Desalination 352 (2014) 45–51

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Chlorine dioxide bulk decay prediction in desalinated drinking water

T.A. Ammar a,⁎, K.Y. Abid a, A.A. El-Bindary b, A.Z. El-Sonbati b
a
Qatar General Electricity and Water Corporation (KAHRAMAA), Qatar
b
Chemistry Department, Faculty of Science, Damietta University, Egypt

H I G H L I G H T S

• We propose a novel empirical mathematical model for chlorine dioxide decay prediction.
• Model covers decay at a wide range of both temperature and ClO2 concentrations.
• Model provides an unprecedented opportunity to properly design disinfection systems.
• Model verifications indicate good agreement between calculated and measured values.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Chlorine dioxide is one of the most promising disinfectants though usually used as a secondary disinfectant. Several
Received 2 July 2014 studies addressed the decay rate of chlorine while no study so far tackled the chlorine dioxide decay. This work pro-
Received in revised form 8 August 2014 vides a novel mathematical equation for chlorine dioxide decay prediction in desalinated water.
Accepted 11 August 2014
The study was performed at five different chlorine dioxide dosages; 1.4, 1.2, 1.0, 0.8 and 0.6 mg/L (to cover the
Available online xxxx
most frequently used dosages within both production facilities “as primary disinfectant” and/or the distribution
Keywords:
system “as secondary disinfectant”). Each dosage had been tested at four different temperatures; 20°, 27°, 35°
Desalinated drinking water and 45 °C.
Bulk decay To confirm the validity of the proposed decay rate model/equation, site verification was performed (real concen-
Chlorine dioxide tration vs. predicted concentration) and then t-test formula was used to indicate the similarity of both test
Distribution system results.
As an overall conclusion, the study’s proposed a novel model/equation that shows reasonable levels of robust-
ness. Furthermore, it covers the chlorine dioxide decay at a wide range of temperature profiles as well as a
wide range of chlorine dioxide initial concentration dosages.
The proposed model provides an unprecedented opportunity to more realistically plan and model distribution
systems to achieve disinfection; among other water quality; goals. Network modelling software such as
EPANET provides the platform where the proposed chlorine dioxide decay model can be implemented. Moreover,
the model can aid in the decision variables (design, placement, number of stations and operation control & oper-
ation optimization) for disinfection boosters in water distribution systems.
© 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction Several studies using chlorine dioxide as a secondary disinfectant in

Drinking water is generally disinfected to protect public health. The
goal of secondary disinfection is to maintain a disinfectant residual
throughout the distribution system. This allows for a nominated residual
even at system extremities [1]. This provides some degree of protection
against contamination, as well as limits bacterial re-growth [2].
Chlorine dioxide is an oxidant that can be reduced in a variety of
ways, depending on the system conditions and the nature of the reducing
agent [3]. Chlorine dioxide (ClO2) demonstrated promising behavior as a
secondary disinfectant in full-scale distribution systems [4].
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +974 33146741.
E-mail address: Tarekawd@gmail.com (T.A. Ammar).
a full-scale distribution system [4] have shown that residuals can be
maintained throughout these specific systems, without booster stations.
Other studies [4] have demonstrated the opposite, being that residuals
disappear at the ends of the system without booster addition. Residuals
decrease faster as the water temperature increases and the size and
complexity of the distribution system increases.
Chlorine dioxide decay in the distribution system is the result of
auto-decomposition reactions and reactions with organic and inorganic
compounds, including biofilms, pipe materials, and scales. Chlorine
dioxide is also subjected to photolytic decomposition [5].
The immediate redox reactions with natural organic matter play the
dominant role in the decay of chlorine dioxide into chlorite in drinking
water [6]. Chlorite ion is generally the primary product of chlorine

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.08.010
0011-9164/© 2014 Published by Elsevier B.V.
46 T.A. Ammar et al. / Desalination 352 (2014) 45–51
dioxide reduction. The distribution of chlorite and chlorate is influenced
by pH and sunlight. Approximately 50 to 70% of the chlorine dioxide
consumed by oxidation reactions is converted to chlorite under condi-
tions typical in water treatment [6,7]. Ultraviolet light and even fluores-
cent lights can lead to photolysis [8,9].
Numerous inorganic and biological materials found in raw water will
react with chlorine dioxide [10]. The concentration and types of various
chemical and biological constituents that exert a chlorine dioxide de-
mand, as well as the temperature variance, will both impact the decay
coefficient. The decay coefficient for specific bulk water can be deter-
mined using bottle decay tests. The coefficient for pipe wall decay how-
ever, must be determined in the field or with pipe segments taken from
the distribution system piping. Overall, the relative importance of decay
at the pipe wall increases as the pipe diameter decreases because the
ratio of water volume to pipe surface area decreases [11–20].
Based on the order of the reaction, the mathematical form for alter-
native decay models can be proposed as [11–20]:
Zero order reaction : ½At ¼ −kt þ ½A0
First order reaction : ½At ¼ ½A0 expð−ktÞ:
Where:
[A]t Concentration of disinfectant in mg/L at time t
[A]0 Initial concentration of disinfectant in mg/L at t = 0
t Time in days
k Decay coefficient day−1
n Order of reaction.
Given that several studies addressed the decay rate of chlorine while
no study so far tackled the chlorine dioxide decay, the objective of this
work was to determine an empirical predictive novel model for chlorine
dioxide bulk decay prediction in desalinated water over both a wide
range of temperatures and a wide range of chlorine dioxide
concentrations.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Sampling bottle selection, preparation and cleaning
1.0 l amber glass bottles were used. As laboratory glassware can
potentially exhibit a demand for chlorine dioxide which could bias the
analytical results and lead to poor accuracy and/or precision, all bottles
were thoroughly cleaned with soap and water and rinsed several times
with reagent water. Vials (without caps) were dried in an oven at 140 °C.
2.2. Standard chlorine dioxide solution [21]
Since chlorine dioxide is a relatively unstable gas, it cannot be com-
pressed and liquefied, and must, therefore, be generated “on-site” and
dissolved in water.
Today's technology utilizes chlorite and hydrochloric acid reac-
tions to produce chlorine dioxide through a system called: “Chlorine
dioxide under water generating system” (manufactured by ISIA®).
As this special generator works “under water”, the formation of
chlorine dioxide takes place in water only, limiting the possibility
for chlorine dioxide to be released from the water. For that reason
it is often times considered 100% safe fulfilling the most diversified
requirements in terms of usage, safety, reliability, yield, purity of
ClO2 solution and ease of conduction. This system was used to get a
chlorine dioxide solution.
The generated chlorine dioxide solution was used for preparing the
temporary chlorine dioxide standards to the desired strengths and the
solution was stored in a refrigerator at 4 °C (±0.5 °C). For standardiza-
tion, the Iodometric Method (4500 ClO2-B) was used.
2.3. Raw water source [21]
Given that the raw water should contain zero levels of chlorine
dioxide but also should represent water in the distribution system,
that being, re-mineralized desalinated water, before the addition of
any disinfectant; was selected.
2.4. Chlorine dioxide concentration and temperature testing profile
Bulk decay may be isolated from wall decay by carrying out
chlorine decay experiments on the source water under controlled
conditions in the laboratory. In order to investigate the effects of
chlorine dioxide concentration and water temperature on the bulk
decay, experiments were carried out at five different chlorine diox-
ide concentrations; 1.4, 1.2, 1.0, 0.8 and 0.6 mg/L. Each concentration
was tested at four different temperatures; 20°, 27°, 35° and 45 °C.
Those specific temperatures were maintained by incubating the
1.0 l amber glass bottles. The five different chlorine dioxide concen-
trations were selected to cover the most frequently used dosages
within both production facilities “as primary disinfectant” and/or
the distribution system “as secondary disinfectant” while the four
temperature regimes were selected in order to ascertain the relationship
between the bulk decay coefficient and water's temperature so that
appropriate values for the winter and summer condition simulations
are derived.
The chlorine dioxide concentrations were measured on duplicate
sub-samples using ChlorodioXense® instrument with disposable am-
perometric sensors (the US EPA's approved instruments). The accuracy
of the instrument was checked regularly against the standards set pro-
vided by the manufacturer and were always found to be within the ac-
ceptable tolerance level.
2.5. Experiment
One bulk raw water sample (50 L) was collected and the following
procedure was performed at the five different temperatures:
Five blank samples were prepared and then dosed with the stan-
dardized chlorine dioxide (prepared from the on-site generator) to at-
tain 1.4, 1.2, 1.0, 0.8 and 0.6 mg/L in the five bottles respectively. The
chlorine dioxide concentration promptly measured at each bottle and
the time was registered as the zero time.
2.6. Bulk decay coefficient estimation & model verification
For each temperature (20°, 27°, 35° and 45 °C), five graphs were
plotted illustrating the chlorine dioxide concentration (mg/L) vari-
ance “until non-detectable levels” vs. time (hrs) at each dosage.
The natural logarithmic for chlorine dioxide concentrations was
calculated to estimate the bulk decay coefficient (Kb). Several types
of trend line were examined to choose the type of trend line most
appropriate to the results. The best fit trend line type was chosen
based on the highest R2 (Pearson Coefficient of Determination).
Then, model's precision was verified vs. samples collected (within
Table 1
Site parameter results for the raw water.
Parameter Unit Result
Temperature °C 39
pH – 7.9
Electrical conductivity (EC) μS/cm 164
Turbidity NTU 0.1
Chlorine dioxide mg/L ND
 T.A. Ammar et al. / Desalination 352 (2014) 45–51 47

Table 2
Chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 20 °C for all dosages: 1.4, 1.2, 1.0, 0.8 and
0.6 mg/L along with the calculated bulk decay coefficients at each dosage.

ClO2 dosage (mg/L) Slope (Kb) Decay rate Decay rate

(−Kb) (hr−1) (day−1)

1.4 −0.076 0.076 1.830

1.2 −0.072 0.072 1.727
1.0 −0.074 0.074 1.775
0.8 −0.076 0.076 1.828
0.6 −0.086 0.086 2.069
Average slope and decay rate −0.076 0.076 1.831
for all dosages at 20 °C

3.2. Chlorine dioxide decay rate at 20 °C

3.2.1. Chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 20 °C

ClO2 concentration vs. time for the five different dosages at 20 °C is
Fig. 1. Illustrates ClO2 concentration vs. time for the five different dosages at 20 °C. illustrated in Fig. 1.

five hours intervals) from a scheduled maintenance tank utilizing

the t-test formula. 3.2.2. Estimation of bulk decay coefficient (Kb) at 20 °C
Figs. 2 and 3 illustrate the Ln(x) vs. time plots. A trend line was
added in each plot showing the most suitable line or curve that more
3. Results and DISCUSSION likely fits the results. Moreover and to indicate how results fit the plot-
ted trend, the R2 (Pearson Coefficient of Determination) was presented
3.1. Raw water source analysis in each plot.
The ln results in all dosages show first order trend lines with R2
Site parameters for raw water are shown in Table (1) where no ranging between 0.9702 and 0.9727. Hence, more than 97% of the
chlorine dioxide levels were detected. results fit the first order trend line.
Using the trend lines (representing each dosage), the bulk decay co-
efficient (Kb) was calculated as well as the decay rate (day−1). To have
one unique bulk decay coefficient (Kb) representing all the dosages at
20 °C, the average for all calculated coefficients was considered.
Table (2) shows all the dosages results at 20 °C including the calculated
bulk decay coefficients and the estimated decay rates.

3.3. Chlorine dioxide decay rate at 27 °C

3.3.1. Chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 27 °C

ClO2 concentration vs. time for the five different dosages at 27 °C is
illustrated in Fig. 4.

3.3.2. Estimation of bulk decay coefficient (Kb) at 27 °C

Fig. 2. Ln chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 20 °C. Chlorine dioxide initial dosage
was 1.4, 0.8 and 0.6 mg/L.
Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate the Ln(x) vs. time plots as well as trend lines
and R2.
The ln results in all dosages show first order trend lines with R2
ranging between 0.9795 and 0.9627. Hence, at least 96.3% of the
results fit the first order trend line.

Fig. 3. Ln chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 20 °C. Chlorine dioxide initial dosage
was 1.2 and 1.0 mg/L. Fig. 4. Illustrates ClO2 concentration vs. time for the five different dosages at 27 °C.
48 T.A. Ammar et al. / Desalination 352 (2014) 45–51

Fig. 7. Illustrates ClO2 concentration vs. time for the five different dosages at 35 °C.
Fig. 5. Ln chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 27 °C. Chlorine dioxide initial dosage
was 1.2, 0.8 and 0.6 mg/L.
3.4.2. Estimation of bulk decay coefficient (Kb) at 35 °C
Figs. 8 and 9 illustrate the Ln(x) vs. time plots as well as both trend
lines and R2.
The ln results in all dosages show first order trend lines with R2 rang-
ing between 0.9949 and 0.9421. Hence, at least 94.2% of the results fit
the first order trend line.
Using the trend lines (representing each dosage), the bulk decay co-
efficient (Kb) was calculated as well as the decay rate (day−1). To have
one unique bulk decay coefficient (Kb) representing all the dosages at
35 °C, the average for all calculated coefficients was considered.

Fig. 6. Ln chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 27 °C. Chlorine dioxide initial dosage
was 1.4 and 1.0 mg/L.

Using the trend lines (representing each dosage), the bulk decay co-
efficient (Kb) was calculated as well as the decay rate (day−1). To have
one unique bulk decay coefficient (Kb) representing all the dosages at
27 °C, the average for all calculated coefficients was considered.
Table (3) shows all the dosages results at 27 °C including the calculated
bulk decay coefficients and the estimated decay rates.
Fig. 8. Ln chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 35 °C. Chlorine dioxide initial dosage
was 1.4, 1.2 and 0.8 mg/L.
3.4. Chlorine dioxide decay rate at 35 °C

3.4.1. Chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 35 °C

ClO2 concentration vs. time for the five different dosages at 35 °C is
illustrated in Fig. 7.

Table 3
Chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 27 °C for all dosages: 1.4, 1.2, 1.0, 0.8 and
0.6 mg/L along with the calculated bulk decay coefficients at each dosage.

ClO2 dosage (mg/L) Slope (Kb) Decay rate Decay rate

(−Kb) (hr−1) (day−1)

1.4 −0.087 0.087 2.091

1.2 −0.097 0.097 2.329
1.0 −0.108 0.108 2.583
0.8 −0.108 0.108 2.583
0.6 −0.111 0.111 2.674
Average slope and decay rate −0.103 0.103 2.469
Fig. 9. Ln chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 35 °C. Chlorine dioxide initial dosage
for all dosages at 27 °C
was 1.0 and 0.6 mg/L.
 T.A. Ammar et al. / Desalination 352 (2014) 45–51 49

Table 4
Chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 35 °C for all dosages: 1.4, 1.2, 1.0, 0.8 and
0.6 mg/L along with the calculated bulk decay coefficients at each dosage.

ClO2 dosage (mg/L) Slope (Kb) Decay rate Decay rate

(−Kb) (hr−1) (day−1)

1.4 −0.219 0.219 5.266

1.2 −0.136 0.136 3.254
1.0 −0.147 0.147 3.531
0.8 −0.146 0.146 3.516
0.6 −0.134 0.134 3.224
Average slope and decay rate −0.157 0.157 3.758
for all dosages at 35 °C

Table (4) shows all the dosages results at 35 °C including the calculated
bulk decay coefficients and the estimated decay rates.

3.5. Chlorine dioxide decay rate at 45 °C
3.5.1. Chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 45 °C
ClO2 concentration vs. time for the five different dosages at 45 °C is
illustrated in Fig. 10.
3.5.2. Estimation of bulk decay coefficient (Kb) at 45 °C
Figs. 11 and 12 illustrate the Ln(x) vs. time plots as well as both trend
lines and R2.
The ln results in all dosages show first order trend lines with R2 rang-
ing between 0.9896 and 0.9624. Hence, at least 96.2% of the results fit
the first order trend line.
Using the trend lines (representing each dosage), the bulk decay co-
efficient (Kb) was calculated as well as the decay rate (day−1). To have
Fig. 12. Ln chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 45 °C. Chlorine dioxide initial dosage
was 1.0 and 0.8 mg/L.
one unique bulk decay coefficient (Kb) representing all the dosages at
45 °C, the average for all calculated coefficients was considered.
Table (5) shows all the dosages results at 45 °C including the calculated
bulk decay coefficients and the estimated decay rates.
3.6. Relationship between bulk decay coefficient (Kb) and water
temperature (°C)
To illustrate the relation between bulk decay coefficient (−Kb) and
water temperature (°C), the average (−Kb) for each temperature was
plotted vs. the corresponding temperature. Table (6) summarizes the
average (− Kb) for each temperature and Fig. 13 illustrates this
relationship.
The exponential relationship between the bulk decay coefficient and
the water temperature was calculated. The trend has an R2 of 0.9868.
Hence, the bulk decay coefficient (kb) could be calculated utilizing
the following Eq. (1):

Kb ¼ 0:8147  expð0:0415TÞ: ð1Þ

Where:

Kb Bulk decay coefficient (hr−1).

T Water temperature (°C).

Table 5
Fig. 10. Illustrates ClO2 concentration vs. time for the five different dosages at 45 °C. Chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 45 °C for all dosages: 1.4, 1.2, 1.0, 0.8 and
0.6 mg/L along with the calculated bulk decay coefficients at each dosage.

ClO2 dosage (mg/L) Slope (Kb) Decay rate Decay rate

(−Kb) (hr−1) (day−1)

1.4 −0.331 0.331 7.946

1.2 −0.115 0.115 2.756
1.0 −0.223 0.223 5.348
0.8 −0.168 0.168 4.033
0.6 −0.218 0.218 5.239
Average slope and decay rate −0.211 0.211 5.064
for all dosages at 45 °C

Table 6
Summary for the average calculated Kb and the corresponding temperature in °C.

Temperature (°C) Slope (Kb in hr−1) Decay rate (−Kb in day−1)

20 −0.0763 1.8307
27 −0.1029 2.4686
35 −0.1566 3.7581
Fig. 11. Ln chlorine dioxide concentration vs. time at 45 °C. Chlorine dioxide initial dosage
45 −0.2110 5.0644
was 1.4, 1.2 and 0.6 mg/L.
50 T.A. Ammar et al. / Desalination 352 (2014) 45–51

Fig. 13. Relationship between bulk decay coefficient (Kb) and water temperature (°C). Fig. 14. Predicted chlorine dioxide concentrations (utilizing the proposed model) and the
observed concentration for 5 h interval:.

3.7. Mathematical form for chlorine dioxide decay model 3.9. Implementation in drinking water distribution systems

As illustrated in ln figures for all five dosages (1.4, 1.2, 1.0, 0.8 and
0.6 mg/L) over the tested temperature ranges (20°, 27°,35°, 45 °C), all
the trend lines fit a first order equation. The R2 for all the trend lines
was ideal and ranged from 0.9421 to 0.9949. Therefore, a first order ki-
netic model could be proposed for the estimation of the decay rate uti-
lizing the following formula (Eq. (2)):
Ct ¼ C0 expð−kb tÞ:
Where:
3.9.1. Distribution system design and modeling
For network designers, the proposed novel model provides an un-
precedented opportunity to more realistically plan and model distribu-
tion systems to achieve disinfection; among other water quality; goals.
Moreover, the proposed novel model can confidently assist chlorine di-
oxide disinfection planning/management in drinking water distribution
systems.
Network modelling software such as EPANET provides the platform
ð2Þ where the proposed chlorine dioxide decay model can be implemented.
This enables system planners/managers to find efficiently the proper
chlorine dioxide disinfection dosages that allow residual targets at sys-
tem extremities to be met.

Ct Chlorine dioxide concentration at any time.

C0 Initial chlorine dioxide concentration.
Kb Bulk decay coefficient (day−1)
t Time (days).
3.8. Verification of decay rate model precision (predicted vs. observed
chlorine dioxide concentrations)
Table (7) and Fig. 14 illustrate the predicted chlorine dioxide con-
centration (utilizing the proposed model), the observed concentration
as well as the differences between predicted and observed values.
Given that the calculated t-value is very much lower than the tabu-
lated t-value, the difference between the two means is not significant.
Furthermore, the results were quite close to one another as indicated
by the variances (differences). Hence, there is good agreement between
calculated and measured chlorine dioxide values.
3.9.2. Booster disinfection stations
Disinfectant residuals are assumed to be sufficient to prevent growth
of pathogenic bacteria, yet low enough to avoid taste and odor prob-
lems. Commonly, large quantities of disinfectants are released at the
source outlets for preserving minimum residual disinfectant concentra-
tions throughout the network. Such an approach can cause taste and
odor problems near the disinfectant injection locations, but more im-
portant hazardous excessive disinfectant by-product formations
(DBPs) at the far network ends, of which some may be carcinogenic.
To cope with these deficiencies, booster chlorination stations were sug-
gested to be placed at the distribution system itself and not just at the
sources, motivating considerable research in the recent years on place-
ment, design, and operation of booster chlorination stations in water
distribution systems.
The proposed novel model can aid in the decision variables for chlo-
rine dioxide disinfection boosters in water distribution systems. Decision

Table 7
Predicted chlorine dioxide concentration vs. observed concentration.

C0 a Time interval (hr) Time (hr) Time (days) Tb Kb (day−1)c Ctd Observed ClO2 (mg/L) Difference (Ct-observed)

0.81 5 5 0.20833 20 0.0777 0.55 0.59 −0.04

0.53 10 32 0.1279 0.28 0.25 0.03
0.26 15 37 0.1574 0.12 0.15 −0.03
0.12 20 39 0.1710 0.05 0.03 0.02
Tabulated T-value at 6 degrees° of freedom, two tails and 95% confidencee 1.943
t-test valuef 0.9743
a
C0: Initial ClO2 concentration (mg/L) at the beginning of each 5 h interval.
b
T: Average water temperature (°C) registered within the 5 h period.
c
Kb: bulk decay coefficient (in day−1) calculated from the bulk decay coefficient equation Kb = 0.8147* ∗ exp(0.0415 T) where T is water temperature in °C.
d
Ct: Predicted chlorine dioxide value (mg/L) calculated from the first order mathematical model.
e
Source: Computed by M. Longnecker using Splus.
f
t-test: the value is calculated by Microsoft Excel® considering a 2 tails distribution system and 95% confidence limits.
 T.A. Ammar et al. / Desalination 352 (2014) 45–51
variables include; but not limited to; boosters design, placement, number
of stations and operation control & operation optimization.
3.9.3. Operation control for disinfection systems
Operational control and operation optimization strategies for chlo-
rine dioxide disinfection systems can be easily adopted utilizing the pro-
posed model. Thus, water treatment plant managers can easily plan/
alter chlorine dioxide dosages vs. seasonal temperature profiles/changes.
Those planned dosages may be fine-tuned by careful monitoring for
chlorine dioxide residual at the far ends of the network. Optimum levels
will take account the chlorine dioxide decay in the distribution system
under normal and drain-down conditions.
3.10. Wall coefficient and decay modeling improvement
Given that the proposed model provides the chlorine dioxide bulk
decay only, a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying chlo-
rine dioxide consumption in piped systems, namely the effect of pipe
material and surface conditions, including those associated with biofilm,
would be recommended for future research. Such researches are still
needed for a more accurate estimation of kw and chlorine dioxide
decay modeling improvement.
4. Conclusion
In order to ensure delivery of high quality drinking water from treat-
ment plant to customers, maintaining adequate levels of disinfectant is
very important, so it's necessary to study and model disinfectant decay
rate.
Several studies addressed the decay rate for chlorine while no study
so far tackled the chlorine dioxide decay. This research provides a
unique insight into decay of chlorine dioxide disinfectant in desalinated
water systems and to propose a novel model for chlorine dioxide decay
prediction. Such model can aid not only in disinfection planning/man-
agement but also in the design and optimization of booster disinfection
stations.
The research work indicated the following:
• The ln results for all the dosages (0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2 and 1.4 mg/L) at all
the testing temperature (20°, 27°, 35° and 45 °C) follow a first order
mathematical form for chlorine dioxide decay model with strong con-
fidence (almost all the trend lines fit the first order with R2 “Pearson
Coefficient of Determination” ranging between 0.9949 and 0.9421).
Hence, the decay rate will be calculated using the first order mathe-
matical form:
Ct ¼ C0 expð−kb tÞ:
Where:
Ct Chlorine dioxide concentration at any time.
C0 Initial chlorine dioxide concentration.
Kb Bulk decay coefficient (day−1)
t Time (days).
• The bulk decay coefficient (Kb) could be calculated based on the fol-
lowing exponential formula:
Kb ¼ 0:8147  expð0:0415TÞ:
Where:
Kb Bulk decay coefficient (day−1).
T Water temperature (°C).
51
• There is good agreement between calculated and measured chlorine
dioxide values as indicated through the model verification.
Therefore, the proposed novel model is appropriate and accurate for
predicting chlorine dioxide bulk decay in drinking water systems over
both a wide range of temperatures (from 20° to 45 °C) and a wide
range of chlorine dioxide concentrations (0.6, 0.8, 1.0, 1.2 and 1.4 mg/L).
Moreover, the proposed novel model can confidently assist chlorine
dioxide disinfection planning/management in drinking water distribu-
tion systems. For network designers, the proposed model provides an
unprecedented opportunity to more realistically plan and model distri-
bution systems to achieve disinfection; among other water quality;
goals. Network modelling software such as EPANET provides the
platform where the proposed chlorine dioxide decay model can be
implemented.
This novel model can aid in the decision variables (design, place-
ment, number of stations and operation control & operation optimiza-
tion strategies) for primary and booster chlorine dioxide disinfection
systems in water distribution systems.
Given that the proposed model provides the chlorine dioxide bulk
decay only, a deeper understanding of the mechanisms underlying chlo-
rine dioxide consumption in piped systems would be recommended for
future research.
References
[1] World Health Organization, Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality, Fourth edition
WHO Press, Geneva, 2011.
[2] Mark W. LeChevallier, The case for maintaining a disinfectant residual, J. AWWA 91
(1) (1999) 86–94.
[3] Gates J. Donald, The Chlorine Dioxide Handbook (Water Disinfection Series),
AWWA Publishing, 1998.
[4] C.J. Volk, et al., Implementation of chlorine dioxide disinfection: effects of the treat-
ment change on drinking water quality in a full-scale distribution system, J. Environ.
Eng. Sci. 1 (5) (2002) 323–330.
[5] USEPA, Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance Manual, US Environmental
Protection Agency, 1999.
[6] Karen S. Werdehoff, Philip C. Singer, Chlorine dioxide effects on THMFP, TOXFP and
the formation of inorganic by-products, J. AWWA 79 (9) (1987) 107–113.
[7] Ch. Rav-Acha, et al., Disinfection of drinking water rich in bromide with chlorine and
chlorine dioxide, while minimizing the formation of undesirable byproducts, Water
Sci. Technol. J. 17 (4–5) (1984) 611–621.
[8] M.H. Griese, et al., Combining methods for reduction of oxychlorine compounds in
drinking water, J. AWWA 84 (1992) 69–77.
[9] R.G. Zika, et al., Sunlight-induced photodecomposition of chlorine dioxide, water
chlorination: chemistry, Environ. Impact Health Eff. J. 5 (1985) 1041–1053.
[10] M.G. Naack, R.L. Doerr, Reactions of Chlorine, ClO2 and Mixtures Thereof With
Humic Acid, in: Jolley, et al., (Eds.), Water Chlorination, Environmental Impact
and Health, vol. 2, Ann Arbor Science publishers, 1981.
[11] J.J. Vasconcelos, et al., Characterization and Modeling of Chlorine Decay in Distribu-
tion Systems, AWWA, New York, 1996.
[12] C.F. Foster, et al., Factors which control bulk chlorine decay rates, Water Res. J. 34 (1)
(2000) 117–126.
[13] B.H. Nicholas, et al., A suitable model of combined effects of temperature and initial
condition on chlorine bulk decay in water distribution systems, Water Res. J. 46 (10)
(2012) 3293–3303.
[14] R.S. Powell, et al., Calibration and comparison of chlorine decay models for a test
water distribution system, Water Res. J. 34 (8) (2000) 2301–2309.
[15] H.R. Maier, et al., Forecasting chlorine residuals in a water distribution system using
a general regression neural network, Math. Comput. Model. J. 44 (5–6) (2006)
469–484.
[16] I. Fisher, et al., Evaluation of suitable chlorine bulk-decay models for water distribu-
tion systems, Water Res. J. 45 (16) (2011) 4896–4908.
[17] R.A. Falconer, et al., Appraisal of chlorine contact tank modeling practices, Water
Res. J. 46 (18) (2012) 5834–5847.
[18] A. Sathasivanet, A.J. Kohpaei, Chlorine decay prediction in bulk water using the par-
allel second order model: an analytical solution development, Chem. Eng. J. 171 (1)
(2011) 232–241.
[19] H. Fang, et al., Modeling of chlorine decay in municipal water supplies, Water Res. J.
33 (12) (1999) 2735.
[20] J.R. West, et al., Performance of various kinetic models for chlorine decay, Water
Resour. Plan. Manag. J. 126 (1) (2000) 13–20.
[21] American Public Health Association, Standard Methods for the Examinations of
Water and Waste Water, 22nd ed. APHA AWWA-WEF, Washington, DC, 2012.