Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part A (2013) 48, 753–759
C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 1093-4529 (Print); 1532-4117 (Online)
DOI: 10.1080/10934529.2013.744616
Assessing an intermittently operated household
scale slow sand filter paired with household bleach
for the removal of endocrine disrupting compounds
TIMOTHY J. KENNEDY1, TODD A. ANDERSON2, E. ANNETTE HERNANDEZ1 and AUDRA N. MORSE1
1
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, USA
The Institute for Environmental and Human Health (TIEHH), Department of Environmental Toxicology, Texas Tech University,
Lubbock, Texas, USA
Downloaded by [Erzincan Universitesi ] at 06:45 31 July 2015
2
Endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) are a contaminant of emerging concern throughout the world, including developing
countries where centralized water and wastewater treatment plants are not common. In developing countries, household scale water
treatment technologies such as the biosand filter (BSF) are used to improve drinking water quality. No studies currently exist on the
ability of the BSF to remove EDCs. In this experiment, the BSF was evaluated for the removal of three EDCs, estrone (E1), estriol
(E3), and 17α-ethinyl estradiol (EE2). Removal results were compared to the slow sand filter (SSF) from the literature, which is
similar to the BSF in principal but comparisons have revealed differences in removal of other water quality parameters between SSF
and BSF. In general, the BSF minimally removed the compounds from spiked lake water as removal was less than 15% for all three
compounds, though mass removal much higher than other studies in which the SSF was used. Household bleach was added to the
rate was BSF effluent as suggested in order to achieve different Cl- concentrations (0.67, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0 mg/L) and subsequent
removal of EDCs by oxidation was examined. Concentrations were reduced > 98% for all compounds when the Cl- concentration
was greater than 5 mg/L. Removal efficiency was > 50% at the 0.67 mg/L Cl- concentration, while almost 70% removal was observed
for all compounds at the 2.0 mg/L Cl- concentration.
Keywords: Endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs), developing world, biosand filter (BSF), estrogen, slow sand filtration (SSF).
Introduction
A new concern has developed in the past decade in
aquatic systems treatment. Endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and pharmaceuticals and personal care
products (PPCPs) have been found in both ground and
surface waters as well as in the influent to wastewater
and drinking water treatment plants.[1–8] EDCs and PPCPs
reach soil and aquatic environments through agricultural
runoff, wastewater treatment plant discharge, the spreading of manure, and application of treated wastewater to
land.[4–6,9] Concentrations of these compounds have typically been reported in rivers and wastewater effluents at
µg/L to ng/L levels. Research has shown that at these
concentrations, EDCs and PPCPs may be biologically active and could be considered a risk to human and wildlife
health.[10–12] Sex hormones such as estrogens are secreted
Address correspondence to Audra N. Morse, Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409-1023, USA; E-mail: audra.n.morse@ttu.edu
Received May 2, 2012.
naturally by both men and women and are EDCs of concern.[5,12,13] Estrogens can bioaccumulate in body fat until
eventually reaching a significant dose.[13] These chemicals
can then be released from body fat during starvation, pregnancy, and through colostrums/milk.[13]
After an extensive literature search, only a few studies
could be located documenting the occurrence and fate of
PPCPs or EDCs in the developing world. Therefore, three
EDCS of potential concern in the developing world were
examined; two natural steroids (estrone (E1) and estriol
(E3)) and one synthetic steroid used in contraceptives (17αethinyl estradiol (EE2)). E1 and E3 were chosen as they are
produced naturally by humans and animals, and are present
everywhere in the world, thus are potentially a worldwide
problem in recycled water.[14–16] While birth control is not
as common in the developing world when compared to the
developed world, usage has seen an increase over the last
few years and is projected to have continued growth,[17]
thus EE2 could be used as an indicator of a common EDC
found in the developing world.
Current water and wastewater treatment plants are not
designed specifically for the removal of EDCs, though many
studies have shown promising removal rates. Wastewater
Downloaded by [Erzincan Universitesi ] at 06:45 31 July 2015
754
treatment plants using activated sludge systems can remove E1 from 25% to greater than 99%.[1,18,19] The activated
sludge process in wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) is
known to remove E3 and EE2 at efficiencies of 18% to
greater than 99%, and 34% to greater than 99%, respectively.[1,18,19] Removal in activated sludge plants is achieved
through either sorption or biodegradation.[5,18,20–22]
Studies involving advanced oxidation processes used in
both water and wastewater treatment plants have shown
varying reduction efficiency depending on the oxidizer
used. E1 has shown reduction efficiencies of 66% to greater
than 99% when ozone is used as the oxidizer. E3 and EE2
reductions were similar when ozone was used, with reductions of 56% to greater than 99%, and 70% to greater than
99%, respectively.[1,18,23–25] A more common oxidizer, frequently used as a disinfectant, chlorine, reduced E1, EE2,
and E3 from 70% to greater than 99% in multiple studies.[6,23,24] Although many studies have been conducted in
developed countries that employ tertiary treatment technologies previously mentioned (ozone, granular activated
carbon, UV), few studies have been conducted in the developing world or using smaller scale technologies commonly
used in these countries.
The lack of attention in the developing world has occurred in spite of the probability of exposure to EDCs being
higher as treatment facilities (both water and wastewater)
are not as frequent.[14] Little data are available on the concentrations of EDCs and PPCPs in these countries. The
lack of data is likely due to the fact that developing countries are dealing with more immediate problems,[14] such
as the presence of bacteria, parasites, and viruses in water.
While centralized water treatment plants do exist in large
cities, a large portion of the population in developing countries live in urban areas where drinking water is obtained
wherever possible.[26] In the urban cases, water comes from
both surface and groundwater sources that are often contaminated.[26,27] To help solve the problem of decentralized
drinking water treatment, point of use treatments (POUs)
have been employed. A POU that has been employed worldwide is the biosand filter (BSF).[28]
The BSF was developed by Dr. David Manz at the University of Calvary.[29] Similar to a slow sand filter, the BSF
treats water by pouring raw (potentially contaminated) water through a volume of sand. Over time, like slow sand
filtration, the BSF naturally builds up a biological layer, or
schmutzdeke, in the top layer of sand that aids in the treatment of contaminated water. Once water passes through
the schmutzdeke, the mechanisms of inactivation (predation or degradation), physical straining, and attachment
to sand particles are employed for removal of pathogens in
the raw water. To increase bacterial reduction it is suggested
that household bleach (NaOCl) is added after filtration has
been completed.[30]
Although there has been little concern shown in developing countries due to more immediate water problems
such as bacteria, parasites, and virus treatment, this issue
Kennedy et al.
is one that is facing the developing world and should not
be overlooked. Although most water in the United States
is treated by a wastewater treatment plant, in the developing world effluents may be disposed of in the same surface
water that drinking water is drawn from with little to no
further treatment. The purpose of this experiment was to
evaluate the ability of the BSF to remove E1, E3, and EE2
independently, as well as the effectiveness of the addition
of household bleach (5.25% NaClO) at concentrations of
0.67, 2.0, 5.0, and 10.0 mg/L Cl− at removing the target
compounds.
Materials and methods
BSF experimental setup
R
A plastic Hydraid
BSF was obtained from Triple Quest
(Grand Rapids, MI). The filter was assembled as shown
in Fig. 1, in accordance with Triple Quest guidelines,[30]
at Texas Tech University (TTU), in Lubbock, TX. The
BSF received 20 L of lake water from Canyon Lake # 2
(Lubbock, TX) daily for 3 weeks prior to the beginning
of the experiment to ensure the biofilm in the filter was
mature.
Experimental design
Twenty liters of lake water (Canyon Lake #2 Lubbock,
TX) was spiked with 100 mL of a 1000 mg/L estrogen solution to a concentration of 5 mg/L. The estrogen solution
(E1, E3, 17α-ethinyl estradiol) was prepared in acetonitrile
(HPLC grade) to a concentration of 1000 mg/L. A stock
Fig. 1. Circular cross-section of the hydraid (R) biosand filter
used in the experiment.
755
Downloaded by [Erzincan Universitesi ] at 06:45 31 July 2015
Using household bleach for the removal of endocrine-disrupting compounds
solution of the estrogen mixture was made fresh each day.
The BSF was challenged with the spiked lake water once
daily for 7 days.
Following the initial 7-day experiment, filters were
cleaned according to the manufacturers guidelines [30] and
the experiment was repeated. The high concentration
(5 mg/L) of estrogen compounds was used to determine
the BSFs ability to retain and/or degrade the PPCPs and
EDCs without intense sample preparation, similar to previous studies.[31–33] Samples were collected 3 times during
the week from the standing water above the sand in the
BSF (Fig. 1) before spiked lake water was filtered and after the filter run was complete to ensure degradation was
not occurring overnight. Effluent samples were collected
3x weekly in 40-mL amber vials from the spout of the BSF
after 1, 5, and 20 L had been filtered. Sample points were
chosen to represent water that had been allowed overnight
degradation (1 and 5 L) and water in which no “pause”
time was allowed (20 L).
After filtering was complete, 4 grab samples (80 mL each)
were obtained from the BSF effluent bucket. Household
R
bleach (Clorox
) was then added in the amount suggested
in the Hydraid handbook[30] at 20 drops (1 mL) per 20 L
(0.67 mg/L Cl−) to simulate current standard operating
procedures. Household bleach was then added to the three
remaining effluent grab samples at predetermined concentrations (2, 5, and 10 mg/L Cl−). Each sample was transferred into a 2-mL amber glass HPLC auto-sampler vial,
sealed with PTFE/rubber septa, and stored at 4◦ C until
analysis (< 24 h).
Test chemicals
Estrogen compounds E1 (purity > 99%), E3 (purity >
99%), and EE2 (purity > 98%) were obtained from Sigma
Aldrich (St. Louis, MO, USA). A detailed description of
the physical properties as well as sorption/desorption behavior of these compounds can be found in the methods described by Karnjanapiboonwong et al.[9] Ultra-pure water
(>18M) was provided by a Millipore system. A combined
stock solution containing E1, E3, and EE2 was prepared
at 100 ppm in 100% HPLC grade acetonitrile obtained
from BDH (West Chester, PA, USA) and diluted for analytical standards. Spiking solutions were prepared in 100%
HPLC-grade acetonitrile at 1000 mg/L.
Chemical analysis
Concentrations of samples and standards were determined
by reverse phase high performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC) with a Grace Econosphere C-18 column (250 ×
4.6 mm, 5 µm, Deerfield, IL, USA), and Chemstation analytical software (HP series 1100, Hewlett-Packard, Avondale, PA, USA). The sample injection volume was 50 µL for
each sample, while the eluent flow was set at 0.8 mL/min
Table 1. Summary of concentrations (mg/L ± RSD) of estrogens
during the experiment.
Influent (n = 33)
BSF 1 L (n = 21)
BSF 5 L (n = 21)
BSF 25 L (n = 21)
BSF Effluent Grab
Sample (n = 12)
E1 (mg/L)
EE2 (mg/L)
E3 (mg/L)
3.97 ± 10%
3.23 ± 9%
3.21 ± 9%
3.62 ± 9%
3.36 ± 11%
4.77 ± 8%
4.16 ± 11%
4.30 ± 9%
4.82 ± 8%
4.20 ± 10%
3.92 ± 13%
3.10 ± 12%
3.34 ± 12%
3.26 ± 8%
3.25 ± 10%
using an acetonitrile-water ratio of 60:40. Detection wavelength was 200 nm for E1, E3, and EE2.
Results and discussion
Average effluent concentrations after BSF filtration, along
with spiked influent concentrations of target compounds
are presented in Table 1 as well as relative standard deviations. Loss of the target compounds has been interpreted
to be due to the filtering process and chemical oxidant, as
the samples taken above the sand before adding the daily
20 L charge were similar to those taken from the standing
water the previous day after filtration was complete.
Removal of compounds by BSF
A comparison of spiked lake water influent and BSF effluent average concentrations of target compounds is shown
in. As seen in the figure, removal efficiency was low for E1,
EE2, and E3 in the BSF. Average removal efficiency was
greatest for E3 (15.6 ± 12%), while E1 was only slightly
lower (14.4 ± 12%). Average removal efficiency for EE2
(11.4 ± 11%) was less than E1 and E3. Overall, the average removal efficiencies of estrogen compounds by the
BSF are similar to studies previously performed at water
and wastewater treatment plants in which slow sand filtration was employed.[1,34,35] Average concentrations of target
compounds at different filtered volumes, as well as relative
standard deviations are presented in Fig. 2.
Removal in the BSF is likely due to sorption to sand
and biomass, as well as biodegradation by the microorganisms living throughout the BSF. In theory, removal of EE2
should be the greatest if removed by sorption, as EE2 has
the highest octanol-water partition coefficient (logKow ),
and thus is the most hydrophobic of the target compounds.
While the results indicated the opposite of theory, previous
studies have shown that among the estrogens commonly
studied, E3 has shown the highest sorption affinity, not
EE2.[18] Sorption likely contributed to the removal of the
estrogen compounds, but overall it is likely that it was not
the greatest contributor to removal. Sand is the primary
media in the BSF, and has a low organic carbon content,
thus is not an optimal media for adsorption of the estrogens
756
Kennedy et al.
6
Influent
Effluent
Concentration (mg/L)
5
4
3
2
0
E1
EE2
E3
Fig. 2. Influent and effluent concentrations of (A) E1; (B) EE2; and (C) E3 during labratory study of the BSF error bars represent
standard deviation.
to occur. Khanal et al.[19] determined that pure sand had
an adsorption capacity coefficient (Kf ) for free estrogen of
4, while media with high organic carbon content, such as
LaDelle-silt Loam had a Kf of 667.
Biodegradation in the filter by the microbial population
also contributed to the removal of the estrogen compounds.
Higher removal efficiency of the target compounds that occurred in the 1 and 5 L samples compared to the 25 L
sample is likely due to biodegradation. Samples taken at 1
and 5 L remained in the BSF for 24 hours following completion of a filtration run, while the 25 L sample point represents water only treated by the BSF with no time allowed
for biodegradation. Microorganisms throughout the BSF
use organic matter that is trapped as substrate, thus explaining the slight increase in removal of the estrogen compounds observed in the 1 and 5 L samples. Studies have
shown that natural estrogens (E1 and E3) are generally
readily biodegradable by bacteria such as E. coli,[19,36] while
EE2 is not as easily biodegradable as natural estrogens due
to the ethinyl group, which can sterically hinder substratereceptor binding and enzyme expression.[18]
The microorganisms in the BSF were capable of degrading the estrogens as shown by the mass removal
rate, but increased mass removal could be observed if the
120
100
Removal Efficiency
Downloaded by [Erzincan Universitesi ] at 06:45 31 July 2015
1
0.67 mg/L Cl2 mg/L Cl5 mg/L Cl10 mg/L Cl-
80
60
40
20
0
E1
EE2
E3
Fig. 3. Removal efficiencies of estrogen compounds after treatment of BSF effluent with different Cl− doses. Error bars represent one
standard deviation of the mean (n = 6 for 2, 5, and 10 mg/L Cl−, while n = 5 for 0.67 mg/L Cl− concentration).
757
Downloaded by [Erzincan Universitesi ] at 06:45 31 July 2015
Using household bleach for the removal of endocrine-disrupting compounds
microorganisms were given adequate time to adapt to
the occurrence of the estrogens.[37] Previous studies indicate that the organisms in slow sand filters that degraded
the target compound grew to a larger population and were
acclimated to the compounds at day 150, at which point
removal rates increased from negligible to 96 ± 10% for
E1 and 41 ± 21% EE2.[35] It is likely that if the experiment
were to continue, increased mass removal rates by the microorganisms would occur as the current study only lasted
14 days and the population had not fully acclimated or
reached its growth potential. Studies involving SSFs were
used for comparison as no other studies involving the BSF
were available. Although the SSF and BSF are similar in
design, previous studies involving the BSF have shown that
removal of various water quality parameters in the BSF
vary from the SSF.[38,39]
More studies are needed to further examine removal
mechanisms in the BSF.
Removal of compounds by chlorination
After filtration, the addition of household bleach is suggested as a final disinfection process in the developing
world. Increased removal efficiency of estrone (E1) was seen
as the concentration of chlorine was increased (Fig. 3). At
10 mg/L Cl−, concentrations of estrone were not detected,
while at 5 mg/ L the concentrations were only above the
limit of detection for 6 of the 48 samples analyzed, with
an average removal efficiency of 99 ± 2%. Average removal
efficiency of E1 at 2.0 and 0.67 mg/L Cl− were 64 ± 7%
and 56 ± 14%.
As expected due to similar chemical structures, removal
efficiency of 17α-ethinyl estradiol (EE2) and estriol (E3)
were similar to the removal of E1 for all of the concentrations. For the 10 mg/L Cl− dose, EE2 and E3 were not
below the limit of detection, while at 5 mg/L Cl−, 98 ±
2% and 99 ± 2% removal occurred for EE2 and E3, respectively. The current standard operating procedure dose
(0.67 mg/L Cl−) removed 58 ± 15% and 52 ± 17% of EE2
and E3, respectively, while the 2 mg/L Cl− dose removed
66 ± 6% for both compounds.
Previous experimental studies have shown removal efficiencies of greater than 70% for all three target compounds
when chlorine is used as an oxidizer.[6,20,24,40,41] The previous studies examined removal in water treatment when
Cl− concentrations were greater than 2 mg/L, hence the
reason the current suggested dose was not as effective at
removing the compounds as previous studies. The halflives of the three target compounds at slightly lower and
higher concentrations than the current suggested dose are
presented in Table 2.[40] The removal efficiency observed at
the 0.67 mg/L Cl− dose was consistent with the previously
calculated half-lives. Our results indicate that under the
current standards of practice the dose is only high enough
to remove about half of the target compound, while if the
Table 2. Half-lives of estrogens at various chlorine concentrations.
Table adapted from Deborde et al., 2004.[40]
t1/2 (min)
Compound
17α-Ethinylestradiol
Estrone
Estriol
Chlorine
Concentration
0.5 mg/L
Chlorine
Concentration
1.0 mg/L
14.6
12.5
14.4
7.3
6.3
7.2
dose is increased to 5 mg/L Cl− removal greater than 98%
of the target compounds are removed.
Conclusion
Endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) are an increasing
worldwide concern as they affect human health and ecological systems. While many studies have examined treatment of
aquatic systems in the developed world, few have examined
those used in the developing world, thus little knowledge
is available to determine the effects of EDCs on people
or ecosystems in the developing world. Not only do few
studies exist documenting occurrence of EDCs, even fewer
exist documenting effectiveness of the current treatment
technologies to remove emerging contaminants. Water and
wastewater treatment technologies used in the developing
world differ from those in the developed world. Because
many people live in remote rural areas, centralized water
and wastewater treatment technologies are not an option.
Thus, the population must use point of use (POU) water
treatment technologies to improve water quality.
In this study, the efficiency of a POU technology, the
BSF used in conjunction with household bleach at different doses to remove the hormones E1, EE2, and E3 was
investigated. The results indicated that estrogen percent
removal efficiency in the BSF alone is low, but similar in
comparison to previous studies on a similar technology,
the slow sand filter (SSF). No comparison could be made
to other BSF studies as this study is the first involving the
BSF. While SSFs are similar to the BSF in that the BSF
is a household scale SSF, performance is not equivalent
in the BSF. Studies have tested chemical, microbial, and
physical contaminants and observed that the reduction of
the water quality parameter is different in the BSF than
in the SSF.[38,39] Therefore, the BSF cannot be treated as a
SSF and more studies are needed in addition to the current
one to assess the BSFs ability to remove EDCs.
The addition of household bleach to water treated by the
BSF removed about half of the effluent filtered concentration when the current suggested dose (0.67 mg/L Cl−) was
added, while percent removal increased to greater than 98%
when the dose was increased to 5 mg/L Cl−. Future experiments should focus the ability of the BSF to remove a larger
758
group of EDCs at environmental concentrations. Furthermore, other treatment procedures should also be examined
to gain further insight into the efficiency of water treatment
technologies in the developing world.
Kennedy et al.
[15]
[16]
Acknowledgments
[17]
The authors would like to acknowledge Triple Quest, the
producer of the Hydraid filter.
[18]
Downloaded by [Erzincan Universitesi ] at 06:45 31 July 2015
References
[1] Nakada, N.; Shinohara, H.; Murata, A.; Kiri, K.; Managaki,
S.; Sato, N.; Takada, H. Removal of selected pharmaceuticals
and personal care products (PPCPs) and endocrine-disrupting
chemicals (EDCs) during sand filtration and ozonation at a
municipal sewage treatment plant. Water Res. 2007, 41, 4373–
4382.
[2] Karnjanapiboonwong, A.; Suski, J.; Shah, A.; Cai, Q.; Morse, A.;
Anderson, T. Occurrence of PPCPs at a wastewater treatment plant
and in soil and groundwater at a land application site. Water Air
Soil Poll. 2011, 216, 257–273.
[3] Ternes, T.A.; Meisenheimer, M., McDowell, D., Sacher, F.; Brauch,
H.-J.; Haist-Gulde, B.; Preuss, G.; Wilme, U.; Zulei-Seibert, N. Removal of pharmaceuticals during drinking water treatment. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 3855–3863.
[4] Halling-Sørensen, B.; Nors Nielsen, S.; Lanzky, P.F.; Ingerslev, F.;
Holten Lützhøft, H.C.; Jørgensen, S.E. Occurrence, fate and effects of pharmaceutical substances in the environment- A review.
Chemosphere 1998, 36, 357–393.
[5] Ying, G.-G.; Kookana, R.S.; Ru, Y.-J. Occurrence and fate of hormone steroids in the environment. Environ. Inter. 2002, 28, 545–
551.
[6] Huerta-Fontela, M.; Galceran, M.T.; Ventura, F. Occurrence and
removal of pharmaceuticals and hormones through drinking water
treatment. Water Res. 2011, 45, 1432–1442.
[7] Snyder, S.; Benotti, M. Endocrine disruptors and pharmaceuticals:
implications for water sustainability. Water Sci. Technol. 2010, 61,
145–154.
[8] Mompelat, S.; Le Bot, B.; Thomas, O. Occurrence and fate of pharmaceutical products and by-products, from resource to drinking
water. Environ. Inter. 2009, 35, 803–814.
[9] Karnjanapiboonwong, A.; Morse, A.; Maul, J.; Anderson, T. Sorption of estrogens, triclosan, and caffeine in a sandy loam and a silt
loam soil. J. Soils Sedim. 2010, 10, 1300–1307.
[10] Kidd, K.A.; Blanchfield, P.J.; Mills, K.H.; Palace, V.P.; Evans, R.E.;
Lazorchak, J.M.; Flick, R.W. Collapse of a fish population after
exposure to a synthetic estrogen. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2007, 104,
8897–8901.
[11] Lange, A.; Paull, G.C.; Coe, T.S.; Katsu, Y.; Urushitani, H.; Iguchi,
T.; Tyler, C.R. Sexual Reprogramming and estrogenic sensitization
in wild fish exposed to ethinylestradiol. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009,
43, 1219–1225.
[12] Falconer, I.R.; Chapman, H.F.; Moore, M.R.; Ranmuthugala, G.
Endocrine-disrupting compounds: A review of their challenge to
sustainable and safe water supply and water reuse. Environ. Toxicol.
2006, 21, 181–191.
[13] Sattar, A.A. The immune system as a potential target for environmental estrogens (endocrine disrupters): a new emerging field.
Toxicology 2000, 150, 191–206.
[14] Rahman, M.F.; Yanful, E.K.; Jasim, S.Y. Occurrences of endocrine
disrupting compounds and pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment and their removal from drinking water: Challenges
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30]
[31]
[32]
[33]
in the context of the developing world. Desalination 2009, 248,
578–585.
Froehner, S.; Machado, K.; Stefen, E.; Nolasco, M. Occurrence of
sexual hormones in sediments of mangrove in Brazil. Water Air Soil
Poll. 2011, 219, 591–599.
Manickum, T.; John, W.; Terry, S. Determination of selected steroid
estrogens in treated sewage effluent in the Umsunduzi (Duzi) River
water catchment area. Hydrol. Curr. Res. 2011, 2.
Bongaarts, J.; Johansson, E.; Population Council. Policy Research,
D. Future trends in contraception in the developing world : Prevalence
and method mix; Population Council: New York, 2000.
Racz, L.; Goel, R.K. Fate and removal of estrogens in municipal
wastewater. J. Environ. Monitor. 2010, 12, 58–70.
Khanal, S.K.; Xie, B.; Thompson, M.L.; Sung, S.; Ong, S.-K.; van
Leeuwen, J. Fate, transport, and biodegradation of natural estrogens
in the environment and engineered systems. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2006, 40, 6537–6546.
Liu, Z.-H.; Kanjo, Y.; Mizutani, S. Removal mechanisms
for endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in wastewater
treatment—Physical means, biodegradation, and chemical advanced oxidation: A review. Sci. Total Environ. 2009, 407, 731–748.
D’Ascenzo, G.; Di Corcia, A.; Gentili, A.; Mancini, R.;
Mastropasqua, R.; Nazzari, M.; Samperi, R. Fate of natural estrogen conjugates in municipal sewage transport and treatment facilities. Sci. Total Environ. 2003, 302, 199–209.
Shore, L.S.; Shemesh, M. Naturally produced steroid hormones
and their release into the environment. Pure Appl. Chem. 2003, 75,
1859–1871.
Benotti, M.J.; Trenholm, R.A.; Vanderford, B.J.; Holady, J.C.;
Stanford, B.D.; Snyder, S.A. Pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds in U.S. drinking water. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2008, 43, 597–603.
Snyder, S.A. Occurrence, treatment, and toxicological relevance of
EDCs and pharmaceuticals in water. Ozone: Sci. Eng. 2008, 30,
65–69.
Westerhoff, P.; Yoon, Y.; Snyder, S.; Wert, E. Fate of endocrinedisruptor, pharmaceutical, and personal care product chemicals
during simulated drinking water treatment processes. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 2005, 39, 6649–6663.
Stauber, C.; Elliott, M.; Koksal, F.; Ortiz, G.; DiGiano, F.; Sobsey,
M. Characterisation of the biosand filter for E. coli reductions from
household drinking water under controlled laboratory and field use
conditions. Water Sci. Technol. 2006, 3, 1–7.
Murphy, H.; McBean, E.; Farahbakhsh, K. Nitrification, denitrification and ammonification in point-of-use biosand filters in rural
Cambodia. J. Water Health 2010, 8, 803–817.
Clasen, T.F. Scaling up household water treatment among
low-income populations. World Health Organization: Geneva,
Switzerland, 2009.
Palmateer, G.; Manz, D.; Jurkovic, A.; McInnis, R.; Unger, S.;
Kwan, K.; Dutka, B. Toxicant and parasite challenge of Manz
intermittent slow sand filter. Environ. Toxicol. 1999, 14, 217–
225.
R
Triple Quest, Hydraid
BioSand Water Filter Installation Manual. Engineering, C. Ed.; Triple Quest; Grand Rapids, MI; 2010;
1–20.
Fujii, K.; Kikuchi, S.; Satomi, M.; Ushio-Sata, N.; Morita, N.
Degradation of 17β-estradiol by a gram-negative bacterium isolated from activated sludge in a sewage treatment plant in Tokyo,
Japan. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2002, 68, 2057–2060.
Weber, S.; Leuschner, P.; Kämpfer, P.; Dott, W.; Hollender, J. Degradation of estradiol and ethinyl estradiol by activated sludge and by
a defined mixed culture. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2005, 67,
106–112.
Ke, J.; Zhuang, W.; Gin, K.; Reinhard, M.; Hoon, L.; Tay,
J.-H. Characterization of estrogen-degrading bacteria isolated from
an artificial sandy aquifer with ultrafiltered secondary effluent
Using household bleach for the removal of endocrine-disrupting compounds
[34]
[35]
[36]
Downloaded by [Erzincan Universitesi ] at 06:45 31 July 2015
[37]
as the medium. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2007, 75, 1163–
1171.
Rudder, J.d.; Wiele, T.V.d.; Dhooge, W.; Comhaire, F.; Verstraete,
W. Advanced water treatment with manganese oxide for the removal
of 17α-ethynylestradiol (EE2). Water Res. 2004, 38, 184–192.
Ho, L.; Grasset, C.; Hoefel, D.; Dixon, M.B.; Leusch, F.D.L.; Newcombe, G.; Saint, C.P.; Brookes, J.D. Assessing granular media filtration for the removal of chemical contaminants from wastewater.
Water Res. 2011, 45, 3461–3472.
Ternes, T.A.; Kreckel, P.; Mueller, J. Behaviour and occurrence of
estrogens in municipal sewage treatment plants—II. Aerobic batch
experiments with activated sludge. Sci. Total Environ. 1999, 225,
91–99.
Muller, M.; Rabenoelina, F.; Balaguer, P.; Patureau, D.; Lemenach, K.; Budzinski, H.; Barceló, D.; López de Alda, M.; Kuster,
M.; Delgenès, J.-P.; Hernandez-Raquet, G. Chemical and biological
analysis of endocrine-disrupting hormones and estrogenic activity
[38]
[39]
[40]
[41]
759
in an advanced sewage treatment plant. Environ. Toxicol. Chem.
2008, 27, 1649–1658.
Elliott, M.A.; Stauber, C.E.; Koksal, F.; Liang, K.R.; Huslage,
D.K.; DiGiano, F.A.; Sobsey, M.D. The operation, flow conditions
and microbial reductions of an intermittently operated, householdscale slow sand filter. In Recent Progress in Slow Sand and Alternative
Biofiltration Processes; Gimbel, R., Graham, N.J.D.; Collins, M.R.,
Eds.; International Water Association; London, 2006.
Elliott, M.A.; DiGiano, F.A.; Sobsey, M.D. Virus attenuation by
microbial mechanisms during the idle time of a household slow sand
filter. Water Res. 2011, 45, 4092–4102.
Deborde, M.; Rabouan, S.; Gallard, H.; Legube, B. Aqueous chlorination kinetics of some endocrine disruptors. Environ. Sci. Technol.
2004, 38, 5577–5583.
Huber, M.M.; Korhonen, S.; Ternes, T.A.; von Gunten, U. Oxidation of pharmaceuticals during water treatment with chlorine
dioxide. Water Res. 2005, 39, 3607–3617.