-------
o u
•5 ">
t—
?» £
i- -tJ
2 §
£ °
E I
t-.
• V)
r*.
Cn
ti
uoi;pjado
in
r-.
en
•g
o>
cvj
r^
en
i
o
i
en
(O
i.
O
s-
o
4-
01
o
at
a.
70
-------
Figures 10 through 12 suggest that factors other than DAWTP operation are
primarily responsible for the differences that occurred in the school attend-
ance patterns at Durham Elementary and the control schools. Similar changes
in pattern, such as the increased absenteeism that occurred at each of the
schools in 1975-76, are obviously due to longitudinally varying factors of
area-wide effect, such as communicable disease epidemics or periods of severe
weather. However, more school-specific factors are also evident from the
school-to-school variability depicted in Figure 11. A possibly significant
factor at Durham Elementary were the changes in principal. After the peren-
nial principal at Durham retired in July 1974, a second principal remained
two years and was followed by a third principal in July 1976, coinciding
with the opening of the DAWTP. A comparison of school attendance under the
three principals is presented in Table 22. School absenteeism declined
with each succeeding principal: from 5.50 percent absent under the first
principal to 5.36 percent under the second principal and to 4.67 percent with
the third principal. Adjusting for area-wide factors via the Tigard control
schools shows a 0.50 percent excess under the first principal, a 0.40 per-
cent excess under the second, and only a 0.03 percent excess under the
third principal. Hence, changes in principal may have contributed to
the recent improvement in school attendance at Durham Elementary.
To examine more transitory health effects, quarterly time series of per-
cent absent at Durham Elementary and the combination of the five Tigard control
schools are presented in Figure 13. There is a very pronounced seasonal pat-
tern with the lowest percentage of absences in the first quarter (September)
and the highest absence rate usually in the third quarter (January-March).
Likely factors leading to poorer attendance, especially in the third quarter
of a year, are communicable diseases such as cold and flu-type illnesses and
rainy weather conditions which usually occur during the winter months in
the Portland area.
TABLE 22. ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL ATTENDANCE WITH PRINCIPAL
CHANGES AT DURHAM ELEMENTARY
Percent Absent
Durham
Principal
First
Second
Third
School Years
From To
1969/70-1973/74
1974/75-1975/76
1976/77-1977 /78
Durham
Elementary
5.50
5.36
4.67
Tigard
Control
Schools
5.00
4.96
4.64
Difference
at Durham
+0.50
+0.40
+0.03
71
-------
s.
v. 10
o I
O u
s §
c o
r— to
tu at
f S
su.i6ag
*»•
co r-.
p«.
i
CM to
e
I
in
o
o
o
-M
c
o
o
18
0>
•r-
I—
CU
co co
r^
CM CM
co CM
r-
CM f-H
r-.
co r»
CM S
CO O
r-
S.
O
I
•4->
O
ol
CU
U
(O
•a
I
•^
u.
o <»> CO rv to to
CM i-H
72
-------
Figure 13 shows that Durham Elementary's absence percentage differed
from the pattern of the Tigard control schools on several occasions. The
marked deviations all occurred during the baseline period and are summar-
ized below:
Period Higher Percent Absent
2Q through 3Q, 1969-70 Tigard control schools
2Q through 3Q, 1970-71 Durham Elementary
3Q, 1972-73 through 2Q, 1973-74 Durham Elementary
To examine the quarterly differences between Durham Elementary and the
control schools in the context of school-to-school variability, the quarterly
time series for each school are displayed in Figure 14. As in Figure 13,
the most pronounced deviation was the continually higher absence percentage
at Durham Elementary during all four quarters of calendar year 1973.
Because of the time lag after initial viral exposure before antibody
levels will provide immunologic protection, the most pronounced effect of
the DAWTP on Durham Elementary School attendance due to viral aerosols might
be expected to occur in the first two or three quarters of the 1976-77 school
year. Figures 13 and 14 do suggest a very slight elevation in absenteeism
at Durham Elementary (relative to the control schools) during these first two
quarters, followed by a slight relative improvement in absenteeism during the
rest of the DAWTP operational period. However, this pattern is extremely
small in comparison to the huge deviations occurring in the baseline period.
It is no larger than many slight discrepancies occurring throughout the
baseline period. Hence, the very slight elevation in absenteeism at Durham
Elementary during the first two quarters cannot be considered an unusual
occurrence.
Analysis by Class Cohorts
The preceding analysis does not rule out the possibility of adverse
health effects from DAWTP operation on some Durham class cohorts which is
obscured in the grouped data for grades one through six. Consequently, atten-
dance data was obtained for each grade at Durham Elementary and the two near-
est Tigard District control schools, Templeton and Tualatin, for each quarter
of the seven schools years 1971-72 through 1977-78.
These attendance data are summarized by school and grade in Table 23.
There is a very slight tendency for absenteeism to decrease as children
progress from first grade through sixth grade. Also, Durham Elementary
had a higher rate of absenteeism over the seven school years than did
the control schools (Templeton and Tualatin). Both of these factors
should be considered when analyzing the data by class cohorts.
73
-------
L. i—
10 O
3 O S-
i— O
§ £
J= C
u o
(J
(/I
>> "Of—
s- s- o
10 -> CT.C
c -i- v
eu i-oo
S •— >>
i— tt)
i. T? cD
• = c^
a HI uj
U <
1/5 >-
co rv.
i
vo
CM t-.
01
sui6ag
c
o>
« ?
4) t
^ &
£ '<
i
in
in
r-»
i
^>
co r».
CM
r«.
CM CM
CM
r^
CO I
o
O
O
oo
•o
rO
CTI
co
CM
00
74
-------
TABLE 23. ASSOCIATION OF ABSENTEEISM WITH GRADE LEVEL
Percent Absent Over Seven School Years,
(1971-72 through 1977-78)
All
Durham Tempieton Tualatin Three Schools
First Grade
Second Grade
Third Grade
Fourth Grade
Fifth Grade
Sixth Grade
Grades 1-6
6.06
6.01
4.95
5.18
5.14
4.77
5.35
4.96
4.64
4.47
4.46
4.27
4.27
4.50
5.29
4.97
4.85
4.74
5.27
4.80
4.99
5.21
4.92
4.66
4.64
4.69
4.49
4.76
The quarterly attendance data for each Durham class cohort and its con-
trol (Templeton plus Tualatin) class cohort are presented as a set of time
series plots in Appendix G. Several intervals of marked discrepancies
between the Durham and control class cohorts occurred during the baseline
period, as summarized below:
Higher
Cohort Discrepancy Interval Absenteeism
Entered grade 5 in 1971-72 3Q, 71-72 thru 4Q, 72-73 Durham
Entered grade 3 in 1971-72 1Q, 72-73 thru 4Q, 73-74 Durham
Entered grade 1 in 1971-72 3Q, 72-73 thru 2Q, 73-74 Durham
Entered grade 1 in 1972-73 4Q, 74-75 thru 1Q, 76-77 Durham
The first three discrepancies occurred over roughly the same time interval
and account for the prolonged discrepancy noted in the analysis by school.
Several intervals of slighter discrepancies between class cohorts
occurred in the DAWTP operational period:
Higher
Cohort Pi screpancy Interval Absenteei sm
Entered grade 1 in 1975-76 4Q, 75-76 thru 4Q, 76-77 Durham
Entered grade 1 in 1976-77 2Q, 76-77 thru 1Q, 77-78 Durham
Entered grade 1 in 1977-78 2Q thru 4Q Durham
It should be noted that the higher absenteeism occurring after DAWTP opera-
tion at Durham happened among the younger children (in first and second
75
-------
grade at the time). However, except for 2Q in the cohort entering first
grade in 1977-78, the percent absent at Durham during these periods did not
exceed seven percent. In four of the five baseline years, the first grades
and/or second grades at Durham had at least one quarterly absentee rate
above eight percent. Hence, it is questionable whether the DAWTP had even
a slight adverse effect on absenteeism among students in the first and
second grades at Durham Elementary.
76
-------
SECTION 7
DISCUSSION
MONITORING OF WASTEWATER AND AEROSOLS
Comparison of the wastewater concentrations of the routinely-assayed
microorganisms shows a consistent difference between the large volume sam-
ples (Table 6) taken in November 1977 and the routine monitoring samples
(Table 9) taken in March 1978. In samples taken from the aeration basin,
the microorganism levels were much lower in the large volume sample than
in the routine monitoring samples (e.g., 1,800 cfu/mL versus 450,000 cfu/mL
for total coliform). However, in samples taken from the surge basin, the
microorganism levels were somewhat higher in the large volume sample (e.g.,
1,100 cfu/mL versus 44 cfu/mL for total coliform). While less extreme,
this same pattern was also evident for fecal streptococci and mycobacteria.
The large volume aeration basin sample also had much lower concentrations
of Pseudomonas and coliphage than did the routine monitoring samples
from the aeration basin.
There are at least two possible explanations for this observation.
First, during the November sampling period, considerable quantities of
wastewater were being returned to the aeration basin from the surge basin,
thus diluting the time-composite sample. This was not the case during the
March sampling period. Second, the large volume samples taken in November
were 24-hour time-composite samples, whereas the March samples were short-
term (i.e., 30-minute) samples taken during periods of the day when the
influent being treated might be expected to have the highest microorganism
levels.
Microorganism concentrations in wastewater have also been monitored
recently from the primary aeration basin at the Egan sewage treatment plant,
Schaumburg, Illinois, and from the aerated effluent holding pond of the
Pleasanton sewage treatment plant, Pleasanton, California.4 The DAWTP
aeration basin and surge basin results from the routine wastewater
monitoring are contrasted with the comparable Egan and Pleasanton results
in Table 24. The DAWTP aeration basin was generally quite similar to the
Egan primary aeration basin in the concentrations of most monitored
77
-------
TABLE 24. SITE COMPARISON OF MICROORGANISM CONCENTRATIONS
IN WASTEWATER BEFORE AEROSOLIZATION
Geometric Mean of Wastewater Sample Assays (No./mL)
Egan Plant Pleasanton
Total Plate Count
Total Col i form (cfu)
Fecal Streptococci (cfu)
Mycobacteria (cfu)
Pseudomonas (cfu)
'Agar F
'Centrimide Agar
Coliphage (pfu)
Enterovi ruses (pfu)
Durham
Aeration
Basin
4,800,000b
450,000
4,500
59,000
1,500
930
690
Plant3
Surge
Basin
210,000b
44
5.3
320
1,200
130
0.3
0.50 0.0019
Primary
Aeration
Basin
5,900,000
400,000
740
1,000
8,600
120
0.13
S.T.P.
Effluent
Pond
610,000
7,100
62
46
2,600
275
0.033
aExcludes large volume samples (except for total plate count).
kfiased on single large volume sample.
78
-------
microorganisms in the mixed liquor. Since the physical conditions at the
two sites were also similar, this observation confirms our expectation.
The wastewater in the DAWTP surge basin tended to have much lower micro-
organism concentrations than either of the aeration basins, and somewhat
lower microorganism levels than the Pleasanton effluent pond. The major
exception was mycobacteria, which was much more prevalent in the DAWTP
wastewater than at the other sites.
Aerosol microorganism concentrations downwind of the Durham and Egan
aeration basins and the line of sprinklers at the Pleasanton spray irriga-
tion site are presented in Table 25. Because of the prevalence of myco-
bacteria in the Durham wastewater, the mycobacteria aerosol levels were
higher at the DAWTP aeration basin than at the other study sites. Coliphage
and fecal streptococci aerosol levels were also somewhat higher
at short downwind distances at the Durham site.
TABLE 25. SITE COMPARISON OF AEROSOL MICROORGANISM CONCENTRATIONS
AT 30 TO 50 METERS DOWNWIND OF AEROSOL SOURCE
Geometric Mean of Aerosol Concentrations (No./nr)
Aeration Basin Source Sprinkler Source
Durham Plant Egan Plant3 Pleasanton3
Total Col i form (cfu)
Fecal Streptococci (cfu)
Mycobacteria (cfu)
Pseudomonas (cfu)
Coliphage (pfu)
Enterovi ruses (pfu)
5.8
2.0
9.1
7.
0.71
<0.0009
7.1
<2.
—
40.
0.03
<0.01
2.4
0.61
0.8
34.
0.38
0.014
a Data for samplers at 50 meters downwind of aerosol source.
79
-------
No aerosolized enteroviruses were detected downwind of the DAWTP aera-
tion basin on the enterovirus aerosol run, despite the large volume of air
sampled. Hence, the enterovirus aerosol concentration was less than 0.0009
pfu/m . This result is not surprising. The data in Table 9 indicate that
only 2.1 percent (geometric mean of sample percentages) of the enteroviruses
found in the DAWTP aeration basin wastewater were in the liquid fraction of
the wastewater. This agrees very well with the 2.0 percent of wastewater
enteroviruses found to be in the liquid fraction at the Egan site. Thus,
98 percent of the wastewater enteroviruses were adsorbed onto or incorporated
into the mixed liquor suspended solids in the aeration basin. Consequently,
these enteroviruses are less likely to become or remain aerosolized to
downwind distances of even 30 meters, because of the large particle size.
The distributions of microorganism viability decay rates shown in
Table 15 for the DAWTP aeration basin aerosol can be compared to the viabil-
ity decay rate distributions of the same organisms obtained for the Pleasanton
spray irrigation aerosol. These comparisons are presented in Table 26.
From the distribution percentiles, it appears that viability decay at
Durham differed somewhat from the Pleasanton pattern (i.e., more rapid
decay of mycobacteria and fecal streptococci and less rapid decay of coli-
phage). Two nonparametric statistical tests were conducted to test the null
hypothesis of no difference in viability decay between sites against the
two-sided alternative. These were the two-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test
of cumulative distribution functions to examine distributional differences
and the signed ranks test** to detect shifts in location. At the 0.10 sig-
nificance level, no significant differences between sites were found for
any microorganism by either test. The inability to detect significant
differences in the viability decay distributions at Durham from those at
Pleasanton may reflect either the small Durham sample size (i.e., six aero-
sol runs), the wide variability of individual estimates, or the lack of any
site difference. Nevertheless, use of the Durham percentiles instead of the
Pleasanton percentiles of viability decay would substantially alter the
predicted aerosol concentration P obtained from the microbiological disper-
sion model at downwind distances beyond several hundred meters.
The Pleasanton data ranked fecal streptococci and mycobacteria as
having less viability decay than coliphage, which survived only slightly
better than total coliform. However, the Durham ranking showed coliphage
with less viability decay than fecal streptococci and mycobacteria. Since
the Durham ranking of these microorganisms is not statistically significant,
the Pleasanton and Durham rankings of microorganism viability decay are not
necessarily inconsistent.
Using the microbiological dispersion model predictions for the Durham
aerosol runs, the highest dose of aerosolized microorganisms from the DAWTP
inhaled in one school day by the Durham Elementary students was estimated to
80
-------
TABLE 26. SITE COMPARISON OF VIABILITY DECAY RATE DISTRIBUTIONS
Microorganism
Total Col i form
Mycobacteria
Fecal
Streptococci
Coliphage
Site
Durham
Pleasanton
Durham
Pleasanton
Durham
Pleasanton
Durham
Pleasanton
Number
of
Estimates
6
44
6
8
6
31
6
43
Viability_Decay
Rate X(s-1) Significant
Distribution of Difference9
Values - Percentiles Between
25%
-0.08
-0.09
-0.06
-0.009
-0.04
-0.006
-0.02
-0.05
50%
-0.05
-0.03
-0.02
X
-0.01
X
X
-0.01
75% Sites?
-0.02 No
-0.004
-0.0001 No
X
X No
X
X No
X
X - Indeterminate viability
decay rate,
presumably close to zero.
.
functions and on the signed ranks test of shifts in location, both at the
0.10 significance level.
81
-------
be about 9 cfu of mycobacteria and 3.5 cfu of fecal streptococci. These
peak exposure doses exceed the usual background dose by about two orders
of magnitude for fecal streptococci and by perhaps three or more orders of
magnitude for mycobacteria. Since the calculation required data extrapo-
lations and assumptions whose validity is uncertain, these peak exposure
doses do contain considerable uncertainty. The importance of these peak
microorganism dosage values is that they provide a rough estimate of the
dosing level against which to evaluate the health response measured by
school attendance.
EFFECTS ON SCHOOL ATTENDANCE
In the two school years after the DAWTP began operating, annual school
attendance at neighboring Durham Elementary School improved. The improvement
at Durham was evident in comparison both to prior school attendance at Durham
and to school attendance in the surrounding control schools. Hence, there is
no evidence that operation of the DAWTP had any sustained adverse effect
on school attendance at Durham Elementary.
Analysis of the school attendance data on a quarterly basis also yielded
no evidence of adverse effects having a shorter duration. However, very occa-
sional transitory effects could not have been identified from the quarterly
attendance data available for this study.
The analysis of class cohorts showed some extended periods of elevated
absenteeism among first and second grade students at Durham Elementary (com-
pared to the control school cohorts) after operations at the DAWTP commenced.
However, periods of even higher absenteeism among first and second grade
students at Durham Elementary also characterized many of the baseline
years. Thus, it is uncertain whether the absenteeism among the younger
students at Durham Elementary had any relationship to DAWTP operation.
This study illustrates both the advantages and disadvantages of using
elementary school attendance data for an epidemiologic investigation of a
localized potential health hazard. The advantages are the uniformity, avail-
ability, and copious volumes of school attendance data, which permit the
detection of many significant differences. The primary disadvantage is the
existence of many potentially-confounding factors affecting school attendance
which are unrelated to student health and which can obscure the potential
hazard being investigated. Elsbree and McNally1^ emphasize that school atten-
dance is affected by school factors under the principal's and teachers'
control (e.g., policies regarding student progress, nature of curricular and
extracurricular activities), as well as student factors (e.g., personal ill-
ness, sickness in family, work at home, poverty, inclement weather, parental
82
-------
indifference, travel distance in rural schools). While personal illness is
one of the leading causes of absence, other factors may also have sizable
effect. Hence, school attendance is quite an insensitive measure of
adverse health effects. The lack of an effect on school absenteeism does
not necessarily imply the absence of any health hazard.
There were three principals at Durham Elementary during the school
attendance study period. The third principal served only during the two DAWTP
operational years, so the effects of his policies on school attendance are
confounded with those of the DAWTP. This change in principal may have been
responsible for part of the improvement in attendance at Durham Elementary
in the DAWTP operational years.
There were few school days during the two years of DAWTP operation
when the wind blew steadily from the southwest and south to provide pro-
longed student exposure to microorganisms in the wastewater aerosol.
Furthermore, prolonged periods of rainfall occurred on many of these
steady downwind days, reducing both the duration of exposure and the
extent of outdoor activity. Hence, the Durham students probably received
the predicted peak daily doses (9 cfu of mycobacteria and 3.5 cfu of fecal
streptococci) about one school day per year. These peak doses may exceed
the usual outdoor background doses by perhaps three or more orders of mag-
nitude for mycobacteria and by about two orders of magnitude for fecal
streptococci. Such dose increases are relatively small compared with the
dosage ranges used in controlled dose-response studies on animals. At this
dosing level and frequency, no clear evidence of adverse health effects
could be detected in the Durham Elementary students when using the rela-
tively insensitive school absenteeism measure.
As originally conceived, the study results were to be used to evaluate
the need for a more complete epidemiologic investigation of the school chil-
dren and other populations living near .the DAWTP. Such a health effects study
might involve health diaries, a serosurvey, and illness monitoring using
clinical specimens. The study results (i.e., no preliminary evidence of
an adverse effect based on school attendance, apparently typical aerosol
levels from the aeration basin, and low aerosol levels from the surge
basin) do not suggest a health hazard exists. Considering these results
in light of the limited available funding for health effects studies,
further epidemiologic investigation of health effects around the DAWTP
does not appear to be warranted at this time.
83
-------
REFERENCES
1. Carnow, B., R. Northrop, R. Madden, S. Rosenberg, J. Holden, A. Neal, L.
Sheaff, P. Scheff, and S. Meyer. "Health Effects of Aerosols Emitted
from an Activated Sludge Plant." EPA Grant R-805003, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1979.
2. Johnson, D. E., D. E. Camann, J. W. Register, R. J. Prevost, J. B.
Tillery, R. E. Thomas, J. M. Taylor and J. M. Hosenfeld. "Health
Implications of Sewage Treatment Facilities." EPA-600 1-78-032, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1978, 361 pp.
3. Manual of Cloud Forms and Codes for States of the Sky. Circular S,
Second Edition.United States Department of Commerce and Weather Bureau,
Washington, D.C., 1949, 43 pp.
4. Johnson, D. E., D. E. Camann, J. W. Register, R. E. Thomas, C. A. Sorber,
M. N. Guentzel, J. M. Taylor, and H. J. Harding. "The Evaluation
of Microbiological Aerosols Associated with the Application
of Wastewater to Land: Pleasanton, California." Contract.DAMD
17-75-C-5072 (in preparation).
5. Taras, M. J., A. E. Greenburg, R. D. Hoak, and M. C. Rand. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th Edition.
American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., 1971.
6. Rand, M. D., A. E. Greenberg, M. J. Taras, and M. A. Franson. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 14th Edition,
American Public Health Association, Washington, D.C., 1975, 1193 pp.
7. Camann, D. E., C. A. Sorber, B. P. Sagik, J. P. Glennon and D. E. Johnson.
"A Model for Predicting Pathogen Concentrations in Wastewater Aerosols."
In: Proceedings of the Conference on Risk Assessment and Health Effects
of Land Application of Municipal Wastewater and Sludge, University of
Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, 1978, 240-271 pp.
8. Dumbauld, R. E. "Calculated Aerosolization Efficiencies for the Deer
Creek Lake and the 1974 and 1975 Fort Huachuca Wastewater Spray Trials."
H. E. Cramer Co. technical report TR 77-124-01 to U.S. Army, Ft.
Detrick, Maryland, 1978, 118 pp.
9. Sorber, C. A., H. T. Bausum, S. A. Schaub, and M. J. Small. "A Study of
Bacterial Aerosols at a Wastewater Irrigation Site." Jour. Water Poll.
Control Fed., 48:2367, 1976.
84
-------
10. Lindgren, B. W. Statistical Theory. MacMillan, New York, 1962. 427 pp.
11. Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. Statistical Methods. 6th Edition,
Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa, 1967, 593 pp.
12. Elsbree, W. S. and H. J. McNally. Elementary School Administration and
Supervision. 2nd Edition. American Book Co., New York, 1959.
85
-------
APPENDIX A
PROCEDURES FOR OPERATING A PAIR OF HIGH-VOLUME
AEROSOL SAMPLERS DURING AN AEROSOL RUN
1. After sampling sites have been selected and assigned, set up two
sample tables 1m* apart. Check the tables to make sure they are
level. Set a generator off to the downwind side the full length
of the extension cord and check the gas and oil levels before
starting. Set the samplers in the center of each table with the
control panel on the downwind side.
2. Place a piece of masking tape on a BHI media bottle and mark the
level of the liquid. Run the media into the high-volume sampler
and when the media returns to the bottle, mark the liquid level
on the BHI bottle again. Keep the level of the liquid at this
second mark throughout the run by adding sterile water as is
necessary. Keep the BHI bottle covered with its lid and masking
tape during the run.
3. Make sure that the plate is wetting properly and then set the
liquid flow rate at 3-6mL/min. Adjust the air flow rate to read
the calibrated lOOOL/min mark.
4. After 3 minutes of BHI media recirculation, turn the high-voltage
power supply to 14 kv and sample for 30 minutes unless instructed
differently. Pay careful attention to the liquid levels of the
BHI and to excessing arcing.
5. At the end of the 30 minutes, turn off the high-voltage power
supply and pull the supply line out of the BHI reservoir. Run
the liquid pump and the air blower until all the liquid has been
collected in the original bottle. Make the level up to the
original lOOmL mark on the bottle with sterile water.
6. Clean up the samplers either in the field or the lab as instructed
* See text - Section 5, Methods and Materials
86
-------
APPENDIX B
PROCEDURE FOR DECONTAMINATION OF HIGH-VOLUME AEROSOL SAMPLERS
Solutions: 1% CloroP
Buffers - KHzPO^ (136g/L) 26,lmL , nT
L Ul
Na2HP04 (142g/L) 40.5mL
Autoclave 50mL of buffer in 2 oz. bottles
Add ImL of 5% Clorox^ prior to use
1% Sodium Thiosulfate
lOg Na Thio/L DI H20
Autoclave lOOmL in 4 oz. bottles prior to use
Sterile water
Autoclave lOOmL in 4 oz. bottles prior to use
Procedure:
Initial Cleanup
1. Calibrate air flow meter for 1000 1pm.
2. Disconnect electrical supply, remove side plates from unit.
3. Using Kim Wipes dipped in 100% ethyl alcohol, wipe the inside top
half sides and all upper section parts. Dry with clean Kim Wipes.
4. Run disc (but not blower) and pump 1% Clorox*solution through
all tubes. Small amounts of the solution may be poured on the
top of the disc to speed up the cleaning procedure.
5. After decontamination with Clorox^solution, flush the system with
the contents of a sodium thiosulfate bottle.
6. Rinse the system with the contents of a sterile water bottle.
Place 5 drops of the last lOmL of H20 fluid from the outlet tube
on a TGY plate. Incubate at 37 C for 48 hours and check for
colonies.
7. After most of the liquid has been pumped out of the system, attach
a microfilter to the sampler inlet and run the blower until the
disc is dry.
8. Place the ends of the tubes in a clean plastic bag and tape shut.
87
-------
Seal the sampler inlet and exhaust ports with aluminum foil.
Subsequent Cleanup: After the initial cleanup, steps 4 through 8 are
sufficient for future decontamination provided no contamination is indi-
cated by the TGY plates.
88
-------
APPENDIX C
DESCRIPTION OF LITTON MODEL M HIGH-VOLUME AEROSOL SAMPLER
"The Model M Sampler is designed to continuously collect particu-
late matter from a large volumetric flow rate of air (approximately
1000 liters/minute) and deposit it into a small amount of liquid (flow
rate of 2mL/min). This effects a volumetric concentration factor on
the order of 5 x 105. Basically, the sampler is an electrostatic
precipitator of a rather unusual configuration. With reference to
the schematic diagram, Figure C-l, and an interior view, Figure C-2,
aerosol is drawn into the unit through a converging nozzle and passes
through the center of the high-voltage plate. It then flows radially
between this plate and a lower rotating collection disc. An electric
potential of 15,000 volts, which is maintained across a 11/16-inch
spacing between the plate and disc, creates two effects: (1) A corona
is emitted from a ring of 60 needles that is located concentric to
the air inlet. Particles, exposed to air ions created from the corona,
acquire an electrical charge. (2) The electric field provides the
driving force to precipitate charged particles onto the lower disc.
"Liquid is pumped onto the center of the collection disc and,
because of the centrifugal force, forms a thin moving film over the
entire disc surface. Particles collected on the film are transported
to a rotating collection ring where the liquid is removed by the pickup.
Subsequently, the liquid drips into the collection funnel where it is
pumped to a receiver located outside the sampler.
"To accommodate a broad range of sampling situations, several
variable features are incorporated into the unit. These are:
Air Flow Rate 400 to 1200 liters/minute
Liquid Flow Rate 0 to 8mL/minute
Disc Speed 0 to 45 rpm
High Voltage 0 to 20 kilovolts
"When the sampler is in operation, the air flow rate is read
directly from a calibrated meter on the front panel and is adjusted
with a blower control potentiometer (see Figure C-3). Both disc speed
and pump flow rate are controlled by high and low range toggle switches,
together with potentiometers. Although no direct readouts are pro-
vided for these two variables, calibrations are easily obtained so the
arbitrary scales on the potentiometers can be converted to actual
89
-------
Corona Needles
High-Voltage Plate
Aerosol
Inlet
Liquid Inlet Tube
Collection Disc
y
Liquid
Input
From
Pump
To Pump
and Receiver
Air Discharge
Figure C-l. Schematic Diagram of Large-Volume Air Sampler System
90
-------
Hinged Top
Strobelight
Ozone-Resistant
Gasket Material
High-Voltage Plate
Ring Motor
Air Exhaust Fan
Strobelight
Circuitry
Fluid Supply Tank
Removable
Side Panel
Collection Disc
Speed Control
Air Inlet
Ceramic Insulator
Pickup Assembly
Collection Ring
Collection Disc
Disc Motor
Peristaltic Punj?
Pump Motor
Removable Side Panel
High-Voltage
Power Supply
Pump Speed Control
Electrical Connector
Figure C-2. Interior View of Large-Volume Air Sampler
91
-------
Air Flow
Rate Gauge
Control
tentiometers
e
MPUN« RATE
\ITERS /MINUTt
BLOWEB DISC PUMP
0" HI HI
Orf
Off LOW LOW
High-Voltage
Voltmeter
High-Voltage
Milliammeter
High-Voltage
Control
Potentiometer
High-Voltage
Circuit Breaker
and ON-OFF
Switch
Figure C-3. Instrument Panel of Model M Large-Volume Air Sampler
92
-------
speed or flow rates. The high-voltage system is set with the aid of
a potentiometer and is provided with the meter to show voltage and
current."1
To facilitate visual observation of the surface condition of the
disc in operation, the operator made observations through the windows
with the aid of a flashlight. The air flow rate was set at 1000
liters/minute.
1 Litton Model M Large-Volume Air Sampler: Instruction Manual, Report
No. 3028. Minneapolis, Minnesota (1966).
93
-------
APPENDIX D
PHASE-SEPARATION METHOD FOR CONCENTRATION OF
ENTEROVIRUSES FROM AEROSOL SAMPLES
Reagents: 20% (w/w) Dextran sulfate, sodium salt (Pharmacia)
30% (w/w) Polyethylene glycol 6000 (Union Carbide)
5 M NaCl
Procedure:
1. Measure volumes of BHI with 0.1% Tween 80^ to be concentrated (±10
mL) and transfer to separatory funnel.
2. Add volumes of reagents specified in the table below in the follow-
ing order; sodium dextran sulfate, PEG, NaCl.
Sample Size 20% Na-DS* 30% PEG 6000* 5M NaCl* Total Vol
(mL) (w/w) (w/w) (mL)
500 6.7mL 145mL 20mL 672
1000 13mL 290mL 41mL 1344
1500 20mL 435mL 61mL 2016
2000 27mL 580mL 82mL 2689
* Final concentrations: 0.2% Na-dextrane sulfate, 6.45% PEG 6000,
0.15M NaCl.
3. Shake the total volume vigorously to facilitate total mixing of
polymers and sample. Place separatory funnel at 4 C to allow phase
separation.
4. After 18 hr, phase separation will be ±95% complete. Three par-
titioned volumes may be observed: upper phase, interphase, and
lower phase. (The volume of interface may not be significant,
depending upon constituents present in original test sample.)
Collect lower phase and interphase volumes in sterile centrifuge
tubes avoiding channelization as much as possible. (Remember
to remove stopper from funnel.) If interface volume contains
solids/debris, collect it separately to avoid microbial contami-
nation of lower phase.
5. Store collected volumes at 4°C.
6. Disinfect remaining phase system.
94
-------
APPENDIX E. TYPICAL CODED DATA REPORTING FORMS
Figure Title
Environmental Monitoring Data Reporting Forms
E-l Aerosol Run Report on Meteorology
E-2 UTSA-CART Wastewater Analysis Report
E-3 UTSA-CART Aerosol Run Analysis Report
School Attendance Data Reporting Forms
£.4 Attendance Data Collection and Recording Form
E.5 Pupil Personnel Attendance Accounting Form 81-581-3200
E-6 Attendance Codes
E-7 Summary of Enrollment Data by School, Year and Quarter
Year
E-8 Summary of Enrollment Data by School, Year, Quarter Year
and Grade Level
95
-------
Aerosol Run Mo.
Run Date 3-6-78
AEROSOL SAMPLERS
Upwind
Aeration basin
30m downwind
Sampler
208
123
202
216
100m downwind 206
223
Surge basin
50 downwind
226
211 '
METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
Actual Wind Direction 2m Tower
Just prior to run 70°
0-15 min 60°
10-20 min
15-30 min 7Q°
Wind Run (miles)
Wind Speed mph
Plant Wind Direction
Wind Speed
Clouds
2.5
5.0
70°
4 mph
Cover
Type
Min Ht.
8.
M7, L5
AEROSOL RUN REPORT
Project 01-5082
Final
Vol. Label Code
200 l-Upwind-200
100 1-A30L-100
100 1-A30R-100
200 1-A100-200
200 1-550-200
60°
65°
2.8
5.6
Run Times: Start 0956
Finish
1026
Location
Operator
J. Paulk
J. Harding
R. Wyckoff
J. Trevino
Downwi nd
51.2
47.0
72
10m Tower Temperature
60° dry bulb
wet bulb 47.0
Relative humidity 72
Solar Radiation
2
0.24 g/cal/cm /min
Aeration Basin D.O. - 1.1 mg/L
Aeration Basin Flow - 14.0 MGD
Air Flow Totalizer Reading - 1441
Aeration Basin Water Temperature - 18°C
12000-14000
Field Supervisor
HJH
Figure E-l. Aerosol Run Report on Meteorology
96
-------
UTSA-CART WASTEi.AlER AilALYSIS REPORT
1
of
to SwRI on Project 01-5082, Portland
Date Reported 3'28'78
G-2 AB G-2 SB
Sample Number
Bacteria
SwRI Label Code
'Total Coliform, cfu/100 ml
Mycobacteria, cfu/100 ml
Fecal Streptococci, cfu/100 ml
Pseudomonas, cfu/100 ml a
Col iphaqe
SwRI Label Code
Total Count, pfu/1
Solids Fraction, pfu/1
Liquid Fraction, pfu/1
Efficiency, "
Viruses ° •
SwRI Label Code
3- Day (HeLa):
Total Count, pfu/1
Solids Fraction, pfu/1
Liquid Fraction, pfu/1
7- pay (BGH):
Total Count, pfu/1
Solids Fraction, pfu/1
Liquid Fraction, pfu/1
Efficiency, %
COI-NENTS:
G-l AB
1-AER.B-l
B.lxlO7.
2.4*10*°
4.1xl05
5.7xl04 (C)
1-AER. B-l
3.8xl05
2.2xl05
1.6xl05
NA
1-AER.B-l
7.8xl02
7.6xl02
1.6X101
2.8xl02
2.6xl02
2.0X101
100
G-l SB
1-SURGE-l
7.7xl03
I.IX-IO6
S.lxlO2
3.7xl05
1-SURGE-l
6.0xl02
NA
NA
NA
1-SURGE-l
2.9X101
NA
NA
3.2x10°
HA
NA
100
2-AER.B-l
2-SURGE-l
S.lxlO7 4.3xl03
Z.IXIO
5.4x10°
4.5xl0
7.3xl04 (C) 5.3xl04
2-AER.B-l
2-SURGE-l
9.6xl05 S.OxlO2
5.0x10°
NA
4.6xl03
NA
NA _
2-AER.B-l
4.9x102
4.8xl02
8.6x10
,0
l.lx!0c
1.1x10'
1.3x10°
86
2-SURGE-l
< 0.05
HA
NA
<0.05
HA
NA
69
a (C) isolations on Cetrimide agar.
8 Virus levels corrected for concentration efficiency as indicated.
Figure E-2. UTSA-CART Wastewater Analysis Report
97
-------
1 of 1
Run Number ]_
Run Date 3-6-78
Aerosol Analysis:
Sampler
SwRI Label Code
Coliphage
Coliphage Count, pfu/ml
Bacteria
UTSA-CART AEROSOL RUN AflALYSIS REPORT
to SwRI onl>roject 01-5082, Portland
A-l-1
1-UPWIND
°
A-l-2
1-A30R
<0.04(ND) Q.20
^.OxlO (NO) 8.5x10
,0
Total Coliform, cfu/lOOml
Fecal Streptococci, cfu/lOOml <2.0xlOu(ND) 3^
Pseudcmonas, cfu/lOOml
Myccbacteria, cfu/lOOml
<3.3xl02(ND) 3.0xl03
Date Reported 3-28-78
A-l-3
1-A30L
0.36
A-l-4
1-A100
0.16
1.4xl02 1.4X101
A-1-5
1-S50
<0.04(ND)
<2.0x10°(NI
4-OxlO1 4.0x10° <2.0xlO°(N(
<3.3xl02(ND) 2.5x104(CS) 4.2xlQ5(CJ
1.3X10
COMMENTS:
NOTATION: TNTC .- too numerous to count
ND - none detected
CS - contaminated sample
. Lab Director
Figure E-3. UTSA-CART Aerosol Run Analysis Report
98
-------
ATTENDANCE
ATTENDANCE DATA COLLECTION AND RECORDING FORM:
rE 63 rS j|3 jS p. ;T r£ rS :S 3! Hs .-2 :3
1 i i i : M i 9 P H
A--c,rr.'-<.feUST,i-
Figure E-4. Attendance Data Collection and Recording Form
99
-------
NO93WO
I ' ! <
£ ' u
* -<<.'>
I rl j>
! i3l§8
« ~> •>' r£
I US
^ENGTH OF S
(1ST OUAB
>
Z
O
S
Ul
u>
Z
- Ul
>
Q
J. i
llj
j!
L '
a
i
?
d
in r
i!
u E
V) 1,
3 g
15 K
w R
a: 1?
o .1 £ ('
z -^ 5
« z
0 _1
•• _)
i S L
! 5 i '
i -1 i w i
0 1 l
*• t^i
5
I
VI
s
;
^.
PLRIOO
>
:
i
:
•
r «
i i
is
!
Is
i
!
1
f
1 u
1
!.
u
O
a
o
_•
'O
^
3
YS
r TAUGHT
0->
°i
iS
_
d 1
?
|i
_
•»!
,
~!
7
O
^
-^
NING DAY Or
OOL
O
* X
0Q
S*
83
1*1
s>°
sN "
*:
X
•o, •
o
S
0
•T'
*
f
„,
—
—
n>
>
00
= <
iS
t)^
1?
a^
3
"
^
&0"
^J
£
2
„
,
:
i
i
GRADUATES
>
^
!
Cl
X
o
J*
z z
in
0 >
\-
0
"o,
1
™
V3C
—
s
o
-
TUALl
' S
(ANNUALLY-
•0
j_ '
:l
o>
*s
-*£
2<
6 SUDTO
CONTR
^ 1
\^, ""•
C**" ^""
J — 1
1:
o
r ^
>*
0
~
P
ra
t,-
«
I|
vt
>
O
n
_ «
:l
>
n
&£
i!
Ci -,
^
\:
L-L
„
Sj
^
s
n
—
V)
-i
—
rw
^
_ '
,
»vsenwEtN~
AND
or SCHOOLS
fl. TOTAL
OPCNIN
CLOSIN
s1
oi1
*,
3
,
z
°
>n
t/>
LJ
in
a:
<
_i
D
O
u
c
Z
Ul
0
<
Q
;u
It
:u.
O
>
IT
<
D
t/)
i "~
si
~j — j
3".
*•!
*:
«i
o"
oo
TKANSPORIE
PUPILS » •
ATTrNOING
PUPILS
: 3
"- -J
s§
s
LJ
-
— .
*>1
O
10'
-
J
ds
z^
D —
^'
„
^
^
1
,
~
1
1
1C
n
is
>i
*3lti
.
?|
|i
-i
:i
TOTAL DAYS
ABSENT
vo*3a*
'n
-I
_l — I
3
sl
J,
?l
-
"«:
«j
TOTAL OAVS
MEMOERSH1P
IM 1
n
=1
_j —
"3
•!
rr
f
y
=1
«
s
5
"
O
0
*-•»
o
'.-
cr-
lA
•
i5
2f
-TT
P*)
•p
:i
°
U)
(S.
3*
0
«i
—^ '
<•
:!
<
°i-
-17
< ->
1;
^!
ii
si
"
r:
^
j
f
o
i
1
s : ? i
1
~T 1
"°. t
i
—i
n 1 1-*
SE j i?
Ij f i H1
?f« ^ 'v^0\
I
(
Figure E-5. Pupil Personnel Attendance Accounting Form 81-581-3200
100
-------
Attendance Cedes
El - Original entry - not previously
enrolled during current school
year in U.S.
E2 - Original entry - previously en-
rolled during current school year
in state other than Oregon.
Rl - Received from another roorp.,
same school.
R2 - Received from another public
school, same district.
R3 - Received from public school
in state but outside local
district.
R4 - Re-entering after withdrawal
or discharge.
R5 - Received from non-public
school in state.
Wl - Promoted or transferred to
another classroom, same bldg.
W2 - Promoted or transferred to
another public school, same
district.
W3 - Promoted or transferred to
another non-public school,
same district.
W4 - Moved out of local district
or state.
W5 - Quit school. Beyond
compulsory school age.
W6 - Issued work permit.
W7 - Graduated.
W3 - Withdrawn. Other reasons.
Figure E.6. Attendance Codes
101
-------
ENROLLMENT SUMMARY FOR DURHAM
1969-70
Ql
Q2
03
04
1970-71
01
02
Q3
04
1971-72
01
02
03
04
1972-73
01
02
03
04
1973-74
Ql
02
03
04
1974-75
01
02
03
04
1975-76
Ql
02
03
04
1976-77
01
Q2
Q3
04
1977-78
01
02
03
04
PRESENT
2004
5130
5546
4683
1909
6130
5581
5232
2014
6177
6462
5580
2061
5520
5810
4996
2485
6984
6831
5759
1998
5359
5240
4849
2580
6501
6717
6439
2409
6702
6147
5992
2172
6223
6470
5621
ABSENT
73
222
263
271
42
348
413
256
72
279
566
303
68
303
536
355
98
518
369
279
47
304
262
276
83
308
605
362
69
371
299
271
69
329
353
282
MEMBERSHIP
2077
5351
5809
4954
1951
6477
5994
5487
2086
6456
7028
5882
2129
5823
6346
5351
2582
7502
7200
6030
2044
5663
5501
5124
2662
6810
7322
6800
2477
7073
6446
6263
2240
6552
6823
5902
Figure E-7. Summary Of Enrollment Data by School, Year and Quarter Year
102
-------
1971-72 School Year
Tualatin
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
Quarter 1
Mbr. Ab.
...
612.0 9.0
714.0 10.5
817.0 14.5
750.0 11.0
962.0 11.0
819.0 11.0
Quarter 3
Mbr. Ab.
2066.0 164.0
2245.0 202.0
2641.0 179.0
2696.0 144.5
3055.0 252.5
2801.0 113.0
Pres.
630.0
703.5
802.5
739.0
951.0
808.0
Pres.
1902.0
2043.0
2462.0
2551.5
2802.5
2688.0
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
K
1
2
3
4
5
6
Quarter 2
Mbr. Ab.
.._
1944.0 123.0
2184.0 116.0
2551.0 102,5
2461.0 125.5
3020.0 104.5
2623.0 88.5
Quarter 4
Mbr. Ab.
' 1774.0 113.0
1820.0 105.5
2200.0 123.0
2261.0 141.0
2640.0 122.0
2352.0 72.0
Pres.
1821.0
2068.0
2448.5
2335.5
2915.5
2534.5
Pres.
1661.0
1714.5
2077.0
2120.0
2518.0
2280.0
Figure E-8. Summary of Enrollment Data by School, Year, Quarter Year and
Grade Level
103
-------
APPENDIX F
AEROSOL SAMPLING RUN LAYOUTS
Figure Title
F-l. Aerosol Run No. 1
F-2. Aerosol Run No. 2
F-3. Aerosol Run No. 3
F-4. Aerosol Run No. 4
F-5. Aerosol Run No. 5
F-6. Aerosol Run No. 6
F-7. Enterovirus Aerosol Run No. 7
104
-------
53
CO CO
•- o o ia
p— .— •*->
o o t/i
o o s. t,
QJ <1> QJ 1_ Qj l_
4J +J _ QJ r- ft)
-4-> CO <0 CO 10
-C CO CO
O W
s. oJ E oj °
o> «< O) «a:
L>0 < E O
C
3
O
OJ
O)
O)
105
-------
OJ
o
o
s_
O)
CD
S_
CD
106
-------
c
3
o
1/1
o
QJ
ro
i
cn
107
-------
o
l/>
2
OJ
Dl
108
-------
8
-2 s
^
00
0 1
«/. '•"
1
61*
* s - u
3 J - ^
o ° °
-5t 1
333
J * *
< i" t
^1
, L J
u
15t--,
_ J
b1 °
o£ u
3 *
J! -$
* J
e «.
€ £
sv,
c
3
C£.
g
QJ
s_
rj
en
109
-------
o
v\
o
a)
-------
8
j
/*
€
<
S-
Ol
111
-------
APPENDIX G
CLASS COHORT TIME SERIES PLOTS
Figure Title
G-l Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered Sixth Grade in 1971-72)
G-2 Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered Fifth Grade in 1971-72)
G-3 Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered Fourth Grade in 1971-72)
G-4 Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered Third Grade in 1971-72)
G-5 Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered Second Grade in 1971-72)
G-6 Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered First Grade in 1971-72)
G-7 Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered First Grade in 1972-73)
G-8 Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered First Grade in 1973-74)
G-9 Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered First Grade in 1974-75)
G-10 Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered First Grade in 1975-76)
G-ll Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered First Grade in 1976-77)
G-12 Quarterly Cohort Attendance
(Entered First Grade in 1977-78)
112
-------
^
CM
r>.
i
.•H
l*~
ai
i— i
c
•r~
01
•o
J^
Cfl
.C
4-*
X
TJ
O>
s_
01
c
UJ
4J
i.
0
o
o
o
o
f
o
co
>>
%.
3
i
LU
E
ra
.c
i.
2
J^
|
1
8
£
O
to
e
c
5
•g
a
o
£•
§
<•-
o
fV~
a
+j
o
H~
-
§ ,-
cr o
<*> oo
r-
uoiieuado suiSag
X
t
in
(1)
to
r~.
i
^»-
r-
to
•o
i
CO
r-.
S-
o
o
CJ
>>
71
(O
c
a>
3
c
01
ai
o.
a)
$-
CM
co r^
i
*—*
CM r~-
•-i O
CO
113
-------
*— ••»
CM
1
on
!_4
c
•r~
0)
•o
I
£
•U
H-
•p-
1 1
7.
*o
•r»
t—
1
4-
o
s.
•u
c
S
s.
5 o
cr o
o
«*•
CO S
I
CM ^
ai
CM
!•-
0)
•o
id
suiBag
ro vo
r^
i
in
CNJ i^
en
0)
O
I
-< o
00
J
o
114
-------
tn
§
$-
<0
S. 0)
«s >•
15 "5
3 O
CX £
U
10
I * *
i. >> «t
O «- CT>
* 3 P
5.
3
O
00
t"»
i
i i
S i-
LU
-------
CM
r*x
i
t—i
r~-
o>
> 10
t- O)
ID •!-
+J t-
s- >-
IO
~ 8
.c
•a- o
i/>
«" CO
r^
i
CM l~.
P-.
cn
o
** -C IO
<= S- 4J
UJ 3 O
•— Q h-
o
o
o
CM
1^
r-»
r^
en
•o
10
CD
suiBag
r^
I
in
t^
o>
T3
0)
s_
o
o
S-
0)
i-
•r-
IX.
116
-------
I
u
i-.
0>
s-
S- >-
s_
10 i—
a o
cr o
8 c
9 °
-go0
£ " T
u> >> «
4. 0>
•o 10 ••-
c +J i—
o c
O ft) O
0) E X
oo S i—
•o LU
Ul 3 O
^- D I—
4->
1
O
<_>
CO OO
px.
p-
CM
o>
sui6eg
evj
rx
C
•r-
4J
(O
cr
IT)
t
Q)
CO
CM
-=-4
117
-------
-M
-M
I
O
o
0)
4->
S-
(O
3
o-
vo
CO
-------
ro
r-.
I/I
§
u
CO
5
o
ex o
c o c
i-^O
<1) O °
•o «/> -o
«s s.
V. >»
o
00
CO
CM
«*» I-
P-.
CO
i
CM
0)
-o
^
4->
£
•o
(U
cu
01
(O
(D
o
o
0)
•t—
U.
»1 O
J
"o
119
-------
+J
(/>
L.
0)
1_
HI
S-
o
.E
o
O
o
s
I— +J
§ §
5 °
l/> -o
s-
>> «J
S- 0>
« •!-
S-
UJ d)
•u >•
s_
§ o
O- o
o
i
LLj 1+-
E °
IO r—
J= <0
!- *J
3 O
03 t-
CO I
i
co
01
0)
•a
suiSag
-M
to
s_
'I-
u.
1-
n
i
in
CM o>
«*•
ro
in
i
a>
o
c
<0
(1)
S-
o
o
o
S-
03
120
-------
re
0)
8
5 i
> H>
J. O>
IO f-
10
I
O)
i.
(U
UJ,
>
c
0)
JO
-------
__^ o
f*^ (J
in
5? *S
= 8 =
- .8 3
91
I
4->
I I !
o I
u
tfl
00
f:
55
U)
«-H
C
•I—
0)
uoi4euadQ suiSsg
•a
u
ro to
i
^ s
s
«J-
ro
o
^>>
71
4->
i.
tO
O
I-l
I
c
(V
u
I
*
CM
ro T
r-H
CM &
s_
O)
«—» o 01 oo r*- \o irt
n c»j
r-l O
122
-------
I
VO
•o
I
i.
c
«- 15
IO r—
C§ g
- 1 §
« -K °
•g
<8
O O
iZ v>
<->
^ I
9 I
vo
t^
ot
-------
s- 15
- 8
o
i.
•U
c
o
o
IO r—
3 O
O- O
Ol
•o o
£ «" £
o >> *
(•• *^
•I-1 10 •/-
Ul +J I—
S- c
•O r-
Ol ILI
fc E
«-|
LU 1_
^-» 3
O
+->
S-
o
o
oo
01
O)
•o
sui6sg
to
r--
cvi to
^^
01
01
0)
4J
at
u
«*•
ro
»
a>
*f
ro
«» in TJ-
CM rH
124
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-600/1-79-027
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Environmental Monitoring of a Wastewater
Treatment Plant
7 AUTHOR(S)
D.E. Johnson, D.E. Camann, H.J. Harding, and
C.A. Sorber
9 PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
P.O. Drawer 28510
San Antonio, Texas 78284
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Health Effects Research Laboratory, Cinti. , OH
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
AuRust 1979 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BA607
11 CONTRACT/GRANT NO
R-805533
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final: 10/77 - 3/78
14 SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/10
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
I
16 ABSTRACT
A wastewater aerosol monitoring program was conducted at an advanced wastewater
treatment facility using the activated sludge process. This plant was recently con-
structed next to an elementary school in Tigard, Oregon. Wastewater aerosols contain-
ing pathogenic organisms are generated by the aeration basin (within 400 meters of the
classroom area) and by an aerated surge basin (within 50 meters of the school play-
ground). From a preliminary microbial screen of the wastewater, predominant indicator
and pathogenic microorganisms were selected for routine wastewater and aerosol monitor-
ing. The geometric mean aerosol concentrations at 30 to 50 meters downwind of the
aeration basin were 5.8 cfu/m3 of total coliforms, 2.0 cfu/m3 of fecal streptococci,
9.1 cfu/m3 of mycobacteria, 7 cfu/m of Pseudomonas, 0.7 pfu/m3 of coliphage, and
<0.0009 pfu/m3 of enteroviruses. The inability to detect enteroviruses in air re-
sulted from their low concentration (relative to other test organisms) in the waste-
water and from their adsorption onto and incorporation into the mixed liquor suspended
solids which are not easily aerosolized.
While it is a relatively insensitive measure, attendance at the nearby school and
eight control schools provided no evidence of adverse effects from wastewater treatment
plant operation. If any adverse effects had occurred, it was slight enough to be
completely obscured by the usual school absenteeism factors.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
i. DESCRIPTORS
public health, health, sewage treatment,
aerosols, viruses, epidemiology, activated
sludge process
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
b. IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
pathogens, Oregon
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
20 SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
c. COSATI Held/Group
68G
21. NO. OF PAGES
135
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
OU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1979-657-060/5380
125
-------