Safe and Reliable Water Quality

XPRIZE

Meet WHO 2017 potable reuse guidelines and real-time quality monitoring.

akb

(All of the proposed criteria sound good/useful to me, but here's a comment in favour of this aspect...)

Adopting the WHO guidelines makes sense (to me); and real-time quality monitoring is a wise precaution.

[This criteria may have something in common with another one of your criteria about potable water quality.]

[Deleted User]

I maintain that I hope ZPRIZE helps new solutions that reach the final with approval and certification?

Thanku

I am not sure about the WHO guidelines, but as a guiding principle, it has to be safe and of high quality to support the living systems on the planet (including humans).

gtparker

Is there a reason why we are not using. WHO’s Guidelines for drinking-water quality?

If we frame things in terms of log reductions as much of the linked document does are we not incentivising people choosing terrible water sources and achieving high log reductions/performance.
(see also the suggested prize criteria about using 'Black Wastewater')

Does it make sense for a prize criteria called 'safe and reliable water quality' to choose a framework where the best performance might yield effluent that is still not safe?

As is correctly noted in 6.3.1 in the linked WHO potable reuse document "Water quality standards are the mechanism for formalizing application of health-based target". I agree with this.

In my opinion this criteria needs to be:
1) Meet a standard (this means choosing a water quality standard -- WHO for drinking water is OK if you'd like)
and (optionally)
2) Further ranking (perhaps in broad classes) for highest log reductions/reliability demonstrated.

TerryMulligan

Thanks you @gtparker for the above suggestion. Apologies if it was unclear but we are currently exploring a fit-for-purpose system that would be able to produce potable and non-potable water on demand.

For the potable water standards we are using WHO standards.

However, for non-potable water we are exploring different options. Given that local standards are often highly variable, we want to test our competitors in a rigorous way, but also ensure adoption of their technology. We have explored different non-potable water standards, particularly those from the EPA, but are curious - do you or anyone else in the community know of other international standards or frameworks for non-potable water?

ashton

See my comment on Cost effectiveness.

This will definitely require defining the challenge i.e wastewater source/s (can be categorised as organic or inorganic effluent typically containing xxxx) and then defining the quality or purpose of reclaimed water (Fit for purpose) e.g potable or non potable water suitable for use as process water, irrigation, etc). Not all countries have potable water scarcity and potable water is cheaper. Hence, reusing treated wastewater for irrigation or acquifer recharge may be the most ideal option which supports sustainable development than direct potable reuse which will not be cost effective and will rather be done as CSI initiative.

gtparker

@TerryMulligan Thanks for the clarification

Ok, so if you've got access:
Oron, et al. "Greywater use in Israel and worldwide: Standards and prospects" (2014) Water Research, 58, pp. 92-101

If you don't have access some links below:
The above discusses to Greywater Reuse Criteria in Australia here and here; from the US, Germany, etc.

And refers to British Standards:
BS-8525-1
BS-8525-2

And Si-Israel Standard:
SI-6147

(Note that storage becomes more of an issue also)

Also, here's something accessible to all I just found quickly
Singapore:
https://www.pub.gov.sg/Documents/greywaterTech.pdf
(e.g. pg 15)

(BTW I didn't write any of the above and am not advocating for any/all of them but trying to provide info for discussion)