Talk:Water purification: Difference between revisions

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Environment B‑class

This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

--Alex 16:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mion, with all due respect, I can't understand how this article on water purification is a Hydrogen-related article for the Wiki Hydrogen Project. One brief paragraph about how water may be purified if it is used for the small-scale production of hydrogen (presumably by electrolysis??) is a very, very tenuous connection to the Wiki Hydrogen Project. Surely, that project has bigger fish to fry. - mbeychok 06:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and have removed it. -- Alan Liefting talk 06:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should follow the same format as sewage treatment: primary, secondary, tertiary. The same technology is used for both. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samw (talk • contribs) April 22, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a good point. But there is reliance on biological activity in the secondary stage, and the tertiary stage is mandatory for drinking water and in the case of a groundwater source, can be the only treatment it gets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uyanga (talk • contribs) April 25, 2003(UTC)

I have re-formatted to try and bring this more in line with waste water treatment although there are major differences. My intention is to make this more logical. Velela 11:45, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I needed 32 quick facts in 3 days i used this site it only took about 30 minutes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.58.122.186 (talk • contribs) December 1, 2006 (UTC)

I've heard of field purification of water with iodine tablets / other additives to the water... should there be an addition regarding that type of water purification? Seems to fit this category. --Bantman 22:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. All I know about them is the memories of halizone tablets we used in 'Nam back in the '60s. Tasted pretty bad, but considering the alternative... -Vsmith 00:09, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's also possible to use ordinary bleach. My water engineering lecturer at UNSW said she used it when travelling, and she seemed to regard it as effective. Mostly, though, it's considered an emergency measure. I've added something to the article. Singkong2005 10:22, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page concerning portable water purification. Perhaps it's not suitable for merging, but I think it would make sense to include something at the top of the page like "This article discusses large scale/municipal water treatment. For portable/emergency water treatment, see portable water purification. I just don't know the appropriate markup to use for it. I suppose the best way to get it done would be to just put it there and let someone else figure it out. Senatorpjt (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is another page called chlorination which is not very NPOV, and is a stub. It isn't even linked from this page. What should be done? Oasisbob 20:17, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Chlorination is a more general topic that spans, water treatment, swimming pool water treatment, air conditionuing maintenance etc. and is probably worth retaining as a seperate article, but it could do with some improvement ! Velela 20:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Water treatment methods section should be changed a little to make it the stages of municipal water treatment. (It's already described in stages, rather than being alternative methods). Some of the material would then be moved to other parts of the article.

If no one else does it, I will get to eventually. --Singkong2005 08:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be more specific when explaining the process of cleaning water.Vinaq 02:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Vinaq[reply]

I agree signed: karel godefroit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.196.224.192 (talk) 15:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, This is my first Wikipedia edit, so sorry if I messed anything up. I expanded on the 'Water treatment methods' section of the page. I tried to make it more informative and did not worry about making it follow waste water treatment since they are very different. I also consolidated the information regarding bleach as a disinfectant. JSterling 06:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Big improvement - good work. --Singkong2005 11:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I think it would be a good idea to include some talk about the safety of using such systems at home, like Brita. Are they really making water safer to use, or is it simply a false sense of security

I think the article addresses the safety issue effectively. In my experience as a water chemist the filters, unless regularly changed, often cause water quality degradation. Feel free to ask more specific questions on my talk page. Sterichinderance 07:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The systems at home I believe work very well to purify tap water. I may not know much about the subject but I rarely drink just plain tap water. I haven't been sick in quite a while.6:01, 21 March, 2007

From what I've read, Brita and related systems do reduce, but don't usually eliminate, the presence of certain contaminants, as described in the packaging. Your local water system may not have all or any of the contaminants of concern, or it may have contaminants which these filters do not remove. You can have your water tested if you want to be sure. Personally, I use a Brita to improve the taste of the water, since I live in a city with old pipes. We get annual mailings detailing the measured contaminants in our municipal water. This article doesn't address home filtering at all, and that would be informative. -- Beland 02:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a former water analyst, home filters such as Brita should be viewed purely as devices to improve taste and clarity (which in my opinion they do quite well), rather for any supposed health benefits. The standard of public water supply, particularly in the UK and most of Europe, is excellent and the quality usually exceeds that of most bottled water you would buy in a store. If you have any doubts as to the quality of your water you should contact your supplier and request that tests are carried out. Water companies are obliged to test supplies regularly both from their treatment works and service reservoirs as well as at random from consumer's properties. The results of these tests are available to any member of the public who wishes to view them. --DrFod 19:00, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if not yet largely in use, clay pots made porous by the addition of sawdust before firing are effective in filtering most parasites. The addition of silver (as colloidial silver, or sometimes silver nitrate) after firing further enhances the effectivness in stoping bacteria and parasites.

Shouldn't this be in the article, or maybe in "drinking water" , with perhaps a link to potters for peace [[1]]?

Maybe I'm a bit timid, but I'm not good at spelling and this is my first edit, I'll get over it ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.163.225.27 (talk • contribs) November 6, 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and add the material. We'll help fix it if you make a mistake. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a awesome home water purification system you need two stages. One stage is carbon/charcoal filtration, like brita, and a sediment filter. 10" in length, 3/4" inlet /outlet, depending on your line size. One could aquire these items in a hardware store or do it yourself store. This can be placed underneath you kitchen sink tying into your water line. Brita by itself will only help with the taste. A sediment filter, 40 micron or less takes out the particulates. JR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.213.115.129 (talk) 00:25, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about pruifying tap water by putting it into green-glass bottles and standing the bottles in sunlight for at least a week? does this allow the sediments and organisms to settle to the bottom of the bottle, or does it change the chemical makeup of the sediments and the organisms within the bottle? does this create any bacteria, fungi or viruses within the bottle?Madewann 23:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Wade Mann[reply]

You're refering to sterilisation of water by the sun's UV rays. Many puddles of water that have stood out in the sun have very low microbial activity due to UV exposure. However putting bottles of water out in the sun is a very dubious method of sterilisation, influences such as levels of organic material in the water and temperature could even end up promoting growth of bacteria. --DrFod 19:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that brief mention of the SODIS method is now made in the article. There are several links to the scientific evidence for the efficacy of this method at this link.Jimjamjak (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Feb 6th 2007 edit by User:220.224.6.111 removed what I though was some good information so I reverted it. I couldn't see any good reason for the removal (there was a slight non-NPOV slant to the writing) Because I was looking for a reason, I did a google search on the phrase "This may impart a slight taste to the water, and may cause brownish stains on porcelain fixtures" and found the http://www.aquamaintalex.com/ page, There are a number of close similarities between that page and the wikipedia page, but I can't tell for sure who copied from whom. Although I did find a previous 6-Aug-2006 edit from User:Mion that added the phrase " or for the production of hydrogen" to the article and this phrase also appears on the aquamaintalex page, so I think wikipedia is the source of their page. Also, the 7-Jul-2006 edit from Sterichinderance added the phrase "Some of the advantages of ozone include the production of relatively fewer" which again, also appears in the aquamaintalex page. So I'm not sure why the edit removal, but I don't think it was copywrite infringment. Thomas Dzubin ^Talk 16:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know anything about it?24.83.178.11 09:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)BeeCier[reply]

Needs work on tone, here is a good example:

"FLOCCULATION is a process in which we first clarify the water. Clarifying means removing any turbidity or colour so that the water is sparklingly clear and colourless."

Sounds like a WTP brochure or tour. I will do some work on it at a later date, right now I am slammed on projects. But please, feel free. --65.87.105.7 15:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please voice your opinions below about the proposed merge of at least parts of Water treatment, Sewage treatment, Reclaimed water, and Reclamation into this article.

Currently, these articles are not coordinated, they duplicate material, and they often don't even know about each others' existence. Water purification is the most basic and easy to understand English term, so this can and, in my opinion should, include all these topics, but some of the articles can of course continue to exist as separate entries once their content is coordinated and the articles are interlinked. This article would become too long anyhow if it contained all this info. --Espoo 11:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will suggest you to find Alex because waste management is his expertise. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 09:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I completely disagree with the merge proposal. Sewage treatment is the process by which sewage is cleaned to discharge consents- ie a stage when it is suitable for discharge into rivers, streams and the sea. Water purification implies that the water is treated to a level of potability (to be able to drink it). The two focuses will require different levels of treatment and processing in order to meet the different standards. I agree that the articles require improvement and refinement but not with the merges. Cheers--Alex 10:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sewage treatment often involves water purification, certainly. But it wouldn't make sense to merge them, there's too much content, and different intentions. When I found the Sewage Treatment article, I was looking for information on sewage treatment, not water purification. I looked at the water purification article, because of the merge proposal, and it was very different from what I was looking for. So, no, they absolutely should not be merged. I do think some of the redundancy can be fixed, from both articles, and they should coordinate and play well together, but water purification as a general topic, and sewage treatment as a more specific and somewhat different topic, are both far too involved to have in one merged article. There's a reason there are separate articles on Wikipedia in the first place. Tkircher 19:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. They are all good as seperate articles. Water treatment is a nice overview article, Sewage treatment is different to water treatment and reclamation is not just about water. -- Alan Liefting talk 05:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose They are all good as seperate articles. Water treatment is a nice overview article, Sewage treatment is different to water treatment and reclamation is not just about water(thanks for the text Alan).Mion 00:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Too much content for one article.--Work permit 17:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Reclamation applies to industries besides water treatment (asphalt for instance).

Oppose I agree, Reclamation applies to industries besides water treatment (construction in general). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.165.141.194 (talk) 16:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to replace the Environmental technology template with one that matches the standard navbox style, i.e. horizontal instead of vertical, collapsing and typically placed at the bottom of article pages. I've done a mock up of what this would look like at {{User:Jwanders/ET}}. Figured this was a big enough change that I should post before going ahead with it. Please discuss here--jwanders^Talk 21:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pH adjustment section is misleading. "Pure water" will be acidic due to carbonic acid (dissolved CO2). While pH 7 is neutral, the goal of water treatment is not to get a neutral pH water. Saying that water is pH 7 is an over simplification..Shniken1 (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how we can purified solid waste of industrial waste —Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.107.151.29 (talk) 12:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the process of 'wikifying' the article Membrane fouling. Could someone take a look at it and clarify what technology the article is referring to in the first paragraph. It's unclear whether membrane fouling is something that occurs commonly during all sewage or water treatment or if it's a problem with a new water treatment technology involving membranes. thanks. Nihola (talk) 05:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a reference to the use of membranes for potable water production (presumably from a surface water source). It is a pity that the article doesn't say this because it is very confusing at present, especially as membranes have widespread uses elsewhere outside of water treatment technology. In surface water treatment for potable use, fouling problems can be quite extensive and can involve algae, cyanobacteria, actinomycetes, filamentous bacteria, protozoa especially sedentary species such as vorticella, rotifers and entoprocta. I don't believe that there is any widespread use of membrane technology in sewage treatment except, perhaps, for some plants where the final effluent needs particularly rigorous treatment to meet critical environmental standards - that is speculation on my part , I know of no such works. Best of luck in your improvement work on Membrane fouling !.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no 'Membrane' section showing; shouldn't there be one? Material that belongs in a membrane section is haphazardly commingled at the bottom of the 'Rapid sand filters' section, starting with the bulleted list headed 'Advantages:'. I'd fix it myself but I am neither an experienced editor nor a water treatement expert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.92.238.119 (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baffle box might be mentioned here

91.182.235.144 (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Talk:Water_fluoridation#Moved_from_Water_purification_for_discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the section on distilled water being healthy needs to be reviewed - it's fine to have an opposing viewpoint but some of the text seems to be insinuating that the WHO is are ignoring evidence and doing the wrong thing.

The main issue from a technical viewpoint is not that distilled water doesn't have enough nutrients for the body, more that it is unsaturated and thus has the ability to leech minerals that are already within the body, the point of which appears to have been missed by the pro-distilled water contributors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.41.191.13 (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the section on flocculation the forming of a precipitate is mentioned, this is incorrect as a precipitate has to come out of solution, flocculation merely removes suspended particles. Biqh 08:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)