Ecological risks of polycyclic musk in soils irrigated with reclaimed municipal wastewater

Abstract

a b s t r a c t HHCB (1,3,4,6,7,6,6,7, and 1,3,4,4,2,3, are found in reclaimed municipal wastewater. They may accumulate in soils receiving long-term application of reclaimed water thus adversely impact the soil biota. We evaluated the extent of their accumulation in receiving soils using HYDRUS-1D based on reclaimed municipal wastewater irrigation data at a public park in Beijing. The potential for ecological harms were assessed according to tested and reported outcomes of acute toxicity tests using wheat (Triticum aetivum L), earthworm (Eisenia fetida) and springtail (Bourletiella hortensis) as target organisms. Results of comparison among EC 50 values from wheat, earthworm and springtail showed the EC 50 value for root elongation inhibition of wheat germination was the least. Based on the least EC 50 , predicted no effect concentration in soils were 290 and 320 ng /g for HHCB and ATHN, respectively. Comparable results from simulation to experimental and field investigating date validated the using of HYDRUS-1D in the work. Results of risk prediction showed it would take 243 and 666 years for HHCB and AHTN accumulated in soils at current irrigation practice to reach the levels for the resulting risk characterization ratios (RCRs) to cause potential ecosystem harms.

Soil quality assessment of urban green space under long-term reclaimed water irrigation

“…Due to its relative high-level salts compared to tap water, reclaimed water irrigation has led to soil property deterioration and affected plant growth (de Miguel et al 2013;Pedrero et al 2014). Accumulations of toxic substances such heavy metals and musk in soils receiving reclaimed water sometimes are also noticed (Chen et al 2013a;Kang et al 2007;Wang et al 2013). The enhanced soil biological activities have been observed due to the extra nutrients from the reclaimed water, whereas the adverse effects on soil biological activities can also occur because of harmful trace substances in reclaimed water (Brzezinska et al 2001;Chen et al 2008).…”

Assessment on micronutrient concentration after reclaimed water irrigation: A CASE study in green areas of Madrid*

“…Madrid City Council replaced the usual drinking water irrigation system by a reclaimed water one, in most of its green areas. Reclaimed water irrigation is also carried out by other large cities in the world, such as Beijing (China) (Yi et al, 2011;Wang et al, 2013), Denver and San Diego (USA) (Qian & Mecham, 2005;San Diego City Council, 2019), Adelaide (Australia) (Nouri et al, 2013) and Tokyo (Japan) (Furumai, 2008). Nowadays, in Madrid there are over 30 green areas irrigated with reclaimed water coming from its water reclamation plants.…”

Modified dispersive solid‐phase extraction and cleanup followed by GC‐MS/MS analysis to quantify ultraviolet filters and synthetic musk compounds in soil samples

“…Irrigation with contaminated water [5,6] or fertilization with biosolids from wastewater treatment plants [7,8] may be possible origins of soil contamination. Nevertheless, literature has shown that over the past decades several organic contaminants like pharmaceutical and personal care products (PCPs) are present either in biosolids or in treated wastewater [9][10][11].…”

“…To the authors' best knowledge, the UVFs under scrutiny in this paper have been mostly studied in specific soils, like beach sand, and few studies are available regarding SMCs. Analyzing the available works, soil samples were generally extracted and cleaned up either by ultrasound (USE), vortex, on-column lixiviation [14], SPME [14][15][16], pressurized liquid extraction (PLE) [6,[17][18][19][20][21], stir-bar sorptive extraction (SBSE) [22], SPE [23], or using a solid-liquid extraction approach (SLE) [24,25]. Although PLE, SBSE, and SPME are methods with good performances, the equipment required is not always available in all laboratories.…”