| Literature DB >> 35796924 |
Astrid Solvåg Nesse1, Stine Göransson Aanrud2, Jan Ludvig Lyche2, Trine Sogn3, Roland Kallenborn4.
Abstract
Farms utilizing sewage sludge and manure in their agronomic plant production are recognized as potential hotspots for environmental release of antibiotics and the resulting promotion of antibiotic resistance. As part of the circular economy, the use of biogas digestates for soil fertilizing is steadily increasing, but their potential contribution to the spreading of pharmaceutical residues is largely unknown. Digestates can be produced from a variety of biowaste resources, including sewage sludge, manure, food waste, and fish ensilage. We developed a method for the detection of 17 antibiotics and 2 steroid hormones and applied the method to detect pharmaceutical residues in digestates from most municipal biogas plants in Norway, covering a variety of feedstocks. The detection frequency and measured levels were overall low for most compounds, except a few incidents which cause concern. Specifically, relatively high levels of amoxicillin, penicillin G, ciprofloxacin, and prednisolone were detected in different digestates. Further, ipronidazole was detected in four digestates, although no commercial pharmaceutical products containing ipronidazole are currently registered in Norway. A simplified risk assessment showed a high risk for soil microorganisms and indicates the tendency for antibiotic-resistant bacteria for penicillin G and amoxicillin. For prednisolone and ipronidazole; however, no toxicity data is available for reliable risk assessments.Entities:
Keywords: Contamination; Ecotoxicity; Environmental pollution; Pharmaceuticals; Risk assessment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35796924 PMCID: PMC9261245 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-21479-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 5.190
Overview of target compounds with their respective calibration curve range (ng mL−1 extract)
| X-compounds | Y-compounds | Z-compounds |
|---|---|---|
| Sulfadiazine | Ciprofloxacin | Amoxicillin |
| Sulfadoxine | Difloxacin | Penicillin G |
| Sulfamethazine | Enrofloxacin | |
| Sulfamethoxazole | Sarafloxacin | |
| Norfloxacin | Chlortetracycline | |
| Doxycycline | ||
| Ipronidazole | Methacycline | |
| Ipronidazole-OH | Dexamethasone | Oxytetracycline |
| Metronidazole | Hydrocortisone | Tetracycline |
| Ronidazole | Prednisolone | |
| 2-Hydroxymethyl-1-methol-5-nitro-1H-imidazole | ||
| (HMMNI) | ||
| Tiamulin | ||
| Trimethoprim |
Fig. 1Flow chart for the extraction of antibiotics and corticoid steroids from biogas digestate, before quantitative analysis with UHPLC-MS/MS
Validation results of all successfully validated compounds, with recovery, method repeatability, method accuracy, matrix effect, and efficiency of the extraction method (EEM) at level 3 of the calibration curve (i.e. 7.5 ng mL−1 for X-compounds, 75 ng mL−1 for Y-compounds, and 150 ng mL−1 for the Z-compounds, see Table S5). R2 is the determination coefficient for the calibration curve
| Compound | Recovery (mean ± SD) | Repeatability (CV%) | Accuracy (mean ± CV%) | Matrix effect (%) | EEM (%) | Internal standard | Linear range | MDL | MQL | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ng g−1 digestate (fw) | |||||||||||
| 40–115% | < 15% | ± 15 ± 15% | > 0.985 | ||||||||
| Ipronidazole | 78 ± 3 | 3 | − 2.8 ± 2 | 0.992 | − 40 | 39 | Ipronidazole-D3 | 0.4–15 | 0.13 | 0.40 | |
| Metronidazole | 103 ± 3 | 3 | 4.2 ± 4 | 0.998 | 7 | 88 | Metronidazole-13C2-15N2 | 0.4–15 | 0.13 | 0.38 | |
| Ronidazole | 77 ± 5 | 5 | − 5.0 ± 5 | 0.994 | 24 | 79 | Ronidazole-D3 | 1.3–15 | 0.20 | 0.63 | |
| Sulfadiazine | 96 ± 3 | 3 | 2.1 ± 3 | 0.997 | 87 | 55 | Sulfadiazine-13C6 | 0.4–15 | 0.13 | 0.38 | |
| Sulfadoxine | 74 ± 7 | 7 | − 2.1 ± 7 | 0.993 | − 12 | 21 | Sulfadiazine-13C6 | 0.13–7.5 | 0.025 | 0.075 | |
| Sulfamethazine | 111 ± 4 | 4 | − 12 ± 4 | 0.995 | 61 | 62 | Sulfadiazine-13C6 | 0.13–15 | 0.005 | 0.015 | |
| Tiamulin | 81 ± 6 | 6 | − 1.4 ± 6 | 0.994 | − 56 | 32 | Tiamulin-13C4 | 1.3–15 | 0.50 | 1.25 | |
| Ciprofloxacin | 43 ± 14 | 14 | − 11 ± 13 | 0.990 | − 22 | 9 | Enrofloxacin-D5 | 3.8–150 | 1.3 | 3.8 | |
| Difloxacin | 111 ± 3 | 3 | 8.2 ± 4 | 0.996 | − 39 | 41 | Difloxacin-D3 | 1.3–150 | 0.50 | 1.25 | |
| Enrofloxacin | 101 ± 3 | 3 | 3.6 ± 3 | 0.995 | − 33 | 23 | Enrofloxacin-D5 | 1.3–150 | 0.20 | 0.63 | |
| Norfloxacin | 113 ± 4 | 4 | − 2.6 ± 4 | 0.993 | 3 | 12 | Norfloxacin-D5 | 13–150 | 2.0 | 6.3 | |
| Sarafloxacin | 68 ± 8 | 8 | − 3.9 ± 8 | 0.994 | − 23 | 14 | Difloxacin-D3 | 1.3–150 | 1.3 | 3.8 | |
