Emerging compounds:A concern for water andwastewater utilities

* A L T H O U G H M O R E R E S E A R C H N E E D S

O BE C O N D U C T E D R E G A R D I N G

T H E E F F E C T S OF C D M P Ü U N D S

DF E M E R G I N G C O N C E R N ,

IT IS L I K E L Y THAT T H E S E

C D M P D U N B S R E P R E S E N T T H E N E X T

R E A L M DF R E G U L A T O R Y C O N C E R N .

atcr utilities have come under increasing scrutiny as the agen-cies responsible for controlling human exposure to pharma-ceuticals, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and other com-pounds of emerging concern (CECs) in drinking water. Forexample, a recent investigation by the Associated Press (Donn

(.r al., 2008) reported on the presence of pharmaceuticals in the drinkingwater of 24 major US metropohtan areas. This report prompted publicconcern and put additional pressure on water utilities to respond to whatwas presented as a threat to pubhc health.

Most CECs are likely benign to humans at the concentrations detectedin the environment and in drinking warer. They continue to be of concern,however, because some of the compounds that have been detected areendocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs). EDCs can have effects on thehuman endocrine system at extremely low concentrations, although norisk to humans has been demonstrated from exposure to HDCs in drink-ing water. EDCs have, however, been implicated in adverse effects inaquatic organisms that are exposed to wastewater in the environment.There is also evidence that some CECs that are not EDCs demonstratetoxicity with more traditional endpoints toward aquatic organisms (suchas growth inhibition or change in behavior), even at enviornmentallyrelevant concentrations. There is also evidence that some CECs that arenot EDCs demonstrate toxicity with more traditional endpoints towardaquatic organisms, even at environmentally reievant concentrations.

50 NOVEMBER 2008 | JOURNAL AWWA • 100:11 | FONO & MCDONALD

Although more research needs tobe conducted regarding the effects ofCECs on human and aquatic health,it is likely that these compounds rep-resent the next realm of regulatoryconcern and that their removal willdrive the research agenda and theselection of water and wastewatertreatment processes in the future.

CECs ARE UBIQUITOUSDOWNSTREAM OF WASTEWATERDISCHARGES

Although many CECs have beenpresent in the environment fordecades, concern about their possibleeffects on humans and vi/ildlife isbeing driven by improved analyticaltechniques that are able to detectthem at increasingly lower concen-trations. In general, these com-pounds are present at trace concen-trations (i.e., parts per trillion orless) in complex mixtures.

CECs encompass a large numberof compounds (Table 1). Com-pounds can be grouped either bytheir intended use—such as phar-maceutical products or surfac-tants—or by their potential envi-ronmental or human health effects.For example EDCs, which interferewith human or animal hormonalfunction, sometimes even at verylow levels, comprise trace constitu-

ent classes such as pharmaceuticals,personal care products, detergentmetabolites, plasticizers, bromi-nated flame retardants, and pesti-cides. Additionally, individual com-pounds within a class can havesignificantly different toxicities andremoval rates within wastewatertreatment plants (WWTPs) and inthe environment.

CECs have been detected in sur-face waters and groundwater down-stream or downgradient of wastewa-ter discharges. Much of the earlyoccurrence survey work was con-ducted in Europe—particularly Ger-many and Switzerland—where highpopulation densities and low percapita water use result in relativelyhigh concentrations of CECs inwastewater and receiving waters.Even illegal drugs such as cocaineare detectable in some surface watersthat are affected by wastewater(Zuccato et al, 2005).

There has been, and continues tobe, a significant amount of investiga-tion into the presence of CECs in theenvironment in North America. Eorexample, Kolpin and colleagues(2002) at the US Geological Survey(USGS) performed a survey of traceorganic contaminants in US surfacewaters and detected 82 of 95 indi-vidual CECs on their analyte list.

with low levels detected in almost allsamples. As a testament to the atten-tion this topic has been attracting,the resulting article was the mostdownloaded article ever published inE.nvironmental Science and Technol-ogy {Kolpin et al, 2002).

David Sedlak, a professor at theUniversity of California at Berkeleyand the principle investigator of anAwwa Research Foundation-spon-sored occurrence survey of phar-maceuticals in wastewater effluent,has been researching the fate andtransport of CECs over the pastdecade. "At this point, it's notwhether we can find them. We seethem everywhere. The questionnow is whether they're havingadverse effects on wildlife popula-tions, and wbat can we do aboutit," Sedlak said.

CECs IN WASTEWATER ADVERSELYAFFECT AQUATIC ORGANISMS

There has been growing attentionduring the past several years fromthe public and the scientific andwastewater communities on thepotential ecological effects of traceconstituents. For example, duringthe past two years, significant mediacoverage was given to reports thatup to 100% of the male smallmouthbass in some sections of the Chesa-

TABLE 1 Trace constituents in wastewater

Class of Compound

rharmaceuticals

Personal care productsDetergent metabolitesPlasticizersPerfluorooctane surfactants

Brominated flame retardants

Disinfection by-products

TypicalConcentration

in Effluent

Up to 1 vg/L

Up to 1 Mg/LUp to 18ü|jg/LUp to Kl)jg/LUp to 1 pg/L

Up to 30 mg/L

Up to 1 pg/L

Potential Ecologicalor Human Health Effects

líndocrincdisruptinjí

Bioaccumulative, endocrine disruptingBioaccumulative, endocrine disrupting

Weakly endocrine disruptingNone at envi ron mentally relevant

concentrationsBioaccumulative, suspected

endocrine disruptorsCarcinogenic

Examples

Antibiotics, painkillers, caffeine,birth-control pill, antiepileptics

Soaps, fragrances, triclosanOcylphenol, nonyiphenol

Phthalate esters, bisphenol AStain-resistant coating for clothing

and furniturePolyhrominated diphenyl ethers

N-mt rosod imethyla mi ne

FONO a MCDONALO I 100:11 • JOURNAL AWWA I NOVEMBER 2008 51

Intersex fish have beenfound downstream

of wastewater dischargesworldwide. This figure

illustrates fish testes thatalso contain ova

(Nash etal, 2004).

Ovary(mature)

peake Bay watershed are intersex(Associated Press, 2Ü06).

Wildlife are exposed to CECs andEDCs in effluent-dominated streamsor by eating plants or animals in whichthese substances have bioaccumulated.Aquatic organisms have a greater riskthan humans because they have greaterexposure. Although many of thesecompounds undergo natural attenua-tion in the environment because theyare being constantly discharged,organisms that are exposed to themexperience a "pseudopersistence."

Recent research has examined theeffects of CECs and EDCs on wildlifeboth in the lab and in the field. Inmany species this research has showna causal relationship between expo-sure to human and synthetic hor-mones, plasticizers, and detergentmetabolites and the induction of anegg protein in male fish, for example.Intersex fish found downstream ofWWTPs have been linked to estroge-nicity in wastewater discharges (Har-ries et al, 1996).

Most significant, in a seven-yearstudy in the Experimental LakesArea in northern Ontario the popu-lation of fathead minnow exposed toa low but constant concentration ofthe hormone found in birth controlpills ultimately collapsed (Kidd et al,2007). Although these specific resultscannot be immediately extrapolatedto other species and watersheds,there is cause for concern.

THE SPOTLIGHT ON WATERUTILITIES IS DRIVEN BY HUMANHEALTH CONCERNS

Potential human health effectsresulting from exposure to CECs areharder to detect than effects on wild-life. Humans are exposed to pharma-ceuticals and endocrine-disruptingchemicals rhrough various routes. Forexample, fat-soluble compounds suchas flame retardants or PCBs can beconsumed by eating aquatic animalsin which they have bioaccumulated,and water-soluble compounds suchas most Pharmaceuticals for humanscan be consumed in drinking water.This latter route is of concern to thedrinking water industry.

Research is just beginning to ad-dress questions about effects ofchronic low-level exposure, includingpossible synergism and other toxico-logical factors associated with thesecompounds. It is difficult to predictthe effects of chronic exposure toextremely low concentrations of acontaminant; generally, tests are donewith higher concentrations thanoccur in drinking water, using othermammalian species, and the effectsare extrapolated to lower concentra-tions using a dose-response curve. Asafety factor is then applied toaccount for the differences betweenhumans and the test species. Sometoxicity studies are conducted byexposing human tissue cultures invitro to the compounds being exam-

ined. Neither of tbese types of exper-iments provides conclusive evidenceabout the human health effects ofexposure to parts-per-triliion levels ofPharmaceuticals in drinking water.

The constituents of greatestpotential concern to humans are theEDCs mentioned previously,because of possible effects at verylow concentrations. They also posea disproportionate threat to fetaldevelopment and young childrenbecause they interfere with normaldevelopmental chemical signals inthe body. Therefore, it is not justthe level of exposure of EDCs thatcause concern, it is also the timingof the exposure during the develop-ment of humans and animals.

The potential human health ef-fects of EDCs are being studied bymany groups, including the US Envi-ronmental Protection Agency(USEPA). The endpoints of exposureto Pharmaceuticals and HDCs inwater that are being considered byresearchers include endocrine systemeffects, neurological problems, re-productive and developmental ab-normalities, and cancers.

Many researchers point out thatthe quantity of estrogens that maybe consumed in reclaimed water istiny compared with phytoestrogensand estrogenic hormones naturallypresent in the human diet. In fact,risk assessments that have been per-formed on drinking water to date

52 NOVEMBER 2003 1 JOURNAL AWWA • 100: FONO S MCDONALD

have not shown an unacceptablerisk to humans (Snyder, 2007).However, most researchers currentlyagree that there are many unknownsregarding possible synergistic effectsand long-term chronic exposure tolow levels of complex mixtures ofthese compounds.

rate of the compounds as well astheir behavior and effects in theenvironment once introduced. InCanada, a similar requirement isunder consideration.

The United States has alreadybanned the use of some known endo-crine disruptors, such as PCBs, DDT,

A,ilthough many of these compounds undergo naturalattenuation in the environment, hecause they are heingconstantly discharged organisms that are exposed to themexperience a "pseudopersistence."

REGULATORY REQUIREMENTSFOR CECs ARE ON THE HORIZON

Regulations can control the inputof CECs into the environment anddrinking water in two ways:

• by restricting which chemicalscan be marketed and therefore maketheir way into the waste stream and

• by setting wastewater effluentand drinking water concentration lim-its for individual compounds or bulkparameters such as estrogenicity.

So far, regulators have been moreinclined to pursue the first optionbecause toxic effects can more read-ily be shown in the parent product,rather than diluted in wastewater ordrinking water.

European countries are furtheralong than the United States in phas-ing out endocrine disruptors. Nor-way, for example, has banned theproduction, import, distribution,and most uses of nonylphenol andoctylphenol ethoxylates. These aresurfactants that have been shown tocontribute significant estrogenicityto rivers downstream of industrialwastewater discharges. Additionally,the European Union requires thesubmission of Environmental RiskAssessments (ERAs) to gain marketapproval for new pharmaceuticals.These ERAs focus on the removal

and chlordane. However, these com-pounds were banned because of theircarcinogenic effects rather than theirestrogenic effects. In 1996, Congresspassed new legislation requiring theUSEPA to determine whether certainsubstances may have an effect inhumans that is similar to effects pro-duced by a naturally occurring estro-gen or other such endocrine effects. Inresponse, USEPA developed the Endo-

crine Disrupter Screening and TestingAdvisory Committee (EDSTAC),whose members include representa-tives of academia, industry, publichealth interests, water providers, andvarious state and federal agencies.

In its 1998 final report, EDSTACrecommended a priority-based tieredscreening system to evaluate chemi-cals for endocrine-disrupting effects.However, this program has receivedlittle funding, and the past 10 yearshave seen little progress on tht-screening of suspected EDCs.

So far, neither the USEPA norregulators in other countries havereleased any guidance about theeffects of relevant levels of mosttrace constituents in drinking water.US regulatory action at the federallevel has been delayed until moreresearch has been done because mostexisting data on listed man-madechemicals focus on cancer risks, andCECs are generally present at con-centrations too low to trigger con-cerns about carcinogenicity.

In response to the Associated Pressarticle on pharmaceuticals in drink-ing water, a hearing on "Pharmaceu-ticals in the Nation's Water: AssessingPotential Risks and Actions toAddress the Issue" was held in April

FIGURE 1 CEC removal during membrane filtration improves as pore size is reduced

I— Colloidal particles —|Cryptosporidium and

I— Giardia —\

I— Bacteria —|

0.001 0.01 10.0

CEC-

Slze—fim

compounds of emerging concern

FONO & MCDONALD I 100:11 • JOURNALAWWA I NOVEMBER 200ii 53

Of the advanced treatmenttechnologies, ozonation

removes the greatestpercentage of compounds

of emerging concern,for the lowest unit cost.

20Ü8 by the Senatesubcommi t t ee onTransportation Safety,Infrastructure Security,and Water Quality.Although not resultingin immediate regula-tory action, this hear-ing demonstrates thatthe issue has caught theattention of US sena-tors, which may provide impetus forfurther regulatory developments.

US state regulators are beginningto move ahead with adopting crite-ria, absent a federal mandate to doso. Several states, such as Massachu-setts and California, have adoptedwater quality criteria for perchlo-rate, a CEC that is found in rocketfuel and other explosives that hasbeen shown to interfere with fetaldevelopment at extremely low con-centrations. Massachusetts intendsto use the process it developed toregulate perchlorate to move aheadwith examining possible limits for alist of 100 pharmaceuticals and per-sonal care products.

Other agencies, although not yetready to set drinking water limitsfor CECs, are beginning to requirethat they be monitored in anticipa-tion of possible future require-ments. For example, the CaliforniaDepartment of Public Health(CDPH) updated its GroundwaterRecharge Reuse Draft RegulationsCriteria in August 2008 to includeproject-specific monitoring require-

ments for endocrine disruptors andpharmaceuticals as well as CECindicator compounds or surrogatesin recycled water and groundwaterrecharge projects.

The link between CECs in waste-water and adverse ecological effectsis stronger than is the link betweenCECs in drinking water and humanhealth effects and therefore hasattracted more attention for possibleregulation at the federal level. TheUSEPA (2008) recently released adraft white paper concerning thedevelopment of criteria for CECs. Inthis document, USEPA acknowledgesthe difficulty of adopting criteria forconstituents with nontraditionalendpoints related to endocrine dis-ruption and begins to detail a frame-work to address this challenge.

Euture regulatory action is likelyas research progresses, and, onceofficially identified, industrial chem-icals and personal care products thatare strong endocrine disruptors willprobably be phased out of use. In themeantime, wastewater treatmentfacilities could be regulated for

release of suspected endocrine dis-ruptors to the environment to pro-tect aquatic habitats. In the future, itis likely that drinking water criteriawill be developed for some CECs.Therefore, master planning studiesfor both water and wastewater facil-ities would be advisable to addressthe possibility of new regulationswhen making long-term (10- to20-year) plans.

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCHAND PILOT TESTING ARE LEADINGTD CEC REMOVAL SOLUTIONS

Both water and wastewater treat-ment can provide a barrier that pre-vents the introduction of CECs intodrinking water. However, for theprotection of aquatic life, the pre-ferred barrier is removal duringwastewater treatment. Althoughmost wastewater treatment plantsare not specifically designed to re-move trace constituents, the major-ity of these compounds are removedat least partially during conventionalwastewater treatment.

One of the most effective ways ofincreasing the removal of trace con-stituents during biological wastewa-ter treatment is to increase the sludge-retention time to at least 1.5 days ormore. Under these conditions Claraand CO authors (2005) ft)und thatmost pharmaceuticals, surfactants,and plasticizers are removed to belowthe limit of detection. Concentrationsof human estrogens are reduced by90-100% with high sludge-retentiontimes. In fact, removal rates dependmore on the sludge-retention timethan on the treatment technology,because trace constituents are re-moved equally in an activated sludgeprocess such as a membrane bioreac-tor. For treatment plants with excesscapacity, sludge-retention times canbe increased by changing operatingprocedures without additional capi-tal investment.

Several advanced treatment tech-nologies have been shown to be effec-tive for removing trace constituentsfrom wastewater. Filtration throughgranulated activated carbon (GAC),

54 NOVEMBER 2008 I JOURNAL AWWA • 1 Q0:11 I FONO & MCDONALD

advanced oxidation, and membranetreatment have all been studied todetermine how well they removetrace constituents. Table 2 provides asummary of the removal efficienciesfor CECs by different technologies.

An advanced oxidation techniquethat is being studied for removingtrace constituents is the irradiationof filtered wastewater with ultravio-let (UV) light after hydrogen perox-ide has been added. This processgenerates free hydroxyl radicals thatreact quickly and nonspecificallywith organic constituents in waste-water. In a study by Rosenfeldt et al(2004), two common hormones inwastewater were more than 95%removed from lab water with a con-centration of 15 mg/L hydrogen per-

oxide and either a low- or medium-pressure UV lamp.

