Advertisement

Removal of estrone, 17α-ethinylestradiol, and 17ß-estradiol in algae and duckweed-based wastewater treatment systems

  • Wenxin ShiEmail author
  • Lizheng Wang
  • Diederik P. L. Rousseau
  • Piet N. L. Lens
Research Article

Abstract

Background, aim, and scope

Many pollutants have received significant attention due to their potential estrogenic effect and are classified as endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs). Because of possible ecological effects and increased attention for water reuse schemes, it is important to increase our understanding of the EDC removal capacities of various wastewater treatment systems. However, there has so far been little research on the fate and behavior of EDCs in stabilization pond systems for wastewater treatment, which represent an important class of wastewater treatment systems in developing countries because of their cost-effectiveness. The aim of this work is to study the fate and behavior of EDCs in algae and duckweed ponds. Because the synthetic hormone 17α-ethinylestradiol (EE2) and the natural hormones estrone (E1), as well as 17β-estradiol (E2), have been detected in effluents of sewage treatment plants and been suggested as the major compounds responsible for endocrine disruption in domestic sewage; E1, E2, and EE2 were therefore chosen as target chemicals in this current work.

Materials and methods

Both batch tests and continuous-flow tests were carried out to investigate the sorption and biodegradation of estrogens in algae and duckweed pond systems. The applied duckweed was a Lemna species. The applied algae was a mixture of pure cultures of six different algae genera, i.e., Anabaena cylindrica, Chlorococcus, Spirulina platensis, Chlorella, Scenedesmus quadricauda, and Anaebena var. Synthetic wastewater were used in all tests. The concentrations of estrogens were measured with three different enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits specific for E1, E2, or EE2. When the concentrations of estrogens in water samples were below the lowest quantitative analysis range (0.05 µg/l), preconcentration of the water samples were performed by means of solid phase extraction (SPE) with C18 cartridges.

Results

The 6-day batch tests show that the presence of algae or duckweed accelerated the removal of the three estrogens from the synthetic wastewater. More estrogens were removed in the tests with duckweed than in tests with algae or with wastewater. In the sorption tests, a swift sorption of the three estrogens was observed when the estrogens were contacted with duckweed or algae, while the estrogen concentrations in tap water kept unchanged during the 3-h sorption tests. The mass balances indicated that only about 5% of the estrogens were bound to the algae sediment or duckweed at the end of the 6-day tests. Results of the continuous-flow tests revealed that the algae and duckweed ponds effectively removed E1, E2, and EE2 even at nanograms per liter level. Interconversion of E1 and E2 occurred both in batch and continuous-flow tests. E2 could be readily transformed to E1, especially in the tests with algae.

Discussion

Different processes like sorption, biodegradation and photolytic degradation might play an important role in the removal of estrogens from the aquatic phase. The 3-h sorption tests support the importance of sorption for estrogen removal, in which a rapid initial sorption was observed over the first 2 min for E1/E2/EE2 to both duckweed and algae. In the 6-day batch tests, estrogens were sorbed by algae or duckweed during the early stage when algae and duckweed were contacted with the synthetic wastewater and the sorbed estrogens were further biodegraded by the microorganisms developed in the wastewater. The persistent estrogen concentrations in tap water, however, implied that no sorption, biodegradation, or photolytic degradation occurred in tap water under the specific experimental conditions. Under aerobic or anoxic conditions, E2 could be first oxidized to E1, which is further oxidized to unknown metabolites and finally to CO2 and water. Under anaerobic conditions, E1 can also be reduced to E2. However, the interconversion might be much more complex especially in the tests with algae because both aerobic and anaerobic conditions occurred in these tests due to the variation of the dissolved oxygen concentration induced by the light regime.

Conclusions

This study shows that estrogens, E1, E2, and EE2, can be effectively removed from the continuous-flow algae and duckweed ponds even when their concentrations are at nanograms per liter level. The presence of algae and duckweed accelerate the removal of estrogens from the synthetic wastewater because estrogens can be quickly sorbed on duckweed or algae. The sorbed estrogens are subsequently degraded by microorganisms, algae, or duckweed in the wastewater treatment system. E1 and E2 are interconvertible in both duckweed and algae pond systems. E2 can be readily transformed to E1, especially in the tests with algae.

Recommendation and perspectives

Based on the tests performed so far, one can conclude that both sorption and biodegradation are important to the estrogens removal from stabilization pond systems for wastewater treatment. Further research using, e.g., radioimmunoassay is needed to investigate the biodegradation pathway of estrogens in algae and duckweed ponds.

Keywords

17α-ethinylestradiol 17ß-estradiol Algae pond Duckweed pond Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) Estrone Wastewater 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the State Key Lab of Urban Water Resource and Environment (HIT, 2008QN05), SWITCH project (EU FP6, contract No.018530) and the National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (2006AA06Z303). Many thanks to Fred Kruis, Frank Wiegman, Don van Galen, Peter Heerings, and Lyzette Robbemont for supporting the determination of estrogens.

References

  1. Al-Nozaily F, Alaerts G, Veenstra S (2000) Performance of duckweed-covered sewage lagoons—I. Oxygen balance and COD removal. Water Res 34:2727–2733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andersen HR, Hansen M, Kjolholt J, Stuer-Lauridsen F, Ternes T, Halling-Sorensen B (2005) Assessment of the importance of sorption for steroid estrogens removal during activated sludge treatment. Chemosphere 61(1):139–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arditsoglou A, Voutsa D (2008) Determination of phenolic and steroid endocrine disrupting compounds in environmental matrices. Env Sci Pollut Res 15(3):228–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Birkett JW, Lester JN (2003) Endocrine disrupters in wastewater and sludge treatment processes. CRC Press LLC, FloridaGoogle Scholar
  5. Dalu JM, Ndamba J (2003) Duckweed based wastewater stabilization ponds for wastewater treatment (a low cost technology for small urban areas in Zimbabwe). Phys Chem Earth, Parts A/B/C 28(20–27):1147–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. D’Ascenzo G, Di Corcia A, Gentili A, Mancini R, Mastropasqua R, Nazzari M, Samperi R (2003) Fate of natural estrogen conjugates in municipal sewage transport and treatment facilities. Sci Total Environ 302:199–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Mes T, Zeeman G, Lettinga G (2005) Occurrence and fate of estrone, 17b-estradiol and 17a-ethynylestradiol in STPs for domestic wastewater. Rev Environ Sci Bio/Technology 4:275–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Farre M, Brix R, Kuster M, Rubio F, Goda Y, de Alda MJL, Barcelo D (2006) Evaluation of commercial immunoassays for the detection of estrogens in water by comparison with high-performance liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry HPLC-MS/MS (QqQ). Anal Bioanal Chem 385(6):1001–1011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gijzen HJ (2001) Low cost wastewater treatment and potentials for re-use: a cleaner production approach to wastewater management. International Symposium on Low-Cost Wastewater Treatment and Re-use, Cairo, EgyptGoogle Scholar
  10. Goda Y, Kobayashi A, Fujimoto S, Toyoda Y, Miyagawa K-I, Ike M, Fujita M (2004) Development of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for detection of alkylphenol polyethoxylates and their biodegradation products. Water Res 38:4323–4330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hintemann T, Schneider C, Ler HFS, Schneider RJ (2006) Field study using two immunoassays for the determination of estradiol and ethinylestradiol in the aquatic environment. Water Res 40:2287–2294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hirobe M, Goda Y, Okayasu Y, Tomita J, Takigami H, Ike M, Tanaka H (2006) The use of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) for the determination of pollutants in environmental and industrial wastes. Water Sci Technol 54(11–12):1–9Google Scholar
  13. Höhne C, Püttmann W (2008) Occurrence and temporal variations of the xenoestrogens bisphenol A, 4-tert-octylphenol, and tech. 4-nonylphenol in two German wastewater treatment plants. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15:405–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huang CH, Sedlak DL (2001) Analysis of estrogenic hormones in municipal wastewater effluent and surface water using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Environ Toxicol Chem 20(1):133–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Janeczko A, Skoczowski A (2005) Mammalian sex hormones in plants. Folia Histochem Cytobiol 43(2):71–79Google Scholar
  16. Johnson AC, Williams RJ (2004) A model to estimate influent and effluent concentrations of estradiol, estrone and ethinylestradiol at sewage treatment works. Environ Sci Technol 38:3649–3658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Johnson A, Belfroid A, Di Corcia A (2000) Estimating steroid estrogen inputs into activated sludge treatment works and observations on their removal from the effluent. Sci Total Environ 256:163–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johnson AC, Aerni HR, Gerritsen A, Gibert M, Giger W, Hylland K, Jurgens M, Nakari T, Pickering A, Suter MJF, Svenson A, Wettstein FE (2005) Comparing steroid estrogen, and nonylphenol content across a range of European sewage plants with different treatment and management practices. Water Res 39(1):47–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Joss A, Andersen H, Ternes T, Richle PR, Siegrist H (2004) Removal of estrogens in municipal wastewater treatment under aerobic and anaerobic conditions: consequences for plant optimization. Environ Sci Technol 38:3047–3055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Keiter S, Rastall A, Kosmehl T, Wurm K, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T, Hollert H (2006) Ecotoxicological assessment of sediment, suspended matter and water samples in the upper Danube River. Environ Sci Pollut Res 13(5):308–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Körner S, Vermaatb JE, Veenstrac S (2003) The capacity of Duckweed to treat wastewater: ecological considerations for a sound design. J Environ Qual 32(5):1583–1590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Larsson DGJ, Adolfsson-Erici M, Parkkonen J, Pettersson M, Berg AH, Olsson PE, Forlin L (1999) Ethinyloestradiol—an undesired fish contraceptive? Aquat Toxicol 45(2–3):91–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Moorhead KK, Reddy KR (1988) Oxygen transport through selected aquatic macrophytes. J Environ Qual 17:138–142Google Scholar
  24. Onda K, Yang SY, Miya A, Tanaka T (2002) Evaluation of estrogen-like activity on sewage treatment processes using recombinant yeast. Water Sci Technol 46(11–12):367–373Google Scholar
  25. Onda K, Nakamura Y, Takatoh C, Miya A, Katsu Y (2003) The behavior of estrogenic substances in the biological treatment process of sewage. Water Sci Technol 47(9):109–116Google Scholar
  26. Ren Y-X, Kazunori N, Nobuo C (2007) Osamu Nishimura, a thermodynamic analysis on adsorption of estrogens in activated sludge process. Water Res 41:2341–2348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Shi J, Fujisawa S, Nakai S, Hosomi M (2004) Biodegradation of natural and synthetic estrogens by nitrifying activated sludge and ammonia-oxidizing bacterium Nitrosomonas europaea. Water Res 38:2323–2330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sibel I, Oktay E, Aydin A (2005) Degradation of 17β-estradiol and bisphenol A in aqueous medium by using ozone and ozone/UV techniques. J Hazard Mater B126:54–62Google Scholar
  29. Skillicorn P, Spira S, Journey W (1993) Duckweed agriculture. The World Bank, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  30. Suzuki Y, Maruyama T (2006) Fate of natural estrogens in batch mixing experiments using municipal sewage and activated sludge. Water Res 40:1061–1069CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ternes T, Kreckel P, Mueller J (1999) Behaviour and occurrence of estrogens in municipal sewage treatment plants II. Aerobic batch experiments with activated sludge. Sci Total Environ 225(1–2):91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. van der Steen P, Brenner A, van Buuren J, Oro G (1999) Post-treatment of UASB reactor effluent in an integrated duckweed and stabilization pond system. Water Res 33(3):615–620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Zimmo OR, van der Steen NP, Gijzen HJ (2003) Comparison of ammonia volatilisation rates in algae and duckweed-based waste stabilisation ponds treating domestic wastewater. Water Res 37(19):4587–4594CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Zimmo OR, van der Steen NP, Gijzen HJ (2004) Nitrogen mass balance across pilot-scale algae and duckweed-based wastewater stabilisation ponds. Water Res 38:913–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Wenxin Shi
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Lizheng Wang
    • 2
  • Diederik P. L. Rousseau
    • 2
  • Piet N. L. Lens
    • 2
  1. 1.State Key Laboratory of Urban Water Resources and Environment, School of Municipal and Environmental EngineeringHarbin Institute of TechnologyHarbinPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Department of Environmental Resources, Pollution Prevention and Control CoreUNESCO-IHE Institute for Water EducationDelftThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations