Search

Presentation for SETAC on Nov. 13-17, 2022 in Pittsburgh, PA Science Inventory, CCTE products: https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si_public_search_results.cfm?advSearch=true&showCriteria=2&keyword=CCTE&TIMSType=&TIMSSubTypeID=&epaNumber=&ombCat=Any&dateBeginPublishedPresented=07/01/2017&dateEndPublishedPresented=&dateBeginUpdated=&dateEndUpdated=&DEID=&personName=&personID=&role=Any&journalName=&journalID=&publisherName=&publisherID=&sortBy=pubDate&count=25

De facto reuse is the percentage of drinking water treatment plant (DWTP) intake potentially composed of effluent discharged from upstream wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Results from grab samples and a De Facto Reuse in our Nation’s Consumable Supply (DRINCS) geospatial watershed model were used to quantify contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) concentrations at DWTP intakes to qualitatively compare exposure risks obtained by the two approaches. Between nine and 71 CECs were detected in grab samples. The number of upstream WWTP discharges ranged from 0 to >1,000; comparative de facto reuse results from DRINCS ranged from 80% during lower streamflows. Correlation between chemicals detected and DRINCS modeling results were observed, particularly DWTPs withdrawing from midsize water bodies. This comparison advances the utility of DRINCS to identify locations of DWTPs for future CEC sampling and treatment technology testing.

Prioritisation methodologies are often used for identifying those pharmaceuticals that pose the greatest risk to the natural environment and to focus laboratory testing or environmental monitoring towards pharmaceuticals of greatest concern. Risk-based prioritisation approaches, employing models to derive exposure concentrations, are commonly used but the reliability of these models is unclear. The present study evaluated the accuracy of exposure models commonly used for pharmaceutical prioritisation. Targeted monitoring was conducted for 95 pharmaceuticals in the Rivers Foss and Ouse in the City of York, UK. Predicted environmental concentration (PEC) ranges were estimated based on localised prescription, hydrological data, reported metabolism and wastewater treatment plant (WwTP) removal rates, and were compared to measured environmental concentrations (MECs). For the River Foss, PECs, obtained using highest metabolism and lowest WwTP removal, were similar to MECs. In contrast, this trend was not observed for the River Ouse, possibly due to pharmaceutical inputs beyond our modelling. Pharmaceuticals were ranked by risk based on either MECs or PECs. With two exceptions (dextromethorphan and diphenhydramine), risk ranking based on both MECs and PECs produced similar results in the River Foss. Overall, these findings indicate that PECs may well be appropriate for prioritisation of pharmaceuticals in the environment when robust and local data on the system of interest are available and reflective of most source inputs to the system. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.