418
K. Dhangar and M. Kumar
et al. (2007) in WWTPs of Georgia and Kentucky region of USA. In both regions,
higher concentration is detected in effluents than that of influents which results in
negative removal efficiency. High range of PFOS concentration was observed in
the sludge from Kentucky (133–993 ng/g dw), whereas the concentration detected
in the sludge of WWTPs of Georgia was 22–70 ng/g dw. In the reported study of
Canada, wide concentration range of PFOS was observed in the influent stream
(2–1100 ng/L), effluent stream (1–1300 ng/L) and effluent sludge (9.7–8200 ng/g
dw) (Guerra et al. 2014). From the reported study by Murakami et al. (2009) in
Kanto area of Japan, the maximum concentration in the effluent (42–635 ng/L) was
found to be double than the maximum of influent water samples (42–635 ng/L).
Whereas in WWTPs of the Tsurumi River basin of Japan, PFOS concentration in
the range of 79–640 ng/L was found in the effluent streams (Zushi et al. 2008).
Kunacheva et al. (2011) report removal efficiency around 50% for PFOS in WWTPs
of Central Thailand and negative removal efficiency in WWTPs of Eastern Thailand.
In case of WWTPs of some countries such as Singapore, Spain, Switzerland and
Taiwan, removal efficiency <10% was observed during the biological treatments of
the wastewater influents (Alder and van der Voet 2015; Campo et al. 2014; Sun et al.
2011; Yu et al. 2009; Huset et al. 2008). Some countries like Denmark, Greece and
Korea reported relatively less PFOS concentrations in influent stream, effluent stream
as well as in the sludge (Stasinakis et al. 2013; Arvaniti et al. 2012; Guo et al. 2010;
Bossi et al. 2008). Thompson et al. (2011a, b, c) traced the concentration of PFOS in
the wastewater during its journey in WWTPs having two different advanced treatment
technologies. Plant with treatments like ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO)
showed more than 98% removal efficiency, whereas plant having several stages of
ozonation gave around 90% efficiency.
18.5.3 Occurrence of PFOS in Drinking/Tap Water
The occurrence of PFOS in drinking or tap water is the effect of its pre-presence in
surface water systems and less effective drinking water treatments. Some advanced
treatments like ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, etc., found effective for PFOS removal
from water, but many municipal water treatments facilities do not have these treatments due its high installation and maintenance cost. Table 18.6 summarizes the
occurrence of PFOS in drinking/tap water samples tested across various countries.
The Spanish drinking water showed highest PFOS concentration (<0.12–58.12 ng/L)
among the reported studies (Ericson et al. 2009). This indicates the direct correlation
between high surface water or raw water concentration and drinking water concentration. Other countries such as Japan (0.16–51 ng/L) and United Kingdom (<11–
45 ng/L) also showed higher concentrations in some samples (Takagi et al. 2008;
Atkinson et al. 2008; Fujii et al. 2007). Concentration between the range of 11–
25 ng/L was reported in some countries such as China, Germany and USA (DWHA,
US EPA 2016; Ullah et al. 2011; Mak et al. 2009; Fujii et al. 2007; Skutlarek et al.
2006). Concentration level was below concern level in countries such as Belgium,
K. Dhangar and M. Kumar
et al. (2007) in WWTPs of Georgia and Kentucky region of USA. In both regions,
higher concentration is detected in effluents than that of influents which results in
negative removal efficiency. High range of PFOS concentration was observed in
the sludge from Kentucky (133–993 ng/g dw), whereas the concentration detected
in the sludge of WWTPs of Georgia was 22–70 ng/g dw. In the reported study of
Canada, wide concentration range of PFOS was observed in the influent stream
(2–1100 ng/L), effluent stream (1–1300 ng/L) and effluent sludge (9.7–8200 ng/g
dw) (Guerra et al. 2014). From the reported study by Murakami et al. (2009) in
Kanto area of Japan, the maximum concentration in the effluent (42–635 ng/L) was
found to be double than the maximum of influent water samples (42–635 ng/L).
Whereas in WWTPs of the Tsurumi River basin of Japan, PFOS concentration in
the range of 79–640 ng/L was found in the effluent streams (Zushi et al. 2008).
Kunacheva et al. (2011) report removal efficiency around 50% for PFOS in WWTPs
of Central Thailand and negative removal efficiency in WWTPs of Eastern Thailand.
In case of WWTPs of some countries such as Singapore, Spain, Switzerland and
Taiwan, removal efficiency <10% was observed during the biological treatments of
the wastewater influents (Alder and van der Voet 2015; Campo et al. 2014; Sun et al.
2011; Yu et al. 2009; Huset et al. 2008). Some countries like Denmark, Greece and
Korea reported relatively less PFOS concentrations in influent stream, effluent stream
as well as in the sludge (Stasinakis et al. 2013; Arvaniti et al. 2012; Guo et al. 2010;
Bossi et al. 2008). Thompson et al. (2011a, b, c) traced the concentration of PFOS in
the wastewater during its journey in WWTPs having two different advanced treatment
technologies. Plant with treatments like ultrafiltration (UF) and reverse osmosis (RO)
showed more than 98% removal efficiency, whereas plant having several stages of
ozonation gave around 90% efficiency.
18.5.3 Occurrence of PFOS in Drinking/Tap Water
The occurrence of PFOS in drinking or tap water is the effect of its pre-presence in
surface water systems and less effective drinking water treatments. Some advanced
treatments like ultrafiltration, reverse osmosis, etc., found effective for PFOS removal
from water, but many municipal water treatments facilities do not have these treatments due its high installation and maintenance cost. Table 18.6 summarizes the
occurrence of PFOS in drinking/tap water samples tested across various countries.
The Spanish drinking water showed highest PFOS concentration (<0.12–58.12 ng/L)
among the reported studies (Ericson et al. 2009). This indicates the direct correlation
between high surface water or raw water concentration and drinking water concentration. Other countries such as Japan (0.16–51 ng/L) and United Kingdom (<11–
45 ng/L) also showed higher concentrations in some samples (Takagi et al. 2008;
Atkinson et al. 2008; Fujii et al. 2007). Concentration between the range of 11–
25 ng/L was reported in some countries such as China, Germany and USA (DWHA,
US EPA 2016; Ullah et al. 2011; Mak et al. 2009; Fujii et al. 2007; Skutlarek et al.
2006). Concentration level was below concern level in countries such as Belgium,