w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 6 7 3 e1 6 8 3

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres

An integrated performance assessment framework for water

treatment plants

Kejiang Zhang a, Gopal Achari a,*, Rehan Sadiq b, Cooper H. Langford c,

Mohammed H.I. Dore d
a
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada
b
Okanagan School of Engineering, UBC, Kelowna, BC, Canada
c
Department of Chemistry, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB, Canada
d
Department of Economics, Brock University, St Catharines, ON, Canada

article info abstract

Article history: An innovative framework for the performance assessment of a traditional water treatment
Received 15 February 2011 plant (WTP) is presented that integrates the concepts of reliability, robustness, and
Received in revised form Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment (QMRA). Performance assessment for a WTP
21 November 2011 comprised of three units (i.e., unit 1: Coagulation/Flocculation and Sedimentation; unit 2:
Accepted 4 December 2011 Filtration, and unit 3: Disinfection) was conducted. Performance functions for units 1, 2,
Available online 13 December 2011 and units 1 and 2 combined, were constructed by integrating turbidity robustness indices.
Performance function for chlorine disinfection was developed based on the difference
Keywords: between achieved and required CT values. A health-based performance function was
Performance assessment developed by comparing the target daily infection rate to the site-specific infection rate. It
Water treatment plant operation was used to identify whether the health-based target was met during the failures of units 1
and management to 3. Results obtained from the proposed performance functions can be used by operators
Reliability to ensure that multiple barriers perform successfully under variable conditions.
Robustness ª 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Quantitative Microbial Risk Assess-
ment (QMRA)

1. Introduction component (unit) specific factors such as velocity gradients in

Water treatment plants are expected to provide safe and
aesthetically acceptable water to consumers at a reasonable
cost. Conventionally, management and operation of a water
treatment plant (WTP) is based on monitoring finished water
quality parameters and then comparing them to the regula-
tory requirements. Nonetheless, the performance of each
treatment unit in a WTP is important and needs to be evalu-
ated to ensure the unit’s performance is successful. Multiple
factors such as variability in source water quality and
coagulation and flocculation, surface overflow rate for the
sedimentation basin, and contact time for disinfection, all can
impact the quality of finished water. A system to ensure that
the performance of each unit is acceptable is necessary. Such
a system will ensure that the proper functioning of the
different components in fact lead to multiple barriers being
present at all times. A multi-barrier approach and
performance-based standards for each barrier are suggested
by different regulatory agencies (CCME, 2004; Alberta
Environment, 2006). Multiple barriers minimize the health

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 403 220 6599; fax: þ1 403 282 7026.
E-mail address: gachari@ucalgary.ca (G. Achari).
0043-1354/$ e see front matter ª 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.watres.2011.12.006
1674 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 6 7 3 e1 6 8 3
risk posed by the treated water. The more treatment barriers
are used, the lower the likelihood of a contaminant breaks
through the treatment process. As the source water quality
varies and the performance of one treatment unit affects the
performance of the later components in the treatment chain,
the evaluation of the performance of a WTP becomes
a complex problem.
Chang et al. (2007) developed a performance evaluation
system for a WTP using sixteen performance indicators
including turbidity as a dominant factor. These performance
indicators set the criteria for success or failure. Performance
assessment using system indicators was also recommended
by Vieira et al. (2008), who identified eighty performance
indicators over seven domains including treated water
quality, plant reliability, use of natural resources and raw
materials, by-product management, safety, human resources,
and economical and financial resources. The US EPA (1998)
and Choi et al. (2002) used a Comprehensive Performance
Evaluation (CPE) technique, which helped improve the
performance of existing water treatment plants. Libânio and
Lopes (2009) presented an overall quality index for a conven-
tional WTP. This index, which is an indicator of operational
failure, can also be used to make a comparative study
amongst different water treatment plants. Coulibaly and
Rodriguez (2004) conducted a comparative performance
analysis of small water utilities in Quebec, Canada, using
performance indicators associated with operations, infra-
structure, and maintenance. A weighted index was used to
measure the overall performance for each small water utility.
Sadiq et al. (2010) used Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA)
operators and fuzzy set theory to assess the performance of
small water utilities based on a variety of performance
indicators.
It should be noted that performance can always be
improved if the utility or manager has a larger operating
budget. Performance assessment discussed in this paper is for
an existing water treatment plant. Thus it is a maintained
hypothesis of this paper that the utility manager has a limited
budget. Operating within a given budget, we can avoid the cost
dimension of performance optimization.
Unit 1
Coagulation/
Raw water Flocculation Sedimentation
SSO SS1 SS2
Turbidity
Robustness index
PF1 for Unit 1
Fig. 1 e Unit layout for performance assessment of a conventional water treatment plant.
The objective of this paper is thus to develop an integrated
framework of performance assessment for a conventional
WTP to facilitate daily operational decision making by inte-
grating the concepts of reliability, robustness, resilience, and
quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA). Reliability,
robustness, resilience and risk, all of which have somewhat
different meaning are widely used to measure system
performance and are integrated into a common platform in
this paper such that they can all be used to predict various
aspects of the performance of a WTP. By incorporating these
concepts and testing to ensure that the system remains reli-
able, robust and the water quality is of acceptable risk, we are
ensuring that multiple barriers function properly.
2. Identification of performance indices for
WTP performance assessment
A conventional water treatment plant (WTP) comprising of
coagulation/flocculation, sedimentation, filtration, and disin-
fection is used to explain the methodology presented here (see
Fig. 1).
The measures such as reliability, robustness, resilience, and
risk are discussed in the context of system performance and
are defined in the following subsections prior to presenting
the proposed methodology.
2.1. Reliability
System reliability is defined as “the ability of a system or
component to perform its required functions under stated
conditions for a specified period of time” (Blanchard, 1992).
The longer the time period, for which component/system
performs its intended function, the more reliable it is. Reli-
ability is thus the probability that failure does not occurs
within a fixed period of time (Karamouz et al., 2003). In the
context of a water treatment plant, reliability is the probability
that over a given period of time the plant meets the water
quality regulatory standards or self-imposed threshold limits
PF 4 for Unit 1+ Unit 2
Robustness Index
Turbidity
Unit 2 Unit 3
Clear
Filtration Disinfection water
tank
SS3 CT
Turbidity
Robustness index
PF2 for Unit 2 PF3 for Unit 3
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 6 7 3 e1 6 8 3
(Gupta and Shrivastava, 2006). Mathematically, the reliability
of a WTP can be expressed as (Gupta and Shrivastava, 2006)
R ¼ PrðS˛NFÞ
where S is the state variable and NF represents non-failure
state, and R is the probability (0 < R < 1). As this equation
does not consider the time component, a widely accepted
definition of reliability is provided by Hashimoto et al. (1982)
PM
j¼1 dj
R¼1
T
where dj is the duration of the jth failure event, M is the
number of failure events, and T is the total time including
regular operation time and failure durations. The occurrence
reliability can also be defined as
NF
R¼1
NNF þ NF
where NNF is the number of times a system’s performance is
deemed to be in non-failure state and NF is the number of
times a system’s performance in failure state. The first step in
evaluating the reliability of a system such as a WTP is to
develop performance functions based on identified criteria
(see Section 3) and then use the performance function values
to identify system state, i.e., NF or F (Gupta and Shrivastava,
2006). The reliability definition given in Eq. (2) is later
compared with the definition of resilience (see Section 2.3).
2.2. Robustness
The IEEE (1990) defines the robustness of a computer operating
system as “the degree to which a system or component can
function correctly in the presence of invalid inputs or stressful
environmental conditions”. Huck and Coffey (2004) define
a robust system as the “one that provides excellent perfor-
mance under normal conditions and deviate minimally from
this during period of upset or challenge”, i.e., it is a measure of
a system’s ability to continue to function despite the presence
of faults in the component subsystems. A WTP will be
considered robust when its performance is insensitive to the
variations in the source water quality and changing opera-
tional conditions and thus continues to achieve the desired
water quality (Zakarian et al., 2007).
2.3. Resilience
The term resilience initially proposed in ecological research by
Holling (1973) is used to describe a system’s capacity to persist
in a stable state when it is subject to perturbations. Gunderson
and Pritchard (2002) defined two types of resilience: (1) engi-
neering resilience and (2) ecological resilience. Engineering
resilience is defined as the speed with which a system returns
to its former state following a perturbation while ecological
resilience is defined as the magnitude of disturbance that can
be tolerated before the ecosystem restructures (Dalziell and
McManus, 2004).
For a WTP, resilience describes how quickly a system
recovers from failure, once failure has occurred. It can also be
defined as a measure of the duration of an unsatisfactory
1675
condition (Nazif and Karamouz, 2009). Mathematically, the
resilience of a system is the conditional probability given as
(Hashimoto et al., 1982)
(1)
Res ¼ PrfSðt þ 1Þ˛NFjSðtÞ˛Fg (4)
where S(t) is the system state variable under consideration.
Moy et al. (1986) defined the resilience as the inverse of the
maximum duration of failure events and is given by
  1
Res ¼ max dj (5)
(2) j
From Eq. (2) and Eq. (5), both reliability and resilience can be
defined on the basis of the duration of failure events. The
failure duration of a WTP used in resilience will be affected by
a variety of operational issues. For example, in small rural
communities, one operator might be responsible for a number
of small water systems and more time may be required for an
(3)
operator to reach a particular water system that is failing. This
small water system thus may have lower resilience compared
to the one with a full time dedicated operator. From an oper-
ational view point, once a failure is detected that cannot be
recovered quickly, a warning system including a report to the
local health authorities should be initiated. As resilience is
case-specific and depends on the location, size, availability of
trained technicians and the number of operators, it is difficult
to quantify in a general sense and hence it is not included in
this paper as a measure of performance assessment for
a WTP.
2.4. Risk
Risk has two dimensions: the probability of an adverse event
and its consequence. Therefore the standard mathematical
definition of risk is given as:
Risk ¼ ðprobability that an adverse event will occurÞ
 ðconsequence of the adverse eventÞ (6)
While a variety of different kinds of risks exist for a water
utility manager, the main focus here is ‘health risk’. Therefore
the Health Canada Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment
(QMRA) (Health Canada, 2010) framework is used here. The
QMRA evaluates the incremental health risk due to mechan-
ical and operational failures as well as when large fluctuations
in water quality occur over short exposure durations (Health
Canada, 2010).
2.5. Framework for WTP performance assessment Q
A conventional WTP using coagulation/flocculation-
sedimentation-filtration-disinfection (see Fig. 1) is used to
demonstrate an integration of reliability, robustness, and risk
measures for the performance assessment and operational
management of water treatment plants. Three treatment
units are defined in Fig. 1, i.e. Unit 1: Coagulation/flocculation
and sedimentation; Unit 2: Filtration; and Unit 3: Disinfection.
In order to measure reliability, robustness and risk, a number
of performance functions are defined to evaluate whether
each unit of a WTP is working properly. The integration of
reliability, robustness, and risk measures into the framework for
1676
the performance assessment of a conventional WTP is illus-
trated in Fig. 2.
Turbidity robustness indices for units 1, 2 and combined
units 1 and 2 (see Fig. 1), and the daily infection rate derived
from Health Canada Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment
(QMRA) (Health Canada, 2010) are first determined. The reli-
ability performance function which is used to determine the
system state, i.e., failure (F ) or non-failure (NF ), is constructed
using the turbidity robustness indices and daily infection rate
obtained from a specific WTP. Finally system reliability can be
evaluated based on the number of failures (NFF) and non-
failures (NNF) using Eq. (3). The development of performance
functions by integrating the measures of robustness and risk is
explained in the following section.
3. Development of performance functions
Reliability of each unit (see Fig. 1) is determined and that will
lead to the evaluation of the unit performance. For a WTP, the
water quality of treated water is the principal measure of
performance. The parameters associated with treated water
quality are suspended solids concentration (SS) (unit 1 and
unit 2 individually) obtained from predictive models and
turbidity (unit 1 and unit 2 combined) monitored on-line are
selected. For unit 3, the CT value is used as the operational
parameter that can be linked to the removal of microorgan-
isms (Alberta Environment, 2006). Microbial risk is used to
develop a health-based performance function. The role of
performance assessment in operational management of
a conventional WTP is illustrated in Fig. 3.
A number of factors such as velocity gradients, detention
time, and coagulant dosage affect the performance of coagu-
lation and flocculation. Since water quality parameters such
as turbidity are not monitored after each unit conventionally,
the performances of unit 1 and unit 2 (see Fig. 1) cannot be
evaluated individually. As the failure of unit1 (such as coag-
ulant dosage being too low) may not lead to a failure of unit 2,
the water turbidity after unit 2 may still be acceptable, not
providing any indication that unit 1 is not working properly.
Input data
(Turbidity, suspended solid
concentration, CT)
Robustness Index Pathogen reduction
(Units1, 2, and Unit 1+Unit 2) efficiency assessment
Microbial Risk
(Eqs.23-25)
Unit performance Risk-based performance
functions (PF1, 2, 4)
Reliability
(Eqs. 31and 32)
Performance
assessment
Fig. 2 e Application of reliability, robustness, and
quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) in WTP
performance assessment.
w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 6 7 3 e1 6 8 3
To assess the performance for each unit 1 and 2, a predictive
model is required to estimate the removal efficiency of unit 1
and unit 2 with respect to suspended solid concentration. A
performance function for each unit is given in subsections 3.1,
3.2, and 3.3.
3.1. Performance function for coagulation/flocculation-
sedimentation (unit 1) and filtration (unit 2) units
Performance functions for unit 1 and unit 2 are developed
based on the predicted suspended solid concentration in
settled and filtered water.
3.1.1. Suspended solid concentration in settled water (unit 1)
The major operational parameter that determines the
performance of a coagulation-flocculation-sedimentation
basin is the removal of suspended solids. The average diam-
eter (df, mm) of flocs aggregated in flocculator can be esti-
mated based on the velocity gradient (G, s1) applied in
flocculator given by François (1987)
dF ¼ KGg (7)
where dF is the average floc diameter (mm), G is the velocity
gradient (s1), K is an empirical constant, and g an empirical
exponent.
Settling velocity, which affects the sedimentation perfor-
mance, is governed by floc diameter (dF) and density (rF ) given
as (Fair et al., 1968)
g
Vs ¼ ðSGF  1Þd2F ; for Re < 1 (8)
18 n
where Re is Reynold’s number (Re). For floc diameter greater
than 1 mm, and Reynold’s number greater than 1 and less
than 50, the settling velocity is given by Mhaisalkar et al. (1993)
g0:8 ðSGF  1Þ0:8 1:4
Vs ¼ dF ; for 1  Re < 50 (9)
10 n0:6
where g is the gravity acceleration (m/s2), n is the kinetic
viscosity (m2/s), and SGF and SGW are specific gravity of floc
and water, respectively.
The efficiency of sedimentation based on the removal of
suspended solids is given by Fair et al. (1968)
 1=n
DSS Vs
¼1 1þn (10)
SS1 ðQ=Ac Þ
where SS1 is the inlet suspended solid concentration of sedi-
QMRA
mentation basin, Vs is the settling velocity defined in Eqs. (8)
Daily infection rate
(Eqs.26-28) and (9), Q is the flow rate (m3/hr), and Ac is the surface area
of sedimentation basin (m2), and n is the coefficient that
identifies basin performance (Thomas and Archibald, 1952). In
functions (PFRisk)
an ideal sedimentation basin, the settling velocity represents
the surface overflow rate (SOR), i.e., SOR ¼ Q/Ac, where all
suspended solids will be removed. As a variety of factors such
as density, eddy currents, and surface and vertical convection
currents affect settling basin efficiency, settling basins seldom
perform ideally. Different n values account for non-ideal
behaviours of sedimentation basin; n ¼ 0 represents the best
possible performance, whereDSS=SSIn ¼ 1  expðVS =SORÞ;
n ¼ 1/8 is very good performance; n ¼ ¼ is good performance;
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 6 7 3 e1 6 8 3 1677

Input operational
monitoring parameters
(see Figure1)

Evaluation of Evaluation of
performance functions treatment efficiency

Unit 1 Coagulation/ Unit 2 Unit 1+Unit 2 Unit 3 Health-based

Flocculation/ Filtration Coagulation/ Flocculation/ Disinfection target (PFRisk)
Sedimentation (PF1) (PF2) Sedimentation/ Filtration (PF3)
(PF4)

Output information: No
PFi < 0
System work well
Y es

Indentify failure causes

Corrective actions

Fig. 3 e A framework of performance assessment for a conventional water treatment plant.

n ¼ ½ is poor performance; n ¼ 1 is for very poor performance where U is a specific value of a random variable u with chi-
(Fair et al., 1968). square distribution given by
SS1 is determined based on the suspended solid concen-
tration in source water given by Mhaisalkar et al. (1993). uðv=21Þ expðu=2Þ
f ðuÞ ¼ (15)
2v=2 Gðv=2Þ
SS1 ¼ SS0 þ K  DCog (11)
where in this statistical representation v is the degrees of
where SS0 is suspended solid concentration in source water freedom. In a water treatment plant, v is the same as filter
(mg/L), K is the mass of precipitated materials resulting from operation time expressed in hours. G is gamma function and U
a unit concentration of coagulant added. The K values are is a random variable in the chi-square distribution as stated by
0.247 and 0.345 for aluminium [Al2(SO4) 16H2O] and iron Hsiung and Cleasby (1968)
[FeSO47H2O], respectively. DCog is the coagulant dosage (mg/L) " # ( " #)2

assuming that all Alþ3 and Feþ3 are precipitated as aluminum U Y Y
log10 ¼ 0:208 þ 1:950 log10  0:645 log10
and ferric hydroxides (Mhaisalkar et al., 1993). Eq. (10) also L ðLÞ1:2 ðLÞ1:2
assumes that suspended solids do not settle during floccula- (16)
tion, i.e., the inlet suspended solid concentration of sedi-
where L is depth of sand layer (inches) and Y is given by
mentation basin can be estimated using Eq. (11).
Hsiung and Cleasby (1968)
The effluent suspended solid concentration from the
sedimentation basin can then be determined by
50
Suspended solids in settled water (mg/L)

