Bernard Maloney, University of South Australia.

April 2014
Global Water Systems II
Assignment 1: Critique a peer reviewed scientific/engineering
research journal article that discusses an aspect of the
engineered water cycle.
Selected journal article:
Toze, S 2006, 'Reuse of effluent waterbenefits and risks', Agricultural Water
Management, vol. 80, no. 13, 2/24/, pp. 147-159.

Introduction
This review serves to critique the journal article; Reuse of effluent water-
benefits and risks by Dr Simon Toze which appeared in the journal
Agricultural Water Management, volume 80, pages 147 to 159 of 2006. Dr
Simon Toze is a Microbiologist by training and a Principal Research
Scientist at Australias national Science agency, the Commonwealth
Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation. Where he investigates
techniques to manage non-potable water resources researching the health
and ecological issues relating to indirect potable reuse (CSIRO 2013). The
central focus of this article is to discuss the recycling of wastewater and
stormwater from various sources by utilizing it as an alternative to fresh
water for irrigation purposes.

In accordance with the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United

Nations (2014), agriculture accounts for a ratio of 59% of the global water
consumption on the basis of the individual country average mainly
through irrigation. As such, of all human activities, agriculture is that
which consumes the greatest quantity of this increasingly scare and vital
resource. Anthropogenic activities, such as the construction of dams and
water withdrawals, have severely altered the water cycle (Haddeland et
al. 2014, p.3252). Thereby reducing the availability of water. It is therefore
a growing struggle to source water for irrigation. Precipitation can only be
used on a small scale while Surface water flows have decreased and
requires expensive infrastructure, groundwater levels have diminished
and desalination is of low importance and high cost (Valentina & Takashi
2004, pp.2-3). So the question reverberates where will we source water
for food security?

It is on this premise that the research was conducted, as it examines the

reuse of water via irrigation as a mechanism that will achieve greater
efficiencies in agriculture due to its unwavering supply, while reducing the
inherent strains on the environment (p. 147). Although this article was
written in Australia, it is quite relevant within the global context given the
similarities of the water related issues that are being experienced on all
the continents. Sorenson, Morssink and Campos (2011, p.1522) attributed
this to the practices of agriculture which are grounded- as with the
establishments of human settlements- on techniques which guarantee
constant water supply. This therefore creates a balancing act between
mankind and nature for water availability.

Article critique

The journal article was written in an impartial format whereas the author
presented his case for and against, (benefits and risks) without projecting
any bias. He outlined the benefits of effluent reuse which was not
dissimilar to that of other authors like Jimenez-Cisneros (1995) who also
recognised the benefits of a reliable supply of water and nutrient source
for crops .Meanwhile, he simultaneously demonstrated the adverse effects
which were also expressed by authors Admadi and Merkley. Ahmadi and
Merkley (2009, p.97) stated that due to the unique characteristics of
treated wastewater effluent, its reuse will incur many inevitable
challenges with regard to health issues, water quality, and the long and
short term impacts on soil and crops. One of the more immediate
concerns posed was the threat to human health by microbial pathogens.

The authors background in Microbiology afforded him the ability to

examine and explain the probable risks of microorganisms and, more
specifically, microbial pathogens. There was generally a firm
understanding of the concepts, and the differences between each
organism were clearly highlighted. The language was also accessible as
there were logic, clarity and economy of expression. The information
provided was similar to those of reputable sources such as the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the National Health and
Medical Research Council of Australia and also by three of his previous
journal articles. Mention was made of acute cases of infection among
children and farmers in Mexico, Cifuentes (1998, p.211) also concurs that
helminth infection rates significantly reduces with basic wastewater
treatment processes. In general, the article was well researched.

In the nine years since the publication of this journal article there has
been significant strides in the field of wastewater reuse due in part to the
contributions of this article which has been cited over one hundred times.
Toze recommended that a combination of scientific research and effective
communication as well as horizontal synergy between government
agencies was necessary to promote the cause of effluent reuse by
sensitizing the public to its value and possible risk factors (p.156). A Model
for such intervention is the United States where the percentage of global
water reuse in the agriculture is now at 32.01% (USEPA 2012). Public
opinion has also changed significantly regarding the use of reclaimed
water. In San Diego for example, results of a poll indicate that between
the years 2004 to 2011 there was an increase of 283% of the number of
persons who are strongly in favour of the reuse of reclaimed water
whereas there was decline of over 400% of the number of persons who
strongly opposed it (USEPA 2012). This is a clear indication that public
perception of wastewater reuse is changing as the level of awareness
increases.

The Author in his citation of the USEPA 1992, Guidelines for water reuse
stated that minimal mention was made as it regards to the potential
presence of trace contaminants apart from heavy metals, Disinfection-
byproducts (DBP) and Pharmaceutically-active compounds (PhACs). Since
then, with the publication of the 2004 edition, these potential risks have
been addressed in Chapter three under the section, Technical
requirements for water reuse with the inclusion of Endocrine disruptors,
Aerosols and other chemical constituents (USEPA 2004, pp.90-118).This is
a positive indication that over time the level of consciousness regarding
the potential adverse impacts of effluent reuse has risen to encourage the
beneficial reuse of effluent.

One of the major benefits of effluent reuse in agriculture mentioned by

Toze is the availability of organic and inorganic nutrients. In Spain, the
presence of nitrogen and potassium in ozone treated effluent yielded
savings of 63% and 21% respectively (Martnez et al. 2013, p.670).
Similarly, (Wichelns and Drechsel (2011, p.416)) added that apart from
nitrogen and potassium, phosphorous is also an attractive component of
treated effluent as its global unmined supply is limited and the cost of
nitrogen is attached to the ever increasing price of fossil fuel. Therefore, it
makes perfect economic sense as it offsets the cost of input into
agriculture and increases crop yields.

On the contrary, the article presented some deficiencies starting from its
title. The title of the article states Reuse of effluent water- benefits and
risk, however, it fails to narrow down the destined use of the effluent.
Effluent water can be used in a diverse range of application, including but
not limited to irrigation, groundwater recharge, toilet flushing and
firefighting(Hranova 2010, p.283) . The article in question deals primarily
with the reuse of effluent water for irrigation purposes. At no point within
the article was any other use of the effluent mentioned. As such, a more
appropriate title would have been; Reuse of effluent water for agricultural
irrigation- benefits and risks.

In his analysis Toze mentioned that heavy metals are easily and effectively
removed during common treatment processes and are then deposited
within the biosolid remains of the treatment stream (p.151). He further
stated that in most cases they pose no real threat to human health.
However, Karvelas, Katsoyiannis and Samara (2003, p.1201) concluded in
their research that 47 to 63% of cadmium, chromium, lead and iron
remained in treated effluent. As a consequence, more than 90% of the
human exposure to heavy metal has been through food consumption
(Loutfy et al. 2006, p.2). Irrespective of this, the consumption of food and
more specifically vegetables with elevated levels of metal concentration is
still on going. Muchuweti et al. (2006, p.48) report that in Harare,
Zimbabwe vegetables are being consumed with lead, chromium and
mercury concentration values far exceeding that which is stipulated as
being safe for human consumption. All of this however is not without
consequence as heavy metals may lead to mutagenesis, teratogenesis,
carcinogenesis including upper gastrointestinal cancer (Jarup & Turkdogan
et al. cited in Khan, Malik & Muhammad 2013).

Similarly, in section 3.8 regarding the potential risks of Pharmaceutically-

active compounds (PhACs) in recycled wastewater, Toze concluded that:
The concentration of these chemicals in treated effluents is much lower
than the concentrations used in drugs and personal care products and
thus should be considered of little health risk even if taken up by crops.

However, more recent research has shown that because wastewater

treatment plants were not originally designed for PhACs removal, higher
concentrations of some recalcitrant PhACs were found in effluent than in
the influent (Gao et al. 2012 & Jelic et al. 2011 cited inYan et al. 2014,
p.619). Therefore, an increase in the concentration of PhACs correlates to
an increased in the probability of plant intake of these chemicals thus
making it a health risk.

Even though risk is an integral part of the authors thesis there was no
mention of any risk assessment framework especially given that there are
implicit risks to the environment as well as the end users; humans and
animals (p.149). According to Salgot et al. (2006), by virtue of the
constraints posed by health hazards to reuse, it is apparent that health
risk assessment based on hazards calculations is necessary for
reclamation and reuse project. A health risk assessment as defined by
Asano (2007, p.197) is the qualitative or quantitative characterization and
estimation of potential adverse health effects associated with exposure of
individuals or populations to hazardous materials and situations.
Therefore, if we are to sufficiently mitigate against the risks of effluent
reuse then it is paramount to establish similar forms of assessment. Such
as quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) and hazard analysis and
critical control points (HACCP) as per (MuOz et al. 2010; Westrell et al.
2004).These measures are also accompanied by certain financial
implications

Another area upon which the author may have provided more insight was
the financial implications of wastewater reuse. This is especially important
given the role of finance in the decision making process. Valentina, Sean
and Joe (2004, p.278) warn that where effluent is reused as a substitute
for potable water for amenities and agriculture, users inevitably will
expect to pay less for the otherwise discarded water. However, due the
potential adverse human impacts of the reused effluent and in function of
its use certain treatment requirements are necessary. For example, in the
United states, treatment process can range from secondary treatment for
processed food that is not eaten raw to more complex treatment options
such as oxidation, coagulation, filtration and disinfection in at least 5
states (USEPA 2004, p.155) . There are also costs associated with the
determination of microbiological and physicochemical parameters before
and after treatment. Research conducted by Salgot et al. (2006, pp.37-38)
showed that the prices of these test in some cases exceeded 200.This
will represent an increase in the cost of the effluent and in places where
water scarcity isnt necessarily a concern there will be no real inclination
to use recycled wastewater.

Conclusion

Reuse of effluent water- benefits and risks was a well written article, albeit
a few inconsistencies. Tozes writing was impartial and he demonstrated a
high level of expertise by his expressions and the general ease of
understanding of his work. The article was also supported by other similar
works of notable prowess. Conversely, there were a few inconsistencies in
his reporting about the removal of heavy metals and PhACs and the
limited financial focus as it regards to effluent reuse. Nevertheless, this
article has made notable contributions to the field of wastewater reuse in
terms of creating awareness towards its risks and benefits

References
Ahmadi, L & Merkley, G 2009, 'Planning and management modeling for treated
wastewater usage', Irrigation & Drainage Systems, vol. 23, no. 2/3, pp. 97-107.

Asano, T 2007, Water Reuse : Issues, Technologies, and Applications, McGraw-

Hill, New York.

Cifuentes, E 1998, 'The epidemiology of enteric infections in agricultural

communities exposed to wastewater irrigation: perspectives for risk control',
International Journal of Environmental Health Research, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 203-
213.

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation 2013, Dr Simon

Toze: leading research in water reuse, viewed 21 March
<http://www.csiro.au/people/Simon.Toze.aspx#>.

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2014, Water uses,
viewed 3 April 2014,
<http://www.fao.org/nr/water/aquastat/water_use/index.stm>.

Haddeland, I, Heinke, J, Biemans, H, Eisner, S, Flrke, M, Hanasaki, N, Konzmann,

M, Ludwig, F, Masaki, Y, Schewe, J, Stacke, T, Tessler, ZD, Wada, Y & Wisser, D
2014, 'Global water resources affected by human interventions and climate
change', Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
of America, vol. 111, no. 9, pp. 3251-3256.

Hranova, R 2010, 'Application of a system approach and optimisation of different

alternatives in the practice of decentralised wastewater reuse', Civil Engineering
& Environmental Systems, vol. 27, no. 4, pp. 281-294.

Jimenez-Cisneros, B 1995, 'Wastewater reuse to increase soil productivity', Water

Science & Technology, vol. 32, no. 12, p. 173.

Karvelas, M, Katsoyiannis, A & Samara, C 2003, 'Occurrence and fate of heavy

metals in the wastewater treatment process', Chemosphere, vol. 53, no. 10, p.
1201.

Khan, MU, Malik, RN & Muhammad, S 2013, 'Human health risk from Heavy metal
via food crops consumption with wastewater irrigation practices in Pakistan',
Chemosphere, vol. 93, no. 10, 11//, pp. 2230-2238.

Loutfy, N, Fuerhacker, M, Tundo, P, Raccanelli, S, El Dien, AG & Ahmed, MT 2006,

'Dietary intake of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs, due to the consumption of dairy
products, fish/seafood and meat from Ismailia city, Egypt', Science of The Total
Environment, vol. 370, no. 1, 10/15/, pp. 1-8.
Martnez, S, Suay, R, Moreno, J & Segura, ML 2013, 'Reuse of tertiary municipal
wastewater effluent for irrigation of Cucumis melo L', Irrigation Science, vol. 31,
no. 4, 2013/07/01, pp. 661-672.

Muchuweti, M, Birkett, JW, Chinyanga, E, Zvauya, R, Scrimshaw, MD & Lester, JN

2006, 'Heavy metal content of vegetables irrigated with mixtures of wastewater
and sewage sludge in Zimbabwe: Implications for human health', Agriculture,
Ecosystems & Environment, vol. 112, no. 1, 1//, pp. 41-48.

MuOz, I, TomS, N, Mas, J, GarcA-Reyes, JF, Molina-DAz, A & FernNdez-Alba,

AR 2010, Potential chemical and microbiological risks on human health from
urban wastewater reuse in agriculture. Case study of wastewater effluents in
Spain, 300-309, Taylor & Francis Ltd, <http://ezlibproxy.unisa.edu.au/login?
url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=aph&AN=94951822&site=ehost-live>.

Salgot, M, Huertas, E, Weber, S, Dott, W & Hollender, J 2006, 'Wastewater reuse

and risk: definition of key objectives', Desalination, vol. 187, no. 13, 2/5/, pp. 29-
40.

Sorenson, SB, Morssink, C & Campos, PA 2011, 'Safe access to safe water in low
income countries: Water fetching in current times', Social Science & Medicine,
vol. 72, no. 9, 5//, pp. 1522-1526.

Toze, S 2006, 'Reuse of effluent waterbenefits and risks', Agricultural Water

Management, vol. 80, no. 13, 2/24/, pp. 147-159.

United States Environmental Protection Agency 2004, Guidelines For Water

Reuse, Washington DC.

United States Environmental Protection Agency 2012, 2012 Guidelines for Water
Reuse, CDM Smith Inc.,, Washington, D.C.

Valentina, L, Sean, T & Joe, M 2004, 'Economics of Water Recycling for Irrigation',
Water Reuse for Irrigation, CRC Press, pp. 265-283.

Valentina, L & Takashi, A 2004, 'Challenges of Sustainable Irrigation with

Recycled Water', Water Reuse for Irrigation, CRC Press, pp. 1-30.

Westrell, T, Schnning, C, Stenstrm, TA & Ashbolt, NJ 2004, 'QMRA (quantitative

microbial risk assessment) and HACCP (hazard analysis and critical control
points) for management of pathogens in wastewater and sewage sludge
treatment and reuse', Water Science & Technology, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 23-30.

Wichelns, D & Drechsel, P 2011, 'Meeting the challenge of wastewater irrigation:

economics, finance, business opportunities and methodological constraints',
Water International, vol. 36, no. 4, 2011/07/01, pp. 415-419.
Yan, Q, Gao, X, Chen, Y-P, Peng, X-Y, Zhang, Y-X, Gan, X-M, Zi, C-F & Guo, J-S
2014, 'Occurrence, fate and ecotoxicological assessment of pharmaceutically
active compounds in wastewater and sludge from wastewater treatment plants
in Chongqing, the Three Gorges Reservoir Area', Science of The Total
Environment, vol. 470471, no. 0, 2/1/, pp. 618-630.