ASDWA - USGS Webinar Potential Human Exposure and Health Outcomes: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
asdwa usgs webinar potential human exposure and health
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

ASDWA - USGS Webinar Potential Human Exposure and Health Outcomes: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Mar 26, 2024 43 likes •607 views

ASDWA - USGS Webinar Potential Human Exposure and Health Outcomes: Monitoring & Modeling to Address Data Gaps Probability of As > 10 g/L Environmental Health Mission Area: Drinking Water & Wastewater Infrastructure Assess and

slide-1
SLIDE 1

ASDWA - USGS Webinar Potential Human Exposure and Health Outcomes: Monitoring & Modeling to Address Data Gaps

Probability of As > 10 µg/L

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Environmental Health Mission Area: Drinking Water & Wastewater Infrastructure

Assess and differentiate the environmental contaminant and pathogen exposures that cause actual health risks versus those that are only perceived: Drinking Water and Municipal Wastewaters Leads: Paul Bradley, Kelly Smalling

Team: Denise Akob, Katherine Akstin, Brian Andraski, Joe Ayotte, Bill Battaglin, Jason Berninger, Jimmy

Clark, Isabella Cozarelli, Laura DeCicco, James Gray, Christopher Greene, Brad Huffman, Jeanne Jaeschke, Celeste Journey, Ronald Kauble, Doug Kent, Matthias Kohler, Dana Kolpin, Denis LeBlanc, Melissa Lombard, Michelle Lorah, Jason Masoner, Blaine McCleskey, Tim McCobb, Shannon Meppelink, Carol Morel, Stanley Mroczkowski, Deborah Repert, Kristin Romanok, Alan Shapiro, Richard Smith, Clarie Tiedeman, Andrea Tokranov, Jennifer Underwood, Alan Vajda, Toby Wellborn

CTT: Alvarez, Barber, Givens, Hladik, Iwanowicz, Jones, Lane, Leet, Meyer MRDP: Gray, Furlong, Sandstrom

Modified from Glassmeyer et al.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Assessing exposures from drinking water at the point of use: USGS collaborative tapwater research.

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Assessing exposures from drinking water at the point of use: USGS collaborative tapwater research.

Paul M. Bradley, U.S. Geological Survey, Columbia, South Carolina Michael J. Focazio, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia Dana W. Kolpin, U.S. Geological Survey, Iowa City, Iowa Kristin M. Romanok, U.S. Geological Survey, Lawrenceville, New Jersey Kelly L. Smalling, U.S. Geological Survey, Lawrenceville, New Jersey

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Human exposure through DW is inadequately addressed due to sampling locations and times Potential linkages between DW exposures and human-health

  • utcomes are rarely investigated

Mixtures of contaminants are the rule not the exception. Monitoring all contaminants everywhere is not possible Advanced detection and quantitation technologies lead to low-level detections of organic contaminants in DW sources. “You will find it if you look hard enough” Inorganic contaminants occur more frequently and above existing DW standards in DW sources than organic contaminants

USGS Drinking-Water Quality Science:

Lessons Learned

slide-6
SLIDE 6

USGS Drinking-Water Quality Science …

Drinking Water concerns:

  • Increased water-reuse (intentional and de facto)

DW Resource Treated DW DW Exposure?

slide-7
SLIDE 7

7

Rice, Westerhoff et al., JAWWA, 2015 …

De facto water reuse and other demographic, infrastructure, and related changes will continue to create new potential sources of water contaminants

slide-8
SLIDE 8

USGS Drinking-Water Quality Science …

Drinking Water concerns:

  • Increased water-reuse (intentional and de facto)
  • Contaminant mixtures in SW/GW sources & finished DW

DW Resource Treated DW DW Exposure?

slide-9
SLIDE 9

EHMA Infrastructure: SW Exposure & Effects Pilot

2 4 6 8 10 0-25 25-50 50-100 100-1000 >1000 2 4 6 8 10 12 0-100 100-500 500-2500 >6000

Drainage Area (mi2) Population Density (per mi2)

5 10 15 20 25 30 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%

Urban Land Use

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 0-20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% 80-100%

Agricultural Land Use Number of Sites

  • N. Sylamore Cr. AR (Ref)

Chicago S&S Canal IL

  • S. Platte R. CO

Swiftcurrent Cr. MT (Ref) N.F. Zumbro Cr. MN Santa Anna R. CA Fourmile Cr. IA Hite Cr. KY

Targeted Chemicals Unique Organics: 719 Designed-bioactive: 55%

USGS Drinking-Water Quality Science …

DW Resource?

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Detected Chemicals Unique Organics: 406 Designed-bioactive: 57% Top10: 100% bioactive Top30: 70 % bioactive

EHMA Infrastructure SW E&E Pilot

slide-11
SLIDE 11

USGS Drinking-Water Quality Science …

DW Resource Treated DW?

Phase II 25 DWTP Raw/finished (time adjusted) 247 Compounds & Elements:

  • Intake: 148 at least once
  • Treated: 121 at least once

Furlong, Glassmeyer, Kolpin, Mills, …

STOTEN 2016-2018

S F D FC

L i t h i u m ( u g / L ) S u l f a m e t h

  • x

a z

  • l

e Metoprolol C a r b a m a z e p i n e Estrone H y d r

  • c

h l

  • r

t h i a z i d e B u p r

  • p

i

  • n

P s e u d

  • e

p h e d e r i n e D e s v e n l a f a x i n e T r a m a d

  • l

T r i m e t h

  • p

r i m Caffeine Valsartan F e x

  • f

e n a d i n e L i d

  • c

a i n e M e t h

  • c

a r b a m

  • l

N

  • r

v e r a p a m i l V e n l a f a x i n e I b u p r

  • f

e n C

  • t

i n i n e D i l t i a z e m D i l t i a z e m

  • D

e s m e t h y l V e r a p a m i l Fluconazole Atenolol 1 , 7

  • D

i m e t h y l x a n t h i n e F u r

  • s

e m i d e Meprobamate R a n i t i d i n e A m i t r i p t y l i n e Diphenhydramine H y d r

  • c
  • d
  • n

e S u l f a d i m e t h

  • x

i n e C a r i s

  • p

r

  • d
  • l

D h t O x i m a t e d Testosterone Progesterone

0.1 1 10 100 1,000

Concentration, In nanograms per liter

(14) (10) (8) (7) (6) (5) (5) (5) (4) (4) (4) (3) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (2) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (

Lithium Bupropion Metoprolol Carbamazepine Cotinine Propanolol Pseudoephederine Clofibric Acid Lamivudine Verapamil Norverapamil Sulfamethoxazole Diazepam Progesterone

0.1 1 10 100 1,000

Concentration, In nanograms per liter

(14) (3) (3) (2) (2) (2) (2) (1) (1) (1) (1) (1) (

Intake Treated

slide-12
SLIDE 12

USGS Drinking-Water Quality Science …

Drinking Water concerns:

  • Increased water-reuse (intentional and de facto)
  • Contaminant mixtures in SW/GW sources & finished DW
  • Disconnect between regulation/treatment & environmental-contaminant complexity

DW Resource Treated DW DW Exposure?

slide-13
SLIDE 13

https://www.prnewswire.com: accessed 10/13/2018 Currently over 143 million different organic and inorganic substances in CAS registry; 15,000 new substances daily;

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Chemical-by-chemical management

  • TSCA inventory:
  • 1980: ~62,000 chemicals
  • 2018: ~85,000 chemicals
  • Regulated/Assessed chemicals:
  • Priority Pollutant List:
  • 1980: 129
  • 2015: 126
  • SDWA NPDWR: ~90
  • Voluntary HPV assessment: ~300
slide-15
SLIDE 15

USGS Drinking-Water Quality Science …

Drinking Water concerns:

  • Increased water-reuse (intentional and de facto)
  • Contaminant mixtures in SW/GW sources & finished DW
  • Disconnect between regulation/treatment & environmental-contaminant complexity
  • Water treatment public-health tradeoffs (e.g., disinfection vs DBP)

DW Resource Treated DW DW Exposure?

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Is Is tap ap water er safe? e?

slide-17
SLIDE 17

USGS Drinking-Water Quality Science …

Drinking Water concerns:

  • Increased water-reuse (intentional and de facto)
  • Contaminant mixtures in SW/GW sources & finished DW
  • Disconnect between regulation/treatment & environmental-contaminant complexity
  • Water treatment public-health tradeoffs (e.g., disinfection vs DBP)
  • Aging drinking-water infrastructure and legacy plumbing materials
  • High-visibility water-quality failures

DW Resource Treated DW DW Exposure?

slide-18
SLIDE 18

CDC Confirms Lead Levels Shot Up in Flint Kids After Water Switch

  • NBC News

Mayor says water crisis is similar to 9/11

  • The Toledo Blade

WV water crisis settlements provide community up to $151M

  • The Charleston Gazette-Mail

flintwaterstudy.org

Is Is tap ap water er safe? e?

https://www.toledoblade.com/watercrisis http://www.wvpublic.org/term/elk-river-chemical-spill#stream/0

slide-19
SLIDE 19

USGS Drinking-Water Quality Science …

Drinking Water concerns:

  • Increased water-reuse (intentional and de facto)
  • Contaminant mixtures in SW/GW sources & finished DW
  • Disconnect between regulation/treatment & environmental-contaminant complexity
  • Water treatment public-health tradeoffs (e.g., disinfection vs DBP)
  • Aging drinking-water infrastructure and legacy plumbing materials
  • High-visibility water-quality failures
  • New research linking public health outcomes to low-level contaminant exposures

DW Resource Treated DW DW Exposure?

slide-20
SLIDE 20

USGS Drinking-Water Quality Science …

DW Resource Treated DW DW Exposure?

2016 Reconnaissance of Chemical & Biological Contaminant Exposures from Residential and Workplace Tapwaters at Selected Sites in the US

slide-21
SLIDE 21

TW Reconnaissance Priorities

  • Expanded Analytical Space

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot

slide-22
SLIDE 22

TW Reconnaissance Priorities

  • Expanded Analytical Space
  • Public-Supply/Self-Supply

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Tap Tap Tap DWP Raw In No POU Filter POU Filter

DW Reservoir

DWP Treated Out Water Main (Utility)

Main to Curb (Utility)

Drinking Water Plant

Curb to Tap (Owner) Well to Tap (Owner)

Public-supply (EPA):

  • Routine compliance monitoring:
  • Regulated contaminants
  • Primarily pre-distribution
  • Limited POU monitoring

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

DW Information Imbalance

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Tap Tap Tap DWP Raw In No POU Filter POU Filter

DW Reservoir

DWP Treated Out Water Main (Utility)

Main to Curb (Utility)

Drinking Water Plant

Curb to Tap (Owner) Well to Tap (Owner)

Self-supply (owner):

  • <15 person/<25 hookups (EPA not authorized)
  • Monitoring rare:
  • Over reliance on organoleptic quality
  • Cost prohibitive
  • Disclosure disincentive (property sales)

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

DW Information Imbalance

slide-25
SLIDE 25
  • 11 states
  • 26 sites/samples

(+2 Blanks) Home tapwater (13)

  • Private wells (GW)
  • Municipal (GW, SW)

Office tapwater (12+1)

  • Municipal (GW, SW)
  • Bottled water

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

Sampling Sites

slide-26
SLIDE 26
  • Human Exposure vs DW source/supply characterization
  • “Realistic” Tap Exposures:
  • Screen/aerator not removed
  • Sink area not cleaned/disinfected
  • Immediate collection (no flush)
  • 6h-Stagnant sampling not required (not worst-case for

distribution/plumbing derived contaminants, like Pb, Cu)

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

Sampling Approach

slide-27
SLIDE 27
  • Inorganics (19)
  • Unique Organics (482)
  • PESTS designed-bioactive
  • PHARMS designed bioactive
  • DBPs intrinsic to treatment
  • PFAS (10)
  • VOCs
  • Hormones
  • Microorganisms:
  • Selective plate (viability)
  • Sequencing (ID confirmation)
  • Biological Effects Potential:
  • In Vitro Bioassays (ER/AR/GR)
  • Predictive Toxicology

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

Analytical Methods

slide-28
SLIDE 28
  • Detected: 18/19 (Guidance: 10/18)
  • MCL Exceedance: 1
  • U (MCL = 30 µg L-1); 1/25 (self-supply)
  • Pb (AL = 15 µg L-1); 0/25
  • MCLG Exceedance: 2
  • U (zero); 18/25 (self-public)
  • Pb (zero); 23/25 (self-public)

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

Results - Inorganics

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL):

  • Enforceable (triggers action)
  • Based on:
  • Public Health concern
  • Technical/Economic Feasibility

§ Pb:

§

MCL (TTAL) = 15 µg L-1

§

MCLG = 0 µg L-1

§ U:

§

MCL = 30 µg L-1

§

MCLG = 0 µg L-1

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

EPA Public Health Guidance

MCL Goal (MCLG):

  • “level of a contaminant in drinking water

below which there is no known or expected risk to health”

  • Non-enforceable
  • Based on:
  • Public Health concern
  • Specific emphasis on vulnerable

populations

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Analytical sensitivity:

  • Pb:
  • USGS Pb method: 0.08 µg L-1
  • Pb Monitoring: MDL 1 µg L-1
  • 2/23 exceeded 1 µg L-1

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

Risk Communication

MCLG: Zero

  • theoretical target
  • “non-detect”
slide-31
SLIDE 31

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

Results - Organics

  • Detected: 75/482
  • Max Detects: 12 self; 29 public
  • Med Detects: 5 self; 17 public (significant)
  • Designed-Bioactives:
  • ~50% of detected; >90% of samples
  • DBP: 21 % of detected
  • PFAS: 9% of detected; 84% of samples (med: 2 ng L-1)
slide-32
SLIDE 32

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

Results - Organics

slide-33
SLIDE 33
  • MCL:
  • 10(+1)/75; no exceedances
  • MCLG:
  • 14/75
  • Exceedances: 5
  • Bromodichloromethane (zero): 95% public-supply samples
  • Tribromomethane (zero): 68% public-supply samples

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

Results - Organics

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Exposure-Activity Ratios (EAR):

  • EAR mix (unitless) = ∑ 12345678 (9458 6:)

;<=>?>=@ (;AA 6:)

  • EAR calculated using toxEval (Corsi, DeCicco)
  • Tool developed in R
  • GUI, user friendly

34

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

Computational Toxicology

ToxCast

> 1000 assays, > 9000 chemicals ~$20k per chemical (< single early life stage fish study)

*HTS = high throughput screening Rapidly, cost-effectively screen chemicals for:

  • 1. Potential to perturb biological pathways
  • 2. Relative perturbation concentration
slide-35
SLIDE 35

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

EAR - Compound

BPA DBP PFAS

“Underestimate” §

ToxCast : 37/75

§

Fraction of compounds in use

…compare with EPA/NIEHS databases to project into Human Health space…

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Assessing exposures from drinking water at the point of use: USGS collaborative tapwater research. Risk = f(Exposure, Hazard)

  • Mixed inorganic/organic exposures widespread in TW study
  • Multiple lines of evidence, including MCLG Exceedances indicate

need to better understand human health hazard from low-level mixed inorganic/organic contaminant exposures

slide-37
SLIDE 37

2016 National Tapwater Exposure Pilot:

Pa Paul M. Bradley, Dana W. Ko Kolpin, , Kristin M. . Ro Romanok, , Kelly L. . Smalling, , Michael J. . Fo Focazio, , Juliane B. . Br Brown, Mary y C. Ca Cardon, , Kurt D. . Carpenter, , Steven R. . Co Corsi, , Laura A. . De DeCicco, , Julie E. . Di Dietze, , Nicola Eva Evans, Ed Edward T. Furlong, Carrie E.

  • E. Give

vens, James L. Gray, Dale W. Griffin, Christopher P. Higgins, Mi Michelle L. Hl Hladik, , Luke R. . Iw Iwanowicz, , Celeste A. . Journey, , Kathryn M. . Ku Kuivila, , Jason R. . Ma Masoner, , Carrie A.

  • A. McDono

nough, ugh, Michae hael T. Meyer, Jam ames L. Orlando ando, Mar ark k J. St Strynar, , Christopher P. . Weis, , Vickie S. . Wi

  • Wilson. 2018. Rec

econnaissance e of Mixed ed Organic and Inorganic Ch Chem emicals in Private e and Public Supply Ta Tapwaters at at Selecte cted d Reside denti ntial al and and Workpl place ace Site tes in n the the Uni nite ted d State

  • tates. Env

nvironm nmental ntal Sci cience nce & Te

  • Technology. https

https:/ ://do doi.org/ g/10. 10.1021/ 1021/acs acs.est. t.8b04622 8b04622

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Chicago

2017 Chicago Area Tapwater Exposure

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Assessing exposures from drinking water at the point of use: USGS collaborative tapwater research.

Paul M. Bradley pbradley@usgs.gov Kelly L. Smalling ksmall@usgs.gov Michael J. Focazio mfocazio@usgs.gov

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Joe Ayotte, USGS, New England Water Science Center Laura Medalie, USGS, New England Water Science Center Sharon Qi, USGS, Colorado WSC Lorraine Backer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Tom Nolan, USGS, National Water Quality Assessment Project

Recent results and current plans for assessing exposure to arsenic from domestic wells in the United States

slide-41
SLIDE 41
  • Background and problem
  • Objective, approach, and findings
  • Current study to evaluate human health

effects from exposure to arsenic

Outline

slide-42
SLIDE 42
  • 1. The burden of exposure of the private domestic

well population in the U.S. is not well known.

  • 2. No continuous national map of arsenic in domestic

well water in the U.S.

  • 3. Lack of understanding by citizens, well/treatment

installers, and policy makers hampering exposure reduction efforts.

Background / Problem

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Contaminants in Groundwater

Contaminant Group Number of samples* Percent exceeding human health benchmark VOCs 3,006 1.4 Pesticides 5,013 1.7 Nitrate 4,674 8.7 Trace elements 4,527 19

*All wells (monitoring, public, domestic) cycle 1 https://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/trace/pubs/sir2011-5059/

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Previous studies

Arsenic in principal aquifers of the US – NAWQA, 2009 Arsenic in surficial aquifers of the US – Amini, 2008 Arsenic in all wells in USGS database – Ryker, 2003

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Develop a national-scale statistical model of arsenic in domestic wells in the United States

  • 1. Use logistic regression to predict the probability of

high arsenic (> 10 µg/L) in domestic wells based on geology and hydrology, etc.

  • 2. Use probabilities and domestic well population data

to get the estimated number of people exposed, by county/state.

Objective and approach

slide-46
SLIDE 46

B a y e s i a n n e t w

  • r

k Ensemble trees, neural networks L i n e a r r e g r e s s i

  • n

, l

  • g

i s t i c r e g r e s s i

  • n

“ M e c h . ” n

  • n

l i n e a r r e g r e s s i

  • n

( G W A V A ) S

  • i

l W a t e r A s s e s s m e n t T

  • l

( S W A T ) S i m u l a t i

  • n

( M O D F L O W , M O D P A T H ) U n s a t u r a t e d z

  • n

e m

  • d

e l s ( R Z W Q M )

Data driven Physically based

Statistical Mechanistic

Model complexity ¹ prediction accuracy Process complexity

Modified from Schwarz et al., 2006

Modeling continuum

For making national and regional scale water quality maps Lag time and forecasting

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Ground- water quality Contaminant source Geology Geo- chemistry Climate Hydro- geology

Factors affecting groundwater quality

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Dependent variable data - Arsenic

20,450 samples (MN and ME state data added)

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Generalized geology

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Soil geochemistry - Arsenic

slide-51
SLIDE 51

Precipitation

High : 7176.28 Low : 51.59

slide-52
SLIDE 52

Recharge

High : 215.0 Low : 0

slide-53
SLIDE 53

Probability of As > 10 µg/L

Estimating high-arsenic areas

High : 1 Low : 0

slide-54
SLIDE 54
  • Not intended to indicate individual

arsenic risk

  • National scale – does not supplant
  • ther, more detailed testing or local-to-

regional studies

  • More arsenic data in un-sampled areas

are needed

Limitations

slide-55
SLIDE 55

New multi-disciplinary study…

slide-56
SLIDE 56
  • Update national domestic well arsenic model
  • Investigate cancer and birth outcomes and potential arsenic exposure
  • Other health outcomes (NHANES data in specific geographic areas)
  • Papers reporting on findings

Powell Study status and plans