1 / 29

Full & Pilot Scale Evaluation of Endocrine Disrupting Compound Removal through WTP Processes

This presentation provides an overview of research projects conducted to investigate the effectiveness of full-scale and pilot-scale water treatment processes in removing endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). The findings from these projects show the variability in contaminants and levels, as well as the effectiveness of different treatment processes in removing specific compounds.

kkaren
Download Presentation

Full & Pilot Scale Evaluation of Endocrine Disrupting Compound Removal through WTP Processes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Full Scale and Pilot Scale Evaluation of Endocrine Disrupting Compound Removal Through WTP ProcessesBob Raczko, P.E.United Water

  2. PRESENTATION OUTLINE • Background information • Research projects: • Water Research Foundation (WRF) • United WERCs • WRF project • United WERCs project • Summary

  3. EDCs and PPCPs • EDCs - endocrine disrupting chemicals • PPCPs - pharmaceuticals and personal care products • Includes wide range of daily-use products • Pharmaceuticals Personal care products • Pesticides Surfactants • Plasticizers PAHs • Manmade sources - synthetic chemicals • Detected at ug/L and ng/L levels

  4. Putting Things in Perspective 1 ppb or 1 ug/L 1 ppt or 1 ng/L X 1,000

  5. Toxicological Relevance of PPCPs and EDCs Drinking Max. Water Equiv. Finished Level Water Level (ug/L) (ug/L) Carbamazepine 12 0.018 Triclosan 2,600 0.0012 Sulfamethoxazole 18,000 0.003 Trimethoprim 6,700 <0.00025 Phenytoin 6.8 0.032 Diclofenac 2,300 <0.00025 Naproxen 20,000 <0.0005 Gemfibrozil 45 0.0021 Estradiol 0.58 <0.0005

  6. Research Projects – Endocrine Disrupting Compounds (EDCs) and Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) • Water Research Foundation (WRF) • Removal of Unregulated Organic Chemicals in Full-Scale Water Treatment Processes • United WERCs • Advanced Pilot Testing of Treatment Processes for Removal of EDCs and PPCPs

  7. WaterRF Project • Sponsoring Utility: Passaic Valley Water Commission, NJ • Principal Investigator: Black & Veatch, consulting engineer • Co-PIs: Catherine Spencer, Black & Veatch Dr. Judy Louis, NJDEP • Utility Participants: UWNJ, UWRahway, Brick Township • Objective: Investigate the effectiveness of full-scale conventional and advanced water treatment processes for removal of endocrine disrupting compounds.

  8. WRF Project - Research Approach • Sample each treatment plant 4 times – spring/summer/fall/winter • Collect samples after each unit treatment process • Samples were analyzed by USGS laboratory • Analyze for over 100 compounds • Pilot testing using Haworth pilot plant - United WERCs project • Prepare project report summarizing the findings

  9. United WERCs - Research Approach • Participants - United Water and NJIT • Overall – supplement WRF project by obtaining additional performance data for a variety of conventional and advanced water treatmentprocesses on the removal efficiencyof EDCs and PPCPsfromdrinking water supplies. • Specific objectives: • Identify select unregulated compounds to investigate • Spike the Haworth pilot plant influent with the select compounds • Followthese compounds through the pilot plant unit treatment processes • Evaluatetheir removal and degradation as a function of treatmentprocess • Evaluatepotential synergies in treatment processes

  10. WaterRF Project Findings • Contaminants and levels varied • Round 1 (May 2010) – 23 raw water compounds • Round 2 (August 2010) – 20 raw water compounds but not the same as Round 1 • Round 3 (March 2011) – 30 raw water compounds, many not found prior • Round 4 (July 2011) - 30 raw water compounds, some not found prior • Classes of compounds found • Pharmaceuticals, few antibiotics, ingested metabolites • Flame retardants • Fragrance, flavor • Topically applied compounds • PAHs • Pesticides • Solvents/plasticizers • Detergents (nonyl- and octylphenols)

  11. Conclusions from the Data • Large range in concentration and types of compounds found with precipitation/source volume, seasonal patterns • Would be very difficult to regulate using a contaminant-by-contaminant approach • Advanced oxidation, especially post-coagulation, effective for oxidation/conversion of many aromatics, alkanes, and cyclic organics • GAC adsorption of more non-polar compounds (PAHs, flavor and fragrance compounds, many pharmaceuticals)

  12. Nanograms/liter

  13. Nanograms/liter

  14. Plant B Process Performance

  15. Nanograms/liter

  16. Plant D Process Performance

  17. United WERCs Project Elements • Task 1 - Preliminary Investigations May-December 2010 • Literature Review • Surrogate or indicator parameters • Other treatment processes • Technical Memorandum - deliverable November 2010 • Task 2 - Pilot Tests April 2011 – July 2011 • Initial pilot runs • Memorandum - deliverable June 2011 • Additional pilot runs • Task 3 - Report Preparation September - December 2011 • Draft report - deliverable November 2011 • Final report - deliverable December 2011

  18. Priority Indicator Compounds(12 Groups, 16 Compounds)

  19. Pilot Plant Flow Diagram Train B – O2/UGAC Train A – O2/VGAC Train C – UV/H2O2

  20. Results of Ozone Tests Note: 1. Number in each box denotes number of compounds removed at given percentage.

  21. Results of GAC Tests Note: 1. Number in each box denotes number of compounds removed at given percentage.

  22. Results of Ozone/GAC Tests Note: 1. Number in each box denotes number of compounds removed at given percentage.

  23. Results of UV/H2O2 Tests Note: 1. Number in each box denotes number of compounds removed at given percentage. (H2O2 – mg/L) (UV – mJ/Sq cm)

  24. Overall Test Results Note: 1. Number in each box denotes number of compounds removed at given percentage.

  25. Treatability of Indicator Compounds Good (75%) to Very Good (>90%) Fair (50%) to Poor (<50%) • Acetaminophen • Ibuprofen • Sulfamethoxazole • Trimethoprim • Carbamazepine • Atenolol • Gemfibrozil • Atrazine • DEET • Caffeine • 17β-Estradiol • Iopromide • Erythromycin • TCEP • Cotinine • DEET • Caffeine • 17β-Estradiol • Iopromide Indicates removal dependent on treatment process “Good to Very Good” and “Fair to Poor” applies to all treatment processes.

  26. Treatment Issues/Concerns • Ozone - potential by-products formed • GAC - carbon usage rate (or length of run) • UV/H2O2 - potential by-products formed

  27. Summary • Advanced processes (oxidation, AOP, GAC) most effective • AOP - UV/H2O2 - may not be practical • Future work • Range of effective dosages for ozone • Range of dosages for ozone and H2O2 • GAC contact time and usage rate • By-product formation • Confirm indicator compounds

  28. THANK YOU!Any Questions?

More Related