Ph.D. Candidate in Geosciences  Specialization in Hydrology 438 Deike Building University Park, PA 16802 Email me at: jaring@geosc.psu.edu
	Department of Geosciences Penn State University

ARE WE DRUGGING OUR DRINKING WATER? Heidi Smidansky (sitting) and Jennifer Nemitz (me) installing lysimeters to capture soil water at the Living Filter.

The Detection, Occurrence, Transport, and Fate of Pharmaceuticals in an Artificial Recharge System at Pennsylvania State University      With the advent of new technologies, the occurrence, fate, and transport of PPCP's (pharmaceuticals and personal care products) in the environment has burst into the scientific spotlight and the consciousness of the general public. PPCP's can include over the counter medication such as ibuprofen and acetaminophen, prescription drugs such as birth control hormones, anti-cholesterol drugs, and antidepressents, and other personal products such a insect repellants, caffeine, bacterial hand soaps, and nicotine.  Discover Magazine listed the growing awareness of PPCP's in drinking water as its 8th out of 100 top science stories of 2002 based largely on a sweeping study of US streams by the United States Geological Survey (Discover, 2002).  We are currently looking at how PPCP's move through the various environmental systems at Penn State's Living Filter Research Site.  The Living Filter receives secondary sewage effluent which is treated through overland flow, wetland systems, and infiltration/percolation through a very thick soil column.  The water sprayed at the Living Filter eventually makes its way into the groundwater where it is reused as drinking water.  Our goals include:  determine which PPCP's occur in the Living Filter site, determine how these PPCP's move through the complete system, and how we can improve the Living Filter to increase removal efficiency.      So, what kinds of PPCPs are we finding and what aren't we finding?  We have found caffeine, triclosan, cholesterol, phthalates, DEET, atrazine, and palmitic compounds.  With the exception of one well, we haven't found any estrogen compounds or other human hormones.

Nitrate Removal Efficiencies: Overland Flow Versus Wetland Systems Receiving Secondary Sewage Effluent at Penn State's Living Filter Project

     Penn State University began routine treatment of up to 4 mgd of its sewage effluent by spray irrigation (1983-present) following 12 years of research (1962-74). Effluent is applied at a 2-inch per week rate on a year round basis at two sites containing thick (>10 to 150 feet) residual soil overlying carbonate bedrock. Both forests and cropland receive effluent. Nitrate levels slowly increased in some groundwater monitoring wells, eventually exceeding the 10 mg/L compliance limit. Possible contributing source areas of elevated nitrate included two areas of runoff and rapid winter infiltration. To determine if the nitrate removal rates were inadequate, nitrogen was monitored in applied effluent and at runoff sites were flows ranged from less than 100 to 300 gpm above the two areas of rapid infiltration. 
     Renovation processes were expected during overland flow, interflow, and deep percolation in one basin together with possible wetland treatment in a second basin during winter. Nitrate in runoff varied from less than 1.0 to 3.0 mg/L for the basin that contained four small natural wetlands and from 3.0 to 8.0 mg/L for the overland flow and interflow dominated basin. Nitrate ranged from 8.5 to 13.0 mg/L for the applied effluent and 20 to 30 mg/L prior to modification in the sewage treatment plant before the start of this study. Results of the this investigation suggest that nitrogen removal processes are inadequate within interflow and overland flow sites during winter months under Pennsylvania's climate, whereas even small wetlands appear to provide beneficial results.

This page last updated 03/10/2008