Technical
Paper
Nitrate and Nitrite Removal from Municipal
Drinking Water Supplies with Electrodialysis
Reversal
Authors: Ted Prato and Richard G. Parent, Ionics
Reprinted from Proceedings of 1993 AWWA Mem-
brane Conference, by permission.
Note: GE Water & Process Technologies purchased
Ionics in 2005.
Summary
Nitrate contamination of drinking water is a wide-
spread problem. It has long been known that levels
of nitrates exceeding the 10 ppm (mg/l) (as
N-nitrogen) limit are associated with certain health
problems. Although high nitrogen concentrations
in drinking water are found mainly in regions of
intensive agricultural use, there are sources of
nitrate contamination other than agricultural.
Nitrates and nitrites are removed efficiently and
economically using electrodialysis reversal (EDR), a
process where overall demineralization takes place
via transfer of ions through anion and cation-
selective membranes by application of a direct cur-
rent (DC) electric field. Data are presented demon-
strating excellent long-term nitrate removal
using EDR.
Human Health Problems
The best known and documented human health
risk associated with high levels of nitrates in drink-
ing water is methemoglobenemia, also known as
asphyxia or blue-baby syndrome, which can
affect infants under six months of age.1 In methe-
moglobenemia, enteric bacteria convert the ele-
vated levels of nitrate to nitrite. The nitrite then
competes with oxygen for active sites on hemo-
globin resulting in oxygen deprivation. Infants are
predisposed to this effect due to a number of
* Trademark of General Electric Company; may be registered in one or more countries.
physiological factors including higher fluid intake
per body weight, a higher percentage of fetal
hemoglobin and higher stomach pH, permitting
survival of reducing-type bacteria.2
Other potential health effects related to high
nitrate levels include the risk of cancer and birth
defects. These risks are less well-known and
documented than methemoglobenemia. Nitrates
combine with amines to form nitrosamines, sus-
pected of being potential human carcinogens.
Other reactions include the formation of ni-
trosamides which can also produce tumors in
humans. In general, the long-term effect of con-
sumption of high nitrate drinking water is
unknown, but some potential for health problems
exists from nitrite reactivity.
Sources of Nitrates in Drinking Water
Fertilizer runoff, farm animal wastes, and septic
tank discharge all percolate through the soil into
groundwater aquifers and ultimately into water
supplies. Agricultural sources of nitrates are by far
the most common. Regions of the country where
corn is grown experience peak levels of nitrates in
groundwater from heavy fertilization.
Other sources of nitrate and nitrite contamination
are natural and industrial in origin. Industrial
sources include chemical manufacturing opera-
tions and nitrate-containing cutting oils. Natural
sources include atmospheric precipitation (as NH3)
and local mineral deposits such as potassium
nitrate (saltpeter). Decomposing plant materials
contribute as well via nitrogen-fixing bacteria. The
overall contribution of natural sources is small in
relation to the contribution from human activities.
Find a contact near you by visiting www.ge.com/water and clicking on Contact Us.
2010, General Electric Company. All rights reserved.
TP1072EN.doc Mar-10
Allowable Limits of Contaminants opposite in charge, passing through membranes
which also have fixed oppositely-charged groups
Standards for maximum levels of nitrates in drink- bonded to a polymer surface. Membranes with the
ing water have been established by the Federal same charge as the ionic species repel the ions
Government in 1975 with passage of the Safe and prevent passage.4 See Figures 1 and 2, which
Drinking Water Act (SDWA). As of the May 1990 illustrate the EDR process.
SDWA regulations, some major allowable inorganic
contaminants are as follows:
Contaminant MCL or SMCL1
Chloride 250 ppm (mg/l)
Fluoride 2 ppm (mg/l)
Nitrate (as N) 10 ppm (mg/l)
(as NO3) 45 ppm (mg/l)
Nitrite (as N) 1 ppm (mg/l) Figure 1: Electrodialysis Diagram

(as NO2) 3.3 ppm (mg/l)

TDS 500 ppm (mg/l)
1Maximum contaminant level or secondary maximum contaminant level

Prior to the SDWA, there was no requirement or a

practical, affordable method to remove nitrates
from drinking water.3 Since that time a number of
demineralization technologies have been given a
best available technology (BAT) status for nitrate
removal. These BAT processes include EDR, reverse
osmosis (RO) and ion exchange (IE). Effective
removal constitutes reducing the level of nitrates Figure 2: Electrodialysis Reversal
to the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or lower.
A number of EDR plant designs are available to
The EDR process can effectively reduce nitrate treat contaminated water. Figure 3 presents a dia-
concentrations to the MCL or lower in public water gram of a typical three-stage plant. In general, a
supplies. The reduction in nitrite concentration is two stage plant removes 50% of the influent min-
directly related to the design demineralization rate erals and nitrates, a three-stage plant removes
of the EDR system. about 75%, a four-stage plant removes about 83%,
and so on.
What is EDR?
Electrodialysis (ED) is a process which uses ion
exchange resin in sheet form assembled into a
stack of components. ED is widely used for total
dissolved solids (TDS) removal in a number of dif-
ferent types of plants and applications, including
many public and municipal drinking water supplies.
EDR uses a reversible DC field applied across a Figure 3: EDR Process Flow Diagram
stack of components to remove dissolved ions: the
In the course of removing charged ions in solution,
components consist of ion-selective membranes
EDR also removes nitrate and nitrite ions. In this
which transport either positive or negative ions,
next section, operating data are presented for sev-
flow-directing spacers, and electrodes at each end
eral EDR plants used for nitrate removal.
of the stack. Water flows in a thin sheet between
membranes. Under the influence of the applied DC
electric field, ions migrate toward the electrode

Page 2 TP1072EN
Nitrate Removal Using the Italy: 2 desalting stages, 300,000 gpd (1,136
m3/day) total production
EDR Process
Both plants were installed specifically to remove
Operating data illustrate the practicality of the EDR
nitrates from municipal wells in agriculture-
demineralization process for removing nitrates and
intensive regions of Italy.
nitrites as well as TDS. The examples represent a
variety of EDR plants and include three public These two-stage Aquamite XX plants yield 53%
drinking water installations and one industrial demineralization with reductions in TDS from 1,012
application. Descriptions of the four plants follow. to 474 ppm (mg/l) and nitrate from 120 to 37 ppm
All of the feed waters contain high levels of nitrate, (mg/l). The approach here is not only to remove
and the industrial feedwater contains exceptionally nitrate but also to comply with EC standards in
high levels of nitrite. overall TDS reduction.
Tables 1 and 2 present operating data on all of the
Bermuda: 3 desalting stages, 600,000 gpd (2,271
various EDR units.
m3/day) total production
Table 1: EDR Plant Data - Bermuda/Delaware
In Bermuda, there are two Aquamite* XX units
capable of producing a total of 600,000 gpd (2271 Plant Specifications
m3/day) of demineralized drinking-quality water Bermuda Delaware
from a brackish well. The plants were installed to Model Two Aquamite XX Aquamite XX
reduce hardness in the existing water supply and Aquamite X

to cut back on the amount of purchased water. The Production 300,000 gpd 300,000 gpd
(1,136 m3/day) (1,136 m3/day)
brackish water lens under the island is contami- 600,000 gpd 300,000 gpd
nated from septic tank leach fields, making nitrate (2,271 m3/day) (1,136 m3/day)
400,000 gpd
removal important. The EDR plants yield 81% dem- (1,514 m3/day)
ineralization and reduce the nitrate concentration Recovery 90% 90%
from 66 ppm to 8.8 ppm. Product Purity 278 ppm TDS 11 ppm TDS
8.8 ppm NO3 4.5 ppm NO3
Delaware: 3 desalting stages, 400,000 gpd (1,514 Raw Water 1,614 ppm TDS 114 ppm TDS
m3/day) total production 66 ppm NO3 61 ppm NO3
Desalting Stages 3 3
This plant was installed to improve operating eco-
Percent Removal 81% TDS 88% TDS
nomics (by predemineralizing the IE feedwater to a 86.7% NO3 92.6% NO3
power plant boiler makeup system) and to reduce Water Quality
NO3 in the agriculturally-contaminated drinking
Bermuda Delaware
water supply. This three-stage EDR plant yields
Feed Product Feed Product
88% demineralization and reduces the nitrate con- Constituent (ppm (ppm (ppm (ppm
centration from 60 to 4.5 ppm (mg/l). [mg/l]) [mg/l]) [mg/l]) [mg/l])
Sodium 349 72 12 1.6