Ozonation is often put forth as agood technique for oxidizing tracecontaminants in wastewater. Al-though ozone reacts preferentiallywith some compounds depending ontheir structure, it can also react withnatural organic matter to formhydroxyl radicals and indirectly oxi-dize a greater number of constituents.Hormones are among the compoundsthat react well with ozone, as do mostpharmaceuticals that have beentested. Ozone is effective at oxidizingsome of the most frequently detectedtrace constituents, such as carbam-azepine {an antiepileptic drug), caf-feine, cotinine (a nicotine metabolite),and atrazine (a pesticide).

With respect to advanced oxida-tion, both UV/peroxide and ozona-tion are good treatment technologiesfor trace constituents. Both, also pro-vide disinfection for wastewater, andimprove its aesthetic qualities. How-ever, several analyses have shownthat ozone can provide removal at alower cost (Ternes et al, 2007).

In general, trace constituentremoval is poor during sand filtra-tion. However, with chemical addi-tion prior to sand filtration, Salvesonet al (2007) showed that the increasedparticle size can improve removal to70% for some of the more hydro-phobic compounds such as hor-mones. This can be an economicaltreatment strategy for WWTPs thatalready practice sand filtration.

TABLE 2 Summary of CEC removal by a suite of treatment technologies

= > 90% Removed• = 4O-7O'»fi Removed• = < 40X1 Removed

Classification

Pesticides

Industrial chemicals

Steroids

Metals

Inorganics

Organometailics

Antibiotics

Antidepressants

Anti-inflammatory

I.ipid regulators

X-ray contrast media

Psychiatric control

Syntiietic musks

Sunscreens

Antimicrobials

Surfactants/detergents

AS

•

••••••••••••

AC

•••

BAC

••

O3/AOPS

••

•••••

••••••

UV

•••••

•••

•

Coagulation/Flocculatlon

•

•••••••••••

•

Softening/Metal Oxides

•

••••

• :

••••

NF

•

•

RO

r^ÊÊ0

Adapted from Snyder et al. 2IX),i

AS—activated :iiiidge. AC—activated carbon. BAC—biological aaivated carbon, CEC—compounds of emerging concern, NF—nanoñltratlon, O,/AOP—Ozone/advancedoxidation processes, RO—reverse osmosis, UV—ultraviolet irradiation

FONO & MCDONALD I 100;lt • JOURNALAWWA 1 NOVEMBER 2008 55

In membrane filtration, water andwastewater are pushed through tinypores at high pressure to reject par-ticles that are not desired in the per-meate. Microfiltration (MF) andnanofiltration (NF) have progres-sively decreasing pore sizes andrequire increasing pressure for opera-tion, with reverse osmosis (RO) hav-ing the smallest pore size and thehighest pressure.

MF rejects relatively fewer com-pounds than NF or RO because

cost of advanced treatment can becounted in carbon dioxide emissionsas well as dollars (Jones et al, 2007).Therefore, source control is beinglooked at as an alternative for reduc-ing the concentrations of CECs in theenvironment and in drinking water.

Although the potential for CECreduction in wastewater is muchsmaller for some compoundsthrough source control than throughadvanced treatment, it is an immedi-ate step that can be taken by local

ost researchers currently agree that there are manyunknowns regarding possihie synergistic effectsand long-term chronic exposure to low levels of complexmixtures of these compounds.

most trace constituents are smallerthan the MF membrane's pore size,although some hydrophobic com-pounds are excluded through ad-sorption. NF performs better thanMF with most compounds becauseNF membrane pores are smallenough to reject many compoundsbased on size, but NF is expensive.RO removes most compounds witha very high efficiency except forNDMA, which is small, polar, andbehaves like a water molecule.However, although RO removesmost constituents to below the limitof detection, its capital and operat-ing costs are extremely high.

SOURCE CONTROLIS AN AHRACTIVE OPTIONFOR REDUCING EDCsIN THE WATER CYCLE

Cash-strapped utilities may nothave the means to implementadvanced treatment to remove unreg-ulated constituents from their waste-water or drinking water. Addition-ally, with recent focus on climatechange and carbon footprints, the

governments and utilities that doesnot require facility upgrades orchanges in operational procedures.Source control can include the fol-lowing measures:

• Pharmaceutical take-back pro-grams to prevent the practice offlushing unneeded or expired pills. Itis estimated that a maximum of 8%of pharmaceuticals are flushed downthe toilet and that removing thissource would lead to an approxi-mately 9% reduction in surfacewater loading (Tischler et al, 2007).

• Ecoiabeling of household andpersonal care products ro encourageconsumers to choose products withnonpersistent, nontoxic ingredients.Regulatory oversight would beneeded to allow products to claimecofriendliness on their labels.

• Reduction of over-and unnec-essary medication. This has alreadybeen recommended to prevent thedevelopment of antibiotic-resistantbacteria and could also help reduceconcentrations of CECs

• Requiring ERAs for new phar-maceutical products and phasing out

persistent or toxic pharmaceuticalswhen there is another compK)und thatcould have the same benefit withouta toxic effect.

Thus far, source control effortshave focused on pharmaceuticaltake-back programs. Several statesbave initiated such programs withgreat success—as measured by thequantity of unused drugs that havebeen recovered. Although most drugsenter the water cycle via humanexcretion, these programs can re-move a portion of the loading toWWTPs and have additional benefitssuch as reducing accidental prescrip-tion drug poisoning and misuse.

Source control efforts require edu-cational campaigns to inform andengage the public. Because the South-ern Nevada Water Authority (SNWA)has led or been involved with muchof the scientific work related to thelow-level detection, treatment, andhealth effects associated with phar-maceuticals and EDCs in drinkingwater supplies, tbe agency has beenat the forefront of communicationabout this topic. "By educating thepublic about the proper disposal ofall types of chemicals—from house-ho!d solvents and piesticides to unusedPharmaceuticals—utilities are en-couraging their customers to becomestewards of both their water resourcesand the environment," said J.C.Davis, the senior public informationcoordinator at SNWA.

Source separation is anotheralternative that could be consideredto reduce CECs in wastewater. Themost feasible means of achieving thisgoal is to provide onsite advancedtreatment to hospital wastewater,which is a significant point source ofpharmaceutical discharges to waste-water treatment plants.

LOOKING AHEADAND MOVING FORWARD

Members of the public will con-tinue to demand that the issue ofCECs in the environment and indrinking water be addressed by theirutilities, even in the absence of regu-latory guidance. A coherent ap-

56 NOVEMBER 2008 I JOURNAL AWWA • 100:11 I FONO S MCDONALD

proach for treatment and control ofCECs, as well as a communicationstrategy, is necessary to assure thepublic that the issue of pharmaceuti-cals in drinking water is being consid-ered and addressed by tbeir waterpurveyors and that aquatic life is beingprotected by wastewater dischargers.

Clearly, there is the need for moreresearch and continued research fund-ing until the risks from CECs areunderstood and addressed. ShaneSnyder, a scientist at the SNWA, whohas contributed significantly toknowledge about the treatment andeffects of CECs, emphasizes the needfor continued research. "As a scien-tist, I recommend we focus onresearch related to health effects fromtrace pharmaceuticals with a lesseremphasis on occurrence, in order todetermine whether there is in fact aproblem to solve. The critical ques-tion we must address is not 'Do theyexist?' but rather, 'At what concentra-tion are these compounds harmful to

human health?' Only then can wemake intelligent, rational decisionsthat protect the health of this coun-try's municipal water customers."

CECs are an issue for both waterand wastewater utilities. AWWAmembers and member utilities shouldencourage cooperation among waterand wastewater organizations, suchas AWWA and WEE, to provide lead-ership and dialog for the develop-ment of standards and mutual poli-cies to prevent and treat CECs in thewater cycle.

ABOUT THE AUTHORSLorien]. Fono(to whom corre-spondence shouldbe addressed) is anengineer with Car-olio Engineers,2700 Ygnacio Val-ley Rd., Ste. 300,

Walnut Creek, CA 94S98;lfono@carollo.com. Fono received

her master's and doctorate degreesin environmental engineering fromthe University of California atBerkley. She was awarded theGraduate Student Research PaperAward from the American Chemi-cal Society's Environmental Chem-istry Division and has had articlespublished in Environmental Chem-istry and Technology and WaterEnvironment Research. At Carolloshe has worked in an advisorycapacity on projects to treat emerg-ing contaminants in drinking waterand wastewater. She also has pro-vided support for other firms thatneed an emerging contaminantcomponent to their environmentalimpact reports. She is a member ofthe Water Environment Federationand has participated in drafting itsliterature reviews and TechnicalPractice Updates on emergingcontaminants. H. StephenMcDonald is a partner withCarollo Fjtgineers.

REFERENCESAssociated Press, 2006, Intersex Fish Are

Found at High Rate in a Region. NewYork Times.

Clara, M.; Strenn, B.; Gans, 0.; Martinez,E.; Kretizinger, N.; Kroiss, H., 2005.Removal of Selected Pharmaceuti-cals, Fragrances and Endocrine Dis-rupting Compounds in a MembraneBioreactor and Conventional Waste-water Treatment Plants. Water Res.,39:19:4797.

Donn, J,; Mendoza. M-; Pritchard, J., 2008, APProve Finds Drugs in Drinking Water.Associated Press, New York. .

Harries, J.E,; Sheahan, D.A,; Jobling, S,; Mat-thiessen, P; Neall, P; Routledge, E.J.;Sumpter, J-P; & Tylor, T., 1996. A Surveyof Estrogenic Activity in United KingdomInland Waters. Envir. Toxicol. & Chem.,15:11:1993.

Jones, OAH.; Green, RG.; Voulvoulis, N,; &Lester, J.N., 2007. Questioning theExcessive Use of Advanced Treatmentto Remove Organic MicropollutantsFrom Wastewater, Envir. Sei. & Technol..41:14:5085.

Kidd, K.A.; Blanchfield. PJ.; Mills, K.H.;Palace, V.P; Evans, R.E.; Lazorchak,J.M.; & Flick, R.W., 2007. Collapse of aFish Population After Exposure to a

Synthetic Estrogen, PNAS.104:21:8897.

Kolpin, D.W., Furlong, E.T.; Meyer, M.T; Thur-man, E.M.; Zaugg, S.E.; Barber, L.B.; &Buxton, H.T., 2002. Pharmaceuticals,Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewa-ter Contaminants in US Streams,1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance.Envir Sei. & Technol., 36:6:1202,

Nash, J.P, Kime, D.E.; Van der Ven, L.T.M,;Wester, P.W.; Brion, F; Maack, G.;Stahlschmidt-Allner, P.; & Tyler, C.R.,2004. Long-term Exposure to Environ-mental Concentrations of the Pharma-ceutical Ethynylestradiol CausesReproductive Failure in Fish. Envir.Health Persp.,U2\\T.V2B.

Rosenfeldt, E.J. & Linden, K.G., 2004. Degra-dation of Endocrine Disrupting Chemi-cals Bisphenol A, Ethinyl Estradiol, andEstradiol During UV Photolysis andAdvanced Oxidation Processes. EnvirSc/.A7ec/ifïD/., 38:20:5476-

Salveson, AT., Atapattu, K.P.; Linden, K.;Robinson, K.; Bowman, R.; Thurston-Enriquez, J.; & Cooper, R., 2007. Inno-vative Treatment Technologies forReclaimed Water—Ozone/HydrogenPeroxide Pilot Test Report at DSRSÜ.Proc. 22nd Annual WateReuse Sympo-sium, Tampa, Fla.

Snyder, S.A., 2007. Relative Risks of Estrogensin Reuse Water. Proc- 22nd AnnualWaterReuse Symposium, Tampa, Fla..

Snyder, S.A.; Westerhoff, P; Yeomin, Y; Sed-lak, D.L., 2003. Pharmaceuticals. Per-sonal Care Products, and Endocrine Dis-ruptors in Water: Implications for theWater Industry. Envir Engrg. Sei..20:5:449.

Ternes, I ; Joss, A.; & Siegrist. H.. 2007, Con-taminants of Emerging Concern^AChallenge for Urban Water Manage-ment. WEF Special Symposium on Com-pounds of Emerging Concern, Provi-dence, R.I.

Tischler, L, et al. 2007. Potential Releasesof Unused Medicines in Landfill Leachate.WEF Special Symposium for Compoundsof Emerging Concern. Providence. R.I.

USEPA, (US Environmental ProtectionAgency), 2008. Draft White Paper:Aquatic Life Criteria for Contaminants ofEmerging Concern—Part I: GeneralChallenges and Recommendations,USEPA Office of Water, Washington,

Zuccato, E.; Chiabrando, C; Castiglioni, S.;Calamari. D.; Bagnati, R,; Schiarea, S.; &Fanelli, R,. 2005, Cocaine in SurfaceWaters: A New Evidence-Based Tool toMonitor Community Drug Abuse. EnvironHealth. 4:14,

FONO S MCDONALD I 100:11 • JOURNALAWWA I NOVEMBER 2008 57