REGULATORY TOXICITY TESTING: A SOUTH AFRICAN WATER UTILITY PERSPECTIVE

Annelie Maritz, Hein du Preez and Laetitia Slabbert1

Analytical Services, Scientific Services Rand Water. P.O. Box 3526, Vereeniging, South Africa, 1930. Tel nr. 016 421 5150. Fax nr. 016 455 2055. amaritz@randwater.co.za 1 Environmentek, CSIR, P. O. Box 395, Pretoria, 0001

ABSTRACT In South Africa the Water Utilities have to produce water of acceptable quality as stipulated by the SANS 241 drinking water specification. The specification does not specify any toxicity evaluation/testing (biological based tests) of the drinking water. Only a by the way paragraph is included that recommends the monitoring of toxins when algal and cyanbacteria blooms are noted in the source water. Nevertheless, some of the Water Utilities have in-house production specifications that include many more determinants and also include toxicity evaluation of the drinking water. The most commonly used tests in South Africa are the Daphnia test and the Microcystin screening test: ELIZA method. The Microcystin analysis: ELIZA method is usually supported with HPLC analysis and a standardized mouse bioassay. It is envisaged that for at least the next five to ten years toxicity testing would still play a minor role in the analysis performed by most of the Water Utilities in South Africa. However, toxicity testing would receive more attention at the larger water utilities like Rand Water. The main drivers would be (1) international trends, (2) increase in the demand for improved water quality information by clients and (3) the implementation of management strategies to reduce general risk to the company, for example Water Safety Plans. The larger Water Utilities would focus on the tests would include more biochemical and cell line based tests, and real-time biomonitors and tests that can produce information in a relative short time span. The application of these tests would be subjected to in-depth validation in order to comply to the ISO 17025 standard before it would be used in these laboratories.

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT Presently the water supply to consumers in South Africa takes place at three levels.[1] At the first level, the Department of water affairs and forestry (DWAF) supplies untreated water in bulk, from government water schemes, to irrigation and water boards and a number of local authorities. At the second level of water supply, water is purified by water boards and supplied to large users such as local authorities (metropolitan councils, municipalities, etc), which are, in turn, responsible for distributing the water within their areas of supply. However, in reality the activities of the role players are less clear. Nevertheless it is important to note that the Water Services Act, 108 of 1997 governs the roles and responsibilities of water utilities.[2]. It is also important to stress that under this

Act the water utilities have limited if any responsibilities related to the monitoring and protection of surface water as defined by the National Water Act (Act 36 of 1998).[3] This is however a major limitation of both these Acts as Water Utilities are an integral part of the water supply chain (Figure 1) and knowledge of the quality of the raw water is vital for the optimization of the water purification plant that will ensure good quality drinking water that comply with international standards. Fortunately many Water Utilities supports the viewpoint that the production of drinking water cannot be segregated from the activities from other activities in the water supply chain. From a water quality monitoring perspective these Water Utilities would therefore monitor both the source water and drinking water quality. This paper explores the application of toxicity testing in the water quality monitoring programmes of Water Utilities in South Africa.

DEPARTMENT OF WATER AFFAIRS AND FORESTRY

Rain

Raw water

Transfer

Storage
WATER UTILITY

Discharge
Local authorities

Abstraction
WATER UTILITY

Treatment
Local authorities

Purification
WATER UTILITY Local authorities

Waste collection

Distribution

Consumers

Reticulation

FIGURE 1: The water supply chain (adapted from Connolly)[1] from where water samples are received for analyses and assessments are performed.

APPLICATION OF TOXICOLOGY The following would determine the application of toxicological methodology by the water utilities: 1: Their information needs and general views on source water quality monitoring. 2: Production of drinking water according to national specifications. 3: Other activities not related to drinking water production. Information needs and general views on source water monitoring As stated Water Utilities have no legal obligation to monitor the source water. However this information is vital for the cost effective production of drinking water. In South Africa the monitoring of source water (catchments based or at the intakes) focuses mainly on the traditional monitoring of chemical determinants and the application of biomonitorng techniques and toxicity testing are limited and generally not performed. Some of the large Water Utilities would however monitor selected sites in the source water catchment (Daphnia, Guppy, Vibrio, Pseudomonas, and algae) and at the source water intakes

(Daphnia and Microcystin analysis: ELIZA method). These monitoring activities are usually linked to in-house monitoring programmers. Production of drinking water according to national specifications In South Africa the Water Utilities have to produce water of acceptable quality as stipulated by the SANS 241drinking water standard.[4] The standard focuses on: (1) microbiological safety requirements, (2) physical and organoleptic requirements, (2) chemical requirements: macro-determinant, (3) chemical requirements: micro-determinant (4) chemical requirements: organic-determinant.[4] The specification does not specify any toxicity evaluation/testing (biological based tests) of the drinking water. Only a by the way paragraph is included that recommends the monitoring of toxins when algal and cyanbacteria blooms are noted in the source water. However, many of the Water Utilities have in-house production specifications that include many more determinants and also include toxicity evaluation of the drinking water. The most commonly used tests in South Africa are the Daphnia test and the Microcystin screening test: ELIZA method. The Microcystin analysis: ELIZA method is usually supported with HPLC analysis and a standardized mouse bioassay. Other activities not related to drinking water production. Water Utilities are also involved in other activities for example management of wastewater treatment and commercial analytical analyses. On occasion toxicity testing are applied. The main limitation is however, the unwillingness of Governmental structures to make toxicity testing compulsory in the monitoring of waste discharges. THE FUTURE APPLICATION OF TOXICITY TESTING BY WATER UTILITIES It is envisaged that for at least five to ten years toxicity testing would still play a minor role in the analysis preformed by most of the Water Utilities in South Africa. The main reason being fact that most of the Water Utilities now have limited equipment and skilled manpower to perform the basic chemical and biological tests. Furthermore, SANS 241, made no contribution to enhance the use of toxicity testing in drinking water production. The inability of Governmental structures to implement toxicity testing to monitor surface water and wastewaters would also persist in the medium to long term. However, toxicity testing would receive more attention at the larger water utilities like Rand Water. The main drivers would be (1) international trends, (2) increase in the demand for improved water quality information by clients and (3) the implementation of management strategies to reduce general risk to the company, for example Water Safety Plans. The Water Utilities would focus on applying toxicity testing on the source water from intakes and the drinking water they produce. The larger Water Utilities could therefore focus on the following type of testing: Wet testing (Daphnia, Guppy/Zebra fish, Luminescent bacteria- Vibrio, and Algal growth inhibition- Selenastrum) Test linked to assess the occurrence of toxins (for example Microcystin analysis: ELIZA method). Test linked to the occurrence of EDCs (for example Xenopus VTG ELISA; E-screen assay, Recombinant yeast screen; Zebra fish VTG, different ELISA and enzyme immunoassays). Genotoxicity (for example the SOS Chromotest),

 Mutagenic test (for example the Ames test).[5,6,7,8,9] The tests would therefore shift to biochemical and cell line based tests. The application of these tests would be subjected to in-depth validation in order to comply to the ISO 17025 standard before it would be used in these laboratories.[10] CONCLUSION The application of toxicity testing in the production of drinking water is largely neglected and is mainly practiced by large Water utilities or on an ad hoc basis. It is envisaged that this situation will continue and the focus of Water Utilities would be on the compliance to SANS 241, which do not stipulate toxicity testing.

REFERENCES 1. J Connally, Fundamentals of the water business: an overview of strategic issues. Course notes of Water Technology Training. Published by Rand Water Head Office, Johannesburg, South Africa, (2001). South Africa, Water and Sanitation Act no 108 of 1997. Pretoria: Government Printer, (1997). South Africa, National Water Act no 36 of 1998. Pretoria: Government Printer, (1998). South African National Accreditation System, South African National Standard: Drinking Water. SANS 241: 2005, SANS, Pretoria, (2005). J L Slabbert, J Oosthuizen, A E Venter, E du Preez and P J Pretoruis, Development of guidelines for toxicity bioassaying of drinking water and environmental waters in South Africa. Water Research Commission report No 358/1/98. Pretoria. (1998) J L Slabbert, E A Venter, F H H Carlsson, C Ellerbeck and E Pienaar, Establishment of methodologies for oestrogen mimicking substances and genotoxins. Water Research Commission report No ENV-P-P 98184. Pretoria, (1999). J H van Wyk, E J P pool, E Hunter, and A J Leslie, The activity of endocrine disrupting contaminates in selected water resources in the Western Cape: Development, validation and implementation of biomarkers. Water Research Commission report No K5/926/0/1. Pretoria, (2000). S WIBORG, Products of Biosence Laboratories. Biosence Laboratories. Bergen, Norway. (2003). S H Wilson and W A Suk, Biomarkers of environmental associated disease: Technologies, Concepts and Perspectives. Lewis Publishers. New York, (2002). International Standards Organisation/IEC, General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories. ISO/IEC 17025: 1999. Pretoria: South African Bureau of Standards, (1999).

2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

8. 9. 10.