Validation of a Framework for Evaluating
the Potential Effects and Risks of Trace
Organic Compounds (TOrCs) to Aquatic Life
Carrie Turner, John Wolfe and Jen Daley, LimnoTech
Allen Burton, University of Michigan
Drew McAvoy, University of Cincinnati
WEFTEC
Water Environment Federation
Annual Conference – New Orleans, LA
Session 417 – September 27, 2016
Background
• Elevated fish intersex observed below
WWTP outfalls
–
–
–
Due to exposures to endocrine disrupting
compounds (EDCs) (e.g. estrogen)
Exposures occur simultaneously with many other
stressors (e.g. nutrients, metals, pesticides, PAHs,
TDS, temperature, altered habitat, flow)
A complex puzzle……
Intersex sturgeon tissue
- Diana Papoulias, USGS
•3-Year Project for Water Environment & Reuse Foundation
(WE&RF)
– CEC6R12: Testing and Refinement of the Trace Organics Screening Tool
– Refining and validating a screening tool developed in a 1st Phase of WERF
research (2010) for evaluating the effects of trace organics (TOrCs)
downstream of utilities.
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
2
WE&RF’s Research on TOrCs
• Research Areas
– Treatability
– Aquatic Ecological Effects
– Risk Communications
• Project Summary
– 50 TOrC-related funded projects
• Objective
– Help facility and industry managers
make decisions
https://www.werf.org/c/KnowledgeAreas/TraceOrganics/Trace_Organics_Research_a
t_a_Glance.aspx
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
3
WE&RF Project CEC6R12: Testing and
Refining Site Screening Tools (Phase 2)
Vision for Screening Tools
– Must be useful and usable by utilities
• Good fit for existing utility data
• Easy to interpret results
– Support sound decisions by utilities
• Targeted data gathering
• Effective source control and treatment
– Promote clearer understanding of
complex issues
• Assist communication with stakeholders &
regulators
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
4
Three Step Framework for Screening Sites
for Potential TOrC Risk
1. Determine if biological community is
impaired
2. Use existing data to construct lines of
evidence for an overall weight-ofevidence assessment of the role of
TOrCs in impairment (Level 1 WoE)
3. If warranted, design and conduct a
sampling program to generate
contemporary datasets for a more
detailed weight-of-evidence
assessment (Level 2 WoE)
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
5
1. Assess biological
community
2. Qualitative WoE
(Existing Data)
3. Semi-Quantitative
WoE (New Data)
First Level of Screening:
Bio Assessment and Level 1 Weight of Evidence
• Use existing site data to:
–
–
Characterize level of impairment
Evaluate the roles of TOrCs and other
stressors
• Assign site to a risk level:
–
–
–
“High”, “Moderate”, “Low” or
“Possible” Concern
So management response can be
consistent with risk
Accounting for uncertainty
• Applied to five case study sites with
resulting potential risk level of
“Moderate” and “Possible” Concern
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
6
Tools to Assist Use of the Site
Screening Risk Framework
• Smaller, cost-effective list of TOrCs to monitor
• Suggested list of biomarkers to evaluate TOrC
effects
• Risk Calculator model comparing TOrC exposures to
TOrC effect levels
• Level 1 WoE site screening assessment and
“scoring” tool
• Level 2 WoE scoring examples
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
7
WERF Indicator TOrCs
High
Treatability
No
Compound
CAS #
TOrC Class
Priority
Indicator
Recommended Indicator TOrCs (use all compounds in assessments and as many as possible in monitoring)
Ubiquitous
Presence/ Absence
Indicator
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
1
N,N-diethyltoluamide (DEET)
134-62-3
Personal care product
2
Triclosan
3380-34-5
Personal care product
3
Carbamazepine
298-46-4
Pharmaceutical
Y
Y
Y
4
Fluoxetine
54910-89-3
Pharmaceutical
Y
Y
Y
5
Gemfibrozil
25812-30-0
Pharmaceutical
Y
Y
Y
6
Ibuprofen
15687-27-1
Pharmaceutical
Y
Y
Y
7
Meprobamate
57-53-4
Pharmaceutical
Y
Y
Y
8
Sulfamethoxazole
723-46-6
Pharmaceutical
Y
Y
Y
9
Trimethoprim
738-70-5
Pharmaceutical
Y
Y
Y
10
Bisphenol A
80-05-7
Other
Y
Y
Y
11
Caffeine
58-08-2
Other
Y
Y
Y
12
Androstenedione
63-05-8
Hormone
Y
NA
Y
13
17β-Estradiol (E2)
50-28-2
Hormone
Y
NA
Y
NA
Y
NA
Y
Y
Y
14
Estrone
53-16-7
Hormone
Nonpoint Source Indicator TOrCs (select 1-2 compounds for assessment and monitoring)
Y
15
Fluoranthene1
206-44-0
PAH
Y
16
Atrazine
1912-24-9
Pesticide
17
Bifenthrin1
82657-04-3
Pesticide
Ya
NA
18
Chlorpyrifos1
2921-88-2
Pesticide
Y
NA
19
Pentachlorophenol1
87-86-5
Pesticide
Y
NA
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Y
NA
8
Y
TOrC Risk Calculator
• Predicts the risk of effluent TOrCs in receiving waters to aquatic life
–
–
Exposure based on either measured or predicted effluent TOrC concentrations
and in-stream dilution
Effects based on either laboratory measured or QSAR predicted acute and
chronic toxicity
• Already tabulated in Risk Calculator
–
Risk based on comparing the Predicted Exposure Concentration (PEC) to the
Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC) using Risk Quotient (RQ) method
• RQ = [PEC]/[PNEC]
• RQ > 1 indicates potential risk
• Benefits
–
–
–
–
Site specific model
Easy to use for utility staff
Requires only data for a single site
Easily updated with new information/data
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
9
Risk Calculator Example
PNEC
RQ = PEC / PNEC
= 0.081 / 0.02
PEC
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
10
Case Study Example,
Level 1 Weight of Evidence
Tier of Concern:
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Moderate Concern
11
Level One WoE Scoring (Qualitative)
Level 1 WoE
Element
TOrC Effects
TOrC Exposure
TOrC Site Factors
High WoE Factor Score
Multiple surveys show biomarker or
other effects
Risk quotient for more than one
indicator compound is greater than
1 using site-specific measured
effluent data and 7Q10 flow
Effluent discharge comprises more
than 70% of the total stream flow,
OR
Moderate WoE Factor Score
Individual survey shows biomarker
or other effects
Risk quotient for one indicator
compound is greater than 1 using
site-specific measured effluent
data and 7Q10 flow
Effluent discharge comprises
between 1% and 70% of the total
stream flow, OR
WRRF level of treatment is
Primary, OR
WRRF level of treatment is
Secondary or Advanced
Secondary, OR
Treatment effectiveness is poor,
based on sludge residence time
and effluent concentrations of TSS,
BOD and NH3
Other Stressors
Habitat is adversely impacted, OR
DO exceeds WQS, OR
NH3 exceeds WQS, OR
at least 3 parameters are identified
as potential stressors
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Possible WoE Factor Score
Evidence of physical deformities,
tumors, and lesions
Risk quotient for one indicator
compound is greater than 1 using
literature effluent data and 7Q10
flow
Incomplete data
WRRF level of treatment is
Tertiary, OR
Treatment effectiveness is good,
OR
Treatment effectiveness is
moderate, OR
At least half of the other risk factors
score “High”
At least 2 parameters are identified
as potential stressors
12
Low WoE Factor Score
Individual survey shows NO
biomarker or other effects
Risk quotient for all indicator
compounds is less than 1 using
measured or literature effluent data
and 7Q10 flow
Effluent discharge comprises less
than 1% of the total stream flow,
OR
At least half of the other risk factors
score “Moderate” or “Low”
One parameter is identified as
potential stressor
No parameters are identified as
potential stressors
Second Level of Analysis:
More Complete Weight of Evidence (SemiQuantitative)
•
Where screening indicates at least a
Moderate Level of Concern:
–
–
–
•
Fill in gaps in site chemistry/community/habitat
data
Additional biomonitoring, upstream and
downstream
Characterize relationships between TOrCs, other
stressors, and aquatic life impairment
Two case study sites where initial screening
indicated Moderate or Possible Level of
Concern
–
–
Validate tools and Level 1 WoE results
Advance science of TOrC-related biomarker
analysis
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
13
Sampling to Support Multiple Lines of
Evidence
• Chemical loadings (in-stream, WWTP)
–
–
TOrCs
Conventional: nutrients, metals, solids, BOD5, alkalinity,
hardness
• Exposure effects
–
–
Caged minnows
In-situ caged invertebrates
• In situ toxicity identification evaluation
• Biological community assessments
• Stream physical conditions
–
–
–
Habitat
Dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, conductivity via sonde
Flow (in-stream and at WWTP)
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
14
TOrC Exposure Levels and Potential Risk
•Potential Risk
TorC Compound
4-Nonylphenol
Androstenedione (ADS)
25 compounds Atrazine
analyzed by
Bisphenol A
EPA-Cincinnati Caffeine (CFN)
Carbamazepine (CBZ)
Dihydrotestosterone
DNORG (17-Desacetyl Norgestimate)
DROS (Drospirenone)
Bold
compounds = EDA (Ethynodiol Diacetate)
Indicator TOrC Estradiol (E2)
Estriol
Estrone (E1)
Ethinyl estradiol (EE2)
Levonorgestrel
Medroxyprogesterone Acetate
MEGA (Megestrol Acetate)
Nonylphenol Diethoxylate
Nonylphenol Mono Ethoxylate
Norethindrone
NORG (Norgestimate)
Progesterone
Testosterone (TST)
Triclocarban
Triclosan (TCC)
– Estimated Risk Quotient (RQ) as PEC/PNEC for indicator
TOrCs.
RQ >1 identified as potential risk
• Site 1: 1/10 indicator TOrCs have RQ > 1
• Site 2: 0/10 indicator TOrCs have RQ > 1
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
15
Cas No.
25154-52-3
63-05-8
1912-24-9
80-05-7
58-08-2
298-46-4
521-18-6
53016-31-2
67392-87-4
297-76-7
50-28-2
50-27-1
53-16-7
57-63-6
797-63-7
71-58-9
3562-63-8
20427-84-3
27986-36-3
68-22-4
35189-28-7
57-83-0
58-22-0
101-20-2
3380-34-5
Vitellogenin (Vtg) in Liver Samples
from Fathead Minnow Males - qPCR
Site 1
Site 2
Biales, et al. 2007. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
26: 287-296
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
16
Vtg in Plasma Samples from Fathead
Minnow Males-ELISA
Site 1
Statistically significant
differences but measured
concentrations are close to or
below detection limits
US Environmental Protection Agency, 2002.
EPA/600/R-01/067. Duluth, MN
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Site 2
Statistically significant
differences but measured
concentrations are close to or
below detection limits
17
Level 2 Weight-of-Evidence Approach
and Semi-Quantative Results
• Approach
–
–
Compare downstream to upstream
Semi-quantitative scoring using minus signs correlated to:
• “Low” effect (0)
• “Moderate” effect (-)
–
–
“Possible” effect (- -)
“High” effect (- - -)
Overall Level of TOrC concern determined
Intended as examples that can be adjusted for site-specific conditions
• Results
Level of
TOrC
Concern1
Biological
Indices
TOrC
Exposure
TOrC
Effects
Other
Stressors
Site 1
Low
---
0
-
--
Site 2
Possible
--
0
--
--
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
18
Conclusions
Impacted stream likely
due to non-TOrC
stressors. Continued
monitoring suggested
Potential wastewater
effluent effects.
Continued monitoring
with special studies
suggested
Conclusions
• Assessment Framework
–
–
–
–
–
Set of useful tools, within logical risk-based framework
Adaptable to site-specific considerations
Requires regulatory driver: biological impairment
Recognizes potentially confounding role of non-TOrC stressors
WoE consistent with evolving science
• Tools/protocols are
–
–
–
–
Flexible enough to begin with available data
Iterative, for smart data gathering and reduction in key uncertainties
Holistic, recognizing potential effects of other stressors on health of
aquatic ecosystem
Designed to be easy for wastewater utilities to use
• Final report to be published later this year
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
19
Questions
Carrie Turner
Senior Project Engineer
LimnoTech
(734) 332-1200
[email protected]
© 2011 Electric Power Research Institute, Inc. All rights reserved.
Lola Olabode
Program Director
WE&RF
(571) 384-2109
[email protected]
20