Report of Performance Measurements

Made on the

PureSafe™ Water Systems Portable Emergency Water Treatment System

October 21, 2008

Introduction

This report is a discussion of measurements that were made in September, 2008, to determine the basic performance characteristics of the PureSafe Water Systems portable emergency water treatment system. The purpose of these measurements was to determine whether different components of the system are operating in accord with their intended design purpose.

The PureSafe Water System is a trailer mounted water treatment system that is designed to draw raw water from local surface waters during an emergency and then to purify the water to potable water standards. To accomplish this, a multi-barrier approach is used to eliminate biological and chemical contaminants. The treatment elements that are or will be available in the system include the following items in this general order from water input to processed water (Figure 1, Attachment A, is a schematic of the system, and there is an overview photograph and also detail photograph on the photo page, Attachment B):

1. An input pump to draw water from a surface source.
2. A cyclonic sediment separator to remove turbidity and grit from the incoming water.
3. A chlorine injection system to provide preliminary microbiological control.
4. A density stratified multimedia filter (carbon, sand, crushed basalt) to provide further turbidity removal, organic chemical removal, and to remove chlorine prior to reverse osmosis.
5. A 10 micron cartridge filter to provide further turbidity removal.
6. A 1 micron cartridge filter to provide further turbidity removal and to protect the following Reverse Osmosis membranes from clay sized particles.
7. A second granular activated carbon filter. This cartridge filter is to provide a secondary removal of organic chemicals and final assurance that the RO membranes are protected from chlorine.
8. The Reverse Osmosis (R.O.) system to remove dissolved contaminants and to provide an additional barrier to microbiological contamination.
9. An ultraviolet light to provide additional post-RO microbiological protection.
10. A pair of output housing filters which can be used for cartridge filtration or re-mineralization. To perform the latter function, one of the housings is filled with ground food grade calcium carbonate, which can then dissolve in the output flow.
11. An ozone generator. This can be connected in several ways in order to either ozonate the final product, produce ozonated water to clean customers’ bottles, or to provide a flow of sanitizing water to clean the internal elements of the system. The product water may also be chlorinated at this point.

On September 15th, 2008, I visited the PureSafe facility in Plainview, New York in order to make appropriate measurements. At the time of this testing, all the system elements were in place except for the input pump and the associated cyclonic sediment separator.

Test Procedures

In order to conduct this testing, it was necessary to make up test mixtures consisting of water mixed with various contaminants. These mixtures were then run through the treatment equipment to determine whether the equipment removed the contaminant. During each test run, samples were taken at relevant points in the equipment and either analyzed in-house or sent out to a nearby commercial laboratory.

In order to produce the test mixtures, a piece of special equipment was devised and constructed that allowed the mixing of municipal supply water with different contaminants. This was used to produce 240 to 300 gallon batches of test mixtures that could then be pumped through the treatment equipment to observe treatment performance. The equipment for preparing test mixtures has two functions:

   1. To prepare batches of test mixtures.
   2. To pump the completed test mixtures to the treatment equipment.

Figures 2 and 3, Attachment A, show simplified schematics of this test apparatus, and there is a photograph of the apparatus on the Photo Page, Attachment B. The contaminant addition configuration and the equipment feed configuration are both illustrated. In the mixing mode, concentrated mineral solutions can be blended into the circulating water by using the Venturi to gradually add the mineral solution, and the static mixer to blend it into the circulating water. Alternatively, a mixture can be created in the 300 gallon tank and then circulated to assure that it is uniformly blended. The second approach was used for the bacterial test described below.

Note also that the first test described below was to assure that the preliminary treatment equipment was properly injecting and removing chlorine. For this test, the chlorine injection system that is built into the machine was used in a normal operating mode to prepare the needed water/chlorine bleach solution.

In order to make the test solutions, a source of clean water was required. We chose to use the municipal supply for this purpose. This water was deemed suitable for several reasons:

1. Since it is a municipal supply, we believed it to be free of coliform, and likely to have a low plate count.
2. We made conductivity and hardness measurements of the municipal water that showed relatively low levels of mineralization. The conductivity was 31.8 uS/cm which corresponds to a dissolved solids of approximately 21 milligrams per liter (mg/l). This is a minor value in comparison to the mineralization values that we created for the testing.
3. substantial amount of water was needed for the testing, and this was the most practical alternative.

Tests Performed

While at the facility, I performed 5 separate tests of the water treatment equipment. These tests included the following:

Test 1: This test was to assure that the equipment was functional, and to assure that the chlorine injection system could be set to inject a correct concentration of chlorine. For this test, the built-in chlorine bleach injection pump was used in a normal operating mode. The concentrations were read by using the Hach model 2800 spectrophotometer. Test samples were draw at the following points:

   1. Just after the chlorine injection (to show the initial concentration).
   2. After the mixed media filter (this filter contains granular activated carbon to remove chlorine).
   3. Just before the R.O. (The final pre-filter, which is located prior to this point, is a carbon filter to provide additional chlorine removal to assure that the R.O. membranes are protected.)

Test 2: This was a preliminary performance test for the R.O. system. To perform the test, a 240 gallon batch of water was prepared to which sodium chloride was added. The salt quantity was calculated to provide a sodium chloride concentration of 1500 mg/l. The calculations for this mixture are shown on the spreadsheet in Attachment C. This solution was then run through the machine to find out if it would be appropriately rejected. The rejection was determined by taking conductivity measurements at different points in the system using the Hach SensIon 156 multiparameter instrument. This instrument will measure conductivity, pH and dissolved oxygen level; however, only conductivity measurements were used for this testing. Prior to the testing, the performance of the conductivity meter was verified by the use of a calibration solution supplied by the manufacturer. The measurement points were as follows:

   1. The inflowing mixture (to observe the initial concentration).
   2. The permeate water (to observe the effectiveness of rejection by the R.O.)
   3. The rejected concentrate (to observe the expected substantial rise in concentration).

Test 3: This was a more advanced test of the R.O. system. To perform this test, a 240 gallon batch of water was prepared that contained various minerals to simulate a hard water source. The salts that were used to make up the solution were Sodium Bicarbonate (NaHCO3), Calcium Chloride (CaCL2), and Magnesium Sulfate (MgSO4). These minerals were mixed sequentially so as to avoid precipitation reactions between the calcium and either the sulfate or the bicarbonate ions in the solution. The concentrations of each chemical were adjusted to give a sodium concentration of 40 milligrams per liter (mg/l), calcium of 80 milligrams per liter, and magnesium of 60 milligrams per liter. The calculations for this mixture are shown on the spreadsheet in Attachment C. This is comparable to a mineral water with a moderate degree of mineralization. This test was also monitored by taking conductivity measurements.

   1. The inflowing mixture (to observe the initial concentration).
   2. The permeate water (to observe the effectiveness of rejection by the R.O.)
   3. The rejected concentrate (to observe the expected substantial rise in concentration).

Test 4: This was a test to show the rejection of nitrate and phosphate – typical agricultural chemicals. For this test, a liquid fertilizer was obtained with a 5% nitrate and 1% phosphate content specified on the label. A calculated amount of this was mixed with a 264 gallon volume of water (1 cubic meter) to produce a theoretical nitrate concentration of 55 mg/l and a phosphorous concentration of 11 mg/l. System performance was monitored by measuring conductivity values of the inflowing mixture, the water rejected at the membrane and the permeate water. To obtain quantitative values for nitrate and phosphate, samples were drawn from the following two sampling points:

   1. The inflowing mixture (to observe the initial concentration).
   2. The permeate (to observe the effectiveness of rejection by the R.O.)

Conductivity measurements were made at these sample points, and samples were taken for laboratory analysis. These samples were delivered to H2M Labs, Inc. of Melville, New York. The samples were properly refrigerated and delivered to the laboratory within 4 hours after performing the sampling.

Test 5: This was a test to assure that microbiological contaminants are eliminated by the system. Prior to (and after) the test, the equipment was sanitized by using chlorinated and ozonated water. To perform this test, a contaminated test mixture was prepared by mixing animal feces with water and nutrients. This mixture was allowed to incubate for 16 hours after which water was added to bring the total volume up to 240 gallons. The mixture was then run through the equipment and samples were drawn at several points. The sample points were:

   1. Incoming mixture
   2. Post chlorine injection
   3. Pre RO membranes
   4. Post RO membranes.

These samples were also delivered to H2M Labs, Inc. for analysis of coliform bacteria and of standard plate count (SPC). The samples were properly refrigerated and were delivered to the laboratory within two hours after the completion of the test.

Results

Test 1: Chlorine Levels: The Hach Spectrophotometer provided a sensitive test for chlorine. After several preliminary tests, the chlorine pump was set to inject a relatively high free chlorine level of 6.3 mg/l. The charcoal portion of the multimedia filter dropped this value by a factor of several hundred to a level of 0.016 mg/l. The second charcoal filter provided additional attenuation down to a level of 0.010 mg/l. The reverse osmosis membranes reportedly will tolerate a chlorine level of 0.10 mg/l, so the system provides sufficient attenuation to protect the membranes. (The results are tabulated on a spreadsheet in Attachment D).

Test 2: Sodium Chloride Rejection: The 1500 mg/l sodium chloride test solution concentration that was chosen for this test is a concentration that might result from mixing approximately 1 part of seawater with 22 parts of fresh water. This simulates conditions that might be expected at the upper parts of an estuary, or perhaps a mixture of storm and seawater in a coastal region. We anticipate that this system would not be used to attempt to purify seawater, and that potential operators would seek a source location with as low a dissolved solids as possible in order to provide the highest possible RO efficiency. The 1500 mg/l value approximates the upper limit of dissolved solids for the membranes that are currently installed in the system. Measurements of the system during operation with this source water indicated the following results (the results are also tabulated on a spreadsheet in Attachment D):

Input conductivity: 2270 microSiemens/cm (uS/cm)

Permeate (outflow) conductivity: 85.6 uS/cm

RO Concentrate (reject water) conductivity: 3320 uS/cm

This indicates that more than 96% of the incoming salt was rejected in the permeate stream. As a rule of thumb, the total dissolved solids (TDS) value of a solution in milligrams per liter is approximately 2/3 of the conductivity value in milliSiemens/cm. Note that the when the input conductivity of 2270 uS/cm is multiplied by 2/3, the result is 1520 mg/l. This close correspondence with the known 1500 mg/l value for the prepared test mixture verifies that the meter was operating properly. The same rule of thumb yields a permeate TDS of 57 mg/l. The sodium chloride molecule is approximately 40% sodium by weight, so this indicates a sodium value of 22.3 mg/l. Under US FDA rules, this sits on the borderline between low sodium and sodium free water. (FDA rules state that water with less that 5 milligrams of sodium per serving can be labeled “sodium free.” A serving is generally 8 ounces or 236 milliliters. This yields an upper limit for sodium free labeling of 21.1mg/l which is within the limits of error of the 22.3 mg/l value calculated above.)

Test 3: Hard Water Mineral Rejection: This test simulates hard water as might be expected if the raw water source is a well in a limestone area. The following list indicates how the measured hardness in mg/l is regarded in practical terms.

    * Soft: 0–20 mg/L as calcium
    * Moderately soft: 20–40 mg/L as calcium
    * Slightly hard: 40–60 mg/L as calcium
    * Moderately hard: 60–80 mg/L as calcium
    * Hard: 80–120 mg/L as calcium
    * Very Hard >120 mg/L as calcium

Hardness is basically a measure of how much calcium or magnesium is in the water. Iron, manganese and other metals that loose two electrons when forming compounds also affect hardness, but the concentrations of these are usually much less than the calcium and magnesium concentrations so that the others are usually ignored. Hardness is somewhat of a practical measurement in that various processes are affected by hard water. Some examples are boiler scale formation when water is heated, adverse chemical reactions when hard water is used in industrial processes, the formation of deposits when water is evaporated, curdling of soap solutions resulting in high soap usage, and with respect to the PureSafe equipment, the formation of scale on the Reverse Osmosis membrane. Measurement of Hardness is frequently used to calculate the volumes of treatment chemicals that may be used for water treatment. It should be noted that hardness is not a health issue, but it can be a treatment issue. Also note that Sodium is a highly soluble mono-valent ion, so it does not affect the hardness. However, we included some sodium bicarbonate in the feed water for this test so that the water would more closely match a natural water.

After mixing the calcium, magnesium and sodium salts noted in the Test #3 section above, we measured the hardness using a HACH model 5B hardness test kit. This yielded a hardness greater than 300 parts per million which, according to the above listing, is very hard water.

(Notes regarding hardness units: The Hach kit gives a direct hardness measurement with a result in the old units of grains per gallon. 1 grain per gallon is equivalent to 17.1 milligrams per liter of hardness.)

The rejection of calcium and magnesium as well as sodium during the test is shown by the following conductivity measurements (the results are also tabulated on a spreadsheet in Attachment D):

Input conductivity: 912 uS/cm

(Calculated TDS by 2/3 rule = 608mg/l – compare to mixed value of 665 mg/l)

Permeate (outflow) conductivity 28.5 uS/cm

RO Concentrate (reject water) concentration of 1398 uS/cm

This indicates that 98% of the inflowing mineralization was rejected in the outflow stream.

Test 4: Agricultural Chemicals:

This sample was prepared by adding 1.09 liters of a 5% nitrate nitrogen Miracle Grow liquid fertilizer to 1 cubic meter liters of water by using the Venturi mineral addition system.  Assuming the advertised 5% nitrate concentration in the fertilizer is correct, this mix should result in a 55 mg/l nitrate concentration.  This corresponds well with the 51.1 mg/l concentration that was subsequently reported by the laboratory.  The same fertilizer had a 1% phosphorous concentration and we expected to find about 11 mg/l of phosphorous; however, no phosphorous appeared in the inlet analysis. None of the treatment elements except the RO are likely to affect the nitrate levels, so we only performed analysis for samples drawn at the inlet and outflow.  The following results were observed (the results are tabulated on a spreadsheet in Attachment D, and the analytical reports are included in Attachment E):

1. We made on-site measurements of the conductivities and determined the following:
   1. The inflowing test solution had a conductivity of 501 uS/cm or a TDS of approximately 333 mg/l.
   2. The permeate water had a conductivity of 26 uS/cm corresponding to an approximate TDS of 17 mg/l.
   3. The reject water conductivity was considerably elevated with a conductivity of 892 uS/cm or TDS of 597 mg/l
      
2. As previously noted, the test mixture nitrate concentration was 51.1 mg/l; however the inflowing phosphorous level was non-detect. Given the label analysis of 1% phosphorous on the fertilizer bottle, this absence remains unexplained.
   
3. The outflow nitrate levels were measurable but small.  The Kjeldahl nitrogen is a measure of organic nitrogen (generally from proteins), ammonia (NH3) and the ammonium ions (NH4+).  It is not clear how one or more of these entered the water.  The Kjeldahl test involves a digestion in hot sulfuric acid, so it will easily break down nitrogen containing compounds in the water.  Note that the total nitrogen is the sum of the nitrate-nitrite and the Kjeldahl.
   
4. The nitrate level that is present in the permeate water of 2.21 mg/l is similar to values that are normally found in natural ground water and is well below the 10 mg/l MCL for nitrate.  The inflowing test value of 51 mg/l is a high value that would only be expected in some extreme circumstance, and lower input values should result in correspondingly lower outflow values during field use of the equipment.

Test 5: Bacteria Results:

The Results from H2M Labs, Inc. illustrate the following (the results are tabulated on a spreadsheet in Attachment D and the analytical reports are included in Attachment E.):

1. The bacteria test shows very high levels of >57,000 colony forming units/milliliter (CFU/ml) at the inlet as it should.
2. The post chlorine sample point is located directly after the chlorine injection point after the water passes through about 2 feet of pipe.  We only measured SPC for this sample, but it was greatly reduced – from >57,000 CFU/ml down to 2 colonies.  The sample bottle for this sample has a preservative in it that will remove free chlorine from the sample, so that the contact between the bacteria and the chlorine should have been quite short.
3. The Pre-RO value was immediately after the multimedia filter.  This filter has activated carbon in it which is intended to remove the chlorine.  Previous testing had shown that the chlorine removal is effective, so this sample should have been devoid of chlorine.  The total chlorine contact time for this sample would be a few minutes.  There were no bacteria detected just before the RO step.
4. The Post RO sample was taken just after the RO and before any post-RO sanitization (chlorine or ozonation are both possible alternatives).  This shows no Coliform, but does show an appreciable SPC.  It is likely that there was residual bacteria in this part of the machine that were not knocked down when the machine was sanitized, and that they are not from the dirty water inflow.  (Note that SPC is not regulated, it is only a measure of cleanliness.  This indicated value is a moderate value, especially in contrast to the initial value.)

Conclusions

All the test results indicated positive performance of the PureSafe Water System. In particular:

1. The activated carbon is effective in removing chlorine and should be sufficient to protect the membranes from oxidation.
2. The treatment equipment is effective in removing high levels of sodium chloride from the input stream.
3. The treatment equipment is effective in removing a high level of common groundwater mineralization from the water. Note also that the machine is equipped with an antiscalent injection pump. We recommend that antiscalents should be used when hard water is processed for an extended period.
4. The treatment equipment is effective in removing nitrate, a common fertilizer constituent, from the water.
5. The treatment equipment is effective in lowering standard plate count to acceptable levels and in eliminating coliform bacteria.

We appreciate the opportunity to evaluate the performance of the PureSafe Water System.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Thomas Brewer, Ph. D.

Technical Director

Hidell-Eyster International

Location:

195 Whiting Street

Hingham, Massachusetts 02043 USA

Mailing Address:

P.O. Box 325

Accord, Massachusetts 02018 USA

E-mail: hidell@hidelleyster.com Tel: 781-749-8040 Fax: 781-749-2304



THOMAS BREWER, Ph.D.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE

Surficial Geologist and Hydrologist

EDUCATION

• Ph.D., Geology, 1975, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
• M.A., Geology, 1969, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts
• B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1962, Carnegie-Mellon University,
  Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

PROFESSIONAL AND RESEARCH EXPERIENCE

DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL SERVICES, HYDROGEOLOGIST, LICENSED SITE PROFESSIONAL,
Hidell-Eyster Technical Services, Inc. (Hingham, Massachusetts),

1979-present. 

Responsible for management of all technical services of the firm.  Technical consulting services to the bottled water industry includes evaluation of water sources to determine their feasibility to support a commercial bottling operation, design of water collection systems and transfer stations.   Dr. Brewer oversees activities related to quality control including conformity of source water and final product with government regulations, compliance of manufacturing practices with government regulations, installation of appropriate water treatment processes, and emergency response to water quality problems.

Dr. Brewer has served on the Technical Committee of IBWA.  In that capacity, he has been instrumental in the development of the IBWA Model Bottled Water Regulations and in the development of criteria to determine whether a water source is a spring.  Dr. Brewer has written numerous technical articles on the industry.

Dr. Brewer specializes in the hydrological investigation of hazardous waste sites, including the design and installation of monitoring wells, sampling programs, collection of potentiometric (groundwater flow) data, construction of potentiometric maps, determination of aquifer characteristics, delineation of contaminant plumes, and the design of groundwater recovery systems.

PROFESSIONAL RESEARCH,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) (Boston, Massachusetts),
1978-1980. 
Investigated surface impoundments (pits, ponds, reservoirs, and lagoons) in Massachusetts to determine whether such impoundments had been contaminated.  This research culminated in the publication entitled "Department of Environmental Quality Engineering Surface Impoundment Assessment Project."

ADJUNCT ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, University of Massachusetts/Boston, courses in Hydrogeology and Environmental Geology,

1999-Present.

• ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, INSTRUCTOR,
  Boston State College and the University of Massachusetts (Boston, Massachusetts), 1970-1986.
  
• DOCTORAL RESEARCH,
  Boston University (Boston, Massachusetts), 1970-1975.  Funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to determine the geomorphic characteristics of Hadley Rille on the Moon. (NASA Contract Number ngr. 22-004-027, "The morphology and origin of Hadley Rille, the Moon," 279 pages).
  
• CONTRACT DIRECTOR, Maine State Planning Office, 1977.  Conducted Critical Areas Program Study of Hydrologic Features in Maine.
  
• MASTERS RESEARCH,
  Boston University (Boston, Massachusetts), 1965-1969.  Funded by the Arctic Institute of North America, IRRP to complete a mass balance study of the Rusty Glacier in Alaska.  Employed by the Geology Department of Boston University to teach courses and laboratory sections in Geology.
  
• FIRST LIEUTENANT,
  U.S. Army C.E., 9th Combat Eng. Bn., XD, Aschaffenburg, Germany.

PUBLICATIONS

• Brewer - (1972)
  A Two Year Mass Balance Study of the Rusty Glacier.  1968-69; IRRP Scientific Results, V3, American Geographical Soc. AINA.
  
• Brewer  and Caldwell (1976)
  Reconnaissance Surficial Geology of the Sebec Lake Quadrangle Maine; Maine Geological Survey Open File Report no. N4515-W6900/15.
  
• Brewer and Caldwell (1976)
  Reconnaissance Surficial Geology Map of the Northeast Carry Quadrangle, Maine; Maine Geological Survey Open File Report.
  
• Kaktins, Brewer  and Caldwell (1976)
  Reconnaissance Surficial Geology of the Bingham Quadrangle, Maine; Maine Geological Survey Open File Report no. N4500-W6945/15.
  
• Brewer (1976)
  A Bibliography of Theses, Dissertation and Honors Papers on the Geology of Eastern Massachusetts; in The Geology of Southeastern New England, Cameron, B.W. Ed.
  
• Brewer (1976) The Morphology and Origin of Hadley Rille, the Moon; a Report Carried Out Under NASA Contract no. ngr. 22-004-027, 279 pgs.
  
• Brewer (1977) Morphology and Origin of Hadley Rille, the Moon; Abstracts, N.E. Section Meeting, GSA (Boston).
  
• Brewer (1978) Gorges in Maine and Their Relevance to the Critical Areas Program of the Maine State Planning Offices; Published by the State Planning Office.
  
• Brewer (1978) Waterfalls in Maine and Their Relevance to the Critical Areas Program of the Maine State Planning Office; Published by the State Planning Office.
  
• Brewer (1978) Gravel Aquifers of Northern York County, Maine; Published Report of the Maine Geological Survey.
  
• Brewer and Genes (1979) Gravel Aquifers of Parts of Five Counties in Midcoastal Maine; Final Report Authored With Others Published by the Maine Geological Survey.
  
• Brewer (1979) Gravel Aquifers of Northern Aroostook County; Maine Geological Survey.
  
• Brewer (1979) Reconnaissance Surficial Geology of the Amity Quadrangle, Maine; Open File Report, Maine Geological Survey.
  
• Brewer (1979) Reconnaissance Surficial Geology of the Danforth Quadrangle, Maine; Open File  Report, Maine Geological Survey.
  
• Brewer, Genes, Coleman, Coolen and Flood (1979) Surface Impoundments in Massachusetts and Their Potential for Groundwater Pollution; a Field Study of 500 Sites Carried Out for the New England Waterways Commission.
  
• Brewer (1979) Environmental Problems Created by Blown Sand at Holliston Sand Co.; A Report Submitted Jointly to the Company and the Town of Holliston, Massachusetts.
  
• Brewer (1980) Gravel Aquifers of the Holton and Danforth Quadrangles, Maine; Published Report of the Maine Geological Survey.
  
• Match, Brewer, Newman and Genes (1980) Glacial Landscapes in Eastern Maine; Abstracts, GSA N.E. Section Meeting, Philadelphia (Read by Brewer).
  
• Genes, Newman and Brewer (1980) The Mode of Late Wisconsinan Till Emplacement in Aroostook County, Maine; Abstracts, GSA N.E. Section Meeting, Philadelphia (Read by Newman).
  
• Genes, Newman and Brewer(1980) Wisconsinan Glaciation of Eastern Aroostook County, Maine; 1980 NEIGC Guidebook to the Geology of Northeastern Maine.
  
• Brewer and Gelpke (1980) State-wide Maps Listed; Geotimes, V25, no. 1, pgs. 19-25 (a listing of all available state geologic maps).
  
• Brewer (1980) Reconnaissance Surficial Geology of the Houlton Quadrangle, Maine; Maine Geological Survey Open File Report.
  
• Brewer (1980) Reconnaissance Surficial Geology of the Bridgewater Quadrangle, Maine; Maine Geological Survey Open File Report.
  
• Brewer (1980) Heat Storage Capacity of Selected New England Rocks;  An Experimental Study Carried Out Under U.S. DOE Grant no. MA116.
  
• Genes, Newman and Brewer (1981) Late Wisconsinan Glaciation Models of Northern Maine and Adjacent Canada; Quaternary Research, vol. 16, pgs. 48-65.
  
• Brewer (1981) Reconnaissance Surficial Geology of the Vanceboro Quadrangle, Maine; Maine Geological Survey Open File Report.
  
• Brewer (1981) Reconnaissance Surficial Geology of the Forest Quadrangle, Maine; Maine Geological Survey Open File Report.
  
• Brewer (1981) Gravel Aquifers of the Houlton and Part of the Bridgewater Quadrangle, Maine; Maine Geological Survey Open File Report.
  
• Brewer (1982) A Seismic Refraction Simulation Program for the Apple Computer; Computer Program and Lab Manual Prepared Under Title III Grant, University of Massachusetts, Boston.
  
• Brewer, Genes, and Newman (1982) The Evidence for Pre-late Wisconsinan Till in the St. John River Valley, Northern Maine; Abstract, 1983 Northeast Section Meeting of the Geological Society of America.
  
• Brewer (1982) Heat Storage Capacity of Selected New England Rocks; Abstract, 1983 Northeast Section Meeting of the Geological Society of America.
  
• Brewer - “Groundwater Basics:  The Ultimate Source;”  International Bottled Water Association’s Bottled Water Reporter, August/September 1986.
  
• Brewer - “Groundwater Basics:  The Flow;”  International Bottled Water Association’s Bottled Water Reporter, October/November 1986.
  
• Brewer - “Groundwater Basics:  The Spring;”  International Bottled Water Association’s Bottled Water Reporter, December/January 1986/87.
  
• Brewer and Hidell - “Groundwater Basics:  Response;”  International Bottled Water Association’s Bottled Water Reporter, April/May 1987.
  
• Brewer - “When is a Borehole a Spring?;” International Bottled Water Association’s Technical Bulletin, March/April 1990.
  
• Brewer - “Judging Springs as Potential Bottled Water Sources;” Water Conditioning and Purification, July 1990.
  
• Brewer - “Considerations in Planning Transfer Stations;” International Bottled Water Association’s Bottled Water Reporter, August/September 1990.
  
• Brewer – “The Use of Boreholes as surrogate springs in the United States:  A Personal View,” Waterpower Magazine, Spring 1999.

MEMBERSHIPS

National Groundwater Association
National Well Water Association
International Bottled Water Association