Treating Contaminants of Emerging
Concern
A Literature Review Database
August 2010
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water (4303T)
Engineering and Analysis Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA-820-R-10-002
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Background 2
1.2 About this Report 2
1.3 Report Appendices 3
2. Treatment Technology Literature Selection Criteria 6
3. CEC Removals Database 8
4. Full-Scale Treatment Technology Performance: An Illustration 13
4.1 Activated Sludge 15
4.2 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption 17
4.3 Chlorine Disinfection 19
4.4 Ultraviolet Disinfection 21
4.5 Ozone Disinfection 23
4.6 Reverse Osmosis (RO) 25
5. Database Utility 27
APPENDIX A: CEC REMOVAL DATABASE OUTPUT TABLES
APPENDIX B: CEC REMOVAL DATABASE USERS GUIDE
APPENDIX C: CEC REMOVAL DATABASE BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDIX D: DETAILED ABSTRACTS OF KEY REFERENCES
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
Contaminants of emerging concern (CECs), including pharmaceuticals and personal care
products (PPCPs), have been detected at low levels in surface water, leading to concerns that
these compounds may have an impact on human health and aquatic life.
This report contains the results of an extensive review of the recent literature on wastewater
treatment technologies and their ability to remove a number of chemical contaminants of
emerging concern (CECs). The data in the studies described in the literature are also available in
a computer-searchable format. EPA developed this information to provide an accessible and
comprehensive body of historical information about current CEC treatment technologies for
wastewater. Wastewater treatment plant operators, designers, and others may find this
information useful in their studies of ways to remove CECs from wastewater. In this report, EPA
is not promoting any one technology nor is EPA setting Agency policy or priorities in terms of
risk. The literature review report and the searchable file were peer-reviewed for completeness
and usability.
Because the keywords we used to search the literature included the word "water" some papers
described studies of drinking water treatment for CECs. The data from these studies are included
in this report and the companion searchable file. However, this information is not as
comprehensive or inclusive as a search for CEC treatment, if drinking water had been a keyword.
In addition, use of the term "removals" simply means less of the target chemical was observed
after treatment than before treatment. Removal percentage is defined as:
100 x (influent concentration - effluent concentration)/influent concentration
For many chemicals and treatment technologies, removal of a target chemical can be a removal
from the water, including transfer to solids or transfer to air. Biological and chemical oxidation
can transform contaminants to simple molecules such as carbon dioxide and water. On the other
hand, removals may simply reflect a transformation of the target chemical to another chemical or
chemicals in the water. These new chemicals may or may not be of equal or greater concern than
the parent contaminant.
To house the data gathered in the literature review, EPA developed a relational database to store
information about the reports reviewed, the technologies studied, and their performance. The
database is intended as a tool for individuals interested in identifying information about the
performance of particular treatment technologies. This report describes the database and
illustrates how it can be used, but it does not present conclusions about treatment system
performance in removing CECs from water and wastewater. This report has been through both
internal and external peer review; and the reviewer comments were incorporated as appropriate.
After presenting general background information about CECs, this introduction describes how
EPA identified candidate technical literature for this review and highlights the organization of
this report. This section also identifies and describes the information appended to the report.
-------
1.1 Background
CECs include alkylphenols, flame retardants, hormones, personal care products,
Pharmaceuticals, steroids, and pesticides. Many CECs enter municipal wastewater through
bathing, cleaning, laundry, and the disposal of human waste and unused pharmaceuticals.
Municipal wastewater treatment plants typically use secondary treatment (i.e., activated sludge)
to treat biological oxygen demand (BOD) and total suspended solids (TSS). Most municipal
wastewater treatment plants also disinfect to inactivate and/or remove pathogens, and many use
advanced treatment systems to treat other pollutants, most notably nutrients. Municipal
wastewater treatment plants are not designed to specifically remove CECs from wastewater.
There have been, however, a growing number of reports that CECs removals occur in municipal
wastewater treatment plants with secondary treatment, as well as, those with some form of
advanced treatment.
CECs are also detected in drinking water supplies, particularly those drawn from surface waters
into which treated municipal wastewaters are discharged. Drinking water treatment plants
typically use coagulation/flocculation and granular filtration to remove colloidal and suspended
solids. After solids removal, treated drinking water is disinfected to inactivate and/or remove
pathogens. Like municipal wastewater treatment plants, although drinking water treatment plants
are not designed to remove CECs; however, removals do occur. The extent of removal varies
with the specific CEC and type of drinking water treatment.
EPA's Office of Water has a Literature Inventory designed to identify research relevant to CECs
in the environment. To develop this inventory, EPA queried literature databases available
through U.S. National Library of Medicine (PubMed) and Thomson Scientific (Web of Science)
using author citations and topical keywords. The Literature Inventory provided over 400 articles
that referenced treatment of CECs, from which EPA selected a subset based on specific criteria.
It is this subset that forms the basis of this report.
1.2 About this Report
This report describes The CECs Removals Database, a Microsoft Accessฎ database designed to
store and manage information from published scientific studies of the removal of CECs from
water and wastewater. The report does not present an analysis of the database information. For
illustrative purposes, the report presents 16 of the over 200 CECs present in the database, and
the average percent removals achieved by full-scale treatment systems that employ six of the
greater than 20 reported treatment technologies. EPA makes no conclusions about these results,
but provides them only to illustrate how the database may be used.
This report presents:
A description of the criteria EPA used to identify data for the database;
A description of the organization of the information in the database;
As an illustration of database output, a description of removal efficiencies for 16
CECs achieved by full-scale treatment systems that use six selected treatment
technologies.
-------
1.3 Report Appendices
To supplement the descriptions provided in the body of the report, the following four appendices
are included.
Appendix A: CEC Removals Database Output Tables. The literature reviewed for this report
included studies of CECs in ten different materials. Appendix A presents tables of percent
removals for three of these materials: municipal wastewater, drinking water, and treated effluent
(secondary or tertiary treated). User manipulation of the database will allow for analysis of all
10 reported materials. Studies of these three materials were selected for Appendix A because
these materials were the most frequently studied in full-scale treatment systems. For each of
these three materials, Appendix A includes percent removals from studied full-scale, pilot-scale,
and laboratory-scale treatment systems. EPA used the database to calculate removal efficiencies
for all studied CECs for the treatment technologies commonly studied for each material, as
follows:
Municipal Wastewater:
activated sludge,
fixed film biological treatment,
chemical phosphorus removal,
biological phosphorus removal,
denitrification,
nitrification,
chlorine disinfection,
granular activated carbon,
ozonation,
reverse osmosis, and
ultraviolet disinfection;
Drinking Water:
chlorine disinfection,
granular activated carbon,
ozonation, and
ultraviolet disinfection;
Treated effluent (secondary or tertiary treated):
activated sludge,
fixed film biological treatment,
chlorine disinfection,
granular activated carbon,
ozonation,
reverse osmosis,
ultrafiltration, and
ultraviolet disinfection.
Appendix B: Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) Removals Database Version 3 User's
Guide For the Non-Access"-Trained User. EPA has made the CECs Removal Database available
to the public on its website. As part of this database, EPA developed an Accessฎ form called
-------
"Quick Search" that enables users to select the type of studies of interest and then produce a
report of their percent removals. The User's Guide presents step-by-step instructions for using
the Quick Search form.
Appendix C: CEC Removal Database Bibliography. Appendix C provides a complete list and
short abstracts of the 88 articles from which information was extracted for the CECs Removals
Database. The information provided includes:
Authors;
Date;
Title;
Journal/Publisher;
Volume/Pages;
Geographic Scope;
Scale (Full-, Pilot-, or Laboratory-); and
Abstract.
Appendix D: Detailed Abstracts of Key References. Appendix D provides more detailed
abstracts for key studies that provided information for larger numbers of treatment systems or
particular insights into CECs removal efficiencies. These references are:
1. Snyder, Shane; Eric C. Wert; Hongxia (Dawn) Lei; Paul Westerhoff; and Yeomin
Yoon. Removal ofEDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment
Processes. 2007. American Water Works Association Research Foundation
(AWWARF) and IWA Publishing.
2. Stephenson, Roger; and Joan Oppenheimer. Fate of Pharmaceuticals and
Personal Care Products through Municipal Wastewater Treatment Processes.
2007. Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) and IWA Publishing.
3. Drewes, Jorg E.; Jocelyn D.C. Hemming; James J. Schauer; and William C.
Sonsogni. Removal of Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in Water Reclamation
Processes. 2006. Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) and IWA
Publishing.
4. Lishman, Lori; Shirley Anne Smyth; Kurtis Sarafm; Sonya Kleywegt; John Toito;
Thomas Peart; Bill Lee; Mark Servos; Michel Beland; and Peter Seto. Occurrence
and Reductions of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products and Estrogens
by Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in Ontario, Canada. May 2006.
Science of the Total Environment. 367: 544-558.
5. Clara, M.; N. Kreuzingera; B. Strenna; O. Gansb; H. Kroissa. The Solids
Retention TimeA Suitable Design Parameter to Evaluate the Capacity of
Wastewater Treatment Plants to Remove Micropollutants. 2005. Water Research.
39:97-106.
6. Clara, M.; B. Strenn; O. Gans; E. Martinez; N. Kreutzinger; and H. Kroiss.
Removal of Selected Pharmaceuticals, Fragrances and Endocrine Disrupting
-------
Compounds in a Membrane Bioreactor and Conventional Wastewater Treatment
Plants. 2005. Water Research 39: 4797-4807.
-------
2. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY LITERATURE SELECTION CRITERIA
In order to compile information on CEC treatment technologies, EPA reviewed published studies
that report the removal of CECs from water and wastewater by both commonly used and
innovative treatment technologies. These studies, mostly from the CEC Literature Inventory,
included laboratory-scale (a system that is operated from a laboratory bench and tests are run in
batches), pilot-scale (a system that runs as a non-permanent subunit of a full-scale system), and
full-scale (a fully-functioning, permanent treatment system) treatment systems.
Among the reviewed studies are research reports prepared for the Water Environment Research
Foundation (WERF), the Water Research Foundation1, the WateReuse Foundation, and EPA.
Only references meeting the following quality criteria were reviewed:
The reference was published between 2003 and 2008 (i.e., it was not more than
five years old at the time of the review), to ensure that information reflected
current conditions and analytical methods.
The reference represents a primary source. EPA did not include data compiled in
review articles. Further, EPA limited the sources included in its literature reviews
to works by academic researchers from:
Peer-reviewed research reports; and/or
Peer-reviewed journal publications.
The analytes studied were in the following general classes:
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products;
Steroids and hormones;
Pesticides;
Nonlyphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate (APEs)
compounds;
Polybrominated biphenyl ether (PBDE) fire retardants;
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs); and
Other chemicals: e.g., bisphenol A, fire retardants and plasticizers.
The article was available as a complete document and was available in English.
EPA included studies from any geographic location; the various reports are
identified by study location as U.S., Canada, Europe, or other (including
Australia). Database users can develop queries to select the location(s) relevant to
their analysis.
EPA next determined if the published article contained data for CECs and treatment processes
within the scope of the study. Articles with the following types of information were excluded:
Study focused on removal rates and did not determine efficiency of a complete
process;
1 The Water Research Foundation was formerly known as the American Water Works Research Foundation
(AWWARF).
-------
Only influent concentrations were reported (with no effluent concentrations or
percent removal reported);
Only effluent concentrations were reported (with no influent concentrations or
percent removal reported); or
Only bioassay results were reported (no concentrations of individual compounds).
EPA began the review with over 400 articles discussing CEC treatment and identified a total of
88 studies that meet these criteria. These 88 studies had analytical data for 596 different
treatment systems; 199 full-scale systems, 135 pilot-scale systems and, 262 lab-scale systems.
Sixty-five of these studies had analytical data for individual unit processes within the systems.
See Appendix C for a complete list and short abstracts of the 88 articles.
-------
3. CEC REMOVALS DATABASE
To capture the data identified by the literature search in an accessible manner, EPA entered the
CEC removal efficiencies into a Microsoft Accessฎ database (hereafter, "the database"). The
database captures bibliographic information about the data source as well as information about
the analytes studied, the treatment unit processes employed, the types of water treated, and the
performance of the studied treatment system. It includes treatment system influent and effluent
concentrations or percent removal, as reported by the reference and data surrounding individual
unit processes, when provided. The database does not contain information about the
concentration of CECs in sludges or other residuals generated during treatment of water or
wastewater. The types of treatment systems in the database are identified by the treatment codes
listed in Table 1.
Data were entered into the database as presented in the published reports; however, data were
only used to calculate removal efficiencies if:
1. Influent concentration was detected and was greater than the effluent
concentration; and
2. The effluent detection limit was provided if the effluent concentration was
reported as ND (not detected).
These criteria were used to facilitate calculation of average removal efficiencies from multiple
sources. EPA recognizes limitations of this approach. CECs may enter the treatment plant as
precursors or conjugates that then break down to form the CEC. Because the precursor or
conjugate is not measured as the CEC, the influent concentration is less than the effluent
concentration and the resulting calculated "removal efficiency" is negative (for example, if the
influent concentration is 5 ng/L and the effluent concentration is 10 ng/L, the removal efficiency
will be minus 100%).
EPA notes that data that do not meet the criteria listed above are included in the database and are
available to users who choose different criteria (for example, influent concentrations may be less
than effluent concentrations).
If a treatment system had multiple concentration values for a sampling point, the paired data
points that met the criteria above were averaged to generate a single percent removal for each
analyte in a treatment system.
-------
Table 1. Treatment Codes
Treatment Type
Aerobic granulation
Activated sludge
Activated sludge +
nutrient removal
Biological activated
carbon
Phosphorus removal
(biological)
Chlorine disinfection
Phosphorus removal
(chemical)
Coagulation or softening
Denitrification
Electrodialysis
Electrolysis
Fixed film biological
treatment
Granular activated
carbon
Hydrogen peroxide
Ion exchange
Lagoon
Membrane bio reactor
Microfiltration
Media filters
Nanofiltration
Subcategories/Variations
none
high rate, step feed, oxidation
ditch, bardenpho system,
conventional, pure oxygen,
extended aeration (includes a
secondary clarifier for recycle of
activated sludge)
activated sludge + nutrient
removal (nitrification,
denitrification, biological
phosphorus removal, etc.)
none
biological
chlorination, dechlorination,
chloramination
chemical
addition of chemicals to enhance
precipitation of unwanted
compounds
separate stage/sludge
denitrification
desalination
none
fixed bed reactor, rotating
biological contactor, trickling
filter
none
usually coupled with UV
disinfection or ozonation
magnetic ion exchange resin
(MIEX)
none
none
pore diameter range is 0.09 to 10
micrometers
granular media filters, deep bed
filters, cloth disc filters; pore
diameter range is 10 to 100
micrometers
pore diameter range is <0.001 to
0.01 micrometers
Code
AGR
ASL
ASN
BAC
BP
CL
CP
CS
DEN
ED
EL
FF
GAC
HYPR
ION
LAG
MBR
McF
MF
NF
Number of
Full-Scale
Systems
0
98
8
4
4
43
33
34
29
0
0
7
7
1
0
15
2
15
52
0
Number of
Pilot-Scale
Systems
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
20
9
1
0
0
2
0
2
0
31
4
14
o
J
Number of
Lab-Scale
Systems
1
60
0
2
10
19
0
25
13
1
40
16
5
2
7
5
5
1
4
16
-------
Table 1. Treatment Codes (Continued)
Treatment Type
Nitrification
Ozonation + hydrogen
peroxide
Ozonation + ultraviolet
disinfection
Ozonation
Powdered activated
carbon
Reed bed
Reverse osmosis
Soil-aquifer treatment
Septic systems
Settling tank
Ultrafiltration
Ultraviolet + hydrogen
peroxide
Ultraviolet disinfection
Subcategories/Variations
separate stage/sludge nitrification
advanced oxidation process with
ozonation and H2O2 coupled
advanced oxidation process with
ozonation and UV light
none
none
constructed wetlands
none
groundwater recharge, natural
treatment
septic tank
clarification, settling,
sedimentation
pore diameter range is 0.004 to
0.1 micrometers
advanced oxidation process with
UV light and H2O2 coupled
none
Code
NT
OZ/H2O2
OZ/UV
OZN
PAC
RB
RO
SAT
SEP
ST
UF
UV/H2O2
UVD
TOTAL
Number of
Full-Scale
Systems
29
0
0
15
1
3
15
6
1
92
2
1
15
199
Number of
Pilot-Scale
Systems
9
20
1
32
4
9
11
3
0
9
2
6
8
135
Number of
Lab-Scale
Systems
0
4
0
22
8
0
5
3
0
5
11
14
16
262
a Total number of systems included in CECs Removal Database Version 3. Systems may have more than one
treatment type.
10
-------
In addition to concentrations at the influent and effluent from the full system, researchers often
measured concentrations at intermediate points. Influent and effluent data characterize a
treatment system while data collected before and after one step of the treatment system only
characterize the performance of that unit process. EPA captured these two types of information
by reporting data separately for treatment systems and unit processes. For example, as depicted
in Figure 1, a wastewater treatment plant was sampled at influent, effluent, and some
intermediate steps. In the database, raw (untreated) influent and final effluent (after
dechlorination) data are entered to characterize removal efficiencies from the full treatment
system. To characterize the unit process of media filtration, data are entered from the sample
collection points immediately before and after this process (Step 1 and Step 2, respectively, as
depicted in Figure 1). No other unit processes are completely isolated in this system, so no other
datasets are recorded. The database allows the user to select removal averages for entire
treatment systems or for isolated unit processes.
Communitors
Grit
Chamber
Primary
Clarifier
Aeration Secondary
Basins Clarifier
Media
Filters C12
Gas
Chlorine Bisulfite
Contac
Contact I
Tank ^
Dechlorinati
StepS
Discharge
to River
Grit
Primary
Sludge
ฃฃ) Sampling point |
location
I - Influent I
Figure 1. Three-Step Wastewater Treatment System
In some references, instead of reporting paired influent and effluent concentrations, the authors
reported calculated percent removal. When concentration data were not available, published
removal percentages were entered provided that the reported percent removal were greater than 0
and equal to or less than 100. In other references, authors presented results in graphical form and
the underlying measured concentrations were not reported. In these cases, the authors were
contacted for the underlying concentrations data.
Influent and/or effluent concentrations were sometimes preceded by a "<" or ">" flag. When
flagged concentrations were used in a calculation, the resulting percent removal was also
flagged. For example, if the influent was reported as 10 ng/1 and the effluent was reported as <5
ng/1, the percent removal was reported as >50%. Similarly, if the influent was reported as >10
ng/1 and the effluent was reported as 5 ng/1, the percent removal was reported as <50%. If the
influent and effluent are both flagged, the percent removal cannot be identified as a minimum or
maximum and was not flagged. In some cases, the study reported only flagged percent removal.
In these cases, the reported flags are retained in the CEC Removals Database.
The database uses matrix codes to identify the material studied in the reference. The "matrix" is
the type of water in which CECs occur; for example, ground water, surface water, and municipal
wastewater. Table 2 shows the matrix codes and the number of systems treating each matrix that
are included in the database.
11
-------
Table 2. Matrix Codes
Matrix Type
Clean Water (distilled)
Drinking Water (unspecified source water to
drinking WTP)
Groundwater
Human Waste
Industrial Wastewater
Municipal Wastewater
Manure Waste
Surface Water
Synthetic Wastewater
Treated Effluent (secondary or tertiary
treated)
Code
CW
DW
GW
HW
IWW
MUW
MW
SUW
SWW
TE
TOTALS
Number of Full-
Scale Systems
0
38
0
0
0
120
2
6
0
33
199
Number of Pilot-
Scale Systems
0
2
2
0
2
37
0
60
0
32
135
Number of Lab-
Scale Systems
43
3
0
5
2
34
1
98
33
43
262
The database allows users to retrieve stored information. EPA has made the CECs Removal
Database available to the public on its website. As part of this database, EPA developed an
Accessฎ form called "Quick Search" that enables users to select the type of study of interest and
then produces a report of their percent removals. The User's Guide, included as Appendix B,
presents step-by-step instructions for using the Quick Search form.
12
-------
4. FULL-SCALE TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY PERFORMANCE: AN ILLUSTRATION
To illustrate information that can be retrieved from the database, this section discusses the
performance of full-scale treatment systems that incorporate one of six commonly used treatment
technologies. EPA selected 16 CECs to highlight in this discussion.
The database contains information on 246 CECs, divided into seven classes, as presented in
TableS.
Table 3. CECs Classes
General Class
Nonlyphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate (APEs) compounds
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Polybrominated biphenyl ethers
Pesticide
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products
Steroids and Hormones
Other
General Class Abbreviation
NP/APEs
PAH
PBDEs
Pesticide
PPCP
S/H
Other
For the purpose of the illustration presented in this section, EPA selected 16 of these 246 CECs
using the following steps. EPA ranked the CECs in the database by number of full-scale systems
for which removal efficiencies were calculated. EPA selected the top ranking 15 CECs. These
CECs represent the following classes: PPCPs, pesticides, steroids and hormones, and other. EPA
added a 16th CEC, nonylphenol, to the performance review in this section because it is the
highest ranking CEC in the NP/APEs class. EPA did not include PBDEs and PAHs in this
illustration because the database includes few calculated removal efficiencies for CECs in these
classes.
The six treatment technologies discussed in this section are activated sludge, granular activated
carbon adsorption, chlorine disinfection, ultraviolet disinfection, ozone disinfection, and reverse
osmosis.
EPA collected data on laboratory-, pilot-, and full-scale treatment systems; however, this section
presents information on removal efficiencies across full-scale treatment systems, only. Full-scale
systems are highlighted because they reflect actual treatment scenarios. Lab- and pilot-scale
systems do not take into account all of the variables that a full-scale drinking water or
wastewater treatment plant may actually encounter on a day-to-day basis. Information on lab-
and pilot-scale systems and on unit processes can be found in the database. However, many of
the lab- and pilot-scale results were similar to the full-scale results presented below.
Two of the 16 CECs discussed in this section are naturally occurring estrogens (estradiol and
estrone). The other 14 CECs include ten PPCPs, one pesticide, one surfactant (nonylphenol,
NP), one flame retardant (tri(chloroethyl) phosphate) and one plasticizer (Bisphenol A).
The removal efficiencies calculated by the database are not based on a mass balance. They do
not account for removal mechanisms such as potential sludge partitioning, or volatilization to air,
and only consider the concentrations in the influent and effluent streams. Additionally, inclusion
13
-------
of analytes in this report does not reflect a determination that their presence in wastewater
adversely affects human health or the environment. For each treatment technology discussed in
this section, the following information is presented:
A brief description of the process and its use in treating water and wastewater;
A table presenting the removal of the 16 CECs in full-scale systems treating:
Municipal wastewater;
Treated effluent2 (secondary or tertiary treated); or
Drinking water.
2Treated effluent in these studies is further treated in reuse/reclaimed water facilities. The influent to the system
comes directly from the effluent of a wastewater treatment plant.
14
-------
4.1 Activated Sludge
Activated sludge is a two-stage suspended growth biological treatment process designed to
remove organic material measured as biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). The first stage is an
aerated reactor in which organic material is removed by a mixed microbial population. The
second stage is a settling tank (clarifier) that removes solids (activated sludge) from wastewater.
A portion of the activated sludge is wasted and the remainder is returned to the aerated reactor.
Because solids are returned to the reactor, their residence time in the system is greater than the
hydraulic residence time. For conventional activated sludge, the average solids retention time is
5 to 10 days. CECs may be removed from wastewater during activated sludge treatment by
biodegradation and/or by adsorption to the solid material wasted from the system.
The activated sludge process is the most common type of secondary treatment used in U.S.
municipal wastewater treatment plants. The activated sludge studies presented here do not
include activated sludge systems that reported design modifications including those that remove
nutrients3. There are many variations on this process; CECs removal data from several types of
activated sludge processes are included in the database, further division of activated sludge
categories was impractical based on the descriptors provided in the studies.
For treatment of the 16 CECs in full-scale activated sludge treatment systems, the average
reported removal efficiencies are listed in Table 4. Effectiveness of activated sludge treatment
varied by type of water treated. For municipal wastewater, the average removal efficiencies for
activated sludge treatment ranged from 22% for carbamazepine to 94% for caffeine.
3 The database includes two forms of biological nutrient removal (BNR), specifically de-nitrification and biological
phosphorus removal; however, when looking at the compiled data, systems with BNR seem to remove CECs less
effectively than a treatment system with a more conventional activated sludge system.
15
-------
Table 4. Removal of 16 Selected Analytes by Full-Scale Activated Sludge Treatment
Analyte
Bisphenol A
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
DEBT
Diclofenac
Estradiol
Estrone
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Ibuprofen
lopromide
Naproxen
Nonylphenol
Sulfamethoxazole
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triclosan
Group
Other
PPCP
PPCP
pesticide
PPCP
S/H
S/H
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
NP/APEs
PPCP
Other
PPCP
Drinking Water
Avg %
Removal
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Min
Removal
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Max
Removal
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Treated Effluent
Avg %
Removal
NR
30
22
46
47
NR
74
NR
75
28
55
98
NR
49
6.5
79
Min
Removal
NR
2.6
3.5
17
18
NR
>58
NR
59
5.6
55
>98
NR
25
6.5
>79
Max
Removal
NR
48
40
>74
>82
NR
90
NR
92
50
55
>98
NR
93
6.5
>79
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
3
2
2
3
0
2
0
2
2
1
1
0
3
1
1
Municipal Wastewater
Avg %
Removal
78
94
22
54
44
88
77
56
77
90
69
85
90
58
27
89
Min
Removal
11
85
<10
16
7.1
44
1.8
9
38
43
50
47
57
9
4.5
>67
Max
Removal
100
100
60
>84
>99
100
100
99
>99
100
83
100
100
99
50
100
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
41
7
5
7
23
49
46
25
13
32
3
18
26
15
2
22
NR - Not reported.
16
-------
4.2 Granular Activated Carbon Adsorption
Granular activated carbon adsorption is used to remove dissolved materials from solution. The
dissolved materials are held on the activated carbon surface by chemical and physical bonding.
In wastewater treatment, activated carbon is used in granular or powdered form. Granular
activated carbon (GAC) is held in a fixed-bed column and the water or wastewater passes
through the carbon bed. Granular activated carbon adsorption is a polishing treatment step, most
commonly used to remove low concentrations of organic pollutants. Pollutants removed from
water and wastewater will be adsorbed to the solid wastes generated by this process. Activated
carbon adsorption is used in both drinking water and wastewater treatment.
For treatment of the 16 CECs in full-scale granular activated carbon treatment systems, the
average reported removal efficiencies are listed in Table 5. Effectiveness of granular activated
carbon treatment varied by type of water treated. For treated effluent, the database includes
removal efficiencies for 10 of the 16 CECs. The average removal efficiencies for treated effluent
ranged from 3.6% for naproxen to 63% for DEET.
17
-------
Table 5. Removal of 16 Selected Analytes in Full-Scale Treatment Systems that Include Granular Activated Carbon Treatment
Analyte
Bisphenol A
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
DEBT
Diclofenac
Estradiol
Estrone
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Ibuprofen
lopromide
Naproxen
Nonylphenol
Sulfamethoxazole
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triclosan
Group
Other
PPCP
PPCP
pesticide
PPCP
S/H
S/H
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
NP/APEs
PPCP
Other
PPCP
Drinking Water
Avg %
Removal
NR
NR
72
75
NR
NR
NR
NR
79
58
45
47
NR
42
NR
NR
Min
Removal
NR
NR
>60
>75
NR
NR
NR
NR
>79
>58
45
>47
NR
>17
NR
NR
Max
Removal
NR
NR
85
>75
NR
NR
NR
NR
>79
>58
45
>47
NR
67
NR
NR
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
0
2
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
0
2
0
0
Treated Effluent
Avg %
Removal
NR
11
8.3
63
59
NR
NR
NR
6.1
16
45
3.6
NR
49
NR
47
Min
Removal
NR
5.6
1
63
50
NR
NR
NR
4
16
18
0.85
NR
15
NR
47
Max
Removal
NR
16
16
63
>69
NR
NR
NR
8.2
16
72
6.3
NR
84
NR
47
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
2
2
1
2
0
0
0
2
1
2
2
0
2
0
1
Municipal Wastewater
Avg %
Removal
100
NR
NR
NR
NR
100
100
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Min
Removal
100
NR
NR
NR
NR
100
100
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Max
Removal
100
NR
NR
NR
NR
100
100
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NR - Not reported.
18
-------
4.3 Chlorine Disinfection
Chlorine disinfection is used to inactivate pathogens in water or wastewater. Chlorine, typically
as a gas or as concentrated hypochlorite liquid, is used to disinfect drinking water prior to its
distribution to customers. Chlorine is also sometimes used to disinfect wastewater, particularly
prior to reuse. Chlorinated wastewater may be dechlorinated prior to discharge to surface water,
to prevent harm to aquatic life. In addition to inactivating microbes, chlorine can transform
organic chemicals via oxidation and chlorination; however, the reaction of chlorine with organic
material can generate chloroform and other potentially harmful disinfection byproducts.
For treatment of the 16 CECs in full-scale treatment systems that included chlorine disinfection,
the average reported removal efficiencies are listed in Table 6. Effectiveness of chlorine
disinfection varied by type of water treated. For municipal wastewater, the database includes
removal efficiencies for 13 of the 16 CECs. The average removal efficiencies for municipal
wastewater ranged from 4.5% for the flame retardant tri(chloroethyl) phosphate to 98% for
caffeine.
19
-------
Table 6. Removal" of 16 Selected Analytes in Full-Scale Treatment Systems that Include Chlorine Disinfection
Analyte
Bisphenol A
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
DEBT
Diclofenac
Estradiol
Estrone
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Ibuprofen
lopromide
Naproxen
Nonylphenol
Sulfamethoxazole
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triclosan
Group
Other
PPCP
PPCP
pesticide
PPCP
S/H
S/H
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
NP/APEs
PPCP
Other
PPCP
Drinking Water
Avg %
Removal
NR
29
49
21
NR
NR
NR
11
44
31
30
60
NR
69
45
42
Min
Removal
NR
7.4
2.6
2.4
NR
NR
NR
>11
1.9
5
8.3
>9.1
NR
13
8.6
>9.1
Max
Removal
NR
67
85
>75
NR
NR
NR
>11
>83
>58
65
100
NR
>98
>85
>63
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
9
10
9
0
0
0
1
9
6
7
10
0
12
6
4
Treated Effluent
Avg %
Removal
NR
44
65
46
61
NR
90
NR
80
49
55
99
NR
61
6.5
79
Min
Removal
NR
40
40
17
41
NR
90
NR
59
5.6
55
>98
NR
>29
6.5
>79
Max
Removal
NR
48
>90
>74
>82
NR
90
NR
92
>90
55
100
NR
93
6.5
>79
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
2
2
2
2
0
1
0
3
3
1
2
0
2
1
1
Municipal Wastewater
Avg %
Removal
72
98
NR
23
66
78
37
57
83
78
NR
93
NR
73
4.5
83
Min
Removal
20
>96
NR
23
18
47
0.87
11
68
43
NR
88
NR
47
4.5
>67
Max
Removal
96
100
NR
23
90
>96
>84
99
>90
100
NR
100
NR
98
4.5
99
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
8
2
0
1
o
J
8
9
4
3
5
0
3
0
2
1
4
NR - Not reported.
a Calculated removals include transformation. The contaminant may be transformed to another chemical form that may or may not be of less concern than the parent contaminant.
20
-------
4.4 Ultraviolet Disinfection
Ultraviolet disinfection is used to inactivate pathogens in water or wastewater. The energy of
ultraviolet (UV) light cleaves bonds in organic molecules. It also reacts with water to create
highly reactive hydroxyl radicals which react with organic molecules. Both processes can
inactivate microbes and can also transform CECs in water and wastewater. The effectiveness of
UV oxidation depends on the energy and wavelength of the light, the clarity of the water, and the
target CECs. The effectiveness of UV oxidation can be enhanced by the addition of hydrogen
peroxide to increase concentration of hydroxyl radicals.
For treatment of 16 selected CECs in full-scale treatment systems that included UV disinfection
(without peroxide), the average reported removal efficiencies are listed in Table 7. Effectiveness
of UV disinfection varied by type of water treated. For municipal wastewater, the database
includes removal efficiencies for 13 of the 16 CECs. The average removal efficiencies for
municipal wastewater ranged from 33% for sulfamethoxazole to 97% for caffeine and naproxen.
21
-------
Table 7. Removal3 of 16 Selected Analytes in Full-Scale Treatment Systems that Include UV Disinfection
Analyte
Bisphenol A
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
DEBT
Diclofenac
Estradiol
Estrone
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Ibuprofen
lopromide
Naproxen
Nonylphenol
Sulfamethoxazole
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triclosan
Group
Other
PPCP
PPCP
pesticide
PPCP
S/H
S/H
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
NP/APEs
PPCP
Other
PPCP
Drinking Water
Avg %
Removal
NR
42
17
21
NR
NR
NR
14
69
NR
NR
NR
NR
83
5.3
NR
Min
Removal
NR
42
>17
19
NR
NR
NR
8.3
69
NR
NR
NR
NR
>83
5.3
NR
Max
Removal
NR
42
>17
22
NR
NR
NR
>23
69
NR
NR
NR
NR
>83
5.3
NR
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
1
1
2
0
0
0
3
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
Treated Effluent
Avg %
Removal
NR
4.1
2.3
50
34
NR
58
NR
26
NR
18
0.85
NR
28
NR
47
Min
Removal
NR
2.6
1
50
18
NR
>58
NR
4
NR
18
0.85
NR
15
NR
47
Max
Removal
NR
5.6
3.5
50
50
NR
>58
NR
>47
NR
18
0.85
NR
>44
NR
47
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
2
2
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
0
3
0
1
Municipal Wastewater
Avg %
Removal
85
97
NR
64
89
76
74
55
90
90
NR
97
NR
33
50
90
Min
Removal
>72
>89
NR
41
86
61
22
13
>90
>81
NR
>90
NR
33
50
71
Max
Removal
>92
100
NR
>84
91
>98
96
>86
>90
100
NR
100
NR
33
50
99
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
4
5
0
3
3
3
4
4
2
6
0
3
0
1
1
5
NR - Not reported.
a Calculated removals include transformation. The contaminant may be transformed to another chemical form that may or may not be of less concern than the parent contaminant.
22
-------
4.5 Ozone Disinfection
Ozone disinfection is used to inactivate pathogens in water or wastewater. Ozone (O3) is a strong
oxidant and disinfectant used both in drinking water and wastewater treatment. Ozone can
directly oxidize CECs. It also reacts with water to create highly reactive hydroxyl radicals which
react with CECs. The effectiveness of ozone oxidation can be enhanced by the addition of either
hydrogen peroxide or UV light.
For treatment of the 16 selected CECs in full-scale treatment systems that included ozone
disinfection (without hydrogen peroxide or UV light), the average reported removal efficiencies
are listed in Table 8. Effectiveness of ozone disinfection varied by type of water treated. For
treated effluent, the database includes removal efficiencies for 15 of the 16 CECs. The average
removal efficiencies for treated effluent ranged from 38% for iopromide to 100% for diclofenac.
23
-------
Table 8. Removal" of 16 Selected Analytes in Full-Scale Treatment Systems that Include Ozone Disinfection
Analyte
Bisphenol A
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
DEBT
Diclofenac
Estradiol
Estrone
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Ibuprofen
lopromide
Naproxen
Nonylphenol
Sulfamethoxazole
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triclosan
Group
Other
PPCP
PPCP
pesticide
PPCP
S/H
S/H
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
NP/APEs
PPCP
Other
PPCP
Drinking Water
Avg %
Removal
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
99
NR
NR
NR
NR
Min
Removal
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
99
NR
NR
NR
NR
Max
Removal
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
99
NR
NR
NR
NR
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
Treated Effluent
Avg %
Removal
86
95
88
67
100
95
76
55
76
73
38
97
71
93
NR
89
Min
Removal
76
95
>71
48
>100
>93
>29
55
>50
>41
25
>92
42
>90
NR
>69
Max
Removal
100
95
100
100
>100
97
100
55
>99
100
50
>100
100
99
NR
100
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
o
6
I
6
5
1
2
3
1
3
4
2
4
2
4
0
4
Municipal Wastewater
Avg %
Removal
96
NR
60
74
NR
100
94
NR
90
95
NR
84
85
96
NR
99
Min
Removal
90
NR
60
69
NR
100
84
NR
>90
>90
NR
>68
82
96
NR
99
Max
Removal
100
NR
60
79
NR
100
100
NR
>90
100
NR
100
89
96
NR
100
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
o
6
0
1
2
0
2
3
0
1
2
0
2
2
1
0
2
NR - Not reported.
a Calculated removals include transformation. The contaminant may be transformed to another chemical form that may or may not be of less concern than the parent contaminant.
24
-------
4.6 Reverse Osmosis (RO)
Reverse osmosis is a pressure- or vacuum-driven process that separates contaminants from
water. Clean water is driven through the membrane, leaving a concentrated waste stream behind.
The concentrate wastestream then requires further processing or disposal. Membrane filtration
treatment processes are distinguished by the size of contaminants they remove. Microfiltration
and ultrafiltration remove suspended or colloidal particles via a sieving mechanism based on the
size of the membrane pores relative to that of the particulate matter. Nanofiltration and reverse
osmosis membranes, which do not have definable pores, remove dissolved contaminants. For the
purpose of the CECs Removals Database, "Membrane Filtration (MbrF)" includes ultrafiltration
and nanofiltration. Microfiltration is included with media filters because they remove similar size
particles. Reverse osmosis, which is used for desalination, is considered separately and is
presented in Table 9.
For treatment of selected CECs in full-scale treatment systems that included RO, the average
reported removal efficiencies are listed in Table 9. RO effectiveness varied by type of water
treated. For treated effluent, the database includes removal efficiencies for 14 of the 16 CECs.
The average removal efficiencies for treated effluent ranged from 81% for sulfamethoxazole to
100% for iopromide, triclosan, and naproxen.
25
-------
Table 9. Removal of 12 Selected Analytes in Full-Scale Treatment Systems that Include Reverse Osmosis
Analyte
Bisphenol A
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
DEBT
Diclofenac
Estradiol
Estrone
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Ibuprofen
lopromide
Naproxen
Nonylphenol
Sulfamethoxazole
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triclosan
Group
Other
PPCP
PPCP
pesticide
PPCP
S/H
S/H
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
NP/APEs
PPCP
Other
PPCP
Drinking Water
Avg %
Removal
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Min
Removal
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
Max
Removal
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Treated Effluent
Avg %
Removal
NR
99
98
83
98
93
99
99
90
97
100
100
NR
81
97
100
Min
Removal
NR
96
>90
50
>98
>88
>99
>99
>47
>90
>99
100
NR
>44
>97
>99
Max
Removal
NR
100
100
>100
>98
>98
>99
>99
100
100
>100
>100
NR
>100
>98
>100
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
5
6
3
2
5
2
1
6
5
2
o
5
0
3
2
2
Municipal Wastewater
Avg %
Removal
NR
96
NR
NR
90
NR
84
32
90
72
NR
90
NR
NR
NR
67
Min
Removal
NR
>96
NR
NR
>90
NR
>84
32
>90
>72
NR
>90
NR
NR
NR
>67
Max
Removal
NR
>96
NR
NR
>90
NR
>84
32
>90
>72
NR
>90
NR
NR
NR
>67
#
Systems
Used to
Calculate
Removal
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
NR - Not reported.
26
-------
5. DATABASE UTILITY
EPA reviewed technical reports of the performance of water and wastewater treatment
technologies and organized the information collected during this review in a relational database.
This database stores information about the reports reviewed, the technologies studied, and their
performance. The database is intended as a tool for individuals interested in identifying
information about the performance of particular treatment technologies.
Water and wastewater treatment plant operators can use the database to evaluate the likely
current removal efficiency of their plant for an array of CECs. They can also evaluate potential
future performance of various upgrades.
27
-------
Appendix A
CECS REMOVALS DATABASE OUTPUT TABLES
-------
The literature reviewed for this report included studies of CECs in ten different materials.
Appendix A presents tables of percent removals for three of these materials: municipal
wastewater, drinking water, and treated effluent (secondary or tertiary treated). Studies of these
three materials were selected for Appendix A because these materials were the most frequently
studied in full-scale treatment systems. For each of these three materials, Appendix A includes
percent removals from studied full-scale, pilot-scale, and laboratory-scale treatment systems.
EPA used the database to calculate removal efficiencies for all studied CECs for the treatment
technologies commonly studied for each material, as follows:
Municipal Wastewater:
activated sludge,
fixed film biological treatment,
chemical phosphorus removal,
biological phosphorus removal,
denitrification,
nitrification,
chlorine disinfection,
granular activated carbon,
ozonation,
reverse osmosis, and
ultraviolet disinfection;
Drinking Water:
chlorine disinfection,
granular activated carbon,
ozonation, and
ultraviolet disinfection;
Treated effluent (secondary or tertiary treated):
activated sludge,
fixed film biological treatment,
chlorine disinfection,
granular activated carbon,
ozonation,
reverse osmosis,
ultrafiltration, and
ultraviolet disinfection.
The following tables are included in this appendix:
Table A-l: Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment
Systems
Table A-2: Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Pilot Scale
Treatment Systems
Table A-3: Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Lab Scale Treatment
Systems
A-l
-------
Table A-4: Drinking Water Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment
Systems
Table A-5: Drinking Water Removal Efficiencies for Pilot Scale Treatment
Systems
Table A-6: Drinking Water Removal Efficiencies for Lab Scale Treatment
Systems
Table A-7: Treated Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment
Systems
Table A-8: Treated Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Pilot Scale Treatment
Systems
Table A-9: Treated Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Lab Scale Treatment
Systems
A-2
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
PAH
PBDEs
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
4-(tert-octyl)phenol
4-Nonylphenol
Nonylphenol
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
Nonylphenoxyethoxy acetic acid
Octylphenol
Octylphenol diethoxylate
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
2,7-Dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
4-cumylphenol
Bisphenol A
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triphenylphosphate
Naphthalene
PBDE-99
Chlorfenvinphos
DEET
Permethrins-peak 1
1 ,7-Dimethy Ixanthine
2-Phenylphenol
3-Phenylpropionate
4-Acetylsulfamethoxazole
4-Chloro-m-cresol
Acebutolol
Acetaminophen
Acetylsalicylic acid
Activated Sludge
Min
>30
17
>57
79
36
46
>58
72
29
71
81
>11
>20
18
71
91
94
4.5
57
67
>16
67
77
89
>70
85
>99
85
>90
>90
Max
>98
97
>100
99
100
46
>99
82
98
71
81
>100
>99
93
100
100
94
50
57
67
>84
67
77
89
>98
91
>99
85
>100
>90
Avg
87
78
90
90
78
46
91
77
73
71
81
78
80
53
88
98
94
27
57
67
54
67
77
89
90
89
99
85
97
90
Count
17
10
26
6
7
1
19
2
4
1
1
41
14
8
8
7
1
2
1
1
7
1
1
1
6
3
1
1
4
1
Fixed Film Biological
Treatment
Min
>100
>99
>85
Max
>100
>99
>85
Avg
100
99
85
Count
1
1
1
Phosphorus Removal
(biological)
Min
>96
97
>86
89
>99
>99
Max
>96
97
>86
89
>99
>99
Avg
96
97
86
89
99
99
Count
1
1
1
1
1
1
A-3
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Amoxicillin
Atenolol
Azithromycin
Benzophenone
Benzyl salicylate
Bezafibrate
BHA
Biosol
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Carbamazepine 10,11 -epoxide
Cashmeran
Cefaclor
Celestolide
Celiprolol
Cephalexin
Chloramphenicol
Chlorophene
Ciprofloxacin
Clarithromycin
Clofibric acid
Codeine
Crotamiton
Diclofenac
Dipyrone
Erythromycin-H2o
Ethyl-3-phenylpropionate
Gabapentin
Galaxolide
Galaxolide-lactone
Gemfibrozil
Glibenclamide
Hydrochlorothiazide
Activated Sludge
Min
93
<10
30
>71
>72
35
>92
>99
>85
<10
54
54
96
>41
36
100
94
73
59
9.0
28
29
98
>7.1
65
6.0
>14
>99
>9.0
49
>38
45
76
Max
93
<84
93
>90
>98
100
>92
>99
>100
<60
54
84
96
>99
36
100
96
73
89
91
52
29
98
>99
65
92
>94
>99
>99
58
>99
45
76
Avg
93
61
54
84
91
74
92
99
94
22
54
69
96
73
36
100
95
73
73
35
43
29
98
44
65
31
64
99
56
54
77
45
76
Count
1
4
3
6
5
12
1
1
7
5
1
2
1
9
1
1
2
1
5
5
3
1
2
23
1
5
5
1
25
2
13
1
1
Fixed Film Biological
Treatment
Min
76
Max
76
Avg
76
Count
1
Phosphorus Removal
(biological)
Min
84
97
>99
100
36
73
54
52
18
25
>99
44
68
Max
84
97
>99
100
36
73
54
52
35
25
>99
44
68
Avg
84
97
99
100
36
73
54
52
27
25
99
44
68
Count
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
A-4
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Ibuprofen
Indomethacin
lohexol
lomeprol
iopamidol
lopromide
Ketoprofen
Lincomycin
Mefenamic Acid
Methyl-3-phenylpropionate
Methylparaben
Metoprolol
Musk ketone
Musk xylene
Naproxen
Norfloxacin
Octylmethoxycinnamate
Ofloxacin
Oxybenzone
Paroxetine
p-Chloro-m-xylenol
Penicillin V
Phantolide
Phenobarbital
Phenytoin
Pravastatin
Propranolol
Propyphenazone
Ranitidine
Roxithromycin
Sotalol
Sulfadiazine
Sulfamethoxazole
Activated Sludge
Min
>43
>23
89
89
17
50
>9.0
17
29
>95
>78
<10
8.0
53
>47
85
>39
24
>8.0
91
>15
40
>44
>99
44
62
28
43
42
20
26
97
9.0
Max
>100
>99
89
89
17
83
>99
17
72
>100
>93
<65
85
53
>100
85
>99
98
>96
91
>98
40
>99
>99
44
62
65
43
42
93
75
97
99
Avg
90
78
89
89
17
69
71
17
52
97
89
32
36
53
85
85
86
69
76
91
77
40
71
99
44
62
47
43
42
44
50
97
58
Count
32
8
1
1
1
3
11
1
3
3
5
4
4
1
18
1
6
3
6
1
7
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
9
3
2
15
Fixed Film Biological
Treatment
Min
33
Max
33
Avg
33
Count
1
Phosphorus Removal
(biological)
Min
87
89
89
17
83
77
65
88
80
>99
44
65
33
48
24
Max
96
89
89
17
83
77
65
88
80
>99
44
65
33
48
24
Avg
92
89
89
17
83
77
65
88
80
99
44
65
33
48
24
Count
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
A-5
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
CEC
Sulfapyridine
Sulfathiazole
Tetracycline
Thymol
Tonalide
Traseolide
Triclocarban
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
Valproic acid
17a-estradiol
Androsterone
Cholesterol
Coprostanol
Estradiol
Estriol
Estrogenic Activity
Estrone
Ethinyl Estradiol
Etiocholanolone
Stigmasterol
Testosterone
Activated Sludge
Min
47
50
33
>78
13
9.0
97
>67
8.5
>99
52
98
85
97
>44
>18
70
>1.8
>0.77
82
98
>51
Max
95
50
85
>91
97
81
97
>100
100
>99
63
100
85
97
>100
>100
91
>100
>99
99
98
>97
Avg
67
50
66
85
67
55
97
89
60
99
58
99
85
97
88
91
82
77
66
92
98
82
Count
3
1
3
2
20
9
1
22
10
1
2
5
1
1
49
24
4
46
13
5
1
6
Fixed Film Biological
Treatment
Min
64
82
77
>90
>61
46
Max
64
93
77
>90
>100
46
Avg
64
87
77
90
76
46
Count
1
2
1
2
3
1
Phosphorus Removal
(biological)
Min
70
69
69
>99
94
>90
96
85
Max
70
69
69
>99
94
>90
98
88
Avg
70
69
69
99
94
90
97
86
Count
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
A-6
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
PAH
PBDEs
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
4-(tert-octyl)phenol
4-Nonylphenol
Nonylphenol
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
Nonylphenoxyethoxy acetic acid
Octylphenol
Octylphenol diethoxylate
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
2,7-Dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
4-cumylphenol
Bisphenol A
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triphenylphosphate
Naphthalene
PBDE-99
Chlorfenvinpho s
DEET
Permethrins-peak 1
1 ,7-Dimethy Ixanthine
2-Phenylphenol
3-Phenylpropionate
4-Acetylsulfamethoxazole
4-Chloro-m-cresol
Acebutolol
Acetaminophen
Acetylsalicylic acid
Amoxicillin
Atenolol
Phosphorus Removal (chemical)
Min
88
91
99
46
75
72
76
11
92
93
88
87
94
91
>58
Max
93
99
100
46
98
82
98
99
92
93
88
87
94
91
>58
Avg
90
94
99
46
89
77
88
80
92
93
88
87
94
91
58
Count
4
3
3
1
3
2
3
9
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Denitriflcation
Min
>30
87
57
91
99
46
75
72
76
81
>37
20
18
83
91
94
4.5
>23
>70
90
85
98
>90
<10
Max
>96
97
90
99
100
46
98
82
98
81
>99
95
93
92
100
94
4.5
>84
>97
91
85
98
>90
<84
Avg
82
91
83
94
99
46
89
77
88
81
78
64
58
88
95
94
4.5
54
84
90
85
98
90
61
Count
6
4
5
3
3
1
3
2
3
1
14
5
3
3
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
Nitrification
Min
>30
17
57
91
99
46
75
72
76
81
>37
20
18
83
91
94
4.5
>23
>70
91
85
71
Max
>96
97
90
99
100
46
98
82
98
81
>99
95
93
92
100
94
4.5
>84
>97
91
85
84
Avg
79
76
83
94
99
46
89
77
88
81
77
64
58
88
95
94
4.5
54
84
91
85
78
Count
8
6
5
3
3
1
3
2
3
1
16
5
3
3
2
1
1
2
2
1
1
2
A-7
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Azithromycin
Benzophenone
Benzyl salicylate
Bezafibrate
BHA
Biosol
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Carbamazepine 10,11-epoxide
Cashmeran
Cefaclor
Celestolide
Celiprolol
Cephalexin
Chloramphenicol
Chlorophene
Ciprofloxacin
Clarithromycin
Clofibric acid
Codeine
Crotamiton
Diclofenac
Dipyrone
Erythromycin-H2o
Ethyl-3-phenylpropionate
Gabapentin
Galaxolide
Galaxolide-lactone
Gemfibrozil
Glibenclamide
Hydrochlorothiazide
Ibuprofen
Indomethacin
lohexol
Phosphorus Removal (chemical)
Min
35
100
14
>41
64
>7.1
15
>38
>91
>57
Max
100
100
14
>99
64
>99
99
>99
>100
>99
Avg
78
100
14
81
64
58
63
83
98
89
Count
9
3
2
10
1
21
14
11
23
8
Denitriflcation
Min
39
>71
>94
35
>89
<10
36
89
9.0
28
9.7
6.0
>84
11
>39
45
76
>43
23
89
Max
39
>90
>94
100
>100
<14
36
89
54
52
63
25
>84
86
>90
45
76
>100
23
89
Avg
39
81
94
81
94
13
36
89
25
40
43
18
84
62
64
45
76
91
23
89
Count
1
2
1
10
2
3
1
1
3
2
10
3
1
6
2
1
1
13
1
1
Nitrification
Min
39
>71
>94
35
>89
14
36
59
12
52
9.7
25
>84
11
>43
89
Max
39
>90
>94
100
>100
14
36
89
54
52
63
25
>84
86
>100
89
Avg
39
81
94
85
94
14
36
74
33
52
43
25
84
62
92
89
Count
1
2
1
9
2
2
1
2
2
1
9
1
1
6
11
1
A-8
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
lomeprol
iopamidol
lopromide
Ketoprofen
Lincomycin
Mefenamic Acid
Methyl-3-phenylpropionate
Methylparaben
Metoprolol
Musk ketone
Musk xylene
Naproxen
Norfloxacin
Octylmethoxycinnamate
Ofloxacin
Oxybenzone
Paroxetine
p-Chloro-m-xylenol
Penicillin V
Phantolide
Phenobarbital
Phenytoin
Pravastatin
Propranolol
Propyphenazone
Ranitidine
Roxithromycin
Sotalol
Sulfadiazine
Sulfamethoxazole
Sulfapyridine
Sulfathiazole
Tetracycline
Thymol
Phosphorus Removal (chemical)
Min
74
>9.0
>79
>99
41
66
81
Max
74
>99
>100
>99
88
75
81
Avg
74
78
95
99
58
70
81
Count
1
8
15
4
3
2
1
Denitriflcation
Min
89
17
74
52
29
>93
<10
85
>39
24
>8.0
91
>15
62
28
43
42
21
26
9.0
61
Max
89
17
83
80
29
>93
<65
85
>94
24
>91
91
>98
62
65
43
42
88
75
66
61
Avg
89
17
79
66
29
93
32
85
66
24
50
91
57
62
47
43
42
43
50
43
61
Count
1
1
2
2
1
1
4
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
6
3
5
1
Nitrification
Min
89
17
50
>93
20
>39
>8.0
>15
65
21
48
24
61
85
Max
89
17
83
>93
65
>94
>91
>98
65
88
75
76
61
85
Avg
89
17
69
93
43
66
50
57
65
45
62
56
61
85
Count
1
1
3
1
2
2
2
2
1
5
2
4
1
1
A-9
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
CEC
Tonalide
Traseolide
Triclocarban
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
Valproic acid
17a-estradiol
Androsterone
Cholesterol
Coprostanol
Estradiol
Estriol
Estrogenic Activity
Estrone
Ethinyl Estradiol
Etiocholanolone
Stigmasterol
Testosterone
Phosphorus Removal (chemical)
Min
>13
>9.0
>74
97
>44
18
>3.0
>25
Max
>99
>99
>99
97
>99
100
>100
>99
Avg
67
66
94
97
93
74
85
66
Count
15
11
15
1
23
6
19
9
Denitriflcation
Min
70
>96
8.5
63
99
>61
>28
32
>25
92
>88
Max
97
>96
69
63
100
>97
>100
100
>99
98
>97
Avg
84
96
33
63
99
87
90
85
75
95
92
Count
5
1
3
1
2
14
11
12
8
2
3
Nitrification
Min
70
>96
20
63
99
>61
>28
1.8
>25
92
>51
Max
97
>96
70
63
100
>97
>100
100
>99
98
>97
Avg
84
96
52
63
99
88
91
74
75
95
82
Count
5
1
4
1
2
16
13
14
8
2
5
A-10
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
PAH
PBDEs
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
4-(tert-octyl)phenol
4-Nonylphenol
Nonylphenol
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
Nonylphenoxyethoxy acetic acid
Octylphenol
Octylphenol diethoxylate
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
2,7-Dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
4-cumylphenol
Bisphenol A
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triphenylphosphate
Naphthalene
PBDE-99
Chlorfenvinpho s
DEET
Permethrins-peak 1
1 ,7-Dimethy Ixanthine
2-Phenylphenol
3-Phenylpropionate
4-Acetylsulfamethoxazole
4-Chloro-m-cresol
Acebutolol
Acetaminophen
Acetylsalicylic acid
Amoxicillin
Atenolol
Chlorine Disinfection
Min
50
17
79
45
>20
>20
4.5
23
89
>70
>99
>90
>90
Max
97
94
93
74
>96
>86
4.5
23
89
>87
>99
>99
>90
Avg
87
73
85
58
72
53
4.5
23
89
79
99
95
90
Count
8
8
3
3
8
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
Granular Activated Carbon
Min
100
Max
100
Avg
100
Count
1
Ozonation
Min
82
58
90
69
>90
Max
89
84
100
79
>90
Avg
85
71
96
74
90
Count
2
2
3
2
1
A-ll
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Azithromycin
Benzophenone
Benzyl salicylate
Bezafibrate
BHA
Biosol
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Carbamazepine 10,11-epoxide
Cashmeran
Cefaclor
Celestolide
Celiprolol
Cephalexin
Chloramphenicol
Chlorophene
Ciprofloxacin
Clarithromycin
Clofibric acid
Codeine
Crotamiton
Diclofenac
Dipyrone
Erythromycin-H2o
Ethyl-3-phenylpropionate
Gabapentin
Galaxolide
Galaxolide-lactone
Gemfibrozil
Glibenclamide
Hydrochlorothiazide
Ibuprofen
Indomethacin
lohexol
Chlorine Disinfection
Min
>71
>96
>99
>96
94
73
71
>18
>48
>99
11
49
>68
>43
Max
>84
>96
>99
>100
94
73
71
>90
>84
>99
99
58
>90
>100
Avg
78
96
99
98
94
73
71
66
66
99
57
54
83
78
Count
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
3
2
1
4
2
3
5
Granular Activated Carbon
Min
Max
Avg
Count
Ozonation
Min
93
60
91
98
92
>90
>90
Max
93
60
91
98
92
>90
>100
Avg
93
60
91
98
92
90
95
Count
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
A-12
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
lomeprol
iopamidol
lopromide
Ketoprofen
Lincomycin
Mefenamic Acid
Methyl-3-phenylpropionate
Methylparaben
Metoprolol
Musk ketone
Musk xylene
Naproxen
Norfloxacin
Octylmethoxycinnamate
Ofloxacin
Oxybenzone
Paroxetine
p-Chloro-m-xylenol
Penicillin V
Phantolide
Phenobarbital
Phenytoin
Pravastatin
Propranolol
Propyphenazone
Ranitidine
Roxithromycin
Sotalol
Sulfadiazine
Sulfamethoxazole
Sulfapyridine
Sulfathiazole
Tetracycline
Thymol
Chlorine Disinfection
Min
77
>97
>91
8.0
>88
>39
98
>8.0
15
>99
44
97
47
33
Max
94
>97
>91
8.0
>100
>96
98
>95
90
>99
44
97
98
33
Avg
83
97
91
8.0
93
67
98
51
62
99
44
97
73
33
Count
4
1
1
1
3
2
1
2
3
1
1
1
2
1
Granular Activated Carbon
Min
Max
Avg
Count
Ozonation
Min
69
54
>68
93
96
95
>78
Max
95
54
>100
93
96
95
>91
Avg
81
54
84
93
96
95
85
Count
3
1
2
1
1
1
2
A-13
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated
diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
CEC
Tonalide
Traseolide
Triclocarban
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
Valproic acid
17a-estradiol
Androsterone
Cholesterol
Coprostanol
Estradiol
Estriol
Estrogenic Activity
Estrone
Ethinyl Estradiol
Etiocholanolone
Stigmasterol
Testosterone
Chlorine Disinfection
Min
64
97
>67
83
>99
>47
>95
>0.87
0.77
>51
Max
93
97
>99
83
>99
>96
>98
>84
72
>91
Avg
79
97
83
83
99
78
97
37
42
79
Count
2
1
4
1
1
8
5
9
4
5
Granular Activated Carbon
Min
100
100
Max
100
100
Avg
100
100
Count
1
1
Ozonation
Min
99
100
100
100
84
Max
100
100
100
100
100
Avg
99
100
100
100
94
Count
2
1
2
1
3
A-14
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and
hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
PAH
PBDEs
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
4-(tert-octyl)phenol
4-Nonylphenol
Nonylphenol
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
Nonylphenol monoethoxylate
Nonylphenoxyethoxy acetic acid
Octylphenol
Octylphenol diethoxylate
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
2,7-Dichlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
4-cumylphenol
Bisphenol A
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Dibutyl phthalate
Diethyl phthalate
Dimethyl phthalate
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triphenylphosphate
Naphthalene
PBDE-99
Chlorfenvinphos
DEET
Permethrins-peak 1
1 ,7-Dimethy Ixanthine
2-Phenylphenol
3-Phenylpropionate
4-Acetylsulfamethoxazole
4-Chloro-m-cresol
Acebutolol
Acetaminophen
Acetylsalicylic acid
Amoxicillin
Reverse Osmosis
Min
77
>86
>87
>90
>90
Max
77
>86
>87
>90
>90
Avg
77
86
87
90
90
Count
1
1
1
1
1
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Min
>93
61
79
74
>99
>72
>93
50
57
>41
>94
>90
>90
Max
>97
97
79
74
>99
>92
>95
50
57
>84
>98
>90
>90
Avg
95
85
79
74
99
85
94
50
57
64
96
90
90
Count
4
4
1
1
1
4
3
1
1
3
3
1
2
A-15
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and
hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Atenolol
Azithromycin
Benzophenone
Benzyl salicylate
Bezafibrate
BHA
Biosol
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Carbamazepine 10,11-epoxide
Cashmeran
Cefaclor
Celesta lide
Celiprolol
Cephalexin
Chloramphenicol
Chlorophene
Ciprofloxacin
Clarithromycin
Clofibric acid
Codeine
Crotamiton
Diclofenac
Dipyrone
Erythromycin-H2o
Ethyl-3-phenylpropionate
Gabapentin
Galaxolide
Galaxolide-lactone
Gemfibrozil
Glibenclamide
Hydrochlorothiazide
Ibuprofen
Reverse Osmosis
Min
>84
>96
>96
>90
>48
32
>90
>72
Max
>84
>96
>96
>90
>48
32
>90
>72
Avg
84
96
96
90
48
32
90
72
Count
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Min
>89
>94
>92
>89
54
50
76
>86
>14
>13
>90
>81
Max
>90
>98
>92
>100
54
50
76
>91
>81
>86
>90
>100
Avg
89
96
92
97
54
50
76
89
48
55
90
90
Count
3
3
1
5
1
1
1
3
2
4
2
6
A-16
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and
hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Indomethacin
lohexol
lomeprol
iopamidol
lopromide
Ketoprofen
Lincomycin
Mefenamic Acid
Methyl-3-phenylpropionate
Methylparaben
Metoprolol
Musk ketone
Musk xylene
Naproxen
Norfloxacin
Octylmethoxycinnamate
Ofloxacin
Oxybenzone
Paroxetine
p-Chloro-m-xylenol
Penicillin V
Phantolide
Phenobarbital
Phenytoin
Pravastatin
Propranolol
Propyphenazone
Ranitidine
Roxithromycin
Sotalol
Sulfadiazine
Sulfamethoxazole
Sulfapyridine
Reverse Osmosis
Min
80
>97
>91
8.0
>90
>96
>95
90
Max
80
>97
>91
8.0
>90
>96
>95
90
Avg
80
97
91
8.0
90
96
95
90
Count
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Min
80
>95
>92
42
53
>90
>94
>89
>93
44
33
Max
95
>95
>93
85
53
>100
>99
>96
>98
44
33
Avg
85
95
92
64
53
97
97
92
96
44
33
Count
4
1
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
1
1
A-17
-------
Table A-l. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PAH - polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons; PBDEs - polybrominated diphenyl ether fire retardants; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and
hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
CEC
Sulfathiazole
Tetracycline
Thymol
Tonalide
Traseolide
Triclocarban
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
Valproic acid
17a-estradiol
Androsterone
Cholesterol
Coprostanol
Estradiol
Estriol
Estrogenic Activity
Estrone
Ethinyl Estradiol
Etiocholanolone
Stigmasterol
Testosterone
Reverse Osmosis
Min
>67
>84
Max
>67
>84
Avg
67
84
Count
1
1
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Min
64
52
58
>71
77
85
97
>61
>90
22
0.77
98
97
Max
64
52
58
>99
77
85
97
>98
>100
96
0.77
98
97
Avg
64
52
58
90
77
85
97
76
96
74
0.77
98
97
Count
1
1
1
5
1
1
1
3
3
4
1
1
1
A-18
-------
Table A-2. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Pilot Scale Treatment Systems
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and
hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
Other
Other
Other
pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Nonylphenol
Nonylphenol diethoxylate
Nonylphenol
monoethoxylate
Nonylphenol n-ethoxylate
Nonylphenol triethoxylate
Octylphenol
Octylphenol diethoxylate
Octylphenol monoethoxylate
Bisphenol A
Butylbenzyl phthalate
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
DEET
3 -Pheny Ipropionate
Acetaminophen
Benzophenone
Benzyl salicylate
Bezafibrate
BHA
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Diclofenac
Dilantin
Erythromycin-H2o
Ethyl-3-phenylpropionate
Fluoxetine
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Hydrocodone
Ibuprofen
lopromide
Meprobamate
Activated Sludge
Min
91
69
98
6.4
Max
94
75
99
6.4
Avg
92
72
99
6.4
Count
2
2
2
1
Denitriflcation
Min
85
85
97
45
58
76
93
>96
>84
>97
>88
>94
77
>78
>89
4.4
33
>74
46
>85
Max
91
94
99
98
82
98
99
>97
>84
>98
>99
>98
96
>78
>99
12
51
>74
92
>99
Avg
88
91
98
69
70
88
97
96
84
98
94
96
89
78
94
8.5
42
74
75
96
Count
3
3
3
3
2
3
6
2
1
2
2
2
6
1
2
4
4
1
5
8
Nitrification
Min
85
85
97
45
58
76
93
>96
>84
>97
>88
>94
77
>78
>89
4.4
33
>74
46
>85
Max
91
94
99
98
82
98
99
>97
>84
>98
>99
>98
96
>78
>99
12
51
>74
92
>99
Avg
88
91
98
69
70
88
97
96
84
98
94
96
89
78
94
8.5
42
74
75
96
Count
3
3
3
3
2
3
6
2
1
2
2
2
6
1
2
4
4
1
5
8
Reverse Osmosis
Min
>90
>94
>99
>100
>98
>90
>100
>97
>93
>100
>90
>100
>100
>100
Max
>95
>100
>100
>100
>100
>97
>100
>98
>94
>100
>99
>100
>100
>100
Avg
93
97
100
100
99
93
100
98
94
100
94
100
100
100
Count
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Min
91
>94
>100
>100
>98
>90
>98
90
>100
Max
95
>94
>100
>100
>98
>90
>98
90
>100
Avg
93
94
100
100
98
90
98
90
100
Count
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
A-19
-------
Table A-2. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Pilot Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and
hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
CEC
Methylparaben
Musk ketone
Naproxen
Octylmethoxycinnamate
Oxybenzone
p-Chloro-m-xylenol
Roxithromycin
Sulfamethoxazole
Tonalide
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
Andro stenedione
Estradiol
Estriol
Estrone
Ethinyl Estradiol
Progesterone
Testosterone
Activated Sludge
Min
98
93
65
51
48
96
98
Max
99
98
65
58
76
97
99
Avg
99
96
65
54
62
97
99
Count
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
Denitriflcation
Min
>93
38
>94
>91
>98
34
61
85
>89
>92
100
28
>33
Max
>93
38
>98
>97
>99
74
61
91
>96
>96
100
99
>80
Avg
93
38
96
94
99
56
61
87
93
94
100
78
62
Count
2
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
2
4
3
4
4
Nitrification
Min
>93
38
>94
>91
>98
34
61
85
>89
>92
100
28
>33
Max
>93
38
>98
>97
>99
74
61
91
>96
>96
100
99
>80
Avg
93
38
96
94
99
56
61
87
93
94
100
78
62
Count
2
1
2
2
2
3
1
3
2
4
3
4
4
Reverse Osmosis
Min
>100
>97
>99
>98
>95
>96
>88
>98
>99
>80
>80
>98
Max
>100
>98
>100
>99
>99
>99
>94
>98
>99
>97
>84
>98
Avg
100
97
100
98
97
98
91
98
99
88
82
98
Count
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Min
>100
>97
>99
>99
>95
>99
>98
>98
Max
>100
>97
>99
>99
>95
>99
>98
>98
Avg
100
97
99
99
95
99
98
98
Count
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
A-20
-------
Table A-3. Municipal Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Lab Scale Treatment Systems
GENERAL CLASS KEY: PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Atenolol
Bezafibrate
Carbamazepine
Chloramphenicol
Clofibric acid
Diazepam
Diclofenac
Ibuprofen
Ketoprofen
Lincomycin
Naproxen
Ranitidine
Tetracycline
Activated Sludge
Min
29
>98
>97
89
>49
91
90
69
87
17
50
Max
71
>98
>97
100
>97
92
91
69
94
29
86
Avg
43
98
97
96
68
91
90
69
90
23
75
Count
5
1
1
9
3
2
2
1
2
6
5
Phosphorus Removal
(biological)
Min
89
Max
100
Avg
96
Count
9
Denitriflcation
Min
36
89
17
Max
36
100
25
Avg
36
96
21
Count
1
9
2
Granular Activated
Carbon
Min
>98
>97
>97
Max
>98
>97
>97
Avg
98
97
97
Count
1
1
1
Ozonation
Min
>98
>95
88
90
>97
Max
>98
>99
99
95
>100
Avg
98
97
94
93
99
Count
1
3
2
2
3
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Min
95
99
90
100
Max
95
99
90
100
Avg
95
99
90
100
Count
1
1
1
1
A-21
-------
Table A-4. Drinking Water Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems
GENERAL CLASS KEY: PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for
analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
Other
PAH
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
CEC
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Fluorene
Atrazine
DEBT
Metolachlor
Acetaminophen
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Clofibric acid
Dilantin
Erythromycin-H2o
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Hydrocodone
Ibuprofen
lopromide
Meprobamate
Musk ketone
Naproxen
Oxybenzone
Sulfamethoxazole
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
Andro stenedione
Chlorine Disinfection
Min
>8.6
>23
3.5
>2.4
>8.0
>9.1
>7.4
>2.6
99
>7.7
>29
>11
>1.9
>47
>5.0
8.3
>5.0
>29
>9.1
>33
>13
>9.1
>55
>47
Max
>85
>88
99
>75
>92
>89
>67
>85
99
>48
>69
>11
>83
>47
>58
65
>50
>29
>100
>86
>98
>63
>57
>47
Avg
45
55
22
21
32
43
29
49
99
27
56
11
44
47
31
30
23
29
60
65
69
42
56
47
Count
6
2
6
9
4
6
9
10
1
7
4
1
9
1
6
7
4
1
10
3
12
4
2
1
Granular Activated Carbon
Min
99
>75
>92
>60
>29
>29
>79
>58
45
>50
>47
>17
Max
99
>75
>92
>85
>29
>29
>79
>58
45
>50
>47
>67
Avg
99
75
92
72
29
29
79
58
45
50
47
42
Count
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
Ozonation
Min
99
99
Max
99
99
Avg
99
99
Count
1
1
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Min
5.3
3.6
19
>44
42
>17
15
>8.3
69
>83
Max
5.3
3.6
22
>44
42
>17
15
>23
69
>83
Avg
5.3
3.6
21
44
42
17
15
14
69
83
Count
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
A-22
-------
Table A-5. Drinking Water Removal Efficiencies for Pilot Scale Treatment Systems
GENERAL CLASS KEY: PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Clofibric acid
Naproxen
Ozonation
Min
99
99
Max
99
99
Avg
99
99
Count
1
1
Table A-6. Drinking Water Removal Efficiencies for Lab Scale Treatment Systems
GENERAL CLASS KEY: PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
CEC
Caffeine
Salicylic acid
Trovafloxacin
Estradiol
Chlorine Disinfection
Min
>8.1
>35
>26
>9.2
Max
>94
>49
>95
>95
Avg
51
42
60
52
Count
2
2
2
2
Granular Activated Carbon
Min
>94
>49
>95
>95
Max
>94
>49
>95
>95
Avg
94
49
95
95
Count
1
1
1
1
A-23
-------
Table A-7. Treated Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other -
category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
Other
Other
Other
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Nonylphenol
Octylphenol
Bisphenol A
N-BBSA
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Atrazine
DEBT
Metolachlor
Acetaminophen
Acetylsalicylic acid
Atenolol
BHA
BHT
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Carisoprodol
Cefaclor
Cephalexin
Chlortetracycline
Ciprofloxacin
Clofibric acid
Crotamiton
Diazepam
Diclofenac
Dilantin
Enrofloxacin
Erythromycin-H2o
Fenofibrate
Fenoprofen
Fluoxetine
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Activated Sludge
Min
6.5
>17
65
2.6
3.5
32
>18
>11
>99
>5.3
59
Max
6.5
>74
65
48
40
32
>82
>80
>99
>97
92
Avg
6.5
46
65
30
22
32
47
45
99
46
75
Count
1
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
1
3
2
Fixed Film Biological
Treatment
Min
1.0
6.0
Max
1.0
6.0
Avg
1.0
6.0
Count
1
1
Chlorine Disinfection
Min
6.5
>17
>65
>90
40
>40
32
>41
>11
>99
>35
>59
Max
6.5
>74
>90
>90
48
>90
32
>82
>80
>99
>97
>92
Avg
6.5
46
77
90
44
65
32
61
45
99
66
80
Count
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
3
Granular Activated Carbon
Min
3.0
63
>71
19
5.6
1.0
>50
4.5
7.9
4.0
Max
3.0
63
>71
100
16
16
>69
23
7.9
8.2
Avg
3.0
63
71
59
11
8.3
59
14
7.9
6.1
Count
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
A-24
-------
Table A-7. Treated Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other -
category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
CEC
Hydrocodone
Ibuprofen
lopromide
Ketoprofen
Lincomycin
Mefenamic Acid
Meprobamate
Metoprolol
Monensin
Musk ketone
Nalidixic Acid
Naproxen
Norfloxacin
Norfluoxetine
Oleandomycin
Oxybenzone
Pentoxifylline
Primidone
Propyphenazone
p-TSA
Roxithromycin
Salinomycin
Sulfamethoxazole
Sulphasalazine
Thymol
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
Tylosin
Androstenedione
Estradiol
Estriol
Estrone
Testosterone
Activated Sludge
Min
>5.2
5.6
55
11
>98
>67
>20
>25
>79
>12
27
>58
13
Max
>98
50
55
11
>98
>92
>72
>93
>79
>98
48
>90
13
Avg
38
28
55
11
98
80
46
49
79
68
35
74
13
Count
3
2
1
1
1
2
2
3
1
3
3
2
1
Fixed Film Biological
Treatment
Min
5.0
Max
5.0
Avg
5.0
Count
1
Chlorine Disinfection
Min
>5.2
>5.6
55
80
11
>98
>67
>20
89
>29
>79
>95
27
90
13
Max
>98
>90
55
80
11
>100
>92
>72
89
>93
>79
>98
48
90
13
Avg
52
49
55
80
11
99
80
46
89
61
79
96
37
90
13
Count
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
Granular Activated Carbon
Min
>14
16
18
6.2
0.85
>12
15
47
4.8
1.1
7.2
9.3
Max
>56
16
72
13
6.3
>26
84
47
64
61
7.2
74
Avg
35
16
45
9.7
3.6
19
49
47
35
31
7.2
42
Count
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
2
A-25
-------
Table A-7. Treated Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other -
category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
NP/APEs
NP/APEs
Other
Other
Other
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Nonylphenol
Octylphenol
Bisphenol A
N-BBSA
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Atrazine
DEET
Metolachlor
Acetaminophen
Acetylsalicylic acid
Atenolol
BHA
BHT
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Carisoprodol
Cefaclor
Cephalexin
Chlortetracycline
Ciprofloxacin
Clofibric acid
Crotamiton
Diazepam
Diclofenac
Dilantin
Enrofloxacin
Erythromycin-H2o
Fenofibrate
Fenoprofen
Fluoxetine
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Hydrocodone
Ibuprofen
lopromide
Ozonation
Min
42
100
76
>7.7
>48
100
95
>71
>100
>84
>100
52
>60
1.4
>99
55
>50
>41
25
Max
100
100
100
>47
>100
100
95
>100
>100
>84
>100
89
>60
1.4
>99
55
>99
>100
50
Avg
71
100
86
28
67
100
95
88
100
84
100
63
60
1.4
99
55
76
73
38
Count
2
1
3
3
5
1
1
6
2
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
3
4
2
Reverse Osmosis
Min
99
>97
>50
>90
>90
90
100
>96
>90
100
74
85
10
98
90
>98
>99
75
>99
100
>92
>99
>47
>98
>90
>99
Max
100
>98
>100
>94
>90
100
100
>100
>100
100
74
85
10
98
100
>98
>100
75
>100
100
>92
>99
>100
>98
>100
>100
Avg
100
97
83
92
90
96
100
99
98
100
74
85
10
98
96
98
99
75
100
100
92
99
90
98
97
100
Count
3
2
3
2
1
3
3
5
6
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
6
2
5
2
Ultrafiltration
Min
76
7.7
100
>100
>84
>100
89
>99
>99
Max
76
7.7
100
>100
>84
>100
89
>99
>99
Avg
76
7.7
100
100
84
100
89
99
99
Count
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Min
50
>71
19
2.6
1.0
18
4.5
5.3
>4.0
11
18
Max
50
>71
19
5.6
3.5
50
4.5
5.3
>47
14
18
Avg
50
71
19
4.1
2.3
34
4.5
5.3
26
12
18
Count
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
A-26
-------
Table A-7. Treated Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Full Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: NP/APEs - nonylphenols, octylphenol, and alkylphenol ethoxylate compounds; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other -
category for analytes that do not fit into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
CEC
Ketoprofen
Lincomycin
Mefenamic Acid
Meprobamate
Metoprolol
Monensin
Musk ketone
Nalidixic Acid
Naproxen
Norfloxacin
Norfluoxetine
Oleandomycin
Oxybenzone
Pentoxifylline
Primidone
Propyphenazone
p-TSA
Roxithromycin
Salinomycin
Sulfamethoxazole
Sulphasalazine
Thymol
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
Tylosin
Andro stenedione
Estradiol
Estriol
Estrone
Testosterone
Ozonation
Min
72
>64
25
>92
>69
>59
>90
87
>69
97
>93
>55
>29
Max
100
>99
70
>100
>69
>59
>99
97
>100
97
>97
>78
>100
Avg
86
82
38
97
69
59
93
92
89
97
95
66
76
Count
2
2
4
4
1
1
4
2
4
1
2
2
3
Reverse Osmosis
Min
80
90
>100
98
>84
86
>100
97
75
>63
>97
89
100
93
80
>44
88
>99
>94
95
>88
>67
>99
>92
Max
80
90
>100
98
>84
86
>100
97
75
>98
>99
89
100
93
80
>100
88
>100
>100
95
>98
>98
>99
>100
Avg
80
90
100
98
84
86
100
97
75
86
98
89
100
93
80
81
88
100
98
95
93
85
99
96
Count
2
1
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
3
2
1
3
1
1
3
1
2
3
1
5
4
2
5
Ultrafiltration
Min
70
>98
>69
99
>98
97
Max
70
>98
>69
99
>98
97
Avg
70
98
69
99
98
97
Count
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Min
6.2
0.85
63
12
>15
47
4.8
1.1
7.2
>58
9.3
Max
6.2
0.85
63
12
>44
47
12
1.1
30
>58
9.3
Avg
6.2
0.85
63
12
28
47
8.4
1.1
19
58
9.3
Count
1
1
1
1
3
1
2
1
2
1
1
A-27
-------
Table A-8. Treated Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Pilot Scale Treatment Systems
GENERAL CLASS KEY: PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit
into another category
General Class
Other
Other
Other
PAH
PAH
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
CEC
Bisphenol A
N-BBSA
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Benzo[a]pyrene
Fluorene
Atrazine
DDT, p, p-
DEET
Lindane
Metolachlor
Acebutolol
Acetaminophen
Atenolol
Benzophenone
Bezafibrate
BHA
Caffeine
Carbamazepine
Carisoprodol
Celiprolol
Ciprofloxacin
Clarithromycin
Clofibric acid
Diatrizoate
Diazepam
Diclofenac
Dilantin
Erythromycin anhydrate
Erythromycin-H2o
Fenofibrate
Fenofibric Acid
Fluoxetine
Ozonation
Min
72
<1.0
42
>92
>61
>50
>77
>34
>68
82
16
76
50
13
>94
>43
>92
>99
54
>93
Max
86
<18
98
>92
>86
>60
>77
>80
>100
82
16
76
58
14
>99
>100
>99
>100
62
>99
Avg
80
8.6
83
92
77
57
77
70
97
82
16
76
56
14
97
87
95
100
59
95
Count
3
8
9
1
4
3
1
12
13
3
1
3
3
2
13
9
6
6
3
6
Reverse Osmosis
Min
100
96
>97
>60
95
<91
>95
100
100
>9.1
>82
>95
>89
100
>77
Max
100
99
>99
>100
95
>100
>100
100
100
>9.1
>95
>99
>100
100
>95
Avg
100
98
98
85
95
97
98
100
100
9.1
89
98
95
100
87
Count
1
3
3
3
1
3
4
1
1
1
2
3
2
1
3
Ultrafiltration
Min
7.7
>89
>74
15
>85
>8.4
>85
56
5.6
<7.1
>16
84
2.6
>25
>15
69
Max
99
>89
>74
15
>85
>99
>85
56
95
<91
>99
84
95
>99
>100
95
Avg
53
89
74
15
85
54
85
56
50
49
57
84
49
62
57
82
Count
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
A-28
-------
Table A-8. Treated Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Pilot Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: PAH - polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit
into another category
General Class
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
CEC
Galaxolide
Gemfibrozil
Hydrocodone
Ibuprofen
Indomethacin
lomeprol
lopamidol
lopromide
Isobutylparaben
Ketoprofen
Meprobamate
Metoprolol
Musk ketone
Naproxen
Oxybenzone
Pentoxifylline
Propranolol
Propylparaben
p-TSA
Roxithromycin
Sotalol
Sulfamethoxazole
Tonalide
Triclocarban
Triclosan
Trimethoprim
3-Indolebutyric acid
Andro stenedione
Estradiol
Estriol
Estrone
Ethinyl Estradiol
Hydrocortisone
Progesterone
Testosterone
Ozonation
Min
>88
>94
>93
<1.0
50
34
33
>14
74
>62
>31
>78
37
>50
<1.0
72
>87
91
>96
>92
50
99
>95
>85
83
>39
<1.0
>93
>44
Max
>100
>99
>100
>99
50
90
84
>96
91
>62
>98
>97
68
>96
>83
72
>94
91
>96
>100
50
100
>99
>99
85
>58
>91
>93
>98
Avg
96
96
99
74
50
66
58
73
82
62
69
92
51
76
53
72
89
91
96
97
50
99
97
94
84
45
69
93
62
Count
9
3
9
13
3
3
3
12
3
1
9
4
6
10
3
3
3
3
4
12
3
3
3
12
3
3
6
3
3
Reverse Osmosis
Min
>98
>99
>97
>83
<95
>99
>85
>95
>83
>86
100
>99
>17
>99
>83
>99
>97
>95
>96
Max
>99
>100
>99
>100
>98
>100
>90
>100
>99
>86
100
>99
>99
>99
>98
>99
>97
>95
>96
Avg
99
99
98
94
96
99
87
97
93
86
100
99
71
99
91
99
97
95
96
Count
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
1
1
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
1
Ultrafiltration
Min
>99
>99
>14
7.7
<95
>5.7
>37
13
>84
10
4.5
>88
>18
71
>99
41
>91
>99
>98
72
Max
>99
>99
>99
7.7
<95
>100
>90
95
>98
10
99
>97
>99
71
>99
41
>97
>99
>98
72
Avg
99
99
57
7.7
95
53
63
54
91
10
52
92
59
71
99
41
94
99
98
72
Count
1
1
2
1
1
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
A-29
-------
Table A-9. Treated Wastewater Removal Efficiencies for Lab Scale Treatment Systems
GENERAL CLASS KEY: PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and
General Class
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
CEC
Bisphenol A
Bisphenol F
TCIPP
TDCPP
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate
Alachlor
Atraton
DEET
Metolachlor
Acetaminophen
Caffeine
Carbadox
Carbamazepine
Clofibric acid
Diazepam
Diclofenac
Diethylstilbestrol
Gemfibrozil
oxybenzone
Primidone
Sulfachloropyridazine
Sulfamerazine
Sulfamethizole
sulfamethoxazole
17a-estradiol
Equilin
Estradiol
Estriol
Estrone
Ethinyl Estradiol
jersonal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
Chlorine Disinfection
Min
29
27
27
30
Max
29
27
27
30
Avg
29
27
27
30
Count
1
1
1
1
Granular Activated Carbon
Min
96
Max
99
Avg
98
Count
3
Ozonation
Min
92
89
53
100
80
Max
99
98
88
100
100
Avg
97
94
71
100
90
Count
4
4
4
4
2
A-30
-------
Table A-9. Fully- or Partially-Treated Wastewater Removals Across Lab Scale Treatment Systems (Continued)
GENERAL CLASS KEY: PPCP - Pharmaceuticals and
General Class
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
Other
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
pesticide
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
PPCP
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
S/H
CEC
Bisphenol A
Bisphenol F
TCIPP
TDCPP
Tri(chloroethyl) phosphate
Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate
Alachlor
Atraton
DEBT
Metolachlor
Acetaminophen
Caffeine
Carbadox
Carbamazepine
Clofibric acid
Diazepam
Diclofenac
Diethylstilbestrol
Gemfibrozil
oxybenzone
Primidone
Sulfachloropyridazine
Sulfamerazine
Sulfamethizole
sulfamethoxazole
17a-estradiol
Equilin
Estradiol
Estriol
Estrone
Ethinyl Estradiol
personal care products; S/H - steroids and hormones; Other - category for analytes that do not fit into another category
Reverse Osmosis
Min
14
54
98
89
94
19
6.0
5.0
14
7.0
5.0
35
10
65
21
33
98
12
19
17
12
23
31
38
19
19
Max
85
54
98
89
94
19
6.0
5.0
14
7.0
5.0
35
10
65
21
33
98
12
19
17
12
23
31
38
19
19
Avg
50
54
98
89
94
19
6.0
5.0
14
7.0
5.0
35
10
65
21
33
98
12
19
17
12
23
31
38
19
19
Count
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ultrafiltration
Min
58
9.7
40
89
43
60
86
20
4.0
22
19
99
60
100
5.0
25
11
23
96
97
99
32
98
95
Max
96
9.7
40
89
43
60
86
20
4.0
22
19
99
60
100
5.0
25
11
23
96
97
99
32
98
95
Avg
77
9.7
40
89
43
60
86
20
4.0
22
19
99
60
100
5.0
25
11
23
96
97
99
32
98
95
Count
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Ultraviolet Disinfection
Min
92
97
77
100
Max
99
98
88
100
Avg
96
98
83
100
Count
2
2
2
2
A-31
-------
Appendix B
CECS REMOVALS DATABASE USERS GUIDE
-------
Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs) Removals Database Version 3 User's Guide
For the Non-Accessฎ-Trained User
The CECs Removals Database is a Microsoft Accessฎ database designed to store and manage
information from published scientific studies of the removal of contaminants of emerging
concern (CECs) from water and wastewater. The database captures bibliographic information
about the published study as well as information about the CECs studied, the treatment
technologies employed, the types of water/waste treated, and the performance of the studied
treatment systems and unit operations. Engineers reviewed the published studies and entered
influent, effluent, and intermediate concentration data or percent removals into the database.
You can use the database to calculate the average percent removal for studied CECs.
The database contains a simple-to-use form that helps you select the types of studies to include in
the calculated average percent removal.
Terms Used on the Quick Search
Treatment Technology - A unit operation or treatment step employed in a water or wastewater
treatment system. Examples of treatment technologies are: settling tanks, activated sludge
treatment, chlorine disinfection.
Unit Process - A basic, single step of a water or wastewater treatment process. For example,
settling tank, media filter, or activated carbon.
Treatment System - Water or wastewater treatment process, usually involving two or more
treatment technologies/unit processes operated in sequence. For example, a traditional
wastewater treatment plant may include settling tanks, followed by activated sludge treatment
with nitrification and denitrification, and finally followed by chlorine disinfection. These unit
processes, operated together in sequence, make up a treatment system.
Scale - Describes the scale of the studied water or wastewater treatment operation. "Full scale"
indicates that the studied operation was used in a real-world application treating water or waste,
and samples were collected during normal operation with continuous flow. "Pilot scale"
indicates that the studied operation was run as an experimental unit using real water or waste
collected from a full-scale system, and flow through the system was continuous. "Lab scale"
indicates that the studied operation was run as a bench test in a laboratory, typically in a batch
flow mode. In many lab-scale studies, known concentration of CECs of interest are added to
("spiked" into) the test system.
Water/Waste Type - Identifies studied medium, for example, water, wastewater, groundwater,
and manure waste.
Spiked Data - Results from studies in which a known amount of CEC was added to the test
system. In these studies, researchers know the exact quantity of CEC entering a treatment
operation, so they can accurately assess the operation's performance. In the database, most of the
spiked data are from studies using distilled/clean water.
B-l
-------
Using the Quick Search
You can use the Quick Search in the database to select the types of studies to include in the
calculated average percent removals.
1. Save the CEC Removals Database to your desktop or another local computer
drive.
2. Double click the database icon (or filename) to open the database.
4.
3. When the "Security Warning" dialog box pops up, click "open."
Ready
The Quick Search will appear as the database opens. You will use the Quick
Search to select the types of studies to include in the calculated average percent
removals. You can pick from various treatment technology(ies), water/waste
type(s), and scale(s).
B-2
-------
C Microsoft Access
I File Edit View Insert Format Records Tools Whdow yelp Adobe PDF
11 Tahoma
Type a question for help
-|8 -| B / H ] =
Select Reporting Approach
Do you want to view re-=u!rs Frc-m treatment systems
;"ป' Treatment System Removals
The database will calculate removal
. : regardless of what
>- nrnhhr-i-i
--."'.rrm^ fh.-.r ,ri-|iid^ I-IP elected t
technology (i"^j. T~r- nrmi ITI -(-H rrn/r-i rv. percent FBfnQVa
technology(ies) will also be provided,
. I' -.-;lr livr i-----:-v-i
by averaging the unit process removals Ft
percent Femow^froff t
hr.h ;n|-rr I";- ;- ;--.-! -_-\ mr --
';! h t-.e irKtrd :ie-d:nic-nt
ปH T-n be provided
V' -.fn i|-,-n:
1. The minimum and maximum
Identify Criteria for Studies used to Calculate Removal Average
Use the following selection boxes to select the types of studies to include in the calculated
i?mov.-jl h'., rhrrm -i i '.rij Ih- -rlrrin- -( h.-- I-,.
TnB ojrput '-.il cisplay the average
ickide studies in which the following
Include studies D' th- roll.:,',...ino scale(s) (select
'. ,..rl Jl:l led
_. i ii u "--.. j iur_i ed
Human Waste
ated sludge
Activated sludge + nutrient removal
ffidqcjca[art!ฅd:ed carbon
Select all treatment technologies
Ched tWsb .1 : u
-------
8.
9.
reporting approach and only one if you selected the unit process reporting
approach), treatment scale(s), and water/waste type(s) (note that percent removal
averages will not be calculated among water/waste types but can be reported for
multiple water/waste types in one report). In addition, indicate if you would like
spiked CEC data to be included. Only data from records that include the
technology(ies), scale(s), and water/waste type(s) you selected will be included in
the average percent removals. If you change your selections, make sure to un-
highlight your earlier choices or click the "Clear Selections" button in the bottom,
right corner of the Quick Search.
Finally, if you are using the treatment system option and you selected more than
one treatment technology, indicate if you would like your average percent
removals to contain records that have all of the treatment technologies you
selected or at least one of the treatment technologies you selected. See
Attachment 1 for some examples that show the distinction between selecting ALL
or AT LEAST ONE.
After making your selections, click "View Results."
A dialog box will pop-up and ask you if you'd like to save your results to a
Microsoft Excelฎ spreadsheet. Click "Yes" to save a spreadsheet with your
results, choose the location where you would like to save the file, and provide a
file name. Click "No" to only see the Accessฎ report.
Itml mjujs I'm lu^loU lr-.it -i* UUIMQg|rW)
. vUซ01riปซ.ซl J Un(reolii
rJZTT.^^^^^^^^ QD
vatnj tliAXl! + - rJ.p -;.(. rmnnrd UL
ota. vซ"Mป*i P*J
..;-: b Mtrrdtod : a> t-".
B-4
-------
Tito edit V*ew insert rgrm
Tools wrebw Ha(p Adobe Ptr
.M; - ff X
Select export location find file name
aetect KeporUig Approach
1 ie &>tabttte nt cafcuWe f wwal average* usoq Ku
.Iw trerfiiiii A (sLlmub^n ere wintu>*d Ci the vpb
i-JTfj lyarm rAmtf ,r,i -ffliirni v.-J r^i ซ |yrrr*it
*ซnwM tachnttoflyfiet). tt-* rmrrim wtd nva.i-.j
rrlrnhjuy-ij vJ .ihn ir fป(v.vW
Ml PrarrM
&
", lป....,^,!
Kttjtwn
UCECICO Rt
Identify ITiteria Tor Studies used to lafcuUte
Uwtiwta
portentn
VB I tAmniv tetetUrl twAei tu n*Jtl UB IHปS d Hull
pซ rranr^J hy rfvfW.V inn] Ihn vkfrnl rdivti.
'jiJe Uiwtei ri v^lnJi UK Irfwmg fc[
|MUซ 45 TJ 5p OIBtO
aitB" [ft
jj
QOwlittfelmfyautmAlk^AiriiliftitiateMadidtiyaw
10. Whether you selected "Yes" or "No", the Access report will be generated, which
shows average percent removals calculated from treatment systems or unit
processes that meet your selection criteria. Your selections will be displayed at
the top of the report and some key definitions for terminology used on the report
will be provided. Below, average percent removal (presented without qualifier
flags and rounded to two significant figures), maximum percent removal, and
minimum percent removal will be reported for each CEC included in the studies
that met your selected criteria. The minimum and maximum percent removals
may be preceded by a "<" or ">" flag. Data were flagged if influent, effluent, or
percent removal were flagged in the published study4. The identification numbers
for the reference which contained data included in the average percent removal
and the number of treatment systems or unit processes used to calculate the
averages are also displayed.
4 For example, if the influent is reported as 10 ng/1 and the effluent is reported as <5 ng/1, the percent removal would
be reported as >50%. Similarly, if the influent is reported as >10 ng/1 and the effluent is reported as 5 ng/1, the
percent removal would be reported as <50%. If the influent and effluent are both flagged, the percent removal
cannot be identified as a minimum or maximum and is not flagged. In some cases, the study reported only flagged
percent removal. In these cases, the reported flags are retained in the CEC Removals Database.
B-5
-------
Edit View Tools Window Help Adobe PDF
- I Close | Setup | ฃ - | J -3 - 1 & g
Page: I |
Chemicals of Emergbg Concern: Percent Removals from Treatment System
WtfaAVutt Type
Sdected ii--.n,io,-i Tซ
'.hmv,i. >nvซt-v,ir,,-,-t-- -i.K,. ,1,1, .-.tirifliHit stlecUdtondiimi.
MixmumRa^ivJ f;:, IdzJ^fLp-ji^ci^wilnporedinth! daaซtwihthซ ielfsKdtmdiiow.
Nuaiwr of SyEUmi hclided ii Avat&: Thi number of ta iBartsy^ms will pซK att reniflvalistull! wife
11. If you selected "yes" that you would like an Excelฎ version of the Accessฎ report,
you can view the Excelฎ file in the folder that you specified.
B-6
-------
d am a^ume Mute* mill *yiM ntlu* Elio l
cmstoywl ปi ttw rflWm flป wcr ซga percent "mwrf u
iwiy iwAwn tf lu*t ปJ u*'^< v An ซ im.nt im-jY* auwvlTw oiiป* ป>iUin} lnซ= ol ot tfn teซbnot v
&e*mriCป<ปtซtogy(ซi). Tht ofwun mj ms.imjn percent r ซreซd from ปป trปacnซซ* ^flซnป that *Tduซ tf*
) id Aab> pwniftd.
i) FBVปifcw- J
ซ JVHปn (ซnw
ซ '.ซj
ง Mi inn: |u Aniitcn.flu^H <{{
Munn:pj Aiidici!.lnrt'l4j) 98
>
s-
-
G 1 H . 1
Maximum Reinov.il SyrHinC<
77 77 1
63 56 2
/t /I t
J
* m t
* HI. *
4) 07 17
91 89 3
i i
100J V i[
ซi W 1
vซ 99 1
,! ซ .
MuitJf.|u AJflrwIfJ 1^1,?%,:< in.- Bi G1 d
19 Mumcpa Daniop*eto ' > 71
20 Mumcpa Baniyl salt)3 > 72
23 Mumc pi EBiafibraliTO, 100, 120,233
fMunie | .i BrtA ^3 > 92
Mumc pa Biosol 1J/ > W
Mumcpa giuplwnwl W.W,1ul> 11
Munit: pj KutYBiifii;'^. 11tl.1i> .'I
VW Mi lint: |M <~i\tt 11 f\ YM. \.f tft
t7 MUM. |.
>
>
>
-
:
Mumcpa CashmBraillG, 110 54
X Municpa tefaclor V'. %
31 Municpa CaleataMelB, 116 > 41 >
fMunicp-a CeliproliU "120 36
Mumcpa Cephalex/IU 100
WMunu: [ui 'ChalifilnriiS*1 rft
.Tl M,,r..,- pa T,iprnllnซ.ir99 114 ?41 S9
-33 M-: :ps 'Clamhronv1Q7.1Q9. 120 fl
S S 2
86 01 5
100 74 12
52 02 1
99 93 1
mo n 41
'ซ HI U
111] Mi
HI ?:> *
54 04 1
84 0 2
% % 1
90 73 9
K 36 1
100 100 1
hi K/ !
ra 7.1 r,
91 JC E
40 Mumcpa 'ClDfibncac120.217.233 28 52 43 3
41 Mumcpa 'Codains 120 29 23 29 1
42 Mumcpa iCnpraซan.''l42 97 57 07 1
4? Muniriu lr.rfi1aniitnf-rim flfi
-------
12. If you are not an advanced Accessฎ user, please note that other tables, queries,
forms, and modules are present in the database, but you should not view them.
They are used to calculate removal averages. Using the steps above, you can view
all data presented and generated in the CECs Removals Database.
13. If you are an advanced Accessฎ user, please note that you can view the tables,
queries, forms, and modules in the database by clicking the "Open Database
View" button on the top, right corner of the Quick Search.
B-8
-------
Examples
The following codes are used for the treatment technologies in the CECs Removals Database:
Treatment Technology
Aerobic granulation
Activated sludge
Activated sludge + nutrient removal
Biological activated carbon
Phosphorus removal (biological)
Chlorine disinfection
Phosphorus removal (chemical)
Coagulation or softening
Denitrification
Electrodialysis
Electrolysis
Fixed film biological treatment
Granular activated carbon
Hydrogen peroxide
Ion exchange
Lagoon
Membrane bio reactor
Microfiltration
Media filters
Nanofiltration
Nitrification
Ozonation + hydrogen peroxide
Ozonation + ultraviolet disinfection
Ozonation
Powdered activated carbon
Reed bed
Reverse osmosis
Soil-aquifer treatment
Septic systems
Settling tank
Ultrafiltration
Ultraviolet + hydrogen peroxide
Ultraviolet disinfection
Subcategories/Variations
none
high rate, step feed, oxidation ditch, bardenpho system,
conventional, pure oxygen, extended aeration (includes a
secondary clarifier for recycle of activated sludge)
activated sludge + nutrient removal (nitrification,
denitrification, biological phosphorus removal, etc.)
none
biological
chlorination, dechlorination, chloramination
chemical
addition of chemicals to enhance precipitation of unwanted
compounds
separate stage/sludge denitrification
desalination
none
fixed bed reactor, rotating biological contactor, trickling filter
none
usually coupled with UV disinfection or ozonation
magnetic ion exchange resin (MIEX)
none
none
pore diameter range is 0.09 to 10 micrometers
granular media filters, deep bed filters, cloth disc filters; pore
diameter range is 10 to 100 micrometers
pore diameter range is <0.001 to 0.01 micrometers
separate stage/sludge nitrification
advanced oxidation process with ozonation and H2O2 coupled
advanced oxidation process with ozonation and UV light
none
none
constructed wetlands
pore diameter range is 0.0001 to 0.005 micrometers
groundwater recharge, natural treatment
septic tank
clarification, settling, sedimentation
pore diameter range is 0.004 to 0.1 micrometers
advanced oxidation process with UV light and H2O2 coupled
none
Treatment
Code
AG
ASL
ASN
BAC
BP
CL
CP
CS
DEN
ED
EL
FF
GAC
H2O2
ION
LAG
MBR
McF
MF
NF
NT
OZ/H2O2
OZ/UV
OZN
PAC
RB
RO
SAT
SEP
ST
UF
UV/H2O2
UVD
B-9
-------
EXAMPLES USING THE TREATMENT SYSTEM OPTION
Using the treatment system option, the database will calculate removal averages using all
treatment systems that include the selected treatment technology(ies).
When you select a treatment technology, the database will identify all systems that include
that treatment technology, regardless of what other treatment technologies are present,
calculate the average removal (by CEC), identify the minimum and maximum percent
removal from the data set, tally the number of treatment systems included in the average, and
provide the reference identification numbers for studies which include data.
For example, if the user selects denitrification (DEN)
...the following systems WILL be included in the average:
System A - ASL, NT, DEN, CL, RO
System B - MBR, NT, DEN, OZN, RO
.. .the following systems WILL NOT be included in the average:
System C - ASL, NT, OZ
System D - ASL, GAC, McF, OZN
.. .NO isolated unit processes will be included in the average. In other words, NONE
of the following unit processes would be included in the average:
Unit A - DEN
Unit B - ASL
If you select TWO treatment technologies, you must indicate if ALL or AT LEAST ONE of
the treatment technologies must be present in a system to be included in the average
removals.
For example, if you select activated sludge (ASL) AND chlorine disinfection (CL) and
ALL:
...the following systems WILL be included in the average:
System A - ASL, CP, RO, CL
System B - ST, ASL, CL
System C - ASL, NT, DEN, CL, RO
...the following systems WILL NOT be included in the average:
System D - ASL, NT, OZN (because it has ASL but not CL)
System E - MBR, McF, CL (because it has CL but not ASL)
For example, if the user selects activated sludge (ASL) AND chlorine disinfection (CL)
and AT LEAST ONE:
the following systems WILL be included in the average:
System A - ASL, CP, RO, CL
System B - ST, ASL, CL
System C - ASL, NT, DEN, CL, RO
System D - ASL, NT, OZN
System E - MBR, McF, CL
B-10
-------
EXAMPLES USING THE UNIT PROCESS OPTION
Using the unit process option, the database will calculate removal averages using all studies
that isolate the selected treatment technology.
You can only select one treatment technology at a time. When you select a treatment
technology, the database will identify all studies that isolate the performance of that
treatment technology, calculate the average removal (by CEC), identify minimum and
maximum percent removal from the data set, tally the number of studies included in the
average, and provide the reference identification numbers for studies which include data.
For example, if the user selects denitrification (DEN)
...the following units WILL be included in the average:
Unit A - DEN
Unit B - DEN
...the following units WILL NOT be included in the average:
Unit A - ASL
Unit B - CL
.. .NO systems will be included in the average. In other words, NONE of the
following systems would be included in the average:
System C - ASL, DEN, OZN
System D - ASL, GAC, DEN, OZN
B-ll
-------
Appendix C
CECS REMOVALS DATABASE BIBLIOGRAPHY
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography
ID
5
20
70
Authors
Anderson, Henrik;
Hansruedi Siegrist; Bent
Hailing- S orensen;
Thomas A. Ternes
Carballa, M; F. Omil;
JM Lema; M Llompart;
C Garcia- Jares; I
Rodriguez; M Gomez; T
Ternes
Clara, M.; N.
Kreuzinger; B. Strenn;
O. Gans; and H. Kroiss
Date
2003
2004
2005
Title
Fate of Estrogens in a Municipal
Sewage Treatment Plant
Behavior of Pharmaceuticals,
cosmetics and hormones in a
sewage treatment plant
The solids retention time a
suitable design parameter to
evaluate the capacity of
wastewater treatment plants to
remove micropollutants
Journal/Publisher
Environmental Science
& Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
37:4021-4026
38:2918-2926
39: 97-106
Geographic
Scope
Europe
Europe
Europe
Scale
full
full
full,
pilot
Abstract
The main outcome of this study was that a common municipal STP
with an activated sludge system for nitrification and denitrification
including sludge recirculation can appreciably eliminate natural and
synthetic estrogens. In the effluent, estrogen levels were always
below the detection limit of 1 ng/1. A mass balance shows that the
natural estrogens were largely degraded biologically in the
nitrification/denitrification steps, while only a small percentage
physically sorbed onto digested sewage sludge. An essential
conclusion of this paper is the comparison made before and after
nitrification/denitrification process steps were added to the plant.
Ten years ago, the plant consisted only of a conventional activated
sludge system and the effluent concentrations were many times
higher than those found in this study.
A sewage treatment plant in Spain was studied to examine the
treatment effectiveness on several cosmetic ingredients,
Pharmaceuticals, and hormones. Influent to the STP was tested as
well as after each step of the treatment system. The results were
examined to determine what types of treatment are most effective
for each class of compounds. The overall removal efficiencies
within the STP ranged between 70-90% for fragrances, 40-65% for
anti-inflammatories, around 65% for 17b-estradiol, and 60% for
sulfamethoxazole.The concentration of estrone increased along the
treatment due to partial oxidation of 17b-estradiol in the aeration
tank.
Nine systems, including six full-scale activated sludge WWTPs
with varying SRTs and three MBR pilot systems with varying
SRTs, were sampled in Europe for PPCP, S/H, and NP/APEs
analytes. Bis-A, ibuprofen, bezafibrate, and the natural estrogens
show a strong correlation between effluent concentration and SRT.
Carbamazepine was not affected during treatment. Only analytes
showed contradictory results. The results of the investigations lead
to the conclusion that low effluent concentrations can be achieved
in WWTPs operating SRTs higher than 10 days. The results came
from the POSEIDON Project.
C-l
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
93
94
95
Authors
Stephenson, Roger and
Joan Oppenheimer
Drewes, Jorg E.; Joceyln
D.C. Hemming; James J.
Schauer; and William C.
Sonzogni
Snyder, Shane A. ; Samer
Adham; Adam M.
Redding; Fred S.
Cannon; James
DeCarolis; Joan
Oppenheimer; Eric C.
Wert; and Yeomin Yoon
Date
2007
2008
2007
Title
Fate of Pharmaceuticals and
Personal Care Products through
Municipal Wastewater
Treatment Processes
Removal of Endocrine
Disrupting Compounds in Water
Reclamation Processes
Role of Membranes and
Activated Carbon in the
Removal of Endocrine
Disrupters and Pharmaceuticals
Journal/Publisher
Water Environment
Resources Foundation
(WERF) and IWA
Publishing
Water Environment
Resources Foundation
(WERF) and IWA
Publishing
Desalination (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
124
180
202, 1-3: 156-181
Geographic
Scope
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Scale
full,
pilot
full
full
Abstract
Data were collected to measure the removal of 20 PPCPs commonly
found in the influent of six full-scale wastewater treatment facilities
operating in the U.S. The plants employed varying combinations of
treatment operations, including: activated sludge, media filtration,
chlorine disinfection, ultraviolet disinfection, and reverse osmosis.
It was observed that an increase in SRT enhanced the removal of a
majority of the PPCPs. The removal is compound-specific, but
typically responds 80% or higher at SRTs of 5-15 days. Caffeine,
ibuprofen, oxybenzone, chloroxylenol methylparaben, Benzyl
salicylate, 3-Phenylpropionate butylbenzyl phthalate, and
Octylmethoxycinnamate were among those compounds detected
frequently with good removal. BHA, DEBT, musk keton, and
galozide were detected frequently and had poor removals.
This study was conducted to develop approaches combining
bioassays with chemical analysis to study removal of endocrine
disrupting compounds by water reclamation treatment processes.
Eleven treatment plants were sampled in the U.S. for S/H and
NP/APEs analytes. The plants employed varying combinations of
treatment operations, including: activated sludge, media filtration,
chlorine disinfection, ultraviolet disinfection, reverse osmosis,
membrane bioreactors, and soil-aquifer technology (SAT). The
study provides information about the influent characteristics
(percent of domestic versus industrial) and the sludge retention time
at each plant. Plants with high BOD had higher concentrations of
EDCs, and high BOD removal also correlated to high EDC
removal. Advanced treatment processes: activated carbon,
membranes, and SAT removed many EDCs to below detection
limits.
This study was conducted to provide a comprehensive evaluation of
the efficacy of a variety of viable membrane and carbon processes
to reduce the concentration of emerging contaminants in water.
Four systems (two full-scale RO water reuse systems with
intermediate treatment steps and two granular activated carbon
water reuse facilities) were sampled in the U.S. for PPCP, S/H, and
pesticide analytes. MF and UF membranes have little removal value
for a majority of organic contaminants, but they have potential for
removal of S/H, especially when operated as an MBR. RO
membranes are capable of removing nearly all compounds
investigated to levels less than reporting limits (a multi-barrier
approach, double-pass is best for removal). PAC and GAC were
capable of removing nearly all compounds evaluated by greater
than 90%.
C-2
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
96
97
98
Authors
Snyder, Shane A. ; Eric
C. Wert; Hongxia
(Dawn) Lei; Paul
Westerhoff; Yeomin
Yoon
Yu, Jim T.; Edward J.
Bouwer; Mehmet
Coelhan
Lishman, Lori; Shirley
Anne Smyth; Kurtis
Sarafm; Sonya
Kleywegt; John Toito;
Thomas Peart; Bill Lee;
Mark Servos; Michel
Beland; Peter Seto
Date
2007
2006
2006
Title
Removal of EDCs and
Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and
Reuse Treatment Processes
Occurrence and biodegradability
studies of selected
Pharmaceuticals and personal
care products in sewage effluent
Occurrence and reductions of
Pharmaceuticals and personal
care products and estrogens by
municipal wastewater treatment
plants in Ontario, Canada
Journal/Publisher
Volume/Pages
AWWA Research Foundation
Agricultural Water
Management (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Science of the Total
Environment (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
86: 72-80
367: 544-558
Geographic
Scope
U.S.
U.S.
Canada
Scale
full, lab,
pilot
full
full
Abstract
Samples were collected during various stages of treatment at 86
lab/bench experiments, 69 pilot plants, and 43 full scale plants
employing a variety of treatment technologies, including:
coagulation/flocculation/softening, activated carbon, chlorine
oxidation, ozone and hydrogen peroxide, ultraviolet light,
membranes, magnetic ion-exchange, and other biological processes.
The results suggested the following: 1) Several target analytes were
detected in raw and finishing drinking waters across the US. 2)
Coagulation/flocculation/softening, UV irradiation (not high
energy), exhausted activated carbon, magnetic-ion exchange,
ultrafiltration, and microfiltration are ineffective for removing a
majority of EDCs and PPCPs. 3) Free chlorine disinfection can
remova many target compounds depending on their structure. 4)
Chloramines are less effective than free chlorine at EDC/PPCP
removal. 5) Ozone is much more effective than chlorine. 6) Ozone,
high energy UV at oxidative doses, advanced oxidative processes
(ozone/peroxide, UV/peroxide), activated carbon, reverse osmosis,
and nanofiltration are highly effective at removing EDCs/PPCPs. 7)
Treatment trains combining advanced processes are the most
effective for removals. 8) Biological removal and sorption
processes can reduce concentrations.
1 8 PPCPs were sampled for at a local wastewater treatment plant.
16 of the 18 PPCPs, which span a range of therapeutic classes and
some commonly used personal care products, were detected at the
influent to the Baltimore Back River WWTP in MD. 10 of the 18
were detected in the effluent, signifying incomplete removal during
treatment. The occurrence studies show that PPCPs are present in
WWTP influent. A batch biodegradability study, done along side
the sampling episode, suggests that biotransformation is a possible
removal mechanism for PPCPs during groundwater recharge or soil
aquifer treatment.
The purpose of this study was to expand/establish a Canadian
database for the presence of selected acidic drugs, triclosan,
polycyclic musks, and selected estrogens in MWWTP influent and
effluent. Twelve WWTPs were samples with lagoons, conventional
activated sludge (CAS), and CAS with media filtration. Wastewater
sources (domestic, commercial, industrial) and SRTs were given for
each plant. Ibuprofen and naproxen had consistently high
reductions. Ketoprofen and indomethacin were removed about 23-
44%. Gemfibrozil and diclofenac had median reductions of 66%
and -34%. More removals were seen of these compounds with
SRTs over 30 days. Triclosan reductions ranged from 74-98%;
lagoons systems appeared to be the best treatment for triclosan.
Musks were removed 98-99% in lagoon systems and 37-65% in
CAS systems. El and E2 hormones were rarely detected in the
effluent.
C-3
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
99
100
101
102
103
Authors
Batt, Angela L.;
Sungpyo Kim, Diana S.
Aga
Clara, M.; B. Strenn; O.
Gans; E. Martinez; N.
Kreuzinger; and H.
Kroiss
Boyd, G.; H. Reemtsma;
D. Grim; and S. Mitra
Drewes, Jorg E., Martin
Reinhard, Peter Fox
Huntsman, Brent E.,
Charles A. Staples,
Carter G. Naylor, Jim-
Bob Williams
Date
2007
2005
2003
2003
2006
Title
Comparison of the occurrence
of antibiotics in four full-scale
wastewater treatment plants
with varying designs and
operations
Removal of selected
Pharmaceuticals, fragrances and
endocrine disrupting compounds
in a membrane bioreactor and
conventional wastewater
treatment plants
Pharmaceuticals and personal
care products (PPCPs) in
surface and treated waters of
Louisiana, USA and Ontario,
Canada
Comparing Microfiltration-
reverse Osmosis and Soil-
aquifer Treatment for Indirect
Potable Reuse of Water
Treatability of Nonylphenol
Ethoxylate Surfactants in On-
Site Wastewater Disposal
Systems
Journal/Publisher
Chemosphere (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
The Science of the
Total Environment
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Environment
Research
Volume/Pages
68: 428-435
39: 4797-4807
311: 135-149
37:3612-3621
78:2397-2404
Geographic
Scope
U.S.
Europe
U.S., Canada
U.S.
U.S.
Scale
full
full,
pilot
full,
pilot
full,
pilot
full
Abstract
The occurrence of ciprofloxacin, sulfamethoxazole, tetracycline,
and trimethoprime antibiotics in four full-scale WWTPs that differ
in design and operating conditions were determined. Treatment
included: two stage activated sludge process with nitrification tank,
extended aeration, RBCs, and pure oxygen activated sludge. Some
employed chlorination or UV. Removals ranged from 33-97%.
Removal is dependent on operating conditions of the treatment
system and the treatment processes. UV radiation did not appear to
reduce concentration of antibiotics, but chemical degradation via
chlorine disinfection can contribute to the removal of antibiotics.
SRT is an important parameter affecting removals.
Eight pharmaceuticals, two polycyclic musk fragrances, and nine
EDCs were analyzed in 3 WWTPs with activated sludge treatment
and varying loading conditions. Three pilot MBRs were operated at
different SRTs. Carbamazepine was not removed in any of the
sampled treatment facilities. BPA, ibuprofen, and bezafibrate were
nearly completely removed (>90%). SRTs suitable for nitrogen
removals (SRT > 10 days) increase the removal of selected
micropollutants. NP/APEs were removed in high extend in very
low-loaded conventional WWTPs.
Samples taken from the effluents of water treatment plants in
Ontario and Louisiana were analyzed for nine PPCP's using
GC/MS. These concentrations were compared to that of the
influents from the Detroit and Mississippi Rivers. Chlorination,
ozonation and dual media filtration reduced the concentration of
naproxen and clofibric acid below GC/MS detection levels.
Continuous addition of activated carbon in conjunction with
conventional drinking water treatment processes (coagulation,
sedimentation and flocculation) failed to reduce naproxen levels in
samples taken from the Mississippi River.
This study was conducted at a water reclaimation plant in Arizona.
The study evaluated organics removal from treated tertiary effluent
in pilot scale studies by microfiltration and reverse osmosis or
nanofiltration and in full scale studies by soil-aquifer treatment.
SAT and microfiltration plus reverse osmosis or nanofiltration
effectively treated the emerging contaminants studied.
This two year study was conducted to evaluate the fate of
nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs) discharged to a residential
wastewater disposal (septic) system. NPE-based detergents were
metered into a full scale septic system associated with a single-
family household and soil pore water and groundwater samples
were collected at various locations in the disposal system. The data
show that elimination of NPE surfactants within an on-site disposal
system is both relatively rapid and complete.
C-4
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
105
106
107
108
109
110
112
113
Authors
Stackelberg, Paul E.;
Jacob Gibbs; Edward T.
Furlong; Michael T.
Meyer; Steven D.
Zaugg; R. Lee
Lippincott
Al-Rifai, JawadH.;
Gabefish, Candace L.;
Schaefer, Andrea I.
Gobel, Anke; Christa S.
McArdell; Adriano Joss;
Hansruedi Siegrist;
Walter Giger
Hashimoto, T.; Onda,
K.; Nakamura, Y.; Tada,
K.; Miya, A.; Murakami,
T.
Nakada, Norihide;
Hiroyuki Shinohara;
Ayako Murata; Kentaro
Kiri; Satoshi Managaki;
Nobuyuki Sato;
Hideshige Takada
Roslev, Peter; Vorkamp,
Katrin; Aarup, Jakob;
Frederiksen, Klaus;
Nielsen, Per Halkjoer
Thomas, Paul; Gregory
Foster
Vogelsang, C.; Grung,
M.; Jantsch, T. G.;
Tollefsen, K. E.; and H.
Liltved
Date
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
2005
2006
Title
Efficiency of Conventional
Drinking-water-treatment
Processes in Removal of
Pharmaceuticals and Other
Organic Compounds
Occurrence of pharmaceutically
active and non-steroidal
estrogenic compounds in three
different wastewater recycling
schemes in Australia
Fate of Sulfonamides,
Macrolides, and Trimethoprim
in Different Wastewater
Treatment Technologies
Comparison of natural estrogen
removal efficiency in the
conventional activated sludge
process and the oxidation ditch
process
Removal of selected
Pharmaceuticals and personal
care products (PPCPs) and
endocrine-disrupting chemicals
(EDCs) during sand filtration
and ozonation at a municipal
sewage treatment plant
Degradation of phthalate esters
in an activated sludge
wastewater treatment plant
Tracking Acidic
Pharmaceuticals, Caffeine, and
Triclosan through the
Wastewater Treatment Process
Occurrence and removal of
selected organic micropollutants
at mechanical, chemical and
advanced wastewater treatment
plants in Norway
Journal/Publisher
The Science of the
Total Environment
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Chemosphere (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
The Science of the
Total Environment
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Environmental
Toxicology and
Chemistry (journal)
and SETAC Press
(publisher)
Norwegian Institute for
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
377:255-272
69: 801-815
372:361-371
41:2117-2126
41:4273-4382
41: 969-976
24:25-30
40; 3359-3570
Geographic
Scope
U.S.
Other
Europe
Other
Other
Europe
U.S.
Europe
Scale
full
full
full
full
full
full
full
full
Abstract
Samples of water from a coventional drinking water treatment plant
were analyzed for 113 organic compounds that included
Pharmaceuticals, detergents, flame retardants, PAHs, fragrances,
flavorants, pesticides, and steroids. The average percent removal
was calculated for each compound following clarification,
disinfection, and GAC filtration. In general, GAC filtration
accounted for 53% removal, disinfection accounted for 32%, and
clarification accounted for 15%. Substantial but incomplete
degradation or removal of OCs occurred at this plant.
Three Australian wastewater recycling schemes were studied for
their effectiveness to remove trace organic contaminents including
Pharmaceuticals and non-steroidal estrogenic compounds. The
schemes included RO and carbon filration.
The elimination of sulfonamides, macrolides, and trimethoprim
from raw wastewater was investigated in two wastewater treatment
plants (both with two trains). Primary treatment provided no
significant eliminations and secondary treatment observed for two
conventional activated sludge systems and a fixed bed reactor
showed little to no significant elimination.
This study was conducted to investigate the behavior of natural
estrogens in twenty full scale WWTPs in Japan, and the difference
of natural estrogen removal efficiency between CAS plants and OD
plants were evaluated.
The article studies the removal efficiencies of 24 pharmaceutically
active compounds during activated sludge treatment, sand filtration
and ozonation in an operating municipal sewage treatment plant.
The combination of sand filtration and ozonation showed a greater
than 80% removal of 22 of most of the target compounds.
This study, sponsored by the Danish Technical Research Council,
was conducted to investigate the fate of DMP, DBF, BBP and
DEHP in a full scale activated sludge WWTP with biological
removal of nitrogen.
The purpose of this study was to determine which stage of
conventional wastewater treatment is most effective at removing
several acidic Pharmaceuticals, caffeine and troclosan. The results
show that secondary treatment was the most effective treatment
step, removing 51-99 percent of the compounds under study from
the influent.
Five waste water treatment plants in Norway were compared in
their ability to remove organic micropollutants. The plants
employed combinations of mechanical (sand media filtration),
chemical (coagulation) and biological (sludge) treatments. The best
results were obtained by a combination biological and chemical
treatments.
C-5
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
114
115
116
117
118
120
124
Authors
Watkinson, A. J.; E. J.
Murby; and S. D.
Costanzo
Winkler, G.; R. Fischer,
P. Krebs; A. Thompson;
E. Cartmell; and P.
Griffin
Yang, J. J.;C. Metcalfe
Ying, Guang-Gou; Rai
Kookana; Anu Kumar
Zeng, Xiangying;
Guoying Sheng;
Hongyan Gui; Duohong
Chen; Wenlan Shao;
Jiamo Fu
Ternes, Thomas A. ;
Matthias Bonerz; Nadine
Herrmann; Bernhard
Teiser; Henrik Rasmus
Andersen
Bundy, Michael M.;
William J. Doucette;
Laurie McNeill; Jon F.
Ericson
Date
2007
2007
2006
2008
2007
2006
2007
Title
Removal of antibiotics in
conventional and advanced
treatment: Implications for
environmental discharge and
wastewater recycling
Mass flow balances of triclosan
in rural wastewater treatment
plants and the impact of biomass
parameters on the removal
Fate of synthetic musks in a
domestic wastewater treatment
plant and in an agricultural field
amended with biosolids
Fate of estrogens and
xenoestrogens in four sewage
treatment plants with different
technologies
Preliminary study on the
occurrence and distribution of
polycyclic musks in a
wastewater treatment plant in
Guandong, China
Irrigation of treated wastewater
in Braunschweig, Germany: An
option to remove
Pharmaceuticals and musk
fragrances.
Removal of Pharmaceuticals and
related compounds by a bench-
scale drinking water treatment
system
Journal/Publisher
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Engineering in Life
Sciences (journal)
Wiley (publisher)
Science of the Total
Environment (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Environmental
Toxicology and
Chemistry (journal)
and SETAC Press
(publisher)
Chemosphere (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Chemosphere (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Journal of Water
Supply: Research and
Technology (journal)
and IWA Publishing
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
41; 4164-4176
7; 42-51
363; 149-165
27; 87-94
69:1305-1311
66: 894-904
56: 105-115
Geographic
Scope
Other
Europe
Canada
Other
Other
Europe
U.S.
Scale
full
full
full
full
full
full
lab
Abstract
The removal of 28 human and veterinary antibiotics was assessed in
a Brisbane, Australia WWTP which uses conventional (activated
sludge) and advanced (microfiltration/reverse osmosis) treatments.
Different points in the treatment train constitute the different
"treatment systems" reported in the database. Conventional
treatment removed, on average, 89% of all antibiotics. The MF/RO
plant received its influent from the effluent of the conventional
treatment plant and removed 94% of all incoming antibiotics (from
the 1 1% not removed upstream).
Three United Kingdom wastewater treatment plants - rotating
biological contactor (RBC), trickling filter (TF), and oxidation ditch
(OD) - were analyzed for triclosan at different treatment stages.
Overall average percent removals were 81, 96 and 92 for RBC, OD
and TF, respectively. The authors discovered that several biomass
parameters (fat content, pH and temperature) have an effect on
triclosan removal rates.
Eleven synthetic musks were analyzed at various stages of a WWTP
using activated sludge in Ontario (Peterborough WWTP). The
overall removal percentages ranged from 43.3% to 56.9%. A final
UV-disinfection step did not decrease the concentrations of
synthetic musks in the WWTP effluent.
Four WWTP's in South Australia were evaluated in their abilities to
remove four estrogens and five xenoestrogens. Effluent
concentrations and removal efficiencies are given for all four plants.
On average, conventional activated sludge and oxidation ditch
treatments removed estrogenic compounds better than lagoons and
bioreactors.
The influent, primary effluent and final effluent stages of a WWTP
in China were analyzed for six polycyclic musks. Samples were
collected from each stage at four hour intervals for a 24-hour
period. Of the three musks detected, the removal efficiencies were:
1) DPMI: 61-79%; 2) HHCB: 86-97%; and 3) AHTN: 87-96%. The
authors suggest that transfer to sludge is the main removal route.
A case study was performed Braunschweig, Germany to investigate
the use of secondary treated sewage as irrigation of agricultural
land. The paper discusses the suitability of soil aquifer treatment as
a tool within the indirect reuse scheme of municipal wastewater to
remove PPCPs. During soil-aquifer passage most of the PPCPs
(80%) are degraded and a few are sorbed.
A bench-scale drinking water treatment system was set up to study
the effectiveness of four unit operations:
coagulation/sedimentation/flocculation, dual-media gravity
filtration, granular activated carbon and chlorination disinfection.
Four pharmaceutical analytes - caffeine, trovafloxacin mesylate,
estradiol and salicyclic acid - were analyzed after each treatment
and for the influent, Logan River water spiked with analytes.
Granular activated carbon accounted for the largest percent removal
for caffeine, trovafloxacin and estradiol but had limited impact on
salicyclic acid.
C-6
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
125
126
128
130
133
Authors
Carballa, Malta;
Fransesco Omil; Juan M.
Lema
Esperanza, Mar;
Makram T. Suidan;
Fumitake Nishimura;
Zhong-Min Wang;
George A. Serial
Gomez, M.J., M.J.
Martinez Bueno, S.
Lacorte, A.R.
Fernandez-Alba, A.
Aguera
Hu, J.Y., X. Chen, G.
Tao, K. Kekred
Jasmin, Saad Y.;
Antonette Irabelli; Paul
Yang; Shamima Ahmed;
L. Schweitzer
Date
2007
2004
2007
2007
2006
Title
Calculation methods to perform
mass balances of
micropollutants in sewage
treatment plants. Application to
pharmaceutical personal care
products (PPCPs)
Determination of Sex Hormones
and Nonylphenol Ethoxylates in
the Aqueous Matrixes of Two
Pilot-scale Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Pilot Survey Monitoring
Pharmaceuticals and Related
Compounds in a Sewage
Treatment Plant Located on the
Mediterranean Coast
Fate of Endocrine Disrupting
Compounds in Membrane
Bioreactor Systems
Presence of Pharmaceuticals and
Pesticides in Detroit River
Water and the Effect of Ozone
on Removal
Journal/Publisher
Environmental Science
and Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Environmental Science
and Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Chemosphere (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Environmental Science
& Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Ozone: Science and
Engineering (journal)
and International
Ozone Association
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
41:884-890
38:3028-3035
66:993-1002
41:4097-4102
28:415-423
Geographic
Scope
Europe
U.S.
Europe
Other
Canada
Scale
full
pilot
full
lab,
pilot
full,
pilot
Abstract
Two methods (calculated data and measured data) are used to
perform mass balance calculations to determine the mechanism of
removal of 3 Pharmaceuticals, 2 musks and 2 natural estrogens.
According to mass balances using measured data, the removal
efficiencies of the Pharmaceuticals ranged from 65 to 90 percent,
while the musks' removal efficiencies were roughly 50 percent.
While the Pharmaceuticals were largely degraded chemically, the
musks were degraded and absorbed onto the sludge equally.
Estrogens were not removed by the STP.
Seven sex hormones and a group of nonionic surfactants and their
biodegradation byproducts were measuring using two analytical
methods developed for quantitation. The analytes were spiked in
two pilot plants (one with anaerobic digestion and one with aerobic
digestion). Testosterone, androsenedione, and progesterone were
completely removed from the aqeous phase. Removal for
nonylphenol pollyethoxylates, estradiol, estrone, and
ethinylestradiol from the aqeous phase exceed 96%, 94%, 52%, and
50%, respectively.
The article summarizes a one-year monitoring study performed at a
sewage treatment plant in Spain. The study was performed to
evaluate the occurrence, persistence, and fate of 14 organic
compounds (pharmaceuticals, plasticizers, antiseptics, insecticides,
and stimulants) in waste water influent and treatment plant effluent.
The removal efficiencies of the STP for these compounds varied
from 20% (carbamazepine) to 99% (acetaminophen), but in all
cases resulted insufficient in order to avoid their presence in treated
water and subsequently in the environment.
This study investigates the fate of endocrine disrupting compounds
in waste water in three pilot-scale and two lab-scale membrane
bioreactor systems in Singapore. Influent and effluent water data
were collected for each system. Influents to the test systems were
from a local water reclamation plant. El and E2 were removed with
at least moderate efficiency. E1-3S, E1-3G, and E2-G were not well
removed. BPA was well removed but 4-nonylphenol was amplified.
This study was completed to evaluate the efficacy of conventional
drinking water treatment (coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation,
and sand filtration) with and without ozone at reducing
concentrations of PPCP and pesticides. Two pilot plants and a full
scale conventional drinking water treatment plant were sampled for
raw water and effluent contaminant conentrations. The analysis
indicated that trace levels of compounds such as carbamazepine,
caffeine, cotinine, and atrazine were detectedin raw water and that
treatment with ozone resulted in a greater removal versus
conventional treatment.
C-7
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
140
141
142
144
146
Authors
Snyder, Shane; Eric
Wert; David Rexing;
Ronald Zegers; Douglas
Drury
Sponza, Delia Teresa;
Hulya Atalay
Spring, A. J. ; D. M.
Bagley; R. C. Andrews;
S. Lemanik; P. Yang
Tan, Benjamin L.L.;
Dairy 1 W. Hawker;
Jochen F. Muller;
Frederic D.L. Leusch;
Louis A. Tremblay;
Heather F. Chapman
Ternes, Thomas;
Jeanette Stuber; Nadine
Herrman; Derek
McDowell; Achim Ried;
Martin Kampmann;
Bernhard Teiser
Date
2006
2006
2007
2007
2003
Title
Ozone oxidation of endocrine
disrupters and Pharmaceuticals
in surface water and wastewater
Simultaneous toxicity and
nutrient removals in simulated
DEPHANIX
(anaerobic/anoxic/oxic
sequentials) process treating
antibiotics
Removal of endocrine
disrupting compounds using a
membrane bioreactor and
disinfection
Comprehensive study of
endocrine disrupting compounds
using grab and passive sampling
at selected wastewater treatment
plants in South East
Queensland, Australia
Ozonation: a tool for removal of
Pharmaceuticals, contrast media
and musk fragrances from
wastewater?
Journal/Publisher
Ozone: Science and
Engineering (journal)
and Taylor & Francis
(publisher)
Fresenius
Environmental
Bulletin (journal) and
PSP (publisher)
Journal of
Environmental
Engineering and
Science (journal) and
NRC Canada
(publisher)
Environment
International (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
28:445-460
15:753-762
6:131-137
33:654-669
37:1976-1982
Geographic
Scope
U.S.
Europe
Canada
Other
Europe
Scale
full,
pilot
lab
full,
pilot
full
pilot
Abstract
Bench and pilot scale ozonation (with hydrogen peroxide)
experiments were conducted with surface water spiked with the
target compounds and wastewater effluent containing ambient
concentrations of target compounds. Full-scale treatment plants
were sampled before and after ozonation to determine if bench- and
pilot-scale results accurately predict full-scale removal. In both
drinking and wastewater experiments, most compounds were
removed by greater than 90%.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of
methanogenic and anoxic conditions on the fate of kemicetine
(chloramphenicol), together with nutrient removal. A modified
DEPHANOX process, consisting of two upflow sludge blanket
reactors, an anaerobic-upflow sludge blanket and an anoxic-upflow
sludge blanket, and an aerobic completely stirred tank reactor, was
analyzed for simultaneous removal of kemicetine and nutrients. The
only reportable data from this paper were removal efficiencies of
kemicetine from the anaerobic and aerobic reactors at variable
kemicetine loading rates which were typically 90% or greater.
A membrane bioreactor removed greater than 96% of suspected
endocrine disrupting compounds cholesterol, coprostanol and
stigmastanol compared to 85% removal for a conventional
treatment plant receiving the same influent. It is unknown whether
this improvement over conventional treatment is due to the
membrane or the increased sludge retention time.
This study was completed to compare various sampling and
analysis methods for endocrine disrupting compounds, including
grab and passive sampling, gas chromatography-mass spectrometry,
and biological assay analysis. Data were collected from several
wastewater treatment plants for EDCs including influent, effluent,
and intermediate wastewater samples. The results of the study
indicated that the removal efficacy of conventional activated sludge
or biological nutrient removal WWTPs for most estrogenic
compounds ranged from 80 to >99%. Passive sampling was
concluded to be a useful too which still requires additional research
into how to interpret passive sampling results.
A pilot plant for ozonation and UV-disinfection received effluent
from a German municipal sewage treatment plant (STP) to test the
removal of Pharmaceuticals, iodinated X-ray contrast media (ICM)
and musk fragrances from municipal wastewater. By applying 10-
1 5 mg ozone, all the Pharmaceuticals investigated as well as musk
fragrances (HHCB, AHTN) and estrone were no longer detected.
However, ICM (diatrizoate, iopamidol, iopromide and iomeprol)
were still detected in appreciable concentrations. Advanced
oxidation processes which were non-optimized for wastewater
treatment, did not lead significantly to a higher removal efficiency
for the ICM than ozone alone.
C-8
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
148
150
196
197
201
210
Authors
Vieno, Niina M.; Heli
Harkki; Tuula
Tuhkanen; Leif
Kronberg
Zhou, Ping; Chengyi Su;
Binwei Li; Yi Qian
Batt, AL; Sungpyo Kim;
DS Aga
Bila, Daniele; Antonio
F. Montalva; Debora de
A. Azevedo; Marcia
Dezotti
Chelliapan,
Shreeshivadasan;
Thomas Wilby, Paul J.
Sallis
Ifeleguegu, A.O.; J.N.
Lester; J. Churchley; E.
Cartmell
Date
2007
2006
2006
2007
2006
2006
Title
Occurrence of
Pharmaceuticeuticals in River
Water and Their Elimination in
a Pilot-Scale Drinking Water
Treatment Plant
Treatment of High-Strength
Pharmaceutical Wastewater and
Removal of Antibiotics in
Anaerobic and Aerobic
Biological Treatment Processes
Enhanced Biodegradation of
lopromide and Trimethoprim in
Nitrifying Activated Sludge
Estrogenic activity removal of
17b estradiol by ozonation and
identification of by-products
Performance of an up-flow
anaerobic stage reactor (UASR)
in the treatment of
pharmaceutical wastewater
containing macrolide antibiotics
Removal of an endocrine
disrupting chemical (17 alpha-
ethinyloestradiol) from
wastewater effluent by activated
carbon adsorption: Effects of
activated carbon type and
competitive adsorption
Journal/Publisher
Environmental Science
& Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Journal of
Environmental
Engineering (journal)
and ASCE (publisher)
Environmental Science
and Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Chemosphere (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Environmental
Technology (journal)
and Selper Ltd.
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
41:5077-5084
132:129-136
40:7367-7373
69: 736-746
40:507-516
27:1343-1349
Geographic
Scope
Europe
Other
U.S.
Other
Europe
Europe
Scale
pilot
lab,
pilot
full, lab
lab
lab
lab
Abstract
This study was completed to test for the presence of
Pharmaceuticals in the River Vantaa, and qualify their removal in a
pilot-scale drinking water plant using this water source. The
drinking water plant featured coagulation and sedimentation, sand
filtration, UV disinfection, and granular activated carbon filtration
with and without ozonation. The treatment train was found to very
effectively eliminate the Pharmaceuticals from the raw water. The
only compound that was found to pass almost unaffected through all
the treatment steps was ciprofloxacin.
This study evaluates anaerobic and aerobic treatment of high-
strength pharmaceutical wastewater. A batch test was performed to
study the biodegradability of the waste water followed by a pilot-
scale test composed of an anaerobic baffled reactor and a biofilm
airlift suspension reactor. Removal efficiencies were not higher than
50% in either pilot-scale system.
The article investigates the nitrification of activated sludge as a
removal mechanism for iopromide and trimethoprim. The lab scale
tests were corroborated by the observed removal efficiencies in a
full scale municipal WWTP, which showed that iopromidie and
trimethoprim were removed more effectively in the nitrifying
activated sludge which has a higher SRT than in the conventional
activated sludge.
This work investigated the degradation of a natural estrogen (17b-
estradiol) and the removal of estrogenic activity by the ozonation
process in three different pHs (3, 7 and 1 1). High removals (>99%)
were achieved with low ozone dosages in the three different pHs. A
recombinant yeast (YES) assay determined that the byproducts of
ozonation at higher pHs have a higher estrogenicity that those at
lower pHs.
The performance of an up-flow anaerobic stage reactor (UASR)
treating pharmaceutical wastewater containing macrolide antibiotics
was investigated. The reactor was fed with real pharmaceutical
wastewater containing Tylosin and Avilamycin antibiotics and
operated with step-wise increases in the reactor organic loading rate
(OLR). An average of 95% Tylosin reduction was achieved in the
UASR, indicating that this antibiotic could be degraded efficiently
in the anaerobic reactor system. Additionally, high removals of
Tylosin were achieved regardless of high fluctuations in the Tylosin
influent load. This study concludes that a UASR can be used
effectively as an option for pre-treatment of pharmaceutical
wastewaters that contain Tylosin and Avilamycin macrolide
antibiotics.
GAC is considered to be an effective treatment for the removal of
synthetic organic chemicals in potable water treatment. However,
it's use in wastewater treatment has not been adequately evaluated.
The removal of EE2, TOC, UV and COD by different types of
activated carbon were investigated in this study. The results
demonstrate thathe EE2, COD, TOC and UV adsorbance were
effectively removed by all three methods of activated carbon.
C-9
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
214
215
217
218
Authors
Joss, A.; H. Andersen; T.
Ternes; P.R. Richie; H.
Siegrist
Kim, Sungpyo; Peter
Eichhorn; James N.
Jensen; A. Scott Weber;
Diana S. Aga
Kimura, Katsuki; Hiroe
Kara; Yoshimasa
Watanabe
Kosjek, Tina; Ester
Heath; Boris Kompare
Date
2004
2005
2007
2007
Title
Removal of estrogens in
municipal wastewater treatment
under aerobic and anaerobic
conditions: Consequences for
plant optimization
Removal of Antibiotics in
Wastewater: Effect of Hydraulic
and Solid Retention Times on
the Fate of Tetracycline in the
Activated Sludge Process
Elimination of selected acidic
Pharmaceuticals from municipal
wastewater by an activated
sludge system and membrane
bioreactors
Removal of pharmaceutical
residues in a pilot wastewater
treatment plant
Journal/Publisher
Environmental Science
& Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Environmental Science
& Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Environmental Science
& Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Analytical and
Bioanalytical
Chemistry (journal)
and Springer
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
38:3047-3055
39:5816-5823
41:3708-3714
387:1379-1387
Geographic
Scope
Europe
U.S.
Other
Europe
Scale
full,
pilot
lab
full,
pilot
lab
Abstract
In this paper, the removal of estrone (El), estradiol (E2), and
ethinylestradiol (EE2) in sludge from a municipal WWTP with
nitrogen removal (nitrification/denitrification) is investigated in
spiked batch experiments. Full-scale activated sludge, MBR and
fixed bed reactor treatment is sampled and compared to the
proposed model. A biological degradation model is proposed and
discussed with sampling campaigns on full-scale WWTPs. The
compounds were found to be removed mainly in activated sludge
compartments with low substrate loading. The results show a
removal of >90% for all estrogens in the activated sludge process.
The article describes a study conducted to examine the influence of
hydraulic retention time (HRT) and solid retention time (SRT) on
the removal of tetracycline in the activated sludge processes. Two
lab-scale sequencing batch reactors (SBRs) were operated to
simulate the activated sludge process. One SBR was spiked with
250 ug/L tetracycline, while the other SBR was evaluated at
tetracycline concentrations found in the influent of the wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP) where the activated sludge was obtained.
The concentrations of tetracyclines in the influent of the WWTP
ranged from 0.1 to 0.6 ug/L. Three different operating conditions
were applied during the study (phase 1 HRT: 24 h and SRT: 10
days; phase 2 HRT: 7.4 h and SRT: 10 days; and phase 3 HRT: 7.4
h and SRT: 3 days). The removal efficiency of tetracycline in phase
3 (78.4 ( 7. 1%) was significantly lower than that observed in phase
1 (86.4 ( 8.7%) and phase 2 (85. 1 ( 5.4%) at the 95% confidence
level. The reduction of SRT in phase 3 while maintaining a constant
HRT decreased tetracycline removal efficiency.
The elimination of six Pharmaceuticals was investigated in an
activated sludge WWTP and two membrane bioreactors. Different
elimination mechanisms were tested in all three treatment systems.
The main mechanism of elimination of the Pharmaceuticals in the
investigated processes was found to be biodegradation.
The study focuses on removal of commonly used NSAIDs
(ibuprofen, naproxen, ketoprofen, diclofenac) and clofibric acid in a
specially designed small-scale activated sludge pilot wastewater
treatment plant (PWWTP). This study shows that, except for
diclofenac, steady-rate removal of NSAIDs over a two-year
monitoring period has been achieved. Elimination of the
compounds in the PWWTP was >87% for ibuprofen, naproxen and
ketoprofen but only 49-59% for diclofenac. Clofibric acid was also
examined with the results after one month of operation of 30%
elimination with no sign of adaptation by the biomass.
C-10
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
223
224
225
226
233
Authors
Matamoros, Victor; Joan
Garcia; Joseph M.
Bayona
Matamoros, Victor;
Josep M. Bayona
Matamoros, Victor;
Carlos Arias; Hans Brix;
Josep M. Bayona
Maurer, M., B.I. Escher;
P. Richie; C. Schaffner;
A.C. Alder
Radjenovic, Jelena; Mira
Petrovic; Damia Barcelo
Date
2005
2006
2007
2007
2006
Title
Behavior of Selected
Pharmaceuticals in Subsurface
Flow Constructed Wetlands: A
Pilot-Scale Study
Elimination of Pharmaceuticals
and Personal Care Products in
Subsurface Flow Constructed
Wetlands
Removal of Pharmaceuticals
and Personal Care Products
(PPCPs) from Urban
Wastewater in a Pilot Vertical
Flow Constructed Wetland and
a Sand Filter
Elimination of Beta-blockers in
sewage treatment plants
Analysis of Pharmaceuticals in
wastewater and removal using a
membrane bioreactor
Journal/Publisher
Environment Science
& Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Environment Science
& Technology (journal
) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Environmental Science
& Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and
ELSEVIER (publisher)
Analytical and
Bioanalytical
Chemistry (journal)
and Springer
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
39:5449-5454
40:5811-5816
41:8171-8177
41:1614-1622
387:1365-1377
Geographic
Scope
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Scale
pilot
pilot
pilot
full
full, lab
Abstract
This study evaluated the effectiveness of a pilot scale subsuface
flow constructed wetland receiving residential wastewater at
removing several Pharmaceuticals which were continuously spiked
into the system influent. Less refractory compounds such as
ibuprofen are removed more efficiently in the shallow SSF,
presumably linked to more oxidized conditions. The more
refractory Pharmaceuticals such as clofibric acid show no removal,
in agreement to limited removal observed in WWTPs.
Carbamazepine removal was higher in the deep bed, but poor
(-20% on average) in both SSFs.
This study examined the elimination of Pharmaceuticals and
personal care products in two horizontal subsurface flow
constructed wetlands which received urban residential wastewater
from a 200 person housing development. PPCPs were classified by
their removal behavoir: (1) those efficiently removed, namely
caffine, salicylic acid, and methyl dihydrojasmonate (>80%); (2)
those moderately removed, namely ibuprofen, hydroxy-ibuprofen,
and naproxen (50-80%); (3) those recalcitrant to removal, namely
ketoprofen and diclofenac; (4) and those which were removed
mainly through sorption with the gravel bed, namely polycylic
musks (i.e. galaxolide and tonalide).
This study examined the removal efficiencies and elimination
kinetics of 13 Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in a pilot
subsurface flow constructed wetland compared with a sand filter.
The studies PPCPs were grouped by their removal efficiencies into
(i) PPCPs which were easily removed, with >95% removal in one
of the systems (caffeine, salicyclic acid, methyl dihydrojasmonate,
carboxy-ibuprofen, hydroxy-ibuprofen, hydrocinnamic acid,
oxybenzone, and ibuprofen) (ii) those PPCPs which were
moderately removed (70 to 90% in the two systems) (naproxen,
diclofenac, galaxolide, and tonalide) and finally (iii) those PPCPs
which were poorly removed, i.e. less than 30% removal
(carbamazepine).
This study investigated the elimination of beta-blockers in sewage
treatment, by determining sorption rates and first-order elimination
rates. These values were used to predict elimination in actual
sewage treatment plants. Sampling was performed at two plants to
confirm predicted removal efficiencies. Measured removal
efficiencies ranged from 26 to 79 % for four beta-blockers.
The behavior of several pharmaceutical products in different
therapeutic categories was monitored during treatment of
wastewater in a lab scale membrane bioreactor. The results were
compared to conventional activated sludge. The MBR system, in
general, had greater removals than the CAS system.
C-ll
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
238
240
243
Authors
Soliman, Mary A.; Joel
A. Pedersen; Heesu
Park; Angelica
Castaneda- Jimenez;
Michael K. Stenstrom; I.
H. (Mel) Suffet
Stasinakis, Athanasios
S.; Anastasios V.
Petalas; Daniel Mamais;
Nikolaos S. Thomaidis;
Georgia Gatidou;
Themistokles D. Lekkas
Vieno, N.; T. Tuhkanen;
L. Kronberg
Date
2007
2007
2007
Title
Human Pharmaceuticals,
antioxidants, and plasticizers in
wastewater treatment plant and
water reclamation plant
effluents
Investigation of triclosan fate
and toxicity in continuous-flow
activated sludge systems
Elimination of Pharmaceuticals
in sewage treatment plants in
Finland
Journal/Publisher
Water Environment
Research (journal)
Chemosphere (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
79:156-167
68:375-381
41:1001-1012
Geographic
Scope
U.S.
Europe
Europe
Scale
full,
pilot
lab
full
Abstract
The primary objective of this study was to determine the presence
of unregulated organic chemicals in reclaimed water using
complimentary targeted and broad spectrum approaches. The
removal of the compounds by three different tertiary treatment
trains at a wastewater treatment plant and two water reclamation
facilities was studied. The lime/RO product waters contained lower
concentrations of clofibric acid, ibuprofen, caffeine, BHA, and N-
BBSAthan California Title 22 water. The MF/RO treatmen reduced
concentrations to levels below their detection limits.
The purpose of this research was to study the fate and toxicity of
triclosan (TCS) in activated sludge systems and to investigate the
role of biodegradation and sorption on its removal. Two continuous-
flow activated sludge systems were used; one system was used as a
control, while the other received TCS concentrations equal to 0.5
and 2 mg 1/1. At the end of the experiment, 1 mg 1/1 TCS was added
in the control system to investigate TCS behaviour and effects on
non-acclimatized biomass. For all concentrations tested, more than
90% of the added TCS was removed during the activated sludge
process. Determination of TCS in the dissolved and particulate
phase and calculation of its mass flux revealed that TCS was mainly
biodegraded. Activated sludge ability to biodegrade TCS depended
on biomass acclimatization and resulted in a mean biodegradation
of 97%. Experiments with batch and continuous-flow systems
revealed that TCS is rapidly sorbed on the suspended solids and
afterwards, direct biodegradation of sorbed TCS is performed.
Regarding TCS effects on activated sludge process, addition of 0.5
mg/1 TCS on non-acclimatized biomass initially deteriorated
ammonia removal and nitrification capacity. After acclimatization
of biomass, nitrification was fully recovered and further increase of
TCS to 2 mg/1 did not affect the performance of activated sludge
system. The effect of TCS on organic substrate removal was minor
for concentrations up to 2 mg/1, indicating that heterotrophic
microorganisms are less sensitive to TCS than nitrifiers.
The occurrence of eight Pharmaceuticals (b-blockers: acebutolol,
atenolol, metoprolol and sotalol; anti epileptic: carbamazepine;
fluoroquinolone antibiotics: ciprofloxacin, norfloxacin, ofloxacin)
were assessed in the raw and treated sewage of 12 sewage treatment
plants (STPs) in Finland. The work shows that especially
carbamazepine and the b-blockers may reach the recipient waters
and there is a need to enhance their elimination in the sewage
treatment plants. In this attempt, a denitrifying biofilter as a tertiary
treatment could be of minor importance since in this study it did not
result in further elimination of the target compounds.
C-12
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
244
245
248
277
288
Authors
Weber S; M.
Gallenkemper; T. Melin;
W; Dott; J. Hollender
Westerhoff, Paul;
Yeomin Yoon; Shane
Snyder; Eric Wert
Zhang, Heqing; Harumi
Yamada; Sung-Eun
Kim; Hyo-Sang Kim;
Hiroshi Tsuno
Bester, K.
Carucci, Alessandra;
Giovanna Cappai;
Martina Piredda
Date
2004
2005
2006
2003
2006
Title
Efficiency of nanofiltration for
the elimination of steroids from
water
Fate of Endocrine-Disrupter,
Pharmaceutical, and Personal
Care Product Chemicals during
Simulated Drinking Water
Treatement Processes
Removal of endocrine-
disrupting chemicals by
ozonation in sewage treatment
Triclosan in a sewage treatment
process - balances and
monitoring data
Biodegradability and Toxicity of
Pharmaceuticals in Biological
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Journal/Publisher
Water Science and
Technology (journal)
and IWA Publishing
(publisher)
Environmental Science
and Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Water Science and
Technology (journal)
and IWA Publishing
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Journal of
Environmental Science
and Health Part A
(journal) and Taylor
and Francis Group
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
50:9-14
39:6649-6663
54:123-132
37:3891-3896
41:1831-1842
Geographic
Scope
Europe
U.S.
Other
Europe
Europe
Scale
lab
lab
full
full
lab
Abstract
The elimination of natural and synthetic steroids by nanofiltration
using a laboratory membrane reactor was investigated. Chemical
analysis of 17-p-estradiol, estrone, estriol, 17-a-ethinylestradiol,
mestranol, diethylstilbestrol, progesterone and p-sitosterine was
performed after solid phase extraction by GC-MS with standard
addition. The elimination rate depended on the nanofiltration
membrane material. LFC 1 membrane consisting of polyamide
removed the steroids over 99% whereas PES 10 membrane
consisting of hydrolysed polyethersulfone was less efficient,
obviously caused by different pore sizes and permeability of the
membrane structure.
The objective of this study was to compare the removals of
PAH/EDC/PPCPs spiked at environmentally relevant
concentrations into three natural waters or a model water by
adsorptive processes (coagulation, softening, PAC addition) and
oxidative processes (chlorine, ozone) under conditions (doses,
contact times) practices in drinking water treatment plants.
Aluminum sulfate and ferric chloride coagulants or chemical lime
softening removed some PAHs but removed <25 percent of PPCPs
and EDCs. Activated carbon removals ranged from 10 to >98
percent. Separate chlorine and ozone experiments removals
(reported as percent reacted) ranged from <10 to >90 percent.
Two laboratory scale semi-batch ozonation experiments and a full
scale ozonation process were evaluated in their ability to remove
estrogens and minimize the production of brominated byproducts.
Results show that ozonation can remove estrogens from the
influent. The authors propose ideal ozone concentrations with
respect to DOC concentrations to minimize brominated byproducts.
In a German sewage treatment plant, the concentrations of triclosan
in the influent (1000 ng/L) as well as in the effluent (50 ng/L) are
compared to the concentrations measured in sludge (1200 ng/L).
Considering the mass flow of water and sludge in the respective
plant, balances including water and sludge are calculated. Thirty
percent of the triclosan is sorbed with weak bonds to the sludge,
while some amounts are sorbed as bound residues in the sludge.
About 5% is dissolved in the out-flowing water. Thus most of the
influent triclosan is likely transformed to other metabolites or
unrecovered bound residues. Removal was greater than 90% while
about 30% sorbed to the sludge.
Municipal wastewater was fed to laboratory scale SBR (Sequencing
Batch Reactor) operated with different sludge ages (8 and 14 days),
different biochemical conditions (aerobic or anoxic-aerobic mode)
and several influent drug concentrations (2, 3 and 5 mg/L).
Comparison of results with a previous study shows that the percent
removal of atenolol in municipal wastewater (36%) was lower than
the removal in synthetic wastewater (up to 90%). Adsorption batch
tests showed that a major mechanism of removal for atenolol was
adsorption. In contrast, adsorption did not contribute to the removal
of ranitidine.
C-13
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
292
298
304
319
Authors
Chen, Chia-Yang; Tzu-
Yao Wen; Gen-Shuh
Wang; Hui-Wen Cheng;
Ying-Hsuan Lin; Guang-
Wen Lien
Choi, Keun-Joo; Sang
Goo Kim; Chang Won
Kim; Jae Kwang Park
Comerton, Anna M.;
Robert C. Andrews;
David M. Bagley; Paul
Yang
Ermawati, Rahyani;
Shigeru Morimura;
Yueqin Tang; Kai Liu;
Kenji Kida
Date
2007
2006
2007
2007
Title
Determining estrogenic steroids
in Taipei waters and removal in
drinking water treatment using
high-flow solid-phase extraction
and liquid
chromatography/tandem mass
spectrometry
Removal efficiences of
endocrine disrupting chemicals
by coagulation/flocculation,
ozonation, powdered/granular
activated carbon adsorption, and
chlorination
Membrane adsorption of
endocrine disrupting compounds
and pharmaceutically active
compounds
Degradation and Behaviour of
Natural Steroid Hormones in
Cow Manure Waste during
Biological Treatments and
Ozone Oxidation
Journal/Publisher
Science of the Total
Environment (journal)
Elsevier (publisher)
Korean Journal of
Chemical Engineering
(journal)
Journal of Membrane
Science (journal) and
Elsevier (publisher)
Journal of Bioscience
and Bioengineering
(journal) and The
Society for
Biotechnology, Japan
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
378:352-365
23:399-408
303:267-277
103:27-31
Geographic
Scope
Other
Other
Canada
Other
Scale
lab
lab
lab
lab
Abstract
River water and wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents from
metropolitan Taipei, Taiwan were tested for the presence of the
pollutants estrone (El), estriol (E3), 17(3-estradiol (E2), and 17a-
ethinylestradiol (EE2) using a new methodology that involves high-
flow solid-phase extraction and liquid chromatography/tandemmass
spectrometry. The method was also used to investigate the removal
of the analytes by conventional drinking water treatment processes.
Rapid filtration, with crushed anthracite played a major role,
removing more than 84% of the estrogens. Except for E3, the whole
procedure successfully removed most of the estrogens even if the
initial concentration reached levels as high as 500 ng/L.
Removal efficiencies of endocrine disrupters (bisphenol A and
nonylphenol) were evaluated using various types of water treatment
processes in lab and pilot scale studies. Paired removal data
reported tests various coagulants. The conventional
coagulation/flocculation water treatment process had very low
removal efficiencies for BPA (0-3%) and nonylphenol (4-7%).
Adsorption is one of the main mechanisms contributing to
compound removal by membrane filtration, in addition to size
exclusion and charge repulsion. In this study, the adsorption of 22
endocrine disrupting compounds and pharmaceutically active
compounds by ultrafiltration (UF), nanofiltration (NF) and reverse
osmosis (RO) membranes was investigated using 24-h bottle tests at
2 1 and 4 ฐC. Two natural waters (Lake Ontario and effluent from a
membrane bioreactor (MBR)) and one laboratory-grade water were
examined. Adsorption was strongly correlated with compound log
Kow and membrane pure water permeability, and moderately
correlated with compound water solubility. Adsorption was
observed to be highest by the UF membrane followed by the NF
and RO membranes. The influence of temperature on adsorption in
the range examined was found to be insignificant. Three compounds
for which deuterium-labelled surrogates were available
(acetaminophen, carbamazepine, gemfibrozil) were examined to
determine the influence of water matrix on adsorption. Adsorption
of gemfibrozil may have been hindered due to competition for
adsorption sites from the organic matter present in the lake water
and MBR effluent.
The article reserached an efficient treatment process for screened
cow manure waste for the degradation of natural steroid hormones.
The manure was diluted with tap water with aerobic, anaerobic
treatment and ozone oxidation to measure reduction of classical
pollutants and natural hormones at 99%.
C-14
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
320
333
337
338
Authors
Escher, Beate I; Wouter
Pronk; Mark JF Suter;
Max Maurer
Gebhardt, Wilhelm;
Horst Fr. Schoerder
Gomez, M.; G. Garralon;
F. Plaza; R. Vilchez; E.
Hontoria; M. A. Gomez
Gonzalez, Susana; Jutta
Muller; Mira Petrovic;
Damia Barcelo; Thomas
P. Knepper
Date
2006
2007
2007
2006
Title
Monitoring the removal
efficiency of Pharmaceuticals
and hormones in different
treatment processes of source-
separated urine with bioassays
Liquid chromatography-
(tandem) mass spectrometry for
the follow-up of the elimination
of persistent Pharmaceuticals
during wastewater treatment
applying biological wastewater
treatment and advanced
oxidation
Rejection of endocrine
disrupting compounds
(bisphenol A, bisphenol F and
triethyleneglycol
dimethacrylate) by membrane
technologies
Biodegradation studies of
selected priority acidic
pesticides and diclofenac in
different bioreactors
Journal/Publisher
Environmental Science
Technology (journal)
and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Journal of
Chromatography A
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Desalination (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Environmental
Pollution (journal) and
Elsevier (publisher)
Volume/Pages
40:5095-5101
1160:34-43
212: 79-91
144:926-932
Geographic
Scope
Europe
Europe
Europe
Europe
Scale
lab
lab
lab
pilot
Abstract
Urine treatment technologies were evaluated for their performance
to remove micorpollutants such as Pharmaceuticals, natural and
synthetic steroid hormones, and their human biotransformation
products. Removal efficiencies were determined with a combination
of bioassays and chemical target analysis. Filtration methods, such
as nanofiltration and electrodialysis, were highly efficient with
respect to toxicity reduction. Micropollutant degradation during
biological treatment in a sequencing batch reactor was very
compound specific. Ozonation removed the target analytes and the
estrogenicity completely.
Advanced oxidation methods using ozone, ozone with UV, and
hydrogen peroxide treatment with UV was studied to evaluate the
elimination of pharmaceutical compounds carbamazepine,
diazepam, clofibric acid, and diclofenac. While biological treatment
by conventional and membrane bioreactors failed, the advanced
oxidation methods using ozone, O3/UV, or hydrogen peroxide/UV
successfully led to the complete elimination of these compounds.
Target compounds could be confirmed as permanently present
pollutants in Aachen-Soers wastewater in concentrations between
0.006 and 1.9ug/L.
This study examined the effectiveness of ultrafiltration,
microfiltration and reverse osmosis membranes in removing three
compounds. The system was fed with treated effluent from a
municipal wastewater treatment plant and spiked with high levels
(single-digit mg/L) of bisphenol- A, bisphenol-F and triethylene
glycol dimethacrylate. Micro- and ultrafiltration demonstrated a
certain effectiveness in removing all three compounds, owing to
their association with particulate matter which is retained by these
treatments. In all cases, high concentrations of the assayed
endocrine disrupters were still found in the treated effluents, casting
doubt on the suitability of membrane technologies when the
concentrations of these compounds in the influent are high.
The biodegradation of selected priority acidic pesticides MCPP,
MCPA, 2,4-D, 2,4-DP and bentazone and the acidic pharmaceutical
diclofenac was investigated using a membrane bioreactor (MBR)
and a fixed-bed bioreactor (FBBR). A pilot plant MBR was fed with
raw water spiked with the selected compounds. The experiment was
repeated every week during four weeks to enhance the adaptation of
microorganisms. In order to further study the biodegradability of
these compounds, degradation studies in a FBBR were carried
out. The results indicate that in the MBR compounds except for
bentazone were eliminated within the first day of the experiment at
rates ranging from 44% to 85%. Comparing these results with the
degradation rates in the FBBR showed that in the latter only MCPP,
MCPA 2,4-D and 2,4-DP were degraded after a much longer
adaptation phase of microorganisms.
C-15
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
346
347
352
359
366
369
Authors
Heidler, Jochen; Amir
Sapkota;RolfHalden
Heidler, Jochen; Rolf
Halden
Horii, Yuichi; Jessica L.
Reiner; Bommanna
Loganathan;
Kurunthachalam Senthil
Kumar; Kenneth
Sajwan; Kurunthachalam
Kannan
Huo, C. X.; P. Hickey
Jin, X.; J.Y. Hu; M.L.
Tint; S.L. Ong; Y.
Biryulin; G. Polotskaya
Kaping, Daniel; Hans-
Dieter Stock; Kai Bester
Date
2006
2007
2007
2007
2007
2007
Title
Partitioning, Persistence, and
Accumulation in Digested
Sludge of the Topical Antiseptic
Triclocarban during Wastewater
Treatment
Mass balance assessment of
triclosan removal during
conventional sewage treatment
Occurrence and fate of
polycyclic musks in wastewater
treatment plants in Kentucky
and Georgia, USA
EDC Demonstration Programme
in the UK - Anglian Water's
Approach
Estrogenic compounds removal
by fullerene-containing
membranes
Pharmaceuticals in waste water
treatment - Transformation
products and possible effects in
activated sludge treatment
Journal/Publisher
Environmental Science
Technology (journal)
and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Chemosphere (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Chemosphere (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Environmental
Technology (journal)
and Selper Ltd
(publisher)
Desalination (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Fresenius
Environmental
Bulletin (journal) and
PSP (publisher)
Volume/Pages
40: 3634-3639
66:362-369
68:2011-2020
28:731-741
214:83-90
16:1509-1516
Geographic
Scope
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Europe
Other
Europe
Scale
full
full
full
full
lab
lab
Abstract
This study explored the persistence of triclocarban in a typical full-
scale activated sludge sewage treatment plant using a mass balance
approach. Fluctuations of triclocarban concentration in the influent
and effluent and flow rate were observed over various time scales
(both a 24 hour period and 7 days). The removal calculated from the
average concentration in the influent and effluent was 97 +/- 1%.
Due to strong sorption of TCC to wastewater particulate matter (78
+/- 1 1% sorbed), the majority of the TCC mass was sequestered
into sludge in the primary and secondary clarifiers of the plant.
Anaerobic digestion for 19 days did not promote TCC
transformation, resulting in an accumulation of the antiseptic
compound in dewatered, digested municipal sludge to levels of 5 1
+/- 15 mg/kg dry weight (2815 +/- 917 g/d).
This study explored the persistence of triclosan in a typical full-
scale activated sludge sewage treatment plant using a mass balance
approach. Fluctuations of triclosan concentration in the influent and
effluent and flow rate were observed over various time scales (both
a 24 hour period and 7 days). The removal calculated from the
average concentration in the influent and effluent was 98%. The
mass balance revealed that 50% of the 98% remained detectable in
the sludge while the remaining 48% was biotransformed or lost to
other mechanisms of removal.
In this study, contamination profiles and mass flow of polycyclic
musks (HHCB), (AHTN), and HHCB-lactone (oxidation product of
HHCB), in two WWTPs, one located in Kentucky (Plant A, rural
area) and the other in Georgia (Plant B, urban), USA, were
determined. Mass balance analysis suggested that only 30% of
HHCB and AHTN entering the plants was accounted for in the
effluent and the sludge. Removal efficiencies of HHCB and AHTN
in the two WWTPs ranged from 72% to 98%. In contrast, HHCB-
lactone concentrations increased following the treatment.
This study evaluated the sampling, preservation, and analysis
technique and the concentrations of El, E2, and EE2 in atypical
trickling filter plant in the UK. Estrone removals were about 60%
after humus tank and lagoon treatment while estradiol and ethinyl
estradiol removals were about 90% and 50%, respectively.
This study examined new polymer membranes for the removal and
adsorptive behaviours of estrogenic compounds. The removal,
adsorption rate, and capacity of estrone by membranes with
different fullerene compositions was studied. Removals were <95%
for all membranes.
The transformation of selected Pharmaceuticals in activated sludge
treatment with advanced oxidation was analyzed. The possible side
effects of the compounds on the sludge function was also studied.
The concentrations of all Pharmaceuticals at the effluents of
ozonization and activated carbon filtration were below detection
limits.
C-16
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
379
384
Authors
Kim, Sang D.; Jaeweon
Cho; In S.Kim; Brett J.
Vanderford; Shane
A.Snyder
Kreuzinger N; M. Clara;
B. Strenn; B. Vogel
Date
2006
2004
Title
Occurrence and removal of
Pharmaceuticals and endocrine
disrupters in South Korean
surface, drinking, and waste
waters
Investigation on the behaviour
of selected Pharmaceuticals in
the groundwater after infiltration
of treated wastewater
Journal/Publisher
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Science and
Technology (journal)
and IWA Publishing
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
41:1013-1021
50:221-228
Geographic
Scope
Other
Europe
Scale
full,
pilot
full
Abstract
The artcile used LC-MS/MS to measure the concentrations of 14
Pharmaceuticals, 6 hormones, 2 antibiotics, 3 personal care products
and 1 flame retardant in surface waters and wastewater treatment
plant effluent in South Korea. Wastewater treatment processes at
full and pilot-scale were both investigated. The analytes o fthe
greatest concentration were iopromide, TCEP, sulfamethoxazole,
and carbamazepine. However, the primary estrogen hormones, were
rarely detected, while estrone was detected in oth surface water and
wastewater effluent. Conventional drinking water treatment
methods were relatively ineffiicent for contaminant removal, while
efficient removal (99%) was achieved by granular activated
carbon (GAC). In wastewater treatment processes, membrane
bioreactors (MBR) showed limited target compound removal, but
were effective at eliminating hormones and some PPCPs.
Membrane filtration using RO and NF showed excellent removal
(>95%) for all target analytes.
In a rural arid area without suitable water, the treated wastewater of
a low loaded municipal wastewater treatment plant with full
nutrient removal and additional post treatment steps is infiltrated
into the unsaturated soil for groundwater recharge. Grounwater
probes placed at increasing distances were sampled over a period of
14 months as well as sampling around the wastewater treatment
plant which was fed to the groudwater infiltration. Carbamazepine
behaves very conservative and only is removed negligible even
after long flow times within the subsurface zone. For other
substances like diazepam or diclofenac, a partial elimination during
the different steps of wastewater treatment can be ovserved. The
musks were removed to some extent but not as good as the other
compounds.
C-17
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
392
394
404
Authors
Hongxia Lei, Shane A.
Snyder
Leusch, Frederic D. L. ;
Heather F. Chapman;
Michael R van den
Heuvel; Benjamin L.L.
Tan; S. Ravi
Gooneratne; Louis A.
Tremblay
Majumder, Partha
Sarathi; S.K. Gupta
Date
2007
2006
2007
Title
3D QSPR models for the
removal of trace organic
contaminants by ozone and free
chlorine
Bioassay-derived androgenic
and estrogenic activity in
municipal sewage in Australia
and New Zealand
Removal of chlorophenols in
sequential anaerobic-aerobic
reactors
Journal/Publisher
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Ecotoxicology and
Environmental Safety
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Bioresource
Technology (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
41:4051-4060
65:403-411
98:118-129
Geographic
Scope
U.S.
Other
Other
Scale
pilot
full
lab
Abstract
Endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) and Pharmaceuticals and
personal care products (PPCPs) have been detected at low levels in
water resources around the world and one impact of their detection
is the continuous concern on their fate and removal by various
water treatment processes. In this research, a 3D quantitative
structure-property relationship (QSPR) model characterized by the
utilization of 3D molecular structures is explored as a potential tool
to prescreen these compounds and help focus research on more
persistent compounds during typical water treatment processes. The
relevance of each parameter to removals of target compounds by
ozone (O3) and free chlorine was determined based on data
matrices generated in bench- and pilot-scale experiments.
Calculated removals were correlated with experimental data with
linear regression coefficients of 0.84 for ozonation and 0.71 for
chlorination. The increased predictability of ozone removal reflects
the fundamental simplicity of ozone reaction mechanisms, which is
dominated by oxidation reactions. Interestingly, the weakly polar
surface area, in addition to the p surface area of these molecules,
seems critical to ozone removal. The removal of these compounds
by free chlorine is related to their ozone removal ionization
potential and three other parameters. The developed QSPR models
help disclose the removal mechanism during ozonation and
chlorination.
Selected estrogenic chemicals were analyzed in raw sewage influent
and subsequent treatment in three different types of treatment
systems in 1 5 municipal sewage treatment plants in Australia and
New Zealand. Secondary treatment was the most effective treatment
of the estrogenic activity and 82% to >99% of the androgenic
activity in sewage.
The combination of upflow anaerobic sludge blanket and aerobic
rotating biological contactor reactors having higher biomass
concentration and higher sludge retention time was applied for the
sequential treatment of priority pollutant chlorophenol containing
wastewater. Target compounds 2-CP and 2,4-DCP present in two
simulated wastewaters at concentration of 30 mg/1 each individually
were sequentially treated in continuous mode by combined UASB-
I, RBC-I and combined reactors. Optimum HRT combinations
produced 2-CP and 2,4-DCP effluent having corresponding
chlorophenol concentration of below detectable limit and 0. 1 mg/1,
respectively.
C-18
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
435
436
444
445
456
Authors
Pauwels, Bram; Sam
Deconinck; Willy
Verstraete
Peng, Xianzhi; Zhendi
Wang; Wenxing Kuang;
Jianhua Tan; Ken Li
Quintana, Jose Benito;
Stefan Weiss; Thorsten
Reemtsma
Ramos M S J L
Davila; F. Esparza; F.
Thalasso; J. Alba; A.L.
Guerrero; F.J. Avelar
Shappell, Nancy; Lloyd
O. Billey; Dean forbes;
Terry Matheny; Matthew
E. Poach; Gudigopuram
B. Reddy; Patrick G.
Hunt
Date
2006
2006
2005
2005
2007
Title
Electrolytic removal of 17
alpha-ethinylestradiol (EE2) in
water streams
A preliminary study on the
occurrence and behavior of
sulfonamides, ofloxacin and
chloramphenicol antimicrobials
in wastewaters of two sewage
treatment plants in Guangzhou,
China
Pathways and metabolites of
microbial degradation of
selected acidic pharmaceutical
and their occurrence in
municipal wastewater treated by
a membrane bioreactor
Treatment of wastewater
containing high phenol
concentrations using
stabilisation ponds enriched
with activated sludge
Estrogenic Activity and Steroid
Hormones in Swine Wastewater
through a Lagoon Constructed-
Wetland System
Journal/Publisher
Journal of Chemical
Technology and
Biotechnology
(journal) and Society
of Chemical Industry
(publisher)
Science of the Total
Environment (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Research
(journal) and Elsevier
(publisher)
Water Science and
Technology (journal)
and IWA Publishing
(publisher)
Environmental Science
and Technology
(journal) and American
Chemical Society
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
81:1338-1343
371:314-322
39:2654-2664
51:257-260
41:444-450
Geographic
Scope
Europe
Other
Europe
Other
U.S.
Scale
lab
full
lab
lab
full
Abstract
The electrolytic removal of ethinylestradiol (EE2) in effluent of a
membrane bioreactor (MBR) treating hospital sewage and in
drinking water, was studied at dosed concentrations of about Img
EE2 L 1. Removal efficiencies of up to 98% were obtained with
supplemental efficient eradications of bacteria (up to 3.4 log units).
Residual effects were observed when a treated flow was mixed with
an untreated flow. An increasing concentration of NaCl resulted in
an enhanced EE2 removal. This effect was more pronounced in
MBR effluent than in drinking water. To approach more
environmentally realistic concentrations, an experiment with initial
concentration of 10 jig EE2 L 1 drinking water was set up, still
resulting in an EE2 removal of 85%.
Wastewater samples were collected from two activated sludge
sewage treatment plants in China. The concentrations of
antimicrobials do not show substantial changes after preliminary
mechnical sedimentation. No quantifiable sulfonamides and
chloramphenicol have been identified, and >85% of ofloxacin has
been removed in the effluents after activated sludge treatment,
indicating that activated sludge treatment is effective to remove
antimicrobial substances in municipal sludge.
Laboratory degradation tests with 5 acidic Pharmaceuticals using
activated sludge as an unnocculum under aerobic condidtions were
performed and microbial metabolites were tested. This data was
bench scale performed on solid materials. A LC-MS method for the
trace anaylsis of these metabolites in water was developed and
applied to municipal wastewater. A membrane bioreactor was tested
for removal capabilities. In the MBR tests, removals ranged from
23% (diclofenac) to 97% (ibuprofen). Municipal wastewater
treatment by a MBR may gradually improve the removal of PPCPs.
Treatment of wastewater containing high phenol concentrations in
laboratory-scale stabilisation ponds enriched with activated sludge
was studied. Phenol was biodegraded efficiently, even when fed as
the sole carbon source. The enriched ponds showed removal rates
1.8-20.5 times higher than the values obsrved in control pond (not
enriched). The results suggest that enrichment is an effective
method to increase xenobiotic removal rates of stabilisatio ponds.
The objectives of this experiment were to measure (1) the hormonal
activity of the initial effluent and (2) the effectiveness of a lagoon-
constructed wetland treatment system for producing an effluent with
a low hormonal activity. Wetlands decreased estrogenic activity by
83-93%. Estrone was the most persistent estrogenic compound.
Constructed wetlands produced effluents with estrogenic activity
below the lowest equivalent E2 concentration known to have an
effect on fish.
C-19
-------
Table C-l. Literature Review Bibliography (Continued)
ID
485
507
Authors
Wang, Shu-Guang;
Xian-Wei Liu; Hua-
Yong Zhang; Wen-Xin
Gong; Xue-Fei Sun;
Bao-Yu Gao
Drewes, Jorg E. ;
Christopher Bellona;
Matthew Oedekoven;
Pei Xu; Tae-Uk Kim;
Gary Amy
Date
2007
2005
Title
Aerobic granulation for 2,4-
dichlorophenol biodegradation
in a sequencing batch reactor
Rejection of Wastewater-
Derived Micropollutants in
High-Pressure Membrane
Applications Leading to Indirect
Potable Reuse
Journal/Publisher
Chemosphere (journal)
and Elsevier
(publisher)
Environmental
Progress (journal) and
American Institute of
Chemical Engineers
(publisher)
Volume/Pages
69:769-775
24(4): 400-409
Geographic
Scope
Other
U.S.
Scale
lab
full, lab
Abstract
Development of aerobic granules for the biological degradation of
2,4-dichlorophenol (2,4-DCP) in a sequencing batch reactor was
reported. After operation of 39 d, stable granules with a diameter
range of 1-2 mm and a clearly defined shape and appearance were
obtained. After granulation, the effluent 2,4-DCP and chemical
oxygen demand concentrations were 4.8 mg/L and 41 mg/L with
high removal efficiencies of 94% and 95%, respectively.
Rejection of emerging organic micropollutants was studied using a
two-sage laboratory membrane skid and two full-scale RO trains. In
general hydrophilic ionic compounds were efficiently removed by
steric and electrostatic exclusion. Full-scale studies did not reveal
any quantifiable detects of any target comound, except for low
concentrations of caffein in the permate samples of the second and
third stages of one facility. Findings suggest that fouling layers
present on membranes in full-scale installations result in an
improved rejection of hydropihilic nonionic and especially
hydrophobic solutes.
C-20
-------
Appendix D
DETAILED ABSTRACTS OF KEY REFERENCES
-------
Key CECs Treatment References
1. Snyder, Shane; Eric C. Wert; Hongxia (Dawn) Lei; Paul Westerhoff; and Yeomin
Yoon. Removal ofEDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Drinking and Reuse Treatment
Processes. 2007. American Water Works Association Research Foundation
(AwwaRF) and IWA Publishing.
This study was funded and published by the American Water Works Association Research
Foundation (AwwaRF Project #2758). Researchers selected 36 EDCs and pharmaceuticals for
evaluation based upon their occurrence, chemical structure, and usefulness as surrogates for
classes of similar contaminants. Researchers developed an analytical procedure in which solid
phase extraction was used for a single 1-liter sample. The extract was split into two fractions, one
analyzed using GC-MS/MS and the other using LC-MS/MS.
Researchers investigated unit processes currently used to treat drinking water and some novel
processes. The target compounds were spiked at ng/L concentrations into various natural waters,
and their removal by physical, chemical, and biological water treatment processes was evaluated
in batch mode (bench-scale) and/or dynamically in a flow-through mode (pilot-scale). Full-scale
drinking water and water reuse treatment facilities were assessed by analyzing samples of raw
water, water representing unit processes, and finished water. Observations of removal from full-
scale facilities were compared to those made at bench- and pilot-scale. Researchers found:
Coagulation, flocculation, and filtration provided poor removal of the
contaminants evaluated.
Disinfection using free chlorine oxidized approximately half of the target
compounds, including all phenolic steroid hormones.
Disinfection using chloramine was far less efficient for contaminant oxidation
than free chlorine.
UV irradiation at disinfection dosages was ineffective for contaminant removal;
however, UV advanced oxidation using hydrogen peroxide was highly effective
for the removal of most studied contaminants.
Ozone oxidation was capable of removing nearly all target analytes to below
detection limits with or without the addition of hydrogen peroxide.
Adsorption with activated carbon was highly effective using both powdered and
granular forms; however, removal efficacy was a function of carbon type, contact
time, water quality, and contaminant structure.
Magnetic ion exchange resin (MIEX) was ineffective for the removal of most
EDC/PPCP compounds.
Nanofiltration and reverse osmosis both showed excellent contaminant rejection,
while microfiltration and ultrafiltration offered only meager contaminant removal.
It is unrealistic to test the fate and removal of the hundreds of pharmaceutical and potential
EDCs. For this reason, the researchers explored the efficacy of developing models to predict
treatment process outcomes. For seven water treatment processes, they used quantitative
structural-property relationship (QSPR) and quantitative structural-activity relationship (QSAR)
computer models to predict treatment efficiency based on structural properties. The fate and
properties of small number of chemicals was modeled. Additional model development would
D-l
-------
enable researchers to provide rapid evaluation of the likelihood that a particular chemical will be
removed by a particular treatment process.
2. Stephenson, Roger; and Joan Oppenheimer. Fate of Pharmaceuticals and
Personal Care Products through Municipal Wastewater Treatment Processes.
2007. Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) and IWA Publishing.
This study, sponsored by WERF, was conducted to expand the limited published data describing
the removal of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products (PPCPs) from full-scale wastewater
treatment facilities. Researchers measured the removal of 20 PPCPs commonly found in
wastewater treatment plant influents. They studied six U.S. wastewater treatment systems that
employed varying combinations of treatment operations, including: activated sludge, media
filtration, chlorine disinfection, ultraviolet disinfection, and reverse osmosis. The also studied
two pilot-scale membrane bioreactors (MBRs). Key study conclusions are:
Increased sludge retention time (SRT) enhances removal of the majority of
monitored PPCPs.
SRT required to achieve consistent removal above 80% (SRT80%) is compound-
specific. Many moniotored PPCPs are well removed with SRTs of 5 - 15 days.
SRT80% of more than 30 days was observed for the fragrances galaxolide and
musk ketone, and tri(chloroethyl) phosphate (a fire retardant).
Activated sludge removes many PPCPs, but a second barrier may be necessary for
some target compounds.
3. Drewes, Jorg E.; Jocelyn D.C. Hemming; James J. Schauer; and William C.
Sonsogni. Removal of Endocrine Disrupting Compounds in Water Reclamation
Processes. 2006. Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) and IWA
Publishing.
This study, sponsored by WERF, was conducted to develop approaches combining bioassays
with chemical analysis to study removal of endocrine disrupting compounds by water
reclamation treatment processes. Eleven treatment plants were sampled in the U.S. for
testosterone, four estrogenic hormones, and four phenolic compounds (bisphenol A and
alkylphenol degradation products, 4-nonylphenol, 4-(tert-Octyl)phenol and 4-octylphenol).
Wastewater samples were extracted with solid phase extraction and analyzed by GC-MS and
HPLC-ELISA. Sample extracts were also analyzed using four in vitro bioassays, two for
estrogenic activity and two for androgenic activity. Researchers found a strong relationship
between the GC-MS results and the estrogenic activity bioassays. In contrast, researchers found a
poor relationship between the GC-MS results and the androgenic activity bioassays, suggesting
that testosterone was not the only androgenic hormone present in the wastewater samples. The
estrogenic in vitro bioassays were robust tools for following changes in activity during
wastewater treatment.
The wastewater treatment plants employed varying combinations of treatment operations,
including: activated sludge, media filtration, chlorine disinfection, ultraviolet disinfection,
reverse osmosis, MBRs, and soil-aquifer technology. Researchers found that conventional
secondary treatment can provide substantial removals of EDCs compounds and activities. For the
D-2
-------
studied compounds, they found no significant improvement in removal between two and ten days
of SRT. Advanced treatment processes, such as activated carbon, reverse osmosis membranes,
and soil-aquifer treatment provided additional removal.
4. Lishman, Lori; Shirley Anne Smyth; Kurtis Sarafm; Sonya Kleywegt; John Toito;
Thomas Peart; Bill Lee; Mark Servos; Michel Beland; and Peter Seto. Occurrence
and Reductions of Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products and Estrogens
by Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants in Ontario, Canada. May 2006.
Science of the Total Environment. 367: 544-558.
This study was sponsored by National Water Research Institute of Environment Canada. The
goal of the study was to establish a Canadian database for the presence of 18 CECs, including
acidic drugs, triclosan, polycyclic musks, and selected estrogens in municipal wastewater
treatment plant influent and effluent. Samples were collected from 12 Ontario treatment plants
that employed lagoons, activated sludge, and activated sludge with filtration treatment systems.
All samples were filtered 1.2 um glass fiber filter paper before extraction and GC/MS analysis.
Hydrophobic compounds may sorb to the filters and be lost from the sample, so measured
concentrations of these compounds may be erroneously low. EPA notes that the low
concentration bias would apply to both influent and effluent samples, so the effect on calculated
percent removal is ambiguous. EPA further notes that it has not screened all reviewed references
for sample handling procedures. For these reasons, EPA has not excluded this study from the
CECs Removals Database.
In addition to removals, investigators calculated per capita generation rates for commonly
detected compounds. The study demonstrates that there are detectable levels of PPCPs entering
Canadian waterways at trace levels, and that only some of these compounds are being reduced in
a significant proportion by municipal wastewater treatment processes.
5. Clara, M.; N. Kreuzingera; B. Strenna; O. Gansb; H. Kroissa. The Solids
Retention TimeA Suitable Design Parameter to Evaluate the Capacity of
Wastewater Treatment Plants to Remove Micropollutants. 2005. Water Research.
39:97-106.
This study was part of EU-funded POSEIDON Project and partly funded by the Austrian
government. Researchers studied the removal of four hormones, four pharmaceuticals, and
bisphenol A in pilot- and full-scale treatment plants to identify substances for which a critical
solid retention time (SRT) can be defined. Nine systems, including six full-scale activated sludge
wastewater treatment systems with varying SRTs and three MBR pilot systems with varying
SRTs, were studied.
Researchers found that some compounds (e.g., the antiepileptic drug carbamazepine) were not
removed in any of the sampled treatment facilities. Removal of other compounds (diclofenac and
17a-ethinylestradiol) was variable and researchers concluded that SRT is not the only factor
affecting removals. Researchers found a strong correlation between achievable effluent
concentrations and SRT for bisphenol-A, ibuprofen, bezafibrate and the natural estrogens. For
these compounds, they found a critical SRT of approximately 10 days, which corresponds to the
SRT for nitrogen removal (nitrification, denitrification).
D-3
-------
6. Clara, M.; B. Strenn; O. Gans; E. Martinez; N. Kreutzinger; and H. Kroiss.
Removal of Selected Pharmaceuticals, Fragrances and Endocrine Disrupting
Compounds in a Membrane Bioreactor and Conventional Wastewater Treatment
Plants. 2005. Water Research 39: 4797-4807.
This study was part of EU-funded POSEIDON Project and partly funded by the Austrian
government. The study compared the performance of a pilot-scale MBR to conventional
activated sludge plants operated at different SRTs. Researchers measured the concentrations of
eight Pharmaceuticals, two polycyclic musk fragrances, and nine alkylphenols and alkylphenol
ethoxylates (APEs) in treatment plant influent and effluent. They found no difference between in
removal of target compounds by MBR and activated sludge. The ultrafiltration membranes used
in the MBR did not improve removal of target compounds. Some compounds (e.g., the
antiepileptic drug carbamazepine) were not removed in any of the sampled treatment facilities.
Other compounds (e.g., bisphenol-A and ibuprofen) were nearly completely removed. Activated
sludge plants operated at the longer SRTs used for nitrogen removal increased the removal of
other compouds, (e.g, APEs). An unknown amount of the removal of APEs and musk
compounds is likely attributable to adsorption to solids.
D-4
------- |