Systematic tracking, visualizing, and interpreting of consumer feedback for drinking water quality

•Consumer complaints data systematically categorized and visualized for tastes, odors, appearance.•Utility personnel better at describing aesthetic issues than drinking water consumers.•Drinking water consumers are better able to detect changes in water quality than utility personnel.

Consumer feedback and complaints provide utilities with useful data about consumer perceptions of aesthetic water quality in the distribution system. This research provides a systematic approach to interpret consumer complaint water quality data provided by four water utilities that recorded consumer complaints, but did not routinely process the data. The utilities tended to write down a myriad of descriptors that were too numerous or contained a variety of spellings so that electronic “harvesting” was not possible and much manual labor was required to categorize the complaints into majors areas, such as suggested by the Drinking Water Taste and Odor Wheel or existing check-sheets. When the consumer complaint data were categorized and visualized using spider (or radar) and run-time plots, major taste, odor, and appearance patterns emerged that clarified the issue and could provide guidance to the utility on the nature and extent of the problem. A caveat is that while humans readily identify visual issues with the water, such as color, cloudiness, or rust, describing specific tastes and odors in drinking water is acknowledged to be much more difficult for humans to achieve without training. This was demonstrated with two utility groups and a group of consumers identifying the odors of orange, 2-methylisoborneol, and dimethyl trisulfide. All three groups readily and succinctly identified the familiar orange odor. The two utility groups were much more able to identify the musty odor of 2-methylisoborneol, which was likely familiar to them from their work with raw and finished water. Dimethyl trisulfide, a garlic-onion odor associated with sulfur compounds in drinking water, was the least familiar to all three groups, although the laboratory staff did best. These results indicate that utility personnel should be tolerant of consumers who can assuredly say the water is different, but cannot describe the problem. Also, it indicates that a T&O program at a utility would benefit from identification of aesthetic issues in water.

Graphical abstractFigure optionsDownload full-size imageDownload high-quality image (205 K)Download as PowerPoint slide