PAPER NO:

TP12-10

CATEGORY:TREATMENT EVALUATION

COOLING TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE

FIELD EVALUATION AND VERIFICATION OF
BIOLOGICAL CONTROL IN OPERATING
COOLING TOWER WATER SYSTEMS UTILIZING
NON-CHEMICAL PULSE ELECTRIC FIELD
DEVICES
PAUL PUCKORIUS
PUCKORIUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.

The studies and conclusions reported in this paper are the results of the authors own work. CTI has not investigated, and CTI expressly
disclaims any duty to investigate, any product, service process, procedure, design, or the like that may be described herein. The
appearance of any technical data, editorial material, or advertisement in this publication does not constitute endorsement, warranty, or
guarantee by CTI of any product, service process, procedure, design, or the like. CTI does not warranty that the information in this
publication is free of errors, and CTI does not necessarily agree with any statement or opinion in this publication. The user assumes the
entire risk of the use of any information in this publication. Copyright 2012. All rights reserved.

Presented at the 2012 Cooling Technology Institute Annual Conference

Houston, Texas - February 5-9, 2012

FIELD EVALUATION AND

VERIFICATION OF BIOLOGICAL
CONTROL IN OPERATING COOLING
TOWER WATER SYSTEMS UTILIZING
NON-CHEMICAL PULSE ELECTRIC FIELD
DEVICES
BY
PAUL R. PUCKORIUS
PUCKORIUS & ASSOCIATES, INC.
WATER & WASTE WATER CONSULTANTS
ARVADA, COLORADO
KEY WORDSNon-chemical devices, cooling water , microbio-control, cooling towers, Pulse
Electric Field Devices, PEFDs, cooling water quality, cooling tower operation.
ABSTRACTPulsed Electric Field Devices (PEFDs) have been used as the sole source of water
treatment in evaporative cooling water systems for over 10 years with good results.
Several field evaluations will be presented that provide detailed data on microbiological
control entirely by the PEFDs. This paper will present both field and laboratory test data
independently obtained from operating cooling tower water systems which rely solely on
PEFDs for microbiological control. This data shows that adequate and acceptable
control of planktonic (bulk water) microbial populations in numerous full-sized cooling
tower systems is being obtained. A comparison of field verses lab microbiological
testing methods and results will be presented that indicate if proper testing is not done,
the results can provide inaccurate conclusions. Guidelines will be provided for field
microbiological monitoring
INTRODUCTION
Control of microbiological growth, deposition, and corrosion in evaporative cooling tower
water systems is critical for effective system operation.(1) Chemical water treatment has
often been and continues to be promoted for these purposes.

Non-chemical Devices (NCDs) have employed various technologies such as ultrasonic,

electrostatic, pressure differential, and even water direction change to control deposition
due to microbiological organisms and mineral scales. Effectiveness has varied
depending upon makeup and system water quality, consistency of maintenance and the
severity of condenser water contamination.
Applied properly, some of the commercially available NCD technologies can control part
or all of the potential problems typically associated with condenser water treatment.
NCDs can provide specific benefits over chemical water treatments such as elimination
of chemical cost and handling, reduced environmental concerns, reduced monitoring,
testing, and labor in the treatment of cooling tower water systems. As a result NCDs
have seen an increase in use especially for HVAC applications.
Controlling bacteria and their related deposition and corrosion effects is an important
requirement to protect the water contacted surfaces of cooling tower water systems.
Controlling microbiological growths, deposition, and corrosion are very closely
interrelated and must be addressed together. However control of micro-biological
organisms alone can minimize deposition and corrosion and thus is a key to good water
treatment for cooling tower water systems.(2)
Pulse Electric Field Devices (PEFDs) have been utilized as the sole means of
condenser water treatment for operating cooling tower water systems for over 10 years.
They have been reported to perform successfully in the control of microbiological
organisms in these systems.(3) Successful PEFD microbial treatment should routinely
achieve the less than 10,000 CFU/ml treatment objective established by The Cooling
Technology Institute(4) . Recently, ASHRAE sponsored a lab study of several NCDs
including a PEFD, utilizing small laboratory scale cooling towers. The results from these
small cooling towers did not correlate with field data available from full size operating
systems utilizing PEFDs over the past decade. (5)
Consideration for the use of a NCD requires knowledge of its capability and verification
of its performance in actual field operating cooling tower water systems. As we all know,
laboratory and small pilot plant testing may not demonstrate a given methodologys
effectiveness versus actual field performance. This is particularly true for cooling tower
water systems due to their unique design, operation and water qualities. Personally, we
have experienced this in a number of cases during our 55+ years in the water treatment
industry.
PURPOSE OF THIS PROJECT
The purpose of this paper is to report the results of an independent evaluation of the
general microbiological control achieved by PEFDs in field operating cooling tower
water systems. Puckorius & Associates, Inc, Water & Waste Water Consultants (6) were
contracted to develop and oversee a testing and data collection protocol based on
industry standards. Puckorius determined the data to be collected, sampling techniques,
and use of independent certified microbiological testing laboratories for total bacteria
3

analysis of cooling water from numerous field sites using PEFDs as their sole form of
water treatment. This project was funded by two suppliers of PEFDs. (7)
TESTING PROCEDURES AND PROGRAM PROTOCOL
All of the tested locations used city water makeup which is typical for the majority of
HVAC cooling installations. Each sites makeup water and recirculating cooling waters
of were tested to determine water quality and cycles of concentration. This testing
included conductivity, hardness levels, total alkalinities, pH, chlorides and silica. No
tests for chlorine were taken since all were using city water. The water quality data is
provided in several of the following tables. The microbiological samples were taken
initially with the mineral water analyses and again at approximately 30 days later.
Sampling was performed according to the procedure used by the water treatment
industry which is included in the appendix.
These microbiological samples were sent to a certified independent microbiological lab
used often for cooling water microbiological testing and received within 24 hours of
sampling. This test was for total bacteria and often referred to as Heterotropic Plate
Count and Identified as SMWW 9215B (pour plate) testing protocol by two certified
microbiological labs. Results were reported as colony forming units per milliliter (cfu/ml)
which is typical for cooling tower water samples. Samples were taken on Monday thru
Thursday and overnight shipped on ice to the labs. Only two of the samples received
were in the lab longer than 24 hours before being tested.
Data on the cooling tower operation was provided by a survey sent to the sites and
include specific data on cooling tower design, material; of construction, and operating
information. A copy of the survey form is included in the appendix.
SITES INCLUDED IN THE EVALUATION
There were 28 different cooling tower water systems sites tested with operating PEFDs
in 11 different states in the USA. These cooling tower water systems were all for HVAC
operation and included northern, southern, eastern and western states. Table #1 lists
the states involved.
TABLE #1
STATES WHERE COOLING TOWERS TESTED
CALIFORNIA, CONNECTICUT, FLORIDA, GEORGIA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY,
MASSACHUSETTS, MARYLAND, NEW YORK, OHIO, PENNSYSLVANIA AND
VERMONT
The sites used for testing included hospitals, office buildings, light manufacturing,
conference centers, food processing facilities, college/university buildings, and research
facilities. The cooling tower systems varied from ground level installations to roof top.
4

Filters were used in approximately half of the cooling tower water systems. The size
varied from a circulation rate of 270 to 14,400 gallons per minute.
COOLING TOWER DATA COLLECTED
Data on each cooling tower site was identified as to cycles of concentration, days and
hours of typical operation, and details on the construction and materials of construction
of the cooling tower water contacted equipment. This data was compared to the
microbiological results to determine if any patterns in the PEFDs performance could be
identified. Table #2 shows the wide variation of water quality, and cycles of
concentration and when compared to microbiological control, there were no apparent
relationships.
TABLE #2
SUMMARY OF COOLING TOWER WATER QUALITY
Conductivity
pH
Total Hardness
Total Alkalinity
Cycles of Concentration

Range
142-2,900
6.97-9.02
44-632
38-580
1.2-20

Most Frequent
1,000-1,500
8.2-8.6
300-450
150-250
3.5-5.5

Average
1,200
8.4
385
220
4.5

Consideration that low cycles were responsible for the low microbiological results
involved a detailed study of the microbiological results but the data showed that some
low cycles (less than 2.0) had good microbiological control. However cycles above 3.0
and even up to 10 cycles all showed low total bacteria levels.
Some of the second microbiological results were higher than the first samples, other
times lower and a few about the same total bacteria levels. All still were 104 or less
indicating good microbiological control and meeting the CTI guidelines of less than
10,000 CFU/ml. The operation of the cooling tower systems as to hours per day and
days per week were studied and showed again no related comparisons. Table #3 shows
the range of total bacteria relative to the operating times in hours and days of normal
operation.

TABLE #3
COOLING TOWER OPERATION VERSUS TOTAL BACTERIA COUNTS FOUND
OPERATING TIME IN HOURS AND DAYS VERSUS CFU/ML TOTAL BACTERIA

Time
Hours/days
Sites at this
operation

24 / 7

21 / 6

14 / 6

12 / 7

10 / 6

5/4

11

610
4,400
1,800

150
18,000
9.075

RANGE OF TOTAL BACTERIA AS CFU/ML

Lowest
Highest
Average

20
14,000
400

420
1,800
1,000

34
507
350

150
2,600
500

OVERALL RESULTS
Overall the PEFDs delivered excellent to good total bacteria levels in all cooling tower
water systems at all times. The total bacteria counts ranged from 20 cfu/ml to the
highest (only one test at 56,000 cfu/ml (5.6 x 104). The specific number of sites
reported versus the microbiological counts is shown in the following table #4.
TABLE #4
SUMMARY OF MICROBIOLOGICAL TESTS AS
REPORTED FOR HETEROTROPIC TOTAL PLATE COUNT (CFU/ml)
Counts
0-100
101-500
501-1,000 1,000-5,000 5,001-10,000
<102
102
<103
103
<104
Tests
8
17
7
9
1

10,000+
104
3

Note only one test was at 56,000 cfu/ml (5.6 x 104), one at 14,800 cfu/ml (1.48 X
104), and one test at 18,000 cfu/ml (1.8 X 104), none at 100.000 cfu/ml (105 ) or higher
Industry standards are:
Industry standards are:
105- Poor microbiological control
104- Good microbiological control
103- Very good microbiological control
102- Excellent microbiological control
The Cooling Technology Institute targets less than 10,000 CFU/ml of bacteria for a well
maintained system. These results show that 100% of the microbiological tests
provided total bacteria levels from good to excellent microbiological control which is 104
or less. Approximately 93% showed very good total bacteria control at 103 or less and
72 % showed excellent total bacteria control at 102 or less

.
GUIDELINES FOR EFFECTIVE FIELD EVALUATION
To obtain accurate and realistic performance of any microbiological control program for
operating cooling tower water systems requires independent evaluations. It requires
utilizing proper sampling methodology, independent and certified microbiological control
laboratories for the microbiological analyses, and a detailed study of both the cooling
tower operating parameters and the cooling tower water. The relationships of all must
be compared with the several microbiological results taken about 30 days apart without
changing operating or treatment applications. Field results with effective monitoring of
actual cooling tower water systems are the only sure way of determining the true
effectiveness of a microbiological control program as well as a corrosion and deposit
control program
CONCLUSIONS
This independent evaluation of 28 operating field cooling tower water systems showed
without any doubt that the NCDs known as Pulse Electric Field Devices (PEFDs) can
provide excellent to very good total bacteria control under a variety of operating
conditions and water quality. It illustrates that laboratory or pilot plant evaluations may
not be as accurate as actual field applications. The PEFDs that were studied in this
project were identified as typical HVAC operating cooling tower water systems using city
water for cooling tower makeup water and operating at typical 3 to 10 + cycles of
concentration without any additional water treatment for biological control. It must be
understood that cooling tower water systems are unique in numerous ways and must be
evaluated individually to determine appropriate methods of water treatment and
microbiological control.
REFERENCES
1- Puckorius. P.R., MicroBio Control of Cooling Water Systems, Process Cooling
Magazine Sept/Oct 2004 pg 15-16.
2- Puckorius, P.R., MicroBio Control of Cooling Water Systems, Part 2, Process
Cooling Magazine Nov/Dec 2014 pg 17-18.
3- Cooling Technology Institute, Legionellosis Guideline: Best Practices for
Control of Legionella (WTP-148) (2008)
4- Puckorius, P.R, Alley, David, Kienle, Herber. L. Dolphin Pulsed Power case
History, IWC Nov. 2009.
5- Vidic. Duda, Stout, Biological Control in Cooling Water Systems Using NonChemical Treatment Devices, ASHRAE Project 1361, April 2010. ( Laboratory
Pilot Plant Study)
6- Puckorius & Associates, Inc. web sites- Puckorius.com and
Watertrainingservices.com.
7- Project Funded by Clearwater Systems Inc and Evapco, Inc.
7

APPENDIX

Survey Form for Pulsed-Powered Field

Evaluations
Site Name (confidential):__________________________________________________
Site Address (confidential):________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Treatment Device (confidential) size(s) and
manufacturer:__________________________________________________________

CODED ID _____
Cooling Water System Equipment Description:
System Information
1) Description of Equipment: Single tower/chiller; Multiple tower/chiller;
Tower/heat exchanger; Condenser (ammonium, Freon); Fluid cooler.
2) System materials of construction in contact with open loop cooling water:
(Circle all that apply)
a. Copper
b. Galvanized
c. Stainless
d. PVC
3) Approximate system volume or condenser pump recirculation rate.
4) Maximum temperature of open loop system and where.
5) Filtration
a. Sand/Cartridge/Cyclone/None
b. Sidestream Flow or Full Flow
6) Usage
a. HVAC/Industrial/Condenser
b. Operation Hrs/day ____; Days per week__________
7) Record if any water treatment chemicals are being added besides the
pulsed-power device, indicate frequency of addition, what chemical is
being used and dosage applied.
8) Makeup water: City; Well; Other

9) Blowdown Mechanism Controller with solenoid or motorized ball,

manual, constant bleed.
Tower Information
1) Tower Manufacturer and Model (not to be included in report).
2) Cross-flow or counter-flow.
3)
4)
5)
6)

Water circulation rate.

Approximate Age of unit.
Rated tonnage.
Location: (roof, ground), (Rural, Urban Industrial).

Water Evaluation
1) Make-up Water First visit only
a. Sample for laboratory analysis including: conductivity, alkalinity,
calcium hardness, chloride, pH, total phosphate, & total hardness.
b. Measure pH, conductivity, and free and total Cl2 on-site.
2) Make-up Water Second visit
a. Measure conductivity and pH.
3) Tower water first visit only:
a. Sample for full chemistry including: conductivity, alkalinity, calcium
hardness, chloride, pH, total phosphate, & total hardness.
b. Measure pH, conductivity, and free and total Cl2 on-site
4) Tower Water Second visit
a. Measure conductivity and pH.

Biological Evaluation
1) Each location shall be sampled twice separated by approximately one
month.
2) Sample should be collected on a Monday, Tuesday, or Wednesday and
overnight to the laboratory.
3) The sample shall be evaluated by an independent laboratory using SMWW
9215B (pour plate) using plate count agar and incubating for 48 hours at
35C. Values shall be reported in CFU/ml. Incubation shall be started
within 24 hours of sampling. Samples shall be kept refrigerated.
10

Survey and Sampling Instructions

1) Complete survey during the initial visit. The site name, address, cooling
tower manufacturer and the particular treatment method will be kept
confidential. The balance of the information will be included in the final
report.
2) A make-up and tower water sample will be taken for a complete laboratory
analysis during the first visit as well as a biological sample. For the
second biological sampling approximately one month later measure and
record only the make-up water and tower conductivity.
3) Use a chain of custody form for all samples. Fill out completely.
4) Two separate sample bottles of at least 500 ml shall be supplied to the
laboratory for each water sampled for chemical analysis. Leave a small
head space and use Teflon tape or electrical tape to prevent leaks. A single
chain-of-custody form can be used for samples of the make-up water and
tower water from a single site. Samples should ship to arrive at the
laboratory within three days of sampling.
5) Biological samples shall be refrigerated and shipped overnight using ice
packs or wet ice, arriving before noon, to the biological laboratory with a
separate chain of custody form. Wrap samples lightly in newspaper or
paper towel to avoid direct contact with ice packs. Use sample containers
provided by the laboratory for biological sampling. Use sterile sample
containers provided by the laboratory.
Record the location for the biological sample. Preferably, samples shall be taken
from water falling from the coil tubes, fill or dipped from the basin. If a tap must
be used to collect the sample make sure that the water is moving in the pipe and
let the water flow at least for two minutes at full flow from the tap before
sampling.

11