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 ------- |