Contaminants of Emerging Concern
in Drinking Water
Alice Fulmer, Senior Research Manager
Who is WaterRF?
Non-profit organization
Based in Denver, CO
Subscriber supported
>900 water utilities throughout the world
Mission to advance the science of water
Partner with EPA, USGS, USBR, AWWA, WERF,
WRRF, and international research groups
• www.WaterRF.org
•
•
•
•
•
•
What are CECs?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Contaminants of Emerging Concern
Chemicals of Emerging Concern
Constituents of Emerging Concern
Emerging Contaminants
Trace Organics (WERF)
According to USEPA:
Chemicals are being discovered in water that previously had
not been detected or are being detected at levels that may be
significantly different than expected. These are often
generally referred to as “contaminants of emerging concern”
(CECs) because the risk to human health and the environment
associated with their presence, frequency of occurrence, or
source may not be known.
Examples of CECs in Water
• Hexavalent chromium
• New disinfection by-products
– Nitrosamines (NDMA), other non-regulated DBPs
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs, such as BPA)
Pharmaceuticals
Iodine-131
Perfluorinated compounds (PFOA, PFOS, etc)
Nanomaterials
Perchlorate?
Pesticides?
Emerging or Re-Emerging?
Endocrine Disruptors, Web Hits and Major Events
1996: The topic of endocrine disrupters is
popularized with the publication of “Our Stolen
Future”
1995: The National Academy of Sciences
and National Research Council sponsor a
2007: EPA issues its draft list of
panel study called “Hormone Related
chemicals selected for Tier 1
Toxicants in the Environment”
screening under EDSP.
1979: The National Institute of Health
Science holds conference on
Estrogens in the Environment
1962: Hormonally active
compounds were first
publicized in ‘Silent
Spring’
2002: WHO releases report “Global
Assessment of the State of the
Science of Endocrine Disruptors”
1998: The Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program (EDSP) is
convened by the US EPA.
Courtesy of Phillippe Daniel, CDM
The CEC Challenge
• Hundreds of thousands of chemicals manufactured,
increasing every day
• Multiple points of entry into water – point and non-point
sources
• Fewer pristine water supplies and protected watersheds
• Improved analytical capability – we can detect anything –
no such thing as “zero”
• Low level health effects difficult to determine, and what
about mixtures?
• Media and concerned consumers
• Unknown CECs – what’s next?
CEC Challenges for DW Utilities
• No control over sources of CECs in water
• How to reduce CECs
– Drinking water treatment for all CECs would require
multiple treatment techniques, be expensive, produce
greenhouse gas emissions, and still not be a 100% barrier
– Holistic control strategies require multiple stakeholders –
wastewater, agriculture, manufacturers, etc
• How to prioritize individual CECs in terms of risk
• How to communicate about CECs
– In absence of regulatory guidance or clear health effects
WaterRF CEC Focus
• Framework for Response
• Occurrence
– Analytical accuracy, monitoring strategies
• Control Strategies
– Treatment and removal, engaging stakeholders
• Communication
– Consumer perception, risk communication
• Information Exchange
– Knowledge!
WaterRF Project #4169
A Water Utility Framework for Responding to Emerging
Contaminant Issues
• Led by Phillippe Daniel, CDM
• Available at www.waterrf.org
• Objectives:
– develop a framework – a conceptual structure or method
to move from issue identification to an informed decision that drinking water utilities can use to respond to
emerging contaminant challenges
– maximize integration of information from existing and
ongoing WaterRF work
Vision for Framework
• Of use to utilities in responding to emerging contaminant
challenges
• Represents best practices currently in place
• Guidance on risk characterization, identifying risk
management alternatives, formulating risk policy and
communicating strategies to customers and other
stakeholders
• Broad enough for general use while pointing to sources for
more specific information
• Able to be easily visualized and presented to a non-technical
audience
Framework Development Process
• Iterative process with numerous iterations
• Guiding questions
1. What are the challenges of emerging contaminants?
2. What are the key gaps limiting utility response?
3. How do utilities vary in their:
•
•
•
•
•
Starting points
Approach
Capacity
Sensitivity
Resources
4. What decisions fall in the purvey of utilities?
Other Challenges of Emerging
Health Issues Include:
• Interpreting significance
– Present-absent
– Scientific study lag time
– Indeterminacy and nuance
• Assessing dose response
• Determining appropriate actions
– Where?
– By whom?
• Communication
– Formulating honest yet sensitive messages to the concerned
– Framing, therefore, vital.
Framing Element Example: There
Are a Variety of “Environmental”
Exposures
Food
Air
Beverages
Framework Version 6.0: Simplified
and Process-Oriented
• Communication
surrounds entire
process
• Iterative
• Identifies “offramps”
Apply the Current Framework
• Offers a structured,
consistent means for
approaching an
emerging contaminant
issue
• Bookends for the
framework:
– Notify regulators and
legislators of issue and need
for guidance
– Notify regulators of need for
better assessment
Web-based Framework
Resources for Critical Questions
Severity
How significant is the clinical health effect? Is there a particular subpopulation of
concern? Are there other significant effects (environmental, operational)?
Potency
How much of the contaminant does it take to cause illness? What exposure has
negative health effects?
Prevalence
How commonly does or would a contaminant occur in drinking water? How does
drinking water compare to other potential transport routes (i.e., food, air,
recreational water)?
Magnitude
Is the level high enough in drinking water to impact public health or cause
environmental harm?
Persistence- What affects the fate and transport of the contaminant? What is the expected
reduction/removal through drinking water treatment?
Mobility
Need for Fundamental Changes
• Institutional:
– Better inter-agency coordination
– More streamlined regulatory decision-making
• Science:
– Tools for rapid assessments
– Better rules for interpreting significance at levels of
interest
• Vocabulary of risk:
– Continuum rather than binary
– Informed deliberation rather than reactions
Analytical Accuracy
• Evaluation of Analytical Methods for EDCs and PPCPs via
Interlaboratory Comparison
(WaterRF project #4167)
• Project team: Brett Vanderford (Southern Nevada Water
Authority), Andy Eaton (MWH Laboratories), Carrie Guo
(Metropolitan Water District of Southern California), Jörg
Drewes (Colorado School of Mines), and many others
• Objective to evaluate existing methods for the analysis of
EDCs and PPCPs at low part-per-trillion (ppt) detection levels
in water and provide analytical guidelines for future work
WaterRF #4167 Approach
• Literature review and laboratory questionnaire
• Determine acceptable sampling protocols for each compound
–
–
–
–
Sample bottle
Quenching agent
Preservation agent
Hold time
• Perform blind interlaboratory comparisons to evaluate current
“state of the science” and identify factors that lead to best
results for each compound/method
• Rigorously test final method in various matrices by multiple
laboratories to validate and ensure wide scope of application
• Develop conclusions and final report
Analysis Conclusions
Sample preservation
• Amber glass bottles, ascorbic acid, and sodium azide at 4 C worked well for
this target list
• HDPE not advised
• Compound of choice should be tested, difficult to predict
• Hold time of 72 hours at 4 C worked well for many compounds
Interlaboratory comparisons
• Overall %RSDs for each compound were > 25% and half were > 40%
• Nonylphenol, octylphenol, and ciprofloxacin were consistently difficult to
analyze
• Ciprofloxacin was very difficult to analyze
• NP/OP need more refined methods and blank contamination was rampant
• Wide range of biases on every compound
• Laboratories had wide range of performance
Analysis Conclusions (cont’d)
Interlaboratory comparisons (continued)
• False positive/negative rates were, in general, <10%
• Isotope dilution LC-MS/MS worked very well for most compounds on an
individual basis
• Method analysis
• Satisfactory method could not be determined for NP/OP
• Method 18CD, an SPE-LC-ESI-MS/MS was selected for validation
Method validation
• <10% RSDs for nearly all laboratories/compounds
• 90 – 120% recoveries in DI water and drinking water
• LCMRLs were <10 ng/L for nearly all laboratories/compounds
• SOP is included with WaterRF final report
Treatment and Removal
• Several projects conducted – one example
• Removal of unregulated organic chemicals in fullscale water treatment processes (WaterRF project
#4221)
• Project team: Catherine Spencer (Black & Veatch),
Judy Louis (NJDEP), Laura Cummings (Passaic Valley
Water), John Dyksen (American Water), and others
• Objective to investigate the effectiveness of full scale
conventional and advanced water treatment
processes for removal of organics in different source
types
WaterRF #4221 Approach
• Four water treatment plants in New Jersey each characterized
for watershed and source data, plant process design,
residence times, and operating parameters
• Four sampling events conducted to span seasonal changes –
raw water and samples after each process with timing based
on hydraulic model to track slug
• Analyses of wastewater compounds, pharmaceuticals, and
antibiotics (suite of 136 compounds) by US Geological Survey
labs – Method 1433, Method 2080, and LCAB
• Pilot plant study to refine understanding of
removal/conversion of 20 selected surrogates
#4221 CECs Found
• Pharmaceuticals, few antibiotics,
ingested metabolites
• Flame retardants
• Fragrance, flavor
• Topically applied compounds
• PAHs
• Pesticides
• Solvents/plasticizers
• Detergents (nonyl- and octylphenols)
25
11/15/2012
#4221 Results
• Large range in concentration and types of
compounds found with precipitation/source volume,
seasonal patterns
• NPDES inputs/square mile and % urbanization
impacted # of compounds detected
• Would be very difficult to regulate in a contaminantby-contaminant way
• Most effective removal/transformation processes
were ozone oxidation and GAC
• DEET, flame retardants, and cotinine found to be
most recalcitrant
26
Consumer Perceptions
Consumer Perceptions toward EDCs and PPCPs
in Drinking Water (WateRF project #4323)
• Project Team: Gabriella Rundblad (Kings College
London), Lisa Ragain (Aqua Vitae)
• Objectives to:
– explore UK and US consumer perceptions of EDCs and
PPCPs in the water supply
– establish how these perceptions are shaped by the media
– Inform future outreach
WaterRF #4323 Approach
• Literature review
• Analysis of media and outreach materials in the
U.S. and UK
• Focus groups with consumers and professionals
• Consumer survey investigating perceptions of
drinking water (and EDCs/PPCPs) in the U.S. and
UK
• Construct outreach material
Written Media and Educational
Outreach Analysis
• How are EDC/PPCP stories reported in the
media? How does this differ from outreach?
• What is the influence on consumer
perceptions?
• Implicit and explicit messages
• Words/phrases used and linked to negative
and positive beliefs
• Portrayal and intensity of media coverage
Preliminary Findings on Media
Reporting on EDCs and PPCPs:
• Far fewer articles were found
in the UK with a relatively
stable trend
• Reporting on EDC and PPCP
contamination is increasing in
the US
• Spikes:
– RSC report on water
sustainability (UK)
– AP story (US)
Comparison of Written Media Reporting
and Educational Outreach
• Media writing exploits uncertainty:
– ‘dread words’: exposure, contaminated, toxic, intersex, birth
defects
– a simplistic representation of risk and complex science:
– rhetorical structure
• Educational outreach offers a comparison:
– Fewer dread words
– Unknown expressed in terms of need for research or lack of
evidence
– Separation of environmental effects and health effects
Next: Consumer Surveys
• Surveys and analysis of consumers are currently
underway in UK and US to investigate:
– Factors that influence consumer beliefs
– How, when and how often they seek information
– Understanding of contaminants, and how they compare to
other priorities
– Preferences and trust in information sources
– Willingness to pay for added treatment
• Analysis will lead to development of consumer
outreach for water utilities
• Report is expected to be published in mid-2013.
Building a National Utility Network to
Address EDCs and PPCPs (Project #4261)
• Project objectives:
– Create a support network to improve utilities’
collective response to EDCs/PPCPs
– Provide a secure online “go-to” website resource
for information related to EDCs/PPCPs
• Principal investigators
– Rula Deeb and Ed Means,
Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS
National Utility Network Website
• Announcements
• Events
• Community
posts
• Library
• Technical
summaries
• Networking
National Utility Network Website
• “Facebook” for
utilities
• Search directory
of members
• Set up groups
• Email members
or groups
• Launch Dec 2012
Alice Fulmer
Senior Research Manager
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 303-347-6109
Thank You