Pharmaceutical products and other human-sourced chemicals ... · Pharmaceutical products and other human-sourced chemicals in creeks . All grab samples were collected from below the

South Australia

Water quality Information Sheet

Pharmaceutical products and otherhuman-sourced chemicals in creeks Issued September 2019

EPA 1121/19: The presence of pharmaceuticals in urban waters and rural creek environments not located downstream of a wastewater treatment plant discharge point suggests widespread issues of human wastewater entering the environment, probably through leaking pipes or septic systems.

Introduction

Pharmaceutical compounds can be released to the environment via discharges from wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs). Many pharmaceuticals do not readily break down during the treatment process and can be released to the environment in concentrations as much as half of the total entering the WWTP (Bendz et al 2005).

International literature suggests pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) have been detected in a wide range of waterbodies, including waters receiving WWTP discharges and also natural streams, lakes, groundwater and the marine environment (Ellis 2008, Scott et al 2014, Batt et al 2015, Sui et al 2015, Arpin-Pont et al 2016). PPCPs have even been detected in remote lakes with little developed land use, suggesting aerial transport could be responsible for their presence in some locations (Ferrey et al 2015). An increasing number of studies have found the presence of pharmaceuticals in aquatic environments in urban areas (Sauvé et al 2012, Batt et al 2015, Birch et al 2015), probably entering these environments from leaking or illegally connected septics or sewers via the stormwater system.

To determine the prevalence of PPCPs in the Adelaide region, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) conducted an investigation into the presence of PPCPs, artificial sweeteners, hormones and pesticides (mostly herbicides) in creeks in the Mount Lofty Ranges and Adelaide Plains, comprising both urban and semi-urban locations. Streams receiving WWTP discharge have also been compared with those that do not.

Sampling method

Water samples from streams were collected on four separate occasions: spring 2015, autumn and winter 2016, and autumn 2018. The 2015 study sampled 22 locations in creeks across the Adelaide Mount Lofty Ranges rural areas. A further 18 locations were sampled in 2016 across metropolitan Adelaide and parts of the Mount Lofty Ranges, three of which were located immediately downstream of WWTP discharges. In 2018, 18 sites were sampled from three catchments; Brownhill, First and Sixth Creeks, three of which had also been sampled in 2015. In all, 55 sites were monitored.

Two set of samples were collected from the same sites in 2016 to include both a dry and a wet season. The presence of pharmaceuticals during the dry collection can indicate illegal connections of sewage to stormwater systems. The detection of substances during wet weather can also mean illegal connections but may also suggest runoff from land that has been irrigated with treated wastewater, or potential sewer overflows.

Environment Protection Authority

Pharmaceutical products and other human-sourced chemicals in creeks

All grab samples were collected from below the surface in 1-L amber glass bottles. Samples collected from downstream of WWTP discharges were treated with sodium thiosulfate immediately after collection to neutralise any chlorine that might be present in the water. Samples were kept on ice and transported to a laboratory for analysis.

Samples were analysed for a range of pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) and pesticides by CSIRO, Land and Water in 2015 and 2018 and Queensland Health Forensic and Scientific Services in 2016. Four food additives (artificial sweeteners and caffeine), 56 pharmaceuticals and personal care products, five hormones and 46 pesticides (mostly herbicides) were tested (Appendix 1).

Results and discussion

Pharmaceuticals, personal care products and food additives

Pharmaceuticals were detected in 83% of creek sites sampled across the Mount Lofty Ranges and Adelaide Plains between 2015 and 2018. A total of 35 of the 56 PPCPs, 1 of the 5 hormones, and 3 of the 4 food additives tested were detected (Appendix 2).

Pharmaceuticals or food additives were detected at 18 of the 22 sites sampled in 2015, all 12 sites in 2016 for the dry season and 16 of the 18 sites for the wet season in 2016, and 14 of the 19 sites in 2018, suggesting widespread contamination of natural waters with human wastewater. More than one substance was detected at most sites, with the greatest number of substances being detected in creeks downstream of wastewater treatment plants (Figure 1).

The most commonly detected substance was caffeine, detected in 69% of samples (concentrations ranging between 5 and 403 ng/L) followed by the artificial sweetener acesulfame (44%), insect repellent DEET (29%) and anticonvulsant medication carbamazepine (18%). None of these substances have natural sources in the South Australian environment and can only be present due to human inputs. Acesulfame was detected in concentrations up to 600 ng/L in watercourses not receiving wastewater, but reached as high as 3,000 ng/L downstream of a WWTP, and DEET and carbamazepine were recorded as high as 250 ng/L and 1,000 ng/L respectively during this study. The level of detection in South Australian streams is comparable to streams in the USA (Kolpin et al 2002) where organic wastewater contaminants were detected in 80% of streams, and 100% of sites sampled around the Sydney Harbour had PPCPs present (Birch et al 2015).

The ubiquitous occurrence of some substances, particularly the frequent detection of caffeine and acesulfame indicates the widespread presence of human wastewater in the environment, presumably from leaking sewer or septic systems, illegal connections or overflows, or even runoff from land that has been over-irrigated with treated wastewater. Both caffeine and acesulfame are considered to be reliable tracers of human wastewater (Buerge et al 2009, Lubick 2009, Scheurer et al 2009, Frary et al 2005), in part due to their wide usage.

As in this study, Scott et al (2014) found caffeine to be the most frequently detected substance from 73 river sites across Australia. Caffeine can be present in coffee, tea, chocolate, energy drinks and over-the-counter medication for diet-aids, pain relievers, and colds and flus. Acesulfame is common as an artificial sweetener in soft drinks, desserts, condiments and dairy products. While caffeine can be metabolised by the body, acesulfame cannot and is excreted unchanged. Acesulfame also does not degrade well in wastewater treatment plants (Buerge et al 2009, Sheurer et al 2009) and is more likely to be detected downstream of wastewater discharges.

The PPCPs analysed included antibiotics, antidepressants, anticonvulsants, anti-inflammatories and anticancer medication. Some PPCPs that were tested are widely used (eg pain relievers), while others are less common, being specific to particular ailments. It is not surprising that many of the PPCPs were rarely detected. Pharmaceutical products which pass through the body largely unchanged or do not degrade well during the wastewater treatment process (Verlicchi et al 2012, Kumar et al 2016, Archer et al 2017, Shraim 2017) are thought to also persist in the environment, including atenolol, trimethoprim, carbamazepine, gemfibrozil, oxazepam and sulfamethoxazole (Hektoen et al 1995, Ellis 2006, Benotti and Brownawell 2009, Ying et al 2009).

2

- j_ - - ,

I I I

I

·--.\.;h·-!·· (_

PPCPs detected in inland waters of South Australia

PPCPs detected

• No substances detected

1-2 substances detected

• 3-5 substances detected

• >5 substances detected .....

N

A -Km,

17.S .....

P'roducedby Envi'anmentalScience EnvlronmentProtection Authonly Gf'O Bo~ ~07 Ao.Jclaido SA 500i l.\l<,h: www.1,r,.1.!l.1.g.w.nu

Data source EPA. DEW Compiled 19 Febroary. 2019 ProJ~ctloo L1ni",ert Confonn.--.1 Conic Datum Geocentric Datum ot Auslral isl. 1994

, , Co:,,noM lot•ho,,,, ., ~r<>,.,.lon ~-llu 1t,· ia1§. -'oi l ~lohb. ~, .. ,,, d . loll -., ·· • ~,,.,,..,1:,i <l'P• )'i<l • r> MJ,i<I M cc,:rv,• ~~' "'" ,._,"" c,p,1!:ill:o<»• w, .. o , • ., P', ... ,,.~ 1.,. I· • r..,,r·~t. ~u 1~~ (Cd,-) w, -.., P"""'".;'"' "'"" b. ••••~h• IH;m ~ . •••"""'Y fJl""111'1"'' ".l ..,,..h,, e><<nffl,o,10,n,or<l"<""w,:1ot1·,n1Ur-o,on Ho · ;·,.1-, ,.,a,,nr,, " '"'"" ,•,cffl<er>•••:m:110,,.. ,m,H no ...,,.,,,,.,..,.,,.ume<o=>>r fMp l».1·0,n roJ< ,•,n<1'-"•1"d"'°'·"'', , ·:nH••l=<"•·c c,:, ,u,· co..,1<1m, :a1 "'"ll 'f tot I»• ct d•m•g• '"'" 6 frun ,.,,noo • pu, 110 ~-••• U~•1ad

GIS19_0013_PPCP


Figure 1 Pharmaceuticals and personal care products detected across the Mount Lofty Ranges

3


On the other hand, substances such as caffeine, ibuprofen, diclofenac, metoprolol, paracetamol and fluoxetine are thought to either be metabolised in the body or degrade quickly during the treatment process (Bendz et al 2005, Ellis 2006). The degree to which these substances degrade in the treatment process largely depends on the form of treatment and can vary widely between treatment plants. Removal or degradation of these substances is generally thought to be quite poor when only primary treatment of wastewater occurs (Verlicchi et al 2012).

Substances that rapidly breakdown, such as caffeine can be considered to be good indicators of recent wastewater contamination, while others that are more persistent, such as carbamazepine, are indicative of cumulative persistent discharges (Daneshvar et al 2012). Persistent PPCPs may also be present in higher concentrations in the sediment than in water (Ebele et al 2017). For example, triclosan, and some antibiotics such as norfloxacin have been found to be readily adsorbed to sludge (Ying et al 2009, Petrie et al 2015). Leaching from land-based application of sludge could therefore potentially impact groundwaters or surface waters through runoff.

Most substances detected in South Australian waters were found at lower concentrations than those reported in other studies (Appendix 2). Sauvé et al (2012) recorded caffeine at concentrations up to 3,400 ng/L in urban streams in Montreal and as high as 53,000 ng/L at wastewater treatment plant outfalls. The South Australian results were considerably less than 403 ng/L.

Birch et al (2015) found paracetamol to be the most commonly occurring compound, present at every stormwater outlet studied in the Sydney Harbour, while in South Australia paracetamol was found at very few sites; however, where it was detected, it was found to be in similar concentrations. Scott et al (2014) discovered a widespread presence of salicylic acid across Australia and detected it in 100% of samples collected from South Australia (12 samples). Salicylic acid is a compound in aspirin but is also naturally present in willow bark, which is quite prevalent in some South Australian catchments. In this study salicylic acid was rarely found, only being detected (at the limit of quantification or LOQ) at two sites.

In contrast, some substances detected in our study were measured at higher concentrations than reported elsewhere. For example, the average concentration of acesulfame detected in the Sydney Harbour was 22 ng/L (Birch et al 2015), lower than our average of 82.5 ng/L in creeks not receiving wastewater discharges and 915 ng/L in creeks that do. Carbamazepine was detected at lower concentrations around Sydney Harbour (≤2.7 ng/L) in comparison to concentrations detected in this study of up to 100 ng/L in urban and rural streams and as high as 1,000 ng/L downstream of WWTPs. However, higher concentrations of carbamazepine were detected in other studies in creeks and stormwater outlets (Appendix 2).

More than one substance was detected at most sites, with the greatest number of substances being detected in creeks downstream of WWTPs (Figure 1).

Herbicides

Of the 46 herbicides tested, 15 were detected in inland waters. The most commonly detected included the herbicide trichlopyr found in 24% of samples, followed by MCPA (22%), simazine (18%) and 2,4-D (14%). Herbicides are often detected in creeks due to agricultural runoff, however they can also be detected downstream of WWTPs, as many are not readily treated and can be discharged at concentrations marginally smaller than those entering the WWTP (Köck-Schulmeyer et al 2013). Samples collected downstream of the three WWTPs were located in agricultural areas, so herbicides could have also been sourced from the immediate area through runoff or spray drift. The highest number of herbicides detected at one location occurred at both sites sampled in the Torrens River (Figure 2).

In this study, 2,4-D was detected in streams at concentrations higher than those recorded in stormwater outlets around Sydney Harbour (Birch et al 2015) but lower than those recorded downstream of wastewater effluent in Europe (Loos et al 2012). Higher concentrations of simazine and MCPA were also detected in our study than those detected around Sydney Harbour (Appendix 2) with concentrations of simazine and MCPA detected in South Australia up to 430 and 540 ng/L respectively in comparison to 8 and 61 ng/L in Sydney (Birch et al 2015).

4

-- --, I '

Herbicides detected in inland waters of South Australia

Herbicides detected

• No substances detected

1-2 substances detected

• 3-5 substances detected

• >5 substances detected I.-

N

A -Km,

17.5

....I

Produc, dby EnvironrrwnholScience ErivronmentProteet lOIIAuthorify GPO Boi 2607 Adelato:ie SA 5001 Web: www.epa.sa.gov.au

Q;,t~ Source EPA. DEW Compiled 26 f.,t,,,.,.,,y_ 2019 . Projection L..n11bOflC011fom1iMCoruc oatum G,,n""ntrir: 0111um nt Au~1rnlill. 19!,4

~- ~~,,-r,o•: 1,_....-.,..,..,, ~r>l«O>• ...,.,.,,,, 2ll1 1\1 H,g,1> H<><~·,c. -'" ..,,., ,od

;_':,7.;:;~d~";~';!:i~.'t~~~r(~;:;;:~ ;;,.~.1: loo"==;:,:.:,::;, -•~' ,..,..,, ,,;,,t ~.,. ., .. ,.,.., o, • "'"" 11,, """""' • · "' ' . I< ''"' j,.,,,., J, "'• ....,,,.,.,,,,b, .. .,o, . ..,d"""r•r;.,. .. ,,,... ..... .., ...... ...,IIM/o,, W<U....-• '" l"'fl ... .......... ..-n .. 11,pla)'<l'"'"' _..,,..,.,,,.,,,f'!l<H<>l'<l&>Ff><>C1<1"'>·,-, ' ·, f< r bn <>' L >I>< I, O: n,):r, :e '<"" I>< oot,n"o, ... , .. .

GIS 19 _ 0013_Herbicides


Figure 2 Herbicides detected across the Mount Lofty Ranges

5


PPCPs and herbicides downstream of wastewater treatment plants

Of the 55 sites sampled in our study, three were located downstream of WWTPs where it was expected that evidence of PPCPs from human waste would be apparent. The highest number of substances detected in waters occurred downstream of WWTPs and generally higher concentrations of PPCPs were in these locations than in waters not receiving WWTP discharge. Of the PPCPs analysed, between 12 and 29 were detected in watercourses immediately downstream of WWTPs, while between 3 and 5 of the herbicides were detected immediately downstream of WWTPs. In comparison, between 0 and 5 of pharmaceuticals and between 0 and 8 of herbicides were detected in environments not known to be receiving wastewater.

The highest concentrations of PPCPs and food additives downstream of WWTPs were acesulfame at 3,000 ng/L, followed by the anticonvulsant gabapentin (2,500 ng/L) and carbamazepine (1,000 ng/L), and the diuretic hydrochlorthiazide (1,000 ng/L). In other waters tested, acesulfame was the highest at 600 ng/L, followed by caffeine (403 ng/L) and paracetamol (302 ng/L). Of the herbicides, the highest concentrations recorded downstream of WWTPs were MCPA at 540 ng/L, followed by dalapon (230 ng/L) and total diuron (190 ng/L). In other waters, simazine recorded the highest concentration at 430 ng/L, followed by MCPA (270 ng/L) and 2,4-D (150 ng/L).

Potential environmental impacts from PPCPs and herbicides

While many PPCPs degrade rapidly in the environment and are normally absent or found at low concentrations, the low-level intermittent presence of many of these substances has the potential to have a chronic impact on receiving waters. This is of considerable importance to those systems receiving wastewater discharges where higher concentrations were detected and considerably more pharmaceuticals were detected.

Some pharmaceutical substances can have endocrine disrupting characteristics and alter hormonal functions in organisms (Daughton and Ternes 1999, Ebele et al 2017). Such substances may also bioaccumulate within organisms and have the potential to biomagnify up the food chain. They have been detected in surface waters, groundwater, sediment, wastewater sludge and consequently in the flesh of bull sharks, freshwater and marine fish, mussels, aquatic invertebrates and aquatic plants (Ebele et al 2017, Richmond et al 2018).

Richmond et al (2018) detected more than 60 pharmaceutical products in aquatic invertebrates and have predicted that concentrations of pharmaceuticals that may biomagnify up the food chain to higher vertebrate predators could be as high as half the recommended human dose. Synergistic effects have been demonstrated to exist between some PPCPs (Ebele et al 2017), although the extent of the interactions is largely unknown. The release of antibiotics into the environment is also resulting in an increase in antibiotic resistance in natural populations of bacteria (Ebele et al 2017, Grenni et al 2018).

To understand the environmental risk of these compounds the risk quotient (RQ) for each PPCP was calculated by dividing the measured environmental concentration (MEC) by the predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC), however PNEC values could not be obtained for all PPCPs tested. If RQ>1 then an environmental risk exists because the chemical was in the environment at concentrations which could cause potential adverse effects. The PNEC numbers used were the lowest ecotoxicological values found in the published literature (Appendix 3).

Substances considered to be a high risk to South Australian inland waters (RQ>1) include carbamazepine (anticonvulsant), diclofenac (anti-inflammatory), and antibiotics erythromycin and sulfamethoxazole, along with herbicides MCPA and terbutryn. Substances considered to have a moderate risk (0.1<RQ<1.0) include anti-depressant fluoxetine, gemfribrozil (used to modify cholesterol levels), antibiotic sulfadiazine, pain-reliever tramadol and antibacterial agent triclosan, along with the hormone estriol (E3) and the herbicides 3,4-dichloroaniline, simazine and diuron.

Most of these high and moderate risk substances were found in elevated concentrations downstream of the three WWTPs investigated. As PNEC values are only relevant to individual compounds, calculating the potential risk is useful but it does not consider the possible synergistic effects between substances. Also, many of the PNEC values used have been based on international studies and so their relevance to South Australian systems, particularly disturbed urban environments, is unclear.

6


Conclusions

The presence of PPCPs and pesticides in natural waters is not unusual, especially when those waters are receiving WWTP discharges. The widespread detection of acesulfame and caffeine in South Australian waters suggests there is widespread contamination of human-based wastewater contamination in urban and semi-urban areas of the state. However, the concentrations both downstream of WWTPs and in other inland waters are similar to those found interstate and overseas. Caffeine (at 69% of sites), acesulfame (44%), DEET (29%) and carbamazepine (18%) were the most prevalent pharmaceuticals and food additives detected. The most prevalent herbicides were triclopyr (24%), MCPA (22%), simazine (18%) and 2,4-D (14%).

PPCPs are entering both urban and rural receiving waters from point and non-point sources. While the load derived from non-point sources appears to be far less than what is discharged from WWTPs, a considerable number of PPCPs were detected in areas that were not known to be impacted by human sources. The impact that these low-level but persistent chemicals have on the aquatic ecosystems of the receiving waters is not well understood but has the potential to cause adverse chronic effects or biomagnify up the food chain.

References

Archer E, Petrie B, Kasprzyk-Hordern B and Wolfaardt GM 2017, ‘The fate of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs), endocrine disrupting contaminants (EDCs), metabolites and illicit drugs in a WWTP and environmental waters’, Chemosphere 174: 437–446.

Arpin-Pont L, Bueno MJM, Gomez E and Fenet H 2016, ‘Occurrence of PPCPs in the marine environment: A review’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research 23: 4978–4991.

Batt AL, Kincaid TM, Kostich MS, Lazorchak JM and Olsen AR 2015, ‘Evaluating the extent of pharmaceuticals in surface waters of the United States using a national-scale rivers and streams assessment survey’, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 9999:1–8.

Bendz D, Paxéus NA, Ginn TR and Loge FJ 2005, ‘Occurrence and fate of pharmaceutically active compounds in the environment, a case study: Höje River in Sweden’, Journal of Hazardous Materials 122: 195–204.

Benotti MJ and Brownawell BJ 2009, ‘Microbial degradation of pharmaceuticals in estuarine and coastal seawater’, Environmental Pollution 157: 994–1002.

Birch GF, Drage DS, Thompson K, Eaglesham G and Mueller JF 2015, ‘Emerging contaminants (pharmaceuticals, personal care products, a food additive and pesticides) in waters of Sydney estuary, Australia’, Marine Pollution Bulletin 97: 56–66.

Buerge IJ, Buser H-R, Kahle M, Müller, MD and Poiger T 2009, ‘Ubiquitous occurrence of the artificial sweetener acesulfame in the aquatic environment: An ideal chemical marker of domestic wastewater in groundwater’, Environmental Science and Technology 43(12): 4381–4385.

Caldwell DJ, Mastrocco F, Anderson PD, Länge R and Sumpter JP 2012, ‘Predicted-no-effect concentrations for the steroid estrogens estrone, 17β-estradiol, estriol and 17α-ethinylestradiol’, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 31(6): 1396–1406.

Daneshvar A, Aboulfadl K, Viglino L, Broséus R, Sauvé S, Madoux-Humery A-S, Weyhenmeyer GA and Prévost M 2012, ‘Evaluating pharmaceuticals and caffeine as indicators of fecal contamination in drinking water sources of the Greater Montreal region’, Chemosphere 88: 131–139.

Daughton CG and Ternes T 1999, ‘Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: Agents of subtle change?’, Environmental Health Perspectives 107: 907–938.

7


Ebele AJ, Abdallah M A-E and Harrad S 2017, ‘Pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in the freshwater aquatic environment’, Emerging Contaminants 3: 1–16.

Ellis JB 2008, Assessing sources and impacts of priority PPCP compounds in urban receiving waters, 11th International Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.

Ellis JB 2006, ‘Pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) in urban receiving waters’, Environmental Pollution 144:184–189.

Ferrey ML, Heiskary S, Grace R, Hamilton MC and Leuck A 2015, ‘Pharmaceuticals and other anthropogenic tracers in surface water: A randomized survey of 50 Minnesota lakes’, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 34(11): 2475– 2488.

Frary CD, Johnson RK and Wang MQ 2005, ‘Food sources and intakes of caffeine in the diets of persons in the United States’, Journal of the American Dietetic Association 105(1): 110–113.

Grenni P, Ancona V and Caracciolo AB 2018, ‘Ecological effects of antibiotics on natural ecosystems: A review’, Microchemical Journal 136: 25–39.

Hektoen H, Berge JA, Hormazabal V and Yndestad M 1995, ‘Persistence of antibacterial agents in marine sediments’, Aquaculture 133: 175–184.

International Office for Water and INERIS 2009, Implementation of requirements on priority substances within the context of the Water Framework Directive, Prioritisation process: Monitoring-based ranking, International Office for Water, France.

Kim JW, Jang HS, Kim JG, Ishibaski H, Hirano M, Nasu K, Ichikawa N, Takao Y, Shinohara R and Arizono K 2009, ‘Occurrence of pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs) in surface water and Mankyung River, South Korea’, Journal of Health Science 55: 249–258.

Köck-Schulmeyer M, Villagrasa M, López de Alda M, Céspedes-Sánchez R, Ventura F and Berceló D 2013, ‘Occurrence and behaviour of pesticides in wastewater treatment plants and their environmental impact’, Science of the Total Environment 458–460: 466–476.

Kolpin D, Furlong E, Meyer M, Thurman EM, Zaugg S, Barber LB and Buxton HT 2002, ‘Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in US streams, 1999–2000: A national reconnaissance’, Environmental Science and Technology 36(6): 1202–1211.

Kumar A, Batley GE, Nidumolu B and Hutchinson TH 2016, ‘Derivation of water quality guidelines for priority pharmaceuticals’, Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35(7): 1815–1824.

Loos R, Carvalho R, Comero S, António DC, Ghiani M, Lettieri T, Locoro G, Paracchini B, Tavazzi S, Gawlik BM, Blaha L, Jarosova B, Voorspoels S, Schwesig D, Haglund P, Fick J and Gans O 2012, EU wide monitoring survey on waste water treatment plant effluents, European Commission Joint Research Centre, Institute for Environment and Sustainability, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg.

Lubick N June 2009, ‘Artificial sweetener makes ideal tracer’, Environmental Science and Technology, pg 4220.

Minguez L, Pedelucq J, Farcy E, Ballandonne C, Budzinski H and Halm-Lemeille MP 2016, ‘Toxicities of 48 pharmaceuticals and their freshwater and marine environmental assessment in northwestern France’, Environmental Science and Pollution Research International 23(6): 4992–5001.

Oppenheimer J, Eaton A, Badruzzaman M, Haghani AW and Jacangelo JG 2011, ‘Occurrence and suitability of sucralose as an indicator compound of wastewater loading to surface waters in urbanized regions’, Water Research 45: 4019–4027.

8


Peeler KA, Opsahl SP and Chanton JP 2006, ‘Tracking anthropogenic inputs using caffeine, indicator bacteria, and nutrients in rural freshwater and urban marine systems’, Environmental Science and Technology 40: 7616–7622.

Petrie B, Barden R and Kasprzyk-Hordern B 2015, ‘A review on emerging contaminants in wastewaters and the environment: Current knowledge, understudied areas and recommendations for future monitoring’, Water Research 72: 3–27.

Richmond EK, Rosi EJ, Walters DM, Fick J, Hamilton SK, Brodin T, Sundelin A and Grace MR 2018, ‘A diverse suite of pharmaceuticals contaminates stream and riparian food webs’, Nature Communications, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-06822-w.

Sauvé S, Aboulfadl K, Dorner S, Payment P, Deschamps G and Prévost M 2012, ‘Fecal coliforms, caffeine and carbamazepine in stormwater collection systems in a large urban area’, Chemosphere 86: 118–123.

Schaider LA, Rudel RA, Ackerman JM, Dunagan SC and Brody JG 2014, ‘Pharmaceuticals, perfluorosurfactants, and other organic wastewater compounds in public drinking water wells in a shallow sand and gravel aquifer’, Science of the Total Environment 468–469: 384–393.

Scheurer M, Brauch H-J and Lange FT 2009, ‘Analysis and occurrence of seven artificial sweeteners in German waste water and surface water and in soil aquifer treatment (SAT)’, Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 394 (6): 1585–1594.

Shraim A, Diab A, Alsuhaimi A, Niazy E, Metwally M, Amad M, Sioud S and Dawoud A 2017, ‘Analysis of some pharmaceuticals in municipal wastewater of Almadinah Almuawarah,’ Arabian Journal of Chemistry 10:S719–S729.

Scott P, Bartkow M, Blockwell S, Coleman H, Khan S, Lim R, McDonald J, Nice H, Nugegoda D, Pettigrove V, Tremblay L, Warne M and Leusch F 2014, ‘A national survey of trace organic contaminants in Australian rivers’, Journal of Environmental Quality 43: 1702–1712.

Spoelstra J, Schiff SL, and Brown SJ 2013, ‘Artificial sweeteners in a large Canadian river reflect human consumption in the watershed’, PLoS ONE 8(12): e82706.

Sui Q, Cao X, Lu S, Zhao W, Qiu Z and Yu G 2015, Occurrence, sources and fate of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the groundwater: A review’, Emerging Contaminants 1: 14–24.

Verlicchi P, Al Aukidy A and Zambello E 2012, ‘Occurrence of pharmaceutical compounds in urban wastewater – Removal, mass load and environmental risk after a secondary treatment: A review’, Science of the Total Environment 429: 123–155.

Ying GG, Kookana RS and Kolpin DW 2009, ‘Occurrence and removal of pharmaceutically active compounds in sewage treatment plants with different technologies’, Journal of Environmental Monitoring 11: 1498–1505.

Further information

Legislation

Online legislation is freely available. Copies of legislation are available for purchase from:

Service SA Government Legislation Outlet Adelaide Service SA Centre 108 North Terrace Adelaide SA 5000

Telephone: 13 23 24 Facsimile: (08) 8204 1909

9

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/


Website: https://service.sa.gov.au/12-legislation Email: [email protected]

General information

Environment Protection Authority GPO Box 2607 Adelaide SA 5001

Telephone: (08) 8204 2004 Facsimile: (08) 8124 4670 Freecall: 1800 623 445 (country) Website: https://www.epa.sa.gov.au Email: [email protected]

10

https://service.sa.gov.au/12-legislation

mailto:[email protected]

https://www.epa.sa.gov.au/

mailto:[email protected]


Appendix 1 Lists of tested substances

CSIRO in 2016

Acesulfame, Saccharin, Caffeine, Benzotriazole, Carbamazepine, DEET, Ketoprofen, Paracetamol, Venlafazine, Atrazine, Carbaryl, Difenconazole, Diuron, Imidacloprid, Indoxacarb, MCPA, Metalaxyl, Myclobutanil, Pirimicarb, Prochloraz, Pyraclostrobin, Pyrimethanil, Simazine and Trifloxystrobin.

Queensland Health Forensic and Scientific Services in 2016

Acesulfame, Caffeine, Acetylsalicylic acid, Atenolol, Atorvastatin, Carbamazepine, Cephalexin, Chloramphenicol, Citalopram, Codeine, Cyclophosphamide, Dapsone, DEET, Desmethyl Citalopram, Desmethyl Diazepam, Diatrizoate Sodium, Diazepam, Diclofenac, Doxylamine, Erythromycin, Erythromycin anhydrate, Fluoxetine, Fluvastatin, Frusemide, Gabapentin, Gemfibrozol, Hydrochlorthiazide, Ibuprofen, Ifosfamide, Indomethacin, Iopromide, Lincomycin, Metoprolol, Naproxen, Norfloxacin, Oxazepam, Oxycodone, Paracetemol, Phenytoin, Praziquantel, Primidone, Propranolol, Ranitidine, Roxithromycin, Salicylic acid, Sertaline, Sulfadiazine, Sulfamethoxazole, Sulfasalazine, Sulfathiazole, Tramadol, Triclosan, Trimethoprim, Tylosin, Venlafazine, Warfarin, 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, 2,4-DP, 3,4-Dichloroaniline, Ametryn, Asulam, Atrazine, Bromacil, Bromoxynil, Carbaryl, Dalapon, Desethyl Atrazine, Desisopropyl Atrazine, Diazinon, Dicamba, Diuron, Flamprop-methyl, Fluometuron, Fluroxypyr, Haloxyfop (acid), Haloxyfop-2-etotyl, Haloxyfop-methyl, Hexazinone, MCPA, MCPB, Mecoprop, Metolachlor, Picloram, Prometryn, Propoxur, Simazine, Tebuthiuron, Terbutryn, Total Diuron, Total Haloxyfop, Trichlopyr.

CSIRO in 2018

Acesulfame, Saccharin, Cyclamate and Caffeine, Benzotriazole, Carbamazepine, Diclofenac, Ketoprofen, Paracetemol and Venlafazine, Atrazine, Carbaryl, Difenconazole, Diuron, Imidacloprid, Indoxacarb, MCPA, Metalaxyl, Myclobutanil, Pirimicarb, Prochloraz, Pyraclostrobin, Pyrimethanil, Simazine and Trifloxystrobin, E1, 𝛼𝛼 −E2, 𝛽𝛽 −E2, EE2 and E3.

11


Appendix 2 Concentrations of food additives, PPCPs and pesticides detected in South Australian waters

Table 1 Concentrations of food additives, PPCPs and pesticides detected in South Australian waters receiving WWTP discharges and those that are not, along with concentrations recorded in other Australian or international waters reported in published literature. nm = not measured, nd = not detected, na= not available.

Substance Waters not affected by a Waters immediately Maximum concentrations Water type and location Citation WWTP (n = 66) downstream of a WWTP detected through other

(n = 6) studies

Food additive Detected Median Detected Median (ng/L) range (ng/L) (ng/L) range (ng/L) (ng/L)

Acesulfame 5–600 82.5 90–3,000 915 114.1 Stormwater outlet in Sydney Birch et al 2015

3,600 Canadian river Spoelstra et al 2013

Median of 14,300 EU WWTP effluents Loos et al 2012

Saccharin 12–44 24 nm nm 7,200 Canadian river Spoelstra et al 2013

Caffeine 5–403 30 30–120 60 42.9

3,400

Minnesota lakes

Streams in Montreal

Ferrey et al 2015

Sauvé et al 2012

53,000

6,000

300

38

196

3,002

3,770

1,716

Storm/sewer outfall in Montreal

Stream

Downstream of US WWTPs

Mississippi River

Creeks downstream of WWTPs

EU WWTP effluents

Australian rivers

Surface water in the UK

Sauvé et al 2012

Kolpin et al 2002

Oppenheimer et al 2011

Ebele et al 2017

Peeler et al 2006

Loos et al 2012

Scott et al 2014

Petrie et al 2015

PPCP

Atenolol nd nd 20–200 110 200

690

560


River in South Korea



Kim et al 2009

Petrie et al 2015

12


Substance Waters not affected by a WWTP (n = 66)

Waters immediately downstream of a WWTP (n = 6)

Maximum concentrations detected through other studies

Water type and location Citation

Food additive Detected range (ng/L)

Median (ng/L)

Detected range (ng/L)

Median (ng/L)

(ng/L)

Atorvastatin nd nd 20–20 20 72.9

<5

EU WWTP effluent

Australian rivers

Loos et al 2012

Scott et al 2014

Carbamazepine 5.7–100 30 30–1,000 590 2.7

1,100

47

161

190

265

114

72

595

4,608.8

682

Stormwater outlet in Sydney

Unknown

Streams in Montreal

Storm sewer outfall in Montreal


UK river

Mississippi River

Groundwater in Massachusetts


EU WWTP effluents

Australia rivers

Birch et al 2015

Ellis 2008

Sauvé et al 2012

Sauvé et al 2012


Ebele et al 2017

Ebele et al 2017

Schaider et al 2014

Kim et al 2009

Loos et al 2012

Scott et al 2014

Cephalexin nd nd 60–360 130 na na na

Citalopram 20 20 20–40 30 188.6 EU WWTP effluent Loos et al 2012

DEET 11–250 17 30–150 80 308.7

67

Median of 195.8

Minnesota lakes


EU WWTP effluents

Ferrey et al 2015


Loos et al 2012

Desmethyl Citalopram nd nd 20–90 30 na na na

Diatrizoate Sodium nd nd 20–200 200 na na na

Diclofenac nd nd 20–340 125 1,200

310

Unknown

Swiss lakes/rivers

Ellis 2008

Daughton and Ternes 1999

13







Median (ng/L)


Median (ng/L)

(ng/L)

424

174.3

568

UK WWTP effluent

EU WWTP effluent


Ebele et al 2017

Loos et al 2012

Petrie et al 2015

Doxylamine 20–60 40 10–70 30 na na na

Erythromycin nd nd 10–40 20 10

137

1,022

UK WWTP effluent



Ebele et al 2017

Kim et al 2009

Petrie et al 2015

Erythromycin anhydrate nd nd 20-60 30 na na na

Fluoxetine 30 30 nd nd 36.0

12

21.5

22

14


Stream

EU WWTP effluent

Australian rivers


Birch et al 2015

Kolpin et al 2002

Loos et al 2012

Scott et al 2014

Petrie et al 2015

Frusemide/Furosemide 30 30 40–310 235 630 Surface water in the UK Petrie et al 2015

Gabapentin nd nd 70–2,500 1,285 1,887 Surface water in the UK Petrie et al 2015

Gemfibrozil nd nd 20–130 65 790

130

3,618.5

213

Stream


EU WWTP effluent

Australian rivers

Kolpin et al 2002


Loos et al 2012

Scott et al 2014

Hydrochlorthiazide 30–60 45 60–1,000 560 na na na

Indomethacin nd nd 20–30 25 33.5 River in South Korea Kim et al 2009

Metoprolol nd nd 50–170 70 2,290 Unknown Ellis 2008

Norfloxacin 70 70 nd nd 120 Stream Kolpin et al 2002

14







Median (ng/L)


Median (ng/L)

(ng/L)

Oxazepam 40 40 20–440 270 1,765.8

21

EU WWTP effluents


Loos et al 2012

Petrie et al 2015

Oxycodone nd nd 10 10 7.1 Surface water in the UK Petrie et al 2015

Paracetemol 11-302 20 nd nd 67.1

7,150


Australian rivers

Birch et al 2015

Scott et al 2014

Phenytoin nd nd 20–80 50 66

145


Australian rivers

Schaider et al 2014

Scott et al 2014

Primidone nd nd 30–120 40 54

259


Australian rivers


Scott et al 2014

Roxithromycin nd nd 20 20 na na na

Salicylic acid 100 100 nd nd 1,530

302

Australian rivers


Scott et al 2014

Petrie et al 2015

Sulfadiazine nd nd 20–70 50 105.4 EU WWTP effluent Loos et al 2012

Sulfamethoxazole nd nd 30–150 50 130

1,900

990

50

113

1,690.5

67

8

Unknown

Stream


UK WWTP effluent


EU WWTP effluent

Australian rivers


Ellis 2008

Kolpin et al 2002


Ebele et al 2017

Schaider et al 2014

Loos et al 2012

Scott et al 2014

Petrie et al 2015

Sulfasalazine nd nd 20–200 40 168 Surface water in the UK Petrie et al 2015

15







Median (ng/L)


Median (ng/L)

(ng/L)

Tramadol 60 60 30–480 260 200

7,731

River water in South Africa


Archer et al 2017

Petrie et al 2015

Triclosan nd nd 10-20 20 26

434

4,258.6

87

Mississippi River

Australian WWTP discharges

EU WWTP effluents

Australian rivers

Elebe et al 2017

Elebe et al 2017

Loos et al 2012

Scott et al 2014

Trimethoprim nd nd 10–70 40 710

70

799.8

657

183

Stream

UK WWTP effluent

EU WWTP effluents

Australian rivers


Kolpin et al 2002

Elebe et al 2017

Loos et al 2012

Scott et al 2014

Petrie et al 2015

Venlafaxine 6–30 20 12–410 270 44.7

548.3

85


EU WWTP effluents


Birch et al 2015

Loos et al 2012

Petrie et al 2015

Hormone

Estriol (E3) 3.8–11.2 4.1 nm nm 51 Stream Kolpin et al 2002

Pesticide

2,4-D 20–150 60 20–30 20 3.5

23

356.7



EU WWTP effluent

Birch et al 2015


Loos et al 2012

2,4-DB 20 20 nd nd na na na

Dalapon (2,2-DPA) 50 50 230 230 na na na

3,4-Dichloroaniline nd nd 20 20 4.1 Stormwater outlet in Sydney Birch et al 2015

16







Median (ng/L)


Median (ng/L)

(ng/L)

Desisopropyl Atrazine 20 20 nd nd na na na

Dicamba 10-30 25 20 20 na na na

Hexazinone 10 10 nd nd 42.0 EU WTTP effluent Loos et al 2012

Simazine 6–430 40 20 20 8.0

160

689.3

3,930



EU WWTP effluent

Australian rivers

Birch et al 2015


Loos et al 2012

Scott et al 2014

Atrazine 10–30 20 nd nd 36.6

209

EU WWTP effluent

Australian rivers

Loos et al 2012

Scott et al 2014

Diuron 40–50 50 30–150 50 96.7

940

1,425.8



EU WWTP effluent

Birch et al 2015


Loos et al 2012

Total Diuron 40–50 50 30–190 50 na na na

MCPA 20–270 60 40–540 290 61.0

2,403.9


EU WWTP effluent

Birch et al 2015

Loos et al 2012

MCPB 20 20 nd nd na na na

Terbutryn 10–20 20 70 70 na na na

Triclopyr 20–110 40 10–80 45 na na na

17


Appendix 3 RQ values for the PPCPs measured

Table 2 RQ values for the PPCPs measured in this study

MEC = Measured Environmental Concentration, PNEC = Predicted No Effect Concentration, RQ = Risk Quotient. PNEC is derived from Ineris 2009, Ying et al 2009, Caldwell et al 2012, Verlicchi et al 2012, Scott et al 2014, Minguez et al 2016 and Archer et al 2017.

Substance Highest MEC (ng/L) PNEC (ng/L) RQ (=MEC/PNEC)

Food additive

Caffeine 403 182,000 0.002

PPCP

Atenolol 200 10,000 0.02

Atorvastatin 20 24,000 0.0008

Carbamazepine 1,000 500 2.0

Cephalexin 360 2,500 0.144

Diclofenac 340 100 3.4

Erythromycin 40 20 2.0

Fluoxetine 30 47 0.64

Gabapentin 2,500 100,000 0.025

Gemfibrozil 130 900 0.14

Indomethacin 30 3,900 0.007

Metoprolol 170 8,000 0.021

Norfloxacin 70 15,000 0.005

Paracetemol 302 9,200 0.03

Phenytoin 302 >100,000 <0.003

Primidone 120 >100,000 <0.0012

Roxithromycin 20 4,000 0.005

Salicylic acid 100 1,280 0.078

Sulfadiazine 70 135 0.52

Sulfamethoxazole 150 27 5.6

Tramadol 480 960 0.5

Triclosan 20 50 0.4

Trimethoprim 70 2,600 0.027

Venlafaxine 410 47,580 0.009

Hormone

E3 11.2 60 0.187

Pesticide

2,4-D 150 27,000 0.006

2,4-DB 20 932 0.02

3,4-Dichloroaniline 20 200 0.1

Desisopropyl Atrazine 20 3,700 0.005

Dicamba 30 500 0.06

Hexazinone 10 400 0.025

18


Substance Highest MEC (ng/L) PNEC (ng/L) RQ (=MEC/PNEC)

Simazine 430 1,000 0.43

Atrazine 30 600 0.05

Diuron 150 200 0.75

MCPA 540 500 1.08

MCPB 20 500 0.04

Terbutryn 70 13 5.38

Triclopyr 110 3,300 0.033

19

Documents

Pharmaceutical products and other human-sourced chemicals ... · Pharmaceutical products and other human-sourced chemicals in creeks . All grab samples were collected from below the