View
1
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Assessing the Impact of AnthropogenicDischarges on Endocrine Disruption in thePotomac River WatershedErik Rosenfeldt, Ph.D., P.E.
2
Project Driver: Intersex fish in Potomac Watersheds
Chesapeake Bay News Aug 09 2012Intersex fish widespread in Potomac River basin
Intersex Fish Now in Three Pennsylvania River BasinsReleased: 6/30/2014 7:00:00 AMhttp://www.usgs.gov/newsroom
3
Potomac Observations of EDC Activity
Associations of Land‐use with Intersex (Spawning Study 2007)
Site HumanDensity1 WWTP2 WWTP
Flow3%
Ag4 AFO5 Animal
Numbers6 Intersex7
GauleyRiver 0.06 0 0 0.5 0 464
11.3%0.02 (0.07)
South BranchPetersburg 0.07 3 0.95 16.4
296 (296) 1,450,120
74.3%0.97 (0.95)
South BranchMoorefield 0.07 4 1.43 15.2
497 (496) 7,384,685
54.5%0.50 (0.50)
South BranchSpringfield 0.08 5 1.93 15.2
565 (562) 8,719,093
82.2%1.02 (0.76)
ShenandoahNorth Fork 0.28 50 1.59 32.7
1,174(960) 11,757,596
90.0%1.16 (0.78)
ShenandoahMainstem 0.43 101 25.66 32.6
3,655 (2,539) 33,928,442
93.0%1.64 (0.93)
ShenandoahSouth Fork 0.56 19 20.84 35.9
2,029(1,176) 14,788,173
100.0%1.83 (0.65)
ConococheagueCreek (lower) 0.69 13 8.31 50.3
10 (1) 1,819,225
87.5%1.03 (0.78)
4
Impacts of Point and Non-point SourcesComparing Land Use and Observed Intersex Activity
Land Use in the Potomac Watershed
Modified from Blazer et al., 2011
5
Xenoestrogen: a type of xenohormone that imitates estrogen; steroidal estrogens
Alkylphenol:
Bisphenol A
a family of organic compounds obtained by the alkylation of phenols
estradiol (E2), estrone (E1),
estriol (E3)
Substances in our environment, food, and consumer products that interfere with hormone biosynthesis, metabolism, or action resulting in a deviation from normal homeostatic control or reproduction.
Introduction – Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs):
6
Project Team – A unique collaboration
Sudhir Murthy, Ph.D., P.E., BCEEDC Water
Sujay Kaushal,Ph.D., U. of Maryland
Luke Iwanowicz,Ph.D., USGS
Diana Aga, Ph.D.U. of Buffalo
Erik Rosenfeldt, Ph.D., P.E.Hazen and Sawyer
Shuiwang Duan, Ph.D., U. of Maryland
Katia M. N. Oviedo, PhD candidate, U. of Buffalo
7
Evaluate the upstream and downstream impacts from nutrient control, agriculture management, stormwatermanagement and wastewater treatment strategies
Project Objective 1
Wastewater treatment (WWTP)
Combined sewer overflow (CSO)
Agriculture management
NO agriculture management
Stormwater management (Urban)
NO stormwater management
Upstream site
Downstream site
8
Evaluate Impacts of EDC in receiving waters attributed to point versus non-point sources
Point sources(WWTP, CSO)
Non-Point sources
(Agricultural, urban runoff)
??
Project Objective 2
Potomac River EDCs and Activity
9
Analytical Detection• Hormones
andmetabolites
Advanced NOM Characterization• Fluorometry
Methods – Chemical and WQ Endpoints
Estrogen
EstrogenReceptor
ActivatedReceptor
§-galactosidaseenzyme
Nucleus
Cytoplasm
hER
PGKpromoter
ERE
Lac-Z2
1
3
46
5
ONPG
colorless
ONPG
YellowMedium
Bioactivity: Yeast Estrogen Assay
Nitrate Isotopes• Source Tracking
10
Phase 1 Sampling
Locations include: “Paired” Watershed Samples
With and Without BMPs
Agriculture Urban CSO Blue Plains WWTP Additional WWTP
Sampling Frequency is bimonthly for 1 year + 1 rain event
Fencing installation began in 2006 (visible erosion).
In autumn 2007 with fencing in place, the riparian area is reverting back to its natural state.
Decreases in TP concentrations
Agricultural BMPs
• Fencing• Spring to replace in-stream
cattle watering • Stream crossings• plantings of cool season
grasses..
Result: • streambank stability
improved. • Phosphorus concentrations
declined
12
Constructed Wetlands Stormwater Runoff Control Pond
Tributary Stream Restoration
Urban BMPs (Sligo Creek)
Results: Effect of Best Management Practices (BMPs) on Agricultural and Urban Runoff Inputs
05
10152025
Mar May Jul Sep Nov
DOC (m
g L‐1)
0
5
10
TDN (m
g L‐1)
0
100
200
SRP (µg L‐1)
0
1
2
3
Estron
e (ng L‐1)
0
0.5
1
1.5
↓69%
0
2
4
6↓16%
0
50
100
150↓ 62%
02468
10
↓59%
0246810
Mar May Jul Sep Nov
0
1
2
0
20
40
60
80
0
1
2
3
0
0.5
1
1.5
↓ 44%
0
0.5
1
1.5↓ 4%
0
10
20
30
40↓64%
01234567
↓27%
0100200300400500
Agr_NoBMPAgr_BMP
SC (µ
S cm
‐1)
0
100
200
300
400
500
Agr_NoBMPAgr_BMP
↓4%
0
200
400
600
800
Urb_NoBMPUrb_BMP
0
100
200
300
400
500
Urb_NoBMPUrb_BMP
↓ 6%
14
YES Comparison - BMPs
00.5
11.5
22.5
EE
Q (n
g/L)
Agriculture Sites
BMP No BMP
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
March May July SeptemberSeptember(storm)
EE
Q (n
g/L)
Urban Sites
BMP No BMP
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
March May July September September(storm)
EE
Q (n
g/L)
CSO Site
Upstream CSO Effluent Downstream
7.8 ng/L
50 – 90% Reductions
75 – 98% Reductions
15
Results: CSO Impact on Water Quality
0246810
DOC (m
g L‐1)
01234567
TDN (m
g L‐1)
050100150200250
SRP (µg L‐1)
01234567
Estron
e (ng L‐1)
0
1
2
3
0
2
4
0
50
100
150
012345
0
300
600
900 Series4CSO_effCSO_up
SC (µ
S cm
‐‐1)
0
1
2
3 CSO_effCSO_upCSO_down
16
Results: Effect of Point Source Effluent
02468101214
Mar May Jul Sep Nov
DOC (m
g L‐1)
0
1
2
3
TDN (m
g L‐1)
0
50
100
SRP (µg L‐1)
0
0.5
1
Estron
e (ng L‐1)
0
0.5
1
0
1
2
0
20
40
60
80
0246810
0246810
Mar May Jul Sep Nov
0
1
2
3
0
40
80
120
0
2
4
6
0
1
2
0
1
2
3
0
20
40
60
80
01234567
0
300
600
900
BP_effBP_upBP_down
EC (µ
S cm
‐1)
0
200
400
600
800
BP_effBP_upBP_down
0
300
600
900
WP2_effWP2_upWP2_down
0
200
400
600
800
WP2_effWP2_upWP2_down
17
2nd
Nitrification/Denitrification
Effluent
Wastewater treatment plants
18
Blue Plains Impact
051015202530
DOC (m
g L‐1 )
BP_2ndBP_nitriBP_eff
0
20
40
TDN (m
g L‐1 )
BP_2ndBP_nitriBP_eff
0
50
100
SRP (µg L‐1 )
BP_2ndBP_nitriBP_eff
0
100
200 BP_2ndBP_nitriBP_eff
Estron
e (ng L‐1)
0
50
100
↓99.6%
0
10
20
30
↓91%
0
50
100
↑125%
0
5
10
15
20
↓52%
BD0.6 0.8 0.90.4
BD 0.2 0.00.50.1 0.5
0.6
7.0
0123456789
10
EE
Q (n
g/L)
Upstream Plant Effluent Downstream
Above Range
Estrogenic Activity
Water Quality
19
Correlations between EDCs and WQ
20
Correlations between EDCs and WQ
21
Source Tracking via Nutrient Isotopes
Blue PlainsUrban
WP2
Agri.
CSO
Potomac R.
22
Overlaying EDCs on Nutrient Fingerprints
23
Overlaying EDCs on Organic Matter Fingerprints
24
Conclusions
Low level estrogenic activity found throughout the PotomacEstrone was the most common EDC detected• Effectively removed by wastewater treatmentCSOs showed limited observed impact, except after the heavy rain eventNonpoint urban and agricultural sources served as continual sources• BMPs were capable of significantly reducing estrogenic activityLimited correlations between typical water quality parameters and EDCs/EDC activity• Advanced metrics showing promise
25
EEQ/POCIS
0 10 20 30M
ass
(pes
ticid
es; n
g/P
OC
IS)
-500
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500r2=0.48
EEQ/POCIS
0 10 20 30
Mas
s (s
tero
id h
orm
one;
ng/
PO
CIS
)
-40
-20
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140r2=0.93
Pesticide
Steroid hormones
Baby Steps Towards Co-management of Pollutants?
Square root total density AFOs (#/1000 acres)
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
Log
mea
n co
ncen
tratio
n E2
Eq (n
g/L)
-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
Agriculture
Permitted flow WWTP effluent (MGD)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8Lo
g m
ean
conc
entra
tion
E2Eq
(ng/
L)-1.0
-0.8
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0.0
0.2
0.4
WWTP Effluent
Shenandoah Drainage, 2009
Ciparis et al. (2012) Effects of watershed densities of animal feeding operations on nutrient concentrations and estrogenic activity in agricultural streams. Science of the Total Environment, 414: 268-276
26
Next Steps: Justin will discuss in greater detail
27
Sample Collection, Processing, and Analysis
Analytical Chemistry
Biological Activity Assays
Triple Bottom Line Analysis
Program Management
Data Analysis
Prioritization Framework
Technical Advisor
Amit Pramanik, Ph.D.Theresa Connor, P.E.
WERF
Shuiwang Duan, Ph.D.Lab Technical StaffUniversity of Maryland
Sujay Kaushal, Ph.D.University of Maryland P.I.
M.S. Student, TBAVirginia Tech
Tom Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E.Virginia Tech co-P.I.
Diana Aga, Ph.D.University of Buffalo
Analytical and Bioanalytical Support
Luke Iwanowicz, Ph.D.USGS
Engineering and Management Support
Sudhir Murthy, Ph.D., P.E.DC Water
Erik Rosenfeldt, Ph.D., P.E.Hazen and Sawyer
Core Team Member Project Responsibilities
Another exciting collaboration
28
EPA STAR Timeline
Year 1 (July 2016 – June 2017)Identify and track spatial and temporal variations in “hot spots”
Year 2 (July 2017 – June 2018)Focused study on impact and outcomes of reclamation, reuse, harvesting, and management strategies on sources of pollutants
Year 3 (July 2018 – June 2019)Quantitative assessment of costs, benefits, and impact of advanced reclamation, reuse, harvesting, and management practices on human and ecological health in the Potomac
29
Distilling it down a bit further
Non-Point SourceAgriculture
UrbanPoint
Source BackgroundEDCsNutrientsPathogens?
Land Use in the Potomac Watershed
OWML – Site of May 23rd “unofficial” Project Kickoff Meeting
30
Questions?
erosenfeldt@hazenandsawyer.com
Recommended