Endocrine Disruptors and Pharmaceuticals: Implications for the Water Industry

Abstract

For over 70 years, scientists have reported that certain synthetic and natural compounds could mimic natural hormones in the endocrine systems of animals. These substances are now collectively known as endocrine-disrupting compounds (EDCs) and have been implicated in variety of adverse effects in both humans and wildlife. More recently, pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) have been discovered in various surface and ground waters, some of which have been linked to ecological impacts at trace concentrations. The majority of EDCs and PPCPs are more polar than traditional contaminants and several have acidic or basic functional groups. These properties, coupled with occurrence at trace levels (i.e., < 1 µg/L), create unique challenges for both removal processes and analytical detection. Reports of EDCs and PPCPs in water have raised substantial concern among the public and regulatory agencies; however, very little is known about the fate of these compounds during drinking and wastewater treatment. Numerous studies have shown that conventional drinking and wastewater treatment plants do not completely remove many EDCs and PPCPs. Oxidation with chlorine and ozone can result in transformation of some compounds with reactive functional groups under the conditions employed in water and wastewater treatment plants. Advanced treatment technologies, such as activated carbon and reverse osmosis, appear viable for the removal of many trace contaminants including EDCs and PPCPs. Since modern analytical methods are capable detecting miniscule levels of contaminants, no treatment technology can truly removal all compounds to below detection. More research is needed to determine the levels of these contaminants that induce toxicological impacts in order to establish reasonable treatment goals.

Using carbonized low-cost materials for removal of chemicals of environmental concern from water

“…S1 (Supplementary data). The tested substances were selected, owing to their widespread use in developing countries as well as their ability to pass unreduced through conventional sewage treatment plants and being emitted into the environment through effluent water (Snyder et al 2003 ; Lindberg et al 2014 ; Melvin and Leusch 2016 ).…”

“…However, high costs and technical complexity limit the use of conventional water-treatment techniques, including sewage treatment, oxidation, filtration, and adsorption on activated carbon (Gupta and Suhas 2009 ; Nyenje et al 2010 ). Additionally, even if current sewage treatment plants reduce the spread of bacteria and nutrients, some chemicals pass though the treatment plant unreduced (Snyder et al 2003 ; Lindberg et al 2014 ; Melvin and Leusch 2016 ). This is especially crucial for chemicals of environmental concern (CEC), e.g., antibiotics, pharmaceuticals, and biocides, that are designed to have biological effects.…”

Treatment of persistent organic pollutants in wastewater using hydrodynamic cavitation in synergy with advanced oxidation process

“…It generates a high quality effluent. However, fouling of membranes which leads to the increase in trans-membrane pressure (TMP), processing time and cost of maintenance are the greatest hindrances in the application of MBR for wastewater treatment (Snyder et al 2003). Likewise, generation of solid phase effluents which are very difficult to dispose is also a serious demerit associated with MBR.…”

“…However, each option has its own specificity, depending on the treatment objective. The use of activated carbon is very efficient and it may remove more than 90% of the POPs, especially those that contain benzene and/or amine functionalities which enhance their sorption activity (Snyder et al 2003). One of the advantages of GAC is the possibility of thermally reactivating and reusing of the carbon content.…”

Microconstituents – what are they and what is Their Fate through Wastewater Treatment

“…However, just because a compound can be detected does not mean that it is detrimental to the environment and must be removed. Rather, removal should be based on scientific evidence (Snyder et al, 2005). Some EDCs are theoretically fully biodegradable.…”