Table A- 1.

Disinfection methods

Disinfection Type Advantages Disadvantages Reference

Technology
Chlorine Effective disinfectant, residual By-product formation such
effect in the water as THMs (Water quality
and health
council, 2003)

Chlorine Chlorine dioxide is a strong Less effective in removing (Sadiq et

dioxide bactericidal agent with a long
Chlorine-based residual time period in water and
disinfectant is more effective in removing
Giardia cysts.
Chloramines Due to more stability, free
residual disinfectant in water is
more easily maintained
some pathogens lie, E.coli al.,2004b)
0157:H7 and producing
by-products like chloride,
chlorite, and chlorate.
Less effective disinfectant (Durmishi et al.,
for inactivation of E Coli. 2015)

Bleaching Bleach can be an effective Bleach rapidly loses its (Disinfection with
powder disinfectant when used properly activity when exposed to bleach, Tech Talk
organic soil. 2011.)
Ultraviolet It is a chemical-free process and Efficiency in disinfecting (USEPA, 1999)
light effectively removes water decreases with
Cryptosporidium and Giardia increases in turbidity and
lack of disinfectant
Other residual to prevent the
Disinfection microbial regrowth
technique Ozone Ozone has a higher disinfection Ozone reacts with bromide (Durmishi et al.,
capacity than chlorine, needs to form ozonized DBPs 2015)
short contact time, and increases and lack of disinfectant
the biodegradability of organic residual in the water
matter
 Table A-2. Contribution of different NOM on the formation of THMs

Chemical Group THMs formation Reference

Humic acid and The primary precursor to DBPs formation and have a significant impact. (Singer, 1999)

Fulvic
Carbohydrates This is primarily hydrophilic components and not a major THM precursor with (Bond et al., 2012)

slow THM forming kinetics.

Amino acids and The aromatic amino acids contribute to the formation of THM in drinking (Hong et al., 2009)

Protein water. polypeptide groups do not react with chlorine, but the tyrosine and the
tryptophan groups do contribute to THM formation

Carboxylic acids Very low potential for simple carboxylic acids like fatty acids to form THM (Bond et al., 2012)
 Table A-3. Current THMs guideline values for the different countries and organizations

Sr. Organization Years Guideline value (ug/L)

No
TTHM CHCl₃ CHBrCl2 CHBr2Cl CHBr₃ Reference

01 WHO 2011 ---- 300 60 100 100 (World Health

Organization,
2008)
02 EU 2018 100 ---- ---- ---- ---- (European Union
(Drinking Water)
Regulations,
2014)
03 USEPA 2018 ---- 80 80 80 80 (USEPA, 2018)

04 Japan 2010 100 60 30 100 90 (Sharma et al.,

2009)
05 China 2014 ---- 60 60 100 100 (Wang et al.,
2015a)
06 New Zealand 2019 ---- 400 60 150 100 (Sharma et al.,
2009)
07 South Africa 2015 ---- 300 60 100 100 (South African
National
Standard:
Drinking Water,
2015)
08 India 2012 ---- 200 60 100 100 (IS 10500
(2012): Drinking
Water -
Specifications,
2012)
09 Germany 2001 50 ---- ---- ---- ----

10 Netherlands 2000 25 ---- ---- ---- ----

11 Sweden 2001 100 ---- ---- ---- ----

(Mohd Zainudin
12 UK: 2000 100 ---- ---- ---- ----
England et al., 2018a)

13 UK: Northern 2007 100 ---- ---- ---- ----

Ireland
14 UK: Scotland 2001 100 ---- ---- ---- ----

15 Malaysia 2010 ---- 200 60 100 100

16 USA 2001 80 80 80 80 80
 Table A-4 : Countries in the HDI Index

Sr. No Country’s HDI Index

01 China 0.949

02 Germany 0.947

03 Sweden 0.945

04 Australia 0.944

05 Netherland 0.944

06 Denmark 0.940

07 America 0.922

08 Japan 0.919

09 Spain 0.904

10 France 0.901

11 Italy 0.892

12 Russia 0.824

13 Iran 0.783

14 Brazil 0.765

15 South Africa 0.709

16 Egypt 0.707

17 Iraq 0.674

18 India 0.645

19 Bangladesh 0.632

20 Pakistan 0.557
Table A-5. THM concentration in developed countries
 THM
Sr
HDI Concentrati
. City/ Treatment method Reference
Country inde on
N region
x µg/L
o
(Gabriella
1999 to
1.10 µg/L NA Aggazzotti et
2000
al., 2004)
Emilia-
Chlorine dioxide was the primary (Righi et al.,
0.89 Romagna 3.8 µg/L
Italy disinfection process. 2012)
01 2 (2012)
Chlorine dioxide, Ozone, and
(Evlampidou
(2012-2017) 3.1 µg/L sodium hypochlorite are used as
et al., 2020a)
a secondary disinfectants.
Coagulation, flocculation, sand
29.5 µg/L filtration, Inter-ozonation, post-
chlorination
Pre-chlorination, pre-ozonation,
coagulation, flocculation,
41.6 µg/L (Damien
sedimentation, inter-ozonation,
2006 post-chlorination Mouly et al.,
Coagulation, flocculation, 2010)
0.90 sedimentation, (KMnO4)
02 France
1 oxidation, inter-chlorination,
111.5 µg/L
GAC on sand, re-carbonation
+lime, ozonation post-
chlorination
(Magali Corso
1960-2000 17.5
Pre and post-chlorination et al., 2018)
The disinfection method was
(Evlampidou
2005-2011 11.7 µg/L Chlorine, hypochlorite, chlorine
et al., 2020a)
dioxide, ozone.
(Cristina M.
Sabadell
114.7 ug/L Chlorination of water Villanueva et
0.904 (2004-2006)
03 Spain al., 2011)
Chlorine, chlorine dioxide, (Evlampidou
2013 439 ug/L
ozone, permanganate et al., 2020a)
0.30 ± 1.81
Okinawa µg/L to 11 ± (T. S. Imo et
Ozonation and
(2003-2004) al., 2007)
2.68 µg/L
226 ± 81.2
Samoa µg/L to 267 ± (T. S. Imo et
chlorination
04 Japan 0.91 (2003-2004) al., 2007)
92.3 µg/L
9
(Cotruvo et al.,
(1980) 50 µg/L NA 2019)
Osaka in Ozonation and GAC to remove (Cotruvo et al.,
10ug/L
Japan organic matter 2019)
67 µg/L (Joseph A et al.,
0.92 Chlorination of drinking water, Ozone,
05 America (2019) 45 µg/L 2019).
6 Chloramines, chlorine dioxide
30 µg/L

(Evlampidou
No disinfection, UV radiation
0.94 et al., 2020a)
06 Denmark (2014-2016) 2.2 µg/L (limited)
0
Amsterdam Chlorine, Ozone, UV radiation is (Evlampidou
(1982) 12 µg/L the primary disinfection process. et al., 2020a)
Berenplaat (Cotruvo et al.,
Netherla 0.94 Post UV as a disinfectant
07 WTP plant 1 ug/L 2019a)
nd 4
Kralingen Pre-ozonation and post- Evlampidou et
WTP plant 1 ug/L chlorination al., 2020
Australian
Sellicks
253 µg/L Post-chlorination of water Drinking
Beach
Water Map
08 Australia 0.94 Conventional water treatment (Stanhope et
Perth 157 µg/L
4 plant flowed by post-chlorination al., 2020)
Chlorine, hypochlorite, chloramine,
UV radiation, Chlorine, chloramine (Evlampidou
0.94 (70% of the population use et al., 2020a)
09 Sweden (2011-2013) 100 µg/L chlorinated drinking water)
5
Ozone as a disinfectant for
(Cotruvo et al.,
treating surface water
(2003) 50 µg/L 2019)
0.94
10 Germany
7 Chlorine, chlorine dioxide, (Evlampidou
- 0.5 ug/L hypochlorite, ozone et al., 2020b)
 Table A-6. THM concentration in developing countries

THM Treatment method

S Country HDI City/region Concentratio Reference
r. inde n
N x ug/L
o
Islamabad Chlorine as a secondary
1 Pakistan 0.557 (2013) 259 µg/L disinfectant by an
untrained workforce (Amjad et al.,
Rawalpindi 20–317 mg/L Chlorine as a secondary 2013)
disinfectant by an
untrained workforce
Kallyanpur Conventional water (Ahmed et al.,
2 Banglade 0.632 (2019) 439.2 µg/L treatment method 2019)
sh
Mumbai Tulsi Post-chlorination (Thacker et al.,
3 India 0.645 DWTP (2001) 253.8 µg/L n.d.)
Conventional treatment (Hasan et al.,
Delhi Haiderpur 459.9 µg/L method followed by post- 2010)
DWTP (2009) chlorination
Conventional method (Kumari et al.,
5 WTP of the 274–511 mg/l coagulation-flocculation, 2015)
eastern region sedimentation, filtration,
(2014) and chlorination
Bagdad Tigris Oxidation(Cl2), (Ewaid et al.,
4 Iraq 0.674 River (2018) 41.6 µg/L coagulation (flocculation) 2018)
Sedimentation, filtration,
disinfection(NaClO)
Wassit districts 30.1 to 139 Chlorination of water (Al-Tmemy et
μg/L al., 2018).
Cairo 126.2 - 134.8 NA (El-Dib & Ali,
5 Egypt 0.707 ug/L 1992)
Alexandria ( Abdullah,
Governorate 12 to 74 µg/L NA 2014)
(2014)
Atlantis (2013) Average 83.48 Chlorine as disinfectant (Booi, 2013)
Rand DWTP Primary disinfection by (Marais et al.,
6 South 0.709 (2019) 64 µg/L chlorination and secondary 2019)
Africa by ammonia (i.e.
chloramine).
High exposed Chlorine and chloramines (Mashau et al.,
community 94 µg/L as a pre-and-post 2021)
(2021) disinfectant
Northeast China (Liu et al.,
3 to 42 µg/L NA
(2019) 2011)
7
China 0.761 18.81 to 38.96 (Wang et
Jiangsu NA
μg/L al.,2019)
Peri Lake 152.3 ± 2.5 Post-chlorination (Budziak et al.,
8 Brazil 0.765 2007)
Fortaleza (2009) NA (Viana et al.,
105.3 to 141.1 2009.)
Ardabilo (2019) ( Sadeghi,
9 353 µg/L NA 2019)
Iran Tabriz (2020) conventional water (Mosaferi et al.,
133.7 µg/L treatment system including 2021)
pre-and-chlorination
0.783 Sari city (2019) Conventional and chlorine (Kalankesh et
54 µg/L as a disinfectant al., 2021)
Cherepoverts High chlorination of water (Egorov et al.,
1 Russia 0.824 (2003) 205 µg/L 2003)
0 (2018) 192-215 µg/L Traditional water treatment (Govorova et
method al., 2018)
 Table A-7. Adverse health effects of THMs on human

THM Health Effects Classification

Bromoform Damage nervous system, Liver, Kidney, Cancer B2

Chloroform Cancer, Damage Liver, Kidney, Reproductive system B2
Dibromochloromethane Damage liver, nervous system, Kidney, reproductive system B2
Bromodichloromethane Damage Kidney, liver, Reproductive system, Cancer C

B2 –Possible human carcinogen with experimental laboratory avoidance, C- Possible human

carcinogen Source-
(Durmishi et al.,2015)