Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 6492–6503 | Cite as

Determination of cytostatic drugs in Besòs River (NE Spain) and comparison with predicted environmental concentrations

  • Helena Franquet-Griell
  • Deborah Cornadó
  • Josep Caixach
  • Francesc Ventura
  • Silvia LacorteEmail author
Research Article


The number of cytostatic drugs used in cancer treatments is wide and increases every year; therefore, tools have been developed to predict their concentration in the environment to prioritize those for monitoring studies. In the present study, the predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) were calculated according to consumption data in Catalonia (NE Spain) for 2014. According to PECs and to the most widely reported compounds, 19 cytostatics were monitored in two sampling campaigns performed along the Besòs River. A total of seven drugs were detected at levels between 0.5 and 656 ng L−1. PEC and measured environmental concentrations (MECs) were compared in order to validate PECs. The PEC/MEC ratio presented a good agreement between predicted and measured concentrations confirming the PEC estimations. Mycophenolic acid, prioritized as the compound with the highest PEC, was detected at the highest concentrations (8.5–656 ng L−1) but showed no risk for aquatic organisms (risk quotient <1) considering acute toxicity tests performed in Daphnia magna.


Cytostatic drugs PEC MEC Validation River water Risk assessment 



The authors gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Spanish Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad under the project CTM2014-60199-P and the FPI grant BES-2012-053000. Dr. Cristian Gómez-Canela is acknowledged for guidance in the analytical procedure.

Supplementary material

11356_2016_8337_MOESM1_ESM.docx (40 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 39 kb)


  1. Agència Catalana de l’Aigua (2015). Accessed 09/06/2015
  2. Besse JP, Latour JF, Garric J (2012) Anticancer drugs in surface waters. What can we say about the occurrence and environmental significance of cytotoxic, cytostatic and endocrine therapy drugs? Environ Int 39:73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Booker V, Halsall C, Llewellyn N, Johnson A, Williams R (2014) Prioritising anticancer drugs for environmental monitoring and risk assessment purposes. Sci Total Environ 473–474:159–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Buerge IJ, Buser HR, Poiger T, Müller MD (2006) Occurrence and fate of the cytostatic drugs cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide in wastewater and surface waters. Environ Sci Technol 40:7242–7250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cancer Research (UK) (2012) Cancer drugs. Accessed 03/05/2016
  6. Coetsier CM, Spinelli S, Lin L, Roig B, Touraud E (2009) Discharge of pharmaceutical products (PPs) through a conventional biological sewage treatment plant: MECs vs PECs? Environ Int 35:787–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. EDQM (2015) Database. Accessed 21/10/2015
  8. EMEA (2006) vol EMEA/CHMP/SWP/4447/00.Google Scholar
  9. Ferrando-Climent L, Rodriguez-Mozaz S, Barceló D (2014) Incidence of anticancer drugs in an aquatic urban system: from hospital effluents through urban wastewater to natural environment. Environ Pollut 193:216–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Franquet-Griell H, Gómez-Canela C, Ventura F, Lacorte S (2015) Predicting concentrations of cytostatic drugs in sewage effluents and surface waters of Catalonia (NE Spain). Environmental Research 138:161–172. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2015.02.015 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Franquet-Griell H, Medina A, Sans C, Lacorte S (2016a) Biological and photochemical degradation of cytostatic drugs under laboratory conditions. J Hazard Mater doi. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2016.06.057 Google Scholar
  12. Franquet-Griell H, Ventura F, Boleda MR, Lacorte S (2016b) Do cytostatic drugs reach drinking water? The case of mycophenolic acid Environ Pollut 208. Part B:532–536. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2015.10.026
  13. Genentech (2015) MSDS. Accessed 21/10/2015
  14. Giebułtowicz J, Nałęcz-Jawecki G (2016) Occurrence of immunosuppressive drugs and their metabolites in the sewage-impacted Vistula and Utrata Rivers and in tap water from the Warsaw region (Poland). Chemosphere 148:137–147. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.12.135 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gómez-Canela C, Campos B, Barata C, Lacorte S (2013a) Degradation and toxicity of mitoxantrone and chlorambucil in water. International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology 12:633–640. doi: 10.1007/s13762-013-0454-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gómez-Canela C, Cortés-Francisco N, Ventura F, Caixach J, Lacorte S (2013b) Liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry and high resolution mass spectrometry as analytical tools to characterize multi-class cytostatic compounds. J Chromatogr A 1276:78–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gómez-Canela C, Ventura F, Caixach J, Lacorte S (2014) Occurrence of cytostatic compounds in hospital effluents and wastewaters, determined by liquid chromatography coupled to high-resolution mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 406:3801–3814CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Keller VDJ, Williams RJ, Lofthouse C, Johnson AC (2014) Worldwide estimation of river concentrations of any chemical originating from sewage-treatment plants using dilution factors. Environ Toxicol Chem 33:447–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. López-Serna R, Pérez S, Ginebreda A, Petrović M, Barceló D (2010) Fully automated determination of 74 pharmaceuticals in environmental and waste waters by online solid phase extraction-liquid chromatography-electrospray-tandem mass spectrometry. Talanta 83:410–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. López-Serna R, Petrović M, Barceló D (2012) Occurrence and distribution of multi-class pharmaceuticals and their active metabolites and transformation products in the Ebro River basin (NE Spain). Sci Total Environ 440:280–289. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Marcus MD, Covington S, Liu B, Smith NR (2010) Use of existing water, sediment, and tissue data to screen ecological risks to the endangered Rio Grande silvery minnow. Sci Total Environ 409:83–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martín J, Camacho-Muñoz D, Santos JL, Aparicio I, Alonso E (2011) Simultaneous determination of a selected group of cytostatic drugs in water using high-performance liquid chromatography-triple-quadrupole mass spectrometry. Journal of Separation Science 34:3166–3177. doi: 10.1002/jssc.201100461 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Martín J, Camacho-Muñoz D, Santos JL, Aparicio I, Alonso E (2014) Occurrence and ecotoxicological risk assessment of 14 cytostatic drugs in wastewater water. Air, Soil Pollut 225:1–10Google Scholar
  24. Mendoza A et al (2016) Drugs of abuse, cytostatic drugs and iodinated contrast media in tap water from the Madrid region (central Spain): a case study to analyse their occurrence and human health risk characterization. Environ Int 86:107–118. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.11.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moldovan Z, Chira R, Alder AC (2009) Environmental exposure of pharmaceuticals and musk fragrances in the Somes River before and after upgrading the municipal wastewater treatment plant Cluj-Napoca. Romania Environmental science and pollution research international 16(Suppl 1):S46–S54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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 497:68–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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 482–483:389–398. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.02.131 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Negreira N, Mastroianni N, López De Alda M, Barceló D (2013) 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
  29. Orias F et al (2015) Tamoxifen ecotoxicity and resulting risks for aquatic ecosystems. Chemosphere 128:79–84. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2015.01.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ortiz de García S, Pinto Pinto G, García Encina P, Irusta Mata R (2013) Consumption and occurrence of pharmaceutical and personal care products in the aquatic environment in Spain. Sci Total Environ 444:451–465CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Roche (2014) Global Product Strategy & Safety Data Sheets. Accessed 08/08/14
  32. Royal Society of Chemistry (2014) ChemSpider. Accessed 20/01/1015
  33. U.S. National Library of Medicine (2013) Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB)
  34. Usawanuwat J, Boontanon N, Boontanon SK (2014) Analysis of three anticancer drugs (5-fluorouracil, cyclophosphamide and hydroxyurea) in water samples by HPLC-MS/MS. Int’l Journal of Advances in Agricultural & Environmental Engg 1:5Google Scholar
  35. Vademecum (2016) Accessed 03/05/2016
  36. Valcárcel Y, González Alonso S, Rodríguez-Gil JL, Gil A, Catalá M (2011) Detection of pharmaceutically active compounds in the rivers and tap water of the Madrid Region (Spain) and potential ecotoxicological risk. Chemosphere 84:1336–1348. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2011.05.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zounková R, Odráška P, Doležalová L, Hilscherová K, Maršálek B, Bláha L (2007) Ecotoxicity and genotoxicity assessment of cytostatic pharmaceuticals. Environ Toxicol Chem 26:2208–2214CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Helena Franquet-Griell
    • 1
  • Deborah Cornadó
    • 1
  • Josep Caixach
    • 1
  • Francesc Ventura
    • 1
  • Silvia Lacorte
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Environmental ChemistryIDAEA-CSICBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations