4.8 Article

Mass Balance Assessment for Six Neonicotinoid Insecticides During Conventional Wastewater and Wetland Treatment: Nationwide Reconnaissance in United States Wastewater

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 50, Issue 12, Pages 6199-6206

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.est.6b01032

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) [R01ES020889]
  2. Virginia G. Piper Charitable Trust [LTR 05/01/12]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Occurrence and removal of six high-production high-volume neonicotinoids was investigated in 13 conventional wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and one engineered wetland. Flow-weighted daily composites were analyzed by isotope dilution liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry, revealing the occurrence of imidacloprid, acetamiprid, and clothianidin at ng/L concentrations in WWTP influent (60.5 +/- 40.0; 2.9 +/- 1.9; 149.7 +/- 289.5, respectively) and effluent (58.5 +/- 29.1; 2.3 +/- 1.4; 70.2 +/- 121.8, respectively). A mass balance showed insignificant removal of imidacloprid (p = 0.09, CI = 95%) and limited removal of the sum of acetamiprid and its de gradate, acetamiprid-N-desmethyl (18 +/- 4%, p = 0.01, CI = 95%). Clothianidin was found only intermittently, whereas thiamethoxam, thiacloprid, and dinotefuran were never detected. In the wetland, no removal of imidacloprid or acetamiprid was observed. Extrapolation of data from 13 WWTPs to the nation as a whole suggests annual discharges on the order of 1000-3400 kg/y of imidacloprid contained in treated effluent to surface waters nationwide. This first mass balance and first United States nationwide wastewater reconnaissance identified imidacloprid, acetamiprid, and Clothianidin as recalcitrant sewage constituents that persist through wastewater treatment to enter water bodies at significant loadings, potentially harmful to sensitive aquatic invertebrates.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available