Water Research Foundation Expert Workshop on EDCs/PPCPs in Drinking Water
Summary
Introduction
Addressing endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) and pharmaceuticals and personal care
products (PPCPs) in drinking waters is a significant challenge for water utilities because of the
low concentrations at which they occur, the lack of definitive information on potential human
health effects at these concentrations, and overall concern about the issue. To help utilities better
understand and address the issue, the Water Research Foundation (WaterRF) has funded research
on analytical methods, monitoring, treatment, and risk communication for EDCs and PPCPs.
There has also been extensive research funded and conducted in recent years by many other
research organizations, and the water industry would benefit from a coordinated path forward.
To this end, WaterRF held an expert workshop in Denver, Colorado September 7-8, 2011 to
discuss recent and ongoing related research activities, identify remaining challenges in this area,
and generate a priority list of research needs that would most benefit the industry. Focus
areas considered included occurrence, monitoring, measurement, risk assessment, risk
communication, control, and treatment. Representatives from drinking water utilities, academia,
consulting, research, federal agencies, and international organizations attended this workshop.
Workshop Participants
Anna Durden, WateReuse Foundation
Ben Blount, Centers for Disease Control
Brett Vanderford, Southern Nevada Water Authority
Christopher Weis, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Daniel Quintanar, City of Tucson Water Department
Elisabeth Hawley, Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS
Eric Dickenson, Southern Nevada Water Authority
Erik Rosenfeldt, Hazen and Sawyer
Frederick vom Saal, University of Missouri – Columbia
Herb Buxton, U.S. Geological Survey
James Kopp, City of St. Louis Water Division
Jeanne Bailey, Fairfax Water
John Gordon, Alion Science and Technology
Jörg Drewes, Colorado School of Mines
Laura Kennedy, Kennedy/Jenks Consultants
Lisa Ragain, Aqua Vitae
Lola Olabode, Water Environment Research Foundation
Melissa Rothrock, Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
Mohammad Habibian, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
Patti Fauver, Utah Department of Environmental Quality (representing Association of State
Drinking Water Agencies)
Paul Westerhoff, Arizona State University
Phillippe Daniel, CDM
Rafael Terrero, Miami Dade Water and Sewer Department
Rengao Song, Louisville Water Company
Richard Pleus, Intertox, Inc.
Richard Sakaji, East Bay Municipal Utility District
Rino Trolio, Water Corporation (representing Water Services Association of Australia)
Shahram Tabe, Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Shane Snyder, University of Arizona
Susan Andrews, University of Toronto (representing Canadian Water Network)
Susan Glassmeyer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Zaid Chowdhury, Malcolm Pirnie/ARCADIS
Alice Fulmer, Water Research Foundation
Hsiao-wen Chen, Water Research Foundation
John Albert, Water Research Foundation
Linda Reekie, Water Research Foundation
Agenda
Wednesday, September 7
12:00 noon Lunch provided / Informal meet and greet
1:00 pm
Welcome, Workshop Objectives, and Introductions (Alice Fulmer)
1:30 pm
Organizational Overviews of Recent, Ongoing, and Planned EDC/PPCP Research
 Water Research Foundation (Rick Sakaji, East Bay Municipal Utility District)
 WateReuse Research Foundation (Anna Durden)
 Water Environment Research Foundation (Lola Olabode)
 Water Services Association of Australia (Rino Trolio, Water Corporation)
 Canadian Water Network (Susan Andrews, University of Toronto)
 U.S. Geological Survey (Herb Buxton)
 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Susan Glassmeyer)
 Centers for Disease Control (Ben Blount)
3:30 pm
Presentations on Health Effects of EDCs/PPCPs
 Toxicology (Christopher Weis, National Institute for Environmental Health
Sciences)
 Endocrinology (Frederick vom Saal, University of Missouri – Columbia)
4:30 pm
Discussion of Remaining Knowledge Gaps and Identification of Focus Areas in
Need of Research
5:30 pm
Adjourn
6:30 pm
Gather in hotel lobby for dinner
Thursday, September 8
7:30 am
Breakfast provided
8:00 am
Recap of Day 1, Breakout Group Topics and Assignments
8:30 am
Breakout Group Discussions of Specific Research Needs in Identified Focus
Areas
10:30 am
Break
10:45 am
Group Rotations to Provide Feedback
11:30 am
12:00 pm
1:00 pm
2:00 pm
Breakout Groups Reconvene to Incorporate Feedback
Lunch provided
Full Group Discussions to Prioritize Focus Areas
Next Steps / Adjourn
Focus Areas, Related Research, and Remaining Research Needs
Following presentations summarizing recent and ongoing research on EDCs and PPCPs,
workshop participants identified four main areas that still present significant challenges for the
water industry with regard to EDCs and PPCPs and for which focused research would help:
 Risk Communication
 Monitoring Techniques
 Holistic Control Strategies
 Risk Assessment
Recent and ongoing research related to each of these areas was compiled based on the
presentations. With this information, participants worked in breakout groups to develop problem
statements and goals for each suggested focus area and identify priority research needs to help
meet the goals. Participants then circulated to listen to the recommendations and provide
feedback. Afterward, relative priority was discussed. While all four topics were deemed
important, workshop participants representing drinking water utilities identified risk
communication and holistic control strategies as their top priorities.
The related research projects and remaining research needs identified for the four suggested
focus areas are presented on the following pages.
Risk Communication – Developing Core Messages and Engaging Critical Stakeholders
Related Research










(WaterRF 4169) Water Utility Framework for Responding to Emerging Contaminant
Issues
(WaterRF 4261) Building a National Utility Network to Address EDC/PPCP Issues
(WaterRF 4323) Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes towards EDCs and PPCPs in
Drinking Water
(WaterRF 4387) Development of a Water Utility Handbook on EDCs/PPCPs for Public
Education and Consumption
(WERF CEC3R07) Technical Brief - Trace Organics and Implications for Wastewater
Treatment and Receiving Waters
(WERF) Communication Principles and Practices, Public Perception, and Message
Effectiveness
(WERF 00PUM1) Water Reuse: Understanding Public Perception and Participation
(WERF 00PUM5) Public Perception of Biosolids Recycling: Developing Public
Participation and Earning Trust
(WRF-07-03) Talking about Water: Vocabulary and Images that Support Informed
Decisions about Water Recycling and Desalination
(WRF-09-07) The PPCP Communications Toolkit
Problem Statement
Communicating to diverse stakeholders about the risk of exposure to chemicals of emerging
concern (CECs) that are detected in source or treated drinking water is a challenge for water
utilities. The challenge arises because the risks to human health are frequently not known and
the science informing these risks is evolving. In addition, analytical techniques continue to
improve, so that increasingly smaller levels of CECs are able to be detected. With an increased
stakeholder access to information (and misinformation), drinking water utilities must be
proactive in communicating what they know and don’t know when third parties report on
occurrence or frequency of CECs in a utility’s water source or treated water. Risk
communication messages tailored to reach different audiences and delivered using appropriate
mechanisms must be readily available to assist water utilities in these critical communications.
Effective communications can improve customer and stakeholder trust of and support for a water
utility.
Furthermore, drinking water utilities recognize that they have been thrust into a role that they are
not necessarily qualified to address nor able to resolve. Drinking water utilities have no control
over the new chemicals that are manufactured, marketed, consumed and disposed or transported
into source waters from source and non-point sources. However, since water utilities are the local
entity that provides the product, water, to the customer, they are often perceived by their
customers as being the entity responsible for the presence and complete removal of the
contaminant. The issue is further compounded by improved analytical techniques that allow
scientists to find increasingly smaller quantities of contaminants in water, and the difficulty and
long period of time required to establish impacts of exposure on humans. There is a need for the
initiation of a national dialogue that includes a discussion among a broad and diverse group of
stakeholders, including (but not limited to) representatives from chemical manufacturers, large
users of CECs, non-governmental environmental organizations, federal environmental
management and health agencies, water quality researchers, toxicologists, elected officials,
wastewater utilities, and water utilities. The dialogue would assist in identifying the range of
issues associated with CECs, the similar and different drivers and goals for the various
stakeholders, and areas where stakeholders could agree to cooperate or collaborate to reach
common goals. This would help assist water utilities in their communications that the solutions
to the issues associated with CECs are issues that are the responsibility of many stakeholders.
Goals
1. Provide core messages for water utilities to communicate the relative risk of exposure to
CECs in water to different audiences.
2. Initiate a national dialogue with a broad range of stakeholders to agree on issues
associated with CECs in drinking water; discuss multi-disciplinary, multi-sector
solutions; and identify frameworks and opportunities for continued discussions towards
solutions.
Projects/Types of Projects Needed to Achieve Goals
1. Develop key core messages for the water and wastewater utilities to communicate about
CECs to various stakeholders. The following is a list of important aspects of the project:
a. Involve water and wastewater utilities (chief executive officers, managers,
engineers, public affairs officers), various scientific disciplines (social scientists,
chemists, toxicologists), regulators, health officials, communication specialists,
customers, regulators to develop messages.
b. Define relative risk, absolute risk, comparative risk and other common riskscience terminology. Characterize the differences of relative risk vs. absolute risk
(and other common risk-related terms) and the implications of their use in
communications.
c. Discuss exposure to other risks from drinking water (i.e., microbial risk).
d. Identify, compare, and contrast the range of environmental exposures to CECs.
e. Evaluate the value and outcome of communications that make comparisons
between exposure to CECs from drinking water and exposure to CECs from other
sources.
f. Develop core messages with input from key stakeholder representatives. Some
examples include how to communicate the value of water, pride of community
water supply, relative risks, changing science, uncertainty of health effects, the
connection of water to wastewater, public responsibility, etc.
g. Develop tailored messages for different audiences (e.g., vulnerable populations,
non-English speaking populations, elected officials, regulators, etc.)
h. Investigate and discuss how to deliver messages that counter negative messages
and result in positive perceptions
i. Discuss conscious use and avoidance of certain words in messages.
j. Explore the use of info-graphics in communicating concepts (i.e., portray a
hierarchy of drinking water violations or risks using a pyramid.)
k. Frame risk in terms of public health; investigate tailoring messages for different
endpoints.
l. Explore the impact of using various messengers and organizations (i.e., elected
official vs. regulator vs. public health official.)
m. Investigate different perceptions of acceptable risk for different audiences (i.e.,
public, regulator)
n. Identify strategies to counter a message if it is shown to be incorrect.
o. Identify the diverse sources of environmental exposures to CECs.
p. Prepare a guide to help utilities talk about the difference between research
methods and regulatory methods and the implications of each. What are the
components that are needed to inform policy and regulations. “Science happens”
and here is what we know.
q. Develop some criteria for utilities to use to select various communication
strategies and tools for various purposes and audiences.
r. Identify metrics to measure the impacts of communications on target audiences.
s. Evaluate impacts of communications on target audience.
t. The development of messages will lead to identification of additional research
needs, as gaps in data and knowledge are identified (i.e., the researcher will
discover that the data, information or knowledge needed to put the messages
together is not yet available.)
2. Convene a series of facilitated workshops to begin a dialogue with a broad range of
stakeholders on the issue of CECs in drinking water and to discuss multi-disciplinary,
multi-sector solutions.
Estimated Timeframe to Achieve Goals
2 years
Monitoring Techniques for EDCs and PPCPs
Related Research




















(WaterRF 4167) Evaluation of Analytical Methods for EDCs and PPCPs via InterLaboratory Comparison (SI, 2008)
(WaterRF 4193) Detection and Quantification of EDC/PPCPs in Source Waters
Containing Dissolved and Colloidal Organic Matter
(WaterRF 4260) Benchmarking and Monitoring Strategies for EDCs/PPCPs by Drinking
Water Utilities
(WRF-05-005) Identifying Hormonally Active Compounds, Pharmaceuticals, and
Personal Care Product Ingredients of Health Concern from Potential Presence in Water
Intended for Indirect Potable Reuse
(WERF) Development of Indicators and Surrogates for Chemical Contaminant Removal
during Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation
(WERF) Diagnostic Tools to Evaluate Impacts of Trace Organic Compounds
(WERF/TZW) Tools for Analyzing Estrogenicity in Environmental Waters
(TZW) Evaluation and Application of the YES-Assay for the Detection of EDCs
including Biodegradation Studies
(KWR) Relating environmental concentrations of pharmaceuticals to consumption: a
mass balance approach for the river Rhine
(KWR) Detection of multiple hormonal activities in wastewater effluents and surface
water, using a panel of steroid receptor CALUX bioassays
(KWR) Temporal variation in multiple hormonal activities of surface waters located in
the Dutch part of the Rhine basin
(GWRC – WaterRF 4407) Tools for Analyzing Androgenic, Thyroid, Glucocorticoid,
and Progestagenic Activity in Environmental Waters - Literature Review
(GWRC) In Vitro Bioassays to Detect Estrogenic Activity in Environmental Waters
(GWRC) Development of a Priority List of Pharmaceuticals
(USGS) National monitoring of environmental contaminants
(EPA) Method Development Based on Prioritized Compounds
(EPA) National rivers and streams assessment
(EPA) Strategic effluent sampling for CECs
(EPA) CECs in Untreated and Treated Drinking Water
(WSAA) Collaborative Research Project – use of indicators
Problem Statement
While analytical techniques for measuring chemicals have improved, monitoring for EDCs and
PPCPs in water remains a challenge due to a number of factors. First, there are a broad number
of relevant compounds, and watershed inputs vary, therefore it is difficult to determine what
compounds to monitor to generate results that are both widely comparable and relevant for
specific sites. Also, EDC/PPCP concentrations vary with time, making it difficult to know
whether sampling events are representative of typical concentrations. Moving forward, experts
believe that future sampling strategies should pair chemical analyses with bioassays for best
results, because bioassays can capture effects of unknown compounds and mixtures. However,
there are questions regarding the reliability and interpretation of bioassays. For these reasons,
utilities would benefit from guidance regarding what EDCs/PPCPs to monitor, when and how
frequently to monitor, and how to incorporate bioassays into monitoring strategies.
Goals
1. Develop monitoring guidance that includes priority EDCs and PPCPs compounds for
different monitoring purposes and monitoring frequency necessary for representative
results.
2. Further the quality, reliability, application, and interpretation of bioassays as water
quality monitoring tools.
Projects/Types of Projects Needed to Achieve Goals
1. Identification of and consensus regarding target CECs to be investigated for different
purposes in different situations, including surrogates for classes of CECs and treatment
performance indicators ($75,000 for a 2-day workshop – same need identified for
Holistic Control Strategies focus area)
2. Workshop to identify criteria and standards to be met for validation of bioassays,
including those for non-estrogenic endpoints, but learning from analytical issues from
estrogenic assays. Deliverables should include a white paper for utilities to inform them
of how to interpret results. ($50,000)
3. Round robin to compare performance of bioassays ($200,000 if add drinking water
relevant matrices to existing WateReuse Foundation project)
4. Conduct case studies of utilities with different online sensors to investigate temporal
variations in EDCs/PPCPs and compare concentrations to grab samples to determine (a)
the application of online sensors for EDCs and PPCPs and (b) the sampling frequencies
and strategies needed to capture representative samples ($500,000)
Estimated Timeframe to Achieve Goals
4 years
Holistic Control Strategies for Managing Chemicals of Emerging Concern in Drinking
Water
Related Research













(WaterRF 4386) Decision Support Program for Reducing EDCs and PPCPs in Drinking
Water
(WaterRF 4396, WQRA) Transformation Chemistry of EDCs/PPCPs Resulting from the
Disinfection of Drinking Water
(WaterRF 4176) Developing a Vision and Roadmap for Source Water Protection for U.S.
Drinking Water Utilities
(WaterRF 4334, WERF) Constructed Wetlands for Treatment of Organic and
Nonmaterial Pollutants
(WaterRF 4168) Qualitative Structure Property Relationships (QSPR) to Predict Removal
of EDC/PPCPs in Water Treatment Processes
(WERF) Development of Indicators and Surrogates for Chemical Contaminant Removal
during Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation
(WERF) Developing a Standardized Protocol for Assessing the Biodegradability of
Trace Organic Contaminants
(WERF) Treatability Research Plan
(TZW) Identification and und assessment of selected pharmaceuticals and their
metabolites (degradation and transformation products) in the water cycle
(TZW) Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) in the lower Jordan Rift
Valley, Sustainable Management of Available Water Resources with Innovative
Technologies
(CWN EC-2) Determining the efficacy of EC removal in existing treatment trains
relevant to Canadian conditions through chemical and toxicological assessments
(EPA) Formation of Iodo-DBPs from X-ray Contrast Media
Several projects (too numerous to list) have looked at efficacy of membrane treatment,
adsorption processes, UV oxidation, ozone, and other advanced treatment techniques in
addition to riverbank filtration for EDC/PPCP removal from wastewater and drinking
water
Problem Statement
Chemicals of emerging concern (CECs, including EDCs and PPCPs) enter watersheds through
point and non-point sources. The connection between sources and drinking water is not fully
understood, and there are still many unknowns. Better understanding this connection would help
identify optimal control strategies. While there is no 100 percent barrier for CECs, there are
advantages and disadvantages of various control strategies, including watershed management
strategies, centralized drinking water treatment, or even POE/POU treatment. The water
industry and society would benefit from holistic strategies for reducing risk from exposure to
CECs that maximize ecological and health benefits while minimizing the financial and
environmental costs of doing so. This is consistent with EPA’s new Drinking Water Strategy
goal to use the authority of multiple statutes to help protect drinking water.
Goals


Understand sources and temporal variability of CECs to inform control strategies
Develop holistic approaches for reducing exposure to CECs in drinking water that
consider the sources and variability of CECs, end uses of water, and the financial,
environmental, and social costs/benefits of different, emerging approaches
Projects/Types of Projects Needed to Achieve Goals
1. Identification of and consensus regarding target CECs to be investigated for different
purposes, including surrogates for classes of CECs and treatment performance indicators
($75,000 – same need identified for Monitoring focus area)
2. Strategies for developing treatment goals (desired water quality) for CECs, considering
acceptable risk (based on regulatory, health science, public perception), affordability, and
other factors ($150,000)
3. Strategies for adopting holistic source management and treatment for CECs, considering
simultaneous compliance and possible changes in regulations, policy, and community
practices ($400,000)
4. Evaluation of treatment targeted to end-use type, including POE/POU treatment efficiency of existing devices, development of new devices, regulatory considerations,
deployment, maintenance, and cost, etc ($500,000)
5. Monitoring of targeted CECs in watersheds and investigation of fate and transport under
different geochemical and hydrological conditions ($500,000)
6. Comprehensive analysis of the effectiveness and financial, environmental, and social
costs/benefits of the various control strategies identified under different conditions and
development of recommendations for best management practices under different
conditions ($250,000)
Estimated Timeframe to Achieve Goals
5-7 years
Risk Assessment of Chemicals of Emerging Concern
Related Research













(WaterRF 4214) Development of Acceptable Daily Intakes (ADIs) for PPCP Ingredients,
Hormonally Active Compounds, and Other Potentially Highly Toxic Compounds of
Emerging Interest in Water Using the Minimum Anticipated Biological Effect Level
(MABEL) Approach
(WaterRF 3085) Toxicological Relevance of Endocrine Disruptors and Pharmaceuticals
in Drinking Water
(WRF-06-018) Tools to Assess and Understand the Relative Risks of Indirect Potable
Reuse and Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project
(WRF-06-004) Identifying health effects of water reuse industry and prioritizing research
needs for nomination of chemicals for research to appropriate national and international
agencies
(WRF-09-07) Risk Assessment Study of PPCPs in Recycled Water to Support Public
Review (Published as “The PPCPs Communications Toolkit”)
(KWR) Development of in vitro toxicity tests, implementation and interpretation of the
test results towards significance for human health
(WQRA) A National Approach to the Health Risk Assessment, Risk Communication and
Management of Chemical Hazards from Recycled Water Project
(WERF) Diagnostic Tools to Evaluate Impacts of Trace Organic Compounds on Aquatic
Populations and Communities
(TZW) Preventive risk assessment on pathogens and micro-pollutants for drinking water
utilities
(CWN EC-1) Assessing impacts on aquatic organisms exposed to ECs in MWWEs
(CDC) Human Biomonitoring and Investigation of Thyroid-Active Chemicals as part of
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES)
(NIEHS) Multiple projects related to Developmental Basis of Disease: Environmental
Exposure and Epigenetics
(NIEHS) New Approaches to Hazard and Dose-Response Analysis for Endocrine
Disrupting Chemicals
Problem Statement
CECs will always be an issue. There is a need for a process for identifying the most probable
CECs to be found in water and assessing the risk of CECs now and into the future (unknown
chemicals, mixtures, or current CECs with new modes of action (MOA)) and placing them into a
relative risk framework. To this end, the risk assessment process needs to evolve to incorporate
new understandings and the mechanisms current science has identified.
Background
The discussions at the workshop highlighted that risk assessment process, as it stands now, is not
adequate given the vast advances in science. We now have a better understanding of MOA as
well as increased analytical sensitivities.
Risk Assessment components include:
1. Hazard Assessment
2. Exposure Assessment
3. Dose-Response
4. Risk Characterization
Goals & Projects/Types of Projects Needed to Achieve Goals
1. Determine Relative Risk
a. Compare to microbial risk assessment
b. Compare to other sources
c. Keep units the same
2. Identify CECs that are most probable to be in water sources
a. Either individual or classes of CEC (this overlaps with the Monitoring focus area)
b. Identify risk management strategies that would be best for mitigation (this
overlaps with the Holistic Control Strategies focus area)
c. Determine relative source contributions – what percentage of exposure is
attributed to water? (Highest Priority within this focus area)
Note: It was mentioned that water sources were a significant source of DBPs and
that it be helpful to start with this class of CEC.
3. Given the new state of the science, develop approaches to incorporate the new science
into risk assessment
a. Review current methods and identify problems
4. Develop action triggers (How much is too much)?
a. Occurrence and relative dose, relative source contribution – develop a process for
deciding what to move forward with
b. Model consumption and dose
c. Clarify what we can tolerate – is this a biological question or a relative risk
question? (for example, what level of risk can we tolerate, since there never will
be true zero detection)
d. Consider relative source contributions
e. Bioanalysis of water for estrogenic or other types of endocrine disrupting activity,
unknowns analysis.
f. Sensitive sub-populations adequately addressed (life stage dependent) – use as the
benchmark to determine threshold
5. Risk Characterization – how do we determine what presents a risk?
a. Provide a process (Is there a level at which a CEC will no longer become a risk?)
6. Identify how we get alerted to new CECs.
a. CCL list and beyond
b. Synthesis of information from CCL, Toxic Substances Control Act reform,
pharmacokinetics, Tox21
7. Look at mixtures using front-end assays (front parts of Tox21, high through-put assays)
8. Use bioassays in a tiered approach to compare concentrations to threshold risk and
determine estrogenic equivalence (relative risk).
a. Bioassays may help to prioritize what chemicals (e.g. CECs, metabolites,
biologically-active natural chemicals) to focus on.
b. Use bioassays based on common modes of action to determine if there is a basis
for concern
i. Chronic vs. Acute risk
9. End goal: utilities need to understand the information and make decisions, so technology
transfer is needed.
a. Define the base line
b. Synthesize current information
Proposed Framework
The group proposed the following framework for assessing risk of new CECs.
The group noted synergies between the proposed framework and the current CCL3 process,
which is depicted below.
Abbreviations
ADI
CALUX
CCL
CDC
CEC
CWN
DBP
EC
EDC
EPA
GWRC
IWRM
MOA
MWWE
NHANES
NIEHS
POE
POU
PPCP
QSPR
SAR
TZW
USGS
UV
WaterRF
WERF
WQRA
WSAA
WRF
YES
Acceptable daily intake
Chemical-Activated Luciferase Gene Expression
Contaminant Candidate List
Centers for Disease Control
Chemicals of emerging concern
Canadian Water Network
Disinfection by-product
Emerging contaminant
Endocrine disrupting compound
Environmental Protection Agency
Global Water Research Coalition
Integrated Water Resources Management
Mode of action
Municipal wastewater effluent
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
Point of entry
Point of use
Pharmaceuticals and personal care products
Qualitative structure – property relationship
Structure – activity relationship
Technologiezentrum Wasser (Water Technology Center)
United States Geological Survey
Ultraviolet
Water Research Foundation
Water Environment Research Foundation
Water Quality Research Australia
Water Services Association of Australia
WateReuse Research Foundation
Yeast estrogen screen