0/
0/
/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
11
11
11
11
11
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
1/
5/
9/
24
26
30
13
17
21
Date
Appendix 3.1.1 (F) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
Happy Valley: aluminium
1.0
0.9
Aluminium (mg/L)
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
1
/0
/0
/0
1/
1/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
11
11
11
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
2/
5/
8/
11
14
15
18
21
24
27
30
Date
109
Appendix 3.1.1 (G) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
Happy Valley - MPD (alum, mg/L)
95
94
93
Alum (mg/L)
92
91
90
89
88
87
86
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
1
1
00
00
00
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
/2
/2
/2
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
11
11
11
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
2/
5/
8/
15
18
21
24
27
30
11
14
17
20
23
Date
Appendix 3.1.1 (H) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
February to May 2002
Happy Valley: Turbidity

12
10
Turbidity NTU
0
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
2
2
/0
/0
/0
2/
2/
3/
3/
3/
4/
4/
4/
03
04
04
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
5/
2/
9/
19
26
12
19
26
16
23
30
Date
110
Appendix 3.1.1 (I) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
Happy Valley: pH
8.4
8.2
7.8
pH
7.6
7.4
7.2
6.8
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
2
2
/0
/0
/0
2/
2/
3/
3/
3/
4/
4/
4/
03
04
04
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
5/
2/
9/
19
26
12
19
26
16
23
30
Date
Appendix 3.1.1 (J) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
Happy Valley: UV abs at 254 nm
0.5
0.45
UV (cm-1)
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
2
2
2
2
2
2
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
eb
eb
ar
ar
ar
ay
ay
pr
pr
pr
-M
-M
-M
-A
-A
-A
-F
-F
-M
-M
24
04
14
05
15
25
13
23
04
14
Date
111
Appendix 3.1.1 (K) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
Happy Valley: colour (HU)
80
75
70
65
Colour (HU)
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
2
2
02
02
2
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-0
-
-
eb
eb
ay
ay
ar
ar
ar
pr
pr
pr
-M
-M
-M
-M
-M
-A
-A
-A
-F
-F
13
23
05
15
25
04
14
24
04
14
Date
Appendix 3.1.1 (L) Raw water quality of Happy Valley Reservoir water:
Happy Valley: DOC (mg/L)

12
11.5
11
DOC (mg/L)
10.5
10
9.5
8.5
8
02
02
02
02
02
02
2
2
00
00
00
00
20
20
20
20
20
20
/2
/2
/2
/2
3/
3/
3/
4/
4/
4/
03
03
04
05
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
1/
8/
5/
3/
15
22
29
12
19
26
Date
112
Appendix 3.1.2 (A) Happy Valley Jar Tests using alum as coagulant, 2001-2002
JAR TEST Water
Sampled: Date Temp: Flash mix: Flocculation: Settling: MPD
RESULTS Source:
Happy ambient ~ 20rpm 98
Valley 16.10.01 16.10.01 20oC 90 secs. 13.5 min 15 min mg/L
Turbidity (NTU): settle
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

Colour (OD 456 nm)
Turbidity (NTU): Filt.
% DOC rem.
ALUM (ppm)
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
Target pH
Al (mg/L)
pH
0 9.80 7.97 0.088 64 0.371 11.60 0.00 0.212
180 5.5 5.90 6.05 0.140 0.004 2 0.067 4.79 58.71 0.029
124 6.1 6.60 6.32 0.100 0.006 4 0.077 5.12 55.86 0.024
98 6.1 4.90 6.29 0.130 0.006 4 0.081 5.20 55.17 <0.02
98 5.5 6.4 5.40 0.150 0.004 2 0.070 4.53 60.95 0.037
113
Appendix 3.1.2 (B) Happy Valley Jar Tests using alum as coagulant, 2001-2002
JAR
TEST Water Source: Sampled: Date Temp: Flash mix: Flocculation: Settling: MPD
RESULTS
ambient ~ 20rpm 95
Happy Valley 23.10.01 23.10.01 90 secs. 15 min
19oC 13.5 min mg/L
Turbidity (NTU):Filtered
Turbidity (NTU):settled
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

Colour (OD 456 nm)
pH at slow mix.
% DOC rem.
ALUM (ppm)
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
Target pH
Floc Size
0 na ~3 9.00 7.90 na 0.083 60 0.353 9.85 0.00

190/200* 5.5 ~3 8.20 5.53 0.070 0.003 2 0.055 3.40 65.48
95 5.5 ~3 9.50 5.63 0.170 0.005 3 0.068 3.75 61.93
95 6.1 ~3 9.00 6.17 0.050 0.004 2 0.078 4.19 57.46
85 6.1 ~3 8.40 6.17 0.070 0.006 4 0.080 4.34 55.94
75 6.1 ~3 7.50 6.14 0.150 0.007 5 0.087 4.59 53.40
*190: 23/10-titration dose to 5.5

*200: 24/10, actual treatment dose
114
Appendix 3.1.2 (C) Happy Valley Jar Tests using alum as coagulant, 2001-2002
JAR TEST Water Flash
Sampled: Date Temp: Flocculation: Settling: MPD
RESULTS Source: mix:
ambient ~ 20rpm
Happy Valley 1/11/2001 1.11.01 90 secs. 15 min 95 mg/L
20oC 13.5 min
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

Colour (OD 456 nm)
Turbidity (NTU):Filt.
% DOC rem.
ALUM (ppm)
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
Target pH
Floc Size
Al (mg/L)
pH
200 5.5 ~3-4 7.7 5.62 0.09 0.003 2 0.062 3.6 63.6 0.027
95 6.1 ~3-4 7 6.13 0.08 0.005 3 0.083 4.31 56.5 <0.02
95 6.1 ~3-4 7.5 6.07 0.06 0.005 3 0.082 4.22 57.4 <0.02
85 6.1 ~3-4 5.9 6.15 0.06 0.006 4 0.088 4.5 54.5 0.022
75 6.1 ~3-4 6.1 6.2 0.11 0.007 5 0.095 4.66 52.9 <0.02
105 6.1 ~3-4 6.9 6.14 0.09 0.005 3 0.080 4.19 57.7 <0.02
0 8.2 0.078 56 0.356 9.9 0 0.059
115
Appendix 3.1.2 (D) Happy Valley Jar Tests using alum as coagulant, 2001-2002
JAR TEST Flash
Water Source: Sampled: Date Temp: Flocculation: Settling: MPD
RESULTS mix:
ambient ~ 90 20rpm
Happy Valley 6/11/2001 SAMPLED: 15 min 93 mg/L
20oC secs. 13.5 min
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

pH after slow mixing.
% 'DOC rem.
ALUM (ppm)
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
Al (mg/L)
194 5.30 5.63 0.070 3 0.062 3.58 64.3 0.025
93 5.20 6.18 0.190 5 0.083 4.35 56.6 0.024
93 4.50 6.45 0.100 7 0.092 4.57 54.4 0.027
93 3.1 6.78 0.090 8 0.109 5.03 49.8 0.054
93 2.9 7.07 0.110 10 0.124 5.54 44.7 0.077
0 7.7 54 0.341 10.02 0.0 0.097
116
Appendix 3.1.2 (E) Happy Valley Jar Tests using alum as coagulant, 2001-2002
Happy ambient ~ 20rpm
Valley 13-Nov-01 18.5oC 90 sec 15 min 15 min 95 mg/L
Turbidity (NTU):Filtered
Turbidity (NTU):setled
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)
% 'DOC rem.)
ALUM (ppm)
slow mixing.
pH to end of
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
Floc Size
Al (mg/L)
190 ~2-3 6.60 5.59 0.090 2 0.061 3.59 64.6 0.02
95 ~2-3 7.20 5.4 0.090 2 0.065 3.67 63.8 0.106
95 ~2-3 4.90 5.91 0.080 3 0.073 4.12 59.3 0.023
95 ~2-3 4.5 6.45 0.080 4 0.091 4.84 52.2 0.041
95 ~2-3 3.2 6.93 0.080 8 0.121 5.72 43.5 0.055
0 7.9 58 0.358 10.13 0.0 0.05
117
Appendix 3.1.2 (F) Happy Valley Jar Tests using alum as coagulant, 2001-2002
JAR TEST Water
RESULTS Source:
ambient ~ 20rpm 95
Temp: Happy Valley 30/11/01 Flocculation: 15 min
21oC 13.5 min mg/L
ALUM Turbidity Turbidity UVabs (/cm, DOC % DOC
(ppm) Floc Size (NTU):settled pH (NTU):Filt. Colour (HU) 254 nm) (mg/L) rem.
95 ~2-3 4.60 5.53 0.070 5 0.069 3.76 63.6
95 ~2-3 3.90 6.08 0.090 6 0.082 4.24 59.0
95 ~2-3 3.70 6.34 0.080 8 0.102 4.92 52.4
75 ~2-3 3.7 6.1 0.110 8 0.091 4.53 56.1
75 ~2-3 3.5 6.6 0.170 10 0.113 5.36 48.1
75 3.9 5.58 0.120 5 0.075 4.07 60.6
0 67 0.376 10.33 0.0
118
Appendix 3.1.2 (G) Happy Valley Jar Tests using alum as coagulant, 2001-2002
JAR
Water
TEST Sampled: Date Temp: Flash mix: Flocculation: Settling: MPD
Source:
RESULTS
Happy 20rpm
21/03/2002 90 sec 15 min ~90 mg/L
Valley 14min
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

Acid 0.1M H2SO4 mL
~'%DOC rem.
ALUM (mg/L)
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
Al (mg/L)
%MPD
pH
92 2.9 100 0.98 6.24 0.29 6 0.093 4.42 56.02 <0.02
72 0 78 1.95 6.74 0.50 10 0.117 5.30 47.26 <0.02
42 3.4 46 6 6.21 1.38 13 0.151 6.20 38.31 <0.02
62 2.63 67 1.9 6.22 0.54 10 0.116 5.10 49.25 <0.02
112 0.68 122 1.55 6.20 0.18 6 0.081 4.00 60.20 <0.02
0 raw 5.7 7.78 59 0.354 <0.02
0 3/04/2002 0 9.90
0 6/03/2002 0 10.20
119
Appendix 3.1.2 (H) Happy Valley Jar Tests using alum as coagulant, 2001-2002
Happy 200rpm 20rpm
21/10/2002 15 min 62.5 mg/L
Valley 1 min 14min
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

% DOC removed
final adjusted pH
DOC (mg/L)
resultant pH
Colour (HU)
Alum mg/L
Target pH
Al (mg/L)
0 2.70 26 0.214 7.77 0.0% 0.630
70 6.84 1.430 6.91 0.115 7 0.096 4.83 37.8% 0.045
70 6.1 6.14 1.67 6.20 0.084 4 0.072 4.02 48.3% 0.036
60 6.1 6.17 1.95 6.20 0.080 4 0.077 4.21 45.8% 0.034
50 6.1 6.17 1.33 6.20 0.081 5 0.081 4.34 44.1% 0.033
70 5.5 5.68 1.98 5.70 0.131 3 0.064 3.72 52.1% 0.094
270 5.5 5.55 3.23 5.55 0.089 2 0.051 3.10 60.1% 0.091
270 6.1 6.16 2.82 6.18 0.086 3 0.056 3.39 56.4% <0.020
120
Appendix 3.1.2 (I) Happy Valley Jar Tests using alum as coagulant, 2001-2002
JAR TEST Water
RESULTS Source:
Happy 200rpm : 20rpm
Valley 18/09/02 1 min 14min 15 min 63.5 mg/L
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

% DOC Removed
final adjusted pH
(NTU):settled
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
Alum mg/L
Target pH
Al (mg/L)
Floc size
0 Turbidity
4.44 30 0.221 7.50 0.0% 0.342
70 3 0.958 0.065 7 0.096 4.74 36.8% 0.043
70 6.1 3 2.50 6.17 0.079 4 0.073 4.08 45.6% <0.020
60 6.1 3 2.29 6.16 0.097 4 0.075 4.15 44.6% 0.034
50 6.1 4 2.54 6.16 0.110 4 0.082 4.36 41.9% 0.041
70 5.5 4 5.10 5.40 1.100 3 0.065 3.59 52.2% 0.469
266 5.5 1 5.25 5.61 0.102 1 0.050 3.15 58.0% 0.044
266 6.1 1 3.77 6.20 0.080 2 0.056 3.42 54.4% <0.020
121
Appendix 3.1.2 (J) Happy Valley Jar tests using Ferric Chloride as coagulant, 2002
JAR
Water Flash
TEST Sampled: Date Temp: Flocculation: Settling: MPD
Source: mix:
RESULTS
Happy 200rpm 20rpm
19/7/2002 30/07/02 15 min 43.2
Valley 1 min 14min
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

Ferric chloride mg/L
Turbidity (NTU):
% DOC rem.
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
Target pH
Fe (mg/L)
Actual pH
final pH
settled
0 0 Size 2.37 31 0.237 8.52 0.00 0.136
20 5.5 5.69 3 3.65 5.68 0.150 5 0.083 4.66 45.3 0.142
30 5.5 5.67 4 2.16 5.65 0.080 5 0.061 3.85 54.9 0.091
40 5.5 5.64 5 2.27 5.61 0.066 3 0.051 3.49 59.0 0.097
50 5.5 5.63 6 1.84 5.58 0.063 5 0.047 3.19 62.6 0.135
60 5.5 5.60 6 2.30 5.57 0.061 6 0.043 2.93 65.6 0.168
-
CaCO3 CO3 Br Al
Raw (mg/L) 109 (mg/L) 132 S/cm 712 (mg/L) (mg/L) 0.293
122
Appendix 3.1.2 (K) Happy Valley Jar tests using Ferric Chloride as coagulant, 2002
JAR TEST Water
RESULTS Source:
Happy 200rpm
29/07/2002 6/08/2002 20rpm 14min 15 min 43.9
Valley 1 min
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

final adjusted pH
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Ferric chloride
% DOC rem.
DOC (mg/L)
resultant pH
Colour (HU)
target pH
Fe (mg/L)
( mg/L)
settled
Size
Filt.
0 5.2 8.00 26 0.229 8.55 0 0.293
20 5.5 5.70 2 3.0 5.68 0.200 5 0.082 4.58 46.4 0.174
40 5.5 5.65 3 1.9 5.64 0.066 2 0.051 3.38 60.5 0.091
50 5.5 5.60 4 2.0 5.61 0.074 1 0.046 3.11 63.6 0.086
60 5.5 5.76 5 1.7 5.84 0.069 2 0.052 3.45 59.6 0.05
70 5.5 5.56 6 1.4 5.58 0.066 2 0.038 2.76 67.7 <0.030
80 5.5 5.50 6 1.4 5.70 0.067 2 0.037 2.74 68.0 0.048

CaCO3 CO3 Br- Al
Raw (mg/L) (mg/L) 135 S/cm 752 (mg/L) 0.44 (mg/L) 0.273
123
Appendix 3.1.2 (L) Happy Valley Jar tests using Ferric Chloride as coagulant, 2002
JAR
TEST Water Source: Sampled: Date Temp: Flash mix: Flocculation: Settling: MPD
RESULTS
200rpm 41.6
Happy Valley 2/08/2002 20rpm 14min 15 min
1 min mg/L
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

final adjusted pH
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Ferric chloride
% DOC rem.
resultant pH
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
target pH
Fe (mg/L)
Filtered
Settled
(mg/L)
0 4.85 30 0.240 8.33 0 0.3495
10 5.5 5.86 6.02 5.89 3.140 25 0.204 6.73 19.2 2.28
20 5.5 5.86 3.90 5.87 0.183 6 0.089 4.89 41.3 0.088
30 5.5 5.82 2.49 5.81 0.099 4 0.066 4.05 51.3 0.061
40 5.5 5.77 1.47 5.80 0.083 3 0.056 3.82 54.1 0.066
50 5.5 5.77 1.15 5.77 0.084 3 0.049 3.27 60.7 0.085
60 5.5 5.72 1.19 5.72 0.090 2 0.045 3.15 62.2 0.032

-
Raw CaCO3 CO3 Br Al
Water (mg/L) 112 (mg/L) 137 S/cm 757 (mg/L) 0.47 (mg/L) 0.401
124
Appendix 3.1.2 (M) Happy Valley Jar tests using Ferric Chloride as coagulant, 2002
JAR TEST Water

RESULTS Source:
Happy Valley 9/08/2002 16/08/2002 200rpm 1 min 20rpm 14min 15 min 40.5
Turbidity (NTU): settled
Uvabs (/cm, 254 nm)

final adjusted pH
Ferric chloride
% DOC rem.
DOC (mg/L)
resultant pH
Colour (HU)
Fe (mg/L)
( mg/L)
Size
0 4.14 31 0.232 7.98 0 0.231
40.5 6.87 3 3.15 6.65 0.125 7 0.090 4.76 40.4 0.039
40.5 6.37 3 4.46 6.18 0.108 5 0.073 4.10 48.6 0.081
40.5 5.89 3 5.30 5.79 0.073 4 0.057 3.46 56.6 0.09
40.5 5.54 3 5.15 5.46 0.065 3 0.048 3.10 61.2 0.107
150 5.40 6 3.40 5.35 0.065 1 0.028 2.08 73.9 0.34
150 5.35 6 2.88 5.31 0.066 1 0.026 2.14 73.2 0.37
CO3- Al
- 0.275
Raw (mg/L) 134 S/cm 742 Br 0.48 (mg/L)
125
Appendix 3.1.3.1 (A) Happy Valley Reservoir Pilot Plant Studies

Clarifier A : October to December 2001
Happy Valley Clarifier A

3
2.5
Turbidity (NTU)
1.5
0.5
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1 /0 1 /0 1 /0 1 /0 1 /0
/1 /1 1 /1 4 /1 7 /1 0 /1 2/1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /1
15 18 2 2 2 3 5/ 8/ 11 / 14 / 17 / 20 / 23
Date
Appendix 3.1.3.1 (B) Happy Valley Reservoir Pilot Plant Studies


7
6.8
6.6
Coag. pH
6.4
6.2
Alum: 130 mg/L: 15th-22nd Oct
6
78 mg/L: 23rd Oct-Dec.
5.8
5.6
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
1
1
/0
/0
/0
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
11
11
11
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
5/
8/
2/
17
20
23
14
11
30
24
27
15
18
21
Date
126
Appendix 3.1.3.1 (C) Happy Valley Reservoir Pilot Plant Studies


0.14
0.12
UV 254nm abs
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
1 0
1
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
/0
/0
/0
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
1/
1/
1/
1/
1/
11
11
11
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
2/
5/
8/
15
18
21
24
27
30
11
14
17
20
23
Date
Appendix 3.1.3.1 (D) Happy Valley Reservoir Pilot Plant Studies


12.0
10.0
8.0
Colour (HU)
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
/0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0
/ 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 /11 /11 /11 / 11 / 11 / 11 / 11 / 11
15 18 21 24 27 30 2 5 8 11 14 17 20 23
Date
127
Appendix 3.1.3.1 (E) Happy Valley Reservoir Pilot Plant Studies


0.300
Res. aluminium (mg/L)
0.250 Alum: 78 mg/L:
0.200
0.150
0.100
0.050
0.000
4/ 1
6/ 1
8/ 1
10 / 01
25 /01
27 /01
29 /01
12 /01
20 /01
22 /01
01
31 /01
2/ 1
14 /01
16 /01
18 /01
/0
/0
/0
0
1/
0/
11
11
11
11
0
1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
23
Date
Appendix 3.1.3.1 (F) Happy Valley Reservoir Pilot Plant Studies

Clarifier B : October to December 2001
Happy Valley Clarifier B

140
Alum dosing (mg/L)
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
/0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0 /0
/ 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 / 10 /11 /11 /11 / 11 / 11 / 11 / 11
16 19 22 25 28 31 3 6 9 12 15 18 21
Date
128
Appendix 3.1.3.1 (G) Happy Valley Reservoir Pilot Plant Studies


5
4.5
4
Turbidity (NTU)
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
1
1
/0
/0
/0
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
1/
1/
1/
1/
11
11
11
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
3/
6/
9/
16
19
22
25
28
31
12
15
18
21
Date
Appendix 3.1.3.1 (H) Happy Valley Reservoir Pilot Plant Studies


6.8
6.6
6.4
Coag. pH
6.2
5.8
5.6
5.4
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 0 /0 1/0 1/0 1/0 1 /0 1 /0 1 /0 1 /0
/1 /1 /1 /1 /1 /1 1 1 1 /1 /1 /1 /1
16 19 22 25 28 31 3/ 6/ 9/ 12 15 18 21
Date
129
Appendix 3.1.3.1 (I) Happy Valley Reservoir Pilot Plant Studies


12.0
10.0
Colour (HU)
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
1
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
/0
/0
/0
1/
1/
1/
1/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
0/
11
11
11
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
9/
3/
6/
12
15
18
21
16
19
22
25
28
31
Date
Appendix 3.1.3.1 (J) Happy Valley Reservoir Pilot Plant Studies


0.700
0.600
Res. aluminium
0.500
0.400
0.300
0.200
0.100
0.000
25 /0 1
27 /0 1
29 /0 1
31 /0 1
2/ 1
12 /0 1
14 /0 1
16 /0 1
18 /0 1
20 /0 1
22 /0 1
01
4/ 1
6/ 1
8/ 1
10 /01
0
/0
/0
/0
0/
1/
0
11
11
11
11
1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
/1
23
Date
130
Appendix 3.1.3.2 (A) Data of Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials

February to May 2002, Clarifier A : Alum
Date No. x MPD x MPD pH pH Turbidity Turbidity
(NTU)
mean S.D. mean S.D. mean S.D.
19th Feb 2002 1 1.12 6.41 0.70
20th-28th Feb 2002 7 0.76 0.02 6.65 0.05 0.42 0.06
28th Feb 2002 1 0.76 6.69 0.42
4th-20th Mar 2002 7 0.80 0.01 6.61 0.05 0.38 0.06
6th Mar 2002 1 0.81 6.61 0.33
19th Mar-3rd Apr 2002 6 0.82 0.03 6.36 0.13 0.45 0.14
26th Mar 2002 1 0.84 6.31 0.70
3rd Apr 2002 1 0.85 6.15 0.35
4th Apr 2002 1 0.57 6.82 0.42
10th-17th Apr 2002 4 0.60 0.01 6.28 0.11 0.41 0.12
11th Apr 2002 1 0.61 6.13 0.30
17th Apr 2002 1 0.60 6.36 0.51
22nd Apr-3rd May 02 5 1.46 0.01 6.15 0.11 0.29 0.10
2nd May 2002 1 1.46 6.11 0.30
(cont.)
UV 254 UV 254 Colour Colour
Date No. nm nm DOC (HU) (HU) SS
mean %
red. % S.D. % red. mean SD mg/L
19th Feb 2002 1 75.4 4947
20th-28th Feb 2002 7 69.5 2.29 10.0 1.41
28th Feb 2002 1 68.1 40.5 10.0 1355
4th-20th Mar 2002 7 68.2 0.67 8.1 1.07
6th Mar 2002 1 67.8 48.0 7
19th Mar-3rd Apr 2002 6 71.4 1.17 5.8 1.33
26th Mar 2002 1 71.6 5 1163
3rd Apr 2002 1 70.8 54.5 4.0 1620
4th Apr 2002 1 58.3 12
10th-17th Apr 2002 4 67.8 2.35 6.0 2.16
11th Apr 2002 1 69.6 4 370
17th Apr 2002 1 64.6 44.1 6 2370
22nd Apr-3rd May 02 5 74.4 0.87 3.8 0.84
2nd May 2002 1 75.4 54.3 5 2718
131
Appendix 3.1.3.2 (B) Data of Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials:

February to May 2002, Clarifier B : Alum
Happy Valley Clarifier B: Feb-May 2002

1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
x MPD
1.05
1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
02 02 002 002 002 002 02 002 02 002 002 002 002 02 002
/20 /20 2 2 /2 /2 /20 /2 /20 2 /2 /2 /2 /20 2
2 2 3/ 3/ 3 3 3 3 3 4/ 4 4 4 4 4/
9/0 4/0 1 /0 6 /0 1/0 6/0 1/0 6/0 1/0 5 /0 0/0 5/0 0/0 5/0 0/0
1 2 1 1 2 2 3 1 1 2 2 3
Date
Appendix 3.1.3.2 (C) Data of Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials
Happy Valley Clarifier B: Feb-May 2002

85
83
81
79
% UV removal
77
75
73
71
69
67
65
2
2
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
/0
/0
/0
2/
2/
3/
3/
3/
4/
4/
4/
03
04
04
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
5/
2/
9/
19
26
12
19
26
16
23
30
Date
132
Appendix 3.1.3.2 (D) Data of Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials
Happy Valley Clarifier B, Feb-May 2002

7
6.75
6.5
Coag. pH
6.25
5.75
5.5
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
2
2
/0
/0
/0
2/
2/
3/
3/
3/
4/
4/
4/
03
04
04
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
5/
2/
9/
19
26
12
19
26
16
23
30
Date
Appendix 3.1.3.2 (E) Data of Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials

9
7
Colour (HU)
0
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
2
02
2
2
/0
/0
/0
2/
2/
3/
3/
3/
4/
4/
4/
03
04
04
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
5/
2/
9/
19
26
12
19
26
16
23
30
Date
133
Appendix 3.1.3.2 (F) Data of Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials

1.4
1.2
Turbidity (NTU)
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
02
2
2
2
/0
/0
/0
4/
4/
4/
3/
3/
3/
2/
2/
04
04
03
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
2/
9/
5/
30
16
23
12
19
26
19
26
Date
Appendix 3.1.3.2 (G) Concentrations of DOC (mg/L) and percentage removals with ferric chloride
treatment in Happy Valley pilot plant trials (July-August 2002)
Date Treatment Water sample DOC (mg/L) %DOC removal
9/08/2002 - Raw 7.93
100% MPD 41 mg/L, pH 6.7 4.34 45.3
1/07/2002 - Raw 8.63
100% MPD 45 mg/L, pH 6.1 3.94 54.3
10/07/2002 - Raw 8.48
100% MPD 43 mg/L pH 5.5 3.04 64.2
19/07/2002 - Raw 8.59
125% MPD 50 mg/L pH 5.5 2.91 66.1
29/07/2002 - Raw 8.47
150% MPD 60 mg/L, pH 5.5 2.98 64.8
2/08/2002 - Raw 8.27
75% MPD 31 mg/L, pH 5.5 3.64 56.0
18/08/2002 - Raw 8.12
50% MPD 21 mg/L, pH 5.5 3.67 54.8
134
Appendix 3.1.5.1 Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials: SDS data

Date 1/07/2002 1/07/2002 10/07/2002 29/07/2002 2/08/2002 9/08/2002 18/08/2002
Pilot Plant Stream A Stream B Stream A Stream A Stream A Stream A Stream A
Ferric Ferric Ferric Ferric Ferric Ferric
chloride Alum chloride chloride chloride chloride 41 chloride
45 mg/L 72 mg/L 43 mg/L 60 mg/L 31 mg/L mg/L pH 21 mg/L
Treatment conditions pH 6.1 pH 6.1 pH 5.5 pH 5.5 pH 5.5 6.7 pH 5.5
MPD 100% 100% 100% 150% 75% 100% 50%
Raw: DOC (mg/L) 8.63 8.63 8.48 8.47 8.27 7.93 7.69
Treated: DOC (mg/L) 3.94 4.39 3.04 2.98 3.64 4.34 3.67
72 hr chlorine
demand (mg/L) 3.8 3.9 2.8 2.5 3.0 4.6 2.9
Chloroform 16 24 7 5.1 8 26 9.1
Bromodichloromethane 46 43 22 23.8 25.3 60 30
Dibromochloromethane 63 41 33 46.3 34.6 70 43.4
Bromoform 24 10 11 24.1 12.4 21 18.6
Total THM / ug/L 149 118 73 99.3 80.3 177 101.1
135
Appendix 3.1.5.2 Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials: THMFP

Date 1/07/2002 1/07/2002 19/07/2002 29/07/2002 2/08/2002 9/08/2002
Pilot Plant Stream A Stream B Stream A Stream A Stream A Stream A
Ferric Ferric Ferric Ferric Ferric
chloride Alum chloride chloride chloride chloride
45 mg/L 72 mg/L 50 mg/L 60 mg/L 31 mg/L 41 mg/L
Treatment conditions pH 6.1 pH 6.1 pH 5.5 pH 5.5 pH 5.5 pH 6.7
MPD 100% 100% 125% 150% 75% 100%
Raw: DOC (mg/L) 8.63 8.63 8.59 8.47 8.27 7.93
Treated: DOC (mg/L) 3.94 4.39 2.91 2.98 3.64 4.34

Chloroform 28 32 5 14 22 34
Bromodichloromethane 45 50 17 30 39 52
Dibromochloromethane 28 42 17 28 32 45
Bromoform 7 7 12 5 5 7
THMFP (ug/L) 118 131 61 77 98 138
136
Appendix 3.1.6.2 (A) Comparison of predicted and actual sulphuric acid doses for pH control.
Happy Valley Pilot Plant trials: Alum: 28/03/2002 to 5/05/2002
Alum Dosing
8
6
Model predicted acid dose rat
2M H2 SO 4 [mL/min]
3
Mean % error: 7.9%
2
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Measured acid dose rate 2M H2 SO4 [mL/min]
137
Appendix 3.1.6.2 (B) Happy Valley Pilot Plant trials: Ferric chloride 21/06/2002 to 3/08/2002
Ferric Chloride Dosing

8
6
Model predicted acid dose rat
2M H2 SO 4 [mL/min]
2 Mean % error: 5.6 %
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Measured acid dose rate, 2M H2 SO4 [mL/min]
138
Appendix 3.2.3.1 Pilot Plant trials conducted at Middle River WTP, using alum
SDS 72hr Cl2

Alum % DOC Al Fe Mn THMFP CHCl3 CHBrCl2 CHBr2Cl CHBr3
%MPD pH DOC THM Demand
Dose removal (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L)
(g/L) (mg/L)
141 145 5.86 4.34 63 0.086 0.01 0.005
141 145 5.70 4.48 62
141 145 5.56 4.11 60 211 12 50 98 51 4.42
181 23 58 78 22
141 145 5.56 4.11 64 0.581 0.055 0.006
141 145 5.28 3.99 65 0.186 0.023 0.016
111 110 6.65 4.87 57 0.081 0.011 0.031
111 110 6.40 4.86 57 0.112 0.015 0.023 309 13 64 152 80 5.27
237 34 79 98 26
111 110 4.85 4.65 60 2.23 0.013 0.02
100 95 5.86 4.47 60 0.031 0.021 0.124
100 95 5.86 4.48 60 0.025 <0.005 0.029
99 95 6.19 4.45 61 0.057 <0.005 0.020
99 95 6.00 4.48 60 0.053 <0.005 0.022
99 95 6.00 4.41 61 0.136 <0.005 0.018
99 95 5.86 4.52 60 0.073 <0.005 0.006
99 95 5.67 4.47 60 0.025 <0.005 0.089
99 95 5.67 4.61 59 0.016 <0.005 0.084 154 4 28 69 53 4.54
212 25 68 92 27
99 95 5.67 4.44 61 0.071 <0.005 0.086
95 95 6.42 5.56 52 0.043 0.008 0.016
95 95 6.07 4.70 59 0.625 0.073 0.031
94 95 5.99 4.18 63 0.434 0.211 0.169
94 95 5.74 4.58 60 0.020 0.021 0.026
92 95 6.07 4.70 59 171 21 54 72 24 4.63
229 32 74 97 26
92 95 5.75 4.44 61 0.107 0.01 <0.005
73 72 6.32 5.38 54 0.012 <0.005 0.041
71 72 5.93 4.98 56 0.019 <0.005 0.026
71 72 5.34 4.23 61 0.424 0.006 0.022
71 72 4.95 4.36 61 2.71 0.015 0.036
139
Appendix 3.2.3.2 Pilot Plant trials conducted at Middle River WTP, using ferric chloride
Total 72hr Cl2
Ferric % DOC Al Fe Mn THMFP THM CHCl3 CHBrCl2 CHBr2Cl CHBr3 Demand
%MPD chloride pH DOC removal (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (mg/L)
128 71 5.70 3.76 65
128 71 5.63 4.04 62
128 71 5.49 3.68 66 <0.005 0.02 0.075 156 16 47 68 25
128 71 5.44 3.93 63
128 71 5.40 3.63 66
128 71 5.36 3.39 68
128 71 5.32 3.98 63
128 71 5.30 3.51 67
128 71 5.23 3.68 66
126 71 5.69 3.35 68
123 69 6.00 3.79 65
123 69 5.91 4.25 60 <0.005 0.01 0.094
123 69 5.89 3.99 63
123 69 5.89 4.21 61 194 21 59 84 30
123 69 5.88 4.03 62
123 69 5.82 4.29 60
123 69 5.66 3.70 65 <0.005 0.017 0.095
107 53 6.43 6.12 54
107 53 6.42 6.2 54
107 53 6.40 6.55 51 0.011 0.162 0.072
102 51 6.15 4.75 55 <0.005 <0.005 0.072 248
102 51 6.15 4.75 55 268 8 49 126 85 5.34
102 51 6.14 4.80 55
102 51 6.07 4.59 57
102 51 5.99 4.50 58
102 51 5.92 4.31 60
102 51 5.47 3.74 65
140
Appendix 3.2.3.2 (cont.) Pilot plant trials conducted at Middle River WTP, using ferric chloride
Total 72hr Cl2
Ferric % DOC Al Fe Mn THMFP THM CHCl3 CHBrCl2 CHBr2Cl CHBr3 Demand
%MPD chloride pH DOC removal (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (mg/L)
86 48 5.66 3.58 65
86 48 5.65 3.83 62
86 48 5.57 3.45 66
86 48 5.52 3.43 66 <0.005 <0.005 0.092 14 1 1 4 8 4.26
86 48 5.52 3.43 66 173 18 53 75 27
86 48 5.50 3.36 67
86 48 5.47 3.75 63
86 48 5.46 3.75 63
86 48 5.46 3.30 67
86 48 5.42 3.74 63
86 48 5.39 3.25 68
86 48 5.37 3.60 64
86 48 5.37 3.40 66
86 48 5.30 3.50 65
86 48 5.19 3.37 67
84 42 6.41 6.79 49
80 46 6.08 6.25 58
80 46 6.00 5.72 61 0.048 1.16 0.102
80 46 5.97 6.03 59
78 48 5.50 6.29 63
78 48 5.50 5.43 68
78 48 5.49 5.72 66
73 45 5.66 6.62 60 0.131 2.44 0.071
73 45 5.58 6.92 59
73 45 5.32 4.66 72
73 45 5.27 5.99 65
65 40 5.86 6.57 61
141
Appendix 3.2.3.3 Recorded settled turbidity data from pilot plant trials at Middle River WTP
Settled
turbidity
Coagulant %MPD pH (NTU)
Alum 73 6.32 5.6
Alum 73 6.32 5.6
Alum 94 5.99 2.3
Alum 95 6.07 1.3
Alum 99 5.67 11.2
Alum 141 5.56 0.79
Ferric 65 5.86 12.3
Ferric 73 5.32 5.0
Ferric 73 5.66 10.7
Ferric 73 3.60 3.9
Ferric 73 5.27 10.4
Ferric 78 5.50 0.36
Ferric 80 5.97 10.6
Ferric 80 6.00 9.9
Ferric 84 6.41 8.0
Ferric 107 6.40 5.9
Ferric 107 6.42 3.0
Ferric 107 6.43 3.6
Ferric 126 5.69 4.2
Appendix 3.2.3.4 Treatment conditions and DOC concentrations of Middle River samples used in SDS
tests
Date Source Coagulant ~MPD % Coag. pH DOC

5/02/2003 PP alum 150 5.5 4.42
5/02/2003 WTP alum 5.24
11/02/2003 PP alum 100 6 4.70
17/02/2003 PP alum 100 6.7 4.86
17/02/2003 PP alum 100 6.7 4.86
25/02/2003 PP alum 100 6.2 4.19
12/03/2003 PP alum 100 5.5 4.16
13/03/2003 WTP alum 4.93
28/05/2003 PP ferric chloride 100 5.5 3.34
4/06/2003 PP ferric chloride 100 6.0 4.75
142
Appendix 3.2.3.5
Middle River Pilot Plant Trials: THM production in SDS tests
180
160
Chloroform (g/L)
140 Bromodichloromethane (g/L)
Dibromochloromethane (g/L)
120 Bromoform (g/L)
THM (g/L)
100
80
60
40
20
0
3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5
DOC (mg/L)
143
Appendix 3.4.0.1 Source waters, quality and suitability checks to primary model application
Model
Extended
Model suitability MPD* #
Alum/ MPD %
Colour UV at DOC Specific suitability check: Alum
Date Source SUVA DOC Alum MPD*
(HU) 254 nm (mg/L) colour check: UV, UV, Dose
mg/mg Dose /MPD#
Colour Colour, (mg/L)
(mg/L)
DOC
23/9/2003 Mannum 3 0.041 5.3 0.769 0.563 Yes No 16 3.0 43 37.2
24/9/2003 Mannum 4 0.042 3.3 1.284 1.223 Yes No 16 4.9 27 59.3
26/9/2003 Mannum 5 0.046 - - - Yes - - - - -
29/9/2003 Mannum 5 0.052 - - - Yes - - - - -
30/9/2003 Mannum 5 0.052 - - - Yes - - - - -
2/10/2003 Mannum 5 0.056 4.8 1.167 1.042 Yes No 20 4.2 40 50.0
3/10/2003 Mannum 7 0.056 - - - Yes - - - - -
7/10/2003 Mannum 3 0.040 3.6 1.108 0.814 Yes No 15 4.2 29 51.7
8/10/2003 Mannum 7 0.057 4.8 1.190 1.378 Yes No 21 4.4 39 53.8
9/10/2003 Mannum 8 0.066 5.1 1.299 1.594 Yes Yes 24 4.7 41 58.5
10/10/2003 Mannum 7 0.056 4.0 1.411 1.662 Yes Yes 20 5.0 32 62.5
15/10/2003 Mannum 4 0.060 6.5 0.918 0.612 Yes No 22 3.4 55 40.0
16/10/2003 Mannum 11 0.082 7.0 1.165 1.563 Yes Yes 29 4.1 57 50.9
17/10/2003 Mannum 4 0.092 - - - No - - - - -
20/10/2003 Mannum 9 0.096 7.6 1.270 1.190 Yes No 33 4.4 64 51.6
22/10/2003 Mannum 11 0.133 4.9 2.711 2.242 Yes Yes 43 8.8 42 102.4
23/10/2003 Mannum 6 0.086 8.9 0.965 0.673 No No 30 3.4 78 38.5
27/10/2003 Mannum 6 0.093 8.1 1.145 0.739 No No 32 3.9 72 44.4
28/10/2003 Mannum 2 0.097 4.9 1.968 0.406 No No 33 6.7 45 73.3
30/10/2003 Mannum 6 0.087 9.5 0.917 0.632 No No 30 3.2 84 35.7
31/10/2003 Mannum 6 0.087 - - - No - - - - -
3/11/2003 Mannum 8 0.087 7.5 1.156 1.063 Yes No 30 4.0 63 47.6
13/11/2003 Mannum 6 0.085 9.0 0.947 0.668 No No 29 3.2 79 36.7
14/11/2003 Mannum 5 0.085 7.3 1.162 0.684 No No 29 4.0 66 43.9
8/1/2004 Mannum 5 0.061 5.7 1.070 0.789 Yes No 29 5.1 49 59.2
144
Appendix 3.4.0.1 (cont.) Source waters, quality and suitability checks to primary model application
Model
Extended
Model suitability MPD* #
Alum/ MPD %
Colour UV at DOC Specific suitability check: Alum
Date Source SUVA DOC Alum MPD*
(HU) 254 nm (mg/L) colour check: UV, UV, Dose
mg/mg Dose /MPD#
Colour Colour, (mg/L)
(mg/L)
DOC
9/1/2004 Mannum 12 0.105 5.6 1.868 2.046 Yes Yes 35 6.2 46 76.1
15/1/2004 Mannum 14 0.127 - - - Yes - - - - -
22/1/2004 Mannum 4 0.088 6.8 1.298 0.590 No No 30 4.4 62 48.4
23/1/2004 Mannum 3 0.092 10.5 0.878 0.315 No No 31 3.0 96 32.3
27/1/2004 Mannum 8 0.120 6.2 1.939 1.292 No No 39 6.3 55 70.9
5/2/2004 Mannum 4 0.083 5.3 1.559 0.751 No No 29 5.4 48 60.4
5/2/2004 Mannum 4 0.083 5.3 1.559 0.751 No No 29 5.4 48 60.4
6/2/2004 Mannum 4 0.083 4.9 1.705 0.822 No No 29 6.0 44 65.9
10/2/2004 Mannum 3 0.085 5.5 1.545 0.545 No No 29 5.3 50 58.0
12/2/2004 Mannum 1 0.075 4.7 1.587 0.212 No No 26 5.5 41 63.4
Means 1.341 0.959 4.7 54.8
17/2/2004 Mannum/Millbrook 17 0.181 7.4 2.459 2.255 Yes Yes 54 7.3 62 87.1
20/2/2004 Mannum/Millbrook 20 0.186 7.4 2.518 2.708 Yes Yes 55 7.4 61 90.2
15/4/2004 Millbrook 53 0.386 11.6 3.328 4.569 Yes Yes 88 7.6 94 93.6
Means 3.084 3.814 7.5 91.7
*MPD: model predicted dose determined for organics removal only, based on colour and UV at 254 nm
145
Appendix 3.4.0.2
Murray River water at Morgan, SA.
Model Extended
Model #
suitability MPD* Alum MPD %
DOC Specific suitability
Date colour UV abs SUVA check: UV, alum /DOC Alum MPD*
(mg/L) colour check: UV and
colour and mg/L mg/mg Dose /MPD#
colour
DOC (mg/L)
16/07/2003 3 0.055 3.5 1.571 0.857 yes yes 20 5.7 29 69.0
15/10/2003 21 0.134 4.7 2.851 4.468 yes yes 43 9.1 37 116.2
12/11/2003 26 0.149 5.9 2.525 4.407 yes yes 48 8.1 47 102.1
10/12/2003 21 0.187 5.4 3.463 3.889 yes yes 55 10.2 44 125.0
14/01/2004 17 0.128 5.2 2.462 3.269 yes yes 41 7.9 42 97.6
11/02/2004 8 0.112 4.0 2.800 2.000 no yes 37 9.3 35 105.7
10/03/2004 12 0.074 4.5 1.644 2.667 yes yes 26 5.8 32 81.3
14/04/2004 9 0.075 4.3 1.744 2.093 yes yes 26 6.0 35 74.3
11/05/2004 10 0.087 4.8 1.813 2.083 yes yes 30 6.3 39 76.9
Means 2.319 2.859 7.6 94.2
MPD*: model predicted dose determined for organics removal only, based on colour and UV at 254 nm.
MPD#: extended model for prediction of alum dose requiring DOC as input variable.
146
Raw Water Colour (HU). 23 Raw water DOC (mg/L)
23 /0
9/
/0 20
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
9/
20 7/ 0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
7/ 0 10 3
/2
10 3
Appendix 3.4.1 (B)

Appendix 3.4.1 (A)
/2 21 00
00 /1 3
21 3 0/
/1 20
0/
20 4/ 0
0 11 3
4/
11 3 /2
18 00
/2
00 /1 3
18 3 1/
/1 20
1/
20 2/ 0
2/ 0 12 3
/2
12 3 00
/2 16 3
16 00 /1
/1 3 2/
20
2/ 30 03
20 /1
30 03 2/
/1 20
2/ 13 03
13
20 /0
03 1/
/0 20
Date
147
1/ 27 04
20 /0
Date
27 04 1/
/0 20
1/ 10 04
20 /0
10 04 2/
/0 20
2/ 24 04
24
20 /0
04 2/
/0 20
0
Anstey Hill Pilot Plant Trials

2/ 9/
20 03 4
9/ 0 /2
03 4 23 00
/2
00 /0 4
23 4 3/
/0 20
3/ 6/ 0
20 04 4
6/ 0 /2
04 4 20 00
/2 /0 4
20 00 4/
/0 4 20
4/ 04
20
04
23 Raw Water Turbidity (NTU) Raw Water UV254nm abs.
/0 23
9/ /0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
03 9/
20
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
7/ 03
10 7/
/0 10
3
Appendix 3.4.1 (D)

Appendix 3.4.1 (C)
/2
21 21 00
/1
0/ /1 3
03 0/
20
4/ 4/ 03
11 11
/0
18 3 /2
00
18 3
/1 /1
1/ 1/
03 20
2/ 2/ 03
12 12
/0 /2
16 3 00
16 3
/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 20
30 30 03
/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 20
13 13 03
/0 /0
148
1/ 1/
04 20
Date
Date
27 27 04
/0 /0
1/ 1/
04 20
10 10 04
/0 /0
2/ 2/
04 20
24 24 04
/0 /0
2/

2/ 20
04
9/ 0
9/ 03 4
03 /2
/0
23 4 23 00
4
/0 /0
3/ 3/
20
04
6/ 0
6/ 04 4
04 /2
/0 00
20 4 20 4
/0 /0
4/
4/ 20
04 04
Appendix 3.4.1 (E)
Anstey Hill Pilot Plant Trials - Raw Water Alkalinity
80
Alk_S
Alkalinity as CaCO3 (mg/L)
70
Alk_M
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 04
2 00 200 2 00 2 00 200 2 00 2 00 200 20
/ / / / / / / / /
/0
8 10 /1
1
/0
1 03 /0
4
/0
6 08 /0
9
17 6/ 25 14 4/ 23 12 1/ 20
Date
149
Appendix 3.4.2.1 Anstey Hill: Summary of jar test data: alum

UV at 254 Turbidity
Date xMPD Target DOC (mg/L) % DOC nm % UV Turbidity (NTU) (NTU) Resultant pH Residual
from Model aluminium
sampled pH removal removal settled/raw filtered Pred. (mg/L)
24/09/2003 0 6 4.44 0.042 29 NA NDm
0.7 6 2.76 37.8 0.029 31 6.33 NDm 5.95 NDm
1 6 2.33 47.5 0.024 42.9 2.43 NDm 5.96 NDm
1.3 6 2.17 51.1 0.022 47.6 1.37 NDm 5.96 NDm
1.3 6.4 2.28 48.6 0.025 40.5 1.25 NDm 6.32 NDm
25/09/2003 0 6 4.44 0.055 31.1 NA

0.57 6 2.15 51.6 0.028 49.5 2.48 0.127 5.89 0.041
0.86 6 2.01 54.7 0.025 55.2 1.40 0.063 5.94 0.019
1.14 6 1.85 58.3 0.024 55.8 1.25 0.054 5.92 0.022
1.14 6.4 2.04 54.1 0.026 52.1 0.60 0.049 6.50 0.013
1.71 6 1.92 56.8 0.022 60.0 1.16 0.083 6.0 0.012
6/01/2004 0 5.35 0.085 93 NA 9.8

0.85 6 4.22 21.1 0.054 36.5 6.1 NDm 6.1 0.141
1 6 4.09 23.6 0.049 42.4 5.6 NDm 6.1 0.121
1.3 6 3.75 29.9 0.045 47.1 2.8 NDm 6.1 0.072
13/01/2004 0 5.89 0.109 95 10.4

0.82 6 4.06 31.1 0.054 50.5 9.3 0.165 5.95 0.138
1 6 3.96 32.8 0.049 55.0 11.1 0.215 5.95 0.163
1.5 6 3.54 39.9 0.044 59.6 5.9 0.154 5.93 0.098
NDm: not determined

NA: not applicable
150
Appendix 3.4.2.2 Anstey Hill: Summary of jar test data: ferric chloride
UV at 254 Turbidity
Date xMPD Target DOC (mg/L) % DOC nm % UV Turbidity (NTU) (NTU) Resultant pH
from Model
sampled pH removal removal settled/raw filtered Pred.
20/01/2004 0 5.46 0.101 89
Mean(n=5) 1 6 2.6 52.3 0.029 71.3 2.11 0.1 5.67
SD (n=5) 1 0.07 1.27 0.002 1.7 0.97 0.02 0.04
3/02/2004 0 5.5 6.78 0.087 66.9

0.72 5.5 2.82 58.4 0.029 66.7 8.4 0.103 5.58
1.0 5.5 2.55 62.4 0.024 72.4 7.2 0.070 5.57
1.5 5.5 2.34 65.5 0.021 75.9 5.0 0.048 5.48
5/02/2004 0 6.76 0.115 59.4

0.65 5.5 2.44 63.9 0.029 74.8 14.3 NDm 5.34
1 5.5 2.18 67.8 0.022 80.9 10.2 NDm 5.44
1.56 5.5 2.08 69.2 0.021 81.7 6.82 NDm 5.37
30/04/2004 0 11.47 0.363 3.0

0.42 5.5 7.26 36.7 0.213 41.3 11.7 0.685 5.67
1.00 5.5 4.14 63.9 0.076 79.1 1.42 0.215 5.71
1.44 5.5 3.52 69.3 0.060 83.5 1.28 0.6 5.7
0.42 6.0 7.92 30.6 7.82 1.880 6.08
1.00 6.0 4.96 56.7 0.110 69.7 0.71 1.120 6.07
1.44 6.0 4.46 61.1 0.092 74.7 0.72 1.440 6.07
0.42 7.0 8.78 23.4 7.16 0.421 6.88
1.00 7.0 6.94 39.5 0.160 55.9 1.06 0.130 6.89
1.44 7.0 6.23 45.7 0.139 61.7 0.71 0.117 6.92
NDm: Not Determined
151
Appendix 3.4.2.3 THMFP data of waters treated at Anstey Hill

Bromo
dichloro Dibromo
Water Chloroform methane chloromethane Bromoform
Date Source Sample % MPD Coagulant pH DOC THMFP (g/L) (g/L) (g/L) (g/L)
7/10/03 Murray Pilot Plant Settled 100 Al 5.8 2.17 152 30 49 57 16
10/10/03 Murray Pilot Plant Settled 100 Al 5.5 2.05 120 25 39 44 12
10/10/03 Murray WTP Filtered Al 2.07 138 27 44 53 14
6/02/04 Murray Pilot Plant Settled 100 Fe 5.5 2.25 122 46 45 28 3
16/04/04 Millbrook Pilot Plant Settled 145 Fe 5.5 3.34 97 17 37 36 7
152
Settled Water pH x MPD
23 23
/0 /0
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
9/
5
5.25
5.5
5.75
6
6.25
6.5
9/
03 03
30 30
/0 /0
9/ 9/
03 03
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (B)

Appendix 3.4.3.1 (A)
7/ 7/
10 10
/0 /0
3 14 3
14
/1 /1
0/ 0/
03 03
21 21
/1 /1
0/ 0/
03 03
28 28
/1 /1
0/ 0/
03 03
4/ 4/
11 11
/0 /0
11 3 11 3
/1 /1
1/ 1/
03 03
18 18
/1 /1
153
1/ 1/
03 03
Date
25 25
/1 /1
1/ 1/
03 Date 03
2/ 2/
12 12
/0 /0
3 3
9/ 9/
12 12
/0 /0
16 3 16 3
Anstey Hill Pilot Plant Trials-Alum

/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 03
23 23
/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 03
30 30
/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 03
6/ 6/
01 01
/0 /0
4 4
13 13
/0 /0
1/ 1/
04 04
Residual aluminium (mg/L)
Settled Water DOC (mg/L) 23
23 /0
/0 9/
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
03
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
9/
03 30
30 /0
/0 9/
03
9/
03 7/
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (D)

Appendix 3.4.3.1 (C)
7/ 10
10 /0
/0 3
3 14
14 /1
/1 0/
0/ 03
03 21
21 /1
/1 0/
0/ 03
03 28
28 /1
/1 0/
0/ 03
03
4/ 4/
11 11
/0 /0
3 11 3
11
/1 /1
1/ 1/
03 03
18 18
/1 /1
Date
1/
154
1/ 03
03
25 25
Date
/1 /1
1/ 1/
03 03
2/ 2/
(Residual Fe and Mn levels were all below the ADWG levels).

12 12
/0 /0
3 3
9/ 9/
12 12
/0 /0
16 3 16 3
/1 /1
2/

2/
03 03
23 23
/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 03
30 30
/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 03
6/ 6/
01 01
/0 /0
13 4 4
/0 13
/0
1/ 1/
04 04
Treated Water UV 254nm abs.
23
Treated Water Colour (HU)
23
/0 /0
9/
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
9/
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
03 03
30 30
/0 /0
9/ 9/
03 03
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (F)

Appendix 3.4.3.1 (E)
7/ 7/
10 10
/0 /0
14 3 14 3
/1 /1
0/ 0/
03 03
21 21
/1 /1
0/ 0/
03 03
28 28
/1 /1
0/ 0/
03 03
4/ 4/
11 11
/0 /0
11 3 11 3
/1 /1
1/ 1/
03 03
18 18
/1 /1
155
1/ 1/
03 03
25
Date
25
Date
/1 /1
1/ 1/
03 03
2/ 2/
12 12
/0 /0
3 3
9/ 9/
12 12
/0 /0
16 3 16 3

/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 03
23 23
/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 03
30 30
/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 03
6/ 6/
01 01
/0 /0
4 4
13 13
/0 /0
1/ 1/
04 04
Filtered (Whatman No. 1)
Turbidity (NTU) Settled Water Turbidity (NTU)
23 23
/0 /0
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
0.50
9/ 9/
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
03 03
30 30
/0 /0
9/ 9/
03
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (H)

03
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (G)
7/ 7/
10 10
/0 /0
14 3 14 3
/1 /1
0/ 0/
03 03
21 21
/1 /1
0/ 0/
03 03
28 28
/1 /1
0/ 0/
03 03
4/ 4/
11 11
/0 /0
11 3 11 3
/1 /1
1/ 1/
03 03
18 18
/1 /1
156
1/ 1/
03 03
25 25
/1 /1
1/ 1/
Date
03 Date 03
2/ 2/
12 12
/0 /0
3 3
9/ 9/
12 12
/0 /0
3 3

16 16
/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 03
23 23
/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 03
30 30
/1 /1
2/ 2/
03 03
6/ 6/
01 01
/0 /0
13 4 13 4
/0 /0
1/ 1/
04 04
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (I)
Anstey Hill Pilot Plant Trials- Alum
80
70
60
% removal of DOC
pH
50
<5.5
40 5.5-5.59
5.7-5.79
30
5.8-5.89
20 5.9-5.99
6.0-6.19
10
6.32-6.33
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
X MPD (alum)
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (J)
Anstey Hill WTP-Alum
80
70
60
% removal DOC
50
pH
40
6.1-6.19
30 6.0-6.09
5.47
20
5.77
10 6.23
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
X MPD (alum)
157
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (K)
Anstey Hill Pilot Plant Trials - Alum

180
coagulation pH 6-6.3
160
140
120
TSS mg/L
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
x MPD
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (L)
80
70
% UV 254 nm removal
60
50
40
30 pH 5.3-5.59
pH 5.71-5.83
20
pH 5.9-6.17
10 pH 6.33
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
x MPD
158
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (M)

0.3 pH 5.3-5.59
pH 5.71-5.83
0.25
pH 5.9-6.07
Filtered turbidity (NTU)
0.2 pH 6.1-6.17
pH 6.26-6.33
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
x MPD
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (N)
Anstey Hill Pilot Plant-Alum

16
14 pH 5.3-5.59
pH 5.71-5.83
Settled turbidity (NTU)
12
pH 5.9-6.07
10
pH 6.1-6.17
8 pH 6.26-6.33
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75
x MPD
159
Appendix 3.4.3.1 (O)
0.6
pH 5.3-5.59
Residual aluminium (mg/L)
0.5
pH 5.71-5.83
0.4 pH 5.9-6.07
pH 6.1-6.17
0.3 pH 6.26-6.33
0.2
0.1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
x MPD
Residual Fe: all under 0.01 mg/L

Residual Mn: all under 0.006 mg/L
160
Anstey Hill Pilot Plant Trials-Ferric Chloride

1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
x MPD
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
4
4
/0
/0
/0
/0
1/
1/
2/
2/
2/
3/
3/
3/
4/
4/
4/
02
03
04
04
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
5/
4/
1/
8/
22
29
12
19
26
11
18
25
15
22
29
Date
6.75
6.5
6.25
6
Settled Water pH
5.75
5.5
5.25
5
4.75
4.5
4.25
4
3.75
3.5
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
4
4
/0
/0
/0
/0
1/
1/
2/
2/
2/
3/
3/
3/
4/
4/
4/
02
03
04
04
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
5/
4/
1/
8/
22
29
12
19
26
11
18
25
15
22
29
Date
161
Treated Water Colour (HU) 22 Treated water DOC (mg/L)
22 /0
/0 1/
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
8.0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
1/ 04
04
29 29
/0 /0
1/ 1/
04 04
Appendix 3.4.3.2 (D)

5/ 5/
02 02
/0 /0
4 4
12 12
/0 /0
2/ 2/
04 04
19 19
/0 /0
2/ 2/
04 04
26 26
/0 /0
2/ 2/
04 04
4/ 4/
03 03
/0 /0
4 4
11 11
/0 /0
Date
3/
162
04 3/
04
18 18
/0 /0
Date
3/ 3/
04 04
25 25
/0 /0
3/ 3/
04
04
1/
04 1/
/0 04
4 /0
4
8/
04 8/
/0 04
4 Anstey Hill Pilot Plant Trials-Ferric Chloride /0

4
15
/0 15
4/
04 /0
4/
22 04
/0 22
4/ /0
04 4/
29 04
/0
4/ 29
04 /0
4/
04
Settled Water Turbidity (NTU) Treated water UV254nm abs.
22 22
/0 /0
1/
0.00
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1/ 04
04
29 29
/0 /0
1/ 1/
04 04
Appendix 3.4.3.2 (F)

Appendix 3.4.3.2 (E)
5/ 5/
02 02
/0 /0
4 4
12 12
/0 /0
2/ 2/
04 04
19 19
/0 /0
2/ 2/
04 04
26 26
/0 /0
2/ 2/
04 04
4/ 4/
03 03
/0
/0
4 4
11 11
/0 /0
3/
163
3/
Date
04 04
Date
18 18
/0 /0
3/ 3/
04 04
25 25
/0 /0
3/ 3/
04 04
1/ 1/
04 04
/0
/0
4 4
8/ 8/
04 04
/0
/0 4
4 Anstey Hill Pilot Plant Trials-Ferric Chloride 15

15 /0
/0 4/
4/ 04
04
22 22
/0 /0
4/ 4/
04 04
29 29
/0 /0
4/ 4/
04 04
Appendix 3.4.3.2 (G)

0.20
Filtered (Whatman No. 1)
0.16
Turbidity (NTU)
0.12
0.08
0.04
0.00
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
04
4
4
4
/0
/0
/0
/0
4/
2/
4/
4/
1/
1/
2/
2/
3/
3/
3/
04
02
03
04
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
/0
8/
5/
4/
1/
18
25
15
22
29
22
29
12
19
26
11
Date
Appendix 3.4.3.2 (H)
Anstey Hill FeCl3 Pilot Plant Trials- River Murray

(Mannum) Source Water
70
Murray / Millbrook mix.
60
% DOC removal
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.50 0.70 0.90 1.10 1.30
x MPD (coagulation pH range 3.6 to 6.4)
164
Appendix 3.4.3.2 (I)
Anstey Hill FeCl3 Pilot Plant Trials- Millbrook

Reservoir Source Water
80
70
60
% DOC removal
50
pH 5.37
40 pH 5.5-5.66
30 pH 5.82
20 pH 6.42
10
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
x MPD
Appendix 3.4.3.2 (J)
Anstey Hill FeCl3 Pilot Plant Trials- River Murray

(Mannum) Source Water
80.0
70.0
% UV 254 nm removal
60.0
Murray / Millbrook mix.
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 1.10 1.20 1.30
X MPD (coagulation pH range 3.6 to 6.4)
165
Appendix 3.4.3.2 (K)
Anstey Hill FeCl3 Pilot Plant Trials- Millbrook

Reservoir Source Water
90
80
% UV 254nm removal
70
60 pH 5.5 to 5.66
50 pH 5.82
40 6.42
30
20
10
0
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00
x MPD
Appendix 3.4.3.2 (L)
Anstey Hill FeCl3 Pilot Plant Trials

0.2
0.18
0.16
Filtered turbidity (NTU)
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
x MPD
166
Appendix 3.4.3.2 (M)
Anstey Hill FeCl3 Pilot Plant Trials
6
Settled turbidity (NTU)
0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
x MPD
Appendix 3.4.3.2 (N)
Anstey Hill FeCl 3 Pilot Plant Trials
0.12
Residual Concentration (mg/L)
0.1
0.08
Al
0.06
Fe
0.04 Mn
0.02
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
x MPD at pH 5.5-5.7
167
APPENDIX 3.4.3.3
Statistics of Anstey Hill Pilot Plant trials: alum
Y= % DOC removal; C= coagulation pH; D=raw water DOC; B=%MPD
5/10/2005 20:13
Multiple Regression on Data1:
Independent: Column(C) -> Column(B)
Dependent: Column(A)
Parameter Value Error t-Value Prob>|t|
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y-Intercept -5.22282 29.40248 -0.17763 0.86111
C 2.01606 5.2516 0.38389 0.33392
D 4.7758 0.74343 6.42402 0.0148
B 0.16932 0.05665 2.98908 <0.0001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-Square(COD) Adj. R-Square Root-MSE(SD)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.76649 0.72528 6.18456
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANOVA Table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degrees of Sum of Mean
Item Freedom Squares Square F Statistic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model 3 2134.30059 711.43353 18.60017
Error 17 650.22893 38.24876
Total 20 2784.52952
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prob>F
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<0.0001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
168
90
80
70
Modelled % DOC removal
60
50
40
30 R=0.8792
20
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
% DOC removal recorded
Anstey Hill Pilot Plant Data with alum treatment;

comparison of %DOC removal recorded with
multivariate model: Y=pH*2.016+RW DOC*4.776
+%MPD*0.1693 - 5.228
169
Appendix 3.4.3.4
Statistics of Anstey Hill Pilot Plant trials: Ferric Chloride
Y= % DOC removal; C = coagulation pH; D = raw water DOC; G = %MPD
5/10/2005 21:20
Multiple Regression on Data1:
Independent: Column(C) -> Column(G)

Dependent: Column(A)
Parameter Value Error t-Value Prob>|t|

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y-Intercept 56.24158 10.93495 5.14329 1.49324E-4
C -5.50428 1.76896 -3.11159 <0.0001
D 1.24194 0.35381 3.51024 <0.0001
G 0.22266 0.03914 5.68927 <0.0001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
R-Square(COD) Adj. R-Square Root-MSE(SD)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.80018 0.75737 4.37932
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANOVA Table:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Degrees of Sum of Mean
Item Freedom Squares Square F Statistic
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Model 3 1075.22417 358.40806 18.68804
Error 14 268.49861 19.17847
Total 17 1343.72278
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prob>F
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<0.0001
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
170
80
70
R=0.8928
Modelled % DOC removal
60
50
40
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
% DOC removal recorded
Anstey Hill Pilot Plant data with ferric chloride treatment;

comparison of % DOC removal recorded with multivate
modelled % DOC removal: Y= pH* -5.5043 + RW DOC*1.2419
+ %MPD*0.2223 - 56.24.
171

Bendora Reservoir
Date 14/4/2003 Sampling Point Ben810
Depth Conductance Dissolved pH Temp Turbidity
o
uS/cm Oxygen C NTU
mg/L
0.3 36 6.77 17.42 7.01
3 36 6.64 7.2 17.47 7.11
6 36 6.52 7.1 17.48 7.52
9 36 6.52 7.1 17.48 7.5
12 36 6.47 7.1 17.47 8.9
15 37 5.19 6.9 17.24 15
18 38 2.44 6.8 16.83 20.3
21 34 0.74 6.6 12.54 8.15
24 53 0.51 6.6 11.18 185
27 75 0.42 6.6 12.5 1133
28.5 79 0.38 6.6 12.85 1826
Bendora Reservoir Date 5/6/2003 Sampling point Ben810

Depth Turbidity UV Abs True DOC Temp Diss. Oxygen pH Conductance
NTU 254 nm /cm Pt-Co mg/L deg C mg/L uS/cm
0.3 3.6 0.08 22 <2 12 8 7 39
3 3.8 0.09 22 <2 12 8.1 7 38
6 3.3 0.09 21 <2 12 8.2 7 38
9 3.3 0.09 21 <2 12 8 7.1 38
12 3.2 0.09 21 <2 12 8 7.1 38
15 4.4 0.09 23 <2 12 8 7.1 38
18 8.4 0.11 26 <2 11.8 5.6 6.9 39
21 13 0.13 36 <2 11.6 2.7 6.8 43
24 17 0.15 49 <2 11.4 0.4 7 43
27 240 0.73 170 3 11.2 0.3 7.1 94
30 800 1.3 240 5 11.2 0.2 7.1 79
172

Bendora Reservoir
Date 17th June 2003 Sampling Point : Ben810
Depth (m) Turbidity (NTU) UV254 Colour (HU) DOC (mg/L) TOC (mg/L)
6 1.96 0.083 16 2.72
6 8.26 0.089 19 2.83
27 52.3 0.091 13 3.24
27 183 0.107 12 3.91
30 610 0.150 15 5.74 18.8
bottom 702 0.138 14 5.11
173

Water Source: 46 NTU Composite Bendora Raw Sampled: 23rd April 2003
Flash mix: 200 rpm 1 min; Flocculation: 20 rpm 14 min; Settling: 15 min
Volume of 5,000 ppm alum to pH5.5: 7.9 mL Model dose: 55 mg/L
Settling
Chemical Additives Floc. Time Unfiltered Filtered Physical & Chemical Properties
(min)
Sulphuric acid (0.1M) mL/L
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

NaOH (0.2M) mL/L
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Resultant pH
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
Alum mg/L
target pH
final pH
Initial
Final
Size
0 45.8 11 0.099 2.91
10 6.3 0.573 6.20 1 30.3 6.205 0.903 4 0.043 2.19
20 6.3 0.181 6.20 4 5 10 11.2 6.212 0.076 1 0.029 1.78
30 6.3 0.210 6.20 3 10 15 16.4 6.244 0.062 0
40 6.3 0.602 6.20 3 10 15 17.7 6.178 0.064 0
50 6.3 0.994 6.17 3 10 15 16.3 6.144 0.067 0
60 6.3 1.386 6.16 3 10 15 14.6 6.186 0.086 1
174

Water Source: 282 NTU Composite Bendora Raw Sampled: 23rd April 2003
Settling
(min)
NaOH (0.2M) mL/L
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
UVabs (/cm,
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
Alum mg/L
target pH
Final pH
254 nm)
Initial
Final
Size
0 282 13 0.107 3.97
50 6.2 0.607 3 18 24 38.7 5.952 0.174 1
75 6.2 1.586 3 18 24 37.8 5.977 0.101 0
110 6.2 2.958 3 18 24 21.3 5.966 0.153 1
120 6.2 3.35 4 18 24 16.1 5.976 0.150 1
130 6.2 3.742 4 18 24 11.9 5.971 0.130 1
140 6.2 4.133 4 18 24 7.91 5.943 0.104 1
150 6.2 4.525 4 18 24 7.60 5.898 0.104 2
170 6.2 5.309 4 18 24 4.91 5.935 0.113 1
175

Water Source: 603 NTU Composite Bendora Raw (29meter depth) Sampled: 23rd April 2003
Settling
(min)
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

NaOH (0.2M) mL/L
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
Colour (HU)
Alum mg/L
target pH
final pH
Initial
Size
0 603 311 17 0.150
100 6.2 2.566 3 18 24.9 5.949 0.128 3
150 6.2 4.525 3 18 15.0 5.990 0.148 2
200 6.2 6.484 3 18 8.50 5.979 0.101 2
250 6.2 8.444 3 18 5.42 5.971 0.084 2
300 6.2 10.403 3 18 7.09 5.814 0.075 2
350 6.2 12.362 3 18 4.66 6.074 0.098 1
176
Appendix 3.6.4.3
Water Source: Bendora Reservoir Sampled: 23rd April 2003
Flash mix: 200rpm 1 min; Flocculation: 20rpm 14min; Settling: 15 min
Settling Time Physical & Chemical
Chemical Additives Floc. Unfiltered Filtered
(min) Properties
Treated water turbidity
Turbidity Model) used
Formation Time (sec)
UVabs (/cm, 254 nm)

Alum mg/L (Bendora
Initial (minutes from

Alum mg/L (mEnCo
Raw water turbidity
NaOH (0.2M) mL/L

model): not used
Turbidity (NTU)
Turbidity (NTU)
start of jar test)
resultant pH
DOC (mg/L)
Colour (HU)
%DOC red.
Target pH
final pH
target
Final
Size
45.8 0 45.8 11 0.099 2.91
44.8 10 30 58 7.0 1.011 7.10 60 3 18 20 3.70 7.051 0.130 2 0.039 2.53 13.1
99.7 10 61 7.0 2.226 7.06 60 3 18 20 2.23 6.979 0.150 1 0.035 2.57
143 0 143 10 0.092 3.50
143 10 81 101 7.0 3.009 7.07 60 3 18 20 2.05 6.962 0.120 1 0.038 2.86 18.3
245 10 118 7.0 4.459 7.00 60 3 18 20 1.73 6.938 0.100 1 0.040 3.04
311 10 137 7.0 5.204 6.92 60 3 18 20 2.08 6.820 0.110 1 0.038 2.87
603 0 603 311 17 0.150 5.39
603 10 190 309 7.0 7.164 6.85 60 3 18 20 2.36 6.779 0.130 2 0.049 3.11 42.3
177
The Cooperative Research
Centre for Water Quality and
Treatment is an unincorporated
joint venture between:
ACTEW Corporation
Australian Water Quality Centre
Water Quality
CRC for Water Quality and
Australian Water Services Pty Ltd
Brisbane City Council
Centre for Appropriate
and Health Risks
Treatment
Private Mail Bag 3
Technology Inc
City West Water Limited from Urban
Rainwater Tanks
Salisbury SOUTH AUSTRALIA 5108 CSIRO
Tel: (08) 8259 0351 Curtin University of Technology
Fax: (08) 8259 0228
Department of Human Services
Victoria
Web: www.waterquality.crc.org.au
Griffith University
Melbourne Water Corporation
Research Report 42
Monash University
Orica Australia Pty Ltd
Power and Water Corporation
Queensland Health Pathology &
Scientific Services
RMIT University
South Australian
Water Corporation
South East Water Ltd
Sydney Catchment Authority
Sydney Water Corporation
The University of Adelaide
The University of
New South Wales
The Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Water Quality
42
and Treatment is Australias national drinking water research The University of Queensland
centre. An unincorporated joint venture between 29 different United Water International Pty Ltd
organisations from the Australian water industry, major
universities, CSIRO, and local and state governments, the CRC University of South Australia
Research Report
combines expertise in water quality and public health. University of Technology, Sydney
The CRC for Water Quality and Treatment is established Water Corporation
and supported under the Federal Governments Cooperative Water Services Association
Research Centres Program.
of Australia
Yarra Valley Water Ltd

Report36 Modelling Coagulation

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Report36 Modelling Coagulation

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Cooperative Research

Centre for Water Quality and

Chemical Dose Prediction

Robert Daly, John van Leeuwen and Mike Holmes

CRC for Water Quality and Treatment 2007

Cooperative Research Centre for Water Quality and Treatment

Telephone: +61 8 8259 0351

Project Leader: John van Leeuwen

Research Nodes: Australian Water Quality Centre,

(1) ferric chloride dose prediction for enhanced coagulation,

(2) dose prediction where a percentage of coagulable DOC removal is selected,

(4) where a water is determined to be unsuitable [potentially influenced by wastewaters, high

3.2.1 Raw water quality.................................................................................................................. 44

1.1 SIGNIFICANCE OF NOM IN DRINKING WATER

1.2 METHODS FOR DETERMINATION OF COAGULANT DOSES IN

Models used to predict doses for enhanced coagulation

2. standardisation of model dose predictions to a selected definition of maximising (or near-

4. dose prediction for selected % coagulable DOC removal

2 MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 STUDY LOCATIONS AND SAMPLE COLLECTIONS

Anstey Hill WTP/Millbrook Reservoir (South Australia)

Barossa WTP (South Australia)

Bendora Dam (Canberra)

Googong WTP/Dam (Canberra/NSW)

Middle River WTP/Reservoir (Kangaroo Island, South Australia)

Rocky River (Kangaroo Island, South Australia)

Torrens River (South Australia)

Wanneroo WTP (Western Australia)

Location Polyelectrolyte Supplier Type

Happy Valley Magnafloc LT-22 Ciba High MW cationic polyacrylamide

Middle River CP-406 PWG Rheochem High MW cationic polyacrylamide

Googong Magnafloc LT-22 Ciba High MW cationic polyacrylamide

Anstey Hill Magnafloc LT-22 Ciba High MW cationic polyacrylamide

2.3 ANALYTICAL PROCEDURES

2.3.3 True Colour

2.3.6 Alkalinity and Buffering Capacity

2.3.7 Dissolved Organic Carbon

2.3.8 Jar Test

2.3.9 Trihalomethane Formation Potential

2.3.10 Simulated Distribution System test and 72 hour Chlorine Decay

2.3.11 Residual Metals

2.4 PILOT PLANT

Figure 2.1 Schematic of pilot plants used in this study

2.4.2 Happy Valley WTP

2.4.3 Middle River WTP and Anstey Hill WTP

2.5 CURVE FITTING AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

Absolute error = absolute value of measured-predicted

Mean absolute error = mean of absolute value of measured - predicted

Determination of maximum coagulable DOC removal

2.6 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF MODEL AND SOFTWARE:

2.6.1.1 Near-maximum DOC removal

2.6.1.2 Percentage Coagulable DOC removal

2.6.1.3 Model suitability check

2.6.1.4 Extended coagulant dose prediction model

2.6.1.5 Prediction of DOC removal based on UV @ 254 nm, colour and

2.6.2 Models for pH control reagent and target pH prediction

(ii) Model based on carbonate chemistry (Najm, 2001).

3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 HAPPY VALLEY WTP TRIALS

3.1.1 Raw water quality

3.1.2 Jar Test

MDR-CF, maximum DOC removal from curve fit

3.1.3 Pilot Plant

3.1.3.1 Happy Valley Pilot Plant Trials using alum: 15 October -