Top 5 Water Contaminants
Taste
and odor problems associated with drinking water are a pervasive problem
for many municipalities. Suffet et al.1 reported that 22% of the water
providers surveyed in a national study reported taste and odor problems
in their source waters. Taste and odor problems have been traced to both
plank tonic and entice algae in surface impoundments and in water supply
and distribution networks, including canals (Izaguirre et al.2; Means
and McGuire3; Izaguirre and Taylor4). Municipalities in the Phoenix Metropolitan
area have experienced taste and odor problems for many years, but the
problems seem to be increasing, especially beginning during the late summer
and extending well into the late winter.
Water
treatment costs for taste and odor problems alone have become exorbitant
and consumers are more outspoken about expectations of receiving water
that tastes and smells good, as well as is safe to drink. Two compounds,
2-methylisoborneol (MIB) and geosmin, are most commonly cited as imparting
unpleasant earthy/musty tastes and odors to water. The source of these
and other compounds associated with taste and odor is primarily blue-green
algae (cyanobacteria) and certain fungi (actinomycetes). Research objectives
were achieved through collaboration between operators of the City of Chandler
Treatment Plant and researchers at Arizona State University, in cooperation
with the Salt River Project. The on-going and focused effort was instrumental
in an attempt to
- identify the organisms causing the taste and odor
problems, and
- to explore the use of citral to mitigate taste and odor
problems.
Water
samples were collected from two sites along the South Canal and five sites
along the Consolidated Canal, including the intake into the Chandler Water
Treatment Plant. Each sample was collected and stored on ice in 16-ounce
plastic Whirl-Pak storage bags in the field and transferred to 125-ml
plastic screw top bottles in the laboratory. Bottles were subsequently
kept on storage racks at room temperature under light conditions similar
to those in the natural environment. Aliquots of each sample were streaked
on agar plates (1.5%) of Bold's Basic Medium (BBM; Carolina Biological
Supply Co.) with an inoculating loop. After approximately two weeks, isolated
colonies were transferred to culture tubes with 10-ml of liquid BBM. Additional
streaks were performed when multiple organisms appeared in the same colony.
This procedure was performed repeatedly in an attempt to isolate the maximum
number of organisms from each sample.
Dangerous Water Contaminants
Sampling
and subsequent isolations indicate that taste and odor compounds most
likely originate in "hotspots" along the canals rather than being distributed
uniformly throughout the supply system. Detectable earthy/musty odors
occurred intermittently along the supply system, as opposed to similar
intensities at each site. Approximately 40 organisms (algae) have been
isolated. Three of these isolates, two Oscillatoria spp. and Pseudanabaena
sp. appear to be MIB and/or geosmin producers. These results must be verified
using GC/MS after individual organisms have been cultured in larger quantities.
The
results obtained are significant because the cost of the current approach
of applying chemical treatments to the entire system to eliminate taste
and odor problems may be reduced substantially if treatment efforts can
be concentrated at supply system "hotspots". OPA panel results suggest
that a citral concentration of 100 nl/L renders 50 ng/L of each MIB and
geosmin undetectable and concentrations as low as 10 nl/L make 50 ng/L
of each MIB and geosmin barely detectable to the human sense of smell.
GC/MS results revealed that citral masks the tastes and odors associated
with MIB and geosmin.
At
the concentration used, citral also imparted a "citrus" aroma to the water.
MIB, geosmin and citral were all detected at their original concentrations
(100 ng/L) when water was spiked with all three compounds. There was neither
an indication that citral initiated a chemical change in MIB or geosmin,
nor that citral increased the binding efficiency of PAC. Despite the initial
promise of using citral as a cost efficient alternative or supplement
to PAC, citral was found to be an oily compound that was not readily miscible
in water.
At
the present time, additional research is required to determine whether
citral may be mixed thoroughly enough with supply water during water treatment
to make its use feasible and cost effective as it relates to taste and
odor control. The propensity for citral to float on the water surface
currently renders its use a non-viable solution for treating taste and
odor problems. Due to the oily characteristic of citral, we were unable
to determine the optimum citral:PAC ratio for maximum reduction of taste
and odor compounds. |