ADVANCES WATER

January–March 2022 | vol.32 no.1

in

RESEARCH A Publication of The Water Research Foundation

Delivering Research
That Matters

2021 Year in Review

VIEWPOINT
Delivering Research That Matters

T
he Water Research Foundation (WRF) focuses oninte-
grated One Water research that encompasses the entire
water cycle, addressing issues holistically and provid-
ing actionable solutions for our subscribers. WRF’s research
benefits all areas of the water sector, while also exploring the
connections between water and other sectors, such as energy
and agriculture.
Producing research and creating knowledge are core parts of
what we do. We embrace our role as a purpose-driven organiza-
tion that concentrates on serving our subscribers and strength-
ening the water sector by advancing the science of water. Every
year, we work with our subscribers, partners, and researchers
Michael Markus Peter Grevatt
to produce world-class research. A key aspect of WRF’s work
is delivering that research to the sector through activities that allow the knowledge we’ve developed to be applied
effectively. Implementing the research results is what brings change to the sector, and what helps us prepare for the
opportunities and challenges that are in front of us. WRF provides the research that matters most to our subscribers
and to the communities that we all serve.
We deliver research results through a variety of products, including research reports, webcasts, workshops, guidance
manuals, videos, and more. WRF will deliver our research results to you, whether you have the time to review a full
research report or only a few minutes to watch a video or read a magazine article.
This issue of Advances in Water Research focuses on the research results from 2021 that matter the most to building
resilience and strengthening the growth of the water sector. You will read about nutrients, pathogens, infrastructure,
and additional topics that are all integral to a One Water approach.
All of the work we do at WRF is to support you, our subscribers. You help us to conduct and deliver our work in a
way that continually builds strong trust and confidence in our research. We look forward to partnering with you to
deliver the research that matters most to you throughout 2022 and beyond.

Michael R. Markus, PE Peter Grevatt, PhD

Chair, Board of Directors Chief Executive Officer

ii January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research

CONTENTS VOL. 32 NO. 1

ii | Viewpoint: Delivering Research

That Matters 6 | 2021 Webcasts

The Water Research Foundation (WRF)

2 | By the Numbers: WRF in 2021

8 | Key Research Results and
Products from 2021
is the leading research organization
advancing the science of all water to
meet the evolving needs of its subscribers
and the water sector. WRF is a nonprofit,
educational organization that funds,

4 | 8 |
manages, and publishes research on the
Q&A: Interview with Z. Jason 2021 Published Products technology, operation, and management
of drinking water, wastewater, reuse,
Ren and stormwater systems—all in pursuit
of ensuring water quality and improving
water services to the public.

9 | Advances in Nutrient Removal

14 | Innovation in Action
15 | Benefits of Water Reuse in
Agriculture

Editor: Alyse Greenberg

P 303.347.6116 • editor@waterrf.org
Copyeditor: Victoria Bloom
Art director: Cheri Good

Customer service

17 | 22 |
Managing Pathogens in Energy P 888.844.5082 or 303.347.6100
info@waterrf.org
Water Reuse
Advances in Water Research
(ISSN 1055-9140) is published quarterly

24 | 26 |
Optimizing Biofiltration Stormwater Management for $100 a year in North America by
The Water Research Foundation, 6666
W. Quincy Ave., Denver, CO 80235
Telephone: 303.347.6100
Periodicals postage paid at Denver, CO.

28 | Constituents of Emerging

Concern 30 | Resilience as a Proactive
Pursuit
Postmaster: Send address changes to
Advances in Water Research, The Water
Research Foundation, 6666 W. Quincy
Ave., Denver, CO 80235-3098

32 | Water Audit Validation

34 | Lead Service Line
Replacement
Copyright © 2022 The Water Research
Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No part of this publication may be cop-
ied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized

35 | 37 |
2021 Awarded Projects Calendar without permission. Published in the
U.S.A. Printed on recycled paper.

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 1

BY THE NUMBERS
This installment of By the Numbers features statistics on WRF activities from 2021.

264
Active One Water
Research Projects
Worth
$82
Million
19
New Projects Awarded
Worth
$2.76 Million in WRF Funds

7
Projects
Funded by
$5.82 Million in Grant Funds

Awarded to WRF from
5
Grantors
• California Energy Commission
• City of Philadelphia
• Private Foundation
• U.S. Department of Energy

1,166
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Subscribers
1030 Utilities
across the Globe

79 Consultants
57 Manufacturers
2 January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research
 WRF IN 2021

24
Projects Published
Worth
Most Popular Reports $7.49 Million Total
• Level 1 Water Audit Validation Guidance
Manual, Second Edition (5057)
• Full Lead Service Line Replacement Guidance $3.62
(4713) Million in WRF Funds
• Membrane Bioreactor Validation Protocols for
Water Reuse (4997)
• Economic Framework and Tools for Quantifying $3.87
and Monetizing the Triple Bottom Line Benefits Million in Cost Share
of Green Stormwater Infrastructure (4852)
• Tools to Evaluate Quantitative Microbial Risk and In-Kind Contributions
and Plant Performance/Reliability (4951)

51
Webcasts
2
Hosted by WRF years

Most Popular Topics 20 Years

Covered by Webcasts
• Nutrients $2.10 Million Total

• Wastewater Surveillance
• Lead Service Lines Awarded to
• Stormwater
• Constituents of Emerging Concern 21
Water Research
Leaders

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 3

Q&A
Interview with Z. Jason Ren
Decarbonization in the Wastewater Sector
I
n September 2021, Dr. Z. Jason Ren was
presented with the Paul L. Busch Award,
which recognizes an individual for innova-
tive research in the field of water quality and
the water environment, with a special focus
on those who make significant contributions
in bridging research and its practical appli-
cation. With the $100,000 research prize,
Dr. Ren will develop an inventory and digi-
tal tools to easily measure and track green-
house gas emissions from the wastewater
sector. Dr. Ren is a professor in the Depart-
ment of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing and the Andlinger Center for Energy and the Environ-
ment at Princeton University.
What is your professional background? I attended college
in China, then worked as a process engineer for about two
years. I designed different types of wastewater treatment
processes, such as sequencing batch reactors and mem-
brane bioreactors. For example, I was part of a team that
designed many small-scale wastewater treatment plants
for towns surrounding the Three Gorges Dam Reservoir.
I came to the United States to pursue my PhD at Penn
State, where I primarily worked on energy recovery during
wastewater treatment. After I received my PhD, I became a
faculty member at the University of Colorado, and in 2018
I became a professor at Princeton University.
How long have you been running the Princeton Water &
Energy Technologies (WET) Lab? I’ve been running the
lab since 2018, and my group works on the nexus between
water and energy. Princeton offers a unique opportunity to
carry out this interdisciplinary research, because I’m 50%
with the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineer-
ing and 50% with the Andlinger Center for Energy and the
Environment. This appointment allows me to take on some
unique leadership roles and think big picture about envi-
ronmental engineering in the context of climate change.
How did you become interested in the water-energy
nexus? My interest originated from my experience as
a consultant. When you talk to clients about reducing
4 January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research
costs, energy is always a major area for
improvement. That prompted me to think
about energy management in the wastewa-
ter industry. Because of my expertise with
membrane bioreactor design, I knew the
operational costs can be very high because
the process uses a lot of energy for aera-
tion and cleaning. During my PhD research
and early faculty years, I focused on con-
verting the chemical energy embedded in
wastewater organics into different types
of renewable energy, such as hydrogen,
electricity, and biogas. Since wastewater
contains several times more energy than is needed for
its treatment, it is possible to make the process energy
neutral or even energy positive. I learned the other side
of the water-energy nexus through my collaboration with
scientists at the National Renewable Energy Lab, where
I was helping the energy industry tackle water problems,
such as produced water treatment in hydraulic fracturing
and wastewater treatment for the biofuel industry.
What does receiving the Paul L. Busch award mean to
you? It is a tremendous honor and also a big responsibility.
The Paul L. Busch awardees are not only leaders in their
respective research fields, but they also provide valuable
direction and insight toward moving the field forward. It’s
a great recognition, and it’s also immense trust from the
community. I’m honored and humbled to be part of this
elite group of people helping the profession progress.
You received the award for your work to measure and
track greenhouse gas emissions from the wastewater
sector. Can you describe this work and the challenges
you hope to address? For many years, I have focused on
technology development to reduce energy consumption,
and I assumed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change’s methods are adequate. But the more I study this
area, the more I realize there are a lot of knowledge gaps,
and the tools for emission estimation need to be improved.
I also noticed that there is a misconception that when
you reach energy neutrality you are pretty much done
with reducing carbon emissions. This is not true, because

wastewater treatment also has a lot of direct greenhouse
gas emissions, so in order to reach net zero, or carbon
neutrality, we have to tackle the direct emissions as well.
Quite a few utilities have already achieved energy neu-
trality through a combination of efforts such as producing
biogas for combined heat and power, or buying solar or
wind electricity. However, when you look at the total emis-
sions associated with our industry, energy neutrality only
brings us more than halfway there, because there is still a
major knowledge gap in Scope 1 emissions associated with
nitrous oxide and methane, and also Scope 3 emissions.
I’ve heard from many utilities that they want a baseline
understanding of how many emissions they produce, or
that it is difficult for them to identify the emission sources
and develop programs for mitigation. We ought to go
beyond energy neutrality to obtain true decarbonization.
These conversations inspired me to study this topic and
help the sector to gain such knowledge as the first step
toward net zero carbon emissions.
What applications do you anticipate for this work? Util-
ities have many tools in their toolboxes; I am amazed by
how many creative solutions utilities have put in place to
reduce their carbon footprints. However, when it comes to
quantifying the direct emissions, current emission factor or
flux chamber methods may not reflect the reality of plant-
level emissions. Each plant cannot be simply considered
as either a point source or a nonpoint source. They are
somewhere in the middle, and that’s why I think mobile
sensors can be effective for estimating emissions at this
scale. For this Paul L. Busch Award project, my colleagues
and I will use customized mobile sensors to repeatedly
measure spatial patterns of trace gases for many utilities
in the United States, and we will generate an emissions
map for each utility.
Moreover, we want to leverage the power of data sci-
ence. Utilities are not short on data—they have tons of
operational data, and they have a lot of monitoring sen-
sors. We hope to use machine learning and other tools
to leverage data and provide a visual interface, such as
a dashboard or mobile app, for utilities, consultants, and
others. For example, a utility may already have some direct
emissions or operational data, their nitrogen balance, and/
or their carbon balance. I envision that when the utility
puts in its flow rate, carbon input, nitrogen input, treat-
ment process information, etc., the tool will provide a big-
data-backed estimate of what the emissions will look like.
The program will show projected emissions and poten-
tial solutions to reduce emissions based on thousands of
Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022
Z. Jason Ren
plants’ data compiled together. We understand utilities
have a lot to think about, and emissions may not be their
top concern, but many of them want to quantify this data
so they can strategically balance their different priorities.
A video summarizing my plan is available at www.
youtube.com/watch?v=7_1ymS6GwAw&list=WL&index=16.
What other projects are you working on? My current
research foci are decarbonization and digitalization of the
water industry. My lab has been developing new technol-
ogies to recover hydrogen and volatile fatty acids from
wastewater streams, and we increasingly apply data sci-
ence tools for better material and process designs. For
example, we’re developing new types of electrocata-
lytic or wood membranes to extract organic acids from
anaerobic fermentation. We develop processes to not
only recover energy, but also capture CO2 and convert
it into value-added products. We also work with utilities
to develop machine learning models to help with their
operation optimization.
What do you see as areas in need of the most research in
the water sector? Decarbonization and digitalization are
areas I see as promising opportunities. In the wastewater
industry, meeting permit requirements has always been a
top priority. Often, while we’re meeting permits with new
technological advancements, we can do a lot more, such
as resource recovery. The future of the wastewater sector
should be energy positive, carbon negative, and dollar
positive. The resources and energy recovered may offset
costs, and we may even gain carbon benefits or carbon
tax credits on top of that. Technology development, data
science, and other approaches together can transform the
sector toward a circular water economy. That’s what I hope
our industry can become, and I am happy to contribute
through my Paul L. Busch Award and other work.
5
2021 WEBCASTS

T
he Water Research Foundationhosted, co-sponsored, or partnered in 62 webcasts in 2021. Webcasts were
conducted on a wide variety of topics and projects, including nutrients, climate change, biofiltration, pathogens,
and innovative technologies.

2021 WRF Webcasts

January 19-Jan Development of a Pipeline Deterioration Model
21-Jan Solutions for Underperforming Drinking Water Systems
February 16-Feb Technology Scan: Operator Decision Support Tools
Overwhelmed? Reevaluating Stormwater Design in a Changing Climate (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Adminis-
16-Feb
tration [NOAA] partner webcast)
March 4-Mar Full Lead Service Line Replacement Guidance
16-Mar Technology Scan: Energy Efficiency
17-Mar Applied Fundamentals for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Removal Optimization
31-Mar Emerging Technologies for Nutrient Optimization
April 13-Apr Technology Scan: Asset Management
14-Apr Beyond Liquid Treatment: Reduce Nutrient Discharge Loads by Other Means
22-Apr Optimizing Biofiltration for Improved Manganese Control under Cold-Water Conditions
26-Apr COVID-19 Wastewater Surveillance Symposium – A Global Update
28-Apr Sidestream Management to Optimize WRRF Nutrient Removal
May 11-May Technology Scan: Stormwater and Algae Management
12-May Instrumentation and Control for Nutrient Optimization – Part 1: Sensors
18-May Applications and Limitations of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning
19-May Instrumentation and Control for Nutrient Optimization – Part 2: Controls
26-May Strategies to Reduce O&M Cost and Improve Performance of Nutrient Removal WRRFs
June 1-Jun Technology Scan: Wastewater Treatment
2-Jun SWB DPR Research Webcast Part 1: Pathogens
3-Jun PIPEiD: Data Structure and Database Management for Asset Management
8-Jun PIPEiD: Descriptive, Correlation, and Survival/Weibull Curve Analysis for Asset Management
9-Jun SWB DPR Research Webcast Part 2: Chemicals
10-Jun PIPEiD: Performance, Risk, and Life Cycle Economic Analysis for Advanced Asset Management
23-Jun Nutrient Reduction from Secondary BOD Removal WRRFs
29-Jun Technology Scan: Contaminant Removal
Pathogen Revolution: The Bugs We Thought We Knew and the Ones We Never Thought About! (Paul L. Busch Award
30-Jun
webcast)
July 7-Jul Optimizing Nutrient Removal WRRFs
15-Jul Assessing State of Knowledge and Research Needs for Stormwater Harvesting
20-Jul Mapping Climate Exposure and Climate Information Needs to Water Utility Business Functions
21-Jul Nutrient Reduction Approaches for Small Systems
29-Jul Piloting of Emerging Technologies (Department of Energy [DOE] partner webcast)

6 January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research

 2021 Webcasts

2021 WRF Webcasts

August Constituents of Emerging Concern and the Emerging Technologies to Treat Them: Past, Present, and Future (Paul L.
2-Aug
Busch Award webcast)
3-Aug Virtual Congressional Briefing: Preparing for and Responding to Historic Drought and Wildfires
4-Aug Optimize Nutrient Removal WRRF Operations
5-Aug Research and Development for Emerging Technologies: Part 1 (DOE partner webcast)
12-Aug Research and Development for Emerging Technologies: Part 2 (DOE partner webcast)
18-Aug Tools to Evaluate Nutrient Optimization in WRRFs
26-Aug Role of Nutrients and Resource Recovery in a One Water Paradigm (Paul L. Busch Award webcast)
September 1-Sep Nutrient Discharge Permitting and WRRF Optimization
14-Sep Focus on Science (NOAA partner webcast)
16-Sep Demonstrating the CalPrex System for High-Efficiency Phosphorus Recovery
21-Sep Technology Scan: Smart Monitoring and Data Analytics
21-Sep From Science to Application: Climate Science, Hydrology, and Planning - Part 1 (NOAA partner webcast)
23-Sep Quantifying and Monetizing the Triple Bottom Line Benefits of Green Stormwater Infrastructure
28-Sep From Science to Application: Climate Science, Hydrology, and Planning - Part 2 (NOAA partner webcast)
30-Sep The Next Generation of Water Researchers (Paul L. Busch Award webcast)
October 5-Oct Enhancing Control of Norovirus in Water with Improved Detection Methods
What’s on the Horizon for Science and Application of Climate Change Information for Water Infrastructure Managers?
5-Oct
(NOAA partner webcast)
7-Oct 2021 Paul L. Busch Award Presentation and Lecture (Paul L. Busch Award webcast)
12-Oct Peer Examples: Evaluating Changing Precipitation Trends for Managing Water Infrastructure (NOAA partner webcast)
14-Oct PFAS in Biosolids Under a Land Application Scenario: Biotic Weather, Leaching, and Transport
19-Oct Geochemical Considerations for Managed Aquifer Recharge Implementation in Potable Reuse
28-Oct Technology Scan: Proactive Asset Management
November Wastewater Surveillance for SARS-CoV-2: Fall RCN Meeting (National Science Foundation Research Coordination
3-Nov
Network partner webcast)
4-Nov Holistic Nutrient Management: Practices, Policies, and Partnerships
4-Nov Leading Practices in Climate Adaptation (NOAA partner webcast)
10-Nov Climate Adaptation Engineering Case Studies (NOAA partner webcast)
16-Nov Technology Scan: Data-Enabled Operations
30-Nov Practical Framework for Water Infrastructure Resilience
December 2-Dec Business Function Mapping (NOAA partner webcast)
9-Dec Equity and Environmental Justice Considerations in Climate Adaptation (NOAA partner webcast)

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 7

 Key Research Results
and Products from 2021
T
he following articles highlight key research results
and products published by The Water Research
Foundation over the past year. The results demon-
strate the importance of not just conducting research, but
also delivering impactful research results to water sector
professionals and the communities they serve. Findings
from the most popular 2021 projects in the areas of drink-
ing water, wastewater, stormwater, and reuse are included.
Topics of note include nutrients, pathogens, resilience, and
more. The articles featured in this issue include results
from completed projects, research reports, guidance
manuals, and webcasts.

2021 Published Products

Title Project #
A Distributed Renewable Energy Opportunities and Policy Workshop 5062
An Enhanced Climate-Related Risks and Opportunities Framework and Guidebook for Water Utilities Preparing for a Changing Climate 5056
Analysis of Water and Landscape Best Management Practice Impacts on Water Quality on Golf Courses 4746
Application of Big Data for Energy Management in Water Utilities 4978
Characterizing, Categorizing, and Communicating Next-Generation Nutrient Removal Processes for Resource Efficiency 4976
Defining Potential Chemical Peaks and Management Options 4991
Demonstrating the CalPrex System for High-Efficiency Phosphorus Recovery 5004
Economic Framework and Tools for Quantifying and Monetizing the Triple Bottom Line Benefits of Green Stormwater Infrastructure 4852
Estimating the Comammox Contribution to Ammonia Oxidation in Nitrogen Removal Systems 4884
Evaluating Economic and Environmental Benefits of Water Reuse for Agriculture 4829
Feasibility of Collecting Pathogens in Wastewater During Outbreaks 4990
Full Lead Service Line Replacement Guidance 4713
Full-Scale Validation of Cryptosporidium and Giardia Log Reduction in Secondary Biological Treatment 4904
HYPOWERS: Hydrothermal Processing of Wastewater Solids 4755
Improving Tradeoff Understanding in Water Resource Planning Using Multi-Objective Search 4941
Level 1 Water Audit Validation Guidance Manual, Second Edition 5057
Long Term Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Plan for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Water Enterprise – Phase 1 4703
Membrane Bioreactor Validation Protocols for Water Reuse 4997
Modes of Action for Bromate-Induced Health Effects and Bromate Formation in Conventional and Advanced Water Treatment 4708
Molecular Methods for Measuring Pathogen Viability/Infectivity 4774
One Water Cities: Development of Guidance Documents and Assessment Metrics: Literature Review 4969
Optimizing Biofiltration and Integrating Biofiltration into Existing Treatment 4731
Pathogen Monitoring in Untreated Wastewater 4989
Technical Brief: Constituents of Emerging Concern Using a One Water Approach 5036
Tools to Evaluate Quantitative Microbial Risk and Plant Performance/Reliability 4951

8 January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research

 Nutrient Removal

Advances in
Nutrient Removal
When fine-tuning nutrient removal approaches, water resource
recovery facilities (WRRFs) must be aware of the latest innovations.

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 9

Nutrient Removal
T
his article features three of the research reports The Water Research
Foundation (WRF) published in 2021 to advance the science of nutrient
removal and recovery.
The first provides a global picture,
showing practitioners a compilation
of the latest information on a wide
range of nutrient removal and recov-
ery options to help them choose what
might be best to implement. The other
two projects investigated innovative
approaches to nitrogen removal and
phosphorus removal, respectively.
Understanding Nutrient
Removal Options
RESOURCE EFFICIENCY IS A MAJOR
challenge for wastewater treatment
in the 21st century. Reliable nutri-
ent removal must be achieved with
fewer inputs (e.g., energy, chemicals,
labor) and reduced environmental
impacts to prevent nutrient-induced
eutrophication. Achieving resource-
efficient, reliable nitrogen and phos-
phorus removal requires comprehen-
sive review and synthesis of diverse
information on nutrient removal and
recovery technologies. To address this
need, Characterizing, Categorizing,
and Communicating Next-Generation
Nutrient Removal Processes for
Resource Efficiency (Kogler et al.
2021) reviewed literature on 154 next-
generation nutrient removal technol-
ogies and surveyed 54 practitioners.
The report delivers a comprehen-
sive overview of nutrient technology
options, drawing from 285 academic
and industry reports. The technolo-
gies were classified into 38  process
groups, ranging from granular sludge
and electrodialysis to membrane fil-
tration and microbial fuel cells. Once
the process groups were identified
and populated, the research team
10
determined common metrics by
which the technologies in the pro-
cess groups could be evaluated,
which included:
• Nitrogen (N) and phosphorus
(P) removal efficiency
• N and P recovery efficiency
• Cost of N or P removal
or recovery
Collaboration
is crucial to
accelerate
nutrient
technology
development
and adoption
• Energy consumption for N or P
removal or recovery
• Greenhouse gas emissions for
N or P removal or recovery
• Achievable effluent
concentrations
Understanding how well a process
group performs in terms of these
metrics allows practitioners to con-
sider the overall value proposition of
the process groups and their tech-
nologies. The value propositions
for the various process groups are
shown in Figure 1.
As shown in Figure 1, certain tech-
nologies perform well for several of
the metrics for both nitrogen and
phosphorus removal at full-scale
(e.g., algal process, precipitation, and
conventional enhanced biological
phosphorus removal). It is important
to note, however, that data for all
metrics for every process group are
not available. For example, capacitive
deionization appears to perform well
in terms of nitrogen and phospho-
rus removal, but these results come
chiefly from lab-scale investigation,
so more research is needed to under-
stand whether this performance can
be replicated at pilot- or full-scale.
This analysis helps practitioners
identify technologies to evaluate for
implementation, improves regula-
tors’ understanding of the capabil-
ities of nutrient technologies, and
helps researchers benchmark their
work against other technologies.
Research gaps associated with each
process group were identified to
facilitate technology selection and
prioritization of future work. Practi-
tioner feedback indicated a need for
a continuously updated database of
nutrient technologies, compiling all
currently available information and
future results of multi-scale, interdis-
ciplinary, and iterative investigations.
Collaboration among academics and
practitioners is crucial to creating
the resources needed to accelerate
nutrient technology development
and adoption.
Innovations in
Nitrogen Removal
UNTIL RECENTLY, THE DESIGN OF
nitrogen removal systems for waste-
water treatment was predicated
January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research

on a two-step microbial process,
driven by ammonia oxidizing bacte-
ria (AOB) or archaea and nitrite oxi-
dizing bacteria (NOB). The discov-
ery of complete ammonia oxidizing
(comammox) bacteria challenges
this long-standing paradigm and
could have significant implications
for the design and operation of nitro-
gen removal systems.
Figure 1. Value propositions associated with nutrient removal/
recovery technologies
Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022
Understanding the prevalence,
abundance, and activity of comam-
mox bacteria in nitrogen removal
systems is critical to ensuring the
stability and efficiency of existing
processes and potentially innovat-
ing new processes that leverage
comammox bacteria. Estimating the
Comammox Contribution to Ammo-
nia Oxidation in Nitrogen Removal
Nutrient Removal
Systems (Pinto et al. 2021) evaluated
the prevalence of comammox bac-
teria in a range of nitrogen removal
processes and the impact of process
configuration, operations, and envi-
ronmental variables on their abun-
dance and activity.
Through a survey of 15 nitrogen
removal systems, the researchers
used metagenomic analyses to
determine that comammox bacte-
ria were detected in nitrification-
denitrification systems and simul-
taneous nitrification-denitrification
systems, but were not detected in
partial nitritation-anammox systems.
All comammox bacteria detected
as part of this project belong to
lineage II Nitrospira bacteria within
comammox clade A.
Using metagenomic sequencing,
the research team showed that nitri-
fying communities in nitrification-
denitrification and simultaneous
nitrification-denitrification systems
were dominated by Betaproteo-
bacteriales AOB and NOB genus
Nitrospira, while partial nitrification-
anammox systems were dominated
by Betaproteobacteriales AOB and
anammox bacteria (genus Brocadia).
Although metagenomics can
be useful to detect the presence
of comammox bacteria, this DNA
sequencing approach is less reliable
for accurate quantification and is
cost-prohibitive at a large scale. The
research team therefore developed a
reliable method to quantify the pres-
ence of comammox bacteria—a new
quantitative polymerase chain reac-
tion (qPCR) assay that targets the
ammonia monooxygenase subunit B
(amoB) gene of clade A comammox
bacteria. This assay was found to
accurately quantify comammox bac-
teria and eliminate the challenge of
unspecific product formation.
continued next page
11
Nutrient Removal

Using this qPCR assay, the Demonstrating the CalPrex Sys- dewatered to ~20% solids. The solids
research team found that comam- tem for High-Efficiency Phosphorus were then conveyed to a recombina-
mox bacterial abundance increases Recovery (Tabanpour et al. 2021) tion tank, and the centrate was dosed
with increased solids with calcium hydroxide,
retention time of full-
scale nitrogen removal
Pilot results resulting in the precip-
itation of phosphorus
systems. In addition, it
was found that differential
showed that the into brushite. The brush-
ite was then settled in a
inhibition assays could be acid digest was lamella clarifier, and the

a suitable stream
highly relevant for moni- overflow was recombined
toring the contribution of with the acid digest cake

for phosphorus
comammox bacteria to and discharged to the
ammonia oxidation. methane-phase digester.

New Approaches for

Phosphorus Recovery
recovery The settled brushite was
dewatered, and cake was
dried as a high-quality fer-
MANY WRRFS THAT HAVE imple- aimed to validate the technology and tilizer for a fertilizer study funded by
mented biological phosphorus elaborate on its value as an alterna- the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
removal have seen detrimental tive to other phosphorus recovery Pilot results showed that the
effects on biosolids dewatering, technologies. A pilot system was acid digest was a suitable stream
primarily with struvite issues. One installed at Madison Metropolitan for phosphorus recovery, having an
option for alleviating these issues Sewerage District’s Nine Springs average pH of 5.1 and average solu-
is to remove the phosphorus before Treatment Plant, a 42 MGD facility in ble phosphorus of 484 mg/L. Mass
dewatering by using a phospho- Madison, Wisconsin, in the spring of balance trials to measure process
rus precipitating process like the 2018. The pilot system has a capac- stability showed that for the solu-
CalPrex® technology. ity of 12 gpm and was configured ble phosphorus, an average of 82%
CalPrex, a calcium-based phos- between the acid-phase digester remained in the centrate, 87% was
phorus recovery technology, uses and the methane-phase digesters. reacted with calcium hydroxide, and
a process influent of thickened fer- The acid digest was fed to a Centri- 94% was captured in the clarifier. Rel-
mented sludge or acid digest. This sys CS10-4 decanter centrifuge and ative to the CalPrex influent, 42% of
increases the amount of soluble
and reactive species of phosphorus
to approximately 65% of the total
phosphorus and allows CalPrex
to recover a higher percentage of
the phosphorus as a mineral called
brushite (CaHPO4·2H2O, aka dical-
cium phosphate dihydrate, DCPD,
dibasic calcium phosphate) (Fig-
ure 2). During the CalPrex process,
brushite is precipitated by reacting
soluble phosphorus at pH 6.5 with
calcium hydroxide. The brushite is
then extracted to produce a valu-
able fertilizer that is interchange-
able with other phosphorus fertiliz-
ers in the market. Figure 2. Powdered brushite (left), granulated brushite (right)

12 January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research

 Nutrient Removal

the total phosphorus and 66% of the
soluble phosphorus were extracted.
On average, the influent sludge had
528 mg/L soluble phosphorus, which
represented 66% of the total phos-
phorus in the influent sludge. The cen-
trifugation process dilutes the solu-
ble phosphorus to 429 mg/L before
it is reacted with calcium hydroxide,
which reduces the soluble phospho-
rus to 45 mg/L. Of the original influ-
ent soluble phosphorus, 75% was cap-
tured during the CalPrex process.
In terms of quantity, on average
the CalPrex technology was able to
process 90 lbs/day of total phos-
phorus and capture/extract 45 lbs/
day of the phosphorus in the form of
brushite. This represents a 50% total
phosphorus recovery efficiency and
a 75% soluble phosphorus recovery
efficiency relative to the incoming
sludge phosphorus. This translates to
a 75% reduction of soluble phospho-
rus going to the methane digester
and 50% removal of the total phos-
phorus in the sludge.
Project results demonstrate the
ability of the CalPrex process to be
Optimizing Nutrient
Removal Plant Performance
scaled in multiple configurations pro-
vided the influent pH is slightly acidic,
the total solids of the reactor influent
is around 0.5% or can be reduced to
0.5% using a pre-dewatering centri-
fuge, and the concentration of sol-
uble phosphorus is approximately
150 mg/L. Brushite harvested from
the CalPrex process during the mass
balance trials met all quality control
standards set by U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Part 503 (CWA
1999) regulations for Class A EQ bio-
solids with respect to heavy metals
content, vector attraction reduction,
and pathogenic potential. AAPFCO,
CDFA, and ODA standards for heavy
metals were also met.
A webcast about this project was
held in August 2021, and the record-
ing is available for on-demand view-
ing on the WRF website.
Overall, the results of these proj-
ects provide WRRFs with information
they can use to identify new tech-
nologies or options for optimizing
and enhancing nutrient removal and
recovery performance while meeting
effluent quality regulations.
References
CWA (Clean Water Act). 1999.
“EPA Part 503—Standards for
the Use or Disposal of Sewage
Sludge.” 40 CFR Part 503.32.
https://ecfr.io/Title-40/
pt40.32.503.
KOGLER, A., M. Farmer, J. Simon,
Z. Cheng, A. Shao, T. Panay-
iotou, D. Katehis, S. Tilmans, G.
Wells, and W. Tarpeh. 2021.
Characterizing, Categorizing,
and Communicating Next-Gen-
eration Nutrient Removal
Processes for Resource Effi-
ciency. Project 4976. Denver,
CO: The Water Research
Foundation.
NEETHLING, J. B. Forthcoming.
Guidelines for Optimizing
Nutrient Removal Plant Perfor-
mance. Project 4973. Denver,
CO: The Water Research
Foundation.
PINTO, A., I. Cotto, W. Khunjar, C.
Wilson, and H. De Clippeleir.
2021. Estimating the Comam-
mox Contribution to Ammonia
Oxidation in Nitrogen Removal
Systems. Project 4884. Denver,
CO: The Water Research
Foundation.
TABANPOUR, M., L. Downing,
and W. Khunjar. 2021. Demon-
strating the CalPrex System for
High-Efficiency Phosphorus

A
s WRRFs continue to face nutrient management challenges, there Recovery. Project 5004.
is a need for guidance on the wide range of nutrient treatment and Denver, CO: The Water
process control techniques. Funded in 2019, Guidelines for Opti- Research Foundation.
mizing Nutrient Removal Plant Performance (Neethling, forthcoming) will
develop a road map to assist WRRFs in optimizing nutrient removal to
reduce costs, increase efficiency, and reduce nutrient discharges.
Throughout 2021, the research team presented a comprehensive webcast
series to develop nutrient optimization guidelines for operational best prac-
tices. The webcast recordings are available for on-demand viewing on the
WRF website. Publication of final deliverables is expected in 2022.

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 13

INNOVATION in ACTION
I
n 2021, The Water Research Foundation (WRF)
enhanced and expanded its innovation work to further
benefit the water sector, including updating existing
online tools to support water utility innovation and ini-
tiating several pilot projects to assess new wastewater
treatment processes and streamline innovation uptake
in the water sector.
Innovation Programs
WRF TECHLINK WAS REFRESHED IN MARCH WITH
updates to the website’s instructional pages and appear-
ance. The Technology Scan program, which evaluates
new technologies for WRF TechLink, accepted 10 new
technologies related to energy conservation, utility man-
agement, asset management, sensors, stormwater, nitrate
removal, and intelligent water systems. In September,
WRF conducted a targeted call for technologies to sup-
port decentralized systems, the first in WRF TechLink his-
tory. Technology Scan webcasts reached larger audiences
due to a transition to a new webcast platform. Nine web-
casts from technology providers were held. In addition, a
series of three webcasts was held in partnership with the
U.S. Department of Energy’s Advanced Manufacturing
Office to highlight the $20M investment in new research
and pilot projects funded through their Office of Energy
Efficiency & Renewable Energy.
In partnership with the Water Environment Federation,
WRF also administered the Scholarship Exchange Experi-
ence for Innovation & Technology (SEE IT) and the Intel-
ligent Water Systems (IWS) Challenge. This year, nearly
$6,000 were granted for travel scholarships through SEE
IT, with travel scheduled to take place in 2022 to visit utili-
ties in Florida and the Netherlands. A total of $12,500 was
awarded to winning teams competing in the IWS Chal-
lenge. The overall winning project, Utilizing Soft Sensor
System for Process Control and Optimization, was sub-
mitted by a team comprised of participants from Clean
Water Services (Oregon) and Princeton University.
Pilot Projects
WRF IS COLLABORATING ON SEVERAL PILOTproj-
ects, funded by the United States federal government and
a philanthropic organization. The work funded through
these grants will include the following:
1. Crossing the Finish Line: Integration of Data-Driven
Process Control for Maximization of Energy and
Resource Efficiency in Advanced Water Resource
Recovery Facilities (5141) leverages subscriber
funds with a Department of Energy grant and is
14
managed by WRF Research Unit Leader Jeff Moeller.
The project examines whole plant applications of
advanced data-driven process controls for energy
and resource recovery in five different areas of
improvement: (i) carbon diversion for energy recov-
ery; (ii) low energy, low carbon biological nitrogen
removal; (iii) disinfection with peracetic acid; (iv)
Airprex struvite recovery; and (v) holistic biosol-
ids optimization. Data-enabled technology has
untapped potential for many utilities where data are
already being collected but not utilized. By target-
ing critical control functions, the project team aims
to have a significant impact on reducing process
inefficiencies. Lessons learned from the five pilots
will be compiled into a toolbox of approaches for
utilities to organize and process their data and use
the datasets to train machine learning models to
power their own data-driven processes.
2. Transforming Aeration Energy in Water Resource
Recovery Facilities (WRRFs) through Suboxic
Nitrogen Removal (5148), led by Dr. Tanja Rauch-
Williams of Carollo Engineers, will examine strate-
gies to achieve biological acclimation to very low
dissolved oxygen concentrations (at or below 0.5
mg/L, called suboxic), while also achieving reliable
and improved nutrient removal, compared to con-
ventional high dissolved oxygen biological nutrient
removal systems.
3. Nitrogen Reduction Technology Solutions for Ocean
Discharges (5117) leverages subscriber funds with
funds from an anonymous philanthropic organiza-
tion and is managed by WRF Research Program
Manager Ashwin Dhanasekar. Early-stage technol-
ogies for nitrogen reduction are being compared
side-by-side for the treatment of wastewater in
Everett, WA. The technologies include integrating
partial denitrification, enhanced biological phospho-
rus removal, and anammox in a single stage process
bioreactor; a membrane bioreactor with anammox
and a hydrogel reactor with anammox and comam-
mox; and a partial nitrification/denitrification/anam-
mox (PANDA) reactor. These technologies harness
proven advanced microbiological kinetics within
novel reactor designs for increased effectiveness in
mainstream nitrogen remediation.
4. Innovation Applied: Streamlining Access and
Approval of Technology for Small Systems and Pri-
vate Wells (5147) leverages subscriber funds with
a grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection
January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research
 Innovation• AGRICULTURAL WATER REUSE

Agency and is managed by WRF Chief Innova-

tion Officer Christobel Ferguson and Innovation
Program Manager Sydney Samples. The goals
of this project are to gain a deeper understand-
ing of the challenges and barriers to deploying
innovative technologies in small and decentral-
ized systems and to produce an array of tools
to assist the uptake of innovative technologies.
This project will include a specialized WRF
TechLink intake, facilitated discussions during
an in-person forum to identify lessons learned
by current practitioners, and a workshop for the
development of a project evaluation framework. Figure 1. Tanja Rauch-Williams, Blair Wisdom, Haydee De
The pilot projects were discussed at a session at Clippeleir, and Christobel Ferguson discussing the benefits
WEFTEC in October 2021 (Figure 1). of pilot testing at the WEFTEC Innovation Pavilion

Benefits of Water Reuse

in Agriculture

M
ost of the water that is used
for agricultural irrigation
comes from traditional water
supply sources such as fresh surface
water and groundwater. However,
available freshwater supplies are pro-
jected to decrease across the United
States by 2030 (Tidwell et al. 2014,
2018). In addition, 78% of western
surface water basins were found to
be operating at or near their admin-
istrative limits (Tidwell et al. 2016).
Drought and climate change con-
tribute to the existing stress on avail-
able water supplies. The agricultural
sector is expected to be dispropor-
tionately impacted by drought and
climate change, and multiple factors,
including the location of agricultural
activities, dependence on increas-
ingly vulnerable or scarce water
supplies, and institutions that govern
water access, contribute to the agri-
cultural sector’s vulnerability. With
this increasing water scarcity, there is
growing attention to non-traditional
water supply sources like water reuse.
Decisions related to drinking water,
wastewater, and reuse are often made
with cost-effectiveness as the main pri-
ority, which results in selection of the
least expensive alternative capable of
achieving the desired outcome. While
this approach may be more economi-
cal, it may also prevent projects from
reaching their full potential regard-
ing the plethora of benefits. Projects
such as agricultural water reuse may
not be the most cost-effective, but
there are significant potential bene-
fits, such as increased instream flows,
avoided need of new supplies, avoided
treatment costs, and other social and
environmental benefits.
Evaluating Economic and Environ-
mental Benefits of Water Reuse for
Agriculture (Thebo 2021) reviewed
the common benefits and costs asso-
ciated with agricultural water reuse
and developed a framework for bene-
fit identification and accounting. This
project assessed and evaluated many
different factors to inform the frame-
work, including water quality-related
drivers as they relate to water reuse
and their potential regulations and
setbacks; the direct costs and energy
associated with alternative water sup-
plies; and the range of drivers, incen-
tives, and impediments that individu-
als in agricultural work may face.
The benefit framework was system-
atically created to the show a multi-
tude of benefits across a wide range
of stakeholders. That systematic
approach is shown in Figure 1.

continued next page

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 15

agricultural water reuse

Figure 1. Benefits and costs associated with agricultural water reuse across a typical project life cycle

Thebo (2021) considered the differing needs of agricul-
tural systems and leaders when assessing application of the
framework. The report states that:
Assessing the level of evidence required to make
an appropriate decision is a critical first step in any
decision-making process. In some instances, imple-
mentation of a project is imminent and quantitatively
comparing project alternatives using a full benefit-
cost analysis is necessary. In other instances, stake-
holders may be at an earlier stage and simply looking
to qualitatively assess how project alternatives might
help them address challenges within their basins
(e.g., declining groundwater levels) or identify entry
points for engaging with diverse stakeholders. With
these differing needs in consideration, this analy-
sis framework is structured in three phases—defin-
ing project drivers, benefit/cost identification, and
benefit/cost accounting.
The framework was applied through three case examples
in Hayden, OH; Modesto and Turlock, CA; and Fresno, CA.
This project shows that the potential benefits of agricul-
tural water reuse projects are extensive. Additionally, the
resulting framework serves as an important resource for
the future of agricultural water reuse not only at the project
level, but also in broader collective action efforts.

References
THEBO, A. L. 2021. Evaluating Economic and Environmental Benefits of Water Reuse for Agriculture. Project 4829.
Denver, CO: The Water Research Foundation.
TIDWELL, V. C., B. D. Moreland, C. R. Shaneyfelt, and P. Kobos. 2018. “Mapping Water Availability, Cost and Pro-
jected Consumptive Use in the Eastern United States with Comparisons to the West.” Environmental Research
Letters, 13 (1): 014023. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa9907.
TIDWELL, V. C., B. D. Moreland, K. M. Zemlick, O. Fricko, S. C. Parkinson, N. Johnson, B. R. Scanlon, I. Duncan, and R.
C. Reedy. 2016. “Water Supply as a Constraint on Transmission Expansion Planning in the Western Interconnec-
tion.” Environmental Research Letters, 11: 124001.
TIDWELL, V. C., B. D. Moreland, K. M. Zemlick, B. L. Roberts, H. D. Passell, D. Jensen, C. Forsgren, G. Sehlke, M. A.
Cook, C. W. King, and S. Larsen. 2014. “Mapping Water Availability, Projected Use and Cost in the Western United
States.” Environmental Research Letters, 9 (6): 064009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064009.

16 January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research

 Managing Pathogens

Managing
Pathogens in
Water Reuse
Controlling microbes in water systems is critical to
protecting water quality and public health.

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 17

Managing Pathogens
W
hile most microbes are not human pathogens, certain microbes
can pose health risks or contribute to undesirable tastes and
odors in drinking water. Water resource recovery facilities play
essential roles in reducing the pathogen load to receiving waters used for
recreation and/or water supply.
While there have been signifi-
cant advancements in the detection,
removal, and inactivation of bacte-
ria, viruses, and protozoa—especially
fecal-derived pathogens—there
is more to be learned. The Water
Research Foundation (WRF) recently
High-quality
data are critical
for confirming
the treatment
level needed to
reduce pathogen
concentrations
published a variety of research find-
ings furthering knowledge related to
managing pathogens in wastewater
and recycled water.
Pathogen Detection
PATHOGEN MONITORING IN
Untreated Wastewater (Pecson et al.
2021b) developed and implemented
an optimized pathogen monitoring
standard operating protocol in order
to better characterize the concen-
tration of human pathogens in raw
wastewater. To accomplish this, a lit-
erature review was first conducted
to inform a quality assurance project
plan (QAPP). The QAPP builds off of,
18
and addresses several shortcomings to reduce pathogen concentrations
of, past studies. Methods to detect down to acceptable levels for pota-
relevant waterborne pathogens in ble water in direct potable reuse
raw wastewater were optimized prior (DPR) projects.
to a full-scale monitoring campaign.
Understanding Risk
The monitoring campaign was con-
ducted over a 14-month period, col- DETECTING PATHOGENS IN WATER
lecting over 120 samples is important, but it is also critical to
from five water resource
recovery facilities in Cal-
understand the risks that they pose
and at what levels they are considered
ifornia. The pathogens
and analytical methods
safe in terms of public health. Tools to
Evaluate Quantitative Microbial Risk
selected for the project are
shown in Table 1.
and Plant Performance/Reliability
(Pecson et al. 2021a) developed a
The results from this
study provide the industry
technical framework for (1) the evalua-
tion of DPR facility performance using
with a robust, high-quality a probabilistic assessment of treat-
dataset. High-quality data ment train performance (PATTP), and
on pathogen concentra- (2) the use of quantitative microbial
tions in raw wastewater are risk assessment (QMRA) to assess the
critical for confirming the level of treatment required to achieve
level of treatment needed risk-based targets. An overview of the
Table 1. Pathogens and methods selected for the monitoring campaign
Pathogen Quantification Approach
Cryptosporidium Microscopy
Giardia Microscopy
Enterovirus Culture
Enterovirus Molecular
Adenovirus Culture
Adenovirus Molecular
Norovirus (GIA, GIB, GII) Molecular
Male-Specific Coliphage Culture
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Molecular
Source: Pecson et al. 2021b
January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research
 Managing Pathogens

QMRA and PATTP processes is shown the SWB identify or confirm treatment regulatory requirements, community-
in Figure 1. The purpose of these tools requirements for DPR. specific needs, and the intended end
is to quantify and characterize patho- use of the treated water.
Pathogen Reduction
gen risk in DPR applications. These
and Inactivation Human Norovirus
processes are critically important in
identifying the log reduction values THERE ARE MANY TECHNIQUES FOR OF THE PATHOGENS TYPICALLYreg-
(LRVs) necessary for adequate protec- reducing pathogen levels in treated ulated in potable reuse, one of the pri-
tion of public health from waterborne wastewater and recycled water. Meth- mary public health threats is also one
pathogens. The framework devel- ods and their effectiveness may vary of the least understood: human nor-
oped through this project was built based on the pathogen of interest, ovirus (HuNoV). HuNoV is the most
into a tool, DPRisk, that allows users
to quantify and characterize patho-
gen risk in DPR applications. DPRisk A polymerase chain
can be used by utilities, regulators,
and other stakeholders to inform the reaction framework for
development of risk-based criteria
for the design and operation of DPR
bacteriophage MS2 could
systems. The tool is available through
the California State Water Resources
be effectively applied
Control Board (SWB); details on how to measure HuNoV and
enterovirus inactivation
to access the tool can be found in the
DPR Research section of the SWB

through UV254 treatment

website (SWB 2021). DPRisk and its
related guidance document will help

important pathogen in terms of acute

gastrointestinal illness burden in the
United States, causing almost twenty
times more gastrointestinal illness than
any other pathogen. This is relevant for
potable reuse because the pathogens
that make the population sick will also
be the ones present in wastewater.
Despite its public health impacts and
its presence in wastewater streams,
until recently there were limited tools
to assess the ability of treatment pro-
cesses to inactivate and remove HuNoV.
Molecular Methods for Measuring
Pathogen Viability/Infectivity (Wig-
ginton et al. 2021a) sought to address
the major knowledge gaps related
to norovirus infectivity through dis-
infection and the methods used to
monitor infectious norovirus. Several
approaches to create norovirus disin-
fection curves were developed, with
a focus on disinfection by UV254. It
Figure 1. Overview of the steps involved in QMRA and PATTP

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 19

Managing Pathogens

was demonstrated that a polymerase
chain reaction (PCR) framework
developed by the research team for
bacteriophage MS2 could be effec-
tively applied to measure HuNoV and
enterovirus inactivation through UV254
treatment. Furthermore, this PCR
framework is effective in
different water matrices.
A model was developed Demonstrating
into IPR projects while maintaining a
high level of public confidence.
Full-Scale Validation of Crypto-
sporidium and Giardia Log Reduc-
tion in Secondary Biological Treat-
ment (Peri et al. 2021, Teel et al.
2022) monitored the occurrence of
to provide a minimum LRV for well-
operated secondary activated sludge
treatment plants at the 5th percentile
of 0.5-log credit for Cryptosporidium
and 2.0-log credit for Giardia. These
minimum LRVs are consistent with a
conservative review of the available
literature. Capitalizing on
protozoa reduction pro-
vided by existing second-

LRVs through
that accurately predicts ary biological treatment
single-stranded RNA and processes could provide

secondary biological
double-stranded DNA an additional treatment
virus inactivation through barrier and lower asso-
UV254 treatment using
genome sequences and treatment prior ciated long-term costs.
The project outcomes will
information on virus repair
mechanisms. In addi- to AWT allows for have implications beyond
Nevada for recycled
tion, the team adapted a
new human enteroid cul-
better understanding water treatment train
selection in IPR projects,
ture system to measure
infective HuNoV viruses
of redundancies as well as the develop-
ment of DPR regulations.
through UV254 treat- that may be built Understanding

into IPR projects
ment. Each of these three
approaches (qPCR frame-
work, predictive model,
and human intestinal
enteroid culture system) resulted in
human norovirus inactivation rate con-
stants of ~ 0.30 cm2 mJ-1.
Cryptosporidium and Giardia
INDIRECT POTABLE REUSE (IPR) IS
becoming an important and antici-
pated use of treated municipal waste-
water in many areas, including Nevada.
The Nevada Administrative Code (NAC
2021) requires a 12-log enteric virus
reduction/inactivation, 10-log Giardia
cyst reduction, and 10-log Cryptospo-
ridium oocyst reduction as pathogen
requirements for Category A+ recy-
cled water suitable for IPR. Accurately
demonstrating LRVs through second-
ary biological treatment prior to an
advanced water treatment (AWT)
train allows for better understanding
of the redundancy that may be built
Giardia and Cryptosporidium in two
northern Nevada water reclamation
facilities over a one-year period in
order to establish secondary treat-
ment LRVs, monitor facility perfor-
mance, and correlate performance to
pathogen reduction.
This investigation found an absence
of observed relationships, based on
a time-series analysis, between sec-
ondary effluent protozoan concen-
trations and activated sludge plant
operational and performance param-
eters at the operating conditions
designed to meet state and federal
permit limits. However, considering
the results of this project and other
research (e.g., Pecson et al. 2021b),
along with the conservative assump-
tions associated with establishing
IPR regulations, it may be reasonable
Community
Outbreaks
WASTEWATER surveil-
lance has been used for many years to
better understand health conditions
within communities. For example, it
has been important in detecting the
presence of poliovirus and investi-
gating opioid use in communities.
Feasibility of Collecting Pathogens
in Wastewater During Outbreaks
(Wigginton et al. 2021b) sought to
link gastrointestinal illnesses in com-
munities to the concentrations of the
causal pathogens in the communities’
wastewater. The research focused
on three pathogens that are critical
for potable reuse: human norovirus,
human adenovirus, and Cryptospo-
ridium. Specifically, this research
aimed to (1) review readily available
public health data on gastrointestinal
disease prevalence and outbreaks in
California; (2)  describe the state of

20 January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research

 Managing Pathogens

the literature on linking public health
data with actual prevalence in a com-
munity; (3)  characterize pathogen
shedding rates and establish shed-
ding distributions expected for the
three pathogens; and (4)  develop
models that link disease prevalence,
pathogen shedding rates, and waste-
water concentrations. Ultimately, this
study identified the major informa-
tion gaps that limit the feasibility of
predicting wastewater concentra-
tions from prevalence and vice versa.
The results from this project sug-
gest that worst-case HuNoV con-
centrations are expected in Califor-
nia wastewaters in December and
January, worst-case Cryptosporid-
ium concentrations are expected
in August, and there is insufficient
human adenovirus (HAdV) report-
ing to predict when during the
year wastewater concentrations are
expected to be highest. While the
model developed for this research
predicts wastewater concentrations
for HuNoV, HAdV, and Cryptospo-
ridium given infection prevalence
in a community, the variability in
the predicted concentrations could
be greatly reduced with additional
studies aimed at characterizing fecal
shedding patterns in different pop-
ulations. Enhancing communication
between water utilities and pub-
lic health partners could enhance
wastewater surveillance efforts and
lead to an increased understanding
of gastrointestinal illness prevalence
in a community based on wastewater
measurements.
Learning More
IN ORDER TO FURTHER THEdissem-
ination of research results from these
and related projects, WRF held a vari-
ety of webcasts on pathogens and
potable reuse in 2021. These web-
casts are available for on-demand
viewing on the WRF website.
Understanding pathogens and
indicator organisms is critical for
determining whether treatment pro-
cesses can sufficiently achieve strin-
gent public health criteria. WRF will
continue its work in this area to drive
that understanding forward into
the future.

References
NAC (Nevada Administrative Code). 2021. Section 445A.2718 – Reuse Category A+: Water Quality Require-
ments for Reclaimed Water for Indirect Potable Reuse Using Spreading Basin or Injection Well.
PECSON, B., N. Ashbolt, C. Haas, T. Slifko, A. Kaufmann, D. Gerrity, E. Seto, and A. Olivieri. 2021a. Tools to
Evaluate Quantitative Microbial Risk and Plant Performance/Reliability. Project 4951. Denver, CO: The Water
Research Foundation.
PECSON, B., E. Darby, G. Di Giovanni, M. Leddy, K. Nelson, C. Rock, T. Slifko, W. Jakubowski, and A. Olivieri.
2021b. Pathogen Monitoring in Untreated Wastewater. Project 4989. Denver, CO: The Water Research
Foundation.
PERI, L., A. Jones, A. Olivieri, R. Danielson, J. Crook, and B. Delić. 2021. Executive Summary: Full-Scale Valida-
tion of Cryptosporidium and Giardia Log Reductions in Secondary Biological Treatment. Project 4904.
Denver, CO: The Water Research Foundation.
SWB (California State Water Resources Control Board). 2021. “Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California.”
Accessed November 16, 2021. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/direct_
potable_reuse.html.
TEEL, L., A. Olivieri, R. Danielson, B. Delić, B. Pecson, J. Crook, and K. Pagilla. 2022. “Protozoa Reduction
through Secondary Wastewater Treatment in Two Water Reclamation Facilities.” Science of the Total Environ-
ment, 807 (3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.151053.
WIGGINTON, K. R., T. Kohn, B. Pecson, C. Wobus, N. Rockey, S. Young, and P. Arts. 2021a. Molecular Methods for
Measuring Pathogen Viability/Infectivity. Project 4774. Denver, CO: The Water Research Foundation.
WIGGINTON, K., R. Lahr, A. Bardha, and N. Rockey. 2021b. Feasibility of Collecting Pathogens in Wastewater
During Outbreaks. Project 4990. Denver, CO: The Water Research Foundation.

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 21

Energy Management
Energy
Management
Optimizing energy use
E
nergy use accounts for 25–30%
can provide significant of a water utility’s total operat-
cost savings, improve ing costs (EPA 2021). A signifi-
air quality, protect cant amount of energy is used for the
the environment, and pumping, aerating, heating, and cool-
bolster energy security. ing needed to treat and move water.
Stricter regulations are also push-
ing facilities to use more advanced,
energy-intensive treatment technol-
ogies. The Water Research Founda-
tion’s (WRF’s) energy research port-
folio includes more than 100 projects
that explore ways to optimize current
energy use and generate power, set-
ting the course for a self-sufficient
water sector. Two energy research
projects completed in 2021 focused
on data management and distributed
energy resources.
Energy Data Management
AS FACILITIES ENHANCE THEIR around the management, accessibil-
energy efficiency and move toward
22
energy production, it is critical that
they capture and measure accurate
information on energy inputs and
outputs. “Big data” refers to infor-
mation that can be characterized as
high in volume (i.e., quantity), veloc-
ity (i.e., rate at which data are gen-
erated), and variability (i.e., from dis-
parate sources) (Kumar and Abraham
2020). Managing and understanding
the big data associated with energy
play an important role in optimizing
energy production and efficiency
at water utilities. Water utilities are
increasingly implementing innovative
data management solutions to attain
operational sustainability, target cost/
energy savings, improve energy reli-
ability, and achieve a net zero energy
balance. Despite the technological
and analytical improvements made
ity, interpretation, and visualization
January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research
 Energy Management

of energy data, the application of big Distributed Energy Resources and policies impacting these oppor-
data concepts for energy manage- INCREASING COSTS AND ENERGY tunities, recommendations for future
ment is still in its infancy. demand, advancement towards green actions, and the need for support
Application of Big Data for Energy energy and greenhouse gas emission from policies addressing DER and
Management in Water Utilities (Cher- mitigation goals, and the impacts of renewable energy. The workshop
chi et al. 2021) provides utilities climate change are driving the use of series aimed to:
with knowledge on advanced big distributed energy resources (DERs) • Connect research, industry,
data analytics for automated data in the water sector. The types of DER and policy by bringing partners
collection and achieving energy- available to utilities include biogas, together.
efficient, cost-effective operations. hydropower, thermal heat, gas to • Facilitate an ongoing dialogue
The research team conducted a liter- electricity, solar, and wind. Drawing between scientists, utility sector
ature review and util-
ity questionnaire that
provided insight into
the most valuable uses
of big data for utilities
(Figure 1).
In addition, the team
created a data pilot
plan that includes dis-
cussion of energy data
management goals and
their alignment with
other utility business
objectives, the role
of critical utility con-
straints that may influ-
ence energy data man-
agement strategies and
practices, and potential
future data strategies Figure 1. Energy management activities that could benefit from big data analytics
and infrastructure (Fig- and infrastructure
ure  2). The data pilot
plan was tested at the
City of San Diego, addressing a water on these, the water sec-
reclamation plant, two pump stations, tor can potentially gen-
and a biosolids center. erate more energy than
Overall, this project provides water water systems require,
utilities with information on the key thereby reducing costs,
datasets needed to improve the visi- improving system resil-
bility of processes and assets and for ience and reliability, and
overall energy management; details reducing emissions.
of big data analytics and related In the fall of 2020,
infrastructure that support reduced WRF sponsored a series
energy consumption, reduced costs, of workshops with water
and increased efficiency; and an and energy professionals
example for the development of data to discuss the opportuni-
plans that support energy manage- ties for DER implemen-
ment strategies and decision making. tation, the regulations Figure 2. Elements of the data pilot plan

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 23

Energy Management • BIOFILTRATION

representatives, and policy-
makers to support the transfer
of knowledge from science to
policy.
• Better inform DER project
decision-making by bring-
ing recent science on DER to
the policy and management
communities.
A Distributed Renewable Energy
Opportunities and Policy Workshop
(Conrad et al. 2021) outlines the find-
ings from the series and provides
recommendations on how water util-
ities can assess their opportunities for
DER, identify and navigate regulations
regarding DER, and communicate and
build partnerships with energy utili-
ties and regulators.
The report also includes a DER
action plan as a starting point for
water utilities to explore the develop-
ment of DER projects. There are four
key steps:
• Step 1: Assess DER Opportunities
(e.g., assess DER lifetime energy
performance and life cycle costs,
on-site power potential, etc.)
• Step 2: Navigate Related DER
Regulations and Incentives
(e.g., review permitting require-
ments impacting DER, policies
that require diversion of organics
into wastewater streams, etc.)
• Step 3: Build Partnerships
(e.g., build partnerships with
local energy utilities, planners,
researchers, and renewable
energy groups)
• Step 4: Support DER Action
(e.g., provide information to
public officials on DER bene-
fits, create peer groups for DER
development, etc.)
Whether a utility is looking to collect
and manage energy data, increase
its energy efficiency, or generate
energy, WRF’s research can serve as
a resource to help achieve the utility’s
energy goals.

References
CHERCHI, C., L. Edmonds, M. Loria, J. Cullen, J. Jacangelo, and P. Perciavalle. 2021. Application of Big Data for Energy
Management in Water Utilities. Project 4978. Denver, CO: The Water Research Foundation.
CONRAD, S. A., S. J. Kenway, and A. Strazzabosco. 2021. A Distributed Renewable Energy Opportunities and Policy
Workshop. Project 5062. Denver, CO: The Water Research Foundation.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2021. “Energy Efficiency for Water Utilities.” Accessed December 1, 2021.
https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water-infrastructure/energy-
efficiency-water-utilities.
KUMAR, S. S., and D. Abraham. 2020. Leveraging Big-Data and Deep Learning for Economical Condition Assessment
of Wastewater Pipelines. Project 4902/WRF-17-24. Alexandria, VA: The Water Research Foundation.

Optimizing Biofiltration

B
iofiltration is a well-established operationalprac-
tice that can remove contaminants from water,
with minimal to no chemical requirements. Biofilter
performance enhancement strategies can include phos-
phorus supplementation, contact time optimization, pH
adjustment, and more. When biofiltration is optimized in
tandem with upstream unit processes, it may be possible
to minimize treatment costs without adversely impacting
overall plant performance. Optimizing Biofiltration and
Integrating Biofiltration into Existing Treatment (Upad-
hyaya et al. 2021) evaluated this concept using the City of
Columbus as a case study.
Optimization and integration testing were conducted
at the Dublin Road Water Plant (DRWP) and Hap
Cremean Water Plant (HCWP). Both plants are conven-
tional two-stage drinking water plants with treatment
trains consisting of coagulation, softening, ozone/bio-
filtration, and chlorine disinfection. The tests conducted
included phosphorus supplementation, pre-chlorination,
biofilter shutdown and maintenance strategy evaluation,
coagulant dose optimization, and ozone to total organic
carbon ratio (O3:TOC) optimization.

24 January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research


Phosphorus Supplementation
NO APPARENT BENEFITS OF PHOSPHORUSsupple-
mentation were realized with the range of loading rates
(1.3  to 2.5  gpm/ft2) evaluated during this study. Similar
TOC removal was observed in both the phosphorus sup-
plemented and non-supplemented biofilters.
Pre-chlorination
PRE-CHLORINATION RESULTED IN LOWER TERMINAL jar tests was not necessary.
headloss without affecting turbidity or TOC removal
in the biofilters. In addition, pre-chlorination did not
increase disinfection byproduct formation in the biofilter
effluents. Biofiltration removed 100% of the haloacetic
acids and 58–71% of the trihalomethanes formed due to
pre-chlorination.
Biofilter Shutdown and Maintenance
AT BOTH DRWP AND HCWP, BIOFILTERS AREtypi-
cally shut down for 24–72 hours for regular maintenance.
However, longer shutdowns may occur due to construc-
tion, maintenance, or process upsets. Biofilter mainte-
nance strategies were evaluated with planned short-
term (72 hours) and long-term (2 weeks) shutdowns at
HCWP and DRWP, respectively. This testing indicated the
following:
• Colder water temperatures slowed biological
re-acclimation.
• When the temperature decreased during the shut-
down by > 5°C, less TOC removal was observed after
resuming operation. However, when the tempera-
ture difference was < 5°C, similar TOC removal was
observed.
• When offline, storing biofilters while wet may reduce
the negative impacts of shutdowns on biological
activity.
• It may not be necessary to backwash biofilters imme-
diately before shutting down, especially when the
biofilters are backwashed immediately before resum-
ing system operation.
Coagulant Dose
MUCH OF THE TOC PRESENT IN THE SOURCE WATER IS
removed in the upstream coagulation and softening pro-
cesses, while the biofilters removed 20–25% of the biofilter
influent TOC. Under the hypothesis that a fraction of the
TOC removed during coagulation could be transferred to
the biofilters without affecting overall plant performance,
coagulant dose optimization was performed. Based on jar
Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022
Biofiltration
testing, cationic polymers could be used at DRWP to offset
coagulant dose, which would reduce chemical costs and
minimize waste sludge production without compromis-
ing settled water turbidity. Lowering the coagulant dose
from 90 mg/L to 50 mg/L at DRWP (full-scale) did not
affect overall plant performance. The full-scale testing also
demonstrated that the cationic polymer dosed during the
O3:TOC Optimization
TESTS WERE CONDUCTED AT DRWP WITH O3:TOC RATIOS
ranging from 0.82  to  1.19, with the overarching goal of
identifying the optimal ratio that could be implemented
without affecting overall treatment performance. Lowering
the O3:TOC ratio from 1.19 to 0.82 did not adversely affect
biofilter performance.
Overall, this study indicates that holistic biofiltration can
provide cost savings (Table 1). The research also increases
understanding of how utilities can enhance biofilter per-
formance and how biofiltration can be most efficiently
integrated with upstream processes.
Table 1. Potential economic benefits of holistic
biofiltration optimization at DRWP
Parameter Savings
Cost savings due to increase in production efficiency ($/year) $78,000*
Coagulant cost reduction ($/year) $488,000
Ozone cost reduction ($/year) $90,000
Cost savings in power required for O3 generation ($/year) $36,000
Total direct cost savings ($/year) $692,000
Reduction in truck trips required for sludge transport (number) 220 to 225
*
At HCWP, approximately $303,000 would be saved per year with the increase in production
efficiency.
Source: Upadhyaya et al. 2021
References
UPADHYAYA, G., J. Brown, J. Nyfennegger, G. Pope,
and V. Hart. 2021. Optimizing Biofiltration and
Integrating Biofiltration into Existing Treatment.
Project 4731. Denver, CO: The Water Research
Foundation.
25
Stormwater
Stormwater
Management
A robust holistic stormwater management approach
has costs and benefits, and utilities must understand
T
he Water Research Foundation
(WRF) published stormwater
research in 2021 that took a
deep dive into understanding life
cycle costs and explored ways to
quantify co-benefits of green storm-
water infrastructure.
Understanding Stormwater
Life Cycle Costs
IN 2015, THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL ture Modeling Toolkit (EPA 2021).
Protection Agency (EPA) issued a
funding opportunity focused on devel-
oping tools and models that compare
the life cycle costs of green, gray, and
hybrid forms of water infrastructure.
WRF led a multidisciplinary team that
received this grant to develop a deci-
sion support system (DSS) entitled
Community-enabled Lifecycle Analy-
sis of Stormwater Infrastructure Costs
(CLASIC), which was released in April
2021 (WRF 2021).
The CLASIC tool helps stormwa-
ter professionals and decision mak-
ers understand and weigh the esti-
mated costs, reductions in runoff
26
both to make the best planning decisions.
and pollutant loads, and co-benefits
of various planning scenarios as they
consider stormwater management
projects. The publicly available CLA-
SIC tool is applicable to managers
and operators of regulated stormwa-
ter systems, consultants, academics,
and others interested in integrated
water management. The CLASIC tool
is now part of EPA’s Green Infrastruc-
The CLASIC system is cloud-based,
geographic information systems
(GIS)-based, and includes interac-
tion with national databases. Users
have the option to automatically
upload data from national databases
(e.g., U.S. census boundaries, the
National Land Cover Database, cli-
mate databases, and soil databases)
or upload their own data sets. The
main components in the tool outputs
are shown in Table 1.
Users can select from a variety of
green and/or gray stormwater man-
agement practices:
1. Volume-based filtration tech-
nologies (e.g., rain gardens and
sand filters)
2. Volume-based detention
technologies (e.g., extended
detention basins)
3. Volume-based reclamation/
storage technologies
(e.g., stormwater harvesting)
4. Area-based volume reduction
or filtration technologies
(e.g., green roofs)
The CLASIC DSS allows users to
build and compare multiple stormwa-
ter infrastructure options and enables
simulation of various climate scenarios.
The triple bottom line (TBL) anal-
ysis assigns co-benefit scores from
environmental, social, and financial
aspects. The user assigns weights
according to a multi-criteria decision
analysis process. This provides quanti-
tative outputs to compare co-benefits
across scenarios of technology selec-
tion. Outputs also provide the per-
formance of scenarios in terms of
January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research
 Stormwater

hydrology (e.g., runoff volume reduc- provide to communities to help them and promote the installation of GSI ret-
tion) and pollutant load reduction. make informed decisions about future rofits at existing private development
Case studies included in the tool stormwater projects. sites. Some cities have implemented
showcase ways that the CLASIC tool programs that provide financial or
Quantifying Benefits of Green
can assist communities with stormwa- market-oriented incentives to develop-
Stormwater Infrastructure
ter project decision making. The case ers and private property owners who
studies include communities of differ- IN ADDITION TO PROVEN WATER implement GSI projects.
ent sizes from various climate regions in quality benefits, green stormwater Economic Framework and Tools for
the United States with varying climate infrastructure (GSI) can provide many Quantifying and Monetizing the Triple
scenario simulations. These case stud- important co-benefits, including flood Bottom Line Benefits of Green Storm-
ies represent the variety of hydrologic, risk reduction, improved air quality water Infrastructure (Clements et al.
performance, cost, and co-benefit and related health benefits, energy 2021) developed a GSI TBL benefit
comparisons that the CLASIC tool can savings, climate resilience, enhanced tool, which allows stormwater practi-
community liva- tioners to quantify and monetize the
Table 1. Summary of CLASIC tool functionality bility, and more. TBL benefits of GSI at the community,
Output Included in CLASIC Tool In addition, the watershed, or neighborhood scale. The
costs of pursuing TBL benefits included in the tool are
Total suspended solids
GSI strategies may shown in Figure 1.
Total nitrogen
Pollutant Load Reduction compare favorably The Excel-based tool leads users
Total phosphorus
to expanding or through each step of TBL-based ben-
Fecal indicator bacteria
upgrading conven- efit cost analysis, from establishing a
Runoff volume
tional stormwater baseline to applying appropriate eco-
Volume infiltrated
Hydrologic Performance treatment and con- nomic valuation methods and com-
Volume evapotranspired
veyance facilities or paring benefits and costs over time.
Number of runoff events
other typical gray The tool also provides summary and
Net present value infrastructure solu- graphic representations of results. In
• Construction tions. Recognizing addition to the tool, the project deliver-
• Maintenance these benefits, ables include a comprehensive report
Life Cycle Cost
• Replacement many municipali- that documents the key economic
Average annual cost over design life ties are looking to principles upon which the tool is based
Unit cost for scenario comparison enhance their GSI and provides detailed methods and
Score of economic, environmental, and social programs, encour- considerations for assessing 12 cate-
Co-benefits
benefits based on user-selected importance factors age developers gories of GSI co-benefits. A comple-
to implement GSI, mentary guidance document provides
Source: WRF 2021
data, information,
and calculations
that allow users
to assess the TBL
benefits and costs
of alternative GSI
stormwater man-
agement options.
The rigorous
quantification
methodology for
GSI co-benefits is
analyzed in con-
junction with a life
cycle cost analysis
Figure 1. Categorization of GSI benefits within a TBL framework

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 27

Stormwater • CECS
of stormwater infrastructure to
enable better holistic decision mak-
ing at the community level. Results
of the TBL benefit analysis can help
communities identify stormwater
management alternatives that max-
imize community value, compete
for scarce funding, leverage pri-
vate capital and alternative funding
sources, support alternative project
delivery models, and gain commu-
nity support. With a connection to
the CLASIC tool, the outcome of
this study facilitates use of the GSI
co-benefits framework and tool
through a national network of utili-
ties and municipalities.
A webcast on this project was held
in September 2021, including util-
ity applications in different climate
regions and municipalities, and is
available for on-demand viewing on
the WRF website.
References
CLEMENTS, J., J. Henderson,
and A. Flemming. 2021.
Economic Framework and
Tools for Quantifying and
Monetizing the Triple Bottom
Line Benefits of Green
Stormwater Infrastructure.
Project 4852. Denver, CO: The
Water Research Foundation.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency). 2021. “Green
Infrastructure Modeling
Toolkit.” Accessed December
15, 2021. https://www.epa.gov/
water-research/green-
infrastructure-modeling-toolkit.
WRF (The Water Research
Foundation). 2021. “Community-
enabled Lifecycle Analysis of
Stormwater Infrastructure
Costs (CLASIC).” Accessed
September 9, 2021. https://
clasic.erams.com/.
28
Constituents of
Emerging Concern
C
onstituents of emerging concern (CECs) include a variety ofsub-
stances such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, flame
retardants, algal toxins, microplastics, and more. CECs can be
found in surface waters, treated effluents from water resource recovery
facilities (WRRFs), finished drinking water, stormwater, and other key areas
in the water sector. For most of these constituents, especially unregulated
CECs, much is unknown about their environmental fate as well as their
effects on, and risks to, aquatic life and human health.
Some CECs have been used for many years, but most have only been
measured recently and identified as potential concerns due to advances
in analytical meth-
ods that allow for
detection of CECs Looking at
at very low concen-
trations. However,
CECs through a
new substances
that may find their
One Water lens
way into water are helps connect
different parts of
also continually
being developed
the water cycle
and used, increas-
ing the universe
of CECs. The water
sector is faced with navigating a rapidly changing field in which the science
regarding CECs and their effects is constantly evolving.
CECs are not isolated to one type of water. Therefore, Technical Brief:
Constituents of Emerging Concern Using a One Water Approach (Diamond
et al. 2021) used a One Water approach to address the known risks and
data gaps associated with CECs for multiple areas of the water sector. One
Water is an integrated planning and implementation concept for managing
finite water resources for long-term resilience and reliability, meeting both
community and ecosystem needs. Looking at CECs through a One Water
lens helps connect different parts of the water cycle, helps demonstrate
why CECs from a variety of sources are observed in multiple water seg-
ments, and provides opportunities to adjust behaviors or management
strategies to address problematic CECs.
Diamond et al. (2021) developed five key resources for the water sec-
tor. A technical brief presents current research findings related to CECs
to help utilities and water professionals understand the current science
of what is known and what is uncertain regarding CEC risks. The brief
provides an overview of the critical issues related to CECs and exam-
ines potential CEC exposure, including where and under what conditions
aquatic life or people may be exposed to CECs that could pose risks
January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research
 CECs

based on current information. A framework for examin- sector’s understanding of, and ability to communicate
ing exposure is presented to assist in identifying which about, what is known about CECs and their risks relative
aspects of One Water are likely to pose the most CEC to other stressors, what the current uncertainties are,
risk (Figure  1). The brief includes discussion of tools and what the critical information gaps are that deserve
and approaches researchers are using to decipher risks attention from the research community.
or effects of CECs, and identifies information gaps and
research needs (Table 1).
Three fact sheets focused on drinking water,
wastewater, and reuse were also developed.
The fact sheets outline what is known about
CECs in relation to the specific water type, how
a One Water approach can increase under-
standing of CECs, and the management strat-
egies that currently exist for reducing CECs in
the water type.
In addition, a StoryMap (Tetra Tech 2021)
summarizes the findings from this research
and provides a useful educational and com-
munication tool regarding the state of the
science of CECs. The StoryMap addresses a
variety of key topics related to CECs, including
the following:
• Understanding CECs
• One Water approach to CECs
• CEC risks
• Terminology
Figure 1. Schematic representation of the One Water framework
• CEC sources and routes of exposure
• CEC management tools
The project results can be used by utilities Table 1. Critical information gaps and research needs identified
to develop management and communication in WRF CEC research
strategies related to CEC risks. It enhances the
Link CECs to population-level effects in freshwater and marine systems
Study effects of CEC mixtures on aquatic life and human health
References Study effects of antimicrobials on antimicrobial resistance in surface and drinking waters
DIAMOND, J., J. Flippin, and A. Burton. 2021. Further test and validate the CEC screening frameworks and tools already developed at
Technical Brief: Constituents of Emerging additional wastewater-influenced sites
Concern Using a One Water Approach.
Develop a consensus-based site risk framework that integrates different approaches and
Project 5036. Denver, CO: The Water
incorporates the latest field-tested bioanalytical tools
Research Foundation.
TETRA Tech. 2021. “Understanding Constitu- Organize CECs by mode of action for human health and aquatic life risk assessments
ents of Emerging Concern (CECs): A Guide Develop methods to assess potential risks of CECs under non-steady-state conditions
to Navigating CECs within a One Water Evaluate effects of climate change on CEC exposure and predicted risks to aquatic life and
Context.” Accessed October 12, 2021. human health
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/
Obtain more information on fate and transport of different types of CECs under a One Water
be6f88f1cc094810869e11f17f9fdc24.
approach
Develop a decision support system that helps utilities screen and communicate CEC risks at
their sites
Source: Adapted from Diamond et al. 2021

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 29

Resilience
Resilience as a Proactive Pursuit
The water sector faces an unprecedented number of factors that
regularly challenge its ability to provide critical water services.
W
ater utilities mustantic-
ipate and manage risks
from a variety of disrup-
tive events, as well as quickly bounce
back—restoring, and in some cases
rebuilding, to continue to perform
their core duties. Two recently com-
pleted projects help water utilities
understand how to pursue enterprise
resilience more proactively.
Real-Life Enterprise Resilience
ENTERPRISE RESILIENCE (ER) prehensive resilience is possible and
refers to proactive actions to man-
age and respond to all-encompassing
threats (acute and chronic) by lever-
aging collaboration within and out-
side the physical boundaries of
water utilities. Real-Life Enterprise
Resilience (Jude et al., forthcoming),
investigated what resilience means for
the water sector and identified the
next steps to advance future practice
and research.
30
The project literature review found
that resilience, as a concept, is very
broad and encompasses many dis-
ciplines and agendas. Literature on
resilience also tends to be siloed—
there are not many proactive linkages
to analyze the different resilience
domains and how they can contribute
to each other in theory and practice.
There is a great desire for a compre-
hensive approach to resilience; how-
ever, it is still uncertain whether com-
how it can be achieved.
A scoping workshop with represen-
tatives from international water utilities
identified a range of resilience drivers,
challenges, and opportunities, rang-
ing from sudden shocks (e.g., asset
failure) to chronic issues (e.g., staff
aging and retention) to complex sys-
temic risks. Many water utilities with
budgetary constraints or smaller sys-
tems with service deficiencies tend to
devote resources to pressing crises, as
opposed to proactively investing in
resilience efforts. Despite this, there is
a growing desire for enhanced resil-
ience measures that go beyond spec-
ified threats to encompass a more
comprehensive approach to resilience.
ER can infuse a more panoramic view
of acute and chronic events across the
enterprise and may alleviate organi-
zational compartmentalization and a
focus on specified threats.
The project team asked risk man-
agers about their experiences and
perceptions of ER, and most shared
that they perceived ER as a beneficial
approach that needs further clarifica-
tion. When any “new” way of thinking
or approach to operations is under
consideration, organizational culture
will affect how easily the approach is
adopted. Organizational challenges
and barriers to ER include a lack of
resources, fragmented organizational
January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research

dynamics, and a lack of resilience
acceptance. Organizations that have
successfully fostered ER tend to
benefit from appropriate leadership,
organizational structures, culture, and
awareness of objectives. In addition,
the use of the plan-do-check-act cycle
can help to support resilience-building
Figure 1. The plan-do-check-act cycle
Figure 2. Hetch Hetchy regional water system owned and operated by SFPUC
Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022
activities (Figure 1). The effectiveness
of resilience initiatives is also often
influenced by stakeholders; therefore,
stakeholders’ misconceptions and
divergent priorities can negatively
impact resilience advancements.
To improve operationalization of
enhanced resilience for the water
Resilience
sector, the project team developed
an interactive i-book to support water
utilities in their resilience-building
activities. The i-book provides an over-
view of resilience concepts, details on
a range of techniques and approaches,
links to additional information, and
supporting case studies. The litera-
ture review is currently available, and
the research report and i-book will be
published in spring 2022.
Proactive Adaptation Planning
CONCERNED ABOUT POSSIBLE
vulnerabilities in their Hetch Hetchy
regional water system (RWS)
(Figure  2), San Francisco Public
Utilities Commission (SFPUC) par-
ticipated in The Water Research
Foundation’s Facilitated Research
Program to tailor a research project,
Long Term Vulnerability Assessment
and Adaptation Plan for the SFPUC
Water Enterprise – Phase 1 (François
et al. 2021), to develop a long-term
vulnerability assessment (LTVA) of
the RWS.
continued next page
31
Resilience • WATER AUDITS

There are many uncertain factors,
such as climate change, changing reg-
ulations, water quality, growth, and
economic cycles, that may create vul-
nerabilities for SFPUC’s RWS, impact-
ing their ability to meet the necessary
levels of service. System vulnerabil-
ity is a set of uncertain conditions or
events resulting in unacceptable per-
formance (“failure” of the system).
Risk is the combination of the likeli-
hood of an event and the magnitude
of its consequence. The uncertainty
associated with the degree to which
these factors will occur and how much
risk they present to the water system
is difficult to predict, but nonetheless
needs to be considered in SFPUC
water system planning.
The LTVA determines to what extent
climate change quantitatively and
qualitatively will be a threat to the
RWS in comparison to, or in combi-
nation with, other external drivers
of change over the next 50 years
(2020-2070). More specifically, the
assessment sought to answer the
following questions:
• Under what conditions and when
will the RWS no longer meet sys-
tem performance criteria?
• Is climate change the most
important driver of vulnerability
for the RWS? If not, what is?
This research illustrates an innova-
tive decision scaling methodology
that provides a systematic approach
for addressing climate change con-
cerns while also incorporating non-
climate considerations. The result is a
multiple stressor vulnerability assess-
ment that reveals clear thresholds of
climate change that are problematic
while using climate projections to
inform rather than drive the analy-
sis. The report demonstrates meth-
ods for using climate stress testing
and qualitative scenarios of demand
change, new regulations, and infra-
structure failure to reveal vulnerabil-
ities singly and in combination. The
potential vulnerability of SFPUC’s
system to specific climate changes is
revealed, along with the relative effect
of climate change versus other uncer-
tain factors.
References
DEMING, W. E. 2018. Out of the
Crisis. Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
DENYER, D. 2017. Organizational
Resilience: A Summary of
Academic Evidence, Business
Insights and New Thinking.
London: BSI, and Bedfordshire:
Cranfield University.
FRANÇOIS, B., A. Bruce, K.
Nguyen, D. K. Park, D. Rhein-
heimer, U. Taner, S. Wi, H. Khan,
A. Dufour, D. Behar, D. Yates, C.
Ammann, M. Hassnoot, and C.
Brown. 2021. Long Term
Vulnerability Assessment and
Adaptation Plan for the SFPUC
Water Enterprise – Phase 1.
Project 4703. Denver, CO: The
Water Research Foundation.
JUDE, S., E. Giffoni, H. Smith, and
S. Pollard. Forthcoming. Real-
Life Enterprise Resilience.
Project 4734. Denver, CO: The
Water Research Foundation.

Water Audit Validation

W
ater efficiency is an important way to increase
water supply reliability and decrease the cap-
ital costs of building a new supply, as well as
reduce treatment and distribution costs. Water loss is a
component of water efficiency that is of growing con-
cern for water utilities, especially in areas experiencing
drought or infrastructure management challenges or
in areas where water audits are required by regulatory
agencies. In order to cost-effectively reduce water losses,
a utility must first understand them, and completing a
water audit is the industry best practice for doing so. A
water audit accounts for all treated water that is intro-
duced into the water distribution system and then con-
sumed, which helps to estimate volumes of water loss.
Water audit validation examines water audit inputs to
improve the audit’s accuracy and document the uncer-
tainty associated with water audit data. There are three
levels of validation, and each level corresponds to differ-
ent goals, outcomes, and limitations (Table 1).
Level 1 validation consists primarily of an interview
between the person who completes the water audit, the
person who validates the water audit, and any other util-
ity staff who can provide insight into data and operational
practices related to the water audit. In 2016, The Water
Research Foundation (WRF) published Level  1 Water
Audit Validation: Guidance Manual (Andrews et al. 2016)
to guide utilities through the process of Level  1 water
audit validation and highlight the factors that influence

32 January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research

 water audits

water audit data quality. Andrews et al. (2016) was based

on version 5 of the American Water Works Association
(AWWA) Free Water Audit Software (AWWA 2014). In
December 2020, AWWA released version 6 of the Free
Water Audit Software (Software v6; Jernigan et al. 2020).
To address the new features in Software  v6, WRF has
released Level 1 Water Audit Validation Guidance Man-
ual, Second Edition (Sturm et al. 2021), which includes
the following:
• A new chapter on Software v6 describing the major
changes from version 5 and how they affect the
validation process.
• New content related to audit input validation that
emphasizes key points of consideration when
reviewing the methodology used to determine spe-
cific input values.
• Examples of supporting documentation for each
audit input.
• Updated language to match Software v6 and to clar-
ify confusing or ambiguous terminology.
• Revisions based on industry feedback that was col-
lected from water loss professionals familiar with
the first edition of the manual.
The manual provides background information on water
audit validation and guides users through Level 1 audit
validation step by step. An accompanying memo provides
an overview of existing validator credentialing programs
in North America.
Ultimately, water audit validation provides a utility with
more confidence in the results of the water audit so the
utility can effectively plan water loss control efforts, track
performance, benchmark indicators, improve future water
audits, and reduce non-revenue water.
References
ANDREWS, L., K. Gasner, R. Sturm, W. Jernigan, S.
Cavanaugh, and G. Kunkel. 2017. Utility Water Audit
Validation: Principles and Programs. Project 4639b.
Denver: Water Research Foundation.
ANDREWS, L., K. Gasner, R. Sturm, G. Kunkel, W.
Jernigan, and S. Cavanaugh. 2016. Level 1 Water
Audit Validation: Guidance Manual. Project 4639a.
Denver, CO: Water Research Foundation.
AWWA (American Water Works Association). 2014.
AWWA Water Audit Software Compiler, Version 5.0.
Denver, CO: AWWA. https://www.awwa.org/
Resources-Tools/Resource-Topics/Water-Loss-
Control/Free-Water-Audit-Software.
JERNIGAN, W., D. Sayers, K. Gasner, G. Kunkel, and A.
Chastain-Howley. 2020. AWWA Free Water Audit
Software, Version 6.0. Microsoft Excel. Denver, CO:
AWWA. https://www.awwa.org/Resources-Tools/
Resource-Topics/Water-Loss-Control/
Free-Water-Audit-Software.
STURM, R., C. Stief, W. Jernigan, and D. Blackwell.
2021. Level 1 Water Audit Validation Guidance
Manual, Second Edition. Project 5057. Denver, CO:
The Water Research Foundation.

Table 1. Levels of water audit validation

Level of Validation Description
Validated water audits have been examined for inaccuracies evident in summary data and application of
Level 1 methodology for deriving water audit inputs. All answers to interactive data grading questions accurately
reflect utility practices and are consistent with supporting documentation.
Validated water audits have been corroborated with investigations of raw data and archived reports of
Level 2
instrument accuracy. The best sources of data to inform the water audit have been identified.
Validated water audits have been bolstered by field tests of instrument accuracy. The water audit’s
Level 3 estimate of real losses has been confirmed through pilot leak detection, component analysis of real
losses, and/or minimum night flow analysis.
Source: Sturm et al. 2021, based on data from Andrews et al. 2017.

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 33

Lead
Lead Service Line Replacement
A
s more utilities implement place at the time, if the customer
lead service line replace-
ment programs, guidance
is needed on how to mitigate lead
release that can be triggered during
these replacements.
Both the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and the American
Water Works Association have rec-
ommended that lead service line
(LSL) replacements not be completed
unless the entire LSL can be replaced,
called a full lead service line replace-
ment (FLSLR). This signifies that par-
tial LSL replacements, or the replace-
ment of part of the LSL (i.e., replacing
the customer-owned side but not the
water system-owned side, or vice
versa), are discouraged unless it is
not possible to replace the entire LSL
(e.g., due to an emergency such as
the repair of a service line leak, the
inability to access the entire LSL due
to other construction activities taking
Figure 1. Cumulative mass of total lead removed
during HVF from all faucets following FLSLR
34
denies access to the property, etc.).
LSL replacements may trigger the
release of lead into the distribution
system or premise plumbing. There-
fore, past research has advised that
high-velocity flushing (HVF) be con-
ducted after undertaking FLSLRs. The
term HVF is used to describe efforts
to develop high velocities to mobi-
lize and remove particulate remnants
from the LSL replacement process in
the service line and entry point into
the home, as well as any particu-
late lead or loose debris within the
household plumbing. HVF is distinct
from “displacement flushing,” which
is used to remove existing water from
household plumbing and the service
line and replace it with fresh water
from the water main. The objective
of displacement flushing is to flush
water, while the objective of HVF is
to flush particles.
Full Lead Service Line Replacement
Guidance (Brown et al. 2021) evalu-
ated two distinct home tap HVF tech-
niques (“all taps at once” vs. “one tap
at a time”). HVF was conducted fol-
lowing FLSLRs at > 100 homes across
North America. Results indicated that
both HVF techniques were success-
ful at reducing lead at the tap follow-
ing an FLSLR (Figure  1). While it is
important for HVF to be used, there
was no clear indication that one HVF
method was preferable to the other
in lowering lead levels—both should
be considered as effective lead
reduction strategies.
This project also provides an easily
understood collection of guidance
and reference materials for staff
at any water system to use when
planning and implementing FLSLRs.
These materials can be shared with
water system customers to explain
why, how, and when the service line
replacement activities are being con-
ducted, what actions customers can
implement to minimize or eliminate
risks after replacement, and how this
will enhance public health protection.
A webcast about this project was
held in March 2021, and the recording
is available for on-demand viewing on
the WRF website.
References
BROWN, R. A., D. A. Cornwell, B.
Sidhu, M. Schmelling, S. Chia-
vari, and R. Slabaugh. 2021. Full
Lead Service Line Replacement
Guidance. Project 4713. Denver,
CO: The Water Research
Foundation.
January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research
2021 AWARDED PROJECTS
Research Priority Program
Project Title Project # End Date
Understanding the Mechanisms of Chlorine and Chloramine Impact on Opportunistic Pathogens in 5118 5/31/2022
Distribution Systems
Using Phosphate-Based Corrosion Inhibitors and Sequestrants to Meet Multiple Water Treatment 5119 5/31/2022
Objectives
Assessment of Molecular Techniques to Detect and Predict Cyanotoxin-Producing Blooms 5120 5/31/2022
Development of Innovative Predictive Control Strategies for Nutrient Removal 5121 5/31/2022
Technologies and Approaches to Minimize Brominated and Iodinated DBPs in Distribution Systems 5122 5/31/2022
Establishing Seasonal Targets for Receiving Waters: Rethinking Wet Weather versus Dry Weather 5123 5/31/2022
Expectations
PFAS One Water Risk Communication Messaging for Water Sector Professionals 5124 4/30/2022
Demonstration of Innovation to Improve Pathogen Removal, Validation, and/or Monitoring in Car- 5129 7/31/2022
bon-Based Advanced Treatment (CBAT) for Potable Reuse
Advancement of Densification to Implement and Achieve More Efficient BNR Processes: Granule 5130 7/31/2022
Generation, Retention and Management
Holistic Wet Weather Management through Adaptive Volume and Pollutant Source Control at a 5131 7/31/2022
Community Scale: Finding the Sweet Spot

Tailored Collaboration
Project Title Project # End Date
Impact of UV Treatment on Microbial Communities in a Full-Scale Drinking Water Distribution System 5151 11/1/2022
Identifying Service Line Materials without Excavation: Distinguishing LSLs from Non-LSLs 5152 11/1/2022
Evaluation of Bench-Scale Methods to Predict Drinking Water PFAS Removal Performance of Ion 5153 11/1/2022
Exchange and Novel Adsorbents at Pilot- and Full-Scale
Autonomous In Situ Monitoring of Harmful Algal Blooms 5154 11/1/2022
Developing Strategic Consumer Messaging for Microplastics in Drinking Water Supplies 5155 11/1/2022

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 35

2021 Awarded Projects

Emerging Opportunities
Project Title Project # End Date
Advancing Adaptive Wet Weather Management Approaches to Meet Emerging Challenges for Extreme 5128 6/1/2022
Snowstorm Events and Cold Climate Impacts
Annual Water and Wastewater C-Suite Executive Compensation Report 5149 11/1/2022
Occurrence of Legionella spp. in Drinking Water Distribution Systems 5156 TBD

Facilitated Research
Project Title Project # End Date
Nitrogen Reduction Technology 5117 7/31/2022

Other
Project Title Project # End Date
Unregulated Organic Chemicals in Biosolids: Prioritization, Fate and Risk Evaluation for Land 5125 9/30/2024
Application
Advancing Safety and Reliability to Protect Public Health: Identifying Quantitative Reductions of Viral 5126 7/31/2024
Pathogens and Surrogates for Water Reuse Applications
Data-Driven Process Control for Maximizing Resource Efficiency 5141 3/31/2023
Biorecovery of Nutrients from Municipal Wastewaters with Co-production of Biofuels and Other 5146 4/15/2024
Bioproducts
Streamlining Access and Approval of Technology for Small Systems and Private Wells 5147 8/1/2024
Transforming Aeration Energy in Water Resource Recovery Facilities (WRRFs) through Suboxic 5148 11/1/2022
Nitrogen Removal
Performance Evaluation of Advanced Primary and Secondary Treatment Systems 5150 10/31/2022

36 January–March 2022 • Advances in Water Research

CALENDAR April–June

April 11-14, 2022 May 24-26, 2022

CA-NV AWWA Annual Spring Conference SWAN 12th Annual Conference
Anaheim, CA Washington, DC
www.ca-nv-awwa.org/canv/CNS/ www.swan-2022.com
EventsandClasses/conf/SC22/SC2022.aspx
May 24-27, 2022
April 17-21, 2022 WEF Residuals and Biosolids
Singapore International Water Week Conference 2022
Singapore Columbus, OH
www.siww.com.sg www.wef.org/events/conferences/
upcoming-conferences/ResidualsBiosolids
April 19-22, 2022
WEF Collection Systems Conference June 6-8, 2022
Detroit, MI BlueTech Forum
www.wef.org/collectionsystems Vancouver, Canada
www.bluetechforum.com
April 24-27, 2022
Florida Water Resources Conference June 20-23, 2022
Daytona Beach, FL WEF Innovations in Process
fwrc.org Engineering Conference 2022
Miami, FL
April 24-30, 2022 www.wef.org/events/conferences/
Water Week upcoming-conferences/
Washington, DC innovations-in-process-engineering-2021
www.waterweek.us
June 27-29, 2022
April 26-29, 2022 WEF Stormwater Summit 2022
CWP 2022 National Stormwater Minneapolis, MN
& Watershed Conference www.wef.org/events/conferences/
St. Petersburg, FL upcoming-conferences/stormwatersummit
www.cwp.org/2022-national-conference
June 12-15, 2022
May 10-12, 2022 ACE22
OzWater’22 San Antonio, TX
Brisbane, Australia www.awwa.org/ace
www.ozwater.org

May 16-18, 2022

Global Water Summit 2022
Madrid, Spain
www.watermeetsmoney.com

Advances in Water Research • January–March 2022 37

 WEBCASTS

WHAT’S NEW
AND WHAT’S NEXT
IN WATER RESEARCH?
Discover the latest findings live and on demand
Connect with industry experts to get the most up-to-date research and follow ongoing
efforts. Ask top researchers and specialists questions that matter to you. Explore new
and emerging technologies and how they can impact the water sector and your facility.

www.waterrf.org/webcasts