Total Chromium and Hexavalent Chromium Occurrence Analysis - Web Report #4414 Subject Area: Water Quality
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Total Chromium and Hexavalent
Chromium Occurrence Analysis
Web Report #4414
Subject Area: Water Quality
Total Chromium and Hexavalent
Chromium Occurrence Analysis
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
About the Water Research Foundation
The Water Research Foundation is a member-supported, international, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization
that sponsors research that enables water utilities, public health agencies, and other professionals to
provide safe and affordable drinking water to consumers.
The Foundation’s mission is to advance the science of water to improve the quality of life. To
achieve this mission, the Foundation sponsors studies on all aspects of drinking water, including
resources, treatment, and distribution. Nearly 1,000 water utilities, consulting firms, and
manufacturers in North America and abroad contribute subscription payments to support the
Foundation’s work. Additional funding comes from collaborative partnerships with other national and
international organizations and the U.S. federal government, allowing for resources to be leveraged,
expertise to be shared, and broad-based knowledge to be developed and disseminated.
From its headquarters in Denver, Colorado, the Foundation’s staff directs and supports the efforts of
more than 800 volunteers who serve on the board of trustees and various committees. These
volunteers represent many facets of the water industry, and contribute their expertise to select and
monitor research studies that benefit the entire drinking water community.
Research results are disseminated through a number of channels, including reports, the Website,
Webcasts, workshops, and periodicals.
The Foundation serves as a cooperative program providing subscribers the opportunity to pool their
resources and build upon each others’ expertise. By applying Foundation research findings,
subscribers can save substantial costs and stay on the leading edge of drinking water science and
technology. Since its inception, the Foundation has supplied the water community with more than
$460 million in applied research value.
More information about the Foundation and how to become a subscriber is available at
www.WaterRF.org.
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Total Chromium and Hexavalent
Chromium Occurrence Analysis
Prepared by:
Chad J. Seidel and Christopher J. Corwin
Jacobs Engineering, Denver, CO 80202
Rajiv Khera
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Washington, DC 20460
Sponsored by:
Water Research Foundation
6666 West Quincy Avenue
Denver, CO 80235
Published by the
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.DISCLAIMER
This study was funded by the Water Research Foundation (Foundation). The Foundation
assumes no responsibility for the content of the research study reported in this publication or
for the opinions or statements of fact expressed in the report. The mention of trade names
for commercial products does not represent or imply the approval or endorsement of the
Foundation. This report is presented solely for informational purposes.
Copyright © 2012
by Water Research Foundation
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced
or otherwise utilized without permission.
Printed in the U.S.A.
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.CONTENTS
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1
2. Description of Data ................................................................................................................. 1
2.1. National Chromium and Boron Occurrence Survey (NCBOS) ....................................... 2
2.2. EPA’s Second Six Year Review ICR Contaminants Monitoring Data (6YR2) .............. 2
2.3. CDPH Data ....................................................................................................................... 6
3. Analysis of Total and Hexavalent Chromium Occurrence ..................................................... 8
3.1. Comparison of Chromium Occurrence between Datasets ............................................... 8
3.2. Analysis of Chromium Occurrence by Source Type, Region, and System Size ........... 10
3.3. Analysis of Paired Total and Hexavalent Chromium Samples ...................................... 14
4. Spatial Distribution of Chromium Occurrence ..................................................................... 16
5. Co-occurrence with Chromium ............................................................................................ 19
6. Estimated Extent of Potential Future Regulation ................................................................. 20
7. Conclusions ........................................................................................................................... 23
8. References ............................................................................................................................. 24
v
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.LIST OF TABLES
1. Summary of occurrence data sources ..................................................................................1
2. Summary of non-detect results in the 6YR2 dataset ............................................................2
3. Summary of non-detect results in the CDPH dataset...........................................................7
4. Percent of entry points with 75th percentile total chromium concentration above the
threshold values (6YR2 data, non-detects set to one-quarter of the MRL) ...........18
5. Correlation of co-occurring contaminants with total chromium in the
6YR2 dataset ..........................................................................................................20
6. Estimation of the national CWS entry point inventory......................................................21
7. Number of CWS entry points above the threshold concentration at various
threshold concentrations ........................................................................................22
vi
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.LIST OF FIGURES
1. Analysis of non-detect MRLs of the 6YR2 dataset (all non-detect samples). .....................3
2. Cumulative probability distribution of median total chromium concentration by
entry point of the 6YR2 dataset with non-detects set to zero, one quarter of the
MRL, half the MRL, and at the MRL ......................................................................4
3. Cumulative probability distribution of median total chromium concentration by
entry point of the 6YR2 dataset with non-detects set to zero, and one quarter
of the MRL, compared to the NCBOS dataset and the Bayesian estimate ..............5
4. Cumulative probability distribution of total chromium concentration by entry
point of the 6YR2 dataset (non-detects set to one-quarter of the MRL) .................6
5. Cumulative probability distribution of chromium in CDPH for raw versus
treated by sample location (75th percentile concentration per each sample
location) ...................................................................................................................8
6. Cumulative probability distribution of total chromium data from the three datasets
(6YR2 and CDPH are the 75th percentile concentration per sample location) ........9
7. Cumulative probability distribution of hexavalent chromium NCBOS & CDPH
raw data (CDPH shows the 75th percentile concentration per sample location,
non-detects set to zero) ..........................................................................................10
8. Cumulative probability distributions of total chromium in the 6YR2 dataset by
source water type (75th percentile concentration per sample location,
non-detects set to one-quarter of the MRL) ...........................................................11
9. Cumulative probability distributions of CDPH hexavalent chromium data in ground
and surface waters divided into raw and treated samples (75th percentile
concentration per sample location, non-detects set to zero) .................................12
10. Map of EPA Regions .........................................................................................................13
11. Cumulative probability distribution of 6YR2 total chromium data by EPA region
(75th percentile concentration per sample location, non-detects set to
one-quarter of the MRL) ........................................................................................13
12. Cumulative probability distributions of 6YR2 total chromium data by system
size category (75th percentile concentration per sample location, non-detects
set to one-quarter of the MRL) ..............................................................................14
13. CDPH paired sample analysis of ground waters and surface waters .................................15
14. CDPH paired sample analysis of ground waters grouped by raw and treated waters .......15
15. CDPH paired sample analysis of surface waters grouped by raw and treated waters .......16
16. National pin map of 75th percentile total chromium concentration from the 6YR2
dataset by system (for systems with more than two samples) ...............................17
17. California pin map of 75th percentile hexavalent chromium concentration from
the CDPH database by system ...............................................................................19
18. Estimation of total number of CWS entry points with total chromium above
threshold concentrations ........................................................................................23
vii
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.1. Introduction
The purpose of this study is to update the chromium occurrence analysis originally presented
in the Water Research Foundation (WaterRF) Report #2759, “Occurrence Survey of Hexavalent
Chromium and Boron,” (Frey et al., 2004) with new data from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of California. New data were obtained from two primary
sources: the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) Water Quality Analysis Database,
and the EPA’s second six year review database. While these occurrence data are already
available, the objective of this assessment was to identify general occurrence trends of chromium
and capture regional occurrence patterns and assess the geographical coverage and extent of
impact of a potential future revision of total chromium or a new hexavalent chromium regulation
on the nation’s water utilities.
2. Description of Data
Chromium occurrence information was gathered from available sources and the previous
WaterRF survey to guide the development of this updated national occurrence survey. Three
primary datasets are used in this analysis: WaterRF Report #2759, EPA’s second six year review,
and CDPH Water Quality Analysis Database (WQAD). A summary of the datasets is given in
Table 1. Other data sources considered but found not to be useful were: USGS National Water
Information System, National Water-Quality Assessment, and Water Quality Monitoring
Networks databases, US EPA STORET and voluntary water utility monitoring data.
Table 1. Summary of occurrence data sources.
Data Source WaterRF #2759 USEPA CDPH
Database NCBOS 6YR2 WQAD
Geographic
41 States 46 States and 2 Tribes California
Coverage
Period of Record 2003 1998 - 2005 1995 - 2011
Source Water Raw and Treated Drinking
Raw Drinking Water Treated Drinking Water
Sampled Water
MRL varies from MRL varies from
Total Chromium MRL=0.6 µg/L
0.02 -100 µg/L 1 -50 µg/L
Data n=342, 39%2.1. National Chromium and Boron Occurrence Survey (NCBOS)
The National Chromium and Boron Occurrence Survey (NCBOS) was compiled, analyzed,
and reported in WaterRF Report #2759 (Frey et al., 2004). The survey utilities were recruited on
a voluntary basis, rather than a designed survey to adequately represent regional, system size,
and source water occurrence. Field samples were collected in 2003 and transported to a central
laboratory where the analysis of total and hexavalent chromium was performed. Reporting limits
were 0.6 µg/L for total chromium and 0.2 µg/L for hexavalent chromium. A total of 342 total
chromium and 341 hexavalent chromium raw water samples were reported. The samples were
taken at the same relative location for each of 342 different sources, from 189 different systems
in 41 states. Samples from the treatment system profiles included with the NCBOS were not
included in this analysis.
2.2. EPA’s Second Six Year Review ICR Contaminants Monitoring Data (6YR2)
The 6YR2 dataset consists of nationwide entry point samples for total chromium. The EPA
collected the 6YR2 data by a voluntary call-in of compliance data from state and primacy
agencies for samples collected between 1998 and 2005 (EPA, 2010). The samples were
analyzed by many different labs and methods resulting in reporting levels from 0.02 – 100 µg/L.
A total of 162,823 samples were included in the dataset after applying a data quality auditing
procedure. The EPA’s data auditing involved standardizing units of concentration for the
contaminants and ensuring that parameters such as the system type were consistent with data in
federal safe drinking water information system (SDWIS). Systems classified as a groundwater
include only ground water sources. However, systems classified as surface waters may include
groundwater and groundwater under the direct influence (GWUDI) of surface water among its
sources. Some of the data submissions included source water samples. Where possible the
source water data points were removed by the EPA. Also, each sampling point was inferred to
be an entry point to the distribution system.
Table 2 summarizes the non-detections in the 6YR2 dataset. The results were calculated
considering all the samples in the dataset, then grouping the data by entry point. Thus, a non-
detect result at an entry point means that chromium was never detected in that source.
Table 2. Summary of non-detect results in the 6YR2 dataset.
Total count Non-detect count Percent non-detects
All Samples - Cr 162,823 136,826 84%
Entry Point - Cr 74,672 58,010 78%
Of the 162,823 samples in the 6YR2 database, 136,826 were reported as non-detects with an
associated minimum reporting level (MRL). During the EPA’s data auditing procedure, non-
detects that did not include a MRL were assigned the mode MRL value for that state where other
data in the state were available (EPA, 2010). If no other MRL value was available for that state,
the national mode MRL value was substituted. Figure 1 shows the distribution of the non-detect
results from the 6YR2 dataset. Figure 1 indicates 47% of non-detect results have a MRL of 10
µg/L, which many of these presumably resulting from samples that did not include an MRL.
Another 15% of the non-detects have a MRL of 5 µg/L.
2
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Number of Non‐Detects in 6YR2 70,000 100%
60,000 A) B)
Cumulative Probability
80%
50,000
40,000 60%
30,000
40%
20,000
20%
10,000
0 0%
0 10 20 0 10 20
Total Chromium MRL (µg/L) Total Chromium MRL (µg/L)
Figure 1. Analysis of non-detect MRLs of the 6YR2 dataset (all non-detect samples).
Panel A shows the histogram of the non-detect MRLs. Panel B shows the
cumulative probability distribution of non-detect MRL concentrations.
Non-detect samples can have a profound effect on the analysis of the data. Because the
concentration of a non-detect sample can be any value from zero to the MRL, cumulative
probability distributions of the dataset were computed under four conditions to characterize the
effect of the non-detect results:
1. zero was substituted for a non-detect result,
2. one-quarter of the MRL was substituted for the non-detect result,
3. half of the MRL was substituted for the non-detect result, and
4. the MRL was substituted for the non-detect result.
Substituting zero for the non-detects results in bias towards lower concentrations because some
of the non-detects would have had detectable chromium if it were measured by a method with a
lower MRL. Similarly, substituting the MRL for a non-detect results in bias towards higher
concentrations because the actual sample concentrations were likely lower than the MRL in most
cases. Substituting one-quarter and one-half of the MRL for the non-detect attempts to balance
these biases, but the bias is unknown. See Raucher et al. (1995) for more details of non-detect
handling.
To create the cumulative probability distributions, the samples were grouped by entry point
to analyze the results on a drinking water source basis (all water source types for both
community water systems (CWS) and non-transient, non-community water systems
(NTNCWS)). Next, the median, 75th percentile, 95th percentile, and maximum value
concentrations were calculated for each of the 74,672 entry points. Figure 2 presents the
cumulative probability curves of median total chromium concentration for the 6YR2 data by the
four non-detect substitution conditions. The median value varies from zero to 10 µg/L as
3
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.influenced by the non-detects with an MRL of 10 µg/L, again many of which would have been
assigned a value of 10 µg/L because no MRL was reported with the data. The vertical portions
in each curve represent a large number of non-detect results at a particular MRL. For instance,
the vertical lines from about the 40th to 80th percentile are indicative of the non-detects with an
MRL of 10 µg/L.
100%
80%
Cumulative Probability
60% n.d.=0
n.d.=0.25∙MRL
40% n.d.=0.5∙MRL
n.d.=MRL
20%
0%
0 10 20 30 40
Total Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 2. Cumulative probability distribution of median total chromium concentration by
entry point of the 6YR2 dataset with non-detects set to zero, one quarter of the
MRL, half the MRL, and at the MRL.
Another method to analyze the impact of the non-detect results is a Bayesian estimate of the
posterior cumulative probability. A Bayesian analysis of the non-detects from total chromium
concentrations between 0.5 and 15 µg/L was prepared using the WinBUGS software at the mean
concentration of each entry point location. The Bayesian analysis uses the detect data and a
defined distribution to estimate the cumulative probability curve.
Figure 3 shows the cumulative probability of the 6YR2 dataset with non-detects substituted
with zero and one-quarter of the MRL with the cumulative distributions of the NCBOS dataset
and the Bayesian estimate. The NCBOS and Bayesian curves show similar results. This result is
somewhat unexpected as the NCBOS dataset was based upon voluntary participation of water
utilities that were willing to sample their source waters and therefore considered to be biased
towards utilities where chromium was suspected or known to occur. NCBOS was generated on a
sample-by-sample basis because only one sample was taken per sample location, and were raw
water samples. But notably, the NCBOS data shows the smooth, nearly log-normal curve to the
4
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.origin resulting from the low reporting limits used in the study. Raucher et al. (1995) observed
that occurrence data often display a log-normal behavior. Substitution of one-quarter of the
MRL in the 6YR2 data is close to the NCBOS and EPA Bayesian estimates while still being
conservative, particularly above 5 µg/L. Therefore, substitution of one-quarter of the MRL for
non-detects was used for all further analyses of the 6YR2 data, except where noted. Continuing
analyses with the Bayesian approach are not practical because the non-detect values are not re-
assigned, thus each data sub-set would require its own Bayesian analysis.
100%
Cumulative Probability
75%
6YR2 (n.d.=0)
50%
NCBOS
25% EPA Bayesian Estimate
6YR2 (n.d.=0.25∙MRL)
0%
0 5 10 15 20
Total Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 3. Cumulative probability distribution of median total chromium concentration by
entry point of the 6YR2 dataset with non-detects set to zero, and one quarter of
the MRL, compared to the NCBOS dataset and the Bayesian estimate.
Figure 4 presents the cumulative probabilities of total chromium from the 6YR2 data by the
median (50th percentile), 75th percentile, 95th percentile, and maximum concentration at each
entry point. Using percentiles to represent the data lessens the impact of non-detect handling
over averaging; therefore, the average at each entry point was not included in this analysis. The
75th percentile, 95th percentile, and maximum value yield very similar curves, with the 95th
percentile and the max value curves being indistinguishable. The median value was eliminated
from consideration because it may not be inclusive enough of systems with variable chromium
concentrations. For instance, a utility that has source water with a variable chromium
concentration, may have a median concentration below a threshold; however, if a regulation
were in place at that threshold the utility would be in violation at times when the chromium
concentration was above the median concentration. The similarity of the 75th, 95th, and
5
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.maximum curves occurs because the sample size of most entry points is low (162,823 samples
divided by 74,672 entry points equals an average of 2.2 samples per entry point). The 75th
percentile has been chosen to be consistent with the USGS analysis of arsenic national
occurrence data (USGS, 2012), and its similarity to the 95th percentile results.
100%
Cumulative Probability
75%
50%
median
25% 75th percentile
95th percentile & max
0%
0 5 10 15 20
Total Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 4. Cumulative probability distribution of total chromium concentration by entry
point of the 6YR2 dataset (non-detects set to one-quarter of the MRL).
2.3. CDPH Data
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) maintains a water quality analysis
database, which includes total and hexavalent chromium in the state of California collected
generally between 1995 and 2011. Data are representative of raw and treated waters from
throughout the state. The database included 136,286 results, 108,779 for total chromium and
27,507 for hexavalent chromium as of November 18, 2011. Because CDPH provided data for
the USEPA 6YR2 database, there is an overlap of up to 23,397 total chromium samples between
the CDPH data and 6YR2 datasets for California (22% of the CDPH database, 14% of the 6YR2
database). CDPH data came classified as raw, treated, and unknown for treatment type.
Samples also came classified as groundwater, surface water, or non-source water.
Table 3 summarizes the CDPH data and shows a similar percentage of non-detect results on a
sample basis, but a lower percentage of non-detects on a source location basis. The lower
percentage of non-detects on a source location basis can be attributed to two factors. First, the
CDPH data is weighted on more recent data with lower detection limits. Second, from a spatial
6
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.distribution perspective, California has some of the highest levels of chromium (demonstrated in
Section 3).
Table 3. Summary of non-detect results in the CDPH dataset.
Total count Non-detect Percent non-
count detects
All Samples – Total Cr 108,779 90,560 83%
All Samples - Cr(VI) 27,507 11,387 41%
Sampling Location – Total Cr 17,846 11,104 62%
Sampling Location - Cr(VI) 7,880 3,096 39%
The CDPH total chromium dataset includes 35,968 non-detect samples results at an MRL of
10 µg/L (29% of all non-detects), and another 40,255 had no reported MRLs and were therefore
set to the mode value of the CDPH dataset of 10 µg/L (bringing the total to 73% of all non-
detects). Thus, the CDPH total chromium dataset is similarly influenced by the non-detect
results as the 6YR2 dataset. For comparable analysis with the 6YR2 data, the CDPH chromium
data have been analyzed with non-detects substituted with one-quarter of the MRL and missing
MRL values set to the mode value of 10 µg/L. The MRL for the CDPH hexavalent chromium is
generally 1 µg/L or less. The lower MRL adds very little bias to the analysis of hexavalent
chromium in the range of 1 to 50 µg/L of interest in this study. Therefore, non-detect values
were set to zero for the CDPH dataset for hexavalent chromium.
Before further analysis can be made, it must be determined whether distribution of the data
differs between raw and treated waters. Figure 5 plots the cumulative probability for raw and
treated waters for both total and hexavalent chromium. The analysis was performed with the
75th percentile concentration on a sample location basis.
The data shown in Figure 5 indicate more occurrence of total chromium than hexavalent
chromium. Higher total chromium is expected because hexavalent chromium is only a portion of
the total chromium measurement. Treated water data in Figure 5 show a lower occurrence of
both total and hexavalent chromium compared to raw waters. This could be due to treatment
removing some chromium, but a more likely explanation is that sources with high concentrations
of chromium are not used for drinking water except where they cannot be avoided. Also, the
disparity in the number of samples (treated waters only account for about 5% of the data) could
also result in some selection bias. Because the distributions of raw and treated water differ, they
will be analyzed separately throughout the remainder of this report.
7
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Cumulative Probability 100%
75%
50% Total Cr Raw (n=14,735)
Total Cr Treated (n=1,003)
25% Hex. Cr Raw (n=6,547)
Hex. Cr Treated (n=419)
0%
0 5 10 15 20
Concentration (µg/L)
Figure 5. Cumulative probability distribution of chromium in CDPH for raw versus
treated by sample location (75th percentile concentration per each sample
location).
3. Analysis of Total and Hexavalent Chromium Occurrence
3.1. Comparison of Chromium Occurrence between Datasets
The NCBOS, 6YR2, and CDPH datasets all include total chromium. However, the datasets
differ in the number of samples and sample type (raw versus treated). The 6YR2 and CDPH data
were analyzed with various MRLs. CDPH data include raw and treated waters, where the
NCBOS contain only raw, and 6YR2 contain only data from treated drinking waters. The
datasets are compared by plotting the cumulative probability function of each in Figure 6. The
cumulative probabilities were calculated from the 75th percentile concentration at each sample
location.
The data in Figure 6 indicates the CDPH raw waters exhibited the most occurrence and the
NCBOS exhibited the least occurrence. The 6YR2 and CDPH treated waters showed roughly
equivalent occurrence. The difference observed between these two curves is due to the 6YR2
dataset having a proportionately higher number of non-detects with an MRL of 20 µg/L (the
vertical step in the black line at 5 µg/L).
8
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Cumulative Probability 100%
75%
50% NCBOS (n=342)
CDPH Treated (n=1,003)
25% 6YR2 (n=74,672)
CDPH Raw (n=14,735)
0%
0 5 10 15 20
Total Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 6. Cumulative probability distribution of total chromium data from the three
datasets (6YR2 and CDPH are the 75th percentile concentration per sample
location).
Figure 7 compares the cumulative probability distributions of hexavalent chromium from the
CDPH raw waters and the NCBOS dataset. The analysis was performed with the 75th percentile
concentration of hexavalent chromium on a sample location basis. The California data suggested
higher occurrence than nationally, as expected.
9
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Cumulative Probability 100%
75%
50%
25% NCBOS (n=341)
CDPH Raw (n=6,547)
0%
0 5 10 15 20
Hexavalent Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 7. Cumulative probability distribution of hexavalent chromium NCBOS & CDPH
raw data (CDPH shows the 75th percentile concentration per sample location,
non-detects set to zero).
3.2. Analysis of Chromium Occurrence by Source Type, Region, and System Size
Figure 8 displays the cumulative probability distributions of the 6YR2 total chromium
groundwater data versus surface waters. The concentrations were calculated from the 75th
percentile at each sample location and non-detects were substituted with one-quarter of the MRL.
Results of the analysis indicate that distributions are similar, with a maximum of about 2%
difference between them. As noted previously, some groundwater sources may be labeled as
surface waters if they have any surface water, or GWUDI sources in the same system. Frey et al.
(2004) also found no significant difference in distribution of total chromium for ground waters
versus surface waters. Thus, the analysis of total chromium data will not be separated by source
water type. A similar analysis was performed for water system type. No observable difference
was found between CWS and NTNCWS. Therefore, all data has been included in the analysis
(rather than limit the data to CWS data only).
10
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.100%
Cumulative Probability
75%
50% Ground Water (n=67,269)
Surface Water (n=7,403)
25%
0%
0 5 10 15 20
Total Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 8. Cumulative probability distributions of total chromium in the 6YR2 dataset by
source water type (75th percentile concentration per sample location, non-
detects set to one-quarter of the MRL).
Figure 9 shows the cumulative probability distributions for hexavalent chromium by ground
and surface water from the CDPH database. The occurrence in ground waters is higher than for
surface waters. Frey et al. (2004) found similar results. Figure 9 also separates the raw waters
from the treated waters. Not much difference in distribution is observed in the surface water data
as occurrence was only observed at low levels. The groundwater data; however, indicates higher
occurrences in the treated waters below 6 µg/L and higher occurrences in raw waters above 6
µg/L. An increase in hexavalent chromium could result from oxidation of trivalent chromium
during disinfection. A decrease in hexavalent chromium could be due to treatment provided at
some sites. However, the explanation for the crossover in Figure 9 cannot be determined with
any certainty, and it could also be due to the disparity in the number of samples (1,242 treated
samples vs. 14,448 raw samples).
11
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Cumulative Probability 100%
75%
50% GW Raw (n=14,448)
GW Treated (n=1,242)
25% SW Raw (n=628)
SW Treated (n=370)
0%
0 5 10 15 20
Hexavalent Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 9. Cumulative probability distributions of CDPH hexavalent chromium data in
ground and surface waters divided into raw and treated samples (75th percentile
concentration per sample location, non-detects set to zero).
The regional distribution of total chromium was investigated using EPA regions (shown in
Figure 10). Figure 11 presents the cumulative probability distributions for total chromium
grouped by EPA region. Some variability based on region was observed, but the uncertainty
surrounding the non-detect data complicates the analysis. Non-detect handling complicates
analysis of Figure 11; however, it can be seen that Region 9 (California, Nevada, and Arizona)
show the highest concentration occurrences. The vertical steps in the curves represent the re-
occurring non-detect values. The Region 9 curve shows the highest concentrations towards the
end of the curves where the influence of non-detects no longer influences the analysis.
12
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Figure 10. Map of EPA Regions.
100%
Cumulative Probability
75%
Region 1 (n=6,677)
Region 2 (n=4,808)
Region 3 (n=4,601)
50% Region 4 (n=10,143)
Region 5 (n=14,680)
Region 6 (n=8,916)
25% Region 7 (n=5,703)
Region 8 (n=5,367)
Region 9 (n=10,996)
Region 10 (n=2,781)
0%
0 5 10 15 20
Total Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 11. Cumulative probability distribution of 6YR2 total chromium data by EPA
region (75th percentile concentration per sample location, non-detects set to
one-quarter of the MRL).
13
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.System size was investigated in the same manner as EPA region. Figure 12 presents the
cumulative distribution curves for the 6YR2 data by system size category for all systems
included in the 6YR2 dataset (CWS and NTNCWS). Non-detect handling makes interpretation
of the 6YR2 data based on system size capricious. For instance, the higher concentration
distribution curve for systems serving a population of 1,000,000 results from a significant
number of samples analyzed at an MRL of 50 µg/L.
100%
75%
Cumulative Probability
Population Range (count)
25‐100 (n=18,566)
101‐500 (n=21,909)
50% 501‐1,000 (n=7,423)
1,001‐3,300 (n=9,397)
3,301‐10,000 (n=6,906)
25% 10,001‐50,000 (n=6,497)
50,001‐100,000 (n=1,631)
100,001‐1,000,000 (n=2,053)
>1,000,000 (n=290)
0%
0 5 10 15 20
Total Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 12. Cumulative probability distributions of 6YR2 total chromium data by system
size category (75th percentile concentration per sample location, non-detects
set to one-quarter of the MRL).
3.3. Analysis of Paired Total and Hexavalent Chromium Samples
The CDPH data were also used to study the speciation of chromium. A total of 5,976
samples with both total and hexavalent chromium results were paired by matching sample
location and date. Figures 12-14 display the results by plotting hexavalent chromium versus
total chromium by ranges from 0-100 µg/L and 0-10 µg/L by water type and raw versus treated.
In Figures 12-14 there are a number of samples that indicate a higher hexavalent chromium
concentration than total chromium, which is not truly possible. These points result from
analytical issues that are well described and explained by Parks et al. (2004).
14
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Analysis of the ground versus surface water paired samples shown in Figure 13 indicates
surface waters have generally more trivalent chromium than hexavalent chromium. The ground
waters tend to have much of their total chromium as hexavalent chromium, consistent with Frey
et al. (2004). Despite some scatter in the data the hexavalent chromium concentration is highly
correlated with the total chromium concentration (r=0.98).
100 10
Hexavalent Chromium (µg/L)
Hexavalent Chromium (µg/L)
90 GW (n=4,809) 9 GW (n=3,434)
80 8
SW (n=1,167) SW (n=1,147)
70 7
60 6
50 5
40 4
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Total Chromium (µg/L) Total Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 13. CDPH paired sample analysis of ground waters and surface waters.
Figure 14 displays groundwater paired samples similarly divided into raw and treated
categories. The data in Figure 13 also indicate treated waters have lower concentrations of
chromium. This may be due to treatment, but could also be due to sampling bias created by high
chromium sources not being used for drinking water. The disparity in sample sizes between raw
and treated waters may also contribute to bias.
The treated samples visually appear to be more heavily speciated towards hexavalent
chromium, but this is not supported by statistical analysis. Statistically, the central tendency of
the raw waters is more heavily speciated in hexavalent chromium. However, there is not a large
difference between the raw and treated waters.
100 10
Hexavalent Chromium (µg/L)
Hexavalent Chromium (µg/L)
90 GW Raw (n=3,943) 9 GW Raw (n=2,798)
80 8
GW Treated (n=646) GW Treated (n=473)
70 7
60 6
50 5
40 4
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Total Chromium (µg/L) Total Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 14. CDPH paired sample analysis of ground waters grouped by raw and treated
waters.
15
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Figure 15 indicates surface waters tended to have little hexavalent chromium in raw or
treated waters.
100 10
Hexavalent Chromium (µg/L)
Hexavalent Chromium (µg/L)
90 SW Raw (n=676) 9 SW Raw (n=661)
80 8
70 SW Treated (n=473) 7 SW Treated (n=468)
60 6
50 5
40 4
30 3
20 2
10 1
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Total Chromium (µg/L) Total Chromium (µg/L)
Figure 15. CDPH paired sample analysis of surface waters grouped by raw and treated
waters.
4. Spatial Distribution of Chromium Occurrence
The 6YR2 dataset was used to calculate the 75th percentile concentration of total chromium
at each entry point. The highest 75th percentile entry point concentration per system was mapped
by latitude and longitude identifiers assigned to each system from SDWIS data. No data were
available in the states of Washington, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, or Mississippi. Figure 16 shows
a national pin map of total chromium concentrations between 5 and 10 µg/L, 10 and 20 µg/L,
and above 20 µg/L. The figure also shows how total chromium is distributed across the country.
The greatest number of high chromium concentrations appears to be in the southwest US from
California to Texas. The region surrounding the Great Lakes also appears to have widespread
occurrence.
16
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Figure 16. National pin maap of 75th peercentile tootal chromiu
um concenttration from
m the
6YR22 dataset by system (forr systems wiith more than two sam
mples).
Tablee 4 providess a tabular annalysis of th
he spatial disstribution off total chrom
mium occurrrence.
The 6YR R2 (with no on-detects seet to one-qu uarter of thee MRL) datta was usedd to calculatte the
percent of
o entry poin nts that excceed total chhromium treeatment goalls of 1, 2, 55, 10, 20, annd 50
µg/L. The
T results indicate
i thatt the percennt of system
ms impacted rises steeplyy below 5 µ µg/L.
Much off this is du ue to non-deetect handlin ng. For innstance Geoorgia samplees only hadd two
ns out of 2,358 samples, but becausee the MRLs of the Georggia data werre relatively high,
detection
Table 4 indicates
i essentially all entry
e points exceed 5 µgg/L.
17
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Table 4. Percent of entry points with 75th percentile total chromium concentration
above the threshold values (6YR2 data, non-detects set to one-quarter of the MRL).
Threshold 1 µg/L 2 µg/L 5 µg/L 10 µg/L 20 µg/L 50 µg/L
All EPs 84.3% 69.0% 21.6% 7.6% 1.7% 0.2%
Alaska 24.0% 17.9% 7.7% 1.3% 0.4% 0.2%
Alabama 100.0% 99.8% 2.0% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%
Arkansas 100.0% 99.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0%
Arizona 95.1% 85.6% 55.9% 29.1% 12.3% 1.2%
California 94.6% 92.4% 15.2% 10.6% 3.2% 0.2%
Colorado 66.9% 56.8% 41.1% 9.5% 2.5% 0.2%
Connecticut 82.4% 74.5% 16.7% 12.4% 1.9% 1.1%
Delaware 53.7% 34.3% 7.8% 1.0% 0.2% 0.0%
Florida 90.6% 84.6% 12.1% 6.6% 1.8% 0.1%
Georgia 100.0% 99.9% 99.9% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Hawaii 34.8% 34.2% 8.9% 2.3% 0.0% 0.0%
Iowa 97.8% 66.3% 8.7% 1.2% 0.8% 0.2%
Idaho 21.0% 20.0% 10.9% 4.6% 0.5% 0.1%
Illinois 99.8% 10.9% 7.6% 2.9% 0.7% 0.1%
Indiana 97.3% 42.3% 28.9% 16.8% 7.0% 0.2%
Kansas 89.5% 62.8% 16.4% 2.1% 0.5% 0.1%
Kentucky 26.5% 19.3% 3.0% 2.7% 0.4% 0.0%
Massachusetts 85.6% 46.4% 10.0% 6.0% 0.1% 0.0%
Maryland 96.5% 94.1% 72.9% 66.1% 2.8% 0.3%
Maine 29.4% 11.4% 1.3% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Michigan 100.0% 93.3% 9.2% 7.6% 1.1% 0.1%
Minnesota 100.0% 100.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
Missouri 12.9% 7.0% 0.4% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0%
Montana 84.6% 83.4% 5.2% 1.4% 0.4% 0.1%
North Carolina 99.2% 93.7% 87.3% 1.4% 0.6% 0.1%
North Dakota 66.9% 52.0% 30.6% 12.9% 2.4% 0.4%
Nebraska 62.1% 46.5% 18.4% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0%
New Hampshire 100.0% 99.9% 1.3% 0.5% 0.3% 0.1%
New Jersey 78.6% 62.9% 9.9% 3.2% 0.8% 0.2%
New Mexico 71.2% 60.9% 28.6% 9.7% 1.2% 0.1%
Nevada 95.2% 63.2% 34.7% 16.7% 4.4% 0.6%
New York 94.4% 14.6% 8.4% 6.1% 0.2% 0.0%
Ohio 87.0% 52.7% 8.5% 6.9% 1.1% 0.0%
Oklahoma 90.7% 89.8% 13.0% 12.7% 8.6% 2.8%
Oregon 11.0% 5.3% 1.7% 0.6% 0.2% 0.0%
Rhode Island 100.0% 100.0% 17.6% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0%
South Carolina 100.0% 100.0% 1.8% 1.7% 0.9% 0.6%
South Dakota 97.8% 90.7% 18.3% 6.5% 0.6% 0.0%
Tennessee 91.0% 86.4% 2.7% 2.2% 0.3% 0.3%
Texas 97.8% 96.6% 22.3% 6.9% 1.9% 0.0%
Utah 99.1% 25.7% 17.4% 6.5% 1.8% 0.2%
Virginia 99.0% 96.8% 2.4% 1.6% 0.2% 0.0%
Vermont 90.6% 77.0% 3.9% 2.6% 2.1% 0.6%
Wisconsin 37.4% 19.0% 8.7% 4.9% 2.3% 0.3%
West Virginia 98.7% 75.3% 3.8% 1.5% 0.4% 0.0%
Wyoming 99.6% 98.0% 73.8% 72.3% 0.4% 0.2%
18
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Figure 177 shows the CDPH occu urrence of heexavalent chrromium in C
California. B
Because of thhe
lower dettection limitt for hexavallent chromiu
um concentraation ranges of 1 - 5 µg/L
L, 5 - 10 µg//L,
10 - 20 µg/L
µ and aboove 20 µg/L are shown. Hexavalent chromium aappears to occcur at locatiions
across the state.
Figure 17. Califo
ornia pin map
m of 75thh percentilee hexavalen
nt chromium
m concentration
from the CDPH database
d by
y system.
5. Co-o
occurrence with Chromium
The 6YR2 datab base was qu ueried for thhe maximum m concentraation of eachh of 69 anaalytes
included in the 6YR2 2 dataset for each system
m. As a preliiminary anallysis, the corrrelation bettween
total chro
omium and thet other 68 8 contaminan nts was calcuulated. Tabble 5 shows the contamiinants
with the highest corrrelations. The
T maximum m correlationn is seleniumm with a cooefficient of 0.05,
meaning that only 5% 5 of the variation
v con
ntaminant beeing comparred can be explained by the
variation
n in total chro
omium conccentration. The
T most higghly correlatted compounnds on the list are
naturally
y occurring, and may bee suspected to t be solublle under sim milar geochem mical condittions;
however,, the relationnships are very weak. ForF compariison purposees, the correelation coeffi ficient
between tetrachloroeethylene and d trichloroetthylene fromm this samee analysis w was 0.29. T These
results are consistennt with the finding of Seidel (20006) which foound no co--occurrence with
chromium m, except beetween total chromium anda iron in suurface waterrs. Iron is noot included iin the
6YR2 daataset and co ould not be investigated
i further. Inn our opinionn, these resuults do not juustify
19
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.further investigation into co-occurrence using higher statistical techniques such as the Chi
Squared approach.
Table 5. Correlation of co-occurring contaminants with total chromium in the 6YR2
dataset.
Contaminant r
Selenium 0.05
Arsenic 0.04
Fluoride 0.04
Beryllium 0.03
Antimony 0.03
Cadmium 0.03
Thallium 0.02
Beta Particles (Gross beta) 0.02
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 0.02
Nitrate 0.02
Barium 0.02
Uranium 0.02
Trichloroethylene (TCE) 0.02
Chlordane 0.02
1,1,2-Trichloroethane 0.02
cis-1,2,-Dichloroethylene 0.02
Alpha Particles 0.01
trans-1,2-Dichloroethylene 0.01
1,1-Dichloroethylene 0.01
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) 0.01
Combined Radium- 226 & 228 0.01
6. Estimated Extent of Potential Future Regulation
One of the primary objectives of this occurrence survey is to determine the extent a potential
future regulation may affect drinking water systems. Thus, the number of entry points greater
than a given threshold concentration were estimated for CWSs. Because the 6YR2 database
does not represent a census of all nationwide entry points, the total number of entry points was
estimated. The number of nationwide CWS entry points was estimated by comparing the 6YR2
data to the SDWIS database of CWSs (retrieved in December of 2011), broken down by system
size. Table 6 shows the results of the estimation. Columns 2 and 3 show the number of systems
in the SDWIS and 6YR2 databases, respectively. Table 6 indicates that the 6YR2 database
includes between about 60-90% of the SDWIS totals. To project this to entry points, the number
of entry points in the 6YR2 database is divided by the fraction of systems represented, which is
presented in column 6 of Table 6. Last, the average number of entry points per system is
calculated. The numbers generally increase with system size from about 2 to 14.5 for the largest
systems.
20
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Table 6. Estimation of the national CWS entry point inventory.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
SDWIS 6YR2 Projected Average
System CWS 6YR2 Entry Number Number of
Population PWSID PWSID 6YR2 / Point of Entry Entry Points
Served Census Inventory SDWIS Inventory Points per PWSID
All 50,936 32,810 64% 74,672 115,925 2.3
0-100 11,460 8,217 72% 20,116 28,055 2.4
101-500 16,333 10,509 64% 20,977 32,602 2.0
500-1,000 5,707 3,432 60% 7,085 11,781 2.1
1,001-3,300 8,259 4,719 57% 9,189 16,082 1.9
3,301-
10,000 4,946 3,092 63% 6,868 10,986 2.2
10,001-
50,000 3,254 2,122 65% 6,509 9,981 3.1
50,001-
100,000 555 386 70% 1,585 2,279 4.1
100,001-
1,000,000 400 313 78% 2,053 2,624 6.6
>1,000,000 22 20 91% 290 319 14.5
The number of entry points greater than the threshold values was estimated by multiplying
the total number of entry points by the percent of entry points exceeding the potential regulation.
Table 7 shows these results for total chromium concentrations of 1, 2, 5, 10, 20, and 50 µg/L.
The number of entry points above the threshold concentration have been estimated based on
three conditions:
1. Using the 6YR2 database with non-detects set to one-quarter of the MRL
2. Using the 6YR2 database with non-detects set to zero
3. Using the NCBOS database with non-detects set to zero
21
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.Table 7. Number of CWS entry points above the threshold concentration at various
threshold concentrations.
System
Threshold
Population 1 µg/L 2 µg/L 5 µg/L 10 µg/L 20 µg/L 50 µg/L
Concentration
Served
6YR2 n.d.=0.25·MRL 97,693 79,953 25,044 8,829 1,976 217
All Entry
6YR2 n.d.=0 23,447 18,581 10,417 6,013 1,826 217
Points
NCBOS 50,543 29,793 10,897 1,971 1,043 0
6YR2 n.d.=0.25·MRL 23,022 19,135 5,957 2,178 432 42
0-100 6YR2 n.d.=0 5,245 4,048 2,332 1,408 400 42
NCBOS 12,232 7,210 2,637 477 252 0
6YR2 n.d.=0.25·MRL 27,254 22,268 7,248 2,539 516 71
101-500 6YR2 n.d.=0 6,655 5,242 2,827 1,680 461 71
NCBOS 14,215 8,379 3,065 554 293 0
6YR2 n.d.=0.25·MRL 9,969 7,817 2,554 825 197 27
500-1,000 6YR2 n.d.=0 2,325 1,827 1,032 544 181 27
NCBOS 5,137 3,028 1,107 200 106 0
6YR2 n.d.=0.25·MRL 13,553 10,811 3,101 881 181 15
1,001-
6YR2 n.d.=0 3,262 2,552 1,289 589 164 15
3,300
NCBOS 7,012 4,133 1,512 273 145 0
6YR2 n.d.=0.25·MRL 9,424 7,733 2,144 724 208 17
3,301-
6YR2 n.d.=0 2,319 1,839 966 550 192 17
10,000
NCBOS 4,790 2,823 1,033 187 99 0
6YR2 n.d.=0.25·MRL 8,769 7,136 2,231 800 221 15
10,001-
6YR2 n.d.=0 2,089 1,742 1,072 605 218 15
50,000
NCBOS 4,352 2,565 938 170 90 0
6YR2 n.d.=0.25·MRL 2,055 1,787 476 245 88 14
50,001-
6YR2 n.d.=0 489 422 303 210 87 14
100,000
NCBOS 994 586 214 39 21 0
6YR2 n.d.=0.25·MRL 2,276 2,001 749 299 77 6
100,001-
6YR2 n.d.=0 705 602 394 272 69 6
1,000,000
NCBOS 1,144 674 247 45 24 0
6YR2 n.d.=0.25·MRL 304 289 149 132 13 2
>1,000,000 6YR2 n.d.=0 76 68 37 24 13 2
NCBOS 139 82 30 5 3 0
The results of Table 7 indicate the number of entry points impacted increases steeply below
treatment goals of 10 µg/L. Again this is largely due to the uncertainty associated with non-
detect handling. Figure 18 shows this trend graphically aggregating all system sizes. For
instance, the estimated number of entry points with concentrations above 10 µg/L range from
1,971 (NCBOS) to 8,829 (6YR2 with non-detects set to one-quarter of the MRL). Thus, even at
a concentration above the influence of the non-detect results, over a four-fold difference is
estimated depending on which data set is selected.
22
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.100,000
6YR2 n.d.=0.25∙MRL
Number of Entry Points
80,000
Above Threshold
NCBOS
60,000
6YR2 n.d.=0
40,000
20,000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Total Chromium Threshold Concentration (µg/L)
Figure 18. Estimation of national number of CWS entry points with total chromium above
threshold concentrations.
7. Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to update the NCBOS chromium occurrence analysis
originally presented in the WaterRF Report #2759 with new data from the EPA 6YR2 and
CDPH WQAD datasets. The comparisons also validate key findings already presented in
WaterRF Report #2759, including:
1. no significant difference in distribution of total chromium for ground waters versus
surface waters;
2. ground waters tend to have much of their total chromium as hexavalent chromium;
3. total chromium occurrence is distributed across the country; and
4. the highest chromium concentration occurrences were observed in EPA Region 9
(California, Nevada, and Arizona).
The total chromium data is limited by MRLs, making predictions of systems impacted
subject to a high degree of uncertainty below 10 µg/L. A suitable dataset is not available for
predicting hexavalent chromium occurrence on a national basis. Preliminary analysis of systems
impacted at different chromium concentrations indicates the potential for a very large number of
systems to be impacted by regulation.
23
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.8. References
EPA. (2010) “The Analysis of Regulated Contaminant Occurrence Data from Public Water
Systems in the Support of the Second Six-Year review of national Primary Drinking Water
Regulations,” US Environmental Protection Agency report EPA-815-B-09-006.
Frey, M.M., Seidel, C.J., Edwards, M., Parks, J.L., McNeill, L. (2004) Occurrence Survey of
Boron and Hexavalent Chromium, Water Research Foundation, Water Research Foundation
Report #2759 Denver, CO.
Parks, J. L., McNeill, L., Frey, M., Eaton, A. D., Haghani, A., Ramirez, L., Edwards, M. (2004)
“Determination of total chromium in environmental water samples,” Water Research, 38(12):
2827-2838.
Raucher, R.S., Castillo, E.T., Dixon, A., Breffle, W., Waldman, D., and Drago, J.A. (1995)
Estimating the Cost of Compliance with Drinking Water Standards: A User’s Guide. Water
Research Foundation, Denver, CO.
Seidel, C.J. (2006) “Investigation of Hexavalent Chromium as a Future Regulated Drinking
Water Contaminant,” Doctoral Thesis, University of Colorado at Boulder.
USGS. (2012) Arsenic in Groundwater of the United States.
http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/trace/arsenic/ accessed March 1, 2012.
24
©2012 Water Research Foundation. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.You can also read
