Public Health Service
DRINKING WATER
STANDARDS
1962
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
-------
-------
Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards
Revised 1962
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION,
AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
Washington 25, B.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Reg/on 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard l?th c.
Chicago, IL 60604-3590 to Fl00f
-------
Public Health Service Publication No. 956
First Printed August 1962
Reprinted March 1963
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1962
For Bale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington 25, D.C. . Price 30 cents (Paper cover)
-------
THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE DRINKING
WATER STANDARDS—1962
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE,
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE,
Washington 25, D.G., May 6, 196S.
The Standards published herein have been promulgated as Public Health
Begulations in the Federal Register. As such they became effective April 5,1962,
as the Standards to which drinking water and water supply systems used by
carriers and others subject to Federal quarantine regulations must conform.
The Division of Environmental Engineering and Food Protection is responsible
for the application of these Standards to all carrier water supplies.
These Standards supersede the Public Health Service Drinking Water Stand-
ards—1946, as amended in 1956. The new Standards were developed with the
assistance of an Advisory Committee appointed by the Public Health Service
to revise the Standards of 1946. The Committee in its deliberations took cog-
nizance of man's changing environment and its effect on water supplies. Accord-
ingly, new sections, such as one on radioactivity, have been added and sub-
stantive changes have been made elsewhere.
The new Standards are in a form believed useful In evaluating the quality and
safety of water supplies generally and they are hereby recommended for such
use.
LUTHEB "it. TEREY,
Surgeon General, Public Health Service.
m
-------
ENDORSEMENT BY THE AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
Acting on behalf of the Officers and Directors, the AWWA Executive Com-
mittee adopted a resolution endorsing the 1962 revision of the USPHS Drinking
Water Standards as "minimum" standards for all public water supplies.
The resolution, which will be included with the published standards, read:
WHEEEAS. the 1962 Drinking Water Standards of the U.S. Public Health
Service, as prepared by the Advisory Committee on Revision of U.S. Public
Health Service 1946 Drinking Water Standards and promulgated for use in the
administration of interstate quarantine regulations, are intended to apply only
to water used on common carriers engaged in interstate commerce;
WHEEEAS, the 1962 Drinking Water Standards are to serve as minimum
requirements to protect the health and promote the well-being of individuals
and of communities;
WHEREAS, it is the desire of the American Water Works Association to sup-
port all efforts to promote health through safe water supplies and to recognize
reasonable standards of quality for water furnished by public water supply
systems; and,
WHEREAS, it is the hope of the American Water Works Association that its
acceptance of the 1962 Drinking Water Standards will establish these standards
as minimum criteria of quality for all public water supplies in the United
States; now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Officers and Directors of the American Water Works Associa-
tion, that the 1962 Drinking Water Standards of the U.S. Public Health Service
be accepted as minimum standards for all public water supplies.
-------
ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPORT
Domestic water supplies should protect the health and promote the well-being
of individuals and the community. In this report on the revision of the 1946
edition of the Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards, the objective
of the Committee is to recommend minimum requirements for reaching this
goal.
The Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards were first adopted in
1914 to protect the health of the traveling public. The general and widespread
use of these Standards since that time has led to a series of revisions which
have been applicable to water supplies generally. The development of atomic
energy and other technological advances requires that these Standards again
be revised. To carry out this revision, the Chief Sanitary Engineer of the Public
Health Service appointed the Advisory Committee. A Technical Subcommittee
of Public Health Service Officers and a Toxicological Task Force were estab-
lished to collect information and prepare suggestions for the consideration of
the Advisory Committee.
In preparing this report on the revision of the Standards, the Committee
established the following guidelines:
1. The proposed standards should be discussed widely and due cognizance
should be given to International and other standards of water quality before
a final report is submitted.
2. A new section on radioactivity should be added.
3. Greater attention should be given to the chemical substances being encoun-
tered increasingly in both variety and quantity in water sources.
4. In establishing limits for toxic substances, intake from food and air should
be considered.
5. The rationale employed in determining the various limits should be included
in an appendix.
6. The proposed format, with the exceptions noted above, should not differ
greatly from the present Standards.
7. The Standards should be generally acceptable and should be applicable to
all public water supplies in the United States, as well as those supplies used by
carriers subject to the Public Health Service regulations.
8. The following two types of limits used in previous editions should be
continued:
(a) Limits which, if exceeded, shall be grounds for rejection of the sup-
ply. Substances in this category may have adverse effects on health when
present in concentrations above the limit.
(B) Limits which should not be exceeded whenever more suitable supplies
are, or can be made, available at reasonable cost. Substances in this cate-
gory, when present in concentrations above the limit, are either objection-
able to an appreciable number of people or exceed the levels required by
good water quality control practices.
9. These limits should apply to the water at the free-flowing outlet of the
ultimate consumer.
This revision of the Drinking Water Standards includes, for the first time,
limiting concentrations of radioactivity in water. The effects on large popula-
-------
VI
tion groups of chronic exposure to low levels of radioactivity are not yet well
defined. The limits presented herein are an effort to derive conservative values
from the best information now available and may be adjusted upward or down-
ward as new and better data become available.
The Committee has taken cognizance of the growing problem of potentially
harmful chemicals in sources of drinking water. Limits for several new chemi-
cals have been added, including a gross limit for the concentration of some types
of synthetic chemicals. It was not feasible, however, to include limits for all
the many chemicals that have varying degrees of toxic potential. Consideration
was given to the more common chlorinated hydrocarbon and organophosphate
Insecticides but the information available was not sufficient to establish specific
limits for these chemicals. Moreover, the concentrations of these chemicals,
where tested, have been below those which would constitute a known health
hazard. The Committee believes that pollution of water supplies with such
contaminants can become significant and urges that the problem be kept under
closer surveillance. Further, the Committee recommends that regulatory
actions be taken to minimize concentrations of such chemicals in drinking water.
In view of the accelerating pace of new developments affecting water quality,
the Committee recommends that a mechanism be established for continual
appraisal and appropriate revision of the Standards. It also recommends that
the Public Health Service intensify its continuing studies toward the develop-
ment of basic information on the relationship of the biological, chemical, physical,
and radiological aspects of water quality to health.
The following pages contain the Drinking Water Standards recommended
by the Committee, the membership of which is listed in appendix F.
-------
CONTENTS
Pag.
Drinking water standards, 1962 1
Definition of terms 1
Adequate protection by natural means 1
Adequate protection by treatment 1
Certifying authority 1
Coliform group 1
Health hazard 2
Pollution 2
Reporting agency 2
Standard sample 2
Water supply system 2
Source and protection 2
Source and treatment 2
Sanitary survey 2
Water supply system approval 2
Responsibility 3
Bacteriological quality 3
Sampling 3
Frequency and location 3
Minimum number 3
Laboratories 3
Laboratory inspection 4
Special samples 5
Limits 5
Standard 10 ml portions 5
Standard 100 ml portions 5
Membrane filter 6
Physical characteristics 6
Sampling.. 6
Limits 6
Chemical characteristics 6
Sampling 6
Limits 7
Recommended 7
Grounds for rejection of supply 8
Fluorides 8
Radioactivity 8
Sampling 8
Limits 9
Mixtures of nuclides 9
vn
-------
VIII CONTENTS
Page
Recommended analytical methods 9
Standard methods 9
Barium 10
Carbon chloroform extract 10
Radioactivity 10
Selenium 10
Organisms of the coliform group 10
Appendix 11
A—Source and protection 11
B—Microbiology _. 11
C—Physical characteristics 21
D—Chemical characteristics 21
Alkyl benzene sulfonate 22
Arsenic 25
Barium 27
Cadmium 29
Carbon chloroform extract 31
Chloride, sulfate, and dissolved solids 32
Chromium 36
Copper 39
Cyanide 39
Fluoride 41
Iron 42
Lead 43
Manganese 46
Nitrate 47
Phenols 51
Selenium 52
Silver 52
Zinc 55
E—Radioactivity 56
F—Membership of Advisory Committee, Technical Subcommittee and
Task Force on Toxicology 60
-------
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE DRINKING WATER
STANDARDS—1962
Standards promulgated by the Public Health Service, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Effective April 5, 1962, for potable water
used by carriers subject to the Federal Quarantine Regulations
(Superseding Standards adopted Feb. 6, 1946)'
1. DEFINITION OF TEHM8
The terms used in these Standards are as follows:
1.1 Adequate protection by natural means involves one or more of
the following processes of nature that produces water consistently
meeting the requirements of these Standards: dilution, storage, sedi-
mentation, sunlight, aeration, and the associated physical and bio-
logical processes which tend to accomplish natural purification in
surface waters and, in the case of ground waters, the natural purifica-
tion of water by infiltration through soil and percolation through
underlying material and storage below the ground water table.
1.2 Adequate protection T)y treatment means any one or any com-
bination of the controlled processes of coagulation, sedimentation,
absorption, filtration, disinfection, or other processes which produce a
water consistently meeting the requirements of these Standards. This
protection also includes processes which are appropriate to the source
of supply; works which are of adequate capacity to meet maximum
demands without creating health hazards, and which are located,
designed, and constructed to eliminate or prevent pollution; and con-
scientious operation by well-trained and competent personnel whose
qualifications are commensurate with the responsibilities of the posi-
tion and acceptable to the Reporting Agency and the Certifying
Authority.
1.3 Certifying Authority means the Surgeon General of the U.S.
Public Health Service or his duly authorized representatives. Ref-
erence to the Certifying Authority is applicable only for those water
supplies to be certified for use on carriers subject to the Public Health
Service Regulations—(42 CFR Part 72).
1.4 The coliform group includes all organisms considered in the
coliform group as set forth in Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater, current edition, prepared and published
1 Public Health Reports 61: 371-384, March 15, 1946.
680104 O-63—2 1
-------
2 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
jointly by the American Public Health Association, American Water
Works Association, and Water Pollution Control Federation.
1.5 Health hazards mean any conditions, devices, or practices in
the water supply system and its operation which create, or may create,
a danger to the health and well-being of the water consumer. An
example of a health hazard is a structural defect in the water supply
system, whether of location, design, or construction, which may reg-
ularly or occasionally prevent ssitisfactory purification of the water
supply or cause it to be polluted from extraneous sources.
1.6 Pollution, as used in these Standards, means the presence of
any foreign substance (organic, inorganic, radiological, or biologi-
cal) in water which tends to degrade its quality so as to constitute a
hazard or impair the usefulness of the water.
1.7 Reporting Agencies means the respective official State health
agencies or their designated representatives.
1.8 The standard sample for the bacteriological test shall consist
of:
1.81 For the bacteriological fermentation tube test, five (5)
standard portions of either:
(a) ten milliliters (10ml)
(J) one hundred milliliters (100ml)
1.82 For the membrane filter technique, not less than fifty
milliliters (50 ml).
1.9 Water supply system includes the works and auxiliaries for
collection, treatment, storage, and distribution of the water from the
sources of supply to the free-flowing outlet of the ultimate consumer.
2. SOURCE AND PROTECTION
2.1 The water supply should be obtained from the most desirable
source which is feasable, and effort should be made to prevent or con-
trol pollution of the source. If the source is not adequately protected
by natural means, the supply shall be adequately protected by
treatment.
2.2 Frequent sanitary surveys shall be made of the water supply
system to locate and identify health hazards which might exist in
the system. The manner and frequency of making these surveys, and
the rate at which discovered health hazards are to be removed, shall be
in accordance with a program approved by the Reporting Agency and
the Certifying Authority.
2.3 Approval of water supplies shall be dependent in part upon:
(a) Enforcement of rules and regulations to prevent develop-
ment of health hazards;
(b) Adequate protection of the water quality throughout all
parts of the system, as demonstrated by frequent surveys;
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 3
(c) Proper operation of the water supply system under the
responsible charge of personnel -n'aose qualifications are accepta-
ble to the Reporting Agency and the Certifying Authority;
(d) Adequate capacity to meet peak demands without develop-
ment of low pressures or other health hazards; and
(e) Record of laboratory examinations showing consistent
compliance with the water quality requirements of these
Standards.
2.4 For the purpose of application of these Standards, responsi-
bility for the conditions in the water supply system shall be consid-
ered to be held by:
(a) The water purveyor from the source of supply to the con-
nection to the customer's service piping; and
(6) The owner of the property served and the municipal,
county, or other authority having legal jurisdiction from the
point of connection to the customer's service piping to the free-
flowing outlet of the ultimate consumer.
3. BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
3.1 Sampling.
3.11 Compliance with the bacteriological requirements of
these Standards shall be based on examinations of samples col-
lected at representative points throughout the distribution sys-
tem. The frequency of sampling and the location of sampling
points shall be established jointly by the Reporting Agency and
the Certifying Authority after investigation by either agency,
or both, of the source, method of treatment, and protection of the
water concerned.
3.12 The minimum number of samples to be collected from
the distribution system and examined each month should be in
accordance with the number on the graph in Figure I, for the
population served by the system. For the purpose of uniformity
and simplicity in application, the number determined from the
graph should be in accordance with the following: for a popula-
tion of 25,000 and under—to the nearest 1; 25,001 to 100,000—
to the nearest 5; and over 100,000—to the nearest 10.
3.13 In determining the number of samples examined
monthly, the following samples may be included, provided all
results are assembled and available for inspection and the labora-
tory methods and technical competence of the laboratory person-
nel are approved by the Reporting Agency and the Certifying
Authority:
(a) Samples examined by the Reporting Agency.
(6) Samples examined by local government laboratories.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
1,000
MINIMUM NUMBER OF SAMPLES PER MONTH
g
8
10,000
° 100,000
0.
o
0.
1,000,000
10,000,000
\
Figure 1
(G) Samples examined by the water works authority.
(d) Samples examined by commercial laboratories.
3.14 The laboratories in which these examinations are made
and the methods used in making them shall be subject to inspec-
tion at any time by the designated representatives of the Certify-
ing Authority and the Reporting Agency. Compliance with the
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 5
specified procedures and the results obtained shall be used as a
basis for certification of the supply.
3.15 Daily samples collected following a bacteriologically un-
satisfactory sample as provided in sections 3.21, 3.22, and 3.23
shall be considered as special samples and shall not be included
in the total number of samples examined. Neither shall such
special samples be used as a basis for prohibiting the supply, pro-
vided that: (1) When waters of unknown quality are being
examined, simultaneous tests are made on multiple portions of a
geometric series to determine a definitive coliform content; (2)
Immediate and active efforts are made to locate the cause of pol-
lution; (3) Immediate action is taken to eliminate the cause; and
(4) Samples taken following such remedial action are satisfactory.
3.2 Limits.—The presence of organisms of the coliform group as
indicated by samples examined shall not exceed the following limits:
3.21 When 10 ml standard portions ai'e examined, not more
than 10 percent in any month shall show the presence of the coli-
form group. The presence of the coliform group in three or more
10 ml portions of a standard sample shall not be allowable if
this occurs:
(a) In two consecutive samples;
(b) In more than one sample per month when less than
20 are examined per month; or
(c) In more than 5 percent of the samples when 20 or
more are examined per month.
When organisms of the coliform group occur in 3 or more of the
10 ml portions of a single standard sample, daily samples from the
same sampling point shall be collected promptly and examined
until the results obtained from at least two consecutive samples
show the water to be of satisfactory quality.
3.22 When 100 ml standard portions are examined, not more
than 60 percent in any month shall show the presence of the coli-
form group. The presence of the coliform group in all five of the
100 ml portions of a standard sample shall not be allowable if this
occurs:
(a) In two consecutive samples;
(b) In more than one sample per month when less than
five are examined per month; or
(c) In more than 20 percent of the samples when five or
more are examined per month.
When organisms of the coliform group occur in all five of the
100 ml portions of a single standard sample, daily samples from
the same sampling point shall be collected promptly and examined
-------
6 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1062
until the results obtained from at least two consecutive samples
show the water to be of satisfactory quality.
3.23 When the membrane filter technique is used, the arith-
metic mean coliform density of all standard samples examined
per month shall not exceed one per 100 ml. Coliform colonies per
standard sample shall not exceed 3/50 ml, 4/100 ml, 7/200 ml, or
13/500 ml in:
(a) Two consecutive samples;
(&) More than one standard sample when less than 20 are
examined per month; or
(c) More than five percent of the standard samples when
20 or more are examined per month.
When coliform colonies in a single standard sample exceed the
above values, daily samples from the same sampling point shall
be collected promptly and examined until the results obtained
from at least two consecutive samples show the water to be of
satisfactory quality.
4. PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
4.1 Sampling.—The frequency and manner of sampling shall be
determined by the Reporting Agency and the Certifying Authority.
Under normal circumstances samples should be collected one or more
times per week from representative points in the distribution system
and examined for turbidity, color, threshold odor, and taste.
4.2 Limits.—Drinking water should contain no impurity which
would cause offense to the sense of sight, taste, or smell. Under gen-
eral use, the following limits should not be exceeded:
Turbidity 5 units
Color 15 units
Threshold Odor Number 3
B. CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 Sampling.
5.11 The frequency and manner of sampling shall be deter-
mined by the Eeporting Agency and the Certifying Authority.
Under normal circumstances, analyses for substances listed below
need be made only semiannually. If, however, there is some pre-
sumption of unfitness because of the presence of undesirable ele-
ments, compounds, or materials, periodic determinations for the
suspected toxicant or material, should be made more frequently
and an exhaustive sanitary survey should be made to determine
the source of the pollution. Where the concentration of a sub-
stance is not expected to increase in processing and distribution,
available and acceptable source water analyses performed hi ac-
cordance with standard methods may be used as evidence of
compliance with these Standards.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 7
5.12 Where experience, examination, and available evidence
indicate that particular substances are consistently absent from
a water supply or below levels of concern, semiannual examina-
tions for those substances may be omitted when approved by the
Keporting Agency and the Certifying Authority.
5.13 The burden of analysis may be reduced in many cases by
> using data from acceptable sources. Judgment concerning the
quality of water supply and the need for performing specific local
analyses may depend in part on information produced by such
agencies as: (1) The U.S. Geological Survey, which determines
chemical quality of surface and ground waters of the United
States and publishes these data in "Water Supply Papers" and
other reports, and (2) The U.S. Public Health Service which de-
termines water quality related to pollution (or the absence of pol-
lution) in the principal rivers of the Nation and publishes these
data annually in "National Water Quality Network." Data on
pollution of waters as measured by carbon chloroform extracts
(CCE) may be found in the latter publication.
5.2 Limits.—Drinking water shall not contain impurities in con-
centrations which may be hazardous to the health of the consumers.
It should not be excessively corrosive to the water supply system.
Substances used in its treatment shall not remain in the water in con-
centrations greater than required by good practice. Substances which
may have deleterious physiological effect, or for which physiological
effects are not known, shall not be introduced into the system in a
manner which would permit them to reach the consumer.
5.21 The following chemical substances should not be present
in a water supply in excess of the listed concentrations where, in
the judgment of the Reporting Agency and the Certifying Au-
thority, other more suitable supplies are or can be made available.
Concentration
Substance {n mg/1
Alkyl Benzene Sulfonate (ABS) 0.5
Arsenic (As) 0. 01
Chloride (CD 250.
Copper (Cu) 1.
Carbon Chloroform Extract (CCE) 0.2
Cyanide (CN) 0.01
Fluoride (F) (See 5. 23)
Iron (Fe) 0. 3
Manganese (Mn) 0. 05
Nitrate ' (No3) 45.
Phenols 0. 001
Sulfate (SOi) 250.
Total Dissolved Solids 500.
Zinc (Zn) 5.
1 In areas in which the nitrate content of water Is known to be in excess of the listed
concentration, the public should be warned of the potential dangers of using the water
for Infant feeding.
-------
8
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
5.22 The presence of the following substances in excess of the
concentrations listed shall constitute grounds for rejection of the
supply:
Concentration
Substance in mg/1
Arsenic (As) 0.05
Barium (Ba) 1. 0
Cadmium (Cd) 0.01
Chromium (Hexavalent) (Cr+e) 0.05
Cyanide (CN) 0.2
Fluoride (F) (See 5.23)
Lead (Pb) 0.05
Selenium (Se) 0.01
Silver (Ag) 0.05
5.23 Fluoride,—When fluoride is naturally present in drink-
ing water, the concentration should not average more than the ap-
propriate upper limit in Table I. Presence of fluoride in average
concentrations greater than two times the optimum values in Table
I shall constitute grounds for rejection of the supply.
Where fluoridation (supplementation of fluoride in drinking
water) is practiced, the average fluoride concentration shall be
kept within the upper and lower control limits in Table I.
TABLE 1.
Annual average of maximum daily air temperatures *
50.0-53 7 — - .
53.8-58.3
58.4-63.8 ...
639-706 - -
70.7-79.2
79 3-90 5
Recommended control limits —
Fluoride concentrations in mg/1
Lower
0.9
0.8
0.8
0 7
0.7
0.6
Optimum
1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
Upper
1.7
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.8
i Based on temperature data obtained for a minimum of five years.
In addition to the sampling required by paragraph 5.1 above,
fluoridated and defluoridated supplies shall be sampled with suffi-
cient frequency to determine that the desired fluoride concentra-
tion is maintained.
6. RADIOACTIVITY
6.1 Sampling.
6.11 The frequency of sampling and analysis for radioactivity
shall be determined by the Reporting Agency and the Certify-
ing Authority after consideration of the likelihood of significant
amounts being present. Where concentrations of Ka226 or Sr90
may vary considerably, quarterly samples composited over a pe-
riod of three months are recommended. Samples for determina-
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 9
tion of gross activity should be taken and analyzed more
frequently.
6.12 As indicated in paragraph 5.1, data from acceptable
sources may be used to indicate compliance with these require-
ments.
6.2 Limits.
6.21 The effects of human radiation exposure are viewed as
harmful and any unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation
should be avoided. Approval of water supplies containing
radioactive materials shall be based upon the judgment that the
radioactivity intake from such water supplies when added to that
from all other sources is not likely taresult in an intake greater
than the radiation protection guidance2 recommended by the
Federal Kadiation Council and approved by the President.
Water supplies shall be approved without further consideration
of other sources of radioactivity intake of Radium-226 and
Strontium-90 when the water contains these substances in amounts
not exceeding 3 and 10 jujuc/liter, respectively. When these con-
centrations are exceeded, a water supply shall be approved by
the certifying authority if surveillance of total intakes of radio-
activity from all sources indicates that such intakes are within
the limits recommended by the Federal Kadiation Council for
control action.
6.22 In the known absence3 of Strontium-90 and alpha emit-
ters, the water supply is acceptable when the gross beta concen-
trations do not exceed 1,000 jw^c/liter. Gross beta concentrations
in excess of 1,000 /i/xc/liter shall be grounds for rejection of supply
except when more complete analyses indicates that concentrations
of nuclides are not likely to cause exposures greater than the
Radiation Protection Guides as approved by the President on
recommendation of the Federal Eadiation Council.
7. RECOMMENDED ANALYTICAL METHODS
7.1 Analytical methods to determine compliance with the require-
ments of these Standards shall be those specified in Standard Methods
for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Am. Pub. Health
Assoc., current edition and those specified as follows.
'The Federal Radiation Council, In Its Memorandum for the President, Sept. 13, 1961,
recommended that "Routine control of useful applications of radiation and atomic energy
should be such that expected average exposures of suitable samples of an exposed popu-
lation group will not exceed the upper value of Range II (20 0/ic/day of Radium-226 and
200 /t^c/day of Strontlum-90),."
• Absence Is taken here to mean a negligibly small fraction of the above specific limits,
where the limit for unidentified alpha emitters Is taken as the listed limit for Radium-226.
680104 O-63—3
-------
10 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
7.2 Barium—Methods for the Collection and Analysis of Water
Samples, Water Supply Paper No. 1454, Rainwater, F. H. and
Thatcher, L. L., U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
7.3 Carbon Chloroform Extract (CCE)—Manual for Recovery
and Identification of Organic Chemicals in Water, Middleton, F. M.,
Rosen, A. A., and Burttschell, R. H., Robert A. Taft Sanitary En-
gineering Center, Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio, Tentative
Method for Carbon Chloroform Extract (CCE) in Water, J. Am.
Water Works A. 54: 223-227, Feb. 1962.
7.4 Radioactivity—Laboratory Manual of Methodology, Radio-
nuclide Analysis of Environmental Samples, Technical Report R59-6,
Robert A, Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, Public Health Service,
Cincinnati, Ohio; and Mefiods of Radiochemical Analysis Technical
Report No. 173, Report of the Joint WHO-FAO Committee, 1959,
World Health Organization.
7.5 Selenium—Suggested Modified Method for Colorimetric De-
termination of Selenium in Natural Water, Magin, G. B., Thatcher,
L. L. Rettig, S., and Levine, H., J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 52,1199
(1960).
7.6 Organisms of the coliform group—All of the details of tech-
niques in the determination of bacteria of this group, including the
selection and preparation of apparatus and media, the collection and
handling of samples and the intervals and conditions of storage allow-
able between collection and examination of the water sample, shall be
in accordance with Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, current edition, and the procedures shall be those
specified therein for:
7.61 The Membrane Filter Technique, Standard Test, or
7.62 The Completed Test, or
7.63 The Confirmed Test, procedure with brilliant green lac-
tose bile broth,4 or
7.64 The Confirmed Test, procedure with Endo or eosin
methylene blue agar plates.4
* The Confirmed Test Is allowed, provided the value of this test to determine the sani-
tary quality of the specific water supply being examined Is established beyond reasonable
doubt by compariRons with Completed Tests performed on the same water supply.
-------
APPENDIX
BACKGROUND USED IN DEVELOPING THE 1962
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
The Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards of 1962 have
been predicated upon the best and latest information available at the
time 'of their promulgation. The concepts and rationale included in
this Appendix were used in making this revision and should enable
those whose responsibility it is to interpret, apply, or enforce the
Standards to do so with understanding, judgment, and discretion.
A—Source and Protection
B—Microbiology
C—Physical Characteristics
D—Chemical Characteristics
E—Radioactivity
F—Membership of Advisory Committee.
Technical Subcommittee, and Task Force
on Toxicology
A—SOURCE AND PROTECTION OF SUPPLY
Mounting pollution problems indicate the need for increased atten-
tion to the quality of source waters. Abatement and control of pollu-
tion of sources will significantly aid in producing drinking water
which will be in full compliance with the provisions of these Stand-
ards and will be esthetically acceptable to the consumer.
Production of water supplies which poses no threat to the con-
sumer's health depends upon continuous protection. Because of hu-
man frailties associated with this protection, priority should be given
to selection of the purest source. Polluted sources should be used only
when other sources are economically unavailable and then only when
the provision of personnel, equipment, and operating procedures can
be depended upon to purify and otherwise protect the drinking water
supply continuously.
Well waters obtained from aquifers beneath impervious strata, and
not connected with fragmented or cavernous rock, are usually con-
sidered sufficiently protected to preclude need for purification. How-
11
-------
12 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
ever, ground waters are becoming polluted with increasing frequency
and the resulting hazards require special surveillance. An illustra-
tion of such pollution is the presence of chemical pollutants origi-
nating either from sewage or industrial effluents. Surveillance of the
safety of these water supplies should include chemical, physical,
radiological, and biological examination.
Surface waters are subjected to increasing pollution and although
some surface waters may be sufficiently protected to warrant their use
as a supply without coagulation and nitration, they are becoming rare.
Surface waters should never be used without being disinfected. Be-
cause of the increasing hazards of pollution, the use of surface waters
without coagulation and nitration must be accompanied by intensive
surveillance of the quality of the raw water and the disinfected supply
in order to assure constant protection. This surveillance should in-
clude sanitary survey of the source and water handling, as well as
biological, radiological, physical, and chemical examination of the
supply.
The degree of treatment should be determined by the health hazards
involved and the quality of the raw water. During times of unavoid-
able and excessive pollution of a source already in use, it may become
necessary to provide extraordinary treatment (e.g., exceptionally
strong disinfection,1 improved coagulation, or special operation). If
the pollution cannot be removed satisfactorily by treatment, use of
the source should be discontinued until the pollution has been reduced
or eliminated. When used, the source should be under continuous
surveillance to assure adequacy of treatment in meeting the hazards
of changing pollution conditions.
The adequacy of treatment should be judged, in part, upon a record
of the quality of water produced by the treatment plant and the re-
lation of this quality to the requirements of these Standards. Evalu-
ation of adequacy of protection by treatment should also include fre-
quent inspection of treatment works and their operation. Conscien-
tious operation by well-trained, skillful, and competent operators is an
essential part of protection by treatment. Operator competency is
encouraged by a formal program leading to operator certification or
licensing.
Delivery of a safe water supply depends upon the protection of the
water in the distribution system as well as protection of the source and
by treatment. Minimum protection in the distribution system should
include programs which result in the provision of sufficient and safe
materials and equipment to treat and distribute the water; disinfection
1 See reference to relationship of chlorine residual and contact time required to kill
viruses. In section on Microbiology.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 13
of water mains, storage facilities, and other equipment after each in-
stallation, repair, or other modification which may have subjected
them to possible contamination; prevention of health hazards, such as
cross-connections or loss of pressure because of overdraft in excess of
the system's capacity; and routine analysis of water samples and fre-
quent survey of the water supply system to evaluate the adequacy of
protection. The fact that the minimum number of samples are taken
and analyzed and found to comply with specific quality requirements
of these Standards, is not sufficient evidence that protection has been
adequate. The protection procedures and physical facilities must be
reviewed along with the results of water quality analyses to evaluate
the adequacy of the supply's protection. Knowledge of physical de-
fects or of the existence of other health hazards in the water supply
system is evidence of a deficiency in protection of the water supply.
Even though water quality analyses have indicated that the quality
requirements have been met, the deficiencies must be corrected before
the supply can be considered safe.
B—MICROBIOLOGY
BACTERIOLOGICAL QUALITY
The bacteriological requirements for drinking water as specified by
the 1946 Drinking Water Standards have been discussed ex-
tensively (I).1
Coliform Group
Of the two bacteriological examinations—(a) agar plate count for
24 hours at 35° C, and (b) quantitative estimation of the coliform
group which have come to be recognized generally—the test for organ-
isms of the coliform group is almost universally conceded to be the
most significant. The plate count at 35° C or (20° C) incubation
temperature is not required in the definition of a safe standard for
potable waters but is useful as a routine quality control test in the
various water treatment procedures and as a method for estimating
the sanitary conditions of basins, filters, etc.
It does not seem advisable to repeat extensive discussions (1, #, 3) of
the principles involved in the quantitative interpretation of fermenta-
tion tests according to the "most probable number" concept in multiple
portions of equal volume and in portions constituting a geometric
series.
Discussions of the principles involved in the quantitative interpreta-
tion of membrane filter procedure results and as compared to the "most
probable number" concept are available in the literature (4,5,6).
1 Footnotes cited will be found at end of Microbiology Section.
-------
14 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
COLIFORM GROUP AND FECAL COLIFORM ORGANISMS
AS INDICATORS OF POLLUTION IN DRINKING WATER 2
The coliform group, as specified in U.S. Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards (I)3 is defined in Standard Methods (%) :
"The coliform group includes all of the aerobic and facultative an-
erobic, Gramnegative, nonspore-forming, rod-shaped bacilli which
ferment lactose with gas formation within 48 hours at 35° C."
The coliform group includes organisms that differ in biochemical
and serologic characteristics and in their natural sources and habitats.
Escherichia coli is characteristically an inhabitant of human and
animal intestines (3-6). Aerobacter aerogenes and Aerobacter cloacae
are frequently found on various types of vegetation (7-9) and in
materials used in joints and valves of pumps and in pipelines (10-11).
The intermediate-aerogenes-cloacae (I.A.C.) subgroups may be found
in fecal discharges but usually in smaller numbers than Esch. coli.
Aer. aerogenes and intermediate types of organisms are commonly
present in soil (12-14) and in waters polluted sometime in the past.
Another subgroup comprises plant pathogens (15) and other or-
ganisms of indefinite taxonomy about whose habitat information is
limited. All the subgroups may be found in sewage and in polluted
waters. Esch. coli is therefore frequently referred to as "fecal coli";
the I.A.C. group as "nonfecal". It must be remembered, however,
that these terms are only relative.
Survival Times
Available information indicates that organisms of the I.A.C. group
tend to survive longer in water than do fecal coliform organisms
(16-18). The I.A.C, group also tends to be somewhat more resist-
ant to chlorination than Esch. coli or the commonly occurring bac-
terial intestinal pathogens (19-22). Because of these and other
reasons, the relative survival times of the coliform subgroups may
be useful in distinguishing recent from less recent pollution. In
waters recently contaminated with sewage, it is expected that fecal
coliform organisms will be present in numbers greater than those of
the I.A.C. subgroup. But in waters that have been contaminated for
a considerable length of time or have been insufficiently chlorinated,
organisms of the I.A.C. subgroup may be more numerous than fecal
coliform organisms.
2 This article, authored by Paul W. Kabler and Harold F. Clark, was published In
J. Am, Water Works A. and is reprinted as a part of this appendix by permission of
the AWWA.
3 References cited In this article will be found at the end of the article.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 15
Differentiation of Organisms
Because various members of the coliform group normally grow in
diverse natural habitats, attempts have been made to differentiate the
population in polluted waters according to their original sources. In
his pioneer work, MacConkey (23, 24) defined the aerogenes group
in terms of certain fermentation characteristics, ability to produce
indole, and reaction in the Voges-Proskauer test. Rogers, Clark,
and Davis, (25) Clark and Lubs, (26) Koser, (27) and others con-
tributed to the development of techniques and laboratory data that
differentiated the coliform group on the basis of indole production,
methyl red and Voges-Proskauer reactions, and citrate utilization
(IMViC tests) into the Esch. coti, aerogenes, intermediate, and irreg-
ular subgroups. Hajna and Perry (28) and Vaughn, Levine, and
Smith (29) further developed the Eijkman (30) test to distinguish
organisms of fecal origin from those of nonfecal origin by increased
temperature incubation. Clark and associates (31, 32) have reported
additional data indicating the usefulness of such tests in sanitary
investigations.
Sanitary Significance
Information on the sanitary significance of the various types of
coliform organisms is incomplete. In relation to untreated waters,
however, the present position may be thus stated:
Fecal coliform organisms (Esch. coli) may be considered indicators
of recent fecal pollution. No satisfactory method is currently avail-
able for differentiating fecal coliform organisms of human and animal
origin. Therefore, it is necessary to consider all fecal coliform organ-
isms as indicative of dangerous contamination.
In the absence of fecal coliform organisms, the presence of I.A.C.
group organisms in untreated waters may be the result of relatively
less recent fecal pollution, soil runoff water, or infrequently, fecal
pollution containing only the I.A.C. group.
In general terms, the presence of fecal coliform organisms indicates
recent and possibly dangerous pollution. The presence of I.A.C.
organisms suggests less recent pollution or reveals the existence of
defects in water treatment or distribution.
Summary
The presence of any type of coliform organism in treated drinking
water suggests either inadequate treatment or access of undesirable
materials to the water after treatment. Although there are some
differences between strain and subgroup organisms with regard to
survival under natural conditions and resistance to chlorination, in
-------
16 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
general all the colif orm organisms exhibit survival and resistance pat-
terns in the same order of magnitude. The presence of coliform or-
ganisms (as denned earlier) in treated water calls for definitive action
for their elimination.
Insofar as bacterial pathogens are concerned, the coliform group is
considered a reliable indicator of the adequacy of treatment. As an
indicator of pollution in drinking water supply systems, and indi-
rectly as an indication of protection provided, the coliform group is
preferred to fecal coliform organisms (Esch. coli). Whether these
considerations can be extended to include rickettsial and viral organ-
isms has not been definitely determined.
REFERENCES
1. Drinking Water Standards—1946. Jour. AWWA. 38: 361 (March 1946)
Pub. Health Repts., 61: 371 (1946).
2. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater. APHA,
AWWA, and WPCF, New York llth ed., 1960).
3. Escherich, T. Intestinal Bacteria in Newborn and Suckling Children.
Fortschr. Med. (Ger.),3: 515,547 (1885).
4. Rogers, L. A., Clark, W. M., and Evans, A. C. The Characteristics of Bac-
teria of the Colon Type Found in Bovine Feces. J. Infectious Diseases,
15: 99 (1915).
5. Parr, L. AV. The Occurrence and Succession of Coliform Organisms in Hu-
man Feces. Am. J. Hyg., 27: 67 (1938).
6. Foote, H. B. The Possible Effects of Wild Animals on the Bacterial Pollu-
tion of Water. Jour. AWWA, 29: 72 (January 1937).
7. Rogers, L. A., Clark, W. M., and Evans, A. C. The Characteristics of Bac-
teria of the Colon Type Occurring on Grains, J. Infectious Diseases, 17: 137
(1915).
8. Thomas, S. B., and McQuillin, J. Coli-aerogenes Bacteria Isolated From
Grass. J. Appl. Bacteriol., 15 : 41 (1952).
9. Thomas, S. B., and Hobson, P. M. Coli-aerogenes Bacteria Isolated From
Ears and Panicles of Cereal Crops. J. Appl. Bacteriol., 18: 1 (1955).
10. Caldwell, E. L.., and Parr, L. W. Pump Infection Under Normal Conditions
in Controlled Experimental Fields. Jour. AWWA, 25: 1107 (August
1933).
11. Rapp, W. M., and Weir, P. Cotton Caulking Tarn. Jour. AWWA, 26: 743
(June 1934).
12. Chen, C. C., and Retger, L. F. A Correlation Study of the Colon-aerogenes
Group of Bacteria, With Special Reference to the Organisms Occurring in
the Soil. J. Bacteriol., 5: 253 (1920).
13. Bardsley, D. A. The Distribution and Sanitary Significance of E. coli, B.
lactis Aerogenes, and Intermediate Types of Coliform Bacilli in Water,
Soil, Feces, and Ice Cream. J. Hyg., 34: 38 (1934).
14. Frank, N., and Skinner, C. E. Coli-aerogenes Bacteria in Soil. J. Bacteriol.
42: 143 (1941).
15. Elrod, R. P. The Erwinia-Coliform Relationship. J. Bacteriol., 44: 433
(1942).
16. Parr, L. W. Viability of Coli-aerogenes Organisms in Cultures and in Vari-
ous Environments. J. Infectious Diseases, 60: 291 (1937).
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 17
17. Platt, A. B. The Viability of Bact. coli and Bact. aerogenes in Water: A
Method for the Eapid Enumeration of These Organisms. J. Hyg., 35: 437
(1935).
18. Taylor, C. B. The Ecology and Significance of the Different Types of Coli-
form Bacteria Found in Water. J. Hyg., 42: 23 (1942).
19. Tonney, F. O., Greer, F. E., and Danforth, T. F. The Minimal "Chlorine
Death Point" of Bacteria. Am. J. Public Health, 18: 1259 (1928).
20. Heathman, L. S., Pierce, G. O., and Kabler, P. W. Resistance of Various
Strains of E. typhi and Coli-aerogenes to Chlorine and Chloramine. Pub.
Health Kepts., 51: 1367 (1936).
21. Betterfleld, C. T., et al. Influence of pH and Temperature on the Survival
of Coliforms and Enteric Pathogens When Exposed to Free Chlorine.
Pub. Health Repts., 58: 1837 (1943).
22. Kabler, P. W. Relative Resistance of Coliform Organisms and Enteric
Pathogens in the Disinfection of Water With Chlorine. Jour. AWWW, 43:
553 (July 1951).
23. MacConkey, A. Lactose-Fermenting Bacteria in Feces. J. Hyg., 5: 333
(1905).
24. MacConkey, A. Further Observations on the Differentiation of Lactose-
Fermenting Bacteria, With Special Reference to Those of Intestinal
Origin. 3. Hyg., 9: 86 (1909).
25. Rogers, L. A., Clark, W. M., and Davis, B. J. The Colon Group of Bacteria.
J. Infectious Diseases, 14: 411 (1914).
26. Clark, W. M., and Lubs, W. A. The Differentiation of Bacteria of the Colon-
Aerogenes Family by the Use of Indicators. J. Infectious Diseases, 17:
160 (1915).
27. Koser, S. A. Differential Tests for Colon-Aerogenes Group in Relation to
Sanitary Quality of Water. J. Infectious Diseases, 35: 14 (1924).
28. Hajna, A. A., and Perry, C. A. A Comparison of the Eijkman Test With
Other Tests for Determining E. coli. J. Bacteriol., 30: 479 (1935).
29. Vaughn, R. H., Levine, M., and Smith, H. A. A Buffered Boric Acid Lactose
Medium for Enrichment and Presumptive Identification of Escherichia
coli. Food Research, 16: 10 (1951).
30. Eijkman, C. Fermentation Analysis at 46° C as an Aid in Drinking Water
Examination. Zentr. Bakteriol. Parasitenk. (Ger.), 37: 742 (1904).
31. Clark, H. F., et al. The Coliform Group. I. The Boric Acid Lactose Broth
reaction of Coliform IMViC Types. Appl. Microbiol., 5: 396 (1957).
32. Geldreich, E. E., et al. The Coliform Gorup. II. Reactions in EC Medium
at 45° C. Appl. Microbiol., 6: 347 (1958).
Fecal Streptococci as Indicators of Pollution
Fecal streptococci appear to be characteristic of fecal pollution,
being consistently present in both the feces of all warm-blooded
animals and in the environment associated with animal discharges
(7,8, 9). They do not multiply in streams or surface waters to yield
overgrowths as sometime occur with the coliform group. So far as is
currently known, they are rare in soil or on vegetation not subject to
continued fecal pollution (10). Therefore, the presence of fecal
streptococci in a water indicates fecal pollution with the density equal
to those originally present or reduced by natural purification processes.
680104 O-63—4
-------
18 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
By careful analysis of the streptococcal species present (11,1%, 13),
the source of the fecal pollution can be estimated. For example: pre-
dominating strains of Streptococcus fecalis indicate human fecal pollu-
tion ; S. bovis and S. acidominimus predominate in bovine excrement
but are rarely present in human feces (about 0.4 percent of Strepto-
coccus density); while in porcine excretal material, the species are
about one-third S. fecalis (atypical types), one-third S. bovis and one-
fourth S. acidominimus. Thus, it may be possible to separate human
from other animal pollution and further studies of various animal
excrement may permit further interpretations.
Improved methods and media are urgently needed for the analysis of
streptococcal group. Investigations on the distribution of the various
species of streptococci in nature should be diligently pursued. Azide
Dextrose—EVA—(14,15,16,17) multiple-tube procedure yields good
results with the streptococci species present in humans but is relatively
inefficient for the analysis of fecal streptococci present in other
animals. The Slanetz MF (18) procedure yields a few more species.
The KF streptococcus (19) medium and biochemical test procedures
appear to offer promise of a more complete enumeration of fecal
streptococci.
The streptococcus group in potable waters which are not chlorinated
or which are in surface waters to be treated, appears to have certain
advantages as indicator organisms in the interpretation of the type
of pollution present. However, they do not appear to have any
advantage over the coliform group in the examination of adequately
chlorinated potable water.
Enteric Viruses in Water
Enteric viruses (infectious hepatitis (SO), poliomyelitis, Coxsackie,
and ECHO) should be considered as waterborne infectious agents.
Epidemiological evidence indicates that treated water from a public
supply is not a frequent carrier of such organisms. Clarke and
Chang (21) have recently reviewed both the published reports on out-
breaks of infectious hepatitis and poliomyelitis and laboratory evi-
dence on the resistance of various enteric viruses.
An estimated 20,000 to 40,000 cases of infectious hepatitis were
reported in Delhi, India (1955-56) (22), attributable to treated
municipal water supply. The outbreak was not accompanied by
noticeable increase of typhoid fever and other intestinal diseases.
This indicates that, in practice, the virus of infectious hepatitis is
more resistant to chlorine (chloramine) than are vegatative bacteria.
On the strength of epidemiological evidence, poliomyelitis outbreak
in Edmonton, Canada (23) was attributed to the drinking (treated)
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1982 19
water supply. Kelly and Sanderson showed (1958) (84) that inacti-
vation of enteric viruses (Polio virus I:MK 500 and Mahoney and
Coxsackie B5) in water at pH 7, and 25° C requires a minimum free
residual chlorine of 0.3 mg/1 for at least 30 minutes. At higher pH
levels or lower temperatures, either more chlorine or longer contact
time is required. The same authors (1960) (25) showed that for
the same viruses in water at 25° C and a pH of 7, a concentration of
at least 9 mg/1 combined residual chlorine is necessary to inactivate
with a contact period of 30 minutes; of 6 mg/1 with a 1-hour contact
time; 0.5 mg/1 with a contact period of more than 7 hours.
Sabin found 106 TcD50 of polio virus per gram of feces in human
stools. Neefe et al. estimated there were 104 to 105 infectious doses of
infectious hepatitis virus per gram of feces from human cases. Other
estimations of viral content in feces have been in the same order of
magnitude or less. Human feces normally contain 10s to 1010 coliform
bacteria per gram. An estimated mean value is 108 coliforms per
gram. Because nearly all feces contain coliform organisms and only
a relatively small portion (2 to 20 percent) contribute pathogenic
virus (26, £7, 88), domestic sewage normally contains approximately
10,000 times as many coliforms as virus. Virus populations in sewage
and polluted waters are subject to die-aways due to aging, adsorption,
and sedimentation, dilution, and various undetermined causes. It
is likely, therefore, that the virus content of polluted surface waters,
wells, etc., is quite low when judged on the basis of the coliform-
virus ratio. This relatively low virus content may account for the
apparent paucity of virus infections attributed to such sources. The
possibility of waterborne epidemics remains, and the efficacy of vari-
ous water treatment processes including high free chlorine dosages
and increased contact times should be further investigated.
Virology techniques have not yet been developed to a point where
virus enumerations can be recommended as a routine procedure in
microbiological examination of drinking water. Development of
methodologies to permit such examination is currently under investi-
gation but may require extended periods of study before perfection.
The objectives of a research program under which several labora-
tories could cooperate should include the accumulation of sufficient
data and the development of methodologies on which to base standards.
In the interim, control laboratories having access to facilities for virus
isolation and identification should be encouraged to utilize the best
available procedures for evaluating the occurrence of enteroviruses
in treated waters.
-------
20 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. U.S. Public Health Service. Manual of recommended water-sanitation
practice. Public Health Service Pub. No. 525, Washington, D.O., U.S.
Government Printing Office. 1948.
2. Anon. Report of the advisory committee on official water standards, ap-
pendix III. Coli densities as determined from various types of samples.
Pub. Health Rep. 40: 704-716 (1925).
3. Woodward, R. L. How probable is the most probable number? J. Am.
Water Works A. 49:1060-1068, August 1957.
4. Geldreich, E. E., Kabler, P. W., Jeter, H. L., and Clark, H. F. A delayed
incubation membrane filter test for coliform bacteria in water. Am. J.
Pub. Health 45:1463-1474, November 1955.
5. Thomas, H. A., Jr., Woodward, R. L., and Kabler, P. W. Use of molecular
filter membrane for water potability control. J. Am. Water Works A. 48:
1391-1402, November 1956.
6. Clark, H. F., Kabler, P. W., and Geldreich; E. E. Advantages and limita-
tions of the membrane filter procedure. Water and Sewage Works 104:
385-387, September 1957.
7. Sherman, J. M. The streptococci. Bact. Rev. 1: 3-97, December 1937.
8. Hajna, A. A., and Perry, C. A. Comparative study of presumptive and
confirmative media for bacteria of the coliform group and for fecal strep-
tococci. Am. J. Pub. Health 33: 550-556, May 1943.
9. Winter, 0. E., and Sandholzer, L. A. Studies on the fecal streptococci.
Fishery Leaflet No. 201. Washington, D.C. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Department of Interior.
10. Dible, J. H. The enterococcus and the faecal streptococci; their properties
and relations. J. Path. Bact. 24: 3 (1921).
11. Cooper, K. E., and Ramadan, F. M. Studies in the differentiation between
human and animal pollution by means of faecal streptococci. J. Gen.
Microbiol. 12:180-189, April 1955.
12. Barnes, E. M., and Ingram, M. The identity and origin of faecal streptococci
in canned hams. Ann. Inst. Pasteur Lille 7: 115-119 (1955).
13. Moore, B. Streptococci and food poisoning. J. Appl. Bact. 18: 606-618,
December 1955.
14. Litsky, W., Mallmann, W. L., and Fifield, C. W. Comparison of the most
probable numbers of escherichia coli and enterococci in river waters. Am.
J. Pub. Health 45:1049-1053, August 1955.
15. Litsky, W., Mallmann, W. L., and Fifield, C. W. A new medium for the de-
tection of enterococci in waters. Am. J. Pub. Health 43: 873-879, October
1953.
16. Litsky, W., Rosenbaum, M. J., and France, R. L. A comparison of the most
probable numbers of coliform bacteria and enterococci in raw sewage.
Appl. Microbiol. 1: 247-250, September 1953.
17. Croft, C. C. A comparative study of media for detection of enterococci in
water. Am. J. Pub. Health 49: 1379-1387, October 1959.
18. Slanetz, L. W., and Bartley, C. H. Numbers of enterococci in water, sewage,
and feces determined by the membrane filter technique with an improved
medium. J. Bact. 74: 591-595, November 1957.
19. Kenner, B. A., Clark, H. F., and Kabler, P. W. Fecal streptococci. II.
Quantification of streptococci in feces. Am. J. Pub. Health 50: 1553-
1559, October 1960.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 21
20. Neefe, J. R., and Stokes, J., Jr. An epidemic of infectious hepatitis appar-
ently due to a waterborne agent. J. A.M.A. 128: 1063-1075, August 11,
1945.
21. Clarke, N. A., and Chang, S. L. Enteric viruses in water. J. Am. Water
Works A. 51:1299-1317, October 1959.
22. Viswanathan, R. Epidemiology. Indian J. Med. Res. 45: 1-29, January
1957 (Supplementary Number).
23. Little, G. M. Poliomyelitis and water supply. Canad. J. Pub. Health 45:
100-102, March 1954.
24. Kelly, S., and Sanderson, W. W. The effect of chlorine in water on enteric
viruses. Am. J. Pub. Health 48:1323-1334, October 1958.
25. Kelly, S., and Sanderson, W. W. The effect of chlorine in water on enteric
viruses. II. The effect of combined chlorine on poliomyelitis and Cox-
sackie viruses in sewage. Am. J. Pub. Health 50: 14-20, January 1960.
26. Kelly, S., Winsser, J., and Winkelstein, W., Jr. Poliomyelitis and other
enteric viruses in sewage. Am. J. Pub. Health 47: 72-77, January 1957.
27. Melnick, J. L., Emmons, J., Coffey, J. H., and Schoof, H. Seasonal distribu-
tion of Coxsackie viruses in urban sewage and flies. Am. J. Hyg. 59:
164-184, March 1954.
28. Bancroft, P. M., Engelhard, W. E., and Evans, C. A. Poliomyelitis in Huske-
ville (Lincoln) Nebraska—Studies indicating a relationship between
clinically severe infection and proximate fecal pollution of water. J.
A.M.A. 164 : 836-847, June 22,1957.
C—PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Turbidity, color, and odor requirements are easily attained during
general use by properly designed and operated treatment plants and
distribution systems. Failure to meet these requirements is an indi-
cation of either inadequate treatment facilities or improper operation
of the system. Supplies used without treatment should also meet
these requirements. It should not be implied that these turbidity lim-
its represent acceptable effluent standards for water treatment plants.
Such plants should routinely produce water with a turbidity of less
than one unit.
Although these tests do not directly measure the safety of the water,
they are related to consumer acceptance of the water. The levels of 5
units of turbidity, 15 units of color, and a threshold odor number of 3
are levels at which these characteristics become objectionable to a con-
siderable number of people. Experience has shown that under such
circumstances, many people turn to alternate supplies which may be
less safe.
D—CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS
INTRODUCTION
In its report, the Advisory Committee defined guidelines which were
used in developing the standards. The following pages present de-
-------
22 DRINKING WATEB STANDARDS, 1962
tailed data and the reasoning used in reaching the various chemical
limits.
In general, "grounds for rejection" limits are based on the fact that
the substances enumerated represent hazards to the health of man.
In arriving at specific limits, the total environmental exposure of man
to a stated specific toxicant has been considered. The Committee
has attempted to set limits at the lowest practical level in order to
minimize the amount of a toxicant contributed by water, particularly
when other sources such as milk, food, or air are known to represent
the major exposure of man.
The limits, which should not be exceeded when more suitable water
supplies can be made available, are based on factors which render a
supply less desirable for use. These considerations relate to materials
which impart objectionable taste and odor to water, render it eco-
nomically or aesthetically inferior, or are toxic to fish or plants. In
one instance (Carbon Chloroform Extract), the limit is expected also
to have utility as a generalized procedure for limiting toxic exposure
to organic chemicals.
The Drinking Water Standards are regarded as a standard of qual-
ity which is generally attainable by good water quality control prac-
tices. Poor practice is an inherent health hazard. It has been the
policy of the Committee to set limits which are not so low as to be
impracticable nor so high as to encourage pollution of water.
No attempt has been made to prescribe specific limits for every toxic
or undesirable contaminant which might enter a public water supply.
While the Committee is fully cognizant of the need for continued at-
tention to chemical contaminants of water, the Standards are limited
to recognized need. Standards for innumerable substances would re-
quire an impossible burden of analytical examination.
ALKYL BENZENE SULFONATE
(Anionic Surfactant)
The surfactant is a synthetic organic chemical having high residual
affinity at one end of its molecule and low residual affinity at the other.
Its vigorous surface activity justifies not only its name but its use as a
principal ingredient of modern household detergents. Surfactants
may be divided into two broad chemical classifications, ionic and non-
ionic. Ionic types may be either anionic ( —) or cationic ( + ).
Alkyl benzene sulfonate is a typical anionic surfactant.
Contamination of drinking water supplies with surfactants results
from their disposal, as household and industrial wastes, into sources of
raw water. Such contamination is appearing in supplies from both
surface and ground waters. Other potential sources of human intake
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 23
of surfactants are inadequately rinsed cooking and household utensils
and dinnerware and food.
More than 75 percent of the surfactants in household detergents are
of the anionic type. Alkyl aryl sulfonates account for almost three-
quarters of these, the remainder being mostly alkyl sulfates. Next in
extent of such use are the nonionics, the cationics making up only a
small percentage (1). Hence, the anionic group comprises the specific
materials of this type most apt to be present in raw water supplies if
any at all are present (#). The principal agent in this anionic group
is the sodium salt of the sulfonation product of dodecylbenzene, an
alkyl aryl sulfonate, termed alkyl benzene sulfonate or simply ABS
(3). It is largely for this reason that the degree of detergent con-
tamination is established currently in terms of the concentration of
alkyl benzene sulfonate (ABS), for which quantitative determination
can be made by practical and reasonably satisfactory laboratory pro-
cedures.
In general, commercial ABS is produced by condensing polypropyl-
ene (typically the tetrapolymer) with benzene, followed by a dis-
tillation cut to yield a reproducible product. ABS is thus a controlled
mixture of isomers and homologues of dodecylbenzene, which upon
sulfonation may be represented by the following typical structure:
SO3Na
Concentrations of anionic surfactants found in drinking waters have
ranged from 0 to 2.6 mg/1 in well water supplies and from 0 to 5
mg/1 in river water supplies. In one instance, a municipal water
supply contained 5 mg/1 when a period of drought necessitated use of
an impounded, highly purified sewage treatment plant effluent as a
raw water supply (4).
In a study (5) made for the purpose, 10 percent of those using water
containing less than 1 mg/1 anionic sulf onated detergents complained
of an off-taste, whereas all those using water containing 1.5 mg/1
complained of an off-taste. Frothing was also a common complaint
occuring most frequently at concentrations of 1 mg/1 and above. The
off-taste has been described as oily, fishy, or perfume-like (5). ABS
itself is essentially odorless. The odor and taste characteristics are
likely to rise from the degradation of products of other wastes rather
than from ABS. The concentration of ABS in municipal sewage is
of the order of 10 mg/1. Thus waters containing ABS are likely to
be at least 10 percent of sewage origin for each mg ABS/1 present.
From the basic toxicologic point of view, there are two reports
which are especially pertinent to the present consideration.
-------
24 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
1. The Toxicologic Subcommittee of the Food Protection
Committee of the Food and Nutrition Board, National Research
Council, published a comprehensive report in 1956 (6) bearing on
the question of surfactants in food. Reviewing extensively the
acute and chronic toxicity studies which have been reported on
these chemicals, they found that there appears to be little specific
relationship of toxicity to surface activity (reduction of inter-
facial tension). In conclusion, it was stated that:
(a) There are no toxic effects common to all surfactants.
(&) Surface activity per se is not a measure of toxicity.
(
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 25
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Schwartz, A. 11., Perry, J. W., and Berch, .1. Surface active agents and deter-
gents, Vol. II. New York, N.Y., Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1958, ch. 1.
2. Task Group Report. Determination of synthetic detergent content of raw
water supplies. J. Am. Water Works A. 50: 1343-1352, October 1958.
3. Task Group Report. Effects of synthetic detergents on water supplies. J.
Am. Water Works A. 49: 1355-1358, October 1957.
4. Metzler, D. F., Gulp, R. L., Stollenburg, H. A., Woodward, R. L., Walton, G.,
Chang, S. L., Clark, W. A., Palmec, C. M., and Middleton, F. M. Emer-
gency use of reclaimed water for potable supply at Chanute, Kansas. J.
Am. Water Works A. 50: 1021-1051, August 1958.
5. Flynn, J. M., Andreoli, A., and Guerrera, A. A. Study of synthetic detergents
in ground water. J. Am. Water Works A. 50: 1551-1562, December 1958.
6. Food Protection Committee. The relation of surface activity to the safety of
surfactants in foods. National Academy of Sciences—National Research
Council Pub. 463. Washington, D.C., 1956.
7. Fitzhugh, O. G., and Nelson, A. A. Chronic oral toxicities of surface active
agents. J. Am. Pharm. A. (Sc. Ed.) 37 : 29-32 (1948).
8. Tusing, T. W., Painter, O. E., and Opdyke, D. L. Chronic toxicity of sodium
alkylbenzene sulfonate by food and water administration to rats. Toxicol.
Appl. Pharm. 2: 464-473, July 1960.
9. Freeman, S., Burrill, M. W., Li, T. W., and Ivy, A. C. The enzyme inhibitory
action of an alkyl aryl sulfonate and studies on its toxicity when ingested
by rats, dogs, and humans, Gastroenterology 4: 332-343 (1945).
ARSENIC
The widespread use of inorganic arsenic in insecticides and its pres-
ence in animal foods, tobacco, and other sources, make it necessary
to set a limit on the concentration of arsenic in drinking water.
Normal human blood contains approximately 0.064 mg of arsenic
per 100 ml, whereas urine may contain from trace amounts up to 5 mg
per day. Arsenic is found in many foods in varying amounts, occur-
ring naturally in some foods and introduced in others as in pork
and turkey and appears in poultry feeds or as a pesticide spray.
Shellfish and crustaceans may contain up to 170 ppm (1), but it is
suspected that assimilation of arsenic from this source is limited.
Vegetables and fruits (and wine) may contain varying small amounts.
The tolerance for arsenic on sprayed fruits and vegetables set by the
Food and Drug Administration is 3.5 ppm (£). Neither trivalent nor
pentavalent arsenic is known to be an essential or beneficial element,
and the body is not known to be dependent on a daily intake.
The toxicity of arsenic is well-known and the ingestion of as little as
100 mg usually results in severe poisoning. Chronic poisoning from
arsenic may be insidious and pernicious. A considerable proportion is
retained at low intake levels. A single dose may require ten days for
680104 O-63—5
-------
26 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
complete disappearance and this slow excretion is in part the basis for
its cumulative effects (
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 27
C. Doll, 11. Occupational lung cancer: A review. Brit. J. Indust. Med. 10:
181-190 (1959).
7. Merewether, E. E. A. Industrial medicine and hygiene. London, Butter-
worth & Co., 1956, Vol. 3, pp. 196-205.
8. Neubauer, O. Arsenical cancer: A review. Brit. J. Cancer. L: 192-251
(1947).
9. Federation of Sewage Works Association, Committee on Research, Section
A. A critical review of the literature of 1943 on sewage and waste treat-
\ient and stream pollution. Sewage Works J. 16: 222-277 (March 1944).
10. Podubsky, V. and Stedronsky, E. Toxicity of some metals on fish and river
crabs. Annals of the Czechoslovak. Academy of Agric. 21: 207-219
(1948).
11. Warrick, L. F., Wurth, H. E., and Van Horn, W. Control of microorganisms
and aquatic vegetation. Water Works and Sewerage 90: 207-272 (July
1943).
12. Grindley, J. Toxicity to rainbow trout and minnows of some substances
known to be present in waste water discharged to rivers. Ann. Ajinl. Biol.
33:103-112 (1946).
BARIUM
Reference to a limiting concentration for barium in the Public
Health Service Drinking Water Standards of 1946 is confined to
"salts of barium . . . shall not be added for water-treatment pur-
poses." No reference to barium is made in the International Drinking
Water Standards of 1958. Barium occurs naturally in some mineral
springs as the carbonate salt.
Barium, is recognized as a general muscle stimulant, including espe-
cially the heart muscle (1). The fatal dose for man is considered to be
from 0.8-0.9 g as the chloride (550-600 mg Ba). Most fatalities have
occurred from mistaken use of barium salts incorporated in rat poison.
Barium is capable of causing nerve block (2) and in small or moderate
doses produces transient increase in blood pressure by vasoconstriction
(3). Aspirated barium sulfate has been reported to result in granu-
loma of the lung (4) and other sites in man (5). Thus, evidence ex-
ists for high acute toxicitj' of ingested soluble barium salts, and for
chronic irreversible changes in tissues resulting from the actual depo-
sition of insoluble forms of barium in sufficient amounts at a localized
site. On the other hand, the recent literature reports no accumulation
of barium in bone, muscle, or kidney from experimentally administered
barium salts in animals (G). Most of the administered dose appeared
in the liver with far lesser amounts in the lungs and spleen. This
substantiates the prior finding of no measurable amounts of barium
in bones or soft tissues of man (7). Later, more accurate analysis of
human bone (British) showed 7 ug Ba/g ashed sample (
-------
28 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
of barium have been made in animals to which barium had been re-
peatedly administered for long periods.
No study appears to have been made of the amounts of barium that
may be tolerated in drinking water or of effects from prolonged feed-
ing of barium salts from which an acceptable water standard may be
set. A rational basis for a water standard may be derived from the
threshold limit of 0.5 mg Ba/m3 air set by the American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (10) by procedures that have
been discussed (11). By making reasonable assumptions as to re-
tention of inhaled barium dusts and absorption from the intestine
(and including a safety factor) 1 mg/1 is derivable as a limit that
should constitute a "no effect" level in water. Concentrations of
barium in excess of 1 mg/1 are grounds for rejection of the supply
because of the seriousness of the toxic effects of barium on the heart,
blood vessels, and nerves.
LIMITS AND RANGES RELATIVE TO BARIUM STANDARD
1. Average U.S. urban air concentration 0.025 ug Ba/m3 (12)
2. Surface and ground waters Not usually present
3. Concentrations harmful to fish 400 mg/1 (13)
4. Concentrations harmful to Daphnia Magna 30 mg/1 (H)
5. Barium content of Brazil nuts (Only food with
barium in considerable amounts) 0.06-0.3% (1,~>)
6. Concentrations of various natural anions required
to reach solubility product of barium salts:
Solubility product
moles/I at *S° C
1.
1X10-10
8X10-"
7X10-8
Milligrams anion re-
quired per liter to attai n
solubility product at
1 mg barium
1.
66
9000
3 SO,
CO3
F
BaSO<
BaCO3
BaF2
The solubility of relatively insoluble barium salts such as the sul-
fate may be increased in the presence of iron, magnesium, and
aluminum salts, so that in the presence of the latter, calculations of
solubility from the solubility product may not apply.
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Sollman, T. H. A manual of pharmacology. Ed. 8. Philadelphia, Pa.,
W. B. Saunders Co., 1957, pp. 665-6C7.
2. Lorente de N6, R., and Feng, T. P. Analysis of effect of barium upon
nerve with particular reference to rhythmic activity. J. Cell Comp.
Physiol. 28: 397-464, December 1946.
3. Gotsev, T. Blutdruck and Herztatigkeit. Ill MHitteilung: Kreislanfwirkung
von barium. Naunyn Schiedeberg Arch. Exper. Path. 203: 264-277,
August 24, 1944.
4. File, F. Granuloma of lung due to radiographic contrast medium. ARIA
Arch. Path. 59: C73-676, June 1955.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 29
5. Kay S. Tissue reaction to barium sulfate contrast medium. AMA Arch.
Path. 57: 279-284, April 1954, Ibid Kay S., and Chay. Sun Hak: Results
of intraperitoreal injection of barium sulfate contrast medium 59: 388-392,
March 1955.
G. Arnolt, R. I. Fijacion y determination quimica del bario en organos Rev.
Col. Farm. Nac. (Rosario) 7: 75-81, June 1940.
7. Gerlach, W., and Muller, R. Occurrence of strontium and barium in human
organs and excreta. Arch. Path. Anat. (Virchows) 294: 210 (1934).
8. Sowden, E. M., and Stitch, S. R. Trace elements in human tissue. Estima-
tion of the concentrations of stable strontium and barium in human bone.
Biochem. J. 67:104-109, September 1957.
9. Bauer, G. 0. H., Carlsson, A., and Lindquist, B. A comparative study of
metabolism of 140 Ba and 45 Ca in rats. Biochem. J. 63: 535-542, August
1956.
10. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Threshold
limit values for 1958. A.JLA. Arch. Indust. Health 18: 178-182 (1958).
II. Stokinger, H. E., and Woodward, R. L. Toxicologic methods for establish-
ing drinking water standards. J. Am. Water Works A. 50: 515-529, April
1958.
12. U.S. Public Health Service. Air Pollution measurements of the national air
sampling network. Cincinnati 26, Ohio., Robert A. Taft Sanitary Engineer-
ing Center, 1958.
13. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Cornm. Subcommittee on Toxicities.
Metal finishing industries action committee rept. no. 3. Cincinnati, Ohio,
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, 1950.
14. Anderson, B. G. Apparent thresholds of toxicity to Daphnia magna for
chlorides of various metals when added to Lake Erie water. Trans. Am.
Fish Soc. 78: 96-113 (1948).
15. Seaber, W. M. Barium as a normal constituent of brazil nuts. Analyst
58: 575-580, October 1933.
CADMIUM
As far as is known, cadmium is biologically a nonessential, non-
beneficial element. On the other hand, cadmium is recognized to be
an element of high toxic potential. Slight cognizance has been taken
of this in water quality control as evidenced by the fact that only the
USSR, and in the United States, North Dakota, have set a permissible
water standard for cadmium, 0.1 mg/1 by the former and 0.4 mg/1 as
a tentative value by the latter. Recognition of the serious toxic poten-
tial of cadmium when taken by mouth is based on: (a) poisoning from
cadmium-contaminated food (1) and beverages (2) ; (b) epidemiologic
evidence that cadmium may be associated with renal arterial hyper-
tension under certain conditions (3) • (c) long-term oral toxicity
studies in animals.
The possibility of cadmium being a water contaminant has been
reported in 1954 (4); seepage of cadmium into ground water from
electroplating plants has resulted in cadmium concentrations ranging
from 0.01 to 3.2 mg/1. Other sources of cadmium contamination in
-------
30 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
water arise from zinc-galvanized iron in which cadmium is a
contaminant.
Several instances have been reported of poisoning from eating
substances contaminated with cadmium. A group of school children
were made ill by eating popsicles containing 13 to 15 mg/1 cadmium
(1). This is commonly considered the emetic threshold concentration
for cadmium. It has been stated (5) that the concentration, and not
the absolute amount determines the acute cadmium toxicity; equiva-
lent concentrations of cadmium in water are likewise considered more
toxic than equivalent concentrations in food probably because of the
antagonistic effect of components in the food.
Chronic oral toxicity studies in rats, in which cadmium chloride
was added to various diets at levels of 15, 45, 75, and 135 ppm cad-
mium, showed marked anemia, retarded growth, and in many in-
stances death at the 135 ppm level. At lower cadmium levels, anemia
developed later; only one cadmium-fed animal had marked anemia at
the 15 ppm level. Bleaching of the incisor teeth occurred in rats at all
levels except in some animals at 15 ppm. A low protein diet increased
cadmium toxicity. A maximal "no effect" level was thus not estab-
lished in the above studies (6). A dietary relation to cadmium toxic-
ity has been reported by others (7).
Fifty ppm cadmium administered as cadmium chloride in food and
drinking water to rats resulted in a reduction of blood hemoglobin
and lessened dental pigmentation. Cadmium did not decrease experi-
mental caries (8).
In a study specifically designed to determine the effects of drinking
water contaminated with cadmium, five groups of rats were exposed
to drinking water containing levels from 0.1 to 10 mg/1. Although
no effects of cadmium toxicity were noted, the content of cadmium in
the kidney and liver increased in direct proportion to the dose at all
levels including 0.1 mg/1. At the end of one year, tissue concentra-
tions approximately doubled those at six months. Toxic effects were
evident in a three-month study at 50 mg/1 (9).
Thus, all levels of dietary cadmium so far tested have shown cad-
mium accumulation in the soft tissues down to and including 0.1 mg/1
(in drinking water). Because the presence of minute amounts (5 X
10"6M) of cadmium in rat liver mitochondria has been shown (10) to
interfere with an important pathway of metabolism (uncoupled oxi-
dative phosphorylation), and because suspicion has been cast on the
presence of minute amounts of cadmium in the kidney as responsible
for adverse renal arterial changes in man (3), concentrations of cad-
mium in excess of 0.01 mg/1 in drinking water are grounds for rejec-
tion of the supply.
-------
DKINKING WATEK STANDARDS, 1962 31
Further evidence that a concentration of 0.01 mg/1 can be tolerated
is found in a study made on long-continued cadmium absorption, with-
out history of symptoms, in individuals whose drinking water had an
average cadmium content of 0.047 mg/1 (11}.
LIMITS AND RANGES RELATIVE TO CADMIUM WATER STANDARD
U.S. average urban air concentration (1954-56) (12) 0.005 ug Cd/m*
U.S. range urban air concentration (1954-56) (12) 0-0.599 ug Cd/m'
Cd concentration lethal to minnows (13) 1,000 mg/1
Cd concentration lethal to stickleback (14) 0.20mg/1
Cd concentration in tobacco Not known
Cd concentration in foods Not known
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Frant, S., and Kleeman, I. Cadmium "Food Poisoning." J.A.M.A., 117,
86 (1941).
2. Cangelosi, J. T. Acute Cadmium Metal Poisoning. U.S. Nav. Med. Bull.,
pp. 39 and 408 (1941).
3. Schroeder, H. A. Trace Metals and Chronic Diseases in Advances in Internal
Medicine. Vol. VIII, 1956, Year Book Publishers, Inc.
4. Lieber, M., and Welsch, W. F. Contamination of Ground Water by Cadmium.
J.A.W.W.A., 46, p. 51 (1954).
5. Potts, A. M., Simon, F. P., Tobias, J. M., Postel, S., Swift, M. N., Patt, H. M.,
and Gerald, R. W. Distribution and Fate of Cadmium in the Body. Arch.
Ind. Hyg. 2, p. 175 (1950).
6. Fitzhugh, O. G., and Meiller, F. H. Chronic Toxicity of Cadmium. J.
Pharm., 72 p. 15 (1941).
7. Wilson, R. H., and De Eds, F. Importance of Diet in Studies of Chronic
Toxicity. Arch. Ind. Hyg. 1, p. 73 (1950).
8. Ginn, J. T., Volker, J. F. Effect of Cd and F on Rat Dentition. Proc. Soc.
Exptl. Biol. Med. 57, p. 189 (1944).
9. Decker, L. E., Byerrum, R. U., Decker, C. F., Hoppert, C. A., and Langham,
R. F. Chronic Toxicity Studies, I. Cadmium Administered in Drinking
Water to Rats. A.M.A. Arch. Ind. Health, 18, p. 228 (1958).
10. Jacobs, E. E., Jacob, M., Sanadi, D. R., and Bradley, L. B. Uncoupling of
oxidative phosphorylation by cadmium ion. J. Biol. Chem. 233, p. 157
(1956).
11. Princi, F. Metals-cadmium in Oxford loose-leaf medicine. Vol. IV, Chap.
XI, New York, 1949.
12. Air Pollution measurements of the national air sampling network, 1953-57,
Robt. A. Taft San. Eng. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1958.
13. Carpenter, K. E. The Lethal Action of Soluble Metallic Salts on Fishes.
Brit. J. Exp. Biol. 4, p. 378 (1927).
14. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Comm. Subcommittee on Toxicities,
Metal finishing industries action comm. rept. 3 (1950).
CARBON CHLOROFORM EXTRACT
The use of Carbon Chloroform Extract (CCE) (1) as a practical
measure of water quality and as a safeguard against the intrusion of
-------
32 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
excessive amounts of potentially toxic material into water has been
discussed elsewhere (#). It is proposed as a technically practical
procedure which will afford a large measure of protection against the
presence of undetected toxic materials in finished drinking water.
The most desirable condition is one in which the water supply de-
livered to the consumer contains no organic residues. Kesidual
organic matter in the treated water clearly represents man-made or
natural pollutants which have not been removed in water treatment or
material such as lubricants inadvertently introduced by the water
plant. In view of a general inability to clearly define the chemical
and toxicological nature of this material, it is most desirable to limit
it to the lowest obtainable level. Analysis of data available indicates
that water supplies containing over 200 micrograms CCE/1 of water
represent an exceptional and unwarranted dosage of the water con-
sumer with ill-defined chemicals. It is recommended that 200 ug
CCE/1 be the limiting concentrations in drinking water.
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Middleton, P. M. Nomenclature for referring to organic extracts obtained
from carbon with chloroform or other solvents. J. Am. Water Works A.
53: 749,1961.
2. Ettinger, M. B. A proposed toxicological screening procedure for use in the
water works. J. Am. Water Works A.52: 689-694, 1960.
CHLORIDE, SULFATE, AND DISSOLVED SOLIDS
The importance of chloride, sulfate, and dissolved solids as they
affect water quality hinges upon their taste and laxative properties.
There is evidence that excessive amounts of these constituents cause
consumer reactions which may result in individual treatment or re-
jection of the supply. Therefore, limiting amounts for these chemical
constituents have been included in the Standards. The bases for de-
veloping these limits are described below.
Taste
The literature contains a number of reports on the taste threshold
of various salts. Whipple, (1) using a panel of 10 to 20 persons,
found the range of concentration of various salts detected as shown in
Table 1. Kichter and MacLean (2) studied the response of a larger
panel to sodium chloride in distilled water. Table 2 summarizes their
results.
Lockhart, Tucker, and Merritt (3) also studied the taste threshold
of the ions in distilled water by studying the effect of ions in water
on the flavor of brewed coffee. Using a triangular test with panels
of 18 or more, they found results which are summarized in Table 3.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 33
In the Triangular taste test, the panel members are asked to taste
three samples. Two of the samples may contain either the salt being
tested or distilled water, while the third is different from the other
two. The panel member is asked to identify the odd one. Using this
test procedure, the threshold concentration is arbitrarily defined as
the concentration at which the number of correct separations is 50
percent above the chance probability of one-third correct separations.
i.e., when two-thirds of the panel make the separations correctly.
The results shown in Table 1 and Table 3 are in surprisingly good
agreement, considering the difference in methods used. The Bichter
and MacLean study found taste thresholds considerably below those
of the other two studies. They support reasonably well the recom-
mended limits of 250 mg/1 for chloride and sulfates and 500 mg/1
for total solids.
It should be emphasized that there may be a great difference between
a detectable concentration and an objectionable concentration of the
neutral salts. The factor of acclimatization is particularly important.
More than 100 public supplies in the United States provide water with
more than 2,000 mg/1 of dissolved solids. Newcomers and casual
visitors would certainly find these waters almost intolerable and, al-
though some of the residents use other supplies for drinking, many
are able to tolerate if not to enjoy these highly mineralized waters.
Relatively little information is available on consumer attitudes
toward mineralized water. In this connection, the findings of a sur-
vey made by the California State Department of Public Health (4)
showed that in five communities where the public supplies were highly
mineralized, about 40 percent of the families surveyed purchased
bottled water and about 50 percent stated they were dissatisfied with
the water. These supplies had dissolved solids contents in the
range of 500 to 1,750 mg/1. Calcium, sulfate, and magnesium were
the dominant ions present, with sulfate concentrations in the range of
300 to 700 mg/1.
The taste threshold for magnesium is said to be 400-600 mg/1 (5).
Laxative Effects
Both sodium sulfate and magnesium sulfate are well known laxa-
tives. The laxative dose for both Glauber salt (Na2SCvlOH2O)
and Epsom salt (MgSCv7H2O) is about two grams. Two liters of
water with about 300 mg/1 of sulfate derived from Glauber salt, or
390 mg/1 of sulfate from Epsom salt, would provide this dose. Cal-
cium sulfate is much less active in this respect.
This laxative effect is commonly noted by newcomers and casual
users of waters high in sulfates. One evidently becomes acclimated
to use of these waters in a relatively short time.
-------
34 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
The North Dakota State Department of Health has collected infor-
mation on the laxative effects of water as related to mineral quality.
This has been obtained by having individuals submitting water sam-
ples for mineral analysis complete a questionnaire which asks about
the taste and odor of the water, its laxative effect (particularly on
those not accustomed to using it), its effect on coffee, and its effect on
potatoes cooked in it.
Peterson (6) and Moore (7) have analyzed part of the data col-
lected, particularly with regard to the laxative effect of the water.
Peterson found that, in general, the waters containing more than
750 mg/1 of sulfate showed a laxative effect and those with less than
600 mg/1 generally did not. If the water was high in magnesium, the
effect was shown at lower sulfate concentrations than if other cations
were dominant. Moore showed that laxative effects were experienced
by the most sensitive persons, not accustomed to the water, when mag-
nesium was about 200 mg/1 and by the average person when mag-
nesium was 500-1,000 mg/1.
Moore analyzed the data as shown in Table 4. When sulf ates plus
magnesium exceed 1,000 mg/1 or dissolved solids exceed 2,000 mg/1, a
majority of those who gave a definite reply indicated a laxative- effect.
Other Effects
Highly mineralized water affects the quality of coffee brewed with
it. Lockhart, Tucker, and Merritt (3) found that from 400 to 500
mg/1 of chlorides or 800 mg/1 of sulfate as MgSO4 affected the
taste of coffee. Gardner (8) studied the effect of ions in water on
the brewing time of drip coffee and hence on the quality of the product
since prolonged contact with the grounds makes the coffee bitter.
Sodium had a distinct deleterious effect.
At high enough mineral concentration, water becomes completely
unusable for drinking. These concentrations are in the range above
5,000 mg/1 and need not be considered here.
Conclusion
It is recommended that waters containing more than 250 mg/1
of chlorides or sulfates and 500 mg/1 of dissolved solids not be used
if other less mineralized supplies are available. This is influenced
primarily by considerations of taste. Cathartic effects are commonly
experienced with water having sulfate concentrations of 600 to 1,000
mg/1, particularly if much magnesium or sodium is present. Al-
though waters of such quality are not generally desirable, it is recog-
nized that a considerable number of supplies with dissolved solids
in excess of the recommended limits are used without any obvious ill
effects.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
LITERATURE CITATIONS
35
1. Whipple, G. C. The value of pure water. New York, N.Y., John Wiley &
Sons, 1907, 84 pp.
2. Richter, C. P., and MacLean, A. Salt taste threshold of humans. Am. J.
Physiol. 126: pp. 1-6 (1939).
3. Lockhart, E. E., Tucker, C. L., and Merritt, M. O. The effect of water
impurities on the flavor of brewed coffee. Food Research, 20: pp. 598-605
(1955).
4. Unpublished report. California State Department of Public Health, Bureau
of Sanitary Engineering.
5. Moore, E. W. The desalting of saline waters. Washington, D.C., Bulletin of
the Committee on Sanitary Engineering and Environment, National Re-
search Council, May 24, 1950, Appendix D, pp. 347-363.
6. Peterson, N. L. Sulfates in drinking water. Official Bulletin North Dakot.-i
Water and Sewage Works Conference, 18: pp. 6-7, 11, April-May 1951.
7. Moore, E. W. Physiological effects of the consumption of saline drinking
water. Bulletin of Subcommittee on Water Supply, National Research
Council, Jan. 10,1952, Appendix B, pp. 221-227.
8. Gardner, D. G. Effect of certain ion combinations commonly found in
potable water on rate of filtrntion through roasted and ground coffee. Food
Research, 23: pp. 76-84 (1958).
TABLE 1.—Range of concentration of various salts detected, ly taste in dririkimi
water by panel of 10 to 20 persons
Salt
KCL .. .
NaCl
CaCli
McCli
Sea water
NaSO, ..
CaPO,
MgSO<
Concentration detected— mg/1
Median
Salt
625
300
250
600
360
625
825
Anion
250
1R2
160
372
»300
237
370
419
Range
Salt
350-600
200-450
150-350
200-760
250-550
250-900
400-600
An Ion
167-286
121 274
96-224
149-660
1 150-600
1B9-372
177-635
320-479
i In terms of mg/l chloride.
Source: Whipple, O. C., The value of pure water. Wiley (1907).
TABLE 2.—Taste threshold concentrations of panel of 5S adults for NaCl
Concentrations mg/l
Difference from distilled water noted
Salt taste identified ...
Mean
NaCl
160
870
Cl
97
630
Median
NaCl
100
660
Cl
61
395
Range
NaCl
70- 600
200-2,500
Cl
42- 364
120-1,215
-------
36 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
TABLE 3.—Taste threshold concentration of salt and ions in water
NaCl
KC1
CaClj ..
MgSO.
NaHCOj .
Threshold concentration — mg/1
Salt
345
650
347
500
1,060
Cation
138
340
125
100
290
Anion
210
310
222
400
770
Source: Lockhart. E. E., Tucker, C. L., and Merritt, M. C. The effect of water impurities on the
flavor of brewed coffee, Food Research, 10, 533-605 (1955).
TABLE 4.—Solids and ion concentration of wells as related to presence or altscnce
of laxative effects
Determination
Magnesium plus sulfate
Sulfate
Range mg/l
0-1,000
1, 000-2, 000
2, 000-3, 000
3, 000-4, 000
over 4, 000
0-200
200-500
600-1.000
1,000-1.500
1, 500-2, 000
2,000-3,000
over 3, 000
0-200
200-500
500-1,000
1, 000-1. 500
1, 500-2. 000
2, 000-3, 000
over 3, 000
Number
of wells
in range
51
72
62
30
33
61
45
56
36
14
21
14
56
47
56
34
16
20
S
Laxative
Yes
6
12
25
13
14
9
7
11
18
6
13
5
10
9
13
16
9
9
3
No
37
45
21
11
4
34
27
38
10
4
3
1
36
28
26
10
4
3
0
Effects
present
not
stated
9
15
Ifi
6
15
8
11
17
8
4
5
8
10
10
17
,3
3
S
5
Percent
of yes
answers
i
12
21
54
54
78
21
21
28
64
60
81
83
22
24
33
62
69
75
100
i This percentage is based only on the total of yes and no answers. It is probable that a large proportion
of the wells for which no statements were made were not regularly used as water supplies.
Source: Moore, Edward W., Physiological effects of the consumption of saline drinking water, a
progress report to the Subcommittee on Water Supply of the Committee on Sanitary Engineering and
Environment. National Research Council (1952).
CHROMIUM
The limit of 0.05 mg/1 for chromium as hexavalent chromium
ion appearing in the U.S. Public Health Service 1946 Drinking
Water Standards was based on the lowest amount analytically deter-
minable at the time it was established. At present, the level of
chroma! e ion that can be tolerated by man for a lifetime without
adverse effects on health is unknown. A family of four individuals
is known to have drunk water for periods of 3 years at a level
as high as 1 mg chromate/1 without known effects on their health,
as determined by a single medical examination (1). The family
continued to drink the water which, when sampled later, contained
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 37
25 mg/1. No continued medical observation of these individuals was
made.
When inhaled, chromium is a known cancerigenic agent for man
(£, 3). It is not known whether cancer will result from ingestion
of chromium in any of its valence forms. According to Fairhall
(4), trivalent chromium salts show none of the toxicity of the hex-
avalent form, particularly the highly insoluble salts. Trivalent
chromium moreover, is believed not to be of concern in drinking
water supplies.
Chromium is not known to be either an essential or beneficial ele-
ment in the body.
The most recent study by MacKenzie, Byerrum, et al. (<5) was
designed to determine the toxicity of chromate ion (and chromic
ion) at various levels in the drinking water of rats. This study,
like a number of previous ones, showed no evidence of toxic response
after 1 year at levels from 0.45 to 25 mg/1 by the tests employed,
viz., body weight, food consumption, blood changes, and mortality.
However, significant accumulation of chromium in the tissues occurred
abruptly at concentrations above 5 mg/1. Unfortunately, no study
was made of the effect of chromate on a cancer-susceptible strain of
animal. It would appear, however, from this and other studies of
toxicity (
-------
38 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
CALCULATED MAXIMAL DAILY INTAKE OF CHROMIUM FROM
VARIOUS SOURCES
(Approximate Values)
Food, cooked in stainless-steel ware 10-25 ug
Water 2 ng
Air 0.3 ug
Cigarettes 10-15 ug
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Davids, H. W., and Lieber, M. Underground water contamination by
chromium wastes. Water and Sewage Works 98: 528-534, December 1951.
2. Machle, W., and Gregorius, F. Cancer of the respiratory system in the
United States chroinate-producing industry. Pub. Health Rep. 63: 1114-
1127, August 29, 1942.
3. U.S. Public Health Service. Health of workers in the chromate industry.
Pub. Health Service Pub. No. 192. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1953.
4. Fairhall, L. T. Industrial toxicology. Ed. 2, Baltimore, Md., Williams and
Wilkins. 1957, pp. 21-23.
5. MacKenzie, R. D., Byerrum, R. U., Decker, C. F., Hoppert, C. A., and Lang-
ham, R. F. Chronic toxicity studies II hexavalent and trivalent chromium
administered in drinking water to rats. A.M.A. Arch. Indust. Health 18:
232-234, September 1958.
6. Gross, W. G., and Heller, V. G. Chromates in animal nutrition. J. Indust.
Hyg. & Toxicol 28: 52-56 (1946).
7. Brard, M. D. Study of toxicology of some chromium compounds. J. Phann.
etChim. 21: 5-23 (1935).
8. Conn, L. W., Webster, H. L., and Johnson, A. H. Chromium toxicology.
Absorption of chromium by the rat when milk containing chromium
lactate was fed. Fed. Am. J. Hyg. 15: 760-765 (1932).
9. Denton, C. R., Keenan, R. G., and Birmingham, D. G. The chromium con-
tent of cement and its significance in cement dermatitis. J. Invest. Derm.
23: 184 (1954).
10. Monier-Williams, G. W. Trace elements in food. Ed. 2. New York, John
Wiley & Sons, 1950, pp. 439-443.
11. Titus, A. C., Elkins, H. B., Finn, H. G., Fairhall, L. T., and Drinker, C. K.
Contamination of food cooked or stored in contact with nickel-chromium-
iron alloys. J. Indust. Hyg. 12: 306-313, October 1930.
12. Cass, J. S., and Foldes, P. E. Interim Report on chromium. Physiologic
aspects of "Water Quality Criteria" with regard to man. Kettering
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio (1957).
13. U.S. Public Health Service, Division of Air Pollution. Air Pollution meas-
urements of the national air sampling network. Robt. A. Taft Sanitary
Eng. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio (1958).
14. Cogbill, E. C., and Hobbs, M. E. Transfer of metallic constituents of cig-
arettes to the main-stream smoke. Tobacco Sci. 144: 68-73 (1957).
15. Southgate, B. A. Treatment and disposal of Industrial waste waters. Lon-
don, England, H. M. Stationery Office, 1948.
16. Ellis, M. M. Detection and measurement of stream pollution. Bur. Fish-
eries Bui. No. 22:365-437 (1937).
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 39
17. Ohio River Valley "Water Sanitation Commission. Subcommittee on tox-
icities, metal finishing industries action committee, Report No. 3, Cin
cinnati,Ohio (1950).
COPPER
In the Public Health Service 1942 Drinking Water Standards, the
permissible concentration of copper in drinking water was raised from
0.2 mg/1 to 3.0 mg/1.
Copper is an essential and beneficial element in human metabolism,
and it is well known that a deficiency in copper results in nutritional
anemia in infants. The daily requirement for adults has been esti-
mated to be 2.0 mg (/). The children of preschool age require about
0.1 mg daily for normal growth. The average daily urinary excretion
is in the order of 1.0 mg, the remainder being eliminated in the feces.
Since the normal diet provides only a little more than is required, an
additional supplement from water would ensure an adequate intake.
The distribution of copper in the body is fairly uniform, except for the
liver where it appears to accumulate.
Copper imparts some taste to water but individuals vary in the
acuity of their taste perception and the detectable range varies from
1-5 mg/1 (2). Small amounts are generally regarded as nontoxic but
large doses may produce emesis and prolonged oral administration
may result in liver damage.
Inasmuch as copper does not constitute a health hazard but imparts
an undesirable taste to drinking water, it is reasonable to establish
the concentration of 1.0 mg/1 as the recommended limit.
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Sollmann, T. H. A manual of pharmacology, Ed. 8. Philadelphia, Pa., W
B. Saunders Co., 1957, pp. 1299-1302.
2. Cohen, J. M., Kanrpbake, L. J., Harris, E. K., and Woodward, R. L. Taste
threshold concentrations of metals in drinking water. J. Am. Water Works
A. 52: 660-670 (1960).
CYANIDE
The U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards for
1946 contain no limit for cyanide. Since 1946, standards have been
developed for cyanide by other agencies as shown in the following
tabulation.
Limit for cyaniile
Standard eet tit mg/1
International Standards for Drinking Water, Geneva (1958) 0. 01
Netherlands (1959) 0. 01
USSR Standard (1951) 0.1'
Ohio Water Pollution Control Board (1952) 0. ir.
Adv. Bd. Lake Erie-Ontario Sect. I.J.C. (1953) O.I
N.Y. Water Pollution Control Bd. (1952) 0.1
Pacific N.W. River Basin (1952) 0.0,1
-------
40
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
The cyanide standards appear to be based on the toxicity for fish
and not for man, as is shown by a comparison that follows of the safe,
toxic, and lethal doses for fish and for man. Cyanide in reasonable
doses (10 mg or less) is readily converted to thiocyanate in the body.
Usually lethal toxic effects occur only when the detoxifying mecha-
nism is overwhelmed.
Oral toxicity of cyanide for man
Dosage
2 &-4 7 mg/rlay
10 mg, single dose..,
50-60 mg, single dose
Kesponse
Noninjurlous
Noninjurious .
Calculated from th
Fatal
Literature
citations
SSSS
Toxicity of cyanide for fish
Cyanide in mg/1
005
01-02
0126
0176
1.0
10.0
0 02
04
05
Time of exposure
120 hours
1-2 days .
170 minutes
20 minutes.
90 minutes.
27 days _
96 hours
96 hours
Fish species
Trout
do
do
Bluet;ills Sunfish
Trout
Carp.
Trout
Blueffills
Bullheads
Response
Death
do
Overturned
Toxic limit
Death
do
do
do
Literature
citations
(0
W
(S)
(S)
(1)
Jfl
(S)
(3)
Because proper treatment will reduce cyanide levels to 0.01 mg/1
or less, it is recommended that concentrations in water be kept below
0.01 mg CN/1.
For the protection of the health of human populations, concentra-
tions above 0.2 mg CN/1 constitute ground for rejection of the
supply. This limit should provide a factor of safety of approxi*
mately 100 and is set at this level because of the rapidly fatal effect
of cyanide. Proper chlorination under neutral or alkaline conditions
will reduce cyanide to a level below the recommended limit. The
acute oral toxicity of cyanogen chloride, the chlorination product of
hydrogen cyanide, is approximately one-twentieth that of hydrogen
cyanide (9).
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Karsten, A. Effect of cyanide on Black Hills trout Black Hills Eng. 22:
145-174 (1934). Abs. in J. Am. Water Works A. 28: 660 (1936).
2. Southgate, B. A. Treatment and disposal of industrial waste waters. 'Lon-
don, England, H. M. Stationery Office, 1948.
3. Ohio Eiver Valley Water Sanitation Commission, Subcom. on Toxicities:
metal finishing industries action committee report no. 3, Cincinnati, Ohio,
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission, 1950.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDABDS, 1962 41
4. Symons, C. E., Simpson, R. W. Report on flsh destruction in the Niagara
River in 1937. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 68: 246 (1938).
5. Smith, O. M. The detection of poisons in public water supplies. Water
Works Eng. 97: 1293-1312, Nov. 1, 1944.
6. Bodansky, M., and Levy, M. D. I: Some factors influencing the detoxication
of cyanides in health and disease. Arch. Int. Med. 31: 373-389 (1923).
7. Stokinger, H. E., and Woodward, R. L. Toxicologic methods for establishing
drinking water standards. J. Am. Water Works A. 50: 515-529, April 1958.
8. Anon. The Merck Index. Ed. 6. Rahway, N. J., Merck & Co., Inc. 1952, p. 508.
9. Spector, W. S. Handbook of toxicology. Tech. Rept. No. 55-16, Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, Wright Air Devel. Center, Air Res. and
Devel. Command, April 1955.
FLUORIDE
Fluoride in drinking water will prevent dental caries. When the
concentration is optimum, no ill effects will result and caries rates
will be 60-65 percent below the rates in communities using water sup-
plies with little or no fluoride (1, 2).
Excessive fluoride in drinking water supplies produces objectionable
dental fluorosis which increase with increasing fluoride concentration
above the recommended upper control limits.1 In the United States,
this is the only harmful effect observed to result from fluoride found in
drinking water (3, 4,5, 6,7,8,9). Other expected effects from exces-
sively high intake levels are: (a) bone changes when water containing
8-20 mg fluoride per liter (8-20 ppm) is consumed over a long period
of time (5) ; (b) crippling fluorosis when 20 or more mg of fluoride
from all sources is consumed per day for 20 or more years (10); (c)
death when 2,250-4,500 mg of fluoride (5,000-10,000 mg sodium fluo-
ride) is consumed in a single dose (5).
The optimum fluoride level for a given community depends on cli-
matic conditions because the amount of water (and consequently the
amount of fluoride) ingested by children is primarily influenced by
air temperature (11,12,13,14). Many communities with water sup-
plies containing less fluoride than the concentration shown as the lower
limit for the appropriate air temperature range* have provided fluo-
ride supplementation (15, 16, 17). Other communities with exces-
sively high natural fluoride levels have effectively reduced fluorosis
by partial defluoridation and by change to a water source with more
acceptable fluoride concentration (18, 19).
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Dean, H. T., Arnold, F. A., Jr., and Elvove, E. Domestic water and dental
caries. V. Additional studies of the relation of fluoride in domestic waters
to dental caries experience in 4,425 white children, age 12 to 14 years, of
13 cities in 4 States. Pub. Health Rep. 57: 1155-1179, Aug. 7, 1942.
1 See Table 1, p. 8 of the Drinking Water Standards.
-------
42 DRINKING "WATER STANDARDS, 1962
2. Dean, H. T., Jay, P., Arnold, F. A., Jr., and Elvove, E. Domestic water and
dental caries. II. A study of 2,832 white children, aged 12 to 14 years, of
8 suburban Chicago communities, including lactobacillus acidophilus
studies of 1,761 children. Pub. Health Rep. 56: 761-792, Apr. 11, 1941.
3. Moulton, F. R., Editor. Fluorine and dental health. A.A.A.S. Pub. No. 19,
Washington, D.C., 1946, pp. 6-11, 23-31.
4. Dean, H. T. Chronic endemic dental fluorosis (mottled enamel). J.A.M.A.
107: 1269-1273 (1936).
5. Shaw, J., Editor. Fluoridation as a public health measure. A.A.A.S. Pub.
No. 38, Washington, D.C., 1954, pp. 79-109.
6. Heyroth, F. F. Toxicologic evidence for the safety of fluoridation of public
water supplies. Am. J. Pub. Health 42: 1568-1575 (1952).
7. McClure, F. J. Fluorine in food and drinking water. J. J. Am. Diet. A. 29:
560-564 (1953).
8. U.S. Public Health Service. Natural fluoride content of communal water
supplies in the United States. Public Health Service Pub. No. 655, Wash-
ington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1959.
9. Leone, N. C., Shimkin, M. B., Arnold, F. A., Stevenson, C. A., Zimmermann,
E. R., Geiser, P. B., and Lieberman, J. E. Medical aspects of excessive
fluoride in a water supply. Pub. Health Rep. 69: 925-936, October 1954.
10. Roholm, K. Fluorine intoxication. A clinical-hygienic study. London, H.
K. Lewis & Co., Ltd. (1937).
11. Galagan, D. J., and Lamson, G. G. Climate and endemic dental fluorosis.
Pub. Health Rep. 68: 497-508, May 1953.
12. Galagan, D. J. Climate and controlled fluoridation. J. Am. Dent. A. 47:
159-170, August 1993.
13. Galagan, D. J., Vermillion, J. R., Nevitt, G. A., Stadt, A. M., and Dart, R. E.
Climate and fluid intake. Pub. Health Rep. 72: 484-490, June 1957.
14. Galagan, D. J., and Vermillion, J. R. Determining optimum fluoride concen-
trations. Pub. Health Rep. 72: 491-493, June 1957.
15. Pelton, W. J., and Wisan, J. M. Dentistry in public health. Philadelphia,
Pa., W. B. Saunders Co., 1949, pp. 136-162.
16. Arnold, F. A., Jr., Dean, H. T., Jay, P., and Knutson, J. W. Effect of fluori-
dated public water supplies on dental caries prevalance. Pub. Health Rep.
71: 652-658, July 1956.
17. Anon. Status of fluoridation in community water supplies. Pub. Health
Rep. 74: 427, May 1959.
18. Dean, H. T., and McKay, F. S. Production of mottled enamel halted by a
change in common water supply. Am. J. Pub. Health 29: 590-596, June
1939.
19. Dean, H. T., McKay, F. S., and Elvove, E. Mottled enamel survey of Boux-
ite, Ark., 10 years after a change in the common water supply. Pub. Health
Rep. 53: 1736-1748, Sept. 30,1938.
IRON
Both iron and manganese are highly objectionable constituents in
water supplies for either domestic or industrial use. The domestic
consumer complains of the brownish color which iron imparts to laun-
dered goods. Iron appreciably affects the taste of beverages (1).
The taste which iron imparts to water may be described as bitter
and astringent. Individuals vary in their acuity of taste perception,
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1062 43
and it is difficult to establish a level which would not be detectable
for the majority of the population. A study by the Public Health
Service (#) indicates that the taste of iron may be readily detected at
1.8 mg/1 in spring water and at 3.4 mg/1 in distilled water.
The daily nutritional requirement is 1 to 2 mg but intake of larger
quantities is required as a result of poor absorption. Diets contain 7
to 35 mg per day and average 16 (3). The amount of iron permitted
in water by quality \control to prevent objectionable taste or laundry
staining (as much as 0.3 mg/1) constitutes only a small fraction of the
amount normally consumed and is not likely to have any toxicologic
significance.
Whereas the U.S. Public Health Service 1946 Drinking Water
Standards set a limit of 0.3 mg/1 for iron and manganese combined, it
is recommended that a limit be established for each and that the con-
centration of iron be limited to 0.3 mg/1.
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Eiddick, T. M., Lindsay, N., and Tomassi, A. Iron and manganese In water
supplies. J. Am. Water Works A. 50: 688-696, May 1958.
2. Cohen, J. M., Kamphake, L. J., Harris, E. K., and Woodward, B. L. Taste
threshold concentrations of metals in drinking water. J. Am. Water Works
A. 52: 660-670, May I960.
3. Sollman, T. H. A manual of pharmacology. Ed. 8, Philadelphia, Pa., W. B.
Saunders Co., 1957, pp. 1247-1267.
LEAD
Lead taken into the body can be seriously injurious to health, even
lethal, if taken in by either brief or prolonged exposure. Prolonged
exposure to relatively small quantities may result in serious illness
or death. Lead taken into the body in quantities in excess of certain
relatively low "normal" limits is a cumulative poison. Poisoning may
result from an accumulation in the body of lead absorbed in sufficient
quantities from any one or all of three common sources: food, air, and
water, including that used in cooking and in beverages. A fourth, but
variable source of intake is inhaled tobacco smoke. Except in certain
occupational conditions, absorption of lead through the skin is not of
general public health importance.
The total amount of lead taken into the body from these sources
as modified by absorption and elimination, determines whether the
sources of exposure have been excessive and produce poisoning, or may
be tolerated without effect throughout a lifetime.
The daily intake of lead that may be tolerated without effect
throughout each decade of life is not precisely known, but a value
may be determined from the following information.
1. The amount of lead ingested in food and beverage by adults in
good health in various parts of the United States has been shown by
-------
44 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
Kehoe and associates (1) to vary from less than 0.1 mg to more than
2.0 rag/day with a mean value of about 0.32 nig/day. At these levels,
excretion keeps pace with intake, and if any accumulation of lead
occurs it is intermittent and of no hygenie significance.
2. When, under experimental condition, the daily intake of lead
from all sources amounted to 0.5-0.6 mg over a long period of time (1
year or more), a small amount is retained in normal healthy adults
but produced no detectable deviation from normal health. Indirect
evidence from industrial workers exposed to known amounts of lead
for long periods was consistent with these findings (2).
3. Appreciable increases in the daily intake of lead above 0.6 mg
daily result in body accumulation at rates that increase as the daily
dose increases. Extrapolations from data from balance experiments
over a 5-year period indicate, but do not prove, that an intake appre-
ciably in excess of 0.6 mg/day will result in the accumulation of a
dangerous quantity of lead in the body during a lifetime.
4. The intake of lead from food sources is probably approaching
an irreducible minimum; on the other hand, the number of sources
and the extent of lead exposure are increasing. The atmosphere is
one of these. Over the past decade, the amount of atmospheric lead
in many cities has increased more than tenfold, from a few tens of
micrograms (ug) per cubic meter (m3) of air to more than 15 ug/m3
in some cities on repeated occasions (3). The national average for
urban atmosphere is presently 1.4 ug/m3. Wide variations in these
values exist throughout the nation because the sources are largely
unregulated and are increasing at different rates in different areas
from vehicular traffic. If the average daily intake of air of an adult
is 20 cubic meters, then the daily addition to the body burden of lead
from the atmosphere could be of the order of several micrograms to
a few tens of micrograms, depending on the location. This assumes a
modest 10 percent retention of that which the individual inhales.
5. The amount of lead in cigarette tobacco smoke has been reported
(4) to be as high as 0.3 ug/puff. In a heavy smoker, a few micro-
grams per day could be added to the lead body burden assuming 10
percent retention of the total smoke inhaled.
Foods contain lead in widely varying amounts because of the natural
and unavoidable content of lead in foods, the inevitable contamination
with lead that results incidentally from processing and packaging,
and the residue from insecticidal spraying and dusting. Certain
foods, in particular those which are more seriously and unavoidably
contaminated, are required by law to contain by analysis no more than
a prescribed concentration of lead. The foods under regulation make
up a relatively small portion of the average normal diet. Conse-
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 45
quently, only partial control is exercised over the lead intake from
food sources. The foods that contribute the greater portion of the diet
contain concentrations of lead which are considered to be normal (that
is, natural or incidental) but in any case unavoidable (under 0.2 ppm,
and usually well und'er 0.1 ppm). The total intake of lead from these
foods is governed by the quantity and quality of the food ingested,
and by contamination with lead in the handling and preparation of
the food.
The lead concentration in surface and in ground drinking water
sources in the United States in 1940 ranged from traces to 0.04 mg/1,
averaging 0.01 mg/1. It is now not uncommon to find the lead con-
tent of water in urban supplies to be from one-half to one-fifth
this value, provided the water is not stored in tanks painted with
oil-base lead paint (Type I)or provided that the piping and fixtures
are not of lead or lead alloys. However, a principal source of lead in
municipal drinking waters is lead pipe and goosenecks in house serv-
ices and plumbing systems. The practice of using lead pipe is still
permitted by many plumbing codes. Normal adults in the temperate
zone drink quantities of water, ranging from less than 1 to more than
3 liters/day, the average being taken as 2 liters. This is in addition
to the water used in cooking and in other beverages. Thus, water
can contribute a substantial proportion of the total daily intake of
lead, depending upon the concentration of lead therein, the environ-
mental temperature, and physical exertion.
Inasmuch as three of the four sources of lead intake in the human
body—ingested foodstuffs, inhaled atmosphere, and tobacco smoke—
are for the most part unregulated in their lead content, and because
the total daily intake of lead which results in progressive retention of
lead in the human body appears to be less than twice the average
normal intake of lead in adults in the United States, concentrations of
lead in drinking water greater than 0.05 mg/1 constitute grounds for
rejection of the supply.
In consonance with this limit is the reported finding that bacterial
decomposition of organic matter is inhibited by lead concentrations
at or above 0.1 mg/1 (5). Lead in soft water is highly toxic to cer-
tain fish (6); 0.1 mg/1 is toxic to small sticklebacks, larger fish are
somewhat less susceptible to lead. Calcium ion at a concentration of
50 mg/1 removes the toxic effect of 1 mg/1 lead for fish (7).
LIMITS AND RANGES OF LEAD AFFECTING HEALTH
Physiologically safe In water:
Lifetime 0.05 mg/1
Short period, a few weeks 2-4 mg/1
-------
46 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 19da
Harmful range in water:
Borderline 2-4 mg/1 for 3 months.
Toxic 8-10 mg/1, several weeks.
Lethal Unknown, but probably more than 15 mg/1,
several weeks.
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Kehoe, R. A,, Cholak, J., Hubbard, D. M., Bambach, K., McNary, K. It., and
Story, R. V. Experimental studies on the ingestion of lead compounds.
J. Indust. Hyg. Tox. 22: 381-400 (1940).
2. Kehoe, R. A. Exposure to lead. Occup. Med. 3: 156-171'(1947).
3. Tabor, E. O. National air sampling network data. Columbia, Mo., U. of
Missouri Bull. 60: 9-15 (1057).
4. Cogbill, E. C., and Hobbs, M. E. Transfer of metallic constituents of cig-
arettes to the main-stream smoke. Tobacco Science 144: 68-73, May 10,
1957.
5. Kalabina, M. M., Vis, K. A. M., Razumov, A. S. and Rogovskaja, Ts. I.
Effects of toxic substances in effluents from nonferfous metal industries on
the mirco-organisms and biologichemical processes. Abs. in Gigiena
(U.S.S.R.) 9:10/11: 1, 1944. Water Poll. Abs. 21: 47 Abs. No. 231, Febru-
ary 1948.
6. Doudoroff, P., and Katz, M. Critical review of literature on the toxicity of
industrial wastes and their components to fish, II the metals as salts.
Sewage and Indust. Wastes 25 : 802-839, July 1953.
7. Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Comm., Subcommittee on Toxicities.
Metal finishing industries action committee report, number 3, Cincinnati,
Ohio, Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission (1950).
MANGANESE
There are two reasons for limiting the concentration of manganese
in drinking water: (a) to prevent esthetic and economic damage, and
(b) to avoid any possible physiologic effects from excessive intake.
It has been reported that minute amounts of manganese cause diffi-
culty in water quality control. The domestic consumer finds that it
produces a brownish color in laundered goods and impairs the taste of
beverages including coffee and tea (1, S).
From the health standpoint, there are no data to indicate at what
level manganese would be harmful when ingested (-5, 4)- The princi-
pal toxic effects which have been reported are the results of inhalation
of manganese dust or fumes. It has been estimated that the daily
intake of manganese from a normal diet is about 10 mg (5). In ani-
mals, at least, it has been shown to be an essential nutrient, since diets
deficient in manganese interfere with growth, blood, and bone forma-
tion and reproduction. Hepatic cirrhosis has been produced in rats
when treated orally with very large doses. As far as is known, the
neurologic effects of manganese have not been reported from oral
ingestion in man or animal (6).
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 47
The principal reason for limiting the concentration of manganese
is to provide water quality control and thus reduce the esthetic and
economic problems (1,3,8).
The U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards (1946)
state that iron and manganese together should not exceed 0.3 mg/1.
In a survey of 13 States reporting on levels of manganese giving rise
to water quality problems, only three States recommended levels as
high as 0.2 mg/1, two permitted 0.15 mg/1 and four each permitted
0.1 mg/1 and 0.05 mg/1 respectively. Domestic complaints arise
when the level of manganese exceeds 0.15 mg/1 regardless of iron
content. Griffin (8), in reviewing the significance of manganese as
chairman of the task group on "Manganese Deposition in Pipelines",
quoted the belief of certain water utility men that water to consumers
should be free of manganese. For some industries, this is imperative.
However, Griffin believes that concentration of manganese could be
tolerated by the average consumer at 0.01-0.02 mg/1.
In view of the above and the difficulty of removing manganese to
residual concentrations much less than 0.05 mg/1, and measuring such
concentrations, manganese concentrations should be limited to a maxi-
mum of 0.05 mg/1.
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Griffin, A. E. Manganese removal with chlorine arid chlorine dioxide. J.
New England Water Works Association 72: pp. 321-327, September 1958.
2. Riddick, T. M., Lindsey, N. L., and Tomassi, A. Iron and Manganese in water
supplies. J. Am. Water Works A. 50: pp. 688-702, May 1958.
3. Cotzias, G. 0. Manganese in health and disease. Physiol. Rev. 38: pp. 503-
532 (1958).
4. Drill, V. A. Pharmacology in medicine. Ed. 2. New York, N.Y. McGraw-
Hill, 1958. pp. 709, 787, 794.
5. Sollmann, T. H. A manual of pharmacology. Ed. 8. Philadelphia, Pa.,
W. B. Saunders Co., 1957, pp. 1278-1281.
6. von Oettingen, W. F. Manganese its distribution, pharmacology and health
hazards. Physiol. Rev. 15: pp. 175-201 (1935).
7. Cohen, J. M., Kamphake, L. J., Harris, E. K., and Woodward, R. L. Taste
threshold concentrations of metals in drinking water. J. Am. Water Works
A. 52: pp. 660-670, May 1960.
8. Griffin, A. E. Significance and removal of manganese in water supplies. J.
Am. Water Works A. 52: pp. 1326-1334, October 1960.
NITRATE
Serious and occasionally fatal poisonings in infants have occurred
following ingestion of well waters shown to contain nitrate (NO3).
This has occurred with sufficient frequency and widespread geographic
distribution to compel recognition of the hazard by assigning a limit
to the concentration of nitrate in drinking water.
-------
48 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
From 1947 to 1950, 139 cases of methemoglobinemia, including 14
deaths due to nitrate in farm well-water supplies, have been reported
in Minnesota alone (1). Wastes from chemical fertilizer plants and
field fertilization may be sources of pollution. The causative factor
producing serious blood changes in infants was first reported in 1945 in
polluted water containing 140 mg/1 nitrate nitrogen (NO3 -N) and
0.4 mg/1 nitrite (NO2) ion in one case; in the second case, 90 mg/1
nitrate nitrogen and 1.3 mg/1 nitrite ion (£). Since this report,
many instances of similar occurrences have been recorded not only in
this country but in Canada, Great Britain, Belgium, Germany, and
other countries.
The International Drinking Water Standards of 1958 took cogni-
zance of the problem in noting that ingestion of water containing
nitrates in excess of 50 mg/1 (as nitrate) may give rise to infantile
methemoglobinemia but have included no limit. Taylor (3), in Eng-
land, has suggested a limit of 20 mg/1 nitrate nitrogen. Bosch, et al.
(1), consider nitrate nitrogen concentrations in excess of 10-20 mg/1
capable of producing cyanosis in infants. Various South American
countries have recommended maximum permissible levels of from
0.5-228 mg/1 nitrate (NO3) (0.1-51 mg/1 nitrate nitrogen) (4).
Cases of infantile nitrate poisoning have been reported to arise
from concentrations ranging from 15-250 or more mg/1 nitrate nitro-
gen (usually with traces of nitrite ion) in instances in which the water
was analyzed up to 1952, according to Campbell (5). Campbell him-
self reported a case from ingesting water with 26.2 mg/1 as nitrate
nitrogen (116 mg/1 nitrate ion).
According to methods of analysis commonly employed for nitrate
in water, the presence of appreciable amounts of chloride would result
in an erroneously low value for nitrate, and the presence of consider-
able amounts of organic matter would give an erroneously high value
for nitrate. Insufficient attention has been given this important factor
in evaluating permissible safe levels of nitrate in water.
Nitrate poisoning appears to be confined to infants during their
first few months of life; adults drinking the same water are not
affected but breast-fed infants of mothers drinking such water may
be poisoned (6). Cows drinking water containing nitrate may pro-
duce milk sufficiently high in nitrate to result in infant poisoning (5).
Both man and animals can be poisoned by nitrate if the concentration
is sufficiently great.
Among the more acceptable hypotheses for the specificity of nitrate
poisoning of infants is the following: the gastric, free acidity of
infants is low (a pH of 4 or greater), permitting the growth of ni-
trate-reducing flora in a portion of the gastrointestinal tract from
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 49
which nitrite absorption can occur. It is also stated that foetal
hemoglobin forms methemoglobin more readily than the adult form.
According to a recent study from Germany (8), the primary causes
of toxicity are an elevated nitrate concentration and the presence of
an unphysiologic amount of nitrite-forming bacteria, especially in the
upper portion of the digestive tract. Members of the colif orm group
and the genus Clostridium are capable of reducing nitrate to nitrite.
In infants whose diet is mainly carbohydrate, it is believed that the
colif orm organisms are the group responsible; organisms capable of
reducing nitrite to nitrogen are not normally present in the infant.
Careful measurement of a number of other constituents in 23 offend-
ing well waters, nitrite, ammonia, chloride, and organic substances,
failed to reveal a casual relation of these substances to the injury.
There are no reports of methemoglobinemia in infants fed water
from public water supplies in the United States, although levels of
nitrate in some may be routinely in excess of 45 mg/1. This may
indicate that well water for analysis has often been improperly
sampled or that some other as yet unknown factor is involved. Prac-
tically nothing is known of the variation in nitrate concentration in
the same well. Because samples associated with injury are taken
after injury occurs, it is conceivable that this delay has resulted in
failure to measure truly injurious concentrations.
Sodium nitrate has been fed to rats for a lifetime without adverse
effects at levels below 1 percent (10,000 ppm) in the diet (9); two
dogs tolerated for 105 and 125 days, respectively, 2 percent nitrate
in the diet without effects on blood or other adverse effects.
Nitrite is equally dangerous in water supplies. Although concen-
trations that occur naturally are generally of no health significance,
nevertheless, they may enter water supplies inadvertently as a result
of intentional addition to private supplies as anticorrosion agents.
A limit of 200 ppm of nitrite (or nitrate) in "corned" products
has been set by Federal regulation on the basis that lOOg corned beef
could convert maximally from 10-40g hemoglobin to methemoglobin
(1.4-5.7 percent of total hemoglobin). Adult human blood normally
contains on the average of 0.7 percent methemoglobin; the blood of
"heavy" smokers may contain 7-10 percent carboxyhemoglobin,
another blood pigment conversion product incapable of transporting
oxygen. Carbon monoxide in urban atmosphere adds perceptibly to
the total inactive pigment. The summated blood pigment conversion
products represent about the maximum tolerated without headache.
Because of the great difference in molecular weight between sodium
nitrite, 69, and hemoglobin, 64,000, small increments of nitrite pro-
duce large quantities of methemoglobin (Ig nitrite converts 460-
-------
50 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
1850g hemoglobin). The margin of safety is still further narrowed
in infants whose blood volume is small, their total blood hemoglobin
is decreasing after birth (from l7-20g to 10.5-12g), and their foetal
hemoglobin is more readily converted to methemoglobin.
An instance of nitrite poisoning of children has been reported (10).
The children ate frankfurters and bologna containing nitrite consider-
ably in excess of the 200 ppm permitted.
Evidence in support of the recommended limit for nitrate is given
in detail by Walton (7) in a survey of the reported cases of nitrate
poisoning of infants in this country to 1951. The survey shows that
no cases of poisoning were reported when the water contained less
than 10 mg/1 nitrate nitrogen. Walton notes, however, that in many
instances the samples for analysis were not obtained until several
months after the occurrence of the poisoning.
In light of the above information and because of the uncertainty
introduced by tardy analyses, the frequent lack of attention to possible
interfering factors in the analysis, the health of the infant, and the
uncertain influence of associated bacterial pollution, 10 mg nitrate
nitrogen (or 45 mg nitrate) per liter of water is a limit which should
not be exceeded.
At present there is no method of economically removing excessive
amounts of nitrate from water. It is important, therefore, for health
authorities in areas in which nitrate content of water is known to be
in excess of the recommended limit to warn the population of the
potential dangers of using the water for infant feeding and to inform
them of alternative sources of water that may be used with safety.
LIMITS AND RANGES RELATED TO NITRATE WATER STANDARD
Average concentration adult human blood: 10 ug nitrate/100 ml (0.1 ppm).
Average daily urinary nitrate excretion: 500 mg (mainly from vegetables).
Strained baby foods: 0 (squash, tomatoes)—833 ppm nitrate (spinach).
Green Vegetables: 50 ppm nitrate (asparagus, dry weight), 3,600 ppm nitrate
(spinach, dry weight).
Limit of nitrite (or nitrate) permitted in meat (or fish) products by Federal
regulation: 200 ppm.
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Bosch, H. M., Rosenfield, A. B., Huston, R., Shipman, H. R., and Woodward,
R. L. Methemoglobinemia and Minnesota well supplies. J. Am. Water
Works A. 42: pp. 161-170, July 1050.
2. Comly, H. H. Cyanosis in infants caused by nitrates in well water. J.A.M.A.
129: 112-116 (1945).
3. Taylor, E. W. Examination of water and water supplies. Ed. 7. Philadel-
phia, Pa., The Blakiston Company, 1958, 841 pp.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 51
4. Caballero, P. J. Discussion sobre las normas de calidad para aqua potable.
Organo Official de la Associacion Interamericana de Ingenieria Sanitaria
3: pp. 53-64. July 1949-June 1930.
5. Campbell, W. A. B. Metheuioglobinemia due to nitrates In well water.
Brit. Med. J., 2: pp. 371-373 (1952).
6. Donahoe, W. E. Cyanosis in infants with nitrates In drinking water as
cause. Pediat. 3 : pp. 308-311 (1949).
7. Walton, G. Survey of literature relating to infant methemoglobinemla due
to nitrate-contaminated water. Am. J. Pub. Health 41: pp. 986-996,
August 1951.
8. Horn, K. Uber gesundheltsstorungen durch nitrathaltiges trinkwasser
vornehmlich bei saughlinger unter berucksichtigung der orthshygienischen
Verhaltnisse. Stadtehygiene 9: pp. 2-21-25 (1958).
9. Lehman, A. J. Nitrates and nitrites in meat products. A. Food & Drug
Officials, U.S. 22: pp. 136-138, July 1958.
10. Orgeron, J. D., Martin, J. D., Caraway, C. T., Martine, R. M., and Hauser,
G. H. Methemoglobin from eating meat with high nitrite content. Pub.
Health Rep. 72: pp. 189-192, March 1957.
PHENOLS
The term "phenols" is understood to include cresols and xylenols.
Both the International Drinking Water Standards and those of the
U.S. Public Health Service of 1946 recommended a limit of 1 ug/1 of
phenol in water. This limit is set because of the undesirable taste
often resulting from chlorination of waters containing extremely low
concentrations of phenol. Phenol concentrations of 5 mg/1 or more
are injurious to fish, whereas 1 mg/1 or less will not seriously affect
most fish. Concentrations from 15-1,000 mg/1 in the drinking water
were reported (1) without observable effect on rats for extended
periods; 5,000 mg/1 appeared likewise to exert no effect on digestion,
absorption, or metabolism, but 7,000 mg/1 arrested growth and resulted
in many stillbirths. Thus, concentrations injurious to health are far
removed from those which impart unpleasant taste or affect fish.
Phenol is largely detoxified in the mammalian body by conjugation
to far less toxic substances (2).
Although additional information has been developed (
-------
52 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
SELENIUM
The presence of selenium in water lias heretofore been a matter of
regional importance (1). The fact that it is now recognized as being
toxic to both man and animals makes it essential that limits be set
for all water intended for human consumption.
Selenium is known to produce "alkali disease" in cattle, and its ef-
fects, like those of arsenic, may be permanent (1$). Recent reports
indicate also that selenium may increase the incidence of dental caries
in man (3). Of greater importance in limiting the concentration of
selenium is its potential carcinogenicity (4). Rats fed a diet contain-
ing varying concentrations of selenium (3 to 40 mg/1) showed toxic
effects at all levels, the outstanding pathologic lesion being hepatic
cell tumors.
From very limited information (5) concentrations of selenium in
water considered safe for man have been found toxic for fish.
In view of the potential seriousness of above reported effects, it is
recommended that the limits for selenium be lowered from its present
value of 0.05 mg/1 to 0.01 mg/1 and concentrations in excess of this
lower value be used as grounds for rejection of the supply.
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Dudley, H. C. Toxicology of selenium: I. A study of the distribution of
selenium in acute and chronic cases of selenium poisoning. Am. J. Hyg. 23:
pp. 169-186 (1936).
2. Drill, V. A. Pharmacology in Medicine. Ed. 2., New York, N.Y., McGraw-
Hill, 1958, pp. 794-795.
3. Hadjimarkos, D. M., and Bonhorst, C. W. The trace element selenium and its
influence on dental caries susceptibility. J. Pediat. 52: pp. 274-278 (1958).
4. Fitzhugh, O. G., Nelson, A. A., and Bliss, E. I. The chronic oral toxicity of
selenium. J. Pharm. Exp. Ther. 80: pp. 289-299 (1944).
5. Ellis, M. M. Pollution and aquatic life. Am. Wildlife 26: pp. 38, 45-^6
(1937).
SILVER
The need to set a water standard for silver (Ag) arises from its
intentional addition to waters for disinfection. The chief effect of
silver in the body is cosmetic, which consists of a permanent blue-
grey discoloration of the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes which is
as unsightly and disturbing to the observer as to the victim. The
amount of colloidal silver required to produce this condition (argyria,
argyrosis), and which would serve as a basis of determining the
water standard, is not known, but the amount of silver from injected
Ag-arsphenamine, which produces argyria is precisely known. This
value is any amount greater than 1 gram of silver, 8g Ag-arsphena-
mine in an adult (1, %).
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 53
From a review (#) of more than 200 cases of argyria, the following
additional facts were derived. Most common salts of silver produce
argyria when taken by mouth or by injection. There is a long-delayed
appearance of discoloration. No case has been uncovered that has
resulted from an idiosyncrasy to silver. There was, however, con-
siderable variability in predisposition to argyria; the cause of this is
unknown but individuals concurrently receiving bismuth medication
developed argyria more readily. Although there is no evidence that
gradual deposition of silver in the body produces any significant altera-
tion in physiologic function, authorities are of the opinion that occa-
sional mild systemic effects from silver may have been overshadowed
by the striking external changes. In this connection, there is a report
(3) of implanted silver amalgams resulting in localized argyria re-
stricted to the elastic fibers and capillaries. The histopathologic re-
action resembled a blue nevus simulating a neoplasm with filamentous
structures and globular masses. Silver affinity for elastic fibers had
been noted a half-century earlier (5).
A study (5) of the metabolism of silver from intragastric intake in
the rat using radio-silver in carrier-free tracer amounts showed ab-
sorption to be less than 0.1-0.2 percent of the silver administered; but
this evidence is inconclusive because of the rapid elimination of silver
when given in carrier-free amounts. Further study indicated, how-
ever, that silver is primarily excreted by the liver. This would be
particularly true if the silver is in colloidal form. Silver in the body
is transported chiefly by the blood stream in which the plasma proteins
and the red cells carry practically all of it in extremely labile combina-
tions. The half-time of small amounts of silver in the blood stream
of the rat was about 1 hour. A later report (6), using the spectro-
graphic method on normal human blood, showed silver unmistakably
in the red blood cell and questionably in the red cell ghosts and in the
plasma. Once silver is fixed in the tissues, however, negligible excre-
tion occurs in the urine (7).
A study (8) of the toxicologic effects of silver added to drinking
water of rats at concentrations up to 1,000 ug/1 (nature of the silver
salt unstated) showed pathologic changes in kidneys, liver, and spleen
at 400, TOO, and 1,000 ug/1.
A study (9) of the resorption of silver through human skin using
radio-silver Ag111 has shown none passing the dermal barrier from
either solution (2 percent AgNO3) or ointment, within limits of ex-
perimental error (±2 percent). This would indicate no significant
addition of silver to the body from bathing waters treated with silver.
Great uncertainty, however, currently surrounds any evaluation of
the amount of silver introduced into the body when silver-treated
-------
54 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
water is used for culinary purposes. It is reasonable to assume that
vegetables belonging to the family Brassicaceae, such as cabbage,
turnip, cauliflower, and onion, would combine with residual sUver in
the cooking water. The silver content of several liters of water could
thus be ingested.
Despite these uncertainties and the present lack of appropriate
drinking water studies, it is possible to derive a tentative drinking
water standard for silver by using silver deposited in excess of Ig in the
integument of the body as an end point that must not be exceeded. As-
suming that all silver ingested is deposited in the integument, it is
readily calculated that 10 ug/1 could be ingested for a lifetime before
Ig silver it attained from 2 liters water intake per day; 50 ug/1 silver
could be ingested approximately 27 years without exceeding silver
deposition of Ig.
Because of the evidence (7) that silver, once absorbed, is held
indefinitely in tissues, particularly the skin, without evident loss
through usual channels of elimination or reduction by transmigration
to other body sites; and because of the probable increased absorb-
ability of silver as silver-bound sulfur components of food cooked in
silver-treated waters, the intake for which absorption was reported
in 1940 to amount to 60-80 ug per day (10}; and because of the above
calculation, a concentration in excess of 50 ug/1 is grounds for rejec-
tion of the supply.
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Hill, W. B., and Pillsbury, D. M. Argyria. The pharmacology of silver.
Baltimore, Md., Williams & Wilklns, 1939,172 pp.
2. Ibid., Argyria Investigation—Toxicologic Properties of Silver, Am. Silver
Producers Res. Proj. Report. Appendix II (1957).
3. Bell, C. D., Cookey, D. B., and Nickel, W. R. Amalgam tatoo-localized
argyria. A.M.A. Arch. Derm. Syph. 66: pp. 523-525 (1952).
4. Joseph, M., and Van Deventer, J. B., Atlas of Cutaneous Morbid Histology.
W. T. Kliner & Co., Chicago, 1906.
5. Scott, K. G., and Hamilton, J. G. The metabolism of silver in the rat with
radiosilver used as indicator. U. of Cal. Publ. in Pharm. 2: pp. 241-262
(1950).
6. Wyckoff, R. C., and Hunter, F. R. Spectrographlc analysis of human blood.
Arch. Biochem. 63: pp. 454-460 (1956).
7. Aub, J. C., and Fairhall, L. T. Excretion of silver in urine. J.A.M.A. 118 :
p. 319 (1942).
8. Just, J., and Szniolis, A. Germicidal properties of silver in water. J. Am,
Water Works A. 28: pp. 492-506, April 1936.
9. Norgaard, O. Investigations with Radio Ag m into the resorption of silver
through human skin. Acts Dermatovener 34: pp. 415-419 (1954).
10. Kehoe, R. A., Cholak, J., and Story, R. V. Manganese, lead, tin, copper and
silver In normal biological material. J. Nutr. 20: pp. 85-98 (1940).
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 55
ZINC
Limits for concentrations of zinc in drinking waters have been
established as follows: (a) USPHS Drinking Water Standards
(1946), 15 mg/1; (b) Ohio and North Dakota, 1 mg/1; (c) Interna-
tional Drinking Water Standards (1958), permissible—5 mg/1 and
excessive—15 mg/1; (d) various South American Countries, 5 to 15
mg/1.
Zinc is an essential and beneficial element in human metabolism (1).
The daily requirement for preschool-age children is 0.3 mg Zn/kg.
Total zinc in the adult averages 2g. Zinc content of human tissues
ranges from 10-200 ppm wet weight, the retina of the eye and the
prostrate containing the largest concentrations (500-1,000 ppm).
Three percent of all blood zinc is in the white blood cells. The daily
adult human intake averages 10-15 mg; excretion of zinc aver-
ages about 10 mg daily in the feces and 0.4 mg in the urine. Zinc
deficiency in animals lead to growth retardation that is overcome
by adequate dietary zinc. The activity of several body enzymes
is dependent on zinc.
A group of individuals stationed at a depot used a drinking water
supply containing zinc at 23.8 to 40.8 mg/1 and experienced no known
harmful effects. Communities have used waters containing from
11-27 mg/1 without harmful effects (2,3). Another report (4) stated
spring water containing 50 mg/1 was used for a protracted period
without noticeable harm. On the other hand, another supply con-
taining approximately 30 mg/1 was claimed to cause nausea and
fainting.
Zinc salts act as gastrointestinal irritants. Although the illness
is acute, it is transitory. The emetic concentration range in water is
675-2, 280 mg/1. In tests performed by a taste panel, 5 percent of
the observers were able to distinguish between water containing 4
mg/1 (when present as zinc sulfate) and water containing no zinc
salts (5). Soluble zinc salts at 30 mg/1 impart milky appearance
to water, and at 40 mg/1, a metallic taste (6).
Inasmuch as zinc in water does not cause serious effects on health
but produces undesirable esthetic effects, it is recommended that
concentrations of zinc be kept below 5 mg/1.
Cadmium and lead are common contaminants of zinc used in
galvanizing. Assuming that zinc is dissolved from galvanized water
pipe no less than cadmium, dissolution of zinc to produce 5 mg/1
would be accompanied by something less than the allowable 0.01 mg
cadmium per liter when cadmium contamination of the zinc is as high
-------
56 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
as 0.03 percent. Likewise, lead concentrations would likely be in-
creased by something less than the allowable 0.05 mg/1 when lead
contamination of the zinc is as high as 0.6 percent.
LIMITS AND RANGES RELATIVE TO ZINC WATER STANDARD
Food (7)—Milk, 4 mg/1
Egg (Hen)—1 mg
Cd content of galvanized pipe: 0.014-0.04 percent. Average 0.03 percent.
Pb content of galvanized pipe: 0.24-0.6 percent Average 0.45 percent.
Urban air concentration: Average 2 ug/m3 (8).
Concentrations toxic to fish: 0.3-4 mg/1, depnding on degree of water hard-
ness (9).
Drinking water containing 50 mg/1 (as Sulfate) was not harmful to rats which
used it for 6 weeks (3).
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Vallee, B. L. Zinc and its biologic significance, Arch Indust. Health. 16:
pp. 147-154, July 1957.
2. Anderson, E. A., Reinhard, C. E., and Hammel, W. D. The corrosion of zinc
in various waters. J. Am. Water Works A. 26: pp. 49-60, January 1934.
3. Bartow, E., and Weigle, O. M. Zinc in water supplies. Indust. Eng. Chem.
24: pp. 463-465 (1932).
4. Hinman, J. J., Jr. Desirable characteristics of a municipal water supply.
J. Am. Water Works A. 30: pp. 484-494, March 1938.
5. Cohen, J. M., Kamphake, L. J., Harris, E. K., and Woodward, R. L. Taste
threshold concentrations of metals in drinking water. J. Am. Water
Works A. 52: pp. 660-670. May 1960.
6. Kehoe, R. A., Cholak, J., and Largent, E. J. The hygienic significance of the
contamination of water of certain mineral constituents. J. Am. Water
Works A. 36: pp. 645-657, June 1944.
7. Sollmann, T. H. A manual of pharmacology, Ed. 8: Philadelphia, Pa., W.
B. Saunders Co., 1957, pp. 1302-1305.
8. U.S. Public Health Service. Air pollution measurements of the national air
sampling network. Cincinnati, Ohio, Robt. A. Taft San. Eng. Center (1958).
9. Jones, J. R. E. The relative toxicity of salts of lead, zinc, and copper to the
Stickleback (gasteracteus aculeatus L.) and the effect of calcium on the
toxicity of lead and zinc salts. Exper. Biol. J. 15: pp. 394-407 (1938).
E—RADIOACTIVITY
The effects of radiation on human beings are viewed as harmful
and any unnecessary exposure to radiation should be avoided. In this
discussion we are concerned with radiation from radioactive materials
in the environment, particularly in water, food, and air.
The development of the nuclear industry has been attended by a
small, unavoidable increase of radioactivity in the environment. Nu-
clear weapons testing causes an increase of radioactivity from fallout.
Exposure of human beings to environmental sources of radiation
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 57
should be minimized insofar as is technically and economically
feasible.
The Federal Radiation Council (1) has provided guidance for Fed-
eral agencies conducting activities designed to limit exposure of in-
dividuals of population groups to radiation from radioactive materials
deposited in the body as a result of their occurrence in the en-
vironment.
The following recommendation of the Federal Radiation Council
is considered especially pertinent in applying these Standards: (2)
"There can be no single permissible or acceptable level of ex-
posure without regard to the reason for permitting the exposure.
It should be general practice to reduce exposure to radiation, and
positive effort should be carried out to fulfill the sense of these
recommendations. It is basic that exposure to radiation should
result from a real determination of its necessity."
The Federal Radiation Council criteria (/) (3) (4) have been ob-
served in establishing the limits for radioactivity in the Drinking
Water Standards. It should be noted that these Federal Radiation
Council guides apply to normal peacetime operations.
The Federal Radiation Council guides are predicated upon three
ranges of daily intake of radioactivity. For each range, a measure of
control action was defined, which represented a graded scale of control
procedures. These are shown by the following table:
TABLE I.—Graded scales of action
Ranges of transient rates of daily
intake
Kange II .. .
Range III ..
Graded scale of action
Quantitative surveillance and routine control.
Evaluation and application of additional control measures as necessary.
The Federal Radiation Council (4) further defined the action to be
taken by stating that: "Routine control of useful applications of
radiation and atomic energy should be such that expected average
exposures of suitable samples of an exposed population group will not
exceed the upper value of Range II." Furthermore, they recom-
mended, with respect to Range III, that "Control actions would be de-
signed to reduce the levels to Range II or lower and to provide
stability at lower levels."
The radionuclide intake ranges recommended are the sum of radio-
activity from air, food and water. Daily intakes were prescribed
with the provision that dose rates be averaged over a period of one
-------
58
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
year. The range for specific radionuclides recommended by the Fed-
eral Radiation Council (1) are shown in the following table:
TABLE II.—Ranges of transient rates of intake (nicromicrocures per day) for use in
graded scale of actions summarized in Table I
Radionudldes
Radium-226
Iodine-131 •. ....
Strontium-90
Strontium-89
Range I
0-2
0-10
0-20
0-200
Range II
2-20
10-100
20-200
200-2000
Range III
20-200
100-1000
200-2000
2000-20, 000
1 In the case of lodine-131, the suitable sample would Include only small children. For adults, the RPG
for the thyroid would not be exceeded by rates of Intake higher by a factor of 10 than those applicable to small
children.
The Advisory Committee, in considering limits which should be
established for drinking water, recommended limits for only two of
the above nuclides, Radium-226 (3 uuc per liter) and Strontium-90
(10 uuc per liter). Iodine-131 is not found in significant quantities in
public water supplies frequently enough to call for routine monitoring
and Strontium-89 levels are not likely to be significant unless
Strontium-90 levels also are high.
In the case of Radium-226, above-average levels of intake generally
occur only in unusual situations where the drinking water contains
naturally occurring Radium-226 in greater than average amounts, as
in the case of certain ground waters, or from the pollution of the sup-
ply by industrial discharges of waste containing radium. With this
in mind, a limit of 3 uuc/liter has been set for Radium-226 in drink-
ing water. If one assumes a daily intake of such drinking water of
about 2 liters per day, this would result in a daily intake from water
of 6 uuc which falls in the lower portion of Range II in the above
table. If there is evidence that Radium-226 from sources other than
water is greater than usual, levels may have to be reduced below the
above limit using the guides established by the Federal Radiation
Council.
The principal source of Strontium-90 in the environment to date
has been due to fallout from weapon tests, and human intake of
Strontium-90 to date has been primarily from food. In recognition
of this fact, the limit for Strontium-90 in water has been set at 10
uuc/liter, a limit substantially higher than the highest level found in
public water supplies to date.
The Standards recognized the need to provide guidance for those
situations where the limits are exceeded. In these instances, the
Standards provide for the continued acceptance of the water supply if
radioactivity from all other sources in addition to that from the water
does not exceed intake levels recommended by the Federal Radiation
Council for control action (the upper limit of Range II). It is essen-
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1062 59
tial in such instances for the certifying authority to determine with
reasonable confidence that this latter condition is met.
Although a great variety of radionuclides may be present in drink-
ing water, it has not been considered necessary to establish limits for
general application to water supplies for other than the above two at
this time. If significant concentrations of radioactivity are found in
drinking water, an effort should be made to determine the radio-
nuclides present and, where appropriate, to reduce their concentrations
as much as feasible.
In assessing the hazard of radionuclides for which limits have not
been set in these Standards, or for which guidance has not yet been
provided by the Federal Kadiation Council, it is suggested that the
values (MPCw for the 168-hour week) in table I, of the report of the
International Commission on Radiological Protection (6) or the Na-
tional Committee on Radiation Protection (7), adjusted by a factor
appropriate for exposure of the general population, be used. When
mixtures of radionuclides are present the permissible concentration
of any single nuclide must be reduced by an amount determined
through applicable calculations in these reports.
In these Standards an upper limit of 1,000 /*/*c per liter of gross beta
activity (in the absence1 of alpha emitters and Strontium-90) has
been set. If this limit is exceeded the specific radionuclides present
must be identified by complete analysis in order to establish the fact
that the concentrations of nuclides will not produce exposures above
the recommended limits established in the Radiation Protection
Guides. (3)
LITERATURE CITATIONS
1. Federal Radiation Council, Radiation Protection Guidance for Federal Agen-
cies, Memorandum for the President, Sept. 13, 1961. Reprint from the
Federal Register of Sept. 26, 1961.
2. Federal Radiation Council, Radiation Protection Guidance for Federal Agen-
cies, Memorandum for the President, May 13, 1960. Reprint from the
Federal Register of May 18, 1960.
3. Federal Radiation Council, Report No. 1, Rackground Material for the De-
velopment of Radiation Protection Standards, May 13, 1960. Government
Printing OfQce, 1960.
4. Federal Radiation Council, Report No. 2, Background Material for the De-
velopment of Radiation Protection Standards, September 1961. Government
Printing Office, 1961.
o. Radiological Health Data, Public Health Service monthly publication, May
1962. Government Printing Office.
1 "Absence" Is Intended to mean a negligibly small fraction of the limits established for
these nuclides and the limit for unidentified alpha emitters Is taken as the listed limit for
Radiiim-228.
-------
60 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962
6. International Commission on Radiological Protection: Report of committee II
on permissible dose for internal radiation. New York, N.Y., Pergamon
Press, Inc., 1959.
7. National Committee on Radiation Protection: Maximum permissible body
burden and maximum permissible concentrations of radionuclides in air
and in water for occupational exposure. National Bureau of Standards
Handbook No. 69, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office,
June 4, 1959.
F—MEMBERSHIP OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE, TECH-
NICAL SUBCOMMITTEE AND TASK FORCE ON
TOXICOLOGY
Membership of Advisory Committee1
O. C. Hopkins, Chairman, U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
George W. Burke, Jr., Secretary, U.S. Public Health Service, Washington, D.C.
REPRESENTATIVES OF FEDERAL ORGANIZATIONS
Food and Drug Administration: L. M. Beacham, Jr., Deputy Director, Division
of Food, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Washington, D.C.
U.8. Geological Survey: S. K. Love, Chief, Quality of Water Branch, U.S. De-
partment of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
REPRESENTATIVES OF SCIENTIFIC ASSOCIATIONS AND INDUSTRY
Air Transport Association of America: K. L. Stratton, Medical Director, Ameri-
can Airlines, LaGuardia Airport Station, Flushing 71, N.Y.
American Chemical Society: T. E. Larson, Head, Chemistry Section, State Water
Survey Division, Urbana, 111.
American Dental Association: Robert A. Downs, Chief, Public Health Dentistry
Section, State Department of Public Health, Denver, Colo.
American Medical Association: W. D. Stovall, Director, State Laboratory of
Hygiene, Madison, Wis.
American Public Health Association: Daniel A. Okun, Department of Sanitary
Engineering, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, N.C.
American Society of Civil Engineers: Thomas R. Camp, Camp, Dresser, and Mc-
Kee, Consulting Engineers, 18 Tremont Street, Boston 8, Mass.
American Water Works Association: Oscar Gullans, Chief Filtration Engineer,
So. District Filtration Plant, 3300 East Cheltenham Place, Chicago, 111.
Association of American Railroads: R. S. Glynn, Director, Sanitation Research,
Association of American Railroads, 3140 South Federal Street, Chicago, 111.
Association of State and Territorial Public Health Laboratory Directors: F. R.
Hassler, Director of Laboratories, State Department of Health, Oklahoma
City, Okla.
Conference of State Sanitary Engineers: E. C. Jensen, Chief, Division of Engi-
neering and Sanitation, State Department of Health, Seattle, Wash.
National Committee on Radiation Protection: John B. Hursh, Professor, Depart-
ment of Radiation Biology, University of Rochester, Rochester, N.Y.
1 Official positions and addresses at time of appointment.
-------
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS, 1962 61
Society of American Bacteriologists: Charles C. Croft, Assistant Chief of Lab-
oratories, State Department of Health, Columbus, Ohio.
Water Pollution Control Federation: F. W. Gilcreas, Professor of Sanitary Sci-
ence, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Florida, Gainesville, Fla.
MEMBER AT LARGE
Henry J. Ongerth, Supervising Sanitary Engineer, State Department of Public
Health, 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, Calif.
Technical Subcommittee, Officers of the Public Health Service
O. C. Hopkins, Deputy Chief, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control,
Washington, D.C. (Cochairman).
Richard Woodward, Chief, Engineering Section, Water Supply and Pollution Re-
search Branch, Cincinnati, Ohio (Cochairman).
George W. Burke, Jr., Chief, Evaluation and Review Section, Technical Services
Branch, Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control, Washington, D.C.
Paul Kabler, Chief, Microbiology Section, Water Supply and Pollution Research
Branch, Cincinnati, Ohio.
M. B. Ettinger, Chief, Chemistry and Physics Section, Water Supply and Pollu-
tion Research Branch, Cincinnati, Ohio.
H. G. Magnuson, Chief, Occupational Health Program, Division of Special Health
Services, Washington, D.C.
H. E. Stokinger, Chief, Toxicologic Services, Occupational Health Field Head-
quarters, Cincinnati, Ohio.
James G. Terrill, Assistant Chief, Division of Radiological Health, Washington,
D.C.
Malcolm Hope, Chief, General Engineering Program, Division of Engineering
Services, Washington, D.C.
Floyd Taylor, Chief, Water Supply Activity, Division of Engineering Services,
Washington, D.C.
Task Force _pn Toxicology
H. E. Stokinger, Chief, Toxicologic Services, Occupational Health Field Head-
quarters, Public Health Service, Cincinnati, Ohio (Chairman).
Kenneth P. DuBois, Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of
Chicago, Chicago 37, 111.
Harvey Haag, Professor of Pharmacology, Medical College of Virginia, Rich-
mond 19, Va.
Wayland J. Hayes, Jr., Chief of Toxicology, Communicable Disease Center,
Public Health Service, Atlanta, Ga.
Harry Hays, Director, Advisory Center on Toxicology, National Research Coun-
cil, Washington, D.C.
Arnold J. Lehman, Director, Division of Pharmacology, Food and Drug Adminis-
tration, Washington, D.C.
U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE O —680104
-------
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
-------
DEI'ARTMKN F OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
REGIONAL OFFICES
RKGIOX I—-Cuiiih1't JIM!, Maine,
Massachusetts NV*1 II 'imp-
shire, Rhode l.-i," i. \'eimont.
120 Boyl.-ton Stivoi,
Boston 1(>. Mas?.
REGIOX II- Dolt ; re, \*e\\ Jer-
sey, New York, i ViMsylvama.
Room liiou, IL' \'>\ i:idu iy.
Ne\v York K N ^
RF.(;IOX III- DiMiut <)i' Colum-
bia, Kent uck\.« M i r \ 1 a 11 d.
North Carol11' a, Virginia,
Virgin Island--,
Chariollo-~\ dlo, A :;
RIXIION IV Al,il.,'m,i. Florida.
('arolnia, Tenin ->'(
Room 10 }.">*' Se\ "' , i Si foot \F.,
Atlanta :':;. da
RKGIOX V 111 "i')is. I ;; il i a n a.
Michigan, < >ii:o. U i-vont (JJlicc |!u Mm"'.
l.'v'J AVe^t \''in Hurs M .
Ninth Floor,
1114 ('ommerce Street.
Dal las-J, Tex.
RKIJION \'III- ("olorado, Idaho.
Montana, Ftah. AVyomin^.
Room Ti.M,
f>'Jl So\onteenth Street.
1 >en\ ei' :', ('olo.
lii i,ION IX Alaska. Ari/ona.
<'alifornia. IIa\\aii, Xevada.
()re^on, A\'ashiiifjton. (inam.
Amei lean Samoa.
H7 Federal Office
( 'i\'ic ( 'enter,
San Francisco ~2, ('alii'.
-------
------- |