EPA-600/3-83-083
September 1983
EFFECTS ON TOXICTTY OF VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTANTS
ADDED TO A CONVENTIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
by
Timothy W. Neiheisel and William B. Homing
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth/Mewtown
Cincinnati, Ohio 45244
Albert C. Petrasek, Jr.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
Vivian R. Asberry, Debbe A. Jones, Ronda L. Marcum
and Christopher T. Hall
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DULUTH, MN 55804
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/3-83-083
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
PB83 0972 i
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Effects on Toxicity of Volatile Priority Pollutants
Added to a Conventional Wastewater Treatment System
5. REPORT DATE
September 1983
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHORtS)
T.W. Neiheisel, W.B. Horning, II, A.C. Petrasek, Jr.
V.R. Asberry, D.A. Jones, R.L. Marcum, and C.T. Hall
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth/Newtown
Cincinnati, Ohio 45244
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
1i. SPONSORING AGENCY NAJyiE AND ADDRESS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth
6201 Congdon Boulevard
Duluth, Minnesota 55804
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/03 "
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Static acute, unaerated, toxicity tests using fathead minnows and Daphnia magna and a
bacterial toxicity assay, Microtox™, were conducted on samples of influent and
ef.fluent from two conventional activated sludge pilot wastewater treatment systems.
The two pilot treatment systems (A and B) were constructed and operated in an identical
manner except that a mixture of 16 volatile priority pollutants was continuously added
to the influent of the experimental, B system. The common, unspiked influent for both
systems was a mixed industrial and domestic wastewater. The volatile priority
pollutants were added to system B to obtain a nominal concentration of 50 ug/1 each.
The toxicity tests were performed on the influent, primary effluent, and secondary
effluent samples to determine the acute toxicity of the various samples and to compare
the reduction in toxicity across the two treatment systems. The results of these tests
indicated that there was no difference in toxicity reduction between the two pilot
treatment systems at the level of pollutants added. Toxicity for pairs of similar
samples, influent A and B, primary effluent A and B, and secondary effluent A and B,
was essentially the same. Even the influent samples, where the highest concentration
of pollutants would be expected in the B samples, were not different.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
IB. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF OAGES
21
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
-------
NOTICE
This document has been reviewed in accordance with
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication. Mention of trade names
or commercial products does not constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
11
-------
Introduction
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, P.L. 92-500 and the Clean
Water Act of 1977, P.L. 95-217 require the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
identify toxic materials discharged into the surface waters of the United States
and to promulgate regulations for control of such discharges. Further, the Consent
Decree (National Resource Defense Council, et al, vs. Train, 1976) specifically
identifies 129 compounds, known as the "priority pollutants", for which regulations
are to be promulgated.
To promulgate regulations limiting the discharge of "priority pollutants"
and toxics, information is required on how well toxic pollutants are treated or
removed in waste treatment facilities, how the pollutants affect the treatment
systems, and where the pollutants are distributed and concentrated or released in
the treatment systems.
As part of a project by the Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory -
Cincinnati (MERL) to evaluate the behavior and fate of volatile priority pollutants
in conventional, municipal wastewater treatment systems, aquatic toxicity tests
were conducted by staff of the Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth/Newtown
(ERL-D/N). The primary objective of the toxicity testing was to biologically
determine toxicity and toxicity removal across conventional treatment systems.
The biological data were then to be used to supplement MERL's physical and chemical
evaluation of the treatment systems. The volatile organic priority pollutant
study was one of a series of MERL projects designed to determine the capacity of
conventional wastewater treatment systems to treat "priority pollutants".
Static acute toxicity tests using fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, and
TM
an invertebrate, Daphnia magna, and a bacterial toxicity assay, Microtox
-------
2.
(Beckman Instruments, Inc., Microbics Operations, Carlsbad, California) were con-
ducted on the influents and effluents from two conventional activated sludge pilot
treatment systems. The treatment systems were identical except that a mixture
of 16 volatile organic priority pollutants was continuously added to one of the
systems. The pilot treatment systems were designed, constructed and operated by
MERL at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Test and Evaluation, (T&E
Facility), Cincinnati, Ohio.
Materials and Methods
Pilot treatment systems. The treatment systems consisted of two 133 l/nin.
conventional, plug flow, activated sludge systems. A schematic diagram of the
systems is given in Figure 1. and the operating characteristics of the systems are
given in Table 1. The control system (A) received a mixed domestic and industrial
waste influent. The experimental system (B) received the same influent as A except
a mixture of 16 volatile priority pollutants dissolved in methanol was continuously
added to give a nominal concentration of 50 yg/1 each in the influent (Table 2.).
A concentration of 50 yg/1 each was chosen because it was measurable and at the
high end of concentrations of the pollutants typically found in municipal treatment
plant influents. The detailed description of the operation of the pilot system and
the methods for chemical evaluation are given in Petrasek .
Sampling and sample handling. Grab samples for toxicity tests were collected
from sampling ports on the treatment systems. Primary and secondary effluent
sampling was scheduled, based on calculated and measured detention times of the
treatment systems. In that way, the primary and secondary effluent samples were
taken from the same plug of waste water from which the influent sample was taken.
-------
3.
All samples were collected in stainless steel containers. Toxicity tests were
begun on the samples within two hours of collection. Samples for the fish and
Daphnia tests were not treated or modified except for a temperature adjustment.
TM
Samples for Microtox tests were adjusted for both temperature and salinity.
Dilution water. Dilution water for the fathead minnow and Daphnia tests, as
well as for culture and holding, was a mixture of dechlorinated, deionized Cincinnati
tap water and Newtown Laboratory spring water made, to an approximate hardness of
200 mg/1 (as CaCCO. The water was made up at the ERL-Duluth/Newtown Laboratory and
transported to the T&E facility. At the T&E facility, the water was held at
23 + 3°C and aerated in a covered 2000 liter fiberglass storage tank until used.
ryiur
Dilution water for the microtox assay was Microtox Reagent Diluent from Beckman
Instruments, Inc. Prior to use, the diluent was stored at 2 C.
Test organisms. Fathead minnows were obtained from a culture unit at the
EKL-Duluth/Newtown laboratory and Daphnia magna were from a culture maintained at
rr*jf
the T&E facility. Luminescent bacteria, Photobacterium phosphoreum, Microtox
Reagent, were obtained from Beckman Instruments, Inc. The fathead minnows were
transported to the T&E facility three days before being tested. They were held at
the T&E facility in a static renewal system in which 9070 of the holding water was
replaced once every 24 hours. Culture temperatures and holding and acclimation
temperatures were maintained at 23 + 3°C for both fish and Daphnia. Prior to use
the Microtox Reagent, bacteria, was refrigerated at 2°C.
Fish were not fed for 48 hours before use. Daphnia, however, were fed until
placed in test containers. The fish used for testing were from 18 to 42 trm in
length and 0.08 to 0.32 gm. The Daphnia were first instars.
Toxicity tests. The fish and Daphnia static acute toxicity tests were
2
conducted using the basic guidelines outlined by Peltier . The choice of alter-
native, static, unaerated procedures were dictated by conditions unique to the
-------
4.
study. Microtox toxicity assays were conducted according to an assay procedure
o
with duplicate determinations, Beckman Instruments, Inc. .
The toxicity tests were conducted in two series. In the first series, only
influent and secondary effluent samples were tested for toxicity with fathead
minnows and Daphnia. In the second series influents, primary effluents, and
secondary effluents were tested with fathead minnow, Daphnia, and Microtox .
Test solution volumes for the two series of tests were, respectively, 16 and 8 liters
for the fathead minnows and 200 and 100 ml for the Daphnia tests. Test containers
for the fish test were 19.6 liter wide mouth glass jars. Test containers for the
Daphnia for the two series of test were, respectively, 250 and 150 ml glass beakers.
Ten fish were used per test concentration and control in both series without
replication. Eighteen Daphnia were used per test concentration and control, 6 per
replicate with three replicates. Duplicate test concentrations and controls were
riTiir
run for the Microtox assay as described in the operations manual. Test tempera-
tures were nominally 23 + 3°C for die fish and the Daphnia tests and 15°C for the
Microtox assay.' Fish test solutions were volume to volume, proportional dilutions
of sample with diluent water. Test solutions for the Daphnia were made by taking
aliquots of the fish test solutions. For the fish and the Daphnia, six test
concentrations and a control were used. For Microtox , four test concentrations
and a control were set up using a serial dilution procedure. Each test concentration
for the fish and Daphnia tests and the Microtox assay was 0.5 of. the next higher
concentration. Fifty percent was usually the high influent and primary effluent
test concentration and 1007o was the high secondary effluent concentration for the
TM
fish and Daphnia tests and Microtox assay. In the second series of tests,
only 10070 or 100 and 5070 concentrations and a control were usually set up for the
secondary effluent samples.
-------
5.
Test duration for the fish, Daphnia, and Microtox was, respectively, 96 hours,
48 hours, and 15 minutes.
Chemical and physical measurements. A multiparameter U-7, Water Quality Checker
(Horiba Instrument Corporation, Irvine, California.) was used to measure dissolved
oxygen, pH and temperature initially and every 24 hours during the fish test in all
concentrations. The same measurements were made for the Daphnia at the end of the
48 hour test period. The initial fish test measurements were also used as the initial
Daphnia measurements since the Daphnia test solutions were aliquots of the fish test
solutions. No measurements were made on the Microtox test concentrations because of
the small volume, 1 ml. Alkalinity and hardness measurements were also made on the
high, medium, and low fish test concentrations and control water at the beginning of
each test using American Public Health Association, et al procedures.
Data analysis. Ninety-six hour LC50 and 48 hour EC50 values with 95% confidence
limits for the fathead minnow and Daphnia tests were calculated using a conputer-
adapted, moving average-angle procedure of Harris . Microtox 15 min-EC50 values
without confidence limits were calculated using the gama decrease method in the
Microtox Manual. Fish and Daphnia LC50 and EC50 values were considered different
when their 957o confidence limits did not overlap. Microtox values were considered
different if their EC50 values differed by a factor of two.
Results
Dilution water for the two test series ranged in hardness from 180 to 210 mg/1
(as CaC03), alkalinity from 156 to 182 mg/1 (as CaC03), pH from 8.0 to 8.6, and
dissolved oxygen from 8.4 to 9.3 mg/1.
Test concentrations for fish and Daphnia during the two series of tests
ranged in hardness from 180 to 308 mg/1, alkalinity from 156 to 232 mg/1, pH from
7.1 to 9.0, dissolved oxygen from <1 to 9.3 mg/1 and temperature from 22 to 27°C.
-------
6.
The high alkalinity and hardness values, the extreme pH and temperature values, and
the low dissolved oxygen values all occurred in high wastewater concentrations.
The toxicity test results for the two series of tests are given in Tables
3 and 4. The data in Tables 3 and 4 show that influent and effluent toxicity varied
and that for both test series toxicity was reduced both between the influent and
secondary and between primary and secondary effluents for tests with all species. In
general, the secondary effluents from both treatment systems A and B were not very
toxic, they had LC50 or EC50 values of 50% or greater. The results, except for
three tests, essentially show no difference in toxicity between paired influent
samples (A and B), primary effluent samples (A and B), and secondary effluent samples
(A and B) collected on the same date. Paired samples from the two treatment systems
for the same date give toxicity test results which might be expected from duplicate
samples collected from the same system. The data also show no significant difference
in toxicity between influent and primary effluents collected on the same date.
Control survival was excellent for the two test series with all fathead tests
having >9070 and rarely <10070 survival and Daphnia tests having >84?0 survival.
Additionally, data for the fathead minnow and for the Daphnia show no
significant difference between results for the two species for the same test sample
or for similar samples between treatment system A and B collected the same date.
MLcrotox test data, however, indicate greater toxicity for influent and primary
effluent than that shown by the fathead minnow and Daphnia tests. The results
for the toxicity tests for secondary effluents are essentially similar for all
species tested. Since 50% was the highest test concentration in some of the early
Microtox tests and since it was not toxic, the EC50 for those tests was greater
than 507..
-------
7.
Discussion
The alkalinity, hardness, pH, and dissolved oxygen (DO) values of the test
concentrations varied considerably. The low dissolved oxygen levels associated
with the high test concentrations of influent and primary effluent would be expected
on the basis of the high BOD and ODD of the mixed industrial and domestic waste
which was the influent to .the pilot treatment systems (Table 5). Although the low
dissolved oxygen in wastewater concentrations above 10% probably added to the
stress of the fish and Daphnia in the influent and primary effluent static tests,
aeration of the samples to raise DO was not considered. It would have significantly
modified the samples and would have constituted additional treatment of the samples.
Furthermore, volatile toxicants, if present,-would have been stripped by the amount
of aeration required to maintain 607= saturation or greater dissolved oxygen levels
in samples with such high BOD and GOD. Changes in pH due to aeration might also
have changed anraonia toxicity. Acmonia was potentially one of the major toxicants
in the influent and primary effluent, as can be seen in the data for Table 5.
Temperature varied more than desired during some of the tests. However, this
would not invalidate the conclusions within a set of tests for the same date
because conditions would have been similar.
Overall, the trend of the toxicity data indicated that the spike of volatile
pollutants at the level-dosed caused no added toxicity as seen in the lack of
differences in toxicity between control and spiked influents and effluents. From
data in the cited literature, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency , for 12
of the 16 compounds, the level of toxicant even for the combination of compounds
(Water Quality Criteria, 1972) would probably not be expected to cause
acute toxic effects in fathead minnow or Daphnia tests. The Microtox assay data
would also indicate no effect of the spike, but no literature is available to
-------
8.
suggest whether the spike of pollutants at the concentration added should affect
the bacteria used for the test.
In terms of test sensitivity, the Microtox assays showed lower EC50 values
for the influent and primary effluent tests than comparable fathead minnow and
Daphnia tests. Some of this difference may be caused by the different diluent
water used for the Microtox test and the fact that it measures sublethal effects,
while the fathead minnow and the Daphnia acute test measure lethal effects.
-------
9.
Conclusions
A spike of 16 volatile priority pollutants, continuously added at 50 yg/1
each, did not affect the acute toxicity of influent or effluents of an experimental,
conventional activated sludge, pilot wastewater treatment system compared to
a control system which received no addition of toxicants. The spike of volatile
priority pollutants at the concentration added was apparently not high enough
to significantly increase influent toxicity or affect treatment based on the
toxLcity of the effluent of the spiked system compared to the unspiked control.
There was not a significant reduction in toxicity between influent and primary
effluent, although there was a significant reduction in toxicity between influent
and secondary effluent and between primary and secondary effluents for both systems.
Fathead minnow and Daphnia toxicity tests results for the same samples of
IM
influent and primary effluent were not significantly different. Microtox test
values for the same influent and effluent samples were, however, lower than the
TM
Fathead minnow and Daphnia values. Fathead minnow, Daphnia, and Microtox test
values, however, were similar for the secondary effluents and indicated low or no
toxicity.
-------
10.
References
1. Petrasek, Jr., A. C., "Removal and Partitioning of Volatile Priority Pollutants
in Conventional Wastewater Treatment Plants. - A Capsule Report of Preliminary
Findings." U.S. EPA, Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory, Cincinnati,
Ohio. In-house Report, (1982).
2. Peltier, W., "Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to
Aquatic Organisms." EPA-600/4-78-012, U.S. EPA, Environmental Monitoring
and Support Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. (1978)
3. (Beckman Instruments, Inc.), "Operating Instructions Microtox Model 2055
Toxicity Analyzer." Microbics Operations, Carlsbad, California, Interim
Manual. (1980).
4. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association and
Water Pollution Control Federation, "Standard Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater", 15th ed., Washington, D.C.
5. Harris, E. K., "Confidence Limits for the ID Using the Moving Average-
Angle Method." Biometrics 15, 243 (1959).
6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Water Quality Criteria Documents",
Federal Register 45, 79313 (1980).
7. "Water Quality Criteria 1972." A Report of the ConraLttee on Water Quality
Criteria, Environmental Studies Board, National Academy of Sciences,
National Academy of Engineering, Washington, D.C., U.S. Printing Office,
5501-00520, (1972).
-------
11.
TABLE 1. NOMINAL OPERATING CONDITIONS FOR THE
A AND B SYSTEMS USED ON THE VOLATILE
PRIORITY POLLUTANT PROJECT
I. Design Flow, Qd = 204.39 m3/d (133L/min)
II. Primary Clarifiers -
Diameter = 2.97 m
Weir Diameter = 2.77 m
SWD = 3.66 m
Surface Area = 0.68 m2
Surface Overflow Rate = 27.99 m3/m2d
III. Aeration Basins -
L:W:D = 5.34:3.05:3.66 m
Surface Area = 16.33 m2
Volume = 59.76 m3
Residence Time (Qd) = 7.5 h
IV. Secondary Clarifiers -
Diameter = 3.63 m
SWD = 3.66 m
Surface Area = 10.36 m2
Surface Overflow Rate = 18.41 m3/m2d
Modified from Petrasek
-------
Raw Wastewater
Head Tank
Static
Screen
Primary
Clarlfier
Waste
Splitter Primary
BO* Sludge
Feed
Pumps
Metering
Pump
Spike
Solution
Primary
Clarifier
Waste
Primary
Sludge
System A - Control
Aeration Basin
WAS
System B - Spiked
Aeration Basin
WAS
Return
Activated
Sludge
Pump
Return
Activated
Sludge
Pump
3.
Figure 1. Simplified Schematic Diagram of Systems A and B.
From Petrasek
-------
13,
TABLE 2. COMPOUNDS ADDED AND THEIR ACUTE TQXICTTY VALUES
Fathead Minnow Daphnia magna
96-hr LC50 in yg/La 48-hr EC50 in ug/La
Methylene Chloride 310,000 224,000
1,1-Dichloroethene 169,000 11,600
Chloroform c 28,900
Carbon Tetrachloride 43,100b 35,200
1,2-Dichloropropane 139,300b 52,500
Trichloroethylene 66,800 43,000
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 81,700b 18,000
Dibromochloroinethane
Benzene 32,000 203,000
1,1,1-Trichloroethane 105,000
BromodichlorocQethane
Chlordbenzene " 29,120 86,000
Tetrachloroethylene 21,400 17,700
1,1,2,2,-Tetrachloroethane 20,300 . 9,320
Toluene 34,270 60,000
Ethylbenzene 42,330 75,000
Static acute toxLcity values, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980.
^Flow-through acute toxicity values, static values not available.
values available.
-------
TABLE. 3. FATHEAD MINNOW AND DAPHNIA MAGMA ACUTE TOXICITY VALUES FOR VPP INFLUENTS AND EFFLUENTS.
Date
6/1/81
6/8/81
6/15/81
6/22/81
6/29/81
7/6/81
7/13/81
Species
. Fathead minnow
Daphnia magna
Fathead minnow
Daphnia magna
Fathead minnow
Daphnia magna
Fathead minnow
Daphnia magna
Fathead minnaw
Daphnia magna
Fathead minnow
paphnjLa magna
Fathead minnow
Daphnia magna
Influent^
LC50a and EC506
in 7.
Control-A
28.7
(34.7-24.5)
>50
(NC)
>50
(NC)
NT
48.3
(69.1-36.8)
20.4
(27.0-15.9)
9.7
(13.2-7.4)
9.8
(21.3-5.3)
17.7
(23.6-13.2)
17.7
(21.3-14.7)
9.7
(13.2-7.4)
5.3
(6.3-3.3)
17.7
(23.6-13.2)
20.9
(27.8-16.3)
values
Spiked-B
27.5
(33.6-23.1)
46.2
(73.4-36.3)
>50
(NC)
NT
50
(62.1-40.3)
17.7
(22.8-13.7)
12.5
(16.4-8.6)
11.4
(17.2-8.3)
8.8
(11.8-6.6)
16.6
(20.1-13.6)
9.7
(13.2-7.4)
8.6
(10.4-7.0)
17.7
(23.6-13.2)
20.0
(25.7-15.9)
Secondary Effluent
LC50 and EC50 Values
• ot
in /»
Control-A Control-B
>100
(NC)C
>100
(NC)
>50
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NO
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
NA
NA
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>50
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
NT
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
-------
TABLE 3. FATHEAD MINNOW AND DAPHNIA MAGNA ACUTE TOXICITY VALUES FOR VPP INFLUENTS AND EFFLUENTS (cont'd)
Date Species
7/20/81 Fathead minnow
Daphnia magna
7/27/81 Fathead minnow
Daphnia magna
Influent
LC50a and EC506 values
in 7.
Control-A Spiked-B
35.2
(49.2-28.7)
41.9
(67.2-32.9)
25.0
(31.0-20.1)
17.0
(22.9-12.5)
35.2
(49.2-28.7)
39.8
(56.2-32.5)
28.7
(34.7-24.5)
43.1
(99.8-29.7)
Secondary Effluent
LC50 and EC50 Values
in 7o
Control-A Control-B
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(HC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
fathead minnow 96-hr LC50 and 9570 confidence limits.
Daphnia magna 48-hr EC50 and 9570 confidence limits.
°(NA)- test not acceptable. Excessive control mortality and/or mortality not concentration related.
(NC) - not calculable,
e(NT) - not tested.
-------
TABLE 4. FATHEAD MINNOW AND DAPHNIA- MAGNA ACUTE TOXICITY VALUES AND MICRQTOX
BIOASSAY VALUES FOR
Date
8-11-81
Species
Fathead
Daphnia
Minnow
magna
TM
Microtox
8/19/81.
Fathead
Daphnia
Minnow
mapna
Microtox
8/25/81
Fathead
Daphnia
Minnow
magna
'ill
Microtox
9/1/81
Fathead
Daphnia
Minnow
magna
TM
Microtox
9/7/81
Fathead
Daphnia
Minnow
magna
- L^,_
TM
Microtox
VFF
Influent
LC50a and EC50D values
Control-A Spiked-B
23.6
(33.6-18.0)
15.9
(20.5-12.2)
<6.3
26.8
(32.8-22.3)
16.4
(28.8-8.5)
4.3
23.6
(33.6-18.0)
31.6
(38.0-27.5)
11.1
38.7
(61.9-30.4)
>50
(NC)
19.5
50.8
(62.9-41.2)
66.3
(78.6-58.1)
13.6
22.3
(31.2-17.
14.2
(18.5-10.
<6.3
20.9
(28.9-15.
16.1
(22.2-11.
5.6
23.6
(33.6-18.
40.5
(55.6-33.
6.6
>50
(NC)
38.2
(51.7-31.
21.9
48.1
(73.9-35.
54.9
(76.1-44.
12.8
0)
3)
9)
2)
0)
4)
6)
2)
9)
INFLUENTS AND
Primary
LC50 and
Control-A
28.7
(34.7-24.
NAd
-
<6.3
23.6
(33.6-18.
24.0
(34.5-18.
<6.3
26.8
(32.8-22.
34.7
(42.3-30.
<6.3
>50
(NC)
45.0
(83.7-34.
5.2
53.5
(65.7-44.
72.6
(91.2-62.
23.9
5)
0)
3)
3)
0)
6)
6)
1)
EFFLUENTS.
Effluent
EC50 values
in 7.
Spiked-B
25.0
(31.0-20.
23.5
(29.5-19.
<6.3
25.0
(31.0-21.
21.7
(31.9-15.
<6.3
20.9
(28.9-15.
35.6
(45.4-30.
<6.3
>50
(NO
>50
(NC)
4.3
47.3
1)
4)
1)
9)
9)
2)
(67.3-36.1)
61.2
(74.2-52.7)
16.5
Secondary Effluent
LC50 and EC50 values
in 7c
Control-A Spiked-B
>100
(NC)C
NT6
-
>50
>100
(NC)
NT
-
>50
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>50
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
>100
(NC)
NT
-
>50
>100
(NC)
NT
-
>50
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>50
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
> 100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
-------
TABLE 4. (CONTINUED) FATHEAD MINNOW AND DAPHNIA MaGMA ACME K3XICDTY VALiJES AND1MJECR0IX5X
B10ASSAY VALUES FOR VPP INFLUENTS AND EFFLUENTS..
Influent
Primary Effluent
LC50 and EC50 values
Date
Species
LC50a and EC50b values
Control-A Spiked-B Control-A Spiked-B
Secondary Effluent
L€50 and EC50 values
in %
Gontrol-A Spiked-B
9/14/81 Fathead Minnow
Daphnia magna
TM
Microtox
29.1
(39.3-21.7)
22.3
(27.7-18.4)
7.2
26.4
(34.7-18.6)
22.3
(27.7-18,4)
6.3
35.4
(47.2-26.5)
22.9
(28.6-18.9)
6.3
26.4
(34.7-18.6)
21.8
(27.0-18.0)
<6.3
>100
:(NC)
NA
>100
>100
(NC)
>100
(NC)
>100
fathead minnow 96-hr. LC50 and 95% confidence limits.
Daphnia magna 48-hr. EC50 and 9570 confidence limits. Microtox 15-min. EC50
without confidence limits.
C(NA) - test not acceptable. Excessive control mortality and/or mortality not concentration,
related.
d(NC) - not calculable.
e(NT) - not tested.
-------
TABLE 5 a PERFORMANCE SUMMARY OF VOLATILE PRIORITY POLLUTANT
TREATMENT SEQUENCES; JANUARY-JUNE 1981
Parameter
TSS
COD
Total-P
TKN
Organic N
NH3-N
N02 & N03-N .
Total-N
Turbidity (NTU)
UCOO*
Inf.
(mg/1)
447.0
577.0
9.3
43.5
20.4
23.1
0.2
43.7
-
683.0
Pri.
Eff.
(mg/1)
214.0
317.0
6.0
36.7
14.2
22.5
0.2
36.9
-
421.0
Rem.
by
Pri.
Clar.
U)
52.0
45.0
35.0
16.0
30.0
3.0
-
16.0
-
38.0
Activ. SI
( mn
\my
udqe Eff.
/I)
Control Spike
30. Q
91.0
3.1
19.4
5.7
13.2
6.4
25.8
12.0
i
152.0
23.0
87.0
2.8
18.4
5.2
13.2
6.3
24.7
10.0
148.0
Overall Removal
---(percent)---
Control Spike-
93.0
84.0
67.0
55.0
72.0
43.0
• -'
41.0
78.0
95.0
85.0
70.0
58.0
75.0
43.0
-
43.0
78.0
* UCOD = Ultimate Combined Oxygen Demand
a_ 1
€Trom Petrasek
CD
------- |