In vitro bioanalytical evaluation of removal efficiency for bioactive chemicals in Swedish wastewater treatment plants

Abstract

Chemical contamination of wastewater is a problem of great environmental concern, as it poses a hazard to both the ecosystem and to human health. In this study, we have performed a bioanalytical evaluation of the presence and removal efficiency for bioactive chemicals in wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), using in vitro assays for toxicity endpoints of high relevance for human health. Water samples were collected at the inlet and outlet of five Swedish WWTPs, all adopting a treatment technology including pretreatment, primary treatment (sedimenation), seconday treatment (biological processes), post-sedimentation, and sludge handling. The water samples were analyzed for cytotoxicity, estrogenicity, androgenicity, aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) activity, oxidative stress response (Nrf2) and the ability to activate NFĸB (nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B cells) signaling. We observed clear androgenic and estrogenic activities in all inlet samples. Androgenic and estrogenic activities were also observed in all outlet samples, but the activities were lower than the respective inlet sample. AhR activity was observed in all samples, with higher activities in the inlet samples compared to the outlet samples. The removal efficiency was found to be high for androgenic (>99% for two plants and 50–60% for two plants) and estrogenic (>90% for most plants) compounds, while the removal efficiency for AhR-inducing compounds was 50–60% for most plants and 16% for one plant.

Bioanalytical Tools in Water Quality Assessment

“…water extracts (Table 10.40). The tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) EC IR1.5 value for NF-κB GeneBLAzer was 4.5 times lower than the NF-κB reporter gene assay developed by Lundqvist et al (2019b) (Table 10.40), while no reference compound data were available for NF-κB CALUX. Extracts of drinking water, surface water and wastewater were active in the NF-κB GeneBLAzer assay, while only wastewater influent was active in the NF-κB reporter gene assay and no samples were active in NF-κB CALUX (Table 10.41).…”

“…To date, most studies have applied assays indicative of binding to PPARγ to environmental water extracts, with only a few studies applying assays indicative of PPARα (Escher et al, 2014;Alygizakis et al, 2019). Therefore, this section will focus on PPARγ, with (Nivala et al, 2018); 3 (Lundqvist et al, 2019b); 4 (Jalova et al, 2013); 5 (Lee et al, 2015); 6 (Macova et al, 2010); (Reungoat et al, 2010); (Escher et al, 2014); (Jia et al, 2015); (Neale et al, 2017c); (Mueller et al, 2021), (Loos et al, 2013), (Maier et al, 2016); 14 (Alygizakis et al, 2019); 15 (Stalter et al, 2011); 16 (König et al, 2017); 17 (Neale et al, 2015b); 18 (Müller et al, 2018); 19 (Neale et al, 2018a); 20 (Neale et al, 2020a); 21…”

Recent Advancements in Plant-Based Natural Coagulant Application in the Water and Wastewater Coagulation-Flocculation Process: Challenges and Future Perspectives

“…Inappropriately treated or untreated wastewater contains contaminants, for example, suspended solids, pathogens, nutrients, and heavy metals that are toxic and hazardous to the environment and lead to numerous pollution problems (Mukherjee et al, 2016). These contaminants also give rise to waterborne diseases, which affect human health and are responsible for about 80% of the world's diseases (Lundqvist et al, 2019;Ugwu et al, 2017). Therefore, treating and reusing wastewater is the best way to combat freshwater scarcity and waterborne diseases (Abujazar et al, 2018).…”

How should ecohazard of micropollutants in wastewater be gauged? Using bioassays to profile alternative tertiary treatments

“…Thus, the development of sensible and specific assays represents a valuable strength when profiling tertiary treatments [4,5]. Indeed, effect-based monitoring approaches are required to gain information on the cumulative effects of complex mixtures characterizing wastewater [6]: the detection of OMPs alone is not sufficient to evaluate the ecohazard of treated effluent and, ultimately, the negative effects on aquatic organisms [2,7,8].…”