| Prednisolone | 95 ± 4 | 4 | 0.73 ± 4 | 0.991 | − 39 | 192 | Prednisolone-D8 | 13–150 | 2.0 | 6.3 | |
| Dexamethasone | 93 ± 3 | 4 | 3.9 ± 3 | 0.995 | − 36 | 188 | Prednisolone-D8 | 1.3–150 | 0.25 | 0.75 | |
| Amoxicillin | 58 ± 4 | 4 | 5.8 ± 4 | 0.995 | 28 | 15 | Amoxicillin-13C6 | 25–300 | 9.0 | 25 | |
| Penicillin G | 43 ± 13 | 13 | − 0.003 ± 13 | 0.991 | − 32 | 16 | Penicillin G-D7 | 5–300 | 1.5 | 5.0 | |
Concentration of selected antibiotics and steroid hormones in the digestates [μg kg−1 wet weight] (μg kg−1 dry weight is given in parenthesis, n = 2 except for EL with n = 4). Operating parameters of the biogas plants A–N can be found in Table S10. Station codes equal those of Ali et al. (2019). Subscripts S and L denote solid and liquid digestates, respectively. The digestates are presented in the order of the substrate of their respective biogas plants. *3/4 replicates were < MQL. **The concentration of ciprofloxacin in digestate DS was above the top concentration of the calibration curve, i.e. 150 μg kg.−−1 ww. *** Only one replicate was analysed. AMX, amoxicillin; PENG, penicillin G; NOR, norfloxacin; CIP, ciprofloxacin; DFX, difloxacin; SDZ, sulfadiazine; SMZ, sulfamethazine; SDX, sulfadoxine; MET, metronidazole; IPRO, ipronidazole; PRED, prednisolone; DEXA, dexamethasone. **Substrates: L, manure + food waste; M, manure; N, fish silage and manure (both substrate and digestate were analysed)
| Sub | Station | AMX | PENG | NOR | CIP | DFX | SDZ | SMZ | SDX | MET | IPRO | PRED | DEXA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Food waste | ES | 121 ± 41(460) | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL |
| EL | 28 ± 9.7(960)* | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | |
| GL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | |
| KS | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | |
| KL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | 3.6*** (140) | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | |
| Sewage sludge | DS | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | 205 ± 22** (430) | < MQL | < MDL | 0.039 ± 0.002 (0.08) | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL |
| HS | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | |
| JS | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | 0.86 ± 0.16 (2.7) | < MDL | < MQL | |
| IS | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | |
| Food waste + sewage sludge | FS | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL |
| FL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | 10.4 ± 1.0 (650) | < MQL | |
| AS | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | 0.77*** (1.6) | < MDL | < MQL | |
| AL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | < MDL | < MQL | |
| BS | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | 0.10 ± 0.002 (0.38) | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | |
| LS | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | < MDL | < MQL | < MDL | < MDL | |
| LL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | |
| Others** | CL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | 0.079 ± 0.011 (1.6) | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL |
| ML | < MQL | 22 ± 7 (510) | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | |
| Iexp sub | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | 3.1 ± 0.08 | 0.40 ± 0.05 | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | |
| Iexp dig | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | 3.3 ± 0.24 | 0.43 ± 0.04 | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MDL | < MQL | |
Predicted environmental concentration (PEC), predicted no-effect concentration (PNEC) for soil organisms, and the corresponding risk quotients (RQ). ARB, antibiotic-resistant bacteria. PNEC values are based on Table S11, S12, and S15 in the Supplementary information
| PECSOIL [µg kg−1] | PNEC [µg kg−1] | RQ | PNEC [µg kg−1] | RQ | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amoxicillin | 0.660 | 0.47 | 1.4 | 6.7 | 0.099 |
| Penicillin G | 0.380 | 0.17 | 2.2 | 0.026 | 14.6 |
| Sulfadiazine | 0.062 | 5.6 | 0.01 | 31 | 0.002 |
| Sulfamethazine | 0.0012 | 10 | 0.0001 | ||
| Ciprofloxacin | 0.462 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 32 | 0.014 |
| Ipronidazole | 0.003 | NA | NA | ||
| Prednisolone | 0.180 | 0.091 | 21 |
1Estimated from a simulated Koc value and from aquatic toxicity data using the partitioning coefficient method
2Derived from PNEC values in soil pore water estimated by Menz et al. (2019) (see Supplementary information)