The AAPS Journal

, Volume 16, Issue 2, pp 299–310 | Cite as

Ethinyl Estradiol and Other Human Pharmaceutical Estrogens in the Aquatic Environment: A Review of Recent Risk Assessment Data

  • James P. LaurensonEmail author
  • Raanan A. Bloom
  • Stephen Page
  • Nakissa Sadrieh
Review Article Theme: Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Theme: Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products in the Environment


Interest in pharmaceuticals in the environment has increased substantially in recent years. Several studies in particular have assessed human and ecological risks from human pharmaceutical estrogens, such as 17α-ethinyl estradiol (EE2). Regulatory action also has increased, with the USA and other countries developing rules to address estrogens and other pharmaceuticals in the environment. Accordingly, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the US Food and Drug Administration has conducted a review and analysis of current data on the long-term ecological exposure and effects of EE2 and other estrogens. The results indicate that mean-flow long-term predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) of EE2 in approximately 99% or more of US surface water segments downstream of wastewater treatment plants are lower than a predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) for aquatic chronic toxicity of 0.1 ng/L. Exceedances are expected to be primarily in localized, effluent-dominated water segments. The median mean-flow PEC is more than two orders of magnitude lower than this PNEC. Similar results exist for other pharmaceutical estrogens. Data also suggest that the contribution of EE2 more broadly to total estrogenic load in the environment from all sources (including other human pharmaceutical estrogens, endogenous estrogens, natural environmental estrogens, and industrial chemicals), while highly uncertain and variable, appears to be relatively low overall. Additional data and a more comprehensive approach for data collection and analysis for estrogenic substances in the environment, especially in effluent-dominated water segments in sensitive environments, would more fully characterize the risks.


aquatic ecology environmental impact estrogens regulatory science toxicity 



The authors wish to thank Douglas Throckmorton, Deborah Livornese, Luis Valerio, and Roxane Modares from FDA/CDER for helpful discussions and review. The authors also wish to thank ICF International and IceTech, Inc. staff, in particular Margaret McVey, Arun Varghese, Isaac Warren, Christine Hartman, and Michael Smith, for providing much of the literature, data, and analysis used in this review (under contract no. HHSF223200910010I). Authors are listed according to first author (primary author) and last author (principal investigator) emphasis.


The findings and conclusions in this article have not been formally disseminated by FDA and should not be construed to represent any FDA determination or policy. The mention of commercial products, their sources, or their use in connection with material reported herein is not to be construed as either an actual or implied endorsement of such products by the Department of Health and Human Services.


  1. 1.
    Daughton CG. Published literature relevant to the issues surrounding PPCPs as environmental contaminants. In: EPA US (eds). 2012 .
  2. 2.
    Brooks BW, Berninger JP, Kristofco LA, Ramirez AJ, Stanley JK, Valenti TW. Pharmaceuticals in the environment: lessons learned for reducing uncertainties in environmental risk assessment. Prog Mol Biol Transcl Sci. 2012;112:231–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    UNEP. State of the science of endocrine disrupting chemicals examined in landmark UN report. UNEP News Centre. 2013.;
  4. 4.
    USFDA. National Environmental Policy Act; Revision of Policies and Procedures; final rule. Federal Register; 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wise A, O’Brien K, Woodruff T. Are oral contraceptives a significant contributor to the estrogenicity of drinking water? Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45(1):51–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Anderson PD, Johnson AC, Pfeiffer D, Caldwell DJ, Hannah R, Mastrocco F, et al. Endocrine disruption due to estrogens derived from humans predicted to be low in the majority of U.S. surface waters. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2012;31(6):1407–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caldwell DJ, Mastrocco F, Anderson PD, Lange R, Sumpter JP. Predicted-no-effect concentrations for the steroid estrogens estrone, 17 beta-estradiol, estriol, and 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2012;31(6):1396–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Caldwell DJ, Mastrocco F, Nowak E, Johnston J, Yekel H, Pfeiffer D, et al. An assessment of potential exposure and risk from estrogens in drinking water. Environ Health Perspect. 2010;118(3):338–44.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Diamanti-Kandarakis E, Bourguignon JP, Giudice LC, Hauser R, Prins GS, Soto AM, et al. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals: an endocrine society scientific statement. Endocr Rev. 2009;30(4):293–342.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    USEPA. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems. 77 Federal Register 26071; 2012.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    European Parliament. Surface waters: 12 new controlled chemicals, three pharmaceuticals on watch list. 2013.
  12. 12.
    Endocrine Screening Program (EDSP). Washington (DC): Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, US Environmental Protection Agency 2012. Accessed 1 Aug 2012
  13. 13.
    USEPA. Amendment to the universal waste rule: addition of pharmaceuticals. In: USEPA, editor. Federal register, 73(232). Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency; 2008. p. 26.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ankley G, Erickson R, Hoff D, Mount D, Lazorchak J, Beaman J, et al. Draft white paper: aquatic life criteria for contaminants of emerging concern, part i, general challenges and recommendations. Prepared by the Office of Water and Office of Research and Development Emerging Contaminants Workgroup. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2008.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    USEPA. Science advisory board: aquatic life water quality criteria for contaminants of emerging concern. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2008.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kostich MS, Lazorchak JM. Risks to aquatic organisms posed by human pharmaceutical use. Sci Total Environ. 2008;389(2–3):329–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Snyder SA. Occurrence, treatment, and toxicological relevance of EDCs and pharmaceuticals in water. Ozone Sci Eng. 2008;30(1):65–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Debroux J-F, Soller JA, Plumlee MH, Kennedy LJ. Human health risk assessment of non-regulated xenobiotics in recycled water: a review. Hum Ecol Risk Assess Int J. 2012;18(3):517–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Grzybowski W. Comment on “Are oral contraceptives a significant contributor to the estrogenicity of drinking water?”. Environ Sci Technol. 2011;45(17):7605.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Daughton C. Pharmaceutical ingredients in drinking water: overview of occurrence and significance of human exposure. Washington DC: American Chemical Society; 2010.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    USFDA. Response to citizen petition to the FDA commissioner under the national environmental policy act and administrative procedure act requesting an amendment to a FDA rule regarding human drugs and biologics. 2013. p. 16.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Committee on the Assessment of Water Reuse as an Approach to Meeting Future Water Supply Needs; National Research Council. Water reuse: potential for expanding the nation’s water supply through reuse of municipal wastewater. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Jelić A, Petrović M, Barceló D. Pharmaceuticals in drinking water. In: Barceló D, editor. Emerging organic contaminants and human health. Berlin: Springer; 2012. p. 47–70.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    USFDA. In: Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, editor. Guidance for industry: environmental assessment of human drug and biologics application. Rockville: US Food and Drug Administration; 1998. p. 39.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    USEPA. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment. Fed Regist. 1998;63:26846–924.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stephan CE, Mount DI, Hansen DJ, Gentile JH, Chapman GA, Brungs WA. Guidelines for deriving numerical national water quality criteria for the protection of aquatic organisms and their uses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. EPA; 1985.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jobling S, Nolan M, Tyler CR, Brighty G, Sumpter JP. Widespread sexual disruption in wild fish. Environ Sci Technol. 1998;32(17):2498–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Vajda AM, Barber LB, Gray JL, Lopez EM, Woodling JD, Norris DO. Reproductive disruption in fish downstream from an estrogenic wastewater effluent. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42(9):3407–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
  30. 30.
    Mosher W, Jones J. Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat. 2010;23:29.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    IMS. IMS national sales perspectives, year 2007–2011. Parsippany: IMS Health; 2012. Extracted April 2012.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Chlebowski RT, Kuller LH, Prentice RL, Stefanick ML, Manson JE, Gass M, et al. Breast cancer after use of estrogen plus progestin in postmenopausal women. New Engl J Med. 2009;360(6):573–87.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    de Mes TZD, Zeeman G, Lettinga G. Occurrence and fate of estrone, 17β-estradiol and 17α-ethynylestradiol in STPs for domestic wastewater. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol. 2005;4(4):275–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gutendorf B, Westendorf J. Comparison of an array of in vitro assays for the assessment of the estrogenic potential of natural and synthetic estrogens, phytoestrogens and xenoestrogens. Toxicology. 2001;166(1–2):79–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Céspedes R, Petrovic M, Raldúa D, Saura Ú, Piña B, Lacorte S, et al. Integrated procedure for determination of endocrine-disrupting activity in surface waters and sediments by use of the biological technique recombinant yeast assay and chemical analysis by LC–ESI-MS. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2004;378(3):697–708.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Endocrine Disruptors Research. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2012. Accessed 7 Aug 2012.
