English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Samples of treated effluent and treated and untreated water were collected at 20 municipal wastewater and drinkingwater treatment facilities in the Tar and Cape Fear River basins of North Carolina during 2003 and 2005. The samples were analyzed for a variety of prescription and nonprescription pharmaceutical compounds and a suite of organic compounds considered indicative of wastewater. Concentrations of these compounds generally were less than or near the detection limits of the analytical methods used during this investigation. None of these compounds were detected at concentrations that exceeded drinking-water standards established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Bromoform, a disinfection byproduct, was the only compound detected at a concentration that exceeded regulatory guidelines. The concentration of bromoform in one finished drinking-water sample, 26 micrograms per liter, exceeded North Carolina water-quality criteria. Drinking-water treatment practices were effective at removing many of the compounds detected in untreated water. Disinfection processes used in wastewater treatment—chlorination or irradiation with ultraviolet light—did not seem to substantially degrade the organic compounds evaluated during this study. Introduction Numerous studies have shown the widespread occurrence of pharmaceutical compounds, organic wastewater compounds (OWCs), and antibiotics in surface waters (Aherne and Briggs, 1989; Daughton and Ternes, 1999; Hirsch and others, 1999; Kolpin and others, 2002). Removal of organic compounds by conventional wastewaterand water-treatment practices primarily occurs by microbial degradation and adsorption to particulate matter followed by removal of the particulate matter by processes such as settling, flocculation, and filtration. Many organic compounds are degraded during disinfection as a result of oxidative reactions that occur when wastewater or water is treated with chlorine (either free chlorine or chloramine) or ozone (Jones and others, 2005; Watkinson and others, 2007). Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation, commonly used to disinfect wastewater, can facilitate degradation of some organic compounds. Incomplete removal by conventional wastewater-treatment processes results in the discharge of some of these compounds in municipal wastewater effluent. Incomplete removal and recalcitrance to natural degradation have contributed to the presence of these compounds in surface waters at locations downstream from wastewatertreatment plant (WWTP) outfalls. Several studies have shown that pharmaceutical compounds, OWCs, and antibiotics are present in the raw (untreated) water used by municipal drinking-water facilities, and some compounds (for example, carbamazepine) are not degraded by chlorination (Clara and others, 2004; Vieno and others, 2007). Concerns about possible human health effects of these compounds in surface waters used for drinking-water supply have lead to studies of the effects of water-treatment processes on removal of these compounds (Ternes and others, 2002; Stackelberg and others, 2004 and 2007; Westerhoff and others, 2005). The ecological and human health effects associated with exposure to low concentrations of these compounds in drinking water are not well known (Jones and others 2004), and consequently, few regulatory standards have been established for pharmaceutical compounds (Falconer, and others, 2006; Fent and others, 2006). Purpose and Scope The purpose of this report is to present the results of a study, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey in cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to characterize the occurrence of pharmaceutical compounds Occurrence of Selected Pharmaceutical and Organic Wastewater Compounds in Effluent and Water Samples from Municipal Wastewater and Drinking-Water Treatment Facilities in the Tar and Cape Fear River Basins, North Carolina, 2003–2005 By G.M. Ferrell 2 Selected Pharmaceutical and OWCs in Effluent and Water Samples from the Tar and Cape Fear River Basins, NC and OWCs in municipal drinking-water supplies at watertreatment facilities in the Tar and Cape Fear River basins. The occurrence of pharmaceutical compounds and OWCs in treated effluent from municipal WWTPs upstream from the drinking-water supply intakes also was evaluated. Samples were obtained in 2003 and 2005 at times of low streamflow. Acknowledgments This study was funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The assistance and information provided by managers, operators, and laboratory personnel at wastewaterand water-treatment facilities in the Tar and Cape Fear River basins are greatly appreciated. Study Area Sampling was conducted to assess the occurrence of pharmaceutical compounds, OWCs, and antibiotics in drinking-water supplies obtained from streams in the Tar and Cape Fear River basins (fig. 1). The Cape Fear River basin is the largest river basin in North Carolina and is heavily urbanized in its headwaters where the cities of High Point, Greensboro, Burlington, Durham, and Raleigh are located. In contrast, the headwaters of the Tar River basin are largely rural. The Tar and Cape Fear Rivers originate in the Piedmont Physiographic Province, flow through the Coastal Plain, and ultimately terminate at the Atlantic Ocean or, in the case of the Tar River, the Pamlico Sound (fig. 1). Characteristics of both rivers change along this route, with a general decrease in velocity and increases in depth and dissolved organic carbon concentrations. Study Design and Site Selection To facilitate selection of sites for sample collection, locations of municipal WWTP outfalls and drinking-water treatment plant (DWTP) intakes were obtained from records of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2004 and 2006) and are shown in figures 2 and 3 for the Tar and Cape Fear River basins, respectively. The WWTP and DWTP locations, as well as information provided in water-supply plans (North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, 2002) were used in the selection of sampling sites. Information about the WWTPs and DWTPs sampled during this study is provided in tables 1 and 2, respectively. Because policies of the U.S. Geological Survey prohibit the public release of information pertaining to the location and ownership of municipal WWTPs and DWTPs (Katherine Lins, U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Water Information, written commun., July, 17, 2008), only generalized site locations are shown for water-supply intakes and WWTP outfalls, and the facilities at which samples were collected are referred to by site identifiers rather than facility names. The first phase of sampling was designed to characterize major sources of pharmaceutical compounds and OWCs upstream from drinking-water intakes. To accomplish this, samples of treated effluent were collected in August and September 2003 from outfalls at 10 municipal Figure 1. Tar and Cape Fear River basins and physiographic provinces in North Carolina. Figure 1. Tar and Cape Fear River basins and physiographic provinces in North Carolina. 0 20 40 60 80 100 MILES 0 20 40 60 80 100 KILOMETERS Blu e Ri dge Piedmont VIRGINIA Coastal Plain SOUTH CAROLINA Physiographic province boundary EXPLANATION GEORGIA TENNESSEE Tar Cape Fear Base from digital files of: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1990 Precensus TIGER/Line Files-Political boundaries, 1991 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, River File 3 U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000 scale Atlantic Ocean Pamlico Sound Introduction 3 Figure 2. Sampling sites, wastewater-treatment plant outfalls, water-supply intakes, major streams, and municipalities in the Tar River basin, North Carolina. NASH FRANKLIN WARREN HALIFAX VANCE GRANVILLE PE RS ON WILSON EDGECOMBE PITT BEAUFORT DARE WASHINGTON TYRRELL PAMLICO MARTIN HYDE Rocky Mount Tarboro Atlantic Ocean VIRGINIA 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 1 Figure 2. Sampling sites, wastewater-treatment plant outfalls, water-supply intakes, major streams, and municipalities in the Tar River basin, North Carolina. Base from digital files of: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1990 Precensus TIGER/Line Files-Political boundaries, 1991 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, River File 3 U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000 scale Oxford Henderson Louisburg Tar River Albem arle S ound Pamlico Sound Lake Mattamuskeet Wastewater-treatment plant outfall (sampled) and number Basin boundary EXPLANATION Wastewater-treatment plant outfall (not sampled) Water-supply intake (sampled) and number Water-supply intake (not sampled) 36 35 78 77 76 Washington Greenville 0 25 50 75 100 MILES 0 25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS 4 Selected Pharmaceutical and OWCs in Effluent and Water Samples from the Tar and Cape Fear River Basins, NC Figure 3. Sampling sites, wastewater-treatment plant outfalls, water-supply intakes, major streams, and municipalities in the Cape Fear River basin, North Carolina. ROCKINGHAM CASWELL ORANGE DU RH AM WAKE FORSYTH GUILFORD RANDOLPH MONTGOMERY CHATHAM ROBESON LEE COLUMBUS BRUNSWICK NEW HANOVER AL AM AN CE JOHNSTON WAYNE LENOIR ONSLOW JONES HARNETT CUMBERLAND HOKE SAMPSON BLADEN DUPLIN PENDER MOORE Atlantic Ocean EXPLANATION 0 25 50 MILES 0 25 50 KILOMETERS 34 78 36 80 Figure 3. Sampling sites, wastewater-treatment plant outfalls, water-supply intakes, major streams, and municipalities in the Cape Fear River basin, North Carolina. Base from digital files of: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, 1990 Precensus TIGER/Line Files-Political boundaries, 1991 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, River File 3 U.S. Geological Survey, 1:100,000 scale 4 4 Wastewater-treatment plant outfall (sampled) and number Basin boundary Wastewater-treatment plant outfall (not sampled) Water-supply intake (sampled) and number Water-supply intake (not sampled) NORTH CAROLINA SOUTH CAROLINA Wilmington Fayetteville Dunn San

u.s. geological survey open file report/open-file report

Occurrence of Selected Pharmaceutical and Organic Wastewater Compounds in Effluent and Water Samples from Municipal Wastewater and Drinking-Water Treatment Facilities in the Tar and Cape Fear River Basins, North Carolina, 2003-2005