Assessing the Impact of AnthropogenicDischarges on Endocrine Disruption in thePotomac River WatershedErik Rosenfeldt, Ph.D., P.E.

2

Project Driver: Intersex fish in Potomac Watersheds

Chesapeake Bay News Aug 09 2012Intersex fish widespread in Potomac River basin

Intersex Fish Now in Three Pennsylvania River BasinsReleased: 6/30/2014 7:00:00 AMhttp://www.usgs.gov/newsroom

3

Potomac Observations of EDC Activity

Associations of Land‐use with Intersex (Spawning Study 2007)

Site HumanDensity1 WWTP2 WWTP

Flow3%

Ag4 AFO5 Animal

Numbers6 Intersex7

GauleyRiver 0.06 0 0 0.5 0 464

11.3%0.02 (0.07)

South BranchPetersburg 0.07 3 0.95 16.4

296 (296) 1,450,120

74.3%0.97 (0.95)

South BranchMoorefield 0.07 4 1.43 15.2

497 (496) 7,384,685

54.5%0.50 (0.50)

South BranchSpringfield 0.08 5 1.93 15.2

565 (562) 8,719,093

82.2%1.02 (0.76)

ShenandoahNorth Fork 0.28 50 1.59 32.7

1,174(960) 11,757,596

90.0%1.16 (0.78)

ShenandoahMainstem 0.43 101 25.66 32.6

3,655 (2,539) 33,928,442

93.0%1.64 (0.93)

ShenandoahSouth Fork 0.56 19 20.84 35.9

2,029(1,176) 14,788,173

100.0%1.83 (0.65)

ConococheagueCreek (lower) 0.69 13 8.31 50.3

10 (1) 1,819,225

87.5%1.03 (0.78)

4

Impacts of Point and Non-point SourcesComparing Land Use and Observed Intersex Activity

Land Use in the Potomac Watershed

Modified from Blazer et al., 2011

5

Xenoestrogen:  a type of xenohormone that imitates estrogen; steroidal estrogens

Alkylphenol:

Bisphenol A

a family of organic compounds obtained by the alkylation of phenols

estradiol (E2), estrone (E1), 

estriol (E3)

Substances in our environment, food, and consumer products that interfere with hormone biosynthesis, metabolism, or action resulting in a deviation from normal homeostatic control or reproduction.

Introduction – Endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs):

6

Project Team – A unique collaboration

Sudhir Murthy, Ph.D., P.E., BCEEDC Water

Sujay Kaushal,Ph.D., U. of Maryland

Luke Iwanowicz,Ph.D., USGS

Diana Aga, Ph.D.U. of Buffalo

Erik Rosenfeldt, Ph.D., P.E.Hazen and Sawyer

Shuiwang Duan, Ph.D., U. of Maryland

Katia M. N. Oviedo, PhD candidate, U. of Buffalo

7

Evaluate the upstream and downstream impacts from nutrient control, agriculture management, stormwatermanagement and wastewater treatment strategies

Project Objective 1

Wastewater treatment (WWTP)

Combined sewer overflow (CSO)

Agriculture management

NO agriculture management

Stormwater management (Urban)  

NO stormwater management 

Upstream site

Downstream site

8

Evaluate Impacts of EDC in receiving waters attributed to point versus non-point sources

Point sources(WWTP, CSO)

Non-Point sources

(Agricultural, urban runoff)

??

Project Objective 2

Potomac River  EDCs and Activity

9

Analytical Detection• Hormones

andmetabolites

Advanced NOM Characterization• Fluorometry

Methods – Chemical and WQ Endpoints

Estrogen

EstrogenReceptor

ActivatedReceptor

§-galactosidaseenzyme

Nucleus

Cytoplasm

hER

PGKpromoter

ERE

Lac-Z2

1

3

46

5

ONPG

colorless

ONPG

YellowMedium

Bioactivity: Yeast Estrogen Assay

Nitrate Isotopes• Source Tracking

10

Phase 1 Sampling

Locations include: “Paired” Watershed Samples

With and Without BMPs

Agriculture Urban CSO Blue Plains WWTP Additional WWTP

Sampling Frequency is bimonthly for 1 year + 1 rain event

Fencing installation began in 2006 (visible erosion).

In autumn 2007 with fencing in place, the riparian area is reverting back to its natural state.

Decreases in TP concentrations

Agricultural BMPs

• Fencing• Spring to replace in-stream

cattle watering • Stream crossings• plantings of cool season

grasses..

Result: • streambank stability

improved. • Phosphorus concentrations

declined

12

Constructed Wetlands Stormwater Runoff Control Pond

Tributary Stream Restoration

Urban BMPs (Sligo Creek)

Results: Effect of Best Management Practices (BMPs) on Agricultural and Urban Runoff Inputs

05

10152025

Mar May Jul Sep Nov

DOC (m

g L‐1)

0

5

10

TDN (m

g L‐1)

0

100

200

SRP (µg L‐1)

0

1

2

3

Estron

e (ng L‐1)

0

0.5

1

1.5

↓69% 

0

2

4

6↓16% 

0

50

100

150↓ 62% 

02468

10

↓59% 

0246810

Mar May Jul Sep Nov

0

1

2

0

20

40

60

80

0

1

2

3

0

0.5

1

1.5

↓ 44% 

0

0.5

1

1.5↓ 4% 

0

10

20

30

40↓64% 

01234567

↓27% 

0100200300400500

Agr_NoBMPAgr_BMP

SC (µ

S cm

‐1)

0

100

200

300

400

500

Agr_NoBMPAgr_BMP

↓4% 

0

200

400

600

800

Urb_NoBMPUrb_BMP

0

100

200

300

400

500

Urb_NoBMPUrb_BMP

↓ 6% 

14

YES Comparison - BMPs

00.5

11.5

22.5

EE

Q (n

g/L)

Agriculture Sites

BMP No BMP

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

March May July SeptemberSeptember(storm)

EE

Q (n

g/L)

Urban Sites

BMP No BMP

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

March May July September September(storm)

EE

Q (n

g/L)

CSO Site

Upstream CSO Effluent Downstream

7.8 ng/L

50 – 90% Reductions

75 – 98% Reductions

15

Results: CSO Impact on Water Quality

0246810

DOC (m

g L‐1)

01234567

TDN (m

g L‐1)

050100150200250

SRP (µg L‐1)

01234567

Estron

e (ng L‐1)

0

1

2

3

0

2

4

0

50

100

150

012345

0

300

600

900 Series4CSO_effCSO_up

SC (µ

S cm

‐‐1)

0

1

2

3 CSO_effCSO_upCSO_down

16

Results: Effect of Point Source Effluent

02468101214

Mar May Jul Sep Nov

DOC (m

g L‐1)

0

1

2

3

TDN (m

g L‐1)

0

50

100

SRP (µg L‐1)

0

0.5

1

Estron

e (ng L‐1)

0

0.5

1

0

1

2

0

20

40

60

80

0246810

0246810

Mar May Jul Sep Nov

0

1

2

3

0

40

80

120

0

2

4

6

0

1

2

0

1

2

3

0

20

40

60

80

01234567

0

300

600

900

BP_effBP_upBP_down

EC (µ

S cm

‐1)

0

200

400

600

800

BP_effBP_upBP_down

0

300

600

900

WP2_effWP2_upWP2_down

0

200

400

600

800

WP2_effWP2_upWP2_down

17

2nd

Nitrification/Denitrification

Effluent

Wastewater treatment plants

18

Blue Plains Impact

051015202530

DOC (m

g L‐1 )

BP_2ndBP_nitriBP_eff

0

20

40

TDN (m

g L‐1 )

BP_2ndBP_nitriBP_eff

0

50

100

SRP (µg L‐1 )

BP_2ndBP_nitriBP_eff

0

100

200 BP_2ndBP_nitriBP_eff

Estron

e (ng L‐1)

0

50

100

↓99.6%

0

10

20

30

↓91%

0

50

100

↑125%

0

5

10

15

20

↓52%

BD0.6 0.8 0.90.4

BD 0.2 0.00.50.1 0.5

0.6

7.0

0123456789

10

EE

Q (n

g/L)

Upstream Plant Effluent Downstream

Above Range

Estrogenic Activity

Water Quality

19

Correlations between EDCs and WQ

20

Correlations between EDCs and WQ

21

Source Tracking via Nutrient Isotopes

Blue PlainsUrban

WP2

Agri.

CSO

Potomac R.

22

Overlaying EDCs on Nutrient Fingerprints

23

Overlaying EDCs on Organic Matter Fingerprints

24

Conclusions

Low level estrogenic activity found throughout the PotomacEstrone was the most common EDC detected• Effectively removed by wastewater treatmentCSOs showed limited observed impact, except after the heavy rain eventNonpoint urban and agricultural sources served as continual sources• BMPs were capable of significantly reducing estrogenic activityLimited correlations between typical water quality parameters and EDCs/EDC activity• Advanced metrics showing promise

25

EEQ/POCIS

0 10 20 30M

ass

(pes

ticid

es; n

g/P

OC

IS)

-500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500r2=0.48

EEQ/POCIS

0 10 20 30

Mas

s (s

tero

id h

orm

one;

ng/

PO

CIS

)

-40

-20

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140r2=0.93

Pesticide

Steroid hormones

Baby Steps Towards Co-management of Pollutants?

Square root total density AFOs (#/1000 acres)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5

Log

mea

n co

ncen

tratio

n E2

Eq (n

g/L)

-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

Agriculture

Permitted flow WWTP effluent (MGD)

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8Lo

g m

ean

conc

entra

tion

E2Eq

(ng/

L)-1.0

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0.0

0.2

0.4

WWTP Effluent

Shenandoah Drainage, 2009

Ciparis et al. (2012) Effects of watershed densities of animal feeding operations on nutrient concentrations and estrogenic activity in agricultural streams. Science of the Total Environment, 414: 268-276

26

Next Steps: Justin will discuss in greater detail

27

Sample Collection, Processing, and Analysis

Analytical Chemistry

Biological Activity Assays

Triple Bottom Line Analysis

Program Management

Data Analysis

Prioritization Framework

Technical Advisor

Amit Pramanik, Ph.D.Theresa Connor, P.E.

WERF

Shuiwang Duan, Ph.D.Lab Technical StaffUniversity of Maryland

Sujay Kaushal, Ph.D.University of Maryland P.I.

M.S. Student, TBAVirginia Tech 

Tom Grizzard, Ph.D., P.E.Virginia Tech  co-P.I.

Diana Aga, Ph.D.University of Buffalo

Analytical and Bioanalytical Support

Luke Iwanowicz, Ph.D.USGS

Engineering and Management Support

Sudhir Murthy, Ph.D., P.E.DC Water

Erik Rosenfeldt, Ph.D., P.E.Hazen and Sawyer

Core Team Member Project Responsibilities

Another exciting collaboration

28

EPA STAR Timeline

Year 1 (July 2016 – June 2017)Identify and track spatial and temporal variations in “hot spots”

Year 2 (July 2017 – June 2018)Focused study on impact and outcomes of reclamation, reuse, harvesting, and management strategies on sources of pollutants

Year 3 (July 2018 – June 2019)Quantitative assessment of costs, benefits, and impact of advanced reclamation, reuse, harvesting, and management practices on human and ecological health in the Potomac

29

Distilling it down a bit further

Non-Point SourceAgriculture

UrbanPoint

Source BackgroundEDCsNutrientsPathogens?

Land Use in the Potomac Watershed

OWML – Site of May 23rd “unofficial” Project Kickoff Meeting

30

Questions?

erosenfeldt@hazenandsawyer.com