Monitoring in surface water (and groundwater) (emerging substances/ - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Monitoring in surface water

(and groundwater)

(emerging substances/ micropollutants and microplastics)

• Dr. Friederike Vietoris, MULNV NRW

UWWTD Evaluation and Fitness Check of the WFD and FD - Workshop on emerging pollutants

Session 1 (Pollutants of emerging concerns and mixtures in surface and groundwater – nature and extent of the problem)

24 October 2018, Brussels

Special relevance of micropollutants in NRW

• Drinking water supply is often covered by bank filtration/ groundwater

enrichment

• High population density and high degree of sealing
• Intensive agriculture
• High level of industrialisation

→ High amount of treated waste water in surface waters → Only 6% of surface waters with intact ecosystems (good ecological status)  Precautionary protection of drinking and surface water!  Environmental and drinking water protection measures/ Measures to reach a good chemical/ ecological status!

Timeline: Micropollutants in NRW

Martina Stremme / panthermedia.net

Assessment values for surface waters

Quelle: EGLV

2006 2008 2009 2012 2018

NRW-funded research on the environmental compatibility of micropollutants: since 1998

Biomonitoring PFT Determination of sources

• Contaminated surfaces
• Industries
• Water/Waste water treatment

Programme "Reine Ruhr" with the support of an Expert Commission Upgrading of the first municipal WWTP for the elimination of micropollutants

PFT pollution in the Ruhr Area

First plant for the treatment of hospital waste water

• Research and development
• Monitoring / Surveillance
• Development and

implementation of measures

• Information and

communication

Trigger

Competence Center Micropollutants.NRW

2016

Pro.o.M. 2016-2021

Waste water load in surface waters

4

Integrated Monitoring Concept

Integrated Monitoring Concept – Comprehensive and sustainable protection

• f people, environment and resources

Protective objective „Drinking water“ Protective objective „Surface water/ aquatic ecology“ interlinking Drinking water Raw water Waste water Surface water Ground water Monitoring programmes

OGewV (2016),

Annex 8 (58 substances)

OGewV (2016),

Annex 6 (67 substances)

OGewV (2016),

Annex 7 (O2, T, pH, NO3

• …

11 substances)

Further substances … (> 400 substances)

Support for biological quality elements

Ecological status Ecological status – river

basin specific

Chemical status Ecological status

• Chemical status ≠ chemical “quality" of waters
• 100,000 substances are handled in the EU

 Only a very small part of the "handled" substances are regulated/ monitored

Which substances are monitored? (surface water)

Sources of knowledge about relevant micropolutants

• Results from “normal - target monitoring” (surface water, groundwater,

waste water, drinking water …)

• Special measuring programs in NRW
• EU watch list,
• testing of new investigation methods (e.g. passive samplers, new

bioanalytical tools ...),

• investigations within the scope of research projects (microplastics,

mixed toxicity project ... ),

• non-target monitoring.
• Knowledge of production processes or application of substances/

release

• Further notes on relevance from external investigations and projects
• Exchange of information and experience at federal and EU level

Monitoring results (2012 – 2014) – TOP 25 („unregulated“ substances)

(13.06.2016)

Name of substance Sample material % evaluated river length % exceedance Metformin Water 8.8 96.5 4-Aminoantipyrin Water 9.6 92.5 Gabapentin Water 10.6 91.4 4-Acetamidoantipyrin Water 10.6 87.6 4-Formylaminoantipyrin Water 10.6 86.3 Amidotrizoic acid Water 13.3 85.1 Iopamidol Water 14.1 78.6 Diclofenac Water 15.5 75.7 10,11-Dihydro-10,11-dihydroxycarbamazepin Water 10.6 71.6 Iomeprol Water 13.3 70.1 Benzo(ghi)-peryleni+Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyren Water 14.2 60.9 Cadmium Suspended solid 9.6 60.6 Pyren Water 12.3 58.2 Titan Water 14.2 54.6 Desphenyl-chloridazon Water 20.3 51.5 Valsartan Water 9.0 50.6 Candesartan Water 9.0 48.7 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyren Water 14.0 48.1 Iopromid Water 14.1 45.5 Desfenlafaxin hydrochloride Water 9.0 44.4 Metazachlor sulfonic acid Water 17.6 43.9 Metolachlor sulfonic acid Water 17.6 41.4 Benzo(a)anthracen Water 12.6 38.1 Monobutyltin-cation Water 7.8 35.4 Zinc Water 93.0 30.6

Subject of protection: aquatic ecology

Name of substance Relevance criterion [µg/L] Number of exceedance

• Max. exceedance

factor Catchment areas with exceedances (number) Gabapentin TWZmittelfristig (VWa: 0.1) 103 22 Diemel (3), Ems NRW (6), Ijsselmeerzuflüsse NRW (10), Lippe (4), Rheingraben-Nord (31), Ruhr (27), Sieg (10), Weser NRW (12) Ibuprofen TWZmittelfristig (GOW: 1.0)

• Diclofenac

TWZmittelfristig (GOW: 0.3) 9 4 Ems NRW (2), Ijsselmeerzuflüsse NRW (5), Weser NRW (2) 4-Formylamino- antipyrin TWZmittelfristig (VWa: 0.1) 88 18 Diemel (3), Ems NRW (4), Ijsselmeerzuflüsse NRW (10), Lippe (4), Rheingraben-Nord (23), Ruhr (22), Sieg (10), Weser NRW (12) Metformin1 TWZmittelfristig (VWa: 0.1) 6 8.6 Rheingraben-Nord (3), Ruhr (2), Sieg (1) 10,11-Dihydro-10,11- dihydroxy- carbamazepin TWZmittelfristig (VWa: 0.1) 60 9 Diemel (3), Ems NRW (3), Ijsselmeerzuflüsse NRW (8), Lippe (3), Rheingraben-Nord (8), Ruhr (18), Sieg (7), Weser NRW (10)

1 Use of GOW of 1.0 µg/L instead of the VWa of 0.1 µg/L after 3rd quater 2014

Frequency of exceedance for the subject

• f protection „drinking water supply“

TWZmittelfristig = drinking water specific target valuemedium-term VWa = general precautionary value GOW = health-related

• rientation value

Non-target analytics

Rhein – Bad Honnef Niers - Viersen Target substances Suspected-target substances Target substances Suspected-target substances

number of „unkown“ substances postive mode: ~ 1600 negative mode : ~ 1100 number of „unkown“ substances postive mode: ~ 3200 negative mode : ~ 2100

Pharmaceuticals Pesticides Industrial chemicals Others (e.g. personal care products) Pharmaceuticals Pesticides Industrial chemicals Others (e.g. personal care products)

Results for surface water NRW (2012 - 2014)

I. Chemical status predominantly Hg (biota), PAH, PFOS, PBDE, TBT, cadmium … II. River basin specific substances predominantly zinc, copper, PCB's (local), organotin compounds, some pesticides … III. Supporting elements nutrients … IV. Further substances pharmaceuticals (u.a. Diclofenac, Clarithromycin, Ibuprofen, Sotalol), PFC, PAH, organotin compounds …  For > 150 substances the assessment values were exceeded in the monitoring cycle, thereof about 100 substances without legally binding EQS (32 pharmaceuticals incl. metabolites).

Relevant substances in groundwater (Germany)

• Regulated: nitrate (50 mg/l), pesticides and relevant metabolites (rm)

(0.1 µg/l single parameter, 0.5 µg/l sum)

• Non-regulated: non-relevant metabolites (nrm)
• Most frequently observed pesticides/ rm and nrm in German

groundwaters:

pesticides/rm permitted? Atrazine/Desethylatrazine No Bentazone Yes Bromacil No 1,2-Dichlorpropane No Diuron No Simazine No Mecoprop Yes nrm Desphenyl chloridazone Metolachlor sulfonic acid Metazachlor sulfonic acid N,N-dimethylsulfamid Metolachlor acid Metazachlor acid Dimethachlor sulfonic acid

Data: UBA (2018, Draft, will be published in Jan 2019)

Results for human pharmaceuticals (LAWA)

• First results since early 2000, analytics available
• Surface water: human pharmaceuticals are found quasi ubiquitously

in waste water-impaired waters

• Groundwater: according to the current state of knowledge,

groundwater is not contaminated to a large extent with medicinal substances for human use

• In particular, human pharmaceuticals with high application quantities

and moderate / poor biodegradability, partly also their metabolites / transformation products, are introduced year-round into the aquatic environment via WWTPs

LAWA (2016)

Handling „not regulated" substances (NRW)

When in a surface water body

• according to the monitoring results, the good ecological status/ potential is not

achieved because biological quality elements are moderate or worse and

• substances are detected which are not regulated in Annexes 6 - 8 OGewV, but

for which Annex D4* of the Monitoring Guideline NRW contains concentration values which, if exceeded, may damage the aquatic biocenosis, and

• the concentration values of Annex D4 of the Monitoring Guideline NRW have

been exceeded, then,

• in view of the moderate or worse ecological status or the ecological potential

not achieved, it can be assumed that the exceedance of the concentration values is (partly) responsible for the damage of the aquatic biocenosis. Something else applies if the ecological deficits cannot be attributed to the substance under consideration, because the substance alone affects ecological quality elements that are not in deficit.

* Annex D4 – list of regulated and unregulated substances with assessment values (draft EQS, PNEC, ..)

Microplastics in inland waters in Southern and Western Germany

First results (Part 1 – water phase):

• Microplastic is detected at all test sites
• Basic burden of civilization
• The

particle concentrations range from 2.9 to 214 particles/m³.

• Highest proportion: small microplastic (1 mm - 20 μm) = 88.5

%

Background information and measurement reports under: https://www.lanuv.nrw.de/umwelt/wasser/wasserrahmenrichtlinie/gewaesserueberwachung/mik roplastik_in_binnengewaessern/

Assessment and outlook:

• The snapshots give a first overview of the distribution of

microplastics on the water surface of flowing waters.

• The measured concentrations are in a similar size range as

in regions with comparable patterns of civilization (comparison of different studies is only possible to a limited extent due to methodological differences).

• Part 2 of the study will give a more detailed picture of the

distribution of microplastics in different water compartments.

• Need for optimization and standardization of monitoring

procedures

• Need for research on exposure and effect data +

development of adequate assessment systems

Conclusions

• Pollution situation in groundwater and surface water is not comparable,

even if some similar substance groups are detected.

• Chemical status ≠ chemical “quality" of surface waters (misleading name?!)
• The substances not regulated by law are often of relevance to the

aquatic environment/ drinking water supply - as a result "difficult" individual case regulations are necessary.

• Only few of the regulated substances are relevant to the aquatic

environment.

• New relevant pollutants such as microplastics or pharmaceuticals have

been identified - but microplastics are not yet ready for regulation - in contrast to drugs  revision of the substance lists is needed.

• Drinking water abstraction is currently not sufficiently covered in WFD

(surface water).

• It takes far too long for substances to be included in directives at EU level

(positive exception: PFOS).

Conclusions

• Pollution situation in groundwater and surface water is not comparable, even if some similar substance groups are

detected.

• Chemical status ≠ chemical “quality" of surface waters (misleading name?!)
• The substances not regulated by law are often of relevance to the aquatic environment/ drinking water supply - as a result

"difficult" individual case regulations are necessary.

• Only few of the regulated substances are relevant to the aquatic environment.
• New relevant pollutants such as microplastics or pharmaceuticals have been identified - but microplastics are not yet ready

for regulation - in contrast to drugs  revision of the substance lists is needed.

• Drinking water abstraction is currently not sufficiently covered in WFD (surface water).
• It takes far too long for substances to be included in directives at EU level (positive exception: PFOS).
• More ecosystematic thinking/ link between ecology and chemistry is needed to

achieve the environmental objectives of the WFD – supporting use of effect-based methods could be

• ne of several options!

 Supplementary monitoring methods

Fazit

• Nachgewiesene Auswirkungen von Mikroschadstoffen auf

die Gewässerorganismen/ Mehraufwand bei der Trinkwasseraufbereitung

• Herausforderung für Gewässerschutz und Trinkwasser-

versorgung – Multi-Barrieren-Ansatz notwendig!

• Wesentlicher Eintrag von Mikroverunreinigungen erfolgt

über das kommunale Abwasser, je nach Substanz und Eintragspfaden sind Industrieabwassereinleitungen und diffuse Einträge ebenfalls in die Betrachtung einzubeziehen.

• Gesetzliche Regelungen nicht abschließend – Prüfung auf

Gewässer - wie auch auf Trinkwasserrelevanz („Ermessen“)

Thank you very much for your attention!

• Dr. Friederike Vietoris

MULNV NRW – Referat IV-5 40190 Düsseldorf friederike.vietoris@mulnv.nrw.de

Many thanks to colleagues at LANUV and UBA!

WFD programme of measures 2016 - 2021

The effects of micropollutants on the surface water of 156 water bodies, in particular the failure to meet the target of good ecological status / potential, have to be examined.

The upgrading of the waste water treatment plant shall be checked if Surface water:

• Poor ecological status of water bodies - micropollutant load in water

bodies

• FFH or nature reserve - especially with relevant aquatic species and

habitat types

• Non-micropollutant-specific: keeping free of discharges into source

areas, stagnant waters, waters with unfavourable subsurface conditions (such as karst and fissured rocks)

• Drinking water is obtained from the surface water or its bank filtrate.

Waste water:

• Waste water content in the water body
• Preservation of substance / reinvestment needs

Step-by-step approach

1.) Clarification of the load situation

• Measurements in the water body and in the effluent of the

waste water treatment plant

• Clarification of further sources or reduction possibilities on the

basis of supplementary modelling 2.) Feasibility study

• Based on the load situation, consideration of technical and

economic feasibility

• Support for the operator
• Decision-making based on necessity, feasibility, procedures, costs

3.) Expansion of the waste water treatment plant (if necessary)

• Brochure on planning and dimensioning,
• Brochures on activated carbon, ozone and membranes
• Exchange of experience
• Funding

Municipal WWTPs NRW - current status

www.kompetenzzentrum-mikroschadstoffe.de (05/2018)

• 126 feasibility studies
• 30 municipal waste water

treatment plants ranging from 7.000 up to 450.000 EW 11 in operation, 19 in planning

• All treatment procedures

implemented: ozone, PAK and GAK