In the arid landscapes of East Azerbaijan, Iran, a city of over 100,000 people faces a silent but urgent challenge: ensuring every drop of water from source to tap is safe. Samira Sheikhi, a researcher at Tehran University of Medical Sciences, has spent years dissecting this very problem. Her latest study, published in *Applied Water Science*—known in Persian as *Zist-šenāsi-e Āb* (Water Science)—offers a rare comparative lens on how three globally recognized risk assessment frameworks—Water Safety Plan (WSP), Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP), and Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA)—stack up against each other when safeguarding urban water supplies.
“What we found isn’t just academic,” Sheikhi says. “It’s operational. These aren’t just tools for regulators or scientists—they’re decision-making engines for water utilities, municipalities, and even energy companies that depend on reliable water infrastructure.”
The study zeroed in on Bostan Abad, a city whose water system snakes through transmission lines, storage tanks, and a sprawling distribution network. Using a stepwise framework, Sheikhi and her team applied WSP, HACCP, and FMEA in parallel to map, measure, and prioritize risks. The results were eye-opening: WSP flagged 102 risks, HACCP identified 54, and FMEA uncovered 361—each method revealing different layers of vulnerability.
While most microbial and chemical parameters stayed within safe limits, spikes in turbidity, fluoride, and residual chlorine—especially in transmission lines and storage tanks—posed silent threats. Sheikhi notes, “These aren’t headline-grabbing contaminants like lead or arsenic. They’re everyday parameters that, when unchecked, can erode public trust and inflate operational costs.”
For energy companies, the implications are significant. Power plants, refineries, and cooling systems rely on consistent, high-quality water. A contaminated supply can trigger shutdowns, trigger compliance penalties, or force costly filtration retrofits. “When water risk becomes energy risk, the stakes shift,” Sheikhi explains. “Utilities that integrate WSP or HACCP into their asset management can preempt failures before they cascade into energy disruptions.”
The study also found surprising alignment among the three methods. Despite their different philosophies—WSP is proactive and system-wide, HACCP zeroes in on critical control points, and FMEA quantifies failure modes—their risk rankings were broadly compatible. “That consistency is gold for decision-makers,” Sheikhi says. “It means you can choose one method with confidence or blend them for deeper insight.”
Looking ahead, Sheikhi sees a convergence of digital tools and risk frameworks. “Imagine AI-driven dashboards that ingest real-time water quality data and auto-generate WSP or FMEA risk scores,” she muses. “For energy operators, that’s not just risk management—it’s resilience planning.”
As climate volatility and aging infrastructure strain water systems worldwide, studies like this one are quietly reshaping how industries think about water safety. No longer just a public health concern, safe drinking water has become a linchpin of energy security—and a competitive advantage for those who plan ahead.
Published in *Applied Water Science*, a journal dedicated to sustainable water solutions, this research underscores a simple truth: clean water isn’t just a resource. It’s a risk-managed asset. And in an energy-hungry world, that distinction matters.