Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 1850–1858 | Cite as

Occurrence and potential risk of triclosan in freshwaters of São Paulo, Brazil—the need for regulatory actions

  • Cassiana C. MontagnerEmail author
  • Wilson F. Jardim
  • Peter C. Von der Ohe
  • Gisela A. Umbuzeiro
Research Article


Triclosan (TCS) is a broad-spectrum bactericide, highly toxic to algae, which is released into the environment via wastewater effluents. Predicted no-effect concentrations (PNECs) for aquatic biota have been proposed in the literature, varying from 1.4 to 1,550 ng/L, reflecting contradicting protection goals. In this work, six rivers in the state of São Paulo were monitored for TCS and caffeine, a tracer for untreated sewage disposal, over a period of more than 1 year. From 71 samples analyzed, 32 contained TCS at concentrations above the limit of quantification, ranging from 2.2 to 66 ng/L, corresponding to a frequency of exceedance of the lowest PNEC of 86 % (six out of seven sites). No correlation between TCS and caffeine was observed, and one of the reasons for that could be the different use patterns in the local populations. Given the high values found in the investigated rivers, TCS seems to be a strong candidate in the priority list of compounds that should be regulated in Brazil to preserve the aquatic environment.


Triclosan Caffeine Emerging compounds Protection of aquatic life Surface waters SPE-LC-MS/MS 



The authors acknowledge FAPESP (2012/00303-0) and INCTAA (CNPq 573894/2008-6, FAPESP 2008/57808-1) for research funding and thank Martin Kraus for discussion of an earlier version of the manuscript.


  1. Aranami K, Readman JW (2007) Photolytic degradation of triclosan in freshwater and seawater. Chemosphere 66:1052–1056CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benotti MJ, Trenholm RA, van der Ford BJ, Holady JC, Stanford BD, Snyder SA (2009) Pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds in U.S. drinking water. Environ Sci Technol 43:597–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bester K (2005) Fate of triclosan and triclosan-methyl in sewage treatment plants and surface waters. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 49:9–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhargava HN, Leonard PA (1996) Triclosan: applications and safety. Am J Infect Control 24:209–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brausch JM, Rand GM (2011) A review of personal care products in the aquatic environment: environmental concentrations and toxicity. Chemosphere 82:1518–1532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buerge IJ, Poiger T, Muller MD, Buser HR (2003) Caffeine, an anthropogenic marker for wastewater contamination of surface waters. Environ Sci Technol 37:691–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Capdevielle M, Van Egmond R, Whelan M, Versteeg D, Hofmann-Kamensky M, Inauen J, Cunningham V, Woltering D (2008) Consideration of exposure and species sensitivity of triclosan in the freshwater environment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 4(1):15–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CEC (2003) Technical guidance document (TGD) in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances, Commission Regulation (EC) no 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances and Directive 98/8/EC of the 44 European Parliament and the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market. Joint Research Centre, Ispra, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  9. CEC (2011) Technical guidance for deriving environmental quality standards. pp. 204Google Scholar
  10. CETESB (2012) Qualidade das águas superficiais no Estado de São Paulo 2011, São Paulo, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  11. Ciba SC (2001) General information on chemical, physical and microbial properties of Irgasan DP300, Irgacare MP and Irgacide LP10, BaselGoogle Scholar
  12. Coogan MA, Edziyie RE, La Point TW, Venables BJ (2007) Algal bioaccumulation of triclocarban, triclosan, and methyl-triclosan in a North Texas wastewater, treatment plant receiving stream. Chemosphere 67:1911–1918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Franz S, Altenburger R, Heilmeier H, Schmitt-Jansen M (2008) What contributes to the sensitivity of microalgae to triclosan? Aquat Toxicol 90:102–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Halden RU, Paull DH (2005) Co-occurrence of triclocarban and triclosan in U.S. water resources. Environ Sci Technol 39:1420–1426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heath RJ, Rubin JR, Holland DR, Zhang E, Snow ME, Rock CO (1999) Mechanism of triclosan inhibition of bacterial fatty acid synthesis. J Biol Chem 274:11110–11114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hillebrand O, Nödler K, Licha T, Sauter M, Geyer T (2012) Caffeine as an indicator for the quantification of untreated wastewater in karst systems. Water Res 46:395–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. James A, Bonnomet V, Morin A, Fribourg-Blanc B (2009) Implementation of requirements on priority substances within the context of the Water Framework Directive. Prioritization process: Monitoring-based rankingGoogle Scholar
  18. Klaschka U, von der Ohe PC, Bschorer A, Krezmer S, Sengl M, Letzel M (2013) Occurrences and potential risks of 16 fragrances in five German sewage treatment plants and their receiving waters. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 20(4):2456–2471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein W, Denzer S, Herrchen M, Lepper P, Müller M, Sehrt R, Storm A, Volmer J (1999) Revised proposal for a list of priority substances in the context of the water framework directive (COMMPS procedure). Frauenhofer-Institut Umweltchemie und Ökotoxikologie, SchmallenbergGoogle Scholar
  20. Kookana RS, Ying GG, Waller NJ (2011) Triclosan: its occurrence, fate and effects in the Australian environment. Water Sci Technol 63(4):598–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kuster M, López de Alda MJ, Hernando MD, Petrovic M, Martín-Alonso J, Barceló D (2008) Analysis and occurrence of pharmaceuticals, estrogens, progestogens and polar pesticides in sewage treatment plant effluents, river water and drinking water in Llobregat river basin (Barcelona, Spain). J Hydrol 358(1–2):112–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Loos R, Wollgast J, Huber T, Hanke G (2007) Polar herbicides, pharmaceutical products, perfluorooctanesulfonate (PFOS), perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), and nonylphenol and its carboxylates and ethoxylates in surface and tap waters around Lake Maggiore in Northern Italy. Anal Bioanal Chem 387:1469–1478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Loraine GA, Pettigrove ME (2006) Seasonal variations in concentrations of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in drinking water and reclaimed wastewater in southern California. Environ Sci Technol 40:687–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Orvos DR, Versteeg DJ, Inauen J, Capdevielle M, Rothenstein A, Cunningham V (2002) Aquatic toxicity of triclosan. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:1338–1349CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Perez AL, Sylor MA, Slocombe AJ, Lew MG, Unice KM, Donovan EP (2013) Triclosan occurrence in freshwater systems in the United States (1999–2012): a meta-analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem. doi: 10.1002/etc.2217 Google Scholar
  26. Sabaliunas D, Webb SF, Hauk A, Jacob M, Eckhoff WS (2003) Environmental fate of triclosan in the River Aire Basin, UK. Water Res 37:3145–3154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Singer H, Muller S, Tixier C, Pillonel L (2002) Triclosan: occurrence and fate of a widely used biocide in the aquatic environment: field measurements in wastewater treatment plants, surface waters, and lake sediments. Environ Sci Technol 36:4998–5004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Slobodnik J, Mrafkova L, Carere M, Ferrara F, Pennelli B, Schüürmann G, von der Ohe PC (2012) Identification of river basin specific pollutants and derivation of environmental quality standards: a case study in the Slovak Republic Trac-Trends. Anal Chem 41:133–154Google Scholar
  29. Snyder SA (2008) Occurrence, treatment, and toxicological relevance of EDCs and pharmaceuticals in water. Ozone Sci Eng 30:65–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stasinakis AS, Mermigka S, Samaras VG, Farmaki E, Thomaidis NS (2012) Occurrence of endocrines disruptors and selected pharmaceuticals in Aisonas River (Greece) and environmental risk assessment using hazard indexes. Environ Sci Pollut Res 19:1574–1583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tatarazako N, Ishibashi H, Teshima K, Kishi K, Arizono K (2004) Effects of triclosan on various aquatic organisms. Environ Sci 11:133–140Google Scholar
  32. Venkatesan AK, Pycke BFG, Barber LB, Lee KE, Halden RU (2012) Occurrence of triclosan, triclocarban, and its lesser chlorinated congeners in Minnesota freshwater sediments collected near wastewater treatment plants. J Hazard Mater 229–230:29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. von der Ohe PC, Dulio V, Slobodnik J, De Deckere E, Kühne R, Ebert R-U, Ginebreda A, De Cooman W, Schüürmann G, Brack W (2011) A new risk assessment approach for the prioritization of 500 classical and emerging organic microcontaminants as potential river basin specific pollutants under the European Water Framework Directive. Sci Total Environ 409:2064–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. von der Ohe PC, Schmitt-Jansen M, Slobodnik J, Brack W (2012) Triclosan—the forgotten priority substance? Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 19:585–591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang C, Shi H, Adams CD, Gamagedara S, Stayton I, Timmons T, Ma Y (2011) Investigation of pharmaceuticals in Missouri natural and drinking water using high performance liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Water Res 45:1818–1828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Wick A, Marincas O, Moldovan Z, Ternes TA (2011) Sorption of biocides, triazine and phenylurea herbicides, and UV-filters onto secondary sludge. Water Res 45:3638–3652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Wilson BA, Smith VH, de Noyelles F Jr, Larive CK (2003) Effects of three pharmaceutical and personal care products on natural freshwater algal assemblages. Environ Sci Technol 37:1713–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wilson BA, Chen RF, Cantwell M, Gontz A, Zhu J, Olsen CR (2009) The partitioning of triclosan between aqueous and particulate bound phases in the Hudson River estuary. Mar Pollut Bull 59:207–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhao J-L, Ying G-G, Liu Y-S, Chen F, Yang J-F, Wang L (2010) Occurrence and risks of triclosan and triclocarban in the Pearl River system, South China: from source to the receiving environment. J Hazard Mater 179:215–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhao J-L, Zhang Q-Q, Chen F, Wang L, Ying G-G, Liu Y-S, Yang B, Zhou L-J, Liu S, Su H-C, Zhang R-Q (2013) Evaluation of triclosan and triclocarban at river basin scale using monitoring and modeling tools: implications for controlling of urban domestic sewage discharge. Water Res 47:395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cassiana C. Montagner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wilson F. Jardim
    • 2
  • Peter C. Von der Ohe
    • 3
  • Gisela A. Umbuzeiro
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of TechnologyUniversity of CampinasLimeiraBrazil
  2. 2.Institute of Chemistry, Environmental Chemistry LaboratoryUniversity of CampinasCampinasBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Effect-Directed AnalysisHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research–UFZLeipzigGermany

Personalised recommendations