| Literature DB >> 33929671 |
Anita Kotwani1, Jyoti Joshi2, Deeksha Kaloni3.
Abstract
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a complex global health issue and will push twenty-four million people into extreme poverty by 2030, risking the sustainable development goals (SDGs) 2, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 17 if not addressed immediately. Humans, animals, and the environment are the reservoirs that contribute and allow AMR to propagate in interconnected ecosystems. The emergence of antibiotic-resistant bacteria and antibiotic-resistant genes in the water environment has become an important environmental health issue. One of the major influencers from environment sector is the pharmaceutical industry which is growing globally to meet the ever-increasing demand of antibiotics, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The pharmaceutical effluent has a mix of large concentrations of antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes, and these sites act as hotspots for environmental contamination and the spread of AMR. Inadequate treatment of the effluent and its irresponsible disposal leads to unprecedented antibiotic contamination in the environment and their persistent presence in the environment significantly modulates the bacterial genomes' expression that is responsible for increase and spread of AMR. However, not much interventions are suggested in the National Action Plan developed on AMR by many countries. There are no regulations across the globe till date for the level of antibiotic residues in pharmaceutical effluent for the growing pharmaceutical industry. This review put together the work done showing several detrimental effects of the antimicrobial residues in the pharmaceutical effluent which leads to rise in development of AMR. The environment risk approach and need to have indicators to measure environment risk is a way forward for all countries engage in antibiotic manufacturing. Overall, efforts to address the problem are isolated and fragmented. Policymakers, regulators, manufacturers, researchers, civil society, and the community need to collaborate so that antibiotics are produced sustainably and continue to stay effective in treating bacterial infections.Entities:
Keywords: Antibiotics; Antimicrobial resistance; Effluent treatment; Environment; National Action Plan; Pharmaceutical effluent; Pharmaceutical industry
Year: 2021 PMID: 33929671 PMCID: PMC8086231 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-021-14178-w
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Fig. 1The interconnection between the Pharmaceutical industry, environment, humans and animals
Studies on presence of antibiotics in surface water, drinking water, pharmaceutical effluent, and in the effluent of wastewater treatment plant
| Class of antibiotics | Type of antibiotic | Origin and concentration | References |
|---|---|---|---|
| β-Lactams | Lincomycin | Surface water 248.9 ng/L | (Calamari et al. |
| Amoxicillin | Raw water 1500ng/L | (Mahmood et al. | |
| Aminoglycosides | Gentamicin | Sewage plant export 1300 ng/L | (Loffler and Ternes |
| Macrolides | Erythromycin-H2O | Surface water 1700 ng/L | (Kolpin et al. |
| Azithromycin | Wastewater treatment plant effluent 1577.3 ng/L | (Rodriguez-Mozaz et al. | |
| Clarithromycin | Surface water 260 ng/L | (Hirsch et al. | |
| Wastewater treatment plant effluent 346.8 ng/L | (Rodriguez-Mozaz et al. | ||
| Roxithromycin | Surface water 560 ng/L | (Hirsch et al. | |
| Quinolones | Ciprofloxacin | Sewage plant export 260 ng/L | (Kostich et al. |
| Surface water 185 ng/L | (Bai et al. | ||
| Pharma Effluent 28 X 106–31 X 106 ng/l | (Larsson et al. | ||
| Wastewater treatment plant effluent 1435.5 ng/L | (Rodriguez-Mozaz et al. | ||
| Raw water 1270 ng/L | (Mahmood et al. | ||
| Norfloxacin | Surface water 208 ng/L | (Xu et al. | |
| Pond 152.31 ng/L | (Chen et al. | ||
| Pharma Effluent39 X 104–42 X 104 ng/L | (Larsson et al. | ||
| Ofloxacin | Surface water 89 ng/L | (Xu et al. | |
| Sewage plant export 210 ng/L | (Guerra et al. | ||
| Pond 15.98 ng/L | (Chen et al. | ||
| Pharma Effluent15 X 104–16 X 104 ng/L | (Larsson et al. | ||
| Wastewater treatment plant effluent 613 ng/L | (Rodriguez-Mozaz et al. | ||
| Enrofloxacin | Livestock farm export 680 ng/L | (Andrieu et al. | |
| Underground water 3 ng/L | (Tong et al. | ||
| Levofloxacin | Raw water 414 ng/L | (Mahmood et al. | |
| Sulfonamides | Sulfamethoxazole | Surface water 1900 ng/L | (Kolpin et al. |
| Underground water 470 ng/L | (Hirsch et al. | ||
| Wastewater treatment plant effluent 220.9 ng/L | (Rodriguez-Mozaz et al. | ||
| Sulfamethizole | Surface water 130 ng/L | (Kolpin et al. | |
| Sulfamethazine | Surface water 4660 ng/L | (Wei et al. | |
| Underground water 160 ng/L | (Hirsch et al. | ||
| Sulfadoxine | Surface water 460 ng/L | (Wei et al. | |
| Sulfamonomethoxine | Pond 21.92 ng/L | (Chen et al. | |
| Sulfaphenazole | Pond 147.95 ng/L | (Chen et al. | |
| Sulfapyridine | Wastewater treatment plant effluent 583.6 ng/L | (Rodriguez-Mozaz et al. | |
| Tetracyclines | Tetracycline | Underground water 3.8 ng/L | (Tong et al. |
| Oxytetracycline | Surface water 340 ng/L | (Kolpin et al. | |
| Chlortetracycline | Surface water 690 ng/L | (Kolpin et al. |