Variation in removal efficiency of micropollutants in on-site - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Aug 10, 2023 374 likes •565 views

Variation in removal efficiency of micropollutants in on-site sewage facilities studied using target and non-target analysis Patrik L. Andersson, Kristin Blum, Jerker Fick, Peter Haglund UMU Pablo Gago-Ferrero, Lutz Ahrens, Meritxell Gros,

SLIDE 1

SLIDE 2

Variation in removal efficiency of micropollutants in on-site sewage facilities studied using target and non-target analysis

Patrik L. Andersson, Kristin Blum, Jerker Fick, Peter Haglund UMU Pablo Gago-Ferrero, Lutz Ahrens, Meritxell Gros, Karin Wiberg SLU Berndt Björlenius, Gunno Renman, Wen Zhang KTH

SLIDE 3

Poster: Pablo Gago-Ferrero et al

Kungsängsverket Large-scale WWTP Sävjaån River Fyrisån Björklinge WWTP SITE 1 Björklinge before WWTP OSSF site-1 SITE 2 Downstream Björklinge Small-scale WWTP SITE 5 Uppsala Downstream Large-scale WWTP SITE 4 Sävjaån OSSF site 3 SITE 7 Lake Ekoln SITE 3 Husby OSSF site-2 SITE 6 After Sävjaån

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 S7

SLIDE 4

Several OSSFs monitored in

Stockholm and Umeå area (Sweden)

OSSFs main treatments:
Soil beds
Mini or package STPs
Greywaters
OSSFs individual samples with

similar treatments were pooled

Influent and effluent samples
Medium and large STPs also

monitored.

Soil bed system Package STPs

Sampling strategy: Stage I

SLIDE 5

Sampling strategy: Stage II

SLIDE 6

Analytical strategy: GC*GC-MS

Stage I

Sampling I GCxGC-MS based non-target screening Compound prioritization Target analyte selection

Stage II

Method development for target analytes Sampling II Removal pattern analysis Environmental load

SLIDE 7

Analytical strategy: LC-MS

Extrac'on by SPE (Oasis HLB, ENV+) TARGET ANALYSIS Confirma(on and quan(fica(on with reference standards (MS/MS, RT) LC-HRMS analysis SUSPECT SCREENING LC-MS/MS (QqQ) Compound database ~1300 compounds in database (pes(cides, PhACs, PCPs, EDCs, FRs, AS)

26 perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) 110 pes'cides

Validated methods List of candidate substances

SLIDE 8

Identification of priority pollutants

PBT OSSF Source and Use

SLIDE 9

Data Processing in

ChromaToF

NIST Library search
Peak alignment1)
1. Filtering
Detection frequency
Blanks
Manual

investigation Tentatively identified compounds

2. Filtering
t1/2, BCF, PEC/PNEC2)
Hazard concern2) +

HPVC/LPVC/EINECS FISCHER3)

Environmental relevant compounds

Reprocessing
Semi-quantification

Ranking Based on scores in PBT, conc and RE criteria Selection of target analytes

~200 000

~300 ~60

SLIDE 10

In total 30 organic micropollutants

– 9 pharmaceuticals (including caffeine) – 6 polymer/rubber additives including UV, flame retardants, plastizisers – 4 pesticides – 3 PFAS – 3 personal care products – 2 detergents – 2 food additives – 1 surfactant

Selected priority pollutants

SLIDE 11

Examples of priority pollutants

PFOS
OPs
Galaxolide
Hexachlorbenzene
DEET
Probylparaben
Caffeine
Ibuprofen
Carbamazepine
Sucralose

SLIDE 12

Fate of polar chemicals in OSSFs (Meri Gros et al)

SLIDE 13

Fate of polar chemicals in OSSFs (Meri Gros et al)

SLIDE 14

Pattern analysis

SLIDE 15

Removal efficiency of apolar chemicals

* *

2,4,7,9-Tetramethyl- 5-decyn-4,7-diol Tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate

SLIDE 16

Removal efficiency vs Kow

SLIDE 17

A set of priority chemicals identified for

studies on fate in OSSFs

No major differences in levels between

OSSFs and large STPs

No major differences in removal efficiencies

between OSSFs and large STPs

Larger variation in removal for STPs
Better removal of hydrophobic chemicals
Removal of PFASs and PFRs was higher in

package treatment facilities while removal

f PPCPs was more efficient in soil beds

Summary

SLIDE 18