THE PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHREYER HONORS COLLEGE

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

Optimizing the Solar Disinfection Method to Produce Potable Water from Ecologicallytreated Wastewater Using Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottles

M. WILLIAM SHEEHAN Spring 2012

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a baccalaureate degree in Civil Engineering with honors in Civil Engineering

Reviewed and approved* by the following:

Dr. Rachel A. Brennan Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering Thesis Supervisor

Dr. Patrick M. Reed Associate Professor of Civil Engineering Honors Adviser

*Signatures are on file in the Schreyer Honors College.

Abstract
According to the World Health Organization, more than two million people die of waterborne diseases every year, and 1.1 billion people lack a source of safe drinking water. Every day, 4,500 children die from diarrhea due to a water-borne contaminant (World Health Organization, 2000). The Solar Water Disinfection (SODIS) method is proven to remove pathogenic contamination from water. In an epidemiological study of a cholera outbreak in Kenya, an 88% reduction in diarrhea cases was observed among SODIS users (Conroy et al., 2001). In this method, reused, unscratched, two liter polyethylene terephthalate (PET) bottles are filled with water and then placed on their sides atop corrugated metal roofs in full sun for a minimum of six hours to deactivate pathogens using the ultraviolet-A (UVA) waves from the sun. The materials used in this method are accessible and economical, making SODIS a water treatment process capable of helping many people who live in developing nations. To date, an estimated 2.1 million people in 24 countries have benefited from SODIS (SODIS, 2012). However, the SODIS method is not effective when the influent turbidity is greater than 30 NTU. In the United States, the average turbidity value of domestic wastewater is approximately 60 NTU (Natural Resource Management and Environment Department, 1992), and drinking water turbidity must be less than or equal to 0.3 NTU in at least 95 percent of the samples in any month, never exceeding 1 NTU (US EPA, 2012). The objective of this project was to investigate the potential of sustainably transforming domestic wastewater into potable water, by combining an ecological wastewater treatment system (i.e., Eco-Machine) to reduce turbidity, with modifications of the SODIS method to optimize disinfection efficiency. A series of 20 oz. PET bottles were filled with Eco-Machine effluent and placed on four different backgrounds to determine the effects of UVA intensity and i

temperature on the SODIS method. The four backgrounds included corrugated metal (a common rooftop material in developing countries), blackened corrugated metal (to increase temperature), a mirror (to enhance UVA transmission), and gravel (control). The level of disinfection was quantified by sacrificing the bottles after a six hour period, and counting the number of E. coli and general coliforms. The broad outlook of this thesis is to refine the SODIS method and apply it for producing potable water from wastewater in developing nations at minimal cost.

ii

Table of Contents, List of Figures, and Tables

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 History of SODIS .................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 The SODIS Procedure ........................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Turbidity Limitation .............................................................................................................. 2 Figure 1: Series of Formazin turbidity standards in NTU/FTU .............................................. 3 1.5 The Pennsylvania State University Eco-Machine ................................................................. 3 Figure 2: Cross-section of the Eco-Machine at Penn State. .................................................... 4 Figure 3: Closed anoxic tanks, CA1 and CA2......................................................................... 5 Figure 4: Picture of Open Aerobic 1 ....................................................................................... 6 Figure 5: Close-up of Floating Island. ..................................................................................... 7 Figure 6: Picture of Open Aerobic 2 ....................................................................................... 8 Figure 7: Picture of Water Hyacinths in OA2. ........................................................................ 8 Figure 8: Flow meter for the aeration system. ......................................................................... 9 Figure 9: Picture of Open Aerobic 3 ..................................................................................... 10 Figure 10: Picture of the clarifier. ......................................................................................... 11 Figure 11: Wetland and Display Pond. .................................................................................. 12 2. Materials and Methods ........................................................................................................... 13 2.1 Water Collection Method for Turbidity Measurement ....................................................... 13 2.2 Water Collection Method for Bottle Samples ..................................................................... 13 2.3 Background Material Setup................................................................................................. 13 Figure 12: Outside SODIS setup............................................................................................14 Figure 13: Outside SODIS setup............................................................................................14 2.4 UVA/B Measurement Method ............................................................................................ 15 Figure 14: Inactivation of cellular functions for E. coli based on fluence ............................ 16 2.5 Temperature Measurement Method .................................................................................... 16 2.3 Water Testing Method ......................................................................................................... 17 3. Experimental Results and Discussion ................................................................................... 19 3.1 Temperature ........................................................................................................................ 19 iii

Figure 15: Indoor and outdoor Air temperatures over the course of the experiment. ........... 19 Figure 16: Average final water temperatures for SODIS bottles on each background material. ................................................................................................................................. 20 3.2 UVA/B Measurements ........................................................................................................ 21 Figure 17: Primary and bounce-back UVA/B measurements over time. .............................. 21 Table 1: Percentage of theoretical inactivation for indoor samples. ..................................... 22 Table 2: Percentage of theoretical inactivation for outdoor samples. ................................... 22 3.3 CFU/mL per Background Material ..................................................................................... 22 Figure 18: Colony-forming units per mL of E.coli and total coliforms as a function of the background material. ............................................................................................................. 23 Table 3: Summary of CFU/mL for total coliforms and E. coli on each outdoor background material .................................................................................................................................. 24 3.4 Most Effective Progression ................................................................................................. 24 Figure 19: Disinfection levels throughout the combined treatment system. ......................... 25 4. Engineering Significance and Future Work ......................................................................... 27 Appendix 1- Plants of the Eco-Machine Wetland .................................................................... 29 Appendix 2- Temperature Data ................................................................................................. 31 Appendix 3- UVA/B Data ........................................................................................................... 32 Appendix 4- CFU/mL Data ........................................................................................................ 33 Appendix 5- Colony Counts ....................................................................................................... 34 Appendix 6- Calculations ........................................................................................................... 35 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................. 36

iv

Acknowledgements

I am thankful for the superior guidance that Dr. Rachel Brennan has shown me during my thesis. Her expertise and fascinating ideas regarding water remediation guided me throughout this entire project. I greatly valued the time she dedicated to advising my project. I am appreciative of the direction that my honor advisor, Dr. Patrick Reed, has provided to me throughout my undergraduate career. His suggestions and opinions have been instrumental in my completion of the Civil and Environmental curriculum at The Pennsylvania State University.

1. Introduction 1.1 Background

The World Health Organization states that 1.1 billion people lack a source of safe drinking water (World Health Organization, 2000). As a result, many people are forced to drink contaminated water which can cause diarrhea and various other water-borne sicknesses. Diarrheal diseases are the cause of death for over 1.2 million children each year, most being less than five years old (Black et al., 2010). Solar disinfection of water (SODIS) is a simple, economical method for sanitizing water and is recommended by the World Health Organization for those who do not have access to safe drinking water. The SODIS method is proven to remove pathogenic contamination from water and decrease the occurrence of diarrhea by 88% (Conroy et al., 2001).

1.2 History of SODIS

In 1980, Lebanese scientists first discovered that sunlight could disinfect water (Acra et al., 1980). This discovery was not further explored until the 1990s when Eawag, the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Sciences and Technology, envisioned this principle benefiting those living in developing nations. The institute launched an interdisciplinary research team consisting of microbiologists, virologists, engineers, and drinking water specialists to develop a disinfection process involving polyethylene terephthalate bottles and sunlight. This was the birth of the SODIS method. The research team focused on the effectiveness and applicability of the method and ran bench-scale tests in the laboratory and field tests in developing nations. In the tests, the SODIS method proved to be user-friendly, economical, and effective. Other research establishments, including the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, and the University of Uppsala, Sweden, confirmed the validity of the findings and the positive effect the SODIS method has on

peoples health (McGuigan et al., 1998; Wegelin et al., 1994). The SODIS method has since benefited 2.1 million people in 24 countries. Currently, Eawag is researching the health aspects, educational strategies, and PET bottle deficiencies regarding the SODIS method (SODIS, 2012).

1.3 The SODIS Procedure

The SODIS method uses a clear, transparent PET bottle that is filled with biologically contaminated water that has turbidity less than 30 NTU. The bottle must be cleaned beforehand and be less than two liters in size to allow adequate light penetration. The bottle is filled full and shaken for about 20 seconds to oxygenate the water. Afterwards, the remainder of the bottle is filled to capacity and is placed in full sunlight for six hours. During the six hours, the UVA rays interfere with the reproductive, respiratory, and metabolic capabilities of bacteria, viruses, and helminthes (Wegelin et al., 1994). UVA light with a wavelength 320-400 nm is mainly responsible for the inactivation of microorganisms. The rays also react with the dissolved oxygen in the water resulting in highly reactive forms of oxygen (ex., oxygen free radicals) that damage pathogens, and the solar energy heats the water which quickens the disinfection process. The ambient temperature threshold for SODIS to remove fecal coliforms is above 20 C (Wegelin et al., 1994), and if the temperature of the water reaches above 50 C, the disinfection process is three times faster and leads to the complete disinfection of water.

1.4 Turbidity Limitation

One limiting factor of the SODIS method is that the turbidity of the influent must be less than 30 NTU. Figure 1 is a visualization of the Formazin turbidity standards and corresponding values. Turbidity is the visible muddiness within the water created by suspended particles. In the United States, the average turbidity value of domestic wastewater is approximately 60 NTU (Natural Resources Management and Environment Department, 1992). In arid climates and in

developing nations, the wastewater turbidity is significantly greater than 60 NTU because water usage is low so the fraction of sewage in the wastewater is average to high. Due to the turbidity restraint, SODIS is mainly used on water from tube wells, freshwater lakes, and streams. This thesis focuses on the possibility of using SODIS on wastewater that is first treated ecologically to reduce turbidity by means of the Eco-Machine at the Advanced Ecological Engineering Systems Laboratory at The Pennsylvania State University. Combining ecological and SODIS treatment methods could develop another source of potable water for people living in developing nations.

Figure 1: Series of Formazin turbidity standards in NTU/FTU (Optek, 2012).

1.5 The Pennsylvania State University Eco-Machine

The Pennsylvania State University Eco-Machine has the capacity to treat 1,000 gallons of wastewater per day. The remediation system is head driven, and a cross-section of it can be seen in Figure 2. The system was built in May 2003 (Cooke, J., 2003), fell dormant, and was revived in August 2010. At the time of this research, the Eco-Machine was in a start-up period and was processing 500 gallons per day. The incoming influent rate is gradually increased over time so that the living organisms in the system have the opportunity to develop in order to adequately process the nutrients in the wastewater. Due to the dependence of the system on scheduled wastewater deliveries from the Penn State Wastewater Treatment Plant (PSU WWTP), it is
3

foreseen that the system will treat a maximum of 700 to 800 gallons per day with a 58% recycle rate.

Figure 2: Cross-section of the Eco-Machine at Penn State.

At the Eco-Machine, a 3,000 gallon underground anaerobic holding tank is filled weekly with wastewater that has passed through the PSU WWTP primary clarifier. Primary effluent, rather than raw wastewater, is delivered to the Eco-Machine to avoid the introduction of rags, grits, oils, and grease into the system. In the PSU WWTP primary clarifier, some organic material is settled out of the water and fats and oils are skimmed from the surface, resulting in a removal of approximately 30% of the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) from the raw wastewater. From the outer holding tank, this wastewater is pumped into a closed anoxic tank, Closed Anoxic Tank 1 (CA1), seen below on the left in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Closed anoxic tanks, CA1 (left) and CA2 (right).

Each of the closed anoxic tanks are 48-inches in diameter and have a 300-gallon volume. Within CA1 and CA2, there is a heavy degradation of BOD due to anaerobic fermentation reactions that breakdown complex carbon species in the wastewater into fatty acids, alcohols, methane, and carbon dioxide. Heterotrophic fermentative bacteria and chemoautotrophic archaea perform the majority of the microbial degradation reactions in these tanks. Heterotrophic denitrifying bacteria also convert nitrate (NO3-) to nitrogen gas (N2), particularly in CA2, which receives recycled flow from aerated steps later in the system. The produced gases in CA1 and CA2 passively escape via a pipe to outside of the greenhouse, as seen in Figure 3. Leaving CA2, the wastwater enters Open Aerobic Tank 1 (OA1), the first open aerboic tank within a series of three. All three open aerobic tanks have a 67.5-inch diameter and a 1,000gallon volume. Figure 4 is a picture of OA1. In the aerobic environment, the ammonium (NH4+)
5

in the wastewater begins to be converted to nitrate by chemolithotrophic nitrifying bacteria (nitrification) and BOD is oxidized by heterotrophic aerobic bacteria. OA1 contains the most durable plants within the system because OA1 encounters the harshest conditions and an overabundance of nutrients from the wastewater since it is the first aerobic remediation step within the Eco-Machine. In addition to the microoganisms floating in the water, the tank has a floating island. A close-up image of a floating island section from OA1 is shown in Figure 5. Floating islands are comprised of a styrofoam ring that is covered by coconut coir fibers. Soil is located in the inner area of the floating island and the roots of the plants pass through the soil and coir, extending into the wastewater. The roots of the plants remove phosphorus and nitrogen and provide a location for bacterial and fungal colonization. This growth assists in the further degradation of the contaminated water. Snails are present in OA1, as well as in all the other aerobic tanks, to provide water cleansing and algae removal.

Figure 4: Picture of Open Aerobic 1 (OA1).

6

Figure 5: Close-up of Floating Island.

From OA1, the water flows into Open Aerobic Tank 2 (OA2). OA2 is similar to OA1 in that it has a floating island with plants that assist in the removal of nitrogen, phosphorus, and BOD. Figure 6 is a picture of OA2. The plant species in OA2 are different than OA1, and water hyacinths (Eichhornia) float on the water outside of the floating island. The water hyacinths are instrumental in absorbing nitrogen and phosphorus, and there are plans to introduce the elephant ear plant (Colocasia) to OA2 since it is also capable of absorbing the overabundance of nutrients in the water. A close-up of the water hyacinths in OA2 can be seen in Figure 7.

Figure 6: Picture of Open Aerobic 2 (OA2).

Figure 7: Picture of Water Hyacinths in OA2.

From OA2, water flows into Open Aerobic Tank 3 (OA3). OA3 does not have a floating island like the previous aerobic tanks, but instead its surface is completely covered by common duckweed (Lemna minor). Duckweed replicates rapidly and half of its surface area in OA3 is removed weekly and is used for other beneficial purposes (such as soil and feedstock amendments; research in progress). In the system, the duckweed is one of the best plants at absorbing nitrogen and phosphorus. By OA3, all of the ammonia has been converted to nitrate with assistance from air sparging due to timed air compressors. Air compressors are timed to aerate the tanks periodically throughout the day and night. All of the open aerobic tanks have aeration pipes located at the bottom through which air is released through diffusing stones, creating small bubbles. These bubbles pass upward through the tanks and increase the dissolved oxygen concentration of the water in the system. The level of aeration is monitored by regulators, located on the outside of the tank, which are displayed in Figure 8. Figure 9 is a picture of OA3.

Figure 8: Flow meter for the aeration system.

Figure 9: Picture of Open Aerobic 3 (OA3).

Some of the water from OA3 is internally recycled via underground piping to CA2, which can be seen on the right side of Figure 3. From CA2, the recycled water flows through the series of open aerobic tanks again. The internal recycle of water from OA3 to CA2 occurs at scheduled times and is necessary in order for denitrification to occur. Denitrification is the conversion of nitrate to nitrogen gas and only happens under anoxic conditions. Denitrification is instrumental in wastewater treatment to avoid rising sludge in the clarifier. After OA3, water tranquilly enters the clarifier where the sludge settles. The clarifier has a 52-inch diameter and a 300-gallon volume. The Goulds Submersible Pump Model LEP07 currently removes the settled sludge five times, evenly spaced, throughout each day. The settled sludge is pumped to the holding tank to give a 60% recycle rate. Within the clarifier, there is a baffle which prevents the duckweed, located on the right side of the clarifier, from intruding into
10

the the left side, where the exit of the clarifier is located. This baffle prevents the duckweed from clogging the trough exit of the clarifier. When the head of the system is greater than the rim of the exit trough, the water will spillover and flow into the subsurface wetland or the sewer, depending on the positioning of the exit valve. Typically, the water flows into the wetland. The pipeway to the sewer is solely precautionary.

Figure 10: Picture of the clarifier.

From the clarifier, the water flows into a horizontal slotted header that is six inches under the gravel subsurface and is parallel to the interior wall of the greenhouse that is the focal point of Figure 11 (opposite the entrance door to the greenhouse). The wetland is 24 by 20 and has a liquid volume of approximately 3,000 gallons. The subsurface flow is directed from the back wall towards the front entry of the greenhouse (the location of the viewer in Figure 11). The plants, sprouting through the gravel, polish the water and remove any remaining nutrients. The
11

list of plants in the wetland include: Red Stemmed Thalia, Water Calla, Blue Rush, Black Magic Taro, and Canna Lilies. Appendix 1 shows images of the plants within the Eco-Machine wetland. Once through the wetland, the water is piped to the display pond which is on the lower left side of Figure 11. Currently, microorganisms and duckweed inhabit the display pond, but there are plans to incorporate koi or goldfish into the pond in the near future.

Figure 11: Wetland and Display Pond.

Maintenance for the Eco-Machine plants is similar to that of a regular garden, consisting of weekly pruning as needed. To regulate aphids, ladybugs are periodically introduced into the greenhouse instead of using pesticides.

12

2. Materials and Methods 2.1 Water Collection Method for Turbidity Measurement
To measure the turbidity of the system, effluent samples were taken from the left side of the clarifier. A sample tube was submerged under the surface of the water and rinsed multiple times. After the water was dumped the final time, the tube was submerged and capped underwater. This was completed to ensure that there was no entrapped air that would permit aerobic reactions prior to testing the turbidity. The turbidity of the sample was measured using the Hach 2100P Turbidimeter. The turbidity of the clarifier was measured to confirm that the turbidity of the pretreated water was below the 30 NTU maximum for the SODIS method to be effective.

2.2 Water Collection Method for Bottle Samples

The PET bottles used within this experiment originally contained commercial drinking water so contamination from prior contents would not be expected. Each of the 24 bottles were emptied, recapped, and refilled within 30 minutes prior to the start of the experiment. To fill the 20 oz. PET bottles, each bottle was submerged underwater on the left side of the clarifier. The labels were removed prior to submerging the bottle. After the bottle was filled to of capacity with water from the clarifier, the bottle was removed from the water, capped, and shaken for 20 seconds. A second container was used to fill the remaining portion of the bottle with water from the clarifier, and then capped. As soon as the required 24 PET bottles were filled, each was placed on one of the four backgrounds either inside or outside of the greenhouse.

2.3 Background Material Setup

A mirror, sheets of corrugated metal and black corrugated metal, and a plot of gravel were placed on the ground both inside and outside of the greenhouse. The sheets of black

13

corrugated metal were painted using Krylon Black Gloss Spray Paint, and the mirrors were cleaned prior to the start of the experiment. Below are pictures of the experimental setup both inside and outside of the greenhouse. The bottles remained in this setup without agitation until the conclusion of the experiment. The purpose of placing each of the samples on different background materials both inside and outside of the greenhouse was to determine whether a heat absorptive or a reflective surface is more effective in optimizing the SODIS method. The experiment was set up inside and outside of the greenhouse to observe the effects of UVA/B intensity on disinfection, and to determine whether the SODIS method could be applied within the Eco-Machine greenhouse in the future.

Figure 12: Outside SODIS setup.

Figure 13: Inside SODIS setup.

14

2.4 UVA/B Measurement Method

At each hour, the UVA/B rays were measured using the UVA/B Light Meter 850009 (SPER Scientific). The face of the detector was held perpendicular to the rays of the sun for the most representative measurement. This same procedure was followed for both inside and outside of the greenhouse. To measure the bounce-back UVA/B rays, the face of the detector was angled perpendicular to the greatest concentration of reflected rays from the background material. This procedure was followed for both inside and outside of the greenhouse. The purpose of measuring the primary UVA/B and bounce-back intensity every hour was to track the total attained level of UVA/B intensity that the bottles experienced during the six hours while outside and inside the greenhouse. UVA irradiation is responsible for inactivating bacteria during SODIS because it damages the membrane enzymes which results in the loss of membrane potential and increased membrane permeability. Membrane potential is required for ATP synthesis. The membrane potential is a component of the proton-motive force which drives the counter-rotation of ATP synthase (Dimroth, et al., 1999). The ability for a cell to maintain its ATP level is essential for dealing with environmental stressors which is when the cell requires readily available energy for defense and to repair damage. A decrease in the ATP-generation potential is a fatal indicator of a cell under stress (Bosshard, et al., 2010). Figure 14 shows the decrease in cellular functions for E. coli based on UVA fluence. Fluence describes the amount of energy delivered to a sample per unit area.

15

Figure 14: Inactivation of cellular functions for E. coli based on fluence (Bosshard, et al., 2010).

2.5 Temperature Measurement Method

At each hour, the air temperature was measured inside and outside of the greenhouse using the Traceable ISO 17025 Calibrated Thermometer (VWR). The thermometer was first allowed to stabilize before the inside and outside temperatures were recorded. At the conclusion of the experiment, the caps of the bottles were opened and the thermometer was inserted into the water. After the reading on the thermometer stabilized, the temperature was recorded and the bottle was recapped. Before the thermometer was inserted into the next sample, the instrument was cleaned using a KimWipe and a 70% isopropanol and 30% water solution in order to avoid cross-contamination. The thermometer probe was allowed to dry before it was used to measure the temperature of the successive sample. This procedure was followed for each of the 24 bottles of water.

16

The purpose of measuring the hourly air temperature and the final water temperature was to determine whether pasteurization or UVA/B disinfection was the driving factor of disinfection.

2.3 Water Testing Method

The purpose of this experiment was to determine the attainable reduction in total coliforms and E. coli by combining the Eco-Machine and SODIS treatment methods, and to determine which background material produces the most effective disinfection level. The number of total coliforms and E.coli were enumerated in the influent to the Eco-Machine system, the water exiting the clarifier, and the water in the PET bottles after the necessary six hours of sun exposure on each of the four backgrounds. Enumeration was conducted using Easygel test kits (Micrology Labs). Easygel is a commercially available pectin-gel testing method which is provided in a sterile, two-part test unit consisting of a 10 mL bottle of liquid medium and a pretreated Petri dish. To prepare the water samples for testing of total coliforms and E. coli, sterilized pipette tips were used to extract a 3.0 mL water sample from each of the PET bottles, a 1.0 mL sample from the clarifier effluent, and 0.1 mL from the Eco-Machine influent. Each extracted water sample was injected into a 10 mL plastic bottle containing Easygel and gently inverted 30 times to properly mix. Prior to this, the Easygel had been stored at -20 C, as recommended by the manufacturer, and was thawed before the water was injected. After the solution was inverted 30 times, the liquid was poured into a Petri dish and given an hour to fully solidify at room temperature. Afterward, the Petri dishes were labeled, inverted, sealed with parafilm, and placed in a VWR Signature Low-Temperature/B.O.D. Incubator (Model #2005, VWR International) at 25 C for 48 hours. The Easygel medium stains colonies of E. coli purple and general

17

coliforms pink for easy identification (Illian, M. et al., 2010). General coliforms will produce the enzyme galactosidase and the colonies that grow in the medium will be a pink color. E. coli will produce both galactosidase and glucuronidase and will therefore grow as dark blue to purple colonies in the medium. The combined general coliform and E. coli number equals the total coliform number (Micrology Laboratories, 2012). The number of colonies on each Petri dish was counted using an ISO 9001 certified manual tally (Upgreen Counters, Model HT-1) to avoid human error.

18

3. Experimental Results and Discussion 3.1 Temperature

The temperatures both inside and outside of the greenhouse were recorded hourly throughout the experiment. In order for the SODIS method to be effective, the surrounding temperature must be at least 20 C. If the temperature of the water reaches above 50 C, the disinfection process is three times faster and leads to the complete disinfection of water. If the temperature reaches 65 C for 30 minutes, then pasteurization is the driving disinfection method (Ciochetti et al., 1984). Figure 15 displays the hourly temperature results.

Time of Day
10AM
31

11AM

12PM

1PM

2PM

3PM

4PM

Temperature (C)

29 27 25

23
21 Outside Greenhouse 19 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Inside Greenhouse

Experimental Time (hr)

Figure 15: Indoor and outdoor air temperatures over the course of the experiment.

Figure 15 shows that the air temperatures throughout the test were consistently greater than 20 C, which satisfies the temperature requirement for the SODIS method (Illian, M. et al.,
19

2010). The indoor temperature had less variation compared to the outdoor temperature because the greenhouse is climate controlled. The temperature did not reach 50 C, so six hours was the appropriate timing for the experiment. Neither the outdoor nor indoor samples were disinfected due to pasteurization since the temperature did not exceed 65 C. At the conclusion of the experiment, the caps of the bottles were opened and the thermometer was inserted into the water. After the reading on the thermometer stabilized, the temperature was recorded and the bottle was recapped. Figure 16 displays the average final water temperature measurements of the three replicate bottles for each background material; the error bars represent one standard deviation.

34 33

Outside Greenhouse

Inside Greenhouse

Temperature (C)

32 31 30

29
28 27 26 25 Corrugated Metal Mirror Black Corrugated Metal Gravel

Background Material

Figure 16: Average final water temperatures for SODIS bottles on each background material.

20

10000

Outdoor Samples

Indoor Samples

UVA/B Measurement (W/cm)

The indoor and outdoor bottles on the black corrugated metal reached the highest internal

1000 temperature, yet all samples were greater than the minimum temperature requirement at the end of the experiment.

3.2 UVA/B Measurements

As sunlight passes through the atmosphere, all UVC (280-100 nm) and approximately 90% of UVB (315-280 nm) radiation is absorbed by ozone, water vapor, oxygen, and carbon 10 dioxide. UVA (400-315 nm) radiation is less affected by the atmosphere. Therefore, the UV radiation reaching the Earths surface is largely composed of UVA with a small UVB component 1 (World Health Organization, 3 2012).4At each hour, the primary and1 bounce-back UVA/B rays 0 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 5 6 6

100

Experimental Time (hr) were measured. Figure 17 shows the time plot of the UVA/B measurement results. Primary UVA/B Bounce-back UVA/B- Mirror Bounce-back UVA/B- Corrugated Metal Bounce-back UVA/B- Gravel Bounce-back UVA/B- Black Corrugated Metal

Figure 17: Primary and bounce-back UVA/B measurements over time.

The data show that the outdoor samples received the largest amount of primary UVA/B rays. The corrugated metal and mirror background materials provided the most bounce-back UVA/B rays compared to the gravel and black corrugated metal background materials. To relate the indoor and outdoor UVA/B conditions, the indoor samples received as much primary UVA/B rays as the least reflective outdoor background materials (gravel and black corrugated metal) received in bounce-back UVA/B rays. The lack of primary UVA/B rays that penetrated the samples within the greenhouse was likely the main reason that the disinfection was not as effective for the indoor samples (see section 3.3, below).

21

During the six-hour experiment, the indoor samples obtained a fluence of 44.9 the outdoor samples obtained a fluence of 933.1

, and

which were based on the highest recorded

UVA/B measurement. Appendix 6.1 shows the calculation of these fluence values. According to Figure 14, the E. coli within the indoor samples experienced the following percent of theoretical inactivation, as seen in Table 1. For the outdoor samples, the percent of theoretical inactivation can be seen in Table 2. Table 1: Percentage of theoretical inactivation for indoor samples based on fluence calculations. Culturability 3% Indoor Samples ATPase activity ATP per cell 5% 15% Catalase activity 30% Respiration 85%

Table 2: Percentage of theoretical inactivation for outdoor samples based on fluence calculations. Culturability 95% Outdoor Samples ATPase activity ATP per cell Catalase activity 97% 100% 100% Respiration 100%

The UVA fluence differential is responsible for the greater disinfection effectiveness for the outdoor samples.

3.3 CFU/mL per Background Material

Triplicate water samples were extracted from each of the triplicate bottles and plated in Easygel to ensure representative results. Therefore, a total of nine plate samples were completed for each of the four background materials, both inside and outside of the greenhouse. After incubating the Petri dishes containing the extracted water samples and Easygel for 48 hours, the number of pink and purple colonies was enumerated. Figure 18 displays the CFU/mL

22

of E. coli and the total coliforms for each background material. The raw data is provided in Appendix 4. 30 25

20

CFU/mL

15 10

5
0 Corrugated Metal Mirror Black Corrugated Metal Gravel

Background Material
Average Total Coliform (Inside) Average Total Coliform (Outside) Average E.coli (Inside) Average E.coli (Outside)

Figure 18: Colony-forming units per mL of E.coli and total coliforms as a function of the background material. The colored bars on the chart represent the average CFU/mL value, and the error bars represent one standard deviation of the nine plated samples.

The level of disinfection for the outdoor samples was significantly better than the level of disinfection of the indoor samples (Figure 18). This is undoubtedly due to the difference in primary UVA irradiation. The mirror background was slightly more effective than the other three background materials, but the difference was not statistically significant. This is likely due to the large bounce-back UVA measurement. It can be inferred from the data in Figures 16, 17, and 18 that UVA irradiation is a larger driving factor in disinfection compared to temperature for the SODIS method. The average CFU/mL value and standard deviation for total coliforms and E. coli are provided in Table 3 for each of the outdoor background materials.
23

Table 3: Summary of CFU/mL for total coliforms and E. coli on each outdoor background material (n = 9).
Corrugated Metal Total Coliforms E. coli 0.22 0.35 00 Mirror Black Corrugated Metal Gravel Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli 0.22 0.27 00 0.22 0.31 00 0.48 0.50 0.11 0.16

There is some hesitancy regarding the accuracy of the outdoor sample results. It should be noted that a count less than 20 CFUs/dish for the Easygel medium is considered to be statistically questionable for accuracy (Micrology, 2012). Regardless, the same volume of water was extracted from the indoor and outdoor samples and since the outdoor samples resulted in less colony growth, it can be concluded that the outdoor method was more effective than the indoor method, despite possibly having statistically questionable count accuracy for the outdoor samples.

3.4 Most Effective Progression

The disinfection levels within the combined Eco-Machine and SODIS method treatment system can be seen in Figure 19.

24

120.0 100.0 80.0

Average Total Coliform Average E. coli Avg Progression of Total Coliform Avg Progression of E. coli

CFU/mL

60.0 40.0 20.0 0.0 System Influent Clarifier Effluent Mirror (Outside)

Remediation Steps
Figure 19: Disinfection levels throughout the combined treatment system.

This graph shows that the combined system is an effective method of remediating and disinfecting the primary effluent from the WWTP into potential potable water. The United States Environmental Protection Agency lists the maximum contaminant level (MCL) of total coliforms, including E. coli, as 5.0%. This means that no more than 5.0% of samples are allowed to test total coliform-positive in a month. For water systems that collect fewer than 40 routine samples per month, no more than one sample can be total coliform-positive per month. Every sample that tests total coliform- positive must be analyzed for either fecal coliforms or E. coli. If two consecutive samples test total coliform-positive, and one is also positive for E. coli, then system has an acute MCL violation (US EPA, 2012). According to the experimental results, 44% of samples atop the mirror background tested positive for at least one total coliform.

25

Despite this, no substantial conclusions about the level of disinfection of the outdoor samples can be made due to the statistically questionable count accuracy.

26

4. Engineering Significance and Future Work

The disinfection levels attained in this experiment confirm that the outdoor samples were better disinfected than the indoor samples. To optimize the SODIS method further, the intensity of the UVA irradiation must be optimized. In the application of SODIS, it would be more realistic to intensify the driving factor of UVA irradiation, rather than the temperature, when disinfecting water. In order to increase the temperature, combustion of a fuel source is necessary which would not be sustainable for a developing nation. The mirror proved to be slightly more effective than the other background materials. The Eco-Machine and outdoor mirror SODIS combination disinfected 99.5-100% of total coliforms from the system influent, considering one standard deviation when calculating the value. This is only 0.1% more effective than the unpainted corrugated metal (see Appendix 6.3 for the calculations which derived the percent disinfection range). Since mirrors are not a common material found in developing nations, it is recommended that unpainted, corrugated metal be used as a standard background material during SODIS. Future work could include developing an economical, partially enclosed, corrugated metal stage set at an angle perpendicular to the suns rays to concentrate the UV light and maximize disinfection. The combined Eco-Machine and SODIS disinfection system has to be further enhanced in order to comply with the EPA 5.0% maximum contaminate level regulation since 44% of samples atop the outdoor mirror background tested positive for total coliforms. Further disinfection can be accomplished by either extending the amount of time the samples were subjected to sunlight during the experiment, or adjusting the angle of the bottles relative to the sun so that they receive more direct light. During March in State College, Pennsylvania, bottles laying flat on the ground receive sunlight at an angle of 49 from the vertical. In comparison,

27

bottles located in a city located close to the equator (ex. Nairobi, Kenya), would receive sunlight at an angle of 89 from the vertical during March (Solar Electricity Handbook, 2012). Further work could include deriving an algorithm which relates the distance from equator to the amount of time the bottles should be subjected to direct sunlight, based on the month of the year. In addition, further market research should be completed prior to repeating this experiment to determine the best incubation medium to use for testing total coliforms and E. coli. In some instances, counting the general coliforms and E.coli colonies was challenging because the pink color was difficult to differentiate from the purple color in the Easygel matrix. If Easygel is determined to be the best medium, the maximum allowable 5.0 mL sample input into the Easygel should be used in order to possibly comply with the 20 colony count minimum to ensure count accuracy. In this experiment, 3.0 mL was used and it did not provide a statistically reliable colony count for the outdoor samples. Finally, scalability should be considered for the combined Eco-Machine and SODIS system to adequately serve a community in a developing nation. Using bottles smaller than two liters is not sustainable to disinfect the large quantity of water needed by a community. Further research could focus on the feasibility of constructing a translucent pipeline exiting the EcoMachine which is in direct sunlight and has a set hydraulic residence time of approximately six hours to ensure disinfection of total coliforms.

28

Appendix 1- Plants of the Eco-Machine Wetland

Black Magic Taro (Colocasia Esculenta)

Blue Rush (Juncus glauca)

Water Calla (Zantedeschia aethipica)

Red Stemmed Thalia (geniculate Ruminoides)

29

Canna Lily (Roi Humbert)

30

Appendix 2- Temperature Data

Temperature Measurements Location Hour Number Inside Greenhouse Outside Greenhouse
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 76.5F (24.7C) 78.2F (25.6C) 85.5F (29.7C) 84.0F (28.9C) 81.7F (27.6C) 81.5F (27.5C) 84.1F (28.9C) 68.5F (20.3C) 74.8F (23.8C) 84.2F (29.0C) 85.1F (29.5C) 81.4F (27.4C) 84.2F (29.0C) 84.0F (28.9C)

Temperature of Water after 6 hours Inside of Greenhouse

Corrugated Metal Sample ID I CM 1 87.6F (30.9C) Black Corrugated Metal Sample ID IB1 90.6F (32.6C) Mirror Sample ID I Mir 1 87.6F (30.9C) Gravel Sample ID IG1 82.2F (27.8C) I CM 2 88.4F (31.3C) IB2 91.2F (32.9C) I Mir 2 86.8F (30.4C) IG2 83.0F (28.3C) I CM 3 88.3F (31.3C) IB3 91.0F (32.8C) I Mir 3 84.2F (29.0C) IG3 84.0F (28.9C)

Clarifier Effluent Characteristics

Turbidity 2.35 NTU Temperature 64.8F (18.2C)

Temperature of Water after 6 hours Outside of Greenhouse

Corrugated Metal Sample ID O CM 1 86.6F (30.3C) Black Corrugated Metal Sample ID OB1 88.3F (31.3C) Mirror Sample ID O Mir 1 85.6F (29.8C) Gravel Sample ID O G1 86.1F (30.1C) O CM 2 87.0F (30.6C) OB2 89.0F (31.7C) O Mir 2 85.6F (29.8C) O G2 87.6F (30.9C) O CM 3 87.2F (30.7C) OB3 89.6F (32.0C) O Mir 3 84.8F (29.3C) O G3 86.8F (30.4C)

31

Appendix 3- UVA/B Data

UVA/B Measurements
Location Hour Number Inside Greenhouse Outside Greenhouse 0 155 W/cm 3.70 mW/cm 1 133 W/cm 3.24 mW/cm 2 208 W/cm 4.32 mW/cm 3 164 W/cm 4.30 mW/cm 4 119 W/cm 2.88 mW/cm 5 175 W/cm 3.25 mW/cm 114 W/cm 6 2.82 mW/cm

Bounce-back UVA/B Measurements (in W/cm) Inside of Greenhouse

Hour Number Corrugated Metal Black Corrugated Metal Mirror Gravel 0 0 0 0 0 1 11 0 19 0 2 23 0 39 0 3 43 0 54 0 4 28 0 25 0 5 18 0 23 0 6 0 0 0 0

Bounce-back UVA/B Measurements (in W/cm) Outside of Greenhouse

Hour Number Corrugated Metal Black Corrugated Metal 0 1245 69 1 1451 76 2 1182 134 3 1786 160 4 1302 101 5 1422 152 6 1178 72 Mirror Gravel 833 92 840 108 1378 92 1883 184 1358 135 1550 162 1354 112

32

Appendix 4- CFU/mL Data

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Outside of Greenhouse
Corrugated Metal CFU/mL Average General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms E. coli 0.33 0 0.33 1 0 1.0 0.67 0 0.67 0.67 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0.22 0 Standard Deviation Total Coliforms E. coli

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Inside of Greenhouse

Corrugated Metal CFU/mL Average Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms I CM 1 4.67 12.33 17 12.33 14 26.33 8.33 10.33 18.67 20.67 I CM 2 6.33 10.33 16.67 10 9.7 19.67 5.33 16.67 22 19.44 I CM 3 5.33 13 18.33 8 14.33 22.33 6 11.67 17.67 19.44 TOTAL 66.33 112.33 178.67 19.85 Standard Deviation Total Coliforms E. coli

Sample ID O CM 1

E. coli

0.27

12.22

4.06

1.50

O CM 2

12.22

2.18

3.15

O CM 3

TOTAL

0 0.35

0 0

13.00 12.48

2.06 2.97

1.09 2.14

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Outside of Greenhouse

Mirror Sample ID O Mir 1 CFU/mL General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0.33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.33 0 0.33 0.67 0 0.67 0.67 0 0.67 0 0 0 2 0 2 Average Total Coliforms E. coli Standard Deviation Total Coliforms E. coli

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Inside of Greenhouse

Mirror CFU/mL Average Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms I Mir 1 8.67 16.33 25 8 9.67 17.67 3 10 13 18.56 I Mir 2 8.67 9 17.67 4 8.67 12.67 8.33 11.33 19.67 16.67 I Mir 3 12.33 16.33 28.67 5.33 14.67 20 7.67 14.67 22.33 23.67 TOTAL 66 110.67 176.67 19.63 Standard Deviation Total Coliforms E. coli

E. coli

0.11

0.16

12.00

4.94

3.07

O Mir 2

0.11

0.16

9.67

2.94

1.19

O Mir 3

TOTAL

0.44 0.22

0 0

0.31 0.27

0 0

15.22 12.30

3.66 4.92

0.79 3

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Outside of Greenhouse

Black Corrugated Metal CFU/mL Average E. coli Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms OB1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OB2 0.33 0 0.33 0.33 0 0.33 0 0 0 0.22 0 OB3 1 0 1 0.33 0 0.33 0 0 0 0.44 0 TOTAL 2 0 2 0.22 0 Standard Deviation Total Coliforms E. coli

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Inside of Greenhouse

Black Corrugated Metal CFU/mL Average Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms IB1 11.33 18.67 30 8 12.33 20.33 4 9.67 13.67 21.33 IB2 9 20.33 29.33 7.33 14 21.33 8.33 15.33 23.67 24.78 IB3 6.67 14 20.67 11 13.33 24.33 10.67 11 21.67 22.22 TOTAL 76.33 128.67 205 22.78 Standard Deviation Total Coliforms E. coli

E. coli

13.56

6.71

3.77

0.16

16.56

3.36

2.73

0.42 0.31

0 0

12.78 14.30

1.55 4.66

1.29 3.23

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Outside of Greenhouse

CFU/mL Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms OG1 0.67 0 0.67 1 0.33 1.33 0.33 0 0.33 OG2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OG3 1 0.33 1.33 0 0.33 0.33 0.33 0 0.33 TOTAL 3.33 1 4.33 Gravel Average Total Coliforms E. coli Standard Deviation Total Coliforms E. coli

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Inside of Greenhouse

Gravel CFU/mL Average General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms Sample ID IG1 9 11.67 20.7 8.33 11 19.3 6.67 15.33 22 21 IG2 6.33 11.67 18 7.33 15 22.3 10.67 14 24.7 21.67 IG3 8.33 12.67 21 5 10.33 15.3 9 13.67 22.7 19.67 TOTAL 70.67 115.33 186 20.67 Standard Deviation Total Coliforms E. coli

E. coli

0.78

0.11

0.42

0.16

12.67

1.09

1.91

13.56

2.76

1.40

0.67 0.48

0.22 0.11

0.47 0.50

0.16 0.16

12.22 12.81

3.14 2.62

1.40 1.68

Colony Counts Clarifier Effluent

CFU/mL Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms CE 1 13 21 34 8 19 27 13 22 35 TOTAL 34 62 96 Average Total Coliforms E. coli Standard Deviation Total Coliforms E. coli

Colony Counts System Influent

CFU/mL Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Inf 1 10 120 130 20 40 60 30 50 80 TOTAL 60 210 270 Average Total Coliforms E. coli Standard Deviation Total Coliforms E. coli

32 32

20.67 20.67

3.56 3.56

1.25 1.25

90 90

70 70

29.44 29.44

35.59 35.59

33

Appendix 5- Colony Counts

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Outside of Greenhouse
Corrugated Metal CFU/mL Average Standard Deviation Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli O CM 1 1 0 1 3 0 3 2 0 2 2.00 0 0.82 0 O CM 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O CM 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 6 0 6 0.67 0 1.05 0

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Inside of Greenhouse

Corrugated Metal CFU/mL Average Standard Deviation Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli I CM 1 14 37 51 37 42 79 25 31 56 25.33 36.67 12.19 4.50 I CM 2 19 31 50 30 29 59 16 50 66 21.67 36.67 6.55 9.46 I CM 3 16 39 55 24 43 67 18 35 53 19.33 39.00 6.18 3.27 TOTAL 199.00 337.00 536.00 59.56 37.44 8.92 6.43

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Outside of Greenhouse

Mirror CFU/mL Average Standard Deviation Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli O Mir 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.33 0 0.47 0 O Mir 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0.33 0 0.47 0 O Mir 3 2 0 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 1.33 0 0.94 0 TOTAL 6 0 6 0.67 0 0.82 0

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Inside of Greenhouse

Mirror CFU/mL Average Standard Deviation Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli I Mir 1 26 49 75 24 29 53 9 30 39 55.67 36.00 14.82 9.20 I Mir 2 26 27 53 12 26 38 0 34 34 41.75 29.00 8.10 3.56 I Mir 3 37 49 86 16 44 60 23 44 67 71.00 45.67 10.98 2.36 TOTAL 173 332 505 56.14 36.89 16.67 9

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Outside of Greenhouse

Black Corrugated Metal CFU/mL Average Standard Deviation Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli OB1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OB2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.67 0 0.47 0 OB3 3 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 1.33 0 0.00 0 TOTAL 6 0 6 0.67 0 0.94 0

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Inside of Greenhouse

Black Corrugated Metal CFU/mL Average Standard Deviation Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli IB1 34 56 90 24 37 61 12 29 41 64.00 40.67 20.12 11.32 IB2 27 61 88 22 42 64 25 46 71 74.33 49.67 10.08 8.18 IB3 20 42 62 33 40 73 32 33 65 66.67 38.33 4.64 3.86 TOTAL 229 386 615 68.33 42.89 13.97 9.69

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Outside of Greenhouse

Gravel CFU/mL Average Standard Deviation Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli OG1 2 0 2 3 1 4 1 0 1 2.33 0.33 1.25 0.47 OG2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OG3 3 1 4 0 1 1 1 0 1 2.00 0.67 1.41 0.47 TOTAL 10 3 13 1.44 0.33 1.50 0.47

Colony Counts after 48 hrs of Incubation Inside of Greenhouse

Gravel CFU/mL Average Standard Deviation Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli IG1 27 35 62 25 33 58 20 46 66 62 38.00 3.27 5.72 IG2 19 35 54 22 45 67 32 42 74 65.00 40.67 8.29 4.19 IG3 25 38 63 15 31 46 27 41 68 59.00 36.67 9.42 4.19 TOTAL 212 346 558 62.00 38.44 7.87 5.04

Colony Counts Clarifier Effluent

CFU/mL Average Standard Deviation Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli CE 1 13 21 34 8 19 27 13 22 35 32 20.67 3.56 1.25 TOTAL 34 62 96 32 20.67 3.56 1.25

Colony Counts System Influent

CFU/mL Average Standard Deviation Sample ID General Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms Total Coliforms E. coli Total Coliforms E. coli Inf 1 1 12 13 2 4 6 3 5 8 9 7 2.94 3.56 TOTAL 6 21 27 9 7 2.94 3.56

34

Appendix 6- Calculations
6.1- Fluence 6.1.1- Indoor Fluence ( )

6.1.2- Outdoor Fluence ( )

6.2- Conversion of Colony Counts to CFU/mL

Extracted Volume = 3mL, 1mL, and 0.1mL for the bottle samples, clarifier effluent, and system influent, respectively. 6.3- Percent Disinfection Range to , where represents the average CFU/mL value, = 90 CFU/mL

represents one standard deviation, and

35

Works Cited
Acra, A., Z. Raffoul, Y. Karahagopian. Solar disinfection of drinking water and oral rehydration solutions. UNICEF Guidelines for Household Application in Developing Countries (1984). Black, R et al. Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality in 2008: a systematic analysis. Lancet 2010:375. 12 May 2010. Web. 5 March 2012. < http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2810%29605491/abstract>. Bosshard, F., Bucheli, M., Meur, Y., & Egli, T. The respiratory chain is the cells Achilles heel during UVA inactivation in Escherichia coli. 2010. Microbiology, 156, 2006-2015. < http://www.sodis.ch/methode/forschung/publikationen/papers/bosshard_2010_respiatroyc hain.pdf>. Ciochetti, D. A., and Metcalf, R. H., Pasteurization of Naturally Contaminated Water with Solar Energy, Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 47:223-228, 1984. Conroy, R. M., Meegan, M. E., Joyce, T., McGuigan, K., and Barnes, J. Solar disinfection of drinking water protects against cholera in children under 6 years of age. 2001. Arch Dis Child 85, 293-295. Cooke, Jeremy R. "Class of 2000's Gift Faces Obstacles." The Daily Collegian Online. The Daily Collegian, 23 Apr. 2003. Web. 6 Mar. 2012. <http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2003/04/23/class_of_2000s_gift_faces_obstacles. aspx>. Dimroth, P., Kaim, G., and Matthey, U. Crucial Role of the Membrane Potential for ATP Synthesis by F1F0 ATP Synthases. Institut fr Mikrobiologie, Eidgenssische Technische Hochschule, ETH-Zentrum, Schmelzbergstrae 7, CH-8092. 13 December 1999. Web. 2 April 2012. < http://jeb.biologists.org/content/203/1/51.full.pdf>. Illian, Mark, Monika Cikhart, Alex Henri The Effect of Bottle Scratches on SODIS Water Disinfection. Nature Healing Nature. 29 Dec. 2010. Web. 12 Mar. 2012. < http://www.naturehealingnature.org/resource_pages/library/SODIS12_29_10ScratchRepo rt.pdf>. McGuigan, K.G., T.M. Joyce, R.M. Conroy, J.B. Gillespie, M. Elmore-Meegan. Solar disinfection of drinking water contained in transparent plastic bottles: characterizing the bacterial inactivation process J. Appl. Microbiol., 84 (1998), pp. 11381148

36

Micrology Laboratories. Coliscan Easygel. 2012. Web. 31 March 31, 2012. <http://www.micrologylabs.com/page/54/Coliscan-Easygel>. Natural Resource Management and Environment Department. "Wastewater Characteristics and Effluent Quality Parameters." FAO Corporate Document Repository,1992. Web. 2 Mar. 2012. <http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0551e/t0551e03.htm>. Optek. Typical Series of Formazin Turbidity Standards Shown in NTU/FTU. NTU FTU: Turbidity Units of Measure. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. <http://www.optek.com/images/FTU-NTU_Turbidity.jpg>. SODIS. The SODIS Story in Vietnam. The National Centre for Rural Water Supply and Environmental Sanitation and HELVETAS. 2012. Web. 12 Mar. 2012 < http://www.helvetas.ch/Vietnam/wEnglish/Documents/SODIS_prochure_online.pdf>. Solar Electricity Handbook. Solar Angle Calculator. Greenstream Publishing. 2012. Web. 5 April 2012. <http://solarelectricityhandbook.com/solar-angle-calculator.html>. US EPA. " Basic Information about E. coli 0157:H7 in Drinking Water." United States Environmental Protection Agency, 6 Mar. 2012. Web. 31 Mar. 2012. < http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/ecoli.cfm#supone>. US EPA. "Basic Information about Pathogens and Indicators in Drinking Water." United States Environmental Protection Agency, 6 Mar. 2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2012. <http://water.epa.gov/drink/contaminants/basicinformation/pathogens.cfm>. Wegelin, M., S. Canonica, K. Mechsner, T. Fleischmann, F. Pesara, A. Metzler. Solar water disinfection: scope of the process and analysis of radiation experiments. J. Water SRT Aqua., 43 (1994), pp. 154169 Wegelin, M., M. Hobbins, D. Maeusezahl, M. Z. Uddin, S. Ferdausi, A. Motaleb SODIS- an arsenic mitigation option?. Harvard University. 1999. Web. 13 Mar. 2012. < http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/arsenic/remediation/sodis/SODIS_Paper.html>. World Health Organization. "Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report." WHO, UNICEF, and Water Supply & Sanitation, 2000. Web. 14 Mar. 2012. <http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/monitoring/jmp2000.pdf>. World Health Organization. Ultraviolet radiation and health. 2012. Web. 31 March 2012. <http://www.who.int/uv/uv_and_health/en/>.

37

M. W ILLIAM S HEEHAN
3 Stanfield Lane Broomall, PA 19008 cell: 610-550-9143 wms5038@psu.edu

EDUCATION
The Pennsylvania State University, Schreyer Honors College University Park, PA Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering Expected May 2012 Thesis: Optimizing the Solar Disinfection Method to Produce Potable Water from Ecologicallytreated Wastewater Using Recycled Polyethylene Terephthalate Bottles

ACADEMIC PROJECTS
Environmental Engineering Laboratory University Park, PA Research Assistant Dec 2008 - May 2010 Project Title: Arsenic Removal with Iron-Tailored Activated Carbon plus Zero-Valent Iron Collaborated on a team of five to develop an effective and economical way to filter arsenic contaminated water using iron-preloaded activated carbon Published by The Water Research Foundation and by WERC- a Consortium for Environmental Education and Technology Development at New Mexico University Sponsored by The U.S. Department of Energy and The Water Research Foundation

WORK EXPERIENCES
Tianjin University Tianjin, China Research Intern May 2011-Aug 2011 Conducted dynamic sounding tests on site for a pipeline connecting the North and South of China Utilized vacuum preloading pressure on dredged soil to create reclaimed land in the Bohai Gulf Immersed in the Chinese culture for three months and fully sponsored by Schreyer Honors College Community Energy Inc. Radnor, PA Summer Intern June 2010-Aug 2010 Cataloged and analyzed all Request for Proposal (RFP) databases to streamline the current procedures at Community Energy, a leading renewable energy company Brainstormed and presented a business plan to the company highlighting pathways to become involved in the nations Smart Grid project Waffle Shop Restaurant Waiter Worked 16 to 32 hours a week while enrolled as a full-time student State College, PA May 2009-May 2010

LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCES
University Park Undergraduate Association, Executive Board Member University Park, PA Chief of Staff Apr 2011-Apr 2012 Managed the student governments 12-person executive board and chaired the weekly board meetings Advocated the student bodys voice concerning various student-life issues to the administration Responsible for the allocation of a $58,800 budget Penn State Interfraternity Council, Executive Board Member University Park, PA Vice President for Programming Dec 2010-Apr 2011 Oversaw all community service, philanthropic events, and educational programming completed by each of the 49 fraternity chapters at Penn State Organized large scale outreach events and responsible for a $13,100 budget Compiled the outreach hours for each of the fraternity chapters and was a factor in decisions affecting the 4,000+ Greek life students, one of the largest Greek communities in the country Penn States Habitat for Humanity Chapter, Executive Board Member University Park, PA Fundraising Coordinator Sept 2009-May 2010 Supervised a committee that connected student volunteers with local community members in need

M. William Sheehan, page 2

Student Handbook Committee, Executive Board Member University Park, PA Assistant Editor Jan 2012- Present Revised and edited a 100-page student-written handbook that serves as a guide for incoming students Beta Theta Pi Fraternity University Park, PA Community Service and Philanthropy Chairman; Homecoming Chairman Apr 2010- Oct 2011 Motivated the fraternity to participate in outreach service events and the annual Homecoming parade

CERTIFICATIONS AND SKILLS

Engineer-In-Training (EIT) Certificate, Laboratory Safety Certification, Microsoft Office Suite, Basic CAD, Basic C++, 6 years of Spanish language study

AWARDS AND HONORS

Schreyer Academic Excellence Scholarship 2008-2012 Granted to members of the Schreyer Honors College and renewable to each student in good standing National Society of Collegiate Scholars 2009-2012 Admitted based on excellence in leadership, service, and ranking academically in the top 20% of class Stan and Flora Kappe Research Endowment Scholarship 2010-2012 Awarded to one student in the Engineering College who shows exceptional promise in environmental engineering Hittner and Griner Scholarship 2011 Elected by my fraternity chapter to receive this scholarship for demonstrating the most leadership to Beta Theta Pi and community Penn State Homecoming Court Selected to represent Penn States senior class as a Homecoming Court member 2011