CHAPTER V
COMPLAINTS
The complaints that have been made against chlorinated water since the practice was commenced have been very diversified in character and can be numbered by the legion and although some have been justifiable, the great majority has been unsubstantiated and must be ascribed to auto-suggestion.
Almost every one who has had charge of chlorination plants has noted the latter phenomenon, for in some instances complaints have been made following the publication of the information that chlorination was to be commenced but antecedent to its actual operation, and in others when for some reason or another, the chlorination plant has been temporarily stopped. Similar observations have been made in laboratory experiments when independent observers have been requested to detect the chlorinated waters from an equal number of treated and untreated waters. Such observers are wrong in the majority of the waters which they designate as treated ones if the dosage is not in excess of that required for satisfactory purification.
One amusing example of auto-suggestion was experienced by the author some years ago. During a ceremonial visit to the waterworks, the Mayor and several civic representatives happened to visit a hypochlorite plant that was built on a pier over the river and which had no ostensible connection with the city mains. One of the party expressed a desire for a drink of good river water without any hypochlorite in it and was served with water from the plant supply by an assistant engineer of the waterworks department. The water was consumed by all with great relish and as it was being finished, the writer entered the plant and was invited to join them in the enjoyment of this “dopeless” water; on asking where it had been obtained he was astonished to hear that it was from a tap which was supplied with the ordinary chlorinated water of the city.
On many occasions, complaints are justifiable and should be carefully investigated instead of, as is often the case, being attributed to auto-suggestion. The time and energy that are often devoted to endeavouring to persuade water consumers that their complaints are without foundation, can better be utilised in so improving the chlorination process as to eliminate tastes and odours. All complaints should be carefully investigated and a record kept for future reference, for the cause, although not manifest at the time, may be discovered later. The records then provide valuable corroborative evidence.
The nature of the complaints against chlorinated water is very diversified and includes imparting foreign tastes and odours, causing colic, killing fish and birds, the extraction of abnormal amounts of tannin from tea, the destruction of plants and flowers, the corrosion of water pipes, and that horses and other animals refuse to drink it.
Tastes and Odours. When an excess of hypochlorite or liquid chlorine is added to a water it imparts a sharp pungent odour and acid taste, characteristic of chlorine, that render it offensive to the nose and palate. In some instances the presence of chlorine compounds is not obtrusive when the temperature of the water is low but becomes so when the temperature is raised. It is especially observable when the faucets of hot water services are first opened and the chlorine is carried off as a vapour by the other gases liberated by the reduction in pressure. For this reason the complaints regarding hot water are relatively more numerous and sometimes constitute the whole of the complaints. In cold water containing appreciable quantities of mineral salts the hypochlorites and hypochlorous acid might not be entirely dissociated; they may become more hydrolysed with an increase in temperature and finally broken down under the influence of the carbonic acid liberated from the bicarbonates by heat.