Chapter Three: Rest In Peace

I rush through the rusting metal gates. Around me lies the remains of my most wonderful ideas: that book I wanted to write in fourth grade, that acapella song I was going to make during middle school, that cliche panning-over-of-people-sitting-in-a-field-and-looking-at-the-mountains-while-Hans-Zimmer's-"Time"-plays-in-the-background video I was in the process of shooting during my early high school years. I arrive at a trio of tombstones, tears welling in my eyes. Kneeling down, I read: "Bromine Treatment," "Lifestraw Technology," and "Piping Reworking."

Unfortunately, the ideas that I had two weeks ago for reamping our water treatment and transportation have stopped at dead ends. Here's why:

Bromine (and other chemicals)

While that pool study (to refresh yourself) found that chlorine is more likely than bromine to cause health problems for swimmers, leading me to think that bromine treatment could be a serious contender in chemical treatment, it turns out that bromine is actually incredibly toxic to humans. While it's fine to use bromine-containing compounds (ionized bromine) in pool treatment, ingesting those same compounds can cause nausea and vomiting. Long-term exposure can cause respiratory problems and systemic poisoning (poisoning of organ systems). All the information on this can be found here. Simply put, bromine treatment can't work for drinking water.

Lifestraw Microfiltration

The Lifestraw is really cool: let's be honest. Originally created to help people afflicted by natural disasters who don't have access to clean water, the Lifestraw is great for helping with third-world countries. That's because the Lifestraw is made of a microfilter (essentially, a bunch of tubes with microscopic spaces that filters out water). However, microfilters won't work for larger-scale treatment because, similarly to nanotechnology, they're expensive. And, to cut out a few more possibilities for treatment, ultrafiltration and reverse osmosis also won't work because of their high cost and difficult implementation. For a better explanation of what each of these filtration methods are, I found this picture at this website.

Essentially, the best possible method we could use would be reverse osmosis. Why doesn't Flagstaff use it? Likely, it's expensive. My later research will evaluate this.

Piping Reworking

In light of the Killip incident, allow me to provide a mic drop: Flagstaff's water doesn't even have lead in it! (Well, it does, but barely any.) At one of Killip's tested sites, the amount of lead in the water exceeded the action level (generally half of the EPA exposure limit), which requires precautionary action, not the EPA level that requires the shutting down of the water and a public notice. (And even further, to my knowledge, because the water only exceeded the action level at one site rather than many, there was no risk.) Yet, Killip made the call on its own to tell parents, which led to a huge overreaction. As it turns out, Flagstaff's water has taken 359 water quality samples since 1992. None of them have exceeded the action level for lead. (Statistic found here.) So, there doesn't need to be any pipe reworking in Flagstaff.

So What Comes Next, Lucas? Good question. I'll keep doing research on other methods, but as it stands, Flagstaff's method of water treatment is looking pretty good. (Note: the conclusion of my project could result in the status quo being upheld!) Over this next week, I'll be meeting with Dr. Bruce Hungate, professor of Biological Sciences at NAU, about getting my sample analyzed and potentially interning at one of NAU's labs. I'll also continue with my research about other methods, as well as maybe delving into the budgetary analysis, if time permits.

Rest in peace, my wonderful Week One Ideas; you were good while you lasted.

End of Chapter Three.

Chapter Two: Oh Look, A Casual Treatment Plant (feat. Steve Camp, Steve, Brian, Guest Appearance - Corey Hartman)

"Thanks for the ride, Mr. Camp!" I struggle to carry the two-gallon container full of lake water as I walk up my driveway. Holy moley, this is heavy.

This week was one for the ages. Aside from continuing research (which I'll detail in the next blog entry, not this one), I got the opportunity to head out to Lake Mary and the Lake Mary Water Treatment Plant to take a sample of the water and to tour the plant.

The Sample

To take the sample, we drove out to Lower Lake Mary to a little building with pipelines running from Upper Lake Mary and the Lake Mary wells. I had always thought that taking samples involved getting water-friendly shoes on (especially the ones where your toes are separated) and going into the water to fill your sampling container. As cool as that sounds, the sophistication of most treatment plants today allows for sampling to be much simpler, much quicker, and much more reliable.

Those blue pipes go to the Lake Mary wells...

And these green ones come from Upper Lake Mary.

Funnily enough, Lower Lake Mary was full of water due to all of the snow melt and precipitation over the past couple of weeks. Unfortunately, Lower Lake Mary is usually empty, so the water that's collected for treatment has to travel nine miles through pipes from Upper Lake Mary.

To take the sample, all we had to do was twist a little handle to open a spout. If you look up at the second picture, you can see the spout near the bottom right.

The sample! Two gallons of turbid, murky lake water.

The Tour

After we took the sample, I took a tour of the Lake Mary Water Treatment Plant. Here's how the process goes:

(1) The water travels nine miles from Upper Lake Mary to that little building, where the water is collected and transported another nine miles to the plant.

(2) The water is disinfected by chlorine dioxide.

(3) Coagulants are added to the water. Over a process of around six hours, the floc (a mass of fine particles) in the water collects and sinks to the bottom, turning into sludge. The water turns from high turbidity water (recently, around 125 NTU before the snowmelt this winter; around 60 NTU after the snowmelt) into low turbidity water (at the end of the six hours, around 1.5-2 NTU).

The "holding tank," where water gently flows and floc clumps into sludge.

(4) Water moves to filtration through andesite and sand, where the rest of the particles are separated from the water. After this stage, the water will reach a turbidity of about 0.04 NTU (for reference, the EPA requires that potable water from surface water sources is at 0.3 NTU or less, so Flagstaff's water is really clean and clear!)

My apologies for my reflection... The top layer is the andesite, the bottom layer is the sand.

(5) The water is transferred through pipes to UV disinfection.

The pipe system below the andesite/sand filtration tank.

The U.V. unit for disinfection. Flagstaff isn't required to use this, but it does as an extra measure to ensure that the water is as clean as possible!

(6) And finally, the water is chlorinated again as an extra measure against contamination during distribution (when the water leaves the holding tank at the treatment plant and is distributed to the public). The EPA requires that potable water from surface water sources has a chlorine residual concentration of at least 0.2 mg/L, but the water leaving the Lake Mary Water Treatment Plant has a chlorine residual concentration of 0.9-1 mg/L.

Essentially, the City of Flagstaff is going the extra mile to ensure clean water (at monetary costs).

And that's the Lake Mary Water Treatment Plant! This next coming week, I'll continue my research and, hopefully, will be able to analyze the sample of water that I took. Unfortunately, the things I want to test for in the water - organic pollutants, minerals, etc. - can't be tested at the Lake Mary Water Treatment Plant Laboratory because the lab currently isn't licensed to test for those. At the lab, they test for total coliforms (bacteria).

Special thanks to my external advisor, Steve Camp, for taking me to the plant and to the sampling location, as well as Brian and Steve from the water treatment plant for helping me take the sample and for giving me a tour of the plant! Also, shoutout to Ms. Hartman for her guest appearance this week (she knows!)

Looking forward to the next week of this project! It's starting to heat up.

End of Chapter Two.

Chapter One: How We're Floating Right Now

Late, late, late, late, late... The word repeats in my mind as I sit at my laptop for the second time.

Yes, I'm late this week (ultimate sad face), but it has been a busy week - with the basketball season winding down, I'm now able to commit myself fully to my research. This past week consisted of research, research, research - pretty much the stuff I plan on putting into my literature review. And what I found was pretty remarkable.

My research project is all about what's best for Flagstaff, but to figure out what's best for Flagstaff, I first need to figure out why some things in Flagstaff's water are bad and what each treatment method actually does. Here's what I've looked at so far:

Why Organic Byproducts Need To Be Eliminated
Research on organic byproducts have shown that TTHM and HAA5 promote the formation of cancer in the kidney, liver, pancreas, and bladder. Further, studies have shown that the oldest post-disinfection water was most likely to develop cancer. You can find the links to the studies here, here, and a-here. Something else that I thought could be useful in my research: The study by Chiu, Tsai, Wu and Yang in 2010 found that magnesium actually interacts with TTHM to reduce the risk for pancreatic cancer.

Why Chlorine-Dioxide + Chlorine-Gas Treatment Is Preferred To Chlorine-Gas Treatment
Research on the two different methods of treatment shows that chlorine-dioxide treatment better than simple chlorine-gas treatment because it better reduces disinfection byproducts and microbial presence. This research also found that switching between chlorine-gas and chlorine-dioxide treatment is best for discouraging bacterial growth due to a constant need to adapt to a new environment. You can find this study here.

However, the problem that we find with using any type of chlorine at all in water treatment is that it's dangerous in large doses. Not only is that evident by the formation of organic byproducts due to chlorine reacting with organic pollutants, but it's also evident simply by the use of chlorine in a body of water that we're all familiar with: the swimming pool. Research has shown that chlorine-treated water is the most likely when compared to other forms of water treatment to cause health problems for swimmers, including irritation and respiratory issues. You can find this study here.

Yet, chlorine gas is important in the water treatment process because, as is reported by the Environmental Protection Agency, it provides lasting disinfection, long after the treatment process. This residual disinfection cannot be provided by other methods of water treatment, including that of chlorine dioxide.

Why Ultraviolet (UV) Light Disinfection Should Be Continued
UV light is used fairly extensively simply because it rocks at killing bacteria. Research shows that almost 100% of all the bacteria in extremely contaminated water can be killed by solar irradiation in less than thirty minutes of exposure! You can find this study here. And, even further, UV disinfection doesn't create nearly as many disinfection byproducts than chlorine treatment (which should make sense, since chlorine reacts with organic pollutants to create byproducts).

Why Filtration Should Be Continued
Simply put, filtration cuts out all the big total suspended solids. What are total suspended solids? According to the City of Boulder, total suspended solids are "solids in the water that can be trapped by a filter." (I know, a little bit circular, but really, total suspended solids are the things in water that you can see: decaying matter, factory runoff, trash, sewage, and the likes.) Without filtration, none of the other methods would work because each of the other methods is designed for water that isn't concentrated with total suspended solids but instead water that has total dissolved solids, microbial populations, and other small stuff. For example, check out the "water quality" section (and the rest of it if you're curious about UV disinfection) of this, located on the bottom of page 1.

Why Nanotechnology Is Awesome, But Probably Isn't The Solution
Nanotechnology is one of the coolest water treatment methods that I've looked at so far because its implications for the future are incredible. Research has shown that nanomaterials have special characteristics that other methods of water treatment don't have, characteristics that allow for the way they treat water to be much more efficient, such as the fact that they have high surface-area-to-volume ratios (which allow for atoms to become highly reactive, increasing the efficiency of processes) and are able to convert hard water into soft water (which contains lower concentrations of ions). You can find this study here. However, there are some drawbacks, including the fact that nanoparticles could build up, causing health risks, and that nanotechnology cannot be implemented on a large scale yet, as summarized by this study. And, most importantly, nanotechnology is expensive, especially because it's a newer method of treatment.


So, Lucas, how are we floating right now? Good question. What I've learned so far is that chlorine treatment isn't the way. It's only part of the process. We have to use other things like UV light disinfection and filtration, which Flagstaff does use, but we can't use really cool things like nanotechnology. Some ideas that I'll be researching for the next week: (1) Using a different chemical; in the pool study, other chemicals were mentioned as chemical treatments (one notable chemical being bromine); whether we can use these in drinking water treatment will be determined in the next week. (2) Finding out what filtration systems are used in technologies like the Lifestraw; I meant to get to looking at these this week but didn't. The filtration systems in such technologies are not only powerful but could be inexpensive, so I wonder if they can be used in a water treatment plant. (3) How to improve post-disinfection water transportation; just this past week, Killip Elementary School had its tap water shut down due to elevated levels of lead. This brings a whole new level of complication to the discussion: why would my project even matter if post-disinfection pipelines are causing the water to be undrinkable anyways?

And a little update on my internship! At the beginning, what I would be doing as an internship was unknown, but after a little discussion with Ms. Hartman (I know it's Dr. Hartman, but you'll always be a ninth-grade government teacher to me), we decided that my internship was going to be me going around Northern Arizona to visit the many different water treatment plants, such as Lake Mary, Kachina, and Williams. More info on all that yet to come - I plan on setting up those meetings as soon as possible!

End of Chapter One.

Prologue: Abysmal Book Introductions and Dismal Water Problems (feat. Corey Hartman, Steve Camp, Don Bills)

My fingers rest on the keyboard in anticipation. My mind races. Lucas... Get. Yourself. Together.

My days doing research related to water often start out like this: sitting at a desk on my laptop, giving myself little mental pushes to figure out what I'm doing on that particular day. It's not that water isn't an interesting topic of research; in fact, it's quite the contrary. The problem is that water has so many different aspects that need improvement that it's difficult to find a point to start at that: water desperately needs to be conserved in households, saltwater desperately needs to be desalinated, wastewater desperately needs to be more effectively decontaminated, reservoirs desperately need to be better at preventing evaporation, water transportation needs to be made more efficient, water, water, water, water, water (in the most RJ-from-Over-The-Hedge-style possible)!

But one issue with water is, by far, the most important: treating our usable water. Yes, water needs to be saved; yes, we need to fix the problems of our man-made water storages and aquifers; yes, all of these issues are important. But they don't matter if we don't have access to clean water in the first place! In so many places around the world, the only water issue that matters is getting clean water.

That's why so many people have done research on how to provide clean water for people in third-world countries that have no access to clean water on their own.

The "Lifestraw," created in 2005 to give people in countries recovering from natural disasters, contains a filter inside a straw that lets people drink straight from any body of water you want! And by any body of water you want...

I mean ANY body of water you want.

And that's cool - people coming together to work for the good of others in places worse off than their home countries.

But a problem with all of this arises. While so much research is (and should be) being done to help with other countries, there's still some problems at home that get little exposure. I'm not saying this to take a punch at the people who are helping with water in developing countries - their efforts are incredibly inspiring and commendable; I'm saying that we have to know about what's going on in America today and fix those problems too. And in America, there are evident problems. 

One major time that water problems amounted that we all know about is the Flint Water Crisis. In 2014, the city of Flint, Michigan, looking for a cheaper way to provide clean water to its citizens, switched its water supply to the Flint River. Within the following year, the water was found to be toxic to humans due to high concentrations of lead, E. coli, and disinfection byproducts called total trihalomethanes (TTHM).

Yet, water problems come in all shapes and forms - not just in major crises, but also in surprising places, like Flagstaff, Arizona. Flagstaff, often considered for having some of the cleanest water in Arizona, was forced to shut off Lake Mary as a water source in October 2015 due to the toxic levels of TTHM and haloacetic acids (HAA5) - another disinfection byproduct - created when chlorine gas from initial chlorination of the water reacted with decomposing algae. The City of Flagstaff uses both chlorine gas treatment - during winter months, when the formation of organic pollutants is reduced - and chlorine gas plus chlorine dioxide treatment - during the summer months, when the formation of organic pollutants is increased. However, during the period of time that the toxic levels of disinfection byproducts were identified, chlorine dioxide treatment was not being used, causing the byproducts to continue to build up. After the violation, Flagstaff is now using chlorine dioxide treatment year-round, an $25,000 increase in spending on chlorine dioxide.

Essentially, the situation in Flagstaff now is that we have a major trade-off: cleaner water, but more expensive treatment. But what if there was a different method Flagstaff could use that was specific to Lake Mary's chemical makeup at different times in the year so that the benefits from treatment would highly outweigh the costs - not just water quality, but monetarily as well?

And that's what my research is on. I'll be doing an evaluation study that, unlike much research on water treatment methods, looks at budgetary concerns as well as water cleanliness. My internal advisor is Corey Hartman, PhD, and my external advisor is Steve Camp, Compliance Manager in the City of Flagstaff's Utilities Department. I'll also be getting some help from Don Bills, Hydrologist at the United States Geological Survey.

I'm looking forward to see how the research process plays out and what my final conclusion is!

End of Prologue.