View the webcast slides

Download View the webcast slides

Post on 12-Dec-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents

2 download

Embed Size (px)

TRANSCRIPT

<ul><li><p> 2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 2014 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this presentation may be copied, reproduced, or otherwise utilized without permission. </p><p>WRF Webcast 4537 </p><p>Improving Water Quality and Consumer </p><p>Satisfaction Based on the SMCLs </p><p>August 21, 2014 </p></li><li><p>2 </p><p>USEPA SECONDARY MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LIMITS: A STRATEGY FOR DRINKING WATER AESTHETIC QUALITY AND </p><p>CONSUMER ACCEPTABILITY </p><p> Principal Investigator: Andrea Dietrich, PhD </p><p>August 21, 2014 Funded by Philadelphia Water Department Water Research Foundation Project #4537 </p></li><li><p>3 </p><p>Why This Project? Secondary Maximum Contaminant Levels </p><p>recognized as important parameters impacting customer perception of drinking water quality </p><p> Variable state regulations </p><p> Philadelphia Water Department and Andrea Dietrich supported a summary document. </p><p> WRF supports their efforts through the Facilitated Research Program </p></li><li><p>4 </p><p>Taste and Odor Control 48 projects A Decision Tool for Earthy/Musty Taste and Odor Control (WRF Project </p><p>#3032, 9/13) </p><p>Manganese 21 projects Guidance for the Treatment of Manganese (WRF Project #4373) </p><p>SMCLs as a Research Topic </p></li><li><p>5 </p><p>MANGANESE AS A RESEARCH TOPIC </p></li><li><p>Aluminum Chloride Color Copper </p><p> Corrosivity Fluoride </p><p>Foaming agents Iron Manganese </p><p> Odor pH Silver Sulfate </p><p> TDS Zinc </p><p>Andrea M. Dietrich, Ph.D. Professor, Civil and Environmental Engineering Adjunct Professor, Food Science and Technology </p><p>Improving Water Quality and Consumer Satisfaction using Guidance from the SMCLss </p><p>Presentation copyright A.M. Dietrich 2014 </p></li><li><p> Professor, Civil &amp; Environmental </p><p>Engineering, Virginia Tech </p><p> Adjunct Professor, Food Science &amp; </p><p>Technology </p><p> Co-director, VTs Water INTERface </p><p>Interdisciplinary Graduate Education </p><p>Program </p><p> Chair, International Water </p><p>Associations Specialist Group on </p><p>Off-Flavours in the Aquatic </p><p>Environment </p><p> Past chair, American Water Works </p><p>Association Taste and Odor </p><p>Committee </p><p> Author of over 100 peer-reviewed </p><p>journal articles and book chapters </p><p> Author of technical reports for the </p><p>Water Research Foundation, </p><p>AWWA, utilities, consultants, </p><p>industry, and government </p><p> Instructor for Introduction to </p><p>Environmental Engineering, </p><p>Environmental Chemistry, Water for </p><p>Health, and Techniques for </p><p>Environmental Analysis </p><p> Research areas water quality; </p><p>sensory analysis of environmental </p><p>contaminants, odorants, and </p><p>tastants; water treatment; potable </p><p>water infrastructure; fate and </p><p>transport of organic and inorganic </p><p>chemicals. </p><p>7 </p><p>Dr. Andrea M. Dietrich - Brief Bio andread@vt.edu </p></li><li><p> When promulgating the SMCLs, the USEPA (1979) </p><p>stated: The absence of taste and odor in water </p><p>helps to maintain the consumers confidence in </p><p>the quality of their drinking water </p><p> Consumer judge tap water by taste, odor, color, </p><p>and appearance </p><p> SMCLs are primary concern of consumers </p><p> Since SMCLs generally treated as guidelines, </p><p>receive less attention than PMCLs </p><p> Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>Motivation </p><p>8 </p></li><li><p> Consumers </p><p> Water treatment </p><p> Sensory science </p><p> Bottled water </p><p> Source water quality </p><p> Salinity, Algal T&amp;O episodes, chemical spills </p><p> SMCLs need to evolve! </p><p> 9 Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>Most SMCLs are 35-50 years old! </p><p>Since inception, these have evolved: </p></li><li><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p> Water that is Clear </p><p> Colorless </p><p> Relatively odorless </p><p> Tasty </p><p> Not CHANGING- CONSISTENCY!!!! </p><p>Photo credit: AM Dietrich </p><p>What instills consumer confidence? </p><p>10 </p></li><li><p> Aesthetic - taste, odor, color, foaming e.g., TDS, chloride, sulfate </p><p> Cosmetic - human appearance fluoride and silver </p><p> Technical - corrosion, staining, scaling, sediment e.g., corrosivity, pH, iron </p><p> Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>USEPA SMCLs Categories </p><p>11 </p></li><li><p>Outline: 15 SMCLs </p><p> Total dissolved solids (TDS) Major anions and cations </p><p> Cl-, SO4= </p><p> Minor anions and cations </p><p> Cu, Fe, Mn, Al, Zn, Ag, F </p><p> Odor </p><p> Other Aggregate parameters </p><p> pH, corrosivity, color, foaming agents Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering 12 </p></li><li><p>Total dissolved solids (TDS) </p><p>Cl- </p><p> Aggregate </p><p>measure of </p><p>anions &amp; cations </p><p> Salinity </p><p> Overall indicator </p><p>of water quality </p></li><li><p>SMCL = 500 mg/L TDS </p><p> Aesthetic and Technical </p><p> Sources: rocks and minerals </p><p> TDS gives water good taste </p><p> Variable consumer liking </p><p> SMCL consistent with current </p><p>science </p><p> Importance of TDS increasing </p><p>as source water TDS </p><p>increases </p><p>14 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>Photo credit: AM Dietrich </p></li><li><p>Context for TDS SMCL </p><p>Water Type TDS, mg/L </p><p>Human Drinking Water </p><p> USEPA SMCL Accepted globally </p><p>&lt; 500 </p><p>&lt; 1,500 </p><p>Freshwater 0 to ~ 5,000 </p><p>Brackish Water 5,000 - 30,000 </p><p>Saline water 30,000 - 50,000 </p><p>Brine </p></li><li><p>16 </p><p>TDS in Ground Water on the RISE </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>USGS: Methods for Evaluating </p><p>Groundwater Quality Data in the </p><p>United States, 19882010 </p></li><li><p>Severe drought increases TDS in </p><p>drinking water </p><p>17 Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p></li><li><p>Cl- </p><p>Desalination </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>Corrosive! </p><p>No </p><p>Nutrition! </p><p>18 </p></li><li><p>When can consumers detect </p><p>changes in TDS? </p><p> Increase TDS from low TDS water more readily </p><p>detected than decrease TDS from high TDS water </p><p> Room temperature &gt; &gt; chilled water </p><p> Types of ions important </p><p> Chloride &gt; Sulfate </p><p> Sodium &gt; Calcium </p><p>19 </p></li><li><p>20 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>Mineral Typical </p><p>Concentration, mg/L Hard Water Soft Water </p><p>Ca2+ 50 11 </p><p>Na+ 15 6 </p><p>Mg2+ 10 1.5 </p><p>Cl- 24 10 </p><p>HCO3- 125 25 </p><p>SO4= 115 20 </p><p>TDS 100-400 25-100 </p><p>SMCL </p><p>SMCL </p><p>Consider </p><p>SMCLs </p><p>Major cations and anions </p><p>contributing to TDS </p><p>Anion - Cation charge balance </p></li><li><p>SMCL = 250 mg/L Chloride </p><p> Aesthetic- salty taste; Technical- corrosion </p><p> Sources: natural and anthrophogenic </p><p> In 1979, lower value considered by USEPA </p><p> In 21st century, increasing TDS in source waters </p><p> Consumers do not prefer chloride </p><p> Consider lower SMCL for taste &amp; corrosion </p><p>21 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering www.columbus.gov </p><p>http://www.columbus.gov/</p></li><li><p>Sodium consider SMCL Aesthetic salty taste </p><p> Sources: natural and anthropogenic </p><p> 1980s- established Na+ as cause of salty (not Cl-) </p><p> Anion affects taste: Cl- &gt;SO42- </p><p> USEPA Advisory 30 - 60 mg Na/L for taste </p><p> Consider establishing SMCL </p><p>22 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering www.columbus.gov </p><p>http://www.columbus.gov/</p></li><li><p>SMCL = 250 mg/L Sulfate </p><p> Aesthetic- salty taste </p><p> Sources: natural, anthropogenic </p><p> Can be major contributor to TDS </p><p> Sulfate is a laxative; health advisory 500 mg/L </p><p> SMCL consistent with current science </p><p>23 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>SO42- </p></li><li><p>Hardness - Consider SMCL </p><p>24 </p><p>USGS Map </p><p> Aesthetic: bitter taste of Ca and Mg </p><p> Technical - scaling </p><p> Sources </p><p> Natural </p><p> Desalination </p><p> Remineralization </p><p> Consider establishing SMCL </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p></li><li><p>Select TDS References (reverse chronology) Dietrich AM. 2014. USEPA SMCLs: A Strategy for Drinking Water Quality and Consumer </p><p>Acceptability. Denver, CO.Water Research Foundation. 56 pp. </p><p> Garca V, Fernndez A, Medina ME, Ferrer O, Cortina JL, Valero F, Devesa R. 2014. Flavour </p><p>assessment of blends between desalinated and conventionally treated sources. Desalination and </p><p>Water Treatment DOI:10.1080/19443994.2013.875943. </p><p> Dietrich AM, Gallagher CD. 2013. Consumer ability to detect the taste of total dissolved solids. J. </p><p>American Water Works Association 105(5):E255-263. </p><p> Platikanov S, Garcia V, Fonseca I, Rulln E, Devesa R, Tauler R. 2013. Influence of minerals on the </p><p>taste of bottled and tap water: A chemometric approach. Water Research 47:693-704. </p><p> Lindsey BD, Ruppert MG. 2012. Methods for Evaluating Temporal Groundwater Quality Data and </p><p>Results of Decadal-Scale Changes in Chloride, Dissolved Solids, and Nitrate Concentrations in </p><p>Groundwater in the United States, 19882010. Reston VA:United States Geological Survey, 47.. </p><p> Devesa R, Garca V, Mata L. 2010. Water flavor improvement by membrane (RO and EDR) </p><p>treatment. Desalination 250(1):113-117. Devesa R, Garca V, Mata L. 2010. Water flavor </p><p>improvement by membrane (RO and EDR) treatment. Desalination 250(1):113-117. </p><p> Gallagher CD, Dietrich AM. 2010. TDS and temperature affect consumer taste preferences. OpFlow </p><p>36(11):20-22. </p><p> Deb A, McCammon SB, Snyder J, Dietrich AM. 2010. Impacts of Lining Material on Water Quality </p><p>[Project #4036] Denver, CO.Water Research Foundation. 181 pp. </p><p> Burlingame GA, Dietrich AM, Whelton AJ. 2007. Understanding the taste of tap water. J. American </p><p>Water Works Association 99(5):100-111. </p><p> Biggs J, Thomure T, Arnol K, Cotton C. 2007. Public outreach tool used in determining customer </p><p>preferences of water aesthetics. In: Proceedings of the AWWA Water Quality Technology </p><p>Conference. Charlotte, North Carolina, November 4-8, 2007. </p><p> 25 </p></li><li><p>Select TDS References (reverse chronology) Dietrich AM. 2006. Aesthetic issues for drinking water. Journal of Water and Health, 4 (supplement </p><p>1):11-16. </p><p> USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2003a. Drinking Water Advisory: Consumer </p><p>Acceptability Advice and Health Effects Analysis on Sodium. </p><p>www.epa.gov/safewater/ccl/pdf/sodium.pdf. EPA 822-R-03-006, Washington DC. </p><p> Taste and Odor Committee of the American Water Works Association. 2002. Options for a Taste and </p><p>Odor Standard. J. American Water Works Association 94(6):80-87. </p><p> Lawless HT, Rapaki F, Horne J, Hayes A.2003. The taste of calcium and magnesium salts and </p><p>anionic modifications. Food Quality and Preference 14:319-325. </p><p> Matia L. 1995. Treatment of tastes in drinking water: Causes and control. In: Advances in Taste-and-</p><p>Odour Treatment and Control, Edited by I.H. Suffet Joel Mallevialle, Elizabeth Kawczynski Denver, </p><p>CO:American Water Works Association Research Foundation and Lyonnaise des Eaux. </p><p> Bruvold WH, Daniels JI. 1990. Standards for mineral content in drinking water. J. American Water </p><p>Works Association, 82(2):59-65. </p><p> Pangborn RM, Percore SD. 1982. Taste perception of sodium chloride in relation to dietary intake of </p><p>salt. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 35(3):510-20. </p><p> Murphy C, Cardello AV, Brand JG. 1981. Tastes of fifteen halide salts following water and NaCl: </p><p>Anion and cation effects. Physiology and Behavior 26(6):10831095. </p><p> Zoeteman, BCJ, de Grunt FE, Kster EP, Smit KBJ, Punter PH. 1978. Taste assessment of </p><p>individual salts in water - methodology and preliminary findings by a selected national panel. </p><p>Chemical Senses 3(2):127-139. </p><p> Pangborn RM, Bertolero L. 1972. Influence of temperature on taste intensity and degree of liking of </p><p>drinking water. J. American Water Works Association 64(8):511-515. </p><p> Bruvold WH. 1968. Scales for rating the taste of water. J. Applied Psychology 52(3):245-253. </p><p>26 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p></li><li><p>Audience participation </p><p> In the past two years </p><p>(Aug 2012 - Aug </p><p>2014) how many </p><p>salty or mineral </p><p>taste episodes/events </p><p>occurred at your utility </p><p>that resulted in </p><p>consumer complaints? </p><p>27 </p><p> A. None </p><p> B. Few (1-3) </p><p> C. Several (4-6) </p><p> D. Many, &gt;7 </p><p> E. Do not know </p></li><li><p>Minor anions &amp; cations </p><p>Consumers describing the taste of ferrous </p></li><li><p>Taste + Odor = Flavor </p><p> Flavor can be easily altered by changing the </p><p>odor associated with a taste </p><p> Iron and Copper Have FLAVOR- lipid oxidation in the oral cavity produces volatile </p><p>odors </p><p> Same reaction as keys in your hand </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering Photo credit: AM Dietrich 29 </p></li><li><p> Aesthetic metallic flavor, color </p><p> Technical corrosion, blue-green staining </p><p> Sources: copper pipe, brass </p><p> 1.3 mg/L Cu = PMCL </p><p> Population threshold 0.4 - 0.5 mg Cu/L </p><p> Some do not taste &gt;8 mg/L </p><p> Soluble flavor; particulates little flavor </p><p> Chemical monitoring to protect human health </p><p> Consider lower SMCL for flavor - 0.4-0.5 mg/L </p><p> 30 Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>SMCL = 1 mg/L Copper Photo credit: AM Dietrich </p></li><li><p> Aesthetic flavor of Ferrous Fe2+ </p><p> Technical color/rust of Ferric Fe3+ </p><p> Sources: natural, iron pipe corrosion </p><p> Population threshold 0.03 - 0.17 mg Fe2+/L </p><p> Individual thresholds 0.007 to &gt;14 mg Fe2+/L </p><p> 0.3 mg/L Fe3+ readily visible in cup </p><p> Reconsider SMCL as Fe causes detectable </p><p>metallic flavor at 1/10 the current SMCL </p><p>31 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>SMCL = 0.3 mg/L Iron Photo credit: AM Dietrich </p></li><li><p> Aesthetic = bitter, metallic taste </p><p> Technical = black color, deposits </p><p> Sources: natural </p><p> Update SMCL as Mn(II) and Mn(IV) do not </p><p>cause metallic taste </p><p> Reconsider SMCL as color/particles detectable </p><p>in cup at 0.005 mg/L MnO2 </p><p>32 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>SMCL = 0.05 mg/L Mn </p><p>Photo credit: AM Dietrich </p></li><li><p>SMCL = 0.05 to 0.2 mg/L </p><p>Aluminum </p><p> Technical &amp; Aesthetic </p><p> Sources: alum, cement </p><p> 0.05 mg/L = Treatment goal </p><p> 0.2 mg/L avoids color </p><p> Taste at &gt; 4 mg/L </p><p> SMCL consistent with current science </p><p>33 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>Photo credit: AM Dietrich </p></li><li><p> Aesthetic metallic, astringency </p><p> Technical - corrosion </p><p> Sources: galvanize pipe </p><p> Astringent mouth feel at 5 mg/L Zn </p><p> 5-30 mg/L Zn milky appearance or surface </p><p>scum when boiled </p><p> SMCL consistent with current science </p><p>34 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>SMCL = 5 mg/L Zinc </p><p>Photo credit: AM Dietrich </p></li><li><p> Cosmetic gray eyes, skin (argyria) </p><p> Sources: disinfectant, nanosilver </p><p> Increased use of nanosilver a concern </p><p> SMCL consistent with current science </p><p>35 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>SMCL = 0.1 mg/L Silver </p><p>Ag+ Ag+ Ag+ </p></li><li><p> Cosmetic- tooth discoloration and pitting </p><p> Sources: natural and additive </p><p> In 2011 USEPA and HHS recommended </p><p>0.7 mg/L F- added as guidance for </p><p>fluoridation </p><p> Reconsider SMCL as new guidance </p><p>suggests range at ~0.7 mg/L F- </p><p>36 </p><p>Environmental and Water Resources </p><p>Civil and Environmental Engineering </p><p>SMCL = 2 mg/L Fluoride </p><p>F- F- F- </p></li><li><p>Select References, Cu, Fe, Mn (reverse chronology) </p><p> Dietrich AM. 2014. USEPA SMCLs: A Strategy for Drinking Water Quality and Consumer </p><p>Acceptability. Denver, CO.Water Research Foundation. 56 pp. </p><p> Sain A, Griffin A, Dietrich AM. 2014. Assessing taste and visual perception of Mn(II) and Mn(IV) in </p><p>Drinking Water. J. American Water Works Association 106(1):E32-34. </p><p> Sain A, Dietrich AM. 2014. Rethinking aesthetic guidelines for manganese and iron in drinking water. </p><p>J. Water Supply: Res. Technol. AQUA, accepted. </p><p> Stanford BD, Wright B, Routt JC, Debroux JF, Khan, SJ. 2013. Water Quality Impacts of Extreme </p><p>Weather-r...</p></li></ul>