使用地表水资源的小型饮用水系统很快将不得不遵守 第一阶段消毒剂/消毒副产品（D/DBP1）规则（2004年1月1日）。小的 系统最难达到联邦饮用水合规标准， 因为大规模操作可能负担得起的处理技术可能不适用 适合小规模运营。因此，小型系统的合规性问题 是水工业中最难解决的问题。本研究的总体目标 目的是研究使用适用技术处理密苏里州的各种地表水 适用于粉末活性炭（PAC）、硫酸铝（明矾）等小型系统， 聚氯化铝（PACl）和阴离子交换树脂（MIEX）用于去除NOM和 通过单次和序贯治疗使DBP最小化。这项研究表明 PAC治疗不太可能是治疗DBP问题的唯一方法，因为它不能消除DBP 合理剂量（30 mg/L）的足量NOM。MIEX处理过的水具有 最高紫外线吸收率（UVA）和总三卤甲烷（TTHM）去除率为88% 和86%。对于明矾处理，需要使用20 mg/L的最低剂量 使颗粒不稳定，导致UVA254含量下降。较低的pH值改善了明矾和PACl 表演序贯治疗明显优于单次PAC或单次PAC 明矾处理。明矾/PAC的顺序处理至少比常规处理高42%至47% PAC单独处理比明矾单独处理高6%至26%，而序贯处理 PACl/MIEX治疗比单独使用PACl至少高10%至26%，5%至33% 比MIEX更高。TTHM与UVA和UFC氯剂量（C24）的相关性 分析表明，在大多数情况下，UVA比C24和溶解有机碳（DOC）更好地预测TTHM 水域。包括13个参考文献、表格、图表。

Small drinking water systems using surface water sources will soon have to comply with the Stage I Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproducts (D/DBP1) Rule (January 1st, 2004). Small systems have the most difficulty meeting federal compliance standards for drinking water, because the treatment technology that may be affordable to large-scale operations may not be affordable for small-scale operations. Therefore, small system compliance problems are the most difficult problems to solve in the water industry. The overall objective of this research was to study the treatment of a variety of Missouri surface waters using techniques applicable to small systems such as powdered activated carbon (PAC), aluminum sulfate (alum), polyaluminum chloride (PACl), and anion exchange resin (MIEX) for removal of NOM and minimization of DBPs by single and sequential treatments. This study demonstrated that PAC treatment is unlikely to be a sole remedy to DBP problems because it cannot remove a sufficient amount of NOM at reasonable doses (30 mg/L). MIEX treated water had the highest ultraviolet absorbance (UVA) and Total trihalomethanes (TTHM) removal at 88 % and 86 %, respectively. For alum treatment, a minimum dose of 20 mg/L was required to destabilize the particles, causing a decline in UVA254. Lower pH improved alum and PACl performance. Sequential treatment clearly showed better UVA removal than single PAC or alum treatments. Sequential treatment for alum/PAC is at least 42 % to 47 % higher than PAC treatment alone and 6 % to 26 % higher than alum treatment alone, whereas sequential treatment for PACl/MIEX is at least 10 % to 26 % higher than PACl alone and 5 % to 33 % higher than MIEX alone. TTHM versus UVA and UFC chlorine dose (C24) correlation analysis showed that the UVA was better than C24 and dissolved organic carbon (DOC) for predicting TTHM for most waters. Includes 13 references, tables, figures.