NSF 401 – Emerging Compounds/Incidental Contaminants - Update

May 14, 2014

Stephen VerStrat

NSF 401

• Focus on Emerging and/or Incidental Drinking Water Contaminants

• Encompasses Active Media and RO Technologies

• Harmonized with DWTU Standards for Material Safety, Structural Integrity…

• Performance Testing/Product Exposure Consistent with NSF/ANSI Standards 53 and 58

NSF 401 Contaminants

SubstanceTarget Influent

(ng/L)Maximum

Effluent (ng/L)Meprobamate 400 60Phenytoin 200 30Atenolol 200 30Carbamazepine 1400 200TCEP 5000 700TCPP 5000 700DEET 1400 200Metolachlor 1400 200Trimethoprim 140 20Ibuprofen 400 60Naproxen 140 20Estrone 140 20Bisphenol A 2000 300Linuron 140 20Nonyl phenol 1400 200 Individual influent sample point limits : +/- 40%

Average influent challenge variance: +/- 20%

NSF 401 Ballot

• Formal Balloting of the Standard Occurred Late 2013• Results– Affirmative: 26 – Negative: 0 – Abstain: 2 – Not Returned: 1

Comments

• Six Comments Associated With Affirmative Votes– 3 Contingent on Successful Validation – 3 Relative to Material Safety (out of scope)

Validation• Task Group Has Opted to Form a Sub-Task

Group to Coordinate the Validation of the Standard

• Validation to Cover Active Media and RO Technologies

• Key Considerations– Quantifiable Limits, Reliability, Repeatability– Meeting Target Influent Challenge Levels– Stability of Challenge Water

Validation (cont)

• Challenges– Participation• 4 organizations to date

– Suitable Laboratories• Difficulty identifying laboratories with existing

methodologies to analyze to the target levels– Costs• Method Development• Analysis

Validation (cont)

• NSF Has Conducted a Number of Validation Tests Internally and Is Comfortable with the Ability to Produce a Stable Challenge Water Meeting the Parameters of the 401 Standard.

• For Active Media, Additional Validation Efforts Relative to the Unit Exposure and Product Water Collection Is Not Deemed Necessary Since this Has Been Established in Existing Standards.

Validation - Stability Recovery Over Study Recovery Over Study

Low Level Individual Mixture High Level Individual Mixture

Mixture Analyte (ng/L) (%) (%) (ng/L) (%) (%)

A Bisphenol A 100 106 83 500 97 79A Estrone 50 99 82 250 85 65A Ibuprofen 50 97 89 250 84 75A Naproxen 50 109 88 250 90 82B Atenolol 50 104 100 250 100 103B Carbamazepine 10 100 97 50 98 98B Linuron 200 110 111 1000 104 110B Meprobamate 50 109 104 250 109 109B Phenytoin 500 118 120 2500 107 122B Trimethoprim 20 91 94 100 91 90C DEET 20 103 99 100 102 99C Metolachlor 50 100 99 250 100 98C TCEP 100 116 119 500 101 114C TCPP 50 108 112 250 105 115X Nonyl phenol Mixture A was analyzed at 0, 1, 4, and 5 daysMixture B and C were analyzed at 0, 1, 2, 4, and 7 days

Validation - InfluentsSample Point

Analyte Target Units Startup 50% 100% 150% 180% 200%Ave

Influent% Std Dev

Phenytoin 200 ng/L 230 230 210 220 230 250 228 5.8%Ibuprofen 400 ng/L 410 450 430 430 420 470 435 5.0%Naproxen 140 ng/L 140 140 130 140 130 160 140 7.8%Estrone 140 ng/L 150 130 130 130 160 150 142 9.4%Bisphenol A 2000 ng/L 2000 1500 1600 1600 1800 2000 1750 12.4%Nonyl phenol 1400 ng/L 2700 1700 2000 2000 1900 1900 1900 6.4%Meprobamate 400 ng/L 390 420 390 480 420 420 420 7.8%Atenolol 200 ng/L 210 200 220 200 220 200 208 4.7%Carbamazepine 1400 ng/L 1500 1500 1600 1700 1700 1700 1617 6.1%DEET 1400 ng/L 1600 1500 1600 1700 1700 1900 1667 8.2%Metolachlor 1400 ng/L 1500 1500 1600 1700 1700 1800 1633 7.4%Trimethoprim 140 ng/L 150 150 150 160 160 160 155 3.5%Linuron 140 ng/L 140 140 140 150 150 160 147 5.6%

Validation - Effluents

Analyte Target UnitsMaximum Allowed

Maximum Observed

Phenytoin 200 ng/L 30 <10

Ibuprofen 400 ng/L 60 <20

Naproxen 140 ng/L 20 <5

Estrone 140 ng/L 20 <5

Bisphenol A 2000 ng/L 300 <20

Nonyl phenol 1400 ng/L 200 <50

Meprobamate 400 ng/L 60 <20

Atenolol 200 ng/L 30 <10

Carbamazepine 1400 ng/L 200 <20

DEET 1400 ng/L 200 <20

Metolachlor 1400 ng/L 200 20

Trimethoprim 140 ng/L 20 <5

Linuron 140 ng/L 20 <5

Validation (cont)• RO Validation– Questions: • Performance Based Upon Rejection by

Membrane?, or Is There an Adsorption Phenomenon in Play?• Is the Current 7 Day Std 58 Protocol Adequate

to Assess Performance Under 401?• What Modifications or Approach Should Be

Taken to the Validation of RO Technologies.

Validation (cont)

• Regu Regunathan Has Agreed to Chair the Sub-task Group and Draft a Proposal for Validating RO Performance Under This Standard.

• Once a Proposal is Agreed Upon It Is Anticipated that Round Robin Work Will Be Initiated As a Validation Step.

• Sub-task Group is Seeking Additional Participation from RO Manufacturers.

For Discussion…..

• Pursue the validation of RO technology to resolve potential adsorption issues during the test period.

• Separate RO from current ballot and update proposed Standard to reflect all recent balloted and approved DWTU Standard updates.

• Provide Active Media validation data with ballot of active media only proposal.

• Submit RO validation and standard language with a standard revision ballot when validation is complete.