Advertisement

Mercury contamination in the sludge of drinking water treatment plants dumping into a reservoir in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

  • Julio Cesar Wasserman
  • Letícia de Oliveira Silva
  • Gabriela Cugler de Pontes
  • Evaldo de Paiva Lima
Research Article
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Although sludge piles from drinking water treatment plants can contain harmful substances, in many countries, their disposal methods are still unregulated. Besides aluminum, which is a major constituent in these residues, many other contaminants—like trace metals—can be present and may result from the quality of the raw materials used for water treatment. The application of these chemicals for the treatment of drinking water can generate toxic sludge and contaminate the produced water. In the present work, mercury contamination in the sludge piles of two drinking water treatment plants located along the margins of the Juturnaíba Reservoir, Southeast Brazil, was evaluated to verify whether contaminants are incorporated during water treatment. In the summer 2012, five cores were collected from the piles, and were analyzed for Eh, granulometry, total carbon, total nitrogen, and total mercury. The results indicated an anoxic environment, reflecting composition of the suspended matter. Carbon and nitrogen presented elevated concentrations, but also seemed to reproduce the characteristics of the suspended matter in the raw water. The concentrations of mercury were extremely variable but presented unexpectedly high values in some of the layers, reaching 18,484 ng g−1. On the other hand, concentrations ten times lower than those observed in the natural system (8 ng g−1) could be observed. It was concluded that the only possible source for the contamination of the sludge was the chemicals used for water treatment.

Keywords

Sludge piles Flocculation Suspended matter Hg Environmental threat Drinking water treatment plant Juturnaíba Reservoir 

Notes

Funding information

The authors are grateful to FAPERJ for the financial support through the program Pensa-Rio (grant no. E-26/110.694/2012). JCW is also thankful to the Brazilian Council of Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) for a research grant (grant no. 306714/2013-2).

References

  1. Achon LC, Barroso MM, Cordeiro JS (2013) Resíduos de estações de tratamento de água e a ISO 24512: desafio do saneamento brasileiro (Residues from water treatment plants ans ISO 24512: a challenge for the Brazilian sanitation). Eng Sanit Ambient 18:115–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Almeida AM, Wada EYB, Wasserman JC (2017) Volumetric modeling of two sludge piles from water treatment plants in a Brazilian reservoir. Water Sci Technol 77:355–363.  https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2017.515 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alves AC et al (2017) Mercury levels in parturient and newborns from Aveiro region, Portugal. J Toxicol Environ Health A 80:697–709.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15287394.2017.1286926 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aula I et al (1994) Levels of mercury in the Tucuruí Reservoir and its surrounding area in Pará, Brazil. In: Watras CJ, Huckabee JW (eds) Mercury pollution: integration and synthesis. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 21–40Google Scholar
  5. Barcellos RG, Barros SRS, Wasserman JC, Lima GBA, Chicayban MD (2012) Availability of water resources from the São João River basin for a petrochemical complex of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. In: Bilibio C, Hensel O, Selbach J (eds) Sustainable Water Management in the Tropics and Sub-tropics and Case Studies in Brazil, vol 3, 1st edn. FUFPampa; Unikassel; PGCult; UFMA, Jaguarão, pp 653–683Google Scholar
  6. Benoit JM, Gilmour CC, Mason RP (2001) Aspects of bioavailability of mercury for methylation in pure cultures of Desulfobulbus propionicus (1pr3). Appl Environ Microbiol 67:51–58.  https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.67.1.51-58.2001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bouillon S et al (2009) Distribution, origin and cycling of carbon in the Tana River (Kenya): a dry season basin-scale survey from headwaters to the delta. Biogeosciences 6:2475–2493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brazil (2011) Procedimentos de controle e de vigilância da qualidade da água para consumo humano e seu padrão de potabilidade vol 2914/2011. Brazilian Ministry of Health, BrasíliaGoogle Scholar
  9. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (2004) Resíduos sólidos (Solid residues) vol NBR 10004. ABNT, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  10. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards (2017) Drinking water treatment chemicals — health effects — requirements vol 15784:2017. ABNT, Rio de JaneiroGoogle Scholar
  11. Brown IA, Austin DW (2012) Maternal transfer of mercury to the developing embryo/fetus: is there a safe level? Toxicol Environ Chem 94:1610–1627.  https://doi.org/10.1080/02772248.2012.724574 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen Y, Bonzongo JC, Miller GC (1996) Levels of methylmercury and controlling factors in surface sediments of the Carson River system, Nevada. Environ Pollut 92:281–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coelho-Souza SA, Guimaraes JRD, Miranda MR, Poirier H, Mauro JBN, Lucotte M, Mergler D (2011) Mercury and flooding cycles in the Tapajos River basin, Brazilian Amazon: the role of periphyton of a floating macrophyte (Paspalum repens). Sci Total Environ 409:2746–2753.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.03.028 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conover WJ, Iman RL (1981) Rank transformations as a bridge between parametric and nonparametric statistics. Am Stat 35:124–129Google Scholar
  15. Coquery M, Cossa D, Azemard S, Peretyazhko T, Charlet L (2003) Methylmercury formation in the anoxic waters of the Petit-Saut reservoir (French Guiana) and its spreading in the adjacent Sinnamary river. J Phys IV 107:327–331.  https://doi.org/10.1051/jp4:20030308 Google Scholar
  16. Correia RRS, Miranda MR, Guimarães JRD (2012) Mercury methylation and the microbial consortium in periphyton of tropical macrophytes: effect of different inhibitors. Environ Res 112:86–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De Junet A, Abril G, Guerin F, Billy I, De Wit R (2009) A multi-tracers analysis of sources and transfers of particulate organic matter in a tropical reservoir (Petit Saut, French Guiana) River. Res Appl 25:253–271.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1152 Google Scholar
  18. dos Santos FCR, Librantz AFH, Dias CG, Rodrigues SG (2017) Intelligent system for improving dosage control. Acta Sci-Technol 39:33–38.  https://doi.org/10.4025/actascitechnol.v39i1.29353 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Funk W, Dammann V, Donnevert G, Iannelli S, Iannelli E (2007) Quality assurance in analytical chemistry: applications in environmental, food and materials analysis, biotechnology, and medical engineering, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  20. Gandhi N, Bhavsar SP, Diamond ML, Kuwabara JS (2007) Development of a mercury speciation, fate, and biotic uptake (biotranspec) model: application to lahontan reservoir (Nevada, USA). Environ Toxicol Chem 26:2260–2273.  https://doi.org/10.1897/06-468r.1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Giroussi ST, Voulgaropoulos AN, Stavroulias S (1996) Voltammetric determination of heavy metals in aluminum sulfate used for potable and waste water treatment. Chem Anal 41:489–493Google Scholar
  22. Golfinopoulos SK et al (2017) Determination of the priority substances regulated by 2000/60/EC and 2008/105/EC Directives in the surface waters supplying water treatment plants of Athens, Greece. J Environ Sci Health A 52:378–384.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10934529.2016.1262600 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hargesheimer EE, McTigue NE, Mielke JL, Yee P, Elford T (1998) Tracking filter performance with particle counting. J Am Water Works Assoc 90:32–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim CS, Rytuba JJ, Brown GE (2004) Geological and anthropogenic factors influencing mercury speciation in mine wastes: an EXAFS spectroscopy study. Appl Geochem 19:379–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kuwabara JS, Arai Y, Topping BR, Pickering IJ, George GN (2007) Mercury speciation in piscivorous fish from mining-impacted reservoirs. Environ Sci Technol 41:2745–2749.  https://doi.org/10.1021/es0628856 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kyncl M (2014) Heavy metals in sludge produced during production of drinking water from surface sources. Carpath J Earth Environ Sci 9:179–185Google Scholar
  27. Lacerda LD (1997) Global mercury emissions from gold and silver mining. Water Air Soil Pollut 97:209–221Google Scholar
  28. Malm O, Pfeiffer WC, Bastos WR, Souza CMM (1989) Utilização do acessório de geração de vapor a frio para análise de mercúrio em investigações ambientais por espectrofotometria de absorção atômica (Application of the cold vapor generrator accessory for the analysis of mercury in environmental investigations through atomic absorption spectrophotometry). J Braz Assoc Adv Sci 41:88–92Google Scholar
  29. Mann HB, Whitney DR (1947) On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat 18:50–60.  https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177730491 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Melamed R, Villas-Boas RC (2000) Application of physico-chemical amendments for counteraction of mercury pollution. Sci Total Environ 261:203–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meyers PA, Ishiwatari R (1993) Lacustrine organic geochemistry-an overview of indicators of organic matter sources and diagenesis in lake sediments. Org Geochem 20:867–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Muisa N, Hoko Z, Chifamba P (2011) Impacts of alum residues from Morton Jaffray Water Works on water quality and fish, Harare, Zimbabwe. Phys Chem Earth 36:853–864.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2011.07.047 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Muresan B, Cossa D, Richard S, Dominique Y (2008) Monomethylmercury sources in a tropical artificial reservoir. Appl Geochem 23:1101–1126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Palomo M, Penalver A, Aguilar C, Borrull F (2010) Presence of naturally occurring radioactive materials in sludge samples from several Spanish water treatment plants. J Hazard Mater 181:716–721.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.05.071 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pestana CJ et al (2016) Fate of cyanobacteria in drinking water treatment plant lagoon supernatant and sludge. Sci Total Environ 565:1192–1200.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.05.173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Reimann C, de Caritat P (1998) Chemical elements in the environment: factsheets for the geochemist and environmental scientist. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, GermanyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Reis ELT, Cotrim MEB, Rodrigues C, Pires MAF, Beltrame Filho O, Rocha SM, Cutolo SA (2007) Identificação da influência do descarte de lodo de estações de tratamento de água (Identification of the influence of the disposal of water treatment sludge). Quim Nova 30:865–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Roulet M et al (1998) The geochemistry of mercury in central Amazonian soils developed on the Alter-do-Chão formation of the lower Tapajos River valley, Pará state, Brazil. Sci Total Environ 223:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Soares KL, Cerqueira MBR, Caldas SS, Primel EG (2017) Evaluation of alternative environmentally friendly matrix solid phase dispersion solid supports for the simultaneous extraction of 15 pesticides of different chemical classes from drinking water treatment sludge. Chemosphere 182:547–554.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2017.05.062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Souza VA, Wasserman JC (2014) Mercury distribution in sediments of a shallow tropical reservoir in Brazil. Geochim Bras 28:149–160.  https://doi.org/10.5327/Z0102-9800201400020004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Souza VA, Wasserman JC (2015) Distribution of heavy metals in sediments of a tropical reservoir in Brazil: sources and fate. J S Am Earth Sci 63:208–216.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsames.2015.07.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sposito G (1996) The environmental chemistry of aluminum, 2nd edn. Lewis Publishers, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Stracquadanio M, Dinelli E, Trombini C (2003) Role of volcanic dust in the atmospheric transport and deposition of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and mercury. J Environ Monit 5:984–988.  https://doi.org/10.1039/b308587b CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wasserman JC (2012) Programa de Monitoramento físico-químico, bacteriológico e de sedimentos no reservatório de Juturnaíba e em seus contribuintes - Rios Bacaxá, Capivari e São João (Monitoring Program of physico-chemical, bacteriological parameters and sediment of the Juturnaíba Reservoir and its tributaries - Bacaxá, Capivari and São João Rivers.). UFF Network of Environment and Sustainable Development/Golden Lion Tamarin Association Niterói, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  45. Wasserman JC, Hacon S, Wasserman MA (2003) Biogeochemistry of mercury in the Amazonian environment. Ambio 32:336–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Geociências (Geoquímica), and Pós-Graduação em Sistemas de Gestão SustentáveisUniversidade Federal FluminenseNiteróiBrazil
  2. 2.Pós-Graduation Program in Biosystems EngineeringNiteróiBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Geoenvironmental AnalysisUniversidade Federal FluminenseNiteróiBrazil
  4. 4.EMBRAPA-SolosRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations