| Literature DB >> 31906110 |
Daniel Wolecki1, Magda Caban1, Magdalena Pazda1, Piotr Stepnowski1, Jolanta Kumirska1.
Abstract
The problem of the presence of pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in the environment is closely related to municipal wastewater and in consequence to municipal wastewater treatment plants (MWWTPs) because wastewater is the main way in which these compounds are transferred to the ecosystem. For this reason, the development of cheap, simple but very effective techniques for the removal of such residues from wastewater is very important. In this study, the analysis of the potential of using three new plants: Cyperus papyrus (Papyrus), Lysimachia nemorum (Yellow pimpernel), and Euonymus europaeus (European spindle) by hydroponic cultivation for the removal of 15 selected pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in an MWWTP is presented. In order to obtain the most reliable data, this study was performed using real WWTP conditions and with the determination of the selected analytes in untreated sewage, treated sewage, and in plant materials. For determining the target compounds in plant materials, an Accelerated Solvent Extraction (ASE)-Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE)-GC-MS(SIM) method was developed and validated. The obtained data proved that the elimination efficiency of the investigated substances from wastewater was in the range of 35.8% for diflunisal to above 99.9% for paracetamol, terbutaline, and flurbiprofen. Lysimachia nemorum was the most effective for the uptake of target compounds among the tested plant species. Thus, the application of constructed wetlands for supporting conventional MWWTPs allowed a significant increase in their removal from the wastewater stream.Entities:
Keywords: determining target pollutants in plant materials; endocrine disrupting compounds; hydroponic cultivation; municipal wastewater treatment plants; pharmaceuticals
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31906110 PMCID: PMC6982867 DOI: 10.3390/molecules25010162
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Concentrations of target compounds in untreated and treated sewage samples collected from a municipal wastewater treatment plant (MWWTP), determined using the Solid-Phase Extraction (SPE)-GC-MS(SIM) method (n = 3).
| Pharmaceuticals | Concentration in Untreated Sewage | Concentration in Treated Sewage |
|---|---|---|
| (mean ± SD) [ng/L] | ||
|
| 2695 ± 916 | 8 ± 1 |
|
| 2130 ± 298 | <MDL |
|
| 154 ± 8 | <MDL |
|
| 51 ± 12 | <MDL |
|
| 3420 ± 342 | 38 ± 1 |
|
| 67 ± 12 | 43 ± 7 |
|
| 1676 ± 184 | 613 ± 38 |
| Imipramine | <MDL | <MDL |
| Diclofenac | <MDL | <MDL |
|
| 169 ± 29 | 50 ± 5 |
| Nadolol | <MDL | <MDL |
|
| 52 ± 3 | 19 ± 2 |
|
| 110 ± 13 | 4 ± 0 |
|
| 1622 ± 260 | 122 ± 18 |
|
| 273 ± 27 | 13 ± 3 |
Figure 1Selection of the optimal Accelerated Solvent Extraction (ASE)-SPE conditions for the isolation of target compounds from plant materials.
Recoveries (mean ± SD) of fifteen analytes using different conditions of the ASE procedure (n = 3, conc. 1000 ng/g d.w.).
| Type of Solvents/ | EtOH:H2O (1:1, | ACN:H2O (1:1, | MeOH:H2O (1:1, | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 80 °C | 50 °C | 80 °C | 50 °C | 80 °C | 50 °C | |
| Value of Recovery [% ± SD (%)] | ||||||
|
| 105 ± 22 | 154 ± 5 | 105 ± 16 | 194 ± 13 | 65 ± 5 | 111 ± 9 |
|
| 26 ± 11 | 36 ± 7 | 10 ± 2 | 25 ± 3 | 42 ± 5 | 74 ± 9 |
|
| 16 ± 5 | 25 ± 6 | 19 ± 4 | 26 ± 3 | 48 ± 3 | 51 ± 5 |
|
| 89 ± 15 | 120 ± 18 | 80 ± 14 | 140 ± 8 | 52 ± 2 | 89 ± 10 |
|
| 91 ± 9 | 118 ± 6 | 80 ± 13 | 139 ± 7 | 54 ± 3 | 89 ± 11 |
|
| 90 ± 18 | 115 ± 7 | 90 ± 11 | 159 ± 7 | 55 ± 3 | 88 ± 12 |
|
| 27 ± 8 | 58 ± 11 | 52 ± 11 | 10 ± 3 | 25 ± 4 | 26 ± 5 |
|
| 29 ± 8 | 88 ± 25 | 74 ± 10 | 16 ± 2 | 59 ± 2 | 55 ± 8 |
|
| 103 ± 12 | 10 5± 3 | 68 ± 8 | 76 ± 9 | 98 ± 6 | 105 ± 5 |
|
| 16 ± 7 | 44 ± 19 | 60 ± 8 | 6 ± 1 | 31 ± 6 | 16 ± 4 |
|
| 73 ± 6 | 91 ± 12 | 59 ± 4 | 97 ± 17 | 59 ± 3 | 67 ± 9 |
|
| 63 ± 13 | 80 ± 15 | 49 ± 6 | 67 ± 5 | 38 ± 3 | 49 ± 6 |
|
| 77 ± 10 | 86 ± 15 | 71 ± 11 | 100 ± 5 | 45 ± 4 | 61 ± 8 |
|
| 125 ± 16 | 130 ± 10 | 235 ± 14 | 219 ± 12 | 101 ± 9 | 108 ± 10 |
|
| 65 ± 7 | 93 ± 14 | 64 ± 7 | 88 ± 7 | 50 ± 4 | 71 ± 7 |
Figure 2Impact of the acidification of ASE extracts prior to SPE purification on the recoveries of analytes, carried out at 80 °C (A) and 50 °C (B), respectively.
Selected validation parameters of the ASE-SPE-GC-MS(SIM) method for determining target compounds in plant samples (analytical range from method quantification limit (MQL) to 2500 ng/g). Precision and accuracy were determined for three concentrations from analytical range (78 ng/g d.w., 625 ng/g d.w., and 2500 ng/g d.w.).
| Validation Parameters | Calibration Curves | R2 | Measurement Intermediate Precision (RSD%) | Mean Recovery | ME | MQL | MDL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Compound | (%) | % | (ng/g d.w.) | ||||
|
| 68698 (±635) x + 1208.4 (±648.4) | 0.9995 | 0.44–7.61 | 80–102 | 10 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
|
| 74010 (±4738) x − 8672.6 (±4835.8) | 0.9760 | 2.46–20.25 | 100 | 19 | 0.5 | 0.2 |
|
| 364393 (±2459) x − 1622.6 (±2510.1) | 0.9997 | 0.39–8.75 | 99–100 | −31 | 0.8 | 0.3 |
|
| 67739 (±632) x − 737.2 (621.9) | 0.9996 | 0.46–10.86 | 95–98 | −20 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
|
| 67687 (±829) x − 1444.7 (±880.5) | 0.9994 | 3.73–13.65 | 99–101 | 43 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
|
| 114510 (±2633) x − 4994.1 (±2590.4) | 0.9970 | 0.05–9.33 | 97–102 | 15 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
|
| 339801 (±3704) x + 30042.5 (3642.7) | 0.9994 | 0.44–16.20 | 94–102 | −9 | 2 | 0.7 |
|
| 33490 (±333) x − 752.78 (±339.8) | 0.9994 | 1.08–14.00 | 97–100 | 12 | 0.7 | 0.2 |
|
| 18224 (±287) x − 673.8 (±292.7) | 0.9990 | 3.62–21.60 | 89–101 | 25 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
|
| 17286 (±128) x − 26.9 (±125.7) | 0.9997 | 0.56–17.09 | 99–100 | −8 | 2 | 0.7 |
|
| 550924(±13936) x − 31,586 (±13706.5) | 0.9970 | 1.82–9.86 | 91–102 | 28 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
|
| 24502(±587) x + 284.4 (±599.1) | 0.9970 | 2.03–14.88 | 99–100 | −2 | 0.8 | 0.3 |
|
| 44380 (±1275) x − 276.4 (1302.1) | 0.9950 | 0.18–10.78 | 80–101 | −3 | 0.6 | 0.2 |
|
| 12263 (±246) x + 560.9 (±251.5) | 0.9980 | 0.16–12.16 | 80–102 | −11 | 0.4 | 0.1 |
|
| 9240 (±265) x + 724.7 (±303.3) | 0.9970 | 1.00–15.78 | 99–100 | 31 | 0.5 | 0.2 |
Results of determining target compounds in three species of hydroponically cultivated plants from an MWWTP using the developed ASE-SPE-GC-MS(SIM) method (n = 3), and the elimination efficiency of these compounds from wastewater in an MWWTP supported by constructed wetlands.
