Water Environment Federation (WEF) Discussion Forums / Microconstituents (may also be known as CPCs or EDCs) / Archives / Archived Forum Topics

SoCal Researchers Release Microconstituents Study Focused on Ocean Outfalls

muffinmonster — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 14:56:01 GMT

This study of wwtp ocean outfalls and bottom dwelling fish appears to be a big one. It received a large article in the LA Times today...

"Dilution is not the solution for some of these newer compounds," said Steven Bay, a toxicologist with the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project in Costa Mesa. He expects the study to raise policy debates over upgrading sewage-treatment plants.

On Saturday (2/16/08) researchers with the Southern California Coastal Water Research Project presented the study at the 2008 AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE (AAAS) ANNUAL MEETING. The SCCWR is a joint powers research agency of SoCal sanitation districts, cities, counties, Feds, regulators and others.

I could not locate the actual report - anybody see it?

LA Times article is here.
Study outline is here.

On a side note - LAT reporter Ken Weiss has been given plenty of room to report on protecting the oceans. His in-depth and wide-ranging series Altered Oceans in 2006 won the Pulitzer Prize (www.latimes.com/oceans). Despite the massive cut-backs at my hometown paper I think Ken is going to continue generating lots of stories about ocean health - it's a hot topic for readers (take a look at the message forum).

RE: EEDs and Ed's-Storm water

John Sansalone — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 14:55:32 GMT

I think the research is only now starting to really take off. Went to a 2-day conference last summer that I found very interesting (it was sponsored by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, and a number of the papers were posted on-line, at least at one time).

There are quite a variety of different types of compounds, raising concerns in different ways. One of the popular items for study is synthetic estrogens (from birth control pills). They appear to be linked to the amorphous sexual identity in fish that Grant refers to (several presenters referenced a Canadian study, in which an isolated lake was dosed to, I think, about 6 or 8 ppt. of estrogen, and the minnow population crashed completely within something like 6 years; several also talked of a Colorado plant - maybe Denver - just below a dam, so there was good control, and evidence that the STP was causing similar problems in the stream). Other items showing up at levels of concern are fabric brighteners, found in detergents; antidepressants (such as Prozac); fire retardants; and pain relievers (such as Tylenol), among the hundreds of compounds they are finding. No one seems certain at this time about what is a "safe" level of these things, especially since some occur in certain forms in nature (such as the estrogen). Treatability varies with the compound, and some may break down in a biological plant, while at the same time being created as a byproduct of the breakdown of other substances. The sheer number of products, with different characteristics, makes it difficult.

Adding to the problem (at least in the U.S.), is that official policy still seems to be that disposal of unused pharmaceauticals should be by flushing down the loo. People have managed occasionally to set up community disposal days for the pharms. (for eventual incineration), and found one of the biggest stumbling blocks to be the police agencies, such as DEA, who were afraid of stuff finding its way back onto the street. One person, who spoke of arranging one of these events, talked of finding (since all the bottles had to be sorted and cataloged), an unopened / unused bottle of a cancer treatment medicine that cost $10,000, and was sent off for destruction. The original patient had died before it could be used. An incredible waste, and one that could have ended up at the STP.

This issue is gaining some momentum, and I'm guessing that it will replace conventional stormwater as the next "hot" topic. Have no idea what sort of rules would come about, but it seems to be attracting public attention, and am pretty sure it won't be real long before there is a demand to " Do Something ! !".

EEDs and Ed's-Storm water

EOH2O — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 11:30:02 GMT

There's been a lot of news coverage about states and counties trying to get out of the treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act - now that EPA is enforcing. Appears to be two main areas where the municipalities are fighting compliance - storm water and WWTP discharge (from lagoons).

This follows along greater identification of ED's being released to the rivers/streams by USGS, USDA, and EPA - let alone various University studies. Now AMA and others getting into act about residuals and the health affects - following WHO, UNEP and other international advisory agency reports.

So heres' the question - what, if any, internal reviews or discussions are taking place inside municipal WWT agenices to address the issue - or is it being totally ignored?
Dave/Aquatic Technologies

RE: EEDs and Ed's-Storm water

Grant H — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 08:55:48 GMT

From an Australian point of view, research is presently focussing on the concentrations of personal care products, pharmaceuticals and metabolites and EDCs in WWTP discharges. Popular phamaceuticals are in the ug/L range from WWTPs. EDCs are in the ng/L range. There is generally a one or so log reduction through an activated sludge plant. The removal seems to be a current topic of research. MBRs and long sludge age plants may be better at this task.

And then what about the residues in sludges. We did a GC scan on some digested sludges and found Triclosan in detectable quantities. Metals in sludge stockpiles are also extremely soluble.

Reverse osmosis removes most of the larger molecules, however not NDMA. The fate of the brine concentrate also needs consideration. Advanced Oxidation is being considered for Planned Indirect Potable Reuse schemes in Queensland. This work has been a topic of research by people such as Karl Linden (Univ Boulder CO). But this only reduces the pollutant by another 1 or 2 log. The technology is coming along.

Is the scientific community clear on what levels are safe?

What about the unplanned potable reuse that goes on in every inland town, which takes another cities effluent for potable water. This is true of the USA and Europe etc. In Europe they often practice Ozone and GAC filters at WTPs, to reduce the concentrations of these compounds. I saw a documentary on declining sperm counts of mid-western men due to herbicides and pesticides in farming getting into drinking water.

Then if you want to take the argument further what about the animal life which shares our water. One of the first observations of EDCs was the reproductive organs of fish in an English river downstream of a WWTP that treated and biodegraded textile washwaters (Nonylphenol). I recently saw an an article on the impact of Atrazine runoff residues on frogs in the USA. It all comes down to cost.

What would be easier would be to stop using these compounds. Dichlorvos has been banned from domestic pest strips in Australia and now our clothes have moth holes in them.

We have to learn to live with nature.

Concerns with microconstituents

rocsmith — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 08:53:09 GMT

What specific concerns do wastewater professionals have regarding the impact of microconstituents on design and operation of WWTP's? I am making a presentation on the topic in general tomorrow and would like to anticipate what sort of questions may come up in the Q&A period.

Fate of Fluoride in a WWTP

Liam — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:29:57 GMT

What is the most probable fate of Fluoride (added to the potable water system as sodium fluoride at about 0.7 mg/l) after treatment at a WWTP. Out in the effluent at 0.7 mg/l or some in the sludge and some in the effluent or ??? We incinerate our sludge in Fluidized Bed and our two WWTP include a CMAS conventional plant and a high rate SBR.

Thank you

RE: Fate of Fluoride in a WWTP

Dedalus — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 15:06:10 GMT

Most of it will pass through treatment. If your local water has significant hardness, or if you use lime in your treatment process, some will precipitate. I doubt it would harm anything.

http://www.dedalusenviro.com

RE: EEDs and Ed's-Storm water

Jeff Naumann — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:27:21 GMT

"Thus far, the state of California has NOT implemented specific criteria on the lab test results that definitively says how clean is OK, or above what concentration is not acceptable."

They still haven't? The experience I described was 6 - 7 years ago. I recall it wasn't easy finding someone in the Regional Water Quality Board who would explicitly tell me this.

My customer ran an anodizing plant, and they wanted those parameters you mentioned, plus metals. Their zinc was a little high, which was odd because they did not use zinc. We wound up attributing it to wash down of zinc corrosion products from galvanized equipment.

The fellow I had dealings with in the agency mentioned it in our conversations, but, again, there was no limit cited. And, years later, they're still pondering it...heh, heh.

As in the case of the plating plant, some specific facilities have additional parameters to monitor. The "threshold values" mentioned for the basic parameters are: pH range 6.5-8.5, TSS < 100 mg/l, SC < 200 umho/cm, O&G < 15 mg/l, TOC < 110 mg/l, and COD < 120 mg/l. Some regional boards have published slightly different values as "benchmarks." I believe those values came from the federal EPA at some point. I've seen at least one regional board that sent out the "bench mark values" as part of the annual report package for some reporting years, but then did not pass out the values in subsequent years.

In California, the state water board was supposed to revise the 1997 version of the general permit, but thus far has not issued a revision. Revisions are "supposed" to be done every five years, as are required for NPDES permits. But, sometimes it schedule slips.

RE: EEDs and Ed's-Storm water

Dedalus — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 13:17:01 GMT

"Thus far, the state of California has NOT implemented specific criteria on the lab test results that definitively says how clean is OK, or above what concentration is not acceptable."

They still haven't? The experience I described was 6 - 7 years ago. I recall it wasn't easy finding someone in the Regional Water Quality Board who would explicitly tell me this.

My customer ran an anodizing plant, and they wanted those parameters you mentioned, plus metals. Their zinc was a little high, which was odd because they did not use zinc. We wound up attributing it to wash down of zinc corrosion products from galvanized equipment.

The fellow I had dealings with in the agency mentioned it in our conversations, but, again, there was no limit cited. And, years later, they're still pondering it...heh, heh.

RE: EEDs and Ed's-Storm water

Jeff Naumann — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:27:28 GMT

Storm water compliance is a real bear. Out in California, there was a local authority that required all businesses in certain categories to file storm water management plans, including sampling data from two "storm events." One of these had to be the first of the rainy season, and the sampling had to be done within four hours of the rain starting.

Just to clarify, the stormwater program has been around since about 1991, if I remember correctly. I've been involved in it since that time, both for "industrial" sources, and in a few "construction" projects. Non-point pollution sources were originally supposed to be included in EPA programs since the 1970's, but were not actually implemented until the Clean Water Act of 1990, where the congress essentially told the EPA "to get with it." In defense of the EPA, they clearly had their hands full just getting the original NPDES program (point sources) implemented. As you old timers will recall, it just didn't happen over night.
Now that the "non-point" program is in force, it has taken quite a few years before the "municipal" storm water programs were implemented by all of the local and regional agencies. The industrial program has always required sampling and analyses from the "first flush" storm event of the season, and from one additional storm event. In California, the state developed a "General Industrial Permit," which allowed the many thousands of industrial facilities to "piggy-back" into it, rather than have each facility need to be issued an individual NPDES permit (nobody would want that).

The only analyses required for most facilities are pH, TSS, specific conductivity, and either oil and grease or total organic carbon. The program requires each industrial facility to develop and implement both a SWPPP (storm water pollution prevention plan) and monitoring program. Thus far, the state of California has NOT implemented specific criteria on the lab test results that definitively says how clean is OK, or above what concentration is not acceptable. However, some or the regional water boards in California have, at some times, sent out "guideline values" hat might be considered as indicative of OK or not OK. I have several clients for which I've prepared SWPPPs and monitoring programs, and have prepared the required annual reports for them since the start of the program.

In the first several years annual reports were submitted, and probably never reviewed by the regional board staff in that each region (including Los Angeles) only had two or three people to implement the entire stormwater program, including the industrial, construction and municipal program. However, California has greatly increased funding, and regional boards now have a small army of staff that are checking things closely (some regions more than others). They are also making site inspection, and issuing notices of violation where appropriate. This is all predictable. I knew in the beginning that compliance was not going to happen immediately. There are still thousands of facilities that are supposed to be in the program, but may not even know of its existence. The various cities and regional government agencies are just now starting to figure out what they are supposed to be doing; and, some are doing it well while others fumble along clueless. In many cases a city just selects one of their public works engineers for the task, while the person may have no practical knowledge of waste water, chemistry, etc. I can say from personal experience that it is sometimes very frustrating dealing with cities in the construction program. But, companies are selling a lot sand bags and plastic portable fencing, along with cheesy catch basin filter units.

RE: EEDs and Ed's-Storm water

Dvant — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:56:37 GMT

I would hope that most plants going through an upgrade cycle are looking toward treating Compounds of Emerging Concern (CEC's). Ammonia, chlorine, and temperature are driving our current upgrade and were not even on the radar when this plant was built, 1973. If it was still just BOD and TSS this plant could last another 20 years. New regulations can make a plant obsolete over night.

Our current plan is to use an MLE process with tankage that will accept membranes, if they are needed. The older sludge age that membranes allow will help reduce CEC's and the water from the membranes should be clean enough to make the next step of treatment easier. We also have the option to expand the MLE tankage if the regulations don't change.

I am concerned about biosolids. If the CEC's are removed from the water what's going to show up in the biosolids. Are we moving the problem to another location?

RE: EEDs and Ed's-Storm water

Dedalus — Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:37:03 GMT

This was for my client, and believe you me, it was no fun at all watching the darn weather forecast all the time, preparing to leap into action at any time.

Where I live now, there's huge contamination in storm runoff, owing to a large population of Canada Geese in the area. The water is directed to groundwater recharge basins, and it must be leading to huge nitrate/on contamination of the groundwater.

http://www.dedalusenviro.com

PPCP's

Dvant — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:28:10 GMT

Anyone have thoughts on removing PPCP's from wastewater using longer SRT's? I just read an article by Joan Oppenheimer and Roger Stephenson, Time Out.

My question is what kind of plant has the least problem running up to a 15 day SRT. Extended Air and MBR's come to mind.

Hormones

paige — Wed, 21 Jun 2006 13:31:08 GMT

Does anyone have working LC/MS/MS extraction and analysis methods for testosterone and estrogen along with their degradation products (conjugated and unconjugated)? Testosterone methods seem nonexistent, usually done by HPLC-RD or radio immunoassay. Thanks for any and all suggestions!

Paige Gay

RE: Hormones

paige — Tue, 27 Jun 2006 10:58:25 GMT

Thanks Victor!

Paige

RE: Hormones

Victor — Sun, 25 Jun 2006 17:49:05 GMT

Paige:

You may want to get a hold of the original USGS study "Pharmaceuticals, Hormones, and Other Organic Wastewater Contaminants in U.S. Streams, 1999-2000: A National Reconnaissance" by Dana W. Kolpin et al, Environmental Science and Technology, 2002, 36, 1202-1211. It explains in detail the compounds tested for as well as the methodology employed. Here is part of the bibliography:

(26) Lindsey, M. E.; Meyer, M.; Thurman, E. M. Anal. Chem. 2001, 73, 4640-4646.

(27) Brown, G. K.; Zaugg, S. D.; Barber, L. B. Water-Resour. Invest. Rep.-U.S. Geol Surv. 1999, No. 99-4018B, pp 431-435.

(28) Barber, L. B.; Brown, G. K.; Zaugg, S. D. In Analysis of Environmental Endocrine Disruptors; Keith, L. H., Jones-Lepp, T. L., Needham, L. L., Eds.;ACSSymposiumSeries 747; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2000; pp 97-123.

Dioxin and Furan Treatment

neil.mclaughlin — Thu, 09 Mar 2006 12:13:10 GMT

Older sludge in our lagoons contains dioxins and furans remaining from previous pulp and paper processes during the 70's. I've heard that solar radiation can help breakdown these organic compounds with time. Does anyone know if there has been research done or if there are proven technologies to help remediate dioxin/furan laden sludge?

Neil

RE: Dioxin and Furan Treatment

EOH2O — Fri, 10 Mar 2006 13:33:32 GMT

Dioxins and furan are CH bonds - if the sludge is wet - still in mud stage - then you can electrolytically oxidize the residuals - and/or utilize hdyrolase enzyme dosing with aeration to "cleave" the bonds and reduce to CO2 and water. Hydrolase work better with oxidizer present, thus the electrolytic oxidation as it is not limited by the organic load.

The bonds are no more or less stable then those found in manufacture of pyrine and organochloride pesticides/herbicides.

If the sludge is dried - then direct application of catalytic hdyrolase enzymes with a small solution of hydrogen perodixe will also work - this is accomplished by soaking the sludge where applied - or if winrowed - then spraying, turning, and spraying again.

Orenda Technologies - orendatech@earthlink.net probably has data and application info -
Dave

RE: I Told You So!

John Sansalone — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:38:37 GMT

It seems that the U.S. is playing catch-up with Europe on this stuff, and maybe the water treatment industry as a whole is not as active as they should be, but a number of the studies I've heard about (including some by the USGS) were commissioned by the water suppliers. Notably, in this area, is New York City, which is dealing with a filtration avoidance agreement for most of its watershed, and intensively studying that part for which treatment will be required.

I Told You So!

EOH2O — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 02:26:27 GMT

Anyone interested in this topic better take a hard look at the Final Interim Report from the USDA Natl Organic Program - this has gone in for final approval. You'll note that Eds/POPs are noted and this is going to effect eventually the WWTP and Freshwater Treatment folks - figure in about a year depending on recent WTO/Dept. of Commerce export trade negotiations. This is because it will effect Ag exports of fish, US F&W hatcheries, and virtually any crop that is irrigated from a river or stream where the pollutants have been noted by the USGS and EPA.

I hate to say it - but I told you so. And since "poop run's down hill" - it eventually is going to hit the municipalities and thus the operators of the WWTP's to remove the pollutants before they hit the river!

Were working on solutions NOW - are you?

Dave/Aquatic Technologies

RE: EEDs and Ed's-Storm water

John Sansalone — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:23:06 GMT

From a practical perspective, it is too early to do much more than talk. There are a wide variety of compounds being studied, with differing degrees of removal in STPs, and no clear sense of what sort of water quality limit might be imposed. You can imagine the public reaction if a municipality spends a ton of money on a process (even if only for research), and is then told by EPA that the treatment technology was not acceptable, and had to be replaced; or if a new standard gets adopted that can't be met with the proposal. Although options can be discussed and studied (a good thing), no one wants to invest too much money until there is at least some idea of where the Feds will go with this.

RE: I Told You So!

EOH2O — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 20:48:16 GMT

Dave -
No, this "Final" report was just submitted in Dec of 2005. I would not expect them to take effect till 2007 - as it normally will take 6-8 months of "review" for final approval.

As to buying equipment or my services - hey, I'm always open to money, but that's not the point. The point is that there is a lot of federal and international manmanuveringing on and it seems no one in the water treatment industry is really paying attention - as one party put it - unless it's mandated - we are not going to do anything. If your an environmental engineer -consultant, or designer of systems - you have to be aware that this issue is going to come up -as it takes months, sometimes a year or more to get design approvals befbeforeu break ground - this could sneak up on you and you'll have to start all over - especially as the federal courts are not going to allow the cities to get out of treating storm water and other discharges under the Clean Water Act - they can delay with court filings - but federal Court in California already ruled once that cities have to comply - regardless of economics - so plaplanterators and others who have to answer to their Boards or governing agencies, better to bone up now on the treatment options - as they are few.
Dave

RE: I Told You So!

Jerry — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 19:32:51 GMT

Hello Aquatic Technogogies

Should we buy your products or aquire your services before the Regs come into effect or after?

RE: I Told You So!

D Shulmister — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:02:03 GMT

I suppose if you don't grow and sell "Organic" fruits and vegetables, you'll be okay. Is this from the final report that became effective on 10/21/02?

RE: EEDs and Ed's-Storm water

EOH2O — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 18:23:25 GMT

Victor -
Thanks for reply. I understand the municipalities take a stance of "act when mandated" and some municipalities are looking at this now - figuring it's coming - but by what I can find, it's like one or two here and there - just trying to figure out how wide spread the review might be. As for reclaim water - that's one of the areas they/the other municipalities, are looking at - especially if the WWTP discharges to a river with any endangered fish or high-sport fishing industry exists (like the Columbia or Snake).

Dave

RE: EEDs and Ed's-Storm water

Victor — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 12:40:49 GMT

Dave:

For most municipalities, it is a reactive response. This is mostly due to budgeting. Most wastewater treatment plants will not budget for something unless it is mandated (that is, unless it is in the permit or is in the process of being added to a permit). or it means that there will be an economic benefit. As of yet, I have not seen any studies being done on solids for endocrine disruptors. Mind you, activated sludge tends to "absorb" a large portion of endocrine disruptors. This is one of the reasons that plants having large concentration of activated sluge per given volume (MBR, IFAS...) will tend to remove a larger concentration of endocrine disruptors than say plain old conventional aeration. We've been given a list by DHS as to which compounds must be tested for as it applies to reclaimed water and groundwater recharge.

RE: ED's and POPs as per UN Environmental Programme

John Sansalone — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 13:35:23 GMT

I'm not so sure that agricultural imports, and such, need to be the major concern, and that pesticides may be over- emphasized. I believe that studies have shown that actually the vast bulk of pesticide use in the U.S. (something like 75 %), is household and small commercial. All those suburban tracts using the "Roundup" and such, the "Lawn Doctor" type franchises, golf courses, local nurseries, and so on. The big concerns these days seems to be less the pesticides, than the other chemicals that may be endocrin disrupters. Most of the stuff I've been seeing (and the ones that are really being looked at in the ppt levels) has been pharmaceuticals and related compounds, and chemicals such as those used as fire retardants. Birth control compounds, pharmaceuticals, anti-bacterial soaps, and so on are increasingly being found, and there are studies going on to see how treatable they are. One scary aspect is that the FDA tells drug manufacturers to dispose of waste products by sending them down the sewer, without regard to size of treatment plant, type of treatment, possible impact on the treatment plant (consider a WWTP getting lots of slugs of antibiotics !), and so on. A fair number seem to pass through untreated, or only partially reduced. It has become somewhat accepted to measure sewage contributions to streams using compunds that aren't readily degraded in an STP, such as the ones mentioned above, and caffeine as an indicator. Some of the compunds of concern occur at low levels in nature, complicating the situation, so some of the studies are needed to determine what is a "normal" background level of these substances. While not trying to understate pesticides as an issue, they are at least somewhat regulated, while these other things may be the real item of concern.

ED's and POPs as per UN Environmental Programme

EOH2O — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 11:31:14 GMT

Good Morning -

I've recently been doing a bit of research on residual pesticide and herbicides in irrigation water, as many of the most common pesticide and herbicide chemicals are being found in freshwater rivers and freshwater wells throughout the World, and are now being tied to sexual changes in trout/salmon/halibut and now tadpole/frog deaths.

Found a German report of a few years ago on these same ED (endocrin disrupting) chemicals from pestidice/herbicides being found in the post-treated municipal freshwater and municipal wastewater discharges in various areas of Europe. Report was about 3-years old now.

Does anyone have more recent information on post-treatment fresh water water and municpal discharge? Nothing here from the US monitoring agencies I can find. Primarily, looking at what the pre-treatment consisted of for where these residues was found.
Thanks -
Dave/Aquatic Technologies

RE: ED's and POPs as per UN Environmental Programme

EOH2O — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:37:16 GMT

There is a lot of information coming out through the USGS and EPA Toxicology division that many of the residuals from the pesticides resist inicineration(in fact making them more dangerous), microbial degradation, even ozonation. The level of many of these as to adverse ecological effects is in the low parts per billion - and short term continous exposure from levels in the parts per trillion(!) are now being studied by the medical research industry, as the effects are domino-type - meaning that one action leads to another, that ultimately results in the hormonal changes, damages, etc.

Unfortunately, other then Sweden and some other European countries that are taking a preventive stance - treat/remove/reduce use now and figure out the level of harmful effects later - most countries, including the US/Canada - are spending all their funds and time in documenting the levels and studying effects - which means several generations of human long-term exposure and damage, as well as decades of increased environmental damage - which ulitmately will lead even more decades of damage once the governments decide to begin treatment/regualtion/etc. - were 40-years after Agent Orange and DDT - and we are still dealing with the effects of that.

Ultimately, the regulation will come down to the WWTP's being responsbile for the reduction/elimination of residuals in the wastewater - so plant managers and local oversite committees better start looking at this now - because it's coming sooner then they may think.

So far - have not found any political action to limit or prevent importation of agricultural products that contain these residuals - but expect like bovine BSE - there will begin to be
limitations as both protective issues for local agricultural industry as well as health issues. Bet this comes up in WTO or EU export/import trade negotiations within the next 1-2 years.

RE: ED's and POPs as per UN Environmental Programme

01730360 — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 14:08:29 GMT

Pesticides are not typically removed/destroyed in conventional WWTPs. Advanced treatment such as advanced oxidation, (e.g. ozone plus UV), activated carbon adsorption, or other is usually required.

I know there has been a study in CO recently to document occurence of EDCs downstream of wwtps. It was not specifically focused on pesticides but did include them.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2004/3127

RE: ED's and POPs as per UN Environmental Programme

EOH2O — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 01:53:46 GMT

Thanks - that url worked!
Dave

RE: ED's and POPs as per UN Environmental Programme

chezlab — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 16:58:36 GMT

Sorry for the incorrect posting of the email address. The CORRECT address is as follows:

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/dailystar/106468.php

Mary

RE: ED's and POPs as per UN Environmental Programme

Victor — Sun, 08 Jan 2006 14:35:52 GMT

Dave:

There is an issue of Water Environment Research (September/October 2005) that has a supplemental CD (Vol. 77, Number 6, pp 561-2894) that has the most up to date literature review on endocrine disruptors. Good luck finding it!

---Victor

RE: ED's and POPs as per UN Environmental Programme

EOH2O — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 02:15:48 GMT

Thanks, but the url address comes back with "cant' be found" - please double check it - as Google search not picking it up.
Dave

RE: ED's and POPs as per UN Environmental Programme

chezlab — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:35:50 GMT

I recently read an article in the Arizona Daily Star that referenced a study done by the University of Arizona Environmental Research Laboratory and the U.S. Geological Survey. You can go to the following website to access the article.

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailys!tar/dailystar/106468.php.

Also, either WERF or WEF recently published an article regarding ED's and how effective wastewater treatment was in removing them.

Mary