Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 21, Issue 18, pp 10970–10982 | Cite as

Europe-wide survey of estrogenicity in wastewater treatment plant effluents: the need for the effect-based monitoring

  • Barbora Jarošová
  • Anita Erseková
  • Klára Hilscherová
  • Robert Loos
  • Bernd M. Gawlik
  • John P. Giesy
  • Ludek Bláha
Research Article

Abstract

A pan-European monitoring campaign of the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) effluents was conducted to obtain a concise picture on a broad range of pollutants including estrogenic compounds. Snapshot samples from 75 WWTP effluents were collected and analysed for concentrations of 150 polar organic and 20 inorganic compounds as well as estrogenicity using the MVLN reporter gene assay. The effect-based assessment determined estrogenicity in 27 of 75 samples tested with the concentrations ranging from 0.53 to 17.9 ng/L of 17-beta-estradiol equivalents (EEQ). Approximately one third of municipal WWTP effluents contained EEQ greater than 0.5 ng/L EEQ, which confirmed the importance of cities as the major contamination source. Beside municipal WWTPs, some treated industrial wastewaters also exhibited detectable EEQ, indicating the importance to investigate phytoestrogens released from plant processing factories. No steroid estrogens were detected in any of the samples by instrumental methods above their limits of quantification of 10 ng/L, and none of the other analysed classes of chemicals showed correlation with detected EEQs. The study demonstrates the need of effect-based monitoring to assess certain classes of contaminants such as estrogens, which are known to occur at low concentrations being of serious toxicological concern for aquatic biota.

Keywords

In vitro bioassay Monitoring Sewage Rivers Hormones EDCs Endocrine disruptors 

Abbreviations

E1

Estrone

E2

17β-Estradiol

E2max

Maximal response of standard ligand - E2

EE2

17α-Ethynylestradiol

EEQ

17β-Estradiol equivalents

HDPE

High-density polyethylene

LOD

Limit of detection

LOQ

Limit of quantification

NP

Nonylphenol

OP

Octylphenol

PNECs

Predicted no-effect concentrations

PPCPs

Pharmaceuticals and personal care products

PFASs

Perfluoroalkyl substances

WWTP

Wastewater treatment plant

YES

Yeast estrogen screen

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by the Czech Ministry of Education (LO1214) and by the project of the European Social Fund in the Czech Republic (OPVK programme, CZ.1.07/2.3.00/20.0053). The authors acknowledge support from numerous persons at various wastewater treatment plants who contributed to the success of the study. The provided single samples are insufficient to make any statement on the efficiency of the water treatment process. Prof. Giesy was supported by the Canada Research Chair program, a Visiting Distinguished Professorship in the Department of Biology and Chemistry and State Key Laboratory in Marine Pollution, City University of Hong Kong, the 2012 “High Level Foreign Experts” (#GDW20123200120) program, funded by the State Administration of Foreign Experts Affairs, the People’s Republic of China to Nanjing University and the Einstein Professor Program of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. The authors are also grateful to the anonymous reviewer for valuable comments and recommendations and to Mr. Matthew Nicholls for reviewing English during preparation of the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11356_2014_3056_MOESM1_ESM.docx (24 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

References

  1. Aerni HR, Kobler B, Rutishauser BV, Wettstein FE, Fischer R, Giger W, Hungerbuhler A, Marazuela MD, Peter A, Schonenberger R, Vogeli AC, Suter MJF, Eggen RIL (2004) Combined biological and chemical assessment of estrogenic activities in wastewater treatment plant effluents. Anal Bioanal Chem 378:688–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson PD, Johnson AC, Pfeiffer D, Caldwell DJ, Hannah R, Mastrocco F, Sumpter JP, Williams RJ (2012) Endocrine disruption due to estrogens derived from humans predicted to be low in the majority of U.S. surface waters. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1407–1415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arditsoglou A, Voutsa D (2008) Determination of phenolic and steroid endocrine disrupting compounds in environmental matrices. Environ Sci Pollut Res 15:228–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brand W, de Jongh CM, van der Linden SC, Mennes W, Puijker LM, van Leeuwen CJ, van Wezel AP, Schriks M, Heringa MB (2013) Trigger values for investigation of hormonal activity in drinking water and its sources using CALUX bioassays. Environ Int 55:109–118CrossRefGoogle 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. Caldwell DJ, Mastrocco F, Anderson PD, Lange R, Sumpter JP (2012) Predicted-no-effect concentrations for the steroid estrogens estrone, 17 beta-estradiol, estriol, and 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1396–1406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cargouet M, Perdiz D, Mouatassim-Souali A, Tamisier-Karolak S, Levi Y (2004) Assessment of river contamination by estrogenic compounds in Paris area (France). Sci Total Environ 324:55–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dann AB, Hontela A (2011) Triclosan: environmental exposure, toxicity and mechanisms of action. J Appl Toxicol 31:285–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Danzo BJ (1997) Environmental xenobiotics may disrupt normal endocrine function by interfering with the binding of physiological ligands to steroid receptors and binding proteins. Environ Health Perspect 105:294–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Demirpence E, Duchesne MJ, Badia E, Gagne D, Pons M (1993) MVLN cells—a bioluminescent Mcf-7-derived cell-line to study the modulation of estrogenic activity. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 46:355–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Environment Agency (2004) Proposed predicted-no-effect-concentrations (PNECs) for natural and synthetic steroid oestrogens in surface waters. P2-T04/1. R&D Technical Report. Bristol, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. Escher BI, van Daele C, Dutt M, Tang JYM, Altenburger R (2013) Most oxidative stress response in water samples comes from unknown chemicals: the need for effect-based water quality trigger values. Environ Sci Technol 47(13):7002–7011Google Scholar
  13. Escher BI, Allinson M, Altenburger R, Bain PA, Balaguer P, Busch W et al (2014) Benchmarking organic micropollutants in wastewater, recycled water and drinking water with in vitro bioassays. Environ Sci Technol 48(3):1940–1956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gardner M, Comber S, Scrimshaw MD, Cartmell E, Lester J, Ellor B (2012) The significance of hazardous chemicals in wastewater treatment works effluents. Sci Total Environ 437:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gawlik BM, Loos R, Bidoglio G, Fauler G, Guo X, Lankmayr E, Linsinger T (2012) Testing sample stability in short-term isochronous stability studies for EU-wide monitoring surveys of polar organic contaminants in water. Trends Anal Chem 36:36–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huggett DB, Foran CM, Brooks BW, Weston J, Peterson B, Marsh KE, La Point TW, Schlenk D (2003) Comparison of in vitro and in vivo bioassays for estrogenicity in effluent from North American municipal wastewater facilities. Toxicol Sci 72:77–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jalova V, Jarosova B, Blaha L, Giesy JP, Ocelka T, Grabic R, Jurcikova J, Vrana B, Hilscherova K (2013) Estrogen-, androgen- and aryl hydrocarbon receptor mediated activities in passive and composite samples from municipal waste and surface waters. Environ Int 59:372–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jarosova B, Blaha L, Giesy JP, Hilscherova K (2014) What level of estrogenic activity determined by in vitro assays in municipal waste waters can be considered as safe? Environ Int 64:98–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jobling S, Williams R, Johnson A, Taylor A, Gross-Sorokin M, Nolan M, Tyler CR, van Aerle R, Santos E, Brighty G (2006) Predicted exposures to steroid estrogens in UK rivers correlate with widespread sexual disruption in wild fish populations. Environ Health Perspect 114:32–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson A, Jurgens M (2003) Endocrine active industrial chemicals: release and occurrence in the environment. Pure Appl Chem 75:1895–1904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kawanishi M, Takamura-Enya T, Ermawati R, Shimohara C, Sakamoto M, Matsukawa K, Matsuda T, Murahashi T, Matsui S, Wakabayashi K, Watanabe T, Tashiro Y, Yagi T (2004) Detection of genistein as an estrogenic contaminant of river water in Osaka. Environ Sci Technol 38:6424–6429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Keith TL, Snyder SA, Naylor CG, Staples CA, Summer C, Kannan K, Giesy JP (2001) Identification and quantification of nonylphenol ethoxylates and nonylphenol in fish tissues of Michigan, USA. Environ Sci Technol 10:10–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Korner W, Spengler P, Bolz U, Schuller W, Hanf V, Metzger JW (2001) Substances with estrogenic activity in effluents of sewage treatment plants in southwestern Germany. 2. Biological analysis. Environ Toxicol Chem 20:2142–2151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lagana A, Bacaloni A, De Leva I, Faberi A, Fago G, Marino A (2004) Analytical methodologies for determining the occurrence of endocrine disrupting chemicals in sewage treatment plants and natural waters. Anal Chim Acta 501:79–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Leusch FDL, Chapman HF, Korner W, Gooneratne SR, Tremblay LA (2005) Efficacy of an advanced sewage treatment plant in southeast Queensland, Australia, to remove estrogenic chemicals. Environ Sci Technol 39:5781–5786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leusch FDL, De Jager C, Levi Y, Lim R, Puijker L, Sacher F, Tremblay LA, Wilson VS, Chapman HF (2010) Comparison of five in vitro bioassays to measure estrogenic activity in environmental waters. Environ Sci Technol 44:3853–3860CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Liu ZH, Kanjo Y, Mizutani S (2010) A review of phytoestrogens: their occurrence and fate in the environment. Water Res 44:567–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Loos R, Carvalho R, Comero S, António DC, Ghiani M, Lettieri T, Locoro G, Paracchini B, Tavazzi S, Gawlik B, Blaha L, Jarosova B, Voorspoels S, Schwesig D, Haglund P, Fick J, Gans O (2012) EU wide monitoring survey on waste water treatment plant effluents. JRC scientific and policy report, JRC 76400, EUR 25563 EN, ISBN 978-92-79-26784-0. doi: 10.2788/60663
  29. Loos R, Carvalho R, Antonio DC, Comero S, Locoro G, Tavazzi S, Paracchini B, Ghiani M, Lettieri T, Blaha L, Jarosova B, Voorspoels S, Servaes K, Haglund P, Fick J, Lindberg RH, Schwesig D, Gawlik BM (2013) EU-wide monitoring survey on emerging polar organic contaminants in wastewater treatment plant effluents. Water Res 47:6475–6487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Murk AJ, Legler J, van Lipzig MMH, Meerman JHN, Belfroid AC, Spenkelink A, van der Burg B, Rijs GBJ, Vethaak D (2002) Detection of estrogenic potency in wastewater and surface water with three in vitro bioassays. Environ Toxicol Chem 21:16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pawlowski S, Ternes T, Bonerz M, Kluczka T, van der Burg B, Nau H, Erdinger L, Braunbeck T (2003) Combined in situ and in vitro assessment of the estrogenic activity of sewage and surface water samples. Toxicol Sci 75:57–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Preuss TG, Gurer-Orhan H, Meerman J, Ratte HT (2010) Some nonylphenol isomers show antiestrogenic potency in the MVLN cell assay. Toxicol in Vitro 24:129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Redman AD, Mihaich E, Woodburn K, Paquin P, Powell D, McGrath JA, Di Toro DM (2012) Tissue-based risk assessment of cyclic volatile methyl siloxanes. Environ Toxicol Chem 31:1911–1919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reemtsma T, Weiss S, Mueller J, Petrovic M, Gonzalez S, Barcelo D, Ventura F, Knepper T (2006) Polar pollutants entry into the water cycle by municipal wastewater: a European perspective. Environ Sci Technol 40:5451–5458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Runnalls TJ, Margiotta-Casaluci L, Kugathas S, Sumpter JP (2010) Pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment: steroids and anti-steroids as high priorities for research. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 16:1318–1338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Siddiqui WH, Stump DG, Reynolds VL, Plotzke KP, Holson JF, Meeks RG (2007) A two-generation reproductive toxicity study of decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D-5) in rats exposed by whole-body vapor inhalation. Reprod Toxicol 23:216–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Smital T, Terzić S, Lončar J, Senta I, Žaja R, Popović M, Mikac I, Tollefsen KE, Thomas KV, Ahel M (2013) Prioritisation of organic contaminants in a river basin using chemical analyses and bioassays. Environ Sci Pollut Res Int 20(3):1384–1395CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sole M, de Alda MJL, Castillo M, Porte C, Ladegaard-Pedersen K, Barcelo D (2000) Estrogenicity determination in sewage treatment plants and surface waters from the Catalonian area (NE Spain). Environ Sci Technol 34:5076–5083CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sumpter JP, Johnson AC (2008) 10th anniversary perspective: reflections on endocrine disruption in the aquatic environment: from known knowns to unknown unknowns (and many things in between). J Environ Monit 10:1476–1485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Svenson A, Allard AS, Ek M (2003) Removal of estrogenicity in Swedish municipal sewage treatment plants. Water Res 37:4433–4443CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tang JYM, McCarty S, Glenn E, Neale PA, Warne MSJ, Escher BI (2013) Mixture effects of organic micropollutants present in water: towards the development of effect-based water quality trigger values for baseline toxicity. Water Res 47:3300–3314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Vasquez MI, Fatta-Kassinos D (2013) Is the evaluation of “traditional” physicochemical parameters sufficient to explain the potential toxicity of the treated wastewater at sewage treatment plants? Environ Sci Pollut Res 20(6):3516–3528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Vethaak AD, Lahr J, Schrap SM, Belfroid AC, Rijs GBJ, Gerritsen A, de Boer J, Bulder AS, Grinwis GCM, Kuiper RV, Legler J, Murk TAJ, Peijnenburg W, Verhaar HJM, de Voogt P (2005) An integrated assessment of estrogenic contamination and biological effects in the aquatic environment of The Netherlands. Chemosphere 59:511–524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Villeneuve DL, Blankenship AL, Giesy JP (1998) Estrogen receptors-environmental xenobiotics. In: Denison MS, Helferich WG (eds) Toxicant-receptor interactions and modulation of gene expression. Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Philadelphia, pp 69–99Google Scholar
  45. Villeneuve DL, Blankenship AL, Giesy JP (2000) Derivation and application of relative potency estimates based on in vitro bioassay results. Environ Toxicol Chem 19:2835–2843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Vonier PM, Crain DA, McLachlan JA, Guillette LJ, Arnold SF (1996) Interaction of environmental chemicals with the estrogen and progesterone receptors from the oviduct of the American alligator. Environ Health Perspect 104:1318–1322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wang R, Liu J, Yang X, Lin C, Huang B, Jin W, Pa X (2013) Biological response of high-back crucian carp (Carassius auratus) during different life stages to wastewater treatment plant effluent. Environ Sci Pollut Res 20:8612–8620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Warner NA, Evenset A, Christensen G, Gabrielsen GW, Borga K, Leknes H (2010) Volatile siloxanes in the European arctic: assessment of sources and spatial distribution. Environ Sci Technol 44:7705–7710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zha JM, Sun LW, Zhou YQ, Spear PA, Ma M, Wang ZJ (2008) Assessment of 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol effects and underlying mechanisms in a continuous, multigeneration exposure of the Chinese rare minnow (Gobiocypris rarus). Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 226:298–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barbora Jarošová
    • 1
  • Anita Erseková
    • 1
  • Klára Hilscherová
    • 1
  • Robert Loos
    • 2
  • Bernd M. Gawlik
    • 2
  • John P. Giesy
    • 3
  • Ludek Bláha
    • 1
  1. 1.RECETOX, Faculty of ScienceMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  2. 2.Unit H 01-Water Resources Unit, DG Joint Research Centre (JRC)European CommissionIspraItaly
  3. 3.Department of Veterinary Biomedical SciencesUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations