Sharon P Nappier1, Jeffrey A Soller2, Sorina E Eftim3. 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20460, USA. Nappier.Sharon@epa.gov. 2. Soller Environmental, LLC, Berkeley, CA, USA. 3. ICF, Fairfax, VA, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the increasing interest in recycling water for potable reuse purposes, it is important to understand the microbial risks associated with potable reuse. This review focuses on potable reuse systems that use high-level treatment and de facto reuse scenarios that include a quantifiable wastewater effluent component. RECENT FINDINGS: In this article, we summarize the published human health studies related to potable reuse, including both epidemiology studies and quantitative microbial risk assessments (QMRA). Overall, there have been relatively few health-based studies evaluating the microbial risks associated with potable reuse. Several microbial risk assessments focused on risks associated with unplanned (or de facto) reuse, while others evaluated planned potable reuse, such as indirect potable reuse (IPR) or direct potable reuse (DPR). The reported QMRA-based risks for planned potable reuse varied substantially, indicating there is a need for risk assessors to use consistent input parameters and transparent assumptions, so that risk results are easily translated across studies. However, the current results overall indicate that predicted risks associated with planned potable reuse scenarios may be lower than those for de facto reuse scenarios. Overall, there is a clear need to carefully consider water treatment train choices when wastewater is a component of the drinking water supply (whether de facto, IPR, or DPR). More data from full-scale water treatment facilities would be helpful to quantify levels of viruses in raw sewage and reductions across unit treatment processes for both culturable and molecular detection methods.
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: With the increasing interest in recycling water for potable reuse purposes, it is important to understand the microbial risks associated with potable reuse. This review focuses on potable reuse systems that use high-level treatment and de facto reuse scenarios that include a quantifiable wastewater effluent component. RECENT FINDINGS: In this article, we summarize the published human health studies related to potable reuse, including both epidemiology studies and quantitative microbial risk assessments (QMRA). Overall, there have been relatively few health-based studies evaluating the microbial risks associated with potable reuse. Several microbial risk assessments focused on risks associated with unplanned (or de facto) reuse, while others evaluated planned potable reuse, such as indirect potable reuse (IPR) or direct potable reuse (DPR). The reported QMRA-based risks for planned potable reuse varied substantially, indicating there is a need for risk assessors to use consistent input parameters and transparent assumptions, so that risk results are easily translated across studies. However, the current results overall indicate that predicted risks associated with planned potable reuse scenarios may be lower than those for de facto reuse scenarios. Overall, there is a clear need to carefully consider water treatment train choices when wastewater is a component of the drinking water supply (whether de facto, IPR, or DPR). More data from full-scale water treatment facilities would be helpful to quantify levels of viruses in raw sewage and reductions across unit treatment processes for both culturable and molecular detection methods.
Entities:
Keywords:
De facto reuse; Direct potable reuse; Indirect potable reuse; Microbial risk assessment; Risk review
Authors: Jeffrey A Soller; Timothy Bartrand; Nicholas J Ashbolt; John Ravenscroft; Timothy J Wade Journal: Water Res Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 11.236
Authors: Ernest R Blatchley; Woei-Long Gong; James E Alleman; Joan B Rose; Debra E Huffman; Masahiro Otaki; John T Lisle Journal: Water Environ Res Date: 2007-01 Impact factor: 1.946
Authors: A P Blaschke; J Derx; M Zessner; R Kirnbauer; G Kavka; H Strelec; A H Farnleitner; L Pang Journal: Sci Total Environ Date: 2016-08-26 Impact factor: 7.963
Authors: Swinburne A J Augustine; Tarsha N Eason; Kaneatra J Simmons; Clarissa L Curioso; Shannon M Griffin; Malini K D Ramudit; Trevor R Plunkett Journal: J Vis Exp Date: 2016-09-12 Impact factor: 1.355
Authors: Rabia M Chaudhry; Kerry A Hamilton; Charles N Haas; Kara L Nelson Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2017-06-13 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Michael A Jahne; Nichole E Brinkman; Scott P Keely; Brian D Zimmerman; Emily A Wheaton; Jay L Garland Journal: Water Res Date: 2019-10-19 Impact factor: 11.236
Authors: Hodon Ryu; Yao Addor; Nichole E Brinkman; Michael W Ware; Laura Boczek; Jill Hoelle; Jatin H Mistry; Scott P Keely; Eric N Villegas Journal: Water (Basel) Date: 2021-05-21 Impact factor: 3.103