  37. 37.
    Hyder SM, Chiappetta C, Stancel GM. Synthetic estrogen 17 alpha-ethinyl estradiol induces pattern of uterine gene expression similar to endogenous estrogen 17 beta-estradiol. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1999;290(2):740–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Islinger M, Willimski D, Volkl A, Braunbeck T. Effects of 17a-ethinylestradiol on the expression of three estrogen-responsive genes and cellular ultrastructure of liver and testes in male zebrafish. Aquat Toxicol. 2003;62(2):85–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Urbatzka R, Rocha E, Reis B, Cruzeiro C, Monteiro RAF, Rocha MJ. Effects of ethinylestradiol and of an environmentally relevant mixture of xenoestrogens on steroidogenic gene expression and specific transcription factors in zebrafish. Environ Pollut. 2012;164:28–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Albero B, Sánchez-Brunete C, Miguel E, Pérez RA, Tadeo JL. Analysis of natural-occurring and synthetic sexual hormones in sludge-amended soils by matrix solid-phase dispersion and isotope dilution gas chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J Chromatogr. 2013;1283:39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    ECOTOXicology Database. 2011. Accessed 29 March 2011
  42. 42.
    Nagpal NK, Meays CL. Water quality guidelines for pharmaceutically-active compounds (PhACs): 17α-ethinylestradiol (EE2), technical appendix. Province of British Columbia: Ministry of Environment; 2009. p. 27.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Caldwell DJ, Mastrocco F, Hutchinson TH, Lange R, Heijerick D, Janssen C, et al. Derivation of an aquatic predicted no-effect concentration for the synthetic hormone, 17 alpha-ethinyl estradiol. Environ Sci Technol. 2008;42(19):7046–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Soares J, Coimbra AM, Reis-Henriques MA, Monteiro NM, Vieira MN, Oliveira JMA, et al. Disruption of zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryonic development after full life-cycle parental exposure to low levels of ethinylestradiol. Aquat Toxicol. 2009;95(4):330–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chemicals and the Water Framework Directive: Draft Environmental Quality Standards, Ethinylestradiol (EE2). European Commission, Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks; 2011.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nagpal NK, Meays CL. Water quality guidelines for pharmaceutically-active compounds (PhACs): 17α-ethinylestradiol (EE2). Province of British Columbia: Ministry of Environment; 2009. p. 8.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Surface waters: new chemicals added to EU risk list (press release). European Parliment; 2012.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Hannah R, D’Aco VJ, Anderson PD, Buzby ME, Caldwell DJ, Cunningham VL, et al. Exposure assessment of 17 alpha-ethinylestradiol in surface waters of the United States and Europe. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2009;28(12):2725–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Barber LB, Furlong ET, Keefe SH, Brown GK, Cahill J. Natural and contaminant organic compounds in the Boulder Creek watershed, Colorado, during high-flow and low-flow conditions, 2000. Chapter 5 in Murphy, S.F., Verplanck, P.L., and Barber, L.B., eds., Comprehensive water quality of the Boulder Creek Watershed, Colorado, during high-flow and low-flow conditions. 2000. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 03-4045, p. 103–44.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Huang CH, Sedlak DL. Analysis of estrogenic hormones in municipal wastewater effluent and surface water using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and gas chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2001;20(1):133–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Benotti MJ, Trenholm RA, Vanderford BJ, Holady JC, Stanford BD, Snyder SA. Pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds in US drinking water. Environ Sci Technol. 2009;43(3):597–603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Survey of Endocrine Disruptors in King County Surface Waters. Washington State Department of Natural Resources and Parks: Prepared by R. Jack and D. Lester, DNRP Water and Land Resources Division, Seattle, WA, 2007.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    STOrage and RETrieval (STORET). Repository for water quality, biological, and physical data. Washington, D.C: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2011.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    National Water Information System (NWIS). U.S. Geographical Survey; 2011.
  55. 55.
    Cunningham VL, Buzby M, Hutchinson T, Mastrocco F, Parke N, Roden N. Effects of human pharmaceuticals on aquatic life: next steps. Environ Sci Technol. 2006;40(11):3456–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Anderson PD, D’Aco VJ, Shanahan P, Chapra SC, Buzby ME, Cunningham VL, et al. Screening analysis of human pharmaceutical compounds in US surface waters. Environ Sci Technol. 2004;38(3):838–49.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kostich M, Flick R, Martinson J. Comparing predicted estrogen concentrations with measurements in US waters. Environ Pollut. 2013;178:271–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
  59. 59.
    Aronson D, Weeks J, Meylan B, Guiney PD, Howard PH. Environmental release, environmental concentrations, and ecological risk of N,N-diethyl-m-toluamide (DEET). Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2012;8(1):135–66.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Exposure and fate assessment screening tool (E-FAST), Version 2.0, Documentation manual. Washington (DC): Exposure Assessment Branch, Office of Pollution Prevention and Treatment: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2012. Accessed 31 July 2012
  61. 61.
    Johnson AC, Williams RJ, Matthiessen P. The potential steroid hormone contribution of farm animals to freshwaters, the United Kingdom as a case study. Sci Total Environ. 2006;362(1–3):166–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Lange IG, Daxenberger A, Schiffer B, Witters H, Ibarreta D, Meyer HHD. Sex hormones originating from different livestock production systems: fate and potential disrupting activity in the environment. Anal Chim Acta. 2002;473(1–2):27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Combalbert S, Hernandez-Raquet G. Occurrence, fate, and biodegradation of estrogens in sewage and manure. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2010;86(6):1671–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Kolodziej EP, Harter T, Sedlak DL. Dairy wastewater, aquaculture, and spawning fish as sources of steroid hormones in the aquatic environment. Environ Sci Technol. 2004;38(23):6377–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Rodriguez-Rojas A, Rodriguez-Beltran J, Couce A, Blazquez J. Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance: a bitter fight against evolution. Int J Med Microbiol. 2013;303(6–7):293–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Rajapakse N, Silva E, Kortenkamp A. Combining xenoestrogens at levels below individual no-observed-effect concentrations dramatically enhances steroid hormone action. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110(9):917–21.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Silva E, Rajapakse N, Kortenkamp A. Something from “Nothing”—eight weak estrogenic chemicals combined at concentrations below NOECs produce significant mixture effects. Environ Sci Technol. 2002;36(8):1751–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Carpenter DO, Arcaro K, Spink DC. Understanding the human health effects of chemical mixtures. Environ Health Perspect. 2002;110(S1):25–42.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Park JY, Lee BC, Ra JS, Lee J, Kim SD. Effect of copper complexation on the estrogenic activities of endocrine-disrupting compounds using e-screen bioassay. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2008;27(3):535–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Birnbaum LS. Environmental chemicals: evaluating low-dose effects. Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(4):A143–4.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Vandenberg LN, Colborn T, Hayes TB, Heindel JJ, Jacobs Jr DR, Lee D-H, et al. Regulatory decisions on endocrine disrupting chemicals should be based on the principles of endocrinology. Reprod Toxicol. 2013;38:1–15.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    USEPA. State of the science evaluation: nonmonotonic dose responses as they apply to estrogen, androgen, and thyroid pathways and EPA testing and assessment procedures. Washington, D.C.: USEPA; 2013.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Rhomberg LR, Goodman JE. Low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose–responses of endocrine disrupting chemicals: has the case been made? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2012;64(1):130–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Dekant W, Colnot T. Endocrine effects of chemicals: aspects of hazard identification and human health risk assessment. Toxicol Lett. 2013;223(3):280–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Zoeller RT, Brown TR, Doan LL, Gore AC, Skakkebaek NE, Soto AM, et al. Endocrine-disrupting chemicals and public health protection: a statement of principles from the endocrine society. Endocrinology. 2012;153(9):4097–110.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Non-monotonic dose response curves research. 2012.
  77. 77.
