What difference might sewage treatment performance make to endocrine disruption in rivers?

Johnson, Andrew C.; Williams, Richard J.; Simpson, Pete; Kanda, Rakesh

doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2006.08.032

Cited by 68 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Rutishauser et al (2004) showed that in-vitro tests were able to detect oestrogenic effects in effluents from these compounds and bisphenol A. An assessment of oestrogen removal efficiency for WTW in the UK (Johnson et al, 2007b) showed simple biological plants to be poor with only about 30% removal. Johnson and Williams (2004) were able to estimate the amount likely to be discharged using predictions of excretion fate and behaviour in the wastewater treatment system.…”

Section: Wastewater Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of these studies have been associated with the impact of WTWs. It is well established that endocrine disruption in UK rivers is likely and due primarily to natural and synthetic oestrogens in sewage effluents (Johnson et al, 2007b). Mason et al (1999) showed that point source contamination of surface water from pesticides was more significant than previously recognised.…”

Section: Uk and European Studies 61 Surface Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of risk from potential emerging contaminants in UK groundwater

Stuart

Lapworth

Crane

et al. 2012

Science of The Total Environment

660

284

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper provides a review of the types of emerging organic groundwater contaminants (EGCs) which are beginning to be found in the UK. EGCs are compounds being found in groundwater that were previously not detectable or known to be significant and can come from agricultural, urban and rural point sources. EGCs include nanomaterials, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, industrial compounds, personal care products, fragrances, water treatment by-products, flame retardants and surfactants, as well as caffeine and nicotine. Many are relatively small polar molecules which may not be effectively removed by drinking water treatment. Data from the UK Environment Agency's groundwater screening programme for organic pollutants found within the 30 most frequently detected compounds a number of EGCs such as pesticide metabolites, caffeine and DEET. Specific determinands frequently detected include pesticides metabolites, pharmaceuticals including carbamazepine and triclosan, nicotine, food additives and alkyl phosphates. This paper discusses the routes by which these compounds enter groundwater, their toxicity and potential risks to drinking water and the environment. It identifies challenges that need to be met to minimise risk to drinking water and ecosystems.

show abstract

Section: Wastewater Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Uk and European Studies 61 Surface Watermentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of risk from potential emerging contaminants in UK groundwater

Stuart

Lapworth

Crane

et al. 2012

Science of The Total Environment

660

284

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Interestingly, a recent study did not observe a beneficial effect of a sand filter on the removal of estrogens. [33] This aspect clearly requires further study, for example, by deploying POCIS before and after the filtration step. In addition to the field work, two channel systems were built to investigate matrix andflowrateeffectsonpassive sampling.…”

Section: Study Iv: Passive Sampling In Many Independent Rivers and Efmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estrogens in Swiss Rivers and Effluents – Sampling Matters

Eggen¹,

Escher²,

Suter³

2008

Chimia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Estrogenic activity of treated sewage effluents and receiving waters surfaced as an issue of general concern some 15 years ago. Since then, a large number of studies investigated the distribution and nature of the estrogenic substances in various aquatic ecosystems. Within NRP50, a five-year Swiss research programme on endocrine disruptors, four field studies were performed to characterize the presence of environmental estrogens in rivers and effluents. The estrogenic activity was quantified with a biological assay − the yeast estrogen screen. An overview of the sampling approaches and results of the various studies is presented here. In a first study, using grab sampling, it appeared that estrogenic activity in river water was highly variable. Average estrogenicity values did not correlate with sewage treatment works and/or river characteristics, e.g. effluent dilution factor. However, variability was not 'random' but clearly associated with river size, and possibly its discharge. A second study specifically addressed this issue of variability of estrogenicity. The study was conducted at a single effluent source and its receiving river. Variability of estrogenicity in the grab samples was again large but again not 'random'; some of the variability was explained by the time over which the effluent resided in the treatment process. In a third study it was explored if passive sampling would be a better way to assess average estrogenicity. Indeed, passive samplers identified sources of estrogens, and passive sampling data correlated well with both repeated grab sampling and bioaccumulation data. Subsequently, passive samplers were deployed across Switzerland in a fourth study. It involved 22 effluent discharges and the associated rivers. Data analysis of the last study is still ongoing, preliminary observations are discussed here. Although a lot could be learned from repeated grab sampling campaigns, it emerged that passive sampling is a very effective and appropriate technique to assess: i) effluent treatment efficiency, and ii) the chemical load of river water. For these reasons it is a valuable monitoring tool for water quality criteria assessments as well as for studies that aim to link exposure and effect. The passive samplers that are currently available not only target estrogenic substances, but many other polar organic compounds of concern, such as antibiotics (see NRP49), other pharmaceuticals and biocides.

show abstract

“…75 In that case the influent concentration would need to be 1.6 mg/l nanoceria. WWTPs are designed around population equivalents (PE) which tend to be around 160-200 L/PE/d in the UK 108,109 so a PE unit would need to discharge 256-320 mg Ce/d to receiving waters. Given the current uses of nanoceria, this only seems likely to occur if a large industrial facility is directly discharging wastewater containing high concentrations of nanoceria directly into a sanitary sewer.…”

Section: Acute Exposures In Aquatic Environmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental release, fate and ecotoxicological effects of manufactured ceria nanomaterials

Collin

Auffan

Johnson

et al. 2014

Environ. Sci.: Nano

Self Cite

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

uses. This has led to a number of publications on the toxicological effects of nanoceria in ecological receptor species, but only limited information is available on possible environmental releases, concentrations in environmental media, or environmental transformations. Increasing material flows of nanoceria in many applications is likely to result in increasing releases to air, water and soils however; insufficient information was available to estimate aquatic exposures that would result in acute or chronic toxicity. The purpose of this review is to identify which areas are lacking in data to perform either regional or site specific ecological risk assessments. While estimates can be made for releases from use as a diesel fuel additive, and predicted toxicity is low in most terrestrial species tested to date, estimates for releases from other uses are difficult at this stage. We

show abstract

What difference might sewage treatment performance make to endocrine disruption in rivers?

Cited by 68 publications

References 32 publications

Review of risk from potential emerging contaminants in UK groundwater

Review of risk from potential emerging contaminants in UK groundwater

Estrogens in Swiss Rivers and Effluents – Sampling Matters

Environmental release, fate and ecotoxicological effects of manufactured ceria nanomaterials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About