EFFECTIVE REGULATIONS TO MANAGE CECS IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT

Transcription

1 2016/08/19 EFFECTIVE REGULATIONS TO MANAGE CECS IN WASTEWATER TREATMENT WATEREUSE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CHAPTER MEETING AUGUST 19, 2018

2 MICROCONSTITUENTS AND EMERGING CONTAMINANTS Endocrine disrupting compounds Pharmaceuticals Personal Care Products Persistent Organic Pollutants Ibuprofen Nanoparticles Triclocarban Triclosan 2

3 CECs HAVE DELETERIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (A) open skin from emergence of forelimbs (B) extra limbs and pelvic girdle (C) scoliosis D) severe edema of limbs and torso (E) tail muscle nodules from calcinosis From Ruiz A.M et. al, Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010, 44, F) gular [throat] nodules from calcinosis. 3

4 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE OF CECS Adapted from Heberer,

5 Regulation 1 A rule or directive made and maintained by an authority 2 The action or process of regulating or being regulated 5

6 WHERE CAN WE REGULATE THE SYSTEMS? Source Water SWTF Ø Preliminary Treatment Ø Primary Treatment Ø Biological Treatment Ø Flow Equalization Ø Solids Processing Ø Energy Production O DPR Supply Water Recycle (from AWP) AWPF Ø Physical Treatment Ø Biological Treatment Ø Oxidation Ø Disinfection Finished Water O Waste OTHER Stream Discharge Ocean Discharge Non-potable Reuse Figure adapted from Rimer et. al., WRRF Webinar 6

7 EXAMPLES OF INNOVATIVE (A) COMPONENTS OF SOME SOURCE CONTROL PROGRAMS FROM WRRF 13-12: EVALUATION OF SOURCE WATER CONTROL OPTIONS AND THE IMPACT OF SELECTED STRATEGIES ON DIRECT POTABLE REUSE Denmark Mobile activated sludge unit to pinpoint toxic discharges; autotrophs (i.e the nitrifiers) are more sensitive to toxic upset than heterotrophs; Singapore use of VOC analysers at nodal points in the collection system to identify high VOC discharges; some 40 units installed and in operation; Australia sensors for real-time data acquisition within a collection system. (A) Included in regular monitoring programs focusing on illegal discharges 7

8 WRRF REGULATION TO MANAGE CEC REMOVAL CEC-soup EDCs PCPs pesticides PDBEs nanoparticles PhACs Influent Preliminary Treatment Primary Treatment Biological Secondary Treatment Disinfection Effluent Grit Screenings RAS Primary Sludge WAS Biosolids Thickening Biosolids Biosolids Stabilization Biosolids Dewatering 8

9 FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE CEC REMOVAL design and/or operating conditions SRT Process Selection HRT Mixed Liquor Conc. CSTR(s) vs. plug flow CAS vs. MBR Redox Condition 9

10 Plosz et. al., 2012 HOW DOES SRT RELATE TO CEC REMOVAL? Leu et. al.,

11 MC Removal (%) BIOLOGICAL PROCESS SRT & CEC REMOVAL SRT to achieve MC removal 100% compound specific (Ternes et. al., 2004; Clara et. al., 2005; Stephenson and Oppenheimer, 2007) in the range of 10+ days (Ternes et. al., 2004; Clara et. al., 2005; Stephenson and Oppenheimer, 2007) SRT Figure adapted from: Ternes et. al., Poseidon Project Final Report (2004) Removal biodegradation coupled with sorption in all systems 11

12 Average of Reported Removal at longer SRT SRT & PhAC REMOVAL 100% 80% Suspended Growth Systems 1:4 1:3 GMF ATN OFL RAN 1:2 KET KET BZF KET IBP IBP IBP NAP NAP NAP NAP ACM 1:1 1: % 40% 20% ATN SOT ATN MET SOT MET BIS MET CBZ SOT MFA MFA CLA IDM PRI IDM ERYCLA KET SMX DCF DCF GLCBZF BZF RAN SMX PPZ DCF RAN PRA PRA PRA 1:0.50 0% CBZ CBZ MFA SRT = 5-10 d SRT = d SRT = d SRT = d 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Average of Reported Removal at SRT <= 5 days Sathyamoorthy & Ramsburg, preliminary data (work product not for distribution/copy) 12

13 SUSPENDED GROWTH OR MBR FOR CEC REMOVAL? Difference of opinion and results No Difference Clara et al. (2005) WERF (2007) MBR better Camacho-Munoz et. al. (2012) Weiss & Reemstma (2008) Radjenovic et al. (2007) Gobel et al. (2007) Sui et. al. (2011) Weiss & Reemstma (2008) Sui et. al. (2011) 13

14 Reported Removal in MBR Process SUSPENDED GROWTH VS. MBR FOR PHAC REMOVALS When operated at similar SRTs: no statistically significant differences in PhAC removal performance 100% 80% 60% 40% all data SRT: d SRT: d SRT: d Certain compounds are poorly removed in both (e.g., CBZ) 20% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Reported Removal in CAS Process Sathyamoorthy, preliminary data (work product not for distribution/copy) 14

15 FATE OF CECS DURING BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT INFLUENT CEC 1 2 COMETABOLISM BY AOB EFFLUENT CEC Biodeg. Metabolites Biodeg. Metabolites 3 COMETABOLISM BY HET 4 5 ASSIMILATION SORPTION WASTE SLUDGE Biodeg. Metabolite(s) CEC 15

16 Metoprolol (MET) Atenolol (ATN) Sotalol (SOT) Evaluating the degradation of selected beta blockers during nitrification Sathyamoorthy et. al, Environmental Science and Technology, 2013 Sathyamoorthy et. al, Environmental Modeling and Software,

17 ATENOLOL BIODEGRADES & APPEARS LINKED TO AMMONIA OXIDATION PhAC Conc. (ug/l) (I) MET (II) SOT (III) ATN (I) MET (II) SOT (III) ATN Reactor: 1-4 Reactor: # 1-4 Reactor: Reactor: 1-4 Reactor: # 1-4 Reactor: VSS (mg/l) 560 VSS (mg/l) 1,030 VSS (mg/l) VSS (mg/l) 560 VSS (mg/l) 1,030 VSS (mg/l) TSS (mg/l) 1,160 TSS (mg/l) 2,310 TSS (mg/l) 1,730 2,000 TSS (mg/l) 1,160 TSS (mg/l) 2,310 TSS (mg/l) 1,730 2, PhAC Conc. (ug/l) Time (h) Time (h) Time (h) Time (h) 0 2 Time (h) Time (h) NIT-EXPT.: Reactor 1 1 Reactor 2 2 Reactor 3 3 Reactor Reactor 4 4 NOX-EXPT.: NOX-EXPT.: Reactor 5 Reactor 5 Reactor 6 Reactor Reactor 7 6 Reactor 7 Sathyamoorthy et. al, Environmental Science and Technology,

18 THE ROLE OF AOB IN PhAC BIODEGRADATION fractional biodeg rate due to X AOB range of X AOB in WWTPs NAP fractional biodeg rate due to X AOB ATN m/m MAX,AOB Biomass X AOB fraction =1 m/m MAX,AOB = Biomass X AOB fraction 18

19 (II) SOT (II) SOT WHAT ABOUT ATN BIODEGRADATION IN THE ABSENCE OF NITRIFICATION? Reactor: # 1-4 Reactor: # 1-4 VSS (mg/l) 1,030 VSS (mg/l) 1,030 TSS (mg/l) 2,310 PhAC Conc. (ug/l) (III) ATN (I) (III) MET ATN Reactor: Reactor: VSS (mg/l) VSS (mg/l) TSS (mg/l) 1,160 1,730 2,000 TSS (mg/l) 1,730 2,000 (II) SOT Reactor: # 1-4 VSS (mg/l) 1,030 TSS (mg/l) 2,310 NIT-EXPT.: NIT-EXPT.: Reactor 1 Reactor 1 Reactor 2 Reactor Reactor 32 Reactor 43 Reactor 4 NOX-EXPT.: Reactor 5 NOX-EXPT.: Reactor 6 Reactor 5 Reactor 7 Reactor 6 Reactor Time (h) Time (h) Time (h)

20 TOOLS (I.E., FUNCTION) REQUIRED FOR BIODEGRADATION Atenolol atenolol amidohydrolase EC O Radjenovic et. al., 2008; Helbling et. al., 2010 Metoprolol Unspecific monooxygenase EC OH OH Fang et. al., 2004; Barbieri et. al.,

21 Relative Abundance COMMUNITY DIVERSITY AND POTENTIAL BIODEGRADATION TOOLS 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Acidithiobacillus Brevundimonas Cellvibrio Hyphomonas Luteimonas Nitriliruptoraceae Nitrobacter Nitrosomonas Phenylobacterium Rhodanobacter Rhodobacter unclassified Acidithiobacillus Brevundimonas Cellvibrio Hyphomonas Luteimonas Nitriliruptoraceae Nitrobacter Nitrosomonas Phenylobacterium Rhodanobacter Rhodobacter Evidence at protein level Inferred from homology Not reported Unspecified Atenolol Monooxygenase Amidohydrolase

22 SUMMARY Are CECs removed or degraded? yes, many are removed or transformed But, to differing degrees Ø MC dependant, process dependant What processes can we regulate? Robust Source Control Ø Effective pretreatment program Ø Drug takeback programs Ø Outreach & Education In WRRFs, effective management of Ø biological treatment Ø AWP processes (AOP, activated carbon, etc.) What are they key research needs? Develop mechanistic understanding of CEC attenuation in biological process Enhance predictive modeling of CEC biodegradation 22

23 BLACK & VEATCH CURRENT CEC RESEARCH Biological Process Advanced Water Purification Fate of Sulfonamide Antibiotics Through Biological Treatment in WRRFs Designed to Maximize Reuse Applications (WRRF 16-03) 23

24 Sandeep Sathyamoorthy Black & Veatch Walnut Creek, CA QUESTIONS 24