Modeled De Facto Reuse and Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Drinking Water Source Waters

Nguyễn, Thùy; Westerhoff, Paul; Furlong, Edward T.; Kolpin, Dana W.; Batt, Angela L.; Mash, Heath; Schenck, Kathleen M.; Boone, J. Scott; Rice, Jacelyn; Glassmeyer, Susan T.

doi:10.1002/awwa.1052

Cited by 21 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the purified water for DPR 2 would still contain low concentrations of recalcitrant trace organic compounds (TOrCs) (Gerrity et al, ; Reungoat et al, ; Trussell et al, ), which could be problematic in the context of public perception. That being said, the current RFC scenario already results in the detection of some TOrCs in Lake Mead (Benotti, Stanford, & Snyder, ), which is consistent with other de facto reuse systems (Benotti et al, ; Nguyen et al, ). Even more problematic would be the formation of regulated disinfection byproducts, particularly total trihalomethanes (TTHMs), during free chlorine disinfection at the AWPF or after blending at RMWTF.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

Evaluating the sustainability of indirect potable reuse and direct potable reuse: a southern Nevada case study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This case study presents a framework for evaluating the sustainability of indirect potable reuse (IPR) and direct potable reuse (DPR) in Las Vegas, Nevada. A system dynamics model was developed to simulate population growth, water supply, water quality, energy costs, net present worth (NPW), and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The model confirmed that DPR could achieve a net reduction in energy costs of up to US$250 million while still ensuring an adequate water supply. However, the high NPW of DPR ($1.0-$4.0 billion) relative to the status quo IPR approach ($0.6 billion) represents a significant economic hurdle, although future monetization of salt loadings and GHGs could reduce that disparity. DPR with ozone-biofiltration would also be hindered by an estimated concentration of total dissolved solids of up to 1,300 mg/L. Despite these barriers to implementation in Las Vegas, certain site-specific conditions may make DPR more attractive in other locations. K E Y W O R D S direct potable reuse, indirect potable reuse, net present worth, sustainability, system dynamics, water supply

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 85%

Evaluating the sustainability of indirect potable reuse and direct potable reuse: a southern Nevada case study

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The risk associated with de facto STP effluent reuse might not be properly managed (Faour-Klingbeil and Todd 2018;Hong et al 2018;Ncube et al 2018;Nguyen et al 2018). Where stream flows vary and the use of irrigation water is occurring only seasonally, the need to execute a comprehensive monitoring program of irrigation water with high frequency for CoECs monitoring parameters might not be obvious, feasible, or affordable.…”

Section: De Facto or Unintentional Reusementioning

confidence: 99%

Natural Purification Through Soils: Risks and Opportunities of Sewage Effluent Reuse in Sub-surface Irrigation

Narain-Ford

Bartholomeus

Dekker

et al. 2020

Reviews of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At global level there are several guidelines, i.e., non-mandatory recommendations, available concerning water reuse (Table 1). In 2006 the World Health Organization (WHO) published guidelines on the safe use of wastewater, intended as a tool for decision-makers and regulators to provide a consistent level of health protection in different settings. The guidelines can be adapted for implementation under specific environmental, sociocultural, and economic conditions at a national level (WHO 2006). The United States Environmental Protection Agency issued the last version of the "Guidelines for Water Reuse" (USEPA 2012). These guidelines include a wide range of reuse applications (e.g., agricultural irrigation and aquifer recharge) and apply similar approaches as described by the WHO (2006) and the Australian Government Initiative (2006) for controlling health and environmental risks. The most recent global guidelines for STP effluent reuse in agricultural irrigation were published in 2015 by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO 2015). These ISO guidelines include water quality requirements for CoECs. Remarkably, the State of California overtakes these global guidelines with specific regulations for CoECs (California Water Boards 2019). Consequently, these California water reuse regulations are being used as a global benchmark for the development of water reuse regulations worldwide. Noteworthy, California recently signed the Senate Bill No. 996 (Legislative Counsel Bureau 2018), which encourages communities to reuse STP effluent on-site. 2.2 Europe At European level the need to address management of water resources to prevent scarcity and droughts was acknowledged in the EU's Blueprint to safeguard Europe's water resources (Table 1). In this Blueprint the need to use STP effluent as an alternative water resource for irrigation purposes is re-emphasized (European Commission 2012). Six EU Member States

show abstract

“…Figure SI.6 shows as a function of distance the degradation of several CECs commonly used as WWTP surrogates (meprobamate, ibuprofen, gemfibrozil, diclofenac, sulfamethoxazole, TCPP and TCEP phosphates) for larger CEC lists that may number in the hundreds of compounds. 5,17,31,34 For a 0.1 m/s streamflow, roughly 50% of the ibuprofen degraded within 100 km, whereas 50% degradation of diclofenac, meprobamate, gemfibrozil, or sulfamethoxazole may not be reached until 300 km. Even longer distances (600 km) may be required for similar degradation of TCPP or TCEP.…”

Section: Proximity Distribution Of Wwtps Upstream To Dwtps Within Thementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies have detected contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), including pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and industrial chemicals, originating from wastewater in DWTPs downstream of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). [1][2][3][4][5] A previous study on the 50 very large WWTPs (between 15 and 660 million gallons per days (MGDs)) across the US reported 6000 MGD (263 m 3 /s) discharging to surface waters and measured 56 active pharmaceutical ingredients in effluent samples. 6 Additionally, some CECs lead to N-nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) disinfection by-product formation in drinking waters after chlorination.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The DRINCS model has been used and validated through field sampling in several case studies. 5,15,17,18 Our prior DRINCS study concluded that >50% of DWTPs in the US serving 10,000 or more people with treated surface water have at least one WWTP discharge upstream of the drinking water intake. 16 While the frequency of DFR is high, its magnitude is relatively low under average streamflow condition.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Drinking water vulnerability in less-populated communities in Texas to wastewater-derived contaminants

Nguyễn

Westerhoff

2019

npj Clean Water

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

De facto potable reuse occurs when treated wastewater is discharged upstream of drinking water treatment plants (DWTPs) and can lead to contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) occurring in potable water. Our prior research, focusing on larger communities that each serve >10,000 people across the USA, indicates that elevated de facto reuse (DFR) occurs in Texas, and thus we added to our model DWTPs serving smaller communities to understand their vulnerability to CECs. Here, we show that twothirds of all surface water intakes in Texas were impacted by DFR at levels exceeding 90% during even mild droughts, and under average streamflow DFR levels range between 1 and 20%. DWTPs serving lower population communities (<10,000 people) have higher DFR levels, and fewer than 2% of these communities have advanced technologies (e.g., ozone, activated carbon) at DWTPs to remove CECs. Efforts to improve water quality in these less populated communities are an important priority. The model approach and results can be used to identify prioritization for monitoring and treatment of CECs, including in underserved communities, which normally lack knowledge of their impacts from DFR occurring within their watersheds.npj Clean Water (2019) 2:19 ; https://doi.

show abstract

Modeled De Facto Reuse and Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Drinking Water Source Waters

Cited by 21 publications

References 32 publications

Evaluating the sustainability of indirect potable reuse and direct potable reuse: a southern Nevada case study

Evaluating the sustainability of indirect potable reuse and direct potable reuse: a southern Nevada case study

Natural Purification Through Soils: Risks and Opportunities of Sewage Effluent Reuse in Sub-surface Irrigation

Drinking water vulnerability in less-populated communities in Texas to wastewater-derived contaminants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About