This month's topics: Disinfection, Decentralized treatment, Biological processes, and Instrumentation

April 2017 • Volume 29 • Number 4

This month's featured content

Science first
Associations, researchers, and journalists call on Trump Administration to uphold and protect the sharing of information and data from federal sources
LaShell Stratton-Childers

Read the full open-access article


A decentralized solution for a small village
The Village of Christiansburg, Ohio, managed to mitigate pollution and minimize costs by using a decentralized effluent sewer and packed-bed treatment system
Wes Anderson, Tyler J. Molatore, Brice D. Schmitmeyer, and Jerry VanAuker


Sensor alert
Online instrumentation for monitoring and control of biological phosphorus removal
Adrienne Menniti, Peter Schauer, Imre Takács, and Andy Shaw


Aiming for safer disinfection
How a Texas facility assessed its disinfection options
Andrea Odegard-Begay and Michael Wattsel




A decentralized solution for a small village
The Village of Christiansburg, Ohio, managed to mitigate pollution and minimize costs by using a decentralized effluent sewer and packed-bed treatment system
Wes Anderson, Tyler J. Molatore, Brice D. Schmitmeyer, and Jerry VanAuker

Christiansburg, Ohio, was experiencing serious issues with failing onsite wastewater systems. Septage odors were common, especially after heavy rainfalls, and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) detected high levels of fecal coliform in nearby West Honey Creek in 2012. Village leaders stepped up their efforts to seek a cost-effective system for wastewater collection and treatment, and they decided on a decentralized solution that has allowed the community to mitigate pollution efficiently and at low cost.


Sensor alert
Online instrumentation for monitoring and control of biological phosphorus removal
Adrienne Menniti, Peter Schauer, Imre Takács, and Andy Shaw

The Durham Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facility (AWWTF), which is operated by Clean Water Services in suburban Portland, Ore., treats on average 98,421 m3/d (26 mgd) and has a seasonal phosphorus discharge limit of 0.11 mg/L total phosphorus based on a monthly median value. Durham relies on biological phosphorus removal (BPR) and tertiary chemical phosphorus removal to meet this limit.


Aiming for safer disinfection
How a Texas facility assessed its disinfection options
Andrea Odegard-Begay and Michael Watts

Over the past decade, there has been increased regulatory attention paid to
the use of gaseous chlorine at water and wastewater treatment facilities;
with the intent to eliminate security risks by replacing the use of extremely
hazardous chemicals with inherently safer alternatives.

Further, in April 2007, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued an interim final rule that mandates certain high-risk facilities to identify, assess, and ensure effective security. Currently, all water and wastewater utilities, as defined by Section 1401 of the Safe Drinking Water Act and Section 212 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, are exempt from this rule. However, ongoing discussions in Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have focused on eliminating these exemptions.

With continued regulatory attention on the use of gaseous chlorine, a water resource recovery facility in North Texas sought to compare its disinfection alternatives. The facility hired Garver (Frisco, Texas) to conduct a comparative analysis of rehabilitating its gaseous chlorine and sulfur dioxide facilities or installing other disinfection methods, including bulk sodium hypochlorite, peracetic acid, ultraviolet, or ozone.


Science first
Associations, researchers, and journalists call on Trump Administration to uphold and protect the sharing of information and data from federal sources
LaShell Stratton-Childers

Private industries, academic institutions, and even countries look to the U.S. federal government to supply relevant data for their day-to-day operations — population numbers collected by the U.S. Census Bureau, climate patterns recorded by U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) satellites, seismic activity logged by the U.S. Geological Survey, crop behaviors documented by the U.S. Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and much more. This data and research is invaluable globally. The data enable all sorts of entities to function and plan for the future. But what happens if this input of research is shut down or if the data are obscured? Can the integrity of the data still be deemed reliable? Many are asking these questions now.

Read full open-acces article


In it for the long haul
Gubernatorial executive order aims to make California drought relief measures permanent
Justin Jacques

Weeks of unseasonable rain and snow at the beginning of this year ignited speculation about whether California is emerging from the worst drought in the state’s history.
However, California state leadership is asking a different question: how can drought-era conservation measures — which have saved enough water for more than 11 million Californians since June 2015 — be made permanent to improve the state’s resiliency against future droughts?

From the Editors

Promoting debate and reflection

The February issue of WE&T seems to have struck a nerve. In the Viewpoint section, Joe Lagnese, who served as the 1971–1972 president of the Water Environment Federation, shared his thoughts on what he sees as the Water Environment Federation’s role.

We received several comments on his column and have compiled those responses in the Letters to the Editor section that begins on p. 11.

Healthy debate
February’s Viewpoint column and this month’s letters both focus on the role WEF does and should play in the water sector. It is the role of WE&T to provide one of the places for this discussion. WE&T encourages all readers to openly share their respectful and considered views; this opportunity is available to who care to participate.

To this same end, the news article, “Science first,” emphasizes the need for open and direct discussion within science and the importance of environmental protections. Transparency, impartiality, and protection of the scientific method and public dialogue are essential to sharing the message that advancements in the water sector translate to advancements in our communities.

Your contributions make this publication and the organization it represents stronger and more resilient. Thank you for your continued thoughtfulness and participation.

— The editors

Letter to the Editor

Editor’s note: The first following response to the February Viewpoint came to WE&T through internal WEF committee communications rather than being submitted directly as a Letter to the Editor. However, once received this piece received the same treatment as the other Letters to the Editor that follow it in this section.

WEF continues to adapt and grow

During my many years as an active volunteer within the Water Environment Federation (WEF), I have always been impressed by WEF’s ability to reach deep into its membership of 33,000 water professionals to present experts before Congress and on federal agency policy workgroups. I personally have testified before Congress on multiple occasions, and know that the WEF staff maintains a constructive and professional relationship with leaders in Congress and federal agencies, and utilizes the expertise of the WEF membership to increase the knowledge and understanding by policymakers about the priorities for the water sector.

I warmly welcome Joe Lagnese’s input regarding WEF’s focus and priorities [in the Viewpoint column, “The changing role of the Water Environment Federation” in the February 2017 issue of WE&T], but would like to offer some additional thoughts based on my personal recent experience at WEF.

I must respectfully differ with Lagnese’s argument that WEF is “timid and absent” in regards to some of the nation’s most pressing policy concerns. From including in the last Highway Bill new criteria for highway projects that require better stormwater management during the design phase to receive federal funding to special events like the Congressional Water Expo, which is a mini-version of the WEFTEC Expo, that is willing and able to tackle complicated challenges. Another former WEF President, Paul Freedman, currently serves as co-chair of the Water Resources Adaptation to Climate Change Workgroup of the Advisory Committee on Water Information (ACWI), which is a council of 35 federal, state/regional, industry, and professional organizations. ACWI advises federal agencies on where to focus federal resources. I am also a member of ACWI.

Another good example of WEF’s stature in driving policy and priorities at the federal government level is the 2016 report on the economic, job creation, and tax revenue generating benefits of increased federal funding of the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Loan (SRF) funds. The U.S. Senate Environment & Public Works Committee was about to make a strong push in 2016 to reauthorize and significantly increase funding for the SRF programs, and the committee called upon WEF to produce a report that provided defensible data on the benefits of the SRF programs to be included in the legislation. WEF was an early — and ceaseless — champion of the Clean Water SRF, backing the creation of it in the mid-1980s as an innovative approach to providing low-cost financing for water infrastructure investments.

WEF and the 2016 report were specifically cited in the Senate-passed Water Resources Development Act of 2016. The report also ultimately led to language in the enacted Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016 that included a Sense of Congress to robustly fund the SRF programs; and it will help drive increased SRF funding over the coming years.

As a founding member and former Chairman of the Confluence Water Technology Innovation Cluster in the greater Cincinnati region, the water sector’s need to innovate is of great interest to me. Mr. Lagnese expressed concern about WEF’s stated goal to “decrease barriers to innovation in the U.S./Canadian regulatory framework” as part of WEF’s Critical Objective to promote innovative technologies and approaches in the water sector. There is a strong imperative to innovate in the water sector to maintain our infrastructure as well as to upgrade and adjust to dynamic population shifts, a changing climate, regulatory compliance, and aging infrastructure — all of this in an environment where closing the financial gap is an increasing challenge for our water managers. WEF recognizes that this innovation must occur in a highly-regulated sector and strives to help innovate within these important regulatory frameworks. Regulations often are cited as barriers to innovation, and rather than advocate to lessen regulations to drive innovation, WEF is working with our partners to find ways to innovate within the Clean Water Act, implementing regulations and technical support information currently in effect in the U.S. and Canada.

To drive innovation in the water sector, WEF is working closely with the Water Environment and Reuse Foundation (WE&RF) on the Leaders Innovation Forum for Technology (LIFT) and is leading LIFT efforts related to “people and policy,” a crucial element of any successful innovation program. WEF calls this “creating the space” — that is, creating the space to innovate by enabling utilities to work with government regulators within the existing regulatory framework.

WEF is working with a broad stakeholder group to identify the major influences, positive or negative, to innovation in the water sector. WEF also is seeking to identify and implement measures to manage or share risk. WEF also is exploring challenges in some states with permitting new technologies. These challenges lead to limited adoption of innovative technologies and approaches. The technology areas of focus are digestion enhancement, energy from wastewater, biosolids to energy, water capture and reuse, and nutrients optimization.

Lagnese follows his comments on innovation with a desire that WEF provide national leadership on legislative direction and financial support. WEF does provide this leadership. In addition to its work with the Clean Water SRFs I mentioned above, WEF was a leading proponent in 2014 for the creation of an innovative new infrastructure financing program named the Water Infrastructure Finance Innovation Act (WIFIA). This program has the potential to be a huge source of low-interest loans to supplement the overburdened SRF programs.

Our nation has a water infrastructure needs gap of $1 trillion over the next 20 years, and all efforts are necessary to identify and develop new funding resources. Innovative technology and water management plays a critical part in this infrastructure needs challenge. The SRFs, WIFIA, and other federal programs have been modernized to encourage the adoption of new technologies as part of infrastructure investments.

Federal financial assistance for stormwater infrastructure also is appropriately cited by Lagnese in his letter. The financial burden for stormwater managers is acute and one of the key focus areas for WEF’s stormwater program. In 2015, WEF launched the Stormwater Institute, a center for excellence and innovation focused on best-in-class solutions to urban runoff and wet weather issues.

The institute’s launch coincided with the release of Rainfall to Results: The Future of Stormwater. This report details the challenges and opportunities of sustainable stormwater management and includes six objectives for the sector, including “closing the funding gap.”

There is no silver bullet for stormwater financing and the report details several approaches to help stormwater managers. However, Action 6.2 calls for the identification of funding sources and articulation of how stormwater needs can work with available sources. This includes federal and state programs from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, Transportation, and Interior, as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, EPA, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Additionally, stormwater managers are encouraged to leverage SRF funds for stormwater or green infrastructure investments.

Finally, Lagnese properly notes the role of “good science” and that WEF “should lead the way.” WEF, through its committees of municipal engineers, operators, technical experts, scientists, and academics, have again and again led the way and provided invaluable input to federal agencies.

Not only have volunteers and staff participated in federal advisory efforts as mentioned above, but they also have provided comments on important regulatory and policy efforts. From the Clean Water Rule, where WEF member associations and committees provided specific clarification, to the Water Quality Standards Regulatory Clarifications Rule and the Methods Update Rule, where WEF committees provided specific regulatory and technical recommendations to federal agencies, WEF has led and cooperated with other organizations to continue to provide “good science” and technical input, without consideration of partisan politics.

Indeed, WEF has evolved and will continue to evolve, and as I have said above, I welcome Lagnese’s thoughts. Personally, as a young professional in the early 1980s I looked up to Lagnese as a member of the cadre of environmental engineer icons. I also have lived through the age of the implementation of the Clean Water Act, the movement to watershed protection, integrated water management, emergence of stormwater as a focus, the global water crisis, rise of algae/hypoxia, and now “big data,” utility of the future, and the next generation of water innovation.

Indeed, times have changed — in the water world hugely. Issues are much different. Water quality problems are second and third order (e.g., moving from capturing/treating wastewater to combined sewer overflow/sanitary sewer overflow abatement and nutrients). Politics are different (polarization, deficits, etc.). The globe is different, technologies are different. Accordingly, WEF has changed, as well as it should. It has periodically examined itself and reinvented — a good thing, and I hope it will continue to do so!

Alan H. Vicory Jr., PE, BCEE,
Principal, Stantec Inc. (Cincinnati)


Sharing another perspective on WEF’s mission and future

Like former WEF president Joe Lagnese [who authored the Viewpoint column, “The changing role of the Water Environment Federation” in the February 2017 issue of WE&T], I too find WEF frustratingly cautious and timid. And, welcome the opportunity to discuss the future of the organization. Here’s hoping that membership engages in a spirited debate.

As a Life Member, I believe the organization has diminished itself by losing its focus: the design, operation, maintenance, permitting, and funding of sewage collection, treatment and disposal facilities. I believe that this loss of focus is the reason that TPO, not WE&T, has become the magazine of interest to wastewater operators.

I do not believe it to be WEF’s role to advocate for Global Warming, Endangered Species, or Energy Net Neutrality. (This, from someone who, at the time of Joe Lagnese’s WEF presidency, had an Ecology flag painted on the trunk of his car.) I would prefer to see our organization defer to others on these environmental causes and return to our roots.

I find WEF — likely because of the generous participation of so many consulting engineers throughout the years — to be skewed toward design and construction at the expense of operation and maintenance; with an unhealthy emphasis on funding.

I wish that there was greater participation by utility members and a far greater focus on training and education for operators, administrators, and regulators.

I wonder. Is it just Mr. Lagnese and me? Or are other WEF’s members dissatisfied with their organization? Do members see room for improvement? Should WEF develop a broader or narrower mission? Interesting questions. I look forward to learning the answers.

Thank you for publishing the thoughtful Viewpoint article.

Grant Weaver, PE and wastewater operator
President, The Water Planet Company (New London, Conn.)


If you don’t like it, do something about it

I am one of millions watching these “First hundred days of office” and have decided that if I don’t like the direction of things, then I will do something about it. The Women’s Marches on Jan. 21, 2017, and the upcoming March for Science on April 22, 2017, are examples of what some are doing.

We each need to decide what we are motivated to do and then do it. In the February 2017 issue of WE&T, Joe Lagnese authored a Viewpoint column that was essentially a “Call to Action,” where he urged WEF to act more prominently and unequivocally for the protection of the water environment. I applaud Mr. Lagnese for his convictions and for speaking out. We need more people speaking out and doing something about it.

I would, however, like to redirect his challenge and focus it toward all of us: the 33,000 members of WEF.

WEF effectuates change through its members. We are WEF, and we are who will make a difference. WEF provides education in order to “further a shared goal of improving water quality around the world.” WEF will not improve water quality; WEF will provide us the tools and resources so that we can improve water quality.

WEF empowers us and helps make things easier for us to get involved. This extends from things like the Washington Fly-In and letter templates to mail our representatives to educational opportunities such as the Water Leadership Institute and to a host of other opportunities to take an active role. It even includes motivational campaigns like “Water’s Worth It.”

WEF works with partner organizations such as the Water Environment & Reuse Foundation (Alexandria, Va.), which invests millions of dollars a year in research to better the water environment; the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (Washington, D.C.), which provides legislative, regulatory, and legal advocacy; and others to improve its reach.

We, however, are “the boots on the ground.” We are the collective chorus that the legislators will hear. We are the ones that will decide to do something in the first place or to go that step beyond and do more.

We cannot wait for Washington to implement new legislation/regulations or provide additional money. The construction grants program is gone and will not come back. Hopefully, Washington will realize that it is good business to invest in research and to protect the environment. Washington has the ability to create large-scale change, which is often necessary because air and water bodies span city, state, and country boundaries. Washington can learn from us — when we make positive steps forward and improve the economy by doing so.

Gandhi said, “Be the change you wish to see in the world.” Rosa Parks’ simple decision not to move from her seat galvanized the civil rights movement.

We are reaching a tipping point. It is imperative for each of us to assure that it tips in the right direction.

Todd Danielson, P.E., BCEE
Chief Utilities Executive, Avon Lake Regional Water (Avon Lake, Ohio)



Continuing the legacy of the Paul L. Busch Award

Melissa Meeker

Those who knew him will tell you that Paul Busch believed in linking education with the practical side of environmental engineering. Each year, the Paul L. Busch Award rewards both. The Endowment for Innovation in Applied Water Quality Research recognizes outstanding achievement and creative vision through the Paul L. Busch Award. The award seeks to distinguish individuals poised for greater recognition of their innovative, ongoing contributions to water quality advancements.

Research Notes

Upgrading wastewater treatment results in speedy recovery for fish

University of Waterloo (Ontario) researchers found that upgrading a water resource recovery facility along Ontario’s Grand River led to

  • a 70% decline in fish with both male and female characteristics within 1 year and
  • almost a 100% recovery in the fish population within 3 years.

Intersex fish occur after exposure to hormones in water. Researchers found that the microorganisms used to remove ammonia during wastewater treatment also reduce the levels of endocrine disruptors, which are the chemicals that can interfere with fish hormone-levels.

In 2007, Mark Servos, Canada research chair in Water Quality Protection in the University of Waterloo Department of Biology, began tracking the number of intersex male rainbow darter fish in the Grand River.

In 2012, the Region of Waterloo upgraded the Kitchener Wastewater Treatment Plant to reduce ammonia in treated effluent. Within 1 year, the proportion of intersex males dropped from 100% in some areas to 29%. By the end of 3 years, the numbers dropped to less than 10%, according to a university news release.

Researchers found that the microorganisms used to remove ammonia in wastewater treatment also reduced endocrine disrupters.

“Rainbow darters are the Grand River’s canary in the coal mine,” Servos said. “They’re extremely sensitive to the concentration ofestrogens and other hormone disrupters in the water. Still, we didn’t expect them to recover so quickly.”

The 10-year study has been published in Environmental Science and Technology at


Also in this section:

  • Report recommends strategy for a more energy efficient future for WRRFs
  • Putting bacteria on a diet increases energy extracted from wastewater
  • Using acidity control to optimize biosolids treatment


EPA awards $4 million to study effects of low-flow plumbing on public health

Low-flow faucets, toilets, showerheads, and other household fixtures can save a lot of water. These devices represent a valuable solution in areas where water shortages are common. But how do they affect water distribution systems?

As adoption of low-flow plumbing fixtures becomes more common, water distribution systems designed to handle higher flows have not adapted to lower flow rates. Lower flows mean water moves more slowly. The water ages inside pipes, invites harmful pathogens to develop, and potentially presents risks to ...


Also in this section:

  • Syrian crisis drains nearly half of reservoir supplies
  • 3-D printing could revolutionize membrane technology for water treatment
  • Brown and Caldwell, Water Research Foundation release Blueprint for One Water
  • European partnership explores wastewater to uncover illicit drug use


The instrumentation and chemistry behind dissolved oxygen analysis
Peter E. Petersen

Dissolved oxygen (DO) is atmospheric oxygen that is dissolved in water or wastewater. Aquatic life depends on DO for survival. Oxygen is diffused into the water by aeration (rapid movement) and as a byproduct of photosynthesis from aquatic plants and phytoplankton.

Too little or too much DO can cause problems for the environment. Take fish, for example. Fish absorb DO through their gills into their bloodstream. Low levels — less than 2.0 mg/L — starve the fish of oxygen, but high levels can lead to excess DO blocking the flow of blood through the bloodstream, thus, causing death.

DO also plays a major role in wastewater treatment. Understanding the intricacies of DO and how it is measured can help water professional manage their processes to meet permit-required treatment targets and, ultimately, help the environment — fish included — breathe easier.


Operated by the Orlando (Fla.) Utilities Commission (OUC), the Curtis H. Stanton Energy Center is a power-generation facility that treats onsite and re-uses wastewater from Orange County (Fla.) Eastern Wastewater Treatment Facility for its cooling towers. Routine maintenance and the need to shut down a power generation unit at the center left OUC with a decreased power capacity to treat the wastewater at the center through regular methods. To continue wastewater treatment during the outage, GE (Trevose, Pa.) provided OUC with a mobile water filtration system and a mobile seawater desalination reverse osmosis system.

OUC also uses GE’s brine concentrators and evaporators on-site to treat wastewater and achieve zero-liquid discharge. However, since the evaporators’ treatment capacity were reduced by the power outage, OUC needed an option to bridge the gap for the remaining wastewater to be treated.

OUC’s power facility has very high feed water total dissolved solids — inorganic salts, minerals, and organic matter dissolved in water — and needed to treat its wastewater at the same rate during a planned outage. For 4 months, the mobile units treated the power facility’s wastewater at 757 L/min (200 gal/min), allowing OUC to keep up with its wastewater treatment volume during the outage.


The CB&I (The Woodlands, Texas), Michael Baker International (Irvine, Calif.), and Gannett Fleming (Camp Hill, Pa.) completed construction management services for four projects as part of the 6-year upgrade of the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant in Brooklyn, N.Y. Valued at approximately $1.3 billion, the four construction projects were delivered under budget, enabling the companies to return $71.7 million to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).

Located on a 21-ha (53-ac) site, the Newtown Creek Wastewater Treatment Plant is the largest of the 14 water resource recovery facilities (WRRF) inside New York City. Owned and operated by DEP, the facility processes wastewater from a collective area of approximately 65 km2 (25 mi2).

The three companies formed the joint venture team for construction management services on the final phase of a three-phase upgrade. The upgrade increased the WRRF’s wet-weather processing capacity from 1.2 to 2.7 million m3/d (310 to 720 mgd). The services included

  • construction of a central residuals building, where all non-biological matter is removed from the wastewater;
  • upgrade of the South Battery control building, which provides grit removal, aerobic processing, and biological settling for one-third of the facility’s wastewater flow;
  • construction of new solids loading dock facility on Whale Creek;
  • maintenance dredging of a Superfund site;
  • demolition of the old East River solids storage tank;
  • decommissioning of the East River loading dock;
  • construction of miscellaneous features; and
  • various mechanical system modifications and process wrap-up.


Also in this section:

  • Charlotte (N.C.) Water
  • The City of Leon Valley, Texas


Marathon Petroleum Corp. (Findlay, Ohio) elected Abdulaziz F. Alkhayyal to its board of directors. Alkhayyal retired from Saudi Aramco in 2014 as the senior vice president of industrial relations, following a 30-year career at the company.


GRW (Lexington, Ky.) appointed Brad Montgomery president. Ron Gilkerson changed his role from president to chairman of the board of directors.


Smart Vision Lights (Muskegon, Mich.) announced the expansion of its European and Asian sales and support operations, with a new U.K. office. The company also hired Tony Carpenter as its business development manager for Europe/Asia.


Tonka Water (Plymouth, Minn.) hired Mary Sitko as national sales manager. Mary will lead the company’s sales team including municipal systems sales and services.


Also in this section:

  • Orthos Liquid Systems Inc.
  • Brown and Caldwell
  • Stanley Consultants
  • American Water Works Co. Inc.
  • Dewberry

Water Volumes

Nature Unbound, Bureaucracy Versus the Environment
Randy T. Simmons, Ryan M. Yonk, and Kenneth J. Sim, The Independent Institute,
100 Swan Way, Oakland, CA 94621-1428, 2016, 287 pp., $36.95, hardcover, ISBN 978-1-59813-227-4

The authors present a well-documented critique of environmental law making in the U.S. Research fellows at the Independent Institute, a conservative think tank, argue that “nature has been hijacked by politics” and that environmental preservation has become “a fundamentally political enterprise.”

The book’s main thesis is that the people do not create environmental legislation. Rather the bulk of our environmental laws have been created by ...


This month's focus: Instrumentation

Chlorine analyzers
The plug-and-play T80 analyzer/transmitter along with the TC80 and FC80 sensors install quickly. The sensors offer reliable measurement of both parameters along with modular two-channel T80 transmitter/analyzer abilities. The TC80 advanced panel mount design includes built-in flow control, which eliminates the need for complicated pressure regulators and rotometers. Built-in automatic pH compensation also eliminates the need for reagents to reduce maintenance and life-cycle costs. The T80 is available with either 110-240 VAC or 24 VDC power. Electro-Chemical Devices (Anaheim, Calif.).


Pressure gauge
The 8008A pressure gauge meets the recognized specifications of EN837-1 and ASME B40.100 to ensure accuracy and long-term performance. A corrosion–resistant stainless steel case with liquid fill vibration dampening helps extend the service life. The gauge is well-suited for hydraulic systems, compressors, and many other demanding applications. Ashcroft (Stratford, Conn.).


pH sensor
The basic pH1000 sensor is ideal for swimming pool, aquarium, or hydroponics measurement, as well as science class experiments. Designed to withstand regular wear and tear, with a durable polycarbonate body and built-in protection for the pH glass measuring surface, the sensor provides reliable, stable readings in temperatures up to 60°C. The sensor is best for low ionic samples, including drinking water, biomedical, and pharmaceutical applications. It is specially designed to respond quickly and accurately to rapid temperature changes up to 100°C, with accuracy down to a pH of 0.04. Sensorex (Garden Grove, Calif.).


Pressure sensor
The Pressure Scout is an intrinsically safe, wireless pressure sensor that supports pressure monitoring and alarm reporting. As part of a wireless remote monitoring and control network, the sensor provides a robust, long-range (up to 0.5-mi) transmission to the Signal Fire Gateway where pressure data becomes available via a Modbus remote terminal unit or transmission control protocol interface. Available in standard pressure ranges, the sensor performs rapid (5 sec) pressure sampling and has configurable alarm reporting (report by exception). The units offer local push-button zeroing. Operable in temperature ranges from –40ºC (–40ºF) to 80ºC (176ºF), the sensor operates in challenging outdoor environments, sustaining signal strength through terrain, structures, or weather. Class 1, Division 1 certification is pending. SignalFire Wireless Telemetry (Hudson, Mass.).

The TCMH-0450 High Pressure Coriolis flowmeter is well-suited to the oil and gas industry for high pressure chemical injection applications, as well as gas measurement applications such as engine test benches, hydrogen fuel stations, and high pressure gas measurement. The meter is available in three different pressure ratings up to 15,200 lb/in.2 (1050 bar); up to 10,000 lb/in.2 (690 bar); and up to 6000 lb/in.2 (414 bar). TRICOR Coriolis Technology (Oak Creek, Wis.).


Chromium monitor
The MetalGuard Cr(VI) monitor uses a self-calibrated voltammetric detector specifically developed to enable selective determination for hexavalent and total chromium down to 1 ppb. The monitor evaluates multiple process streams: one raw water and four sample streams, and produces results in 30 min. The monitor also operates fully unattended and continuously, delivering between 45 and 50 analytical readings per day. Aqua Metrology Systems (Sunnyvale, Calif.).


Adhesive system
The elastomeric adhesive system X5TC delivers thermal conductivity of 10 to 12 BTU•in./ft2•hr•°F [1.44 to 1.73 W/m•K] while maintaining excellent electrical insulation properties. It is well–suited for bonding dissimilar substrates and performs well when subjected to thermal cycling, vibration, shock, and related forces. This system offers solid tensile lap shear and T-peel strength, and has a paste-like consistency. It cures at room temperature or more quickly with the addition of heat. Master Bond (Hackensack, N.J.).


Editor’s note: WE&T assumes no responsibility for claims made in product descriptions. Interested companies should send press releases and photos to [email protected].

Defect Detective

Understanding deformation in flexible pipe
Jerry Weimer

This installment focuses on the proper use of the Deformation code in flexible pipe (DF). As opposed to pipes made from rigid materials, flexible pipe can undergo deformation and other defects without a visible loss of structural integrity. When using PACP codes, it is important to know the pipe material to determine if it is flexible.

Download a PDF of the April'17 Defect Detective

Access, Author, Advertise

WE&T homepage
The main resource for WE&T includes general information about the magazine, archives of specific sections, and contact information.


Access Back Issues of WE&T
In addition to the issues listed in the Water Environment & Technology Archive, members get full access to issues dating back to September 2010 by accessing the deep archives via the WE&T Subscribers Only page.


Write for WE&T
Prospective authors are encouraged to read the WE&T Author Guidelines to access our annual editoral calendar, learn about the different types of articles, and find out how to submit article ideas. Learn more about writing for WE&T.


Advertise in WE&T
As the premier magazine for the water quality field, Water Environment & Technology (WE&T) provides information on what professionals demand: cutting-edge technologies, operations and maintenance, regulatory and legislative impacts, and professional development.

Reach more than 43,000 key buyers, including every member of the Water Environment Federation and WEFTEC® attendees. Find out how to advertise today.