4.7 Article

Prioritization and environmental risk assessment of pharmaceuticals mixtures from Brazilian surface waters

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
卷 288, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2021.117803

关键词

Toxicity data; Acute and chronic risks; Concentration addition; Toxic units; Risk quotient

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoa-mento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior (CAPES)
  2. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico (CNPq)
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a` Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)
  4. Fundacao Nacional de Sande (FUNASA)
  5. Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Minas Gerais (PUC-MG)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study conducted an environmental risk assessment of pharmaceutical mixtures in Brazilian surface waters based on Toxic Units and Risk Quotients, revealing a potential risk for the environment due to the prioritized pharmaceuticals.
The present study provides an environmental risk assessment of the pharmaceutical mixtures detected in Brazilian surface waters, based on Toxic Units and Risk Quotients. Furthermore, the applicability of a previously proposed prioritization methodology was evaluated. The pharmaceuticals were classified according to their properties (occurrence, persistence, bioaccumulation, and toxicity) and the contribution of the prioritized compounds to the mixture risk was determined. The mixture risk quotients, based on acute and chronic toxicity data, often exceed 1, demonstrating a potential risk for the environment. While algae were most affected by acute effects, fish were the most sensitive organism to sublethal effects. The lipid regulator atorvastatin was the main driver for the mixture risk. Despite their lower occurrence, the antibiotics norfloxacin and enrofloxacin were critical compounds for the algae group. The prioritized pharmaceuticals contributed to more than 75% of the mixture risk in most of cases, indicating the applicability of prioritization approaches for risk management.

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

4.7
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