Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 23, Issue 15, pp 14692–14704 | Cite as

First inter-laboratory comparison exercise for the determination of anticancer drugs in aqueous samples

  • Ester Heath
  • Marjeta Česen
  • Noelia Negreira
  • Miren Lopez de Alda
  • Laura Ferrando-Climent
  • Lucie Blahova
  • Tung Viet Nguyen
  • Mohamed Adahchour
  • Achim Ruebel
  • Neville Llewellyn
  • Janez Ščančar
  • Srdjan Novaković
  • Vesna Mislej
  • Marjeta Stražar
  • Damià Barceló
  • Tina Kosjek
Fate and effects of the residues of anticancer drugs in the environment

Abstract

The results of an inter-laboratory comparison exercise to determine cytostatic anticancer drug residues in surface water, hospital wastewater and wastewater treatment plant effluent are reported. To obtain a critical number of participants, an invitation was sent out to potential laboratories identified to have the necessary knowledge and instrumentation. Nine laboratories worldwide confirmed their participation in the exercise. The compounds selected (based on the extent of use and laboratories capabilities) included cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, 5-fluorouracil, gemcitabine, etoposide, methotrexate and cisplatinum. Samples of spiked waste (hospital and wastewater treatment plant effluent) and surface water, and additional non-spiked hospital wastewater, were prepared by the organising laboratory (Jožef Stefan Institute) and sent out to each participant partner for analysis. All analytical methods included solid phase extraction (SPE) and the use of surrogate/internal standards for quantification. Chemical analysis was performed using either liquid or gas chromatography mass (MS) or tandem mass (MS/MS) spectrometry. Cisplatinum was determined using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). A required minimum contribution of five laboratories meant that only cyclophosphamide, ifosfamide, methotrexate and etoposide could be included in the statistical evaluation. z-score and Q test revealed 3 and 4 outliers using classical and robust approach, respectively. The smallest absolute differences between the spiked values and the measured values were observed in the surface water matrix. The highest within-laboratory repeatability was observed for methotrexate in all three matrices (CV ≤ 12 %). Overall, inter-laboratory reproducibility was poor for all compounds and matrices (CV 27–143 %) with the only exception being methotrexate measured in the spiked hospital wastewater (CV = 8 %). Random and total errors were identified by means of Youden plots.

Keywords

Inter-laboratory study Cytostatic Pharmaceutical Surface water Wastewater Hospital effluent 

Notes

Acknowledgement

This work was financially supported by the EU through the EU FP7 projects CytoThreat (Fate and effects of cytostatic pharmaceuticals in the environment and the identification of biomarkers for an improved risk assessment on environmental exposure project; grant agreement No.: 265264) and SOLUTIONS (Solutions for present and future emerging pollutants in land and water resources management; grant agreement No. 603437), by the Slovenian Research Agency (Program groups P1-0143, Project L1-5457, Project J1-6744 and a Young researcher grant to M. Č.), and by the Generalitat de Catalunya (Consolidated Research Groups “2014SGR418-Water and Soil Quality Unit” and “2014SGR291-ICRA”). The work reflects only the authors’ views. The Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained therein. The authors would also like to thank Prof. Walter Giger and Dr. Valeria Dulio for their support with networking and Dr. Francesco Busetti for his willingness to participate in this exercise and Dr. David Heath for providing language help.

Supplementary material

11356_2015_4982_MOESM1_ESM.docx (113 kb)
Figure S1 (DOCX 113 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM2_ESM.docx (84 kb)
Figure S2 (DOCX 84 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM3_ESM.docx (85 kb)
Figure S3 (DOCX 84 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM4_ESM.docx (72 kb)
Figure S4 (DOCX 71 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM5_ESM.docx (55 kb)
Figure S5 (DOCX 55 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM6_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Table S1 (DOCX 21 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM7_ESM.docx (20 kb)
Table S2 (DOCX 19 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM8_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Table S3 (DOCX 24 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM9_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Table S4 (DOCX 22 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM10_ESM.docx (15 kb)
Table S5 (DOCX 15 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM11_ESM.docx (19 kb)
Table S6 (DOCX 18 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM12_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Table S8 (DOCX 23 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM13_ESM.docx (21 kb)
Table S9 (DOCX 20 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM14_ESM.docx (24 kb)
Table S10 (DOCX 24 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM15_ESM.docx (22 kb)
Table S11 (DOCX 22 kb)
11356_2015_4982_MOESM16_ESM.docx (14 kb)
Table S12 (DOCX 13 kb)

References

  1. Česen M, Kosjek T, Laimou-Geraniou M, Kompare B, Širok B, Lambropolou D, Heath E (2015) Occurrence of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in aqueous environment and their removal by biological and abiotic wastewater treatment processes. Sci Total Environ 527–528:465–473Google Scholar
  2. Crauste-Manciet S, Sessink Pj Fau - Ferrari S, Ferrari S Fau - Jomier JY, Jomier Jy Fau - Brossard D, Brossard D (2005) Environmental contamination with cytotoxic drugs in healthcare using positive air pressure isolatorsGoogle Scholar
  3. Dehouck P, Vander Heyden Y, Smeyers-Verbeke J, Massart DL, Marini RD, Chiap P et al (2003) Interlaboratory study of a liquid chromatography method for erythromycin: determination of uncertainty. J Chromatogr A 1010:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. European Food Safety Authority. Management of left-censored data in dietary exposure assessment of chemical substances. EFSA Journal 2010; 8: Article 1557Google Scholar
  5. Farré M, Petrovic M, Gros M, Kosjek T, Martinez E, Heath E et al (2008) First interlaboratory exercise on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs analysis in environmental samples. Talanta 76:580–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ferrando-Climent L, Rodriguez-Mozaz S, Barceló D (2013) Development of a UPLC-MS/MS method for the determination of ten anticancer drugs in hospital and urban wastewaters, and its application for the screening of human metabolites assisted by information-dependent acquisition tool (IDA) in sewage samples. Anal Bioanal Chem 405:5937–5952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ferrando-Climent L, Rodriguez-Mozaz S, Barcelo D (2014) Incidence of anticancer drugs in an aquatic urban system: from hospital effluents through urban wastewater to natural environmentGoogle Scholar
  8. Heath E, Kosjek T, Andersen HR, Holten Lützhøft HC, Adolfson Erici M, Coquery M et al (2010a) Inter-laboratory exercise on steroid estrogens in aqueous samples. Environ Pollut 158:658–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Heath E, Kosjek T, Farre M, Quintana JB, de Alencastro LF, Castiglioni S et al (2010b) Second interlaboratory exercise on non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug analysis in environmental aqueous samples. Talanta 81:1189–1196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hund E, Massart DL, Smeyers-Verbeke J (2000) Inter-laboratory studies in analytical chemistry. Anal Chim Acta 423:145–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Jones TL, Betowski LD, Lopez-Avila V (1994) Validation of liquid chromatography—mass spectrometry methods: interlaboratory studies. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 13:333–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kosjek T, Heath E (2011) Occurrence, fate and determination of cytostatic pharmaceuticals in the environment. TrAC Trends Anal Chem 30:1065–1087CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kosjek T, Perko S, Žigon D, Heath E (2013) Fluorouracil in the environment: analysis, occurrence, degradation and transformation. J Chromatogr A 1290:62–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kosjek T, Negreira N, de Alda ML, Barceló D (2015) Aerobic activated sludge transformation of methotrexate: identification of biotransformation products. Chemosphere 119(Supplement):S42–S50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Llewellyn N, Lloyd P, Jürgens MD, Johnson AC (2011) Determination of cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in sewage effluent by stable isotope-dilution liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr A 1218:8519–8528CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Negreira N, López de Alda M, Barceló D (2013a) On-line solid phase extraction–liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry for the determination of 17 cytostatics and metabolites in waste, surface and ground water samples. J Chromatogr A 1280:64–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Negreira N, Mastroianni N, López de Alda M, Barceló D (2013b) Multianalyte determination of 24 cytostatics and metabolites by liquid chromatography–electrospray–tandem mass spectrometry and study of their stability and optimum storage conditions in aqueous solution. Talanta 116:290–299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Negreira N, de Alda ML, Barceló D (2014a) Cytostatic drugs and metabolites in municipal and hospital wastewaters in Spain: filtration, occurrence, and environmental risk. Sci Total Environ 497–498:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Negreira N, López de Alda M, Barceló D (2014b) Study of the stability of 26 cytostatic drugs and metabolites in wastewater under different conditions. Sci Total Environ 482–483:389–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Odraska P, Dolezalova L, Kuta J, Oravec M, Piler P, Blaha L (2013) Evaluation of the efficacy of additional measures introduced for the protection of healthcare personnel handling antineoplastic drugs. Ann Occup Hyg 57:240–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Parrella A, Lavorgna M, Criscuolo E, Russo C, Fiumano V, Isidori M (2014) Acute and chronic toxicity of six anticancer drugs on rotifers and crustaceansGoogle Scholar
  22. Van den Bossche L, Lodi A, Schaar J, Shaakov S, Zorzan M, Tranquillini ME et al (2010) An interlaboratory study on the suitability of a gradient LC-UV method as a compendial method for the determination of erythromycin and its related substances. J Pharm Biomed Anal 53:109–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vander Heyden Y, Smeyers-Verbeke J (2007) Set-up and evaluation of interlaboratory studies. J Chromatogr A 1158:158–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Vander Heyden Y, Saevels J, Roets E, Hoogmartens J, Decolin D, Quaglia MG et al (1999) Interlaboratory studies on two high-performance liquid chromatographic assays for tylosin (tartrate). J Chromatogr A 830:3–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Yin J, Shao B, Zhang J, Li K (2010) A preliminary study on the occurrence of cytostatic drugs in hospital effluents in Beijing, China. Bull Environ Contam Toxicol 84:39–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Youden WJ (1959) Graphical diagnosis of interlaboratory test results. 15, Industrial Quality Control, p 24–28Google Scholar

Web References

  1. Chemoth 2013; http://chemoth.com/economics, (Accessed 1 Aug 2013)
  2. CytoThreat Project 2014; http://www.cytothreat.eu/ (Accessed 10 Aug 2013)
  3. Cytotoxic Safety 2013; http://www.cytotoxicsafety.org/protect-the-environment/ (Accessed 1 Aug 2013)
  4. ISO TC 69/SC 6 2011; http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_technical_committee.html%3Fcommid=49808 (Accessed 20 Jun 2013)
  5. ISO 13528, 2009; http://www.iso.org/iso/catalogue_detail.htm?csnumber=35664 (Accessed 2 Aug 2013)
  6. MedCalc Software 2015; http://www.medcalc.org/manual/youdenplot.php (Accessed 10 Jul 2013)
  7. World Cancer Report 2014; B.W. Stewart, C.P. Wild (Eds.), IARC, WHO (2014). http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/04/health/who-world-cancer-report/ (Accessed 12 Oct 2024)

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ester Heath
    • 1
    • 2
  • Marjeta Česen
    • 1
    • 2
  • Noelia Negreira
    • 3
  • Miren Lopez de Alda
    • 3
  • Laura Ferrando-Climent
    • 4
  • Lucie Blahova
    • 5
  • Tung Viet Nguyen
    • 6
  • Mohamed Adahchour
    • 7
  • Achim Ruebel
    • 8
  • Neville Llewellyn
    • 9
  • Janez Ščančar
    • 1
    • 2
  • Srdjan Novaković
    • 10
  • Vesna Mislej
    • 11
  • Marjeta Stražar
    • 12
  • Damià Barceló
    • 3
    • 4
  • Tina Kosjek
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Jožef Stefan InstituteLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.International Postgraduate School Jožef StefanLjubljanaSlovenia
  3. 3.Water and Soil Quality Research GroupInstitute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA-CSIC)BarcelonaSpain
  4. 4.Catalan Institute for Water Research, Emili Grahit 101, Edifici H2O, Parc Científic i TecnològicGironaSpain
  5. 5.Faculty of Science, RECETOXMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic
  6. 6.National University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore
  7. 7.Eurofins OmegamAmsterdam-DuivendrechtThe Netherlands
  8. 8.IWW Water CentreMuelheimGermany
  9. 9.CEH Lancaster, Lancaster Environment CentreLancasterUK
  10. 10.Institute of OncologyLjubljanaSlovenia
  11. 11.Central Wastewater Treatment Plant Ljubljana VO-KALjubljanaSlovenia
  12. 12.Wastewater Treatment Plant Domžale-KamnikDomžaleSlovenia

Personalised recommendations