September 2007
NSF 06/25/EPADWCTR
EPA/600/R-07/109
Environmental Technology
Verification Report
Removal of Synthetic Organic Chemical
Contaminants in Drinking Water
RASco, Inc.
Advanced Simultaneous Oxidation Process
(ASOP™)
Prepared by
NSF International
Under a Cooperative Agreement with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
This page intentionally blank
-------
THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY VERIFICATION
PROGRAM
c/EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ET
VfYlVl ^^
V
NSF International
ETV Joint Verification Statement
TECHNOLOGY TYPE: POINT-OF-ENTRY DRINKING WATER TREATMENT
SYSTEM
REMOVAL OF SYNTHETIC ORGANIC CHEMICAL
CONTAMINANTS IN DRINKING WATER
ADVANCED SIMULTANEOUS OXIDATION PROCESS
(ASOP™)
RASCO, INC.
1635-2 WOODSIDE DRIVE
WOODBRIDGE, VA 22191
703-643-2952
703-497-2905
ADMIN@RASCOENGINEERS.COM
APPLICATION:
PRODUCT NAME:
VENDOR:
ADDRESS:
PHONE:
FAX:
EMAIL:
NSF International (NSF) manages the Drinking Water Systems (DWS) Center under the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program. The
DWS Center recently evaluated the performance of the RASco, Inc. Advanced Simultaneous Oxidation
Process (ASOP™) Drinking Water Treatment Module. NSF performed all of the testing activities and
also authored the verification report and this verification statement. The verification report contains a
comprehensive description of the testing activities.
The EPA created the ETV Program to facilitate the deployment of innovative or improved environmental
technologies through performance verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV
Program is to further environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and
more cost-effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-
reviewed data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting,
purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations, stakeholder groups
(consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters), and with the full participation of individual
technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative technologies by developing
test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders, conducting field or laboratory tests (as
appropriate), collecting and analyzing data, and preparing peer-reviewed reports. All evaluations are
conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance protocols to ensure that data of known and
adequate quality are generated and that the results are defensible.
NSF 06/25/EPADWCTR
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2007
VS-i
-------
ABSTRACT
The RASco, Inc. ASOP Drinking Water Treatment Module was tested atNSF's Laboratory for the
reduction of the following chemicals of concern: aldicarb, benzene, carbofuran, chloroform, dichlorvos,
dicrotophos, methomyl, mevinphos, nicotine, oxamyl, paraquat, phorate, sodium fluoroacetate, and
strychnine. The ASOP is a component of RASco's Hyd-RO-Secure™ Series 2 Anti-Terrorism/Force
Protection Drinking Water Treatment System, which uses reverse osmosis (RO), the ASOP module, and a
post-ASOP activated carbon filtration to treat drinking water. The ASOP module uses ultraviolet light
(UV) and ozone to oxidize contaminants. An activated carbon filter was evaluated to demonstrate its
capability to adsorb any oxidation byproducts and/or the amounts of challenge chemicals not oxidized by
the ASOP module. The target chemical challenge concentration was 1,000 micrograms per liter (ng/L),
and each challenge was 30 minutes in length. Both the ASOP module and activated carbon filter were
tested at the same time, with the carbon filter plumbed downstream of the ASOP module. Treated water
samples were collected from both the ASOP and carbon filter effluents, so that the ASOP module's
performance could be evaluated alone, and also combined with activated carbon treatment. The percent
reductions for the ASOP module alone ranged from zero for carbofuran, chloroform, and mevinphos, to
98% for strychnine. The combination of the ASOP and activated carbon filter removed all challenge
chemicals, except paraquat, by 94% or more.
TECHNOLOGY DESCRIPTION
The following technology description was provided by the manufacturer and has not been verified.
The patent-pending RASco, Inc. ASOP module is marketed as a component of the point-of-entry Hyd-
RO-Secure Series 2 Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Drinking Water Treatment System. A complete
Hyd-RO-Secure system consists of an RO module, the ASOP module, and an optional post-ASOP
activated carbon filter. The Hyd-RO-Secure is a modular system, with the RO and ASOP components on
individual platforms. The RO and activated carbon components are not standard, but rather are selected
based on the site-specific application. The main components of the ASOP module are an Aquafine model
CSL-4R-UV UV unit, an Ozotech model OZ2BTUSL ozone generator, an Ozotech model PP Phoenix
oxygen generator to supply oxygen to the ozone generator, and an ozone contact tank. A Pentek model
RFC20-BB activated carbon filter supplied by RASco was tested to demonstrate the ability of an
activated carbon filter to adsorb any oxidation by-products and/or the amounts of challenge chemicals not
oxidized by the ASOP module. The carbon filter was plumbed downstream of the ASOP module. A
sampling valve was installed between the ASOP module contact tank and carbon filter to allow sampling
of both the ASOP effluent and carbon filter effluent.
The ASOP module offers simultaneous treatment with both UV light and ozone, plus a contact tank
(volume varies depending on installation) to complete the ozone oxidation treatment. The ozone is
injected into the UV reactor vessel to oxidize contaminants synergistically with the UV light. The UV
light has an output of 30,000 microwatt-seconds/cm2. Delivery of ozone into the reaction chamber is
controlled by adjusting the flow of oxygen into the ozone generator. The ASOP module as tested did not
include any sensors for UV intensity, but it did include an oxidation reduction potential (ORP) meter
immediately downstream of the contact tank to indirectly measure the ozone residual. The contact tank
volume for the test module was 3 gallons (gal). The system is programmed so that the ozone generator
turns on when the ORP meter reaches a preset value, in this case 450 millivolts (mV) or less, and turns off
when the ORP rises to another preset value, in this case 550 mV. The preset ORP values can be changed
depending on the concentration of contaminants being treated. A green light on the system cabinet door
indicates when the ozone generator is functioning. The UV unit inside the ASOP module cabinet has four
lights to indicate whether each UV lamp is functioning.
NSF 06/25/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2007
VS-ii
-------
VERIFICATION TESTING DESCRIPTION
Test Site
The testing site was the Drinking Water Treatment Systems Laboratory at NSF in Ann Arbor, Michigan.
A description of the test apparatus can be found in the verification report.
Methods and Procedures
The challenge tests followed the procedures described in the Test/QA Plan for Verification Testing of the
RASco Engineering, Inc. Hyd-RO-Secure™ Series 2 Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Point-of-Entry
Water Treatment System for Removal of Chemical Contaminants. The chemical challenge protocol was
adapted from the ETV Protocol for Equipment Verification Testing for Removal of Synthetic Organic
Chemical Contaminants. Production of drinking water from an untreated source water was not evaluated;
this verification only evaluated the system's ability to remove chemical contaminants from an otherwise
potable drinking water. The challenge chemicals are listed in Table VS-1. Separate challenges were
conducted for each chemical in the table. The target challenge concentration for each chemical was 1,000
± 500
The ozone generator's oxygen delivery rate for the challenges was approximately 8 cubic feet per minute,
as set by RASco personnel. The flow rate was controlled at 5.0 ± 0.5 gallons per minute (gpm).
According to Aquafine, at this flow rate the 85% theoretical hydraulic residence time for the UV chamber
is 33 seconds. Dividing the contact tank volume (3 gal) by the flow rate, the theoretical hydraulic
residence time for that component is 36 seconds.
