By: Ciarra Davison & Alexia Lieberman
March 11, 2015
 |
| http://www.prlog.org/11178321-water-filters-filtration-systems-for- hexavalent-chromium-water-contamination.html |
Hexavalent Chriomium is a toxic form of the metal element of Chromium. Scientists refer to is as (Cr+6) .Chromium in general “ has both beneficial and detrimental properties,” but Hexavalent Chromium is “hazardous by all exposure routes” (Mohan).
a. The presence of Hexavalent Chromium in waters does not specifically relate to a certain geographical characteristic aside from its connection to the proximity of industrial factories to bodies of water. The wastewater from industrial companies contains many contaminants and Hexavalent Chromium is often one of them (Honeycutt). Many types of ecosystems can be affected by the Hexavalent Chromium, but the areas where Hexavalent Chromium is most prominent in the waters are located near industrial waste plants. Biomes that are highly inhabited by humans are much more likely to have exposure to Hexavalent Chromium than in areas with minimal human occupancy because of the chemical’s direct link to the industrial processes.
2. Specifics of the problem
a.) History of this issue:
1.)Location
Hexavalent Chromium is linked to many industrial resources worldwide. From leather tanning to electroplating (Mohan), this chemical has found its way into waters across the country as well as invading the air we breathe. Specific locations in the United States that have pinpointed Hexavalent Chromium build up in water include : Paradise Valley, Arizona (Robertson) ; Davis, California (Mills et. al. qtd. in Kazaki et. al.); Norman, Ohio (ewg.org); and Midland, Texas (Honeycutt). In California alone there has been over 2,000 detected drinking water sources contaminated with Hexavalent Chromium (cleanwateraction.org).
 |
http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2010/world/study-unregulated-toxin-present-in-tap-water-of-31-u-s-cities/
|
2. Specifics of the problem
a.) History of this issue:
 |
http://www.ewg.org/research/chromium6-in-tap-water/executive-summary
|
The discovery of Hexavalent in water dates back to 1975 in Paradise Valley, Maricopa County, Arizona groundwater (Robertson), but the contamination of drinking water in the United States was discovered in 1993 by legal expert and environmentalist, Erin Brockovich. She discovered amounts of the chemical in the water of Hinkley, California. The company Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) was pinpointed as the source of the contamination. There is even a legal case looking at charging PG&E for causing harmful health effects in the community whose drinking water was contaminated. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), does have regulations for the amount of contaminants that can legally be present in the drinking water in the U.S, and since the discovery of Hexavalent Chromium and the studies done on its harmful effects, the amount of Hexavalent Chromium in water has been slowly decreasing in some places, but it is still a relatively new issue and not many people are educated about it.
b.) Science Behind the Issue:
The underlying causes of Hexavalent Chromium contaminating drinking water goes back to the large companies dumping their waste chemicals into bodies of water. Chromium is “persistent in water as sediments” (water.epa.gov) and remains in water until it reaches taps and drinking fountains. Once the chemical enters the bodies of water, it is extremely difficult to extract and keep track of.
c.) Consequences:
One of the main issues with Hexavalent Chromium entering bodies of water and
contaminating drinking water as well as water used for bathing, swimming, and cleaning is that it has a long list of health effects. First and foremost, Hexavalent Chromium is categorized as a carcinogen by the EPA and by the National Toxicology Program, “The National Toxicology Program has found that hexavalent chromium in drinking water shows clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in laboratory animals, increasing the risk of otherwise rare gastrointestinal tumors (NTP 2007, 2008).” Along with this classification comes a list of serious health issues associated with the consumption water that is contaminated with this chemical. A study administered by Chinese scientists, Zhang and Li (1987) shows that in villages with high concentrations of Hexavalent Chromium in the water, deaths associated with stomach cancer were more common (McNeil et. al.). More minor effects include rashes, nose bleeds, and diabetes (Litoff).
 |
| http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2011/September/19091101.asp |
3. Larger Consequences of the Problem
a. Are there other cases of this same issue/problem in other locations?
Yes, unfortunately, this problem exists in other areas of the world. There is limited evidence of it being a proven harmful carcinogen, as many more experiments need to be performed before a direct link between drinking contaminated water and an increased risk of cancer can be proven. There are several significant cases worldwide that serve to further theories of the cancerous effects of hexavalent chromium in water supplies.
In 2008, an American engineering, procurement, and construction company, KBR, was accused of having exposed 16 members of the Indiana National Guard, and even their own workers to hexavalent chromium in 2003 while at the Qarmat Ali water treatment facility. In February of 2008, National Guard soldier, David Moore, died at age 42 due to lung disease. Because of the advocacy of his brother, who believed that David’s death was a direct result of exposure to hexavalent chromium, in November of 2012, a jury in Portland, Oregon found KBR “negligent in knowingly exposing twelve National Guard soldiers to hexavalent chromium while working at the Qarmat Ali water treatment facility” (Wikipedia). The result for the plaintiffs was $85 million worth of damages. In Eastern Central Greece, toxic levels of hexavalent chromium were found in groundwater and urban water supplies near industrial areas. In 2007, the Ministry of Environment, Regional Planning and Public Works of Greece imposed fines on 20 industries for dumping highly hexavalent chromium-contaminated industrial waste into the Asopos river.
Upon evaluating cancer mortality in the Oinofita area of Greece, it was found that the hypothesis of the oral ingestion of hexavalent chromium possesses a carcinogenic property was supported. According to official Oinofita municipality authorities, in 2009 the main drinking water supply of Oinofita was diverted to receive water from Mornos lake, located in Athens. Since then, hexavalent chromium levels have been recorded as “relatively lower” (ehjournal.net). Finally, there are cases of toxic levels of hexavalent chromium in areas of Bangladesh as well (mostly Hazaribagh - home of Bangladesh $1 billion leather export industry). Leather tanneries in an industrial neighborhood of Dhaka emit about 21,600 cubic meters of toxic waste per day, which then contaminates much of the poultry feed nearby.
Also, these tanneries generate as much as 100 tonnes of scaps per day, which are then processed as chicken and fish feed in farms all across the country. It was found that about 25% of chicken contained harmful amounts of hexavalent chromium. Human Rights Watch found that there was no effort/concern for lessening amount of pollution, and claimed that Hazaribagh is an “enforcement-free zone” (bloomberg.com). This sadly means that nothing is being done to help these people who are constantly endangered every day that they go to work and barely make enough to support their families.
b. Are there global consequences to this issue?
Global consequences to this issue are very relevant to whether or not a nation knowingly exposes its water supplies to hexavalent chromium. Overall, the issue is very isolated to the affected area and the people who are drinking from the water supply and using it on a regular basis. The prevalence of this issue in certain areas of the US has nothing to do with the existence of similar issues in Bangladesh. Of course, if one travels to an area where toxic levels can be found in the water they are drinking, then technically it becomes a global issue, but not one that directly affects the whole world at once.
4. Solutions
a. What are the potential solutions to this problem? How realistic are they?
There are several different hexavalent chromium removal techniques:
- Adsorption- by concentrating molecules on the surface of an absorbent, this technique is widely used to remove this toxin from industrial water supplies. Compared to some of the following techniques, it is low-priced, available, profitable, and easy in terms of operation and efficiency
- Filtration- Membranes can treat waste such as sewage quite effectively depending on the membrane characteristics. The downside is the high cost, making it unrealistic.
- Ion Exchange- Due to the extensive and labor-heavy processes that accompany the pretreatment of this technique (i.e. removing suspended solids from wastewater), this method of hexavalent chromium is limited in terms of efficiency, despite its effectiveness. It is high on operational and fiscal cost, making it unrealistic.
- Electrochemical Treatment- This is a low-cost and high selectivity technique that produces minimal toxic waste. It is the most realistic, but still, there is not enough passion surrounding this issue to make this a realistic solution (ehjournal.net).
In addition to these techniques that may be implemented after water is exposed to certain levels of hexavalent chromium, there are certainly other measures that can and should be taken in order to help amend this issue. For example, governmental reform needs to be made in order to assure that this toxin is not being released into our drinking supplies. It is difficult to say how realistic this would be in terms of effectiveness, because it is already illegal for companies to be dumping their waste into freshwater supplies, but as shown in the documentary Last Call at the Oasis, this is unfortunately not enough to stop them. Also, there are regulations set by the EPA as to how much hexavalent chromium is allowed in drinking water, but clearly these stipulations are not being strictly enforced or followed. Three key pieces of legislation that should be abided by are the Refuse Act, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, and the Clean Water Act (waterrf.org). Serious governmental measures need to be taken, with legitimate legal consequences, if mandates are not being met.
b. Identify and describe any organizations that are acting to address this environmental issue (these organizations can be valuable sources of information about the issue).
1. EPA- enforces a standard of 0.1 milligrams per liter for drinking water; this regulation is based off of research from 1991 that suggested that some people who were exposed to high amounts of hexavalent chromium in their drinking water could experience skin reactions. They regularly reevalute standards for drinking water and make necessary changes (waterrf.org). 
2. Water Research Foundation- has performed multiple studies in order to find that anion exchange was a very useful potential treatment for hexavalent chromium-contaminated water (waterrf.org).
3. National Toxicology Program (part of the National Institutes of Health)- conducted studies on animals that found that hexavalent chromium is in fact carcinogenic when ingested orally from drinking water (waterrf.org).
c. Have these solutions been applied with any success?
On a small scale, some of the removal/treatment options have been successful. While some have been found to quite efficient, they are not actually then applied due to price and lack of education about the issue. As for the legislation that has been created, it sadly is not abided by the majority of the time, and the environmental agencies do minimal to ensure that this legislation is enforced.
5. Conclusion:
- What is the likelihood that this issue will be resolved?
While companies now are more aware of the hazards and harmful effects of dumping chemicals into waters, there is no efficient way to get rid of the chemicals already existing in the water. Companies can take the next steps in trying to limit the amount of chemical waste dumped into the ocean, but the issue will never be fully resolved because of the effects that Hexavalent Chromium in drinking water has already caused. As a director of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, George Alexeeff explains, “I think it’s resolved, as much as it can be resolved,” (Cone). By understanding the effects and managing chemical waste product now, companies are making advancements, but the diseases and deaths linked to Hexavalent Chromium in drinking water that are already in the process cannot be resolved.
b. Are there any overarching lessons to be learned from this issue?
Harmful/life-threatening danger is not always visible. Do not assume that something is safe simply because the government has not stated otherwise; investing 100% trust into the government as looking out for the best interest of its citizens is not a efficient mindset to have. It is necessary to be educated and to give a voice to those who are underrepresented or even ignored by a rather corrupt system.
Works Cited
"Basic Information about Chromium in Drinking Water." United States Environmental
Protection Agency. EPA, n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2015.
"Chromium-6 in US Tap Water: Executive Summary." Environmental Working Group.
Environmental Working Group, 20 Dec. 2010. Web. 08 Mar. 2015.
Cone, Marla. "Chromium Carcinogenic in Water; New Standard in the Works." Environmental
Health News. Environmental Health Sciences, 20 Feb. 2009. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.
"Hexavalent Chromuim." Occupational Safety & Health Administration. OSHA, n.d. Web. 25
Feb. 2015.
"Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water Regulatory Update and Treatment Options." Water
Research Foundation (2014): n. pag. Waterrf.org. Water Research Foundation. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.waterrf.org/resources/StateOfTheScienceReports/HexavalentChromium_StateOfTheScience.pdf>.
Honeycutt, Michael E. "Hexavalent Chromium in Texas Drinking Water."Toxicological
Sciences 119.2 (2011): 423-24. Oxford Journals. Oxford University Press, Nov. 2010.
Web. 27 Feb. 2015.
Kazakis, N., N. Kantiranis, and K. S. Voudouris. "Geogenic Cr Oxidation on the Surface of
Mafic Minerals and the Hydrogeological Conditions Influencing Hexavalent Chromium
Concentrations in Groundwater."Science of the Total Environment 514 (2014): 224-38. Science Direct. Elsevier, 7 Feb. 2015. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.
Linos, Athena. "Oral Ingestion of Hexavalent Chromium through Drinking Water and Cancer
Mortality in an Industrial Area of Greece - An Ecological Study." Environmental Health. N.p., 24 May 2011. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.ehjournal.net/content/10/1/50>.
Mohan, Dinesh, and Charles Pittman. "Activated Carbons and Low Cost Adsorbents for
Remediation of Tri- and Hexavalent Chromium from Water." Journal of Hazardous
Materials 137.2 (2006): 762-811. Science Direct. Elsevier, Sept. 2006. Web. 27 Feb.
2015.
O'Brien, Miles. "Erin Brockovich: The Real-Life Unhappy Ending." PBS. PBS, 13 Mar. 2013.
Web. 27 Feb. 2015.
Robertson, Frederick N. "Hexavalent Chromium in the Ground Water in Paradise Valley,
Arizona." Groundwater 13.6 (1975): 516-527. Wiley Online Library. John Wiley &
Sons, 6 July 2006. Web. 25 Feb. 2015.
Suh, Mina, Chad M. Thompson, Christopher Kirman, Michael Carakostas, and Laurie Haws.
"High Concentrations of Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water Alter Iron
Homeostasis in F344 Rats and B6C3F1 Mice."Food and Chemical Toxicology 65
(2014): 381-88. Science Direct. Elsevier, 2014. Web. 06 Mar. 2015.
"The Dark Stain on Bangladesh's $1 Billion Leather Export Industry."Bloomberg.com.
Bloomberg, 13 Nov. 2014. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-13/bangladesh-leather-industrys-workers-exposed-to-toxic-chemicals>.
"Veterans Exposed At Qarmat Ali Win Lawsuit Against KBR." MintPress News. N.p., 7 Nov.
2012. Web. 10 Mar. 2015. <http://www.mintpressnews.com/veterans-exposed-at-qarmat-ali-win-lawsuit-against-kbr/40220/>.
No comments:
Post a Comment