4.7 Article

Widespread, routine occurrence of pharmaceuticals in sewage effluent, combined sewer overflows and receiving waters

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 220, Issue -, Pages 1447-1455

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.10.087

Keywords

Pharmaceuticals; Water quality; Effluent; Pollution; Emerging contaminants

Funding

  1. Natural Environment Research Council [NE/G523771/1]
  2. NERC [NE/G523771/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Research addressing the occurrence, fate and effects of pharmaceuticals in the aquatic environment has expanded rapidly over the past two decades, primarily due to the development of improved chemical analysis methods. Significant research gaps still remain, however, including a lack of longer term, repeated monitoring of rivers, determination of temporal and spatial changes in pharmaceutical concentrations, and inputs from sources other than wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), such as combined sewer overflows (CSOs). In addressing these gaps it was found that the five pharmaceuticals studied were routinely (51-94% of the time) present in effluents and receiving waters at concentrations ranging from single ng to mu g L-1. Mean concentrations were in the tens to hundreds ng L-1 range and CSOs appear to be a significant source of pharmaceuticals to water courses in addition to WWTPs. Receiving water concentrations varied throughout the day although there were no pronounced peaks at particular times. Similarly, concentrations varied throughout the year although no consistent patterns were observed. No dissipation of the study compounds was found over a 5 km length of river despite no other known inputs to the river. In conclusion, pharmaceuticals are routinely present in semi-rural and urban rivers and require management alongside more traditional pollutants. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available