The ASOP ozone generator was set to turn on when the ORP meter read 450 mV or less, and turn off
when the ORP rose past 550 mV. The ORP can continue to rise for a period of time if the water has
minimal ozone demand. To ensure that the ozone generator was on at the beginning of each chemical
challenge, and each challenge was conducted under similar ORP conditions, each challenge, except for
sodium fluoroacetate, officially began when the ORP meter read 450 mV. Prior to the start of each
challenge, the ASOP module was turned on and deionized water was run through the unit for
approximately one minute until the ORP rose to above 550 mV. Then the water supply was switched
over to the chemical challenge water, and the ASOP module was operated using this water until the ORP
dropped back down to 450 mV and the ozone generator turned on. The point where the ozone generator
turned on was considered "time zero" for each challenge. The ASOP module was operated continuously
for 30 minutes from time zero for each challenge. For the sodium fluoroacetate challenge, the lab
technician started the challenge when the ORP was 854 mV. The technician attempted to lower the ORP
to 450 mV, but it dropped very slowly, and there was concern that the tank of challenge water would be
exhausted prior to 30 minutes of operation. The ORP only dropped to 483 mV after 30 minutes, so the
ozone generator did not operate at all during the sodium fluoroacetate challenge.
Influent and effluent samples were collected for challenge chemical analysis after 15 and 30 minutes of
operation. The ASOP effluent samples were collected downstream of the contact tank. At 30 minutes,
samples were also collected for oxidation byproducts analysis. To accomplish this, two scans were
conducted: base/neutrals and acids (BNA) according to EPA Method 625, and volatile organic
compounds (VOC's) according to EPA Method 524.2. BNA scans were performed on both the ASOP
and carbon filter effluent samples, but the VOC scan was only performed on the carbon filter effluent
samples.
NSF 06/25/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2007
VS-iii
-------
VERIFICATION OF PERFORMANCE
The chemical challenges data are presented in Table VS-1. The mean challenge chemical concentrations
for the influents, ASOP effluents, and activated carbon filter effluents are presented, as well as the percent
reductions calculated for the ASOP module alone and the ASOP and activated carbon filter treatment
combined.
Table VS-1. Chemical Challenge Results
Challenge Chemical
Mean Mean ASOP
Influent Effluent ASOP %
(M,g/L) (ug/L) Reduction
Mean Carbon ASOP +
Effluent Carbon %
Reduction
Aldicarb
Benzene
Carbofuran
Chloroform
Dichlorvos
Dicrotophos
Methomyl
Mevinphos
Nicotine
Oxamyl
Paraquat
Phorate
Sodium Fluoroacetate
Strychnine
930
440
1100
740
850
750
1200
940
1200
1200
700
630
760
910
160
330
1100
790
430
250
830
1200
80
210
600
170
740
20
83
25
0
0
49
67
31
0
93
83
14
74
2.6
98
4
3.0
22
43
13
23
8
11
4
o
J
340
6
21
5
>99
>99
98
94
99
97
>99
99
>99
>99
51
>99
97
>99
The percent reductions for the ASOP module ranged from zero for carbofuran, chloroform, and
mevinphos, to 98% for strychnine. The combination of the ASOP module and activated carbon filter
removed all challenge chemicals, except paraquat, by 94% or more. However, as previously discussed, a
complete Hyd-RO-Secure system employs an RO system in addition to the ASOP module and activated
carbon filter, but there is no standard RO make and model employed. A previous ETV verification for the
Watts Premier M-2400 POE RO system (EPA/600/R-06/101) demonstrated that the selected RO
membrane reduced by more than 95%, 1 mg/L concentrations of various chemicals, including Paraquat
and most of the chemicals used in this study. Therefore, it is feasible that a complete Hyd-RO-Secure
configuration employing a high quality RO module may also be able to achieve significant chemical
reductions.
As discussed in the Methods and Procedures section, 30-minute influent and effluent samples were
analyzed for oxidation byproducts in addition to the challenge chemicals themselves. The BNA scans did
qualitatively detect "tentatively identified" compounds (TIC) in the contact tank effluent samples, which
may have been oxidation byproducts. However, many of the TICs were detected in both the influents and
contact tank effluents, indicating that perhaps they were impurities in the challenge chemical solutions.
The only compound detected above 10 |o,g/L in the contact tank effluent, but not in the influent, was
methyl dimethylcarbamate for the oxamyl challenge. The activated carbon filter effluent samples did not
yield any BNA scan TICs that could have been oxidation byproducts. However, the activated carbon
filter effluent VOC scans found chloroform, chloromethane, methylene chloride, and total
trihalomethanes, all at less than 10 |o,g/L.
NSF 06/25/EPADWCTR
The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2007
VS-iv
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC)
NSF provided technical and quality assurance oversight of the verification testing as described in the
verification report, including a review of 100% of the data. NSF QA personnel conducted a technical
systems audit at the start of testing to ensure the testing was in compliance with the test plan. A complete
description of the QA/QC procedures is provided in the verification report.
Original signed by S. Gutierrez 08/14/07 Original signed by R.Ferguson 08/10/07
Sally Gutierrez Date Robert Ferguson Date
Director Vice President
National Risk Management Research Water Systems
Laboratory NSF International
Office of Research and Development
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
NOTICE: Verifications are based on an evaluation of technology performance under specific,
predetermined criteria and the appropriate quality assurance procedures. EPA and NSF make no expressed
or implied warranties as to the performance of the technology and do not certify that a technology will
always operate as verified. The end-user is solely responsible for complying with any and all applicable
federal, state, and local requirements. Mention of corporate names, trade names, or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use of specific products. This report is not an NSF
Certification of the specific product mentioned herein.
Availability of Supporting Documents
Copies of the test protocol, the verification statement, and the verification report (NSF report #
NSF 06/25/EPADWCTR) are available from the following sources:
1. ETV Drinking Water Systems Center Manager (order hard copy)
NSF International
P.O. Box 130140
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48113-0140
2. Electronic PDF copy
NSF web site: http://www.nsf.org/info/etv
EPA web site: http://www.epa.gov/etv
NSF 06/25/EPADWCTR The accompanying notice is an integral part of this verification statement. September 2007
VS-v
-------
This page intentionally blank
-------
September 2007
Environmental Technology Verification Report
Removal of Synthetic Organic Chemical Contaminants
in Drinking Water
RASco, Incorporated
Advanced Simultaneous Oxidation Process (ASOP™)
Drinking Water Treatment Module
Prepared by:
NSF International
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Under a cooperative agreement with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Jeffrey Q. Adams, Project Officer
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), through its Office of Research and
Development, has financially supported and collaborated with NSF International (NSF) under
Cooperative Agreement No. R-82833301. This verification effort was supported by the Drinking
Water Systems (DWS) Center, operating under the Environmental Technology Verification
(ETV) Program. This document has been peer-reviewed, reviewed by NSF and USEPA, and
recommended for public release.
11
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is charged by Congress with protecting the
Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, USEPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigation of technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's
research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of
pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protection of water quality in public water
systems; remediation of contaminated sites, sediments and ground water; prevention and control
of indoor air pollution; and restoration of ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public
and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to
anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions to environmental problems
by: developing and promoting technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing
scientific and engineering information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing
the technical support and information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental
regulations and strategies at the national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research plan.
It is published and made available by USEPA's Office of Research and Development to assist
the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Sally Gutierrez, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
in
-------
Table of Contents
Verification Statement VS-i
Title Page i
Notice ii
Foreword iii
Table of Contents iv
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vi
Abbreviations and Acronyms vii
Acknowlegements viii
Chapter 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Purpose and Operation 1
1.2 Purpose of Verification 1
1.3 Testing Participants and Responsibilities 2
1.3.1 NSF International 2
1.3.2 RASco, Inc 2
1.3.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 3
Chapter 2 Equipment Description 4
2.1 Introduction 4
2.2 Hyd-RO-Secure Equipment Description 4
2.3 Activated Carbon Filtration 7
2.4 ASOP Module Operation 8
2.5 Hyd-RO-Secure Operation and Maintenance Requirements 9
Chapters Methods and Procedures 10
3.1 Introduction 10
3.2 Challenge Chemicals 10
3.3 Test Apparatus 10
3.4 Test Unit Set-Up 11
3.5 Chemical Challenge Test Procedure 11
3.5.1 Challenge Water 13
3.5.2 Challenge Procedure 13
3.6 Analytical Methods 14
3.6.1 Water Quality Analytical Methods 14
3.6.2 Challenge Chemical Analytical Methods 15
Chapter 4 Results and Discussion 16
4.1 Chemical Challenges 16
4.2 Oxidation Byproducts 18
Chapters QA/QC 20
5.1 Introduction 20
5.2 Test Procedure QA/QC 20
iv
-------
5.3 Sample Handling 20
5.4 Chemistry Analytical Methods QA/QC 20
5.5 Documentation 20
5.6 Data Review 21
5.7 Data Quality Indicators 21
5.7.1 Representativeness 21
5.7.2 Accuracy 21
5.7.3 Precision 21
5.7.4 Completeness 22
5.7.4.1 Parameters with less than 100% Completeness 22
5.8 Measurements Outside of the Test/QA Plan Specifications 23
Chapter 6 References 25
Chapter 7 Vendor Comments 26
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Hyd-RO-Secure Component Descriptions 6
Table 2-2. Hyd-RO-Secure Equipment Specifications 6
Table 3-1. Challenge Chemicals 10
Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Chemical Challenges 14
Table 4-1. ASOP Module and Carbon Filter Challenge Data 17
Table 4-2. Possible Oxidation Byproducts 19
Table 5-1. Completeness Requirements 22
List of Figures
Figure 2-1. Process diagram of the Hyd-RO-Secure system 5
Figure 2-2. ASOP module ozone contact tank and activated carbon filter 7
Figure 2-3. ASOP ORP meter display and system power switch on cabinet door 9
Figure 3-1. Schematic diagram of the "tank rig" test station 11
Figure 3-2. Hyd-RO-Secure ASOP module and carbon filter plumbed to test rig in NSF testing
laboratory 12
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms
ASOP
BNA
°C
CaCO3
CPU
cm
DWS
ETV
ft
GC/MS
gpm
HC1
HPC
HPLC
L
Ibs
mg
mL
mV
nm
NaCl
NaHCO3
NaOH
NRMRL
NSF
NTU
ORP
OSHA
POE
POU
psig
QA
QC
RO
RPD
SOP
TIC
IDS
TOC
TWA
TWSG
Advanced Simultaneous Oxidation Process
base/neutrals and acids
degrees Celsius
calcium carbonate
colony forming units
centimeter
Drinking Water Systems
Environmental Technology Verification
foot(feet)
gas chromatography/mass spectrometry
gallons per minute
hydrochloric acid
heterotrophic plate count
high pressure liquid chromatography
liter
pounds
milligram
milliliter
millivolt
nanometer
sodium chloride
sodium bicarbonate
sodium hydroxide
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
NSF International (formerly National Sanitation Foundation)
nephelometric turbidity unit
oxidation reduction potential
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
point-of-entry
point-of-use
pounds per square inch, gauge
quality assurance
quality control
reverse osmosis
relative percent difference
standard operating procedure
tentatively identified compound
total dissolved solids
total organic carbon
time weighted average
Technical Support Working Group
VI
-------
Abbreviations and Acronyms (continued)
Hg microgram
|o,S microSiemen
USEPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
UV ultraviolet
VOC volatile organic carbon
vn
-------
Acknowledgments
NSF International was responsible for all elements in the testing sequence, including collection
of samples, calibration and verification of instruments, data collection and analysis, data
management, data interpretation, and the preparation of this report.
The manufacturer of the equipment was:
RASco, Incorporated
1635-2 Woodside Drive
Woodbridge, VA 22191
703-643-2952
NSF wishes to thank the members of the expert technical panel for their assistance with
development of the test plan.
Vlll
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Environmental Technology Verification (ETV) Program Purpose and Operation
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has created the ETV Program to facilitate
the deployment of innovative or improved environmental technologies through performance
verification and dissemination of information. The goal of the ETV Program is to further
environmental protection by accelerating the acceptance and use of improved and more cost-
effective technologies. ETV seeks to achieve this goal by providing high-quality, peer-reviewed
data on technology performance to those involved in the design, distribution, permitting,
purchase, and use of environmental technologies.
ETV works in partnership with recognized standards and testing organizations; with stakeholder
groups consisting of buyers, vendor organizations, and permitters; and with the full participation
of individual technology developers. The program evaluates the performance of innovative
technologies by developing test plans that are responsive to the needs of stakeholders; by
conducting field or laboratory testing, collecting and analyzing data; and by preparing peer-
reviewed reports. All evaluations are conducted in accordance with rigorous quality assurance
protocols to ensure that data of known and adequate quality are generated and that the results are
defensible.
The USEPA has partnered with NSF International (NSF) under the ETV Drinking Water
Systems (DWS) Center to verify performance of drinking water treatment systems that benefit
the public and small communities. It is important to note that verification of the equipment does
not mean the equipment is "certified" by NSF or "accepted" by USEPA. Rather, it recognizes
that the performance of the equipment has been determined and verified by these organizations
under conditions specified in ETV protocols and test plans.
1.2 Purpose of Verification
USEPA's Water Security Research and Technical Support Action Plan (USEPA, 2004) identifies
the need to evaluate point-of-use (POU) and point-of-entry (POE) treatment system capabilities
for removing likely contaminants from drinking water. The purpose of this verification was to
evaluate treatment system performance under a simulated chemical contamination event.
Because any contamination event would likely be short-lived, long-term performance of the
system was not investigated. Each chemical or challenge was only one half-hour long.
By participating in this ETV, RASco has obtained USEPA- and NSF-verified independent test
data indicating potential user protection against intentional or accidental chemical contamination
of drinking water. This verification is a demonstration of possible performance. Verifications
following an EPA approved test/quality assurance (QA) plan serve to notify the public of the
possible level of protection against chemical contaminants afforded to them by the use of the
verified system.
-------
1.3 Testing Participants and Responsibilities
The ETV testing of the RASco, Inc. Advanced Simultaneous Oxidation Process (ASOP™)
drinking water treatment module was a cooperative effort between the following participants:
NSF
RASco, Inc.
USEPA
The following is a brief description of each of the ETV participants and their roles and
responsibilities.
1.3.1 NSF International
NSF is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to public health and safety, and to protection of the
environment. Founded in 1946 and located in Ann Arbor, Michigan, NSF has been instrumental
in the development of consensus standards for the protection of public health and the
environment. The USEPA partnered with NSF to verify the performance of drinking water
treatment systems through the USEPA's ETV Program.
NSF performed all verification testing activities at its Ann Arbor location. NSF prepared the
test/QA plan, performed all testing, managed, evaluated, interpreted, and reported on the data
generated by the testing, and reported on the performance of the technology.
Contact Information:
NSF International
789 N. Dixboro Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Phone: 734-769-8010
Fax: 734-769-0109
Contact: Bruce Bartley, Project Manager
Email: bartley@nsf.org
1.3.2 RASco, Inc.
RASco, Inc. is an engineering, consulting, and design firm. The company's mission is to "create
physical infrastructure solutions that improve homeland security, force protection, public health,
facilities operations, productivity, and the environment."
RASco, Inc. was responsible for supplying the test units and for providing logistical and
technical support as needed.
-------
Contact Information:
RASco, Inc,
1635-2WoodsideDr.
Woodbridge, VA 22191
Phone: 703-643-2952
Fax: 703-497-2905
Contact: Mr. Will Kirksey, P.E.
Email: wkirksey@rascoengineers.com
1.3.3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA, through its Office of Research and Development, has financially supported and
collaborated with NSF under Cooperative Agreement No. R-82833301. This verification effort
was supported by the DWS Center, operating under the ETV Program. This document has been
peer-reviewed, reviewed by USEPA, and recommended for public release.
-------
Chapter 2
Equipment Description
2.1 Introduction
The patent-pending RASco, Inc. ASOP module is marketed as part of the Hyd-RO-Secure POE
water treatment system. The full Hyd-RO-Secure system consists of a reverse osmosis (RO)
treatment module, the ASOP module, and an optional post-ASOP activated carbon filter.
The ASOP module uses ozone and UV light to oxidize chemical and microbiological
contaminants. This verification evaluated the ASOP module only, because the RO and activated
carbon components are not standard. RASco uses different RO systems and carbon filters
depending on the site-specific application. As such, no RO unit was tested with the ASOP
module, but an activated carbon filter supplied by RASco was evaluated to demonstrate the
ability of an activated carbon filter to adsorb any oxidation byproducts and/or the amounts of
challenge chemicals not oxidized by the ASOP module.
2.2 Hyd-RO-Secure Equipment Description
The Hyd-RO-Secure is a modular system, with the RO and ASOP components on individual
platforms.
The main Hyd-RO-Secure system components are:
• Optional feed water booster pump;
• Optional sediment filter upstream of RO system;
• Centrifugal multi-stage pump for RO feed water;
• RO system;
• ASOP module;
• Contact tank downstream of the ASOP module;
• Optional post-ASOP carbon filtration; and
• Backwash pump for the RO system.
The main components of the ASOP module are:
• Aquafme CSL-4R-UV ultraviolet (UV) light unit;
• Ozotech OZ2BTUSL ozone generator; and
• Ozotech PP Phoenix oxygen generator.
The system as tested included one ASOP module with the components listed above, a three-
gallon fiberglass contact tank downstream of the ASOP module, and a Pentek RFC20-BB
granular activated carbon filter downstream of the contact tank. See Section 2.3 for further
discussion about the activated carbon filter.
-------
A process diagram of the Hyd-RO-Secure system is shown in Figure 2-1. Accompanying
component descriptions are given in Table 2-1. The Hyd-RO-Secure operating specifications are
listed in Table 2-2. The ozone contact tank and activated carbon filter are shown in Figure 2.2.
Source
Water
From
Treated
Water
Storage
Tank
Figure 2-1. Process diagram of the Hyd-RO-Secure system.
-------
Item
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Table
Description
Pressure Gauge #1
Cartridge Filter
Pressure Gauge #2
High Pressure Pump
Pressure Gauge #3
RO Unit #1
RO Unit #2
ASOP Module
Pressure Gauge #4
Recirculation Valve
Reject Needle Valve
Backwash Valve
Drain Valve
Backwash Pump
Product Water Valve
2-1: Hyd-RO-Secure Component Descriptions
Manufacturer & Model Function
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sta-Rite Dura-Glas, P2RA5D
3/.hp, VAC 115/230
N/A
Various
Various
1. Aquafine UVLamp, Model
CSL-4R
2. Ozotech O2 Generator,
Model PP
3. Ozotech, O3 Unit,
#OZ2BTUSL
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sta-Rite Dura-Glas, P2RA5D
3/4hp, VAC 115/230
N/A
Measures inlet pressure
Feed water filter ~ sediment/particle
Measures pressure at cartridge filter effluent
Boosts inlet pressure to RO membranes
Measures pump pressure boost
Water treatment
Water treatment
Water treatment
Measures stream pressure
Recirculates system concentrate
Allows membrane element pressurization
Provides clean backwash water
Allows waste to drain
Forces clean water across membranes in reverse
flow to wash off debris
Allows product water line pressurization/control
Table 2-2. Hyd-RO-Secure Equipment Specifications
Parameter Specification
Dry Weight
500-600 pounds (Ibs.)
Wet Weight
1500-1750 Ibs.
Feed Water:
Temperature
0.2 to 40°C (33 to 104°F)
Max. Feed Flow Rate
Variable0}
Inlet Pressure
30 to 60 pounds per square inch, gauge (psig)
PH
5.5 to 8.5
Chlorine
Non-detect
Silt Density Index
< 5 without pre-treatment
ASOP Electrical Requirements:
208 volts, 20 amp,single phase
(1) The maximum feed flow rate varies, depending on the RO system used, and the desired ozone and UV contact
time. The flow rate was set at five gallons per minute (gpm) for testing, as requested by RASco.
-------
Figure 2-2. ASOP module ozone contact tank and activated carbon filter.
2.3 Activated Carbon Filtration
As discussed in Section 2.1, an activated carbon filter was tested along with the ASOP module
The activated carbon filter supplied by RASco was the Pentek RFC20-BB granular activated
carbon filter. The RFC20-BB is a 4.5" x 20" radial flow cartridge. Pentek states that the
RFC20-BB is effective at removing chlorine, tastes, and odors with a filter life of 70,000 gallons
or greater at a flow rate of 4 gpm. The manufacturer makes no claims about removal of organic
chemicals or pesticides, as used for verification testing. The filter was not evaluated over its
effective lifespan. Please note that this filter was included with the test equipment only to
examine the effectiveness of an activated carbon filter to adsorb any oxidation byproducts and/or
the amounts of challenge chemicals not oxidized by the ASOP module. Using a different
activated carbon filter with a different carbon type, contact time, or lifespan may affect
performance of the Hyd-RO-Secure system.
-------
2.4 ASOP Module Operation
The ASOP module offers simultaneous treatment with both UV light and ozone, plus a contact
tank to complete the ozone oxidation treatment. The oxygen generator collects and concentrates
oxygen from the ambient air. The oxygen is sent to the ozone generator, which converts the
oxygen to ozone using electrical arcs. The ozone generator also includes an air dryer. The
ozone is injected into the UV reactor vessel to oxidize contaminants synergistically with the UV
light. The UV light has an output of 30,000 microwatt-seconds per square centimeter. Delivery
of ozone into the reaction chamber is controlled by adjusting the flow of oxygen into the ozone
generator. The ASOP module as tested did not include any sensors for UV intensity, but it did
include an oxidation reduction potential (ORP) meter immediately downstream of the contact
tank to indirectly measure the ozone residual. The system is programmed so that the ozone
generator turns on when the ORP meter reaches a preset value, in this case 450 millivolts (mV)
or less, and turns off when the ORP rises to another preset value, in this case 550 mV. The
preset ORP values can vary depending on the concentration of contaminants being treated. A
green light on the system cabinet door indicates when the ozone generator is functioning. The
UV unit inside the ASOP module cabinet has four lights to indicate whether each UV bulb is
functioning. The ORP meter display, ozone generator indicator light, and ASOP component
on/off switch on the cabinet door are shown in Figure 2-3.
The ASOP module was operated at approximately 5 gpm for verification testing, as requested by
RASco, Inc. According to Aquafine, at this flow rate the 85% theoretical hydraulic residence
time (residence time for 85% of the water molecules) for the UV chamber is 33 seconds. Simply
dividing the contact tank volume by the flow rate, the theoretical hydraulic residence time for
that component is 36 seconds.
Note that for the full Hyd-RO-Secure system, the RO module permeate rate will dictate the flow
rate through the ASOP module. Also, the volume of the post-ASOP contact tank will determine
the ozone contact time before the water is discharged. The ASOP flow rate and ozone contact
time are critical operational parameters for oxidation treatment.
-------
Figure 2-3. ASOP ORP meter display and system power switch on cabinet door.
2.5 Hyd-RO-Secure Operation and Maintenance Requirements
No routine maintenance of the ASOP module was required during this verification. RASco
advises the user to follow the maintenance requirements for the RO system and individual ASOP
module components. There are no special licensing requirements to operate the Hyd-RO-Secure
system.
-------
Chapter 3
Methods and Procedures
3.1 Introduction
The challenge tests followed the procedures described in the Test/QA Plan for Verification
Testing of the RASco Engineering, Inc. Hyd-RO-Secure™ Series 2 Anti-Terrorism/Force
Protection Point-of-Entry Water Treatment System for Removal of Chemical Contaminants
(NSF, 2006a). The chemical challenge protocol was adapted from the ETVProtocolfor
Equipment Verification Testing for Removal of Synthetic Organic Chemical Contaminants
(USEPA and NSF, 2004).
The purpose of this verification was to assess the ASOP module's synthetic organic chemical
oxidation performance. An activated carbon filter was included to demonstrate the ability of an
activated carbon to adsorb any oxidation byproducts and/or the amounts of the challenge
chemicals not oxidized by the ASOP module. Production of drinking water from an untreated
source water was not evaluated; this verification only evaluated the system's ability to remove
synthetic organic chemical contaminants from an otherwise potable drinking water.
One Hyd-RO-Secure ASOP module and one Pentek RFC20-BB activated carbon filter were
tested.
3.2 Challenge Chemicals
The challenge chemicals used in this product verification are listed in Table 3-1. They were
chosen as chemicals of interest by the EPA.
Table 3-1. Challenge
Aldicarb
Benzene
Carbofuran
Chloroform
Dichlorvos
Chemicals
Mevinphos
Nicotine
Oxamyl
Paraquat
Phorate
Dicrotophos Sodium Fluoroacetate
Methomyl Strychnine
3.3 Test Apparatus
The unit to be tested was plumbed to a "tank rig" test station in the NSF testing laboratory. The
tank rig uses a 500-gallon polyethylene tank to hold the challenge water. See Figure 3-1 for a
schematic diagram of the tank rig. Figure 3-2 shows the test unit plumbed to a tank rig test
station.
10
-------
Any suitable pressure or delivery system
Water supply
Tank
fill Mechanica
1 valve filter
Back flow preventer \ /
*— '
Mixer
CDj
i ^
i
cr>
NP
/N Tank
Drain ine '
Pressure
gauge
„ 9
^,
_f >>
/\ Diaphragm
Pump " . ,
Pressure
regulator
T
1 1 s
\
Inf
san
P
s
X Valves
^J
Influent
sampling
point
0-
Water meters
Pressure gauges
o
Test units
Cycling
solenoid A
Product water
sampling points
Cycling
solenoid B
Figure 3-1. Schematic diagram of the "tank rig" test station.
3.4 Test Unit Set-Up
The ASOP module and activated carbon filter were delivered to NSF by RASco personnel. The
RASco representatives worked with NSF lab technicians to plumb the test equipment to the test
rig. No shakedown testing was conducted, but the equipment was operated using municipal
drinking water and was configured by the RASco personnel to their satisfaction. The oxygen
delivery rate to the ozone generator was set at eight cubic feet per minute (ft'Vmin). The test
equipment was not conditioned on site prior to the challenge tests.
The system's ORP meter was located on the contact tank effluent pipe, upstream of the carbon
filter. ORP was recorded for each challenge, however the calibration of the meter was not
verified as part of the testing. A sampling valve was located immediately downstream of the
contact tank for sampling the ASOP module effluent.
3.5 Chemical Challenge Test Procedure
Separate challenges were conducted for each chemical in Table 3-1. Each chemical was added
to the test water described below in Section 3.5.1 to make the challenge water. The target
challenge concentration for each chemical was 1+0.5 milligrams per liter (mg/L).
11
-------
Figure 3-2. Hyd-RO-Secure ASOP module and carbon filter plumbed to test rig in NSF
testing laboratory.
12
-------
3.5.1 Challenge Water
Since the Hyd-RO-Secure system includes RO treatment upstream of the ASOP module under
normal operation, the test water did not need to contain organic content at a level that imparted a
significant ozone and UV demand. Therefore, the base test water was local municipal drinking
water treated by carbon filtration, RO, and deionization. The base water had the following
characteristics:
• Conductivity < 2 microSiemens per centimeter (|j,S/cm) at 25°C;
• Total organic carbon (TOC) < 100 micrograms per liter (|j,g/L);
• Total chlorine < 0.05 mg/L; and
• Heterotrophic bacteria plate count (HPC) < 100 Colony Forming Units per milliliter
(CFU/mL).
The parameters are measured periodically by NSF as part of an internal quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC) program for water used for testing purposes.
From the base water above, the challenge water was created with the following characteristics to
simulate an RO effluent water:
• Target alkalinity (as CaCOs) of 10 ± 5 mg/L prior to pH adjustment;
• Target total dissolved solids (TDS) level of 20 + 5 mg/L;
• pH of 7.5 ±0.5;
• Temperature of 20 ± 2.5°C; and
• Challenge chemical at 1,000 + 500
Sodium bicarbonate (NaHCOs) was used to add alkalinity to the water. Sodium chloride (NaCl)
was used for TDS. The pH was adjusted with either hydrochloric acid (HC1) or sodium
hydroxide (NaOH). Grab samples were collected during each challenge for analysis for
alkalinity, pH, temperature, total chlorine, TDS, TOC, and turbidity. See Table 3-2 for the
sampling plan.
This challenge water was used for all tests except the sodium flouroacetate challenge. During a
previous ETV test, NSF discovered that NaCl interfered with the ion chromatography procedure
for measuring sodium fluoroacetate. Therefore, no NaCl was added to the tank of sodium
fluoroacetate challenge water. Also, no sodium bicarbonate was added as a precaution.
3.5.2 Challenge Procedure
The inlet water pressure was set at 50 + 3 psig, and the flow rate was controlled at 5.0 + 0.5 gpm.
As discussed in Section 2.4, the ASOP ozone generator was set to turn on when the ORP meter
read 450 mV or less, and turn off when the ORP rose past 550 mV. The ORP can continue to
rise for a period of time if the water has minimal ozone demand. To ensure that the ozone
generator was on at the beginning of each chemical challenge, and each challenge was conducted
under similar ORP conditions, each challenge, except sodium fluoroacetate, officially began
when the ORP meter read 450 mV. Prior to the official start of each challenge, the ASOP
module was turned on, and deionized water was run through the unit for approximately one
minute until the ORP rose to above 550 mV. Then the water supply was switched over to the
13
-------
chemical challenge water, and the ASOP module was operated using this water until the ORP
dropped back down to 450 mV and the ozone generator turned on. The point where the ozone
generator turned on was considered "time zero". The ASOP module was operated continuously
for 30 minutes from time zero for each challenge. For the sodium fluoroacetate challenge, the
lab technician started the challenge before the ORP dropped to 450 mV. The technician
attempted to lower the ORP to 450 mV, but it dropped very slowly, and there was concern that
the tank of challenge water would be exhausted prior to 30 minutes of operation.
Note that the 30-minute challenges specified by the test plan were not of sufficient length to
measure the ambient ozone for comparison to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) allowable eight-hour time weighted average (TWA) exposure.
Samples were collected according to Table 3-2. To analyze for oxidation byproducts, NSF
performed two scans: base/neutrals and acids (BNA) according to EPA Method 625, and
volatile organic compounds (VOC) according to EPA Method 524.2. The VOC scan was only
performed on carbon filter effluent samples.
Table 3-2. Sampling Plan for Chemical Challenges
Samples to Collect
Sample Point
ASOP Influent
ASOP Effluent
Carbon Filter Effluent
Parameters
Water Chemistry
pH
Challenge Chemical
Oxidation Byproducts
Challenge Chemical
Oxidation Byproducts
Residual Ozone
Challenge Chemical
Oxidation Byproducts
Residual Ozone
15 Minutes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
30 Minutes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
3.6 Analytical Methods
3.6.1 Water Quality Analytical Methods
All analyses followed procedures detailed in NSF standard operating procedures (SOP). The
following are the analytical methods used during verification testing:
• Alkalinity was measured according to EPA Method 310.2 with the SmartChem Discrete
Analyzer. Alkalinity was expressed as mg/L CaCOs.
• Ozone - Ozone was measured colorimetrically according to Standard Method 4500-O3
(APHA, AWWA, and WEF, Washington D.C.) using a Hach DR/2010 spectrophotometer
and Hach Indigo AccuVac® ampules.
14
-------
• pH measurements were made with a Beckman 350 pH meter. The meter was operated
according to the manufacturer's instructions, which are based on Standard Method 4500-
H+.
• TDS was measured gravimetrically using a method adapted from USEPA Methods 160.3
and 160.4. An appropriate amount of sample was placed in a pre-weighed evaporating
dish. The sample was evaporated and dried at 103-105°C to a constant weight.
• Temperature was measured using an Omega model HH11 digital thermometer, or
equivalent.
• TOC was measured according to Standard Method 53 IOC using a Teledyne Technologies
Company Tekmar Dohrmann Phoenix 8000 UV-Persulfate TOC analyzer.
• Total chlorine was measured according to Standard Method 4500-C1 G using a Hach
Model DR/2010 spectrophotometer and AccuVac ampules.
• Turbidity was measured according to Standard Method 2130 using a Hach 2100N
turbidimeter.
3.6.2 Challenge Chemical Analytical Methods
• Aldicarb, carbofuran, methomyl, and oxamyl were measured by high-pressure liquid
chromatography (HPLC) according to USEPA Method 531.1 or 531.2.
• Dichlorvos, dicrotophos, mevinphos, nicotine, and phorate were measured by gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS) according to USEPA Method 525.2.
• Benzene and chloroform were measured by purge and trap capillary gas chromatography
according to USEPA Method 502.2.
• There is no standard analytical method for strychnine. NSF developed and has used a
method to measure it using reverse phase HPLC with ultraviolet lamp detection.
• Oxidation byproducts were measured by GC/MS according to USEPA Method 625 -
Base/Neutrals and Acids, and by GC/MS according to USEPA Method 524.2.
• Paraquat was measured by HPLC according to USEPA Method 549.1.
• Sodium fluoroacetate was measured by ion chromatography according to USEPA
Method 300.1.
15
-------
Chapter 4
Results and Discussion
4.1 Chemical Challenges
The chemical challenge data are presented below in Table 4-1. The challenge chemical
concentrations for the influents, contact tank effluents, and carbon filter effluents are shown at
the top of the table. From these numbers, percent reductions were calculated for the ozone and
UV oxidation of the ASOP module alone, and also for ASOP and activated carbon treatment
combined.
The percent reductions for the ASOP module ranged from zero for carbofuran, chloroform, and
mevinphos, to ninety-eight for strychnine. The combination of the ASOP module and activated
carbon filter removed all challenge chemicals, except paraquat, by 94% or more.
As discussed in Chapter 2, the full Hyd-RO-Secure system employs an RO system in addition to
the ASOP module and an activated carbon filter, but no standard make or model is used. A
previous ETV verification for the Watts Premier M-2400 POE RO system (EPA/600/R-06/101)
demonstrated that the selected RO membrane reduced by more than 95%, 1 mg/L concentrations
of various chemicals, including Paraquat and most of the chemicals used in this study (NSF,
2006b). Therefore, it is feasible that a complete Hyd-RO-Secure configuration employing a high
quality RO module may also be able to achieve significant chemical reductions.
Underneath the challenge chemical data in Table 4-1 are the oxygen delivery rate settings,
residual ozone measurements, and ORP meter readings for each challenge. Note that the residual
ozone measurements from the three challenges conducted first (methomyl, oxamyl, and
strychnine) are not reported due to analytical error. Also note that the ORP rose to 550 mV or
above during the dichlorvos, dicrotophos, and methomyl challenges. As such, the ozone
generator shut off during these tests. As discussed in Section 3.5.2, the sodium fluoroacetate
challenge was started with the ORP above 450 mV. The ORP was 854 mV at time zero, and
only dropped to 483 mV at 30 minutes, so the ozone generator did not operate during this
challenge.
Also presented in Table 4-1 are the influent flow rate and pressure data, and the water chemistry
data for each challenge. Note that no flow rate or pressure data is given for the phorate
challenge, because the lab technician did not record the data. Also, all of the planned TOC
samples were collected, but some were not analyzed due to miscommunication with the NSF
Chemistry Laboratory.
16
-------
Table 4-1. ASOP Module and Activated Carbon Filter Chemical Challenge Data
Aldicarb Benzene Carbofuran Chloroform Dichlorvos Dicrotophos Methomyl
Challenge Chemical Data (ug/L):
15-Minute Influent
15-Minute ASOP Effluent
15-Minute Carbon Effluent
30-Minute Influent
30-Minute ASOP Effluent
30-Minute Carbon Effluent
Influent
ASOP Effluent
ASOP % Reduction
Carbon Filter Effluent
ASOP+Carbon % Reduction
860
260
5
990
53
2
930
160
83
4
>99
450
340
2.9
430
310
3.0
440
330
25
3.0
>99
1000
1100
22
1100
1000
21
1100
1100
0
22
98
710
790
40
770
790
45
740
790
0
43
94
810
480
12
890
380
13
850
430
49
13
99
750
200
19
740
290
26
750
250
67
23
97
1200
550
5
1200
1100
10
1200
830
31
8
>99
Oxygen Delivery (ftVmin)
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
Residual Ozone (mg/L):
15-Minute ASOP Effluent
30-Minute ASOP Effluent
15-Minute Carbon Effluent
30-Minute Carbon Effluent
ORP Meter Readings (mV):
Start-up
15 Minutes
30 Minutes
Start-up Influent Flow Rate (gpm)
Start-up Influent Pressure (psig)
30-Minute Influent Flow Rate (gpm)
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
0.08
0.06
450
515
140
5.15
50
4.95
ND (0.05)
0.07
0.20
ND (0.05)
450
203
208
5.10
50
5.00
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
0.06
450
238
214
5.15
60
5.20
0.06
0.19
ND (0.05)
0.07
450
372
502
5.29
50
5.20
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
450
818
635
5.08
50
5.11
ND (0.05)
0.19
ND (0.05)
0.13
450
220
550
5.11
50
5.16
(i)
(it
(i)
(ii
450
512
763
5.00
50
5.05
1 5-Minute Influent Water Chemistry
pH
Temperature (°C)
Turbidity (NTU)
Alkalinity (mg/L CaCO3)
TDS (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
7.9
20
ND(O.l)
23
19
(2)
ND (0.05)
7.8
19
0.1
21
30
ND(O.l)
ND (0.05)
7.5
19
ND(O.l)
23
11
(2)
ND (0.05)
7.7
20
0.1
29
30
ND(O.l)
ND (0.05)
7.3
20
ND(O.l)
21
36
ND(O.l)
ND (0.05)
7.5
19
0.1
22
34
ND(O.l)
ND (0.05)
7.3
20
0.3
26
40
(2)
ND (0.05)
15-Minute ASOP pH
1 5-Minute Carbon Effluent pH
30-Minute Influent pH
30-Minute ASOP pH
30-Minute Carbon Effluent pH
7.6
6.3
7.7
7.6
6.8
7.4
6.8
7.5
7.1
7.0
6.6
6.6
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.5
7.3
7.6
7.2
6.9
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.0
6.8
6.8
6.5
7.2
6.8
6.8
6.9
7.2
7.3
7.0
7.3
(1) Results not reported due to analytical error
(2) Samples not analyzed for TOC
17
-------
Table 4-1. ASOP Module and Activated Carbon Filter Chemical Challenge Data (continued)
Mevinphos Nicotine
Oxaniyl
Paraquat
Phorate
Sodium
Fluoroacetate Strychnine
Challenge Chemical Data (ug/L):
15-Minute Influent
15-Minute ASOP Effluent
15-Minute Carbon Effluent
30-Minute Influent
30-Minute ASOP Effluent
30-Minute Carbon Effluent
Influent
ASOP Effluent
ASOP % Reduction
Carbon Filter Effluent
ASOP+Carbon % Reduction
960
1100
12
910
1200
10
940
1200
0
11
99
1200
84
4
1200
78
4
1200
SO
93
4
>99
1200
200
3
1200
210
3
1200
210
83
3
>99
750
650
250
640
540
430
700
600
14
340
51
640
180
6
620
150
5
630
170
74
6
>99
760
740
20
760
740
22
760
740
2.6
21
97
910
22
5
910
19
5
910
20
98
5
>99
Oxygen Delivery (ftVinin)
Residual Ozone (mg/L):
15-Minute ASOP Effluent
30-Minute ASOP Effluent
15-Minute Carbon Effluent
30-Minute Carbon Effluent
8
0.06
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
8
ND(0.05)
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
8
_JTj
(1)
(1)
(1)
9
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
9
ND(0.05)
ND (0.05)
0.05
ND (0.05)
8
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
ND (0.05)
0.14
8
IT)
_(1)
(1)
— U)
ORP Meter Readings (mV):
Start-up
15 Minutes
30 Minutes
450
328
360
450
258
251
450
275
455
450
252
439
450
247
246
854
666
483
450
233
235
Start-up Influent Flow Rate (gpm)
Start-up Influent Pressure (psig)
30-Minute Influent Flow Rate (gpm)
5.15
50
5.15
5.02
50
5.09
5.00
50
4.80
5.05
50
5.05
(3)
(3)
(3)
5.05
50
5.00
5.05
50
5.10
1 5-Minute Influent Water Chemistry
pH
Temperature (°C)
Turbidity (NTU)
Alkalinity (mg/'L CaCO3)
TDS (mg/L)
TOC (mg/L)
Total Chlorine (mg/L)
7.9
20
0.1
28
30
ND(O.l)
ND (0.05)
7.4
19
0.2
24
18
ND(O.l)
ND (0.05)
7.2
20
0.2
59
42
(2)
ND (0.05)
7.1
21
ND(O.l)
17
31
(2)
ND (0.05)
7.4
21
0.5
24
18
ND(O.l)
0.05
5.8
20
0.1
ND(5)
6.0
(2)
ND (0.05)
7.3
21
0.1
25
45
(2)
ND (0.05)
15-Minute ASOP pH
15-Minute Carbon Effluent pH
30-Minute Influent pFI
30-Minute ASOP pH
30-Minute Carbon Effluent pH
( 1 ) Results not reported due to analyti
(2) Samples not analyzed for TOC
(3) Parameters not recorded
(4) pH sample point missed
7.7
7.1
7.9
7.8
7.2
cal error
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.9
7.2
7.1
6.8
6.8
6.9
6.9
6.9
6.7
6.8
6.9
7.2
7.0
7.2
7.0
7.0
5.7
6.3
5.4
5.2
5.7
5.1
(4)
7.1
7.0
7.6
4.2 Oxidation Byproducts
As discussed in Section 3.5.2, 30-minute influent and effluent samples were analyzed for
oxidation byproducts in addition to the challenge chemicals themselves. The BNA scans
according to EPA Method 625 did qualitatively detect "tentatively identified" compounds (TIC)
in the contact tank effluent samples, which may have been oxidation byproducts. However,
many of the TICs were detected in both the influents and contact tank effluents, indicating that
perhaps they were impurities in the challenge chemical solutions. The compounds detected in
the contact tank effluent, but not in the influent samples, are listed in Table 4-2. No chemicals
were detected in the activated carbon filter effluent samples.
18
-------
The only compounds detected in the carbon filter effluent VOC scans were chloroform,
chloromethane, methylene chloride, and total trihalomethanes. All were measured at less than ten
, so the data is not reported here.
Table 4-2. Possible Oxidation Byproducts
Contact Tank
Challenge _ Detected TIC _ Effluent
Aldicarb Oxygen compound with a molecular weight (MW) > 85 8
Nitrogen compound with an MW > 85 5
Dimethyl Bisulfide 9
Dicrotophos __ Nitrogen and oxygen compound #1 with an MW > 129 __ 5
Nitrogen and oxygen compound #2 with anMW > 129 5
Oxamyl Methyl Dimethylcarbamate 30
_ Nitrogen compound with an MW > 98 _ 4
19
-------
Chapter 5
QA/QC
5.1 Introduction
An important aspect of verification testing is the QA/QC procedures and requirements. Careful
adherence to the procedures ensured that the data presented in this report was of sound quality,
defensible, and representative of the equipment performance. The primary areas of evaluation
were representativeness, accuracy, precision, and completeness.
Because the ETV was conducted at the NSF testing lab, all laboratory activities were conducted
in accordance with the provisions of the NSF International Laboratories Quality Assurance
Manual (NSF 2004).
5.2 Test Procedure QA/QC
NSF testing laboratory staff conducted the tests by following a USEPA-approved test/Q A plan
created specifically for this verification. NSF QA Department staff performed an internal audit
at the start of testing. The audit yielded no findings.
5.3 Sample Handling
All samples analyzed by the NSF Chemistry Laboratory were labeled with unique ID numbers.
These ID numbers appear in the NSF laboratory reports for the tests. All samples were analyzed
within allowable holding times.
5.4 Chemistry Analytical Methods QA/QC
The calibrations of all analytical instruments and the analyses of all parameters complied with
the QA/QC provisions of the NSF International Laboratories Quality Assurance Manual.
The NSF QA/QC requirements are all compliant with those given in the USEPA method or
Standard Method for the parameter. Also, each analytical instrument has an NSF SOP governing
its use.
5.5 Documentation
All laboratory activities were documented using specially prepared laboratory bench sheets or
NSF laboratory reports. Data from the bench sheets and laboratory reports were entered into
Excel spreadsheets. These spreadsheets were used to calculate average influents and effluents,
and percent reductions for each challenge. One hundred percent of the data entered into the
spreadsheets was checked by a reviewer to confirm all data and calculations were correct.
20
-------
5.6 Data Review
NSF QA/QC staff reviewed the raw data records for compliance with QA/QC requirements.
NSF ETV staff checked 100% of the data in the NSF laboratory reports against the Chemistry
Laboratory bench sheets.
5.7 Data Quality Indicators
The quality of data generated for this ETV is established through four indicators of data quality:
representativeness, accuracy, precision, and completeness.
5.7.1 Representativeness
Representativeness refers to the degree to which the data accurately and precisely represent the
expected performance of the equipment tested. Representativeness was ensured by consistent
execution of the test protocol for each challenge, including timing of sample collection, sampling
procedures, and sample preservation. Representativeness was also ensured by using each
analytical method at its optimum capability to provide results that represent the most accurate
and precise measurement it is capable of achieving.
5.7.2 Accuracy
Accuracy was quantified as the percent recovery of the parameter in a sample of known quantity.
Accuracy was measured through use of both matrix spikes of a known quantity, and certified
standards during calibration of an instrument. The following equation was used to calculate
percent recovery:
Percent ReCOVery = 100 X [(Xknown - Xmeasured)/Xknown]
where: Xkn0wn = known concentration of the measured parameter
= measured concentration of parameter
Accuracy of the benchtop pH and turbidity meters, and the spectrophotometer used for total
chlorine and ozone analyses, was checked daily during the calibration procedures using certified
check standards. Alkalinity, TOC, and TDS were analyzed in batches with non-ETV samples.
Certified QC standards and/or matrix spikes were run with each batch.
The percent recoveries of all matrix spikes and standards were within the allowable limits for all
analytical methods.
5.7.3 Precision
Precision refers to the degree of mutual agreement among individual measurements and provides
an estimate of random error. One sample per batch was analyzed in duplicate for the TDS
measurements. Duplicate municipal drinking water samples were analyzed for pH, total
chlorine, and turbidity as part of the daily calibration process for the analytical instruments. One
21
-------
out of every ten samples for alkalinity and TOC was analyzed in duplicate. As discussed in
Section 5.7.2, samples for alkalinity, TDS, and TOC were batched for analysis with other non-
ETV samples. Therefore, the duplicate analysis requirements apply to the whole batch, not just
samples from this ETV. Precision of duplicate analyses was measured by use of the following
equation to calculate relative percent difference (RPD):
RPD =
x200
S,+S2
where:
Sl = sample analysis result; and
S2 = sample duplicate analysis result.
All RPDs were within NSF's established allowable limits for each parameter.
5.7.4 Completeness
Completeness is the proportion of valid, acceptable data generated using each method as
compared to the requirements of the test/QA plan. The completeness objective for data
generated during verification testing is based on the number of samples collected and analyzed
for each parameter and/or method. Table 5-1 presents the completeness requirements.
Table 5-1. Completeness Requirements
Number of Samples per
Parameter and/or Method
0-10
11-50
>50
Percent
Completeness
80%
90%
95%
Completeness is defined as follows for all measurements:
%C = (V/T)X100
where:
%C = percent completeness;
V = number of measurements judged valid; and
T = total number of measurements.
5.7.4.1 Parameters with less than 100% Completeness
• As discussed in Section 3.5.2, the contact tank effluent and carbon filter effluent were
measured for ozone residual twice during each challenge, but the results were not
reportable for three challenges due to analytical error. A total of 56 samples were
collected for ozone analysis, but only 44 samples gave reportable results. This gives a
22
-------
completeness of 79% for ozone. This completeness percentage does not meet the
minimum completeness requirement in Table 5-1. The lack of ozone data does not
invalidate the data for the three challenges in question, because the objective of the tests
was to evaluate the ASOP module's ability to oxidize the challenge chemicals, and this
objective was accomplished.
• As discussed in Section 4.1, some of the TOC samples were not analyzed due to
miscommunication with the NSF Chemistry Laboratory. Fourteen samples were
collected for TOC, but only seven were analyzed. This gives a completeness of 50%. A
completeness of 50% does not meet the minimum requirement in Table 5-1 for this
parameter. However, since the test water was created from municipal water treated by
reverse osmosis and deionization, and the TOC measurements that were conducted were
all non-detects, NSF is confident that TOC was near or below the detection limit of 0.1
mg/L for all challenges.
• One pH measurement was missed during the strychnine challenge, so 83 of the planned
84 pH measurements were taken. This gives a completeness of 99% for pH. The
completeness for pH meets the requirement in Table 5-1.
• As discussed in Section 4.1, the influent flow rate and water pressure data were not
recorded for the phorate challenge. The missed readings give a completeness of 93% for
these parameters. The completeness for flow rate and pressure measurements meets the
requirement in Table 5-1.
5.8 Measurements Outside of the Test/QA Plan Specifications
• As discussed in Section 3.5.1, the base test water without any sodium bicarbonate or
NaCl added was used for the sodium fluoroacetate challenge. Therefore, the alkalinity,
pH, and TDS are below the target ranges for these parameters. The missing salts limited
the buffering capacity of the water, and likely caused the pH to be below the minimum
target of 7.0. It is unknown what impact the low pH had on the ASOP module's ability to
oxidize sodium fluoroacetate.
• For the challenge water, the alkalinity was targeted at 10 + 5 mg/L prior to pH
adjustment, and TDS was targeted at 20 + 5 mg/L. However, the testing lab had
difficulty keeping both parameters within these ranges due to the low specified levels and
small target windows as compared to the large water volumes created for each test
(approximately 500 gallons). Also, the alkalinity samples were collected after pH
adjustment, so the data would be representative of the final challenge water. The
alkalinity readings were all above 15 mg/L (excluding the phorate challenge), ranging
from 17 mg/L to 59 mg/L. Most of the TDS levels were above 25 mg/L, ranging from 11
mg/L to 45 mg/L. It is unlikely that the higher levels of these parameters affected the test
results in any way, they simply added more buffering capacity to the water. Also, the
target ranges were set arbitrarily to simulate RO effluent water, as stated in Section 3.5.1.
Water treated by RO could have higher levels of alkalinity and TDS up to, or beyond 50
mg/L.
23
-------
• The benzene challenge was below the specified minimum level of 500 ng/L. The 15-
minute influent sample was 450 |J,g/L, and the 30-minute influent sample was 430 [ig/L.
The low challenge level did not limit the measured percent reduction, since the ASOP
module removed only 25% of the benzene.
24
-------
Chapter 6
References
APHA, AWWA, and WEF. 1999. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, 20th edition. Washington D.C., APHA, AWWA, and WEF.
NSF International. 2004. NSF International Laboratories Quality Assurance Manual. Ann
Arbor, NSF International.
NSF International. 2006a. Test/QA Plan for Verification Testing of the RASco Engineering, Inc.
Hyd-RO-Secure™ Series 2 Anti-Terrorism/Force Protection Point-of-Entry Water Treatment
System for Removal of Chemical Contaminants. Ann Arbor, NSF International.
NSF International. 2006b. Environmental Technology Verification Report. Removal of
Chemical andMicrobial Contaminants in Drinking Water, Watts Premier, Inc. M-2400
Point-of-Entry Reverse Osmosis Drinking Water Treatment System. EPA/600/R-06/101.
Ann Arbor, NSF International.
USEPA. 2004. Water Security Research and Technical Support Action Plan. EPA/600/R-
04/063.
USEPA and NSF International. 2004. ETVProtocolfor Equipment Verification Testing for
Removal of Synthetic Organic Chemical Contaminants. Ann Arbor, NSF International.
25
-------
Chapter 7
Vendor Comments
RASco, Inc. submitted the following comments on the draft report. These comments have
not been reviewed by NSF or EPA for accuracy, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions
or views of NSF and EPA.
RASco would like to thank the USEPA and NSF International for conducting the test of our
ASOP unit in a professional and thorough manner. We also appreciate the opportunity to submit
our own statement to accompany the report. Overall, we believe that the test results are very
positive. The text below is intended to put the ASOP technology in context and provide relevant
background on its development as well as discuss some of the ETV test results.
The most important aspect of understanding the technical context of the ASOP unit is that it is
not intended to be used as a standalone drinking water treatment system. It will usually be
integrated into a treatment train and its design will be tailored to perform in concert with the
other components of that treatment train. The design, specific features, and settings will be
adjusted in consideration of such factors as the characteristics of the incoming water, the design
threats to be treated, and the other components of the treatment train.
The ASOP unit tested by NSF is one component of an integrated drinking water treatment
system that was developed for high security, mission critical facilities. This system was
developed in response to a Program Solicitation from the Technical Support Working Group
(TWSG), Combating Terrorism Technology Support Office, U.S. Department of Defense.
Along with TSWG, the U.S. Department of State was the proponent for this Solicitation for
applied research and development support. The specific requirements of the solicitation were to
"develop and test a package water treatment system for use at key overseas U.S. facilities to
counter the threat of intentional chemical, biological, or radiological contamination." During the
applied research on the TSWG project, the ASOP unit was integrated into various alternative
treatment trains and combined with a variety of pre-treatment and post-treatment technologies, to
define optimum systems for various applications.
Regarding specific results of the ETV testing, the herbicide paraquat test produced destruction
levels that were significantly less than expected. The ASOP has successfully destroyed similar
chemicals in previous government sponsored testing at much higher levels of concentration. We
are investigating the specifics of the chemical and test conditions to determine any particular
reasons for this level of performance.
In summary, we believe that the results of this ETV testing have demonstrated the broad-based
performance of the ASOP in destroying a wide range of chemical contaminants. When
integrated with other appropriate treatment train components, the ASOP interacts synergistically
as demonstrated in previous government sponsored third party testing.
Again, we appreciate the efforts and support of the USEPA and the ETV team in conducting this
testing program.
26
------- |