Stormwater treatment for reuse: Current practice and future development - A review

Stormwater harvesting is an effective measure to mitigate flooding risk and pollutant migration in our urban environment with the continuously increasing impermeable faction. Treatment of harvested stormwater also provides the fit-for-purpose water sources as an alternative to potable water supply ensuring the reliability and sustainability of the water management in the living complex. In order to provide the water management decision-maker with a broad range of related technology database and to facilitate the implementation of stormwater harvesting in the future, a comprehensive review was undertaken to understand the corresponding treatment performance, the applicable circumstances of current stormwater treatment and harvesting technologies. Technologies with promising potential for stormwater treatment were also reviewed to investigate the feasibility of being used in an integrated process. The raw stormwater quality and the required quality for different levels of stormwater reuses (irrigation, recreational, and potable) were reviewed and compared. The required level of treatment is defined for different 'fit-for-purpose' uses of harvested stormwater. Stormwater biofilter and constructed wetland as the two most advanced and widely used stormwater harvesting and treatment technologies, their main functionality, treatment performance and adequate scale of the application were reviewed based on published peer-reviewed articles and case studies. Excessive microbial effluent that exists in stormwater treated using these two technologies has restricted the stormwater reuse in most cases. Water disinfection technologies developed for wastewater and surface water treatment but with high potential to be used for stormwater treatment have been reviewed. Their feasibility and limitation for stormwater treatment are presented with respect to different levels of fit-for-purpose reuses. Implications for future implementation of stormwater treatment are made on proposing treatment trains that are suitable for different fit-for-purpose stormwater reuses.

A review on the potential sources and health implications of fluoride in groundwater of Sub-Saharan Africa

Groundwater is a major source of drinking water for millions of people around the world. Over 400 million people in Africa depend solely on it as their main source of water supply. Fluoride is a common contaminant in groundwater. In low concentration (0.5-1.0 mg/L), fluoride is needed by humans for healthy development of bones and teeth, however, a concentration >1.5 mg/L has been linked with several fluorosis and non-fluorosis diseases. Dental and skeletal fluorosis are the major fluorosis diseases commonly reported with the consumption of fluoride-rich water. Although fluoride intake through other pathways such as the drinking of tea and eating of vegetables have been reported, the drinking of fluoride-rich water remains the major pathway of fluoride into humans. Cases of high fluoride levels in groundwater have been reported in almost all the sub-Saharan Africa region but it is more prevalent in East African countries, Sudan and South Africa. Although fluoride is present in surface water mostly in the East African Rift Valley across different countries in East Africa, its significant or high levels are usually associated with groundwater. Geogenic sources such as fluorite, apatite, biotite, amphibole, micas, topaz, cryolite, muscovite and fluorspar have been identified as the major sources of fluoride in groundwater. High fluoride levels have been reported across sub Saharan Africa, with generally higher levels in East Africa resulting from the volcanic activities in the rift system. Dental fluorosis has been reported in many sub-Saharan African countries including South Africa, Tanzania, Uganda, Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, Niger, Nigeria, Benin, Ghana and Malawi. Geothermal temperature has been regarded as one of the driving forces for high fluoride levels recorded in groundwater from deep aquifers and geothermal springs. The most affected people with the consumption of fluoride-rich water are the poor with low socioeconomic status who live in rural areas. Some of the proposed alternative sources include rainwater and fog water harvesting and blending of water from various sources. Low-cost and sustainable deflouridation technique remains one of the best ways to treat fluoride contaminated water either at communal level or at the point-of-use.

Pesticide occurrence and spatio-temporal variability in urban run-off across Australia

Stormwater is a major driving factor of aquatic ecosystem degradation as well as one of the largest untapped urban freshwater resources. We present results from a long-term, multi-catchment study of urban stormwater pesticides across Australia that addresses this dichotomous identity (threat and resource), as well as dominant spatial and temporal patterns in stormwater pesticide composition. Of the 27 pesticides monitored, only 19 were detected in Australian stormwater, five of which (diuron, MCPA, 2,4-D, simazine, and triclopyr) were found in >50% of samples. Overall, stormwater pesticide concentrations were lower than reported in other countries (including the United States, Canada and Europe), and exceedances of public health and aquatic ecosystem standards were rare (<10% of samples). Spatio-temporal patterns were investigated with principal component analysis. Although stormwater pesticide composition was relatively stable across seasons and years, it varied significantly by catchment. Common pesticide associations appear to reflect 1) user application of common registered formulations containing characteristic suites of active ingredients, and 2) pesticide fate properties (e.g., environmental mobility and persistence). Importantly, catchment-specific occurrence patterns provide opportunities for focusing treatment approaches or stormwater harvesting strategies.

Toxicity characterization of urban stormwater with bioanalytical tools

Stormwater harvesting has become an attractive alternative strategy to address the rising demand for urban water supply due to limited water sources and population growth. Nevertheless, urban stormwater is also a major source of surface water pollution. Runoff from different urban catchments with source contributions from anthropogenic activities and various land uses causes variable contaminant profiles, thus posing a challenging task for environmental monitoring and risk assessment. A thorough understanding of raw stormwater quality is essential to develop appropriate treatment facilities for potential indirect potable reuse of stormwater. While some of the key chemical components have previously been characterized, only scarce data are available on stormwater toxicity. We benchmarked stormwater samples from urban, residential and industrial sites across various Australian capital cities against samples from the entire water cycle, from sewage to drinking water. Six biological endpoints, targeting groups of chemicals with modes of toxic action of particular relevance for human and environmental health, were investigated: non-specific toxicity (Microtox and combined algae test), the specific modes of action of phytotoxicity (combined algae test), dioxin-like activity (AhR-CAFLUX), and estrogenicity (E-SCREEN), as well as reactive toxicity encompassing genotoxicity (umuC) and oxidative stress (AREc32). Non-specific toxicity was highly variable across sites. The baseline toxicity equivalent concentrations of the most polluted samples were similar to secondary treated effluent from wastewater treatment plants. Phytotoxicity results correlated well with the measured herbicide concentrations at all sites. High estrogenicity was found in two sampling events and could be related to sewage overflow. Genotoxicity, dioxin-like activity, and oxidative stress response were evident in only three of the samples where the stormwater drain was beside a heavy traffic road, confirming that road runoff is the potential source of contaminants, while the bioanalytical equivalent concentrations (BEQ) of these samples were similar to those of raw sewage. This study demonstrates the benefit of bioanalytical tools for screening-level stormwater quality assessment, forming the basis for the evaluation of future stormwater treatment and reuse schemes.