Mike Burch - WaterRA Bur… · Best Case 14.4 2,000 0.03 1,000 1.8 0.07 Most Likely Case 24 27,000...
Transcript of Mike Burch - WaterRA Bur… · Best Case 14.4 2,000 0.03 1,000 1.8 0.07 Most Likely Case 24 27,000...
CYANOBACTERIA: CATCHMENT AND RESERVOIR MANAGEMENT
STRATEGIES TO REDUCE RISK OF CYANOBACTERIAL BLOOMS FOR
DRINKING WATER PRODUCTION AND RECREATIONAL ACCESS
Mike BurchVisiting A/Professor, Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology
Outline of Presentation
Ecology of Cyanobacteria
• How and why do they grow?
• The importance of phosphorus
Control and management of cyanobacteria
In Catchments• Nutrients
In Reservoirs• Nutrients
• Managing stratification – aeration & mixing
Conclusions
• Cyanobacteria are a global problem• $A 180 - 240 million cost per annum to Australian economy
• $US 2.2 - 4.6 billion cost per annum to U.S. economy
• For example: ~$A 1 million per annum, to manage in Happy Valley Reservoir, South Australian Water Corporation
• Eutrophication and Climate Change may enhance magnitude and frequency of blooms – but unknown
• Impacts on both water and wastewater storages and recreational and urban ornamental lakes
• Difficult and expensive to remove by drinking water treatment processes
• No suitable treatment options are available for wastewater storages and recreational lakes
Issues
1. Cyanotoxins
2. Odours – geosmin, MIB
The Problem: Cyanobacteria and Water Quality
Why do cyanobacteria grow? Important Ingredients for growth
Nutrients (Nitrogen & Phosphorus)
From either the catchment or sediments
Phosphorus concentration generally determines the maximum biomass of the cyanobacterial population
Light
Quantity & quality of light has a role in determining the species composition and may limit growth rate
Cyanobacteria prefer shallow mixing relative to light penetration
• Mixing depth/stratification characteristics are important
• Access to light is enhanced by buoyancy regulation
Temperature
Optimum range for growth: ~18-27 oC
Risk Matrix for the likelihood of occurrence & growth of Cyanobacteria
Environmental factor
Susceptibility
Category –
Risk
History of
Cyanobacteria
(inoculum
present)
Water
Temperature
(oC)
Nutrients:
Total Phosphorus
(g/L)
Thermal
Stratification
Very Low Risk No <15 <10 No
Low Yes <15-20 <10 Infrequent
Moderate Yes 20-25 10-25 Occasional
High Yes >25 25-100 Frequent and
persistent
Very High (Poor) Yes >25 >100 Frequent and
persistent /
strong
How important are nutrients?- context for cyanotoxins
• A simple model has been developed, based only upon phosphorus concentration to predict the levels of toxins and odours that could be produced in reservoirs
• This simple model can be used to estimate “worst case challenges”
How it works
The model calculations:
Phosphorus concentration is used to derive Chlorophyll ayield which can be modified for the scenario selected
Chlorophyll a is then translated to cell numbers of Microcystisor Dolichospermum using published cell/chlorophyll quotas
Cellular content or ‘cell quotas’ for geosmin, saxitoxin and microcystin are applied to estimate the likely yield of the cyanobacterial metabolites under the chosen scenarios.
Predicted concentrations of cyanobacteria and their metabolites
Reservoir
condition
with regard
to nutrient
status
Total
Phosphorus
μg L-1
Scenario
chosen:
Based upon
assumptions
about
growth and
cell quotas of
toxins and
odours
Soluble
Phosphorus
μg L-1
Microcystis
aeruginosa
cells mL-1
Microcystin
toxin
intracellular
μg L-1
Dolichosp
ermum
circinalis
cells mL-1
Geosmin
dissolved
ng L-1
Saxitoxin
μg L-1
(total)
Lower
nutrient
level
40
Best Case 14.4 2,000 0.03 1,000 1.8 0.07
Most Likely
Case
24 27,000 1.15 13,000 96 0.9
Worst Case 32 44,000 12.8 44,400 720 2.9
Current
nutrient
level
80
Best Case 28.8 4,000 0.06 2,000 3.6 0.13
Most Likely
Case
48 53,000 2.3 27,000 192 1.8
Worst Case 64 89,000 25.6 88,900 1440 5.9
Higher
nutrient
level
160
Best Case 57.6 8,000 0.12 4,000 7.2 0.26
Most Likely
Case
96 107,000 4.6 53,000 384 3.5
Worst Case 128 356,000 51.2 177,800 2880 11.7
Predicted concentrations of cyanobacteria and their metabolites
Reservoir
condition
with regard
to nutrient
status
Total
Phosphorus
μg L-1
Scenario
chosen:
Based upon
assumptions
about
growth and
cell quotas of
toxins and
odours
Soluble
Phosphorus
μg L-1
Microcystis
aeruginosa
cells mL-1
Microcystin
toxin
intracellular
μg L-1
Dolichosp
ermum
circinalis
cells mL-1
Geosmin
dissolved
ng L-1
Saxitoxin
μg L-1
(total)
Lower
nutrient
level
40
Best Case 14.4 2,000 0.03 1,000 1.8 0.07
Most Likely
Case
24 27,000 1.15 13,000 96 0.9
Worst Case 32 44,000 12.8 44,400 720 2.9
Current
nutrient
level
80
Best Case 28.8 4,000 0.06 2,000 3.6 0.13
Most Likely
Case
48 53,000 2.3 27,000 192 1.8
Worst Case 64 89,000 25.6 88,900 1440 5.9
Higher
nutrient
level
160
Best Case 57.6 8,000 0.12 4,000 7.2 0.26
Most Likely
Case
96 107,000 4.6 53,000 384 3.5
Worst Case 128 356,000 51.2 177,800 2880 11.7
What it Means
Even at relatively low concentrations of phosphorus the potential toxin and odour levels are still quite high
This suggests it is very difficult or impossible to reduce and control nutrients in the reservoir to a level that is low enough to manage toxin & odour issues
In reality, the actual magnitude of the risk over a season is determined by:
• the period of time that favourable growth conditions persist
• the carrying capacity of the reservoir (the total algal biomass that the physico-chemical conditions that the reservoir will support) and
• the types and effectiveness of management actions that can be implemented
Setting Phosphorus Targets
Triggers Based on Scientific Literature
• There is a large amount of published information on the relationship between nutrients, specifically phosphorus and the growth of algae in lakes.
• Several early studies from the 1960’s & 70’s established a clear relationship between Total-P and chlorophyll, as a measure of algal biomass in temperate lakes
• An important study specifically predicting cyanobacterial occurrence and dominance based upon Total-P is by Downing et al (2001)
• This study evaluated data from 99 lakes of the temperate zone and included 269 observations in the data.
• The lakes were from around the world, however there was predominance of sites in the northern hemisphere.
The University of Adelaide Slide 12
Setting Phosphorus Targets
Triggers Based on Scientific Literature
The study found that the risk of cyanobacterial dominance to be correlated to the TP- concentration as follows:
• 0 - <0.030 mg/L TP: 0-10% risk of cyanobacterial dominance
• 0.030 - 0.070 mg/L TP: 40% risk
• >0.10 mg/L TP: ca. 80% risk
The University of Adelaide Slide 13
▪ Physical Control
▪ External
▪ Chemical Control
▪ Non-Chemical Control
▪ Biological Control
▪ Internal
▪ Nutrient Control
▪ Selective off-take
▪ Mixing - Destratification
▪ Dilution to decrease retention time
▪ Algaecides
▪ Aeration & mixing
▪ Oxygenation (hypolimnetic)
▪ Sediment “capping” with P-bindingagents e.g. Modified clay, Lime, Alum
▪ Biomanipulation
▪ Viruses, bacteria, exotic algae
▪ Catchment management
▪ Novel Technology (e.g. ultrasound)
Management of Cyanobacteria: Control Options
▪ Physical Control
▪ External
▪ Chemical Control
▪ Non-Chemical Control
▪ Biological Control
▪ Internal
▪ Nutrient Control
▪ Selective off-take
▪ Mixing - Destratification
▪ Dilution to decrease retention time
▪ Algaecides
▪ Aeration & mixing
▪ Oxygenation (hypolimnetic)
▪ Sediment “capping” with P-bindingagents e.g. Modified clay, Lime, Alum
▪ Biomanipulation
▪ Viruses, bacteria, exotic algae
▪ Catchment management
▪ Novel Technology (e.g. ultrasound)
Management of Cyanobacteria: Control Options
Managing Nutrients
External Sources
Options are available to reduce nutrients in the catchment:
• Removing point sources to streams (WWTP, Agriculture)
• On the land - Improving capture in the catchment
• In the stream - weirs, sedimentation basins & wetlands
Nutrients & Biomass: External sources (catchment)Example from Myponga Reservoir
In this reservoir the nutrient load in winter determines the phytoplankton carrying capacity (maximum biomass) in the following summer
Nutrient inputsDominated by winter rainfall events
High load = high flow * high concentrations
Consequently nutrient loading and seasonal algal biomass is affected by inter-annual rainfall variability
Myponga Reservoir: Annual Inflow Volume (1978-2000: 22 years)
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
19
78
19
80
19
82
19
84
19
86
19
88
19
90
19
92
19
94
19
96
19
98
20
00
Year
To
tal
ye
arl
y i
nfl
ow
(M
L)
Myponga Reservoir: Inflow vs. Mean Summer Algal Biomass
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Total yearly inflow (ML)
Mean
Ch
la D
ec-M
ay (
mg
L-1
)
Series1
Series2
Intercepting Nutrients: Sedimentation Basins & Wetlands
Managing Nutrients
Internal Sources
Options to stop internal release of nutrients from sediments:
• Oxygenate the sediments by mixing or direct air or oxygen injection
• Sediment capping agents – Alum, Lime, Modified clays
The Importance of Stratification: Growth & Nutrient Supply
P PN NP
N
Nutrients fromcatchment
Reducing sediment nutrient release – Aeration
Reducing sediment nutrient release with capping agents - Alum, Lime, Modified Clay
Principle: Remove + prevent release
• Strip the phosphorus from the water
• Sediment it to the bottom
• Bind it to make it unavailable for algal growth
Sediments
Sediments Dose (g/core)
Thickness(mm)
Lanthanum-modified clay
1(406 g m-2)
2
Alum 0.2 (81.2 g m-2)
10Loosely packed
CaCO3 1(406 g m-2)
2
Sediment capping experiment
Alum
• Alum has been widely used for phosphorus removal in lakes (Cooke et al. 2005). It is the most common flocculation agent which binds with FRP in the lake water, even under anoxic conditions, and settles to the lakebed.
• Alum sulphate may decrease pH in waters with low buffering capacity, which leads to solubilization and problems of toxicity.
Lime: Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3)
• Limestone
• crushed and finely ground
• Surface coverage: 1.3 m2g-1;
• mean particle diameter, 3500 µm
• Produces calcium phosphate
• hydroxyapatite (Ca5(PO4)3(OH), HAP)
Lanthanum-modified clay
The mechanism of P-removal by Lanthanum-modified clay involves the reaction of phosphate anions with La, leading to formation of a single insoluble species of lanthanum phosphate, or rhabdophane
Lanthanum-modified clay
Lanthanum-modified clay
Advantages & Issues
• The lanthanum–phosphate complex is known to be highly insoluble and able to form even when present in low concentrations and at low pHvalues.
• However depending upon the concentration and application rates, lanthanum can be toxic to some aquatic life
Observations - Suggestions
• Controlling nutrient release from sediments is not an ideal substitute for a reduction in the external nutrient load in the catchment
• All P-binding agents will be ineffective when they are buried by fresh sediment deposits
• Repeat & on-going treatment may be required.
• These treatments may require large amounts of chemicals
• A combination of treatments may be successful.
Physical Control
by….
• Mixing & Aeration to disrupt stratification and stability
• This allows for cells to mix down out of the light
What can we do about stratification?
Artificial destratification
• Bubble-plume aerators
• Surface-mounted mechanical mixers
Aims
• mix reservoir to limit the light available to cyanobacteria
• oxygenate the deep layers (hypolimnion) to reduce release of nutrients and metals from sediment
Mixing by Aeration
Air Diffuser
Water Entering the
Plume
Intrusion
Surface Heating In Shallow Water
Surface-Mounted Mechanical
Mixers - Downflow Type
Myponga Reservoir, South Australia
Intrusion
Surface-Mounted Mixers: Desired effect on Cyanobacteria
Conclusions - Aerators
The Aerator used at Myponga Reservoir was effective:
• Achieved destratification & controlled Fe & Mn
• Reduced cyanobacterial growth to some extent but not summer surface blooms
The Surface Mixers
• Can contribute to reducing Dolichospermum numbers
• Can only have a significant impact if the flow rate is >> 5 m3s-1
• The mixers may have a limited zone of influence and poor circulation effect
• Required high maintenance (of the early experimental design) relative to aerators
Conclusions – Nutrients & Mixing
Control of nutrient inputs is an important target• Maximum summer biomass is determined by the nutrient load
Artificial destratification with aerators & mixers can influence the light climate and reduce cyanobacterial total population size • Can suppress some of the internal nutrient load (deep reservoirs)
To manage cyanobacteria in a given reservoir need to understand the conditions that favour or limit growth• Water Chemistry
• Hydrodynamics
Conclusions - General
It is impossible to eliminate cyanobacteria completely, but management interventions can reduce the intensity and frequency of blooms. In addition, controlling growth can reduce the occurrence & magnitude of cyanotoxins, tastes and odours
• Nutrients: Catchment management is important as the maximum size of cyanobacterial biomass is determined by nutrient load
Reduction in the internal load nutrient load by sediment treatment is a short-term technique
• Algaecides: Can control cyanobacteria in the short term however they may have adverse environmental effects
• Destratification: Aerators and mixers can influence the light climate and reduce cyanobacterial total population size and reduce the internal nutrient load - but they are only likely to be effective in deep reservoirs
• Ultrasound: The application of ultrasound for cyanobacterial control remains under question because of the limited number of both validated field and pilot tests and the feasibility of commercial devices for use in larger water bodies.
• Biomanipulation: Biological approaches – supporting zooplankton grazing by managing fish or supporting re-colonisation of shallow areas of a water body with macrophytes requires extensive local biological knowledge and may only work at lower phosphorus levels
• Monitoring: It is important to study your reservoir and understand the conditions that both favour and limit cyanobacterial growth including Chemistry, Temperature structure, & Hydrodynamics
Water Research Australia Water Research FoundationSouth Australian Water CorporationAustralian Water Quality CentreCRC for Water Quality & Treatment
Prof Justin BrookesDr Peter HobsonDr Sandy DicksonMr Peter BakerDr Leon van der LindenDr Rudi RegelDr David Lewis Professor Chris ChowMs Renate Velzeboer Dr Dennis SteffensenProf Tsair-Fuh Lin
Acknowledgements
Stage 1 – Ongoing Stage 2 – next 3-6 months Stage 3 – next 18 months Stage 4 – next 36 months
WaterAR#1123/WRF#4912: Developing Guidance for Evaluation of Harmful Algal Blooms, project link: https://www.waterra.com.au/project-details/252
Technology readiness level for an info bank via WRF (Only data collection, no trials):• Algal bloom early warning systems, &• Mitigation technologies
Example of ranking colour coded tables:
Events:• 2nd April 2020 utility focus virtual
meeting: Presentations by “Research team from US, CA & AU” + “Selected Australian utilities” + virtual workshop to document experiences and build opportunities
Team:
WaterRA project link: https://www.waterra.com.au/research/current-opportunities/2020/protocols-for-algal-bloom-management-technology-performance-and-optimisation-assessments/
Creation of protocols for scientific assessment/trial of algal bloom management technologies (pilot & full scale): Monitoring, growth control, lysis & mitigation, etc.
Approach: • Collection of scientific literature to draft
protocols (WaterRA) using lessons learnt from “Stage 1” & 9 principals of WaterVal
• Creation of a protocol development group (subject matter experts) to review the protocols
• Selection of an independent accessor to validate these protocols (pilot/full trails)
• Dissemination of the outcome via paper publications & factsheets
Team: • Melbourne Water is engaged with
recommissioning Yan Yean pilot plant (from March 2020): Site for pilot protocol development/trials
• Seeking $80K sponsorship
IWN Technology Trial:
To trail an ultrasound tech buoy (new version with new frequencies to limit algal growth) using protocols developed and verified during “Stage 2”.
Team:
WaterRA, Melbourne Water & IWNproposal: Establish a training & tech-transfer hub at Melbourne Water Yan Yean pilot plant ($800K facility) for Australian operator training & innovative technology pilot trials
Training material includes but not limited to: • Protocols developed at Stage 2• WaterVal protocols • AOP (UV-Cl2, UV-H2O2, etc.) protocols &
set-up from WaterRA#3046/WRF#5050 project
• Testing facility for new technologies
Team & ongoing/proposed projects:
• WaterRA#4528 UNSW PhD student using Yan Yean pilot for T&O removal by GAC/BAC
• WaterRA#1136 Monash ARC EES Hub using the pilot to assess application of hydrogen economy based AOP
• WaterRA#1137 Monash ARC EES Hub using the pilot for assessment of an mobile RO emergency water treatment module
To approach for further collaborations:WSAA – AWA – WIOA; NSW water directorate –qldwater – Water New Zealand; Australian Water Partnership – The WRF (LIFT) – GWRC; ICE WaRM –International Water Centre; Isle Utilities – GHD –Jacobs
Focus on algal bloom management: WaterRA strategy to facilitate novel technology transfer into the water industry!
Stage 1 – Ongoing Stage 2 – next 3-6 months Stage 3 – next 18 months Stage 4 – next 36 months
WaterAR#1123/WRF#4912: Developing Guidance for Evaluation of Harmful Algal Blooms, project link: https://www.waterra.com.au/project-details/252
Technology readiness level for an info bank via WRF (Only data collection, no trials):• Algal bloom early warning systems, &• Mitigation technologies
Example of ranking colour coded tables:
Event:• 2nd April 2020 utility focus virtual
meeting: Presentations by “Research team from US, CA & AU” + “Selected Australian utilities” + virtual workshop to document experiences and build opportunities
Team:
WaterRA project link: https://www.waterra.com.au/research/current-opportunities/2020/protocols-for-algal-bloom-management-technology-performance-and-optimisation-assessments/
Creation of protocols for scientific assessment/trial of algal bloom management technologies (pilot & full scale): Monitoring, growth control, lysis & mitigation, etc.
Approach: • Collection of scientific literature to draft
protocols (WaterRA) using lessons learnt from “Stage 1” & 9 principals of WaterVal
• Creation of a protocol development group (subject matter experts) to review the protocols
• Selection of an independent accessor to validate these protocols (pilot/full trails)
• Dissemination of the outcome via paper publications & factsheets
Team:• Melbourne Water is engaged with
recommissioning Yan Yean pilot plant (from March 2020): Site for pilot protocol development/trials
• Seeking $80K sponsorship
IWN Technology Trial:
To trail an ultrasound tech buoy (new version with new frequencies to limit algal growth) using protocols developed and verified during “Stage 2”.
Team:
WaterRA, Melbourne Water & IWNproposal: Establish a training & tech-transfer hub at Melbourne Water Yan Yean pilot plant ($800K facility) for Australian operator training & innovative technology pilot trials
Training material includes but not limited to: • Protocols developed at Stage 2• WaterVal protocols • AOP (UV-Cl2, UV-H2O2, etc.) protocols &
set-up from WaterRA#3046/WRF#5050 project
• Testing facility for new technologies
Team & ongoing/proposed projects:
• WaterRA#4528 UNSW PhD student using Yan Yean pilot for T&O removal by GAC/BAC
• WaterRA#1136 Monash ARC EES Hub using the pilot to assess application of hydrogen economy based AOP
• WaterRA#1137 Monash ARC EES Hub using the pilot for assessment of an mobile RO emergency water treatment module
To approach for further collaborations:WSAA – AWA – WIOA; NSW water directorate –qldwater – Water New Zealand; Australian Water Partnership – The WRF (LIFT) – GWRC; ICE WaRM –International Water Centre; Isle Utilities – GHD –Jacobs
Focus on algal bloom management: WaterRA strategy to facilitate novel technology transfer into the water industry!
Stage 1 – Ongoing Stage 2 – next 3-6 months Stage 3 – next 18 months Stage 4 – next 36 months
WaterAR#1123/WRF#4912: Developing Guidance for Evaluation of Harmful Algal Blooms, project link: https://www.waterra.com.au/project-details/252
Technology readiness level for an info bank via WRF (Only data collection, no trials):• Algal bloom early warning systems, &• Mitigation technologies
Example of ranking colour coded tables:
Event:• 2nd April 2020 utility focus virtual
meeting: Presentations by “Research team from US, CA & AU” + “Selected Australian utilities” + virtual workshop to document experiences and build opportunities
Team:
WaterRA project link: https://www.waterra.com.au/research/current-opportunities/2020/protocols-for-algal-bloom-management-technology-performance-and-optimisation-assessments/
Creation of protocols for scientific assessment/trial of algal bloom management technologies (pilot & full scale): Monitoring, growth control, lysis & mitigation, etc.
Approach: • Collection of scientific literature to draft
protocols (WaterRA) using lessons learnt from “Stage 1” & 9 principals of WaterVal
• Creation of a protocol development group (subject matter experts) to review the protocols
• Selection of an independent accessor to validate these protocols (pilot/full trails)
• Dissemination of the outcome via paper publications & factsheets
Team: • Melbourne Water is engaged with
recommissioning Yan Yean pilot plant (from March 2020): Site for pilot protocol development/trials
• Seeking $80K sponsorship
IWN Technology Trial:
To trail an ultrasound tech buoy (new version with new frequencies to limit algal growth) using protocols developed and verified during “Stage 2”.
Team:
WaterRA, Melbourne Water & IWNproposal: Establish a training & tech-transfer hub at Melbourne Water Yan Yean pilot plant ($800K facility) for Australian operator training & innovative technology pilot trials
Training material includes but not limited to: • Protocols developed at Stage 2• WaterVal protocols • AOP (UV-Cl2, UV-H2O2, etc.) protocols &
set-up from WaterRA#3046/WRF#5050 project
• Testing facility for new technologies
Team & ongoing/proposed projects:
• WaterRA#4528 UNSW PhD student using Yan Yean pilot for T&O removal by GAC/BAC
• WaterRA#1136 Monash ARC EES Hub using the pilot to assess application of hydrogen economy based AOP
• WaterRA#1137 Monash ARC EES Hub using the pilot for assessment of an mobile RO emergency water treatment module
To approach for further collaborations:WSAA – AWA – WIOA; NSW water directorate –qldwater – Water New Zealand; Australian Water Partnership – The WRF (LIFT) – GWRC; ICE WaRM –International Water Centre; Isle Utilities – GHD –Jacobs
Focus on algal bloom management: WaterRA strategy to facilitate novel technology transfer into the water industry!
Stage 1 – Ongoing Stage 2 – next 3-6 months Stage 3 – next 18 months Stage 4 – next 36 months
WaterAR#1123/WRF#4912: Developing Guidance for Evaluation of Harmful Algal Blooms, project link: https://www.waterra.com.au/project-details/252
Technology readiness level for an info bank via WRF (Only data collection, no trials):• Algal bloom early warning systems, &• Mitigation technologies
Example of ranking colour coded tables:
Event:• 2nd April 2020 utility focus virtual
meeting: Presentations by “Research team from US, CA & AU” + “Selected Australian utilities” + virtual workshop to document experiences and build opportunities
Team:
WaterRA project link: https://www.waterra.com.au/research/current-opportunities/2020/protocols-for-algal-bloom-management-technology-performance-and-optimisation-assessments/
Creation of protocols for scientific assessment/trial of algal bloom management technologies (pilot & full scale): Monitoring, growth control, lysis & mitigation, etc.
Approach: • Collection of scientific literature to draft
protocols (WaterRA) using lessons learnt from “Stage 1” & 9 principals of WaterVal
• Creation of a protocol development group (subject matter experts) to review the protocols
• Selection of an independent accessor to validate these protocols (pilot/full trails)
• Dissemination of the outcome via paper publications & factsheets
Team: • Melbourne Water is engaged with
recommissioning Yan Yean pilot plant (from March 2020): Site for pilot protocol development/trials
• Seeking $80K sponsorship
IWN Technology Trial:
To trail an ultrasound tech buoy (new version with new frequencies to limit algal growth) using protocols developed and verified during “Stage 2”.
Team:
WaterRA, Melbourne Water & IWNproposal: Establish a training & tech-transfer hub at Melbourne Water Yan Yean pilot plant ($800K facility) for Australian operator training & innovative technology pilot trials
Training material includes but not limited to: • Protocols developed at Stage 2• WaterVal protocols • AOP (UV-Cl2, UV-H2O2, etc.) protocols &
set-up from WaterRA#3046/WRF#5050 project
• Testing facility for new technologies
Team & ongoing/proposed projects:• WaterRA#4528 UNSW PhD student using
Yan Yean pilot for T&O removal by GAC/BAC
• WaterRA#1136 Monash ARC EES Hub using the pilot to assess application of hydrogen economy based AOP
• WaterRA#1137 Monash ARC EES Hub using the pilot for assessment of an mobile RO emergency water treatment module
Focus on algal bloom management: WaterRA strategy to facilitate novel technology transfer into the water industry!
Resources
https://www.waterra.com.au/publications/