A review of the effects of emerging contaminants in wastewater and options for their removal

During the last three decades, the impact of chemical pollution has focused almost exclusively on the conventional "priority" pollutants, especially those acutely toxic/carcinogenic pesticides and industrial intermediates displaying persistence in the environment. This spectrum of chemicals, however, is only one piece of the larger puzzle in "holistic" risk assessment. Another diverse group of bioactive chemicals receiving comparatively little attention as potential environmental pollutants includes the pharmaceuticals and active ingredients in personal care products (in this review collectively termed PPCPs), both human and veterinary, including not just prescription drugs and biologics, but also diagnostic agents, "nutraceuticals," fragrances, sun-screen agents, and numerous others. These compounds and their bioactive metabolites can be continually introduced to the aquatic environment as complex mixtures via a number of routes but primarily by both untreated and treated sewage. Aquatic pollution is particularly troublesome because aquatic organisms are captive to continual life-cycle, multigenerational exposure. The possibility for continual but undetectable or unnoticed effects on aquatic organisms is particularly worrisome because effects could accumulate so slowly that major change goes undetected until the cumulative level of these effects finally cascades to irreversible change--change that would otherwise be attributed to natural adaptation or ecologic succession. As opposed to the conventional, persistent priority pollutants, PPCPs need not be persistent if they are continually introduced to surface waters, even at low parts-per-trillion/parts-per-billion concentrations (ng-microg/L). Even though some PPCPs are extremely persistent and introduced to the environment in very high quantities and perhaps have already gained ubiquity worldwide, others could act as if they were persistent, simply because their continual infusion into the aquatic environment serves to sustain perpetual life-cycle exposures for aquatic organisms. This review attempts to synthesize the literature on environmental origin, distribution/occurrence, and effects and to catalyze a more focused discussion in the environmental science community.

The potential occurrence of endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) as well as pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in drinking water supplies raises concern over the removal of these compounds by common drinking water treatment processes. Three drinking water supplies were spiked with 10 to 250 ng/L of 62 different EDC/ PPCPs; one model water containing an NOM isolate was spiked with 49 different EDC/PPCPs. Compounds were detected by LC/MS/MS or GC/MS/MS. These test waters were subjected to bench-scale experimentation to simulate individual treatment processes in a water treatment plant (WTP). Aluminum sulfate and ferric chloride coagulants or chemical lime softening removed some polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) but removed 98% of GC/ MS/MS compounds (more volatile) and 10% to >95% of LC/ MS/MS compounds (more polar); higher PAC dosages improved EDC/PPCP removal. EDC/PPCP percentage removal was independent of the initial compound concentration. Octanol-water partition coefficients served as a reasonable indicator of compound removal under controlled PAC test conditions, except for EDC/PPCPs that were protonated or deprotonated at the test pH and some that contained heterocyclic or aromatic nitrogen. Separate chlorine or ozone experiments decreased the EDC/PPCP initial concentration by 90%; EDC/PPCPs were likely transformed to oxidation byproducts. Ozone oxidized steroids containing phenolic moieties (estradiol, ethynylestradiol, or estrone) more efficiently than those without aromatic or phenolic moieties (androstenedione, progesterone, and testosterone). EDC/PPCP reactivity with oxidants were separated into three general groups: (1) compounds easily oxidized (>80% reacted) by chlorine are always oxidized at least as efficiently by ozone; (2) 6 of the -60 compounds (TCEP, BHC, chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor epoxide, musk ketone) were poorly oxidized (<20% reacted) by chlorine or ozone; (3) compounds (24 of 60) reacting preferentially (higher removals) with ozone rather than chlorine. Conventional treatment (coagulation plus chlorination) would have low removal of many EDC/PPCPs, while addition of PAC and/or ozone could substantially improve their removals. Existing strategies that predict relative removals of herbicides, pesticides, and other organic pollutants by activated carbon or oxidation can be directly applied for the removal of many EDC/PPCPs, but these strategies need to be modified to account for charged (protonated bases or deprotonated acids) and aliphatic species. Some compounds (e.g., DEET, ibuprofen, gemfibrozil) had low removals unless ozonation was used. Other compounds had low removals by all the WTP processes considered (atrazine, iopromide, meprobamate, TCEP), and removal processes capable of removing these types of compounds should be investigated.

The incomplete rejection of certain pesticides, disinfection by-products, endocrine disrupting compounds, and pharmaceutically active compounds has been reported during full- and pilot-scale high-pressure membrane applications. Since the removal of these compounds in water and wastewater treatment applications is of great importance where a high product water quality is desired, an understanding of the factors affecting the permeation of solutes in high-pressure membrane systems is needed. In this paper, findings of a comprehensive literature review are reported, targeting membrane rejection mechanisms and factors affecting rejection. The following key solute parameters were identified to primarily affect solute rejection: molecular weight (MW), molecular size (length and width), acid disassociation constant (pKa), hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity (log Kow), and diffusion coefficient (Dp). Key membrane properties affecting rejection that were identified include molecular weight cut-off, pore size, surface charge (measured as zeta potential), hydrophobicity/hydrophilicity (measured as contact angle), and surface morphology (measured as roughness). In addition, feed water composition, such as pH, ionic strength, hardness, and the presence of organic matter, was also identified as having an influence on solute rejection. From the knowledge gained during the literature review, a rejection diagram was proposed, which qualitatively allows prediction of solute rejection if certain solute and membrane properties are known.