Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 180, Issue 1–4, pp 119–129 | Cite as

Assessing the Impact of Effluents from a Modern Wastewater Treatment Plant on Breakdown of Coarse Particulate Organic Matter and Benthic Macroinvertebrates in a Lowland River

  • Bernd SpänhoffEmail author
  • Roland Bischof
  • Anne Böhme
  • Stefan Lorenz
  • Katharina Neumeister
  • Antje Nöthlich
  • Kirsten Küsel


Wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) with insufficient technologies for wastewater purification often cause a distinct nutrient pollution in the receiving streams. The increased concentrations of dissolved nutrients can severely disturb the ecological integrity of streams, which has been recently shown for basic ecosystem processes like mineralization of coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM). The present study investigated the impact of a modern WWTP (Zentralkläranlage Jena) on breakdown rates of CPOM exposed in net bags (1 mm mesh size) to the effluent of a large municipal WWTP and an upstream control site in the Saale River (Thuringia, Germany) from April to October 2005. Control and effluent site differed significantly in water chemistry with increased concentrations of dissolved organic carbon (DOC), ammonium, sulfate, and chloride at the effluent site, while the control site displayed higher concentrations of nitrate. However, breakdown rates of toothpickers and small twigs were not significantly different between the sites, whereas breakdown rate of leaf litter was significantly higher at the effluent site (k = 0.0124 day−1) than at the control site (k = 0.0095 day−1). Benthic invertebrate assemblages inhabiting the sandy stream bed at both sites were dominated by Chironomidae and Oligochaeta, typical inhabitants of fine sediments. Although the Shannon diversity of the benthic invertebrates was slightly higher at the effluent site (0.85) than at the control site (0.63), no significant difference could be detected. Bacterial numbers in water samples and surface biofilms on glass slides also displayed no significant differences between the two sites. This study showed that the effluents of a WWTP with modern technologies for wastewater purification did not directly affect breakdown rates of CPOM, bacteria numbers in epibenthic biofilms and the water column, and the community composition of sediment inhabiting aquatic macroinvertebrates in an effluent-receiving river with already increased concentrations of dissolved nutrients.


wastewater treatment plant breakdown rates CPOM leaf litter effluents water pollution 



Many thanks to Elisabeth Pohlon and Wolfgang Fischer for their help during the laboratory work in this study.


  1. Adams, M. S., Ballin, U., Gaumert, T., Hale, B. W., Kausch, H., & Kruse, R. (2001). Monitoring selected indicators of ecological change in the Elbe River since the fall of the Iron Curtain. Environmental Conservation, 28, 333–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, M. S., Kausch, H., Gaumert, T., & Krüger, K. E. (1996). The effect of the reunification of Germany on the water chemistry and ecology of some selected surface water bodies. Environmental Conservation, 23, 35–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. APHA (1998). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (20th edn.). Washington, District of Columbia: American Public Health Association.Google Scholar
  4. Braioni, M. G., Gumiero, B., & Salmoiraghi, G. (2001). Leaf bags and natural leaf packs: Two approaches to evaluate river functional characteristics. International Review of Hydrobiology, 86, 439–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brooks, B. W., Riley, T. M., & Taylor, R. D. (2006). Water quality of effluent-dominated ecosystems: Ecotoxicological, hydrological, and management considerations. Hydrobiologia, 556, 365–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Chang, H. (2005). Spatial and temporal variations in the water quality in the Han River and its tributaries, Seoul, Korea, 1993–2002. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 161, 267–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chauvet, E., Giani, N., & Gessner, M. O. (1993). Breakdown and invertebrate colonization of leaf litter in two contrasting streams: Significance of oligochaetes in a large river. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 50, 488–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chergui, H., & Pattee, E. (1991). The breakdown of wood in the side arm of a large river: Preliminary investigations. Verhandlungen der Internationalen Vereinigung für theoretische und angewandte Limnologie, 24, 1785–1788.Google Scholar
  9. Crawford, C. G., Wangsness, D. J., & Martin, J. D. (1992). Recovery of benthic-invertebrate communities in the White River near Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, following Implementation of advanced treatment of municipal waste-water. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 126, 67–84.Google Scholar
  10. Dangles, O., Gessner, M. O., Guerold, F., & Chauvet, E. (2004). Impacts of stream acidification on litter breakdown: Implications for assessing ecosystem functioning. Journal of Applied Ecology, 41, 365–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Daniel, M. H. B., Montebelo, A. A., Bernardes, M. C., Ometto, J. P. H. B., de Camargo, P. B., Krusche, A. V., et al. (2002). Effects of urban sewage on dissolved oxygen, dissolved inorganic and organic carbon, and electrical conductivity of small streams along a gradient of urbanization in the Piracicaba River basin. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 136, 189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dauba, F., Lek, S., Mastrorillo, S., & Copp, G. H. (1997). Long-term recovery of macrobenthos and fish assemblages after water pollution abatement measures in the river Petite Baise (France). Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 33, 277–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dyer, S. D., Peng, C., McAvoy, D. C., Fendinger, N. J., Masscheleyn, P., Castillo, L. V., et al. (2003). The influence of untreated wastewater to aquatic communities in the Balatuin River, the Philippines. Chemosphere, 52, 43–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gao, X., Olapade, O. A., & Leff, L. G. (2005). Comparison of benthic bacterial community composition in nine streams. Aquatic Microbial Ecology, 40, 51–60.Google Scholar
  15. Gessner, M. O., & Chauvet, E. (1994). Importance of stream microfungi in controlling breakdown rates of leaf litter. Ecology, 75, 1807–1817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gessner, M. O., & Chauvet, E. (2002). A case for using litter breakdown to assess functional stream integrity. Ecological Applications, 12, 498–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gücker, B., Brauns, M., & Pusch, M. T. (2006). Effects of wastewater treatment plant discharge on ecosystem structure and function of lowland streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 25, 313–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gulis, V., Rosemond, A. D., Suberkropp, K., Weyers, H. S., & Benstead, J. P. (2004). Effects of nutrient enrichment on the decomposition of wood and associated microbial activity in streams. Freshwater Biology, 49, 1437–1447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gulis, V., & Suberkropp, K. (2003). Leaf litter decomposition and microbial activity in nutrient enriched and unaltered reaches of a headwater stream. Freshwater Biology, 48, 123–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Irons, J. G., Oswood, M. W., Stout, R. J., & Pringle, C. M. (1994). Latitudinal patterns in leaf litter breakdown: Is temperature really important? Freshwater Biology, 46, 161–171.Google Scholar
  21. Kosmala, A., Charvet, S., Roger, M.-C., & Faessel, B. (1999). Impact assessment of a wastewater treatment plant effluent using instream invertebrates and the Ceriodaphnia dubia chronic toxicity test. Water Research, 33, 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lecerf, A., Usseglio-Polatera, P., Charcosset, J.-Y., Lambrigot, D., & Chauvet, E. (2006). Assessment of functional integrity of eutrophic streams using litter breakdown and benthic macroinvertebrates. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 165, 105–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Maamri, A., Chergui, H., & Pattee, E. (1997). Leaf litter processing in a temporary northeastern Moroccan river. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 140, 513–531.Google Scholar
  24. Malmqvist, B., & Rundle, S. (2002). Threats to running water ecosystems of the world. Environmental Conservation, 29, 134–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mañosa, S., Mateo, R., & Guitart, R. (2001). A review of the effects of agricultural and industrial contamination on the Ebro delta biota and wildlife. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 71, 187–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Meyer, J. L., & Johnson, C. (1983). The influence of elevated nitrate concentration on rate of leaf decomposition in a stream. Freshwater Biology, 13, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mladenov, N., Strzepek, K., & Serumola, O. M. (2005). Water quality assessment and modeling of an effluent-dominated stream, the Notwane River, Botswana. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 109, 97–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Pascoal, C., Cássio, F., Marcotegui, A., Sanz, B., & Gomes, P. (2005). Role of fungi, bacteria, and invertebrates in leaf litter breakdown in a polluted river. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 24, 784–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pascoal, C., Pinho, M., Cassio, F., & Gomes, P. (2003). Assessing structural and functional ecosystem condition using leaf breakdown: Studies on a polluted river. Freshwater Biology, 48, 2033–2044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pascoe, D., Karntanut, W., & Müller, C. T. (2003). Do pharmaceuticals affect freshwater invertebrates? A study with the cnidarian Hydra vulgaris. Chemosphere, 51, 521–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pattee, E., Bornard, C., & Mourelatos, S. (1986). La décomposition des feuilles mortes dans le réseau fluvial du Rhône: Influence du millieu et principaux agents responsables. Science de l’Eau, 5, 45–74.Google Scholar
  32. Porter, K. G., & Feig, Y. S. (1980). The use of DAPI for identifying and counting aquatic microflora. Limnology and Oceanography, 40, 943–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Prenda, J., & Gallardo-Mayenco, A. (1996). Self-purification, temporal variability and the macroinvertebrate community in small lowland Mediterranean streams receiving crude domestic sewage effluents. Archiv für Hydrobiologie, 136, 159–170.Google Scholar
  34. Rauter, A., Weigelhofer, G., Waringer, J., & Battin, T. (2005). Transport and metabolic fate of sewage particles in a recipient stream. Journal of Environmental Quality, 34, 1591–1599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rueda, J., Camacho, A., Mezquita, F., Hernandez, R., & Roca, J. R. (2002). Effects of episodic and regular sewage discharges on the water chemistry and macroinvertebrate fauna of a Mediterranean stream. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, 140, 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Simeonov, V., Einax, J. W., Stanimirova, I., & Kraft, J. (2002). Environmetric modeling and interpretation of river water monitoring data. Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry, 374, 898–905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Spänhoff, B., & Gessner, M. O. (2004). Slow initial decomposition and fungal colonization of pinewood branches in a nutrient-rich lowland stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 61, 2007–2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Spänhoff, B., & Meyer, E. I. (2004). Wood breakdown rates in streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society, 23, 189–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stachel, B., Ehrhorn, U., Heemken, O.-P., Lepom, P., Reincke, H., Sawal, G., et al. (2003). Xenoestrogens in the river Elbe and its tributaries. Environmental Pollution, 124, 497–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Suberkropp, K., & Chauvet, E. (1995). Regulation of leaf breakdown by fungi in streams: Influences of water chemistry. Ecology, 76, 1433–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. UNEP (1995). Water quality of world river basins. Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations Environmental Programme, Environment Library No. 14, 40 pp.Google Scholar
  42. Wiegel, S., Aulinger, A., Brockmeyer, R., Harms, H., Löffler, J., Reincke, H., et al. (2004). Pharmaceuticals in the river Elbe and its tributaries. Chemosphere, 57, 107–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wright, I. A., Chessman, B. C., Fairweather, P. G., & Benson, L. J. (1995). Measuring the impact of sewage effluent on the macroinvertebrate community of an upland stream: The effect of different levels of taxonomic resolution and quantification. Australian Journal of Ecology, 20, 142–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Zerling, L., Hanisch, C., Junge, F. W., & Müller, A. (2003). Heavy metals in Saale sediments – Changes in the contamination since 1991. Acta Hydrochimica et Hydrobiologica, 31, 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bernd Spänhoff
    • 1
    Email author
  • Roland Bischof
    • 1
  • Anne Böhme
    • 1
  • Stefan Lorenz
    • 1
  • Katharina Neumeister
    • 1
  • Antje Nöthlich
    • 1
  • Kirsten Küsel
    • 1
  1. 1.Research Group for Limnology, Institute of EcologyFriedrich-Schiller-UniversityJenaGermany

Personalised recommendations