Utilizing Pool Chlorination Systems for Drinking Water Treatment in Developing Countries

Utilizing Pool Chlorination Systems
for Drinking Water Treatment in
Developing Countries:
A Case Study in San Pedro De Casta, Peru
2015
MEGAN BURKE

Utilizing Pool Chlorination Systems for Drinking
Water Treatment in Developing Countries Burke
1
Table of Contents
Table of Contents..........................................................................................................................................................0
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................................2
Methods........................................................................................................................................................................3
Experiment 1: Tablet Dissolution .............................................................................................................................3
Experiment 2: Tablet Count Vs Dose........................................................................................................................4
Experiment 3: Water Flow in the Feeding Tube vs Stack Feed Chlorinator ............................................................5
Results and Discussion..................................................................................................................................................6
Experiment 1: Tablet Dissolution .............................................................................................................................6
Experiment 2: Tablet Count Vs Dose........................................................................................................................7
Experiment 3: Water Flow in Feeding Tube vs Stack Feed Chlorinator...................................................................8
Case Study: San Pedro De Casta, Peru..........................................................................................................................9
Background ...............................................................................................................................................................9
Field Installation......................................................................................................................................................10
Design Calculations .................................................................................................................................................13
Daily Demand of Chlorine...................................................................................................................................13
Flow Needed Through Stack Feed Chlorinator Feeding Tube to Achieve the Daily Demand of Chlorine........13
Flow Needed Through the Stack Feed Chlorinator Pipe to Achieve the Daily Demand of Chlorine ................13
Final Design .............................................................................................................................................................13
Appendices..................................................................................................................................................................14
Appendix A: Chlorine System Demand Graphs......................................................................................................14
Appendix B: Tablet Dissolution Experiment Raw Data..........................................................................................16
Appendix C: Tablet Count Vs Dose Experiment Raw Data.....................................................................................21
Appendix D: Stack Feed Flow vs Feeding Tube (Internal) Flow Raw Data ............................................................22
References...................................................................................................................................................................23

2
Introduction
The World Health Organization estimates that 1.8 billion people use water
contaminated with feces (World Health Organization, 2015). Disinfection is an effective way to
inactivate pathogens, and is especially effective for surface water and ground waters that
contain fecal contamination (World Health Organization, 2011).
Chlorine is known to inactivate a wide range of pathogens and its residual disinfection
property prevents contamination within the distribution system (US EPA, 1999). In comparison
to UV or ozone, chlorine is the most cost effective disinfection option (US EPA, 2015). For these
reasons chlorine is a good disinfection solution in developing countries, however, it has
limitations against protozoan pathogens, in particular Cryptosporidium, and therefore should
not be the only treatment barrier employed. Chlorine disinfection can result in disinfection-by-
products (DBP), but treating drinking water in developing countries to inactivate pathogens is a
much greater concern than the DBP’s that may come from the treatment.
Chlorine can be used in solid, liquid, and gas phase for disinfection. Solid chlorine often
comes in a powder, granular, or compressed tablet form (USEPA, 1991). Calcium hypochlorite
tablets are often used in pools, and commercial grade contains more than 70% available
chlorine. The challenge associated with the tablets is being able to control the achievable dose
of total chlorine.
This study focuses on the use of an in-line chlorinator, herein referred to as a stack feed
chlorinator, to dispense chlorine tablets as a means to disinfect drinking water. In this study a
ClearWater Automatic In-Line Chlorinator system (ClearWater Automatic Inline Chlorinator 2.5"
Spigot and 1.5" FPT, 2015) was used with three-inch tablets containing 84.65% available
chlorine produced by Pool Time (35lb. 3 inch. Multi-Functional Chlorinating Tablets Plus, 2015).
The community of San Pedro De Casta, Peru served as a case study on the operation of the
stack feed chlorinator.

3
Methods
Experiment 1: Tablet Dissolution
Exploring the relationship between the dissolution rate of the tablets and the pH of
water helped predict the achievable dose of the tablets with different pH. An experiment was
designed to test the relationship between tablet dissolution and pH. A large 250 gallon tank
was filled with reverse osmosis water and a paddle mixer was set up inside the tank. A number
16 flexible rubber hose ran from the tank to a small peristaltic pump and to the gator jar.
Within the gator jar was a brillo pad for the tablet to sit upon which allowed water to circulate
around it. An additional, smaller mixer was used in the gator jar. The tubing leading to the gator
jar was attached to a perforated metal pipe, this allowed water to enter the gator jar at several
depths and mix. The mixers in the gator jar and the mixers in the tank allowed the system serve
as a completely stirred tank reactor, or a CSTR. Number 16 hose was used as the outflow of the
gator jar, and a second pump controlled the outflow. A schematic of the system can be seen
below in Figure 1. The pH regulator of the mixed tank was set to 8 using 118.6g (1.5meq/L) of
Sodium Bicarbonate. The pumps were then adjusted so that the flow entering the gator jar was
the same as the flow coming out, and the water level remained constant. Once the tablet was
put in the gator jar and the pump was turned on the start time was recorded. Samples of the
time, flow, total chlorine, free chlorine, pH, and temperatures were taken approximately 4
times a day for a minimum of 48 hours. A Hatch Colorimeter was used to measure the free and
total chlorine levels. The pH was then adjusted to 7 and 6 by slowly adding hydrochloric acid-5
normal.
FIGURE 1: TABLET DISSOLUTION EXPERIMENT (LABORATORY)

4
Experiment 2: Tablet Count Vs Dose
It was hypothesized that fewer tablets in the feeding tube of the stack feed chlorinator
would result in a lower dose. A tablet count vs dose experiment was designed to see if the
number of chlorine tablets in the feeding tube impacted the dose rate, which was measured as
the achievable mass of total chlorine per milliliter of water passing through the feeder system.
This test also yielded a more accurate achievable dose than that from tablet dissolution
experiment. The stack feed chlorinator was hooked up to a piping system fed by a 250 gallon
tank (Figure 2). Water in the tank was stabilized at pH 7. A globe valve was used to control the
flow going into the pipe from the pump, which was monitored by the flow meter. The feeding
tube inlet valve, a part of the stack feed chlorinator located on the inlet side of the feeding tube
which controlled the amount of water entering the feeding tube (Figure 3), was left on the
maximum flow setting. The globe valve was adjusted to achieve 6 gallons per minute (gpm) and
the feeding tube inlet valve was adjusted to the maximum flow setting. The system was run
with 1 chlorine tablet in the feeding tube and then a second run was done with 6 tablets in the
feeding tube.
FIGURE 2: STACK FEED CHLORINATOR (LABORATORY)

5
FIGURE 3: STACK FEED CHLORINATOR, CROSS SECTION
Experiment 3: Water Flow in the Feeding Tube vs Stack Feed Chlorinator
The stack feed chlorinator was designed so that it ties into a pipe, like the name “in-line”
implies. Of the water passing through the pipe only a portion of the water enters the feeding
tube, which houses the tablets. In order to determine the flow needed to pass through the
stack feed chlorinator, the relationship between the water passing through pipe and the
feeding tube needed to be established. The same set up was used as that in Experiment 2. The
pump was turned on and the globe valve was adjusted so the flow was 2 gpm and the feeding
tube inlet valve was put on the maximum flow setting. A barrel was placed under the stack feed
chlorinator, the cap on the feeding tube was removed, and a stopwatch was started. The
overflow rate of the feeding tube, or the internal flow, was calculated using the time passed
and the volume collected. In order to find the relationship between the water passing through
the pipe and feeding tube, the overflow rate was compared to the pump rate. The experiment
was repeated with the feeding tube inlet valve at the minimum setting. It was then repeated at
flows of 6 and 10 gpm.

6
Results and Discussion
Experiment 1: Tablet Dissolution
Figure 4 shows the results from the tablet dissolution experiment. The volume of water
passed (mL) was graphed against the cumulative total chlorine passed (mg) for each of the
three pH settings. A linear trend line was fit to each of the data groups, each of which had an R2
value close to 1 indicating it was a good representation of the raw data trends. The slope of the
trend line represented the cumulative total chlorine passed (mg) per mL of water that passed
through the gator jar. The slopes were 1.44, 1.41, and 1.37 for pH 6, 7, and 8 respectively.
There was a slight decrease in slope as the pH was increased. This is something the system
would be fine-tuned to in the field.
FIGURE 4: TABLET DISSOLUTION EXPERIMENT RESULT

7
Experiment 2: Tablet Count Vs Dose
The results of the tablet count vs dose experiment are shown in Figure 5. The slope of
the trend line gave the mg of total chlorine per ml of water passed through the stack feed
chlorinator. However, the volume of water passing through the stack feed chlorinator, on the x-
axis, does not represent the flow contacting the tablets but rather the water passing through
the pipe. For both the one tablet and six tablet trend line the slope was 0.06 mg total chlorine
per mL of water passed through the pipe, which indicated the number of tablets did not
influence the dose. Water passing through the feeding tube and contacting the tablets had
become fully saturated with chlorine, which resulted in the same dose no matter the number of
tablets in the feeding tube. This was an important discovery because it meant that as the
tablets dissolve the dose will stay constant, until there is an insufficient number of tablets to
achieve saturation. The dose from Figure 5 can be used in calculating the amount of flow
needed to flow through the feeding tube to get the desired chlorine residual.
FIGURE 5: TABLET COUNT VS DOSE

8
Experiment 3: Water Flow in Feeding Tube vs Stack Feed Chlorinator
In order to achieve the desired dose, the flow passing through the stack feed chlorinator
needs to be calculated. Only a portion of the water passing through the stack feed chlorinator
goes into the feeding tube and contacts the tablets. The relationship between the water
passing through the stack feed chlorinator and the water going into the feeding tube can be
seen in Figure 6. An exponential fit was used to add a trend line to the raw data, the
exponential equation can be used to solve for the flow needed to pass through the stack feed
chlorinator when the necessary internal flow passing through the feeding tube is known. Only
the maximum and minimum settings were used on the feeding tube inlet valve to make it
easier an operator in a developing country to run the system properly.
FIGURE 6: FLOW ENTERING THE FEEDING TUBE

9
Case Study: San Pedro De Casta, Peru
Background
San Pedro De Casta is a small village located approximately six hours outside of Lima by
bus (Figure 7). The community is home to an estimated one thousand two hundred people.
Water consumption in the town is approximately 60,000 gallons a day, this is only slightly
higher than the measured flow taken by University of New Hampshire’s Engineers Without
Borders in January 2015. Sources of water for the town include both snow melt and
groundwater, and due to the lack of source protection the water is contaminated by fecal
coliforms. The water is stored in a reservoir and fed by gravity down the mountain side to the
town where it is distributed to each home. A caretaker of the system disinfects the water every
few weeks by dumping large quantities of chlorine into the water tank, which causes side
effects in many children and elderly community members including stomach aches and mouth
burns. The new disinfection treatment system will have a desired residual of 1 mg/L of total
chlorine.
FIGURE 7: SAN PEDRO DE CASTA, PERU

10
Field Installation
In the field the stack feed chlorinator needs to be tied into a side stream off of the water
main. This allows the flow into the system to be finely tuned to produce accurate dosing. Figure
8 shows the schematic of the stack feed chlorinator system in the field. The water flows from
the main to a flow meter and through the stack feed chlorinator. Here a portion of the water
enters a small tube which diverts water into the feeding tube where it makes contact with the
chlorine tablets, the water then exits the feeding tube (Figure3). After the water has been
dosed and exits the feeding tube it goes through a check valve and then back into the water
main by a tee fitting. The chlorinator will be located before the village storage tank (Figure 9
and Figure 10). This location will allow an appropriate chlorine contact time to be reached and
fully mix in the water main before reaching residents in town.
FIGURE 8: STACK FEED CHLORINATOR (IN-FIELD)

11
FIGURE 9: STACK FEED CHLORINATOR AT THE STORAGE TANK, SIDE VIEW (OPERATIONAL, SAN PEDRO DE
CASTA)

12
FIGURE 10: STACK FEED CHLORINATOR AT STORAGE TANK, TOP VIEW (OPERATIONAL, SAN PEDRO DE CASTA)

13
Design Calculations
The following calculations were made to find the flow needed to get the desired residual of
1mg/L:
Daily Demand of Chlorine
= desired residual* flow
=1mg/L* 3.75L/gal*60,000 gal/day*1day/1440 min
=157.7 mg/min
Flow Needed Through Stack Feed Chlorinator Feeding Tube to Achieve the Daily Demand of
Chlorine
=daily chlorine demand/achievable dose
*the achievable dose comes from
Figure 5
=
Flow Needed Through the Stack Feed Chlorinator Pipe to Achieve the Daily Demand of Chlorine
*Figure 6 exponential equation is used where y=stack feed chlorinator internal flow
(gpm) and x=stack chlorinator influent flow (gpm). X is the unknown being solved for.
The max flow line was used because it requires less flow in the side stream to achieve
higher flow through the feeding tube. This allows a smaller side stream pipe to be used
which is cheaper.
y=0.2606e0.214x
0.694gpm=0.2606e0.214x
x=4.58 gpm
Final Design
In order to reach the desired goal of 1 mg/L residual chlorine, 4.58 gpm of water must flow
through the side stream with the feeding tube influent valve on the maximum flow setting.
These settings will cause 0.694 gpm of water to flow through the feeding tube and 1 mg/L of
chlorine to come out in the treated water.
157.7 mg/min
0.06 mg/mL
=2,628.5 ml/min * 1L/1000ml * 1gal/3.785L= 0.694 gpm

14
Appendices
Appendix A: Chlorine System Demand Graphs
FIGURE 11: SYSTEM CHLORINE DEMAND FOR DESIRED RESIDUAL OF .5MG/L, CHLORINE NEEDED VS
COMMUNITY WATER DEMAND

15
FIGURE 12: SYSTEM CHLORINE DEMAND FOR DESIRED RESIDUAL OF 1MG/L, CHLORINE NEEDED VS
COMMUNITY WATER DEMAND

16
Appendix B: Tablet Dissolution Experiment Raw Data

17
Date Time
Time
Elapsed
(min)
Flow
Rate
(ml/min)
Volume
Passed
(mL)
pH
Temp
(°C)
Residual
Free Cl
Test 1
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Free Cl
Test 2
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Average
Free Cl
(mg/L)
Residual
Free Cl
Passed
(mg)
Residual
Total Cl
Test 1
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Total Cl
Test 2
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Average
Total Cl
(mg/L)
Residual
Total Cl
passed
(mg)
Comments
Run 1
pH 8
30-Mar 14:15 0 20 0 7.85 19 - - - - - - - 0 Baseline
30-Mar 16:15 120 20 2400 7.88 19 - - - - 1.63 1.63 1630 3912 1:1000 dilution
31-Mar 9:37 1162 20 23240 7.65 18 - - - - 1.16 1.16 1160 28086.4
*pH low b/c not
mixed, 1:1000
dilution
31-Mar 11:00 1245 20 24900 7.88 17.5 1.79 1.78 1785 44446500 1.81 1.82 1815 31099.3 1:1000 dilution
31-Mar 12:00 1365 20 27300 7.72 17 1.83 1.81 1820 48814500 1.94 1.87 1905 35671.3 1:1000 dilution
31-Mar 14:45 1530 20 30600 7.8 17 1.74 1.72 1730 54523500 1.85 1.8 1825 41693.8 1:1000 dilution
1-Apr 8:50 2615 20 52300 7.87 17 1.38 1.38 1380 84469500 1.57 1.57 1570 75762.8 1:1000 dilution
2-Apr 11:15 2760 20 55200 7.9 15 0.65 0.65 650 86354500 - - - - 1:1000 dilution
2-Apr 15:00 2985 20 59700 7.8 15 0.85 0.79 820 90044500 - - - - 1:1000 dilution
3-Apr 13:58 4363 20 87260 7.8 15 0.85 0.79 820
11264370
0
- - - - 1:1000 dilution
3-Apr 15:06 4431 20 88620 7.6 19 1.17 1.16 1165
11422810
0
1.93 1.94 1935 146042 1:1000 dilution
Run 2-
pH 7
0 0 0

18
Date Time
Time
Elapsed
(min)
Flow
Rate
(ml/min)
Volume
Passed
(mL)
pH
Temp
(°C)
Residual
Free Cl
Test 1
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Free Cl
Test 2
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Average
Free Cl
(mg/L)
Residual
Free Cl
Passed
(mg)
Residual
Total Cl
Test 1
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Total Cl
Test 2
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Average
Total Cl
(mg/L)
Residual
Total Cl
passed
(mg)
Comments
6-Apr 16:01 31 20 620 7.02 16 0.81 0.67 740 458800 0.74 0.71 725 449.5 1:1000 dilution
6-Apr 17:48 138 19.5 2691 6.99 17 1.56 1.57 1565 3699915 1.73 1.71 1720 4011.62 1:1000 dilution
7-Apr 9:38 1088 20 21760 7.3 17 1.54 1.54 1540 33066175 1.61 1.6 1605 34617.37 1:1000 dilution
7-Apr 11:32 1202 20.5 24641 7.38 18 1.46 1.47 1465 37286840 1.58 1.59 1585 39183.75 1:1000 dilution
7-Apr 13:00 1290 20 25800 6.99 18 1.5 1.49 1495 39019545 1.8 1.8 1800 41269.95 1:1000 dilution
7-Apr 16:00 1470 20 29400 7.01 18 1.54 1.57 1555 44617545 1.79 1.8 1795 47731.95 1:1000 dilution
7-Apr 17:45 1575 20 31500 7.1 18 1.62 1.62 1620 48019545 1.65 1.67 1660 51217.95 1:1000 dilution
8-Apr 10:48 2598 20 51960 7.01 17.5 1.14 1.12 1130 71139345 1.22 1.12 1170 75156.15 1:1000 dilution
8-Apr 13:00 2730 20 54600 6.97 16 0.98 0.99 985 73739745 2.03 2.01 2020 80488.95 1:1000 dilution
8-Apr 15:45 2895 20 57900 7.07 18 1.36 1.36 1360 78227745 1.68 1.67 1675 86016.45 1:1000 dilution
8-Apr 17:50 3020 20 60400 7.06 18 1.31 1.29 1300 81477745 1.65 1.65 1650 90141.45 1:1000 dilution
9-Apr 9:52 3982 20 79640 7.22 16 0.94 0.94 940 99563345 1.15 1.19 1170 112652.3 1:1000 dilution

19
Date Time
Time
Elapsed
(min)
Flow
Rate
(ml/min)
Volume
Passed
(mL)
pH
Temp
(°C)
Residual
Free Cl
Test 1
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Free Cl
Test 2
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Average
Free Cl
(mg/L)
Residual
Free Cl
Passed
(mg)
Residual
Total Cl
Test 1
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Total Cl
Test 2
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Average
Total Cl
(mg/L)
Residual
Total Cl
passed
(mg)
Comments
9-Apr 12:07 4117 20 82340 7.26 17 0.96 0.96 960
10215534
5
2 1.99 1995 118038.8 1:1000 dilution
9-Apr 14:00 4230 20 84600 7.37 17 1.07 1.07 1070
10457354
5
1.16 1.16 1160 120660.4 1:1000 dilution
9-Apr 15:20 4310 20 86200 7.02 17 1.02 1.04 1030
10622154
5
1.12 1.12 1120 122452.4 1:1000 dilution
9-Apr 18:00 4470 20 89400 6.53 17 - - - - 1.06 1.05 1055 125828.4 1:1000 dilution
10-Apr 11:30 5520 20 110400 7.34 18 - - - - 1 1 1000 146828.4 1:1000 dilution
10-Apr 13:00 5610 20 112200 7.63 18 - - - - 1.04 1.05 1045 148709.4 1:1000 dilution
Run 3
pH6
15:15 0 0 0 0
14-Apr 9:40 1105 20 22100 6.8 19 - - - - 1.29 1.29 1290 28509 1:1000 dilution
14-Apr 12:00 1245 20 24900 6.12 19 - - - - 1.75 1.76 3510 38337 1:2000 dilution
14-Apr 12:20 1265 20 25300 6.12 19 - - - - 1.16 1.17 2330 39269 1:2000 dilution
14-Apr 14:00 1365 20 27300 6.15 19 - - - - 1.87 1.88 1875 43019 1:1000 dilution

20
Date Time
Time
Elapsed
(min)
Flow
Rate
(ml/min)
Volume
Passed
(mL)
pH
Temp
(°C)
Residual
Free Cl
Test 1
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Free Cl
Test 2
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Average
Free Cl
(mg/L)
Residual
Free Cl
Passed
(mg)
Residual
Total Cl
Test 1
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Total Cl
Test 2
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Average
Total Cl
(mg/L)
Residual
Total Cl
passed
(mg)
Comments
15-Apr 9:30 2535 20 50700 6.15 19 - - - - 0.95 0.95 1900 87479 1:2000 dilution
15-Apr 13:10 2755 20 55100 6.21 18 - - - - 1.22 1.24 1230 92891 1:1000 dilution
15-Apr 14:30 2853 20 57060 6.21 18 - - - - 0.86 0.85 1710 96242.6 1:2000 dilution
16-Apr 9:50 4115 20 82300 6.32 17 - - - - 1.25 1.25 1250 127792.6 1:1000 dilution
16-Apr 13:00 4305 20 86100 6.38 17 - - - - 0.49 0.49 980 131516.6 1:2000 dilution
16-Apr 14:20 4385 20 87700 6.3 15 - - - - 0.7 0.7 1400 133756.6 1:2000 dilution
16-Apr 16:40 4525 20 90500 6.34 16 - - - - 0.62 0.61 1230 137200.6 1:2000 dilution
17-Apr 11:20 5645 20 112900 6.35 18 - - - - 0.55 0.55 550 149520.6 1:1000 dilution
17-Apr 13:30 5835 20 116700 6.35 17 - - - - 0.51 0.51 510 151458.6 1:1000 dilution
17-Apr 14:45 5910 20 118200 6.3 18 - - - - 0.54 0.54 540 152268.6 1:1000 dilution

21
Appendix C: Tablet Count Vs Dose Experiment Raw Data
Time
Time
Passed
(min)
Flow Rate
(gpm) Flow (ml/min)
Volume
Passed (ml)
Residual
Total Cl
Test 1
(mg/L),
diluted
Residual
Total Cl
Test 2
(mg/L),
diluted
Average
Residual
Total Cl
(mg/L)
Residual
Total Cl
passed
(mg)
Comment
1 Tablet
9:30 0 0.893 3380.005 0 0
10:00 30 0.893 3380.005 101400.15 0.02 0.03 50 5070.01 diluted to 1:2000
10:40 70 0.893 3380.005 236600.35 0.02 0.02 40 10478 diluted to 1:2000
11:30 120 0.893 3380.005 405600.6 0.02 0.02 40 17238 diluted to 1:2000
12:20 170 0.893 3380.005 574600.85 0.04 0.04 80 30758 diluted to 1:2000
12:50 200 0.893 3380.005 676001 0.03 0.04 70 37856.1 diluted to 1:2000
17:00 450 0.893 3380.005
1521002.2
5 0.03 0.04 70 97006.1 diluted to 1:2000
6
Tablets
10:00 0 0.893 3380.005 0 0
11:16 76 0.893 3380.005 256880.38 0.04 0.05 90 23119.2 diluted to 1:2000
11:55 115 0.893 3380.005
388700.57
5 0.02 0.02 40 28392 diluted to 1:2000
13:00 180 0.893 3380.005 608400.9 0.02 0.01 30 34983.1 diluted to 1:2000
14:30 270 0.893 3380.005 912601.35 0.03 0.03 60 53235.1 diluted to 1:2000
15:10 310 0.893 3380.005
1047801.5
5 0.03 0.03 60 61347.1 diluted to 1:2000

22
Appendix D: Stack Feed Flow vs Feeding Tube (Internal) Flow Raw Data
Flow
(gpm)
Time
(seconds)
Time
(min)
Total
Volume
Through
(gal)
Overflow
Volume
(gal)
Overflow
(gpm)
Feeding
Tube Let
Valve Max
or Min
Flow
2 731 12.1833 24.37 5 0.410 Max
6 336 5.6 33.60 5 0.893 Max
10 264 4.4 44.00 10 2.273 Max
10 320 5.33333 53.33 10 1.875 Min
6 990 16.5 99.00 5 0.303 Min
2 1420 23.6667 47.33 5 0.211 Min

23
References
35lb. 3 inch. Multi-Functional Chlorinating Tablets Plus. (2015, May 11). Retrieved from
HomeDepot: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Pool-Time-35-lb-3-in-Multi-Functional-
Chlorinating-Tablets-Plus-21739PTM/203671873?N=5yc1vZc4j5
ClearWater Automatic Inline Chlorinator 2.5" Spigot and 1.5" FPT. (2015, May 11). Retrieved
from Electric Motor Warehouse:
http://www.electricmotorwarehouse.com/PDF/chlorinator.pdf
US EPA. (1999). Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual. EPA.
US EPA. (2003). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet: Disinfection for Small Systems .
Washington, D.C: Municipal Technology Branch.
US EPA. (2015, May 11). Basic Information about Disinfectants in Drinking Water: Chloramine,
Chlorine, and Chlorine Dioxide. Retrieved from US EPA:
http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/disinfectants.cfm
US EPA. (2015, May 11). Wastewater Technology Fact Sheed, Disinfection for Small Systems.
Retrieved from United States Environmental Protection Agency:
http://water.epa.gov/infrastructure/septic/upload/disinfection_small.pdf
WHO Press, World. (2008, May 11). Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, Third Edition, Volume
1. Geneva: World Health Organization. Retrieved from US EPA:
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/fulltext.pdf
World Health Organization. (2011). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality, 4th Edition. Retrieved
from http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241548151_eng.pdf?ua=1
World Health Organization. (2015, May 11). Water Fact Sheet. Retrieved from World Health
Organization: http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs391/en/

Utilizing Pool Chlorination Systems for Drinking Water Treatment in Developing Countries

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Utilizing Pool Chlorination Systems for Drinking Water Treatment in Developing Countries

Similar to Utilizing Pool Chlorination Systems for Drinking Water Treatment in Developing Countries (20)

Utilizing Pool Chlorination Systems for Drinking Water Treatment in Developing Countries