How much Blackstrap Molasses to use?

[mad librettist]

h2o2 is so good at killing microbes, I used to (and many still do) use it to treat puncture wounds and cuts, until a vet advised me that doing so actually slows down the healing process because of peroxide's strong oxidative properties destroying compounds that help the wound stay shut. I was told iodine is a much better choice.

 

[Baba Ku]

I am not a scientist, but as an avid and long time cannabis grower I have been for some time concerned about chloromine
I am no scientist, but from what I understand chlorimine and specifically monochlorimine, are used to replace chlorine due to it's stability, and it's not wanting to react with organic material. And what is being suggested is that a simple reaction with a simple organic material is all that is needed to "neutralize" the chlorinime.

Now, it may be true that you can use products to break the bond of the molecule, and actually release the chlorine...but what remains is ammonia.

It has been shown over and over that water treated with chlorimine can be very adverse to cannabis. To a point that it is almost a given that if your water has it, you need to treat it.
But to suggest that two drops of blackstrap molasses is the cure...well, is not real responsible in my opinion. There are young and impressionable growers that will take stuff like that to heart. Should they trust just that? I know mad would...but how about you?

I mean, you colleagues used test strips right? PoolsRus no doubt...

 

[mad librettist]

I am no scientist, but from what I understand chlorimine and specifically monochlorimine, are used to replace chlorine due to it's stability, and it's not wanting to react with organic material.

now this is getting surreal. are you aware that "organic material" includes bacteria? chloramine is added to water because it oxidizes organic compounds, resulting in death for microbes.

Chloramine is substituted for chlorine in certain municipalities because it is more stable than chlorine gas. If the water is shut up in pipes for its whole journey, this is not necessary, but where water will have contact with air, chloramines are cheaper to use because they don't evaporate. The action of chlorine and chloramine is the same: oxidation.

as for test strips, they cannot tell you if your tea is good. we use a microscope for that.

 

[Baba Ku]

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=...w+does+h202+kill+microbes&fp=ccd0a402b0736d6b

Good grief! Really?

No you don't. Not that easy, pal.
I want to read it from your head, not a bunch of links.
You do that and I will reply, then you can apply your rude comments.

 

[Microbeman]

Interesting read. Says RO does not remove chloramines; Indicates organic matter filters removes/neutralizes [eg activated carbon & biologic filters]; mentions the 4 hours of sunlight; not clear on the potential effects of released ammonia from neutralization; indicates that 3 PPM of organic matter converts to ineffective trophic form.

http://www.cleantechnologiesindia.com/chloramine-t.htm

The best water to use is well or spring water but if you gotta use what you have then treating with molasses, compost, soil, ascorbic acid, acetic acid (citric acid?) are good cheap alternatives to adding more potentially harmful chemicals.

To satisfy all, I'll run some tests on this in 2011 but what of Mad's microscopy observations? I'll hafto add chloramines to my water in order to test.

 

[mad librettist]

MM, is it possible that because I am adding compost and more molasses when I brew tea, that the ammonia is actually consumed and retained by soil organisms? Am I unwittingly dosing my soil with ammonia fertilizer?

In which case, might I be favoring some group over others, but still getting an acceptable result under the scope because I am unable to differentiate, for instance, between species of bacteria?

would I be better off giving sufficient time for any ammonia to gas off? I know some ammonia happens in a working system, but is this too much?

 

[HeriMarry]

I use 1 tsp per gallon , anymore seems to make my soil too solid an makes future waterings a pain .

 

[Indian Culture]

I'm going to try 1tsp per gallon every other watering.

 

[heady blunts]

this has been fun.

 

[mostnonymouse]

I love Madlib. LOL.

 

[Microbeman]

I'm unsure of the activity of the potentially released ammonia or even if it is released. We should try researching this.

 

[Microbeman]

No you don't. Not that easy, pal.
I want to read it from your head, not a bunch of links.
You do that and I will reply, then you can apply your rude comments.

Huh? Pal? What rude comments?

 

[mad librettist]

more good reading. Since I moved to a chloramine free place, I will need ammonia to do any testing.

http://www.hazenandsawyer.com/work/projects/dbp-for-nyc/

isinfection By-Products Study for New York City Water System

CLIENT: NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

The US Environmental Protection Agency promulgated significantly more stringent standards (known as the Stage 2 Disinfection/Disinfectant By-Products Rule) for the levels of Disinfection By-Products (DBPs) in drinking water delivered to consumers. These new standards must be met by 2012 (for large systems). Concerned about meeting the stricter standards, the New York City (NYC) Department of Environmental Protection, which operates NYC’s water system, retained Hazen and Sawyer (in Joint Venture) to undertake a $1.8 million study to help the City determine the best course of action for complying with the new regulations.

Project Outcomes and Benefits

Concluded that switching to chloramination or other chemical treatment methods would not be necessary for compliance, eliminating the need to construct costly new facilities.
Found that operational changes to the NYC water system would most likely satisfy the D/DBP Rule, with minimal expenditure of funds.
Gas Chromatograph with Electron Capture. This equipment was used at the UMASS laboratory to analyze chlorine and chloramine disinfection by-products formed in a simulated distribution system, representative of New York City.



DBPs are generated from the reaction between chlorine (which is typically used as a disinfectant) and naturally-occurring organic matter in the water supply. DBPs have been found to be carcinogenic, and full compliance with the new standards is required to protect public health. In recent years, some water purveyors have adopted chloramination (the use of chlorine and ammonia) as the preferred method of disinfection, since it results in lower DBP formation than the use of chlorine alone.

However, switching to chloramination can result in several “unintended consequences” including nitrification, increases in lead levels, and the formation of more toxic nitrogenated DBPs. In order to address these and other unintended consequences, Hazen and Sawyer conducted an in-depth evaluation of the feasibility of switching to chloramination and of alternative DBP compliance options including treatment changes and optimization of source water withdrawal and distribution system operations. The specific objectives of the study were:

To assess the source and fate of DBPs in the New York City water supply system:

Develop NYC-specific THM and HAA formation models
Predict THM and HAA levels at various locations in the distribution system for under various current and future scenarios
To assess compliance options for meeting the Stage 2 D/DBP regulations:

Treatment options: Filtration, MIEX, membranes
Optimization options: reducing chlorine dose, altering travel times, altering reservoir operations
To conduct a comprehensive feasibility study that examined the advantages, disadvantages and costs of switching New York City’s secondary disinfectant to chloramines:

Survey of other systems that use chloramines
Development of chloramination design criteria
Evaluation of the impact of switching to chloramines on lead and copper corrosion
Evaluation of the potential to form nitrogenated disinfectant byproducts
Evaluation of operational, environmental and security concerns surrounding a disinfectant change
Results
The DBP prediction model was used to predict THM and HAA levels throughout the New York City distribution system under a variety of scenarios. The model was used to evaluate the effect of lowering chlorine dose, using water from higher quality reservoirs, and implementing treatment such as filtration or MIEX. Promising results are anticipated for lowering chlorine dose once the NYC’s new UV disinfection facility comes online and for modifying reservoir operations. Modifying reservoir operations means withdrawing water from reservoirs with lower levels of DBP precursors when possible while meeting other system objectives such as preventing droughts. These two options, lowering chorine dose once UV is online and modifying source water reservoir operations, are expected to lower DBP levels by approximately 20 % – enough to safely comply with the new regulations.

Based on the results of the study, it was determined that making certain operational changes to the NYC’s water system, from both a supply and distribution standpoint, would be the best approach to complying with the new regulations, especially when compared to other DBP control options that would require expensive major infrastructure changes. It was also determined that although switching to chloramines would likely not cause unintended adverse consequences in the distribution system, such a switch is not necessary to meet the new Stage 2 D/DBP regulations. These findings will prevent NYC from having to allocate funds to construct new chloramination and associated facilities.

 

[mad librettist]

and more

ALL EPA THIS AREA Advanced Search

Learn the IssuesScience & TechnologyLaws & RegulationsAbout EPA
Contact Us
Stage 2 DBP Rule
You are here: WaterLaws & RegulationsRegulatory InformationSafe Drinking Water ActStage 2 DBP RuleBasic Information
Basic Information

EPA has developed the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBP rule) to improve your drinking water quality and provide additional protection from disinfection byproducts. Your drinking water comes from source water locations such as:

Lakes
Rivers
Reservoirs
Ground water aquifers
Pathogens, such as Giardia, are often found in source water, and can cause gastrointestinal illness (e.g., diarrhea, vomiting, cramps) and other health risks. In many cases, water needs to be disinfected to inactivate (or kill) these microbial pathogens. However, disinfectants like chlorine can react with naturally-occurring materials in the water to form byproducts such as:

Trihalomethanes (THM)
Haloacetic acids (HAA)
Chlorite
Bromate
These byproducts, if consumed in excess of EPA's standard over many years, may lead to increased health risks. EPA has developed the Stage 2 DBP rule to protect public health by limiting exposure to these disinfectant byproducts.

Questions and Answers

What is the Stage 2 DBP rule?
Who does this rule apply to?
What are the requirements of the final rule?
How long will it take for changes required by the Stage 2 DBP rule to be made?
What are the costs of the Stage 2 DBP rule?
What are the benefits of the Stage 2 DBP rule?
Is there funding associated with this rule?
How was the Stage 2 DBP rule developed?
What are disinfection byproducts (DBPs)?
How does EPA regulate DBPs?
How did the Agency weigh risks vs. benefits for disinfectant byproducts?
Why is drinking water disinfected?
What health risks are posed by disinfection byproducts such as THMs and HAAs?
See also: Information about Chloramine in Drinking Water

What is the Stage 2 DBP?
The Stage 2 DBP rule is intended to reduce potential cancer and reproductive and developmental health risks from disinfection byproducts (DBPs) in drinking water, which form when disinfectants are used to control microbial pathogens. Over 260 million individuals are exposed to DBPs.

This final rule strengthens public health protection for customers of systems that deliver disinfected water by requiring such systems to meet maximum contaminant levels as an average at each compliance monitoring location (instead of as a system-wide average as in previous rules) for two groups of DBPs, trihalomethanes (TTHM) and five haloacetic acids (HAA5). The rule targets systems with the greatest risk and builds incrementally on existing rules. This regulation will reduce DBP exposure and related potential health risks and provide more equitable public health protection. The Stage 2 DBPR is being released simultaneously with the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule to address concerns about risk tradeoffs between pathogens and DBPs.
Top of page

Who does this rule apply to?
The Stage 2 DBP rule applies to community and nontransient noncommunity water systems that add and/or deliver water that is treated with a primary or residual disinfectant other than ultraviolet light.

Top of page

What are the requirements of the final rule?
Under the Stage 2 DBP rule, systems will conduct an evaluation of their distribution systems, known as an Initial Distribution System Evaluation (IDSE), to identify the locations with high disinfection byproduct concentrations. These locations will then be used by the systems as the sampling sites for Stage 2 DBP rule compliance monitoring.

Compliance with the maximum contaminant levels for two groups of disinfection byproducts (TTHM and HAA5) will be calculated for each monitoring location in the distribution system. This approach, referred to as the locational running annual average (LRAA), differs from current requirements, which determine compliance by calculating the running annual average of samples from all monitoring locations across the system.

The Stage 2 DBP rule also requires each system to determine if they have exceeded an operational evaluation level, which is identified using their compliance monitoring results. The operational evaluation level provides an early warning of possible future MCL violations, which allows the system to take proactive steps to remain in compliance. A system that exceeds an operational evaluation level is required to review their operational practices and submit a report to their state that identifies actions that may be taken to mitigate future high DBP levels, particularly those that may jeopardize their compliance with the DBP MCLs.
Top of page

How long will it take for changes required by the Stage 2 DBP rule to be made?
The Stage 2 DBP rule builds incrementally on existing DBP rules. Many systems have already made significant progress in lowering their DBP levels. The Stage 2 DBP rule takes a risk-based targeted approach to require treatment changes by only those public water systems that are identified as having the greatest remaining risk. The first step is a multi-year process for systems to determine where higher levels of DBPs are likely to occur in their distribution system. These locations will become the system’s new DBP monitoring sites.

If the DBP levels at these locations are too high (i.e., above the MCL), the system will start to take corrective actions. These actions could range from simple, quickly implemented management or operational changes to major construction. Any changes made by systems must be well studied and planned before execution. This planning, obtaining funding and permits for construction, designing, and finally, constructing new facilities take time. The time to completion will vary depending on what they need to do. Depending on system size and the extent of needed construction, systems will begin the first year of compliance monitoring between 2012 and 2016 and must be in compliance with the Stage 2 DBP rule MCLs at the end of a full year of monitoring.
Top of page

What are the costs of the Stage 2 DBP rule?
The Stage 2 DBP rule will result in increased costs to public water systems and states. The rule applies to approximately 75,000 systems; a small subset of these will be required to make treatment changes. The average cost of the rule is $79 million annually (using a three percent discount rate).
Top of page

What are the benefits of the Stage 2 DBP Rule?
EPA has projected that the rule will prevent approximately 280 bladder cancer cases per year. Of these cases, 26% are estimated to be fatal. Based on bladder cancer alone, the rule is estimated to provide annualized mean monetized benefit of $1.5 billion. Additional non-quantified benefits such as those from preventing potential reproductive and developmental risks may also result.

Top of page

Is there funding associated with this rule?
Funding may be available from programs administered by EPA and other Federal agencies to assist systems in complying with the Stage 2 DBP rule. The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) assists systems with financing the costs of infrastructure needed to achieve or maintain compliance with SDWA requirements. Through the DWSRF, EPA awards capitalization grants to States, which in turn can provide low-cost loans and other types of assistance to eligible systems.

In addition to the DWSRF, money is available from the Department of Agriculture’s Rural Utility Service (RUS) and Housing and Urban Development’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. RUS provides loans, guaranteed loans, and grants to improve, repair, or construct water supply and distribution systems in rural areas and towns of up to 10,000 people. The CDBG program includes direct grants to States, which in turn are awarded to smaller communities, rural areas, and coloñas in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas and direct grants to U.S. territories and trusts.
Top of page

How was the Stage 2 DBPR developed?
These rules were developed from Federal Advisory Committee consensus recommendations. The Committee consisted of 21 organizational members representing EPA, State and local public health and regulatory agencies, local elected officials, Native American Tribes, large and small drinking water suppliers, chemical and equipment manufacturers, environmental groups, and other stakeholders.

The Stage 2 Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Rules (M-DBP) are a set of interrelated regulations (the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule and the Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule) that address risks from microbial pathogens and disinfection byproducts. The Stage 2 M-DBP Rules are the final phase in the M-DBP rulemaking strategy, affirmed by Congress as part of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Both the Stage 1 and Stage 2 M-DBP rules were developed using a consensus process.
Top of page

What are disinfection byproducts?
Disinfectants are an essential element of drinking water treatment because of the barrier they provide against waterborne disease-causing microorganisms. However, disinfection byproducts (DBPs) form when disinfectants used to treat drinking water react with naturally occurring materials in the water (e.g., decomposing plant material).

Total trihalomethanes (TTHM – chloroform, bromoform, bromodichloromethane, and dibromochloromethane) and haloacetic acids (HAA5 – monochloro-, dichloro-, trichloro-, monobromo-, dibromo-) are widely occurring classes of DBPs formed during disinfection with chlorine and chloramine. These DBPs generally form at much lower levels when chloramine is used instead of chlorine. The amount of trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids in drinking water from one water system can change from day to day, depending on the season, water temperature, amount of chlorine added, the amount of plant material in the water, and a variety of other factors.

At this time, EPA believes that the best way to control DBPs is both to regulate known byproducts and to limit the quantity of disinfection byproduct precursors (e.g., decomposing plant material) allowed to react with disinfectants. TTHM and HAA5 are useful indicators for measuring DBPs in chlorinated drinking water because they commonly occur at levels that can be easily measured.

Information about Chloramine in Drinking Water
Top of page

How does EPA regulate DBPs?
EPA has worked collaboratively with stakeholders over the last 15 years in developing regulations for DBPs. EPA believes that these regulations will decrease risks from DBPs in drinking water nationwide. EPA's current standards for DBPs provide the safest balance between the need to disinfect drinking water for protection against pathogens while safeguarding citizens from potentially harmful contaminants.

The Agency first regulated total trihalomethanes (TTHM) in 1979 at 100 parts per billion (ppb) [100 micrograms/liter (μg/L)] for systems serving at least 10,000 people. The Agency revised this rule when it issued the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule (Stage 1 DBPR) in December of 1998. The Stage 1 DBPR was the first phase in a rulemaking strategy required by Congress as part of the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The Stage 1 DBPR set the maximum contaminant level for TTHM at 80 ppb and for the first time set a maximum contaminant level for five haloacetic acids (HAA5) at 60 ppb. These standards had to be met by the end of 2002 for surface water systems serving 10,000 or more people and by the end of 2004 for all other systems.

The Stage 2 DBPR was proposed in August 2003 and finalized on December 15, 2005. This rule builds on the other DBP rules. EPA believes that this regulation will further reduce exposure to DBPs and decrease potential cancer, reproductive, and developmental risks.

For more information:

visit Microbials and Disinfection Byproducts Web site, or
contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline.
The Stage 2 DBPR was proposed in August 2003 and promulgated on December 15, 2005. This rule builds on the other DBP rules. EPA believes that this regulation will further reduce exposure to DBPs and decrease potential cancer, reproductive, and developmental risks.
Top of page

How did the Agency weigh risks vs. benefits for disinfectant byproducts?
Disinfection byproducts are a special case because decreasing disinfection byproduct risk could increase risks from disease-causing microorganisms. Eliminating or significantly decreasing disinfection to stop disinfection byproduct formation would seriously compromise overall public health protection. The Agency’s priority is maintaining protection from disease-causing microorganisms. However, there are a number of things that water systems can do to reduce the levels of disinfection byproducts in drinking water (such as decreasing the amount of disinfectant and removing as much organic material as possible prior to disinfection).

Top of page

Why is drinking water disinfected?
Disinfecting tap water is critical to protect the public from disease-causing microorganisms. Chlorine is the most commonly used disinfectant. Drinking water is disinfected to kill bacteria, viruses, and other organisms that cause serious illnesses and deaths. Disinfection of drinking water has benefited public health enormously by lowering the rates of infectious diseases (for example, typhoid, hepatitis and cholera) spread through untreated water. In the beginning of the last century, prior to the disinfection of drinking water, tens of thousands of people died from disease-causing microorganisms in the water supply.

Information about Chloramine in Drinking Water
Top of page

What health risks are posed by disinfection byproducts such as THMs and HAAs?
To protect public health, EPA continues to strongly support both the disinfection of drinking water to reduce the risk of waterborne disease and the reduction of disinfection byproducts.

EPA has regulated DBPs since 1979 to address health risks posed by a potential association between chlorinated drinking water and cancer, particularly bladder cancer. Current reproductive and developmental health effects data do not support a conclusion at this time as to whether exposure to chlorinated drinking water or disinfection byproducts causes adverse developmental or reproductive health effects, but do support a potential health concern. Although uncertain, the combined health data warrant EPA’s promulgation of the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule to provide an incremental step towards mitigating potential risks.

Top of page

Drinking Water
Education & Training
Grants & Funding
Laws & Regulations
Policy & Guidance
Laws & Executive Orders
Regulatory Information
Regulatory Info by Business Sector
Tribal
Our Waters
Pollution Prevention and Control
Science & Technology
Water Infrastructure
What You Can Do
Share
News Feeds Podcasts EPA Mobile News by Email Widgets
EPA Home Privacy and Security Notice Contact Us
Last updated on Friday, January 28, 2011.

 

[Microbeman]

Originally posted by CT Guy. Don't know the source of 'Removal...'

 

[Chronito]

Fun thread!

Hey guys, wow couldnt believe this thread had jumped from 25 replies to 60something overnight.. after reading i understand why!

Hey Mad Lib i certainly didnt give u any bad rep i was happy with your inputs as it was clear u knew your shiit!

And then a heavy hitter Microbeman stops by.. respect!

Have a great day everyone

Chronito!

 

[Baba Ku]

Q: What methods are used by the industry to remove chloramine and ammonia?
A: In the water industry, the most widely practiced methods of dechlorination are the addition of
reducing agents, for example, sulfite compounds, hydrogen peroxide and ascorbic acid - Vitamin
C (Tikkanen et al., 2001). Granular activated carbon (GAC) filters are also used for dechlorination
(Kirmeyer et al., 2004). Breakpoint chlorination is used routinely by some utilities to remove
chloramine and/or ammonia in the source water or to avoid blending chlorinated and
chloraminated water. During breakpoint chlorination, excess chlorine in chloraminated water
consumes the available ammonia and the remaining disinfectant residual exists as chlorine.

...
I disagree Chronito. I find both of them rude and wrong.
First off..perhaps one of them, that know their shit, could explain to us how h202 couldn't possibly remove or bind chlorine, yet the above shows a cited study that states otherwise? (source provided by you, Microbeman)
Could it be that you are using nothing more than your gut feeling?
Feelings that make you state h202 kills microbes. Well, sure it kills microbes. It will attack and cause the demise of anaerobic bacteria real fast, yet does it kill aerobic bacteria? You know, the types we use many of as beneficials in growing mediums? I mean, how does it do that...which is what I was wanting to know in the first place. Yet you thought it was a common knowledge thing and figured you'd just shove a google search at me.
lol....also funny how mad tries to chastise me for not educating myself with your lame google offering.

I want to know how two drops of blackstrap molasses in a gallon of water neutralizes chlorimine so that it is safe to use for cannabis growing.
After all, that is what mad was claiming from the start. I want to hear it. In detail please.

You guys kill me.

 

[mad librettist]

good excerpt from one of the pdf's above, but does CT guy have the citation anywhere?

However, chloramine is very easily and almost instantaneously removed by preparing a cup of tea or coffee, preparing food (e.g., making a soup with a chicken stock). Adding fruit to a water pitcher (e.g., slicing peeled orange into a 1-gal water pitcher) will neutralize chloramine within 30 minutes. If desired, chloramine and ammonia can be completely removed from the water by boiling; however, it will take 20 minutes of gentle boil to do that. Just a short boil of water to prepare tea or coffee removed about 30% of chloramine. Conversely, chlorine was not as consistently removed by boiling in SFPUC tests.

 

[Microbeman]

...
I disagree Chronito. I find both of them rude and wrong.
First off..perhaps one of them, that know their shit, could explain to us how h202 couldn't possibly remove or bind chlorine, yet the above shows a cited study that states otherwise? (source provided by you, Microbeman)
Could it be that you are using nothing more than your gut feeling?
Feelings that make you state h202 kills microbes. Well, sure it kills microbes. It will attack and cause the demise of anaerobic bacteria real fast, yet does it kill aerobic bacteria? You know, the types we use many of as beneficials in growing mediums? I mean, how does it do that...which is what I was wanting to know in the first place. Yet you thought it was a common knowledge thing and figured you'd just shove a google search at me.
lol....also funny how mad tries to chastise me for not educating myself with your lame google offering.

You guys kill me.

Yes I noted that in that doc. but I'll guarantee that peroxide kills many [all] microbes which are aerobic or anaerobic indiscriminantly, as I've watched it occurring. Particularly flagellates, ciliates, amoeba and nematodes [the actual nutrient cyclers; the whole beneficial bacteria inoculation theme is very very minor in the microbial nutrient loop]. I do plan on posting video footage of this and have just purchased an inverted scope to assist with this.

You do not need to believe me however, as you may find the take on this from many soil scientists.

I am not out to invest a lot of time into this thread and because you seem to be of the google level, that is what I sourced for you. If you want to see the first hand deal, you'll need to wait until I have time and equipment in place.

 

[Chronito]

I make it a habit not to take part in debates about topics i know nothing about. In this case i know less than nothing about the debate at hand but i am learning.. i think?

U guys should just have a bong rip and hug it out.. IMO


Have an awesome day everybody
chronito