The Challenge of Trace Organic Compounds: … Challenge of Trace Organic Compounds: Occurrence,...
Transcript of The Challenge of Trace Organic Compounds: … Challenge of Trace Organic Compounds: Occurrence,...
The Challenge of Trace Organic Compounds:
Occurrence, Relevance, Treatment, and Communications
Andrew Salveson, P.E.Carollo Engineers
ats507wr.ppt/2
Presentation Overview• Occurrence of Hormones and Pharmaceuticals• Communications and Outreach• Human Health and Aquatic Toxicity• Biological Treatment• Membrane Treatment Research• Advanced Oxidation Research
ats507wr.ppt/3
Occurrence
ats507wr.ppt/4
Two Important Points on Occurrence
I. Virtually all water on earth has been or will be reused
II. EDCs and PPCPs are ubiquitous
ats507wr.ppt/5
ats507wr.ppt/6
Adapted from http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/OFR-02-94/index.htm
2002 USGS most frequently detected OWCs
in “susceptible” streams
ats507wr.ppt/7
ats507wr.ppt/8
Communication and Outreach
ats507wr.ppt/9
WERF Project CEC2C08—Communication Principles and Practices, Public Perception, and Message Effectivenes
ats507wr.ppt/10
Alarming Language Creates Alarm• The language we choose (the language of
science and technology) can raise the alarm
• Fears can be exacerbated creating a climate that can foster poor policy decisions
• Any documents that will be in the public venue must ensure maximal public understanding
ats507wr.ppt/11
Unduly Calming Language Could Likewise Create Problems• Our goal is to adopt a balanced,
accurate, and responsible approach
ats507wr.ppt/12
Fears Can Be Exacerbated by Our Terminology • Endocrine disrupting compounds• Compounds of emerging concern • Compounds of potential concern • EPOCs: Emerging Pollutants of Concern• Emerging contaminants of concern• Trace Organic Compounds (TOrCs) “Torc” • PPCPs: Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products
EPA
• Even the words ‘chemical’ implies danger to the public
ats507wr.ppt/13
Why the Public Gets Alarmed
• Terminology• The general public does not distinguish between
concentrations—so any amount is alarming• Hence, the public concludes the presence of EDCs
is alarming• Aquatic impact is proven, and the public links this
directly with human impact.
ats507wr.ppt/14
ats507wr.ppt/15
But Wait!!! Aquatic and Human Impacts are Not the Same
Endocrine Disruptors: What Are They Doing to You?” On Tap - Winter 2003
ats507wr.ppt/16
Recommendations for Practitioners
• Work to build trust
• Talk with stakeholders
• Understand the media’s needs and tailor communications accordingly
• Collaborate with other organizations
• Involve staff in the communication process
• Define the organization’s communication program goals, vision and objectives regarding trace organics
• Bring in outside experts
ats507wr.ppt/17
Communications and OutreachHillsborough County - WateReuse 2010
Outreach Project of the Year
http://www.youtube.com/hillsboroughwater.
ats507wr.ppt/18
Toxicological Relevance
ats507wr.ppt/19
Hudson River Anglers in the 1940sGreatest fishing was below an outfall
Outfall was tetracycline manufacturer
Later used for cows, chickens, etc.
Clear relationship between exposure/effect
ats507wr.ppt/20
ats507wr.ppt/21
ats507wr.ppt/22
• Dosed entire lake with ≈6 ng/L of ethynylestradiol (EE2)– Compared to two reference Lakes (pristine)
– Seven years of monitoring, three years of dosing EE2
• Fathead minnow population dwindled to near extinction– Male fish had VTG levels 1000x higher than controls
– Histological impacts, including intersex, observed
– Reproductive failure persisted 2-year after exposure ceased
• Only study showing pop. impact of a pharm. in water
ats507wr.ppt/23
Toxicological Relevance
ats507wr.ppt/24
ats507wr.ppt/25
Soy Baby Formula(1700 ng/L, 4 oz Bottle)
≈
EEq Comparison
44 Liters of Secondary Wastewater(4.6 ng/L)
ats507wr.ppt/26
Steroids Comparison
Glass of Milk (3800 ng/L, 240 mL)
34 Gallons Wastewater
(7.2 ng/L)
≈
ats507wr.ppt/27
ats507wr.ppt/28
Finished Water for 18 Drinking Water Treatment FacilitiesCompound Max (ng/L) Median (ng/L) Frequency (%)
Atrazine 870 49 83Meprobamate 42 5.7 78
Dilantin 19 6.2 56Atenolol 18 1.2 44
Carbamazepine 18 6.0 44Gemfibrozil 2.1 0.48 39
TCEP 470 120 39DEET 93 63 33
Metolachlor 27 16 33TCPP (Fyrol PCF) 510 210 28Sulfamethoxazole 3.0 0.39 22
US Drinking Water
ats507wr.ppt/29
Pharmaceutical Evaluation
Drug Class
ADI-DWEL (µg/L)
Max. conc. (µg/L)
Sites with Detection
(n=18)Liters per Day to
Exceed DWEL
Risperidone Antipsychotic 0.49 0.0029 1 340
Phenytoin Anticonvulsant 6.8 0.019 10 700
Carbamazepine Anticonvulsant 12 0.018 8 1,300
Atenolol Beta-blocker 70 0.018 8 7,800
Meprobamate Antianxiety agent 260 0.042 14 13,000
Gemfibrozil Antilipidemic 45 0.0021 7 43,000
FluoxetineSSRI
antidepressant 34 0.00082 2 82,000
Norfluoxetine Metabolite 34 0.00077 1 88,000
DiazepamBenzodiazepine
tranquilizer 35 0.00033 1 210,000
Sulfamethoxazole Anti-infective 18,000 0.003 4 12,000,000
ats507wr.ppt/30
Potential EDC Evaluation
Drug Class
ADI-DWEL (µg/L)
Max. conc. (µg/L)
Sites with Detection
(n=18)
Liters per Day to Exceed
DWEL
Atrazine Herbicide 3 0.870 15 8
Linuron Herbicide 70 0.0062 2 23,000
p-Nonylphenol Industrial chemical 1,800 0.10 2 35,000
Bisphenol A Industrial chemical 1,800 0.025 1 140,000
Triclosan Antibacterial 2,600 0.0012 1 4,400,000
17b-Estradiol Hormone 1.8 <0.00050 0 >7,000Bis(2-
ethylhexyl) phthalate Industrial chemical 420 <0.10 0 >8,400
Butylbenzyl phthalate Industrial chemical 3,500 <0.050 0 >140,000
ats507wr.ppt/31
Treatment
WERF Project CEC4R08 -Trace Organic Compounds
Removal During Wastewater Treatment
ats507wr.ppt/33
Activated Sludge Can Be Optimized for Trace Organic Reduction
ats507wr.ppt/34
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
% R
emov
al
SRT (d)
Gemfibrozil
Activated Sludge Can Be Optimized for Trace Organic Reduction
ats507wr.ppt/35
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
0 100 200 300 400
Con
c (n
g/L)
time (m)
Naproxen
Abiotic Control Nitrified Nonnitrified
Biodegradation is One of Two Critical Pathways
ats507wr.ppt/36
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
6.50
2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000
Sol
id C
onc.
(n
g/
kg)
Aqueous Conc. (ng/l)
Cimetidine
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
5.00
5.50
6.00
2.000 2.500 3.000 3.500 4.000
Sol
id C
onc.
(n
g/
kg)
Aqueous Conc. (ng/L)
Diphenhydramine
…the Other is Sorption
WRF 06-019Trace Organic Compound Removal
by Membrane FiltrationAndrew Salveson, Jess Brown
Carollo Engineers
Jose LopezSouth Florida Water Management District
Don Sullivan, Henry R. Breitenkam City of Plantation Utilities Department
ats507wr.ppt/38
ats507wr.ppt/39
WateReuse Foundation Funded Carollo To Address The Concerns Of Trace
Organics
Trace OrganicsPlantation WWTP, FL
2) Aquatic Organism Impact
3) Recharge Modeling
Canal
1) Removal of Trace Organics through
Membranes
ats507wr.ppt/40
Treatement Train #1: MBR/RO System
MBR RO RO effluent brine effluent
Sampling Locations
ats507wr.ppt/41
Treatment Train #2: DNF/UF/RO System
UFeffluent
RO brine
RO effluent
DNFeffluent
Sampling Locations
ats507wr.ppt/42
MF/UF Membranes Do Reduce Some TOrCs
ats507wr.ppt/43
RO Performance Results
ats507wr.ppt/44
RO Performance Results
ats507wr.ppt/45
2) Toxicity and Hormonal Impact of Various Effluents
ats507wr.ppt/46
Three Type of Tests Were Used To Evaluate Toxicity And Hormonal Impact Of Trace Organics
Toxicity Tests
Tissue Bioassays
Live FishBioassays
Water Flea Toxicity Tests
E-Screen(breast cancer cell)
Yeast Estrogen Screen
Fathead Minnow Vitellogenin Assay
Steroid Assay
Fathead MinnowToxicity Tests
ats507wr.ppt/47
No Hormonal Impact In MBR/RO Effluent Was Observed With E-Screen Bioassay:
ats507wr.ppt/48
No Hormonal Impact In DNF/UF/RO Effluent and Canal Water Were Observed With E-Screen Bioassay
UFeffluent
RO effluent
Primary Clarification
UFAeration Basin Second Clarification
RO UVTertiaryClarification
Denitrification Filter
DNFeffluent
Secondaryeffluent
Canal
Canal water
ats507wr.ppt/49
No Hormonal Impact In MBR/RO Effluent Was Observed With YES Assay
10/29/2007 11/26/2007
ats507wr.ppt/50
No Hormonal Impact In DNF/UF/RO Effluent And Canal Water Was Observed With YES Assay
UFeffluent
RO effluent
Primary Clarification
UFAeration Basin Second Clarification
RO UVTertiaryClarification
Denitrification Filter
DNFeffluent
Secondaryeffluent
Canal
Canal water2/22/200
8
ats507wr.ppt/51
Conclusions
• Almost all Trace Organics were removed by RO membranes.
• UF provided some removeal of Trace Organics.
• RO effluent posed no hormonal threat to tissue cultures and live fish.
• The observed toxicity to aquatic organisms was likely caused by chloramines used for maintaining RO membranes. However, toxicity was significantly reduced after dechlorination (quenching).
• Hydrodynamic models and water quality models can help us evaluate the fate and transport of Trace Organics and groundwater recharge.
WRF 02-009Innovative Reclaimed Water
Treatment TechnologiesAndrew Salveson, Jeff Bandy
Carollo Engineers
Karl LindenUnviersity of Colorado at Boulder
ats507wr.ppt/53
WRF 02-009 Was Designed to Find Cost Effective Technologies to Destroy Trace Organics and Pathogens
ats507wr.ppt/54
Detailed Pilot and Benchtop Testing Was Performed
ats507wr.ppt/55
Chlorine Performance is Mixed
Chloramines, CT = 114 mg-min/L
Free Chlorine
ats507wr.ppt/56
Ozone Provides Substantial Destruction of Various Trace Organics
ats507wr.ppt/57
UV/Peroxide (5 mg/L) Destroys Some Trace Organics at Low UV Dose Values
ats507wr.ppt/58
…But Not All Compounds are Easily Oxidized
UV dose (mJ/cm2) w/ 5 mg/L PeroxideCompound 0 18 61 220 500
NDMA 1.0 0.91 0.81 0.44 0.06
DEET 1.0 0.72 0.60 0.38 0.28
ATZ 1.0 0.85 0.68 0.59 0.63
TCEP 1.0 0.65 0.60 0.54 0.46
OP 1.0 1.07 0.31 0.19 0.24
NP 1.0 0.91 0.50 0.39 0.21
MET 1.0 0.91 0.69 0.56 0.28
TCS 1.0 0.72 0.47 0.24 0.09
BPA 1.0 0.69 0.58 0.48 0.29
E2 1.0 0.58 0.39 0.19 0.07
E1 1.0 0.39 0.23 0.21 0.13
EE2 1.0 0.89 0.25 0.20 0.14
E3 1.0 0.71 0.19 0.10 0.05
CBZ 1.0 1.00 1.00 0.55 0.74
EEQ 1.0 0.76 0.62 0.42 0.34
ats507wr.ppt/59
PAA/UV Outperforms UV/Peroxide
ats507wr.ppt/60
TiO2/UV Photocatalysis
ats507wr.ppt/61
Substantial Removal of Trace Organics was Seen
ats507wr.ppt/62
Ozone is the Lowest Cost Pathogen and EDC Treatment
Treatment Technology Dose Net Present Value EEQ Destruction
NaOCl (free residual) 450 mg-min/L $10,044,000 ~75%
MPUV + H2O2 100 mJ/cm2, 15 ppm H2O2 $14,762,000 >90%
MPUV + PAA 100 mJ/cm2, 8 ppm PAA $28,427,000 60%
Ozone 9 mg/L $12,260,000 >90%
Ozone 6.6 mg/L $11,317,000 >90%
Ozone + UV 4 mg/L, 100 mJ/cm2 $12,806,000 >90%
TiO2/UV3 139 kW/mgd $19,508,000 >90%
ats507wr.ppt/63
WRF 02-009 Summary
• Some pathogen and trace organic removal can be obtained through filtration
• Ozone is the lowest cost technology
• UV with peroxide can reduce trace organics at reclaimed water doses
• PAA outperforms peroxide on a mass basis, but at a higher cost
• Titanium Dioxide with UV Requires Further Study
ats507wr.ppt/64
Summary
• EDCs and PPCPs are Ubiquitous
• Outreach and Communications with the Public is Critical
• Human Health Does Not Appear to Be at Risk (from water or wastewater)
• Aquatic Health is a Concern
• Treatment Technologies Are Available (and some that are not too much $$)
• …what about regulations?