Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Toxicological assessment of potable reuse and conventional drinking waters

Nature Sustainability volume 6, pages 39–46 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Potable reuse, the process of treating wastewater to drinkable standards, offers a reliable and sustainable solution to cities and regions facing shortages of clean water. However, implementation is hindered by perceptions of poor water quality and potential health threats. Herein, we compare water samples from potable reuse systems with conventional drinking waters based on the analysis of Chinese hamster ovary cell cytotoxicity contributed by disinfection by-products (DBPs) and sewage-derived anthropogenic contaminants. In all cases, the cytotoxicity of potable reuse waters is lower than that of drinking waters derived from surface waters. The median contribution to total cytotoxicity was 0.2% for regulated DBPs and 16% for the unregulated DBPs of current research interest. Nonvolatile, uncharacterized DBPs and anthropogenic contaminants accounted for 83% of total cytotoxicity. Potable reuse waters treated by reverse osmosis are not more cytotoxic than groundwaters. Even in the absence of reverse osmosis, reuse waters are less cytotoxic than surface drinking waters. Our results suggest that potable reuse can provide a safe, energy-efficient and cost-effective alternative water supply.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Relevant articles

Open Access articles citing this article.

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Learn more

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Comparison of potable reuse and conventional drinking-water quality.
Fig. 2: Effect of advanced treatment processes on cytotoxicity.
Fig. 3: Contributions of DBPs and anthropogenic chemicals towards cytotoxicity.

Data availability

The datasets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available in Supplementary Tables 1–8 for (semi-)volatile DBPs and in Supplementary Data 2 for the cytotoxicity bioassay results. Data associated with Supplementary Tables 1–12 are provided in Supplementary Data 1. Source data are provided with this paper.

References

  1. Gerrity, D., Pecson, B., Trussell, R. S. & Trussell, R. R. Potable reuse treatment trains throughout the world. Aqua 62, 321–338 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Pecson, B. M., Trussell, R. S., Pisarenko, A. N. & Trussell, R. R. Achieving reliability in potable reuse: the four Rs. J. Am. Water Works Assoc. 107, 48–58 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Marron, E. L., Mitch, W. A., von Gunten, U. & Sedlak, D. L. A tale of two treatments: the multiple barrier approach to removing chemical contaminants during potable water reuse. Acc. Chem. Res. 52, 615–622 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Giammar, D. E. et al. Cost and energy metrics for municipal water reuse. ACS EST Engg. 2, 489–507 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Sim, A. & Mauter, M. S. Cost and energy intensity of US potable water reuse systems. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 7, 748–761 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Kim, J., Park, K., Yang, D. R. & Hong, S. A comprehensive review of energy consumption of seawater reverse osmosis desalination plants. Appl. Energy 254, 113652 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Quon, H. et al. Pipe parity analysis of seawater desalination in the United States: exploring costs, energy, and reliability via case studies and scenarios of emerging technology. ACS EST Engg. 2, 434–445 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fielding, K. S., Gardner, J., Leviston, Z. & Price, J. Comparing public perceptions of alternative water sources for potable use: the case of rainwater, stormwater, desalinated water, and recycled water. Water Resour. Manage. 29, 4501–4518 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Barnes, J. L., Krishen, A. S. & Hu, H. Untapped knowledge about water reuse: the roles of direct and indirect educational messaging. Water Resour. Manage. 35, 2601–2615 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Escher, B. I. et al. Evaluation of contaminant removal of reverse osmosis and advanced oxidation in full-scale operation by combining passive sampling with chemical analysis and bioanalytical tools. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 5387–5394 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Macova, M. et al. Bioanalytical tools for the evaluation of organic micropollutants during sewage treatment, water recycling and drinking water generation. Water Res. 45, 4238–4247 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dong, S. et al. Toxicological comparison of water, wastewaters, and processed wastewaters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 9139–9147 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Page, M. A. et al. Composite toxicity assays for enhanced assessment of decentralized potable reuse systems. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 6, 3306–3315 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Water Reuse: Potential for Expanding the Nation’s Water Supply Through Reuse of Municipal Wastewater (National Research Council, 2012); https://doi.org/10.17226/13303

  15. Leusch, F. D. L. & Snyder, S. A. Bioanalytical tools: half a century of application for potable reuse. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 1, 606–621 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Potable Reuse: Guidance for Producing Safe Drinking-Water (WHO, 2017).

  17. Li, X.-F. & Mitch, W. A. Drinking water disinfection byproducts (DBPs) and human health effects: multidisciplinary challenges and opportunities. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 1681–1689 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Agus, E. & Sedlak, D. L. Formation and fate of chlorination by-products in reverse osmosis desalination systems. Water Res. 44, 1616–1626 (2010).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Linge, K. L. et al. Formation of halogenated disinfection by-products during microfiltration and reverse osmosis treatment: implications for water recycling. Sep. Purif. Technol. 104, 221–228 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Doederer, K., Farré, M. J., Pidou, M., Weinberg, H. S. & Gernjak, W. Rejection of disinfection by-products by RO and NF membranes: influence of solute properties and operational parameters. J. Membr. Sci. 467, 195–205 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Chuang, Y.-H., Parker, K. M. & Mitch, W. A. Development of predictive models for the degradation of halogenated disinfection byproducts during the UV/H2O2 advanced oxidation process. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 11209–11217 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Zeng, T., Plewa, M. J. & Mitch, W. A. N-Nitrosamines and halogenated disinfection byproducts in US. Full advanced treatment trains for potable reuse. Water Res. 101, 176–186 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Lau, S. S., Forster, A. L., Richardson, S. D. & Mitch, W. A. Disinfection byproduct recovery during extraction and concentration in preparation for chemical analyses or toxicity assays. Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 14136–14145 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Stalter, D. et al. Sample enrichment for bioanalytical assessment of disinfected drinking water: concentrating the polar, the volatiles, and the unknowns. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 6495–6505 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Krasner, S. W. et al. Occurrence of a new generation of disinfection byproducts. Environ. Sci. Technol. 40, 7175–7185 (2006).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wagner, E. D. & Plewa, M. J. CHO cell cytotoxicity and genotoxicity analyses of disinfection by-products: an updated review. J. Environ. Sci. 58, 64–76 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Lau, S. S. et al. Assessing additivity of cytotoxicity associated with disinfection byproducts in potable reuse and conventional drinking waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 54, 5729–5736 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  28. Chuang, Y.-H., Szczuka, A. & Mitch, W. A. Comparison of toxicity-weighted disinfection byproduct concentrations in potable reuse waters and conventional drinking waters as a new approach to assessing the quality of advanced treatment train waters. Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 3729–3738 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Hebert, A. et al. Bioanalytical assessment of adaptive stress responses in drinking water: a predictive tool to differentiate between micropollutants and disinfection by-products. Water Res. 132, 340–349 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Le Roux, J. et al. Chloramination of wastewater effluent: toxicity and formation of disinfection byproducts. J. Environ. Sci. 58, 135–145 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Yang, Y. et al. Toxic impact of bromide and iodide on drinking water disinfected with chlorine or chloramines. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 12362–12369 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Dong, S., Lu, J., Plewa, M. J. & Nguyen, T. H. Comparative mammalian cell cytotoxicity of wastewaters for agricultural reuse after ozonation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 11752–11759 (2016).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Dong, S., Masalha, N., Plewa, M. J. & Nguyen, T. H. Toxicity of wastewater with elevated bromide and iodide after chlorination, chloramination, or ozonation disinfection. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 9297–9304 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Liu, C. et al. Toxicity of chlorinated algal-impacted waters: formation of disinfection byproducts vs. reduction of cyanotoxins. Water Res. 184, 116145 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Allen, J. M. et al. Making swimming pools safer: does copper–silver ionization with chlorine lower the toxicity and disinfection byproduct formation? Environ. Sci. Technol. 55, 2908–2918 (2021).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Allen, J. M. et al. Drivers of disinfection byproduct cytotoxicity in US drinking water: should other DBPs be considered for regulation? Environ. Sci. Technol. 56, 392–402 (2022).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Olivieri, A. W., Pecson, B., Crook, J. & Hultquist, R. California water reuse—past, present and future perspectives. Adv. Chem. Pollut. Environ. Manage. Prot. 5, 65–111 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  38. Shah, A. D. & Mitch, W. A. Halonitroalkanes, halonitriles, haloamides, and N-nitrosamines: a critical review of nitrogenous disinfection byproduct formation pathways. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46, 119–131 (2012).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Richardson, S. D. & Plewa, M. J. To regulate or not to regulate? What to do with more toxic disinfection by-products? J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 8, 103939 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Szczuka, A. et al. Regulated and unregulated halogenated disinfection byproduct formation from chlorination of saline groundwater. Water Res. 122, 633–644 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Furst, K. E., Pecson, B. M., Webber, B. D. & Mitch, W. A. Tradeoffs between pathogen inactivation and disinfection byproduct formation during sequential chlorine and chloramine disinfection for wastewater reuse. Water Res. 143, 579–588 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Furst, K. E., Coyte, R. M., Wood, M., Vengosh, A. & Mitch, W. A. Disinfection byproducts in Rajasthan, India: are trihalomethanes a sufficient indicator of disinfection byproduct exposure in low-income countries? Environ. Sci. Technol. 53, 12007–12017 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Wu, Q.-Y. et al. Non-volatile disinfection byproducts are far more toxic to mammalian cells than volatile byproducts. Water Res. 183, 116080 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Li, Y. et al. Volatile DBPs contributed marginally to the developmental toxicity of drinking water DBP mixtures against Platynereis dumerilii. Chemosphere 252, 126611 (2020).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Dong, S., Massalha, N., Plewa, M. J. & Nguyen, T. H. The impact of disinfection Ct values on cytotoxicity of agricultural wastewaters: ozonation vs. chlorination. Water Res. 144, 482–490 (2018).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Postigo, C. & Richardson, S. D. Transformation of pharmaceuticals during oxidation/disinfection processes in drinking water treatment. J. Hazard. Mater. 279, 461–475 (2014).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Magara, Y., Aizawa, T., Matumoto, N. & Souna, F. Degradation of pesticides by chlorination during water purification. Water Sci. Technol. 30, 119–128 (1994).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. A Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California 2nd edn (California State Water Resources Control Board, 2019).

  49. A Proposed Framework for Regulating Direct Potable Reuse in California, Addendum: Early Draft of Anticipated Criteria for Direct Potable Reuse (California State Water Resources Control Board, 2021).

  50. Method 551.1: Determination of Chlorination Disinfection Byproducts, Chlorinated Solvents, and Halogenated Pesticides/Herbicides in Drinking Water by Liquid–Liquid Extraction and Gas Chromatography with Electron-Capture Detection Revision 1.0 (US EPA, 1995).

  51. Method 552.3 Determination of Haloacetic Acids and Dalapon in Drinking Water by Liquid–Liquid Microextraction, Derivatization, and Gas Chromatography with Electron Capture Detection Revision 1.0 (US EPA, 2003).

  52. Chinn, R. et al. Solid-phase extraction of 35 DBPs with analysis by GC/ECD and GC/MS. In Proc. 2007 American Water Works Association (AWWA) Water Quality Technology Conference 1–20 (2007).

  53. Richardson, S. D. XAD Resin Extraction of Disinfectant By-Products Drinking Water SOP-RSB-003.1, Revision No. 1 (US EPA, 2011).

  54. Wagner, E. D., Rayburn, A. L., Anderson, D. & Plewa, M. J. Analysis of mutagens with single cell gel electrophoresis, flow cytometry, and forward mutation assays in an isolated clone of Chinese hamster ovary cells. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 32, 360–368 (1998).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by funding from the National Science Foundation (CBET 1706154 to W.A.M. and CBET 1706575 to M.J.P.) and the Water Research Foundation (projects 4737 and 5140) to W.A.M. and M.J.P.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Stephanie S. Lau & William A. Mitch

  2. Department of Crop Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Katherine Bokenkamp, Aleksander Tecza, Elizabeth D. Wagner & Michael J. Plewa

  3. Safe Global Water Institute, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Katherine Bokenkamp, Aleksander Tecza, Elizabeth D. Wagner & Michael J. Plewa

Authors
  1. Stephanie S. Lau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Katherine Bokenkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Aleksander Tecza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Elizabeth D. Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Michael J. Plewa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. William A. Mitch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

W.A.M. and M.J.P. designed the project. S.S.L. and W.A.M. collected water samples, measured DBP concentrations and compiled all the data. S.S.L. prepared samples for bioassays. K.B., A.T., E.D.W. and M.J.P. performed the bioassays and data analysis. S.S.L., W.A.M. and M.J.P. wrote the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William A. Mitch.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Sustainability thanks Martin A. Page and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Figs. 1–12, Tables 1–12, Notes 1–9 and references.

Supplementary Data 1

Supplementary Tables 1–12 in Excel format. Basic water-quality parameters, DBP concentrations, summary of cytotoxicity results and description of treatment processes.

Supplementary Data 2

Raw cytotoxicity data for each facility.

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

CAT and BCAT values plus standard errors

Source Data Fig. 2

CAT and BCAT values plus standard errors

Source Data Fig. 3

CHO cell cytotoxicity values plus standard errors

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lau, S.S., Bokenkamp, K., Tecza, A. et al. Toxicological assessment of potable reuse and conventional drinking waters. Nat Sustain 6, 39–46 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00985-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00985-7

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing