Geology topics

Satomi Kohno

Publications and source records attributed to Satomi Kohno.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2025

A comprehensive assessment of membrane bioreactor contaminant removal efficacy through analytical chemistry, fish exposures, and microbiome characterization

Treated municipal wastewater effluent is an important pathway for Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC) to enter aquatic ecosystems. As the aging wastewater infrastructure in many industrialized countries requires upgrades or replacement, assessing new treatment technologies in the context of CEC effects may provide additional support for science-based resource management. Here, we used three lines of evidence, analytical chemistry, fish exposure experiments, and fish and water microbiome analysis, to assess the effectiveness of membrane bioreactor treatment (MBR) to replace traditional activated sludge treatment. To do this, we sampled a municipal wastewater treatment plant with a split wastewater stream, a portion of which was treated with an MBR and another via an oxidation ditch (OXI). The OXI and MBR treatments substantially reduced most measured CECs compared to the primary effluent (PRI). Only pesticides and some pharmaceuticals were recalcitrant to both secondary treatment methods. While ammonia toxicity of PRI prevented its inclusion in fish exposure experiments, exposure of fish with waters from the OXI or MBR treated wastewater produced only subtle biological differences with no adverse apical outcomes. These findings were consistent with low chemically derived exposure: activity ratios for OXI and MBR. Microbiome analysis of fish and wastewater highlighted the significant reduction of microbial abundance and diversity in the MBR treatment compared to all other treatments. The comparable removal efficacy of CECs in MBR makes it an attractive alternative to traditional OXI, especially when MBR may eliminate the need for tertiary treatment for wastewater disinfection.

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry↗

USGS2025

Prioritizing chemicals of emerging concern in the Great Lakes Basin using covariance of chemical concentrations and diverse biological responses from a variety of species

The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative aims to protect and restore the nation’s largest freshwater resource, in part, by furthering our understanding of the effects of contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) and chemical mixtures on aquatic and terrestrial organisms. To address this goal, an interagency team conducted field studies at sites along the Maumee River in Ohio, USA, in 2016–2017, monitoring CEC levels along with diverse in vitro and in vivo biological effects in ecologically relevant species (fathead minnows, tree swallows, and golden clams). The objective of the present work was to prioritize the CECs in these studies for further monitoring and assessment by determining if there are patterns in chemical–bioeffect relations across data sets, species, and response types that indicate relatively high or low hazard to aquatic life from CEC exposure. Of the 748 monitored chemicals, 425 were detected and were analyzed for covariance with bioeffects. All 748 chemicals were placed into 10 bins based on their frequencies of monitoring, detection, and covariance with bioeffects across studies and species. We describe how chemicals can be prioritized across bins to aid monitoring and assessment efforts. Our approach using effects-based monitoring data is especially useful for prioritizing chemicals with little or no traditional toxicity testing data. Similar evidence-based prioritizations will allow agencies to more efficiently allocate limited resources to improve the ability to protect aquatic and terrestrial organisms from adverse impacts due to contaminant exposure.

Ohio↗

USGS2021

Multiple lines of evidence for identifying potential hazards to fish from contaminants of emerging concern in Great Lakes tributaries

Contaminants of emerging concern (CECs; e.g., pharmaceuticals, flame retardants, pesticides, and industrial chemicals) are omnipresent throughout tributaries to the Great Lakes. Furthermore, CECs are often present at concentrations that are potentially hazardous to aquatic species. Since 2010, we characterized the presence of CECs at 309 sites within 47 Great Lakes tributaries and characterized responses of fathead minnow ( Pimephales promelas ) exposed to river water at a subset of 26 sites within four tributaries. Our work resulted in three independent lines of evidence related to the potential hazards of CEC exposure to fish. First, vulnerability (where vulnerability refers to likelihood) of surface waters to CEC presence was predicted using select watershed characteristics. Second, hazard to fish (where hazard means the potential for adverse biological responses) was predicted using screening values for a subset of CECs. Third, biological responses of fathead minnow exposed to river water in streamside exposures were measured. We assessed the congruence of these three lines of evidence for identifying sites with elevated hazards to CEC exposure. Predicted vulnerability and hazards agreed at 66% of all sites. Where the two indices did not agree, vulnerability often underestimated predicted hazard. When compared with measured biological responses from streamside exposures, predicted hazards agreed for 42% of samples. Furthermore, when predicted hazards for specific effect categories were compared with similar measured biomarkers, 26% and 46% of samples agreed for reproductive and physiological effect categories, respectively. Overall, vulnerability and hazard predictions tended to overestimate the measured biological responses, providing a protective estimate of the potential hazards of CEC exposure to fish. When used together, these three approaches can help resource managers prioritize management activities in minimizing hazards of CEC exposure and can be used by researchers to prioritize studies focused on understanding the hazards of CEC exposure to fish. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2022;18:1246–1259. © 2021 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Great Lakes↗

USGS2021

Identifying sources of contaminants in urban stormwater and evaluation of their removal efficacy across a continuum of urban best management practices

Precipitation events in urban areas often result in stormwater runoff containing a diverse array of chemical contaminants. Although many traditional contaminants, such as nutrients, heavy metals, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have been studied extensively, only recently has evidence emerged showing that trace organic compounds (TrOCs), including pharmaceuticals, personal care products and pesticides are frequently found in stormwater runoff. As there is little existing information about the sources of TrOCs in urban stormwater or their removal efficacy across a range of stormwater treatment options, we conducted a study to address these knowledge gaps and to characterize the potential contribution of TrOCs to groundwater resources from stormwater infiltration practices, based on several synoptic measurements. The current study allowed us to enhance an existing effort to assess TrOC presence and toxicity in stormwater runoff and treatment pond outflow by addressing questions related to TrOC sources to stormwater and TrOC transport to groundwaters. Analysis of eDNA confirms multiple sources of TrOCs to stormwater including human sewage, dog waste, and feces from waterfowl. It is likely that the presence of some TrOCs detected in stormwater are the result of direct, untreated sewage inputs to stormwater from either human (i.e., leaking sewer infrastructure) or pet waste (washed from sidewalks into storm drains). The seasonal detection of avian eDNA is noteworthy as it highlights seasonality and patterns of migration patterns as contributing factors to stormwater contamination. In contrast to human and pet waste, which likely enters stormwater ponds via the stormwater conveyance system, avian feces may enter ponds either through stormwater runoff or through direct inputs by waterfowl stopping-over temporarily at stormwater ponds. Stormwater ponds had little effect in reducing TrOCs as determined by comparative inflow and outflow analysis. Our results also indicate that overall few TrOCs were present in receiving groundwater adjacent to underground infiltration basins, compared to inflow. However, some contaminants were present at relatively high concentrations compared to stormwater flowing into the basins. This is particularly true for pesticides and their degradants. Fewer TrOCs were detected in interstitial water collected near stormwater ponds compared to inflow and outflow. The presence and concentrations of TrOCs in outflow from ponds was generally similar to or higher than what was observed in inflow. The data collected as part of this study can be used to guide future research or monitoring in an effort to better understand TrOC fate and transport in the environment via stormwater BMPs. Specifically, more work is needed to track parcels of water as they flow through BMPs to better quantify transport and degradation of TrOCs, monitor flow into and out of ponds for mass balance calculations, and conduct tracer tests to better quantify the amount of water that monitoring wells are intercepting from underground infiltration basins. These results have been shared in multiple presentations and in meetings with high school teachers to develop age-appropriate curriculum to highlight the role of individuals in reducing and preventing stormwater contamination. The ongoing pandemic hindered some of these efforts (cancelled conferences; suspended MN Water Roundtable meetings; pre-occupation with teachers moving materials online), however, as dissemination activities become more common in the near future, we will continue to educate stakeholders and educators about the root causes and effects of urban stormwater contamination.

Minnesota↗