SS2 ¼ ð1  DSS=SS1 Þ  SS1 (12)

The prediction of suspended solid concentration in settled

40 SS0=50 mg/L, DCog=30 mg/L
water over different velocity gradients using Eqs. (7), (8), and
SS0=20 mg/L, DCog=10 mg/L
(10)e(12) is illustrated in Fig. 4.
SS0=10 mg/L, DCog=5 mg/L
30
Surface overflow rate=3.5m/h
3.1.2. Suspended solid concentration in filtered water (unit 2)
Kinetic viscosity v = 1.3 10-6m2/s
The suspended solid concentration in filtered water (SS3) can 20
be determined by
10
SS3 ¼ SS2 ð1  Pc Þ (13)
where Pc is the ratio of suspended solid concentration at 0
a time t and depth of layer L to the influent concentration, 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
-1
given as the cumulative probability in the chi-square distri- Velocity gradient in flocculator (S )
bution as shown by Hsiung and Cleasby (1968):
Fig. 4 e Prediction of suspended solid concentration in
ZU settled water over different velocity gradients in flocculator
Pc ¼ f ðuÞdu (14) at 10  C, where SS0 is suspended solid concentration in
0 source water (mg/L), DCog is the coagulant dosage (mg/L).
1678 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 6 7 3 e1 6 8 3

Y ¼ F0:29
R d
0:62
t (17) 3.1.4. Development of performance functions for units 1 and 2
The first step in the development of a performance function is
where FR is the filtration rate (gallons per minute per square
to identify performance criteria. Although turbidity and sus-
feet, gpm/ft2), d is the diameter of sand grain (in mm, assumed
pended solid concentration do not have any obvious rela-
constant), t is filter operation time (hours). From Eqs. (16) and
tionship with the removal of microorganisms, their increase
(17), the performances of a filter is a function of filtration rate
leads to an increase in microbial load in the water (Huck and
(FR), diameter of sand grain (d ), depth of sand layer (L), and
Coffey, 2004). Thus they are widely used as indicators or
operation time (t). Eq. (16) cannot be directly applied to multi-
surrogates for microbial water quality. In order to compare the
layer sand filtration without further experimental verification.
performances based on turbidity and suspended solid
Filter performances obtained from Eqs. (14)e(17) are illus-
concentrations, an empirical relationship based on measure-
trated in Fig. 5.
ments specific to a WTP is used (Gippel, 1995; Minella et al.,
2008).
3.1.3. Head loss of filter
A robustness index based on turbidity (Huck and Coffey,
Similarly, the head loss DH (feet) at the end of time t (hours),
2002; Huck et al., 2001) is used to capture its variations. A
filter influent suspended solid concentration SS2, filtration
Turbidity Robustness Index (TRI) for both coagulation/floccu-
rate FR (gpm/ft2), and diameter of sand grains d (mm) can be
lation/sedimentation and filtration is given by Huck and
integrated into one parameter R given by Hsiung and Cleasby
Coffey (2002) and Huck et al. (2001).
(1968)

1 T95 T50
d2:5 DH TRI95 ¼ þ (20)
R ¼ 1:2 1:4 (18) 2 T50 Tgoal
FR SS2
where TRI95 is the turbidity index using the 95th percentile, T50
where DH ¼ Ht  H0 , Ht (feet) is head loss during filtration at
and T95 are 50th and 95th percentiles (NTU), respectively, Tgoal
time t, and H0 (feet) is head loss at beginning of filtration
(NTU) is the target turbidity. The first term on the right hand
through clean filter.
side of the equation represents the uniformity of performance
R can be calculated from Y and L using (Hsiung and
over a specified duration (e.g., a filtration cycle) and the
Cleasby, 1968)
second term represents how well a unit is performing. A time
      2 period of 24 h for unit 1 and one cycle operation (between
R Y Y
log10 ¼ 3:25 þ 1:013 log 10  0:036 log 10 backwashes) period for unit 2 were selected in this paper.
L1:6 L1:2 L1:2
Performance function (PF ) based on robustness index for each
(19)
of the unit (see Fig. 1) is given by
Using different parameters, d, FR, SS2, and R, head loss (DH )
can be predicted using Eq. (18). PFi¼1;2; and 4 ¼ TRIgoal i  ðTRI95 Þi (21)

where the (TRIgoal)i is the acceptable turbidity robustness index

for units 1, 2 and unit 1 þ unit 2 (i.e., unit 4). If a unit works
efficiently, both T95 and T50 approach the performance goal set
0.12 by regulations and (TRI95)i will approach 1. In practice, T50 < Tgoal
or T95 < Tgoal is possible. If the value of TRI is located in the range
d=0.6mm,FR=19.4m/h,H=0.5m
of [0, 1], then the water quality is better than the regulatory
0.10
d=0.6mm,FR=12m/h, H=0.5m requirements; TRI95 > 1 means that the unit 1, 2, or 4 fails, except
d=0.6mm,FR=19.4m/h,H=0.6m in cases when then water is extremely clean (for example,
0.08
T50 z 0). Therefore the target values of (TRIgoal)i are set as 1.
SS3/SS2

0.06
3.2. Performance function for disinfection (unit 3)
0.04
The product of concentration (C, mg/L) and time (T, hours)
given as CT is employed to evaluate the reliability of the
0.02
disinfection process as monitoring very low levels of patho-
gens in treated water is very difficult (Alberta Environment,
0.00
2006). The required CT value designated as CTRequired can be
determined based on the log reduction required by regula-
0 10 20 30 40
tions, pH, and temperature from the CT tables provided by
Run time (hours) regulatory agencies (Alberta Environment, 2006). The perfor-
Fig. 5 e Filter performances obtained from Eqs. (11)e(13), mance function for evaluation of reliability of a disinfection
where d is the diameter of sand grain (mm), FR is the process can be written as
filtration rate (gallons per minute per square feet, gpm/ft2),
PF3 ¼ CT10  ðCTÞRrequired (22)
H (feet) is head loss during filtration, SS2 (mg/L) is the
effluent suspended solid concentration from the where CT10 is the CT values determined by the minimum
sedimentation basin and SS3 (mg/L) is the suspended solid chlorine concentration multiplied by the actual contact time
concentration in filtered water. T10 which can be estimated by Alberta Environment (2006)
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 6 7 3 e1 6 8 3 1679

T10 ¼ FSC  Tmin
where FSC is a short-circulating factor. Typical short-circu-
lating factors can be found in Alberta Environment (2006). Tmin
is the minimum time that a unit of water takes to travel
through the reservoir at the average speed without mixing or
short circulating.
3.3. Health-based performance function by integrating
QMRA
QMRA is used to measure whether the health-based targets of
a WTP, which are an essential component of drinking water
safety framework, are met, i.e., health-based targets can be
interpreted as performance targets (WHO, 2008).
Acceptable microbial risk level can be defined through
different measures. The US EPA requires that the microbial
risk of drinking water is less than one infection per 10,000
person annually (using Giardia as a reference organism)
(Macler and Regli, 1993). Health Canada (2010), The Australian
National Guidelines for Water Recycling (NRMMC & EPHC, 2006),
and The World Health Organization’s (WHO) Guidelines for
Drinking-water Quality (WHO, 2008) recommend the acceptable
microbial risk using Disability-Adjusted Life-Years (DALYs) as
a unit as 106 DALY/person per year level of disease burden
(DB). This definition is employed in this paper. The disease
burden (DB) in DALYs/person per year can be estimated by
Health Canada (2010)
DB ¼ RI  SW
where RI is the risk of illness per year for an individual and SW
is the severity weight (DALYs/case). The total DALYs per case
for Cryptosporidium parvum is 0.0017 DALYs/case, for E. coli ENT
is 0.025 DALYs/case, and for rotavirus is 0.00846 DALYs/case
(Health Canada, 2010). The RI can be determined by
RI ¼ PInf ;y  S  I
where PInf ;y is the probability of infection per year, S is the
proportion of the population susceptible to infection, and I is
the proportion of individuals that develop symptomatic
illness after infection. The probability of infection per year
ðPInf ;y Þ is obtained from the probability of infection per day
ðPInf ;d Þ
(23) where r is the infectivity parameter and r ¼ 0.0192 for Giardia
and 0.00419 for Cryptosporidium (Barbeau et al., 2000).
The probability of infection for Escherichia coli is determined
by Haas and Eisenberg (2001),
2 3a

4 d 1
PInf ;d ¼1 1þ 2a  1 5 (29)
N50
where N50 (¼ 8.6  107) is a median infectious dose and
a (¼ 0.1778) is a slope parameter (Haas and Eisenberg, 2001).
This doseeresponse model is only for pathogenic strains of
E. coli which are classified into enteropathogenic, enter-
oinvasive and enterotoxigenic groups. As currently avail-
able analytical techniques make it impractical to routinely
monitor for microbial pathogens in treated water (Health
Canada, 2010), the estimation of exposure to pathogens is
based on the presence of pathogen indicators in source
water and treatment efficiency. Regulatory agencies
recommend a log removal/inactivation value for different
treatment units (US EPA, 1999; Alberta Environment, 2006;
Smeets et al., 2006).
The probabilities of infection for Cryptosporidium, Giardia
lamblia, E. coli, and rotavirus under different number of
organisms ingested per day are illustrated in Fig. 6
The target probability of daily infection obtained from the
Eqs. (24)e(26), can be used to construct the performance
function as the extent of long-term health risks posed by the
drinking water is controlled by short-duration period of high
(24)
risk (Signor and Ashbolt, 2009) given by
PFRisk ¼ PTInf ;d  PInf ;d (30)
where PTInf ;d is the target daily probability of infection and PInf ;d
the daily probability of infection obtained from Eqs. (27)e(29).
PFRisk < 0 means that the health target is not met. The calcu-
lation of disease burden (DB) is also required to determine
(25)
whether the health target of a water treatment system meets
the regulatory requirements.
0.9
0.8
Probability of infection or illness

Y
365
PInf ;y ¼ 1  1  PInf ;d i
(26) 0.7
i¼1
0.6 Rotavirus
The probability of infection due to exposure to the reference
rotavirus is estimated by using Beta-Poisson model (Health 0.5 Cryptospridium
Canada, 2010; Hass et al., 1999)
Giardia
0.4 E.coli
 a
d 0.3
PInf ; d ¼1 1þ (27)
b
0.2
where a ¼ 0.265 and b ¼ 0.4415 (Health Canada, 2010) and d is
the dosage of virus per day. 0.1
The probability of infection exposure to Cryptospridium
0.0
oocysts or Giardia cysts is estimated by using the exponential 0 20 40 60 80 100
model (Haas et al., 1996; Teunis et al., 1997; Barbeau et al.,
Number of organisms ingested per day
2000; Medema et al., 2003),
Fig. 6 e Probability of infection or illness over the number
PInf ;d ¼ 1  er$d (28) of pathogens ingested per day.
1680 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 6 7 3 e1 6 8 3

function values
G3performance
4. Reliability assessment

120.11
126.28
124.67
218.44
115.23
60.54
205.67
490.81
The probability of failure calculated as the number of failures
(PFi < 0) versus the total number of performance evaluations is
given by

Number of PFi < 0

Pi;failure ¼

CT Achieved
(mg/L Min)
(31)
Total number of PFi

168.11
190.28
138.67
242.44
171.23
286.54
329.67
556.81
where i ¼ 1, 2, 3, and 4 represents the units 1, 2, 3, and unit
1 þ unit 2 (i.e., unit 4, see Fig. 1). The reliability of each unit is
then given by

CT Required
(mg/L Min)
Ri ¼ 1  Pi;failure (32)

48
64
14
24
56
226
124
66
For an existing water treatment plant, the process is
designed based on source water quality and the mandated
water quality. Each unit plays a specific role and all unit

Log reduction required

functions work together to ensure the success of the WTP.

by disinfection
Thus the whole system reliability can be estimated by
Y
RT ¼ Ri ; where i ¼ 1; 2; and 3 (33)

0.5
1.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.5
1.5
0.5
i

Overall the reliability obtained from Eq. (33) can be used to

compare the reliability of different water treatment plants and
can also be used to evaluate the reliability if the new units are
introduced into an existing plant. For example, if a UV based

Max reservoir flow

system is introduced, in addition to existing chlorination to

rate (m3/min)
maintain residual disinfection, one can estimate how the

0.279
0.272
0.324
0.191
0.215
0.280
0.309
0.222
overall system reliability would be impacted by the introduc-
tion of the new UV component.

5. An illustrative example
Min reservoir
Volume (m3)

707.98
631.74
702.53
792.39
Table 1 e Evaluations of performance function for chlorine disinfection.

721.6
784.2
761.5
812.4

To illustrate the methodology presented in this paper, we

obtained publicly available data for small water systems in
Alberta, Canada. As all the data required to calculate the
performance for a specific water treatment plant is not
Min chlorine

available, we could only illustrate a portion of the proposed

(mg/L)

0.65
0.66
0.59
0.57
0.52
1.27
1.45
1.56

method. Fig. 7 presents the turbidity of raw and filtered water

in a water treatment plant.

1.1 Filtered water turbidity

Raw water turbidity
Max pH

1.0
7.86
7.74
7.74
7.85
8.53
9.15
9.84
8.33

0.9
Turbidity (NTU)

Note: The short-circulating factor FSC is 0.1.

0.8
temperature

0.7
Min

4.4
7.4
11.5
5.9
4.1
4.9
10.6
3.4

0.6
0.5
0.4
raw water (per 100 L)

0.3
0.2
Giardia levels in

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Filter operating time (hours)
<0.41

<0.81

<0.67
>9.1

<2.4
<3.3
<0.5
0.56

Fig. 7 e Turbidity in raw water and filtered water in

a conventional water treatment plant.
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 6 7 3 e1 6 8 3
Table 2 e Level of Giardia Reduction (Alberta
Environment, 2006).
Raw water Giardia levels Recommended Giardia
Log reduction
<1 cyst/100 L 3-Log
1 cyst/100 Le10 cysts/100 L 3 Loge4 Log
10 cyst/100 Le100 cysts/100 L 4 Loge5 Log
>100 cyst/100 L >5 Log
The target of filtered water turbidity for a conventional water
treatment plant is 0.3 NTU (Health Canada, 2008), i.e. Tgoal ¼ 0.3
NTU in Eq. (20). From Fig. 7, one gets T50 ¼ 0.58 NTU and
T95 ¼ 0.665 NTU, then the TRI95 ¼ 0.5  (0.665/0.58 þ 0.58/
0.3) ¼ 1.54. The performance function value (Eq. 21),
PF4 ¼ 1e1.54 < 0, i.e., a failure of unit 1 þ unit 2 is identified.
This failure may have been caused by either unit 1 or 2, or
simultaneously both units 1 and 2 may have not been working
properly. Thus the predictive models (Eqs. (7)e(19)) are
necessary to evaluate the performance of unit 1 and unit 2
individually and to facilitate the determination of causes of
failure.
Data (see Table 1) obtained from a small water system was
used to determine the performance of unit 3, i.e., chlorine
disinfection process. The columns of 1e6 pertain to data ob-
tained from this water treatment plant (see Table 1).
Alberta Environment (2006) recommends the levels of log
reduction for Giardia based on quarterly samples of Giardia
concentrations which are given in Table 2.
A removal (or reduction) credit of 2.5 logs (US EPA, 1991)
attributed to coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, and
filtration was identified to determine the log reduction
required by chlorine disinfection in Table 1. If the Giardia cysts
in raw water are greater than 9.1cysts/100 L, the recom-
mended Giardia log reduction level for the whole treatment
plant is 3-Log to 4-Log (see Table 2, Alberta Environment,
2006). In this case study, we opt for 4-Log reduction. Thus
the Log reduction required by chlorine disinfection is 1.5-Log.
However, when a filter is out of service, i.e., the performance
function value of unit 2 is less than zero, the required disin-
fection log removal is 4-log. The failure of units 1 and 2 will
reduce the log reduction efficacy of pathogens, thus the need
to increase the disinfection reduction efficiency by increasing
Table 3 e An example of microbial risk assessment for a conventional water treatment plant.
Calculation algorithm Symbols
Source water quality CR
Reduction efficiency RE
Consumption of drinking water V Litre per day
Exposure by drinking water E Organisms per litre
Risk of infection per day Pinf,d
Risk of infection per year Pinf,y
Proportion of symptomatic illness given infection I Unitless
Population susceptible to infection S Percent
Risk of illness RI
Severity weight SW
Disease burden DB
1681
the CT values. The required CT (CTRequired) values were then
determined based on the temperature, pH, chlorine concen-
tration, and required Log reduction level from tables of CT
values for inactivation of Giardia cysts by free chlorine
provided by Alberta Environment (2006). The values CTRequired,
CTAchieved, and performance function of unit 3 are listed in
Table 1. The values of PF3 (Eq. (22)) are all greater than 0, i.e., no
failures have been observed in all eight performance evalua-
tions. Thus the reliability of unit 3 obtained from Eqs. (31) and
(32) is 1.
An example to determine the daily infection rate PInf ;d and
the corresponding disease burden (DB) based on Health
Canada (2010) for a conventional WTP with disinfection
using chlorine is provided in Table 3. The number of organ-
isms per litre in source water and the reduction efficiency of
water treatment are hypothetical.
From Table 3, the disease burden for both cryptosporidium
and rotavirus exceed the acceptable risk level (106 DALY/
person per year) and the probability of infection, PInf,d, also
exceed the target infection probability, i.e., PTInf ;d ¼ 2:3  106
such that the value of health-based performance function is
less than zero. This should trigger a series of specific actions
by the operator to inform the public/health agencies and take
corrective actions. In the QMRA framework, pathogen
concentrations in finished water are determined based on
pathogen concentrations in raw water and removal or inac-
tivation levels provided by water treatment (Smeets et al.,
2008). Significant uncertainties might occur in this process.
Uncertainties can be involved in each step and hence the need
to have a system with high reliability. The effects of reduction
in efficiency of a conventional water treatment plant on
cryptosporidium risk are significant. For example, Alberta
Environment (2006) suggests the reduction credit is 3.0 Log
and Smeets et al. (2008) recommend a 3.8 Log reduction. In this
case, the final disease burdens are 3.6  105 and 5.8  106,
respectively. Mean reduction efficiencies for pathogens in
different treatment units from different references are shown
in Table 4.
Thus the identification of the efficacy of inactivation
of microorganisms in a specific WTP plays a crucial role
in evaluations of performance functions associated with
disinfection process (unit 3, Eq. (22)) and health risk
(Eq. (30)).
Units Identified pathogens
Cryptosporidium Rotavirus
Numbers of organisms per litre 20 8
Log 3.00 5.00
1.00 1.00
0.02 0.00008
Probability of infection per day 8.37965E-05 4.8013E-05
Probability of infection per year 0.030123951 0.01737236
0.7 0.5
100% 6%
Probability per year 0.021086766 0.00052117
DALYs/case 0.0017 0.00846
DALYs/person per year 3.58475E-05 4.4091E-06
1682 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 6 7 3 e1 6 8 3
Table 4 e Mean pathogen reduction efficacy in different treatment units.
Treatment units
Virus
a
Coagulation/flocculation/sedimentation/filtration 3.0
Slow sand filtrationa 2.2
Direct filtrationa 0.9
Coagulation/flocculationa 1.8
Chlorine disinfectionb Determined based CT values, temperature and pH value
UVb Determined based on UV dose (mJ/cm2), humic acid particles and coagulants
Notes:
a Smeets et al. (2006).
b Health Canada (2010).
6. Conclusions
A performance evaluation framework for a conventional
water treatment plant is presented in this paper that inte-
grates measures such as reliability, robustness, resilience and
health risk. Performance functions for coagulation/
flocculation-sedimentation (unit 1), filtration (unit 2), and
unit 1 þ unit 2 were constructed by integrating turbidity
robustness indices. Performance function for disinfection was
developed based on the difference between achieved and
required CT values. Health-based performance was evaluated
by comparing daily infection rate derived from acceptable risk
level defined based on the Disability-Adjusted Life-Years
(DALYs), i.e. 106 DAYS/person per year with the site-specific
one. QMRA was used to identify whether the health-based
target was met during the failures of units 1 to 3. As in
a small water system usually only turbidity of filtered water is
measured, the performance of units 1 and 2 cannot be esti-
mated individually. In this paper we use models to predict the
suspended solid concentrations in settled water and filtered
water. A specific relationship between turbidity and sus-
pended solid concentration is used to transform suspended
solid concentration to turbidity before the evaluation of the
performance functions for unit 1 and unit 2. An illustrative
example is used to demonstrate how the performance
assessment framework of this paper might work in practice.
Further data are required to calibrate the predictive models
before the performance assessment framework presented
here can be used in a specific water treatment plant.
Acknowledgements
This research is financially supported by the National Science
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).
references
Alberta Environment, 2006. Standards and Guidelines for
Municipal Waterworks, Wastewater and Storm Drainage
Systems. http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/6979.pdf.
Pathogens
Bacteria Cryptosporidium Giardia
2.1 2.9 3.3
2.7 3.8 3.3
1.4 3.0 2.5
1.5 1.9 1.6
Barbeau, B., Payment, P., Coallier, J., Clément, B., Prévost, M., 2000.
Evaluating the risk of infection from the presence of Giardia
and Cryptosporidium in drinking water. Quantitative
Microbiology 2 (1), 37.
Blanchard, B.S., 1992. Logistics Engineering and Management,
fourth ed. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the environment), 2004.
From Source to Tap: Guidance on the Multi-Barrier Approach
to Safety Drinking Water Produced Jointly by the Federal-
Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water and the
CCME Water Quality Task Group.
Chang, E.-E., Chiang, P.-C., Huang, S.-M., Lin, Y.-L., 2007.
Development and implementation of performance evaluation
system for a water treatment plant: case study of Taipei Water
Treatment Plant. Practice of Hazard, Toxic, and Radioactive
Waste Management 11 (1), 36e47.
Choi, S., Yun, Z., Yoon, J., Hong, J., Lee, Y., 2002. Performance
evaluation program of water treatment plant in Korea. Water
Science & Technology: Water Supply 2 (5e6), 143e148.
Coulibaly, H.D., Rodriguez, M.J., 2004. Development of
performance indicators for small Quebec drinking water
utilities. Journal of Environmental Management 73, 243e255.
Dalziell, E.P., McManus, S.T., December 2004. Resilience,
Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity: Implications for Systems
Performance. International Forum for Engineering Decision
Making (IFED), Switzerland.
Fair, G.M., Geyer, J.C., Okun, D.A., 1968. Water and Wastewater
Engineering Volume 2. Water Purification and Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal. John Wiley &Sons, Inc, New York, PP.
25e5.
François, R.J., 1987. Strength of aluminum hydroxide flocs. Water
Research 21 (9), 1023e1030.
Gippel, C.J., 1995. Potential of turbidity monitoring for measuring
the transport of suspended solids in streams. Hydrological
Processes 9, 83e97.
Gunderson, L.H., Pritchard, L. (Eds.), 2002. Resilience and the
Behavior of Large-scale Systems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Gupta, A.K., Shrivastava, R.K., 2006. Uncertainty analysis of
conventional water treatment plant design for suspended
solids removal. Journal of Environmental Engineering 132 (11),
1413e1421.
Haas, C.N., Eisenberg, J.N.S., 2001. Risk assessment. In:
Fewtrell, L., Bartram, J. (Eds.), Water Quality: Guidelines,
Standards and Health, Assessment of Risk and Risk
Management for Water-Related Infectious Disease. World
Health Organization in Series. IWA Publishing, London, UK.
Haas, C.N., Crockett, C.S., Rose, J.B., Gerba, C.P., Fazil, A.M., 1996.
Assessing the risk posed by oocysts in drinking water. Journal
of the American Water Works Association 88 (9), 131e136.
Hashimoto, T., Loucks, D.P., Stedinger, J., 1982. Reliability,
resilience and vulnerability for water resources system
 w a t e r r e s e a r c h 4 6 ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 6 7 3 e1 6 8 3
performance evaluation. Water Resources Research 18 (1),
14e20.
Hass, C.N., Rose, J.B., Gerba, C.P., 1999. Quantitative Microbial Risk
Assessment. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Health Canada, 2008. Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water
Quality Summary Table Prepared by the Federal-Provincial-
Territorial Committee on Drinking Water of the Federal-
Provincial-Territorial Committee on Health and the
Environment, May 2008. http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/
alt_formats/hecs-sesc/pdf/pubs/water-eau/sum_guide-res_
recom/summary-sommaire-eng.pdf.
Health Canada, 2010. Enteric Virus in Drinking Water Prepared by
Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water.
http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/consult/_2010/enteric-
enteriques/draft-ebauche-eng.php.
Holling, C.S., 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems.
Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4, 1e23.
Hsiung, K.Y., Cleasby, J.L., 1968. Prediction of filter performance.
American Society of Civil Engineers. Journal of the Sanitary
Engineering Division 94 (SA6), 1043e1069.
Huck, P.M., Coffey, B.M., 2002. Robust drinking water treatment
for microbial pathogens-implications for cryptosporidium. In:
Hahn, H.H., Hoffmann, E., Ødegaard, H. (Eds.), Chemical Water
and Wastewater Treatment VII. IWA Publishing, London.
Huck, P.M., Coffey, B.M., 2004. The importance robustness in
drinking water systems. Journal of Toxicology and
Environmental Health, Part A 67, 1581e1590.
Huck, P.M., Emelko, M.B., Coffey, B.M., Maurizio, D., O’Melia, C.,
2001. Filter Operation Effects on Pathogen Passage. American
Water Works Research Foundation, Denver, CO (Report No.
90874).
IEEE, 1990. IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering
Terminology IEEE Std 610.12e1990, IEEE Computer Soc., Dec.
10, 1990.
Karamouz, M., Szidarovszky, F., Zahraie, B., 2003. Water
Resources Systems Analysis. Lewis, Boca Raton, Fla.
Libânio, M., Lopes, V.C., 2009. Assessing the feasibility of a water
treatment plant quality index. Journal of Water Supply:
Research and Technology 58 (5), 354e362.
Macler, B.A., Regli, S., 1993. Use of microbial risk assessment in
setting US drinking water standards. International Journal of
Food Microbiology 18, 245e256.
Medema, G.J., Hoogenboezem, W., Veer, A.J.v.d., Ketelaars, H.A.M.,
Hijnen, W.A.M., Nobel, P.J., 2003. Quantitative risk assessment
of Cryptosporidium in surface water treatment. Water Science
and Technology 47 (3), 241e247.
Mhaisalkar, V.A., Bassin, J.K., Paramasivam, R., Khaana, P., 1993.
Dynamic programming optimization of water-treatment-
plant design. Journal of Environmental Engineering 119 (6),
1158e1175.
Minella, J.P.G., Merten, G.H., Reichert, J.M., Clarke, R.T., 2008.
Estimating suspended sediment concentrations from turbidity
measurements and the calibration problem. Hydrological
Process 22, 1819e1830.
Moy, W.-S., Cohon, J.L., ReVelle, C.S., 1986. A programming model
for analysis of the reliability, resilience, and vulnerability of
1683
a water supply reservoir. Water Resources Research 22 (4),
489e498.
Nazif, S., Karamouz, M., 2009. Algorithm for assessment of water
distribution system’s readiness: planning for disasters.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 135 (4),
244e252.
NRMMC, EPHC, 2006. Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling.
Managing Health and Environmental Risks. Phase 1. National
Water Quality Management Strategy 21. Natural resource
management Ministerial Council. Environment Protection and
Heritage Council Australian Health Ministers’ Conference,
Canberra, Australia.
Sadiq, R., Rodriguez, M.J., Tesfamariam, S., 2010. Developing
performance indicators for small water utilities using ordered
weighted averaging (OWA) operators. Expert Systems with
Applications 37, 4881e4891.
Signor, R.S., Ashbolt, N.J., 2009. Comparing probabilistic microbial
risk assessments for drinking against daily rather than
annualised infection probability targets. Journal of Water and
Health 7 (4), 535e543.
Smeets, P.L., Rietveld, Hijnen, W., Medema, G., Stenstrom, T.-A.,
2006. Efficacy of Water Treatment Processes- Microbiological
Risk Assessment: A Scientific Basis for Managing Drinking
Water Safety from Source to Tap. www.microrisk.com/
microrisk_efficacy_of_water_treatment_processes.pdf (Access
July 2010).
Smeets, P.W., Dullemont, Y.J., Van Gelder, P.H., Van Dijk, J.C.,
Medema, G.J., 2008. Improved methods for modelling drinking
water treatment in quantitative microbial risk assessment;
a case study of Campylobacter reduction by filtration and
ozonation. J. Water and Health 6 (3), 301e314.
Teunis, P.F.M., Medema, G.J., Kruidenier, L., Havelaar, A.H., 1997.
Assessment of the risk of infection by Cryptosporidium and
Giardia in drinking water from a surface water source. Water
Research 31 (6), 1333e1346.
Thomas, H.A., Archibald, R.S., 1952. Longitudinal mixing
measured by radioactive tracers. Transactions of the
American Society of Civil Engineers 117, 839.
US EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency), 1998.
Handbook: Optimizing Water Treatment Plant Performance
Using the Composite Correction Program. EPA/625/6-91/027,
Cincinnati.
US EPA, 1991. Guidance Manual for Compliance with the
Filtration and Disinfection Requirements for Public Works
Systems Using Surface Water Sources. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, WashingtonD.C.
US EPA, 1999. Alternative Disinfectants and Oxidants Guidance
Manual. Office of Water. EPA 815-R-99e014.
Vieira, P., Alegre, H., Rosa, M.J., Lucas, H., 2008. Drinking water
treatment plant assessment through performance indicators.
Water Science and Technology: Water Supply 8 (3), 245e253.
World Health Organization (WHO), 2008. Guidelines for Drinking
Water Quality, third ed. WHO, Geneva.
Zakarian, A., Knight, J., Baghdasaryan, L., 2007. Modelling and
analysis of system robustness. Journal of Engineering Design
18 (3), 243e263.