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'.

-------

-------