Total dissolved solids the challenges ahead
Download
1 / 48

Total Dissolved Solids: The Challenges Ahead - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 258 Views
  • Updated On :

Total Dissolved Solids: The Challenges Ahead. US EPA Region 3 Freshwater Biology Team Wheeling, WV. FBT Members Amy Bergdale, Frank Borsuk, Kelly Krock, Maggie Passmore, Greg Pond, Louis Reynolds Assist the states in methods development, bioassessment, biocriteria

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Total Dissolved Solids: The Challenges Ahead' - barton


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Total dissolved solids the challenges ahead l.jpg

Total Dissolved Solids: The Challenges Ahead

US EPA Region 3

Freshwater Biology Team

Wheeling, WV


Freshwater biology team epa r3 eaid oma l.jpg

FBT Members

Amy Bergdale, Frank Borsuk, Kelly Krock, Maggie Passmore, Greg Pond, Louis Reynolds

Assist the states in methods development, bioassessment, biocriteria

Assist EPA R3 in use of biological data

WQS, monitoring, TMDLs, NPDES, superfund, etc.

Perform special studies

Freshwater Biology Team, EPA R3, EAID, OMA


Background l.jpg
Background

  • Many states have identified “ionic toxicity”, conductivity and/or total dissolved solids (TDS) as a stressor or pollutant in their integrated lists.

  • EPA has also identified TDS (and component ions) as a stressor impairing aquatic life.

  • EPA lacks aquatic life criteria for TDS mixtures.

  • Some TMDLs have been deferred due to lack of criteria.

  • We also need criteria for effluent limits for discharge permits.


What we know l.jpg
What We Know

  • Some component ions are toxic to aquatic life.

  • Ex. Mount et al 1997 , acute endpoints

    K+ > HCO3- =Mg2+ > Cl- > SO42-

  • Laboratory fish are more tolerant than laboratory inverts.

  • Test duration important.

  • Chronic endpoints important.

  • Resident fish are more tolerant than resident inverts.


Slide5 l.jpg

Mount et al

1997.

C. Dubia

More

Sensitive to

TDSthan

D. magna or

fatheads.


What we know6 l.jpg
What We Know

  • Ion mixtures have varying toxicity

  • Ion mixtures source specific

    • Alkaline coal mine drainage (HCO3- , Mg2+,Ca2+, SO42-)

    • Marcellus Shale Brine (Na+, Cl-,SO42-)

    • Coal Bed Methane (Na+, HCO3- ,SO42-)


What we know7 l.jpg
What We Know

  • Effects synergistic, additive, or ameliorative

  • Depends on the ions and their concentrations

  • In some systems (e.g. Appalachian headwater streams) lab controlled toxicity tests are not a good predictor of instream aquatic life use impairment.


Two webinars on tds 2009 l.jpg
Two Webinars on TDS (2009)

  • Toxicity testing approaches to develop criteria for individual ions

    • Surrogate organisms

    • Iowa: chloride and sulfate

    • Illinois: sulfate

  • Empirical approaches

    • bioassessment and water quality data to develop a criterion for an ion mixture:

    • Ex. Alkaline mine drainage in southern WV and KY Appalachian streams.


The case for single ion criteria l.jpg
The Case for Single Ion Criteria

  • Lab experiments are controlled

  • Other stressors are excluded

  • Toxicity testing data deemed more “defensible”

  • Pollutant specific criteria instead of integrative parameters such as TDS or conductivity

    • Easier to implement than narrative criteria

    • Easier to check compliance

    • Permit writers understand it

  • Can still incorporate site-specific conditions

  • Resources will focus on source reduction

  • Regulating TDS “futile”; Ion mixtures too complex.








Illinois sulfate criterion16 l.jpg
Illinois Sulfate Criterion

Illinois states that “Sensitive organisms reside in receiving streams with sulfate concentrations of 2,000 mg/L.”


The case for an empirical approach l.jpg
The Case for an Empirical Approach

  • Context is important.

  • Aquatic life in small Appalachian streams is not the same as in Iowa or Illinois!

  • We must protect the resident aquatic life uses.

  • Unlike Illinois, we routinely see aquatic life use impairment downstream of alkaline mine drainage.

  • Elevated TDS, hardness and alkalinity, in the absence of other stressors (e.g. habitat, low pH, metals violations).

  • TDS and component ions are strongly correlated to this impairment.


Slide18 l.jpg
Context is Important. What aquatic life are we trying to protect? What is the natural water quality? What is the effluent quality?

PA

OH

WV

KY

VA


Slide19 l.jpg

NPDES discharge protect? What is the natural water quality? What is the effluent quality?

Bio-Monitoring

Effluent Dominated Streams


Slide20 l.jpg

Heptageniidae protect? What is the natural water quality? What is the effluent quality?

Epeorus

Ephemerella

E. Fleek, NC DWQ

Mayflies represent ~25-50% of Abundance; ~1/3rd biodiversity

In natural, undegraded Appalachian streams

Heptageniidae

Heptagenia

Ephemerellidae


We use conductivity as a surrogate for tds l.jpg

4500 protect? What is the natural water quality? What is the effluent quality?

y = 0.7821x - 28.661

4000

2

3500

R

= 0.9754

3000

2500

TDS

2000

1500

1000

500

0

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

Conductivity

We use conductivity as a surrogate for TDS

KY Appalachian

Headwaters

(sandstone)



West virginia data l.jpg

3.5 (Kentucky Data)

3

2.5

2

4

log SO

1.5

1

y = 1.2148x - 1.042

R2 = 0.94

0.5

0

1.5

1.7

1.9

2.1

2.3

2.5

2.7

2.9

3.1

3.3

3.5

log Cond

West Virginia Data


Using empirical data l.jpg
Using Empirical Data (Kentucky Data)

  • Note

    • conductivity of 500-1000 uS/cm approximates sulfate of 200-400 mg/l

    • Iowa sulfate criteria ranges 500-2000 mg/l

    • Illinois sulfate criteria in range of 1000-1500 mg/l


Slide25 l.jpg

Resident Mayflies Very Sensitive (Kentucky Data)

(Eastern Kentucky Coalfields)

80

70

Reference

60

Mined

50

Mined/Residential

40

%Ephemeroptera

Note: strong nonlinear “threshold” response

30

20

10

0

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Conductivity


Slide26 l.jpg

Independent Datasets Confirm Sensitivity (Kentucky Data)

(West Virginia southern coal fields)

90

80

70

60

50

% Mayflies

40

Mined

Unmined

30

20

10

0

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Conductivity


Epa eis data wv based on mean monthly wq concentrations n 13 months l.jpg
EPA EIS data (WV) (Kentucky Data)based on mean monthly WQ concentrations (n=13 months)

TDS and

Ions strongly

Correlated

To mayflies

And impairment


Slide28 l.jpg

Is aquatic life in small Appalachian streams more sensitive to TDS pollution than that in midwestern streams?

Sensitive Mayflies:

40

70

Epeorus

Ephemerella

Ameletus

Drunella

Cinygmula

Paraleptophlebia

60

30

50

40

20

% Sensitive Mayflies

30

% Ephemerella

20

10

10

0

0

0-200

0-200

>1000

>1000

400-600

400-600

200-400

200-400

600-1000

600-1000

CONDUCTIVITY

CONDUCTIVITY


Slide29 l.jpg

What aquatic life is found in the midwest? Perhaps more TDS-tolerant invertebrates?

Facultative/Tolerant Mayflies:

80

Isonychia, Tricorythodes, Baetis, Caenis

70

60

50

40

% Tolerant Mayflies

30

20

10

0

0-200

>1000

400-600

200-400

600-1000

CONDUCTIVITY

50

40

30

20

%Isonychia

10

0

0-200

>1000

400-600

200-400

600-1000

CONDUCTIVITY


The case for an empirical approach30 l.jpg
The Case for an Empirical Approach TDS-tolerant invertebrates?

  • The concentrations of ions that are correlated with high probability of aquatic life use impairment are much lower than the toxicity testing data imply would be protective.

    • Suggests that common toxicity testing organisms are not as sensitive as resident aquatic invertebrates.

    • Many of the toxicity test results have been based on acute tests. The tests and endpoints should be chronic and the toxicity tests should test sensitive life stages.

  • There may be seasonal issues due to insect life cycles.

  • Empirical data may help us determine the more sensitive resident species.

  • Bioassessment endpoints are the best tool to capture the total effect of a complex ion mixture.


Examples of ambient toxicity l.jpg
Examples of ambient toxicity TDS-tolerant invertebrates?

Chronic effects were detected in samples with field conductivity >1800 µS/cm.

There is NO dilution capacity in these streams.


Chronic effects levels l.jpg
Chronic Effects Levels TDS-tolerant invertebrates?

Estimated conductivity at EC25 % ranged from 448-1243 with an average of 820 µS/cm.

This range is slightly higher than where we see effects with resident biota.


C dubia more tolerant than resident aquatic life l.jpg
C. dubia more tolerant than resident Aquatic Life TDS-tolerant invertebrates?

Ref for GLIMPSS

Not tox tested

All sites were rated impaired using the genus level GLIMPSS (<66) , which directly measures aquatic life use impairment. The resident biota are more sensitive than the WET surrogate, C. dubia. Can’t use C. dubia alone to express “safe” thresholds, but it can be used as an indicator of the more toxic discharges.


Using empirical data34 l.jpg
Using Empirical Data TDS-tolerant invertebrates?

  • Linear regression

  • Quantile regression

  • Conditional Probability Analysis

  • Regression Trees

  • Note

    • conductivity of 500-1000 uS/cm approximates sulfate of 200-400 mg/l

    • Iowa sulfate criteria ranges 500-2000 mg/l

    • Illinois sufate criteria in range of 1000-1500 mg/l


Ex linear regression l.jpg
Ex: Linear Regression TDS-tolerant invertebrates?


Slide36 l.jpg

Ex: Quantile Regression (summer) TDS-tolerant invertebrates?

IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLD

N=535


Slide37 l.jpg

Ex: Quantile Regression (spring) TDS-tolerant invertebrates?

IMPAIRMENT THRESHOLD

N=276


Ex conditional probability approach paul and mcdonald 2005 l.jpg
Ex. Conditional Probability Approach TDS-tolerant invertebrates?Paul and McDonald (2005)

  • CPA relies on a large dataset to develop criteria.

    • Simply asks “what is the probability of impairment given conductivity value ≥ x”?

      • P(y|x) where y is impairment threshold (IBI), and x is some TDS or conductivity value.

  • J. Paul (EPA, RTP, in review) found

    • 100% chance of MAHA sites being impaired when conductivity >575 and

    • 100% chance of Florida streams impaired when conductivity >750


Slide39 l.jpg

Ex: CPA: WV DEP data: Summer pH>6 TDS-tolerant invertebrates?

Probability of

Impairment

Over 90% when

Cond > 500

Probability of impairment

N=949

RBP HAB>130

Conductivity


Ex regression tree mtm vf eis l.jpg
Ex: Regression Tree (MTM/VF EIS) TDS-tolerant invertebrates?

Split Variable PRE Improvement

1 SULFATE 0.726 0.726

2 Mn DISS 0.758 0.032

3 CONDUCTIVITY 0.819 0.062

4 SULFATE 0.855 0.036

5 ZINCTOTAL 0.872 0.017

6 MAGNESIUM 0.882 0.010

%EPHEM

Mean=20.45

SD=18.236

N=64

SULFATE<350.66

88.2% variance

Mean=4.04

Mean=34.94

SD=5.945

SD=11.947

N=30

N=34

Mn DISS.<0.0074

CONDUCTIVITY<433.1

Mean=1.45

Mean=12.5

Mean=23.83

Mean=38.4

SD=2.040

SD=6.720

SD=6.393

SD=11.196

N=23

N=7

N=8

N=26

SULFATE<15.6

Mean=34.0

Mean=44.1

SD=9.799

SD=10.179

N=14

N=12

ZINC<0.023

MAGNESIUM<6.9

Mean=29.66

Mean=40.13

Mean=39.95

Mean=48.33

SD=9.077

SD=7.688

SD=11.966

SD=6.533

N=9

N=5

N=6

N=6

All Ions, Metals, pH, Hardness


How do these empirical results compare to iowa s sulfate criteria l.jpg
How do these empirical results compare to Iowa’s Sulfate Criteria?

We have not reviewed any bioassessment data from Iowa.

R3 Empirical examples suggest impairment at sulfate 200-400 mg/l


Water quality based approach to pollution control l.jpg
Water Quality Based Approach Criteria?to Pollution Control

Determine

Protection Level

(EPA Criteria/State WQS)

Measure Progress

Conduct WQ

Assessment

(Identify Impaired Waters)

Monitor and Enforce

Compliance

(including instream bioassessments)

Set Priorities

(Rank/Target Waterbodies)

Establish Source

Controls

(Point Source, NPS)

Evaluate Appropriateness

of WQS for Specific Waters

(Reaffirm WQS)

Define and Allocate

Control Responsibilities

(TMDL/WLA/LA)


Recommendations l.jpg
Recommendations Criteria?

  • Do not rely solely on toxicity testing to determine protective limits.

  • Consider chronic toxicity testing endpoints.

  • Consider dilution ratios.

  • Combine toxicity testing and empirical data approaches when field data are available.


Recommendations44 l.jpg
Recommendations Criteria?

  • Prepare a technical support document on TDS

    • reflects acute and chronic toxicity testing literature

    • offers some examples of empirical datasets and how they would be used to characterize aquatic life, and develop, refine or evaluate criteria and permits.


Recommendations45 l.jpg
Recommendations Criteria?

  • Always use bioassessments to assess aquatic life uses downstream of discharges with TDS.

  • These data should feed back into the permit and possibly result in site specific criteria.

    • Reflect all toxicants in discharge

    • Protect actual aquatic life that should be residing in that stream type


Ongoing research surrogates l.jpg

Toxicity of TDS to surrogate lab organisms Criteria?

Review literature for TDS

Develop empirical datasets between TDS and aquatic life

Acute and chronic tests with mining effluent and reconstituted salts and surrogate organisms (e.g. C. dubia)

USGS Columbia Lab, Duluth EPA Lab

Preliminary Data…

Ongoing Research - Surrogates

Hassell et al 2006


Ongoing research natives l.jpg

Metal and osmotic ecophysiology Criteria?

Deploy insects in situ – sample individuals in a time course

Measure growth, metal and electrolyte content, subcellular compartmentalization of metals

Explain any differences in metal tolerance, bioaccumulation and toxicity

Laboratory Exposures

Monitor oxygen consumption, osmoregulatory status and Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) levels

Characterize “energetic costs” to living in high conductivity

Outcome

Provide information on whether metal uptake is contributing to impairment

Provide information on mechanism for TDS impairment

North Carolina State

Ongoing Research - Natives

Buckwalter et al, 2007


Discussion l.jpg
Discussion Criteria?

  • Where do we go from here?

  • Technical Barriers?

  • Non-Technical Barriers?

  • What do you need from EPA?

  • What can you expect from EPA?

  • How do we advance aquatic life criteria?

  • How do we advance TMDL development?


ad