NRC Publications Archive Archives des publications du CNRC

Evaluating integrity of distribution infrastructure based on potential water quality changes Imran, S. A.; Sadiq, R.; Kleiner, Y.

NRC Publications Record / Notice d'Archives des publications de CNRC:

http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?lang=en http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/ctrl?lang=fr
Access and use of this website and the material on it are subject to the Terms and Conditions set forth at http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/jsp/nparc_cp.jsp?lang=en READ THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS CAREFULLY BEFORE USING THIS WEBSITE. Laccs ce site Web et lutilisation de son contenu sont assujettis aux conditions prsentes dans le site http://nparc.cisti-icist.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/npsi/jsp/nparc_cp.jsp?lang=fr LISEZ CES CONDITIONS ATTENTIVEMENT AVANT DUTILISER CE SITE WEB.

Contact us / Contactez nous: nparc.cisti@nrc-cnrc.gc.ca.

http://irc.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca

Evaluating integrity of distribution infrastructure based on potential water quality changes NRCC-49250
Imran, S.A.; Sadiq, R.; Kleiner, Y.

A version of this document is published in / Une version de ce document se trouve dans: AWWA 2007 Research Symposium, Reno, Nevada, March 2, 2007, pp. 1-13

Copyright Notice / Droits d'auteur

Evaluating Integrity of Distribution Infrastructure Based on Potential Water Quality Changes

Syed A. Imrana, Rehan Sadiqb and Yehuda Kleinerc
a

Research Officer, Center for Sustainable Infrastructure Research, Regina Research Officer, Urban Infrastructure Program, Ottawa

b, c

Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada

Abstract Integrity of water distribution infrastructure can be defined as its ability to transport water in acceptable quantity and quality, and with minimal interruption. Water distribution infrastructure is a complex network of pipes and appurtenances constructed of different materials, at different times and using different manufacturing processes. Changes in water chemistry (quality) can potentially impact the distribution infrastructure by affecting pipe inner surfaces, which are in contact with the water. Similarly, the chemical properties of these inner surfaces can impact water chemistry. This coupling (circular) effect is often not completely understood and is difficult to de-couple. In this paper we propose an innovative but simple framework, called hierarchical relational model (HRM), by which utilities can evaluate the impact of changes in treatment processes to the existing distribution infrastructure. Conflicting water quality impacts on different distribution materials can also be identified using the HRM. The framework proposed in this paper is intended as proof of concept and can be further refined to incorporate more complex real systems. Two case studies illustrate the application of the model. Key words: Water quality, distribution system, infrastructure integrity, hierarchical relational model (HRM), Background A typical water distribution network is a complex system. Pipes could be of different materials including cast iron, ductile iron, steel, copper, lead, galvanized steel, reinforced concrete, asbestos cement, thermoplastics including polyvinyl chloride (PVC), chlorinated polyvinyl chloride (CPVC), high density polyethylene (HDPE), polybutadiene and composites such as glass fiber-reinforced plastic (GFRP). Additionally, there are a number of ancillary components like coatings, gaskets, o-rings, fittings, valves and solders, as well as pipe liners (cement, epoxy, polymeric, calcite) that are in contact with water. Even components with the same material can behave differently due to variability in past operational conditions, such as differential corrosion, formation of biofilms on the interior of the pipe [1], [2].

The quality of water traveling through an aging (deteriorating) distribution infrastructure can decrease due to uptake of contaminants intruding the system through compromised components, permeation, leaching and internal corrosion. Though considerable research exists, that focuses on the deterioration of water quality through distribution infrastructure, however the converse phenomenon of deterioration of distribution infrastructure due to changes in water chemistry has not been studied extensively. Water quality failures observed in distribution system are often an indicator of the long-term deterioration of the distribution infrastructure. In this paper, integrity of distribution infrastructure is defined as its ability to transport water in acceptable quantity and quality without causing any structural or functional failure of its components. In this paper, we define structural failure as the inability of the infrastructure to transport the desired quantity of water (water loss through leaks and breaks, reduced carrying capacity etc.). We further define functional failure as the inability of the infrastructure to transport water while maintaining the desired quality. Structural failures in the distribution network often lead to functional failures (e.g., intrusion of contaminants through broken or compromised components). The converse phenomenon (functional failure leading to structural failure) is not as frequent and not as immediate. For example, under certain conditions water chemistry will affect internal corrosion of metallic pipes or leaching rate of cement-based pipes, which, given long time-exposures can lead to the weakening of the pipe structure. Consequently, phenomena such as red water, loss of residual and subsequent microbiological proliferation, when persistent for long durations can be viewed as indicators of the health of the distribution infrastructure. Compliance Strategies for Drinking Water Regulations Traditionally, utilities have managed the mandated compliance levels by upgrading and optimizing their treatment processes or by changing source-waters [3], [4]. Recent and proposed future regulations are more complex and favor a managed, multiple strategy approach to maintaining safe drinking water quality. For instance, in a surface water system overall the risk is managed by balancing short-term (acute) and certain microbiological risk with the potential long-term (chronic) and uncertain risk from disinfection byproducts (DBPs). However, changes in treatment techniques to reduce or eliminate any contaminant of concern invariably lead to changes in the final water quality. When this changed water quality is introduced into the distribution system, it may trigger a cycle of changes, in which the distribution system as well as the final water quality are likely to be impacted [5]. Therefore, it is necessary to consider these impacts on the existing distribution infrastructure when evaluating different compliance strategies. Historically, the focus of compliance has been on the water quality at the point of entry to the distribution system, while the impact of water quality on the distribution infrastructure has largely been ignored. Deterioration of the Distribution Infrastructure The impact of water quality on infrastructure surfaces that are in contact with the finished water is by no means the only (or even the most significant) process that leads to the overall deterioration of infrastructure components. Other processes including, structural loading, external corrosion, inadequate operation and maintenance and human 2

errors are significant causes of distribution infrastructure failure. However, water quality induced deterioration may exacerbate the condition of the pipe and make it susceptible to other failure mechanisms. Water quality deterioration in distribution systems is inextricably linked to the condition of the surfaces in contact with the finished water. Where water quality problems exist, these can often be attributed to the extent of deterioration of the distribution infrastructure. Though repair and rehabilitation measures can mitigate water quality problem in the short-term, an assessment based on the water quality interaction with distribution infrastructure is essential to realize a long-term solution to infrastructure deterioration. Many complex interactions that contribute to this deterioration occur simultaneously between the finished water and the distribution surfaces in contact. For instance:

Metallic pipe surfaces in contact with water corrode and the corrosion byproducts are transported and deposited near dead-ends and low-flow regions. Biofilms on the inner pipe surface contribute to microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC), and in case of slough-off may cause microbiological proliferation. Chemicals in the water may degrade or accumulate over time due to interaction with pipe surfaces and/or bulk reactions.

Depending on the material type, a distribution infrastructure can be divided into three broad groups - metallic, polymeric and cement-based. Various internal deterioration mechanisms including physico-chemical based corrosion, microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC), and leaching (dissolution of material) impact the integrity of these distribution materials. Though a specific distribution material may have a predominant mechanism of deterioration, all three processes may play some role towards its overall internal deterioration. Table 1 provides a relative contribution of different deterioration mechanisms on each type of distribution materials. Physico-chemical based internal corrosion (henceforth referred to as corrosion) is defined as metallurgy in reverse, where a purified metal or its alloy interacts with the environment to return to its original more stable state. Three conditions are required in order for corrosion to proceed; a metallic surface that will corrode, an oxidant that will oxidize (corrode) the metal to a more stable state and lastly, a medium that will transport the oxidant to the metal and facilitate further corrosion by moving the corrosion byproducts away from the corrosion site. All these components are present in a water distribution system with metallic pipes. The pipes may corrode both internally and externally, however, external corrosion is not directly related to the water quality issues and therefore is not discussed here. Microbiologically induced corrosion is different from other deterioration processes because it is caused by the biological activities of microorganisms. Biofilms (colonies of native microorganisms on the water/ metal interface) could either inhibit deterioration by providing a protective coating or exacerbate deterioration through 3

biological activity. The presence and structure of these biofilms are related to hydraulic conditions, nutrient availability, type and concentration of residual disinfectant and the roughness of the pipe surface. Many researchers have reported that pipe material seems to have a significant effect on microbial inactivation by different disinfectants [6]. Leaching is defined as the release of material to water without involving oxidation-reduction processes. It can take the form of dissolution of the metal-bearing corrosion scales, monomers from plastics, or calcium from the cement-matrix. Table 1: Relative Impacts of Different Deterioration Mechanisms on Different Types of Distribution Materials
*Deterioration Mechanisms Internal Corrosion Water Distribution Infrastructure Material Metallic (Iron, copper and lead) Polymeric (PVC, PE and PAH) Cement-based (AC and CC) Major Microbiologically Induced Corrosion Unknown Leaching

Minor

None

Unknown

Major

Major

Unknown

Major

AC Asbestos cement, CC Concrete, PE Polyethylene, PAH Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (bituminous or coal-tar), PVC Polyvinylchloride

Secondary Water Quality Impacts of Treatment Technologies Treatment process as well as modifications to the treatment process can impact the distribution system [7]. The primary objective of any treatment technology is to achieve acceptable removal of the targeted contaminants. However, treatment technologies often cause changes in the ionic content of the water that can lead to adverse impacts on distribution infrastructure. For instance, an anion exchange resin exchanges bivalent metallic ions with monovalent sodium ion. In this instance, ion exchange treatment would be responsible for removing a known inhibitor of corrosion in iron pipes (calcium and magnesium hardness) with sodium resulting in a possible increase in the corrosion rate of unlined iron surfaces. No single unit technology is effective in removing all drinking water contaminants to a safe drinking level. Treatment technologies that are BAT (best available technology) for a selected contaminant may not be effective in removing other co-occurring contaminants. Therefore, to achieve simultaneous removal of a wide range of contaminants, utilities use unit treatment technologies placed in sequential order. Another complicating factor is the use of different chemicals for similar objectives. The identification of all secondary changes in water quality is an impossible task due to the numerous treatment practices. For instance, coagulation may be achieved 4

by using alum, ferric chloride or ferric sulfate. Alum and ferric sulfate will increase the sulfate in the finished water relative to the source water, while ferric chloride will increase the chloride content of the water. Both sulfate and chloride increase the risk of corrosion of metallic pipes, albeit to different degrees. Coagulation is also accompanied by a consumption of total alkalinity in the source water. Decreased alkalinity is detrimental to iron components in the distribution system, but at the same time may be beneficial in reducing copper corrosion. Secondary changes induced by the treatment technologies are also dose specific. For instance, depending on the source water quality, different concentration of treatment chemicals need to be added and thereby result in different concentrations of secondary ions in the finished water. Proposed Framework - Hierarchical Relational Model (HRM) Relational Matrix A: Regulations vs. Unit Treatment Processes As a starting point, a relational matrix of unit treatment processes vs. regulations (A) was developed, which relates the effectiveness of common unit treatments towards compliance with drinking water regulations. Each element ij of the matrix A is a measure of the effectiveness of unit treatment process j (UTj) towards compliance with drinking water regulation i (Regi). Matrix A was populated with values, based on a comprehensive literature review, where 1 ij +1 . A value of +1 indicates the most effective technology to remove the selected contaminant, while 1 indicates a technology that might have the most adverse effect on the removal of the selected contaminant. A value of zero is given to a technology that has no known effect on the removal of a selected contaminant.
Reg 1 A = Reg 2 M Reg I UT 1

11 21 I1
M

UT L UT 2 J 12 L 1J 22 L 2 J ; where i = 1, 2,..., I M L M I 2 L IJ

j =1, 2, ..., J

(1)

The removal levels attributed to these treatment technologies are the maximum removals possible under ideal design and operational conditions.

Relational Matrix B: Unit Treatment Processes vs. Total Water Quality Changes When selecting a unit treatment process to address a regulatory requirement, this treatment will affect water quality in several ways, some of which intended (primary) and some unintended (secondary). The magnitude of the secondary water quality changes depends on a number of factors that include; source water contaminants, dosage of treatment chemicals, sequence of treatment practices etc. For instance, though chlorination may be practiced before or after activated carbon filtration, the resulting finished water quality in either case is quite different. 5

Matrix B relates the effect of unit technology (UTj) on increase or decrease in selected water quality parameter (WQPk), including both primary and secondary impacts. Matrix B was populated with values, developed based on a comprehensive literature review, where 1 jk +1 . A value of +1 indicates a significant increase while 1 indicates a significant decrease in the selected water quality parameter. A value of zero is given to a technology that has no known effect on the selected water quality parameter. For instance, the primary impact of ion exchange is the removal of targeted ions from water and the secondary impact is the removal of non-targeted ions and the addition of counter-ions to the water. Changes induced by treatment technologies are dose-specific. For instance, depending on the source water quality, different concentrations of treatment chemicals need to be added, and thereby result in different concentrations of secondary ions in the finished water. The water quality parameters included in B are those known or suspected to influence the deterioration of distribution infrastructure.
UT1 B = UT2 M UT J WQP1

11 21
M

WQP2

12 22
M

J1

J2

L WQPK 1K L L 2K ; where L M L JK

j =1, 2, ..., J k = 1, 2,..., K

(2)

Relational Matrix C: Total Water Quality Changes vs. Impacts on Distribution Materials Water quality impacts on infrastructure surfaces in contact with finished water are by no means the only (or even the most significant) process that leads to the overall deterioration of infrastructure components. Other processes including, structural loading, external corrosion, inadequate operation and maintenance and human errors are significant causes of infrastructure failure. However, water quality induced deterioration may exacerbate the condition of pipes and make it more susceptible to other failure mechanisms. Relational matrix (C) relates the effects of changes in selected water quality parameters (WQPk) on the deterioration of selected distribution system materials (DSM). The element kl is a measure of the adverse effect that an increase in WQPk has on DSMl. These values represent aggregate impacts and should be used for a qualitative evaluation, rather than a quantitative one. For instance, increasing alkalinity can have a dual effect on iron corrosion. It can decrease risk of corrosion by promoting the formation of stable siderite and calcite scales on the iron surface. Conversely, the associated increase in dissolved solids can help in enhancing the electrochemical conductivity necessary for corrosion to occur. However, the overall effect of alkalinity is to reduce corrosion and release of metallic byproducts and is reflected in a highly positive (+ 0.8) effect element. Comprehensive relational matrices (A, B and C) were developed based on an extensive literature survey and expert input from professionals in the field. These matrices will be published in an upcoming AwwaRF report [8].

 WQP1 C = WQP2 M WQP K

DSM 1

11 21
M

K1

DSM 2 L DSM L 12 1L L 22 2L L ; where M L M K2 L KL

k = 1, 2, ..., K l = 1, 2,..., L

(3)

Identification of Potential Impacts to Planned Changes This section introduces a method to identify problems related to the integrity of distribution systems associated with changing water quality for regulatory compliance. A hierarchical relational model (HRM) is proposed for this purpose. The HRM is schematically illustrated in Figure 1. The procedure allows experts in different domains/ fields to provide inputs to the relational matrices depending on their expertise. Also research needs can be identified easily by studying gaps in the effects-matrices.

Drinking Water Regulations vs Available Treatment Technologies (Matrix A) (Stage 1) Unit Treatment Processes vs Total WQ Changes (Stage 2) (Matrix B) Total WQ Changes vs Impacts on DSM (Matrix C) Unit Treatment Processes vs Impacts on DSM (Matrix D)

Regs regulations, WQ Water Quality, DSM distribution system material

Figure 1: Structure of Proposed Hierarchical Relational Model (HRM) In Stage 1, applicable regulations are identified based on source-water characteristics and contaminants of concern. Using matrix A as a guide, suitable treatment alternatives are identified to meet the regulations. The composition operation in Stage 1 represents

the selection of applicable regulations and treatment alternatives. In Stage 2 ( Figure 1) the composition operation is performed using:
D = BC

(4)

In this case, represents a composition operation defined by;

K k =1

z jl = ( jk kl ) , where

j = 1, 2,..., J

l = 1, 2, ..., L

(5)

The primary and secondary impacts of selected treatment processes are obtained using matrix B. From matrix C, the most common material(s) of construction in the distribution infrastructure are selected. In Stage 2, matrices B and C are composed to yield matrix D, which provides the estimated impact of the selected treatment practice on the distribution materials.
UT1 D= UT2 M UTJ DSM 1 z11 z 21 M z J1 DSM 2 L DSM L z12 L z1 L z 22 L z2L ; where M L M zJ 2 L z JL

j =1, 2, ..., J l = 1, 2,..., L

(6)

The aggregate impact of the treatment practices, selected in Stage 1, is calculated by simple arithmetic sum of the individual treatment impacts.
= D DSM 1 z j1
J j =1

DSM 2 L DSM L ; where J J z j2 z jL j =1 j =1

j =1, 2, ..., J l = 1, 2,..., L

(7)

The algorithm is repeated twice: first for the current (baseline) treatment and second for the intended change, i.e., alternative treatment. A difference between the two matrices =D ( D alternative Dbaseline ) will give the relative impact of the water quality change on the distribution system materials. A positive value indicates that water quality does not adversely affect the selected distribution material, a negative value refers to adverse impacts on the selected distribution material, and zero refers to no change in impact. Basic Assumptions for HRM In order to evaluate the aggregate impacts of water quality changes on distribution materials, the following assumptions are made for simplification: 1. There is a linear correlation between primary and secondary water quality changes and the treatment technique. Linearity in this case implies that a higher level of contaminant in the source-water may require a higher dosage of a treatment chemical, and subsequently have higher primary and secondary water quality changes. For instance, this assumption implies that if 2 mg/L of a 8

contaminant requires 4 mg/L of a treatment chemical, then 4 mg/L of the contaminant would require a proportional 8 mg/L of the treatment chemical. In real systems, the dosage is optimized based on pilot or bench-scale studies and may not be linear as assumed. 2. Water quality impacts on distribution system are additive. Additivity implies that the overall water quality impact on any distribution material is the arithmetic summation of all the potential changes due to individual treatment processes. 3. Water quality impacts are independent of hydraulic regimes prevalent in the distribution system. This assumption implies that water quality and hydraulic effects can be separated. However, in actual practice, the type (whether it is in a storage tank or a pipe) and location (pipes with different flow velocities) of distribution components determine the rate and magnitude of the deterioration due to varying hydraulic effects. 4. The water quality impacts are independent of placement of a specific component within the distribution system. However, in actual practice pipes closer and away from treatment plants or inline chlorine boosters may behave differently. Application of HRM The conceptual framework discussed in the previous section is demonstrated with the help of two hypothetical case studies. Areas of potential concern are obtained by evaluating the relative impacts of different alternatives to existing (baseline) conditions. Hypothetical Case Study 1: Utility X decided to evaluate the impact of changing its secondary disinfectant from chlorine to chloramines to comply with the Disinfectant/ Disinfection Byproduct Rule (D/DBPR) for TTHMs and HAA5. Though the utility has conducted studies that show that the change will indeed result in compliance with the D/DBPR, there is some concern over the impact on the distribution system material. The utility has identified that iron, copper and lead components comprise more than 90% of its distribution infrastructure. The first step would be to establish a baseline value for current conditions, to which the proposed changes can be compared. Therefore the rows for TTHM and HAA5 are activated along with the column for chlorination and chloramination. It is observed that chloramination has a less adverse DBPs formation impact than chlorination. For the conditions identified, the resulting matrix A is:
A = TTHM HAA 5 Chlorination Chloramination 1.0 0.2 1.0 0.2

(8)

Based on the water quality parameters that change during chlorination, the matrix B for the current conditions is obtained as follows:

pH Alkalinity Chloride TDS B= Chlorination 0.3 0 .2 0 .5 0.1

Ammonia Re sidual Chlorine Biofilm Formation 1.0 1.0 0.7

(9)

The impact of the water quality on iron, copper and lead is selected.
pH Alkalinity Chloride C = TDS Ammonia Residual Chlorine Biofilm Formation Iron 0.6 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.8 0 0.8 Copper 0.8 0.8 0.2 0.4 0.5 0 0.6 Lead 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.2 0 0.4 0.8

(10)

Using Equation (5), the resulting impact matrix D will be:

Iron Copper Lead D = Chlorination Chlorination 0.60 0.49 0.48

(11)

The resulting matrix ( D Chlorination ) establishes the baseline for iron, copper and lead deterioration in the distribution system. In order to evaluate the relative impact of chloramination, the relational matrix for chloramination ( D Chloramination ) is obtained in a similar manner as was done for chlorination.
B= Chloramination pH 0 Alkalinity Chloride TDS 0 0.5 0.1 Ammonia Re sidualChlorine BiofilmFormation 0.3 1.0 0.5

(12)

Iron Copper Lead = D Chloramination Chloramination 0.22 0.37 0.82

(13)

=D The difference in the two matrices ( D Chlora min ation DChlorination ) yields the relative impact of the change on the distribution system materials (i.e., iron, copper and lead). It is concluded that though the change might benefit iron and copper components of the distribution system, lead components could suffer from increased deterioration. Iron Copper Lead =D D D = Chloramination Chlorination 0.38 0.12 0.34

(14)

Utility X concludes that further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of the change on lead components of the distribution system.

10

Hypothetical Case Study 2: Consider utility Y that presently practices coagulation with ferric sulfate, followed by sedimentation and filtration. The filtered water is chloraminated prior to supply. However, utility Y plans to include nanofiltration after the CSF (coagulationsettling-filtration) process for further reduction in organic content. Utility Y has identified that iron, copper and asbestos cement (AC) are the materials of concern in the distribution network. The resulting matrix B for the baseline treatment conditions can be obtained:
pH Alk SO42 0.3 0.5 0.8 Coagulation B= 0 0 0 Filtration Chloramination 0 0 0 Cl TDS 0 0 0.5 0.1 0 0.1 NH 3 0 0 0.3 Residual NH 2Cl 0 0 1 .0 NOM 0.8 0.6 0 Biofilm Form n 0 0 0.5

(15)

The impact of the water quality on iron, copper and asbestos cement is;
pH Alk SO42 Cl C = TDS NH 3 Res. NH Cl 2 NOM Biofilm Form n Iron 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.2 0 0.2 0.5 0.8 Copper 0.6 0. 8 0. 8 0. 8 0.2 0 0.2 0. 5 0. 5 AsbestosCement 0.8 0.8 0.8 0. 6 0. 2 0 0.1 0.5 0. 6

(16)

The resulting D matrix from the composition shown in Equation (5) will be:
Coagulatio n D= Filtration Chloramination 0.8 0.3 Iron Copper 0.37 0.04 0.3 AsbestosCement 0.9 0.3 0.1

0.2

(17)

Using Equation (7), the aggregate impacts for the baseline treatment are obtained:
Iron Copper = D CSF Chloramination 0.76 0.11 AsbestosCe ment 0.72

(18)

Similarly, the aggregate impacts for the addition of membrane process into the treatment trains are calculated.
Iron Copper D CSF Nanofiltat ion Chloramination = 1.18 0.75 AsbestosCement 1.23

(19)

The relative impact of the change is calculated as; 11

 Iron Copper D = D CSF Nanofiltat ion Chloramination CSF Chloramination 1.29 0.01

AsbestosCement 0.50

(20)

This indicates that deterioration of asbestos cement components might be a concern for utility Y. Based on the results the utility Y evaluates the effect of pH adjustment and the relative impacts are calculated in a similar manner.
Iron Copper D CSF Nanofiltation pH adjustment Chlora min ation DCSF Chlora min ation = 1.73 0.77 AsbestosCement 0.45

(21)

Based on these results, utility Y decides to conduct further studies to evaluate the effect of proposed changes on asbestos cement components. It should be cautioned that the HRM was developed as a concept model and has all the deficiencies inherent in simplifying highly complex relationships (assumptions of linearity and additivity). Though this model was evaluated for common scenarios, the use of this model is dependent on the expertise and experience of decision-makers.

Conclusions The complex interactions between distribution surfaces and drinking water quality can be aggregated to provide a simple decision support tool to help utilities identify potential issues arising from planned changes in treatment processes to comply with new regulations. The Hierarchical Relational Model presented in this paper is a proof-of-concept model at the present stage. The authors realize the complexity involved in making the model more effective and reliable would require additional research.

Acknowledgements This work was conducted under a partnership agreement between the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) and American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF). The authors acknowledge the drinking water experts and professionals who contributed their time and data to this project. The authors acknowledge the administrative help provided by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

12

References [1] A. E. Broo, B. Berghult, and T. Hedberg, "Pipe material selection in drinking water systems - A conference summary," Water Science and Technology - Water Supply, vol. 1, no. 3, p. 117, 2001. [2] P. Tomboulian, L. Schweitzer, K. Mullin, J. Wilson, and D. Khiari, "Materials used in drinking water distribution systems: Contribution to taste-and-odor," Water Science and Technology, vol. 49, no. 9, pp. 219-8, 2004. [3] P. A. Daniel, Balancing Multiple Water Quality Objectives. Denver, CO: AwwaRF, 1998. [4] J. S. Taylor, J. D. Dietz, A. A. Randall, S. K. Hong, C. D. Norris, L. A. Mulford, J. M. Arevalo, S. Imran, M. Lepuil, I. Mutoti, J. Tang, W. Xiao, C. Cullen, R. Heaviside, A. Mehta, M. Patel, F. Vasquez, and D. Webb, Effects of Blending on Distribution System Water Quality. Denver, CO.: American Water Works Research Foundation, 2005. [5] S. A. Imran, J. D. Dietz, G. Mutoti, J. S. Taylor, A. A. Randall, and C. D. Cooper, "Red water release in drinking water distribution systems," American Water Works Association Journal, vol. 97, no. 9, pp. 93-10, 2005. [6] G. A. Gagnon, J. L. Rand, K. C. leary, A. C. Rygel, C. Chauret, and R. C. Andrews, "Disinfectant efficacy of chlorite and chlorine dioxide in drinking water biofilms," Water Res., vol. 39, no. 9, p. 1809, 2005. [7] D. A. Lytle, M. R. Schock, J. A. Clement, and C. M. Spencer, "Using aeration for corrosion control," American Water Works Association Journal, vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 74-15, 1998. [8] R. Sadiq, S. A. Imran, and Y. Kleiner, "Examining the Impact of Water Quality on the Integrity of Distribution Infrastructure," AwwaRF (in press), Denver, CO., 2007.

13