Addressing Public Health and Environmental Risks

Transcription

1 Addressing Public Health and Environmental Risks

2 2

3 3

4 Impact Levels 10 μg/l nonylphenols (NPs): gonad abnormalities in Medaka minnows (Balch & Metcalfe, 2006, Chemosphere) 5 25 ng/l Estradiol (E2): Vitellogenin induction in male Zebrafish (Brion, 2004, Aquat. Tox.) 4 ng/l Ethinyl Estradiol (EE2): slows fathead minnow population growth and reproduction (Grist, 2003, ES&T) 5 ng/l EE2 collapses fish population (Kidd et al, 2007, PNAS) 4

5 Septic System Concentrations NPEOs (μg/l) NPs (μg/l) E1 (ng/l) E2 (ng/l) E3 (ng/l) Conn et al. (2006) n/a n/a n/a Swartz et al. (2006) 4.8 (tank) 5.0 (GW) 16 (tank) 84 (GW) 74 (tank) 120 (GW) 19 (tank) 45 (GW) n/a Rudel et al. (1998) 11, n/a n/a n/a Stanford and Weinberg (2010) n/a 2,

6 Septic Systems Septic systems are sources of nutrients and trace contaminants Nutrients may drive treatment upgrades before TOrCs! 6

7 Analysis in vitro in vivo instrumental O Si O (mainlib) Trimethylsilylestrone A A E1 E2 EE2 E3 Exposure Estrogen Concentration (ng/l) NPs E1 E2 EE2 E3 YES Data NPs Concentration ( g/l) EEQ (ng/l) by YES Concentration (ng/l) Log Scale 0 Main Tank Pump Tank 1 Aerobic Sand 1 Aerobic Sand 2 Post UV 0-20 Outcome 7

8 Risk = Exposure x Toxicity = + 8

9 What is the Context for Risk? Food Exposure Air Exposure Water Exposure Health Endpoints Cancer Non-Cancer 9

10 Human Health/Risks AwwaRF/WateReuse Foundation Tailored Collaboration: Toxicological Relevance of EDCs and Pharmaceuticals in Water Projects 3085/ Estrogenic Activity of U.S. Drinking Waters: A Relative Exposure Comparison, Stanford et al. (JAWWA, 2010) 10

11 Relative Comparisons E-Screen in vitro assay Food/beverage items Bottled water Soy sauce Beer Tea Coffee Apple/vegetable juice Milk (cow/soy based) Baby formula Wastewater 11

12 Is Estrogenic Activity Appropriate for Risk? Per Volume EEq (ng/l) Serving Per Serving Med Min Max Freq Size (ml) EEq (ng)* Source Water /18 -- n/a Raw Water /17 -- n/a Drinking Water / Bottled Water < 0.16 < 0.16 < /5 240 < 0.16 Apple Juice / Beer / Coffee** / Green Tea / Infant Formula / Milk / Soy Infant Formula 1,700 1,500 1,900 2/ Soy Milk 4,000 1,900 4,200 3/ ,000 Soy Sauce / Vegetable Juice / * *Per serving amount based on onmaximum reported concentrations ** ** Purchased pre-brewed; matrix matric too complex to toobstain obtainindividual analyte data data 12

13 Eeq Comparison ( worst WWTP) 1 cup coffee (17 ng/l, 240 ml) 890 ml Secondary Wastewater (4.6 ng/l) 1 Liter Secondary Teaspoon of Soy Sauce Wastewater (300 ng/l, 15 ml) (4.6 ng/l) Soy Baby Formula (1,700 ng/l, 4 oz Bottle) 44 Liters of Secondary Wastewater (4.6 ng/l) 13

14 Typical day for average adult, per serving Breakfast Lunch Dinner 2 Cups coffee = 8.2 ng Glass of Juice = 0.2 ng Glass of milk = 0.1 ng Est. Total Daily intake of EEq = 15.9 ng Sushi w/ soy sauce = 4.5 ng Glass of beer = 2.2 ng Cup of tea = 0.7 ng 14

15 Toxicological Relevance = 50 ng/kg = 3500 ng/70 Kg person 15

16 Phytoestrogens Can Predict Estrogenic Activity Daidzein 23% 4.5 Genistein 20% Naringenin 31% log (Measured EEq) Other 10% Apigenin 16% y = 1.02x R 2 = log (Predicted EEq) 16

17 Detection in Water and Food & Beverage Items Max Concentrations, ng/l Bisphenol A Atrazine Nonylphenol Estradiol Raw Finished < 0.5 Distribution < < 0.5 Bottled Water < 5 < 0.25 < 80 < 0.5 Apple Juice < 50 < 10 26,000 < 100 Vegetable Juice < 250 < 20 1,300 < 5 Green Tea < 50 < 10 1,600 < 10 Beer < 1,000 < 50 2,400 < 100 Cow's Milk < 125 < 10 < 1,250 < 100 Soy Milk < 125 < 10 4,500 < 20 Dairy Formula 5,600 < 50 < 10,000 < 20 Soy Formula 5,400 < 50 11,000 < 20 Soy Sauce < 2.5 < ,000 < 1 Breastmilk* 1,900*???? 8,000 to 19,000** *Ye, 2006 **Choi, 2002 Note: Atrazine MCL = 3,000 ng/l in Water; RfD = 2.45 mg/day for average adult 17

18 Toxicological Relevance Conc. WATER Exposure (2 L/day) Conc. INDOOR AIR Exposure (24 m 3 /day) (μg/l) (μg) (μg/m 3 ) (μg) BHT TCPP (Fyrol PCF) Galaxolide Butylbenzyl phthalate Nonylphenol

19 Health Based MRLs Chemical X Divide therapeutic dose by 3,000 Divide by 10 if nongenotoxic carcinogen or 10 if EDC Pharmaceutical? No Yes A Divide NOAEL by 1,000 or LOAEL by 3,000 Divide by 10 if nongenotoxic carcinogen or 10 if EDC Select lowest value Available NOAELs or LOAELs, or genotoxic carcinogen? Yes Genotoxic carcinogen? Follow A & select lowest value Yes If tumor data are available, derive SF and screening level using 10-6 risk; if no tumor data, use lower of VSD or Cheeseman et al. (1999) TTC No Apply Cheeseman et al. (1999) TTC approach WRF

20 Monitoring Trigger Levels (MTLs) Endpoint Compound Concentration Uncertain PASS Risk MCL, 1/10,000 or 1/1,000 risk Calculated DWG, 1/1,000,000 risk Calculated MTL = DWG/100 Lowest Method Detection Level 20

21 Method Reporting Limits (MRLs) and Monitoring Trigger Level (MTLs) from Drinking Water Guidelines (DWGs): MTL = DWG/100 Method Reporting Limit Australian DWG DWG/100 Snyder, Stanford, et al. DWG (ng/l) (ng/l) (ng/l) (ng/l) (ng/l) Atrazine 1 40, , Carbamazepine 1 100,000 1, DEET 1 2,500,000 25,000 n/a n/a Diazepam 1 2, Diclofenac 1 2, , Dilantin 1 n/a n/a n/a n/a Estradiol Estrone Ethynylestradiol Fluoxetine 1 10, , Gemfibrozil 1 600,000 6,000 11, Meprobamate 1 45, , Naproxen 1 220,000 2,200 45, Progesterone 1 105,000 1,050 n/a n/a Sulfamethoxazole 1 35, ,000 1,500 Testosterone 1 7, n/a n/a Trimethoprim 1 70, , Snyder, Stanford, et al. DWG /

22 Finished Water for 18 Drinking Water Treatment Facilities Compound Max (ng/l) Median (ng/l) Frequency (%) Atrazine* Meprobamate Dilantin Atenolol Carbamazepine Gemfibrozil TCEP DEET Metolachlor TCPP (Fyrol PCF) Sulfamethoxazole MRL < 0.01 μg/l MRL < 0.05 μg/l MRL < 0.1 μg/l MRL < 1 μg/l 22

23 Impacts on Time Series Data: WaterRF 4260 Data Adjusted to Monitoring Trigger Levels 23

24 24

25 Method Reporting Limits based on MTL Max Drinking Water Conc. (µg/l) DWEL (µg/l) Liters per day to meet DWEL Method MRL (µg/l) Recommended MRL (µg/l) Phenytoin Carbamazepine , Fluoxetine , Diazepam , Gemfibrozil , Atenolol , Meprobamate , Bisphenol A , , Nonylphenol ,800 35, Sulfamethoxazole ,000 12,000,

26 Water Reuse Perspective: Multi-Barrier Treatment to Manage Unknown Unknowns --Full Advanced Treatment Secondary or Tertiary Effluent Microfiltration Reverse Osmosis AOP Backwash Waste Concentrate Product to Chlorine Contact, Water Treatment Plant, or Distribution System 26

27 Water Reuse Perspective: Multi-Barrier Treatment to Manage Unknown Unknowns --Non-Membrane Approach 27

28 Summary No substance is a poison by itself. It is the dose that makes a substance a poison... Paracelsus ( ) Risk = Toxicity x Exposure 28

29 Relevant Questions What s an appropriate reporting level? What do we do with the data once they are collected? How do we discuss risk? How do we provide context for making informed treatment choices about EDCs / PPCPs? 29

30 Human Health Effects UNLIKELY because Compounds not bio-accumulative Environmental concentrations are orders of magnitude below therapeutic dose Therapeutic dose established through rigorous testing Lifetime exposure to environmental concentrations <<< therapeutic dose BUT: Compounds bioactive by design Exposure of unknown types and concentrations of drugs, plus nonhuman drugs and other compounds Exposure to mixtures Duration of exposure long-term and possibly including sensitive periods Sensitive sub-populations 30

31 The Climate Change Cycle: Water Quality, Treatment, and Energy 31