290 likes | 420 Views
Full Scale and Pilot Scale Evaluation of Endocrine Disrupting Compound Removal Through WTP Processes Bob Raczko, P.E. United Water. PRESENTATION OUTLINE. Background information Research projects: Water Research Foundation ( WRF ) United WERCs WRF project United WERCs project Summary.
E N D
Full Scale and Pilot Scale Evaluation of Endocrine Disrupting Compound Removal Through WTP ProcessesBob Raczko, P.E.United Water
PRESENTATION OUTLINE • Background information • Research projects: • Water Research Foundation (WRF) • United WERCs • WRF project • United WERCs project • Summary
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
Putting Things in Perspective 1 ppb or 1 ug/L 1 ppt or 1 ng/L X 1,000
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
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
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.
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
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
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)
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)
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
Pilot Plant Flow Diagram Train B – O2/UGAC Train A – O2/VGAC Train C – UV/H2O2
Results of Ozone Tests Note: 1. Number in each box denotes number of compounds removed at given percentage.
Results of GAC Tests Note: 1. Number in each box denotes number of compounds removed at given percentage.
Results of Ozone/GAC Tests Note: 1. Number in each box denotes number of compounds removed at given percentage.
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)
Overall Test Results Note: 1. Number in each box denotes number of compounds removed at given percentage.
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.
Treatment Issues/Concerns • Ozone - potential by-products formed • GAC - carbon usage rate (or length of run) • UV/H2O2 - potential by-products formed
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