This is a newly redesigned Water-Research.net page
Page Archive

Surface Water Investigation Protocol (SWIP) and the Microscopic Particulate Analysis Assessment (MPA / SWIP)

Groundwater Under the Influence - SWIP Studies and Wellhead Protection Analysis

During the past 30 years giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis have been recognized as two of the most frequently occurring waterborne diseases in the United States. The occurrence and detection of these parasites and drinking water source identification and protection has become a matter of urgent concern to those responsible for water utility operation in endemic areas. Because of these concerns, the Surface Water Filtration Rule was established and protocols were developed for determining if a source was characterized as surface water, groundwater, or groundwater under the influence of source water. These procedures are called the SWIP - Surface Water Investigation Protocol and the MET - Microscopic Evaluation Technique. During the MET, the number of a variety of surface water indicators (algae, diatoms, organic debris, plant material, crustacea, insects, larvae, etc) are identified and enumerated.

Mr. Brian Oram has been involved with conducting over 1000 SWIP, MPA, MET, Wellhead Protection Studies (Zone I, II, and III), and Groundwater Under the Influence Investigations. If you would like more information, please Contact the KnowYourH2O Team.

Evaluation - A Three-Step Process

A three-step process is recommended to evaluate groundwater sources (springs, wells, etc) to determine the degree of influence from a surface-water source. The steps include:

1) Initial evaluation of hydrogeological settling, source construction, water quality, and a MET Particulate Analysis.

2) Long-Term daily monitoring.

3) Follow-up water quality and particulate analysis during the conditions when the source is most vulnerable to surface water influence.

Step 1

The first step is an initial sampling of the source following a major recharge event, such as a heavy rainfall (> 2 in/wk) and one sample collected during the summer following an extended period of little or no rainfall. The data are evaluated using the MET Technique. The Microscopic Evaluation Technique (MET) involves the identification, sizing, and population estimates of microorganisms and organic or inorganic debris found in water. The results of the laboratory data are then used in a series of risk assessment tables to establish the potential risk to surface water influence. In addition to the MET, a preliminary hydrological assessment is conducted to determine the potential sources of contamination, possible routes of contamination, and overall security of the source.

Step 2

The second step is daily monitoring of the water source for temperature, pH, turbidity, conductivity, static water level, pumping rate, flow rate, and any other relevant parameters. In addition, routine bacterial analysis is performed and climatic data is recorded. This monitoring is conducted for a period of 6 months or more. Following the 6-month period, the data are evaluated.

Step 3

If a trend is observed, such as an increase in temperature or turbidity, a few days following a recharge event, the source is then sampled using the MET procedure during the time when the source is most vulnerable to influence.

Recommendations For Conducting a MET for a Well

Water samples should be collected during the last 12-hour period of a typical 72-hour pump test. It is advisable to collect samples for pH, conductivity, bacteria, and turbidity prior to and during the sample collection to determine if the quality of the water is changing. If a surface water body is nearby, it would be advisable to monitor stream flow monitoring, collect a comparison composite sample from the stream, and collect a grab sample that should be tested for pH, conductivity, bacteria, and turbidity.

At least 600 gallons of water are passed through an AMF Cuno Micro Wynd II filter (DPPPY, 1 micron polypropylene core) mounted in a Carborundum Fulflo Filter Housing ( Model LT-10), collected over an 8 to 24-hour period. The inlet hose is connected to an appropriate tap and the pressure should not exceed 10 - 30 psi. Pressure over the filter face should be controlled by a pressure regulator and monitored with a pressure gauge. If the sample must be taken from a pump, it is recommended that the pump be situated downstream from the filter housing so that the pump and hoses will not introduce errors due to cross-contamination. If the sample is being collected from a spring box, the spring box should be clean prior to sampling and allowed to flush. Recently, we have added a 1 gpm flow restrictor to our sampling kit.

Prior to sampling, flush the main line to the filter for 15 minutes. Record the time and meter reading before opening the sampling tap. Set the flow rate to 0.5 - 1.0 gallons per minute, depending on the source water quality. After a sufficient sample is collected, turn off the sampling tap, record the time and meter reading, and disconnect the sampling apparatus. Take care to maintain the opening on the inlet hose above the level of the opening on the outlet hose to prevent backwashing and to allow residual water to drain out of the filter canister.

With the bowl of the filter housing sealed, turn the unit upside down and allow excess water to drain into the Ziploc sampling bag from the filter housing. Open the filter housing and remove the filter; the filter should be handled with plastic disposable gloves and stored in a double Ziploc bag along with any residual water and rinsing from the filter housing. If the sample is chlorinated, it is advisable to add 50 ml of 1 % sodium thiosulfate, which should be provided by the certified laboratory, to the bag and shake it before bringing the sample back to the laboratory (recommended holding time is 48 hours). Since cysts are destroyed if they are allowed to dry out or if they reach room temperature for any period of time, all samples should be transported on wet ice and stored in a refrigerator until they are processed. If blue ice is used, the filter must not be in direct contact with the blue ice packs because it could freeze. If the sample is received frozen, the filter can not be analyzed.

Recent changes:

1. Between samplings: Filter housing should be cleaned with laboratory-grade detergent and air dried.

2. Always use new sampling hoses; do not attempt to clean hoses and reuse them.

3. Flush the filter housing w/o the flow restrictor and filter installed for at least 1 hour with the test water before starting the sampling process.

4. Use two people to bag the filter after collection.

Risk Ranking for GWUI and MET Evaluations For Surface-Water-Influence Testing

The following are the tables used to develop a risk range to determine the potential for surface water influence. The following tables are based on the number of specific particles observed in the equivalent of 100 gallons of raw water. These tables are used to assess springs and wells, but not filtration systems.

Table 1 | Numerical Range of Each Bio-Indicator
Based on Numbers Counted per 100 gallons of Water

Giardia cysts > 30 16 to 30 6 to 15 1 to 5 0
Coccidia > 30 16 to 30 6 to 15 1 to 5 0
Diatoms > 150 41 to 149 11 to 40 6 to 10 0 - 5
Other Algae > 300 96 to 299 21 to 95 6 to 20 0 - 5
Insects/ Larvae > 100 31 to 99 16 to 30 1 to 15 0
Rotifers/ Crustacea > 150 61 to 149 21 to 60 1 to 25 0
Plant Debris > 200 71 to 200 26 to 70 1 to 25 0

EH - Extremely Heavy ; H- Heavy; M - Medium; R- Rare; NS - not significant.

Source: PADEP "Surface Water Identification Procedure: Interpreting
the Microscopic Particulate Analysis," (WSCH1/93), 1993.

Table 2 | Relative Risk Factors Associated with Bio-Indicator
Based on Numbers Counted per 100 gallons of Water

Giardia cysts 40 30 25 20 0
Coccidia 35 30 25 20 0
Diatoms 16 13 11 6 0
Other Algae 14 12 9 4 0
Insects/ Larvae 9 7 5 3 0
Rotifers/ Crustacea 4 3 2 1 0
Plant Debris 3 2 1 0 0

EH - Extremely Heavy ; H- Heavy; M - Medium; R- Rare; NS - not significant.

Source: PADEP Surface Water Identification Procedure: Interpreting the Microscopic Particulate Analysis, (WSCH1/93), 1993.

Source: EPA Consensus Method for Determining Groundwaters Under the Direct Influence of Surface Water Using Microscopic Particulate Analysis (MPA), 1992.

Risk of Surface Water Contamination:

Old Method (1992) New Method (1993)
> 20 - high risk > 10 - Surface Indicators Present
10 - 19 - moderate risk < 9 - Surface Indicators Absent
< 9 - low risk  

Additional Resources

Get Treatment

Archive Page Reference
This is a newly redesigned Water-Research.net page. To reference related archived Water-Research.net page(s) click the link(s) below:
No items found.