@article{6787c490cb1f4b96b9ad1be56be0169b,
title = "Modeled De Facto Reuse and Contaminants of Emerging Concern in Drinking Water Source Waters",
abstract = "De facto reuse is the percentage of drinking water treatment plant (DWTP) intake potentially composed of effluent discharged from upstream wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Results from grab samples and a De Facto Reuse in our Nation's Consumable Supply (DRINCS) geospatial watershed model were used to quantify contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) concentrations at DWTP intakes to qualitatively compare exposure risks obtained by the two approaches. Between nine and 71 CECs were detected in grab samples. The number of upstream WWTP discharges ranged from 0 to >1,000; comparative de facto reuse results from DRINCS ranged from <0.1 to 13% during average flow and >80% during lower streamflows. Correlation between chemicals detected and DRINCS modeling results were observed, particularly DWTPs withdrawing from midsize water bodies. This comparison advances the utility of DRINCS to identify locations of DWTPs for future CEC sampling and treatment technology testing.",
keywords = "contaminants of emerging concern, de facto reuse, drinking water source water, transport and fate",
author = "Thuy Nguyen and Paul Westerhoff and Furlong, {Edward T.} and Kolpin, {Dana W.} and Batt, {Angela L.} and Mash, {Heath E.} and Schenck, {Kathleen M.} and Boone, {J. Scott} and Jacelyn Rice and Glassmeyer, {Susan T.}",
note = "Funding Information: 1School of Sustainable Engineering and The Built Environment, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz. 2National Water Quality Laboratory, US Geological Survey, Denver, Colo. 3US Geological Survey, Central Midwest Water Science Center, Iowa City, Iowa 4Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 5Mississippi State Chemical Laboratory, Mississippi State, Miss. 6Department of Engineering Technology and Construction Management, University of North Carolina Charlotte, Charlotte, N.C. Funding Information: This work was partially supported by the Arizona State University Decision Center for a Desert City (NSF Award No. 0951366), Central Arizona–Phoenix Long-Term Ecological Research (DEB-1637590), and Vietnam Education Foundation Fellowship. The chemical sample analysis described in this article has been funded in part by USEPA through Interagency Agreement DW14922330 to USGS, and through programmatic support of the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program, the USEPA{\textquoteright}s Office of Research and Development, and the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. Information Collection Rule approval for the Phase II Questionnaire was granted under EPA ICR No. 2346.01, OMB Control No. 2080-0078. This document has been reviewed in accordance with USEPA and USGS policy and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the USEPA, and mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use by USEPA. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by USEPA, USGS, or the US government. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 American Water Works Association",
year = "2018",
month = apr,
doi = "10.1002/awwa.1052",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "110",
pages = "E2--E18",
journal = "Journal - American Water Works Association",
issn = "0003-150X",
publisher = "American Water Works Association",
number = "4",
}