Swimming pool water disinfection

Case study

Introduction
When going to the swimming pool are you thinking about water purification method there and how water quality can affect your health?

Swimming pool situated in London is the object of current case study. Swimmers have complained about skin and eye irritation and chlorine smell after bathing. Pipe corrosion is an increasing problem. Pool workers have more sick leaves due to breathing problems. Average number of bathers is 700 per day. Water is circulated continuously between 6am and 7pm. Three pools (main, outdoor and pool for teaching) were constructed according one scheme with the only difference in pool size, scheme is presented in figure 1. Pool specification is presented in table 1.

Figure 1. Scheme of main, outdoor and teaching pools [1]

Table 1. Swimming pool specification Capacity Duty Main pool (indoor), size: 25 x 13 m 490 m3 198 m3/h

Outdoor pool, size: 2 x 10 m + free form Capacity 312 m3 Duty 243 m3/h Teaching pool (indoor), size: 13 x 7 m Capacity 68 + 6 m3 Duty 105 m3/h

Table 1. Swimming pool specification Water treatment Sand filters Primary filtration Primary chemical treatment Disinfection Chlorine gas pH Control Soda ash Flocculation Polyaluminium chloride As it can be seen from the table, water disinfection method is chlorination for main pool, outdoor pool and teaching pool. Chlorination is the most common method for swimming pool water treatment due to low costs and quite high efficiency [2]. However, this method has few important drawbacks such as carcinogenic by-products formation (trihalomethanes, haloacetic acids, etc.).

Formation of trihalomethanes (THMs) in water depends on amount of organic matter in water, pH, temperature, contact time between water and chlorine, presence of bromide in source water. Chloroform (CHCl3), bromdichloromethane (CHCl2Br), dibromochloromethane (CHClBr2) and bromoform (CHBr3) constitute THMs. According to USEPA among these only CHClBr2 is probable human carcinogen (type C), others are human carcinogens (type B2) [2].

Chloroform which was used in the past for medical purposes (anesthesia) basically caused death followed by respiratory and cardiac arrhythmias [3]. Those patients who could survive after chloroform induced anesthesia had other symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, prostration, jaundice, coma, etc. It was reported that mean lethal oral dose of chloroform for an adult is about 45g however serious health problems can be caused by digestion of 7.5g [3].

Bromoform was used in the past as a sedative for children who suffered from whooping cough. Bromoform overdosing has lead to several fatal cases. Dwell described the death of 2 years and 9 month girl suffered from whooping cough due to overdosing of bromoform (bromoform concentration was 445 mg/kg/day and exposure time 1day). [4]

Dibromochloromethane and bromdichloromethane were not sufficiently studied. However there are some information concerning acute toxicity of dibromochloromethane, it was defined that LD50 (oral) for rats is 370 mg/kg [5].

Swimming pool water contaminated by THMs is especially dangerous for swimmers. It was reported that level at which people would be exposed to THMs during 1h in the pool is 141 times than having shower for 10 min under tap water [2]. Currently maximum permissible concentration for THMs in swimming pools does not exist. However, there are some defined Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for chlorination by-products including total THMs in tap water; for instance, WHO published that concentration of these compounds should not be higher than 100g/L and the Maximum Contamination Levels Goal (MCLG) for THMs in water is less than 40g/L [2]. Some attempts were made to evaluate level of THMs concentration in swimming pools in different countries. Thus 114 residential swimming pools in the USA were examined by Sandel and it was found that mean chloroform concentration was 67.1g/L with maximum level 313g/L. According to the WHO investigations level of chloroform in the USA pools was 4420g/L [2]. Italian swimming pools THMs pollution level was reported to be 17.8 - 70.8g/L. According to Chu and Nieuwenhuijsen concentration of total THMs in Londons pools is 125.2g/L and chloroform concentration is 113.3g/L. Linear correlation was defined between number of people in the pool and THMs concentration in water. More data concerning THMs concentration in indoor swimming pool water in various countries is represented in table 2. [6]

Table 2. THMs concentration measured in swimming pool water [6]

Country Poland Italy Chloroform 35.9-99.7 25-43 9-179 19-94 4-402 3-580 <0.1-530 145-151 <2-62.3 43-980 40.6-117.5 Trihalomethanes concentration, g/L Bromoform Bromodichloromethane Dibromochloromethane 0.2-203.2 2.3-14.7 0.2-0.8 0.1 1.8-2.8 0.5-10

USA Denmark Hungary Germany

<0.1-1 <0.1-60 <0.1-183

1-72 1-90 <0.1-105 <1-11.4 0.1-150 4.2-5.4

<0.1-8 0.3-30 <0.1-48

<0.1-88

0.1-140 0.78-2.6

It is visible from the table 2 that concentration of THMs in swimming pool water is quite often higher than MCL recommended by WHO for tap water. Considering concentration of THMs in pools water it is important to know average water intake by swimmers. It was reported that mean water intake by children is about 37 ml, by adult 16 ml. Interestingly average adult men pool

water intake is higher than that for adult women and constitute 22 ml while for women it is only 12 ml. For boys water intake is also higher (45 ml) than that for girls (30 ml). [6]

However contaminated water is not the only problem associated with THMs. Another important point is that THMs are volatile compounds and they can be found in the air above the indoor pools. Basically concentration of THMs in the air of the swimming pool depends on the concentration in water, temperature, amount of splashing, ventilation system, etc. Data represented in table 3 gives an idea about THMs concentration level in the air of indoor swimming pools.

Table 3. THMs concentration in the air above the swimming pool water surface [6]
Country
Canada Italy USA Germany

Trihalomethanes concentration, g/m3

Chloroform
597-1630 66-650 49-280 39-195 <0.1-260 5.6-206 1.7-136

Bromoform

Bromdichloromethane
5-1000 2-58 16-24 <0.1-10 0.85-16 0.23-13

Dibromochloromethane
0.1-14 4-30 9-14 <0.1-5 0.05-3.2 0.05-2.9

<0.1-14 <0.03-3 <0.03-0.7

There is no study concerning the amount of air inhalated by swimmers. The only data available is that an adult inhale about 10 m3 of air during 8-hours working day [6] but this is not really useful because the amount of inhalated air during swimming depends on physical effort and individual parameters. Interesting research was carried out by Strhle who compare the concentration of THMs in swimmers blood with THMs concentration in pool (both indoor and outdoor) water and air. From the obtained results it was concluded that THMs mainly enter the organism through inhalation. It means that good ventilation system in indoor swimming pool can probably solve the problem. The results of Strhle study are performed in table 4 [6].

Table 4. Comparison of THMs concentrations in blood of swimmers after a 1-h swim, in pool water and in ambient air of indoor and outdoor pools [6] Media
Blood of swimmers (g/L) Pool water (g/L) Air 20 cm above the water surface (g/m3) Air 150 cm above the water surface (g/m3)

THMs concentration (mean, range) Indoor pool Outdoor pool

0.48 (0.23-0.88) 19.6 (4.5-45.8) 93.6 (23.9-179.9) 61.6 (13.4-147.1) 0.11 (<0.06-0.21) 73.1 (3.2-146) 8.2 (2.1-13.9) 2.5 (<0.7-4.7)

THMs are considered as one of the most dangerous contaminants in bathing water however it is necessary to consider other pollutants as well. Possible sources of swimming pool water contamination and some examples of pollutant are presented in figure 2.

Figure 2. Possible sources of swimming pool water contamination Most obvious problem for swimmers and pool workers is caused by chloramines as they are the source of chlorine odor. They induce skin, eye and lung irritation and are a big risk factor for occupational asthma. They are formed when too small amount of chlorine is added to water. Chloramines are products of free chlorine and nitrogen derived from urine and sweat. [7, 8]

THM measurements
As a response to swimmers complaints, some studies were carried out recently in all pools and concentration of THMs was measured in the water and in the ambient air 25 cm above the water surface, data presented in table 5 and 6. Table 5. Mean THMs concentration in the water of swimming pools, g/L
Pool name Main pool Outdoor Teaching Chloroform 150.2 215.6 138.8 Bromoform 1.5 8.6 14.3 Bromdichloromethane 15.6 5.4 20.2 Dibromochloromethane 4.8 125.8 15.5

Table 6. Mean THMs concentration in the ambient air of the swimming pools, g/L
Pool name
Main pool Outdoor Teaching

Chloroform
215.4 5.1 187.5

Bromoform
0.5 0.9 35.7

Bromdichloromethane
46.2 0.1 36.8

Dibromochloromethane
19.5 0.6 42.7

Results of studies show that THMs concentration in pools water and ambient air is quite high which could be risky for bathers. Thus acute problem of water treatment technique should be

solved. Main engineer of the swimming pool should decide if it is reasonable to change water purification system. There are several commonly used methods for water disinfection to choose from.

Chlorine disinfection
It is well known that chlorination is widely used for wastewater disinfection since 1914, when it was applied first time for this purpose in the USA [9]. There are few main components used for chlorination: chlorine, sodium hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite and chlorine dioxide. Recently quite many water treatment plants started to use sodium hypochlorite instead of chlorine due to safety concern (handling and storage of hypochlorite is much more easy).

Solubility of chlorine in water is moderate. Chlorine is considered to be highly toxic component and it could be dangerous for treatment plant workers and for public in case if it accidentally released. By-products of chlorination are known as carcinogens and mutagens, residual chlorine in water after disinfection is toxic for aquatic life. [9]

Sodium hypochlorite used instead of chlorine allows to avoid many problems related to transportation, storage and feeding. It is usually presented as a liquid with 12.5 to 17 % available chlorine at the moment of manufacture. One of the main disadvantages is that solution decomposition is affected by high temperature and light. For instance solution (16.7%) stored at 26.7C lose 10% in 10 days. Another drawback is relatively high cost. During handling it can cause some problems because of chlorine fumes presence and corrosiveness. [9]

Some remarks: Very effective as both primary and secondary disinfectant; Cheap chemical (equipment (piping etc.) maintenance does increase disinfection cost); Easily measurable by residual chlorine; Residual disinfection effect; Harmful byproducts, which cause skin, eye and lung irritation; Chlorine gas is toxic (high risk for workers).

Ozone disinfection
Due to short life of ozone molecule it is not delivered to target unit (in this case swimming pool), but is produced on site, usually with a high voltage corona discharge or vacuum ultraviolet ozone generator. Thus safety problem associated with shipping and handling are diminished. Like

chlorine, ozone is a strong oxidizing agent. It is effective against viruses and bacteria. Ozone has very short half-life, so there are not residuals to be removed after ozonation.

There is a certain risk of pool operators to be exposed to ozone due to e.g. leakage. Even very low concentrations of ozone can be harmful to the upper respiratory tract and the lungs. The severity of injury depends on both by the concentration of ozone and the duration of exposure. Some remarks: No harmful residuals; Short contact time; No regrowth of microorganisms; Complex disinfection system; Very corrosive; Toxic; Relatively high cost; No measurable residual to indicate the efficacy of disinfection. [10, 11]

UV disinfection
On contrary to chlorination and ozonation UV disinfection is a physical disinfection method. As ozone treatment, ultraviolet will not leave any residuals in water. UV radiation will inactivate any organism in water, there are no resistant species. Inactivation rate is proportional to UV dose.

UV radiation causes DNA base thymine dimerization, which leads to inactivation of organism. Most effective wavelength is somewhere between 260-270 nm [12]. Also production of ozone and hydroxyl radicals occurs, when wavelength is lower than 200 nm. These compounds are germicidal, but may cause health issues if people are exposed. A typical low pressure Hg-lamp produces wavelengths around 254 nm - possibly bit off the target. Medium pressure Hg-lamp produces multiple wavelengths, which might be waste of energy. LEDs can produce any narrow band of wavelength. UV-lamps contain toxic mercury. This harm could be avoided with UVLED systems as they arrive to the markets. At present mostly visible LEDs are used and probably in near future they will totally replace traditional incandescent and fluorescent lamps. There are no commercial applications using UV LEDs yet, however extensive research is taking place at the moment and probably it will be a major green water disinfection method.

Some remarks:

 No byproduct formation (no smell or health effects); No risk of overdosing; No resistance; Easy to operate; Turbidity of water can drastically reduce the disinfection effectivity: prefiltering needed (as applied with chlorination and ozonation methods); Some microorganisms may be able to repair damage caused by UV-radiation, when they are exposed to visible light shortly after the ultraviolet treatment: photoreactivation; There is no significant residual disinfection, so additional disinfection (e.g. small amount of chlorine) possibly needed; No means for measuring efficiency in various water conditions; No standardized mechanism to measure, calibrate and certify equipment for efficiency before and after installation; Lamps contain toxic mercury and are not that durable [13] In tables 7, 8 and 9 disinfection efficiency of UV radiation is presented. Table 7. UV-doses (253.7 nm) required for inactivation of different microorganisms [14] Microorganism Bacillus subtilis MS-2 Hepatitis A Rotavirus Giardia lamblia cysts Log reduction 3 4 4 3 4 1 2 mWs/cm2 20-40 60-90 87 30 40 40 180

Table 8. Average log reduction of microorganisms using combined carbon block filter with ultraviolet disinfection unit (>128 mWs/cm2 / 253.7 nm) [15] Microorganism Poliovirus Rotavirus HAV MS-2 Giardia lambila cysts Cryptosporidium parvum Vibrio cholerae Shigella dysenteriae Escherichia coli Salmonella typhi Log reduction 4.28 4.29 3.92 6 3.99 4.3 5.96 6.7 6.3 6.52

Table 9. UV-doses required for inactivation of different microorganisms [15]

Comparison of disinfection methods (effectiveness and cost)

Every disinfection technique has its specific advantages and disadvantages. In the table 10 some of these are shown. By-products of discussed methods are presented in table 11.

Table 10. Advantages and disadvantages of different methods [16]

Technology Ozonation UV* Chlorination: Chlorine gas Chlorine dioxide Hypochlorite Friendliness to the environment + ++ -+/-Byproducts formation + ++ -+/-Efficiency ++ + ++ Investment +/+ ++ + Operational costs + ++ ++ + ++ Fluids ++ + +/++ +/Surfaces ++ ++ ----

* Hg-lamps evaluated. Operational costs with LED-lamps should decrease as the energy demand of LEDs is minimal compared to Hg-lamps. Investment costs on the contrary would be higher due to new technique and more difficult manufacture.

Table 11. Predominant chemical disinfectants used in pool water treatment and their associated disinfection by-products [6]
Disinfectant Chlorine/hypochlorite Disinfection by-products trihalomethanes haloacetic acids haloacetonitriles haloketones chloral hydrate (trichloroacetaldehyde) chloropicrin (trichloronitromethane) cyanogens chloride chlorate chloramines bromate aldehydes ketones ketoacids carboxylic acids bromoform brominated acetic acids chlorite chlorate trihalomethanes, mainly bromoform bromal hydrate bromamines

Ozone

Chlorine dioxide Bromine/hypochlorite BCDMH

*UV is generally not considered to produce by/products

Comparative efficiency of considered water disinfection methods are presented in figure 3.

Figure 3. Comparison of water disinfection methods [17]

Estimated total production costs of different disinfection methods according to US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) are presented in table 12. The disinfection facilities are categorized to 5 classes based on the designed water flow through the facility.

Table 12. Cost comparison of different disinfection methods [14]

Total production costs ($cents/m3) USEPA Flow Category 1 2 3 4 5 Design Flow m3/d 91 329 1022 2461 6814 UV dose Chlorination dose Ozonation dose 40 mJ/cm2 5 mg/l 1 mg/l 5 2 1 1 1 75 18 6 5 2 93 26 9 6 2 UV dose 140 mJ/cm2 7 5 4 3 3

Task
Results of studies show that THMs concentration in pools water and ambient air is quite high which could be risky for bathers. Thus acute problem of water treatment technique should be solved. Main engineer of the swimming pool should decide if it is reasonable to change water purification system. Final decision should based on economical calculations (investment and daily expenses), advantages and drawbacks of chosen method, also environmental issues (waste utilization, etc.) should be considered for all possible pools water treatment methods.

Take the role of main engineer, discuss about following points: Which disinfection method would be economically most profitable? Which disinfection method would be most environmentally friendly? Which method would have least health issues (swimmer / poolside worker / machine operator)? Decide if it is reasonable to change the disinfection system! Which of the alternative methods would be best for the situation? Reason your decision!

References:
[1] How swimming pools work. Document available at: http://home.howstuffworks.com/swimming-pool.htm Date of access: 4.01.2012 [2] Panyakapo Mallika, Soontornchai Sarisak, Paopuree Pongsri. Cancer risk assessment fromexposure to trihalomethanes in tap water and swimming pool water. Journal of Environmental Sciences 20(2008), p.372-378 [3] Concise International Chemical Assessment Document 58. Chloroform. WHO. 2004. Document available at: http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/en/cicad58.pdf. Date of access: 22.12.2011 [4] BROMOFORM AND DIBROMOCHLOROMETHANE. Document available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp130-c3.pdf Date of access: 12.12.2011 [5] Material Safety Data Sheet. Dibromochloromethane. Document available at: http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/catalog/DisplayMSDSContent.do SIGMA-ALDRICH. Date of access: 19.12.2011 [6] Guidelines for Safe Recreational-water Environments. Vol.2: Swimming Pools, Spas and Similar Recreational-water Environments. WHO, 2006. ISBN 92 4 154680 8 [7] Thickett, K.M., McCoach, J.S., Gerber, J.M., Sadhra, S. and Burge, P.S. Occupational asthma caused by chloramines in indoor swimming-pool air. Eur Respir J 2002 19(5)827-32 [8] Jacobs J.H., Spaan, S., van Rooy, G.B.G.J., Meliefste, C., Zaat, V.A.C., Rooyackers, J.M. and Heederik, D., Exposure to trichloramine and respiratory symptoms in indoor swimming pool workers, Eur Respir J 2007 29(4)690-698 [9] George Tchobanoglous, Franklin Louis Burton, H. David Stensel, Metcalf & Eddy. Wastewater Engineering. Treatment and Reuse. MgGraw-Hill, 4th edition, 2002 ISBN: 9780070418783 [10] Health Effects of Ozone. Article available at: (http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/chemicals/chem_profiles/ozone/health_ozo.html) Date of access: 04.01.2012 [11] National Environmental Services Center, Tech Brief Fact Sheet: Ozone Disinfection. Available at: http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/techbrief.cfm Date of access: 8.01.2012 [12] Chen,R., Craik, S. and Bolton, J., Comparison of the action spectra and relative DNA absorbance spectra of microorganisms: Information important for the determination of germicidal fluence (UV dose) in an ultraviolet disinfection of water, Water Research 2009 43(20)5087-5096 [13] National Environmental Services Center, Tech Brief Fact Sheet: Ultraviolet Disinfection. Available at: http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/techbrief.cfm Date of access: 10.01.2012 [14] USEPA 1997, Small System Compliance Technology List for the Surface Water Treatment Rule EPA 815-R-97-002

[15] USEPA 1996, Ultraviolet light disinfection technology in drinking water application An overview EPA 811-R-96-002 [16] Disinfection. Available at: http://www.lenntech.com/processes/disinfection/disinfection.htm Date of access: 4.01.2012 [17] Muraca, P., Stout, J. and Yu, V. Comparative Assessment of Chlorine, Heat, Ozone, and UV Light for Killing Legionella pneumophila within a Model Plumbing System, Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1987 53(2) 447-453