    EMEA. Guidelines on the environmental risk assessment of medicinal products for human use. London: European Medicine Agency (EMEA); 2006. Contract no.: EMEA/CHMP/SWP/4447/00.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Connon RE, Geist J, Werner I. Effect-based tools for monitoring and predicting the ecotoxicological effects of chemicals in the aquatic environment. Sensors. 2012;12(9):12741–71.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Sun H, Xia M, Austin C, Huang R. Paradigm shift in toxicity testing and modeling. AAPS J. 2012;14(3):473–80.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Brausch JM, Connors KA, Brooks BW, Rand GM. Human pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment: a review of recent toxicological studies and considerations for toxicity testing. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol. 2012;218:1–99.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Schmidt CW. TOX 21: new dimensions of toxicity testing. Environ Health Perspect. 2009;117(8):A348–53.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Huang R, Xia M, Cho M-H, Sakamuru S, Shinn P, Houck KA, et al. Chemical genomics profiling of environmental chemical modulation of human nuclear receptors. Environ Health Perspect. 2011;119(8):1142–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Stanczyk FZ, Archer DF, Bhavnani BR. Ethinyl estradiol and 17β-estradiol in combined oral contraceptives: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and risk assessment. Contraception. 2013;87:706–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    USEPA, USDA, USHHS, USDOI. Memorandum of understanding on Sustainability of Federal Collaboration on Pharmaceuticals in Drinking Water. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and U.S. Department of Interior, 2012.Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    USFDA. In: Consumer Health Information, editor. How to dispose of unused medicines. Rockville: US Food and Drug Administration; 2012. p. 2.Google Scholar
  86. 86.
    Kostich MS, Batt AL, Lazorchak JM. Concentrations of prioritized pharmaceuticals in effluents from 50 large wastewater treatment plants in the US and implications for risk estimation. Environ Pollut. 2014;184:354–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    USFDA. Endocrine disruption potential of drugs: nonclinical evaluation (draft). Rockville: US Food and Drug Administration; 2013.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Boxall ABA, Rudd MA, Brooks BW, Caldwell DJ, Choi K, Hickmann S, et al. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products in the environment: what are the big questions? Environ Health Perspect. 2012;120(9):1221–9.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Gao P, Shi Y. Characterization of supersaturatable formulations for improved absorption of poorly soluble drugs. AAPS J. 2012;14(4):703–13.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Daughton CG, Ruhoy IS. Lower-dose prescribing: minimizing “side effects” of pharmaceuticals on society and the environment. Sci Total Environ. 2013;443:324–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Keil F. Pharmaceuticals for human use: an integrated strategy for reducing the contamination of water bodies. In: Kümmerer K, Hempel M, editors. Green and sustainable pharmacy. Berlin: Springer; 2010. p. 225–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Hamburg MA, Collins FS. The path to personalized medicine. New Engl J Med. 2010;363(4):301–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Woodcock J. The prospects for personalized medicine in drug development and drug therapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;81(2):164–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Daughton CG, Ruhoy IS. Green pharmacy and pharmecovigilance: prescribing and the planet. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2011;4(2):211–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Daughton CG, Ruhoy IS. Reducing the ecological footprint of pharmaceutical usage: linkages between healthcare practices and the environment. In: Kümmerer K, Hempel M, editors. Green and sustainable pharmacy. Berlin: Springer; 2010. p. 77–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Diab R, Jaafar-Maalej C, Fessi H, Maincent P. Engineered nanoparticulate drug delivery systems: the next frontier for oral administration? AAPS J. 2012;14(4):688–702.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Moore K, Townsend J, Spieler J, Coffey PS, Blithe D, Arndorfer E, et al. A greenprint for sustainable contraceptive research and development. Contraception. 2013;98(3):347–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Barber LB, Vajda AM, Douville C, Norris DO, Writer JH. Fish endocrine disruption responses to a major wastewater treatment facility upgrade. Environ Sci Technol. 2012;46(4):2121–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Marfil-Vega R, Suidan MT, Mills MA. Assessment of the abiotic transformation of 17β-estradiol in the presence of vegetable matter–II: the role of molecular oxygen. Chemosphere. 2012;87(5):521–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Marfil-Vega R, Suidan MT, Mills MA. Abiotic transformation of estrogens in synthetic municipal wastewater: an alternative for treatment? Environ Pollut. 2010;158(11):3372–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • James P. Laurenson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Raanan A. Bloom
    • 1
  • Stephen Page
    • 2
  • Nakissa Sadrieh
    • 3
  1. 1.Office of Pharmaceutical Science, Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchUS Food and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA
  2. 2.American Institutes for ResearchWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.Office of Cosmetics and Colors, Center for Food Safety and Applied NutritionUS Food and Drug AdministrationCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations