98 INTERNAL CORROSION CONTROL IN WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

Wang, Y., V. Mehta, G.J. Welter, and D.E. Giammar. 2013. E昀昀ect of connection methods on
lead release from galvanic corrosion. Journal AWWA, 105(7):E337–E351.

Wolfe-Simon, F., J.S. Blum, T.R. Kulp, G.W. Gordon, S.E. Hoeft, J. Pe琀琀-Ridge, J.F. Stolz, S.M.
Webb, P.K. Weber, P.C.W. Davies, A.D. Anbar, and R.S. Oremland. 2011. A bacterium
that can grow by using arsenic instead of phosphorus. Science, 332(3):1163–1166.

Wu, L., A.D. Jacobsen, and M. Hausner. 2008. Characterization of elemental release during
microbe-granite interactions at T=28°C. Geochemica et Cosmochimica Acta, 72:1076–1095.

Zhang, M., M.J. Semmens, D. Schuler, and R.M. Hozalski. 2002. Biostability and
microbiological quality in a chloraminated distribution system. Journal AWWA,
94(9):112.

AWWA Manual M58

 AWWA MANUAL

M58

Chapter 4

Corrosion Control
Treatment Techniques

Rebecca Slabaugh, Arcadis

Christopher P. Hill, Arcadis
Elizabeth Turner, North Texas Municipal Water District
Richard Giani, CH2M

INTRODUCTION
The implementation of corrosion control can be accomplished in eight steps.

1. Develop an understanding of factors a昀昀ecting internal corrosion.

2. Determine the extent and magnitude of corrosion.
3. Determine the possible causes of corrosion.
4. Assess corrosion control alternatives.
5. Select a corrosion control strategy.
6. Implement a corrosion control program.
7. Monitor the e昀昀ectiveness of the corrosion control program.
8. Optimize the control program if necessary.

Selection of a corrosion control technique may not be a one-time event. Any change
in water treatment or source water may require a system to reevaluate corrosion control by
following the preceding steps listed. Earlier chapters discussed corrosion theory and how
to determine possible causes of corrosion. This chapter covers the assessment of corrosion
control alternatives and some tools to help select a corrosion control strategy (Table 4-1).
The complete elimination of corrosion is almost impossible. Technologies exist to reduce

99
100 INTERNAL CORROSION CONTROL IN WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

Table 4-1 Chapter 4 key points

• Chemical treatment options include pH adjustment, dissolved inorganic carbon adjustment, and
application of corrosion inhibitors.
• Techniques for controlling microbiologically in昀氀uenced corrosion include disinfection, control of water
age, 昀氀ushing, and nutrient control.
• Utilities may 昀椀nd it necessary to reoptimize corrosion control treatment whenever changes are
encountered in the source water or when utilities are contemplating treatment changes such as changes of
coagulant type or secondary disinfectant.
• Implementation or reoptimization of corrosion control may have secondary impacts, such as changes
in precipitation of solids, reduced disinfection e昀케cacy, microbial growth, and disinfectant by-product
formation, and these potential impacts must be considered when selecting a corrosion control method.
• Bench tests can be used to help select a treatment method and identify potential impacts that may result
from adding a new chemical or altering corrosion control treatment practices.

or inhibit corrosion, but the feasibility of each technology will vary from system to system.
The success of a particular corrosion control treatment is dependent on the speci昀椀c water
quality and piping of an individual system.
Implementing and maintaining optimum corrosion control treatment require bal-
ancing the needs of con昀氀icting water quality goals. For example, the optimum pH for
coagulation is not the optimum pH for orthophosphate used for corrosion control.

CORROSION CONTROL TREATMENT

Corrosion control is achieved through passivation, where pipe material and existing scale
deposits are used to form a barrier 昀椀lm of less soluble metal carbonates or phosphate com-
pounds on the inner pipe surface. This barrier layer of metal complex isolates the piping
materials from the water supply and minimizes dissolution.
Treatment options include (1) pH and/or alkalinity adjustment and (2) applica-
tion of corrosion inhibitors. More than one viable treatment option may be available to
a water system. The tools presented in this chapter will help the reader select the best
treatment option. Both Health Canada’s Guidance on Controlling Corrosion in Drinking Water
Distribution Systems (2009) and the World Health Organization’s Guidelines for Drinking-
Water Quality (WHO 2011) discuss common strategies for various metals including cop-
per, iron, and lead. Additionally, USEPA’s Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment Evaluation
Technical Recommendations for Primacy Agencies and Public Water Systems (2016) includes sev-
eral sets of 昀氀ow charts, which can be used to identify viable treatment options based on
water quality characteristics. Table 4-2 summarizes various corrosion control treatment
methods and presents di昀昀erent water quality and operational advantages and disadvan-
tages associated with each treatment method. A list of common corrosion control treat-
ment chemicals is provided in Table 4-3.

pH and/or Alkalinity Adjustment

The adjustment of pH is a common method for reducing corrosion in distribution sys-
tems. The water pH is the major factor that determines the solubility of most pipe mate-
rials and the 昀椀lms that form from corrosion by-products.
The relationship of pH, dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC), alkalinity, carbon diox-
ide, and ionic strength governs the solubility of metal carbonates, which are commonly
involved in protective scale formation on interior pipe surfaces. The type of alkalinity
present and the pH of the water are dependent on each other.

AWWA Manual M58


Table 4-2 Advantages and disadvantages of various corrosion control treatment methods
Treatment Method Advantages
pH and/or Alkalinity Adjustment
Caustic soda/ • Adds hydroxide alkalinity.
caustic potash
• Small capital and investment
cost.
• Easy to dose.
Soda ash/potash • Increases total alkalinity
by 0.94 mg/L as CaCO3 per
1 mg/L soda ash or potash
added.
• Increases dissolved inorganic
carbon (DIC) and pH to
above 8.3.
• Mainly used in powdered
form, delivered in bulk or in
sacks.
• Nonhazardous chemical.
• Relatively easy to handle and
to dose.
Sodium bicarbonate • Used primarily to increase
alkalinity with minimal
increase in pH.
• Alkalinity increases by
0.59 mg/L as CaCO3 for
1 mg/L dose.
• Nonhazardous chemical.
• Relatively easy to handle
and dose.
Hydrated lime • Increases pH and calcium
(hardness) for soft water.
• Adds hydroxide alkalinity.
• Relatively inexpensive
chemical.
AWWA Manual M58
CORROSION CONTROL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES 101
Disadvantages
• Overdose in low-alkalinity water with low carbon dioxide (CO2)
increases pH to excessively high values.
• Hazardous chemical; severe burns can occur to skin or eyes
on exposure.
• Caustic soda has a high freezing point; 50% caustic can freeze or
crystallize at 58°F (14°C).
• Adds 0.43 mg/L sodium per 1 mg/L soda ash added.
• Hydrolyzes by absorbing water from air, which can make it cake;
sacks should not be stored more than 6 months.
• Higher cost than that of lime (roughly 10 times).
• Requires pH control.
• Requires dust control.
• Cannot raise pH > 8.3.
• Higher cost than other chemicals (e.g., about 40 times higher than
calcium carbonate).
• Requires pH control.
• Requires dust control.
• Overdose in soft waters with low free CO2 will increase pH above
the acceptable range; therefore, addition of lime to soft waters is
sometimes accompanied by CO2.
• Varies in quality and may contain contaminants, such as grit
and sand, heavy metals, and high concentration of aluminum. If
high dose of lime is needed, the increase in Al concentration can
be as high as 0.5 mg/L. The contribution of Al from lime can be
minimized by adding it during the coagulation process.
• Often increases turbidity of treated water.
• May clog dosing equipment.
• Easier to store than quicklime, but carbonation can cause
deterioration.
• Low winter temperatures in an unheated building could lead to
freezing or caking.
• Requires large investment in chemical dosing equipment.
• Need to have sedimentation tank or saturator to prevent lime
particles from going into the treated water. In other cases, deep
bed 昀椀ltration is used after lime addition.
• May cause dust problems if special precautions are not taken.
• Turbidity and pH control are necessary; pH control is di昀케cult for
low-alkalinity water.
Table continues next page
102 INTERNAL CORROSION CONTROL IN WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
Table 4-2 Advantages and disadvantages of various corrosion control treatment methods
(continued)
Treatment Method Advantages
Quicklime • Increases pH and calcium
(hardness) for soft water.
• Adds hydroxide alkalinity.
• Often slightly less expensive
than hydrated lime and is
more cost-e昀昀ective when used
in very large quantities.
Limestone contactor • Increases hardness, pH, and
alkalinity of soft water.
• Eliminates the need to feed
chemicals and cannot result
in overdosing. Claimed
to be low cost and simple
operation.
Aeration • Removes CO2, which
increases the pH and
decreases DIC.
Carbon dioxide • Increases alkalinity and
DIC if added prior to a base
chemical.
• Typically added prior to
caustic soda in extremely low-
alkalinity water to provide
adequate alkalinity in the
treated water.
Disadvantages
• Overdose of lime in soft waters with low free CO2 will increase
pH above the acceptable range. Therefore, addition of lime to soft
waters is sometimes accompanied by CO2.
• Varies in quality and may contain contaminants, such as grit
and sand, heavy metals, and high concentration of aluminum. If
high dose of lime is needed, the increase in Al concentration can
be as high as 0.5 mg/L. The contribution of Al from lime can be
minimized by adding it during the coagulation process.
• Often increases turbidity of treated water.
• Requires a lime slaker, which is a piece of mechanical equipment
designed to control the reaction between quicklime and water
to produce a hydrated lime slurry. Quicklime is di昀케cult to use
because of its low solubility and high hygroscopy (or ability to
a琀琀ract and hold water), which increase the risks of caking and
blockages.
• Must be stored in moisture-proof areas and used within a few
weeks of manufacture to avoid absorbing water and CO2 and
forming calcium carbonate cake.
• May cause dust problems if special precautions are not taken.
• Addition of CO2 is often necessary to prevent excessive pH
values in low-alkalinity water treated with half-burned dolomite
(CaMg(CO3)2) 昀椀lters. CO2 gas is sometimes used to address this
issue.
• Varies in quality and may contain numerous impurities: clay,
silt and sand, iron, phosphorus, sulfur, and trace amounts of
manganese, copper, sodium, and arsenic (USEPA 1986).
• No control over pH, which depends on the 昀氀ow rate and could
vary more than 1 unit. The rate of dissolution of CaCO3 may vary
depending on impurities in limestone (USEPA 1986).
• Equilibration of the column with atmospheric CO2 can have a
signi昀椀cant impact on pH (USEPA 1986).
• Fairly large investment in an alkaline media 昀椀lter or a limestone
contactor. The dissolution rate for limestone is low. Half-burned
dolomite has a much higher dissolution rate and is, therefore,
preferred in many cases. Requires a be琀琀er pH control system.
Very high pH values can occur.
• Needs to be backwashed when clogging reduces the 昀氀ow
capacity.
• Final pH is dependent on the amount of CO2 in the source water.
• Decreases pH and requires additional base chemical.
• Increases CaCO3 precipitation potential.
Table continues next page
AWWA Manual M58

Table 4-2 Advantages and disadvantages of various corrosion control treatment methods
(continued)
Treatment Method Advantages
Corrosion Inhibitors
Orthophosphate • E昀昀ective at moderate pH
products 7.0–8.0 for copper and lead
control. Orthophosphate can
reduce lead solubility by
building up a lead phosphate
layer that has a low solubility.
Reduced copper corrosion
rate in cold waters. E昀昀ectively
reduces the general corrosion
of the zinc layer of galvanized
steel. Can reduce corrosion
rate of steel and impact iron-
release rate.
• Normally have an inhibiting
e昀昀ect if the corrosion
products or the corroding
metal can form insoluble
phosphates and improve the
protective scale by increasing
its impermeability and
adherence.
• Various blends and
manufacturers available.
Zinc orthophosphate • Corrosion control of lead,
copper, iron, and asbestos
cement under select water
quality conditions.
Polyphosphate • Prevent red water for iron
products corrosion.
• Breakdown of polyphosphate
to orthophosphate in
distribution system has some
bene昀椀t on lead and copper
corrosion.
• Maximum bene昀椀t for lead
control will occur in the lowest
alkalinity waters (Reiber et al.
1997).
• Sequesters iron, manganese,
and calcium in solution.
• Various blends and
manufacturers available.
AWWA Manual M58
CORROSION CONTROL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES 103
Disadvantages
• Insu昀케cient dose may accelerate corrosion or may not avoid
pi琀琀ing or other localized corrosion. Very pH-dependent with
copper corrosion protection lost at slightly acidic pH values.
• Higher phosphate levels (>3.0 mg/L as PO4) can cause milky water
in the distribution system with waters containing high calcium
and aluminum in the water or on the pipe scales (>0.1 mg/L)
(Tesfai et al. 2006, Frommel et al. 2004).
• Orthophosphate can stimulate algal growth in receiving waters.
• Ine昀昀ective for copper control outside pH range of 7.0–8.0 (Reiber
et al. 1997).
• Corrosion control may require several months of dosing at high
initial doses before corrosion control bene昀椀ts are fully observed.
• The protective 昀椀lms will gradually break down and protection
will cease within a short time if the dosage is stopped.
• Pilot studies are often required because the level of corrosion
reduction can vary substantially with inhibitor.
• Many utilities use a combination of zinc sulfate and phosphoric
acid. The mechanism of zinc action on lead and copper surfaces
has never been quanti昀椀ed. Zinc orthophosphate has not o昀昀ered
signi昀椀cant bene昀椀t versus simple orthophosphates.
• Zinc is currently not allowed in corrosion inhibitor products in
much of Europe and is becoming increasingly restricted in North
America because of zinc discharge limits in receiving waters.
• Corrosion control may require several months of dosing before
corrosion control bene昀椀ts are fully observed.
• The protective 昀椀lms will gradually break down and protection will
cease within a short time if the dosage is stopped.
• Pilot studies are often required because the level of corrosion
reduction can vary substantially with inhibitor.
• Unknown how and why they work. May increase zinc, copper,
and lead corrosion. Polyphosphates may increase lead levels by
complexation. Usually have li琀琀le or no e昀昀ect on either corrosion
inhibition or the reduction of metals release.
• Adverse e昀昀ects on lead corrosion control for waters with
alkalinity between 30 and 74 mg/L CaCO3. Variable results for
copper control above pH 7.8 (Reiber et al. 1997).
• Polyphosphates are capable of solubilizing metal oxides and
dissolving some corrosion scales and likely not suitable for lead
and copper control (Reiber et al. 1997).
Table continues next page
104 INTERNAL CORROSION CONTROL IN WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS
Table 4-2 Advantages and disadvantages of various corrosion control treatment methods
(continued)
Treatment Method Advantages
Blended phosphates • Dose is dependent on pH and
Ca concentration. Low doses
are used to avoid soft scale
formation and discolored
water.
• Phosphates form protective
昀椀lms on the bare metal
surface by chemical reaction
with either the corrosion
products or the bare metal.
• Various proprietary
blends, typically 30%–70%
orthophosphate, and
manufacturers available.
Silicates • Typically applicable for soft
waters with low pH.
• A major bene昀椀t of using
silicates appears to be the
accompanying pH increase.
It is often more economical to
increase the pH to between
7.5 and 8.0 by adding caustic
soda or soda ash to lower
the silicate requirement. The
corrosion protection appears
to be caused mainly by the pH
increase and 昀椀lm formation.
May reduce red-water
problems, more so than pH or
pH and alkalinity adjustment
alone.
• Protection by silicates occurs
by forming a thin layer over
the corroded metal layer. The
昀椀lms do not build up and are
self-limiting.
Phosphate–silicate • Provide corrosion protection
blends as good as phosphate alone
but at reduced phosphate
concentrations. Dual
mechanism may provide
be琀琀er corrosion protection.
• Phosphate–silicate blends
often show good corrosion
reduction in steel pipe.
Disadvantages
• Insu昀케cient doses can aggravate pi琀琀ing corrosion. Blends with
small proportion of orthophosphates can increase corrosion rates
and iron release.
• Variable corrosion inhibition has been found for mixtures of
orthophosphates and polyphosphates.
• Proprietary phosphate blends are typically more expensive than
generic orthophosphate and may not provide additional corrosion
control advantages.
• Polyphosphate inhibitors had adverse e昀昀ects on lead corrosion
above pH 7.0, likely a result of complexation and release of lead
corrosion by-products (Reiber et al. 1997).
• Corrosion control may require several months of dosing before
corrosion control bene昀椀ts are fully observed.
• The protective 昀椀lms will gradually break down and protection will
cease within a short time if the dosage is stopped.
• Pilot studies are often required because the level of corrosion
reduction can vary substantially with an inhibitor.
• Poorly soluble in cold water.
• Corrosion must occur before the metal surface can be protected
due to mechanism for inhibition being the 昀椀lm of ferric or another
metal oxide and silicate.
• The protective 昀椀lms will gradually break down and protection
will cease within a short time if the dosage is stopped.
• Generally less e昀昀ective than orthophosphates. Often observed
e昀昀ects depend on the pH increase caused by the alkaline
character of the silicate compound.
• Silicates do not inhibit zinc corrosion beyond the e昀昀ect of
increased pH.
• Silicates can stimulate certain biological growth in low-
mineralized waters.
• Silicate component of caustic silicates (apart from pH adjustment)
show li琀琀le evidence of any inhibitory impact on either lead or
copper.
• Limited evidence suggests that silicate addition without pH
control may exacerbate copper corrosion (Reiber et al. 1997).
• Typically higher cost than phosphates and bimetallic inhibitors.
• Pilot studies are often required because the level of corrosion
reduction can vary substantially with an inhibitor.
• Even in the case of very high pH of 8.7, when the iron release rate
decreases to very low values, the corrosion rate remains relatively
high in the low-mineralized water. The result of this high corrosion
rate and low iron-release rate is that a large quantity of ferric
precipitates is deposited in the pipes.
• Pilot studies are often required because the level of corrosion
reduction can vary substantially with an inhibitor.
AWWA Manual M58
 CORROSION CONTROL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES 105

Table 4-3 Characteristics of common corrosion control treatment chemicals

Approximate Commercial
Chemical Name and Formula Common Name Common Forms Strength
Calcium carbonate, CaCO3 Limestone White or gray; granular or 95%
powder
Calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2 Hydrated lime, White powder 72%–74% as CaO
slaked lime
Calcium oxide, CaO Burnt lime, White; lump, pebble, 93%–99% CaO
chemical lime, granular, or pulverized
quicklime,
unslaked lime
Carbon dioxide, liquid CO2 Carbonic anhydride Liquid 99.5%
Phosphoric acid, H3PO4 — Watery, white liquid 35%–85%
Potassium carbonate, K2CO3 Potash White powder >98.5%
Potassium hydroxide, KOH Caustic potash Clear liquid 45% or 50%
Sodium bicarbonate, NaHCO3 Baking soda White powder 99%
Sodium carbonate, Na2CO3 Soda ash White powder >98%
Sodium hexametaphosphate, Na(PO3)6 — Crystal, 昀氀ake, or powder 66%
Sodium hydroxide, NaOH Caustic soda, White solid beads, 昀氀akes, or 98.9% (NaOH solid)
soda lye liquid 76% (Na2O)
25% or 50% (NaOH solution)
Sodium silicate, Na2SiO3 Waterglass Opaque, viscous liquid 38–42%
Zinc orthophosphate, Zn3(PO4)2 — White or clear liquid Varies by manufacturer
Adapted from AwwaRF and TZW 1996, AWWA 2004

The solubility of metals typically decreases as pH increases (Dodrill and Edwards

1995, Reiber et al. 1997). Increased pH may, however, cause excessive calcium carbonate
precipitation in waters with high hardness, resulting in hydraulic issues and increased
pumping costs. Increasing pH can also result in higher trihalomethane (THM) concen-
trations. Additionally, iron and manganese, if present at elevated concentrations, may
precipitate out and cause aesthetic issues. Figure 4-1 illustrates the reduced solubility of
manganese and iron as pH increases. The soluble forms of iron and manganese are repre-
sented by Fe+2 and Mn+2 on the diagram. A phosphate-based sequestering agent is usually
used in these situations or at lime softening plants to reduce calcium deposition on 昀椀lter
material and distribution systems.
Caustic soda, caustic potash, soda ash, potash, limestone contactors, and aeration
(where su昀케cient dissolved CO2 exists in the water) are the principal methods for increasing
the pH. Soda ash, potash, and limestone contactors also increase DIC; aeration decreases
DIC in the process of increasing pH.
Caustic soda/caustic potash. When caustic soda (sodium hydroxide) or caustic pot-
ash (potassium hydroxide) is used, dosing must be strictly controlled. Caustic is recom-
mended only for waters with DIC greater than 5 mg/L. In low-alkalinity waters, even a
small overdose of caustic will increase pH to very high values. For low-alkalinity waters,
caustic is recommended only when used in conjunction with carbon dioxide. Caustic soda
is usually delivered as a 25 or 50 percent solution. Caustic soda is a hazardous chemical,
and severe burns can occur on exposure. It also has a low freezing temperature. A 50-
percent solution has a freezing point of approximately 53°F (14°C), and a 25-percent solu-
tion has a freezing point of around 0°F (–18°C). Caustic feed systems, at a minimum, should
include an eye washing system, full shower, eye goggles, protective gloves, boots, aprons,
easy-to-handle barrels, and chemical containment areas.

AWWA Manual M58

106 INTERNAL CORROSION CONTROL IN WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS

Fe(OH)+2
0.8 0.8
H2O = ½O2 + 2H+ + 2e– MnO4+
MnO2

0.4 0.4
Fe(OH)3 Mn
OO
H

Eh, volt
0.0 Fe+2 0.0 Mn+2
Mn3O4

FeCO3 MnCO3
–0.4 –0.4

Mn(OH)2

Mn(OH)3–
Fe(OH)2

Fe

–0.8 –0.8
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
pH pH

Figure 4-1 Iron and manganese solubility

Soda ash/potash. Soda ash (sodium carbonate) and potash (potassium carbonate)
are dry compounds that are relatively safe to handle compared to caustic. These carbonate
chemicals will not cause skin irritation. They are recommended for raw waters with DIC
levels between 2 and 25 mg/L. When soda ash or potash is added to a water, there is an
increase in DIC as well as pH. Additionally, a 1-mg/L dose of soda ash or potash increases
the alkalinity by approximately 0.94 mg/L as CaCO3. Because soda ash and potash are safe
to handle, they are strongly recommended as the pH adjustment chemical for schools,
condominiums, or any facility where technical resources are limited. They dissolve more
easily than lime. Potash is more expensive than soda ash but is more soluble and easier to
handle. Therefore, many very small water systems have found potash easier to implement
than soda ash.
Sodium bicarbonate. Sodium bicarbonate is a nonhazardous chemical and is easy
to handle. This chemical is applied to waters with DIC less than 5 mg/L. When sodium
bicarbonate is added to a water, there is an increase in DIC as well as pH. Additionally, a
1-mg/L dose of sodium bicarbonate increases the alkalinity by approximately 0.59 mg/L
as CaCO3. This chemical is limited, however, in that it cannot increase pH above 8.3. Some
utilities use both soda ash or caustic soda and sodium bicarbonate together if a signi昀椀cant
increase in pH and alkalinity is needed.
Lime. Lime is commonly available as either hydrated lime (Ca(OH)2) or quicklime
(CaO). The use of quicklime requires a lime slaker to produce hydrated lime. Quicklime is
usually used in larger facilities because the lower cost of chemicals o昀昀sets the higher cap-
ital and labor costs. Notably, lime can be di昀케cult to use because of its low solubility and
high hygroscopy (i.e., a琀琀raction to moisture in the atmosphere). Caution should be taken
to minimize moisture in quicklime storage areas and silos. Most quicklime is used within
a few weeks of chemical manufacture, as it may form calcium carbonate cake by absorbing
moisture and carbon dioxide. Dry hydrated lime is less hygroscopic and is easier to store
than quicklime. Speci昀椀cations usually require quicklime and hydrated lime to contain
90 percent and 68 percent available calcium oxide, respectively.
Lime may contain contaminants such as heavy metals including aluminum.
Depending on the quality of lime and the amount used, it is possible to increase the alu-
minum level by as much as 0.5 mg/L. Lime may also lead to excessive 昀椀nished water
turbidity if the lime does not dissolve completely. Some utilities will use lime for gross

AWWA Manual M58

 CORROSION CONTROL TREATMENT TECHNIQUES 107

Volumetric
Rotary Feeder

Sample Chute

Dust and
Vapor
Canister
Grit Remover
Chamber

Grit Discharge
Slurry Discharge

Lime Slurry
Heat Exchanger

Figure 4-2 Slurry slaker

pH adjustment and then 昀椀ne-tune the pH with caustic soda. In addition, lime often has a
considerable amount of grit, and sand must be removed once the lime is fully dissolved.
Most water utilities will use a lime slaker. There are basically three types of lime
slakers available on the market:

1. Slurry detention slakers

2. Paste slakers
3. Ball mill slakers

A slaker must mix the correct amount of quicklime (CaO) and water, must hydrate
the quicklime, and must separate the impurities and grit from resultant calcium hydrox-
ide slurry.
A slurry slaker generally uses an initial lime-to-water ratio ranging from 1 to 3.3
to a ratio of 1 to 5 depending on the equipment manufacturer and quality of CaO and
water. Typically a slurry slaker, sometimes called a detention-type slaker, is comprised of
two chambers. The 昀椀rst chamber is called the slaking chamber, where lime and water are
mixed. The second chamber is usually used as a grit removal chamber. The lime slurry 昀氀ows
by gravity from the 昀椀rst chamber to the grit chamber. The slurry viscosity is reduced
in the second chamber by the addition of cold water to allow the heavier grit to se琀琀le to
the bo琀琀om of the second chamber where the grit is elevated and discharged by a screw.
Figure 4-2 shows one such slaker.
The slurry slakers are generally designed for a retention time of 10 minutes at full
rated capacity. This retention time means that from the time a particle of CaO enters the
slaker until it exits into the grit remover takes an average of 10 minutes.
Slurry slakers are available in a variety of sizes ranging from 150 lb/hr to 15 tons/hr.
Slurry slakers are also available with external vibratory grit separation screens. Because
the technology for slurry or detention-type slakers has existed longer, those slakers are
the most common types in Europe and the United States. Paste, and more recently batch,
slakers are becoming more common.
Paste slakers, as the name implies, slake the lime in a paste form. The lime-to-water
ratio is generally 1 to 2.5. Paste slakers are compact in size and are designed for a retention
time of 5 minutes in the slaking chamber. In a paste slaker, because the hydroxide paste
is too heavy to 昀氀ow by gravity, a pair of horizontal rotating paddles pushes the paste for-
ward toward the discharge point. Once the paste exits the slaking chamber, it is diluted to

AWWA Manual M58