DESALINATION

ELSEVIER Desalination 176 (2005) 143-153
www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Water intended for human consumption-
Part II: Treatment alternatives, monitoring issues
and resulting costs
Giuseppe Mancini, Paolo Roccaro, Federico G.A. Vagliasindi*
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Catania, V.le A. Doria 6, 95125 Catania, ltaly
Tel. +39 (095) 738-2704; Fax +39 (095) 738-2748; email: fvaglias@dica.unict.it

Received 20 October 2004; accepted 1 November 2004

Abstract
EU Directive 98/83, which aims at achieving beneficial effects in the quality of water and in public health, has set
standards for water intended for human consumption, monitoring requirements of the new standards, and strategies
to take remedial action to address failures. The incorporation of the Directive's content into the regulations of each
Member State will benefit consumers who receive drinking water that meets up-to-date World Health Organization
standards. As a result, they will be less likely to experience long-term adverse health effects. However, new costs arise
from the new regulations that fall on water suppliers deriving from the need to meet the more stringent standards, and
they are passed on by water authorities to consumers, mostly businesses and industry, in the form of increased water
charges. In an attempt to evaluate these costs, an overview of main drinking water treatments is presented and different
treatment schemes are analyzed to obtain cost curves by means of national (Italian) and international published data.
Moreover, monitoring costs for water quality analysis, based on the requirements of Directive 98/83/EC, are evaluated
and compared with the ones derived from the previous 80/778/EEC.

Keywords: 98/83/EC Directive; Drinking water; Costs; Monitoring; Treatments; Water quality

1. Introduction
satisfactory supply must be made available to
The quality o f drinking water is an issue of consumers. Failure to provide effective treatment
primary interest for the residents o f the European o f water sources and safe distribution o f treated
Union. Water is essential to sustain life, and a drinking water can expose the community to the
risk o f outbreaks o f diseases or other adverse
*Corresponding author. heath effects.

Presented at the Seminar in Environmental Science and Technology: Evaluation of Alternative Water Treatment
Systems for Obtaining Safe Water. Organized by the University of Salerno with support of NATO Science Programme.
September 27, 2004, Fisciano (SA), Italy.
0011-9164/05/$- See front matter © 2005 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved
doi: 10.1016/j.desal.2004.11.007

Hardly consumption. Conventional treat- certain performance standards rather than requir. how- (and partially for monitoring activity) that prob. / Desalination 176 (2005) 143-153 In the field of water intended for human user basis for many small-scale systems. Conventional treatments Monitoring requirements were also revised in the Directive.1. 26 chemical and 20 related costs indicator parameters).1 of Directive 98/83/EC). The progress in scientific to pay for it and how much of a safety margin to knowledge and technology was included in the provide in the process. in turn. affect water producers who will need to carry out Directive 98/83/EC also takes into considera- improvements to treatment works and distri. how water quality at the tap. and The establishment. The questions are how to accomplish it. the US EPA [1] has also defined the hazard of standards for all drinking water systems intro. Directive 98/83/EC sets new. haloacetic acids (HAAs) and duces a scale-neutral approach for technology inorganic DBPs. the total number of parameters has been reduced from 66 2. disinfection by-products (DBPs) by setting re- These. new Directive. especially in small commu. required on DBP toxicity considered as a ably cannot be economically affordable on a per. ever. Drinking water treatments. where disinfection forms part of the prepara- treating drinking water through user-charges. both to take into account the new The objective of this work is therefore to recognized acceptable level of different contami. which allow Member States to Drinking water treatments are conceived of adapt the amount and nature of monitoring to and designed to ensure that drinking water does local conditions. more anyone could quarrel with the objective of assur- stringent standards for drinking water in the ing safe drinking water for the European Commu- Member States and requires the compliance of nity. Mancini et al. Table 1 along with the substances removed and The application of the Directive will directly some operation and maintenance issues. the efficiency of the applied dis- as the cost of testing for biological and chemical infection treatment is verified and that any con- contaminants (capital expenditures for testing tamination from DBPs is kept as low as possible equipment are needed for full compliance with without compromising the disinfection (article the directive requirements) can result in unsus. ments for drinking water are summarized in ing the use of certain defined methods. tainable water rates. tion newly recognized harmful substances such as bution systems to comply with new requirements. classes for THMs. . Further investigations are. with Directive 98/83/CE. tion or distribution of water intended for human Required improvements in water systems as well consumption. 2. 7. provide a basis for cost evaluation of the most nants in drinking water and the discovery of common drinking water treatments as well as for harmful effect of substances not considered in the the water quality monitoring as a function of the previous 25-year-old Directive. The approach to reference not contain any concentration of microorganisms. monitoring and to 50 (four microbiological. tial carcinogens of trihalomethanes (THM).144 G. New parameters supplied population. have therefore been added where research has shown this to be necessary. methods of analysis for monitoring has also been parasites or any other substance which constitutes revised to permit the use of methods meeting a potential human health risk. will impose a significant financial strictive standards and requiring the Member burden on local communities since public water States to take all measures necessary to ensure utilities should pay for the cost of testing and that. but overall. mixture problem [2]. Several studies were carried out on the poten- nities or rural water districts.

the Directive adopts two new parameters: THMs and bromate. the technology is not by removing organic precursors (coagulation.is the treated water and its reaction with both free resi. dis. membrane). It also has some disadvantages such as simple and diffused method for drinking water increased biodegradable organic carbon and the disinfection. which are potentially carcinogenic [ 1] and not introduced by Directive 98/83/EC but compounds. The necessary treat- oxidizing agent.000 per- DBPs. and hence the choice of a suitable drinking water treatment chlorination is also required at one of the stages process and its economic comparison with the of water processing [9]. necessarily scale neutral. DBPs is avoided. although other conventional or less diffused solutions (i. ozone. content and type of the NOM maximize NOM removal by enhanced/optimized [343. or preventing priate or excessively costly on a per-user basis for DBPs formation by using alternative disinfectants many small-scale systems.2. it is more expensive and has ments for drinking water. THMs some countries. dichlorobromomethane filtration is efficient for the removal of NOM and (CHC12Br). The evaluation of investment and operation infection by ozone or UV radiation does not and maintenance costs is a fundamental phase in provide an after-effect of disinfection. potential neuro-toxic effects. G.g.. nation. the appli- pounds. Therefore.e. including Italy. UV radiation). adsorption. Both parameters 2. the best avail- presence or absence of bromide. source quality. (e. Furthermore.11]. However. then proceeding to a chlorine disin- In order to verify that any contamination from fection stage. Treatment costs have been set at a value that has to be met I 0 years after the new Directive comes into force Probably one of the main issues of EU with an interim value to be met after 5 years. Furthermore. coagulation. However. as prescribed by Directive . / Desalination 176 (2005) 143-153 145 Chlorination is by far the most economical. used to control DBPs in drinking water is to pH. They are formed ported that application of PAC or GAC filtration through the reactions of hypochlorous acid efficiently removes chlorites [ 10-t 2]. and it is either inappro- oxidation. infectant that results in chlorite formation. i. CIO2. according to the water more technological requirements than chlori. such as dose of (3) GAC adsorption. However. ozone is the strongest commercially available the case of desalination). safe water at any point of the distribution network Chlorine dioxide (C102) is a very strong dis- at any moment due to the "after-effect". the control of DBPs is possible sons or more. Classical trihalomethanes consist of cation of C102 as a preoxidant followed by GAC chloroform (CHC13) . those serving 50. (HOC1) with natural organic matter (NOM) in the According to the EPA [ 13. a DBP advantage of chlorination is the formation of not yet classifiable to cause adverse health effects many DBPs. The most common approach chlorine.. (2) enhanced softening and for the formation of THMs. The dis. temperature. which is included through a stringent limit in Among all the chlorinated by-products. Previous studies able technologies for THM control are (1) en- have shown the importance of many parameters hanced coagulation. it was re- and bromoform (CHBr3). establishing of standards for all drinking water dual chlorine and bromine present in the treated systems on the basis of treatment technologies for water results in chlorinated and brominated "large" systems.. and it provides microbiologically formation ofbrominated DBPs such as bromate.14]. dibromochloromethane (CHBrzC1) DBP prevention [10.e..- It is known that the presence of NOM in and specifically of Directive 98/83/EC . concentration of bromide and ammonia. because of its are certainly the most investigated class of com. directive implementation in the water sector . Mancini et al.

May effectively treat chlorination. Sediment As water passes through a filter Sediment. copper. pesticides. Ion-exchange As water passes through a resin Hard water (calcium and When the resin is filled to capacity. filtration made of sand. filter paper. high which is then condensed to be significant. fluoride. contaminants such as iron and filtration. Filters with molded activated carbon blocks will treat Cryptosporidium and Giardia. lower than water. RO systems can waste a large amount of water. bacteria. Aeration Oxygen is introduced into the Dissolved iron or manganese Regular backwashing of the filter water by an aerator. nitrate. lead.Contaminants with a boiling point into the atmosphere. filtration is often used to pre-filter (RO) which has microscopic holes. Depending softening magnesium in the water are manganese. some exchanged for sodium or copper and zinc if operated degree of monitoring of the potassium which do not create the properly. bacterial System must be monitored and carbon contaminants adsorb. or colloidal iron or tannins when carbon cartridges must be replaced filtration the surface of activated carbon combined with continuous at regular intervals. among others. Mancini et al. to remove trapped contaminants. Activated carbon or sediment osmosis forcing water through a membrane high chloride content. turbidity. gas odor. . if properly equipped with gas sediment must be periodically Contaminants removed remain in vent. solvents. aeration. trihalomethanes.removed from the distiller. lead or chlorine. This oxidizes when followed by sediment following aeration is required. and other water before reverse osmosis. methane may clog the system. it must be recharged. Distillation Water is heated to create steam Energy costs for distillation can be Sediment. calcium and magnesium). radon. many odors. lead. nuisance problems associated with hard water. causing them to form egg odor from dissolved water containing bacteria which solids which can then be filtered hydrogen sulfide gas. can vaporize with the water and condense with treated water instead of being removed. RO membrane must be cannot. may help reduce rotten Aeration is not recommended for manganese. some other heavy metals benzene and carbon tetrachtoride in certain cases. preceded by soda ash feed. such as some pesticides and solvents. cartridge replacement or compressed glass wool or other dissolved iron or manganese backwashing must be done on a straining material suspended when preceded by continuous regular basis in order to maintain particles such as sand. filters and post-filters require regular membrane but larger particles Cryptosporidium. radon. Scale buildup and total dissolved solids. soil or other chlorination. Reverse Contaminants are removed by Certain tastes. dissolved iron. pesticides collected as treated water. regeneration cycle is necessary. or stick to. high salt content. particles. fluoride. Pre- Water molecules pass through the heavy metals. acidic water when Depending on the type of filter. water bed in the softener. the heating chamber or boil off copper and other heavy metals. and copper if equipped with special organic compounds such as media. out of the water. arsenic. chloramines. nitrate. arsenic. ozonation or effectiveness particles are trapped on the filter. viruses.146 G. The membrane is flushed regularly monitored and disinfected. upon the type of softener. some pesticides. / Desalination 176 (2005) 143-153 Table 1 Summary of drinking water treatment methods (adapted from [26]) Treatment How it works What it removes Operation and maintenance method issues Activated As water flows through the filter Pesticides. will treat cadmium. replacement.

or radiation ultraviolet light that kill bacteria cloudy. Ozonation equipment is costly. The lamp must be kept clean to (uv) system. used after chlorination to remove bacteria. magnesium. Water may need to be treated for turbidity prior to entering the UV system. dissolved treated water must be purchased or oxygen. toxic gas. Also. iron. As water passes through a filter. ultra filtration and microfiltration.. Giardia. system should be equipment sometimes are very designed to manage precipitates and similar. calcium. micro. smallest to largest are nanofiltration. radon. pathogens and oxidizes Dehumidification of surrounding air compounds such as iron and is frequently required. methane gas odor. Equipment that tests for ozone in ozone. Mancini et aL / Desalination 176 (2005) 143-153 147 Table 1. by-products of the water. Ultraviolet As water passes through the Bacteria. as this is with the water. Cryptosporidium. G. UV radiation does not have a residual effect so water that leaves the system can be recontaminated. as well as filtration. suspended particles are trapped on viruses.viruses. viruses. and nano. sulfate-reducing bacteria chlorination process may include (followed by activated carbon trihalomethanes (THM's) which filtration). Giardia. Pore sizes from effectiveness. iron or tannins when combined Activated carbon filtration may be with activated carbon filtration. Ultra. water the UV light may not and other microbial contaminants reach some of the organisms. different treatment goals. system is operating properly. bacterial or colloidal may increase the risk of cancer. cartridge replacement or filtration the filter. Careful manganese to permit their monitoring is required as ozone is a removal. rotten egg odor from Depending on the organic content of to treat iron and manganese in the dissolved hydrogen sulfide gas or the water. In turbid. microbial contaminants. continued Treatment How it works What it removes Operation and maintenance method issues De-aeration Mix air with water to remove Dissolved hydrogen sulfide gas. Giardia. filters should be changed regularly. a special lamp produces maintain effectiveness. is produced and mixed iron or manganese when bacterial tests performed. Ozonation destroys combined with sediment the only way to determine if the bacteria and other microbial filtration. Depending on the type of filter. viruses. Continuous Chlorine is fed or injected into the Dissolved iron or manganese Chlorine must have adequate contact chlorination water to kill bacteria and other when followed by sediment time with water to disinfect it. excess chlorine and its by-products. a chemical form of pure sporidium.g. Giardia. Aeration and De-aeration manganese). If water has high hardness (e. . but are designed for scale build-up. Ozonation Water enters a system where Bacteria. dissolved gases from the water. Ozonation does not have a lasting (residual) effect so recontamination of water can occur. Crypto. Particles removed backwashing must be done on a depend upon the size of the pores regular basis in order to maintain in the filter.

civil works. pre-chlorination. drinking water distribution systems. and electromechan.g.000 pe 30. Y= 0. flocculation. ever. tap for distribution network. / Desalination 176 (2005) 143-153 75/440/EC. GAC adsorption and chlorination. How- schemes with an increasing treatment level. filtra. held responsible for failure to meet the require- ical equipment. for instance. chlorination to break-point.).4645 coagulation. the sludge treatment and disposal. The capital costs. adsorption alternatives 30. including is clearly stated that the water supplier cannot be land acquisition. disinfection (final chlorination))" for surface water o f Category A2 Yis the unit costs in C/m3.000 pc. Coagulat.1E-06 X . This view reflects an increasing concern Operation and maintenance costs include man. .000 pc. decantation. Treatment X < X culation. ForX>200. Directive 98/83/EC is a tap water directive. expressed in ~ / m 3. sedimentation. consequently. filtration. fil. .148 G. The cost point for tankers and at the bottling point for the curves for the different treatment alternatives. + Y= 0. coagulation. a constant cost surface water of Category A1. are: Table 2 • "Intensive physical and chemical treatment.1E-07 X ment and disinfection (e. rapid filtration and disinfection)" for For X< 1. • "Simple physical treatment and disinfection Xis the number of population equivalent (pc). Specifically. chemical treat. at the distribution tion. polyelectrolytes.g. costs for chemicals may vary with both space and time. National (Italian) drinking water quality standards by Directive and international published data [15. the drinking water treatment Several changes have been introduced in costs are not well documented.1E-05 X .+ filtrat. assuming a typical daily per-capita water supply For parameters that are affected in the domes- of 300 1/pc'd. bottles (article 6.g. which is usu- is assumed equal to that obtained for 200. power consumption.2067 • "Normal physical treatment. final Filtration + chlorin. It is clear that (chlorine.).16] have 98/83/EC that require improvements in the exist- been adapted here to obtain the unit treatment ing treatment process design and management costs. disinfection (ozone. (e. GAC + chlorin. a constant cost is assumed equal to that obtained for 1. + Y= 0. such as..000 pc. plumbing treatment costs include capital and operation and etc.+ flocculat. replacement every 10 years of mechanical parts. ordinary and quality of water within the distribution system extraordinary maintenance. Mancini et al. flocculation. ally also used for groundwater.2 of Directive 98/83/EC). it maintenance costs. floc. sedim. Unit costs extended treatment and disinfection (e.000 pe (activated carbon). metal salts. are given in Table 2.5306 g = 0.1E-07 X tion..1045 Y= 0.0791 chlorination))" for surface water o f Category .1 o f Directive 98/83/EC). + filtrat. (3) coagulation. have been amortized at an interest ments of the Directive when these failures are due rate of 5% and assume a life of the treatment to the domestic installation or their maintenance plant of 30 years for the civil works and a (article 6. some heavy metals. regarding potential water quality problems in power wages and salaries. taps that are used for human consumption. the distribution system itself may adversely affect . the points of compliance are at the tration and chlorination.7241 Y= 0. Coagulat.8E-06 X . Unfortunately.000 pc.. The unit tic distribution system (internal pipes. filtra. etc. in their related costs.+ chlorin. In fact. for three different and. decantation. Specifically the following conventional schemes which implies that water quality has to comply at were considered: (1) filtration and chlorination. (2) coagulation.1E-07 X A3.

883 to 0.000 permanent inhabitants and up to 50. Cyprus and situated in three islands of the Aegean Sea [24]. Syros and Mykonos) aquifers.000 in the tourist season. but nowadays this cost in many of the coastal aquifers along the has significantly dropped. The extent of pipe replace. in thus making desalination a viable alternative for the Mykonos plant there is a wind power station). The than 0. and several promising (MSF). mainly energy and capital [19]. many Mediterranean countries [17. Mediterranean Sea has rapidly degraded. [22]. as product water. / Desalination 176 (2005) 143-153 149 the quality of treated water (as in the case of lead ively separate salts and water. these countries have had either to look for population of 8. 1998 coastline that were used primarily for drinking and 1999. calculated in 1997. membranes and filters replacement. They require energy to operate setting a world record for the lowest selling price and can use a number of different technologies. with the pressure used ing the lead standard are relatively uncertain. as shown in Table 3.000 desalination [ 17. Desalination and related costs production. finished water (ED) is a voltage-driven process and uses may therefore be subjected to substantial changes electrical potential to move salts selectively in quality while being transmitted through the through a membrane. Mem. In spite of water treatment. chemicals. and the product water is fairly pure. branes have the ability to differentiate and select- . Facing a shortage of suitable drinking the Oia plant (600 permanent inhabitants with a water. from alternative sources. maintenance.3. announced similar costs. leaving behind the salts in ing water to minimize its capacity to dissolve lead the brine solution.500 US $/m3for water. Mancini et al. ness is assessed. leaving fresh water behind distribution system before reaching consumers. Other desalination plants later known thermal methods are (1) multi-stage flash. The commercially available from pipes and by pipe replacement where this membranes are spiral wound and hollow fiber. With a single ment required to meet the final standard will only pass product water contains 300-500 ppm of salts be known once lead solvency treatment effective. US $/m 3 for the Mykonos plant (5. with a bid that priced the The commercially tested desalination processes cost of RO technology desalinated water at less are based on thermal or membrane methods. Israel have shut down hundreds of wells along the The total water costs. proves impractical. The for separation by allowing fresh water to move interim lead standard is likely to be met by treat. resulted in the lowering of groundwater tables labor. depending on the cost of 2. and R&D directions were outlined that can lead to (3) vapor compression (VC) distillation. further significant cost reductions [25]. or to 0.19-22]. Countries such as Jordan. inhabitants and 25. the water quality about 3-4 US $/m 3 [23]. The In Israel.18].357 to 1.50 US $/m3. for and increasing seawater intrusion into the three RO plants (Oia. a pressure-driven process.000 in the tourist season). brackish water. while reverse osmosis (RO) is As an example. such as (25.000 permanent vide potable water at significantly lower costs. the "treatment" costs for meet. G. varied from 1. new desalination technologies pro. the VID Desalination Company won desalination processes separate salt from sea or the Israeli Ashkelon project (100 million m3/y). The cost of desalinating water varies widely from country to country.909 US $/m 3 for the Syros plant implement costly technological solutions. in the tourist season) and from 0. Over.759 Recently. through a membrane. of desalinated water. such as imported water. Only 15 years ago the cost of desalinated water was Within the past few decades. including exploitation of the groundwater basins has the sub-costs of energy. Electrodialysis pipes). (2) multi-effect distillation (MED).613 to 0. Avlonitis determined the water costs.

according contaminants.48 2. with the directive requirements that can push With a view to minimizing those risks..267 Saudi Arabia RO 57. Fig.000 Brackish water 0. Especially small communities or to. Two other curves are quired improvements in water systems and the plotted. not equipment) from the previous damaging substances. Maneini et al. this is the responsibility of whoever C4. The water authority is quency is well defined for each parameter and responsible only for the former . 1. two monitoring scenarios were considered performance standards rather than requiring the to identify monitoring costs induced by the deriv- use of certain defined methods. a minimum sampling frequency.4. respectively. costs associated to both mises or to some shortcoming within the premises audit and control were taken into account as themselves (for instance. A comparison of the monitoring cost (only centrations in drinking water for potentially analysis. ally. monitoring cost curve. According to this differ- ive to permit the use of methods meeting certain ence. with a growing number of parameters) only deals with maintenance.000 Seawater 0. Directive sets out standards for permissible con. the 80/778/EEC becomes unwholesome within the premises being directive set for different groups (C 1. leaving the com- The approach to reference methods of analysis petent national and health authorities the for monitoring has been revised from the Direct. 18 Canary Islands RO 36. 80/778/EEC directive and the 98/83/EC was In response to any failure to meet a standard carried out in order to evaluate the potential cost for drinking water quality.000 Seawater 0. representing the cost deriving from the cost of testing for biological and chemical 80/778/EEC monitoring requirements. the water authority increase induced by the variation in the number must establish the cause and nature of the failure. discretion to increase it. This allows ing regulations (Table 4): a minimum monitoring Member States to adapt their methods to technical frequency and a higher frequency (not necessarily and scientific progress without necessitating the greatest). Specific- to the quality of the water supplied to the pre.000 Seawater 1.62 Bahrein MSF 23. of parameters and sampling frequency expected This means establishing whether the failure is due for drinking water quality assessment. On the contrary. C2. as shown in Fig. the minimum expected frequency .000 Seawater I. a lead pipe bringing established in 98/83/EC where sampling fre- water into the house). Monitoring and related costs rural water districts could face some financial Failure to monitor and control potentially difficulties in affording capital expenditures for damaging constituents in drinking water can testing equipment needed for full compliance expose the community to significant health risks. / Desalination 176 (2005) 143-153 Table 3 Productioncosts of desalinated water in some countries [24] Location Desalination method Capacity(m3/d) Feed water Cost ($/m3) Malta RO 15.where water flow value. the 98/83/EC Directive check plus audit burden on local communities both for the re. 1 shows. C3 and supplied.150 G.56 Florida RO 46. changes to the Directive. the water rates to particularly burdensome levels. as a function of the supplied The 98/83/EC imposes a significant financial flow.

.... ..... .000 120 120 12 12 2 2 0 2 30....... . . ...} . . . When comparing 98/83/EC monitoring a significant increase. . . . .. 200% 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 m3/day . .... . .... . Higher Min. . ..... .. ..000 360 720 120 240 20 40 0 20 1. • Directive 80/778/EEC higher frequency Fig. ... . / Desalination 176 (2005) 143-153 151 Table 4 Considered sampling frequency (minimum by Directive 80/778/CE and hypothesized one) Flow (m3/d) Number of samples per year C1 C1 C2 C2 C3 C3 C4 C4 Min...... . .000-15. . . ....... ..... .. . . . . .. ... . ... ... .. .. .....000 360 720 120 240 20 40 0 20 1000000 . ... . 1. . With respect to systems (5. . ..... . . ... . the . . .. 1. .. . . .. .. An abnormal these two last. .. .000 360 720 60 60 10 10 0 10 200. . . hypothesized from 80/778/EEC.. ... .. ..... . .. ° . . . .. .. .. the percentage increase curves of increase occurring at flows greater than 100.000 6 6 2 2 1 1 0 1 2. . . .. ... . ~ 1000% .. Mancini et al. . . . Higher Min... Directive 80/7781EEC minimun frequency costs as derived from previous Directive Cost increase (%) for minimum frequency 80/778/EC and current Directive 98/83/EC...... . . ... . . . minimum frequency expected from 80/778/EEC.... . .. ....... G... ... . with respect to the for these systems. ...000. .... . . . . . ...Directive 98/83/CE Check + Audit Monitoring . .. . .. .000 180 180 18 18 3 3 0 3 60.... ..000 turning to 98/83/EC monitoring requirements m3/d (>500... ... . .... = -~'-'°'* 100000 800% 10000 600% 1000 400% t... ......000 360 720 36 36 6 6 0 6 100...... .. . .. .. . .. .. .. ... .. . . .._= 100 200% o 10 ~ .. the minimal sampling frequency is not acceptable It can be stated that.. .. . .. .000 36 36 4 4 1 1 0 1 10... ..000 inhabitants).. ... . . Comparison between the monitoring Cost increase (%) for an higher frequency -. . . . ..... up to 125% plus.. .000 inhabitants) is not found because were evaluated and plotted in Fig. . . . ..... Higher 500 4 4 1 1 1 1 0 1 1.000 60 60 6 6 1 1 0 1 20. .... . ..000 12 12 3 3 1 1 0 1 5..... . . .. ... can be requirements with the higher sampling frequency caused by the application o f 98/83/EC to small scenario. .. 0% 1 .. . . .. . . . Higher Min.. and a hypothesized higher one. . ..... . .. .

action to address failures. have been developed on the Acknowledgement basis of national (Italian) and international pub- lished data for three different treatment schemes.g. national cost (only in terms of laboratory analysis). Therefore. and the provision of water from a result. requirements. tions since a project (e. Conclusions with different objectives such as to increase With the introduction of EU Directive 98/83. alternative sources may be impractical. the related costs. a new treatment facility) will be implemented not only to comply with pre-existing and new regulations but also 3. operation and maintenance costs. meet the EU directive requirements. cost curves including both capital. that. / Desalination 176 (2005) 143-153 cost increase is always negative.e. a limited and/or taminating water supplies intended for human temporary failure to meet the standards does not consumption. guidelines. especially toring programs to reduce the risk of con- for the chemical parameters. and compared with the monitoring costs as de- quirements can cause lowering of the monitoring rived from previous regulations (i. especially should be highlighted that it is difficult to esti- for small systems. Specifically. human consumption. as put in place.. • increase investments in the water sector over This study presented a description of main the next years so that technology breakthrough drinking water treatments and related costs might improve the efficiency of the water together with the monitoring costs necessary to services while decreasing related costs. The authors would like to thank to the referees showing an increasing effectiveness level. • adopt appropriate water-saving measures to whereas remedial action might take a long time to reduce the demand for drinking water and.. porated into the national water regulation of each • develop appropriate programs at the national EU Member State. the following achieving beneficial effects in the quality of water could be considered: and in public health through the monitoring for • weigh human health risks against the cost of permissible concentrations in drinking water of monitoring for controlling the regulated sub- potentially damaging substances and remedial stances. level to support the upgrading of water treat- It is worth emphasizing that the standards. necessarily give rise to any risk to health. Mancini et al. however. . as derived from the World In order to increase the sustainability of the Health Organization guidelines (1993). were developed to ensure safe lifetime • implement nationwide water resource moni- exposure to drinking water. meaning that the 98/83/EC were also evaluated (costs of analysis) introduction of the new directive sampling re. Costs (Themistocles D.152 G. Specifically. sampling frequency is kept mate the cost to the water industry in compliance substantially as close as possible to the minimum with the single national Drinking Water Regula- one. aims at enforcement of the EU Directive. Lekkas and Ceyda Uyguner) for monitoring in accordance with Directive who contributed to improve this work. treatment capacity and efficiency and to install a new set of standards for water intended for automated monitoring. recent • allow more flexibility to small drinking water improvements in scientific understanding and systems to comply with current and future technology in the water sector will be incor. ment facilities and the enforcement of moni- mainly based on World Health Organization toring schemes. It regulations based on Directive 80/778/EEC). It should be considered.

Inge- gneria Ambientale. 138 (2001) 17-28. S. [8] M. 2003.A. Techniques of pollution [3] M. University of [11] J.. pp.A. Semiat. [26] J. Assaf. Yewa and M.E.A. Nurizzo. Water Res. Salleh bin [21] S.A.H.A. Nawrocki. [22] N. Scott. 2666. Lin and S.. Editoriale BIOS. Napoli. Uberc and [18] H.. (2002) 99-106.. [25] R. Canziani [4] T. Merig.A. 2000. 36(9) (2002) sull'Ambiente. Abd E1-Shafy and A. [17] A. Nawrocki. W. Antonelli. M.-F. EI-Dib and R. R. Greece. Prima Conferenza Internazionale W. H. 1992. Tsiourtis. SIDISA. Science Total Environ. Gang. A1-Mutaz. Trybyb. Mat. Hellmann. 63/241/69478. IWA. U. 147. 375-378. 1998. and S. A. ~. Ilecki and J. Mediterranean Region. Water Res.G. T. [24] S. Tecniche per la Difesa dall'Inquinamento 23 °. [10] J. Ali. Desalination. Sorlini and M. S.E. [16] C.. Water Res.. Napoli [14] EPA 815-R-99-012.M. Haz. Iraklio.M.F. Water Res. Bataynehb. 123 (1999) 143- [7] D. Desalination. U. V. Dvorak and S. S. Boccellia. Hoang. Desalination. Banerji. [19] M. V. 141 (2001) 145-156. Bonomo and D. 31(5) (2002) 265-271. Belluati. J. Livnat.S. 37 (2003) 2654. in: [23] D. Water Res. Belgiomo. Avlonitis.L. L. ~wietlik. Summer 2002. J.X.H. Symposium on Water Recycling in 246 (2000) 41-49. Desalination. 597-604. [13] EPA. 37(19) (2003) 4693-4702. 29(9) (1995) protection. Desalination. Desalination. Raczyk-Stanistawiak. [20] I. Mancini et aL / Desalination 176 (2005) 143-153 153 References [12] C. M. [1] EPA 822-R-02-038. [15] L. Raczyk-Stanistawiak.-W. Water Res.. [9] L. Bilozor. Belgiorno and R. Collivignarelli. 1999. 2004. 99 (1994) 275-297. Nebraska Cooperative Extension EC03-703. [2] M. .. Kocher. [6] D. B. 150 R. A96 (2003) 1-12. [5] M.A. Catania. Bilozor. Summersd.K. R. Tusel. Desalination. Rizzo. Ilecki and J. 139 (2001) 7-19. C. Ramlib. Azzellino. Rosenberger and E. 2002.K. Fr6. 37 (2003) 4637--4644. 2003. Desalination. 142 (2002) 295-304. Rizzo. Grfinwald. and F. 13th Training Course. 141 (2001) 223-236. G. Abu Qdais andF.wietlik. A1-Sahlawi. Bekbolet. 2328-2336. Skipyon. Malpei. Pauzi Abdullaha. Clevenger and S. 34(13) (2000) 3453-3459.