Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Nutrients, Bacteria and Caffeine
Jean-Francois Bouffard, B.I.T.Aquality Environmental Consulting Ltd.
April 16, 2005
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
• Stream Study– LEPA– AAFRD (Sarah Depoe)– AAFC-PFRA (Jason Vanrobaeys)
• Caffeine– LEPA and Aquality
• Bacteria– LEPA, ARHA, and Aquality
Introduction
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Methods
• Stream survey– 8 sites sampled during April
2004– During spring thaw (April 1st,
5th, 7th, 12th, and 20th)
• Parameters– Nutrients, bacteria, ions,
metals and pesticides (1 Site)– Flow gauging
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Methods• Caffeine
– May 21 (composite sampling)• 11 sites LLN – 3 bottles apiece • 2 streams• 2 beaches - Nakamun
– Sept 7 – Follow up on May sampling – in lake only
• Bacteria– In lake samples taken with
ARHA during May 11th sampling
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
ResultsLLN Stream Water Quality Data (TP)
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1-Apr-04 5-Apr-04 7-Apr-04 12-Apr-04 20-Apr-04
(mg/
L)
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
ResultsLLN Stream Water Quality Results (TN)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1-Apr-04 5-Apr-04 7-Apr-04 12-Apr-04 20-Apr-04
To
tal
Nit
rog
en (
mg
/L)
Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
ResultsLLN Stream Water Quality Results (E.coli )
0
100
200
300
400
500
1-Apr-04 5-Apr-04 7-Apr-04 12-Apr-04 20-Apr-04
(CF
U/1
00m
l)Site 1
Site 2
Site 3
Site 4
Site 5
Site 6
Site 7
Site 8
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Results May 21st, 2004 Sept 7th, 2004
Site Name MDL = 0.02 mg/L MDL = 0.02 mg/L
Majeau Creek 0.02 NA
Nakamun Creek ND -
Site 1 ND -
Site 2 ND -
Site 3 0.01* ND
Site 4 ND -
Site 5 0.01* ND
Site 6 ND -
Site 7 ND -
Site 8 ND -
Site 9 0.04 ND
Site 10 ND -
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Sample LocationTotal Coliforms
(CFU)Fecal Coliforms
(CFU)
Birch Cove less than 10 less than 10
McFadzen's 10 less than 10
McDonald's Farm less than 10 less than 10
Kildeer Beach less than 10 less than 10
Camp Encounter 20 less than 10
Moonlight Bay less than 10 less than 10
White Rock Beach less than 10 less than 10
Volunteer Cabin 20 20
Camp Nakamun At Least 10 less than 10
* Precise quantification could not be done for this sample due to background growth
All samples were processed as "Suspected Sewage". Coliform Counts were determined by Membrane Filtration per 100 ml
Results
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Discussion
• Nutrients were highest in early April
• TP and TN exceeded ASWQ guidelines for the Protection of Aquatic Life in 100% of the samples
• NO2-N – 40% compliant• E.Coli – 91% compliant
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Discussion TP TN NO2-N E. coli
Guideline: ASWQG ASWQG ASWQG ASWQG
Protection: PAL PAL PAL Recreation
Guideline Value: 0.05 mg/L 1.0 mg/L 0.018 mg/L 200/100 mL
n C n C n C n C
Site 1 4 0 4 0 4 2 4 2
Site 2 4 0 4 0 4 1 4 4
Site 3 4 0 4 0 4 1 4 2
Site 4 5 0 5 0 5 3 5 5
Site 5 5 0 5 0 5 1 5 5
Site 6 5 0 5 0 5 2 5 5
Site 7 4 0 4 0 4 2 4 4
Site 8 4 0 4 0 4 2 4 4
# Samples 35 0 35 2 35 14 35 31
% Compliant 0.00% 0.00% 40.00% 91%
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
AAWQI IndexSite No. AAWQI Nutrient
Sub Index Score
Ranking
1 24.5 Poor
2 17.0 Poor
3 13.3 Poor
4 53.3 Marginal
5 15.6 Poor
6 23.0 Poor
7 19.7 Poor
8 8.8 Poor
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Discussion
• Typical of other Alberta Streams– CAESA/AESA study 1996-2003– Lac la Nonne watershed
considered to have moderate Ag intensity(Anderson, A-M, S.E.Cooke and N. MacAlpine. 1999)
– Other watersheds of similar Ag intensity produce similar results
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Discussion
• Bacteria showed decreasing trend
• High counts at Site 1 and 3 indicate recent fecal contamination
• Trace exact source using Microbial Source Tracking techniques
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Discussion
• Only 1 pesticide (2-4, D) was detected– Extremely low levels– Toxic to fish at much higher
levels, minimal effect on humans
• Change timing of sample collection
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Discussion
• The detection of caffeine in Lac la Nonne confirms that human sewage is entering the lake
• Possible sources include– Older/leaky septic systems– Illegal dumping/release of
septage– Improperly placed outhouses
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
The Next Step
• Minimize runoff– Preserving riparian areas– Restore wetlands
• Accurate nutrient budget– Debate over sources of
nutrients• 57% from cleared lands (Mitchell
and Prepas, 1991)
– Uncertain other sources
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
The Next Step
• Investigation into sources of human sewage– Septic tank inspections
• Continue monitoring as a deterrent
• Probably the easiest source of nutrients to control
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
The Next Step
• Complete and thorough State of the Watershed Report– Moose Lake, Lac la Biche, etc.
• Watershed Management Plan under Alberta Water Act
• Continue education and outreach
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Acknowledgements
• LEPA and the volunteers who made all the sampling happen
• Jason Vanrobaeys – PFRA• Sarah Depoe – AAFRD• Jay White - Aquality
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
The Next Steps
Thanks!Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Conclusion
The Next Steps
Prediction• Avg daily urine prod =1.4L• Avg urine caffeine conc =
1500 µg/L• Adult urine caffeine
production = 2100 µg• Avg urination freq = 5x daily• Volume of flush = 9.8 L= 49
L/Day
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Conclusion
The Next Steps
Prediction
Adult caffeine produced per day Total amount of water
=2100 µg caffeine
50.4 L=
= 42 µg/L (Predicted)
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Conclusion
The Next Steps
Prediction
• Detection level = 0.02 µg/L
• Predicted conc. = 42 µg/L
• Possible to detect caffeine diluted up to 2100 times!
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Fecal Contamination Issues
• Human and animal feces contain high levels of nutrients
• Nutrients limited in aquatic systems– Phosphorus – Nitrogen
• Contains several pathogens which can be fatal to humans and others (contact or ingestion)
Effect of Excess Phosphorus
• Primary Impacts– Excessive
macrophyte growth– Algal blooms– Negative impact on
livestock
Fecal contamination is a public health risk– Drinking water contamination, contact
recreation, harvest of irrigated foods
‘Water contaminated with human feces are generally regarded as a greater risk to human health, as they are more likely to contain human-specific enteric pathogens’
T. Scott et al. 2002
Pathogen Class Examples Disease
Bacteria Shigella spp.Salmonella spp.Salmonella typhiVibrio choleraeEnteropathogenic-Escherichia coliYersina spp.Campylobacter jejuni
Bacilary diseaseSalmonellosis (gastroenteritis)Typhoid feverCholeraA variety of gastroenteric diseasesHaemolytic Uretic Syndrome Yersiniosis (gastroenteritis)Campylobacteriosis (gastroenteritis)
Viruses Hepatitis A VirusNorwalk VirusRotavirusesPoliovirusesCoxsackie virusesEchovirusesReovirusesAstrovirusesCalciviruses
Infectious hepatitisAcute gastroenteritisAcute gastroenteritisPoliomyelitis“Flu-like” symptoms“Flu-like” symptomsRespiratory infections, gastroenteritisEpidemic gastroenteritisEpidemic gastroenteritis
Protozoa Entamoeba histolyticaGiardia lambiliaCryptosporidium spp.Balantidium coliToxoplasma gondii
Amebiasis (amoebic dysentery)Giardiasis (gastroenteritis)Cryptosporidiosis (gastroenteritis)Balantidiasis (gastroenteritis)Toxoplasmosis
Nematodes(Roundworms)
Ascaris lumbricoidesTrichuris trichiuraAscaris suumToxocara canisNecator americanus
Digestive and nutritional imbalances, abdominal pain,vomiting, restlessnessAbdominal pain, diarrhea, anemia, weight lossSymptoms such as coughing, chest pain and feverFever, abdominal discomfort, muscle aches, neurologicalsymptomsHookworm disease, anemia
Cestodes(Tapeworms)
Taenia spp.Hymenolepsis nana
Nervousness, insomnia, anorexia, abdominal pain, digestivedisturbancesSame as for Taenia sp.
Sources of Fecal Contamination
• Residential sources• Lakeside
cottages/subdivisions– Leaky septic systems– Rogue dumping– Improper outhouse
placement
• Urban effluent
Sources of Fecal Contamination
• Agricultural sources– Feedlots– In-situ watering by
cattle– Manure application
practices (timing, amount)
Sources of Fecal Contamination
• Wildlife sources– Bear, elk, deer, birds, etc.
What is BST?
• Using DNA fingerprinting to identify sources of microbial contamination in surface water.• Term coined in 2002 by Hagedorn and Wiggins
What is BST?
• Methods fall into 3 categories: molecular, biochemical and chemical• No standard method developed
• Emerging area of research and technology development, particularly for drinking water
How does it work?
• Fecal bacteria are uniquely adapted to the host animal in which they live
• Using DNA analysis techniques we can identify these markers in fecal bacteria
How it is Done
• Samples collected around the watershed
• Fecal bacteria are cultured and analyzed in lab
• Compared to pre-existing database
Identifying Sources of Contamination
• Pinpoint by taking samples at suspected sources– Analyzed– New genetic markers
added to project database
• Collect samples from location downstream of suspected contamination source
• Results compared to samples in database
Dealing with Suspected Sources of Contamination
Advantages
• This technique has a much greater power of resolution compared to previous methods
• No longer tracking an analog of fecal contamination
• Allows us to create mitigation plans based on better knowledge
Canadian Examples
• Research at the University of Victoria (Maeys and Mazumder, 2004)
• Elbow River study: ruminants and humans (Sosiak and Dixon, 2004)
• Aquality to provide as a commercial service (Spring, 2005)
Further Study
• More comparative studies to determine best method for watershed studies
• Field protocol: timing, number of samples collected, number of isolates identified, location and number of sites
• Need to optimize analytical and statistical methods to minimize sources of error
Lac la Nonne Water Quality Report 2004
Introduction
Methods
Results
Conclusion
The Next Steps
Top Related