4.7 Article

Change in the chemical content of untreated wastewater of Athens, Greece under COVID-19 pandemic

期刊

SCIENCE OF THE TOTAL ENVIRONMENT
卷 799, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149230

关键词

Wastewater-based epidemiology; High resolution mass spectrometry; Wide-scope screening; Illicit drug consumption changes; Surfactants

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The COVID-19 pandemic had unexpected effects on the use of chemicals in influent wastewater, with increases in some compounds and decreases in others. Government-imposed social restrictions impacted all aspects of life.
COVID-19 pandemic spread rapidly worldwide with unanticipated effects on mental health, lifestyle, stability of economies and societies. Although many research groups have already reported SARS-CoV-2 surveillance in untreated wastewater, only few studies evaluated the implications of the pandemic on the use of chemicals by influent wastewater analysis. Wide-scope target and suspect screening were used to monitor the effects of the pandemic on the Greek population through wastewater-based epidemiology. Composite 24 h influent wastewater samples were collected from the wastewater treatment plant of Athens during the first lockdown and analyzed by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry. A wide range of compounds was investigated (11,286), including antipsychotic drugs, illicit drugs, tobacco compounds, food additives, pesticides, biocides, surfactants and industrial chemicals. Mass loads of chemical markers were estimated and compared with the data obtained under non-COVID-19 conditions (campaign 2019). The findings revealed increases in surfactants (+196%), biocides (+152%), cationic quaternary ammonium surfactants (used as surfactants and biocides) (+331%), whereas the most important decreases were estimated for tobacco (-33%) and industrial chemicals (-52%). The introduction of social-restriction measures by the government affected all aspects of life. (c) 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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