water quality assessment of the brandywine creek
Post on 30-Dec-2015
31 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Marilyn Murphy, David Plavcan, William Shepard, Donna Suevo, Jeff Thomas, Karen Trozzo, Timothy Woods and David Yezuita
West Chester UniversityJuly 2002
Marilyn Murphy, David Plavcan, William Shepard, Donna Suevo, Jeff Thomas, Karen Trozzo, Timothy Woods and David Yezuita
West Chester UniversityJuly 2002
Water Quality Assessment of the Brandywine Creek
Water Quality Assessment of the Brandywine Creek
IntroductionIntroduction
• Water quality assessment of the Brandywine Creek drainage basin.
• More emphasis on the East Branch.
• Samples collected at various points including tributaries and downstream of point sources.
• Impact of nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) and coliforms evaluated.
• Recommendations and conclusions.
• Water quality assessment of the Brandywine Creek drainage basin.
• More emphasis on the East Branch.
• Samples collected at various points including tributaries and downstream of point sources.
• Impact of nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) and coliforms evaluated.
• Recommendations and conclusions.
Purpose of StudyPurpose of Study
• Assess water quality in the Brandywine Creek drainage basin.
• Determine impacts from point and non-point sources of pollution.
• Provide recommendations to minimize impacts.
• Assess water quality in the Brandywine Creek drainage basin.
• Determine impacts from point and non-point sources of pollution.
• Provide recommendations to minimize impacts.
Brandywine Creek Drainage Basin Study Area
Brandywine Creek Drainage Basin Study Area
• Agricultural use created problems with bacteria, nutrients and sedimentation.
• Industrial use created issues with synthetic/volatile organic chemicals and metals.
• Clean Water Act of 1972 enabled communities to improve water quality.
• Agricultural use created problems with bacteria, nutrients and sedimentation.
• Industrial use created issues with synthetic/volatile organic chemicals and metals.
• Clean Water Act of 1972 enabled communities to improve water quality.
History of Water Quality in Brandywine Creek
History of Water Quality in Brandywine Creek
• Increased residential and commercial growth.
• Increased residential and commercial growth.
Current Water Quality Issues of the Brandywine Creek
Current Water Quality Issues of the Brandywine Creek
• Increased storm water runoff, loss of pervious ground cover.
• Increased demand for clean water.
• Increased storm water runoff, loss of pervious ground cover.
• Increased demand for clean water.
• Watershed issues encompass many political borders.
• Cooperation and coordination is a challenge.
• Watershed issues encompass many political borders.
• Cooperation and coordination is a challenge.
Current Water Quality Issues of the Brandywine Creek
Current Water Quality Issues of the Brandywine Creek
• Two types of discharge: Point Source
• easily identifiable• indicated by pipes, drainage ditches, channels,
tunnels, etc.
Non-Point Source• less obvious than point sources• surface run-off most common but also includes
groundwater infiltration, erosion, and atmospheric deposition
• Two types of discharge: Point Source
• easily identifiable• indicated by pipes, drainage ditches, channels,
tunnels, etc.
Non-Point Source• less obvious than point sources• surface run-off most common but also includes
groundwater infiltration, erosion, and atmospheric deposition
Sources of DischargeSources of Discharge
• Downingtown Area Regional Wastewater Treatment Authority (DARWTA)
• Taylor Run Sewage Treatment Plant (TRSTP)
• Generic example:
• Downingtown Area Regional Wastewater Treatment Authority (DARWTA)
• Taylor Run Sewage Treatment Plant (TRSTP)
• Generic example:
Point Sources to the East Branch
Point Sources to the East Branch
Photo obtained from Freefoto.com, accessed 7/13/02.
• Run-off from agricultural fields, construction and industrial sites, public parks, and golf course.
• Groundwater infiltration from faulty septic systems.• Erosion from mineral deposits (naturally occurring).• Others…
• Run-off from agricultural fields, construction and industrial sites, public parks, and golf course.
• Groundwater infiltration from faulty septic systems.• Erosion from mineral deposits (naturally occurring).• Others…
Potential Non-Point Sources to the East Branch
Potential Non-Point Sources to the East Branch
Example of potential non-point source pollutionfrom farm in rural Chester County.
Water Quality ConcernsWater Quality Concerns
• Drinking water Disinfection by products Pathogens (e.g., Giardia and Cryptosporidium) Terrorism
• Stream water Nutrients Industrial discharges Organic matter/DO level
• Drinking water Disinfection by products Pathogens (e.g., Giardia and Cryptosporidium) Terrorism
• Stream water Nutrients Industrial discharges Organic matter/DO level
• Field observations included: types of vegetation substrate land use
• Grab samples obtained using Horizontal Water Sampler.
• Samples analyzed for nitrates, phosphates and total coliforms.
• Field observations included: types of vegetation substrate land use
• Grab samples obtained using Horizontal Water Sampler.
• Samples analyzed for nitrates, phosphates and total coliforms.
Methods & MaterialsSample Collection
Methods & MaterialsSample Collection
• Field measurements included: DO pH levels conductivity
• DO meters measure the oxygen content in the water.
• Low DO concentrations negatively affects aquatic life.
• Field measurements included: DO pH levels conductivity
• DO meters measure the oxygen content in the water.
• Low DO concentrations negatively affects aquatic life.
Methods & MaterialsDissolved Oxygen Concentrations
Methods & MaterialsDissolved Oxygen Concentrations
• pH meters Availability of hydrogen ions Acceptable pH levels range
from 5-9 with adverse biological effects occurring outside of this range
• pH meters Availability of hydrogen ions Acceptable pH levels range
from 5-9 with adverse biological effects occurring outside of this range
Methods & MaterialsConductivity & pH Levels
Methods & MaterialsConductivity & pH Levels
• Conductivity meters• Salt/ion concentration• Indicator of total dissolved solids (TDS)
• Conductivity meters• Salt/ion concentration• Indicator of total dissolved solids (TDS)
• Nitrate and phosphate concentrations were determined by the standard curves resulting from serial dilutions of known concentrations.
• Nitrate and phosphate concentrations were determined by the standard curves resulting from serial dilutions of known concentrations.
Methods & MaterialsNitrate & Phosphate AnalysisMethods & MaterialsNitrate & Phosphate Analysis
• Laboratory analysis included estimating concentration of nitrates, phosphates and total coliforms.
• Laboratory analysis included estimating concentration of nitrates, phosphates and total coliforms.
• Analysis of the standards produced a linear equation: (y = mx + b).
• Analysis of the water samples produced absorbance values that were converted to nitrate or phosphate concentrations by linear equation.
• Analysis of the standards produced a linear equation: (y = mx + b).
• Analysis of the water samples produced absorbance values that were converted to nitrate or phosphate concentrations by linear equation.
Methods & MaterialsNitrate & Phosphate AnalysisMethods & MaterialsNitrate & Phosphate Analysis
• Ultraviolet spectrometers were used to measure absorbance values, which reflect concentration levels in a sample.
• Ultraviolet spectrometers were used to measure absorbance values, which reflect concentration levels in a sample.
• Analysis of total coliforms used a membrane filtration technique.
• Water samples were passed through 45-micron filters to collect possible bacteria.
• Filters were placed in sterile petri dishes and incubated for 24 hours at 35°C at which time bacterial colonies were counted.
• Analysis of total coliforms used a membrane filtration technique.
• Water samples were passed through 45-micron filters to collect possible bacteria.
• Filters were placed in sterile petri dishes and incubated for 24 hours at 35°C at which time bacterial colonies were counted.
Methods & MaterialsTotal Coliform Analysis
Methods & MaterialsTotal Coliform Analysis
Dissolved Oxygen ResultsDissolved Oxygen Results
0
5
10
15
Sampling Location
Dis
solv
ed O
xyge
n (m
g/L)
*
* Current water quality standard concentration
Dissolved Oxygen Resultsby Sampling Location
Dissolved Oxygen Resultsby Sampling Location
Dissolved Oxygen
12.9 – 11.0 mg/L 10.9 – 9.0 mg/L 8.9 – 7.0 mg/L 6.9 – 5.0 mg/L
Specific Conductance ResultsSpecific Conductance Results
0100200300400500600700800
Sampling Location
Spec
ific
Con
duct
ivity
(m
icro
S/cm
)
Specific Conductance Resultsby Sampling Location
Specific Conductance Resultsby Sampling Location
600 - <700 599 - 500 499 - 400 399 - 300 299 – >200
Conductivity (microSeimens/cm)
pH ResultspH Results
0123456789
1011121314
Sampling Location
pH
Acceptable range of pH: 5-9
pH Results by Sampling LocationpH Results by Sampling Location
9.4 –9.0 8.9 – 8.5 8.4 – 8.0 7.9 – 7.5 7.4 – 7.0
pH
Nitrate (NO3-2-N) ResultsNitrate (NO3-2-N) Results
* Downstream of WWTP effluent
0123456789
101112
Sampling Location
mg/
L [
NO
3-2-N
]
*
*
*
*
Water quality criteria value (10 mg/L)
Nitrate (NO3-2-N) Results
by Sampling LocationNitrate (NO3
-2-N) Resultsby Sampling Location
8.4 – 7.0 mg/L 6.9 – 5.5 mg/L 5.4 – 4.0 mg/L 3.9 – 2.5 mg/L 2.4 – 1.0 mg/L
Nitrate-NConcentrations
Nitrate Historical TrendsNitrate Historical Trends
0
1
2
3
4
5
mg/
L [N
O3-2
-N]
July 2002 Result
Historical Median
Nitrate DiscussionNitrate Discussion• Downstream of point sources (WWTPs) typically
have greater levels of NO3-2-N.
• No samples exceed water quality criteria value (10 mg/L).
• Current sample results fairly similar to historical median concentrations.
• WWTPs are main entry point for nitrate in the drainage basin.
• Decreased as distance from source increased.
• Downstream of point sources (WWTPs) typically have greater levels of NO3
-2-N.
• No samples exceed water quality criteria value (10 mg/L).
• Current sample results fairly similar to historical median concentrations.
• WWTPs are main entry point for nitrate in the drainage basin.
• Decreased as distance from source increased.
Phosphate (PO4-3-P) ResultsPhosphate (PO4-3-P) Results
0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.180.20
Station 1Station 2Station 3Station 4Station 5Station 6Station 7Station 8Station 9Station 10Station 11Station 12Station 13Station 14Station 15Station 16Station 17Station 18Station 19
Sampling Location
mg/
L [
PO
4-3-P
]
0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.160.180.20
Station 1Station 2Station 3Station 4Station 5Station 6Station 7Station 8Station 9Station 10Station 11Station 12Station 13Station 14Station 15Station 16Station 17Station 18Station 19
Sampling Location
mg/
L [
PO
4-3-P
]
*
**
*
*
* Downstream of WWTP effluent
EPA recommended value (0.1 mg/L)
Phosphate (PO4-3-P) Results
by Sampling LocationPhosphate (PO4
-3-P) Resultsby Sampling Location
Phosphate-PConcentrations 0.149 – 0.12 mg/L 0.119 – 0.09 mg/L 0.089 – 0.06 mg/L 0.059 – 0.03 mg/L 0.029 – 0.00 mg/L -0.009 – 0.03 mg/L
Phosphate Historical TrendsPhosphate Historical Trends
0.000.020.040.060.080.100.120.140.16
mg/
L [P
O4-
3-P]
July 2002 Result
Historical Median
ND ND
ND = not detected
EPA recommended value (0.1 mg/L)
Phosphate DiscussionPhosphate Discussion• Downstream of point sources (WWTPs) have
detected levels of PO4-3-P.
• One sample result exceeds EPA’s recommended phosphate value (0.1 mg/L).
• Sample results slightly less than historical median concentrations.
• WWTPs are main entry point for phosphate in the drainage basin.
• Monitoring of effluent and more effective treatment methods needed.
• Downstream of point sources (WWTPs) have detected levels of PO4
-3-P.
• One sample result exceeds EPA’s recommended phosphate value (0.1 mg/L).
• Sample results slightly less than historical median concentrations.
• WWTPs are main entry point for phosphate in the drainage basin.
• Monitoring of effluent and more effective treatment methods needed.
Total Coliform Results (colonies/100 ml)
Total Coliform Results (colonies/100 ml)
Total Coliform Colonies per 100 ml
1300
1200
1900
800
500Upstream of Downingtown
Downstream of Downingtown
Upstream of Taylor Run
Downstream of Taylor Run
Delaware AREC Pond
• Unhealthy bacteria levels prior to 1972 CWA.
• Bacteria concentrations decreased from
1973 – 1999 due to improved treatment and decreased point source discharges.
• Fecal coliform bacteria limits (PADEP): 200 colonies/100 mL from May-September 2000 colonies/100 mL for rest of year
• Chlorination of water prior to discharge eliminates much of the coliforms.
• Unhealthy bacteria levels prior to 1972 CWA.
• Bacteria concentrations decreased from
1973 – 1999 due to improved treatment and decreased point source discharges.
• Fecal coliform bacteria limits (PADEP): 200 colonies/100 mL from May-September 2000 colonies/100 mL for rest of year
• Chlorination of water prior to discharge eliminates much of the coliforms.
Total Coliform DiscussionTotal Coliform Discussion
ConclusionsConclusions
• Nitrate concentrations increased with addition of points sources but remained within the acceptable range.
• Coliforms effectively removed during treatment process.
• Phosphate concentrations increased with addition of points sources.
• pH and DO values were within acceptable ranges.
• Nitrate concentrations increased with addition of points sources but remained within the acceptable range.
• Coliforms effectively removed during treatment process.
• Phosphate concentrations increased with addition of points sources.
• pH and DO values were within acceptable ranges.
RecommendationsRecommendations• Measures to reduce pollution:
Riparian corridors Stream bank fencing Proper fertilizer application Farming practices
• Phosphate removal More effective or better applied treatment of
phosphate Addition of aluminum sulfate Monitoring
• Measures to reduce pollution: Riparian corridors Stream bank fencing Proper fertilizer application Farming practices
• Phosphate removal More effective or better applied treatment of
phosphate Addition of aluminum sulfate Monitoring
AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements
• Gary Kreamer (Delaware Aquatic Resource Education Center)
• Francis Menton (City of Wilmington Water Department)
• Gary Kreamer (Delaware Aquatic Resource Education Center)
• Francis Menton (City of Wilmington Water Department)
top related