Human Health Risk - Source Water Safeguard - Essay Example

Introduction Source water safeguard Source water which is in the form of any outside water like rivers and lakes and it also includes groundwater which is in most of the cases used as raw water supply. The rain water or even the snow which melts but does not go back to the atmosphere, makes its way into the interrelated arrangement of the Earth’s ground and/or surface waters. This happens due to the continuous pull of the earth’s gravity. Progressively, communities are enforcing watershed management schemes so that the underground water source can be protected from contamination and ecological disturbance. The Safe Drinking Water Act calls for security plans of water systems utilizing groundwater sources. The process involves in protecting the surface area above an aquifer from contaminations infiltrating into the groundwater (http://www.lenntech.Com/groundwater /contamination.htm#ixzz0XC smocST, retrieved 18 Nov. 09). Groundwater in the hydrological cycle (Source: Sniffer 2005, www.wfdvisual.com) Groundwater contaminants Pure water comprises of indispensable chemical constituents of water. Drinking water generally contains a certain quantity of minerals, which it gets from its source, storage conditions, treatment, supply, and household plumbing system and their conditions. These minerals and components mostly take place at very low degrees and do not present a major risk to human or animal health (http://earthsci.org/teacher/basicgeol /groundwa/groundwa.html, retrieved 20 November 2009). A broad range of chemical compounds can lead to contamination of groundwater if released to the underground environs. They are organic and synthetic compounds, inorganic compounds, like pesticides, and other pollutants. Since drinking water arrangements obtain their water from groundwater origins so if the source is polluted then naturally the drinking water is also contaminated (http://earthsci.org/teacher/basicgeol /groundwa/groundwa.html, retrieved 20 November 2009). Groundwater is in constant motion; even though the rate of its movement is normally slow than the water movement in a stream. The reason behind the slow motion is that the ground water has to pass by the complex passages between open spaces inside the rock. Initially the groundwater moves down as a result of the pull of gravity. Groundwater can also move up as it flows from high-pressure regions to low pressure regions (http://earthsci.org/teacher/basicgeol/groundwa/groundwa.html, retrieved 20 November 2009). Chemical contaminant (http://www.grinningplanet.Com /2006/12-05/water-pollution-effects.htm accessed 18 November, 2009). Several years in the past as well as in the present many kinds of chemicals have seeped into our groundwater. Ground water can be chemically polluted because: 1. Dumping of chemicals in the water deliberately; 2. Seeping of chemicals into groundwater; 3. Chemicals disastrously infected our waterways due to industrial accidents; 4. Chemicals were percolated from contaminated soil. The chemical contamination mentioned above is known as "point sources" of water contamination. Chemical pollution in water will have the same effect as that of any other kind of pollution. The only difference being that water in this case is the mechanism, through which the chemical contaminates the water (http://www. rinningplanet.Com /2006/12-05/water-pollution-effects.htm accessed 18 November, 2009). Bromate as a pollutant Bromate is produced due to the oxidation of raw bromide on chlorination. It may also be present in sodium hypochlorite. 10μg/l is the limit of Bromate allowed by the directive health. Bromides can be found naturally in surface as well as ground waters. They are mostly found to a greater extent in regions where there is saline incursion. European Union along with Canada, Australia, and the United States has provided access to the public for reasonable, dependable, and harmless drinking water. These nations are different from other industrialized countries because of their provision of harmless drinking water to the public (Levin et al., 2002). Bromate whether (BrO (3) (-)) is a spin-off which is a disinfection and is formed by ozonation of water comprising of bromide (Br (-)). Bromate is declared by for the World Health Organisation as ‘possible human carcinogen. Recently the presence of Bromate in groundwater in a UK aquifer was discovered. This has brought in vogue for an analysis of groundwater to be conducted.disinfection The likelihood of Bromate-polluted water release into manure treatment operations, be it unintentional or maybe as a pump-and-treat scheme also called for Bromate promise investigation of wastewater sources (Ray Butler et al, 2005). In spite of Bromate being a thermodynamically controlling oxidant, but still when Bromate is in solution it is exceedingly steady at room temperature (DSP, 1999). On finding facts of carcinogenicity (Kurokawa et al., 1986), Bromate was classified as a Group 2B carcinogen. This report is based on the study of recent contamination in a groundwater aquifer with bromatebromide at Steetley Chemical works, Sandridge, Herts, UK. The report presents a method through which routine analysis of groundwater samples can be conducted to protect human health from risks arising from contamination of bromatebromide. The first section of the report states the risk that is posed to human health and the diseases caused by the contamination of bromatebromide in ground water. The next section of the report discusses about the literature review and then goes on to explain how contamination of water can be controlled and how it can be detected. The final part is the conclusion to the report. Objective Chlorination is the key disinfectant procedure for domestic drinking water. Issues’ regarding the possible health outcomes due to the presence of by products in chlorination in groundwater has prompted this study. This report is basically conducted due to the leakage of bromatebromide Steetley Chemical works. Assessing human health risks arising from contamination of a groundwater aquifer with bromatebromide at Steetley Chemical works, Sandridge, Herts, UK is the basic idea for this report. (Source: http://www.lenntech.com/groundwater/contamination.htm#ixzz0XCsmocST, retrieved 18 Nov. 09). Actually groundwater, for the most part is more dependable and more consistent for consumption than surface water. The rationale is that surface water gets exposed more promptly to wastes from mills than groundwater. But this does not mean that ground-water is not susceptible to pollution. Even though groundwater is not as susceptible to contaminates as surface water, but still pollutants get mixed with wells and thus household drinking water becomes unsafe. Chemicals which are soluble easily actually infiltrate the soil and these are the prime sources of groundwater pollutants. These pollutants reach groundwater via the water currents. For instance a chemical that pours out at any mills even if they are located miles away could penetrate the ground and ultimately go into the aquifer arrangement that a full community utilizes for their private wells. This condition could have shattering impacts. If the groundwater is polluted with chemicals even once then removing of the pollutants becomes a costly affair (http://www. lenntech.com/groundwater/contamination.htm#ixzz0XCsmocST, retrieved 18 Nov. 09). Historically Bromate is not comprehended as an ecology contaminant. There are no reports which show that it occurs naturally in surface waters (Hutchinson et al., 1997) or aquifers. On the other hand, development in the functioning of Ion Chromatography (IC) logical techniques and the force of stiffer statute law has collectively contributed to heightened monitoring programs. As a result, Bromate has at present been discovered amongst both the surface water environment (Kruithof and Meijers, 1995) and within a chalk aquifer in UK. Substantial Bromate pollution of industrialized origin has contributed to the shaping of a column within this aquifer. This has presently affected potable water concept in the area and has resulted in an examination of potential Bromate management methods. Reduction of biological Bromate to bromide occurs as shown in the equation below. C6H12O6 + 4BrO3 -  6CO2 + 4Br - + 6H2O (1) According to Hijnen et al (1999) Bromate can be diluted in a turning bioreactor added on to ethanol applying both diverse and pure cultures. Actually batch works at first suggested a Bromate cutback rate over 100 times lesser than nitrate reduction (Hijnen et al, 1995). Byproducts due to water treatment Actually drinking water is treated with chlorine to do away with microorganisms present in the water. But this process results in forming of chemical contaminants. Trihalomethanes as well as haloacetic acids are formed due to the action of chemical oxidants when it comes into contact with organic matter naturally present in the atmosphere. Thus a balance has to be brought about between the benefits derived from the chemical oxidants used to destroy microorganism and the possible risks arising out of the by-products due to water treatment. Trihalomethanes (THMS) a byproduct requires constant monitoring in drinking water. The standard measure for THMS in UK is 100 µg/l. The development of by-products on chlorination which is one of the most frequent treatments given to drinking water, for instance, counts on the quantity and capacity of bromine levels, organic matter, pH, and temperature and residence time. (http://bmb. oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/68/1/199, retrieved November 20, 2009). Intake of trihalomethanes, normally the most general fickle DBP (Disinfectant By-products) occurs due to ingestion of chlorinated drinking water. For the majority of DBPs, ingestion is the chief route for intake (Nieuwenhuijsen MJ et al, 2000). DBPs have been linked to cancer of the bladder, rectum and colon. It is also related with adverse birth effects like impulsive abortion, less weight at the time of birth, miscarriage and congenital deformities in epidemiologic analyses. But still the proof is conflicting and questionable (Nieuwenhuijsen MJ et al and IPCS 2000; IARC, 2003). The fear about cancer hazards linked to chemical contamination as a result of chlorination by-products has ensued in several epidemiological researches. These analyses normally affirm the concept that by-products of chlorination is linked to augmented cancer risks. Dr. Joseph M. Price (1984), comments that, "Chlorine is the greatest crippler and killer of modern times. It is an insidious poison". Dr. Joseph M. Price (1984) further adds startling proof that Trihalomethanes are the "prime causative agents of arteriosclerosis and its inevitable result, the heart attack or stroke." These Trihalomethanes are formed when chlorine is added to drinking water. According to Health Freedom News, (January/February 1987)"The drinking of chlorinated water has finally been officially linked to an increased incidence of colon cancer. An epidemiologist at Oak Ridge Associated Universities completed a study of colon cancer victims and non-cancer patients and concluded that the drinking of chlorinated water for 15 years or more was conducive to a high rate of colon cancer" Methodology Two samples were taken from the contaminated groundwater supplies and tested for contamination. The results are presented in table -1. Sample Two groundwater samples (GW1 and GW2) which contained advanced absorptions of Bromate and Bromide was taken for examination. These samples were taken from a polluted aquifer in the UK. Special attributes of the two groundwater samples, which included inflowing anion densities of interest, are shown in Table 1. The samples were stored in jerry cans and tanks before they could be used (Conf. on Developments in Water Treatment and Supply, 5-6 July 2005; pp 19. National Railway Museum, York. UK. Organised by School of Water Sciences, Cranfield University). Table 1 - Selected properties of influent groundwater supplies (GW-1 and GW-2), and supernatant samples measured at 80 hour retention time (Source: Conf. on Developments in Water Treatment and Supply, 5-6 July 2005, pp 19. National Railway Museum, York. UK. Organised by School of Water Sciences, Cranfield University) Results Reactor 1 Reactor 1 was manoeuvred as the power at a retention time (RT) of eighty hours. Nevertheless, it was only dealt with in stable state functioning for 81-97 days. During this period mean percentage of Bromate and nitrate reducing inside the supernatant of 85.0% and >99.2% (which is below the detection limit) were received. Bromide supernatant densities were in surplus of inflowing, with a mean of 2.8 ± 0.37 mgL-1 at the stable state phase (Conf. on Developments in Water Treatment and Supply, 5-6 July 2005; pp 19. National Railway Museum, York. UK. Organised by School of Water Sciences, Cranfield University). Reactor 2 Reactor 2 was manoeuvred at an 80 hour RT. This was between 63 and 68 days. Percentage Bromate in reactor 2 at the 80 hour RT was 87.2% and 98.1%. When the retention times were reduced between 60 and 40 hours a slight change in Bromate with proportional removals around 40 hours of 98.3% was discovered. Bromate reduction capacity under a 10 hour withholding time, led to only 17.5% reduction (Conf. on Developments in Water Treatment and Supply, 5-6 July 2005; pp 19. National Railway Museum, York. UK. Organised by School of Water Sciences, Cranfield University). Conclusion A series of new disputes with regard to chlorination of drinking water will stay as a keystone of waterborne disease avoidance. Chlorine’s extensive range of gains cannot be rendered by any other exclusive disinfectant. Every disinfectant has its own benefits and limitations and costs. The water system managers have to consider all the pros and cons of all disinfectants and the devise a disinfection method so that it matches each scheme features and improves the source water quality. Apart from this the world leaders progressively discern safe drinking water as a vital block of maintainable development. Chlorination of course will and can render cost-efficient disinfection for isolated rural villages and even big cities (Nieuwenhuijsen MJ et al and IPCS 2000). Only a very small amount of toxicological and epidemiological analyses has been conducted to test the consequences of DBPs on generative health effects. The main research has been conducted in the area of low birth weight, spontaneous abortions, birth defects, preterm delivery and stillbirth. Also studies in the area of major cardiac defects, central nervous system, respiratory, oral cleft and nervous tube flaws. Several toxicological and epidemiological analyses show that a link exists between Trihalomethanes, and low birth weight. The evidence is not certain. There is no proof to show the link between THMs and preterm deliverance. The main restriction of most surveys is its unsophisticated methodology with particular reference to evaluation of contact (Nieuwenhuijsen MJ et al and IPCS 2000). Recommendations Huge, well planned epidemiological surveys centring on well distinct conclusions which take into account appropriate confounders and with detail stress on vulnerability has to be conducted. The preliminary findings of the report have to be confirmed or refuted. In reality these research work may not be practicable. This may be due to the heave cost which is involved in this study. The study also has to take into account the deviations of culture and water treatment in various parts of the world. To spot out the exact elements that may be of aetiologic distress also has to be studied. Further investigation on human vulnerability to chlorinated DBPs, is also the need of the hour. References 1. Bromate analysis in groundwater and wastewater samples, School of Water Sciences, Cranfield University, Bedfordshire, UK, 2005. 2. Conf. on Developments in Water Treatment and Supply, 5-6 July 2005; pp 19. National Railway Museum, York. UK. Organised by School of Water Sciences, Cranfield University 3. DSP (Depository Services Program, Canada) (1999) Citing internet resources, http://dsp.psd.pwgsc. c.ca/collection/H48-10-1-18-1999E.pdf (Accessed 19/11/09). 4. Hijnen W, Jong R, van der Kooij D. Bromate removal in a denitrifying bioreactor used in water treatment. Water Res. 33(4), 1999; 1049-1053. 5. Hijnen W, Voogt R, Veenendaal H, van der Jagt H, van der Kooij D.Bromate reduction by denitrifying bacteria. App. Environ. Micro. 61(1), 1995; 239-244. 6. Hutchinson T, Hutchings M, Moore K. A review of the effects of Bromate on aquatic organisms and toxicity of Bromate to oyster (Crassostrea gigas) embryos. Ecotox. Environ. Safety. 1997; 38(3), 238-243. 7. Health Freedom News, January/February 1987. 8. IARC. Some Drinking Water Disinfectants and Contaminants, Including Arsenic. IARC Monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans Volume 84. Lyon: IARC, 2003 9. IPCS Disinfectants and Disinfectant By-products. Environmental Health Criteria 216. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2000 Endocrine disrupters 10. Kruithof J, Meijers R. Bromate formation by ozonation and advanced oxidation and potential options in drinking water treatment. Water Supply. 13(1) 1995; 93-103. 11. Kurokawa Y, Takayama S, Konishi Y, Hiasa Y, Asahini S, Takahashi M, Maekawa A, Hayashi Y. (1986) Long-term in vivo carcinogenicity tests of potassium Bromate, sodium hypochlorite, and sodium chlorite conducted in Japan. Environ. Health Persp. 69, 221-235. 12. Levin, R.B., Epstein, P.R., Ford, T.E., Harrington, W., Olson, E. and E.G. Reichard (2002), U.S. Drinking Water Challenges in the Twenty-First Century, Environmental HealthPerspectives, 110, 43 – 52. 13. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Toledano MB, Elliott P. Uptake of chlorination disinfection by-products; a review and a discussion of its implications for epidemiological studies. J Expos Anal Environ Epidemiol 2000; 10: 586–99[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline] 14. Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Toledano MB, Eaton NE, Elliott P, Fawell J. Chlorination disinfection by-products in water and their association with adverse reproductive outcomes: a review. Occup Environ Med 2000; 57: 73–85. 15. Price, Joseph M. Coronaries/cholesterol/chlorine Pyramid, Hanley 1984 16. Ray Butler, Lucy Lytton, Andrew R Godley, Ibtisam E Tothill, Elise Cartmell 17. Sniffer, Groundwater concepts visualisation tool. Sniffer, 2005. http://www. wfdvisual.com 18. http://www.grinningplanet.com/2006/12-05/water-pollution-effects.htm accessed 18 November, 2009 19. http://www. lenntech.Com /groundwater/contamination.htm#ixzz0XC smocST, retrieved 18 Nov. 09 20. http://earthsci.org/teacher/basicgeol /groundwa/groundwa.html, retrieved 20 November 2009. Read More