| Pharmaceuticals | EE | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (mean ± SD) [ng/g Dry Weight] | % | |||
|
| 700 ± 28 | <MDL | 1616 ± 124 | 99.7 |
|
| <MDL | <MDL | <MDL | >99.9 |
|
| <MDL | 5323 ± 1869 | <MDL | >99.9 |
|
| 2107 ± 92 | <MDL | <MDL | >99.9 |
|
| <MDL | 1422 ± 216 | <MDL | 98.9 |
|
| 1569 ± 321 | 5569 ± 1298 | 260 ± 4 | 35.8 |
|
| 404 ± 5 | 1399 ± 20 | 435 ± 5 | 63.4 |
|
| 3533 ± 198 | <MDL | <MDL | -1 |
|
| <MDL | <MDL | <MDL | -1 |
|
| <MDL | <MDL | <MDL | 70.4 |
|
| <MDL | <MDL | <MDL | -1 |
|
| <MDL | <MDL | <MDL | 63.5 |
|
| <MDL | <MDL | <MDL | 96.4 |
|
| 4126 ± 821 | 3136 ± 599 | 214 ± 3 | 92.5 |
|
| <MDL | <MDL | <MDL | 95.2 |
1 if drug concentrations were below the MDL value in both untreated and treated wastewater, the elimination efficiency (EE) was not calculated.
The sum of the uptake of selected pharmaceuticals and endocrine disrupting compounds (EDCs) in ng/g dry weight by tested plant species grown in an MWWTP.
| Plant Species |
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
|
| [ng/g dry weight] | ||
| 12,439 | 16,849 | 2525 | |
List of sewage test results in the Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant in Sochaczew (average values from 2017).
| Factor | Results for Treated Wastewater | Results for Untreated Wastewater | The Highest Acceptable Concentration | Removal Efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 3.4 mg/L O2 | 460 mg/L O2 | 15 mg/L O2 | 99.3% |
|
| 32.7 mg/L O2 | 1144.7 mg/L O2 | 125 mg/L O2 | 97.1% |
|
| 8.8 mg/L | 96.7 mg/L | 15 mg/L | 90.5% |
|
| 0.2 mg/L | 11.9 mg/L | 2 mg/L | 98.8% |
|
| 8.6 mg/L | 567.5 mg/L | 35 mg/L | 98.5% |
|
| 7.2 | 7.9 | - | - |
BOD5 biochemical oxygen demand (for 5 days). CODCr Chemical Oxygen Demand (using Potassium Dichromate).
Retention parameters (time allowed change ± 0.15 min), time windows, and SIM ions for trimethylsilyl (TMS)-derivatives of target compounds (quantitative ions are marked in bold; confirmation ions with intensity relative to quantitative ions (%)).
| Identification Parameters/ | Retention Time (Rt) [min] | Characteristic Ions ( | Time Windows [min] |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 10.39 | 10.01–13.52 | |
|
| 10.64 | ||
|
| 16.20 | 13.52–19.88 | |
|
| 17.01 | ||
|
| 18.36 | ||
|
| 18.88 | ||
|
| 20.64 | 19.88–22.50 | |
|
| 21.09 | ||
|
| 21.73 | ||
|
| 23.90 | 22.50–25.63 | |
|
| 24.53 | ||
|
| 26.48 | 25.63–27.97 | |
|
| 27.11 | ||
|
| 28.59 | 27.97–29.30 | |
|
| 29.77 | 29.30–30.39 |