Next Article in Journal
Comparison of Community and Function of Dissimilatory Nitrate Reduction to Ammonium (DNRA) Bacteria in Chinese Shallow Lakes with Different Eutrophication Degrees
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring Proper Spacing Threshold of Non-Submerged Spur Dikes with Ipsilateral Layout
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of E. coli Attenuation during Infiltration of Treated Wastewater: A Pathway to Future Managed Aquifer Recharge

1
CSIRO Land and Water, Private Bag 5, Wembley, Perth, WA 6913, Australia
2
Water Corporation, Locked Mail Bag 2, Osborne Park Delivery Centre, Osborne Park, Perth, WA 6916, Australia
3
CSIRO Land and Water, Locked Bag 2, Glen Osmond, Adelaide, SA 5064, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2020, 12(1), 173; https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010173
Submission received: 24 June 2019 / Revised: 7 November 2019 / Accepted: 20 December 2019 / Published: 7 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Water Resources Management, Policy and Governance)

Abstract

:
Treated wastewater (TWW) infiltration into non-potable aquifers has been used for decades in Western Australia for disposal and reuse. These wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are mostly pond systems, infiltrating secondary TWW with some activated sludge. There is no disinfection of TWW pre-infiltration. This study gave an opportunity to study the fate of Escherichia coli (E. coli) in aquifers, using compliance monitoring data (2006–2016) and is relevant if water reuse is to be implemented at these sites in the future. Microbiological water quality data (E. coli) were evaluated using an advanced statistical method able to incorporate the highly censored data at full scale operational infiltration sites. Subsurface E. coli removal from TWW was observed at all 17 infiltration sites investigated. Most sites (14) had less than six detections of E. coli in groundwater (58–100% non-detects; 7–117 samples/bore), thus the statistical method could not be applied. The observations could be used to infer between 1 to >3 log10 removal for E. coli. The remaining three sites had sufficient detections for probabilistic modelling analysis, the median removal efficiency for E. coli was quantified as 96% to greater than 99%, confirming at least 1 log10 removal with potential for several log10 removal. Reductions could not be explained through dilution with the native groundwater alone as there was a high proportion of TWW in observation bores. The observed reductions are likely the result of bacteria retention and inactivation in the aquifer. The magnitude of microbiological water quality improvement highlights the sustainable and reliable use of the aquifer to improve water quality to levels appropriate for low- and medium-risk non-potable uses without using engineered disinfection methods.

1. Introduction

Infiltration ponds have been in use for decades in Western Australia for treated wastewater (TWW) disposal. This study was undertaken to determine whether current waste disposal operations can transition to Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) through evidence that the quality of water recovered is fit for its intended uses and the contaminant attenuation processes are sustainable. This paper focuses only on E. coli data collected as part of compliance monitoring with most sites having ten or more years data on groundwater quality, suggesting that impacted groundwater can be assessed for its ability to meet water quality requirements. The wastewater treatment plant associated with the infiltration ponds is usually a multi-pond treatment system producing secondary treated wastewater, though there are also a small number of activated sludge treatment plants. Both treatment systems exclude disinfection pre-infiltration.
While there is a wide spectrum of organic and inorganic contaminants in the TWW, pathogenic microorganisms such as bacteria and viruses pose the greatest risk to human health [1]. Escherichia coli (E. coli) and enterococcus are the two main microbial indicators that have been used to assess the microbiological quality of TWW in these infiltration systems.
Historically, microbial water quality parameters have been collected at these schemes for many years and, in many instances, decades of water quality data are available. Yet, despite the ongoing operation and analysis of infiltration scheme performance, much of the data has not undergone rigorous analysis to evaluate the treatment efficiency and long-term sustainability of non-potable aquifers to treat wastewater to meet environmental or water reuse objectives in the future. This is largely due to the highly censored nature of the data (i.e., less than detectable limit of quantification), making it difficult to analyse using conventional summary statistics. Currently, the benefit of pathogen removal in aquifers is not adequately appreciated, due to a limited understanding of the removal of pathogens in aquifers and the inability to readily validate removal.
However, the mechanisms that influence microbial transport and removal in aquifers have been reported in the literature. The mechanisms include filtration through the pond schmutzdecke, attachment to and detachment from the sediments, straining, and inactivation in the aqueous and solid phases [2]. Changes in the flow rate, temperature, aqueous (pH, ionic strength and major ion composition, redox state) and solid phase chemistry are amongst many factors known to influence the removal and transport of microorganisms in groundwater [3]. Several field studies have reported the potential removal of pathogens [4,5,6] during Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR). High pathogen removals (>3 log10) have been reported for MAR systems using TWW [7,8,9,10], with microbiological indicators rarely detected in groundwater beneath the infiltration basins. However, many of these studies have not properly accounted for the censored data sets. Similarly, reviews of contaminant removal during MAR (including pathogens and faecal indicators such as E. coli) have been previously reported [11,12,13,14,15,16]. In most of these studies, E. coli removals are predominantly reported as occurring during filtration through the soil media—though die-off continues in the groundwater.
The fate and removal of bacteria and the factors influencing their presence in groundwater are important issues to be considered when infiltrating TWW. The main objective of this study was to assess the long-term efficacy of infiltration at the field scale for removing E. coli, and to demonstrate that MAR would offer considerable protection for public health and groundwater quality.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Scheme Descriptions

A total of 17 full-scale infiltration schemes were considered for analysis (Figure 1) and are summarised in Table 1. Wastewater was treated by ponds in 14 WWTPs, with annual average wastewater discharge between 4 × 103 m3/year and 770 × 103 m3/year. Activated sludge was used at four WWTPs in the Perth–Peel metropolitan region, typically with higher annual average wastewater discharge, between 560 × 103 m3/year and 3500 × 103 m3/year. The infiltration basins were managed differently across the 17 study sites. Where multiple infiltrations basins were in operation (66% of sites), rotation occurred at the operator’s discretion based on the infiltration rates achieved. Basins tend to remain active for long intervals (months) due to the high infiltration capacity of the sandy soils. Observation bore placement in relation to WWTPs varied considerably, from adjacent to the infiltration area (6 m) to over 200 m away. Data used for the analysis were limited to TWW and groundwater samples, collected as part of compliance monitoring for the 17 WWTPs studied and supplied ‘as is’ from Water Corporation.
Only three sites—Geraldton North, Geraldton No. 2 and Augusta—had sufficient uncensored data to proceed with the probabilistic approach described below (Table 2). The remainder of the sites had insufficient groundwater samples above the detection limit for E. coli (<10 n/100 mL) to perform the statistical analysis.
The Geraldton North and Geraldton No. 2 WWTPs are both licenced and are located on calcareous sand overlying Tamala Limestone. The Geraldton North WWTP consists of two trains of primary and secondary ponds, followed by four infiltration basins (Figure 2). The second (western) train of treatment ponds and associated infiltration ponds were commissioned in 2008 [17]. The environmental receptor in close proximity to the site is the Indian Ocean (W). Groundwater flows to the coast in a WSW direction.
The Geraldton No. 2 WWTP consists of primary and secondary ponds followed by infiltration basins (Figure 3). Due to issues with clogging of the infiltration ponds, a high-rate irrigation disposal area was established in 2000 in the north of the site. The TWW was irrigated using overhead sprinklers on bare soil (see hatched area in Figure 3) and vegetation was managed—with no trees or crops grown. The environmental receptor in closest proximity to the site is the Indian Ocean. Groundwater flows to the coast in a WSW direction [17].
Augusta WWTP is licenced and consists of clay-lined primary, secondary and tertiary ponds [10] and a series of five small, ill-defined infiltration basins (Figure 4), located on ferruginous duricrust (laterite) potentially overlain by residual bleached quartz sand [18,19]. The environmental receptor in closest proximity to the site is the small stream, Redman Brook (SW, Figure 4). The headwaters of Redman Brook are 450 m from the infiltration basins, though there is likely to be connection in winter to the Dampland to the west of the site. Groundwater flows are likely to follow topography in a SW direction.

2.2. Sampling and Analysis

Water quality was determined from grab samples collected at each infiltration site and recovered water from nearby monitoring bores—as required by the environmental licence conditions for each of the sites by Water Corporation system operators. Typical water quality parameters common to both TWW and groundwater include pH, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids, E. coli, total nitrogen, ammonium-N, nitrate-N and total phosphorus. Licence conditions for all sites stipulate the sampling frequency for TWW and groundwater quality as being typically either quarterly, six monthly or annually. However, higher frequency data was available for TWW. This study focuses on E. coli and the data used in this study were collected between 2006 and 2016, though this varied slightly between sites and between TWW and groundwater samples. According to the site licence conditions, Geraldton North TWW and groundwater were sampled quarterly (2008–2015), Geraldton No. 2 TWW quarterly and groundwater 6 monthly (2008–2015), and Augusta TWW and groundwater quarterly (2006–2015). However, additional ad hoc samples (e.g., monthly TWW data supplied for Augusta) were also included in the analysis (see Table 3 for sample numbers). Where background groundwater data was available the dilution of TWW in native groundwater was assessed using EC values.
Water samples were maintained below 4 °C and delivered to the laboratory within 24 h according to procedures and storage times recommended in the Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater [20]. The presence of E. coli was determined using the most probable number procedure [21]. Electrical conductivity was monitored in the observation bores to provide an indication of the degree of mixing between the TWW and the native groundwater. EC was determine using the standard electrode method (platinum electrode) as per Standard Methods (2510 B) [20].

2.3. Probabilistic Approach to Characterise Infiltration Pond Removal of E. coli

Assessment of infiltration pond treatment performance can be challenging, as E. coli concentrations are variable over time, and each infiltration system also varies as a function of several factors including hydraulic residence time, injectant water quality and temperature. Therefore, E. coli concentrations are represented as stochastic variables and described by probability density functions (PDFs). This approach has been previously used to determine the treatment performance in advanced water treatment plants (e.g., [22]) and was used to determine an input ‘infiltrated’ PDF and an output ‘monitored’ PDF. These infiltrated and monitored PDFs can then be used to derive theoretical infiltration treatment efficiency PDFs for each specific infiltration scheme.
Microbiological water quality data is commonly well-described by lognormal distributions [23]. Accordingly, the variability of E. coli numbers has been characterised by fitting observed data to lognormal PDFs. Removal efficiency (RE) can be obtained by the following:
RE(x) = 1 − MON(x)/INF(x)
where RE(x) is the calculated value of the removal efficiency PDF at percentile x, and the INF(x) and MON(x) are values of the PDFs for the hazard at percentile, x, for the infiltrated TWW and monitored groundwater, respectively.
An advantage of this method is that such plots can be prepared even with the censored data included, where some of the data is below the detectable limit of quantification since the PDF can be plotted from the detectable results accounting for the percentage of non-detectable results of analyses. In all cases in the current study, the data was highly left censored and so not amenable to conventional summary statistical analysis.

2.4. Assessment of Other Sites with High Number of Censored Data

Due to the high number of censored data (79–100% of data less than the limit of detection, LOD) the remaining 15 sites could not be analysed using the probabilistic approach outlined above. For these 15 sites, summary statistics of E. coli numbers in the TWW were calculated using SigmaPlot 14.0© [24]. The median E. coli number was assumed as indicative of the typical TWW concentration. Utilising the entire TWW-impacted groundwater data set (censored and uncensored data) the median (50th percentile) falls within the censored data, i.e., <LOD despite not being able to use the approach in Section 2.3 to estimate the median value. As such, for the purposes of providing an estimate of E. coli removals for these sites, the median E. coli number in TWW-impacted groundwater was assumed to be zero. Indicative log10 E. coli removals were calculated by the following:
E. coli removal (log10) = median E. coli TWW − median E. coli GW
where E. coli TWW is the median in TWW, and E. coli GW is the median in groundwater (assumed to be zero).

3. Results

3.1. Overview of E. coli Numbers TWW and Groundwater

Figure 5 illustrates the variability in E. coli numbers in the TWW in relation to the minimum and maximum detection limits of 10 n/100 mL and 24,000 n/100 mL. Notably, each of the three sites with sufficient uncensored groundwater data to proceed with the probabilistic approach represent the minimum (110 n/100 mL), median (18,000 n/100 mL) and maximum (>24,000 n/100 mL) of median E. coli numbers in TWW across all sites.
Median E. coli numbers in TWW for the remaining wastewater infiltration schemes varied between 160 n/100 mL (Bremer Bay) and >24,000 n/100 mL (Esperance). Across all of these sites, there was a maximum of six detections (>10 n/100 mL) of E. coli in groundwater observation bores, with censored values representing 79% to 100% of the total E. coli measurements (n = 7 to 117) across the sites (see Table S1). Where E. coli was detected in the groundwater, the detections were likely from a combination of observation bore contamination due to improper sealing, sampling errors or laboratory errors. However, due to the large number of sites investigated, and the limited information on land use and site histories, it is not possible to be definitive as to the source of E. coli detections in groundwater. Thus, for the majority of sites, there was insufficient data to proceed with the probabilistic approach. For these schemes, the observation bores were between 14 m (Kwinana) and 145 m (Onslow) from the infiltration basins (Table 1). The low E. coli values suggest an aquifer treatment capacity of between 1 and 3 log10 for E. coli for the sites is not able to be assessed using the probabilistic approach.

3.2. E. coli and EC at Three Infiltration Sites Analysed with Probabilistic Approach

The results of monitoring E. coli and electrical conductivity (EC) measurements for TWW and groundwater at Geraldton North, Geraldton No. 2 and Augusta are given in Table 3. The summary statistics presented in Table 1 are typically from the same lognormal fitted curves, used to subsequently determine the removal efficiency for each parameter. The exceptions are the E. coli numbers in groundwater bore 6/94, 4/94 (Geraldton No. 2) and bore 6 (Augusta), where data could not be fitted due to there being too few detections; here, summary statistics of measured data are reported.
In fitting the data, a number of potential distributions were evaluated which included normal and lognormal distributions. The data did not allow good discrimination between the potential distributions, and so lognormal was eventually selected based on the best fits and previous results [25].
The calculated median E. coli numbers in observation bores varied between 1 and 8 n/100 mL, all below the analytical limit of detection (10 n/100 mL). The median groundwater E. coli was similar at these three sites, despite four orders of magnitude variation in the median TWW numbers.

3.3. EC as an Indicator of Mixing at Infiltration Sites

Lognormal probability plots for the TWW and observation and background bores for EC for each of the infiltration sites are presented in Figure 6. Electrical conductivity (EC) is commonly monitored in the observation bores, and provides an indication of the degree of mixing between the TWW and the native groundwater. For the Geraldton WWTPs, the TWW is fresher than the native groundwater, so any observed increase in salinity will indicate potential dilution of TWW-impacted groundwater with native groundwater. For Geraldton North, TWW represents 51% of groundwater at 2/97, while for Geraldton No.2, TWW represents 87% and 85% of groundwater at 6/94 and 10/94, respectively. This indicates that a higher proportion of TWW is represented in these bores and that dilution does not play a large role in decreasing E. coli at these sites. No suitable background bore was located for the Augusta site, therefore the proportion of mixing with ambient groundwater could not be assessed. Notably, the background bore salinity in proximity of the Geraldton WWTPs is variable, indicating the vulnerability of groundwater in the unconfined aquifers to various influences on water quality.
For the remaining 14 sites, the calculation of mixing fractions was not possible at 8 sites due to the lack of background monitoring locations, either without a bore or the infiltration basins being situated on a groundwater divide. Of the remaining sites, TWW represented 4% to 100% of groundwater in the observation bores. However, the locations of both background and observation bores were generally not situated on ideal flow paths, thus the variability may be higher than expected for ideal bore placement. Between and within site variation in TWW disposal rates also impacts the assessment of the mixing fraction. These issues are inherent in the compliance monitoring data set used and are too varied to discuss in detail herein.

3.4. E. coli Removal Across Three Infiltration Sites

Lognormal probability plots for the TWW and observation and background bores for E. coli for the infiltration schemes are presented in Figure 7. For E. coli, which was the most measured microbial indicator, median treated wastewater concentrations ranged from 110 n/100 mL to >24,000 n/100 mL. Figure 3 shows that there was a substantial removal of E. coli over the long-term operation at each of the infiltration schemes. Both Geraldton sites show some evidence of faecal indicator contamination in the assigned background bores that may warrant further investigation; highlighting the vulnerability of shallow groundwater to various contamination sources.

3.5. Removal Efficiency of E. coli during TWW Infiltration

The lognormal fitted E. coli and EC data values shown in Table 4 were then used to calculate the percentage removal of E. coli during infiltration according to Equation (1). This removal may represent inactivation, filtration and attachment processes, as well any reduction in E. coli numbers due to dilution (as indicated by EC). The results of the Monte Carlo calculations for removal efficiency are shown in Table 4.
For E. coli the median removal efficiency was 96% at Augusta Bore 4 and >99% at Geraldton North and Geraldton No. 2 bore 10/94. Similar removals have also been observed for treated wastewater infiltration studies conducted at the Halls Head WWTP, where E. coli concentrations were ≤1 n/100 mL [26] and in the Floreat Infiltration Galleries [27].

4. Discussion

4.1. Fate of E. coli

Median E. coli removal efficiency was quantified at 96% or above at three sites equating to a 1.4 log10 to >2 log10 reduction in E. coli in groundwater. For nine of the remaining 14 sites with median E. coli numbers < LoQ, and using a groundwater E. coli count of 10 n/100 mL, a log removal of between 1.2 log10 and 3.4 log10 can be claimed—though these cannot be statistically proven. If a more sensitive detection limit for E. coli in groundwater of <1 MPN or n/100 mL had been adopted, higher removal efficiencies could be calculated for more sites; potentially increasing log removal by up to 1 log10. More sensitive detection limits would also provide greater opportunities for reuse in Western Australia, e.g., E. coli < 1 MPN or cfu/100 mL would allow high-exposure risk level reuse, such as non-potable residential use (Table 5), greatly decreasing the demand on valuable potable water resources.
Classical colloid filtration theory [21] predicts that E. coli transport in most aquifers will be limited to distances of metres to tens of metres under typical infiltration pond operational conditions in a sandy soil [26]. The processes of major importance for the removal of E. coli are attachment to the aquifer sediments and decay [22,23]. The decay or dying-off of bacteria during transport depends on many factors such as pH, temperature, redox conditions, predation and attachment [11,13,15,28,29]. Similarly, processes of bacterial attachment are strongly linked to a wide variety of physicochemical, biological, and hydrodynamic factors. The exact mechanism of E. coli removal needs to be investigated on a site-by-site basis due to the wide difference in these parameters and is a matter for further investigation.

4.2. Aquifer Treatment Barrier in Water Recycling

The quantitative assessment of potential risk from microbial hazards in recycled water schemes relies on the measurement of individual pathogens. Given the large number of pathogenic hazards in source waters for MAR, three reference pathogens have been identified within the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling to represent bacterial, viral and protozoan risks; Camplylobacter, rotavirus and Cryptosporidium [30,31]. Since the TWW infiltration schemes are regulated as disposal schemes, pathogen numbers are not currently required to be measured. However, the measured E. coli numbers can be considered in the context of the current Western Australian guidelines for the non-potable uses of recycled water, which instead applies a qualitative risk assessment [32]. Furthermore, should the infiltration schemes be altered to include re-use, then they will be assessed under the Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling [32] in accordance with Western Australian state policy [33].
Following risk assessment and management, validation and verification monitoring is used to ensure the recycled water scheme continues to comply with water quality objectives. Microbial indicators, such as E. coli, play an important role in validation and verification monitoring programs for water recycling. The E. coli compliance values for high, medium and low risk exposures are summarized in Table 5. The median E. coli numbers in groundwater impacted by TWW infiltration (Table 5) meet the compliance value of <10 MPN or cfu/100 mL for medium risk level exposure. A more sensitive detection limit of <1 MPN or cfu/100 mL is required to assess the suitability of groundwater for higher exposure risk levels.

5. Conclusions

Characterisation of three pond infiltration systems that dispose of TWW via a non-potable aquifer showed −2.0 log improvements in microbiological water quality (measured as E. coli). The median E. coli numbers in groundwater impacted by TWW infiltration meet the compliance value of <10 MPN or cfu/100 mL for medium risk level exposure. Natural treatment systems—such as aquifers—can aid in the management of TWW by improving water quality. In Western Australia, the aquifer has been recognized as a treatment barrier in water recycling for non-potable use (e.g., Geraldton); however, the goal remains for this treatment capacity to be more widely recognised.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4441/12/1/173/s1, Table S1. Summary of Escherichia coli (E. coli) samples of treated wastewater (TWW), ambient groundwater and observation bores collected at wastewater treatment plants in Western Australia.

Author Contributions

M.D. lead project, including data analysis and writing, D.R. conceived the project and contributed to paper writing, J.V. and D.P. contributed to data analysis and paper writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Water Corporation (Water Corporation reference no. D-S00651).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
ECelectrical conductivity
E. coliEscherichia coli
MARmanaged aquifer recharge
MPNmost probable number
PDFprobability density function
REremoval efficiency
TWWtreated wastewater
WWTPwastewater treatment plant

References

  1. World Health Organisation (WHO). Guidelines, Standards and Health: Assessment of Risk and Risk Management for Water-Related Infectious Disease; Fewtrell, L., Bartram, J., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bradford, S.A.; Torkzaban, S.; Shapiro, A. A theoretical analysis of colloid attachment and straining in chemically heterogeneous porous media. Langmuir 2013, 29, 6944–6952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bradford, S.A.; Wang, Y.; Torkzaban, S.; Šimůnek, J. Modeling the Release of E. coli D21g with Transients in Water Content. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 3303–3316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Sidhu, J.P.S.; Toze, S.; Hodgers, L.; Shackleton, M.; Barry, K.; Page, D.; Dillon, P. Pathogen inactivation during passage of stormwater through a constructed reedbed and aquifer transfer, storage and recovery. Water Sci. Technol. 2010, 62, 1190–1197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Toze, S.; Bekele, E.; Page, D.; Sidhu, J.; Shackleton, M. Use of static Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment to determine pathogen risks in an unconfined carbonate aquifer used for Managed Aquifer Recharge. Water Res. 2010, 44, 1038–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Tandoi, V.; Levantesi, C.; Toze, S.; Böckelmann, U.; Divizia, M.; Ayuso-Gabella, N.; Salgot, M.; La Mantia, R.; Grohmann, E. Water Quality Analyses—Microbiological Hazards. In Water Reclamation Technologies for Safe Managed Aquifer Recharge; Kazner, C., Wintgens, T., Dillon, P., Eds.; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  7. Elkayam, R.; Michail, M.; Mienis, O.; Kraitzer, T.; Tal, N.; Lev, O. Soil aquifer treatment as disinfection unit. J. Environ. Eng. 2015, 141, 05015001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Elkayam, R.; Aharoni, A.; Vaizel-Ohayon, D.; Sued, O.; Katz, Y.; Negev, I.; Marano, R.B.M.; Cytryn, E.; Shtrasler, L.; Lev, O. Viral and microbial pathogens, indicator microorganisms, microbial source tracking indicators, and antibiotic resistance genes in a confined managed effluent recharge system. J. Environ. Eng. 2018, 144, 05017011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Sandhu, C.; Grischek, T.; Musche, F.; Macheleidt, W.; Heisler, A.; Handschak, J.; Patwal, P.S.; Kimothi, P.C. Measures to mitigate direct flood risks at riverbank filtration sites with a focus on. India Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2018, 4, 237–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Page, D.; Bekele, E.; Vanderzalm, J.; Sidhu, J. Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) in sustainable urban water management. Water 2018, 10, 239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Dillon, P.; Toze, S. Water Quality Improvements during Aquifer Storage and Recovery, Volume 1: Water Quality Improvement Processes. Volume 2: Compilation of Information from Ten Sites; Report 91056F; American Water Works Assoc Research Foundation: Denver, CO, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  12. Drewes, J.E.; Sedlak, D.; Snyder, S.; Dickenson, E. Indicator and surrogates to assess removal of wastewater-derived contaminants in wastewater treatment and reclamation. In Final Report; WateReuse, Foundation: Alexandria, VA, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  13. John, D.E.; Rose, J.B. Review of factors affecting microbial survival in groundwater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2005, 39, 7345–7356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Pedley, S.; Yates, M.V.; Schijven, J.F.; West, J.; Howard, G.; Barrett, M. Pathogens: Health relevance, transport and attenuation. In Protecting Groundwater for Health Managing the Quality of Drinking-Water Sources; Schmoll, O., Howard, G., Chilton, J., Chorus, I., Eds.; WHO: Geneva, Switzerland; IWA Publishing: London, UK, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  15. Toze, S.; Hanna, J.; Smith, T.; Edmonds, L.; McCrow, A. Determination of water quality improvements due to the artificial recharge of treated effluent. Wastewater Re-Use and Groundwater Quality. IAHS Publ. 2004, 285, 53–60. [Google Scholar]
  16. Water Corporation. Greater Geraldton Wastewater Treatment and Disposal Review—System Planning; Water Corporation: Leederville, Australia, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  17. ERM. Preliminary Site Investigation—Augusta Waste Water Treatment Plant; Water Corporation: Leederville, Australia, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  18. Department of Environment Regulation. Augusta Wastewater Treatment Plant Environmental Protection Act 1986—Part V licence (Licence Number: L5953/1991/14); Department of Environment Regulation: Perth, Australia, 2015. Available online: http://www.der.wa.gov.au/our-work/licences-and-works-approvals/current-licences (accessed on 20 May 2016).
  19. Hall, G.J.; Marnham, J.R. Regolith-Landform Resources of the Karridale-Tooker and Leeuwin 1:50,000 Sheets; Geological Survey of Western Australia: Perth, Australia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  20. APHA. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater; APHA-WEF-AWWA: Washington, DC, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  21. Water Microbiology Method 6: Coliforms, Escherichia Coli and Thermotolerant Coliforms—Determination of Most Probable Number (MPN); AS/NZS 4276.6:2007; Standards New Zealand: Wellington, New Zealand, 2007.
  22. Khan, S.J. Quantitative Chemical Exposure Assessment for Water Recycling Schemes; National Water Commission: Canberra, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  23. Eisenberg, D.; Soller, J.; Sakaji, R.; Olivieri, A. A methodology to evaluate water and wastewater treatment plant reliability. Water Sci. Technol. 2001, 43, 91–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. SigmaPlot for Windows Version 14.0; Systat Software Inc.: Chicago, IL, USA, 2017.
  25. Vanderzalm, J.L.; Page, D.W.; Barry, K.E.; Dillon, P.J. Application of a probabilistic modelling approach for evaluation of nitrogen, phosphorus and organic carbon removal efficiency during four successive cycles of aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) in an anoxic carbonate aquifer. Water Res. 2013, 47, 2177–2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Toze, S.; Hanna, J.; Smith, A.; Hick, W. Halls Head indirect treated wastewater reuse scheme. In A Report to Water Corporation; CSIRO Land and Water: Clayton, Australia, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  27. Bekele, E.; Toze, S.; Patterson, B.; Higginson, S. Managed aquifer recharge of treated wastewater: Water quality changes resulting from infiltration through the vadose zone. Water Res. 2011, 45, 5764–5772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Sidhu, J.P.S.; Toze, S. Assessment of pathogen survival potential during managed aquifer recharge with diffusion chambers. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2012, 113, 693–700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Sasidharan, S.; Torkzaban, S.; Bradford, S.; Yee, X.; Vanderzalm, J.; Due, X.; Page, D. Unravelling the complexities of the velocity dependency of E. coli retention and release parameters in saturated porous media. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 603–604, 406–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. NRMMC-EPHC-NHMRC. Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling and Environmental Risks (Phase 1): Managing Health and Environmental Risk; Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environmental Protection and Heritage Council, Australian Health Ministers’ Conference: Canberra, Australia, 2006. Available online: https://www.waterquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/water-recycling-guidelines-full-21.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2019).
  31. NRMMC-EPHC-NHMRC. Australian Guidelines for Water Recycling and Environmental Risks (Phase 2): Managed Aquifer Recharge; Natural Resource Management Ministerial Council, Environmental Protection and Heritage Council, National Health and Medical Research Council: Canberra, Australia, 2009. Available online: https://www.waterquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/water-recycling-guidelines-mar-24.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2019).
  32. WA Government. Guidelines for the Non-Potable Uses of Recycled Water in Western Australia; Department of Health: Perth, Australia, 2011. Available online: https://ww2.health.wa.gov.au/Articles/N_R/Recycled-water-publications (accessed on 22 January 2019).
  33. Department of Water. Operational Policy 1.01—Managed Aquifer Recharge in Western Australia; Department of Health: Perth, Australia, 2011. Available online: http://www.water.wa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/1564/96686.pdf (accessed on 22 January 2019).
Figure 1. Water Corporation treated wastewater (TWW) infiltration sites.
Figure 1. Water Corporation treated wastewater (TWW) infiltration sites.
Water 12 00173 g001
Figure 2. Geraldton North site map. WC Land: Water Corporation owned land.
Figure 2. Geraldton North site map. WC Land: Water Corporation owned land.
Water 12 00173 g002
Figure 3. Geraldton No. 2 site map. WC Land: Water Corporation owned land.
Figure 3. Geraldton No. 2 site map. WC Land: Water Corporation owned land.
Water 12 00173 g003
Figure 4. Augusta site map. WC Land: Water Corporation owned land.
Figure 4. Augusta site map. WC Land: Water Corporation owned land.
Water 12 00173 g004
Figure 5. Summary of E. coli numbers in treated wastewater (TWW). Boxes represent 25th to 75th percentiles with line shown at 50th percentile, the whiskers represent the 10th and 90th percentile values and black circles show the 5th and 95th percentile values. The number of samples are shown along with the treatment plant name. LOD is the limit of detection and LOQ is the limit of quantification.
Figure 5. Summary of E. coli numbers in treated wastewater (TWW). Boxes represent 25th to 75th percentiles with line shown at 50th percentile, the whiskers represent the 10th and 90th percentile values and black circles show the 5th and 95th percentile values. The number of samples are shown along with the treatment plant name. LOD is the limit of detection and LOQ is the limit of quantification.
Water 12 00173 g005
Figure 6. Lognormal probability plots for electrical conductivity (EC) for (a) Geraldton North, (b) Geraldton No. 2 and (c) Augusta.
Figure 6. Lognormal probability plots for electrical conductivity (EC) for (a) Geraldton North, (b) Geraldton No. 2 and (c) Augusta.
Water 12 00173 g006
Figure 7. Lognormal probability plots for E. coli at (a) Geraldton North, (b) Geraldton No. 2 and (c) Augusta.
Figure 7. Lognormal probability plots for E. coli at (a) Geraldton North, (b) Geraldton No. 2 and (c) Augusta.
Water 12 00173 g007
Table 1. Treated wastewater (TWW) infiltration scheme summaries.
Table 1. Treated wastewater (TWW) infiltration scheme summaries.
Site NameTreatment TypeEffluent TWW
Quality Data Range
Volume Discharge 2011–2016
Average (Range) (103 m3/Year)
Minimum Distance to Observation Bore (m)
DenhamPond; facultative and maturation2005–2016 (E. coli)
2000–2016 (other data)
57 (43–72)90
HorrocksPond; primary2008–2016 (E. coli)
2002–2016 (other data)
4.4 (3.8–5.7)45
Geraldton NorthPond; primary and secondary2006–2016 (E. coli)
1996–2016 (other data)
228 (206–249)6
Geraldton No. 2Pond; primary, secondary and storage2006–2016 (E. coli)
1995–2016 (other data)
715 (688–754)35
NarnguluPond; primary and settling2009–2016 (E. coli)
2009–2016 (other data)
773 (704–820)70
BootenallPond; primary and maturation2008–2016 (E. coli)
1995–2016 (other data)
23 (19–27)95
JurienPond; primary and secondary2006–2016 (E. coli)
1996–2016 (other data)
64 (50–77)55
LancelinPond; primary and secondary2006–2016 (E. coli)
1996–2016 (other data)
60 (28–121)50
KwinanaActivated sludge (oxidation ditch)2002–2016 (E. coli)
2000–2016 (other data)
1630 (1580–1710)14
Gordon RoadActivated sludge (oxidation ditch)2006–2016 (E. coli)
1996–2016 (other data)
3500 (3060–3800)215
Halls HeadActivated sludge (oxidation ditch)2006–2016 (E. coli)
1995–2016 (other data)
1120 (1010–1220)40
CaddadupActivated sludge (oxidation ditch)2006–2016 (E. coli)
1997–2016 (other data)
562 (458–655)25
BinningupPond; primary2006–2016 (E. coli)
1995–2016 (other data)
21 (20–23)95
AugustaPond; primary, secondary and tertiary2006–2016 (E. coli)
1995–2016 (other data)
52 (50–56)90
Bremer BayPond; primary and secondary2006–2016 (E. coli)
1997–2016 (other data)
17 (13–19)40
Esperance No. 1Pond; partially aerated and maturation2006–2016 (E. coli)
1996–2016 (other data)
525 (424–562)55
Esperance No. 2 *Pond; partially aerated and maturation2006–2016 (E. coli)
1996–2016 (other data)
239 (106–393)30
* The Esperance No. 1 WWTP is the source of treated wastewater infiltrated at Esperance No. 2.
Table 2. Three TWW infiltration schemes selected for statistical analysis of E. coli removal efficiency.
Table 2. Three TWW infiltration schemes selected for statistical analysis of E. coli removal efficiency.
Site NameGeologyObservation Bore Name (Distance in m from Infiltration Scheme)Background Groundwater Bore 1 Name (Distance in m From Infiltration Scheme)Shown as
Geraldton NorthCalcareous sands/Tamala Limestone2/97 (6)6/97 (200)Figure 2
Geraldton No. 2Calcareous sands/Tamala Limestone6/94 (35), 10/94 (185)4/94 (440)Figure 3
AugustaSandy clays and lateritic gravels/fractured and karstic calcareniteBore 4 (90), Bore 6 (160)na 2Figure 4
1 Selected based on groundwater gradients and water quality data; 2 na = no suitable background bore.
Table 3. E. coli and EC data of the ambient groundwater, infiltrated TWW and observation bore for each TWW infiltration scheme.
Table 3. E. coli and EC data of the ambient groundwater, infiltrated TWW and observation bore for each TWW infiltration scheme.
Site NameBore NameE. coli (n/100 mL)EC (mS/m)
n% n.d.Mean50th95thnMean50th95th
Geraldton NorthTWW4307.7 × 1041.8 × 1043.0 × 10563260250350
Obs. Bore 2/9722412700826003414405505000
Groundwater 6/9722682.3 × 106<15600349308601700
Geraldton No. 2TWW5604.1 × 10106.9 × 1068.8 × 109105221221242
Obs. bore 6/943594<10<10<1046261259308
Obs. bore 10/94345826001.3100041268265337
Groundwater 4/9435862100<1016043522520603
Augusta *TWW115124001101600189108105157
Obs. bore 41952684.220035148140237
Obs. bore 628100<10<10<1044209202312
* No suitable background bore; n = number of samples; n.d. non-detects.
Table 4. The calculated mean, median and 95th percentile removal efficiency (RE) for E. coli and EC.
Table 4. The calculated mean, median and 95th percentile removal efficiency (RE) for E. coli and EC.
Site NameBore NameE. coli REEC RE
Mean50th95thMean50th95th
Geraldton NorthObs. Bore 2/970.68>0.99>0.99−4.81.2−0.77
Geraldton No. 2Obs. bore 6/94n.d. n.d. n.d. −0.180.17−0.03
Obs. bore 10/940.86>0.99>0.99−0.220.20−0.07
AugustaObs. bore 4−0.700.96>0.99−0.460.35−0.31
Obs. bore 6n.d. n.d. n.d. −1.10.93−0.06
n.d. not determined; 2 detections in groundwater (n = 35); 0 detections in groundwater (n = 30).
Table 5. Validation and verification monitoring requirements for E. coli in Western Australian guidelines for the non-potable uses of recycled water (after [32]).
Table 5. Validation and verification monitoring requirements for E. coli in Western Australian guidelines for the non-potable uses of recycled water (after [32]).
Exposure Risk Level (Level of Human Contact)Potential End-UseE. coli Compliance Value (MPN or cfu/100 mL)
High
  • Multi-unit dwellings internal use and external surface irrigation
  • Agricultural irrigation of unprocessed foods
  • Urban irrigation with unrestricted access and application
  • Communal use, such as toilets
<1
Medium
  • Urban irrigation with some restricted access
  • Fire fighting
  • Water features, such as fountains
  • Industrial use with potential human exposure
  • Dust suppression
<10
Low
  • Communal subsurface irrigation
  • Urban irrigation with enhanced restricted access and application
  • Agricultural irrigation of non-edible crops
<1000

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Donn, M.; Reed, D.; Vanderzalm, J.; Page, D. Assessment of E. coli Attenuation during Infiltration of Treated Wastewater: A Pathway to Future Managed Aquifer Recharge. Water 2020, 12, 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010173

AMA Style

Donn M, Reed D, Vanderzalm J, Page D. Assessment of E. coli Attenuation during Infiltration of Treated Wastewater: A Pathway to Future Managed Aquifer Recharge. Water. 2020; 12(1):173. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010173

Chicago/Turabian Style

Donn, Mike, Debbie Reed, Joanne Vanderzalm, and Declan Page. 2020. "Assessment of E. coli Attenuation during Infiltration of Treated Wastewater: A Pathway to Future Managed Aquifer Recharge" Water 12, no. 1: 173. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12010173

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop