“Three quarters of large U.S. meat processing plants that discharge their wastewater directly into streams and rivers violated their pollution control permits over the last two years, with some dumping as much nitrogen pollution as small cities – facing little or no enforcement” (Environmental Integrity Project, 2018, para. 1).

Proposed Regulations for Meat Processing Plants

In mid-December, the EPA announced a proposal. It was for a new set of regulations on wastewater discharge for meat processing plants.

The first rules on this in 1974 dealt with wastewater directly discharged by slaughterhouses and other plants. However, the additions and EPA’s actions have been slow to move forward since. The EPA hasn’t revised pollution control standards for the plants since 2004.

As a result, they’re weak and aren’t up to date with new technology.

In addition, 95 percent of the plants are not bound to the rules of 2004. Meanwhile, some five percent are using rules set in the mid-1970s.

This is a point of concern by some organizations and people. For instance, the new public hearing is a result of a lawsuit filed by community and conservationists late last year.

The EPA held an online-only hearing on January 24, 2024. Meanwhile, another hearing will take place on January 31st, 10 am at the William D. Ruckelshaus Conference Center in Washington, DC.

Goals

The hope of this plan is to bring the meat and poultry plants into the now. Importantly, it’ll help ensure upgrades are made to the plants with new rules and technology of today. The plan uses pollution-control technologies to improve water quality.

By cutting the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and other pollutants discharged, water in the surrounding areas will improve in health. Moreover, this will then benefit the communities that uphold and maintain the meat and poultry plants.

It establishes stricter waste limitations for the chemicals above, along with E. coli bacteria, for direct discharges. Additionally, another new feature will be its coverage of indirect discharges.

The hope is that these new rules will reduce discharged pollutants by about 100 million pounds per year.

Which Communities are Most Affected?

Just like with steam electrical plants, the populations most impacted are among low-income and minority communities. Half the slaughterhouses are in areas with more than 30 percent of the residents living under the poverty line.

The working conditions in these plants are poor and include physical and mental dangers. All the while, conditions outside the plants are also impacted by the pollution.

What is Polluted?

Nutrient pollution is a widespread, and costly, problem. There are almost five thousand meat and poultry processing plants in the United States. A report said that out of 98 plants surveyed, the median plant released an average of 331 pounds of nitrogen per day.

These plants are the largest and second-largest industrial source of phosphorus and nitrogen pollution in the United States, respectively.

As of 2020, of the 1.5 billion cattle raised for meat production worldwide, there was at least 231 billion pounds of methane released into our atmosphere. These chemicals aren’t the only pollutants in our water. The plants also pollute other materials into our water:

• Fecal bacteria
• Veterinary drugs
• Cleaning products
• Blood
• Viruses and parasites

What are the Health Effects?

This pollution can cause toxic algal blooms. The algal blooms can produce toxins, use up the oxygen in water to create dead zones, and harm wildlife.

Likewise, the pollution can also affect humans’ health through many different illnesses and conditions:

• Respiratory illnesses
• Diarrhea
• Skin irritations
• Blue baby syndrome
• Colorectal and other cancers
• Nausea and vomiting
• Harm to liver and nervous systems

By Brigitte Rodriguez, Associate Researcher & Writer for Save The Water | May 15, 2023

Waste has a huge impact on the environment, on water, and particularly on aquatic systems. Disposing of freshwater sources in the wrong way affects the health of marine life. It’s important for everyone to take steps to reduce water waste. This includes individuals, businesses, and governments. We can make an effort to conserve water and manage waste responsibly. Also, we can help to ensure the preservation of water resources and the health of our ecosystems.

What is Waste?

Waste comes from materials that people discard. It generally has no economic value to the average person. Almost anything people do creates waste.

According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the amount of waste created depends on several factors:

• Economic activity
• Consumption
• Copulation growth

The wastes we generate impact both land and water spaces. Wastes that find their way into waterways are known as aquatic trash. They can affect the environment in multiple ways:

• They decrease water quality.
• They endanger aquatic animals.
• They pollute recreational spaces.

Plastic Pollution and Its Impact

According to the United Nations Environment Program, the world produces around 460 million tons of plastic every year. The figure is worrying for the preservation of ecosystems.

Plastic pollution is very dangerous because plastic doesn’t decompose. In other words, it’s not biodegradable. Thus, it accumulates in the environment for several years. 

Plastics in small pieces are known as microplastics. Microplastics are defined as “particles smaller than five millimeters.” They’re very harmful and can contain toxic chemicals. Aquatic lifeforms can consume these plastic particles. They may ingest chemicals from the plastic debris, and this can reach the entire food chain. Thus, this puts marine biodiversity and human health at risk.

Case: Great Pacific Garbage Patch

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is an impressive amount of garbage accumulation that originates from the fishing industry. It’s located between Hawaii and California and is one of the biggest of five huge, spinning circular currents in the world’s oceans. The water currents cause the debris to drift into the center of the vortex and become trapped. The patch isn’t biodegradable, so it continues to accumulate. Almost all of the garbage is composed of microplastics.

Future Perspectives

Plastic pollution in oceans is getting worse by the minute. Therefore, immediate action is needed, such as binding regulations to reduce pollution. Scientists have proposed a legally binding agreement that would deal with the full life cycle of plastic, from its production and design to its disposal. In addition, we can reduce the amount of plastic in the oceans by using technology to collect all these plastic particles. The hope is to reverse the effects of the plastic waste in the water and restore the aquatic ecosystem.

What Can You Do to Save Water?

There are a few ways you can preserve water:

• Promote sustainable alternatives to single-use plastics, such as reusable bags and containers or biodegradable plastics.
• Participate in public awareness campaigns to draw attention to the importance of waste management.
• If you live in a country or region where water bodies are at risk, urge your government to better manage cleaning sewage and wastewater.
• Use the least amount of plastic that you can.

at Save the Water | April 14, 2023

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that millions of citizens in the U.S. are currently at risk from lead poisoning. The findings revealed that more than 9 million lead service linesare still used to deliver water to families around the country. As a result, this has prompted the agency to propose the first national drinking water standard for “forever chemicals,” which are considered to have dangerous effects on health.

These findings are based on the Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment, part of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Researchers conducting this survey are concerned with the number of lead service lines. The 2021 survey examined over 3,600 public water systems across the nation. Based on the findings, the EPA announced that it believes there are around 9.2 million lead service lines in the country.

What Does the EPA Intend to Do?

New rules set by the agency intend to set drinking water standards for six per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). These chemicals stay in the environment and the human body for long periods of time.They are known to have harmful effects.

Although there are thousands of PFAS chemicals, the new rules will now mandate that water systems monitor for the presence of six specific chemicals, notify the public about the PFAS levels, and then work towards reduction if the chemicals exceed the limit set forth. 

“I am thrilled to announce that EPA is taking yet another bold step to protect public health,” said US Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan. “Folks, this is a tremendous step forward in the right direction. We anticipate that when fully implemented, this rule will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious PFAS related illnesses.”  

How Does Lead Affect Health?

Lead poisoning is a serious public health threat that needs to be monitored and mitigated. Exposure to lead could come from ingesting or inhaling lead-contaminated water, soil, paint chips, or dust particles. Additionally,  lead exposure can also come from ingesting food that contains lead from soil or water. Some of the harmful health effects that lead poisoning can lead to are:

• Damage to the nervous system, mostly affecting the sense organs and other nerves controlling the body
• Hearing and vision impairment
• Fetal growth restriction, even at low exposure levels
• Reproductive problems 
• Hypertension 

The EPA has set the maximum contaminant level goal for lead in drinking water as zero. This is because there is no safe amount of lead. The toxic metal is harmful to our health even at extremely low levels, as it’s persistent and can accumulate over time.

Young children, infants, and fetuses are the most vulnerable group. The dangerous physical and behavioral health effects occur at a lower threshold of lead exposure when compared to adults. Children in low-income communities and communities of color also bear more burdens and face more risk than others. This is due to years of housing discrimination that forced communities of color into poverty and housing in substandard buildings. 

What Is Being Done to Eliminate Lead Poisoning?

The EPA’s survey found that the U.S. needs to spend $625 billion on drinking water infrastructure in the next two decades. Most of the money is to be used to upgrade ancient water pipes, many of which are too old and broken. In some cases, those water pipes are even made of lead. 

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law provides $6 billion to upgrade water infrastructure in the country. The goal is to upgrade the aging infrastructure and replace all the water pipes made out of lead. With sufficient funding, the EPA hopes that one day, lead poisoning from drinking water could become a thing of the past.

at Save the Water | March 23, 2023

On February 3, 2023, residents of East Palestine, Ohio learned about a Norfolk Southern train derailment. This tragedy worried members of the community because the train carried toxic chemicals, such as dioxins. Due to fears of an explosion, authorities decided to ignite a fire in what was called a “controlled release.” Although this alleviated concerns of an explosion, there were increasing concerns of the derailment possibly impacting people’s health and the environment. 

The derailment involved 38 cars, which included 11 carrying hazardous materials. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has begun the process of shipping solid and liquid wastes from the site to facilities specialized in storing these chemicals.

During this time, officials have told residents that air and water quality in the town haven’t been impacted by the derailment. However, new data from East Palestine shows that the soil in the town contains dioxin levels hundreds of times higher than the exposure limit that the EPA had found poses cancer risks.

What Are Dioxins?

“Dioxins” is a general term for chemically-related compounds that usually gather in the fatty tissue of animals. Most human exposure (90%) comes from food, specifically meat and dairy products, as well as fish and shellfish. Dioxins are a major concern for environmentalists. They’re highly toxic and result in many harmful effects on people:

• Reproductive and developmental problems 
• Damage to the immune system’s responses
• Interference with hormonal systems 
• Several types of cancer
• Skin lesions and altered liver function 

Dioxin exposure can be more harmful to certain groups of people, such as developing fetuses. Newborns that are still developing their organ systems can be especially vulnerable to some of the effects of dioxin. People who work in certain occupations, such as workers in the paper industry, may be more susceptible to exposure. This is because they would already have high levels of the toxin in their bodies.

Clean-up’s Progress so Far

The EPA has stated that they’re “committed to protecting the health and safety of the East Palestine, Ohio community.” That being said, many people have expressed frustrations with the EPA’s interventions. Even though the EPA has claimed that the levels of dioxin present are low, the agency’s scientific research suggests that these levels are not safe. “So based on [the levels of dioxin], the concentrations are pretty concerning,” said Carsten Prasse, an organic chemist at Johns Hopkins University and a scientific advisor for SimpleLab. 

Ohio Governor Mike DeWine has expressed frustration about the environmental disaster and slow pace of the cleanup. Recent numbers show that 1,620 tons of waste have been removed the week of March 18, 2023.

Moreover, the EPA announced that 910 tons were removed the week before. A total of 6.7 million gallons of contaminated liquid were extracted from the water bodies since the derailment in February. Recent estimates show that 26,000 tons of toxic dirt remain near the site.

The EPA recently announced that the cleanup will likely take another three months. This didn’t help ease any anxieties. Many people are wondering if they may need to move out of town, fearing for their families’ health. Even though residents were told early on that they can safely return to their homes, people are finding it hard to trust officials.

The Impact of the Dioxins

There have already been a few reports locally about residents experiencing headaches and eye irritation. Animal deaths have also been observed in the area. The Ohio Department of Natural Resources have estimated that the derailment resulted in the deaths of 3,500 fish. There have also been reports of dead chicken as well as other wildlife. 

Gerlad Poje, a toxicologist and a former founding member of an independent federal agency, Chemical Safety Board, said that understanding the full impact of the derailment could take months or years before the full extent of the damage is understood.

The Future of East Palestine, Ohio’s Water

Whatever the future holds for East Palestine, one thing is for sure: the tiny town has forever been changed. For weeks, citizens of a once-quiet Ohio town have seen their streets become filled with large utility trucks used for cleaning environmental toxins. The rivers in the town now house many hoses that run through the two creeks going through East Palestine. Only time will tell if the EPA’s reports were right in saying that residents’ health won’t be affected. In contrast, the residents might find that their health has been affected by the train derailment. 

at Save the Water | March 04, 2023

Pure and clean drinking water is our basic right. Poor and outdated wastewater management technologies are one of the big hurdles on this road. Thermal hydrolysis of sewage sludge is an upgraded technology to treat wastewater. Upmanu Lall, director of the Columbia Water Center has also stated that it’s high time to improve wastewater treatment technologies to secure safer drinking water for coming generations.

Thermal Hydrolysis

Thermal hydrolysis uses steam to treat sewage sludge or wet organic wastes present in wastewater. It’s used prior to anaerobic digestion in wastewater treatment plants. This process requires high temperatures  of around 140 to 170 °C and pressure of about six to nine bars.

During this process, steam releases energy at a high pressure. This increases the reactivity of water and destroys the chemical bonds of the sewage sludge. Post wastewater treatment, people use sewage sludge as bio-compost to enrich soil nutrients. Thus, it’s very important to treat sewage sludge appropriately.

Sewage Sludge

Wastewater treatment plants treat wastewater from sewage systems, and solid wastes are separated from liquid wastes. These solid wastes form sewage sludge, which can then be further treated or processed by thermal hydrolysis. Sewage sludge has two types: primary sludge and secondary–or waste-activated–sludge. Primary sludge has higher fibrous and lipid content, but less phosphorus and protein content. In contrast, secondary sludge contains more organic matter such as carbohydrates, proteins, microbial cells, etc.

After thermal hydrolysis, anaerobic digestion of the sewage sludge takes place, where bacteria breaks it down. Sewage sludge may contain dangerous chemicals and metals leached from industrial, household, municipal, and medical wastes. It also contains non-biodegradable organic matter.

Steps of Thermal Hydrolysis

Thermal hydrolysis is carried out in a batch process. The apparatus consists of a pulper, reactor, and flash tank. The process follows three steps:

1. The sewage sludge is constantly fed into the pulper and preheated at about 100 ℃.
2. From the pulper, the warm sludge goes to the reactor. In each system, there are about two to five reactors placed. Once the reactor gets full, it’s sealed. Steam is flushed inside, and the temperature of the reactor increases up to 180 ℃ at a pressure of about seven bars. The sludge is treated here for about half an hour to kill bacteria and other pathogens.
3. Afterwards, sterilized sludge is fed into the flash tank at an atmospheric temperature. This abrupt reduction in pressure damages the cells of organic material. When the pressure drops suddenly, steam is produced and is again flushed to the pulper, which is then reused there.

The treated warm sewage sludge is then cooled to room temperature using heat exchangers. Lastly, it’s fed to digesters for the next process of anaerobic digestion.

Advantages of Thermal Hydrolysis

Thermal hydrolysis has multiple benefits:

• It reduces pathogens, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and organic micro-pollutants in wastewater.
•  It enhances water quality.
• After thermal hydrolysis, the biodegradability of organic contaminants also increases.
• It helps increase the production of biogas during wastewater treatment by up to 75%.
• This technology decreases the duration and increases the efficiency of the anaerobic digestion process, which is a very important stage of wastewater treatment technology.
• It helps reduce water quantity from sewage sludge. Hence, it becomes easier to treat sludge in advanced stages of wastewater treatment.

Drawbacks of Thermal Hydrolysis

Thermal hydrolysis consumes a lot of energy. It takes place in the absence of oxygen gas and other oxidants. Therefore, after treatment, the color of the sludge darkens. This dark-colored sludge can reduce the efficiency of later steps of wastewater treatment. For example, it can hinder the Ultraviolet disinfection process. To overcome these challenges, thermal hydrolysis can be replaced with an advanced thermal hydrolysis process. This process involves the use of oxidants.

What Can You Do?

CambiTM has installed more than 70 thermal hydrolysis plants in various countries, such as the United States, United Kingdom, and China. This, in combination with anaerobic digestion systems, provides a huge benefit to the masses. You can also help manage wastewater:

• Cut down the incautious disposal of your household wastes which further collects as sewage sludge.
• Reduce sewage sludge by making your septic tanks and drainage system leak-proof, as well as taking care of their maintenance regularly.
• Run social awareness programs to pass on this information.
• Involve the government to take charge of maintaining sewage and drainage systems.

By Brigitte Rodriguez, Associate Researcher & Writer for Save The Water | January 25, 2023

In recent years, PFAS pollution has become a major issue. PFAS contains chemicals that can endanger humans. They are also located in many consumer products such as water resistant clothing, cosmetics, cleaning products and personal care products. Therefore, researchers have created Submerged Aerated Fixed Film Technology. This alternative will reduce PFAS contamination in bodies of water.

What are PFAS?

The term “PFAS” is short for perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Also, known as forever chemicals because they will be with us for a long time. 

For example forever chemicals are found in a wide range of consumer and industrial products:

• Building materials
• Cleaners
• Firefighting foam
• Cosmetics
• Takeout containers

Moreover, forever chemicals do not break down easily. Even worse is the fact that they can become concentrated in our bodies and in the world around us. 

What is the SAFF technology?

To be specific, “Submerged Aerated Fixed Film  (SAFF) technology is a process used to reduce the organic loading of residential and commercial sewage/waste water…” and “Suspended Solids (SS)” from effluent discharge. It thus protects bodies of water, such as rivers and seas.

For instance this technology has several advantages: 

• Lower energy use.
• Easy installation.
• Sludge formation is lessened.
• It is easy to maintain.
• It is inexpensive.

How does it work?

Definitely, this technology works by supplying air through the mechanical aeration system. This system can  be placed in the water, which then creates foam. After that,  the PFAS collect in the foam and can be taken out of the water.

To point out, SAFF technology cleans up PFAS contamination. Certainly it does this by using “the natural properties of PFAS compounds to preferentially bind to the air/water interface of a swarm of rising air bubbles.”

Future perspectives

Indeed SAFF technology sets a precedent for removing PFASs from the aquatic system. In Minnesota, it is currently cycling through thousands of  gallons of groundwater each day. Altogether the hope is that this technology can be used to tackle the problem of PFAS on a larger scale. 

What can be done to lessen exposure to PFAS?

There are a few ways to reduce the exposure to forever chemicals.

• Avoid products that are water-resistant such as clothing, furniture, bedding and other items.
• Purchase washable items.
• Look for PFAS-free products.
• Stop buying microwave popcorn bags and some fast foods because they are wrapped in material that can potentially contain PFAS.
• Do not use products containing Teflon.

What Can You Do to Save Water?

There are a few ways you can preserve water:

• Participate in public awareness campaigns to draw attention to the importance of water conservation.
• Take part in public awareness campaigns to draw attention to forever chemicals
• If you live in a country or region with water bodies at risk of pollution, urge your government to improve sewage and wastewater cleanup.

at Save the Water | December 9, 2022.

After their discovery in the nineteenth century, humans use antibiotics more and more. But, these antibiotics contaminate water, causing problems. These problems include continuous deterioration of the aquatic environment and human health. Therefore, researchers are intensifying their efforts to remove antibiotics from contaminated water.

What are Antibiotics?

Antibiotics are medicines that cure bacterial, fungal, and parasitic infections in humans and animals either by killing the bacteria or by preventing them from growing and multiplying. Sometimes, antibiotics are also used as growth promoters in animals. Based on the nature of the source, antibiotics can be classified into three types:

1. Natural– Antibiotics such as penicillin which are extracted from microorganisms
2. Semisynthetic– Antibiotics such as clarithromycin and azithromycin which are obtained by structural modifications of natural compounds. These are the most frequently used antibiotics. .
3. Synthetic– Antibiotics such as chloramphenicol which are chemically produced in labs

How do Antibiotics Reach Water?

Antibiotics move through several gateways to contaminate water. Humans and animals take antibiotics and then excrete them. The excretions reach the water sources and contaminate them. Most of our wastewater treatment plants cannot treat antibiotics completely. In such plants, after the treatment of antibiotics, they generate effluents, or fluids that leave the treatment plants, which cause soil and groundwater pollution. Poor disposal of unused or expired antibiotic medicines in water and soil also causes antibiotic water contamination. The waste products generated in industries during antibiotic medicine production also spread pollution in water.

Harmful effects of antibiotics in water

Antibiotics are slowly decomposed in nature. When humans and animals consume antibiotic polluted water, antibody resistant genes increase in them. It results in reducing disease fighting capacity of individuals. Moreover, if an individual fell sick, then, antibiotic medicines would not be very effective. Antibiotic polluted water also affects aquatic plants and fishes.

What are Researchers Doing to Solve This Problem?

Adsorbents are the most common solution to this problem. Adsorbents are solid materials that contain many pores. Recently, researchers have come up with different, new types of cheap adsorbents which can remove various antibiotics from water effectively.

1.  A group of nanomaterial scientists prepared spherical, smooth, hollow hexagonal boron nitride nanoparticles which can adsorb   three types of antibiotics: ciprofloxacin (CIP), tetracycline (TC), and benzylpenicillin (BP). These nanoparticles can completely   remove these three antibiotics from water within 21 days.
2.  Few Egyptian scientists developed adsorbents from chitosan composites which can remove common antibiotics from water very       efficiently. These adsorbents are cheap and can be reused many times.
3.  Carbon aerogel with iron and copper metals can also be a solution to the problem of antibiotic water pollution caused by   tetracycline.
4.  In another study, mango plant waste was used to produce carbon nanocomposites. With iron, these nanocomposites form cheap,   reusable, magnetic adsorbents to remove ciprofloxacin from water in one hour.
5.  Wastes from paper mills can also remove tetracycline from wastewater after some chemical modifications. It can effectively   remove tetracycline up to 96%.

What Can We Do?

We can also help reduce antibiotic water pollution in our own small, simple ways.

1. First and foremost, we should reduce use of antibiotics, take them only when it is essential. Also avoid their bulk purchase.
2. We should not dispose of our unused or expired medicines directly in water bodies. We can return them through official programs such as the S. Drug Enforcement Agency’s national drug take-back days.
3. We should promote advanced technology in wastewater treatment plants.
4. Water treated in these water treatment plants should be regularly monitored.
5. Reverse osmosis is an effective technique to curb common antibiotics, we should promote this technique at household levels to ensure the quality of our drinking water. 

at Save the Water | October 24, 2022 

Many people feel helpless when it comes to advocating for positive change. There are big issues to resolve, such as water contamination. People may feel like no matter how much they ask for cleaner water, the issue is out of their control.

However, there are many examples of people’s advocacy for their own well-being for major change. Such events should inspire us to work towards a healthier future.

The Story of the Short Beach Neighborhood in Branford, Connecticut 

Long Island Sound, an island group in the United States that includes the Short Beach neighborhood, has suffered from fecal contamination in the water for many years. 

There are many negative health effects due to fecal contamination of water: 

• Increased spread of diseases, such as cholera, polio, and hepatitis A
• Malnutrition and dehydration due to diarrhea 
• Loss of money due to the time spent on accessing clean water
• Insects that spread disease may reproduce in fecal water and spread disease to clean water containers 

The Short Beach neighborhood had been experiencing high rates of Escherichia coli bacteria. The suspected cause was a the sewage system breach into the stormwater. 

A team of students and faculty members from Yale University wanted to work with the local health department to map local sewage systems. A clear map with these locations would allow them to assess the possible sources of contamination.

The Power of Citizens to Push for Change

The local health department and students from Yale University recruited eight citizen science volunteers. The volunteers were given  written protocol. The laboratory was able to measure the levels of bacterial contamination.  

The department and students used volunteers to foster an engaged relationship between academic researchers, local governments,health departments, and neighborhood residents. This is a way to ensure long-term cooperation that results in sustainability. It can prevent the problem from coming back in the community after the researchers have left.

An important aspect of this project was that the community was still involved even after the sampling of the water. Attendees from the neighborhood discussed the results of the water contamination levels at Civic Association meetings. They were able to give their input on recommended policies for improving the local water quality.

Sustainable Projects in the Future

The transparency of the researchers and the involvement of neighborhood residents helped the project become sustainable. The people living in the area are actively involved in ensuring a clean source of water. 

Strong engagement of citizens in their own health is a great method that will save resources. Volunteers need to see that their contributions are heard. This means that communication is necessary in these projects in order to engage the volunteers. 

Fecal contamination rates of all water sources went above the Connecticut Department of Public Health guidelines. With this knowledge, the state will be able to intervene and ensure clean water. This successful story should be an inspiration to citizens everywhere. It shows that they can make a difference in their communities by volunteering and engaging in making their neighborhoods better. 

at Save the Water | October 19, 2022.

SODIS is a World Health Organization (WHO)-approved, cheap, old-school process commonly used for domestic water treatment. It does not change the taste of water. The USA is one of the top countries in the world publishing research in this growing area of interest.

More About SODIS

SODIS is basically an environment-dependent, repeatable process. We can start it at our home by using ordinary plastic bottles or containers. It is mainly used in areas where sunlight is abundant. Ultraviolet (UV) rays of sunlight can effectively kill viruses and microorganisms like E. coli present in contaminated water which are even resistant to chlorination. These rays inactivate and damage cells of microorganisms, thus, preventing them from multiplying further. Additionally, such microorganisms cause various water-borne diseases like typhoid, dysentery, fever, intestinal infection, and many more. Water is treated and stored in the same container, hence it is an overall cheap, less time-consuming, space-occupying technique with fewer chances of recontamination.

How Does it Work?

SODIS works by using UV-A and infrared (IR) radiations of sunlight altogether. Initially, UV-A radiations damage living cells of microorganisms. After that, when temperature of water rises to 70-75 °C, IR rays help in thermal disinfection, or pasteurization of water. Therefore, the overall efficiency of the process increases. Since microorganisms are extremely sensitive to heat, they do not survive in these specific conditions.

This method appeared to be better at killing microorganisms in water, when compared with other traditional water treatment techniques like chlorination, filtration, ozonation, electroflocculation, advanced oxidation, and others. Besides, it does not produce harmful by-products and certainly is way cheaper.

Time Taken by SODIS

Sunny days- 6 hours.

Cloudy days- 48 hours.

Not favorable during rainy days.

If the turbidity of contaminated water is high, then the period of SODIS treatment extends.

Some Real-world Examples

1.       Lexington, KY, USA: Environmental Research Training Laboratory (ERTL) at the University of Kentucky conducted some experiments to study the feasibility of SODIS in removing E. coli from turbid water at temperature less than 50 °C. When the turbidity of water was increased from 30 to 200 Nephelometric Turbidity Unit (NTU), the efficiency of SODIS in killing microorganisms decreased accordingly.
2.       Ecuador and Bolivia: Jonathan Spear & Valerie Grosscup, The Colorado College, USA, helped about 35 communities and more than 3,500 people on the northern coast of Ecuador with their seven-week SODIS project. Engineers Without Borders (EWB)-USA has run the SODIS project to improve water quality in rural communities of Bolivia. Missouri University of Science and Technology conducted SODIS experiments, under sunny and cloudy weather conditions. Later, it was concluded that on sunny days, E. coli were completely removed from water while on cloudy days, only 50% were removed efficiently.

 Advantages of SODIS

• SODIS not only improves the microbiological quality of drinking water but also reduces cases of waterborne diseases, thereby supporting human health.
• It is affordable, simple, and replicable technique because it depends on sunlight, a renewable source of energy.
• The use of traditional heating sources like coal, fuel, and wood is not involved, thus reducing environmental pollution.
• The chance of recontamination is low if purified water is consumed within 24 hours.
• It does not require huge machinery or costly infrastructure, and it can be started at home with plastic bottles.

Limitations of SODIS

• SODIS requires sufficient sunlight. For that reason, its use chiefly depends on the weather and climatic conditions.
• It cannot be used for very dirty, turbid water.
• It is not useful for treating large volumes of water.
• In unfavorable weather conditions, SODIS requires more time to treat water.
• Plastic containers used in the SODIS technique get contaminated, causing leaching of harmful elements and associated health problems, if used for long  periods.
• It cannot treat non-biological impurities in water.

Solutions to the Problems

• To avoid the harmful effect of plastic bottles, alternative materials could be containers made of glass, polypropylene, polycarbonate, polyethylene, and others. 
• Carbonates and bicarbonates dissolved in water absorb UV radiations and do not disturb the process.
• Use of mirrors, solar collectors concentrate solar radiations, consequently process efficiency increases significantly. 
• The bottom part of SODIS containers can be painted black, so that higher temperatures can be maintained inside. 
• Integration of photocatalysts, pretreatment of water (use of natural coagulants and adsorbents), and the use of continuous flow-based systems can enhance the efficiency of SODIS.

What Can You Do to Support SODIS?

SODIS is indeed getting more popular, as the amount of research on it has been increasing every year. These studies suggest that SODIS can be used worldwide to treat water irrespective of weather conditions, as it worked well even in the colder climate of Finland. This cheap, low-tech process can also treat harvested rainwater in poor regions. With this in mind, more investigations are required to estimate all the design and control parameters for SODIS treatment of water. Not to mention, we can break social barriers to this technique by publicizing this practice even more at the community level.

We all need to eat. Food is a basic need. Food can also be delicious, social, and fun. But do you know where all of your food comes from? Or at what cost it’s made?

Sadly, our food production systems have negative side effects on water. Earth can regulate itself naturally. However, human farming makes it harder for Earth to do so. Under such stress, water may fail to sustain life.

Types of Contamination From Agriculture

The most common sources of water pollution are fertilizer runoff and manure. However, many sources add to risky water runoff:

• Manure
• Fertilizer
• Milking
• Egg washing
• Slaughtering
• Composting
• Pesticides

Pesticides are made with chemicals that kill off bugs and other threats to crops. These chemicals are dangerous when ingested by humans.

Pesticides also have side effects for crops. Farmers use fertilizers to negate these effects. Fertilizers are filled with nutrients to support plant growth. Fertilizer in water runoff, however, causes pollution in water systems.

Animal agriculture also poses the risk of spreading disease. The risk is highest for people working with animals directly. However, certain diseases can spread from animals to humans by wastewater.

Better regulation of the agriculture industry can lower the risks of diseases, hormones, and pollutants for civilians.

The Impact of Agriculture Pollutants

Of these hazards, phosphorus and nitrogen pollution impact water systems the most. Commercial fertilizer and animal manure are responsible for this.

Nitrogen pollution is also related to eating excess protein. If a person eats enough protein, their body will excrete excess nitrogen. When it hits waterways, it can disrupt the natural balance.

Nitrogen pollution harms water life in a process called eutrophication. Eutrophication means excess nutrients in water. Unfortunately, these nutrients aren’t a positive thing.

How do these pollutants go from simple runoff to environmental hazards?

1. Water runoff travels from farms to local bodies of water.
2. The contaminated water affects connected bodies of water.
3. The presence of fertilizers overloads the water with nutrients.
4. High nutrient concentration makes more algae grow.
5. Algae that grows from nutrients eventually dies and decomposes.
6. Algae decomposition depletes the oxygen in the water.
7. Lack of oxygen creates dead zones in the water that cannot sustain life.

Case Study: How the “Corn Belt” Creates Dead Zones in the Gulf

One of the most concerning dead zones in North America is the Gulf of Mexico.

The Corn Belt includes states in the U.S. midwest:

• Illinois
• Indiana
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Michigan
• Minnesota
• Missouri
• Nebraska
• North Dakota
• Ohio
• South Dakota
• Wisconsin

The area is called the “Corn Belt” for their primary product: corn. However, these states house farms for all sorts of products.

Contaminated water runoff from these farms makes its way to the Mississippi River. From there, it travels down into the Gulf of Mexico.

The relationship between the midwest Corn Belt and the Gulf of Mexico tells us something important. Water runoff can travel great distances and cause damage in completely different regions. Handling this runoff must be a joint effort. In this case, those closest to the problem are at the mercy of faraway farms.

Solutions for the Agriculture Industry

Agriculture is a global industry, and a crucial one. After all, we all need food to live. Regulating pollution requires new technology, as well as social and political efforts.

On a personal level, certain lifestyle changes like eating less meat can make a difference. Researchers are also creating new technology for farmers. These creations will help farmers use water more efficiently.

Save The Water also has a solution to this problem. The AOT System allows farming wastewater to be recycled into fertilizer and other useful products. This saves water systems from being polluted, and helps farmers cut costs.

Despite this technology, some resist reusing wastewater in farming.

Agriculture is constantly evolving. We can find new ways to raise food that won’t have such a negative impact. With these technologies, plus realistic and collaborative regulations, the agriculture industry can make some vast improvements.

By Samhar Almomani, Publishing Associate Researcher & Writer at Save the Water | September 15, 2022

In late August, Missippi’s Governor declared a water emergency for the residents of Jackson, Mississippi. Pumps at the main water treatment facility failed, leaving more than 150,000 residents without a reliable water source. To many onlookers, what the residents of Mississippi are going through echoes a similar crisis that afflicted Flint, Michigan in 2016. 

These crises remind us need to invest in modern, safe water infrastructure.

Dangers of Underfunded Water Infrastructure

Many dangers result from underfunded water infrastructure:

• Increased breakage that results in cutting off water supply
• Lead and copper leaching from corrosion that makes water dangerous
• More water boiling notices due to contaminants 
• Increased leaks leading to high financial costs

The City of Jackson in Mississippi suffers from many of these problems. Recent torrential rains compounded years of water infrastructure neglect. Now, thousands of residents have little to no access to clean water. The main water treatment facility failed and directly caused this situation. In 2020, the treatment facility failed an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) inspection.

The EPA had said that the water in the treatment facility could become toxic by being the host to harmful bacteria and parasites “based on observations of the water’s turbidity, or cloudiness, as well as ‘disinfection treatment concerns, and/or the condition of the distribution system.”

The Health Effects of Contaminated Water

Water contamination can cause disease in millions of people that rely on that water supply. Ideally, water would be supplied from local water sources, such as rivers and streams. 

However, that is not always the case.  Years of underfunding and neglecting water infrastructure exposes people to toxic water every day. Specifically, water treatment facilities that are supposed to clean out the water are not maintained properly, leading to a toxic water supply being sent to homes, schools, and hospitals. Usually, people from a disadvantaged background bear the worst effects.

People from disadvantaged backgrounds also are located in places that are often in low-lying flood zones, near industrial facilities, and other areas considered prone to natural disasters. Living in these areas makes a person especially vulnerable to dangerous effects to health. Namely, failing infrastructure after natural disasters will lead to hazardous substances in the water facilities.

What Can You Do to Fix Underfunded Water Infrastructure?

EPA recommends two ways to tackle  underfunded, aging water infrastructure. The first one involves a wastewater treatment clearinghouse, which is a platform that allows the sharing of the latest and most cost-effective solutions relating to water treatment. Notably, the clearinghouse will include information for both centralized and decentralized treatment systems.

The other EPA recommendation involves an Alternative Technologies and Assessment chart. This chart includes resources that point to the best, newest, and most innovative technologies relating to water infrastructure. 

You can educate yourself about these solutions by clicking the links above. By educating yourself about the ways you can help, you can become an avid activist for safe, drinkable water. This could be done through a number of ways, such as attending council meetings or voicing your concerns.

By bringing attention to the dire issue of underfunded, old water infrastructure and looking into ways you can help, you can start helpful changes in both your community and the world.

By Brigitte Rodriguez, Associate Researcher & Writer for Save The Water | September 3, 2022

Wastewater treatment has become a major issue in recent years. However,the Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor (MBBR) is a major technology that has proved to be very useful. It is a municipal and wastewater treatment process created in 1980. This technology assists in the removal of organic matter and nutrients.

The MBBR is recognized for its “simplicity, robustness, flexibility and compactness for the treatment of wastewater.”  

What is a Moving Bed Biofilm Reactor? 

The MBBR is a biological process that uses bacteria to decompose waste. This technology consists of a tank that features a bio-media (inert object facilitating the treatment of the influent) that allows bacteria to grow freely. The bacteria growing in the media in multiple layers allows the organic elements and nutrients to be removed from the waste stream and “convert the soluble material into biomass” that will be removed further along the stream.

The MBBR process is carried out in a tank. These “MBBR aeration tanks are open at the top, exposing the water to open air, which makes this an aerobic filtration process.”  

Some advantages of this technology are that it removes all solid particles, requires little space, and is efficient. It is also easy to operate, avoids sludge recycling, and it is not as expensive.

Examples of  MBBR Use

The treatment plants in  Batesville, Arkansas,  exhibited problems in 2008 because they exceeded the limits for their effluents. Therefore, they looked for technologies to improve their water quality and decided to apply the MBBR for this purpose. This technology was chosen because of its simplicity. It also made it possible for the older sludge storage to be used at the same time. The first municipal MBBR was built from 2011 to 2015.

Another example of the use of MBBR is at the Perrigo company site in Yerucham, specifically in its wastewater treatment plant. This was because the water had high amounts of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), which measures the amount of oxygen required for the oxidation of organic matter in water. The MBBR was selected because it could be built upon in the future and sustain variations in the organic load present in the industrial effluent. The technology allowed COD levels to be reduced and within regulations.

Another example is that of the city of Wetaskiwin in Alberta, Canada where it was decided that the city’s lagoon-based treatment system would be improved. Therefore,  plans were made to upgrade the treatment system using MBBR technology in order to reach the effluent limits of Alberta Environment and Parks. The improvements are expected to conclude in December 2023. In addition, this project will not only benefit public health, but will have a positive impact on the environment.

Other technologies that can be used

Currently, there are several innovative technologies available for use in sewage treatment:

• Activated sludge process (ASP): This process involves the removal of organic material in wastewater. The ASP refers to the use of a suspended concentration layer of microorganisms that is used to reduce the organic matter and separate the suspended solids.
• Extended aeration (EA): This method is a biological system used to treat domestic water that uses modified activated sludge procedures. Some of the advantages of the system are that it is easy to repair and generates no smell.
• Sequential batch reactor (SBR): This technology is used to treat industrial and municipal wastewater. It is a “fill-and-draw activated sludge system for wastewater treatment.” In the SBR, wastewater is put into a reactor which gets rid of certain suvstances. Following this process, the water is expelled. This technology has several advantages, such as being adjustable and easy to use. The disadvantages are that maintenance costs are high and there exists the possibility of dumping floating sludge.

• Fluidized aerobic bed reactor (FAB): This technology allows for the high removal of Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) and Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD),represents the amount of oxygen consumed by the bacteria when decomposing organic matter. The FAB is a  reactor where air is brought into the water treatment plant to make sure the bacteria remains alive. With this process,the air finishes diffusing, which allows the production of microorganisms that will decompose the organic solids.

Future perspectives

Many researchers have been working on the improvement of nitrification, denitrification for  the purpose of getting rid of biological nitrogen and phosphorus. We can also empower the solid retention time for future applications. Further research will improve this technology for wider applications.

What can you do to save water?

There are a few ways you can reduce the effects of wastewater:

• Using household products with phosphorus content
• Volunteer for local public awareness campaigns to draw attention to wastewater
• If you live in a country or region with water bodies at risk, urge your government to better manage cleaning of sewage and wastewater

By Matthew Taylor, Associate Researcher & Writer for Save The Water | November 30, 2021

When you think of contaminants in water, things like arsenic, lead, or E. coli probably come to mind. Yet, did you know that radioactive contaminants such as uranium and radium are also commonly found in water? In many cases, water that you drink every day has radioactive materials in trace amounts, or low levels, that are harmless. However, higher levels of radioactive contaminants in water can be harmful or even fatal.

What are radioactive materials?

Radioactive materials emit ionizing radiation. This is a kind of energy that removes electrons from atoms found in the air and in water. It can also break down molecules in the human body. Low levels of ionizing radiation come from natural sources, including space and the Earth itself. At higher exposure levels, however, it can be detrimental. Furthermore, people can get exposed to unnatural sources of radiation in several ways. This includes certain building materials, diagnostic medical exams, and contaminated water due to leaching.

Why are radioactive materials problematic?

Radioactive materials are harmful to living organisms and the environment.

In people, the radiation emitted by these materials can cause severe health problems. One of the most significant consequences is an increased risk of cancer. Other potential health problems include toxic kidney effects, blood diseases, tuberculosis, cardiovascular problems, and respiratory disease.

Moreover, radiation can stunt plant growth, mutate animals, and make soil infertile. For example, animals that drink from bodies of water containing radioactive materials can become sick. As contaminated water leaches into the soil, it can make it hard for plants to grow. Radiation can also spread through groundwater supplies, further toxifying the surrounding environment.

How can you remove radioactive materials from water?

Radioactive materials can be difficult to remove from water. For example, you cannot simply boil water to remove radioactive materials from the water. Nor can you remove them with many convenient home water filters like the kind that might be on a pitcher in your fridge. Some can, but finding the right one requires an informed purchase from the consumer. Luckily, it isn’t impossible to remove dangerous radioactive materials from the water you use and drink. There are a few commercially available technologies available for this purpose.

Reverse osmosis

Reverse osmosis is one of the most effective ways to remove radioactive materials from water. Pressure forces water through a membrane with very tiny pores. These pores allow water molecules through. These pores are so small that many molecules and even larger atoms cannot get across. As a result, the membrane catches radioactive particles. Reverse osmosis membranes can remove up to 99% of radioactive elements such as uranium and radium from water. This makes reverse osmosis highly effective for the treatment of radioactive water.

Ion exchange

Ion exchange is another effective method of removing radioactive materials from water. Water passes through a resin that contains exchangeable ions. These stronger bonding ions are exchanged with the weaker radioactive materials in the water. Thus, the radioactive materials stay in the resin. Radium, which is a cation (a positively charged ion), is exchanged for other cations like potassium or sodium. Uranium, which is an anion (a negatively charged ion) is exchanged for other anions like chloride.

Carbon filtration

Carbon filtration is also effective at removing radioactive materials from water. Water passes through a filter made of activated carbon. In doing so, the carbon absorbs and fixes radioactive contaminants in the water. Active carbon is inexpensive. The cost makes this method of radioactive water treatment readily available. Eventually, the activated carbon must be replaced once its load capacity is reached. At this stage, it loses its ability to absorb contaminants. 

Any one of these technologies is effective at removing radioactive contaminants from water. You can never remove 100% of radioactive contaminants from water. You can, however, remove more of them if you combine the use of these technologies. For example, you could pass water through a carbon filter. You could then follow it with a reverse osmosis membrane. Doing so would be more effective than using either of these technologies on their own.

Bottom line

Radioactive contaminants in water are a serious problem for people, animals, and the environment. They can make people sick, make the soil inhospitable to plants, and cause mutations in animals. Radioactive contaminants can be difficult to remove from water. There are a few commercially available treatment options available that are effective, including reverse osmosis, ion exchange, and carbon filtration. Combining multiple treatment technologies is more effective at removing radioactive contaminants from water than using one technology by itself.

If you want to learn more about contaminant removal from water, be sure to check out the Save the Water^TM website!

By Emma Cheriegate, Staff Researcher & Writer at Save the Water | November 27, 2021

Water’s nickname is the “universal solvent” due to its capacity to dissolve more material than any other liquid on our planet. This ability makes water easily polluted, which poses a significant risk to our ecosystems and our drinking water. In the United States alone, almost half of our rivers and streams are not safe enough for swimming, fishing, or drinking. But you can learn about river pollution and help with solutions. 

We get most of our water from rivers. As worldwide populations increase, so does pollution. Primary water pollution sources are farming, industrial factories, and towns/cities.

From the Nile in Africa to the Amazon in South America, rivers worldwide face these same pollution issues. So how is each community responding, and what can we learn from one another? To understand this, we must first look at the similarities and differences in causes of river water pollution.

What Causes River Pollution?

Riverine pollution refers to the pollution of river water from human activity.  Rivers naturally transport organic and inorganic pollutants. Some examples of river pollution causes include:

• Nutrients (such as phosphorus and nitrate)
• Chemicals (such as heavy metals)
• Groundwater pollutants (from pesticide use in agriculture)
• Oil spills or wastewater seeping into the ground

Each region experiences one or more of these forms of pollution. In Brazil, the main contributors to Amazon River pollution are mining, deforestation, and dam construction. The United States’ Ohio River receives high levels of nitrate concentration from steel factories. The world’s longest river, the Nile River, stretches 4,132 miles, and its basin affects 11 different countries, including Ethiopia. The Nile’s largest threats are contamination from human waste and new dam construction in Ethiopia. 

Increased water pollution starts geopolitical conflicts. Rivers often pass through multiple boundary lines that separate counties, states, and countries. These regions often have contrasting laws and regulations on water pollution, which makes a collective solution difficult. This difficulty can also allow one group to contribute more pollution to water that flows down into another group’s region. 

Furthermore, a state or country such as Ethiopia might decide to construct a dam, preventing water from reaching another area such as Egypt. This causes resource disparity, as some regions will naturally receive more water than others. In sum, many communities suffer both environmental and economic consequences of water pollution.

Diverse Solutions to River Pollution

Many people are trying to stop river pollution. People dump trash and plastic into the Nile River. To counteract this, activist groups conduct clean-ups and training to raise awareness and decrease plastic use. Also, the activists galvanize corporations to construct boats to clean up. The United Nations supports one of these initiatives. 

People are also pushing back to protect the Amazon River. Similar to the people dependent on the Nile, groups advocate for sustainable management and accountability for the Amazon River. In 2018, the World Wide Fund for Nature published a comprehensive report to tackle the pollution caused by mining. The publication makes recommendations to governments, buyers, and gold and mercury retailers for better, safer practices.

In contrast, the United States emphasizes legislation. These environmental regulations aim to control and limit the amount of toxic river pollution. In addition to regulatory action, some researchers suggest wetland restoration to reduce excess nutrients such as nitrate and phosphorus. 

How You Can Help Reduce River Pollution

Solving river pollution can feel overwhelming. Thankfully, you can help:

• Dispose of hazardous materials safely by contacting your county’s waste management department in the United States, as they usually accept some hazardous waste.
• Don’t pour cleaners, paints, or grease down your drain.
• Stop using fertilizers and pesticides. These chemicals pollute rivers.
• Attend clean-ups. Organizations often plan clean-up events, so find one near you!
• Donate to Save the WaterTM.
• Don’t flush pills down the drain.

By Emma Cheriegate, Staff Researcher & Writer at Save the Water | October 29th, 2021

Credit programs to mitigate pollution are no stranger to current-day environmental conversations. The idea of emitters gaining buyer credits for reducing their pollution isn’t new, with many existing carbon credit programs to choose from. 

A lesser-known trading system also exists, but for water. Water quality trading, under Section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), is an option for sources of water pollution to gain credits by reducing pollution. 

Reducing pollution is a costly and complex process, and certain sources (such as a sewage treatment plant) face higher prices than others. Water quality trading is the process in which a point source pays for credits that represent pollution reductions. However, these pollution reductions occur at another location, like a farm, (where achieving the reduction is cheaper), not the original point source. This way, the source is able to meet regulatory requirements without going into significant debt.

Water pollution is an ever-changing issue in the United States, and federal legislation for it dates back to 1948. So, how have guidelines evolved over time, and is WQT a viable way of reducing contamination in our water?

What is Water Quality Trading, and how is it helpful?

Facilities operate under permits that manage the amount of nutrient discharge allowed into water bodies, like a nearby river. Nitrogen and phosphorus are common discharge nutrients released by point sources such as industrial facilities, and nonpoint sources such as runoff from nearby roads. By including water quality trading options, both point and nonpoint sources have the option to meet permit requirements through a water trading credit program. Under the EPA, polluters can receive credits for reducing the following items:

• Nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus
• Size of sedimentation loads
• Discharged water’s temperature (such as for wastewater treatment facilities)

For instance, a sewage treatment plant (point source) can satisfy this regulatory requirement by reducing the number of nutrients/pollution released and subsequently receive credits that save on business costs in the long run. This improves water quality by preventing a buildup of nutrients that influence an abundant growth of algae. That buildup would ultimately choke the ecosystem, overrun habitats, and reduce the amount of oxygen required to allow life to thrive in the water.  

What lies ahead for Water Quality Trading

In early February of 2019, the EPA released a policy that re-emphasizes their view on the significance of water quality trading. The document advocates for the incorporation of this “market-based” system in attempts to improve water quality throughout the United States. It illustrates the important role of incentivization in influencing organizations and corporations in complying with environmental protection efforts. The policy, which is a short 5-page document, is concise in its structure, allowing for easy adoption and incorporation in business practices, making its use widely accessible.

There are several issues that hinder the efforts to incorporate water quality trading into our economic market: identifying buyers, facilitating communication between involved parties, the absence of defined pollution limitations, and a lack of flexibility in existing programs. The World Resources Institute, a notable non-profit organization that analyzes natural resource policy, points out three ways the EPA aims to increase participatory use of WQT programs:

• Specify limits for complex (nonpoint) pollutant sources 
• Governmental assistance in designing and implementing trading programs
• Voiced federal support for stormwater trading

WQT programs are still relatively new, and the sources of pollution intensify as urbanization continues and populations increase in number. As the scale of the conversation about related issues increases, additional professionals join in. This enhances communication between fields like economy, ecology, and politics, and allows for more research and development to take place. As confidence in the programs rises and associated problems are resolved, WQT’s prevalence in the market is likely to follow suit.

By Matthew Taylor, Associate Researcher & Writer for Save The Water | August 23, 2021

As society continues to industrialize and people consume more, our water is becoming more and more polluted. The amount of water pollution is staggering: in 2019, there were over 5 trillion pieces of plastic in the ocean. That number doesn’t even include other kinds of garbage. This amount of pollution is daunting, and it seems like there is nothing we can do. Luckily, if enough people put their minds to it and take steps to reduce water pollution, then they will have a big impact on the quality of our water. But what can the average person do to reduce water pollution?

Clean up litter around local bodies of water

Unfortunately, bodies of water like those in the image above are very common. You can go to any local body of water, like a river or pond, and pick up trash. Even picking up a few pieces of garbage will get the water in better condition than it was before. Better yet, get a bunch of your friends and family together and organize a community cleanup. Just make sure to coordinate with your local government because they may be able to provide trash bags or pick up your garbage once you’ve collected it.

Change how you wash your clothes

Synthetic fabrics like polyester and nylon contain small plastic fibers called microfibers. When washed, clothing sheds these millimeter-length fibers. Your dryer lint trap and wastewater treatment processes catch some of these fibers. The majority of them, however, pass through unfiltered and make their way into the water because they are so small. Microfibers are considered a major problem because 35% of microplastics, which include microfibers, come from the clothing and textiles industries. 

Three of the easiest ways that you can change how you wash your clothes and prevent fewer microfibers from making their way into the water are:

1. Wash your clothes less often. Sometimes we wash our clothes before they really need to be washed. The fewer times that an article of clothing is washed, the fewer chances it has to release microfibers.
2. Do larger loads of laundry. Smaller loads of laundry mean that you have to run the washing machine more often, using up more water and releasing more microfibers into the water system.
3. Purchase a filter specifically designed to catch microfibers. Lint traps in standard drying machines are simply not designed to handle microfibers, and many washing machines don’t have filters that can remove microfibers. A filter that is designed to catch microfibers can make a huge impact.

Consume less plastic

Plastic is one of the biggest contributors to water pollution. It ends up in our bodies of water and can be extremely difficult to remove. For example, the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, a floating patch of garbage in the Pacific Ocean that is composed of debris deposited by currents, is mostly made of plastic. So it would make sense to use less plastic.

It’s easy to start using less plastic. Consider making some of these changes:

• Instead of buying disposable plastic water bottles, use a reusable plastic, metal, or glass water bottle. 
• Switch from plastic grocery bags to paper or cloth bags. 
• Eat less takeout, which is often packaged in plastic or cardboard. 
• Buy in bulk so that you have less packaging to worry about. 
• Reuse and recycle plastic. 

There are many concrete actions that you could take to reduce your plastic consumption. It only takes three weeks to adopt a new habit. Choose one of the above and try it out!

Properly dispose of chemicals

Chemicals are another major source of water contamination. Pollutants like chemical cleaners, paint, and other toxic substances should not be dumped down the drain in your kitchen. Certain chemicals can be extremely difficult to remove from the water, so oftentimes they just remain in the water even after it has been treated.

Look into how you can dispose of these contaminants in your area. There may be hazardous waste days offered by your local government where you can safely dispose of these contaminants. There may also be special disposal facilities in your area. Do your part by doing your research and finding a way to dispose of your chemicals and other pollutants rather than dumping them down the drain.

Maintain your vehicle

Keeping your vehicle maintained and in good repair means that there will be fewer potential issues with it. Vehicles with issues may leak oil, antifreeze, coolants, and other contaminants, which will eventually end up in the water supply. These contaminants, like many others affecting water, can be very difficult to remove. Maintaining your vehicle means that you have a more reliable vehicle to drive around, and it also means that it is having less of an impact on water supplies.

Put pressure on government officials and manufacturers

Even if you create minimal water pollution, you can always pressure others to do the same. Write to your local government officials and to manufacturers whose products you use to make your voice heard. Even though it might not seem like much, if government officials and manufacturers are under enough pressure, they may change their ways. And if they don’t, you can always elect new government officials and give your money to manufacturers’ competitors. Anyone can take steps to reduce water pollution by taking some of the advice listed above. While it may not seem like much, if enough people do it, there will be a major positive impact on our water resources. A good place to learn more about microfibers, water pollution, and other water issues is the Save the Water website. Be sure to check it out!

By Maria Fierro, Associate Editor at Save the Water | May 19, 2021

From microscopic glitter particles to full-sized shampoo bottles, the beauty industry has become a major contributor to water pollution. What is more, chemicals used to formulate cosmetic products can be detrimental to our water quality. While the industry still has a ways to go before completely eliminating an age-old process, individuals can make strides to drive action that keeps our water safe. Becoming a well-informed consumer is the first step towards fighting the cause of water pollution in your community.

An Ocean Full of Empties

What once housed our favorite night cream and bathroom hand soap, has found itself a designated space in our aquatic ecosystem. Around “7.9 billion units of rigid plastic” were manufactured for beauty and care products in just the United States. Unfortunately, much of the plastic packaging used in beauty products is not recycled or is made from end-of-life packaging. Even the bottles and jars that do make it to your recycling bin are often rejected. Failing to fully clean and remove labeling will deem it unrecyclable, and can taint a whole bundle of items. Similarly, parts including additional materials, such as plastic pumps with metal coils, cannot be processed. Another problem sorters face is hard-to-see items, including dark plastics and small packaging—think beauty minis and bottle caps. 

While on the topic of hard-to-see items, glitter and other microplastics are of growing concern. Countless microbeads are washed down the drain everyday in the form of facial scrubs and other exfoliating products. Researchers examined a particular facial scrub and found it contained 330,000 individual microplastic beads. So, what does this mean? Due to their tiny nature, microplastics escape sewage treatment plants and make their way through domestic drainage systems and into the ocean. On top of that, a majority of microbeads are non-biodegradable, making ocean sediment and surface water their permanent homes. 

UV Filters, Parabens, and Triclosan, Oh My!

The creation of cosmetic and self-care products utilizes a vast array of troubling chemicals. Studies have shown that limited amounts of UV filters, parabens, and triclosan found in waterways and their inhabitants can have harmful effects. With no need for an introduction, UV filters are a crucial ingredient within the beauty industry. Every skincare enthusiast and mother knows that UV filters found in sunscreen, and other cosmetics, are needed to keep the skin happy and healthy. Accounting for up to 20% of sunscreen formulations, UV filters are regularly washed into the aquatic environment.  

Found in the air around us and the dirt below our feet, parabens are a “class of preservatives used for their antimicrobial properties in a wide range of products, such as cosmetics, food supplies, and pharmaceuticals.” While parabens are mostly filtered out of the water supply, they’ve still been found in surface waters. Historically, parabens are considered to have very low toxicity, but recent studies have linked it to changes in the “reproductive system of male experimental animals.” Another commonly used preservative is triclosan. Exposure may result in negative effects on our health, “including thyroid function impairment, endocrine disruption, oxidative stress, and liver carcinogenesis.” Although efficiently removed during the filtration process, triclosan is still found in sewage sludge used as fertilizer and personal care products. 

Slowing the Cause of Water Pollution

In recent years, the beauty industry has begun to take action against water pollution. Big corporations, such as L’Oréal and Unilever, have pledged to move over to the use of post-consumer recycled plastic, ocean waste plastic, and other biodegradable materials. What is more, Hawaii and Key West, Florida have initiated a ban on reef-damaging UV filters, such as oxybenzone and octinoxate, commonly used in sunscreens. Additionally, a 2017 study found switching away from traditional plastic could reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 25%.

How You Can Combat Water Pollution, One Product at a Time

As a consumer, we have the power to push for change. Hold companies accountable for their impact. With only three steps, you can encourage your favorite brands to look for alternative solutions:

1. Stop the use of single-use items
2. Purchase from sustainable brands
3. Properly recycle plastic materials

Remember to vote with your dollar and buy purposefully. To start your journey as a well-informed consumer, stay up to date on current water news.

By Harry Petaway, Staff Writer and Researcher for Save the Water | May 31, 2020

Clean water is essential during a pandemic

Time will tell the real impact of COVID-19. However, this crisis and the fundamental strategy to fight the virus bring both disparities and concerns about access to clean water for both drinking and sanitation. Clean water is essential during a pandemic. Many of us volunteer for organizations like Save the Water because we recognize the importance of clean, safe water. I joined the organization after my experience living 20 minutes away from the water crisis in Flint, Michigan, which captured national headlines in the United States.

Access to water before the pandemic

Flint, Michigan, was a classic tale of the disparities that exist across communities for access to clean water. Thousands of residents were exposed to excessive levels of lead due to the failure of governing bodies to treat the water and supply access to city residents correctly. Subsequently, water was not safe to drink. Unfortunately, this phenomenon of contaminated drinking water continues throughout the United States and extends beyond lead, with emerging pollutants and chemicals such as PFAS and other toxins. Furthermore, residents in communities across the country must use bottled water and hand sanitizer instead of dirty and contaminated water sources. Water in other cities like Detroit, Michigan, has been shut off for many residents that could not afford to pay their bills. Globally, water scarcity is a threat for over 40% of the world’s population.

Water crisis during the pandemic

Today, humans worldwide have attacked the COVID-19 curve through behaviors like “shelter in place.” The World Health Organization (WHO) emphasizes that safe water and sanitation practices like hand washing is crucial during the pandemic. To that end, there are countless campaigns to increase the time and frequency of hand washing. This brings the frustration and debate about clean water and access to water back to the surface, creating difficult decisions by community leaders on how to approach the problem. The fear of these unfamiliar circumstances  drove many consumers to deplete bottled water supplies from local stores. This was especially impactful in lower-income communities that already had limited access to stores that supply both food and water.

Similarly, hand sanitizer is also in short supply. Residents in cities like Flint had the difficult decision of whether or not to use the tap water in their homes. It also creates a difficult decision for community leaders to determine when water sources that were deemed unsafe should be turned back on.

Furthermore, communities have had to make difficult decisions on how to restore water services for residents whose water was shut off because they could not pay their bills. For example, more than 23,000 homes lost water service in Detroit in 2019, leading thousands of residents to apply for Detroit’s Coronavirus Water Restart Plan. Other communities across the United States offered similar programs in March for more than 57 million residents across 90 cities and states. However, there is no national database that tracks US households that do not have water.

Poor communities in the US struggled with access to available water for people that could not pay their bills. Other countries like Ethiopia and India have broader challenges with water shortages, which also existed before the pandemic.

What can we do?

Clean water is essential during a pandemic. Countries like Ethiopia have taken innovative steps like solar-powered wells to bring water to their residents. They have also employed sophisticated monitoring technology such as drones to track and store data to determine how water resources are allocated. Local organizations in the United States have stepped in to try and mediate the water crisis. Some have taken measures to pay for water services for residents that could not pay their bills. Others created bottled water distribution supply chains for older and ill residents receiving donations from charitable organizations before social distancing measures took effect. We should continue to support organizations that keep essential topics like water quality and water scarcity in front of mind. This is especially true as they become exacerbated amid public health crises such as severe weather events and disease outbreaks.

References

Lakhani, Nina. March 2020. “90 US cities and states suspend water shutoffs to tackle coronavirus pandemic.” The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/16/90-us-cities-and-states-suspend-water-shutoffs-to-tackle-coronavirus-pandemic

Nicol, Alan. May 2020. “The Pandemic is Laying Bare a Global Water Crisis.” Foreign Policy. Retrieved from https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/12/coronavirus-pandemic-global-water-crisis/.

Nguyen, Erika and Somayajula, Namratha. March 2020. “Access to Water Vital in COVID-19 Response”. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/03/22/access-water-vital-covid-19-response-0

Sunderland, Elsie M; Hu, Xindi C; Dassuncao, Clifton; Tokranov, Andrea K; Wagner, Charlotte C; Allen, Joseph G; . 2018. “A review of the pathways of human exposure to poly-and perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) and present understanding of health effects.” Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0094-1

Shah, Khushbu. April 2020. “The pandemic has exposed America’s clean water crisis.” Vox. Retrieved from https://www.vox.com/identities/2020/4/17/21223565/coronavirus-clean-water-crisis-america

New Findings 

A “first of its kind” study published in June 2019 by the U.S. based non-profit, Environmental Working Group, has analyzed nitrate exposure from drinking water across the United States between 2010 and 2017.1 The study, which was published in the journal Environmental Research, found that over 12,000 annual cases of cancer may be directly caused by exposure to nitrate pollution.2

What is Nitrate Pollution?

While nitrogen is an essential nutrient needed for plant growth, the overabundance of its forms in nitrite, nitrate and ammonium can be found in drinking water sources because of inadequate farming practices and urban wastewater management. 

“Nitrate sources are effectively everywhere – agricultural lands, natural lands, urban areas with leaky sewer lines, septic leach fields, and wastewater percolation basins,” says the University of California- Davis’ report “Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water.”3 Although these nitrate sources are effectively everywhere, some of the largest causes of nitrate contamination in lakes and streams are manure fertilizer and sewage.4 For example, nitrate can get into water directly as the result of runoff of fertilizers containing nitrate.5  Unsecured manure storage can also result in leaching of excess nitrates into the soil. 

The current US federal standard for nitrate levels is 10 parts per million, or 10 mg/L.6 In more household-friendly terms, 10 mg/L amounts to a little over 7 teaspoons per gallon. Recently, the medical evidence linking nitrate in drinking water with human illness has raised more questions about whether the nitrate limit of 10 mg/L protects the general population against harmful side effects.2

The Dangers of Excess Nitrate in Drinking Water

Some of the health effects of nitrate consumption have been known for a while. One of the most common groundwater contaminants in rural areas, nitrate is regulated in drinking water primarily because excess levels can cause methemoglobinemia, or “blue baby” disease, which is low oxygen levels in the blood causing suffocation. 7 

Formula-fed babies are at a higher risk for the disease as they consume more water in comparison to their body weight than adults do. Formula powder and juices mixed in tap water strain their undeveloped digestive system, which leads to more reduction of nitrate to nitrite.7

In adults, long-term exposure to high nitrate levels in drinking water is also associated with thyroid dysfunction and cancer. Areas that depend on groundwater—those that get their water from wells, for example—can sometimes exceed the national maximum nitrate in drinking water (45 mg nitrate per liter or, equivalently, 10 mg of nitrate-measured-as-nitrogen per liter).”2

It was previously thought that the old standards for nitrate levels in water were safe. But a newly published study published by the Environmental Working Group concluded that nitrate contamination in drinking water across the US could cause up to 12,594 cases of cancer per year.1 The highest percentage of cases related to colorectal cancer, but it also included ovarian, thyroid, kidney and bladder cancer. The researchers also estimated the economic costs of these medical conditions: “For medical expenditures alone, this burden of cancer corresponds to an annual economic cost of 250 million to 1.5 billion U.S. dollars, together with a potential 1.3 to 6.5 billion-dollar impact due to lost productivity.”2

Ways to Reduce Risk of Cancer

In general, the greater the uncertainty about potential health effects, the greater the margin of safety built into the government regulation.7 Hence the federal Safe Drinking Water Act passed in 1974, which set the standard of 10 mg/L nitrate as nitrogen as a maximum.  

Given the new information about potential cancer risks, these standards may no longer be adequate. Recent large-scale epidemiological studies conducted in European countries reported statistically significant increases in colorectal cancer risk associated with nitrate in drinking water at levels of 0.7–2 mg/L.2 Outdated standards of safe drinking water need to reevaluated. 

Beyond getting involved and lobbying for new standards for nitrate levels in water, there are several things you can do at home to safeguard yourself from nitrate contamination:

• Breastfeed for as long as possible or use bottled or distilled water to mix formula.7
• Get your water tested at your regional health departments and laboratories by sending in samples. Check further for other contaminants. 
• If you have one, maintain your septic leach field so that contaminants can be drained effectively.3 More information about leach fields can be found here on the EPA’s website. 

References 

1. Sarah Graddy. June 11, 2019. “EWG: Nitrate Pollution of U.S. Tap Water Could Cause 12,500 Cancer Cases Each Year.” Environmental Working Group. (https://www.ewg.org/release/ewg-nitrate-pollution-us-tap-water-could-cause-12500-cancer-cases-each-year)
2. Alexis Temkin, et. al. June 11, 2019. “Exposure-based assessment and economic valuation of adverse birth outcomes and cancer risk due to nitrate in United States drinking water.” Environmental Research. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S001393511930218X) 
3. Thomas Harter and Jay R. Lund. March 2012. “Addressing Nitrate in California’s Drinking Water”. University of California – Davis. (http://groundwaternitrate.ucdavis.edu/)
4. Wu J, et. al. July 2019. “Severe Nitrate Pollution and Health Risks of Coastal Aquifer Simultaneously Influenced by Saltwater Intrusion and Intensive Anthropogenic Activities.” Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 77(1):79-87. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31053873)
5. Water Science School. “Nitrogen and Water”. United States Geological Survey. (https://on.doi.gov/2Ieci6i)  
6. Brian Pascus. June 11, 2019. “Study: Nitrate pollution in U.S. drinking water could lead to thousands of cancer cases”. CBS News. (https://cbsn.ws/2RNDivJ ) 
7. Margaret McCasland, et. al. 2012. “Nitrate: Health Effects in Drinking Water”. Cornell University. (http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/facts-slides-self/facts/nit-heef-grw85.aspx)

A 2019 study of waterways in 10 European countries is a reminder of how pesticides pollute our water worldwide. Scientists from Greenpeace Research Laboratories tested waterways in Austria, Belgium, Germany, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom. The scientists found 103 types of pesticide in Europe’s rivers and canals, 24 of which are banned by the European Union. Also, of the 29 waterways tested, 13 had a pesticide concentration above the acceptable level.1 In light of this information, this article provides a quick overview of the basics of pesticide pollution: what, where, why, and how.

A single body of water can contain a huge variety of pesticides. So we may know how an individual pesticide affects human and environmental health. But what happens when several types of pesticides are mixed together in a body of water? This is one of the reasons why pesticide pollution is such a challenging—and important—issue.

What Are Pesticides?

Pesticides are substances that control pests. Pests can be rodents, insects, weeds, bacteria, fungi, or any other unwanted organism.2 If you have ever applied bug spray or used a weed killer, then you have used a pesticide. Also, farmers use enormous amounts of pesticide to protect crops.

Why Are Pesticides In Our Water?

People dump some types of pesticides directly into waterways to control aquatic weeds and animals.2 However, people are directed to keep those substances away from drinking water sources. That being said, dangerous pesticides can easily spread out of control. For pesticides sprayed on agricultural fields, over 98 percent of insecticides (targeting unwanted insects) and 95 percent of herbicides (targeting unwanted plants) reach somewhere other than their target species.3

Picture this: a pesticide is sprayed on crops. But before the pesticide binds to the plants, rain washes it away. Some of the water, now polluted with pesticide, flows into lakes and rivers. While there, the pesticide disrupts the aquatic ecosystems. Which is to say, instead of killing weeds in a farming field, the pesticide kills or poisons life-giving plants underwater.

In addition, water with pesticide in it seeps into the soil. As a result it joins our supply of groundwater, an important source of drinking water. Also, if the water with pesticide in it enters a private well, people probably won’t test or treat it before using it.2

When the water with pesticides in it evaporates, the water becomes a part of the hydrologic cycle. The hydrologic cycle describes how water evaporates into vapor, condenses into clouds, and returns to the earth as rainfall or snow.4 Therefore, pesticides can spread great distances during this cycle.

How Toxic Are Pesticides?

Needless to say, there is a big difference between drinking water with very, very small (also called “trace”) amounts of pesticide and being sprayed directly in the face with weed killer. There are many kinds of pesticides. To be sure, each differs in its type and level of toxicity (Save The Water writer April Day has written about pesticides that disrupt how the human body works here). Toxicity is the level of being poisonous.5 Additional considerations include how concentrated the pesticide is, how long someone has been drinking the polluted water, and how other pollutants react with the pesticide.2

Though the exact health effects of drinking water with pesticide in it vary from case to case, the potential for toxicity is always there. Scientists have observed long-term effects such as cancer, organ damage, and reproductive issues.2

What Can You Do About Pesticide Pollution?

You can take steps to minimize your personal impact on pesticide pollution:5

1. Firstly, read and follow directions carefully when using pesticides.
2. Avoid sprays with a smaller droplet size, as it will spread more easily.
3. Check the weather forecast. Wait to use the pesticide if the forecast projects rain or heavy winds.
4. Clean pesticide equipment away from waterways or storm drains.
5. Consider using non-toxic methods to control pests.

References

1. University of Exeter. April 8, 2019. “Banned pesticides in Europe’s rivers.” ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/04/190408114243.htm
2. National Pesticide Telecommunications Network. July 2000. “Pesticides in drinking water.” NPIC. http://npic.orst.edu/factsheets/drinkingwater.pdf
3. Amber Pariona. April 25, 2017. “The environmental impact of pesticides.” World Atlas. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-environmental-impact-of-pesticides.html
4. Northwest River Forecast Center. n.d. “Description of hydrologic cycle. NOAA. https://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/info/water_cycle/hydrology.cgi
5. “Toxicity.” Merriam-Webster Dictionary. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/toxicity
   National Pesticide Information Center. April 15, 2019. “Pesticides and water resources.” http://npic.orst.edu/envir/waterenv.html

Think for a moment about a dairy farm. You might picture a red barn, grassy fields, and a cow munching happily next to a wooden post fence. Seems nice, right? What’s missing in this mental image, though?

In a word, manure.1,2 Lots of it.

So much manure, in fact, that farmers cannot always control where it goes.2 As a result, where does it end up? That’s a question with several answers, and they all undeniably stink.

What’s the Big Stink?

Farmers are responsible for the containment and treatment of animal waste. Additionally, farmers must make sure the waste doesn’t end up in creeks and groundwater reservoirs, preventing the water from being polluted by nitrates.1,3

Unfortunately, a lot of the technology used to process animal waste is more than a century old.5 It is slow, costly, and most importantly, it is not a self-contained system. As a result, even efficient Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, or CAFOs, can have animal waste draining into groundwater. Therefore, the water coming from the tap is likely contaminated with nitrates, nitrites, and fecal matter.1 It’s not only disgusting, but it also poses serious health risks for pregnant women, infants, and the elderly.2

Nitrates play a balancing act for humans. The Environmental Protection Agency sets a limit for nitrates in drinking water to 10 mg/L. At this level, nitrates are beneficial as a component of protein. Beyond that, the digestive system converts nitrates into nitrites. Nitrites can be particularly hazardous to pregnant women, infants, and the elderly because they bind to oxygen-carrying hemoglobin in the bloodstream. This can lead to illnesses like methemoglobinemia, also known as “blue baby syndrome” due to the lack of oxygenated blood in the body.

On top of the health factor,  there is the economic factor: the cost to collect, store, and treat animal waste can easily surpass $100,000 for even a small CAFO.2

Sadly, trying to find information on newer and more efficient systems can be challenging. A Google search returns a lot of general information on what waste management systems do, but not a whole lot on new technologies. Save The WaterTM has information available to farmers and farm operators to help them select and implement more modern solutions to the challenge of waste management.

What can Farmers Do?

Farm operators are looking to install cost-effective options that check off all regulatory, economic, and conservation requirements. Without a doubt, options are limited. Should farmers keep upgrading old technology, or look into something different? Also, where should they look?

One option that incorporates new technology is Advanced Oxidation Technology, or AOT.5 AOT systems create a closed-loop system where waste products become fertilizer and clean, reusable water. In addition to zero discharge, including smell, AOT’s meet regulatory requirements with no pollution. AOT’s meet regulatory and environmental requirements and can actually improve the profitability of farms. AOT’s also give farmers an additional product to sell. Most importantly, AOT’s are scalable; farmers can expand their operations while maintaining zero discharge. Streams become clearer, fish get healthier, and drinking water supplies are safer.

Getting Started

• Contact Save The WaterTM to learn about options for new AOT systems.
• Donate to Save The WaterTM to promote research into water conservation and protection technologies.

References

1. Steven Elbow. March 15, 2019. “Wisconsin Dairy Farmers Pushing for Clearinghouse for Water Pollution Credits.” The Cap Times. https://www.bit.ly/2CP6YCn.
2. Brian Oram, PG. “Nitrates and Nitrites in Drinking Water Groundwater and Surface Waters. Water Research Center. https://www.water-research.net/nitrite.
3. U.S. Department of Agriculture. “Animal Feeding Operations.” National Resources Conservation Service. https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/national/plantsanimals/livestock/afo/
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Toxic and Priority Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act.” https://www.epa.gov/eg/toxic-and-priority-pollutants-under-clean-water-act

Save The WaterTM. “Executive Summary AOT.”

Increases in the human population are putting unprecedented pressures on freshwater resources. Only 2 to 2.5% of the world’s water is fresh. By 2025, an estimated two-thirds of the world will be under stressed water conditions.1 To meet growing demand, the slogan, “reduce, reuse, recycle” has been applied to water. Treated wastewater, called reclaimed or recycled water, could supplement water resources, but is it safe?2

The short answer is “maybe.” Three key facts are important to know:

1. Current tests cannot accurately detect all contaminants,
2. Current wastewater treatments cannot remove or deactivate all contaminants, and
3. The risk to human health from a constant mix of water contaminants is unknown.3,4 Currently, 3.6 million people die from water-related diseases each year.5

Uses of recycled water

Historically, recycled water has been restricted to non potable (non-drinking) reuses (NPR), including: agriculture, landscape, public parks, golf course irrigation, industrial uses, toilet flushing, dust control, construction activities, concrete mixing, and artificial lakes.2 Treated wastewater is also used to create, restore, or enhance manmade wetlands and hydrologically altered wetlands.

Recent applications of recycled water include indirect potable reuse (IPR) and direct potable reuse (DPR). IPR is used for groundwater recharge and surface water reservoir augmentation that will eventually be used for cooking or drinking water. DPR uses treated wastewater for drinking.2,4,6 Singapore is currently using recycled water for drinking.7

Treatment of water for direct potable reuse

In water, pathogens and residual chemicals, particularly Chemicals of Emerging Concern (CECs), have the potential to impact human health. These are of significant importance to the use of recycled water for direct potable reuse.4 Monitoring some pathogens can be a very slow process, so surrogates are routinely used to determine whether treatments provide appropriate water quality. However, for DPR, wastewater treatment performance and water quality need more monitoring schemes and approaches because the higher pathogen loads in sewage present a different risk to human health compared to conventional water sources and there is less time to prevent human exposure and consumption.4,8

Recycled water sources are also more likely to carry unregulated contaminants and chemicals compared to most conventional sources. As a result, DPR necessitates treatments to remove or to destroy these chemicals. It will also require online monitoring of surrogates and periodic indicator testing. In short, recycled water for DPR must be fail-safe to protect humans from health risks.8

Is recycled water safe?

Many studies indicate that using recycled water for non potable reuse is safe. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, there have been no reports of human health problems that resulted from contact with recycled water that has been treated to standards, criteria, and regulations.2 One national study of using recycled water to irrigate parks, playgrounds, and schoolyards concluded that there were no incidences of illnesses or diseases from pathogens or chemicals.7 A 2012 study in Israel concluded that using recycled wastewater on crops was not spreading antibiotic-resistant bacteria into the environment.9 Previous studies from the 1970s and 1980s have tested recycled water and water from conventional water sources used for irrigating crops and found little or no difference between the two concerning metal content, faecal coliforms, parasites, chlorine, viruses, organic compounds, parasites, and micropollutants.10

So, why still ask about recycled waters’ safety for NPR? Wastewater treatments cannot currently remove all contaminants that potentially risk animal and human health. For example, non-removable pharmaceutical compounds remain in recycled water in an active form.3 A study in Arizona concluded that recycled water could contain synthetic organic compounds, some of which are carcinogenic or toxic. A more recent study using bioassays concluded that attenuation of bioactivity (i.e. making organisms harmless or less harmful) depends on the treatment process and bioassay endpoint. Overall, the study indicated that several bioassays can be used to support decision-making for advanced water treatment for removal of bioactivity.11 Additionally, recycled water’s high nitrogen content could lead to excessive microbial growth that, when used for wetland rehydration, can lead to nutrient enrichment problems, like algal blooms.7

However, governments do not regulate or require the treatment of all contaminants, chemicals, and substances in recycled water.1 Increasing the use of recycled water can increase the number of pathways into the environment for Emerging Substances of Concern (ESOCs), which include organic contaminants like pharmaceuticals, personal care products (PCPs), endocrine-modulating chemicals, nanoparticles, and biological metabolites. Currently, the environmental impact, transport, and toxicological effects of ESOCs are uncertain.7

While studies have documented that small amounts of drugs and personal care products (PCPs) can be found in the edible portion of crops irrigated with recycled water, stakeholders in the field disagree about the potential risk to human health. One group believes that nontoxic levels pose only a very small risk. According to one study in Pennsylvania, compounds that result from PCPs that remain present in treated wastewater do not remain at toxic levels in the edible part of the plant.3 The people who believe that the risk is very small focus on the low amount of chemicals that a person can consume in a year compared to medical doses.12

The opposing group believes that the trace amounts could pose a more serious risk because medical dosage amounts, which are intended for sick people, are not the appropriate measure to determine potential risk to healthy adults and children. By measuring contaminants in sweet potatoes and carrots under regular farm conditions irrigated by treated wastewater, a study showed that children who ate half a carrot a day would consume possibly unsafe levels of an anticonvulsant. An additional concern is that consume may consume a cocktail of chemicals, and the risks of such a mixture are unknown.12

Micropollutants present yet another potential risk. One recent study tested for 28 micropollutants and carbamazepine metabolite in ten different field-grown vegetables that were irrigated with recycled water under realistic conditions t. Although a preliminary health risk assessment showed no risk for 7 of the 12 micropollutants found in the food crops, more specific toxicity data would be required for a refined risk assessment for ciprofloxacin and 10,11-epoxycarbamazepine.13

While the research so far is generally promising for safe use of recycled water, further investigation is required to determine whether trace compounds pose risks to animal and human health. New technological advances for testing, monitoring, and treating water may improve the reliably safe use of recycled water. Innovative technologies may close the time gap for testing the quality of recycled water and choosing appropriate treatments and uses.

References

1. Save the Water. “250 water facts.” http://savethewater.org/education-resources/water-facts/
2. US Environmental Protection Agency. “Water recycling and reuse: The environmental benefits.” https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/recycling/
3. American Society of Agronomy. March 2, 2016. “Reduce, reuse, recycle: Safe for water? Pharmaceutical, personal care products show scant presence in crop irrigated with wastewater.” ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/03/160302132540.htm
4. California State Water Resources Control Board. October 24, 2014. “Thematic topic #1: Water quality and human health.” http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_recycling_policy/docs/wr_research/3_thematic_topic_1_water_quality_and_human_heath.pdf
5. Save the Water. “Chemical facts.” http://savethewater.org/education-resources/chemical-facts/
6. WaterWorld. October 31, 2016. “Permit to reduce wastewater discharges to the ocean in San Diego proposed by EPA, State.” http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2016/10/permit-to-reduce-wastewater-discharges-to-the-ocean-in-san-diego-proposed-by-epa-state.html
7. Florida Department of Environmental Protection Office of Water Policy. December 1, 2015. “Report on expansion of beneficial use of reclaimed water, stormwater and excess surface water (Senate Bill 536).” http://www.dep.state.fl.us/water/reuse/docs/sb536/SB536-Report.pdf.
8. M. Wehner. October 29, 2014. “DPR water quality and human health: DPR research needs workshop with SWRCB staff and stakeholders [presentation slides].” http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_recycling_policy/docs/wr_research/wehner_water_quality_and_human_health.pdf
9. M.B. Griggs. September 22, 2014. “Why we shouldn’t worry about growing plants with recycled water: Trace amounts of common pharmaceuticals show up in crops grown with recycled water, but not as much as you’d think.” Smithsonian. http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/plants-grown-recycled-water-180952805/
10. Natural Resources Management Environment Department, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. “Wastewater use case studies.” http://www.fao.org/docrep/T0551E/t0551e0b.htm
11. A. Jia, et al. 2015. “In vitro bioassays to evaluate complex chemical mixtures in recycled water.” Water Research, 80. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0043135415002997
12. B. Mole. September 19, 2014. “Crops take up drugs from recycled water: Researchers disagree on the potential threat to human health of tiny quantities of compounds including pharmaceuticals.” ScienceNews. https://www.sciencenews.org/article/crops-take-drugs-recycled-water
13. C. Riemenschneider, et al. 2016. “Pharmaceuticals, their metabolites, and other polar pollutants in field-grown vegetables irrigated with treated municipal wastewater.” Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry, 64(29).

A recent study identified Ferric hexacyanoferrate, or Prussian blue, as a possible solution to brine spills caused by fracking.

Fracking as an energy source

The global need for energy sources is clear. However, there has been much disagreement over the energy sources we should use. One of the most commonly used options is fracking— the process of “oil drilling and hydraulic fracturing.1 Fracking can also alternatively target shale gas formations deep in the ground. The lucrative business of natural gas and oil as an energy source has been said to “create jobs, increase economic activity, manifest a more diverse and stable energy base, and possibly reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, other greenhouse gases, and various other air pollutants (such as mercury).”2

Fracking’s environmental drawbacks

While some praise fracking as an economical godsend in the world of energy, others question its environmental implications. A large issue commonly broached is fracking’s impact on water quality. This includes the presence of “drill cuttings [debris following the breaking of ground and the creation of a borehole] and high-brine produced waters,” which can pollute water sources surrounding the borehole.2 Additionally, it can cause high-brine produced waters, which contain immense amounts of salt, heavy metals, and various toxic compounds utilized in the process of drilling. These waters can include numerous dissolved chemicals drained away from the surrounding rock, including sodium and chloride, heavy metals such as chromium, cobalt, nickel, copper, zinc, arsenic, selenium, silver, cadmium, antimony, mercury, thallium, and lead, radioactive material from buried rock, and others like barium, calcium, and bromide.3 The expulsion of these fluids and chemicals is often referred to as a brine spill.

Brine spills hold vast negative implications for the area surrounding a borehole, particularly concerning the soil. The extreme amount of additional salt added to the land makes it infertile, eliminating its agricultural value. Additionally, the dissolved chemicals can contribute to runoff and lead to general water pollution in the area. The cost of removing these chemicals (in the form of wastewater) can be a heavy monetary burden on fracking companies. Furthermore, if the water gets absorbed by the soil, these problems can extend multiple generations.

Currently, the most prevalent solution is to mitigate the effect that salt in the wastewater has on the soil by having fracking companies “manage the waste through extensive trucking to offsite injection wells.”2 A common solution to alleviate salinity stress on the roots is simply diluting the area with organic materials and cations. However, this solution “can require years to centuries (depending on soil clay content) to remove salt from the root zone.”4 Alternative solutions, such as planting halophytes, may be effective—a study found that numerous species significantly reduced soil salinity when compared to control plots5 — but this solution is overly complicated, expensive, and suboptimal. While natural processes like precipitation may also reduce the salt concentration, there lies a risk of soil absorption, and the alleviation of negative effects is severely delayed. Due to these inadequate processes, there lies a need for a cheap, effective solution with immediate effects to solve the issue of brine spills.

A new solution

A recent study may have found a possible solution to fit this need. Researchers at North Dakota State University have identified the chemical ferric hexacyanoferrate (also known by the name Prussian blue)as a salinity-reducing agent in areas affected by brine spills. In the study, ferric hexacyanoferrate, a crystallization inhibitor, was applied to the surface of brine-contaminated soils; this caused salt to crystallize towards the top of the soil which could be easily harvested. This process resulted in “easy harvest of up to 57% of salts within 7 days without mechanical disturbance to the soil.”4

There are certain issues associated with this solution. First, applying ferric hexacyanoferrate to the surface of brine-affected soil simply makes the salt easier to remove. There still lies a cost in removing the salt itself. Additionally, while the chemical itself is relatively cheap, there may be objections surrounding its efficacy and safety. However, one of the researchers, Aaron Daigh, assured that the chemical “has relatively minimal toxicity towards humans and the environment, is extraordinarily stable, and despite its capacity to yield free-cyanides when decomposed, breaks down slowly and can be neutralized by microbes in the soil.”1

That being said, there is much more to investigate in this topic of study. Researchers suggested the investigation of new methods of deploying crystallization inhibitors for rapid salt extraction as well as loading rate optimization, in-field testing, further investigation of ferric hexacyanoferrate during the remediation process, and the evaluation of other crystallization inhibitors.4 Hopefully, after more research, scientists will be able to more fully identify solutions to the negative effects of brine spills.

References

1. American Society of Agronomy & Crop Science Society of America. September 28, 2016. “Solution blooming for fracking spills?” https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/09/160928140519.htm
2. G. A. Burton, et al. July 17, 2014. “Hydraulic ‘Fracking’: Are surface water impacts an ecological concern?” http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2619/abstract
3. L. Song. July 16, 2014. “‘Saltwater’ From Fracking Spill Is Not What’s Found in the Ocean.” http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-07-16/-saltwater-from-fracking-spill-is-not-what-s-found-in-the-ocean.html
4. A. L. Daigh & A. W. Klaustermeier. February 9, 2016. “Agricultural & Approaching.” https://dl.sciencesocieties.org/publications/ael/pdfs/1/1/150013
5. C. H. Keiffer & I. A. Ungar. 2002. “Germination and establishment of halophytes on brine-affected soils.” http://www.academia.edu/15223189/Germination_and_establishment_of_halophytes_on_brine-affected_soils

Many Americans envision water pollutants as toxic sludge seeping from industrial wastelands, but that is simply not the entire truth. While industrial runoff contributes to the pollution of lake and river ecosystems, much of water pollution lies in aspects we wouldn’t associate water pollution with. An overabundance of basic elements such as nitrogen and phosphorus can essentially asphyxiate river ecosystems. One common contributor is agricultural runoff containing fertilizer which is enhanced with nitrogen and phosphorus. Other sources of water pollutants comes from litter which find their way to local water sources through runoff or simply human carelessness. Even our personal and daily waste can directly impact local aquatic ecosystems.

Pharmaceuticals and Personal-Care Products

An increasing source of water pollution is pharmaceuticals and personal-care products (PPCPs). Unlike the aforementioned imagery of factory-based pollutants, PPCPs are found in our homes These include “medications for pain, depression, and colds; birth control pills; caffeine; hair products; cleaning supplies and pesticides.”1 PPCPs can be sourced back to locations that are essential to society, including “hospitals, nursing homes, pharmacies, veterinary operations, septage tank haulers, and meat processors.”1

PPCPs hold a myriad of negative implications for aquatic ecosystems. Some are classified as endocrine disruptors (EDCs), which “disrupt hormone levels leading to reproductive effects in aquatic organisms.”2 This impacts the ability of these organisms to sustain themselves in the ecosystem, possibly altering their population numbers and the ecosystem’s food web in the long term. Furthermore, PPCPs are problematic because of the abundance of additional substances in the water. While many PPCPs (in their normal doses) would not be problematic on their own, the combination of different PPCPs in trace doses creates a cocktail of substances that can have a strong impact on the ecosystem.

PPCP Detection

A major problem with PPCPs is that they are often unnoticed, and that they build up to impactful levels. It follows, then, that a major part of limiting pollution caused by PPCPs (and especially EDCs) lies in identifying their presence. A study from the University of Florida Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) led by agricultural and biological engineering professor Rafael Munoz-Carpena has found a method to detect PPCPs before they can disrupt the ecosystems in which they reside. After selecting 16 common PPCPs to test (such as antibiotics, caffeine, analgesics and psychiatric drugs), researchers “mixed the chemicals with blue algae engineered to produce light, using changes in the light signal to gauge the toxicity of the different mixtures of chemicals in the bacteria.”3

The study could provide a basis on which to prevent the spread of PPCPs and mitigate their effects. While scientists can, for the most part, identify singular highly-concentrated PPCPs, this new method could identify mixtures of low-dose PPCPs. Additionally, beyond the effects of EDCs, results from the study confirm that “less-than-lethal effects from PPCPs mixtures make freshwater ecosystems more susceptible to later stresses such as light, temperature, nutrient availability and competition with other organisms.”3

This study also comes at a time of need. Beyond their effects on local aquatic environments, PPCPs can halt the progress of reusable wastewater systems. Recognizing that PPCPs are found in human excrement, the Environmental Protection Agency has noted that the “presence of PPCPs may be the reason why some water reuse projects fail, such as various toilet-to-tap programs.”1 With the use of the newly developed x method, PPCPs can be more readily detected and identified . Thus, the new technology may prove to be a valuable solution for water reuse systems, potentially reducing water pollution as well as water scarcity.

References

1. National Environmental Services Center. 2017. “National Environmental Services Center (NESC).” http://www.nesc.wvu.edu/index.cfm
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. September 27, 216. “Contaminants of emerging concern including pharmaceuticals and personal care products.” http://bit.ly/29PUcFv
3. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. September 7, 2016. “New UF/IFAS method detects low-dose impacts of man-made chemicals in water.” http://bit.ly/2vKDxux

Venice, “The Floating City,” was built in the 5th century over 118 low-lying salt marshes in the Venetian Lagoon, which is located along the northeastern shore of Italy. The city developed from a series of smaller communities that, over time, became unified through its connecting bridges and canals. Its unique geography and early dependence on water transportation made it an undeniable force in the maritime and mercantile industries through the Middle Ages. Present-day Venetians continue to depend on these historic canals in their everyday lives; however, pollution from modern development threatens the future of the lagoon, the city, and its inhabitants.

Venice’s History of Pollution

In the 1920s, nearby Marghera developed into a thriving industrial zone and port, which yielded rapid construction of factories, including chemical plants and oil refineries. This period of industrialization irreversibly changed the landscape of the lagoon and threw off the balance of its delicate ecosystem. These factories released massive quantities of unregulated waste into the lagoon for decades before strict, environmental action began in the 1980s. These pollutants included dioxins and heavy metals, which are toxic to wildlife and humans. Even though 80% of wastewater is now treated in purification plants, non-biodegradable pollutants from this era continue to plague the lagoon and have been partly responsible for the decline in native plant and animal species.1

Venice is a designated UNESCO World Heritage site that is revered across the globe for its masterful architecture and countless works of art. However, because Venice was built on an unstable foundation, it is at the mercy of subsidence; the city’s soil is slowly sinking, and with it, so is the city. Furthermore, seasonal acqua alta (abnormally high tides) flood the lowest parts of the city and are becoming more severe. In 2012, 70% of the city flooded with 59 inches of canal water, which was recorded as the the 6th highest level since records began in 1872.3 Photos of the event showed tourists blissfully swimming in the historic St. Mark’s Square, perhaps without truly understanding the level of contamination in these waters.

Water Contamination Challenges

Everyday activities also contribute to water pollution. Venice relies on a 16th-century sewage system that releases wastewater directly into its canals through underground channels called gatoli. At the time, this system was renowned for its superior hygiene because twice-a-day tides exchanged wastewater from the lagoon with clean water from the Adriatic Sea; however, this ancient system is no longer adequate for managing the sewage demands of Modern Venice. Personal care products, such as soap, detergent, and shampoo, commonly contain synthetic chemicals like fragrances that do not easily degrade in nature and do not have well-understood impacts on long-term health.5

These chemicals run freely into canals because Venice does not have a method to control its release. Although parts of the sewage system have been upgraded with sedimentation tanks to filter solid waste and septic tanks to biologically decompose contaminants, these methods are not widespread or comprehensive.4 Implementing traditional solutions for water treatment is not possible without imposing structural damage, especially around the historic center. Even if implementation was possible, water treatment plants were not originally designed to manage chemicals found in personal care products.2 Therefore, understanding the environmental fate and impact of these chemicals is essential to the future of not only Venice, but any community facing similar challenges.

The Fate of Fragrances

This month, researchers at the Ca’ Foscari University of Venice and the Institute for the Dynamics of Environmental Processes published a pioneering study on the environmental occurrence and distribution of 17 fragrance materials in surface waters around the historic center of Venice, the nearby island of Burano, and uninhabited areas of the lagoon. They chose to monitor these specific fragrance materials because they are commonly found in personal care products, are continuously produced in high volumes, and are environmentally persistent. The Italian government does not have emission limits designated for any of these fragrance materials.

Based on water samples gathered between April and December of 2015, researchers discovered that salicylates (amyl salicylate, hexyl salicylate, and benzyl salicylate), which are known oestrogenic and allergenic compounds, had the highest concentrations compared to any of the other fragrance materials tested. The researchers indicated that tidal dynamics heavily influenced the levels measured. At low tide, inner city canals exhibited concentrations of fragrance materials comparable to that of untreated wastewater. At high tide, concentrations were comparable to that of final effluent water released from treatment plants. Although the levels of these salicylates were below the minimum concentration for ecotoxicity (in Daphnia and other species), these values do not reflect possible synergistic effects with other chemicals present in the lagoon or possible long-term effects from low-level exposure.5

Venice’s Future

The results of this study open more avenues for research. The researchers state, “the main open question is to identify the environmental fate of these substances, namely whether fragrance materials degrade in the aqueous system, accumulate in sediments and biota, or volatilize into the atmosphere.”5 Further research to understand the complex pathways of all persistent chemicals in the lagoon is essential to influencing future water policy. This year’s annual Water Technology and Environmental Control Exhibition and Conference took place in Venice. By providing the backdrop of discussions on recent breakthroughs between business executives, scientists, and political figures from around the world, the city is demonstrating its evolving commitment to ensuring a safer and healthier Venice for generations to come.

References:

1. Freemantle. 2000. “Safeguarding Venice.” Chemical & Engineering News. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/7835/7835sci1.html
2. Homem et. al. 2015. “Long Lasting Perfumes – A Review of Synthetic Musks in WWTPs.” Journal of Environmental Management.
3. Kingtom. November 11, 2012. “Venice ‘High Water’ Floods 70% of City.” The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/11/venice-floods-high-water-italy
4. Scibilia. 2011. “Venice Backstage. How does Venice work?” Vimeo. https://vimeo.com/21688538
5. Vecchiato et al. 2016. “Fragrances As New Contaminants in the Venice Lagoon.” Science of the Total Environment.

A recent study has shown that over six million Americans are using drinking water supplies that contain perilous levels of industrial chemicals, most of which are carcinogenic and can cause a myriad of health problems. What are these high-risk chemicals? They are commonly known as PFASs (scientifically speaking, they’re called polyfluoroalkyl and perfluoroalkyl substances) and have been historically used in a variety of items including, but not limited to, non-stick cookware, food wrappers, firefighting foam, and food wrappers. As for the health issues they are linked to, the main ones tend to be hormone disruption, high cholesterol, certain types of cancer, and obesity. “PFASs are a group of persistent manmade chemicals that have been in use since 60 years ago,” said lead study author Xindi Hu, a public health and engineering researcher at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts.1

All this sounding familiar? It should be, if you’ve been following up on the news revolving PFOSs and PFCs. PFASs are a subsection of the large group of PFCs. PFOSs are a type of PFAS. This unpleasant family is often said to be rather difficult to study. That being said, it is important to know some of the specifics of PFASs as they are the most widespread manmade contaminant in the world.2

Polyfluroalkyl Substances and Their Effects

As said by Hu, PFASs are persistent, meaning that they stay in the environment for an extended period of time. By having the ability to “persist” in the environment, they are able to accumulate into concentrated amounts, sometimes enough to cause harmful, even lethal, effects on organisms. Perfluoroalkyl substances can be found in many environmental mediums, be it water, soil, or the inside of a living organism. Usually these organisms are vertebrates such as fish, birds, and mammals. PFOSs and PFOAs (which are also a type of PFA) are the most common, by far. Reports claim that there are concentrations of each chemical in the kidneys, liver, breast milk, and blood of every human being on Earth.2 Now you may be asking, what is the difference between PFOSs and PFOAs? Avoiding all the intricate advanced chemistry details, the differences lie within the atomic bonds of each of the chemicals. The two chemicals listed differ in the number of carbon atoms they contain.2

Certain studies show that the harmful effects of PFASs on the general human population are low because of the low levels of exposure to extremely high concentrations. It might be true that workers that come into contact with PFASs (due to their job) may have a high chance of contracting a disease, but the overall population is only subject to concentrations that are a 100 times lower. Of course, there is a catch, in this case, many catches. Experiments on animals indicate that PFASs can have potential effects of growth development, reproduction, and suppression of the immune system response. And as said before, PFASs are carcinogenic (cancer-causing) compounds. It seems only logical that the general society know a bit more about these dangerous chemicals.2

Scope of the Issue

“Most current wastewater treatment processes do not effectively remove PFASs,” Hu said. “The problem may be much more widespread than the current study findings suggest because researchers lacked data on drinking water from smaller public water systems and private wells that serve about one-third of the U.S. population – about 100 million people.”1

To survey what number of individuals might be subjected to PFASs in drinking water supplies, experts took a gander at types of six sorts of PFA in more than 36,000 water tests gathered across the country by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.T3 These tests were held between 2013 and 2015. Additionally, they took a look at industrial centers that create or use PFASs: military training bases, airport terminals, and wastewater treatment plants. Pollution discharges from the latter—which can’t expel PFASs from wastewater by using standard treatment strategies—could contaminate groundwater.

Drinking water from 13 states represented 75 percent of the perilous supply, mostly in California, New Jersey, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Georgia, Minnesota, Arizona, Massachusetts, and Illinois. Sixty-six of the populations’ water supplies analyzed had no less than one water test that was at or above what the EPA considers alright for human use/consumption. One limitation of the study is that scientists needed information on to what extent individuals lived in regions supplied by polluted water and the amount of this water individuals actually drank.1 After all, the danger of PFASs is that its numerous health issues are connected to long-term exposure.

An accompanying Harvard study has also suggested that teens exposed to PFASs tend to have lower levels of antibodies against diseases such as diphtheria and tetanus, even if vaccinations were received. What’s more, the evidence points toward the antibody problem persisting as the teens grow older. “So the negative effects on immune functions appear to be lasting,” Grandjean, author of the Harvard study states. “Sadly, there is very little that an exposed resident can do, once the exposure has led to an increased amount of PFASs in the body.”4

It seems quite obvious the PFASs and its family of toxins are a serious problem to our society. Now it’s up to us to decide what to do in order to fight this overbearing enemy.

References

1. Julie Fidlr. 2016 “Your Tap Water Is Likely Contaminated With Industrial Chemicals.” Natural Society. http://naturalsociety.com/tap-water-likely-contaminated-industrial-chemicals-6223/
2. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. August 16, 2016. “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances and Your Health.” http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/pfc/health_effects_pfcs.html
3. Environmental Protection Agency. “Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) under TSCA.” http://bit.ly/1VvN4jj
4. L Rapaport. 2016. “Toxic chemicals in drinking water for six million Americans.”Reuters. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-pollution-water-idUSKCN10K1VK

Florida has been experiencing a rather serious water crisis as of late, one that has the danger of causing widespread disaster for the region. Most people are describing it as a “guacamole-like sludge” that is due to faulty political and economic decisions in the last one hundred forty years. In reality, this disastrous guacamole is a toxic bloom (an algae outbreak) that covers large expanses of Florida’s St. Lucie River. Now, Florida’s government and other authorities are looking fervently for a way to solve the issue before it gets out of hand.3

How We Got Here

Why do we have this problem today? Simply said, it’s mainly the fault of humans. In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, there was a myriad of businesses who, with the combined effort of the government, attempted to drain the Everglades in order to develop land in the area. To accomplish this goal, water that usually flowed south from Lake Okeechobee through the Everglades to Florida Bay was rerouted westwards into the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie rivers, eventually entering the sea.

As land development began, ranches, farms, and homes began to spring up and produce effluents such as fertilizer and human/animal waste. Both of these are filled with phosphorous and nitrogen which are necessary for the production of fast-reproducing algae. These pollutants are swept into the lake and slow-moving rivers when Florida’s heavy seasonal rains come.5 The entrance of phosphorous and nitrogen into waterways is often called eutrophication. To add to the misfortune, lakes themselves produce these same nutrients. Phosphates that are naturally attached to various sediments in the lake bed are released into the water column when the dissolved oxygen concentration is low. An algal bloom was inevitable. All the conditions had been met: sunlight, slow-moving waters, and plenty of nutrients.

A Number of Problems

What’s so bad about this layer of thick guacamole? To begin, an algal bloom isn’t necessarily detrimental. In some lakes, the blooms contribute to the natural aging process and can impart important benefits by enhancing the lake’s primary productivity.

Unfortunately in other lakes, like Lake Okeechobee, severe algal blooms can decrease dissolved oxygen concentrations and increase dead algae decay. Lakes that are highly eutrophic might even be subject to anoxia (an absence of oxygen) and fish kills. To humans, algal blooms are rather unappealing. This factor plays a large role in lessening the lake’s recreational value and thus results in many economic problems. Repeated blooms, like the ones in Lake Okeechobee, have already caused property values in the area to decline considerably.

It can be toxic

Some algal blooms can produce toxins that are harmful to aquatic organisms, domestic animals, and humans. These chemicals are released into the water as algae, namely cyanobacteria, decay. Like most Floridians have already noticed, a cyanobacterial bloom will form on the surface of a water source. Because of this, humans and other animals will come into close contact with layers of the bloom that have made it near the shore. If toxic, algal blooms can create lung irritations and gastroenteritis if it enters the human body. In less serious cases, toxic blooms may cause skin irritation.2

Halfway through June, the State of Florida began water testing in several areas around Lake Okeechobee: Fort Pierce Inlet Beach; Blind Creek Park North; Jensen Beach; Bathtub Beach portions of St. Lucie River; and several more. As the results came in, it was apparent that some samples had exceeded concentrations established as “safe” by the World Health Organization. The test results, though, show low levels of toxicity.

Unfortunately, this data is not up-to-date as the latest samples are as early as June 30th. This is before coastal areas around St. Lucie were shut down due to the stench of algae on the Fourth of July weekend. With the samples the state has taken, it has found that there are algal blooms in forty-four locations, with the worst situations in St. Lucie County and Martin. The algal blooms have even been detected as far west as Fort Myers near the Caloosahatchee River.

Temporary Solutions

Of the samples, twenty-one of them have been classified as toxic and have the potential to be a public-health risk. While Florida has no current health standards for toxic algae in recreational waters, many county health departments have banned swimming in algae-infested waters. With Governor Scott’s declaration of a state of emergency, authorities have suggested reducing the flow of water in Lake Okeechobee into surrounding water sources. By doing this, the flow of nutrient-heavy water would decrease substantially and allows fresh and salt water to mix. With the addition of salt water, algal blooms may begin to decrease as the problem-causing algae is a freshwater species.

Of course, this is just a temporary solution. The arrival of heavy rains during hurricane season would necessitate the state free high volumes of nutrient-rich water, creating yet more algal blooms. Officials claim that prediction and prevention of this crisis will be difficult.1

“The nature of most freshwater algal bloom events makes it difficult to predict where and when a bloom will occur or how long it will last,” states Dee Ann Miller, spokeswoman for the state Department of Environmental Protection.4 “However, lessening the negative effects of algal blooms is possible through restoration work to improve water quality by reducing nutrients. By reducing nitrogen and phosphorous levels, we can help decrease the intensity and duration of algal bloom events.”4

What Comes Next?

Right now though, the biggest question is how far this algal bloom will spread. The problem’s center remains in the waterways that branch off of the St. Lucie River.1 However, authorities have begun to keep a close eye on other vulnerable areas including Caloosahatchee River, which is the relief river for excess water in Lake Okeechobee. There are already signs of algal blooms entering the river, but a prolonged period of dry weather, which Florida is going through, would only make it worse. Officials say that a solution must be found immediately, otherwise the consequences of the crisis will be permanent.5

References

1. Joseph Erbentraut. July 7, 2016. “Toxic Algal Blooms Aren’t Just Florida’s Problem. And They’re On The Rise.” HuffPost. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/florida-algal-blooms_us_577d70cee4b0c590f7e7e3d2
2. Kevin G. Sellner, Gregory J. Doucette, & Gary J. Kirkpatrick. July 2003. “Harmful algal blooms: Causes, impacts and detection.” Journal of Industrial Microbiology and Biotechnology, 30(7). https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10295-003-0074-9
3. Mayra Cuevas. July 1, 2016. “Toxic algae bloom blankets Florida beaches, prompts state of emergency.” CNN. http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/01/us/florida-algae-pollution/
4. Pam Wright. July 18, 2016. “10 Things to Know About Florida’s Harmful Algae Blooms.” The Weather Channel. https://weather.com/science/nature/news/florida-algae-crisis
5. Rhea Suh. July 17, 2016. “Toxic Algae Blooms: Fish Are Dying, Beaches Are Closing, People Are Getting Sick.” Alternet. http://www.alternet.org/environment/toxic-algae-blooms-fish-are-dying-beaches-are-closing-people-are-getting-sick

Long Island, New York has a long history of using septic tanks and cesspool systems for waste removal. Unfortunately, these outdated systems have a high rate of failure and contribute to the serious health and environmental issues. A recent study conducted by The New York State Center for Clean Water Technology (CCWT) at University of Stony Brook, has found that the approximately 360,000 septic tank/leaching systems and cesspools that serve 74% of homes across Suffolk County have caused the concentrations of nitrogen in groundwater to rise by 50% since 1985.1

Human waste is polluting the groundwater as well the surrounding rivers, bays, and oceans. In fact, Long Island experienced toxic red tides, beach closures and an extensive loss of marine life, including hundreds of turtles and tens of thousands of fish in 2015.5 A combination of exponential population growth and poor waste management has caused a nitrogen overload. Increased nitrogen can also be traced to vast amounts of fertilizer used on lawns, golf courses and vineyards.7

Excessive nitrogen can be detrimental to different bodies of water because it creates algae bloom that releases a potent neurotoxin that paralyzes and eventually kills wildlife.8 It is also working its way into the groundwater and can result in restriction of oxygen transport in the bloodstream in humans. High nitrogen levels are correlated with colon cancer, bladder cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Septic tanks and cesspools have leaching pools which are designed to facilitate the dispersal of sewage within the soil. This is where the process of nitrification occurs and eventually enters the groundwater. However, The CCWT has discovered that Nitrogen Removing Biofilters (NRBs) are potentially capable of efficiently removing the excess nitrogen.This system is different from standard leaching fields because it utilizes a straightforward design made from natural materials to remove large amounts of nitrogen via microbial processes.1

NRBs pump chambers typically consist of a layer of sand overlying a layer of a combination of sand and finely ground wood that is dosed by a low-pressure distribution system. Most of the nitrogen being released from the septic tank is organic nitrogen and ammonium. As the solids sink to the bottom of the septic tank, the fluids will enter the top of the NRB via a pressure dispersal system. From this point ammonium rich fluids are oxidized to nitrate as it filters through the first sandy layer. Then, after passing through the upper sand layer of the NRB, most of the nitrogen is converted to nitrate which passes through a layer of sand mixed with wood chips. This layer provides the carbon source for the denitrification to occur.

NRBs operate largely by gravity, making them a low-maintenance option. Also, the combination of sand and wood makes this system more economical because it is estimated to last multiple decades.4, 5

Tests have shown that NRBs have been able to remove high percentages of nitrogen (up to 90%), as well as other water contaminants.2

Professor Dr. Harold Walker from Stonybrook University confirmed,“Beyond the high nitrogen removal rates these systems are achieving in test scenarios, they are also showing the highly efficient removal of most pharmaceuticals and other personal care products.1 Additionally, they are passive systems by design, which means they are low maintenance and require little energy to operate.”

Groundwater contamination on Long Island can be detrimental to the health of surrounding communities. The eutrophication of lakes, rivers, and bays is killing sea and plant life, destroying habitats, and disrupting the ecosystem. It is imperative for residents to start using more effective methods of reducing nitrogen in order to ameliorate the current problems. Fertilizer consumption, sewage, pesticides and countless other pollutants are being pumped into our groundwater and waterways every day. Innovation and new technology like NBRs must be used to mitigate and prevent new outbreaks in order to save marine life as well as human lives.

References

1. Center For Clean Water Technology (CCWT). Stonybrook University. 2016. “Center Issues White Paper on Potential Replacement for LI Cesspools Removes Nitrogen & Other Contaminants” http://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/cleanwater/whitepaper.html?utm_source=hamptons&utm_medium=community&utm_campaign=article
2. Heufelder, G. 2015. “The attenuation of selected contaminants of emerging concern in shallow-placed soil absorption systems”. www.nowra.org/Files/Resource_Library/NOWRA…/Heufelder.pdf
3. New York State Center for Clean Water Technology. “Nitrogen Removing Biofilters for Onsite Wastewater Treatment on Long Island Current and Future Prospects.” June 2016. http://www.stonybrook.edu/commcms/cleanwater/White%20Paper%20Final%206.19.20.pdf
4. Robertson, W.D. and Cherry, J.A. 1995. “In Situ Denitrification of Septic-System Nitrate Using Reactive Porous Media Barriers: Field Trials.” Ground Water. 33(1): 99-111.
5. Robertson, W.D., Brown, C.J., Brown, S.J. 2009. “Rates of nitrate and perchlorate removal in a five-year old wood particle reactor treating agricultural drainage.” Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation. 29(2): 87–94.
6. Semple, K. New York Times. “Long Island Sees a Crisis as It Floats to the Surface.” June 5, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/nyregion/long-island-sees-a-crisis-as-it-floats-to-the-surface.html?_r=0
7. Ulfelder, B. Metrofocus. “The Safety Of Long Island’s Water.” January 12, 2016. http://www.thirteen.org/metrofocus/2016/01/the-safety-of-long-islands-water/
8. USGS.“Nitrogen and Water.” http://water.usgs.gov/edu/nitrogen.html

History of Trichloropropane

In the 1940s, there were numerous agricultural divisions that sold products to farmers in hopes of getting a profit. Two of these agricultural divisions, Dow Chemical and Shell, had begun to sell two soil fumigants (under the product name of D-D and Telone) in order to aid farmers in eradicating crop-damaging nematodes. Because their main purpose was the death of living organisms, the product chemicals were, by nature, toxic. Unknown to most at the time, there was a chemical in D-D and Telone that was toxic to both nematodes and humans: 1,2,3-TCP, or Trichloropropane (TCP).2

Later, it was discovered that TCP played no role in killing the nematodes. Instead, the presence of TCP was just a byproduct of manufacturing the fumigants. Even though TCP could have easily been removed before the pesticide was sold, Dow and Shell decided otherwise. Instead of removing the toxic chemical, the companies took a leap in the other direction. They registered TCP as an active ingredient, claiming that the chemical was necessary for the efficiency of the pesticide, all in the face of scientific evidence that proved TCP was dangerous to humans.2

TCP was eventually banned from use in soil fumigants in the mid-1990s. D-D, at this time, had been taken off the market and Telone was reformulated. Unfortunately, the damage had already been done. TCP is a persistent toxin—it doesn’t degrade too easily in the environment.1 By the time it was banned, the chemical had already seeped into groundwater and drinking water wells. Now citizens in California, one of the most affected areas, have to drink and cook alongside a toxic chemical—all because of two companies that believed in chasing profit rather than safety.4

Discovery of TCP as a carcinogen

TCP is a synthesized chlorinated hydrocarbon that is usually used in industrial solvents, cleaners, and in the production of varnish removers and paint thinners. Along with being used in such products, TCP has been historically used in the manufacturing of other chemicals such as soil fumigants. As said, these fumigants were used extensively in the Californian region, especially in the counties of Tulare, Kern, Visalia, and Fresno. Contamination in these counties drinking water well have now become widespread due to TCP.2

TCP was tagged as a carcinogen by the State of California to cause cancer in 1999. Drinking, cooking, touching, or inhaling TCP-contaminated water are all methods of exposure to the toxic chemical. When exposed to high concentrations of TCP, it is normal to feel burning in the skin, eyes, throat, and nose. The individual might even experience drowsiness and liver damage.1 Fortunately, in California, it doesn’t seem like TCP will reach those dangerous heights. Just a few years ago, in 2009, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment put out a Public Health Goal—the level at which a substance in water has no significant public health impacts—detailing the quantity of TCP in drinking water. The level for TCP was 0.0007 parts per billion, one of the most restrictive in the state, suggesting the high toxicity of TCP. In 2013, Trichloropropane was detected in two or more samples at three hundred seventy-two sources, all within seventeen Californian counties.3

Lack of standards for TCP in drinking water

All that said, there is still no enforceable drinking water standard for TCP at both the state and federal levels. This means that water providers have no need to remove TCP from contaminated sources and can continue exposing consumers to a carcinogen. Additionally, it is rather difficult to hold the companies who introduced TCP to California, Shell and Dow, accountable for the existing troubles.2

Clean Water Action, a national citizens’ organization, has recently developed a campaign to create a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for TCP. An MCL is the legal threshold limit on the amount of a substance that is allowed in public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act. As far as the legal process goes, the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) is responsible for making the decision of whether or not to establish a standard close to the Public Health Goal. Of course, the DDW needs to be aware of the limitations that technology and the economy bring. Clean Water Action, having the restrictions in mind, have requested the standard be at 0.005 parts per billion, which is the lowest level of TCP that can be detected with current technology. Clean Water Action went further and proposed that the cost of water treatment be paid in full by Shell and Dow rather than the local water systems. However, for the time being, the DDW has put off the discussion about setting a standard on TCP levels. They believe it is “a good candidate for future regulation.”2

As of now, Clean Water Action intends to ensure DDW creates a standard for the level of TCP in drinking water by 2017 and to advocate for said standard. Clean Water Action has made substantial progress by helping create a much more effective and collaborative campaign with other water organizations and affected communities. In addition, Clean Water Action has met with DDW staff, attained a public hearing on the drinking water program, and publically proclaimed that TCP is a chemical that needs to be removed from drinking water. Their hard work has born some fruits. Work has already started toward analyzing economic and technological restraints. The State Board has committed to create certain standards by April of 2017.2

References

1. Kenan Ozekin. March 2016. “1,2,3-Trichloropropane State of the Science.” Water Research Foundation. http://www.waterrf.org/resources/StateOfTheScienceReports/1,2,3-Trichloropropane.pdf
2. Madeleine Thomas. May 4, 2016. “Unknown, Unregulated, Undrinkable.” Pacific Standard. from https://psmag.com/unknown-unregulated-undrinkable-b335823f895#.ik4xmu6nv
3. Sasha Khokha. March 7, 2016. “There’s a Cancer-Causing Chemical in My Drinking Water, But California Isn’t Regulating It.” KQED Science. https://ww2.kqed.org/science/2016/03/07/theres-a-cancer-causing-chemical-in-my-drinking-water-but-california-isnt-regulating-it/
4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. January 2014. “1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP) [Fact sheet].” https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/ffrrofactsheet_contaminant_tcp_january2014_final.pdf

Irresponsible disposal of toxic chemicals

In the aftermath of World War II, Britain and the Soviet Union dumped 65,000 tons of Nazi chemical weapons into the Baltic Sea after the Potsdam Conference in 1945. Many of the hazardous known and unknown chemicals contained in the weapons have been leaking into the sea as shells and containers slowly corrode.2

In the past decade, the countries surrounding the Baltic Sea have witnessed the consequences of this irresponsible disposal of toxic chemicals. Overall, 16 areas at the German Baltic coast are polluted by ammunition, according to the maritime shipping charts.2 In 2013, Poland’s Military University of Technology found mustard gas on the seabed just off the Polish coast.2

Of the harmful chemicals found at these spill sites, 146 individual substances have been identified as concerning chemical warfare agents.3 Some of the most noteworthy—trinitrotoluene (TNT), hydrocyanic acid, clark I & II, and mustard gas—have been considered the most dangerous aquatic pollutants. TNT is a chemical compound that is one of the most prevalent due to its extensive use during World War I and World War II and is linked to various health and environmental concerns. TNT has been of most concern for microorganisms and aquatic plants, but is also linked to cancer and liver, blood, immune system, and reproductive damage.5 However, there is little known about the long-term effects of many of these chemicals on marine organisms as well as humans.

Environmental Impact

Researchers have been examining data on these chemicals in the Baltic Sea from the years 2000 to 2012.1 Due to the fact that examining these chemicals is expensive and time consuming, most of the chemicals being prioritized are ones that are already known to be a risk to the environment and human health. Unfortunately, this causes many of the other potentially harmful chemicals or contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) to be overlooked.

Of the many potential health impacts that CECs may have on humans and ecosystems, endocrine disruption is of the most concern. Although scientists have observed negative health effects at very low concentrations (parts per trillion) of some CECs in fish and aquatic species, these effects have not been observed in humans.6

Many CECs are also persistent organic pollutants, meaning they do not biodegrade easily in the environment; therefore, they can persist and accumulate in the environment and aquatic species, potentially causing adverse effects. Some compounds that undergo degradation or transformation sometimes form other chemicals that are more toxic than the original.4

The impact that these toxic chemicals will have on humans and the environment must be monitored to be able to predict potential threats before the concentration of these chemicals becomes unmanageable. There are many unanswered questions that require research and development of methods to identify and correlate exposure to CECs to health effects and toxicity. Research on water treatment methods to reduce CECs before they enter the environment is also required. Continued, expedited research done by Save The Water will provide early warnings of potential threats and a better understanding of harmful exposure.

References

1. Anna Sobek, Sofia Bejgarn, Christina Rudén, and Magnes Breitholtz. March 15, 2016. “The dilemma in prioritizing
   chemicals for environmental analysis: known versus unknown hazards.” Environmental Science. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27222376
2. M.D. Warsaw. November 21, 2013. “The ticking time-bomb at the bottom of the Baltic Sea.” The
   Economist. http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2013/11/baltic-sea
3. M. Koch and S. Nehring. 200). “Rüstungsaltlasten in den deutschen küstengewässern -vorschläge für sanierungsstrategien im kontext der europäischen wasserrahmenrichtlinie.” Rostocker Meeresbiologische Beiträge, 17, 39-54.
4. Rainer Hass and Alfred Krippendorf. 1997. “Determination of chemical warfare agents in soil and material sample: Gas chromatographic analysis of phenylarsenic compounds (sternutators).” Environmental Science and Pollution Research. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02986314
5. United States Environmental Protection Agency. January 2014. “Technical fact sheet –
   2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene (TNT).” http://bit.ly/2u6igyY
6. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. Contaminants of emerging concern in the
   environment. http://toxics.usgs.gov/investigations/cec/index.php