Download - ACS Boston seminar presentation 2015
Samuel D. Supowit, Akash M. Sadaria, Edward J. Reyes, Rolf U. Halden
Mass balance of fipronil in a wastewater treatment train and engineered wetland
GLOBAL SECURITY INITIATIVE
Fiproles
2
Fipronil Sulfide Sulfone Amide Desulfinyl
Rationale • Fipronil is a high production chemical
• Banned for use on rice in China, 2009
• It has been banned for most agricultural uses in the E.U., 2013
3
4
• Implicated in colony collapse disorder
• Highly toxic to bees
LD50 = 1-6 ng/bee
Rationale
Compound
Procambarusa Hyalella aztecab Diphetor hagenib 33 OC urban
water conc.
(µg/L)
Half-life
31 LC50 (µg/L) 30 LC50 (µg/L)
30 EC50 (µg/L)
30 LC50 (µg/L)
30 EC50 (µg/L)
34 Silt loam (d)
35 Facultative conditions (d)
Fipronil 14.3-19.5 1.3-2.0 0.65-0.83 0.20-0.57 0.11-0.21 0.05-0.39 21±0.15 -
-desulfinyl 68.6 - - - - 0.05-0.13 - 217-497
-sulfide 15.5 1.1-1.7 0.007-0.003 - - ND >200 195-352
-sulfone 11.2 0.35-0.92 0.12-0.31 0.19-0.54 0.055-0.13 0.05-0.19 >200 502-589
aProcambarus species were clarkii and zonangulus. bValues for H. azteca and D. hageni are the 95% confidence interval. OC – Orange County, California
ND – non detect
1
Rationale
5 http://www.actbeyondtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/IUCN2013sympo03_sluijs.pdf
Rationale
6
• Plants uptake and translocate pesticides through their xylem, providing an indirect route of exposure to non-target foragers and pollinators
Rationale
7
• Plants uptake and translocate pesticides through their xylem, providing an indirect route of exposure to non-target foragers and pollinators
Rationale • Fiprole
degradate fate in WWTPs not assessed in literature.
• Only one study assessed fipronil in influent, effluent, biosolids.
8
Background
• In a prior study, Heidler & Halden (2009) determined 18 ± 22 % aqueous removal of fipronil in a conventional WWTP.
• Are similarly toxic degradates formed?
9
Objective
• Perform a mass balance for fiproles over a wastewater treatment train and engineered wetland, screening for heretofore unexamined metabolites.
– Use isotope dilution and standard addition for quality control to produce high prec. data.
10
Specific Aims 1. Develop analytical methods for assessing
fiproles in WWTP matrices (influent, effluent, sludge).
2. Design a sampling campaign in order to determine the fate of fiproles across primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment.
3. Perform a mass balance for fiproles over a WW treatment train and engineered wetland.
11
• Fiproles are largely resistant to degradation in treatment.
Hypothesis
12
• Fiproles are largely resistant to degradation in treatment.
• If parent compound “disappears,” degradates form in treatment.
• Biosolids have more sulfide.
• WAS has more sulfone.
• Wetland has more amide.
Hypothesis
13
WWTP
Sampling plan • Locations
14
PP
Wetland
River
= =
Primary sedimentation
basins
Secondary sedimentation
basins
Headworks Aeration
basins
PS Thickening Centrifuge
WAS Thickening Centrifuge
Acid Phase
Methane Phase
DS Thickening Centrifuge
Centrate Treatment
Disinfection
ISCO 6700 and 6712 • Incremental sampling
program to approximate flow pattern
20 mL increments at designated times
2.5 L composites
15
Experimental design • Extraction (water)
16
1000 mL
WAS & PS
500 mg/3 mL Strata XL 4 mL eluate x 2
LC-MS/MS
Concentrations calculated by both standard addition and isotope dilution
Experimental design
• Extraction (solids)
17
Surrogate addition
Acetone extraction
Shake Centrifuge Solvent
switch to hexane
Cleanup on Florisil
Analyze by
LC-MS/MS
Method performance
18
Chemical
Wastewater Solids
Spiking
level
(pg/L)
MDL
(pg/L)
Relative
recovery
(%)
Absolute
recovery
(%)
Spiking
level
(pg/g)
MDL
(pg/g)
Relative
recovery
(%)
Absolute
recovery
(%)
Fipronil 100 46 116 ± 14 60 ± 14 50 19 120 ± 13 55 ± 18
-Sulfide 300 159 N/A 67 ± 13 150 144 N/A 48 ± 18
-Sulfone 200 72 N/A 101 ± 19 100 98 N/A 89 ± 32
-Amide 500 304 N/A 87 ± 22 250 88 N/A 90 ± 21
-Desulfinyl 1000 773 N/A 78 ± 15 500 242 N/A 85 ± 15
N/A ≡ Not applicable
1
Table 1. Spike levels, detection limits, and recoveries of fiproles extracted from surrogate wastewater and sludge matrices (n = 7).
Figure 1. (Right) Chromatograms of five fiproles extracted from spiked (20 ng/g nominal) and unspiked dewatered sludge, after cleanup on Florisil and elution with 4 mL DCM. Primary ion transitions are shown at top, and secondary (qualitative) transitions at bottom. *Fipronil-desulfinyl was analyzed by GC-MS/MS.
ESI negative mode C8 column
Sampling
19
Sampling
20
Sampling
21
Results
22
Figure 2. Concentrations of fiproles in (A) WWTP influent, (B) WWTP effluent (wetland influent), (C) wetland effluent, and (D) biosolids. Biosolids concentrations are normalized to 1 g dry weight. Error bars represent max and min values for water streams (n = 2), and standard deviation for biosolids (n = 3).
Co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
ng/
L)
WWTP influent
WWTP effluent
Wetland effluent
Biosolids
Results
23
Figure 3. Fiprole mass distribution in three WW streams. The most abundant congener in all three streams is fipronil. The amide and desulfinyl degradates were not detected in these streams.
Results – parent compound mass balance
24
1.1 ± 0.1% adsorbed to WAS
25 ± 3% transformed 74 ± 3% passed
through to disinfection
basin effluent
Fipronil mass balance over treatment train Fipronil mass balance over wetland
44 ± 4% transformed or
accumulated
56 ± 4% passed through
Figure 4. Fipronil mass balance over treatment train from primary treatment to disinfection (left) and engineered wetland (right).
Accounted for by degradates
Not accounted for by degradates
Results – total fiproles over treatment train
77 ± 11 73 ± 11 83 ± 24
0.09 68 ± 6 1.4 ± 0.003
Qx ≡ Combined flow from other treatment trains
Figure 5. Treatment train total 5-day fiprole load in mmol.
Results – individual fiproles
26
Figure 6. Fiprole mass loads (in mmol) in wastewater streams over the course of five days. Direction of water flow is from left to right, (primary influent to disinfection basin effluent). Error bars represent high and low values from two experimental replicates. The bars on top are enlarged portions of the histogram on the bottom, in order to make fipronil-desulfinyl masses visible. Fipronil-desulfinyl concentrations are estimated, near the detection limit. Sludge streams are omitted, as their mass contributions are negligible (n = 2 ). m
mo
l
Results
27
Figure 7. (A) Average daily mass loads of fiproles over five days, where error bars represent standard deviations (n = 10). (B) Daily mass loads of wetland (WL) influent and effluent streams on days 1 and 5, respectively, where error bars represent max/min values (n = 2); the hydraulic retention time of the wetland was 4.7 days. The right-hand y-axis is expressed as grams of fipronil per day.
47 ± 13% total fiprole reduction
No discernable change
Discussion • Total fiprole mass discharge = 7.9 Σf g/day (into wetland)
= 6.3 lb/yr
Calculating annual mass discharge
20𝑛𝑔𝐿
× 3.785 𝐿𝑔𝑎𝑙
× 106𝑔𝑎𝑙𝑀𝐺
× 75𝑀𝐺𝑑
× 365𝑑
× 10−12𝑘𝑔𝑛𝑔
× 2.2 𝑙𝑏𝑘𝑔
= 𝟒. 𝟔 𝒍𝒃
Discussion
30
• The entire volume of AG fipronil in the U.K. during peak use was about 124 kg/yr (273 lb/yr)
• The estimated, extrapolated discharge by US WWTPs is 520 kg/yr (1140 lb/yr)
Discussion
31
While the amount of fipronil inadvertently discharged into the environment in the form of treated wastewater is alarmingly high, it is unclear how wastewater contributes to the fiprole pollen loads in angiosperms, the body burdens of aquatic organisms, or the toxicological effects for other non-target organisms. Further research is needed to link the fiprole load in wastewater effluents to plant uptake and non-target organism exposure and effects.
Conclusions
•Conventional wastewater treatment is not efficient at removing fiproles.
•Reduction in parent compound mass may coincide with degradate formation (sulfone, in particular).
•Total fiprole levels re-entering the environment from wastewater treatment are toxicologically relevant and may impact biota.
32
Future research needed
• Modeling uptake of fiproles in plants and food chain
• Risk assessment needed in order to determine ecotoxicological effects
33
Acknowledgements
• Dr. Rolf Halden, PI
• Dr. Arjun Venkatesan
• Akash Sadaria
• Edward Reyes
• Top secret collaborators
34
Questions
35