features · 2016-10-03 · in the next issue . . . commercial & industrial applications issn...

in the next issue . . .Commercial & Industrial Applications

ISSN 1528-2017VOLUME 11/NO. 2 JUNE 2009

FEATURES

IUVANEWS

ARTICLESA Geonomic Model forPredicting the UltravioletSusceptibility of Viruses

JJooiinn uuss

aatt tthhee 55tthh UUVV

WWoorrlldd CCoonnggrreessss

iinn AAmmsstteerrddaamm

Disinfection Alternatives andSustainability: EnergyOptimization, DisinfectionEfficiency, and Sustainability

http://www.calgoncarbon.com/uv

JUNE 2009 | 3

CONTENTS INDEX OFADVERTISERS

UV Industry News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

New IUVA Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

News From IUVA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Hot UV News . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

ARTICLES

A Geonomic Model for Predicting theUltraviolet Susceptibility of Viruses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Wladyslaw J. Kowalski, William P. Bahnfleth, Mark T. Hernandez

Disinfection Alternatives and Sustainability:Energy Optimization, Disinfection Efficiency,and Sustainability...........................................................................................................29Gary Hunter, Andy Shaw, Dr. Leonard W. Casson, and Dr. Joe Marriott

EDITORIAL BOARDJames P. Malley, Jr., Ph.D., Univ. of New Hampshire

Keith E. Carns, Ph.D., P.E., EPRI, CEC

Christine Cotton, P.E., Malcolm Pirnie

Thomas Hargy, P.E., Clancy Environmental Consultants

Marc LeChevallier, American Water

Karl G. Linden, Ph.D., University of Colorado at Boulder

Sam Jeyanayagam, P.E., Ph.D., DEE, Malcolm Pirnie

Bruce A. Macler, Ph.D., U.S. EPA

Rip Rice, Ph.D., Rice International Consulting Enterprises

G. Elliott Whitby, Ph.D., Calgon Carbon Corporation

Harold Wright, Carollo Engineers

Printed by RR Donnelley

Editor in Chief:Mr. Paul OverbeckIUVA News (print version) (ISSN 1528-2017) ispublished quarterly by the International UltravioletAssociation, Inc. (IUVA) An electronic version isprovided free to all IUVA Members.

Editorial Office:International Ultraviolet AssociationPO Box 28154, Scottsdale, AZ 85255Tel: (480) 544-0105 Fax: (480) 473-9068www.iuva.org

For IUVA membership information, go tothe IUVA Web Site (www.iuva.org)or contact Paul Overbeck (see below)

For advertising in IUVA News,contact Diana Schoenberg ([email protected])Tel: (480) 544-0105

For other IUVA matters, contact:Paul Overbeck, Executive Director([email protected]) or Diana Schoenberg ([email protected])

American Air and Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Calgon Carbon Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . .IFC

Carollo Engineers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .37

Eta plus electronic gmbh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Gap EnviroMicrobial Services . . . . . . . . . . .25

Heraeus Noblelight GmbH . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

HF Scientific . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

ITT Wedeco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Light-Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

LIT Europe b.v. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Malcolm Pirnie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Philips Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OBC

Real Tech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Trojan Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IBC

Cover PhotoDam Square and NH Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam,The Netherlands, 5th UV World Congress

4 | IUVA News / Vol. 11 No. 2

The second quarter of 2009 has beenfilled with industry events that bearwitness to the strong global interestin UV Technology.

The North American Conference onUltraviolet and Ozone Technologiesheld in Cambridge, Massachusettshad 322 attendees from 10countries. The strong technical

program developed under Karl Linden and MohamedGamal El-Din delivered 81 papers and 7 posters.

Attendees had the opportunity to discuss the latest inequipment, instrumentation and controls with 27exhibiting companies. Many took part in the optional pre-conference UV Technology Workshop organized by DennisGreene of AECOM as well as tours of the Brockton, MAadvanced wastewater and Pawtucket, RI drinking watertreatment plants. We appreciate the support we receivedfrom all of our sponsors, including conference primarysponsor ITT Water and Wastewater and the manyvolunteers from local host, the Massachusetts WaterResources Authority.

UV Technology was strongly represented during AWWAACE in San Diego. Paul Swaim (CH2M Hill) organized aSunday Workshop on UV and Ozone Advanced OxidationProcesses. Details on the program and speakers are foundin the “NEWS from IUVA” section. Our booth had goodtraffic and a number of interesting technical questions,with many answered by Jim Malley and Joop Kruithof whovolunteered some of their time during the week. Diana andI appreciated it very much!

The day after AWWA ended, I was off to Singapore andSingapore International Water Week (SIWW). In its secondyear, SIWW appears to be on its way to being a majorenvironmental and water-wastewater-reuse conferenceand exhibition event for this rapidly developing region.Rongjing Xie of the Singapore Public Utility Board (PUB)organized a UV Workshop prior to the opening of theexhibition (“NEWS from IUVA” section). Our thanks toRongjing and Harry Seah of PUB for their sponsorship,support and high energy!

IUVA members were also active in the main program withRick Sakaji (EBMUD) invited to speak on UV use inmunicipal applications and Jim Malley, ever the IUVAsupporter, chairing 2 technical sessions.

Singapore PUB is an excellent example of an agency andutility, committed to protection of public health and theenvironment taking on a leadership role through its researchin advanced technologies, adoption of best availablepractices and transfer of information to benefit others. Wateris a limited resource on this island nation due to limitedcatchment area. Therefore, PUB has invested in waterreclamation and reuse featuring UV as a critical process stepunder its “NEWater” program (www.pub.gov.sg/NEWater)and is in the process of adding UV to its Johor River WaterTreatment Works and Indianapolis' White River Facilities fortreatment of more than 350 million gallons of drinking waterper day.

Market interest and member activity leads me to believethat the 5th UV World Congress this September inAmsterdam will be an exciting and rewarding event.Regina Sommer, Technical Program Chair and her technicalcommittee team of Joop Kruithof, Jim Malley and AndreasKolch have put together a strong technical program.Additionally, Andreas organized a UV Regulatory Workshopwhile Joop has put together a unique technical tour optionfor Wednesday following the Congress.

Details can be found at www.iuva.org/worldcongress2009.See you there!

- Paul

EDITORIALPaul OverbeckEditor-in-Chief

Paul Overbeck

...manning the booth at AWWA’s ACEJim Malley, Diana Schoenberg, Joop Kriuthof

JUNE 2009 | 5

UVINDUSTRYNEWS

The following are some of the more interesting itemsfrom the IUVA Member Announcements:

Trojan Technologies, a Canadian developer andproponent of large-scale ultraviolet (UV) waterdisinfection systems used worldwide, has been namedthe winner of the 2009 Stockholm Industry WaterAward.

www.trojanuv.com

"Trojan's success has contributed to a viable competitive industryin the area of ultraviolet technologies, leading to thedevelopment of a full range of industrial technologies in bothspecialised and general applications," noted the StockholmIndustry Water Award nominating committee in its citation."Their work with other members of the UV industry has advancedworld-wide regulatory acceptance, overcome many limitations ofexisting technologies, and provided a new means of protectingpublic health and developing new sources of water supply."

Executives from Trojan Technologies will formally receive theStockholm Industry Water Award at a ceremony during WorldWater Week in Stockholm this coming August.

In its citation, the Stockholm Industry Water Award nominatingcommittee highlighted several recent installations of Trojansystems that illustrate the potential of UV treatment forwastewater re-use applications. The most notable of these arelarge-scale projects in Orange County, California and South EastQueensland, Australia.

New Book on UV in Air and Surface Treatment to bereleased soon.

www.ImmuneBuildingSystems.comDr. Wladyslaw (Wally) Kowalski and Springer Publishingannounced the pending release of an Ultraviolet GermicidalHandbook: UVGI in Air and Surface Disinfection. The book willfeature 20 chapters and 7 appendices including UV RateConstants for Bacteria, Virus and Fungi, UV lamp database, UVlamp modeling source code, UV material reflectivities and URVTables.

Details on the book and table of contents will be sent to IUVAmembers shortly.

Nedap Light Controls introduces New Lamp Driver

www.nedaplightcontrols.com

Nedap introduced its new Electronic Lamp Driver for LP Lamps240-800W at the North American Conference on Ultraviolet andOzone Technologies in Boston. Nedap Light Controls designs andmanufactures high-quality, easy-to-use, energy saving intelligentelectronic ballasts, ranging from 15W to 48kW, used to controlUV light for various curing and disinfection applications.

UV disinfection system receives UVDGM validation

www.aquionics.com

Aquionics announced that its InLine+ series of UV waterdisinfection systems are now fully validated in accordance withthe USEPA UV Disinfection Guidance Manual (UVDGM). Thevalidation certifies the use of the systems for the Long Term 2Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR) releasedby EPA in November 2006.

The testing was conducted by Carollo Engineers at its Portland,OR validation facility and covered a three-dimensional matrixof UV transmittance, flow and reduction equivalent dose, usingboth T1 and MS-2 phage test surrogates. Dose deliveryequations were derived for all reactors that predict T1 and MS-2 RED as a function of flow, UV-T, UV sensor readings, andmicrobe UV sensitivity.

New UVC Kit Delivers germicidal UVC to fan coils, unitventilators and indoor air handlers

www.steril-aire.com

A new UVC Kit for Air Handlers from Steril-Aire, Inc. may beused in a wide range of HVAC applications to destroymicroorganisms including flu viruses, bacteria and mold. Theeasy-to-install kit delivers Steril-Aire's proven UVC technologyto fan coil units, unit ventilator systems and indoor air handlerswith coils up to 84" (213.4 cm) with dual access.

Applications include air handlers serving patient rooms,classrooms, hotel/motel rooms, apartments andcondominiums, and offices in commercial buildings andindustrial plants. It kills or inactivates airborne microbialcontaminants to greatly reduce the spread of infectiousdiseases and eliminate the major source of allergy and asthmadiscomfort.

CALGON CARBON AWARDED SAN FRANCISCO UV CONTRACT

www.calgoncarbon.com

Calgon Carbon Corporation was been awarded a contract byPCL Civil Constructors, Inc. to supply Sentinel® UV DisinfectionSystems (UV systems) at the City of San Francisco's Tesla Portaldrinking water plant. The contract for treating up to 320million gallons of drinking water per day is valued at $5.0million.

San Francisco's commitment is to provide safe drinking waterto its customers and to comply with federal regulations for thecontrol of Cryptosporidium, Giardia, and other waterborneorganisms. Installation is scheduled to begin in early 2010.

Continued on page 7


The International Ultraviolet Association takes great pleasure in welcoming these new members… thank you forjoining us in the first half of 2009!

NEW IUVA MEMBERSAustraliaGeoffrey Puzon CSIROWembley, Australia

CanadaJules CarlsonTrent UniversityPeterborough, ON

Saad JasimWalkerton Clean Water CentreWalkerton, ON

Patrick NiquetteDessauMontreal, QC

ChinaTae Young ChoiITT Water & Wastewater Asia PacificHong Kong SAR

Robin WongITT Water & Wastewater Asia PacificHong Kong SAR

DenmarkPovl KaasScan Research A/SVorgod, Denmark

GermanyChristian BokermanITT - Water & WastewaterHerford, Germany

Arne DieringAlldos Eichler GmbhHerford, Germany

IsraelDanny TaraganAtlantium Technologies Ltd.Bet Shemesh, Israel

ItalyBiagio GennusoPero, Italy

JapanKumiko YasuiTokyo, Japan

New ZealandSteve C. WarneDavey Water ProductsAuckland, New Zealand

NorwayVidar LundNorwegian Institue of Public HealthOslo, Norway

SingaporeBeryl BeulahKeppel Seghers Engineering

Tzyy Haur ChongSingapore Membrane TechnologyCentre

Lee Zhang ErPUB – WSP

Bee Keen GanInstitute of MaterialsResearch & Engineering

Dhimant HiralalPUB – WRP

Seak-Lai Chun HoiPUB – P&P

Lim Mong HooPUB – WSP

Teik Thye LimNanyang University

Mohammad NorhishamPUB – WSP

Thomas PangPUB – WSP

Vera Liany PuspitasariSingapore MembraneTechnology Centre

Lim Ngin SeePUB – TWQO

Ang Wui SengPUB – WSP

Sia Chin SengPUB – WSP

Feng ShanSembcorp Industries Ltd – SUT

Stanilaus Raditya SumarnoNanyang Technical University

Quan WangKeppel Seghers Engineering

Eric WooFiltration and Control Sysems (S) PTE LTD

Shijie Jackson YeSembcorp Industries Ltd – SUT

Hao ZhangSembcorp Industries Ltd - SUT

Yangpeng ZhangSembcorp Industries Ltd – SUT

SwitzerlandThomas EgliEawagDuebendorf, Switzerland

The NetherlandsWim BrugginkPhilips CLDratchen, The Netherlands

United KingdomKeith WatsonHanovia Ltd.Slough, United Kingdom

United States of AmericaKeith AbercrombieValencia Water CompanyValencia, CA

Phil AckmanLos Angeles County Sanitaiton Dept.Whittier, CA

Michael BahorichCalgon Carbon CorpAllison Park, PA

Katherine BellCDMBrentwood, TN

Jim BishopMetropolitan Water Districtof Southern CaliforniaGlendora, CA

Marina BronsteinRMC Water and EnvironmentSan Jose, CA

Rajen BudhiaWest Basin MWDCarson, CA

Hao BuiSouthern California EdisonSanta Ana, CA

Arturo BurbanoMWHArcadia, CA

Joe CannavinoDEL OzoneSan Luis Obispo, CA

Bud ChristiancyAnaheim Public UtilitiesAnaheim, CA

JUNE 2009 | 7

UVINDUSTRYNEWS

New CFdesign UVCalc Module Available to DesignEngineers: www.cfdesign.com

Blue Ridge Numerics and Bolton Photosciences announcedthe availability of the new CFdesign UVCalc Module, anindustry-first Upfront CFD solution for simulating andvalidating ultraviolet (UV) reactor performance to ensureaccurate fluence rates (irradiances) for UV light disinfection.With the new partnership of Blue Ridge Numerics, Inc. andBolton Photosciences, Inc., design engineers developing UVapplications for drinking water disinfection, wastewatertreatment, and manufacturing processes for the food andbeverage, medical device, pharmaceutical, andsemiconductors industries (among others), can now easilyleverage fluid flow and UV calculation capabilities to speed upand optimize their product development process.

UVCalc, developed by Dr. James Bolton, is a software programthat allows an engineer to map out the fluence rate orirradiance distribution in a UV reactor. The combination ofCFdesign and UVCalc together in the CFdesign UVCalcModule allows engineers to simulate the UV fluence rate incombination with the flow field, to ultimately predict thefluence or UV dose delivered.

Predicting the UV dose is vital, but even more important isstudying and understanding the sensitivity of a reactor designwith respect to changing conditions, such as pipingconnections, water transmittance, and flow rate.

The ability to validate UV reactor performance forbiodosimetry testing, while still on the digital drawing board,is the focus of CFdesign and the UVCalc Module. Explorationof multiple design scenarios before building prototypes forphysical testing equates to significant cost and time savings.

Continued from page 5

James CooperUltraviolet Sciences, Inc.San Diego, CA

Josefin EdebackHazen and Sawyer, P.C.Tampa, FL

Rick EisminThe Coombs-Hopkins CompanyCarlsbad, CA

Tom HawkinsPuralyticsAloha, OR

Mark HeathCarollo EngineersPortland, OR

John HindsLos Angeles Dept. of Water and PowerLos Angeles, CA

Mike JouhariAnaheim Public UtilitiesAnaheim, CA

James KimCDMWalnut Creek, CA

Mike KirklandDEL OzoneSan Luis Obispo, CA

Russell KrinkerSouthern California EdisonVictorville, CA

Owen LuMetropolitan Water DistrictLa Verne, CA

Kelly MayhewMorgantown, WV

Elinor MidlikCarol Stream, IL

Daniel MoranVeolia Water North AmericaIndianapolis, IN

Naoko MunakataLA County Sanitation DistrictsMonrovia, CA

Joseph MurroDouble Star Ultraviolet SystemsBridgewater, NJ

Ron PortITT - Water & WastewaterCharlotte, NC

Casey QuinnCity of Signal HillSignal Hill, CA

Elisa ReynoldsLos Angeles Dept. of Water and PowerLos Angeles, CA

Gerald Rhoads Metropolitan Water DistrictLa Verne, CA

John RichardsCaralightCary, NC

Stacey RobertsGolden State Water Co.San Dimas, CA

Patrick RymerPerkin ElmerFremont, CA

Marc SernaWest Basin MWDCarson, CA

Stephen ShermanCovina Irrigating CompanyCovina, CA

Brian TanLos Angeles Dept. of Water and PowerLos Angeles, CA

Jim TannerSiemensZionsville, IN

Mark VanMeeverenCity of Signal HillSignal Hill, CA

Chandrashekar VenkataramanBlack & VeatchCharlotte, NC

Sunny WangBlack & VeatchLos Angeles, CA

Jason WenCity of Downey Downey, CA

Ed WilliamsCF DesignCharlottesville, VA

Matthew ZwartjesUniversity of California - Irvine Sherman Oaks, CA


NEWS FROM IUVABOSTON CONFERENCE – A LOOK BACK IN PHOTOS

Familiar faces at the Registration Desk UV Tour – Pawtucket, RI

http://www.hfscientific.com

JUNE 2009 | 9

Many thanks to Volker Adam and Joop Kruithof for their photocontributions

AWWA WORKSHOPOn 14 June, Paul Swaim (CH2M Hill) and other IUVA memberspresented a one day workshop at AWWA ACE Workshop titled,“UV and Ozone Advanced Oxidation Processes – PracticalInformation on an Emerging Treatment Approach”.

The program included:

• Advanced Oxidation Process Basics and EmergingApplications in Drinking Water-- James Malley, University of New Hampshire

• UV AOP Performance and Evaluation for ContaminantDestruction -- Karl Linden, University of Colorado at Boulder

• Ozone and Ozone AOPs-- Shane Snyder, Southern Nevada Water Authority

• Orange County Water District GWR System Case Study forUV/AOP Process-- Mehul Patel, Orange County Water District

• Implementing an Effective UV-AOP: Three Projects andLessons Learned -- Paul Swain, CH2M Hill

• Comparison of UV AOP and Ozone AOP for ContaminantDestruction-- Christine Cotton & James Collins, Malcolm Pirnie, Inc.

UV Tour – Brockton, MA

http://www.wedeco.com


• UV/AOP Master Planning for Cincinati’s 240 MGDRichard Miller Treatment Plant-- Chris Schulz, CDM & Harold Wright, Carollo Engineers

• The Trend in Dutch Drinking Water Treatment, fromOzone to UV/H2O2 Treatement: a World Perspective-- Joop Kruithof, Wetsus & Peer Kamp, PWN

• What’s Next? Recent Advancements in AOP Research– Erik Rosenfeldt, University of Massachusetts

SIWW WORKSHOPRongjing Xie (Singapore PUB) organized and hosted a oneday workshop titled, “UV Technology, Applications andAdvancements” on 22 June during the 2nd SingaporeInternational Water Week. SIWW 2009 was attended bymore than 10,000 delegates and trade visitors from 79countries with foreign participants making upapproximately 70 percent of the total attendance.

• Welcome Remarks-- Harry Seah, Director, TWQO,/PUB

• UV Technology and Process Introduction-- Jim Malley, University of New Hampshire

• The Use of UV in Large-Scale Drinking WaterApplications-- Richard Sakaji, East Bay Municipal Utility District

• Designing Municipal Drinking Water UV Systems forDisinfection and Advanced Oxidation Applications-- Chris Schulz, CDM

• Validation and Operation of UV Systems-- Harold Wright, Carollo Engineers

• Small UV Systems-- Jim Malley, University of New Hampshire

• UV / AOP Reuse Case Study: Luggage Point AWTP-- Rory Morgan, CH2M Hill

• UV Disinfection and Oxidation for Advanced Water-- Tian Xian Yong , Black & Veatch

• Regulatory Experience and Guidance-- Richard Sakaji, East Bay Municipal Utility District

IUVA thanks those who volunteered theirtime and energy to put on these excellenttechnology transfer workshops.

We welcome your participation and support at workshopsand conferences. Also, don’t forget to send us feedback,Application Notes and articles/papers for inclusion inIUVA News.

you are interested in acquiring IUVA Congress, Conferenceand Workshop proceedings and presentation CDs

SIWW Workshop speakers (L to R) - Tian Xian Yong,Rick Sakaji, Chris Schulz, Jim Maley, Harold Wright,Rongjing Xie, Rory Morgan, Paul Overbeck

Harry Seah of Singapore PUB receives a recognition gift fortheir support of IUVA events.

Joop Kruithof, Paul Overbeck and Paul Swaimat AWWA AOP Workshop

Please visit http://www.iuva.org/books_and_proceedings if

http://www.iuva.org/books_and_proceedings

JUNE 2009 | 11

HOT UVNEWS

The following are interesting media items that may affectthe UV Industry

5th UV World Congress Host – Amsterdam - to become EU`sFirst “Intelligent City

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090607005030&newsLang=en

The City of Amsterdam will implement its ‘Amsterdam Smart City’program and create the European Union’s first ‘intelligent city.’

The purpose of the Amsterdam Smart City program is to take acomprehensive and coordinated approach to developing andimplementing sustainable and economically viable projects that helpthe city reduce its carbon footprint and meet the European Union’s2020 emissions and energy reduction targets.

The Amsterdam Smart City will use a smart electric grid, smartmeters, smart-building technologies and electric vehicles to reduceenergy consumption in housing, commercial properties, publicbuildings and areas, and transportation. Smart grids are electricitydistribution networks that combine traditional and new technologyto manage the flow of energy more effectively and efficiently thanpreviously possible. Amsterdam is the first city in the EU to deployintelligent technology, such as smart grids, in its electricitydistribution system.

“Amsterdam Smart City is closely linked to the Amsterdam ClimateProgram, which states clear climate goals for the City of Amsterdamto reduce carbon emissions and encourage change in the energyconsumption of our citizens,” said Joke van Antwerpen, director ofthe Amsterdam Innovation Motor, the first phase of the AmsterdamSmart City’s low-carbon projects, launched on June 3, includes:

A ‘Climate Street’ at Utrechtsestraat, Amsterdam’s popular shoppingand restaurant street, will have sustainable waste collection, tramstops, and street and façade lighting. Smart meters and energyusage feedback tools will help municipal authorities and shop andrestaurant owners manage energy consumption.

E. coli in bottled water not acceptable: FDA

Not surprisingly, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) hasamended federal regulations regarding bacteria in bottled water,publishing in the Federal Register a final rule establishing a zerotolerance for E. coli bacteria in bottled water.

The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) on May 28announced its long-standing support of a zero-tolerance standard ofquality for E. coli. According to the IBWA announcement, “In fact,FDA’s final rule reflects IBWA’s ‘Code of Practice’ standard which wasadopted in 1999 and which all IBWA bottler members must meet.”

Both the FDA and IBWA refer to the stricter regulation as an extrameasure of safety for the consumer. IBWA President and CEO JoeDoss is quoted in the IBWA announcement as saying, “Our memberswork hard and long to protect against E. coli. Now it’s the law of theland for all bottled water products.”

The FDA rule was promulgated under Section 410 of the Food,Drug, and Cosmetic Act, which requires that FDA’s bottled waterregulations be as protective of the public health as the USEnvironmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) tap water standards. EPAissued its new National Primary Drinking Water Regulation, theGround Water Rule, on November 6, 2006, which provides forincreased protection against fecal microbial pathogens in publicwater systems that use groundwater sources. The EPA and FDA ruleboth become effective on December 1, 2009.

The primary elements of the new FDA rule are:

• Bottled water manufacturers that obtain their source water fromother than a public water system must test their source water atleast weekly for total coliform. If that source water is totalcoliform-positive, the manufacturer must conduct follow-uptesting to determine whether any of the total coliform organismsare E. coli.

• Source water found to contain E. coli will not be considered waterof a safe, sanitary quality as required for use in bottled water.

• Before a bottler can use water from a source that has testedpositive for E. coli, the bottler must take appropriate measures torectify or otherwise eliminate the cause of E. coli contaminationof that source in a manner sufficient to prevent its occurrence. Asource previously found to contain E. coli will be considerednegative for E. coli after five samples collected over a 24-hourperiod from the same sampling site that originally tested positivefor E. coli are tested and found to be E. coli negative.

• Bottlers must maintain records of corrective measures taken torectify or eliminate E. coli contamination.

• If any coliform organisms are detected in weekly total coliformtesting of finished bottled water, follow-up testing must beconducted to determine whether any of the coliform organismsare E. coli.

• Analyses conducted to determine compliance with the standardsfor microbiological quality for total coliform and E. coli must bemade in accordance with the multiple-tube fermentation (MTF)method and membrane filter (MF) methods.

If E. coli is present in bottled water, then the bottled water isdeemed to be adulterated under section 402(a)(3) of the FederalFood Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) and is banned from sale ordistribution

$440M in stimulus money for water moving to California

California will receive about $440 million for water and wastewaterprojects under the economic stimulus program (American Recoveryand Reinvestment Act of 2009) signed into law in February, the US

Laura Yoshii, acting regional EPA administrator for the PacificSouthwest, said the funds will give the state an “unprecedented”opportunity to finance many overdue water projects, the releasesaid. The funds are earmarked for the state’s two revolving loanfunds for water projects, according to EPA. Shovel-ready projects

Environmental Protection Agency announced in press release.

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090607005030&newsLang=en

http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/d0cf6618525a9efb85257359003fb69d/404346c4c447501f852575bd006b26c7!OpenDocument


have been identified by the State Water Board, its chairman, CharlieHoppin, was quoted as saying. He said that normally the state wouldhandle about $250 million annual for water-related revolving loans,and the additional federal funds will be put to good use quickly.

Bill to limit chlorine-gas use clears committeewww.awwa.org/publications/breakingnewsdetail.cfm?itemnumber=49269

The House Homeland Security Committee this week approved on an18-11party-line vote a proposed law that would allow the federalgovernment toorder facilities using high-risk chemicals to switch to“inherently safertechnologies” (1st).When applied to drinking waterand wastewater treatment plants, the law(HR2868) would affect theuse of gaseous chlorine. Water/wastewaterutilities had been exemptfrom a federal security program set up to preventterrorist acts orother incidents caused by the use of hazardous chemicals.Inaddition to giving the government the ability to order the use of ISTsatwater plants, the new law, the Chemical Facility Anti-TerrorismAct, wouldalso give the US Department of Homeland Security thepower to stop a plant’soperations, although wastewater plants arespecifically exempted from thatprovision, according toAWWA.AWWA said the House committee did approve amendmentsallowing facilities to:appeal an IST order to an administrative lawjudge; require HomelandSecurity to report to Congress on theeffects of ISTs before ordering aswitch to them; and preventHomeland Security from ordering such changes ifthey would“demonstrably reduce” the facility’s operations. AWWA hasurgedCongress to leave chemical choices up to individual facilities.

U.S. EPA Announces $24 Million in ARRA Funding for Iowa

In a move that stands to create jobs, boost local economies, improveaging water infrastructure and protect human health and theenvironment for the people in the state of Iowa, the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has awarded $24,293,000to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources.

This new infusion of money provided by the American Recovery andReinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 will help the state and localgovernments finance many of the overdue improvements to waterprojects that are essential to protecting public health and theenvironment across the state.

"Iowa needs this funding to fix aging infrastructure in both urbanand rural communities," said William Rice, acting regionaladministrator. "Clean drinking water is essential for healthycommunities and healthy local economies. These funds will bringabout needed repairs, focus on green solutions and provide good-paying jobs."

The ARRA funds will go to the state's Drinking Water State RevolvingFund program, which provides low-interest loans for drinking watersystems to finance infrastructure improvements. The program alsoemphasizes providing funds to small and disadvantagedcommunities and to programs that encourage pollution preventionas a tool for ensuring safe drinking water. An unprecedented $2billion will be awarded to fund drinking water infrastructure projectsacross the country under the ARRA in the form of low-interest loans,principal forgiveness and grants. At least 20 percent of the fundsprovided under the act are to be used for green infrastructure, waterand energy-efficiency improvements and other environmentallyinnovative projects.

Bacteria create Aquatic Superbugs in Waste Treatment Plants

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=7144

In the first known study of its kind, Chuanwu Xi of the University ofMichigan School of Public Health and his team sampled watercontaining the bacteria Acinetobacter at five sites in and near AnnArbor's wastewater treatment plant.

They found the so-called superbugs—bacteria resistant to multipleantibiotics—up to 100 yards downstream from the discharge pointinto the Huron River Xi and colleagues found that while the totalnumber of bacteria left in the final discharge effluent declineddramatically after treatment, the remaining bacteria wassignificantly more likely to resist multiple antibiotics than bacteria inwater samples upstream. Some strains resisted as many as seven ofeight antibiotics tested. The bacteria in samples taken 100 yardsdownstream also were more likely to resist multiple drugs thanbacteria upstream.

"Twenty or 30 years ago, antibiotics would have killed most of thesestrains, no problem," he said. Multiple antibiotic-resistant bacteriahas emerged as one of the top public health issues worldwide in thelast few decades as the overuse of antibiotics and other factors havecaused bacteria to become resistant to common drugs. Xi's groupchose to study Acinetobacter because it is a growing cause ofhospital-acquired infections and because of its ability to acquireantibiotic resistance.

Xi said the problem isn't that treatment plants don't do a good jobof cleaning the water—it's that they simply aren't equipped toremove all antibiotics and other pharmaceuticals entering thetreatment plants. The treatment process is fertile ground for thecreation of superbugs because it encourages bacteria to grow andbreak down the organic matter. However, the good bacteria growand replicate along with the bad. In the confined space, bacteriashare resistant genetic materials, and remaining antibiotics andother stressors may select multi-drug resistant bacteria.

While scientists learn more about so-called superbugs, patients cando their part by not insisting on antibiotics for ailments thatantibiotics don't treat, such as a common cold or the flu, Xi said.Also, instead of flushing unused drugs, they should be saved anddisposed of at designated collection sites so they don't enter thesewer system.

WateReuse and Singapore PUB announce ResearchColaboration

The nonprofit WateReuse Foundation and PUB, Singapore’s nationalwater agency, announced that they have signed a researchagreement during the WateReuse Foundation’s 13th Annual WaterReuse & Desalination Research Conference to co-fund up to $5million worth of research designed to help water agenciesworldwide provide a sustainable water supply while enhancing theenvironment and protecting public health.

Harry Seah, director of PUB’s Technology and Water Quality Office,said in the release, “The sharing of expertise and knowledgebetween the two organizations will be beneficial to both Singapore’sresearch community as well as the rest of the water industry.”

The research will be managed by one or both organizations and theresults will be shared and disseminated to water utilities, researchinstitutions and water technology providers.

Continued on page 13

http://www.awwa.org/publications/breakingnewsdetail.cfm?itemnumber=49269

http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=7144

JUNE 2009 | 13

Singapore’s Public Utility Board won the Excellence inEnvironmental Engineering Superior Achievement Award thisyear from the American Academy of Environmental Engineers(AAEE)

http://www.pub.gov.sg/mpublications/Pages/PressReleases.aspx?ItemId=205

Singapore’s Marina Barrage became only the second project outsidethe USA in the past decade to win the top award, widely consideredthe most prestigious of professional, peer-recognition awards focusedexclusively on environmental engineering, the award recognizes aholistic environmental perspective, innovation, proven performanceand customer satisfaction, and contribution to an improved quality oflife and economic efficiency. The Marina Barrage beat 33 otherentries. Winners from this competition are automatically entered forthe International Water Association (IWA) 2010 biennial ProjectInnovation Awards.

USDA allocates $615.8 million for rural water

More than 190 water and environmental projects are being funded inrural communities in 34 states through the American Recovery andReinvestment Act, the US Department of Agriculture recentlyannounced.

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said the funds would create or save12,385 jobs in those towns, adding that, "Aging water and wasteinfrastructure systems threaten the ability of rural communities toprovide clean, reliable drinking water to residents and protectprecious environmental resources." Funding of individual recipients iscontingent upon their meeting the terms of the loan or grantagreement.

USDA Rural Development's Water and Environmental Programprovides loans and grants to ensure that the necessary investmentsare made in water and wastewater infrastructure to deliver safedrinking water and protect the environment in rural areas.

Drinking Water Week 2009 Celebrated as lean, clean, green

In addition to the technology and operations workshops, technicaltours and educational sessions presented during the IUVA and IOANorth American Conference on municipal UV and Ozone technologiesthe American Water Works Association (AWWA), an authoritativeresource on safe water, supported Drinking Water Week 2009, anannual celebration of our most precious natural resource.

"Drinking Water Week is an opportunity for Americans to think aboutwhat water means to each of us," said AWWA President Mike Leonard."A safe and reliable water supply is central to our daily lives, and weenjoy some of the highest quality water in the world. This week is agreat time to celebrate our drinking water and renew ourcommitment to keeping it safe."

"Tap water is lean, clean and green," Leonard said. "It's lean in that it'sa zero-calorie choice to keep us healthy and hydrated. It's cleanbecause dedicated water professionals treat our drinking water andconstantly monitor it, ensuring that lives up to high water qualitystandards. And our tap water is ‘green' in that it encourages theprotection of our watersheds and does not require a bottle."

EPA Awards $430-Million Wastewater Projects Grant to NewYork

http://www.epa.gov/owm/cwfinance/cwsrf/

In the single largest grant in its history, the U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) has awarded more than $430 million to theState of New York for wastewater infrastructure projects that willcreate thousands of jobs, jumpstart local economies and protecthuman health and the environment across the state.

“EPA is committed to being part of the solution in this economicdownturn. By keeping the waterways clean and healthy, we’rebringing new jobs and new opportunities to local communities,” saidEPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson. “Protecting human health and theenvironment is a great way to put people to work and stimulate oureconomy.”

“New York State is committed to innovative approaches to buildingenvironmentally sustainable and energy efficient wastewatertreatment technologies. This funding will help protect ourenvironment and will support thousands of jobs across the State at atime when we need it most,” said New York Governor David Paterson

This grant is a portion of the unprecedented $4 billion dollars that willbe awarded to fund wastewater infrastructure projects across the USAunder the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The state will usethe Recovery Act grant to provide money to municipal and countygovernments and wastewater utilities for projects to protect lakes,ponds and streams in communities across New York.

New York State will also provide at least 20%, or at least $86 million,of its Recovery Act funds to “green” projects, those that involve greeninfrastructure, improve energy or water efficiency or that have otherenvironmentally innovative aspects. New York’s program also providesfunding to communities facing financial hardships.

Blog updates status of US Water & Wastewater Infrastructure

http://blogs.asce.org/govrel

The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), which recentlyreleased a report that rated as “D-” the current condition of thenation’s drinking water and wastewater infrastructure sectors, offers astate-by-state look at water and wastewater infrastructure needs in ablog called “Our Failing Infrastructure.”

According to the blog many consider the official blog of ASCEGovernment Relations, the “ASCE has compiled detailed online factsheets on each of the 50 USA states that detail the conditions of thevarious infrastructure categories on a local level.” Variousinfrastructure needs information for each state is presented, includingdrinking water and wastewater infrastructure needs.

The ASCE said it also has collected case studies that examine the waysstates and localities are solving infrastructure problems. Drinkingwater, wastewater and dams are covered under the “Water &Environment” topics.

Study Confirms Chlorination DBP Links

Although perhaps the greatest public health achievement of the 20thcentury was the disinfection of water, a recent study showed that thechemicals used to purify the water we drink and use in swimmingpools react with organic material in the water yielding toxicconsequences. (ScienceDaily)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331112725.htm

University of Illinois geneticist Michael Plewa said that disinfection by-products (DBPs) in water are the unintended consequence of water

HOT UVNEWSContinued from page 12

http://www.pub.gov.sg/mpublications/Pages/PressReleases.aspx?ItemId=205

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090331112725.htm


purification. "The reason that you and I can go to a drinking fountainand not be fearful of getting cholera is because we disinfect water inthe United States," he said. "But the process of disinfecting water withchlorine and chloramines and other types of disinfectants generates aclass of compounds in the water that are called disinfection by-products. The disinfectant reacts with the organic material in thewater and generates hundreds of different compounds. Some of theseare toxic, some can cause birth defects, some are genotoxic, whichdamage DNA, and some we know are also carcinogenic."

The 10-year study began with an EPA grant to develop mammaliancell lines that would be used specifically to analyze the ability of thesecompounds to kill cells, or cytotoxicity, and the ability of theseemerging disinfection by-products to cause genomic DNA damage.

"Our lab has assembled the largest toxicological data base on theseemerging new DBPs. And from them we've made two fundamentaldiscoveries that hopefully will aid the U.S. EPA in their regulatorydecisions. The two discoveries are somewhat surprising," Plewa said.

The first discovery involves iodine-containing DBPs. "You get iodineprimarily from sea water or underground aquifers that perhaps wereassociated with an ancient sea bed at one time. If there is highbromine and iodine in that water, when you disinfect these waters,you can generate the chemical conditions necessary to produce DBPsthat have iodine atoms attached. And these are much more toxic andgenotoxic than the regulated DBPs that currently EPA uses," he said.

Plewa said that the second discovery concerns nitrogen-containingDBPs. "Disinfectant by-products that have a nitrogen atomincorporated into the structure are far more toxic and genotoxic, andsome even carcinogenic, than those DBPs that don't have nitrogen.And there are no nitrogen-containing DBPs that are currentlyregulated."

Come learn about Ultraviolet technological advancements and experiences in this unique forum - showcasing the world’s premier advanced treatment technology! UV is the key to a cleaner, safer future and is more important now than ever before.This World Congress will provide academics, regulators, utilities and industry professionals with current information and valuable perspectives on industrial processes, drinking water treatment, wastewater, water reuse and emerging contaminants.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L U L T R A V I O L E T A S S O C I A T I O N

5TH UV WORLD CONGRESS

AMSTERDAM, THE NETHERLANDS

21-23 SEPTEMBER, 2009

~ JOIN US ~

Hotel / Registration / Exhibitor Information: Diana Schoenberg - Communications & Operations ManagerPO Box 28154 • Scottsdale, AZ 85255, USA • T: +1 480-544-0105 • F: +1 480-473-9068 • [email protected]

In addition to drinking water DBPs, Plewa said that swimming poolsand hot tubs are DBP reactors. "You've got all of this organic materialcalled 'people' -- and people sweat and use sunscreen and wearcosmetics that come off in the water. People may urinate in a publicpool. Hair falls into the water and then this water is chlorinated. Butthe water is recycled again and again so the levels of DBPs can be ten-fold higher than what you have in drinking water."

Plewa said that studies were showing higher levels of bladder cancerand asthma in people who do a lot of swimming - professionalswimmers as well as athletic swimmers. These individuals have greaterand longer exposure to toxic chemicals which are absorbed throughthe skin and inhaled.

"The big concern that we have is babies in public pools becauseyoung children and especially babies are much more susceptible toDNA damage in agents because their bodies are growing and they'rereplicating DNA like crazy," he said.

EPA Publishes Latest Drinking Water Survey

www.epa.gov/safewater/needssurvey/index.html

The EPA noted that a recent drinking water needs survey will help theagency determine the distribution formula for Drinking Water StateRevolving Fund (DWSRF) grants for the fiscal years 2010 through2013 budgets. The assessment documents anticipated costs forrepairs and replacement of transmission and distribution pipes,storage and treatment equipment, and projects that are necessary todeliver safe supplies of drinking water.

The Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment,which is done every four years, reflected data collected in 2007 fromstates. According to the survey results, the nation's water utilities willneed to invest an estimated $334.8 billion over the next 20 years todeal with aging infrastructure.

http://www.iuva.org/worldcongress2009

JUNE 2009 | 15

The susceptibility of viruses to ultraviolet (UV) light hastraditionally been defined in terms of the UV rate constant,also called a Z value, which is the slope of the survival curveon a logarithmic scale. The UV rate constant refers to eitherbroad range UV in the UVB/UVC spectrum (200-320 nm)or, more commonly, to narrow-band UVC near the 253.7nm wavelength. UV susceptibility can also be defined bythe UV exposure dose (fluence) required for 90%inactivation (the D90 value), a more intuitive parameter thatavoids the problem of defining shoulder effects and secondstages in the survival curve. In this paper the UV rateconstant is defined in terms of the D90 value to provide anabsolute indicator of UV susceptibility in the first stage ofdecay, and these values are thereby interchangeable. TheUV rate constant, in m2/J, applicable to the first stage ofdecay is defined as:

(1)

where S = survival, fractionalD = UV exposure dose (fluence), J/m2

The D90 value is then:

(2)

The subject of virus UV susceptibility has been extensivelystudied and the processes that occur at the molecular levelhave been quantified to an great degree, but thecomplexities of these processes and prior lack of fullysequenced genomes have heretofore precluded

development of a complete quantitative model of virusinactivation. The actual theoretical basis for UVsusceptibility has been elucidated in the works of Setlowand Carrier (1966), Smith and Hanawalt (1969), Beckerand Wang (1989), and others. This paper applies the basicmodel of UV inactivation as detailed in these seminal worksto viral genomes from the NCBI database (NCBI 2009) andstatistically evaluates the correlation with known UV D90

values. With some enhancements of the basic model andadjustments to the parameters, a model is developedherein that provides predictions for both RNA and DNAviruses. This model also includes a new ultravioletscattering model developed by the authors that contributesto the overall accuracy of the DNA model.

Rate Constant DeterminantsVarious intrinsic factors determine the sensitivity of a virusto UV exposure under any set of constant ambientconditions of temperature and humidity including physicalsize, molecular weight, DNA conformation, presence ofchromophores, propensity for clumping, presence of repairenzymes or dark/light repair mechanisms, hydrophilicsurface properties, relative index of refraction, specificspectrum of UV, G+C% content, and % of potentialpyrimidine dimers.

The physical size of a virus bears no clear direct relationshipwith UV susceptibility. UV-induced damage to DNA isindependent of molecular weight (Scholes et al 1967).Virus nucleocapsids are too thin to allow any significantchromophore protection. The specific UV spectrum has a

A Genomic Model for Predicting the UltravioletSusceptibility of Viruses

Wladyslaw J. Kowalski1, William P. Bahnfleth2, Mark T. Hernandez3

1Immune Building Systems, Inc., 575 Madison Ave., New York, NY10022, email: [email protected] Pennsylvania State University, Department of Architectural Engineering, University Park, PA 168023University of Colorado, UCB 428, Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering,

1111 Engineering Drive #441, Boulder, CO 80309

ABSTRACTA mathematical model is presented to explain the ultraviolet susceptibility of viruses in terms of genomic sequences that have ahigh potential for photodimerization. The specific sequences with high dimerization potential include doublets of thymine (TT),thymine-cytosine (TC), cytosine (CC), and triplets composed of single purines combined with pyrimidine doublets. The completegenomes of 49 animal viruses and bacteriophages were evaluated using base-counting software to establish the frequencies ofdimerizable doublets and triplets. The model also accounts for the effects of ultraviolet scattering. Constants defining the relativelethality of the four dimer types were determined via curve-fitting. A total of 70 data sets were used to represent 27 RNA viruses.A total 77 water-based UV rate constant data sets were used to represent 22 DNA viruses. Predictions are provided for dozensof viruses of importance to human health that have not previously been tested for their UV susceptibility.

INTRODUCTION

90

)ln(D

Sk =

kkkD

3026.2)1.0ln()9.01ln(90 ===

90

)ln(D

Sk =

kkkD

3026.2)1.0ln()9.01ln(90 ===


relatively minor or insignificant effect according to moststudies although some differences between LP and MPlamps have been noted (Linden et al 2007), but in thisstudy virtually all the data is based on LP lamps. Viruseshave no repair enzymes and their dark/light repairmechanisms play a minor or insignificant role. Hydrophilicsurface properties and propensity for clumping are largelyunknown for viruses. The DNA conformation directlyimpacts UV susceptibility but this model treats DNA virusesin water (B conformation) separately from RNA viruses (A-conformation). The G+C% content plays an indirect role inUV susceptibility but this factor is enveloped by the moredetailed approach of analyzing genomic content addressedin this model. The relative index of refraction in the UVrange is not known for viruses but a general model for UVscatter is developed and incorporated in the DNA model.The RNA model has negligible UV scattering effects due totheir size parameters being so small.

The UV Scattering ModelViruses, which are about 0.02 microns and larger, aresubject to ultraviolet scattering effects due to the fact thattheir size is very near the wavelength of ultraviolet light.The effect of scattering is to reduce the effective irradianceto which the microbe is exposed, and it is necessary toaccount for this attenuation if it has a major impact onreducing the UV exposure dose. The interaction betweenultraviolet wavelengths and the particle is a function of therelative size of the particle compared with the wavelength,as defined by the size parameter:

(3)

where a = the effective radius of the particlel = wavelength

The scattering of light is due to differences in the refractiveindices between the medium and the particle (Bohren andHuffman 1983). The scattering properties of a sphericalparticle in any medium are defined by the complex indexof refraction:

(4)

where n = real refractive indexk = imaginary refractive index (absorptiveindex or absorption coefficient)

The process of independent Mie scattering is also governedby the relative refractive index, defined as follows:

(5)

where ns = refractive index of the particle (a microbe)nm = refractive index of the medium (air orwater)

Readers may consult the references for further informationon Mie theory (vandeHulst 1957, Bohren and Huffman1983). The refractive index of microbes in visible light hasbeen studied by several researchers but there are no studiesthat address the real refractive index of viruses at UVwavelengths. Water has a refractive index of nm = 1.4 in theultraviolet range. If the UV refractive index of viruses invisible light is scaled to that of water, the estimated realrefractive index would be about 1.12 (Kowalski 2009). Infact, UV scattering effects are not sensitive to the choice ofvalues within the range 1.03-1.45 and the choice of n=1.12is reasonable. For the imaginary refractive index (theabsorptive index) in the UV range no information isavailable. However, we can reasonably assume a valuecomparable to that of water, k=1.4, or any value in therange of the real refractive indices given above as they haveeven less overall impact than the real refractive index.These values were used as input to a Mie Scatteringprogram (Prahl 2009) to estimate the effects of UVscattering at the wavelength of 253.7 nm.

The computed ratio of the scattering cross-section to theextinction cross-section represents the fraction of totalirradiance that is scattered away (Kowalski et al 2009). Thefraction of scattered UV is relatively minor for most RNAviruses, but increases sharply through the DNA virus sizerange, approaching a limit of about 0.68. The computedvalues for UV scatter are used to correct the incident UVirradiance (or D90 exposure value). Table 1 shows the

PROVIDING REAL ORGANIC TESTING SOLUTIONS

UV 254nm ORGANIC TESTINGnew

Portable UV 254nm testing anywhere, anytime.

WITH THE INNOVATIVE

A technologically superior and affordable continuous UV 254nm organic testing monitor.

• Invaluable for any application that requires the analysis of organics

• Use as a practical alternative to TOC, DOC, BOD or COD testing

ax

2=

where

of refraction:

inm =

ax

2=

where

of refraction:

inm =

m

s

n

nm =

http://www.realtech.ca

JUNE 2009 | 17

diameters of the viruses used in this study and theassociated UV scatter correction factors, which are laterapplied to the raw D90 values shown in Tables 3 and 4.Virus diameters were obtained from various sources (i.e.Kowalski 2006). Diameters are logmean values of thesmallest dimension or logmean values of ovoidenvelopes. For more detailed information on thecomputation of UV scattering effects see Kowalski(2009).

The Genomic ModelThe effect of base composition can impact the intrinsicsensitivity of DNA to UV irradiation and the specificsequence of adjacent base pairs, as well as the frequencyof thymines, are major, if not primary, determinants ofUV sensitivity. The disruption of normal DNA processesoccurs as the result of the formation of photodimers, butnot all photoproducts appear with the same frequency.Purines are approximately ten times more resistant tophotoreaction than pyrimidines (Smith and Hanawalt1969). Minor products other than CPD dimers, such asinterstrand cross-links, chain breaks, and DNA-proteinlinks occur with much less frequency, typically less than1/1000 of the number of cyclobutane dimers andhydrates may occur at about 1/10 the frequency ofcyclobutane dimers (Setlow and Carrier 1966). Some80% of pyrimidines and 45% or purines form UV

photoproducts in double-stranded DNA, per studies byBecker and Wang (1989), who also showed that purinesonly form dimers when adjacent to a pyrimidine doublet.The formation of purine dimers requires transfer ofenergy in neighboring pyrimidines, and will only occuron the 5’ side of the purine base (a 50% probability).Becker and Wang (1985) formulated these simple rulesfor sequence-dependent DNA photoreactivity:

1. Whenever two or more pyrimidine residues areadjacent to one another, photoreactions areobserved at both pyrimidines.

2. Non-adjacent pyrimidines, surrounded on bothsides by purines, exhibit little or no photoreactivity.

3. The only purines that readily form UVphotoproducts are those that are flanked on their 5’side by two or more contiguous pyrimidine residues.

Table 2 summarizes these rules in terms that can becomputed numerically. The adjacent pyrimidines arereferred to as doublets and the flanked purines are calledtriplets. Counting of these doublets is performedexclusively (no doublets are counted twice) and in theorder (left to right and top to bottom) as shown in Table2. Other counting orders are possible, of course, but thisstraightforward method appears adequate.

Virus Type Diameter UV Scatter Virus Type Diameter UV Scatterm Correction m Correction

Bacteriophage MS2 DNA 0.020 0.9732 B. subtilis phage SP DNA 0.087 0.6122Echovirus (Parechovirus) RNA 0.024 0.9552 Coliphage T4 DNA 0.089 0.6057Encephalomyocarditis virus RNA 0.025 0.9501 Borna virus DNA 0.090 0.6026Coxsackievirus RNA 0.027 0.9391 Friend Murine Leukemia virus DNA 0.094 0.5907Hepatitis A virus RNA 0.027 0.9391 Moloney Murine Leukemia virus RNA 0.094 0.5907Murine Norovirus RNA 0.032 0.9086 Rauscher Murine Leukemia virus RNA 0.094 0.5907Feline Calicivirus (FCV) DNA 0.034 0.8955 Avian Sarcoma virus RNA 0.098 0.5798Canine Calicivirus RNA 0.037 0.8755 Influenza A virus RNA 0.098 0.5798Polyomavirus RNA 0.042 0.8389 BLV DNA 0.099 0.5772Simian virus 40 RNA 0.045 0.8214 Murine Cytomegalovirus RNA 0.104 0.5649Coliphage lambda RNA 0.050 0.7889 Vesicular Stomatitis virus (VSV) RNA 0.104 0.5649Coliphage T1 DNA 0.050 0.7889 Equine Herpes virus RNA 0.105 0.5626Semliki Forest virus DNA 0.061 0.7240 Avian Leukosis virus RNA 0.107 0.5581Coliphage PRD1 DNA 0.062 0.7186 Coronavirus (incl SARS) RNA 0.113 0.5457HP1c1 phage DNA 0.062 0.7186 Murine sarcoma virus RNA 0.120 0.5330Coliphage T7 DNA 0.063 0.7133 HIV-1 RNA 0.125 0.5249Mycobacterium phage D29 DNA 0.065 0.7030 Rous Sarcoma virus (RSV) DNA 0.127 0.5218VEE DNA 0.065 0.7030 Frog virus 3 RNA 0.167 0.4793Adenovirus Type 40 RNA 0.069 0.6835 Herpes simplex virus Type 2 RNA 0.173 0.4750Rabies virus RNA 0.070 0.6788 Herpes simplex virus Type 1 RNA 0.184 0.4681WEE DNA 0.070 0.6788 Pseudorabies (PRV) DNA 0.194 0.4626Sindbis virus DNA 0.075 0.6569 Newcastle Disease Virus DNA 0.212 0.4544Adenovirus Type 1 RNA 0.079 0.6408 Vaccinia virus DNA 0.307 0.4280Adenovirus Type 2 RNA 0.079 0.6408 Measles DNA 0.329 0.4237Adenovirus Type 5 DNA 0.084 0.6224

Table 1: Virus Mean Diameters and UV Scattering Corrections

NOTE: Virus diameters represent logmean values.

Table 1. Virus Mean Diameters and UV Scattering Corrections


A function can be written to sum the potentialdimerization values that exist within the physical volumeof DNA or RNA. The volume of the sphere will be directlyproportional to the genome size, since the nucleic acidsare essentially packed tight inside a capsid, and becausealmost all animal viruses of interest are spherical, ovoid,or possess a spherical capsid atop a tail. The potentialdimer density map can be viewed as points collapsedonto a circular cross-section exposed to a collimatedbeam of UV rays. The volume of the model sphere isequivalent to the base pairs (bp) of the genome (in bpunits), and the area of the cross-section is then the cuberoot of the square of the base pairs, as illustrated inFigure 1.

RNA Virus ModelSingle stranded RNA (ssRNA) viruses are the simpleststructures to model and these are addressed first. Thesquare root of the sum of the potential dimer values,counted as per Table 1, is used because it was found onanalysis that this produces the best fit overall, and sowithout further theoretical justification the potentialdimerization equation for ssRNA viruses is written:

(6)

where Dv = dimerization value

tt = thymine doubletscc = cytosine doubletsct= ct and tc (counted both ways, exclusive)YYU= purine w/ adjacent pyrimidine doublet(counted both ways, exclusive)bp = total base pairsFa, Fb, Fc = dimer proportionality constants

Some evidence is available in the literature to allow somestarting estimates of the dimer proportionality constants.Per Setlow and Carrier (1966) the average for threebacteria is 1:0.25:0.13. Patrick (1977) suggests ratios of1:1:1. Unrau (1973) found the ratio was 1:0.5:0.5.Meistrich et al (1970) indicate that in E. coli DNA, theproportions of TT dimers, CT dimers, and CC dimers are inthe ratio 1:0.8:0.2, as did Lamola (1973). Table 3 lists 62 ofthe 70 virus data sets that were used in the ssRNA model,along with the average rate constants and the average D90

values representing 27 single-stranded RNA viruses. TheseD90 values are not adjusted for UV scatter (per the Table 2correction factors). Only water-based test results were usedsince they are the most numerous and they all representthe B-DNA conformation. Data was culled exclusively fromthe literature and no animal virus or bacteriophage wasomitted from consideration. The data sets for MS2 (markedwith an asterisk in Table 3), however, were so numerousthat although they were all averaged, only seven datapoints were credited, so as not to give undue weight to thisparticular phage. The remaining eight data sets for MS2 arelisted in the References (Furuse and Watanabe 1971,Sommer et al 2001, Mamane-Gravetz et al 2005,Templeton et al 2006, Nuanualsuwan 2002, Rauth 1965,Shin et al 2005, Meng and Gerba 1996). Only oneanomalous outlier was excluded from the 70 data sets(HTLV-1 per Shimizu et al 2004).

Group DimerAdjacent pyrimidines TT TC CT CC YesPurines flanked by doublets ATT ACC ACT ATC 50% Yes

GTT GCC GCT GTC 50% YesTTA CCA CTA TCA 50% YesTTG CCG CTG CGT 50% Yes

Surrounded pyrimidines ATA ATG GTA GTG NoACA ACG GCA GCG No

DNA SequenceTable 2: Potential Dimerization Sequences

Table 2. Potential Dimerization Sequences

illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The spherical model of DNA has a circular cross-section with acollapsed potential dimerization density map subject to collimated UV rays.

3 2

5.0

eta plus – our name is our principle

Innovation in the development and production of

efficient and powerful UV light sources

electronic ballasts for UV lamps up to 32 kW

electronic & electro-optical components forcontrol and adjustment of UV installations

We manufacture according to your needs

eta plus electronic gmbhNuertingen/Germanycontact: Anne O’CallaghanTel.: +49 7022 6002 813Fax: +49 7022 658 [email protected], www.eta-uv.de part of the IST METZ group

YourUV Partner

http://www.eta-uv.de

JUNE 2009 | 19

Genome D90 UVGI k Avg k Avg D90

bp J/m2 m2/J m2/J J/m2

3569 295 0.00780 Ko 2005

3569 275 0.00837 Thurston-Enriquez 2003

3569 250 0.00920 Battiggelli 1993

3569 217 0.01060 Simonet 2006

3569 217 0.01063 deRodaHusman 2004

3569 213 0.01080 Butkus 2004

3569 187 0.01230 Oppenheimer 1997

5833 237 0.0097 Nomura 1972

5833 144 0.016 Kelloff 1970

5833 299 0.0077 Yoshikura 1971

7413 128 0.02 Hill 1970

7413 86 0.026837 Havelaar 1987

7413 80 0.02878 Gerba 2002

7413 60 0.03840 Shin 2005

7413 95 0.02424 Gerba 2002

7413 72 0.03180 Battigelli 1993

7345 106 0.02190 Hill 1970

7345 80 0.02878 Gerba 2002 (type 1)

7345 70 0.03289 Gerba 2002 (type 2)

7677 434 0.0053 Nuanualsuwan 2002

7677 80 0.0288 Thurston-Enriquez 2003

7677 40 0.0576 deRodaHusman 2004

Canine Calicivirus NC_004542 8513 67 0.0345 0.0345 67 deRodaHusman 2004

7835 50 0.0465 Ross 1971

7835 52 0.0446 Rauth 1965

7835 65 0.0355 Zavadova 1968

13498 20 0.117 Ross 1971

13498 48 0.048 Hollaender 1944

13498 17 0.1381 Abraham 1979

11161 13 0.1806 Rauth 1965

11161 12 0.19 Helentjaris 1977

11161 100 0.023 Bay 1979

11161 6 0.384 Shimizu 2004

15186 8 0.276 vonBrodorotti 1982

15186 45 0.0511 Levinson 1966

Borna virus NC_001607 8910 79 0.0292 0.0292 79 Danner 1979

Rabies virus NC_001542 11932 10 0.2193 0.2193 10 Weiss 1986

8282 157 0.0147 Kelloff 1970

8282 480 0.0048 Lovinger 1975

NC_005147 30738 7 0.321 Weiss 1986

NC_004718 29751 226 0.01 Kariwa 2004

NC_004718 29751 3046 0.000756 Darnell 2004

VEE NC_001449 11438 55 0.04190 0.04190 55 Smirnov 1992

3166 155 0.0149 Owada 1976

3166 381 0.00604 Bister 1977

WEE NC_003908 11484 54 0.043 0.04300 54 Dubinin 1975

9392 720 0.0032 Levinson 1966

9392 240 0.0096 Golde 1961

Murine Norovirus NC_008311 7382 76 0.0304 0.03040 76 Lee 2008

Semliki Forest virus NC_003215 11442 25 0.0921 0.09210 25 Weiss 1986

11703 60 0.038645 vonBrodorotti 1982

11703 113 0.0203 Wang 2004

11703 50 0.0461 Zavadova 1975

8419 1799 0.00128 Shimizu 2004

8419 221 0.01040 Guillemain 1981

HIV-1 NC_001802 9181 280 0.00822 0.00822 280 Yoshikura 1989

Avian Leukosis virus NC_001408 7286 631 0.00365 0.00365 631 Levinson 1966

Measles NC_001498 15894 22 0.10510 0.10510 22 DiStefano 1976

8332 115 0.02 Nomura 1972

8332 370 0.00622 Guillemain 1981

8332 280 0.00822 Yoshikura 1989

Friend Murine Leukemia virus NC_001362 8323 320 0.0072 0.00720 320 Yoshikura 1971

NC_001612

NC_001502

NC_001699

NC_007366-73

NC_001479

NC_001699

NC_001897

NC_008094

NC_001819

NC_002617

NC_001560

NC_001501

NC_001414

NC_001547

NC_001407

66

394

201

Source

236

21

220

360

55

23

12

14

207

81

83

75

Virus NCBI ID#

Table 3: Rate Constants and D90 Values for RNA Viruses

2370.01Bacteriophage MS2*

0.00640

0.03501

0.00584

0.01148

0.1636

0.00975

0.1106

0.01047

0.030567

0.0422

0.10103

0.1944

0.0111

0.02834

0.027859

Rous Sarcoma virus (RSV)

Feline Calicivirus (FCV)

Encephalomyocarditis virus

Influenza A virus

Vesicular Stomatitis virus (VSV)

Murine sarcoma virus

Coxsackievirus

Echovirus

Sindbis virus

BLV

Moloney Murine Leukemia virus

Newcastle Disease Virus

Rauscher Murine Leukemia virus

Coronavirus (incl SARS)

Avian Sarcoma virus

Table 3. Rate Constants and D90 Values for RNA Viruses


Figure 2 shows a plot of equation (3) applied to ssRNAviruses that were averaged per species where more thanone data set was available. There is a fairly definitiverelationship across the entire potential dimerization range.The dimer proportionality constants used to fit equation (3)were: 1:0.1:6:6 (with the fourth constant being 4 for thetriplets), or FA=0.1, FB=6, FC=6.

Figure 2: Plot of Dv versus effective D90 values for RNAanimal viruses and bacteriophages – D90 is the effectivedose because of correction for scatter. The line represents acurve fit (equation shown on graph), fit to 27 viruses,representing 70 data sets for UV irradiation tests in water.

It is curious to note that the slope of the curve in Figure 2is positive, contrary to what intuition might suggest. Thatis, as the number of potential dimerization sequences in agenome increases, UV susceptibility also increases. It is forthis reason that Dv is not referred to as a ‘probability’ value.

DNA Virus ModelApplication of the model to double-stranded DNA (dsDNA)viruses requires some modifications to the ssRNA model.Double stranded DNA has a template strand and acomplementary strand. The template strand will beaccounted for in equation (6) but the complementarystrand is not. However, a TT doublet in the complementarystrand will be represented by an AA doublet on thetemplate strand, and so counting base pairs can be donewith the template strand alone, by interpreting thecomplementary bases. Incorporating the complementarystrand bases produces the following equation:

(7)

where ct = ct and tc (both ways, exclusive)

ag = ag and ga (both ways, exclusive)

YYU = YYU and UYY (both ways, exclusive)

UUY = YUU and YUU (both ways, exclusive)

Fa, Fb, Fc = proportionality constants

UV clean

Our experts – in R&D, customer care and test lab – support you professionally. Heraeus UV lamps are reliable and preciselymatched to the installation and the individual process. This saves energy, maintenance and operating costs. Superior Heraeus Amalgam lamps feature a unique Longlife coating, offering the highest output – even at 185 nm.

Your partner in UV. Because we highlight your success.

Quality is more than a product.

USAHeraeus Noblelight LLCDuluth, GA 30096Phone +1 (770) [email protected]

GermanyHeraeus Noblelight GmbH63450 HanauPhone +49 (6181) [email protected]

www.heraeus-noblelight.com/disinfection

08_049_final_Korr.qxd 26.02.2008 13:36 Uhr Seite 1

y = 0.0079e

34.741x

R

2

= 0.667

1

10

100

1000

0.2 0.21 0.22 0.23 0.24 0.25 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.3 0.31

Dimerization Value, Dv

Eff

ecti

ve U

V D

ose

: D

90, J

/m2

single-stranded RNA Viruses

3 2

5.0)(

http://www.heraeus-noblelight.com/disinfection

JUNE 2009 | 21

In addition to the doublets and triplets, it was found thatthe quadruplets onwards also contributed to the DNAmodel (which they did not for RNA viruses). The effect ofthe quadruplets, quintuplets, and sextuplets onwards canbe characterized by a factor that accounts forhyperchromicity. A given oligonucleotide is hyperchromic ifits overall absorbance is higher than the sum of itsconstituents molecules. Hyperchromicity occurs whenmultiple pyrimidines are stacked sequentially in clusters ofthree or more with the effect leveling off at about 8-10pyrimidines in a row. Although not enough is known aboutthe hyperchromic effect to quantify it exactly, a factor canbe added to equation (7) to increase the probability ofdimerization of any doublet or triplet whenever 3 or morepyrimidines are found in sequence (Kowalski et al 2009).The value of the factor is estimated by curve-fitting the datato obtain the best fit. In the present model the factorlinearly increases the probability of dimerization fordoublets and triplets based on how many adjacentpyrimidines are present in the genome, up to a value of 8in a row. Each contribution can be defined as follows:

ttn = # of tt doublets within n pyrimidines(template strand)

aan = # of aa doublets within n purines(complement strand)

tcn = # of tc doublets within n pyrimidines(template strand)

agn = # of ag doublets within n purines(complement strand)

ccn = # of cc doublets within n pyrimidines(template strand)

ggn = # of gg doublets within n purines(complement strand)

UYYn = # of UYY triplets within n pyrimidines(template strand)

UUYn = # of UUY triplets within n purines(complement strand)

The equations for assigning the increase in probability dueto hyperchromicity can then be written as follows:

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

(13)

(14)

(15)

where tth = hyperchromic multiplier, or increase inprobability of dimerization from all multiple sequences of 3to 8 pyrimidines. Similar for all other hyperchromicconstants aah, tch, agh, cch, ggh, UYYh, and UUYh.

In equations (8) through (15), hyperchromic regions above8 are neglected since such extended regions tend to berare, and will be partly accounted for by these factors (i.e.any region of 8 pyrimidines in a row will contain a regionof 8 in a row). Equation (5) is therefore re-written asfollows:

(16)

The proportionality constants represent the relativeproportions of each type of dimer, which differ in RNA andDNA. Applying this model to DNA viruses produces theresult shown in Figure 3. The dimer ratios for this curve fitwere 1:0.2:40:18 (FA=0.2, FB=40, FC=18), with ahyperchromicity factor H = 0.67 (meaning a multiplier of1.67). The pattern of increasing D90 with increasing values ofDv seems fairly definitive. Table 4 lists 67 of the 77 virus datasets that were used in the ssRNA model, along with theaverage rate constants and the average D90 valuesrepresenting 27 single-stranded RNA viruses. Viruses markedwith an asterisk (*) indicate that additional data sets wereused to compute the average rate constants – a maximumof 7 data sets were used per virus so as not to give undueweight to any virus. The remaining data sets are given in theReferences (Rainbow and Mak 1973 & 1970, Linden et al2007, Wang et al 2004, Bossart et al 1978, Bourre et al1989). Two additional data sets for T7 (MP and LP values)were accounted for in Table 4 (k=0.056 m2/J and k=0.061m2/J) but not listed (Bohrerova et al 2008). The D90 values inTable 4 are uncorrected for UV scatter. No available data wasomitted from Figure 3 and no outliers were excluded.

( )=

=8

3nnhttnHtt

( )=

=8

3nnh

aanHaa

( )=

=8

3nnhtcnHtc

( )=

=8

3nnh agnHag

( )=

=8

3nnh

ccnHcc

( )=

=8

3nnh ggnHgg

( )=

=8

3nnh

UYYnHUYY

( )=

=8

3nnh

UUYnHUUY

( )=

=8

3nnhtcnHtc

( )=

=8

3nnh agnHag

( )=

=8

3nnh

ccnHcc

( )=

=8

3nnh ggnHgg

( )=

=8

3nnh

UYYnHUYY

( )=

=8

3nnh

UUYnHUUY

3 2

5.0

)(

( )=

=8

3nnhttnHtt

( )=

=8

3nnh

aanHaa

( )=

=8

3nnhtcnHtc

( )=

=8

3nnh agnHag

( )=

=8

3nnh

ccnHcc

( )=

=8

3nnh ggnHgg

( )=

=8

3nnh

UYYnHUYY

( )=

=8

3nnh

UUYnHUUY

( )=

=8

3nnhtcnHtc

( )=

=8

3nnh agnHag

( )=

=8

3nnh

ccnHcc

( )=

=8

3nnh ggnHgg

( )=

=8

3nnh

UYYnHUYY

( )=

=8

3nnh

UUYnHUUY

( )=

=8

3nnhtcnHtc

( )=

=8

3nnh agnHag

( )=

=8

3nnh

ccnHcc

( )=

=8

3nnh ggnHgg

( )=

=8

3nnh

UYYnHUYY

( )=

=8

3nnh

UUYnHUUY

( )=

=8

3nnhtcnHtc

( )=

=8

3nnh agnHag

( )=

=8

3nnh

ccnHcc

( )=

=8

3nnh ggnHgg

( )=

=8

3nnh

UYYnHUYY

( )=

=8

3nnh

UUYnHUUY


Genome D90 UVGI k Avg k Avg D90

bp J/m2 m2/J m2/J J/m2

299 0.0077 Battiggelli 1993

350 0.0066 Nwachuku 2005

300 0.0077 Shin 2005

400 0.0058 Gerba 2002

400 0.0058 Durance 2005

720 0.0032 Nwachuku 2005

Adenovirus Type 40 NC_001454 34214 546 0.0042 0.00422 546 Thurston-Enriquez 2003

57 0.0405 Gurzadyan 1981

70 0.0331 Harm 1961

72 0.0320 Weigle 1953

184 0.0125 Davidovich 1991

1599 0.0014 Seemayer 1973

1439 0.0016 Cornellis 1981

1245 0.0019 Bockstahler 1977

886 0.0026 Defendi 1967

650 0.0035 Sarasin 1978

443 0.0052 Aaronson 1970

23 0.1004 Cornellis 1982

40 0.0576 Battigelli 1993

45 0.0512 Wang 2004

50 0.0461 Wiedenmann 1993

92 0.0250 Wang 1995

98 0.0234 Wilson 1992

307 0.0075 Nuanualsuwan 2002

100 0.0230 Bockstahler 1976

110 0.0209 Selsky 1978

25 0.0933 Lytle 1971

35 0.0654 Ross 1971

21 0.1105 Albrecht 1974

Coliphage PRD1 NC_001421 14925 20 0.1150 0.115 20 Shin 2005

7 0.3490 Galasso 1965

14 0.1604 Ross 1971

18 0.1279 Klein 1994

22 0.1050 Zavadova 1971

28 0.0829 Rauth 1965

715 0.0032 Davidovich 1991

677 0.0034 Collier 1955

7 0.3450 Otaki 2003

14 0.1685 Ross 1971

15 0.1540 Harm 1968

29 0.0800 Templeton 2006

22 0.1070 Winkler 1962

100 0.0230 Freeman 1987

195 0.0118 Freeman 1987

Pseudorabies (PRV) NC_005946 143461 34 0.0676 0.0676 34 Ross 1971

Murine Cytomegalovirus NC_004065 230278 46 0.0500 0.05 46 Shanley 1982

HP1c1 phage NC_001697 32355 40 0.0576 0.0576 40 Setlow 1972

Equine Herpes virus NC_005946 150224 25 0.0921 0.0921 25 Weiss 1986

Frog virus 3 NC_005946 105903 25 0.0921 0.0921 25 Martin 1982

6 0.3697 Hotz 1971

38 0.0600 Harm 1968

40 0.0580 Fluke 1949 (265 nm)

95 0.0242 Benzer 1952

23 0.1000 Ronto 1992

53 0.0432 Peak 1978 (B)

11 0.2047 Peak 1978 (Bs-1)

480 0.0048 vander Eb 1967

640 0.0036 Defendi 1967

696 0.0033 Rauth 1965

501 0.0046 Latarjet 1967

16 0.1430 David 1973

324 0.0071 Sellers 1970 (D29)

268 0.0086 Sellers 1970 (D29A)

40 0.0576 Wolff 1973

41 0.0565 Ross 1971

75 0.0307 Ryan 1986

20 0.1180 Albrecht 1974

NC_004166

NC_005833

Mycobacterium phage D29

Herpes simplex virus Type 2

B. subtilis phage SP

Coliphage T1

Coliphage T7

Polyomavirus

NC_001604

NC_001699

168900

198350

48502

5243

7478

152261

NC_006998

NC_000866

NC_001489

NC_001806

Table 4: Rate Constants and D90 Values for DNA Viruses

AC_000017

AC_000007

AC_000008

Adenovirus Type 2*

Adenovirus Type 5*

Source

35997 322

333

Hepatitis A virus

Herpes simplex virus Type 1

Vaccinia virus*

Coliphage T4

Coliphage lambda

Simian virus 40*

Virus NCBI ID#

Adenovirus Type 1

NC_001416

NC_001669

NC_001348

NC_001798 154746

49136

5130

39937

48836

44010

0.00714

0.00691

0.00441

0.02953

0.03513

35937

35938 522

78

0.02768 83

66

0.06262 37

0.12454 18

0.1709 13

0.01742 132

0.163 14

0.08192 25

0.06569 35

0.0071 324

0.05623 41

Table 4. Rate Constants and D90 Values for DNA Viruses

JUNE 2009 | 23

Figure 3: Plot of Dv versus effective UV dose for DNA viruses– the D90 is the effective dose because it has been correctedfor UV scattering. The line represents a curve fit (equationshown on graph). A total of 77 data sets were used,weighted in the curve fit of the 22 viruses.

Table 5 compares the published estimates of the relativeproportions of the various dimer types with the constantsused in the previous models. The factors shown in the tableare the three constants in equations (7) and (16). The bestfit constants are those that were used in the model in theprevious Figures. The zero values assumed for the constantsthat were not given by the indicated sources did not haveany great influence of the R2 value. The hyperchromicityfactor was zero for all RNA models, and kept at 0.67 for allDNA models. The results for the DNA model are shownwith and without corrections for UV scattering, which makeabout an 12% difference in the DNA model, but had onlya 1% difference on the RNA model, as would be expectedfrom their size. Hyperchromicity had no effect on the RNAmodel but produced a 1% improvement in the DNAmodel.

CONCLUSIONSA mathematical model has been presented for theprediction of UV susceptibility of RNA and DNA virusesbased on base-counting of potential dimers in the virusgenomes. The results correlate well with available dataon UV rate constants. This model has been used toestimate the UV rate constants for a range of pathogenicanimal viruses and bioweapon agents for which completegenomes were available from the NCBI database and

Table 6 summarizes these predictions. Minimum andmaximum D90 values are listed that are within theconfidence intervals (CIs) of 86% for DNA viruses and93% for RNA viruses. These CIs represent only theintervals of the data as summarized and do not includeany uncertainty in the original 147 data sets, most ofwhich included no error analysis. By establishing atheoretical basis for the UV susceptibility of viruses inwater, it becomes possible to link them to airborne rateconstants – water-based rate constants represent a limittowards which airborne rate constants converge in highhumidity (Peccia et al 2001). For additional informationon genomic modeling see Kowalski et al (2009) andKowalski (2009).

REFERENCESBergstrom, D. E.; Inoue, H.; Reddy, P. A. (1982) “Pyrido[2,3-

d]pyrimidine Nucleosides, Synthesis via Cyclization of C-5-Substituted Cytidines,” Journal of Organic Chemistry 47,2174-2178.

Aaronson SA. 1970. Effect of ultraviolet irradiation on thesurvival of simian virus 40 functions in human and mousecells. J Virol 6(4):393-399.

Abraham G. 1979. The effect of ultraviolet radiation on theprimary transcription of Influenza virus messenger RNAs.Virol 97:177-182.

Albrecht T. 1974. Multiplicity reactivation of humancytomegalovirus inactivated by ultra-violet light. BiochimBiophys Acta 905:227-230.

Battigelli D, Sobsey M, Lobe D. 1993. The inactivation ofhepatitis A virus and other model viruses by UV irradiation.Wat Sci Technol 27:339.

Bay PHS, Reichman ME. 1979. UV inactivation of the biologicalactivity of defective interfering particles generated byVesicular Stomatitis virus. J Virol 32(3):876-884.

Becker MM, Wang Z. 1989. Origin of ultraviolet damage inDNA. J Mol Biol 210:429-438.

Benzer S. 1952. Resistance to ultraviolet light as an index to thereproduction of bacteriophage. J Bact 63:59-72.

Bister K, Varmus HE, Stavnezer E, Hunter E, Vogt PK. 1977.Biological and biochemical studies on the inactivation ofAvian Oncoviruses by ultraviolet irradiation. Virol(689-704).

y = 0.5536e

6.736x

R

2

= 0.6166

1

10

100

1000

0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85

Dimerization Value, Dv

Eff

ecti

ve U

V D

ose

: D

90, J

/m2

double-stranded DNA Viruses

Dimer Setlow Meistrich Lamola Unrau PatrickRatio 1968 1970 1973 1973 1977 RNA DNA

TT 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

CT CT/TT FA 0.25 0.8 0.8 0.5 1 0.1 0.05

CC CC/TT FB 0.13 0.2 0.2 0.5 1 6 40

UYY UYY/TT FC 0 0 0 0 0 6 18

61% 60% 60% 64% 62% 66% -

59% 61% 61% 64% 62% 67% -

H 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0 0.6733% 33% 33% 36% 39% - 50%

41% 44% 44% 48% 51% - 61%

43% 46% 46% 50% 53% - 62%

Table 5: Comparison of Dimerization Proportionality Constants

Dimer FactorBest Fit

RNA Model R2 (NS)

DNA Model R2 (NH)

(NH): No hyperchromicity. (NS): UV scattering not included.

RNA Model R2

DNA Model R2

Hyperchromicity

DNA Model R2 (NS)

Table 5: Comparison of Dimerization Proportionality Constants

Helping make our world safer and cleaner through the implementation of UV technologies.

Offices Nationwide • www.pirnie.com

http://www.pirnie.com


Dia. Genome Dimer Prob UV k

m bp Dv m2/J Mean Min Max

Camelpox DNA NC_003391 0.307 205719 0.3968 0.1280 18 9.6 40

Canine Distemper DNA NC_001921 0.173 15690 0.6958 0.0182 126 38 442

Chikungunya RNA NC_004162 0.06 11826 0.2161 0.0763 30 9.7 66

Crimean-Congo RNA NC_005300,01,02 0.09 19146 0.1947 0.1261 18 6.6 37

Dengue Fever Type 1 RNA NC_001477 0.045 10735 0.2117 0.0996 23 7.5 49




Ebola (Reston) RNA NC_004161 0.09 18891 0.2043 0.0957 24 8.3 51

Ebola (Sudan) RNA NC_006432 0.09 18875 0.2066 0.0867 27 8.8 53

Ebola (Zaire) RNA NC_002549 0.09 18959 0.2035 0.0991 23 8.3 50

EEE RNA NC_003899 0.062 11675 0.2222 0.0613 38 12 83

Fowl Adenovirus A DNA NC_001720 0.08 43804 0.6479 0.0349 66 33 220

Fowlpox DNA NC_002188 0.307 288539 0.3652 0.1564 15 7.7 30

Goatpox DNA NC_004003 0.307 149599 0.3987 0.1232 19 10 40

Hantaan RNA NC_005218,19,22 0.095 11845 0.2086 0.0811 28 9.9 63

Hepatitis C DNA NC_009827 0.06 9628 0.8542 0.0099 233 110 1097

Herpesvirus Type 4 DNA NC_009334 0.122 172764 0.5879 0.0436 53 25 157

Herpesvirus Type 6A DNA NC_001664 0.1 159322 0.4626 0.1103 21 11 50

Herpesvirus Type 7 DNA NC_001716 0.155 153080 0.4459 0.1024 22 12 49

Japanese Encephalitis RNA NC_001437 0.045 10976 0.2163 0.0860 27 8.9 61

Junin RNA NC_005080,81 0.12 10525 0.2304 0.0341 68 21 154

Lassa RNA NC_004296,97 0.12 10681 0.2294 0.0372 62 20 107

LCM RNA NC_004291,94 0.126 10056 0.2226 0.0430 54 17 118

Machupo RNA NC_005079,78 0.11 10635 0.2326 0.0334 69 22 156

Marburg RNA NC_001608 0.039 19111 0.1999 0.1654 14 5.0 30

Monkeypox DNA NC_003310 0.307 196858 0.3998 0.1232 19 10 40

Mousepox DNA NC_004105 0.307 209771 0.3951 0.1247 18 9.8 40

Mumps RNA NC_002200 0.245 15384 0.2133 0.0486 47 15 97

Myxoma DNA NC_001132 0.25 161766 0.4451 0.0924 25 13 54

Norwalk RNA NC_001959 0.032 7654 0.2416 0.0410 56 14 132

Papillomavirus DNA NC_001691 0.055 7184 0.7302 0.0236 98 45 369

Parainfluenza Type 1 RNA NC_003461 0.194 15600 0.1961 0.0968 24 8.6 50

Respiratory Syncytial RNA NC_001803 0.19 15225 0.2006 0.0823 28 9.7 58

Rhinovirus B RNA NC_001490 0.023 7212 0.2355 0.0526 44 12 99

Rhinovirus C RNA NC_009996 0.023 7099 0.2428 0.0417 55 15 125

Rubella RNA NC_001545 0.061 9755 0.2634 0.0152 152 37 345

Sendai RNA NC_001522 0.194 15384 0.2040 0.0740 31 11 66

Smallpox DNA NC_001611 0.307 185578 0.4041 0.1202 19 10 42

Turkey Adenovirus A DNA NC_001958 0.08 26263 0.6030 0.0473 49 24 148

Usutu RNA NC_006551 0.051 11066 0.2206 0.0693 33 10 73

Yellow Fever RNA NC_002031 0.045 10862 0.2151 0.0860 27 8.5 56

Table 6: Predicted UV Rate Constants and D90 Values

Virus Type NCBI #sUV Dose D90, J/m 2

Table 6. Predicted UV Rate Constants and D90 Values

JUNE 2009 | 25

Bockstahler LE, Lytle CD, Stafford JE, Haynes KF. 1976.Ultraviolet enhanced reactivation of a human virus: Effect ofdelayed infection. Mutat Res 35:189-198.

Bohren C, Huffman D. 1983. Absorption and Scattering of Lightby Small Particles. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Bohrerova Z, Shemer H, Lantis R, Impellitteri C, Linden K. 2008.Comparative disinfection efficiency of pulsed andcontinuous-wave UV irradiation technologies. Wat Res42:2975-2982.

Bossart W, Nuss DL, Paoletti E. 1978. Effect of UV irradiation onthe expression of Vaccinia virus gene products synthesized ina cell-free system coupling transcription and translation. JVirol 26(3):673-680.

Bourre F, Benoit A, Sarasin A. 1989. Respective Roles ofPyrimidine Dimer and Pyrimidine (6-4) PyrimidonePhotoproducts in UV Mutagenesis of Simian Virus 40 DNA inMammalian Cells. J Virol 63(11):4520-4524.

Butkus MA, Labare MP, Starke JA, Moon K, Talbot M. 2004. Useof aqueous silver to enhance inactivation of coliphage MS-2by UV disinfection. Appl Environ Microbiol 70(5):2848-2853.

Collier LH, McClean D, Vallet L. 1955. The antigenicity of ultra-violet irradiated vaccinia virus. J Hyg 53(4):513-534.

Cornelis JJ, Su ZZ, Ward DC, Rommelaere J. 1981. Indirectinduction of mutagenesis of intact parvovirus H-1 inmammalian cells treated with UV light or with UV-irradiatedH-1 or simian virus 40. Proc Natl Acad Sci 78(7):4480-4484.

Danner K, Mayr A. 1979. In vitro studies on Borna virus. II.Properties of the virus. Arch Virol 61:261-271.

Darnell MER, Subbarao K, Feinstone SM, Taylor DR. 2004.Inactivation of the coronavirus that induces severe acuterespiratory syndrome, SARS-CoV. J Virol Meth 121:85-91.

David HL. 1973. Response of mycobacteria to ultravioletradiation. Am Rev Resp Dis 108:1175-1184.

Davidovich IA, Kishchenko GP. 1991. The shape of the survivalcurves in the inactivation of viruses. Mol Gen, Microb & Virol6:13-16.

de Roda Husman AM, Bijkerk P, Lodder W, Berg Hvd, Pribil W,Cabaj A, Gehringer P, Sommer R, Duizer E. 2004. CalicivirusInactivation by Nonionizing (253.7-Nanometer-Wavelength[UV]) and Ionizing (Gamma) Radiation. Appl EnvironMicrobiol 70(9):5089-5093.

DeFendi V, Jensen F. 1967. Oncogenicity by DNA tumor viruses.Science 157:703-705.

DiStefano R, Burgio G, Ammatuna P, Sinatra A, Chiarini A. 1976.Thermal and ultraviolet inactivation of plaque purifiedmeasles virus clones. G Batteriol Virol Immunol 69:3-11.

Dubunin NP, Zasukhina GD, Nesmashnova VA, Lvova GN.1975. Spontaneous and Induced Mutagenesis in WesternEquine Encephalomyelitis Virus in Chick Embryo Cells withDifferent Repair Activity. Proc Nat Acad Sci 72(1):386-388.

Durance CS, Hoffman R, Andrews RC, Brown M. 2005.Applications of Ultraviolet Light for Inactivation ofAdenovirus. : University of Toronto Department of CivilEngineering.

Internationally Recognized – accredited under ISO/IEC 17025 Standard (CAEAL)

GAP EnviroMicrobial Services Ltd.Phone: 519-681-0571

Fax: 519-681-7150Email: [email protected]

www.gapenviromic.com

Accurate and Innovative Laboratory Services• Microbial support for UV

reactor validation efforts – bacteriophage and collimated beam analysis

• Pathogen detection

• Microbial Indoor Air Quality (IAQ)

GAP 4101 IUVA Ad:Layout 1 5/1/2008 3:59 PM Page 1

http://www.gapenviromic.com

http://www.light-sources.com


Fluke DJ, Pollard EC. 1949. Ultraviolet action spectrum of T1bacteriophage. Science 110:274-275.

Freeman AG, Schweikart KM, Larcom LL. 1987. Effect ofultraviolet radiation on the Bacillus subtilis phages SPO2c12,SPP1, and phi 29 and their DNAs. Mut Res 184(3):187-196.

Furuse K, Watanabe I. 1971. Effects of ultraviolet light (UV)irradiation on RNA phage in H2O and in D2O. Virol 46:171-172.

Galasso GJ, Sharp DG. 1965. Effect of particle aggregation onthe survival of irradiated Vaccinia virus. J Bact 90(4):1138-1142.

Gerba C, Gramos DM, Nwachuku N. 2002. Comparativeinactivation of enteroviruses and adenovirus 2 by UV light.Appl Environ Microbiol 68(10):5167-5169.

Golde A, Latarjet R, Vigier P. 1961. Isotypical interference invitro by Rous virus inactivated by ultraviolet rays. C R AcadSci (Paris) 253:2782-2784.

Guillemain B, Mamoun R, Astier T, Duplan J. 1981. Mechanismsof early and late polykaryocytosis induced by the BovineLeukaemia virus. J Gen Virol 57:227-231.

Gurzadyan GG, Nikogosyan DN, Kryukov PG, Letokhov VS,Balmukhanov TS, Belogurov AA, Zavilgelskij GB. 1981.Mechanism of high power picosecond laser UV inactivation ofviruses and bacterial plasmids. Photochem Photobiol 33:835-838.

Harm W. 1961. Gene-controlled reactivation of ultraviolet-irradiated bacteriophage. J Cell Comp Physiol Suppl58(1):169.

Harm W. 1968. Effects of dose fractionation on ultravioletsurvival of Escherichia coli. Photochem & Photobiol 7:73-86.

Havelaar AH. 1987. Virus, bacteriophages and waterpurification. Vet Q 9(4):356-360.

Helentjaris T, Ehrenfeld E. 1977. Inhibition of host cell proteinsynthesis by UV-inactivated poliovirus. J Virol 21(1):259-267.

Hill WF, Hamblet FE, Benton WH, Akin EW. 1970. Ultravioletdevitalization of eight selected enteric viruses in estuarinewater. Appl Microb 19(5):805-812.

Hollaender A, Oliphant JW. 1944. The inactivating effect ofmonochromatic ultraviolet radiation on influenza virus. J Bact48(4):447-454.

Hotz G, Mauser R, Walser R. 1971. Infectious DNA fromcoliphage T1. 3. The occurrence of single-strand breaks instored, thermally-treated and UV-irradiated molecules. Int JRadiat Biol Relat Stud Phys Chem Med 19:519-536.

Kariwa H, Fujii N, Takashima I. 2004. Inactivation of SARScoronavirus by means of povidone-iodine, physicalconditions, and chemical reagents. Jpn J Vet Res 52(3):105-112.

ULTR

AV

IOLET D

ISINFEC

TION

SOLU

TION

S

www.lit-uv.eu

UV LIT EUROPEKerkhofstraat 21, 5554 HG ValkenswaardThe Netherlands

T. +31 (0) 40 224 07 30F. +31 (0) 842 24 68 43E. [email protected]. www.lit-uv.eu

Cost effective UV (ultraviolet)disinfection solutions

More than 15 years experience and global competence with UV installations

World leader in ultraviolet (UV) technology

Reliable inactivation of bacteria, viruses and parasites

Lowest operational costs

Easy installation and operation

Fully certifi ed, meeting all international requirements

Robust design

Cost effective UV (ultraviolet)disinfection solutions

More than 15 years experience and global competence with UV installations

World leader in ultraviolet (UV) technology

Reliable inactivation of bacteria, viruses and parasites

Lowest operational costs

Easy installation and operation

Fully certifi ed, meeting all international requirements

Robust design

http://www.lit-uv.eu

JUNE 2009 | 27

Kelloff G, Aaronson SA, Gilden RV. 1970. Inactivation of MurineSarcoma and Leukemia viruses by ultra-violet irradiation.Virol 42:1133-1135.

Klein B, Filon AR, vanZeeland AA, vanderEb AJ. 1994. Survivalof UV-irradiated vaccinia virus in normal and xerodermapigmentosum fibroblasts; evidence for repair of UV-damaged viral DNA. Mutat Res 307(1):25-32.

Ko G, Cromenas TL, Sobsey MD. 2005. UV inactivation ofadenovirus type 41 measured by cell culture mRNA RT-PCR.Wat Res 39:3643-3649.

Kowalski WJ. 2006. Aerobiological Engineering Handbook: AGuide to Airborne Disease Control Technologies. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Kowalski WJ. 2009. Ultraviolet Germicidal IrradiationHandbook: UVGI for Air and Surface Disinfection. New York:Springer Verlag.

Kowalski W, Bahnfleth W, Hernandez M. A Genomic Model forthe Prediction of Ultraviolet Inactivation Rate Constants forRNA and DNA Viruses; 2009 May 4-5; Boston, MA.International Ultraviolet Association.

Lamola A. 1973. Photochemistry and structure in nucleic acids.Pure Appl Chem 34(2):281-303.

Latarjet R, Cramer R, Montagnier L. 1967. Inactivation, by UV-, X-, and gamma-radiations, of the infecting andtransforming capacities of polyoma virus. Virol 33:104-111.

Lee JE, Zoh KD, Ko GP. 2008. Inactivation and UV disinfectionof Murine Norovirus with TiO2 under various environmentalconditions. Appl Environ Microbiol 74(7):2111-2117.

Levinson W, Rubin R. 1966. Radiation studies of avian tumorviruses and of Newcastle disease virus. Virol 28:533-542.

Linden KG, Thurston J, Schaefer R, Malley JP. 2007. EnhancedUV inactivation of Adenoviruses under polychromatic UVlamps. Appl Environ Microbiol 73(23):7571-7574.

Lovinger GG, Ling HP, Gilden RV, Hatanaka M. 1975. Effect ofUV light on RNA directed DNA polymerase activity of murineoncornaviruses. J Virol 15:1273.

Lytle CD. 1971. Host-cell reactivation in mammalian cells. 1.Survival of ultra-violet-irradiated herpes virus in differentcell-lines. Int J Radiat Biol Relat Stud Phys Chem Med19(4):329-337.

Mamane-Gravetz H, Linden KG, Cabaj A, Sommer R. 2005.Spectral sensitivity of Bacillus subtilis spores and MS2coliphage for validation testing of ultraviolet reactors forwater disinfection. Environ Sci Technol 39:7845-7852.

Martin JP, Aubertin AM, Kirn A. 1982. Expression of Frog Virus3 early genes after ultraviolet irradiation. Virol 122:402-410.

Meistrich M, Lamola AA, Gabbay E. 1970. Sensitizedphotoinactivation of bacteriophage T4. PhotochemPhotobiol 11(3):169-178.

Meng QS, Gerba CP. 1996. Comparative inactivation of entericAdenoviruses, Poliovirus and coliphages by ultravioletirradiation. Wat Res 30(11):2665-2668.

NCBI. 2009. Entrez Genome. : National Center forBiotechnology Information.

Nomura S, Bassin RH, Turner W, Haapala DK, Fischinger PJ.1972. Ultraviolet inactivation of Maloney Leukaemia Virus:Relative target size required for virus replication and rescueof 'defective' Murine Sarcoma virus. J Gen Virol 14:213-217.

Nuanualsuwan S, Mariam T, Himathongkham S, Cliver DO.2002. Ultraviolet inactivation of Feline Calicivirus, HumanEnteric Viruses, and coliphages. Photochem Photobiol76(4):406-410.

Nwachuku N, Gerba CP, Oswald A, Mashadi FD. 2005.Comparative Inactivation of Adenovirus Serotypes by UVLight Disinfection. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(9):5633-5636.

Oppenheimer JA, Jacangelo JG, Laine J-M, Hoagland JE. 1997.Testing the equivalency of ultraviolet light and chlorine fordisinfection of wastewater to reclamation standards. WatEnviron Res 69(1):14-24.

Otaki M, Okuda A, Tajima K, Iwasaki T, Kinoshita S, Ohgaki S.2003. Inactivation differences of microorganisms by lowpressure UV and pulsed xenon lamps. Wat Sci Technol47(3):185-190.

Owada M, Ihara S, Toyoshima K. 1976. Ultraviolet inactivationof Avian Sarcoma viruses: Biological and Biochemicalanalysis. Virol 69:710-718.

Patrick MH. 1977. Studies on thymine-derived UVphotoproducts in DNA - I. Formation and biological role ofpyrimidine adducts in DNA. Photochem Photobiol25(4):357-372.

Peak MJ, Peak JG. 1978. Action spectra for the ultraviolet andvisible light inactivation of phage T7: Effect of host-cellreactivation. Radiat Res 76:325-330.

Peccia J, Werth HM, Miller S, Hernandez M. 2001. Effects ofrelative humidity on the ultraviolet induced inactivation ofairborne bacteria. Aerosol Sci & Technol 35:728-740.

Prahl S. 2009. Mie Scattering Calculator. : Oregon MedicalLaser Center.

Rainbow AJ, Mak S. 1970. Functional Heterogeneity of Virionsin Human Adenovirus Types 2 and 12. J Vir 5:188-193.

Rainbow AJ, Mak S. 1973. DNA damage and biologicalfunction of human adenovirus after U.V. irradiation. Int JRadiat Biol 24(1):59-72.

Rauth AM. 1965. The physical state of viral nucleic acid andthe sensitivity of viruses to ultraviolet light. BiophysicalJournal 5:257-273.

Ronto G, Gaspar S, Berces A. 1992. Phages T7 in biological UVdose measurement. Photochem Photobiol 12:285-294.

Ross LJN, Wildy P, Cameron KR. 1971. Formation of smallplaques by Herpes viruses irradiated with ultraviolet light.Virol 45:808-812.


Ryan D, Rainbow A. 1986. Comparative studies of host-cellreactivation, cellular capacity and enahnced reactivation ofherpes simplex virus in normal, xeroderma pigmentosumand Cockayne syndrome fibroblasts. Mut Res 166:99-111.

Sarasin AR, Hanawalt PC. 1978. Carcinogens enhance survivalof UV-irradiated simian virus 40 in treated monkey kidneycells: Induction of a recovery pathway? Proc Natl Acad Sci75(1):356-350.

Scholes CP, Hutchinson F, Hales HB. 1967. Ultraviolet-induceddamage to DNA independent of molecular weight. J MolBiol 24:471-474.

Seemayer NH. 1973. Analysis of minimal functions of Simianvirus 40. J Virol 12(6):1265-1271.

Sellers MI, Nakamura R, Tokunaga T. 1970. The effects ofultraviolet irradiation on Mycobacteriophages and theirinfectious DNAs. J Gen Virol 7(3):233-247.

Selsky C, Weichselbaum R, Little JB. 1978. Defective host-cellreactivation of UV-irradiated Herpes Simplex virus by Bllom'sSyndrome skin fibroblasts. In: Hanawalt PC, Friedberg EC,Cox CF, editors. DNA Repair Mechanisms. New York:Academic Press.

Setlow RB, Carrier WL. 1966. Pyrimidine dimers in ultraviolet-

Setlow J, Boling M. 1972. Bacteriophage of Haemophilusinfluenzae - II. Repair of ultraviolet-irradiated phage DNAand the capacity of irradiated cells to make phage. J Mol Biol63:349-362.

Shanley JD. 1982. Ultraviolet irradiation of MurineCytomegalovirus. J Gen Virol 63:251-254.

Shimizu A, Shimizu N, Tanaka A, Jinno-Oue A, Roy B,Shinagawa M, Ishikawa O, Hoshino H. 2004. Human T-cellleukaemia virus type 1 is highly sensitive to UV-C light. J GenVirol 85:2397-2406.

Shin G, Linden KG, Sobsey MD. 2005. Low pressure ultravioletinactivation of pathogenic enteric viruses andbacteriophages. J Environ Eng Sci 4(Supp 1):S7-S11.

Simonet J, Gantzer C. 2006. Inactivation and genomedegradation of poliovirus 1 and F-specific RNA phages anddegradation of their genomes by UV irradiation at 254nanometers. Appl Environ Microbiol 72(12):7671-7677.

Smirnov Y, Kapitulez S, Kaverin N. 1992. Effects of UV-irradiation upon Venezuelan equine encephalomyelitis virus.Virus Res 22(2):151-158.

Smith KC, Hanawalt PC. 1969. Molecular Photobiology:Inactivation and Recovery. New York: Academic Press.

Sommer R, Pribil W, Appelt S, Gehringer P, Eschweiler H, LethH, Cabaj A, Haider T. 2001. Inactivation of bacteriophages inwater by means of non-ionizing (UV 253.7nm) and ionizing(gamma) radiation: A comparative approach. Wat Res35(13):3109-3116.

Templeton MR, Andrews RC, Hofmann R. 2006. Impact of ironparticles in groundwater on the UV inactivation of

bacteriophages MS2 and T4. J Appl Microbiol 101(3):732-741.

Thurston-Enriquez JA, Haas CN, Jacangelo J, Riley K, Gerba CP.2003. Inactivation of Feline calicivirus and Adenovirus Type40 by UV radiation. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(1):577-582.

Unrau P, Wheatcroft R, Cox B, Olive T. 1973. The formation ofpyrimidine dimers in the DNA of fungi and bacteria. BiochimBiophys Acta 312:626-632.

van der Eb AJ, Cohen JA. 1967. The effect of UV-irradiation onthe plaque-forming ability of single- and double-strandedpolyoma virus DNA. Biochem Biophys Res Comm 28(2):284-293.

vandeHulst H. 1957. Light Scattering by Small Particles. NewYork: Chapman & Hall, Ltd.

vonBrodrotti HS, Mahnel H. 1982. Comparative studies onsusceptibility of viruses to ultraviolet rays. Zbl Vet Med B29:129-136.

Wang C-H, Tschen S-Y, Flehmig B. 1995. Antigenicity ofhepatitis A virus after ultra-violet irradiation. Vaccine13(9):835-840.

Wang J, Mauser A, Chao SF, Remington K, Treckmann R, KaiserK, Pifat D, Hotta J. 2004. Virus inactivation and proteinrecovery in a novel ultraviolet-C reactor. Vox Sang86(4):230-238.

Weidenmann A, Fischer B, Straub U, Wang C-H, Flehmig B,Schoenen D. 1993. Disinfection of Hepatitis A virus and MS-2 coliphage in water by ultraviolet irradiation: Comparisonof UV-susceptibility. Wat Sci Technol 27(3-4):335-338.

Weigle JJ. 1953. Induction of mutations in a bacterial virus.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 39:628.

Weiss M, Horzinek MC. 1986. Resistance of Berne virus tophysical and chemical treatment. Vet Microbiol 11:41-49.

Wilson B, Roessler P, vanDellen E, Abbaszadegan M, Gerba C.Coliphage MS-2 as a UV water disinfection efficacy testsurrogate for bacterial and viral pathogens. In: AssociationAWW, editor; 1992; Denver, CO.

Winkler U, Johns HE, Kellenberger E. 1962. Comparative studyof some properties of bacteriophage T4D irradiated withmonochromatic ultraviolet light. Virol 18:343-358.

Wolff MH, Schneweis KE. 1973. UV inactivation of herpessimplex viruses, types 1 and 2. Zentralbl Bakteriol223(4):470-477.

Yoshikura H. 1971. Ultraviolet inactivation of murine leukemiaand sarcoma viruses. Int J Cancer 7:131-140.

Yoshikura H. 1989. Thermostability of HumanImmunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) in a Liquid Matrix is farhigher than that of an ecotropic Murine Leukemia virus. JpnJ Cancer Res 80:1-5.

Zavadova Z, Gresland L, Rosenbergova M. 1968. Inactivationof single- and double-stranded ribonucleic acid ofencephalomyocarditis virus by ultraviolet light. Acta Virol12:515-522.

irradiated DNA's. J Mol Biol 17:237-254.

JUNE 2009 | 29

Disinfection Alternatives and Sustainability:Energy Optimization, Disinfection Efficiency,and Sustainability

Gary Hunter 1, Andy Shaw 1, Dr. Leonard W. Casson 2, and Dr. Joe Marriott 2

1Black & Veatch, 8400 Ward Parkway, Kansas City, MO 641142Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,

944 Benedum Engineering Hall, University ofPittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15261

INTRODUCTIONThe Clean Water Act (1972 and 1977) established the basisfor regulating pollutant discharges into the waters of theUnited States. This Act contains many provisions regulatingpollutant discharges and surface water quality in the UnitedStates. This act has also been modified by numerousrevisions and amendments since it was enacted in 1972.

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) permit program (authorized by the Clean WaterAct) regulates point sources that discharge pollutants intowaters of the United States in an effort to control waterpollution. The NPDES permit program contains thefollowing programs which regulates sanitary wastewaterand stormwater runoff.

• Secondary Treatment Standards;• Water Quality Based Permitting;• Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs);• Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs);• Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems;• National Pretreatment Program; and• Biosolids.

Disinfection of either treated sanitary wastewater orstormwater (through CSOs) is a key unit process used bythe wastewater treatment industry to meet NPDES permitrequirements and protect the receiving water (anddownstream drinking water treatment plant intakes).

The public health and environmental benefits of practicingwastewater disinfection in the United States are very clear.On September 11, 2001, the possibility of an internationalterrorist attack within the continental United States becamea reality. The most recent terrorist attacks targeting theUnited States have been directed at constructed facilitiesand infrastructure (e.g., the World Trade Center in NewYork City, the Pentagon, selected Postal facilities andCongressional Offices). Although these attacks seemed toinitiate terrorism in the continental United States,numerous domestic terrorism attacks and incidents haveoccurred in the United States since the early 1950’s. Inaddition to intentional attacks, the impacts of hurricaneKatrina on the Gulf Coast of the United States highlightedthe risks and safety issues associated with remediation andrecovery of infrastructure systems following a majordisaster. Thus, the current focus of preparing for “AllHazards” instead of focusing on intentional attacks oraccidental discharges.

To address these hazards the “3-S design guidance” wasdeveloped in response to this paradigm shift.

• Safety

o Public Health Protection Through RegulatoryCompliance

o Workers and Surrounding CommunityProtection

ABSTRACTThe dramatic rise in energy and chemical costs is spurring additional focus on optimizing efficiency of wastewater disinfectionprocesses. At the same time, sustainability of disinfection in an increasingly-urbanized world will depend in part on the ability toreuse treated effluent as a resource instead of a waste product.

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and devastation of Hurricane Katrina, the engineering design paradigmwas broadened to include safety, security and a response to all hazards. The “3-S Design Concept” for drinking water andwastewater infrastructure systems was developed

The “3-S Design Concept” can be used to provide practical guidance for the design and operation of disinfection processes andtreatment systems in today’s economic environment in a manner that embraces sustainable solutions that benefit futuregenerations instead of short-sighted solutions with hidden future costs. Sustainability incorporates a triple bottom line approachincorporating economic, environmental, and social factors in to the selection of a UV disinfection system.

Disinfection Alternatives and Sustainability:Energy Optimization, Disinfection Efficiency,and Sustainability


• Security – “All Hazards”o Vulnerability Assessmentso Emergency Response/Operation Plans

• Sustainabilityo Infrastructure Design Support Systemso Environmental Considerations

Literature has discussed safety and security related todisinfection systems, therefore this paper will focus onaspects related to sustainability.

SUSTAINABILITY BACKGROUNDThe United States and other countries have begun toembrace the sustainability concept. This concept is bestdefined by the following statement from the BruntlandCommission Report.

“Humanity has the ability to make developmentsustainable to ensure that it meets the needs of thepresent without compromising the ability of futuregenerations to meet their own needs” Bruntland, 1987.

That same report reminds us of the following:

“Sustainable Development is not a fixed state of harmony,but rather a process of change in which the exploitation ofresources, the direction of investments, the orientation oftechnological development and institutional change aremade consistent with future as well as present needs”Bruntland, 1987.

Life Cycle Management (LCM) is an integrated conceptused for managing the total life cycle of goods and servicestowards more sustainable production and consumption.Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a tool for the systematicevaluation of the environmental aspects of a product orservice system through all states of its life cycle. Theinternational organization for Standardization (ISO) hasstandardized this framework with the ISO 14040 on LifeCycle Assessment (UNEP, 2008).

Engineers are being challenged to determine how to bestincorporate sustainability and sustainable concepts intodrinking water and wastewater infrastructure systems.Presently, the primary method for sustainabilityincorporation has been to include green building conceptsinto utility buildings. These green building concepts havebeen developed and certified by the Leadership in Energyand Environmental Design (LEED). The effort to incorporatesustainability has raised the following questions amongacademics and consulting engineers:

• Can sustainability (i.e., LCM and LCA) beincorporated into standard engineering design ofinfrastructure systems?

• What is the best, most practical and meaningful wayto incorporate sustainability into the engineeringdesign and operation of the drinking water andwastewater infrastructure?

• What is the best approach to incorporatesustainability concepts into engineering design?

In addition to the 3-S Design Concept, the sustainabilitytriangle for drinking water and wastewater infrastructurewas adapted from the sustainability literature (UNEP, 2008)and is shown in Figure 1.

CARBON FOOTPRINT

One of the aspects of a LCA is the determination of thecarbon footprint of the disinfection system. The firstconsideration in developing a carbon footprint is the“boundaries” for the assessment. By this is meant a cleardefinition of what activities, processes, emissions andtimescales should be included in the calculation. Theactual boundaries selected for the assessment depend onthe purpose of the assessment. For example, if the carbonfootprint will be used to assess the plant as part of a widerlocal or regional program that looks at a variety of utilitiesand activities then it is important that the utility follows astandard protocol to ensure that an “apples for apples”comparison is made and that emissions are not double-accounted. If the purpose of the carbon foot printingexercise is to look at reducing onsite emissions, to provideopportunities to sequester carbon or to sell carbon offsets,then the utility may want to broaden the assessment toinclude significant biogenic emissions (i.e. emissions thatare considered to be part of the natural carbon cycle) thatare not usually included in standard protocols.

The most significant source of greenhouse gas emissions formost wastewater treatment facilities is the indirect emissionof CO2 due to the use of electricity to provide aerobictreatment. These emissions can usually be calculated easilyas most facilities have good measurements of theirelectricity use. An important consideration for wastewatertreatment plants that provide nitrification is the emission ofnitrous oxide (N2O) which is usually emitted in very smallquantities but is; however, 300 times more potent than

Figure 1. Sustainable Infrastructure Triangle (Adapted fromUNEP, 2008)

JUNE 2009 | 31

CO2 and so it can be a significant contribution to the overallcarbon footprint of the plant. The paper will discuss theconditions that influence N2O emissions and give guidanceon preventing excessive emissions.

Once a carbon footprint has been calculated for a facility,this baseline number can be used as a measurement toassess steps to reduce the carbon footprint – such as theuse of co-generation using digester gas - or the increase incarbon footprint due to requirements for improved effluentquality.

SUSTAINABLILITYSustainability as a concept is somewhat difficult toimplement and determine as shown on Figure 2. A largenumber of factors can be examined to establish the costs orrankings for economic, environmental and social area ofsustainability.

DISINFECTION ALTERNATIVES

Design of disinfection systems can become challenging, asthere may be a number of end uses, each with its own setof disinfection requirements. Since 1935, chlorination hasbeen the most common method of wastewaterdisinfection. Despite its effectiveness, chlorine use hasmore recently been questioned for several reasons: chlorinetransport from the chemical manufacturer to the point of

use carries quantifiable risks, chlorine gas can be toxic,hypochlorite solution is corrosive, chlorine residual intreatment plant effluent can harm aquatic systems, andchlorine addition to wastewater can result in formation ofundesirable DBPs.

Chlorine Gas.

Gaseous chlorine is the most common means ofdisinfecting wastewater in the United States. Designparameters and dosing requirements for its use are wellestablished. The equipment is fairly reliable, easy tooperate, and is familiar to many wastewater treatment staffas it is the current means of disinfection at the four plants.Typical gaseous chlorine facilities are comprised of acylinder storage area equipped with cradles, scales, gasdetectors, and an overhead crane. Evaporators andchlorinators transfer the chlorine from the cylinders anddisperse a dose of chemical into the wastewater. Anemergency scrubber is generally installed to capture andneutralize any chlorine gas leaks. Chlorine contact basinsare provided to ensure adequate time for disinfection.

Perhaps the most substantial drawback associated with theuse of chlorine gas is the safety risk. Chlorine is a toxic gasthat can be harmful or fatal if inhaled. In 1988, theUniform Fire Code (UFC) was revised to include therequirement that if more than 150 pounds of chlorine isstored at a given time, the facility must be equipped with

Figure 2. Economic, Environmental and Social Factors used in Sustainability Analysis.


safety systems to contain and treat chlorine gas in the caseof an accidental leak. Options include chlorine scrubbersand cylinder containment vessels. Facilities constructedbefore this requirement was adopted may at the discretionof the local fire marshal be exempt until they are modifiedor expanded.

In 1992, the Occupational Safety and HealthAdministration (OSHA) put forth the requirements of itsProcess Safety Management (PSM) rule (29 CFR 1910.119).Utilities that operate gas chlorine systems are required tocomply with this regulation, given the threshold quantities(TQs) of chlorine used and stored onsite. The TQs are1,500 pounds for chlorine and 1,000 pounds for sulfurdioxide. The rule contains the compliance requirements for13 plan elements that apply to the facilities. Compliancewith the rule requires the development of written policies,procedures, and records for each of these plan elements.All of these factors increase training budgets for wastewatertreatment plant staff.

Disinfection with gaseous chlorine typically has a loweroperating cost than other methods. Therefore, there has inthe past been little or no economic incentive for utilities toswitch to another method. When the costs of variousoptions are similar, the non-economic factors sway utilitiesaway from using chlorine/sulfur dioxide gas disinfection.

Sodium Hypochlorite.

Sodium hypochlorite is a liquid disinfection agent whichhas proven to be reliable in the inactivation of fecalcoliforms and bacterial pathogens. Sodium hypochloritetypically achieves performance levels equal to that ofchlorine gas. Its effectiveness may be attributed to the factthat sodium hypochlorite disassociates in solution to formhypochlorous acid, which is the same disinfecting agentformed when chlorine gas is introduced into solution.When sodium hypochlorite is used for disinfection, sodiumbisulfite is typically used for dechlorination. Since sodiumhypochlorite and sodium bisulfite is delivered in liquid formand is not a listed Hazardous Air Pollutant under the CleanAir Act Amendments of 1990, its use as a dechlorinatingagent does not mandate the implementation of anemergency scrubber.

A typical sodium hypochlorite feed system will consist of abulk storage tank, day storage tanks, metering pumps, anda calibration column used to pace the metering pumps.Sodium hypochlorite is typically delivered in a 10 to 15percent solution strength in bulk quantities. Because itssolution strength degrades slowly over time, bulk quantitiesare usually not stored for periods longer than 60 days. Todetermine the minimum bulk storage requirements, a 15 to30 day storage period at annual average flow conditions istypically used.

On-Site Generation of Sodium Hypochlorite.

On-site sodium hypochlorite generation has been a proven

technology since the 1930s. This process uses salt or abrine solution and electric power to generate chlorine. Ifsalt is used, it is dissolved in a brine solution which is dilutedand then passed across electrodes powered by a lowvoltage current. This process produces a dilutehypochlorite of 0.8 percent in solution. On-sitehypochlorite generation requires the construction of abrine tank, rectifier, electrolytic cells, a product tank,metering pumps and controls. In 2002, Black & Veatchconducted a survey on the use of on-site generationhypochlorite in the wastewater industry. Results of thissurvey found that there were less than 10 wastewaterfacilities using this form of disinfection with the largestfacility having a peak design flow less than 25 mgd. Recentimprovements to the technology have allowed theproduction of 12.5 percent solution resulting in an increaseof facilities using on-site generation. This process isreceiving interest from many communities as operatingcosts are about one half of that of a sodium hypochloritesystem.

Alternatives to disinfection with chlorine gas andhypochlorite have been developed to avoid some of theseproblems. However, chlorine use will not be completelydiscontinued in the near-term, because a chlorine residualis still desired and/or required for many end uses.

Representing companies with the benefit ofover 60 years experience in UVC technology,American Air & Water®, Inc. is a UVC air andwater disinfection industry leader.

A complete line of UVC Air and SurfaceSterilization and Water Disinfection Systemsfor ANY residential, commercial or industrialfacility, including custom units, designed andbuilt to meet any specific requirements.

UVC SYSTEMS FOR AHEALTHY INDOOR ENVIRONMENT

American Air & Water, Inc.www.americanairandwater.com

Toll Free: 888-378-4892

http://www.americanandwater.com

http://www.americanairandwater.com

JUNE 2009 | 33

Disinfection Alternatives to Chlorine

Alternative disinfectants such as ultraviolet (UV) light,ozone, chlorine dioxide, and chloramines are oftenconsidered in reuse and recharge applications, primarily toaddress chlorine residual and/or DBP issues, i.e.trihalomethane (THM), haloacetic acids (HAA), andnitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) formation. Below is a briefdiscussion of the disinfection technologies and some of theconcerns with respect to reuse and recharge applications.

n UV. UV disinfection has been used at manyinstallations, but water must be relatively free fromsubstances that absorb at 254 nm to ensuredisinfection. Since many reuse facilities employfiltration, UV can be a good fit. One of the keylimitations with UV is that there is no form of residualdisinfectant following treatment. For many reusefacilities, a residual chlorine concentration is desirableto control biological growth in the distributionsystem. In addition, many end users require aresidual. For example, for golf course irrigation, thereuse water may be delivered to storage ponds priorto application. To control biological and algal growthin the pond as well as for public health concerns dueto potential public access, chlorine residual isdesirable. With UV, there is a potential for regrowth inopen storage ponds. A key feature of UV relates toDBP formation. UV eliminates the formation of THMsand is one of the few proven technologies to reduceNDMA. When UV is used to treat NDMA the requireddosage is approximately 1,000 mJ/cm2 which issignificantly greater than the dosage range used inreuse (60 to 140 mJ/cm2) and for basic level (20 to 40mJ/cm2) disinfection (USEPA).

n Chlorine Dioxide. Chlorine dioxide does not promotethe formation of THMs and is a highly effectivebactericide and viricide. It has been used successfullyfor a number of years as a disinfection alternative atwater production facilities. It minimizes the formation

of disinfection byproducts that are regulated underthe Safe drinking water act and byproducts that areregulated by standards in the receiving stream.Research is being conducted on the use of chlorinedioxide at wastewater treatment facilities forminimizing the formation of disinfection byproductsas well. A review of literature indicates that whilechlorine dioxide is effective, it is several times moreexpensive than chlorine; consequently, it has notfound widespread use as a disinfectant at WWTPs.

n Ozone. Ozone has not been widely used fordisinfection of WWTP effluents. In the early 1970’s,utilities in the US first recognized the need for addingozone as a disinfectant to treated wastewater effluent.As early as 1981, researchers began to examine theapplication of ozone as part of the water reclamationprocess. Early research indicated that the followingozone doses were required to achieve the specificlevels of disinfection (Table 1).

Concentration/time (CT) values for many of the earlyfacilities ranged from 20 to 150 mg/L•minute. Theliterature indicates that the most significant factors thatinfluence the ozone dose requirements are effluentchemical oxidation demand (soluble COD), influentbacteria density, and target effluent bacteria density.Results from recent studies (Snyder 2007, Hunter 2007)indicate that at ozone doses near 3 mg/L, bacteriaconcentrations can be reduced to at or below detectionlimits. These studies have also found that bromate ( a DPBfrom ozone) can be formed. Further research is beingcompleted to optimize bacteria removal with bromateformation.

n Ozone. Ozone has not been widely used fordisinfection of WWTP effluents. In the early 1970’s,utilities in the US first recognized the need for addingozone as

n Chloramination. Monochloramine is an effectivedisinfectant which is formed through the reaction of

FilteredSecondary

35 to 40 15 to 20 12 to 15

Filtered andNitrified

15 to 20 5 to 10 3 to 5

*From Stover et.al. 1981


chlorine with ammonia. In fully nitrifying activatedsludge systems it can be rapidly formed by addinga controlled amount of ammonia (NH3) ahead ofchlorine addition. The benefits of chloraminationare (1) chlorine is immediately tied up withammonia which prevents the formation oforganochloramines which are non-germicidal andrequire extremely high dosages of chlorine to geteffective disinfection, and 2) chloramines minimizethe formation of THMs as well as other potentialDBPs. The exception is NDMA which has beenidentified as a potential byproduct created withchloramination as well as chlorination. Najam andTrussell found that NDMA concentrations of 700ng/L or higher were observed when usingchloramines for disinfection. The complicatingfactor for monochloramine disinfection is that afterdechlorination, monochloramine will be destroyedand ammonia will be released. Depending on theeffluent discharge point, the release of ammoniacan impact nitrogen permit compliance as well ascause ammonia toxicity concerns.

n Peracetic Acid. Paracetic Acid is a promising newdisinfectant that is being evaluated morefrequently as a disinfection alternative. Researchersdebate whether PAA’s disinfection action occursdue to active oxygen release or the hydroxylradical. Regardless, it is an effective disinfectantthat is not mutagenic or carcinogenic, decomposesto harmless acetic acid, oxygen, and water, andthus does not yield harmful DBPs. In addition, nosubsequent processes, i.e. dechlorination, arerequired. The main disadvantages are the increaseof organic content in the treated effluent, thepotential for microbial regrowth caused by theremaining acetic acid, the limited efficiency againstviruses and parasites, and the strong dependenceon wastewater quality. Literature indicates thatperactic acid has mostly been used for dischargesto marine waters which have less stringentdischarge limitations when compared to reuse andrecharge requirements. It may not be costcompetitive when high doses are required, i.e., tomeet CA standards of 2.2 CFU/100 mL totalcoliforms and >5 log inactivation of polivirus. Ithas been shown that under the right conditions(high PAA dosages, sufficient contact times, andadequate concentration of organic and mineralconstituents in the final effluent) halogenatedbyproduct formation may be a problem. Aquatictoxicity issues and costs for full-scale operation arenot well-documented. While, PAA shows promiseas a disinfectant, many questions remain to beanswered prior to its full-scale application.

CASE STUDY FOR SUSTAINABILITYSeveral disinfection alternatives were considered forsecondary effluent as for the wet weather flow from asecondary wastewater treatment facility. The following listof criteria was used in the development of five disinfectionalternatives.

• Maximum Primary Treatment Capacity – 135 mgd

• Average Daily flow – 30 mgd

• Secondary Treatment Capacity

o Sustained Daily Flow – 55 mgd

o Peak Flow – 75 mgd

• Maximum Secondary Bypass Wet Weather Flow –80 mgd (receives primary treatment)

Design guidance for the chlorination system was based onState requirements and on disinfecting waters with similarcharacteristics. The following criteria were used indeveloping the disinfection alternatives:

• A hypochlorite dosage of 6 mg/L for secondary flowand 12 mg/L for bypassed primary flow.

• Ten wet weather bypassing events per disinfectionseason.

• Contact chambers sized for 15 minutes of detentiontime at peak flow and 30 minutes minimum ataverage daily flow.

• Storage of enough chemicals for 15 days with threebypassing events.

Alternative 1—Liquid Sodium Hypochloriteand New Contact BasinsThis alternative would include a new sodium hypochloritesystem to disinfect all flows discharged from the plant. Thetotal of these flows would be 135 mgd (80 mgd of wetweather flow and 55 mgd of secondary treatedwastewater). A new chemical feed building would beconstructed to store chemical and to house the chemicalfeed equipment. New chlorine contact chambers would beconstructed as well. The existing basin has 15 minutes ofdetention time at 49 mgd; therefore, it does not havesufficient capacity for 55 mgd of secondary treatedwastewater. New basins would be built, one for secondarytreated flow and one for primary treated flow, and theexisting basin would not be used. Each basin allowsdifferent hypochlorite dosages; the dosage for primarytreated flow is greater than for flow that has receivedsecondary treatment.

Alternative 2 —Ultraviolet Disinfection UsingMedium Pressure LampsThis alternative would involve construction of a UV facilityto house the equipment (lamps, ballasts, PLC, and electricalcabinets) to treat 135 mgd of plant effluent. Flow would be

JUNE 2009 | 35

diverted from the plant effluent and secondary bypasssewers into the UV disinfection building. Primary andsecondary effluent would be combined in an influentchannel before they pass through the UV reactor.

Alternative 3—Ultraviolet Disinfection UsingLow Pressure – High Intensity LampsThis alternative will involve the construction of a newfacility to treat the 135 mgd of blended plant effluent withlow pressure – high intensity UV lamps. Flow diverted fromthe plant effluent and secondary bypass sewers into the UVdisinfection building would be blended in an influentchannel before passing through the UV channels.

Alternative 4 —Medium Pressure UVDisinfection and Liquid Sodium HypochloriteThis alternative combines two of the technologiesdiscussed above. Ultraviolet disinfection would be used onthe secondary flow. Liquid sodium hypochlorite would be

used to treat wet flow that receives only primary treatment.Enough sodium hypochlorite would be stored on-site totreat flow from two wet weather events. Because UVdisinfection would be used only on flows that have receivedsecondary treatment, the equipment needs are significantlyless than if it were to be used on flows that have receivedonly primary treatment in addition to the flows that havereceived secondary treatment. The UV system neededwould be considerably smaller than would be needed totreat the entire plant flow.

Alternative 5—Low Pressure – High IntensityUV Disinfection and Liquid SodiumHypochloriteThis alternative combines two of the technologiesdiscussed above. Ultraviolet disinfection would be used onthe secondary flow. Liquid sodium hypochlorite would beused to treat wet flow that receives only primary treatment.Enough sodium hypochlorite would be stored on-site to

Table 1. Development of Present Worth Cost for Disintection Alternatives


Table 2. Disinfection Albernatives with Carbon Tax

treat flow from two wet weather events. Because UVdisinfection would be used only on flows that have receivedsecondary treatment, the equipment needs are significantlyless than if it were to be used on flows that have receivedonly primary treatment in addition to the flows that havereceived secondary treatment. The UV system neededwould be considerably smaller than would be needed totreat the entire plant flow.

DEVELOPMENT OF COSTS

Capital costs and operating costs were developed for eachof the four disinfection alternatives to be consideredfurther. Disinfection costs are for alternatives operated for6 months during a year. Capital costs were developed fromvendor information and from Black & Veatch experiencewith similar projects. The operation and maintenance costsare based on a 20-year life cycle and an annual interest rateof 6%.

Chemical costs for sodium hypochlorite and sodiumbisulfite are $0.75 per gallon and $1.20 per gallon,respectively. Chemical use was based on 180 days ofdisinfection of secondary effluent and 10 wet weatherevents. The operating labor costs were based on a rate of$25 per hour.

Carbon tax at $30/ton was used to initially examine thecarbon footprint of each disinfection alternative as shownin Table 2.

The initial development of the carbon tax did not includethe cost of transportation of sodium hypochlorite orreplacement costs for the UV systems. Therefore additionalanalysis needs to be completed to determine the overallimpact of carbon foot print on the selection of thedisinfection alternative. It is anticipated that after the costof transporting the sodium hypochlorite is added in thepresent worth analysis, UV will become the most viablealternative available for selection.

Sustainability was examined by looking at environmental,social, and economic factors as they related to the Casehistory. The following are the issues that were evaluated aspart of the sustainability evaluation that conducted for theproject.

Environmental Sustainablity• Disinfection by products were evaluated as part of

a bench scale study – values were found to bebelow detection limits

JUNE 2009 | 37

• Land use – While site is land locked ..conceptuallayouts for any of the disinfection alternativescould be implemented

• Green House Gas – Carbon Footprint only considermanufacturing – transportation of chemicals stillneeds to be included

Social Sustainability• Health Effects - location of plant does not impact

down stream drinking water intakes

• Nuisance factors - Hypochlorite requires moretruck deliveries –for this example average of 7truck loads per week

• Aesthetics - UV smaller footprint

• Safety - Hypochlorite transportation and handlingissues

• Plant Operability - Size of plant, Staff Experienceon Technology

Economic Sustability• Capital Costs

• Annual Operating Costs

• Redundancy/Reliability/Equipment including Codeand Cooling

• Construction Issues: Contingency, Soils, Timing(Weather), Electrical

CONCLUSIONSThe use of Sustainability principles is here to stay. Theselection of the disinfection alternative will be impactedbased on the use of sustainable principles which allow forconsideration of environmental, social and economicfactors.

REFERENCESNWRI. 2003. Ultraviolet Disinfection Guidelines for Drinking

Water and Water Reuse, 2nd ed.

(Fountain Valley, CA: National Water Research Institute, incollaboration with American Water Works Association).

Townsend, B.R., Hunter, G., Lawal, O., Bemus, R., andMorgan, D. 2008. “Taming the Wild

West: Implementation of the UVDGM for the Validation ofWastewater Low-Dose Applications”, Proceedings of the81st Annual Water Environment Federation TechnicalExhibition and Conference, Chicago, IL, October 18 –22.

Carollo’s leadership in UV research, regulations, validation, design and commissioning provides innovative and sustainable UV solutions for drinking water and wastewater utilities across the United States. With

TM.”

1.800.523.5822 | carollo.com

SHEDDING NEW LIGHT…ON UV DISINFECTION.

UV Reactor Models Using

AwwaRF Project 2977Design and Performance Guidelines

….

1216 UV Ad_final2_update-2b.indd 1 5/22/09 2:17:02 PM

http://www.carollo.com

http://www.iuva.org/worldcongress2009

What if everyone loved their water? TrojanUV provides the solutions that bring water confidence to yourcommunity. Reduce disinfection by-products and improve the safety of your community’s water supply.

Let us show you how we LUV your water.

www.trojanuv.com

http://www.trojanuv.com

http://www.philips.com/simplicity

features · 2016-10-03 · in the next issue . . . commercial & industrial applications issn...

Documents