lastID = -10083936
Skip to main content Skip to top navigation Skip to site search
Top of page
  • My citations options
    Web Back (from Web)
    Chicago Back (from Chicago)
    MLA Back (from MLA)
Close action menu

You need to login to use this feature.

Please wait a moment…
Please wait while we update your results...
Please wait a moment...
Description: Access Water
Context Menu
Description: Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment
Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment
  • Browse
  • Compilations
    • Compilations list
  • Subscriptions
Tools

Related contents

Loading related content

Workflow

No linked records yet

X
  • Current: 2023-08-16 08:21:42 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-10-05 12:42:15 Adam Phillips Release
  • 2022-10-05 11:51:27 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-10-05 11:51:26 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-10-05 09:37:45 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-10-05 09:37:44 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-10-05 09:11:24 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-10-05 09:11:23 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-09-07 11:40:22 Adam Phillips
  • 2022-09-07 11:40:21 Adam Phillips
Description: Access Water
  • Browse
  • Compilations
  • Subscriptions
Log in
0
Accessibility Options

Base text size -

This is a sample piece of body text
Larger
Smaller
  • Shopping basket (0)
  • Accessibility options
  • Return to previous
Description: Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment
Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment

Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment

Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment

  • New
  • View
  • Details
  • Reader
  • Default
  • Share
  • Email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • New
  • View
  • Default view
  • Reader view
  • Data view
  • Details

This page cannot be printed from here

Please use the dedicated print option from the 'view' drop down menu located in the blue ribbon in the top, right section of the publication.

screenshot of print menu option

Description: Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment
Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment
Abstract
1.0 ABSTRACT
The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how Wastewater Based Epidemiology (WBE) can be used after COVID-19 in both Municipal and Industrial wastewater systems to proactively monitor, manage, and avoid risks that could negatively impact the business continuity and resiliency of an organization. The history of WBE will first be reviewed to show how it has been used to maximize public health protection and social well-being while minimizing economic impacts and unintended consequences in public and private settings. The design of a WBE monitoring program for Closed, Semi-Closed, and Open Municipal and Industrial wastewater systems will be evaluated through a couple of case studies. Alignment between WBE programs and an organizations risk management programs, sustainability goals, and ethical considerations will also be explored.
2.0 BACKGROUND
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, highlighting the need for action and cooperation worldwide (WHO, 2020a; WHO 2020b). What followed was the implementation of restrictive measures such as lockdowns, curfews, quarantines, businesses closures, domestic and international travel bans, social distancing and mandatory respiratory protection (Howard et al., 2020). While effective in controlling COVID-19 transmission, these restrictions came at a major cost in terms of actual expenses and lost economic opportunities, in addition to trade-offs in wellbeing, mental health and personal freedoms (Cindrich et al., 2021; Gostin and Wiley, 2020).
COVID-19 also resulted in the largest WBE mobilization effort in recent history. WBE provides a scalable, cost-effective way to anonymously track population-level biomarkers of drug use, diseases, and infections like COVID-19. (Keshaviah 2021; Daughton 2020a). Figure 1 shows that unlike clinical diagnostic tests which are invasive, costly, time-consuming and focused on individual testing, wastewater monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 provides the opportunity for pooled or group testing of an entire population served by a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system (Daughton, 2020a; Daughton, 2020b). The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how WBE can be used after COVID-19 in both Municipal and Industrial wastewater systems to proactively monitor, manage, and avoid risks that could negatively impact the business continuity and resiliency of an organization.
3.0 RESULTS The application of WBE for public health decision-making support is not unique to COVID-19 and has been applied to various microorganisms and drug compounds for over 70 years as outlined in Table 1.
While initial WBE efforts focused on population-wide surveillance through collection of samples at the water resource recovery facility, targeted testing has become a more recent focus. Targeted testing at Sentinel Sites is the collection of samples from a limited population usually within the collection system, where the population has varying levels of stability and with the objective of implementing public health interventions upon detection of an infection in the community monitored. Examples of targeted settings are outlined in Table 2. Public health interventions upon the detection of a positive results have ranged from individual clinical testing to detect the infected individuals to administration of vaccinations or booster campaigns. Public health interventions to guide where targeted diagnostic testing could be amplified by monitoring smaller, key, confined sub-populations have also been common (Daughton, 2020b; Gawlik et al., 2021; McClary-Gutierrez et al., 2021). This is also reflected in the CDC WBE Design Considerations shown in Figure 2. This paper will expand upon the CDC WBE Design Considerations for both municipal and industrial sites since WBE may not always be the best surveillance approach in all settings. As Figure 3 shows, when determining whether WBE is the appropriate monitoring tool for these targeted settings, it is important for health departments, employers and other stakeholders to evaluate the population size, population stability, target analyte stability, probability of excretion, preservation of confidentiality, and the implementation of public health intervention. For industrial sites, additional considerations of risks, sustainability, and ethics can also be considered. We then evaluated various targeted settings and scored them based on the 6 critical success factors as shown in Figure 4 where the higher the score the higher the likelihood of WBE success in this setting. The rest of this abstract will explore a few of the key topics previously mentioned. The full paper will include a comprehensive review of all key topics previously mentioned.
3.1 System Types Population stability impacts the implementation and intervention strategies. The three general types of systems are Closed, Semi-Closed, and Open as shown in Figure 5. An overview is also outlined in Table 3.
3.2 Risk Management WBE monitoring can be used to proactively monitor, manage, and avoid risks that could negatively impact the business continuity and resiliency of an organization. Overall, risks are typically grouped into Financial, Strategic, Hazard, or Operational Risks (Borkovskaya, 2018). The results from a Risk Assessment are then evaluated in the organizations Enterprise Risk Management or ERM system following established guidelines like ISO-31000 (ISO, 2018) or COSO (COSO, 2017). Figure 6 outlines specific risks experienced by industry during COVID-19. While this example pulled some information from the meat industry (Hashem et. al., 2020; Ijaz, 2021), similar industries that utilize shift workers, in a centralized or remote worksite with shared or common working, resting, living, or transportation arrangements could be exposed to similar risks. Examples of these industries were previously outlined in Table 2.
3.3 Case Studies Various industrial and municipal case studies using WBE monitoring will be reviewed as part of the final paper. Table 4 summarizes an Industrial case study at a remote mining site.
3.4 Sustainability Beyond just mitigating risks, WBE monitoring can also support the sustainability strategy of the organization. Many municipal and industrial organizations are leveraging sustainability principles to ensure that their products and services benefit society. Figure 7 outlines the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals or UNSDG's which are 17 goals adopted by the UN in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that by 2030 all people enjoy peace and prosperity (United Nations, 2015). Table 5 summarizes how WBE monitoring aligns with SDG's 3, 8, 9, 11 and 17.
3.4 Ethics There are also certain ethical considerations that need to be evaluated as part of an existing or new WBE Public Health Surveillance Program. Designing and managing an ethical WBE monitoring program is critical to building and maintaining trust between the people or populations being monitored and the organization performing the monitoring. Unethical actions by the monitoring organization can quickly erode this trust and could even open the monitoring organization up to lawsuits if the rights, freedoms, or legal protections of the monitored people or populations are violated. Figure 8 is a summary of the key ethical considerations for collecting, managing and communicating with WBE data.
Many PFAS-laden waters have concentrations of suspended solids, dissolved organics, or metals that impede operation of granular activated carbon (GAC) or anion exchange (AIX) systems used to remove PFAS from the water phase. This presentation addresses pretreatment considerations ahead of GAC or AIX treatment, challenges associated with process design and implementation, and pretreatment process performance and results and how these affect PFAS removal media performance in the examples outlined.
SpeakerLing, Alison
Presentation time
14:25:00
14:40:00
Session time
13:30:00
15:00:00
TopicAdvanced Level, PFAS, Research and Innovation
TopicAdvanced Level, PFAS, Research and Innovation
Author(s)
Ling, Alison
Author(s)Alison Ling1; Katie Wolohan1; Andy McCabe1
Author affiliation(s)Barr Engineering, Minneapolis, MN1
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Oct 2022
DOI10.2175/193864718825158657
Volume / Issue
Content sourceWEFTEC
Copyright2022
Word count7

Purchase price $11.50

Get access
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment
Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment
Pricing
Non-member price: $11.50
Member price:
-10083936
Get access
-10083936
Log in Purchase content Purchase subscription
You may already have access to this content if you have previously purchased this content or have a subscription.
Need to create an account?

You can purchase access to this content but you might want to consider a subscription for a wide variety of items at a substantial discount!

Purchase access to 'Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment'

Add to cart
Purchase a subscription to gain access to 18,000+ Proceeding Papers, 25+ Fact Sheets, 20+ Technical Reports, 50+ magazine articles and select Technical Publications' chapters.

Details

Description: Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment
Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment
Abstract
1.0 ABSTRACT
The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how Wastewater Based Epidemiology (WBE) can be used after COVID-19 in both Municipal and Industrial wastewater systems to proactively monitor, manage, and avoid risks that could negatively impact the business continuity and resiliency of an organization. The history of WBE will first be reviewed to show how it has been used to maximize public health protection and social well-being while minimizing economic impacts and unintended consequences in public and private settings. The design of a WBE monitoring program for Closed, Semi-Closed, and Open Municipal and Industrial wastewater systems will be evaluated through a couple of case studies. Alignment between WBE programs and an organizations risk management programs, sustainability goals, and ethical considerations will also be explored.
2.0 BACKGROUND
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, highlighting the need for action and cooperation worldwide (WHO, 2020a; WHO 2020b). What followed was the implementation of restrictive measures such as lockdowns, curfews, quarantines, businesses closures, domestic and international travel bans, social distancing and mandatory respiratory protection (Howard et al., 2020). While effective in controlling COVID-19 transmission, these restrictions came at a major cost in terms of actual expenses and lost economic opportunities, in addition to trade-offs in wellbeing, mental health and personal freedoms (Cindrich et al., 2021; Gostin and Wiley, 2020).
COVID-19 also resulted in the largest WBE mobilization effort in recent history. WBE provides a scalable, cost-effective way to anonymously track population-level biomarkers of drug use, diseases, and infections like COVID-19. (Keshaviah 2021; Daughton 2020a). Figure 1 shows that unlike clinical diagnostic tests which are invasive, costly, time-consuming and focused on individual testing, wastewater monitoring of SARS-CoV-2 provides the opportunity for pooled or group testing of an entire population served by a centralized wastewater collection and treatment system (Daughton, 2020a; Daughton, 2020b). The goal of this paper is to demonstrate how WBE can be used after COVID-19 in both Municipal and Industrial wastewater systems to proactively monitor, manage, and avoid risks that could negatively impact the business continuity and resiliency of an organization.
3.0 RESULTS The application of WBE for public health decision-making support is not unique to COVID-19 and has been applied to various microorganisms and drug compounds for over 70 years as outlined in Table 1.
While initial WBE efforts focused on population-wide surveillance through collection of samples at the water resource recovery facility, targeted testing has become a more recent focus. Targeted testing at Sentinel Sites is the collection of samples from a limited population usually within the collection system, where the population has varying levels of stability and with the objective of implementing public health interventions upon detection of an infection in the community monitored. Examples of targeted settings are outlined in Table 2. Public health interventions upon the detection of a positive results have ranged from individual clinical testing to detect the infected individuals to administration of vaccinations or booster campaigns. Public health interventions to guide where targeted diagnostic testing could be amplified by monitoring smaller, key, confined sub-populations have also been common (Daughton, 2020b; Gawlik et al., 2021; McClary-Gutierrez et al., 2021). This is also reflected in the CDC WBE Design Considerations shown in Figure 2. This paper will expand upon the CDC WBE Design Considerations for both municipal and industrial sites since WBE may not always be the best surveillance approach in all settings. As Figure 3 shows, when determining whether WBE is the appropriate monitoring tool for these targeted settings, it is important for health departments, employers and other stakeholders to evaluate the population size, population stability, target analyte stability, probability of excretion, preservation of confidentiality, and the implementation of public health intervention. For industrial sites, additional considerations of risks, sustainability, and ethics can also be considered. We then evaluated various targeted settings and scored them based on the 6 critical success factors as shown in Figure 4 where the higher the score the higher the likelihood of WBE success in this setting. The rest of this abstract will explore a few of the key topics previously mentioned. The full paper will include a comprehensive review of all key topics previously mentioned.
3.1 System Types Population stability impacts the implementation and intervention strategies. The three general types of systems are Closed, Semi-Closed, and Open as shown in Figure 5. An overview is also outlined in Table 3.
3.2 Risk Management WBE monitoring can be used to proactively monitor, manage, and avoid risks that could negatively impact the business continuity and resiliency of an organization. Overall, risks are typically grouped into Financial, Strategic, Hazard, or Operational Risks (Borkovskaya, 2018). The results from a Risk Assessment are then evaluated in the organizations Enterprise Risk Management or ERM system following established guidelines like ISO-31000 (ISO, 2018) or COSO (COSO, 2017). Figure 6 outlines specific risks experienced by industry during COVID-19. While this example pulled some information from the meat industry (Hashem et. al., 2020; Ijaz, 2021), similar industries that utilize shift workers, in a centralized or remote worksite with shared or common working, resting, living, or transportation arrangements could be exposed to similar risks. Examples of these industries were previously outlined in Table 2.
3.3 Case Studies Various industrial and municipal case studies using WBE monitoring will be reviewed as part of the final paper. Table 4 summarizes an Industrial case study at a remote mining site.
3.4 Sustainability Beyond just mitigating risks, WBE monitoring can also support the sustainability strategy of the organization. Many municipal and industrial organizations are leveraging sustainability principles to ensure that their products and services benefit society. Figure 7 outlines the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals or UNSDG's which are 17 goals adopted by the UN in 2015 as a universal call to action to end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure that by 2030 all people enjoy peace and prosperity (United Nations, 2015). Table 5 summarizes how WBE monitoring aligns with SDG's 3, 8, 9, 11 and 17.
3.4 Ethics There are also certain ethical considerations that need to be evaluated as part of an existing or new WBE Public Health Surveillance Program. Designing and managing an ethical WBE monitoring program is critical to building and maintaining trust between the people or populations being monitored and the organization performing the monitoring. Unethical actions by the monitoring organization can quickly erode this trust and could even open the monitoring organization up to lawsuits if the rights, freedoms, or legal protections of the monitored people or populations are violated. Figure 8 is a summary of the key ethical considerations for collecting, managing and communicating with WBE data.
Many PFAS-laden waters have concentrations of suspended solids, dissolved organics, or metals that impede operation of granular activated carbon (GAC) or anion exchange (AIX) systems used to remove PFAS from the water phase. This presentation addresses pretreatment considerations ahead of GAC or AIX treatment, challenges associated with process design and implementation, and pretreatment process performance and results and how these affect PFAS removal media performance in the examples outlined.
SpeakerLing, Alison
Presentation time
14:25:00
14:40:00
Session time
13:30:00
15:00:00
TopicAdvanced Level, PFAS, Research and Innovation
TopicAdvanced Level, PFAS, Research and Innovation
Author(s)
Ling, Alison
Author(s)Alison Ling1; Katie Wolohan1; Andy McCabe1
Author affiliation(s)Barr Engineering, Minneapolis, MN1
SourceProceedings of the Water Environment Federation
Document typeConference Paper
PublisherWater Environment Federation
Print publication date Oct 2022
DOI10.2175/193864718825158657
Volume / Issue
Content sourceWEFTEC
Copyright2022
Word count7

Actions, changes & tasks

Outstanding Actions

Add action for paragraph

Current Changes

Add signficant change

Current Tasks

Add risk task

Connect with us

Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Connect to us on LinkedIn
Subscribe on YouTube
Powered by Librios Ltd
Powered by Librios Ltd
Authors
Terms of Use
Policies
Help
Accessibility
Contact us
Copyright © 2024 by the Water Environment Federation
Loading items
There are no items to display at the moment.
Something went wrong trying to load these items.
Description: WWTF Digital Boot 180x150
WWTF Digital (180x150)
Created on Jul 02
Websitehttps:/­/­www.wef.org/­wwtf?utm_medium=WWTF&utm_source=AccessWater&utm_campaign=WWTF
180x150
Ling, Alison. Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment. Water Environment Federation, 2022. Web. 19 Jun. 2025. <https://www.accesswater.org?id=-10083936CITANCHOR>.
Ling, Alison. Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment. Water Environment Federation, 2022. Accessed June 19, 2025. https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-10083936CITANCHOR.
Ling, Alison
Pretreatment Perspectives For PFAS Water Treatment
Access Water
Water Environment Federation
October 12, 2022
June 19, 2025
https://www.accesswater.org/?id=-10083936CITANCHOR