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)