evaluation of endocrine disruppgting potentials in ... · evaluation of endocrine disruppgting...

Evaluation of Endocrine Disrupting p gPotentials in Membrane Effluents Using

Aquatic Toxicity Tests and Fish Bioassays

Principal Researchers:p

Andrew Salveson, Zhi Zhou, Jess Brown Carollo EngineersCarollo Engineers

Jose LopezS th Fl id W t M t Di t i tSouth Florida Water Management District

WateReuse Foundation Project 06-019 Addressed The Health Concerns of

Microconstituents Microconstituents

membrane

MicroconstituentsR l f

Plantation WWTP, FL

Removal of Microconstituents

through Membrane

Google

Canal

Google

Aquatic Organism Impact

Recharge Modeling

Filename.ppt

Microconstituents

Filename.ppt

Most Microconstituents Were Removed By MBR/RO System

T t tTriclosan

Triclosan Trimethoprim

TriphenylphosphateTris (2-butoxyethyl) phosphateTris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate RO influent, 10/29/07

RO influent, 11/26/07

RO effluent, 10/29/07

/ O Syste

G fib ilIbuprofenIopromide

Methyl ParathionPhenol

ProgesteroneSulfamethoxazole

TDCPPTestosterone

,RO effluent, 11/26/07

ChlorpyrifosDEET

DiazinonDieldrin

EstradiolEstrone

Ethinyl Estradiol -17 alphaFluoxetine

Gemfibrozil

AcetaminophenAlpha Chlordane

AmoxicillinBisphenol A (BPA)

CaffeineCaffeine

CarbamazepineCarbaryl

Chlorpyrifos

E i C t i t ( /L)

0 50 100 150 200 250

2,6-di-tert-butylphenol4-Methylphenol4-Nonyl PhenolAcetaminophen

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Filename.ppt

Emerging Contaminants (ng/L)

Most Microconstituents Were Removed By DNF/UF/RO System

Triclosan Trimethoprim

TriphenylphosphateTris (2-butoxyethyl) phosphateTris (2-chloroethyl) phosphate RO influent, 10/29/07

RO influent, 11/26/07RO influent, 1/14/08

DNF/UF/RO System

IbuprofenIopromide

Methyl ParathionPhenol

ProgesteroneSulfamethoxazole

TDCPPTestosterone

TriclosanRO effluent, 10/29/07RO effluent, 11/26/07RO effluent, 1/14/08

DEETDiazinonDieldrin

EstradiolEstrone

Ethinyl Estradiol -17 alphaFluoxetine

GemfibrozilIbuprofen

Alpha ChlordaneAmoxicillin

Bisphenol A (BPA)Caffeine

Caffeine Carbamazepine

CarbarylChlorpyrifos

DEET

E i C i ( /L)

0 50 100 150 200 250

2,6-di-tert-butylphenol4-Methylphenol4-Nonyl PhenolAcetaminophenp

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Filename.ppt

Emerging Contaminants (ng/L)

Toxicity and Hormonal ImpactHormonal Impact

Filename.ppt

Three Type of Tests Were Used To E l t T i it A d H l I t Evaluate Toxicity And Hormonal Impact Of Microconstituents

Toxicity Tissue Live FishToxicity Tests

Tissue Bioassays

Live FishBioassays

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 E-13 1 E-12 1 E-11 1 E-10 1 E-09 1 E-08 1 E-07%

Max

imum

act

ivity

Water Flea Toxicity Tests

E-Screen(breast cancer cell)

Yeast Estrogen Screen

Fathead Minnow Vitellogenin Assay

Steroid Assay

Fathead MinnowToxicity Tests

1.E 13 1.E 12 1.E 11 1.E 10 1.E 09 1.E 08 1.E 07

Estradiol (M)

Filename.ppt

No Toxicity Was Observed In Most MBR And UF Effluent

100100 100100

And UF Effluent

60

80

(%)

control 60

80

(%)

control 60

80

(%)

control (deionized

water)60

80

(%)

control (deionized

water)

40

60

Surv

ival

(

(deionized water)

40

60

Surv

ival

(

(deionized water)

40Surv

ival

40Surv

ival

0

20

0

20

0

20

0

20

0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0%

(control)MBR/UF effluent concentrations

0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0%


0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0%


0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0%


Filename.ppt

Strong Toxicity Of RO Effluent To The Fathead Minnow Was Observed During Fathead Minnow Was Observed During Normal Operation

0/29/200

80

100

control (deionized

10/29/2007

40

60

Surv

ival

(%)

(de o edwater )

20

40S

antiscalant and chloramine

0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0% (control)

RO effluent concentrations

Filename.ppt

No Toxicity Of RO Effluent To The Fathead Minnow Was Observed After Fathead Minnow Was Observed After Chloramine Was Quenched

11/26/2007

80

100antiscalant and

chloramine (quenched) control

(deionized

11/26/2007

60

Surv

ival

(%)

(deionized water )

20

40S


0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0% (control)


chloramine

Filename.ppt

Strong Toxicity Of RO Effluent To The Water Flea Was Observed Under Normal

100

Water Flea Was Observed Under Normal Operation Of MBR/RO System

10/29/2007

80

100control

(deionized water )

10/29/2007

40

60

Surv

ival

(%)

20

40S

0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0% (control)



Filename.ppt


Toxicity Of RO Effluent To The Water FleaWas Reduced After Chloramine Was

100

Was Reduced After Chloramine Was Quenched

11/26/2007

80

100

control (deionized

11/26/2007

40

60

Surv

ival

(%)

(deionized water )

20

40S

antiscalant and chloramine (quenched)

0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0% (control)



Filename.ppt


No Toxicity Of RO Effluent To The Water Flea Was Observed Without Chloramine

100

Flea Was Observed Without Chloramine Or Antiscalant

1/14/2008

80

100

no antiscalant or chloramine

control (deionized

1/14/2008

40

60

Surv

ival

(%)

(water )

20

40S


0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0% (control)



Filename.ppt

O e ue t co ce t at o s

Some Toxicity Of RO Effluent To The Water Flea Was Observed With Quenched

100

Flea Was Observed With Quenched Chloramine (No Antiscalant)

1/14/2008

80

100


control (deionized

1/14/2008

40

60

Surv

ival

(%)

chloramine (quenched)

(deionized water )

20

40S


0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0% (control)



Filename.ppt

No Toxicity Of RO Effluent To The Water Flea Was Observed With Antiscalant (No

100

Flea Was Observed With Antiscalant (No Chloramine)

2/21/2008

80

100


antiscalant

control (deionized

40

60

Surv

ival

(%)


(deionized water )

20

40S


0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0% (control)



Filename.ppt


No Hormonal Impact In RO Effluent Was Observed With E-Screen Bioassay Observed With E Screen Bioassay

MBR RO RO

MBR RO

MBReffluent

RO brine

RO effluent

0.2

ng/l) 10/29/2007

11/26/2007

0.1

0.15

uiva

lent

s (n 11/26/2007

0.05

Estr

adio

l Eq

0MBR effluent RO effluent blank

E

Filename.ppt

No Hormonal Impact In RO Effluent and Canal Water Were Observed With E-Screen Bioassay

Primary Clarification

UFAeration Basin Second Clarification

RO UVTertiary

ClarificationDenitrification

Filter Canal

UFeffluent

RO effluent

Clarification

DNFeffluent

Secondaryeffluent

Canal water

0 25

0.15

0.2

0.25

alen

ts (n

g/l) 2/21/2008

1/31/20081/14/2008

0.05

0.1

stra

diol

Equ

iva

0Secondary

effluentDNF effluent UF effluent RO effluent Canal water blank

Es

Filename.ppt

No Hormonal Impact In MBR and RO Effluent Was Observed With YES AssayEffluent Was Observed With YES Assay

MBR RO

MBReffluent

RO brine

RO effluent

10/29/2007 11/26/20070 2 0 210/29/2007 11/26/20070.15

0.2

alen

ts (n

g/l)

0.15

0.2

alen

ts (n

g/l)

0.05

0.1

Estra

diol

Equ

iva

0.05

0.1

Estra

diol

Equ

iva

0

E

MBR effluent RO effluent blank0

E

MBR effluent RO effluent blank

Filename.ppt

No Hormonal Impact In RO Effluent And Canal Water Was Observed With YES Canal Water Was Observed With YES Assay

Primary UFAeration Basin Second RO UVTertiary

Cl ifi tiDenitrification

Canal

UFeffluent

RO effluent


UFAeration Basin ClarificationRO UVClarification Filter

DNFeffluent

Secondaryeffluent

Canal

Canal water

0 2

0.3

ts (n

g/l)

2/22/2008

0.1

0.2

diol

Equ

ival

ent

0

Estr

ad

Secondaryeffluent

DNF effluent UF effluent RO effluent Surfacewater

blank

Filename.ppt

effluent water

UF And RO Effluent Did Not Provoke Substantial Vitellogenin ResponseSubstantial Vitellogenin Response



RO UVTertiary


Filter Canal

10

UFeffluent

RO effluent

DNFeffluent

Secondaryeffluent

Canal water

6

8

geni

n (m

g/L)

2

4

asm

a vi

tello

g

0

2

DNF effluent UF effluent RO effluent Canal water Negative control

Pl

Filename.ppt

UF And RO Effluent Did Not Provoke Substantial Testosterone ResponseSubstantial Testosterone Response



RO UVTertiary


Filter Canal

0.015

UFeffluent

RO effluent

DNFeffluent

Secondaryeffluent

Canal water

0.01

ne (m

g/L)

0.005

Test

oste

ron

0DNF effluent UF effluent RO effluent Canal water Negative control

Filename.ppt

Conclusions

1. Most microconstituents removed by RO.

2. RO effluent posed no hormonal threat to tissue cultures and live fish.

3. The observed toxicity to aquatic organisms was likely caused by chloramines used for maintaining RO membranes maintaining RO membranes.

Filename.ppt

No Toxicity Of RO Effluent To The Fathead Minnow Was Observed Without Minnow Was Observed Without Chloramine Or Antiscalant

1/14/2008

80

100


antiscalant and chloramine (quenched) control

(deionized t )

1/14/2008

40

60

Surv

ival

(%) water )

0

20 antiscalant and chloramine

0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0% (control)


Filename.ppt

No Toxicity Of RO Effluent To The Fathead Minnow Was Observed With Quenched

hl i

Minnow Was Observed With Quenched Chloramine (No Antiscalant)

1/14/2008

80

100




(deionized water )

1/14/2008

40

60

Surv

ival

(%) water )

0


0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0% (control)


Filename.ppt

No Toxicity Of RO Effluent To The Fathead Minnow Was Observed With

antiscalant chloramine

Fathead Minnow Was Observed With Antiscalant (No Chloramine)

2/21/2008

80

100

)

antiscalant




(deionized water )

40

60

Surv

ival

(%) water )

0


0100% 50% 25% 12.5% 6.25% 0% (control)


Filename.ppt

MBR And RO Effluent Did Not Provoke ANY Vitellogenin Response MBR RO

500

ANY Vitellogenin Response

MBReffluent

RO brine

RO effluent

MBR RO

400

500

(mg/

L)

200

300

vite

lloge

nin

(

100Plas

ma

0Positive control MBR effluent RO effluent Negative control

Filename.ppt

evaluation of endocrine disruppgting potentials in ... · evaluation of endocrine disruppgting...

Documents