4.5 Article

Theoretical environmental risk assessment of ten used pharmaceuticals in Belo Horizonte, Brazil

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10661-019-7386-3

关键词

Drugs; Microcontaminants; Environment risk assessment

资金

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais-FAPEMIG

向作者/读者索取更多资源

An evaluation of the environmental risk assessment (ERA) proposed by European Medicines Agency (EMA) and its applicability in Brazil was performed on ten of Belo Horizonte's most pharmaceuticals by the Brazilian National Health Service (SUS). The predicted environmental concentrations (PECs) was proposed, with some refinements to a better representation of the city of study. All PECs obtained were compared only to measured environmental concentrations around the world, due to the lack available data in the city of study and in Brazil. During the performance of EMA's guideline, the risk quotient (RQ) of impact was established through the ratio of PECs and predicted no-effect concentrations (PNECs). The PECs obtained in more refined phases show the initial evaluation of EMA's guideline, possible subdimensions, and the potential risks. The RQ for all studied pharmaceuticals ranges from clonazepam (1.26) to losartan (5457.45). These results indicate potential risks to the aquatic life present in the streams that receive the wastewater treatment plant's effluent. This risk can be spread since the streams carry these contaminants to other water bodies that undergo to multiple cities of Brazil, and even after dilutions, it can still be potentially toxic to the biotic life. ERA shows that it can be a useful tool for a better understanding and modeling of pharmaceuticals fate in the environment, specifically in water bodies. In addition, the usage of this model shows to be a useful tool that determines which contaminant should follow a more thorough study since the detection and analysis of pharmaceuticals in environmental samples are costly and technically challenging.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据