Factors affecting the variation in MX [3-Chloro-4 ... · Web viewAll samples are finished drinking...
Transcript of Factors affecting the variation in MX [3-Chloro-4 ... · Web viewAll samples are finished drinking...
The relationship between MX [3-Chloro-4-
(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone],
routinely monitored trihalomethanes, and other
characteristics in drinking water in a long-term
survey.
AUTHOR NAMES
Rachel B. Smith†, James E. Bennett†, Panu Rantakokko‡, David Martinez§, Mark J.
Nieuwenhuijsen†§, Mireille B. Toledano†*
AUTHOR ADDRESS
†MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics,
School of Public Health, Imperial College London, St Mary’s Campus, Norfolk Place, London,
W2 1PG, UK. ‡National Institute for Health and Welfare, Chemicals and Health Unit, Kuopio,
Finland. §Centre for Research in Environmental Epidemiology, (CREAL), Barcelona, Spain.
§Universitat Pompeu Fabra (UPF), Barcelona, Spain. §CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública
(CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain.
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
* Dr Mireille B. Toledano, MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health, Department of
Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Imperial College London, St Mary’s Campus, Norfolk Place,
London W2 1PG, UK. Tel:+44 20 7594 3298 Fax:+44 20 7594 3196 Email:
Author Contributions
JB conducted statistical analysis, including modeling of trihalomethane data, and wrote initial
drafts of the paper. RBS was responsible for design of the water sampling survey in Bradford,
water sample collection, collection of additional data from water company, and writing final
draft of paper. PR conducted laboratory analyses of MX on water samples, and QA/QC of MX
data and analytical methods. DM conducted statistical analysis. MBT was responsible for
funding and oversight of UK aspects of HiWATE, and study design. MJN was responsible for
funding, oversight, overall study design of HiWATE. All authors contributed to interpretation of
data and analysis, and the manuscript was written through contributions of all authors. All
authors have given approval to the final version of the manuscript.
KEYWORDS
Disinfection by-products (DBPs); drinking water; Mutagen X (MX); seasonality;
trihalomethanes
2
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
ABSTRACT
MX (3-Chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone) is a drinking water disinfection
by-product (DBP). It is a potent mutagen and is of concern to public health. Data on MX levels
in drinking water, especially in the UK, are limited.
Our aim was to investigate factors associated with variability of MX concentrations at the tap,
and to evaluate if routinely measured trihalomethanes (THMs) are an appropriate proxy measure
for MX.
We conducted quarterly water sampling at consumers’ taps in eight water supply zones in and
around Bradford, UK, between 2007 and 2010. We collected 79 samples which were analysed
for MX using GC-HRMS. Other parameters such as pH, temperature, UV-absorbance and free
chlorine were measured concurrently, and total THMs were modeled from regulatory monitoring
data.
To our knowledge this is the longest MX measurement survey undertaken to date.
Concentrations of MX varied between 8.9 and 45.5 ng/L with a median of 21.3 ng/L. MX
demonstrated clear seasonality with concentrations peaking in late summer/early fall.
Multivariate regression showed that MX levels were associated with total trihalomethanes, UV-
absorbance and pH. However, the relationship between TTHM and MX may not be sufficiently
consistent across time and location, for TTHM to be used as a proxy measure for MX in
exposure assessment.
3
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
TOC/ABSTRACT ART
4
62
63
64
INTRODUCTION
The formation of MX (3-Chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone) during the
chlorination of water was first discovered as a result of the observation that bleaching of sewage
from wood pulp caused strong mutagenic activity of the waste water.1 The compound was later
identified as a disinfection by-product (DBP) in chlorinated drinking water.2, 3 MX is a minor
component of the highly complex mixture of DBPs by concentration, but it can give rise to a
considerable proportion of the total mutagenicity. Estimates of mutagenicity attributable to MX
in various chlorinated drinking water samples from the US, Finland, Australia, China, Japan,
Russia, Spain and the UK have ranged from 2% to 67%.4
Exposure to drinking water mutagenicity has been associated with increased risks of bladder and
kidney cancer in humans,5 and reduced birth weight and increased risk of small-for-gestational
age,6 which could reflect exposure to MX or other mutagenic DBPs, or a mixture of these. MX
is a potent direct-acting genotoxicant, and has been shown to have promoter activity, to induce
oxidative stress, and to be the most potent carcinogen of all the DBPs in animal studies.7 MX
has also been classified as possibly carcinogenic to humans.8 MX induces point mutations in
human cells in vitro, and is capable of inactivating tumour-suppressor genes.9 MX and its
analogs have been ranked as DBPs of priority concern .10, 11 The contribution of MX to toxicity
in drinking water may vary according to the specific DBP mixture in a drinking water system,
but given its genotoxic and carcinogenic potential, MX is of interest from a public health
perspective and it is important to understand how it relates to more prevalent DBPs, such as
trihalomethanes (THMs).
5
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
Previous studies have examined the factors influencing MX formation in simulated laboratory
chlorination.12-14 The aim of this paper was to investigate the factors associated with variability
of MX concentrations in public drinking water supplies at the tap, in order to inform and
improve exposure assessment in epidemiological studies of DBPs, and to understand if routinely
measured trihalomethanes (THMs) are an appropriate surrogate for epidemiological inference
regarding possible health risks of MX. This paper presents occurrence data for MX in samples
collected in the North of England between 2007 and 2010. It addresses a data gap, as there is
little information on MX concentrations in drinking water supplies in the UK. To our knowledge,
it is the longest MX measurement survey undertaken worldwide to date, thus providing a unique
opportunity to evaluate long-term temporal variation of MX.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Sampling
MX sampling at the tap was undertaken as part of a larger water sampling campaign covering a
suite of DBPs.15 The study area supplied by Yorkshire Water company covered 8 Water Supply
Zones (WSZs, supplying <50,000 people) in and around Bradford in the North of England. Two
WSZs were supplied solely by water treatment plant A, four WSZs are supplied solely by
treatment plant B, one WSZ is supplied by a mixture of treated water from A and B and one
WSZ supplied by a mixture of A and up to 3 further plants. Disinfection was via dosing of either
chlorine or sodium hypochlorite. The raw water is drawn from a mixture of upland surface water
sources.
6
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
MX samples were collected quarterly from Quarter 3 of 2007 to Quarter 1 of 2010. In total, 79
samples were collected. The location for sample collection in each WSZ was chosen by a
random address generator from the water company’s customer database, in accordance with
standard regulatory monitoring. Sampling locations thus differ for each quarter and are customer
addresses (residential and business). All samples are finished drinking water at the point of use.
Together with MX concentrations, a large range of water parameters such as pH, temperature,
UV-absorbance, free and total chlorine, conductivity, bromide, colour and turbidity were
measured concurrently.
Analytical Methods
GC-HRMS determination of MX
The first version of the MX method was published more than 10 years ago 16 and a short version
of improvements more recently.17 Full details of sample pretreatment, instrumental analysis,
quantification and quality control are given in the Supporting Information and only a brief
description here.
MX samples were collected in a 250 ml polyethylene bottle to which ammonium sulphate was
added prior to sampling. Samples were then acidified to pH 2-3 with HCl and frozen at -20°C
until analysis. Thawed samples were pumped with tubing pump through a train of 0.45 µm
syringe filter, Waters Sep-Pak Plus tC18 cartridge (tC18) and Waters Oasis HLB Plus cartridge.
The HLB cartridge was dried with air and MX was eluted from it with acetone that was
evaporated to dryness. Internal standard (13C labelled 2,4,5-trichlorophenol), 4% H2SO4-
7
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
isopropanol, nonane and hexane were added to extracts. MX and internal standard were
isopropylated at 85°C for 1 hour. Then ultrapure water and more hexane were added, and mixed.
Hexane phase was separated, washed with ultrapure water, dried with sodium sulfate, evaporated
to a volume of about 500 µl, and transferred to autosampler vials. Recovery standard PCB-30
was added, and solvent was concentrated to 50 µl in nonane.
Instrumental analysis was performed with gas chromatograph (Hewlett Packard 6890) coupled to
high resolution mass spectrometer (Waters Autospec Ultima). The column used was Agilent
DB-5MS (20 m, i.d. 0.18 mm, film 0.18 µm).
Final results were calculated by standard addition. Limit of quantification for MX was 0.5 ng/L.
For quality control one ultrapure water reagent blank and one spiked Kuopio tap water control
sample (10ng/l of MX added) were analysed in each batch of samples. Blank levels were
negligible. Average spike recovery in 15 batches of samples was 98%, and relative standard
deviation of recoveries was 18%. Uncertainty of measurement was 51%.
Free and total chlorine were measured in situ by DPD visual comparator test kit. pH and
temperature were recorded in situ using a pH meter (Hanna HI-98128 waterproof pHep pH/c
meter). UV-absorbance was measured by UV at 254nm, TOC was measured by chemical
oxidation/infra-red spectrometry, bromide by ion chromatography, colour and turbidity by
spectrometry, and conductivity by potentiometry.
8
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
Modelled Total Trihalomethanes
Routine regulatory monitoring data for THMs from samples collected from customers’ taps in
the distribution system were provided by Yorkshire Water for the 8 WSZs in the study area.
Thus, all data used in this study reflects measurements from taps in the distribution system.
Regulatory drinking water sampling, analytical testing and data quality is subject to independent
audit by the United Kingdom Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI)..
This routine THM monitoring dataset contained 358 sample points across the years 2006 to
2010. In order to estimate THM concentrations for those months in which no data were collected
and in order to provide robust estimates of the monthly concentrations in each WSZ, a predictive
model was used. Any bromoform or DBCM values below the limit of quantitation (LOQ) were
treated as zero concentration. No sample points were below LOQ for chloroform or BDCM.
Total trihalomethane (TTHM) for each sample point was calculated as the sum of chloroform,
bromodichloromethane (BDCM), dibromochloromethane (DBCM) and bromoform. TTHM
levels ranged from 14.2 to 95.6 µg/L. The data points were approximately evenly distributed
across the WSZs, months and years. Log-transformed TTHM was modelled using linear
regression (in the statistical package R), with a spline in month, a factor for year and a factor for
WSZ included in order to provide monthly WSZ-specific concentrations. The predictive model
was validated using 10-fold cross-validation20 (i.e. splitting the data into 10 parts and using 9
parts to predict the 10th, repeated 10 times) for the R2. The predictive model gave an R2 value
(calculated using 10-fold cross-validation) for observed versus predicted values of 0.76,
indicating a close fit to the routine THM monitoring data. This R2 reflects the predictive
performance within this routine monitoring dataset; we would expect performance when
9
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
predicting the unobserved TTHM concentrations in the actual MX tap samples to be slightly
lower. Other water characteristics were excluded from the predictive models in order to avoid
confounding any relationship between MX and the predicted TTHM in the planned analysis. The
model generated month and WSZ specific estimates of TTHM concentrations which were then
linked to corresponding MX samples.
Statistical Analysis
All statistical analyses were conducted using R 2.15.2.21 In descriptive analyses, continuous
variables (predicted TTHM, pH, free, total and combined chlorine, UV-absorbance, and
temperature) were categorised into tertiles, and due to the skewness of the MX data, geometric
means are presented. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) tests were undertaken for each variable
independently and the percentage of log(MX) variability explained and the overall p-values were
obtained. The percentage of MX variability explained by a particular variable was calculated
from ANOVA as the sum of squares for the variable of interest divided by the total sum of
squares.
Scatter plots of MX against continuous variables were produced with a Lowess smooth (a
locally weighted regression) to aid interpretation of the relationship between variables. In
boxplots of MX concentration by categorical variables, the width of box is proportional to the
square root of the number of observations contributing to that category.
Univariate and multivariate regression were undertaken after log transforming the MX values to
examine predictors of MX variation. Year, quarter, total chlorine, free chlorine, combined
10
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
chlorine, pH, temperature, UV-absorbance, predicted TTHM, colour, and conductivity were
considered as potential covariates in multivariate models. Multivariate models were selected via
a stepwise model selection procedure using the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC). Leave-one-
out cross validation using the current dataset was undertaken in order to obtain a valid value of
R2, i.e. validate the percentage of variability explained by the multivariate models.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
MX occurrence. MX was detected well above the limit of quantification in all 79 samples.
Concentrations of MX ranged from 8.9 to 45.5 ng/L with a median of 21.3 ng/L. These levels
are consistent with, and within maximum range of, distribution system samples in Finland (range
15-67 ng/L),22 the US (mean 28 ng/L, range 4 - 80 ng/L),23 Spain (median 16.7 ng/L, range 0.8-
54.1 ng/L),24 Canada (range not detected-141 ng/L)25 but well below the extremely high levels
(mean 180 ng/L) reported in Russia,26 and a US sampling survey (up to 850 ng/L) targeting
plants/distribution systems fed by TOC rich waters.27, 28 The only available data on levels of MX
occurring in the UK drinking water supply are from a 1990 survey of 11 treatment plant samples,
in which concentrations ranged from 1-48 ng/L.29 This range is similar to the present study,
tentatively suggesting that over the long-term there has been little change in MX levels in UK
drinking waters.
Temporal variation. There is clear evidence of a seasonal trend with MX concentrations peaking
in Quarter 3, i.e. late summer/early fall, in our study area (Figure 1, part A). This is similar to a
general pattern of higher MX concentrations in summer compared to winter observed in Canada
in 2007 (means 32 ng/L and 12 ng/L for summer and winter respectively).25 In contrast, Wright
11
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
et al.23 reported higher MX concentrations in spring compared to fall in Massachusetts, US
(mean 31 ng/L and 22 ng/L respectively). Patterns of seasonal variation may vary according to
the pathway by which the specific humic organic matter associated with MX formation enters the
raw water, or variation in average seasonal temperatures, or variation in chlorine dosing, and
these may differ by geographical location.
MX shows very similar temporal variation to TTHM, in the study area (Figure 2). Month and
year explain 59% of variability in MX concentrations (p<0.01) (Table 1). If the year and month
elements are separated out, a smaller percentage of the variability is explained by year of
sampling but results suggest an overall increase in MX concentrations in 2009 compared to 2008
(Figure 1, part B). Comparisons with annual averages for 2007 and 2010 are not valid, because
samples were not collected for all quarters in 2007 and 2010.
To our knowledge, the present study is the longest MX measurement survey undertaken. With
regular quarterly sampling over a 2.5 year timeframe, it has provided a unique opportunity to
evaluate long-term temporal variation. As far as the authors are aware, only Wright et al. 23 have
collected a comparable number of samples (n=88) but, with a shorter timeframe and fewer
sampling windows (Spring 1997, Spring 1998, Fall 1998), their data have limited ability to
assess temporal variation within and between years.
Other DBP species. MX was positively correlated (r=0.60, p<0.001) with modelled TTHM
estimates (Figure 3, part A), which explained 40% of MX variability (p<0.01) (Table 1). In our
study area, chloroform comprised the majority (mean fraction 80.75%) of TTHM, with BDCM,
12
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
DBCM and bromoform contributing 16.17%, 3.00% and 0.08% respectively. The correlation we
observe is similar to a correlation of 0.65 between chloroform and MX reported by Villanueva et
al.24, and a correlation of 0.7 between chloroform and MXsum (MX + ZMX + EMX) reported by
Onstad et al.28 in plant effluent samples, but higher than a correlation of 0.37 between TTHM and
MX reported by Wright et al.23, which suggests that the relationship between TTHM and MX
may vary by geographical location. However, whilst the correlation found here was similar to
some previous work, it must be emphasised that the TTHMs used here were modelled values
representing a WSZ-level and month average, therefore within-WSZ variation between taps and
within-month variability for THMs mean that the correlation (and regression coefficients) can
only be viewed as an approximation of the underlying relationship.
pH. Figure 3 (part B) suggests a possible U-shaped relationship between MX and pH, with
minimum MX values around pH 7.9-8.0. The tertile groupings in Table 1 are not sufficiently
aligned with this minimum to explain a significant percentage of variability, but using a linear
spline to check the relationship we observed that pH explains 10% of the variability in MX. This
could be an artefact of the data, however we note a similar U-shaped pattern in Wright et al.23
with mean MX concentrations of 35.89 ng/L, 21.9 ng/L, 28.9 ng/L in the pH categories 5.66-
7.39, 7.4-8.16 and 8.17-9.90 respectively. Our data do not include pH values lower than 7.4,
whereas in Wright et al. 23 the pH values go as low as 5.66, therefore if the U-shaped relationship
is true and not artefactual we would predict to see a ‘flatter’ U-shaped relationship in our data
compared to the US, which is indeed what we see. A U-shaped relationship, although slightly
differently located, was observed in the early MX-stability studies over a wide pH range. MX
has a local stability minimum around pH 6 -7, and is more stable around pH 8. At and above pH
13
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
10 hydrolytic degradation increases drastically. However, temperature is also very important for
MX stability, at low temperatures degradation can be slow even at pH 9.2, 30
A strong influence of pH on MX formation during laboratory simulated chlorination has
previously been observed, with MX formation usually favoured by chlorination at acidic
conditions, but with no MX detected when chlorination was performed at neutral or alkaline
conditions.13, 14 Previous studies find that MX is relatively stable at acidic pH (≤4), but is
degraded at neutral and alkaline conditions, although not monotonically.2, 30-32 Speciation of MX
is also dependent on pH with ring forms of MX favoured at pH < 7, whereas open forms are
favoured at pH > 7.28 In short, pH appears to be influential to both MX formation and
degradation, and therefore also concentration.
Free, total and combined chlorine.
MX concentrations decrease slightly across increasing total and free chlorine tertiles (Table 1).
However, scatter plots suggest that overall the relationship is weak for both total chlorine and
free chlorine (Figure 3, part C and D), with neither explaining much variability in MX (Table 1).
A scatter plot of combined chlorine (the difference between total and free chlorine) versus MX
revealed no relationship (Figure S1, part A, Supporting Information). Total, free and combined
chlorine were allowed as possible explanatory variables in the multivariate model selection
process. Previous studies observe MX concentration to be associated with chlorine dose,13, 23 but
not with chlorine residual in the distribution system.23
14
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
Organic content. UV-absorbance, colour and total organic carbon (TOC) are all indicators of
organic content, and were highly intercorrelated in this dataset (correlation coefficients ≥ 0.73).
There was a positive linear relationship between MX and UV-absorbance, which explained 30%
variability in MX concentrations (p<0.01) (Table 1, Figure 3 part E). Colour and TOC showed
similar associations with MX (Figure S1, part B and C, Supporting Information). Consistent with
our data, positive relationships between TOC and MX have previously been observed.13, 23 We
cannot comment on the influence of specific types of organic matter in our study, but Xu et al. 12
have previously identified aquatic humic substances and in particular fulvic acids in the organic
matter being the strongest contributors to MX formation in chlorinated natural waters.
Temperature. Temperature explained 14% (p<0.01) of the variability in MX concentrations
(Table 1). MX appeared to increase non-linearly with increasing temperature (Figure 3, part F),
which is consistent with laboratory findings that MX formation increases with temperature (up to
45 oC after which MX stability decreases).13 In contrast, Wright et al.23 found the highest levels
of MX corresponded to the category with the lowest temperature (1.1-6.7 oC), however few of
our samples were in this temperature range.
Water Supply Zone and Treatment Plant. Little or no variability was explained by either WSZ
(0%, p-value 0.947) or Treatment Plant supply (0.2%, p-value 0.675) (Figure S2, part A and B,
Supporting Information). This is as expected since the treatment processes were broadly the
same and the raw water used was from similar surface water sources in a relatively compact
geographical area. A difference between levels seen in two WSZs which were supplied by the
15
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
same treatment plant may have been due to differences in the positions of the WSZs in the
distribution network but there were insufficient data to evaluate this.
Other water parameters. Bromide levels were low with only 6 out of 79 samples exceeding the
limit of detection, with a maximum value of 0.035 mg/L, and thus bromide has not been used
further due to insufficient variability and also due to low potential for the formation of
brominated THMs and brominated analogues of MX.33, 34 Conductivity and turbidity showed no
discernable relationship with MX (Figure S1, parts D and E, Supporting Information).
Univariate and Multivariate Regression Models
We identified factors associated with MX variation via univariate and multivariate regression
models. There were several competing multivariate models which explained the variability in
MX to a similar degree. This is a common finding in the modeling of DBPs where many of the
possible explanatory variables are often highly correlated. Coefficients (and SEs) from two
multivariate models, together with univariate regression coefficients for all variables considered
for final models, are presented in Table 2.
Our observation of a possible U-shaped relationship influenced how we incorporated pH into
multivariate models. We use a linear spline of pH, which gives 2 parameters to estimate the
relationship between MX and pH: one to represent the relationship with pH below 8, and another
to represent the relationship with pH above 8. The combination of both pH terms gives the
relationship at pH value 8.
16
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
Model 1 includes the variables spline of pH, UV-absorbance and predicted TTHM; Model 2
includes the variables Year, spline of pH, UV-absorbance and predicted TTHM. The two models
respectively explain 47% and 52% of the variability in log(MX) concentrations (R2 from leave-
one-out cross-validation, to avoid overestimating the variability explained by these models). The
variables conductivity, colour, temperature, chlorine (total, free or combined) and quarter, were
not selected in any of the possible models.
Models 1 and 2 perform similarly, but Model 1 may be more useful since it is not reliant on the
unmeasurable Year factor, particularly given that years 2007 and 2010 do not represent a full
calendar year of sampling. There may be some differences in MX concentrations between the
years which are not explained by the other available measured explanatory variables, leading to
Year being selected for inclusion in the model. In contrast, the significant quarterly temporal
variation is largely explained by other variables, such as predicted TTHM and UV absorbance,
and a factor for Quarter is not necessary in the multivariate models.
Our models clearly outline the combination of parameters which are important in the prediction
of MX concentrations at the tap, and which should be measured in future studies evaluating MX,
or when conducting MX exposure assessment.
However, although indicative of the relationships we would expect to see in other areas of the
UK using similar treatment processes and water sources, the multivariate models presented here
should only be used to determine zone estimates for this area and within the timeframe of the
study. Extrapolation of the models to other regions or years carries with it the risk that the
17
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
interrelationships between the variables in the models, which give rise to the exact relative sizes
of the model parameter estimates, may vary.
The main influences on MX concentrations at the tap are temporal, together with recognised
determinants of disinfection by-product formation such as UV-absorbance (an indicator of
organic matter) and pH. Our findings are consistent with Wright et al.23 who also find TOC, pH
and temporal factors (amongst other variables) to be significant predictors of MX at the tap in
multivariate regression. We observed a possible U-shaped relationship between MX and pH,
that is consistent with results presented in Wright et al23 for real drinking water samples,
although it was not discussed by these authors. As mentioned above, stability tests confirmed a
U-shaped relationship in the late 1980s, but the minimum occurred at slightly lower pH of 6-7.30
Due to the similar nature of the treatment plants supplying the area no insight could be gained
regarding the influence of the physical and chemical treatment of the raw water on MX levels.
However, these influences have been addressed in previous literature (e.g. Wright et al.23 and
Onstad et al.28). The present study has instead focused on water characteristics in the distribution
system and how these, together with the month and year of sampling, influence the variability in
MX levels at the tap.
One limitation of this work is that the THM concentrations were not sampled concurrently with
the MX, with inference relying instead on predicted levels of TTHM obtained by modelling
routine sampling data. The TTHM predictions were made for each WSZ and month and
therefore do not replicate spatial variability within WSZs, nor day to day variation within each
18
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
month. Also, we have only certain input variables to use, and we will not be able to capture or
explain all variation in multivariate models.
Whilst TTHM is clearly associated with MX, that association varied by year from a correlation
of 0.70 (n=10) for 2007, 0.84 (n=38) for 2008, 0.33 (n=31) for 2009 to -0.02 (n=8) for 2010 data.
There is absolutely no evidence for a lack of predicted TTHM model fit to the routine TTHM
data in 2009 and therefore we must conclude that the weaker correlation between 2009 levels of
MX and predicted TTHMs is real and not an artefact of the use of predicted TTHMs. Nor do the
available water parameter data fully explain the levels of MX in 2009. The coefficient for 2009
in the multivariate model presented is significant. We must conclude that there are further
unexplained sources of variability in MX not accounted for in these data and that these are
particularly strongly present in 2009. These factors could take the form of weather patterns,
operational changes in processing or distribution, or water characteristics not measured in this
study. Wright et al.23 also note considerable variability in the relationship between TTHM and
MX in different sampling time periods.
We have shown that TTHM explains 40% of MX variability, and correlates quite well with MX
in our study area. However, we observe some variation in this relationship by year, and what
limited literature is available also suggests that the relationship between TTHM and MX can
vary by location and time period. We conclude therefore, that TTHM by itself may not be a
sufficiently consistent surrogate for MX for reliable epidemiological inference. Epidemiological
studies investigating potential health effects of MX should undertake sufficient longitudinal MX
19
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
sampling to enable the fitting of multivariate predictive MX models for use in robust exposure
assessment.
20
405
406
Table1: MX concentrations (ng/L) in relation to categorised variables, 2007-2010, Bradford, UK.
Data Range n MinimumMX
(ng/L)
MaximumMX
(ng/L)
GeometricMean MX
(ng/L)
IQR a
MX(ng/L)
All samples 79 8.9 45.5 21.0 13.1Year/ Month 2007 Sept 5 16.1 28.6 22.2 5.5
Nov 5 26.8 45.5 33.9 5.42008 Mar 8 8.9 24.0 14.0 3.0 May 7 13.1 22.4 16.3 4.2 Aug 8 22.5 44.2 30.0 2.8 Nov 7 15.3 23.1 18.9 2.62009 Mar 8 11.0 36.0 18.5 7.2 May 8 14.0 44.2 26.6 18.2 Sept 7 19.7 37.0 28.0 7.8 Nov 8 21.1 28.7 24.3 3.22010 Mar 8 9.6 20.0 13.2 5.1%Variability, p-value 59% p < 0.01
Predicted TTHM
26.2 – 37.1 µg/L 26 8.9 36.0 15.1 6.837.2 – 51.9 µg/L 26 13.5 45.5 22.2 11.252 – 81.5 µg/L 27 14.7 44.2 27.5 8.2%Variability, p-value 40% p < 0.01
pH 7.4 – 7.6 32 9.6 45.5 19.9 12.17.7 – 7.9 22 10.3 40.8 20.8 16.68.0 – 8.7 22 8.9 44.2 23.9 9.0%Variability, p-value 3% p = 0.11
Total Chlorine
<0.05-0.15 mg/L 21 11.0 45.5 23.8 10.20.16-0.25 mg/L 23 10.3 37.0 21.2 13.50.26-0.8 mg/L 34 8.9 40.8 19.4 14%Variability, p-value 4.5% p = 0.06
Free Chlorine
<0.10 mg/L 24 11.0 44.2 22.4 13.20.10 – 0.15 mg/L 24 10.3 45.5 21.2 11.30.20 – 0.75 mg/L 30 8.9 40.8 19.9 15.0%Variability, p-value 2% p = 0.26
UV-absorbance
0.018 – 0.025 m-1 26 8.9 36.0 16.6 7.40.026 – 0.036 m-1 26 10.3 40.8 19.9 9.50.037 – 0.057 m-1 27 16.6 45.5 27.9 8.2%Variability, p-value 30% p < 0.01
Temperature 4.7 – 9.2 oC 22 8.9 36.5 16.5 10.19.3 – 13.9 oC 23 13.1 45.5 23.7 7.914.0 – 19.7 oC 23 13.1 44.2 23.7 10.6%Variability, p-value 14% p < 0.01
21
407408
a IQR, interquartile range
22
409410
Table 2. Univariate and Multivariate Coefficients for linear regression model of log(MX)
Data Range Univariate RegressionSlope (SE)
MultivariateModel 1d
Slope (SE)
MultivariateModel 2 e
Slope (SE)Year 2007 a -0.349 (0.131) * 0.304 (0.102) **Year 2009 -0.040 (0.129) 0.159 (0.069) *Year 2010 -0.438 (0.145) -0.048 (0.132)Quarter 2 b Apr – Jun 0.256 (0.138)Quarter 3 Jul – Sept 0.507 (0.131) ***Quarter 4 Oct - Dec 0.525 (0.142) ***Total Cl (mg/L) <0.05 - 0.80 -0.015 (0.273)Free Cl (mg/L) <0.05 - 0.75 0.048 (0.304)Combined Cl c (mg/L) 0.00 – 0.47 -0.360 (0.703)pH spline values < 8 7.4 – 8.7 -0.322 (0.277) -0.320 (0.213) -0.276 (0.202)pH spline values > 8 0 – 0.7 1.208 (0.549) * 0.938 (0.411) * 0.681 (0.395) .Temperature (oC) 7.3 – 19.7 0.012 (0.014)UV absorbance (1/m) 0.018–0.057 22.10 (4.098) *** 10.433 (5.677) . 10.483 (5.697) .Pred TTHM (µg/L) 30.0 – 69.1 0.013 (0.003) *** 0.577 (0.175) ** 0.508 (0.2) *Colour (Hazen) 0.35-3.70 0.215 (0.060) ***Conductivity (µS/cm) 122-331 0.0006 (0.001)
DoF=71, R2=0.51 (R2
cv1=0.47)DoF=68, R2=0.56
(R2cv1=0.52)
“.” p <0.10, * p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001. aYear coefficients are relative to 2008. b Quarter Coefficients are relative to 1st Quarter (Jan-Mar). c Combined Cl calculated as Total Cl minus Free Cl.R2
cv1: leave-one-out cross validation.d The equation for Model 1 is:
log ( MX )=10.433× UV +0.577× TTHM−0.320 × pH +0.938 × PHc[pH >8]
23
411412413
414415416417418419
Where pHc[pH>8] pHc[ pH>8]=¿{ 0 , pH ≤8
pH−8 , pH >8¿
e The equation for Model 2 is:
log ( MX )=0.304 ×Year2007+0.159 × Year2008−0.048 ×Year2009+10.483 ×UV +0.508× TTHM−0.276 × pH +0.681× PHc[pH> 8]
Where pHc[pH>8] pHc[ pH>8]=¿{ 0 , pH ≤8
pH−8 , pH >8¿
24
420
421
422423424425
426427
428
Figure 1: MX in relation to A) Quarter and B) Year, 2007-2010, Bradford, UK.
B)A)
25
429430431432433434
Figure 2:MX and predicted TTHM in relation to time, 2007-2010, Bradford, UK.
26
435436
437438
Figure 3: MX in relation to A) predicted TTHM and B-F) other water characteristics, 2007-2010, Bradford, UK.
Footnotes for Figure 3: Super-imposed red line is a Lowess smooth, a locally weighted regression line.
F)
A) B)
D)C)
E)
27
439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468469470471472473474475476477478479480481482483484
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was funded by HiWATE (Health Impacts of Long-Term Exposure to
Disinfection By-products in Drinking Water in Europe) [EU 6th Framework Programme
Contract no. Food-CT-2006-036224], the Joint Environment & Human Health
Programme [NERC grant NE/E008844/1], and an ESRC studentship [PTA-031-2006-
00544]. The MRC-PHE Centre for Environment and Health is funded by the UK Medical
Research Council and Public Health England. We thank Yorkshire Water, particularly
Cameron Hamilton, for assisting this study with provision of routine sampling data,
allowing us to piggy-back additional sampling onto their routine regulatory sampling
programme, and for making their knowledge of the study area available. We thank Teija
Korhonen for her valuable assistance in the laboratory analysis of MX. We thank Nina
Iszatt and Susan Edwards for their valuable assistance with sample and data collection.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION AVAILABLE
Full details of MX analytical methods and quality control are given in Supporting
Information. Plots of MX in relation to combined chlorine, colour, TOC, conductivity,
turbidity, water supply zone, and treatment plant supply are given in Figures S1 and S2 in
Supporting Information. This information is available free of charge via the Internet at
http://pubs.acs.org .
28
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
REFERENCES
1. Holmbom, B.; Voss, R. H.; Mortimer, R. D.; Wong, A., Fractionation, Isolation,
and Characterization of Ames Mutagenic Compounds in Kraft Chlorination Effluents.
Environmental Science & Technology 1984, 18, (5), 333-337.
2. Meier, J. R.; Knohl, R. B.; Coleman, W. E.; Ringhand, H. P.; Munch, J. W.;
Kaylor, W. H.; Streicher, R. P.; Kopfler, F. C., Studies on the Potent Bacterial Mutagen,
3-Chloro-4-(Dichloromethyl)-5-Hydroxy-2(5h)-Furanone - Aqueous Stability, Xad
Recovery and Analytical Determination in Drinking-Water and in Chlorinated Humic-
Acid Solutions. Mutation Research 1987, 189, (4), 363-373.
3. Hemming, J.; Holmbom, B.; Reunanen, M.; Kronberg, L., Determination of the
Strong Mutagen 3-Chloro-4-(Dichloromethyl)-5-Hydroxy-2(5h)-Furanone in Chlorinated
Drinking and Humic Waters. Chemosphere 1986, 15, (5), 549-556.
4. McDonald, T. A.; Komulainen, H., Carcinogenicity of the Chlorination
Disinfection By-Product MX. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C
2005, 23, (2), 163-214.
5. Koivusalo, M.; Jaakkola, J. J. K.; Vartiainen, T.; Hakulinen, T.; Karjalainen, S.;
Pukkala, E.; Tuomisto, J., Drinking-Water Mutagenicity and Gastrointestinal and
Urinary-Tract Cancers - an Ecological Study in Finland. American Journal of Public
Health 1994, 84, (8), 1223-1228.
29
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
6. Wright, J. M.; Schwartz, J.; Dockery, D. W., The effect of disinfection by-
products and mutagenic activity on birth weight and gestational duration. Environ Health
Perspect 2004, 112, (8), 920-5.
7. Richardson, S. D.; Plewa, M. J.; Wagner, E. D.; Schoeny, R.; DeMarini, D. M.,
Occurrence, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity of regulated and emerging disinfection by-
products in drinking water: a review and roadmap for research. Mutat Res 2007, 636, (1-
3), 178-242.
8. IARC, I. A. f. R. o. C., Some Drinking-water Disinfectants and Contaminants,
including Arsenic. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to
Humans 2004, 84.
9. Hakulinen, P.; Yamamoto, A.; Koyama, N.; Kumita, W.; Yasui, M.; Honma, M.,
Induction of TK mutations in human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells by the rat carcinogen 3-
chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone (MX). Mutat Res 2011, 725, (1-2),
43-9.
10. Woo, Y. T.; Lai, D.; McLain, J. L.; Manibusan, M. K.; Dellarco, V., Use of
mechanism-based structure-activity relationships analysis in carcinogenic potential
ranking for drinking water disinfection by-products. Environ Health Perspect 2002, 110
Suppl 1, 75-87.
11. Hebert, A.; Forestier, D.; Lenes, D.; Benanou, D.; Jacob, S.; Arfi, C.; Lambolez,
L.; Levi, Y., Innovative method for prioritizing emerging disinfection by-products
30
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
(DBPs) in drinking water on the basis of their potential impact on public health. Water
Res 2010, 44, (10), 3147-65.
12. Xu, X.; Lin, L.; Huixian, Z.; Yongbin, L.; Liansheng, W.; Jinqi, Z., Studies on the
precursors of strong mutagen [3-chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-
furanone]MX by chlorination of fractions from different waters. Chemosphere 1997, 35,
(8), 1709-1716.
13. Zhuo, C.; Chengyong, Y.; Junhe, L.; Huixian, Z.; Jinqi, Z., Factors on the
formation of disinfection by-products MX, DCA and TCA by chlorination of fulvic acid
from lake sediments. Chemosphere 2001, 45, (3), 379-385.
14. Backlund, P.; Wondergem, E.; Voogd, K.; Dejong, A., Influence of Chlorination
Ph and Chlorine Dose on the Formation of Mutagenic Activity and the Strong Bacterial
Mutagen 3-Chloro-4-(Dichloromethyl)-5-Hydroxy-5(2h)-Furanone (Mx) in Water.
Chemosphere 1989, 18, (9-10), 1903-1911.
15. Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J.; Smith, R.; Golfinopoulos, S.; Best, N.; Bennett, J.;
Aggazzotti, G.; Righi, E.; Fantuzzi, G.; Bucchini, L.; Cordier, S.; Villanueva, C. M.;
Moreno, V.; La, V. C.; Bosetti, C.; Vartiainen, T.; Rautiu, R.; Toledano, M.; Iszatt, N.;
Grazuleviciene, R.; Kogevinas, M., Health impacts of long-term exposure to disinfection
by-products in drinking water in Europe: HIWATE. J Water Health 2009, 7, (2), 185-
207.
16. Rantakokko, P.; Yritys, M.; Vartiainen, T., Matrix effects in the gas
chromatographic-mass spectrometric determination of brominated analogues of 3-chloro-
31
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone. Journal of Chromatography A 2004,
1028, (2), 179-188.
17. Carrasco-Turigas, G.; Villanueva, C. M.; Goni, F.; Rantakokko, P.;
Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., The effect of different boiling and filtering devices on the
concentration of disinfection by-products in tap water. Journal of environmental and
public health 2013, 2013, 959480.
18. Carrasco-Turigas, G.; Villanueva, C. M.; Goni, F.; Rantakokko, P.;
Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., The effect of different boiling and filtering devices on the
concentration of disinfection by-products in tap water. Journal of environmental and
public health 2013, 2013, 959480.
19. Malliarou, E.; Collins, C.; Graham, N.; Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Haloacetic acids in
drinking water in the United Kingdom. Water Res 2005, 39, (12), 2722-2730.
20. Lewis, P. D., R for Medicine and Biology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers: Sudbury,
MA, 2010.
21. R Development Core Team R: A language and environment for statistical
computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing., Vienna, Austria. URL
http://www.R-project.org/. 2012.
22. Kronberg, L.; Holmbom, B.; Reunanen, M.; Tikkanen, L., Identification and
Quantification of the Ames Mutagenic Compound 3-Chloro-4-(Dichloromethyl)-5-
Hydroxy-2(5h)-Furanone and of Its Geometric Isomer (E)-2-Chloro-3-(Dichloromethyl)-
32
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
4-Oxobutenoic Acid in Chlorine-Treated Humic Water and Drinking-Water Extracts.
Environmental Science & Technology 1988, 22, (9), 1097-1103.
23. Wright, J. M.; Schwartz, J.; Vartiainen, T.; Maki-Paakkanen, J.; Altshul, L.;
Harrington, J. J.; Dockery, D. W., 3-Chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-
furanone (MX) and mutagenic activity in Massachusetts drinking water. Environ Health
Perspect 2002, 110, (2), 157-64.
24. Villanueva, C. M.; Castano-Vinyals, G.; Moreno, V.; Carrasco-Turigas, G.;
Aragones, N.; Boldo, E.; Ardanaz, E.; Toledo, E.; Altzibar, J. M.; Zaldua, I.; Azpiroz, L.;
Goni, F.; Tardon, A.; Molina, A. J.; Martin, V.; Lopez-Rojo, C.; Jimenez-Moleon, J. J.;
Capelo, R.; Gomez-Acebo, I.; Peiro, R.; Ripoll, M.; Gracia-Lavedan, E.; Nieuwenhujsen,
M. J.; Rantakokko, P.; Goslan, E. H.; Pollan, M.; Kogevinas, M., Concentrations and
correlations of disinfection by-products in municipal drinking water from an exposure
assessment perspective. Environ Res 2012, 114, 1-11.
25. Kubwabo, C.; Stewart, B.; Gauthier, S. A.; Gauthier, B. R., Improved
derivatization technique for gas chromatography-mass spectrometry determination of 3-
chloro-4-(dichloromethyl)-5-hydroxy-2(5H)-furanone in drinking water. Anal Chim Acta
2009, 649, (2), 222-229.
26. Egorov, A. I.; Tereschenko, A. A.; Altshul, L. M.; Vartiainen, T.; Samsonov, D.;
LaBrecque, B.; Maki-Paakkanen, J.; Drizhd, N. L.; Ford, T. E., Exposures to drinking
water chlorination by-products in a Russian city. Int J Hyg.Environ Health 2003, 206,
(6), 539-551.
33
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
27. Krasner, S. W.; Weinberg, H. S.; Richardson, S. D.; Pastor, S. J.; Chinn, R.;
Sclimenti, M. J.; Onstad, G. D.; Thruston, A. D., Occurrence of a new generation of
disinfection byproducts. Environmental Science & Technology 2006, 40, (23), 7175-
7185.
28. Onstad, G. D.; Weinberg, H. S.; Krasner, S. W., Occurrence of halogenated
furanones in US drinking waters. Environmental Science & Technology 2008, 42, (9),
3341-3348.
29. Horth, H.; Fielding, M.; James, C. P.; James, H. A.; Gwilliam, R. D. Identification
of Mutagens in Drinking Water (EC9105) Final report to the Department of the
Environment DoE 2489-M/1; 1990.
30. Holmbom, B.; Kronberg, L.; Smeds, A., Chemical-Stability of the Mutagens 3-
Chloro-4-(Dichloromethyl)-5-Hydroxy-2(5h)-Furanone (Mx) and E-2-Chloro-3-
(Dichloromethyl)-4-Oxo-Butenoic Acid (E-Mx). Chemosphere 1989, 18, (11-12), 2237-
2245.
31. Vartiainen, T.; Heiskanen, K.; Lotjonen, S., Analysis and Some Chemical-
Properties of Mx (3-Chloro-4-(Dichloromethyl)-5-Hydroxy-2(5h)-Furanone), the Potent
Drinking-Water Mutagen. Fresen J Anal Chem 1991, 340, (4), 230-233.
32. Miettinen, I.; Martikainen, P.; Vartiainen, T.; Lotjonen, S., Biochemical and
Chemical Degradation of 3-Chloro-4-(Dichloromethyl)-5-Hydroxy-2(5h)-Furanone (Mx)
in Surface and Drinking-Water. Chemosphere 1993, 27, (9), 1707-1718.
34
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
33. Richardson, S. D.; Thruston, A. D.; Caughran, T. V.; Chen, P. H.; Collette, T. W.;
Floyd, T. L., Identification of new drinking water disinfection byproducts formed in the
presence of bromide. Environmental Science & Technology 1999, 33, (19), 3378-3383.
34. Suzuki, N.; Nakanishi, J., Brominated Analogs of Mx (3-Chloro-4-
(Dichloromethyl)-5-Hydroxy-2(5h)-Furanone) in Chlorinated Drinking-Water.
Chemosphere 1995, 30, (8), 1557-1564.
35
626
627
628
629
630
631
632