JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Application of Toxicity Identification Evaluation Procedures for Toxic Effluents from the Aluminum Rolling Industry
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Application of Toxicity Identification Evaluation Procedures for Toxic Effluents from the Aluminum Rolling Industry
Ra, Jin-Sung; Lee, Jiho; Kim, Ki-Tae;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study is to identify toxicants causing acute toxicity in effluents from the aluminum rolling industry that violate the discharge limits in Korea. Methods: Whole effluent toxicity tests (WET) were conducted on effluent discharged from the aluminum rolling industry following the US EPA WET test methods. We collected effluent samples three times and evaluated acute toxicity by using Daphnia magna. We employed toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) procedures to identify toxicants causing toxicity in the effluent. Results: No specific chemical groups were identified in the seven different manipulations applied to the of wastewater effluent samples showing 1.3 toxic units (TU) according to the TIE phase I procedures. Water quality parameters for water hardness, electric conductivity and heavy metals (Mn) were 4,322 mg/l as , 11.39 mS/cm, and , respectively. Considering water hardness and reference toxicity, high concentrations of Mn can be disqualified from the causative toxicants. Consequently, high ionic concentrations of (1,648 mg/l), (1,048 mg/l), (1,428 mg/l) and (7,472 mg/l) were identified to be causative toxicants. Water hardness and electric conductivity exceed the value obtained by biological toxicity tests using Daphnia magna. Conclusion: According to TIE procedures, high salt concentration is determined to be a major toxicant in the effluent of agro-industrial wastewater treatment plants receiving wastewater from the aluminum rolling industry.
 Keywords
High salt concentration;Toxicity identification evaluation;Wastewater treatment plant;Whole effluent toxicity testing;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Peter MC. Whole effluent toxicity testing - usefulness, level of protection, and risk assessment, Environ Toxicol Chem. 2000; 19(1): 3-13.

2.
Ministry of Environment. Water Quality and Ecosystem conservation Act.

3.
Ministry of Environment. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, Acute toxicity test method of the Daphnia magna Straus (Cladocera, Crustacea), ES 04751.1

4.
Ra JS, Kim HK, Chang NI, Kim SD. Whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests on wastewater treatment plants with Daphnia magna and Selenastrum capricornutum, Environ Monit Assess. 2007; 129: 107-113. crossref(new window)

5.
Sarakinos HC, Rasmusssen JB. Use of bioassaybased whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests to predict benthic community response to a complex industrial effluent, J Aquat Ecosyst Stress Recovery. 1998; 6: 141-157.

6.
Chatiza FP. A comparison between whole effluent toxicity testing (wet) and active biomonitoring (abm) as indicators of in stream aquatic health, Thesis (M. Sc. In aquatic health), Rand Afrikaans University. 2004.

7.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Method guidance and recommendations for whole effluent toxicity (WET) Testing (40 CFR Part 136), EPA 821-B-00-004. 2000.

8.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for aquatic toxicity identification evaluation, Phase I toxicity characterization procedure, Second edition, EPA/600/6-91/003. 1991.

9.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for aquatic toxicity identification evaluation, Phase II toxicity identification procedures for samples exhibiting acute and chronic toxicity, EPA/600/R-92/080. 1993.

10.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. Methods for aquatic toxicity identification evaluation, Phase III toxicity confirmation procedures for samples exhibiting acute and chronic toxicity, EPA/600/R-92/081. 1993.

11.
Burgess RM, Ho KT, Brack W, Lamoree M. Effectdirected analysis (EDA) and toxicity identification evaluation (TIE): complementary but different approaches for diagnosing causes of environmental toxicity, Environ Toxicol Chem. 2013; 32(9): 1935-1945. crossref(new window)

12.
Pascoe D, Evans SA, Woodworth J. Heavy metal toxicity to fish and the influence of water hardness, Arch Environ Contam Toxicol. 1986: 15: 481-487. crossref(new window)

13.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. ECOTOX database, Available: http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/

14.
Lasier PJ, Winger PV, Bogenrieder KJ. Toxicity of manganese to Ceriodaphnia dubia and Hyalella Azteca, Arch Environ Contam Toxocol. 2000; 38(3): 298-304. crossref(new window)

15.
Yi X, Kim E, Jo HJ, Han T, Jung J. A comparative study on toxicity identification of industrial effluents using Daphnia magna, Bull Environ Contam Toxicol. 2011; 87: 319-323. crossref(new window)