Industrial: 3 desalting stages, 100,000 gpd Calcium 138 13 9 0.5

total production Magnesium 40 4 8 0.6

Potassium 19 2 - -
This plant was installed as a roughing demineral-
Chloride 656 92 15 1.2
izer. Nitrite concentration is also quite high. Here
Bicarbonate 259 75 9 2.4
an Aquamite X produces 100,000 gpd with 66%
Sulfate 85 10 - -
demineralization. Nitrate concentration is reduced
Nitrate 66 8.8 61 4.5
from 655 ppm to 128 ppm, and Nitrite concentra-
pH 7.9 7.0 6.2 5.4
tion is reduced from 64 ppm to 21 ppm.
TDS 1,614 278 114 11

TP1072EN Page 3
Table 2: EDR Plant Data - Industrial/Italian tions, such as seasonal temperature changes or
increases in feedwater TDS. These EDR units con-
Plant Specifications
sistently meet or exceed SDWA MCL standards for
Industrial Italian
nitrate removal from public water supplies.
Model Two Aquamite X Aquamite XX
Production 100,000 gpd 300,000 gpd
(379 m3/day) (1,136 m3/day)
Recovery 80% 90%
Product Purity 534 ppm TDS
ppm TDS
128 ppm NO3
37 ppm NO3
21 ppm NO3
Raw Water 1,753 ppm TDS
655 ppm NO3
64 ppm NO3
Desalting Stages 3 2
Percent Removal 66% TDS
53% TDS
80.4% NO3
69.2% NO3
67.2% NO3
Water Quality
Industrial Italian
Feed Product Feed Product
Constituent (ppm (ppm (ppm (ppm
[mg/l]) [mg/l]) [mg/l]) [mg/l])
Sodium 24 14 73 49
Calcium 141 28 127 63
Magnesium 34 8 34 13
Potassium - - 4 1.7
Chloride 35 11 120 44 Figure 4: Nitrate and TDS Removal
Bicarbonate 514 235 449 240
Sulfate 113 23 85 25
Nitrate 655 128 120 37
Nitrate 64 21 7.3 7.1
pH 7.3 7.0 7.3 7.1
TDS 1,753 534 1,012 474

All of these plants have three desalting stages with

the exception of the Italian municipal plant which
requires only two desalting stages to reduce
the nitrate concentration to below the MCL as
established by both the SDWA and the World
Health Organization. Figure 5: Nitrate, TDS and NO3 Removal

All nitrate product levels for the public water supply

applications are within the Safe Drinking Water Act
Conclusions
MCL requirement. Average percent removal of ni- EDR effectively removes nitrates and nitrites from
trate from the three-stage plants is 86.6% with an feed waters, as demonstrated by the plant data.
average percent TDS removal of 78.3%. Percent EDR plants are easily designed and operated to
removal from the two-stage plant is 69.2% for yield product water quality to meet SDWA MCLs or
nitrate and 53% for TDS. Nitrite removal in the SMCLs or lower. Other EDR process advantages include:
industrial application is 67.2% with a 68% TDS removal. Self-cleaning membrane process
In addition, graphs of three of the four plants show Low operating and maintenance costs
analytical data for feed and product salinity and
Long membrane life
nitrate concentrations over time (Figures 4 and 5).
The small variations in the product quality reflect High recovery operation
changes in feedwater quality or operating condi- No chemical feeds
Page 4 TP1072EN
 Low chemical usage
No regenerant wastes
Reduction in TDS in addition to nitrate and nitrite
Although there are only a few very specific health
problems identified as a result of high nitrate levels
in drinking water, stricter regulations are driving
public water suppliers to provide suitable technol-
ogy for reducing nitrate and nitrite concentrations
in the interest of addressing avoidable health risks.

References
1. OBrien, W.J., Control Options for Nitrates and
Fluorides, Water/Engineering and Manage-
ment, July, 1983.
2. Bouchard, D.C., Surampalli, R.Y., Williams, M.K.,
Nitrate Contamination of Groundwater:
Sources and Potential Health Effects, Journal
AWWA, Management and Operations, Septem-
ber, 1992.
3. Kartinen, E.O., Jr., Nitrate Removal from
Municipal Water Supplies, AWWA Conference
at Grand Island, Nebraska, November, 1991.
4. Meller, F. H., Electrodialysis & Electrodialysis
Reversal Technology, March, 1984.

TP1072EN Page 5